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

11.

GAVI

Good

11_G_GAVI

OVERVIEW

Have they met the Busan commitment on aid transparency? Partly.

Based in Geneva, GAVI is the Vaccine Alliance, an international organisation that was created in 2000 to improve access to new and underused vaccines for children living in poor countries. It brings together public and private sectors with the shared goal of creating equal access to both new and existing vaccines for children.

ANALYSIS

Achievements and progress

GAVI scores on all indicators and is one of the leading organisations in terms of comprehensiveness of its publication.
GAVI is among the top performers providing a total organisational budget and disaggregated budget for the next three years.
In particular, the organisation made significant progress to publish conditions and results data.
GAVI now uses an open license on its data portal.

Challenges and room for improvement

GAVI dropped down from the ‘very good’ to the ‘good’ category.
Keeping up with the evolution of the IATI Standard and adapting its reporting system to meet the frequency of publication requirements has been a challenge for GAVI in 2015. Its dedicated team has engaged with the IATI Secretariat to address this shortcoming.
For some indicators, data quality remains an issue as evaluations and impact appraisals failed sampling as in previous years.
Forward-looking budgets for its development activities are always available but not in the IATI Standard.

RECOMMENDATIONS

GAVI should aim for full implementation of the IATI Standard and focus on data quality.
It should use its IATI data in its programming and coordination processes and design a strategy to promote the access and use of this information by relevant stakeholders, especially at country level.
GAVI should update its Access to Information Policy to reflect best practice on presumption of disclosure, exceptions, public interest overrides and independent appeals processes.

DONOR PROFILE

2016 Index Score:

Good

78.0%

2014 Index Score:

Very Good

86.8%

2013 Index Score:

Very Good

87.3%

First published to IATI:

January 2012

Download profile as PDF
View donor progress over time

INDICATOR SCORING

TOTAL

78.0%

SECTION A

COMMITMENT TO
AID TRANSPARENCY:

8.81/10

SECTION B

PUBLICATION
ORGANISATION LEVEL:

24.12/25

SECTION C

PUBLICATION
ACTIVITY LEVEL:

45.09/65

Commitment

1. FOIA

2. Implementation Schedules

3. Accessibility

Publication Status

Source

http://www.gavi.org/About/Governance/Corporate-policies/Access-to-information-policy/

Comments

Publish What You Fund completed an assessment of the quality of disclosure policies based on the overarching approach taken in the Global Right to Information Rating.

Click here to view history

1. FOIA

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

http://www.gavi.org/About/Governance/Corporate-policies/Access-to-information-policy/

Publish What You Fund completed an assessment of the quality of disclosure policies based on the overarching approach taken in the Expand...Global Right to Information Rating.

http://www.gavi.org/About/Governance/Corporate-policies/Access-to-information-policy/

http://www.gavi.org/About/Governance/Corporate-policies/Access-to-information-policy/

http://www.gavi.org/About/Governance/Corporate-policies/Access-to-information-policy/

Publish What You Fund completed an assessment of the quality of disclosure policies based on the overarching approach taken in the Expand...Global Right to Information Rating.

Publication Status

Source

http://2016tracker.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

http://2016tracker.publishwhatyoufund.org/plan/organisations/

Based on Publish What You Fund's analysis of common standard/IATI implementation schedules.

http://2016tracker.publishwhatyoufund.org/plan/organisations/

http://2016tracker.publishwhatyoufund.org/plan/organisations/

http://2016tracker.publishwhatyoufund.org/plan/organisations/

Based on Publish What You Fund's analysis of common standard/IATI implementation schedules.

Publication Status

Source

http://www.gavi.org/results/disbursements/

Comments

The portal now satisfies all 3 criteria, including the use of an open license.

Click here to view history

3. Accessibility

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

http://www.gavi.org/results/disbursements/

The portal allows for free, bulk export of the data and contains disaggregated information. It is unclear however whether it is Expand...published under an open license.

http://www.gavi.org/results/disbursements/

http://www.gavi.org/results/disbursements/

http://www.gavi.org/results/disbursements/

The portal now satisfies all 3 criteria, including the use of an open license.

Planning

Planning

Financial

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

IATI

Data quality: 29.17%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

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: 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

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

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: 89.42%

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

http://www.gavi.org/country/pakistan/documents/#cmyp

Comments

This information was publish to IATI failed sampling. These are always published in the project decision letters and partnership agreements.

Click here to view history

28. Evaluations

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Always

Iati

Always

Iati

Always

Iati

Always

Iati

Always

Document

http://www.gavi.org/country/pakistan/documents/#cmyp

This information was publish to IATI failed sampling. These are always published in the project decision letters and partnership agreements.

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 99.27%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 39.17%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 96.35%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

Always

Format: Machine-readable

Source

http://www.gavi.org/country/nigeria/http://www.gavi.org/results/disbursements/

Comments

Available through the organisations website.

Click here to view history

33. Budget

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Always

Iati

Always

Iati

Always

Iati

Always

Iati

Always

Machine readable

http://www.gavi.org/country/nigeria/http://www.gavi.org/results/disbursements/

Available through the organisations website.

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 80.29%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 100%

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 65.57%

Publication Status

Always

Format: Document

Source

http://www.gavi.org/results/evaluations/http://www.gavi.org/Results/Evaluations/Full-country-evaluations/http://www.gavi.org/country/pakistan/documents/#cmyp

Comments

This indicator was published to IATI but failed sampling. It is always available via the organisations country pages.

Click here to view history

38. Impact Appraisals

Stage

Status

Format

Source

Comments

Always

Iati

Always

Iati

Always

Iati

Always

Iati

Always

Document

http://www.gavi.org/results/evaluations/http://www.gavi.org/Results/Evaluations/Full-country-evaluations/http://www.gavi.org/country/pakistan/documents/#cmyp

This indicator was published to IATI but failed sampling. It is always available via the organisations country pages.

Publication Status

IATI

Data quality: 69.59%

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.

Weighting

4.33%