Aid for Pakistan is a credibility issue

"Catastrophe looms on the horizon unless there is a massive and immediate increase in emergency aid within the next three weeks…

"Catastrophe looms on the horizon unless there is a massive and immediate increase in emergency aid within the next three weeks to prevent a second wave of deaths from disease and freezing conditions." This stark warning was delivered to readers of this newspaper in an article last week by Jan Egeland, the United Nations official in charge of humanitarian affairs and emergency relief. He pointed out that a month after the earthquake only 22 per cent of the UN's emergency appeal for $550 million has been funded.

An estimated 73,000 people have died and 79,000 are injured. But at least two million were affected directly by the disaster and many of them could perish if emergency aid is not supplied. Aid agencies are taking money from reserve funds to do so, according to the President, Mary McAleese, when she visited the Pakistani embassy on Friday.

This is a terrible state of affairs. It has proved impossible to raise the same kind of awareness and response for this disaster, compared to the Indian Ocean tsunami or this autumn's Caribbean hurricanes. While this may be understandable in terms of rich country tourism, cultural empathy and media coverage, it must also leave the impression that a double standard is being applied by governments and donors. The huge logistical difficulties involved, and the extreme urgency of delivering supplies before winter makes many of the mountain areas inaccessible, should spur them to think again and heed the warnings from Mr Egeland and Pakistani leaders. So far their efforts to provide relief have been admirable, with no more than average delays, organisational problems or lack of preparation. They have been badly let down by the international response, including the failure to provide essential helicopter transport.

The large sum of $550 million for immediate emergency relief to provide food, shelter and clothing is quite aside from the much larger sum needed for rebuilding the region's infrastructure and housing. As is usual, much of the damage arose from sub-standard building. Whatever the response to the emergency appeal, that for reconstruction shows an even bigger shortfall.

READ MORE

This raises acutely the need for a completely different level of international preparedness for such disasters. There should be a standing international emergency and disaster fund capable of going into action immediately, rather than resorting to ad hoc funding as on this occasion. Granted, there are likely to be organisational and accountability problems in setting it up and running it. But they can be argued out in the context of the UN reform programme now being debated at the UN General Assembly following last September's summit meeting. For all its shortcomings, the UN is the proper body to administer this facility.

The need for it has been amply shown in this year of disasters, as an Oxfam study has described it. Environmental changes are likely to reinforce this message.