Differences between Ami and Tomas responses

Cyclones Ami in 2003 and Tomas in 2010 were very different events, with very different responses. Cyclone Ami devastated much of the Northern Division of Fiji, and Druadrua was considered one of the worst affected communities. More than half of all houses on the island were destroyed in that cyclone, and in one village there were only two houses remaining. The

infrastructure damage to transport and communications systems was

substantial, and impacted greatly on the response from the government and aid organisations’ perspective. The bureaucracy in place was slow and

cumbersome and so was the response. The system was considered to be too centralised, with decisions made in Suva taking too long to filter down into action on the ground, issues which were reflected in several newspaper reports

at the time (e.g. Fiji Times, Friday 17th January 2003, p2 and p6; Fiji Times,

Saturday 18th January 2003, p3; Fiji Times, Saturday 19th March 2003, p2).

From the perspective of the community on the island, however, the response to Ami was unexpectedly prompt and generous. The Prime Minister’s

helicopter landed on the school oval, and the attention of Fiji was firmly placed on Druadrua in the first couple of days after the event (e.g. Fiji Times,

Wednesday 15th January 2003, p5; Fiji Times, Thursday 16th January 2003, p2;

Fiji Times, Friday 17th January 2003, p3; Fiji Times, Sunday 19th January

2003, whole front page and p3). The reasons for this are multiple. Firstly, the community was devastated. But perhaps more importantly, they were the only village to be able to communicate with DISMAC before all communication systems failed, and their message said that there were two children missing. It is not surprising that the response was swift and impressive.

This clearly set up expectations within the community, and several people expressed disappointment and frustration that the Prime Minister did not come to their island after Cyclone Tomas. This is despite the fact that Cyclone Tomas left only two families homeless on the island, and its more destructive impacts were felt elsewhere. When pushed, most (although not all) villagers conceded that they were not left in need after Cyclone Tomas, and that the difference in response was fair.

143

Most people on the island attributed the difference in response to the change in government rather than the impacts of the two events:

He thinks that the Cyclone Tomas didn't do much damage, but still thinks that the ration was not enough compared to the damage that's been done. He thinks that it was the government, because of the changes in the

government, changes in the way they look after that (Fiji,

male villager, aged 46-59, through an interpreter).

Villagers spoke of their disappointment with both the aid provided after Tomas and the time it took to arrive. After experiencing aid turning up only a few days after Cyclone Ami, there was considerable frustration when less aid took two to three weeks to arrive after Cyclone Tomas. This has left a number of villagers with the impression that aid cannot be relied upon, and is

inconsistent - that you do not know how long you will have to wait or what you will get, so you are better to be self-reliant.

This contrasts with the perspective of the aid organisations and government representatives, for whom the response to Tomas was vastly improved since the lessons of Ami were taken on board. They too attribute this partly to the change in government, but in a positive way:

I'm taking off my hat as a civil servant- it will be two perspectives as I answer that question. If I am a villager, I will want the response to come quickly, so I'm loving how they are doing things. Within a short time, I've got my food, my needs with them. But from my side as

wearing my hat as a civil servant - hey, that's not the way

to do things, we need records (Fiji, government

representative).

The quote from this government representative highlights the difficulties in reconciling the expectations of the community with those of the government.

144

6.6 Conclusion

Most of the issues raised here are similar to those found in another study involving interviews with aid organisation representatives and communities, specifically about corruption in humanitarian assistance around the world. Maxwell and colleagues found preferential treatment in assessments and distribution and a lack of formal complaint mechanisms, as being common issues. Communities perceived the corruption as being a problem because it led to decreased access to aid and other resources. Aid workers saw also the

potential impact on their future fundraising and programming capabilities (Maxwell et al., 2012).

The communities perceive themselves as relatively powerless, with the assessment teams making decisions and recording information that may not always reflect the villagers’ reality, and aid not always matching need. Particularly in Fiji, the lack of integration between the formal and informal systems contributes significantly to this, with the government seeing their responsibility for equity and fairness end at the island shore, where the informal systems take over. There seems to be a separation in the governance of the formal and informal systems, especially between the different levels, with the level furthest from the capital – the remote islands – lacking scrutiny and integration between the formal and informal systems. This is less of an issue in Tonga, with village committees and the greater involvement of the government and military in the distribution of aid. It is probably no

coincidence that complaints from the villagers of inequities and favouritism were more evident in Fiji than Tonga.

Conversely, if the reported lack of crime after disasters on these islands is true, this seems representative of the positives of remoteness with stronger community bonds diminishing the need, motivations and opportunities for crime.

145