The sheer scale of the Feb. 6 quakes in Türkiye, the related unfolding human catastrophe and suffering makes it all but impossible for our profession to come up with the appropriate wordings when paying respect to both the fine nation and its proud citizens.

Putting pen to paper after going to the epicenter of the tremors with esteemed colleagues, one is confused – while the entire world needs to be informed about destroyed cities and villages, about the immense loss of life, about the tragedy of the century. We, analysts, must at all times refrain from proposing "sensationalist headlines" or stories. Then again words may become a powerful tool to drum up international support.

Hence, engaging in more straightforward, even technical commentary is a non-negotiable agenda item when we address two intertwined issues of the highest importance: On the one hand, there is the pressing subject of how to keep the momentum of our governments both at home and abroad, respectively, in working around the clock to come to the aid of those men, women and children affected by the tremors; on the other hand, a debate must commence in earnest on how to dramatically increase the public administration’s budget lines earmarked for natural disasters.

The latter point brings us at once to the gist of this opinion page contribution: First, who will kick start this vital debate as it is logical that no country alone can shoulder responsibility when, God forbid, ever faced with such a catastrophe our community of nations must come together and invest hard cash, and serious amounts of it for that matter. It must be a joint global effort from the word go. Secondly, talking about individual nation-states cooperating on a bilateral basis and as laudable as it is – reactions from all four corners of our shared planet with regards to supporting Türkiye are a perfect example of how important bilateral aid mechanisms are – one should consider having international organizations and institutions stepping into the ring as well.

One example of such an organization is the European Union (EU), whose total budgetary commitments for 2023 amount to 186.6 billion euros ($197 billion), with 1.7 billion euros reserved for humanitarian aid. Under this heading, natural hazards such as flooding are included but often in the wake of other humanitarian crises such as wars or conflict when trapped populations are at higher risk anyhow, or as a consequence of climate change. It is a welcome development that the EU accepts responsibility in this domain. While the EU does provide aid for natural disasters such as flooding, it is important to consider separate disasters like the earthquakes in Türkiye and neighboring Syria.

As of Feb. 17, Brussels had allocated 5.5 million euros for earthquake relief efforts. Of this amount, 2.3 million euros were redirected from existing humanitarian aid budget lines, with an additional 3.2 million euros added from the general budget.

A total of 10 million euros was made available to Syria, again with a split of existing humanitarian aid budget lines (6 million euros) and newly opened-up budget lines. In this context and three weeks thereafter, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) announced that it estimates the damage to have a shocking number attached: 94 billion euros, and this would not include the actual rebuilding and reconstruction expenses.

The same analysis states that although the U.N. had asked for donations of 1 billion euros for the region immediately after the earthquakes to cover urgent financing needs in Türkiye, only 10% of it has been collected up until now.

Besides, it has been confirmed that an international donor’s conference will be held in the Belgian capital city of Brussels on March 16 of this year sponsored by the European Commission and the Swedish government holding the rotating EU Council presidency.

Now those victims, citizens and families in Türkiye and of course, in Syria too, are certainly thankful for each and every euro coming their way(s) but is it not, with all due modesty, correct to say that comparing the estimated total cost of damages with what has been paid out so far is a very disappointing mismatch.

Time to rethink

A good example is Austria. Shortly after the earthquakes, Vienna pledged an amount of 3 million euros as immediate aid, on top of other support and in particular dispatching an 85-member strong search and rescue team. This is even more remarkable when we compare the size of both countries and its population with much bigger European states, or non-European states (think the United States).

How was it possible that the funds could be allocated so quickly? Austria has its very own national budget line for foreign catastrophes. It totaled just over 105 million euros for 2022. This indicates two things: Firstly, it is possible to plan for providing spontaneous aid for non-national natural disasters. Secondly, it is possible to have enough monies in that fund to rearrange allocations should they perhaps have been pre-arranged, think of the ongoing aid for Afghanistan or the conflict in Ukraine.

Of course, other countries sent financial aid as well. A total of 102 nations have supported Türkiye so far with funding or many other forms of vital humanitarian and logistical aid such as tents or containers, clothing, generators, heaters, food, water and medical supplies, to mention a few. The purpose of singling out one EU country in this article is to illustrate how a small nation can make a significant impact when it comes to disaster relief efforts. This serves as a reminder for other EU member states to follow suit and provide support for those affected by natural disasters. If any member state has already offered aid, it is crucial to consider increasing contributions to ensure that the maximum amount of support is provided to those in need.

Money does not grow on trees

Granted, as they say, money is in short supply these days. Our world is still trying to bounce back from the past global health situation, business shutdowns, and citizens losing their jobs. As we speak, an energy crisis is underway. Uncertainty is everywhere, it seems. Yet another observation is true as well – our global governments did not disappear, national ministries did not cease to exist, and national budgets are still in place. Hence, there is room to reallocate and shift. Even a little bit of shifting funds could easily allow for an extra 0.5% reserved for international humanitarian aid. The EU itself tries to have 1% available (see annual budget data above). And in those funds, some monies should simply lie idle until needed, or toward the end of each year allocated in case (hopefully) no natural disaster struck.

Damage, worth 94 billion euros, has been estimated in Türkiye alone and no one argues Brussels should come up with that money alone. No one expects Türkiye to come up with that money alone, of course. But if we factor in all nation-states of this world, whether big or small and in particular the "big ones," if we add the EU and the U.N., and if we raise funds via donor conferences, we might perhaps be getting nearer to that shockingly high number.

International solidarity requires a give and take – Türkiye in the past always lent a helping hand to people and countries in need. Now it is the world’s task to reciprocate a heartfelt thank you.