More to rebuilding than reconstruction

By Paul O'Callaghan

HOW can aid donors assess the success or failure of Australian non-profit aid agencies in their tsunami responses? How do agencies know when to withdraw from the various tsunami-affected countries?
The answer to both questions is much the same as if we were talking about a response to an Australian bushfire disaster: we need to listen to what local communities say. In the case of the 30 Australian aid agencies working with hundreds of devastated communities, the message has been emphatically positive.
Unlike some Australian commentators who appear to believe there are ideological conspiracies afoot, the community leaders with whom Australian agencies work have urged them to continue their work there. In Sri Lanka, Caritas was awarded the Government's highest award for its tsunami response. The head of the Indonesian tsunami relief agency, Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, has also been positive about agency contributions.
The fact that so many national, provincial and community leaders in tsunami-affected countries have expressed appreciation for the work of Australian agencies highlights the comprehensive approach they have taken to such a complex humanitarian response.
International agencies had never responded to a disaster of the scale and complexity of the 2004 tsunami. In addition to the 230,000 immediate deaths, millions of people were made homeless. Most of these people were traumatised because of the loss of many family members. Aceh and Sri Lanka had been mired in civil war for the preceding decades, with the two conflicts accounting for more than 100,000 deaths.
Australians familiar with the protracted conflicts in these communities before the tsunami would understand how difficult it is to achieve a sustainable humanitarian response to such a vast natural disaster. They also know the speed of the international response, including Australia's non-profit agencies, saved tens of thousands from death and disease. Contrary to popular myth, the type of work done by the 30 Australian aid agencies was determined jointly with local communities, not imposed on them. These communities didn't just seek help rebuilding houses and schools. They also wanted to help their traumatised people. This is why they continue to value programs related to psycho-social counselling, gender-related education, promotion of interfaith understanding and a range of civic development activity.
Could the tsunami response of governments, international agencies and non-profit agencies have achieved better outcomes? Probably, but we mustn't lose sight of the unprecedented combination of circumstances they faced.
The speedy response of Australian agencies saved many lives and helped local communities start the process of taking charge of their own reconstruction process. Much has been learned about planning for exceptionally complex responses, especially where communities have already been crippled by civil war.
Paul O'Callaghan is executive director of the Australian Council for International Development.
End