Working with IATI - Mark Brough - Publish What you Fund
-
Upload
openforchange -
Category
Documents
-
view
108 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Working with IATI - Mark Brough - Publish What you Fund
Working with IATI
Presentation to Open Data for Development Camp
Amsterdam, 12th May 2011
The aid revolution starts with <?xml?>
Presentation to Open Data for Development Camp
Amsterdam, 12th May 2011
What’s the problem?
Publish many times, use rarely
Publish Once, Use Often
The problem
• Lots of information in lots of different places• Of varying quality...• Different formats / classifications; not
compatible / comparable• Often not current or forward looking
Afghanistan• Of the $32 billion pledged by the US for
2001-2008, less than 20 percent ($6 billion) is recorded in the government’s aid database.
• That means Afghans have no way of knowing what’s happening with the other $26 billion the US has been spending in their country.
Towards a common standard
• It’s not a silver bullet – but it’s hard to see how aid effectiveness can be delivered without aid transparency
• Commitments under AAA and to deliver on PD• Key vehicle: International Aid Transparency
Initiative– Donor-led initiative to publish information in a
standard, comparable format• 8 EU Member States are signatories to IATI
The solution: open data and standards
• Use standard format for publishing raw aid information (IATI-XML)
• Publish it to your website• Register this data with the IATI Registry– www.iatiregistry.org
• Multiple infomediaries can access and use this information to meet specific stakeholder needs
• Set up in Accra, Ghana in September 2008• 19 Signatories– African Development Bank, World Bank, Asian
Development Bank, European Commission, United Nations Development Programme, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, Hewlett Foundation
– Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK
• 2 Observers– France, US
19 developing countries have endorsed IATI
• Sierra Leone• Liberia• Bangladesh• Honduras• Republic of Congo• Democratic
Republic of Congo• Ghana• Rwanda• Indonesia• Nepal
• Viet Nam• Papua New Guinea• Moldova• Montenegro• Colombia• Burkina Faso• Malawi• The Dominican
Republic• Syria
Where we’re at now
• 9th February – Standard agreed• 28th January – DFID published all its projects to
IATI• 1st April – Hewlett Foundation published all its
projects to IATI
A project in DFID’s project-level database
The same DFID project in the IATI XML format
Hewlett Foundation’s IATI data
How are the donors doing?
• AidWatch Report: aid transparency• Sneak peak at the results so far, for 25
European donors• Full report launched 19th May 11am, Brussels
UK**
Denmark
**
Swed
en
Estonia
European
Commission*
Czech Rep
ublic
Luxem
bourg
Belgium**
Finlan
d
Austria
Slovak
iaSp
ain
Lithuan
ia*
Sloven
ia
German
y
Latvia
**
Netherl
ands* Ita
ly
Portugal
**
France*
*
Hungary**
Greece
Poland*
Cyprus
Malta
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
Information collected but not published
Information only sometimes published
Information systematically published
Commitment to Aid Transparency (FOIA and IATI)
Aid Transparency of 25 European Donors
* Donor did not have the opportunity to review the initial results, as results were collected too late; ** Donor was given the opportunity to review the initial results, but did not reply within 4 weeks; *** No information was collected on this donor
Ove
rall
scor
e ou
t of 3
8Embargoed until 19th May
UK**
Netherl
ands IA
TI
Denmark
**
Swed
en
Estonia
European
Commission*
Czech Rep
ublic
Luxem
bourg
Belgium**
Finlan
d
Austria
Slovak
iaSp
ain
Lithuan
ia*
Sloven
ia
German
y
Latvia
**
Netherl
ands* Ita
ly
Portugal
**
France*
*
Hungary**
Greece
Poland*
Cyprus
Malta
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
Information collected but not publishedInformation only sometimes publishedPyramide + AKVOInformation systematically publishedCommitment to Aid Transparency (FOIA and IATI)
Aid Transparency of 25 European Donors
* Donor did not have the opportunity to review the initial results, as results were collected too late; ** Donor was given the opportunity to review the initial results, but did not reply within 4 weeks; *** No information was collec -
ted on this donor
Ove
rall
scor
e ou
t of 3
8Embargoed until 19th May
Netherlands scores much better in IATI (it publishes more information)
• 12 Fields in internal database which are similar to IATI
• 5 Fields mapped across to IATI by AKVO• 2 Fields added by AKVO by looking in other
documents to enhance IATI data• Netherlands moves from 17th to 2nd if it
publishes this data for all its projects
Challenges for IATI
• Still some questions unanswered• Recipient budget identifier field still TBD: so
not yet linked to recipient country budgets.• Voluntary... Members and observers represent
over 2/3 of all ODA, but a lot of aid left out! • How many signatories will implement?• Optional components – not all fields are
compulsory, so how many will be used?
Alternatives to IATI
• OECD’s CRS / CRS ++– High quality statistics; data verified by OECD– Not detailed enough; not timely (latest is 2009)
• EC’s TR-AID– Should be IATI compatible, but not clear yet
• Bilateral initiatives
What’s next?
• More donors publishing their data to IATI – probably at least another 6 before November/December (at HLF4)
• IATI standard starts to get data fed through it; let’s see how it works
• People start to use IATI data!
Aid and domestic spending in Uganda
Questions• Sampled: for 1 country and 1 project• Three parts:– Organisation-level information– Country-level information– Activity (or project)-level information
• For each piece of info:– Is it published? (Y/N)
• systematically for all recipients/projects all of the time• just for some recipients/projects some of the time?
– If you don’t publish it, do you collect it?– Evidence: show where this information is (the URL)
Organisation-level questions• Does this donor publish aid allocation policies and
procedures?• Does this donor publish its procurement
procedures?• Does this donor publish the total development
budget for the next three years, as submitted to parliament?
• Does this donor publish their annual forward planning budget for assistance for the next three years?
Country-level questions• Choose your donor’s biggest recipient country
(e.g., India). Then answer these questions:– Does this donor publish the country strategy
paper for India?– Does this donor publish forward planning budget
or documents for the institutions they fund in India for the next three years?
– Does this donor publish its annual audit of its aid programmes in India?
Activity-level questions• Activity-level aid information– This is the specific detail about aid flows, needed for
informed decisions about where aid is / should be going
– This is the level needed for coordination, alignment, results/evaluation, ownership, and esp. accountability
– E.g. Is it good use of Polish aid to build a school in Gikongoro or Butare? • USAID is already building a school in Gikongoro. • The Rwandan government can support the ongoing cost of
only one school – in Butare or Gikongoro.
Proposed Process• Choose (or find) a current activity (or a
“project”) in the chosen recipient country• Answer as many questions as you can find info
on• NB not finding info is data!• Then send it to your donor agency
NB: could just send it all straight to the donor, but in our experience asking them to “check/correct” gets best results
Activity-level questions• Does this donor publish which organisation
implements the activity?– Needed for accountability; performance
evaluation• Does this donor publish the current status of
the aid activity?– Is it still ongoing? Is it supposed to be completed?
The Tracker• Online, frequently updated tool – in real time.• A page per country showing the relative
performance of donors across Europe, and then across the world.
• Will allow partners to monitor and encourage progress up to Higher Level Forum 4 in Busan.
• We’re consulting on the methodology to aggregate the data up and would welcome feedback.