Dara - DONORS

United Kingdom

Ranking: 9

Score: 4.76

Detailed information

The United Kingdom, known for its important role in promoting change and reform within the system, achieves ninth place in the Index, but does better in the hard data index, capturing many funding indicators, where is comes eight overall, than in the soft data index, which reflects the views of the humanitarian field that put it in thirteenth place. Across the whole range of indicators, it is among the top five in just under a quarter of the indicators. The UK’s strengths lie in the pillars working with humanitarian partners and promoting learning and accountability, where it ranks fourth in both instances.

In pillar 3, it is perceived to be doing well at providing predictable funding and at having introduced longer-term funding arrangements, as well as at facilitating safe humanitarian access and supporting contingency planning and capacity building efforts. These achievements are backed to some degree by the hard data, giving the UK a high ranking for the predictability of donor funding. The UK also stands out for its very generous funding to the main quick disbursement mechanisms (some US$155 million or 55 percent of the total contributed by all OECD/DAC countries), coming in joint first place and representing the third most generous donor relative to income, and for its support to UNDAC. Despite its key role in promoting the CERF, the UK falls just short of receiving a top-five rank for the CERF indicator, mainly because, relative to its income, it comes seventh for this indicator, despite having given by far the largest absolute contribution (US$69 million in 2006).

Other strengths are in pillar 5, supporting learning and accountability initiatives where it is ranked fourth for supporting learning and accountability initiatives, and also comes fourth in both indicators measuring membership, attendance at and funding of the main accountability initiatives, and the number of joint and individual evaluations it undertakes.

Weaknesses are concentrated in pillars 1 and 4, supported in equal measure by hard and soft data. In eighteenth place, the UK achieves its lowest pillar ranking for pillar 3 mainly because it has not implemented as many core legal instruments related to IHL and human rights as have other peer countries. However, the view from the field is also fairly critical in its assessment of the UK, leaving it with low ranks for such politically-charged indicators as enhancing security, protecting human rights, or affirming the primary role of civilian organizations.

Its performance in pillar 1 is mixed. Behind its eleventh place for this pillar lie some positive achievements, notably in the timeliness of its funding to complex emergencies, and in the concentration of its funding to identify needs, both to priority sectors identified within the CAPs, as well as relative to ECHO's Vulnerability Index. However, it does rather less well by favoring countries with which it shares historical ties or that are within its relative geographical proximity when disbursing its humanitarian aid. Also, the soft data unequivocally takes a negative view of the UK’s commitment to the basic principles of humanitarian action, including the alleviation of suffering, impartiality, neutrality, and independence.