On January 12, 2010, a 7.0-magnitude earthquake struck Haiti, affecting more than 3 million people — one of every three. The quake killed 222,570 people and injured more than 300,000. More than 1 million people were left homeless and vulnerable.

On August, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf of Mexico and various Southern regions of the United States. A 100,000 people were displaced. 10,000 originally feared dead — revised down by government.

On March 11, 2011, a tsunami some 40 meters (133 feet) high hit northeast coast of Japan.15,000 people were killed, 300,000 were evacuated, and 3,100 people are still unaccounted for. A nuclear emergency was triggered in the Fukushima area.

On April 25,2015 a 7.8-magnitude earthquake rocked the south-central Asian country of Nepal. 8 million people have been affected by the quake. To date the death toll is above 6,000.

Extreme disasters catch the public eye, often resulting in massive infusions of aid that affect not just individual well-being but the fabric of societies.

What I want to address here is  (with the predicted effects of Climate Change we are going to witness a massive increase in natural disaster world-wide) how if any of our various UN organizations are in a position to meet the challenges that lie ahead: (World Food Program, World Health Organisation, Relief Web, UNICEF, Oxfam International, International Federation of Red Cross, Red Crescent Societies, International Rescue Committee, Medicins Sans Frontiers, Doctors Without Boards) to mention just a few.

And the question I want an answered to is:  How do we evaluate their efficacy.

Understanding and analyzing the organization of aid delivery is essential to evaluating aid efficacy. Disaster relief projects involve multiple parties in different organizational configurations delivering in-kind aid, where each party has distinct objectives.

The behavior of an aid agency that operates on the ground is a composite outcome of the organizational structure of the donating and implementing arms.

Depending on how that organization is set up, the quality of hard aid and the delivery of social agendas may vary considerably within the same disaster area. Donors face potential trade-offs between higher quality aid, pursuit of certain social agendas, and paying the cost to do their own implementation.

In a nutshell, industry and private donations are feel-good, short-term interventions and no substitute for the vastly larger, and essentially political, task of bringing aid to poor people in need.

It is the long-term Recovery phase of disaster which places the most severe financial strain on local or state.

The needs of the poor don’t get met because the poor have little money or political power with which to make their needs known and they cannot hold anyone accountable to meet those needs. They are stuck with Planners. The … tragedy [of failed foreign aid] continues.

A big part of the problem originates with the rich-country governments who set the mandates of the aid agencies. ( See previous post: Roughly half of global aid – is phantom aid or The Clock is ticking for a New World Aid Organisation)

I hardly think your/our measly donations to charity are worth talking about;

Media coverage of natural disasters seems to vary a lot depending on the disaster. Is it selective?

An Example is the Present Nepal Disaster lasted three days on the top of the BBC news.

It was replaced by a Royal princess presented to world. One new life against thousands lost.

If you compare what the new born Royal can expect from life to the 360,000 other children all born on the same day elsewhere in the world.

〈 While the Duke of Cambridge does not receive money directly from the Sovereign Grant ( that’s £35.7m the taxpayer gives to the Royal Family each year), he does receive from the Queens Grant-in-Aid fund and the Duchy of Cornwall (the tax-exempt estate valued at £763m in 2013 with an annual income of £19m, bestowed on the family in 1337) , the surplus of which traditionally goes to the eldest son ( i.e. Prince William). If you break that £19m down into a a weekly rate, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge can expect a share of £365,384.61, compared to the £34.40 ( combined Child Benefit for two babies) for the average family in the UK. 〉 

There is certainly no need for any Aid.

It does not take long in this days media world for Disasters to become Forgotten

 “Forgotten” disasters are often chronic and diffuse, changing little day by day. Unlikely to qualify as news, such crises may feature as current affairs stories – especially on the websites of news organizations.

It is more than obvious that if we are to manage the pending Disasters ( And there will be many).

We need one Organisation under one roof to handle all aspects.

Examine the whole process/system/operation of providing relief supplies in a disaster scenario. Think of total packaging re-use of all materials and containers from the shipping/air container onwards.

This can be achieved by all the world aid organisations assembling at a World Response Aid conference to form a One World Response/Reaction Team.

This conference should present the UNITED NATIONS WITH A RESOLUTION TO PLACE: a 0.05% AID COMMISSION ON ALL HIGH FREQUENCY STOCK EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS ON ALL FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS (OVER $20,000) AND ON ALL SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS ACQUISITIONS)

This resolution could be adopted by a its veto members without lost of power.

Instead of holding aid agencies individually responsible for what they own program achieve, we would have Instead of letting different agencies specialize in different areas we would have Capitalism for once WOULD contributing to the world by creating a perpetual fund, giving the reaction team total independence.

IT WOULD ONLY TAKE A COMPUTER PROGRAM TO COLLECT THE FUNDS.

We would have global goals. Instead of letting different agencies specialize in different areas we would have coordination.

Instead of wasting aid and relief to victims of natural disasters there would be a professional action PLAN IN PLACE THAT COULD BE ACTIVATED NOT TO SET UP BY A BEGGING BOWL.

  ‘How did the rich countries really become rich?’

The short answer to this question is that the developed countries did not get to where they are now through the policies and the institutions that they recommend to developing countries today.

• In 1970, rich countries of the OECD agreed at the United Nations (Resolution 2626) to give 0.7% of their GNP (now GNI) as aid to the developing countries.
• Known as ODA, this aid would be for long-term development.
• Over 40 years on, most of the 20 or so rich OECD countries have never reached that figure, or come close.

Annually, the global foreign aid shortfall is high.

Although rich countries have given an enormous $3.62 trillion dollars in aid since 1970, the accumulated total shortfall in their aid since 1970 (when the target of 0.7% was set) amounts to $4.98 trillion (at 2012 prices).

Don’t tell me that it is not time for change INORDER to save lives when the next natural disaster strikes.