AFP

03 jan. 08 - 12h21

LONDRES, 3 jan 2008 - Les pays développés pillent les ressources de la République démocratique du Congo mais ne font pas assez d'efforts pour aider le pays à sortir d'une grave crise humanitaire, a estimé le Haut commissaire des Nations unies pour les réfugiés, Antonio Guterres.

L'aide des pays occidentaux n'est pas suffisante pour permettre aux Congolais de sortir de la pauvreté, d'améliorer la situation sanitaire ou pour faire cesser les violences, dont des pillages et viols au Nord-Kivu (est), souligne l'ancien Premier ministre portugais aujourd'hui à la tête du HCR, dans une interview au Financial Times publiée jeudi.

"Même si nous faisons face à un désastre humanitaire, comme au Nord-Kivu, où il y a eu une augmentation dramatique de la violence, personne à l'étranger ne se sent menacé, et la communauté internationale n'accorde pas vraiment d'attention à la RDC", explique-t-il.

L'aide accordée à ce pays de quelque 60 millions d'habitants manquant cruellement d'infrastructures est insuffisante par rapport aux besoins, souligne-t-il.

La situation peut mettre en péril la démocratie dans le pays, poursuit-il, car les habitants n'ont pas vu leur vie s'améliorer depuis des élections supervisées par l'Onu en 2006, les premières depuis l'indépendance du pays en 1960, et après trois ans d'une guerre civile qui a fait quelque trois millions de morts.

L'Onu estime à 800.000 le nombre de déplacés au Nord-Kivu, après des années de violence entre forces gouvernementales et insurgés.

"Pensez aux ressources qui ont été prélevées dans le pays", ajoute-t-il. "De nombreuses entreprises exploitent la RDC, prenant ses ressources, et dans beaucoup de cas, sans respect minimum des règles", accuse-t-il encore. "La communauté internationale a pillé systématiquement la RDC, nous ne devons pas l'oublier", conclut-il. (Monuc.org)

Rich nations attacked for failing Congo

The head of the United Nations refugee agency has accused the rich world of failing to respond adequately to the humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, even as its multinationals “systematically loot” the country of its resources.

In an interview with the FT shortly after his return from the DRC, António Guterres, UN high commissioner for refugees, said western assistance came nowhere near meeting people's needs in a vast country where continuing instability and widespread poverty had created one of the worst humanitarian situations in the world.

EDITOR'S CHOICE

Interview transcript: Antonio Guterres - Jan-02

Congo peacekeeping operations in disarray - Dec-21

Slideshow: Congo's rebel forces - Dec-21

Rebel attack dashes Congo hopes - Dec-21

World Bank admits Congo omissions - Dec-07

Mr Guterres, a former Portuguese prime minister, attributed this neglect in part to the fact that, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan or even Somalia, misery in the DRC involved no perceived threat to western governments.

“Even if we face a humanitarian disaster, as in North Kivu where there has been a dramatic increase in violence, nobody in the outside world feels threatened and so the international community is not really paying attention to DRC.”

Aid groups say 3m-4m people in the DRC, a country with a population of about 60m, have died in recent years as a result of conflict, poverty and disease. While most of the country is now stable – the civil war ended in 2003 and UN-supervised elections were held in 2006 – 400,000 people have been uprooted in the past 12 months by a resurgence of violence in the eastern province of North Kivu.

The UN estimates that 800,000 people have been displaced in North Kivu , which has also seen violence against women, including rape and mutilation, reach terrifying proportions.

Although international agencies and donor governments are providing some assistance, and the UN has mounted its biggest-ever force of some 16,500 peacekeepers, this is small in comparison with needs, Mr Guterres says. He points to the sheer size of the DRC – about four times that of France – and the high cost of operating there, given a lack of infrastructure that requires everything to be transported by aircraft.

Failure to improve living conditions would put at risk the democratic process and could threaten regional stability, he warned.

“One of the most frustrating things is to see a country in which you had [successful] elections but then you have to say to people: nothing can be improved in the next few months, even in the next few years, in infrastructure, in water, in sanitation, in health, in education, in jobs. And so the population starts to ask itself whether democracy has any value.

“Think about the amount of resources that have been taken out of this country. Lots of companies operate in DRC, taking out its resources, in many circumstances, without a minimum respect for any rules. The international community has systematically looted DRC and we should not forget that.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Interview transcript: Antonio Guterres

By Frances Williams in Geneva

Published: January 2 2008 20:38 | Last updated: January 2 2008 20:38

Antonio Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, was interviewed by Frances Williams on December 20, 2007. This is a transcript of the interview

FT: Can I start with the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) as you've just returned from a mission there? What is happening, what is UNHCR doing and what are the prospects?

AG: DRC has had elections, the first truly democratic elections since Independence , and there was an amazing commitment of the population to the electoral process. In most of the country the situation, politically and militarily, is relatively stable. However, the absence of the state is still a major problem everywhere and patches of trouble due to that absence still exist: lack of governance capacity, presence of armed groups and bandits, no infrastructure and violations of human rights both by the army and by other perpetrators. The situation is of course very serious in North Kivu and also to a certain extent in South Kivu .

The problem is that governance capacity is very limited and the support of the international community is also very small in comparison with the dimensions of the problem. DRC is a giant country with no infrastructure. You cannot go by road from Kinshasa [the capital] to any major town except Matadi, the nearby port. From the humanitarian point of view it represents probably one of the worst situations in the world, not only due to the instability factor but also to widespread poverty throughout the country. A lot of international attention is given to crises like Iraq , Afghanistan , Sudan and Somalia , but very little attention is given to DRC. While not wishing to be cynical, I think this reflects partly the difficulty of access for the media and partly because in the developed world people tend to feel threatened by the global implications such as terrorism of crises like Iraq and Afghanistan but the Congolese do not represent a threat anywhere. Even if the situation becomes very negative, even if we face a humanitarian disaster (as in North Kivu where there has been a dramatic increase in violence), nobody in the outside world feels threatened and so the international community is not really paying attention to DRC.

The combination of the lack of governance and the lack of meaningful support from the international community in relation to the dimension of the problem – of course, there is MONUC [UN Mission in the DRC] and assistance from several countries – but nothing compared with the depths of the humanitarian crisis. Some time ago the then UN Humanitarian Coordinator [Jan Egeland] said that the numbers dying in the DRC because of conflict, poverty or disease were equivalent to the Indian Ocean tsunami every six months. If we recall the response of the international community to the tsunami and compare it to what we are collectively doing in DRC every six months there is an abyss.

When the African continent is doing its best to finally move ahead with better governance, strengthening democracy in many countries, and economic development (growth in Africa is quite meaningful, for the first time in decades), when we have this positive panorama in a large part of the continent (of course, this does not apply to Sudan or Somalia, but there are many rewarding examples), the truth is that DRC is so big, so central both geographically and from a political point of view, that doubt over a solution to the problem of DRC means there will not be a global solution for Africa. So I believe that DRC deserves more attention, including at a diplomatic level, and greater priority should be given to its humanitarian and development needs to aid stabilisation and democracy.

UNHCR is very active in supporting Congolese refugees abroad – there are thousands of refugees in almost all the countries surrounding DRC and also in South Africa and Europe . We're now supporting a significant operation of return, mainly from Zambia , Tanzania and the Republic of Congo . However, those returning face a dramatic problem of reintegration. We ensure their safety and dignity and minimum support for their reintegration in society but then there is a development gap and the communities which they are coming into have a limited capacity of absorption. This is a huge challenge for the country and, of course, for UNHCR.

At the same time, we are increasingly developing our activities inside DRC, in co-operation with other UN agencies, to support people who are internally displaced. There are 1.3m internally displaced inside DRC, with 800,000 in North Kivu , of whom 400,000 were displaced in 2007. North Kivu represents today by far the most complex situation in the region – the humanitarian dimension of the crisis is appalling and the displaced are living in extremely difficult conditions, both in camps and in host communities. Humanitarian agencies are doing their best but again their actions are out of proportion with the needs of the population. Everywhere there is widespread abuse of human rights committed by armed groups and by the army, most shockingly the violence against women. According to Unicef, there were 35,000 rapes in Eastern Congo in 2006 and when I recently visited the region and spoke to our people – despite an active campaign by humanitarian organisations and also by some political leaders in the DRC and by MONUC - we are still facing today an absolutely dramatic picture of systematic violation of the rights of women and children – forced recruitment of children by some armed groups, and the use of children in forced labour.

FT: Do you think this makes a mockery of the international community's “responsibility to protect” voted by the UN General Assembly in 2005?

AG: The “responsibility to protect” is a very important concept. In the 1990s there was a very meaningful debate about the need to balance the sovereignty of states and the sovereignty of the human being. At the time the areas of tension were in Bosnia , Kosovo and East Timor , and the discussion was how to materialise this kind of humanitarian intervention. Afterwards the concept of the “responsibility to protect” was developed by a committee [the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty] created by the Canadian government and chaired by Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun, and was later approved by the UN General Assembly, based on Kofi Annan's proposals. Nevertheless, while the principle was approved, implementation has become very difficult, especially when it requires the use of force.

The “responsibility to protect” can be assumed in many ways. For example, there is a “responsibility to prevent” – and the international community is not doing enough on prevention in many parts of the world, as we all know. There are other forms of support to communities, support to people for protection of their human rights, that do not require the use of force. But in cases such as genocide or ethnic cleansing, force must be used if protection is to be given to those people. However, especially after the Iraq crisis, there has been a very strong reaction, mainly in the developing world, even in democracies, against this idea of intervention with increasing stress on the sovereignty of the state. So to a certain extent the “responsibility to protect”, especially in its more robust dimension, has been sacrificed on the altar of state sovereignty.

We have seen already many [lost] opportunities for the international community to deliver protection in situations like Darfur because of this context. But in DRC that is not the problem. The government is more than willing to have the support of the international community, both to stabilise the country and to protect the human rights of its people. The problem is that the dimension of the country, the complexity of the problems and the massive nature of these violations of human rights, especially in relation to women and children, have not aroused proportionate help from the international community.

Of course, things are being done. But it's a question of proportion. DRC has the biggest UN peacekeeping military force in the world – 16,500 – but Liberia had 13,000 or 14,000. If you compare the size of Liberia with the size of DRC, even if the DRC represents in numbers the biggest international force, the biggest expenditure when you compare it with other operations around the world – it's still out of proportion with the needs of the country and with the nature of the country. The absolute lack of infrastructure, for instance, makes it necessary for everything to be transported by plane from anywhere to everywhere, which of course increases dramatically the cost of any operations. In proportion to what is needed, the engagement of the international community in DRC is extremely limited.

And then there is a certain idea of the international community that as soon as elections take place everything is done. The elections are not the end of the process; they are the very beginning of the process. One of the most frustrating things is to see a country in which you had elections, the elections were a success, but then you have to say to people: nothing can be improved in the next few months, even in the next few years, in infrastructure, in water, in sanitation, in health, in education, in jobs. And so, after a certain period, the population starts to ask itself whether democracy has any value. This is a dramatic problem.

The financial framework in which DRC operates, based on agreements with the IMF, also does not allow the government to do a minimum of things – even to pay the army enough, so the army to a large extent lives on the resources of the population, including looting, rape and all the other systematic violations of human rights. Again the country is so in need, the problems are so deep, that to deal with them by the book with strategies that might be successful in smaller countries with less complex problems is an illusion. You pretend you are helping to solve the problems but you are just keeping them going.

FT: Have you raised your concerns with the IMF?

AG: I intend to speak to my friend [Dominique Strauss-Kahn]. But I don't think we should blame the IMF. The IMF acts on the mandate of the international community. It's the way these problems are handled that is sometimes not adjusted to the reality. But I think that Strauss-Kahn has a global political understanding that will help find a better strategy for situations like these. Always bearing in mind that there is a governance problem, I can understand that in some circumstances you have to be very cautious. But we cannot wait for the governance problems in DRC to be solved because there is no time. Innovative strategies need to be adopted. Think about the amount of resources that have been taken out of this country. Lots of companies operate in DRC, taking out its resources, in many circumstances (not all) without a minimum respect for any rules. This has had a tremendous impact both in the development of corruption in the country (there is no corruption if there is not anybody to do the corrupting) and that's part of the responsibilities of the international community as a whole. So we need to look at the international community in its different dimensions. The international community has systematically looted DRC and we should not forget that.

I think it's necessary to recognise the different dimensions of the problem, the complexity of the problem. This is a systemic problem. It's not because you have one or two or three people who misbehave that you have a problem. You have a problem because there is a systematic pattern in which there is a vicious circle: the intervention of the looters [companies] contributes to widespread corruption and lack of governance; lack of governance and widespread corruption facilitate the action of those that misbehave and make it difficult for normal entrepreneurs to act in that environment. But who was first responsible for this vicious circle? Let's be honest, I think it comes from outside.

And when we look at the governance problems of many of the most notable corporations around the world it is much more complex than to say, well, there's corruption in DRC. There's corruption in many parts of the world.

FT: What more should Western governments do in relation to the DRC?

AG: It requires a strategy, a comprehensive approach including a diplomatic effort both at regional level and at national level to support all forms of stabilisation. It is necessary to strengthen the security situation – the role of MONUC is very important and needs to be enhanced – but also to find a way, in co-operation with the government and the local authorities, to increase the government's capacity to deliver, to achieve some quick wins that can help change the present pattern of frustration. There must be some improvement in the living conditions of the people. They are appalling everywhere. That improvement requires a combination of efforts that probably cannot be delivered with by-the-book approaches. You need to find innovative approaches bringing together international financial institutions, the donors, UN agencies, humanitarian actors and also the local administrations, not always acting at national level but doing here and there what can be done in a pragmatic way. You can't wait for global solutions. I think there is a hope based on the enormous energy of the people and their commitment to democracy, there is hope that we can start a sustained process of improvement. Then things will tend to move in the right direction, albeit with many problems and difficulties. But that first step in the improvement of living conditions and protection of the people requires a combined innovative effort.

FT: The UNHCR has been critical of European asylum legislation. What is your opinion of the current situation?

AG: We had a first phase of harmonisation of the European system and we are now in the process of evaluation of this first phase. We are now moving ahead with the difficult objective of completing the harmonised system by 2010. Movement forward is necessary because we face a very challenging situation. You cannot have different asylum policies in different countries where there are no real borders for the movement of people. If you have very different levels of protection – and you do have very different levels of protection for asylum seekers in different European countries – then the obvious consequence is widespread irregular secondary movements. People move from one country to another trying to find better protection, making the Dublin 2 rules impossible to implement. At this moment, for instance, Iraqis receive 0 per cent recognition in some European countries and almost 100 per cent in others. This makes the system unmanageable. So the key issue is to gain consistency and quality. I think these are the main objectives we share with the European Commission for the development of the next few years.

We need to make sure that the system has quality, that it's not a minimum common denominator, that a high level of protection is maintained in Europe, that it improves in the remainder of the continent, and that at the same time a consistency is reached. For that to be possible I believe that an effective mechanism of burden-sharing must be established. You now have complex mixed flows of population including migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and other people who need protection such as women victims of trafficking. You need to be able to detect those who need protection to make sure that you deliver protection to them, and at the same time maintain your borders in relation to migration policy according to your own strategies. You cannot do this effectively without a mechanism of burden-sharing to help those countries that are more vulnerable, in a more exposed position on the external borders of the European Union, to be able to cope with the challenges they face. So I think we should be very demanding in relation to countries like Malta or Greece, but at the same time there should be effective mechanisms that help them share with others the burden that they face today.

Some excellent examples demonstrate that it's perfectly possible to apply whatever migration policy you define to give full attention to the security concerns of the country and at the same time to detect the people who need protection and to give them the protection demanded. What happens today in Lampedusa [Italian island in the Mediterranean] is an exemplary situation. There is a very meaningful co-operation of the Italian authorities, the International Organisation for Migration, UNHCR and the Red Cross. Situations are analysed and, through territorial commissions operating in seven locations in Italy, everybody in need of protection has access to an adequate treatment of their claims. So it is possible to do it, there are many good examples, but there is still a need for consistency, and for that consistency to be possible with a high level of quality, you need effective mechanisms of burden-sharing.

FT: So it's your view that it is possible to separate these mixed flows, even when governments have to deal with thousands of migrants turning up on Mediterranean beaches.

AG: There is an illusion. The largest number of irregular migrants in Europe do not come by sea, they come legally into Europe through European airports and then they overstay. Obviously the dramatic situation of people moving in boats, and in some circumstances drowning, sometimes doesn't allow us to analyse the protection that they require. But the truth is that you can define whatever migration policy you want and have a protection-sensitive border management policy. That is happening at several European borders, and I believe and experience shows that detecting the people and delivering protection to them is possible and is being done. OK, we need consistency, we need protection everywhere, and for that to be possible due to the different challenges faced by countries' situations, some burden-sharing is required.

FT: What about countries on Europe's outer fringes (and Switzerland)?

AG: There is indeed a huge need to build protection capacity in Eastern Europe, and also in North Africa and other parts of the world. You need a consistent operation in countries of origin, countries of transit, and countries of destination. Capacity needs to be built everywhere. We have our own projects, there are regional projects such as the programme of the European Union, but the gaps are huge and a lot still needs to be done. It's very important when helping these countries to build their own capacity and to be able to abide by international law, to make them also understand that the objective is not to dump protection from North to South. If one looks at the refugee situation in the world, the overwhelming majority of refugees are in the developing world and, even if one looks at migration flows, migration flows are less and less South-North and more and more South-South. South Africa faces a population movement problem that is very similar to the ones faced by some countries in Europe. The number of Bangladeshis migrating to India is huge. So flows of population are becoming a global phenomenon. And I think that in the developed world we need to look at them with a sense of proportion. We sometimes tend to overestimate the dimension of our problems and not to fully recognise the challenges faced by others. Look at Iraq. Some European countries have become very worried about 2,000 Iraqis in their countries but Syria has one-and-a-half million.

In any case, Europe will not be able to dump its refugee problem on others. It's not an option. It will not happen. If you look at migration – again I'm going a little bit out of my mandate – but there are 10m refugees and 200m migrants so we need to have a sense of proportion about this. There is increasingly a global labour market, and it's impossible to have policies that disregard the mechanisms of the market. In the market supply meets demand. You can do it legally, if possible, but you can do it illegally or irregularly if necessary. And this will happen, inevitably, with the movement of people in the global labour market. So to stop migration is not an option. To think we can dump protection is not an option. There will always be flows of population. The important thing is to be able to manage them in full respect of human rights and in an orderly way because to stop them will not be possible. You can close the doors but they will come by the window. If you close the doors and the windows they will dig a tunnel.

There is no way to stop irregular migration, in my view. I'm very much in favour of being able to get rid of this absolutely appalling situation of trafficking and smuggling where people suffer enormously because of the greed of some operators who profit from the situation. But it is not possible to stop that if at the same time you do not create a meaningful set of opportunities for legal migration. And, of course, with a meaningful set of opportunities for legal migration it makes it much easier to deliver protection to the people who need it. But I'm not only concerned with the system of protection, with the rights of refugees as defined by international law. Every human being is entitled to have his or her human rights respected. Countries have a right to define their own migration policies but that can be done in a humane rights-minded and protection-friendly way.

FT: What do you see as your main challenges in the coming year?

AG: I would say we have five main challenges. First, internal reform, based on the principle that being a humanitarian and human rights organisation we do not have the right to spend one single penny on the organisation that could be spent on the people we care for. We are involved in a very strong process of reform in order to try to become more cost effective. A year and a half ago there were 1,050 people at headquarters in Geneva, we are now 915 and I think we will be below 800 in 2009. We are shrinking headquarters and at the same time doing our best to improve our capacity at field level.

We are implementing creation of a service centre in Budapest, with more than 150 jobs, removing from Geneva some administrative functions that can be done in a more cost effective way in Budapest. We have completely reviewed our budgetary procedures in order to reach a meaningful decentralisation level. We are decentralising decision-making and at the same time we have an ongoing process of regionalisation and decentralisation of technical support functions in UNHCR. We are starting to implement a field review that will allow us to have in the near future a better balance between what we do and what is done by our partners, between our presence in capitals and our presence in the deep field (we need to have more senior staff in the deep field), and between international staff and national professional staff. We need to profit more from national competence in many parts of the world. At the same time, we have a huge problem of human resources management which is partly affected by UN rules as a whole but also partly affected by some serious mistakes that we made in the past and that we need to overcome. [Comparing core budgets for 2006 and 2007, taking the 11 months to November, we're spending less on staff while spending on operations (such as malaria control, reproductive health, and support for returns) has risen from $328m to $387m, which means that we are doing much more with many fewer people.] So reform is not just something for the future – we're spending $60m more on operations this year – and it is an extremely important challenge. It's a global challenge for the international community to make sure that the aid given by the international community actually delivers protection and that assistance given to people is mobilised in an efficient way. And I have very demanding targets for that. This is the raison d'être of the organisation, not to have big headquarters. So internal reform is a key challenge.

The second challenge relates to the value of tolerance in societies with legitimate security concerns where not always rational approaches to migration problems have in some circumstances created increased feelings against foreigners, against people from different religions and cultures. This century will be more and more a century of people on the move, for all sorts of reasons – economic reasons, also climate change, war and conflict – and in a sense all societies will tend to be multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural, and people will need to live with each other and respect each other. This is a key value not only for refugee protection but for societies and global peace. So advocacy is another very important challenge, which we need to do more and better, engaging with civil society as well as governments, to promote the debate on these issues, and to stress our values. In a European context (of course, we need to act in a global context) we live at a time when there is a risk of moving to a post-Enlightenment society where the values of reason and tolerance of the Enlightenment consolidated can be extinguished. Violent nationalism, political populism, religious fundamentalism, xenophobia – irrational forms of behaviour – tend to reappear or develop, and they are a threat to the harmony of societies. This is a key element for us.

A third very important challenge is the sustainability of solutions. Last year we helped 750,000 people to go back home. Contrary to what people usually think, the large majority of refugees don't want to move into Europe; the large majority of them want to go back home. We have massive return operations – voluntary, with dignity – to countries like Afghanistan, Burundi, and DRC. There are recent success stories with Liberia, Sierra Leone and Angola. But in many of these circumstances people are going back to situations where the sustainability of return (which is linked with the sustainability of democracy and peace) is very much in question. We are not a development agency, we do not have the capacity or the will to be one, but mobilising the other actors and making the transition mechanisms from conflict to peace more effective are a key challenge for us. I am very encouraged by what the new leader at the World Bank [Bob Zoellick] is saying on these issues. A new approach is emerging. The rules need to be changed because, with the kind of rules we apply today, it is difficult to be effective and to deliver some quick wins. I think more attention is also being paid to these problems by the UN development agencies, regional development banks and donor countries. I hope this increased awareness will translate itself into a much more effective way of doing business in the near future. We have two experiences of the so-called Peacebuilding Commission that was created in the UN – Sierra Leone and Burundi. There is a clear commitment of the Japanese presidency to make this peacebuilding commission more effective. This is absolutely crucial for the success or sustainability not just of returns but also of these societies more broadly.

Another very important challenge is to develop protection capacity in these mixed flows of population. Increasingly, traditional refugee situations will not be dominant; more and more refugees will move together with other groups of people. To be able to detect those in need of protection - refugees, asylum seekers, women and children who've been trafficked - and to deliver protection to them requires innovation and capacity. A meaningful discussion is taking place and UNHCR is doing its best to mobilise the different actors, raise awareness of the problems and try to find solutions. Fortunately, some solutions are being found, with different mechanisms in different parts of the world because situations are also quite diverse.

Finally – and this is not a challenge for us, it is a challenge for the international community – I think we need to reflect on what will be the patterns of forced displacement in the 21st century. Refugees are people who move from one country to another, based on a well-founded fear of persecution. This, of course, started with a strictly political interpretation. Now there is a growing recognition that a woman who is a victim of violence or violation of her rights in a country that is not able to protect her, even in a democracy (for instance, some African democracies have not yet been able to eradicate genital mutilation), that people in these circumstances can, should, must also be recognised as refugees in need of protection. But this is still within a very limited concept of a refugee. Quite apart from those who move because they want a better life (and migration has been happening in our world since forever), we see more and more people being forced to move because of extreme deprivation, because of climate change and environmental degradation, and of course because of war and conflict. They are clearly refugees. The problem is that these root causes are more and more interlinked. In Darfur, when the janjaweed attack a village you have indeed a political problem – the janjaweed group is very probably, or has been, linked with the government, and the village is probably linked with an ethnic group that has supported or partly supported the rebel movement. But at the same time, if you look at Darfur in the last 10 years you see increasing population and decreasing rainfall. There's stronger and stronger competition for scarce water resources. A group of nomads attacks the village to disoccupy that area to have access to water for its herds. So these things are increasingly interlinked – environmental degradation causes conflict and extreme poverty is also a factor in environmental degradation.

To cope with this challenge, and to be able to address not only the economic and social dimensions but also the human rights dimensions with these forms of forced displacement, requires a meaningful debate in the international community and a recognition that we do not have the capacity to handle these problems. We need to find new ways, new instruments, and new forms of international cooperation. Many questions need to find an answer. It's not our mandate and we're not looking for an enlargement of our mandate, but I think we need to be catalysts to have a debate on these issues because they are linked with the problems UNHCR faces.

FT: You're not proposing that environmental refugees come under your mandate?

AG: No, what we're saying is that we have problems that we face, they are different, they are new, all these things are interlinked, it's a challenge, we should discuss them in the international community and it's our duty to help promote that discussion. We need to understand the world in order to be able to address the problems we face.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008 (www.ft.com )

© Congo Vision