IRIN Interview with UN Humanitarian Coordinator, Kingsley Amaning

The UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Guinea, Kingsley Amaning, recently headed a mission including OCHA and UNHCR officials to various parts of southern Guinea that were plagued by cross-border attacks in late 2000 and early 2001. The attacks prompted the relocation of hundreds of thousands of refugees. In an interview with IRIN on 12 May in the southern town of Nzerekore, Amaning pointed to the need for closer links between members of the humanitarian community in the three Mano River countries of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. He also spoke of his plans to focus attention on vulnerable groups such as displaced persons and host communities, in addition to refugees, and stressed the importance of ensuring a smooth transition from humanitarian activity to development. QUESTION: Mr Amaning, you were appointed humanitarian coordinator for Guinea about two months ago. What have you identified as your main priorities? ANSWER: There are competing priorities at this moment because, not too long ago, we were dealing mostly with refugee problems in this country but currently we are also dealing with problems of displaced persons. In essence, my priorities are to help the government put in place coordination structures, strengthen these structures so that they are participatory and can foresee problems - particularly the type of exploitation, sexual and otherwise, that we’ve seen recently, and also be efficient in using the resources that are made available, capable of building on experiences that they have in the area of humanitarian assistance and also being able to use this to have a good passage from humanitarian work to development. At the same time, I am looking, as a major priority, at the support that the UN system and the international community as a whole - particularly the humanitarian community - can provide to UNHCR and the refugees to support their return home and make sure that happens in the best of circumstances, that they do not leave gaps and a bitter taste in the mouths of the communities that were hosting them, while at the same time achieving the usual success we’ve had in receiving refugees, this time large numbers of Liberian refugees coming in - 500 a week - and making sure they can also get that support. Q: Is it in this connection that you decided to go on a mission to southern Guinea? A: Yes, the purpose of my mission was generally to deal with all these priorities. Although I have served in nearby Sierra Leone and come from the subregion myself; and although I have some experience working in various capacities in UNHCR, I thought it was important to be in the field myself at this early stage to see what is happening there, to congratulate my colleagues who have done well to implement such a vast programme for a large refugee population and who, at the same time, have managed to provide support for displaced persons in this region, and urge them to go on. At the same time, I thought it was extremely important at this very early stage for me to go to my colleagues and say, ‘you’ve done a good job, a lot of you, but there are also a lot of things you have not attended to and which, unfortunately, have taken the shine out of the brilliant job you have done in the last few months and this, as you know, is the problem of the report on sexual exploitation. Q: How did that happen - the sexual exploitation? A: I have had time in the past few weeks to discuss this extensively with my colleagues, the international non-governmental organisations, the government, civil society. I’ve looked at the report very extensively. I’ve thought about it myself and I’ve come to the conclusion that the question which should be asked should not be limited only to how did it happen, but that we should also say, how is it that we were not able to see this earlier on and to work against it. How it happened that without making special efforts to forestall these things we have succeeded in pulling through as well as we have. This doesn’t apply only to Guinea or Sierra Leone. It applies to humanitarian assistance to displaced persons and refugees all over the world because in none of these programmes could we say that we had worked hard to analyse the problem, to deal with it and to make sure that our personnel had been trained, warned, and sensitised about this sort of problem. I have been in the humanitarian community for nearly 20 years and I must say that, apart from us being sensitised of late, in the past decade, maybe, about sexual exploitation of personnel in our office, sexual exploitation of refugees or vulnerable displaced persons by humanitarian personnel or even by their peers had never been a focus of attention. So, in a sense, one should say rather, how come we succeeded in looking away so easily from these problems. To answer specifically your question, I believe we had a situation where, ever since refugee programmes were established in the modern sense, what we have been doing all along - since 1950/51 - is focusing more on what governments do about protection, or what they leave undone, or making sure that they do not do certain things, such as bully or threaten refugees or put them in situations where their lives are at stake, or that they should not put them in situations where they can be exploited by local people. Of late, one of our major concerns has been to strengthen the capacity of governments to deal with non-state actors, that is rebel groups and all that. So really our protection mandate and interest has been defined along the lines of what governments do, what armed non-state actors do against refugees. We have never looked at what we, humanitarian personnel, might do in terms of exploitation of refugees or what their peers might do in this regard. So basically, while we were rich in structures to monitor the actions of governments and non-state actors, we were very poor in structures that monitored what some of us did which was exploitative or what some of their peers did that was exploitative. I should also mention that we did not conduct enough research into how refugee populations or displaced persons, as groups, change in terms of their structured internal relationships. What is the role of parents in control, supervision, protection of the family? We would always assume that the family or ethnic groups would take care of themselves, that they were coming with their structures of protection or of management, of power relationships and that things would work out. Little did we know that when refugees have moved for a long period away from home and established themselves in communities, particularly the type of communities where you have a mixture of camp life and also freedom to move around, and integrate, interact with local communities, that the same phenomenon which we had always thought existed in their villages did not exist any more. We hadn’t studied that because, if we had, we would have realized that the mother loses authority or control over the teenage child. The same goes for the father, and probably the village head who accompanied them as well, because his leadership was originally based, probably, on the resources that he could make available to the community - wisdom, money, his own material comfort on which he drew to buttress his authority. All this had disappeared. He was now one of the others, being fed by the international community. So the food distributor becomes more important because the mother, father or village leader are no longer sources of sustenance and protection whereas we always assumed they were. Therefore, we were hoping that some structures of protection, social structures, existed that did not exist. Therefore the children were exposed to all sorts of temptation and exploitation. There is also the fact that the food distributors, humanitarian personnel, are a mixed bag. In all communities we do have people who have very strong principles and others who are not as principled as you’d wish. And these people did not have the necessary training and sensitivity to be able to deal with the vulnerability of the refugees or displaced persons. I am now making sure that we have structures in the management of the personnel to make sure they know what they should do and what they shouldn’t: a code of conduct. Q: That brings us to another question. What next? What is the humanitarian community here in Guinea doing to make sure that this type of abuse does not happen again? A: This is why we are responding, basically, to the weaknesses we have now perceived. The food distributor, the driver of a humanitarian vehicle, should no longer think that they are just doing an ordinary job, and that they are free to do what they want provided they drive well or distribute efficiently. We want them to understand that there is a certain code of conduct that they have to follow. So from the top to the bottom, they all know what conduct is expected of them if they are working in the humanitarian community, that they are also sensitised enough to know that the power relationship has changed, that the fact that he represents the organisation gives him some authority and power. At least that’s how it’s perceived by the refugees. So he should recognise that power. He should know how to deal with that influence and not use it to exploit. It all comes in the code of conduct. The other thing is that we are looking at the services we provide - we have just come to the tail end of this exercise. We are looking at the necessary operational standards that we have and structures that we’ll have to set up to make sure that in all these services for every area where there is a possibility of exploitation there is an adequate structure set up to deal with any such exploitation. So we now have operational rules that will be very clear and whichever agency in the humanitarian community that is required to work with refugees or displaced persons would draw on these structures to make sure the possibility of exploitation is eliminated or kept to a minimum. But above all, it is also important for people to know that whoever falls short of this standard will be seriously dealt with. This is the message I brought to the humanitarian community here. It is not only to congratulate them for the work they have done but also to tell them that we need to do better and to look at certain problems, particularly problems of sexual exploitation. Q: What about those who have already been suspected or named as having perpetrated abuses? A: There is an inquiry going on at a very high level which has been in the field several times, and which is coming back to the field to finalise its findings. This is a very serious case and we thought that it was important to deal with it with all the legal and social sensitivity that it requires. We therefore are not proceeding to accuse people wildly or publicly without having the legal substance that allows us to prosecute. And this is why the inquiry is going on - in a highly professional manner. As soon as we have enough evidence - and I believe in the four camps I’ve seen that there is enough evidence to prosecute people - those who are suspected already of being involved one way or another are being asked to cease working immediately pending the investigation. This is normal in any institution: that they cease working pending the final report of the investigators and then we’ll be able to take appropriate action against them. We stopped them (from working) because we didn’t want them to cause more harm, because we didn’t want them to tamper with evidence, with anything that could be used as evidence. All agencies, international organisations and non-governmental organisations are being asked to deal with this issue in that way. Q: While the Sierra Leonean refugees are preparing to return home, the Liberians are still here since their country is in turmoil. What’s being done where they are concerned. A: Several things are being done. On the humanitarian side they are being helped to exercise their right to asylum. The humanitarian community, principally UNHCR, is doing all it can to make sure that even if the borders are closed because of insecurity and war, that the (Guinean) government undertakes to open sites on the border which the Liberians are using to seek asylum. So at the moment the government is policing its borders but making sure they are open for those who want to seek asylum. We’ve also been in communication with our colleagues on the other side of the border and we have been monitoring their situation as much as they are monitoring ours, so we know how much effort is being made to make sure people who are unable to come or prefer to stay in Liberia obtain the right to safety as displaced persons. On the political front, you know how much effort is being made, in the UN and elsewhere, to put pressure on the authorities in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone to make sure that they work towards peace and stability in the subregion so that we no longer have to deal with large outflows of people seeking refuge in one country or another. I believe you know what is going on in the UN, the discussions about Liberia, the efforts and the pressure that are being made to ensure that the government works towards creating the right atmosphere for non-violent political activity. I know people are not too happy about the inadequate funding of Liberian programmes but I think we haven’t come to a situation of desperation. Certainly we’ve tried to draw the attention of the humanitarian community and donors all over the world to this but we haven’t come yet to a state of catastrophe. In the camps you can see how much effort and work is being done to make sure that the minimum of standards for refugees are maintained. Q: Coming back to the issue of repatriation, one of the issues that has cropped up quite a lot in discussions with the authorities here - and you also brought it up - is management of the post-refugee period., i.e. what happens to communities when the refugees go home. What are some of your thoughts on this? A: Clearly we are trying to do something that we have never succeeded much in doing in other refugee programmes and that is anticipating the problems that will arise when the refugees leave in terms of the vacuum that will be created, whether in terms of social services or in terms of deforestation that may have happened, i.e. environmental problems. Or problems in terms of sheer waste: the non-use of certain structures that refugees may have put in place, and because they are leaving, these go to waste. We had a similar situation with the repatriation of Liberians. When the humanitarian phase stopped there was no smooth, effective passage into development, and therefore it was as if whatever was done on the humanitarian side was not capitalized upon in the development phase that followed. So basically what we are addressing is first to support UNHCR with the environmental programme they have put in place so that whatever forests are laid to waste are more or less replaced. And UNHCR cannot do it alone. It needs the resources, techniques, experience and support of all specialized agencies of the UN and non-governmental organisations. We also need to be able to work with the government on this, for the government to know what is being done so that it doesn’t feel that it is being given the short end of the stick after it has been so hospitable to the refugees. The other aspect of our programme is to make sure that whatever social structures are in place and which certainly risk being underused or not used at all because they are in the refugee camps or settlements, that we see how we can work with the government to build on this so that they can be put to good use by the local population and thereby improve its quality of life, particularly structures that can help it move out of the poverty trap in which it has been caught. So I’m here talking to the humanitarian bodies, talking to the government, formulating ideas which I’m going to discuss with UN development agencies and see how we can help the government bridge the gap between the humanitarian and development phases, to make good use of the structures that exist. Some of these structures are geared towards vocational training. Others are structures for agriculture, wetland farming in swamps refugees have been using. You even have cases where refugees have been working with locals in agricultural programmes and yet you have large numbers of youths here who are not working and who, when the refugees leave, could probably find a way to work with the local population to increase agricultural production. They don’t need to be walking around doing nothing. We could entice them with semi-durable shelters that have been built. We could probably encourage them to come, occupy the shelters, work with the local people, learn from them and set up farms. Q: According to many observers, the IDPs have been somewhat neglected in all this. What plans are there concerning them? A: It would not be fair to say the IDPs have been totally neglected. There is a whole gamut of levels of appreciation both within and outside government, the population at large and the humanitarian community. We all believe something has been done, but we are unable to say how much, whether it was too little or just right. The fact is that if it had been enough we would not have found formerly displaced persons or displaced persons caught in a serious cycle of poverty. Although something was done, we need to do more to get them out of the poverty cycle. We may have helped them a lot during the period of shock, when they needed something basic to put body and soul together, but we need to do more to help the government, to help the community leaders to have these people move away from sheer difficult survival to self-development, community development and a better quality of life. This has to occur at two levels. One is to be able, as a team, as partners - UN, INGOs, NGOs, government, civil society, community leaders of the displaced persons, and community leaders of the host population - to understand who is a displaced person and who is not in strictly legal terms. At the same time we need to understand that there are also people who are impacted by the presence of displaced persons, and who therefore may have suffered or gained. We need to gather enough evidence and assess this. If these people - the host community - have suffered tremendously because of the presence of the displaced persons we have to understand that, on basically humanitarian grounds, we cannot just help the displaced persons and forget about them. We need to be able to work as a team, to really understand the problem: who is a displaced person? What rights and privileges do they have? How has the hosting population suffered as a result of the presence of the displaced persons? What responsibilities do we have to address this situation? The second will be to determine what structures we need to put in place so that we not only identify who needs to be helped but are also able to mobilize all the information, knowledge and resources to address the needs of these people, and determine what programmes and structures we need to set up to have an optimum utilization of resources and maximum results. The international community has woken up lately to this phenomenon (internal displacement) so we in Guinea thought we should also take advantage of this wake-up call and get together, discuss, understand, put in place structures for dealing with this phenomenon. I hope this will help us deal with the problem quickly but that the structures we are going to put in place will be structures that we can use for the moment to deal with these problems and that the problems are not going to be too large. However, there is every indication that if peace does not come to this subregion, we are going to see even more displaced persons in the Mano River Union. Already we are talking about a large number of displaced persons in all three countries. So it’s important for us to have serious discussions on this and be able to share our knowledge and experiences across borders. Q: Are there any plans to move from the realization that the conflicts and their effects are interlinked to the coordination of efforts not just within one country but in the subregion? A: We have more or less the same problems in the three countries . It is obvious that it’s no coincidence that there may be some underlying factors which are common to these countries, and there may certainly also be linkages in terms of causes just as there may be a big possibility that we can find solutions by understanding these causal linkages and underlying factors, and using them to find common solutions. When I was in Sierra Leone, my country team decided it was important that we had a subregional discussion on what was going on, and we had a series of meetings, twice in Accra and then in Abidjan, among the country teams, which led to the idea of a West Africa consolidated appeal and a West Africa analysis of the situation. We have also, on the basis of this sort of thinking, decided here in Guinea that we can follow this up with a periodic meeting of the country teams. We just sent a letter to our sister country teams in Liberia and Sierra Leone so that we can meet as quickly as possible after the Sierra Leone elections, basically to share ideas, understand what’s happening, learn what progress has been made, what our fears are, and look for solutions. We’ll exchange ideas, perceptions, knowledge on our programmes, seek each others’ support, making sure that we’re able to work together to achieve the maximum result that we want. It is also important that we do not limit ourselves to discussions on what we are doing but also work together to see how as the UN system, we can lay a good foundation or take advantage of what is being done to improve our chances of stability and peace in this subregion: who are the actors we can work with in our various countries, including civil society groups such as the Mano River Union Women’s Peace Network? How we can bring these people together to become a strong constituency for peace to offset the lack of success we are observing on the political front? I have also mentioned in my discussions here with NGOs and other groups that at a later stage we’d have to look into the possibility of associating them with these discussions so that we can have subregional humanitarian community meetings. That will help us spread further afield the gains we are working towards in the UN system. For example: we have refugees here whom UNHCR is funding GTZ to train. GTZ is also in Sierra Leone. Some of these refugees will cut short their training or they will complete their training and leave immediately after for Sierra Leone. If GTZ-Sierra Leone can know where these people are going to, if other NGOs in Sierra Leone know what type of training they have been given and therefore what support they need to be able to put their training to good use, we’d have a situation whereby they leave here, and go to another country but will be picked up by an NGO, building on the investment GTZ and UNHCR may have made in that refugee. So the humanitarian community as a whole has to work together, be aware of and understand what each of us is doing, so that we build on the investment we have made in groups and individuals and enhance their opportunities for self-development and improve their capacity to overcome poverty. It helps not only in rationalizing and optimising the use of humanitarian funding but also in creating a situation of development, and therefore of stability and peace. [ENDS]