VZCZCXRO4408
PP RUEHROV
DE RUEHKH #0908/01 1060919
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 160919Z APR 06 ZDK CCY PER DRAFTER
FM AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2370
INFO RUCNFUR/DARFUR COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 KHARTOUM 000908 
 
SIPDIS 
 
C O R R E C T E D C O P Y ((CORRECTIONS PARA 1, 3, 4)) 
 
AIDAC 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR AF/SPG, PRM, AND ALSO PASS USAID/W 
USAID FOR DCHA SUDAN TEAM, AF/EA, DCHA 
NAIROBI FOR USAID/DCHA/OFDA, USAID/REDSO, AND FAS 
USMISSION UN ROME 
GENEVA FOR NKYLOH 
NAIROBI FOR SFO 
NSC FOR JMELINE 
USUN FOR TMALY 
BRUSSELS FOR PLERNER 
ABUJA PASS C. HUME 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EAID PREF PGOV MOPS PHUM SOCI SU
SUBJECT:  SUDAN: RESOURCE-HUNGRY WFP TO HALVE RATIONS 
COUNTRY-WIDE 
 
 
KHARTOUM 00000908  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1.  On April 11, 2006, the U.N. World Food Program 
(WFP) hosted a meeting for donors and non-governmental 
organizations (NGOs) to provide details on plans for 
addressing funding and pipeline shortfalls for the 
next three to four months.  Beginning in April, in order 
extend stocks through the hungry season, WFP 
will cut rations in half throughout Sudan and 
reduce its caseload by approximately 200,000 in Darfur. 
Distributions will focus on internally displaced 
person (IDP) camps and a select group of locations 
outside of camps.  WFP stated that it has neither the 
capacity nor the resources to increase coverage or 
respond to new food needs in Sudan.  According to WFP, 
to date the USG has provided 25 percent of WFP's 
requested 2006 funding for Sudan, while other donors 
and the U.N. have provided only a combined 3.4 
percent. The U.S. contribution represents over 88 percent 
of what WFP has received so far in 2006. 
 
¶2.  WFP and partners expect the ration cuts to affect 
the humanitarian situation negatively throughout 
Sudan.  The distribution of food in camps only may 
induce migration to camps, increasing the WFP caseload 
and further strYgM-- 
Resource Hungry 
--------------- 
 
¶3.  On April 11, a USAID representative attended a 
meeting of WFP donors and food distribution partners 
to discuss WFP's plans to address a major funding 
shortfall for its Sudan Emergency Operation (EMOP). 
During the meeting, WFP repeatedly stated that there 
was not a "break" in the food pipeline due to the slow 
delivery of resources, but rather a pipeline shortage. 
To date, WFP has received only USD 214 million, or 29 
percent of the USD 746 million requested for its EMOP. 
The USG has funded USD 188 million, or 25 percent of 
the EMOP.  A combination of other donations accounts 
for an additional USD 25.6 million in funding, or 3.4 
percent of the EMOP.  Seven donors have provided USD 
12.4 million, and private entities and the U.N. 
Common Humanitarian fund have provided USD 13.1 
million.  WFP is in the process of trying to 
borrow USD 35 million internally, but this 
would still leave significant resource shortfalls.  In 
addition, WFP stated that it has asked the Government 
of National Unity (GNU) for a contribution, but to 
date has received no commitment. 
 
¶4.  The funding shortage has caused WFP to cut rations 
and reduce staff.  WFP has been distributing 30,000 
metric tons (MT) of food monthly to 2.2 million 
beneficiaries in Darfur.  For the next three to four 
months, WFP will distribute 25,000 MT of food monthly to 
only 2 million beneficiaries. WFP chose to reduce rations 
in order to prolong the number of months for which it can 
distribute food, rather than providing full rations in 
April and not distributing rations at all in May and 
June. 
 
---------------- 
Food for Thought 
---------------- 
 
¶5.  The current outlook for the WFP Sudan program is 
bleak unless donors contribute towards the EMOP.  By 
providing rations to camps only, WFP and partners may 
unintentionally generate migration into camps. 
Looting and crime may increase, especially outside of 
camps, as less food will available with the 
convergence of ration cuts and the traditional "hunger 
gap" season.  In addition, it is possible that 
beneficiaries may take out anger on NGO partners that 
 
KHARTOUM 00000908  002 OF 002 
 
 
distribute food for WFP.  (Note: USAID has received 
informal reports of this happening in several 
locations in Darfur.  End note.) 
 
¶6.  USAID should urge WFP to explore alternatives and 
communicate clearly with distribution partners and 
stakeholders.  Although it is important to keep ration 
sizes the same in all areas to avoid inducing 
population movements, WFP should allow for some 
variation in the ration size from month to month in 
order to respond should the distribution caseload 
rise.  In addition, WFP food distribution partners 
should be getting the word out to local authorities 
and beneficiaries that rations cuts are forthcoming in 
order to avoid anger before food distributions are 
underway. 
 
STEINFELD