Here in Washington DC, outpouring of support for earthquake victims came in the form of private efforts at collecting money and relief supplies.Some collections were carried out individually but most came through a number of Nepali organizations based in DC area.However, while individual and group efforts at collecting funds were praiseworthy, the next important step,getting them to the victims in a fair and equitable fashion is a different ball game. The way fund-collection happened at random, it looked like relief distribution had not beenthought through. But channeling of relief funds to victims can pose asmuch of a challenge as collecting them.
The best way to ensure efficient utilization of relief would, normally, be via the government channel which I found in the Prime Minister Disaster Relief Fund set up for quake victims and announced just a day after the earthquake. In an e-mail to likely givers,I advised:
"We pray for the Quake victims in Nepal. We need to organize all the help we can and ensure that this gets delivered quickly and made available to those who need help. However, we have to be careful not to make this effort individually or even in groups as I have observed is being done until now. Potential donors are instead asked to contribute directly to the PM Disaster Relief Fund. Government should makegood use of the assistance money and can be trusted for itsefficient utilization."
Of course, this was my personal opinion and I presumed this made more sense than looking elsewhere to ensure that collected funds get well-utilized.However, shockingly, my idea of handing over relief moneyto government didn't sail through and, in fact, was rejectedoutright by everyone who responded to my appeal. Some samples of the responses that I got:
"I am not going to give a single penny to the PM fund and will go myself when and where needed. It may be a small one and may help only five families but it will be done by myself and Iwill feel safe that money will not be misused."
"If I were in your position with huge amount of resources to support the victims of the earthquake, I would have turned deaf ear to the government and would have sent the materials to the affected area at my cost."
"It would be a disaster to put monies into the 'Disaster' fund. Not many foreigners or swodeshis are buying this pledge...We will find solace in serving one hot meal to one destitute family than putting one million into the 'Disaster' fund."
"My Trust is that people are ready to rebuild the country and world archeological society is ready to restore Nepal. But, as a Parliamentarian, I am saddened by this bureaucracy. I think it's really time to remove this government."
"The problem in this case is the lack of prompt response/action from Government side. Government has failed to deliver relief items to the needy people though, reportedly, a significant amount of relief resources have been collected."
People's government
It is astonishing to hear such high-pitchednegative views about the government which is not dictatorial but duly elected by the people; and the current one is anchored by a two-third majority in parliament. If we can't trust such a representative government then what other options do we have, besides not having a government at all! Of course,living without a government is imaginary; rather, the challenge is to have a government that works andwe can trust.
Unfortunately, we have a legacy of bad and untrustworthy governments which, however, has very little to do with the institution of government itself. We, as a nation, have, in fact, tolerated and supported government inefficiency and forced it to be corrupt. It is our historical trait, part of our cultural values, embedded in the centuries of feudal rule and social stratification that provides a sort of immunity to the corrupt. Otherwise, given the scale of corruption we have endured over long periods of rule under a myriad government structures, at least some politicians, some administrators, some groups could have emergedto stop this evil and undertake a clean-up. However, nothing of this sort has happened.
Reconstruction challenges
Given this background of government inefficiency, ineptness, and, overall uncaring attitude to public welfare, we should not be surprised at negative reactionto the proposal fordonating funds to the PM Relief Fund. Reportedly, to this date, less than Rs 10 million has been collected, most of it from transfers of internal government contributions. "The record from the past several years proves that a ninety five percent of the contribution [to the PM Fund ] is from government's treasury," writes Leela Mani Paudyal, government's Chief Secretary. Apparently, donors fear that much of their offers will be pocketed by those handling relief operations.
Looking ahead, alarger concern is using government machinery forrebuilding of what hasbeen lost. The government hasn't yet come up with a profile of damage—replacement values of structures, equipment, infrastructures, monuments, and cultural sites that now lay in ruins. My rough estimate, based on back-of-envelop calculations, would be in the range of Rs 300 to 400 billion rupees(US $3-4 billion). This is a lot of money no doubt—equivalent to 20 percent of the country's GDP—but we have the capacity to collect this much from domestic efforts and foreign donations, if we have a credible plan for rebuilding and convince foreign donors and general public that donated funds will be accounted for to the last penny.
For a perspective, we canlook at the ongoing budget profile that has earmarkedRs 516 billion inspending, of which Rs 116 billion is capital budget, about equal sumto what is received as foreign loans and grants. We can easily divert part of these funds for reconstruction this year and do the same over the next few years, to raise reconstruction funding of at least Rs 200 billion over a three-year period. Additionally, with good international lobbying, it wouldn't be difficult to collect another Rs100-200 billion in foreign aid. Altogether, we can amass Rs 300 to 400 billion in reconstruction funds over the next three years, sufficient to rebuild lost assets plus doing much more.
However, given the sheer inefficiency in carrying out emergency relief operations—which, in terms of resource commitment, may not amount to more than 10 percent of total post-earthquake financing needs of the country—we are not in a position to depend on government for efficient utilization of reconstruction money, even if this is made available. A more likely scenario is that the government will use reconstruction needs as a begging bowl, of which very little will filter down toreconstruction efforts, with the result that individuals and families will be left to fend for themselves,when it comes to rebuilding of their homes and restarting lost businesses.
sshah1983@hotmail.com
Related story
Nepal’s foreign trade declines, trade deficit reaches over Rs 1...
