VZCZCXRO8058
PP RUEHGI RUEHMA RUEHROV
DE RUEHKH #0897/01 1580640
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 070640Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7509
INFO RUCNFUR/DARFUR COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHRN/USMISSION UN ROME

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 KHARTOUM 000897 
 
SIPDIS 
 
AIDAC 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR AF/SPG, PRM, PERKINS, AND ALSO PASS USAID/W 
USAID FOR DCHA SUDAN TEAM, AFR/SP 
NAIROBI FOR USAID/DCHA/OFDA, USAID/REDSO, AND FAS 
GENEVA FOR NKYLOH 
NAIROBI FOR SFO 
NSC FOR PMARCHAM, MMAGAN, AND TSHORTLEY 
ADDIS ABABA FOR USAU 
USUN FOR TMALY 
BRUSSELS FOR PLERNER 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EAID PREF PGOV PHUM SOCI UN SU
SUBJECT:  SUDAN - DEMARCHE ON UNHCR CLUSTER ROLE IN DARFUR DELIVERED 
IN KHARTOUM 
 
REF:  STATE 073768 
 
KHARTOUM 00000897  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
(SBU) On June 3, 2007, the Senior Humanitarian Advisor for 
USAID/Sudan met with the Officer in Charge and the Assistant Deputy 
Representative of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for 
Refugees (UNHCR) in Khartoum to deliver talking points per the 
demarche cable sent to Geneva on May 30, 2007 (REFTEL).  In 
response, UNHCR pointed to the ongoing negotiations with the 
Government of National Unity (GNU), which continues to stress that 
UNHCR performance in West Darfur needs to be evaluated before an 
expansion of their involvement in camp coordination and protection 
can be considered for North and South Darfur.  UNHCR noted that 
scaling up in Darfur is complicated, time-consuming, and full of 
starts and stops due to the need for government approval. The 
parting note by UNHCR suggested that public pressure from the USG on 
UNHCR would most likely be counterproductive and further delay GNU 
approval of UNHCR service expansion.  End summary. 
 
------------------------------------- 
RESPONSES TO PROPOSED UNHCR EXPANSION 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) In response to the points of the demarche, the Officer in 
Charge of UNHCR noted that the cluster approach has not yet been 
formally launched in Sudan, and that UNHCR and the UN Office for the 
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) are still collaborating 
on camp coordination and protection under an informal agreement 
signed in Sudan on January 29, 2005.  The GNU is not party to this 
agreement and has, up to now, maintained its position that UNHCR's 
performance in West Darfur needs to be evaluated before any 
expansion of engagement in Darfur could be considered. 
 
¶2. (SBU) In a separate communication following the June 3 meeting, 
UNHCR noted that the High Commissioner for UNHCR (HC) has held 
various meetings with Sudanese government authorities on the issue 
of camp coordination.  In these meetings, the HC explained that the 
UN Country Team has requested UNHCR to expand its protection and 
camp coordination and management activities, both in West Darfur but 
also in North and South Darfur.  The HC stressed that UNHCR could 
only do this in cooperation with the GNU and that UNHCR's overriding 
goal was to help people in need. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In addition, UNHCR reported that GNU officials expressed 
that the proposed expanded role for UNHCR in Darfur might "raise 
more questions than answers".  While the GNU has indicated some 
confidence in UNHCR's intentions, officials remain concerned about 
the consultations process.  GNU officials have pointed out that 
protection and camp coordination and management may be interpreted 
differently by the various parties, citing past problems on this 
point with the Norwegian Refugee Council. UNHCR was advised to 
"focus on the West and leave the South and North" out. 
 
¶4. (SBU) In response to the GNU's comments, the HC recalled that 
internally displaced persons (IDPs) are the primary responsibility 
of the government. He traced the development of the cluster approach 
and stressed that UNHCR involvement is contingent on agreement from 
the government. UNHCR plans to scale up efforts in West Darfur, 
evaluate the results, and determine how these efforts might be 
replicated in North and South Darfur.  The HC reiterated that an 
agreement with the government would need to be reached before any 
expansion occurred. 
 
------------------------- 
TOWARDS SERVICE EXPANSION 
------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) In the June 3 meeting, UNHCR stated that a UNHCR/Geneva 
staff member recently completed a four-week field assignment in 
Darfur to assess the conditions for UNHCR's expanded role in camp 
coordination and protection under the UN cluster "Cluster for Camp 
Coordination and Management" (CCCM).  The mission report is not yet 
available.  One product is a typology of IDP settlements into "Camps 
with established CCCM structure", "Settlements with 100 percent or 
substantial IDP population", "Settlements with limited IDP 
population", and "Other locations of concern".  Based on this 
 
KHARTOUM 00000897  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
typology, UNHCR and OCHA will determine which settlements will fall 
under UNHCR's coordination responsibility and which will remain with 
OCHA.  Given the vast difference between settlements of a classical 
camp nature and others where IDPs are mixed into a majority-resident 
population, UNHCR and OCHA are in the process of determining the 
distribution of responsibility.  The two agencies meet on a weekly 
basis to coordinate the shared responsibility. 
 
¶6. (SBU) In addition, UNHCR noted that it closely coordinates with 
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the preparations and is 
mindful of the potential for the GNU to use the transition phase to 
pursue the GNU's own agenda vis-a-vis the presence of NGOs in 
Darfur. 
 
¶7. (SBU) UNHCR admitted that the donor briefing process was 
incomplete and was largely bilateral.  The USG was briefed through 
the Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and 
Migration (PRM).  USAID did not have a bilateral briefing. 
 
---------------------- 
SCALING UP BUT HOW FAR 
---------------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) Current draft plans call for the establishment of eight 
offices, with a presence similar to the set-up of the International 
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).  UNHCR noted that the 
establishment of one Minimum Operational Security 
Standards-compliant office costs USD 1 million. Final plans have not 
yet been drawn up but will likely include a sub-office in each state 
with strategically placed field offices in critical areas, as well 
as frequent travel to individual camps. 
 
------------------------------------ 
FUTURE FOR NGOS IN CAMP COORDINATION 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶9. (SBU) In closing the meeting, UNHCR noted that the International 
Rescue Committee (IRC) might be close to "calling it quits" with 
camp coordination.  The constant pressure on IRC staff stemming from 
bureaucratic impediments and problematic visa extensions may have 
brought IRC close to resigning from camp coordination.  UNHCR 
expressed concern that the potential departure of the strongest NGO 
camp coordinator, IRC, could lead to a possible domino effect with 
other NGOs abandoning camp coordination efforts as well. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) UNHCR is keenly aware of the concern USAID has for timely 
acceptance of camp coordination responsibilities in all three Darfur 
states.  It is, however, concerned that USG pressure exerted on 
UNHCR, if escaping into the public domain, would result in a further 
delay in obtaining necessary GNU approval. 
 
FERNANDEZ