UN disaster relief fund hit with $75m shortfall as world's richest countries pledge tiny contributio

[smurfy]

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16336396[/url]

[TABLE][TR][TD][quote=BBC News][b]Some countries' failure to pay into a UN disaster relief fund is leaving the world "dangerously unprepared" for future crises, Andrew Mitchell says.[/b]

The international development secretary said several countries had not donated to the Central Emergency Response Fund, aimed at speeding-up relief delivery.

Britain has increased its pledge for 2012 from £40m to £60m but the fund is expected to be £45m short next year.

The international community must "wake up" to the challenge, Mr Mitchell said.

[url=http://ochaonline.un.org/cerf/WhatistheCERF/tabid/3534/language/en-US/Default.aspx]The Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) was set up in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami[/url] on 26 December 2004. It includes a grant element based on voluntary contributions from governments and private sector organisations and individuals.

The fund was designed by the United Nations to speed up relief in crisis zones with one central fund, though many countries still choose to give bilaterally.

ActionAid spokeswoman Jane Moyo told BBC Breakfast: "The importance of this fund is that it pre-positions money where it is most needed and it is important that people - other governments - pull their weight because then we can help people who are most in need, in their time of most need."

[b]'Basic humanitarian decency'[/b]

The fund has been hit hard by a series of natural disasters this year - the tsunami in Japan; an earthquake in New Zealand; famine in the Horn of Africa; and floods in Pakistan and the Philippines.

Mr Mitchell said the increasing numbers of people living in low-lying or famine-prone areas meant the scale of future tragedies would be greater.

He said many countries wait for events to happen before offering money but he said this could affect critical emergency response work.

He said in the first few hours of a disaster, when survivors are trapped in the rubble of an earthquake, delays and lack of resources could mean the difference between life and death.

"This year the world has been rocked by devastating disasters and the evidence suggests this trend is likely to continue.

"The past shows that international responses could have been more effective if they had been properly planned and coordinated as part of one single system instead of a patch-quilt approach we see all too often."

Mr Mitchell said: "The system is in place but too many countries and agencies are failing to back it, leaving the world dangerously unprepared for the scale and number of shocks that lie ahead.

"The international community must wake up to this challenge and unite its efforts under one umbrella," he added.

International Development Minister Alan Duncan told Breakfast that while many countries were facing financial difficulties, it made sense to donate emergency aid in advance and was "basic humanitarian decency".

"If you actually put money into a fund in advance of what are going to be more predictable emergencies around the world such as floods and earthquakes you can actually save a lot of lives by being able to respond very quickly as a result."

Mr Duncan said being prepared could also save a lot of of money "so spend to save is a good rule in international development".

Mr Duncan refused to name to the countries the government believed were not pulling their weight. But he said there were "one or two European ones" and countries from both east and west.

CERF's stated objectives are to:

• promote early action and response to reduce loss of life;
• enhance response to time-critical requirements;
• strengthen core elements of humanitarian response in underfunded crises[/quote][/TD][TD="align:right"][TABLE="align:center"][TR][TD]Top 20 CERF donors [url=http://ochaonline.un.org/cerfhtml/PC_2012_221211.htm](source)[/url][/TD][/TR][/TABLE]
[TABLE="align:center"][TR][TD][b]Country[/b][/TD][TD][b]Contribution[/b][/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]United Kingdom[/b][/TD][TD]$93.8m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Sweden[/b][/TD][TD]$70.9m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Norway[/b][/TD][TD]$59.7m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Netherlands[/b][/TD][TD]$53.3m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Germany[/b][/TD][TD]$20m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Denmark[/b][/TD][TD]$17.9m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Australia[/b][/TD][TD]$16m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Finland[/b][/TD][TD]$8.7m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Switzerland[/b][/TD][TD]$6m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Ireland[/b][/TD][TD]$5.2m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]United States[/b][/TD][TD]$5m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]South Korea[/b][/TD][TD]$4m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Qatar[/b][/TD][TD]$3m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Russia[/b][/TD][TD]$2m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]New Zealand[/b][/TD][TD]$1.5m[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Brazil[/b][/TD][TD]$750,000[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Italy[/b][/TD][TD]$666,667[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]China[/b][/TD][TD]$500,000[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Kuwait[/b][/TD][TD]$300,000[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][b]Liechtenstein[/b][/TD][TD]$271,444[/TD][/TR][/TABLE][/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

[Kevve]

Hell yes Sweden in 2nd!

[Hail Satan]

fuck disasters we need to pump more money into our military

[Slendermang]

Isn't Liechtenstein one of the top 10 countries with most income per household?

[smfE]

im proud of denmark because we are such a small country but give so much :)

[smurfy]

The entire fund is just 0.08% of the US defence budget

America's contribution to the fund is 0.0009% of its defence budget

Also I hope you like the table in the OP, I had to use some tableception to get it to work

[Stockers678]

Even though I do feel that there are problems with the tax system in Britain and there are many places where money could be better spent, this kind of charity and generosity makes me proud to be British (which is rare nowadays).

[Ogopogo]

[QUOTE=smurfy;33921962]
America's contribution to the fund is 0.0009% of its defence budget[/QUOTE]

Sometimes I wonder if America contributing more aid would actually be a better use of money meant for defense than spending it on weapons. If a region became unstable due to lack of aid after a natural disaster.....

[duck]

Why are we putting the most in, something has to be wrong if we're the most charitable nation in the UN

[Terminutter]

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;33922032]Sometimes I wonder if America contributing more aid would actually be a better use of money meant for defense than spending it on weapons. If a region became unstable due to lack of aid after a natural disaster.....[/QUOTE]

It works out to roughly $0.0162 per person in the US in the donation, and according to W|A
[url]http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=US+military+budget+%2F+population+of+USA[/url]
$1630 per year per person is spent on the military.

[acds]

[quote]Italy $666,667[/quote]

I bet the Vatican did this.

[Contag]

I'm not sure why states would put money into this, instead of going the usual bilateral route.

[Terminutter]

[QUOTE=Contag;33922147]I'm not sure why states would put money into this, instead of going the usual bilateral route.[/QUOTE]

[quote=OP]The fund was designed by the United Nations to speed up relief in crisis zones with one central fund, though many countries still choose to give bilaterally.[/quote]

It's faster, according to the article.

[smurfy]

[QUOTE=acds;33922111]I bet the Vatican did this.[/QUOTE]

Italy [url=http://ochaonline.un.org/cerf/Donors/Donors/tabid/5370/language/en-US/Default.aspx]have donated a couple of million dollars[/url] in previous years and they're in the middle of U-turning to avoid a default at the moment so they can be excused I guess (a couple of million still isn't amazing though considering their GDP is only slightly less than the UK's)

[notgeogzm]

look who's at the top

hell yeah motherfuckers

[Contag]

[QUOTE=Terminutter;33922171]It's faster, according to the article.[/QUOTE]

But the thing is actually helping people is like 1/10th of the reason why most states usually contribute aid

[Terminutter]

[QUOTE=Contag;33922199]But the thing is actually helping people is like 1/10th of the reason why most states usually contribute aid[/QUOTE]

Fair point, it probably makes more sense to do it without giving it to the UN, as you can ensure that it's sent to countries that will be more likely to be of benefit to you in the long run. Maybe the countries that donate via the CERF are unusually altruistic? :v:

[Hail Satan]

Where the heck is canada on the list?

[Thomas45]

Yeaaaah! Britain!

Feels good to beat the US.

[Madman_Andre]

Ronald Reagan smiles inside his solid gold coffin.

[ExplodingGuy]

Well, it's not like we can afford much, we have overpriced, constantly broken jets to maintain. It's not like we could rely on the reliable, older jets that rarely break down and are cheaper to modify and fix!

[C.C]

Why are we above America? were not even the size of a quarter of Texas and we are penniless at the moment.

[Madman_Andre]

[QUOTE=Mabus;33922299]Why are we above America? were not even the size of a quarter of Texas and we are penniless at the moment.[/QUOTE]

Because Republicans in Congress.

[smurfy]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;33922279]Where the heck is canada on the list?[/QUOTE]

Canada to the CERF

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ[/media]

They [url=http://ochaonline.un.org/cerfhtml/PC_2006-11_221211.htm]donated generously in previous years[/url] though, maybe they just haven't done it yet for 2012

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=Mabus;33922299]Why are we above America? were not even the size of a quarter of Texas and we are penniless at the moment.[/QUOTE]

clearly you have a sizeable amount of lucky charms

[Contag]

[QUOTE=smurfy;33922319]Canada to the CERF
maybe they just haven't done it yet for 2012[/QUOTE]

"we swear the check(cheque) is in the mail!"

[Thomas45]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;33922342]clearly you have a sizeable amount of lucky charms[/QUOTE]

Even Ireland donated more than the US

lol

[MIPS]

OP, your post formatting is so fucking artistic.

[Shitty Bill]

[QUOTE=smurfy;33922319]Canada to the CERF

They [URL="http://ochaonline.un.org/cerfhtml/PC_2006-11_221211.htm"]donated generously in previous years[/URL] though, maybe they just haven't done it yet for 2012[/QUOTE]

Yeah, just based on that data, it looks like our contribution has been increasing year by year.

Keep in mind that chart is showing the pledges of each nation. None of them seem to have actually paid yet.

[bobsmit]

I think it would be best if the U.S. got itself out of its current problems, so that it can make large donations in the future.