The Rapid Exodus of IDPs from the Camps in Goma, DRC

UNCLAS KINSHASA 000990 AIDAC AID/W FOR DCHA/OFDA- CCHAN, ACONVERY, KCHANNELL, RKERR AID/W FOR DCHA/FFP- TANDERSON, NCOX, TMCRAE AID/W FOR DCHA/OTI- KHUBER AID/W FOR AA/AFR, EARL GAST; AFR/EA RHELLYER, KDESGRANGES NAIROBI FOR USAID/OFDA/ARO- GPRATT, SKHANDAGLE NAIROBI FOR USAID/FFP- DSUTHER KAMPALA FOR MLARSON-KONE STATE FOR PRM,WHENNING; S/WI; AF/C ROME FOR USUN FODAG- RNEWBERG GENEVA FOR NYKLOH NSC FOR PMARCHAM BRUSSELS FOR USAID JADDLETON NEW YORK FOR TMALY E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAID PREF CG SUBJECT: The Rapid Exodus of IDPs from the Camps in Goma, DRC -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (U) A rapid field study of the sudden exodus of an estimated 65,000 residents of camps for displaced populations in the Goma area has revealed evidence of excessive use of violence and the violation of humanitarian principles during the camps closure. The sudden camp closures also damaged relations among the North Kivu government, humanitarian organizations, and displaced populations. While some of the IDPs have returned to secure environments and received assistance, others from still-insecure areas are staying in transit sites and with host families. Returnees throughout North Kivu are struggling to determine how to access humanitarian goods and services and transition to village life. Among the study recommendations include applying lessons learned to future camp closures in North Kivu; orienting assistance based on vulnerability not status; enhancing and harmonizing protection efforts; supporting land mediation initiatives, and increasing funding in the rehabilitation of return areas and associated logistical costs. It should be noted that returnees from the Goma camps represent only a very small fraction of the vulnerable populations in North Kivu. Overemphasis on the Goma camp returnees will distract from the considerable needs of other IDPs and camp residents, returnees, host families, and village residents. End Summary -------------- Objectives, Site Locations, and Contacts -------------- ¶2. (U) From 10 - 23 October 2009, USAID/OFDA representatives from Washington and Kinshasa undertook a rapid field study of the sudden exodus of between 58,000 and 65,000 residents from six of the eight camps for displaced populations located in the greater Goma area. The study aimed to (1) examine the nature of the exodus as it relates to humanitarian protection and voluntary departure; (2) discuss with returnees their condition, needs and capacities in return and transit areas; and (3) make recommendations for humanitarian assistance strategies/processes, and selected response and mitigation initiatives for North Kivu. ¶3. (U) The assessment team visited consolidated camps in Goma as well as transit sites, return areas and spontaneous settlements along three axes: (1) Goma - Masisi; (2) Goma - Kirolirwe; (3) and Goma - Kiwanja. The team also collected information during meetings with humanitarian partners, and from interviews with camp residents, returnees, UN organizations and other humanitarian actors. Security concerns limited both the areas that could be visited and the length of the team's stay in the field. -------------- Goma Camp Closures -------------- ¶4. (U) According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), steps for camps closures started in January with food rations being cut to 50% as a result of a WFP study indicating decreased food needs. Beginning in August 2009, heads of households were requested to determine their departure date from the camps. According to UNHCR, all Bulengo and Buhimba residents picked between September 14 and 15, Mugunga I residents selected between September 15 and 16, and Mugunga II decided to vacate the camp between September 25 and ¶26. After the return date has been selected, UNHCR provided signed certificates of voluntary return to heads of household indicating their expected date of departure. The IDPs believed that only certificate holders would be entitled to distributions of non-food items (NFIs),three months of food rations, and a seeds and tools package at distribution sites located in their areas of return. However, UNHCR staff pointed out to the team that although certificates are required for distributions, they are no guarantee to distributions as beneficiaries will be determined based on the level of vulnerability in return areas. ¶5. (U) According to returnees interviewed, government representatives had been applying pressure to IDP camp leaders to announce the camp closures. These announcements were made jointly by camp leaders and government representatives, who reported that food and non-food items would be provided only in areas of return. Some returnees reported that camp leaders who resisted were threatened. Some residents were told that if they remained they would be considered interahamwe (a term used for the 1994 genocidaires from Rwanda) and detained. Others reported that some government representatives told residents that they needed to go home to protect their land from other returnees including Congolese Tutsi refugees from Rwanda. Therefore, most felt obligated to accept the conditions and many started departing the camps starting with Kibati I, Bulengo, Buhimba, and Kibati II. ¶6. (U) The closure of Mungunga I involved egregious violations of human rights and dignity. According to both IDPs and many humanitarian organizations, in the late afternoon of September 18, two days after the camp was supposed to be closed, a group of young people, believed to be members of the communities surrounding the camps entered the camp and began tearing down shelters and looting houses and public facilities. Some of the camp residents resisted, and the police responded by firing shots. Three women were wounded and subsequently evacuated by MONUC troops. In the chaos, the IDPs left rapidly, in mini-buses for those who could afford it and by foot by most, with little or no protection and assistance from humanitarian organizations (a few private individuals and Handicap International rushed to assist disabled and other highly vulnerable individuals including pregnant women and very old people by providing transportation). Between 15 and 26 September, all UNHCR-managed camps in Goma except for Mugunga III suddenly closed. ¶7. (U) Returnees interviewed, not only those from Mugunga I camp, were very upset at the way they were treated during the period of the camp closures. It is logical to encourage and facilitate the return of camp residents when home areas are secure/safe, health and nutrition have reached non-emergency levels, and the return is free, informed and not achieved through means such as coercion, trickery or violence. The violence such as that carried out in Mugunga I that obligated frightened camp residents to leave rapidly in an unsafe, undignified, and otherwise unacceptable manner, represents a clear violation of human rights and humanitarian principles that should be denounced. ¶8. (U) All non-UN organizations interviewed stated they were surprised and angered by the rapidity of the closure, and that because they learned of the closures so late they were not prepared to provide protection or timely support to the returnees. ¶9. (U) Unfortunately, some of the IDPs interviewed appeared convinced that the GNK, UN, and both local and international NGOs had worked together to close the camps, a fact which has damaged what trust they might have had in humanitarian organizations. -------------- Conditions, Services, and Land Access in Return/Transit Areas -------------- ¶10. (U) The IDPs who left the camps scattered to a variety of locations. Some stayed in Goma, integrating into the local economy, some went to transit sites located near other distribution centers, others have settled into sites close to their home areas where they can monitor the security situation, while some have been able to return home. ¶11. (U) Although most sites of return visited by the study team were preferable to conditions in the camps, conditions reflect years of neglect and underdevelopment that have been exacerbated by the ravage of war. As a result, returnees who were able to settle into villages in newly secure areas face a variety of problems that stem from chronic underdevelopment that manifests itself through under- or non-performing schools and health systems, poor roads and market infrastructure, and damaged or inexistent water and sanitation infrastructure. ¶12. (U) The issue of land control and access in the current context of instability is important and problematic in North Kivu. Returnees and humanitarian partners described a wide variety of returnee relationships to land in home areas. While some still own and can lay uncontested claim to their land, others are finding their land taken over by those who remained behind or by other displaced individuals. Some sold their land at a very low price before they left and are trying to buy it back with varying degree of success. Others never owned land and are now working as tenant farmers or renting land. There are also returnees that are taking over other people's land or expanding their holdings with assistance from local government and military authorities. -------------- Security -------------- ¶13. (U) Security concerns were the first priority of camp and village residents, returnees and IDPs. In all the sites visited people discussed in detail their concerns about either past, current, or anticipated violence and insecurity. Sexual and gender-based violence remain at epidemic levels in some marginally or highly insecure sites. Villagers interviewed reported recent rapes of both men and women. Women were in fear of violence each time they left the village to cultivate their fields and collect wood or water. At Rubaya, a site along the Goma-Rutshuru axis, women reported going to the fields in groups of four or five as a protection measure. -------------- WASH Services for Returnees: -------------- ¶14. (U) The water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services for the returnees from the Goma camps are limited to the provision of a soft plastic water jug as part of an NFI distribution coordinated by UNHCR. No other WASH interventions are specifically planned for this population. It is expected that the Goma Camp returnees along with other returnees will receive services through development programs or cholera rapid response interventions, which include water system repair, spring improvement and latrine installation. -------------- Health Services for Returnees -------------- ¶15. (U) All returnees are expected to receive health services through the local government health facilities in rural areas. Unfortunately, government health delivery systems have virtually no or limited capacity to provide healthcare to its population. A variety of NGOs is working in stable areas of return, implementing health projects that appear to be closely coordinated with the government health delivery systems. The majority of health intervention programs being implemented by NGOs working in health Qintervention programs being implemented by NGOs working in health outside of camps appear to be developmental in nature as opposed to emergency response interventions. These programs will require long-term funding in order to have a positive impact on the health delivery system in North Kivu. -------------- Non-Food Items and Food Distributions: -------------- ¶16. (U) The Goma camp returnees were eligible to receive a resettlement NFI package, three months of rations and a seed/agricultural tool package. These commodities are being/have been distributed at eight regional centers. This assistance is provided to only those with certificates, who must appear in person to collect the goods. UNHCR reported that all the NFI distributions have been completed, and interviews with Goma camp returnees revealed NFI distributions had been received. -------------- Community Relations and Governance -------------- ¶17. (U) In some areas, regional and local governance have become vastly more complex. In parts of the Masisi Territory, elements of the CNDP have inserted their own representatives, creating a governance structure in parallel to existing official structures. This will inevitably cause tensions and/or conflicts over decision making and control of land, minerals and other assets, and constituent support. ¶18. (U) The relationships among returnees and village residents vary widely. Returnees in near Kirolirwe appear to be honoring individual claims to houses and fields, noting that property boundaries are still clearly delineated by trees. Near Sake, the team spoke with several dozens of returnees who were arguing heatedly with each other about entitlements and distributions of benefits, and ownership of certificates. We also found that there was much confusion over distribution schedule and dates of distributions. ¶19. (U) The team found evidence that some populations, particularly WaMbuti (pygmies),are being seriously discriminated against, losing access to distributions and basic needs. In Mubambiro, a village just northeast of Sake, a group of WaMbuti appeared not knowing about distribution dates and locations. Some claimed that non-Mbuti individuals had collected their certificates pretending to be helping them claim their benefits, but never returned. A pipe that had brought spring water to the area where they had settled had been purposefully broken to cut the supply and provide it closer to the non-Mbuti households. These populations are particularly vulnerable because they do not own land as they traditionally live in the forest and do not have anywhere to return to. -------------- Observations and Recommendations -------------- ¶20. (U) It is the opinion of the study team that the excessive violence used during the rapid exodus of IDPs from Mugunga I rightly points to human rights abuses. The process used in closing the six camps suggests the violation of humanitarian principles. The closure process is also believed to have damaged relations among the GNK, humanitarian organizations, and the displaced populations they have been assisting. Some IDPs have returned to secure environments and are receiving assistance while others from still-insecure areas have opted to stay in transit sites and with host families. It is a struggle for most returnees to know how to access humanitarian goods and services. The transition from camp to village life continues to be a challenge to many returnees. ¶21. (U) Lessons learned from the Goma camps closure need to be applied in the planned upcoming camp closures in Masisi. This should include improvements in information sharing, sensitization of the camp residents, investigations of security in home areas, and the scheduling of returns. It is imperative to follow the condition, progress, needs and capacities of returnees in home/transit areas using standardized surveillance and monitoring tools as best as possible. The study team feels that assistance needs to be provided based on the relative vulnerability rather than the status of various groups. Protection efforts, including protection monitoring and assistance should be enhanced and harmonized and initiatives addressing rapes and other gender-based violence be expanded. Mechanisms insuring orderly and voluntary return of refugees need to be put in place before facilitating the return of large numbers of Congolese refugees from Rwanda as massive return of Tutsi refugees is widely predicted to cause considerable tension and conflict over land access, ownership and use. Although food distribution appears critical, it is important to examine the duration of food benefits to avoid causing distortions in local markets and discouraging local production and consumption ¶22. (U) Programmatically, the study team recommends consolidating assistance programs that used to have specific targets (newly displaced, returnees) to ensure greater flexibility of response while harmonizing assistance. It is important to increase funding to allow for the necessary and increasing logistical costs associated with accessing remote return areas. To returnees, shelters needs are capital in their decision to return, and it is therefore important that shelter needs are addressed in return areas. Additional support is needed for initiatives that are addressing land tenure and access issues, which are critical province-wide, particularly with the predicted return of Congolese refugees from bordering countries. Support initiatives that offer conflict mitigation and resolution need to be recommended and protection activities should be integrated into existing and planned programs in all sectors ¶23. (U) It is important to highlight that the returnees from Goma camps represent only a very small fraction of the vulnerable populations in North Kivu. OCHA has estimated between January and September 2009 the number of IDPs in North Kivu at 690,758 and 432,804 spontaneous returnees. Overemphasis on returnees from Goma camps will distract from the considerable needs of returnees who have returned spontaneously from host families and spontaneous camps throughout North Kivu. The problem presented by Goma returnees are the same faced by hundreds of thousands of people who have returned voluntarily and who are not benefiting from the special assistance offered to those from official camps. The significant challenge facing humanitarian actors in North Kivu is to determine how to regularize and equalize assistance to the various categories of people, emphasizing assessed capacities and vulnerability rather than status of displacement. Garvelink