Denmark’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible for the country’s development cooperation which it refers to as Danida. Denmark became an IATI member in 2008 and started publishing to the IATI Registry in March 2012.
Denmark-MFA remains in the ‘fair’ category but has improved on its 2020 Index score by over four points. It published the majority of its data to the IATI Registry, with 59% of the Index indicators being assessed in the IATI format. It publishes to the IATI Registry on a monthly basis.
The joining-up development data component was Denmark-MFAs highest scoring component but was still below average. It published data to the IATI Registry for four of the eight indicators scoring full points for aid type, finance type, flow type, and tied aid status. It did not publish contracts, tenders, or information on its project implementers in the IATI Standard. It disclosed contracts and tenders in other formats, and we scored them as such. Tenders and data on implementers were found in other formats but no up to date contracts were available. Denmark-MFA scored some points for the networked data organisation reference test indicator as it published recognised organisational references for 30% of its activities.
Denmark-MFA scored 64% of available points in the project attributes component. It scored well across these indicators including for dates, descriptions, titles, unique ID, sectors, and contact details. However, Denmark-MFA did not disclose conditions or sub-national locations to the IATI Registry scoring no points for these two indicators. We could not find data for the sub-national location and conditions indicators during the manual checks.
Denmark-MFA published data to the IATI Registry for five of the seven indicators in the finance and budgets component. It scored well for commitments, disbursements and expenditures, and organisation budget where it published a three year forward-looking budget. It did not publish data for the project budget documents or disaggregated budgets indicators. We could not find either of these in other formats. Denmark-MFA lost points for project budgets as they were only available for less than half of its activities.
Denmark-MFA scored poorly for the organisational planning and commitments component because only a current allocation policy, organisation strategy, and country strategies were disclosed to the IATI Registry. However, country strategies were available for less than four percent of its countries. Denmark-MFA did not publish a procurement policy or an up to date audit and annual report in any format. Denmark-MFA lost points for accessibility as its portal did not publish the data under an open license.
Denmark-MFA improved its score for the performance component by over four points but still performed poorly across the indicators. It published results and objectives to the IATI Registry. It lost points for results as it only made results data available for less than a quarter of its activities. Objectives failed our quality checks but passed on the manual survey because we found them in other formats. We did not find pre-project impact appraisals or reviews and evaluations in any format.
- Denmark-MFA should improve the transparency of its performance-related data by starting to disclose pre-project impact appraisals, reviews and evaluations to the IATI Registry and ensuring that objectives and results are available for all its activities.
- It should focus on improving the comprehensiveness of its procurement data by starting to publish tenders and contracts to the IATI Registry.
- Denmark-MFA should improve its budgets and financial data by publishing forward-looking disaggregated budget and project budget documents. It should provide project budgets for all its activities.
- Denmark-MFA should ensure the publication of essential organisational documents, including its procurement policy and up to date audits, annual reports, and country strategies as these are important for stakeholders.
- Denmark-MFA should start publishing sub-national locations to the IATI Registry as this information is key for stakeholders to understand precisely where its projects are taking place.
- Denmark-MFA should start disclosing project conditions for all activities or include a statement outlining why project conditions are not included where relevant.
- Denmark-MFA should improve the publication for the networked data indicators by including implementers in its data and expanding the use of recognised organisational references for its partners using the latest guidance from the IATI community.
- As recommended in the 2020 Index, Denmark-MFA can improve the accessibility of its aid data portal by putting the data under an open license.