|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
Several weeks ago as, I was flying over the rugged terrain of Central America, returning from the Consultative Group meetings in Tegucigalpa, I couldn't help but reflect upon the very positive changes which have occurred in the region since the massive destruction in October 1998 by Hurricane Mitch.There are many, many people who have been involved from the first hours of the storm in traveling to the region and helping to mount what has become the biggest single relief and reconstruction effort by the United States in this hemisphere. We all have different images of the devastation in each country. But when you consider that in the space of a few days more than 9,000 people perished and the storm caused nearly $9 billion in damages, what you see today is all the more remarkable.
Citizens are back to work; crops are being planted and harvested, major roads and bridges are functioning; schools and clinics are providing their basic services; new homes are being constructed and water and sanitation systems are returning to use. A lot more, clearly, has to be done, but the critical process of reconstruction is well underway.
This process is both huge in its magnitude and unique in its form. Tremendous sacrifices have been made by the Central Americans themselves, but it could not have been possible without an unusual partnership between countries and donors and an even more unusual degree of collaboration among the donors.
At a preliminary meeting between the donor community and Central American Presidents hosted by the IDB in Washington in December, 1998, just two months after the hurricane, the full extent of the damages was made known, sectors of priority concern were identified and a challenge was laid down to maximize citizen participation in rebuilding their own communities and, where possible, to rebuild the countries better then before. (Rebuild to Transform).
Another major watershed occurred in May of 1999 in Stockholm, Sweden when in a Consultative Group the countries affected by Mitch presented their reconstruction plans. Donors pledged some $9 billion in assistance. This included $621 million from the United States which was approved by Congress in a supplemental appropriation just a few days before the meeting. Significantly, also, all present agreed to a set of operating principles since known as the Stockholm Declaration.
Essentially, reconstruction would follow sensible land use practices and disaster risk would determine what would be built, where and how. Second, equity, direct assistance to the poorest elements of society who suffered the most should be a key principle in planning activities. Third, planning and implementation would rely heavily upon the participation of local governments, communities and civil society. Fourth, specific measures would be taken to assure transparency and accountability in the use of the funds. And, finally, there was the commitment by the donor countries and multilateral institutions to reduce the external debt burden of the countries of the region.
These principles were not new to the U.S. foreign assistance program or to AID. We have carried out our development programs within this framework worldwide for many years. Some other donors, too, particularly the Nordic countries, have emphasized this approach. But this was the first time that recipient countries and bilateral and multilateral donors had forged a formal alliance to bring about these significant changes in a unified development program. Each country, understandably, has carried forward with this agenda in its own way and at its own pace. But it is making a difference in the degree to which governments and citizens are accepting greater responsibility for their own development.
As I've mentioned, the U.S. government, particularly through USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and our military, provided massive emergency assistance from the very first hours of the storm. In the space of a few months, we provided more then $300 million in emergency repairs to infrastructure, food, medicine and shelter. Our USAID resident missions in these countries played a very critical role, reprogramming resources to meet basic needs and to get planning for the reconstruction underway. By the time the supplemental became available in May of 1999, the USAID program had become, and still is, a central part of each country's broader reconstruction effort. The major part of that effort, of course, is managed directly by USAID but many other U.S. agencies are also involved.
I am pleased that we are able to provide you today with a report summarizing the U.S. response to Hurricanes Mitch and Georges after one year. I don't want to repeat the detail which is already contained in the report. But we are focusing on those areas which are most vital to the economic recuperation, health and social well-being of the poorest segments of society. Repair or replacement of community water, sanitation and drainage systems, farm-to-market roads, schools and clinics, housing are major activities. We are also providing credit and technical support to thousands of microenterprises and small agricultural producers to help get the rural economy back on track.
Even though the U.S. program at present is designed to be a two-year effort, it is possible to identify some important legacies which we believe will be of significant potential economic and political benefit to Central America:
First, the key role which local governments and civil society are playing in identifying, implementing and monitoring actions which are critical to the country's development is here to stay. They have had very substantial involvement in the relief and reconstruction effort and are going to be significant factors in the future.
Second, donors and common citizens themselves are setting the bar higher and have much higher expectations of governments that their actions will be transparent and that they will be accountable. In Honduras, for example, USAID and the IDB are supporting the creation of a Projects Inspectorate which will scrutinize all development projects, whatever the source of funding, before, during and after execution. This concept could be expanded further and adopted by other countries.
Third, building back better is now within reach. USAID and the U.S. Geological Survey are giving local decision-makers high tech yet simple and effective tools to manage natural risks and to avoid floods, landslide or disaster prone areas when planning or siting construction. This will be insisted upon in future development programs. There are other practical benefits. For example, the Department of Transportation is installing a satellite-aided navigation system which will allow all weather and all-hour access to the ports in Honduras and Nicaragua. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is providing a high resolution weather forecasting system for all of Central America which will give each country detailed advisories every thirty minutes.
Fourth, each country affected by the hurricane put into place special mechanisms for assessing and responding to citizens' needs that largely did not exist before. The massive mobilization of internal and external assistance have aroused expectations for addressing the long-standing dislocations caused by poverty. For El Salvador, the experience with reconstruction is being used to guide their five-year development program, the Nueva Alianca. For Honduras and Nicaragua, there is now a rare opportunity for these countries to benefit from the enhanced HIPC initiative which could reduce a total of some $3 billion in debt for the two countries, giving them the chance thereby to turn their resources to waging a real frontal assault on poverty.
And so, despite the devastation, there are reasons for optimism. Ultimately, it will be a question of political will if Central America is to take the fullest possible advantage of the opportunities which the Hurricane Mitch reconstruction offers.
This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
 |
|||
|
