APPENDIX 6
Memorandum submitted by Tearfund
INTRODUCTION
Tearfund is a UK based Christian Relief &
Development NGO working with and through local partners in 90
countries to tackle the causes and effects of poverty, bringing
help and hope to communities in need around the world. The Disaster
Response Team works more specifically in five disaster zones and
is committed to disaster management and preparedness, as well
as administering immediate relief and support.
This submission covers:
— the adequacy of UK government, United
Nations and International Community humanitarian contingency plans;
— the implications of military action
for levels of refugees and internally displaced people and the
level of preparedness of UNHCR and the international community;
and
— the risk of military action targeting
electricity and water supplies.
1. THE ADEQUACY
OF UK GOVERNMENT,
UNITED NATIONS
AND INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNITY HUMANITARIAN
CONTINGENCY PLANS
Preparations and coordination appear inadequate
given the potential scale of humanitarian needs.
Main operational agencies in the UN system show
reluctance to share planning documents with NGO sector, possibly
for fear of being perceived as supporting the war effort.
NGO's have limited private financial resources
to develop contingency plans and build organisational response
capacity outside of multi-lateral and bi-lateral funding channels.
NGO's function as the "implementing partners"
for the delivery of UN and government humanitarian assistance.
Providing resources to enable the UN agencies to undertake contingency
planning without consideration for resourcing the implementing
partners is incomplete thinking.
NGO's are a vital intermediary between people
and government, inter-governmental institutions. They are an essential
part of the delivery mechanism and need to be resourced and consult
for effective contingency planning.
DFID/CHAD could have been far more proactive
in engaging DEC members in joint preparedness planning, dialogue
with the MoD, Foreign office, etc.
UK government appear unwilling to admit or engage
in planning with the international non-governmental agencies for
the humanitarian consequences of war, possibly for fear that this
may politically portray an "inevitability of conflict".
The NGO's will be wholly dependant on the military
for "access" into the affected populations and advice
on security threats (including contamination from Chemical, Biological
weapons). Understandably the military does not want to reveal
its war plans, although a reluctance to engage with civilian actors
only serves to prevent the development of coordinating planning
between government, UN and non-governmental actors.
British NGO's have an important role to play
in the region, especially since the US embargo currently prevents
American NGO's from operating in Iran and at present Iraq.
US AID recently funded the Joint NGO Emergency
Preparedness Initiative based in Jordan to support coordination
of planning and preparedness activities amongst US agencies. Whilst
it is important not to duplicate the UN coordination mechanisms,
an equivalent UK initiative amongst DEC members could have served
useful role in supporting planning process and increasing the
effectiveness of response.
UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
has launched a consolidated appeal for US$37 million. UK contribution
not known. Primary use of resources would be to finance pre-positioning
of supplies and equipment within the region.
US government has donated $12.1 million to the
UNHCR for contingency planning. UK contribution not known.
US and UK government's, as initiators of the
conflict and as the occupying power in the event of victory, will
practically and legally be responsible for the well being of millions
of vulnerable Iraqi civilians. UK government has not shared/engaged
with non-governmental humanitarian agencies on how they are preparing
for this responsibility.
Inevitably, the US and UK military will have
a major role in the timely provision of humanitarian assistance,
particularly in establishing basic security, ensuring rapid and
impartial access to affected populations, and reactivating communications,
transport and storage infrastructure (including the entry/exit
of relief personnel and importation of supplies and equipment).
To date there has been no meaningful discussions or dialogue on
how the UK and US military will work with the non-governmental
sector.
This situation in Iraq has been evolving over
the last few months and there is no logical reason why the British
government could not have been more proactive and transparent
in sharing/developing its thinking on how to response to the humanitarian
consequences of military action.
Engagement of the British humanitarian community
earlier would inevitably have led to a more effective, robust
UK response strategy that would have utilised experience and resources
from both the private and public sector. It would also have helped
clarify/isolate some of the ethical tensions that NGO's face when
providing humanitarian assistance in collaboration with one of
the conflicts' primary belligerents. (NGO's are often reluctant
to work in close association with the military for fear of being
seen as supporting the implementation of government foreign policy.
2. THE IMPLICATIONS
OF MILITARY
ACTION FOR
LEVELS OF
REFUGEES AND
INTERNALLY DISPLACED
PEOPLE AND
THE LEVEL
OF PREPAREDNESS
OF UNHCR AND
THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNITY
Understanding the current vulnerabilities and
capacities of the Iraqi people is essential to analysing the implication
of military actions:
— 16 million people dependant on government
rations for their entire food supply;
— remaining 8 million people rely on
government rations for a portion of their daily food basket;
— under five mortality rate of 130
per 1,000 is more than double the rate on the eve of the Gulf
War in the 1980's;
— UNICEF estimate two million children
may need therapeutic feeding in the event of conflict; and
— there are currently an estimated
one million internally displaced in Iraq.
Military action would disrupt existing humanitarian
system and substantially increase demands for assistance.
Access to food distributions will be severely
limited for the duration of the conflict.
Very few INGO's present in areas controlled
by government, although INGO's do have a presence in the northern
region.
US bombing will inevitably cause some damage
to critical civilian lifeline infrastructure such as housing,
transport, electricity, sewerage and water treatment.
Retalitary use of chemical and biological weapons
by Iraqi military could cause large internal population displacements.
Use of these weapons could delay or prevent an immediate humanitarian
response.
In the event of war there will be two main humanitarian
imperatives:
(1) maintaining/re-establishing the food
rationing system in the shortest possible time;
(2) preservation of the country's lifeline
infrastructure "deemed indispensable" to the survival
of the civilian population (Article 53, Protocol 1 Fourth Geneva
Convention).
Existing Oil for Food programme is overseen
by United Nations and implemented by the Iraqi government through
an extensive network of local food agents.
In some areas it may be necessary to replace
or supplement the existing local distribution network with targeted
programmes managed by NGO's.
Based on recent scenario planning it is essential
the UN agencies, supported by the British and US government's
enter into serious dialogue with the INGO's to develop effective
and realistic contingency plans and agreed joint intervention
strategies, establish civilian/military information sharing mechanisms,
etc.
Numerous refugee camps are envisaged along Iraq's
borders, particularly Iran (likely destination for Iraqis fleeing
from Baghdad and the southern region). There has been limited
discussions between UN and NGO's to discuss site preparation and
plans for service provision within these camps to meet basic needs.
Preparedness planning must clearly define what
humanitarian tasks the military will perform, and what tasks will
be the responsibility of the UN system, NGO's and local agents.
As far as is practicable, humanitarian assistance
programme should be under civilian management and authority.
UK military to advice/assist the British NGO
community on issues/concerns associated with the use of chemical
and biological weapons.
Government to provide funding necessary to UN/NGO's
to develop contingency plans.
3. THE RISK
OF MILITARY
ACTION TARGETING
ELECTRICITY AND
WATER SUPPLIES
Various reports by UN and NGO's have stressed
the inter-relationship of Iraq's electrical supply capacity and
public health. The majority of Iraqis depend on water and sewage
systems that in turn depends on electricity supplies.
Capacity has already been degraded as a result
of the first Gulf was and any further interruption of the power
supply and/or damage to infrastructure could deprive urban populations
of access to clean water, leading to epidemics of preventable
diseases (eg diarrhea, typhoid, cholera).
The British government must respect its obligations
under international humanitarian law (particularly the preservation
of key civilian infrastructure).
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
"Avoiding a humanitarian catastrophe in
Iraq", Refugee International.
Tearfund
11 February 2003
| 
