Please note: You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please update to IE10 here to properly experience the ATI website.

49.

Belgium – Belgian Development Agency

Very Poor

OVERVIEW

As an EU Member State, Belgium is part of the EU’s collective commitment to both the EU Transparency Guarantee and the Busan common standard, of which IATI is a core component. Belgium became an IATI member in February 2013, however it is yet to begin publication to the Standard. Its ambitious implementation schedule with plans to publish 92% of IATI fields assessed, set an original target for beginning publication to IATI in June 2014, which it has missed. The government’s open data portal data.gov.be, launched in 2011, is yet to include information on its development cooperation spending. The Development Agency’s online project database does not contain current information so could not be taken into account for the 2014 ATI. Belgium has not joined OGP.

ANALYSIS

Belgium scores 18.8%, placing it in the very poor category. It ranks 31^st out of 50 bilateral organisations. There has been little change to the information available on Belgium’s current development cooperation, resulting in it being overtaken by other organisations that have started publishing more comprehensive, accessible and timely information in machine-readable formats. Belgium performs best on commitment to aid transparency and planning information at the organisation level. It performs poorly at the activity level, scoring on only a quarter of these indicators. Of the 22 indicators that take format into account, only one – disaggregated budgets – is published in machine-readable format, in Belgium’s Forward Spending Survey report to the OECD DAC. Overall, Belgium does not score on 24 of the 39 indicators. The Belgian Development Agency did not respond to requests for feedback on the survey.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Belgium should begin publishing to the IATI Standard as soon as possible in order to meet the 2015 deadline.
It should update its implementation schedule so it is up to date, with specific timelines and delivery targets, aiming towards full implementation of the IATI Standard by the end of 2015.
Belgium should join OGP. This would be an opportunity to share best practice in open data and open government approaches.

DONOR PROFILE

First published to IATI:

N/A

2013 ATI Score:

23.4%

2013 ATI Rank:

Visit ATI 2013...

INDICATOR SCORING

TOTAL

18.85%

COMMITMENT TO
AID TRANSPARENCY:

4.17/10

PUBLICATION
ORGANISATION LEVEL:

9.17/25

PUBLICATION
ACTIVITY LEVEL:

5.5/65

Commitment

1. FOIA

2. Implementation Schedules

3. Accessibility

Publication Status

Source

http://www.rti-rating.org/country_data.php

Comments

Global RTI rating score of 59. Score conversion from total score on Global RTI rating to Index points done using the following scale: 1 - 60: 33 61- 90: 66 91 - 150: 100. A secondary data source is used as evidence for this indicator and all organisations are scored using the same methodology.

Click here to view history

1. FOIA

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

http://www.rti-rating.org/country_data.php

Global RTI rating score of 56. Score conversion from total score on Global RTI rating to Index points done using the Expand...following scale: 1 - 60: 33 61- 90: 66 91 - 150: 100

Donor Review

http://www.rti-rating.org/country_data.php

PWYF Review

http://www.rti-rating.org/country_data.php

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Rescaling is rough; Belgian RTI rating is 59, which is scaled to 33.33; if it had been two points higher, it Expand...would have been scaled to 66.66

PWYF Final Assessment

http://www.rti-rating.org/country_data.php

Global RTI rating score of 59. Score conversion from total score on Global RTI rating to Index points done using the Expand...following scale: 1 - 60: 33 61- 90: 66 91 - 150: 100. A secondary data source is used as evidence for this indicator and all organisations are scored using the same methodology.

Publication Status

Source

http://tracker.publishwhatyoufund.org/plan/organisations/

Comments

Based on total score received on Publish What You Fund's analysis of Common Standard/IATI implementation schedules.

Click here to view history

2. Implementation schedules

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

http://tracker.publishwhatyoufund.org/plan/organisations/

Based on total score received on Publish What You Fund's analysis of Common Standard/IATI implementation schedules.

Donor Review

http://tracker.publishwhatyoufund.org/plan/organisations/

PWYF Review

http://tracker.publishwhatyoufund.org/plan/organisations/

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

http://tracker.publishwhatyoufund.org/plan/organisations/

Based on total score received on Publish What You Fund's analysis of Common Standard/IATI implementation schedules.

Publication Status

Source

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/chiffres/DGDprojectdb/

Comments

The score for this indicator has been corrected. As highlighted by the independent reviewer, the database used as evidence includes information up to 2012. As per the methodology, this portal does not meet the criteria for scoring.

Click here to view history

3. Accessibility

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/chiffres/DGDprojectdb/

Portals are scored using three criteria: 1) the portal allows free, bulk export of data; 2) it contains detailed disaggregated data; Expand...3) the data is published under an open licence. Each of these carry 1/3rd of the total points of 100. Scores for detailed disaggregated data and free bulk export.

Donor Review

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/chiffres/DGDprojectdb/

PWYF Review

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/chiffres/DGDprojectdb/

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Only data until 2012 is available; The score should take into account that the data is not very detailed

PWYF Final Assessment

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/chiffres/DGDprojectdb/

The score for this indicator has been corrected. As highlighted by the independent reviewer, the database used as evidence includes information Expand...up to 2012. As per the methodology, this portal does not meet the criteria for scoring.

Planning

Financial

4. Organisation Strategy

5. Annual Report

6. Allocation Policy

7. Procurement Policy

8. Country Strategy

9. Total Budget

10. Disaggregated Budgets

11. Audit

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/publications_et_documentation/documents_politiques/

Comments

Publishes strategies for each theme/priority area that DGD focuses on.

Click here to view history

4. Organisation strategy

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Document

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/publications_et_documentation/documents_politiques/

Publishes strategies for each theme/priority area that DGD focuses on.

Donor Review

Always

Document

PWYF Review

Always

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

It takes some time for new strategies to be made available

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Document

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/publications_et_documentation/documents_politiques/

Publishes strategies for each theme/priority area that DGD focuses on.

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/binaries/rapport_annuel_dgd_2012_tcm312-223392.pdf http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/publications_et_documentation/rapport_annuel/

Comments

Published in May of each year.

Click here to view history

5. Annual report

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Document

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/binaries/rapport_annuel_dgd_2012_tcm312-223392.pdf http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/publications_et_documentation/rapport_annuel/ Expand...

Published in May of each year.

Donor Review

Always

Document

PWYF Review

Always

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Document

Published in May of each year.

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/binaries/presentation_brochure_belgian_cooperation_tcm312-68022.pdf

Comments

There is an information brochure available on the DGD website. This brochure explains what they allocate, where and why in brief.

Click here to view history

6. Allocation policy

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Document

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/binaries/presentation_brochure_belgian_cooperation_tcm312-68022.pdf

There is an information brochure available on the DGD website. This brochure explains what they allocate, where and why in brief.

Donor Review

Always

Document

PWYF Review

Always

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

Belgian law on development cooperation contains a list of priority themes and criteria for the selection of partner countries

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Document

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/binaries/presentation_brochure_belgian_cooperation_tcm312-68022.pdf

There is an information brochure available on the DGD website. This brochure explains what they allocate, where and why in brief.

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

http://www.btcctb.org/fr/travailler-ctb

Comments

The Belgian Technical Cooperation agency which is an implementing arm of the DGD is subject to Belgian law on public procurement and follows rules imposed by the law.

Click here to view history

7. Procurement policy

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Document

http://www.btcctb.org/fr/travailler-ctb

The Belgian Technical Cooperation agency which is an implementing arm of the DGD is subject to Belgian law on public procurement Expand...and follows rules imposed by the law.

Donor Review

Always

Document

PWYF Review

Always

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Document

http://www.btcctb.org/fr/travailler-ctb

The Belgian Technical Cooperation agency which is an implementing arm of the DGD is subject to Belgian law on public procurement Expand...and follows rules imposed by the law.

Publication Status

Sometimes

Format: Document

Source

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/binaries/pic_rdc_2010-2013_tcm312-158667.pdf http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/pays/pays_partenaires/rd_congo/

Comments

2010-2013 country strategy for DRC is published. However, the strategy for 2014 is not available. Also strategies covering 2013-2014 are not available for some countries including Algeria and Ecuador.

Click here to view history

8. Country strategy

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Sometimes

Document

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/binaries/pic_rdc_2010-2013_tcm312-158667.pdf http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/pays/pays_partenaires/rd_congo/ Expand...

2010-2013 country strategy for DRC is published, no forward looking strategy.

Donor Review

Sometimes

Document

PWYF Review

Sometimes

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

Not updated on time ex: Algeria, a new country strategy start in 2014 and it’s not in the website until now.

PWYF Final Assessment

Sometimes

Document

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/binaries/pic_rdc_2010-2013_tcm312-158667.pdf http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/politique/cooperation_au_developpement/pays/pays_partenaires/rd_congo/ Expand...

2010-2013 country strategy for DRC is published. However, the strategy for 2014 is not available. Also strategies covering 2013-2014 are not Expand...available for some countries including Algeria and Ecuador.

Publication Status

Source

No data available.

Comments

This information does not appear to be published, budget information in annual reports is only retrospective

Click here to view history

9. Total budget

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

This information does not appear to be published, budget information in annual reports is only retrospective

Donor Review

PWYF Review

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

from October onwards, the next year’s budget is available

PWYF Final Assessment

This information does not appear to be published, budget information in annual reports is only retrospective

Publication Status

Source

http://www.oecd.org/dac/aid-architecture/CRS%20FSS%20data%20online%20-%202013%20Survey.xlsx

Comments

Provisional budgets up to 2016 available in the FSS data.

Click here to view history

10. Disaggregated budgets

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Machine readable

http://www.oecd.org/dac/aid-architecture/CRS%20FSS%20data%20online%20-%202013%20Survey.xlsx

3 years budget available through CRS++ FSS data.

Donor Review

Machine readable

PWYF Review

Machine readable

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Through oecd, there is only 2013 data and then, in the previsonnal budget 2014

PWYF Final Assessment

Machine readable

http://www.oecd.org/dac/aid-architecture/CRS%20FSS%20data%20online%20-%202013%20Survey.xlsx

Provisional budgets up to 2016 available in the FSS data.

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

https://www.ccrek.be/EN/Publications/Fiche.html?id=e39642ab-fc29-4e41-8724-6e6c9f4706c2 file:///C:/Users/PWYF/Downloads/170e_c_obs_fed_Volume1.pdf

Comments

The federal Court of Audit is in charge of auditing the entire federal government budget. The reports are available on the Court of Audit website.

Click here to view history

11. Audit

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Document

https://www.ccrek.be/EN/Publications/Fiche.html?id=e39642ab-fc29-4e41-8724-6e6c9f4706c2 file:///C:/Users/PWYF/Downloads/170e_c_obs_fed_Volume1.pdf Expand...

The federal Court of Audit is in charge of auditing the entire federal government budget. The reports are available on the Expand...Court of Audit website.

Donor Review

Always

Document

PWYF Review

Always

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Document

https://www.ccrek.be/EN/Publications/Fiche.html?id=e39642ab-fc29-4e41-8724-6e6c9f4706c2 file:///C:/Users/PWYF/Downloads/170e_c_obs_fed_Volume1.pdf Expand...

The federal Court of Audit is in charge of auditing the entire federal government budget. The reports are available on the Expand...Court of Audit website.

Basic

Classifications

Financial

Performance

12. Implementer

13. Unique ID

14. Title

15. Description

16. Planned Dates

17. Actual Dates

18. Current Status

19. Contact Details

20. Collaboration Type

21. Flow Type

22. Aid Type

23. Finance Type

24. Sector

25. Sub-national Location

26. Tied Aid Status

33. Budget

34. Commitments

35. Disbursements And Expenditure

36. Budget Identifier

37. Results

38. Impact Appraisals

39. Conditions

Publication Status

Sometimes

Format: Website

Source

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Comments

Response changed to 'sometimes published' based on reviewer comments.

Click here to view history

12. Implementer

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Not explicitly stated in the BTC project lists. The DGD projects database does not have any information on current projects.

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

DGD database says who is the implementer, but indeed only for past projects; BTC is implementer of all projects on its Expand...site ; However, it is not possible to see who is the implementer in case of delegated cooperation

PWYF Final Assessment

Sometimes

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Response changed to 'sometimes published' based on reviewer comments.

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Comments

The BTC website does not appear to have any unique IDs. The DGD project database does not seem to have any current information.

Click here to view history

13. Unique ID

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

The BTC website does not appear to have any unique IDs. The DGD project database does not seem to have any Expand...current information.

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

The BTC website does not appear to have any unique IDs. The DGD project database does not seem to have any Expand...current information.

Publication Status

Always

Format: Website

Source

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Comments

No data available.

Click here to view history

14. Title

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Donor Review

Always

Website

PWYF Review

Always

Website

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Publication Status

Always

Format: Website

Source

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Comments

Descriptions are provided on the BTC page. Response corrected to 'always published.'

Click here to view history

15. Description

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Sometimes

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Very brief descriptions are provided on the BTC page, under the heading of context.

Donor Review

Sometimes

Website

PWYF Review

Sometimes

Website

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

there is always a description of projects at the BTC site; In addition, there is sometimes a link to a brochure Expand...with more information on the project ; However, some hyperlinks do not work on the CTB’s site

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Descriptions are provided on the BTC page. Response corrected to 'always published.'

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

No additional evidence provided for consideration. Project duration is published on the BTC website. However this contains information only by year. Both month and year are required to score on this indicator on this year's Index.

Click here to view history

16. Planned dates

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

Website

Project duration is published on the BTC website. However this contains information only by year. Both month and year are required Expand...to score on this indicator on this year's Index.

Donor Review

Not published

Website

PWYF Review

Not published

Website

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

sometimes; in the brochures that are available for some projects, the start month and year of the project are mentioned, as Expand...well as its duration in months

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

Website

No additional evidence provided for consideration. Project duration is published on the BTC website. However this contains information only by year. Expand...Both month and year are required to score on this indicator on this year's Index.

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

Click here to view history

17. Actual dates

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

Project duration is published on the BTC website. However this contains information only by year. Both month and year are required Expand...to score on this indicator on this year's Index

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

sometimes; in the brochures that are available for some projects, the start month and year of the project are mentioned, as Expand...well as its duration in months

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

This information could not be found.

Click here to view history

18. Current Status

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

This information could not be found.

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

BTC site mentions only projects that are being executed; the DGD database however contains no status information

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

This information could not be found.

Publication Status

Always

Format: Website

Source

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list http://www.btcctb.org/en/contact

Comments

No data available.

Click here to view history

19. Contact details

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list http://www.btcctb.org/en/contact

Donor Review

Always

Website

PWYF Review

Always

Website

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list http://www.btcctb.org/en/contact

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

From the DGD website it is apparent that they provide aid bilaterally as well as multilaterally. However, this is not stated per activity on the BTC site. The DGD project database does not have any current information.

Click here to view history

20. Collaboration Type

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

From the DGD website it is apparent that they provide aid bilaterally as well as multilaterally. However, this is not stated Expand...per activity on the BTC site. The DGD project database does not have any current information.

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

DGD’s database allows to search per type of implementer (multilateral organizations, non-governmental cooperation, other); BTC’s site says per project who is Expand...the funder, so you can see whether it’s a bilateral or multilateral project; Belgian multilateral aid is mostly used for core funding, which makes it impossible to say which projects have been funded ;

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

From the various publications and the description of the project database, it appears that only ODA is provided. However this is not explicitly stated anywhere

Click here to view history

21. Flow Type

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

From the various publications and the description of the project database, it appears that only ODA is provided. However this is Expand...not explicitly stated anywhere

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

From the various publications and the description of the project database, it appears that only ODA is provided. However this is Expand...not explicitly stated anywhere

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

This information could not be found. The DGD website cannot be used as evidence as the information contained in it does not meet the requirement for the data to be current in order to be considered for the Index.

Click here to view history

22. Aid Type

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

This information could not be found.

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

aid type can be found in a few cases in the DGD database in the attachment “Convention spécifique”

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

This information could not be found. The DGD website cannot be used as evidence as the information contained in it does Expand...not meet the requirement for the data to be current in order to be considered for the Index.

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

Click here to view history

23. Finance Type

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

This information could not be found.

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

finance type can be found in a few cases in the DGD database in the attachment “Convention spécifique”

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

Publication Status

Always

Format: Website

Source

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Comments

The BTC website has current projects listed. Sector details are available there.

Click here to view history

24. Sector

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

The BTC website has current projects listed. Sector details are available there.

Donor Review

Always

Website

PWYF Review

Always

Website

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

The BTC website has current projects listed. Sector details are available there.

Publication Status

Sometimes

Format: Website

Source

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Comments

Occasionally published on the project list under 'location' For example see 'Joint Support Unit Management within the Ministry of Rural Development - UCAG MINIDER'

Click here to view history

25. Sub-national location

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Sometimes

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Occasionally published on the project list under 'location' For example see 'Joint Support Unit Management within the Ministry of Rural Development Expand...- UCAG MINIDER'

Donor Review

Sometimes

Website

PWYF Review

Sometimes

Website

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

Sometimes

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Occasionally published on the project list under 'location' For example see 'Joint Support Unit Management within the Ministry of Rural Development Expand...- UCAG MINIDER'

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

This information could not be found.

Click here to view history

26. Tied Aid Status

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

This information could not be found.

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

This information could not be found.

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

This information could not be found. A document which details the agreement usually between the organisation and recipient government for the provision of aid in the country is required in order to score on this indicator.

Click here to view history

27. MoU

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

Document

This information could not be found

Programme has signatures of two parties, but it is unclear who these parties are.

Donor Review

Not published

Document

PWYF Review

Not published

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

MoU can be found in a few cases in the DGD database in the attachment “Convention spécifique”

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

Document

This information could not be found. A document which details the agreement usually between the organisation and recipient government for Expand...the provision of aid in the country is required in order to score on this indicator.

Publication Status

Sometimes

Format: Document

Source

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/policy/development_cooperation/evaluation/evaluation_reports/ http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/binaries/meta-evaluation_ang_rapport_final_tcm312-239330.pdf

Comments

As confirmed by the reviewer, evaluations are not published systematically.

Click here to view history

28. Evaluations

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Sometimes

Document

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/policy/development_cooperation/evaluation/evaluation_reports/ http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/binaries/meta-evaluation_ang_rapport_final_tcm312-239330.pdf Expand...

There is a Special Evaluation Office for International Cooperation that produces evaluation reports for each implementing agency. However the only report Expand...available for 2013 is an evaluation of evaluation strategy, suggesting that other evaluations are undertaken but not published.

Donor Review

Sometimes

Document

PWYF Review

Sometimes

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

there is another evaluation for 2013 on the webpage mentioned above: “Ex post Impact Evaluation of four Bilateral Cooperation projects“; However Expand...there is no systematic evaluation available for the audience.

PWYF Final Assessment

Sometimes

Document

http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/policy/development_cooperation/evaluation/evaluation_reports/ http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/binaries/meta-evaluation_ang_rapport_final_tcm312-239330.pdf Expand...

As confirmed by the reviewer, evaluations are not published systematically.

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Comments

No data available.

Click here to view history

29. Objectives

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Document

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Donor Review

Always

Document

PWYF Review

Always

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Document

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

This information could not be found.

Click here to view history

30. Budget Docs

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

Document

This information could not be found.

Donor Review

Not published

Document

PWYF Review

Not published

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

Document

This information could not be found.

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

This information could not be found.

Click here to view history

31. Contracts

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

Document

This information could not be found.

Donor Review

Not published

Document

PWYF Review

Not published

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

Document

This information could not be found.

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

http://www.btcctb.org/fr/marches-publics

Comments

Published on the BTC website.

Click here to view history

32. Tenders

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Document

http://www.btcctb.org/fr/marches-publics

Published on the BTC website.

Donor Review

Always

Document

PWYF Review

Always

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Document

http://www.btcctb.org/fr/marches-publics

Published on the BTC website.

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Comments

The BTC website does not provide disaggregated budget information. Budget is disaggregated by year on the DGD project database but this appears not to have been updated since 2012.

Click here to view history

33. Budget

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

The BTC website does not provide disaggregated budget information. Budget is disaggregated by year on the DGD project database but this Expand...appears not to have been update since 2012.

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

The BTC website does not provide disaggregated budget information. Budget is disaggregated by year on the DGD project database but this Expand...appears not to have been updated since 2012.

Publication Status

Always

Format: Website

Source

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

Comments

An aggregate total is available for each activity listed.

Click here to view history

34. Commitments

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

An aggregate total is available for each activity listed.

Donor Review

Always

Website

PWYF Review

Always

Website

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Website

http://www.btcctb.org/en/country/16/projects-list

An aggregate total is available for each activity listed.

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

This information could not be found.

Click here to view history

35. Disbursements and expenditure

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

This information could not be found.

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

This information could not be found.

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

This information could not be found.

Click here to view history

36. Budget Identifier

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

This information could not be found.

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

This information could not be found.

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

This information could not be found.

Click here to view history

37. Results

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

Does not seem to be published on either the DGD site or the BTC site.

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

This information could not be found.

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

This information could not be found.

Click here to view history

38. Impact Appraisals

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

Document

Does not seem to be published on either the DGD site or the BTC site.

Donor Review

Not published

Document

PWYF Review

Not published

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

Document

This information could not be found.

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

Click here to view history

39. Conditions

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

Document

This information could not be found.

Donor Review

Not published

Document

PWYF Review

Not published

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

disbursement conditions are mentioned in the “convention spécifique” which is in a few cases attached in the DGD ODA database

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

Document

1. Quality of FOI Legislation

The definition used in the Global RTI Rating is that it has to be a law in the strict sense, it must include the right of access to information, this right has to be enforceable and there must be complaint, court and high court appeal possibilities. Decrees are included if they meet the same standards. In addition, the FOIA must be in use for at least the executive part of the government; therefore, FOIAs which are only adopted, approved or still in draft form are not counted.

For multilateral donors, international finance institutions (IFIs) and private foundations, a disclosure or transparency policy is accepted as equivalent to a FOIA. Publish What You Fund completes an assessment of the quality of these disclosure policies based on the overarching approach taken in the Global RTI Rating.

The score for this indicator is graduated using a three-point scale.

Weighting

3.33%

2. Implementation Schedules

The Busan Partnership agreement required schedules for implementing the common standard to be published by December 2012. Publish What You Fund conducted an assessment of the schedules completed by development providers and submitted to the OECD common standard implementation website. Schedules are scored on the level of ambition shown by organisations in implementing the IATI component of the common standard. The complete assessment can be found on Publish What You Fund’s Aid Transparency Tracker website.

IATI implementation schedules are also accepted.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on the total points received out of 100 in Publish What You Fund’s analysis of Busan common standard/IATI implementation schedules.

Weighting

3.33%

3. Accessibility

The overall accessibility of aid information through the organisations’ portals, project databases or searchable data sources. These are scored using three criteria: 1) the portal allows free, bulk export of data; 2) it contains detailed disaggregated data; 3) the data is published under an open licence.

Data sources are the organisations’ own aid portals, publicly accessible databases or websites – accessed in that order. The portal or database must include information on current activities for the countries or sectors the organisation is working in rather than just one individual country/sector or a selected group. It should contain information on at least five of the activity-level indicators, at least one of which should cover financial information.

The same data source is used for all three checks. For example, if the aid portal does not state that the data is published under an open licence, this is not checked elsewhere on the organisation’s project database or website. If the organisation’s website is the data source then it cannot score on the “free bulk export” criterion.

If a portal allows bulk export through its API but not through its web-user interface, this is accepted as allowing free, bulk export of data.

The score for this indicator is graduated using a three-point scale as per the criteria define above. Each criterion carries 33.33% of the total possible score on this indicator.

Weighting

3.33%

4. Strategy

An overarching strategy document explains the general approach and policies of the organisation towards international development. This should be forward looking.

For organisations whose primary mandate is not development, documents clarifying their overarching development strategy are accepted. This information needs to be forward looking.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

2.5%

5. Annual Report

Annual reports outline basic (normally aggregate) information about how aid was spent in the previous year, broken down by sector and/or country. This should be backward looking.

Annual reports which are up to date within their regular cycle, i.e. the organisation publishes an annual report a year behind, the most recent document within this time frame are accepted.

To score for this indicator, the annual report needs to include details of where the organisation is spending its resources and the information needs to be forward-looking, i.e. cover current activity period.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

2.5%

6. Allocation Policy

Aid allocation policies are the detailed policy documents by which the organisation chooses where to spend its resources, i.e. on which countries or themes rather than others. Relatively general documents or web pages outlining which countries, themes and institutions the agency will fund are accepted, as long as this is forward looking and not wholly retrospective.

For organisations such as IFIs and private foundations which do not have an “aid allocation” policy, equivalent documents are accepted; for example, “investment strategy/policy” or “grant-making policy”.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

2.5%

7. Procurement Policy

An organisation’s procurement procedures explain the process used to tender and contract (invite bids for) goods and services. This must fully explain the criteria on which decisions are made, and could be in a single procurement policy document or attached to each tender.

For IFIs which are often demand-driven, this is understood as their investment policy. For private foundations, this is their grant making policy.

For organisations that do not undertake procurement related to aid projects (e.g. if procurement is undertaken by grantees or other implementing agencies), a statement explicitly clarifying this is required, as well as the overall policy for procuring goods and services at the headquarter level.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

2.5%

8. Strategy (Country)

A country strategy paper sets out the organisation’s planned approach and activities in the recipient country. For it to be accepted it needs to be a detailed document, rather than just a paragraph on the organisation’s website.

For organisations such as IFIs, philanthropic organisations and vertical funds which may not have country-level strategies, mid-level documents between organisation and activity-level are accepted, e.g. thematic or sectoral level documents.

If the organisation follows the strategy of a parent or related organisation, a statement clarifying this is needed on the website along with a link to the relevant strategy document. Similarly, if the organisation supports a country-led or developed strategy, this must be explicitly stated on the website and the link to the relevant strategy document needs to be provided.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

2.5%

9. Total Organisation Budget

The total organisation budget is the total amount that the organisation will be allocated by the government or its funders per year for the next three years. This is money going to the organisation and can be indicative. Each year ahead is worth one third of the total possible score for this indicator. Aggregate budgets of between 2–3 years are scored the same as 1 year forward budgets.

IFIs and DFIs do not have budgets allocated to them as traditional aid agencies do. In many cases, total budgets are established annually, once total financial figures of all investments are taken into account. However, they do have projected total spend figures that they sometimes publish. If published, these projected figures are accepted for this indicator.

Similarly, for private foundations and humanitarian agencies, indicative figures of available funds are accepted.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format and number of years for which data is provided.

Weighting

4.17%

10. Disaggregated Budget

The organisation’s annual forward planning budget for assistance is the disaggregated budget that the organisation or agency will spend on different countries, programmes and institutions per year, for at least the next three years. The figure could be indicative.

Scores are awarded on the basis of the number of years (up to three years) for which organisations are publishing budget information. Each year ahead is worth 33.33 points out of a total possible score of 100. Aggregate budgets of between 2–3 years are scored the same as 1 year forward budgets.

Both country budgets and thematic budgets are accepted for organisations that prioritise their work by countries. Projected figures disaggregated along thematic and sectoral priorities, at a near similar level of detail to total organisation budgets are accepted. IFIs and DFIs sometimes publish “road maps” which contain this information.

The start and end date for forward budgets are calculated based on organisations’ fiscal years for information collected via the survey. Budgets need to run up to a minimum of December 2016 to score for ‘three years forward’. Organisations at the end of their fixed budget cycles and therefore without a published budget for the next three years do not receive points for this indicator.

Forward Spending Survey data reported to the OECD DAC is taken into account only if it is available for the specific organisation under assessment.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format and number of years for which data is provided.

Weighting

4.17%

11. Audit

The organisation’s annual audit of its activities is an official inspection of the accounts and activities of this organisation, typically by an independent body.

Audits up to date with regular audit cycles are accepted, i.e. if the organisation publishes biennial audits, the most recent document within this time frame is accepted.

A formally approved audit of annual accounts is required to score on this indicator. Audits conducted by official government agencies such as State Audit Offices or Controller General Reports are accepted for this indicator.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

4.17%

12. Implementer

The implementer of the activity is the organisation which is principally responsible for delivering this activity.

This information may not be available in all cases due to “legitimate exclusions”. For example, humanitarian agencies may not be able to reveal who the implementing agencies are due to security reasons. Such exclusions are accepted but need to be explicitly stated (in order to distinguish these from cases of simple omission).

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.63%

13. Unique ID

The activity identifier is a unique reference ID for the activity, e.g. a project number. It allows an activity to be referred to and searched for by a code, which can be used to retrieve the project from a database or filing system.

The project ID must be stated clearly on the page. It is not sufficient if it is only stated in the URL. It must be numeric or alpha-numeric.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.63%

14. Title

The title of the activity is the name of the activity. This is preferably the formal name of the activity, but does not have to be. The title needs to be complete with any abbreviations or acronyms explained.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.63%

15. Description

The description of the activity is a descriptive text, longer than the title, explaining what the activity is. Sometimes it is just a short sentence but could also be more detailed. Either is accepted.

The description of the activity needs to contain a minimum of 10 words in order to be considered a description rather than just a title.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.63%

16. Planned Dates

The planned dates are the dates that the activity is scheduled to start and end on. If there are one set of dates but they are not explicitly planned or actual dates, given that these are for activities which are current (i.e. being implemented at the time of data collection) it is assumed that they are planned dates.

Both month and year are required to score on this indicator in recognition of recipient countries needing to be able to map activities to their own financial year rather than the calendar year.

If the activity has started or has finished, the original planned start and end dates must be retained in addition to the actual dates in order to score on this indicator.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.63%

17. Actual Dates

These are the dates that the activity actually started (and ended on, if the activity has finished). If there is only one set of dates but they are not explicitly stated as planned or actual dates, then it is assumed they are planned dates. Actual dates are accepted where specific events occurred, e.g. the date the project/programme agreement is signed, a board presentation or an appraisal date.

Both month and year are required to score on this indicator in recognition of recipient countries needing to be able to map activities to their own financial year rather than the calendar year.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.63%

18. Current Status

This shows whether the activity is currently under design, being implemented, has finished or has been cancelled.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.63%

19. Contact Details

This shows who can be contacted in relation to this activity. This does not have to be the contact information for an individual or project manager and could refer to a central contact or information desk. Contacts for either the funding organisation or the implementing organisation were accepted.

This has to be stated alongside the activity or on an obvious “contact us” link alongside the activity.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.63%

20. Collaboration Type

The collaboration type shows how the activity is funded – whether directly from one government to another (bilaterally), through institutions such as the World Bank or UN (multilaterally), or otherwise. This needs to be explicitly stated.

To be accepted, responses need to be stated per activity, or once in a country strategy paper or a clear place on the website, if there is only one collaboration type for the whole organisation, e.g. “all aid is funded bilaterally” or “we work exclusively with the private sector/non profits” or “all our activities are funded through pooled funds”.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.86%

21. Flow Type

The flow type shows whether the organisation states this activity counts as ODA, OOF, climate finance or any other type of flow. This has to be explicitly stated per activity, or once in a country strategy paper or a single place on the organisation’s website if there is only one flow type for all activities, e.g. “all aid is ODA”, or “we only provide private grants”.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.86%

22. Aid Type

The type of aid shows whether the activity is classed as budget support, a project, technical assistance, debt relief, administrative costs, and so on. This needs to be explicitly stated per activity, or once in a country strategy paper or on a clear place on the organisation’s website if there is only one aid type for the whole organisation, e.g. “all aid is project-type interventions”.

The advisory services business line/type of intervention (investment climate, public-private partnership, etc.), can be seen as broadly equivalent.

Statements clarifying business line/intervention type published anywhere on the organisation’s website count towards publishing aid type in the web format.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.86%

23. Finance Type

The type of finance shows whether the activity is a grant, loan, export credit or debt relief. This needs to be explicitly stated per activity, or once in a country strategy paper or clearly on the organisation’s website if there is only one finance type for the whole organisation, e.g. “all aid is grants”.

Investment type (loan, equity, etc.) can be interpreted as equivalent.

Statements clarifying investment type published anywhere on the website count towards publishing finance type in the web format.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.86%

24. Sectors

The sectors of the activity explain whether this is, for example, a health or education project. It does not count if it is just mentioned incidentally within the title, description, etc. It needs to be stated separately and explicitly.

If projects are presented by sector on an organisation’s website, it must be clearly stated whether the organisation works only in those sectors that are listed.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.86%

25. Sub-National Location

The sub-national geographic location is information about where the activity is located within a country. This may be a province or city, or it could be geo-coded (whereby the precise longitude and latitude is published). It needs to be stated separately and explicitly.

For activities that are relevant at a country or regional level, information on the location where the funds are sent to will be accepted for this indicator. For example, capital city for a country, or location information of the implementing organisation. This includes private sector investment, loans or debt relief payments, where the location of the relevant bank or organisation is accepted.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.86%

26. Tied Aid Status

The tied aid status shows whether the organisation states that this activity counts as “tied” (procurement is restricted to the donor organisation country) or “untied” (open procurement).

Specifying location requirements in activity documents such as procurement policies or tenders is accepted as publishing tied aid status.

For organisations’ lending directly to national investment agencies, an explicit statement demonstrating their aid is not tied is required. For IFIs and DFIs, investment codes clarifying their position are accepted. For private foundations, grant-making policies are accepted. If these are not available, the organisation’s procurement policy must clearly state if there are any eligibility requirements for contracts based on country of origin.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

1.86%

27. Memorandum of Understanding

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is a document which details the agreement usually between the organisation and recipient government for the provision of aid in the country.

Some organisations do not sign MoUs, so jointly developed documents governing the relationship between the organisation and the recipient are accepted as equivalent, e.g. investment codes or partnership/country agreements that have been developed in conjunction with recipient governments, agreements with implementing partners or with grantees.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

2.17%

28. Evaluations

Evaluation documents consider what the activity achieved, whether the intended objectives were met, what the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives were and an assessment of the impact, effect and value of the activity. This information may be on a specific evaluation section of the organisation’s website.

If the activity under assessment is not completed but evaluation documents are available for other completed activities, the organisation can score for this indicator.

Not all organisations carry out evaluations for all of their activities. Organisations can score on this indicator as long as they publish evaluations within their regular evaluation cycles, i.e. the organisation publishes country evaluations every three years, the most recent documents within this time frame are accepted.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

2.17%

29. Objectives

The objectives or purposes of the activity are those that the activity intends to achieve.

The objectives need to include the detailed description of the activity, the target sector/group and expected outcomes.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

2.17%

30. Budget Docs

This is a specific budget detailing what the intended spending is for the different lines of the individual activity. It is often a document published on the organisation’s website.

Budget documents cannot simply be at the country level. If an activity budget is included in a larger country-level document, it is only accepted if the budget for the activity is broken down line by line.

For organisations where budget documents might be considered commercially sensitive, documents with redactions of the commercially sensitive pieces of information are accepted but the specific reasons for the redactions need to be explicitly stated in detail and must clarify why the information is commercially sensitive and would cause material and direct harm if published.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

2.17%

31. Contracts

The individual contract(s) which is signed with a company, organisation or individual that provides goods and services for the activity. This could be on a procurement section of the organisation’s website, on a separate website or on a central government procurement website.

Contract documents cannot simply be at the country level. If an activity contract is included in a larger country-level document, it is only accepted if the contract mentions the activity specifically and in detail. Basic information about the activity contract is accepted if it contains three of the following five information items: awardee, amount, overview of services being provided, start/end dates, unique reference to original tender documents.

This indicator is retained for all organisations in the Index. In cases where organisations consider such information to be commercially sensitive, sections within the contract can be redacted but the reason for the redactions needs to be explicitly stated.

Due to the difficulty in checking contracts manually, rather than looking for the specific activity and the contract linked to it, a review of the organisation’s overall contracts is completed in line with the organisation’s procurement policy.

For vertical funds, equivalent documents are accepted, such as approved country proposals or agreements between the recipient and the funder.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

2.17%

32. Tenders

Tenders are the individual contracts or proposals that have been put out to invite bids from companies or organisations that want to provide goods and services for an activity. They may be on a separate website, possibly on a central government procurement website.

Investment codes or policies for IFIs and DFIs are accepted. For private foundations, calls for grant submissions are accepted. For humanitarian agencies, documents that provide guidance on securing funding are accepted.

Due to the difficulty with manually finding tenders linked to current activities, rather than looking for the specific tender, a review of the organisation’s overall calls for tenders is completed to check it is publishing them consistently and in-line with their procurement policy.

For organisations that do not issue tenders related to aid projects (e.g. if procurement is undertaken by grantees or other implementing agencies), a statement explicitly clarifying this is required.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

2.17%

33. Budget

The budget of the activity is the breakdown of the total financial commitment to the activity into annual or quarterly chunks.

In order to score for this indicator, the budget for at least the next year ahead (i.e. until 31 December 2014) or until the end of the activity – whichever is sooner – should be available.

For organisations where this may be deemed as commercially sensitive information, total estimated cost of fund/grant/loan amount is accepted or sections within a document can be redacted. The specific reasons for the redactions need to be explicitly stated in detail and must clarify why the information is commercially sensitive and would cause material and direct harm if published.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

3.25%

34. Commitments

This refers to the financial commitment for the activity as a whole for the lifetime of the activity. This is generally a high level commitment rather than a detailed breakdown of the activity budget.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

3.25%

35. Disbursements & Expenditures

Individual actual financial disbursements must be related to individual activities and must be on a per-transaction basis. Each activity is likely to have several transactions.

While such information might be considered to be commercially sensitive by some organisations, Publish What You Fund’s view is that actual expenditure information is less sensitive once the money has been spent. Hence all organisations are scored on this indicator. For IFIs and DFIs, the total fund/loan amount spent is accepted and details of the loan repayment costs and related charges can be redacted. The specific reasons for the redactions need to be explicitly stated in detail and must clarify why the information is commercially sensitive and would cause material and direct harm if published.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

3.25%

36. Budget ID

The budget classification is a way of linking the activity to the recipient country government’s own budget codes. There are two parts to this indicator. The administrative classification can either be provided as the budget codes themselves, or as a common code that can map from a donor organisation’s detailed purpose codes to the recipient country’s functional or administrative budget classifications. In addition, the economic classification provides the percentage of the budget that is capital versus current expenditure.

This indicator is retained for all organisations in the Index.

The budget identifier helps to explain aid flows in the context of the recipient government’s own budget. It does not relate only to those flows that are direct to the government (“on budget”), but also to other flows which may relate to the government’s own budget. In cases where the organisation is only providing private sector investment, budget classifications are still possible. Such activities could, for example, be classified as current expenditure under the microfinance and financial services function.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

3.25%

37. Results

The results show whether activities achieved their intended outputs in accordance with the stated goals or plans. This information often refers to logframes and results chains and may be within a specific results or evaluation section of the organisation’s website.

Both current and completed activities are considered for this indicator. If the activity is ongoing then the expected results should be available. If the activity has ended then the actual results should be available within 12 months of ending.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on format.

Weighting

4.33%

38. Impact Appraisals

Pre-project impact appraisals explain the totality of positive and negative, primary and secondary effects expected to be produced by a development intervention.

Environmental impact assessments as well as impact assessments which explain what objectives the project itself intends to provide are accepted.

IFIs and DFIs tend only to publish impact appraisals if regulations require them to, but given the link they have to the eventual impact and results of the activity, all organisations included in the Index are scored on this indicator.

For loans or private sector investment, risk assessments and the fiscal objectives detailed in the loan document are accepted. These need to be sufficiently detailed and include any criteria used to assess eligibility for receiving the loan.

Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs) and project plans are accepted for humanitarian agencies.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

Weighting

4.33%

39. Conditions

The terms and conditions of the activity may also be referred to as benchmarks, priors, or involve words such as “subject to…”. They are specific to an individual activity and explain what the recipient must do in order to be eligible for the funds to be released.

The conditions should include loan repayment terms if the activity is financed by a loan.

For IFIs and DFIs, this includes loan repayment conditions or special terms and conditions. In cases where the loan repayment terms are considered commercially sensitive, this information can be redacted. The reason for the redactions needs to be explicitly stated in detail and must clarify why the information is commercially sensitive and would cause material and direct harm if published.

For private foundations and humanitarian agencies, statements setting out what the grant can be spent on are accepted.

Templates for general terms and conditions are not accepted for scoring this indicator. If there are no policy, performance or fiduciary conditions associated with an activity, this must be explicitly stated.

The score for this indicator is graduated based on accessibility.

49.

Belgium – Belgian Development Agency

Very Poor

OVERVIEW

ANALYSIS

RECOMMENDATIONS

DONOR PROFILE

INDICATOR SCORING

TOTAL

18.85%

COMMITMENT TO AID TRANSPARENCY:

4.17/10

PUBLICATION ORGANISATION LEVEL:

9.17/25

PUBLICATION ACTIVITY LEVEL:

5.5/65

Commitment

1. FOIA

2. Implementation Schedules

3. Accessibility

Publication Status

Source

Comments

1. FOIA

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Publication Status

Source

Comments

2. Implementation schedules

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Publication Status

Source

Comments

3. Accessibility

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Planning

Financial

4. Organisation Strategy

5. Annual Report

6. Allocation Policy

7. Procurement Policy

8. Country Strategy

9. Total Budget

10. Disaggregated Budgets

11. Audit

Publication Status

Source

Comments

4. Organisation strategy

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Publication Status

Source

Comments

5. Annual report

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Publication Status

Source

Comments

6. Allocation policy

Stage

COMMITMENT TO
AID TRANSPARENCY:

PUBLICATION
ORGANISATION LEVEL:

PUBLICATION
ACTIVITY LEVEL: