Community: Real Life

What I've learned from the tsunami


Sarah

Sarah White (28) works for the UK Government Department for International Development (DFID). She writes about returning to Sri Lanka for a "holiday" after witnessing the Boxing Day Tsunami first hand.
Entry: 5
Date: 22/11/2005

As Sarah returns from her emotional trip to Sri Lanka, she reflects on the best way to help victims of large-scale natural disasters.

I had been so reluctant to return to Sri Lanka, but by the end of my two weeks I didn't want to leave. I felt frustrated that I had only been able to give just two weeks as a volunteer with Project Galle 2005 when so much recovery and reconstruction remained to be done. And I felt sad to leave my friends at the Thaproban - and guilty for leaving them a second time. But as I returned to the UK and back to work at the UK Department for International Development (DFID), I realised just how much I had learned during my two weeks.

Travelling around and talking with local people and volunteers with Project Galle 2005, I was reminded again of how difficult it can be to help people recover from a disaster and how 'well meaning' assistance can sometimes have negative consequences. When a disaster happens somewhere in the world, fortunately many of us do want to help. Donating items like blankets, clothes, buckets and tents seems like a more practical thing to do than just sending money. But this means relief agencies, like the Red Cross, need to spend extra money on collecting, storing, transporting and distributing these donated goods. This money would be better spent buying extra food, water, medicines, clothes and shelter for the victims on the ground from local markets. That way, donated money buys more goods per pound, can be used to buy things people really need rather than what we choose to donate, and the economic benefits go to local people instead of the richer donating countries. This helps stimulate faster economic recovery after a disaster.

For the same reason, it is important that volunteer programmes do not use foreign volunteers for jobs that locals could be paid for. I was therefore really encouraged that Project Galle 2005 not only used local labour to erect houses and install drainage in the camps, but also bought all building materials locally, stimulating the economy.

Returning to Sri Lanka illustrated starkly another reason it is better to send money rather than goods. I saw row after row of different quality tents sheltering survivors. One Sri Lankan family might have been lucky in the 'lottery of assistance' to receive an Italian tent rumoured to be worth over $1000 but their neighbour would be flooded out in their Saudi Arabian tent which lacked a ground sheet. If all donors - both the public and foreign governments - send money through one or two central organisations, like the UN or Red Cross, then it can be used collectively to provide survivors with the same quality of assistance. This not only helps to meet people's needs, it also minimises any jealousy and conflict between recipients.

Sarah and Preshan at Thaprobhan

Ideally in a disaster, it is the Government of that country who should lead the relief and recovery efforts, to coordinate the hundreds of agencies and individuals to make sure they spread their efforts out to maximum needs. But again Sri Lanka demonstrated how difficult this can be in practice. The Sri Lankan Government did not have the experience nor sufficient skilled manpower to cope with the scale of the tsunami recovery challenge. Some people living in temporary housing camps had been lucky to receive new bicycles from generous benefactors, while their neighbours received nothing. Wealthy schools from the UK, USA, Germany and elsewhere were fighting to twin with schools on the tsunami-affected coast, yet were completely disinterested in helping poorer schools inland who were desperate for the books, computers and other equipment on offer. This was really frustrating for the local Department of Education who wanted to avoid such uneven assistance to schools.

I also had to question the usefulness of some of the 'help' given to the 'tsunami schools' - I'm not sure that violins are a priority when school books are missing, and why on earth provide high spec computers to schools which lack air-conditioned rooms to store them in properly?

Sometimes the questions are even more difficult to answer. For example, was it a good idea for the Government of Sri Lanka to prohibit house rebuilding 100- 200 metres inland from the coast, supposedly to protect people from future tsunamis, when the lack of available land is forcing survivors to accept new homes miles inland? I witnessed one community protesting against being moved by the Government. If they don't accept new homes inland, they could be stuck in camps of low quality temporary wooden houses for years.

Some of the camps we visited with Project Galle 2005, had water, drainage and basic furniture but others did not even have any drinking water. Throughout our visits, I kept wondering where these people had lived before. I couldn't imagine what it must be like to go from a well furnished, comfortable concrete bungalow to a bare, rough wooden shed - frankly, my childhood Wendy House was more comfortable. And who were their neighbours now? Good friends - or more likely a mix of strangers in these artificial communities?


Bookmark with:What are these?

Also on TheSite.org