In response to EU FUNDS TSUNAMI AID DISAPPEARED, I received afterwards mails from the European Commission and the Dutch inspection for development aid (Inspectie Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en Beleidsevaluatie – IOB). There was no mailing from GIRO 555. Strange because they are terribly criticized in my previous opinion. Looking at Private Law in The Netherlands (and even worldwide), this is a correct course of action but this is sad enough to note. It exposes the weakness of foundations as argued in the above mentioned opinion.
The European Commission
The EU starts with: ‘DG ECHO (Directorate-General For Humanitarian Aid) did not conducted any specific evaluation on its response to the crises related to Tsunami 2004.’ A desolate phrase.
However they have contributed to a joint evaluation with humanitarian agencies where analysis is concentrated at the policy rather than programmatic level.
1. Please find it here: http://www.alnap.org/tec.
DG ECHO funds the DIPECHO program (Disaster Preparedness Programme) that aims at helping vulnerable communities that live in the main disaster-prone regions to undertake preparatory measures (implemented by communities themselves) that can be effective in limiting damage and saving lives when disaster strikes. DG ECHO has conducted several DIPECHO evaluations. If you are interested to learn about results of DG ECHO support to vulnerable communities in Indonesia after the Tsunami 2004 (in the frame of the DIPECHO program), please have a look at:
2. Report For The Evaluation Of The Dipcho Action Plans In South East Asia 1998 To 2006.
The most recent assessment of DG ECHO interventions in Indonesia was done in 2013:
3. Evaluation of the European Commission’s Humanitarian and Disaster Risk Reduction Activities (DIPECHO) in Indonesia
You can also find the information about Tsunami 2004 which includes response by humanitarian organizations:
4. EU humanitarian aid for the earthquake of 26.12.2004 and the subsequent tidal waves affecting Asia
To complete the EU list with hyperlinks in my inbox, there is additional information on the Humanitarian aid in favour of the people of Asia affected by the earthquake and the tsunami of 26 December 2004:
5. Humanitarian aid in favour of the people of Asia affected by the earthquake and the tsunami of 26 December 2004
Last but not least, I received two attachments:
6a. ECHO Factsheet
6b. Humanitarian aid map (see image above, to enlarge click on image)
A lot of information. Let’s go through these documents.
ad 1: Well, a nice overview of many reports and with zero lists of conrtucted buildings or whatsoever. Just many pages with overviews without any independent and scientific proof.
ad 2: This is not an evaluation, but an outline, a summary. I see no research, just results.
ad 3: Ditto, nice statistic for writing newspaper articles.
ad 4: This link which the EU sent me is not what I was looking for and has nothing to do with evidence.
ad 5: According to this document the amount of decision is € 80,000,000 not € 2 billion.
ad 6: The factsheet the EU e-mailed me is only dealing with Indonesia, so this is a incomplete document. The map show how €123 million is donated. So now I have three amounts: € 80 million, € 123 million and € 2 billion. Very transparant…not.
Again, a weak contribution by the EU. The story of Permit A38 continues…it is becoming embarrassing.
IOB
The IOB writes to me that it is not their responsibility to evaluate public funding, they only evaluate policy and cash. There is no relation with private funding. This underlines succinctly the problem I am trying to uncover.
They also state there is a problem with this type of disaster: it is chaotic, there is often too little first aid and many aid workers are fulfilling their duty in a uncoordinated way making it others more difficult. Dilemmas arise dealing with a so-called weak government, while victims should be helped. This statement gets 100 points and all understanding. Of course I recognize the difficulty of a five-headed serpent with many legs intertwined with the earth.
I have criticized the report ‘Joint Evaluation Of The International Response To The Indian Ocean Tsunami: Synthesis Report, July 2006‘ but five sub-reports are part of it. The fourth, Links between relief, rehabilitation and development in the tsunami response, opened my eyes a bit.
I’ll give you some passage that I like:
- ‘The quantitative survey was conducted in the tsunami-affected areas using a structured questionnaire based on the questions in the terms of reference (Annex 1 below). The questionnaire was designed when the qualitative research was well advanced, and reflects the issues emerging at the time. The total number of respondents was 1,227.’ (page 20)
- ‘At the end of September 2005, 0.6 per cent of the required houses had been constructed in Sri Lanka, and the houses that had been built were not in the worst affected areas. The reasons for this are many.’ (page 42)
This is by far the best evaluation I have ever seen. However, I am not able to check it out myself. I am in the hands of people who mean well. If there’s one thing I’ve learned is that you should always raise questions if there are good intentions. Credulity is the biggest pitfall of this sector. Nevertheless, I read this evaluation with great pleasure. It gives a reasonable fair picture with the right proportion of self-criticism.
Giro 555, purebred haughtiness
GIRO 555 (common name for: Samenwerkende Hulporganisaties, occasional cooperation of all Dutch charity organisations in case of global emergency) did not cooperated in any way. There is no communication whatsoever. This is indicative of being non-transparent and non-accountable. I think this is not only sad, but shameful and extremely haughty. At the ‘gate’, there is a lot of advertising, people are welcome to donate. But that’s it. Apparently, question about the whereabouts of donations (€200 million) are not welcome. Feel free to think otherwise but in my opinion they have wasted their legitimacy. Conclusion: this case unravels precisely the problem of this so-called Private Law in which foundations are hiding.
Findings
Do not get me wrong, a lot of people with good intention are employed in this sector. However, I despise their agendas, speaking in forked tongue, depending on whether they enter into a formal or informal setting. Of the record, NL-Aid is getting a lot of shocking information about the overall performance of the sector, but no one dares to be open in the media. This is the biggest good news show ever presented in human history. For over sixty years, hundreds of billions is spent annually and throughout this period everything is nice and neat to the penny.
Hello, wake up!
I agree, the IOB made progress compared with the experience I have with them but even if they produce a keen evaluation, it comes from the same vessel (In The Netherlands we have a saying: the butcher is inspecting his own meat). In other words, it’s their report, not from others like a citizen or journalist. I would like to see everything open, preferable lists stating what is bought, where is it purchased, what is constructed and which people benefited from a product or service.
I do not know the people behind the information I received for my articles about the tsunami aid but I like to thank them. I hope that someday, The Netherlands would be the first country in the world where charity foundations belong to Public Law instead of Private Law. This would be the greatest bureaucratic march in sixty years of development cooperation. Hopefully, this will cause a chain reaction to other countries and multilateral organisations. A dream is a dream, but this is feasible. I’m just a monk who turns the wheel.
AUTHOR: H.R.J. Sluijter MA
URL: www.NL-Aid.org
E-MAIL: info [at] www.NL-Aid.org