Transcript Diapositiva 1

HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE
INDEX 2008
Donor Accountability in Humanitarian Action
“The HRI helps guarantee that every dollar of
humanitarian assistance is used to provide the
right kind of aid, to the right people, at the right
time. The millions of people affected by crises and
emergencies deserve as much.”
– Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General
What are the HRI’s objectives?
• To measure and benchmark the quality and
effectiveness
of
donors’
humanitarian
assistance
• To contribute to greater transparency and
accountability in donors’ policies and practices
• To promote informed debate and decisionmaking on how to improve humanitarian
action
HRI Methodology and Process
Concept
Design
58 indicators
based on GHD
principles
Survey of
humanitarian
organisations
Organized into
5 Pillars of
good practice
Data from
donors and
published
sources
Implementation
Analysis
11 different
crises studied
Over 350
organisations
interviewed
1400 surveys
collected
Peer Review process and stakeholders consultation
to continually refine and improve the HRI
HRI
Findings
Which crises were studied?
 Afghanistan
 Bangladesh
 Central African
Republic
 Chad
 Colombia
 Democratic
Republic of Congo
 Nicaragua
 Occupied
Palestinian
territories
 Peru
 Sri Lanka
 Sudan
5 Pillars of Good Practice
Improving the quality,
effectiveness and
impact of
Humanitarian Action
30%
Pillar 1:
Responding
to needs
20%
Pillar 2:
Supporting
local capacity
and recovery
20%
15%
Pillar 3:
Working with
humanitarian
partners
Pillar 4:
Promoting
standards and
implementation
15%
Pillar 5:
Promoting
learning and
accountability
Pillar 1
Responding to needs
How do we construct the
scores?
Indicator
Donor support
and funding
needs
assessments
Data source:
Survey
question on
how donors
support and
fund needs
assessments
Analysis:
Average
scores by
donor from
all crises,
converted
into scores
Funding needs assessments
OECD-DAC Average
United States
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Norway
New Zealand
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Japan
Italy
Ireland
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
EC
Denmark
Canada
Belgium
Austria
Australia
Indicator: Needs assessments
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pillar 1
Responding to needs
How do we construct the
scores?
Indicator:
Generosity of
humanitarian
assistance
Data sources:
OECD/
DAC data on
donor
spending,
compared to
GNI data from
World Bank
Analysis:
Calculation of
total
Humanitarian
Aid / GNI as a
%, converted
into scores
Generosity of humanitarian assistance
OECD-DAC Average
United States
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Norway
New Zealand
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Japan
Italy
Ireland
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
EC
Denmark
Canada
Belgium
Austria
Australia
Indicator: Generosity
10,00
9,00
8,00
7,00
6,00
5,00
4,00
3,00
2,00
1,00
0,00
HRI 2008 Ranking and Scores
1) Sweden
7.90
2) Norway
7.60
3) Denmark
7.39
4) Ireland
7.36
5) European Commission
7.18
6) Netherlands
7.10
7) Luxembourg
7.06
8) United Kingdom
6.98
9) Switzerland
6.86
10) Canada
6.62
11) Australia
6.51
12) Finland
6.32
13) New Zealand
6.28
14) Belgium
6.17
15) United States
6.08
16) Spain
6.07
17) Germany
Pillar 1: Responding to needs
Pillar 2: Supporting local capacity
and recovery
5.99
18) Japan
5.66
19) Italy
5.56
20) France
5.55
21) Austria
Pillar 3: Working with humanitarian
partners
Pillar 4: Promoting standards and
enhancing implementation
5.32
22) Portugal
Pillar 5: Promoting learning and
accountability
5.10
23) Greece
4.80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
HRI 2008 conclusions
1. Wealthy countries must provide aid in an
impartial manner, instead of according to
political, economic or security agendas
HRI 2008 conclusions
2. Wealthy countries could do more to
improve the quality and use of needs
assessments so that the right kind of aid
reaches those who need it most, when
they need it
HRI 2008 conclusions
3. Wealthy countries need to invest in
building the capacity of the humanitarian
system to respond to future crises,
especially in prevention strategies at the
local level
HRI 2008 conclusions
4. Wealthy countries can better support
local capacity and link relief efforts to
recovery and longer-term development
strategies for lasting impact
Some reflections
1. Is Good Humanitarian Donorship out-ofdate and still relevant in today’s context?
What is good donor practice and how do
you measure it?
Some reflections
2. How do we better engage with donors to
make the HRI a useful tool for them to
improve the quality and impact of their
aid?
Some reflections
3. How can we expand our analysis to
include other non-traditional donors, and
help them to understand and apply good
practice?
“Accountability is too important to be left to
donors, whether individually or severally.
The HRI’s assessment is broadly confirmed
by our own independent studies.”
- Larry Minear, Feinstein International
Center, Tufts University