Too much aid???

[Frodo]

It's a question, not a statement.

As I understand it, red cross and other aid organisations will give food, water, blankets, tents, medicine etc.

The costly aid will come later in rebuilding infrastructure. Now Sri Lanka, Indonesia etc will do that through their govenments working with other donor governments (eg Australia may build a couple of villages and a few bridges each year for say five years)

BUT....the aid organisations now have billions of dollars. I can't see how they will spend it all. Maybe build a few red cross hospitals, but who staffs them for the long term?

Anyone know how this all works?

 

[deeslover4ever]

It's a question, not a statement.

As I understand it, red cross and other aid organisations will give food, water, blankets, tents, medicine etc.

The costly aid will come later in rebuilding infrastructure. Now Sri Lanka, Indonesia etc will do that through their govenments working with other donor governments (eg Australia may build a couple of villages and a few bridges each year for say five years)

BUT....the aid organisations now have billions of dollars. I can't see how they will spend it all. Maybe build a few red cross hospitals, but who staffs them for the long term?

Anyone know how this all works?

Not sure how it works but you can be sure that there are political and economic strings being attatched which won't come out in the wash till later.

 

[skipper kelly]

I heard an interview on ABC radio with a representative from "doctors with no borders". They have raised US$50million and have ceased taking any more donations. At 1st I thought it sounded stupid, but once explained it all made sense. They needed US$50 mil. to run there program in SEA, have got that much, so they dont want to dupe people into thinking their donations will be used there, when they wont.

 

[UNIT]

Its not just money for dealing with the problems that exist now. The money will be needed when the time comes to actually start physically rebuilding infrastructure in affected areas....in which case if the footage is anything to go by, no there isnt too much aid.

 

[jim boy]

It's a question I've been wondering about as well.

For starters, certainly aid where it comes to immediate needs, food, shelter, health and the provision of basic services such as water, sewerage, adequate means of transport etc can't come fast enough. Don't know how much it costs, but it would be alot.

The next question is aid to re-establish societies affected by trauma. For me the area of greatest interest is Aceh, where I have travelled a bit, have met plenty of locals and generally keep an eye on in general. For me the question sn't how towns like Meulobah should be rebuilt, but whether they should be rebuilt at all. After all 75% of the population died, and tragic as that is, dead people don't need schools, roads or money. Another thing about towns like Meulobah is that their population was largely made up of migrants from Java. You can either spend alot of money rebuilding the community, or you can just shift them back to Java or some other part of Indonesia at a much lower cost.

Undoubtedly Jakarta would like to keep these people right where they are now, lest the balance of power in Aceh swings to GAM dominated populations of the highlands. The issue of GAM will undoubtedly become a major political thorn in the aid issue. Already it appears that TNI have stepped up their actions against GAM in the wake of the disaster. It's probable that accusations will start to fly that aid money is being used to either suppress or support the independence movement.

Another thing that concerns me about this disaster is the way that this particular disaster has attracted all the aid money. While not wanting to downplay the scale of the disaster, it's made for great television. Seeing whole cities absolutely decimated, huge waves and tales about westerners ignores the fact that the disaster really only affect small areas of the countries involved. You can be in an area of total destruction, go a few hundred metres and everything is untouched. That reminded me about floods and storms. Floods always make the news while storms rarely do, becuase the damage in floods is so more dramatic, but if you ask people who count the costs, such as the insurance industry, they will point out that storms are far worse when it comes to the bottom line. You could compare the tsunami to something like hurricane Mitch, which wiped out an entire country or two, but didn't really capture quite the same amount of publicity. And that is nothing compared to the ongoing displacement of millions in places like Afghanistan and Congo.

 

[Frodo]

Its not just money for dealing with the problems that exist now. The money will be needed when the time comes to actually start physically rebuilding infrastructure in affected areas....in which case if the footage is anything to go by, no there isnt too much aid.

But that's my point. I don't think the red cross etc, will be part of the rebuilding. This will be done on a government level. (eg Government will decide where new villages, roads etc will be built and the funding will not come from aid agencies. But the Australian government aid will be mainly for rebuilding and co-ordinated with the regional governments)

I believe the aid organisations are short term ones, for immediate disaster aid, probably diminishing as the regions get back on their feet. So my 'guess' is that the bulk of donations will end up being used for future disasters and ongoing worldwide needs.

 

[pazza]

On re-establishing societies, it seems some small steps are being made.

In Phuket, the school is already close to being back under operation and I see that in Aceh, the schools there are going to be some of the first places to be cleaned up to operate. By providing the support to the kids like this, to me it looks like a good start

 

[Frodo]

It's a question I've been wondering about as well.

For starters, certainly aid where it comes to immediate needs, food, shelter, health and the provision of basic services such as water, sewerage, adequate means of transport etc can't come fast enough. Don't know how much it costs, but it would be alot.

The next question is aid to re-establish societies affected by trauma. For me the area of greatest interest is Aceh, where I have travelled a bit, have met plenty of locals and generally keep an eye on in general. For me the question sn't how towns like Meulobah should be rebuilt, but whether they should be rebuilt at all. After all 75% of the population died, and tragic as that is, dead people don't need schools, roads or money. Another thing about towns like Meulobah is that their population was largely made up of migrants from Java. You can either spend alot of money rebuilding the community, or you can just shift them back to Java or some other part of Indonesia at a much lower cost.

Undoubtedly Jakarta would like to keep these people right where they are now, lest the balance of power in Aceh swings to GAM dominated populations of the highlands. The issue of GAM will undoubtedly become a major political thorn in the aid issue. Already it appears that TNI have stepped up their actions against GAM in the wake of the disaster. It's probable that accusations will start to fly that aid money is being used to either suppress or support the independence movement.

Another thing that concerns me about this disaster is the way that this particular disaster has attracted all the aid money. While not wanting to downplay the scale of the disaster, it's made for great television. Seeing whole cities absolutely decimated, huge waves and tales about westerners ignores the fact that the disaster really only affect small areas of the countries involved. You can be in an area of total destruction, go a few hundred metres and everything is untouched. That reminded me about floods and storms. Floods always make the news while storms rarely do, becuase the damage in floods is so more dramatic, but if you ask people who count the costs, such as the insurance industry, they will point out that storms are far worse when it comes to the bottom line. You could compare the tsunami to something like hurricane Mitch, which wiped out an entire country or two, but didn't really capture quite the same amount of publicity. And that is nothing compared to the ongoing displacement of millions in places like Afghanistan and Congo.

Good Post

The key factor is that with modern communicatons a natural disaster has been taken into our lounges for the first time, and it has shocked many, me included. Go back 20 years and a similar disaster would have had significantly less impact on people hearing about it.
Maybe this is a good point about Muslim countries not donating much, maybe they haven't got the technology and communications infrastructure to have the impact it is having on us!

 

[- PC -]

On re-establishing societies, it seems some small steps are being made.

In Phuket, the school is already close to being back under operation and I see that in Aceh, the schools there are going to be some of the first places to be cleaned up to operate. By providing the support to the kids like this, to me it looks like a good start

Like Bart and Lisa listening to the radio waiting for snow closures I am sure a lot of Thai kids are going Doh our school is opening soon


But that sounds great that people arent stopping still and already making an effort

 

[demon_dave]

Like Bart and Lisa listening to the radio waiting for snow closures I am sure a lot of Thai kids are going Doh our school is opening soon


But that sounds great that people arent stopping still and already making an effort

Without a doubt the best thing to come out of this disaster is the fact the countries affected will be rebuilt a hell of a lot better than they were before the disaster. I think when it comes to impoverished 3rd world countries you can never have too much money

 

[BluesPrez]

Rebuilding will take years. It's not like new buildings will be erected in a matter of days or weeks. It will take years. Rebuilding of local economies, of local infrastructure, their agriculture etc. will take years.

Aid will need to be constant. World Vision works with poor communities and helps them improve their standard of life with clean water, education etc., however, the average WV project takes 13 years, that's 13 years of child sponsorship; it's great that people are giving big donations now, but these are but a small drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money needed to fully rebuild these communities. "Excess" money will, I assume, be pledged toward rebuilding projects and starting new ones if enough money can be found. WV can work in the area long term if the long term support is there. One-off donations will ensure that we stay there for only a short term.

This problem we have now is not a short term one. It's a long term one and one that if it has genuinely touched our hearts will hopefully be the catalyst for long term support for these people.

I hope this is a reasonable answer for what WV does with the "excess" money.

 

[- PC -]

This problem we have now is not a short term one. It's a long term one and one that if it has genuinely touched our hearts will hopefully be the catalyst for long term support for these people.

I hope this is a reasonable answer for what WV does with the "excess" money.

Thanks Collo

Do you think the money given already will go to the right people or will there be a need to set up a Tsunami Trust Fund and allocate money annually?

As pointed out it will be years , yet people will forget about this next week and stop giving, so I think there needs to be some long term financial planning going into all this. I have heard the Australian Government mooting a moratorium on monies already owed through loans

 

[jim boy]

Rebuilding will take years. It's not like new buildings will be erected in a matter of days or weeks. It will take years. Rebuilding of local economies, of local infrastructure, their agriculture etc. will take years.

Aid will need to be constant. World Vision works with poor communities and helps them improve their standard of life with clean water, education etc., however, the average WV project takes 13 years, that's 13 years of child sponsorship; it's great that people are giving big donations now, but these are but a small drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money needed to fully rebuild these communities. "Excess" money will, I assume, be pledged toward rebuilding projects and starting new ones if enough money can be found. WV can work in the area long term if the long term support is there. One-off donations will ensure that we stay there for only a short term.

This problem we have now is not a short term one. It's a long term one and one that if it has genuinely touched our hearts will hopefully be the catalyst for long term support for these people.

I hope this is a reasonable answer for what WV does with the "excess" money.

That's what irks me about this. Is it a long term issue?

You can't seriously look at me in the eye and say that the people along the Thai coast, for example, are going to be living in squalor normally associated with sub-Saharan Africa as a direct result of this Tsunami?

And the people of Aceh, the ones that are dead are gone, no need to worry about them, and the surivivors? Well who are the surivivors? Are you counting those whose homes were beyond the reach of the waves?

Do schools, buildings and shops really need to be rebuilt in areas of total devastation? Can't the affected people simply be relocated to Medan, Lhoksumwe or even Sabang?

Agriculture, now theres a cheeky argument. Most agriculture, even in Aceh, were well out of the reach of the Tsunami, and even the agriculture that was damaged, will it really be affected beyond the current harvest?

You've talked about the average WV project taking 13 years, and no doubt it does due to the intractibility of poverty ridden countries. But we're not talking about countries suddenly becoming poverty stricken. Aceh was always one of the better off provinces in Indonesia, yet it wasn't pivotal to the Indonesian economy and the Indonesian economy won't collapse as a result of this.

This tsunmai business is of genuine concern, not merely because of the direct affect it's had on the communities touched, but also because it seems to have distracted both the public and aid charities, if BluesPrez response is anything to go by, from the wider, and IMO, the more serious ongoing aid needs in societies that genuinely have no options.

 

[Qsaint]

But that's my point. I don't think the red cross etc, will be part of the rebuilding. This will be done on a government level. (eg Government will decide where new villages, roads etc will be built and the funding will not come from aid agencies. But the Australian government aid will be mainly for rebuilding and co-ordinated with the regional governments)

I believe the aid organisations are short term ones, for immediate disaster aid, probably diminishing as the regions get back on their feet. So my 'guess' is that the bulk of donations will end up being used for future disasters and ongoing worldwide needs.

They will be there for years, the economy and infastructure will take 5 to 10 years to recover. By raising so much now they can continue the camps, education, water, food and shelter. All the children left without parents or 1 parent will need support for 10 years plus

Red Cross in for the Long Haul
http://1.redcross.org.au/?fuseaction=newsroom.latestnews&sub=349

Oxfam has 3 phase plan for the next 5 years
http://www.oxfam.org.au/world/emergencies/tsunami/money.html
http://www.oxfam.org.au/world/emergencies/tsunami/doing.html

 

[campbell]

I know this may sound crass, but here goes anyways.


I worry that the money donated to Thailand will go to rebuilding their tourism facilities and industry.Not to the Thai people who lost their homes.

I am still giving money weekly to World Vision.

The things my family are doing with Leos/Lions are more individual.

Like donations of dry goods as they are called to the maldives.Not sending money.Helping kids from schools in the Maldives, they are still flooded there.The UN has said that Sri Lanka and the Maldives are the areas of most need, and the aid orgs have prioritised them lower due to numbers I presume.
They are doing their own relief,we have sent 1 medical team.Banglasdesh has a navy vessel on its way.

LCIF is working on the ground in Sri Lanka and Indonesia.All Lions clubs world wide are contributing funds.

 

[tapestry]

I see this morning that Australia has now pledged a package of $1 Billion over 5 years. That seems like an incredulous amount! It's certainly left me with more than a few questions and I don't know if anyone here can answer a couple of them:

1. Would I be correct in thinking that an "aid package" is not just cash or goods? That figure would include things like the wages of the specialist workers (engineers, medicos etc) that Australia sends to the region, the cost of transportation of goods/people to the region, accommodation etc etc?

2. What happens if there is a change of government during that 5 year period? If for some unforseen reason the Australian economy gets into strife during that time period and there is a change of Government, can this "pledge" be withdrawn with the money going back into our system here?

3. Where is this money coming from? With things like hospital bed shortages, education issues, homelessness etc already in crisis here, will such a huge aid package be drawing our own resources tighter and tighter or are we expecting a new levy/tax to help cover these costs or what?

 

[BluesPrez]

That's what irks me about this. Is it a long term issue?

You can't seriously look at me in the eye and say that the people along the Thai coast, for example, are going to be living in squalor normally associated with sub-Saharan Africa as a direct result of this Tsunami?

And the people of Aceh, the ones that are dead are gone, no need to worry about them, and the surivivors? Well who are the surivivors? Are you counting those whose homes were beyond the reach of the waves?

Do schools, buildings and shops really need to be rebuilt in areas of total devastation? Can't the affected people simply be relocated to Medan, Lhoksumwe or even Sabang?

Agriculture, now theres a cheeky argument. Most agriculture, even in Aceh, were well out of the reach of the Tsunami, and even the agriculture that was damaged, will it really be affected beyond the current harvest?

You've talked about the average WV project taking 13 years, and no doubt it does due to the intractibility of poverty ridden countries. But we're not talking about countries suddenly becoming poverty stricken. Aceh was always one of the better off provinces in Indonesia, yet it wasn't pivotal to the Indonesian economy and the Indonesian economy won't collapse as a result of this.

This tsunmai business is of genuine concern, not merely because of the direct affect it's had on the communities touched, but also because it seems to have distracted both the public and aid charities, if BluesPrez response is anything to go by, from the wider, and IMO, the more serious ongoing aid needs in societies that genuinely have no options.

WV's work will continue to work with the poorest of the poor, as our mission statement contends. We are working in the Sudan but it would seem that the public has been distracted somewhat because Australians have died and it's fairly close to home.

I've been to sub-Saharan Africa and I've seen the poverty that's there. Having said that, however, there are poor people in all walks of life. You cannot generalise and say that although Aceh was one of the more economically well-off provinces of Indonesia that they probably don't deserve aid in the long-term. In effect, doing so condemns them to long-term poverty, which may escalate the violence that has happened there for a fairly long time.

What I personally would like to see, is this disaster to act as an eye-opener to Australians as to the other problems in the world.

I'm in a rush, but I promise to write a more detailed post soon (later today hopefully).

cheers,
Collo (that's for you PerthCrow)

 

[BluesPrez]

A day is a long time in politics and I'm wondering whether we will keep our promise.

What I wanted to finish in my last post was that I hoped that this would open the eyes of Australians to see that there are problems everywhere in the world. I guess many of us think that the problems are all African or whatever generated, rather than natural disaster. However, it's not always true. Droughts in East Africa have brought on a lot of problems, Western governments and their exploitative economic policies have left some of the economies of the 3rd World countries in disarray.

There are some serious long-term problems all over the world that need addressing. It would be a shame if we went back into our shells and sat back lounging around after a couple of weeks. And somehow, sadly, I can picture that.

 

[telsor]

That's what irks me about this. Is it a long term issue?

You can't seriously look at me in the eye and say that the people along the Thai coast, for example, are going to be living in squalor normally associated with sub-Saharan Africa as a direct result of this Tsunami?

And the people of Aceh, the ones that are dead are gone, no need to worry about them, and the surivivors? Well who are the surivivors? Are you counting those whose homes were beyond the reach of the waves?

Do schools, buildings and shops really need to be rebuilt in areas of total devastation? Can't the affected people simply be relocated to Medan, Lhoksumwe or even Sabang?

The waves didn't simply kill/destroy everything upto a certain point and leave the other side of the line 'clear'. There are huge numbers ( estimates in the millions ) of people whose families, homes, workplaces, sites of worship, etc have been destroyed but they live on. These are the people who need to be helped, and those things fixed ( OK, families can't be 'fixed', but they do need healthcare, the dead found/identified ).

I suppose relocating everyone is an option, but surely they would prefer to be aroudn their such family and friends as still survive, and unless you're goignt o move the survivors en mass, then keeping them in place seems the only option. Not to mention many of these people have lived there for generations..I am sure there is some sentamental attachment.

Agriculture, now theres a cheeky argument. Most agriculture, even in Aceh, were well out of the reach of the Tsunami, and even the agriculture that was damaged, will it really be affected beyond the current harvest?

In ancient times, when a conquering army wanted to really hurt the locals, they would salt the land...essentially making fertile land infertile for generations to come. ( the Romans did this to Carthage because they NEVER wanted to face them again )..check the problems soil salination is having in Aus.

These people have had filthy salt water deposited in their rice paddies.
OK, they have higher rainfall, , and salt water probably doesn't have the same volume of pure salt as the romans used, but it'll be years before those paddies produce anywhere near what they did before, probably a couple of seasons before they produce anything at all. I assume there are ways to help speed this up, but it probably isn't cheap/easy.

You've talked about the average WV project taking 13 years, and no doubt it does due to the intractibility of poverty ridden countries. But we're not talking about countries suddenly becoming poverty stricken. Aceh was always one of the better off provinces in Indonesia, yet it wasn't pivotal to the Indonesian economy and the Indonesian economy won't collapse as a result of this.

No, the Indonesian economy wont 'collapse', but Indonesia is hardly a rich country, and the governemtn there doesn't exactly have the excess funds to rebuild the province.

Consider it in terms of Tasmania suddenly having a huge earthquake where every bouilding was flattened. Yes, Australia could rebuild it, but it would take us a long time, and while the Aus economy would go on, it'd hurt a lot.

This tsunmai business is of genuine concern, not merely because of the direct affect it's had on the communities touched, but also because it seems to have distracted both the public and aid charities, if BluesPrez response is anything to go by, from the wider, and IMO, the more serious ongoing aid needs in societies that genuinely have no options.

The sad truth is the world doesn't ever do enough for all those who need help. Perhaps it never will. Maybe one of the reasons helping these people is so appealing is that they've fallen, and people know that with a hand up, they'll stand by themselves, and walk again, while with some other places, there is a sense of sad futility that no matter how much is given, there will always be a need for more.

--------------------

There was something said in another post about worrying that money would go to help rebuild the Thai tourist industry.

Whats wrong with that? I'm not advocating anyone getting rich off aid, but there are a lot of people who have jobs through that industry, and getting them back into work is a GOOD THING. As wonderful as chartity is, having a holiday in Thailand ( or any of the other tourist areas affected ) once some rebuilding has occured is one of the better things you could do to get their lives back to normal.