GPEDC Transparency Indicator

(Bill Anderson) #1
  • The 2018 monitoring round of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) is now under way.

  • This includes Indicator 4 which measures the transparency of development partners using metadata from IATI, OECD DAC CRS and FSS

  • The list of Development partners involved in the 2016 round of monitoring can be found here and the 2018 partner list will be confirmed after the country datasets are submitted and will be shared via this Discuss post

  • The GPEDC Joint Support Team (JST) will download IATI publishing statistics on Timeliness, Comprehensiveness and Forward Looking data from the dashboard in mid-December .

  • The technical team will provide all publishers involved with notice well in advance of the ‘pull date’ so that there is enough time for publishers to check and refresh their data.

  • Coverage will not be read from the dashboard, but will be calculated as follows:

    • The GPEDC JST will provide the IATI Technical Team with a table of development partners and each one’s total spend for 2016 as calculated by the OECD DAC.
    • The IATI Technical Team will add to this table calculations on the total disbursements and expenditure published through IATI for 2016 and 2017. This table will be shared with publishers and published on IATI Discuss.
    • The best spend ratio between DAC and IATI (calculated as IATI/DAC) will be selected and adjusted, as in 2016, upwards to the next quintile. (i.e. a ratio of over 80% is adjusted to 100%)
    • Spend ratios greater than 100% will be recorded as 100%. (Most multilaterals are likely to have a spend ratio greater than 100% - as only core funding is reported to the DAC)

(Yohanna Loucheur) #2

Bill, thank you for bringing this important work to everyone’s attention and outlining the proposed process.

I would like to reiterate our request to make it easier to see/monitor the performance of development partners involved in the GPEDC on the Dashboard. With over 800 publishers on the Dashboard, it’s increasingly difficult to find the GPEDC ones and get a sense of how things are going.

I can think of a couple of ways to do so - e.g. creating a sub-group on the Dashboard, adding a “GPEDC” column to sort publishers, etc - surely the Tech Team would have other ideas.

Thanks in advance.

(Steven Flower) #3

There’d need to be a flag in the IATI Registry to help with this?

(Michelle Levesque) #4

If we flag GPEDC could we also flag the Grand Bargain signatories?

(Bill Anderson) #5

(Wendy Rogers) #6

Whilst I think this would be an extremely useful feature of the dashboard I would just add a couple of notes of caution.

  1. Who would be responsible for maintaining the list of GPEDC and GB flags? The source registry record is the responsibility of the publisher and so the publisher should really set this ‘flag’ on their own records. Whilst I am sure many publishers would do this I suspect from experience that all publishers would be unlikely to do so?

  2. The Grand Bargain is programme of change rather than a permanent body or entity and as such the programme will therefore end at some time. Also many publishers are members of many different sorts of groupings and other initiatives etc Therefore this could set a precedence for requests for all sorts of areas of interests to be added to the dashboard?

Therefore perhaps a better solution (although I appreciate a lot more complicated and involved) would be for the end user to be able to configure and add their own groupings to their dashboard ‘views’ as they require and which remain under their own control?

(Yohanna Loucheur) #7

For the GPEDC, the list should be whatever list of publishers are being assessed for the transparency indicator. The assessment is prepared by the IATI Secretariat, so the list is readily available. Why ask each data user to research and build his/her own list? That is very unnecessary duplication of work.

For the Grand Bargain, there is already a separate Dashboard (maintained by DI, not the IATI Secretariat) so I don’t see as much of a need.