Skip to footer

Where does Haiti stand three years after its 7.0 earthquake?

On Jan. 12, 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit already deeply impoverished Haiti, killing more than 200,000 and leaving another 1.5 million in makeshift camps. It was one of the worst humanitarian disasters in years, and though the response was rapid and generous, three years and billions of dollars in aid later, hundreds of thousands are still without homes. How has aid money been spent and can Haiti 'build back better?'

1. Where did the aid money go?

Dieu Nalio Chery/AP
A woman walks past buildings damaged by the 2010 earthquake in downtown Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2013. Governments around the world have spent about half of the $5.3 billion pledged for Haitian reconstruction. Most of the rubble is gone; there are two new sewage treatment plants north of the capital and a few homes.

  • By Ezra Fieser Correspondent

As horrific images and stories emerged from the rubble-filled Haitian streets, governments, residents, and private groups around the world began to write checks.

Governments and international agencies pledged $12.6 billion to be used to from 2010 to 2020. As of Sept. 2012, donors had disbursed roughly $6 billion (48 percent), according to the United Nations Office of the Special Envoy for Haiti. Pledges, however, are non-binding, and disbursed does not mean spent. Private organizations, mainly non-governmental organizations (NGOs), received $3 billion more in pledges.

At least $2.4 billion of the public aid was spent on providing food and water, handing out tarps, and other emergency aid. But that money is drying up. In 2012, aid agencies received just $63 million of the $151 million needed to carry out such work. They need $144 million more this year. Billions are needed for long-term reconstruction and to eradicate a cholera outbreak that has killed nearly 8,000.

“There is some donor fatigue now,” says Andrew Pugh, country director for humanitarian organization Oxfam’s Haiti office. “But if the remaining 50 percent [of pledged money] is received, that will go a long way to helping Haiti.”

1 of 4
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.