Thanks for writing your thoughts down and starting this conversation. I found it when doing research for a similar piece for the Philanthropy Action blog and New Dominion Philanthropy Metrics.

I’d like to comment on what Kris says: “I don’t think you can apply that principle on something the scale of Haiti. When thousands are dead or dying, you cant quantify cost versus reward in the same way.”

It seems to me that when the stakes are highest, this is exactly when we need to be most disciplined in applying the cost vs benefit principle. I agree with Ian’s comment that it isn’t all about bang-for-the-buck. However, this should not trump Johnnie’s main point: we must learn from disaster in Haiti and improve how resources are utilized for maximum impact of beneficiaries.

Firstly it is important to recognise that whilst the most cost effective method of saving life is aid, it takes time to mobilise aid. It does require a significant logistical effort to make assessments and then move the necessary aid. This takes time, and if we just provided aid, not just the immediate search and rescue assistance, the survivors could be waiting for days before any sign of assistance from the international community. I have worked in countries where people have thanked me because the only sign that the international community is supporting the survivors is the Union Jack on our overalls. You only have to look back at the Mexico City Earthquake in 1985 to understand how important search and rescue is to moral, and moral is critical to getting a country back on it’s feet as quickly as possible.

I think it is also important to realise just how effective international search and rescue can be. The current number of people rescued by international search and rescue in Haiti stands at 121 with about 1800 rescuers deployed, roughly one rescue per 15 rescuers. This ratio is not dissimilar to many other missions, including Pakistan. Of course there are missions where no lives are saved, for many different reasons, but equally there are also exceptionally successful missions.

Another point worth noting is that the Search and Rescue teams do not deploy just to undertake search and rescue. The United Nations guidelines for search and rescue teams (which can view at http://www.reliefweb.int/undac/documents/insarag/guidelines/topics.html) require teams to undertake co-ordination, rapid needs assessments, medical support, engineering support, hazmat and environmental assessment. Teams also often stay on after the rescue phase has been completed to provide humanitarian support. These roles are essential following a disaster, but aid agencies often are not able to deploy on a large scale with the same speed as the search and rescue teams. The search and rescue teams there can provide an essential head start in the relief process.

Daryl is also correct that a fundamental principal of search and rescue teams is not to use the host countries resources. The teams provide their own shelter, food, water purification facilities, and disposable items .They also often leave equipment behind such as generators, tents or water pumps where they might be useful to local population.

Humanitarian aid is a very complex field. Unfortunately it is not always about bang for your buck, otherwise every charity would be spending their money on clean water, mosquito nets and education in Sub-Saharan Africa. The international search and rescue response is an essential part of the relief process when countries suffer from massive and sudden natural disasters like the earthquake in Haiti.

“Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) teams rescued 37 individuals, and 69 rescues have been successfully conducted by 27 international USAR teams.”

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.