After a UN inter-agency appeal for US $353 million for drought-affected populations in the Horn of Africa was launched in January 2001, donors showed great reluctance in responding. Catherine Bertini, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the drought in the Greater Horn of Africa, warned at the time that some 13 million people needed help to recover from three years of consecutive drought. While famine had been successfully averted last year, she said, a crisis remained. The UN Regional Humanitarian Coordinator for the Drought in the Horn of Africa, Bronek Szynalski, told IRIN there was still great concern that urgently needed funds had not been pledged.
QUESTION: Is the drought over, or is there still need for emergency intervention?
ANSWER: From the outside, it probably looks pretty good. The rains have come in all the countries which were affected by the regional drought now, except Eritrea. The perception is that the disaster is over. But if you look underneath that very superficial impression, the fact is that recovery from last year’s drought - and the two years before it - is far from accomplished. People have not yet engaged in a real recovery process.
Q: What is needed now?
A: In order to engage properly in a recovery process, it is not sufficient just to feed people. Stocks and herds have to be rebuilt, and livelihoods have to be re-established. There are now signs that herds are being rebuilt, and some harvest was collected as the result of [the] small rains. But this will not be sufficient for more than three to four months. We need to rebuild food and animal stocks for a much longer period.
Q: Which country causes the most concern?
A: The response to the appeal by the United Nations and [the appeals] by the governments of the Horn countries has been very poor. In some cases, this may be due to the fact [that] the appeal was launched rather late. But the Ethiopia appeal, for example, was launched in January by the government, and at the beginning of February by the United Nations - yet the response, three months later, is extremely disappointing... The Eritrea appeal was launched on 22 February, and the response has been very, very low. The response to Kenya is only 3 percent, although perhaps with the contribution of WFP [World Food Programme]last week, it has gone up to 13 percent. But the WFP contribution is only food aid. For the recovery process, cash is needed for things like seeds, tools, health services, water supply and shelter.
Q: What is the situation in Somalia?
A: It has changed to the extent that the harvest, late last year, was pretty good. Therefore the food supply side is quite adequate. However, more than 70 percent of Somalis depend on pastoralism as an income... Now there is the problem of selling animals because of the Rift Valley Fever export ban [imposed in the Horn of Africa last September by the Gulf states]. Even if there are some animals being exported despite the ban, it cannot amount to but an infinitesimal proportion of what is normally exported. There was some suggestion that pastoralists depending on exports for their income... were having to beg for food from international agencies simply because they could not sell their animals.
Q: After last year’s international effort, do you think donors now want to turn their attention elsewhere?
A: The big issue with donors is always in the perception of what is a crisis. Last year, donors could see pictures on television screens and in newspapers of starving children and women, and dead animals. This always impresses the general public, and the donors respond. We managed to avoid famine by the very generous donor response last year... but if people are not helped now to get their livelihoods together somehow, they may die within the next six months...
Q: You mentioned that pastoralists had been hit particularly hard by the drought. What can be done for those communities?
A: There are initiatives to get the pastoralists involved in the longer-term planning and programmes in the various countries of the Horn... Pastoralists have to be recognised as a group that represents a certain wealth within the economy... They need assistance with animal health, extension services and training... They need to know in a modern society how to market their products... But most governments feel it is too complicated to give attention to the pastoralists.
Q: What was the response of regional governments to the drought - was it sufficient?
A: Last year, there was definitely a very positive response from the governments in the Horn, particularly Kenya and Ethiopia. In the case of Somalia, there wasn’t a government that could respond... Eritrea has just come out of conflict, so it is impossible for the government to make any contribution. But it was quite a refreshing change that the two countries that were affected in a major way - Ethiopia and Kenya - made their own contributions. They collaborated very well with the humanitarian community.
Q: To what extent has the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea made donors reluctant to get involved?
A: Well, the signs now are good. There is no fighting any more... Many donors have indicated that they are reviewing legislation which prevented them engaging in a development process because of the conflict. They might soon be able to engage in much more serious development activities in those two countries... The conflict has always played a very important role in donor decisions. If the situation between Ethiopia and Eritrea remains peaceful, the chances are the donors will respond much more generously. That also applies of course to the Somalia situation, which has been a debatable object of donor generosity, mainly because of insecurity.
This article was produced by IRIN News while it was part of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Please send queries on copyright or liability to the UN. For more information: https://shop.un.org/rights-permissions