Donors suspended the Rural Community Infrastructure Works (RCIW) project, one of Nepal's most effective pro-poor initiative, in Kalikot last month because of Maoist brutality against staff. Mark Mallalieu of the British aid group, DfID and the UN's World Food Program Erika Joergensen spoke to Nepali Times justifying the decision.

Nepali Times: What exactly happened in Kalikot?
Mark Mallaleiu: Two aid workers employed by a local NGO were abducted and repeatedly tortured for a number of days by Maoists in early April. Two brothers of the woman involved were also beaten up, severely intimidated and asked to give money to the Maoists which they did in the end. They were released eventually but it was clearly a horrific incident. The woman was severely tortured and asked to dig her own grave. So we were all deeply shocked by what had happened.

Erika Joergensen: We saw this clearly as a violation of the principles of the Basic Operating Guidelines adopted by 10 bilateral agencies and by the UN. But we really regret that we have to suspend it. This suspension will continue until we have a firm commitment that such incidents will not repeat and the guidelines will be respected.

A number of NGOs we talked to were quite miffed that the decision was taken unilaterally. How do you respond?
MM: First of all there was detailed consultation within the Basic Operating Guidelines group and we were in contact with major organisations we were funding in Kalikot. We also told the government both locally and centrally. I think the key issue here is that there was a limit to the amount of dialogue we could have because we weren't able to continue our programs in the light of what had happened. We have always made it clear that we will not attempt to run development programs in situations where staff are being subject to violence or risk death. So we really didn't have much choice in the matter.

What are the main points of the Basic Operating Guidelines?
MM: The purpose is to enable us to fund programs in the conflict affected areas safely and effectively. These set out the principles that need to be adhered from all sides to enable us to do that. We can't allow our projects and staff to be co-opted or used by either side of the conflict. For instance, we don't allow our vehicles to be used by warring parties. We always make it clear that all development partners are only interested in reducing poverty, social exclusion and discrimination that exists. We want to operate in a way that is transparent to everybody so that the beneficiary communities and anybody involved in the conflict knows exactly what and why we are doing it. We make it clear that we won't tolerate any corruption on anyone's part including our own staff and we encourage everybody in the areas that we are operating in to adhere to international human rights and norms. And it has proved remarkably effective as we have been able to continue working and supporting people throughout the country since these guidelines were agreed. What we really like is formal and explicit endorsement of the guidelines to be issued by the government of Nepal. And we would also like the Maoist leadership to publicly endorse them and say that they abide by them. That will make it much easier for project managers to operate at the district level.

And that they haven't done that yet?
MM: No.

What is the policy on working in Maoist areas?
MM: People and organisations delivering services in rural areas try to
take a very pragmatic approach where it is necessary to consult with the Maoists. That consultation does take place. Of course, it's not just the project funded by donors doing this. The government also operates very often in an extremely pragmatic way like for example in delivering health and education programs for which dialogue does take place very often through both parties. People are very committed to delivering services for the poor communities whether they work for the government or donors.
EJ: But it also means that we do not register with or pay to the Maoists. RCIW continues to be a very successful program because it is acceptable to the Maoists, and the level of transparency is high in our program.

What are field conditions like post-February First?
MM: Immediately after 1 February, everyone conceived that the environment for development would become a lot more difficult and to some extent that became a self-fulfilling prophecy. People were reluctant to go out in the field. But over the past few weeks, the projects have started to operate the way they were before 1 February. In many cases, they have been successful. The other factor is that the Maoists have realised how alienated they are from ordinary people. And of course, at the district level the officers are under immense pressure from Kathmandu to deliver.
EJ: This is not the first time the project has been suspended. WFP has initiated suspension in at least five cases where rice was looted. In each case, we have set our criteria based on the Basic Operating Guidelines and the recipients of our assistance got involved and we could lift the suspensions. There was better understanding on why we are setting these benchmarks.

Do you think the suspension in Kalikot has worked?
MM: It certainly demonstrated that we are serious. One can only go back and say in a year or two to see whether it was a key point in ensuring that development work was able to continue and subjected to threat and violence.
EJ: It has in fact worked in previous cases.

How has the government responded to the suspension?
MM: Well the government were centrally informed and understood the decision and there was no difficulty at the time when we were talking with the government. It hasn't become a major issue.

But they didn't seemed happy when we talked to them.
MM: There are two issues here. First, where an aid worker has been subject to violence we have no choice but to suspend activities so we didn't have a dialogue with the government about whether we should suspend because we had to make that decision but we did inform them and the government did understand why we were making the decision.

So, you will restart once apology is in place from the Maoists?
MM: There needs to be a statement from the Maoists and we hope an apology that will give us reassurances so we can restart.

What could be the worst consequences if the statement doesn't come?
EJ: During a visit last September, my WFP deputy director Sheila Sisulu asked me if WFP closes, is anybody going to die? I said I don't think so. People are going to have more hardship and the children in particular, the girls won't be able to go to school as there won't be incentives and there will be consequences. Then she asked me if we don't close will any of our colleagues die and I said that I can't guarantee that. It is clear that staff safety gets priority.