Comments on: Update on how to help Japan: March 24

By: Arwen

Arwen — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 20:28:14 +0000

I read your previous post and this update, and I think your article is incredibly irresponsible. You say that you can’t help it if your position is misrepresented in the media, yet you make it exceedingly easy to do so.
There are, in fact, several credible LOCAL organizations that are quite easy to find online and are distributing aid without problems(Second Harvest Japan–2HJ, Japan Earthquake Animal Rescue and Support–JEARS, among others). Because they are local they can work directly with shelters and local officials to assess and distribute according to the requests that ARE (!) being made.
I think it’s fine to point out that money might not go where donors imagine, or that it may not be dispatched immediately, but I don’t think you’re telling the whole story. Many organizations, besides MSF and the Red Cross, not only actively discourage, but do not allow earmarked donations, and I agree with you, that is a good thing. (If that is indeed your opinion; you do say to donate to organizations that don’t earmark, yet this is presented as an answer to the “well if you really MUST donate..” issue.) This is what allows these organizations to mobilize immediately when they are needed–they don’t have to wait for specific funds to be raised. It also means they have the discretion to move donations around to where they are most needed, instead of being locked in by donations for a specific location/disaster that cannot be dispersed. When you repeat ad nauseum that these organizations do not “need” donations for Japan, you ignore the fact that when they dispatch aid to the efforts in Japan, which they do, there are now fewer available resources for other places/disasters. They may not “need” money “for” Japan, but they DO need to replace what has been spent and, whether you agree with it or not, many countries would not otherwise receive aid if people did not donate when something this catastrophic and visible occurs. Rather than advising people to think twice before giving, maybe it would be a better use of your space to explain how this system works and why it still helps the people of Japan even if your specific dollar isn’t the one that gets there. I think most people can accept this reality when it is clearly explained to them, and it’d be more of a service to do so, rather than warn against all the stealthy ways charities are supposedly taking advantage of them. (By the way, it might also be useful to note that not accepting all of the aid offered to them is a standard policy of many countries, including the US after Hurricane Katrina. Did you argue then that people should put their wallets away?)
In this vein, how about ShelterBox? If you want to talk about transparency, people can track the Boxes to their final destination, seeing where they end up and reading on the website why they went where they did. (And Japanese officials DID request ShelterBoxes, and ShelterBox does not earmark, so anything in excess can be used where it is most needed–I can’t see any argument against giving to them.)
If people do want their donations to be used locally and immediately, both 2HJ and JEARS got to work right away, initially depending on donations from people in Japan, many of whom were also affected by the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear reactor problems. I know this because I am one of those people.
Peace Boat is another group that is well-established and transparent and, along with ferrying volunteers from Tokyo to affected areas, currently collecting donations that are being used in Tohoku right now. Or how about Hope International Development Agency Japan, a group that, among other things, is delivering hygiene kits being put together by local people?
Though I don’t agree with your delivery, I get your point. Yes, Japan is a first-world country and possibly the best prepared nation on earth for this sort of crisis (though, honestly, how do you prepare for the 1-2-3 punch they’ve just taken?). But, it’s an incredibly expensive crisis with costs far beyond the immediate. No country can afford a disaster like this, and it’s short-sighted to suggest that they can. A lot of money has yet to be dispersed–the Red Cross is sitting on millions, though this information is apparently an exception to your to-give-or-not-to-give calculations, but Japan is faced with two huge and urgent issues, neither of which it can attend to fully as long as the other continues. There is massive international pressure to resolve the problems at the Daiichi reactor and the task of arranging for and streamlining aid to towns that do not even exist anymore is an overwhelming one. Is it reasonable for this to cause criticism and anger? Sure, and the people inside Japan feel it just as much as those on the outside looking in. But, this doesn’t justify a lengthy opinion piece that, except for a few small segments, tries to convince people that the best way to help Japan right now is by doing nothing at all.
I’m well aware your heels are dug in on this issue, and so be it, but considering how much time you have spent fact-checking, I can’t imagine how you could miss these additional opportunities for people who are, for whatever reason, committed to spending their money on relief efforts in Japan. And though, I acknowledge that in trying to craft a balanced, informed post, you commit a few lines here and there to how giving can benefit other places, (by saying you liked the perspective of someone else and linking to it, for example) why not go beyond just covering your back and take the time to explain how this works in more detail?

By: Holden

Holden — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:27:44 +0000

Brad:

We directly addressed the culture/language question above (top of "Our responses to other objections and concerns") and I stand by our response.
I could imagine that a given nonprofit could make the fuel shortage situation worse (by consuming fuel while carrying out nonessential/suboptimal activities) or better (by helping to provide more fuel). Would you be willing to name any nonprofits that you feel fall clearly in the latter category? We wouldn't recommend them just on your word, but some readers might be interested in checking them out.

Andrew:

The argument about major funders is not circular. We are looking at the behavior of funders who likely have better contacts and resources for understanding the situation than our audience.
I don't see how one can call us "reckless" for recommending gifts to Doctors Without Borders. There are people in need all over the world; we aren't advocating that donors help no one, but that they leave the decision of whom to help to a disaster relief organization that we have recognized for relatively strong transparency/accountability. It seems that the only "risk" here is from the perspective of one who values Japanese lives far higher than other lives … but for people who hold that value we also make a clear recommendation (to give to the Japanese Red Cross).

By: Claire

Claire — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:23:09 +0000

I think one area they definitely need foreign aid on is taking care of the misplaced and injured animals that also lost their homes and families. Any effort that can be made in the area for giving pet supplies, rehoming or finding their old owners is not necessarily something that has been granted money by the Japanese government.

By: andrew

andrew — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:51:59 +0000

I think this update is well-written and offers a good perspective, but the use of data to support the argument is still pretty reckless. In a way, it’s a circular argument to say there hasn’t been many donations yet by foundations, so that supports the argument that there’s no room for funding.

“Another data point is the behavior of foundations, which reported over $37 million for the 2010 Haiti appeal (same data linked above) vs. $6,115.00 to date for Japan. The Gates Foundation, in particular, gave two grants within a week of the Haiti earthquake but which doesn’t appear to have given anything for Japan so far.”

This to me means:
1) we obviously have the benefits of time to see what was donated to Haiti, and incomplete data at best for Japan; and

2) just because Foundations have not given does not support the argument that there’s no room, and in fact it could mean there’s a larger hole to fill; and

3) Even if Haiti received more money than Japan, this is not a “which disaster is worst” contest. Two disasters could both need money, have room for more funding, yet one because of the country’s economy could still have needed more and that need may or may have been met while the current one in Japan may still have needs.

For me, the written perspective, with the exception of the use of such data, is worth considering, but wreaks of “if there’s any doubt, I’m out.” In this situation, despite the presented unknowns and possibilities, many donors want to donate because they rather focus on potential positive impact rather than potential risk, and if lives are saved or improved because of that timely action, it’s worth some dollars going to inefficient or general use.

By: Brad L

Brad L — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:39:45 +0000

Unfortunately you just don’t get it. Do you folks understand the Japanese language at all? Are you relying upon interpreters? Not asking for assistance does not mean that assistance is not required. You folks need to read and reach an understanding of the societal nuances that can be found in many texts and essays like “Thick Face, Black Heart”. Let me address the fuel shortage issue. Panic and hoarding on the part of the general public are responsible for the shortage. The activities of the non-profits on the ground represent a tiny fraction of the demand spike. With more money, importers could charter vessels from Korea, China, Taiwan, and Singapore to make additional deliveries of refined products. Instead, the Japanese are running down their strategic reserves. If the non-profit sector had access to private funding this situation could be avoided. But hey, what do I know? I only have 25+ years of experience in the oil business.