Lancet editorial-Civil war has raged in Angola since it became independent from Portugal in 1975. However, a ceasefire between the Government of the Republic of Angola and the rebel group UNITA (National Union for the Independence of Angola) was signed in April, paving the way for aid organisations to enter previously inaccessible areas to assess needs and provide humanitarian assistance.

The situation they found is grim indeed. Some 3 million people are believed to require immediate aid. These numbers include an unexpectedly large influx of 79,000 UNITA soldiers and 230,000 of their family members, who have entered quartering areas as part of the demobilisation process.

Landmines are limiting accessibility. Most roads and airstrips are unusable or unsafe. Malnutrition and mortality are high, especially among children. Food security and access to potable water are matters of immediate concern. In addition, hundreds of thousands of Angolans are expected to become newly displaced in the upcoming months.

In this urgent, but hardly unpredicted, situation, a coordinated response between the various humanitarian agencies on the ground would have been expected. By contrast, attention was diverted when a war of words broke out between a leading non-governmental organisation (NGO) and two UN agencies.

On June 11, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), held a press conference in Luanda and accused the Angolan government and UN agencies, especially the World Food Program and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), of being "unacceptably slow to respond" to the crisis. The Angolan authorities, MSF said, are unimpressed by the "catastrophic scope of the crisis and continue to pursue a policy of chronic criminal neglect of their own people", with the result that "the world is knowingly allowing Angolans to die of starvation".

Stung by these charges, OCHA struck back, calling MSF's statement "wrong on many points", and saying that an accusation of indifference "is blatantly incorrect". UN agencies, OCHA's Angolan co-ordinator said, are presently stretched beyond their limits and do not yet have the resources to meet all the needs. OCHA in turn characterised MSF as uncommunicative and disorganised: "MSF is quick to criticise but they should do more to coordinate with partners at both the provincial and national level."

In this urgent, but hardly unpredicted, situation, a coordinated response between the various humanitarian agencies on the ground would have been expected. By contrast, attention was diverted when a war of words broke out between a leading non-governmental organisation (NGO) and two UN agencies.

Although overwhelming frustration, fear, and fatigue are evident behind the claims and counterclaims, these traded accusations underscore the absolute necessity of coordination and cooperation between NGOs and governmental and UN partners. Different types of agencies are needed for an effective humanitarian response, with the weaknesses of one counterbalanced by the strengths of others.

Pockets of good practice undoubtedly exist, but relations between different humanitarian actors during complex emergencies seem more often to be characterised by mistrust and obstruction. Although the recent argument between MSF and the UN has been unusually public, the sentiments expressed on each side are neither new nor unique to Angola today.

Such discordance is hardly surprising in light of the poor record of the various UN agencies in working together effectively, let alone in concert with non-UN colleagues. In September, 2000, OCHA commissioned the UK Overseas Development Institute to do an independent assessment that would "sharpen thinking" about UN coordination.

The assessment noted "that there is so little new to say . . . The report has set out in some detail the recurring picture over a decade of UN humanitarian agencies whose governance structures, funding sources, weak
management, and institutional structures all constitute obstacles to effective coordination."

Debate on how to remedy this state of affairs is scheduled for the UN General Assembly in September. While this is welcome, the time for discussion has clearly passed. The UN needs to put its humanitarian house in order.

The non-UN humanitarian community must in turn support this process and be willing to work in partnership with a reformed UN system.

Failure on either side to accept these simple truths will harm the very vulnerable people they purport to help.