Dara - DONORS

Sweden

Ranking: 1

Score: 5.37

Detailed information

Sweden is the top-ranking donor in the Humanitarian Response Index (HRI) 2007. In the first pillar, Sweden’s strong showing comes from a distribution of funding that is more focused on forgotten emergencies and on those sectors that typically receive low-profile media coverage than any other donor. This focus on forgotten emergencies appears to rest, at least in part, on its informal policy to fund all UN Consolidated Appeals unless these are already well-funded. Equally, Sweden excels in providing the vast majority of its humanitarian assistance in the form of cash and in responding in a timely manner to complex emergencies. Its commitment to the basic principles of humanitarian action is anchored in its humanitarian aid policy, which is strongly GHD in character. In this pillar, however, Sweden’s performance also suffers from some mediocre results, suggesting that its funding within the UN Appeals could be better focused on Appeal priority sectors and that its response to onset disasters is not timely enough, as only 42 percent of its funding committed or disbursed within the first month after the onset date.

In the third pillar, Sweden unambiguously establishes itself as the foremost multilateralist in humanitarian action. Sweden surpasses all other donors in supporting and facilitating coordination efforts and in its ability to support the implementation of humanitarian action at short notice. Sweden relies on a network of regional humanitarian coordinators to assess needs, and monitor and follow up on its humanitarian aid portfolio. This includes close interaction with OCHA. Sweden’s rankings show that it has thrown its full weight behind the UN and the International Red Cross Movement, proving to be among the most generous donors, relative to its income. It receives top marks for funding UN coordination mechanisms and common services, the CERF, the UN, IFRC, and ICRC Appeals, and other quick disbursement mechanisms (including to pooled funds in Sudan and DRC) and for its support to UNDAC. Sweden stands out for providing predictable funding to its multilateral partners and provides multi-year funding arrangements that can be obtained up to three years in advance, subject to annual parliamentary approval. A select number of Swedish NGOs also have access to rapid-response funds for contingencies.

Its multilateralist credentials are further boosted by its top performance in the fourth pillar, based on its excellent record in implementing the core instruments of international humanitarian law and of human rights. Promotion and respect for IHL, refugee, and human rights law are all anchored in its humanitarian policy statement. Sweden stands out for its engagement in risk mitigation, enhancing security, protecting human rights, and affirming the primary role of civilian organizations in the delivery of humanitarian aid. In addition, there is a strict limit on the funding that can be channeled to projects implemented by the military.

The results for Sweden also point to some weaker areas, notably in pillar 2. Here, it does not perform as well in supporting long-term development goals, in consulting beneficiaries on design and implementation, monitoring and evaluation, or in strengthening the resilience to cope with crises.