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 HRIs 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 decision- making on how to improve humanitarian action HRI Methodology and Process 58 indicators based on GHD principles Organized into 5 Pillars of good practice 11 different crises studied Over 350 organisations interviewed 1400 surveys collected Peer Review process and stakeholders consultation to continually refine and improve the HRI DesignImplementationConceptAnalysis Survey of humanitarian organisations Data from donors and published sources 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 30% 20% Pillar 1: Responding to needs Improving the quality, effectiveness and impact of Humanitarian Action Pillar 2: Supporting local capacity and recovery Pillar 3: Working with humanitarian partners Pillar 4: Promoting standards and implementation 20% 15% Pillar 5: Promoting learning and accountability How do we construct the scores? Data source: Survey question on how donors support and fund needs assessments Indicator Donor support and funding needs assessments Pillar 1 Responding to needs Analysis: Average scores by donor from all crises, converted into scores Indicator: Needs assessments How do we construct the scores? Data sources: OECD/ DAC data on donor spending, compared to GNI data from World Bank Pillar 1 Responding to needs Analysis: Calculation of total Humanitarian Aid / GNI as a %, converted into scores Indicator: Generosity of humanitarian assistance Indicator: Generosity HRI 2008 Ranking and Scores HRI 2008 conclusions 1.Wealthy countries must provide aid in an impartial manner, instead of according to political, economic or security agendas 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 HRI 2008 conclusions 1.Is Good Humanitarian Donorship out-of- date and still relevant in todays 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? Some reflections Accountability is too important to be left to donors, whether individually or severally. The HRIs assessment is broadly confirmed by our own independent studies. - Larry Minear, Feinstein International Center, Tufts University