| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Third of tsunami funds go on overheads |
| 2005-12-23 |
| Surprise, surprise, surprise... A year after the Indian Ocean tsunami, up to a third of the $590m so far spent under the United Nationsâ $1.1bn disaster flash appeal appears to have gone on administration, staff and related costs. Hey, it's a stressful job! Reliving that stress with the local hookers costs money! Lot's of money! And have you ever tried to have filet mignon flown into Bander Aceh? Fresh? A two-month investigation by the Financial Times has also found that several UN agencies are still refusing to disclose details of their relief expenditure in spite of earlier pledges of transparency by senior UN officials. Kojo hasn't given us the okay yet... The unprecedented international response to the tragedy that struck on Boxing Day last year killing more 220,000 saw governments, companies and individuals pledge more than $13bn to help affected countries, according to UN estimates. The flash appeal covered the money donated by governments to the UN in the first weeks after the disaster to fund the early aid work. Spending details from that appeal obtained by the FT from UN-affiliated agencies such as the World Health Organisation and the World Food Programme show 18 per cent to 32 per cent of the expenditure related to staff, administration and other costs. The local servants know they have us over a barrel, so they screw us for top dollar. What other choice do we have but to pay? There is currently no accepted standard on what constitutes reasonable overhead costs for aid organisations. ...whew! Thank God for that... Agencies such as the German development ministry say non-profit aid organisations should claim no more than 10 per cent of project funds for administration costs. They expect us to live like animals?! Or worse, locals?! The figures can be difficult to compare, however. Some UN agencies will not disclose staff costs and others account for items such as transport and equipment differently. Should I have that "aid worker" Mercedes airfreighted home, or shipped by boat? Even the most basic overhead breakdowns can be sensitive in the relief world where highly paid consultants are often a significant expense for the UN and its agencies. Details of such costs are usually absent from public material. Manolo! Bring the documents! And another gin and tonic! Alex Jacobs, director of Mango, a non-profit group that aims to improve financial disclosure by aid agencies, said many also regularly reported either rosy or âmeaninglessâ assessments of their administrative overheads. However, senior UN officials insist its tsunami relief operations have been the most open. Well, yeah, compared to, like, Oil For Food... |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #9 I'm shocked! A third? Is that all? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-12-23 20:16 |
| #8 I give to the Salvation Army, Spirit of America, Rantburg, and Michael Yon. I do not give money to the UN. That is Ted Turner's job, heh. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-12-23 19:12 |
| #7 I won't contribute to a charity that spends more than 15% on admin and overhead. Salvation Army and Catholic Charities satisfy that...others may as well. Check before you donate |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-23 17:58 |
| #6 Jan, you are right to be wondering. I long ago learned that the one that spends the most of what it gets, arrives on the scene first, spends its time helping people instead of tooting its own horn, and sees that its money is spent wisely, is the Salvation Army. Nobody else comes close. |
| Posted by: Greager Thavimp2748 2005-12-23 17:47 |
| #5 Were this a non profit organization operating like this in the US, these guys would've been run out of buisness, long ago. I'll bet it's a whole lot more than 1/3 going to overhead. Uh, hello, give the UN ditkas, nada,nothing. Let's see how long they survive without us. Jees EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-23 16:45 |
| #4 The Vampire Vulture Elite strikes again. I guess it takes a lot of money to get the 5-star hotels running with 24hour catering. (All before feeding any of the starving victims of course - the UN has priorities!) I'm sorry but I don't get it. WHY are the most basic overhead breakdowns can be sensitive in the relief world ? This isn't the military. There are no 'state secrets' involved. In fact there is absolutely no reason these budgets and expenatures should be anything by absolutely transparent and public. We should expect the same with all the UN organizations. I think we should deduct 1/3rd of the U.S. contribution from our contribution to the UN budget. Or at least 23% (one third less 10% 'reasonable' overhead). Oh and since the UN is claiming credit for the efforts by the Abraham Lincoln and USAID during the initial weeks, include the cost of these efforts as well when computing the amount to withhold. Give it to the Salvation Army instead. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-12-23 15:38 |
| #3 The assassinated Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi commissioned a study on the poverty relief programmes run by the Indian Government. He was curious as to where the billions of rupees of Indian taxpayer funds were going. With the amount of money being spent, indicators such as illiteracy and childhood mortality should have fallen much faster. What he found was that less than 16 percent of every rupee in assistance to the poor finally got to the intended beneficiaries. |
| Posted by: john 2005-12-23 14:38 |
| #2 tu3031, brilliant comments. Made me laugh. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-12-23 13:14 |
| #1 this really sucks. Makes me wonder about the Katrina deal as well. (shakes head) |
| Posted by: Jan 2005-12-23 12:19 |