Global Aid for Development is a chimera, it brings no substantial change (Against the topic)

In 1970, the worlds rich countries agreed to give 0.7% of their gross national income as official international development aid, annually.

Since that time, billions have certainly been given each year, but rarely have the rich nations actually met their promised target.

For example, the US is often the largest donor in dollar terms, but ranks amongst the lowest in terms of meeting the stated 0.7% target.

Furthermore, aid has often come with a price of its own for the developing nations. Common criticisms, for many years, of foreign aid, have included the following:

Aid is often wasted on conditions that the recipient must use overpriced goods and services from donor countries

Most aid does not actually go to the poorest who would need it the most Aid amounts are dwarfed by rich country protectionism that denies market access for poor country products while rich nations use aid as a lever to open poor country markets to their products

Large projects or massive grand strategies often fail to help the vulnerable; money can often be embezzled away.

Food Aid
With the level of technology and capabilities in the world today, one could assume that solving world hunger should be easy. Unfortunately it is not a technical issue as much as it is a political and economic issue. This section attempts to shed some light on food aid and its impact on alleviating or exacerbating world hunger. Food aid is hard to summarize succinctly due to many related issues, but in general it is about providing food and related assistance to tackle hunger, either in emergency situations, or to help with deeper, longer term hunger alleviation and achieve food security (where people do not have to live in hunger or in fear of starvation). Food Assistance Programs (Also food-related transfers): any intervention to address hunger and under nutrition (e.g., food stamps, WIC, food subsidies, food price stabilization, etc.).

The Major Players in the Food Aid Game

Food aid constituted over 20% of global aid flows in the 1960s, but is now less than 5%. Yet, it is still important because of the prevalence of world hunger and the increase in food emergencies in the past decade. The decline of food aid, as well as the way in which it is delivered and used, are therefore of importance. As Barrett and Maxwell also summarized, food aid started off in the 1950s with the US and together with Canada accounted for over 90% of global food aid until the 1970s when the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) became a major player. International food aid is largely driven by donors and international institutions (typically influenced by the interests of the donors). In 1967, the Food Aid Convention (FAC) provided a set of policies for the donor countries, and is monitored by the Consultative Sub-Committee on Surplus Disposal (CSSD).

The CSSDs primary purpose is to ensure that food aid does not affect commercial imports and local production in recipient countries. In effect, the CSSD ensures that food aid does not displace trade. And so it is criticized for serving the interests of donors, because when accepting food aid, recipients commit to pay for imports of commercial food along with food aid as Frederic Mousseau notes in a report titled Food Aid or Food Sovereignty? Ending World Hunger In Our Time.

Types Of Food Aid

Mousseaus detailed report also summarizes 3 types of food aid: Program Food Aid Is a form of in-kind aid whereby food is grown in the donor country for distribution or sale abroad. This is typically a government to government transfer. Rather than being free food as such, recipient countries typically purchase the food with money borrowed at lower than market interest rates. Relief or Emergency Food Aid This is typically for emergency situations, such in cases of war, natural disasters, etc, where food is distributed for free. However, as Oakland Institute notes, a number of countries facing some forms of chronic food insecurity have also become permanent recipients of this form of aid. Project Food Aid This is food aid delivered as part of a specific project related to promoting agricultural or economic development, nutrition and food security, such as food for work and school feeding programs.

Program Food Aid, or in-kind food aid, makes up the majority of aid for the US. Relief aid used to be a minor form of aid until the 1990s when it shifted to being the dominant factor, signifying both the increase in emergencies, and the end of the Cold War where food aid as a political tool (to aid the donor) seemed to be less important. As with relief aid, project food aid is typically distributed by the World Food Programme (WFP), Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and occasionally by government institutions.

Military Aid
Introduction
Military aid can be controversial. Its stated aim is usually to help allies or poor countries fight terrorism, counter-insurgencies or to help fight drug wars. The aid may be in the form of training, or even giving credits for foreign militaries to purchase weapons and equipment from the donor country. It is argued that strengthening military relationships can strengthen relationships between nations and military aid may be a way to achieve that. Where the two nations are democracies, it is believed such relationships can be strengthened even further when the militaries of the respective nations are fully behind the principles of democracy.

But military aid may even be given to opposition groups to fight nations. This could be understandable if the opposition is a potential democratic force standing up against authoritarian rule. However, as was especially seen during the Cold War, democratic nations (or potentially emerging democratic fledgling nations) often found themselves fighting foreign supported undemocratic forces because of geopolitical goals of the superpowers who tolerated or supported such regimes and dictatorships in order to achieve their own geopolitical aims

US Military Aid
US military aid is quite large. Official data below from the US governments Census Bureau, part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, shows the following:

Military aid in recent years has increased, mostly in line with the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few years ago, the US invested more in getting Iraq and Afghanistan forces trained and increased military aid accordingly, hence the sharp rise. Just a handful of countries, mostly in the Middle East, are recipients of military aid:

The source data shows allocation going back a few years, showing other previously large recipients including Colombia (mostly fighting drugs and the FARC rebels, Russia, Sudan and a few others.

While large, US foreign economic aid is larger. Note, both US foreign economic and military (even when combined) are less than 1% of the nations total Gross National Income. The USs own military budget is far higher at approximately $700 bn a year currently, discussed further on this sites military spending section. Foreign aid not just from the US but from most wealthy nations, is controversial for it has often been counterproductive, or provided in an inefficient manner, which is discussed further on this sites section on foreign aid. During the Cold War, the US often supported anti-democratic regimes in regions such as Central and South America, the Middle East, Asia and even parts of Africa. This was often under the concern (real, faked, or misguided) that Soviet influence could take a foothold in that area. This resulted in fledgling democracies often finding themselves fighting foreign-backed forces which they could often do little about.

In other cases, the US funded opposition groups in order to undermine a Soviet supported government. One such example is Afghanistan, which saw the USs support for Islamic insurgency (including Osama Bin Laden) to muster local opposition to the Soviet Union. It is believe this strategy helped contribute to the eventual Soviet collapse as they over-extended themselves in Afghanistan, though the blowback to the US was another consequence. The Middle East and War on Terror sections go into these aspects further. In more recent times, research organizations such as the RAND corporation are finding that if assistance is being provided to a non-democratic regime, it is only likely to be successful if that regime is transitioning away from repression and towards democracy

Myth 10: More U.S. Aid Will Help the Hungry

MYTH: In helping to end world hunger, our primary responsibility as U.S. citizens is to increase and improve our governments foreign aid. OUR RESPONSE: Once we learned that hunger results from antidemocratic political and economic structures that trap people in poverty, we realized that we couldnt end hunger for other people. Genuine freedom can only be won by people for themselves. This realization doesnt lessen our responsibility, but it does profoundly redefine its nature. Our job isnt to intervene in other countries and set things right. Our government is already intervening in countries where the majority of people are forced to go hungry. Our primary responsibility as U.S. citizens is to make certain our governments policies are not making it harder for people to end hunger for themselves. In light of the demonstrated generosity of many Americans, most of us would probably be chagrined to learn that U.S. foreign aid is only 0.15 percent of our nations gross national product thats less than half the percentage of GNP Germany provides, for example, and less than one-fifth of that provided by the Netherlands.1 Total U.S. bilateral assistance dropped greatly during the first half of the 1990s, as it has for most other wealthy nations.2 From a high of $20.2 billion in 1985, it fell to $12.3 billion by 1994 and has remained low.3 For the worlds hungry, however, the problem isnt the stinginess of our aid. When our levels of assistance last boomed, under Ronald Reagan in the mid-1980s, the emphasis

was hardly on eliminating hunger. In 1985, Secretary of State George Shultz stated flatly that our foreign assistance programs are vital to the achievement of our foreign policy goals.4 But Shultzs statement shouldnt surprise us. Every countrys foreign aid is a tool of foreign policy. Whether that aid benefits the hungry is determined by the motives and goals of that policy by how a government defines the national interest. During the postwar decades of the Cold War, U.S. foreign assistance was largely defined by a view of the world as divided into two opposing camps. That often meant arming and propping up undemocratic and repressive governments in Iran, the Philippines, El Salvador, Indonesia, and many other countries only because they were loyal U.S. allies. The U.S. government acted as if our vital interests were threatened by any experiment that didnt mimic the U.S. economic model the free market and unlimited private accumulation of productive assets. Any nation seeking to alter its economic ground rules Nicaragua, for example was immediately perceived as having gone over to the other camp and thus an enemy. Punishment was swift-usually including the suspension of aid and the arming of opponents of the offending government.5 In the rather negative panorama of the Cold War, U.S. foreign assistance did nevertheless have poverty alleviation as a goal, albeit not for the best of motives. Driven by the fear that communism would defeat capitalism in the battle for the hearts and minds of poor third world populations by offering them the possibility of greater improvements in material well-being the United States followed an on-againoff-again policy of funding basic needs. In Central America, while propping up corrupt dictatorships with Economic Support Funds (ESF) basically cash disbursements and keeping them in power with generous military aid and training, the United States also pressed for and financed basic poverty alleviation policies. The latter included very limited land reforms, marketing boards to help small farmers sell their grain, basic infrastructure development, etc. These reforms were seen as necessary complements to military aid to mollify the populace and keep our friendly strongmen from being overthrown by the disgruntled masses.6

During the entire Cold War it often seemed as though the real goal of foreign aid was making the world safe for U.S.-based corporations. Nevertheless, this goal was often mixed up with Cold War strategic aims, making such a black-and-white analysis difficult. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the more blatant economic aims of foreign assistance have come to the forefront. From defending freedom in the face of the communist threat, the goals of foreign aid have more clearly emerged as the promotion of the free market and free trade-of the sort we described in chapters 7 and 8. A 1997 newsletter of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the government agency in charge of U.S. foreign assistance, put it this way: The principal beneficiary of Americas foreign assistance has always been the United States. . . . Foreign assistance programs have helped the United States by creating major markets for agricultural goods, new markets for industrial exports and hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans.7 The same report argued forcefully that the amount of money spent on aid be upped significantly in order to maintain U.S. leadership in the global arena.8 Defining our national interest as opening markets for free trade lines up our nations might with our tax dollars and our countrys good name against the interests of the hungry. As we have seen, a different kind of change profound, society-wide change in control over food-producing resources is a sine qua non for ending hunger. It is impossible to be both against this kind of change and for the hungry.

Aida lever to impose Structural Adjustment on Third World

Second, aid is used as a lever to impose structural adjustment packages on the third world. Since the 1980s U.S. foreign assistance worldwide has been conditioned on the adoption of structural adjustment packages designed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund,11 policies that we described in chapters 7 and 8. Making a grant or loan conditional on some action being taken by the recipient is called conditionality. Conditionality works by tranching economic assistance packages-that is, dividing the total sum to be donated or loaned to a recipient country into a series of smaller disbursements to be made over time, called tranches. Before each disbursement is made, the recipient must make policy changes spelled out in the covenants of the aid agreement that they must sign with USAID.12 Between 1982 and 1990 nine U.S. economic assistance packages provided to the Costa Rican government contained a total of 357 covenants that made disbursement conditional on more than twenty structural changes in the domestic economy. These included eliminating a grain marketing board that assisted small farmers; slashing support prices for locally grown corn, beans, and rice; allowing more imports from the United States; easing regulations on foreign investment and capital flows; and complying with specific clauses in similar agreements signed with the World Bank and the IMF.13 Such conditionality works in a carrot-and-stick fashion. When the Costa Rican congress balked at approving an outrageous new law demanded by the United States that would allow aid to bypass the government and go directly to the private sector, USAID suspended a $23 million disbursement.14 Ironically, this came at the very moment at which the Costa Rican Central Bank had exhausted the foreign exchange reserves needed for the daily operation of the economy. An internal USAID memo written several months before the incident occurred-which we obtained access to years later-showed just how cynical the United States can be. A top USAID administrator predicted the month in which the reserves would run dry and recommended timing a key

disbursement to take advantage of that moment as leverage to guarantee that the desired law would be passed.15 It was precisely the replication of changes like this-and of structural adjustmentthroughout the third world that produced rising inequalities in the 1980s and 1990s. For most of the third world the 1980s were a lost decade, during which living standards of impoverished majorities fell to pre-1960s levels. Not surprisingly, this became a period of widespread economic, social, and ecological crisis. Millions of the rural and urban poor were cut out from opportunities for progress. Credit, extension, subsidies, and technical education all fell by the wayside as budgets were slashed, and the lifting of tariffs flooded local economies with imported foodstuffs often placed on the world market at prices below local costs of production. As a consequence, poor farmers were caught in a squeeze between the high price of chemicals and other farm inputs and low crop prices, often losing their lands and moving to cities.16

How aid could benefit the hungry

Whether U.S. foreign aid can benefit the hungry depends on how our government defines our national interest. Thus, a first step in putting ourselves on the side of the hungry is to work to change our governments definition of our national interest. Less control-less striving to make the world conform to the U.S. model and respond to U.S. fears-would actually mean more security for all. After years of studying our foreign aid program, we have learned that foreign aid is only as good as the recipient government. Foreign aid only reinforces the status quo. It cannot transform an antidemocratic process working against the majority into a participatory government shaped in its interests. Where the recipient government answers only to a narrow economic elite or foreign corporations, our aid not only fails to reach the hungry, it girds the very forces working against them. We do not suggest that we simply abolish foreign aid. The accumulated debt owed to the third world by Northern countries for centuries of unbridled profit taking through conquest, colonialism, mineral and other natural resource extraction, unequal trade, labor exploitation, and other forms of corporate pillage is too great to say nothing should be sent back.70 The problem is how to give something back, since as weve seen in this chapter, even the best-intentioned humanitarian aid can have negative consequences if the recipient government is based on elite local and foreign interests.

An immediate step that we as citizens can take is to tell our representatives that the best use for our money is not supporting the status quo but alleviating the largest economic barrier to true development in the third world-its foreign debt. The combined debt of third world countries reached almost $2 trillion in 1996.71 The bulk was accumulated largely as a result of Northern banks-flush with the petrodollars deposited with them by oil-producing countries in the 1970s-needing to place an unprecedented volume of loans. Once developed countries wereborrowed out, the banks turned to the third world, like snake-oil salesmen, selling huge loans for megaprojects that many knew would never pan out. The structural adjustment programs of the 1980s and 1990s have been designed in part to induce the third world to pay off that debt; the IMF and World Bank acting out the role of debt collectors for private banks. In various refinancing agreements, the debt owed to private banks has been assumed by agencies like the IMF, who are ultimately funded by taxpayers, and to whom much of the debt is now owed.72 That debt-for which the lenders bear as much or more responsibility than the borrowers, is now stifling economic development and social services throughout the third world. Repayments from Zambia to the IMF between 1991 and 1993 were $335 million, compared to $37 million spent on primary education. In Honduras, annual debt payments exceed the amount spent on health and education combined.73 In fact, annual interest payments alone by all third world countries amounted to $81 and $85 billion in 1994 and 1995, respectively, roughly equal to the $80 and $90 billion they received in total direct foreign investment and easily outstripping the $48 and $64 billion they received in total development assistance from Northern countries. Total debt payments (principal plus interest) were $190 and $213 billion in the same years, greater than the sum of investment plus assistance.74 Our institute and two hundred other organizations have joined together in the 50 Years is Enough Campaign against the IMF and the World Bank. These two institutions, which celebrated their fiftieth anniversaries in 1994, play key roles in policing the third worlds debt. The campaign calls for debt relief for third world countries. Aid dollars could be made into something positive and noninterventionist if they were spent on debt relief-as long as they were not tied to structural adjustment-like conditions, which are so onerous for the poorer majorities.

One could argue that such unconditional debt relief might not end up benefiting the hungry, either-because most third world governments do not truly represent their poor majorities. This is a legitimate concern-yet, in the end, if we have learned anything, it is that real change starts with people themselves. Our job is to not block that change through conditional aid, or equally conditioned debt relief, that mandates the strengthening of a status quo in which the rich get more powerful and the poor more marginalized. If we allow our government and major lending institutions to get a foot in the door by agreeing that debt relief be conditioned-with our conditions, of course-we will most likely see the conditions distorted to meet ends other than those we support, just as has happened with originally well-intentioned foreign aid. Rather, we must make our government and corporations stop blocking change-that is perhaps the most important step in making real change possible in third world countries. As individuals, and through the organizations we belong to, we can also support the movements of local people to bring about change on their own terms. We should not think or act as though we know better than they-or that we can or should tell them what to do or how to do it. Understanding the nature of U.S. foreign aid-that it does not, and in most countries, cannot, help the hungry-does not lead necessarily to a theres-nothing-I-can-do dead end. It is actually the first step in perceiving the many and varied actions open to all who are determined to end world hunger. In our concluding essay, and in the other publications of our institute, we offer suggestions as to how to seize the opportunities all around us.

International response to Hurricane Katrina

According to the European Commission, one week after the disaster, on September 4, 2005, the United States officially asked the European Union for emergency help, asking for blankets, emergency medical kits, water and 500,000 food rations for victims. Help proposed by EU member states was coordinated through their crisis center. The British presidency of the EU functioned as contact with the USA. Other countries not on this list also offered aid, but the State Department mentioned that they (the State Department) had not been asked. Later, the US State Department said all offers were being examined.

Katrina A: The Most Basic Dilemma

On Monday, August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in the Gulf Coast of the United States as a Category 4 hurricane. Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast area, displacing over one million people who made their homes there. Five weeks after the Hurricane over half a million people were still in dire need of housing. Among the people most affected were the residents of New Orleans, a city unique to the Gulf Coast and the United States as a whole.

The population of New Orleans prior to its devastation by Hurricane Katrina was approximately 1.2 million residents. These people made their homes in a rather unusually built city. Some parts of New Orleans sit as low as eleven meters below sea level, with only the French Quarter of New Orleans sitting reasonably equal with sea level. The city has nevertheless endured for nearly three hundred years, maintained by a system of levees that work together to pump water out of the city. New Orleans is a unique American city shaped by its African, Cajun, and Creole influences. Such regions of the city as the French Quarter,

the Garden District, and nearby suburbs the Faubourgs represent exquisite cultural treasures which cannot be found elsewhere in America.

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina then presents, at its most basic, a question of whether such a large-scale reconstruction as that of New Orleans ought to take place. The federal government declared not long after the Katrinas impact that New Orleans must be rebuilt. It retains too much cultural and regional identity to be considered killed by Hurricane Katrina. The devastation of the city of New Orleans presents, however, an unanticipated level, depth, and range of environmental challenge in its rebuilding.

Not only is the cultural devastation to New Orleans caused by Katrina inconceivable, but so is the economic devastation to the city of New Orleans. Estimates for insurance payments for damage caused by Katrina range from $9 billion to $25 billion. Federal disaster declarations blanket 90,000 square miles, an area rivaling the size of the United Kingdom. Hurricane Katrina is one of the most devastating natural disasters to ever impact the United States of America. If New Orleans is to be rebuilt, its cultural identity cannot be the top priority in mind. New Orleans has to renew its economic capabilities, and these must be a focus in any rebuilding that is undertaken.

Should New Orleans be rebuilt? Would federal government funds be better spent rebuilding housing and buildings elsewhere, where there is not as much environmental risk? The people of New Orleans want to move back now. Should the federal government assume the responsibility of rebuilding New Orleans as it was before Katrinas impact? Or is it too big of a risk to let people go back? Should the government be exploring other living options for the people? What other options are there for the hurricane victims other than to return to their homes?

Katrina B: The Environmental Dilemma

In the weeks after Katrina hit, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee acting director David Paulison noted that of all the challenges presented by Katrina, the most pressing is that of housing. Hurricane Katrina destroyed 140,000 housing units in New Orleans. Paulison emphasized that the Federal Department of Urban Housing and Development wants to move the people displaced from these 140,000 housing units back as quickly as possible. These people may or may not be moved back to Louisiana.

The Department is seeking to place people in decent housing. Paulison does not specify as to whether the promise to place people in decent housing means aesthetically decent housing in the present or physically decent housing in the future. The Department has also promised to move displaced people to somewhere decent as quickly as possible. These goals present a conflict of interest. Should the federal government compromise its regulation of the quality of the housing rebuilt for the sake of the speed of rebuilding?

Hurricane Katrina victim Deborah Lundy is waiting for the federal government to deliver on its promise of decent housing. Although her home sustained real bad structural damage, her family of four is currently living in the only two remaining rooms in her house, since they have nowhere to go. Deborah, her husband, and her sixteen-year-old daughter are also caring for Deborahs disabled sister, who lost her house during the hurricane. Deborah is hoping that her family will get one of the trailers promised to displaced families by local authorities. She cannot leave her home, but it harbors many environmental hazards which must be somehow neutralized. How should the government help Deborah and her family? Should they be given immediate housing, leaving the environmental dangers to be dealt with later? Or should the government take longer to provide the housing, but take care of the environmental problems with Deborahs house in the present?

Estimates say that immediately after Katrina devastated New Orleans, eighty percent of the city was underwater. Since that time, housing in New Orleans has become a mammoth problem. Katrina survivors need housing. They want to come back to New Orleans, to their home. New Orleans is devastatingly polluted with respect to soil, air, and especially water. Where should the government dispose of the contaminated water in New Orleans? Should they dump it in the Gulf of Mexico? This contaminated water must be taken care of, whether or not people move to New Orleans. It will significantly affect surrounding ecosystems in the long-run. Think of the place that Deborahs family will be call home a decade from now. People like Deborah need housing now, but they have lives that will continue into the future and be dependent upon the housing that is provided in the near future after Katrinas devastation of New Orleans.

Oil pollution makes up a major percentage of overall pollution in New Orleans. Approximately six and a half million gallons of crude oil were spilled during the hurricane. That figure does not include petrol and oil emitted by the approximately 250,000 cars submerged during the storm. This oil needs to be cleaned up. Such a point is not in contention. The point of debate comes from how the cleaning up of that oil should be treated.

It must also be remembered that New Orleans was polluted by a range of common and uncommon pollutants. Obviously the city was polluted by industrial materials from nearby factories. Not so obviously was the city polluted by household chemicals such as bleach or paint thinner, which when added to the citys water in large amounts can cause unprecedented environmental challenges.

At this point, some goals in the aftermath of Katrina are clear. New Orleans must be cleaned up. Housing must be made for its inhabitants as quick as possible. In carrying the environmental clean-up as quickly as possible, the federal government must consider whether to waive environmental laws. Temporarily repealing such environmental laws could have the positive effects of boosting the local and national economy, as well as eliminating obstacles which delay the progress of making New Orleans fit for inhabitation. Such repeals could also negatively affect New Orleans. It could impact the health of the people who move back quickly. Yet waiting too long for New Orleans to be rebuilt could hurt the business prospects of the city, which would also make the city uninhabitable in a way.

The United States federal government has a responsibility to the people of New Orleans to help them find housing. The people of New Orleans, like Deborah Lundys family, would like to go back to their city, to their home. Those people would also like to not become sick as a result of moving back. Should the federal governmental allow one of its agencies to oversee the repealing of environmental standards in an effort to speed the rebuilding of New Orleans? How could such an act affect the quality of the rebuilding of New Orleans?

Is it necessary for us to waive the environmental laws to jump start the economy or is the environment more important in the long run?

Senate Bill 1711, a proposal being considered in the Senate at the time of the creation of this case study text, is an example of such legislation which would allow environmental standards to be repealed in order to speed the process of placing Katrina survivors back in New Orleans and other Katrina-affected areas.

Senate Bill 1771 would allow that beginning on August 26, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to grant a wavier on environmental laws and standards for 120 days. Beyond such a period of time the EPA may extend the waiver to 18 months. The EPA may waive state and federal environmental laws anywhere in the country. The waivers

are not limited simply to the Gulf states affected by Katrina. The specific wording of the law requires only that legal waiver must (1) be in the public interest, and (2) take into consideration public health and the environment.

The laws which may be waived by the EPA are not limited to only environmental laws. The EPA may waive any clean air, clean water, hazardous waste, or other public health law if it is related to Katrina.

Legal waivers enacted by the EPA may cause several severe environmental problems. The EPAs legal waivers could lead to allowing unlimited levels of toxic industrial chemicals, human excrement, heavy metals or other toxins in drinking water. The EPA could waive requirements to test that water. The EPA could also waive standards for soil or air in contaminated communities.

The legal waivers could affect not only the maintenance of environmental standards in Katrina-affected areas, but also the disposal of debris in cleaning up the environment. Legal waivers could allow for the burning of huge quantities of debris (chemicals, plastics, destroyed cars, etc.) which would create highly toxic smoke. The EPA can both create environmental dangers and choose not to regulate them.

During and after the cleaning of New Orleanss environment, the EPA may also create legal waivers so that businesses may use the dirtiest coal, oil, or gasoline in the country, so long as it is to address fuel supply or cost issues. The EPA may also allow oil refineries, power plants, chemical facilities, and other industries to increase air and water pollution to again address fuel supply or cost issues.

Pledges and donations from countries

Below is a list of countries who offered aid. Some of these efforts were not formally accepted by the U.S. government (see "Actual Funds Used" below).

Afghanistan
Donated $100,000 to the hurricane victims.

Albania
Donated $308,000.

Argentina
Made offers of help and assistance. Argentina also dispatched an elite team of bilingual mental health professionals.

Australia
A$10 million (approximately US$7.5 million), and a team of 1,000 emergency response officers immediately. Donated A$20 million toAmerican Red Cross.

Austria
140 specialists of the AFDRU were put on stand-by. Their focus was to have been on providing clean water with portable water-treatment plants. Within the EU Emergency Assistance for Katrina, Austria set up a communication network using IT and communication equipment for assistance/support, provided 10 sets petrol driven dirty water pumps, 500 pieces tarps/plastic sheeting and 300 camp beds.[8]

The Bahamas
Pledged $50,000.

Bahrain
Donated $5 million.

Belgium
Offered 3 Medical teams of 31 personnel, logistic team of 10 personnel, coordination team of 4 personnel, civil engineering team of 10 personnel, diving team, and also balloon-lamps, low and high capacity pumps and small generators.[8]

Brunei
Donated $1 million.

Cambodia
The king donated $20,000 to match the $20,000 Cambodian government donation.

Canada
September 5, 35 military divers were poised to depart by air Sunday from Halifax and Esquimalt, B.C., for the New Orleans area. September 4, On the request from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Canada sent thousands of beds, blankets, surgical gloves and dressings and other medical supplies. On September 2 the Government of Canada announced it was sending three warshipsalong with a Coast Guard vessel, and three Sea King helicopters to the area. Over 1,000 personnel are involved in the operation, including engineers and navy divers. The Canadian Heavy Urban Search and Rescue out of Vancouver was in Louisiana from September 1, due to security they started their mission on Sept 3. Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Qubec, and Manitoba Hydro, along with other electrical utilities, had crews set to go to the affected areas. On September 2 Air Canada participated along with U.S. member airlines of the Air Transport Association, in a voluntary airline industry initiative to support rescue and relief operations. Money donations although where very high, the province of Alberta alone threw in 5 million dollars. Although it is hard to put an exact number on Canadian cash donations because of some Canadians donating directly to the American agencies, Canada is widely believed to be the highest international donor nation, and was the only country in the world to supply direct military assistance in addition to civilian donations and supplies as the US Government declined direct military support from all other nations.

People's Republic of China

On September 2, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it will offer $5 million along with emergency supplies, including 1,000 tents, 600 generators, bed sheets, immediately for disaster relief. China also offered to send medical care and rescue workers if they were needed.[13] This aid package consisting of 104 tons of supplies later arrived in Little Rock, Arkansas.[14] A chartered plane carrying the supplies arrived on September 7.

Republic of China (Taiwan)

Pledged more than $3 million to the relief effort, plus supplies.

Colombia
Made offers of help and assistance.

Cuba
One of the first countries to offer aid, Cuba offered to send 1,586 doctors and 26 tons of medicine. This aid was rejected by the State Department. Also, before the 2006 World Baseball Classic, Cuba said they would donate their share of the winnings to Katrina victims to ensure the United States embargo against Cuba was not violated. However, after the tournament, the U.S. government refused to allow the donation.

Cyprus
Offered $50,000.

Czech Republic
Offered rescue teams, field hospital and pumps and water processing equipment.

Denmark
Offered water purification units.

Egypt
Sent 2 C-130 planes loaded with blankets, medical equipment, and canned food.

Finland
The Finn Rescue Forcethe group consists of 30 firemen was offered by the Finnish Government but refused. The Finnish Red Cross sent three Red Cross logistics experts.

$100,000 was given by the Finnish government to be distributed by U.S. authorities. A Finnish cruise ship, Finnjet, operated by Silja Lines, was sent to Baton Rouge for use by the LSU Department of Medicine. 9,000 sheets, 1,000 pillowcases, 200 small tarps, 200 first aid kits, 120 cooler cases and 3,500 thermo sheets were sent to Little Rock for distribution in Louisiana. Nokia donated $1 million to the U.S. Red Cross and matched employee contributions at 100 percent. Mobile phones were donated to shelters in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. Additionally Finland offered 300 tents, a water purification unit, sterile gloves, bed sheets, pillow covers, tarps and first aid kits.

France
Concrete help was refused by the US government initially, however on September 2, Condoleezza Rice said that the US authorities would assess the situation and contact French authorities accordingly. On September 4, US authorities formally requested French assistance. France offered disaster relief stocks prepositioned in Martinique (600 tents, around 1000 beds, 60 electrogenic groups, 3 pumps, 3 water purification stations, 1000 folding jerricanes and other material). A 35-person team of the Scurit civile (Civil defence) from Guadeloupe and Martinique were made ready, and a 60-man "catastrophe intervention" aeromobile detachment were prepared to be ferried from mainland in a short time. The Ministry of Defence offered 2 planes already in the zone and 6 more from mainland France, and two ships of the French Navy (probably the BATRAL Francis Garnier or Champlain, and the frigate Ventse) and a 20-person team of emergency medical specialists. The nongovernmental organisation Tlcoms sans frontires and the company Volia

environnementoffered aid in communications and water management, respectively. On September 7, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs stated that anAirbus Beluga from Toulouse with 12,7 tonnes of supplies flew to Mobile, Alabama, after a brief stop in the UK to load more food.[20] TwoCasa airplanes from Martinique landed in Little Rock, Arkansas, ferrying tents, covers and 1000 rations of food for 24 hours.[8][16][21]

Germany
Two German Army Airbus planes landed in Florida with about 25 tonnes of food rations to be transported to the disaster area. Further planes were prepared. Germany offered airlifting, vaccination, water purification, medical supplies including German air force hospital planes, emergency electrical power and pumping services. The aid was ready to go on German air force and chartered planes. A team of specialists from THW (German federal agency for technical relief) were planning technical measures and logistics in close contact with local authorities. A team of 89 flood fighting specialists and 5 medical personnel were dispatched from Ramstein Air Base to Louisiana by the United States Air Force. They brought 15 high performance pumps (10 pumps with a capacity of 15,000 litres per minute and 5 pumps with a capacity of 5,000 litres per minute) and 28 vehicles.[22] On Saturday, September 10 at 4:30 p.m., the THW started the first 15,000 litre pump at pumping-station No. 19. Three other 15,000 litres pumps followed. The drainage of New Orleans would have taken much more time if these pumps and the THW specialists had not been provided.[23] The Minister-President of the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate addressed a letter to the commanders of the American forces stationed in his state offering financial support to those affected by the flooding. Another German Air Force cargo plane carrying several thousand military rations (MRE) was denied entry into US airspace since, according to US authorities, they were not certified BSE-free. This was disputed by German authorities, pointing out that they were BSE-free according to NATO rules, that US soldiers would eat them regularly during joint operations (e.g. Afghanistan) and that these meals fully complied to UN rules.

Iceland
Offered $500,000.

India
India offered to contribute $5 million to the United States Red Cross for relief and rehabilitation of the victims. They also offered to donate medicines and large water purification systems for use in households and small communities in the stricken areas, where potable water was a key concern.[26] India sent tarps, blankets and hygiene kits. An Indian Air Force IL-76 aircraft delivered 25 tonnes of relief supplies for the Hurricane Katrina victims at the Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas on September 13, 2005.

Indonesia
Offered to send 45 doctors and 155 other medical staffers and 10,000 blankets to help survivors.

Iran
Offered to send humanitarian aid and 20 million barrels (3,200,000 m3) of crude oil.

Iraq
Pledged $1 million to the Red Cross via the Red Crescent.

Republic of Ireland
Offered to send 30 members of the Irish Defence Forces. The Irish army would have supplied thousands of ready meals, tents, blankets, water purification services and medical aid, including first aid kits, crutches and wheelchairs. The group would have included about ten experts in stress debriefing. Six of the troops would have operated two water purification plants. The Irish Government also announced it is to provide initial funding of EUR 1.2 million for the victims.

Israel
Offered field hospitals and hundreds of doctors, nurses, technicians and other experts in trauma, natural disasters and public health.[29] An Israeli airlift arrived in Little Rock, Arkansas with an eighty-ton shipment of humanitarian aid, including baby food, diapers, water, ready-to-eat meals, clothes, tents, blankets, mattresses, stretchers, first aid kits, wheelchairs, and other medical supplies. The Magen David Adom began "United Brotherhood Operation," which sent a planeload of supplies and financial assistance. IsraAid sent a delegation of medical personnel, psychologists, and experienced search-and-rescue divers. The 18-member team which included physicians, mental health professionals, trauma specialists, logistics experts and a special unit of Israeli police divers arrived in St. Bernard Parish and Plaquemines Parish on Sept. 10 and spent a week and a half assisting fire department search-and-rescue squads and sitting in on daily planning meetings that included local leadership and a complement of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), police, military and fire representativesmedical team.[30] Five universities in Israel welcomed displaced American students from the affected areas and invited both undergraduate and graduate students to continue their studies in Israel.[31] In particular, medical students unable to attend the Tulane University in New Orleans can attend Tel Aviv University's Sackler School of Medicine.

Japan Tsunami Aid and Relief

When the 9.0 earthquake first hit Japan, its highly advanced disaster-alert systems minimized the impact of what in most other countries would have been a catastrophic event, leaving about 100 people dead.

But when the 10-metre high tsunami engulfed the islands shortly after, the disaster swiftly became too great for even the world's third most industrialized nation to cope with alone. Since last Friday, the government of Japan reports that close to 3,200 people in 12 prefectures have died, though less conservative estimates say the number is at least double that, with a projected death toll of 10,000 in the coming days. National media reports claim that over 15,000 people are missing in the affected areas. In Fukushima alone, 1,200 people are unaccounted for, a number that is likely to rise drastically within the week. Over 10,000 people are stranded in Iwate and 1,000 more in Miyagi and Fukushima. Minami Sannriku town in Miyagi prefecture and Otsuchi town in Iwate prefectures are currently the worst affected areas with an estimated 20,000 people nearly half the population still out of contact as of Tuesday. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA) dispatched its Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) team to Tokyo Monday, at the behest of the Japanese government, to coordinate foreign aid flows, an onslaught of international humanitarian assistance and local relief efforts. 'The team is helping the Japanese authorities with information management and international offers of assistance,' Martin Nesirky, the spokesperson for the U.N. secretary-general, told reporters Tuesday, 'and it plans to send a reconnaissance mission to the prefectures of Fukushima and Miyagi tomorrow.' This particular UNDAC mission is playing a more limited role than its predecessors, since Japanese authorities are primed to direct the bulk of search and rescue efforts in their own capacity. UNDAC's role is rather to provide a few select services and defer to the authority of the Japanese government in major decision-making. 'UNDAC has been providing advice on incoming international relief goods and services, with the view to limiting unsolicited contributions,' Stephanie Bunker, spokesperson and public information officer of OCHA in New York, told IPS.

'This is actually a very important task because as we've seen in many disasters, countries have been inundated with unsolicited contributions. People mean well, but an overflow of uncoordinated aid is not necessarily a good thing,' she added. The seven-member disaster response team includes specialists from France, Britain, Sweden, India, the Republic of Korea and Japan. They have set up an Onsite Operations and Coordination Centre and will be disseminating timely information to the international community in the coming days. According to OCHA's most recent situation report, nearly 420,000 people have been evacuated from the earthquake- and tsunami-hit areas, of which nearly half are from Miyagi alone and the rest in varying degrees from Fukushima, Iwate, Ibaraki, Tochibi and Aomori. 'At this point we do not have a sound estimate of the total costs incurred by the disaster,' Bunker told IPS. 'It is still much too early to come up with a meaningful number.' However, OCHA's preliminary research shows that nearly 4,000 buildings in the northeastern region of Tohuku have been totally destroyed, while a further 55,000 have been severely damaged by the earthquake, tsunami or fires. The Japanese National Police Authority reports that the damage done to roads and bridges has virtually paralysed huge swathes of the national transport system. Nearly 850,000 households formerly powered by Tokyo Electric Power Company and Tohuku Electric Power Company are currently existing without access to water, gas and electricity, a crisis that extends way beyond the four most affected prefectures. Lack of access to food and water is a crisis that is only worsening by the hour. The Japanese Red Cross Society has begun offering medical and psychosocial care to the scores of survivors and evacuees. 'I have never seen anything as bad as this before. It defies belief,' said Tadateru Kono, president of the Japanese Red Cross Society and the IFRC following his visit to Iwate prefecture. According to IFRC's latest press release, 430,000 evacuees are currently

being housed in fewer than 2,500 makeshift evacuation centres in schools and other public buildings. 'Red Cross medical teams are reporting many cases of people arriving at hospitals suffering from hypothermia and at risk of pneumonia. Many people are suffering the effects of having swallowed contaminated water during the tsunami,' the press release added. Despite accepting specialised assistance from certain aid agencies, Japan is displaying extraordinary resilience and efficiency in the face of a debilitating disaster. Over 100,000 troops along with 95,000 firefighters and 920 police units are working ceaselessly to evacuate at-risk citizens, locate missing persons and deliver relief items as fast as humanly possible. According to OCHA ground reports, the National Police Agency (NPA) and Japan SelfDefence Forces have already rescued more than 2,200 people. In addition, the Japan Coast Guard, and the Fire and Disaster Management Agency have rescued nearly 3,000 people, including about 970 affected people stranded in isolated villages. Furthermore, the NPA added that 121 roads and 28 bridges have already been repaired, paving the way for more effective rescue and relief operations.

AID GIVEN TO JAPAN AFTER THE EARTQUAKE

Tokyo, Japan, March 14, 2011 Rescue teams from over 10 countries, on Monday (March 14, 2011), have started their action to search for survivors in the cities in Japan which hit by the earthquake and tsunami.

More than 70 countries have offered aid to Japan. These countries not only Japanese allies like the United States (U.S.) but also the country which has been frequently involved in conflicts with Japan, such as China. Even, Kandahar city from Afghanistan offers assistance to Japanese residents. We have offered to the Japanese government whatever assistance we can provide. U.S. is ready to stand with Japan when the country recover and rebuild, said White House spokesman Jay Carney. Carney added two U.S. rescue teams consist of 144 people and 12 dogs have done their action early on Monday (March 14, 2011) to search for survivors under ruins of destroyed buildings due to an earthquake measuring 9 on the Moment magnitude scale and followed with the tsunami on Friday (March 11, 2011). Rescue team which consists of 15 people from China have also been in action in the areas most severely affected byearthquake after they arrived in Tokyo on Sunday (March 13, 2011). China which has been often involved in conflict with Japan, especially in relation to revenge from the Japanese atrocities against Chinese citizens during World War II directly send their sympathy to the earthquake incident in Japan. I want to use this opportunity to say that the deepest condolence for the people of Japan for the loss they experience, said Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. The South Korean government said South Korean rescue team consists of 103 people have left to Japan on Monday (March 14, 2011) by using three C-130 aircrafts. Advance team consists of five rescue workers and two tracker dogs had been in Japan to help earthquake victims since Saturday (March 12, 2011).

Japan Tsunami Relief from India: AI carries 25 tones of of relief material

Air India carried nearly 25 tonnes of relief material to natural calamity struck Japan, which was devastated by 9 Richter scale earth quake followed by a giant Tsunami, including 20000 blankets as the temperature in the country has fallen to nearly freezing point. Not only it carried help to Japan but also brought back home all the Indians struck in misery over there. As per report of the sources, nearly 337 people were brought back to India

today by AI307 flight. Todays count increased the total number of Indians rescued from Japan to 1600. Earlier yesterday, nearly 385 passengers were carried home from Japans Naritas airport. Air India has deployed a Boeing 747-400 Jumbo aircraft for daily operations to bring the Indians who want to come back till March 21 as the Boeing has more seats that 777-300 aircraft, which has been deployed. Expressing concern over the leakage of radiations from Fukushima Nuclear plant, the Indian government on Thursday advised its nationals to avoid not so important travel to Japan and even those who were living in Tokyo to consider moving away. To help the Indian nationals in Japan, Indian Embassy in Japan headed by Alok Prasad has set up a 24 hour hotline for the people. It is also in touch with the Indian people out there in Japan and advising them to take precautions. Crisis in Japan has increased mainly due to its struggle to prevent the melt down at some of its nuclear installations.

Contributions by India in Global Aid for Sustainable Development

The Indian Express reported that India might not accept aid from the United Kingdom after April 2011. India has been the largest single recipient of British aid, receiving more than 800m (about $1.25b) since 2008. This announcement is perhaps symbolic of the fine line that India is walking between being a developed and developing country. It is the eleventh largest economy in the world, growing 8-9%

annually. But it is also home to one-third of the worlds poorthere are more poor people in India than in all of Sub-Saharan Africa. Nonetheless, over the past decade, India has quietly transitioned to a donor country, emerging on the world stage as a significant provider of development assistance. In the mid-1980s, India was the worlds largest recipient of foreign aid. Today foreign aid is less than 0.3% of GDP. Seven years ago India announced that it would only accept bilateral development assistance from five countries (Germany, Japan, Russia, the UK, and the United States) in addition to the EU. Now it appears that the list is dwindling. India also declined international assistance after both the 2004 tsunami and the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir. Although there are no consolidated figures on the total foreign assistance that India provides, the estimates are rising. India allocated approximately $547 million to aid-related activities in 2008. It is now the fifth largest donor to Afghanistan (with commitments over $1 billion since 2001) and is increasingly seeking out new recipients Indias aid to Africa has grown at a compound annual growth rate of 22% over the past ten years. Indias aid programs are increasingly including countries outside the immediate neighborhood of Afghanistan, Bhutan, and Nepal. These changes seem to reflect fresh attention to aid as an instrument of foreign policy. Indias flagship aid initiative has been the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC), which provides training and education to scholars and leaders from developing countries. There are more than 40,000 alumni of the ITEC program around the world; the hope is they have a friendly disposition to India that will be reflected in policies and bilateral relationships. However, India is no longer containing itself to soft power influences. Driven by competition with China and its own unprecedented growth, India has begun to focus on not only diplomatic influence but also on oil reserves and markets for goods, especially in Africa. During the April 2008 India-Africa Forum Summit, India pledged $500 million in concessional credit facilities to eight resource rich West-African nations. Some observers argue that India would do best not to completely abandon its soft power approach. Much of Indias success in its relations with the developing world has been built through its traditional aid program and a shared colonial history with countries in Africa and elsewhere. India should think twice before sacrificing this goodwill for mineral or other resources. More problematically, like China, India lacks an official definition of what counts as development assistance. No official records of aid disbursements are kept, either by the Ministry of External Affairs or the Ministry of Finance. Aid flows through various channels and various agencies in an ad hoc manner. And India has yet to join the OECDs Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which would require better record keeping and compliance with international standard definitions. Indias foreign aid

program will likely be more successful if it engages with other donors, provides clear and transparent records of its activities, and participates as a full-fledged member of the global aid system, including joining the OECD-DAC. Public information and records will not only allow India to receive due credit as an emerging player, but will also facilitate cooperation with other donors. If Indias goal is to be recognized as a significant donor, it must start acting like one.

Bihar to get global aid of Rs 2,550 cr.

PATNA: As an indicator of the state's improved capacity to absorb money for implementing various developmental schemes, the state government will get Rs 2,550.53 crore from international financial institutions during the next fiscal. Deputy CM and finance minister Sushil Kumar Modi said this while presenting his seventh successive budget in the state assembly on Friday. The money would be used for executing the externally aided projects, Modi added. The amount is not a big deal in view of the money flowing to several other states from the international financial institutions. The big news is that the money flow as aid and loan from the international institutions to Bihar during the 2011-12 fiscal alone would be Rs 525 crore more than the sum obtained in the last five fiscals. Beginning 2006-07, the state raised Rs 2,035 crore as loan and aid till the current (2010-11) financial year. The international financial institutions concerned were Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank(WB) and Department for International Development (DFID), UK. ADB funded the construction of state highways to the tune of Rs 814.87 crore, while World Bank aided Bihar Rural Livelihood Project (BRLP) with Rs 133.15 crore, and gave Bihar Development Policy Loan - I worth Rs 335.70 crore. Moreover, DFID provided Rs 84.81 crore for activities in the health sector.

During the 2011-12 fiscal, ADB would provide loan worth Rs 1,128.82 crore for the construction of 826.92 km of state highway. Loans are already proposed to be released under Bihar Power Sector Development Programme (Rs 66 crore), Agribusiness Infrastructure Development Project (Rs 100 crore) and Bihar Urban Development Project (Rs 50 crore). WB loan worth Rs 450 crore is for phase II of Bihar Development Policy Loan, Rs 120 crore for BRLP, Rs 337 crore for Kosi Rehabilitation Project and Rs 83.26 crore for Bihar Panchayat Strengthening Project. On the other hand, DFID would give Rs 40 crore for Support Programme for Urban Reforms (SPUR) and Rs 114.50 crore for Sector Wide Approach to Strengthening Health (SWASTH).

Asian tsunami 2004 (Indian ocean tsunami)

As people gathered on the beaches of southern India to scatter flower petals on the sea, and began to bury the dead, nations and aid organizations worldwide stepped forward with relief assistance for the eight Indian Ocean countries struck by tsunamis Sunday. In Kuwait, where thousands of Sri Lankans work as maids and janitors, the government pledged $1 million in humanitarian aid. "Companies are coming forward on their own, it's unbelievable," says Ahmed Izzeth Izzedeen, Sri Lanka's ambassador to Kuwait. Other nations are offering clothing and food, as well as their national airlines to carry the donations. Ships and helicopters of the Pakistani Navy are helping evacuate survivors in the Maldives. Relief workers say that given the scale of the devastation over many remote coastlines, the help is going to be needed. At press time, the death toll was estimated at more than 23,000. "It was over in less than 20 minutes, but ever since then I have been helping recover bodies - at least 200 just on this beach alone and many are still floating in the lagoon," says De Lima, who works for CARE International, one of the world's largest humanitarian organizations, in Batticaloa, Sri Lanka.

While poor countries such as Sri Lanka and India have aid organizations with experience in dealing with floods in the region, many of those workers themselves are personally affected. "My family and I were returning from church on Sunday [when the tsunami hit]," says Mr. Lima. "When I returned to my house and opened the door, four feet of water came pouring out along with furniture, clothes, telephones etc." Although his home phone was washed away, De Lima has managed to restore the phone in his office and is back in business the morning after, along with 38 other CARE workers based in the area. "There is no lack of aid workers in Sri Lanka, in places like Trincomalee, etc.," he says, "but this time around all the workers I know have been themselves affected by the disaster. Most have lost at least one aunt or uncle or other family member. It's nothing like what I have experienced in the past." Oxfam official Gurinder Kaur in Delhi says that the initial efforts are aimed at preventing outbreaks of disease. "Although food and clothing are in severe demand, aid workers are concentrating first on digging out bodies buried in the sand to prepare them for identification and then burial. The rest comes later," he says. Most aid groups like Oxfam and CARE International have a significant presence in Sri Lanka and have often dealt with floods and cyclones that hit coastal areas. Mr. Kaur worked on relief efforts after a cyclone in Bangladesh in 1991, when an estimated 140,000 people died. But he says that this disaster is different: "No one around India and Sri Lanka has ever witnessed or experienced a tsunami. While weather experts have had some experience in tidal waves and there was some warning, most people were still unable to get away. But this is a first for the Indian Ocean since the 1830s." Biranchi Uppadhyaya, South Asian regional manager for Oxfam, based in New Delhi, says that the situation in India at the moment appears to be one of a "localized emergency that the Indian authorities and the Army are capable of dealing with, while the Sri Lanka situation is bad all along the coastline and made much worse by the fact that it's a major destination for beach goers getting away from northern winters." Kaur agrees, noting that the tragedy was magnified in Sri Lanka because of all the built up areas along the beaches - the hotels and beach bungalows catering to vacationers. ICRC, Care International, World Vision and other local NGOs have been assessing the extent of the tragedy for the last 24 hours, but are not expected to finish until later

Tuesday. Disrupted phone lines and broken mobile phone towers have made communications difficult. "Some of these areas are remote and many have been totally submerged, so its difficult for the aid workers to know what or who they are looking for in many instances, says Kaur.

The United States and other governments, as well as the International Red Cross and other humanitarian aid agencies, swiftly swung into action, starting by providing lifesaving food, water, medical care and shelter. That initial effort was mounted to head off a situation in which, the World Health Organization warned, deaths from diseases such as cholera, diphtheria, dysentery and typhoid could match the death toll from the tsunami itself. Later efforts aimed at reconstruction swelled the total amount of assistance provided into the billions, as measured in U.S. dollars. As of October, the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported, total worldwide contributions and commitments have reached more than $6.2 billion, with another $575 million in nonbinding pledges. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other U.S. government agencies have provided a substantial share of that funding. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE GIVING In May 2005, Congress and the president approved $656 million for a comprehensive reconstruction program via the Tsunami Relief and Reconstruction Fund. By the second anniversary of the disaster, USAID reported that, including funds spent by the Department of Defense on emergency recovery and relief assistance and food provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. government assistance totaled $841 million. An October update issued by USAID showed that by far the largest portion of the U.S. government's $656 million contribution had been earmarked for the hardest hit areas -Indonesia, at $405.7 million, and Sri Lanka, at $134.6 million. The American people pitched in as well. By the two-year mark, the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University said, U.S. private tsunami donations -- both cash and in-kind -- had reached more than $1.8 billion. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) played their traditional and effective role. The American Red Cross, for example, combined rebuilding housing and sanitation facilities with providing psychosocial support programs for women and children suffering from continued emotional trauma. The agency has been working with Red Cross and Red Crescent national societies that have established local networks to identify and respond to community needs; it formed partnerships with NGOs like Mercy Corps and CHF International in Indonesia to restore markets and provide residents with small grants to promote economic opportunities.

Gerald Anderson, senior director of the Tsunami Recovery Program for the American Red Cross, termed engagement with -- and listening to -- local communities one of the most important aspects to ensure a successful, long term recovery. USAID reported that it had broken ground on the final element of the Sri Lanka Tsunami Reconstruction Program -- a water supply project for the town of Pottuvil, near Arugam Bay, expected to be finished by July 2008. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is co-funding the $4.7 million project, providing $1.5 million toward the $4.7 cost of constructing wells, a water line and a water treatment plant. USAID also reported breaking ground on a project to install new water purification systems on two tsunami-damaged islands in Maldives. And USAID Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator Mark Ward came back from Sri Lanka with word of good progress on bridge and vocational school projects scheduled for mid-2008 completion. In Indonesia, the USAID update noted, the agency has funded a $3.2 million program designed to better educate young women -- and broaden their employment opportunities -to help combat trafficking. In Thailand, the Post-Tsunami Sustainable Livelihoods Program completed its work in the Kamphuan area in September, but will continue to provide guidance to the new Kamphuan Community Learning Center through March 2008. Thanks to the USAID program, the update said, Residents have adopted alternative livelihoods, better community governance, and disaster preparedness. And in India, USAID has arranged exchange visits between officials of the cities of Nagapattinam and Cuddalore and city managers from coastal communities in Florida that have carried out successful recovery efforts after natural disasters struck. A USAID statement termed the success of its efforts a testament to the resilience of the human spirit, learning from experience and the power of partnerships between nations.

A great deal of humanitarian aid was needed because of widespread damage of the infrastructure, shortages of food and water, and economic damage. Epidemics were of special concern due to the high population density and tropical climate of the affected areas. The main concern of humanitarian and government agencies was to provide sanitation facilities and fresh drinking water to contain the spread of diseases such as cholera, diphtheria, dysentery, typhoid and hepatitis A and B. There was also a great concern that the death toll could increase as disease and hunger spread. However, because of the initial quick response, this was minimized. In the days following the tsunami, significant effort was spent in burying bodies hurriedly for fear of disease. However, the public health risks may have been exaggerated, and therefore

this may not have been the best way to allocate resources. The World Food Programme provided food aid to more than 1.3 million people affected by the tsunami

Nations all over the world provided over US$14 billion in aid for damaged regions,[84] with the governments of Australia pledging US$819.9 million (including a US$760.6-million aid package for Indonesia), Germany offering US$660 million, Japan offering US$500 million, Canadaoffering US$343 million, Norway and the Netherlands offering both US$183 million, the United States offering US$35 million initially (increased to US$350 million), and the World Bank offering US$250 million. Also Italy offered US$95 million, increased later to US$113 million of which US$42 million was donated by the population using the SMS system[85] According to USAID, the US has pledged additional funds in long-term U.S. support to help the tsunami victims rebuild their lives. On February 9, 2005, President Bush asked Congress to increase the U.S. commitment to a total of $950 million. Officials estimated that billions of dollars would be needed. Bush also asked his father, former President George H. W. Bush, and former President Bill Clinton to lead a U.S. effort to provide private aid to the tsunami victims. In mid-March the Asian Development Bank reported that over US$4 billion in aid promised by governments was behind schedule. Sri Lanka reported that it had received no foreign government aid, while foreign individuals had been generous. Many charities were given considerable donations from the public. For example, in the UK the public donated roughly 330,000,000 sterling (nearly US$600,000,000). This considerably outweighed the donation by the government and came to an average of about 5.50 (US$10) donated by every citizen. In August 2006, fifteen local aid staff working on post-tsunami rebuilding were found executed in northeast Sri Lanka after heavy fighting, the main umbrella body for aid agencies in the country said. There had been reports and rumors that the local aid workers had been killed.

AID FLOWS TO THE ARAB REGION

Like most research conducted in this field, this study relies mainly on the ODA category of foreign flows given that it represents the most important statistical category used by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that deals with development cooperation matters. Grants or loans to developing

countries are classified as ODA if they satisfy the following three criteria: (a) they originate from the official sector in the donor country; (b) the financial terms are concessional;16 and (c) the primary motivation of the grant or loan is the promotion of economic development and welfare in the recipient country. In addition to financial flows, ODA can include technical cooperation and the administrative costs to provide this aid. Aid flows that are not primarily aimed at development, including loans extended for military purposes and loans with a grant element of less than 25 per cent, are excluded from ODA and are reported by OECD under the category other official flows.

Figure 1. Real flows of net ODA to the Arab region (Millions of United States dollars)

Figure 2. Amount of Arab aid donations, annual averages, 1970-2004 (Millions of United States dollars)