HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE

Transcription

1 THE HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE INDEX 009 DARA Donor profile: Finland Copyright 010 by DARA

2 Finland HRI 009 Ranking: 1th Pillar Pillar Pillar HRI 009 scores by pillar Pillar 1 Pillar Prevention, risk reduction and recovery Pillar 3 Working with humanitarian partners Pillar 4 Protection and International Law Pillar 5 Pillar 4 Pillar 3 Finland OECD DAC average Finland is ranked 1th in the HRI ranking for the second consecutive year. In Pillar 1 () it ranked 10th, on Pillar 3 (Working with humanitarian partners) it ranked 8th, while its ranking for Pillar (Prevention, risk reduction, and recovery) moved from 1st to 14th. However, Finland dropped from 9th to 14th on Pillar 4 (Protection and International Law) and from 13th to 16th on Pillar 5 (). Overall performance is around the OECD-DAC average. It ranked 8th overall in terms of generosity and burden sharing. Finland was ranked 1st for support to IFRC and ICRC appeals, for equitable distribution of funding to different crisis countries and facilitating safe humanitarian access. It also scored well in indicators for assessing needs, funding decisions based on needs, strengthening humanitarian response capacity and for support not affected by other crises, in all of which it ranked nd, compared with its peers. Finland was among the poorest performers in indicators such as supporting the needs of internally displaced persons (nd), funding international disaster risk mitigation mechanisms (18th), respect for human rights law (19th) and support for monitoring and evaluation (nd), beneficiary involvement (1st) and equitable distribution of funding in accordance to the needs in the crisis (nd). Finland s performance in the different crises studied was slightly below the overall donor average, particularly in supporting local and government authorities coordination capacity and longer-term funding arrangements. HRI 009 results Highest scores Score* Rank** Equitable distribution of funding to different crisis countries Equitable distribution of funding against level of crisis and vulnerability Working with humanitarian partners Funding IFRC and ICRC appeals Funding to CERF and other quick disbursement mechanisms Conducting evaluations * Based on HRI ten-point scale ** Ranking in comparison to peers Lowest scores Score* Rank** Equitable distribution of funding in accordance to needs in the crisis 3.84 Prevention, risk reduction and recovery Funding local capacity Funding international disaster risk mitigation mechanisms Working with humanitarian partners Funding UN coordination mechanisms and common services Participation and support for accountability initiatives.09 17

3 Pillar 5 Pillar 4 Pillar 3 Pillar Pillar 1 Finland DAC Max Min HRI Indicator Rank Score Average DAC DAC 1 Saving lives and maintaining human dignity Neutrality and impartiality Non-discrimination Independence from non-humanitarian objectives Needs-based responses Assessing needs Funding decisions based on needs assessments Suuport not affected by other crises Beneficiary involvement Donor capacity for informed decision-making Timeliness of funding Equitable distribution of funding to different crisis countries Funding to forgotten emergencies and those with low media coverage Timeliness of funding to complex emergencies Timeliness of funding to sudden onset disasters Generosity and burden sharing Equitable distribution of funding in accordance to needs in the crisis Equitable distribution of funding against level of crisis and vulnerability Pillar Total Mainstreaming risk reduction and prevention into the response Crisis prevention and preparedness measures Strengthening local community capacity for disaster and crisis preparedness Supporting the transition between relief. early recovery and development Building local capacity to work with humanitarian actors Funding local capacity Funding international disaster risk mitigation mechanisms Pillar Total Adapting to changing needs Reliability Coordination Advocacy for local and government authorities to carry out their responsibilities Support local and government authorities' coordination capacity Respect for the roles of the different components of the humanitarian sector Conditionality that does not comprise humanitarian action Flexibility Longer-term funding arrangements Strengthening humanitarian response capacity Funding UN coordination mechanisms and common services Funding to NGOs Funding to CERF and other quick disbursement mechanisms Un-earmarked funding Funding UN Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeals Funding IFRC and ICRC Appeals Pillar Total Protection Advocacy for the respect for human rights Advocacy for the respect for and implementation of IHL Supporting needs of refugees Supporting needs of internally displaced persons Facilitating safe humanitarian access Respect for international humanitarian law Respect for human rights law Implementation of refugee law Pillar Total Accountability towards affected populations Transparency of funding and decision-making processes Evaluations of partners' programmes Support for monitoring and evaluation Use of recommendations from evaluations Promotion of good practice and quality standards Monitoring adherence to quality standards Reporting requirements for humanitarian actors Participation and support for accountability initiatives Conducting evaluations Pillar Total

4 Finland: ten main strengths Equitable distribution of funding to different crisis countries Funding IFRC and ICRC Appeals Facilitating safe humanitarian access Assessing needs Funding decisions based on needs assessments Suuport not affected by other crises Strengthening humanitarian response capacity Independence from non-humanitarian objectives Adapting to changing needs Transparency of funding and decisionmaking processes Finland Max DAC Min DAC Note: This graph compares the ten highest scored indicators for Finland compared to the highest and lowest scores in the DAC group.

5 10,00 Finland scores by pillar 9,00 8,00 7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00,00 1,00 0,00 Prevention, risk reduction and recovery Working with humanitarian partners Protection and International Law Highest donor score Finland Lowest donor score Average Note: This graph compares the average scores by pillar for Finland compared to the highest and lowest scores by pillar in the DAC group.