Opinion: The 2026 Aid Transparency Index is canceled. Here’s what it means

As things stand, we will not be running the 2026 Aid Transparency Index. Not because it isn’t needed. Not because it isn’t effective. But because, in spite of our best efforts, we haven’t been able to secure the funding for it. This is not a trivial loss. The Aid Transparency Index has been the single most powerful mechanism driving improvements in the quantity and quality of aid data that is published to the International Aid Transparency Initiative, or IATI, Standard. Since 2012, every two years, it has independently assessed and ranked the transparency of the world’s 50 largest aid agencies — organizations responsible for 92% of all spending published in IATI, amounting to $237 billion in 2023 alone. The index works because it shapes agency behavior. It has encouraged reluctant agencies to start publishing data; motivated those already engaged to improve data quantity and quality; and provided a crucial, independent check on the state of global aid transparency. The index is not just a ranking. It is a rigorous, two-stage process of constructive engagement that actively drives improvements. Between initial and final assessments, agencies engage with detailed feedback, acting on it to enhance their transparency. In 2024, this process led to an average improvement of six points across all agencies — translating directly into better, more timely, more usable aid data. No other mechanism provides such scrutiny. We manually reviewed 18,500 data points and documents in the last Index, identifying and helping to fix major issues — including systemic data errors, duplication, and entire datasets left without updates for years. The results are clear: When the index is in place, data quality improves. When it is absent, data deteriorates. The data shows that transparency standards consistently slip between index editions, only recovering when agencies are once again assessed. Without this biennial accountability mechanism, we risk an unchecked decline in aid transparency. “Transparency will be crucial in revealing the human impact of these [aid] cuts and reinforcing the case for sustained investment in aid.” --— The political and reputational incentives created by the index are well evidenced. Peer reviewed research has demonstrated its power in shaping transparency norms, and senior officials — from government ministers to development bank presidents — pay close attention to the results. It has been cited in major government policies, including the U.K.’s international development white paper. The media coverage it generates — 60 news outlets and 30 million social media impressions in 2024 alone — keeps transparency high on the agenda. The timing of this loss could not be worse. The role of aid transparency in countering misinformation has never been clearer — last month, billionaire Elon Musk misrepresented (or misunderstood?) figures showing how much USAID funding reaches intended recipients to justify his efforts to dissolve the agency. Aid data has since been used to set the record straight. And as major European donors prepare to scale back their aid budgets, transparency will be crucial in revealing the human impact of these cuts and reinforcing the case for sustained investment in aid. Reliable transparency data is not only needed to counter anti-aid narratives. We are now seeing more practical use cases than ever. Nineteen governments are systematically using IATI data for decision-making. But these achievements rest on the foundation of a high-quality dataset. So, why are we suspending the Aid Transparency Index now? The reason is simple: Funding. The index costs approximately $300,000 per year to run. Historically, philanthropies and then IATI itself provided support, with smaller contributions from the European Commission, the U.K.’s defunct Department for International Development — and its successor, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. But today, fewer philanthropies are focused on development effectiveness, and global public goods like the index are proving hard to sustain. Unlike traditional development projects, which often have direct recipients and measurable short-term impacts, global public goods — such as aid transparency, open data initiatives, and accountability mechanisms — offer widespread, long-term benefits that do not fit neatly into conventional funding models. Their impact is often diffused, making it difficult to attribute specific outcomes to individual funders. As a result, they struggle to compete for funding against more tangible, easily quantifiable interventions. Future editions of the index remain possible. We also reserve the right to assess and report on individual agencies or groups of donors. And we will continue to push forward on critical issues, from transparency of development finance institutions to localization, U.K. aid spending departments, climate funds, and philanthropies. But for now, our work to support the global aid transparency dataset is on hold. The impact of the index is undeniable. But its absence in 2026 will test the true commitment of aid agencies to transparency. Without external scrutiny, will the improvements continue, or will we see the decline that past evidence suggests is inevitable? Transparency is not a box to be ticked; it is a continuous process that requires constant vigilance. The coming years will reveal whether the progress made has truly taken root — or whether, without the pressure of independent assessment, transparency standards will quietly erode.