[Senate Hearing 115-760]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-760
FLASHING RED: THE STATE OF GLOBAL
HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 22, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-856 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
TODD YOUNG, Indiana CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
RAND PAUL, Kentucky CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
Todd Womack, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator From Tennessee.................... 1
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator From Maryland............. 2
Gottlieb, Gregory C., Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau of
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, United States
Agency for International Development, Washington, DC........... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Lindborg, Hon. Nancy, President, United States Institute of
Peace, Washington, DC.......................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Daccord, Yves, Director-General, International Committee of the
Red Cross, Geneva, Switzerland................................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Gregory Gottlieb to Questions Submitted by Senator
Todd Young..................................................... 50
Response of Hon. Nancy Lindborg to Question Submitted by Senator
Todd Young..................................................... 53
(iii)
FLASHING RED: THE STATE OF GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Rubio, Young, Cardin,
Shaheen, Markey, and Merkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
The Chairman. The Foreign Relations Committee will come to
order.
Last month, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the
executive director for the World Food Program issued a warning
regarding severe food shortages sweeping across Africa.
Humanitarian crises are expanding with famine now inflicting
South Sudan and others threatening Somalia, Nigeria, and Yemen.
Each of these is marked by misgovernance and conflict that
worsens existing conditions and threatens to trigger the
starvation and displacement of tens of millions of people.
In South Sudan, conduct by President Kiir and the failure
of the region to effectively engage with the political leaders
in South Sudan has led to famine and atrocities.
In Yemen, a country with chronic natural resource and food
shortfalls, the crisis is aggravated by conflicts that have
created severe obstacles to humanitarian access.
In Somalia, al-Shabaab created insecurity, and lack of
governing structures continue to threaten millions of Somalis.
In Nigeria, Africa's largest country by population,
millions in the northeast face starvation as Boko Haram
violence has prevented most humanitarian access.
When we consider the ongoing wars elsewhere in the Middle
East, Eastern Europe, and South Asia, the world has experienced
historic levels of displacement and emergency needs. Last year,
there was an unprecedented 65 million people displaced,
stateless, or otherwise in the need of humanitarian assistance,
the highest number ever recorded. And this year, it is expected
to reach 70 million people. Unbelievable.
The fact that so many of these tragic situations are
manmade demands that we look at how we use our policy tools to
prevent and relieve such a catastrophe.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to understand how these
crises affect U.S. interests and review how we might better
work to sustain life, support stability, and help communities
become more resilient. It is also imperative that we discuss
ways to stretch our aid dollars further through food aid
reforms and efficiencies, feeding more people with the same
level of funding.
And I hope our committee can come together to support such
reforms during next year's farm bill reauthorization.
Finally, we must look at the instruments of our diplomatic,
development, economic, and defense power, and determine how we
might best put them to use in reversing this trend that leads
to instability and threatens our interests.
We thank our witnesses. I will introduce you shortly. And I
want to turn to our distinguished ranking member, Ben Cardin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for
holding this hearing on the state of global humanitarian
affairs.
Yesterday, I joined the chairman with our counterparts in
the House of Representatives as we acknowledged the sixth
anniversary of the Syrian war and the atrocities that have been
committed there and humanitarian needs.
Today, we shift our attention, the same subject matter but
to the 20 million people who are starving as a result of the
famines in Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan, and Northern Nigeria.
And we saw the faces of children who were murdered in
Syria. We now see the faces of children who are stunted and are
suffering as a result of the atrocities and tragedies in these
countries.
And we know that we have to do something about this. We
know that America can do something about this.
So I look forward to our witnesses giving us the current
status but also challenging us to do more to alleviate the
humanitarian needs.
We know that these circumstances in these countries will
lead to instability, breeding grounds for terrorists, and it
leads to conflicts. So it is in our interests, not just from
the humanitarian point of view, but from the national security
issues, to do something about these circumstances.
The tragedy is even made worse because political leaders in
these countries are denying humanitarian access. They are not
only causing a problem for their people. Then they are denying
the international community access to try to deal with the
aftermath.
The South Sudanese Government recently said they want
humanitarian workers to pay $10,000 for a visa. That is
outrageous, and the international community needs to speak out.
We also know that humanitarian convoys have been attacked
as part of a conflict. That is a violation of war crimes, and
it is a matter that cannot be allowed to continue.
So, Mr. Chairman, I just really want to underscore the need
for U.S. leadership. When I look at what has happened
internationally, the status of select U.N. humanitarian
appeals, global, we are at thirteen percent funded; Nigeria, 6
percent funded; Somalia, 21 percent funded; South Sudan, 18
percent funded; Yemen, 7 percent funded.
If the United States is not in leadership, the
international community is not going to respond. And as you
pointed out, this is a circumstance where the famine has been
enhanced or made possible through human action. This is not
nature. This is what humans have done, and we can change that.
So I look for U.S. leadership. But so far, what I have seen
is President Trump being very silent on this issue. I have not
heard very much. I have seen his executive order on
immigration, which 100 national security experts, both
Republican and Democrats, have condemned as being
counterproductive to our national security and not befitting
our great Nation.
I do look at a budget that he has submitted that has a 28
percent cut in foreign aid, and I am wondering how we can
respond and show leadership and expect other countries to
follow when the President has made our foreign assistance such
a low priority.
Mr. Chairman, I might be incorrect in this, but I think
there is only one other agency treated as badly as foreign
assistance in the President's budget, and that is our
environment. So it really does speak to our priorities. The
international community is looking at us, saying where are
America's priorities if the President is submitting this type
of budget?
And then I just want to point out, as you have, that we can
prevent these humanitarian disasters if we invest more in good
governance, in anticorruption, in the building blocks so these
countries can have stable governments that can help their own
people, and we are cutting those programs in the President's
budget.
So I do look forward to our witnesses as to how we can be
more effective in dealing with the crisis in Northern Africa
and how America's leadership can lead the world to help those
that are in real danger of literally losing their lives.
The Chairman. Well, thank you. I had no idea that focusing
on conflict in poor parts of the world would move to the
direction that you just went. I think we all understand that
these issues have been persisting for a long, long time, and we
need to, certainly, show U.S. leadership.
I will say our government funds one-third of the World Food
Program and will continue to. And my guess is, at the end of
the day, by the time Congress gets through having its say, we
are going to be very involved and appropriately involved
throughout the world, as we have been for years.
I hope we will focus on the issue at hand. I do not think
this has been created over the last 55 days and, certainly, I
appreciate some of the sentiment, but, again, the issue is here
we have millions of people that are starving due to conflicts
in the region.
And as my staff has pointed out so well, once these people
are malnourished for a period of time, it actually affects
their ability to function for the rest of their lives, so what
we have happening in these countries is people--really, we are
stunting the next generation of people who might lead
innovation and do the kinds of things that are necessary to
cause these countries to be successful.
So for that reason, we certainly appreciate Mr. Gottlieb
for being here. He is acting assistant administrator from USAID
Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance.
Assistant Administrator Gottlieb manages the Office of Disaster
Assistance and Food for Peace, two of the primary U.S.
responders to international humanitarian emergencies with both
food and nonfood assistance.
We thank you so much for being here and glad we have
someone to actually come testify as you are today. We look
forward to that. And if you could summarize in about 5 minutes,
I am sure there will be many questions from the panel. Thank
you.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY C. GOTTLIEB, ACTING ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, CONFLICT, AND HUMANITARIAN
ASSISTANCE, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Gottlieb. Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin,
members of the committee, thank you for your continued support
for humanitarian assistance, including convening this hearing.
Today, we are confronted with massive humanitarian crises
around the world, which demand immediate, substantial, and
creative responses. There are more than 65 million people
displaced today, numbers we have not seen since World War II.
We are also facing the most serious food security crisis in
the modern era. Famine likely occurred in parts of Nigeria late
last year and was declared in South Sudan this year. Somalia
and Yemen are likely to be next.
Further complicating things, much of the humanitarian need
today is manmade, a result of civil conflicts, instability, and
a lack of solutions to political disputes.
I have worked in humanitarian assistance for more than 30
years in more than 40 countries across four continents, and I
can say I have not seen anything of this scale in my career.
Despite these challenges and thanks to generous support
from Congress, the United States continues to be the world
leader in humanitarian response. We at USAID strive to best
utilize those resources to prevent, mitigate, and respond to
humanitarian crises around the world. USAID leadership in this
area demonstrates extraordinary global reach, influence, and
impact.
Today, I would like to briefly walk through the major
crises we face in 2017, the challenges we confront, and how
USAID is responding.
In January, the Famine Early Warning System, FEWS NET,
warned of possible famines in a record four countries this
year. The first was declared just 1 month later in South Sudan.
More than 3 years of horrific violence in South Sudan has
transformed the world's youngest nation into one of the most
food insecure. Even before the famine declaration, many South
Sudanese were dying of hunger and faced an impossible choice:
Stay where they are and starve, or run for their lives,
potentially into mortal danger.
USAID continues to feed more than 1.3 million people each
month, but enormous needs remain: 5.5 million people, nearly
half of South Sudan's population, will face life-threatening
hunger in July.
In West Africa, the savagery of Boko Haram triggered a
humanitarian crisis in Nigeria, displacing over 2 million
people and leaving more than 10 million individuals in need of
humanitarian assistance. More than 5.1 million people face
severe food insecurity.
It is likely famine incurred in some inaccessible areas in
2016. As access improves, humanitarian agencies are
encountering communities with dire levels of hunger and
malnutrition, particularly among children. More than 450,000
children are severely malnourished in Northern Nigeria.
Nigeria is also a protection crisis. We hear reports of
vulnerable women and girls forced to trade sex for food to keep
their families alive, men and boys forcibly recruited into Boko
Haram are killed, and children whose worlds have been shattered
after months of captivity by Boko Haram. Meanwhile, the Horn of
Africa is facing increasingly severe drought conditions that
are quickly exceeding people's ability to cope.
The scope is so great that relief agencies estimate that up
to 15 million people in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya are facing
food and water shortages. More than half of Somalia's total
population currently requires urgent humanitarian assistance.
In Yemen, more than 17 million people, an astounding 60
percent of the country's population, are food insecure,
including 7 million who are unable to survive without food
assistance. This makes Yemen the largest food security
emergency in the world, and it is also at risk for famine in
2017. In Yemen, more than 460,000 kids are severely
malnourished.
Beyond these four likely famines, we are confronted with
protracted crises in countries like Iraq and Syria, which have
no clear end in sight. These emergencies are complex,
dangerous, and require the majority of our personnel and
funding.
In this time of unprecedented need, we are looking at all
options available to us, finding ways to provide assistance
efficiently and encouraging other donors to step up. USAID is
also applying lessons from previous responses, making effective
use of early warning and investing in resilience strategies to
reduce the impacts of future shocks and stresses.
We remain committed to providing humanitarian assistance
around the world as both a moral imperative and a direct
benefit to the well-being of the United States.
I thank you for your time and support, and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gottlieb follows:]
The Prepared Statement of Gregory C. Gottlieb
Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, members of the committee,
thank you for your continued support and interest in humanitarian
assistance around the world. Today, I want to highlight the
unprecedented humanitarian needs globally and talk about how the U.S.
government is working to save lives.
In 2017, we are confronted with massive humanitarian crises around
the world, which demand an immediate, substantial, and creative
response. In just over a decade, the number of people in need of
humanitarian aid has more than doubled. There are more than 65 million
displaced people today--numbers we have not seen since World War II. We
are also facing the most serious food security crisis in the modern
era. Famine likely occurred in parts of Nigeria late last year and was
declared in South Sudan this year; Somalia and Yemen are likely to be
next.
Much of the humanitarian need today is man-made--a result of civil
war, instability, and unresolved political disputes within fragile
states. In countries like Syria and Iraq, violence and insecurity are
causing a record number of internal and cross-border displacements, and
aid workers are saving lives at great risk to their own.
Humanitarian funding requirements for 2017 are likewise higher,
currently estimated at $22.6 billion, more than double the funding
requirements from just five years ago.
In countries experiencing conflict, humanitarian organizations
cannot easily reach people in need because of ongoing violence, host
countries' rules and regulations, unexploded ordnance, and limited
communication and transportation infrastructure. These challenges are
compounded by aid obstruction and attacks on relief convoys and aid
workers. As a result, running an effective response has required ever-
increasing flexibility, innovation, and efficiency on the part of the
international humanitarian community.
Thanks to generous support from Congress, the United States has
been the world leader in humanitarian response. The assistance we
provide represents the best of America's values of goodwill toward
those who suffer. Moreover, despite these challenges, USAID strives to
make the best use of those resources, aiming to prevent, mitigate, and
respond to humanitarian crises around the world. U.S. leadership in
this area demonstrates extraordinary global reach and impact, helping
to improve our national security by strengthening relationships with
nations and people around the world, particularly in conflict-prone
areas. Additionally, even as we respond to today's humanitarian crises,
our strategy is also to prevent tomorrow's crises, by building up
resilience and focusing on small interventions in fragile states before
they become failed ones.
We respond to disasters by providing food, safe drinking water,
shelter, emergency medical care, and the tools to rebuild. USAID's
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance alone responds to an average of
65 disasters in more than 50 countries every year. USAID serves as the
United States' first responder to global crises and an iconic symbol of
American compassion around the world. Recall the images in 2014, when
USAID deployed a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to West
Africa to lead the U.S. response to the worst Ebola outbreak in
history. Along with the U.S. military and the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the United States helped to bring an end to the
epidemic. When Hurricane Matthew hit Haiti this past fall, USAID pre-
deployed a DART prior to landfall to immediately provide food, water,
and shelter, as well as scale up hygiene and sanitation interventions
to mitigate the increased risks of cholera.
The United States is the single largest donor of humanitarian aid
to the Syrian and South Sudanese people, and is feeding more than 1.3
million people in South Sudan each month. The U.S. government is also
the largest single provider of humanitarian assistance to Nigeria and
the Lake Chad Basin, where Boko Haram has driven more than a million
people from their homes, creating one of the largest displacement
crises in Africa. In Yemen and the Horn of Africa, USAID continues to
mobilize robust responses to help families on the brink of starvation.
Our assistance is saving lives and protecting important development
gains.
Over the last 10 years, USAID has deployed 33 DARTs, including a
record six DARTs deployed simultaneously in 2016. We currently have
four DARTs deployed to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Iraq, South
Sudan, Syria, and Nigeria. The extraordinary has sadly become the
everyday.
Today, I'd like to briefly walk through the major crises we're
seeing in 2017, describe the challenges we face, and talk about how
USAID is responding.
south sudan
In Africa, despite seeing many development and global health gains
from our investment in development, several countries remain of great
concern. More than three years of horrific violence in South Sudan has
transformed the world's youngest nation into one of the most food-
insecure countries in the world. Despite our efforts throughout the
conflict to stave off famine, in collaboration with the World Food
Programme (WFP), UNICEF and others, conditions have continued to
deteriorate and famine was declared in two counties on February 20. The
United States is gravely concerned by the declaration of famine in
parts of South Sudan and by the significant scale of humanitarian need
throughout the country. An estimated 5.5 million people--nearly half of
South Sudan's population--will face life-threatening hunger by July.
Even before the famine declaration, people were dying of hunger--
driven from their homes by violence, and many forced to eat water
lilies and wild grasses to survive. Innocent civilians are targeted by
violence from armed actors on all sides of the conflict and have little
to no access to basic services. The fighting has disrupted markets and
harvests, and the South Sudanese people--having exhausted all their
resources--are left with little or nothing to survive. Many South
Sudanese face a choice no one should have to face--stay where they are
and starve, or run for their lives, potentially into mortal danger, so
that they can find food.
As we have said repeatedly, this is a man-made crisis and the
direct consequence of prolonged conflict. We hold all the warring
parties--including the government, the opposition, and affiliated armed
groups--responsible for the hostilities that upend and, even worse,
target civilian lives and livelihoods. More than 3.5 million South
Sudanese have been displaced from their homes, and the exodus of 1.6
million South Sudanese into neighboring countries--including into
conflict areas of Sudan--shows the desperation they face as the
geographic scale of the conflict spreads. Schools have emptied out
leaving 1.8 million children out of school and 17,000 recruited into
armies. In the month of January alone, more than 90,000 South Sudanese
fled their country, many to neighboring Uganda. The Bidi Bidi refugee
settlement, which did not even exist seven months ago, has rapidly
swelled to become one of the largest refugee camps in the world, home
to more than 750,000 South Sudanese refugees.
USAID did not wait for a famine declaration to intervene in South
Sudan, and we will continue to respond to save as many lives as
possible.
The United States has provided more than $2.1 billion since 2013 to
help the South Sudanese people. We deployed a DART in December 2013 to
lead the U.S. humanitarian response to the crisis, which remained in
place through the July 2016 violence. Throughout the crisis, and
ramping up over the past six months, the U.S. has responded with
comprehensive humanitarian assistance, including food, safe drinking
water, emergency medical care, critical nutrition, as well as emergency
shelter and relief supplies. So far in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, we have
provided nearly 100,000 metric tons of food assistance, at times using
mobile teams to reach populations in famine, who are also under threat
of violence.
Our health and sanitation interventions are critical because we
know that people don't only die in large numbers from hunger, but from
the diseases to which they succumb when hunger weakens their immune
systems, leaving them susceptible to deadly but largely preventable
diseases. Our assistance is also helping to provide psychosocial
support to survivors of gender-based violence, give children a safe
place to learn as an alternative to fighting, and reunify families
separated by fighting.
However, significant challenges remain. Our partners continue to
face security and access challenges that make our life-saving
operations more dangerous and complex. Bureaucratic impediments,
numerous checkpoints, weather-related obstacles, and limited
communication and transportation infrastructure have restricted
humanitarian activities across South Sudan. Additionally, aid workers
have been harassed, attacked, or killed, and relief supplies are
looted. According to the U.N., at least 72 aid workers have died in
South Sudan since 2013. We call on all parties to allow safe, rapid,
and unhindered access to people and places most in need. All parties to
this conflict must stop impeding humanitarian response efforts and
allow relief workers to save lives.
nigeria
The savagery of Boko Haram has triggered a humanitarian crisis in
Nigeria and surrounding countries in the Lake Chad Basin region,
displacing over 2 million people and leaving more than 10 million
individuals in need of humanitarian assistance.
Food assistance and nutrition continue to be the most critical
needs in northeast Nigeria. More than 5.1 million people face severe
food insecurity in northeastern Nigeria, particularly those displaced
in Borno State, where famine already likely occurred in 2016. Though
insecurity limits access and information gathering, there are signs
that a famine may be ongoing in parts of the state that humanitarian
actors are unable to reach. As access improves, humanitarian agencies
are encountering communities with dire levels of hunger and
malnutrition, particularly among children.
This crisis involves numerous other tragedies and protection
issues. We hear reports of families without shelter and on the brink of
starvation, vulnerable women and girls forced to trade sex for food to
keep their families alive, men and boys forcibly recruited into Boko
Haram or killed, and children whose worlds have been shattered after
months of captivity by Boko Haram. We have had reports of girls as
young as eight years old being used as suicide bombers. Yet, the severe
and heartbreaking needs of these vulnerable communities far exceed the
resources available to help them.
Since late 2016, the U.N. and NGOs have scaled up emergency
operations. Agencies, such as WFP and UNICEF, have begun using rapid
response mechanisms to conduct faster needs assessments and deliver
supplies. In January, WFP reached more than 1 million people in
northeast Nigeria with in-kind food assistance or cash-based
transfers--quadrupling their September 2016 caseload. Relief
organizations have also expanded nutrition programs, including
activities that train community volunteers to help screen and refer
malnourished children to health centers.
Despite clear progress, the global emergency response is still not
meeting all of the widespread needs due to the scale of the crisis and
the persistent insecurity that thwarts humanitarian operations. Faced
with threats of ambushes, suicide attacks, gender-based violence and
improvised explosive devices, our partners are bravely putting
themselves in danger to deliver aid to those who need it most. They
must be allowed to continue their important work without fear of
violence. As we scale up our humanitarian response to this crisis, we
must work with the Government of Nigeria and the governments around the
Lake Chad Basin to do more to open up access to the communities that
have been most impacted by the fight against Boko Haram.
horn of africa drought and potential somalia famine
The Horn of Africa is facing increasingly severe drought conditions
that are quickly exceeding many people's ability to cope. The scope of
these conditions are so great that relief agencies estimate that up to
15 million people in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya are facing food and
water shortages.
The U.S. government is most concerned about Somalia, where decades
of conflict have compounded the effects of drought. Six years ago,
nearly 260,000 Somalis died in a famine triggered by the Horn of
Africa's worst drought in 60 years--half of them children under five.
Today, experts are warning that famine is again possible in the
coming months if drought conditions persist, purchasing power continues
to decline, and insecurity prevents relief actors from reaching
populations in need. An estimated 6.2 million people--more than half of
Somalia's total population--currently require urgent humanitarian
assistance.
Against this backdrop, it is important to recognize there are
important differences between the region's 2011 food security crisis
and now. Today, host governments--primarily Ethiopia and Kenya--are
actively coordinating their national response efforts, with
international support now required primarily to finance the scale of
the government-led responses. Families are now more resilient and
better able to cope with the effects of the drought. Humanitarian
actors have greater access to vulnerable communities.
This is thanks in part to the long-term investment the U.S.
government has made in East Africa to help households, communities, and
countries become more resilient to droughts and extreme weather shocks
through programs that expand economic opportunities, strengthen natural
resource and drought cycle management, and improve health and human
capital. A 2012 study by the UK's Department for International
Development (DFID) in Kenya and Ethiopia estimated that, over a 10-year
period with two large droughts, every $1 invested in resilience would
result in $2.90 in economic benefits consisting of reduced humanitarian
spending, avoided asset losses, and increased development benefits.
Nonetheless, multiple consecutive years of severe drought have
overwhelmed many communities' local response capacity and ability to
cope. Most significantly in Somalia, preventing famine now requires an
immediate, rapid scale-up of international assistance.
Our investments are aligned with country-led efforts such as the
Government of Kenya's Ending Drought Emergencies initiative and
Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Programme. We are already seeing
dividends, including in the way these governments are proactively
responding to and managing the current drought.
We are also ramping up support to host governments' drought-relief
efforts by utilizing existing development resources to complement
emergency assistance. In addition to providing immediate food
assistance, malnutrition treatments, and water, sanitation, and hygiene
support, we have modified long-term development activities and injected
additional resources to further mitigate the drought's impacts.
I plan on traveling to the region, including Somalia, in the coming
weeks to better understand the situation so that we are in a stronger
position to respond should the crisis worsen.
yemen
Further, the U.S. is gravely concerned about the risk of famine in
Yemen, where the scale of food insecurity is staggering. More than
seventeen million people--an astounding 60 percent of the country's
population--are food insecure, including seven million people who are
unable to survive without food assistance. This makes Yemen the largest
food security emergency in the world.
The primary driver of this food crisis is the ongoing conflict that
broke out in March 2015. Commercial trade has also been hampered by the
fighting, which is particularly devastating in a country that imports
90 percent of its food and most of its fuel and medicine. The food that
does make it to markets continues to be increasingly expensive, with
some foods doubling in price, as supplies dwindle. For one of the
poorest countries, these price increases dramatically affect people's
ability to buy food and are further exacerbating the food security
situation.
Two years of conflict has disrupted more than Yemen's food supply.
Two million people have been forced to flee from their homes and nearly
70 percent of the country is in need of humanitarian assistance. The
ongoing fighting makes it that much harder for Yemenis to find good
health care, safe drinking water, and adequate nutrition. To reach
people in need, our humanitarian partners are navigating active
conflict, checkpoints and other access constraints, bureaucratic
impediments, and heavily damaged infrastructure. Together, this
increases the risk for malnutrition--particularly for children.
Currently, the U.N. estimates that more than 460,000 children are
severely malnourished.
Despite these obstacles, USAID and our partners are able to reach
millions of people with life-saving aid, and USAID continues to mount a
robust humanitarian response. Last month, USAID partner WFP reached
nearly five million people with emergency food assistance. Our programs
provide food vouchers and nutrition services. Mobile health clinics
bring much-needed emergency medical services in a time when nearly 15
million people lack access to basic health care. We are also providing
hygiene kits safe drinking water, and improved access to sanitation
services to fight malnutrition and stave off disease. For children
especially, the toll of conflict can have lasting effects. Our mobile
protection teams provide treatment to children throughout the country.
There is no doubt that our humanitarian programs are saving lives.
According to the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, without the
large-scale, international humanitarian assistance currently being
provided to partners in country, the food security situation would be
significantly worse across Yemen.
syria
Now entering its seventh year, the Syrian conflict is the largest
and most complex humanitarian emergency of our time, driving record
levels of displaced persons. One in five people displaced globally is
Syrian. The emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)
exacerbated an already protracted crisis in Syria, where the Assad
regime has waged an unrelenting campaign of bloodshed against its own
people for over six years.
Inside Syria alone, more than 80 percent of the population--or 13.5
million people--need humanitarian assistance. According to the U.N.,
roughly seven million people are unable to meet basic food needs, and
one in three children are out of school, risking a lost generation of
talent, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
The United States has been working to help Syrians and the
communities that host them since the crisis began. There are
approximately 4.8 million Syrian refugees in neighboring countries,
placing incredible strain on our Arab, Turkish, and European allies and
partners. The United States has provided nearly $6 billion to date, in
addition to development funding for Syria's neighbors.
At great personal risk, our heroic partners are doing everything
possible to meet the immediate needs of Syrians across borders and
conflict lines--reaching millions of people across all 14 governorates
of Syria.
USAID is working through its partners to provide monthly food
assistance to approximately five million Syrians, including four
million beneficiaries inside Syria and one million refugees in Egypt,
Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey.
In times of crisis, shelter and safe drinking water are critical to
survival. In fiscal year 2016, USAID improved water and sanitation for
more than two million people across Syria. During the winter months, we
provided blankets, plastic sheeting, and other supplies to help
families brave the cold. In the midst of daily barrel bombs, more than
five million patients were treated at nearly 400 U.S.-supported medical
facilities across Syria over the past two years. We're also supporting
protection programs to help prevent gender-based violence, reunify
families, and provide psychosocial support to children who have
witnessed the horrors of war.
Our partners continue to face significant security and access
challenges that make our life-saving operations more dangerous and
complex. One of our longest-standing partners in Syria, the White
Helmets, has lost more than 140 of its volunteers since they began
emergency search and rescue operations across the country. Syria also
remains one of the most dangerous environments for aid workers to do
their jobs. Despite these challenges, we continue to do everything
possible to help Syria's most vulnerable people.
iraq
Bordering Syria, the humanitarian crisis in Iraq is one of the
largest and most volatile in the world, Iraq continues to face
challenges in its fight against ISIS, most recently with the ongoing
Iraqi-led campaign to retake the city of Mosul. As of March 19, more
than 283,000 people had fled the city and surrounding areas, and aid
groups are anticipating even more displacement as the front lines shift
toward more densely populated residential areas.
Iraq is one of the fastest growing displacement crises in the
world, with more than three million people forced from their homes and
11 million in need of assistance--almost one-third of the country's
population. WFP estimates that at least 2.4 million people in Iraq
require food assistance. Civilians are getting caught in the crossfire,
and trauma casualty rates are high, especially in Mosul, where more
than 750 people have been treated for conflict-related injuries within
a two week period.
Working alongside the Government of Iraq, USAID has provided more
than three million internally displaced Iraqis with critical relief
commodities, safe drinking water, improved hygiene, sanitation
interventions, and emergency shelter materials. Our partner WFP reaches
1.4 million Iraqis with food assistance every month. To help people
caught in the violence, USAID is supporting 17 mobile medical clinics,
as well as the first fully equipped surgical trauma hospital near the
Mosul frontlines. We're also supporting psychosocial programs to help
survivors of gender-based violence and families fleeing the brutality
of ISIS.
In addition to responding to urgent humanitarian needs, USAID's
disaster experts have been preparing for future disasters by closely
monitoring the Mosul Dam, which faces a serious and unprecedented risk
of failure with very little warning, putting millions of Iraqi lives at
risk. Since November 2015, USAID has been working with the Iraqi
government on the development and installation of an early warning and
national notification system to help at-risk communities get out of
harm's way. We've also supported trainings and public awareness
campaigns to raise awareness of the risks of a dam breach.
crosscutting & institutional challenges
Throughout the hotspots highlighted, several concerning themes
emerge. Protracted, complex crises are taking up increasing amounts of
resources, causing unprecedented population movements, and presenting
unique challenges, including to U.S. national security.
To address these challenges, we are adapting to increasingly
complex environments, and finding ways to provide assistance ever more
efficiently and safely, in order to save more lives. USAID is
continually seeking ways to make our dollars stretch further, to reach
the most people with the assistance they urgently need. This includes
everything from providing newly displaced families in Syria with
smaller, more portable food packages to using geolocation technology to
track assistance all the way to the beneficiary; from introducing
retinal scans to verify the right assistance is going to the right
person, to making sure our internal operations--including staffing,
oversight and implementation--are the best they can be.
We have also worked with our international partners to identify
strategic opportunities to make global humanitarian assistance more
effective and efficient, including prioritizing needs and reducing
duplication and costs. This will make every dollar the U.S. provides
work even harder and help more people.
USAID also seeks to prevent and mitigate the impact of conflict and
political instability in the recognition that prevention is equally
important in addressing the causes of humanitarian crisis and more
cost-effective in the long run. These efforts include continuing to
improve coordination within the U.S. government, for example, to
implement development programs that work with host governments and
local communities, in partnership with other donors and the private
sector, to build resilience, to support reconciliation, to strengthen
responsive governance, and to support peaceful, democratic transitions
of power.
What we cannot do is provide a humanitarian solution to a political
problem, and we must work in concert with our colleagues at the
Department of State, our partners around the world, and the
international community to continue to press for cessations of
hostilities and enduring political solutions that bring conflicts to an
end. Only then can we move away from the dire human cost of these
conflicts and towards prosperity and stability.
Some donors have begun increasing their contributions to address
the growing humanitarian needs, but much more can and must be brought
to bear. I recently traveled to donor conferences in Oslo and London,
where the United States again urged other countries to step up.
Further, our commitments to humanitarian efforts also enable us to push
for greater transparency and improved efficiencies in the international
system, including in the U.N. Agencies. Having a seat at the table lets
us influence the direction of a response, and hold others accountable
for the efficient use of resources.
USAID estimates that in FY 17 over half of our humanitarian funding
will be allocated towards the six major emergencies alone. And as the
U.S. government's lead in international disaster response, we must also
expect the unexpected, whether from rapid onset natural disasters,
disease outbreaks or greater suffering from expanding wars.
We remain committed to providing humanitarian assistance around the
world as both a moral imperative and as a direct benefit to the well-
being of the United States. As provided in the President's Budget
Blueprint, the FY 18 Budget will allow for significant funding of
humanitarian assistance. We do expect that we would focus resources on
the highest priority areas and continue our efforts to make
humanitarian assistance more efficient and effective, while also asking
the rest of the world to do more.
I thank you for your time, and look forward to answering your
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
We have a constant tension, if you will, between the short-
term emergencies that are so important and affecting so many
people and longer term issues. How do USAID and other donor
nations manage the evolution between short-term emergency
interventions with long-term development needs for communities
displaced for years, like we are seeing right now?
Mr. Gottlieb. As you pointed out, Senator, we never fully
reach the maximum support for all appeals, and that has meant
that we have always made tradeoffs in how we approach different
emergencies.
I do think, over time, what we have managed to do is draw a
much tighter linkage between our emergency programs and our
development programs, and there is no better place to look
right now, I think, than in Kenya and Ethiopia. Both countries
recognized about 5 years ago that they needed to do something
about drought. And so during that particular drought in 2011-
2012, we began to work together to draw those programs together
to make sure that our development programs were located where
we were spending the bulk of our humanitarian assistance.
We have spent billions of dollars in those countries to
address drought. Now we have moved much of our development
program into that area to support those communities so that
they are better equipped to deal with the droughts that will
come. The droughts will come, but we hope not the emergency
side of things.
And I will say, in support of those countries, the Kenyans
themselves have put up almost $1.6 billion of their own funding
toward this. So I think we are beginning to get a grip in those
countries of repeated droughts.
In conflict areas, of course, it is much more difficult
because while we had a development program in Yemen for many
years, we no longer have that program there because of the
conflict and the inability to really stay for the long-term in
communities.
So I think these crises, as they abate, it will be very
important for us to bring the kinds of development programs
that target those communities and understand the problems so
that, should we have another crisis, whether it is drought or
conflict, those communities are better able to cope.
The Chairman. And I guess the governance issues are keeping
us in these other conflict areas from being able to do what you
just said, correct?
Mr. Gottlieb. Yes.
The Chairman. Let me digress for a moment. You know, look,
this appeal that is going out and the lack of response is
disturbing. At the end of the day, the United States will
provide one-third of the food assistance around the world.
I mean, I am proud of us for doing that, and I know we will
continue to do that. At the same time, it is still not meeting
all of the needs. And we look at countries like China and
others who are just doing a pittance--a pittance--as it relates
to these kinds of issues.
We have had discussions like this around NATO. All of us
strongly support NATO, and at the same time, we want our
partners to step up.
We strongly support helping people with famine and disaster
like this. Our heart goes out to these people, knowing they
could be our neighbors, and yet they are perishing by the
thousands, in some cases daily.
What is it we can do to build support from other countries,
other well-developed countries, to support this type of effort
when it is needed?
Mr. Gottlieb. One of the things that we have done over the
years is we have supported the number of donor groups to draw
in other countries to the work. Right now, actually, I am the
chair of the OCHA donor support group, the Coordinating Office
for Humanitarian Assistance in the U.N.
And one of the things that we have done over the last
several years is we have reached out to numerous donors,
whether it is the South Koreans, whether it is the Turks, the
UAE, Qatar. And those groups, when we first started the group
some years ago, were not participants. They are participants
now.
We endeavor to bring more countries in. I will leave next
week and go talk to the Saudis about additional assistance that
they can bring.
We have had assistance from many countries around the
world, but what we are trying to do is to bring that into a
system that is more systematic, that is more coordinated.
And also, you are right that we believe that there are
other donors out there that can do much more to support the
systems that we support.
The Chairman. And just briefly, one of the pet issues for
me is we have each year, it is unfortunate, but the ag
community continues to handle the food program in the manner
they do. We know there is no way, for instance, to get U.S.
agricultural products into places like Syria. It is impossible.
And yet, the ag community, and I have talked to many of the
ag constituents, they do not even know this is taking place and
do not care. It does not help them in any way. It is a small
pittance of what they sell each year.
But the ag community, for some reason, wants to hold onto
this commodities program as it is, and that means that, between
them and the maritime industry, which is a small group of folks
with vessels that are of no use whatsoever to our country, of
no use--they are extorting us. They are extorting us.
So we have the ag community, which is not even aware that
these things are existing. It is actually just taking place
here in Washington. People who are the ag community itself do
not care about this. As a matter of fact, I think they are
embarrassed by this.
Then we have the maritime industry that is extorting us
over shipping these goods in the way they are. We could feed 4
million to 6 million more people each year if that were not the
case. Is that correct?
Mr. Gottlieb. You are correct in this. We appreciate the
flexibility that has been given to us by this committee and
Appropriations. We are now able to do, you know yourself, we
are able to do a combination of food commodities and cash.
There are times when we need commodities because we cannot
even access them out there. And, as you know, we still ship
American commodities. We just did it for Somalia, two large
tranches recently, 37,000 tons. And because of our good use of
early warning, we are able to plan ahead and move those
commodities.
At the same time, our use of cash, vouchers, other things,
has increased greatly with your support, and it has enabled us
to do a lot more. And we think that we could feed another, with
additional flexibility, we could feed another 5 million people
with the budget we have.
The Chairman. Before I turn to the ranking member, we did
some great things last year, thanks to this entire committee,
on a bipartisan basis. But to know that legislation, which does
not cost the American people one penny, could be passed to feed
5 million more people a day, and we are sitting here with 70
million people starving today, to me, is unbelievable.
And I just hope that, somehow, we will overcome the special
interests here in our country that really are not even
representing the entire industries that they supposedly
represent. I hope somehow or another we will overcome that so
that we ourselves can pass simple legislation to allow 5
million more people each year to have food with the same amount
of money.
But anyway, thank you, and I will turn to the ranking
member.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As has been pointed out, this is a manmade problem, so we
need to work on a dual track. We need to work on the root
causes, and that, to me, is a critically important part of the
State Department's function. It is not the subject of today's
hearing, but it is very much involved. If we want to save the
needs for humanitarian assistance, let's deal with the root
causes. And we should be putting more resources into
governance.
And I just do not know how, if the President's budget were
to become real, how America would be responding to that need.
The other area is how you deal with the humanitarian
crisis. And here, U.S. leadership is critically important.
So, Mr. Gottlieb, let me ask you first, the United Kingdom
is hosting the ministerial meeting in May for Somalia, to deal
with the crisis. Now, ministerial meetings are normally
attended by the Foreign Minister or Secretary of State.
Can you tell us what role the United States will play in
the UK ministerial meeting and what commitments we are prepared
to make in regards to Somalia?
Mr. Gottlieb. Senator, it is hard for me to speak for where
the State Department or where the Secretary might be for that
particular meeting. But what I can tell you is, and I think
perhaps what the committee is concerned about is, how we are
responding to what is happening in Somalia.
Senator Cardin. No, I am interested in what is happening
this May in the UK and where the United States is going to be
at that meeting in the UK.
Mr. Gottlieb. Right. And what I can tell you before I talk
a little bit about that is that, just recently, we held another
meeting in the UK, and this was on the operational side for
people like me and others at my level who looked at the
practical side of how we can move our money to Somalia.
So what happened in that meeting was donors sat around the
table and said what they were going to commit up to now. What I
heard at that meeting was donors committing around $500
million. We ourselves, through the end of April, we will have
moved $225 million of our own funding to Somalia for just 2017.
Senator Cardin. Do you believe the UK meeting is important
or not?
Mr. Gottlieb. I think it is important.
Senator Cardin. Are we going to be represented?
Mr. Gottlieb. Yes, we will be, I am sure.
Senator Cardin. Will the Secretary be there or you do not
know that?
Mr. Gottlieb. I cannot speak to who will represent us.
Senator Cardin. Do you know what the goal is of this
meeting? It is coming up.
Mr. Gottlieb. The goal will be, I think, to draw more
donors into responding to the situation in Somalia.
Senator Cardin. Will the U.S. be prepared to be part of
that increased commitment to Somalia?
Mr. Gottlieb. Certainly, that will be a discussion that we
will have up until then. As I said, what we have budgeted so
far for this year, we will have moved by the end of April.
Senator Cardin. I know you are in a tough position on
answering these questions, and I appreciate that, but we have
responsibility in Congress. And we appreciate the UK's
leadership in calling this ministerial meeting for Somalia,
which normally means that we would have the foreign ministers
present, and from what we understand, our foreign minister will
not be present.
Mr. Gottlieb. I cannot speak to that, Senator. I do not
know if he will or will not.
Senator Cardin. Okay. Let me get to the budget for one
moment, as to whether you have adequate resources to deal with
the need.
I do not know whether the President's budget--and I
appreciate what Chairman Corker is saying. I do not believe we
will pass the President's budget. I think Democrats and
Republicans will reject the deep cuts that have been suggested
in the State Department, because we recognize the importance of
our programs.
But I am trying to get how you are going to operate. And
Senator Corker is correct. Last year, with Senator Corker's
leadership and Senator Casey's leadership, and others, we were
able to pass the Global Food Security Act, which deals with the
Feed the Future initiative.
But the President's budget cuts the funding in that
program, I do not know the exact number, but I am told it could
be as high as 36 percent, maybe 28 percent. We know it is a
cut.
And I just want to know, do you have too much resources
there for Feed the Future that you think it is right for us to
reduce our share in the Feed the Future program?
Mr. Gottlieb. I am not currently overseeing Feed the
Future. I was there at the beginning of it. I can say we really
appreciate that the Global Food Security Act was passed.
I do not know where that budget is going to end up. I mean,
what I can say----
Senator Cardin. Do we have too much money in that program?
What is your observation?
Mr. Gottlieb. There was a very substantial sum that was
given to Feed the Future in the beginning. Like with many
programs, we will look at whatever that budget is and we would
adjust to whatever that budget is.
Senator Cardin. You are here before this committee. I am
asking your view on this.
We know also that the administration wants to prioritize
for counterterrorism. We know that many, many, many of the
countries receiving Feed the Future funds would not fall into
that category. So their cut could be even deeper than 36
percent.
I am trying to get your assessment as to whether the U.S.
role here in Feed the Future, which has bipartisan support,
whether the funds need to be increased or not.
Mr. Gottlieb. Senator, it is hard for me to assess from my
perch, where I am, as to what Feed the Future or what the
Bureau for Food Security needs in its budget. It is hard for me
to say what they need or how they can adjust their budgets.
I talk to my colleagues, certainly----
Senator Cardin. So you do not think that is an important
part of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance?
Mr. Gottlieb. I do think the programs are vitally
important. I was there to help set them up. And I do not know.
I am not there now, so it is hard for me to say how they have
adjusted the programs.
I am not saying they are not important. I am just saying it
is hard for me to answer.
Senator Cardin. You are losing at least my--I just have to
say, the chairman is usually very direct. I am going to be
direct.
You play a very important role, and I expect, when you
testify before our committee, you will give us your views. And
I find it somewhat shocking that you cannot answer a simple
question about whether the United States' Feed the Future
program is important. And your role and the resources we are
making available, the number of countries, the type of cuts
that are being suggested, what impact that would have your
role. I find that very disappointing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Okay, if I could, I would say that, because
of concerns that we all have about the budget and our strong
support for things like Feed the Future and PEPFAR and global
efforts like that, we have arranged next week at 11:30, all of
us, to have the opportunity--I hope everyone will come--to meet
with Tillerson.
It is next Thursday, right?
Senator Cardin. It is tomorrow.
The Chairman. Okay, tomorrow.
So to Mr. Gottlieb, I am sure that Senator Cardin and
others will have the opportunity to ask these questions very
directly tomorrow. I have let Secretary Tillerson know there is
a lot of concern about the budget issues. I know he wants to
talk a little bit about his trip to Asia but also concerns
about Russia and that he should be prepared to answer those
questions.
But just for what it is worth to committee members, because
of the known concerns about the President's budget, I asked
that this meeting be set up and to give us all an opportunity
to see where the Secretary of State actually is on these
issues. And I think it will give us a good sense of where we go
from there.
So I just want to make people aware that have not seen
their emails that that is occurring tomorrow. We are going to
have an opportunity to be very direct and ask questions that we
care about.
Senator Cardin. And I appreciate that. And, obviously, the
Secretary of State is the critically important person in
regards to the State Department, and I am looking forward to
that.
I would just hope that when we have witnesses that come
before our committee, that they are prepared to testify as to
their views and are not as restricted as I just heard this
reply.
The Chairman. And if I could, I know we all know this. Feed
the Future is more of an economic development program than it
is an issue relative to the thing today, but still important,
and I appreciate your emphasizing that issue.
Todd Young?
Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member.
I want to thank you for your service, Mr. Gottlieb. I
believe in the mission of USAID, and I want to continue to be a
fulsome supporter of that mission. But for me to advocate on
behalf of USAID, I need to ensure that you are the best
possible steward of resources so that I can explain that
support to my constituents.
The general accountability office lists 53 recommendations
and 12 priority recommendations that have not yet been
implemented or fully implemented by USAID, and some of these
open recommendations go back to the year 2013.
Mr. Gottlieb, do you agree that it is important that this
committee have full visibility on the status of these open
recommendations? Yes or no, hopefully.
Mr. Gottlieb. Yes.
Senator Young. Okay. Well, I agree. That is why I, along
with Senators Menendez, Coons, Rubio, introduced legislation,
S. 418, the Department of State and United States Agency for
International Development Accountability Act of 2017.
Do you commit to providing to my office and this committee
without delay a detailed, written, unclassified update
regarding the status of all open USAID recommendations from
GAO?
Mr. Gottlieb. Yes.
Senator Young. Okay, thank you. And for any recommendation
USAID has decided to adopt, please provide a timeline. Is that
okay?
Mr. Gottlieb. Yes.
Senator Young. Okay. And for any recommendation USAID
decides not to adopt, could you provide a full justification
for that in great detail?
Mr. Gottlieb. We will.
Senator Young. All right. Thank you.
I would like to turn to the issue of resilience. I gather
it has already been invoked some here today.
In her prepared statement, Ms. Lindborg, who we will hear
from on the next panel, cited Amartya Sen's book, Development
as Freedom, and the assertion that no famine has ever taken
place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy
because democratic governments ``have to win elections and face
public criticism, and have strong incentive to undertake
measures to avert famines and other catastrophes.''
We have discussed, again, the principle of resilience.
Mr. Gottlieb, if Sen's assertion is correct, is not the
ultimate resilience measure a functioning democracy?
Mr. Gottlieb. Certainly, Sen's book is a remarkable book,
and he has done a fantastic job of pointing out the importance
of having stable government. I think the programs--the crises
we look at now are mostly manmade.
We do have, I think, when we look at Ethiopia and Kenya, we
still have crises. We do not have famine yet, which is good
because there is more stability there. So it sort of gives
proof, I think, to some of Sen's work, that, with stability,
you can avoid famine.
I think for us, right now, we would wish that there would
be better governance in the places in which we are working. But
unfortunately, we do not have that.
Senator Young. Well, as one of your core tasks, USAID lists
promoting democracy, and you cited a couple examples around the
world where, to varying degrees, we have seen some success.
How do you measure success with respect to advancing that
aim of promoting democracy?
Mr. Gottlieb. Oftentimes, we would measure it through the
transparency, transparency lens, how honest and forthright is
government in indicating to its population what it does;
transparency in the way it budgets; transparency in the way
that its armed forces or police treat people; in the way that,
like in our case, transparency in how they spend their money.
And I think a lot of those things--and how they conduct their
elections is another area of transparency.
So when I look at our democracy programs, often, many of
those programs are targeted exactly at those things.
Senator Young. That makes some sense. Transparency leads to
trust. Trust is an essential mortar of social and political
capital that can lead to stable democratic governance.
If you have any addendum to that answer, I would certainly
welcome it.
Lastly, in the little bit of remaining time here, I just
want to note the importance of private sector development.
Eight-four percent of all donors' total economic engagement
with the developing world is through private financial flows.
Now, it is essential that we maintain our international
affairs budget, from this Senator's standpoint. But we need to
understand and facilitate legitimate private sector
development. This too is one of the core tasks of USAID,
fostering private sector development.
Perhaps you could very briefly speak to how you measure
USAID's success in this area? And if there are particular
statutory, regulatory, or other obstacles that exist to
legitimate private sector development, I would certainly
welcome those.
Mr. Gottlieb. What I can say is I think one of the things
we have done in USAID, particularly over the last several
years, is to reach out strongly to the private sector.
I will go back to, actually, Feed the Future, the Bureau
for Food Security. One of the things that we did in that bureau
was we set up a whole section just to deal with the private
sector. We realized that to develop agriculture, we needed to
link strongly with the private sector. So over the last several
years, several very I think important partnerships have been
developed to have private business come into agriculture.
But there are also other things. Like, for instance, I
spent the last couple years in Pakistan. We had a number of
programs where we used OPIC and we used the private sector to
foster energy programs. We do it all over Africa now.
I think USAID as an agency is extremely aware of the
importance of finding partnerships, because, as you point out,
50 years ago, the amount of money that flowed from official
sources was 80 percent. Now it is completely the opposite.
Senator Young. Out of respect for the chairman, I am going
to pass this back to him. If there are any barriers to
advancing that core task, kindly submit those to me.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gottlieb, thank you for being here this morning and for
your many years of service to USAID. I have to say I share the
concerns that are being raised about the budget outline that we
have seen from the administration, what the impact on our aid
programs would be, especially at a time when we know there is
so much humanitarian need in the world, especially in the four
countries we are talking about today.
And I appreciate very much the chair's and ranking member's
comments about the bipartisan support that has existed on this
committee for humanitarian efforts, and that we expect that the
budget, as it has been presented, is probably not the budget
that will go through Congress. I share those sentiments.
I do believe, as David Miliband said last week, that
American leadership in the world on these efforts is absolutely
critical, if we are going to get other countries to ante up
what they need to do in order to contribute.
I would also like to point out that one of the challenges
that is contributing to what we are seeing in so much of sub-
Saharan Africa is climate change, that the droughts that are
being affected are being affected because of our changing
climate. And for us to ignore the scientific information that
is available and suggest that we should not participate in
addressing that with the rest of the world I think is just
naive and very shortsighted.
So let me ask you, because I appreciate that you do not
want to respond on the budget issues, but let me ask about what
is happening with women's health, because you referred to that,
the challenges that women are facing in these humanitarian
crises.
And we know that pregnancy-related deaths and instances of
sexual violence soar in times of upheaval, that in 2015, the
U.N. estimated that 61 percent of maternal deaths took place in
humanitarian crises and fragile settings were health services
were not available to women.
In South Sudan, for example, a woman's risk of dying from
pregnancy-related causes is about one in eight compared to the
United States where it is one in 3,500.
So what is USAID doing to ensure that the needs of women in
these crises are being met?
Mr. Gottlieb. Thank you, Senator.
Just 2 weeks ago, I was in Maiduguri, Northern Nigeria, and
I visited a maternity ward in one of the camps in that city. I
was incredibly impressed. I mean, it was a very simple
facility, but I was incredibly impressed by the effort that the
women made, the nurses and attendants.
They recognize the challenges for those women. Many of
those women probably have a better ward there in that camp than
they would have out in their village.
Nevertheless, in all, whether it is in Maiduguri or whether
it is in South Sudan or wherever we are, women's health is one
of the primary things we look at. We understand what is
happening with women in these conflicts. The incidents of rape,
I certainly got that in very graphic detail when I was in
Maiduguri. And that has become an important element, not just
what we do on the health side but what we do in trying to deal
with the effects of that gender-based violence.
You know, I have seen the clinics where women can get
counseling, where there is special medical attention paid to
the problems they have had, and we have seen those problems
over the years. Many years ago, when I worked in eastern Congo,
it was the same, issues of fistula and that kind of thing.
So we have become, I think, acutely aware of it and made it
a major part of what we fund in every humanitarian program.
Senator Shaheen. So are we working with the U.N. Population
Fund and the World Food Program and other U.N. Agencies and
NGOs who are working to address these issues?
Mr. Gottlieb. Yes. We work with UNFPA. We work with the
World Food Program. We work with UNICEF, in particular, and a
host of NGOs. You heard from David Miliband. In fact, the
clinic in Maiduguri was by IRC. So a host of groups, yes.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. And can you talk about, if
there are budget cuts, whether some of these programs that are
particularly targeted to women and girls would be more
adversely affected?
Mr. Gottlieb. It is hard to say how they would be affected.
For us, this is a core part of what we do. As I mentioned
earlier, we have to look at priorities. And feeding people and
bringing people health and water, sanitation, has been the core
of our programs.
So my own sense is that we would continue to prioritize the
health of women and girls in conflict.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate your testimony. Can you elaborate a little
bit on the Food for Peace program, whether that is in the
target sites of the administration? And if so, what your
concerns might be or how that might impact the ability to
assist folks in distress around the world?
Mr. Gottlieb. Thank you, Senator.
What I have seen in what is termed the skinny budget, the
language is that humanitarian assistance would be largely
maintained. So from that language, I am hopeful that we will
maintain the robust humanitarian assistance that the United
States has provided over the last many years, and that will
allow us to remain in a leadership position, so that gives me
hope.
Senator Merkley. Okay. And there have been various
conversations about how to make that aid more effective, give
it more flexibility, one of which has been a proposal some
years back to spend up to a certain percent of the funds either
locally or on food vouchers or on cash transfers that would not
necessarily follow the well-established model of buying
American food and shipping it overseas.
Is this something that you would advocate for, more
flexibility in this program?
Mr. Gottlieb. We have appreciated the flexibility we have
gotten in recent years to be able to use cash to reach people.
It has allowed us to buy locally, and it has allowed us to
develop, as you mentioned, these voucher programs where we can
move money electronically to people. We can put it on a debit
card. We can make it a lot easier for people to obtain food.
And by buying locally, we are able to save considerable
money. I will say this, that there are times when having the
ability to buy food from the United States and ship it is
advantageous because sometimes local prices are so high that we
can do better by buying here and shipping it, actually.
Senator Merkley. How much flexibility have you had in
recent years? What percent of Food for Peace has been in the
form of more flexible onsite vouchers, cash transfers, or
purchases?
Mr. Gottlieb. I think it is around 50/50 right now.
Senator Merkley. Really?
Mr. Gottlieb. Yes.
Senator Merkley. Okay. That surprises me. I did not think
it was that high.
One of the other issues has been the issue of monetization,
and there is a bit of a dilemma here. When food is distributed
for free, it can undermine the success of local farmers whose
prices then plummet. On the other hand, when it is sold, if it
is sold, it can be inaccessible to the poorest who need the
help the most.
What are your insights on that challenge?
Mr. Gottlieb. I think, first, when we ship food into a
country, one of the analyses we have to do is, what is the
economic impact of bringing that food in? And so I think we are
very cautious about trying not to disrupt local markets.
Usually, we are bringing food in because there are inadequate
amounts of food on the market, so we feel like we are not
impacting prices.
In terms of the monetization, part of that is to sell the
food into the market to raise funds so that the implementing
partners can then do a project that may or may not be a food
security project. It could be a health project. It could be any
other kind of project.
But usually, if we are going to do that, we also have to do
the market analysis to make sure that we are not disrupting
those local markets.
Senator Merkley. And to make sure that food gets to those
who may have no money to be able to purchase food.
Some organizations have sworn off doing monetization. What
is their thinking? And what is the opposing argument?
Mr. Gottlieb. I think the opposing argument is that we can
use monetization to raise funds to do other kinds of
development programming that may complement, may help those who
are food insecure.
Senator Merkley. Under the existing program, is this
completely at the discretion of the implementing organization?
Mr. Gottlieb. Do you mean in terms of the project they do?
Senator Merkley. Yes, in terms of monetization?
Mr. Gottlieb. It would be a discussion with our missions in
the field and with our folks back here at Food for Peace.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I share Senator Shaheen's respect for your service, and I
appreciate you coming up. I know you have received somewhat of
a hard time for not answering questions. I will say that you
might go back to the State Department--and we welcome
nominations at any time and would be glad to process them and
maybe you are up for one of these posts. That would be great.
But we do thank you for filling in as acting person in this
time of tremendous need around the world. I think it is hard
for most Americans to get a grip on the fact that 70 million
people today are starving. We have a great country, and we have
been generous, and we help lead the world in those efforts, and
I think you know that we want to continue to do so.
I know the President's budget has been certainly discussed
today. I will say that in the decade that I have been here, I
have never seen a President's budget become law, and we all
have a lot of work to do over the course of the next several
months to make sure that we maintain our leadership.
But at the same time, even with all that we do and the
great citizens of our country do to help others, the need is
still not being met. I hope, to a degree, this hearing will
raise that issue, and I hope that other countries will join us.
And, again, the conflicts, what is unusual about what is
happening right now is the fact that it is being generated in
these four areas because of conflict. That is a very unusual
situation, a very unstable world, and brings even greater
importance to the bipartisanship that we have on this committee
in helping to resolve those.
So thank you so much for coming, and we will move to the
next panel.
Mr. Gottlieb. Thank you.
The Chairman. Our first witness today on the second panel
is the Honorable Nancy Lindborg, who we all know well. She is
president of the United States Institute of Peace. Ms. Lindborg
previously managed the Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, and
Humanitarian Assistance from 2010 through 2015. Prior to that,
she was president of Mercy Corps for 14 years.
We thank you and appreciate your very distinguished career.
Thank you so much.
Our second witness is Mr. Yves Daccord. Did I pronounce
that right, sir?
Mr. Daccord. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
He is director general of the International Committee of
the Red Cross.
Thank you for what you and your organization do.
Mr. Daccord is a former journalist who joined the ICRC in
1992, working in such places as Sudan, Yemen, and Georgia,
eventually moving up the ranks of leadership until finally
becoming the director general in 2010.
Thank you for your leadership, both of you, and for your
testimony. I think you both know you can summarize in about 5
minutes, and all of our panelists look forward to questioning.
Thank you so much.
Nancy, if you would begin?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. NANCY LINDBORG, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES
INSTITUTE OF PEACE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Lindborg. Thank you, Chairman Corker, Ranking Member
Cardin, and members of the committee. I really appreciate the
opportunity to be here with you today. And your focus and
attention to these issues is more important than ever.
We have heard from your summations and Greg Gottlieb the
depth of the issue. You have my full testimony, so let me use
my time to summarize a few key points and recommendations. As
we have covered, we have an urgent and very grave humanitarian
threat with the potential of four concurrent famines and the
prospect of 20 million people, disproportionately children,
starving to death in the next 6 months. That is as if the
entire State of Florida, all the people in Florida, were at
risk of starvation. That is the urgent threat.
These four crises also represent a political and a security
threat. Each crisis has a regional cascading effect disrupting
markets and economies of the countries around them. Millions of
refugees are seeking safety and assistance across borders. They
are straining infrastructures. They are disrupting markets and
politically destabilizing the regions because of the numbers.
And they join a historic number of 65 million refugees that are
already straining the global humanitarian system and
politically destabilizing our EU allies.
And just to give you a sense of scale, the 1.4 million
people who have been displaced just from Nigeria's Borno State
are only about 40 percent of those that have reached Europe by
boat in 2015.
As we have discussed, famines are manmade. There are
certainly natural disasters that intertwine with existing
situations, but these are fundamentally manmade crises. And
each of the four nations currently facing famine--Nigeria,
Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen--have distinct and complex
issues, but they share important attributes.
Each Nation is characterized by weak governance at the
national and local levels, ineffective institutions, high
levels of corruption, periods of prolonged and intense armed
conflict, a breakdown of domestic political order, and vast
humanitarian needs with assistance often blocked either because
of lack of infrastructure or government obstacles, which is to
say that all these countries are mired in fragility. They lack
the institutional capacity and the political legitimacy to
withstand the shocks of conflict and natural disaster.
So what should we do? First and foremost, by the time
famine is declared, it is already too late for many. Many of
the deaths happen far before the famine declaration. We have
already had the declaration, a famine in South Sudan. Three
more are on the horizon.
We have to, urgently and quickly, lean in to this response
now. U.S. Government and international donors need to respond
quickly to the urgent needs to provide lifesaving assistance,
and U.S. leadership is essential to catalyze other donors to
give.
Our contributions will meet basic needs. We will also
ensure others contribute, and responding to this extraordinary
level of suffering is a reflection of who we are as Americans
and will make the difference between life and death for
millions.
Secondly, as you discussed with Greg Gottlieb, we need to
build on the important progress that has already been made to
make our aid smarter, more effective, and more efficient. There
has been significant headway in building resilience, as we have
seen in places like Kenya and Ethiopia, resilience to recurring
climatic and natural disaster shocks. We need to sustain that
effort with greater support for local actors, early action to
early warning by bridging the gap between relief and
development action, and looking at more innovative financing
options.
We have made great progress. We need to continue it.
Ultimately, we will not be able to address these four
famines or the other humanitarian crises with humanitarian
responses alone. A decade ago, 80 percent of our humanitarian
assistance, global assistance, went to victims of natural
disasters. A decade later, that percentage has flipped, and 80
percent of global humanitarian assistance goes to victims of
violent conflict.
We need to use all of our tools--humanitarian assistance,
development assistance, diplomacy, and security--in a very
strategic, selective, systemic, and sustained way to address
the drivers of these grave humanitarian crises. Countries like
Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia, and the northeast region of
Nigeria have all been trapped in multiple cycles of conflict.
So without addressing these deeper drivers, we can be assured
that there will be additional needs of humanitarian assistance
in the future.
Let me conclude by noting that yesterday, at the U.S.
Institute of Peace, we hosted a conversation with Martti
Ahtisaari, one of the great mediators and negotiators of his
generation. He recounted his experiences of helping to resolve
some of the protracted, complicated crises of his time, Angola,
Namibia, Aceh. And he reminded us of two things: first, that
these seemingly intractable conflicts are solvable; and,
secondly, that he could not have accomplished anything without
U.S. support.
These are generational issues, but they are not insolvable.
They have been resolved, and they can be in the future,
including the four crises before us today.
And as we like to say at the U.S. Institute of Peace, peace
is possible.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lindborg follows:]
The Prepared Statement of Nancy Lindborg
introduction
Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on
the looming threat of four concurrent famines. Your continued attention
and concern for these crises is more important than ever.
I testify before you today as the president of the United States
Institute of Peace (USIP), although the views expressed here are my
own. USIP was established by Congress more than 30 years ago as a
bipartisan, national institute dedicated to the proposition that peace
is possible, practical and essential to our national and global
security. USIP works directly in conflict affected countries to provide
partners with the practical tools, analysis, training and resources
they need to prevent, manage and resolve violent conflict. We know
there will always be conflict, and when it is managed well, conflict
can actually be transformative. Only when it becomes violent does
conflict become destructive, tearing apart communities and countries,
creating regional and international security threats, and as we are
talking about today, pushing millions of people into famine.
implications of famine
The international community is faced today with the gut wrenching
specter of four concurrent famines. An estimated 20 million people are
already at risk of starving to death within the next six months in
north-eastern Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen and South Sudan, where famine was
declared just over a month ago. This is equivalent to the entire state
of Florida at risk of starvation. According to U.N. authorities, $4.4
billion in international humanitarian assistance is needed by July ``to
avert a catastrophe.''
It is important to underscore that as used today, ``famine'' is a
highly technical designation based on specific metrics. It is not used
lightly. In order for the United Nations to officially declare a
famine, three important conditions must be met. Twenty percent of the
population must have fewer than 2100 kilocalories of food available per
day; more than thirty percent of children must be acutely malnourished;
and two deaths per day in every 10,000 people or four deaths per day in
every 10,000 children must be being caused by lack of food.
By the time these metrics are met, death is already pervasive.
According to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), nearly
half of starvation deaths during the 2011-2012 Somali famine occurred
before famine was declared. Children under five years old made up the
largest percentage of causalities, accounting for more than 29,000
deaths. For those children who survive, chances are very high that they
have experienced severe malnutrition and will suffer irreversible harm
to their cognitive and physical capabilities.
By the time the international community declares a famine, it is
essentially issuing a declaration that a humanitarian disaster has
already occurred.
Famine is rarely if ever caused by food shortages. In the 1980s,
economist Amartya Sen challenged long held assumptions in Democracy as
Freedom with the assertion that, ``No famine has ever taken place in
the history of the world in a functioning democracy,'' arguing that
democratic governments ``have to win elections and face public
criticism, and have strong incentive to undertake measures to avert
famines and other catastrophes.''
Instead, famine occurs in fragile states that are vulnerable to
natural disasters and highly prone to violent conflict. An estimated
1.2 billion people currently live in countries affected by violent
conflict, poverty and increasingly violent extremism. Starvation has
been used as a weapon of war in conflicts across time. Instances of
armed groups seizing or killing livestock, destroying food stocks,
dismantling markets and employing siege tactics span history, including
in each of these four countries.
Twenty years ago, one of my great mentors, Ells Culver, described
to me the horror of watching women and children literally crawl across
the border from Ethiopia into Kenya to reach assistance during the
Ethiopian famine of 1984, vowing he would dedicate his life to
preventing that from happening again.
In 2011, when the worst drought in 60 years brought devastation
once again to the Horn of Africa, it was only Somalia--a dysfunctional
government locked in a protracted armed conflict with the terrorist
group Al Shabaab, which controlled large swaths of territory and denied
humanitarian access--that tipped into famine. I remember with terrible
clarity the Saturday in July 2011, when I got a call from a colleague
telling me that famine was being declared in Somalia. It was a gut
wrenching moment, and I thought a lot about Ells.
I have worked in the humanitarian field for more than 20 years, and
each passing year confirms for me the imperative of getting ahead of
these crises and focusing on how to prevent, mitigate and resolve
violent conflict, which is the distinct congressionally mandated
mission of the U.S. Institute of Peace. Even as we respond with
immediate help, we must urgently address the causes of these famines.
famine and conflict
The four nations currently facing famine, Nigeria, Somalia, South
Sudan and Yemen, are each distinct and complex in their own way, but
they share important attributes. Each nation is characterized by:
Weak governance at the national levels and/or local
levels;
Ineffective institutions;
High levels of corruption;
Periods of prolonged and intense armed conflict;
Failing economies;
A break down in domestic political order; and
Difficult or blocked humanitarian access.
This is to say that all four countries are mired in states of
fragility.
Last year, I partnered with former Deputy Secretary of State Bill
Burns, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and
former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy at the Defense Department
Michele Flournoy, CEO of the Center for a New American Security, to
conduct an independent, non-partisan Senior Study Group on Fragility.
Building on two decades of scholarship, the Fragility Study Group
report characterized fragility as the absence or breakdown of a social
contract between people and their government. Fragile states suffer
from deficits of institutional capacity and political legitimacy that
increase the risk of instability and violent conflict and sap the state
of its resilience to disruptive shocks. Fragile states are highly
correlated with violent conflict, violent extremism, extreme poverty
and vulnerability to natural disasters, and the predations of other
powers.
Somalia (1), South Sudan (2), Yemen (4) and Nigeria (13) are ranked
among the most fragile states in the world according to the Fund for
Peace 2016 Fragile States Index.
Meanwhile, the most recent Global Terrorism Index and Global Peace
Index places these four countries among the most terror-affected and
least peaceful nations on earth. Each of these nations are contending
with competing tribal, religious or clan-based identity politics while
being wracked by violent conflict and terror.
nigeria
Despite the early optimism around the election of President Buhari
and his renewed focus on defeating Boko Haram, this terrorist group
continues to leverage the region's historic marginalization, chronic
poverty and poor education system to gain new recruits from Adamawa,
Borno and Yobe states in Northern Nigeria--the states at the center of
Nigeria's looming famine. More than 2 million people have been
displaced since 2012 by Boko Haram, leaving behind fallow land and
fields devoid of cattle, closed markets and escalating food prices.
With villages empty and fertile ground untended, Boko Haram has taken
to stealing what few cattle and food remains. More than 5 million
people are now in crisis, most of them children. The crisis is now
becoming a regional crisis, with emergencies declared in Chad, Niger
and Cameroon as well.
Humanitarian access, previously very difficult due to insecurity
and government hurdles, is now dramatically scaled up, although with
significant funding constraints.
somalia
Despite heartening gains over the last five years, with recent
peaceful elections delivering a new president, Somalia is once again
suffering another round of destructive droughts. At the same time, Al
Shabaab is again expanding its influence, undercutting fragile
political progress. An estimated 363,000 children are currently
malnourished and over 6 million people are in need of humanitarian
assistance, the highest numbers since the 2011 famine. However,
international assistance to the region faces many of the same
challenges presented five years ago. There is significant concern that
Al Shabaab could act as spoilers in any humanitarian intervention,
potentially diverting aid or denying agencies access to effected
populations.
yemen
Over the past 24 months, the insurgency in Yemen has escalated into
a full-scale civil war, with Houthi and loyalist forces clashing while
terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIL feed on the conflict and
sectarianism. The war and insurgency, which has killed 16,200 people
since 2015, has pushed the Arabian Peninsula's poorest country to the
brink of famine. I visited Yemen in 2012, when I first learned of the
startling levels of nationwide stunting, and even then, an estimated
44% of the population was in need of humanitarian assistance. Now, two
years into a nationwide conflict, the World Food Program estimates that
80% of the population is in urgent need of humanitarian assistance,
while 14 million are estimated to be food insecure due to the conflict.
Humanitarian access is constrained by poor security and a dismal level
of funding, with only 7.4% requested funding raised to date.
south sudan
Using the metrics described above, the South Sudan Integrated Food
Security Phase Classification (IPC) on February 20 declared a famine in
two counties of Unity State, Leer and Mayendit. Insufficient data is
limiting the ability to apply that declaration in other areas, but all
indications are of famine or near famine conditions in a larger swath
of the country. Some 4.8 million people--nearly one person in every
three in South Sudan--are severely food insecure, and one in every five
people in South Sudan have been forced to flee their homes since the
civil war began three years ago. More than 440,000 South Sudanese have
fled to Uganda, turning one grassland area into one of the world's
largest refugee camps in just six months.
While South Sudan is not engaged in conflict with terrorist
organizations, it is deeply divided and perilously close to descending
into a second genocide. Despite an August 2015 peace agreement,
violence has spread for the past eight months while the humanitarian
situation has continued to deteriorate. The government has consistently
blocked access to humanitarian assistance, including a recent decision
to charge aid workers $10,000 for a visa. Continued fighting,
government hurdles and lack of infrastructure mean that food is being
airlifted into remote areas as the only means of reaching those in dire
need.
All four of these famine-affected countries are suffering massive
displacement. Yemen (3.1 million displaced); Nigeria (1.8 million
displaced); South Sudan (1.7 million displaced); and Somalia (1.2
million displaced) are all struggling to manage huge flows of people,
many of whom are extremely malnourished. To give a sense of scale, the
1.4 million people that have been displaced in Nigeria's Borno state
alone is roughly 40 percent more than reached Europe by boat in 2015.
Famine also has a negative cascading impact on neighboring
countries, as this type of large-scale displacement generates security
problems, places strains on infrastructure, weakens economies,
increases criminality and exacerbates tensions between refugees, locals
and government officials.
resilience
In the wake of the devastating 1984 Ethiopian famine, USAID pushed
for more effective ways of responding to humanitarian crises, including
the development of the Famine Early Warning System (Fewsnet), which was
created by USAID with the leadership of Greg Gottlieb who testified
here earlier. Fewsnet is still a powerful tool today, using an array of
data to provide early warnings of impending food crises. However, other
efforts were unfortunately not sustained.
The successive droughts of 2011-12 in the Horn of Africa and the
Sahel triggered a renewed push to find more effective ways to address
recurring cyclical droughts that continually undercut development
progress in these areas. The U.S. government provided global leadership
with a vigorous commitment to early action in response to early
warning, developing new policies and tools for generating greater
resilience in the face of recurrent risks, and partnering with
international, regional and country level government to align efforts
for managing and reducing risks. USAID adopted a new agency-wide policy
and organized a new resilience office to span relief and development
efforts for greater sustained impact.
Progress has been heartening, with evidence in Kenya and Ethiopia
that investments by both the national governments and international
donors in building resilience to the shock of droughts is protecting
millions of people from falling into greater crisis during the current
drought that is again gripping the region.
However, in the last decade, humanitarian assistance flows have
shifted from 80% of global aid going to victims of natural disasters to
now 80% going to assist victims of violent conflict. In the last three
years, U.N. humanitarian appeals have risen from $16.2 billion in 2012
to the current U.N. Global Appeal of $22.6 billion, driven almost
entirely by a toxic brew of violent conflict, disease and drought--
including now the four impending famines. The urgent challenge now is
to address those drivers of violent conflict that are fueling a
worldwide humanitarian crisis.
recommendations
These four pending famines present an extraordinary humanitarian
challenge, as well a rising set of regional and international security
threats. Addressing these crises will require urgent and sustained U.S.
global leadership to mobilize partners and action.
Urgent humanitarian action: The U.N.'s Office for the Coordination
of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is appealing for $5.6 billion in 2017 to
address famines in Yemen, South Sudan, Nigeria and Somalia, $4.4
billion of which is required urgently by June to massively scale up
efforts and avert an even graver crisis in the four countries. The U.S.
government is the leading contributor of humanitarian assistance,
although as a percentage of gross national income (GNI), the U.S. ranks
19th. Without significant contributions from the U.S. government, it is
less able to catalyze contributions from other donors and meet even
minimal life-saving needs for life-saving food, medical assistance and
shelter immediately. Our urgent action is a deep reflection of who we
are as Americans, and action now can make the difference between life
and death for millions of children, women and men.
Continued investment in resilience: U.S. government leadership and
support is also vital for ensuring sustained progress in more effective
and efficient humanitarian delivery. A range of changes are already
underway to enable smarter assistance, including more flexible funding
that enables greater support for local actors, greater ability to
tailor response to needs on the ground and bridging the gap between
relief and development for more sustained results, including a focus on
managing the risks that otherwise upend U.S. development investments.
More innovative financing is critical, such as insurance for areas
chronically hit by natural disaster.
Many of these approaches were highlighted at the World Humanitarian
Summit in May 2016, along with the commitment to broaden the pool of
donors.
Increased focus on addressing drivers of violent conflict:
Ultimately, the U.S. will not be able to address these four famines or
other humanitarian crises with humanitarian responses alone.
As noted in the Fragility Study Group report, the U.S. needs to use
all its tools--development, diplomacy and security--in a strategic,
selective, systemic and sustained effort to address the fragility that
repeatedly results in grave humanitarian and security crises. Countries
like Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia and the northwest region of Nigeria
have all been trapped in multiple cycles of conflict. Without
addressing the deeper drivers of these conflicts, the U.S. can be
assured of continued cycles of humanitarian need. Instead, we need to
get ahead of these crises instead of relying on late and more costly--
both in financial and human terms--responses.
Decades of research has resulted in well-established lessons that
peaceful, sustained progress requires security and justice for all
citizens; legitimate governments characterized by inclusive politics
and accountable institutions; locally-led solutions; inclusive economic
growth; and sustained engagement by the international community.
Countries lacking those elements are more likely to plunge into crisis,
as illustrated by the four countries we are discussing today.
Without question, progress requires local partners--whether at the
local or national level--for meaningful progress. There is no simple
prescription, but the U.S. government can articulate a way forward and
play a leadership role in shaping a response that can saves lives and
ultimately get ahead of these crises.
Thank you, Senators, for your continued focus and attention to this
critical issue. I look forward to answering your questions.
The views expressed in this testimony are those of the author and
not the U.S. Institute of Peace.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Go ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF YVES DACCORD, DIRECTOR-GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL
COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
Mr. Daccord. Thank you very much, Chairman Corker, Ranking
Member Cardin, and all distinguished members of this committee.
I am very happy that you are holding a hearing on this very
specific issue. I would like to share four points with you, and
these four points are informed and I would say tainted by the
experience of my own organization, the International Committee
of the Red Cross.
As you know, we are focusing on extreme vulnerability in
times of war. This is where we work. We work in the four
countries we mentioned. We also work in Ukraine, in
Afghanistan, in Syria. And when we work, it does not mean we
are working in Damascus. We are working in the homes. We are
really closely related to the people, in order to understand
their needs and what is happening.
We also discuss and engage with every single party to the
conflict, which means, of course, government but also non-state
armed groups, as we call it now.
And it is important because there will be some connections
in what I would like to say.
The first point, quickly, is about the label we want to
give to this crisis. As an organization, we do not like so much
to compare crises. Is this crisis worse than before? Is Syria
suffering worse than South Sudan? It is always complicated.
But we do recognize, though, that what we are facing right
now in terms of humanitarian crises in these four countries
plus Ethiopia and Kenya is possibly becoming one of the most
serious humanitarian crises that we are facing in recent
history, and it is for three reasons. One, the nature of the
crisis, as Nancy mentioned, armed conflict together with, in
fact, famine, which makes it so complex. B is, in fact, the
scale of it. We are talking about 20 million directly affected
plus, as you mentioned, several other millions being possibly
affected. And the third element is the impact. You have an
impact right now in these four countries, talking about Yemen,
South Sudan, Northeast Nigeria, and Somalia. But you do have an
impact also in the region. If you just look at Northeast
Nigeria, Gabon, Chad, Burkina Faso are already affected
directly. If you look at Yemen, you can see immediately all the
region is affected.
And it is a crisis that can affect all of us. If you look
at the impact over time in terms of life, funds, but also
migration.
So, yes, it is absolutely important that we focus on this
crisis. That is key.
Point two, timing. So I think there is an issue about
timing. I am of the opinion, we are of the opinion, that we can
make a difference over the next coming weeks, and I want to
insist on that one. Specifically, in two countries, Yemen and
Somalia, where, if we mobilize ourselves, we can prevent the
famine in these two countries. On the rest, it is also long-
term aid that needs to happen, but there is a timing issue.
Time is short. We need to be able to focus.
My third point is about some of the specific elements of
the crisis. One, the population and communities in these four
countries are somewhat not in a position anymore to absorb
shock. This is why the crisis is so complex, because there is a
war going on, conflict. People are displaced. They do not have
all the choices.
South Sudan is 3 million people displaced in 3 years, out
of 11 million. If you look at Yemen, it is 70 percent of people
needing aid, just to give you a sense. If you look at Somalia,
60 percent of the people depend on livestock. Livestock is
gone, almost.
So there is a very fragile environment which is very
complex, which means that communities are not able to absorb
shock.
But the problem is the systems, when they exist, are also
under pressure--the health system, the water sanitation. If you
think about Yemen, 160 hospital health structures attacked last
year. This just gives you a bit of a sense.
So we have a situation where resilience is extremely low.
That is why it is so complex. At the same time, you do have, in
this full context, local and national authorities and
governments not in a position to provide basic services to the
population. They do not. Sometimes because they cannot. They do
not have the means, the infrastructure. But most the time, it
is because they are themselves party to the conflict, which
makes things extremely complicated.
And my fourth and last comment, Mr. Chairman, is the fact
that we need to have a complex response to these complex
issues. One, we need to massively scale up the humanitarian
response, very clearly. But doing that, we need to also be
pragmatic on who can do what.
And here the question is, who has access to which
communities? Who is able to perform now? Who is able to perform
in 6 months' time? There are differences. We need to be able to
focus on that one. We need to make sure we do not now just do
massive scale-up everywhere. We need to scale up where there
are issues, and we need to impact that in every country.
And here the focus is really on displaced people, on
communities hard to reach in places that are not always
controlled by governments. That is where it is important, so
the access is central.
Point two, and Nancy mentioned it, I cannot imagine it is
just a humanitarian response. We are aware as humanitarians the
limits of what we can do. We will do our best, but there is a
diplomatic surge which is needed. There is really a diplomatic
surge, a massive diplomatic surge is needed in these four
countries in order to end conflict and to make sure that also
states but non-state actors are also held accountable to
international humanitarian law, the law of war. Very clearly.
Look at South Sudan. Look at Yemen. Look at Northeast
Nigeria. Look at Somalia. There are elements of leadership
which is not just a financial leadership but also a diplomatic
leadership.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daccord follows:]
The Prepared Statement of Yves Daccord
Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, distinguished Committee
members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on what is fast
becoming one of the most critical humanitarian issues to face mankind
since the end of the Second World War. As famine looms over several
countries in Africa and the Middle East--with many millions of people
suffering severe food insecurity and increasing numbers facing
starvation--we are at the brink of a humanitarian mega-crisis
unprecedented in recent history. While the situations in the four
countries primarily affected--South Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria and Yemen--
are all distinct, the overall scale of acute humanitarian needs in
different places at the same time is immense.
My statement today will focus on the urgent need for accelerated
efforts to avert such a catastrophe, in consideration of the scope of
the problem, the ICRC's mandate and operational response on the ground,
and the vital role of the U.S. in its support to our work and to
humanitarian action more broadly. Sustained and robust U.S. funding for
humanitarian action--which not only saves lives but also helps shorten
crises, facilitates eventual reconstruction and reconciliation, and
promotes stability--is needed now more than ever.
Our main message is clear: immediate, decisive action is needed to
prevent vast numbers of people starving to death. We also need to
address the root causes of this desperate situation. If we act now, the
worst-case scenario can still be avoided, particularly in Somalia and
Yemen. The ICRC has a long-standing presence on the ground in all four
affected countries: as one of very few international humanitarian
actors who are effective front-line responders, we are often able to
reach vulnerable people in areas inaccessible to others. We need your
support, and we need it now.
scope of the humanitarian problem
The humanitarian crises in all of these contexts are, in differing
degrees, man-made and all are to a large extent preventable.
The main cause of hunger--and of wider humanitarian need--in all
four countries is protracted (and intractable) armed conflict. All are
characterised by asymmetric warring parties, particularly fragmented
and multiplying non-state armed groups; by a widespread lack of respect
for even the most fundamental rules of international humanitarian law;
and by a lack of any viable political solution to end them. In
addition, all of these armed conflicts have regional repercussions,
which in the case of northern Nigeria are being felt across the entire
Lake Chad region.
In South Sudan, more than three years of brutal armed conflict has
resulted in economic collapse, with large-scale displacement, loss of
agriculture and livestock, massive inflation, rising food prices,
widespread hunger, and--in areas where specific criteria have been
fulfilled--famine. One in three households is estimated to be in urgent
need of food. The approximately 3.4 million people who have been forced
to flee their homes are among the most vulnerable, fearing for their
lives and often hiding in remote swampy areas.
In Somalia, northern Nigeria and Yemen, harsh climate conditions
and environmental problems, including cyclical drought, are major
factors in the current crises, but not decisive ones. Combined with
chronic insecurity and fighting (more than a quarter of a century in
the case of Somalia), and extremely constrained humanitarian access,
the consequences are however catastrophic.
In Somalia, where memories are still raw of the famine that killed
more than a quarter of a million people just six years ago, the adverse
effects of drought are being felt much more widely than in 2011. An
estimated 6.2 million people, over half the country's population, are
now facing acute food insecurity across the country and are in need of
urgent assistance. With famine looming once again, there is a growing
concern that should the aid response fail to keep pace, the situation
will get much worse.
People living in conflict-affected areas of north-eastern Nigeria
are likewise experiencing desperate food shortages, with an estimated
1.4 million internally displaced people in Borno state (one of the
hardest-hit parts of the country) as well as resident communities in
difficult-to-reach areas living a particularly precarious existence.
Some 300,000 children in Borno state alone are expected to suffer from
severe acute malnutrition over the next twelve months. In some remote
areas, general acute malnutrition rates among children, pregnant women
and lactating mothers are reported to be as high as 70 percent.
And in Yemen, decades of recurrent upheaval, drought and chronic
impoverishment preceded the current calamitous situation--where two
years of intensifying conflict have caused spiralling humanitarian
needs including alarming levels of acute malnutrition, especially among
children. With a mere 45 percent of health structures functioning and
less than 30 percent of vital medicines and medical supplies entering
the country, hospitals with which the ICRC works have reported a 150
percent increase in child malnutrition cases. Fighting in or near
ports, such as Hodeida, has seriously hampered the import of vital
humanitarian supplies of food, fuel and medicine needed to address
critical needs and stave off famine.
icrc mandate and response
While famine poses common problems in the four contexts, each
crisis has its own dynamics and the humanitarian response must be
adapted accordingly.
The ICRC, broadly, works with Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
worldwide to deliver relief and protect people from armed conflict and
violence. We work even in the most constrained and complex situations
of armed conflict, where the authorities are not willing or able to
protect or assist people in need, and where a direct and radically
principled response is invaluable. This requires an approach that
demonstrates the value and practical application of the fundamental
principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence in a number of
ways. It must be needs-based, have close physical proximity to the
beneficiaries, and entail engagement with all stakeholders, including
state and non-state actors--thereby gaining the widest possible
acceptance and respect, and through this, the widest possible
humanitarian access to people in need of protection and assistance.
Better protecting conflict-affected people--through law, policy and
operations--is at the heart of our overall strategy. To this end, we
promote compliance with international humanitarian law at all levels,
and engage in confidential dialogue with state and non-state actors
with the aim of preventing violations from occurring in the first
place. We have worked with states, including the U.S. government, for
over a century to develop and apply the law of armed conflict--rules
that protect soldiers, civilians, detainees, and the wounded and sick
in war.
At the same time, the ICRC works to address victims' wide-ranging
needs--be they food, water, shelter, other essential items or medical
care; tracing missing family members and re-establishing links between
them; or ensuring that people in detention are well-treated.
While humanitarian action is of course vital to save lives and meet
short-term needs, the long-term nature of many of today's wars means it
is also increasingly necessary to sustain basic services and
infrastructure in fragile environments, and at the same time boost
livelihoods and build resilience against shocks. In places at risk of
drought and ultimately famine, this may include improving access to
clean water, strengthening nutritional programmes as well as hygiene
awareness, protecting vital livestock against diseases and providing
various forms of economic support.
The scope and magnitude of these humanitarian needs, and the
reality of today's broad humanitarian ``ecosystem'' comprising diverse
actors working on local, national and international level, with varying
degrees of organization, approaches and goals, makes effective
coordination and constructive engagement with diverse stakeholders all
the more imperative. For the ICRC, this means strong and effective
partnerships primarily with Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, but
also engaging closely with states and non-state actors, U.N. Agencies,
regional or faith-based organizations and many others.
The ICRC, together with Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, has
been on the ground for many years in the four countries now threatened
with famine. Just a few brief examples of our 2016-17 activities are as
follows:
Provided food to nearly 750,000 people in South Sudan. The ICRC
will continue food assistance in 2017, working alongside the
South Sudan Red Cross Society, while also expanding programs
that provide seeds and tools to communities, helping them feed
themselves. In 2017, ICRC surgical teams are continuing to
provide urgent medical care and build up local medical
capacities in South Sudan.
Working closely with the Somali Red Crescent Society, provided
nearly 750,000 people in Somalia with urgent food assistance,
clean water, and medical attention. In 2017, the ICRC is
rapidly scaling up these efforts to mitigate the risk of
famine.
Provided food to more than 1.2 million people in conflict-affected
areas of Nigeria, and agricultural inputs such as seeds and
fertilizer to more than 280,000 returnees to enable them to
start farming again. The ICRC also provided hundreds of
thousands of people with medical assistance, access to water
and improved sanitation and hygiene. In 2017, the ICRC is
stepping up efforts to meet urgent food and other needs
including in the most difficult-to-reach areas, and supporting
the emergency response work of the Nigerian Red Cross Society.
Supplied 20 medical centers in Yemen with surgical items and
critical medication, enabling local hospitals to treat more
than 250,000 people injured by the conflict or who were in need
of medical attention, and supporting the critical work of the
Yemeni Red Crescent Society. The ICRC also provided food and
other items, like tarps and water cans, to nearly 750,000
people in Yemen. In view of the threat of famine, the ICRC is
expanding its operations in 2017, focusing on supporting
hospitals and providing food to hungry people.
The ICRC has already begun scaling up its work in all four
countries. In total, we will be spending at least 400 million CHF
(about 400 million USD) this year. But in view of the overwhelming
needs, this is still just a drop in the ocean.
what needs to be done
Financial Support: Short-term Needs and Long-term Resilience
First and foremost, there is a need for donor generosity and more
humanitarian aid, to facilitate humanitarian action to save lives and
meet short-term needs, but also to enable investment in programmes that
help build the resilience and self-sufficiency of affected communities.
This could be providing training and grants to women heads of
households to start income-generating activities, or training staff of
the national Red Cross or Red Crescent society in first aid and
emergency preparedness, to give just two examples.
Both the quantity and quality of U.S. support to the ICRC over many
years has been outstanding, and vital for us to be able to do our work.
The U.S. government has been the ICRC's biggest single donor since
1980, covering between 20 percent and 28 percent of our annual
expenditures. This reflects strong, bipartisan support for the ICRC and
its humanitarian action. In 2016, the U.S. State Department provided
the ICRC with 417 million USD, representing 24 percent of the ICRC's
global budget. Congress provides critical support through the Migration
and Refugee Assistance account in the State/Foreign Operations
appropriations bill. This generosity also reflects a level of trust and
appreciation that the ICRC provides good value for money, based on the
relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of our humanitarian work.
However, it is not just the size of the contribution that counts.
The U.S. government has also provided the ICRC with a significant
amount of flexible funding--money not earmarked for specific crises.
Flexible funding enables the ICRC to respond quickly and early to
emergencies with vast needs but less visibility. Without it, the ICRC
would be unable to fulfill its international mandate of protecting and
assisting the victims of all armed conflicts--not just the ones which
attract media attention or are high on the political agendas of states.
The ICRC response to the crisis in Nigeria is one example. The ICRC
has been providing food, medical and other live saving assistance to
people affected by conflict in Nigeria for eight years. Few other
agencies were working in north-eastern Nigeria until 2016, when the
conflict finally gained more global media attention, and thus
humanitarian funding. Without the quantity and quality of U.S.
financial support, the ICRC may not have had a significant presence in
northern Nigeria until last year, potentially resulting in millions
more displaced or facing starvation.
We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate our deep
gratitude to the U.S. government, including Members of Congress, for
this historic financial support that helps save countless lives and
stabilize conflict areas. Republican and Democratic administrations
alike have robustly funded the ICRC's operations and humanitarian
action more broadly. We respectfully ask for that support to continue.
At the same time, the scale and number of humanitarian crises
requires that we seek out new donors, and ask other governments that
could contribute more to do so. The U.S. can help the ICRC develop a
truly global support base by urging governments to follow its example
of providing predictable, quality financial support to the ICRC.
We are also seeking more collaborative and innovative solutions
with increasingly diverse stakeholders, including the corporate sector
and research and development institutions. Beyond simple pecuniary
support, the corporate sector's wealth of ideas, expertise and
resources--be it in the domain of communication technologies, health
care and a wide range of others--has become invaluable in helping us to
better deliver on our mandate, to reach people in need of protection
and assistance, and to provide a relevant and effective response to
their needs.
compliance with international humanitarian law
Not only is there a need for more humanitarian aid, but also a need
to ensure that it actually reaches the people who need it most. This
means ensuring better humanitarian access and proximity to the people
directly affected, on both sides of frontlines. And this, in turn,
means that both military forces and armed groups must meet their legal
obligations to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian relief supplies
to all those who need it.
The basic message is simple: better respect for the rules of
international humanitarian law and for the principle of humanity is the
single best way to reduce suffering in war. Civilians and civilian
objects must not be targeted. Wounded and sick people's right to health
care during armed conflict must be respected and protected, and attacks
on health personnel and facilities must stop. The basic services that
preserve life--and prevent starvation--need to be protected. Blockades
need to be lifted--in the name of humanity.
Strengthening compliance with humanitarian law and preventing
violations is therefore a fundamental prerequisite to achieving better
protection for people affected by armed conflict.
For the ICRC, this entails engaging with all parties to conflict--
no matter how challenging this may be--in an effort to gain acceptance
and access to people in need. It also entails engaging with other
stakeholders--including states--who can positively influence the
behaviour of parties to conflict.
The relationship between the ICRC and the U.S. is strong in this
regard too, with the two enjoying a constructive and confidential
dialogue on the latter's combat operations and detention activities
around the world. The U.S. has a long tradition of promoting the law of
armed conflict--a tradition it can continue by ensuring that its armed
forces respect this law and influencing security partners to do the
same. Through training and sharing of best practices, the U.S. can also
help partner forces protect civilians and detainees in war.
conclusion
Mr Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin, the onus is of course on those
who wage war and those who support them to prevent these humanitarian
crises from becoming even bigger tragedies, and ultimately to show the
political will required to end the conflicts.
Yet as long as political solutions remain elusive, it is incumbent
on humanitarian organisations such as the ICRC to alleviate the
suffering as best we can, and try to prevent existing humanitarian
crises becoming uncontainable catastrophes. For that we need funding
and humanitarian access. The U.S. can--and does--play a vital role in
supporting us in both these domains.
Responding only when people are already dying of hunger will
inevitably be too little, too late. The cost of delay--in terms of
finance but moreover in terms of lives lost--would be unconscionable.
The Chairman. Thank you both for that testimony.
So I think you get a sense that most members of this
committee are going to do what is necessary to make sure that
we continue to play a role in helping people who are starving
not to starve. And I think, over time, there will be a
commitment to weed out some of the special interest issues that
are keeping us from feeding 5 million more people. I think that
will happen.
I think you will see a united effort to make sure there is
appropriate funding. Look, every organization can be
streamlined. We all know that. The two of your organizations
could be streamlined. Every organization can be looked at.
But my sense is you are going to see a combined effort to
make sure that these types of efforts are appropriately funded.
But my question is this. Two weeks, I mean, we get emails, we
understand people today, as we sit here, are dying. In some
cases, a thousand people a day. A thousand people a day dying.
What is it that we can do in our respective positions right
now today, if anything? Hopefully there is. What is it that we
can do to help try to meet the needs that you are talking about
over the next 2 weeks? I would love to know.
Most of the stuff we do around here is long term. It takes
a while. It happens way beyond, in many cases. No doubt, a
diplomatic surge, I could not agree more.
But what can we do as individual committee members or as a
group to try to meet the needs you are discussing over the next
couple weeks?
Ms. Lindborg. Right now, the first and most important
response is to ensure that funding is moving through the
humanitarian channels. All of those other things are needed,
approaches that marry the development and the resilience
approaches, the diplomatic surge. But right now, it is saving
lives and it is making sure that those urgent appeals are being
filled by global actors, by global donors.
And that sometimes requires going around and saying, to a
broader set of donors, it is up to you as well, which is a role
that the U.S. has frequently played quite successfully.
Mr. Daccord. I think, first of all, by showing an interest
and a focus on this crisis. That is what you are doing. It is
important. B, by ensuring funding. The funding is extremely
important right now. And, C, to clarify where the funding needs
to go.
The Chairman. And we are going to do that, I am sure, as a
group. That is going to be pursued and will happen.
But I am talking about over the next 2 weeks. I mean, you
referred to the fact that, over the next 2 weeks, millions of
people may well perish. And so what is it that we might be able
to do in the short term to have some effect on that?
Mr. Daccord. Ranking Member Cardin, you mentioned what is
happening about Somalia. There is an interest right now. There
is a diplomatic interest also, to make sure that is around
Somalia, for example.
Somalia and Yemen are maybe the two countries I would
prioritize right now, because there is a possibility both at
the political level, and this is one element, the diplomatic
level, but also the humanitarian level where, over the next
coming weeks we make a difference.
I mean, there is a question in Yemen about access.
Everybody knows that, right now, there is a huge issue around
Taizz and Hudaydah, very clear. But maybe not this committee
but your interest in helping, maybe your country, an important
country, playing a role, focusing on the question will help. I
can tell you, that is for sure.
And, B, making sure also that some of the funding goes now
directly, specifically, to humanitarian actors like us being on
the ground being able to perform right now.
It is not a time of planning right now. It is a time of
acting. And that is what is so important, to be able to also
let's say prioritize what needs to be prioritized in terms of
funding and diplomatic engagement.
The Chairman. Who is the lead pitch person internationally
to generate the immediate funding, this additional altar call,
if you will, that is occurring right now? Who is the lead pitch
person on that internationally?
Mr. Daccord. I think right now you have two models. One, of
course, is the U.N. And I think, as you may know, the Secretary
General of the U.N. has really mobilized, in fact, the entire
international community. I think the good news is I have seen
them also mobilizing the World Bank.
So I think you can see things moving up. And I would really
commend the Secretary General of the United Nations to have
brought the attention and mobilized the U.N. and its entire
forces. That is one element.
And then, B, we have organizations like the Red Cross and
Red Crescent, my own organization. I also feel responsible. We
are not part of the U.N. We are a different organization, but
we are collaborating, and we are mobilizing ourselves.
We are talking, for our own organization, $400 million that
we are spending and using now on the ground specifically.
And then, last but not least, I already mentioned about the
diplomatic outreach. There is an important limit about the
diplomatic outreach which needs to come from your government.
That is for sure. It is not the only government but your
government can play an extremely important role when it comes
to Yemen, for example. Very central.
The Chairman. Are there any U.S. dollars today that for
some reason have been committed and yet are not making their
way to the appropriate place today?
Mr. Daccord. I do not know. My sense is that I see an
interest at the level of the State Department, a level of your
government. But I think there is maybe also a bit of worry of
how we spend the money right now. I think that is for sure. But
I think--I hope--that the crisis will help, in fact, spend it
at the right places.
I would just be very careful, again. When you look at
figures, it is overwhelming, right? And I do understand that
there is a need to unpack the questions. And here I really
would like to stress there are elements we need to happen
urgently now, and there are elements that are more short and
long term.
That needs to be distinguished, because when you look at
the figures, I do understand. If I were American citizen, I
would say, my God, we are talking about millions of people,
billions of dollars. What does that mean? What are the plans?
What we can say is there are elements that need to happen
now, and we can reprioritize that, and that is important to be
clear about that. We need to clarify also who can do what and
make sure that, in the way that we intervene as humanitarians,
we are doing that smartly among us.
And last but not least, I really want to insist there
really is a diplomatic surge which, frankly, as humanitarians,
we cannot do. That needs to happen at the state level.
Ms. Lindborg. If I could elaborate on that, if dollars are
not reaching their intended targets, in some of these cases, it
is because of obstacles being presented by the governments of
these countries. And where there could be very effective
immediate action is making it clear to the Government of South
Sudan and to various actors in the Yemen conflict, for example,
that the world will respond, and we need them to do their part.
We need them to not charge $10,000 per visa for an aid
worker. We need them to allow barges to move up the rivers to
the more remote locations and have a concerted both regional
and international set of pressures that says, with response and
global response comes local responsibility.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. It is very powerful
testimony. Thank you both for what you do.
Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also compliment
our two witnesses not just for being here but for what you do
on the ground to help in this regard.
I read out the percentage of funding on the U.N.
humanitarian appeals in the four countries we are dealing with,
and they are between 6 percent to 21 percent, so we are well--
it is very low. So the funding issues are a significant
problem.
But it is more than funding, as has been pointed out.
Yemen, we do need a diplomatic surge. The United States plays a
critical role in Yemen. We are dealing with the neighbors of
Yemen, and we are engaged in supplying military assistance in
dealing with those issues.
So we do play a role, and I think we need to look at the
people of Yemen and recognize that, as part of our diplomatic
role, we need to get access for humanitarian assistance in
helping the people of Yemen that have been so much impacted.
In South Sudan, you are right there also. In South Sudan,
the youngest country in the world, and yet we have seen their
government do horrible things in regards to allowing
international intervention to help their own people. Instead,
they seem more interested in arms than they are in food, and we
have to act in that regard.
So each country is different, but they do have a lot in
common.
The chairman asked a very important point. What can we do
short term to provide relief? Well, it seems to me, in these
countries, access by humanitarian workers is an area that could
be done in the short term, that if we put a real spotlight on
that $10,000 visa, you cannot defend that. South Sudan cannot
defend that. If we put a real international spotlight on
humanitarian workers' safety issues--and I commend you, because
your frontline people are at risk. I mean, it is difficult work
under ideal circumstances, but under attack, it becomes
impossible.
So could you just share with us what we could do to perhaps
give you greater access so that you can, in fact, have safer
access on the ground in order to assess and help the people
that are in need?
Mr. Daccord. Thank you very much, Senator. Maybe you will
allow me to be a little bit more specific about access and just
say a word, and then link it with your question of what we can
do.
My organization, the International Community of the Red
Cross, what we do is we engage with every party to the war, so
let's look at Yemen. We would talk to all the parties, to the
governments but also to all of what we would call let's say the
rebel groups and the different groups, including the one which
could be labeled as outlaw or terrorist.
We do that with a very, very clear, in fact, humanitarian
perspective and agenda, which is we are talking to them in
order to make sure that the checkpoint can be crossed, in order
to make sure that the people can go to the hospital, in order
to make sure that Taizz right now, which is besieged, can get
the water they need. And you need to talk to the people.
So in that sense, access is something which is created. It
cannot be ordered. I mean, this is something you negotiate on a
daily basis, and it is sometimes extremely complex. It took us
years to really get access and get tolerated in Northeast
Nigeria. So you arrive, and then you negotiate.
That is how we do that, and it is sometimes very
complicated, to be honest, because, of course, some of these
groups, they will very carefully look at us and how we connect
and what are we saying and how it works.
Where you can play a role as a very important government,
and you have played that role already for quite a while, is
exactly what you mentioned on global and specific issues.
Global is very clear. If there is a sense by some of the
government, but also a non-state armed group, that your
government and you as a steering group and as a committee, you
still have an interest, a focus on South Sudan, as an example,
authority will behave differently. They know. They will be very
careful on the way they will look at that.
Yemen, the same. Northeast Nigeria also.
And then there are specific elements. And here, if I look
at Yemen, everything related to the sea and to the port is a
big issue that are sometimes beyond what we can do as
humanitarian organizations. You can ensure access to the ports.
You can make sure that the blockades are done but also with a
humanitarian exception very clear.
You can talk to, in fact, as you mentioned, coalition
countries, which are close to your country and help possibly to
integrate international humanitarian law perspective when it
comes to, in fact, delivering food and delivering aid. And I
think this is something which we would value enormously.
Specifically when it comes to Hudaydah, for example, right
now, in Yemen, that would be very, very important. It would
make a lot of difference for a lot of people. Seventy percent
of people right now in Yemen need, in fact, aid, and this aid
needs to come from outside. There is no choice. There is no
market anymore in Yemen, so we need--absolutely, the blockade
needs to cease and it needs to be managed.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I think that may be a
specific area within the next couple weeks that our committee
may want to keep the look on, Hudaydah. Clearly, that is a
target for action, and it is the major entry point for
humanitarian--could be the major entry point for humanitarian
assistance, and it is unclear as to the current abilities to
get humanitarian aid into Yemen because of the control by the
illegitimate authorities. If it is taken back, there is concern
as to whether the government would be interested in using that
port for humanitarian needs.
I think that is an area where we may be able to have some
impact that could really help people save their lives.
I appreciate that comment.
The Chairman. Senator Young?
Senator Young. Thank you both for your service and for your
testimony.
I would like to ask Ms. Lindborg, picking up on some
testimony I elicited from Mr. Gottlieb earlier, I actually
cited your prepared statement and your reference to Amartya
Sen's observation in Development as Freedom that no famine has
ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning
democracy because democratic governments have to win elections,
face public criticism, have strong incentive to undertake
measures to avert famines and other catastrophes. And we
discussed here today the principle of resilience.
I would just like to get your thoughts. Is Sen's assertion
correct? Isn't the ultimate resilience measure a functioning
democracy? And in your opinion, how effective has our
government, USAID in particular, been at promoting democracy
and good governance?
And if you could sort of include in there how you assess,
how you a measure, effectiveness in democracy promotion, I
would be grateful.
Ms. Lindborg. Yes, thank you.
You know, since Amartya Sen made that statement in the
1980s, which really turned on its head the assumption that
famines were a function of food scarcity, and instead made the
assertion that it is the result of failed democracies or
ineffectual systems, scholarship has really moved us forward on
this understanding of the importance of having what is called a
functioning state-society relationship, where you have both
state capacity, the ability to provide services, the political
legitimacy, and the inclusion of people from throughout their
country.
And when that is nonexistent or when it is a frayed
relationship is when you have greater fragility in the system,
which I talk about in my testimony. And that is what leads
these states to not being able to manage conflict so that it
does not become violent and rip them apart.
Senator Young. So where has our government, if at all,
fallen short with respect to adapting to this new scholarship?
Ms. Lindborg. I think our greatest difficulty is that it
really does require a combination of assistance, development,
humanitarian assistance, as well as understanding the security
dimensions and the need for using our diplomatic, our security,
and our development tools together in a coherent way to bring
to bear on countries that are in deep states of fragility. That
is our biggest challenge.
I co-chaired a study on this, a senior study group on
fragility. I am happy to share that report with you.
Senator Young. I will look forward to receiving it. Thank
you.
In his prepared statement, Mr. Gottlieb states that the
United States' commitments to humanitarian efforts also enable
us to push for greater transparency and improve efficiencies in
the international system, specifically in the United Nations. I
serve as chair of the subcommittee that oversees multilateral
international development and multilateral institutions.
I would like to get both of your thoughts, if you have
thoughts on this matter, with respect to specific examples
where there is a need for greater transparency and improved
efficiencies in United Nations Agencies.
Mr. Daccord. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Young. Is the question arcane or is it politically
sensitive?
Mr. Daccord. No, I think the question is very--let me try
to answer. I am not sure--it is a big question.
I can start with my own organization. My experience--first
of all, we benefit from an extremely powerful and strong
support from the governments, including the Members of the
Congress, which is fantastic over time, and we value that.
And always, the support is not just financial support. It
is not just diplomatic support. It is also a partnership, which
means, as an organization, including my organization, including
working in the most difficult places, you need to be able to
show results.
You mentioned, Senator Young, at the beginning that you
need to be able to explain to your own constituency where the
money goes, what does that mean. Of course, we, ICRC, work in
the most difficult places. It is difficult to explain to
anybody that we are doing humanitarian actions in Somalia or in
Ukraine or in Afghanistan and get some impressive support.
People say what the hell are you talking about there? How does
that work? Right?
So I think there is a need for us to be able to show
results, to be specific. We do, including humanitarian actions
right now, results-based management. So when we do, in fact,
our own way to plan, we do it very differently from the United
Nations. Be aware of that.
We do a yearly base. We do by target audience. We are very
specific. So as a humanitarian organization, you can be
humanitarian but also be very specific about what you want to
be able to achieve. That is one.
B, where there is transparency and where your government
has played an important role is on the quality funding--quality
funding. It is not just the money. It is also giving flexible
funding, and that has made an enormous difference.
Can I just give you one anecdote? Northeast Nigeria. Nobody
was interested about Northeast Nigeria 5 or 6 years ago--
nobody, not a single person.
My team at the time said, 6 years ago, we have a problem
here. It took us 4 years of operation to, little by little,
start to understand the problems and get tolerated by the
people and also by the groups and the government on the spot.
We were able to do that because we had flexible funding,
because the United States Government is giving us this flexible
funding.
So that I found extremely useful. But at the same time,
when you do have flexible funding, you need to be able to show
that you were efficient and it is fine. You need to be able,
when you are evaluated, you are the best in terms of finance,
in terms of diversification of aid. We do have systems, which
are very robust, and we do have it.
And we had long discussions with your government over time,
and it works. So I do not know if I answered your question,
because this is not the United Nations. This is my
organization.
But what I wanted to tell you is, yes, it has an influence
on the way we work on our policies, on our practice, including
in the most difficult places. And this is absolutely critical,
if we want to be able to get the support we need from people.
Senator Young. So I will just add this, again being
respectful of the chairman and my colleagues' time.
If you have additional ideas--I know this is a big, complex
question that lends itself to a multifaceted and extensive
response. I think it is incumbent upon us to really scrutinize
how these agencies are organized in furtherance of their
mission. I want to work with the State Department, our U.N.
Ambassador, and others, but I need some input from experts like
yourself moving forward on this area.
Ms. Lindborg. If I could just briefly note, there was a
very landmark event last May, the World Humanitarian Summit,
that really crystallized and articulated some of the very
important advances that have been made over the last few years,
in part in response to the extraordinary strain on the
humanitarian system. But ways to make it more effective, more
efficient, that is an agenda that has yet to be fully realized,
but it provides an important blueprint of where to put energies
and how to move forward smarter, more effective assistance.
Senator Young. That is instructive. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you both for being here and for your very
important work at this very critical and difficult time.
Last week, the Armed Services Committee, which I am a
member of, had presentations from the CENTCOM commander,
General Votel, who has Yemen as part of his area of oversight,
and the AFRICOM commander, General Waldhauser, who has Nigeria
and Somalia as part of his area of oversight.
One of the things that General Waldhauser said that I
thought was very important, he talked about the importance of
addressing development and governance and economic issues in
Nigeria, and the impact of that on the rest of the continent of
Africa because of Nigeria's size and importance.
But can you talk about how, if at all, you work with the
American military and other military efforts in the countries
that we are talking about today, and particularly in Yemen and
Somalia, because I very much appreciate the chair and ranking
member asking what we can do today that is going to help the
situation in those two countries?
Ms. Lindborg. Sure. One of the things that U.S. Institute
of Peace has been doing has been to work with both our DOD, our
state, as well as our AID colleagues to conduct tabletop
exercises.
We recently completed a series of exercises looking at the
Lake Chad Basin, where the Nigerian crisis has provided
regional disruption. Cameroon, Chad, Niger, are all affected by
Boko Haram and what has been going on.
The interests of General Waldhauser and his associates are
how do we better coordinate across all of these tools so that
we have a shared understanding of the problem that we are
trying to solve, and make a better, more effective difference
both in the medium and into the long term?
We have a lot of resources. If we coordinate them together,
we can have a far greater impact.
Senator Shaheen. So are they engaged in the current,
immediate crisis in both Yemen and Somalia?
Ms. Lindborg. They are not engaged with the delivery of
humanitarian assistance, but they are engaged on the security
dimension of those crises.
Senator Shaheen. So the protection for aid workers?
Ms. Lindborg. More about the ongoing threats presented by
the terrorist groups that are part of the conflicts, that are
creating the conditions for famine to occur. It is an essential
part, and it is essential that they be part of a joint
understanding of the problem.
Senator Shaheen. Yes?
Mr. Daccord. If you allow me, Senator? We are lucky enough
to meet American troops everywhere on the ground because we are
together.
When it comes to CENTCOM, of course, there is a lot of work
that we do together, AFRICOM also. So we are used to that.
And I think we, in fact, value--and I hope they value us
also--their reading of the situation. They have a very, very
good understanding of what happens. They have very clear, I
would say, military and security objectives, and they
distinguish them very clearly from our own, I would say,
humanitarian objective.
And I think we value having this very regular but also very
strategic contact on a daily basis.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Ms. Lindborg, USIP has been very involved in the role of
women in conflict areas, and the importance of women being at
the table and negotiating in the conflicts.
So I want to ask you about that, but I also want to point
out that I have been part of a task force that has been done by
the Center for Strategic and International Studies that just
came out with a report this week on addressing adolescent girls
and women, and empowering them in four areas--maternal and
child health, family planning, reproductive health, nutrition,
and HPV vaccines. And this is the report.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to share this with anybody on
the committee who has an interest.
But I know this is a longer term issue than the current
topic of today's discussion, but can you talk about how
important it is to make sure that, as we are engaging in these
conflict areas and areas where there are tragedies like the
famines we are facing, that we engage with women and make sure
that they are at the table because of their importance to the
long-term solutions for many of these situations?
Ms. Lindborg. Absolutely. And congratulations on your work
on that important study.
You know, women and girls and children disproportionately
suffer from these kinds of complicated conflicts and famine.
The health implications, as you discussed earlier, are
overwhelming.
And they are also those who often are on the frontlines of
needing to take care of their families. Often, they are the
ones who are the refugees and have to hold together family and
often community cohesion.
It is very important to include women in the longer term
rebuilding of these communities, both at the community level
and at the peace table. And we are seeing that when women are
included in these peace processes, they are far more likely to
be enduring. There is a lot of research on this.
So from taking care of women at the health level to
empowering them as leaders is an absolutely essential aspect of
addressing these crises, short term and long term.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Chairman, just another reason why we need to
advance the Women, Peace, and Security Act.
The Chairman. I am sure we will get that done in some form.
And if you want to enter that document into the record, you
are welcome to do that.
So without objection, we will enter it in.
[The material referred to above can be downloaded from the
following url:]
https://www.csis.org/analysis/her-health-her-lifetime-our-
world
The Chairman. Thank you for the comments.
Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Thank you both for being here. All of these areas are
important. I want to focus on South Sudan for a moment.
I want to read to you from the first paragraph of the
Enough Project. It is in combination with The Sentry, a
partnership with Sentry, which is an investigative initiative.
Here is what they write: ``South Sudan leaders have stoked
violent conflict, committed mass atrocities, and created a
manmade famine. The main source of the conflict is the
competition for spoils in which factions, based primarily on
ethnic and historical allegiance, compete violently for power
and the massive opportunities for self-enrichment available
through looting national budgets, exploiting natural resources,
and manipulating state contracts.''
Would either of you disagree with this assessment?
Ms. Lindborg. No.
Mr. Daccord. No. I would be more specific.
Senator Rubio. You want to be more specific? Is that what
you said?
Mr. Daccord. No, I think South Sudan, I agree with the
statement, but I think then we have to understand exactly which
dynamic it is. South Sudan is not something that you can look
at in a vacuum. It is a country that has been created a few
years ago. The leaders there have been part of a guerilla which
is there for a very, very long time.
So I agree with the statement, but I think we need to put
the statement, I would say, in context to understand exactly
what we are dealing with.
Senator Rubio. Well, I appreciate that. I think what we are
dealing with, according to this, according to the statement
from Mr. Gottlieb where he said that we hold all the warring
parties, including the government, the opposition, and
affiliated armed groups responsible for the hostilities that
upend and, even worse, target civilian lives and livelihoods.
You also had a large number of aid workers killed trying to
provide services in South Sudan.
So here is what I wanted to ask about. You have sensed from
some of the members a sense of urgency about what we can do
now. And the resources, I do not think any of us disagree--
although in 2013, I believe South Sudan was the largest
recipient of aid in the world, and yet this remains.
So the resources, I do not think, are in dispute. We all
agree we want to continue to be a part of it. But that is not
enough unless we get through the access problem.
The access problem requires a whole-of-government approach,
from our perspective. One of the suggestions that they make is
that we need to, in essence, we have an opportunity to hit
these leaders and their criminal networks in their wallets
using the power of the U.S. dollar, which they rely on almost
exclusively, to create leverage in support of a renewed peace
initiative that can probably bring stability and peace to the
region.
And they go on to talk about changing the calculations of
South Sudan's leaders through this leverage. The aim is to
bring them to the table, for example, to negotiate a new
ceasefire. But the leverage would involve OFAC designation of
individuals and entities both in the government and in the
opposition, that it should start with mid- to senior-level
targets.
They also believe that we can reach out to financial
institutions to take extra steps to safeguard against the
laundering of the proceeds of corruption originating in South
Sudan. The U.S. Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network should issue an advisory that identifies
particular, very specific categories of money laundering
associated with plutocracy in South Sudan, including real
estate transactions.
The point being, the argument that they make in this
report, which I am compelled to agree with, is that the only
way we are going to get to the access problem here is not
simply by providing more resources but by using leverage,
particularly the unique leverage the United States brings to
bear to pressuring these criminals on both sides to the table
to organize a ceasefire and, as a result, allow access to
humanitarian relief and the safety of the workers that provide
it.
My question to both of you is, do you believe that it would
be a positive exercise of American power to use the threat of
sanctions against these individuals on both sides of this
conflict to bring them to the table to resolve this in a way
that allows access for food and medicine for these people that
are on the verge of starvation and death in South Sudan?
Ms. Lindborg. I have heard of the Enough proposal. I think
that it is critical to bring U.S. leadership to bear. We have
used threats through U.N. security resolutions. They are not
always borne out.
If there is a way to use the sanctions that Enough is
proposing to really make a difference and to galvanize action
and to jumpstart a very moribund peace process, I think it is a
very important idea to explore and look at the feasibility.
For this, we need to refill the special envoy position. We
have long looked at local leadership as being key, local
regional leadership at IGAD or the African Union as key for
moving forward that process. That is still true. And it will be
important to have U.S. leadership and all of our tools as a
part of moving that forward.
This has been a very difficult, nonproductive peace process
to date, but we will not be able to solve this problem if we do
not engage more effectively regional leadership, African Union
leadership, and, ultimately, look at these kinds of creative
uses of sanctions.
American leadership, I believe, will be absolutely
essential.
Mr. Daccord. Senator Rubio, I do value--again, my limit is
that I am a humanitarian, so I will not look at these questions
of sanctions and all of that. But as a humanitarian, and also
my limits--and when it comes to South Sudan, what is requested
is not more humanitarian response. What is requested today is a
political response, very clearly.
Here, the framework is very clear. You have international
humanitarian law, which very specifically says what the parties
to the conflict need to do. And there is an Article 1 of the
Geneva Convention that says respect and ensure respect.
What I would really find interesting is that, for once, the
community of states are ready to do that. In South Sudan, it is
a place where it is possible to guarantee, in fact, the respect
of international humanitarian law. Absolutely. And it is a
political and diplomatic endeavor.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Markey?
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So would each of you support targeted sanctions in South
Sudan as a strategy which the United States should be
supporting?
Ms. Lindborg. I think so. I mean, I do not know enough
about the specifics and who would be targeted, but we should
look very carefully and lean into those possibilities that will
make a difference.
Senator Markey. Great.
Mr. Daccord?
Mr. Daccord. In general, I am careful about sanctions. If I
look at the humanitarian side of the sanctions, normally, the
people suffering from the sanctions are never the ones you are
targeting.
Senator Markey. I appreciate that.
Mr. Daccord. That is my problem. So my point 2, though, is,
as a humanitarian organization, as I mentioned before, we are
extremely interested that the government but also all the
parties to the conflict are really abiding by international
humanitarian law, and that should be the focus of the
international community.
Senator Markey. Members of this body called for targeted
sanctions in the Congo last year on the elections issue,
targeted those who were repressing democracy, and now we see
some success. We are going to have to keep our fingers crossed.
So that would be one of our goals.
I would like to focus as well on climate change and the
impact it may have had in South Sudan. We have been warned for
40 years about the impacts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
and the impact that it was having on sub-Saharan Africa. And
now we see droughts, followed by famine, followed by limited
resources inside of the country, followed by fights over those
limited resources.
So can you talk a little bit, Mr. Daccord, about the need
for the United States, for the world, to lead on climate
change, so that what we see in South Sudan is not exacerbated
and what we see in South Sudan is not replicated in other parts
of the world?
Mr. Daccord. Senator, you are taking me a bit outside of my
zone of competencies and knowledge. If I look at the pure
humanitarian perspective, what we see, of course, is that, in
the region of East Africa over the last 15 years, there is a
clear impact of climate change in the country and in the entire
region, not only South Sudan, by the way. You see that in
Somalia, Kenya very clearly.
What you see is it has had a dramatic impact on the way
people are living. With the livestock, they had to go down, in
fact, because there was drought everywhere for a long, long
time. We know that El Nino has an enormous impact right now in
the region. We know that very clearly.
Now this is my, I would say, responsibility as a
humanitarian to be able to integrate that dimension when we
respond there.
Senator Markey. So should we the United States be a leader
in reducing the carbon dioxide so that we do not see a further
exacerbation of this increased desertification that we are
seeing all across the world? Do you think we should take the
lead, sir?
Mr. Daccord. Senator Markey, what I would find important is
that the United States would understand, in fact, when they
look at a crisis like the crisis we are talking about all the
different components of the crisis.
Senator Markey. Right. So should we take the lead?
Mr. Daccord. That is not what I am saying.
Senator Markey. Okay. I hear you.
Ms. Lindborg, should we take the lead?
Ms. Lindborg. U.S. leadership is absolutely essential for
making movement on global problems. We are seeing that over and
over again.
Senator Markey. Do you put climate change in that category?
Ms. Lindborg. As Yves has said, we have seen an ever-
fasting cycle of drought in the Horn of Africa that is leading
to exacerbated and increased humanitarian----
Senator Markey. And do you agree with the experts that it
is caused by human activity that is warming the planet
dangerously and causing an exacerbation of these problems? Do
you agree with that?
Ms. Lindborg. So, like Yves, I am not a scientist.
Senator Markey. Okay.
Ms. Lindborg. But from a humanitarian perspective----
Senator Markey. I understand. You see the consequences of
it.
Ms. Lindborg. We are seeing the consequences of increased
cycles of extreme drought.
Senator Markey. You see the consequences of it. I
appreciate that. Yes. The science is clear, and the impact is
also clear.
I would like to move over, if I could, to Haiti. There are
many, many people who are in need of help in Haiti. In
December, the United Nations asked for $400 million for a
strategy to address a cholera outbreak started by U.N.
peacekeepers in Haiti. Two days ago, the New York Times
reported that the total amount raised so far is $2 million--$2
million to help these people in Haiti to deal with the long-
term consequences of this cholera introduced by U.N.
peacekeepers about 10 years ago.
What are your perspectives on this U.N. appeal for such
severe humanitarian need and how it has failed so spectacularly
in terms of actually getting help from the United Nations to
deal with the problem?
Mr. Daccord?
Mr. Daccord. Again, you mentioned perspective. I think what
I found so difficult is to see that Haiti today still, in terms
of population and system, is not equipped to be able to absorb
shock whatsoever, right? And after now 7 or 8 years of
intervention of the international community, I think there are
reflections of how we do it together and what we are able to
do, to make sure that we are able not only to respond to
emergency--the emergency was rather well responded. It was not
perfect, but it was----
Senator Markey. In the immediate, but not for the long
term. It is just sitting there waiting for a repetition of the
same situation.
Mr. Daccord. Exactly. I agree with that.
Senator Markey. So are you disappointed in the U.N.?
Mr. Daccord. I am disappointed not in the U.N. I am
disappointed about the global response.
Senator Markey. So you are disappointed in the individual
countries in the U.N.? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Daccord. No, I am disappointed about the global
response. I find it difficult as always--as a humanitarian,
what I am trying to do is to see what is our contribution. We
have a very clear humanitarian perspective. We are trying to
see that, but we also see the limits of what it is.
Typically, in Haiti, for years, we have really downsized
our presence because we thought that we as humanitarians need
to focus on where really there is a need to do that.
Senator Markey. Yes. What I am afraid of, Mr. Daccord, is
that because the global response, just how well each one of the
individual members did on it, I think in the Trump era, with
his America First attitude and saying we are going to retreat
on the State Department budget, other budgets that would have
the United States being a leader, it is going to give other
countries which have not been so great anyway further excuse
not to themselves participate.
And then the global response, unfortunately, is going to
leave these poor people in even worse situations even though it
was a problem that was caused by the introduction of cholera by
the United Nations peacekeeping forces into that country. And
now they are going to be living with it forever, if this period
of time this Trump America First attitude is perpetuated in our
own country but around the world it is replicated.
So I just think it is a huge long-term problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I would note the incredible discipline of our witnesses to
stay within humanitarian confines.
Senator Young?
Senator Young. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to build on this question of
access in various areas, particularly South Sudan. It has been
invoked a number of times. A related question is accountability
when there is a lack of access.
Mr. Gottlieb noted in his written testimony that the aid
workers have been harassed, attacked, or killed in South Sudan,
with at least 72 aid workers dying there since 2013.
Mr. Daccord, you cite the widespread violation of
international humanitarian law, tax on health facilities,
health care workers, so on and so forth. As you know, Rule 31
of Customary International Humanitarian Law states that
humanitarian relief personnel must be respected and protected.
Rule 35 prohibits directing an attack against a zone
established to shelter the wounded, the sick, and civilians
from the effects of hostilities. And that applies to all
parties, including Russia, the Assad regime, their deliberate
and repeated targets on hospitals in Aleppo, I might note.
Mr. Daccord, in all conflict zones where ICRC operates, are
you making any effort to document these attacks on humanitarian
personnel so we can bring the perpetrators to justice?
Mr. Daccord. First of all, Senator, thank you for the
question. Your assessment is quite right.
I think we see a real issue when it comes to access, and
not just access of humanitarians. My concern is access for
people, communities to health, for example.
And you mentioned the issue of health. What we have seen
over the last few years is a systematic pressure attacking
health structure. And by the way, not only in South Sudan, in
Yemen, as an example, in Afghanistan, in Syria, by all the
parties from day one of the conflict. And this is really
dramatic.
So what we do as ICRC, we first of all, are part of
something larger, but, as an organization, we document that, of
course. But we do not then put that at disposal of the public.
What we do is we document that because we engage in bilateral
discussions, confidential discussions with the people in
charge. So we do discuss with, in fact, in the case of Syria,
we do discuss with the government, with the rebels, with also
international governments. You mentioned Russia and others. And
we engage with them on very specific elements.
We did the same with governments on specific questions in
Afghanistan, for example, in Syria, in Iraq. I think it is
important to be able to do it. That is the way we do. Others
will do differently. Other organizations will then really
recommend and look and be more public about that.
And I value, in fact, this different perspective, but our
perspective is to document and to have a real very, very
thorough discussion over time with, in fact, the people that
are directly responsible. We do not do that only about health.
We do that, as you mentioned, about the tensions and all that.
And this is something we maintain very carefully.
Senator Young. And I can understand, on account of your
mission, why that sort of neutral disposition would make sense.
You try to mediate these conflicts. Tell me if I am
misrepresenting it, but you try to come to some more positive
resolution, short of outing these individuals and passing this
information on to authorities that might pursue legal action
against the perpetrators. Correct?
Mr. Daccord. Senator, we are a very pragmatic organization.
Senator Young. Yes.
Mr. Daccord. In fact, we adapt to the reality of the world.
And I think if we would start to pass information to anybody,
my role as the CEO, I will have to withdraw my people from most
of the places where we are.
You mentioned trust, trust is a critical element, and we
need to have a minimum of distrust from, in fact, the parties
to the conflict. So when we are confidential, they need to
trust us that we are really confidential. If they start to make
a mix between us and justice, it will be extremely difficult
for us.
Senator Young. I understand your perspective.
Ms. Lindborg is chomping at the bit to chime in here.
Ms. Lindborg. I just wanted to note that my current
organization, the U.S. Institute of Peace, works on the ground
in conflict areas not providing humanitarian assistance but
looking at how to manage or resolve violent conflicts. And to
resolve any kind of conflict where there has been violence and
terrible things that have occurred, you need to look at this
issue of accountability, and there will be different solutions
in different contexts both at national and international and
also local levels.
So, for example, USIP worked in Tikrit in Iraq after the
massacre by Daesh, by ISIL, of 1,600 Iraqi cadets. When Daesh
left, there was enormous distrust between the Sunni and Shia
communities and the possibility of cycles of tribal revenge.
So we brought the tribal sheikhs, the Shia and the Sunnis,
together to navigate and negotiate a peace agreement, so that
they would only hold the specific perpetrators accountable, not
their entire tribes. And that ultimately enabled about 300,000
Sunni families to return.
So justice and accountability is absolutely essential to
conclude and heal from violent conflicts, and there are both
large-scale processes and local-level processes that need to be
brought to bear.
Senator Young. Okay. It sounds as though there may be some
work to be done at the U.S. Federal Government level with
respect to documenting legal action and bringing certain
perpetrators under certain circumstances to justice, but we
have to be very careful about this.
We will continue the dialogue later. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Let me just compliment Senator Young on
that line of questioning. I understand the confidentiality and
the trust issues, but this is violation of international
protocols, and I do think we need to document.
I know, Mr. Daccord, your people are at risk. The numbers I
think are public. As I understand, your frontline people have
paid, in some cases, the ultimate sacrifice for their service.
Do you have just the numbers of people that have been
injured or killed from the International Red Cross?
Mr. Daccord. I always found it difficult to look at numbers
because, as we know, it does not really reflect the issues.
If I look at just my own organization, we just lost, months
ago, six of my colleagues in Afghanistan, for example. If I
look at then the Red Crescent and Red Cross family, in Syria,
it is the highest number since World War II. The Syrian Red
Crescent, which is part of our family, has lost 57 volunteers
and paid staff in Syria over the last 6 years.
That tells you a little bit of what is happening when you
are on the frontline, which is very clear. And the access
questions and the ability to negotiate, we are living in a
world where fragmentation is there. You have a lot of
fragmentation among, in fact, armed groups, which makes things
extremely difficult because you need to make sure that they
understand who you are, at least tolerate you. And that
requires long-term work.
That is one of the big questions. When you focus on the
four countries we just mentioned--Yemen, Somalia, Northeast
Nigeria, and South Sudan.
And the answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, is let's
make sure that the aid will really go to organizations that are
able to deal with access. That is the critical issue. You want
to reach out to the population that deserves to receive help.
Senator Cardin. I thank you for that.
I just really would make this point. If the United States
did everything I wanted to do, and the international community
did everything that they should do, we would still need you
because of the credibility you have in the community and your
ability to provide frontline help that we would not be able to
do as governments.
So I just really want to thank you so much for what you do,
both of you, what you do and the sacrifices that you make, in
really dealing with what is I think the key value of America,
and that is our international responsibilities for humanitarian
assistance. So thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you both.
This will conclude our hearing. I thank you for your
testimony to focus on the short-, medium-, and longer term
issues.
You know, we have the great privilege of serving on this
committee and having a better worldview than most have because
of all the information that we have on a daily basis and is
incoming from our staffs and other people. It is amazing that,
on one hand, the many good things that organizations like both
of yours do. It is also so disheartening to know that we have
leaders around the world that would deny aid to their own
people.
Yesterday, the event we had relative to Caesar where,
again, we see the documentation of Assad torturing his own
people, having it lay siege to communities where people cannot
get medicines, as a matter of fact, specific medicines, what is
happening in the four regions that we are focused on today.
So there is always going to be more work than we can do,
and there are always going to be people that we could have and
should have gotten aid to that we cannot. But, thankfully, the
United States of America, generally speaking, has played a
leading role. And I think that most people on this committee
want to do everything they can to ensure that.
And we are very thankful that organizations like the two of
you, and the two of you as individuals, exist. Thank you so
much for being here.
For the record, if you will, it will remain open until the
close of business Friday. There will be some additional QFRs
that you all are very familiar with. In a reasonable amount of
time, if you can respond, we would appreciate it.
Thank you, again. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Gregory Gottlieb to Questions
Submitted By Senator Todd Young
Question. Mr. Gottlieb, in order to inform the optimal allocation
of finite resources and get further ahead of crises, has USAID
undertaken any systematic and methodical effort to assess, measure, and
report resilience in regions that could be vulnerable to humanitarian
crises? Do you regularly share those results with this committee? If
not, will you? Would a systematic and ongoing assessment of resilience
in regions vulnerable to humanitarian crisis help us optimally allocate
finite resources?
Answer. USAID established the Famine Early Warning System Network
(FEWS NET) in 1985 to provide state-of-the-art, evidence-based early
warning analyses on both current and forecasted acute food insecurity.
FEWS NET works with U.S. government science agencies, national
government ministries, international agencies and NGOs to continually
refine and provide systematic, forward-looking analysis and reporting
on 36 of the world's most food-insecure and chronically vulnerable
countries on a monthly basis, with timely alerts on emerging or likely
crises and regular in-person updates as needed. We are happy to share
these with the committee.
USAID, other donors and governments use this early warning
information to optimally allocate finite humanitarian assistance
resources on an ongoing basis. This information has also enabled USAID
and others to respond earlier, more effectively, and more cost
efficiently to emerging crises. For example, early warning information
gathered through remote sensing and on-the-ground data collection in
Ethiopia in 2015 enabled the Government of Ethiopia, USAID and others
to get ahead of and manage the 2016 El Nino drought despite it being
more severe and farther reaching than the 1985 drought that led to
widespread famine.
We have also used historical trends in these data to target longer-
term development investments in countries and regions that are
vulnerable to recurrent humanitarian crises to address the underlying
causes of these crises and strengthen the ability of vulnerable
households, communities and countries to mitigate, adapt to and recover
from them. These investments in resilience, including through Feed the
Future programs and the Office of Food for Peace's development food
assistance programs, are most effective when they are aligned with
country-led efforts and investment, such as Ethiopia's Productive
Safety Net Programme (PSNP) and Kenya's Ending Drought Emergencies
(EDE) initiative.
A study by the UK's Department for International Development (DFID)
in Ethiopia and Kenya estimates that, over the long-term, each $1
invested in building resilience will result in $2.9 in reduced
humanitarian spending, avoided losses and development benefits. Recent
evidence from the lowlands of Ethiopia (figure 1) confirms the value of
these investments. Households in communities reached by USAID's
comprehensive resilience programs were able to maintain their food
security status during the severe El Nino drought in 2016, while
households in other communities experienced a significant decline.
Similar efforts to build resilience to recurrent crises that result
in repeat, large-scale humanitarian emergencies are underway in
chronically vulnerable areas of Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Uganda and
Malawi. Pilot resilience programs in Somalia show promise, but have
been much smaller in scale due to the challenging operating
environment.
More broadly, USAID also has other tools to monitor fragility
globally, including to assess vulnerability to conflict and other
crises at the country level, and to forecast countries' risk of
instability. USAID uses these tools to prioritize more in-depth country
analysis, to inform strategic planning, and to contribute to
interagency policy discussions on fragility and instability.
Question. Mr. Gottlieb, in your prepared statement, you state that
the United States' ``commitments to humanitarian efforts also enable us
to push for greater transparency and improved efficiencies in the
international system, including in the U.N. agencies.'' Can you provide
some specific examples of where you see a need for greater transparency
and improved efficiencies in U.N. Agencies?
Answer. A central element of our approach to humanitarian financing
includes using our position as the largest humanitarian donor to
advance transparency and improve efficiencies in the international
system, including with U.N. Agencies. In addition to our role on U.N.
Agency Executive Boards and other donor advisory bodies, the primary
vehicle for the conversations around transparency and efficiencies is
the Grand Bargain.
In 2015, the then-UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed a High
Level Panel for Humanitarian Financing (HLPHF) to work on finding
solutions to the widening gap between the current levels of
humanitarian need and the available resources. One of the
recommendations from the HLPHF was a package of reforms aiming to make
humanitarian financing more effective, referred to as the Grand
Bargain. Under the Grand Bargain, U.N. Agencies have committed to
advance transparency and improve inefficiencies across several issues.
Likewise, donors have committed to reviewing practices which may have
inadvertently incentivized inefficiencies.
The key areas which have been identified for U.N. Agencies to
improve transparency and make efficiency gains, through the HLPHF and
articulated in the Grand Bargain, include:
Improve open-data: U.N. Agencies need to make advancements in using
a shared open-data standard and common digital platform to
enhance transparency and decision-making. The U.N.'s Financial
Tracking System (FTS) is a well-established platform for
recording international humanitarian aid contributions, while
the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) is the
most advanced platform which covers both humanitarian and
development data. Following the Grand Bargain, FTS recently
completed its overhaul to align with the IATI standard as a
first step in this wider process. In alignment with this
priority, USAID's largest humanitarian partner, the U.N. World
Food Program (WFP), has undertaken major reforms in its
internal architecture that will enable direct donor access to
data reporting systems.
Increase support to local responders: Governments, communities, and
civil society actors are the first responders in any disaster.
By increasing training and funding directed toward local and
national responders, supporting national coordination
mechanisms, and improving the quality of assistance delivered
by local responders, U.N. Agencies can achieve efficiency gains
through reducing the number of intermediary partners, as well
as promote local ownership and strengthen local civil society.
Increase the use of cash-based programming: When appropriate, cash-
based assistance can be an efficient and effective humanitarian
intervention. USAID frequently supports cash-based modalities
for emergency response, depending on the context. Sufficient
oversight must be in place, and cash must align with people's
needs and market conditions. Under the right conditions, cash
assistance can be an effective way to meet needs, help the
local economy, reduce storage and transportation costs, reduce
risks to aid workers and beneficiaries through electronic
transactions, and make the most of limited humanitarian aid
budgets.
Reduce duplication and management costs: Through maximizing
efficiencies in procurement and logistics for commonly required
goods and services, shared procurement across U.N. Agencies can
leverage the comparative advantage of the agencies and promote
innovation. Key areas which have been identified for U.N.
Agencies to review include: travel, fleet management,
insurance, shipment tracking, pipelines, IT services and
equipment, commercial consultancies, and common support
services. An effective example of this kind of initiative can
be seen in the Rome-Based Agency collaboration, where the three
U.N. Food Agencies (WFP, Food and Agriculture Organization, and
International Fund for Agricultural Development) have already
achieved, under firm Executive Board--including the U.S.
Government--guidance, significant efficiencies in the areas of
program, administration, and oversight.
Increase the use of innovative technology: Advances in technology
can reduce the costs and increase the effectiveness of
humanitarian assistance. Several new approaches include: mobile
technology for needs assessments and monitoring; digital
platforms and mobile devices for financial transactions;
communications with affected populations via call centers or
SMS messaging; biometrics, such as fingerprint identification;
and sustainable energy. Not all approaches will be successful
in every context, but U.N. Agencies should be employing these
technologies when appropriate. USAID has been pressing for
greater use of biometric identification technology in refugee
populations served by WFP and the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which improves targeting and
reduces duplication, leading to more effective and efficient
programs.
Harmonize partnership agreements and reporting requirements:
Different U.N. Agencies often work with the same set of
partners in humanitarian responses. By harmonizing partner
agreements and reporting requirements across U.N. Agencies, the
burden of administrative management by implementing partners
can be reduced, allowing a shift of time and resources towards
delivering assistance.
Put in place comparable costs structures: Financial management
approaches across the U.N. Agencies is varied. Greater and more
consistent transparency as to what direct and indirect costs
are included in various program and budget components is needed
in order to achieve standard definitions of overhead and
management costs.
Improve joint and impartial needs assessments: Significant efforts
have been made in the past few years to strengthen the quality
and coordination of needs assessments, including within the
framework of the Humanitarian Needs Overview exercise. However,
the current approaches to joint needs assessment, across U.N.
Agencies and NGOs, still falls short of meeting the decision-
making requirements for various stakeholders, and all too often
U.N. appeals do not prioritize the most urgent needs in a given
response.
Advance fraud, waste and abuse mitigation systems: All U.N.
Agencies need to advance their systems to mitigate fraud, waste
and abuse. Specifically, the U.N. Agencies, as a collective,
need to address these issues jointly rather than in individual
channels as is the current practice. While respecting the
relevant legal restrictions, U.N. Agencies need to identify
ways to share incident reports and other information across
agencies where appropriate. A collective approach which allows
this type of sharing across U.N. Agencies will support cross-
learning and strengthen each individual agency's defenses
against fraud, waste and abuse.
Question. In November of 2016, the Office of the Inspector General
for USAID published an audit of USAID's financial statements for fiscal
years 2016 and 2015. The IG audit identified one material deficiency
and four significant deficiencies. Mr. Gottlieb, please provide my
office and the committee a written response explaining the steps that
USAID has taken to address the deficiencies identified in the IG audit.
Answer. USAID is working diligently to address the deficiencies
identified by Inspector General (IG) auditors in the fiscal year (FY)
2016 Agency Financial Report. USAID is currently conducting a detailed
analysis of our business processes to address concerns raised in the IG
audit. This analysis includes further documenting processes, revising
policies as needed, training staff, and assuring measures are in place
to ensure the quality and accuracy of USAID information.
Please find below the steps USAID is taking to address each
deficiency and the expected results identified in the Audit Report No.
0-000-17-001-C: Office of Inspector General Audit of USAID's Financial
Statements for Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015.
USAID has made substantial progress in addressing the one material
weakness and the four significant deficiencies identified in the audit.
Material Weakness: USAID Did Not Reconcile Its Fund Balance With
Treasury Account With the Department of the Treasury and
Resolve Unreconciled Items in a Timely Manner (Repeat Finding)
The IG audit identified one material weakness related to USAID's
fund balance with Treasury. As a result, the Agency has expended
significant resources to improve our business processes and tools to
ensure timely reconciliation with Treasury in order to address the
material weakness.
Significant Deficiency: Intragovernmental Transactions Remain
Unreconciled (Repeat Finding)
To address this deficiency identified by the IG audit, the Agency
has reengineered its business process for reconciliation of its
intragovernmental transactions (IGT), with a focus on timely follow up
with our trading partners and ongoing reconciliation between Treasury
and USAID. USAID has already realized significant improvement through
our efforts working with our trading partners and Treasury as evidenced
by the decrease in the number and dollar amounts of IGT transactions
that remain unreconciled.
Significant Deficiency: USAID Did Not Comply With Federal Standards in
Accounting for Reimbursable Agreements (Repeat Finding)
USAID will address the non-compliance of reimbursable agreements
with accounting standards once the upgrade to our core financial system
is implemented in FY 2018.
Significant Deficiency: USAID Did Not Maintain Adequate Records of
Property, Plant, and Equipment
USAID reviewed the underlying causes of the reporting errors and
has established new quality assurance processes to ensure timely and
accurate data collection and reporting of vehicles and real property
overseas.
Significant Deficiency: USAID Did Not Promptly Investigate and Resolve
Potential Funds Control Violations
USAID has reduced the backlog of funds control violation cases by
assigning additional resources and modifying our business processes to
streamline case evaluation, resulting in making major progress toward
addressing the fourth deficiency.
__________
Response of Hon. Nancy Lindborg to Question
Submitted By Senator Todd Young
Question. Ms. Lindborg, in your prepared remarks, you state that
``The U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
is appealing for $5.6 billion in 2017 to address famines in Yemen,
South Sudan, Nigeria and Somalia, $4.4 billion of which is required
urgently by June . . .'' What portion of that $4.4 billion appeal has
been pledged and delivered? Do you believe that goal will be met by
June? If it is not met, what do you see as the specific consequences?
Answer. As of Tuesday, March 28, only $572 million of the $4.4
billion appeal for aid has been received by the U.N. That accounts for
just 13% of the total needed by June 2017 to engage effectively in
response and prevention efforts in the countries at risk of famine.
Barring massive change to the size of pledges and their rapid
disbursement over the next two months, it is highly unlikely that the
full $4.4 billion will be raised by June.
For reference, according to OCHA, of the four countries facing
famine, Somalia is closest to meeting its appeal, having raised 22.3%
of the priority requirements for food security, health, nutrition and
water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). However, Somalia's appeal is the
smallest of the four countries at risk of famine. Yemen, which faces
the largest humanitarian crisis of the four nations in question, has
only raised 7% of its appeal.
Status of Priority Requirements for Famine Response and Prevention:
Nigeria--$64 million raised out of $734.1 billion (9%)
Somalia--$160 million raised out of $720 million (22%)
South Sudan--$231 million raised out of $1.25 billion (18%)
Yemen--$117 million raised out of $1.7 billion (7%)
There will be dire humanitarian, regional and global consequences
if this international appeal is not met.
In March, the head of U.N. Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator
Stephen O'Brien told the U.N. Security Council that, ``without
collective and coordinated global efforts, people will simply starve to
death'' and ``many more will suffer and die from disease.'' As I noted
in my testimony, current estimates place 20 million people at risk of
starvation, and if the 2011 Somali famine is any indication, we should
expect half of the dead to be children.
potential consequences
The legacy of this humanitarian disaster will linger long after the
dead are buried. A generation of those children who survive will be
irreversibly stunted by the severe malnutrition they experienced. This
nutrition-related stunting radically changes the course of a child's
life by impairing the development of their brain, lowering IQ, and
weakening immune systems. This stunting, in combination with the
limited access to school that accompanies humanitarian disaster, will
leave the region with millions of people who lack the skills or
experience necessary to build resilient societies and responsive
governments.
These famines have forced over nearly two million people to flee.
The severity of this crisis is on display in Bidi Bidi, a nearly
inhabited grassland in Uganda that has developed into the world's
largest refugee camp in less than six months. Bidi Bidi currently plays
host over 300,000 people. These refugees add to the record 65 million
people displaced globally and have a destabilizing effect on the
region, which in turn has the potential to affect Europe with continued
unchecked flows of refugees.
As we have seen in previous famines, gains in economic development
will likely be reversed with the potential for the development, revival
or expansion of illicit market activities. Currently, all four nations
are contending with insurgencies and violent extremist organizations,
which exploit extreme hunger and structural inequality to recruit,
forcibly and voluntarily, more people into their ranks. These black
markets will further enable the civil wars and terrorist operations
that are already underway in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, and renewed in
South Sudan. A tepid international response to these famines may prove
to be fertile recruitment fodder for terror organizations like Al-
Shabaab, Boko Haram Al-Qaeda and ISIL. The sum total of a failure to
respond would leave millions dead and regional conflicts more
intractable, with the potential of more and longer term regional
instability and economic volatility coupled with the potential for
continued spread of terrorist organizations.
[all]