Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Ireland and the European Commission (EC) comprise the top five in the HRI index, scoring between 7.90 and 7.18 on a scale of 10, while the USA, the world’s largest single nation donor, came in at 15 out of 23, with a score of 6.08. However, even the winners have mixed feelings. “We are concerned that a ranking system – the beauty contest approach – could discourage emerging relief donors,” said EC spokesman for development and humanitarian aid, John Clancy. DARA disputed this. “DARA believes that the HRI is not a beauty contest at all – but a serious attempt to measure and analyze 58 indicators of good practice, and help policymakers, donor agencies, humanitarian organizations and the wider public better understand the challenges of improving humanitarian assistance,” affirmed Director Silvia Hidalgo. “While some donors are uncomfortable with the rankings … we believe this is an incentive for positive change, rather than a barrier, and would hope that new donors have a benchmark of good practice that they can measure themselves by.”
According to the index, the EC did well in funding to strengthen local capacity and working with local partners, but poorly in favoring countries with historical ties and geographical proximity. The USA scored well on working with NGO partners, monitoring and speed but earned lower marks for earmarking, partiality and neutrality.
“While donors welcome independent scrutiny of their humanitarian programs and take seriously the need for donor transparency and accountability, we continue to be concerned that a quantitative ranking system such as HRI could detract from the collaborative and consensual spirit of Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD),” said US Agency for International Development (USAID) press officer, Harry Edwards. Not all donors objected. Even Canada, which dropped three places to 10, partly because of reportedly low performance in funding for forgotten emergencies and crises with low media coverage, said it was satisfied that it ranked above average. “Canada believes the DARA’s Humanitarian Response Index is useful for promoting good humanitarian practice,” said Canadian International Development Agency spokeswoman, Jo-Ann Purcell.
DARA uses five thematic pillars in its index, based on the GHD initiative – responding to needs; supporting local capacity and recovery; working with humanitarian partners; promoting standards and implementation; and promoting learning and accountability. It also compiled official data from donors, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, World Bank and UN agencies and conducted field research in 11 countries that experienced crises in 2007-2008, interviewing representatives of more than 350 humanitarian organizations and collecting over 1,400 questionnaires on donor practice. The 11 target countries were Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nicaragua, occupied Palestinian territories, Peru, Sri Lanka and Sudan.
“This is not a competition but rather about ensuring the best possible collective international efforts to deliver adequate, effective and principled humanitarian aid,” Clancy said. “Humanitarian aid delivery in crisis zones is a very difficult business and this kind of approach is not always helpful.” Edwards noted that as GHD co-chairs, USAID and Sweden wrote a joint letter to DARA expressing their concerns. (Sweden topped the index in 2007 and 2008.) “One of the main concerns that donors continue to express is the methodology utilized by DARA to create the annual HRI,” Edwards said, citing the importance of transparency and objective analysis, discrepancies noted in the quantitative data, over-weighing of “soft indicators” and lack of consultation with donors.
Among NGOs, there was some mixed reaction. Tom Arnold, chief executive of Dublin-based Concern Worldwide, said the Irish government’s international aid program had made a genuine effort to achieve high standards.
“The ranking of Ireland as fourth-highest in good practice at international level is the result of extraordinary effort and commitment,” he commented. Oxfam welcomed some of the indicators while dismissing the overall rankings. “We’re less interested in the overall indicator, which is for us a less useful measure of what’s working and what’s not,” Oxfam America aid effectiveness team director, Paul O’Brien, stated. www.irin.org
