Transparency Indicator

IATI Steering Committee

Copenhagen 13 March 2014

Rationale and process for the indicator

A direct response to the Busan High-Level Meeting in 2011• June 2012: The common, open standard is endorsed at the final meeting of

the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness in June 2012• June 2012: Mandate by the Post-Busan Interim Group to monitor the

implementation of the common standard

A participatory process 2013 • Development of approach building on work of the Ad-Hoc Group• Core group technical work to construct proposal• Oct-Nov: Consultation on the construction of the indicator • Dec-Feb: Piloting of the transparency assessment

Coverage ratio

Timeliness (in CRS and IATI)

- How frequently do providers report?

- How fresh is the data when it is published

Comprehensiveness: level of detail (in CRS and IATI)

- For how many of the data fields is information provided?

Forward looking (in FSS and IATI)

- For how many years ahead is information provided? [1, 2 or 3 years]

- How disaggregated / detailed is the data?

[activity / sector / country level]

What are we measuring?

Methodology and guiding principles

• Full methodolology available on the Global Partnership Teamworks community site

• A few guiding principles: • Building on existing systems (OECD CRS/FSS and IATI) • Covers all ODA providers with an implementation schedule • Focus on ODA (CPA for forward-looking dimension)• Simplicity (grade from A to E) • Room for evolution (pilot approach)

• Piloting carried out in close collaboration with common standard secretariats

Key findings from the analysis

A good start: the average provider• Reports data once a year, that is 6-9 months old• Information for 50% of data fields• Provides some forward-looking information (75%)

Progress by 2015 requires• Timeliness: more frequent reporting, fresher data• Comprehensiveness: more systemic completion of data fields

needed (quality of reporting also important)• Forward-looking: much more effort needed, start with country

envelopes

Context for findings and way forward• Indicator measures one specific aspect of transparency• Baseline / starting point –goal set for 2015• Entry point for focusing efforts going forward• Wide range of grades allows for improvement

Reinforce political momentum in Mexico Provide basis for further technical efforts beyond

(including possible refinement of the indicator)

Key issues for consideration • How to link global and country-level transparency

– ensure information provision at both levels? • How to ensure that information is geared

to support countries’ strategic planning?