We are working on our 2014 Aid Transparency Index.
The 2013 ATI used a revised methodology that reflected changes in the aid transparency landscape and the resulting need to assess the quality of published data better. As a consequence, the data collection process was a little different in 2013. In particular, the scoring took account of the format of the data. The scores look at the accessibility and user-friendliness of the information, so the more open and comparable the information is, the more highly valued it is.
Of the 67 organisations included in the 2013 ATI, 28 are publishing some current information in the common, open IATI format. MCC became the first U.S. agency to top the ATI. The Treasury and USAID also made significant improvements in the ranking. Three European Commission departments joined EuropeAid to publish to IATI – ECHO, Enlargement and the Foreign Policy Instruments Service. Over 90% of the EC’s aid is now represented by IATI publishers.
For the 2012 ATI, 72 organisations were selected. As well as bilateral and multilateral agencies, selected climate finance funds, humanitarian agencies, development finance institutions and private foundations were included, in order to test the transparency of wider development flows. The ATI showed a gradual improvement in aid transparency, but found that most aid information is still not published. The average agency score in 2012 was just 41% – a modest 7 percentage point rise from 2011.
Our highly-regarded 2011 Pilot Aid Transparency Index was developed in direct response to the 2010 Assessment. The Index – the first of its kind – ranked donor agencies according to how much information they provided across 37 different indicators. The average score of 34% showed that although some donors had made progress, the majority needed to do much more. No donors ranked in the top category ‘good’, which required a score of over 80%.
In 2010, we produced the Aid Transparency Assessment, a comprehensive review of donors’ aid transparency. This assessment of 30 organisations demonstrated the lack of timely and comparable primary data provided by donors.