The Global Partnership Monitoring Framework
Update on Indicator to Measure Transparency
IATI Steering Committee, 3 October, Copenhagen
www.effectivecooperation.org
Where are we coming from?
Busan HLF4 (2011)
• “…implement a common, open standard for electronic publication
of timely, comprehensive and forward looking information on
resources provided through development cooperation...”
• “Agree, by June 2012, on a selective and relevant set of indicators
and targets through which we will monitor progress”
Post-Busan Interim Group → WP-EFF June 2012
• Global Partnership monitoring Framework Indicator 4: “Measure of
state of implementation of the common standard by co-operation
providers”
Indicator development (joint UNDP-OECD support team)
• Consultations with Ad Hoc Group on the Common Standard
• Technical work among Core Group of experts
What is the political approach?
• Accelerate and deepen efforts to implement the common
standard – enhanced accountability
• Improve the availability and public accessibility of information
on development co-operation – transparency vis-à-vis all
stakeholders
• Deliver a feasible and practical pilot indicator to measure
implementation and progress
• Facilitate political debate on transparency at ministerial-level
meeting
• Global transparency agenda is broad – need a strong
narrative
What is the ‘practical’ approach?
• Measure providers’ actual delivery of information
• Build on existing data and systems
• Simple, graduated measure of implementation
 Assess providers’ information provision to the systems of
the common standard
(IATI and OECD/DAC CRS and FSS)
 Focus on Official Development Finance
(bilaterals & multilaterals)
 Composite, quantitative indicator delivering
score/grade (out of 5) for each provider
one
Coverage
What are we measuring?
Timeliness
- Frequency of updates
- Freshness of information / time lags
[monthly / quarterly / semi-annual / annual]
Comprehensiveness
- Level of detail
[information in common standard data fields]
Forward looking
- How many years ahead
- How disaggregated
[1, 2 or 3 years; activity / sector / country level]
Why coverage?
• One element of
comprehensiveness
• Putting the information
in ‘size context’
• Latest verified figure
for annual
disbursements
ODF
Common
Standard
Reporting
What happens next?
• Core group to finalise technical work, joint support team to issue
proposal for feedback by mid-October (online consultation)
• Joint support team to finalise indicator and lead assessment for
progress report (continued collaboration with common standard
secretariats) Nov-Dec
• Complementary evidence to enrich the narrative: members
contributions in the run-up to the ministerial
In the spirit of a pilot approach…
• Test methodology, assess strengths/weaknesses, refine if appropriate.
• Future aspirations (long-term)
• Quality of information
• Broader coverage of actors – how to assess compliance with
common standard beyond existing reporting systems?
What can you do?
• Use online consultation to familiarise yourself with the
indicator, provide feedback and mobilise political
support for this assessment (2nd half of October)
• Provide complementary evidence to enrich the
narrative: Contribute your ideas through the e-discussion!
Feedback
• Initial reactions to the approach?
• How can we work together so that this resonates
politically?
• Beyond the common, open standard, what are the key
transparency issues where progress is taking place or
persistent challenges remain?