Continuing our post-disaster theme after yesterday’s blog entry where Ioanna-Maria Athanasopoulous updated us on the situation in Greece four months after the forest fires, I just want to draw your attention to a new article I have just posted by German medical student Kayvan Bozorgmehr about the emergency relief effort after cylcone Sidr struck southern Bangladesh. Our Bangladeshi correspondent Mohammad Rakibul Hasan (Rakib) , has written two blog entries about the disaster, the first entry reported on events immediately after, and the next 2-3 weeks  after Cyclone Sidr.  

Kayvan was also in Bangladesh at the time of Sidr and joined the efforts of a local NGO, Gonoshasthaya Kendra, in providing emergency medical relief to the affected areas. He gives a powerful and honest account of what he witnessed and experienced, including discussing some of the problems in co-ordinating the humanitarian relief effort and providing much needed aid.

Talking of which, a wee while ago I said that I would tell you more about the humanitarian response index after its launch event a couple of weeks ago and I have copied below a Lancet editorial I wrote about it. Bye for now—Rhona

Lancet Editorial: The Humanitarian Response Index

Last week at an event in London, Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General, launched an index devised by the not-for-profit organisation Development Assistance Research Associates, which ranks 23 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation according to their effectiveness in humanitarian donorship.

According to the principles and good practice of humanitarian donorship-endorsed by all 23 countries-the objectives of humanitarian action are to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain human dignity during and in the aftermath of man-made crises and natural disasters. Central to these objectives are the ethical principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and dignity. The Humanitarian Response Index aims to make donors more accountable by ranking them according to 57 indicators that reflect these principles and are focused around five themes-responding to humanitarian needs, integrating relief and development, working with humanitarian partners, implementing international guiding principles, and promoting learning and accountability. The outcomes are based on hard data and the views of various humanitarian agencies working on the ground in eight countries.

According to the index, Sweden is the most effective donor and Greece is the least effective, but the wealth of information provided by the wide-ranging indicators allows insight into the areas in which countries could do a lot better. For example, the UK is ranked ninth and although it scores well in the amount of money given, and its speedy response to humanitarian crises, it is let down by having a poor human rights record.

Millions of vulnerable people around the world currently rely on effective humanitarian action, and the number of humanitarian crises will increase in coming years because of climate change. Therefore, it is vital to get the emergency humanitarian response right. This new index is a useful report card on donor activity but it will only be truly effective if it inspires donors to improve their humanitarian donorship record. Peer pressure alone is not enough. Individual citizens, civil society, non-governmental organisations, and politicians should use this new tool to hold their governments to account. The Lancet

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can trackback from your own site.