RICHEST NATIONS SILENT ON NEW UN DISASTER FUND

by Jim Lobe

(IPS) WASHINGTON -- Just one week before its formal launch, the United Nations' new global emergency fund, which is designed to jump-start relief operations within hours of natural disasters or other humanitarian emergencies, has received pledges worth less than half of the $450 million the world body says it needs.

The world's two richest countries, the United States and Japan, have yet to commit any money to the upgraded Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF). Australia, Italy, and Canada -- traditionally major contributors to disaster assistance -- also have yet to be heard from, according to Britain-based Oxfam International, a major non-governmental promoter of the new fund.

In contrast, several poor countries that have recently been on the receiving end of international disaster assistance have come forward with pledges, including Sri Lanka, a major emergency-aid beneficiary after the December 2004 tsunami, as well as Mexico, Grenada and Armenia.

Fifteen European countries have also submitted pledges, although some, such as France's $1.2 million, have fallen short of expectations. A total of $188 million has been raised so far, according to the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

The proposed fund, which will be officially launched March 9 by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, will replace the existing fund of $50 million that could only be drawn down by UN agencies if they could identify how the money would be replenished.

Given its small size and rules of operation, the UN has been unable to respond to massive disasters, such as last October's earthquake in Kashmir, as effectively and in as timely a manner as it could with a larger fund. Instead, it has been forced to rely mainly on ad hoc commitments by major donors.

Moreover, donor commitments are rarely based solely on humanitarian need. Other factors that influence their decision may include the amount of media coverage a given crisis generates and the geo-political importance of the country where the crisis occurs.

What Oxfam has called "neglected emergencies" -- those that consistently suffer low levels of funding either because they have a low media or political profile (such as several ongoing conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo and northern Uganda) or involve few beneficiaries (such as recent floods in Madagascar) -- have been the main victims of the current system.

"Too often, aid resembles a lottery in which a few win but most lose based on considerations other than need," according to Jan Egeland, the UN's emergency relief coordinator. "We must move from lottery to predictability so all those who suffer receive aid."

Donors and humanitarian agencies have increasingly recognized the weaknesses of the current system, particularly in light of the huge differences last year in the international responses to the December 2004 tsunami -- which drew $11 billion, or 94 percent of what the UN had requested -- and, more recently, the $125 million, or 55 percent of the UN request, pledged for Chad, which has had to cope with the influx of 200,000 refugees from Darfur in Sudan.

Similarly, funding to cope with drought and food shortages in Africa, where more than 20 million people in the Horn and southern Africa are currently threatened, have repeatedly fallen far short of goals set by the UN.

Even in the case of last year's Kashmir's earthquake, which received major international media coverage, donor commitments were remarkably slow to materialize. Only $86 million of $312 million initially requested by the UN for relief operations had been pledged 11 days after the disaster.

To address these problems, 191 member states promised at last September's UN World Summit to improve the timeliness and predictability of emergency aid, in part by upgrading CERF. Three months later, the UN General Assembly approved the new CERF.

"The fund could help save lives in crises such as northern Uganda and Chad that do not make it onto the world's radar," according to Oxfam's Sarah Kline. "It could go a long way to solving the constant and recurring battle for money in disasters and neglected conflicts."

But Oxfam, which has argued that a $1 billion fund is necessary to cover the annual shortfalls in UN appeals, expressed strong disappointment with the pledging to date.

"Governments have committed to responding quickly and effectively to help those in most need, yet now that we have a global emergency fund, governments seem reluctant to actually put money into it," Kline noted.

The Bush administration has supported the fund in principle but has not yet earmarked money. "At this point, no decision has been made as to whether or not to contribute," State Department spokesman Edgar Vasquez told IPS Wednesday.

The administration last month disappointed relief groups here by proposing a substantial cut next year in international disaster and famine assistance, from $418 million this year to $349 million in 2007. In 2005, Washington spent $575 million in international disaster and famine assistance.

The biggest donors to date include Britain, at $70 million; Sweden, $41 million; Norway, $30 million; the Netherlands and Ireland, $12 million; Denmark, $8 million; Finland, $5 million; Luxembourg and Switzerland, $4 million.

Under OCHA's plan, up to two-thirds of the new fund can be allocated to rapid response with the other one third devoted to addressing under-funded emergencies.