In
2005, as never before, individuals and governments reached out
to people in need around the globe. They responded to a string
of sudden, large-scale disasters that include the Indian Ocean
tsunami, the South Asian earthquake and a record hurricane season
along America’s Gulf Coast. Last year, disasters killed
99,425 people, affected 161 million people in some way and cost
around US$ 160 billion.
The response was record-breaking generosity. In 2005, funding
from individuals and governments for humanitarian aid reached
at least US$ 17 billion – outstripping any other year
on record. Of this, individuals gave over US $5.5 billion for
survivors of the tsunami alone.
The sum is more than non-governmental organizations had ever
collected in a year, according to this year’s annual World
Disasters Report, which focuses on neglected crises and was
launched today (December 14) in Geneva by the International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
There is much to be proud of in this generosity. The donated
funds enabled millions of people to eat, drink safe water, find
shelter from rain and snow, and start rebuilding their lives
and livelihoods after disaster.
But what about those in the shadows?
Few know of the silent tragedy of maternal and neonatal mortality
in Nepal that has claimed over 25 times more lives than the
conflict. Discrimination against women in Nepal leads many of
them to suffer in secrecy during childbirth. An estimated 35,000
women and newborn babies die each year due to unsafe childbirth
and neonatal practices, and discrimination against women. Mountains,
conflict and poverty prevent their access to adequate healthcare.
Yet this crisis goes virtually unnoticed. Such humanitarian
tragedies hidden by politics or culture must be exposed in time
to help people.
The brighter the media spotlight shines on high-visibility catastrophes,
the deeper into shadow fall more chronic – and often more
deadly – humanitarian crises. For every high profile catastrophe,
there are others ignored or simply not adequately funded. Many
millions of people miss out on vital, potentially life-saving
aid because crises go unrecorded by most databases, media or
donors.
No one records, for example, how many migrants die in the Sahara
or in small boats in the seas surrounding Europe while attempting
to reach Europe to make a better life for themselves and their
families.
In Guatemala, as in many countries, the main disaster databases
fail to record the vast number of small, localized floods, mudslides
or earthquakes.
Yet these small crises add up to more deaths and affect many
more people than a few major events. Recurrent crises create
a cumulative impact, ratcheting up vulnerability to larger hazards
in the future. In smaller crises that erode the already meagre
livelihoods of millions of people, lie the roots of future harm.
They also provide an opportunity to mitigate the impact of future
disasters. Long-term support is needed to build safer communities
through disaster risk reduction programmes so people can cope
better with everyday, small-scale disasters.
Last year, food aid prevented widespread deaths from hunger
in Malawi. But donors provided just one-fifth of the funds requested
by the United Nations (UN) for agricultural support —
seeds and fertilizers so smallholder farmers could recover and
reduce the risk of another food crisis the following season.
Few donors seem prepared to invest in sustainable agriculture
to avoid continuing deadly cycles of food crises. During the
2001–2002 famine, some households were forced to sell
or lease their land, Peter Madeya, from Dedza district told
the World Disasters Report.
“Many people had rented their fields out for five years
in exchange for food so they had no fields left to cultivate
and had to rely on piece-work only.”
Delay in responding to a food crisis in Niger led not only to
an avoidable loss of life and livelihoods, but also increased
the final cost of aid a hundredfold. The international community
must learn the lessons of Niger and intervene in time with the
right measures – or watch similar suffering in other places
such as the Horn of Africa.
When funds are raised for an identified crisis, are they evenly
allocated? When we divide the total amount of humanitarian funding
the UN raises per emergency by the number of people targeted
for that aid, some revealing statistics emerge. Chechnya received
US$ 281 per beneficiary in 2005, the South Asia earthquake attracted
US$ 310 and Sudan US$ 431 per head.
Far and away the best-funded disaster was, not surprisingly,
the tsunami, which raised at least US$ 1,241 per beneficiary
in humanitarian aid alone – not including an extra US$
8 billion for reconstruction. At the other end of the scale,
according to the World Disasters Report, the UN’s emergency
appeals in 2005 for Chad, Guyana, Côte d’Ivoire,
Malawi and Niger garnered an average of less than US$ 27 per
person in need.
Some might argue that differences of funding among emergency
programmes reflect differing humanitarian needs and the costs
of meeting those needs. But compare the extent to which needs
are met and a similarly warped picture emerges. While UN appeals
for the Republic of Congo, Djibouti and the Central African
Republic were on average less than 40 per cent funded, the tsunami
appeal was 475 per cent funded and the South Asia earthquake
appeal was 196 per cent funded.
Yet there are signs that lessons are being heeded and efforts
made to reach those neglected.
In March 2006, the UN launched an expanded Central Emergency
Response Fund (CERF) to provide funds for rapid humanitarian
response to crises. A third of its funds will go to neglected
crises – and in its first month, the CERF allocated US$
13 million to agencies in the Horn of Africa. By June, the fund
had raised US$ 365 million towards its half-billion dollar target.
Similarly, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies initiated a similar Disaster Relief Emergency
Fund 20 years ago, which dispersed over US$ 8.5 million of rapid-response
funding in 2005 – half of it for minor or forgotten emergencies.
And while women’s needs are often forgotten in the urgency
of an emergency, this isn’t always the case. In Pakistan,
after the South Asia earthquake, IRIN news service reported
on a camp in Punjab province set up within a week of the disaster
to house 300 women and children who’d lost male family
members.
“Unlike other camp settlements, where families tend to
huddle together in scared clusters, young girls and children
run freely through the area, vying for a turn on one of the
swings, and women sit outside in the sunshine mending clothes
or knitting,” reported IRIN.
Such efforts are well worthwhile. The common theme behind all
neglected crises is social vulnerability and chronic poverty,
compounded by governments’ inability to cope. These factors
expose people to a wide range of disaster risks and undermine
their ability to cope and recover.
Much work remains to be done to ensure that millions of people
suffering in crises do not remain neglected. In many cases,
the first step is to direct political will towards creating
the conditions in which humanitarians can operate - in the more
neglected, hidden, secret, dangerous parts of the world. Among
the priorities for banishing neglect everywhere are:
• Attracting adequate donations for large, common emergency
response funds that are not earmarked for particular disasters,
• Developing a global measure of the severity of humanitarian
need,
• Ensuring the right kind of funding and response for
chronic crises, such as hunger, that fall between development
and disaster and, finally,
• Agreeing with donors and host governments on appropriate
trigger points for action.
The continuing cycle of neglect and misery must be interrupted
by governments, donors, the media and aid organizations willing
to think and act differently to address neglect.
|
 |
 |
|
|
Mohammed
Omer Mukhier is the head of disaster preparedness and
response at the International Federation of Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
News
