bureau for humanitarian response u.s. …pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdabt656.pdf · u.s. agency for...

OFDA FY 2000 1

2OOO

BUREAU FOR HUMANITARIAN RESPONSEU.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

OFDA

Annual Report

Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance

Credits

The FY 2000 Annual Report of the U.S. Agency forInternational Development/Bureau for HumanitarianResponse/Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistancewas researched, written, and produced by EsmieAlegrado, Olga Bilyk, Jamy Bond, Kasey Channell,Laura Coughlin, Brady Hartley, Faye Henderson, JeffLadenson, Alex Mahoney, Wesley Mossburg, MattMueller, Joseph Ponte, Pia Rice, Amy Sink, Amy Tohill-Stull, Katharine Winings, and Giselle Zimmerman ofMacFadden & Associates, Inc./Labat Anderson, Inc.in Washington, D.C. under contract number AOT-C-00-00-00224-00.

Design by Robert King.

Cover photo information:(large photo) A building collapses from damage dueto flooding in southern Vietnam (photo courtesy ofIFRC).

(top photo left) USAID/FFP emergency food com-modities are off-loaded at a USAID/OFDA-fundedfeeding center in Sudan (photo by Mikaela Meredith,USAID/OFDA).

(top photo center) A helicopter delivers relief suppliesfor flood victims in southern Vietnam (photo courtesyof IFRC).

(Top photo right) Children await supplemental feedingat a USAID/OFDA-funded project site in Somalia(photo by Mikaela Meredith, USAID/OFDA).

In addition to its annual report, USAID/OFDA pro-duces several other publications that are available onthe Internet and by request. One of the most useful isthe Field Operations Guide (FOG), a pocket-sizedmanual that contains methodology for conducting dis-aster assessments, as well as information onUSAID/OFDA response procedures. USAID/OFDAalso produces current situation reports on selected dis-asters and crises around the world, which describethe humanitarian situation and the correspondingUSG response.

Current reports are available on several Internetgophers and World Wide Web sites, such as:

USAID Home Pagehttp://www.usaid.gov

UNOCHA ReliefWeb Home Pagehttp://www.reliefweb.int

Volunteers in Technical Assistance (VITA) DisasterInformation Centerhttp://www.vita.org

USAID/OFDA Publications

OFDA FY 2000 3

C O N T E N T S

Angola – Complex Emergency......................19

Burkina Faso – Returnees..............................21

Burundi – Complex Emergency ....................22

Central African Republic –Health Emergency ......................................24

Feature: Urban Flood MitigationProject in Bamako, Mali ..............................24

Comoros – Health Emergency ......................25

Democratic Republic of the Congo –Complex Emergency ..................................26

Democratic Republic of the Congo –Floods ..........................................................28

Democratic Republic of the Congo –Health Emergency ......................................28

Democratic Republic of the Congo –Accident........................................................29

Djibouti – Drought ........................................29

Eritrea – Complex Emergencyand Drought ................................................29

Ethiopia – Complex Emergencyand Drought ................................................31

Feature: Food for Thought ............................32

Ghana – Floods ..............................................34

Kenya – Drought ............................................34

Mauritania – Floods........................................35

Morocco – Drought ........................................36

Republic of Congo –Complex Emergency ..................................36

Rwanda – Complex Emergency ....................37

Sierra Leone – Complex Emergency ............38

Somalia – Complex Emergency ....................40

Southern Africa – Floods ..............................43

Sudan – Complex Emergency ......................46

Uganda – Complex Emergency ....................48

Asia PacificChina – Earthquake ......................................51

India – Cyclone ............................................52

India – Drought ............................................52

India – Floods................................................53

Indonesia – Complex Emergency ................55

Indonesia – Earthquake ................................57

Indonesia – Floods........................................58

Mongolia – Winter Emergency ....................58

Philippines – Volcano ..................................59

Southeast Asia – Floods ..............................59

Vietnam – Floods ..........................................61

Vietnam – Floods ..........................................62

Feature: Disaster Preparedness in Asia ........63

Credits and USAID/OFDA Publications..........3

Message from the Director ............................6

How the U.S. Government ProvidesHumanitarian Aid............................................7

Environmental Degradation and Disasters:Meeting the Challenge..................................10

Prior-Year and Non-Declared Disasters ......16

FY 2000 Declared Disasters ........................17

andthe

Africa

4 OFDA FY 2000

C O N T E N T S

Appendix: Summary of USAID/OFDA

Response in FY 2000 ....................................86

Commonly Used Acronyms ..........................93

Afghanistan – Complex Emergency ............65

Afghanistan – Drought ..................................67

Albania – Refugees ........................................67

Georgia – Drought ........................................67

Greece – Fire ................................................68

Hungary – Accident ......................................68

Hungary – Floods ..........................................69

Pakistan – Drought........................................69

Romania – Accident ......................................70

Romania – Floods..........................................70

Serbia-Montenegro – Complex Emergency ..................................70

Feature: The Effort to Diverta Potential Disaster: Lake Sarez....................73

Tajikistan – Drought ......................................74

Turkey – Earthquake ....................................74

Ukraine – Accident ........................................75

Uzbekistan – Drought ..................................75

EuropeNear Eastand the

Bolivia – Drought ..........................................77

Caribbean – Hurricane ..................................78

Chile – Floods................................................78

Ecuador – Volcano ........................................79

El Salvador – Health Emergency..................79

Honduras – Floods ........................................79

Mexico – Floods ............................................80

Feature: The Central AmericanMitigation Initiative ......................................80

Paraguay – Drought ......................................81

Venezuela – Floods ......................................82

Feature: USAID/OFDA’sGlobal Training Program............................84

Latin AmericaCaribbeanand the

OFDA FY 2000 5

O V E R V I E W

The requirements for humanitarian assistance,unfortunately, are on the increase. The human-itarian community has an obligation to recog-

nize this and respond in as creative and proactive amanner as possible. One of the great rewards ofworking in the humanitarian arena is the mutual rein-forcement that people of like minds provide to eachother; assumptions are made that don't requireexplanation: "Yes, we will find some way of help-ing...was that ever a question?"

Reinforcement like this is intellectual, emotional, andmoral, and goes a long way during hard times. Theindividual attitudes have a direct impact on theorganizations they represent, which in turn encour-ages institutionalization of truly cooperative behavior.

What we have increasingly seen, however, arearrangements and understandings put in place thatgreatly facilitate developing a shared agenda. At thesame time, the unique identities of the individualorganizations involved have not been compromised.The humanitarian community has begun to think andoperate in partnerships that reflect the realities ofworking in environments that are increasingly inse-cure. Donors have acknowledged the value of sucharrangements by recognizing their work in fundingdecisions. The development of cooperative arrange-ments represents a positive step in this direction, asreflected in the concerted efforts set forth to raise the

standards of humanitarian relief. The Sphere Project*is conspicuous among these efforts.

On a personal note, this will be my final message asDirector. It has been an extraordinary experience inthe best of company. Thank you all.

H. Roy WilliamsDirectorOffice of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance

M E S S A G E F R O M T H E D I R E C T O R

Finding Like Mindsin Hard Times

The humanitarian community hasbegun to think and operate inpartnerships that reflect the realitiesof working in environments that areincreasingly insecure.

Beneficiaries ofUSAID/OFDA-

funded droughtassistance programsin Paraguay (photoby Alejandro James,

USAID/OFDA).

* The Sphere Project is an inter-agency collaborative effort to increase the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance through aHumanitarian Charter and minimum standards guide.

6 OFDA FY 2000

O V E R V I E W

The Office of U.S. ForeignDisaster AssistanceThe Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance(USAID/OFDA) is the office within USAID responsiblefor providing non-food humanitarian assistance inresponse to international crises and disasters. TheUSAID Administrator is designated as the President'sSpecial Coordinator for International DisasterAssistance and USAID/OFDA assists in the coordina-tion of this assistance. USAID/OFDA is part of theBureau for Humanitarian Response (USAID/BHR),along with the Office of Food For Peace (USAID/FFP),the Office of Transition Initiatives (USAID/OTI), theOffice of Private and Voluntary Cooperation

(USAID/PVC), and the Office of American Schoolsand Hospitals Abroad (USAID/ASHA).

USAID/OFDA recently reorganized into three divi-sions, under the management of the Office of theDirector. The Disaster Response and Mitigation (DRM)division is responsible for coordinating with otherorganizations for the provision of relief supplies andhumanitarian assistance. DRM also devises, coordi-nates, and implements program strategies for theapplication of science and technology to prevention,mitigation, and national and international prepared-ness initiatives for a variety of natural and man-madedisaster situations. The Operations Division (OPS)

H O W U S A I D / O F D A W O R K S

How the U.S. GovernmentProvides Humanitarian Aid

Bureau forManagement

QualityControl

Bureau forPolicy andProgram

Coordination

Bureau forGlobal

Programs,Field

Support andResearch

Bureau forHumanitarian

Response

Bureau forAfrica

Bureau forEurope and

Eurasia

Bureau forLatin America

and theCaribbean

Bureaufor Asiaand the

Near East

Bureau forLegislativeand Public

Affairs

Office of theGeneralCounsel

Office of theInspectorGeneral

Office ofEqual

OpportunityPrograms

Office of SmallDisadvantaged

Business/Minority

Resource Center

USAIDAdministrator

Office ofU.S. Foreign

DisasterAssistance

Office ofPrivate andVoluntary

Cooperation

Office ofFood for

Peace

Adminis-trative

ManagementStaff

Office ofProgram,Planning

andManagement

Office ofAmerican

Schools andHospitalsAbroad

Office ofTransitionInitiatives

OFDA FY 2000 7

O V E R V I E W

develops and manages logistical, operational, andtechnical support for disaster responses. OPS main-tains readiness to respond to emergencies throughseveral mechanisms, including managing severalSearch and Rescue (SAR) Teams, the GroundOperations Team (GO Team), field Disaster AssistanceResponse Teams (DART), and Washington ResponseManagment Teams (RMT). The Program Support (PS)division provides programmatic and administrativesupport, including budget/financial services, procure-ment planning, contract/grant administration, gener-al administrative support, and communication supportfor both USAID/OFDA Washington, D.C. and its fieldoffices.

USAID/OFDA/DRM provides humanitarian assis-tance in response to a declaration of a foreign disas-ter made by the U.S. Ambassador or the U.S.Department of State. Once an event or situation isdetermined to require U.S. Government (USG) assis-tance, USAID/OFDA can immediately provide up to$25,000 to the U.S. Embassy or USAID Mission topurchase relief supplies locally or give a contributionto a relief organization in the affected country.USAID/OFDA also can send its own relief commodi-ties, such as plastic sheeting, blankets, tents, andwater purification units, from one of its five stockpileslocated in Italy, Guam, Honduras, and the UnitedStates. Increasingly, USAID/OFDA deploys short- orlong-term field personnel to countries where disastersare occurring or threaten to occur, and in some cases,dispatches a DART.

The largest percentage of USAID/OFDA's assistancegoes to relief and rehabilitation project grants man-aged by Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs),Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), andInternational Organizations (IOs). Relief projectsinclude airlifting relief supplies to affected populationsin remote locations, managing primary health careand supplementary feeding centers, and providingshelter materials to disaster evacuees and displacedpersons. A rehabilitation project might immunize dis-located populations against disease, provide seedsand tools to farmers who have been affected by dis-

asters, or drill wells or rehabilitate water systems indrought-stricken countries. USAID/OFDA carefullymonitors the organizations implementing these proj-ects to ensure that resources are used wisely and todetermine if the project needs to be adapted to chang-ing conditions. The goal of each project is to meet thehumanitarian needs of the affected population, withthe aim of returning the population to self-sufficiency.

The "notwithstanding" clause of Section 491 of theForeign Assistance Act of 1961 states that no statuto-ry or regulatory requirements shall restrictUSAID/OFDA's ability to respond to the needs of dis-aster victims in a timely fashion. USAID/OFDA followsthe standard USAID procedures for routine procure-ments, but utilizes expedited or modified procedureswhen necessary to achieve its disaster response objec-tives. The first principle in disaster response accounta-bility is to ensure that appropriate assistance gets tothe neediest victims in time to minimize death and suf-fering. Procurement and accounting procedures maybe expedited, but must include effective systems ofinternal control.

Not all of USAID/OFDA's assistance goes to provid-

OperationsDivision

Disaster Response andMitigation Division

Program SupportDivision

Office of the Director

Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance

18%NGO

53%PVO

27%UN

USAID/OFDA Funding of Grantsby Agency Type

2%IO

8 OFDA FY 2000

O V E R V I E W

ing aid in response to disasters. USAID/OFDA's miti-gation staff oversees a portfolio of projects designedto reduce the impact of disasters on victims and eco-nomic assets in disaster-prone countries. Over the lastseveral years, USAID/OFDA has invested in a num-ber of programs in partnership with the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS), the Pan American HealthOrganization (PAHO), the Asian DisasterPreparedness Center, the World Environment Center,and other offices within USAID. These programs notonly enhance a country's capacity to manage its owndisasters and hazards, but also promote the transferof technology, goods, and services between the U.S.and the host country. USAID/OFDA mitigation-relat-ed programs range from investing in drought early-warning systems that can possibly head off a famineto training local relief workers to manage theresponse to a disaster more effectively. USAID/OFDAis increasingly investing in programs designed to pre-vent, mitigate, prepare, and plan for complex emer-gencies, which are more the result of human actionsthan acts of nature.

Other U.S. Government OfficesThat Provide ForeignHumanitarian AssistanceUSAID/OFDA is not the only office within the USGthat provides humanitarian aid to foreign countries.USAID/FFP is responsible for administering the USG'sforeign food aid programs, under U.S. Public Law(P.L.) 480 Titles II and III. Title II emergency food aidprograms are targeted to vulnerable populations suf-fering from food insecurity as a result of natural dis-asters, civil conflict, or other crises. Title II emergencyfood aid is provided without repayment requirements,whereas Title III food aid is provided as a bilateralloan program to countries in need of assistance.USAID/OTI is the office within USAID responsible forproviding assistance to countries that are in a stage oftransition from crisis to recovery. Its assistance isdesigned to facilitate the transition to peace and

democracy by aiding in the demobilization of com-batants or developing democratic governance struc-tures within the country. Other parts of USAID, suchas the regional bureaus, provide foreign developmentaid, which often complements humanitarian reliefprograms or can be regarded as disaster recoveryassistance. Countries that have achieved sustainabledevelopment are less likely to require massive USGhumanitarian assistance.

Three of the biggest providers of USG humanitarianassistance are the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA), the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau forPopulation, Refugees and Migration (State/PRM) andthe U.S. Department of Defense’s Office forPeacekeeping and Humanitarian Affairs(DOD/PK/HA). USDA works closely with USAID/FFPin allocating surplus food commodities to developingcountries, under the Section 416(b) program of theAgricultural Act of 1949. This food aid is often usedfor emergency feeding programs in countries experi-encing food shortages due to drought or civil strife. Inother countries, local currency proceeds from the saleof Section 416(b) food aid is used in support of dis-aster assistance projects. State/PRM provides multilat-eral grants to international relief organizations inresponse to refugee emergency appeals and con-tributes to the regular program budgets of organiza-tions such as the U.N. High Commissioner forRefugees (UNHCR). DOD/PK/HA coordinates the uti-lization of DOD assets for humanitarian assistanceoverseas. In addition, DOD works closely withUSAID/OFDA and the U.S. Department of State tocoordinate the Denton Program, a program thattransports humanitarian goods on a space availablebasis, using U.S. military transportation. The U.S.Geological Survey (USGS), the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Forest Service(USFS), and the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) also provide technical assistance in response todisasters and potential hazards overseas.

COUNTRY DISASTER PROGRAM LENGTH TOTAL FUNDING

USAID/OFDA Top Five Programs FY 1990 – FY 2000

1. *Former Yugoslavia Complex Emergency 9 years $328.0

2. Sudan Complex Emergency 14 years $280.7

3. Angola Complex Emergency 12 years $137.6

4. Somalia Complex Emergency 12 years $133.8

5. Rwanda Complex Emergency 9 years $108.4

*Accumulated funding for programs in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Serbia-Montenegro.

OFDA FY 2000 9

B Y A L E X M A H O N E Y

Environmental Degradationand Disasters: USAID/OFDARises to the Challenge

The impact of disasters on people and propertyis steadily increasing. During the 1990s, threetimes as many natural disasters affected com-

munities than in the 1960s, but the economic lossesdue to natural disasters increased tenfold — from $4billion to $40 billion a year, according to theFebruary 2001 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel Reporton Climate Change. Much of this increase is due to adangerous combination of increasingly degradednatural environments, which contributes to the disas-trous impact of natural events, and ever-larger popu-lations moving into disaster-prone areas.Environmental degradation ranges from climatechange to deforestation, desertification, and reducedwater quality and supply.

USAID/OFDA and other members of the disasterrelief community continue to face major challengesposed by the significant increase in worldwide disas-ters. These challenges demand stronger links betweenrelief and development in the effort to prevent andreduce the impact disasters can have on lands andcommunities. USAID/OFDA is working toward agreater capacity and resourcefulness in responding toand mitigating these impacts by combining disasterreduction and prevention programs, linking with otherUSG agencies and international institutions, andstrengthening its internal capacity for response.

The Many Facets of EnvironmentalDegradationAn important factor driving environmental degrada-tion is global population growth in the context of direpoverty. Much of the world’s population growth isconcentrated in urban areas, where half of the world’ssix billion people now live, according to a recentPopulation Institute report, and this proportion contin-ues to grow at a rapid pace. Much of this urbangrowth is neither planned nor regulated. In some ofthe world’s largest cities, between 30% and 60% of theurban population lives in unauthorized settlements,according to UNEP. The lack of socio-economicopportunities in rural areas is one of the factors thathave pushed populations into cities to settle in the onlyaffordable sites — precarious urban locations on theleast desirable land. This land is often the most vul-nerable to hazards, such as landslides or flooding.Populations concentrated in these areas can destroythe land’s natural resiliency, thereby making it evenmore vulnerable. Unauthorized settlements are char-acterized by inadequate construction, poor or nonex-istent sanitation, and high concentrations of people —all of which greatly increase vulnerability to disasters,as demonstrated vividly during Hurricane Mitch andthe 1999 Venezuela floods.

Deforestation is one of the most visible signs of envi-ronmental degradation. According to the U.N.

10 OFDA FY 2000

O V E R V I E W

Environment Program (UNEP), half the world’s forestsare located in developing countries; during the 20thcentury, forested areas in these countries were halved.Deforestation on hillsides leads to soil erosion, land-slides, and increased risk of flooding as water runs offslopes rather than being absorbed. A reduction in theabsorptive capacity of soils contributes to groundwater resource depletion. If groundwater reserves aredepleted, it can take many hundreds of years for themto be replenished; if groundwater is used beyond thereplenishment rate, it becomes, in effect, a nonrenew-able resource.

In arid regions, which cover some 40% of the Earth’sland surface, a warmer Earth and increased pressurefrom human activities also could accelerate desertifi-cation. Desertification refers to the conversion of aridlands to deserts as a result of decreasing rainfall andloss of vegetation in a region, often the result of over-grazing, over-cultivation, or harvesting of trees andplants for fuelwood. Salinization also is a commonproblem in soils in arid regions, since salts accumu-late in the upper soil layers over time, often exacer-bated by irrigation with poor quality water and inad-equate drainage. Both desertification and salinizationcan render soil useless for grazing or agricultural pro-duction, leading to the displacement of populationsaway from the region. When drought strikes, tradi-tional agricultural coping methods for poor rainfallyears may no longer be adequate to deal with thesenew challenges.

There is growing evidence that the Earth’s climate iswarming at a faster pace. The U.N. report on ClimateChange concluded that the Earth’s average tempera-ture may rise by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheitduring the next 100 years. Effects that may flow fromglobal warming include weather that is increasinglyvolatile, storms that are more frequent and intense,and changing rainfall distribution patterns that floodsome areas and leave others to suffer from droughtconditions of unprecedented intensity. And these areonly the short-term effects. Global warming may beexpected to have longer-term effects as well: glaciersmay melt and areas covered by permafrost mayshrink, sea levels may rise, ocean currents maychange, and warm climate diseases such as malariaand cholera may spread to new areas. Millions ofpeople could be displaced as low-lying coastal areasare inundated by rising sea levels.

When environmental degradation leads to a scarcityof basic resources, such as food and potable water,social tension and conflict may arise either between orwithin states. Territorial rights to bodies of water

shared across boundaries are an increasingly con-tentious issue. Furthermore, environmental degrada-tion has the potential to spur large-scale populationdisplacement as land becomes unusable or climate-related disasters drive people from their homes, justas drought conditions have done recently inAfghanistan. Migrations may lead to tension betweenmigrants and host communities, particularly ifresources also are scarce in the host area. Because acomplex variety of factors are often what drive theseconflicts, it is difficult to determine the role that envi-ronmental causes have played in conflicts to date.

Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way:USAID/OFDA Accepts the Challenge ofPromoting Disaster Reduction andPreparednessThe effects of environmental degradation pose a two-fold challenge to USAID/OFDA: How doesUSAID/OFDA work to reduce the cost and magnitudeof future disasters? And how does USAID/OFDA pre-pare for larger and more frequent disasters? Duringthe last several years, USAID/OFDA has worked toincorporate environmental considerations into theprojects it funds around the world. Careful considera-tion of disaster response options is a critical elementof USAID/OFDA’s overall funding strategy.USAID/OFDA has incorporated strategic evaluationcriteria into its grant proposal review process, whichsupports those practices that avoid environmentaldegradation, and mitigate the potential for disastersin the future.

In 1998 when floods struck Kinshasa, DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, affecting an estimated100,000 people, USAID/OFDA responded after theemergency with a project designed to reduce the pop-ulation’s vulnerability to floods in the future. The proj-ect, which was implemented through Catholic ReliefServices (CRS), built 17 small check-dams from local-ly available materials, cleaned drainage canals, andreseeded degraded watershed areas to improve soiland moisture retention. When torrential rains againstruck Kinshasa in February 1999, there were noinjuries, no displaced residents, and no damagedhomes in the project area. This successful projectenabled the residents of Kinshasa to avoid a repeat ofthe $7.7 million in economic losses they suffered in1998. These losses are not insignificant in a commu-nity where average monthly household incomes areless than $70. (For additional details, see "Food forThought," p. 32.)

In March 1999, after surveying the extensive damage

OFDA FY 2000 11

O V E R V I E W

Hurricane Mitch caused in Central America, PresidentClinton announced the $11 million Central AmericanMitigation Initiative (CAMI) and named USAID/OFDAas its chief implementer. The project works to reducethe impact of natural disasters by building the nation-al capacity in Central American countries to forecast,monitor, and prevent those disasters. After identifyingthe root causes of the area’s vulnerability to naturalhazards, USAID/OFDA developed measurable objec-tives with which to address at-risk needs and designedstrategic action plans. Currently, USAID/OFDA iscooperating with other USG agencies in implementingthose plans. CAMI is one example of howUSAID/OFDA is responding to the demand forgreater links between relief and development, andcooperating with other agencies to implement projectsdedicated to preventing and reducing the impact dis-asters can have on lands and communities.USAID/OFDA recognizes that prevention, reduction,and preparedness are three important factors inreducing the large-scale devastation that disasterssuch as Hurricane Mitch can have on vulnerable pop-ulations. (For additional details, see "The CentralAmerican Mitigation Initiative," p. 80.)

In FY 2000, the impact of floods in Vietnam was exac-erbated because increased populations living inwatershed areas placed more people in danger.Recognizing the need to address this problem,USAID/OFDA started supporting flood plain delin-eation efforts designed to map flood plains to deter-mine where people should avoid building their homesin the future. These efforts also locate emergency shel-ters and determine evacuation routes to be used dur-ing future flooding.

In India and Pakistan, USAID/OFDA has funded sev-eral rainwater harvesting projects that work toimprove the ability of communities to cope with currentand future droughts. One aspect of these projects is toconstruct cisterns for rainwater storage, thereby

reducing the amount of available water that goesunused, as well as the need to extract groundwater forhousehold and agricultural use. These projects are anexample of how USAID/OFDA supports activities thatconsider factors such as urban population growth intheir design and implementation.

Together We Stand: USAID/OFDAPartnershipsUSAID/OFDA recognizes that responding to disas-ters, reducing their potential impact, and preparingfor when they strike requires a holistic approach, onethat draws from different agencies and organizationswith a range of expertise and abilities. USAID/OFDAis building partnerships with a variety of organiza-tions to leverage one of its most valuable assets:expertise in disaster-related issues. Appropriate devel-opment practices can make the difference in avoidingdisasters. As an office within USAID’s Bureau forHumanitarian Response, OFDA is well positioned towork in conjunction with other USAID bureaus andinternational organizations focusing on rehabilitationand development.

In Honduras, USAID’s Land Use ProductivityEnhancement (LUPE) program works to improve hill-side agricultural practices. Under LUPE, 38,000 fami-lies growing crops on a hillside have adopted envi-ronmentally sustainable cultivation practices thatreduce soil erosion on steep slopes from 37 tons peracre to less than half a ton, saving an estimated fivemillion tons of topsoil annually. During HurricaneMitch, LUPE farms withstood the ravages of the stormwhile soil erosion and landslides destroyed farms thatdid not adopt these practices. Following HurricaneMitch, USAID played a major role in reconstructionassistance, "building back better," according to theLUPE approach. USAID/OFDA continues to play anactive role in that effort.

In Africa, the Famine Early Warning System Network(FEWS NET), funded by USAID’s Africa Bureau withadditional funding from USAID/OFDA, supports anexchange of trans-boundary water information andclimate issues in Africa. FEWS NET provides monitor-ing and reporting on hydro-meteorological develop-ments likely to affect food supplies. USAID/OFDAprovides support to FEWS NET for areas of specificconcern, such as cyclical droughts and flooding thatcontribute to humanitarian disasters.

In Asia, USAID/OFDA has cooperated with theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) since 1993 to promote the regional produc-tion of seasonal climate forecast information, which

Hillside homesdestroyed by

landslides nearMacuto in Vargas

State, Venezuela(photo by

Alejandro James,USAID/OFDA).

12 OFDA FY 2000

O V E R V I E W

can then be applied towards disaster prevention andpreparedness through improved risk management.These efforts were instrumental in helping countriescope with the effects of the 1997-1998 El NiñoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) event.

Furthermore, USAID/OFDA funds the Bangkok-basedAsian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), whichsupports and encourages disaster reduction and pre-paredness activities. ADPC programs include theProgram for Understanding Extreme Climate Events(ECE), a USAID/OFDA-supported initiative that wasthe result of an Asian regional meeting on El Niño-related crises held by NOAA in February 1998. ECE’sgoal is to significantly improve the understanding ofhow extreme climate events, such as El Niño and LaNiña, can impact the environment in selected Asiancountries. The program uses effective application ofclimate forecast information to reduce the disasterimpacts of such events. The program currently runs inIndonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, andUSAID/OFDA expects it to expand to Bangladeshand Thailand. (For additional details see "DisasterPreparedness in Asia," page 63.)

In the Caribbean, a multi-year program to reduce vul-nerability to natural hazards is currently operating incooperation with the Organization of AmericanStates (OAS) and with USAID support. The 1993-

1999 Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project (CDMP)promoted the adoption of disaster mitigation and pre-paredness techniques, technologies, and practices bythe public and private sectors in the Caribbeanregion, thereby lessening the number of lives lost,reducing potential damage, and shortening the time ittakes to recover from natural disasters. Also, in theCaribbean, USAID/OFDA works closely with interna-tional lending institutions to increase disaster pre-paredness awareness in development planning.During FY 2000, USAID/OFDA provided theCaribbean Development Bank (CDB) with a start upgrant to establish an in-house advisor. The advisorreviews development loans and ensures that projectdesigns are sensitive to natural and environmentalhazards. After three years, the advisor will become apermanent, self-supporting position within the CDB.

Strength From Within: USAID/OFDABuilds Internal CapacityUSAID/OFDA recognizes that effective disasterresponse, reduction, and preparedness requirestrengthened internal capacity. Recently,USAID/OFDA embarked on a number of capacity-building initiatives designed to improve its ability torespond swiftly when disaster strikes. In December1999, USAID/OFDA established ResponseManagement Teams (RMTs), pre-designated teams

Number of USAID/OFDA Disaster Declarations by Type FY 1990 – FY 2000

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

166

131

62 6149

32 30 28 2722

16 15 14 14 11 10 6 4 4 2

Flood

s

Civil St

rife

Drough

t

Displac

ed Pe

rsons

Earth

quak

e

Epide

mic

Accide

nt Fire

Cyclon

e

Hurrica

ne

Landsl

ide

Food

Short

age

Storm

Typho

on

Refug

ees

Volca

no

Infest

ation

Avalan

che

Cold W

ave

Tsuna

mi

In the last decade, floods have been the leading cause for

disaster declarations worldwide. USAID/OFDA provided

$44.7 million in flood responses from FY 1990 – FY 2000.

OFDA FY 2000 13

O V E R V I E W

that are stationed in USAID/OFDA’s WashingtonD.C. Operations Center. RMTs are responsible forcoordinating all aspects of a major disaster response,from managing the field deployment of personneland commodities to disseminating information. RMTssupport Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DARTs),which rapidly deploy to disaster situations on behalfof the USG to assess, gather information and reporton current disaster situations, provide humanitariancoordination, and process grants to implementingpartners.

Furthermore, USAID/OFDA has enhanced its staffingin its regional field offices in San Jose, Costa Rica;Nairobi, Kenya; and Manila, Philippines and in sub-regional field offices in Bridgetown, Barbados;Kingston, Jamaica; and Kathmandu, Nepal toimprove the monitoring of potential crises, as well asconduct regionally-based management of disasterresponses and mitigation activities. USAID/OFDAalso has placed a regional advisor in Conakry,Guinea and Emergency Disaster ResponseCoordinators (EDRCs) in selected countries. In aneffort to enhance its surge capacity, USAID/OFDAhas established the Response Alternatives forTechnical Services (RATS) program. The RATS pro-gram ensures that when a disaster hits, additionalexperienced professional staff are available, as need-ed, for immediate field deployment or emergency

Washington support. USAID/OFDA also is workingto increase its existing commodity stockpile capacitiesin New Windsor, Maryland; Miami, Florida; Pisa,Italy; Guam; and Soto Cano, Honduras as the needfor emergency relief commodities has becomegreater. In Bangladesh and Mozambique, for exam-ple, USAID/OFDA was able to leave water purifica-tion units and Zodiac boats from nearby stockpiles toassist local authorities in responding to future flood-ing.

Finally, USAID/OFDA is developing a strategy inAsia to deal more effectively with the increased num-ber of hydro-meteorological disasters. During FY2000, USAID/OFDA deployed a hydro-meteorologi-cal advisor to Bangladesh to serve as a regionalresource in preparedness activities, providing adviceon activities such as the USAID/OFDA-funded, long-range flood-forecasting project for Bangladesh. Ahydro-meteorological expert based in Washington,D.C. augments the advisor in Bangladesh, and isresponsible for dealing with worldwide hydro-mete-orological issues.

With the effects of environmental degradationalready manifested in an increased number andintensity of disasters, and with further increasesexpected, USAID/OFDA is prepared to accept thechallenge this poses to the international relief com-

Disaster Reduction: A Practitioner’s Guide (DRPG)was produced by USAID/OFDA’s TechnicalAssistance Group (TAG) and serves as a referenceguide for the planning and development of disasterinterventions with a specific focus on preventionand preparedness. The guide supplementsUSAID/OFDA’s popular resource, Field OperationsGuide for Disaster Assessment and Response(FOG), with a variety of techniques for incorporat-ing elements of disaster preparedness and preven-tion into disaster response. The DRPG focuses onsix main sectors: seeds and tools, livestock, waterand sanitation, health, shelter, and food- and cash-for-work programs. Each chapter provides guide-lines on assessing options, offers various types ofinterventions, and profiles two illustrative case stud-ies. The DRPG also includes a reference bibliogra-phy, topical annexes, and an annotated Crop andFood Aid Calendar for Africa.

Three elements that provide the foundation forUSAID/OFDA’s mandate to save lives and alleviatehuman suffering are emphasized in the DRPG:

n Preventive interventions that promote activities tominimize risk. For example, when reduced rainfallis anticipated, households may be encouraged toplant more drought-resistant crops.

n Activities that mitigate, or reduce, the effects of adisaster in the short-term and enable populations torecover quickly. The DRPG encourages the provi-sion of relief items through local market channels aswell as the engagement of local businesses in reliefactivities.

n Long-term initiatives that promote preparednessand can facilitate more timely and effective disasterresponse; for example, early-warning systems andemergency relief training.

— Olga Bilyk

A New USAID/OFDA Publication:Disaster Reduction: A Practitioner’s Guide

14 OFDA FY 2000

O V E R V I E W

munity. By linking with other agencies and increasingits internal capacity to respond to larger and morefrequent disasters, USAID/OFDA is improving theeffectiveness of its response when disaster strikes.Even more importantly, however, USAID/OFDA issupporting international efforts in disaster reductionand preparedness by implementing projects that bet-

ter prepare vulnerable communities worldwide for theimpacts of disasters. It is with this effort thatUSAID/OFDA aims to reduce the devastating effectsan increased number of disasters can have on popu-lations and lands, thereby reducing the amount ofemergency response these disasters will require.

USAID/OFDA’s Technical Assistance Group (TAG)was created in 1998 as part of USAID/OFDA’sdedication to adopting new programming andresponse capabilities in the face of evolving chal-lenges to providing humanitarian assistance. Aspart of USAID/OFDA’s Disaster Response andMitigation Division (DRM), the TAG is the team oftechnical specialists who provide scientific expertiseto USAID/OFDA’s long-term planning, prepared-ness, and disaster response activities. Membershave a wide range of sectoral expertise, includingagriculture and food security, emergency and pub-lic health, water and sanitation, geoscience, cli-mate, urban planning, contingency planning, car-tography, and hydro-meteorology.

With these broad technical specializations, the TAGis able to provide USAID/OFDA with a global

understanding of hazards and disasters, as well asthe technical information needed for comprehensivedisaster preparation and response. TAG memberswork with all of USAID/OFDA personnel, includingregional offices and USAID Missions, and can serveon DARTs, assessment teams, and RMTs. Throughinter-agency agreements and coordination with var-ious USG agencies and bureaus, the TAG offersUSAID/OFDA access to valuable USG resources,such as NOAA, USGS, and CDC. The team adds asignificant value to USAID/OFDA activities by serv-ing as a core staff for evaluating global trends indisaster occurrences, and developing methods toincorporate lessons-learned into USAID/OFDA’sprevention, preparedness, and response activities.

— Olga Bilyk

USAID/OFDA’S TAG Team

In FY 1999, with disasters such as the devastatingearthquakes in Turkey, destruction from HurricaneMitch in Central America, and a shelter crisis fromcivil strife in Kosovo, USAID/OFDA played anincreasingly operational role in the field. Greaterfield presence placed greater demands onUSAID/OFDA staff in Washington and ultimatelyled the office to establish Washington-basedResponse Management Teams (RMTs), an operationdesigned to provide sustained support for theincreased number, size, and duration ofUSAID/OFDA DARTs. When a major disasterstrikes, USAID/OFDA not only deploys aUSAID/DART to the field, but also mobilizes theRMT in Washington to ensure accurate communica-tion, appropriate analysis, quick response to fieldand USG requests, and prompt information dissem-ination.

An RMT is composed of pre-designated teams thatare responsible for the planning, logistics, commu-nications, reporting, and administrative duties dur-ing the length of a disaster response. The RMT coor-dinates with USAID/OFDA’s USG partners inWashington on recommendations and decisions,and responds to inquiries from within the USGoffices. The implementation of the RMT structure inWashington parallels that of a DART on the ground.In effect, the coordination and operation of reliefactivities in the field are reflected by similar roles inWashington. In FY 2000, RMTs were activated forthe floods in Southern Africa and Venezuela, as wellas for the second earthquake in Turkey.USAID/OFDA attributes RMT operational success toits very systematic and focused approach.

— Olga Bilyk

Response Management Teams:When Disaster Strikes, USAID/OFDA Mobilizes

OFDA FY 2000 15

O V E R V I E W

Activities initiated in response to a disaster declara-tion often require additional funding for completionin subsequent fiscal years. In FY 2000,USAID/OFDA obligated a total of $1,751,652in response to disasters declared in FY 1999 andFY 1998.

FY 1999 Carryover

El Salvador – Hurricane MitchReplenishment of 5,150 blanketsto stockpile ..........................................$29,355

Guatemala – Hurricane Mitch Replenishment of 3,000 blanketsto stockpile ..........................................$17,100

Honduras – Hurricane MitchReplenishment of 2,541,024 sq. ft. of plasticsheeting, water bladders, and body bagsto stockpile...................................... $165,500

Macedonia – RefugeesReplenishment of 15,200 five-gallon watercontainers, 1,958,400 sq. ft. of plastic sheeting,and 1,260 tents to stockpile ................$687,780

Nicaragua – Hurricane Mitch Replenishment of 14,000 blanketsto stockpile ..........................................$79,800

Taiwan – EarthquakeCosts of deployment for Miami-Dade, Floridaand Fairfax County, Virginia Searchand Rescue teams.............................. $752,117

FY 1998 Carryover

Dominican Republic – Hurricane GeorgesReplenishment of water bladdersto stockpile ..........................................$20,000

Prior-Year andNon-Declared Disasters

16 OFDA FY 2000

O V E R V I E W

Disaster Summaries in thisAnnual ReportThe disaster descriptions on the following pages coverthe period of the USG’s fiscal year, October 1, 1999through September 30, 2000. During FY 2000,USAID/OFDA responded to 66 new "declared" dis-asters.

How a Disaster is DeclaredThe Chief of the U.S. Mission declares a disaster in theaffected country when he or she determines that a dis-aster exists that warrants a USG response and that isbeyond the ability of the host country’s responsecapacity. In the event that a U.S. Mission is not locat-ed in the affected country, the appropriate U.S.Assistant Secretary of State may declare a disaster. Adisaster cannot be declared without a request from thehost country for USG assistance. A disaster declara-tion allows the Chief of Mission or U.S. AssistantSecretary of State to allocate up to $25,000 (the"Disaster Assistance Authority") for host country reliefefforts. USAID/OFDA releases the $25,000 Ambas-sador’s Authority from its International DisasterAccount (IDA) and provides the Mission with guidanceto determine the need for additional USG assistance.USAID/OFDA sends assessment teams to disaster siteswhen needed to assist in the verification of reliefneeds.

USAID/OFDA Assistance andother USG AssistanceMany of the disasters in FY 2000 required a mix ofUSG financial and staff resources. The disasterdescriptions include total dollar figures for the assis-tance provided from USAID/OFDA’s IDA, as well assummary information on assistance provided by otherUSG offices, such as USAID/FFP, USAID/OTI, USDA,DOD, and State/PRM. It is not always possible forUSAID/OFDA to verify total assistance provided byother USG offices. Wherever possible, State/PRM andUSAID/FFP funding for regional grants, programs,and international appeals are listed separately.

Assistance Provided by U.S. PVOs,NGOs, and the InternationalCommunityInformation included in the disaster descriptions onassistance provided by U.S. PVOs, NGOs, and theinternational community is compiled from reports sub-mitted voluntarily to USAID/OFDA. It is not alwayspossible to verify the accuracy of these reports.

Detailed Situation Reports andFact Sheets on Major DisastersAvailable SeparatelyUSAID/OFDA produces documents that provide moredetailed information about declared disasters than isprovided in the case reports found in this annualreport. Situation reports are 4-5 page documentsupdated periodically and written on long-term, com-plex emergencies. Fact sheets are traditionally one- ortwo-page documents written on natural disasters andcomplex emergencies that eventually may warrant sit-uation reports.

Situation reports or fact sheets were written forthe following major disasters in FY 2000:Angola – Complex EmergencyBurundi – Complex EmergencyCaribbean – Hurricane LennyEast Timor – Complex EmergencyEritrea – Complex Emergency/DroughtEthiopia – Complex Emergency/DroughtHorn of Africa – DroughtIndia – CycloneSierra Leone – Complex EmergencySerbia-Montenegro – Complex EmergencySomalia – Complex Emergency/DroughtSouthern Africa – Cyclone Hudah/FloodsSudan – Complex EmergencyTurkey – EarthquakeVenezuela – FloodsVietnam – Floods

Note: Historical and current situation reports and factsheets also are available from USAID/OFDA uponrequest.

FY 2000 Declared Disasters

OFDA FY 2000 17

41 OFDA 2000

Africa

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 19

AngolaC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

The Government of the Republic ofAngola (GRA) and the National Unionfor the Total Independence of Angola

(UNITA) have been waging a civil war almostcontinuously since Angola’s independencefrom Portugal in 1975. The Lusaka Protocol,signed in 1994, brought a temporary halt to thewar. However, in 1998, UNITA, in violation ofthe four-year peace process, refused to disarmand launched fresh attacks. In December 1998,full-scale warfare resumed when the GRA

responded by bombarding UNITA’s strong-holds in the central highlands.

In 1999, the conflict was focused in thecentral plateau provinces of Malanje, Huambo,and Bie, where UNITA besieged government-held cities for months. Counterattacks by theGRA in late 1999 and early 2000 produced sig-nificant military gains. The Angolan ArmedForces (FAA) succeeded in consolidating andexpanding control of the provincial capitalsand major cities. Despite sporadic attacks byUNITA and widespread insecurity, by the endof FY 2000, fighting was focused mainly alongthe borders with neighboring countries, caus-ing Angola’s war to spill over into Namibia and

(opposite) Youngbeneficiaries at aUSAID/OFDA-fundedfeeding center inSierra Leone (photoby Regina Davis,USAID/OFDA).

SIERRALEONE

BURKINAFASO

GHANANIGERIA

C H A D

REPUBLICOF

CONGO

MAURITANIA

MOROCCO

BURUNDI

UGANDAKENYA

COMOROS

MADAGASCAR

SOUTH

AFRICA

MOZAMBIQUE

ZIMBABWE

BOTSWANA

ANGOLA

ETHIOPIA

S U D A N

ERITREA

DJIBOUTI

SOMALIA

RWANDADEMOCRATIC

REPUBLIC OF

THE CONGO

CENTRALAFRICANREPUBLIC

Africa

A F R I C A

20 OFDA FY 2000

Zambia, intensifying regional tensions. TheGRA’s military success against UNITA forcedthe insurgents to return to guerilla warfare.Attacks and ambushes by rebels and banditscontinued, particularly along key highwaysused for transporting goods, and even govern-ment-controlled areas suffered pervasive inse-curity. UNITA continued to terrorize the civilianpopulation, looting supplies, recruiting com-batants, and taking hostages.

An estimated one million Angolans havesuffered war-related deaths since the mid-1970s. Millions of unexploded landminesremain throughout the country. Thousandsmore were laid during FY 2000. More than70,000 Angolans are estimated to have lostlimbs as a result of landmine explosions,including hundreds of casualties and injuries inFY 2000. Of Angola’s total population of morethan 12 million, an estimated 3.7 millionAngolans were war-affected at the end of FY2000. The U.N. Office for the Coordination ofHumanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) estimated in

July 2000 that 1.9 million Angolans continuedto rely on food aid, and as many as 2.8 millionwould require some form of emergency assis-tance through the end of 2000.

As of July 2000, UNHCR estimated that 2.6million Angolans were internally displacedthroughout the country. An estimated 500,000of this total were newly displaced during FY2000. Most of the displaced fled insecurity inrural areas and flocked to provincial cities. Thelargest population movements occurred in Bie,Kwanza Norte, Huila, and Lunda Sul provinces,while the capital, Luanda, as well as Huamboand Malanje provinces, had the highest con-centrations of internally displaced persons(IDPs). Tens of thousands of Angolans fledtheir country during FY 2000. As of June 2000,according to various estimates, more than350,000 Angolans were living as refugees inneighboring countries — approximately 22,000in Namibia, 220,000 in Zambia, and 102,000 inthe Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Epidemics and shortages of food andpotable water continued to threaten the livesand health of vulnerable populations during FY2000. In addition, the majority of the roads intothe larger towns and cities to which IDPs fledwere cut off due to conflict, landmines, and/orbanditry. IDPs and residents competed forseverely limited resources. The potential forepidemics in Angola remained high, especiallyin the overcrowded IDP camps and cities.Malaria, tuberculosis, measles, and diarrhealdiseases were prevalent throughout the coun-try, and there were recurrent epidemics ofpolio, meningitis, and pellagra. Malnutritiondeclined in some areas, due to good harvestsand emergency relief interventions.

During FY 2000, instability continued toimpede and sometimes prevent humanitarianassistance activities. Relief organizations weretargets of harassment, looting, and crime byrebels and other insurgents. Due to poor orinsecure roads, airlifts often provided morethan half of the deliveries of relief commodi-ties. However, the deteriorating condition ofmany airstrips made the delivery of emergencyfood commodities, particularly during the rainyseason, treacherous, if not impossible. TheKuito airstrip, which served more than 200,000beneficiaries, was in particularly poor condi-tion.

On October 8, 1999, U.S. AmbassadorJoseph Sullivan redeclared a disaster inresponse to the continuing complex emergencyin Angola. The humanitarian situation haddeteriorated in the previous year, and hostilitieswere escalating. The number of war-affectedpeople at the time was estimated to be morethan three million; and, of these, approximate-ly two million were internally displaced.Angola clearly continued to require interna-tional humanitarian assistance.

During FY 2000, USAID/OFDA deployedseveral assessment missions to Angola and pro-vided a total of $6.6 million to nine grantees,including U.N. agencies, PVOs, and NGOs, toimplement emergency relief activities.USAID/OFDA supported Africare, CRS,International Medical Corps (IMC), MédecinsSans Frontiéres/Belgium (MSF/B), World Vision(WV) Incorporated, and the U.N. Children’sFund (UNICEF) for agricultural recovery pro-grams, including seeds and tools distributionand technical assistance; nutritional screeningand feeding programs targeted at childrenunder five; primary health care activities,including immunization and training of tradi-

As of July 2000, UNHCR estimated that2.6 million Angolans were internallydisplaced throughout the country. Mostof the displaced fled insecurity in ruralareas and flocked to provincial cities.

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 21

tional birth attendants; and water and sanita-tion activities, including the construction ofwater points and latrines, and training on howto use them.

Additionally, USAID/OFDA provided fund-ing to Development Workshop, a local NGO,for a project that rehabilitated the city ofHuambo’s water system. Beneficiaries of thisproject included both residents of Huambo andthe many IDPs located around the provincialcapital. USAID/OFDA also funded UNOCHA’sHumanitarian Assistance Coordination Unit(UCAH) for humanitarian reporting and coor-dination; and the U.N. Development Program(UNDP) for a field network of Security LiaisonOfficers to exchange security informationbetween local government officials, U.N. agen-cies, NGOs, and other humanitarian actors. Inaddition, USAID/OFDA supported the WorldFood Program’s (WFP) aircraft, which provideda safe and reliable means of air transport forhumanitarian assessments to isolated areas andthe delivery of essential, high-value emergencyfood and medical items. Finally, USAID/OFDAfunded an EDRC and co-funded a local infor-mation officer to provide USAID/Luanda andUSAID/OFDA with programming coordinationand regular field reporting on the changinghumanitarian situation.

In FY 2000, USAID/FFP provided 68,200metric tons (MT) of P.L. 480 Title II emergencyfood commodities, worth nearly $50 million, toWFP and the International Committee of theRed Cross (ICRC) for distribution to vulnerablegroups. In addition, the USDA contributed40,000 MT of Section 416(b) food commodities,worth more than $28 million, to WFP. USAID’sAfrica Bureau gave nearly $4.7 million for agri-cultural recovery programs, promotion of childsurvival, and polio immunization and treat-ment. It also provided $2.3 million for civilsociety building activities. USAID/Luandaworked closely with USAID/OFDA andUSAID/FFP on an integrated approach tohumanitarian assistance and rehabilitation.

State/PRM contributed $50 million toUNHCR and $42.4 million to ICRC for refugeeprograms throughout Africa. State/PRM alsoprovided $3.2 million to WFP for administra-tive costs associated with providing USAID andUSDA food commodities to refugees. A portionof these funds was used to assist Angolanrefugees. In addition, State/PRM providedapproximately $2.5 million for refugees,returnees, and IDPs in Angola, including $2.4million to UNHCR for protection and assistance

to refugees from the DRC and Angolanreturnees, and a $100,000 grant to WFP for thepurchase of food for the Congolese refugees inAngola.

USAID/OFDA ASSISTANCE ....$6,665,994

*OTHER USG ASSISTANCE ..$87,354,128

*TOTAL USG ASSISTANCE ....$94,020,122

*These funding figures do not reflect $95.6million in regional funding provided byState/PRM to UNHCR, WFP, and ICRC forrefugees and returnees throughout Africa.

Burkina FasoR E T U R N E E S

In early November 1999, a land dispute inthe Ivory Coast triggered several clashesbetween the indigenous Kru people and

ethnic Lobe and Dangare immigrants fromBurkina Faso. As a result, more than 15,000Burkinabe farmers and agricultural laborerswere driven from their homes. The majority ofthese immigrants had worked on cocoa plan-tations in the Ivory Coast for more than 10years. When more than 11,000 displaced immi-grants began returning to Burkina Faso, theyfound no access to food, clothing, housing, ormedical care.

On November 26, U.S. Chargé d’AffairesDaniel Santos, Jr. declared a disaster in BurkinaFaso due to the sudden influx of Burkinabe cit-izens from the Ivory Coast. USAID/OFDA pro-vided $25,000 through USAID/Bamako to CRSfor the purchase of food, medicine, mats, andblankets for Burkinabe returnees camped inGaoua. State/PRM contributed $250,000 toUNHCR for reintegration of the returnees.

USAID/OFDA ASSISTANCE..........$25,000

OTHER USG ASSISTANCE..........$250,000

TOTAL USG ASSISTANCE ..........$275,000

A F R I C A

22 OFDA FY 2000

BurundiC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

T he civil conflict between Burundi’sminority Tutsi and majority Hutu con-tinued with undiminished intensity for

its seventh consecutive year in FY 2000. Ethnicviolence erupted after the assassination ofdemocratically-elected President MelchiorNdadaye in 1993 and continued after the coupd’etat that brought Major Pierre Buyoya topower in 1996. The violence caused the inter-nal displacement of up to 800,000 people andforced thousands more to take refuge outsidethe country. As of April 2000, an estimated770,000 people (12% of the total population)were displaced throughout the country and559,000 (including 200,000 from a 1972 case-

load) were living as refugees, most of them incamps in western Tanzania.

In FY 2000, the ongoing peace talksbetween the warring groups again failed toachieve a major breakthrough. Former SouthAfrican President Nelson Mandela, acting as thenew mediator in the negotiations, attempted toachieve agreement on terms that would pro-vide for elections, military reform, and apower-sharing arrangement. President Clintonattended the signing ceremony of a "frame-work" peace agreement during a visit toArusha, Tanzania, on August 28, 2000. TheHutu leaders, however, did not sign the agree-ment.

The Tutsi-led national government’s policyof forcibly removing civilians to regroupmentcamps to flush out rebel forces had formallyended in early 1998 with the dismantling of thecamps. In September 1999, however, afterfighting broke out in the Bujumbura area, thearmy resorted again to the regroupment strate-gy, forcing thousands of people in the capitalarea from their homes and farms into makeshiftcamps. In Bujumbura Rural, more than 330,000were confined to 54 camps in which diseaseand malnutrition were rampant. The locationsand sheer numbers of the regroupment camps,as well as the general insecurity, posed logisti-

Beneficiaries of aUSAID/OFDA-

funded foodsecurity program in

Karuzi Province,Burundi (photos by

Kirsti Lattu,USAID/OFDA).

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 23

cal problems for relief workers attempting toprovide emergency humanitarian assistance.

The October 1999 murders of two U.N.expatriates in an ambush in southern Burundiunderscored both the deteriorating security sit-uation in the country during FY 2000 and thegrowing risk to humanitarian aid workersresponding to the crisis.

Adding to the humanitarian crisis inBurundi was the serious drought in 2000 thataffected an estimated 330,000 households (26%of the total population). Inadequate and poor-ly-distributed rainfall had reduced crop pro-duction for three growing seasons, and the2000 A season harvest was an average 26%below the pre-crisis average. Crop diseasesand a lack of food reserves added to the criti-cal food shortages that doubled rates of severemalnutrition in parts of Burundi.

The food security situation was especiallyprecarious in the northeast provinces ofKaruzi, Muyinga, and Kirundo. A nutritionalsurvey conducted by MSF/B in Karuzi Provincein March 2000 revealed a global malnutritionrate of 15% and a severe malnutrition rate of3.9%, which was twice as high as in December1998. The opening of additional supplemen-tary feeding centers led to improved nutrition-al surveillance and the referral of severe casesto therapeutic feeding centers. Forced regroup-ment more than doubled the number of peo-ple requiring WFP food assistance, as well asthe number needing supplementary and thera-peutic feeding in the camps in BujumburaRural. However, insecurity prevented manyfrom reaching the feeding centers, leavinguncertain the actual rate of malnutrition in thecamps. Ongoing conflict and insecurity inmuch of the southern part of the country led tothe displacement of a third of the population inMakamba, and further deterioration in thehealth and nutritional status of the people.

The lack of potable water and sanitation inthe camps, coupled with high rates of malnu-trition, set the stage for disease outbreaks.Incidence of malaria, dysentery, cholera, andtyphoid threatened to rise to epidemic levels inthe camps. A dramatic jump in the cases ofmalaria also was reported in Karuzi Province.In addition, the long-term disruption in routinechildhood immunization contributed to ameasles epidemic in FY 2000.

In July 2000, in response to internationalpressure, the Burundian government closedthe regroupment camps in Bujumbura Rural,although many of those living there have been

unable to return to their homes due to insecu-rity.

On October 4, 1999, U.S. Ambassador MaryC. Yates redeclared a disaster for Burundi in FY2000 due to the continued humanitarian needs.USAID/OFDA responded with a total commit-ment of $13,271,130 in funding during FY2000. In the nutrition and health sectors,USAID/OFDA provided nearly $5.3 million toAction Contre la Faim/France (ACF/F), MSF/B,Gruppo di Volontariato Civile, IMC, andUNICEF to support supplementary and thera-peutic feeding centers, train health workers,support vaccination campaigns, and provideessential drugs and medical supplies.USAID/OFDA food security activities, totalingnearly $2.8 million, were implemented byConcern, Solidarités, WV, Children’s Aid Direct,Cooperation for American Relief Everywhere(CARE), and the U.N. Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) to assist communitygroups in agricultural and livestock produc-tion, provide technical assistance and smallloans to farmers, distribute seeds, and conductassessments to better target food assistance.The International Rescue Committee (IRC)received $1.9 million from USAID/OFDA toprovide water and sanitation assistance, whileCRS received nearly $1.2 million to distributenon-food items. In addition, USAID/OFDAprovided $410,000 to UNOCHA to facilitatecoordination among relief agencies; and sup-ported UNDP with $193,000 to establish a fieldsecurity communications network.USAID/OFDA continued to maintain an EDRCin Burundi to coordinate the USG humanitari-an response and monitor the progress of USG-funded relief activities.

USAID/FFP provided 7,000 MT of P.L. 480Title II emergency food assistance, valued atmore than $4 million. USDA provided 10,000MT of Section 416(b) food commodities toWFP at an estimated cost of $5.9 million.State/PRM assisted IRC’s and UNICEF’s healthand education programs for refugee children(including Burundians) in Tanzania; supportedrefugee-related programs in Tanzania throughCARE, the International Federation of RedCross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC),UNHCR, and WFP; and supported Great Lakesregional programs implemented by IFRC andUNHCR. A portion of these State/PRM pro-grams benefited Burundians.

USAID/OFDA ASSISTANCE ..$13,271,130

A F R I C A

24 OFDA FY 2000

*OTHER USG ASSISTANCE ....$8,570,283


*STATE/PRM ASSISTANCETO BURUNDIAN REFUGEESIN TANZANIA ....................$12,800,000


Central AfricanRepublicH E A L T H E M E R G E N C Y

In March 2000, a meningitis outbreak struckthe Bria, Bambari, Birao, and Ngaoundayeareas of northeastern Central African

Republic (CAR). By the end of the month,more than 1,400 cases of meningitis and 262related deaths were reported, and by mid-Aprilmeningitis vaccination stocks were exhausted.On April 11, U.S. Ambassador Robert C. Perry

In July and August of 1999, unusually heavy rains fellin Mali for several weeks, cutting vital rail lines toDakar, Senegal, and disrupting road traffic to the

regional capital of Mopti. In Bamako, flooding causedat least eight deaths and damaged more than 100houses. Approximately 4,000 residents were forcedfrom their homes by floodwaters; and many of the dis-placed found shelter in local schools, where up to fourfamilies crowded into each classroom. The Mayor ofBamako requested emergency U.S. assistance, sincethe municipal government lacked sufficient resources torespond to emergency needs. USAID/OFDA provided$10,000 to the Malian Red Cross Society for the pur-chase and distribution of food, medicine, and otheremergency relief items to assist those displaced by thefloods.

The floods in Mali are only one example of how arapidly urbanizing world can lead to more natural haz-ards and increased vulnerability for certain popula-tions. During the next 25 years, cities in developingcountries such as Mali will account for nearly 95% oftotal global population growth. African cities will expe-rience the highest rate of growth. Even within a regionknown for high urban growth rates, Mali outpacesmany of its neighbors. World Bank and U.N. data sug-gest that the urban population of Mali will increasemore than four-fold between 1995 and 2025. Bamakois growing at an annual average rate of roughly 6.4%,which could result in an increase from the current pop-ulation of one million to nearly five million by 2025.

Rapid population growth has resulted in a signifi-cant deterioration of urban services and infrastructure.Nearly 60% of the population lives in unauthorized,poorly-constructed housing, with low levels of urbanservices, such as sewage disposal, refuse collection,water, and electricity. Furthermore, the disposal of solidwaste into waterways and drains has emerged as a keycontributing cause of recent widespread flooding inBamako; and the problem is exacerbated by extremedeforestation in and near the city due to the destructionof trees for firewood. Given that heavy or torrentialrains are nearly an annual occurrence in Mali (as in therest of the Sahel region), combined with waterwayoverflows, deforestation, inadequate waste disposal,and the lack of effective land-use management prac-tices to prevent development in flood-prone areas, thepopulation of Bamako is particularly vulnerable tofloods.

USAID/OFDA is seizing the opportunity to mitigatefuture flood damage in vulnerable areas such asBamako, Mali. Following the 1999 floods and recog-nizing Bamako’s potential for rapid growth and contin-uing vulnerability, USAID/OFDA decided to build uponthe success of an earlier flood mitigation initiative inKinshasa, DRC. In May 1998, USAID/OFDA funded aproject through CRS to help remove the build-up ofsand and mud from two communes of Kinshasa wheretorrential rains affected up to 100,000 residents.Commune families suffered direct economic losses of

Urban Flood MitigationProject in Bamako, Mali

(continued)

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 25

declared a disaster for CAR as a result of themeningitis outbreak. USAID/OFDA provided$25,000 through the U.S. Embassy to MSF/B.USAID/OFDA’s funding of MSF/B assisted theMinistry of Health’s efforts to immunize nearly900,000 citizens against meningitis.


ComorosH E A L T H E M E R G E N C Y

In December 1999, a cholera outbreakstruck the island of Anjouan in Comoros.While the region of Domini was the most

severely affected, areas of Noumakele, thepoorest and most populous region of theisland, also were impacted. More than 140cases of cholera and 14 deaths were reported.On January 10, U.S. Ambassador Mark W.Erwin declared a disaster in response to thecholera outbreak. USAID/OFDA provided$25,000 through the U.S. Embassy in Port

nearly $7.1 million, or the equivalent of approximate-ly 55% of the annual average family income. In lateMay 1998, USAID/OFDA provided additional fund-ing to CRS for a project to reduce and manage flood-water runoff. In the next year, CRS was able to mobi-lize the community to construct 17 small dams, madefrom bamboo cuttings, grass, and sandbags; strength-en water retention basins; and clean clogged canals.These measures were tested repeatedly during the1999 rainy season, when torrential rains again hitKinshasa in February. Although two of the 17 damsfailed, no flood-related damage was sustained in thetwo communes, no residents were injured or dis-placed, and no livelihoods were affected. As a resultof this USAID/OFDA “investment,” more than100,000 residents were spared the economic lossesthat they otherwise would have faced as a result of the1999 floods. The success of this mitigation projecteliminated the need for USAID/OFDA assistance in FY1999.

In Bamako, USAID/OFDA is supporting a projectthat could serve as a model of sustainable action inother African cities. USAID/OFDA provided ActionAgainst Hunger (AAH/USA) with a one-year (July2000 – June 2001) grant of $294,000 for a pilot floodmitigation project in the Banconi District of Commune1, one of Bamako’s fastest growing, most densely pop-ulated, poorest, and most under served sections.During the 1999 floods, 416 families in the BanconiDistrict were affected by flash flooding from nearbycliffs. Of Banconi’s total population of approximately200,000, more than 111,000 residents live in areas athigh-risk for flood damage.

In July 2000, USAID/OFDA sent a two-personteam to Bamako to help launch its newly funded floodmitigation project. Team members met with numerouslocal and national government officials, commune

association members, and others who expressed con-siderable support for the project’s objective to reducethe impact of flash flooding in two creeks traversing thecommune. First, AAH/USA aimed to limit the uncon-trolled flow of rainwater by constructing catchmentbasins, reinforced fragile creek banks with stonespacked in iron wire, and planted trees along water-ways.

One of the key aspects of AAH/USA’s project is itseffort to improve solid waste management practices inthe community. Under the project, AAH/USA con-structed four transit dumpsites and worked with com-munity members, municipal sanitation services, andprivate garbage collection companies to clean refusefrom waterways, and establish a sustainable systemfor garbage collection, disposal, and recycling. Inaddition, AAH/USA used education and trainingmodules to increase awareness of flood hazards andhygiene (and its connection to water-borne diseases)among school children, the general public, and publicofficials. This includes periodic community clean-updays, complete with festive music and food. The proj-ect seeks to promote livelihoods by linking garbagecollection, recycling, and composting with urban agri-culture (forestry, livestock, and fisheries), particularlyalong waterways and drainage ditches.

USAID/OFDA expects that the pilot flood mitiga-tion project in Bamako will serve as a model for othercommunity-based natural hazard reduction activitiesin urban settings throughout Africa or other vulnerableregions of the world.

— Laura Coughlin

A F R I C A

26 OFDA FY 2000

Louis, Mauritius to Aide MedicaleInternationale (AMI), a French NGO. AMI usedthese funds to purchase emergency medicalsupplies, including intravenous fluid, ringersolution, disinfectant, and curative and pre-ventative medical equipment, which were thenused to treat communities at risk.


DemocraticRepublic of theCongoC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

Widespread fighting continued todestabilize both the DRC and theGreat Lakes region throughout FY

2000, restricting humanitarian access to dis-placed and war-affected populations. Violencebetween Rwandan and Ugandan troops inKisangani in June marked the most intenseoutbreak of violence in the DRC following thesigning of the Lusaka Peace Accords in bothJuly and August 1999. The political leaders ofthe DRC, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola,Rwanda, Uganda, and the main combatantswere signatories to the Lusaka Accords. Thefighting exacerbated regional insecurity,immobilized economic activity, and destroyedapproximately 60% of the city. In response tothe deteriorating humanitarian situation andcontinued insecurity in the DRC, U.S.Ambassador William L. Swing redeclared a dis-aster for FY 2000 on November 16, 1999.

Additional fighting was reported inEquateur, Orientale, Katanga, the Kasais, andNorth and South Kivu provinces. All sides inthe conflict continued to violate the LusakaAccords, which outlined a cease-fire andorganized inter-Congolese dialogue. Theaccords also requested the deployment of 90U.N. military observers in the U.N. ObserverMission (MONUC), which was increased to5,500 peacekeeping troops in February 2000.

According to UNOCHA, an estimated 1.5million people have been internally displacedwithin the DRC since August 1998. Most IDPswere integrated into host communities while

an estimated 50,500 displaced were located incamps in Kisangani, Kinshasa, and Katangaprovinces. USAID/OFDA’s humanitarian assis-tance activities targeted the needs of vulnera-ble host populations and IDPs. UNHCR report-ed that more than 221,000 refugees from theDRC crossed into Angola (13,000), Burundi(21,000), the Republic of Congo (12,000),Rwanda (33,000), Tanzania (98,000), Uganda(8,000), and Zambia (36,000) to flee the ongo-ing conflict. In addition, an estimated 315,000refugees from Angola (180,000), Burundi(19,000), the Republic of Congo (12,000),Rwanda (33,000), Sudan (68,000), and Uganda(3,000) fled into the DRC from insecurity inthese neighboring countries. UNHCR access toall refugees was hindered by fuel shortagesand impassable roads.

The uncertain security situation in the DRCprevented international humanitarian effortsfrom reaching widely dispersed and diversegroups of IDPs. In accessible regions,USAID/OFDA maintained 22 grants, totalingmore than $13 million, with implementingpartners AAH/USA, AirServ, CRS, Food for theHungry International (FHI) German Agro-Action (IMA), IRC, Medical Emergency ReliefInternational (MERLIN), Save the ChildrenFund/United Kingdom (SCF/UK), UNICEF, andWorld Relief Cooperation (WRC). In FY 2000,USAID/OFDA continued to fund an EDRC tomonitor the emergency humanitarian situationand USAID/OFDA relief activities throughoutthe country.

Deterioration in the health sector wasexacerbated by the increased strain of IDPsand refugees on local care networks andremained a leading cause for humanitarianconcern in the DRC. USAID/OFDA respondedby funding 10 grants that provided emergencynutrition assistance, urgent medical supplies,polio immunizations, and emergency basichealth care to an estimated 2.4 million benefi-ciaries. MERLIN received approximately $1million from USAID/OFDA to continue theprovision of basic health care to war-affectedin Maniema and Kasai Orientale.

In January 2000, the U.N. Secretary-General to the Security Council on MONUCreported that more than 2.1 million people(IDPs, refugees, and urban vulnerable) facedcritical food insecurity. USAID/OFDA respond-ed by providing seven grants, totaling approx-imately $4.8 million, for seeds and tools distri-bution and emergency agriculture infrastruc-ture rehabilitation projects. These grants bene-

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 27

fited more than 700,000 people in Kinshasa,Katanga, North Kivu, and South Kivuprovinces. In Kinshasa, USAID/OFDA provid-ed more than $900,000 to IRC to distributemonthly food supplements, provide medicaltreatment to conflict victims and IDPs, supplyemergency shelter materials, and organize areunification program for unaccompanied chil-dren.

USAID/OFDA also provided $2.9 million toAAH/USA for the procurement of medical sup-plies and the establishment of therapeuticfeeding centers in Katanga Province. IRC alsoreceived more than $2.2 million fromUSAID/OFDA to assist an estimated one mil-lion beneficiaries in Kisangani and South Kivuby improving vulnerable populations’ nutri-tional status, establishing access to health cen-ters, assuring adequate water and fuel supply,and repairing a vital trade bridge in theLuberizi region of South Kivu to providehumanitarian access. To assist in the coordina-tion of NGO activities, USAID/OFDA funded atotal of 10 grants in logistical support, coordi-nation, volcano preparedness in Goma, andemergency shelter projects in FY 2000 thatassisted an estimated 1.1 million beneficiaries.

USAID/OFDA also provided approximately $1million to Airserv to airlift plastic sheeting,medical supplies, and equipment to help alle-viate the effects of violence in Kisangani.

In FY 2000, USAID/FFP assisted vulnerablepopulations in the DRC by providing 4,150 MTof P.L. 480 Title II emergency food assistance,valued at more than $3.3 million. USDA pro-vided 10,720 MT of Section 416(b) food com-modities to WFP valued at more than $7.8 mil-lion. USAID/OTI provided more than $2.7 mil-lion to support negotiations on national recon-ciliation and the implementation of the LusakaPeace Accords by civil society groups.State/PRM assisted in the care of refugees andemergency food procurement and distribution,totaling more than $5.5 million in FY 2000.





A picture takenbefore drainageimprovements werecompleted in affectedKinshasa communes(photo by SarahBeakes and EuguluBosango, CRS).

A F R I C A

28 OFDA FY 2000

DemocraticRepublic of theCongoF L O O D S

In November and December 1999, extensiveflooding in the DRC threatened approxi-mately 1.5 million people in the vicinity of

Kinshasa. According to UNOCHA, the waterlevel of the Congo River rose from its averageof 3.7 meters to 5.2 meters. Approximately13,000 people in Bas-Congo region were ren-dered homeless due to the floodwaters. OnNovember 30, 1999, the Government of DRCappealed to the international community forassistance. On December 1, 1999, U.S.Ambassador William L. Swing declared a disas-ter due to the flooding in DRC.

USAID/OFDA initially provided $45,000 inresponse through the U.S. Embassy to CRS torehabilitate the drainage system in three sec-tions of Kingabwa, a poor, densely populated(approximately 200,000 people) area located inthe flood plain of the Congo River in easternKinshasa. The project aimed to improve waterflow, lower the threat of flooding, and reducethe incidence of water-borne diseases bycleaning the canals and streams that serve asdrains for Kingabwa. USAID/OFDA subse-quently funded a grant of $115,507 to CRS tocomplete the drainage project.

USAID/OFDA ASSISTANCE........$160,507

DemocraticRepublic of theCongoH E A L T H E M E R G E N C Y

In January 2000, the DRC’s National MalariaControl Program (PNLP) and the CDC con-ducted a joint assessment of the prevalence

of malaria in health facilities in Kinshasa. Theassessment revealed a dramatic rise in thenumber of cases of malaria among children.From 1998 to 1999, pediatric admission rates toKinshasa General Hospital increased from 46%to 86%. The Congolese health care system wasill-equipped to effectively manage the suddenincrease in caseloads; and delays in receivingtreatment contributed to an elevated mortalityrate.

On February 16, 2000, U.S. AmbassadorWilliam L. Swing declared a health emergencyin Kinshasa. USAID/OFDA responded with theprovision of $25,000 through the U.S. Embassyto CRS to support the two main hospitals inKinshasa in expediting the diagnosis and treat-ment of severe malarial cases in children.


A picture takenafter drainage

improvements inaffected Kinshasacommunes. These

and other low-costdisaster reductionmeasures drama-

tically reduced thevulnerability of

residents to flooding(photo by Sarah

Beakes and EuguluBosango, CRS).

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 29

DemocraticRepublic of theCongoA C C I D E N T

On April 14, 2000, a fire broke out in awarehouse at Ndjili InternationalAirport in Kinshasa. The fire damaged

several buildings and caused stored munitionsand a fuel tank to explode. Authorities esti-mated that more than 100 people died andapproximately 250 people were injured in theexplosion. Local hospitals quickly becameoverwhelmed with the influx of patients.

On April 17, U.S. Ambassador William L.Swing declared a disaster in DRC and request-ed emergency relief funds to assist the victimsof the explosion. In response, USAID/OFDAprovided $25,000 through USAID/Kinshasa tothe IFRC/Congolese Red Cross Society toaddress the most urgent needs of those victimsinjured in the explosion and fire.


DjiboutiD R O U G H T

As in other countries in the Horn ofAfrica, Djibouti suffered from extensivedrought conditions during FY 2000.

According to the U.N., the drought adverselyimpacted approximately 150,000 people, morethan one-sixth of the country’s population. In-country water tables decreased significantly,according to WFP, and livestock health suf-fered from scarce pasture and water sources.The nutritional status of rural populationsdependent on meat and dairy products fromtheir herds deteriorated. According to Caritas,the number of malnourished children in itsfeeding program increased dramatically duringthe first quarter of 2000. Nomadic populations,facing decreased purchasing power due todeflated livestock prices, migrated to urbanareas in search of assistance and additional

sources of income. In June, lack of potablewater and unsanitary conditions led to an out-break of cholera. The Government of theRepublic of Djibouti declared a drought emer-gency and requested international assistance inJuly 1999.

On April 13, 2000, U.S. Ambassador LangeSchermerhorn declared a disaster in Djiboutidue to the effects of the drought. In response,USAID/OFDA provided $25,000 to support aCaritas feeding program. In addition,USAID/OFDA provided $50,000 to Djibouti’sNational Office of Assistance to Refugees andDisasters (ONARS) for maintenance of trucksused for delivery of emergency food andwater. In support of a U.N. appeal,USAID/OFDA provided $50,000 to UNICEF forhealth and water initiatives to combat cholera.

In addition to USAID/OFDA funding,USAID/FFP and USDA also provided emer-gency food assistance. In FY 2000, USG emer-gency food aid to Djibouti totaled 2,765 MTand was valued at $1.4 million. In addition,State/PRM provided $455,000 to UNHCR andWFP for assistance to Somali, Ethiopian, andEritrean refugees residing in Djibouti.


*OTHER USG ASSISTANCE .... $1,882,100

*TOTAL USG ASSISTANCE ......$2,055,657


EritreaC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

A N D D R O U G H T

Eritrea and Ethiopia started fighting overcontested areas of their shared border inMay 1998. The conflict has been charac-

terized by sporadic periods of fighting thathave destroyed villages and towns in borderareas, and forced more than one millionEritreans to flee their homes. On May 12, 2000,fighting between the two countries reignited.Ethiopian troops managed to push as far north

A F R I C A

30 OFDA FY 2000

into Eritrea as Teseney in the west and Senafein central Eritrea. An estimated one millionEritrean civilians were displaced, particularly inthe Gash-Barka zone and more than 90,000people fled to eastern Sudan, where an esti-mated 160,000 Eritrean war refugees werealready residing.

Under the auspices of the Organization forAfrican Unity (OAU), Eritrea and Ethiopiasigned a cessation of hostilities agreement onJune 18, 2000 in Algiers. Under the agreement,the U.N. will deploy approximately 4,200peacekeepers and military observers as part ofits Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE).With a current mandate extending throughSeptember 15, 2001, UNMEE will monitor thecease-fire agreement through the demarcationof the border, coordinate with humanitarianorganizations providing assistance, and over-see demining operations in contested areas.

Many of the estimated one million dis-placed persons were forced to leave theirhomes with few personal belongings. TheIDPs congregated around bushes for shadeand natural water sources. These groupslacked basic necessities such as shelter, food,potable water, and proper sanitary conditions.Crop cycles in Gash-Barka, the main agricul-tural zone in Eritrea, were completely disrupt-ed by the conflict, adding to food insecurity.

After the signing of the cessation of hostil-ities agreement, many Eritreans returned totheir places of origin or repatriated through atripartite agreement between the Governmentof the State of Eritrea, the Government ofSudan, and UNHCR. However, nearly half of

the displaced population was unable to repa-triate due to the existence of landmines andunexploded ordnance and the threat of con-tinued fighting.

During FY 2000, Eritrea also suffered fromdrought conditions, particularly in theNorthern Red Sea and Debub zones. In addi-tion, failure of the winter harvest in the easternzones created additional needs for emergencyfood assistance. According to the U.N., approx-imately 335,000 people were adversely impact-ed by the drought in Eritrea. As in other partsof the Horn, pastoralist populations in Eritreasuffered extensive losses to their herds andother personal assets.

Based on the humanitarian impact of theborder conflict and drought, U.S. AmbassadorWilliam Clarke redeclared a disaster in Eritreaon October 18, 1999. In response,USAID/OFDA provided more than $5.9 millionfor emergency relief programs in FY 2000. Inaddition, USAID/OFDA deployed a DART toEritrea on May 18, 2000, and maintained apresence in-country to monitor the situationand ensure appropriate USG response until theend of FY 2000.

Because of the sudden displacement ofsignificant populations with the renewal ofhostilities in May, USAID/OFDA focused muchof its assistance on the provision of temporaryshelter and other non-food commodities toIDPs. Through UNDP, UNHCR, and Africare,USAID/OFDA distributed emergency sheltermaterials, blankets, and household items tomore than 250,000 beneficiaries. USAID/OFDAprovided additional support to ICRC for airtransport of relief commodities and medicalsupplies as well as support for a WFP airlift ofhigh-energy biscuits.

USAID/OFDA also supported numeroushealth and nutrition interventions during FY2000 in Eritrea. USAID/OFDA awarded $1.5million to UNICEF for supplementary feeding,the transport of potable water, and the repairof sanitation facilities that targeted 250,000children and pregnant or lactating women. Inaddition, USAID/OFDA provided funding toIMC to establish mobile health clinics and sup-plementary feeding centers in Gash-Barka, andto train Ministry of Health staff on nutritionalmonitoring and survey methodology. MercyCorps International (MCI) also receivedUSAID/OFDA funding for an emergency feed-ing program in Debub zone.

USAID/OFDA contributed to food securityin Eritrea through a grant to CARE to increase

Women andchildren find safety

in Zula IDP campafter being

displaced byfighting in southern

Eritrea (photo byKim Smith,

USAID/OFDA).

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 31

agricultural production for drought-affectedpopulations in the Northern Red Sea zone.USAID/OFDA procured eight rubbhalls(portable temporary warehouses) for WFP toincrease food storage capacity.

In addition to USAID/OFDA funding, theUSG provided emergency assistance to Eritreathrough USAID/FFP, USDA, and State/PRM.USAID/FFP P.L. 480 Title II emergency foodassistance to Eritrea totaled 4,980 MT, valued atmore than $2.5 million. USDA provided108,000 MT of Section 416(b) assistance, val-ued at approximately $14 million. State/PRMprovided more than $2.6 million in Eritrea forassistance to refugees and IDPs. In addition,State/PRM contributed $2 million to ICRC toassist war-affected populations, POWs, anddetainees in both Ethiopia and Eritrea, and$5.7 million to UNHCR to support new Eritreanrefugees in Sudan and surrounding countries,and Eritrean IDPs located along the Sudaneseborder.





EthiopiaC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

A N D D R O U G H T

In May 1998, Ethiopia and Eritrea becameconsumed in a conflict over their sharedborder, which extends approximately 600

kilometers. The border conflict resulted inintermittent outbreaks of violence, destructionof infrastructure, and significant populationdisplacements in both countries. The latestround of intense fighting between Ethiopianand Eritrean troops began on May 12, 2000.Ethiopian troops advanced far into Eritrean ter-ritory, displacing large numbers of Eritreancivilians, particularly in the Gash-Barka zone.

The OAU brokered a cessation of hostili-ties agreement that was signed by both coun-tries on June 18. The agreement included plansfor the deployment of a U. N. peacekeepingoperation, the U.N. Mission in Ethiopia andEritrea (UNMEE). UNMEE’s mandate calls forapproximately 4,200 troops and militaryobservers to monitor the two countries’ adher-ence to the terms of the cease-fire and conductdemining operations that will facilitate theresettlement of war-affected populations.Approximately 350,000 people have been dis-placed in Tigray and Afar regions of Ethiopiaby the conflict.

In addition to the border conflict, Ethiopiaalso has been hampered by the effects of threeconsecutive years of below average rainfall. In

USAID staff surveydamage in the war-torn town of Zala-Ambesa along theborder betweenEthiopia and Eritrea(photo by Amy Sink,USAID/OFDA).

A F R I C A

32 OFDA FY 2000

FY 2000, severe drought conditions culminatedin the most widespread food crisis in the coun-try since the famine of 1984 -1985. Affectedpopulations also suffered from severe watershortages, extensive livestock loss, and increas-ing malnutrition. Pastoralist populations insouthern and southeastern Ethiopia, facinglosses of as much as 90% of their herds, wereforced to migrate to other areas in search ofpasture and water sources.

On January 21, 2000, the Government ofthe Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia’s

(GFDRE) Disaster Prevention and PreparednessCommission (DPPC) launched an appeal foremergency assistance for a population of 7.7million affected by drought and 350,000 peopledisplaced by the war in the north. In June, theU.N. issued a consolidated appeal for thedrought in the Horn of Africa that sought assis-tance for 10 million Ethiopians. Following thefailure of the secondary harvest in June – July2000, the GFDRE revised its number of benefi-ciaries in need of assistance to 10.5 million.

Due to the continued effects of the border

East and Central Africa is known for a long andcomplex history of both natural and man-madedisasters. In the last three years, Uganda, Kenya,

Tanzania, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of theCongo (DRC) have seen either extreme drought or dev-astating floods on top of a recurring civil insecurity thathas cost these populations stability for years to come.The collapse of regular harvests and the loss of short-term crops have dramatically affected agriculture pro-duction across the region and increased the popula-tion’s need for food assistance.

Cassava, a starchy carbohydrate-based plant withleaves rich in protein, is a major source of dietary ener-gy for more than 500 million people throughout muchof sub-Saharan Africa. In countries where a healthydiet can be more of a challenge than a choice, the cas-sava plant offers high-energy carbohydrates and amoderate amount of protein, including eight essentialamino acids. As if these dietary assets weren’t enough,cassava also is cited as one of the most drought toler-ant and weather resistant crops available — capable ofhigh yields under marginal soil conditions. It is no sur-prise that the plant has developed into the most widelycultivated crop in East and Central Africa.

Despite its heartiness, however, during the late1980s cassava production was in serious danger whenan unusually severe pandemic of Cassava Mosaic VirusDisease (CMD) spread across hundreds of thousands ofkilometers in East and Central Africa. The disease dev-astated crops, disrupted local economies, and threat-ened virtually all of the areas where cassava is grown,including Uganda, western Kenya, northwesternTanzania, and southern Sudan. In addition, the threatrapidly spread to the neighboring countries of Burundi,DRC, and Rwanda.

In October 1998, in response to deep concernsover this potentially debilitating crop disease,USAID/OFDA began funding the Emergency Programto Combat CMD Pandemic in East Africa, the firstregion-wide CMD control program of its kind. Theresults have been remarkably successful, particularly ininitiating efforts to revive cassava production inUganda, Kenya, and Tanzania, to monitor any pan-demic recurrence, and to develop a CMD-resistant cas-sava variety in strategically placed harvest centersaround the region. In an effort to build upon these suc-cesses, USAID/OFDA began funding a second pro-gram in June 2000, the Cassava Mosaic DiseasePandemic Mitigation Project. By growing CMD-resist-ant cassava strains, available in Uganda, Kenya, andTanzania, the project mitigates the effects of food short-ages from crop losses due to drought or disease. Theproject also is working to address deteriorating foodsecurity situations in bordering countries that are vic-tims of the westward expansion of CMD.

On August 1, 2000, Secretary of Agriculture DanGlickman made a visit to USAID/OFDA’s implementingpartner, the International Institute of TropicalAgriculture (IITA) in Ibadan, Nigeria, as part of hisresearch on hunger, infrastructure, and health careissues facing countries in Africa. IITA scientists informedformer Secretary Glickman of the Center’s developmentand distribution of improved cassava varieties to farm-ers in disaster-prone areas of Africa, and the pro-gram’s significant impact on the future of cassava pro-duction and food security in East and Central Africa.

— Katharine Winings

USAID/OFDA and the International Institute of Tropical AgricultureCassava Mosaic Disease Pandemic Mitigation in East and Central Africa

Food for Thought

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 33

conflict and drought on Ethiopia’s population,U.S. Ambassador Tibor Nagy redeclared a dis-aster for Ethiopia on October 8, 1999. Inresponse, USAID/OFDA provided a total of$14.7 million in emergency relief programsduring FY 2000. In addition, USAID/OFDAdeployed significant personnel to the region asearly as March 2000 to assess and report on thesituation and expedite relief efforts. On May18, 2000, USAID/OFDA deployed a DART toEthiopia and maintained a presence in-countrythrough the end of FY 2000.

Due to the severity of malnutrition andresulting health problems caused by thedrought, USAID/OFDA provided more than $7million to support health and nutrition pro-grams in Ethiopia. Specific program activitiesincluded therapeutic and supplementary feed-ing, nutritional monitoring, vaccination cam-paigns, rehabilitation of health centers, andtraining of health care workers. USAID/OFDA’simplementing partners for health and nutritionprograms included ACF/F, ICRC, ConcernWorldwide, GOAL, American Red Cross(AmRC), SCF/UK, and UNICEF. During thepeak of the drought crisis in March,USAID/OFDA funded several emergency air-lifts of high-protein biscuits, blended foods,and therapeutic milk to treat severely malnour-ished children in Gode and Afder zones ofSomali region.

USAID/OFDA provided $1.7 million tosupport emergency water and sanitation initia-tives in FY 2000. USAID/OFDA-funded projectswith CARE, the International Committee for theDevelopment of Peoples, and CooperationeInternationale, increased water availability inOromiya region through the rehabilitation andconstruction of water sources, emergencywater tankers, and the distribution of watercontainers. USAID/OFDA also provided fund-ing to IRC for similar water supply initiatives aswell as the construction of sanitation facilitiesin Somali region. USAID/OFDA’s water andsanitation programs targeted more than400,000 beneficiaries in FY 2000.

USAID/OFDA provided more than$400,000 in FY 2000 to WV and FHI to improvefood security for an estimated 55,000 house-holds in Amhara region through agriculturalactivities. Upon the arrival of rains, WV andFHI provided households with seeds and tools,supported with USAID/OFDA funding, toincrease the areas of cultivated land.

In FY 2000, USAID/OFDA provided $4.6million to support logistics and coordination

activities. Due to the enormous amounts ofemergency food aid and non-food items thatneeded to be transported from Djibouti,USAID/OFDA provided funding to WFP toaugment capacity at the Port of Djibouti andrehabilitate the main road running from theport to the Ethiopian border. In addition,USAID/OFDA provided support to UNDP toimprove capacity at Berbera Port in Somalia.USAID/OFDA also sought to improve the coor-dination of logistics and relief activities throughfunding to UNOCHA, WFP, and UNDP’sEmergency Unit for Ethiopia to provide securi-ty, reporting, air transport, and preparednessinitiatives.

In FY 2000, USAID/FFP P.L. 480 Title IIemergency food assistance to populationsaffected by drought and conflict in Ethiopiatotaled 248,200 MT, valued at more than $106million. USDA provided 480,000 MT of Section416(b) emergency food assistance, valued atapproximately $62 million. State/PRM providedapproximately $4.8 million in support ofrefugees and displaced populations inEthiopia. In addition, State/PRM provided $2million to ICRC to assist war-affected popula-tions, POWs, and detainees in both Ethiopiaand Eritrea.

USAID/OFDA ASSISTANCE ......$14,663,905


*TOTAL USG ASSISTANCE......$188,480,105


Ethiopianbeneficiaries waitto register at aUSAID/OFDA-funded supple-mentary feedingcenter in Welayita,Southern Nations,Nationalities andPeople’s Region(photo by Amy Sink,USAID/OFDA).

A F R I C A

34 OFDA FY 2000

GhanaF L O O D S

In September and October 1999, heavy rainsseverely flooded the Upper West, UpperEast, Northern, Brong Ahafo, and Volta

regions of Ghana. The Government of Ghanareported 52 deaths, 1,500 cases of cholera, andmore than 280,000 residents affected by theflooding. Economic and educational activitieswere severely disrupted when many of thosewho were rendered homeless sought emer-gency shelter in market stalls and school build-ings.

In response to the humanitarian needs cre-ated by the flooding in Ghana, U.S. Chargéd’Affaires Gail D. Mathieu declared a disasteron October 26, 1999. USAID/OFDA provided$25,000 through USAID/Accra to the GhanaianRed Cross (GRC). The GRC used the funds toprovide blankets and kerosene lamps to dis-placed women and children. In addition,USAID/OFDA deployed its urban planning/shelter expert to Ghana to participate in aninter-agency assessment of the shelter sectorand to provide technical assistance in thedevelopment of a relief and resettlement plan.


KenyaD R O U G H T

Low rainfall and drought conditions,which plagued much of the Horn ofAfrica in FY 2000 also severely affected

parts of northern and western Kenya. The areasmost-affected included the districts of Moyale,Turkana, Marsabit, Mandera, Wajir, andSamburu. According to the U.N., approximate-ly 3.3 million people (2.2 million pastoralistsand 1.1 million school children) were affectedby drought in Kenya. Reports indicated thatmalnutrition rates in certain areas were twicenormal levels, particularly in some of therefugee camps in northern Kenya. Herds dwin-dled and food prices increased as the result oflosses to crops and pastures. In December1999, the Government of Kenya (GOK) madean emergency appeal for international assis-tance in combating the ongoing drought.

In support of the GOK’s appeal, U.S.Ambassador Johnnie Carson declared a disasterin Kenya on December 6, 1999. In response,USAID/OFDA provided an initial $25,000 forimmediate relief activities in Turkana District.

USAID/OFDA provided a total of $5.7 mil-lion for drought relief interventions in Kenyaduring FY 2000. In the early stages of thedrought, USAID/OFDA provided $11,500 toWFP to assess and improve practices for tar-

Participants in aUSAID/OFDA-

funded foodsecurity project in

Kenya learntechniques of

irrigation (photo byCaroline Abla,USAID/OFDA).

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 35

geting and distributing emergency food aid tovulnerable populations. USAID/OFDA alsoprovided a grant of more than $1 million toWV for food security and water activities inTurkana District. Program activities includedmonitoring of and training in food aid opera-tions, nutritional surveillance, rehabilitation ofwater sources, supplementary feeding, and theprovision of grinding mills.

In addition, USAID/OFDA providedapproximately $1.4 million to UNICEF for theprovision of blended foods, essential medicine,and immunizations to 100,000 vulnerable chil-dren; and $386,000 to IMC for primary healthcare services and nutrition interventions inSamburu District.

USAID/OFDA also committed significantresources in FY 2000 for water activities toimprove access to potable water for drought-affected populations and their livestock.USAID/OFDA awarded a grant to the AdventistDevelopment and Relief Agency (ADRA) forthe rehabilitation and construction of watersources to benefit approximately 130,000 peo-ple in Kitui District. USAID/OFDA also provid-ed funding for water source rehabilitation andmanagement initiatives in Marsabit andMandera districts through grants to LutheranWorld Relief (LWR) and Rural Focus, respec-tively. USAID/OFDA funded UNICEF to pro-vide emergency water and build local capacityin water management in three drought-affecteddistricts.

To assist populations in the recovery oftheir livelihoods, USAID/OFDA funded severalprograms related to agriculture and livestockrehabilitation. USAID/OFDA funded LWR andTufts University for a livestock/animal healthprogram benefiting approximately 211,000 pas-toralists. In addition, CRS received a grant from

USAID/OFDA for a cash-for-work program insoil and water conservation. USAID/FFP pro-vided $14 million for 24,147 MT of maize, peas,vegetable oil, corn soy blend, and beans toassist in the drought response. USDA provided93,000 MT of Section 416(b) commodities(maize, corn soy milk blend, corn soy blend,and soy oil) to WFP, valued at $41.1 million.





MauritaniaF L O O D S

Heavy rains from September throughNovember 1999 caused significantflooding along the Senegal River and

in some southern and central regions ofMauritania. In October, the Mauritanian CrisisCommittee estimated that more than 11,000families in the most-affected regions of thecountry remained without shelter, blankets, ormosquito nets. The total number affected wasestimated at 200,000 people.

On November 18, U.S. AmbassadorTimberlake Foster declared a disaster inMauritania in response to the flooding. Thiswas the country’s second flood-related disasterdeclaration since September 1999.USAID/OFDA responded by providing $25,000through the U.S. Embassy in Nouakchott tothree local organizations responding to theemergency needs of flood victims. The fundswere distributed to Commune of Kaedi inGorgol region, Crisis Committee in Boghe,Brakna, and an elected committee of affectedresidents in Rosso for the local purchase oftents, blankets, and mosquito nets.USAID/OFDA also provided approximately$89,000 to the Mauritanian Crisis Committeefor the purchase of an additional 4,500 mos-quito nets and 600 tents. The relief commodi-

A USAID/OFDA-funded boreholewater projectimproves access topotable water inGarrissa, Kenya(photo by CarolineAbla, USAID/OFDA).

A F R I C A

36 OFDA FY 2000

ties were used to complete household kits con-taining one tent, one blanket, and two mosqui-to nets for distribution to flood victims.


MoroccoD R O U G H T

Drought conditions beset Morocco forthe second consecutive year during FY2000. The country’s wheat production

fell to 34% of its five-year average. In March,2000, the Government of Morocco (GOM)launched a 15-month rural relief effort.However, at the end of the summer, more than275,000 drought-affected residents in TiznitProvince were reported to be in need of emer-gency relief assistance.

On August 16, U.S. Ambassador Edward M.Gabriel declared a disaster for Morocco due tothe effects of the drought. USAID/OFDA pro-vided $25,000 through USAID/Rabat to CRS toprovide potable water to more than 6,000 ben-eficiaries in 12 rural communities in TiznitProvince. CRS activities included the provisionand transport of potable water, the distribution

of storage containers, and the implementationof village water management initiatives.

USAID/FFP and USDA provided 260,000MT of emergency food commodities, valued at$25.6 million, under the P.L. 480 Title II andSection 416(b) programs. Some of these foodcommodities were monetized (sold on the localmarket) and the proceeds were used to fundrelief programs to assist drought victims. TheGOM distributed part of the monetized pro-ceeds in the form of grants to support its RuralDevelopment Fund. The grants supportedactivities such as road repairs, potable waterprojects, the purchase of irrigation equipment,livestock safeguard projects, and micro-creditsfor farmers. USAID/Rabat used nearly $3.1 mil-lion of the monetized proceeds for waterresource management projects and agriculturalmicro-credit programs.


OTHER USG ASSISTANCE ....$25,600,000

TOTAL USG ASSISTANCE......$25,625,000

Republicof CongoC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

The armed conflict that began in late1998 between militia groups andRepublic of Congo (ROC) military forces

affected at least one-third of the country’s 2.7million people. The destruction of propertyand infrastructure, looting, and human rightsabuses were perpetrated by all sides. Morethan 200,000 people were displaced fromBrazzaville, the ROC’s capital, in December1998 and January 1999. In total, the number ofIDPs in the ROC was estimated at more than800,000, most of whom spent the better part ofa year living in the forest for safety. Farming,education, and health care activities wereseverely disrupted in the most-affected south-ern portion of the country.

As hostilities abated in 1999, some IDPsfrom Brazzaville began returning to the city,many of them in poor health and sufferingfrom malnutrition. An additional 400,000 to500,000 IDPs remained in the forests and vil-lages of southern ROC where access was limit-

Beneficiaries of aUSAID/OFDA-funded

nutrition and foodsecurity program

plant gardens in theRepublic of Congo(photo by Caroline

Abla, USAID/OFDA).

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 37

ed because of security concerns. After severalmonths of living remotely, where they lackedadequate food and medical care, these IDPswere believed to be in even worse conditionthan the Brazzaville returnees.

After the signing of a cease-fire inDecember 1999 and the beginning of thedemobilization of militia groups, the pace ofthe IDPs’ return to their home villages acceler-ated. An estimated 10,000 returnees a weekwere registered in February 2000. At one regis-tration site in Brazzaville, the number of chil-dren under five was only 10% of the popula-tion, instead of the normal distribution of 20%,indicating that a large number of childrenunder five years of age had died during theperiod of conflict and displacement. Returningto villages with few or no social services andlittle economic activity, the IDPs required con-siderable assistance from relief agencies tohelp them rebuild their lives and livelihoods.

With the peace and reconciliation processcontinuing, the humanitarian situationimproved by late July, and nearly all areaswere accessible to relief agencies. As malnutri-tion rates dropped, the emphasis shifted fromtherapeutic and supplementary feeding torebuilding and restocking the health infrastruc-ture, and distributing seeds and tools to helprehabilitate the agricultural sector.

While the number of IDPs declined in FY2000, concern was growing in Brazzavilleabout the influx of refugees from fighting inthe DRC. As of late July 2000, up to 100,000refugees from Equateur Province were scat-tered in villages along the ROC’s bank of theCongo River, and 8,000 urban refugees fromMbandaka, DRC had settled in LikoulaProvince. Access to refugees in villages alongthe Oubangui tributary of the Congo River hadbecome nearly impossible due to a lack ofroads and a blockade of river traffic imposedby DRC military forces. According to aUNOCHA report, the number of DRC refugeesin the ROC had grown to nearly 100,000 by theend of September 2000.

On October 12, 1999, U.S. Chargéd’Affaires James C. Swan redeclared a disasterfor FY 2000, citing the continuing dire human-itarian situation in ROC. USAID/OFDA provid-ed $4 million to continue or initiate humanitar-ian programs in FY 2000. ACF/F and CRSreceived funding totaling more than $2.1 fortherapeutic and supplementary feeding pro-grams, health care services, and food securityto war-affected families in the Pool region.

With $473,000 provided by USAID/OFDA, theFAO distributed essential agricultural inputsand supported the coordination of emergencyagricultural operations. IRC received $888,398to implement a health rehabilitation project inDolosie, and UNICEF received $500,000 tosupport nutrition, vaccinations, and medicalprograms in Pool, Lekoumou, Buenza, andNiari regions.

USDA provided 7,400 MT of Section 416(b)food commodities to WFP valued at more than$5.6 million. State/PRM provided more than$1.4 million to UNHCR, IFRC, and IRC for theiremergency and camp programs to assistAngolan and Congolese refugees in the ROC.State/PRM also provided $50 million to UNHCRand $42.4 million to ICRC for their Africa pro-grams, a portion of which was used in theROC; and more than $1 million to UNHCR,UNOCHA, and IFRC to support regionalrefugee-related programs, including those inthe ROC.





RwandaC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

In FY 2000, Rwanda continued to recoverfrom years of civil strife. Although the secu-rity situation in Rwanda remained relatively

calm in FY 2000, sporadic incidents of violenceoccurred. The most notable incident being theDecember 23, 1999 attack by armed Intera-hamwe on the Tamira resettlement site inGisenyi’s Mutura Commune, in which 29 peo-ple were killed and more than 40 were injured.There was also international concern overregional developments and their possibleimpact on Rwanda. Population movements ineastern DRC due to the continuing conflictthere, as well as insecurity in neighboring

A F R I C A

38 OFDA FY 2000

Burundi, held the potential for a new influx ofrefugees or an increase of IDPs in Rwanda.

Favorable rains in most parts of Rwandaduring FY 2000, coupled with a return to sta-bility in the fertile northwest areas, improvedthe overall food security situation. A crop pro-duction assessment in February 2000 conclud-ed that food output countrywide increasedapproximately 37% in the Fall 1999 – Winter2000 agricultural season over the previousfall/winter season. During the January to June2000 growing season, however, insufficientand poorly distributed rains resulted in a sharpdecline in crop production in the southernKigali Prefectures, adversely affecting morethan 374,000 people. According to UNOCHA,although overall agricultural crop productionincreased in 2000, food assistance was stillrequired in the drought-affected areas.

Despite the improvements in security andagricultural production, the outlook forRwanda’s future was one of only guarded opti-mism. In FY 2000, an estimated 150,000 peoplein the northwest region remained vulnerable,including single-parent households, child-headed households, widows, returnees with-out land, and many of the people living inresettlement sites who had only limited per-sonal assets. Many residents of northwestRwanda still lacked access to health care andessential medicine (the price was beyond themeans of much of the population), while manypeople in the resettlement sites lacked easyaccess to land and potable water. According toa September 2000 UNOCHA report, approxi-mately 370,000 families (more than 1.5 millionpeople) were still living under plastic sheetingor in damaged homes, and another 63,000 fam-ilies were in abandoned housing. The foodsecurity situation, though improved in FY2000, remained fragile due to the unpre-dictability of weather conditions and thepotential for an upsurge in violence related toevents in eastern DRC.

Citing concerns about the continuing andpotential emergency humanitarian needs inRwanda, U.S. Ambassador George M. Staplesredeclared a disaster for FY 2000 on May 9,2000. USAID/OFDA provided more than $1million to continue its emergency assistanceprograms. USAID/OFDA provided NorwegianPeople’s Aid (NPA) with $349,520 to supportGisenyi Hospital by training staff and provid-ing essential medicines and medical supplies.USAID/OFDA provided $399,450 to IRC tocontinue its water and sanitation programs in

Gisenyi Prefecture, including the repair andimprovement of existing water systems to pro-vide potable water for up to 50,250 people, aswell as improve sanitation conditions in 16 pri-mary schools. USAID/OFDA also provided$200,000 to support UNOCHA’s coordinatingand monitoring activities to identify areas ofRwanda with unmet humanitarian needs.

SCF/UK received $199,598 fromUSAID/OFDA to improve the health status ofvulnerable populations in Kabaya District inGisenyi Prefecture through the repair of exist-ing health facilities and water systems, the pro-vision of essential medicine and medicalequipment, and training of health care staff.

USAID/FFP provided 5,000 MT of P.L. 480Title II emergency food assistance, valued atmore than $3.8 million. State/PRM contributed$236,241 to support the American RefugeeCommittee’s (ARC) Congolese refugee assis-tance program in Rwanda and provided$77,531 to assist IRC in the tracing and reunifi-cation of Rwandan refugee children in theROC. State/PRM also assisted UNICEF’s educa-tion programs for refugee children in Tanzania(including Rwandans), as well as Great Lakesregional programs implemented by IFRC andUNHCR.





Sierra LeoneC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

Sierra Leone has been consumed by civilstrife since 1991. The conflict has claimedmore than 20,000 lives and, at its peak,

forced almost half of Sierra Leone’s 4.5 millioninhabitants from their homes. An estimated490,000 Sierra Leoneans were forced to seekrefuge in other West African states, primarilyGuinea (360,000) and Liberia (96,000).According to UNHCR, Sierra Leone is the lead-ing country of origin for African refugees.

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 39

Widely divergent estimates of the total numberof IDPs in Sierra Leone range from 500,000 tomore than one million.

The Government of Sierra Leone (GOSL)and the rebel Revolutionary United Front(RUF) signed a cease-fire agreement on May18, 1999, and, on July 7, the Lome Accord,which formally ended eight years of civil war.The terms of the Lome Accord called for thedisarmament of combatants, the release of allabducted civilians, the inclusion of rebel rep-resentatives in the GOSL’s cabinet and otherhigh-level government posts, and unhinderedhumanitarian access. On October 22, 1999, theU.N. Security Council approved the deploy-ment of a U.N. peacekeeping force in SierraLeone, known as UNAMSIL, which by the endof FY 2000 included approximately 9,000troops.

Despite the Lome Accord, numerouscease-fire violations continued, including fight-ing between rebel factions, killings and abduc-tions of civilians, and attacks on humanitarianworkers, their vehicles, and relief supplies. OnOctober 1, 1999, U.S. Ambassador JosephMelrose redeclared a disaster for Sierra Leonein response to the continued humanitarian cri-sis and emergency relief needs of IDPs andother vulnerable populations in Sierra Leone.

During FY 2000, the Western Area (includ-ing the capital, Freetown), the SouthernProvince, and some parts of the EasternProvince enjoyed relative security andimprovements in humanitarian conditions.Despite the promises of the Lome Accord,however, rebel-controlled eastern and north-ern areas of the country remained largely inac-cessible to relief agencies, jeopardizing thelives and well-being of thousands of vulnera-ble residents. Even in relatively secure areas,poor road conditions and recurrent fuel short-ages hampered the delivery of emergencyrelief assistance.

The tenuous peace ended in May 2000when RUF soldiers took approximately 500U.N. personnel and UNAMSIL peacekeepingtroops hostage, leading to the resumption ofhostilities. Fighting continued throughout therest of the year between insurgents and pro-GOSL forces, supported by UNAMSIL, particu-larly in northern areas. Many relief operationshad to be suspended, including those in newlyaccessible areas, such as Tonkolili, Kambia,Lunsar, Kono, Makeni, and Kabala.

The deteriorating security situation trig-gered massive population movements. An esti-

mated 300,000 people were newly displacedafter May 2000. According to UNHCR, morethan 10,000 Sierra Leoneans fled to Guineaduring the summer of 2000. Fighting in Augustin Lofa County, Liberia, and violence in Guineain September prompted the spontaneous repa-triation of more than 7,000 Sierra Leoneanrefugees. Returnees and IDPs swelled alreadyovercrowded IDP camps and host communi-ties, putting tremendous strain on humanitari-an facilities and capacities.

USAID/OFDA provided more than $11.7million in FY 2000 to support 10 U.N. agencies,PVOs, and NGOs in implementing emergencyprograms in a number of sectors, includingrelief coordination, agriculture, health, nutri-tion, water and sanitation, agriculture, shelter,and logistics. USAID/OFDA funded CARE,Africare, CRS, and WV for agriculture rehabili-tation programs in Tonkolili, Moyamba,Kailahun, Bo, and Kenema. USAID/OFDA sup-ported agriculture programs that focused onthe distribution of seeds and tools and provid-ed agriculture extension services to help reset-tling families achieve food security.USAID/OFDA also funded FAO for the coordi-nation of agriculture rehabilitation programs.

In addition, USAID/OFDA funded Africare,CRS, MERLIN, UNICEF, and WV to implementemergency health programs throughout acces-sible areas of the country, including maternaland child health care, vaccinations, and

restocking health facilities with basic medicineand medical equipment. USAID/OFDA alsosupported ACF/F and MERLIN for therapeutic

Food distribution ata USAID/OFDA-funded feedingcenter in SierraLeone (photo byRegina Davis,USAID/OFDA).

A F R I C A

40 OFDA FY 2000

and supplementary feeding programs inFreetown, Waterloo, Magburaka, Makeni,Bombali, and Kenema. In support of water andsanitation efforts, USAID/OFDA funded ACF/F,MERLIN, and UNICEF to increase access topotable water and sanitation facilities, throughwater chlorination, well repairs, and latrineconstruction.

USAID/OFDA funded CRS’ shelter rehabili-tation programs in Kambia and Lunsar, whichassisted 600 homeowners in reconstructingtheir damaged houses. USAID/OFDA alsofunded CARE’s distribution of non-food items,including water containers and cooking uten-sils to IDPs, and provided CARE with an in-kind donation of 2,448,000 sq. ft. of plasticsheeting for distribution to IDPs in need ofemergency shelter. In FY 2000, USAID/OFDAcontinued to support WFP’s humanitarian heli-copter used for assessments and delivery ofemergency relief commodities. UNOCHA’sHumanitarian Assistance Coordination Unit(HACU) for humanitarian coordination andreporting also was funded by USAID/OFDA.

USAID/FFP contributed 39,710 MT of P.L.480 Title II emergency food commodities, val-ued at nearly $24 million, for distribution byWFP, CARE, CRS, and WV. USAID/FFP alsoprovided $5.9 million to WFP for emergencyfood assistance to Sierra Leonean refugees inGuinea, and approximately $1 million to WFPfor Sierra Leonean refugees in Liberia.

USAID/OTI provided more than $3 millionfor technical assistance with the implementa-tion of the Lome Accord; a grant to WV to pro-mote civil society peace-building and civic edu-cation initiatives; grants to WV andManagement Services International to imple-ment a non-formal education program for60,000 ex-combatant and non-combatantyoung adults; and a grant to Search forCommon Ground for media and distance learn-ing projects focused on demobilization, recon-ciliation, and reintegration.

USAID's Bureau for Africa (USAID/AFR)provided $560,000 in FY 2000 to assist war vic-tims through a grant to IRC for the rehabilita-tion and reintegration of former child soldiersand other war-affected children, and technicalassistance to Handicap International, whichprovided prosthetics to the war-wounded.USAID/AFR also funded UNICEF to continue itschildren's tracing, protection, and assistancenetwork. USAID/AFR also provided $50,000 inSpecial Self-Help funds to the U.S. Ambassadorfor a special rehabilitation project. In addition,

USAID/AFR provided $1.9 million for electionsassistance, strengthening the Sierra LeoneanProsecutor's office, human rights advocacybuilding, and income generation activities.

State/PRM provided more than $7 millionfor refugee repatriation and reintegration inSierra Leone. State/PRM supported U.N. agen-cies [UNHCR, UNICEF, and the World HealthOrganization (WHO)], international organiza-tions (ICRC and IFRC), and several PVOs (ARC,IRC, and IMC) in implementing a variety ofprograms assisting returnees, IDPs, and/or vul-nerable populations. These populations includ-ed the rehabilitation of the health infrastruc-ture, primary health care facilities, damagedschools, and a project to address gender-basedviolence. State/PRM also provided more than$5 million to assist Sierra Leonean refugees inGuinea and Liberia. In addition, State/PRMsupported UNHCR’s and ICRC’s Africa pro-grams through contributions totaling $84.5 mil-lion, a portion of which assisted Sierra Leoneanrefugees.





SomaliaC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

The political and social instability thatprevailed following the collapse of theSiad Barre dictatorship in 1991 contin-

ued in Somalia for the ninth consecutive yearduring FY 2000. The absence of a central gov-ernment, an infrastructure in ruin, and sporadicinter-clan warfare hampered rehabilitation andrecovery efforts. The killings, lootings, andgeneral banditry that forced the displacementof large segments of the population also limit-ed access of relief workers to vulnerablegroups and increasingly put the lives of reliefworkers in danger, especially in southernSomalia.

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 41

Civil strife, coupled with mercurial climatechanges, affected agricultural production andcreated a precarious food security situation asFY 2000 began. Much of southern Somalia wasstill suffering from substantial crop and live-stock losses that had occurred as a result ofdestructive floods in late 1997, while subse-quent below normal rainfall resulted indrought conditions in that region and in thenorthwestern part of the country. Areas partic-ularly hard-hit by the drought included Gedo,Lower Juba, Bay, Bakool, and Hirran in south-ern Somalia and Awdal, Togdheer, and Sanaagin the northwest. The main Gu cereal crop,accounting for between 75% and 80% of theannual agricultural production in normal years,was 29% below the post-war average in 1999.An estimated 750,000 people were vulnerableas a result of the drought, while another450,000 were internally displaced and morethan 300,000 remained as refugees in neigh-boring countries. Anticipating the need forcontinuing emergency humanitarian assistancein FY 2000, U.S. Ambassador Johnnie Carsonredeclared a disaster for Somalia on October28, 1999.

Three weeks of heavy rainfall in April andMay, as well as near normal rainfall in Juneand early July 2000, brought relief to thedrought-affected regions in the south andincreased the likelihood for improved cerealproduction. Although the forecast indicatedthat most regions would have harvests sub-stantially lower than the pre-war years, predic-tions for the Gu crop in the country’s sorghumbelt in 2000 were for one of the best in post-war years. The relatively good Gu rains alsoled to improved grazing and livestock condi-tions.

Although the available food supply fordrought-affected populations was expected toimprove soon after the harvest, pockets of vul-nerability remained. Many agro-pastoralistswho rely on rain-fed crop production and hadbeen displaced by the war still suffered thecumulative effects of three consecutive years ofcrop failure, low livestock levels, and poormarket access. Nutritional surveys conductedin southern Somalia during July 2000 reportedthat global malnutrition was more than 20%,despite successful food distributions.According to UNICEF, diarrhea and acute res-piratory infections were possible factors con-tributing to the high rate of malnutrition. CAREand WFP continued free food distributions tovulnerable populations; but, with the improvedoutlook for local food production, they beganto concentrate more on food-for-work pro-grams that would assist in rehabilitating therural infrastructure.

The positive impact of the Gu rains on live-stock production was compromised by SaudiArabia’s September 18 ban on the import oflivestock from East Africa and Yemen. This wasprompted by an outbreak of Rift Valley Feverin a town in the southwestern region of SaudiArabia. The ban had a substantial impact onSomalia’s economy, which is based on live-stock production and export.

Improved security conditions in manyregions of Somalia allowed for populationreturns and the resumption of farming activi-ties. However, incidents of inter-clan attacksand banditry continued to occur in FY 2000,threatening the safety of Somalis and reliefworkers. An armed attack on two WHO work-ers in Merka on September 19 rendered thetown temporarily inaccessible to U.N. workers.Fighting between the Hawadly and the Galjeelsurged throughout the Shabelle Valley in lateFY 2000. Jowhar was plagued by banditry andfighting, and remained isolated from relief

A child receives animmunizationshot at aUSAID/OFDA-funded clinic inSomalia (photo byMikaela Meredith,USAID/OFDA).

A F R I C A

42 OFDA FY 2000

workers and U.N. humanitarian operations. Inaddition, accessibility to Mogadishu wasrestricted due to insecurity and hostage-taking.

USAID/OFDA assistance to Somalia totaledapproximately $8.4 million in FY 2000 foremergency water, health, nutrition, and logisti-cal support. Of this amount, nearly $2.3 millionwas provided in grants to ADRA, UNICEF,ACF/F, and NPA for water and sanitation activ-ities in Benadir, Bakool, Bay, Togdheer, andBari regions. These interventions, benefitingmore than 350,000 people, included rehabilitat-ing wells and boreholes, constructing pitlatrines, and training and equipping waterpump operators. In the health and nutrition

sector, USAID/OFDA providedapproximately $4.3 million tofund UNICEF, IMC, Aktion AfricaHilfe, and FAO for immunizationand maternal health programs,training of health workers, provi-sion of medical equipment andessential medicines, therapeuticand supplementary feeding pro-grams, and nutritional surveil-lance. These health and nutritionactivities benefited some twomillion beneficiaries throughoutSomalia. USAID/OFDA also pro-vided nearly $1.9 million inlogistics support to UNICEF forair transport and to UNDP toincrease the capacity of the portsin Bossasso and Berbera.

USAID/FFP delivered 10,320MT of P.L. 480 Title II emergencyfood assistance to drought-affect-ed populations and 13,680 MT tothe war-affected in calendar year

2000. This included carry-over emergency foodcommodities from FY 1999. The FY 2000USAID/FFP contribution of 18,000 MT throughCARE was valued at $11.5 million. USAID/FFPalso contributed approximately $8 million tothe WFP appeal for food aid to refugees fromthe region, including Somalis in Kenya,Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Yemen. State/PRM pro-vided $1.3 million to UNHCR, IRC, and SC/USto support reintegration programs for Somalireturnees in northwest Somalia. State/PRM alsogranted nearly $11 million for assistance toSomali refugees in Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia,and Eritrea.





(top) Constructionon a well project inSomalia funded by

USAID/OFDA (photoby Mikaela Meredith,

USAID/OFDA).

(above) Womencollect water at the

site of aUSAID/OFDA-funded

well project inSomalia (photo byMikaela Meredith,

USAID/OFDA).

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 43

Southern AfricaF L O O D S

Higher than seasonal average rainfall,coupled with four consecutive days oftorrential rains in early February 2000,

caused severe flooding in several countries insouthern Africa. Reports indicated that this wasthe worst flooding in the region in severaldecades. In addition, Cyclone Leon-Elinepassed through the region from February 20-26, bringing heavy rains and wind to previous-ly affected areas. Reservoir releases in SouthAfrica, Zimbabwe, and Zambia in late Februaryexacerbated the problem, as did continuedheavy rains following the passage of TropicalStorm Gloria in early March. In early April,Cyclone Hudah struck Madagascar andMozambique. The floods affected an estimatedfour million people in the southern Africaregion, with more than 1,000 people killed.

MOZAMBIQUEMozambique experienced the heaviest damageand loss of life of all the southern Africancountries affected by the flooding. Vast areas ofthe country were inundated as water levelsreached flood stage on the Incomati, Limpopo,Buzi, Save, Pungwe, and Zambezi rivers.Severely affected areas included Maputo Cityand Maputo Province, as well as the provincesof Gaza, Inhambane, Sofala, and Manica. Theseasonal rainfall in Mozambique that causedthe disastrous flooding far exceeded normallevels. According to the Government ofMozambique (GRM), precipitation fromJanuary through March in Maputo, Inhambane,Gaza, and Xai Xai provinces were two to sixtimes their normal averages.

Hundreds of thousands of people fled theirhomes and villages in an attempt to escape therapidly rising floodwaters. Many of them wereleft clinging to rooftops or treetops, or werestranded on isolated patches of dry land, await-ing rescue. At least 640 Mozambicans perished,according to GRM figures released on March17, 2000. The GRM also reported that morethan two million people suffered severe eco-nomic hardships because of the floods; and, ofthat total, more than one million required foodaid or medical assistance. As of March 17,2000, 457,578 displaced persons were living in117 accommodation centers and 16 isolatedsettlements.

In addition to the massive losses in hous-

ing and personal property, damage to roads,other infrastructure, and agriculture was wide-spread. The damage to schools was estimatedat $20.8 million. Estimates issued by the GRM’sMinistry of Agriculture and Development as ofMarch 24, 2000 indicated that 134,250 familieshad lost approximately 141,400 hectares ofcrops.

On February 7, 2000, U.S. AmbassadorBrian D. Curran declared a disaster inMozambique due to the effects of the floods.USAID/OFDA provided $25,000 through

(left) A womansurveys damage toher home fromCyclone Hudah inMozambique (photoby Miami-Dade FireRescue Department).

(below) Aerial viewof a flood-affectedarea in Mozam-bique (photo byMiami-Dade FireRescue Department).

A F R I C A

44 OFDA FY 2000

USAID/Maputo to MSF/Swiss-Luxembourg foremergency relief activities. USAID/OFDAdeployed a two-person assessment team toMaputo on February 12. In response to thedeteriorating situation, USAID/OFDA deployeda USAID/DART to Maputo on March 1 to assesshumanitarian needs, report on the situation,and coordinate assistance with relief agenciesand other donors. The initial 34-memberUSAID/DART included health specialists fromthe CDC as well as water and sanitationexperts. A 16-member Miami-Dade EmergencySearch and Rescue (SAR) team and a five-mem-ber U.S. Coast Guard Water Search and Rescueteam also became part of the USAID/DART. Asecond 12-member Miami-Dade SAR joined theUSAID/DART on April 10, 2000, in anticipationof Cyclone Hudah’s landfall. USAID/OFDAprovided a total of nearly $2.2 million in sup-port of the two Miami-Dade SAR operations,U.S. Coast Guard operations, and the adminis-trative and personnel costs of theUSAID/DART.

In addition, USAID/OFDA shipped toMozambique 489,600 sq. ft. of plastic sheeting,6,000 five-gallon water containers, and 6,000wool blankets from its stockpiles via DOD air-craft, at a cost of $85,100. USAID/OFDA alsoprovided nearly $400,000 to WFP for the pur-chase and delivery of sandbags, shovels,wheelbarrows, and cooking sets for flood vic-tims. Through grants to AirServ and WFP,USAID/OFDA provided a total of $4.5 millionfor air operations, including the leasing of 13aircraft used in rescue and relief activities.

To improve food security, USAID/OFDAprovided WFP $1 million for the local andregional procurement of emergency food for aone-month food distribution. USAID/OFDAalso provided $813,000 to World Relief andCARE for seeds and tools programs in Gazaand Inhambane provinces, which benefited atotal of 33,640 families.

USAID/OFDA also supported WV andACF/F with $550,520 for seeds and tools andemergency water and sanitation activities inSofala Province. SC/US received $132,000 toprovide emergency health and agricultureactivities in Gaza Province for approximately55,000 beneficiaries. USAID/OFDA purchasedand shipped WHO emergency health kits, val-ued at $51,502, to Mozambique for use bySC/US, SCF/UK, and World Relief to help theGRM’s Ministry of Health replenish its stocks ofmedicine and medical supplies. Grants alsowere provided to Samaritan’s Purse and Terre

des Hommes to repair and restock targetedhealth care facilities in Gaza and Sofalaprovinces. In addition, USAID/OFDA supplied$6,000 worth of anti-malarial drugs to theGRM’s Ministry of Health.

USAID/FFP contributed 8,030 MT of P.L.480 Title II emergency food commodities, val-ued at $5.7 million, to WFP in Mozambique.USAID/Maputo provided $1.8 million in grantsfor emergency repair of infrastructure, such asrail lines and electrical systems.

In response to a request by the U.S.Embassy in Maputo, DOD deployed aHumanitarian Assistance Survey Team (HAST)to Mozambique and South Africa on February17, 2000. On March 5, 2000, the U.S. EuropeanCommand (EUCOM) deployed a Joint TaskForce (JTF) to the region. Using military heli-copters, boats, and C-130 aircraft, DOD per-sonnel performed search and rescue missions,conducted aerial assessments, and distributedemergency relief supplies. DOD-charteredflights also delivered an estimated 40 MT ofWFP high-energy biscuits from USAID/OFDA’sstockpile in Pisa, Italy, for distribution to floodvictims in Mozambique. The JTF worked tooptimize cooperation between the numerousmilitary and civilian aviation assets by settingup an Air Operations Center in Maputo. TheJTF delivered more than 1,000 MT of emer-gency food, household items, and medicine tothe districts of Buzi, Machanga, and Chibabana.DOD’s activities were valued at $21 million.




BOTSWANABotswana received heavy rains in the north-east, central, east, and southern districts. Themost severely affected districts were in the eastand south, where more than two-thirds ofBotswana’s population is concentrated. TheGovernment of Botswana’s (GOB) NationalDisaster Management Office reported 94,000people affected and 15,730 homes damaged ordestroyed following the rains and floodingassociated with Cyclone Leon-Eline andTropical Storm Gloria. Thousands of hectaresof cropland also were submerged due to thefloods.

On February 16, 2000, U.S. AmbassadorJohn Lange declared a disaster for Botswana

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 45

due to the effects of the floods. USAID/OFDAprovided $25,000 through USAID/Gaborone tothe Botswana National Disaster ManagementOffice for the procurement of emergency sani-tation systems for displaced populations.

On March 12, USAID/OFDA deployed afield officer to Botswana to assist with floodassessments and response efforts. A water andsanitation specialist joined the field officer onMarch 14. From March 13-17, the twoUSAID/OFDA team members conducted needsassessments in eastern Botswana.USAID/OFDA also procured and transported72,000 sq. ft. of plastic sheeting and six watertesting kits. The plastic sheeting and water test-ing kits were provided to USAID/Gaborone foruse in flood-affected areas.


SOUTH AFRICAFloods affected Northern, Mpumalanga,Eastern Cape, and KwaZulu-Natal provinces,damaging houses, farms, dams, as well as elec-tricity, water, telephone, and sewage systems.Mpumalanga and Northern provinces were themost severely affected, where more than 340schools were damaged or destroyed. An esti-mated 100 people died as a result of the flood-ing, and thousands were left homeless.Damage to infrastructure was estimated at$39.4 million.

On February 16, 2000, U.S. AmbassadorDelano Lewis declared a disaster for SouthAfrica due to extensive flooding that severelyaffected northeastern South Africa and resultedin the displacement of several small, isolatedpopulations. In response, USAID/OFDA pro-vided $25,000 through USAID/Pretoria to theSouth African Red Cross for the local purchaseand distribution of blankets, emergency food,and other emergency non-food relief suppliesto 3,000 displaced persons in Northern andMpumalanga provinces.


ZIMBABWEThe rains and flooding associated with CycloneLeon-Eline and Tropical Storm Gloria affectedthe districts of Chiredzi (Masvingo Province),Plumtree (Matebeleland South Province), and

Chipinge and Chimanimani (ManicalandProvince) in eastern and southern Zimbabwe.Along the Save River valley in easternZimbabwe, crops were swept away or com-pletely submerged under mud and sand. Theroads into Chipinge District also were dam-aged severely or obstructed by debris. TheU.N. and the Government of Zimbabwe report-ed that 100 people died and 116,000 peoplewere impacted by the flooding. Of those affect-ed, 20,000 were living in temporary accommo-dation centers.

On February 28, 2000, U.S. AmbassadorThomas McDonald issued a disaster declara-tion for Zimbabwe due to the effects of thefloods. USAID/OFDA responded by providing$25,000 through USAID/Harare to theZimbabwean Red Cross in support of its reliefactivities. In addition, USAID/OFDA provided$144,780 to CRS for the provision of non-foodemergency relief supplies, such as cookingutensils, blankets, and water containers, to15,000 people in the most adversely affectedareas of Zimbabwe.


MADAGASCARHeavy rains and winds from Cyclones Leon-Eline and Hudah affected five eastern districts,two western districts, and all districts inAntananarivo Province. The Government ofMadagascar’s National Disaster Unit reportedthat the districts on Madagascar’s eastern coastbetween Vatomandry and Mahanoro sufferedthe most damage. An estimated 90% of cashand food crops and 65% of houses weredestroyed, and 75% of health facilities weredamaged. Approximately 210 people died and278,000 people were affected.

On March 9, 2000, U.S. Ambassador ShirleyBarnes declared a disaster for Madagascar dueto damage from the torrential rains and winds.USAID/OFDA provided $25,000 to CRS for theprovision of potable water and the clearanceand rehabilitation of major roads. AUSAID/OFDA regional advisor arrived inMadagascar on March 10 to coordinate andconduct damage and needs assessments withUSAID/Antananarivo staff. A USAID/OFDAwater/sanitation specialist and USAID/FFP offi-cer arrived in Madagascar on March 17 to assistwith the assessments.

USAID/OFDA provided $400,000 to WFP

A F R I C A

46 OFDA FY 2000

to support the operation of two helicopters inconducting reconnaissance missions and deliv-ering emergency food and non-food reliefitems to affected populations. USAID/OFDAalso provided $421,000 to CRS for the imple-mentation of emergency health and water proj-ects, including the distribution of seeds and500,000 packets of oral rehydration salts to15,000 families. A USAID/OFDA field officertraveled to Madagascar on March 23 to replacethe outgoing USAID/OFDA regional advisor.The water/sanitation specialist and the fieldofficer departed Madagascar on April 2.

On April 4, a USAID/OFDA regional advi-sor was re-deployed to Antananarivo to assessthe situation following Cyclone Hudah’s land-fall in northern Madagascar. The water/sanita-tion specialist returned to Madagascar on April6 and a USAID/OFDA information officerarrived in Antananarivo on April 11.USAID/OFDA procured and transported1,200,000 sq. ft. of plastic sheeting, 10,000 five-gallon water containers, and four Zodiac boatsto Madagascar at a total cost of $327,573. Therelief commodities and the Zodiac boats wereconsigned to CARE, which distributed the reliefcommodities in Antalaha and used the boats todeliver emergency supplies to isolated popula-tions. All USAID/OFDA team members depart-ed Madagascar on April 23. USAID/FFP con-tributed 1,160 MT of P.L. 480 Title II emergencyfood commodities, valued at $793,300, toWFP’s emergency operations plan inMadagascar.



TOTAL USG ASSISTANCE........$2,892,622

SudanC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

The long-running armed conflict betweenthe Government of Sudan (GOS) andthe Sudan People's Liberation Army and

Movement (SPLA/M) continued through FY2000. An estimated two million people havedied in Sudan from fighting, famine, and dis-ease since 1983. During FY 2000, there were anestimated four million IDPs in Sudan, includingtwo million in greater Khartoum and 1.2 mil-

lion in the transitional zone and southern areas.Sudanese refugees in neighboring countriesnumbered more than 400,000. Sudan also host-ed refugees from other countries, includingmore than 147,000 Eritrean refugees registeredin Sudan as of January 2000. With the outbreakof new fighting between Ethiopia and Eritrea inMay 2000, another group of Eritrean refugees(estimated at more than 90,000 people) fled toeastern Sudan. On November 8, 1999, due tocontinued conflict, population displacements,food insecurity, and the Sudanese population’sgeneral vulnerability, U.S. Chargé d’AffairesDonald G. Teitelbaum redeclared a disaster forSudan and requested continued USG emer-gency assistance during FY 2000.

Insecurity remained the leading constraintto humanitarian access. Fighting erupted inMay 2000 between GOS and SPLA/M forces inBahr el Ghazal Province in violation of a cease-fire in effect since 1998. In reaction to SPLA/Mgains, the GOS dramatically intensified bomb-ings, targeting civilian locations. The GOSbombed the U.N.’s Operation Lifeline Sudan(OLS) and ICRC aircraft on the ground, in amove that was unprecedented and violated a1989 agreement by the GOS and SPLA/M not totarget OLS operations. In August, GOS planesdropped 18 bombs near U.N. facilities atMapel, causing the U.N. to temporarily suspendOLS operations. WFP evacuated relief workersfrom the area due to the targeting of relief facil-ities, and the bombing campaign led ICRC andNGOs to curtail activities in portions of Bahr elGhazal.

On June 28, the U.S. Department of Stateexpressed concern over continued cease-fireviolations in Bahr el Ghazal by the GOS andSPLA/M, warning that a spread of fightingcould lead to a major new humanitarian crisis.U.S. Department of State officials called on theGOS and SPLA/M to cease all attacks andhonor their cease-fire commitments. The SudanRelief and Rehabilitation Association (SRRA)warned that a food crisis was imminent insouthern Sudan because the bombing cam-paign was interfering with the emergency fooddelivery operations of relief agencies. A JulySPLA/M offensive in Bahr el Ghazal, includingthe seizure of towns in the northern part of theprovince and the blockage of an importantGOS supply route, raised fears of substantialnew displacements of residents living in theprovince.

In July, two U.N. planes made the firstrelief airlifts to the SPLA/M-controlled area of

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 47

the Nuba Mountains in more than a decade.The GOS, which under the terms of the tripar-tite agreement has veto power over OLSaccess, had not previously allowed OLS flightsinto the area. (Non-OLS relief agencies, includ-ing USAID/OFDA’s implementing partnersworking in providing potable water and foodsecurity, could access the Nuba Mountainregion through non-OLS air transport.)

An eruption of fighting in Upper Nile inmid-summer displaced tens of thousands ofpeople to Bentiu and Rubkona, with an esti-mated 19,000 people arriving during the lastfour days of July. According to the U.N., relieforganizations warned that the new IDP influxcould sharply exacerbate existing food short-ages. A July 6 alert from MSF warned that glob-al malnutrition rates in Padeah, an isolated dis-trict in Western Upper Nile where conflict haddisplaced nearly 75% of the population, wereat 35%, and approximately half of these caseswere severely malnourished. MSF also report-ed that conflict in Padeah had displaced near-ly 75% of the population. The U.N. reported onAugust 21 that WFP had started emergencyfood distributions to the new IDP arrivals inBentiu and Rubkona.

Nearly 2.4 million people, mostly in thesouth, depended on emergency food deliveriesduring FY 2000 due to crop losses, civil strife-related displacements, and refugee influxes

from the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict. In the healthsector, a rapid assessment in Equatoria, Bahr elGhazal, and Upper Nile found that infectiousdiseases accounted for more than 75% of allreported illnesses, and that among these,malaria and diarrheal diseases were responsi-ble for nearly 40% of the total cases reported.Severe health and nutrition problems werereported in Bieh State, in southeastern UpperNile, which had an estimated population of200,000, and lacked potable water and health

services in most districts. In FY 2000, USAID/OFDA provided more

than $22 million in emergency humanitarianassistance to Sudan. USAID/OFDA assistancewas provided to ACF/F, ACROSS, ADRA, ARC,

An estimated two million people havedied in Sudan from fighting, famine, anddisease since 1983. During FY 2000,there were an estimated four millionIDPs in Sudan, including two million ingreater Khartoum and 1.2 million in thetransitional zone and southern areas.

Sudanese schoolchildren sharetheir village’sproblems (photo byMikaela Meredith,USAID/OFDA).

A F R I C A

48 OFDA FY 2000

CARE, Christian Mission Aid, Concern, CRS,GOAL, IAS/MEDIC, IFRC, IRC, MEDAIR, NPA,SC/US, SCF/UK, UNICEF, Veterinarios sinFronteras/Belgium (VSF/B), and VSF/Gaddressing humanitarian needs in health,water/sanitation, food security, agriculture, andlivelihoods. USAID/OFDA also supportedhumanitarian coordination throughUNICEF/OLS. USAID/OFDA’s fundingaddressed humanitarian needs in opposition-controlled areas of Sudan, as well as targeted,war-affected beneficiaries in the GOS-held sec-tors. USAID/OFDA’s funding programs in FY2000 continued a strategic shift from relativelystable areas to traditionally underservedregions, including Upper Nile, the NubaMountains, southern Blue Nile, and easternSudan.

USAID/FFP provided 35,090 MT of P.L. 480Title II emergency food aid in FY 2000, valuedat $33.4 million. USDA contributed 39,800 MTof Section 416(b) food valued at $36,500,000.USAID’s Africa Bureau provided $3 million forthe Sudan Transitional Assistance forRehabilitation (STAR) program, which supportscapacity-building efforts in opposition-heldareas. State/PRM provided UNHCR and IFRCwith more than $1.6 million to assist refugeesin Sudan.



*TOTAL USG ASSISTANCE ..$100,192,045


UgandaC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

The insecurity and population displace-ments caused by rebel attacks in north-ern and western Uganda continued in

FY 2000. Since 1997, when the insurgenciesintensified, hundreds of thousands of peoplehave taken refuge in villages and camps estab-lished by local government officials under theprotection of the Government of Uganda’s(GOU) military force (UPDF).

In the northern districts of Gulu andKitgum, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)resumed its insurgency in December 1999 afterseveral months of relative calm. The renewedfighting forced many IDPs, who had venturedfrom the camps to reclaim their homes, to seeksafety in the IDP camps once again. Rebelactivity also increased in the western districtsof Bundibugyo, Kabarole, and Kasese wherethe faction known as the Allied DemocraticForces (ADF) intensified its campaign. In carry-ing out their campaigns of terror, both factionsresorted to the use of ambushes, raids, andlandmines. They attacked villages and IDPcamps, looted and burned shelters, andabducted and killed civilians, many of themchildren. Other insurgent groups operated inthe West Nile region, which sheltered morethan 156,000 Sudanese refugees. The Ugandanfactions were harbored and supported by theGOS in retaliation for Uganda’s alleged supportof resistance groups in Sudan. The GOUpassed a law in January 2000 offering amnestyto surrendering combatants, but the legislationwas slow to be implemented and did not resultin an appreciable reduction in fighting by theend of FY 2000.

A further consequence of the periodic pop-ulation displacements was the disruption inagricultural activity and the resulting food inse-

Beneficiaries awaitsupplemental

feeding at aUSAID/OFDA-

funded feedingproject site in

Sudan (photo byMikaela Meredith,

USAID/OFDA)

A F R I C A

OFDA FY 2000 49

curity in the areas of conflict. Although someIDPs were able to leave the camps during theday to tend to their crops, many others wereforced to abandon their plots of land. Theunpredictability of armed raids and the fre-quent movement of IDPs in and out of thecamps also prevented an accurate assessmentof the size of camp populations and, therefore,of their needs. UNOCHA estimated the numberof conflict-affected people at 824,346 as ofFebruary 2000. This number included 197,584refugees sheltered in Uganda, 621,958 IDPs,and 4,804 abducted, and still missing, children.Relief agencies attempted to respond to identi-fied needs for food assistance and the provi-sion of potable water and sanitation in thecamps and affected villages. However, becauseof the insecurity of road travel, their reliefoperations were often reduced or curtailedduring periods of intense rebel activity.

In addition to the civil crisis in Uganda,parts of the country experienced a severedrought in FY 2000. Dry conditions in thenortheastern districts of Moroto and Kotido left250,000 people at risk, according to aWFP/NGO assessment in December 1999. Asaccess to grazing decreased, the pastoralists ofthose districts migrated with their cattle toother areas, including eastern Kitgum andnortheastern Lira districts, with resulting con-flicts between local residents and the encroach-ing pastoralists. Insecurity remained high in theregion as sporadic inter-clan clashes, killings,and cross-border raids between Uganda andKenya pastoralists continued during FY 2000.Rains in August improved crop cultivation andaccess to pastures, decreasing but not eliminat-ing the need for food assistance in Moroto andKotido.

On October 29, 1999, U.S. AmbassadorMartin G. Brennan redeclared a disaster forUganda, citing the continuing humanitarianneeds that existed in FY 2000. USAID/OFDAprovided assistance totaling nearly $2 million.This included $480,020 for IRC to increaseaccess to potable water and improve latrinesystems in Kitgum District; $314,540 forAAH/USA to provide potable water in 14 IDPcamps in Gulu District; $321,830 to MEDAIR toprovide a water and sanitation project inKotido District; $233,000 to CRS to provideresettlement packages and quality seeds topopulations in eastern Kitgum and northeast-ern Lira displaced by the pastoralist’s incursion;and a $145,726 grant to AAH/USA for an emer-gency water program in Bundibugyo District

that would drill 16 boreholes, rehabilitate fivetraditional water sources, and construct a grav-ity flow system.

USAID/FFP contributed a total of 14,915MT of P.L. 480 Title II emergency food com-modities, valued at more than $8.7 million.State/PRM provided $5,265,299 throughUNHCR, WFP, and IRC to support assistance

and protection programs for Sudanese,Congolese, and Rwandan refugees in Uganda.State/PRM also contributed $220,000 to theIFRC for Ugandan Red Cross assistance torefugees from DRC and Rwanda.





The unpredictability of armed raidsand the frequent movement of IDPsin and out of the camps alsoprevented an accurate assessment ofthe size of camp populations and,therefore, of their needs.

Asia and thePacific

A S I A A N DT H E P A C I F I C

OFDA FY 2000 51

ChinaE A R T H Q U A K E

Two earthquakes, measuring 5.9 and 6.5on the Richter Scale, occurred in China'ssouthwestern Yunnan Province on

January 15, 2000. More than 1,000 aftershocksfollowed, including one on January 22 measur-ing 4.0 on the Richter Scale. The epicenter ofthe earthquakes was in Yaoan County.

Only seven people were killed, in partdue to the fact that most residents had fled

their homes before the second, stronger earth-quake occurred. The Government of thePeople’s Republic of China reported that100,000 people were displaced, 400 residentswere seriously injured, and approximately300,000 buildings were damaged or destroyedas a result of the earthquakes. Damage tooffice buildings, bridges, telecommunications,roads, primary schools, electrical systems, andearthen dams was significant. The most seri-ously affected areas were located in remotemountainous regions. As a result, emergencyrelief assistance was slow to arrive and was

I N D I A

M O N G O L I A

VIETNAM

C H I N A

CAMBODIA

I N D O N E S I A

PHILIPPINES

(opposite) Homesdestroyed byfloodwaters inIndonesia (photocourtesy of IFRC).

Asia and thePacific


52 OFDA FY 2000

provided principally by the People's LiberationArmy and local police units.

On January 31, U.S. Ambassador JosephPrueher issued a disaster declaration due todamage caused by the earthquakes.USAID/OFDA responded by providing $25,000through the U.S. Embassy to Heart to Heart, aU.S.-based NGO with offices in nearby SichuanProvince. Heart to Heart used the funds to pro-vide shelter materials to assist earthquake vic-tims in rebuilding their homes.


IndiaC Y C L O N E

On October 18-19, 1999, a severecyclone hit the eastern coast of India,causing floods and wind damage in

Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengalstates. A second, larger cyclone (the worst tostrike India in almost 30 years) hit Orissa andWest Bengal states on October 29. The mostseverely affected districts were Balasore,Bhadrak, Cuttack, Ganjam, Jagatsinghpur,Jajpur, and Kendrapara. Other affected districtsincluded Khurda, Puri, Nayagarh, Gajapati,Keonjhar, Mayurbhang, and Dhenkanal. TheGovernment of India’s Central DisasterMitigation Center in the Ministry of Agriculturereported that 9,465 people were killed and2,260 residents were injured as a result of thetwo cyclones. UNOCHA reported that thecyclones impacted approximately 15 millionpeople and damaged or destroyed three millionhomes, leaving more than seven million peoplehomeless. In addition, the cyclones damaged ordestroyed 11,000 schools; killed 355,000 cattle;inundated 1,225,000 hectares of cropland; dis-rupted roads and rail lines; and interruptedelectricity, water, and telecommunications.According to a U.N. Disaster AssessmentCoordination (UNDAC) team, emergency needsincluded food, water, and medical assistanceand medium-term needs included restorationand rehabilitation of telecommunications,houses, sanitation facilities, and schools.

On October 22, U.S. Ambassador Richard F.Celeste issued a disaster declaration for India

due to the damage caused by the effects of thecyclone. USAID/OFDA responded by providing$25,000 through USAID/New Delhi to thePrime Minister's National Relief Fund to meetthe immediate needs of affected persons.Following an assessment by a USAID/OFDAregional advisor, USAID/OFDA provided$107,000 through USAID/New Delhi to CAREfor the local purchase of plastic sheeting to pro-vide temporary shelter for cyclone victims.Subsequently, USAID/OFDA provided $3.2 mil-lion for the provision of emergency householdkits, seeds and tools for kitchen gardens, andpotable water to 400,000 beneficiaries in themost-affected districts. Of this funding, $2 mil-lion was provided through USAID/New Delhito CARE and $1.2 million to CRS.

In addition to USAID/OFDA assistance,USAID/FFP provided 10,380 MT of P.L. 480Title II emergency food assistance to CARE andCRS to meet the emergency food needs of 1.2million cyclone victims. This USAID/FFP assis-tance, valued at $4.15 million, included 4,500MT of corn-soya blend, 1,080 MT of vegetableoil, and 4,800 MT of bulgur wheat.


OTHER USG ASSISTANCE ......$4,150,000


IndiaD R O U G H T

During the spring and summer of 2000,the states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, AndhraPradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa

suffered from what some experts report wasthe worst drought to impact the region in thelast 100 years. Within three of the five states,the affected populations exceeded 90 millionand cattle livestock losses surpassed 54 millionhead. More specifically, 26 of 32 districts wereaffected in Rajasthan, with 26.2 million peopleimpacted in 23,406 villages; 17 of 25 districtswere affected in Gujarat, with 25 million peo-ple impacted in 9,421 villages; and 18 of 32 dis-tricts were affected in Andhra Pradesh, with41.3 million people impacted in 17,431 villages.

The drought particularly impacted the ruralpoor, as previous monsoons and ensuing crop

. A S I A A N DT H E P A C I F I C

OFDA FY 2000 53

failure left many farmers unable to meet basicneeds and repay loans taken out for the previ-ous year's planting season. The Government ofIndia (GOI) instituted a large-scale work pro-gram to help families cope, but these wereshort-term in nature and were not able toaddress all of the needs of vulnerable families.

Unable to purchase basic necessities, manyfarmers migrated in search of employment andattempted to sell their cattle for cash, but foundfew jobs available and a non-existent livestockmarket. The principal needs of the affectedpopulations included potable water, animalfodder, and food. Although adequate suppliesof these basic commodities were available inIndia, difficulties in the distribution system pro-hibited sufficient quantities from reaching tar-geted communities. Although the GOI providedsubsidized food to the rural poor during thedrought, the market price of food remainedbeyond the purchasing power of those mostmarginalized.

On May 4, U.S. Ambassador Richard F.Celeste issued a disaster declaration due to theeffects of the drought in India. In response,USAID/OFDA provided an initial $25,000through USAID/New Delhi to the PrimeMinister's National Relief Fund to assist theGOI’s drought relief efforts. USAID/OFDA alsodispatched a regional advisor to conduct anassessment of the conditions and needs inRajasthan, Gujarat, and Orissa states. TheUSAID/OFDA assessment revealed the need toregenerate purchasing power to enable vil-lagers to buy the basic goods that they lacked.

Based on the recommendations of theassessment, USAID/OFDA provided $943,325through USAID/New Delhi ($523,000 to WVand $420,325 to CARE) for the implementationof cash-for-work projects. These projects bene-fited approximately 25,000 of the most-affectedfamilies living in Jaisalmer, Barmer, Modhpur,and Pali districts of Rajasthan State. Activitiesfocused on creating and rehabilitating waterretention infrastructure to increase livelihoodsecurity and storage capacity within the existingwater-harvesting system, improving the healthstatus of livestock, and decreasing rural-urbanmigration.

In addition, USAID/OFDA provided $59,214through USAID/New Delhi to CRS for the con-struction and improvement of water harvestingstructures in 95 drought-affected villages inGujarat and Rajasthan states. The project bene-fited more than 17,000 vulnerable people livingin women-headed households and households

with children under the age of five.According to USAID/Delhi, CRS diverted

3,280 MT of P.L. 480 Title II bulgur wheat and190 MT of vegetable oil, valued at $1,164,840,from ongoing projects for the implementationof emergency food-for-work projects inRajasthan and Gujarat states. These food-for-work projects benefited some 102,498 laborersand their families, and supported rehabilitationof the water harvesting system and constructionof additional water harvesting facilities.Similarly, CARE diverted 915 MT of P.L. 480Title II corn-soya blend and 114 MT of veg-etable oil, valued at $446,325, from ongoingprojects to assist 122,500 drought-affected ben-eficiaries in Rajasthan State.




IndiaF L O O D S

Torrential rainfall during the southwestmonsoon that began in June 2000 led todisastrous flooding in several states in

India, including Assam, Bihar, HimachalPradesh, and West Bengal. More than 22 millionpeople were affected in the four states, and thedeath toll reached 867.

Work completed ona village pondproject funded byUSAID/OFDA inIndia (photocourtesy of WorldVision).


54 OFDA FY 2000

In Assam, water in the Beki River was at itshighest level since 1978. The Government ofIndia estimated that more than 3.6 million peo-ple in 3,717 villages in 18 of the 23 districts inthe state were affected and 32 people died.The total affected area was 443,000 hectares,and damage to crops was estimated at $54.3million.

Flooding in the Kosi and Ghandak rivers inBihar affected an estimated 3.5 million peoplein 1,950 villages in 20 districts across the north-ern part of the state and took at least 35 lives.Approximately 296,000 hectares were affectedby the overflow from the rivers, and crop dam-age was assessed at $4.5 million.

In Himachal Pradesh, flash floods in theSutlej River on the night of July 31 caused thewater level to rise from the Tibetan Plateau toGobindsagar Lake in Bilaspur District. Areported 150 people perished in the flood, anddamage to roads, bridges, and property totaledan estimated $218 million.

The monsoon floods later spread to WestBengal State, affecting 15 million people andkilling 650. The discharge of water from theMassenjore Dam and Tilpara Barrage during aperiod of heavy rain caused flooding in sever-al districts of the state. The cresting watersinundated large areas of the state capital,Calcutta. Widespread damage to homes, prop-erty, livestock, and crops was reported. Railand road links were cut and telecommunica-

tions and power supplies disrupted. More than1 million hectares of crops, with an estimatedvalue of $220 million, were destroyed, and800,000 homes were damaged.

The national and state governments under-took rescue and relief efforts. International aidagencies, including PVOs/NGOs and the WFPdistributed food, shelter materials, and non-food relief items to the flood victims.

On August 21, 2000, U.S. Chargé d’AffairesAlbert Thibault declared a disaster due to theextensive flooding in Assam, Bihar, andHamachal Pradesh. USAID/OFDA respondedwith a $25,000 contribution to the PrimeMinister’s National Relief Fund to supportrelief activities in the flood-affected areas. Asthe flooding spread to West Bengal, U.S.Ambassador Richard Celeste requested fromUSAID/OFDA and received an additional$25,000 contribution to the Prime Minister’sRelief Fund. In addition, USAID/OFDA provid-ed $111,600 for AmRC to supply emergencykits to 30,000 victims in Assam.

CRS and CARE distributed a total of 2,300MT of emergency food commodities from theirregular USAID/FFP development programs toflood victims. The food was valued at morethan $1 million.




Cash-for-worklaborers enlarging a

pond in Luno KiBasti village of Same

Block in India(photo courtesy of

World Vision).


OFDA FY 2000 55

IndonesiaC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

Since 1998, political uncertainties and acuteeconomic crises have resulted in growingunrest throughout the Indonesian archi-

pelago. This unrest, compounded by escalatingand increasingly violent and widespread sec-tarian and ethnic conflict, has fostered human-itarian emergencies in Kalimantan, Timor,Aceh, Sulawesi, the Malukus, and Irian Jaya.During FY 2000, violence in Indonesia killedhundreds of people and left more than 800,000people displaced.

In Timor, the humanitarian situation quick-ly deteriorated in the last quarter of FY 1999,following the U.N.-sanctioned vote forTimorese independence in August 1999. Inopposition to the outcome of this referendum,pro-integrationist militias rampaged throughand plundered numerous towns in East Timor.They looted and burned private and publicproperty, destroyed entire towns, killed hun-dreds of East Timorese, and drove an addition-al 450,000 from their homes (200,000 of whomfled to the surrounding hills and jungles of EastTimor and another 250,000 of whom fled toWest Timor, other areas of Indonesia, andneighboring countries).

The international relief community quicklymobilized to provide assistance to the EastTimorese. On September 15, 1999, the U.N.Security Council voted unanimously to send apeacekeeping force (totaling approximately7,500 troops) to East Timor. This force, termedthe International Force for East Timor (INTER-FET), gained political control of East Timor onSeptember 27, at which time it began securingmilitia strongholds. Soon thereafter, relief agen-cies arrived in East Timor to provide for thehumanitarian needs of the East Timorese.

On October 8, UNHCR began to formallyrepatriate East Timorese refugees from WestTimor and elsewhere, with the logistical sup-port of the International Organization forMigration (IOM). At the same time, IDPs in EastTimor were beginning to leave their safe-havens in the hills and return to their villages.To provide for these returnees, UNOCHA andthe U.N. Transitional Authority in East Timoridentified six main areas for assistance: facili-tating the voluntary return of East Timoresefrom West Timor and other locations; ensuringfood security through the provision of dailyrations and seeds and tools; providing a rudi-

mentary health care network; ensuring potablewater where a water system had beendestroyed or damaged; revitalizing communi-ties through education programs, providingpsycho-social trauma counseling, and develop-ing micro-credit schemes; and repairing andreconstructing approximately 35,000 residentialhouses. By spring 2000, although emergencyrelief assistance and repatriation efforts wereongoing, the emphasis of the internationalrelief response in East Timor had shifted torehabilitation and reconstruction. At the closeof FY 2000, approximately 170,000 EastTimorese had repatriated and most were wellon their way to rebuilding their lives.

In West Timor, where an estimated 245,000East Timorese refugees were registered at some37 camps (principally in the districts of Kupangand Belu) at the height of the emergency,90,000 - 100,000 refugees remained at the endof FY 2000. Refugee camp conditions improvedthroughout the fiscal year, but inadequatewater and sanitation facilities and unacceptablelevels of malnutrition remained evident. Thelack of basic needs in the camps was partlyattributable to substantial militia activity, whichlimited international NGOs from being able togain access to camp populations.

At the end of FY 2000, militia elements stillcontrolled many refugee camps and continuedto intimidate potential returnees. The influence

East Timor refugeesat a camp alongthe West Timorborder (photo byJulienneVaillancourt,USAID/OFDA).


56 OFDA FY 2000

of the militia in West Timor was highlighted onSeptember 6, 2000, when militia memberskilled three expatriate UNHCR staff membersin Atambua. Following this incident, the U.N.discontinued humanitarian assistance pro-grams in West Timor. The evacuation ofUNHCR personnel further compounded theoverall condition of the refugees.

On October 4, 1999, U.S. AmbassadorRobert Gelbard redeclared a disaster forIndonesia due to ongoing emergency humani-tarian needs caused by the conflict inIndonesia’s strife-torn provinces. In response,USAID/OFDA monitored developments in par-ticularly volatile provinces and conducted

assessments in those accessible areas wherethe humanitarian situation was dire.

USAID/OFDA provided more than $11.2million in assistance in response to the com-plex emergency in Indonesia and East Timorduring FY 2000. Of this total, USAID/OFDAprovided $568,174 through USAID/Jakarta toWV for emergency assistance to IDPs and$302,000 through USAID/Jakarta to IMC foremergency health care in North Maluku.USAID/OFDA also provided $250,000 toUSAID/Jakarta in support of an EDRC, whobegan serving in Jakarta in December 2000.The remainder of USAID/OFDA assistance toIndonesia during FY 2000 consisted of emer-gency relief projects for East and West Timor inresponse to the humanitarian crisis that ensuedfollowing the August 1999 vote for independ-ence.

In September 1999, USAID/OFDAdeployed a regional advisor to Dili, East Timorand a program officer and information officerto Jakarta to assess humanitarian needs in Eastand West Timor, report on the current situa-tion, and liaise with the U.S. Embassy,USAID/Jakarta, donor community, and relieforganizations. USAID/OFDA staff remained inDili and Jakarta until December 1999, at whichtime USAID/OFDA began conducting periodicvisits to Jakarta and East and West Timor tomonitor the humanitarian situation andprogress of USAID/OFDA-funded relief proj-ects.

In addition, during FY 2000, USAID/OFDAprovided approximately $10 million in grantsto WFP, UNICEF, CARE, Concern, IRC, CRS,WV, and IMC for logistical support, healthactivities, shelter materials, seeds and tools,mosquito nets, food commodities, and othernon-food emergency supplies to meet thebasic needs of IDPs in East Timor, refugees inWest Timor, and returnees. USAID/OFDA alsospent $229,380 in FY 2000 to replenish stock-piles with 1,224,000 sq. ft. of plastic sheeting,20,000 blankets, and 5,200 five-gallon watercontainers provided to WFP in FY 1999 for dis-tribution to IDPs in East Timor and refugees inWest Timor.

In FY 2000, USAID provided additionalhumanitarian assistance in Indonesia and EastTimor through USAID/FFP, USAID/OTI, andUSAID/Jakarta. USAID/FFP provided $19.7 mil-lion for the purchase of 35,770 MT of P.L. 480Title II emergency food that was distributedthroughout Indonesia and East Timor by WFP,WV, CARE, CRS, and MCI. In addition, the

Displaced personscollecting water at a

USAID/OFDA-funded water and

sanitation project inAtambua (photo by

JulienneVaillancourt,

USAID/OFDA).

A USAID/OFDA-funded

immunizationclinic in East Timor

(photo by JulienneVaillancourt,

USAID/OFDA).


OFDA FY 2000 57

USAID/FFP office in Jakarta provided $2.6 mil-lion in emergency food assistance. In FY 2000,USAID/OTI provided more than $21 million tosupport projects that focused on civil society,human rights, good governance, reconciliation,and local capacity-building. The USAID/PublicHealth and Nutrition (PHN) office in Jakartafunded approximately $3.5 million to ACF/F,WV, Project Concern International, SC/US,Uplift International, and Polio for emergencyfood and health assistance, primary health care,psycho-social counseling, immunizations, andmedical supply airlifts in Indonesia and EastTimor. Furthermore, since October 1999,USAID/Jakarta has committed $12.5 million insupport of the National Cooperative BusinessAssociation (NCBA) coffee project in EastTimor. This funding has supported income gen-eration, employment, rehabilitation of coffeewarehouses and health clinics, and repair orreplacement of damaged processing equipmentfor approximately 30,000 families in East Timor.

During FY 2000, State/PRM provided $35million in funds from the Emergency Refugeeand Migration Assistance (ERMA) account aswell as its regional account to UNHCR, IOM,ICRC, WFP, UNICEF, and a consortium of inter-national NGOs for relief assistance in East andWest Timor, repatriation of refugees, and rein-tegration of returnees.

Within days of INTERFET’s creation, DODbegan providing critical support to INTERFET,primarily in the areas of communications, logis-tics, planning, airlifts, and intelligence. DOD’smilitary assistance to INTERFET during FY 2000also included the deployment of approximately20 Civil Affairs military personnel from FortBragg to the U.N. Civil-Military OperationsCenter (CMOC) in Dili and the secondment ofthree U.S. military officers to serve as militaryobservers at UNTAET. In addition, DOD sup-ported the East Timor transition to independ-ence by deploying the U.S. Support Group EastTimor (USGET) to Dili and Darwin in February2000. USGET facilitated and coordinated U.S.military rotational operations, including period-ic ship visits that provided engineering, med-ical, dental, and other humanitarian and civicassistance to the East Timorese people.

USAID/OFDA ASSISTANCE......$11,212,545

OTHER USG ASSISTANCE........$82,401,314

TOTAL USG ASSISTANCE ......$93,613,859

Note: The funding figures for “Indonesia –Complex Emergency” do not include DODassistance to INTERFET or for USGET. Nor dothey include funding provided byUSAID/Jakarta toward the NCBA project.

IndonesiaE A R T H Q U A K E

On June 4, 2000 at 11:28 pm local time,an earthquake measuring 7.9 on theRichter Scale occurred approximately

100 kilometers southwest of the coastline ofSumatra, approximately 33 kilometers belowthe Earth's surface. A second earthquake, meas-uring 6.7 on the Richter Scale, occurred 11minutes later. The city of Bengkulu on theisland of Sumatra and the island of Engganowere most severely affected by the tremors.Throughout the affected areas 103 people werekilled, more than 2,700 injured, and thousandsof residents were displaced from their homes infear of additional damage that might arisebecause of aftershocks. Numerous buildingswere damaged; water, electricity, and tele-phones were disrupted; roads were blocked bylandslides; and the airport was temporarilyclosed due to the inoperability of navigationalequipment.

On June 6, U.S. Ambassador RobertGelbard issued a disaster declaration forIndonesia due to the damage caused by theearthquake. In response, USAID/OFDA provid-ed $25,000 through USAID/Jakarta to help meetthe emergency needs of those most severelyaffected. The USAID/OFDA senior regionaladvisor for Asia conducted an assessment inBengkulu and on the island of Engganobetween June 7-9. The assessment revealedthat 20% of buildings sustained damage inBengkulu (with 5% destroyed) while 70% ofhouses sustained damage on the island ofEnggano (with 20% destroyed). The seniorregional advisor determined that the local andinternational relief assistance provided wasboth appropriate and timely in response to theearthquake, and that no additionalUSAID/OFDA assistance was required.



58 OFDA FY 2000

IndonesiaF L O O D S

Heavy rainfall on May 16 -17, 2000caused the Benanain River to overflowits banks, resulting in severe flooding

of Malaka Tengah and Malaka Barat sub-dis-tricts in Belu District, West Timor. According toUNOCHA, 126 people died and 50,000 people(half of the affected area's total population)were affected as a result of the flooding. Anestimated 20,000 people required emergencyrelief assistance, including approximately16,000 East Timorese refugees living in campsin West Timor, and more than 5,800 peoplewere evacuated to safety by IOM and UNHCR.Infrastructural and agricultural losses includedthe destruction of approximately 300 homes,key access bridges and roads, and the damageof nearly 10,000 hectares of cropland.

On June 2, USAID/OFDA's senior regionaladvisor for Asia assessed flood damage andneeds in Belu District. Following meetings withlocal and provincial officials and various mem-bers of the affected population, the seniorregional advisor determined that immediatehumanitarian needs included food, cookingutensils, shelter materials, agricultural tools,and seeds. He reported that the Government ofIndonesia and various relief organizations,including UNHCR, WFP, MSF, CRS, CARE, andChurch World Services (CWS), were meetingthe emergency relief needs of flood victims,but that additional assistance was necessary torestore livelihoods. In response to this recom-mendation, on June 6, U.S. Ambassador RobertGelbard declared a flood disaster due to theeffects of the flooding. USAID/OFDA provided$25,000 through USAID/Jakarta to YayasanSosial Keuskupan Atambua (YASSKA) to pur-chase agricultural tools and maize and mung-bean seeds for 7,500 rural families.


MongoliaW I N T E R E M E R G E N C Y

In the summer of 1999, severe drought inMongolia led to poor forage conditions,depriving cattle from gaining the necessary

body weight to survive throughout the harshwinter of 1999. According to the StateEmergency Commission, approximately 1.8million animals died in 13 affected provincesas a result of cold weather and snowstormsthat buried rangelands, depriving livestock oftheir food source. Consequently, more than500,000 people (20% of the country's popula-tion) lost their source of income and food, put-ting them at risk of malnutrition and starvation.

On March 2, U.S. Ambassador Alphonse F.La Porta declared a winter emergency disasterin Mongolia. In response, USAID/OFDA pro-vided $25,000 through USAID/Ulaanbaatar tothe Mongolian Red Cross to provide emer-gency food, household commodities, andclothing to the most at-risk families. On April4, USAID/OFDA provided $657,000 throughUSAID/Ulaanbaatar to the IFRC. Of this total,$636,230 was used for the purchase of wheatflour, millet, and rice to assist those most vul-nerable, while $18,800 was designated for fur-ther IFRC assessments of the drought situation.A two-person USAID/OFDA assessment teamconducted visits to disaster-affected areasbetween April 14-17. In support of this assess-ment team, USAID/OFDA also transferred$2,000 to USAID/Ulaanbaatar on April 4 tolease a helicopter.

In addition to USAID/OFDA funding,USAID/Ulaanbaatar provided $227,000 of unal-located local currency proceeds generatedfrom the sale of USAID/FFP Title I food aid tothe IFRC to support relief efforts.

During FY 2000, USAID's Asia and NearEast (ANE) Bureau implemented developmentprograms for Mongolia that addressed theunderlying livestock vulnerabilities that wereexacerbated by the winter emergency. In par-ticular, USAID/ANE undertook the GobiRegional Economic Initiative, which supportedprojects that assisted herders and rural resi-dents in related businesses to develop betterlivestock and herd mixes to increase produc-tivity and mitigate environmental impacts onfragile rangelands.



OFDA FY 2000 59



PhilippinesV O L C A N O

On February 15, 2000, the PhilippineInstitute of Volcanology andSeismology (PHIVOLCS) issued a level

three alert for Mayon Volcano, requiring allpeople residing within a six-kilometer radius tobe evacuated. On February 24, followingexplosive-type earthquakes, increased lava andsulfur dioxide emissions, tremors, and groundswelling, PHIVOLCS raised the alert level ofMayon Volcano to level five, thereby requiringall people residing within eight kilometers tobe evacuated. In addition, drifting ash ledmunicipal authorities to evacuate people livingwithin 15 kilometers of the southwest side ofthe volcano. At the height of the evacuation,the total number of evacuees numberedbetween 70,000 and 80,000. Approximately60,000 of the evacuees resided in 41 temporaryevacuation centers, while the remainder stayedwith relatives. The evacuation centers, estab-lished at schools and other public buildings,were overcrowded and lacked adequate sanita-tion, potable water, and/or running tap water.Most evacuees returned to their homes afteronly a few weeks of being displaced, as vol-canic activity subsided.

On March 1, personnel from USAID/OFDA,USAID/Manila, the U.S. Embassy, DOD, andthe Government of the Philippines conducted ajoint assessment of the area surrounding MayonVolcano. The assessment team met with thegovernor, mayor, regional police inspector,commander of the disaster's task force,PHIVOLCS experts, and local health officials.

Based on this assessment, U.S. AmbassadorThomas C. Hubbard declared a disaster for thePhilippines on February 29. USAID/OFDA pro-vided $25,000 in response throughUSAID/Manila to the Philippine National RedCross (PNRC) to help meet the immediateneeds of evacuees. Subsequently,USAID/OFDA provided 244,800 sq. ft. of plas-tic sheeting, three 3,000-gallon water bladders,two water purification units, and 5,000 five-gal-lon collapsible water jugs. These relief com-modities, valued at $87,894, arrived in the

Philippines via two commercial airlifts at a costof $115,300 and were consigned to the PNRC.USAID/OFDA also provided an additional$25,000 to the PNRC for the purchase, trans-port, and maintenance of portable latrines.

Following a military exercise in thePhilippines, DOD provided approximately$150,000 worth of tents and dust masks for useby evacuees. In addition, some two-dozen U.S.troops assisted the Filipino military in settingup the DOD-procured tents for use by evac-uees.

During the summer of 1999, USAID/OFDAprovided financial support to the USGS'sVolcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP) toinstall four tilt meters and correspondingtelemetry at Mayon Volcano. This technicalassistance, valued between $20,000 and$40,000, helped to mitigate the impacts of theMayon eruption by improving monitoring anddisaster early warning plans.

*USAID/OFDA ASSISTANCE ......$253,194



*This total does not include technical assis-tance provided prior to the eruption of the vol-cano.

Southeast AsiaF L O O D S

In FY 2000, unusually heavy and prolongedmonsoon rains caused severe flooding inSoutheast Asia. According to meteorologists,

the rains were the worst to strike the region in40 years. From July through September, twicethe average rainfall hit the countries ofThailand, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, result-ing in extensive flooding of the Mekong water-shed. According to press reports, the regionalflooding killed approximately 800 people,adversely affected more than eight million resi-dents, and rendered at least two million peoplehomeless. All of the affected countries, to somedegree, experienced extensive crop damage,lack of potable water, sanitation concerns, anupsurge in the incidence of water-borne dis-eases, and food shortages.

ASIA ANDTHE PACIFIC

60 OFDA FY 2000

Severe regional flooding also occurred innortheastern India and western Bangladesh inSeptember and October 2000. Reported to bethe worst in a century, these floods killed morethan 1,300 people, affected an estimated 18million residents, and caused more than onebillion dollars in property damage.

CAMBODIAThe cumulative effects of the flooding inCambodia were devastating and widespread.According to the Government of Cambodia’s(GOC) National Committee for DisasterManagement, 21 provinces were affected, withthose in the southeast region worst hit (Kandal,

Kompong Cham, Prey Veng, Takeo, and SveyRieng). The National Committee for DisasterManagement reported that the floods killed 333people and adversely affected nearly 3.5 mil-lion residents in central and southernCambodia. Of those affected, approximately387,400 people were evacuated to higherground. The GOC also reported that 142,918hectares of rice and subsidiary crops weredestroyed, 132 health facilities were damaged,and 500,000 primary and secondary school stu-dents were unable to begin classes on time.

On August 1, 2000, U.S. Ambassador KentM. Wiedemann issued a disaster declaration forCambodia due to the effects of the flooding. Inresponse, USAID/OFDA provided $25,000through the U.S. Embassy to AmRC for the pur-chase and distribution of emergency house-hold kits. Continued flooding and worseningof the humanitarian situation in the northern,eastern, and southern provinces led U.S.Ambassador Wiedemann to issue a second dis-aster declaration on September 5. In response,USAID/OFDA provided an additional $25,000through the U.S. Embassy to AmRC to meet theimmediate needs of flood-affected families. OnSeptember 20, in response to an IFRC appeal,USAID/OFDA provided $302,704 to AmRC forthe purchase and distribution of additionalemergency household kits (consisting of cloth-ing, cooking utensils, basic tools, plastic sheet-ing, and sleeping mats).


VIETNAMFlooding in the Mekong Delta area of Vietnambegan in early August 2000, causing some ofthe most severe flooding ever in An Giang,Long An, Dong Thap, Kien Gang, and Can Thoprovinces. According to UNOCHA, the flood-ing killed 460 people, affected five million res-idents, and displaced 670,000 people. In addi-tion, UNDP reported that the flooding dam-aged or destroyed approximately 800,000houses, 10,000 kilometers of roads, 13,000bridges, 12,000 schools, and 163,500 hectaresof rice and subsidiary crops. Because croplandin the affected areas was so heavily saturated,flooding continued late into the monsoon sea-son and delayed planting for the 2001 cropcycle.

On September 15, 2000, U.S. AmbassadorDouglas B. Peterson issued a disaster declara-tion for flooding in southeastern Vietnam.

(top) A familysurveys flood

damage to theirhome in Vietnam(photo courtesy of

IFRC).

(above) A token ofthanks is presentedto a member of theU.S. Air Force who

delivered emergencyrelief supplies toVietnam (photo

courtesy of IFRC).


OFDA FY 2000 61

USAID/OFDA responded to the disaster byproviding $25,000 through the U.S. Embassy tothe IFRC to meet the immediate needs of affect-ed families in the Mekong Delta area. The IFRCused these funds in joint efforts with theVietnam Red Cross to provide emergency food,shelter materials, cooking utensils, hygieneitems, and potable water to flood victims. OnSeptember 26, USAID/OFDA provided another$216,160 to the IFRC in response to its appealfor Vietnam. These funds were used to pur-chase and distribute 3,500 emergency house-hold kits, 3,000 fishing nets, and three motor-ized boats for use by the Vietnam Red Cross inSAR efforts and delivery of relief supplies.


Note: In October 2000, USAID/OFDA providedadditional emergency relief assistance totalingapproximately $2.5 million in response to theregional flooding in Cambodia, Laos,Vietnam, India, and Bangladesh. This assis-tance will be reflected in the FY 2001 AnnualReport.

VietnamF L O O D S

During November 1999, Quang Binh,Quang Tri, Thua Thien-Hue, QuangNam, Quang Ngai, and Sing Dinh

provinces and the city of Da Nang in centralVietnam experienced the heaviest rainfall andflooding to affect the region in the last 40 years.The Government of Vietnam (GVN) reported622 deaths, 70 people missing, 25,000 cattlekilled, over one million people in need ofemergency relief assistance, and more than470,493 households affected as a result of theflooding. Furthermore, the GVN estimated thatthe floods damaged or destroyed 911,846 hous-es, 94,000 classrooms, 510 clinics, 97,008hectares of farmland, 3,117 hectares of shrimpand fish farms, and 1,470 bridges.

On November 4, 1999, U.S. AmbassadorDouglas B. Peterson issued a disaster declara-tion for Vietnam due to the effects of the flood-ing. USAID/OFDA responded by providing$25,000 through the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi to

IFRC and UNDP for the provision of blankets,plastic sheeting, and water purification tabletsand units to meet the basic needs of those mostaffected. USAID/OFDA also provided $450,000to IFRC in support of its international appealfor Vietnam. Of this appeal funding,USAID/OFDA provided $60,000 for the pur-chase and distribution of 5,000 household kits(containing blankets, mosquito nets, cookingutensils, and soap) and $390,000 for the con-struction of 2,727 concrete foundations forflood-resistant homes.

In addition, USAID/OFDA provided391,680 sq. ft. of plastic sheeting, 2,400 blan-kets, and 3,200 five-gallon water jugs, valued at$51,760, to the Vietnam Red Cross and IFRC.DOD transported these relief supplies fromGuam to the city of Hue on November 11 at anestimated cost of $60,000. DOD also conducteda medical assessment of flood victims betweenDecember 9-15 in Thua Thien-Hue. The assess-ment identified specific post-flood publichealth needs and ways to address these needs,including the construction of flood-resistantwell systems.

Prior to the onset of this disaster,USAID/OFDA supported technical assistanceprograms to help the GVN build capacities tomitigate flood disasters in vulnerable areas ofVietnam. In FY 1999, USAID/OFDA provided$64,000 to NOAA in support of the develop-

A woman standsbeside her flood-damaged home inVietnam (photocourtesy of IFRC).

62 OFDA FY 2000

ment of an implementation plan for a Red Riverflood-forecasting and early-warning system and$26,000 to the United States Army Corps ofEngineers for the provision of technical assis-tance in the construction of dams.


OTHER USG ASSISTANCE............$60,000


VietnamF L O O D S

As villagers were beginning to replacelost household goods, rebuild damagedinfrastructure, and replant destroyed

crops, heavy rainfall in December 1999 intensi-fied the effects of the severe flooding thatoccurred in central Vietnam in November 1999.The second flood disaster primarily affected theprovinces of Thua Thien-Hue, Quang Nam,

Quang Ngai, Binh Dinh, Phu Yen, and KhanhHoa. According to the GVN, the Decemberfloods resulted in 120 deaths, four people miss-ing, 203 injuries, and 400,000 people in need ofemergency relief assistance. Furthermore, theGVN estimated that the flooding damaged ordestroyed 409,234 houses, 677 schools, 135classrooms, 119 clinics, 36,086 roads, 16,760dikes, 36,044 fish ponds, and 37,526 hectares offarmland.

On December 8, U.S. Chargé d'AffairesDennis G. Harter issued a disaster declarationfor Vietnam due to the effects of the floodingthat occurred in December 1999. USAID/OFDAresponded by providing $25,000 to the U.S.Embassy in Hanoi for the local procurement ofurgently needed household supplies.USAID/OFDA provided an additional $200,000to IFRC to compliment $450,000 disbursed tothe organization following the November 1999flood. This second tranche of funding to IFRCwas used to construct an additional 1,400 con-crete foundations for flood-resistant homes.



A family’s home isdamaged by the

floods in Vietnam(photo courtesy of

IFRC).


OFDA FY 2000 63

Disaster Preparedness in Asia

Nearly half of the world’s major dis-asters occur in the Asia andPacific region, where typhoons,

earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions,landslides, famines, epidemics, and tech-nological accidents all occur with consid-erable frequency. The impacts of each ofthese phenomena are compounded bysignificant population growth rates,urbanization, and environmental degra-dation. Each year, disasters in the Asiaand Pacific region claim thousands oflives, render hundreds of thousands ofpeople homeless, and destroy millions ofdollars worth of infrastructure and per-sonal property.

As its main conduit for mitigating theeffects of disasters in the Asia and Pacificregion, USAID/OFDA provides fundingto the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center(ADPC), located in Bangkok, Thailand.ADPC is the leading center in the Asiaand Pacific region dedicated to protectingcommunities and the environment fromthe devastation of disasters. ADPC workswith national and local governments todevelop the capabilities of countries torespond to disasters and to instituteappropriate policies to mitigate theireffects. ADPC achieves these goalsthrough programs that focus on training,technical assistance, and information-sharing. The four key programs at ADPCare the Asian Urban Disaster MitigationProgram (AUDMP), the Program forEnhancement of Emergency Response(PEER), the Program for UnderstandingExtreme Climate Events (ECE), and theDamage Assessment and Needs AnalysisProgram (DANA). USAID/OFDA pro-vides funding for each of these initiatives.

The AUDMP, launched in 1995, is ADPC'slargest regional program. It was designedto make cities safer from disasters, with agoal of reducing the disaster vulnerabilityof urban populations, infrastructure, criti-cal facilities, and shelter in targeted, sec-

ondary cities, and to promote replicationand adaptation of successful mitigationmeasures throughout the region. Towardsthis end, the program conducts nationaldemonstration projects, information dis-semination and networking activities, pol-icy seminars, and professional training inthe target countries of Bangladesh,Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos,Nepal, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, andVietnam.

The PEER program, which is a collabora-tive initiative between ADPC,USAID/OFDA, and the Miami-Dade FireRescue Department, commenced in Octo-ber 1998, with an objective to developand strengthen search and rescue trainingcapabilities in Asia at national, regional,and sub-regional levels. This is the first ini-tiative of its kind in Asia to impart skillsand enhance the expertise of localresponders to provide effective and coor-dinated on-scene management of rescueand medical response needs following adisaster. The four target countries areIndia, Indonesia, Nepal, and thePhilippines.

The ECE program is a follow-on initiativeto the February 1998 Asian regionalmeeting on El Niño-related crises held by

ADPC in collaboration with NOAA andpartially funded by USAID/OFDA inFebruary 1998. The goal of the programis to significantly improve the understand-ing of the impacts of extreme climateevents such as El Niño and La Niña onsociety and the environment in selectedAsian countries; and to reduce the disas-ter impacts of such events through effec-tive application of climate forecast infor-mation. The program is currently opera-tional in Indonesia, the Philippines, andVietnam, and may expand to includeBangladesh and Thailand.

The DANA program, started in FY 2000,aims to develop a standard methodologyand protocol to assist disaster managersin the Asia and Pacific region in assessingand reporting on post-disaster damagesand needs. In doing so, disaster respons-es will be facilitated and coordinatedthrough the optimization of local andinternational resources. In time, theDANA program will expand to encom-pass the development of a standardmethodology for the assessment of reha-bilitation and reconstruction needs anddamaged infrastructure, training pro-grams for rapid response teams, andplanning for post-disaster needs.

Through the implementation of such miti-gation programs, disasters will have a farless devastating impact throughout theAsia and Pacific region. Ultimately, bystrengthening regional, national, andlocal capabilities to respond to disastersand instituting appropriate disaster mit-igative policies, the region will witness areduction in loss of life and property. Inaddition, the international relief communi-ty will realize a drastic reduction in thecost it bears to provide continual post-dis-aster assistance.

— Amy Tohill-Stull

ADPC works withnational and localgovernments todevelop the capa-bilities of countries torespond to disastersand to instituteappropriate policiesto mitigate theireffects.

EuropeNearEast

andthe

OFDA FY 2000 65

AfghanistanC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

Afghanistan remained a country in crisisduring FY 2000 as more than twodecades of conflict continued to take its

toll on the population. The extended civil warin Afghanistan has resulted in an estimated 1.5million deaths, and an additional 500,000 peo-ple injured or disabled. According to UNHCR,some 2.6 million Afghan refugees remain inother countries, the largest single refugee case-load in the world for the twentieth consecutiveyear. In addition, reports indicate that up toone million people are internally displaced.The extended warfare between rival factions inAfghanistan has included aerial bombing, can-non and rocket fire, anti-tank and anti-person-nel landmines, and frequent sieges, all with lit-tle regard for the welfare of civilians.

By FY 2000, Afghanistan’s most powerfulfaction, the Taliban, controlled roughly 90% ofthe country. The Taliban takeover brought rel-ative stability to most areas under its control,

but the lasting effects of the long-running waron an impoverished country has meant a con-tinuing humanitarian crisis even for areas notdirectly affected by fighting. Government infra-structure, including the ability to deliver themost basic health, education, and other socialservices, has completely collapsed. SevereTaliban restrictions, including a prohibition onwomen working outside the home, have addedto the crushing impact of poverty, particularlyon the many households lacking able-bodiedadult men.

Harassment ranging from property theftand arbitrary "taxes" on humanitarian goods tobeatings, detentions, and killings continued tohinder the efforts of relief agencies in FY 2000.In March 2000, the U.N. temporarily withdrewfrom Kandahar Province after a series of raidsby Taliban forces allegedly searching for a fugi-tive. In early August, seven civilians were killedwhen unknown assailants ambushed a human-itarian demining team in Badghis Province. InJuly, the Taliban imposed an edict prohibitingwomen from working for the U.N. and otherinternational organizations, and in August

EUROPE ANDTHE NEAR EAST

MONTENEGRO

SERBIA-

ROMANIA

HUNGARY

GREECE

UKRA I N E

T U R K E Y

GEORGIA UZBEKISTAN

TAJIKISTAN

AFGHANISTAN

PAKISTAN

Europe and theNear East

(opposite) Membersof KFOR help off-load emergencyshelter materials atthe USAID/OFDAdepot in Ferizaj,Kosovo (photo byPaul Majarowitz,USAID/OFDA).


66 OFDA FY 2000

ordered the closure of 24 woman-run bakeriesestablished by WFP. The Taliban rescinded theorder to close the bakeries shortly thereafter,but the edict remained in effect. In addition tothreatening the livelihoods of hundreds ofwomen employed by international relieforganizations, the edict adversely affected avariety of humanitarian programs that reliedon female staff in order to gain access towomen and children in need of assistance.

The humanitarian impact of the civil crisisin Afghanistan has spanned all sectors. In FY2000, tuberculosis, measles, acute respiratoryinfection, and cholera remained major healthproblems. Only 12% of the population hadaccess to potable water. Food prices rosesharply during the year, due to drought and adrop in currency value, aggravating an alreadyperilous food security situation.

On October 1, 1999, Karl F. Inderfurth,Assistant Secretary of State for Near Easternand South Asian Affairs, redeclared a disasterin Afghanistan for FY 2000 to help meet thecritical needs of victims of the continuinghumanitarian crisis. USAID/OFDA respondedwith funding and in-kind donations to addressbasic humanitarian requirements in the areasof health, water and sanitation, shelter, infra-structure, winterization, and livelihoods. Inhealth, USAID/OFDA provided $989,498 toACF/F for a program to benefit 530,000 peoplein Kabul and surrounding areas for the treat-ment of malnutrition, maternal and childhealth care, and education for mothers andchildren. To address humanitarian needs inwater and sanitation, USAID/OFDA provided$400,000 to CARE’s emergency water supplyprogram to combat disease by providingpotable water to 35,000 households in Kabul.

In shelter, infrastructure, and winterization,USAID/OFDA provided $500,000 in support ofthe Agency for Technical Cooperation andDevelopment’s (ACTED) winter emergencyprogram for IDPs, including heating, shelter,and road repair activities. USAID/OFDA pro-vided ACTED with an in-kind donation fromits stockpile of 10,000 blankets and 480,000 sq.ft. of plastic sheeting for emergency shelter, ata combined value of $99,692, plus transport ata cost of $104,480. USAID/OFDA provided$300,000 in support of Shelter NowInternational’s (SNI) program to benefit 2,500households through reconstruction and reliefactivities for homes destroyed by October 1999fighting in Takhar Province. USAID/OFDA alsoprovided $360,049 to SC/US for supplemental

heating in five hospitals in Kabul City andMaidan Shahr benefiting 40,000 people, and aheating project to benefit 2,300 IDP families inKabul.

To address humanitarian needs stemmingfrom chronic poverty, USAID/OFDA provided$46,000 to the Cooperative Center forAfghanistan for agricultural infrastructure reha-bilitation benefiting eight villages in BamiyanProvince, and $100,000 to Physiotherapy andRehabilitation Support for Afghanistan (PARSA)for projects in Kabul benefiting an estimated6,700 people with training as well as homeschooling for girls.

USAID/FFP provided 26,870 MT of P.L. 480Title II emergency food commodities throughWFP and the Aga Khan Foundation at a cost of$13,977,900. USDA provided 135,000 MT ofSection 416(b) wheat to WFP at an estimatedcost of $58,762,385.

State/PRM provided UNHCR with $7.4 mil-lion for regional programs benefiting Afghanrefugees and returnees in Iran, Pakistan, andAfghanistan. State/PRM provided $6.1 millionfor NGOs addressing Afghan refugee needs inPakistan, and provided $75,000 to support theadministrative costs of WFP’s Afghanistan pro-grams. State/PRM provided ICRC with $6.6 mil-lion for Afghanistan programs as part of a $9.9million contribution to ICRC’s South Asiaappeal. State/PRM also provided UNCHR with$4.1 million in unearmarked funds forUNHCR’s general program for South Asia, asubstantial portion of which benefited Afghanrefugees. The State Department’s HumanitarianDevelopment Program allocated $3 million fordemining in Afghanistan, of which $1.1 millionwas provided to HALO Trust, a British demi-ning organization, and the remainder was pro-vided to support UNOCHA’s demining opera-tions.




*These funding figures do not reflect $4.1 mil-lion in regional funding provided byState/PRM to UNHCR and ICRC for refugeesand returnees in Iran, Pakistan, andAfghanistan.

OFDA FY 2000 67

AfghanistanD R O U G H T

During FY 2000, Afghanistan experi-enced its worst drought since 1971. Aspart of a larger region-wide drought

affecting vast areas of Central and South Asia,the disaster caused significant losses of cropsand livestock throughout Afghanistan, severelyimpacting most regions of the country. In total,UNOCHA estimated that the drought affectedsome 2.5 million farmers of rain-fed wheat and80,000 nomadic livestock owners (Kuchis).WFP and FAO predicted that the burgeoningcrisis will affect at least half of Afghanistan’sestimated 25 million people by the summer of2001. The drought also impacted urbandwellers, particularly because it coincided witha precipitous fall in the Taliban-controlledAfghani currency, further contributing to analready sharp rise in food prices.

The drought followed two successive yearsof low rainfall and snowfall levels that causedthe water table to drop and rivers and lakes toshrink. Low rainfall in 1999 had forced manyhouseholds in the country’s most rainfall-dependent agricultural areas to sell more than50% of their livestock in order to buy wheatlast season. During the 2000-2001 agriculturalseason, livestock sales increased, while pricesfell, causing serious damage to herders' liveli-hoods. In addition, what livestock were leftwere vulnerable to depleted fodder supplies.

On May 4, 2000, Assistant Secretary ofState for Asia and the Near East Karl F.Inderfurth issued a disaster declaration fordrought conditions in Afghanistan during FY2000. USAID/OFDA provided $25,000 throughthe U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan tosupport a Mercy Corps International (MCI)agriculture and livestock program. In addition,USAID/OFDA provided CARE with $686,492for agriculture and livestock programs in theHazarajat region; UNICEF and U.N./Habitatwith $250,000 each to provide emergencypotable water projects for severely drought-affected populations in various locations; MCIwith $929,359 to support potable water, agri-culture, and livestock projects for farmers anddisplaced nomads in Kandahar Province; andSNI with $310,000 for an irrigation project innorthern Afghanistan. USAID/OFDA providedU.N./Habitat with $500,000 for continueddrought relief and emergency assistance inKabul, Herat, and Kandahar.

USAID/OFDA also provided emergencyrelief assistance in response to Afghanistan’scomplex emergency, as did USAID/FFP. Someof this assistance was used to benefit droughtvictims. (For additional information, please seethe preceding "Afghanistan – ComplexEmergency" case report.)


AlbaniaR E F U G E E S

At the beginning of FY 2000, less than4,000 refugees remained in Albaniafrom a June 1999 peak of more than

465,500 ethnic Albanians who had crossed theAlbanian border from Kosovo. On October15, 1999, U.S. Ambassador Joseph Limprechtredeclared a disaster for Albania due to thecontinuing humanitarian needs of the remain-ing refugees. USAID/OFDA maintained its sup-port for a contingency planner seconded to theGovernment of Albania’s EmergencyManagement Group through December 1999,as well as funding for a water/sanitation engi-neer seconded to UNICEF. A USAID/OFDAgrant to AAH/USA for nutrition, water, andsanitation activities was extended in FY 2000with $140,639 in additional funding. Toreplenish relief commodities that were provid-ed from USAID/OFDA’s stockpile in support ofemergency needs during FY 1999,USAID/OFDA procured 19,600 five-gallonwater containers at a cost of $32,340. TheUSAID/DART, which was deployed to Tiranaon April 2, 1999, ended operations on October21, 1999.

USAID/OFDA ASSISTANCE ........$312,898

GeorgiaD R O U G H T

In the summer of 2000, lower than normalrainfall coupled with extremely high tem-peratures created a drought that adversely



68 OFDA FY 2000

affected five regions in eastern Georgia withan estimated rural population of nearly 1.2 mil-lion people. Rainfall averaged 50% of its nor-mal level during the spring, and fell to lessthan 10% of its normal level during the sum-mer. Agriculture throughout eastern Georgiawas severely impacted. The most affectedareas included the Kakheti region, which suf-fered damage to 89% of its wheat crop, 70% ofwhich was completely destroyed, andSamtskhe-Javakheti, Kvemo-Kartli, Shida-Kartli, and Mtskheta-Mtianeti. These areas suf-fered wheat crop damage of up to 87%, withtotal destruction of up to 57%. Many areas alsoexperienced severe shortages of potable water.

On August 18, U.S. Ambassador KennethS. Yalowitz declared a disaster for Georgia dueto the effects of the drought. USAID/OFDAresponded by providing $25,000 throughUSAID/Tbilisi to the Salvation Army to expandan existing feeding program with an addition-al kitchen in the most affected area of theKakheti region. USAID/OFDA also deployed ahumanitarian response advisor to Georgia tomonitor the USG response to the drought.USAID/OFDA provided an additional $500,000through USAID/Tbilisi to SC/US for the pro-curement and distribution of wheat seed tobenefit 4,000 subsistence farming families inthe Kakheti region. SC/US managed the pro-curement and distribution of seeds, with localrelief organizations as implementing partners.USAID/FFP provided additional assistance inFY 2000 with a 2,000 MT contribution of P.L.480 Title II emergency food commodities toWFP at a cost of $984,600.

Under the Freedom Support Act, the U.S.Department of State’s Office of the SpecialAdvisor to the Secretary for the NewIndependent States provided an additional$3.4 million to support agricultural credit asso-ciations and purchase wheat seed for droughtvictims.




GreeceF I R E

In July 2000, hot, dry winds from across theMediterranean Sea combined with nearrecord high temperatures and drought con-

ditions to create an ideal situation for wildfiresin Greece and neighboring countries. Duringthe week of July 9, fires broke out on theGreek mainland and several Aegean islands.The wildfires destroyed homes, businesses,olive groves, and forests. On the island ofSamos, one of the most affected areas, firesdestroyed more than 13,000 hectares, or 70%of the island’s green areas. On July 19, U.S.Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns declared a dis-aster for Greece due to the devastation causedby the wildfires. USAID/OFDA responded byproviding $25,000 to the U.S. Embassy inAthens to meet the emergency needs of vic-tims affected by the wildfires.


HungaryA C C I D E N T

On January 30, 2000, an accident in aRomanian gold mine released approx-imately 100,000 cubic meters of

cyanide solution and tailings into the SzamosRiver, which runs from Romania into Hungary.The cyanide spill also affected the Tisza Riverin Hungary. On February 18, 2000, following arequest for international assistance from theGovernment of Hungary, U.S. Chargéd’Affaires Thomas B. Robertson declared a dis-aster for Hungary due to the economic impacton residents who derive their livelihoods fromthe two rivers. USAID/OFDA responded byproviding $25,000 through USAID/Budapest tothe Foundation for Development ofDemocratic Rights, a local NGO, to implementemergency livelihoods activities.


OFDA FY 2000 69

HungaryF L O O D S

In April 2000, the Tisza River in easternHungary flooded at record levels, affectingmore than 150 villages and towns along its

banks. On April 11, U.S. Ambassador Peter F.Tufo declared a disaster for Hungary due to theeffects of the flooding. USAID/OFDA respond-ed by providing $24,859 to USAID/Budapestfor the local purchase of emergency relief sup-plies. On April 17, U.S. Ambassador Tuforeported that the situation was expected toremain critical for two more weeks andrequested additional USAID/OFDA assistance.USAID/OFDA responded to the second requestfor assistance with $50,000 to USAID/Budapestfor the local purchase of water pumps, sand-bags, torches, and generators for flood victims.


PakistanD R O U G H T

During FY 2000, Pakistan experienced adrought that severely affected areas inthe southeast and southwest, including

large parts of Baluchistan and Sindh provinces.The drought reportedly affected between 2.5and three million people, and was exacerbatedby three preceding years of lower than normalrainfall. On May 15, U.S. Ambassador WilliamB. Milam declared a disaster for Pakistan citingthe deaths of several hundred people and asignificant number of livestock. Because morethan 70% of the population in the affectedareas depends upon livestock for their liveli-hoods, purchasing power of families wasseverely impacted.

USAID/OFDA responded by providing$45,000 to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad tosupport drought-related relief activities. TheU.S. Embassy provided $25,000 to CWS for theprovision of seeds, fodder, and potable waterto benefit 15,180 people in the TharparkarDistrict of Sindh Province, and $20,000 to MCIto provide tents for drought-displaced persons.On September 12, USAID/OFDA deployed atwo-person assessment team to Pakistan tovisit drought areas, and meet with USG per-sonnel, local officials, and relief organizationsto assess the impact of relief activities to date,and to determine the extent of future emer-gency needs.



(above) AUSAID/OFDA-funded wellrehabilitationproject in SindhProvince, Pakistan(photo by AlexMahoney,USAID/OFDA).

(left) USAID/OFDA-funded tents in theSiah Koh droughtdisplacement campin BaluchistanProvince, Pakistan(photo by AlexMahoney, USAID/OFDA).


70 OFDA FY 2000

RomaniaA C C I D E N T

On January 30, 2000, an accident in aRomanian gold mine released approx-imately 100,000 cubic meters of

cyanide solution and tailings into the SzamosRiver. On February 25, 2000, following arequest for assistance from the Government ofRomania, U.S. Ambassador James C. Rosapepedeclared a disaster for Romania due to thedirect environmental and economic impactscaused by the accident. USAID/OFDA

responded by providing $25,000 through theU.S. Embassy in Bucharest to the Bucharest-based Regional Environmental Center. TheCenter used the funds to support local NGOsin providing relief to affected communities andassisting in mitigating the effects of the spill.


RomaniaF L O O D S

Heavy spring rains and melting snowscaused severe flooding in northernand western Romania. The floods,

described as the worst in 200 years, resulted innine deaths, significant damage to hundreds ofvillages, and inundated more than 70,000hectares of farmland. According to Romania’sSupreme Defense Council, the flooding dam-aged 3,000 households in more than 500 local-ities, destroyed 250 bridges, and rendered 60roads impassable. On April 21, U.S. Ambas-sador James Rosapepe declared a disaster forRomania due to the effects of the flooding.USAID/OFDA responded by providing $25,000to the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest for emer-gency relief activities to assist the flood victims.


Serbia-MontenegroC O M P L E X E M E R G E N C Y

By the fall of 1999, the situation inKosovo had changed dramatically fromthe prior year. The North Atlantic Treaty

Organization’s (NATO) air campaign forcedPresident Slobodan Milosevic’s government towithdraw military forces from the province,and reversed the Yugoslav policy of massexpulsion of a significant portion of theprovince’s ethnic Albanian population andwidespread human rights abuses. The depar-ture of the Yugoslav military and police fromthe province, coupled with the arrival of

Workers repairing awell funded by

USAID/OFDA’s wellrehabilitation project

in Kosovo (photo byPaul Majarowitz,

USAID/OFDA).

(bottom) Installationof a sanitary

wellhead in a villagein the Ferizaj

Municipality ofKosovo (photo byPaul Majarowitz,

USAID/OFDA).

OFDA FY 2000 71

NATO’s Kosovo Protection Force (KFOR),allowed large numbers of deportees andrefugees to return to Kosovo. Internationalrelief organizations also relocated to theprovince. The USAID/DART returned toPristina from Skopje, Macedonia within daysafter hostilities ended in June 1999.

Notwithstanding these major positivedevelopments, serious problems persisted. Thesecurity situation in Kosovo remained precari-ous. Landmines, booby traps, and unexplodedordnance limited humanitarian access in mostof the province. Despite the presence ofKFOR, inter-ethnic unrest continued, and vio-lent incidents were targeted at minority groupsas well as international relief organizations.With Kosovo cut off from economic links withSerbia, the restoration of infrastructure to pro-vide basic necessities became a humanitarianissue. Finally, the Kosovo winter, a leadingcause of humanitarian concern during 1998-1999, again loomed. The problem had becomefar larger, however, due to the widespreadburning and looting of homes by Yugoslavforces during the conflict that left an estimatedone-third of Kosovo’s estimated 365,000 hous-ing units damaged or destroyed. Of the dam-aged housing stock, more than 48,000 unitswere damaged beyond repair, and more than33,000 houses were so severely damaged as to

be uninhabitable. The rapid, spontaneousreturn of hundreds of thousands of people tothe province heightened the urgency of theproblem. It became clear that without a mas-sive effort, hundreds of thousands of Kosovarsmight face the winter without sustainable shel-ter. On October 1, 1999, U.S. Chief of Missionin Pristina Lawrence G. Rossin redeclared adisaster for FY 2000, citing the ongoinghumanitarian crisis in Kosovo.

To respond to the impending crisis,USAID/OFDA launched the largest emergencyshelter program in its history. The $47.6 mil-lion program ($33 million in FY 1999 and $14.6million in FY 2000), consisting of two primaryshelter initiatives and an emergency contin-gency program, provided more than 20,000emergency shelter kits containing wood fram-ing, plastic sheeting, doors, insulation material,stoves, tools, and related building supplies forfamilies living in damaged houses. The kitswere designed to provide at least one warm,dry room in each house. USAID/OFDA alsoprovided expanded roofing packages, whichincluded framing timber and plastic sheeting,as a supplement to the emergency shelter kitfor 7,900 households. The expanded roofingpackages were provided under the conditionthat families receiving them would shelter oneto two additional families.


A USAID/OFDA-funded roof repairis completed inKosovo (photo byPaul Majarowitz,USAID/OFDA).


72 OFDA FY 2000

USAID/OFDA distributed emergency shel-ter packages through its implementing part-ners, as well as from the USAID/OFDA roofingdepot in Ferizaj as in-kind donations torequesting NGOs, Red Cross/CrescentSocieties, and community groups. USAID/OFDA coordinated its primary shelter initia-tives with UNHCR and the EuropeanCommunity Humanitarian Office (ECHO). Intotal, the three donors provided more than66,000 shelter kits to vulnerable residents ofthe province. USAID/OFDA supplemented itsemergency shelter program with theEmergency Response Initiative (ERI), launchedin January 2000 to provide an additional 500roofing kits and supplementary shelter materi-als for up to 2,000 households. The ERI servedas a contingency measure to fill arising gaps inexisting shelter programs. An estimated290,000 people benefited from theUSAID/OFDA emergency shelter program.

USAID/OFDA implemented its shelter pro-gram through multiple organizations, providingfunding support as well as in-kind contribu-tions of shelter materials to ADRA, ARC, CARE,Concern, Cooperative Housing Foundation(CHF), FHI, GOAL, IRC, MEDAIR, ReliefInternational, and WV. USAID/OFDA contract-ed with Readiness Management Services, Inc.(RMS) to procure timber and transport it intoKosovo. RMS obtained the large quantity oftimber required for the program from mills inAustria, Germany, and the Czech Republic andtransported it by rail to Kosovo. The use of railtransport allowed RMS to avoid days-long traf-fic delays and hazardous road conditionsencountered en route to Kosovo from theBlace border near Skopje, Macedonia. Thelarge amount of shelter material required logis-ticians to use 36 trains varying from 10 to 16cars in length over a two-month period.

With the end of winter and the successfulcompletion of the emergency shelter program,USAID/OFDA closed its DART in Pristina onMarch 31, 2000. In its place, USAID/OFDAestablished the Kosovo Program Office (KPO)to continue to monitor its existing programsand the humanitarian situation, and to identifyadditional emergency needs. The KPO alsoserved as a contingency measure in case thehumanitarian situation deteriorated, allowingUSAID/OFDA to retain the institutional knowl-edge and capacity that the DART had accumu-lated during its presence in Kosovo.

During FY 2000, USAID/OFDA also sup-ported health activities with $208,175 in fund-

ing to AAH/USA for a nutritional program formothers and children. USAID/OFDA fundedIMC to continue its mobile health clinic projectin minority and isolated rural communitiesthrough the spring of 2001. In agriculture,USAID/OFDA provided $1 million to FAO insupport of a livestock vaccination program aspart of the international effort to resume post-conflict agricultural production. In support ofcosts associated with the distribution ofUSAID/OFDA-funded Humanitarian DailyRations in Kosovo, USAID/OFDA providedWFP with $92,044. Finally, USAID/OFDA pro-vided $3.8 million in support of communityinfrastructure projects.

In FY 2000, USAID/OTI provided $8.6 mil-lion in funding for democracy-building activi-ties in Kosovo such as civil society promotionand independent media development; andresponse to critical community needs, such asschool reconstruction and local infrastructure.In Montenegro, USAID/OTI provided $1 mil-lion in funding to promote tolerance anddemocracy, including support for local NGOsand independent media. In Serbia, USAID/OTIprovided $3.4 million in support of democraticelements in society, including direct grants tomunicipalities demonstrating democratic prin-ciples, delivering humanitarian commodities,supporting capacity-building for civil societygroups, and establishing independent mediaoutlets. USAID/FFP provided 81,150 MT of P.L.480 Title II emergency food commodities toSerbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo in FY 2000 ata cost of $58.2 million. State/PRM contributed$14 million to NGOs assisting refugees return-ing from Serbia and Montenegro to their pre-war homes in Bosnia and Croatia. In Kosovo,State/PRM contributed $28.2 million to NGOsand international organizations for health,water and sanitation, psycho-social activities,tolerance education, protection-related activi-ties, and support for minorities. State/PRM alsoprovided $40.6 million in regional funding toUNHCR, ICRC, UNICEF, UNOCHA, and WFPfor programs throughout the Balkans, includ-ing programs supporting refugees and IDPs inSerbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Albania, and Macedonia.

USAID/OFDA ASSISTANCE ......$22,391,587


*TOTAL USG ASSISTANCE......$135,760,671

OFDA FY 2000 73


The tranquil waters of Lake Sarezhave long been a ticking time bombin the central Asian nation of

Tajikistan. The lake was formed in 1911when an earthquake caused a massivelandslide that blocked the Amu DaryaRiver. Today, the lake is 60 kilometers longand up to 500 meters deep, containingmore than 50 billion cubic meters of water.Another major earthquake in this earth-quake-prone region could destroy thelake’s unstable dam. There have been atleast three-dozen significant earthquakesin the area since 1990. Further adding tothe danger, a high cliff overhanging thelake is likely to collapse in the event of anearthquake, sending billions of cubicmeters of water cascading over the top ofthe dam. As the condition of the earthendam itself gradually worsens, the threat ofa rupture increases. If the dam breaks, itcould send a wave up to 30 meters highracing through Tajikistan, as well asTurkmenistan, Uzbekistan, andAfghanistan, all of which lie downstreamfrom the dam. While the likelihood of sucha calamity is believed to be low, the poten-tial consequences are high: an estimatedfive million people living in the area couldbe affected. A dam collapse at Lake Sarezmight easily become the deadliest naturaldisaster in world history.

USAID/OFDA has long worked towardsthe goal of preventing disasters whereverpossible. Spending funds on disaster pre-vention is an investment that can savecountless lives and reduce the need forand costs of disaster response. During FY1999, USAID/OFDA in part supported aU.N.-sponsored assessment mission oftechnical experts to the Lake Sarez Dam.In FY 2000, USAID/OFDA contributed$250,000 towards the Lake Sarez RiskMitigation Project implemented by FocusHumanitarian Assistance. This multination-

al project, in partnership with the WorldBank, will design and install systems tomonitor lake levels, leakage rates, land-slide movements, and other critical indica-tors that can forewarn of a potential disas-ter. The project works to strengthen emer-gency shelter areas by training communi-ties in use and maintenance of the early-warning system. The project also exploresthe possibility of long-term engineeringsolutions.

Local community and government involve-ment is critical to the monitoring system’ssuccess. Without the cooperation andinput of local people and government offi-cials, the system cannot continue to oper-ate after international assistance ends. Forthis reason, USAID/OFDA is supporting asocial component of the Focus Project thattargets community development and train-ing. The objective of this component is todevelop agreements among the local vil-lagers, community organizations, andgovernment authorities on disaster man-agement procedures and responsibilities,as well as mechanisms to monitor progressand deal with unexpected problems.Through Focus, in conjunction with localcommunity organizations and theTajikistan Ministry of Emergencies,USAID/OFDA is supporting the training ofcommunity members in disaster mitiga-tion, including relocating and strengthen-ing endangered infrastructure, water con-trol, and slope stabilization. USAID/

OFDA funds are assisting training pro-grams in emergency response, includingemergency coordination and communica-tion, evacuation, rescue, first aid, and sur-vival techniques. These programs also areinstructing the local community in how touse and maintain the early-warning sys-tem.

With USAID/OFDA support, several sci-entists from the USGS are coordinatingwith Focus and local geoscientists and vil-lagers to update existing data and hazardmaps for vulnerable areas. This projectwill prepare maps of likely flooding, iden-tify safe-havens for each vulnerable vil-lage, and establish evacuation routesusing Geographic Information Systems(GIS), Global Positioning System (GPS)technology, flood route modeling withmodern analytical techniques, and localknowledge. In order to ensure the accessi-bility and maintenance of the routes,Focus, with USAID/OFDA funding, willprovide the necessary logistical assistance.Finally, Focus plans to develop a disastermanagement information system for shar-ing among government and communityorganizations responsible for disastermanagement.

Thanks to a coordinated effort with otherUSG agencies, international donors,NGOs, and community groups, USAID/OFDA is addressing a hazard in CentralAsia that threatens the lives of millions ofpeople. Through support for the develop-ment of early-warning systems, evacuationplans, hazard maps, and training,USAID/OFDA is working to lessen thenumber of lives lost and the cost of disas-ter response in the event of a future damcollapse.

— Alex Mahoney

The Effort to Avert a Potential Disaster:

Lake SarezAn estimated five millionpeople live in the areasthat would be affected. Adam collapse could easilybecome the deadliestnatural disaster in worldhistory.


74 OFDA FY 2000

*These funding figures do not reflect $40.6 mil-lion in regional funding provided by State/PRMto UNHCR, ICRC, UNICEF, UNOCHA, and WFPfor refugees and returnees throughout theBalkans.

TajikistanD R O U G H T

During FY 2000, Tajkistan received thesmallest amount of annual precipita-tion in 74 years. In May 2000, rainfall

was between 0% and 10% of normal levels insome key food producing areas, and cerealproduction totals for 2000 were no more than25% of normal levels.

In response to the drought conditions, U.S.

Ambassador Robert P. Finn declared a disasterfor Tajikistan on July 28. USAID/OFDAresponded by providing $25,000 throughUSAID/Almaty to ACF/F to support an emer-gency intervention for treatment of malnutri-tion in children under age five in Pyanj District,one of the most-affected areas of the country.In addition, USAID/FFP provided 2,300 MT ofP.L. 480 Title II emergency food assistance, val-ued at $1.4 million. USDA provided an esti-mated 65,000 MT of Section 416(b) food com-modities to the Aga Khan Foundation, CARE,MCI, and SC/US at a cost of $10 million. InSeptember, USAID/OFDA deployed a foodsecurity officer and a food officer fromUSAID/FFP to Tajikistan to assess the situationand determine the extent of future needs.




TurkeyE A R T H Q U A K E

Just before 7 p.m. local time on November12, 1999, a powerful earthquake measuring7.2 on the Richter Scale struck northwest-

ern Turkey. The earthquake’s epicenter was115 miles east of Istanbul in the town of Duzcein Bolu Province. The affected area was on theedges of the area devastated by the August 17,1999 earthquake. By December 14, theGovernment of Turkey (GOT) reported that816 people were confirmed dead, and another4,948 were injured. The earthquake damagedthousands of buildings, displaced an estimated50,000 residents, and left some 20,500 peoplehomeless.

Acting under an existing disaster declara-tion issued August 17, 1999 by U.S.Ambassador Mark R. Parris in response to theAugust 16 earthquake centered on Izmit,USAID/OFDA immediately activated a 67-per-son SAR team from Fairfax County, Virginia. Aneight-person USAID/DART and the SAR teamdeparted the next day and arrived in Turkey onNovember 14. The USAID/DART/SAR immedi-ately began setting up operations and conduct-ing aerial reconnaissance missions. A DODHumanitarian Assistance Survey Team (HAST)also arrived November 14. For the next four

Malnourishedchildren receive

additional nutritionat a therapeutic

feeding centerfunded by

USAID/OFDA inTajikistan (photo by

Mary Mertens,USAID/FFP).

OFDA FY 2000 75

days, the USAID/DART/SAR conducted 24-hour search operations that by November 17were ongoing at six different locations. Fortyadditional international SAR teams also con-ducted search and rescue operations. ByNovember 18, international SAR teams had res-cued a total of eight survivors from the rubble.

On November 17, U.S. Ambassador MarkR. Parris issued a disaster declaration for theNovember 12 earthquake, authorizing therelease of USG emergency funds to support therelief effort. President Clinton visited the coun-try in November and announced a $1 billionloan package to support Turkey’s earthquakerelief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction efforts.Upon completing its emergency search andrescue effort on November 18, theUSAID/DART/SAR team donated its tents, gen-erators, heaters, and bottled water to theDevlet Hospital in Duzce. The hospital build-ing was damaged during the earthquake, andthese donations allowed for an additional fieldhospital to be established in Duzce. In addi-tion, DOD donated 500 tents, originallydeployed to Izmit for the August 1999 earth-quake, to shelter Duzce earthquake survivors.




UkraineA C C I D E N T

On March 13, 2000, an explosion shooka coal mine in the town ofSukhodolsk, Luhansk Oblast, Ukraine.

The explosion killed 80 people and injuredseven. On March 15, U.S. Ambassador StevenK. Pifer declared a disaster for Ukraine, citingthe hardships faced by the families of theinjured and deceased. USAID/OFDA respond-ed on March 16 by providing $25,000 throughUSAID/Kiev to support the local CommunityHumanitarian Assistance Program (CHAP) inproviding emergency food, medical supplies,and other non-food basic relief items to theaffected families.


UzbekistanD R O U G H T

Uzbekistan experienced its worstdrought in recent history during FY2000. The western part of the country,

where only one-tenth of the water normallyused for irrigation was available during theyear, suffered the most serious effects. Thedrought severely impacted both food and cashcrops, and less than one-third of the popula-tion had access to potable water. On August22, U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Molly O’Nealdeclared a disaster for Uzbekistan in responseto the drought. USAID/OFDA provided $25,000to the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent for a drought-related potable water program aimed at reduc-ing the risk of water-borne diseases.


(opposite andabove) Extensivedamage toapartmentbuildings andarchitecturalstructures is viewedfrom above afterTurkey’s secondmajor earthquakein three months(photo by Miami-Dade Fire RescueDepartment).


LatinAmerica

Caribbeanandthe

LATIN AMERICAAND THE

CARIBBEAN

OFDA FY 2000 77

BoliviaD R O U G H T

In January 2000, serious drought conditionsdue to the delayed start of the rainy seasonaffected the province of Gran Chaco in the

department of Tarija. The drought hit hardest inthe area around the municipality of Yacuiba,affecting an estimated population of 20,000families. Most severely affected were approxi-mately 4,000 small-holder farm families. Initialreports indicated low community water sup-plies in rural Yacuiba Municipality; and severalother communities reported brackish wells and

an insufficient quantity of potable water tomeet community needs. On January 18, theGovernment of Bolivia (GOB) declared thearea a disaster zone.

Following an assessment conductedbetween January 12-14, USAID/La Paz trans-ferred nine previously provided USG waterbladders from the city of Potosi to Yacuiba tocomplement municipal water distributionplans. In addition, USAID/La Paz redirected300 MT of P.L. 480 Title II emergency foodcommodities to distribute to 3,960 affectedfamilies from March to May as supplementalfood rations.

On January 26, 2000, U.S. Ambassador

(opposite)Beneficiaries ofUSAID/OFDA’sdrought assistanceprograms inParaguay (photo byAlejandro James,USAID/OFDA).

MEXICO

ST. LUCIA

DOMINICA

ANTIGUAAND BARBUDA

ST. KITTSAND NEVISHONDURAS

EL SALVADOR

VENEZUELA

ST. VINCENT

GRENADA

ECUADOR

CHILE

BOLIVIA

PARAGUAY

Latin America andthe Caribbean


CARIBBEAN

78 OFDA FY 2000

Donna Hrinak declared a disaster due to theeffects of the drought in Bolivia. USAID/OFDA provided $25,000 through the U.S.Embassy in La Paz to CARE for the distributionof food and the local purchase of water con-tainers and chlorine water treatment solution.USAID/OFDA also sent a consultant to Boliviato work with the U.S. Embassy and USAID/LaPaz in monitoring the drought conditions andrelief operations in Gran Chaco.


CaribbeanH U R R I C A N E

Hurricane Lenny formed in the south-west Caribbean on November 14,1999. At its peak as a category four

storm, Hurricane Lenny produced maximumwinds of almost 225 kilometers/hour andmore than 76 centimeters of rain. After cross-ing over the eastern Caribbean islands, thehurricane continued in a westerly direction,passing just south of Haiti and the DominicanRepublic. Coastal infrastructure such as roads,bridges, and sea defenses sustained most ofthe hurricane’s damage. On November 22,1999, U.S. Chargé d’Affaires in BarbadosRoland Bullen issued a disaster declaration forAntigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St.Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent.

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, DOMINICA,AND GRENADAOn November 29, the U.S. Embassy inBarbados requested assistance for Antiguaand Barbuda, Dominica, and Grenada.USAID/OFDA responded by providing$25,000 for each country through the U.S.Embassy in Bridgetown to UNDP to meetshelter and other emergency relief needs ofdisplaced persons.

ST. LUCIAOn December 17, the U.S. Embassy inBarbados requested assistance for St. Lucia.USAID/OFDA responded by providing$25,000 through the U.S. Embassy to UNDP tomeet shelter and other emergency relief needsof displaced persons in St. Lucia.

REGIONAL ASSISTANCE

A six-person USAID/OFDA team consisting oftwo regional advisors and four disaster spe-cialists from Miami-Dade Fire RescueDepartment deployed to the region onNovember 19 to assist with coordination,damage assessments, and identification ofemergency needs. USAID/OFDA provided a$75,000 grant to the Pan American HealthOrganization (PAHO) to meet the emergencyneeds of the victims of Hurricane Lenny for aperiod of six months. Project activities includ-ed improving water and sanitation conditionsand preventing disease outbreaks and rodentcontrol problems in Antigua and Barbuda,and St. Kitts and Nevis.

At the request of the Government of theNetherlands (GON), DOD supplied a C-130aircraft to transport relief commodities fromCuraçao to the islands of St. Maarten, Saba,and St. Eustatius. The GON fully reimbursedDOD for the cost of the transport.


ChileF L O O D S

In early June 2000, heavy rainfall causedthe Mapocho River to overflow its banksand flood parts of central Chile, including

the capital Santiago and the port city ofValparaiso. The National MeteorologicalService reported that, from June 12-14, morethan 15 centimeters of rain fell in the greaterSantiago region. Several landslides occurredin Valparaiso and more than 60,000 peoplewere displaced in the affected areas due tothe flooding.

On June 16, 2000, U.S. Ambassador JohnO’Leary declared a disaster for Chile due tothe effects of the flooding. USAID/OFDAresponded by providing $25,000 through theU.S. Embassy to the Chilean Red Cross, Hogarde Cristo (a local NGO), and Caritas to helpmeet the immediate needs of flood victims.



CARIBBEAN

OFDA FY 2000 79

EcuadorV O L C A N O

In mid-October 1999, Tungurahua Volcano,located south of Quito in the town ofBanos, began intermittent eruptions that

sent clouds of ash into the atmosphere andcaused avalanches of mud and debris. Localauthorities were forced to evacuate 25,000 res-idents from 23 communities in the surroundingarea. Ashfall from the eruptions damaged morethan 50,000 hectares of farmland and an unde-termined quantity of pastureland. The ash fallalso killed livestock and virtually eliminated allpoultry production.

On December 3, U.S. Ambassador GwenC. Clare declared a disaster for Ecuador inresponse to the eruptions at Tungurahua.USAID/OFDA provided $25,000 through theU.S. Embassy in Quito to CRS in support of itsemergency relief program for 150 displacedfamilies most-affected by the evacuation.Following the declaration, USAID/OFDAdeployed a consultant to Quito to coordinaterelief activities with USAID/Quito.USAID/OFDA also provided $15,000 toUSAID/Quito for the National GeophysicalInstitute to assist with operational costs associ-ated with volcano monitoring and enhancedpublic outreach in the vicinity of Tungurahua.USAID/OFDA continues to provide technicalassistance and monitoring of Tungurahua andGuagua Pichincha (Ecuador’s other active vol-cano which is located outside Quito) as part ofits ongoing funding of the USGS VolcanoDisaster Assistance Program.


El SalvadorH E A L T H E M E R G E N C Y

In FY 2000, cases of dengue and denguehemorrhagic fever (DHF) dramaticallyincreased in El Salvador, with 211 cases

reported and confirmed from January toSeptember. On September 12, 2000, thePresident of El Salvador Francisco Floresdeclared a national emergency due to the con-tinued increase in casualties as a result of the

dengue and DHF emergency. Approximately24 deaths resulted from the epidemic, all butone of which occurred in children under theage of 10. The Ministry of Public Health andSocial Assistance determined that they wereunable to respond properly to the emergencyand officially requested international assis-tance.

On September 14, U.S. Ambassador RoseLikins declared a disaster for El Salvador due tothe dengue emergency. In response,USAID/OFDA provided $25,000 through theU.S. Embassy in San Salvador to the NationalEmergency Committee (COEN) for the pur-chase of medical supplies and equipment tofacilitate the early diagnosis of DHF, adequate-ly manage and monitor DHF, and provide DHFtherapy to patients.


HondurasF L O O D S

During September and November 1999,heavy rains triggered a national stateof alert along the Ulua, Humaya, and

Sulaco rivers in northwestern Honduras.Flooding and landslides occurred throughoutthe country, adversely affecting communities inmany departments including Santa Barbara,Santa Rosa de Copan, Choluteca, Valle, andMorazan. Sections of Tegucigalpa were flood-ed repeatedly. The Honduran National DisasterAgency, COPECO, reported that 39 peoplewere killed, 30,022 residents were evacuated,and more than 3,000 houses were damaged ordestroyed. COPECO activated a state of alert inSeptember, which allowed the Government ofHonduras to implement critical disaster pre-vention measures, such as evacuations fromvulnerable areas and coordination withCOPECO’s municipal counterparts.

On October 5, U.S. Ambassador FrankAlmaguer redeclared a disaster for FY 2000 inresponse to the effects of the flooding.USAID/OFDA airlifted 1,176,000 sq. ft. of plas-tic sheeting to Tegucigalpa for distribution toIOM, CHF, and USAID/Tegucigalpa. Total costof the plastic sheeting and transport was$35,000. USAID/OFDA also provided $220,141


CARIBBEAN

80 OFDA FY 2000

to IOM and $161,450 to CHF for emergencyshelter materials and water and sanitationassistance, which benefited 1,472 displacedfamilies. Using USAID/OFDA plastic sheeting,IOM constructed 800 shelters in 10 municipal-ities in the departments of Cortes, Yoro, andColon. CHF built 600 shelters in 29 communi-ties in the departments of Yoro, Santa Barbara,Cortes, Atlantida, Choluteca, and Colon. (Foradditional background information, pleasesee the "Honduras – Floods" case report in theFY 1999 USAID/OFDA Annual Report.)


MexicoF L O O D S

Several weeks of torrential rains struckeast-central Mexico in October 1999causing flash floods and mudslides in

Hidalgo, Veracruz, Oaxaca, Puebla, Chiapas,and Tabasco provinces. More than 300,000people were rendered homeless and an addi-tional 500 people died as a result of thefloods. At the height of the flooding, approxi-mately 66,700 people were housed in govern-ment emergency shelters.

The Central American Mitigation Initiative

Mitigating Disasters Before They Happen

In late October 1998, Hurricane Mitch sweptthrough Central America with sustained winds of112 kilometers per hour, causing devastating

floods, massive infrastructure and property destruc-tion, and significant population displacement. Upto 10,000 people were killed, an estimated 3.6 mil-lion people were affected, and nearly 100,000homes destroyed. On March 11, 1999, after sur-veying hurricane damage in El Salvador,Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, PresidentClinton announced a three-year, $11 millionCentral American Mitigation Initiative (CAMI) andnamed USAID/OFDA as the project’s implementer.CAMI’s goal is to reduce or negate the impact ofnatural disasters in Central America by financingactivities that increase the capability of regional,national, municipal, and community authorities andorganizations to forecast, monitor, respond to, andprevent disasters.

USAID/OFDA’s first activity was to fund a post-Mitch assessment by the International ResourcesGroup (IRG) to determine gaps in disaster mitiga-tion and response capacities in Central America, toidentify root causes of vulnerabilities, prioritizerisks from natural hazards, and develop measura-ble objectives required to address those gaps andweaknesses. Based largely on the findings fromIRG’s assessment, USAID/OFDA began designingand implementing action plans in cooperation withother USG agencies.

In FY 2000, USAID/OFDA provided more than$3.9 million for mitigation activities in El Salvador,

Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. This fund-ing was provided to the USAID Missions in the fouraffected countries and the USGS. USAID/San Sal-vador received $500,000 to enhance theSalvadoran national emergency systems andimplement environmental management interven-tions, USAID/Guatemala received $500,000 tobolster national emergency systems,USAID/Tegucigalpa received $1.5 million tostrengthen national risk management systems, andUSAID/Managua received $100,000 to hire a dis-aster mitigation advisor. USGS received $660,000in funding for national flood alert systems andautomated stream gauges in El Salvador,Guatemala, and Nicaragua. In Honduras, USGSwill use the funding to support a geographic infor-mation and remote-sensing specialist to coordinatedata-gathering, train specialists at the Hondurancivil defense agency (COPECO) and its partnerNGO, and reinforce the linkages betweenCOPECO, its partner NGO, and the 40 townsinvolved in the USGS’s municipal GIS project.USAID/OFDA also provided $840,000 to theUSGS Volcano Disaster Assistance Program(VDAP) for a three-year period to address volcanohazards mitigation in Central America.

In FY 2001 and FY 2002, approximately $6 millionwill be awarded to NGOs for community disasterpreparedness in Central America, and NOAA willreceive funds (approximately $900,000) forstrengthening early-warning systems in the region.

— Giselle Zimmerman


CARIBBEAN

OFDA FY 2000 81

On October 13, 1999, U.S. AmbassadorJeffrey Davidow issued a disaster declarationfor Mexico in response to the mudslides andflooding. USAID/OFDA provided $100,000through USAID/Mexico City to the AmRC forthe purchase and distribution of emergencyfood for flood-affected families. The food wasdistributed with the assistance of the MexicanRed Cross. In addition, a USAID/OFDA region-al advisor arrived in Mexico City on October14 to coordinate USG relief efforts and conductassessments with USAID/Mexico City staff.


ParaguayD R O U G H T

In the fall of 1999, serious drought condi-tions affected parts of western and north-eastern Paraguay following a prolonged

period without significant rainfall. Severe frost,wildfires, and lack of infrastructure furtherexacerbated the drought conditions. An esti-mated 17 indigenous communities or 22,000people in the department of Boquerón and8,000 families in the department of San Pedrowere affected by the drought. Significant loss-es of livestock and crops were reported in thedepartments of Boquerón, Presidente Hayes,

Concepción, Caaguazu, and San Pedro. On October 8, 1999, U.S. Chargé d’Affaires

Stephen G. McFarland redeclared a disaster forFY 2000 due to the drought in the departmentof Concepción, San Pedro, and PresidenteHayes. In response, USAID/OFDA provided$50,000 through USAID/Asunción to theParaguayan Red Cross for the local purchaseand distribution of food to meet the immediateneeds of approximately 4,000 affected familiesin the Department of Concepción and SanPedro.

On March 6, 2000, the U.S. Embassy inAsunción issued a second disaster declarationfor Central Chaco. On March 9, USAID/OFDAprovided $25,000 through USAID/Asunción tothe Paraguayan Red Cross for the local pur-chase and distribution of emergency food tomeet the immediate needs of drought-affectedpopulations. Through USAID/OFDA assistancein FY 1999 and 2000, the Paraguayan RedCross provided basic food rations for 25,750people in 116 localities in the departments ofBoquerón, Concepción, Presidente Hayes, andSan Pedro.

At USAID/Asunción’s request, a four-per-son USAID/OFDA non-food assessment teamtraveled to Paraguay between June 3-16 toevaluate humanitarian needs and make recom-mendations for the integration of basic needsinto the USAID Mission’s longer-term develop-ment program for Paraguay. Team membersconducted field visits in the departments ofBoquerón, Caaguazú, Concepción, andPresidente Hayes; met with members of the

A USAID/OFDAassessment teammember inspects acommunity gardenin the Departmentof Presidente Hayes,Paraguay, whererains gave new hopefor a better harvestfollowing months ofdrought (photo byAlejandro James,USAID/OFDA).

82 OFDA FY 2000

local governments affected, including repre-sentatives from the regional health and agri-

culture sector; and interviewed members ofdrought-affected communities.

The team did not recommend any addi-tional emergency relief interventions since themajor impacts of the drought had already sub-sided. However, the USAID/OFDA team rec-ommended that USAID/Asunción examinepotential interventions in the areas of riskmanagement training and early-warning sys-tems for forest fires. The team also recom-mended that USAID/Asunción consider sup-porting the provision of potable water throughwell drilling, water treatment, and health edu-cation programs. Finally, the team suggestedthat USAID/Asunción consider funding activi-ties to reduce the vulnerability of small farmersto extreme climactic events, such as initiativesto improve crop storage, develop seed banks,and rotate livestock funds. (For additionalbackground information, please see the"Paraguay – Cold Wave/Fire" case report in theFY 1999 USAID/OFDA Annual Report.)


VenezuelaF L O O D S

In early December 1999, two weeks of unre-lenting rain led to flash flooding and mud-slides in northern Venezuela. Rainfall accu-

mulation along the northern coast for the first

two weeks of December was more than 27centimeters. An additional 89 centimeters ofrainfall was recorded between December 14-16. On December 16, the Government ofVenezuela (GOV) declared a state of emer-gency for the states of Carabobo, Falcon,Miranda, Nueva Esparta, Tachira, Yaracuy,Zulia, and Vargas, and the federal district ofCaracas. The states of Miranda and Vargaswere most severely affected by the flooding.According to IFRC, 30,000 people died andmore than 400,000 residents were affected bythe floods and mudslides. IFRC also reportedthat 190,000 people were evacuated fromaffected areas and housed in more than 600temporary emergency shelters throughout thecountry. The Venezuelan civil defense report-ed 81,000 homes damaged and an additional30,000 completely destroyed. According toHidroVen, the state-owned water authority,70% of the water systems in the affected areaswas damaged.

On December 16, 1999, U.S. AmbassadorJohn Maisto declared a disaster in Venezueladue to the effects of the flooding and mud-slides. In response, USAID/OFDA provided$25,000 through the U.S. Embassy to theVenezuelan Red Cross and the Catholic-Episcopal Conference for the local purchase ofnon-food relief supplies, shelter materials, andemergency food.

USAID/OFDA deployed a five-personDART to Venezuela on December 18 to coor-dinate relief activities with the U.S. Embassy inCaracas and conduct damage and needsassessments. Total administrative support costsfor the DART were $162,933. On December19, USAID/OFDA provided $178,235 to theU.S. Embassy for the local purchase of reliefsupplies, including 30,000 tetanus-toxoid vac-cines and 40,000 syringes. On December 19and 20, USAID/OFDA airlifted 240,000 sq. ft. ofplastic sheeting, 15,000 wool blankets, 5,600five-gallon water containers, 10 3,000-gallonwater bladders, and 1,500 body bags toVenezuela. A third airlift of relief commodities,including 195,840 sq. ft. of plastic sheeting,1,600 five-gallon water containers, 1,600 woolblankets, and 6,000 hygiene kits and medicalkits, arrived in Venezuela on December 23.Total cost for the purchase and transport of allrelief commodities was $512,700.

USAID/OFDA provided $15,000 to the U.S.Embassy for the local purchase of equineencephalitis vaccine. The U.S. Embassy donat-ed the vaccine to the GOV’s agricultural health

A USAID/OFDAhealth specialist

talks with droughtvictims in rural

Paraguay to learnof the drought’s

impact oncommunity health

(photo by AlejandroJames,

USAID/OFDA).


CARIBBEAN


CARIBBEAN

OFDA FY 2000 83

agency.The USAID/DART worked together with

PAHO, HidroVen, and other relief organizationsto help meet the emergency needs for potablewater in the most severely affected states ofVargas and Miranda. On December 26,USAID/OFDA provided $263,284 for the pur-chase, transport, and technical support forthree surface water purification units and twotechnicians. The units operated in Macuto(Vargas State), and provided 450,000 gallons ofpurified drinking water daily to meet the needsof 80,000 - 100,000 affected people.

On January 10, USAID/OFDA provided$376,124 for the purchase, transport, and tech-nical support for six additional water purifica-tion units. Five of these units were installed inVargas, in the communities of Caraballeda andTanaguarena. The sixth unit was installed inSotillo, Miranda. Due to the continued need forpotable water, on January 11, USAID/OFDAprovided $492,205 to the U.S. Embassy for thepurchase, transport, and installation of 6510,000-liter water tanks, 16 portable water-test-ing kits, 20,000 five-gallon water containers, anelectric transformer, and rental of water tankertrucks. The water equipment and supplieswere consigned to HidroVen and benefited200,000 people in the states of Vargas andMiranda.

In addition, USAID/OFDA provided$200,000 towards a PAHO appeal to assist inthe recovery of the Venezuelan water and san-itation and health sector and $150,000 towardsa UNICEF appeal in support of water and san-itation activities.

The USAID/DART also assisted the GOV’sMinistry of Environment and local experts inmanaging a hazardous material (HAZMAT) sit-uation at the port of La Guaira in Vargas.USAID/OFDA provided $56,922 to deploy afour-person HAZMAT team from January 3-10(comprised of one person from the EPA, oneperson from the CDC, and two people from aU.S. Coast Guard Strike Team). The team assist-ed the GOV in their initial assessment and theresponse plan to cordon off and secure theaccident site. The team then provided technicalassistance to the GOV in the contracting ofdetailed assessment and clean-up activities toprivate sector contractors. The team alsoworked with the GOV’s on-site first respondersin developing the necessary contingency andemergency plans. In addition, USAID/OFDAprovided personal safety equipment for use bylocal HAZMAT experts. This equipment, valued

at $20,928 (including transport), consisted of 25pairs of chemical protection gloves and boots,25 full-face emergency escape masks, 25 pro-tection suits, one portable HAZMAT decontam-ination shower, and five self-contained breath-ing apparatus units with oxygen cylinders.

During the floods in Venezuela, DODassisted with the response operation by trans-porting relief supplies and medical teamsthroughout the affected regions. DOD provid-ed 10 helicopters to assist in search and rescueoperations and evacuate injured and displacedpersons. In addition to deploying the Joint TaskForce (JTF) Fundamental Response, DOD pro-vided a 12-person Humanitarian AssistanceSurvey Team (HAST). DOD also supplied$697,000 worth of medicine and medical sup-plies. In addition, DOD provided nine reverseosmosis water purification units (ROWPUs),which were utilized in the states of Mirandaand Vargas. A DOD water assessment teamtraveled to Venezuela in early January andworked closely with the USAID/DART. The JTFassisted in monitoring the HAZMAT situation atthe port of La Guaira. DOD assistance was val-ued at $8.7 million.

Following the immediate relief phase, aUSAID/OFDA-funded team of scientists fromthe USGS traveled to Venezuela to undertakelandslide hazard assessments of the affectedareas, and to evaluate and document the mag-nitude and location of the effects of flashfloods and landslides.




Hillside homesdestroyed bylandslides nearMacuto in VargasState, Venezuela.(photo by AlejandroJames,USAID/OFDA).

84 OFDA FY 2000

Building Readiness andCapacity for Response andRisk Management

USAID/OFDA’s Global Training Program

One of the advantages of USAID/OFDA’s trainingprograms is that despite their regional scope, theyoperate at the national or local level, and are man-aged by USAID/OFDA regional offices in LAC,Asia/Pacific, and Africa. Management responsibil-ities also are shared with regional partner agenciesand institutions. Thanks to the hard work of bothUSAID/OFDA staff and host country nationals, theOffice is gaining a reputation for providing uniqueand superior training programs. Unlike other train-ing efforts that rely on external trainers who come toa specific region and deliver a training module, orsend host-country nationals overseas for training,USAID/OFDA’s global training program relies on itsin-country base and custom-design, and train-the-trainer methodology.

Host country personnel are just as involved asUSAID/OFDA staff in designing each course rela-tive to the needs and vulnerabilities of the country infocus. Course participants represent local agenciesthat are among the first to respond to any disaster,including national and local civil defense agencies,firefighters, NGOs, local Red Cross Societies, andthe private sector. This broad spectrum of represen-tation works to promote cooperation and reduceorganizational and sectoral barriers that frequentlyhinder disaster response operations. As a result,USAID/OFDA is well known for providing trainingcourses of relevance and practicality. As of FY2000, USAID/OFDA’s various regional programshave created more than 12 courses, and severalmore are being developed.

The impact of USAID/OFDA’s Global TrainingProgram extends well beyond what was initiallyenvisioned. In the LAC region, more than 17,000disaster or disaster-related professionals have suc-cessfully completed at least one USAID/OFDAcourse. Universities in Brazil, Colombia, and Peruhave incorporated USAID/OFDA-designed courses

What so often prompts the need for U.S.emergency assistance when disastersstrike is the very limited professional

capacity many countries have to respond to a large-scale crisis. In the aftermath of a disaster, the vul-nerability of the people affected and magnitude ofthe event can leave central and local governmentsoverwhelmed and without the resources required foreffective response. As a result, the local people,unorganized and untrained, take on the burden ofdealing with the disaster alone. In many cases,human lives and economic assets are lost within thefirst 24-72 hours after a disaster has occurred,before professional services and support havearrived.

In the late 1980s, USAID/OFDA recognized theneed to work with countries vulnerable to naturaldisasters to systematically help them prepare for dis-asters before they strike, thereby reducing theimpact of these disasters when they do arrive. Onthe heels of a series of major natural disasters inLatin America and the Caribbean (LAC),USAID/OFDA’s LAC regional team in San Jose,Costa Rica designed and developed a disaster man-agement training program. The program’s objectivewas to enhance regional, national, and local capac-ity to plan for, respond to, and manage disasterevents, as well as to strengthen host country andlocal capacity in reducing vulnerability to risk.Based on the program’s enormous success,USAID/OFDA explored ways to modify and adaptit to fit different regional contexts and ultimatelytransfer its benefit to various locations around theworld. The program first expanded to theCaribbean in 1992, then to the South Pacific in1994, and in Asia in 1999, and is scheduled forimplementation in Africa in 2001. This expansion isan example of how USAID/OFDA is working tomake disaster management training a global pro-gram that is capable of targeting natural hazardsunique to a particular region. (continued)

OFDA FY 2000 85

into their curriculum requirements. Fire servicesthroughout the LAC region have accepted and areutilizing USAID/OFDA’s Medical First Responder(MFR) course as their basic medical training. Eachcountry in the LAC region has a cadre of localinstructors capable of teaching the course on theirown. Coordination at the national level betweenemergency authorities (including fire services intraining, planning, and responding) has improvedsignificantly in Venezuela, Costa Rica, El Salvador,and Peru.

USAID/OFDA’s Introduction to DisasterManagement (IDM) developed by and for the SouthPacific region is now being widely and successfullyused in ten of the region’s countries. The purpose ofthe course is to inform local officials and communi-ty members of national arrangements and theirroles in disaster reduction and response. The coursealso has been used as a catalyst to develop villagelevel disaster management committees, plans, andactivities.

In the Asia region, there is a high demand for par-ticipation in USAID/OFDA’s Program forEnhancement of Emergency Response (PEER), oper-ating in India, Nepal, Indonesia, and thePhilippines. PEER was designed to address signifi-cant topics in a region that is prone to natural dis-asters. The program is comprised of three criticalfocus areas: Medical First Responder (MFR),Collapsed Structure Search and Rescue (CSSR), andHospital Preparedness in Emergencies. The objec-tive of PEER is to integrate both non-medical andmedical communities by working together in a dis-aster response — a union that is critical in the after-math of a large-scale disaster. The program is aneffort to improve the search and rescue capabilityand performance of first responders to effectivelyassess, treat, and transport victims of a disaster andto plan for, undertake, and manage effective searchand rescues involving a high number of casualties.

USAID/OFDA's Global Training Program lays thefoundation for effective disaster response in vulner-able areas around the world. These programsenhance USAID/OFDA’s visibility and network ofcontacts, allowing it to play a key role in pre-disas-ter planning. These same networks also can be uti-lized during a disaster response to helpUSAID/OFDA provide the most rapid and appro-priate humanitarian assistance required.

— Joanne Burke

(top) A Training forInstructors Workshopin Guatemala (photoby Jerry Williams,USAID/OFDA).

(left) Participantsconducting hands-ontraining during aMedical FirstResponder Course inQuito, Ecuador(photo by Miami-Dade Fire RescueDepartment).

86 OFDA FY 2000

Summary of USAID/OFDA Response in FY 2000Obligations from October 1, 1999 – September 30, 2000This chart includes funds from the International Disaster Assistance account.

Angola Complex Emergency 10/08/99 1,000,000 3,700,000 $6,665,994 Grants to Africare, CRS, IMC, MSF/B, WV, UNICEF,UNOCHA, UNDP, and WFP for agriculture, nutri-tion, primary health care, water and sanitation,coordination and reporting, security, and air trans-port programs. USAID/OFDA assessment teamdeployed.

Botswana Floods 02/16/00 – 94,000 $46,244 USAID/OFDA field officer and water/sanitationspecialist deployed. Procured and distributed plasticsheeting and water test kits.

Burkina Faso Returnees 11/26/99 15,000 $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority throughUSAID/Bamako to CRS for provision of food, medi-cine, sleeping mats, and blankets for returnees.

Burundi Complex Emergency 10/04/99 200,000 1,120,000 $13,271,130 Grants to ACF/F, MSF/B, Gruppo di VolontarioCivile, IMC, and UNICEF for health activities. Grantsto Concern, Solidarités, WV, Children’s Aid Direct,CARE, FAO, and WFP for agriculture and livestock,technical assistance, small loans, and seed distribu-tion assistance to community groups. Grant to IRCfor water and sanitation activities. Grant to CRS fordistribution of non-food emergency relief supplies.Grants to UNOCHA and UNDP for coordinationand security activities. EDRC funded.

Central African Health Emergency 04/11/00 262 900,000 $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority through U.S. Embassyto MSF/B for meningitis immunization programs.

Chad Health Emergency 04/13/00 580 2,600,000 $0 USAID/OFDA provided a $25,000 DisasterAssistance Authority grant through the U.S. Embassyto MSF/B to administer meningitis vaccines.However, after further evaluation, it was determinedthat the grant was no longer needed. Other assis-tance to the outbreak included the EU, France,Luxembourg, Italy, Taiwan, UNICEF, and WHO.

Comoros Health Emergency 01/10/00 14 140 $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority through the U.S.Embassy for the purchase of emergency medicalsupplies.

Democratic Republic Complex Emergency 11/16/99 – 1,721,000 $12,931,593 Grants to AAH/USA, AirServ, CRS, FHI, IMA, IRC,of the Congo MERLIN, SCF/UK, and UNICEF for activities in

health, nutrition, seeds and tools, food assistance,coordination, shelter, and logistics. EDRC funded.

Democratic Republic Floods 12/01/99 1,500,000 $160,507 Grant to CRS to rehabilitate drainage systems toof the Congo prevent the spread of water-borne diseases.

Democratic Republic Health Emergency 02/16/00 – – $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided through theof the Congo U.S. Embassy to CRS in support of diagnosis and

treatment of malaria in children at two main hospi-tals in Kinshasa.

COUNTRY DISASTER DATE DEAD AFFECTED OBLIGATION TYPE OF ASSISTANCE

A P P E N D I X

AFRICA

Republic

OFDA FY 2000 87


Democratic Republic Accident 04/17/00 100 250 $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided through U.S.of the Congo Embassy to IFRC/Congolese Red Cross and Red

Crescent Society to address urgent needs of thoseinjured in the explosion and fire.

Djibouti Drought 04/13/00 0 150,000 $173,557 Grants to Caritas, ONARS, and UNICEF for feedingprograms, maintenance of delivery vehicles, andhealth and water initiatives.

Eritrea Complex Emergency 10/18/99 10,000+ 1,250,000 $5,465,384 Grants to UNDP, UNHCR, and Africare forand Drought distribution of shelter materials, blankets, and

household items. Grant to ICRC for air transport ofrelief and medical supplies. Grant to WFP for airliftof food relief. Grant to UNICEF for feeding andwater and sanitation programs. Grant to MCI foremergency food assistance. Grant to CARE for agri-cultural programs. USAID/OFDA DART deployed.

Ethiopia Complex Emergency 10/08/99 10,000+ 10,500,000 $14,663,905 Grants to ACF/F, ICRC, Concern, GOAL, AmRC,and Drought SCF/UK, SC/US, and UNICEF for health and nutri-

tion programs. Funded airlifts of emergency foodassistance. Grants to CARE, CISP, IRC, and COOPIfor water and sanitation activities. Grants to FHIand WV for food security programs. Funded logisti-cal support and coordination activities throughWFP, UNDP, and UNOCHA. USAID/OFDA DARTdeployed.

Ghana Floods 10/26/99 52 280,000 $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided throughUSAID/Accra to the Ghana Red Cross for distribu-tion of blankets and kerosene lamps. USAID/OFDAurban planning specialist deployed.

Kenya Drought 12/06/99 – 3,300,000 $5,699,217 Grants to WFP, WV, UNICEF, IMC, ADRA, LWR,UNICEF, and CRS for programs in food relief, foodsecurity, water management, nutrition, health, agri-culture, and livestock.

Madagascar Cyclone 03/09/00 210 278,000 $2,099,322 Grant to CRS for emergency health, road rehabilita-tion, seeds and tools, and water and sanitationactivities. Procurement and transportation of Zodiacboats, plastic sheeting, and water containers distrib-uted through CARE.

Mauritania Floods 11/18/99 – 200,000 $113,849 Grants to the Mauritanian Crisis Committee andthree local organizations for the purchase of tents,blankets, and mosquito nets.

Morocco Drought 08/16/00 – 275,000 $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided throughUSAID/Rabat to CRS for potable water activities.

Mozambique Floods 02/07/00 640 2,000,000 $10,312,584 USAID/DART with SAR team deployed. Plasticsheeting, blankets, and water containers providedfrom USAID/OFDA stockpiles. Grants toMSF/Swiss-Luxembourg, WFP, World Relief, CARE,WV, ACF/F, WHO, SCF/UK, Samaritan’s Purse,and Terre des Hommes for emergency relief activi-ties, local procurement and distribution of foodrelief, emergency water and sanitation activities,agriculture programs, seeds and tools distribution,and emergency health activities. Grant to AirServfor chartered aircraft to support rescue and reliefoperations.

88 OFDA FY 2000


Nigeria Complex Emergency 02/25/00 – 110,000 $0 USAID/OFDA provided the $25,000 DisasterAssistance Authority through USAID/Lagos to theNigerian Red Cross Society for emergency food toIDPs. However, after further evaluation, it was deter-mined that the $25,000 was no longer needed.

Republic of Congo Complex Emergency 10/12/99 50,000 126,755 $4,013,683 Grants to ACF/F, CRS, FAO, IRC, and UNICEF forfood relief, food security, nutrition, health, and agri-culture activities.

Rwanda Complex Emergency 05/09/00 – 1,500,000 $1,148,568 Grants to NPA, IRC, UNOCHA, and SCF/UK forhealth, water and sanitation, and coordination activi-ties.

Sierra Leone Complex Emergency 10/01/99 20,000 4,500,000 $11,772,847 Grants to CARE, Africare, CRS, WV, FAO, MERLIN,UNICEF, ACF/F, WFP, and UNOCHA for emergencyprograms in agriculture, health, nutrition, water andsanitation, coordination, non-food assistance, shelter,and logistics. Plastic sheeting provided fromUSAID/OFDA stockpiles.

Somalia Complex Emergency 10/28/99 – 12,500,000 $8,388,598 Grants to ADRA, UNICEF, ACF/F, and NPA for waterand sanitation activities. Grants to UNICEF, IMC,AAH/USA, and FAO for health programs. Fundedlogistical support through UNICEF and UNDP.

South Africa Floods 02/16/00 100 – $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided throughUSAID/Pretoria to the South Africa Red Cross for thepurchase of emergency relief supplies.

Sudan Complex Emergency 11/08/99 2,000,000 4,400,000 $22,023,691 Grants to ACF/F, ACROSS, ADRA, ARC, CARE,CMA, Concern, CRS, GOAL, IAS/MEDIC, IFRC, IRC,MEDAIR, NPA, SC/US, SCF/UK, UNICEF, OLS,VSF/B and VSF/G for health, water/sanitation, foodsecurity, food distribution, agriculture, and livelihoodsactivities.

Uganda Complex Emergency 10/29/99 – 824,346 $1,973,372 Grants to IRC, MEDAIR, and CRS for emergencywater and sanitation activities (including potablewater and latrine systems), resettlement packages,and seed distribution.

Zimbabwe Floods 02/28/00 100 116,000 $169,199 Disaster Assistance Authority through USAID/Harareto the Zimbabwean Red Cross to support relief activi-ties. Grant to CRS for the provision of non-foodemergency supplies.

Subtotal $121,293,244

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

Cambodia Floods 08/01/00 333 350,000 $352,704 Grants to AmRC for the purchase and distribution ofemergency household kits for flood-affected families.

China Earthquake 01/31/00 7 100,000 $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided through theU.S. Embassy to Heart to Heart to distribute reliefsupplies to affected populations.

India Cyclone 10/22/99 9,465 15,000,000 $3,302,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided throughUSAID/New Delhi to the Prime Minister’s NationalRelief Fund to meet immediate needs of affected per-sons. USAID/OFDA assessment completed. Grants toCARE and CRS for the local purchase of plastic

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC


sheeting, household kits, seeds and tools for kitchengardens, and potable water for the most-affecteddistricts.

India Drought 05/04/00 0 90,000,000 $1,027,539 Disaster Assistance Authority provided throughUSAID/New Delhi to the Prime Minister’s NationalRelief Fund to assist the GOI in relief efforts.USAID/OFDA assessment completed. Grants toWV and CARE to conduct cash-for-work programsand for CRS to construct and improve water har-vesting structures.

India Floods 08/21/00 867 22,000,000 $161,600 Grant to AmRC for emergency household kits to30,000 flood victims in Assam, India.

Indonesia Complex Emergency 10/04/99 – 800,000 $11,212,545 Grants to WV and IMC to provide seeds and tools,family kits, and emergency health care in NorthMaluku. Grants to WFP, UNICEF, CARE, Concern,IRC, CRS, WV, and IMC to provide logistical sup-port, health programs, seeds and tools, agriculturalimplements, mosquito nets, food commodities andnon-food commodities to IDPs in East Timor,refugees in West Timor, and returnees. EDRC fund-ed by USAID/OFDA. USAID/OFDA assessmentscompleted. Funded restocking of plastic sheeting,blankets, and water containers from USAID/OFDAstockpiles used during FY 1999 to assist IDPs andrefugees.

Indonesia Earthquake 06/06/00 103 2,700 $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided throughUSAID/Jakarta to meet the needs of the mostseverely affected.

Indonesia Floods 06/06/00 126 50,000 $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided throughUSAID/Jakarta to Yayasan Sosial KeuskupanAtambua for the purchase of agricultural tools andseeds.

Mongolia Winter Emergency 03/02/00 0 500,000 $692,665 Grants to the Mongolian Red Cross and IFRC toprovide food, household commodities, and cloth-ing. USAID/OFDA assessment team deployed.

Philippines Volcano 02/29/00 0 70,000 – $253,194 Disaster Assistance Authority provided through the80,000 U.S.Embassy to the Philippine Red Cross to meet

the immediate needs of evacuees. Plastic sheeting,water bladders, water treatment units, and watercontainers provided from USAID/OFDA stockpiles.Funding for purchase, transport, and maintenanceof portable latrines.

Vietnam Floods 11/04/99 622 1,000,000 $552,760 Grants to IFRC and UNDP to provide blankets,plastic sheeting, water purification tablets, emer-gency household kits, and concrete foundations forflood-resistant homes. USAID/OFDA provided plas-tic sheeting, blankets, and water containers from itsstockpiles to the Vietnam Red Cross.

Vietnam Floods 12/08/99 120 400,000 $225,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided to the U.S.Embassy for the local procurement of urgentlyneeded household items. Grant to IFRC to constructconcrete foundations for flood-resistant homes.

Vietnam Floods 09/15/00 460 5,000,000 $241,160 Grants to IFRC, in conjunction with the Vietnam RedCross, for the provision of food, shelter materials,cooking utensils, hygiene items, emergency kits,

OFDA FY 2000 89

90 OFDA FY 2000

and fishing nets. Funded three motorized boats forlocal Red Cross stockpile. Provided plastic sheeting,Zodiac boats, and water purification equipment toIFRC.

Subtotal $18,096,167

Afghanistan Complex Emergency 10/01/99 1,500,000 25,800,000 $3,952,588 Grants to ACF/F, CARE, ACTED, SC/US,Cooperative Center for Afghanistan, andPhysiotherapy and Rehabilitation Support forAfghanistan to meet health, water and sanitation,shelter, infrastructure, winterization, and livelihoodneeds of affected populations. Blankets and plasticsheeting provided from USAID/OFDA stockpiles.

Afghanistan Drought 05/04/00 – 2,500,000 $2,950,851 Grants to MCI, CARE, UNICEF, U.N./Habitat, andSNI to support livelihoods, agriculture, livestock,irrigation, and emergency potable water activities.

Albania Refugees 10/15/99 – 4,000 $312,898 Grant extension to AAH/USA for nutrition, water,and sanitation activities. Funding for a contingencyplanner and a water and sanitation engineer.Replenishment of five-gallon water containers toUSAID/OFDA stockpiles.

Bosnia-Herzegovina Fire 08/31/00 $0 – $0 USAID/OFDA provided the $25,000 DisasterAssistance Authority through the U.S. Embassy tolocal NGOs to meet the immediate needs of IDPs.However, after further evaluation, it was determinedthat the $25,000 was no longer needed.

Georgia Drought 08/18/00 0 1,200,000 $554,205 Disaster Assistance Authority provided throughUSAID/Tbilisi to the Salvation Army for feedingprograms in the affected area.

Greece Fire 07/16/00 0 – $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided through theU.S. Embassy to meet the emergency needs ofaffected populations.

Hungary Accident 02/18/00 0 – $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided throughUSAID/Budapest to the Foundation forDevelopment of Democratic Rights for emergencylivelihoods activities.

Hungary Floods 04/11/00 2,000 $74,859 Disaster Assistance Authority provided throughUSAID/Budapest for the purchase of relief supplies.Funding for the purchase of water pumps, sand-bags, torches, and generators.

Pakistan Drought 05/15/00 0 2,500,000- $45,000 Grants to CWS and MCI for seed, fodder, and3,000,000 potable water activities. USAID/OFDA assessment

completed.

Romania Accident 02/25/00 0 – $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided through theU.S. Embassy to Bucharest-based RegionalEnvironmental Center for the support of familiesimpacted by the spill.

Romania Floods 04/21/00 9 – $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided through theU.S. Embassy to meet the immediate needs ofaffected populations.


EUROPE AND THE NEAR EAST

Serbia-Montenegro Complex Emergency 10/01/99 – – $22,391,587 USAID/OFDA’s emergency shelter program imple-mented through NGOs, Red Cross/Red CrescentSocieties, community groups, and others. Grants toADRA, Concern, GOAL, IRC, MEDAIR, WV, ARC,CARE, CHF, FHI, and Relief International for shelteractivities. Contracted Readiness ManagementServices, Inc. to procure and transport timber.USAID/OFDA DART team deployed in FY 1999remained in-country.

Tajikistan Drought 07/28/00 0 – $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided throughUSAID/Almaty to ACF/F for the treatment of mal-nourished children.

Turkey Earthquake 11/17/99 816 50,000 $2,713,975 USAID/OFDA DART with SAR team deployed.

Ukraine Accident 03/15/00 80 – $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided throughUSAID/Kiev to Community Humanitarian AssistanceProgram for the provision of food, medical supplies,and other basic items to affected families.

Uzbekistan Drought 08/22/00 0 – $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided to the U.S.Embassy for potable water activities.

Subtotal – $33,170,963

Bolivia Drought 01/26/00 0 20,000 $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided through theU.S. Embassy to CARE/Bolivia for the distribution ofemergency food and the local procurement of watercontainers and water treatment supplies. Monitoringand relief operations consultant sent to GranChaco.

Caribbean Hurricane 11/22/99 0 – $175,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided through theU.S. Embassy in Barbados to meet the immediateshelter and relief needs of affected persons inAntigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kittsand Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent. USAID/OFDAassessment team deployed. Grant to PAHO forhealth and water and sanitation activities.

Chile Floods 06/16/00 0 60,000 $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided through theU.S. Embassy to the Chilean Red Cross, Hogar deCristo, and Caritas to address immediate needs ofthe flood victims.

Ecuador Volcano 12/03/99 0 25,000 $40,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided through theU.S Embassy to CRS to support emergency reliefprograms for the evacuated population. Grant tothe Geophysical Institute through USAID/Quito forvolcano monitoring and public outreach efforts.

El Salvador Health Emergency 09/14/00 24 – $25,000 Disaster Assistance Authority provided through theU.S Embassy to the National Emergency Committeefor the purchase of medical supplies and equip-ment.

Honduras Floods 10/05/99 39 30,022 $416,591 Grants to IOM and CHF to provide emergency shel-ter assistance. Plastic sheeting distributed to IOM,CHF, and USAID/Tegucigalpa from USAID/OFDAstockpiles.


LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

OFDA FY 2000 91

92 OFDA FY 2000

Mexico Floods 10/13/99 500 300,000 $100,000 Grant to AmRC for the purchase and distribution ofemergency food to affected families. USAID/OFDAassessment completed.

Paraguay Drought 10/09/99 0 28,000 $75,000 Grant to the Paraguayan Red Cross for the localpurchase and distribution of food to affected popu-lations. USAID/OFDA assessment team deployed.

Venezuela Floods 12/16/99 30,000 400,000 $2,350,481 Funding through the U.S. Embassy to purchase,transport, and provide technical assistance forwater purification units, water tanks and tankertrucks, potable water testing kits, water containers,an electric transformer, vaccines, and syringes.Plastic sheeting, blankets, water containers, bodybags, and hygiene and medical kits provided fromUSAID/OFDA stockpiles. USAID/OFDA-fundedHAZMAT team deployed. Grants to PAHO andUNICEF for health and water and sanitation activi-ties. USAID/OFDA DART deployed.

Subtotal $3,232,072

TOTAL $175,792,446*

*Total USAID/OFDA spending does not include $1,751,652 in carryover activities during FY 2000 (see page 16).

Notes: (1) The Disaster Assistance Authority is a discretionary fund of up to $25,000 available to a U.S. Ambassador or Chief of Mission fromUSAID/OFDA upon the declaration of a foreign disaster to meet immediate relief needs.

(2) A hyphen (-) in the dead and/or affected columns indicates that information was not available.

(3) The totals for dead and affected persons in Angola, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, and Afghanistan are cumulative.


O V E R V I E W

OFDA FY 2000 93

U.S. Private Voluntary Organizations(PVOs) and Private GroupsADRA ..........Adventist Development and Relief Agency

AAH/USA ....Action Against Hunger/United States

AmRC ..........American Red Cross

ARC..............American Refugee Committee

CARE............Cooperation for American Relief Everywhere

CHF ..............Cooperative Housing Foundation

CRS ..............Catholic Relief Services

CWS ............Church World Services

IMC ..............International Medical Corps

IRC ..............International Rescue Committee

LWR..............Lutheran World Relief

NPA..............Norwegian People’s Aid

SC/US ..........Save the Children/United States

SNI ..............Shelter Now International

WV ..............World Vision

Non-GovernmentalOrganizations (NGOs)ACF..............Action Contre la Faim

(Action Against Hunger)

FHI ..............Food for the Hungry International

MERLIN ........Medical Emergency Relief International

MSF..............Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors WithoutBorders)

MCI ..............Mercy Corps International

SCF ..............Save the Children Fund

Country of Origin/B ................Belgium

/F ................France

/G................Germany

/UK ..............United Kingdom

/US(A)..........United States (of America)

International Organizations and UnitedNations (U.N.) AgenciesFAO..............Food and Agriculture Organization (U.N.)

ICRC ............International Committee of the Red Cross

IFRC..............International Federation of Red Cross and RedCrescent Societies

PAHO ..........Pan American Health Organization (WHO)

UNDP ..........U.N. Development Program

UNHCR ........U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF ........U.N. Children's Fund

UNOCHA ....U.N. Office for the Coordination ofHumanitarian Affairs

WFP ............World Food Program (U.N.)

WHO............World Health Organization (U.N.)

IOM.............. International Organization for Migration

U.S. Government Organizations/ProgramsBHR ..............Bureau for Humanitarian Response (USAID)

CDC ............Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

DART ............Disaster Assistance Response Team(USAID/DART)

DOD ............U.S. Department of Defense

EPA ..............Environmental Protection Agency

FFP ..............Office of Food for Peace (USAID/BHR)

HAST ............Humanitarian Assistance Survey Team (DOD)

NOAA..........National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

OFDA ..........Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance(USAID/BHR)

OTI ..............Office of Transition Initiatives (USAID/BHR)

PRM..............Bureau for Population, Refugees andMigration (U.S. Department of State)

USAID ..........U.S. Agency for International Development

USDA ..........U.S. Department of Agriculture

USG ............United States Government

USGS............U.S. Geological Survey

MiscellaneousFY ................fiscal year

IDP ..............internally displaced person

MT................metric ton

P.L.................Public Law

SAR ..............Search and Rescue

Measurement Conversions1 hectare ......2.471 acres

1 centimeter ..0.3937 inches

1 meter ........39.37 inches

1 kilometer ....0.62 miles

Commonly Used Acronyms

94 OFDA FY 2000

Notes

U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentRonald Reagan Building1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.BHR/OFDA 8.06.01MWashington, D.C. 20523-8602

Phone: 202-712-0400 Fax: 202-216-3706/7

OFDAOffice of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance

Annual Report FY 2000

B U R E A U F O R H U M A N I TA R I A N R E S P O N S E

bureau for humanitarian response u.s. …pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdabt656.pdf · u.s. agency for...

Documents