The United States ranked 14th this year, up one position from 2008. It received its highest ranking in Pillar 1 (Responding to needs) at 9th place, an improvement of six positions from 2008. It ranked 15th in both Pillar 3 (Working with humanitarian partners) and in Pillar 5 (Learning and accountability), and 18th in Pillar 3 (Working with humanitarian partners). Its lowest ranking was in Pillar 4 (Protection and International Law), ranking 22nd out of the 23 donors. The US ranked 13th for generosity and burden sharing.
In the specific indicators of the HRI, some of the US’ best and worst rankings were within Pillar 1, with a 1st place ranking for funding to forgotten emergencies and those with low media coverage, and for equitable distribution of funding against level of crisis and vulnerability, 2nd for timely funding of sudden onset disasters, 3rd for donor capacity for informed decision-making and 4th for beneficiary involvement. In contrast, the US was 19th for neutrality and impartiality, 20th for non-discrimination and 22nd for independence from non-humanitarian objectives. Other notable poor rankings were related to international laws; it ranked 20th in implementing refugee law, 21st for international humanitarian law and 22nd for international human rights law. It also ranked poorly for conditionality that does not comprise humanitarian action (19th), funding to CERF and other quick disbursement mechanisms (22nd), and un-earmarked funding (23rd). On the positive side, the US ranked well for adapting to changing needs (1st), promotion of good practice and quality standards and monitoring adherence to quality standards evaluations of partners programmes (3rd).
Overall, the US performed slightly below the donor average in the crises studied, with above average scores in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad and Somalia, and below average scores in Myanmar, Afghanistan, Georgia, Sri Lanka and the occupied Palestinian Territories.
Share this