IATI – Planned evaluation of IATI 14th October 2014 IATI Partner Country Caucus Chair: Honduras Presenter: IATI Secretariat Slide 1 – Introduction (3 minutes) Agenda item: Planned evaluation of IATI. Members are invited to discuss important items to be included in an evaluation of IATI (Value added for partner countries). Identify a partner country volunteer for working group. A short presentation of the proposal by the Secretariat. Paper 7: Proposal for an Evaluation Working group.

Purpose and conditions An external evaluation to help informing the discussion on IATI’s future. Budget: $23,333 (allocated budget), $40,000 (proposal). An open procurement process. Working group of members to develop ToR. Tentative conclusions to be presented in the next SC meeting (spring 2015). Slide 2 – Introduction (1 minutes) The Secretariat plans to commission an external evaluation of IATI in early-2015. The outcomes of this evaluation will be helpful in informing the discussion on IATI’s future within the context of the wider post-2015 debate. It is expected that the evaluation will be carried out by an independent consultant/s on the basis of an open procurement process. The budget for the evaluation is $23,333 according to the original proposal. As IATI is a member-driven initiative, it is proposed that a working group of people drawn from membership would be called upon to develop terms of reference (ToR) for the evaluation. The working group should reflect all IATI constituencies, e.g. partner countries, donor countries, multilateral organisations, civil society organisations (CSOs) and philanthropic foundations, and appoint its own chair.

Suggested elements in the evaluation Results: Assess IATI’s progress and impact to date from 2008, etc. Organisation: Assess the strengths and weaknesses of IATI’s institutional arrangements, etc. Operational work: Assess how and where IATI could have greater relevance, etc. Other areas of interest? Slide 3 – Suggested elements in the evaluation (2 minutes) The content of an IATI evaluation depends on the money to be spent and what members want to know. The following focus areas are listed in the Secretariat’s proposal as suggested elements in the evaluation of IATI. Results, e.g. assess IATI’s progress and impact to date from 2008 with regard to its mandate, role and responsibility, with special emphasis on data quantity, quality and usage; Organisation, e.g. assess the strengths and weaknesses of IATI’s institutional arrangements including an indication on how the current or future alternative institutional arrangements might increase the impact and effectiveness of IATI’s future work; Operational work, e.g. assess how and where members and other stakeholders feel that IATI’s approach, technical support and outreach could have greater relevance to their work and to the international transparency agenda, including actionable, forward-looking recommendations for strengthening its performance in future. - Depending on members views, the evaluation can focus on one or two of the mentioned areas, cover all of them or focus on other areas of interest.

Next steps and guiding principles Appointment of members to the Working group. Working group to develop workplan, timeline, budget and ToR, etc. based on discussions in Copenhagen. Secretariat members as ex-officio members. Next SC meeting: Presentation of draft conclusions and recommendations. Slide 4 – Next steps and suggested guiding principles for the working group (2 minutes) Appointment of members: There is no limit as to the number of members of the working group. Important that each IATI stakeholder group is represented (partner countries, donor countries, multilateral organisations, civil society organisations (CSOs) and philanthropic foundations). ToR for the Working group: Proposed timeline: Working group to report back to Chair and Vice-Chair on work plan and timeline no later than November 15th. Draft ToR (framework) developed before the end of November (??). Procurement process and ToR finished by the end of January (??). Draft evaluation finished before the next SC meeting (April/May). Budget: The calculated budget for the evaluation is $23,333 at present, which is supposed to include consultant fees, travel costs, and per diems. However, the working group might wish to consider whether a larger budget is required, and in that case, take the necessary measures together with the Standing Sub-group on Budget and Finance. A reallocation can be made in relation to the annual report, which would give us a budget of $40,000. Methods: Quantitative or qualitative methods? Member opinion poll? Field visits? Relation to ATI, TI, implementation schedule, etc.? Other groups/interests to consult – DAC, GP, etc.? The working group to guide evaluation. Secretariat members will be available as ex-officio members of the working group to assist with procurement issues and other secretarial duties. Transparency in process. Results owned by the members.

Discussion points What do members want to know from the evaluation? Elements to be included? Methods and relation to other surveys/actors? Comments on guiding principles for the working group, including budget and timeline? Volunteers for the working group? Slide 5 – Discussion points (1+15 minutes) See slide 4 for more discussion questions. Conclusions (5 minutes)