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

15.

DG Enlargement

Good

OVERVIEW

DG Enlargement is responsible for managing and assisting the process whereby countries join the EU. Within the context of the new Multiannual Financial Framework (2014–2020) DG Enlargement manages the new Instrument for Pre-accession assistance (IPA II), often working together with International Financial Institutions such as the EIB and EBRD on investment projects in the region and also directly with pre-accession governments whereby management of EC funding is delegated to the beneficiary country. At the time of writing, the new EC President is proposing reallocating responsibility of the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) covering the EC’s activities in its 16 neighbouring countries and previously the responsibility of DG DEVCO to DG Enlargement. See EC-wide commitments and recommendations.

DG Enlargement began publishing to IATI in July 2013. It updates its IATI files on a monthly basis. It has an ambitious common standard implementation schedule, with plans to publish 77% of the assessed IATI fields by the end of 2015. This includes several added-value fields, including project documents, conditions and sub-national location which are scheduled for publication later this year. However, the schedule does not specify timelines for publishing results data.

ANALYSIS

DG Enlargement scores 61.8%, placing it in the good category. It ranks 11^th out of 17 multilateral organisations and has made good progress in several areas in 2014, with an increase of over 13 percentage points since the 2013 ATI. Its improvement in performance can be attributed to the publication of new information fields in IATI, including forward-looking organisation budgets, audit, activity dates, contact details and tied aid status, and its new open data portal. DG Enlargement performs well on organisation planning documents, activity classifications and basic information but does poorly on the provision of activity-level documents and performance information (results, conditions and impact appraisals), particularly the latter for which it does not score any points. DG Enlargement trails the other EC departments on organisation financial information. It is the only department to not score on disaggregated budget and one of two (the other is ECHO) to not score on sub-national location and forward-looking activity budgets. It scores on 29 of the 39 indicators included in the Index. Of the 22 indicators that take format into account, 17 are published in machine-readable formats.

RECOMMENDATIONS

DG Enlargement should improve its publication to IATI so it is comprehensive and includes links to project documents, results and conditions data.
It should require the publication to IATI by International Financial Institutions co-financing activities in the region with Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance funds and promote aid transparency and open data among the EU’s pre-accession countries.
DG Enlargement should use IATI data in programming and coordination processes and promote the access and use of this information by others.

DONOR PROFILE

First published to IATI:

Jul-13

2013 ATI Score:

48.08%

2013 ATI Rank:

Visit ATI 2013...

INDICATOR SCORING

TOTAL

61.77%

COMMITMENT TO
AID TRANSPARENCY:

9.22/10

PUBLICATION
ORGANISATION LEVEL:

19.59/25

PUBLICATION
ACTIVITY LEVEL:

32.95/65

Commitment

1. FOIA

2. Implementation Schedules

3. Accessibility

Publication Status

Source

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

Comments

Total Global RTI rating score of 101. 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

Click here to view history

1. FOIA

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

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

Total Global RTI rating score of 101. Score conversion from total score on Global RTI rating to Index points done using Expand...the following scale: 1 - 60: 33 61- 90: 66 91 - 150: 100

Donor Review

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

PWYF Review

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

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

PWYF Final Assessment

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

Total Global RTI rating score of 101. Score conversion from total score on Global RTI rating to Index points done using Expand...the following scale: 1 - 60: 33 61- 90: 66 91 - 150: 100

Donor Comments

Publication Status

Source

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

Comments

Based 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/

Donor Review

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

PWYF Review

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

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

PWYF Final Assessment

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

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

Donor Comments

Publication Status

Source

https://tr-aid.jrc.ec.europa.eu/SearchPageAction.do

Comments

The EU Aid explorer meets all three criteria for this indicator. At the time of conducting this review, ELARG's data was also available via this portal.

Click here to view history

3. Accessibility

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

https://tr-aid.jrc.ec.europa.eu/SearchPageAction.do

The EU Aid explorer scores for providing detailed, disaggregated data. However, free bulk export of the data is not possible and Expand...it is not clear whether the information is published under an open licence.

Donor Review

https://tr-aid.jrc.ec.europa.eu/SearchPageAction.do

An ""open licence"" statement is included on the EU Aid explorer webpage. It will be re-stated in the FAQ page to Expand...clarify that data is published under an open licence. Export function will be looked at by end of June at the latest.

PWYF Review

https://tr-aid.jrc.ec.europa.eu/SearchPageAction.do

The score has been amended to take licencing information into account.

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

This should be checked further, since if you run through the project search, no project under IPA funds could not fund Expand...(or the search function does not seem to be functioning). E.g if trying Serbia, 2013, Government and Civil Society, there is no results. Also if you try other IPA funds countries no result appears.

PWYF Final Assessment

https://tr-aid.jrc.ec.europa.eu/SearchPageAction.do

The EU Aid explorer meets all three criteria for this indicator. At the time of conducting this review, ELARG's data was Expand...also available via this portal.

Donor 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

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/mipd_serbia_2011_2013_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/national_programme_for_serbia_2013.pdf

Comments

Published in the forms of 'Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) Multi-annual Indicative Planning Document MIPD 2011-2013 for Serbia and other countries sampled.

Click here to view history

8. Country strategy

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/mipd_serbia_2011_2013_en.pdf

Published in the forms of 'Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) Multi-annual Indicative Planning Document MIPD 2011-2013.'

Donor Review

Always

Document

PWYF Review

Always

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

National programme for each IPA component (I, II for Serbia and other for other countries) also exist. E.g. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/national_programme_for_serbia_2013.pdf together with Expand...project fiches (internationes per sectors or bulk of projects treating same topic/issue).http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/mipd_serbia_2011_2013_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/national_programme_for_serbia_2013.pdf Expand...

Published in the forms of 'Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) Multi-annual Indicative Planning Document MIPD 2011-2013 for Serbia and other countries Expand...sampled.

Donor Comments

Document

the Indicative Strategy Papers for 2014-2020 will be publicly available (and included into the org. file) after their adoption in September 2014.

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

Source

No data available.

Comments

Disaggregated recipient country budgets could not be found for 2014, 2015 and 2016. This information could not be found in ELARG's IATI file in the final pull of IATI data for the Index.

Click here to view history

10. Disaggregated budgets

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Disaggregated recipient country budgets could not be found for 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Donor Review

Disaggregated budget will also be included into the organisation file, wherever available.

PWYF Review

If included in the Organisation file published to the IATI Registry before June 30, this information will be automatically assessed by Expand...the data quality tool of the Tracker.

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

These are currently available only in draft version as in most cases being negotiated vis-a-vis recipient government. It is expected the Expand...first project/sector fiches (country thematic specific plans incl. budgets) would be available/approved towards end of 2014.

PWYF Final Assessment

Disaggregated recipient country budgets could not be found for 2014, 2015 and 2016. This information could not be found in ELARG's Expand...IATI file in the final pull of IATI data for the Index.

Donor Comments

Disaggregated budgets for 2014-2016 are included in the Strategy Papers for 2014 - 2020. They will be provided as soon as Expand...the Papers are adopted (Sept.2014).

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

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

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 95.24%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 98.74%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 87.55%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 94.41%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 69.1%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 90.49%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

Sometimes

Format: Pdf

Source

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_14_european_integration_and_project_pipeline.pdf

Comments

The text in the sector and project fiches notes that projects are implemented through several activities/contracts. Although some information on sub-national locations is available in sector and project fiches, the information available is not disaggregated per contract. .

Click here to view history

25. Sub-national location

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Sometimes

Pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_01_public_administration_reform.pdf http://www.europa.rs/en/projects/projektne_aktivnosti.html Expand...

Project activities listed in the EU Delegation in Serbia site do not contain information on sub-national location. Some sub-national location information Expand...available in the national programme document/project fiches, but not consistently. However, it is not possible to use project fiches to score this indicator as ‘always published’ as these documents do not contain the necessary information for each individual activity within a sector of operation or programme component. This is consistent with the scoring approach which has been applied to all other EC departments.

Donor Review

Always

Pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm

Not available in XML format. However, according to our current publication, the project fiches are the relevant activity level documents which Expand...include the sub-national location. For DG Elarg the ""Project"" is the lower level of activity detail under an objective.

PWYF Review

Sometimes

Pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_14_european_integration_and_project_pipeline.pdf Expand...

DG ElARG's website includes two types of fiches for Serbia - sector and project fiches. Information published in the sector Expand...fiches is not at the level of each individual project, and therefore cannot be considered as 'always published' for the purposes of the Index which looks for activity-level information. 6 project fiches were available for Serbia at the time of this review. The total amount covered by these project fiches is 63,617,533 while the total assistance provided to Serbia in 2013 was 208,314,227. Project-level information for the difference could not be found. Further, the text included in some of the project fiches (see second link alongside), suggests that mutliple activities are included in a single project fiche. See page 11 which notes ""...Activities 1.1, 1.2 and 3.1 will be implemented through several twinning/twinning light, service contracts and/or framework contracts, as well as grants. "" Information on these contracts and grants is not available in the project fiches.

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

The activity level is project (TA, twinning, grant etc.), so information on from project fiches are not sufficient enough. The Expand...project website/database (http://mapa.euinfo.rs/map/projectdetail/81?project_id=139) has such details, but again it is out of date (last info for 2011). The EUD also has an interactive map of projects (http://www.europa.rs/en/projects/Interactivemap.html?view=fallback) but it does not seem to work.

PWYF Final Assessment

Sometimes

Pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_14_european_integration_and_project_pipeline.pdf Expand...

The text in the sector and project fiches notes that projects are implemented through several activities/contracts. Although some information on sub-national Expand...locations is available in sector and project fiches, the information available is not disaggregated per contract. .

Donor Comments

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 93.75%

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

No data available.

Click here to view history

27. MoU

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

Document

No MoU between EC, ELARG and Serbia or project level agreements could be found.

Donor Review

Not published

Document

Under consideration the possibility to publish Financing agreements at programme level.

PWYF Review

Not published

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

The Financing agreement (as the MoU is called) for IPA Serbia 2013 has juts been signed-a public announcment and breakdown of Expand...the budget from 6th June, 2014 can be found on the EUD website, but no Financial agreement as such: http://www.europa.rs/en/projects/projektne_aktivnosti/4220/Serbia+and+EU+sign+the+IPA+2013+financial+agreement.html

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

Document

Donor Comments

Document

MoU information will be available when hierarchies are ready for publication.

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/news_corner/key-documents/index_en.htm

Comments

The independent reviewer raises an important point about the timeliness of conducting and/or releasing evaluation reports. However, as per the scoring guidelines, evaluations are considered to be 'always published' if they are published within their regular cycles. If information on on-going evaluations is not published when completed, this will be reflected in future years' scores.

Click here to view history

28. Evaluations

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/news_corner/key-documents/index_en.htm

Evaluations appear to be consistently published.

Donor Review

Always

Document

PWYF Review

Always

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

The website provides evaluation at the level of IPA instrument or country level (e.g. Serbia-http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/financial_assistance/phare/evaluation/2013/23914_rep_serbia.pdf) on a mid-term (3 or more Expand...year) level. In case of Serbia, sector evaluations were also undertaken in the period of 2013 covering IPA financing for 2007-2009. However, project-level evaluations are not standard or part of systematic approach of the EC/DG ENLARG.

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/news_corner/key-documents/index_en.htm

The independent reviewer raises an important point about the timeliness of conducting and/or releasing evaluation reports. However, as per the scoring Expand...guidelines, evaluations are considered to be 'always published' if they are published within their regular cycles. If information on on-going evaluations is not published when completed, this will be reflected in future years' scores.

Donor Comments

Document

Publication Status

Sometimes

Format: Document

Source

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_14_european_integration_and_project_pipeline.pdf

Comments

The text in the sector and project fiches notes that projects are implemented through several activities/contracts. Although some information on objectives is available in sector and project fiches, the information available is not disaggregated per contract.

Click here to view history

29. Objectives

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Sometimes

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/national_programme_for_serbia_2013.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_01_public_administration_reform.pdf http://www.europa.rs/en/projects/projektne_aktivnosti/3543/Support+to+local+self-governments.html Expand...

Project activities listed in the EU Delegation in Serbia site do not contain information on the objectives of each activity. Some Expand...information on objectives is available in the project fiches/national programme document. However, it is not possible to use ‘project’ fiches to score this indicator as ‘always published’ as these documents do not contain the necessary information for each individual activity within a sector of operation or programme component. This is consistent with the scoring approach which has been applied to all other EC departments

Donor Review

Always

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm

As the project is for us the lower activity level, project fiches are the relevant documents for the description of the Expand...activity objectives.

PWYF Review

Sometimes

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_14_european_integration_and_project_pipeline.pdf Expand...

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

If activity-level is taken at project level, then objectives of each are not published systematically, or only in exception cases via Expand...project brochures etc.

PWYF Final Assessment

Sometimes

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_14_european_integration_and_project_pipeline.pdf Expand...

The text in the sector and project fiches notes that projects are implemented through several activities/contracts. Although some information on objectives Expand...is available in sector and project fiches, the information available is not disaggregated per contract.

Donor Comments

Document

Sector and project fiches include all relevant general and specific objectives at activity level.

Publication Status

Sometimes

Format: Document

Source

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_14_european_integration_and_project_pipeline.pdf

Comments

The text in the sector and project fiches notes that projects are implemented through several activities/contracts. Although some budget breakdowns are available in sector and project fiches, the information available is not disaggregated per contract.

Click here to view history

30. Budget Docs

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Sometimes

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/national_programme_for_serbia_2013.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_01_public_administration_reform.pdf Expand...

The project activities section in the EU Delegation in Serbia site does not include links to budget documents. Objectives for some Expand...programmes available in the project fiches/national programme document. However, it is not possible to use ‘project’ fiches to score this indicator as ‘always published’ as these documents do not contain the necessary information for each individual activity within a sector of operation or programme component. This is consistent with the scoring approach which has been applied to all other EC departments.

Donor Review

Always

Document

Budget documents are included in the project fiches which correspond to our activity-level information.

PWYF Review

Sometimes

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_14_european_integration_and_project_pipeline.pdf Expand...

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

EUD has a list (Excel-http://www.europa.rs/en/kakoDoFondova/dodeljeni-ugovori.html) with contract in budgets, but it is out of date (last update 1 August 2011-the same Expand...status as last year). The project website/database (http://mapa.euinfo.rs/map/projectdetail/81?project_id=139) included budgetary information, but it is also out of date (last info for 2011).

PWYF Final Assessment

Sometimes

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_14_european_integration_and_project_pipeline.pdf Expand...

The text in the sector and project fiches notes that projects are implemented through several activities/contracts. Although some budget breakdowns are Expand...available in sector and project fiches, the information available is not disaggregated per contract.

Donor Comments

Document

Budget documents are included in sector/project fiches, not in contracts.

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/tenders/list-contractors/index_en.htm

Comments

The information was available via the FTS site at the time of conducting this final review.

Click here to view history

31. Contracts

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/tenders/list-contractors/index_en.htm

In 2013, contracts were available through the FTS website. However, no contracts awarded in 2013 or 2014 were available on the Expand...website at the time of data collection. Summary information of contracts awarded in 2013 was also not found. EC, ELARG to clarify if these are published elsewhere.

Donor Review

Always

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/faq_en.htm#faq2

FTS data for 2013 will be published in June 2014, as stated on the FAQ page of the FTS website http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/faq_en.htm#faq2 Expand...

PWYF Review

Not published

Document

If this information is available before the end of data collection (June 30), it will be taken into account for the Index.

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

The list of contracts at DG ENLARG website mostly includes contractors hired at the institutional level. Contracts for IPA funded activities Expand...in Serbia are published at the EUD Serbia website, but the list is out of date (last update 1 August, 2011) and in Excel format-http://www.europa.rs/en/kakoDoFondova/dodeljeni-ugovori.html

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/tenders/list-contractors/index_en.htm

The information was available via the FTS site at the time of conducting this final review.

Donor Comments

Document

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index.cfm?ADSSChck=1397484299963&do=publi.welcome&searchtype=QS&nbPubliList=50&orderby=ctr&orderbyad=Asc

Comments

Published through the Europeaid website.

Click here to view history

32. Tenders

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Always

Document

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index.cfm?ADSSChck=1397484299963&do=publi.welcome&searchtype=QS&nbPubliList=50&orderby=ctr&orderbyad=Asc

Published through the Europeaid website.

Donor Review

Always

Document

PWYF Review

Always

Document

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

PWYF Final Assessment

Always

Document

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index.cfm?ADSSChck=1397484299963&do=publi.welcome&searchtype=QS&nbPubliList=50&orderby=ctr&orderbyad=Asc

Published through the Europeaid website.

Donor Comments

Document

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

No forward-looking activity budget information could be found. Other EC agencies publish this information in their IATI files.

Click here to view history

33. Budget

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

No forward-looking activity budget information could be found.

Donor Review

Not published

PWYF Review

Not published

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

The assessment is correct, but it should be taken into consideration and cross-checked with other EC departments assessed as 2014 is Expand...start of the new financing cycle, including IPA so it is not possible to have budgetary information beyond yearly (2014-2020) and country (Serbia) information.

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

No forward-looking activity budget information could be found. Other EC agencies publish this information in their IATI files.

Donor Comments

This information is not present as ELARG does publish at project level. It will be available once hierarchies will be ready Expand...for publication.

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 74.3%

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.

Donor Comments

Publication Status

Sometimes

Format: Pdf

Source

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/news_corner/key-documents/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/case-studies/2013/130604_serbia_successstories_1_en.pdf

Comments

Very brief results information available in case study documents. Some results information also available in evaluations. However results information could not be found consistently for all projects.

Click here to view history

37. Results

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Sometimes

Pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/news_corner/key-documents/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/case-studies/2013/130604_serbia_successstories_1_en.pdf Expand...

Very brief results information available in case study documents. Some results information also available in evaluations. However results information could not Expand...be found consistently for all projects.

Donor Review

Sometimes

Pdf

PWYF Review

Sometimes

Pdf

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

EUD and Serbia government conducted mid-term sector (not project) evaluations in course of 2013 for IPA I which to some extent Expand...tried elaborating results of projects on sector level.http://www.evropa.gov.rs/Evropa/PublicSite/Documents.aspx

PWYF Final Assessment

Sometimes

Pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/news_corner/key-documents/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/case-studies/2013/130604_serbia_successstories_1_en.pdf Expand...

Donor Comments

The EC does not have results-related documents that could be published for this purpose. The situation might change with the new Expand...results framework to be defined under IPA II.

Publication Status

Sometimes

Format: Document

Source

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_14_european_integration_and_project_pipeline.pdf

Comments

The text in the sector and project fiches notes that projects are implemented through several activities/contracts. Although some information on pre-project impact appraisals is available in the sector and project fiches, the information available is not disaggregated per contract.

Click here to view history

38. Impact Appraisals

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Sometimes

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/national_programme_for_serbia_2013.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_01_public_administration_reform.pdf Expand...

The project activities section in the EU Delegation in Serbia site does not include information relating to impact appraisals. Impact assessments Expand...are sometimes available in the project fiches/national programme document. However, it is not possible to use ‘project’ fiches to score this indicator as ‘always published’ as these documents do not contain the necessary information for each individual activity within a sector of operation or programme component. This is consistent with the scoring approach which has been applied to all other EC departments.

Donor Review

Always

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm

The only information related to impact appraisals is available in the single project documents published on DG ELARG website.

PWYF Review

Sometimes

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_14_european_integration_and_project_pipeline.pdf Expand...

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

Sector evaluations (http://www.evropa.gov.rs/Evropa/PublicSite/Documents.aspx) can be taken as type of impact appraisals as conducted in 2013 to asses project impacts per sector Expand...of IPA I as a basis for sector support under IPA II.

PWYF Final Assessment

Sometimes

Document

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/serbia/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/pf_14_european_integration_and_project_pipeline.pdf Expand...

The text in the sector and project fiches notes that projects are implemented through several activities/contracts. Although some information on pre-project Expand...impact appraisals is available in the sector and project fiches, the information available is not disaggregated per contract.

Donor Comments

Document

The only information related to impact appraisals is available in the single project / sector documents published on DG ELARG website.

Publication Status

Not Published

Source

No data available.

Comments

This information needs to be available on a per activity basis in order to score 'always published.' This information could not be found in the financing decisions documents.

Click here to view history

39. Conditions

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Researcher

Not published

Document

This information could not be found. In order to score on this indicator conditions need to be explicitly stated per Expand...activity or made clear that they cover all activities and no additional conditions apply to specific activities.

Donor Review

Not published

Document

example http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/serbia/ipa/2013/national_programme_for_serbia_2013.pdf

Financing decisions include conditions for the activity implementation and are published on ELARG website.

PWYF Review

Not published

Document

This information needs to be available on a per activity basis in order to score 'always published.'

Independent Reviewer

Disagree

Document

Such information could be could be found in the text of the project contract which are not publicly available for IPA Expand...funds.

PWYF Final Assessment

Not published

Document

This information needs to be available on a per activity basis in order to score 'always published.' This information could not Expand...be found in the financing decisions documents.

Donor Comments

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.

15.

DG Enlargement

Good

OVERVIEW

ANALYSIS

RECOMMENDATIONS

DONOR PROFILE

INDICATOR SCORING

TOTAL

61.77%

COMMITMENT TO AID TRANSPARENCY:

9.22/10

PUBLICATION ORGANISATION LEVEL:

19.59/25

PUBLICATION ACTIVITY LEVEL:

32.95/65

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

Publication Status

Publication Status

Publication Status

Publication Status

Source

Comments

8. Country strategy

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Publication Status

Publication Status

Source

Comments

10. Disaggregated budgets

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

COMMITMENT TO
AID TRANSPARENCY:

PUBLICATION
ORGANISATION LEVEL:

PUBLICATION
ACTIVITY LEVEL: