The
three questions posed under this critically important title
points we have in the centre of our attention every day in the
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Our work, providing support through the resources of our worldwide
National Society network, has as its highest priority the provision
of support for the most vulnerable.
Without discrimination of any kind.
This title rightly suggests that there is a danger of discrimination
when a disaster captures public attention as this Tsunami has
done.
It is true that it has to some extent overshadowed the suffering
of so many millions of others in the world, and the priority
which must be given to issues like the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
But there are good reasons for this. It was a cataclysmic event,
which attracted huge publicity, and it has affected people from
more countries than almost any other disaster.
In addition, many lives would not have been lost if there had
been strong and effective preparedness measures in place, including
effective early warning systems and mechanisms.
That is a subject which has been addressed in different ways
at several important conferences already this year, including
the Mauritius International Meeting on Small Island Developing
States and the World Conference on Disaster Reduction.
At both the International Federation made clear its position
that disaster preparedness must be based on and built from the
community level if it is to be effective.
That message seems to have been received, but the task now is
to put timetables and concrete plans in place.
Not just for the tsunami affected countries. For all.
Our position is comprehensive and also includes reference to
the Millennium Development Goals, and the need for stronger
support for the world's development agendas.
These are objectives which stand comfortably alongside our own
Strategy 2010 and its concentration on the needs of the most
vulnerable.
Our expectation, and our advocacy, is directed at ensuring that
no vulnerable people will find themselves without the support
and protection of their Red Cross or Red Crescent Society.
So, with that background, I can offer our position on the three
questions posed for this discussion today:
(1) Fair and sustainable reconstruction must
contain ingredients removing the need for such devastation from
future disasters. Disaster preparedness must be an integral
part of relief and reconstruction. Sustainability, in this context,
is not only the well-known term "relief to development". It
also means "development to relief".
Preparedness is, therefore, part of response. And preparedness,
to be effective, must also be about development.
So response is part of development, and development provides
preparedness. A good example is the very successful program
of the Vietnam Red Cross which has very much reduced cyclone
damage through the replanting of mangroves along the coast.
It must involve the local people themselves in the design and
implementation of the programs. Without discrimination of any
kind, and backed by education, gender empowerment and partnerships
with local and community organisations capable of speaking for
the best interests of their communities.
(2) One of the most important roles we have identified for governments,
consistently, in our International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Conferences, is their acceptance of the voice of the
communities in their own decision-making and implementation
councils. Governments have accepted this obligation, but there
are still many which have yet to build the relationship. Those
which have done it well, like Bangladesh, are countries which
have gone far towards mitigating the effects of potentially
terrible disasters.
Civil Society has an important role if these partnerships are
to be meaningful. It is not enough to talk of government obligations
to be inclusive: it is vital that civil society builds capacity
so it can effectively partner government in work to prepare
for and respond to future disasters. So capacity-building is
a critical ingredient in post-tsunami aid.
One of the most important lessons about disaster response is
that by far the largest number of lives are saved by neighbours
and others in the affected communities. Civil Society's role
is to help ensure that the capacity of those local communities
is as developed and strong as possible, again I stress, without
discrimination.
International actors and economic agencies must ensure that
they deploy resources to this local capacity building and training,
and governments must ensure that this level of engagement with
local communities is welcomed and facilitated.
(3) Ensuring support for the forgotten, and
for the people living in forgotten emergencies, is one of our
greatest preoccupations. We are very pleased that the United
Nations now proactively shares this position - it is articulated
very well by Jan Egeland, the Under Secretary General for Humanitarian
Affairs.
Our task remains, though, to maintain the attention of governments
to these issues, and to ensure that emergencies and the vulnerable
people within them are not forgotten when the media moves on
to the next trouble-spot.
All this is relevant to the issue of the tsunami funds and the
continuing extreme vulnerability of countless other people.
That's why I were so pleased to hear Canada's Minister for International
Cooperation speak out and call for continuing attention to the
other ongoing programs at the Geneva Ministerial Tsunami Meeting
on 11 February. Ms Carroll said Canada called on all other countries
to apply the principles of good humanitarian donorship while
providing support to tsunami victims.
Among other things, there can be no reduction of support for
other humanitarian programs. We say it is essential that the
Tsunami crisis be seen as a lesson to be learned by all donors,
and all international and national institutions.
One lesson for governments is that the tremendous outpouring
of public support for the victims of the tsunami shows a wide
willingness to help, and to assist the most vulnerable. The
amounts given by the public need to be seen alongside those
from governments as part of a huge national effort.
This national effort should be respected by governments as an
indication of political support for increasing development assistance
budgets. This is a point common to UN speeches, but it has proved
very hard to get support beyond rhetoric.
But the Tsunami may have changed that. There is, potentially,
a new dynamic in the development assistance debate. What we
would like is to see governments rise to this dynamic in a simple
but effective way:
(a) Agree that they will consolidate all the aid they will offering
in 2005 - including for the Tsunamis - as their new benchmark
for progress towards the 0.7% GDP target set official development
assistance.
(b) So 2006 provisions will be move towards 0.7% from a new
base. This will accelerate meaningful work towards the demands
posed by so many other crises, including for example, HIV/AIDS
in Africa, to Darfur, to hurricanes in the Caribbean, to drought
and hunger. To the unnecessary suffering of many millions through
disease, famine and disaster.
(c) The design and implementation of the programs to be supported
will be done together with civil society and Red Cross Red Crescent
organisations truly representative of the communities themselves.
(d) The Governments of affected countries will take all necessary
steps to empower the community representatives to partner them
and contribute effectively to this work.
This would be a clear and unequivocal statement of the value
for the world's vulnerable people of the sacrifice made by nearly
a quarter of a million people on 26 December 2004.
|
 |
|
News
