Mapping aid to Uganda in real time

OKCon, Berlin, 1st July 2011

#1: Get the data

What’s the problem?

Publish many times, use rarely

Publish Once, Use Often

The problem

• Lots of information in lots of different places• Of varying quality...• Different formats / classifications; not

compatible / comparable• Often not current or forward looking

Why do we need this data?

Accountability• Of the $32 billion pledged by the US for

2001-2008, less than 20 percent ($6 billion) is recorded in the government’s aid database.

• That means Afghans have no way of knowing what’s happening with the other $26 billion the US has been spending in their country.

Coordination• Donors are funding approximately 265

different aid projects in Sierra Leone. • Many projects implemented

unbeknownst to the government• Aid is 186% of GNI in Sierra Leone (2008)

Predictability• In Ethiopia, a US implementing partner

distributed 20 million malaria bed nets throughout the country that will need to be replaced in three years.

• Not knowing whether it will receive funding from the US or how much to expect makes this kind of longer-term strategic planning nearly impossible for the government.

Aid Dependency• Some of the most heavily aid dependent

states are post-war countries• Aid represents, as a proportion of

government expenditure:– 197% in Afghanistan (2008)– 147% in Sierra Leone (2004)– 95% in Rep. Congo (2005)– 89% in Central African Republic (2004)

Aid Dependency• Aid is 197% of government expenditure in

Afghanistan (2008)• For every $100 the government spends,

donors spend about $200.• BUT: how much of it reaches the country?– Peace Dividend Trust report (2009): Of the

approximately $2.1bn in the sample, an estimated 37.6% or $788m entered the Afghan economy.

Towards a common standard

• It’s not a silver bullet – but it’s hard to see how aid effectiveness can be delivered without aid transparency

• Commitments under AAA and to deliver on PD• Key vehicle: International Aid Transparency

Initiative– Donor-led initiative to publish information in a

standard, comparable format• 8 EU Member States are signatories to IATI

• Set up in Accra, Ghana in September 2008• 20 Signatories– African Development Bank, World Bank, Asian

Development Bank, European Commission, United Nations Development Programme, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, Hewlett Foundation, Global Fund

– Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK

• 2 Observers– France, US

20 partner countries have endorsed IATI

• Sierra Leone• Liberia• Bangladesh• Honduras• Republic of Congo• Democratic

Republic of Congo• Ghana• Rwanda• Indonesia• Nepal

• Viet Nam• Papua New Guinea• Moldova• Montenegro• Colombia• Burkina Faso• Malawi• The Dominican

Republic• Syria• Lebanon

Where we’re at now

• 9th February – Standard agreed• 28th January – DFID published all its projects to

IATI• 1st April – Hewlett Foundation published all its

projects to IATI• May – World Bank published all its projects to

IATI for 2010

A project in DFID’s project-level database

The same DFID project in the IATI XML format

Hewlett Foundation’s IATI data

How are the donors doing?

• AidWatch Report: aid transparency• Results so far, for 25 European donors

UK**

Denmark

**

Swed

en

Estonia

European

Commission*

Czech Rep

ublic

Luxem

bourg

Belgium**

Finlan

d

Austria

Slovak

iaSp

ain

Lithuan

ia*

Sloven

ia

German

y

Latvia

**

Netherl

ands* Ita

ly

Portugal

**

France*

*

Hungary**

Greece

Poland*

Cyprus

Malta

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

Information collected but not published

Information only sometimes published

Information systematically published

Commitment to Aid Transparency (FOIA and IATI)

Aid Transparency of 25 European Donors

* Donor did not have the opportunity to review the initial results, as results were collected too late; ** Donor was given the opportunity to review the initial results, but did not reply within 4 weeks; *** No information was collected on this donor

Ove

rall

scor

e ou

t of 3

8

UK**

Netherl

ands IA

TI

Denmark

**

Swed

en

Estonia

European

Commission*

Czech Rep

ublic

Luxem

bourg

Belgium**

Finlan

d

Austria

Slovak

iaSp

ain

Lithuan

ia*

Sloven

ia

German

y

Latvia

**

Netherl

ands* Ita

ly

Portugal

**

France*

*

Hungary**

Greece

Poland*

Cyprus

Malta

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

Information collected but not publishedInformation only sometimes publishedPyramide + AKVOInformation systematically publishedCommitment to Aid Transparency (FOIA and IATI)

Aid Transparency of 25 European Donors

* Donor did not have the opportunity to review the initial results, as results were collected too late; ** Donor was given the opportunity to review the initial results, but did not reply within 4 weeks; *** No information was collec -

ted on this donor

Ove

rall

scor

e ou

t of 3

8

Challenges for IATI

• Still some questions unanswered• Recipient budget identifier field still TBD: so

not yet linked to recipient country budgets.• Voluntary... Members and observers represent

over 2/3 of all ODA, but a lot of aid left out! • How many signatories will implement?• Optional components – not all fields are

compulsory, so how many will be used?

Alternatives to IATI

• OECD’s CRS / CRS ++– High quality statistics; data verified by OECD– Not detailed enough; not timely (latest is 2009)

• Bilateral initiatives

What’s next?

• More donors publishing their data to IATI – probably at least another 6 before November/December (at HLF4)

• IATI standard starts to get data fed through it; let’s see how it works

• People start to use IATI data!

#2: Use the dataMapping aid to Uganda’s budget

1. Collecting the data• Overseas Development Institute spent 6

months collecting data for aid expenditure in Uganda from 2003-2007

• They sent a survey to donors asking what they had spent (and were spending).– This was pre-filled with what the donors had

already told the Ugandan government they were spending.

1. Collecting the data• Key finding:– Double the amount of aid in the country,

compared with what the government knew about

2. Processing the data• ODI spent about another 6 months manually

mapping this aid data to the Ugandan government’s budget.

2. Processing the data• Publish What You Fund spent another 3

months getting the data into a useful format– Flattening 5 tables (matching up columns)– Normalising the data– Standardising currency (Ugandan Shillings)– Removing duplicates and double-counting– Dealing with budget support

Aid and domestic spending in Uganda

3. Conclusions• It shouldn’t take 15 months to find out

what’s being spent in Uganda– On Education– On Health– Etc.

• The good news:– Soon (hopefully!) it won’t.

#3: Mapping aid to Uganda’s budget ...automatically?

Using IATI Data• IATI will (eventually) allow us to do this in

real time and automatically.• Mapping (DAC/DFID/WB sectors, recipient

country budgets) is the biggest thing that’s currently missing.

• Data only began to be released quite recently – so early days.

• But, already some interesting developments

3. Using IATI Data

Other works in progress• AidData.org shows data from the OECD’s CRS

database.– CRS is always at least 1 year out of date, but the data

is still interesting for looking backwards– AidData will be publishing in the IATI format in the

next few weeks• OpenSpending.org shows spending data, mostly

of national budgets.– A pilot has already been completed with some IATI

data. Hopefully will be visible in next few weeks.

So, what next?• More donors need to publish their aid

information in the IATI format.– If they can’t publish yet, they should at least sign

the International Aid Transparency Initiative, to indicate their future intentions.

• More partner countries need to endorse IATI.• More people need to sign the campaign to

Make Aid Transparent.