We’ve all been shocked to hear of the recent flooding in parts of Fiji.
The natural disaster has left many families devastated by the loss of life and loss of their livelihoods.
With more than 8,000 locals evacuated to emergency shelters, 2,000 Australians stranded and several people reported dead and missing, Fiji faces very tough times ahead.
The untold story is of the thousands of market vendors – 75 per cent of which are women and the sole providers in their families – who have lost their livelihoods, their place of work and their future earnings.
Widespread damage to the markets in Nadi, Ba, Lautoka and Rakiraki has already been reported. For many this is the second time in three months they have been hit by flooding.
Market vendors are reporting significant losses of produce, tables, mats and stools as well as critical storage facilities and essential waste management facilities like bins.
Even once the floods subside, the market places will be closed indefinitely due to the damage to structures, toilets, lack of potable water and drainage and waste issues.
The flooding experienced in January this year resulted in more than $10 million (AUD) in damage to infrastructure and more than $9 million (AUD) in impact to agriculture, including daily trade through the markets. The total damage bill is expected to continue to grow following the most recent flooding.
Women market vendors are extremely vulnerable – they now have no source of income or means to support their families.
UN Women Australia is calling on all our supporters to assist by donating to the UN Women Fiji Markets Recovery Project – and we need your help.
As part of the project, UN Women in partnership with UNDP and the ILO will provide 20 days of paid work for urban women traders in and around the marketplaces and will support rural women in agricultural recovery, facilitating the purchase of quick growing crops and seeds.
With your help women in Fiji can support their families in the immediate aftermath of the cyclone and help rebuild their livelihoods.
Having visited the marketplaces in Fiji and seen first-hand its impact on the local communities, there is no doubt that they form an integral part of the urban economy and often offer the only opportunity for women to work.
As Australians we all have a part to play. You can show your support by donating online now here.
Your generous donation will help women in Fiji rebuild their livelihoods and boost agricultural recovery:
– $50 will provide immediate emergency assistance to women who have lost their produce and market stalls;
– $140 will provide ‘cash for work’ for one woman in Nadi to support the reconstruction and clean-up efforts;
– $500 will provide ‘fast growing crop’ seeds for rural market vendors to begin replanting their crops;
– $6,500 enables UN Women to ensure that the needs of women market vendors are considered in post-disaster recovery planning; and
– $10,000 will support 50 women for 20 days to begin the clean-up and reconstruction of the marketplaces.
When women earn an income they invest most of it in their families and communities.
Your support will empower women in Fiji and improve the lives of those who rely on them.
We encourage everyone to make a donation – no matter how small – and help us support women in Fiji.
Julie McKay is the Executive Director of UN Women Australia.
Top Comments
Hi Stephie/Elise
Thank you for your comments.
UN Women’s Pacific office has asked for UN Women Australia's assistance in raising urgent funds – and we are responding to this request for help.
Please be assured that 100 per cent of funds raised by UN Women Australia during the Fiji Flood Appeal will go directly to the Fiji Markets Recovery Project. This project is a joint initiative between UN Women, UNDP and the ILO.
While UN Women is one of many international aid agencies on the ground responding to this crisis – all responses are necessary and will assist the Fijian community in different ways.
I encourage everyone to contribute in whatever way they can to help Fiji recover and rebuild from this natural disaster.
Julie, call me old a cynical but can you give me a figure of how much of my donation will get to the victims?
I think most people have been shocked by the information below and by the way the donations to the victims of the Queensland floods and Victorian fires were handled.
QUOTE: 'The worst offender was yet again for the 11th year in a row is, UNICEF - CEO, receives $1,200,000 per year, (plus use of a Royal Royce for his exclusive use where ever he goes, and an expense account that is rumored to be well over $150,000.) Only pennies from the actual donations goes to the UNICEF cause (less than $0.14 per dollar of income).
The second worst offender this year is Marsha J. Evans, President and CEO of the American Red Cross...for her salary for the year ending in 2009 was $651,957 plus expenses. Enjoys 6 weeks - fully paid holidays including all related expenses during the holiday trip for her and her husband and kids. including 100% fully paid health & dental plan for her and her family, for life. This means out of every dollar they bring in, about $0.39 goes to related charity causes.
The third worst offender was again for the 7th time was, Brian Gallagher, President of the United Way receives a $375,000 base salary (U.S. funds), plus so many numerous expense benefits it's hard to keep track as to what it is all worth, including a fully paid lifetime membership for 2 golf courses (1 in Canada, and 1 in the U.S.A.), 2 luxury vehicles, a yacht club membership, 3 major company gold credit cards for his personal expenses...and so on. This equates to about $0.51 per dollar of income goes to charity causes.
Fourth worst offender who was also again in the fourth spot, for every year since this information has been made available from the start 1998 is amazingly yet again, World Vision President (Canada) receives $300,000 base salary, (plus supplied - a home valued in the $700,000 - $800,000 dollar value range, completely furnished, completely paid all housing expenses, including taxes, water/sewer, telephone/fax, HD/high speed cable, weekly maid service and pool/yard maintenance, fully paid private schooling for his children, upscale automobile and an $55,000 personal expense account for clothing/food, with a $125,000 business expense account). Get this, because it is a "religious based" charity, it pays, little to no taxes, can receive government assistance and does not have to declare were the money goes. Only about $0.52 of earned income per dollar is available for charity causes.
Of the sixty some odd "charities" we looked at, the lowest paid (President/C.E.O/Commissioner) was heading up a charity group right here in Canada. We found, believe it or not, it was......none other than...
The Salvation Army's Commissioner Todd Bassett receives a salary of only $13,000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 Billion dollar organization. Which means about $0.93 per dollar earned, is readily available and goes back out to local charity causes...truly amazing ...and well done "Sally Anne" end quote.
Our innocent eyes are now open and we don't put our hands in our pockets now without asking questions. I most certainly hope that AUstralians remain as generous as ever but just question a bit more.
The Salvation Army also has a Fiji Flood Appeal for those interested in assisting in this disaster.
Stephie, that's a horrific article you're quoting - and not for the reasons you might think. If the CEO of the Salvos in Canada is really only paid $13,000 for managing a $2 billion organisation, there is something really sick with society.
Why do we think it's ok for people to be well paid for jobs which, arguably, have a negative impact on society, and expect people doing something positive that we value to earn nothing?
I also find it highly unlikely (in fact, I'm 100% sure it's not true) that only 14c in every dollar donated to UNICEF in the USA goes to the cause.
And that's apart from the fact that "percentage of the donation going to cause" is an almost meaningless measure of a charity's effectiveness anyway. Would you rather give to a soup kitchen which had 90% going to the cause, but served rancid soup and was horrible to its clients, or to one which had 70% going to the cause which provided excellent care and high quality, nutritious meals? Clearly the second soup kitchen would be much more effective in carrying out its mission. If all you're looking at is percentages of funds going to the cause, you're completely missing the point.
For anyone interested in these issues, and how out of whack our attitudes to charity and fundraising are, check out this link: http://www.uncharitable.net/
And while you're at it, support UN Women's Appeal for Fiji. Great work, Julie.