The unprecedented outpouring of British generosity may create an unusual dilemma for the charities working to help victims of the Asian tsunami. If the British Red Cross is correct in suggesting that the sums raised may prove too large to spend responsibly, then charities will have to take extra care to account for every penny. If the money can be spent wisely, as the Disasters Emergency Committee insists, it will still be important for it to be seen to be so. There is no evidence as yet that the public’s magnificent donations will be wasted. The question is more whether governments, whose giant relief funds will be spent in the longer term, have been too swayed by politics when trying to judge between appalling tragedies that include Chad and Sudan as well as Indonesia and Sri Lanka.
Charities can rightly spend donations only on what they were raised for. The Disasters Emergency Committee foresaw that its response to the tsunami would constitute a marathon rather than a sprint. It limited spending to three years rather than nine months and talked about rebuilding livelihoods as well as lives. So funds can legitimately be spent on buying fishing boats or insuring against future shocks, well beyond the basic provision of food and shelter. It is too early to tell what this will cost, or whether governments will honour all of their pledges.
The people of Sudan and Chad are no less deserving than those in Asia. The Christmas timing and dramatic nature of the tsunami naturally attracted attention in a way that Africa, on the agenda for so many years, could not. British generosity was not misplaced. But there is a question mark over the desire of some governments to trump each other in generosity while in the media spotlight. Governments need to take a moment to stop and think, and take seriously the suggestion that a new emergency fund could try to equalise “imbalances” between donations to different crises.
The public response to the tsunami is proof of what charities have known for years: that fundraising is most effective when it engages donors in the work. In the Indian Ocean, the boom in tourism meant that many of those who donated to the relief effort will have felt a personal connection with the region. A smaller, globalised world brings with it a greater identification with other cultures, to the good of all.
In each decade, the great disaster appeals have resulted in an overall increase in giving: Ethiopia in the 1970s, Cambodia in the 1980s and Rwanda in the 1990s. There is no reason why the tsunami appeal should be different. An ICM poll has found that 6 per cent of the adults who gave to the tsunami but are not regular givers say that they might become regular donors in the future. And that 63 per cent of regular givers who made tsunami donations expect to give as much as they usually do to other charities during the year. So the engagement policy works. The sum total of humanity is increased. It is now up to governments and charities to ensure that their funds are used to best effect.