Should Oxfam pay tsunami aid duty?

Is it right that Oxfam had to pay Sri Lanka $1m in import duty for vehicles used for tsunami reconstruction?

The Daily Telegraph newspaper said Sri Lankan customs refused to give tax exemptions to non-governmental organisations helping in the aftermath of the disaster.

The British charity told the newspaper that it abided by the laws of the countries it works in, "including tax laws".

Was Sri Lanka right to charge tax duty on the vehicles? Is red tape slowing down reconstruction?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:

It would have been better if the customs had implemented what is normally done to diplomatic missions, ie they could have waived the duty for the vehicles in concern but with a clause that Oxfam could take the vehicles back when its purpose is done, or in the alternative if Oxfam was to dispose of it in Sri Lanka they could sell it to the government stores (a government organisation). The government stores then could re-sell the vehicles and the buyer will be called upon to pay the duty. In fairness to the imposition of duty the exemption clause was effective for a period of time post-tsunami but was lifted as many could abuse this facility on the pretext of the tsunami relief.
Ghouse, Colombo Sri Lanka

I'm not sure of the details of this particular case but I'd like to point out that Sri Lanka is very much a welfare state with free education (including higher education) and free health care for all. Transport costs, price of petroleum, fertilizer and basic food items are also heavily subsidised by the government. Personally I prefer this to direct aid.
Harini Kulatunga-Sanchez, Guildford, UK/Sri Lanka

The report states the Sri Lankan government waived import duty on relief aid until the end of April. I assume that after that they were trying to stabilise their economy. If Oxfam knew that, why didn't they import the vehicles before the deadline or clarify the situation before the vehicles arrived? I'm sure the Sri Lankans are grateful for the aid they are getting but the west should stop trying to tell these countries how to run their lives and stop trying to impose our standards (such as they are) onto their culture.
Ted, Wilts

A very unwise and inhumane policy which will negatively affect the poorest and most needy part of the population Dave Woods, Cleveland, USA

My nephew has been in Sri Lanka since February. He has told us that vast amounts of relief goods have been sitting on the docks because the country insists on payment of taxes. While the government of that country may do what it chooses - this appears to be a very unwise and inhumane policy which will negatively affect the poorest and most needy part of the population.
Dave Woods, Cleveland, USA

You may well all think this is outrageous to believe, nevertheless, it seems a matter of Oxfam incompetence to me. Duties had been waived for the first four months after the tsunami. Why did Oxfam not purchase them during that period? There was no need for these automobiles then? Most unlikely. And if Oxfam personnel are competent enough to be aware that duties have been reintroduced, why should they go on with importing the vehicles? And the comment about Sri Lanka not producing automobiles sounds really weird to me. Do they really imply that there is no any automobiles market in the country, that they could not buy these Mahindra or any other suitable vehicles in Sri Lanka without importing them themselves? There are not any automobiles dealer in Sri Lanka then?
Ioannis Chalkos, Thessaloniki, Greece

What is the Government of Sri Lanka thinking! This kind of attitude will definitely discourage future charities to help needy of this country. What happened to sane thinking? Oxfam should continue to help people of Sri Lanka after all it's not their fault. I along with millions am amazed.
Bilal Asmal, Skokie, USA

Almost 6 months after the tsunami very little has been done to help the effected people in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan government imposing taxes on relief efforts and delaying these efforts with red tape is simply outrageous. International governments and agencies have to put maximum pressure on the government of Sri Lanka to change its policies. If a large organization like Oxfam has to go through this much trouble, it will make it impossible for smaller organizations to help in the relief efforts.
Danton Thurairajah, New Jersey, USA

It does seem a little crazy, but at least it's an import tax from the Sri Lankan Government and not an export tax from where the vehicles came from!
Iain, Poole, UK

Oxfam has a better record than most governments in getting aid where it's needed Rob Vermeulen, Pleasant Hill, USA

The $1m that Oxfam had to pay is money that Oxfam will not be able to use for reconstruction. If the government of Sri Lanka is more efficient at reconstruction than Oxfam, it's money well spent. I believe Oxfam has a better record than most governments in getting aid where it's needed. That's why people voluntarily donate to Oxfam, rather than donating directly to the government of stricken countries.
Rob Vermeulen, Pleasant Hill, USA

I think that it is ridiculous that a charity organisation or any other non-governmental organisations should have to pay these duties. This is a slap in the face for the people who are clearly trying to help tsunami victims.
Pamela-Arzu Engebretsen, Izmir, Turkey

They are not the only charity - many of us are getting the same 'deal'. On average the Sri Lankan government is pressuring non profits to pay between 150-300% on 'taxes' since early March. It is disgusting.
Chris Nixon, Colombo

What an outrage! Oxfam should have refused to pay the fee and threatened to pull out. Stories like this are almost beyond comprehension.
Dwayne Chastain, West Jefferson, Ohio

This is where funds will end up, with so-called taxes and backhanders to people in power Angus, Yateley, UK

To Mr Geldof and all the other 'anti-poverty' idealists: This is where funds will end up, with so-called taxes and backhanders to people in power. Strange all these 'poor' developing countries have well provisioned armed forces and police. No doubt a large proportion of this $1m will be used against the Tamil Tigers. What will be taxed next in the interest of redressing imbalance? Food? Blankets? Tents? Clothes either bought by Oxfam or donated to Oxfam? I know, they can tax the foreign aid workers. My partner and I now regret the donations we made if this is how our money is pilfered.
Angus, Yateley, UK

I'm sorry.. but I won't be donating to Sri Lanka's aid again. I'll save my money for a government who appreciates what I give. It's just so said for the ordinary people of Sri Lanka who have done nothing wrong.
Andy K, Berks, UK

It is not just Oxfam, even the other charities that send clothes and medicines had to pay duty. One church from Maryland that sent water purification plant equipment was initially charged significant tax on these equipment and the tax was later reduced after the intervention of a senator. It is unfortunate that the people suffer while the government ignores their plight.
Rishi Haran, New York, USA

Oxfam should pack up and leave. Being charged by Sri Lanka to do charity work in Sri Lanka is a scam.
Johnny, New York, NY, US

Any body or country taking a cut of the aid supplied from overseas for tax or any other non aid purposes should be boycotted by the international community until they change the rules.
Tony Barnes, Wymondham, Norfolk

After the tsunami, we sent a container full of clothing to be distributed through a Sri Lankan charity. Once arrived, we were informed that a tax of Rs.3million had to be paid to clear the items! The goodwill of all the people who had donated clothing and cash (for shipping) was dashed. Aid workers who are returning from the affected areas still say the poor have not seen any of the aid. I think it is pathetic the government and the other organisations who are supposedly representing the people are still asking for handouts. At the end of all this, the poor will still be where they are now, while the people in power will have profited from this tragedy.
Ramvel, Toronto, Canada

Shame on the Sri Lankan government. Trying to profit from this situation is nothing short of disgraceful. They should realise the amount of goodwill they will lose over this and that next time people may feel less inclined to respond to appeals from their particular country.
Maggie, South London UK

What? A government trying to make a quick buck out of someone else's hard work or misfortune? Never.
Richard Tyrrell, London, England

This situation appals me but its just typical of the human race. And it is naive to suspect the money will go to the intended cause anyway. I have been giving to Oxfam but I cannot do so on this basis. They should refuse to pay and seek to make the Sri Lankan government squirm under political pressure. I will now have to reconsider and find some more targeted way to give to charity.
Alex, London UK

This kind of news makes me feel physically sick. How on earth can they justify this at all? I would certainly not have given any money to the fund if I had known that it would be a very small drop in massive tax pool. I would sooner my money have gone to some other needy cause. Is the Sri Lankan government going to give a million back out of their budget next time around? I think not. Disgusting when you think how that money could have been spent to help needy people. Other governments should get involved just out of principle.
Jono, Taipei from UK

Having read the Sri Lankan government's explanation for the charges, I suppose I can understand their point about stimulating local trade etc, however since I doubt anyone in Sri Lanka makes the kind of vehicles Oxfam needed perhaps they could have been a bit more lenient. At the end of the day governments still have to generate income somehow and when a large amount of taxation is probably not being generated right now this is their only option.
Jennifer, Netherlands, ex-UK

As a Sri Lankan citizen I am both appalled and disgusted by this token of political extortion. At what point do 25 $15,000 vehicles add up to an import tax of $1m? Where would that money be invested? The pockets of corrupt politicians? And where is the economic data to support market distortion? I feel that Oxfam should indeed refuse to pay this tax, whether or not such action falls within its procedures. The Sri Lankan government should cease complicating relations with altruistic organizations in the mere hope of making a quick buck.
A Sansoni, Arkansas, USA

I guess that Oxfam had to pay as most of their work in Sri Lanka is done in the Tamil regions, not somewhere high on the Sri Lankan government lists for aid>
Simon, London

This sort of behaviour discourages me from contributing to any future appeals for aid to Sri Lanka. One wonders just what they are going to spend this $1m on.
Frances A, London, England

Utterly disgusting! What right does Sri Lanka or any other government for that matter, to tax non-profit charitable organisations? None. They should be grateful for the charity. The fortunate have opted to help the less fortunate and the less fortunate are certainly not politicians.
Bianca Williams, Toronto, Canada

SUGGEST A DEBATE This topic was suggested by Joe, UK "British charity Oxfam has had to pay Sri Lanka $1m in import duty for vehicles used in tsunami reconstruction work", a British newspaper says. I am outraged by this. What do other people think? Send us your suggestions for Have Your Say debates

It's typical of Third world countries to beg with one hand whilst stealing with the other. Oxfam and all other aid agencies should blacklist Sri Lanka immediately and withdraw all their personnel and resources. It is utterly unacceptable that donors are expected to pay tax on their donations.
Gala Etheridge, UK

I feel sickened that such governments exist!
Ian, Lancashire

Tricky one. The knee-jerk reaction of course is to condemn the Sri Lankan government. On the other hand, Oxfam is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. Would, say, a company building a factory and employing a few thousand people (thus also helping the country) expect to be exempt from import duties?
Chris, London, UK

This just illustrates how the West's charitable efforts get bogged down in bureaucracy and official corruption. And we wonder while there are so many cynics over the coming Live 8 concerts.
Ian, Brechin, Scotland

It's easy - Oxfam reduces the payment it was intending to make by $1m.
Rob O'Connor, London, UK

Absolutely outrageous. The resources generated by Oxfam and other agencies should be used 100% for their intended purpose. The $1m import duty imposed by the Sri Lankan authorities is, in my opinion, totally inappropriate and will no doubt discourage further aid/donations if the gifts so many people have freely and generously made are going to be taxed in this way.

Procurement of the specialist vehicles locally is, so far as I understand, not possible, so giving the vehicles to the Sri Lankan authorities provided something that they would otherwise not have been in a position to obtain. Perhaps we should just give them money and have them make all the procurements at cost.
Ian, Lightwater, UK

Oxfam will find it harder to get people to donate in the future Paul, Milton Keynes

I suppose it's like paying sales tax on building materials, and most of the tax will probably get spent on reconstruction any way. However, it's not good PR and Oxfam will find it harder to get people to donate in the future because of this. How about the Sri Lankan government making a $1 donation to Oxfam?
Paul, Milton Keynes, UK

The question should be why did Oxfam pay it in the first place? If they'd refused to send the aid until an exception was made I'm sure it would have been agreed within hours. Now that the aid has already been sent however, it is going to be nearly impossible to get the money back.
Andrew, Huddersfield

Well, if the money goes to assist the country further, what does it matter?
Maxine, March, UK

Right from the word go, the Sri Lankan authorities seemed intent on allowing bureaucracy to stand in the way of helping the victims of the tsunami. It seems that this mind-boggling bean-counter attitude applies to tax instead. Oxfam should have given the Sri Lankan authorities an ultimatum: waive the tax or we stop the aid and leave your people to sort you out.
David Hazel, Fareham, UK

If those are the laws that be, then that is the way it should be Andy, Leeds, UK

If those are the laws that be, then that is the way it should be. This is part of the problem with the UK, where the laws of the land are frequently criticised, usually by those who have been caught out by them!
Andy, Leeds, UK

It's the Sri Lankan government's right to charge whatever taxes it pleases. But it's also the right of charities to refuse to help. Harsh on the innocents caught in the middle, but perhaps that is the only thing which will make the Sri Lankan government back down.
Mark Malik, Teesside, UK

Cheeky really. I'd be inclined to say that charities should keep out of Sri Lanka in the future and avoid doing them any more favours, but then the government doesn't represent the whole of the Sri Lankan people - the people are the beneficiaries of the aid.
Darryl LeCount, Paderborn, Germany

This just beggars belief! The country the world rallies round to aid the countries devastated but the Sri Lankan government just slaps us in the face. Perhaps all non-governmental aid should be withdrawn until it is not taxed.
Jim, Aylesbury, Bucks

Oxfam has been and is doing fantastic work for tsunami reconstruction in Sri Lanka. Is this an oversight by the government of Sri Lanka or is it stooping so low by biting the hand that is genuinely helping? Red tape has always been a bane on reconstruction and development. When the going gets tough, the government receiving aid should not antagonise the non-profit organizations that are renowned for yeomanship.
Pancha Chandra, Brussels, Belgium

As somebody who donated to Oxfam after the tsunami I find this lack of goodwill on the part of the Sri Lankan government very disappointing, especially as the charity was working for the benefit of the people of the country.
AJ, London, UK

At least the money went to the government of the country they were trying to help Dave, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

At least the money went to the government of the country they were trying to help, and you would like to think will be used in good ways anyway.
Dave, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

I'm appalled by the imposition of import duty on these vehicles. The Sri Lankan authorities are holding a gun to the head of Oxfam. The natural reaction would be to say "Ok, we'll withdraw our offer of help," by sadly, the only ones to suffer would be the people who need the aid, so it can't be done. I think we need a global agreement to prevent this kind of thing happening in the future otherwise, well meaning people will hesitate before contributing.
Dave, UK

It seems rather cheeky. Granted, that some of the duty may itself be utilised by the government in aiding reconstruction process. However, as I do not know anything regarding the integrity of governmental procedures in Sri Lanka, I would not like to estimate the likelihood of this happening though.
MNB, Leicester, UK

I am amazed at this. Unless this tax is 100% invested directly into the efforts of Sri Lanka to repair their country and assist their citizens then I am absolutely disgusted and will seriously consider whether it is worth continuing to support their relief efforts. Unfortunately though, I expect that this 'tax' will just be used to upgrade the Sri Lankan politicians' residences and lifestyles. Shame on them all.
Sam, London

No! They were there to help. Our government never charge tax on the donations so why should they? What if Oxfam could not afford the tax? Biting the hand who feeds them comes to mind
Craig Wilson, Glasgow, UK

This is how much they appreciate our help. Some countries just do not deserve aid.
Mike, London, England

I'm sure a proportion of the duty money would end up in the right place, so quit your grumbling!
Rod Watson, Winchester, Hants

If the Sri Lankan government want to raise this charge and in effect try to make money out of a disaster, then Oxfam should take their vehicles to a country that needs them.
Mike, Yateley, UK

Oxfam should tell the Sri Lanka government where to get off. That's sheer greed by the government. If they want help then give an exemption, or Oxfam should pull out and let them get on with it.
L Stenner, UK

I don't think that Oxfam should pay for duty on vehicles for reconstruction. Oxfam is only charity, trying to rebuild people's lives after the Tsunami. It is saving the government having to pay for the reconstruction itself.
Matthew Freedman, London UK

One hopes that some form of official complaint will be forthcoming Rustam Roy, London, UK

This is an absolute disgrace. People across the world donated generously to help Sri Lankan tsunami victims, amongst others and yet the Sri Lankan government can not bring itself to grant Oxfam an exemption. Clearly, the vehicles were not imported for commercial purposes, so the argument that it would "distort" the market is untenable - what market? I think Oxfam should seriously consider withdrawing from Sri Lankan aid efforts and I personally will never give a penny to any cause that benefits Sri Lanka, after this arrogant, bureaucratic and inflexible decision by their government. They are clearly unappreciative of the generous donations from third parties that enables Oxfam to operate and provide the aid it does. One hopes that some form of official complaint will be forthcoming.
Rustam Roy, London, UK

This proves how often donors to charities are played for suckers by the recipients. Sri Lanka should be told in no uncertain terms that either the aid is imported without duty and available directly to all of the victims or there will be no aid coming at all as the money could be more effectively used in more cooperative countries. You'd see how fast they'd change their tune. This reminds me of the African nations who would not accept the same American food which Americans eat every day for famine relief because it had the products of GM crops in it. What did they expect the world's largest food producer to do, buy someone else's food to feed them with?
Mark, USA

This is a sad state of affairs. Not enough to those politicians that non-political NGOs try to help rebuild parts of their country on money generously given by the rest of the world. No they have to make a fast buck as well. Shame on them. Keep up the good work Oxfam
Jim Kirk, Basildon UK

Sri Lanka should pay back the money. Oxfam is one of the few big altruistic organisations and they would spend the money helping the needy in Sri Lanka.
Andrew Malden, Milton Keynes, England

Even in the wake of a disaster petty bureaucrats espouse a "rules are rules" doctrine. The $1M would be much better spent rebuilding Sri Lankan infrastructure. Presumably the import duty will pay for many governmental kickbacks for cronies. Or maybe I'm just cynical.
Stuart Kelly, Grimsby, Lincs

Seems ungrateful and mean-minded of the Sri-Lankan government. After all it is not as if Oxfam are a commercial enterprise, they are there to help their own stricken people.
Joe, UK

It seems absurd that Sri Lanka should want the income from these imports when it is obvious that the money could have been spent more wisely on the purchase of more equipment to assist the relief effort. Have these bureaucrats gone mad?
John B, Milton Keynes, UK

It was a day that no one would ever have expected to bear witness to, never mind experience it first hand. Thousands of lives lost, hundreds of thousands of people whose lives will never be the same again. And unfortunately we see in the aftermath, the sad and sorry state in which we live. One where a nation in such dire need of aid will gladly accept all the freely offered help it can get and effectively charge for it at the same time.
Paul, Scotland

They have no choice but to pay it. Perhaps this government has such a large electoral majority that they can do what they want (seem familiar?) or perhaps they don't care that voters will be aware of their actions. Either way, cruel and greedy politicians are no surprise.
Chris, UK