VZCZCXRO5084
PP RUEHBC RUEHDA RUEHDH RUEHKUK
DE RUEHAM #0307/01 0341059
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 031059Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY AMMAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6831
INFO RUCNRAQ/IRAQ COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 000307 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR PRM/ANE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PREF JO SY
SUBJECT: UNHCR IRAQI REFUGEE ASSISTANCE RESPONSE PLAN 
FACILITATES COLLABORATION WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS 
 
¶1.  Summary: (SBU)  While coordinating the 2010 Regional 
Refugee Assistance Response Plan (RRP), UNHCR in Amman, 
Beirut, Cairo, and Damascus improved the organization of all 
the regional Iraqi refugee activities.  The RRP performs the 
function of a management mechanism previous filled by the 
Country Operational Planning (COP) process.  Over the past 
three months, Karen Gulick of UNHCR conducted a series of 
stakeholder meetings in the regional capitals to recruit 
participants, and to establish the terms of reference for 
sector working groups, the focal point of UNHCR's regional 
plan. The result of Gulick's efforts has been an overall 
approval for the process by the stakeholders, which most 
describe as more collaborative, and less cumbersome than the 
previously attempted coordination exercises.  End summary. 
 
A New Coordination Method Brings buy-in From NGOs 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  In preparation for the January 18, 2010 launch of 
the refugee response plan, UNHCR held a series of meetings 
with donors, NGOs, international organizations, and 
governments to solicit their participation in the planning 
sessions, and drafting exercise.  The goal was to examine 
sector by sector the needs of Iraqi refugees, and the 
response capabilities of all actors currently providing 
services to them outside of Iraq.  Initial reaction from the 
stakeholders was positive.  UNHCR formed a series of working 
groups based roughly on similar groups formed for CAP.  These 
working groups were responsible for drafting sector response 
plans and for reviewing the overall document to ensure that 
beneficiary needs in all sectors were reflected in the final 
draft document.  After the launch of the plan, the working 
groups continue to act as an informal monitoring and 
consulting body for each service sector. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) UNHCR invited both implementing and operating 
partners, as well as those working independently of UNHCR, to 
participate in the groups, with positive results.  Although 
the working groups were defined and formed by UNHCR, some 
were led by NGOs in partnership with other IOs.  The 
membership of working groups varied from country to country. 
The protection working group, in all cases, was chaired by 
UNHCR because of its clear mandate for refugee protection. 
However, UNICEF and NGOs were strong voices in these working 
groups, advocating for special protection regarding the needs 
of women and children.  In Lebanon, where the NGO presence is 
small, most international NGOs participated in all the 
working groups.  In Syria and Jordan, where NGOs are 
numerous, the organizations rotated memberships.  Governments 
were also invited to attend. In Syria, the Ministries of 
Education and Health participated in some of the working 
groups, and UNHCR managed to attract the Syria Arab Red 
Crescent as well. In Jordan and Lebanon, the government did 
not participate regularly in any of the working groups. 
 
Coordination Process Still Evolving 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Some participants in the new coordination process 
objected to the unilateral way UNHCR created the working 
groups.  NGOs active in mental health and psychosocial 
activities in Lebanon and Jordan expressed concern that UNHCR 
had not planned sufficiently to ensure that mental health 
needs were appropriately covered by the response plan.  UNHCR 
responded to this criticism by asking WHO and International 
Medical Corps to closely review the plan and ensure that 
mental health and psychosocial needs were addressed. 
 
The Final Product--The Beginnings of a Comprehensive Plan 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
 
 ¶5.  (SBU) By November 2009, all four countries submitted 
draft documents to the UNHCR response plan coordinator.  The 
documents submitted were a comprehensive examination of needs 
in the various sectors with recommendations on how those 
needs would best be met. Country offices had considerable 
independence in organizing the work in their respective 
countries.  For example, UNHCR Lebanon created a relief and 
community empowerment working group to address needs in 
material assistance, livelihoods development and vocational 
training.  In Jordan, similar sectors are covered in a 
locally organized community based-protection working group. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) The response plan is not meant to be a tool for 
donors, and will not include a comprehensive budget, or a 
list of proposed projects for each sector.  Rather, 
stakeholders contributed a list of possible programming 
alternatives to augment UNHCR strategic planning.  NGOs were 
called in during the early stages of UNHCR's process to 
 
AMMAN 00000307  002 OF 002 
 
 
contribute to the RRP.  To do that, NGOs and other IOs 
reviewed the details of UNHCR planning and budget 
requirements with an eye to filling possible gaps.  UNHCR 
staff answered participant's questions, and provided a degree 
of transparency for organizations normally not invited into 
the internal planning process of the UN organization. 
 
Comment:  Not the Beginning of the End, But a Start 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
 ¶7.  (SBU) The UNHCR planning process was not a perfect tool. 
 No refugees participated in the planning process, and local 
government representation was spotty.  However, NGO and IO 
participation was an improvement on the classic top down 
UNHCR approach to the COP.  In all four countries, the 
personalities of the NGOs and the UN country team played a 
role in the success of the mechanism.  In Lebanon and Egypt, 
where the UN country team has only a passing interest in 
Iraqi refugees, UNHCR and NGOs led the process; UNICEF and 
WHO did not attend working groups.  In Syria, a strong UN 
country team led by the resident coordinator participated 
fully in the working groups.  In Jordan, UNHCR faced a minor 
rebellion when NGOs and IOs objected to UNHCR's working group 
framework.  Subsequently, UNICEF and WHO used the 
coordination mechanism to increase their involvement in the 
refugee assistance planning.  The coordination mechanism 
launched with this new process was a positive evolution in 
UNHCR's efforts to better coordinate its mandated activities 
in refugee emergencies.   End comment. 
Beecroft