Experiences in sharing information What can be done? Key findings from the IATI pilots

Background Exercise commissioned by IATI - TAG Aim: Identification of aid information challenges in partner countries and how IATI might help –Examine capacity of aid information/financial management systems –Complementing HQ Donor fact finding –Assessing the potential impact of the IATI standard Burkina Faso & Malawi volunteered Local donors involved: EU, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, UNDP, US & WB

Findings in Burkina Faso and Malawi Donors typically have HQ financial management systems –These lack forward looking & impact information –HQ and local donor data do not always coincide Off-budget aid information in high demand by government Forward looking information is not readily available Data timeliness, quality and comprehensiveness varies Need to align with financial years, administrative structure Reporting transaction costs are high –Many formats –Lack of common standards, definitions, and coordination

How can IATI help? Standard terms and terminology –Consistent set of definitions yet some flexibility at country level, especially for national classifications Code of conduct for funders/CSOs to promote transparency and consistency A standard data format that reduces transaction costs of reporting and updating systems Strengthen existing country level processes

What needs to be done? Need additional partner country pilots/assessments –Road test the standard, definitions, and data format as they evolve –Focus on building capacity and strengthening existing processes Donors need to alter their information systems, generally at local level –forward looking information & measurable impact Priority and resources need to be allocated by stakeholders –People, time, practical outputs Tools for aggregation and utilization need to be built –At the country level (Aid Information management systems) –Globally to complement the CRS system (e.g. AidData - see booth in marketplace) Linkages to country systems need to be emphasized/illustrated

In sum… The demand for timeliness, consistency, transparency and forward information is high To meet this demand IATI must be seen to add value –At the partner country level Reduce transaction costs Empower governments to plan and manage more effectively Enhance local donor coordination –At the global level Complement the CRS (timeliness, coverage of non-DAC donors, forward looking, alignment with the financial year of partner country) Allow easy tracking and monitoring of global commitments by both donors and CSO organizations (enhanced accountability) Make meaningful analysis easier and faster (what works and why)

About the Development Gateway International non-profit foundation with offices in Washington, Brussels, Dakar, and Nairobi Created in 2001 by the World Bank; now fully independent Key donors include Australia, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland, World Bank, UNDP Our mission is to enable change and reduce poverty in developing countries through the use of information technology. We provide web-based tools to strengthen governance and make aid and development efforts more effective. Contributor to the Aid Effectiveness Dialogue from the beginning Rome Declaration on Harmonization Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness Accra Agenda for Action International Aid Transparency Initiative International Board of Directors and Aid Effectiveness Steering Committee (OECD, UNDP and World Bank)

Chart 1. Breakdown by OECD sector, ODA disbursements to Burkina Faso, 2007 AMP vs. CRS database (USD million) Source: Rudolph Petras Comparative Study of Data Reported to the OECD Creditor System and to the Aid Management Platform Development Gateway and OECD, October 2009

Chart 2. Breakdown of ODA disbursements by Financial Instrument Source: Rudolph Petras Comparative Study of Data Reported to the OECD Creditor System and to the Aid Management Platform Development Gateway and OECD, October 2009

Chart 3. Breakdown by sector in Malawi – AMP/CRS comparison (USD million) Source: Rudolph Petras Comparative Study of Data Reported to the OECD Creditor System and to the Aid Management Platform Development Gateway and OECD, October 2009