The aftermath of the 2004 tsunami has thrown up issues regarding humanitarian funding.
The Jammu and Kashmir floods that came a year after the Uttarakhand
floods of 2013 only added to the increasing and frequent list of natural
disasters that India has witnessed since the Indian Ocean tsunami of a
decade ago. The controversies that followed the rescue and
rehabilitation efforts in the aftermath of almost all these disasters
put the spotlight on issues like early response, financing for
humanitarian response and long-term preparedness. Among the many ongoing
discussions on what has changed in terms of the humanitarian response
since the 2004 tsunami, the issues of making humanitarian funding more
equitable and increasing the role of pooled humanitarian funds are
critical.
Oxfam International’s report “The Indian Ocean Tsunami, 10 Years on:
Lessons from the Response and Ongoing Humanitarian Funding Challenges”
examines why some emergencies receive rapid, generous funding while
others remain virtually ignored by the international community. In the
aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami of 26 December 2004 there was an
unparalleled funding response while the other natural disasters that
followed it failed to get sufficient funding despite massive
destruction. Media coverage and the geopolitical realities of the
countries where these disasters occurred seem to have influenced
humanitarian responses to a large extent.
The 2010 Pakistan floods, for example, which affected around 20
million people failed to mobilise the level of generosity that was seen
after the Indian Ocean tsunami. This is true of many other slow onset
natural disasters and conflicts, one prime example being the 2004
Bangladesh floods. Incidentally, the Indian Ocean tsunami and the Haiti
earthquake received the largest amount of donations. In private
donations (which roughly comprise one quarter of the international ones)
a host of factors – the type of emergency, perceptions about the impact
of donations and ability to identify with affected populations – come
into play. On the other hand, government donors have stated commitments
to providing impartial, needs-based assistance. Yet, other factors –
strategic geopolitical and economic factors, international pressure and
media coverage – continue to influence them.
Do we have enough funding for the multiple humanitarian – natural and
human-created – crises? There are two parts to the answer. First is how
the resources are controlled and allocated, and the second is how we
gear up for the increasing level of insecurity and vulnerability. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts rising wind
speeds of tropical cyclones, increasing intensity of droughts, and an
increase in heavy precipitation events, potentially increasing the
frequency of floods. Apart from increasing and frequent natural
disasters, we are witnessing an increase in the number of severe
conflict-related crises, like in Iraq, South Sudan, Syria and the
Central African Republic.
The Global Humanitarian Assistance programme has calculated that
international humanitarian assistance reached a record $22 billion in
2013, with an estimated $5.6 billion from private donors. However,
humanitarian agencies consistently report that funding remains
insufficient to meet the level of humanitarian need. For example,
funding for 2013 the United Nations-coordinated appeals reached $8.5
billion, enough to meet only 65% of the $13.2 billion required,
according to the report.
An increasing amount of international humanitarian assistance is now
channelled through pooled funds. These funds are designed to aid
flexibility and speed when responding to humanitarian crises and to make
funding more impartial.
The 2004 tsunami marked a watershed in terms of the scale of response
and the number of agencies that stepped in. It has arguably shaped the
way humanitarian responses are planned and executed while bringing home
the importance of comprehensive regional and global coordination – not
just during disasters but at all times.
In an increasingly vulnerable world, natural disasters and
humanitarian crises affect the lives and livelihoods of millions with
many disasters having far-reaching sociocultural consequences. That it
is the socially and economically vulnerable who shoulder the brunt of
the after-effects and slip deeper into poverty and misery has been
proved over and over again. In fact, poverty spells greater
vulnerability towards natural disasters. Even as developing countries
strive to better coordinate efforts and resources to deal with such
disasters, the global community too must continue to work towards
adequate, needs-based funding.
