Donor scores: Canada

Note : Click on the GRAPH tab to see graphs for this country and to graphically compare this donor's scores with other OECD / DAC donors' scores

Canada is ranked 10th in the 2008 HRI. It ranked 4th in Pillar 5 and 13th in Pillar 1, the most important component of the HRI. A breakdown by indicators shows that Canada ranked first in the number of evaluations, third in participation in main accountability initiatives, fourth in both commitment to on-going crises and in distribution of funding relative to ECHO’s Crisis and Vulnerability Indices and fifth in implementing human rights law. It came in fourth for its commitment to ongoing crises and fifth for funding international disaster-risk mitigation mechanisms. Canada’s worst scores were 19th in supporting contingency planning and strengthening response capacity, 17th in funding needs assessments, sectoral distribution of funding through UN appeals and consistent support for implementation of humanitarian action, and 15th in commitment to accountability in humanitarian action. The perception of Canada’s performance across the 11 humanitarian crises reviewed by the HRI is remarkably close to the average score of the other donors. Its best scores, just above the average, were in questions related to donor capacity for informed decision-making and support for the role of the ICRC. However, it is slightly below the average in a number of questions, most notably relating to the reallocation of funds from one crisis to the other and the funding of needs assessments, as well as on support to implementing agencies’ contingency planning and response capacity. It also only ranked 14th for impartiality and 15th for neutrality. Overall, Canada scores well in the areas of learning and evaluations, and for linking its humanitarian assistance to longer-term recovery and disaster-risk reduction. However, an area of weakness is supporting contingency planning and building response capacity. Given its reputation in the past as a champion for international principles, its low scores for neutrality and impartiality are unexpected.

Read more

Note : To compare this donor's scores with those of other OECD / DAC donors, select country names in the box to the right
Please adjust your browser preferences and turn on Javascript to view the chart.
The chart will appear within this DIV. This text will be replaced by the chart.