|
VIEWPOINT: Counting Darfur’s dead isn’t easy
18 Mar 2005
Source: AlertNet
|
 PREVIOUS | NEXT 
Sudanese girls skip rope at Zam Zam camp, North Darfur.
File photo by FINBARR O'REILLY
Debarati Guha-Sapir is a professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the University of Louvain, Brussels. She argues that accurate death tolls are important, but hard to get.
Heated speculation around death tolls in Darfur show that sound data gathering gets lowest
priority in emergency operations. Estimates of the dead range anywhere between 70,000 in seven months to over 400,000 dead since the end of 2003.
Some of these are derived from professionally-designed surveys representing the whole region, others are extrapolations from a small group survey.
To strengthen their position, negotiators for peace in Darfur need to know how many people
are dead, and how many could die due to the conflict. Relief planners and donors need
data too, in order to target their aid more effectively.
Everybody needs good data, but the investment required to get it is woefully inadequate.
The two most important players in the humanitarian arena -- the U.S. State Department and the
European Union's Humanitarian Aid Office -- have both complained about contradictory data
and lack of evidence for years, but neither has had the foresight to take the kind of action
necessary to fill this gap.
This being said, obtaining data on death, disease or malnutrition rates in conflict situations is
far from simple. Here are some of the reasons why:
First, death rates will differ according to who gets surveyed. This clearly applies to the
different population groups in Darfur. Internally displaced populations live in appalling
conditions and have death rates far above any emergency threshold.
Residents who have not had to move, on the other hand, are better off.
The rate at which displaced people die depends on their condition when they arrive in a given camp.
THRICE AS MANY DEATHS
Take, for example, the El Genein camp of internally displaced people in West Darfur. Nearly 2,000 of the displaced died in 39 days - more than three times the rate among the resident population in the same region.
So using rates from a specific group (the most disadvantaged) to calculate deaths for the whole population can seriously distort the real picture.
Second, estimates will differ according to the timing of surveys. There are months in the year
where deaths are frequent because of temporary escalation of violence, seasonal disease
outbreaks or breakdowns in food supply.
If data is collected right after or during one of these outbreaks or massacres, the death toll will be high. Applying this death rate to the entire region for the entire year will be grossly misleading.
Third, how do you calculate how many people would have died, if the conflict had not occurred?
It is very difficult to subtract those who would have died anyway without the conflict, when
measuring the numbers of those who did die from the conflict. How many of the 70,000 would have died, if there was no conflict but just dire poverty?
Fourth, be careful of jumping to conclusions – it may be surprising, but outright violence is rarely the main cause of death among populations affected by conflict.
In fact, data from Rwanda indicates it is usually less than 15 percent of the total.
MOST DEATHS NOT FROM VIOLENCE
There are ways of figuring this out. When death rates for adults are higher than those
among children under five years, it is likely that there is widespread violence. But studies from
different conflicts show that this is rare.
The Complex Emergencies Database (CEDAT), which monitors conflict mortality from
surveys, has been piecing together more than 30 survey results from U.N. agencies and non-governmental organisations.
These show that death and malnutrition rates in most parts of Darfur improved over the latter half of 2004 despite insecurity and political stalemate. Death rates in camps for the displaced have halved since June 2004.
All of this is thanks to an efficient and effective donor response supporting an increasingly professional community of private and voluntary organisations and to the U.N. World Food Programme, the U.N. World Health Organisation and the U.N. Children’s Fund, Unicef.
Still, the situation in Darfur continues to be desperate and fragile. The hard-earned progress
humanitarian workers have achieved could be lost if donors cut back aid just as disease and
hunger are being brought under control.
The lowest estimates of death rates in Darfur are still alarming and higher than those for any other current danger zone. But the lack of mechanisms for standardised data collection and analysis makes monitoring conflict victims in Darfur -- or elsewhere, for that matter -- a hit-or-miss affair.
So, instead of bickering over past death rates in Darfur, let us improve data reporting there
and in other conflicts, for the future.
A neutral facility that compiles and analyses data rapidly from various conflict zones could be one cost-effective option.
In the meantime, let us carry on supporting humanitarian workers. They, at least, have done a
good job so far.
|
|
|
Reset