The IATI Secretariat has conducted a review of their work on the Global Transparency Indicator and have prepared a discussion paper on proposed improvements to the indicator methodology.
All interested parties are invited to submit comments on this paper by 25 September 2014. Comments can be made publicly on this forum where the proposal has been divided into separate topics for ease of discussion, or privately in writing to email@example.com. A pdf copy of the document and a spreadsheet of the detailed proposals are also available on the IATI website.
The IATI Secretariat would particularly like to encourage members of the IATI Steering Committee to submit comments to inform the discussion of the next steps for the transparency indicator during the Steering Committee meeting on 15-16 October 2014. The results of that discussion will then feed in to further consideration by the Joint Support Team of improvements to the indicator, alongside comments from DAC members and the DCD Secretariat.
- General narrative
- Forward Looking
- Years Covered
- Activity-level budgets numerator
- Activity-level budgets denominator
- Country (aggregated) budgets numerator
- Country (aggregated) budgets denominator
General comments can be made on this page, but wherever possible please provide specific comments on the relevant topic's page.
The following comment has been received privately:
Overall, I feel there is a massive weakness in this project in terms of making any of it comprehensible, and replicable, beyond a small audience of people. That's not to say there isn't a place for having very specific, complicated tests - but for others to try to test IATI data against these criteria does more or less mean that they need a technical expert of their own and a fair bit of time and resource - which may or may not be what is intended.
Your point on making the indicator comprehensible is well taken. I think we need to do a lengthier rewrite which explains the process in clearer language.
I'm not sure I agree with you on making the process easy to replicate. The challenge we have set ourselves is how to create a machine-deliverable set of logic that makes a fair assessment of the data of a disparate group of publishers. Trailing through thousands of activities and applying this logic is technically complicated. We plan to run this logic on a nightly basis and the statistics generated (both current and historical) will be accessible on http://dashboard.iatistandard.org/. The logic (machine and 'English') for each test will also be available. So I don't think there is a need (or desire?) for every publisher to replicate the tests.
Thanks for the opportunity to feed into the consultation on proposed improvements to the GPEDC transparency indicator. Please find attached Publish What You Fund's comments.
PWYF comments on GPEDC Transparency Indicator.pdf