HAITI: are big fundraising events really effective?

What happens to the millions of euros to be donated tonight during a major fundraiser for Haiti on radio and television? Wouldn’t it be better to spend money on specific, small-scale projects? As the major ‘Giro 555’ fund raising operation is gaining momentum, the debate on how the money should be spent has also intensified. However, the major aid organisation Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has chosen to raise its own funds.

Major aid organisations such as Cordaid, Oxfam Novib, Unicef and the Dutch Red Cross have joined forces in the SHO (Joint Aid Organisations) to raise money for Haiti, just like they did after the 2004 tsunami in Asia.

Eventually, 700,000 euros of the money donated for the tsunami disaster was never spent. This prompted MSF to go back to raising money by itself. Dutch media have also reported on small-scale, private initiatives. In short, what is more effective? Giving money to Giro 555 or to your neighbour who is setting up his own orphanage in Haiti?

Private initiative

Cordaid employee Karen Mol says the alleged huge overhead of major aid organisations is an exaggeration, "I can say on behalf of SHO that 93 cents out of every euro is spent on aid. And I cannot say that about the private initiatives, because I don’t know them all. So should people want to make a donation, they should make very sure they know how and where and in what way their money will be spent."

At MSF, the situation is no different. Commercial Manager Michel Farkas emphasises that between 92 and 94 cents out of every euro received is spent on concrete medical aid.

Fragmented

So is it not true that private initiators work even more cheaply? They usually don’t have a permanent staff and use their own homes as offices. Joost Herman, director of the Humanitarian Action Programme sponsored by the University of Groningen says:

"On a micro-level, this is certainly true, because a smaller single-purpose organisation is in a better position to spend a much larger part of its money on that one single objective. On the other hand this form of aid will remain quite fragmented. In the end, these fragmented small-scale efforts will incur more costs compared to enabling professional organisations to mount effective and coordinated operations."

Small may be initially more cost-effective, but not necessarily more efficient. And particularly in a chaotic situation such as in Haiti, coordinating and combining efforts is not a luxury.

So why does a professional, experienced organisation like MSF continue to raise its own funds? Director Michel Farkas says his organisation wants to be at liberty to decide to spend its money where it feels it’s most needed.

Accurate information

Money donated for Haiti, should be spent on Haiti. If not, the person donating the money should receive accurate and clear information about the reasons why, says MSF. In addition, MSF is more involved in long-term relief efforts, and, for instance, has been active in Haiti for more than 19 years. Its principles regarding fund-raising haven't stopped the organisation from cooperating on all levels with other organisations in the field wherever and whenever possible.

A much more urgent issue than the choice between small-scale or large-scale aid efforts is distribution, in which the Port-au-Prince airport plays a vital role. At present, the US army decides who gets to land or take off. Joost Herman of the Humanitarian Action Programme says they have their own agenda:

"There is growing criticism of the Americans because they are in fact trying to take over the country’s public sector with their soldiers and other services. And next they shamelessly grant a prominent role to their own organisations, while others spend hours flying in circles over the airport."

To their intense frustration, MSF on Wednesday again did not receive permission to land at the Port-au-Prince airport. So even adequate means and funds do not guarantee help will arrive at the right place at the right time.