Can we do better another time?

Disaster has been defined as an event that ‘exceeds the ability of the community to cope using its own resources’. Asia has 52 per cent of the world population but 87 per cent of disaster casualties, partly because of poor protection levels.

Almost a year after the Asian tsunami, one of the costliest natural disasters ever in terms of lives lost, one of the key questions facing participants at the APPC/CAF conference, ‘Philanthropy in Disasters: Tsunami and After’, was, as APPC Chair Iftekhar Zaman put it: ‘Can we learn lessons from this disaster so we do better another time?’

It has been estimated that US$14 billion will be needed to rebuild following the tsunami. Of that amount, around $11 billion has been pledged, almost half from private donations (individuals, companies, foundations, NGOs). Actual spending of the money is a big issue, with estimates of the amount spent in 2005 ranging from $529 million to 35 per cent of funds raised.

Erna Witeloar (UN Special Ambassador for the Millennium Development Goals) made the point that the disaster will not greatly affect the macroeconomic situation in the region: it is at the micro level among the poorest that the effects will be felt. As a result the MDGs may not be met in some countries. Linetta Gilbert (Ford Foundation) made the same point in relation to Hurricane Katrina: those most affected were the poorest. Race, poverty and class are central to disasters, she said.

What lessons have been learned?

Some of the clearest lessons to emerge seem obvious: the importance of working with local communities; making sure aid is appropriate – ‘lots of blankets everywhere but not a sarong to wear’. NGO workers need cultural sensitivity training before they arrive, it was suggested.

Many speakers emphasized that relief efforts had been hampered by poor coordination. One speaker commented that many agencies were involved because they had collected money but had had no experience of disaster relief; it would have been better if they had worked alongside agencies with experience – though coordination would undoubtedly have improved performance even among experienced organizations. The point was also made that some NGOs didn’t coordinate simply because they had enough money and didn’t need to.

The conference also produced examples of new alliances. One came from Okty Damayanti of Unilever Indonesia. Formed just a month before the tsunami, on 26 November 2004, in response to an earthquake in Papua, Indonesia Peduli is an informal partnership of companies, NGOs and government agencies. Its membership grew from 7 to over 100 after the tsunami. Their experience is that collaboration can bring benefits far beyond the tangible objective, including improved company image, employee commitment, and understanding of other sectors. The most pressing need now is a more effective decision-making process. Ashoka is also forming a disaster response network in India.

Accountability

The issue of accountability naturally arose. Lack of accountability is seen as a serious obstacle to giving throughout the region. ‘Money has been collected but no one knows how it’s been spent,’ said Josie Fernandez (Philanthropy Malaysia). Many new donors have responded to the tsunami appeal, but it was felt that they might be lost if their ‘very high expectations’ can’t be met.

But accountability for what? Is it just a question of financial management? There is as always a huge preoccupation with NGO administration costs, but what about effectiveness of spending? asked Paula Johnson (Philanthropic Initiative, USA). There are also major questions about how to report on unspent money – so far the majority of the tsunami money.

Recovery and long-term development

How can long-term aid from the tsunami appeal be coordinated with long-term development programmes? This was a question raised by many conference participants. The tsunami affected the poorest, and a return to the situation before the tsunami is not good enough. There is also a danger that the reconstruction process could create divisions within communities if, for example, new houses are provided for tsunami victims but not for other poor people.

One interesting session discussed whether community foundations can provide a way of distributing long-term money. A disaster can create favourable conditions for creating a community foundation, said  Shannon St John (Triangle Community Foundation, USA). With community spirit galvanized, new community leaders emerging and external resources coming in, a community foundation can provide local control and decision-making. In fact, one is now being created in Phuket. But, she warned, the initiative must come from within the community, and external funding must be structured to require an increasing local contribution.

Others suggested that it may be easier for an established community foundation to take on this role. If community foundations are supposed to be a repository of community social capital, how can they step into the role overnight just because funds are available? After Katrina, said Linetta Gilbert, community foundations do have real potential to act as convenors and to make sure excluded groups are involved in decision-making as communities are rebuilt.

But, Greg Berzonsky (United Way International) cautioned, even established community organizations may not know their entire community. Katrina showed that almost the only groups who really knew their communities were the faith-based groups.

Finally, Barnett Baron (Asia Foundation) reminded us that every country has its own philanthropic traditions and its own traditional community organizations. ‘We don’t have to create communities,’ he said, ‘they exist. We need to look at their traditional coping mechanisms and how we can strengthen them to cope with future disasters.’ It was suggested in the closing session that APPC should invest in research in traditional community philanthropy across the region.

Role of philanthropy

The one pity is that the conference did not focus more on the role of philanthropy. Much of the discussion about disaster preparedness systems was of more obvious relevance to those who actually deliver relief and prepare for disasters than to the philanthropic world.

One issue that the conference could have looked at is the role of organizations such as CAF India, which is not a relief organization but was forced to respond because the companies that are its clients wanted to help. How do they work effectively in an unfamiliar area? The conference could also have looked at the challenges facing new trusts established in response to the disaster, such as Bitsunami in India and Force of Nature Fund in Malaysia.

A final comment from Barnett Baron is worth mentioning. The topic of the conference was ‘tsunami and after’, but there may not be another tsunami for 400 years. Avian flu may be the next disaster, and so far there has been no civil society involvement in this. Philanthropic organizations should take on a more forceful advocacy role to push government to meet its responsibilities, he suggested – for avian flu, for global warming, for whatever may be round the next corner.

Philanthropy in Disasters: Tsunami and After
Date 28-30 November 2005
Venue Phuket, Thailand
Organizers Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium and Charities Aid Foundation

For a full report and copies of many of the conference presentations, visit the APPC website at www.asianphilanthropy.org