1. Aid Transparency Assessment
Karin Christiansen
Paris, 25 October 2010

2. Aims & Objectives
We know that aid is not always delivering the maximum impact possible
Aid transparency is fundamental to delivering on donors’ aspirations and the promise of aid
Essential to AAA specific aid transparency commitments as well as Paris Dec and HLF4
Our attempt to undertake a comparative stock take of the current levels of aid transparency

3. The Publish What You Fund Aid Transparency Principles
Information on aid should be published proactively
Information on aid should be comprehensive, timely, accessible and comparable
Everyone can request and receive information on aid processes
The right of access to information about aid should be promoted

4. Approach & Methodology
Aim to assess levels of publication for the full range of information types in terms of their comprehensiveness, timeliness and comparability
But methodology was driven by lack of primary data available
Peer review committee established to advise on approach and methodology

5. Methodology 30 donors – because they were in the datasets
7 indicators in 3 categories
8 data sources (from 2006 to 2010)
3 categories given equal weighting

6. Indicators & data sources

7. Findings
Finding 1: There is a lack of comparable and primary data Finding 2: There is wide variation in levels of donor transparency, across different types of donors Finding 3: There are significant weaknesses across indicators

8. Finding 1: There is a lack of comparable and primary data

9. Finding 2: There is wide variation in levels of donor transparency, across different types of donors

10. Overall Score

11. Finding 3: Significant weaknesses across indicators

13. Performance across the three categories
Table shows donor performance across all three categories. Average score is shown at the top.

14. Conclusions
Conclusion 1: The lack of primary data means that it is not currently possible to assess donor aid transparency in the degree of detail desirable
Conclusion 2: Even so, we know enough to be confident that there is room for improvement across all indicators assessed

15. Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Donors have demonstrated they can make information available, so they should Recommendation 2: Transform more information into better information through a common standard – mappable, searchable, useable Recommendation 3: Ensure common standard delivers for everyone – recipient systems esp. budgets, donors internal systems, HLF 4

16. Future aid transparency assessments
Future assessments would ideally cover greater range of aid agencies (e.g. all donor govts incl. ‘emerging’ donors, humanitarian agencies, INGOs, private companies, contractors)
Disaggregate donor performance country by country, programme by programme – variation inside agencies
Cover range of info types from aid policies/ procedures; aid strategies; aid flows; terms of aid; procurement; assessments of aid & aid effectiveness; integrity procedures; public participation; to access to info mechanism
BUT need your help and suggestions on way forward

17. Feedback & Questions Other data sources?
Approaches to next year’s assessment?
Possible partners?
Our contacts: