INFO  LOG-00   EEB-00   AF-00    AGRE-00  CA-00    CIAE-00  INL-00   
      DNI-00   DHSE-00  EUR-00   UTED-00  FDRE-01  H-00     TEDE-00  
      INR-00   IO-00    MOFM-00  MOF-00   DCP-00   NSAE-00  OIC-00   
      NIMA-00  EPAU-00  MCC-00   GIWI-00  DOHS-00  IRM-00   TRSE-00  
      NCTC-00  FMP-00   CBP-00   EPAE-00  SCRS-00  PRM-00   SAS-00   
      FA-00    SWCI-00  PESU-00    /001W
   
R 040948Z NOV 09
FM AMEMBASSY KINSHASA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 0275
INFO RWANDA COLLECTIVE
USMISSION GENEVA 
USMISSION UN ROME
USEU BRUSSELS
USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 
AMEMBASSY NAIROBI 
NSC WASHDC
SECDEF WASHDC
SOUTHERN AF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS KINSHASA 000990 
 
 
AIDAC 
 
AID/W FOR DCHA/OFDA- CCHAN, ACONVERY, KCHANNELL, RKERR 
AID/W FOR DCHA/FFP- TANDERSON, NCOX, TMCRAE 
AID/W FOR DCHA/OTI- KHUBER 
AID/W FOR AA/AFR, EARL GAST; AFR/EA RHELLYER, KDESGRANGES 
NAIROBI FOR USAID/OFDA/ARO- GPRATT, SKHANDAGLE 
NAIROBI FOR USAID/FFP- DSUTHER 
KAMPALA FOR MLARSON-KONE 
STATE FOR PRM,WHENNING; S/WI; AF/C 
ROME FOR USUN FODAG- RNEWBERG 
GENEVA FOR NYKLOH 
NSC FOR PMARCHAM 
BRUSSELS FOR USAID JADDLETON 
NEW YORK FOR TMALY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAID PREF CG
SUBJECT: The Rapid Exodus of IDPs from the Camps in Goma, DRC 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (U) A rapid field study of the sudden exodus of an estimated 
65,000 residents of camps for displaced populations in the Goma area 
has revealed evidence of excessive use of violence and the violation 
of humanitarian principles during the camps closure. The sudden camp 
closures also damaged relations among the North Kivu government, 
humanitarian organizations, and displaced populations. While some of 
the IDPs have returned to secure environments and received 
assistance, others from still-insecure areas are staying in transit 
sites and with host families. Returnees throughout North Kivu are 
struggling to determine how to access humanitarian goods and 
services and transition to village life. Among the study 
recommendations include applying lessons learned to future camp 
closures in North Kivu; orienting assistance based on vulnerability 
not status; enhancing and harmonizing protection efforts; supporting 
land mediation initiatives, and increasing funding in the 
rehabilitation of return areas and associated logistical costs. It 
should be noted that returnees from the Goma camps represent only a 
very small fraction of the vulnerable populations in North Kivu. 
Overemphasis on the Goma camp returnees will distract from the 
considerable needs of other IDPs and camp residents, returnees, host 
families, and village residents. End Summary 
 
---------------------------------------- 
Objectives, Site Locations, and Contacts 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) From 10 - 23 October 2009, USAID/OFDA representatives from 
Washington and Kinshasa undertook a rapid field study of the sudden 
exodus of between 58,000 and 65,000 residents from six of the eight 
camps for displaced populations located in the greater Goma area. 
The study aimed to (1) examine the nature of the exodus as it 
relates to humanitarian protection and voluntary departure; (2) 
discuss with returnees their condition, needs and capacities in 
return and transit areas; and (3) make recommendations for 
humanitarian assistance strategies/processes, and selected response 
and mitigation initiatives for North Kivu. 
 
¶3. (U) The assessment team visited consolidated camps in Goma as 
well as transit sites, return areas and spontaneous settlements 
along three axes: (1) Goma - Masisi; (2) Goma - Kirolirwe; (3) and 
Goma - Kiwanja. The team also collected information during meetings 
with humanitarian partners, and from interviews with camp residents, 
returnees, UN organizations and other humanitarian actors. Security 
concerns limited both the areas that could be visited and the length 
of the team's stay in the field. 
 
------------------ 
Goma Camp Closures 
------------------ 
 
¶4. (U) According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 
steps for camps closures started in January with food rations being 
cut to 50% as a result of a WFP study indicating decreased food 
needs. Beginning in August 2009, heads of households were requested 
to determine their departure date from the camps. According to 
UNHCR, all Bulengo and Buhimba residents picked between September 14 
and 15, Mugunga I residents selected between September 15 and 16, 
and Mugunga II decided to vacate the camp between September 25 and 
¶26. After the return date has been selected, UNHCR provided signed 
certificates of voluntary return to heads of household indicating 
their expected date of departure. The IDPs believed that only 
certificate holders would be entitled to distributions of non-food 
items (NFIs), three months of food rations, and a seeds and tools 
package at distribution sites located in their areas of return. 
However, UNHCR staff pointed out to the team that although 
certificates are required for distributions, they are no guarantee 
to distributions as beneficiaries will be determined based on the 
level of vulnerability in return areas. 
 
¶5. (U) According to returnees interviewed, government 
representatives had been applying pressure to IDP camp leaders to 
announce the camp closures.  These announcements were made jointly 
by camp leaders and government representatives, who reported that 
food and non-food items would be provided only in areas of return. 
Some returnees reported that camp leaders who resisted were 
threatened. Some residents were told that if they remained they 
would be considered interahamwe (a term used for the 1994 
genocidaires from Rwanda) and detained. Others reported that some 
government representatives told residents that they needed to go 
home to protect their land from other returnees including Congolese 
Tutsi refugees from Rwanda. Therefore, most felt obligated to accept 
the conditions and many started departing the camps starting with 
Kibati I, Bulengo, Buhimba, and Kibati II. 
 
¶6. (U) The closure of Mungunga I involved egregious violations of 
human rights and dignity. According to both IDPs and many 
humanitarian organizations, in the late afternoon of September 18, 
two days after the camp was supposed to be closed, a group of young 
people, believed to be members of the communities surrounding the 
camps entered the camp and began tearing down shelters and looting 
houses and public facilities. Some of the camp residents resisted, 
and the police responded by firing shots. Three women were wounded 
and subsequently evacuated by MONUC troops. In the chaos, the IDPs 
left rapidly, in mini-buses for those who could afford it and by 
foot by most, with little or no protection and assistance from 
humanitarian organizations (a few private individuals and Handicap 
International rushed to assist disabled and other highly vulnerable 
individuals including pregnant women and very old people by 
providing transportation). Between 15 and 26 September, all 
UNHCR-managed camps in Goma except for Mugunga III suddenly closed. 
 
¶7. (U) Returnees interviewed, not only those from Mugunga I camp, 
were very upset at the way they were treated during the period of 
the camp closures. It is logical to encourage and facilitate the 
return of camp residents when home areas are secure/safe, health and 
nutrition have reached non-emergency levels, and the return is free, 
informed and not achieved through means such as coercion, trickery 
or violence. The violence such as that carried out in Mugunga I that 
obligated frightened camp residents to leave rapidly in an unsafe, 
undignified, and otherwise unacceptable manner, represents a clear 
violation of human rights and humanitarian principles that should be 
denounced. 
 
¶8. (U) All non-UN organizations interviewed stated they were 
surprised and angered by the rapidity of the closure, and that 
because they learned of the closures so late they were not prepared 
to provide protection or timely support to the returnees. 
 
¶9. (U) Unfortunately, some of the IDPs interviewed appeared 
convinced that the GNK, UN, and both local and international NGOs 
had worked together to close the camps, a fact which has damaged 
what trust they might have had in humanitarian organizations. 
 
------------------------------------- 
Conditions, Services, and Land Access 
in Return/Transit Areas 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (U) The IDPs who left the camps scattered to a variety of 
locations. Some stayed in Goma, integrating into the local economy, 
some went to transit sites located near other distribution centers, 
others have settled into sites close to their home areas where they 
can monitor the security situation, while some have been able to 
return home. 
 
¶11. (U) Although most sites of return visited by the study team were 
preferable to conditions in the camps, conditions reflect years of 
neglect and underdevelopment that have been exacerbated by the 
ravage of war. As a result, returnees who were able to settle into 
villages in newly secure areas face a variety of problems that stem 
from chronic underdevelopment that manifests itself through under- 
or non-performing schools and health systems, poor roads and market 
infrastructure, and damaged or inexistent water and sanitation 
infrastructure. 
 
¶12. (U) The issue of land control and access in the current context 
of instability is important and problematic in North Kivu. 
Returnees and humanitarian partners described a wide variety of 
returnee relationships to land in home areas. While some still own 
and can lay uncontested claim to their land, others are finding 
their land taken over by those who remained behind or by other 
displaced individuals. Some sold their land at a very low price 
before they left and are trying to buy it back with varying degree 
of success. Others never owned land and are now working as tenant 
farmers or renting land. There are also returnees that are taking 
over other people's land or expanding their holdings with assistance 
from local government and military authorities. 
 
-------- 
Security 
-------- 
 
¶13. (U) Security concerns were the first priority of camp and 
village residents, returnees and IDPs. In all the sites visited 
people discussed in detail their concerns about either past, 
current, or anticipated violence and insecurity. Sexual and 
gender-based violence remain at epidemic levels in some marginally 
or highly insecure sites. Villagers interviewed reported recent 
rapes of both men and women. Women were in fear of violence each 
time they left the village to cultivate their fields and collect 
wood or water. At Rubaya, a site along the Goma-Rutshuru axis, women 
reported going to the fields in groups of four or five as a 
protection measure. 
 
--------------------------- 
WASH Services for Returnees: 
--------------------------- 
 
¶14. (U) The water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services for the 
returnees from the Goma camps are limited to the provision of a soft 
plastic water jug as part of an NFI distribution coordinated by 
UNHCR.  No other WASH interventions are specifically planned for 
this population.  It is expected that the Goma Camp returnees along 
with other returnees will receive services through development 
programs or cholera rapid response interventions, which include 
water system repair, spring improvement and latrine installation. 
 
----------------------------- 
Health Services for Returnees 
----------------------------- 
 
¶15. (U) All returnees are expected to receive health services 
through the local government health facilities in rural areas. 
Unfortunately, government health delivery systems have virtually no 
or limited capacity to provide healthcare to its population. A 
variety of NGOs is working in stable areas of return, implementing 
health projects that appear to be closely coordinated with the 
government health delivery systems.  The majority of health 
intervention programs being implemented by NGOs working in health 
Qintervention programs being implemented by NGOs working in health 
outside of camps appear to be developmental in nature as opposed to 
emergency response interventions. These programs will require 
long-term funding in order to have a positive impact on the health 
delivery system in North Kivu. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
Non-Food Items and Food Distributions: 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶16. (U) The Goma camp returnees were eligible to receive a 
resettlement NFI package, three months of rations and a 
seed/agricultural tool package.  These commodities are being/have 
been distributed at eight regional centers. This assistance is 
provided to only those with certificates, who must appear in person 
to collect the goods. UNHCR reported that all the NFI distributions 
have been completed, and interviews with Goma camp returnees 
revealed NFI distributions had been received. 
 
---------------------------------- 
Community Relations and Governance 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶17. (U) In some areas, regional and local governance have become 
vastly more complex. In parts of the Masisi Territory, elements of 
the CNDP have inserted their own representatives, creating a 
governance structure in parallel to existing official structures. 
This will inevitably cause tensions and/or conflicts over decision 
making and control of land, minerals and other assets, and 
constituent support. 
 
¶18. (U) The relationships among returnees and village residents vary 
widely. Returnees in near Kirolirwe appear to be honoring individual 
claims to houses and fields, noting that property boundaries are 
still clearly delineated by trees.  Near Sake, the team spoke with 
several dozens of returnees who were arguing heatedly with each 
other about entitlements and distributions of benefits, and 
ownership of certificates. We also found that there was much 
confusion over distribution schedule and dates of distributions. 
 
¶19. (U) The team found evidence that some populations, particularly 
WaMbuti (pygmies), are being seriously discriminated against, losing 
access to distributions and basic needs. In Mubambiro, a village 
just northeast of Sake, a group of WaMbuti appeared not knowing 
about distribution dates and locations. Some claimed that non-Mbuti 
individuals had collected their certificates pretending to be 
helping them claim their benefits, but never returned. A pipe that 
had brought spring water to the area where they had settled had been 
purposefully broken to cut the supply and provide it closer to the 
non-Mbuti households. These populations are particularly vulnerable 
because they do not own land as they traditionally live in the 
forest and do not have anywhere to return to. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Observations and Recommendations 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶20. (U) It is the opinion of the study team that the excessive 
violence used during the rapid exodus of IDPs from Mugunga I rightly 
points to human rights abuses. The process used in closing the six 
camps suggests the violation of humanitarian principles. The closure 
process is also believed to have damaged relations among the GNK, 
humanitarian organizations, and the displaced populations they have 
been assisting. Some IDPs have returned to secure environments and 
are receiving assistance while others from still-insecure areas have 
opted to stay in transit sites and with host families. It is a 
struggle for most returnees to know how to access humanitarian goods 
and services. The transition from camp to village life continues to 
be a challenge to many returnees. 
 
¶21. (U) Lessons learned from the Goma camps closure need to be 
applied in the planned upcoming camp closures in Masisi. This should 
include improvements in information sharing, sensitization of the 
camp residents, investigations of security in home areas, and the 
scheduling of returns.  It is imperative to follow the condition, 
progress, needs and capacities of returnees in home/transit areas 
using standardized surveillance and monitoring tools as best as 
possible. The study team feels that assistance needs to be provided 
based on the relative vulnerability rather than the status of 
various groups. Protection efforts, including protection monitoring 
and assistance should be enhanced and harmonized and initiatives 
addressing rapes and other gender-based violence be expanded. 
Mechanisms insuring orderly and voluntary return of refugees need to 
be put in place before facilitating the return of large numbers of 
Congolese refugees from Rwanda as massive return of Tutsi refugees 
is widely predicted to cause considerable tension and conflict over 
land access, ownership and use. Although food distribution appears 
critical, it is important to examine the duration of food benefits 
to avoid causing distortions in local markets and discouraging local 
production and consumption 
 
¶22. (U) Programmatically, the study team recommends consolidating 
assistance programs that used to have specific targets (newly 
displaced, returnees) to ensure greater flexibility of response 
while harmonizing assistance. It is important to increase funding to 
allow for the necessary and increasing logistical costs associated 
with accessing remote return areas. To returnees, shelters needs are 
capital in their decision to return, and it is therefore important 
that shelter needs are addressed in return areas. Additional support 
is needed for initiatives that are addressing land tenure and access 
issues, which are critical province-wide, particularly with the 
predicted return of Congolese refugees from bordering countries. 
Support initiatives that offer conflict mitigation and resolution 
need to be recommended and protection activities should be 
integrated into existing and planned programs in all sectors 
 
¶23. (U) It is important to highlight that the returnees from Goma 
camps represent only a very small fraction of the vulnerable 
populations in North Kivu. OCHA has estimated between January and 
September 2009 the number of IDPs in North Kivu at 690,758 and 
432,804 spontaneous returnees. Overemphasis on returnees from Goma 
camps will distract from the considerable needs of returnees who 
have returned spontaneously from host families and spontaneous camps 
throughout North Kivu. The problem presented by Goma returnees are 
the same faced by hundreds of thousands of people who have returned 
voluntarily and who are not benefiting from the special assistance 
offered to those from official camps. The significant challenge 
facing humanitarian actors in North Kivu is to determine how to 
regularize and equalize assistance to the various categories of 
people, emphasizing assessed capacities and vulnerability rather 
than status of displacement. 
 
Garvelink