Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Good afternoon, everyone. We're going to call this meeting to order.

We are continuing our study today on the situation in Somalia, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We will have two sets of speakers. We have our first guest with us—we're still waiting for one more witness—and I am happy to welcome Mr. Queyranne, who is the humanitarian manager from Oxfam Canada.

If we can get you to provide eight to 10 minutes of testimony, sir, we will then go to questions. If Ms. Agook Juac comes in the meantime, we'll run her testimony after yours.

With that, please feel free to begin.

[Gregory Queyranne, Humanitarian Manager, Oxfam Canada]

Wonderful. Thank you.

Dear committee members, thank you very much for the invitation to speak on the situation in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan.

Oxfam works in over 90 countries to support long-term development and provide humanitarian assistance in times of crisis. Our insights and recommendations are informed by our partners working on the ground, as well as my own personal experience, having worked in all three countries and having lived in two.

I will begin with an overview of the context and key issues for each country before highlighting certain crosscutting themes and recommendations.

The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has become extremely alarming due to a confluence of factors. Conflict has cost the lives of over six million people, more than any other conflict since World War II. In addition to the 4.5 million people currently internally displaced, Congo is hosting over half a million refugees who are fleeing neighbouring crises.

The humanitarian situation is nothing short of catastrophic. Thirteen million people are in need of assistance, including six million people in need of food aid and 2.2 million children suffering from severe, acute malnutrition. In August of this year, a new Ebola epidemic was declared in North Kivu, Beni territory specifically. This is the first time we've seen such an outbreak in an active conflict zone.

Last week, we saw the murder of seven UN peacekeepers in the Ebola-affected area. Conflict is putting the Ebola response at risk, which could lead to the epidemic spreading to neighbouring countries, notably Uganda. Given their traditional role as caretakers of the sick and the shocking level of conflict-related sexual violence that they face, women are disproportionately affected by the Ebola epidemic. Sixty per cent of probable or confirmed cases are women and girls.

However, the impact on women doesn't stop there. As a result of the Ebola outbreak, the Congo's weak health systems are further strained and front-line responders are overwhelmed, leaving many women, particularly survivors of sexual violence, without access to crucial services such as maternal, sexual and reproductive health care.

While Canada's contribution to the Ebola response is most welcome, it will be crucial to ensure additional and sustained commitment from donors like Canada, as the response continues to be critically underfunded. Funding should prioritize the needs of women and girls and should be additional funding, not affecting the already insufficient funding for other humanitarian crises.

Somalia continues to face severe humanitarian development, and peace and security challenges. Armed groups regularly launch violent attacks, notably in the east and the south. Earlier this month, there were the car bombings in Mogadishu, which killed 50 people.

Recurring climate events are causing incredible suffering. Drought has caused many subsistence farmers to become displaced and lose their livelihoods. Right now, 2.6 million people are displaced and 4.6 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance.

The loss of livelihoods has fundamentally altered the social fabric of Somalia and has had a disproportionate effect on women. A recent Oxfam study in the northwestern region of Somaliland found a sharp increase in the number of female-headed households due to family disintegration caused by drought. Men are migrating and are abandoning their families for economic reasons. Women who are left behind are vulnerable and overstretched, shouldering many responsibilities and insecurities on their own. Cultural barriers limit their ability to find alternative livelihood options, and women report constraints in accessing humanitarian services due to their restricted mobility.

This situation underscores the urgent need to combine humanitarian aid with initiatives that will help transform gender roles and relations at the local level.

For over five years, South Sudan has been locked in a year-on-year worsening humanitarian crisis due to prolonged conflict. Over seven million people are now in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. Conflict has made it very difficult for humanitarian aid to get to those in need. In 2017, for the third year in a row, South Sudan was the most dangerous country in the world for humanitarian aid workers, with regular incidences of shooting, detention of staff, looting of humanitarian property and denial of access at roadblocks.

Conflict has also driven the economy into the ground, which has led to widespread hunger. Early and forced marriage, which was already widespread before the crisis, has increased as a result. As poverty rises and livelihoods are disrupted, marriage has become a source of income and survival. Through bride price, which comes in the form of either cash or livestock, families can gain the means to feed themselves, and the marriage of their daughter means they have one less mouth to feed.

Early and forced marriage is the most common form of gender-based violence in South Sudan, with over half of South Sudanese girls married before the age of 18. Early marriage makes girls more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth, deprives them of the right to education, puts them at higher risk of gender-based violence and has broad negative impacts on the health and education of their children. It perpetuates underdevelopment and fragility.

Hunger and gender inequality are clearly driving early, forced marriage in South Sudan. Once again, the situation points to the need for humanitarian interventions to address gender inequality, as well as humanitarian needs.

Based on what I've just described, I would like to make the following recommendations, which can make a difference for the women and girls in a humanitarian context such as Somalia, DR Congo and South Sudan.

First, we need to tackle gender inequality through humanitarian interventions. Research has found that extreme gender inequality is correlated with conflict and fragility. Investing in women's rights in these countries is a powerful tool to promote lasting peace and development. Canada, with its feminist agenda, including the feminist international assistance policy and the national action plan on women, peace and security, is already leading the way globally on this front. One area that can have profound impacts, but has so far received little attention, is gender-transformative humanitarian action, meaning humanitarian programming that aims to change power relations and aims to empower women.

We are calling on Canada to fund more core gender humanitarian work by establishing a dedicated pool of funding for gender in emergencies. This pool should comprise at least 15% of humanitarian assistance to bring Canada's humanitarian aid in line with the rest of the feminist international assistance policy. This would allow Canada to fund more humanitarian work that transforms power imbalances between men and women. This could, for example, include a cash for work program, where displaced women acting as caregivers for their families are included in cash programming, challenging social norms about what constitutes work.

Broader, system-level interventions are also needed, such as building the capacity of local women's rights organizations to respond to humanitarian crises, or advocate for the inclusion of women's needs and priorities in humanitarian responses.

Second, we need to increase support for local women's rights organizations doing humanitarian work in these countries. Since they understand local culture, women's rights organizations are often best suited to do the type of gender-transformative humanitarian work I described. Canada and the world have recognized the importance of strengthening local actors in humanitarian responses, committing to directing 25% of global humanitarian assistance as directly as possible to such organizations by 2020. In meeting this commitment, Canada should endeavour to direct one-quarter of its funding for local actors to local women's rights organizations specifically.

Third, we need to ensure humanitarian access and the safety of humanitarian workers. A common trend in the DR Congo, Somalia and South Sudan is limited access for aid delivery, due to the security situations. The Canadian government and its diplomatic missions in these countries should continue to support humanitarian actors to overcome systemic access issues, support on-the-ground access negotiations and continue to promote the safety of humanitarian front-line workers.

I hope that my testimony has shown the urgency and enormity of the humanitarian needs. Humanitarian access must be a top priority.

Lastly, we need to better support refugee-hosting countries. To be comprehensive, this study should also consider how Canada can better support the countries dealing with the fallout of these three crises. Uganda, for instance, is currently home to over 1.3 million refugees from South Sudan, Congo, as well as Somalia. Speaking on the importance of scaling of support for local communities that are absorbing refugees in countries such as Uganda, it is clear that these countries are doing far more than their fair share.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much, Mr. Queyranne.

I'd now like to welcome our second witness, Ms. Agook, from the Aliab Rural Development Agency, which is based in Juba, South Sudan.

Ms. Agook, can you give us eight to 10 minutes of testimony and then we'll open it up to questions for both of you.

Please proceed.

[Atong Amos Agook Juac, Executive Director, ARUDA South Sudan]

Thank you so much.

My apologies for arriving a little bit late.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

No problem.

[Atong Amos Agook Juac]

My name is Atong Amos. I'm the executive director for the ARUDA development agency.

I recognize the Canadian feminist policy that is being implemented now in South Sudan that focuses on gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls to achieve real change, sustainable development and peace, particularly in sexual violence and reproductive health, education and the fight against early child marriage, which is enabling access to formal economic decision-making. Some of us are now decision-makers.

Since the onset of the civil war in South Sudan in December 2013, the parties to the conflict engaged in widespread, systematic and ethnically targeted attacks on civilians, including mass killings and looting, forced displacement, raping of women and girls, and other forms of sexual violence and forced marriages, including sexual slavery. Men and boys have also been the victims of the violence.

On the development side, the lack of delivery of essential services to the population experienced during the conflict has caused huge damage to humanitarian access and the access of civilians to all the services: access to education, access to health and access to food. The impact of this has been a huge famine. South Sudan had a famine last year, which still continues. We thank you for the Canadian support and for the aid that was given last year.

In the rural areas, countless villages have been destroyed. Thousands of children have been recruited into the ranks of child soldiers in the government forces and other various armed groups, which is a serious concern for us. The African Union commission of inquiry has documented these atrocities, and where possible, they identified the people responsible that caused this fight for us in 2014. There is a need for accountability. The African Union commission of inquiry found that international crimes of a widespread or systematic nature were committed, pursuant to or to further the state policy.

In March 2018, reports by the United Nations commission on human rights in South Sudan came to a similar conclusion. All the parties to the conflict were confirmed in having had a hand in these human rights violations. Last month, the United Nations Mission in South Sudan and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolution 2406 (2018). It concluded that the atrocities that have been committed by all parties constituted violations and abuses of international human rights laws.

Among the organizations in South Sudan is Human Rights Watch, and from the time the conflict started, civil society has been really active in pushing for the issues. Therefore, the peace agreement was signed three months ago, and that includes the hybrid court of South Sudan, in article 5.3.2.1 in the recently signed peace agreement.

I think I can now take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much to you both.

We will now go straight to questioning, and we will begin with MP O'Toole, please.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to both witnesses for your testimony today.

Mr. Queyranne, you mentioned the conflict in the Congo and how the violence in some of the various groups is preventing some of the health assistance, with respect to the Ebola outbreak in particular, and you mentioned the death of the UN peacekeepers from Malawi and from Tanzania. Can you speak to how the conflict is impacting all aspects of humanitarian aid and assistance, and what provisions an organization like Oxfam makes when operating under such conditions?

[Gregory Queyranne]

If I understand correctly, you're asking generally what measures are made to access those in need in the conflict.

The conflict in Congo has become worse. It started in the mid-1990s. Various peace agreements have seen the shifting and the regional elements of the conflict. It was once occupied by a number of neighbouring countries that were for and against the Congolese government, and now we're seeing it has shifted significantly toward local armed actors.

When I was first in the Congo about 20 different armed groups were operating, and when I left earlier this year in April, we're now up to 140 different armed groups, with different levels of interests and ambitions, many of them murky at best.

The presence of armed groups throughout the east of the country, in addition to the southeast and, since 2016, the centre, has reduced humanitarian space, which is the technical term for being able to reach those in need.

The conflict has made it very difficult for humanitarian actors to deliver life-saving services, to move goods into the areas where people are affected, and it limits the presence that humanitarian actors can have. Even in my own experience, I've had to deal with different armed groups that are very violent, that have turned war into a business, that understand the humanitarian system and know that goods are often procured locally in order not to disrupt the local economy but instead to support it, and that have found ways to benefit from that. Negotiating with armed groups, not only for access but also for impartial humanitarian assistance, is critical.

Organizations like Oxfam have very robust security policies to make sure its staff is rarely in harm's way. We have different grades of essential and non-essential staff. When things become very difficult, we evacuate most of the staff but we maintain the most essential, meaning those engaged directly in life-saving assistance. We always have security managers who define the security context and the security rules. We have all the assets that require us to maintain communication such as satellite phones, radio systems, and we rely quite a bit on the coordination mechanisms that exist to ensure that we're always sharing security information with our colleagues through the OCHA system—the cluster system—making sure we're in good contact with organizations that have had much more experience in certain areas, going back to some of the local actors I spoke to who master the areas much better than others, who know the local languages and understand some of the pressure points.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Ms. Amos, could I get your perspective on a similar thing in South Sudan? In your personal experience, do security aspects in a part of the country impact the provision of aid?

[Atong Amos Agook Juac]

In the last three years we've lost hundreds of humanitarian aid workers because of security. Security difficulties made it difficult for the NGOs to deliver aid. Some of the humanitarian workers that deliver aid were kidnapped, some were killed, and this discourages the big organizations that deliver to rural and local areas.

In some areas there is no network and there are bad roads, and at the same time, the rebels are there—the armed groups. They can detain humanitarian workers to get money. Last year, 12 humanitarian workers were detained and the armed groups asked for money, and all the things being delivered were taken used, for example, medicine and food. It was food that could have lasted six or nine months for the beneficiaries. Security made the delivery of humanitarian aid really difficult.

They were using women to stand in the way and say they don't want this or that. They meet the organizations and convince them, and when they come in they are kidnapped or some of them are shot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much.

We will now move to MP Saini, please.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, both, for being here today.

I want to change the conversation to governance, because you've been talking about security. When we look at governance, if we pick the two countries that you mentioned—it could be South Sudan or the DRC—when we look at South Sudan, we see a country where you have 60 different ethnic groups. There's no unity within it. You have basically one commodity, which they're selling in the world. There's a tremendous amount of agricultural land that is arable. In fact, 70% of the country's land is arable yet only 4.5% is being cultivated. You have an army that has 230,000 troops and you have 600 generals in that army. You also have 10,000 kilometres of road and only 2% of the roads are paved in South Sudan.

I appreciate the humanitarian aid and I appreciate the security, but in terms of governance, if we don't solve the governance issue, if we don't solve the infrastructure issue—the basic nuts and bolts issue—how are we going to move forward and provide credible humanitarian aid? To me it seem like this is a vicious cycle, that no matter how much we try to do here, the capacity of the country is not capable enough. Should we not be focused on the infrastructure first to help in delivering aid?

[Atong Amos Agook Juac]

Is it to me?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It's to either one of you.

[Gregory Queyranne]

Sure, thank you very much.

Absolutely, the context of where the conflicts are is important to understand. The infrastructure, I'm very happy that you highlighted that. I've worked in South Sudan before in rural areas. There are no roads and very little other types of infrastructure. Economic infrastructure isn't there. You can tell that this is having a huge impact, whether or not there is conflict.

I would say that the point made of focusing on infrastructure or other development issues in order to permit humanitarian aid is a wise one and should be dealt with together. This is where we talk about nexus issues, meeting the humanitarian-development nexus. We understand that in order to have a humanitarian impact, we have to have some of that critical infrastructure in place. If we're talking about doing a water and hygiene response in an emergency, we are saving lives and that is critical, but we're not dealing with the long-standing structural issues that are there that have a large impact on the ability to access those in need.

I would say that we shouldn't be looking at one over the other, but looking at both of them at the same time. Oftentimes this is the case. We do see that organizations like Oxfam have both humanitarian and development programming at the exact same time, sometimes in the same area, because we understand that band-aid solutions aren't enough and that we need to go a little bit deeper and support some of those structural issues. That can come in the form of building roads or delivering more on the water infrastructure systems in order to have more of a long-term impact.

[Atong Amos Agook Juac]

I can add on.

As he has mentioned, in South Sudan there are generals and they're spending more money on other things. There is a lack of infrastructure and a lack of implementing policies and rules and regulations of the country. Though the country has been in a war, there were rules and regulations in place in order to help the donors who are investing in the country. If you look at the budget of South Sudan, the money that was put in for the last five or 10 years, it's a huge amount of money. If you look at the money that's spent...the quarter that is put for the roads and buildings and everything, even the hospitals, you find 0%. The lack of accountability, there is a need to address this.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The second part of my question is on the influence of outside actors in place. Right now, you have two main actors who are involved in the affairs of South Sudan. You have the troika—the United States, the U.K. and Norway—and you have China. China's involvement is a little different because they don't have necessarily a political involvement, but they have more of an economic involvement, heavily in South Sudan.

When we look at the DRC, as you can appreciate, the DRC is the sixth-largest producer of copper in the world, and also half of the cobalt in the world comes from the DRC. You can appreciate how critical they are for phone batteries, electric vehicles and other industrial applications.

In this case you have a conflict. You have a conflict of one actor who is looking in terms of pure economics and you have probably the west, if you include the troika but you include other countries in the west also, who are looking at a more humanitarian and a more security or a more institution-building way.

How do you think that conflict is going to resolve going forward when you have one entity that is looking just at the economics and you have another entity that is looking at the humanitarian issue and both entities will not see eye to eye because in some cases the governance model of China is being imposed in certain countries, whereas the west has a more stringent view towards human rights and making sure that there's capacity building on the ground?

[Gregory Queyranne]

In the case of the Congo, both of those actors you described have a shared interest in both of the topics you described. The west does see the economic potential of the Congo as something that's very important. You hear the term “strategic minerals” once in a while, given the importance that these minerals hold for the global economy. You mentioned cobalt and copper. Those are very important minerals for industry and electronics. Those are not in the conflict-affected regions of the Congo. They tend to be in the southeast in the Katanga province, or ex-Katanga. Now I believe they are called Tanganyika, and a few other names. The provinces have been cut up. The conflict is mostly affecting mining areas, but they are non-industrial, artisanal mining areas. People with very low-skilled technology take this out of the ground and it reaches the global markets. There we do see the impact that has on the security and humanitarian situation.

The other actor that you described in the east also has some humanitarian focus. They are contributing troops. They have troops that are part of MONUSCO, the UN peacekeeping force there. I would say that they do not have the same vision for the country and what that country means to them, but they're both invested in both topics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much.

Now we're going to go to MP Duncan, please.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you to both of you for your work. Having worked overseas myself, I think we often give thanks to our troops, as we should, but I don't think there's enough credit given to aid workers, particularly from civil society, so thank you.

It's interesting, Mr. Queyranne, that you raised the issue of security, as has Ms. Agook. Just recently there was a feature article in The Globe and Mail raising exactly that, with aid agencies, civil society, saying that they need somebody to step up because they can't deliver assistance.

I'm wondering if both of you could talk to.... Is there a difference between needing better security for providing what we call the straight aids—in other words, sending in bundles of tents or food and so forth—as opposed to international assistance that tries to get the dollars and the skills to local civil organizations? In this time of strife, does it make more sense for us to be giving more assistance?

Mr. Queyranne, you might have mentioned that you are encouraging more direct assistance between civil organizations in Canada and civil organizations on the ground. Could you elaborate on that a bit? Are you asking for two things? Are you asking Canada to step up and provide peacemakers, in order to deliver the goods, and also asking us to rethink how we are providing the aid?

[Gregory Queyranne]

I would say both. I wouldn't say that Canada should be considering peacemakers in that sense. I would say more that the context—and it starts from the top, with the government—helps define the security humanitarian challenges, for example, in the Congo.

We know that, often, generals who are sent in to quell rebellions are then found to have turned that into a money-making business by selling weapons to the rebels who are killing the generals' own troops, in order to make some money. They get a little slap on the wrist when they head back to the capital, and then they're released and end up doing the same thing.

The point I'm trying to make is that local humanitarian actors often understand things better than international organizations. Oxfam has been in the Congo for over 50 years, since the 1960s. We've had quite a bit of experience in understanding the different ebbs and flows of different needs before the conflict, which started in the 1990s.

You made a point about the different types of aid. That nuance is very important. At Oxfam, we don't just provide material aid. We combine that with developing skills, and sometimes distributing cash directly, because we know that cash can provide more opportunities for people, who know their needs a little bit better. It can have an economic impact locally, so long as it doesn't lead to inflation, so long as markets are functioning and the goods are there.

Usually we do a combination, a multipronged approach, to humanitarian systems. For instance, if we are defining the needs as being food insecurity—and there are all sorts of technical ways of doing that—we can provide.... I've done this. I've managed these projects before. We provide cash. We provide food, which is often locally procured. We contract local farmers or farmers associations to provide some of their harvests for distribution. We provide seeds, tools and technical know-how in order to help stimulate the economy and provide some sort of recovery.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Would you like to respond to that at all?

Ms. Agook, you mentioned the plight of women in the turmoil and so forth. Canada, as you're aware, now has a feminist international assistance policy. Is there value in giving direct assistance to women in the rural communities or to women in the larger urban areas to try to be a stronger voice for decision-making?

It's my understanding that civil society in South Sudan wants to have that peace, but the government, as you mentioned, is not directing resources towards what civil society is asking for.

Where do you see Canadian aid best being placed? Is it to help the communities push for better governance? What direction do you suggest Canadian aid should go?

[Atong Amos Agook Juac]

I suggest that the local actors can deliver better.

Investing in them would make a change in communities, because it's all about sensitization. To make a change, you have to act with the local partners. You convince the communities that this is the way to go about it. There are some people who don't know what the policy is or even what their rights are. We make them understand their rights, and they push for change.

The local actors can deliver better.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Clearly, deliver the aid directly, as much as possible, to the local organizations but definitely not through the government.