HRI rankings 2008

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.

Constituting the bottom of the Index are Japan, Italy, France, Austria, Portugal and Greece. 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.

Part Two: Perspectives on Good Humanitarian Donorship