by Johan Schaar, Special Representative for the Tsunami Operation -- International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
The unique response to the tsunami triggers questions. A very large proportion of resources are in the hands of NGOs and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and its members. Did private donors really intend money to be used beyond immediate emergency relief? Has not more money than is needed been collected and pledged? When the response to other crises suffers from lack of resources, do organisations compromise the principle of proportionality when reserving funds for tsunami recovery?
First, what did donors intend? For all who witnessed the destruction caused by the tsunami, it was obvious that it would not be sufficient to provide only health services, water, food and emergency shelter. Survivors' lives were shattered, loved ones were lost, homes and the means of making a living were gone. To simply help keep them alive by limiting assistance to emergency relief would clearly not be enough. Leaving them in their tents was not an option. Based on their experience from other big natural disasters, many Red Cross and Red Crescent societies fundraised with the explicit intention of funding long term recovery and reconstruction; this would become an engagement over several years. And many of the individuals trying to help did so through donations of fishing boats and equipment. However ill-advised some in-kind donations were, they nevertheless sent a clear message that they wanted to help tsunami survivors get back on their feet.
Second, is there more money than is needed for the tsunami recovery? In its most recent stocktaking report from Aceh and Nias, the World Bank finds that almost enough funds have been committed from governments, UN agencies, IFIs, the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and NGOs to replace what was destroyed but not to "build back better". Many organisations have pledged to rebuild with a disaster reduction objective, i.e. to leave poor communities in disaster-prone regions in a safer state. According to the World Bank, this would require more funds than have been pledged at least in the case of Aceh. In Puntland in Somalia, the poorest region affected by the tsunami, there has been very little assistance beyond early emergency relief. It is difficult to claim that there is a surplus of resources.
Would it then be appropriate to transfer funds from tsunami recovery to other insufficiently funded crises? That is the wrong question. The problem is not that recovery needs may be close to being met, but that a number of other humanitarian crises do not receive sufficient funding. The solution cannot be to siphon funds from the few well-funded operations to the many that do not receive sufficient resources. The international response to people in desperate need must not be a zero-sum game, be it to post-natural disaster situations with opportunities to restore lives and livelihoods while reducing disaster risk, or to meet persistent humanitarian needs during unresolved armed conflicts to ensure protection and acceptable living conditions for those displaced.
In particular, governments must allocate humanitarian assistance according to needs, and not let funding of new crises impact negatively on support to already ongoing operations. Both these principles form part of the Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative. This means that governments must base humanitarian funding not only on budget decisions at the beginning of the fiscal year, when nothing is known about what rapid onset disasters will happen, but instead be prepared to mobilise contingency funds held in reserve for exceptional humanitarian needs. Unfortunately, 2005 seems to be such a year. The tsunami operation, with hundreds of thousands displaced while recovery is just starting, the earthquake in Pakistan with two million homeless, flooding and mudslides in Central America, on top of the long list of chronic crises linked to armed conflict, this must lead governments to contribute more than during a less dramatic year.
But there is also another dimension to recovery and reconstruction. In many current crises with urgent humanitarian needs, the opportunity does not exist to engage in recovery. Continued armed conflicts in Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo or Darfur prevent such efforts, however much we would like to become involved in recovery. When such opportunities arise in the post-conflict phase, it is often difficult to raise the necessary funds from governments or directly from the public.
Natural disasters however do provide such an opportunity that must not be missed. There are too many examples during past decades of front-loaded funding after natural disasters, with little remaining to complete recovery and reconstruction. There are too many examples of earthquake victims who never got beyond their supposedly temporary shelters. Survivors of the tsunami should not be added to that list.
Does this mean that there are no dilemmas linked to the large funding volumes for the tsunami? No, the dilemma arises if humanitarian organisations become dependent on a public which points them in the direction of only some crises through their earmarked donations. Organisations need to secure a broad funding base giving them the flexibility to respond with impartiality to people in distress. But the dilemma will not be resolved by leaving the survivors of the tsunami behind.