Somalia: Several Challenges Limit U.S. and International
Stabilization, Humanitarian, and Development Efforts (19-FEB-08,
GAO-08-351).
Somalia has lacked a functioning central government since 1991.
In December 2006, the Ethiopian military intervened in Somalia to
support Somalia's transitional government, opening what many
considered a window of opportunity to rebuild the country and
restore effective governance. The United States has been the
largest bilateral donor to Somalia, providing roughly $362
million in assistance since 2001. In this report, GAO assesses
(1) U.S. and international efforts to stabilize Somalia, (2) U.S.
and international efforts to provide humanitarian and development
assistance to Somalia, and (3) strategic planning efforts to
guide U.S. activities related to Somalia. GAO reviewed documents
from U.S. and international organizations; interviewed U.S.,
United Nations (UN), Somali, and other officials; and conducted
fieldwork in Kenya and Ethiopia. GAO assessed U.S. strategy using
the six desirable characteristics of an effective national
strategy that GAO previously developed.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-351
ACCNO: A80911
TITLE: Somalia: Several Challenges Limit U.S. and International
Stabilization, Humanitarian, and Development Efforts
DATE: 02/19/2008
SUBJECT: Economic stabilization
Federal aid to foreign countries
Foreign aid programs
Foreign governments
Foreign policies
International agreements
International cooperation
International economic relations
International food programs
International organizations
International relations
Strategic planning
Africa
Somalia
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-351
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2008:
Somalia:
Several Challenges Limit U.S. and International Stabilization,
Humanitarian, and Development Efforts:
Somalia:
GAO-08-351:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-351, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Somalia has lacked a functioning central government since 1991. In
December 2006, the Ethiopian military intervened in Somalia to support
Somalia�s transitional government, opening what many considered a
window of opportunity to rebuild the country and restore effective
governance. The United States has been the largest bilateral donor to
Somalia, providing roughly $362 million in assistance since 2001. In
this report, GAO assesses (1) U.S. and international efforts to
stabilize Somalia, (2) U.S. and international efforts to provide
humanitarian and development assistance to Somalia, and (3) strategic
planning efforts to guide U.S. activities related to Somalia. GAO
reviewed documents from U.S. and international organizations;
interviewed U.S., United Nations (UN), Somali, and other officials; and
conducted fieldwork in Kenya and Ethiopia. GAO assessed U.S. strategy
using the six desirable characteristics of an effective national
strategy that GAO previously developed.
What GAO Found:
Several challenges have limited U.S. and international efforts to
stabilize Somalia. The international community, including the United
States, is seeking to improve the security situation in the country,
mainly by funding an African Union peacekeeping operation. However, a
shortage of troops has hindered peacekeepers� ability to achieve their
mission. In addition, the most recent attempt at political
reconciliation was limited, in part because several important
opposition groups were not involved. For example, while this key
attempt resulted in resolutions to end the conflict and return all
property to its rightful owners, these opposition groups denounced the
resolutions, citing their lack of participation in drafting them.
According to many officials, Somalia�s Transitional Federal Government
lacks institutional structures and national acceptance, and these
weaknesses, in our view, have constrained U.S. and international
efforts to establish the transitional government as a fully functioning
central government. To mitigate these challenges, the international
community, including the United States, is taking steps that include
encouraging all parties to participate in reconciliation discussions.
While the international community, including the United States,
continues to provide vital humanitarian and development assistance to
Somalia, its efforts have been limited by lack of security, access to
vulnerable populations, and effective government institutions. The
international community�s humanitarian assistance to Somalia, which
primarily consists of food aid, has not reduced the country�s acute
malnutrition rates, which have remained above the emergency threshold
in some parts of the country. According to UN officials, however,
malnutrition is the result of a combination of immediate and underlying
causes, including insufficient dietary intake, inadequate health care,
and inadequate water and sanitation services. Ongoing insecurity
constrains the international community�s ability to monitor its
provision of humanitarian and development assistance to Somalia.
Furthermore, U.S. officials� inability to travel to the country has
prevented them from independently monitoring assistance. The
international community�s plans to increase development assistance to
Somalia depend on political progress and stability, which have not yet
been achieved.
U.S. strategy for Somalia, outlined in the Administration�s 2007 report
to Congress on its Comprehensive Regional Strategy on Somalia (the
Comprehensive Strategy), is incomplete. While the Comprehensive
Strategy addresses the components required of it by U.S. law, it does
not include the full range of U.S. government activities related to
Somalia, such as DOD efforts to promote regional stability, and it does
not reference other key U.S. government strategic documents for
Somalia. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Strategy does not fully address
any of the six desirable characteristics of an effective national
strategy, lacking information on necessary resources, investments, and
risk management. A separate, classified report provides more
information on selected U.S. strategic planning efforts for Somalia.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the
Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor, develop a more
detailed strategy for Somalia, to include the full range of U.S.
government activities in the region and all six characteristics of an
effective national strategy. The Department of Defense (DOD) partially
concurred with GAO�s recommendation, while State did not directly
respond to it.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-351]. For more information, contact
Thomas Melito at (202) 512-9601 or [email protected].
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Several Challenges Have Limited U.S. and International Efforts to
Stabilize Somalia:
Insecurity and Other Challenges Have Limited the International
Community's Efforts to Provide Humanitarian and Development Assistance
to Somalia:
U.S. Strategic Planning for Somalia Is Incomplete:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO's Description of the Six Characteristics of an
Effective National Strategy:
Appendix III: Extent to Which the Comprehensive Regional Strategy on
Somalia Addresses GAO's Desirable Characteristics:
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Defense:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Summary of Desirable Characteristics of an Effective National
Strategy:
Figures:
Figure 1: Somalia:
Figure 2: U.S.-Designed T-Shirt Used to Build Support for the NRC:
Figure 3: Funding Requirements and Donor Funding by Sector for
Humanitarian Assistance to Somalia through the UN Consolidated Appeals
Process for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007:
Figure 4: U.S. Humanitarian Assistance for Somalia in Fiscal Years 2001
through 2007 by Sector:
Figure 5: International Community's Level of Access to Somalia:
Figure 6: Extent to Which the Comprehensive Regional Strategy on
Somalia Addresses the Desirable Characteristics of an Effective
National Strategy:
Figure 7: Extent to Which the Comprehensive Regional Strategy on
Somalia Addresses the 27 Elements of the Desirable Characteristics of a
National Strategy:
Abbreviations:
AMISOM: African Union Mission in Somalia:
CAP: Consolidated Appeals Process:
CJTF-HOA: Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FTS: Financial Tracking Service:
IDP: internally displaced person:
NGO: nongovernmental organization:
NRC: National Reconciliation Congress:
NSC: National Security Council:
OCHA: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs:
RDP: Reconstruction and Development Program:
SACB: Somalia Aid Coordination Body:
TFG: Transitional Federal Government:
UN: United Nations:
UNDPKO: United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations:
UNDP: United Nations Development Program:
UNPOS: United Nations Political Office for Somalia:
UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees:
USAID: United States Agency for International Development:
WFP: World Food Program:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 19, 2008:
The Honorable Russell D. Feingold:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on African Affairs:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Donald M. Payne:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health:
Committee on Foreign Affairs:
House of Representatives:
Somalia has lacked a functioning central government since 1991, when
armed opposition groups' overthrow of the existing government resulted
in turmoil, factional fighting, and anarchy. Somalia's current
transitional government is the result of a national reconciliation
process, 1 of 15 such efforts since 1991. Many observers believed a
window of opportunity to rebuild Somalia and restore effective
governance had opened up in December 2006, when the Ethiopian National
Defense Force intervened in Somalia in support of the weak transitional
government. Although an African Union peacekeeping mission was deployed
to Somalia in March 2007, an ongoing insurgency against the
transitional government and Ethiopian forces has contributed to
continued instability in the country. In addition, floods and droughts
have compounded the prolonged humanitarian emergency, with as many as 2
million people in need of humanitarian assistance. Some United Nations
(UN) officials have stated that the situation in Somalia is the worst
in Africa. Moreover, the U.S. government reported that the instability
in Somalia has provided sanctuary to al Qaeda operatives allegedly
involved in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in
1998.
In February 2007, in response to U.S. legislation,[Footnote 1] the
Administration issued the Comprehensive Regional Strategy on Somalia
(Comprehensive Strategy), which lists three objectives: (1) to
eliminate the terrorist threat, (2) to promote political stability, and
(3) to address the humanitarian needs of the Somali people. The United
States has been the largest government donor to Somalia since 2001,
providing approximately $362 million in humanitarian and development
assistance, mostly in food aid, through the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) and the Department of State (State).
The United States has also provided roughly $60 million to support the
African Union peacekeeping mission in Somalia. The Department of
Defense (DOD) conducts a variety of regional civil affairs and
humanitarian assistance operations in countries neighboring Somalia out
of Djibouti.
In this report, we assess (1) the efforts of the international
community, including the United States, to stabilize Somalia by
improving security and political conditions; (2) the efforts of the
international community, including the United States, to provide
humanitarian and development assistance to Somalia; and (3) strategic
planning efforts to guide U.S. activities related to Somalia. We are
also issuing a separate, classified report on selected U.S. strategic
planning efforts for Somalia.
To assess U.S. and international stabilization, humanitarian, and
development efforts in Somalia, we obtained data, reports, and
contracts from and interviewed officials at State; USAID; DOD; the
National Security Council (NSC); the Transitional Federal Government
(TFG) of Somalia; the governments of Ethiopia and key donor countries;
and numerous international organizations, including UN agencies, the
World Bank, the African Union, and nongovernmental organizations (NGO)
in Washington, D.C; New York; Nairobi, Kenya; and Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. We did not travel to Somalia due to restrictions on official
U.S. government travel to the country. We also analyzed State, USAID,
and DOD financial obligations for Somalia-related programs and UN-
reported financial obligations from the international community to
Somalia from 2001 to 2007. To assess the United States' strategic
planning efforts, we examined the Comprehensive Strategy and supporting
documents. We compared the strategy against the components required of
it by U.S. law and assessed it using the six desirable characteristics
of an effective national strategy, which we previously developed and
used in several other contexts. The characteristics are (1) clear
purpose, scope, and methodology; (2) detailed discussion of problems,
risks, and threats; (3) desired goals, objectives, activities, and
performance measures; (4) description of resources, investments, and
risk management; (5) delineation of U.S. government roles,
responsibilities, and coordination mechanism; and (6) description of
the strategy's integration among and with other entities. We also spoke
with officials from State, USAID, DOD, and NSC, and experts about the
strategic planning process that resulted in the U.S. strategy for
Somalia. We did not include covert activities conducted by U.S.
government agencies in our review. We conducted this performance audit
from January 2007 to February 2008 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. Appendix I provides a detailed description of our
objectives, scope, and methodology.
Results in Brief:
Several challenges have limited U.S. and international efforts to
stabilize Somalia. The international community, including the United
States, is seeking to improve the security situation in Somalia, mainly
by funding an African Union peacekeeping operation. However, given the
operation's shortage of troops, it has not been able to fulfill its
mandate to improve security, support reconciliation, protect the
transitional government, and facilitate the provision of humanitarian
aid. In addition, the most recent attempt at national political
reconciliation was limited, in part because several important
opposition groups were not involved. For example, while this key
attempt resulted in resolutions to end the conflict and return all
property to its rightful owners, these opposition groups denounced the
resolutions, citing their lack of participation in drafting them.
Finally, according to many officials, Somalia's Transitional Federal
Government lacks institutional structures and national acceptance, and
these weaknesses have constrained U.S. and international efforts to
establish it as a fully functioning central government. To mitigate
these challenges, the international community, including the United
States, is taking steps that include encouraging all parties to
participate in reconciliation discussions.
While the international community, including the United States,
continues to provide essential humanitarian and development assistance
to Somalia, its efforts are limited by lack of security, sustained
access to vulnerable populations, local implementing capacity, and
effective government institutions. The international community's
humanitarian assistance to Somalia, which primarily consists of food
aid, has not reduced the country's acute malnutrition rates, which
remain above the emergency threshold in some parts of the country.
According to UN officials, however, malnutrition is the result of a
combination of immediate and underlying causes, including insufficient
dietary intake, inadequate health care, and inadequate water and
sanitation services. Ongoing insecurity constrains the international
community's ability to monitor and evaluate the effect of its
humanitarian and development assistance to Somalia. Furthermore, U.S.
officials' inability to travel to the country has prevented them from
independently monitoring assistance. Finally, while the international
community has pledged increased development assistance to Somalia,
including to the south-central region, much of that assistance is
conditioned on political progress and stability that have not yet been
achieved.
The strategic planning effort to guide U.S. activities related to
Somalia is incomplete. Although the Comprehensive Strategy generally
addresses the components required of it by U.S. law, it does not cover
the full range of U.S. government activities related to Somalia, such
as DOD activities in the region intended to prevent conflict and
promote stability. In addition, the strategy does not reference other
documents that further elaborate on U.S. strategy and activities to
achieve U.S. objectives in Somalia. For example, the Comprehensive
Strategy does not mention USAID's 2006-2008 Strategy Statement for
Somalia, which provides an assessment of the country's operating
environment and discusses relevant strategic issues. Moreover, the
Comprehensive Strategy does not fully address any of the six desirable
characteristics of an effective national strategy, lacking such key
elements as information on resources, risk management, and performance
measures.
We recommend that the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the
Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor, develop a more
detailed U.S. strategy for Somalia, including the full range of U.S.
government activities in the region and all six characteristics of an
effective national strategy, in order to better inform Congress of U.S.
policy and activities in the Horn of Africa.
DOD provided comments on a draft of our report, which we have reprinted
in appendix IV. DOD partially concurred with our recommendation,
suggesting that we strengthen our recommendation by calling for a
"detailed U.S. strategy for Somalia," rather than a "more detailed
report on U.S. strategy for Somalia." We have modified our report to
recommend the development of a "more detailed strategy for Somalia,"
because we report that a governmentwide strategy for Somalia already
exists. In a classified letter, State did not directly respond to our
recommendation.[Footnote 2] State's letter also included technical
comments on this report, which we have incorporated as appropriate.
Additionally, DOD, USAID, NSC, the World Bank, and various UN programs
and offices provided technical comments and updated information, which
we have included throughout this report as appropriate.
Background:
Somalia has lacked a functioning central government since 1991 and has
experienced chronic humanitarian emergencies along with widespread and
large-scale conflict. At least 15 national reconciliation conferences
have been convened since 1991 to resolve Somalis' political differences
and establish a central government. Because of insecurity in Somalia,
the United States closed its embassy in Mogadishu in 1991 and has
managed relations with Somalia from the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.
Chronic Humanitarian Emergencies Plague Somalia:
Somalia is prone to chronic humanitarian emergencies produced by
natural and man-made disasters and has been the site of continuous
humanitarian operations since 1990. The UN and the World Bank classify
Somalia as a least-developed, low-income country and one of the most
food-insecure countries in the world.[Footnote 3] Somalis have suffered
from persistent high levels of poverty, and Somalia's human development
indicators are among the lowest in the world. For example, according to
the UN's 2006 Human Development Report, life expectancy at birth is
only 46 years and only 29 percent of the population has access to a
source of clean water. According to the UN, recent data suggest that
the under-5 mortality rate is 135 per 1,000 births. Somalia currently
has a population of about 8.8 million, according to State, of which
roughly 1 million are considered internally displaced, having been
forced or obliged to leave their homes to avoid conflict without
crossing an internationally recognized border.
Political Context Marked by Conflict and Insecurity:
Somalia's recent history has been marked by long periods of
dictatorship or instability. The former British Protectorate of
Somaliland and the former Italian-administered UN trust territory of
Somalia gained independence in 1960 and united to form the Republic of
Somalia. Somalia democratically elected its first president in 1960.
Less than a decade later, Major General Mohamed Siad Barre's regime
overthrew the government and imposed a dictatorship that lasted until
1991, when armed opposition groups drove Barre out of power and caused
the collapse of the central government. The absence of a central
government, combined with the impact of droughts, contributed to a
series of humanitarian crises during the 1990s. In April 1992, the UN
launched the UN Operation in Somalia, a peacekeeping operation aimed at
providing security for humanitarian relief efforts. In December 1992,
after the situation in Somalia further deteriorated, the United States
launched a peace enforcement operation in Somalia aimed at establishing
a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations. That mission,
the U.S.-led Unified Task Force on Somalia, imposed a cease-fire and
facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid. A second UN operation in
Somalia succeeded the Unified Task Force in May 1993 and was charged
with the task of restoring peace, stability, law, and order in Somalia
through disarmament and reconciliation. From 1993 to 1995, UN
peacekeeping forces were drawn into a difficult and protracted conflict
with Somali warlords. After 18 U.S. Army Rangers and hundreds of
Somalis were killed in fierce fighting on October 3, 1993, the United
States announced the withdrawal of its forces by March 1994. When the
last UN forces withdrew, in March 1995, Somalia remained divided by
warring factions and without a central government.
In the absence of a national government, Somalia has struggled to
remain unified. In May 1991, northwestern Somalia unilaterally declared
independence as the Republic of Somaliland (see fig. 1). Somaliland's
claim to independence as a sovereign nation-state has not gained
international recognition. In August 1998, the Puntland State of
Somalia was formed as an autonomous, self-governing entity in the
northeastern region with the long-term goal of being part of a
federated Somalia. Unlike south-central Somalia, the northern regions
of Somaliland and Puntland have managed to limit violence, establish
democratic systems and institutions, and provide some basic services.
Figure 1: Somalia:
This figure is a map of Somalia.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO from UN map.
Disclaimer: The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on
this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United
Nations.
Note: A boundary dispute between Somaliland and Puntland remains
unresolved.
[End of figure]
Efforts to Establish a Central Government Continue:
At least 15 national reconciliation conferences have been convened
since 1991. In 2000, a major reconciliation conference in Djibouti (the
13th such effort) led to the formation of a new national government,
the Transitional National Government, but this government was unable to
establish itself as an effective administration beyond parts of
Mogadishu, and its 3-year mandate expired in August 2003. In 2002, the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development, a regional East African
organization, organized a subsequent national reconciliation conference
in Kenya. The conference concluded in 2004 with the formation of an
interim government--the TFG[Footnote 4]--including an interim
President, Prime Minister, and cabinet. The Transitional Federal
Charter was approved in February 2004, following the 2002-2004 national
reconciliation conference, and provided a temporary legal underpinning
for the Somali state and a framework for the transitional political
process. The charter called for the drafting of a new constitution, a
national referendum on this constitution, and the undertaking of a
national census. The TFG has a 5-year mandate that expires in 2009 and
is supposed to lead to national elections for the establishment of a
permanent government.
Because of insecurity, the TFG was unable to establish itself in
Mogadishu and instead based itself first in Jowhar and then in the
southeastern town of Baidoa, where it eventually convened the
transitional parliament in February 2006. The UN Monitoring Group on
Somalia reported that in early 2006, a third party provided financial
support to help organize and structure a militia force, known as the
Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter Terrorism (the
Alliance), to counter the threat posed by the growing militant
fundamentalist movement in south-central Somalia.[Footnote 5] The
Alliance and the Council of Islamic Courts[Footnote 6]--a loose
coalition of clerics, business leaders, and Islamic court militias--
struggled for control of Mogadishu during the first half of 2006. The
Islamic Courts defeated the Alliance in June 2006. With the TFG in
command of little more than the government seat of Baidoa and warlords
controlling much of southern Somalia, the Islamic Courts took control
of Mogadishu. As its power in the south expanded, the Islamic Courts
began to confront the TFG in Baidoa, and international efforts to
broker an agreement between the two parties failed.
In December 2006, Ethiopian troops intervened forcefully on the side of
the TFG, routing the Islamic Courts in Mogadishu and enabling the TFG
to start establishing itself there. In January 2007, DOD carried out
two military air strikes against al Qaeda affiliates in Somalia. The
Director of National Intelligence reported that while the Ethiopian
intervention disrupted al Qaeda's operations in the region, senior al
Qaeda operatives responsible for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in
Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and the 2002 attacks in
Mombasa, Kenya, remain at large as of February 2008. While some
officials in the international community have accused the Islamic
Courts of linkages with terrorist organizations and pursuing a policy
of aggressive expansionism, NGOs and UN agencies have said, during the
Islamic Courts' 6-month rule, there was general security and they had
better access to project sites. As of February 2008, Ethiopian troops
remain in Somalia while the TFG struggles to overcome internal
divisions and establish its authority. In October 2007, facing a vote
of confidence in the Transitional Federal Parliament, the Prime
Minister of the TFG resigned. One month later, Somalia's Parliament
swore in a new Prime Minister.
U.S. Government Has No Official Representation in Somalia:
The United States, like most of the international community, has
managed its diplomatic and programmatic activities for Somalia from
Nairobi, Kenya. Although the United States never formally severed
diplomatic relations with Somalia, the U.S. embassy in Somalia has been
closed since the collapse of the government in 1991. The United States
maintains regular dialogue with the TFG and other key stakeholders in
Somalia through the U.S. embassy in Nairobi. Because of security
concerns, U.S. government officials face stringent restrictions on
traveling to Somalia that they do not face elsewhere.
Several Challenges Have Limited U.S. and International Efforts to
Stabilize Somalia:
Several challenges have limited U.S. and international efforts to
stabilize Somalia. The international community is seeking to improve
the security situation in Somalia by funding an African Union
peacekeeping operation and security sector reform programs, but a
shortage of troops has hindered peacekeepers' ability to achieve their
mission. In addition, attempts at political reconciliation, which have
focused on the National Reconciliation Congress (NRC), have been
limited by the lack of participation of all relevant Somali parties and
the absence of a cease-fire or peace agreement. Finally, U.S. and
international efforts to strengthen the central government, which have
focused on capacity building, have been constrained by what many
officials consider the TFG's lack of institutional structures and
national acceptance.
Efforts to Improve Security Focus on Peacekeeping, but They Are Limited
by Shortage of Troops:
The international community's efforts to improve security in Somalia
have focused on support for the African Union peacekeeping mission to
Somalia (AMISOM), but the peacekeeping efforts have been hindered by a
shortage of troops and the African Union's limited capacity to plan,
command, and conduct operations effectively. The African Union
authorized sending a peacekeeping mission of about 7,600 troops to
Somalia for 6 months in January 2007,[Footnote 7] and extended this
mandate for an additional 6 months in July 2007. As of February 2008,
Uganda and Burundi were the only countries contributing troops to
AMISOM, with approximately 1,600 Ugandan and 800 Burundian troops in
Somalia. The United States has provided roughly $60 million to support
AMISOM, including funding to train and equip these troops. Additional
funding from the international community will most likely be required
to equip and deploy additional troops.
Despite international support, the mission has so far failed to reach
the planned level of 7,600 troops. Potential troop-contributing
countries have cited the shortage of funds and equipment, the lack of
significant political reconciliation or cease-fire agreement, and
Somalia's rapidly deteriorating security situation, especially in
Mogadishu, as reasons for not contributing troops to the mission.
Additionally, some U.S. and UN officials told us that many African
nations are unable to provide any additional troops given their
peacekeeping obligations in other countries, such as Sudan.
Given the limited number of troops deployed, AMISOM has not been able
to fulfill its mandate to improve the security situation, support
reconciliation, protect the transitional government, and facilitate the
provision of humanitarian aid.[Footnote 8] The Ugandan troops are
facing considerable security challenges and have therefore limited
their activities to patrolling only parts of Mogadishu and assisting in
the provision of humanitarian assistance. According to a U.S. official,
the Ugandans are limited to protecting only the airport, seaport, and
presidential compound. U.S. and UN officials told us that the
peacekeeping operation would likely be unable to achieve all of its
objectives even if it were fully deployed with 7,600 troops, as the
number is too low given the severity of the situation. In addition,
these officials noted that, based on their assessments, the best-case
scenario would require roughly 20,000 troops, as well as a cease-fire
agreement and all parties' agreement to the mission. If these
conditions are not met, more than 20,000 troops would most likely be
needed. This assessment was based on the current situation as well as
lessons learned from UN peacekeeping missions to Somalia in the 1990s
that failed to achieve their objectives, although they involved 25,000
troops, including Americans, and what many experts consider better
overall security conditions.
In August 2007, the UN Security Council passed a resolution that
requested the Secretary-General of the UN to continue developing
contingency planning for the possible deployment of a UN peacekeeping
mission in Somalia that would replace the existing AMISOM. However, the
UN Secretary-General said in November 2007 that under the prevailing
conditions in Somalia, a peacekeeping operation is not a realistic and
viable option. According to the UN Department of Peacekeeping
Operations (UNDPKO), proper conditions include a cease-fire agreement
and an invitation from all relevant parties, and the peacekeeping
operation should be parallel with and in support of an inclusive
political process leading toward reconciliation. Despite the UN
Secretary-General's statement, the UN Security Council has continued to
request more contingency planning by the UN. In March 2007, at the UN
Security Council's request, UNDPKO conducted a technical assessment
mission to develop contingency planning. Unlike typical assessment
missions, this mission was somewhat less robust given the security
situation in Somalia. For example, the mission involved fewer staff
than a typical mission and was based in Nairobi and Addis Ababa, with
only two short trips into Somalia--neither of which was to Mogadishu,
as all attempts to go there were thwarted by violence both in the city
and on the roads leading to it. Furthermore, UNDPKO was unable to
conduct a planned second technical assessment mission in August 2007
because of heightened insecurity in Mogadishu. According to UN
officials, UNDPKO conducted its second technical assessment mission in
January 2008.
In addition to peacekeeping efforts, the international community is
implementing other programs to improve the security situation in
Somalia, including security sector reform and conflict mitigation. For
example, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) implements
programs aimed at contributing to Somali efforts to restore a peaceful
and secure environment that will promote social and economic recovery.
These programs include efforts to establish a professional,
accountable, and effective police service and support the TFG's review
of the role and size of its security sector to facilitate the
demobilization and reintegration of former combatants, militia, and
retiring members of the formal security forces. In addition, DOD
approved a transfer of $25 million to State in 2007 for security sector
reform and other stabilization programs for Somalia.[Footnote 9] This
transfer includes $17.5 million for State and USAID programs aimed at
security sector reform, peace and reconciliation, capacity building for
the Transitional Federal Institutions, and quick-impact stabilization,
and $7.5 million for USAID conflict mitigation programs in strategic
border areas abutting Somalia in Kenya and Ethiopia.
DOD is also working to promote stability and prevent conflict in the
Horn of Africa through the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa
(CJTF-HOA). For example, CJTF-HOA has implemented reconstruction and
civil affairs projects in Kenya and Ethiopia in an effort to reduce
support for extremist elements. In addition, DOD is working with
neighboring countries to strengthen their counterterrorism capabilities
through military-to-military training and foreign military financing.
Lack of Participation by All Somali Parties Has Limited Efforts to
Promote Reconciliation:
International attempts to support political reconciliation, which have
focused on the NRC, have been limited by the lack of participation of
all relevant Somali parties. The international community, including the
United States, has provided broad support for the NRC since it was
announced in early 2007. The international community provided $8
million through UNDP--including $2.25 million from the United States--
to help organize the NRC and to promote the independence and strengthen
the capacity of its oversight body, the National Governance and
Reconciliation Committee. UNDP provided technical assistance and advice
to the committee and promoted progress toward completion of essential
tasks related to NRC implementation. UNDP also provided the committee
with 14 staff members to assist in organizing the NRC, including 4 in
Mogadishu, and administered the NRC budget. State, USAID, and a public
affairs team from DOD operating at the U.S. embassy in Nairobi also
helped promote participation in the NRC by funding radio messages and
designing T-shirts, stickers, and banners (see fig. 2). In addition,
USAID funded efforts to facilitate meetings between subclans of a key
Somali clan and encouraged dialogue on the various concerns of many
subclans about the NRC, in an attempt to achieve full clan
participation at the congress. UN officials made periodic trips to
Mogadishu to observe the congress, but U.S. officials did not, because
of restrictions on their travel to Somalia.
Figure 2: U.S.-Designed T-Shirt Used to Build Support for the NRC:
This figure is an illustration of a U.S.-designed t-shirt used to build
support for the NRC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: State.
[End of figure]
Because several key Somali opposition groups did not participate in the
NRC in July and August 2007, attempts to achieve political
reconciliation through the NRC have been limited. The NRC was held in
Mogadishu and comprised over 2,600 delegates representing the clans,
women, and the diaspora, but some of the relevant parties to the
ongoing conflict in Somalia did not attend, such as some of the key
Somali subclans, as well as some opposition groups based outside the
country. An observer of the situation in Somalia noted that the
opposition groups set the unrealistic precondition for attending the
NRC of the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops from Somalia. The NRC
resulted in agreements to end the conflict and return all property to
its rightful owners and called for a cease-fire amongst the clans, but
opposition groups immediately denounced the agreements, citing their
lack of participation in drafting them. Furthermore, according to UN
officials, the NRC did not include any discussion of how to implement
these agreements. In September 2007, a coalition of opposition groups
met separately in Asmara, Eritrea, further diminishing the chances for
political reconciliation among all Somali parties. Participants
included representatives of the Islamic Courts, former members of the
Somali Transitional Federal Parliament, members of the Somali diaspora,
members of civil society, and clan elders. In its final communiqu� from
the conference, the Alliance for the Liberation and Reconstitution of
Somalia stated its overriding aim was to liberate Somalia from
Ethiopian occupation and launch a political reconstitution process that
would involve all Somali stakeholders and rebuild a national state.
Since the NRC concluded in August 2007, the security situation in
Somalia has not improved. The situation in Mogadishu has remained
volatile, with daily attacks by insurgents targeting TFG forces and
Ethiopian military personnel. The international community has shifted
its focus to the transition process as outlined in the Transitional
Federal Charter while continuing to search for ways to bring the
relevant parties together. UN Department of Political Affairs officials
told us that the entire international community must work to further
advance the political process, by taking actions that include creating
a platform to bring the two competing reconciliation processes together
and involving Somalis not included in those two groups. Participants at
a September 2007 donors meeting determined that in order to fulfill the
provisions of the transitional charter, the TFG needs a road map with
elements such as an inclusive process to shape the permanent
constitution, a referendum on the constitution, and preparations for
elections, including a census. The donors also agreed that the
international community should be more assertive in reaching out to the
opposition and mediating its participation in an inclusive and genuine
national reconciliation process. In particular, officials from the UN
and donors we spoke with, including the United States, said that the UN
Political Office for Somalia (UNPOS) needed to take on a stronger
leadership role in encouraging the government to be inclusive.
According to UN officials, the UN Secretary-General's appointment in
September 2007 of a new Special Representative for Somalia to oversee
UNPOS showed that UNPOS was in fact taking on this more active role.
UNPOS officials cautioned, however, that UNPOS's role is only that of
an adviser and it is ultimately up to the TFG leaders to truly engage
with the opposition parties.
Weakness of Transitional Government Has Hindered International Efforts
to Build Its Capacity and Create a Functioning Central Government:
The international community's efforts to support the establishment of
the TFG as a fully functioning central government have been constrained
by the TFG's lack of institutional structures, as well as the absence
of widespread support for the TFG by the Somali people. According to
several U.S. and UN officials, the Transitional Federal Institutions,
the underlying governance structures of the TFG, are not yet
functioning, have almost no civil service staff, and lack the capacity
to provide much-needed basic services to the Somali population. In
addition, the TFG's lack of police and military forces hinders its
ability to maintain security in Somalia. UN officials have reported
that working with the TFG is often difficult, as most of its ministries
exist in name only, with no support staff. For example, the TFG said
after two meetings that it was not ready to participate in a committee
through which donors were attempting to engage it in the prioritization
and coordination of activities in Somalia, as it was still establishing
itself and most of its ministries consisted only of an acting minister.
Furthermore, some Somalia observers view the TFG as a narrow political
and clan coalition rather than as an inclusive government of national
unity. The Somaliland government, for example, considers itself wholly
autonomous of the TFG. Moreover, an armed insurgency has continually
staged attacks against the TFG, further hindering its ability to
effectively govern Somalia.
Despite these challenges, the international community has taken steps
to help the TFG become a fully functioning central government. The UN,
with funding from the international community, and the United States
have implemented programs in Somalia aimed at building the TFG's
governance capacity and credibility. UNDP has funded the construction
of many of the government buildings in Baidoa and is providing
technical assistance to the TFG. It has facilitated the deployment of
experts from the diaspora, such as economists and legal advisers, to
assist the President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of Parliament in
their duties. In addition, UNDP has provided support for administration
reform to three civil service commissions. The United States is also
conducting activities aimed at strengthening the capacity of the TFG's
governing institutions and increasing its ability to provide basic
social services. To support these activities, in May 2007, the
Secretary of State appointed a Special Envoy for Somalia to represent
the United States to the TFG. State has also increased the number of
staff in the Somalia Unit at the U.S. embassy in Nairobi from one in
December 2006 to six as of February 2008.
The United States' efforts to support the establishment of a
functioning central government in Somalia are further constrained by
the lack of U.S. presence in Somalia. State Department officials in
Nairobi have said that the lack of presence prevents them from
effectively engaging with the TFG, as they must rely on telephone
conversations rather than face-to-face meetings, which occur only when
Somali government leaders visit Nairobi. Despite this limitation, State
looked for ways to increase its political engagement with the TFG in
2007. For example, in April 2007, the Assistant Secretary of State for
African Affairs visited Baidoa; this was the first visit to Somalia by
a senior U.S. official in over a decade. While there, the Assistant
Secretary met with TFG officials to express support for national
reconciliation efforts and urge TFG leaders to reach out to key
stakeholders in Mogadishu to prevent further violence. More recently,
in December 2007, the Secretary of State met with the prime ministers
of Somalia and Ethiopia and foreign ministers from the region in
Ethiopia to discuss the situation in Somalia. At this meeting, she
stressed the urgency of timely deployment of additional AMISOM
contingents and the U.S. commitment to a regional approach to resolving
the crises in Somalia and encouraged the Prime Minister of Somalia to
facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance.
Insecurity and Other Challenges Have Limited the International
Community's Efforts to Provide Humanitarian and Development Assistance
to Somalia:
The international community's efforts to provide humanitarian and
development assistance to Somalia have been limited by numerous
challenges, including lack of security, sustained access to vulnerable
populations, local implementing capacity, and effective government
institutions. The international community's humanitarian assistance to
Somalia, which primarily consists of food aid, has not reduced the
country's acute malnutrition rates. These rates remain above the
emergency threshold in some parts of the country. Ongoing insecurity
constrains the international community's ability to monitor its
provision of humanitarian and development assistance to Somalia. U.S.
officials have not been able to independently monitor assistance
because they have not been able to travel to Somalia. The international
community's plans to provide increased development assistance to
Somalia hinge on political progress and stability, which have not yet
been achieved.
Donors Have Primarily Funded Food Aid to Somalia; Malnutrition Rates
Remain above Emergency Threshold:
According to UN data, the international community, including the United
States, provided at least $1 billion in humanitarian assistance to
Somalia from 2001 through 2007.[Footnote 10] This included $745 million
in assistance through the UN's annual appeals for funding to support
humanitarian needs in Somalia from 2001 through 2007, of which roughly
47 percent, or $349 million, was for food aid.[Footnote 11] Through the
consolidated appeals, donors have funded a greater percentage of UN-
estimated requirements for food aid than for any other individual
sector. As figure 3 shows, from 2001 through 2007, donors funded
consolidated food aid appeals at an average level of 86 percent of
these estimated requirements, while all other sectors combined were
funded at an average level of 45 percent.
Figure 3: Funding Requirements and Donor Funding by Sector for
Humanitarian Assistance to Somalia through the UN Consolidated Appeals
Process for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007:
This figure is a combination line graph showing funding requirements
and donor funding by sector for humanitarian assistance to Somalia
through the UN consolidated appeals process for fiscal years 2001
through 2007. The X axis represents the humanitarian assistance
sectors, and the Y axis represents the U.S. dollars in millions. One
represents funding requirements, and the other represents donor
funding.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OCHA data.
Note: Requirements represent the total value of all projects proposed
by implementing partners through the UN's consolidated appeal for
Somalia for each sector. Funding reflects contributions by donors or
agencies as a result of the appeals. If a donor makes a contribution to
the UN's annual appeals, but does not specify project and sector, the
UN attributes the funds to "sector not yet specified."
[End of figure]
Somali Refugees in Dadaab, Kenya:
Since 1991, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR)has managed a refugee camp in the town of Dadaab, Kenya, which
is 80 kilometers from the Kenya/Somali border. Currently, the camp is
home to over 173,000 refugees, nearly all of whom are Somali. UNHCR is
responsible for the protection of and provision of assistance to
refugees in coordination with its implementing partners�the Kenyan
government, UN agencies, and NGOs.UN agencies and NGOs provide
humanitarian assistance, such as food, water and sanitation, shelter,
health care, and education to the refugees. The Kenyan government
maintains a strict encampment policy that confines refugees to the
camps because local integration is not considered a durable solution.
Although the Somali border with Kenya remains officially closed, UNHCR
officials told us that the camp received over8,500 arrivals from
Somalia from January to July 2007. Like Somalia, Dadaab has recently
received increased international attention, which has raised the number
of implementing and operational partners working in the camp from 4 in
2006 to 12 in 2007.
Figure: U.S. Commodities at Storage Facility.
Source: GAO.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure: Shelter for Refugees.
Source: GAO.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The UN has stressed the need for more balanced funding among the
humanitarian sectors. According to UN officials, donors have typically
funded stand-alone, short-term, visible interventions in Somalia, such
as emergency food aid, rather than integrated, long-term, sustainable
interventions.[Footnote 12] UN and U.S. officials said that while they
recognize the need to reduce the country's food insecurity by focusing
more on other sectors besides food aid, such as agriculture and
livelihoods, Somalia's constant state of crisis necessitates an
emergency response.[Footnote 13] Therefore, food aid and other
humanitarian assistance to Somalia are primarily aimed at the immediate
need to save lives rather than the improvement of livelihoods in the
mid-to long term. Furthermore, donors have been reluctant to fully fund
all humanitarian assistance sectors because of concerns that
implementing partners in Somalia do not have the operational capacity
or human resources to effectively use additional funding, as well as a
desire for increased stability in Somalia before they provide
additional funding.
The United States is the largest government donor of humanitarian
assistance, including food aid, to Somalia. From fiscal years 2001
through 2007, the United States provided over $317 million in
humanitarian assistance to Somalia through USAID and State (see fig.
4), with agencies and offices contributing as follows:[Footnote 14]
* $242 million in food aid in the form of commodities from USAID's
Office of Food for Peace, to the UN World Food Program (WFP) and CARE;
* $53 million from USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance to UN
agencies and NGOs, to support a range of nonfood aid, such as
logistics, nutrition, health, water, sanitation, and hygiene programs;
* $22 million from State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and
Migration to UN agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross,
and NGOs, to provide assistance to conflict-affected populations,
including internally displaced persons (IDP), in Somalia.[Footnote 15]
Figure 4: U.S. Humanitarian Assistance for Somalia in Fiscal Years 2001
through 2007 by Sector:
This figure is a bar graph depicting U.S. humanitarian assistance for
Somalia in fiscal years 2001 through 2007 by sector. The X axis is the
humanitarian assistance sector, and the Y axis represents the U.S.
obligations (dollars in millions.)
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAI analysis of State and USAID data.
Notes:
"Logistics/relief commodities" include nonfood relief commodities,
logistics, transportation, and air support. "Other sectors" includes
agriculture and food security, economy and market systems, protection,
coordination, stockpile, administrative support, travel, capacity
building, research studies, shelter and settlements, and disaster
support programs.
"Refugee and IDP assistance" represent funding from State's Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration. In addition to this funding,
USAID's Offices of Foreign Disaster Assistance and Food for Peace also
often provide a large percentage of their assistance to IDPs.
[End of figure]
While donors have funded food aid at high levels, acute malnutrition
rates in Somalia have remained chronically above the emergency
threshold. According to data provided by the UN's Food and Agriculture
Organization's Food Security Analysis Unit,[Footnote 16] from 2001
through 2007, the mean prevalence rate of global acute malnutrition
throughout Somalia was 15.6 percent--above the emergency threshold of
15 percent.[Footnote 17] During this period, global acute malnutrition
rates were higher in south-central Somalia, at 17.3 percent, than in
Somaliland and Puntland, which have a 12.5 and 11.7 percent
malnutrition rate, respectively. In some regions in south-central
Somalia, acute malnutrition rates have exceeded 20 percent. The UN
estimates that 83,000 children are acutely malnourished in south-
central Somalia, a figure that excludes IDPs, whose malnutrition rates
are often higher. According to the Food Security Analysis Unit,
malnutrition results from a complex set of elements, including high
incidence of disease, lack of sanitation facilities and potable water,
limited health services, and inappropriate child care practices. U.S.
and UN officials told us that food aid by itself does not address the
underlying causes of malnutrition in Somalia and the international
community needs to implement a coordinated approach that integrates
interventions in various sectors, such as water, health, and
sanitation, to improve the nutritional situation in the country.
Insecurity and Related Challenges Have Hindered International
Humanitarian Aid Efforts and Oversight:
Insecurity:
Ongoing insecurity has been the most significant obstacle to the
provision and oversight of humanitarian assistance in Somalia.
Insecurity affects all aspects of the delivery of assistance to the
country and prevents most UN international staff, international NGO
staff, and donors from maintaining a permanent presence there,
hindering assistance efforts and reducing monitoring capacity. The
international community manages its assistance to Somalia by "remote
control" from Nairobi through numerous working groups. Some UN
officials told us that the coordination meetings on Somalia that occur
in Nairobi consist mainly of information sharing and are burdensome and
time-consuming. These officials also told us there is a need for more
coordination to occur in Somalia rather than in Nairobi. UN agencies'
and international NGOs' programs for Somalia are mainly implemented by
Somali national staff, often without the on-site technical support,
guidance, and authority of international program managers who remain in
Kenya.
Although humanitarian needs are greater in south-central than in
northern Somalia, because of ongoing insecurity, the international
community generally has less access to south-central Somalia,
especially Mogadishu, than to the northern regions (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: International Community's Level of Access to Somalia:
This figure is a map showing international community's level of access
to Somalia.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO from UN OCHA.
Disclaimer: The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on
this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United
Nations.
Notes:
1. The UN security phases in effect in Somalia are indicative of the
security situation there. Mogadishu is in phase five (evacuation of all
United Nations staff), and the remainder of Somalia is in phase four
(emergency operations only), except for the western part of Somaliland,
which is in phase three.
2. Full access: no restrictions on humanitarian activity in the area
and unimpeded ability to reach vulnerable populations.
Light restrictions: some interruptions on humanitarian activity and
some constraints in reaching vulnerable populations.
Light/partial/restricted access: significant interruptions in
humanitarian activity and significant constraints in reaching
vulnerable populations.
Restricted access: seriously constrained humanitarian activity and
minimal ability to reach vulnerable populations.
Restricted/no access: ongoing restrictions that prevent any
humanitarian activity in the area.
3. A boundary dispute between Somaliland and Puntland over the Sool and
Sanaag regions remains unresolved. On the map, these disputed regions
are designated as restricted access.
[End of figure]
The insecure operating environment in Somalia has led to breaks and
delays in the delivery of humanitarian aid, thereby affecting human
survival. For example, insecurity has limited the international
community's ability to provide humanitarian assistance to 230,000 IDPs
living in desperate conditions along a road between Mogadishu and
Afgooye and lacking access to urgently needed food, clean water,
sanitation, and health care. Delivery of humanitarian aid to vulnerable
populations has not been possible or has been interrupted when the
safety and security of humanitarian aid workers could not be ensured.
Humanitarian aid workers in Somalia have experienced harassment,
arbitrary detention at key checkpoints, kidnapping, arrest, and attacks
and have at times been completely prevented from conducting aid
operations. In October 2007, for example, the WFP temporarily suspended
its food distributions when TFG soldiers violated the UN premises in
Mogadishu and arrested the program's Head of Office. The official was
released 5 days later, and food aid and all other UN planned activities
subsequently resumed.
Insecurity in Somalia has also limited the international community's
efforts to monitor and evaluate the provision of humanitarian aid.
Because of security concerns, U.S. government officials have been
unable to travel to Somalia to monitor and evaluate U.S. assistance to
the country. The last time USAID officials visited Somalia was in
January 2006, when two officials visited Puntland. USAID and State
officials we met with said they must rely on the reports produced by
their implementing partners and are unable to travel to Somalia to
verify the reports and assess the effectiveness of their programs.
According to USAID officials, Somalia is one of the few countries in
which USAID cannot independently monitor the humanitarian aid provided.
Monitoring and evaluation are necessary to determine whether
interventions have been implemented as expected, if they need to be
changed, and whether they have been effective.
Lack of Access:
Not only does it lack access to Somalia because of ongoing insecurity,
the international community also faces logistical challenges in
transporting humanitarian aid to vulnerable populations. UN agencies
and NGOs told us that their lack of physical access to Somalia by sea,
overland, and by air has created major delays and increased the cost of
transporting supplies to the country. According to the UN, nearly 80
percent of food aid to Somalia by WFP is shipped by sea, but the
availability of shippers willing to carry food to the country has been
reduced by half because of concerns about piracy. At least 15
hijackings of ships off the coast of Somalia took place in 2007, with 3
of the attacks involving WFP-chartered ships. In August 2007, the UN
Security Council passed a resolution encouraging member states to take
appropriate action--consistent with international law--to protect
merchant shipping, particularly the transport of humanitarian aid.
Subsequently, in November 2007, French Navy vessels escorted two WFP
ships. When the Kenyan government closed its border with Somalia in
January 2007, UN agencies and NGOs had difficulty transporting
humanitarian supplies into Somalia and reloading trucks from Somalia
with supplies in Kenya. Relief convoys eventually received permission
to cross the border into Somalia, but inconsistent authorization and
delays hindered travel through July 2007. Once in Somalia, humanitarian
relief items are frequently subject to arbitrary taxation and customs
fees at TFG checkpoints and at ad hoc roadblocks manned by armed
militias. In 2007, the UN received reports of TFG-manned checkpoints
demanding that passing traffic--including humanitarian convoys--pay
fees ranging from $20 to $133, and later up to $520, per truck. The
closure of key airstrips in south-central Somalia during the first half
of 2007 often prevented aid staff from reaching the country, and access
has been further complicated by poor road, sea, and air infrastructure
and flooding.
Limited Capacity:
The limited implementing capacity of local NGOs in Somalia also
constrains the delivery of humanitarian aid. UN agencies and
international NGOs work through local Somali NGOs to implement their
programs, but many of these local NGOs lack operational capacity,
qualified staff, and technical expertise, and U.S. and UN officials we
met with said there is a need to build their capacity to provide aid.
In addition, NGO managers told us that the Somali staff they have
trained often leave to work for the UN, further weakening the capacity
of the NGOs. U.S. officials also expressed concern that local NGOs lack
the capacity to spend additional funds effectively. Furthermore, the
complex working environment in south-central Somalia prohibits the
rapid start-up of new NGOs in districts or regions without exhaustive
negotiations with community leaders and local authorities.
Ineffective Government Institutions:
The lack of effective government institutions, particularly in south-
central Somalia, further hampers the implementation of humanitarian
activities. The TFG lacks the capacity to coordinate humanitarian aid
and sometimes hinders the provision of humanitarian aid in Somalia. For
example, in March and April 2007, the TFG imposed restrictions on the
delivery of humanitarian aid. The TFG restricted UN agencies to the use
of TFG institutions as their sole implementing partner, restricted the
use of airports for the delivery of aid, stated that research and data
collection efforts without TFG approval were invalid, and halted
distribution of food aid for unspecified inspections and approval by
the TFG. Following international pressure, including engagement by the
U.S. Ambassador to Kenya, the TFG removed these restrictions in late
April 2007 and designated an Inter-Ministerial Committee, chaired by
the Minister of Health, as the focal point on the coordination of
humanitarian aid.
Increase in International Community's Development Assistance Hinges on
Political Progress and Stability in Somalia:
In addition to humanitarian assistance, the international community,
including the United States, pledged at least $771 million in
development assistance to Somalia from 2001 through 2006 and plans to
increase this amount in the future.[Footnote 18] However, plans for an
increase in development assistance depend on political reconciliation
and stability in Somalia, which have not yet been achieved. For
example, implementation of the UN, World Bank, European Union, and
Norway's transitional assistance plans for Somalia--based on the
Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP), a 5-year national
development plan that was the result of a joint UN and World Bank
postconflict needs assessment--will depend on political and security
conditions, existing implementation capacities, the willingness of most
donors to participate in the RDP, and resource availability.[Footnote
19] Sweden and Italy had planned to arrange an international donor
conference in 2006 to raise funds to support the RDP, but World Bank
and UN officials told us that such a conference had not yet occurred,
because of the continued lack of political reconciliation and stability
in Somalia. More recently, at a meeting in Sweden in September 2007 to
coordinate their assistance strategies for Somalia, donors including
the United States, the UN, and the World Bank affirmed that the scope
and effectiveness of their development assistance are contingent on
reasonable stability in operating areas and genuine attempts at good
governance at the country's federal, regional, and local levels.
Since 2001, the United States has increased its development assistance
to Somalia and has targeted more of it to south-central Somalia to
support the TFG. From fiscal years 2001 through 2007, the United States
provided nearly $45 million in development assistance to Somalia
through UNDP and NGOs in support of programs aimed at strengthening the
capacity of civil society, supporting conflict mitigation, and
increasing access to basic services. U.S. development assistance to
Somalia grew from $3 million in fiscal year 2001 to over $17 million in
fiscal year 2007. In fiscal years 2001 through 2003, about 90 percent
of U.S. development assistance funds were targeted at Somaliland and
Puntland. By contrast, in fiscal year 2007, the majority of these funds
were targeted at south-central Somalia. In 2007, U.S. development
assistance to Somalia was aimed at building the TFG's capacity to
govern and deliver social services, such as education, water, and
health, to increase its credibility among its constituencies.[Footnote
20] This assistance also supported grassroots peace and reconciliation
processes, conflict mitigation programs, civil society, education
activities, and media outreach.
U.S. Strategic Planning for Somalia Is Incomplete:
While the Administration's March 2007 Comprehensive Strategy generally
includes all the components mandated by U.S. law, it is incomplete
because it does not include the full range of U.S. government
activities for Somalia and does not reference other U.S. government
strategic planning documents for Somalia. Furthermore, the
Comprehensive Strategy does not address the six characteristics of an
effective national strategy, which, in our view, enhance a strategy's
usefulness in resource and policy decisions and better ensure
accountability.[Footnote 21] Several officials told us that U.S.
strategy for Somalia comprises three separate documents. Our analysis
shows that these strategies, considered together, provide more detail
on important elements, such as costs and overall desired results, but
still do not address all the characteristics of an effective national
strategy.[Footnote 22]
Comprehensive Strategy Addresses Legislation, but Does Not Cover Full
Range of Activities:
The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2007 required the
Comprehensive Strategy to include the following:
1. a clearly stated policy towards Somalia that will help establish a
functional, legitimate, and unified national government in Somalia that
is capable of maintaining the rule of law and preventing Somalia from
becoming a safe haven for terrorists;
2. a description of the type and form of bilateral, regional, and
multilateral efforts to coordinate and strengthen diplomatic engagement
with Somalia;
3. a description of an integrated political, humanitarian,
intelligence, and military approach to counter transnational security
threats in Somalia and throughout the countries of the Horn of Africa;
4. a description of an interagency framework involving the federal
agencies and departments of the United States to plan, coordinate, and
execute U.S. policy and activities in Somalia and throughout the
countries of the Horn of Africa and to oversee policy and program
implementation; and:
5. guidance on the manner in which the comprehensive regional strategy
will be implemented.
While the strategy submitted to Congress contains sections that
generally address each of these requirements, it is incomplete in two
ways. First, the strategy does not include all of the U.S. government
activities mentioned earlier in this report, notably DOD efforts,
although, according to a DOD official in Nairobi, DOD plays a role in
each of the three U.S. strategic objectives for Somalia.[Footnote 23]
For example, although the strategy contains sections on security and
stability and counterterrorism, it does not mention DOD efforts to
prevent conflict and promote regional stability through CJTF-HOA.
According to DOD officials, DOD maintains an official policy of "no
boots on the ground" in Somalia. However, it conducts civil affairs
projects, provides military-to-military training, delivers humanitarian
assistance, and enhances disaster management capabilities in other
countries in the Horn of Africa.
Second, the Comprehensive Strategy does not refer to other U.S.
government strategic planning documents, which some officials consider
part of the overall U.S. strategy for Somalia, nor do these other
documents refer to the Comprehensive Strategy. For example, the
Comprehensive Strategy does not mention USAID's Strategy Statement for
2006-2008, although the statement provides a detailed description of
the country context and strategic issues that remained relatively
constant as priority objectives evolved. Furthermore, the Comprehensive
Strategy does not refer to agency planning documents, such as State's
fiscal year 2007 Operational Plan for Somalia, which USAID officials
said was a key document that discusses USAID's current and future
strategy for Somalia, or the Mission Performance/Mission Strategic
Plans for Somalia or Kenya, which outline the intended goals, priority
initiatives, and performance indicators with targets for the country
team in Nairobi. In addition, while the Foreign Assistance Strategy for
Somalia--which lays out a strategy and estimated funding requirements
for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 to implement programs that advance U.S.
interests in Somalia--refers to an "aggressive diplomatic strategy" and
an "active public diplomacy approach," it does not refer specifically
to the Comprehensive Strategy. State's report on the status of
implementation of the Comprehensive Strategy, issued subsequent to the
Foreign Assistance Strategy, does not mention other strategic
documents, reflecting the lack of integration between the Comprehensive
Strategy and other key planning documents.
Comprehensive Strategy Does Not Address the Characteristics of an
Effective National Strategy:
The Comprehensive Strategy does not fully address any of the six
desirable characteristics of an effective national strategy that we
have identified and used in our previous work, limiting its usefulness
as a planning tool. While national strategies are not required by
executive or legislative mandate to address a single, consistent set of
characteristics, the six desirable characteristics, along with their
underlying elements, are important because they help implementers
effectively shape policies, programs, priorities, and resource
allocations so that federal agencies and other stakeholders can achieve
the desired results. We recognize that strategies are not end points,
but dynamic working documents, and that implementation is the key to
any strategic planning effort. The ultimate measure of the
Comprehensive Strategy's value will be the extent to which it provides
useful guidance for policy and decision makers in allocating resources
and balancing priorities with other important objectives. Appendix II
describes the six desirable characteristics of an effective national
strategy in detail.
As shown in figure 6, the Comprehensive Strategy partially addresses
five of the six characteristics and does not address one of them at
all. The strategy addresses some elements related to its purpose,
goals, and activities to achieve results but does not address other
elements related to costs, risk management, and integration with
relevant documents from other agencies. Appendix III provides more
detail on our assessment of the Comprehensive Strategy.
Figure 6: Extent to Which the Comprehensive Regional Strategy on
Somalia Addresses the Desirable Characteristics of an Effective
National Strategy:
This figure is a chart depicting the extent to which the comprehensive
regional strategy on Somalia addresses the desirable characteristics of
an effective national strategy.
Criteria: 1. Clear purpose, scope, methodology;
Comprehensive Strategy: Partially addresses.
Criteria: 2. Detailed discussion of problems, risks, and threats;
Comprehensive Strategy: Partially addresses.
Criteria: 3. Desired goals, objectives, activities, and performance
measures;
Comprehensive Strategy: Partially addresses.
Criteria: 4. Description of resources, investments, and risk
management;
Comprehensive Strategy: Does not address.
Criteria: 5. Delineation of U.S. government roles, responsibilities,
and coordination mechanism;
Comprehensive Strategy: Partially addresses.
Criteria: 6. Description of strategy�s integration among and with other
entities;
Comprehensive Strategy: Partially addresses.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: The six characteristics can be subdivided into 27 separate
elements for more detailed assessment. If the strategy addressed all of
the elements related to a characteristic, we determined that it
addressed this characteristic. If the strategy addressed at least one
but not all of the elements related to a characteristic, we determined
that it partially addressed this characteristic. If the strategy
addressed none of the elements related to a characteristic, we
determined that it did not address this characteristic.
[End of figure]
Our analysis found the following key weaknesses:
* Purpose, scope, and methodology. Although the Comprehensive Strategy
clearly explains that it was written in response to a legislative
mandate, it does not discuss the process through which it was produced
and only partially addresses other elements related to its purpose,
scope, and methodology. For example, it does not clearly state its
purpose, and it does not explicitly discuss the assumptions that guided
its development. A more complete description of these elements could
make the strategy more useful to organizations responsible for its
implementation and to oversight entities such as Congress.
* Problem definition and risk assessment. The strategy only partially
describes the problems it is intended to address and the operating
environment in which it will be implemented; for example, the strategy
does not mention the severe restrictions on official U.S. travel to
Somalia. Furthermore, the strategy includes no discussion of the causes
of the problems it is intended to address or the quality of data
available. A more detailed description of the problems and their causes
would give the responsible parties better guidance on implementing the
strategy.
* Goals, objectives, activities, and performance measures. The strategy
clearly states that U.S. objectives in Somalia are to eliminate the
terrorist threat, promote political stability, and respond to the
humanitarian needs of the Somali people. The strategy also outlines
priority initiatives and lists several activities intended to achieve
these objectives. However, the discussion of performance measures and
the process to monitor and report on progress is very limited; having
these elements could enable more effective oversight and
accountability. Without these elements, policy makers cannot
effectively monitor the strategy's progress toward its stated goals. We
acknowledge the existence of significant limitations on monitoring
performance; for example, U.S. and UN officials in Nairobi repeatedly
told us of the difficulties of traveling to Somalia to monitor and
evaluate their programs. However, the strategy neither addresses these
limitations nor describes plans to obtain better data.
* Resources, investments, and risk management. The strategy does not
identify current or future costs of implementation, risk management
principles, or resource allocation mechanisms. Guidance on determining
costs and resources based on a risk management approach helps
implementing parties allocate resources according to priorities, track
costs and performance, and shift resources as appropriate. Risk
management is especially important in planning for Somalia, where
overall needs outweigh resources available because of the prolonged
crisis.
* Roles, responsibilities, and coordination. The strategy generally
indicates who will implement it, stating that "the Comprehensive
Regional Strategy on Somalia will be implemented by the Department of
State, in coordination with appropriate U.S. government agencies and
departments," but it does not elaborate on the roles and
responsibilities of agencies other than State, notably DOD. In
addition, although the strategy identifies the Africa Policy
Coordination Committee as the "interagency framework for planning,
coordinating, and executing" U.S. policy in Somalia, it does not
identify a process for resolving conflicts among agencies.[Footnote 24]
* Strategy's integration among and with other entities. Although the
strategy references other organizations, such as the International
Contact Group on Somalia,[Footnote 25] the UN, and the African Union,
it does not address how it relates to these organizations' strategies
or objectives for Somalia. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the
strategy does not refer to other U.S. government strategic documents,
such as the National Security Strategy or USAID's Strategy Statement
for Somalia. However, the strategy does mention Somalia's Transitional
Federal Charter and describes how efforts to promote political dialogue
fit into the charter's framework. More information on how the strategy
relates to these other documents would further clarify the
relationships between various implementing partners within the U.S.
government and the international community.
While the other documents that State and USAID officials consider part
of the United States' overall strategy for Somalia provide more detail
on certain elements within the six desirable characteristics of an
effective strategy, they still do not fully address any of the
characteristics. For example, the Foreign Assistance Strategy for
Somalia provides significantly more detail on resource requirements,
sources, and allocation mechanisms. In addition, USAID's Strategy
Statement for Somalia includes a detailed discussion of the problems it
is intended to address and the causes of these problems. However, none
of these documents refer to the others, highlighting their lack of
integration.
Our analysis of the joint UN-World Bank RDP--the international
community's framework for development activities for Somalia--found
that it does address the majority of elements of the six desirable
characteristics, providing significantly more detail than the United
States' Comprehensive Strategy. For example, the RDP clearly identifies
its purpose, scope, and methodology; defines the problems it is
intended to address and discusses the causes of these problems;
addresses overall results, strategic goals, and activities; and
identifies how much the strategy will cost and how resources should be
targeted to balance risks and costs.
Conclusions:
Enormous challenges have limited efforts to establish peace, stability,
and a functioning central government in Somalia and to meet the
Somalis' basic needs. Although State officials have encouraged African
countries to contribute troops to the African Union peacekeeping
mission in Somalia, the ongoing insurgency and lack of a peace
agreement have limited AMISOM's ability to achieve its mission. State
officials had hoped that a fully deployed AMISOM force would allow
Ethiopian defense forces to withdraw from Somalia, which, in turn,
would allow key nonviolent opposition groups to return to Somalia and
participate in reconciliation efforts. To date, however, these groups
and the transitional government have not engaged in any meaningful
dialogue toward reconciliation. In addition, the transitional
government's lack of institutional structures and national acceptance
has hindered international activities to build governance capacity.
Furthermore, insecurity, lack of access to Somalia, and other
challenges have made it very difficult for humanitarian organizations
to adequately address the needs of the country's most vulnerable
populations--such as internally displaced persons--for food, water,
housing, and health care. Addressing these challenges is critical, as
Somalia will likely need humanitarian assistance for several years to
come.
Moving Somalia toward the goal of national elections in 2009 will
require sustained and concerted efforts from donors, international
organizations, African nations, and, most important, Somalis
themselves. The U.S. government has increased its political engagement
with the Somali government and funding for assistance in Somalia, but
the strategic planning effort to guide U.S. activities related to
Somalia has been incomplete. As the United States continues to
formulate its role and respond to the volatile conditions in Somalia, a
comprehensive strategy that fully addresses critical issues such as
overall costs and monitoring and evaluation becomes increasingly
important.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
In order to better inform Congress on U.S. policy and activities in
Somalia and the Horn of Africa, we recommend that the Secretary of
State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense and the National
Security Advisor, develop a more detailed U.S. strategy for Somalia,
including the full range of U.S. government activities in the region
and all six elements of an effective national strategy.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
DOD provided comments on a draft of our report, which we have reprinted
in appendix IV. DOD partially concurred with our recommendation,
suggesting that we strengthen our recommendation by calling for a
"detailed U.S. strategy for Somalia," rather than a "more detailed
report on U.S. strategy for Somalia." As this report discusses,
however, a governmentwide strategy for Somalia already exists, so we
have modified our report to recommend the development of a "more
detailed strategy for Somalia." In a classified letter, State did not
directly respond to our recommendation. State's letter also included
technical comments on this report, which we have incorporated as
appropriate. We have reprinted this letter in our classified report.
Additionally, DOD, USAID, NSC, the World Bank, and various UN programs
and offices provided technical comments and updated information, which
we have included throughout this report as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested
Members of Congress; the Secretaries of State, Defense, and the
Treasury; and the Administrator of USAID. We will also make copies
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9601 or [email protected]. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix V.
Thomas Melito:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
In this report, we assess (1) U.S. and international efforts to
stabilize Somalia; (2) U.S. and international efforts to provide
humanitarian and development assistance to Somalia; and (3) strategic
planning efforts to guide U.S. activities related to Somalia.
To assess U.S. efforts to stabilize Somalia and provide humanitarian
and development assistance, we examined documents and interviewed
officials from five U.S. government agencies in Washington, D.C; New
York; Nairobi, Kenya; and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, about their activities
for Somalia. Because of restrictions on official U.S. government travel
to Somalia, we did not conduct fieldwork in the country. We reviewed
various strategic, planning, budgetary, and reporting documents from
these agencies outlining their ongoing activities for Somalia. At the
State Department (State), we met with officials from the Bureaus of
African Affairs, Diplomatic Security, and Population, Refugees, and
Migration; the Offices of the Director of Foreign Assistance, the
Undersecretary of Management, and the Coordinator for Reconstruction
and Stabilization; and the U.S. missions to Kenya, Ethiopia, the United
Nations, and the African Union. At the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), we met with officials from the Africa Bureau and
the Offices of Foreign Disaster Assistance, Food for Peace, Transition
Initiatives, and Conflict Management and Mitigation. At the Department
of Defense (DOD) we met with officials from the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Combined Joint Task
Force-Horn of Africa. We also met with experts on Somalia from academia
and the private sector, as well as numerous nongovernmental
organizations implementing programs in Somalia, to discuss their views
on U.S. activities related to Somalia.
To assess international assistance efforts for Somalia, we reviewed
United Nations (UN) and World Bank reports, research, and strategic
planning documents and met with officials in 10 UN offices and
programs, the World Bank, nongovernmental organizations, the Somali
government, and other donor governments. We conducted interviews with
officials of the following UN entities: the Office for the Coordination
of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), World Food Program, UN Development
Program, UN Department of Safety and Security, UN Department of
Political Affairs, UN Children's Fund, UN Department for Peacekeeping
Operations, Food and Agriculture Organization, UN High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR), and World Health Organization. We also interviewed
officials of the European Commission, the Arab League, the United
Kingdom, and Italy. In Ethiopia, we met with officials of the African
Union and the Ethiopian government. In addition, we traveled to a UNHCR
camp in Dadaab, Kenya, to observe programs to assist Somali refugees.
Finally, we attended several conferences whose attendees included
representatives from the U.S. and Somali governments and Somali civil
society organizations.
To determine U.S. funding for programs related to Somalia, we analyzed
State, USAID, and DOD financial obligations for Somalia programs from
fiscal years 2001 through 2007. We obtained data on U.S. humanitarian
and development funding for this period, as well as the number of staff
focused on programs relating to Somalia, from officials within State,
USAID, and DOD. We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing
relevant existing information and interviewing cognizant agency
officials, as well as by cross-checking the data we obtained from the
agencies with other sources. We found all agencies' data sufficiently
reliable for the purpose of our report, which was to show the large
difference in U.S. funding between food aid and other humanitarian aid
sectors, as well as development aid funding levels.
To determine the international community's funding for humanitarian
assistance to Somalia from 2001 through 2007, we obtained data reported
by OCHA's Financial Tracking Service (FTS) on both assistance provided
in response to the UN's annual Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) for
Somalia from 2001 through 2007, as well as other humanitarian
assistance provided (not in response to an appeal) from 2001 through
2007. To assess the reliability of these data, we discussed with OCHA
officials their processes for receiving and compiling the information
from donors and implementing partners and for ensuring fund totals are
accurate and not double-counted.
In assessing the data from FTS on humanitarian funding through the CAP
for Somalia, we found that firm reporting arrangements exist with
implementing agencies that request funding through the CAP to ensure
all funding received is reported. In particular, OCHA officials told us
that the CAP funding data are tracked according to specific required
project numbers and to related sector categories. The humanitarian
funding through the CAP is therefore limited to funding for specific
projects listed in the CAP, and is not trying to capture all assistance
going to Somalia. We determined the funding information for the CAP to
be reliable enough to provide as part of the total humanitarian
assistance[Footnote 26] provided to Somalia and as part of our evidence
that food aid is funded at higher levels than other sectors in Somalia.
For humanitarian assistance reported to FTS for projects outside of the
CAP, we found several limitations. OCHA officials and some Somalia
experts told us that there are likely large amounts of humanitarian
assistance being provided by some Gulf States that are not reported to
the UN. Additionally, all donors may not report the full amount of
assistance provided outside of the CAP (through FTS), and therefore it
is possible for some donors' data to be incomplete. As a result, the
figures we report here likely undercount total global humanitarian
assistance. We found that despite these limitations, the data are
reliable enough for reporting broadly on the minimum of total
assistance provided, with the caveat that certain countries' data or
portions of their data are excluded. Recognizing these limitations, we
report a minimum funding total calculated by adding the CAP total to
the total reported funding for humanitarian projects outside of the
CAP.
We do not provide figures by sector for the data on funding provided
for projects outside of the CAP because of possible inconsistencies
and/or inaccuracies in how donors report the data to FTS. The UN
provides guidance to donors on criteria for categorizing assistance by
sector. However, OCHA officials told us that some donors use their own
criteria rather than OCHA's. Additionally, we determined that because
of the general nature of the guidance, countries may interpret the
classifications of assistance that the UN provides differently. For
these reasons we do not provide sector-specific figures for these data,
but instead only report sector-specific data reported under the CAP.
To determine the international community's funding for development
assistance to Somalia from 2001 through 2006, we obtained data from
annual reports of the Somalia Aid Coordination Body (SACB), which
consists of donors, UN agencies, and implementing partners active in
Somalia. Through interviews and review of donor reports, we found that
the Somali Support Secretariat,[Footnote 27] which collects the data
and issues the donor reports, attempts to ensure that assistance is
counted only in one year and not recounted in subsequent years.
However, a secretariat official told us that there is no extensive
verification of information reported by donors, and there is little to
no effort to include data on assistance provided by non-SACB donors,
particularly those from the Middle East. We were only able to obtain
data on development assistance through 2006 to provide a context for
the level of development assistance pledged to Somalia over the past 6
years. Because of these limitations the amounts reported do not
represent all development assistance to Somalia.
To assess the U.S. strategic planning efforts, we examined the
Comprehensive Regional Strategy on Somalia (Comprehensive Strategy) and
supporting documents and spoke with officials from State, USAID, DOD,
and the National Security Council who were involved in the development
of the Comprehensive Strategy. Officials from these agencies identified
the following three documents, combined, as the United States' overall
strategy for Somalia: the Comprehensive Strategy, the Foreign
Assistance Strategy for Somalia for fiscal years 2007 and 2008, and
USAID's Strategy Statement for Somalia (2006-2008). In addition to
these documents, we reviewed other U.S. government documents that
provide useful information though they were not identified as key
supporting documents by State, USAID, or DOD officials. These documents
include the Mission Performance Plan for the U.S. Mission to Kenya for
fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008; the Mission Strategic Plan for the
U.S. Mission to Somalia for fiscal year 2009; the fiscal year 2007
Operational Plan for Somalia; and the report on the status of
implementation of the Comprehensive Strategy. We focused our analysis
on the Comprehensive Strategy because it was the only one identified as
a comprehensive, U.S. governmentwide strategy for Somalia and compared
it against the components required of it by U.S. law.
To determine whether the Comprehensive Strategy contains all six
desirable characteristics of an effective national strategy that we
developed and used in our prior work, we first developed a checklist of
these characteristics, along with their 27 component elements. (See
app. II for a more detailed description of the six characteristics.)
Three GAO staff members then independently assessed the Comprehensive
Strategy for its inclusion of the 27 elements, recorded their findings
on separate checklists, and met to reconcile any differences in their
assessments. Once these assessments were reconciled, two additional GAO
staff members reviewed this analysis for completeness and accuracy.
To determine the extent to which the Comprehensive Strategy addressed
the six characteristics of an effective national strategy, we developed
the following three categories: the strategy (1) addresses a
characteristic when it explicitly cites all elements related to that
characteristic; (2) partially addresses a characteristic when it
explicitly cites at least one, but not all, of the elements related to
that characteristic; and (3) does not address a characteristic when it
does not explicitly cite any of the elements related to that
characteristic. By applying these categories to our checklists of the
27 elements, we developed a consolidated summary of the extent to which
the strategy addressed the six characteristics of an effective national
strategy. We applied the same methodology to the Foreign Assistance
Strategy and the USAID Strategy Statement to determine the extent to
which these documents, combined with the Comprehensive Strategy,
address these desirable characteristics. In addition, we applied this
methodology to the joint UN-World Bank Reconstruction and Development
Program to determine the extent to which it addresses the six
characteristics.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2007 to February 2008
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO's Description of the Six Characteristics of an
Effective National Strategy:
In a prior report, we identified six desirable characteristics of an
effective national strategy that would enable its implementers to
effectively shape policies, programs, priorities, resource allocations,
and standards and that would enable federal departments and other
stakeholders to achieve the identified results.[Footnote 28] We further
determined in that report that national strategies with the six
characteristics can provide policy makers and implementing agencies
with a planning tool that can help ensure accountability and more
effective results. To develop these six desirable characteristics of an
effective national strategy, we reviewed several sources of
information. First, we gathered statutory requirements pertaining to
national strategies, as well as legislative and executive branch
guidance. We also consulted the Government Performance and Results Act
of 1993, general literature on strategic planning and performance, and
guidance from the Office of Management and Budget on the President's
Management Agenda. In addition, among other things, we studied past
reports and testimonies for findings and recommendations pertaining to
the desirable elements of a national strategy. Furthermore, we
consulted widely within GAO to obtain updated information on strategic
planning, integration across and between the government and its
partners, implementation, and other related subjects. We developed
these six desirable characteristics based on their underlying support
in legislative or executive guidance and the frequency with which they
were cited in other sources. We then grouped similar items together in
a logical sequence, from conception to implementation. Table 1 provides
these desirable characteristics and examples of their elements.
Table 1: Summary of Desirable Characteristics of an Effective National
Strategy:
Desirable characteristic: Purpose, scope, and methodology;
Brief description: Addresses why the strategy was produced, the scope
of its coverage, and the process by which it was developed.
Desirable characteristic: Problems, risks, and threats;
Brief description: Addresses the particular national problems and
threats the strategy is directed toward.
Desirable characteristic: Desired goals, objectives, activities, and
performance measures;
Brief description: Addresses what the strategy is trying to achieve;
steps to achieve those results; as well as the priorities, milestones,
and performance measures to gauge results.
Desirable characteristic: Resources, investments, and risk management;
Brief description: Addresses what the strategy will cost, the sources
and types of resources and investments needed, and where resources and
investments should be targeted by balancing risk reductions and costs.
Desirable characteristic: U.S. government roles, responsibilities, and
coordination mechanism;
Brief description: Addresses who will be implementing the strategy,
what their roles will be compared to those of others, and mechanisms
for them to coordinate their efforts.
Desirable characteristic: Integration among and with other entities;
Brief description: Addresses how a national strategy relates to other
strategies' goals, objectives, and activities--and to subordinate
levels of government and their plans to implement the strategy.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
The following sections provide more detail on the six desirable
characteristics.
Purpose, Scope, and Methodology:
This characteristic addresses why the strategy was produced, the scope
of its coverage, and the process by which it was developed. For
example, a strategy should discuss the specific impetus that led to its
being written (or updated), such as statutory requirements, executive
mandates, or other events like the Global War on Terrorism.
Furthermore, a strategy would enhance clarity by including definitions
of key, relevant terms. In addition to describing what it is meant to
do and the major functions, mission areas, or activities it covers, a
national strategy would ideally address its methodology. For example, a
strategy should discuss the principles or theories that guided its
development, the organizations or offices that drafted the document, or
working groups that were consulted in its development.
Problems, Risks, and Threats:
This characteristic addresses the particular national problems and
threats at which the strategy is directed. Specifically, this means a
detailed discussion or definition of the problems the strategy intends
to address, their causes, and operating environment. In addition, this
characteristic entails a risk assessment, including an analysis of the
threats to and vulnerabilities of critical assets and operations. If
the details of these analyses are classified or preliminary, an
unclassified version of the strategy should at least include a broad
description of the analyses and stress the importance of risk
assessment to implementing parties. A discussion of the quality of data
available regarding this characteristic, such as known constraints or
deficiencies, would also be useful.
Goals, Objectives, Activities, and Performance Measures:
This characteristic addresses what the national strategy strives to
achieve and the steps needed to garner those results, as well as the
priorities, milestones, and performance measures to gauge results. At
the highest level, this could be a description of an ideal end state,
followed by a logical hierarchy of major goals, subordinate objectives,
and specific activities to achieve results. In addition, it would be
helpful if the strategy discussed the importance of implementing
parties' efforts to establish priorities, milestones, and performance
measures, which help ensure accountability. Ideally, a national
strategy would set clear desired results and priorities, specific
milestones, and outcome-related performance measures while giving
implementing parties flexibility to pursue and achieve those results
within a reasonable time frame. If significant limitations on
performance measures exist, other parts of the strategy should address
plans to obtain better data or measurements, such as national standards
or indicators of preparedness.
Resources, Investments, and Risk Management:
This characteristic addresses what the strategy will cost, the sources
and types of resources and investments needed, and where those
resources and investments should be targeted. Ideally, a strategy would
also identify appropriate mechanisms to allocate resources.
Furthermore, a national strategy should elaborate on the risk
assessment mentioned earlier and give guidance to implementing parties
to manage their resources and investments accordingly. It should also
address the difficult, but critical, issues about who pays and how such
efforts will be funded and sustained in the future. Furthermore, a
strategy should include a discussion of the type of resources required,
such as budgetary, human capital, information, information technology,
research and development, procurement of equipment, or contract
services. A national strategy should also discuss linkages to other
resource documents, such as federal agency budgets or human capital,
information technology, research and development, and acquisition
strategies. Finally, a national strategy should also discuss in greater
detail how risk management will aid implementing parties in
prioritizing and allocating resources, including how this approach will
create societywide benefits and balance these with the cost to society.
Related to this, a national strategy should discuss the economic
principle of risk-adjusted return on resources.
U.S. Government Roles, Responsibilities, and Coordination Mechanism:
This characteristic addresses what organizations will implement the
strategy, their roles and responsibilities, and mechanisms for
coordinating their efforts. It helps to answer the question about who
is in charge during times of crisis and during all stabilization and
assistance efforts. This characteristic entails identifying the
specific federal departments, agencies, or offices involved, as well as
the roles and responsibilities of private and international sectors. A
strategy would ideally clarify implementing organizations'
relationships in terms of leading, supporting, and partnering. In
addition, a strategy should describe the organizations that will
provide the overall framework for accountability and oversight, such as
the National Security Council, Office of Management and Budget,
Congress, or other organizations. Furthermore, a strategy should also
identify specific processes for coordination and collaboration among
sectors and organizations--and address how any conflicts would be
resolved.
Strategy's Integration among and with Other Entities:
This characteristic addresses both how a national strategy relates to
other strategies' goals, objectives, and activities (horizontal
integration) and how it relates to subordinate levels of government and
other organizations and their plans to implement the strategy (vertical
integration). For example, a national strategy should discuss how its
scope complements, expands upon, or overlaps with other strategies
prepared by other governments or international organizations.
Similarly, related strategies should highlight their common or shared
goals, subordinate objectives, and activities. In addition, a national
strategy should address its relationship with relevant documents from
implementing organizations, such as the strategic plans, annual
performance plans, or the annual performance reports the Government
Performance and Results Act requires of federal agencies. A strategy
should also discuss, as appropriate, various strategies and plans
produced by the state, local, private, and international sectors. A
strategy also should provide guidance such as the development of
national standards to link together more effectively the roles,
responsibilities, and capabilities of the implementing parties.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Extent to Which the Comprehensive Regional Strategy on
Somalia Addresses GAO's Desirable Characteristics:
We reviewed the content of the Comprehensive Regional Strategy on
Somalia to determine the extent to which it addressed each of the six
desirable characteristics of an effective national strategy that we
previously developed and used in other contexts. (App. I explains our
methodology in detail; app. II provides a detailed description of the
six desirable characteristics.) We divided each characteristic into
subelements for a more detailed assessment and then determined whether
the Comprehensive Strategy addresses, partially addresses, or does not
address each of the subelements and characteristics. Figure 7 shows the
results of our assessment of the Comprehensive Strategy.
Figure 7: Extent to Which the Comprehensive Regional Strategy on
Somalia Addresses the 27 Elements of the Desirable Characteristics of a
National Strategy:
This figure is a chart showing the extent to which the comprehensive
regional strategy on Somalia addresses the 27 elements of the desirable
characteristics of a national strategy.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of State and USAID data.
Note: The strategy addresses a characteristic if it addresses all
subelements of that characteristic. It partially addresses a
characteristic if it partially addresses at least one subelement of
that characteristic but does not address all subelements of that
characteristic. It does not address a characteristic if it does not
address any of the subelements of that characteristic.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Defense:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
Office Of The Assistant Secretary Of Defense:
Washington, Dc 20301-2400:
International Security Affairs:
January 28, 2008:
Mr. Thomas Melito:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Mr. Melito:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft
Report, GAO-08-351, "SOMALIA: Several Challenges Limit U.S. and
International Stabilization, Humanitarian, and Development Efforts,"
dated January 2, 2008 (GAO Code 320479).
DoD partially concurs with The Recommendation for Executive Action,
that "the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of
Defense and National Security Advisor, develop a more detailed report
on U.S. strategy in Somalia, including the full range of U.S.
government activities in the region and all six elements of an
effective national strategy." DoD recommends this be changed to read
that "the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of
Defense and National Security Advisor, develop a detailed U.S. strategy
for Somalia, including the full range of U.S. government activities in
the region and all six elements of an effective national strategy."
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Theresa M. Whelan:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs:
GAO Draft Report Dated January 2, 2008 GAO-08-351 (GAO Code 320479):
"Somalia: Several Challenges Limit U.S. And International
Stabilization, Humanitarian, And Development Efforts":
Department Of Defense Comments To The Gao Recommendation:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of State, in
conjunction with the Secretary of Defense and the National Security
Advisor, develop a more detailed report on U.S. strategy for Somalia,
including the full range of U.S. Government activities in the region
and all six elements of an effective national strategy.
(p. 38/GAO Draft Report):
DOD Response: The Department of Defense partially concurs.
The Department of Defense recommends that the GAO modify the
recommendation to recommend that to Secretary of State, in conjunction
with the Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor, develop a
detailed U.S. strategy for Somalia, including the full range of U.S.
government activities in the region and all six elements of an
effective national strategy.
The following is GAO's comment on the U.S. Department of Defense's
letter dated January 28, 2008.
GAO Comment:
6. We have modified our recommendation to address DOD's suggestion.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Thomas Melito, Director, (202) 512-9601, [email protected]:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above, Cheryl Goodman (Assistant
Director), Robert Ball, Emily Gupta, and Michael Maslowski made key
contributions to this report. Technical assistance was provided by
Camille Adebayo, Muriel Brown, Debbie Chung, Elizabeth Curda, David
Dornisch, Allen Lomax, Mary Moutsos, Mona Sehgal, and Christina Werth.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2007,
Pub. L. 109-364, sec. 1226. This act called on the President to submit
to Congress a report on a comprehensive regional strategy toward
Somalia, including a clearly stated policy toward the country; a
description of efforts to coordinate and strengthen diplomatic
engagement; a description of an approach to counter transnational
security threats in the region; a description of the interagency
framework to plan, coordinate, and execute U.S. policy and activities
in Somalia and in the region; and guidance on the manner in which the
strategy will be implemented.
[2] State's letter is reprinted in our classified report.
[3] Food insecurity results from a lack of availability of food, from
lack of access to food, and when food is not properly utilized.
[4] During the formation of the Transitional National Government, a
template for power sharing based on fixed proportional representation
by clan, known as the 4.5 formula, was established and then adopted
again during the 2002-2004 talks that produced the Transitional Federal
Government. Under this formula, Somalia's four major clans were
allocated an equal number of seats in parliament and half that number
was allocated to remaining minority groups. The four major clans are
the Darood, Hawiye, Dir, and Digle-Mirifle.
[5] Somalia presents one of the most challenging security environments
in the world, particularly in Mogadishu. The UN Security Council first
imposed an arms embargo on Somalia in 1992, requiring all member states
to immediately implement a general and complete arms embargo on all
deliveries of weapons and military equipment to Somalia. The UN
Monitoring Group on Somalia, established to observe and report
information regarding arms embargo violations and related matters in
Somalia, reported in 2007 that "Somalia is literally awash with arms"
from various sources, and that the quantity and variety of arms
entering the country, in violation of the arms embargo, were greater
than at any time since the early 1990s. The security situation in
Mogadishu remains volatile. Elsewhere, lawlessness and interclan
violence continue in large areas of south-central Somalia.
[6] The Courts have operated under various names, including the Supreme
Council of the Islamic Courts and Union of Islamic Courts.
[7] Following the African Union's authorization of AMISOM, the UN
passed Security Council Resolution 1744, which authorized African Union
member states to establish a mission in Somalia for 6 months to carry
out the following mandate: (1) to support dialogue and reconciliation
in Somalia by assisting with the free movement, safe passage, and
protection of relevant individuals; (2) to provide, as appropriate,
protection to the Transitional Federal Institutions to help them carry
out their functions of government, and security for key infrastructure;
(3) to assist, within its capabilities, and in coordination with other
parties, with implementation of the National Security and Stabilization
Plan, in particular the effective re-establishment and training of all-
inclusive Somali security forces; (4) to contribute, as may be
requested and within capabilities, to the creation of the necessary
security conditions for the provision of humanitarian assistance; and
(5) to protect its personnel, facilities, installations, equipment, and
mission, and to ensure the security and freedom of movement of its
personnel.
[8] UN officials note that AMISOM's ability to facilitate the provision
of humanitarian aid is problematic, as AMISOM troops have been targeted
by insurgents in Somalia, and AMISOM lacks the resources to provide
this assistance when requested.
[9] Section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-163) authorizes the Secretary of Defense to
provide services and transfer defense articles and funds to the
Secretary of State with an aggregate value of up to $100 million per
year to facilitate the Secretary of State's provision of
reconstruction, security, or stabilization assistance to a foreign
country.
[10] The $1 billion in humanitarian assistance represents $745 million
in funding for projects included in the UN's consolidated annual
appeals for Somalia from 2001 through 2007, as well as an additional
$275 million in humanitarian assistance to Somalia from 2001 through
2007 that does not fund projects listed in the appeals. Officials from
the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
told us that they do not have a complete source of data on donor
contributions for humanitarian aid to Somalia that are not included in
the UN's appeals. These officials said that while Western donor
contributions are largely captured, OCHA does not capture all
humanitarian aid provided by the Gulf States, as well as additional
bilateral or other funds provided by other donors. Therefore, the
figure of over $1 billion is a minimum funding level.
[11] The UN issues an annual appeal through its Consolidated Appeals
Process (CAP) for donor funding to support humanitarian needs. The CAP
identifies funding requirements in the following humanitarian sectors:
agriculture, coordination and support services, economic recovery and
infrastructure, education, food, health, mine action, multisector,
protection, security, shelter and nonfood items, and water and
sanitation. We only report the food aid total provided through the CAP
because it is not clear how much of the $275 million reported outside
the CAP funded food aid.
[12] The 2008 Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) for Somalia emphasizes
the need for integrated multisectoral programs. Noting that the chronic
nutrition crisis in south-central Somalia is the result of the
cumulative effect of many factors--including high rates of illness,
limited health services, poor water and sanitation services, poor care
practices, and reduced availability of and access to nutritious food--
the 2008 CAP states that a coordinated response involving all sectors
is required.
[13] UN officials also noted that the security situation also usually
dictates food assistance as the most appropriate short-term emergency
mitigation measure. Furthermore, insecurity--such as that in south-
central Somalia--prevents or limits the implementation of agriculture
and livelihood initiatives.
[14] The $317 million in U.S. humanitarian assistance to Somalia is
included in the more than $1 billion in humanitarian assistance from
the international community reported for Somalia.
[15] Between fiscal years 2001 and 2007, State's Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration also provided almost $119 million in support to
Somali refugees in the Horn of Africa and Yemen. In addition, this
office provides general funding to respond to refugee crises in Africa,
a portion of which assists Somalia.
[16] According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Food
Security Analysis Unit provides evidence-based analysis of food
security, nutrition, and livelihoods in Somalia.
[17] Global acute malnutrition" is the term used to include all
malnourished children whether they have moderate wasting, severe
wasting or edema, or some combination of these conditions. Elevated
rates of global acute malnutrition directly contribute to increased
rates of morbidity and mortality in children under 5 years of age.
[18] The $771 million is reported by the Nairobi-based Somali Support
Secretariat, formerly known as the Somalia Aid Coordination Body. The
secretariat serves as the main coordinating entity linking UN agencies,
NGOs, and donors with relevant Somali ministries. The secretariat
reports on annual donor pledges for development assistance. The data in
the report are self-reported by donors with verification by the
secretariat to ensure accuracy of the reported information. However,
secretariat officials reported that the data exclude likely funding
from Islamic charities and Gulf States, as they do not report their
contributions to the secretariat. Therefore, the total amount of
pledged assistance to Somalia during this period is likely higher.
[19] The RDP's framework is aimed at bolstering peace; establishing
good governance; improving security and basic social services, such as
education and health; and reducing poverty.
[20] In 2007, the U.S. Secretary of State waived legislative
restrictions on foreign assistance applicable to the government of
Somalia as a result of the country's default on certain loans from the
United States. The legislative provisions outlining the restrictions
contain authority to waive the restrictions if there is a determination
that the assistance to the country is in the U.S. national interest.
[21] We previously developed and used these criteria in other contexts,
such as assessments of the Administration's strategies for combating
terrorism, rebuilding Iraq, and protecting intellectual property
rights. See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected
Characteristics in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-
408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004); Rebuilding Iraq: More
Comprehensive National Strategy Needed to Help Achieve U.S. Goals, GAO-
06-788 (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2006); and Intellectual Property:
Strategy for Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP) Requires Changes for
Long-term Success, GAO-07-74 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 8, 2006). Appendix
II provides further detail on these characteristics.
[22] We focused our analysis on the Comprehensive Strategy because it
was the only one identified as a comprehensive, governmentwide strategy
for Somalia.
[23] State's report on the status of implementation of the
Comprehensive Strategy through June 2007 does provide general
information on DOD's activities related to Somalia, including planning
support for AMISOM, public affairs support for the National
Reconciliation Congress, and support for counterterrorism capacity-
building efforts in the region. Although many of these activities were
ongoing when the Comprehensive Strategy was initially issued, they were
not included in the strategy.
[24] Our classified report contains further information on the
interagency planning process for Somalia.
[25] The International Contact Group on Somalia was established to
support the peace and reconciliation efforts in Somalia. Its members
include Italy, Kenya, Norway, Sweden, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, and
the United States, together with the African Union, European Union,
Intergovernmental Authority on Development, League of Arab States, and
United Nations.
[26] We combined the total funding provided in response to the UN CAP
for Somalia from 2001 through 2007 with total humanitarian assistance
provided to projects not listed in the appeal to get a minimum of total
humanitarian assistance to Somalia for our reporting purposes.
[27] In 2006, the SACB became known as the Coordination of
International Support for Somalia, which is supported by the Somali
Support Secretariat.
[28] GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics
in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: [email protected]:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
*** End of document. ***