Our response to the tsunami catastrophe in Asia must now focus on how the huge sums raised are to be spent, writes Brian Scott
The generous outpouring of money by the public to help the stricken survivors of the Asian disaster is unprecedented. Governments, too, have committed enormous funds. But will these huge resources be well spent? Already there are stories of confusion and lack of co-ordination, and of urgently-needed supplies not getting through.
And what of the longer-term future? Are we helping people in their hour of need only? Or will we look further and also help them in their lives of need?
The challenge for the international community is to recognise that, in many cases, people simply cannot go back to the livelihoods they had before.
Is it right for fishing boats to be replaced if the fisheries on which poor communities have depended are depleted?
Can peasant farmers return to a life on land which is drenched in salt water and mud?
In any case, reconstruction should put the poor on the road to modest prosperity. The monument to the hundreds of thousands who have died should be survivors lifted up out of their lives of poverty. Can we be content merely to give succour, and then simply leave these people in their former destitution?
We in the rich countries must also recognise our relatively modest role in dealing with all aspects of the disaster.
Most of the survivors were, in fact, rescued by other survivors, their neighbours. And most of the clearing up is being done by local governments and communities.
The rich world's billions of dollars will be relatively small in relation to the overall totals needed for both rescue and rehabilitation. So the funds should be spent on selected strategic leverage points to influence the nature and direction of reconstruction. In this way, devastated communities can be helped to adapt to the new post-disaster realities.
There has already been talk of establishing new warning systems for future tsunamis. This temptation should be avoided, as these events in the Indian Ocean are very rare. It would be better instead to upgrade telecommunications systems so that they can carry warnings of all types of disasters to all parts of the communities, especially of cyclones, which are much more frequent.
Telecommunications access should also be made easier and more affordable for the poor. This will enable them to develop new social and market relationships on which they can build better livelihoods.
Roads, bridges and buildings should not simply be replaced. They may not be well adapted to the rising sea levels and future extreme weather events resulting from global warming. New routes are needed and, in the process, points of refuge should also be created, to which vulnerable populations can in future retreat and survive.
The essential new grants and loans to farmers, fishermen and other businesses should not be tied to static, existing livelihoods.
Instead of fishing, there may be a case for new types of fish-farming. Farmers may need to change to salt-tolerant crops.
New businesses providing a broader range of other goods and services are also needed. And alongside new finance - perhaps more important - people need training in new skills. This means giving support to local self-help groups and also to business-development organisations.
We have a lot of experience and expertise of this kind in Ireland.
So, looking into the future, it is essential that businesses and communities, having got back on their feet in the short term, should also be helped to adapt to the new conditions and move forward.
Another way that we in the rich world can support this trend is by opening up our markets. We should stop charging such high import duties on Sri Lankan or Maldivian textiles, for example.
A trade reform decision by the international community would be more important than providing a temporary moratorium on debt repayments. The new societies rising out of the wreckage of the old must also have better networking and communications. Governments, press, business and the other institutions of daily life need to communicate better with each other.
Indeed, effective warning systems for future calamities depend on such strengthened relations. All this requires trust and good governance. After such an enormous disaster, we face unprecedented need and also an unprecedented opportunity.
Alongside the urgent life-saving work now in progress there must begin programmes of well-planned, well-resourced, long-term, economy-transforming reconstruction. And, for this to be successful, local populations must be involved in the major decisions.
Either the survivors of the Asian tsunami will be enabled to adapt and to build resilient, more productive livelihoods for their families, or they could be left to return to the depraved poverty which has been their lot until now.
Which way these millions of victims go is, ultimately, largely in our hands.