HRI rankings 2008

The HRI 2008 ranking indicates that even the most generous donors have gaps in their humanitarian policies and practices. All donors have room for improvement. There still exists a huge difference between donors and the lowest ranked have a long way to go before they can be ranked alongside the top donors.
This year’s ranking shows that overall there are few differences in the ranking of the rated donor countries compared to 2007. Luxembourg, partly due to the adjustment to the indicators having moved up five places, shows the most change. Germany dropped four positions, mainly due to its scores in Pillars 1 to 4 in comparison to other countries. Canada’s lower ranking is partly due to lower scores regarding funding for forgotten emergencies and crises with low media coverage.

For the 2008 ranking, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Ireland and the European Commission occupy many of the top slots in all five pillars, and do better than their peers in their attempt to adhere to GHD principles. However, there is always room for improvement. The Netherlands, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom also occupy the top third of the group.

Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Finland and New Zealand are part of the mid-range group of donors, alongside Belgium, the United States and Spain.
Japan, Italy, France, Austria, Portugal and Greece are at the bottom of the Index. These countries with scores that are consistently lower than the OECD/DAC average in each of the HRI pillars for reasons such as the size of their humanitarian budgets, and their experience and capacity.
It is important to consider that a high score in any Pillar is not necessarily an indication of excellent performance, but rather shows the ranking of a donor relative to its peers.

The chart will appear within this DIV. This text will be replaced by the chart.