To: NGOs
From: Manisha Thomas, NGO representative on inter-agency IDP mission to Afghanistan (30 April -13 May 2003)
Date: 19 June 2003

* for your info and possible follow-up...*

Re: Update on the Afghanistan IDP Inter-Agency mission report,
the addition of a disclaimer to the report, and the reasons behind it.

Dear All,

From previous messages to you, you will know that I was the NGO participant on the inter-agency IDP mission to Afghanistan that took place from 30 April to 13 May. In my message dated 30 May when I sought your input on the draft report of the mission, I highlighted a number of areas that were of concern to me in the report. Thanks (again) to all of you who came back with comments and suggestions for improvements.

I submitted the suggestions that you provided, along with several of my own - some of which I was submitting for the second, third, or even fourth time. In the final draft that we were sent at the end of last week, however, I still found that many of the concerns I had expressed, both throughout the process and on the last draft, were still not incorporated. I did not expect all my comments to be included in the report, but there were several substantive issues to which I pointed that I felt were still not adequately included. In addition, some good points were removed from the final report.

Basically, I agree with most of the report, but I do feel that a lot of the issues that I raised - particularly around security, the situation in the camps, the issue of numbers of IDPs - are not adequately reflected in the report and those were serious issues that NGOs flagged to me. I think we've gone through about 4 rounds of consultations on this report among team members and I've highlighted many of the same problems repeatedly, but the big ones haven't been adequately addressed. There's also a huge focus in the report on moving from relief to development, which is necessary, but is a bit removed from present-day reality, given the increasing insecurity in many parts of the country.

Part of the problem arises from the way the report was drafted in the first place (as I mentioned earlier, I started a note to NGOs on the whole process of the mission, but have been holding off to see what came out in terms of substance in the report before finishing it). We never had a proper debriefing between the two teams that went out and, as such, the Southern/NW team (which focused on rehabilitation and development) got most of their concerns reflected in the report despite efforts from two of us on the Northern team to get protection issues better highlighted. For example, I find it remiss on our part, as a mission, that there are no particular recommendations in the report related to the situation in the camps, particularly given that one of the three main objectives of the mission was to "identify outstanding gaps in the response to the needs of IDPs and to recommend how such gaps should be addressed."

I already had discussions with some of you about the idea of putting a disclaimer on the report if major concerns were not incorporated. When the final draft came out, I felt that, indeed, that turned out to be the case. As such, I wrote a message to the members of the mission that i have pasted at the bottom for your information. I also copied representatives of the three NGO networks that sit on the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) - ICVA, InterAction, and SCHR.

Since sending that message on 17 June, I have had a number of conversations with mission members on my request for a disclaimer. They generally all understand my position, but have been trying to find a way around having a disclaimer so as to have full endorsement from the team of the report. One suggestion was that I write a short annex to the report highlighting my concerns. I noted, however, that that would most likely draw more attention to the issue than the disclaimer. Alternative wording for the disclaimer has been suggested (and is still under negotiation), but the latest suggestion reads as follows:

"While agreeing with most of the report, the NGO representative who participated in the mission wishes to note that the report is not fully reflective of the concerns of the NGO community."

By requesting the disclaimer, I am in no way trying to detract from the report. I do, however, feel that it does not go far enough in reflecting NGO concerns and that in certain parts, UN agencies are too easily let off the hook.

I have to say, I am a bit surprised that no other NGO has requested such a disclaimer before on an inter-agency report because I find it hard to believe that any of the past reports have been entirely reflective of the major NGO concerns when the UN agencies fight to get what they want in the reports.

As such, I just want to stress to you that the way I have interpreted my role as the NGO representative on the mission has been to consult as broadly as possible and to then reflect the concerns raised by NGOs to the mission and in the mission report. Since I have not been as successful as I would have liked on this last point, I feel that a disclaimer is the best way to ensure that the report is not interpreted (either at the country-level or the international-level).

I hope that you are both understanding and supportive of this position. You may well be approached by UN agencies asking if you agree with these concerns.

If you would like further clarifiation, please do not hesitate to contact me.

With best regards,
Take care,
Manisha
ICVA Secretariat