VZCZCXRO5416
PP RUEHCN RUEHGH
DE RUEHBJ #3054/01 2200948
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 070948Z AUG 08
FM AMEMBASSY BEIJING
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9046
INFO RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK 6248
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2271
RUEHCN/AMCONSUL CHENGDU 9345
RUEHHK/AMCONSUL HONG KONG 0468
RUEHGH/AMCONSUL SHANGHAI 9308
RUEHSH/AMCONSUL SHENYANG 9013
RUEHGZ/AMCONSUL GUANGZHOU 4249
RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU 3855
RUEHLM/AMEMBASSY COLOMBO 0856
RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI 7038
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2272
RUEHRO/USMISSION UN ROME
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 2044
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RHMFIUU/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 BEIJING 003054 
 
STATE FOR EAP/CM 
STATE ALSO PASS TO USAID 
USAID/W FOR DCHA/OFDA ACONVERY, PMORRIS, RTHAYER 
USAID/ASIA FOR CJENNINGS 
BANGKOK FOR WBERGER, TROGERS, SKISSINGER, PDO 
GENEVA FOR NYKYLOH 
NSC FOR PMARCHAM 
BRUSSELS FOR USAID PLERNER 
NEW YORK FOR FSHANKS 
US PACOM FOR CDR USPACOM 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAID SENV CH
SUBJECT: STATUS OF USAID/OFDA ASSISTANCE USED FOR SICHUAN EARTHQUAKE 
RELIEF 
 
REF: A) Beijing 2410 B) Beijing 1848 
 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
¶1. (SBU) On July 30-August 2, 2008, ESTHOFFS met with 
representatives from the International Federation of Red Cross and 
Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) in Chengdu to review the status of the 
USD 500,000 donation disbursed by USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster 
Assistance (OFDA) on May 21 in response to IFRC's May 15 appeal for 
disaster relief funds.  As part of the review process, ESTHOFFS 
toured localities in Guangyuan and Deyang Prefectures--both with 
residents currently using tents procured through this 
donation--speaking to local relief workers and government officials 
responsible for distributing the tents, and interviewing dozens of 
beneficiary families.  Procedures for tent procurement and 
distribution used by IFRC and their local Chinese Red Cross partners 
were judged to be reasonable and satisfactory.  However, one pending 
issue that may require additional attention is the current lack of 
clear, centralized guidance from IFRC to its Chinese partners 
regarding ownership and disposal of used tents.  END SUMMARY. 
 
BACKGROUND 
----------- 
¶2. (U) The 7.8 magnitude earthquake that ravaged Sichuan Province on 
May 12 left an estimated 500,000 structures damaged and 4.8 million 
people homeless, the majority of which resided in rural areas.  On 
May 13 Ambassador Randt issued a disaster declaration, requesting 
that USAID/OFDA authorize USD 500,000 to assist in relief efforts. 
USAID/OFDA pledged on May 15 to contribute the amount to the IFRC's 
appeal for aid, and the funds were disbursed on May 21 (REFS A and 
B).  (NOTE:  Other major foreign government donors were Japan with 
USD 1.7 million, Ireland with USD 1.5 million, Canada with USD 
975,000, and Netherlands with 775,000.  END NOTE) 
¶3. (U) Upon receiving the funds from USAID/OFDA, the IFRC agreed to 
use the funds within 90 days of receipt, as well as to the following 
conditions: 
--Document that reasonable steps were taken to ensure that all 
purchases made with the grant are made at reasonable prices and from 
reasonable sources; 
--Maintain complete records of all expenditures made with the grant 
for a period of three years after expiration of the grant, and make 
such records available to the United States Embassy Beijing or its 
representatives at any time; 
--At the Embassy's request, refund any funds received that represent 
costs determined by the Embassy as not meeting the terms and 
conditions of this grant; and 
--At the Embassy's request, facilitate Embassy officials' travel to 
affected regions to ensure that relief goods have reached the 
intended disaster victims. 
 
OVER 1400 TENTS PROCURED AND SHIPPED AT REASONABLE COST 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
¶4. (U) According to records provided to ESTHOFFS by the IFRC Chengdu 
office, IFRC procured and distributed over 64,000 tents using funds 
received through its May 15 emergency appeal (about 1,400 of which 
were procured using USAID/OFDA's USD 500,000 donation).  All of the 
funds donated by USAID/OFDA have been used, well before the 90-day 
deadline.  Since few of IFRC's national member societies had large 
stocks of tents on hand to shift toward relief efforts in Sichuan, 
IFRC made the decision to procure these tents through the Iranian 
Red Crescent Society, who not only had a sizeable stock available 
 
BEIJING 00003054  002 OF 004 
 
 
but also had access to production facilities with the capacity to 
produce a large number of high-quality tents quickly.  The first of 
27 shipments of these tents began arriving in Chengdu on June 19 at 
a cost of approximately USD 350 per tent--roughly USD 310 for the 
tent itself and USD 40 for transport of it.  Shipments were logged 
and processed in Chengdu before being transported to 
prefecture-level Red Cross representatives for further distribution 
to the county, township, and village levels.  The last shipment of 
these tents arrived in Chengdu on June 28. 
¶5. (U) NOTE: Tents continue to be a crucial component of sheltering 
during the recovery process.  Prefabricated housing structures have 
been erected to house township residents until new towns can be 
planned and built.  Residents living near village centers are 
increasingly building transitional shelters to live in until their 
original homes can be rebuilt.  However, for farmers living near 
their fields far from village centers or in the remote highland 
areas, the one-family tent likely will be the only shelter available 
to them for at least the next year, until government subsidies for 
permanent shelter reconstruction (20,000 RMB per family of likely 
cost of 80,000-100,000 RMB per housing unit). END NOTE 
 
EVIDENCE OF TRANSPARENT AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
¶6. (U) IFRC arranged for ESTHOFFS (accompanied by USAID Public 
Private Partnerships Advisor currently based in Chengdu and Chengdu 
CONOFF) to meet with local Red Cross officials, tour distribution 
centers, meet with town and village leaders, and interview 
randomly-selected beneficiaries in the prefectures of Guangyuan 
(Qingchuan County, Jianfeng Township) and Deyang (Mianzhu County, 
Hanwang Town, Xiangshan and Dongpu Villages).   According to IFRC, 
decisions on how many tens to allocate to each prefecture, county, 
township, and village, were based upon numbers of survivors and 
households collected and reported y village chiefs.  The numbers 
were then collted by Chinese Red Cross representatives at the 
township, county, and prefecture levels, and eventually reported to 
the provincial distribution center in Chengdu that processed each 
incoming shipment of tents.  (NOTE: These local representatives are 
typically employees of the local health bureau and have a dual 
function of serving as the local Red Cross coordinator when 
necessary. END NOTE) 
¶7. (U) Village chiefs calculated the number of tents needed in 
his/her village using a ratio of one tent per household of 3 to 4 
members, with additional tents requested for larger-sized families 
as needed.  In one instance, ESTHOFFS observed that village chiefs 
had even requested, received, and stored tents for residents known 
to be away receiving earthquake injury-related medical care, so that 
they too would have temporary shelter waiting for them upon their 
return to the village.  In another instance a township school 
principal made a point of setting aside tents to be used at four 
remote branch schools for housing students who normally board on 
campus during the school year (their own families' homes being too 
distant to commute to and from on a daily basis). 
¶8. (U) Accounting practices varied greatly at each level of 
distribution and with each locality, including spreadsheets and 
signed shipping receipts produced instantly upon request; a school 
blackboard filled with dates and names documenting when families 
received tents; as well as signature lists posted in the village 
square containing signatures showing that every family needing a 
tent had received one.  Storage facilities for tents being held for 
future recipients appeared to be well-secured and well-monitored. 
ESTHOFFS did not see evidence of families lacking for tent shelter 
(be it from IFRC, other foreign Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies and 
 
BEIJING 00003054  003 OF 004 
 
 
relief organizations, or from the government), and beneficiaries all 
received tents within a day or two of the shipment's arrival in 
Chengdu.  There did not appear to be excess or unaccounted for tents 
being stored at the village or township level.  According to IFRC, 
Sichuan Red Cross did end up with an excess of 18,000 tents that 
were not distributed to beneficiaries, but these tents have been 
kept in storage facilities in Chengdu and at the prefecture level to 
build capacity for responding to future emergencies. 
 
IFRC TENTS ARE ONE USE ONLY--NOT TO BE RECOLLECTED 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
¶9. (U) While beneficiaries seemed uniformly to be satisfied with the 
quality of the tents procured through the Iranian Red Crescent 
Society, ESTHOFFS nevertheless saw dozens of instances where tent 
roofs were leaking rainwater into the tent, and water was pooling 
either beneath the vinyl floor of the tent or actually inside the 
tent.  End users devised numerous methods to combat these defects, 
including placing an extra tarp over the top of the tent, digging 
trenches around tents to provide better drainage, and positioning 
tents on top of wooden pallets to lift them out of pools of water. 
¶10. (U) IFRC representatives told ESTHOFFS that the tents, while of 
high quality and durable enough for use over a long period of time, 
still were intended for one use only. Once the tents have been 
deployed and exposed to moisture and dirt, they cannot easily be 
repacked for future use and are likely to disintegrate over time 
while in storage.  For this reason, and also so that local Red Cross 
representatives do not have to deal with the logistical hassle of 
recollecting and accounting for tents back up the distribution 
chain, IFRC's normal policy is to have relief materials (including 
tents) remain only with the beneficiaries after disbursement. 
¶11. (SBU) In interviewing local officials and Red Cross 
representatives, ESTHOFFS learned that IFRC's Beijing office had not 
adequately relayed this guidance to counterparts in Chinese Red 
Cross Society headquarters in Beijing or to the Ministry of Civil 
Affairs.  Local officials are in fact working under the assumption 
that they eventually will be responsible for collecting and 
accounting for used tents, and seeing that they are transported to 
centralized storage facilities.  (NOTE:  The Chinese Red Cross 
representative in Deyang Prefecture had even succeeded in obtaining 
additional government funding to build a storage facility to house 
relief supplies, based on the anticipated need to store a large 
number of used tents in the near future.  END NOTE) Some 
beneficiaries also were surprised to hear that they could and should 
keep their own tents, instead assuming that the tents they were 
using were only "lent" to them, and that they have a patriotic duty 
to relinquish them for use in future disaster relief efforts. 
¶12. (U) In Jianfeng (Guangyuan Prefecture), where a large portion of 
the population already had received the 2000 RMB governmentsubsidy 
(REF A) for each self-built transitional shelter (largely of 
salvaged materials, plywood, and corrugated sheet metal), local 
officials were demanding that beneficiaries give up their tents 
before they could receive the payment.  (NOTE:  IFRC told ESTHOFFS 
that this was because Chinese government-issued tents do infact 
have to be collected in this manner, so for fairness, and so that 
local officials are not left with a situation of only some families 
being allowed to keep the tent they were issued, officials simply 
opted to adopt a uniform policy of collecting all used tents.  END 
NOTE) 
¶13. (U) At ESTHOFFS' request, IFRC representatives did make great 
efforts at each visited site to increase awareness of IFRC's 
non-collection policy and the inadequacy of these tents for reuse in 
future disasters.  Furthermore, to avoid a situation of local Red 
 
BEIJING 00003054  004 OF 004 
 
 
Cross officials assuming that the used tents they have in storage 
can be considered increased capacity, when in reality the tents are 
disintegrating and unusable, IFRC personnel urged interlocutors to 
discount any future utility of recollected tents.  IFRC instead 
offered to assist them with procurement of new, fully reliable tents 
and other relief materials so that the Chinese Red Cross will end up 
with actual, usable stored capacity during future emergencies. 
 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
¶14. (SBU) COMMENT:  Despite sometimes rudimentary methods of 
recordkeeping at the village level, distribution of the more than 
1,400 tents that were procured by IFRC using USAID/OFDA funds seems 
to have taken place efficiently and transparently. While there were 
impromptu efforts by local IFRC staff during site visits to spread 
the word that tents should not be recollected, Post has since also 
urged IFRC's Beijing office to address this inconsistency formally 
with central authorities.  Without a clear policy, poor 
accountability and diversion of used tents for other purposes would 
remain a possibility, as well as there being an increased likelihood 
of weakened response capacity if used tents are relied upon for 
future use.  Post will continue to monitor the situation and 
advocate for the need to have authorities issue uniform guidance 
that clearly states IFRC's policy of having relief goods remain only 
with beneficiaries. 
¶15. (U) This cable was coordinated with Consulate General Chengdu. 
 
RANDT