I discussed the issue of Bangladesh and the Rohingya refugees of Myanmar a bit yesterday. This short report from Al Jazeera provides further information about the ethnic conflict that has lead to the displacement of the Rohingya and how the refugees are living in tents and rely upon food aid.
Worth a watch.
Old Dominion University
All those magazine rankings out there — of the best hospitals, best doctors or best sushi bars — are popular but often highly suspect if not downright absurd due to organizations manipulating the evaluation process, weird and arbitrary criteria or just plain old sloppiness.
That said, Wikimedia Foundation has been ranked number one by Global Journal’s listing of the top 100 NGOs (non-governmental organizations).
Global Journal is a Geneva-based magazine aimed at becoming the insider’s guide to what it describes as the “global issues” scene. It also says at its (pricey) subscription site online that it is devoted to promoting “global governance.” Not sure that’s likely to sell too well in the U.S.
I do appreciate the Wikimedia Foundation, and its primary product Wikipedia. But is the online encyclopedia really more influential as a global issues player or doing more to make the world the better place than, say, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or World Vision?
Neither of these two local mega-NGOs made the Journal’s list. I asked Global Journal to explain this, but haven’t heard back yet. Still, a few other Seattle-based or Northwest organizations did make the grade.
PATH was ranked by Global Journal as the 6th best NGO in the world — preceded by Partners in Health, Oxfam, BRAC (Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee) and the International Rescue Committee. Other local organizations on the best 100 NGOs list included Mercy Corps and Landesa. Continue reading
Flickr, jchong
More than a month after the disastrous earthquake and tsunami that struck northeast Japan, experts are still analyzing the cataclysmic event and coming to startling conclusions — such as the recent announcement the tsunami was more than 120 feet high in at least one location.
Another surprising observation made early on by some aid experts was that, despite the size and scope of the tragedy, Japan didn’t want or need disaster relief assistance.
Some aid watchdog organizations, like GiveWell, have consistently recommended against donating to the relief effort — and specifically questioned a $1 million Gates Foundation grant to Mercy Corps for Japan relief work.
Throughout the crisis, the Japanese government had asked that private, outside relief organizations stay away because of the pressure outsiders put on the already strained infrastructure and resources.
Some did, some didn’t. But many did actively solicit funds to assist Japan.
One aid worker who wrote a post for Humanosphere anonymously called the fund-raising done by many aid groups an “ugly game” because it was unlikely the money would be needed in Japan, the third wealthiest nation in the world.
Others said it may have been misleading, but it was a legitimate opportunity to raise funds that could be used elsewhere to help those in crises given less media attention.
Japan did seek and receive assistance from governments, the U.S. military and the International Red Cross. But it’s still not clear to what extent private relief organizations have been able to assist.
Here are two views.
One is from Joy Portella of Mercy Corps, which did offer active assistance in Japan. Portella says:
If you had asked me two months ago if Mercy Corps – which normally works in impoverished places like Afghanistan, Somalia and North Korea – would ever respond to an earthquake in Japan, I would have said “no way.” That was before this incredibly unusual event, and before I saw Japan’s devastation and need with my own eyes.
Another view is offered by Derek Sciba of World Concern. The organization decided early on not to try to offer direct assistance in Japan. Sciba says:
World Concern’s mission is to serve the poorest of the poor in developing countries – those who have no means of responding themselves, or rebuilding their lives. Because of this, we have elected to not mount a direct response in Japan – or to solicit funds on a large scale. It was a decision that we did not take lightly, but it has to do with who World Concern is called to serve.
You can read their full perspectives below. Continue reading
Flickr, jchong
Note: This is a post written by an aid worker I know who, for reasons of employment, doesn’t wish to be identified.
—————————————————————
Over the last day, my email inbox has filled with appeals for aid to Japan.
I’ve heard from International Medical Corps, the World Food Programme, the American Red Cross, MSF, and JustGive. That’s the ones I can remember off the top of my head. Oh, and Lady Gaga has a bracelet.
How many of the groups raising money for Japan are actually in Japan providing aid? The Red Cross, kind of. It’s supporting the Japanese Red Cross, I guess, although the Japanese Red Cross has been quoted saying they don’t need assistance right now.
IMC doesn’t have a presence of any kind in Japan. Neither does Doctors without Borders, Save the Children, or anyone else. World Vision has an office in Japan, but it’s a fundraising office devoted to getting donations for work in Asia. They’re not exactly out there with a helicopter and a search dog. Continue reading
