The humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake of a magnitude of 9.1 was prompted by one of the worst natural disasters of modern times. On 26 December 2004, the earthquake, which struck off the northwest coast of the Indonesian island of Sumatra, generated a tsunami that wreaked havoc along much of the rim of the Indian Ocean. Particularly hard-hit were the countries of Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka and Thailand. About 230,000 people were killed, tens of thousands more were injured, and 1.7 million became homeless and displaced. Contributing countries and supra-national organizations Asian expatriates, governments, humanitarian organisations and individuals around the world arrived, eager to offer aid and technical support. Such was the global scope of the disaster that the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters was activated in quick succession by the French Civil Protection Agency, the Indian space agency ISRO, and by UNOOSA on behalf of UNOPS, thus providing a wide variety of humanitarian satellite imagery to aid and rescue organisations. The World Bank initially estimated the amount of aid needed at US$5 billion. Although numerous countries provided help for relief and assistance, the UN criticised both the US and Europe for providing inadequate resources. By 1 January 2005 over US$1.8 billion (£1bn) had been pledged. In wake of the disaster, Australia, India, Japan and the United States formed a coalition to coordinate aid efforts to streamline immediate assistance. However, at the Jakarta Summit on 6 January 2005, the coalition transferred responsibilities to the United Nations. Criticism of donor response Throughout the entire period of the main response to the tsunami disaster – from December 2004 for the next four or five years – there was much debate about both the size and form of way that assistance was delivered. For example, just one day after the tsunami, on 27 December 2004, UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland reportedly categorised the contributions of rich countries as "stingy". This was widely misinterpreted in the media as categorising the overall response to the tsunami whereas Mr Egeland later explained that at the time he had been making a general remark about overall global aid flows in recent years. Speaking at a press conference later Mr. Egeland said, "It has nothing to do with any particular country or the response to this emergency. We are in early days and the response has so far been overwhelmingly positive".