1 / 6

Transparency Indicator

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

latoya
Download Presentation

Transparency Indicator

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TransparencyIndicator IATI Steering Committee Copenhagen13 March 2014

  2. Rationaleand 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 • Developmentof 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

  3. What are we measuring?

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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?

More Related