1 | P a g e

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS FACILITY FOR ASIA AND PACIFIC

Better Data, Better Aid? Practical Guidance Note on Aid Information Management Systems Draft Review Version 2f : 26 January 2009 Prepared by Aasmund Andersen

Contents A. Introduction ___________________________________________________ 3

A1. What is the purpose of this note? ______________________________________________________ 3 A2. Who is this note intended for? ________________________________________________________ 3 A3. How is this note organized? ___________________________________________________________ 3

B. Core Information on AIMS _______________________________________ 4 B1. What is an Aid Information Management System? ________________________________________ 4 B2. Why is an AIMS needed, and how do I know it will help the government and stakeholders? ______ 4 B3. What are the top-ten things that determine whether AIMS succeed or fail? ____________________ 4 B4. Who are the users of an AIMS and how could they benefit from it? __________________________ 5 B5. What are the key steps in designing and implementing an AIMS? ____________________________ 5 B6. What are the main policy, capacity and technical requirements for an AIMS? __________________ 6 B7. We have a Public Financial Management Information System. Do I still need an AIMS? __________ 6 B8. How can an AIMS help me in implementing the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action? ___ 6 B9. What choices of AIMS systems do I have, and how much does it cost? What sort of capacity

development support do I need? ______________________________________________________ 6 B10. How will the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) help? ___________________________ 7

C. Designing an AIMS ______________________________________________ 8 C1. Needs Assessment for AIMS __________________________________________________________ 8

C1.2 Why do I need to conduct a needs assessment before designing and implementing an AIMS? _ 8 C1.3 How do I conduct a needs assessment? ____________________________________________ 8 C1.4 Agreeing on AIMS objectives and criteria for success _________________________________10 C1.5 Avoiding early mistakes: How do I know I am on the right track? ________________________11

C2. Policy Requirements________________________________________________________________ 12 C2.1 What sort of political support is needed for an AIMS to be successful? ___________________13 C2.2 What policies or legislation is needed to underpin an AIMS? ___________________________13

C3. Capacity Requirements _____________________________________________________________ 13 C3.1 What kinds of capacities are needed for an AIMS to be successful?______________________13 C3.2 How do I conduct a Capacity Assessment and prepare a Capacity Development Strategy? ___14 * Quarterly reporting is recommended and also allows alignment with various fiscal calendars. The

reporting schedule must however, be determined based on country needs and in conjunction with the national budget process. ________________________________________________14

C3.3 AIMS Management Functions ___________________________________________________14 C3.4 What kind of internet connectivity, network, or computers do I need? ___________________15

C4. What Can I Do While Waiting For AIMS? _______________________________________________ 16 C4.1 What data should AIMS manage? ________________________________________________16 C4.2 What Data Standards and classifications should I use? ________________________________17

C5. Choosing an AIMS __________________________________________________________________ 17 C5.1 Can we make our own system? __________________________________________________18 C5.2 What should we do if we already have an AIMS system? ______________________________18 C5.3 What sort of problems have occurred with AIMS systems? ____________________________18 C5.4 Table showing the different functionalities of each of the main providers, and providing links to

all known providers. ___________________________________________________________19 C5.5 How do I procure an AIMS? What are the pros and cons of government vs. development

partner procurement? _________________________________________________________19

2 | P a g e

C6. How can IATI Help? ________________________________________________________________ 19 C6.1 What is the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI)? ___________________________19 C6.2 Can IATI standards and the code of conduct support me in designing and implementing an

AIMS? ______________________________________________________________________20 C6.3 How can I get involved in IATI? __________________________________________________20

D. Implementing an AIMS _________________________________________ 20 D1. Roll-out and Implementation Strategy for AIMS _________________________________________ 21

D1.1 Who are my stakeholders? How and when do I involve them? _________________________21 D1.2 How can I ensure comprehensive data is reported on time? ___________________________22

D2. The AIMS data management process __________________________________________________ 22 D2.1 What is the best process for data validation and quality control? _______________________23 D2.2 How do I prepare a Data Management Plan? _______________________________________24 D2.3 Government request for AIMS reporting and reporting guidelines ______________________25 D2.4 Data on NGO and contractor activities ____________________________________________25

D3. Creating reports and Analysis that make a difference _____________________________________ 25 D3.1 How can we ensure better data = better and more accountable aid? ____________________25 D3.2 Aid Effectiveness and Paris Indicator Reports _______________________________________26 D3.3 Development Cooperation Reports _______________________________________________26 D3.2 MTEF and the national budget process ____________________________________________26 D3.2 Monitoring of National Plans ____________________________________________________26 D3.4 Information supporting Better Coordination ________________________________________27

D4. Using AIMS to promote Accountability and Transparency _________________________________ 27 D4.1 What promotes transparency? ____________________________________________________27 D4.2 What promotes Accountability? ___________________________________________________28

D5. Linking to other Government Systems and Processes _____________________________________ 28 D5.1 Why is it important to link AIMS to other government systems and processes? ____________28 D5.2 How can linkages between AIMS and Public Financial Management Systems strengthen aid

effectiveness and accountability? ________________________________________________29 D5.3 How can AIMS support the aid coordination mechanisms? ____________________________29 D5.4 How can AIMS support Managing for Development Results? ___________________________29

D6. Using AIMS to support implementation of Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action _______ 30 D7. Ensuring Benefits for all Stakeholders __________________________________________________ 30

D7.1 How can parliamentarians use AIMS to strengthen oversight, accountability and aid/development effectiveness? _________________________________________________30

D7.2 How can civil society use AIMS to enhance their service delivery, watchdog and advocacy roles? ___________________________________________________________________________30

D7.3 How can development partners be kept engaged? ___________________________________30 D8. Implementing an AIMS as part of a humanitarian or post-conflict response ___________________ 31 D9. Ensuring the Sustainability of AIMS ___________________________________________________ 31

D9.1 Operational Sustainability ______________________________________________________32 D9.2 System Technical Sustainability __________________________________________________32

E. Evaluating AIMS Impact ________________________________________ 32 E1. User Surveys and Structured Feedback Mechanisms ______________________________________ 33

E1.1 Templates for user surveys and analysis ___________________________________________33 E2. When is AIMS successful? ___________________________________________________________ 33

E2.1 Criteria for a government-embedded AIMS ________________________________________33 E2.2 How do I turn around a failing AIMS? _____________________________________________34

F. Where can I Go for Help? _______________________________________ 34 F1. IATI _____________________________________________________________________________ 34 F2. Capacity Development for Development Effectiveness (CDDE) Facility _______________________ 34 F3. Development Partners ______________________________________________________________ 34 F5. Opportunities to learn from peers ____________________________________________________ 34 F4. System providers __________________________________________________________________ 34

G. Appendices __________________________________________________ 35

3 | P a g e

H. Additional Online Resources _____________________________________ 35

Annex 1: References ______________________________________________ 36

Annex 2: Technical Feature Comparison of Common AIMS _______________ 36

Annex 3: Impact Evaluation Survey Forms _____________________________ 38

Annex 3: Minimum Technical Specifications ___________________________ 43

A. Introduction

A1. What is the purpose of this note? To provide practical guidance to policy-makers and practitioners who are involved in developing an Aid Information Management System (AIMS), implementing it, or using it. To support countries in institutionalizing these systems and building their capacities so that AIMS can provide long-term sustainable benefits. This note was prepared at the request of partner countries and with financial support from the Capacity Development for Development Effectiveness (CDDE) Facility (www.AidEffectiveness.org/CDDE). It has benefitted from a peer review process in which many policy makers and practitioners from around the globe have provided ideas, suggestions, and examples. It is a living note, and your continued suggestions for updates, improvements or additional examples will be invaluable. Please send your suggestions to cdde@aideffectiveness.org.

A2. Who is this note intended for? This note is intended for development practitioners and government officials, with interests and responsibilities related to the implementation of AIMS. This may include: Ministries of Finance, Planning, aid coordination agencies or any other agency responsible for

developing, managing and promoting an AIMS. Line Ministries who use AIMS data for sector planning, budgeting, monitoring, accountability. Parliamentarians who rely on AIMS data and related analyses to fulfill their oversight and

accountability role. Development partners: who are required to report to AIMS; rely on its information to better

plan, implement and monitor impact of their assistance; can use it to make the case for aid back home.

Other stakeholders of aid effectiveness and accountability may also benefit; Civil society organizations: service delivery NGOs who need AIMS data to plan their

programmes to complement others; watchdogs that seek to reduce waste, reduce corruption and promote results; advocacy NGOs who seek to hold governments and donors to account.

Local Government who can use AIMS data for planning and AIMS for monitoring results Academics, researchers, journalists, citizens: who seek good access to AIMS data to contribute

to policy and promote accountable and effective aid.

A3. How is this note organized? This text forms the core guidance note which can be printed out and used as a reference document. However, the online version will contain links to additional examples and reference materials and can be accessed at www.AidEffectiveness.org/AIMS.

4 | P a g e

B. Core Information on AIMS

This section contains brief summary points of all the major aspects of AIMS.

B1. What is an Aid Information Management System? Aid Information Management Systems (AIMS) are software applications that record and processes information about development activities and related aid flows in a given country. AIMS are designed to assist developing countries in managing their aid flows. AIMS bring together project-level information on commitments and disbursements, and may also include information on aid-financed expenditures, activities and results. This information can be aggregated to generate overall figures on aid flows, or broken down by sector or geographic area. AIMS help developing countries to incorporate aid flows onto their national budgets and improve the overall alignment of assistance with country priorities. They are usually web-based systems that rely on development partners to enter data on their assistance. The systems are therefore dependent upon institutional mechanisms to encourage regular and accurate data entry.

B2. Why is an AIMS needed, and how do I know it will help the government and stakeholders?

Most governments receiving aid experience difficulties maintaining detailed consolidated information of what has been received and what is planned for future allocations. The most common way of report and manage consolidated financial information of aid is by using Excel Spreadsheets. This is in fact, the most commonly used AIMS throughout recipient governments, and with a well managed reporting process and good spreadsheet skills it may in some cases still be the best and most practical solution. Spreadsheets is the starting point for all AIMS reporting, and those governments who master aid reporting in Excel are also those who most effectively will master AIMS. On the other hand, those governments who never mastered using excel for aid reporting also find it very challenging to take on AIMS. The best approach to implement AIMS is to prove the workflow and reporting process in Excel first, then migrate to AIMS. Most often an excel spreadsheet file is circulated among government and development partners, being updated with commitments and disbursements for the previous, current and next government fiscal years. This may be sufficient and works well for specific purposes, and is always the starting point for aid management. Over time, whoever, the excel spreadsheet grows more and more complex as it captures historical data. Handling of currency exchange rates also makes it a tedious task to keep updated. It is not impossible, but there are a range of limitations that usually inhibit the efficiency and accuracy of recipient governments to account for aid. Producing reports are also a challenging manual job, and the limitations of line-by-line data minimize the reporting and data storing possibilities. An Excel-based process may over time become a hindrance for planning better allocations of aid, and to allow broader sharing of information. AIMS support should be considered when a government has some capacity for aid management and shows interest and initiative in improving the way they account and plan development assistance. AIMS is an investment in accountability, and is usually planned as a capacity development project in the medium-long term.

B3. What are the top-ten things that determine whether AIMS succeed or fail?

The AIMS system should not be considered a purpose in itself; it is the process around it that is the most important. The countries that have a good process around aid reporting and planning implement AIMS

5 | P a g e

fast and generate positive impact with it. A government without any previous work processes on aid reporting, needs to establish these first. Solving a Capacity Challenge; AIMS support should be (1) process-focused. It is crucial to clearly define some (2) measurable objectives describing the purpose of AIMS. Merely improving coordination is not a sufficient AIMS objective. AIMS must (3) solve a technical challenge for a government administration; such as improving forecasting for the national budget or producing an annual ODA report to parliament. The technical focus will also support a government institution to better realize its mandate, which generates (4) institutional ownership. Ownership should primarily be built on solving an institutional challenge, not from international pressure. Improving Organizational Workflow; For development partners to use AIMS, it is important that data reporting is based on a (5) consolidated government data request Other government institutions in need of data should use AIMS, and development partners should not receive multiple data requests. Donor agencies not complying with the request should be monitored and their (6) non-compliance published to create the right incentives. All data should be (7) validated by government in order to ensure government ownership, accuracy and alignment with government planning process. Non-validated data should not be used, as it may conflict with official government data reports. Making Sustainable Impact; AIMS must (8) generate outputs in the form of validated official reports on development assistance. AIMS usage and (9) impact should be continuously evaluated through user feedback. In order to have a sustainable long-term capacity development effect, AIMS should be (10) managed by government civil servants.

B4. Who are the users of an AIMS and how could they benefit from it? The primary users of AIMS are key government staff in central ministries, who are responsible for coordinating and reporting of aid, and planning aid in relation to the national budget or national plans. The secondary users are those responsible for reporting the data required; this includes development partners and sometimes line ministries. These agencies will appoint a focal point, who will be the user responsible for reporting for that agency. In cases where connection to the AIMS is not possible, secondary users can also report data on excel templates following the AIMS data request structure. Development partners also find AIMS useful for information sharing and coordination purposes. They can see all activities undertaken by other agencies, and get a detailed overview of aid within their sector. Finally, other government agencies, parliament, civil society and the public will benefit from AIMS outputs, and may have access to the system to research and analyze the aid information.

B5. What are the key steps in designing and implementing an AIMS? AIMS implementation starts with an independent needs assessment. The needs assessment considers the strategic, institutional and capacity aspects of AIMS implementation, and makes important recommendations for how the AIMS support is designed. This is often conducted by one or two consultants during two weeks in-country, and delivers a stakeholder consultation presentation meeting and an assessment report. When the AIMS support project is initiated, the technical requirements and specifications will be used to identify and procure an AIMS system. It is important to distinguish between system costs (software, software training, infrastructure) and capacity development support (consultancy support, advisory services). While the system costs could be planned as a one-time investment, capacity development support must be planned in the medium-term (2-3 years).

6 | P a g e

Even before the AIMS system is available, the data management and reporting process between development partners and the government can be improved. The reporting format can be circulated to development partners in Excel. When the AIMS system is in place, the respective government desk officers can enter the reported data, then gradually development partners can start reporting electronically through AIMS. Most AIMS suppliers will conduct their own technical assessment, once they are contracted to deliver the system.

B6. What are the main policy, capacity and technical requirements for an AIMS?

The key requirement for embarking on an AIMS project is that the government receives significant amounts of aid from various sources and has some capacity for managing aid. The government needs to have identified aid management as a challenge and shown interest in expanding this capacity to better manage aid. Often this capacity exists in relation to national planning or the national budget process. When building new units, for example aid coordination units, it is important to remember that short-term consultants may not generate long-term capacity development results. It is preferable to build on departments in permanent central ministries with a mandate responsible for national plans or the national budget. AIMS should be related to national plans and the process of resource allocation, including the national budget. This is better achieved with an aid policy in place. AIMS may then become an effective instrument to implement and monitor the policy. An Aid Policy may generate the commitments and interests of all parties to partake and adhere to the introduction of a new reporting process. Most government institutions have, by now, an internal computer network and some sort of server room or network which an IT unit is responsible for. For AIMS implementation it is important that the capacity to manage the internal network is sound. Otherwise AIMS may also be hosted out-of-country.

B7. We have a Public Financial Management Information System. Do I still need an AIMS? AIMS are not complete public financial management systems (PFMS). Rather AIMS provide an interface between the recipients’ PFMS and information stored in donor systems. They allow for harmonised reporting of aid provided or planned and for reporting back to donors on how the funds have been used. They are thus a tool of mutual accountability with the potential to increase the predictability of aid and to reduce administrative burdens for recipients and donors alike.

B8. How can an AIMS help me in implementing the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action?

Some countries have made aid policies and country-based Aid Effectiveness declarations similar to the Paris Declaration. These are very helpful instruments that can be further supported by AIMS. Paris declaration monitoring indicators can for example be reported through AIMS, and the reports required automatically produced. This may also allow Paris monitoring on a more continuous basis, rather than as a bi-annual exercise. This enables governments to include Paris indicator analysis in Annual ODA reports, and give attention to progress made in accordance with the Paris Declaration.

B9. What choices of AIMS systems do I have, and how much does it cost? What sort of capacity development support do I need?

There are currently three widely known AIMS systems; the Aid Management Platform, The Development Assistance Database (DAD) and the Cambodia ODA Database. There are other relevant

7 | P a g e

home-grown systems used in the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Mongolia. Several additional consultancies and IT companies have made bids to supply AIMS, but have yet to implement one. The limitations for other suppliers to enter this market has been that AIMS evolved from an experimental phase to the current stage where technical specifications can be made based on proven technology and results. It is therefore expected that new actors may enter the supply market, generating further innovations and results. To encourage the development and evolution of better products, it is important that AIMS is acquired through a competitive procurement process. The costs of implementing AIMS systems are sometimes difficult to compare, since they are provided under different terms and for different country environments and needs. In general, it is the capacity development efforts that are most expensive, not the systems as such. For AIMS to be successful, medium-long term capacity development support must be planned for. The Cambodian ODA Database system is available for free. However, there is no organization or company providing technical support for this system (other than some initial guidance from the Government of Cambodia and their UNDP counterparts). To utilize the system therefore requires both technical expertise and capacity development support. The Development Assistance Database (DAD) system is provided by a private company (Synergy Ltd) on a commercial basis, with technical support on an annual basis. Additional capacity development support is required. The AMP system is provided by a non-profit organization (Development Gateway), with both 2-3 years technical support and capacity development support. These contracts may not require much additional capacity development support. Most AIMS contracts are part of donor-funded projects seeking to improve aid effectiveness and public financial management. The AMP contracts tend to be the most expensive, depending on the environment the contracts range from USD 0.5 mill up to USD 1 mill over three years. The DAD systems are usually procured through a 1 year contract at around USD 150.000, but with limited in-country consultancy days and follow-on support (extra days are billed at USD 1,000/day). The Cambodian system is offered for free from the Cambodian government, but costs of adaptation and deployment must be met locally. Note that these are estimates based on recent experience only, and needs to be confirmed with suppliers based on the country context. Whatever system is chosen, a rule of thumb should be that around USD 200,000 per annum is made available for 2-3 years, combining system costs and capacity development costs. Larger government institutions and ODA volume may require more effort and a higher budget.

B10. How will the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) help? Many of the limitations of AIMS stem from limitations in the internal information management systems of development partner agencies. Embassy and country office staff experience great difficulties getting reports out of their internal systems which provide the data government is asking for. The IATI initiative has started a process of ensuring commitment to a standard for how aid data and information are published to the public. Such a standard will contribute to make it easier for DPs to comply with government requests, and improve the quality and timeliness of data reported to AIMS. There will always be country-specific data that a government will need which is not part of the standard, and require the judgment of donor focal points to provide. Therefore it is important to note that having a standard does not excuse the DPs from providing the information governments need.

8 | P a g e

C. Designing an AIMS When a government has expressed interest in implementing AIMS, it is advised to conduct a needs assessment, in order to understand how AIMS would be helpful in the country environment. The assessment will also define what project support is needed to make AIMS successful, and help with procuring the system and services required.

C1. Needs Assessment for AIMS A needs assessment is required to identify the right environment for AIMS. It is often done by independent consultants, or a team of specialists from stakeholder organizations. Country offices often face a dilemma when recruiting consultants for an AIMS needs assessment. There are relatively few available consultants for this work, and sometimes the assessment is undertaken by companies or organizations that are suppliers of AIMS solutions. This may jeopardize the neutrality of the assessment and the subsequent procurement process, where the same consultants may bid for the contract. An alternative is to compose a team, which suppliers’ specialists are invited to join on a non-pay basis. Suppliers may also be invited to present their proposed solution to the stakeholders during the assessment. It is also recommended that the government team travels to other countries in the region using the systems. Exchange visits and discussions between fellow government staff in the region has been proven hugely beneficial, strengthening knowledge networks of learning and sharing experiences and practices.

C1.2 Why do I need to conduct a needs assessment before designing and implementing an AIMS?

The AIMS implementation will be based on the findings of the assessment, and its success is determined by how well the assessment managed to interpret and analyse the most sustainable and efficient way of implementing AIMS. The quality of the assessment will therefore only appear clearly when implementation begins. By that time it may already be too late to make major strategic changes. It is therefore important that the assessment recommendations are scrutinized by as much critical discussion as possible, to ascertain that the best solutions are being sought within the possibilities available.

The objective of a needs assessment is: An AIMS implementation that is based on a sound understanding of the institutional structures

and key political, bureaucratic, and strategic processes evolving around utilization of ODA in country.

Recommendations for how to institutionally position the AIMS for successful and sustainable implementation.

Develop the technical specifications for procurement, required in order to facilitate RFP and identify the most suitable system.

C1.3 How do I conduct a needs assessment? A needs assessment usually takes place over 1-2 weeks. Usually 1-3 consultants are recruited to undertake the assessment. Before this is done, a working group responsible for AIMS should be in place, and mandated to guide the consultants. Many countries already have relevant working groups that can be used for this purpose.

9 | P a g e

The assessment should start with a focus on government capacities and ODA work processes, then consult key development partners to incorporate their perspectives. Towards the end of the assessment, the assessment team should present their tentative recommendation and discussion points to a broad stakeholder meeting including both government and development partners. It is preferable if this meeting also includes a representative of parliament and civil society. The assessment can be divided into two parts. A policy-related part can focus on strategic and institutional considerations, including other government systems in use. The second part can focus on AIMS objectives, capacity development needs, ICT infrastructure and considerations of risks and success indicators. An outline of the relevant aspects of AIMS that the needs assessment should include:

1. Strategic Considerations (what are the broad objectives of government, international community and the ODA flow)

a. National strategies (strategic plans that is / should be enforced by government) b. Sub-national strategies (sub-national / decentralisation plans that is / should be

enforced by government) c. International strategic interests (position of international actors and their influence on

government policies through alignment or pressure) d. Aid effectiveness considerations towards government accountability and donor

alignment and harmonization (where we are on the Paris Declaration agenda, predictions of trends that need to be supported)

2. Institutional considerations (broad setup of government institutions and donor / implementing

agencies) e. Identifying the AIMS Managing Institution (where is AIMS suggested to be located /

managed by and for what reasons, considering options) f. Engaging user government institutions (which gov institutions will use AIMS, for what

and considering their ownership, buy-in and interests / mandate) g. Identifying and engaging the coordination mechanism and sector / area lead agencies

(considering the role of agencies in-country and in particular leading agencies within sectors / cluster areas)

h. Assess and describe current practices and aid reporting work flow, for which AIMS can improve and build on. Identify discrepancies between justified process on paper and actual realities.

3. Other systems (existing systems and data flow, migration of data, linkages of AIMS with other

systems) i. Identify existing aid management systems, and flow of information associated.

Understand limits and problems associated. Assess needs for data migration from these systems. Propose improvements to information flow.

j. Identify existing financial/budgetary/debt management systems. Study possible linkages of AIMS with these systems.

4. AIMS Objectives (what strategic interests are AIMS supporting)

k. National strategic objectives (which national plans are AIMS monitoring and supporting the implementation of)

l. Objectives for managing institution (what mandate and administrative regulations is AIMS supporting to enforce more efficiently)

m. Objectives for user agencies (what interests are AIMS supporting and facilitating for user agencies)

10 | P a g e

5. ICT Infrastructure Readiness (technical capacity required for successful implementation) n. Computer infrastructure at AIMS managing institution o. ICT Infrastructure for user institutions

i. Government institutions ii. Donor / Implementing Agencies

6. Capacity Development Needs (overall capacity development requirements and how the AIMS

support fits into related efforts of other agencies) p. Training and support (capacity development support within scope and commitments) q. Other capacity development support (other capacity development needs and how does

needs are met by other agencies, projects or other arrangements)

7. Technical / Customization Requirements (overall process and functionality requirements) r. Technical Specifications (describe key workflow components required) s. Future needs

8. External factors and Risks (list specific risks and what should be done to minimize risks, and

factors external to government and stakeholder’s control that may lead to unsuccessful implementation)

9. Measurable Indicators of Success and impact evaluation

10. Concept Note and management approval (including suggested implementation schedule, cost

estimates, management arrangements and maintenance responsibilities)

C1.4 Agreeing on AIMS objectives and criteria for success One of the lessons learned from AIMS implementations is that they have often been implemented without clear objectives. AIMS needs specific objectives and an institutional purpose in order to generate sustainable impact. Broad and un-measurable objectives, such as providing transparency of project funds, are not enough. The following are some key elements; a) The AIMS must be implemented in an environment in which it supports both national strategic objectives as well as objectives in relation to the mandates of the government institutions it involves. This must be spelt out and agreed upon by the parties concerned during the assessment phase. The purpose of AIMS should be included in policies and directives. It is important to have acceptance for AIMS as an instrument to achieve certain strategic objectives and enforce related policies and regulations. It is essential that the assessment identifies such objectives, and gets commitments and clarity from government on which broader objectives AIMS is supposed to support. Customization of AIMS will then prioritize these objectives. Ideally there is a National Development Plan or PRSP with clear indicators to be monitored, and a donor conference to request funding to its implementation. The assessment will gauge and seek acceptance for AIMS as a tool for monitoring the incoming funding in relation to the national plan, and monitor its concerted outputs. Predictability of on-budget support is crucial for the national budget process, and AIMS should support the government in ascertaining the future external resource envelope. c) Complimenting the national plan objectives, AIMS should always have objectives for its managing institution, and/or the key user institutions. It is essential that AIMS supports its managing institution to enforce its own mandate and strengthen its work processes. If AIMS is implemented outside the mainstream of an institution, it may not be sustainable and may eventually be sidetracked.

11 | P a g e

The more government institutions that have starting using AIMS as a data collection, information lookup and reporting tool, the more internal pressure exists within government to expand its usage and to put resources into its maintenance and development. As a minimum, the needs assessment should address: The role of AIMS in the national strategic framework, and gauge the acceptance and

commitments from government to utilize AIMS for this purpose. How AIMS can support the resource allocation process of the national budget. How AIMS can support the mandate-enforcement and practices of its managing institutions,

and assess commitments towards using AIMS for these internal purposes. The readiness of key development partners in using AIMS to report their project portfolio to

government. Risks and measurable indicators of success, specifying clear outputs.

Based on the objectives formulated, the assessment should describe the required technical workflow requirements for AIMS, and this should be included as specifications in the procurement and contracting process.

C1.5 Avoiding early mistakes: How do I know I am on the right track? Some of the most crucial decisions for AIMS implementation are considered, discussed and decided at the time of the needs assessment. A key decision is which institution should be the custodian, or manager, of the AIMS system and process. This particular decision tends to remain permanent and very difficult to change, even if the project is failing. a) The lessons learnt in this respect are: Institutions are not as permanent as often assumed. A year or two in a turbulent political

process may lead to ministries splitting up or merging, authority structures to be established or discontinued, and in particular presidential / prime minister commissions or temporary offices to be shut down or paralyzed by an un-favorable political environment.

Dependence on one or two charismatic persons for longer than the initial period is a risk; institutionalize the system at a technical level quickly. Even though change is often initiated by a few highly motivated and dynamic persons, and a high-level champion is necessary in the induction phase, the project runs a risk depending on them for longer than months: high level individuals may step down or be removed from office, and donor agencies rotate their staff often.

Be wary of personal and institutional ambitions that are questionable and perhaps going further than their respective institutional mandates. Power-play between institutions often leads some to take on responsibilities outside their mandate for a temporary time period. It is essential that the assessments look at the legal mandates and regulations of institutions. The assessment should be based on information and consultations with staff from all relevant institutions, not only from the one institution that has been recommended for the assessment team.

Consider the institutional setup in the medium-term future, not the current one. Governments are often in a process of change, with major capacity development projects ongoing, building and reforming capacity in new places. Take account of the changing institutional landscape and support other capacity development efforts, and ensure other efforts are not undermined.

b) As development partners will be prime users of AIMS, the assessment should investigate how it supports their interests, and how it will be accepted as a reporting tool for them. Often different government institutions issue multiple and overlapping requests for project portfolio data, and thus development partners are reluctant to have yet another set of reporting obligations. Government requests for data are most successful if government commits to centralize the data request, so that the AIMS data reporting is the only consolidated mechanism for development partner reports. It is essential that AIMS facilitates a “one-stop-shop” type of reporting policy, and shares all agency reported data

12 | P a g e

with the relevant government institutions. Development agencies will see the value in this, although they may still need directives and incentives. . It is the responsibility of the managing institution to make clear to the agencies that AIMS is now the place, and that non-compliance hampers national planning and execution, and therefore reflects badly on the respective agency. It is helpful if the required process is described in national policies and strategies, which will increase commitment and peer pressure. A critical decision is what definitions and data classifications to use. For government institutions to sustainably adopt AIMS for serving their own purpose, AIMS must be based on government classifications and definitions. AIMS reporting processes that are based on donor agency classification and project definitions may be easier to implement, but it makes it hard for government to make use of its data. An AIMS project will most probably fail if the data reported and, managed in the system is unusable for the government. The two critical decisions described above can lead to project failure. Imagine the following hypothetical example;

The above example is based on experience with some AIMS implementations, in particular in a humanitarian context. The managing institution identified for AIMS may not be permanent and the process of reporting aid may not be based on what the government really needs in the long-term. It should be noted however that some inter-ministerial bodies may be a practical solution, and in particular it may work if made up of permanent civil servants and not temporary project staff. If the setup is temporary or medium-term, there should preferably be a clear long-term solution which does not create ambiguity or conflict when transitioning.

C2. Policy Requirements The assessment should consider the overall strategic documents that give guidance to where and how aid is spent. Strategies always entail a responsibility of reporting how resources are allocated to the strategic objectives. Various government institutions or development partners can have different reporting responsibilities on one or many national strategies, and AIMS should seek to support their mandates and reporting obligations. The assessment should consider the pillars and/or strategic objectives of relevant national plans, and consider how AIMS can help monitor resource allocation and results for those objectives. AIMS should also help align to international development processes such as the Paris Declaration Monitoring Indicators. A weakness in many strategic documents is that their indicators are not measurable and difficult to monitor in a quantitative manner. Indicator progress data may not be available or of poor quality. Sometimes strategies have not defined explicit indicators, but indicators may be ‘read out’ of the strategy. In addition to defining how AIMS may monitor resource allocation, the assessment should also consider the quality of the progress indicators and how AIMS can support results monitoring.

Scenario Example; AIMS is implemented following an emergency, under a recently established coordination office under the Prime Minister’s office. As donors pledge funds for reconstruction, government unveils a reporting mechanism with AIMS that will allow them to show their funds to the public. Two years later, and after the attention on the emergency is gone, the Prime Minister decides to close the office and merge its activities with the Ministry of Finance. Only a very few officers are moved over to the ministry, together with the AIMS system. However, there are no longer any reconstruction funds pledged, only regular development funds. The ministry has all along had their own way of reporting for aid received on-budget and in relation to the national development plan. The idea of using the AIMS is dismissed because the dataset is reported based on how donors define their projects and with financial figures from donors’ internal accounting systems. It simply does not adhere to the ministry’s requirements and work processes, and is therefore eventually abandoned.

13 | P a g e

C2.1 What sort of political support is needed for an AIMS to be successful? The introduction of AIMS imposes changes to how an institution operates. It therefore requires high-level support in order for this change process to be successful. Middle-managers in a government institution may be eager to take on AIMS for their own purposes, but the moment collaboration with other departments, ministries and development partners is required, they may grow uncomfortable with the task. Much of this political willingness is built during the needs assessment. It is important that government’s senior management is at least informed and in principle supportive at an early stage. The assessment should include a stakeholders’ meeting chaired by a senior manager of government, and inviting the heads of development partner agencies. It is important that AIMS projects are agreed on and signed off at the level of the minister.

C2.2 What policies or legislation is needed to underpin an AIMS? There are no generic minimum requirements for what legislation and policies need to be in place for AIMS to be introduced. It is however, required that the process around AIMS reporting is clearly defined and agreed between government and development partners. The preferred policy umbrella for this process is an aid policy, or country ‘localized’ Paris Declaration. This could also be components of a national plan. If possible, it will be helpful to have these policies in place before AIMS is introduced.

C3. Capacity Requirements The most important requirement for AIMS to be successful is that there is government capacity and willingness to coordinate and manage the reporting of aid through the AIMS process. When planning for an AIMS implementation, there needs to be a clear understanding of current capacity of the managing institution, and what level of capacity development is required for successfully implementing AIMS. The needs assessment report should describe what capacity the AIMS project is committed to develop. It should also describe any relevant complimentary capacity development efforts from other projects. This is particularly relevant for support to IFMIS, MTEF and budget process.

C3.1 What kinds of capacities are needed for an AIMS to be successful? Governments receiving significant ODA often have a separate department or unit that is responsible for aid management and coordination, and this is a good place for AIMS to start. It should be noted however, that a separate aid management unit is not necessarily a requirement for AIMS to be well managed by government. In some situations aid management units are established because the regular units are not functioning well. There are often stronger incentives to create new units and departments, rather than improve existing ones. In some cases adding another unit creates another dysfunctional layer and confusion at least in the inception period. Governments that manage aid best, do so within their regular departmental structure, and perhaps a small supporting aid liaison unit. In such environments, development partners do best in adding capacity to existing and working functions, rather than creating new ones. To develop and expand institutional capacity takes years, and is not just a matter of adding extra human resources. Great care should be taken when creating new units, and only in special cases where responsibilities are fragmented and it is unclear if existing units could be designated for aid management. Experience from AIMS implementations suggests that the capacity development efforts should focus more on the structured work processes that AIMS, the managing institution and development partners are part of. AIMS projects needs to support and ensure the quality of institutionalizing the reporting process. AIMS managing staff needs to design good and detailed guidelines for AIMS reporting, in particular based on what data is required to make a difference for government planning purposes. Such

14 | P a g e

guidelines should be based on consultations with government units to benefit from the data and the development partners who report it. As a minimum the needs assessment should: Describe the current staffing capacities of each relevant government unit, and their part in

AIMS reporting process. Capacity development efforts required for AIMS implementation. Describe capacity development efforts to be provided by other development partners

C3.2 How do I conduct a Capacity Assessment and prepare a Capacity Development Strategy?

The complexity of aid management depends on the volume of the aid portfolio and modalities used. General budget support is the least complex to coordinate and manage for a recipient government, since it is considered as external revenues and spent together with domestic funds in the national budget. A large portfolio of off-budget project support may not require much involvement from government ministries, but perhaps extensive support from a coordination office . A large portfolio of on-budget project support however, relies on government aid management capacity in both the central (resource allocating) ministry and the executing line ministry. Such a portfolio may involve a range of government institutions; a) the budget department must project and monitor its progress as part of the budget process, b) the planning department must monitor it as part of the national plan, c) the respective line ministries are executing the project, d) the central bank and Treasury may manage the accounts. The composition and volume of the aid portfolio may give clear indications of the capacity challenges of the government. Assessing capacity must be done on the basis of what outputs are expected, and what process is required to make it happen. It could be useful to map the relevant units. The aid management task grows exponentially more complex with the number of active development partners and the number of projects implemented. Figure X; Capacity Assessment Human Resources AIMS Process AIMS outputs AIMS Managing Institution

Staffing in Aid Management unit

AIMS quarterly* reporting guidelines, actual disbursements

ODA Annual Report

Budget Department

Staffing in Budget and Macro-economic unit

MTEF and AIMS quarterly planned disbursements

Quarterly projections

Planning Department

Staffing in Planning unit

National Plan alignment, Paris Indicators

Mid-year National Plan alignment and commitments

Development Partners

DP Focal Point appointed and trained

AIMS quarterly reporting guidelines, Consultative Group / DP coordination meetings

On-budget clarity and information for Coordination purposes

* Quarterly reporting is recommended and also allows alignment with various fiscal calendars. The reporting schedule must however, be determined based on country needs and in conjunction with the national budget process.

C3.3 AIMS Management Functions All functions explicitly required for AIMS may be taken on by existing staff. Where there are no suitable staff available for the roles required, new positions may be considered. We distinguish between two roles; AIMS Administrator / Manager, who manage the data management process, users and how they use the system; and the AIMS Technical Administrator, who ensures that the IT system is running and available for the users. AIMS require an administrator, and this is the key manager for the AIMS process. The administrator should be a person with knowledge of the aid management process, and a detailed understanding of how the government plans, allocates and accounts for aid. The Administrator is preferably an aid management officer or manager who takes on the role as AIMS administrator. This function should not be taken on by an IT

15 | P a g e

officer. An IT unit with at least one capable officer is also required, unless AIMS is hosted out-of-country. The IT function can be referred to as the Technical Administrator. Some key TOR elements for AIMS Manager / Administrator may include: Facilitate, design and implement the AIMS data management plan. Coordinating government liaison with development partners for AIMS reporting. Design and enforce the AIMS Reporting Guidelines. Validate data reported by development partners and line ministries on behalf of government. Ensure timely reports are produced, in particular for the government planning and budget process. Quality control AIMS data used for official reports. Train users in data management and system features.

Some key TOR elements for Aid Management Officer may include: Support selected sector clusters, as part of the coordination mechanism, and enable such meetings

to make informed decisions based on all available relevant policies, strategies, data and coordination tools.

Be focal point for selected development partners as directed, and support these with policy regulations, guidelines and national strategies.

Support and ensure that selected development partners are reporting to AIMS and following the Reporting Guidelines. Quality control data reporting and ensure consistency with government classification and usage.

Support development partner and relevant government institution on overcoming coordination challenges.

In a larger Aid Management Unit, it would make sense to appoint one officer with a particular responsibility for reporting; to produce and update reports for publication and distribution. Some key TOR elements for an Aid Management Officer with Reporting Responsibility may include: Prepare and distribute progress reports to implementing agencies, state officials at all levels to

facilitate coordination, planning and monitoring Ensure coherence between strategies and policies, and AIMS analytical reporting outputs.

Some key TOR elements for Technical Administrator / IT Officer may include: Ensure security and integrity of data by using appropriate firewall, virus detection software and

regular backups (at least once a month). Ensure that server(s) are operating 24/7 and user connectivity is reliable. Liaise with AIMS provider on technical support.

C3.4 What kind of internet connectivity, network, or computers do I need? For the managing and user government institutions, the assessment must investigate in more detail the computing, network and connectivity for key staff functions. A local network also requires well managed network security, which may otherwise slow down the access to AIMS. Power supply and backups should also be assessed. For good operation it is advised that the server has a minimum of 512kbps dedicated connection to the internet backbone. The minimum connection depends on number of users and the load it receives. Consider peak usage around reporting deadlines. It is also important to check the quality of service by the ISP service providers. Even if the AIMS is well connected over one service provider, users accessing through other ISPs may experience problems because of poor connections between the competing ISP companies. AIMS can also be hosted by an internet service provider, ensuring good internet connectivity and security. It is then important that the administrative users have a strong dedicated connection with the internet service provider. If no such capacity exist in-country, an alternative is out-of-country hosting.

16 | P a g e

As a minimum the assessment should: Assess computing, local networks and data centre of managing institution. Assess connectivity widely used by development partners. Describe ISP services provided and connectivity by the leading providers.

AIMS requires a dedicated server, with only the AIMS system running. The minimum requirements tend to be: CPU minimum 1.5Ghz Memory at least 512 MB Hard drive at least 30 GB Windows Server or any recent version of Linux

The primary client users (including administrative users) of AIMS should preferably be linked to the hosting servers by the local network or a minimum 128kb point-to-point connection, in order to ensure fast operation.

C4. What Can I Do While Waiting For AIMS? There is no reason to sit down and wait for an AIMS system to be procured. A lot of preparation work can be done in the meantime, which can make the introduction of AIMS easier and success more likely. The data reporting process between development partners can be defined, guidelines can be produced and consulted on, and the first reporting cycle can be completed in Excel Spreadsheets, even before the AIMS system is set up.

C4.1 What data should AIMS manage? It is crucial to define exactly what data AIMS should manage, or for what purpose. The rule of the thumb is not to ask for more data than you can use for a specific purpose; the more data you ask for, the higher is the risk the reporting agencies will not be able to comply. The minimum core dataset tends to be: Data Category Data Fields Purpose Project/Programme Details

Title, Objectives, Description

Identification of activity

Funding Agency Agency Name Identification of the aid source Modality Aid Modality, Type of

Assistance, On/off Budget

Identification of how the aid is channeled. Aid Modality should be coherent with on/off budget definition.

Sector Sector Categorize aid by sector. Executing Agency Executing Agency Identification of who manage the funds. For on-budget

support it should enable reports per vote be coherent with the national budget. For off-budget support, it should enable reports on NGO/contractor implementation volume.

Financials reported on a quarterly basis (minimum)

Commitments, Planned Disbursements, Actual

Financials must be reported on a minimum quarterly basis in order to fit with government and development partner’s fiscal calendar. Funds that have been channeled, for reporting

Liberia Example; A few months before AIMS was installed, the Ministry of Finance in Liberia made a data reporting template in excel spreadsheet that was compatible with AIMS, and sent this to all development partners with a guideline as how to report. At the time AIMS was installed, the small Aid Management Unit could start entering real data already during the training and managed to produce their first report for the budget preparation process within two months.

17 | P a g e

Disbursements on historic disbursements. Planned disbursements schedule for reporting projections to be used for the national budget process.

Alignment National Plan Pillar/Strategic Objective

Alignment to national plan pillars/objectives, should enable reports on overall investments in the various pillars of the national plan.

C4.2 What Data Standards and classifications should I use? Priority should be given to government usage of the data. If the data is not compatible with government classifications, government may not be able to produce the reports required and AIMS may not be successful. The challenge with deciding on classifications is that it is often easier for development partners to report according to their own definitions. Partners will, if clear guidelines are not provided, use the data that they most easily have available, which follows their own internal definition of an aid support activity. Under are some key differences between government and donor classifications and definitions: Government classification Donor classification Sector Sector should correspond to a national

plan, and/or votes (ministry, department or agency as referred to in the national budget)

OECD/DAC sector list may be used as a secondary sector list, or as a primary sector list where the national plan pillar reference serves the purpose of aligning to government sector list.

Project An AIMS data record should be compatible with a) the legal instrument / project document signed between government and development partner, b) be either on or off budget, c) preferably exclude Technical Assistance for on-budget activities

Project or Programme as defined by development partner internal procedures. This may not necessarily be identical with project documents signed with government,

Disbursement Transfer of funds to in-country bank account, managed by executing agency as signatory.

Resources made available to the project from headquarters to implementing partner, not necessarily in-country.

The IATI standard is intended to ensure that development partners report better data, which is better aligned to government classifications.

C5. Choosing an AIMS The needs assessment should give a detailed description of what is required from the AIMS. These overall requirements will help choose what system is best suited. However, the available systems are increasingly similar and increasingly following the same standards and functionalities. In many cases, the most common AIMS solutions available will suit all your needs. What kind of support you can expect from the provider, and the quality of their service may be more important than the actual technical features of the application. Most providers will be glad to provide you with an online presentation, and may even send a scoping mission if invited. If the consultants give an impression of good and knowledgeable partners in the process, this will make the implementation much easier.

18 | P a g e

C5.1 Can we make our own system? The key is to identify a system that has the functionality required, and a provider that provides a quality service. The providers should be able to respond convincingly to a needs assessment with clearly defined expectation of the system. Inviting stakeholders to present their solution, and describe how it suits the needs defined is a good way of preparing for the procurement process. Remember to give equal consideration and opportunity to all providers. There are examples of nationally designed systems that are able to do the tasks required in their environment. A nationally designed system may also generate more ownership. But it should also be noted that most attempts at making such systems have failed. The most common AIMS is actually customized Excel spreadsheets. Most governments use Excel to do their data analysis and reporting. As the aid portfolios become more complex, the spreadsheets become difficult to manage. It is also difficult to include many persons to work on the same excel file. An improvement may be to use online spreadsheets which allows for collaboration on the same file (for example Google Docs). Usually, nationally designed systems are more limited in scope and functionality. Many countries have tried to make more advanced solutions, and allowed in-department IT units try to develop the application without any good results. For the very few successful nationally designed systems that exists today, there is a long list of failed attempts. In some cases, a lot of resources have been used to develop applications that have never been adopted. The limitations of these efforts are not necessarily IT skills, but rather the capacity to streamline the work processes and the technical understanding of how to translate the aid management process into an application. Nationally designed systems require not only a strong IT unit, but aid management officers with a clear understanding of both IT applications and aid management. However, as the global experience leads to better proven technical specifications for AIMS, along with IATI work on standards, it may be easier to build nationally designed systems by following a globally proven concept.

C5.2 What should we do if we already have an AIMS system? A new system always costs time and money to introduce. If the system already in place suit the needs defined, it is better to focus on improving the process around it, rather than change the system. When the system no longer suits the needs required, other providers will be able to import the dataset and let you start working on your data in a new system. The providers may give you a quotation for how much time and money this will involve.

C5.3 What sort of problems have occurred with AIMS systems? The most common issues that have occurred during AIMS implementations include; Slow application speed and connectivity problems; application speed can be slow due to the application itself, poor management of the application server, a poorly managed local network and/or poor internet connection. Due to poor internet connection, and/or weak connectivity between different ISP service providers used, users may not be able to connect to the system. Development Partners not reporting; If the reporting guidelines are unclear, and the government does not provide support and is not strict about enforcing reporting compliance, development partners may ignore the request and simply not report.

Cambodia Country Example X; The Cambodian ODA system is a nationally designed solution, which has matured and become an impressive application on par with other top providers. The system is web-based, and allows development partners to report their activities to government, including data on Paris Indicators.

19 | P a g e

Incomplete data; If the data reporting process is poorly managed, and unclear guidelines and no government enforcement is in place, the reported dataset may be incomplete and not useful for reporting purposes. Reports in conflict with official figures; If the government is not in charge of validating AIMS data, system reports may show a different total financial volume than what government have already reported in official reports and to Parliament.

C5.4 Table showing the different functionalities of each of the main providers, and providing links to all known providers.

Please consult the Aid Effectiveness portal for the latest list of countries and systems (www.AidEffectiveness.org) . Under is a list of the four most common AIMS systems compared by features; Development Assistance Database (DAD) provided by Synergy Ltd Aid Management Platform (AMP) provided by the Development Gateway. ODA Data, provided by ODA Data / Development Gateway. Cambodia ODA Database, provided by the Cambodian government in collaboration with UNDP

Cambodia.

C5.5 How do I procure an AIMS? What are the pros and cons of government vs. development partner procurement? In order to ensure government ownership, it may be best that the government procures the AIMS system (often through government executed projects with DP funds). A development partner could also procure it, if the government requests it to do so. Either way, the procurement process should be based on the requirements identified during the needs assessment, and should give equal opportunity to all providers. Many AIMS systems have been procured with bias towards a specific provider, without a structured process to identify the best solution, and a procurement process that gives equal opportunity for providers to participate. This can be avoided by having a structured process, where all providers are invited to present their solution and explain how they would adapt to the country-specific requirements.

C6. How can IATI Help? The International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) is a new, multi-stakeholder initiative which aims to increase the availability and accessibility of information about aid.1 This will help to ensure that aid is used in the most effective ways in fighting poverty. Launched at the Accra High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in September 2008, IATI now has 18 donor signatories2 and a growing number of endorsements from developing countries3

C6.1 What is the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI)?

.

The International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) is an initiative that is developing a data standard for reporting and publishing aid to the public. The IATI Accra Statement has been signed by many development partners, and has committed them to better report their aid activities to the public. IATI is a new initiative which aims to make information about aid spending easier to access, use and understand. This will help those involved in aid programmes to better track what aid is being used for

1 For more information about IATI, please see www.aidtransparency.net 2 Netherlands, Finland, Ireland, Spain, Germany, World Bank, GAVI, Hewlett, UNDP, EC, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, UK, Asian Development Bank. 3 To date, partner countries which have formally endorsed IATI are: Burkina Faso, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Indonesia, Malawi, Moldova, Montenegro, Nepal, PNG, Rwanda, Syria, Viet Nam. A number of other countries are currently considering endorsement.

20 | P a g e

and what it is achieving – from those in developing countries who benefit from aid spending to the taxpayers in donor countries who provide the money. IATI aims to add value by agreeing standards for sharing information so that it will be useful to all stakeholders, particularly those in developing countries. The standards agreed will build on existing standards, including those used by the OECD-DAC’s Creditor Reporting System and in existing AIMS. It will also make that information simpler and easier to understand, to compare, and to use.

There are four parts to the IATI standards: (1) agreement on what will be published, (2) common definitions for sharing information, (3) a common electronic data format, and (4) a code of conduct. The IATI consultation process will continue to mid 2010, when the data standard will be endorsed.

C6.2 Can IATI standards and the code of conduct support me in designing and implementing an AIMS? Many of the limitations of AIMS stem from limitations in DP’s internal information management systems. Embassy staff experience great difficulties getting reports out of their internal systems which provide the data government are asking for. The IATI initiative has started a process of ensuring DP commitments to a data standard for how aid is published to the public. Such a standard will contribute to make it easier for DPs to comply with government requests, and improve the quality of data reported to AIMS. There will always be country-specific data that a government will need which is not part of the standard, and require the judgment of DP focal points to provide. A existence of a standard should not excuse the DPs from providing the information governments need and as requested in-country. While it will be easier to feed and facilitate data exchanges of some DP data via a global repository of aid information, the standard will probably never make all country-specific reporting obsolete through automated data exchange.

C6.3 How can I get involved in IATI? Sign up to IATI; This means signing up to the IATI Accra Statement and committing to participate in the initiative going forward. This option is largely for development partners. Endorse IATI; Partner countries are invited to endorse IATI. This means that they agree with its aims and objectives, endorse the IATI Accra Statement, and are prepared to participate in shaping it going forward. Join the IATI Technical Advisory Group (TAG); The TAG is leading on the technical work to agree the joint aid information standards. It aims to hold monthly teleconferences and to meet twice a year. The TAG is open to those who have signed up or endorsed the IATI statement, to interested experts and civil society organisations (CSOs), and to donors who agree with the aims and objectives of the initiative. Participate in the CSO consultations; CSOs are invited to participate in the CSO consultations. For more information, please visit the IATI web site; http://aidtransparency.net/get-involved/

D. Implementing an AIMS AIMS implementation starts with installation and training of the key user group, including the administrator. This is preferably the government unit that is going to coordinate and manage the data reporting process, and be responsible for validating the data.

21 | P a g e

Installation and training is the easiest part of the implementation. The provider will install the system on the server, and make it available on the local network or internet. A training session is organized, preferably with every user able to get familiar with the system through practical usage and start entering data and generating reports. The most challenging part of the implementation, is to initiate the data management process, and a regular reporting routine. Many AIMS implementations have pulled up short of this step, and may be delayed by months because of unclear reporting guidelines and poor management of the process. Once the core user group and the administrator have been trained, further groups of users can be included. Usually this starts with development partners, and their focal points, then other government institutions, like line ministries, can be considered.

D1. Roll-out and Implementation Strategy for AIMS There two main strategies for starting the AIMS data management process; one starts with the government entering the initial dataset, validating it for the first time, and then include development partners in the second or later rounds. The other strategy is to allow development partners to create their own portfolio. The first option, involving government key staff from the beginning is the preferable. It may be tempting to ask the development partners to completely populate the system with their own data without government involvement (as per the second option above), as this is much easier for them and faster to complete. This is a risky approach, and requires very strict guidelines for development partners, in order to ensure the data is entered in accordance with the requirements of the government. AIMS implementations following this approach often do so as a result of unclear and undefined government data needs. When the data has been entered, it remains unclear how the government will use it. When finally the government needs are clearly understood and defined, the data entered may in the worst case be completely unfit for the purpose, or at best in need of significant work editing and realigning it. The first option may be slower if there is limited government capacity and no clearly defined understanding of how the data will be useful for specific government needs. Rather than rush the process into a potentially flawed data collection process as described above, the AIMS implementation should keep the focus on the guidelines and the process of requesting and using data. It could be helpful for example to run a manual data request on excel spreadsheets to a few development partners first as a pilot. When the guidelines are proven, allow all development partners to report their data in excel spreadsheets first. When the government unit enters the data in the system, they will apply additional checks and corrections to make sure it is completely aligned to the government request. To help with the validation, the administrator can send out reports which list the entered data and ask for confirmation. Already at this point, the unit can generate all the reports and tables they may need for reports, checking they get the data they need for their intended usage.

D1.1 Who are my stakeholders? How and when do I involve them? Throughout the AIMS process, it is important to have the full understanding and support from the development community as to the new reporting process and what it is supposed to achieve. There are usually existing coordination mechanisms and committees where this can be done. The high-level development partners group should be informed at an early stage that an AIMS is being considered, and be kept updated throughout the implementation. At inception, this group should preferably be presented the AIMS plan for more detailed discussions. Most often there is already a relevant committee where the AIMS focal points of the development partners already are engaged in related coordination discussions; a Governance or Aid Effectiveness

22 | P a g e

steering committee, or an MTEF or Economist’s task group. This is the ideal place to table the draft guidelines and process for discussions. In particular it is important to show the data reporting formats to this group before the request is sent out. There may be important considerations of data available and definitions that may be improved by the group.

D1.2 How can I ensure comprehensive data is reported on time? Creating a scorecard for each development partner’s compliance with the AIMS data request has become a proven best practice. A scorecard creates incentives for development partners to comply with government requests, and at the same time ensure that the government is enforcing a well defined process. An example of a score card and its effect is given below; Req. 1

Date Req. 2 Date

Req. 3 Date

Req. 4 Date

Req. 5 Date

Req. 6 Date

Req. 7 Date

Req. 8 Date

Score

DP/A No Late On-Time On-Time On-Time On-Time On-Time On-Time 6.5 DP/B No No Late On-Time On-Time On-Time On-Time On-Time 5.5 DP/C No No No Late On-Time On-Time On-Time On-Time 4.5 DP/D No No No No Late On-Time On-Time On-Time 3.5 DP/E No No No No No Late On-Time On-Time 2.5 DP/F No No No No No No Late On-Time 1.5 For every request sent to partners a deadline is given, and the time of response is recorded as on-time, late (say within two weeks after the deadline) or no response. For every on-time response one score point is given, while late responses gain half a point. The result often looks like the above, giving development partner A good visibility and credit for good reporting. Development Partner F, on the other hand, may be discredited in public for not honoring the government’s request and the aid effectiveness agenda in general until responding on-time.

Similar scorecards can be made for data comprehensiveness by using percentage of completed date fields for each donor portfolio. This will give an indication of to what degree DPs are providing comprehensive information, in addition to the core required data fields.

D2. The AIMS data management process AIMS systems that are successfully embedded in governments, ensure regular data reporting from DPs on the basis of a formal request and reporting guidelines. Without a formal request with a deadline for reporting, DPs will only sporadically respond and the data will never be completely ready for any reporting cycle. To use a method of “naming and shaming” is an effective way to set the incentives right, as the scorecard above illustrates. It is important to understand DPs incentives. DP staff may have been used to receive government requests for information that lead nowhere (for example from line ministries), and it is often unclear how their effort in providing information results in anything. DPs will usually only provide information for two purposes: if it helps government or if it is for the public domain.

Burundi Example; After the government of Burundi published the AIMS reporting scorecard in the first draft ODA Annual Reports, all the development partners are responding 100% on every request for AIMS reporting the government sends out. Only one development partner responded to the first request, before the scorecard was known. Only after DPs realized their compliance is tracked and monitored, then published to the public, they started responding more seriously.

23 | P a g e

Online AIMS systems that are not successfully embedded in government may mobilize DPs to report, because it is published as public information. This is not the correct motivation though, and in such cases the DPs will assign public relations staff to report, rather than their development professionals. DPs must be convinced that the information they provide is useful for government, and actually used by government. The reporting to AIMS may go on for a long time on an ad hoc basis without ever becoming comprehensive enough for official reports. A scorecard and deadlines sends a clear message that government is serious about the importance of the data, and that it is part of a regular routine required for proper planning. Considering also the turnover of DP staff in post-conflict and fragile countries, an annual reporting cycle will for example never become a routine; it will always have to deal with new DP focal points. This is another argument for a quarterly reporting cycle as a minimum. The data validation by government is usually done by one or two senior staff. It is important that this is done by key staffs that are integral part of either of the three government processes (planning, allocation or execution). Validation by seconded staff, or DPs themselves, may not ensure proper adoption and usage by government. AIMS provide the option of structured reporting of Paris indicators per activity. At project level, the data quality improves significantly and may help government better track the progress of how DPs align and harmonize their assistance. The indicators may also be regarded as a barometer for DP confidence in government systems, and a feedback mechanism for how successful government is at planning and executing.

D2.1 What is the best process for data validation and quality control? Whoever is responsible for validation will also take responsibility for ensuring that the data reported is coherent with the guidelines and how the intended users can get the most out of the data. This is why it is important that a government mid-level manager is responsible for validation, and helps ensure that the data becomes useful for the national planning and budget process. The challenge for government to validate and quality control the data is often that they have little other data to compare with. For on-budget support however, the data reported by development partners should be coherent with what is recorded and managed by the executing ministries. Often there are discrepancies between what the executing agencies are reporting and what development partners report, which may create distrust and suspicion. This is almost always related to project technical assistance and in-kind support components (which are funds executed by the donor agency, even if the project may be on-budget), or to the allocation of cash on project accounts through the exchequer or central bank currency accounts. If data from the executing ministries and development partners are made coherent, it is because the guidelines and AIMS managing entity fully understands the intricate ways in which aid funds can be allocated to the executing agencies. Development partners may validate data upon government request, perhaps in conjunction with draft annual or mid-term reports. However, to allow development partners the full validation control disregards the challenges of government described above. Although not always possible in for example post-conflict countries, government should always have full validation and quality control responsibility, in particular for all on-budget assistance. Data on off-budget assistance executed outside the government, for example humanitarian aid, may be left to the development partners to report and quality control on their own. Data on such funds have less impact on the government planning and budget process. The responsibilities of validation and quality control are best described per aid modality, as in the table below:

24 | P a g e

Aid Modality Government validation Development Partner validation General / Sector Budget Support Disbursed funds confirmed received

by central bank

Basket Preferably as disbursed funds confirmed received, but it depends on basket fund execution arrangement

If managing fund on behalf of government

On-budget Project As reported by project management unit

If executed by development partner, in collaboration with line ministry

Off-Budget Project Support If considered for on-budget As reported by executing agency / contractor, or project management unit.

Off-budget Projects not signed with government, incl. most humanitarian aid

Responsible for reporting and validation, ensuring government is aware of support

The general principle is: the more central to government’s own planning and allocation mechanism the support is, the more important it is to let the government validate and control the data. For assistance that is not signed with government and in the periphery of central planning and allocation mechanisms, for example humanitarian aid, the development partners are responsible. The government will usually have very little aid data on the latter.

D2.2 How do I prepare a Data Management Plan? It is useful to prepare a data management plan, and this will help clarify many aspects of the reporting guidelines. The plan should start with the definition of what data are to be included and for what purpose, as discussed in the previous chapter C4.2. Then the plan should then define who reports what data, who validates and what reports are expected as an output. Reporting Agency Reporting Data Validation Control Reports Development Partner All support. Budget Support

disbursements may be recorded by AIMS Manaing Entity with central bank disbursement data in local currency.

Only off-budget funds Coordination purposes reports per sector, funding agency, executing agency.

AIMS Managing Entity

Non-resident development partners and other signed projects not reported

On-budget support (GBS, sector and project), coherence check with central bank and line ministry data

Total ODA annual reports, by sector, modality, assistance type, funding agency, executing agency. On-budget projections

MBA/Line Ministry As part of budget preparation process, or part of reporting process in/outside AIMS.

On-budget projections for the budget process.

Central Bank Monthly reporting of on -budget disbursements received to AIMS Managing Entity

On-budget disbursements per modality and assistance type

Ministry of Planning/Finance

National Plan alignment, on/off

National Plan Alignment, On-budget support per modality

Indonesia Example; The AIMS system for the Aceh-Nias region enforce a planning and approval process, in which project concept notes are entered in the system, and then approved after a consultative workshop.

25 | P a g e

budget and assistance type. On-budget projections for the budget process.

Emergency / Reconstruction Coordinating Agency

Off-budget support per sector, agency, region, national plan

D2.3 Government request for AIMS reporting and reporting guidelines The reporting guideline should define what data is required and explain the process and the role of the different agencies reporting, as described in the previous chapter C.4.3. The request should also describe the reporting cycle, and stipulate a calendar for reporting requests in relation to the nation al budget process. If the government fiscal year starts 1 July, a calendar could look something like this: R= Request, D = Deadline Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec National Budget Cycle AIMS Projections R D R D AIMS Actual commitments and disbursements

R/D R/D R/D R/D

D2.4 Data on NGO and contractor activities The data reported from development partners to AIMS will include all of their disbursements to NGOs and contractors. In most cases NGOs do not mobilize significant amounts of funds from their own sources; these are not reflected by development partners in-country. If NGOs are asked to report directly to AIMS, this must be carefully managed to avoid double-counting funds already reported by development partners. In some cases NGOs are not aware of the source of their project funds. This is in particular the case with UN executed projects, which often contract International NGOs as implementing partners, who again mobilize local organizations. Since significant UN funds are mobilized from development partners in-country, the relevant UN agency is for reporting purposes the executing agency. UN agencies are only funding agencies for what they spend of core funds mobilized outside the country. The same applies to international NGOs, who receive most development funds from DPs in-country. This must be specified with clarity in the reporting guidelines.

It is important to allow bilateral and multilateral development partners to report their portfolio first. After the first validation by government, considerations of including any potential outstanding NGO funds can be done.

D3. Creating reports and Analysis that make a difference Reports and analysis are the outputs of the AIMS system and process. AIMS must demonstrate ability to produce the intended reports and analysis as early as possible after the first reporting cycle. The intended reports should have been defined together with the data requirements, and before the first reporting begin.

D3.1 How can we ensure better data = better and more accountable aid? Provided there is a good policy environment which acknowledges and takes into account data analysis for decision-making, AIMS reports will be instrumental for resource allocation, planning and the policy dialogue between development partners and government. AIMS should demonstrate reporting capabilities that highlight the key issues and challenges that are widely discussed and debated. AIMS projects should try to strengthen the policy environment and discussions to be evidence-based and facts-based.

26 | P a g e

D3.2 Aid Effectiveness and Paris Indicator Reports The monitoring reports for the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness follow a two- to three-year cycle. AIMS enable more frequent reporting of Paris indicator data, such as on a mid-year or annual basis. AIMS also allow reporting of Paris indicators per activity level, instead of per agency level. This gives a more detailed picture, and some countries have experienced slightly different results once more detailed reporting is introduced. These reports can be used to inform policy. An aid policy may include a list of its own targets, indicators and monitoring analysis that supports it. Put together, this allows for an aid effectiveness monitoring report which informs the aid policy discussions, and could be addressed at the high-level consultative group.

D3.3 Development Cooperation Reports Every government receiving ODA should produce annual development cooperation reports, accounting for all the aid received and spent in-country. This is often a mandated requirement by law for the respective government ministry. The development cooperation reports must as a minimum account for all aid per modality, sector and development partner agency. The data should preferably be compared with the last three-five years of assistance, to show changes and trends. It should also include some level of forecasting of expected future assistance. The written analysis should be to the point and factual, documenting the data presented in tables and charts. Some countries have created an extra burden on themselves by making the report very comprehensive. The report may in fact be quite short and not that hard to produce, following a stringent template. This allows a small team to easily update the report based on new AIMS data, and even publish mid-year reports. Many countries have merged the two reports together, including aid effectiveness data and analysis in the Development Cooperation Report.

D3.2 MTEF and the national budget process AIMS may produce reports on planned disbursements for the next fiscal year, which can be used for establishing the budget resource envelope. AIMS may also allow projection reports for the medium-long term, although projections for the first year are the most reliable. Since projections are also part of a negotiation and political process, some governments apply a discount to reported projections.

D3.2 Monitoring of National Plans AIMS may produce reports on how aid flows are aligned with national plan pillars and strategic objectives. It could help analyse funding allocation in comparison with the priority areas. This may inform the policy discussions, and be presented as part of progress reports on implementing the

Malawi Example; The Ministry of Finance in Malawi has become well known for their short, concise, factual and analytical reports on development cooperation using AIMS. Development Partners in Malawi report to AIMS on a quarterly basis (monthly for some DPs).

Central African Republic Example; In a very difficult humanitarian environment, AIMS in CAR has produced presentations on national plan alignment and funding gaps. Much of the analysis is presented in power points and easy to understand graphs, relevant to the coordination and policy discussions.

27 | P a g e

national plan. It is important that analysis of aid flows also considers domestic resource flows, in order to provide the total picture of development resources. It should be noted that some national plans have poorly defined investment targets, and thus it may be difficult to compare it with actual allocations. Often already committed funds are considered part of funding pledged for a new national plan, and it may be difficult to distinguish how the plan have changed how actual allocation were made.

D3.4 Information supporting Better Coordination The above reports also provide general information to all stakeholders, which may improve coordination among actors. In addition, the dataset itself could be made publicly available on the internet to allow any user to make analysis of their own interest. All the actors involved in the development process may benefit from seeing the actual data, not only the standard reports. In a humanitarian environment a faster response is required by the agencies. As much information that may be useful for coordination purposes should be made available as fully and as early as possible, as long as it does not compromise the validation process and the quality required.

D4. Using AIMS to promote Accountability and Transparency AIMS are instruments for capacity development and institutional change. It is not a purpose or goal by itself, but rather creates opportunities for change. Apart from making an administration more efficient at coordinating development assistance, the introduction of AIMS also make possible improvements in accountability and transparency.

D4.1 What promotes transparency? When limited information on aid is available for parliament, civil society and the electorate, the public discourse on how development resources are managed will be based on flawed assumptions, piecemeal information and rumors. This is often the case in aid-dependent countries, where allegations of corruption and misuse of aid funds are frequently reported in the media. When the respective ministries coordinating and executing aid funds do not a systematic way of managing their information, their ability to identify misuse and respond to allegations of misuse is severely reduced. Even if the public had full access to the ministry’s records, they may not find any accurate and useful information to react on. When the respective ministry does have enough systematic information, the problem is often that it is of poor quality and not available for anyone else. With only one or two persons managing the information flow, only piecemeal information is shared even within the ministry, and little with relevant other government institutions, and not at all with civil society and the public. The path to greater transparency starts with creating systematic information management and reporting processes in the government institution managing and coordinating aid. Their ability to report consolidated quality information to parliament, as is required by legal mandate, should be the second immediate objective. Thereafter the validated information needs to be shared within government and to civil society and eventually the public. Some AIMS projects are eager to achieve public transparency, even before a process of validation and quality control has been embedded in government. AIMS should not publish data as official government information before government validation and endorsement has taken place. Only then will it be useful for civil society and the public, and truly improve transparency.

28 | P a g e

D4.2 What promotes Accountability? Accountability is a broad concept; in government institutions it assumes leadership responsibility and work ethics to manage public funds according to laws, regulations and to a standard that can withstand public scrutiny. The implementation of AIMS focuses on achieving administrative accountability; the internal rules, norms and work processes should ensure that civil servants and DP focal points reports and plan aid in accordance with national plans and policies. An Aid Policy with clear requirements for planning and reporting of aid projects is instrumental in this regard. An AIMS will thus be an instrument to ensure that the policy is being followed, and will identify when it is not. If there is no Aid Policy in place, the reporting guidelines needs to be even more precise and clear for all parties. The reporting guidelines must also then contain some of the elements of an Aid Policy, in particular how aid projects are approved and aligned with national plans and the national budget. Accountability requires a centralized control of approval of new projects and validation of aid reporting. If every line ministry is free to negotiate and sign their own projects with DPs, there is little chance an AIMS will manage to track and validate the reporting of all aid projects. The central ministry or institution responsible for aid management must be the only authority for approval of projects, and will thereby be able to validate reports on financial allocations made in accordance with the project agreements. This is the basis for information provision from government institutions executing aid funds and DPs providing the funding. The responsible central ministry performs the role of an oversight body, ensuring that all the involved institutions are adhering to the standards expected of them. This is required for government accountability of aid funds, and should be as similar as possible to accountability of domestic funds.

D5. Linking to other Government Systems and Processes AIMS is not a system in isolation. Most governments already have systems for related purposes in use, and it is important that their relationships are understood.

D5.1 Why is it important to link AIMS to other government systems and processes? The needs assessment should consider all related other government systems in use, including budget preparation systems, debt management systems and financial management systems. It may not be possible the link and integrate these systems on a technical level, at least in the short-term. However, at a process-level it is important to clarify what role AIMS has in relation to each of these systems. A debt management system is normally used to calculate and forecast repayments to be paid, and thereby the total debt burden. This is something AIMS currently does not do, and therefore many countries operate both systems at the same time. The disbursements made on loans will thereby be in both systems. Integrated Financial Management Systems (IFMS) contains expenditure information that is very relevant and useful in conjunction with AIMS data. There is no information in AIMS which is needed for IFMS operations. When discussing integration between the two, the technical solution sought is a one-

Vietnam Example; In Vietnam, DPs have reported aid data to AIMS publicly available under the umbrella of the Ministry of Planning and Public Investments. The ministry itself however, did not find the donor-reported data useful; they produced reports with their own data which was presented to parliament. At one point, a Member of Parliament compared an AIMS “official” report with what the Ministry submitted to them, and found significant differences. These differences were a result of different classifications used by DPs and the ministry, but was interpreted as indicating potential misuse of aid funds.

29 | P a g e

way data feed from IFMS to AIMS. This requires that AIMS users specify the budget code for on-budget projects (See D5.2). An alternative and easier way to reflect IFMS expenditure data in AIMS is to report simplified monthly or quarterly expenditures per project by manually entering it in AIMS. Most countries have some sort of system for budget preparation. The relationship with AIMS is the planned disbursement data, from which the resource envelope is produced.

D5.2 How can linkages between AIMS and Public Financial Management Systems strengthen aid effectiveness and accountability?

IFMS contains budget and expenditure data for on-budget projects (not disbursements or commitments). The IFMS expenditures from IFMS for these projects could be provided to AIMS via a one-way data feed from IFMIS to AIMS. This could in Excel or XML format. In order to retrieve data from the IFMS, the chart of accounts in the budget system must be related to an AIMS project record. The budget code for the respective IFMS record must be entered in AIMS, then related to the respective IFMS record. Such a budget code could look similar to the below table: [

Fund

ing

Sou

rce

Vot

e

Pro

gram

cod

e

Pro

ject

cod

e

Sec

tor

Vot

e Fu

nctio

n

Out

put c

ode

Item

Fisc

al y

ear

App

rove

d B

udge

t

Rev

ised

Bud

get

002 010 00 0968 01 01 01 227004 2009/10 1,000,000 1,000,000

The information coming in from the IFMS is only for reporting purposes.

D5.3 How can AIMS support the aid coordination mechanisms? AIMS reports can be a useful reference for sector working groups. The idea is to ensure that the data analysis and trends are discussed at technical coordinating levels, even before they are published in more comprehensive reports. Standard reports that may be helpful for coordination within sector should be easily available in AIMS. The AIMS Managing Entity should facilitate this.

D5.4 How can AIMS support Managing for Development Results? AIMS allows for monitoring outputs of individual projects. In order to facilitate this, line ministries and project management units must be involved in reporting. The first step in this direction is to allow line ministries to report or confirm DP reported disbursements. There is often a gap between one central ministry relying on DP data for aid reporting, and another central ministry relying on line ministries reporting on aid for the public investment programme. Having line ministries reporting and confirming DP reports bridges the gap, and provides an opportunity for line ministries to start reporting project output, results and monitoring data. Aggregating quantitative output indicators at project level to produce national output data, on certain indicators for example is challenging because it is very hard to achieve the level of comprehensive data required.

Budget Code Component

30 | P a g e

D6. Using AIMS to support implementation of Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action AIMS can be helpful in monitoring the Paris Declaration Indicators. Normally the Paris Declaration Survey is done bi-annually, sometimes only after significant effort is made by the respective government units and DPs involved. AIMS allows reporting of indicator data per project level. Some AIMS also helps produce all the calculations automatically. The following Paris Indicators are possible to capture in AIMS:

Paris Indicators Data Field

No. 3; Proportion of aid flows to the government sector reported on government budget %

No 4; % of TC flows implemented through coordinated programmes consistent with national development

strategies %

No 5b; Proportion of aid flows to the public sector using country PFM and Proportion of donors using country PFM %

No 6; Number Of Parallel PIUs Number

No 7; Proportion of aid disbursed within the fiscal year it was scheduled %

No 9; Proportion of aid flows provided as programme-based approaches %

No 10a; Proportion of donor missions that are joint; missions %

The progress towards the Paris goals is part of the global aid policy, and trends analysis should be considered for inclusion in the Development Cooperation Report.

D7. Ensuring Benefits for all Stakeholders AIMS is a government reporting system and includes only those agencies and institutions that are directly relevant for the process of reporting and validating its data. For AIMS to have a broader impact on accountability however, it is important to engage additional stakeholders.

D7.1 How can parliamentarians use AIMS to strengthen oversight, accountability and aid/development effectiveness?

Parliaments are instrumental for domestic accountability, and AIMS should facilitate that development cooperation reports with quality information is made available and discussed in parliament. In aid dependant countries there is often a parliamentary committee for aid. Such a committee, or similar, should be supported with all available validated data as much as possible.

D7.2 How can civil society use AIMS to enhance their service delivery, watchdog and advocacy roles?

Civil society are usually represented in the consultative groups and coordination meetings, also where AIMS will be discussed and presented. However, the AIMS managing entity should make a further effort to provide AIMS reports and publications to civil society, and advocate for its usage.

D7.3 How can development partners be kept engaged? If the regular reporting process is working, development partners will be fully engaged in the AIMS cycle.

Burundi Example; In Burundi, government and DPs are reporting Paris Indicator data per project and has found significant changes in the survey results, now that the data is more accurate and at a more detailed level. Paris data is included in the ODA Annual Development Cooperation Report.

31 | P a g e

D8. Implementing an AIMS as part of a humanitarian or post-conflict response

In post-conflict, it is common to add capacity in temporary coordination bodies. Many AIMS systems have been set up in such offices. The experience from these projects however, shows how long it takes for capacity built in a temporary coordination body to end up in mainstream government, perhaps at the expense of opportunities to build longer-term capacity in the right places. There is a risk that AIMS may become a donor-focused solution, not properly embedded in government processes, even by the time most aid has been aligned to government priorities. The mechanisms around humanitarian aid should not be used as a basis for AIMS. Rather, AIMS should be implemented as an instrument to allow governments to take the lead in coordination and planning. For this to be successful, AIMS must become a government management tool, designed to support government work processes. The most difficult experiences with AIMS projects are related to not managing the transition from a coordination mechanism dominated by humanitarian response, to government-led coordination dominated by aligned development funds. Once a dataset and reporting guidelines have been designed for a specific purpose, it is difficult to change them. The objective of AIMS projects has always been formulated as aiming to become a government solution. It is easy to set up an AIMS which is not. A system without any government criteria or requirements, is easy to populate with data from development partners’ own internal systems and other online sources. However, such a solution may not support the government. The added value of AIMS is that the government gains efficiency and ability to plan and account for its resources. Thus, even in a humanitarian dominated environment, an AIMS must at inception stage seek a solution that has a relation to national budget planning, national plans and expenditure management. Even if little government capacity exists. It is wrong to assume the system can later be transitioned to mainstream government. All experience indicates that such a transition is a tremendous challenge, slow, painful and costly and often without eventual success. It should also be noted that the need for information sharing of emergency programmes are different than that of development programmes. Rather, AIMS should be established for long-term development purposes; it may be considered part of disaster preparedness and help the government be better prepared for coordination of emergency response. In a peace-building environment, it makes sense that AIMS focus on recording financial data. Development partners reporting of financial information is part of their obligation as providers of financial resources. The data is centralized in their internal systems, of high frequency and very comparable. Data on physical progress, results and needs however, is often very challenging and beyond what partners can provide. It may rely on a much larger set of sources, for example project management units, line ministries, may require a national survey and is of lower frequency. The data is also often not comparable (change in methodologies, coverage areas). Thus, in a peace-building environment in particular, it is more promising to focus on financial data as a reliable indicator of ‘activity’ and ‘progress’. Considering that many potential users of AIMS have no access, it is even more important in a peace-building coordination environment to have a central web site with all documentation and reports. Reports and fact sheets need to have standardized formats. They need to be strong on graphs, maps, key tables. The better the reporting, both in its content and form, the more likely it is that the AIMS can be established as a credible and useful decision-making tool.

D9. Ensuring the Sustainability of AIMS An AIMS is sustainable when the reporting process is institutionalized and maintained without any additional support. The reporting process must be maintained by the respective government units’ own staff, and not added temporary project staff. The range of reports that AIMs is supposed to support with data must also be produced without any additional support.

32 | P a g e

D9.1 Operational Sustainability The system is not sustainable if it relies on only one or two persons who are instrumental to managing and operating the system. Would the system be used without this individual? The dependency on a single individual is often created early in the project, and often as a consequence of using project staff instead of more mainstream government capacity. It may also be an indication that the outputs do not help resolve a specific administrative challenge in the respective government units; something which the unit is not able to do with the current tools and procedures. Hence, no civil servants are inclined to invest in ensuring that it is operational for the sake of its required outputs. If the design and planning of the AIMS has been done properly, there should be clearly defined objectives, success criteria and reporting outputs. At any given moment, it should therefore be possible for an AIMs project to assess how sustainable the system and its process is. This should be done during joint reviews, which is recommended once per year.

D9.2 System Technical Sustainability The technical and operational sustainability of the system relies on the IT unit managing the servers running the system. Usually 1-2 servers are placed in a government data center, and the system is made available on the local network first. The unit must be organized to respond to downtime, and be able to restart the services. Some degree of network security is also required for the system to run efficiently on the local network. In order to allow for DP access, the system must be made available over the internet, which requires more of the unit. If the system is available over the internet, the IT unit must be adequately equipped and managed for 24/7 online operations. This requires the unit to be well organized to respond to downtime, having standby power supply, dedicated internet bandwidth and proper network security in place. Before AIMS is made available over the internet, careful considerations should be made as to whether this capacity is in place. In some cases, it may be considered to outsource this responsibility to an internet service provider hosting the servers. The AIMS provider can also host the system, but the speed of which government users can access the system may then be severely hampered. A better solution may be that the provider only hosts the validated records made public for view-only access, while the government runs the system in production over the local or in-country network.

E. Evaluating AIMS Impact Despite AIMS implementations in many countries over the last five years, very few evaluations and even user surveys has been conducted to give us a better understanding of what impact AIMS generate. Evaluations and reviews of AIMS impact should aim to achieve the following: Well documented understanding and analysis of changes created as a result of introducing and

using AIMS, to be used to guide implementation and efforts to sustain AIMS and enhance its impact.

Measurable indication of impact through surveys describing changes in the aid management process, perception of more efficient coordination, time savings for government and donor agency staff, and impact of data analysis on planning and policy decisions.

33 | P a g e

As part of the review, it is important to analyse web usage statistics to understand how public and logged in users actually use the system. That an AIMS is fully available for the public online does not necessarily mean it contributes to public accountability. In many countries, the public is not familiar with analysing data in information systems, and require premade reports and analysis to be presented for them in paper form.

E1. User Surveys and Structured Feedback Mechanisms An impact survey will consider two groups of respondents, with two different survey forms: Government Survey Form, one for each staff Donor Agency Survey Form on behalf of the agency

The baseline survey could be done already at the time of the assessment or prototype, and then approximately every six months. The idea is to reflect the situation before and after the introduction of AIMS.

The surveys will ensure that the system is achieving its objectives. The survey results will also offer reflection on internal processes and coordination among actors.

E1.1 Templates for user surveys and analysis Templates for both forms described above are in the annex (See Annex 3).

E2. When is AIMS successful? The assessment team should propose outcome indicators for an AIMS implementation, which, in combination with the AIMS objectives, gives an indication of what constitutes successful implementation and impact generated by using AIMS. These should include time savings by government staff in producing reports, usage and impact of analysis on decision-making, and feature-specific usage analysis. In relation to the AIMS Technical Support Infrastructure, user surveys will be conducted to measure impact of the AIMS, and the indicators will give direction to the customization of those surveys.

E2.1 Criteria for a government-embedded AIMS There are two general criteria for when AIMS is properly embedded in government work processes:

1. AIMS is used to monitor National Plan alignment. When AIMS data is used and referenced to report progress towards achieving the national plan, and AIMS data analysis is used to respond to national plan objectives.

2. AIMS is used to establish the (external) resource envelope for the national budget.

Sri Lanka Example; The first user survey for AIMS was done in 2006 in Sri Lanka. Despite several complaints from DPs on difficulties accessing and reporting data, DP focal points reported in general that it was relatively easy to access the system, collate the data and report. However, the main reasons DPs reported was to generate visibility for their activities, and help with data for their reports, rather than to influence project planning. The DP focal points also said they used the data for internal analysis. 1/3 of the respondents stated that AIMS had no influence on anything in their agency (survey sample was 41% of 66 agencies using AIMS).

34 | P a g e

E2.2 How do I turn around a failing AIMS? Under are suggested solutions for some of the problems that may occur during AIMS implementation and capacity development support; Problem Solution DPs are not reporting data Simplify the reporting process as much as possible,

then clarify and agree with DPs to be part of it. Introduce a reporting score card. Show DPs how government is using the data.

Data is a mess This is a result of poorly defined procedures and a poorly managed reporting / data entry process. The procedures must to be clarified. Then either clean up old data or start with another dataset for the new fiscal year. Always start with on-budget funds; getting this reflected correctly may regain credibility for the government.

Government is not using the data What data is the government using then? AIMS data may have been dismissed because of its data quality and content is not good enough or not useful. Clarify what data government use and actually needs. Redesign the process.

The draft ODA Annual Report has wrong/low quality data

It is acceptable that the first ODA report has some inconsistencies, but they should be addressed. Identify where the weaknesses are and improve the next reporting process.

Government staff responsible has left, and new staff are not trained / do not manage

This frequently happens when short-term project staff has been used, and hand-over to permanent staff is unclear. The government managers responsible should dedicate the right staff.

System is frequently unavailable Technical administrator needs to increase bandwidth or resolve network bottlenecks. Also consider if the problem is on the user’s side; DP internet connections could be weak, or going through providers not connected in-country.

System is slow Technical Administrator needs to consider server memory allocation and network bottlenecks. AIMS providers should help address this problem and provide technical support. Users should consider their internet connections.

F. Where can I Go for Help?

F1. IATI

F2. Capacity Development for Development Effectiveness (CDDE) Facility

F3. Development Partners

F5. Opportunities to learn from peers

F4. System providers

35 | P a g e

G. Appendices 1. Glossary of terms

2. References (including evaluations, etc)

3. List of known AIMS and their web URL links

H. Additional Online Resources 1. Examples of Analyses prepared using AIMS (e.g. the Cambodia Aid Effectiveness Report)

2. AIMS Needs Assessments (information on objective & methodology, examples of country needs assessments – where government permits their posting online)

3. Wider Capacity Assessments on Aid Effectiveness (objective & methodology, examples of capacity assessment (Nepal, forthcoming), and how they support a Capacity Development Strategy).

36 | P a g e

Annex 1: References Accascina G., Cox A., Nadol J., Silovic D., Hammond B., and Petras R., 2006, Role of Aid Information Management Systems in Implementing the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness at the Country Level, DAC Working Party on Aid Effectiveness, Eighth Meeting, 5-7 July 2006. Nadoll J., 2006, Lessons learnt from establishing aid information management systems to support nationally-led aid coordination, UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok. Nadoll J., 2008, Assessment of UNDP’s Regional Project on Capacity Development for Tsunami Aid Coordination, UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok. Andersen, A, 2008, Evaluation of Project Support for Government-led Development Assistance Database in Vietnam, UNDP / Ministry of Planning and Investment, Vietnam Andersen A, 2006, AIMS Impact Assessment Matrix, DevThink.org Andersen, A 2006, Sri Lanka Tsunami Aid Coordination Tools, Reconstruction and Development Agency, Sri Lanka Andersen, A 2010, Desk Review of AIMS in post-conflict and Fragile States, UN Peace-building Secretariat Office, New York (forthcoming) MDGnet 2007, Are Aid Management Systems Enhancing Aid Effectiveness for the MDGs?, INFO Series/e-Discussion facilitated by Jonas Kjaer, Aidan Cox and Andrea Cuzyova, UNDG/MDGnet 2007 [Others forthcoming]

Annex 2: Technical Feature Comparison of Common AIMS The following is a list of features compared between DAD, AMP, ODA Data and the ODA Database systems.

Features & Functionalities

Donor Assistance Database (DAD)

Aid Management Platform (AMP) ODA Data

Cambodian ODA Database

URL of demonstration database or of publically accessible country example:

http://dad.synisys.com/daddemo/

http://amp.developmentgateway.org/

http://nic.odadata.eu/ http://cdc.khmer.biz/

Conceptual focus and institutional approach

Presentation of ODA funded projects, most often reported and managed by donor agencies. Aid management unit to validate and produce reports.

Aid management unit primary users, donor agencies to validate and supplement. Facilitates workflow between institutions.

Presentation of ODA funded projects, managed by donor agencies. Aid management unit to validate and produce reports.

Presentation of ODA funded projects, managed by donor agencies. Aid management unit to validate and produce reports.

Countries implemented

Pakistan, Vietnam (see evaluation), Sri Lanka, Iraq, Zambia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone (many central asian countries used DAD at some time during the 1990s)

Ethiopia, Tanzania, Malawi, Burundi, D. Rep of Congo, Burkina Faso, Niger, Senegal, Madagascar

Mozambique, Nicaragua Cambodia.

Software / operating system, connectivity and hosting environment

Synergy IDM Knowledge Builder (closed source code) MS SQL hosted on MS Server

Java open source-based application, MySQL, can be hosted on MS Server or Linux. Source code not released.

Oracle 10G, Developer 6i, MS Windows 2003.

MS Access + JSP, MS SQL (available source code)

Provider Synergy International Systems (www.synisys.com)

Development Gateway (amp.dgfoundation.org)

Developed by ODAdata consultancy group, now taken over by Development Gateway

Government of Cambodia & UNDP

Integration with other systems (budget, IFMS,

XML schema available IDML exchange standard No No

37 | P a g e

Statistics)

Management Workflow features

Approval of planned projects. Alerts with email messages to creators of outdated projects.

Facilitates workflow in configurable workspaces, grouping users of same institution / department. Validation controls.

No No

Financial tracking

Commitments, disbursements and expenditures. Funding flows over three levels; funding agency, 1st level partner and 2nd level partner. Disbursements linked to the relevant commitments. Expenditure is simplified as disbursement to 3rd level agency.

Planned and actual Commitments, disbursements and expenditures. Funding flow includes two levels, funding agency and executing agency. Additional optional modules on components financials and disbursements to regional / local government.

Commitments and disbursements.

Commitments and disbursements (2 levels: funding source and implementing partner)

Results tracking

Allows qualitative output description per project. Also allows key performance indicators.

Tracks planned and actual outputs from projects (advanced), and relates projects to national plans with progress statistical data.

No No

Navigation interface, speed

One set of customizable tabs set to apply for all users, with available filters and sorting. Loading time required for expanding hierarchy/drill-downs and popup for changing filters.

Tabs with preset filters and hierarchy, customizable by user and workspace manager. Expanding hierarchy doesn’t require loading time. Report generation through step-by-step approach (several individual screens), which is not user-friendly

Simple web site interface navigation with hyperlinks and checkbox selections.

Simple web site interface navigation with hyperlinks and checkbox selections. Report generation through MS Access.

Dashboards, Charts and Maps

Configurable Chart. Configurable map outline per region and district level. Simple dashboard allows opening several reports in one window.

Two dashboard (Project M&E w/portfolio avg output indicators, and National Planning Dashboard w/ projects in relation to national planning instruments and progress indicators. Map outline under development in relation to DevInfo integration.

None. Map outlines not yet available. No

Planning Calendar No Calendar to mark reporting schedule and events. No No

Document Management

Allows document upload to project record.

Allows document upload to project record. Also contains a separate document management module.

No No

Report generation

Report generated from a single page with menus of available columns and row data fields. Export to Excel and PDF. If using Synergy Portal Admin tool, live data reports can be rendered on a web site page.

Step by step reports generation. Export to Excel, CVS, PDF and printer-friendly. Dynamic tabs can be designed by user.

Some preset fields for generating a report. Pre-defined reports based on given templates, actual reporting mainly through excel.

Yes, user selection of fields to be included (export to Excel)

User Management

New user register on front page. Admin assigns user to organizations with permissions.

New users register on site. Workspace Manager can include new user to workspace. Admin tools can assign / un-assign users from workspaces and ban users.

None.

Permission Management

User permissions based on organization; edit rights for all projects where user organization is assign with a funding or implementing role. Public view embedded.

Advanced permissions configuration available. Unlimited workspaces with filtered projects for specified organizations or sectors, and management workspaces for overall reporting. Public View optional.

Single permission for all users. Admin tools.

Each donor has own unique password, limiting editing rights to own portfolio. Admin tools.

Adaptability and future customization

Closed Code. All changes must be requested to software firm Synergy International. IDM Knowledge Builder may be used to make changes in application.

Based on Open Source technology, but source code not available.

Code available. Low complexity.

Code available. Low complexity.

Project Range from USD 160,000 and Implementations planned as 3 Estimated USD 50,000 Available free of

38 | P a g e

Implementation, Scope and Costs

up. Usually one year contracts, with option to renew technical support. Consultancy support can be contracted for subsequent adjustments or additional training.

year projects (first year implementation at USD 250,000), with training, technical support, and option of 2 years of sustainability support.

for set-up of new deployment.

charge with limited support from UNDP Cambodia. IT expert / local IT company required to customize database to country requirements

Annex 3: Impact Evaluation Survey Forms Government Survey Form (DevThink / Andersen v.3/Jan10) This survey is intended for Government staff who works in departments and government institutions that manage development assistance, and who will use or are currently using an aid management system. Ministry / Institution: __________Department: __________ Division: _________ How do you consider the internal information management of your agency / department? 0 Weak 0 Needs improvement 0 Ok 0 Strong 0 Very strong 1. PROJECT AID FLOW DATA This section is meant to monitor changes in process efficiency. 1.1 To what degree are data and analysis of ODA easily available from donor agencies? 0 Not available 0 Limited 0 Ok 0 Easily available 0 Easily available from one source 1.2 Has ODA data analysis influenced national planning? 0 No 0 Slightly 0 Part of process 0 Has some impact on policy decisions 0 Strongly impacts on planning and policy decisions 1.3 How up-to-date is your agency’s data on donor funded projects? 0 Outdated by more than a year 0 Up to date but mostly not 0 Reasonably up to date 0 Mostly up to date 0 All data up-to date on regular basis 1.4 How many workdays per month do you spend on: a) collecting project data from donor agencies? 0 No time

39 | P a g e

0 1 work day 0 2-4 workdays 0 5-9 workdays 0 10 or more workdays b) data entry of project data 0 No time 0 1 work day 0 2-4 workdays 0 5-9 workdays 0 10 or more workdays c) producing and updating reports on aid utilization 0 No time 0 1 work day 0 2-4 workdays 0 5-9 workdays 0 10 or more workdays d) Using data and analysis for planning, policy discussions and decision-making. 0 No time 0 1 work day 0 2-4 workdays 0 5-9 workdays 0 10 or more workdays 1.5 How well coordinated is the data collection and reporting of aid projects (Is there any duplications between ministries, or do you have a one-stop shop for donors to report)? 0 Ministries duplicate efforts. Data collection is poor. 0 Some duplication of data collection 0 Reasonably good process on data collection 0 Coordinated data collection available for everyone 0 One-stop shop for donors, data available for all government 2. USAGE AND IMPACT OF AIMS This section is meant to monitor the usage and impact of AIMS. Only choose one of the options stated for each question. 2.1 How often do you access AIMS? 0 Never 0 Once every three months 0 Every month 0 Every week 0 Nearly every day 2.2 Does AIMS help you to be better organized? 0 Makes no difference 0 Helps a little 0 Some improvements 0 AIMS makes me more efficient and organized 0 AIMS makes a significant difference on my organization and efficiency

40 | P a g e

2.3 In which area has AIMS had the greatest impact? (choose only one) 0 Project Planning 0 National Planning 0 Attracting funding / Resource mobilization 0 Creating visibility 0 Monitoring / Evaluation of results 0 None of the above 2.4 Has AIMS helped government coordinate donors better? 0 No, made it worse 0 Only slightly 0 Some improvements, but not much change 0 Improved government coordination of donors 0 Greatly helped government improve coordination 2.5 Does AIMS influence decision-making? 0 No 0 Yes 2.6 Which AIMS features is most useful to your institution? (choose only one) 0 Portfolio List View 0 Reports 0 Maps 0 Charts 0 Printed Reports / Export to Excel etc.. 0 Dashboard 2.7 How do you experience connection / application speed of AIMS? 0 Very slow 0 Slow 0 Normal 0 Fast 0 Very fast 2.8 Please give suggestions and feedback for improvement of AIMS: a) ____________ b) ____________ c) ____________ Donor Agency Survey Form (DevThink/Andersen v.3/Jan10) This survey is intended for Donor Agency focal points, who have been trained in using AIMS and are responsible to data inpiut and management for their donor agency. Agency Name: __________ How do you consider the internal information management of your agency? 0 Weak 0 Needs improvement 0 Ok 0 Strong 0 Very strong

41 | P a g e

1. PROJECT DATA MANAGEMENT PROCESS This section is meant to monitor changes in process efficiency. 1.1 How available is aid project data in–country? 0 Not available 0 Limited 0 Ok 0 Easily available 0 Easily available from one source 1.2 How well coordinated is the collection of ODA data and reporting of aid utilization (is there any duplications between ministries, or a one-stop shop for donors to report)? 0 Duplications and poor data requests / collection 0 Some duplication of data requests 0 Reasonably good process on data collection 0 Coordinated data collection available for everyone 0 One-stop shop for donors to report project data that all government use 1.3 How many workdays per month does your agency spend on reporting project data to government: 0 No time / less than a workday 0 1 work day 0 2-4 workdays 0 5-9 workdays 0 10 or more workdays 1.4 How many staff regularly use AIMS in your agency? 0 None 0 1 person 0 2-4 persons 0 5-9 persons 0 10 or more 1.5 How easy is it for your agency to collate the information required to report to AIMS? 0 Very difficult. We do not have the info available 0 Difficult. 0 Takes time and effort 0 Easy, but takes some effort 0 Easy. we have all info required available 2. IMPACT OF AIMS This section is meant to monitor the usage and impact of AIMS 2.1 Does AIMS improve and support you internal reporting processes? 0 No. It is a duplication of effort. 0 Yes. We use data from AIMS internally, and our reporting structure supports data required to report to AIMS. 2.2 Does AIMS data and analysis influence decision-making in your agency? 0 No 0 Slightly 0 Part of process 0 Impacts policy choice 0 strongly impacts on planning and policy design

42 | P a g e

2.3 Which AIMS features do you think is most useful? (choose only one) 0 Portfolio List View 0 Reports 0 Maps 0 Charts 0 Printed Reports / Export of Report to Excel etc. 0 Dashboard 2.4 Does AIMS help to promote the Paris Aid Effectiveness Agenda, improving harmonization and alignment, transparency and accountability? 0 No 0 Yes 2.5 In what area has AIMS had the greatest impact on your agency? (choose only one) 0 Project Planning 0 National Planning 0 Attract funding / Resource mobilization 0 Create visibility 0 Monitoring of results 2.6 Has AIMS helped improve coordination with the government? 0 No 0 Yes 3. USER FEEBACK This section is meant to get feedback on the AIMS application. 3.1 How do you experience connection speed to AIMS? 0 Very slow 0 Slow 0 Normal 0 Fast 0 Very fast 3.2 Have your Agency’s focal point received adequate training in using AIMS ? 0 No 0 Yes 3.3 How user-friendly is AIMS? 0 Not at all. 0 Not so user-friendly. 0 With some computer knowledge easy to learn 0 Easy to learn with some effort 0 Very easy to learn with a little effort 2.8 Please give suggestions and feedback for improvement of AIMS: a) ____________ b) ____________ c) ____________

43 | P a g e

Annex 3: Minimum Technical Specifications [Text forthcoming]