• by Jim Lobe* (washington)
• Tuesday, November 10, 2009
• Inter Press Service

Of the 22 major western donor nations, Norway, Sweden, Ireland and Denmark responded most effectively to humanitarian emergencies around the world in 2008, according to the latest of three annual assessments of humanitarian aid released here Tuesday by Development Assistance Research Associates (DARA).

The group's 2009 Humanitarian Response Index (HRI), which was based on donors' performance in 13 humanitarian crises from Timor Leste to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), also gave high marks to the European Community's (EC) emergency programmes.

But DARA said all donor governments need to do more — in the worst-performing cases, including Portugal, Greece, Italy, France, Japan, and Austria, much more - to fully comply with the guidelines set forth in 'Good Humanitarian Donorship' (GHD).

The GHD was endorsed by members of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) in 2003.

And, in a report that accompanied the Index, the Madrid-based group stressed that the ongoing economic crisis and its impact on donor aid budgets — the United Nations last month reported a record funding shortfall of 4.8 billion dollars for its humanitarian aid needs covering 43 million people - made the quality of aid more important than ever.

'Given the global economic crisis, more effective use of public money and greater quality and impact in humanitarian aid has never been more important,' said Silvia Hidalgo, DARA's co-founder and director.

'In places like Pakistan, Sudan, or Somalia, countless human lives could be saved and suffering avoided if government donors applied basic good practice in the way they fund and support humanitarian organisations,' she added.

In 2008, the 23 donors provided some 10.4 billion dollars in humanitarian aid for both dealing with emergencies caused by civil conflict and natural disasters. That total constituted a modest increase over 2007 levels, but was still more than three billion dollars short of the total needed to protect and provide for the more than 250 million people affected by humanitarian crises that year, according to DARA.

The Index, which is based in major part on the results from some 2,000 field surveys of humanitarian organisations that actually provide relief, ranks donors on the basis of their compliance with GHD's five major 'pillars', the score for each of which was itself determined by a number of qualitative and quantitative criteria applied by DARA's researchers.

In addition to the DRC and Timor, the Index covered humanitarian emergencies during 2008 in Afghanistan, Chad, China, Ethiopia, Georgia, Haiti, Myanmar, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Somalia, and Sri Lanka.

The first of the five pillars assessed to what extent donor funding responds to actual needs; respects the fundamental humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality, and independence; and is designed to save lives, and prevent and alleviate suffering, as opposed to achieving political or other non-humanitarian objectives.

Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Luxembourg, EC, Denmark, and the Netherlands received the highest marks in this area, while the worst performers included Italy, Greece, France and Portugal. The world's single largest donor, the U.S., ranked ninth, while two other major donors, Britain and Germany, ranked 14 and 16, respectively.

The second pillar assessed the extent to which donors provide funding or other kinds of support to prevent disasters and mitigate their impact — often by strengthening local preparedness - and to promote recovery and the transition to development.

Ireland, Denmark and the EC topped the list in these areas, while lowest scorers were the same as in the first pillar. The United States also did poorly, placing 18 out of the 23, while Britain placed highest among the Group of Seven (G7) donors, at 11.

The third pillar assessed how well donors support the work of non-governmental agencies on the ground not only in terms of direct cooperation, but also in using their influence to ensure access by host governments or local authorities to victims of the emergencies.

Top scorers in this area included Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands, while Britain again placed highest among the G7 donors, at seventh, followed by Canada (10), Germany (17), the U.S. (18), Japan (19), France (20), and Italy (22).

According to DARA's field surveys, only half of all donors worked actively to facilitate safe access and the protection of humanitarian workers, 260 of whom were killed, kidnapped or seriously injured during 2008.

In her remarks here, Hidalgo, who noted that the number of international staff working in Somalia has dropped to zero, stressed that gaining safe access is a growing problem for relief organisations from Sri Lanka to Colombia.

The fourth pillar assessed the degree to which donors integrated international humanitarian law and related mechanisms into their funding practices and worked actively to protect populations at risk of harm, especially in situations of civil conflict, as in Sudan, Sri Lanka, and the DRC.

Again, Sweden, Norway and Denmark scored highest in this area, followed by the EC, Australia, the Netherlands, and Ireland. Among the G7, Britain (9) and Canada (11) performed best, followed by Germany (15), France (18), Japan (20), Italy (21), and the U.S. (22), which, for example, has imposed stringent conditions on its aid to Gaza.

The final pillar assessed how well donors support initiatives to improve the quality, effectiveness and accountability of humanitarian action, particularly in relation to the GHD. For this pillar, Denmark and Britain were given top scores, followed by the EC, Switzerland, Sweden, and Australia. After Britain, Canada (9) was highest-ranked among the G7, followed by Japan (12), France (13), the U.S. (15), Germany (17), and Italy (21).

The combined scores showed a significant gap between perfect compliance with the GHD principles and actual performance, even among the highest scorers. Thus, only six donors achieved scores above seven out of the 10 possible points on the Index's consolidated scale, while nearly half the list fell below six points. Of the latter, five — France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and the U.S. — are G7 members.

While the U.S. moved from 15th to 14th place in the Index rankings over the past year by its top scores in funding so-called 'forgotten' emergencies and the speed with which it responded to emergencies, its overall score was dragged down by poor ratings regarding the neutrality of its assistance and not doing enough to uphold international humanitarian law and human rights in crisis situations, according to DARA.

'The U.S. has a tremendous opportunity to build on its strengths and regain a leadership role in humanitarian action,' said Hidalgo.

Given its status as the world's biggest provider of humanitarian aid, 'any small improvements in its policies and practices could give an enormous boost to international efforts to improve aid effectiveness,' she added.

She also stressed that the gap between humanitarian needs and donor assistance is likely to widen over the coming years. In Pakistan alone, humanitarian needs have increased five-fold this year, she said, while non-OECD and U.N. humanitarian aid providers, such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent and national and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), have had to reduce their budgets due to the economic crisis.

Some reports cited by DARA estimate that by 2030, climate change, environmental degradation and other predictable disasters will put more than 660 million people in need of emergency assistance worldwide — more than three times today's number.

*Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

© Inter Press Service (2009) — All Rights Reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service