This
has been a year of natural disasters. Starting as the full and
horrific impact of the tsunami sunk in, it draws to a close
as we struggle to assist the survivors of the earthquake in
India and Pakistan. And in-between, hurricanes, storms, floods
and landslides, all taking their highest toll among the poorest
and least protected communities.
Even if the aid community can be satisfied in parts with its
response, it must continuously improve to help save lives and
rebuild shattered livelihoods. The trend seems clear –
natural disasters are on the increase. So what is there to learn
from this year?
First, there was no ready-made structure to coordinate recovery
when the tsunami struck. The challenge was – and remains
– tremendous. Coastal regions were completely destroyed,
requiring the simultaneous rebuilding of ports, roads and social
infrastructure. In areas where land ownership records –
and in some areas land itself – was lost to the sea, plots
for private homes must now be found and titles issued. Water
and sanitation must be provided; destroyed farmland must be
cleared. Preventive and curative health services must function
throughout the recovery effort even where local staff were killed.
All of these issues are made more complex by the fact that the
tsunami hit countries with bottlenecks in human, institutional
and material resources and capacities, with unresolved conflicts
and political tension. Common standards of good governance,
accountability and transparency must be followed.
At the same time, humanitarian assistance must continue to the
millions who will not be back on their feet until their economies
function again. Their active involvement and participation is
critical. Their hopes and aspirations must guide us all. The
best way of alleviating their grief is to make them the agents
of their own recovery.
Sustainable recovery must combine the long-term planning and
leadership of governments, supported by the UN and international
finance institutions, with the quick and flexible response that
civil society organizations close to communities can offer.
For those struck by the tsunami, it is of less interest if individual
organizations did a good job if the final outcome is fragmented
and unsustainable. This must be a joint effort.
That is why the initiative of former President Clinton, as the
UN Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, to form a Global Consortium
including all actors involved should be acknowledged and learned
from. In its promotion of accountability and transparency in
the use of funds, encouraging in-country coordination, and maintaining
an inclusive dialogue on recovery policy and strategy, we may
have a new kind of international recovery mechanism on which
we can build for the future.
Second, the pressure for early results must not lead us to compromise
on quality. It is understandable that the survivors and their
governments are impatient to see the displaced in permanent
homes and with communities rebuilt. It is also understandable
that donors want to see their funds come to good use as quickly
as possible. But as should be evident from the description of
the challenges above, the risk of making mistakes through shortcuts
in the recovery process are very high. The experience from all
other large natural disasters is that recovery takes time. If
driven as an emergency operation, without sufficient planning
and consultation with those affected, mistakes will be made.
There are too many examples of a job only half done, where people
are still in what was supposed to be temporary shelter long
after a natural disaster.
It is our view that much of the public who donated funds for
tsunami recovery has its own experience of investing in and
building new homes. It recognizes the time needed for planning
and adjustments, and the importance of being in the lead when
taking decisions that will affect a family’s existence
for years to come. Tsunami recovery should be no different.
That would be to fail our donors as well as the survivors.
And third, humanitarian and recovery funding must not be a zero-sum
game, where aid for one disaster is aid denied to another. It
has been stated that the ‘over-funded’ tsunami operation
should share resources with victims of other crises. The cry
for resources to help the victims of the earthquake in Pakistan
is a stark contrast to the outpouring of generosity from governments
and the public for tsunami survivors.
The fact that it is doubtful whether there actually are sufficient
resources for all the affected countries to “build back
better” is unimportant for the principle under discussion.
It seems that we have become so used to the chronic shortage
of funds to assist people in dire need, that we lose perspective
when we for once may have sufficient funds for a comprehensive
engagement. We look at the problem from the wrong end. The challenge
is for governments to ensure that state budgets have such flexibility
that we can handle a year with an exceptional number of major
disasters. The problem is not too much money for the tsunami,
it is one of too little for all the other crises where we must
help.
In conclusion, the international community must learn to coordinate
for recovery, to allow recovery to take the time needed for
sustainable results, and to ensure that stricken communities
do not have to compete with each other to receive the assistance
they have a right to expect.
|
 |
 |
|
|
Men
carry sheets of corrugated iron, which have been dropped
off by helicopter, to a distribution point in Kaghan Valley.
(p13893)
|
|
|
|
|
|
News
