Disasters

I’ve been spending some time this morning trying to understand past estimates of the environmental impacts of oil spills. In the process, I’ve been looking at damage estimates and frequency data for past events. I thought I’d share some of the details (and some great links so that people can learn more). The bottom line is that the most widely accepted projections of potential damages from oil spills that were out there as of a few weeks ago seem to be wrong. First the damage estimates. The National Academies of Sciences recently released a study titled Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use. They note that “little research is available to estimate the expected damages from spills that could be appropriately attributed on a per gallon transported basis”. (Modern estimates tend to focus on spills from oil transport since that, rather than spills from wells, has recently been the primary focus of attention. Oops.) This is striking in itself – it is essentially impossible to do serious cost-benefit analyses for regulatory and policy decisions when one doesn’t have a good sense of the potential consequences. That said, they cite work that looked at eleven spills in depth and found that the marginal damages per gallon spilled were $13.01, which is equivalent to $546.42 per barrel. If one translates that to the current incident, assuming 5,000 barrels per day for 50 days, one finds a total of $136.6 million. This is an order of magnitude lower than the estimates being provided by most financial analysts, who invariably put the likely cleanup bill at something north of a billion dollars, and in some cases substantially more. One could in principle argue that the $13.01 figure is only an average –that Deepwater Horizon might be balanced off by far less consequential spills – but that simply isn’t plausible, as we’ll see in a moment. What about frequency? We’ve heard a lot in recent years that technology has made oil drilling a lot safer. The statistics for the last twenty years seem to bear that out. Between 1990 and 1996, spills from oil facilities into navigable waters totaled between 0.4 and 1.1 million gallons each year. (Lots more interesting data, from the 2000 Census, at that link.) From 2005 to 2008 (excluding Katrina and Rita – I’ll come back to that soon) that had dropped (PDF) to 90,000-160,000 gallons per year. (More great data at that link.) Deepwater Horizon is estimated to be spewing 210,000 gallons each day. (Note that I’ve been looking at data since 1990 – which is to say since Exxon Valdez. I may take a look at the decade before that later.) Here are some other numbers worth thinking about. (Data from the two links above unless otherwise noted.) There have been only two incidents in excess of 1 million gallons in the last 20 years.The tanker Mega Borg, in 1990, spilled between 4 and 5 million gallons. (At a rate of 5,000 barrels per day, Deepwater Horizon should take a few weeks to reach that total.) The environmental consequences were limited, since the oil was light Angolan crude, much of which burned off or evaporated. The census reports another spill of 1.8 million gallons in 2005, but I must admit that I’m having trouble matching that up with an actual event. (All the big numbers that year are from from Katrina and Rita, which they claim to exclude.) My best guess is that it’s actually the Citgo refinery accident (PDF) from 2006, though I’d be happy if any readers know better. [UPDATE: A commenter correctly points out that it’s actually the Tankbarge DBL 152.] Beyond those incidents, during the years 1990-1998, there were 29 incidents in excess of 100,000 gallons, an average of 3.2 per year; during the years 2000, 2005, and 2007-8 (I’m not cherry picking these – they’re the only ones where the Census provides data), that number dropped to 6, an average of 1.2 per year. Remember, again, that these are tiny compared to Deepwater Horizon, which is estimated to be pumping out about 210,000 gallons of oil each day. The exceptions to the relatively good spill record of the last twenty years come from Hurricane Katrina. NOAA has an amazing database of oil and product spills that anyone who’s curious about all this should check out. I did a search for incidents involving oil (rather than refined products) in excess of a million gallons. The only U.S. incidents since 1990 are from Katrina, with releases of 1.4, 3.8, and 7.8 million gallons. (The links take you to detailed reports on each one.) It’s important to note that, unlike in the Deepwater Horizon case, much of this was contained within berms. One last bit of context: While the damages from the current spill are clearly high, the economic value of offshore oil production is pretty high too. At 1.5 million barrels per day, and oil priced at $80 per barrel, it’s worth $44 billion each year. (This doesn’t include any negative environmental consequences; it also doesn’t include any benefits from producing domestically rather than abroad.) That is far higher than any of the damage estimates from Deepwater Horizon. IMAGE CAPTION:  Mega Borg: The biggest U.S. oil spill since Exxon Valdez (until now)

In the rush to save as many of the injured from the Haiti earthquake and to provide basic social services in Port-au-Prince, there has been less focus on how to prevent the tragedy’s aftermath from being exploited. But as the 2004 Asian tsunami showed, Haitians and foreign donors will need to move quickly to ensure that areas of Haiti damaged by the earthquake are not quickly snapped up by speculators, forcing people from ever returning to their homes. When the 2004 tsunami hit, I was in the south of Thailand. After early confusion over the scope of the damage, we quickly realized that a catastrophe had occurred, and when I went to the island of Phuket, much of the construction along the coastline had been decimated. People were in shock. But it wasn’t long before developers began to take over much of the damaged land – in Thailand, as in most other developing nations, land rights are hard to document. Developers who allegedly wanted to secure land along the beautiful coastline, to build new resorts, either sent goons to forcibly take over land or tried to quickly buy out survivors returning to their homes. Without formal land titles, many tsunami survivors – in Thailand, and in Sri Lanka – had little recourse but to turn to the local police or courts – which, in many of these areas, had close ties to the same powerful local businesspeople trying to grab land. When I traveled through southern Thailand a few months after the tsunami, I met one angry resident after the next, claiming they had lost their lands and had to move to Bangkok to look for work. Worse, the rapid redevelopment of areas like Phuket set the stage for worse damage in the event of another tidal wave, since unchecked coastline development was destroying the local ecosystem – primarily, mangrove forests – that served as a natural barrier against the sea. This kind of large-scale land-grabbing could easily repeat itself in Haiti, where land rights barely exist. (Even if they did, many people have lost all their documents in the earthquake.) One potential solution would be to institute a short-term freeze on any land transfers in Port-au-Prince, so no one can buy up or steal survivors’ properties. This will provide some breathing space so that, in the longer-term, the Haitian government can develop a system to adjudicate survivors’ land claims – and possibly develop a more effective formal system of land titles.

Two years after a tsunami devastated several Indian Ocean countries, a rudimentary warning system is in place. But coordination and funding concerns have slowed plans for a permanent regional system.

This publication is now archived. What is the status of the tsunami reconstruction effort?On December 26, 2004, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake on the Indian Ocean’s floor touched off a series of devastating tidal waves through the Bay of Bengal and as far as East Africa. Walls of water, some up to sixty-five feet high, swept across the coastlines of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and India, leaving more than 225,000 people dead and an additional 1.8 million homeless. The disaster touched off one of the largest humanitarian aid efforts in world history the world has ever seen: Aid organizations from around the world rushed to provide food, shelter, and medical care to the millions of survivors. In the year that followed, "Real steps forward have been made," writes Geoffrey Dennis, chief executive of CARE International in a December 2005 report. But there is still much to be done. Experts say it could be more than five years until reconstruction is complete. Which areas are making good progress?The tsunami sparked what experts call a remarkable outpouring of generosity in charitable donations from around the world. Relief agencies reported record levels of donations topping $13 billion, and in the case of Oxfam, more than 90 percent of the funds came from private contributions. The outpouring of aid quickly met basic needs for food, water, and medical care in the worst hit-nations—Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand—and prevented a much-predicted "second tsunami" of disease and malnutrition. Once the immediate need for relief had been met, aid groups shifted their focus to the process of longer-term reconstruction, says Mike Rewald, senior adviser for rights-based programming at CARE International. Recovery workers began meeting with community leaders to map out the rebuilding process. Cash-for-work programs contributed to the reconstruction effort while providing jobs and prompting social development: Many women participating in such programs are receiving the same wages as men for the first time. Providing jobs like building houses and weaving rope used in fishing nets has given income to workers who expected to miss a year of work due to the seawater that rendered their farmland temporarily useless. Many of the communities ravaged by the tsunami relied on the fishing industry. As the waters receded, most fishermen discovered their equipment had been destroyed. International aid groups have provided thousands of fishermen with the means—primarily boats, nets, traps—to return to their livelihood. Among the first areas to be rebuilt were resorts. The BBC reports many Thai resorts have already been completely rebuilt and are welcoming a steady stream of visitors. This speedy construction has created its own problems; local Thai villagers accuse developers of expanding their beachfront holdings illegally. More than two-thirds of the forty seven Thai villages destroyed by the tsunami are currently embroiled in land-title disputes. Which areas have made poor progress?“The most glaring challenge is in the housing sector,” says David Fabrycky, a graduate researcher at George Washington University. A recent Oxfam report suggests roughly 80 percent of the people left homeless by the tsunami are still without permanent housing. The task of providing such shelter housing is roughly equivalent to re-housing the entire city of Philadelphia. Part of the reason for the slow progress is the focus on long-term development. Dietrich Stotz, senior advisor for the German development group GTZ, told the Wall Street Journal, “The houses should be better than before. If you do that, it has to take time.” Other obstacles to the rebuilding effort include disputed land titles, impassible roads, and shortages of materials and skilled labor. Identification of victims is another process that has gone slowly. One year later, nearly 50,000 people are still considered missing. In Thailand, where 2,800 remain missing, the national tsunami victim identification center has identified the bodies of some 3,000 people, but an additional 800 remain unidentified. This is particularly troublesome for a culture that believes a lifecycle is incomplete unless the body is recovered, prayed for, and cremated. What is the status of the early warning system?One year ago, when the tsunami struck, no early warning system for such natural disasters existed. The use of such a system might have saved thousands of lives. Efforts are now underway to create a two-part warning system for the Indian Ocean. The first component consists of advanced ocean-monitoring technologies—seismographs, sea-level gauges, and deep-sea ocean pressure sensors—that would alert early-warning centers of a coming tsunami. The second involves community response drills that take a signal from the warning centers and translate it into evacuations. In addition to tsunamis, the system will give advance warning of such coastal hazards as cyclones, sea swells, floods, and earthquakes. The United Nations is working with the Indian Ocean nations to create this system, which is slated for completion by July 2006. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is also assisting with this effort, contributing funding, American expertise, and technical support. Tim Beans, a USAID administrator, said in an August press release the warning system is "one of our top priorities in Asia, and an important part of the U.S. post-tsunami reconstruction effort." What else has the United States done to assist in the recovery? The U.S. government pledged $857 million in relief, more than any other nation. In addition, U.S. private and corporate donations totaled an unprecedented $1.48 billion. Former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton spearheaded the national fundraising effort, and Clinton has gone on to become the UN special envoy for tsunami recovery.USAID is the primary U.S. institution participating in the recovery effort. In addition to its contributions to the early warning system, the agency continues to distribute aid alongside many private agencies—through cash-for-work programs, micro-loans, business advice, and job skills training. USAID is also working to rebuild critical infrastructure, such as water systems and roadways. Has U.S. assistance in the recovery effort changed perceptions of the United States in Southeast Asia?U.S. aid has fostered very positive sentiments toward the United States in tsunami-affected areas, reports show. One survey found as many as 65 percent of Indonesians now hold a more favorable view of the United States. The United States is "doing good work and getting credit for it, while boosting the image of America in the world," says Karl Inderfurth, a George Washington University professor and former assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs. "To project the humanitarian face of American foreign policy has been very useful." What has the political fallout of the tsunami been on the local level? Indonesia’s Aceh province was one the areas hardest hit by the tsunami. Nearly 130,000 people died in Aceh and more than 30,000 remain missing. For nearly thirty years before the tsunami, Aceh had been embroiled in a bloody conflict between separatists and the government. When the waves hit, fighting ceased as the parties became focused on the more immediate struggle for survival. An August 15, 2005 peace agreement called for separatists to surrender their weapons and the government to withdraw its troops. This process was completed December 20. Sri Lanka’s civil war has claimed 60,000 lives over three decades, though a 2002 ceasefire brought an uneasy peace. When the tsunami struck, 35,000 people were killed in a matter of minutes. Almost immediately, the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)—the chief rebel faction—rushed to the aid of the survivors. "There was hope this summer for a tsunami boost to the peace process," Fabrycky says, "as the two sides reached an agreement for a joint mechanism for distribution of external aid." There were even reports of soldiers from each side spontaneously working together on relief projects. Prospects of a lasting peace seemed good until November 17, when Sri Lankans elected Mahinda Rajapakse as their new president. President Rajapakse’s insistence on renegotiating the truce further weakened the shaky peace. LTTE forces fired on a government helicopter December 17, violating the ceasefire and casting further doubt on the nation’s future."The tsunami also showcased the rise of India in the region. While dealing with the effects of the tsunami on four of its own states, it also extended relief to other countries and used its military to assist in regional relief operations," says Fabrycky. India further demonstrated its humanitarian leanings when it delivered aid to the United States in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. What has the international political fallout been?Though the recovery effort is far from complete, experts say the recovery effort has been remarkable. According to Inderfurth, "[The tsunami] has become the poster child for how the international community should respond." Aid agencies have proven adept at transitioning from relief to long-term recovery, and have adopted a development-minded approach whereby they "build back better." Inderfurth says the two most important factors in the response have been the outpouring of generosity and a sustained political will to see the recovery through.

This publication is now archived. IntroductionImages of desperation along the U.S. Gulf Coast reversed the usual pattern of relief donations as nations around the world opened their hearts and wallets. Four Arab countries—Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates—pledged $100 million each. Kuwait, liberated from an Iraqi invasion by a 1991 U.S.-led coalition, offered an additional “in-kind” donation of $400 million worth of oil. Nations without deep pockets—or deep wells—also contributed to the relief efforts. Among them are countries that have been on the receiving end of U.S. disaster-relief assistance in recent years: Tsunami-ravaged Sri Lanka pledged $25,000; Honduras offered 134 rescue specialists; and Afghanistan offered $100,000. Foreign Donations for Katrina ReliefSource: U.S. State Department/Claire Calzonetti, cfr.orgMore detail: U.S. State Department Donors List; Foreign Policy

Frank Cilluffo, associate vice president for homeland security at George Washington University and director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, talks about federalizing disaster relief, the Posse Comitatus Act that limits the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, and the balance of power between state and federal authorities during a disaster. He spoke to cfr.org’s Eben Kaplan on September 22, 2005. What role do the armed forces play in disaster relief? Is this adequate? You’ve got to understand the entire process in terms of how we plan, prepare for, and respond to natural disasters. It’s all predicated on a complex system-of-systems approach between the federal government, state government, and local government. Federal resources are in support of state and local authorities and that, I think should continue—short of upending our entire federalist form of government—to be the case. I do feel that where assets are needed or lacking—when you’re looking at logistics, providing situational awareness, transportation assets, mass air evacuations as we’re looking at right now—those resources are by and large owned within our military and armed services. So making sure they can play a role in support of our state and local authorities and of our overall federal efforts is, I think, crucial. A lot of the discussion has been focused on [the] Posse Comitatus [Act of 1878], which I don’t think really addresses the issues we’re trying to get at; I think it somewhat misses the mark. Posse Comitatus as a law prohibits the Department of Defense and the military [from performing] law-enforcement functions. It doesn’t address some of the logistical issues we’re all trying to get our arms around here. The bottom line is you turn to where the capability is. I don’t think the American people will care what color uniform the men and women saving lives happen to be wearing, whether green, blue, red, or what have you. We want to be able to maximize the capacity and make sure we can bring the resources to where the need exists as rapidly as we can. Posse Comitatus prevents the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force from engaging in law enforcement, but it doesn’t apply to the National Guard, right? You’re correct, the Guard can continue to play a law enforcement function if the governor designates it to play that role, but once federalized, it cannot engage in law enforcement. What should the role of the National Guard be in disaster relief operations, as opposed to its role in operations abroad? I don’t think there are either/or propositions. I’ve written and testified in the past that the National Guard should play a significant role in homeland defense and homeland security missions. For starters, every governor needs to know what capacities and capabilities they have under the hood, in terms of knowing what resources can be brought to bear. If they are spread thin and deployed, you need to recognize that and try to get cooperative agreements with neighboring states and or federal assets and resources. Then-General [Dwight D.] Eisenhower, once said, “In preparation for battle I have often found plans to be useless, but planning to be indispensable.” The idea here [is], you’ve got to have plans in place, but you need to be able to adapt to the fog of the situation. In the civilian environment, you have the same needs and requirements, which predicate the significance and the importance of training, exercising, and continually coordinating. What makes this so complex is everyone has a role to play, but we need to continually refine that. During this interface of federal and local authorities, how is it determined who’s in charge?A vast majority of natural disasters are within the realm of state and local authorities. In the most extreme cases, you could declare an insurrection, where irrespective of the [state and local] government, you federalize and there could be times when that’s needed. Take homeland security from a counterterrorism standpoint: In all likelihood, you’re not going to get any warning. The success is going to be determined within those [first] forty-eight hours by state and local authorities because the [federal] resources just can’t get there that rapidly. I do think it has to hinge upon and be based entirely on state and local [capacities], that’s the primary focus. Where capabilities fall short is where federal resources come into play. I think what we’re seeing right now, in terms of response to [Hurricane] Rita, is the Department of Defense playing a more significant role from an evacuation and logistics standpoint. How do disaster-relief operations affect our military’s ability to fight wars abroad?That’s a very good question. Obviously, we have limited resources and capabilities. In terms of looking at the role of the military abroad, clearly its primary mission is to prosecute and win wars. We also have come to understand that they’re the ones with mass capability—along with some of the private sector entities like Wal-Mart, FedEx, UPS, and others who have very sophisticated supply-chain logistics infrastructures. I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer; you can’t take a snapshot in time and try to overlay that, because who knows? Since the end of the Cold War, threat forecasting has made astrology look respectable. I’m not sure we know five years from now what situations we’ll be in. So I don’t think you can pull [the armed forces] away from their primary missions, but at the same time, they do have a role to play domestically. How would you change the current structure of our disaster response? There are legal implications, and it’s not necessarily the law but the meaning behind the law [that is at issue]. We don’t want to get too caught up in processes at the expense of doing what needs to be done. I think there are also cultural issues that are very deep that we need to address. On the training side, there are also resources problems. The role of FEMA at the federal level is basically a coordination function: They don’t have boots. They don’t have the resources logistically or transportation-wise that the Department of Defense has. You’ll see that the coast Guard is beginning to play [a role]: The principle federal official—the PFO as it’s referred to under the National Response Plan—for Ophelia was a Coast Guard officer, and for [Hurricane] Rita it is also a Coast Guard officer. I think on critical infrastructure protection, [the] federal government can play a more significant role to identify what infrastructures are potentially vulnerable to attack and natural disasters. We have the IP shop—the infrastructure protection shop—within the Department of Homeland Security, which I think will continue to play a larger role. You’ll find that the Department of Defense will play a significant role—situational awareness in terms of assets in the air to get a better handle on what’s going on. In terms of straight-up logistics, I also think you’re going to see a greater role in terms of transportation, because ultimately you’ve got to evacuate people. I don’t think there’s a right or wrong or quick answer to this, but I do think you’re going to see the military play a more significant role.

Relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina have been plagued by poor communication and uneven distribution of goods and services, says Raymond Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. “It’s a bit like having a fire station with no fire engines because, in effect, the fire department has been de-funded and the fire engines have been sold off,” he says. Offenheiser, who has more than twenty years of international development experience, discusses Oxfam’s first-ever U.S.-based relief effort, the difficulties of distributing aid, and the “institutional failure” on the part of the U.S. government’s response. What are your impressions of the ongoing relief efforts in the Gulf? First, this is the first time Oxfam America, an organization with a thirty-five-year history, has responded to an emergency like this in the United States. Doing this in our home territory, we’re finding our way along in a context that’s somewhat new to us. What we’ve done is send assessment teams down to determine where we could add value to the response. A week in, we’ve found there are significant levels of activity, with a military presence securing areas, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) beginning to get legs under itself, and a Red Cross presence. But there are also significant gaps throughout the region where there is very limited presence [of relief workers], particularly in some rural towns and communities, which, earlier this week, had still not seen a FEMA person other than perhaps someone coming through to pass out a survey questionnaire. And we’ve seen an uneven distribution of benefits across the region, weak coordination, and poor communication. So there’s still probably a need for building the kind of architecture that you generally have in these kinds of emergencies with a strong communications infrastructure that enables people to know what’s going on and ensure equitable distribution of goods and services through the effective areas. We still got a ways to go to make that happen. Is it bad communication or simply a lack of funds or supplies that is slowing down the relief process? Well, there’s been a lot of money poured in and money’s being expended. But the problem is you can have lots of goods piled up, but if you don’t have a good coordination mechanism and communications system you can rely on, then things either go unutilized or they’re poorly distributed. We’ve seen this, for example, in the case of Biloxi , Mississippi , where there’s a strong infrastructure in more middle-class, white sections of west Biloxi that are more able to articulate their needs and requests. But in the poor areas of east Biloxi, where the institutional infrastructure is perhaps weaker, they’re not necessarily being heard or attended to, to the same degree or effect. I think what we see here is a large institutional failure, not only of our federal institutional system but also at the state and local levels. And we’re also seeing the effects of sustained poverty on communities over time where you get basically the weakening of institutions in areas where you have the greatest need for social welfare. In the face of an emergency like this, it’s a bit like having a fire station with no fire engines because, in effect, the fire department has been de-funded and the fire engines have been sold off. How has this relief operation compared to Oxfam’s relief operations in Africa, Asia, or Latin America? Well, we were active in the tsunami areas, for example, and certainly that’s an emergency on a scale that’s equivalent to this in many ways, particularly in the Indonesian case. A lot of the kinds of infrastructure we’re accustomed to putting into place quickly, because we know we’re going to have to do it, oftentimes in very poor countries with very limited communication and institutional infrastructure. In this case, we assume because the United States is as rich and institutionally dense as it is, these institutions would be up and operating quickly, efficiently, and effectively, meeting all the kinds of standards of performance that we have to meet when we do this kind of work internationally. That’s not happening. Why does aid not appear to be getting to the Gulf region from abroad? Are countries sending the wrong kinds of material aid? I think here in the United States we never contemplated we’d be in a position where we’d have an emergency on a scale that would require assistance from outside of our own nation. So I don’t think there is any provision for an institutional arrangement to facilitate that; particularly in the era of terrorism when so much of the focus and planning are on how we are going to respond ourselves to a massive terrorist strike that could even involve weapons of mass destruction. In some ways, it defies imagination that we’re not thinking along these lines and not contemplating that we could have a massive loss of life and, on occasion, need supplies from other countries if a region as large as this becomes debilitated. So it seems to be a piece that’s missing from our core strategic planning for homeland security that one would think would have been part of the drill. As far as the quality and kinds of goods [being sent], I think many are from countries accustomed to responding to large emergencies in Africa and elsewhere, which know you basically need food and water as basic commodities. A lot of this is being botched up by [U.S.] government emergency-response groups. So I don’t think there are masses of inappropriate aid necessarily coming in. I mean, the Swedish government and a number of others were turned down. But I think those have now been reversed and we’ve tried to mobilize NATO to coordinate some of this relief effort. Is cash what’s most needed? Cash is the most useful input for these emergency responses. In part, this is because it’s the most fungible asset and enables one to invest in local community response so those first-responders up and working actually have the money to go five counties over to the Wal-Mart and buy the supplies they need rather than have a lot of things arrive that are superfluous, duplicative, or in excess. So money has the ability to enable people to make reasonably well-informed choices closer to where the problems are. Should the United States accept aid from developing countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh? I think, frankly, it’s very appropriate and that the offer of such goods and services from these countries is a matter of national pride for them and for the United States to spurn such contributions, in some sense, I think would be taken entirely the wrong way. Interestingly, after 9/11, Bangladesh, which is a very poor country, offered a large volume of tea, which is what they could provide reasonably and affordably. The question is: What would we do with [the gifts] and how would they be distributed? They might not be the most appropriate for the need, but if we can determine these gifts are reasonably appropriate and can be put to work in some reasonable way, then why not? If you have packaged tea and tea bags, you could send them in bulk and distribute them across three southern states, and people could drink tea at no cost, then why not? What about accepting aid from countries like Venezuelaor Cuba, which are on poor diplomatic terms with the United States? I think in these particular cases it’s an opportunity for the international community to demonstrate solidarity. After the [2003] Bam earthquake [in Iran], we certainly tried to provide aid to the victims, and I think that was gratefully received by the Iranians. So why wouldn’t we, in this particular case, take aid from Cuba ? It may be a case where we have to swallow our pride, and there’s a question here of, in the face of an emergency like this and there are so many people affected, shouldn’t we be somewhat humble and respectful of people’s generosity and receive those gifts in that spirit? Do you think the influx of aid from abroad was more a result of a feeling of solidarity or of shock at the images of refugees in the United States? I think there is a certain amount of shock at the scale of this emergency and the fact that it’s proven to be beyond the capacity of U.S. institutions to handle. It’s been a surprise for both governments and publics around the world and people are still digesting what all that means. I think the expressions of generosity, some of them are coming through private institutional channels like Oxfam and CARE and the International Red Cross, and then the decisions on the part of governments to give are made by taking counsel internally and consulting with our own political leadership about what might be appropriate and politely received or not. For example, I know that [UN Emergency Relief Coordinator] Jan Egeland went to the State Department and was told to do an assessment of what assets [the United Nations] can provide. So the United Nations is kind of the highest expression of international solidarity. I think it only follows that other nations might get behind the UN effort. How long do you expect Oxfam and other relief agencies to remain in the region? We’re trying to be a support to the ongoing effort, raise roughly $5 million, and complement ongoing work, particularly in disadvantaged communities that may not be at the center of the major responses. We’re also focusing on some of the immigrant-worker populations that may not be attended to by the major institutions. We’re doing those assessments now. I expect we’ll be there for about a year. A lot will depend on how the whole housing issue and the repatriation—or return of families to their communities—is handled.

After Hurricane Katrina struck the United States’ Gulf Coast, leaving an estimated $200 billion damage in its wake, countries from around the globe lined up to offer material aid, cash, and condolences. The packages of aid ranged from small to large—from sixty Thai doctors and nurses to 500,000 British military ration packs to four CH-47 Chinook helicopters from Singapore. All told, around ninety nations pledged some support. Many of them are flood-prone countries in the developing world, including Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, which are still reeling from their own natural calamities and hard-hit economies. Laurence Simon, director of the Programs in Sustainable International Development at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management, says it may not be “appropriate for [the United States] to be accepting these genuine offers from the poorest countries.” “We could accept it graciously out of respect to the [hurricane] victims,” he says, “but we have to ask ourselves: Given the resources of the United States, might it be wiser to thank the poorest of the nations and encourage them to make use of these funds for the unmet needs of victims of the tsunami and poverty alleviation?” Simon, who has worked in international development, including disaster mitigation and recovery with Oxfam America, the United Nations Development Programme, and the World Bank since 1977, discusses the politics of aid distribution, the recovery efforts of last year’s tsunami versus Hurricane Katrina, and the world’s reaction to the United States ’ worst natural disaster in recent memory. What do you make of the outpouring of aid from all parts of the globe? I would expect many around the world were genuinely moved by the humanitarian crisis that’s materialized. Is this the first time emergency aid from the developing world has flowed into the United States following a natural disaster? I’m not aware of a precedent, not on this scale. Nor am I aware of any other instance when aid was offered by the poorest developing nations. In my experience working with disaster relief, aid usually flows from developed to developing nations; it’s quite unusual for developing nations to be offering assistance to us. Does it surprise you that so much aid was pledged from poorer nations? It does, especially by the amount of aid from countries like Sri Lanka, which is still struggling to recover from the tsunami. What was its offer to the United States? I had heard the offer was a contribution to American Red Cross; I think around $25,000, which may sound small to us but actually represents a significant financial contribution given the needs within Sri Lanka. Were these countries motivated more by shock or sympathy? I could not begin to try to speculate on their motivations. I think there is a very genuine concern for the plight of the people hurt by this. Also, I believe the poorest countries are moved by the fact that so many of the victims of Katrina are marginalized citizens within our own society.Should the United States be accepting aid from cash-strapped countries like Sri Lanka? Certainly, for a country as poor as Sri Lanka, if it had a unique contribution, it would be a nice gesture to receive it. Any contribution would be a significant one. But if it’s merely an offer of cash, yes, we could accept it graciously out of respect to the [hurricane] victims, but we have to ask ourselves: We are honored by this gesture, but might it be wiser to make use of these funds for the unmet needs of victims of the tsunami? I was a bit surprised [by Sri Lanka’s offer of aid] but more so by the statement I read from the [Bush] administration that these offers would be gratefully received. Still, I’m not sure it’s appropriate for us to be accepting these genuine offers from the poorest countries. Historically speaking, how much do politics enter the equation when offering aid? The United States has a long history of reaching out to countries hit by events of this magnitude and has been most generous, whether in slow disasters like drought or rapid ones like earthquakes. It’s been providing emergency relief despite its political positions or feelings. Take a recent example: The United States provided a very significant response to the hunger crisis [during the mid-1990s] in North Korea. We have given emergency relief to countries we don’t have diplomatic relations with over the past thirty years. We provided aid to Cambodia after the Pol Pot regime fell to Vietnamese troops. But doesn’t U.S. aid usually come with strings attached? Many people would argue there is often a political string attached and there’s expectation of some sort of payback. We still hear of “tied aid” where the recipient is obligated to buy American. But in disaster relief, I think the United States has been generous. It’s not as if a country is trying to buy some favors. What were your impressions of the U.S. response to last year’s tsunami? I think the initial reaction by [people in South Asia ] was a bit amazed, that is, that the United States’ initial response was so low, given the staggering need at the moment. But aid can be misunderstood. The United States, for instance, will need to make an assessment of what the needs are before it throws money or material aid to countries. Still, I think the United States was embarrassed by how little aid it offered initially. Is it generally more difficult to send material aid versus simply writing a check?Outside of cash, the delivery of emergency relief has always been very troubling. Commodities move slowly; it’s a matter of several months, not weeks, in almost every major effort. For instance, it’ll take usually six months for emergency food relief, once the international call is made. By that time, however, the famine situation or other emergencies on the ground are usually so far advanced that we’re already seeing tremendous death tolls. If cash is needed, obviously that could be provided more quickly. What about sending human resources? Cuba, for example, offered to send more than 1,000 doctors. If the United States accepts Cuba’s offer of doctors, there should be nothing to stop them from arriving in a day or two, other than, of course, diplomatic problems. How much closer can you get [than Cuba]? And no doubt Cuba would make good on its offer. It has one of the finest medical-health systems in the Western Hemisphere; these would be very qualified physicians. The other issue is what the need is. Do we actually need doctors from outside the United States? In any disaster-relief operation, you tend to be flooded immediately with personnel and things you don’t need. Sri Lankans, for example, have a refined health-care system and [after the tsunami] they began turning away offers of medical personnel because they felt they could cover their needs from within. Have countries—the United States included—ever refused emergency aid as a matter of pride? The United States has always prided itself on being able to fill its needs, and I think it realizes that this disaster is on a very large scale. But the United States has the resources and technology [to recover]. The major lesson, however, from disaster recovery that applies here is that we want the victims of a natural disaster, who are often the very poor, to be better off than there were before. No one should be reconstructing the conditions of poverty.

Hurricane Katrina caused severe damage to U.S.refinery and production capacity in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil prices briefly spiked to above $70 per barrel before dropping after President Bush decided to release 30 million gallons from the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). With demand already high and supplies stretched—the world currently consumes 85 million barrels of oil a day, only 1 million short of total global pumping capacity—the crisis caused by Katrina couldn’t have come at a worse time. Richard Karp, spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute (API), talks about Katrina’s impact. He was interviewed by Esther Pan, cfr.org staff writer, on September 6, 2005.What will be Katrina’s impact on worldwide oil output and prices?First, obviously, Katrina had a major impact on the U.S. industry infrastructure. Both offshore Gulf of Mexico crude and natural-gas production have been hit very hard. The refining sector in the Gulf Coast, particularly in Louisiana, has had a major impact, and pipelines in the Louisiana offshore oil-port loop have all been impacted. We have seen pretty significant improvements over the last week, but there’s obviously a lot more to be done. People need to keep in mind that this is an unprecedented impact on our industry. Also, more importantly, it hits us very personally. There are tens of thousands of our employees who live in the area. In many cases, our companies are still trying to track down their own employees, which, of course, affects our ability to recover. Many people have lost properties or loved ones, and have other and bigger issues to deal with.Between the refinery capacity and production capacity lost, what’s more significant?Both are equally significant in different ways. A lot of analysts have argued that the impact right now is more on product supply. The two major product-distribution pipelines that run from the Gulf Coast out to the Southeastern states, the mid-Atlantic and the East Coast—the Colonial and Plantation pipelines—were both hit. Because of the loss of power, they couldn’t operate and were down for several days. This is where you got a lot of the stories of rumored shortages and dislocations in certain parts of the country. That’s probably been the most immediate impact consumers have noticed. Both of those pipelines are now back operating at 100 percent capacity, which will alleviate some of the impacts in those regions.Why was there such an immediate price shock from Katrina? Was it speculation, or was the impact so direct that with those two pipelines down the prices really did go up to $6 or $5.50 per gallon?Well, the price of gasoline futures on the NYNEX, [the New York Mercantile exchange, where oil, gas, and other commodities futures are traded] which is where retail prices flow from, shot up immediately in the wake of Katrina as expectations about how this would impact the market were felt. We’ve heard stories that prices are coming down a bit now.Are the prices coming down because of the decision to tap the SPR, or does that action not affect prices so directly?It’s hard to say until we see more concrete data about what gasoline prices are doing around the country. Crude prices are roughly back now to where they were before Katrina, around $66 per barrel. We’ll have to see how that filters through to gasoline prices. The SPR release did help some refiners start operating again who were having problems getting crude feed stocks. How long does it take to restart a refinery? Months? A couple of weeks?It depends on the particular circumstances. It’s important to remember it’s not like turning on a light switch. Even under the best of circumstances, there’s a very structured, direct way that you restart certain parts before others, kind of a chain reaction. It’s very hard to speculate. Some of the refiners affected still don’t even have power. In the best of cases, it would take a day or two to get a refinery restarted—assuming it had been shut down in a precise, operational manner. What about damage to oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico?The most recent statistics we’ve seen from the Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that oversees oil and gas production in the offshore continental shelf, say the damage so far has not been nearly as extensive as some people feared. Of the roughly 4,000 production facilities in federal waters, thirty-seven platforms were destroyed. Those produce about one percent of total Gulf production. Four large platforms, accounting for about ten percent of offshore production, suffered extensive damage and could take three to six months to get back on line. So roughly forty-one platforms out of 4,000 is what we’re seeing so far. So not terrible.Not terrible, but do keep in mind that four of them were pretty large producers. But it’s perhaps not as bad as some people feared.How serious was Katrina compared to other natural disasters that have affected the oil industry?This was the most dramatic impact of any hurricane that I can remember. Do you feel the government is doing as much as it can to bring things back online?Federal, state, and local governments have played valuable roles. Federal government has played its part so far through a number of steps, including the release of oil through the SPR, waiving the Jones Act—the law that prevents non-U.S.-flagged tankers from delivering products between U.S. ports—and the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] has waived certain environmental fuel standards. These are all the right steps. Clearly there are obstacles because of the devastation in the area, but our industry is doing everything it can. Everyone’s doing their part. What about the impact of the SPR release? Could they do it again, or is it a short-term fix only?The SPR has about 700 million barrels of inventory. They’re going to put 30 million barrels up for sale, and they’ve already agreed to certain swap arrangements with refiners for about 12.6 million barrels. Essentially, what they do is loan a certain amount of crude oil to a refiner who can’t get it anywhere else. At a later date, the refiner pays back that crude oil, plus a bit of interest in additional crude oil.But that’s a small enough hit that it won’t affect the security of the SPR?Yeah, the SPR still has well over 650 million barrels, and the swaps will be paid back with interest. Has the SPR been tapped before? I remember it being a loaded political issue. Swaps were made during Hurricane Ivan last year, when a smaller volume was swapped out. Also during Hurricane Lily, back in 2002. There are a number of previous cases where it was used to respond to immediate supply disruptions, including the first Gulf War in 1991. With the oil market already quite stretched, global reserves already low, and demand already high, what will the impact be of this storm on top of all those other factors?I think that’s exactly the right way to look at it. It’s important to remember this happened on top of a market that was stretched very thin already. Demand was very strong, and there was very limited surplus capacity in the world, meaning nobody could really produce much more oil during an emergency, if necessary. Those basic supply-and-demand conditions put us where we are now in terms of the prices we have. With Katrina layered on top of it, it’s going to stretch the market pretty thin. Where does it go? If demand continues to rise and there’s no excess capacity, will prices just continue to go up? Whenever you have a situation with a very tight supply-and-demand balance, you’re going to get a lot of supply volatility and upward pressure on prices. Is there any precedent for what to expect from the oil markets?This is kind of a unique situation because of the extent of Hurricane Katrina’s damage. But it’s important to remember that market forces work, and high prices tend to bring on more supply and dampen demand. It’s impossible to predict over what time period that cycle will occur, but there’s no reason to think the basic laws of supply and demand will be suspended.But if there’s very little surplus, where would it come from? Are you talking about supply from new sources?Both new sources and capacity increases from countries that tend to keep surplus capacity. A lot of the Persian Gulf producers have already indicated plans to increase their capacity. It just takes time.

Ray Takeyh, the Council’s top expert on Iran, says the United States’ conviction that Iran is secretly planning to develop nuclear weapons, and Iran’s steadfast denial, have plunged relations between the two countries to its lowest state in about a decade. “I guess there have been periods when their relationship has been worse. There’s a great degree of disquiet by the new Iranian president and the new Iranian administration. Some of it is legitimate,” says Takeyh, a senior fellow in Middle Eastern studies. He doubts the United States and the Europeans will be able to persuade the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] at its September 19 meeting to send Iran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear-related activities.Takeyh was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on September 6, 2005.The IAEA issued another report last week on Iran’s nuclear situation, and it seemed a bit vague. How would you describe the situation? The IAEA’s report is similar to the previous IAEA reports—namely, it’s still somewhat ambiguous and its conclusions are still inconclusive. What the IAEA suggests is Iran still has much to account for in terms of its nuclear program, in terms of its nuclear intentions. However, there has been no evidence that Iran has misused its nuclear resources or technology for military purposes. The way forward, as far as the IAEA is concerned, is continuation of the examinations process. And that’s where [IAEA Director General Mohammed] ElBaradei and the IAEA inspection regime are; they’re restrained by their evidence and they’re trying to move forward on this issue in which many individuals’ and many countries’ conclusions are more politically drawn. The IAEA has to be constrained by its evidence. They have no option other than that as a political neutral body involved in monitoring nuclear activities.What are the concerns of the United States and the European countries that are negotiating with Iran? Well, there are two different issues. First, the United States is convinced Iran’s nuclear program is a cover for nuclear arms; that the civilian research program and its claims of energy production are mere fabrications as Iran seeks to develop a nuclear-weapons capability. That’s the American conclusion.And that’s based on what? That’s based on American intelligence, and what American intelligence is based on, I imagine, is very little. So essentially, what the United States is trying to do is calibrate Iran’s intentions. What the IAEA is trying to do is examine Iran’s technological procurement efforts. And those are two different things. The IAEA—given the pattern of Iran’s technology, given the pattern of Iran’s conduct—cannot validate the American conclusion at this particular point. And the Americans are confident in their conclusions and frustrated at the IAEA’s unwillingness to substantiate those conclusions. That’s the gap that remains as unresolved today as it was in October 2003 when this entire investigation process began.And what about the European negotiators with Iran, the British, French, and Germans [the EU-3]? They seem to have embraced critical aspects of American policy. Their position is that Iran has been in such systematic violation of this previous nuclear agreement—and here we’re talking about safeguard agreements, under which Iran did not declare to the IAEA some of its nuclear facilities and enrichment activities as it was supposed to under its [Nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] (http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/) obligations. They’re saying that Iran’s previous violations are so significant, the only way the international community can have confidence Iran is not determined to produce nuclear weapons is for Iran to cease all enrichment and reprocessing activities. And the enrichment process has just begun again at Isfahan? Yes, that’s right. That’s designed to produce yellow cake that will produce the necessary fuel for centrifuges that will in turn enrich uranium.Talk about the Iranian government’s position. The Iranian government position is, “Yes, we were in violation of our previous safeguard agreements. And the reason we did not declare our nuclear facilities is because we were worried about American sanctions against those facilities, military, covert, or otherwise. We accept the fact that we need to have a confidence-building measure. We have done so; we have signed the additional protocol. We have accepted a stringent inspection regime from the IAEA and these should constitute as objective guarantees to the international community. We should therefore be allowed to proceed with our enrichment activities—a right that we have under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”Does the IAEA agree Iran’s conceded to everything they’ve asked? Well, again, there’s a tentativeness to it. The IAEA report says Iran’s cooperation is improving, but in some cases, there’ve been unnecessary delays. So again, even on the issue of the discharging of the inspection activities, there’s a level of ambiguity. The IAEA is not as unsatisfied with Iranian progress as the United States is, but it is also not as satisfied with the Iranian progress as the Iranians are. It’s somewhere in between the United States and Iran.What has to happen next on this nuclear issue? The IAEA board will meet September 19 to contemplate the IAEA report—this is a 35-country membership—and at that time, it will deal with the American and probably the European Union’s requests for the Iranian portfolio to be transferred to the United Nations Security Council for deliberation of more stringent, if not coercive measures. You’ve said before that it would be “dead on arrival” at the Security Council because of the Russian and Chinese positions, right? Actually, I have always said that the notion this portfolio could be easily deferred from [IAEA headquarters in] Vienna to [UN headquarters in] New York is a problematic one. I’m not quite sure if that’s going to happen. The way the IAEA board is dealing with it is there has to be a consensus among the thirty-five members. Now the word consensus, again, is ambiguous and in the past, it has denoted uniformity of opinion. The United States is unlikely to garner such consensus, so it’s pushing for plurality. Namely, if you get eighteen out of thirty-five members to vote for this, then it can go to the Security Council in contravention of previous IAEA reporting behavior on such proliferation issues. Fine, that may be, legally, an acceptable definition. But it is a difficult case to make. Namely, the United States is suggesting not that Iran today is in violation of the safeguard agreements, but that previous violations of safeguard agreements, which came to an end in October 2003, are sufficient for Iran’s portfolio to be transferred to the United Nations for contemplation of sanctions and so on. So Iran would not be deferred to the Security Council because it today stands in violation of the safeguard agreements, but because in the past it has committed those violations and those past violations are sufficient legal grounds for transferring this portfolio to [the UN Security Council]. I have some problems with that, and the IAEA has some problems with that, because if you read the inspection report carefully, what Mr. ElBaradei says and what the report suggests is that the way you deal with previous Iranian safeguard violations is with the continuation of the inspection process. It doesn’t say anything about taking this file to the next level. That would imply that Iran is obdurate and is not complying with its contractual agreements—that doesn’t seem to be the case today. So this is where this issue becomes so much more complicated because, again, it’s the American perception of Iranian intentions that is driving much of this activity. Let’s talk about the Iranians again. This has become a national issue in Iran, right? Everyone is for peaceful uses of nuclear energy? Sure. I think that’s now the consensus position.Is this new government under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad different on this issue from the previous one under Mohammed Khatami? They’re more assertive in terms of their rights. Namely, they’re unwilling to continue the suspension of nuclear activities to placate the Europeans. And what they’re saying is, “We’re no longer going to negotiate just with the EU-3, but we’re going to negotiate with the international community.” The new chief negotiator of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, has been meeting with South African representatives; he was recently in India; he’s contemplating another trip to Pakistan. Namely, the Iranians say there is nothing intrinsically valuable in the EU-3 that negotiations on this issue should be limited to them. They are saying they are open to negotiate with the Europeans, the European-3, or the European-7, or whatever, but they are no longer going to continue the process of suspension just to placate the Europeans.So in that sense, there is a subtle difference, but I should say that even the previous reformist government was suggesting that the process of negotiations and suspension has gone on too long. The Iranians claimed that whatever objective guarantees the Iranians had offered seemed to be insufficient and inadequate for the Europeans; therefore, this process cannot continue on perpetuity and we need to reconsider it.I gather the various reports from the United States and Britain suggest that Iran is still quite far away from any nuclear-weapons production. Is that right? Right. Ten years, I think, is the latest American intelligence assessment.So there’s not a sense of great urgency about it? On the surface you would think so, but again, there seems to be a division between the sense of urgency the American political class feels and the sense of urgency the American intelligence community feels. It’s like the Iraq scenario. Do you have any sense about what has to happen at the end of September? I don’t necessarily believe the IAEA board will transfer this file to the United Nations. I think it will, once again, perhaps admonish Iran and call for it to resume the suspension of its activities and revisit this issue at a later date. I could be dramatically wrong about this, but I think that’s where it’s going.And is there any possibility Iran will agree to suspend activities? Some of Iran’s enrichment activities continue to be suspended. But I think what Iranians are now doing is beginning the process of enrichment a step at a time—not all at once, but a step at a time, hand-in-hand with the IAEA. I think that trajectory is unlikely to be reversed.So when you say, “hand-in-hand with the IAEA,” what do you mean? It means just what they did in Isfahan. Namely they said, “We’re going to resume these particular reprocessing activities, but that resumption will take place under the auspices and monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”And that’s happening now? That’s in fact happening now in Isfahan, yes.  Is there still concern there are secret facilities nobody knows about? The United States government continues to insist there are secret facilities, undeclared sites, and I have no way of ascertaining that. Do I think there are activities that are taking place outside the purview of the international-inspection regime? I suspect there are. Can I offer you any evidence to prove that? No.And I think that’s the dilemma that perhaps the United States is in. It has certain suspicions, but it is incapable or perhaps unwilling to offer evidence that would convince the international community.And relations between the United States and Iran? They’ve never been worse.Why has it never been worse? Well, it has never been worse in the past ten years or so. I guess there have been periods when their relationship has been worse. There’s a great degree of disquiet by the new Iranian president and the new Iranian administration. Some of it is legitimate.How would you sum up this new government? It’s a younger government. It’s a government comprised of hardliners, who have been largely isolated from the international community. It is an experienced government in a sense that most of these individuals are in their mid-forties and they seem to have been selected more for their ideological reliability as opposed to their technical competence. It is an assertive government about its national rights and prerogatives. It is a hawkish government in terms of its embrace of Islamic tenets of the revolutions. And have they cracked down on social freedoms in Iran? Not yet. That hasn’t happened yet, but they’re still getting their bearings. What do you think, is President Ahmadinejad actually one of the captors during the 1979 hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran? There is no evidence to suggest that; the CIA itself has suggested he was not part of it. But here you get into a tricky position because the Bush administration is unwilling to contradict the American hostages.It’s the hostages who’ve claimed it? Five of the hostages have claimed that Ahmadinejad was one of their captors. The CIA, after a laborious investigation, has not accepted that claim. But politically, it’s difficult for the Bush administration to take a position different from those who suffered 444 days of captivity.So I take it there’s no initiative on either side to improve these relations. I don’t hear a giant sucking sound from either capital.

This publication is now archived. What is the status of the tsunami relief effort?Governments and private organizations around the world have pledged nearly $4 billion in disaster relief. The deadly tidal waves, set off by a December 26 undersea earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale, wreaked havoc on coastal communities from Southeast Asia to Africa. The worst-hit nations include Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, and Somalia. Some 150,000 people have been reported dead, with some 500,000 injured, and tens of thousands still missing. As many as 5 million people have been left homeless. (List of aid agencies and organizations) What is the source of the aid?More than 40 countries have offered assistance and relief funds. The nations that have pledged the most aid include:Australia: $810 millionGermany: $679 millionJapan: $500 millionUnited States: $350 millionUnited Kingdom: $95 millionCanada: $80 millionSweden: $75 millionDenmark: $75 millionSpain: $68 millionChina: $63 millionFrance: $55 millionSaudi Arabia: $31 millionNetherlands: $27 millionSwitzerland: $23 millionIndia: $23 millionSaudi Arabia: $10 millionBelgium: $13 millionOn January 6, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan met world leaders at an international conference in Jakarta, Indonesia, where additional pledges were made. Private donors have also contributed hundreds of millions. Is the aid only in the form of donations?No. Gordon Brown, Britain’s finance minister, is backing a German proposal to impose an immediate moratorium on debt payments from countries afflicted by the tsunami. Brown said the plan, which would save the affected nations some $3 billion dollars in interest payments this year, could lead to permanent debt forgiveness. The proposal received strong support from G-8 countries, including the United States, France, Italy, and Japan. Canada has already frozen debt payments from tsunami-hit countries. What other actions is the United States taking?It has sent more than 20 Navy ships with a U.S. Marine expeditionary force of some 1,300 marines, including 200 engineers. The fleet includes six C-130 transport planes to carry tents, blankets, food, and water; nine air surveillance and rescue planes; a hospital ship; an amphibious assault ship; and the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. U.S. helicopters are flying supplies to survivors in remote villages along the south and west coasts of Indonesia’s Aceh province, the devastated region closest to the quake’s epicenter. Seven U.S. Navy ships that can each purify 90,000 gallons of fresh water per day were sent to sites in Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia. President George W. Bush announced January 3 that former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton will lead a U.S. private sector appeal for additional aid. A delegation headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell and Florida Governor Jeb Bush (the president’s brother) is touring the region, and American flags will fly at half-mast to commemorate the dead. What are other nations doing?Among the efforts:Four Indonesian navy frigates brought supplies to Meulaboh on the western coast of Aceh province, where at least 10,000 people were killed.Japan deployed three ships, 40 air force personnel and several teams of medical, rescue and forensics experts.India sent five naval vessels and aircraft loaded with food and medicine to Sri Lanka and the Indian islands of Andaman and Nicobar, where many thousands are presumed dead.Singapore sent medical teams to Indonesia.Britain sent two Royal Navy ships.Australia deployed over 600 military personnel, health workers and technicians, sent two planeloads of water purification equipment, and offered small aircraft and boats to handle logistical support in isolated areas.Pakistan, Germany, and India dispatched members of their militaries to help relief efforts. What are aid agencies doing?The United Nations said 50 international medical aid groups have arrived in Aceh province to set up field hospitals. The International Committee of the Red Crossflew in a 100-bed, transportable field hospital for use in the Banda Aceh, the provincial capital. The U.N. World Food Program set up a tent city in Banda Aceh and plans to feed 500,000 people for the next two weeks. UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund, is mounting a relief effort aimed at children, who make up more than a third of the disaster’s victims.Doctors Without Borders opened an Aceh clinic December 29 and said it would send additional medical teams to India, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Burma. CARE, one of the world’s largest private humanitarian organizations, raised nearly $7 million in under two days, CARE officials said. Where are relief efforts headquartered?Many relief organizations are focusing on getting assistance into Colombo, Sri Lanka’s capital. Banda Aceh, Meuloboh, and the Thai military base of U Tapao are also serving as regional centers for the international relief effort. Who is in charge of relief efforts?The United Nations is in charge of the massive international relief effort, coordinating the donations and efforts of myriad organizations from around the world. It has taken over the work of a U.S.-led "core group" of nations, including India and Australia, that was set up after the disaster to make sure aid efforts were not duplicated. Jan Egeland, the United Nations Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, is heading the U.N. effort. The U.N.-affiliated World Health Organization (WHO) is also coordinating field workers, aid agencies, governments, and private health organizations from its new command center in Geneva. How much aid is needed?Economists have estimated the damage in the billions of dollars. Hundreds of coastal communities in the region, which relied on tourism or fishing for their livelihoods, were literally wiped out. In the longer term, experts estimate the mostly poor nations affected by the tsunami will need continued assistance. What is needed most urgently?Water, food, clothing, tents, and medicine. Water purification systems are needed to provide clean drinking water. Portable generators, plastic sheeting, rope, mosquito nets, oral rehydration salts, and cooking sets are also needed. Officials in Indonesia asked for fuel to burn bodies and contaminated clothing, as well as shrouds in which to bury Muslims. Thai officials asked for body bags and forensics experts to help collect and identify the dead. What other supplies are needed?Transportation to get the aid to needy people, especially on the remote coasts of Aceh and Sumatra provinces on the island of Sumatra. Egeland appealed January 2 for helicopters, air traffic control units, forklifts, boats, landing craft, cargo planes, and hundreds of trucks. Transport planes arriving in Colombo are bringing in bulldozers and building materials. What are the greatest health risks?Immediate risks include infected wounds from broken glass and nails, the threat of electrocution from downed wires, heat stroke, and dehydration. There is also a significant risk of communicable disease among the survivors. Water-borne diseases like cholera, typhoid fever, and hepatitis A are spread through contact with polluted water. Officials are also concerned about malaria, dengue fever, dysentery, and yellow fever, which are spread by mosquitoes breeding in raw sewage or the stagnant pools of water left after floods. Health workers in the region report many patients with relatively simple cuts that have become seriously infected. Some regions are rushing to bury thousands of bodies in mass graves to prevent diseases from spreading, although WHO officials said there is no scientific evidence that unburied corpses cause outbreaks of disease. They urged local authorities to allow family members some time to identify bodies before they are buried. Has the response been effective?While the disaster sparked an immediate outpouring of international aid, some observers say the relief effort failed to reach needy people quickly enough. Many survivors, especially those in remote regions, had not received medical care, food, or shelter several days after the disaster. The devastation caused by the tsunami, which destroyed access roads and already weak infrastructure, severely complicated aid delivery. In addition, the scope of the problem--hundreds of thousands of people awaiting aid in nearly a dozen countries--is a formidable logistical challenge. Lack of coordination is another worry: on December 29, the U.N.’s Egeland criticized countries and organizations for shipping unsolicited relief aid that strained facilities at small airports serving the region and prevented more urgently needed items, like water purification pumps, from getting through. But on January 5 Egeland praised the relief effort as "the most effective?ever undertaken," and said progress was being made by the hour. He thanked nations around the world for their generous gifts and commended governments and agencies for their unprecedented cooperation.