Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Peer Reviews

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD's) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) requires all its 23 members to evaluate each other's development programmes through a unique system ofPeer Reviews.  They monitor individual members' policies and efforts in the area of development co-operation.

Each member is critically examined approximately once every four years and five or six programmes are examined annually. The Peer Review is carried out by an examining team composed of representatives from two DAC members and the DAC Secretariat. Until recently emergency aid was not subject to detailed scrutiny.

In 2004, the DAC agreed to take an active role in promoting the Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) initiative and to include a broader coverage of this area in its Peer Reviews. It developed anAssessment Frameworkbased on the GHD Principles, to provide a systematic coverage of humanitarian action. Since 2004, the peer review team has included a humanitarian advisor.

In 2005, the GHD Assessment Framework was applied in reviews ofAustralia, Belgium, Germany, Norway,Sweden andSwitzerland.  A compilation of the reports for these countries was produced in English and French , and a synthesis report is also available in English and French .  Since then peer reviews have been completed for the UK, Portugal, Netherlands, the U.S. and Greece.

By November 2007 reviews will have been undertaken for Denmark,the European Community, Canada,  Spain and Finland.

Linking the monitoring of GHD with this well-established process will help to promote and embed GHD Principles and Best Practice. It will highlight both the special role of humanitarian aid and its relationship to development cooperation. It will also promote greater harmony in the procedures used to manage these areas.

Back to top

Definitions of Official Humanitarian Assistance

The DAC secretariat and the GHD implementation group are working together to improve data collection in the field of humanitarian action. The lack of a common definition of official humanitarian assistance makes targeted data collection difficult. Without the relevant data, it is very difficult to advance the aims of GHD.

A common definition of official humanitarian assistance will help to standardise and simplify monitoring, evaluation and reporting. It will lead to the collection of relevant and reliable data, and contribute to both transparency and accountability.

The current suggestion is to divide humanitarian assistance into 3 main elements: Prevention and Preparedness; Emergency Response; Recovery and Reconstruction. These elements will be subdivided into groups reflecting purpose-based divisions. Special categories will exist to define conflict situations, and emergencies that require longer term monitoring, such as the Indian Ocean Tsunami.

A definition of humanitarian aid and revised reporting directives will be presented to DAC's Working Party on Statistics in 2006.

Back to top

Global Good Humanitarian Donorship Standards and Indicators

These standards and indicators are designed to provide an annual picture of the way the international donor community (DAC members) provides humanitarian assistance. Data from 2004 will be used to establish a baseline from which benchmarks can be created for 2006. Donors are encouraged to use the indicators as a guide in creating their individual domestic strategies.

Standard 1: Donor funding is flexible and timely

Indicators:

• The proportion of donors' humanitarian funds, committed during the first quarter, to on-going complex humanitarian emergencies
• For onset natural disasters, the proportion of funding committed during the first month after the disaster is declared
• The proportion of funds earmarked at country level or above, is also taken into account.

Standard 2: Donor and Agency funding for Consolidated Appeals Processes (CAPs) and Common Humanitarian Action Plans (CHAPs) is allocated on the basis of needs assessment

Indicators:

• The number of CHAPs based on the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) needs analysis framework
• The proportion of funds committed to the priorities identified in the CHAP
• The proportion of funds committed against the five least-funded CAPs, is also considered.

Standard 3: Donors advocate for, and support, coordination mechanisms

Indicators:

• The number of donors at the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and World Food Programme (WFP) governing body meetings, subscribing to the joint statements in support of coordination mechanisms and common services
• The amount of funding to United Nations (UN) coordination mechanisms and common services.

INDICATOR NUMBER 1: DONOR FUNDING IS FLEXIBLE AND TIMELY

1A. Proportion (percentage) of donors’ core humanitarian funds committed during the first quarter of their respective fiscal year to ongoing complex emergencies.

Ratio = total donor funds committed to ongoing crises during Q1 FY total of donors’ humanitarian commitments

1B. Percent of donor funding accessible during the first month following the declaration of an onset natural disaster

Ratio = total amount committed by donors within first month total amount of donor funds committed to disaster within six / twelve months of disaster declaration

Data could be aggregated based on collective donor responses to individual declared disasters during a calendar year.

1C. Percentage change in proportion of donor funds earmarked at country level or above in financial year.

Ratio = Amount of donor funding committed at or above country level total of donors’ financial year humanitarian commitments

INDICATOR NUMBER 2: DONOR AND AGENCY FUNDING FOR CAPS AND CHAPS IS ALLOCATED ON THE BASIS OF NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

2A. Number of Common Humanitarian Action Plans based on the IASC Needs Analysis Framework.

2B. Proportion of funds committed to the priorities identified in the Common Humanitarian Action Plans.

Ratio = Amount of funding committed to CHAP priorities Total amount of funds committed to emergencies

Data can be collected on a country basis for each country with a CHAP and then aggregated.

Debate continues on 2C: Percentage change in proportion of funds committed against five least well-funded Consolidated Appeals.

(Question whether there are external factors impacting funding to these CAPs ?/Are they poorly presented, unconvincing? Are they not inclusive of all implementing partners? Is this all the same the “least bad” means of capturing equity in donor funding?)

Ratio = total donor funds committed to five least well-funded CAPs total amount requested in five least well-funded CAPs

(Is above the right measure or are we looking for a two-part formula which calculates the percent of funds to the lowest 5 against the percent of funds to CAPs overall? Perhaps measure both? Donors fund projects/partners that are at times not part of the CAP. Total humanitarian funding, both within and outside the CAP, will need to be taken into consideration.)

INDICATOR NUMBER 3: DONORS ADVOCATE FOR AND SUPPORT COORDINATION MECHANISMS

3A. Number of joint donor statements in support of coordination mechanisms delivered at each of the UNHCR, UNICEF, and WFP governing body meetings.

Number of individual donor interventions including statements in support of coordination mechanisms and common services delivered at each of the governing body meetings of UNHCR, UNICEF, and WFP.

3B. Proportion of funding to UN coordination mechanisms and common services earmarked at or below the country level.

Ratio: Amount of donor funding for UN coordination mechanisms/common services

Total amount requested by UN for coordination mechanisms/common services

Last updated: 3  August 2006

Back to top