Prime Minister's relief fund
We have in the past week been rather critical of the government’s tardy rescue and relief operations. To make matters worse, it seemed to be in a mood to limit the scope of non-government actors and foreign donors; all the funds and relief materials they collect, the government said, should pass through official channels.
Country’s first accessible trail launched in Pokhara
This, we feared, would lead to unnecessary delays and misappropriation of vital resources. Thankfully, the government seems to have realized its mistake and now says anyone can distribute relief materials, anywhere they like, provided they coordinate with the concerned CDO office. But the donor community is not satisfied. Their main gripe now is with the Prime Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund, or rather the government insistence that all funds coming into Nepal be pooled into the same fund. Donors say relief and reconstruction aid will be better spent under their own watch. But, in effect, they are asking that there be no government oversight over potentially billions of dollars headed Nepal’s way. This, we are afraid, is not a legitimate demand.
Their concerns over the porous government machinery are justified. But how can a sovereign state allow billions of dollars into the country without any oversight? Nor is the track record of many of our bilateral donors in the utilization of their earmarked funds encouraging. As much as 70-80 percent of such bilateral aid to Nepal, it is suspected, is repatriated to respective donor countries in the form of consultant commissions and other technical fees. But let’s not get into useless blame game right now. This is not the right time. Instead, why can’t the government and the donor community work together to put in place a mechanism that ensures fair and timely distribution of all contributions to the PM’s relief fund? In the absence of such understanding, of the around US $5 billion in aid that has been pledged, only a paltry $2 million has actually materialized.
There are plenty of well-meaning friends of Nepal, no doubt. But there are also those looking to serve their vested interests in Nepal in these difficult times, which might be anything from mass religious conversion to pushing certain divisive political agenda. Moreover, since Nepal occupies a sensitive geopolitical space, the funneling of billions of dollars into the country without any oversight could have all kinds of undesirable consequences.
This is a wonderful opportunity for our donors to prove their commitment to the wellbeing of Nepalis. It is now clear that neither the government nor our donors will be able to make a meaningful contribution on their own. Otherwise, most earthquake victims would by now, a full two weeks into the devastating April 25 temblor, have received some help. But that is not the case. For example, while those living by motor roads have got plenty, those living farther have got none. Only the government, with its vast outreach, will be able to reach them all. The government, for its part, could use the expertise of our donors in humanitarian crisis. It would thus be wonderful if the two sides can patch up their differences soon and forge ahead together to help Nepal.
