2. HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE INDEX 2008 Donor Accountability in Humanitarian Action

3. “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

4. 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 decision- making on how to improve humanitarian action

5. 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

6. Which crises were studied?  Afghanistan  Bangladesh  Central African Republic  Chad  Colombia  Democratic Republic of Congo  Nicaragua  Occupied Palestinian territories  Peru  Sri Lanka  Sudan

7. 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

8. 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

9. Indicator: Needs assessments

10. 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

11. Indicator: Generosity

12. 7.90 7.60 7.39 7.36 7.18 7.10 7.06 6.98 6.86 6.62 6.51 6.32 6.28 6.17 6.08 6.07 5.99 5.66 5.56 5.55 5.32 5.10 4.80 HRI 2008 Ranking and Scores

13. HRI 2008 conclusions 1.Wealthy countries must provide aid in an impartial manner, instead of according to political, economic or security agendas

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 1.Is Good Humanitarian Donorship out-of- date and still relevant in today’s context? What is good donor practice and how do you measure it? Some reflections

18. 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

19. 3.How can we expand our analysis to include other non-traditional donors, and help them to understand and apply good practice? Some reflections

20. “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