I fear I have offended a higher-up. Oh woe is me whatever shall I do.
We have given this agency time, money and ample opportunity to correctly and adequately address the issues in the Idi camp that they—as receivers of the official funding—should have had in hand from the outset. What do we get? Stalling, obfuscating, and protestations that nothing’s wrong.
I present the latest interchange--in chronological order, so you get the full flavor, but with names changed, because even though we’re reporting public information, I don’t trust anyone these days to not be vindictive. The world of humanitarian assistance is full of, well, humans. Nobody likes to have their flaws exposed.
From: Sara Henderson [mailto:sara@buildingbridgestothefuture.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:31 AM
Dear P.
B.R. at UNHCR suggested that I contact you about a severe problem that is happening at the refugee camp in Idi. Before IOM came to Idi on a permanent basis, a group of local NGO's was working there that had divided responsibilities for the refugees at the camp. Since the arrival of IOM there has been much confusion and miscommunication. This seems to be due to a lack of any coordination on the ground between the local NGO's and IOM. In spite of this it appeared that IOM had everything under control. Thus we decided that there was no need for us to continue to supply the camp with food, water, cooking oil, kerosene etc. I wrote to S. F. and others telling them of our exiting the camp. However, last week my staff told me that there were very limited food supplies and only 5 days of rice left. I have to say I was surprised.
My staff and FPRM tried (as they had many time in the past) to get in touch with your staff to discuss this urgent matter, as no one was sure if IOM was going to continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the camp. Not only were we confused but the local government had also not been informed. Today N finally made contact with your staff and was told that IOM only provides hygiene kits, and also that it had built a fence. IOM has left the camp in a very precarious state, as there is only rice for today and no funding for tomorrow. Luckily, we still have funds left from one of our donors and will step in at this late point and supply the camp with what is needed.
I regret having to write you about this but we need to all communicate better, cooperate better and consult with one another. Unfortunately, at this time I am in New York but my staff in Aceh is handling this matter. They are concerned because we do not have unlimited funding nor do we have funds to go further than the end of this month. We really hope that we can work together on this critical situation.Thanking you in advance for your kind assistance,
Sara
And his response:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:02 PM, PH wrote:
Hi Sara,
Whatever reports you have from your staff are incorrect. IOM has not left the camp in any manner (much less in a precarious state) and there are no problems with food supplies. IOM has been providing food and cooking supplies as needed since we arrived and will continue to do so in the future. FPRM is regularly providing vegetables, fruit and spices. If FPRM ever needed to stop providing these then IOM will provide the shortfall.
IOM has no communication problems with FPRM, PMI or anybody else there to provide assistance. We are also fully aware of the problems that preceded our being given permission to work in Idi. To link our arrival with confusion and miscommunication is another incorrect statement.
Deplu and the Camat’s office understand IOM’s plan to remain in Idi. On the ground in Idi we have almost daily contact with the Camat and/or his staff.
In short, the situation is not as described by your staff.
Regards
P
So I sent P’s note to my staff and received this:
From: D
Subject: Re: Food in Idi
To: Sara Henderson
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 1:16 PM
I'm sorry, Sara, I think I have said it incorrectly. It wasn’t that IOM refused to buy the rice because they had already supplied hygiene kits and fences to the camp. They have actually contributed quite lot. However, they did not coordinate their contributions with any existing local organizations or village members that have been working in the camp long before IOM came in. This caused doubling items in the warehouse, and almost all of it now has to be discarded. So now, the rice is truly running out. We should ask IOM if they want to supply rice to the camp.
It is also true that this lack of coordination and not working with other groups has offended the local community, and also those who had been supplying food to the refugees in the past. The person that IOM assigned to the camp is very low level, and inappropriate as a representative of IOM in terms of talking to about issues or needs or getting any response.
We know that IOM is authorized by the Indonesian Government (under Deplu) to provide humanitarian assistance at the camp. But they really need to sit down and begin to initiate open communication and coordination--not only with the Camat, PMI and local authorities, but also with local organizations and groups that have been supplying the camp. IOM might not have communication or coordination problems with the Camat, but they do have problems with local organizations and community groups.
So this is IOM’s way of responding to an immediate need in an appropriate and culturally sensitive manner. That only tangentially results in escapes, tension, confusion, and continual lack of supplies.
I know I’ll sleep better tonight knowing I’ve been put in my place by a higher-up. I guess there’s nothing to worry about, then . . .
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Update from the Idi Refugee Camp
Well, things have gone from bad to worse in the refugee camp in Idi, I’m afraid. Despite the best efforts of my dear staff to make sure that the refugees were getting as many basic needs met as we could address, and despite pleas from colleagues here in the US and in Indonesia, it seems that once again, a very large and well-respected humanitarian aid agency has proven itself to be anything but. I’m referring to IOM, the International Order of Migrations, and I’ve been biting my hand to keep from screaming about them in the past, but their inability to get out of their own way has reached crisis proportions and I’m done just sitting back and letting my small but dedicated staff and the residents of Aceh Timur shoulder all the burden of keeping these 200 Rohingya safe and fed and advised (clearly and in their own language) of their future here.
So I’m going to post a bit of correspondence between my staff in Aceh who have been at the camps recently, between me and a colleague who has been a humanitarian aid/governance consultant in SE Asia for years, and a kind reporter from the New York Times, who bent over backwards to cover what it could of this story, which admittedly has fallen to “page 6” due to all the other horrors our world is experiencing right now. But despite all the other font page news, there are still 200 men on a beach at the tip of Sumatra that the largest, most well-funded agencies in the world cannot seem to figure out how to help.
That frightens me.
Dear P:
We hope that all is well with you. L. and I are in New York right now but have been apprised of a severe problem that is happening in Idi Rayeuk with the camp and the local community. We feel that if this is happening in Idi Rayeuk it could be happening in Sabang as well. Following is a field report from our staff who go to Idi every week. Our concerns are as follows:
1. REFUGEES DON’T KNOW THEIR FATE: There is lack of communication with the refugees regarding their ‘status determination process’ and we have tried to convey this to UNHCR, IOM and the US Embassy. While they seem to understand our concerns, it has not changed the situation on the ground. Presumptively, UNHCR and IOM are waiting for Deplu [the Indonesian foreign ministry] to take the lead on communication with the refugees. But this has not happened either.
2. REFUGEES ARE NEAR PANIC: As a result of this communication vacuum, the refugees have now heard about it through the newspapers and are in a state of panic and confusion. The local government has also not been informed officially and has also only read reports in the newspaper.
3. ILL-INFORMED REFUGEES MAY CAUSE LOCAL DAMAGE: The situation has lead to what could be a very bad security issue. Already some refugees have tried to escape again. The more panic that is generated the more likely it is that these men in desperation may attempt a massive escape or some kind of action that will lead to violence. This will spill over into the local community where there is already tension concerning the land that the camp is on. There have been a few violent incidents already in the camp but few are reported to the police. As there is little to no security at the camp how can anyone be assured that the local community is not in danger, particularly when there is so much fear and tension among the refugees?
4. INDONESIA MAY LOSE ALL THE GROND IT HAS GAINED: It seems to be such a shame that for lack of a few words all the good will that Indonesia has generated worldwide with their humane treatment of these refugees could ultimately be perceived as a missed opportunity for Indonesian leadership. Instead it will likely all end in a messy tragedy. As you are well aware, there a group of 55 Sri Lankan boat people who arrived several weeks ago and are now in detention in Meulaboh, Aceh Barat. There has also been an increase of Afghan refugees coming into Indonesia. It is critical that the handling of all refugees by all who are in contact with them (ie, UNHCR, IOM, the government, INGO's) follow international standards and principles not just at a policy level but also at an operational level. Any help you can give us to bring this matter to the attention of the national and international public and government will be so appreciated. Please let us know if there is any possibly of you making inquiries at the Foreign Ministry on this brewing tragedy waiting to happen. We will be glad to provide you direct access to our staff on-site and to local leaders.
Best Regards, Sara
**************************************
So . . . Where’d I get this information? Many sources, including staff eyewitness accounts. Read on:
Dear Sara:
I went to the camp this afternoon after visiting three villages in Aceh Timur. The refugees are now panicked when they read in the newspaper that 114 Bangladeshi would be sent home to Bangladesh soon. The refugees thought all of them would be sent home to their home countries, not just Bangladeshi who want to go home-- Myanmarese Rohingyans and some other Bangladeshis would be sent to Batam. The refugees misunderstood what the newspaper said, and some of them tried to escape from the camp again.
Someone from UNHCR, IOM, or Deplu must come to the camp and communicate clearly to the refugees about their status and the plan of sending some of them back. No one from UNHCR, IOM or Deplu has communicated to them what is going on. Their Bahasa is so limited, that they misunderstand what is in the paper ad what is being told to them. The camp is also running out of rice. We need to supply the camp with rice, since no one else has come to donate to the camp other than FPRM with fish and vegetables (with our funding support). The camp needs 120kg rice a day for the refugees, the cost for rice per day is IDR 850 thousand, and the total for a month would be IDR 26 million. Our funding would be enough to supply rice, vegetables, fish, and water to the camp only for 6 more weeks. We still don't know how long these refugees are going to stay at the camp. UNHCR, IOM and Deplu planned to move them to another place or send them back home, but they wouldn't announce how long these refugees will be staying in Idi Rayeuk.
--D
That, my friends, is how large agencies treat small tragedies.
When IOM came charging in about 3 months ago to “save” the refugees from God knows what fate, pretty literally saying “Out of our way, we’ll handle this--” they did not communicate, cooperate or consult with anyone—the locals, the other tiny agencies already involved, anyone. So alienated and uninformed were the other players that everyone just stop doing what they were doing and left it all to IOM, who was receiving money ( that none of us had) from PRM etc. The local fishermen had been giving free fish since the beginning. Can you believe it? These poor people donated fish almost every day from their catch. They were never informed of anything and then IOM starting buying fish for the camp from outside sources, insulting the local community (and being pretty stupid about spending money they didn’t need to). Now we are informed by D and N that they are running out of rice and also need veggies and fish. We try and try to contact IOM to find out what is going on but to no avail so we are back supplying the camp with food, again. Meanwhile IOM wastes no time taking credit for “managing” the camp and “caring” for the refugees, and doesn’t even have the decency to communicate with us, or the refugees themselves!
All I can say is, thank goodness we were frugal and didn’t spend all our money at the outset, so we can contribute to the food needs of the refugees again.
Another example of David bailing out Goliath . . .
So I’m going to post a bit of correspondence between my staff in Aceh who have been at the camps recently, between me and a colleague who has been a humanitarian aid/governance consultant in SE Asia for years, and a kind reporter from the New York Times, who bent over backwards to cover what it could of this story, which admittedly has fallen to “page 6” due to all the other horrors our world is experiencing right now. But despite all the other font page news, there are still 200 men on a beach at the tip of Sumatra that the largest, most well-funded agencies in the world cannot seem to figure out how to help.
That frightens me.
Dear P:
We hope that all is well with you. L. and I are in New York right now but have been apprised of a severe problem that is happening in Idi Rayeuk with the camp and the local community. We feel that if this is happening in Idi Rayeuk it could be happening in Sabang as well. Following is a field report from our staff who go to Idi every week. Our concerns are as follows:
1. REFUGEES DON’T KNOW THEIR FATE: There is lack of communication with the refugees regarding their ‘status determination process’ and we have tried to convey this to UNHCR, IOM and the US Embassy. While they seem to understand our concerns, it has not changed the situation on the ground. Presumptively, UNHCR and IOM are waiting for Deplu [the Indonesian foreign ministry] to take the lead on communication with the refugees. But this has not happened either.
2. REFUGEES ARE NEAR PANIC: As a result of this communication vacuum, the refugees have now heard about it through the newspapers and are in a state of panic and confusion. The local government has also not been informed officially and has also only read reports in the newspaper.
3. ILL-INFORMED REFUGEES MAY CAUSE LOCAL DAMAGE: The situation has lead to what could be a very bad security issue. Already some refugees have tried to escape again. The more panic that is generated the more likely it is that these men in desperation may attempt a massive escape or some kind of action that will lead to violence. This will spill over into the local community where there is already tension concerning the land that the camp is on. There have been a few violent incidents already in the camp but few are reported to the police. As there is little to no security at the camp how can anyone be assured that the local community is not in danger, particularly when there is so much fear and tension among the refugees?
4. INDONESIA MAY LOSE ALL THE GROND IT HAS GAINED: It seems to be such a shame that for lack of a few words all the good will that Indonesia has generated worldwide with their humane treatment of these refugees could ultimately be perceived as a missed opportunity for Indonesian leadership. Instead it will likely all end in a messy tragedy. As you are well aware, there a group of 55 Sri Lankan boat people who arrived several weeks ago and are now in detention in Meulaboh, Aceh Barat. There has also been an increase of Afghan refugees coming into Indonesia. It is critical that the handling of all refugees by all who are in contact with them (ie, UNHCR, IOM, the government, INGO's) follow international standards and principles not just at a policy level but also at an operational level. Any help you can give us to bring this matter to the attention of the national and international public and government will be so appreciated. Please let us know if there is any possibly of you making inquiries at the Foreign Ministry on this brewing tragedy waiting to happen. We will be glad to provide you direct access to our staff on-site and to local leaders.
Best Regards, Sara
**************************************
So . . . Where’d I get this information? Many sources, including staff eyewitness accounts. Read on:
Dear Sara:
I went to the camp this afternoon after visiting three villages in Aceh Timur. The refugees are now panicked when they read in the newspaper that 114 Bangladeshi would be sent home to Bangladesh soon. The refugees thought all of them would be sent home to their home countries, not just Bangladeshi who want to go home-- Myanmarese Rohingyans and some other Bangladeshis would be sent to Batam. The refugees misunderstood what the newspaper said, and some of them tried to escape from the camp again.
Someone from UNHCR, IOM, or Deplu must come to the camp and communicate clearly to the refugees about their status and the plan of sending some of them back. No one from UNHCR, IOM or Deplu has communicated to them what is going on. Their Bahasa is so limited, that they misunderstand what is in the paper ad what is being told to them. The camp is also running out of rice. We need to supply the camp with rice, since no one else has come to donate to the camp other than FPRM with fish and vegetables (with our funding support). The camp needs 120kg rice a day for the refugees, the cost for rice per day is IDR 850 thousand, and the total for a month would be IDR 26 million. Our funding would be enough to supply rice, vegetables, fish, and water to the camp only for 6 more weeks. We still don't know how long these refugees are going to stay at the camp. UNHCR, IOM and Deplu planned to move them to another place or send them back home, but they wouldn't announce how long these refugees will be staying in Idi Rayeuk.
--D
That, my friends, is how large agencies treat small tragedies.
When IOM came charging in about 3 months ago to “save” the refugees from God knows what fate, pretty literally saying “Out of our way, we’ll handle this--” they did not communicate, cooperate or consult with anyone—the locals, the other tiny agencies already involved, anyone. So alienated and uninformed were the other players that everyone just stop doing what they were doing and left it all to IOM, who was receiving money ( that none of us had) from PRM etc. The local fishermen had been giving free fish since the beginning. Can you believe it? These poor people donated fish almost every day from their catch. They were never informed of anything and then IOM starting buying fish for the camp from outside sources, insulting the local community (and being pretty stupid about spending money they didn’t need to). Now we are informed by D and N that they are running out of rice and also need veggies and fish. We try and try to contact IOM to find out what is going on but to no avail so we are back supplying the camp with food, again. Meanwhile IOM wastes no time taking credit for “managing” the camp and “caring” for the refugees, and doesn’t even have the decency to communicate with us, or the refugees themselves!
All I can say is, thank goodness we were frugal and didn’t spend all our money at the outset, so we can contribute to the food needs of the refugees again.
Another example of David bailing out Goliath . . .
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Rohingya Migrants to be Relocated to Pulau Galang – Rakyat Aceh
--from Serambi Indonesia, Thursday May 21, 2009
Banda Aceh - The Central Government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Deplu), will temporarily relocate the Rohingya migrants to Pulau Galang in Kepulauan Riau. “Deplu has three options, namely: deporting them, uniting the migrants in Idi, Aceh Timur with those who are in Sabang or finding a third country wanting to accept them,” said the Head of Kesbangpol and Linmas, Djakfar Djuned, M. Si, on Wednesday (20/05). Djakfar said it is difficult to return those immigrants to Myanmar because the Myanmarese government has not confirmed whether they will accept them or not, meanwhile, the immigrants do not want to return to their home country due to safety reasons. Therefore, the government will likely relocate them to Pulau Galang, Kepulauan Riau. In the 1970s, the central government made this island a temporary relocation site for thousands of Vietnamese boatpeople.
Banda Aceh - The Central Government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Deplu), will temporarily relocate the Rohingya migrants to Pulau Galang in Kepulauan Riau. “Deplu has three options, namely: deporting them, uniting the migrants in Idi, Aceh Timur with those who are in Sabang or finding a third country wanting to accept them,” said the Head of Kesbangpol and Linmas, Djakfar Djuned, M. Si, on Wednesday (20/05). Djakfar said it is difficult to return those immigrants to Myanmar because the Myanmarese government has not confirmed whether they will accept them or not, meanwhile, the immigrants do not want to return to their home country due to safety reasons. Therefore, the government will likely relocate them to Pulau Galang, Kepulauan Riau. In the 1970s, the central government made this island a temporary relocation site for thousands of Vietnamese boatpeople.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Copy of an email I sent to my JMD/BBF associates yesterday . . .
. . . that I'm angry enough to post here.
Dear All:
D called me this morning and I asked her to prepare a written report on what she told me which is below. I also talked to her about what our next steps should be and they are also listed on the report. I cannot tell you how angry and betrayed I feel by this. People have just sat back and watched us work like dogs and knew we never had to do all that. The local leader has been stealing since day one and no one cared. We have said it over and over. We have begged everyone for help, even IOM, who said they did not have the money and in the meantime they are making a mess of the camp. Where were they when we started ???? Anyway, enough bitching and complaining. Here is where we are now. We are further back than we were before. We have a camp that is not being run at all. There has been a lot of stealing and we cannot stop it since we have no authority. Now we are in a position where everyone who worked on the camp from the locals to the few Internationals have all pulled their support out. Now, if IOM doesn't keep its support up we have no fish. We have no drinking water, we have nothing since the people handling it all are insulted, as well they should be. But now who is going to buy all this? IOM??? WE NOW HAVE A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM ON OUR HANDS.
D and I discussed what we wanted to do. I guess we could try to rebuild the relationships we had going and get things back to normal but I am not sure we want to do that since as we had no authority we were not given any respect. We also do not have the contacts to get in touch with people at IOM, UNHCR etc and complain. And even if we did complaining it would do us no good. I’m waiting to see what Dina has to say after her meetings, then we can decide if we want to just pull up stakes and leave or if we want to make a go of it. If IOM had so much money why weren't they building latrines and barracks???? I am too angry to go on. PLEASE READ D'S REPORT (BELOW) AND FEEL FREE TO COMMENT.
Sara:
N told me the following on the first night I met him, it will be more tomorrow, I believe, when I'm meeting Assistant I, seeing the camp, and calling up people (IOM, JRS, and HELP).
· IOM had been in the camp for the last 1,5 months or so since they came the first time to undertake the first stage of the verification mandate.
· They had been supplying the camp with many things; hygiene kits, fresh fish, canned food, etc without asking the camp for any donation report.
· So, IOM basically was supplying same things that other NGOs had done for the camp. There double supplies in the camp.
· FPRM, with the funds transferred from us, supplied water (for drinking and cooking) to the camp every day. Suddenly, IOM started supplying water for drinking last week. So, N decided only to supply water for cooking then, instead of doubling everything.
· It seems that IOM gave money to the camp for paying the drinking water. Today, they just found out that the camp had been cheating them. The camp reported they paid for 7 trucks of drinking water every day, while there were only 4 trucks delivered to the camp. The same thing with rice, IOM gave money to buy 10 sacks of rice (you know they have plenty of rice), but there are only 6 sacks delivered to the refugees. Save the children supplied 400 packs of hygiene kits to the camp before UNHCR team arrived, and suddenly IOM delivered toothpaste and soaps to the camp on the same week.
· There's a group of fishermen in Idi, headed by 'Panglima Laot' - the commander, who collected fish from every boat that came back from the sea, and delivered fresh fish to the camp every day either for breakfast, lunch or dinner. N didn't supply fresh fish, he only delivered salted fish to the camp which is fine. That's why N didn't spend so much on fish for the refugees, other than fresh fish, they still have canned sardines in the warehouse
· IOM also supplied fresh fish to the camp without checking if anyone from the village had done so. The group who had been supplying fish to the camp since day 1, was very offended and decided to stop supplying fresh fish, since they believed IOM took that over.
· Now, IOM realized they had been fooled by the camp, and R (the person in charge in the camp) went back to Banda to report about this to his office. N said it seems they're not going to stop supplying the camp after this incident. It is horrible for us to clean the mess they made.
· According to what N said, it sounded like IOM was trying to work with FPRM in the camp, but N refused because IOM has ignored their suggestions since the beginning. IOM will keep one staff placed in the camp--I don't know what for.
· N had tried applying the inventory system in the camp. He has put locks on the warehouse, and record keeping, so anyone taking out supplies from the warehouse needed to sign, and be checked by the refugee representative. But the records between the logistic person, the kitchen coordinator, and the refugee representative on the inventory supplies were never balanced. The lock had been damaged intentionally a couple of times, and things were missing from the warehouse.
· JRS tried to come and offered to work together with FPRM on the camp, but N refused to do it. I'm glad that N never said no to work with us on the refugee camp like he has done to JRS and IOM.
· Other than IOM and this fishermen’s group, no one delivers donations to the camp anymore. They still have plenty of rice, and canned sardines, but the instant noodles are spoiled already.
· Camat now has no idea how to take care of these refugees since he has run out of money (which I believe been donated to the camp, but never recorded and reported properly). He actually contacted me on Sunday but he didn't ask for anything, just asking when I'm coming down to Idi.
· IOM had donated a refrigerator to the camp to store fresh fish, so I'm not going to buy a refrigerator.
Therefore, my plan is:
· I'm going to meet with assistant I first, check with him about what he knows about the camp situation. I will ask him again to ask the camat to make an accountable report.
· I'll call R, the IOM guy in charge in the camp for the last two months. Getting information on donations IOM had delivered to the camp, and asking them if they want to continue. They should work with us.
· I'll call L from JRS to find out the status of their plan to help the refugees, and how we can actually work together on this.
· I'll go to the camp and see how it's going on there. If the Camat asks me for any money, I'll pretend the money we received had been returned a month ago. We can ask for other NGOs to donate in-kind to the camp, but only if a proper report is available. You may not agree with this strategy, but we're not giving any money to the camp or deliver any fresh food directly without confirming with N, or else FPRM will not work for us anymore.
Dear All:
D called me this morning and I asked her to prepare a written report on what she told me which is below. I also talked to her about what our next steps should be and they are also listed on the report. I cannot tell you how angry and betrayed I feel by this. People have just sat back and watched us work like dogs and knew we never had to do all that. The local leader has been stealing since day one and no one cared. We have said it over and over. We have begged everyone for help, even IOM, who said they did not have the money and in the meantime they are making a mess of the camp. Where were they when we started ???? Anyway, enough bitching and complaining. Here is where we are now. We are further back than we were before. We have a camp that is not being run at all. There has been a lot of stealing and we cannot stop it since we have no authority. Now we are in a position where everyone who worked on the camp from the locals to the few Internationals have all pulled their support out. Now, if IOM doesn't keep its support up we have no fish. We have no drinking water, we have nothing since the people handling it all are insulted, as well they should be. But now who is going to buy all this? IOM??? WE NOW HAVE A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM ON OUR HANDS.
D and I discussed what we wanted to do. I guess we could try to rebuild the relationships we had going and get things back to normal but I am not sure we want to do that since as we had no authority we were not given any respect. We also do not have the contacts to get in touch with people at IOM, UNHCR etc and complain. And even if we did complaining it would do us no good. I’m waiting to see what Dina has to say after her meetings, then we can decide if we want to just pull up stakes and leave or if we want to make a go of it. If IOM had so much money why weren't they building latrines and barracks???? I am too angry to go on. PLEASE READ D'S REPORT (BELOW) AND FEEL FREE TO COMMENT.
Sara:
N told me the following on the first night I met him, it will be more tomorrow, I believe, when I'm meeting Assistant I, seeing the camp, and calling up people (IOM, JRS, and HELP).
· IOM had been in the camp for the last 1,5 months or so since they came the first time to undertake the first stage of the verification mandate.
· They had been supplying the camp with many things; hygiene kits, fresh fish, canned food, etc without asking the camp for any donation report.
· So, IOM basically was supplying same things that other NGOs had done for the camp. There double supplies in the camp.
· FPRM, with the funds transferred from us, supplied water (for drinking and cooking) to the camp every day. Suddenly, IOM started supplying water for drinking last week. So, N decided only to supply water for cooking then, instead of doubling everything.
· It seems that IOM gave money to the camp for paying the drinking water. Today, they just found out that the camp had been cheating them. The camp reported they paid for 7 trucks of drinking water every day, while there were only 4 trucks delivered to the camp. The same thing with rice, IOM gave money to buy 10 sacks of rice (you know they have plenty of rice), but there are only 6 sacks delivered to the refugees. Save the children supplied 400 packs of hygiene kits to the camp before UNHCR team arrived, and suddenly IOM delivered toothpaste and soaps to the camp on the same week.
· There's a group of fishermen in Idi, headed by 'Panglima Laot' - the commander, who collected fish from every boat that came back from the sea, and delivered fresh fish to the camp every day either for breakfast, lunch or dinner. N didn't supply fresh fish, he only delivered salted fish to the camp which is fine. That's why N didn't spend so much on fish for the refugees, other than fresh fish, they still have canned sardines in the warehouse
· IOM also supplied fresh fish to the camp without checking if anyone from the village had done so. The group who had been supplying fish to the camp since day 1, was very offended and decided to stop supplying fresh fish, since they believed IOM took that over.
· Now, IOM realized they had been fooled by the camp, and R (the person in charge in the camp) went back to Banda to report about this to his office. N said it seems they're not going to stop supplying the camp after this incident. It is horrible for us to clean the mess they made.
· According to what N said, it sounded like IOM was trying to work with FPRM in the camp, but N refused because IOM has ignored their suggestions since the beginning. IOM will keep one staff placed in the camp--I don't know what for.
· N had tried applying the inventory system in the camp. He has put locks on the warehouse, and record keeping, so anyone taking out supplies from the warehouse needed to sign, and be checked by the refugee representative. But the records between the logistic person, the kitchen coordinator, and the refugee representative on the inventory supplies were never balanced. The lock had been damaged intentionally a couple of times, and things were missing from the warehouse.
· JRS tried to come and offered to work together with FPRM on the camp, but N refused to do it. I'm glad that N never said no to work with us on the refugee camp like he has done to JRS and IOM.
· Other than IOM and this fishermen’s group, no one delivers donations to the camp anymore. They still have plenty of rice, and canned sardines, but the instant noodles are spoiled already.
· Camat now has no idea how to take care of these refugees since he has run out of money (which I believe been donated to the camp, but never recorded and reported properly). He actually contacted me on Sunday but he didn't ask for anything, just asking when I'm coming down to Idi.
· IOM had donated a refrigerator to the camp to store fresh fish, so I'm not going to buy a refrigerator.
Therefore, my plan is:
· I'm going to meet with assistant I first, check with him about what he knows about the camp situation. I will ask him again to ask the camat to make an accountable report.
· I'll call R, the IOM guy in charge in the camp for the last two months. Getting information on donations IOM had delivered to the camp, and asking them if they want to continue. They should work with us.
· I'll call L from JRS to find out the status of their plan to help the refugees, and how we can actually work together on this.
· I'll go to the camp and see how it's going on there. If the Camat asks me for any money, I'll pretend the money we received had been returned a month ago. We can ask for other NGOs to donate in-kind to the camp, but only if a proper report is available. You may not agree with this strategy, but we're not giving any money to the camp or deliver any fresh food directly without confirming with N, or else FPRM will not work for us anymore.
After the Spotlight Fades . . .
Sad.
--from Tempo Magazine No. 36/IX05-11 May, 2009
ACEH With BRR's mission complete, foreign donors have begun to leave Aceh. Two regents have also declined assets. ATJEH Market next to the Baiturrahman Mosque, Banda Aceh, was one of the hot spots during the tsunami on December 26, 2004. With bodies scattered between ravaged stalls, Aceh's landmark gate was buried beneath piles of rubbish brought on by the waves. Four years have passed and now Atjeh Market has become a modern market. The Rp33 billion renovation was funded by the Japan International Cooperation System. The new Atjeh Market, a half-hectare building with clear glass windows which houses 300 merchants, was officially opened last week. "I bet people would rather hang out in the market than in roadside stalls," a local youth commented.
Banda Aceh is like a girl who just put her makeup on. A four-year reconstruction process which involved hundreds of organizations from all over the world has left luxurious buildings and facilities throughout Aceh. Bridges, houses, schools, public health clinics, subdistrict offices, mosques, airport, hospitals, and roads all look shiny-at least on the outside. The lavish physical condition added flavor to the completion of the Aceh-Nias Rehabilitation & Reconstruction Agency's (BRR) mission on April 16. Many other NGOs and donor institutions-both local and foreign-have also completed their missions in Aceh. The world spotlight that shone on Aceh in the post-tsunami period hasfaded.BRR chief, Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, breathed a sigh of relief at the completion of his agency's mission. "The government considers that we have done a good job," he told Adi Warsidi from Tempo. In the last four years BRR has implemented various post-disaster recovery projects in Aceh and Nias worth around Rp80 trillion. The funds came from the government, public donations and international aid. According to Kuntoro, BRR has reached 94.18 percent of the targets in the master recovery plan formulated by the National Development Planning Board. After it was dissolved, BRR was replaced by the Aceh Sustainable Reconstruction Agency (BKRA), which is led by the Aceh Governor, Irwandi Yusuf, as ex-officio Chairman.
Until the end of the year, BKRA has been tasked to complete BRR's unfinished works. For example, to ensure the sustainability of the Rp1.3 trillion program which was planned last year. Another task of equal importance is to formulate a master plan for speedy development of Aceh. Iskandar, BKRA's head of daily operations, reminded the public not to put high hopes in his agency. "Our authority is limited," he said. "We only do coordinating activities with various related parties." Local governments and the representative of technical departments from the central government have full authority over the execution of the programs."Our job is to maintain the harmonization," Iskandar explained.
Although generally there have not been any problems, the handover of assets to the local governments still faced a number of obstacles. First is the obscure asset verification process. Two regencies, West Aceh and Southwest Aceh, refused to accept the assets because of the lack of clarity. Ramli M.S., the West Aceh Regent, declined BRR's Rp193 billion for his area."We do not really know what the assets are and what their conditions are," Ramli said. "It is like buying a cat in a sack and we don't want that."In his experience, the condition of the buildings and facilities built by BRR could not be guaranteed 100 percent as fit. The assets often do not meet criteria or are unfit for use. For example, a sea embankment in Ujung Kareung, Meulaboh, does not function properly. There are also buildings with leaking roofs. "Most of the houses of subdistrict heads in West Aceh cannot be used," he said. According to Ramli, the documents detailing BRR's assets should first be verified jointly with the local governments before they are handed over. Such procedure is normally done by the donor organizations and NGOs. "We have requested BRR's project documents for joint verification," Ramli said "But until the end of BRR's term, the request has not been granted."
Iskandar, BKRA head of daily operations, stated that the issue of assets certainly has to be resolved. "A team from the Finance Department will come to evaluate," said Iskandar. After the central authorities have done the verification, the Finance Department will hand over the assets to the local governments. The second issue is the fund. Aceh Deputy Governor, Muhammad Nazar has declared the local authorities' commitment. "We are ready to maintain the assets left by BRR," he pledged. However, the fund has to be requested from the central government. "It is no longer possible to use the fund from the regional budget, Nazar said. So far, the government's response has been good. "But we still do not know how much will be allotted," he said.
The third and main issue is the capacity of the regional bureaucracy. "It's been a public secret that the bureaucracy is not very effective," said Azwar Hasan, head of the Aceh Development Forum, an NGO in the field of microcredit. Many officials only have interest in projects. "Their focus is only on developing, but they forget about maintenance," he lamented. The slow and ambiguous bureaucratic work priority is indeed a national problem. "But, the situation like this is even more cumbersome in Aceh, which has just been freed of conflicts and tsunami," he said. Under such circumstance, it will be hard to maintain the assets left by BRR and donors alike. Facilities are often built without taking into consideration the long-term capability of the locals. For example, many public health clinics or pukskesmas were built in remote villages. "When there were still donors, sending doctors and nurses there was not a problem," Nursiti, a female activist from the Aceh Women's Discussion Center, explained. "Once the donors are gone, how would the villages pay for doctors and buy the medicines?"
Another example is the two public meeting buildings that were built in Banda Aceh. The electricity and cleaning fees are high. In addition, the city administration has to work hard to organize community activities in order to keep the buildings utilized. "I doubt that it can be done," Azwar bemoaned. "Since the beginning, the concept is only to make a building, without involving the community."
-- Mardiyah Chamim, Adi Warsidi
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Rohingya Update
Progress Made on Rohingya Refugees – Jakarta Globe 1 May 09
The verification team sent to determine the fate of 193 Burmese Rohingyas sheltered in Sabang, Aceh Province, finished the first phase of the verification process on Friday, Foreign Affairs spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said. The limited availability of translators, however, could mean that the processing of the 198 remaining asylum seekers in Idi Rayeuk, East Aceh, might be stalled. The verification team, consisting of officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Organization for Migration and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, finished their work in Sabang on April 24 after beginning in early April. The asylum seekers were asked a series of standard UNHCR questions to determine whether they were economic migrants or genuine refugees. “The team has identified the pattern and have the numbers figured out,” Faizasyah said, although he could not disclose details until they were given proper access to consular services. “Some of them have expressed their willingness for voluntary repatriation and we will refer their names to their respective embassies, which could then conduct further verification.” Faizasyah said that the ad hoc working groups set up as a result of the Bali Process forum, which was co-chaired by Indonesia and Australia in April, to address the plight of the Rohingyas, have not yet set a date for a meeting. The formation of these ad hoc groups to help identify the root causes behind people smuggling and human trafficking in the region was announced by Foreign Affairs Minister Hassan Wirajuda and his Australian counterpart, Stephen Smith, at the Bali Process forum with refugee source, transit and destination countries present. “Their presence made them morally bound to the statement,” Faizasyah said, adding that it was just as matter of setting out the terms of references before the ad hoc groups could meet. He said the meetings would take place as soon as possible because “this is an urgent matter.” Ismira Lutfia.
Indonesia repatriates Rohingya refugees – Xinhua 1 May 09
Indonesia repatriated Rohingya refugees to their origin country after settling the verification program on refugees sheltered in Aceh province's Sabang, an official said here on Friday. The Indonesian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said that the voluntarily repatriation program is assisted by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). "The voluntarily repatriation is underway at the moment. We have contacted officials of recipient countries regarding this issue," he told a press conference. He added that refugees who wished to take part in the repatriation program were those who sheltered in Sabang. He said that verification on the remaining Rohingya refugees sheltered in Idi Rayeuk was underway at the moment. Indonesia provided shelters for 391 Rohingya refugees in Sabangand Idi Rayeuk in the northernmost province of Aceh. The refugees were found drifting over the sea off Aceh waters by Indonesian patrol boats in January and February this year. Rohingya people live in Myanmar, near Bangladesh border area. The Muslim ethnic group has been considered as illegal settlers by Myanmar government. www.xinhua.net
The verification team sent to determine the fate of 193 Burmese Rohingyas sheltered in Sabang, Aceh Province, finished the first phase of the verification process on Friday, Foreign Affairs spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said. The limited availability of translators, however, could mean that the processing of the 198 remaining asylum seekers in Idi Rayeuk, East Aceh, might be stalled. The verification team, consisting of officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Organization for Migration and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, finished their work in Sabang on April 24 after beginning in early April. The asylum seekers were asked a series of standard UNHCR questions to determine whether they were economic migrants or genuine refugees. “The team has identified the pattern and have the numbers figured out,” Faizasyah said, although he could not disclose details until they were given proper access to consular services. “Some of them have expressed their willingness for voluntary repatriation and we will refer their names to their respective embassies, which could then conduct further verification.” Faizasyah said that the ad hoc working groups set up as a result of the Bali Process forum, which was co-chaired by Indonesia and Australia in April, to address the plight of the Rohingyas, have not yet set a date for a meeting. The formation of these ad hoc groups to help identify the root causes behind people smuggling and human trafficking in the region was announced by Foreign Affairs Minister Hassan Wirajuda and his Australian counterpart, Stephen Smith, at the Bali Process forum with refugee source, transit and destination countries present. “Their presence made them morally bound to the statement,” Faizasyah said, adding that it was just as matter of setting out the terms of references before the ad hoc groups could meet. He said the meetings would take place as soon as possible because “this is an urgent matter.” Ismira Lutfia.
Indonesia repatriates Rohingya refugees – Xinhua 1 May 09
Indonesia repatriated Rohingya refugees to their origin country after settling the verification program on refugees sheltered in Aceh province's Sabang, an official said here on Friday. The Indonesian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said that the voluntarily repatriation program is assisted by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). "The voluntarily repatriation is underway at the moment. We have contacted officials of recipient countries regarding this issue," he told a press conference. He added that refugees who wished to take part in the repatriation program were those who sheltered in Sabang. He said that verification on the remaining Rohingya refugees sheltered in Idi Rayeuk was underway at the moment. Indonesia provided shelters for 391 Rohingya refugees in Sabangand Idi Rayeuk in the northernmost province of Aceh. The refugees were found drifting over the sea off Aceh waters by Indonesian patrol boats in January and February this year. Rohingya people live in Myanmar, near Bangladesh border area. The Muslim ethnic group has been considered as illegal settlers by Myanmar government. www.xinhua.net
Monday, May 4, 2009
Tsunami aid often bypassed conflict victims: report - Washington Post 24 Apr 09
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Distribution of billions of dollars in aid after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami often ignored victims of conflicts raging in Sri Lanka and Indonesia at the time, a report on the lessons of the disaster said on Friday. The report, commissioned by a consortium of five of the hardest-hit countries -- Indonesia, Thailand, India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives -- said this was due in part to restrictions by aid donors on how their money could be spent. The December 26, 2004, tsunami, caused by an undersea earthquake, killed more than 228,000 people and provoked a huge international response, with some $13.5 billion pledged worldwide to fund recovery.
But the 105-page report, "The Tsunami Legacy: Innovations, Breakthroughs and Change," said that in Sri Lanka and Indonesia's Aceh region, both hard hit, there was a need to aid the victims of conflicts as well as those of the tsunami. "However, most post-tsunami organizations largely ignored the post-conflict context, in part due to donor-stipulated restrictions on how they could use their funds," said the report. This led to local grievances over perceived inequalities in aid provision. "If conflict sensitivity had been more widespread and funds not restricted to tsunami victims only, building back better could have been more equitable all along," the report said. The report was presented to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former U.N. special envoy for tsunami recovery, at a conference at U.N. headquarters. Commissioned by the Tsunami Global Lessons Learned project, the report also faulted authorities throughout the tsunami-hit area for other forms of discrimination, because it said the need to deliver aid fast outweighed the need for equity. "Many tsunami-affected communities were still unable to adequately access assistance immediately after the disaster because of barriers associated with their gender, ethnicity, age, class, religion or occupation," it said.
The report, however, also found much to praise in the aid operation, including a willingness by governments to delegate the task to local organizations and a determination to combat corruption. "Despite the influx of billions of dollars in tsunami-affected countries, corruption levels across the board were kept remarkably low," it said. "Key to this success was a commitment to view corruption, not as a nuisance or unfortunate side effect of the recovery, but as a core threat to the reconstruction effort as a whole." Since the tsunami, governments and international agencies have set about creating national and regional early-warning systems, with 24 early detection buoys placed in the Indian Ocean. In addition, 250,000 new permanent houses and more than 100 air and seaports have been built, 3,000 schools constructed and hundreds of hospitals rehabilitated. Ban and Clinton told the conference lessons from the tsunami were important because the number and intensity of weather-related disasters were increasing. Experience with the tsunami reinforces the importance of sealing a deal at a Copenhagen climate change conference in December aimed at setting new targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the U.N. chief said. Editing by Xavier Briand. Patrick Worsnip. Reuters
UNITED NATIONS - DISTRIBUTION of billions of dollars in aid after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami often ignored victims of conflicts raging in Sri Lanka and Indonesia at the time, a report on the lessons of the disaster said on Friday. The report, commissioned by a consortium of five of the hardest-hit countries - Indonesia, Thailand, India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives - said this was due in part to restrictions by aid donors on how their money could be spent. The Dec 26, 2004, tsunami, caused by an undersea earthquake, killed more than 228,000 people and provoked a huge international response, with some US$13.5 billion (S$20.1 billion) pledged worldwide to fund recovery. But the 105-page report, 'The Tsunami Legacy: Innovations, Breakthroughs and Change,' said that in Sri Lanka and Indonesia's Aceh region, both hard hit, there was a need to aid the victims of conflicts as well as those of the tsunami. "However, most post-tsunami organisations largely ignored the post-conflict context, in part due to donor-stipulated restrictions on how they could use their funds,' said the report. This led to local grievances over perceived inequalities in aid provision. 'If conflict sensitivity had been more widespread and funds not restricted to tsunami victims only, building back better could have been more equitable all along,' the report said. The report was presented to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former US President Bill Clinton, former UN special envoy for tsunami recovery, at a conference at UN headquarters. Commissioned by the Tsunami Global Lessons Learned project, the report also faulted authorities throughout the tsunami-hit area for other forms of discrimination, because it said the need to deliver aid fast outweighed the need for equity. 'Many tsunami-affected communities were still unable to adequately access assistance immediately after the disaster because of barriers associated with their gender, ethnicity, age, class, religion or occupation,' it said. REUTERS.
But the 105-page report, "The Tsunami Legacy: Innovations, Breakthroughs and Change," said that in Sri Lanka and Indonesia's Aceh region, both hard hit, there was a need to aid the victims of conflicts as well as those of the tsunami. "However, most post-tsunami organizations largely ignored the post-conflict context, in part due to donor-stipulated restrictions on how they could use their funds," said the report. This led to local grievances over perceived inequalities in aid provision. "If conflict sensitivity had been more widespread and funds not restricted to tsunami victims only, building back better could have been more equitable all along," the report said. The report was presented to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former U.N. special envoy for tsunami recovery, at a conference at U.N. headquarters. Commissioned by the Tsunami Global Lessons Learned project, the report also faulted authorities throughout the tsunami-hit area for other forms of discrimination, because it said the need to deliver aid fast outweighed the need for equity. "Many tsunami-affected communities were still unable to adequately access assistance immediately after the disaster because of barriers associated with their gender, ethnicity, age, class, religion or occupation," it said.
The report, however, also found much to praise in the aid operation, including a willingness by governments to delegate the task to local organizations and a determination to combat corruption. "Despite the influx of billions of dollars in tsunami-affected countries, corruption levels across the board were kept remarkably low," it said. "Key to this success was a commitment to view corruption, not as a nuisance or unfortunate side effect of the recovery, but as a core threat to the reconstruction effort as a whole." Since the tsunami, governments and international agencies have set about creating national and regional early-warning systems, with 24 early detection buoys placed in the Indian Ocean. In addition, 250,000 new permanent houses and more than 100 air and seaports have been built, 3,000 schools constructed and hundreds of hospitals rehabilitated. Ban and Clinton told the conference lessons from the tsunami were important because the number and intensity of weather-related disasters were increasing. Experience with the tsunami reinforces the importance of sealing a deal at a Copenhagen climate change conference in December aimed at setting new targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the U.N. chief said. Editing by Xavier Briand. Patrick Worsnip. Reuters
UNITED NATIONS - DISTRIBUTION of billions of dollars in aid after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami often ignored victims of conflicts raging in Sri Lanka and Indonesia at the time, a report on the lessons of the disaster said on Friday. The report, commissioned by a consortium of five of the hardest-hit countries - Indonesia, Thailand, India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives - said this was due in part to restrictions by aid donors on how their money could be spent. The Dec 26, 2004, tsunami, caused by an undersea earthquake, killed more than 228,000 people and provoked a huge international response, with some US$13.5 billion (S$20.1 billion) pledged worldwide to fund recovery. But the 105-page report, 'The Tsunami Legacy: Innovations, Breakthroughs and Change,' said that in Sri Lanka and Indonesia's Aceh region, both hard hit, there was a need to aid the victims of conflicts as well as those of the tsunami. "However, most post-tsunami organisations largely ignored the post-conflict context, in part due to donor-stipulated restrictions on how they could use their funds,' said the report. This led to local grievances over perceived inequalities in aid provision. 'If conflict sensitivity had been more widespread and funds not restricted to tsunami victims only, building back better could have been more equitable all along,' the report said. The report was presented to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former US President Bill Clinton, former UN special envoy for tsunami recovery, at a conference at UN headquarters. Commissioned by the Tsunami Global Lessons Learned project, the report also faulted authorities throughout the tsunami-hit area for other forms of discrimination, because it said the need to deliver aid fast outweighed the need for equity. 'Many tsunami-affected communities were still unable to adequately access assistance immediately after the disaster because of barriers associated with their gender, ethnicity, age, class, religion or occupation,' it said. REUTERS.