INTERNATIONAL AID AND RELIEF

As the harrowing television footage from the Philippines has shown, the world is once again faced with another gigantic humanitarian catastrophe. Helplessly, we wonder if there is anything we can do, or contribute, to aid the rescue operation that is now in full swing.

For all our economic difficulties in recent years, we should reflect how fortunate we are to live in a prosperous country that suffers no more than relatively benign weather. Adverse climate conditions in the UK are nothing compared with those in Asia, where almost 70 per cent of the 1.3 million people killed by natural disasters in the first decade of this century lived.

The instant reaction for many people is to send and donate money to one of the many charities working in difficult and harrowing circumstances to help bring relief to the injured, homeless and starving. The courageous work of aid agencies is admired by most people.

But as the multi-billion pound aid industry continues to appeal for more money – so keen to display their logos in front of the television cameras – we often ignore an under-implied caveat, where sometimes they can do more harm than good.

Some commentators have witnessed at first hand the operational problems aid agencies can cause rather than solve. In the wake of the cataclysmic earthquake that hit Haiti in 2010, for example, the enraged mayor of the country’s capital described the relief agencies as a ‘second earthquake’ after being swamped by international aid organisations.

In Haiti, as in many other disaster zones, the world responded in sympathy – sending billions of pounds in donations. But, sadly, as has become the norm, we were given a demonstration of the arrogance and deficiencies of an ever-expanding global relief industry. This tends to lead to chaos on the ground caused by the needs of so many competing agencies, which often leads to extortionate sums of money being blown on ill-conceived and vainglorious projects.

We should hope that we don’t see a similar experience in the Philippines. But, unfortunately, the omens are not good. Despite undoubted dedication in often difficult and extreme conditions, good intentions backfiring have become commonplace. Even at this early stage, we have already seen examples of the charities exaggerating the gravity of the disaster while raising money. A cavalier approach to the facts was laid bare last week when the chief executive of the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) indicated that the disaster could be as bad as the 2004 tsunami, which claimed the lives of 250,000 people in several countries. After being challenged as to whether the storm had really been that deadly, the DEC accepted that the comparison was misleading and promptly corrected the number of dead at about 2,500. 24 hours later, DEC’s appeal website was still claiming 10,000 fatalities.

One may say that this was a minor quibble and administrative blip, given the grievous circumstances. But, it brings into question the approach of the aid industry, where the big players increasingly resemble corporate giants: senior executives pocket six-figure salaries with their organisations presiding over slick publicity machines. Relief agency work has become such a highly competitive sector that one may ask why aid charities are so desperate to be first on the scene by getting their names into news and media reports? The realisation here concerns vast sums of money that are raised following natural disasters. Consider, for example, the still £310 million of unspent cash held by the Red Cross at the end of last year, following its Haiti earthquake appeal. This is a staggering sum of money.

The number of aid groups, too, has soared to such a level as evidenced by the ballooning numbers that are ever-present at various international crises – particularly so in recent decades. In 1980, there were 40 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on the Thai border helping Cambodian refugees after the fall of the brutal Pol Pot regime. Just a decade later, there were 250 active NGOs during the Yugoslavian war. By 2004, some 500 were helping tsunami victims in Sri Lanka alone, and another 2,500 were registered as providing aid relief in war-torn Afghanistan.

Questions of operational logistics are also noteworthy. Some relief groups have been known to send entirely inappropriate items. For instance, in Cambodia, people were offered food that had previously been declared unfit for animals in a Western zoo. During the Balkan wars in the Nineties, Bosnians fighting in the former Yugoslavia were gifted anti-depressants well past their sell-by dates. During the famine in Somali, laxatives were sent to the starving. And, with so many aid groups jostling to be part of the relief effort, the inevitable logistical bottlenecks at key entry points is always a factor – hampering the smooth running and operational effectiveness of relief work. It has even been reported that locals – who tend to know what’s best on the ground – frequently get elbowed aside by the big global organisations.

Other instances of how aid organisations vie for dominance can be seen in their actions. In the Sumatran city of Banda Aceh following the tsunami, there were reports of children developing symptoms of measles after being vaccinated three times by competing agencies.

In the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake, dozens of meetings each week were required to co-ordinate the sprawling array of aid groups – invariably held in English rather than the French or Creole that is spoken locally. During the election of a steering committee, 60 international bodies voted without any Haitian agencies or representatives present.

Perhaps this is why, that £5.6 billion has been spent on Haiti, a nation of just ten million people. However, at least 200,000 people remain homeless with no more than 7,500 permanent new homes having been built (against 300,000 destroyed or badly damaged after the quake). There is still no running water or reliable electricity even in the capital. Sanitation facilities are well below the expected standards with families being forced to bathe babies in sewer-contaminated water. Cholera was imported – almost certainly by United Nations troops – to a country that had, until then, been free and clean of the disease. Around 8,300 people were killed, and more than half-a-million contracted the disease, with the life threatening condition having now spread to neighbouring countries.

Chaos and confusion often stems from publicity campaigns that are promoted by aid groups. As the confusion gathers pace the unaccountable aid machine simply moves on to the next high profile disaster. Even the well-respected medical journal The Lancet has warned of the troublesome publicity given out by aid organisations.

What is more, few in the relief sector admit how little money trickles down to those most in need; one expert suggested ten pence in every pound donated, while Haiti’s prime minister has inferred that 40 per cent of aid went on supporting those handing out the donations.

Of Concern, too, is that some of the money has even ended up in the hands of terrorists: in Somalia, aid groups paid substantial ‘taxes’ to al-Shabaab, the group behind the recent Kenyan shopping mall attack, while rebel Tamil Tigers imposed levies on post-tsunami reconstruction work in Sri Lanka.

People are broadly more supportive of campaigns that help specific disaster victims than of governments blowing billions on flawed and outdated theories of international aid development. Just 4.3 per cent of the British government’s very generous £10.8 billion aid budget goes on direct emergency relief.

What may be done, then, to make sure those in need, get proper help? Giving money to any organisation whose core activity is emergency work should be a necessary prerequisite. This includes organisations which don’t spend huge sums on fund-raising, which doesn’t overpay its executives, but which is open and transparent about the difficulties of delivery. Medecins Sans Frontieres is one such body that typifies professional excellence along with its work ethic. It even limits fund-raising when it has raised enough after specific disasters.

Local organisations should also be encouraged to take the lead if they clearly have the right expertise. Donating directly to them via the internet, or to regional branches, is a possible route.

Exercising careful caution is also important. Fake charities are sometimes set up after disasters to dupe foreigners, and projects that seem authentically attractive can prove utterly counter-productive. Eschewing false prophets who bedevil the aid industry is easily done with a little research. Giving money to those who will genuinely pass it on to the victims (like those poor and embattled people of the Philippines who have suffered so much) will make the best possible impact. This is the least we owe such people.