Dara - DONORS

Norway

Ranking: 2

Score: 5.13

Detailed information

Second overall, Norway achieves excellent rankings for the first four pillars. Norway does spectacularly well in responding to humanitarian needs, underscored by the top ranking in pillar 1. It is perceived to be doing well at providing timely funding, based on needs assessments, and for remaining committed to ongoing crises. This is backed by hard data indictors, showing Norway’s strengths in funding complex emergencies in a timely manner and providing a large share of its funding in cash. It also excels in reaching forgotten crises, but does relatively poorly at directing its funding to priority sectors identified by the CAPs for respective emergencies.

Norway is a multilateralist at heart, achieving overall second place in pillar 3. Relative to income, it is the most generous donor in funding UN coordination mechanisms and common services, and the second most generous in funding IFRC Appeals. It also shares first place for funding the CERF (representing the third most generous donor) and other quick disbursement mechanisms (fourth most generous donor), both measured relative to its income. It is also perceived by the humanitarian field to be doing well at facilitating safe humanitarian access.

It ranks third in pillar 4 for implementing the core instruments of international humanitarian law and of human rights, and supported by favourable views from the field, especially in enhancing security and protecting human rights.

Norway does not perform as well for supporting learning and accountability initiatives (pillar 5), where it achieves an overall fourteenth place, due to perceived weakness in supporting learning and accountability initiatives and encouraging regular evaluations. This is supported by the hard data showing a lack of commitment to the main humanitarian accountability initiatives as well as a lack of support to other accountability initiatives. A major weakness in this respect is that Norway does not have a comprehensive policy document that sets out its humanitarian policies. In this sense, it is less accountable, as it makes it difficult to assess how it sets its priorities for humanitarian action.