Aid agencies must learn to take the flak - WFP/AlertNet debate

Written by: Megan Rowling

The pressure is on for aid agencies - including the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) - to be more open about when things go wrong.

Journalists and relief workers agreed at a debate in London on Friday, organised by WFP and AlertNet, that humanitarian organisations should improve their response to critical reports about their work.

The discussion comes in the wake of controversy surrounding WFP food aid in Somalia.

A March report by a U.N. panel of experts monitoring compliance with U.N. sanctions said up to half the food aid for needy Somalis was being diverted to a network of corrupt contractors, al Shabaab militants and local U.N. staff.

It also said a Somali businessman linked to al Shabaab who likely received a ransom paid for kidnapped aid workers was a contractor for both WFP and the U.N. children's fund, UNICEF.

Gian Carlo Cirri, head of WFP in Yemen, told The F-word: Hunger in the Media debate that the U.N. report was "not well-substantiated" and included "many factual mistakes". He noted a lack of communication between his agency and the U.N. group writing the report.

He added that, as a country director, he takes the position there is no acceptable level of aid diversion, and the objective should be zero in terms of stolen food.

He said WFP had put in place a system to minimise any aid diversion beyond losses during transportation of 2 percent.

Last year, Jonathan Rugman, foreign affairs correspondent for Britain's Channel 4 News, broadcast a report saying thousands of sacks of food aid had been diverted from refugees and sold by Somali businessmen on the open market.

Rugman argued at the London debate that talking about there being no "acceptable level of diversion" can "become a blanket form of denial".

"My advice to aid agencies is that if you're in a hole, don't make it any bigger."

When WFP had argued that 98 percent of food aid was reaching the people it was intended for, "it was laughed out of court by other aid agencies," he added.

Rugman said he had been thanked for his work exposing alleged aid corruption in Somalia by some relief groups, but acknowledged that "fessing up" is much easier said than done.

Cirri said WFP plans to launch an external evaluation of its Somalia operations this month.

"We hope that this will allow us to move forward in a more positive manner," he said. "Your coverage has triggered internal investigations and has allowed us to correct on some modalities."

After the U.N. report's findings emerged, WFP said it would not engage in any new work with the three contractors mentioned, for example, and would welcome an independent investigation.

Greg Barrow, WFP's global media coordinator, noted that monitoring the delivery of food aid is expensive, and this has to be taken into account when considering how to tighten procedures.

"A better system could be put in place, but it would take (money) away from food assistance programmes," he noted.

Richard Dowden, director of the Royal Africa Society, told the audience that aid agencies operating in war zones had to accept that some of their supplies would likely go astray.

"The only question for me is what proportion do you allow to be stolen? Two percent is preposterous - (it's more like) 30 or 40 percent - if it goes over that you think what's going on and you have to start playing hard ball."

He mentioned a case he had experienced in Uganda where WFP aid being sent up to the north was returning to markets in the capital Kampala to be resold three weeks in a row, pushing the country director to cut supplies to the region by half.

Ishbel Matheson, director of media at Save the Children in Britain, argued the aid world remains poor at managing risks to its reputation and needs to become more sophisticated at responding to criticism.

She told the debate that losing trust can affect the way members of the public perceive humanitarian work, reducing their support and affecting operations.

"We are not very good at managing attacks on ourselves. We need to explain things in terms people can understand. Denying it is a complete mistake," she said.

Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.