Haiti, a nation already plagued with poverty and health crises, has suffered dramatically following the mass devastation caused by Hurricane Matthew. According to the New York Times, about 1.4 million people are in need of humanitarian aid due to the aftermath of the storm. Since the 2010 earthquake, a cholera epidemic has afflicted the population of Haiti due to poor sanitation, taking nearly 10,000 lives. Natural water sources have been further contaminated by sewage and storm water following Hurricane Matthew, worsening an already prevalent cholera epidemic.

The World Health Organization has committed $120 million of aide relief and is sending 1 million cholera vaccines to Haiti; however, as notable as this sounds, it is not enough to protect all of those who are at risk of contracting cholera. Worldwide supplies of the cholera vaccine are severely limited due to the necessary allocation of the vaccine in other cholera impacted areas. Haiti alone requires ten times the amount of vaccines already provided by the WHO in order to successfully vaccinate every citizen that is at risk. Furthermore, the mass amounts of devastation and the fear elicited by starvation and death creates difficulties in transporting food, water, and medications. The Washington Post reported that one convoy carrying supplies in a remote valley was attacked by gunmen.

In 2010, the UN determined that it would be best not to supply Haiti with cholera vaccines due to lack of availability, operational and logistical challenges involving establishing the complex oral medication regimens, and complications due to civil unrest. Considering a UN peacekeeping camp has been linked to being the source of the disease’s outbreak in Haiti following the earthquake in 2010, immediate implementation of the vaccine would have been the most beneficial decision in terms of mitigating the spread of the disease. In addition to this, many critics of the UN’s controversial decision believed that it was ridiculous to not send supplies to fight an epidemic when the medications were readily available to be sent. However, skeptics argued that the original vaccine ($6 per dosage) was too costly of an investment and distracted from the short term goal of helping the sick and the long term goal of providing Haiti with clean, drinkable water.

In 2011, the WHO approved the development of a new cholera drug that did not need to be diluted or orally ingested, and by 2012 a vaccine campaign was launched in Haiti. The effectiveness of the campaign proved that the cholera vaccine, no matter the original risks, should have been sent in the first place, but due to the complications involving monetary allocation within international humanitarian assistance organizations, supplies began to dwindle.

In dealing with Haiti’s cholera epidemic, policymakers are trying to figure out what would be the best solution. Monetary allocation is the most difficult part in international aide distribution because organizations are forced to decide what would be more economically feasible and what nation is in the most need. Most policymakers believe starting with Haitian living conditions would be the most beneficial because Peru’s cholera outbreak during the 1990s was eradicated by allocating funds toward building clean sanitation, water, and sewage treatment plants. However, short term aide is also necessary through vaccination considering people are continuing to die at a fast rate due to this disease.

Eventually, aide organizations and the WHO will have to withdraw funds from implementing vaccination in order to successfully fund major constructions to develop safer sanitation methods and clean water, but it does not have to be one way or the other. If the UN allows international aid to be distributed evenly between sanitation and medicine, the foundation for Haiti’s recovery may be established.