|
A hard-hitting evaluation of the 2004 tsunami aid effort notes that in the face of overwhelming public response humanitarian agencies were pressurised into spending money wastefully. Highlighting how the enormous influx of funds revealed inequities in how aid money was raised and spent, the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition urges better independent regulation of aid spending
Efforts by international aid agencies to spend money quickly and visibly in the aftermath of the December 26, 2004, tsunami led to many poorly-executed aid projects that were not in the best interests of the affected people, according to an independent review of the global response to the disaster. The report, by the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC), says that agencies "brushed aside" the work of local communities in their haste to be seen to be responding to one of the world's worst natural calamities. The TEC is a London-based organisation made up of more than 40 humanitarian agencies, including UN groups, donors, civil society organisations, the Red Cross and research bodies. The 'Joint Evaluation of the International Response to the Indian Ocean tsunami: Synthesis Report', an extensive report released in London on July 14, calls for a fairer system of emergency funding to deal with major disasters, with greater consultation between aid agencies and affected communities to ensure that funds are used in the most appropriate way. International aid agencies should work through existing structures in affected countries, the report says. It adds that local organisations were most active in rescue and relief efforts, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, and that anti-poverty action is a crucial factor in prevention and re-development. Local affected people and their neighbours saved virtually every life that could be saved in the tsunami before the international rescue teams arrived, the report notes. However, able local staff was displaced by poorly prepared people from abroad, and groups at the community level were subjected to more demanding conditions than international charities. "Opportunities to strengthen and build local capacity were therefore missed, and agencies often did not adequately consult with, or even inform, the affected population about their projects," says the report. "This tendency did not establish a firm footing for building appropriate local capacity and longer-term recovery." John Telford, one of the report's authors says: "While aid agencies are recognised for providing affected populations with the security they need to begin planning what to do next, they need to involve them in the management of the response. This is particularly important when emergency relief priorities rapidly change to those of rebuilding and re-establishing livelihoods. The importance of this change and frequent poor performance in meeting people's longer term priorities is reflected in many findings and several recommendations in the report." The TEC report also appeals to donor governments for more consistent donations and support prior to disasters, to help states in high-risk zones reduce the risk and respond better when emergencies strike. It calls on international agencies not to bypass but to work through and improve the capacity of local structures already in place when affected countries are overstretched in a disaster. Whilst applauding the public for their record-breaking donations to the 2004 Asian tsunami, which killed more than 227,000 people and left 1.9 million people homeless in 14 countries around the Indian Ocean, the report highlights how this enormous influx of funds revealed inequities in how aid money is raised and spent. According to a TEC press release, a total of at least US$ 13.5 billion was raised, US$ 5.5 billion -- or 41% -- from the general public, amounting to over $ 7,100 for every affected person. This contrasts sharply with only US$ 3 per head spent on someone affected by the 2004 floods in Bangladesh, which destroyed over 1 million homes and displaced more than 4 million people. These figures suggest that emergency relief is given not only on a needs basis but in response to political pressures and what aid agencies believe may be 'popular' with the donating public. "All actors need to make the current funding system impartial and more efficient, flexible, transparent and better aligned with the principles of good donorship," the report says. "The high-profile coverage of the tsunami led to the largest and fastest funded response ever." But the glare of public attention pressurised agencies to spend quickly and visibly, often causing them to neglect formal needs assessments and underestimate the complexity of post-disaster recovery," says Telford. Other global emergencies not benefiting from as much media coverage receive a fraction of the funding: "The gross inequity in funding for different emergencies is evident in people reduced to half-rations in Sudan in the face of increasing malnutrition, while Iraq and Afghanistan continue to get generous funding," Telford adds. More independent regulation of relief spending is also required, the report says, to ensure that donations are spent in ways that genuinely help victims rebuild their lives. "The scale and frequency of modern emergencies is on the rise and the quality, capacity and regulation of the international relief system is currently inadequate to support this," says Telford. The report suggests the creation of an independent regulatory agency that will put in place an accreditation and certification system to encourage aid agencies to show they are meeting certain standards. It also calls on humanitarian groups to shift their focus from supplying aid to supporting communities' own relief and recovery efforts. The quality, capacity and regulation of the international relief system are inadequate, says Telford. "The public should also not think that their responsibility ends once they have handed over a cheque," he says. "Insisting on independent regulation and transparent reporting will go a long way in ensuring that agencies maintain the professional standards they have set for themselves." Source: The Age, July 15, 2006
www.telegraph.co.uk, July 15, 2006
The Hindu, July 15, 2006
www.bbcnews.com, July 14, 2006
|
