The 2022 Aid Transparency Index has found that more agencies than ever before are providing a good standard of aid data.
But it also found that transparency had fallen slightly overall compared to the previous index, two years earlier. This is the first time the index has not tracked an improvement in aid transparency, potentially due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on capacity over the past two years.
The Aid Transparency Index is compiled biennially by U.K. NGO Publish What You Fund. It assesses data submitted to the International Aid Transparency Initiative by around 50 of the largest institutions, such as bilateral donors, philanthropic organizations, and development banks.
Aid Transparency Index at risk of closure
Supporters say the index has made aid data more usable — helping NGOs, researchers, and donors understand where and how money is being spent — but it is facing closure after losing its main funder.
This year, the index identified the African Development Bank’s sovereign portfolio as the most transparent organization. Others scoring the highest grade of “very good” included the World Bank, The U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation, UNICEF, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
The index singled out the British Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office as one of the worst performers, saying it has failed to live up to standards set by the now-disbanded Department for International Development.
Only three agencies did not provide any data at all: China’s Ministry of Commerce, the United Arab Emirates’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, and the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency.
Of agencies that did provide data, the Japan International Cooperation Agency scored the lowest. The U.S. Agency for International Development, the largest agency according to grant-equivalent funds disbursed, scored 25th out of the 50 agencies rated.
The index also warned of “concerning aspects” it had observed in how aid was distributed and said that decisions about what counted as official development assistance “at times deviate from the spirit of development aid.” It noted multiple examples, such as the decisions to count donated COVID-19 vaccines and in-country refugee costs as aid.
It also questioned the “grant equivalent” method of counting loans as aid.
“Overstating the aid component of loans skews incentives towards lending over grant-making in a context of severe developing country indebtedness,” the report said.
The index includes research that shows that aid transparency drops between editions, suggesting it is having a significant impact on how effectively donors report. But last month, Publish What You Fund warned that the index is likely to be at risk of closure after 10 years unless new funding can be found.
Gary Forster, CEO at Publish What You Fund, said: “It’s a bittersweet moment; more agencies than ever scoring good or very good, more examples of data being used to inform better development policy, and yet the Index, which has driven all of these improvements over the last decade, is facing closure. There isn’t a backup option. This isn’t a drill. The evidence shows that without the incentive which the Index provides, or the feedback it offers to agencies, the quality of the global dataset deteriorates precipitously. We implore agencies and foundations to step up, invest in the Aid Transparency Index, and maintain this momentum so that all stakeholders have access to high quality aid data now and into the future.”
About the author
David Ainsworth@daveainsworth4
David Ainsworth is business editor at Devex, where he writes about finance and funding issues for development institutions. He was previously a senior writer and editor for magazines specializing in nonprofits in the U.K. and worked as a policy and communications specialist in the nonprofit sector for a number of years. His team specializes in understanding reports and data and what it teaches us about how development functions.
