The Humanitarian Response Index

The Herald reports:

New Zealand is among the top three countries in the world for its humanitarian response to international crises, according to an aid watchdog’s report.

That’s nice, but as normal I want to know why, so lets go to the full report:

The HRI is not an index on the volume or quantity of funding provided by Western governments for humanitarian assistance. Instead, it looks beyond funding to assess critical issues around the quality and effectiveness of aid in five pillars of donor practice:

And they are:

1. Are donor responses based on needs of the affected populations, and not subordinated to political, strategic or other interests? 30% weighting
2. Do donors support strengthening local capacity, prevention of future crises and long-term recovery? 20% weighting
3. Do donor policies and practices effectively support the work of humanitarian organisations? 20% weighting
4. Do donors respect and promote International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and actively promote humanitarian access to enable protection of civilians affected by crises? 15% weighting
5. Do donors contribute to accountability and learning in humanitarian action? 15% weighting

On a weighted 0 – 10 scale, the results are:

1. Denmark 6.87
2. Ireland 6.54
3. New Zealand 6.50
4. Norway 6.42
5. Sweden 6.32
6. European Commission 6.24

Others were UK 8th 6.12, Australia 13th 5.65, US 19th 5.16

For NZ they say:

New Zealand is in 3rd place this year. Despite its small size and limited field presence as a donor, New Zealand has shown a good level of commitment to applying the GHD Principles in the way it supports humanitarian action.

It is one of the best donors in terms of timely funding, and in learning and accountability. However, it could improve in terms of supporting beneficiary participation in programming and Funding to NGOs.

NZ’s scores in each pillar are:

1. 6.49
2. 5.46
3. 6.36
4. 6.29
5. 5.72

In terms of individual indicators, the best were:

1. Funding for accountability initiatives 9.14 vs OECD average of 2.75
2. Funding and commissioning evaluations 9.90 vs 4.25
3. Un-earmarked funding 7.91 vs 3.45
4. Facilitating humanitarian access 7.78 vs 5.52
5. Funding for reconstruction and prevention 5.99 vs 4.12

The bottom two relatively were

1. Funding UN and Red Cross Red Crescent appeals 2.53 vs 5.05
2. Funding to NGOs 2.73 vs 4.40