August 15th is the first anniversary of the Peruvian earthquake that killed almost 600 people, injured over 1,000 and affected over 70,000 families in Sur Chico, south of Lima. It gives us a chance to take stock of what happened and push for an injection of new energy in an ongoing reconstruction process which has so far failed the families who most need help to recover and start earning a living again.

The initial evacuation went well, but authorities quickly made a catalogue of mistakes, leading to duplicated aid and some assistance going to the wrong place.

Earlier this year, researchers from the London-based Humanitarian Policy Group amd the Peruvian Economic and Social Research Consortium found that the overall response was successful in that it ensured most of the injured were evacuated promptly, that there was no spread of disease and most of the affected population eventually received some form of support.

Their study analysed the role of the Peruvian state in the earthquake response and found the successes were mainly due to a concerted response by a multitude of actors including the state, the international community, civil society and the private sector.

However, the report also identified serious shortcomings in the way the national civil defence system (SINADECI) responded and how the recovery and reconstruction process was progressing.

As part of an ongoing decentralisation process in Peru, responsibility for responding to the emergency lay with the regional, provincial and local government, but in practice these authorities struggled to cope with the scale of the disaster. This was mostly because they weren't well enough prepared, and many local politicians were personally affected.

Their failures led to strong criticisms by the media and those affected against what was perceived as government indifference.

This in turn spurred the central government to respond, but rather than work to strengthen the capacity of the regional response system, as envisaged under SINADECI, a parallel response structure was set up, which emphasised the direct participation of the president and other ministers. This provided an opportunity to boost the government's political capital in an increasingly hostile environment in which approval ratings were sharply declining.

This had negative consequences, leading to poor coordination and information-gathering, duplicated efforts and poor needs assessments. Consequently, most relief was initially concentrated in the city of Pisco at the expense of many of the most vulnerable affected communities in surrounding rural areas.

These shortcomings have unfortunately continued throughout the reconstruction phase.

In the aftermath of the earthquake, in an effort to encourage the process and emphasise the government's commitment to the people who'd been affected, the government set up a Fund for the Reconstruction of the South (FORSUR). However, its objectives, functions, structure and responsibilities were never clearly defined. As a result, the institution failed to gain the confidence of regional and local authorities and civil society organisations, who protested that they hadn't been included.

Bureaucratic and legal obstacles have also led to considerable delays in rebuilding homes and providing services. Most alarmingly, a disproportionate amount of resources is still being directed at urban areas at the expense of the increasingly marginalised rural communities in the departments of Ica and Huancavelica, which aren't part of the coastal region's thriving agro-export industry.

The reconstruction process has followed an unfortunate tendency in Peru's development history to exclude the most vulnerable and marginalised populations, many of whom continue to live in tents one year after the earthquake and still don't have access to basic services.

The lack of confidence in FORSUR led to the resignation of its director, Julio Favre, in March 2009 and brought the entity temporarily into the Ministry of Housing. This is a positive development, as housing minister Enrique Cornejo has demonstrated his leadership skills by taking steps to resolve what has become a contentious and polarised issue.

Because of all this, the anniversary is an important, albeit belated, opportunity for both the government and the international community to get back on track with the reconstruction process and renew their commitments to it. They'll need to clarify exactly what FORSUR is meant to do, make sure there are enough resources to go round, do a better job of including civil society and local government, and focus on helping marginalised rural communities get back on their feet.

Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.