IATI Oct 2014 Steering Committee and Partner Country meeting papers by IATI

Meeting of IATI Steering Committee Members and Observers UN City, Copenhagen, Denmark October 2014 Paper A: Index of meeting papers for IATI Partner Country Caucus and Steering Committee

Version: 13 October

INDEX Number 1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Title of paper Steering Committee Final Agenda Partner Country Caucus Agenda 3A - Budget narrative Y1-Y2 3B - Workplan Y2 FY 14/15 3C - Annex A – Income Y1 to end August 2014 3C - Annex B – Certified Financial Statement December 2013 3C - Annex C – Interim Financial Statement August 2014 Proposals on membership and observer status Future funding options and fundraising strategy Annex to Paper 5 – Potential options for incentivizing voluntary contributions Best practice for IATI reporting by Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) and International Finance Institutions (IFIs) Annex to Paper 6 – Implementation Schedule for DFIs/IFIs Proposal for an Evaluation Working Group Proposed Technical Workshop on integrating South-South and technical cooperation into the IATI Standard The GPEDC Transparency Indicator Proposed Changes to the IATI Standards: Version 2.01

Meeting of IATI Steering Committee Members and Observers - 15-16 October 2014 Auditorium 3, UN City, Marmorvej 51, Copenhagen, Denmark 2014 Paper 1: Agenda for Steering Committee meetings Days 1 and 2

Day 1 Wednesday 15th October 09:00 - 17:30 Time

Item /Reference

09:00

COFFEE

09:15-09:30 (15 mins) Session A

Welcome by Chair

Outline

Chair/Resource

PLENARY

09:30-10:30 (60 mins)

Session B 10:30-11:15 (45 mins)

Use of data available through IATI and AIMS at country level

Integer upgrade to 2.01 Paper 10

Chair will provide an overview of the different objectives for each of the days during the two day meeting. Panel discussion with Q & A

SC Chair

Partner countries and providers discuss ways to increase use of IATI data at country level. Brief presentations from IATI Secretariat on current availability of information and from USAID pilot work on demand and use at country level. Panelists:  Partner Country speakers to be confirmed following Caucus meeting  USAID - Joan Atherton  DFID - Alasdair Wardhaugh Presentation and Q & A session

IATI Technical Team (Bill Anderson) USAID (Claudia Schwegmann)

With the extensive consultation process on the contents of upgrade 2.01 now concluded, this session will focus on what implementation means for members.

IATI Technical Team

SC Vice Chair

SC Chair

Q & A session on implementation

1|Page

11:15-12:00 (45 mins)

BREAK

Showcases and surgeries with technical team

INCLUDES SHOWCASES & TECH TEAM SURGERIES

Opportunities for IATI members to showcase activities and initiatives to smaller groups.      

African Development Bank MapAfrica Sweden - Openaid.se Denmark - openaid.um.dk Myanmar AIMS (Mohinga, www.mohinga.info/en/) 2014 Aid Transparency Index, Publish What You Fund IATI tools and materials (including d-portal, IATI Speakers Kit)

Technical team surgeries will be running throughout Day 1 to address individual questions of publishers. Time slots can be reserved online at http://doodle.com/xm7rhtd2yvnb5k3h

Session C 12:00-12:45 (45 mins)

Session D 12:45-13:30 (45 mins)

IATI Technical Team

Budget Identifier Q & A + open discussion

Presentation and discussion

SC Vice Chair

Report back from TAG working group on the budget identifier, including recent discussion at WP-Stat and country pilot progress and planned work.

TAG Working Group Mark Brough

Transparency Indicator Q & A + open discussion

Presentation and discussion

SC Chair

Reports from Global Partnership Joint Support Team, DCD and IATI on current status of process for review of methodology for the indicator

JST, DCD, IATI Rapporteur: Ellen Kelley, EU)

Paper 9

13:30-14:30 (60 mins)

Various presentations and materials by participants, simultaneously available during each break on Day 1.

LUNCH

Click on links to view IATI proposal on methodology review and DCD discussion paper SHOWCASE & TECHNICAL TEAM SURGERIES continue during lunch

2|Page

Session E 14:30-15:30 (60 mins)

BREAKOUT STREAMS Session E.1 Improving Data Quality

Session E.2 Outreach

(Chair - John Adams, DFID; Rapporteur – Theo Sande, NL) 14:30-14:50 (20 mins)

Updates from Secretariat: Tools to support publishers to improve data quality

    

14:50-15:30 (40 mins)

Open discussion:

 Technical and policy areas for improvement  Best approaches to support publishers to improve quality  Concluded approach with DFIs  Identifying peer learning opportunities  Planning for SSC/ technical cooperation workshop Y2

Overview of focus on data quality Paper 6

Paper 8

15:30-15:45 (15 mins)

Outcomes from:  Mexico  DCF  Istanbul  OKFest

Open discussion: Looking forward 1. How do members wish to see IATI’s involvement in the post-2015 process; 2. What are the key political opportunities or challenges for IATI over the next 12-18 months; 3. What other partnerships or initiatives should IATI align or cooperate with going forward.

PLENARY Governance and funding issues Pt1 Paper 5 Paper 4 Paper 3

17:15-17:30 (15 mins) 17:30

Update from Secretariat: Reviewing IATI’s achievements at the international level

BREAK

15:45-17:30 (1 hr 45 m) Session F 15:45-17:15 (90 mins)

Validator Dashboard d-portal IATI to CRS pilot Launch of updated technical documentation

(Chair – Harpinder Collacott, DI Rapporteur – Liz Steele, PWYF)

SC Chair     

Financial update Funding model and fundraising Membership Status, including for observers Approval of workplan and budget for FY14/15 Q & A, Decisions

Reminder of key issues in which decisions will be necessary Day 2

UNOPS UNOPS DI UNDP

SC Chair

END OF DAY 1 Reception for all participants, UN City, 17:30-19:00

3|Page

Day 2 - Thursday 16 October 09:00 – 16:00 Time

Item/ Reference

09:00

COFFEE

09:15-09:30

Welcome

Session G 09.30-09.45 (15 mins)

Report from Partner Country Caucus meeting Paper 2

Session H 09.45-10.30 (45 mins)

Governance issues Part 2

10.30-11.00

BREAK

Session I 11.00-11:45 (45 mins)

Integer Upgrade Paper 10

Session J 11:45-12:30 (45 mins)

Budget Identifier

Session K 12:30-13:15 (45 mins)

Transparency indicator Paper 9

13:15-14:15 (60 mins) Session L 14:15-15:00 (45 mins)

15:30

Chair/Resource

Highlights from Day 1, including reports by rapporteurs from Data Quality and Outreach streams.

SC Chair

Overview of expectations for Day 2. Rapporteur from Partner Country Caucus sets out its opening position in relation to each agenda item

 Election of alternates for sub-group including chair, and clarifying its role  Options for realigning process of budget approval with SC meeting schedule

 Summary of Day 1 discussions  Formal endorsement of upgrade & timetable for rollout.  Formal proposal from PWYF for working group on organisational identifiers  Summary of Day 1 discussions (Rapporteur)  Define next steps in relation to pilots and WP-Stat  Summary of Day 1 discussions (Rapporteur)  Reach agreement among IATI members on its proposal for improvements to the methodology, and understand process/next steps for including these in subsequent assessment

SC Vice Chair Rapporteur to be appointed by Caucus SC Chair UNDP

TAG Chair

PWYF SC Vice Chair TAG Working Group Rapporteur (Samuel Aggrey, Ghana) SC Chair Rapporteur (Ellen Kelley, EU)

LUNCH Planned evaluation of IATI Paper 7

15:00-15:30 (30 mins)

Outline

Chair’s wrap and AOB

 Independent evaluation in early 2015, timed to inform a discussion at next SC meeting.  This session is an opportunity for members to discuss broadly some of the elements to be included in the evaluation  Appointment of working group to prepare TORs and guide evaluation  Note updates for SOP  Acknowledge new sub-working groups  Acknowledge observers  Schedule for next year’s SC and TAG meetings

SC Vice Chair SC Paper on Evaluation (Sweden)

SC Chair

CLOSE 4|Page

Meeting of IATI Partner Country Caucus UN City, Copenhagen, Denmark October 14th, 2014 Paper 2: Partner Country Caucus – Final Agenda Agenda Time

Item

8:30 – 9:00

Arrival and registration in UN City

9.00 – 9.15 (15 mins)

Welcome and Introductions; Chair outlines objectives for the day and how it relates to the subsequent two days of SC meetings.  Agree who will be rapporteur for report back to the SC.

Chair, Gladys Ghartey, Ministry of Finance, Ghana, IATI Secretariat

Session 1 9.15 – 12.15

Increasing data usage at country level. This session includes the following:

Gladys Ghartey

  

 9:15 –10:30 (1 hr 15 mins)

10:30-10:45 (15 mins) 10:45-11:15 (30 mins)

11:15-12:00 (45 mins)

Presenter/Lead

Quick overview of key issues influencing data usage at country level Sharing good practices already in use and tools and resources available for promoting greater data use Peer learning on AIMS Planning for future workshop on data usage (postponed Ghana workshop)

Session 1A: Updates on automatic data exchange and use of data through AIMS  DRC – concluded DG work on automatic data exchange (10)  Rwanda – Recent work on DAD following up on earlier feasibility study(10)  Myanmar – Mohinga open source AIMS (10)  The Use of IATI Data in Country Systems (Bill Anderson)  Brief inputs from around the table, highlighting 1-2 issues, and 1-2 successes from each country  Planning for SC Panel Discussion on necessary steps to move this work forward for all countries including with AIMS software providers and donors.

IATI Secretariat – Annelise Parr

BREAK Session 1B Promoting local awareness of data available through IATI and tools and resources with which to access and use it.  Open Aid Partnership Country work (Malawi)  Nigeria  D-portal  Other examples? Session 1C Regional Workshop in Ghana The postponement of this meeting provides additional opportunity for planning in this forum.  Review proposed agenda (PC Paper)  Relevant research papers to be prepared ahead of the workshop  Partner country suggestions for other useful regional workshops

PC - TBC

Ghana

Time

Item

Presenter/Lead

12:00 – 12:15 (15 mins)

Wrap-up of Session 1 –  Acknowledgement on action items to be reported back to SC from the session

SC Vice-Chair

12:15 – 13:15 (60 mins) Session 2 (15 mins)

LUNCH Session outlines agenda items for SC meeting and clarifies questions

SC Vice Chair

13:30 – 13:45 (15 mins)

Session 2A Budget identifier. SC session will update members on work the SC has previously tasked the TAG working group with. No decision point.

IATI Secretariat

13:45 – 14:00 (15 mins)

Session 2B Transparency indicator – SC Paper 9  Results of Indicator pilot assessment  overview of current process of methodology review

IATI Secretariat

14:00 – 14:15 (15 mins)

Session 2C Integer upgrade – SC Paper 10

IATI Technical Team

14:15 – 14:45 (30 mins)

Session 2D Governance Issues – SC Paper 3  Year 2 workplan  Budget approval process (and alignment of SC meetings with budget planning cycle

IATI Sec, Madagascar (as sub-group member)

14:45 – 15:00

BREAK

15:00 – 15:15 (15 mins)

Session 2E Further Governance issues – SC Paper 4, Paper 5  Issue of payment by partner countries of membership fees;  Membership status generally, taking issue of nonpayment into account

Madagascar

15:15 – 15:45 (30 mins)

Session 2F Evaluation – SC Paper 7  Important items to be included in an evaluation of IATI.  Identify a partner country volunteer for working group Wrap-up of Session 2

Honduras

15:45 – 16:00 (15 mins) 16:00 – 16:15 (15 mins) Session 3 16:15 – 17:00 (45 mins) 17.00 – 17:15 (15 mins)

SC Vice Chair

BREAK Report to the Steering Committee Preparation for the SC meeting  Discussion on different issues to be raised at the SC  Priority recommendations by to be flagged at SC meeting AOB & Closing

SC Vice Chair Chair – Gladys Ghartey

Paper 3A Narrative report from the IATI hosting consortium on FY13/14 (September 2013-August 2014), and FY14/15 (September 2014-August 2015) work plan and budget

Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 Financial overview of Year 1 (FY13/14) .......................................................................................... 2 Summary of key achievements from September 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; August 2014 ............................................ 3 Proposed work plan for Year Two (FY14/15) .................................................................................. 5 Proposed budget for Year 2 (FY 14/15) .......................................................................................... 8 Challenges with funding model and fundraising strategy ................................................................. 9 Possible budget scenarios .............................................................................................................. 9 Action requested ........................................................................................................................... 10 List of Annexes ............................................................................................................................. 11 Annex D - Detailed review of Year One (FY13/14) work plan ........................................................ 12

INTRODUCTION This report provides members of the IATI Steering Committee with an interim update on activities carried out during the financial year September 2013 - August 2014 (FY13/14), the period during which hosting of the initiative transitioned from its former arrangement led by DFID following the process approved by the Steering Committee during its March 2013 meeting. This narrative report is accompanied by a detailed work plan and budget for the second year, September 2014 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; August 2015 (FY14/15). In accordance with the process outlined in the IATI Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), the SubGroup was asked to review the draft budget and work plan in August, and comments were received from four members of the group, the fifth place currently being vacant. These comments have been incorporated where possible in this version of the work plan, which also includes an updated budget based on revised projections of expenditure for Year Two. While the process outlined in the SOP provides for the Sub Group to recommend acceptance or rejection of the work plan and budget to the Steering Committee (SOP 4.1.3), the irregularity of Sub Group meetings combined with lack of response/changes in personnel in some member agencies has made it difficult to proceed on this basis. After consultation with the Chair, this paper is therefore circulated 1|Page

to the full Steering Committee membership to seek its approval of the work plan during the October meeting, to enable IATI to continue its work into the second year. The consortium1 took over the hosting of IATI from DFID in September 2013 and its immediate priority was to place IATI on a secure financial footing by implementing the new funding structure including a fee-based component, which was agreed by the Steering Committee in March 2013. The Secretariat is grateful to those members who paid their membership fees promptly and/or made additional voluntary contributions2. Nevertheless, IATI faced significant cash-flow issues in the early months, which inevitably impacted on timely and complete delivery of the work plan. This was highlighted in the financial update provided to the March 2014 Steering Committee meeting, and in accordance with the decision taken at that meeting, the Secretariat re-prioritised the FY13/14 work plan in line with the funds available at the time, delaying the start of some activities and postponing others until year two or pending fund availability. The Secretariat is keen to see that the workplan for Year 2 is fully funded to enable timely delivery of all of the planned activities in this critical year leading up to the Busan deadline of December 2015 and has prepared a separate options paper outlining the way forward on funding and fundraising. Nonetheless some scenarios are outlined in later sections on the implications of failure to fully fund IATI. Financial overview of Year 1 (FY13/14)

BUDGET 1. Total approved budget for 2013/2014 a. In-kind contributions from consortium members b. To be raised through membership fees and voluntary contributions

$2,663,569 $455,071 $2,208,498

INCOME 2. Total income received by August 2014 a. Less advance payment of membership fees3 for FY14/15 and FY 15/16 b. Y1 Membership fees; voluntary contributions; residual fund and interest earned (83% of total budget)

$2,089,707 $258,138 $1,831,569

EXPENDITURE and COMMITMENT

The hosting consortium is led by UNDP together with UNOPS, the Governments of Sweden and Ghana, and Development Initiatives 2 Voluntary contributions were made by the following: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Canada - Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD), Sweden - SIDA, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), UK Department for International Development (DFID), European Commission (EC) 3 Advanced membership payments were received from USAID, Denmark, Germany, Canada, Transparency International, IFAD

2|Page

3. Expenditure and commitments a. Project expenditure as at August 31st 2014 (72% of total budget) b. Project Advances and open POs c. Commitments of the Y1 activities (2013/2014)

$1,784,597 $1,596,426 $17,393 $170,778

PROJECT BALANCE (August 2014) 4. Balance as at 31 August 2014(4) = (2) – (2a) - (3)

$46,971

The late receipt of contributions significantly impacted the ability of the Secretariat to carry out all planned activities in line with the FY13/14 work plan. Nonetheless, by August 31st 20144, 72% of the FY13/14 budget had been utilised. Of the remaining almost $410,000 received too late in the year to be programmed, some $320,000 has been committed to activities to be carried out during the first quarters of FY14/15.

Summary of key achievements from September 2013 – August 2014 Despite the significant financial constraints faced at the outset of FY13/14, IATI has made good progress and can point to the following key achievements in its technical, political and administrative work. A more detailed review of the activities carried out in Year One (FY13/14) can be found at Annex D. Technical       

Data store developed and launched; Number of publishers increased from 175 to 266; Annual Report launched; Upgrades to the standard packaged and timetabled – 1.04 complete, work on 2.01 and 1.05 in progress; Guidance documentation improved and planning underway for further handbooks and audio-visual guides; d-portal.org successfully developed and launched at the Global Partnership High Level Meeting (HLM) in Mexico; Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meeting successfully held in Montreal.

Political  

Governance arrangements for IATI set on firm foundations with the election of Steering Committee Chair and Vice-Chair (October) and TAG Chair (January). IATI recognized as a key part of the development cooperation architecture at the Mexico HLM, with several references to it in the opening plenary, a Focus Session co-hosted with OECD-DAC and the Office of the President of Mexico, a stall in the market place, a st

The expenditures are based on the Interim Financial Statement (IFS) for the period up to August 31 , 2014 which is provided for information purposes only. Final figures will appear in the certified financial statement once the accounts for the financial period are actually closed.

3|Page

 

reference in the communiqué and a specific deliverable annexed to the communiqué as one of a number of voluntary initiatives; Political outreach strategy developed, and implementation underway including with Arab donors and some individual SSC donors. Increase in membership to include Myanmar, Yemen, Bond, the INGO Accountability Charter, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and European Investment Bank.

Administrative   

New membership-based funding model introduced, generating a total of US$ 2,089,707 to date (83% of FY13/14 budget). New governance arrangements incorporated into an online Standard Operating Procedures publication; Logistical support provided for two Steering Committee meetings (Copenhagen, Denmark) and one TAG meeting (Montreal, Canada) respectively.

Together with Annex D, this concludes the section of the paper reviewing Year One.

4|Page

Proposed work plan for Year Two (FY14/15) With less than eighteen months to go until the Busan deadline of December 2015, the overarching aim of the FY14/15 work plan is to support existing and potential new IATI members in meeting their transparency commitments. The new work plan therefore places greater emphasis on improving data quality, with the proposed development of a data quality strategy that incorporates new tools for measuring data quality. Enhanced technical capacity will be essential to maintain the highest standards of technical support to existing members. As part of these efforts the Secretariat will also seek to facilitate peer learning, increase the documentation of lessons learned and work with the Netherlands, UK and Sweden to complete the CRS/IATI-pilot. Detailed proposals for the FY14/15 work plan are outlined below in order of outputs and set out in the accompanying spreadsheet (Annex E). Activities and costs postponed from FY13/14 are clearly indicated in the spreadsheet, which has been designed to streamline the process of monitoring and evaluation in future years. The majority of activities undertaken by the technical team constitute ongoing and/or recurrent work, and this is reflected in the FY14/15 work plan and budget, for which the core technical activities and costs remain broadly the same as for FY13/14. OUTPUT 1 – IATI Standard upgraded and technical infrastructure maintained and developed The work plan proposes additional investment in IATI’s technical infrastructure (1.A) (e.g. the Registry and Datastore), both of which require further development to meet the needs of an everincreasing number of publishers and data users and growing amounts of data. Increased community engagement will be encouraged to ensure the Standard is regularly upgraded (1.B). Existing publisher tools will be enhanced and new tools and products developed to streamline the reporting process (1.C), and a new interface will be designed to enable one login for all IATI products and accounts (5.D). The main changes in regard to the technical activities for FY14/15 are listed below:      

1.A.1 Move the IATI Registry from its current CKAN OKF platform and upgrade/strengthen it to accommodate increasing numbers of publishers and amounts of data; 1.A.2. Further develop the IATI Datastore to make it more stable, and ensure that IATI members and publishers can rely on the Datastore to power their own applications; 1.A.3 Move IATI technical infrastructure to hosted, managed servers offering a higher level of support 1.C.1 Develop AidStream in line with the IATI Standard's upgrade process 5.D.3 Scope, design and build a single log-in user interface to bring together access to all IATI products and tools (back end) 5.D.2 Merge IATI's websites and online tools into a single web presence under a common url (front end, user experience).

5|Page

OUTPUT 2 Quality and quantity of IATI data improved, including all IATI components of the Common Standard In addition to the core technical work of Output 1, an overarching data quality strategy will be developed and implemented to support members in meeting their Busan December 2015 deadlines (2.A & 2.C), and others wishing to improve their data. The Secretariat will continue to work with the DAC Secretariat on the Common Standard and with the Joint Support Team (JST) to refine the transparency indicator methodology (2.B). In this regard the IATI Secretariat has recently circulated a paper for open consultation that offers a number of refinements on the IATI elements, with a view to agreeing on a proposal for refinements to the methodology ahead of the October 2014 Steering Committee meeting. The precise timetable for the next round of formal monitoring will be determined by the JST, but it is anticipated that this will take place early in 2015. Highlighted FY14/15 activities for Output 2 are listed here:  2.A.1 Make monthly statistics on data quality available on IATI dashboard, using the same methodology as for the transparency indicator and future IATI Annual Reports where possible;  2.A.2 Support all publishers to improve data quality, especially supporting Busan endorsers to meet their commitments ahead of the December 2015 deadline;  2.B.1 Support completion of CRS/IATI-pilot by Sweden, UK and the Netherlands and begin implementation of recommendations;  2.B.2 Consult IATI members on proposed refinements to transparency indicator methodology, in close coordination with WP-Stat;  2.C.1 Provide policy support to current members and new members identified in the outreach strategy, including through peer learning, information sharing on use of IATI data plus users’ demand for data, regional workshops and development of lessons learned documents;  2.C.3 Upon request, conduct technical visits to selected key targets identified through outreach strategy, to assist them in the process of publishing to IATI. OUTPUT 3: Frameworks and systems in place for partner country members to use IATI data Work will continue to ensure that IATI data is available and accessible at country level to support financial and budgetary decision-making processes. In order to catalyse use of IATI data at country level, the Secretariat will prioritise the completion of planned country pilots and work towards more systematic process of automatic data exchange (3.A). Activities exploring the potential application of the Standard to other resource flows (3.B) will include a strategic assessment of the existing methodologies to track technical cooperation (3.B.2). This analytical work will support a regional workshop to factor technical cooperation, including South-South Cooperation, into IATI (3.B.3), postponed from FY13/14, and additional budget is allocated in FY14/15 for this activity.

6|Page

Highlighted activities in Output 3 are as follows:  3.A.2 Produce a manual based on lessons learned from pilot work to enable partner countries with AIMS to roll out automatic data exchange;  3.A.3 Conduct regional workshop (Africa) on data usage and country systems integration;  3.B.1 Work with different publisher types to ensure the Standard is fit for the diverse needs of stakeholders such as humanitarian actors and providers of technical cooperation including SSC;  3.B.2 Undertake strategic assessment of the existing methodologies to track technical cooperation including SSC, to feed in to 3.B.3;  3.B.3 Organise 1-2 regional workshops (funds permitting) to factor technical cooperation into IATI. OUTPUT 4: IATI is effectively and efficiently managed at institutional and administrative levels The IATI Secretariat will continue to provide efficient support to governance structures including the Steering Committee, Partner Country Caucus and Technical Advisory Group (4.A), ensuring that members are fully engaged in IATI matters (4.B) and the TAG effectively contributes to the work of the technical team and advises the Steering Committee (4.C). On the administrative side, the Secretariat will continue to support the governance mechanisms in place through efficient management (4.E). Highlighted activities of the Secretariat are as follows:  4.A.1 and 4.C.1 Organise two Steering Committee meetings and one TAG meeting per year;  4.B.1 Launch and conduct timely consultations with members on issues of interest ahead of SC meetings, including through 4.C.2 the online TAG community space;  4.D.2 Implement a fundraising strategy including through targeted requests for voluntary funding  4.E.2 Carry out independent external evaluation of IATI early in 2015 to inform the discussion on post 2015 institutional arrangements. OUTPUT 5: Outreach strengthened among existing IATI members and other development actors The Secretariat will continue to reach out to potential new members as prioritised within the outreach strategy, and there will be a greater investment in developing communications materials in FY14/15, with a number of activities carried over from FY13/14, such as an overall website redesign. The Secretariat also recognises the need for more regular engagement with existing members, and a clearer strategy for stakeholder engagement will be developed and implemented in FY14/15. Consultations with members are essential for the continued development of the Standard and will be conducted on issues of particular interest such as on technical upgrades and strategic policy issues. Actions will also be taken to identify strategic opportunities for collaboration with other development actors and to represent IATI in ongoing and new development policy discussions such as the post-2015 agenda and data revolution. Highlighted activities within Output 5 are as follows:

7|Page

    

5.A.1 Implement clear strategy of strategic engagement with existing members, including briefing of senior speakers advocating for publishing and using IATI data; 5.C.1 Update communications strategy and generate communications and advocacy materials for potential and current members; 5.C.4 Develop and implement specific communications campaigns around thematic areas or relevant international events; 5.C.5 Build evidence base of successful use cases of IATI data for advocacy and communications purposes; 5.E.3 Represent IATI in the development policy agenda/discussion in relevant international fora, and 5.E.4 in technical communities and at key events.

Proposed budget for Year 2 (FY 14/15) In order to support these new activities, it is proposed that (subject to the availability of funds), one new developer and one support analyst join the team at Development Initiatives to support technical development and assist existing members and publishers to improve the quality of their data. The following table sets out the proposed budget for FY14/15, shown alongside the budget for FY 13/14 for comparison. The increase in the second year amounts to less than 10%. The Secretariat begins its second year in a significantly better position with carried over funds amounting to just over $400,000, enhanced by advance membership fees of $175,000. Nonetheless the Secretariat wishes to express significant concern about its ability to continue functioning sustainably on the basis of the 70:30 funding model agreed by the Steering Committee. In view of the magnitude of concern over resourcing of IATI in the future, the Secretariat is currently working on a number of options to be presented in a separate paper for consideration by the Steering Committee.

Headlines Total staff costs Total activity costs UNDP GMS 8% UNOPS 1%

FY14/15

FY13/14

$ 1,750,575 $ $ 1,118,815 $ $ 73,474 $ $ 14,099 $ Total budget FY14/15 $ 2,956,963 $ Total in kind staff contributions $ (379,879) $ Ghana contribution to regional workshop $ (22,000) Activity & staff costs rolled over from FY13/14 $ (409,512) Cash carried over from the trust fund $ (46,971) Advance membership fees received for FY14/15* $ (175,534) Total still to be raised $ 1,923,067 *Five members have paid full Y2 fees in advance, and one has paid partial advance fees

1,627,853 930,599 53,308 13,335 2,663,569 (455,071)

The Secretariat has worked to develop a lean budget whilst retaining necessary ambition for the second year of its operation as a membership organisation, at a pivotal point in the timeframe for 8|Page

members to meet their Busan commitments on transparency. In considering the approval of this budget, it is important for Steering Committee members to be aware of the implications of failure to fully fund IATI. Some brief information is provided here for the purpose of making a decision on the budget and workplan, though the details will be expanded in a separate options paper on funding strategy and fundraising. Challenges with funding model and fundraising strategy The 70:30 funding model approved by the Steering Committee in March 2013 was based on the premise that 70% of IATIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s budget would be raised from membership fees and the remaining 30% from additional voluntary contributions. The level of membership fees was set on this basis, and was predicated on all eligible members making the agreed contribution in a timely manner. In practice, Y1membership fees were only paid by 21 out of 35 members in the providers of development cooperation category and by four CSOs, with no contributions received from partner countries. As a result, the amount raised from membership fees was only around 50% of the anticipated amount. Although the amount raised from additional voluntary contributions was slightly more than anticipated - around $865,000 against a target of $800,000 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the non-payment and late payment of membership fees in Y1 left a significant deficit in IATIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s budget. If repeated in Y2, this would call into question the sustainability of the 70:30 funding model adopted by the Steering Committee. This issue has therefore been tabled for discussion at the forthcoming Steering Committee meeting, for which the Secretariat will table a paper that explores both alternative funding models and ideas for a fundraising strategy. The Steering Committee may also wish to reflect on the status of eligible members who fail to pay their membership fees, and options on this question will also be tabled for discussion at the forthcoming Steering Committee meeting in October. Possible budget scenarios Taking into account the reality of the current situation, two different budget scenarios are presented below. Both scenarios assume that IATI will be successful in raising the same amount of money from additional voluntary contributions in Y2 as it was in Y1, and that membership fees remain at the same level as set in Y1. Scenario One sets out the amount that would be raised if all members paid their Y2 fees in full. The result would be a modest surplus of almost $270,000.

9|Page

Scenario One

Income scenario 1 - all eligible members pay their fees**; AVC is the same as FY13/14 Membership fees - donors x 30 Membership fees - CSOs x 3 Membership fees - partner countries x 23 Additional voluntary contributions (AVC) Total Y2 income Total to be raised Surplus **fees remain the same as FY13/14

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,296,066 3,300 25,300 865,725 2,190,391 1,923,067 267,324

Scenario Two

Scenario Two is based on the same level of non-payment of fees as IATI experienced in Y1. The result is a shortfall of just over $320,000.

Income scenario 2 - membership fees** and AVC income is the same as in FY13/14 Membership fees - donors x 17 Membership fees - CSOs x 3 Membership fees - partner countries x 0 Additional voluntary contributions (AVC) Total Y2 income Total to be raised Shortfall

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

733,816 3,300 865,725 1,602,841 1,923,067 (320,226)

**fees remain the same as FY13/14 The stark contrast between these two scenarios emphasises the importance of the Steering Committee addressing the shortcomings of the current funding model at its October meeting. In the event that IATI funding faces the funding shortfall in Scenario Two, a number of activities outlined in the attached work plan would be reduced to the value of the shortfall, or until funds are received. Whilst the prioritisation of activities would be undertaken in conjunction with the Subgroup on Budget and Finance, examples of some of those activities the Secretariat would be unable to deliver might include the Annual TAG workshop ($170,000), redesign of websites and tools ($60,000), regional workshop on factoring SSC into IATI ($65,000), and policy advice on integration of AIMS with PFMS ($30,000). Action requested This concludes the narrative report on Year 1 (FY13/14) and budget and workplan for Year 2 (FY14/15). Members are requested to approve the budget and work plan for Y2 at the Steering Committee meeting in Copenhagen on 15th-16th October 2014.

10 | P a g e

List of Annexes •

Annex A – Income for Financial Year 13/14

•

Annex B – Certified Financial Statement at 31 December 2013

•

Annex C – Interim Financial Statement at 31 August 2014

•

Annex D – Detailed review of Year One (FY13/14) work plan

•

Annex E – Proposed budget and workplan for FY 14/15 (Excel)

11 | P a g e

Annex D - Detailed review of Year One (FY13/14) work plan IATI is already meeting and in some cases exceeding the majority of indicators set for its technical work. These achievements were possible due to the exceptional flexibility of the consortium members through concessions to fund their own activities during the half of the financial year before contributions were received. This cannot however be sustained into future years. The following paragraphs detail the status of work with reference to the numbered activities set out in the FY13/14 work plan. In summary, the Datastore has been successfully developed and launched (1.A.1), and the target of 250 publishers by 2015 (1.A.2) was reached in June 2014. The target of 80% of published files being validated against the IATI schema by 2015 (1.B.1 and 1.B.2) has already been met, with 95% of published files validated. Work on open licensing (1.B.3) has been de-prioritised for now as progress is dependent on future Registry options. The technical section of the IATI Annual Report was completed on time, and monthly compliance statistics will be available by October 2014 (1.B.4 and 1.B.5, plus activity 5.1). In line with activity 1.C.1, upgrades to the standard are now packaged and timetabled, with Version 1.04 completed, and work on the integer upgrade to v.2.01 and decimal upgrade v.1.05 are in progress. Online guidance on the standard (1.C.2) has been improved, with more accessible information on the overall publishing process – such as advice on how to achieve institutional buy-in for transparency. Plans are already in place to ensure continuous review and improvement of all guidance materials and new audio-visual guidance for publishers will be launched in September 2014. Under 1.C.3 and 1.C.4 (harmonising IATI with other similar standards and improving its effectiveness and accuracy), work is underway on traceability and geocoding, and with the humanitarian sector. TAG working groups have been established on geo-coding and humanitarian work. Proposed guidelines for best practice for development finance institutions (DFIs) to publish to IATI have been developed, and IATI was included in a scoping paper on joined-up data presented at the Open Government Partnership Conference in London last November. Planned work with the OECD-DAC on a single table of definitions has not yet been completed, largely because IATI’s work with the DAC Secretariat has focussed on developing and delivering the transparency indicator assessment (relevant to work under activities 1.F.1 and 1.F.2). The one area where technical work has fallen behind schedule is in relation to country pilots (1.D), where certain activities could not be planned and completed before funds were received, and were accordingly postponed to FY14/15. The DRC pilot, designed to test automatic data exchange of IATI data with the DRC’s Aid Management Platform (AMP) has nonetheless been concluded and a final report on this process and plans for further piloting work based on the lessons learned will be presented at the October Steering Committee meeting. Work on a planned pilot in Rwanda will go further and also test implementation of automatic service for data transfer from the IATI Registry to the Development Assistance Database (DAD), including administrator’s approval of data merging. This is due to be carried out in August 2014 and a report will be provided during the October 12 | P a g e

Steering Committee meetings. A manual is currently being developed to support the roll-out of automatic data exchange with Aid Information Management Systems (AIMS). The development of d-portal.org and its successful launch at Mexico contributes to making IATI data more accessible at country level and paves the way for important conversations between partner countries and their development partners on quality of data (1.D.5). A regional workshop on data use at country level that was planned to take place in Accra in September was postponed following the decision of the Government of Ghana in August to suspend all international meetings for a three month period to prevent the spread of the Ebola virus. (3.A.3) With regard to activity 1.E (exploring the potential application of IATI to other resource flows), initial conversations have taken place with a number of key providers of SSC, and a concept note is being developed for a technical workshop in the first half of 2015. IATI has continued to work with OECD-DAC in the development of the common open standard (activities 1.F). In further support to this work, the Secretariat has given technical assistance to the pilot on aligning CRS reporting and IATI publication which is currently being carried out by the Netherlands, UK and Sweden. All of the indicators relating to the TAG (1.G) have been met - newsletter sign-ups are up 400% (compared with a target of 100% increase) and a regular newsletter is sent fortnightly. In January 2014 the new TAG Chair convened a meeting in Montreal, Canada, generously funded by the Canadian government, and welcomed more than 110 participants representing over 70 governments and multilaterals, CSOs, NGOs, foundations and private sector based in 25 different countries in Africa, Asia, Europe as well as North and South America. The technical team continues to curate TAG discussions and lead consultations on improvements to the standard. Under activities 2.A and 2.B (support for new and existing publishers), existing targets have already been met, and the Secretariat has further plans to work with existing publishers on an individual basis to improve the quality of their data once monthly statistics are available and v.2.01 has been signed off by the Steering Committee in the autumn. Activities relating to outreach and information (section 3 of the work plan) were amongst those most affected by lack of funds in the early part of the year, with key communications staff only recruited in July. DI and UNDP staff have continued to maintain the IATI website without making significant improvements to it (3.A). Under activity 3.B, an outreach strategy has been developed with support of a new sub-group (3.B.1), and implementation has commenced. Discussions and technical visits with key actors identified as part of the outreach strategy have led to concrete results including an announcement by South Korea of its intention to join IATI in 2015 at the Mexico HLM, and publication by Japan of some initial data. The Secretariat continues its dialogue with others, including Italy, providing support to make their new open aid portal IATI-compatible, and with France as it works towards its country-by-country implementation of IATI. Myanmar, Yemen, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, European Investment Bank, Bond and the INGO Accountability Charter have joined IATI, and Kenya and South Korea have both indicated their intention to formally join IATI in the near future. Work on a communications strategy (3.B.2) and associated materials, including the speakersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; kit, could get underway with the appointment of a new communications consultant joining the Secretariat at UNDP.

13 | P a g e

Under 3.C (partner country outreach) the Secretariat has encouraged the strong contribution by partner country members in key international fora. For example, Madagascar and Ghana contributed to a roundtable on transparency at the monitoring workshop in Mexico, while the Foreign Minister from Honduras and the Deputy Minister, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development from Myanmar spoke at the focus event co-hosted by IATI, along with the Steering Committee Vice-Chair from Bangladesh. The Secretariat supported the Steering Committee Chair from the Netherlands plus representatives from Madagascar and Honduras, to contribute to a round table on transparency at the Istanbul Conference on Emerging Actors (3.C.2), and organised partner country participation in TAG and SC meetings (3.C.3). A regional workshop in Ghana will take place in September 2013 (3.C.4) and other workshops on knowledge sharing and on technical cooperation, including South-South Cooperation, have also been pushed back into FY14/15 and Terms of Reference for this workshop will be available for review during the October SC meeting. The Secretariat’s collaboration with OECD-DAC (3.D) has grown in strength throughout the period, though the joint work focussed during the initial period on the development and piloting of the transparency indicator. Activities under section 4 (Reform of IATI Structures) have been successfully completed – new governance arrangements (4.A.1) have been incorporated into a Standard Operating Procedure, which is updated with new decisions after each Steering Committee as necessary. The new funding framework has been implemented (4.B.2) and a draft fundraising strategy has been outlined based on the agreed funding model which sees a ratio of 70:30 collected through membership fees and voluntary contributions respectively (4.B.2). Under Section 5 of the workplan, two Steering Committee meetings have taken place in UN City, Copenhagen, Denmark, with the first in October 2013 attended by 56 representatives from 33 governments and organisations. Eleven representatives from nine partner country governments from Africa, Asia and South America attended a Partner Country Caucus meeting chaired by Ghana the day before. Sixty-four delegates attended the second Steering Committee meeting in March 2014, with 18 representatives from 15 partner country governments taking part in the Partner Country Caucus. All activities listed under Section 5 of the work plan (Steering Committee and TAG support function) have in this way been successfully completed, with the exception of activity 5.A.4 (an evaluation of IATI). The Secretariat remains committed to this, and plans to commission an independent evaluation in early-2015. A working group of 4-5 people drawn from IATI membership would be called upon to develop terms of reference for the exercise. The outcomes of this evaluation will be helpful inform the debate on IATI’s future within the context of the wider post-2015 debate.

14 | P a g e

Paper 3B - IATI Workplan Y2 FY14-15 Introductory notes: Tab 1:

Provides top level information, with total figures for proposed income and expenditure, can be found below with two different income scenarios and the consequent effect on IATI finances set out.

Tab 2:

Detailed breakdown of all proposed activities for FY14/15, with accompaning figures. Detailed breakdown of staff costs between the five members of the Secretariat, including in-kind contributions.

Tab 3: Tab 4:

Detailed breakdown of costs associated with holding Steering Committee meetings. As this is a significiant expenditure, the Secretariat felt it important to provide more detail on this budget item.

Headlines

FY14/15

Total staff costs Total activity costs UNDP - UNOPS GMS 8% UNOPS 1%

$ 1,750,575 $ $ 1,118,815 $ $ 73,474 $ $ 14,290 $ Total budget FY14/15 $ 2,957,154 $ Total in kind staff contributions $ (379,879) $ Ghana contribution to regional workshop $ (22,000) Activity & staff costs rolled over from FY13/14 $ (409,512) Cash carried over from the trust fund $ (46,971) Advance membership fees received for FY14/15* $ (175,534) Total still to be raised $ 1,923,258 *Five members have paid full Y2 fees in advance, and one has paid partial advance fees

FY13/14

Income scenario 1 - all eligible members pay their fees**; AVC is the same as FY13/14

Membership fees - donors x 30 Membership fees - CSOs x 3 Membership fees - partner countries x 23 Additional voluntary contributions (AVC) Total Y2 income Total to be raised Surplus **fees remain the same as FY13/14

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,296,066 3,300 25,300 865,725 2,190,391 1,923,258 267,133

Income scenario 2 - membership fees** and AVC income is the same as in FY13/14

Membership fees - donors x 17 Membership fees - CSOs x 3 Membership fees - partner countries x 0 Additional voluntary contributions (AVC)

$ $ $ $ Total Y2 income $ Total to be raised $ Shortfall $

**fees remain the same as FY13/14

733,816 3,300 865,725 1,602,841 1,923,258 (320,417)

1,627,853 930,599 53,308 13,335 2,663,569 (455,071)

IATI Annual Workplan September 2014-August 2015 Timeframe

Priority Output

Activity Result

Indicator, Baseline, Target

Activity

1: Core services 2: Improvements 3: Nice to have

Activity Staff Budget ($) Sep - Dec - Mar - Jun Owner cost (Activity cost) Nov Feb May Aug

CORE TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS - Lead: DI 1. IATI Standard upgraded and technical infrastructure maintained and developed.

$160,338

Indicator 1.1 : The IATI Registry is 1.A. Core IATI data infrastructure maintained and upgraded to a new version and developed owned/managed directly by IATI; Baseline: No; Target: Yes Indicator 1.2: Datastore code audit score; Baseline: Datastore in Alpha state, code audit score 45%; Target: Datastore in full production and scores 90% or above on the code audit

1.A.1 Move the IATI Registry from its current CKAN OKF platform and upgrade it to strengthen it so that it can accommodate increasing numbers of publishers and amounts of data 1.A.2 Increase usability of the Datastore so that more publishers / members can run their own apps from it

Indicator 1.3: IATI technical infrastructure is hosted on managed servers; Baseline: No; Target: Yes

1.A.3 Move IATI technical infrastructure to hosted, managed servers offering a higher level of support

1.B.2 Maintain regular dialogue with OECD-DAC to ensure IATI Standard and upgrade process remain aligned with relevant OECD-DAC processes

UNDP

1.B.3 Establish an expert reference group, as part of the TAG, to ensure timely and good quality input into the consultation process of upgrading the IATI Standard

1.C. Publishing experience for IATI publishers is 1.C.1 Develop AidStream in line with the IATI Standard's enhanced through improvements to tools, products upgrade process and access

1.C.2 Incorporate CSV upload capability into AidStream

1.C.3 Investigate developing and adding DFID's SQL tool to IATI's suite of tools available to all IATI publishers

Indicator 1.4: # of publishers successfully adopt v2.01; Baseline: #0. 2.01 not yet released; Target: 60 publishers have adopted v2.01

Indicator 1.5: Publishing tools are centrally managed and synchronized with upgarde (Yes/No) Baseline: No - Tools managed by different parties and not in sync with upgrade process; Target: Yes

Notes

1.B The IATI standard is regularly upgraded and 1.B.1 Increase participation of the technical and nondeveloped through a transparent, community-based technical community throughout the Standard upgrade process process

TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO IMPLEMENTING ORGANISATIONS - Lead: DI

$16,990

$67,960

Staff cost

Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost

$3,398 $5,000 Cost carried over from Y1

$50,000

$33,131

2. Quality and quantity of IATI data improved, including all IATI components of Common Standard.

Indicator 2.1: Monthly stats publically available to inform publishers of data quality status. (Yes/No) Baseline: No. Absence of publically available stats on data quality; Target: Yes

Indicator 2.2: Refinements to Transparency Indicator methodology agreed and endorsed by IATI Steering Committee Baseline: No Target: Yes

Indicator 2.3: Satisfaction rate of IATI members and non-members with support services received. Baseline: Satisfaction rate of 98%; Target: Satisfaction rate remains over 90%

2.A. Develop and implement data quality strategy to 2.A.1 Make monthly stats on data quality available on IATI drive up the quality and usability of existing data dashboard http://dashboard.iatistandard.org/ from IATI members and other key publishers is developed and implemented

2.B IATI members supported in meeting their commitments to the Common Standard, in collaboration with OECD-DAC.

2.C. IATI members and non-members wishing to publish and/or improve their data receive all necessary technical support

Staff cost

2.A.2 IATI Technical Team targets key publishers to provide support to improve data quality

Staff cost

2.B.1 Support completion of CRS/IATI-pilot by Sweden, UK and the Netherlands and begin implementation of recommendations

2.B.2 Consult IATI members on proposed refinements to transparency indicator methodology, in close coordination with WP-Stat

tbc

UNDP

2.B.3 Carry out light touch assessment of progress against transparency indicator as per Mexico Communique Voluntary Initiative 3

2.C.1 Provide policy support to new and current members, including through peer learning, regional workshops and development of lessons learned documents

UNDP

$2,549 Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost

Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost

2.C.2 Provide technical support to any organisation wishing to publish and/or improve their data 2.C.3 Upon request, conduct technical visits to selected key targets identified through outreach strategy, to assist them in the process of publishing to IATI

$22,087

$8,495

2.C.4 Develop and implement a monthly review process to ensure guidance and documentation is regularly updated in line with upgrade process and made available publicly

3.A.1 Institutionalise process of automatic data exchange of IATI data with Aid Information Management Systems

DI UNDP

X X

Staff cost

DATA USE AT COUNTRY LEVEL - Lead: UNDP and GHANA 3. Frameworks and systems in place for partner country members to use IATI data.

Indicator 3.1 Percentage of partner country governments reporting use of IATI data to support policy-making processes Baseline: 5% Target: 50%

$238,993 3.A IATI data is available and accessible at country level to support financial and budgetary decisionmaking processes

$69,767 Staff cost

Indicator 3.2 : Guidance, documentation and best practices for partner country users on use of data available online Baseline: Currently none exists online Target: Manual on automatic data exchange system; report on the integration of AIMS into financial management systems pilot and Workshops report with best practices/lessons learned

3.A.2 Produce a manual based on lessons learned from pilot work to enable partner countries with AIMS to roll out automatic data exchange

Staff cost

Indicator 3.3: # of participants attending regional workshops on data usage and country systems integration (disaggregated by country). Baseline: 0 - no workshop held in FY13/14 Target: One representative from each IATI partner country attend workshops in their region

3.A.3 Conduct regional workshop (Africa) on data usage and country systems integration, with country analytical work in 2-3 countries on availability/ accessibility of data from all sources

UNDP

Staff cost

DI Ghana

X X

3.A.4 Explore and support local initiatives piloting innovative uses of IATI data

3.A.5 Support the conclusion and lessons learnt exercise from a pilot on integrating AIMS (DAD) with public financial management systems

UNDP

3.A.6 Provide policy advice to governments on integration of AIMS with country's public financial management systems

UNDP

Indicator 3.4: Actionable Recommendations prepared on the application of IATI standard to south south and humanitarian providers (yes/No) Baseline: No Target: Yes

3.B Explore the potential application of the standard 3.B.1 Work with different publisher types to ensure the to other resource flows Standard is fit for the diverse needs of stakeholders such as humanitarian actors and providers of technical cooperation including SSC 3.B.2 Undertake strategic assessment of the existing methodologies to track technical cooperation including SSC

UNDP Ghana

$7,646 $22,000 Cost of venue and refreshments as a contribution by the Government of Ghana X X

X X

$10,000 Staff cost Staff cost $5,000

$30,365

$2,549

$16,667

Staff cost Staff cost

3.B.3 Organise first of two regional workshops to factor technical cooperation into IATI (Y1 funds)

UNDP

4.A.1 Organise logistics for two Steering Committee meetings per year

UNOPS

$200,520

$6,796

4.A.2 Convene and organise regular and ad hoc meetings of IATI Sub-Groups

UNDP

IATI INSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT - Lead: UNDP and UNOPS 4. IATI is effectively and efficiently managed at institutional and administrative levels.

Indicator 4.1: % of eligible members approached to pay the annual membership fee Baseline: No Target: 100% of eligible members approached to pay the annual membership fee Indicator 4.2: % of eligible members approached to offer a voluntary contribution Baseline: No Target: 100% of eligible members approached to offer a voluntary contribution - excluding partner countries

4.A IATI Secretariat provides efficient support to governance structures including Steering Committee, Partner Country Caucus and Technical Advisory Group

$65,000

$10,000

$456,156

Staff cost

Indicator 4.3 Project evaluation 4.B. Steering Committee members are fully engaged reflects satisfaction with management in IATI matters of the initiative Baseline: No project evaluation conducted Target: Positive evaluation findings on management of initiative

Indicator 4.4: Average overall satisfaction score (/10) of surveyed participants with TAG meeting. Baseline: 8.5/10 average satisfaction score. Target: Maintain level of satisfaction at 8/10 or above

4.C. The IATI Technical Advisory Group (TAG) effectively contributes to the work of the technical team and advises the Steering Committee

4.B.1 Launch and conduct timely consultations with members on issues of interest ahead of SC meetings

UNDP

4.B.2 Prepare agendas for SC meetings

UNDP

4.B.3 Coordinate Secretariat work and liaison with SC and TAG 4.B.4 Provide substantive support to SC and TAG meetings

UNDP

4.B.5 Review and update Standard Operating Procedure as required

UNDP

UNOPS

4.E IATI Secretariat and Technical Team are managed efficiently to support governance mechanism

4.C.2 The online TAG community space (discuss.iatistandard.org) becomes a lively forum for debate, consultation and peer to peer learning 4.C.3 Regular TAG e-communications are sent out

4.D.1 Collect membership fees and voluntary contributions in a timely manner from all members 4.D.2 Implement a fundraising strategy including through targeted requests for voluntary funding

UNOPS

4.E.1 Organise and attend bi-annual IATI Secretariat face-toface planning sessions

UNOPS

UNDP DI UNDP

X X X

SE 4.E.3 IATI has a CRM to centrally manage contacts and engagement

$166,716 Contingent on receipt of AVC to cover full amount.

4.D.3 Ongoing financial management

4.E.2 Carry out IATI evaluation

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH - Lead: UNDP and SWEDEN

4.C.1 Organise one (1) annual TAG meeting

4.D. Agreed IATI funding model implemented

Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost

$9,345

Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost

Staff cost Staff cost

$25,000

$15,000 $5,947 $23,333 Cost carried over from Y1

500.00

$500

X X

Staff cost X

$2,500

$230,197

5. Outreach strengthened among existing IATI members and other development actors.

Indicator 5.1 Increased awareness of IATI initiative as measured by i) no. of website visits ii) % increase in number of twitter followers Baseline: i) 138,860 page views / 32,653 users ii) 3,072 twitter followers Target: i) 50% increase ii) 50% increase

5.A. Direct dialogue with current members is improved to ensure ownership of the Standard and strengthening of its brand and impact

5.A.1 Implement clear strategy of strategic engagement with existing members, including briefing of senior speakers advocating for publishing and using IATI data

Staff cost

Indicator 5.2 No of IATI references or interventions made by members in international development/ transparency events Baseline: 30 interventions Target: To be determined based on number of international development/ transparency events held

5.B. Outreach strategy implemented to increase awareness and understanding of IATI among potential new members and other development actors

5.B.1 Provide information on IATI and the Common Standard to key targets identified through outreach strategy where they have committed to meet international standards of transparency

Staff cost

5.B.2 Provide information upon request on the process for joining IATI and support the process of joining, including invitation as observers to a SC meeting

UNDP

5.C.1 Update communications strategy and generate communications and advocacy materials for potential and current members

UNDP

5.C.2 Provide regular updates on IATI through email, social media and other relevant channels

UNDP

Indicator 5.3 No of Briefings prepared by IATI secretariat in response to requests received Baseline: 25 - 30 briefings Target: To be determined based on number of requests received Indicator 5.4 % increase in IATI membership Baseline: 63 current memberships Target: 10% increase Indicator 5.5: % overall member satisfaction with revamped IATI website Baseline: zero - no previous user satisfaction survey conducted Target: 75% of members surveyed satisfied with IATI website

5.C. Communications strategy is supports IATI objectives to improve quality, quantity of data and diversification of membership

5.C.3 Produce/update contents of induction pack for new members with relevant policy and technical papers

5.D. Improved online user experience for all audiences

Staff cost

Staff cost Staff cost

UNDP

5.D.1 Carry out website review and scoping exercise for front and back-end web presence redesign.

UNDP

5.D.2 Merge IATI's websites and online tools into a single web presence under a common url (front end, user

$10,000 Cost carried over from Y1

$7,333 Cost carried over from Y1

5.C.4 Develop and implement specific communications campaigns around thematic areas or relevant international events 5.C.5 Build evidence base of successful use cases of IATI data for advocacy and communications purposes 5.C.6 Produce 2015 Annual Report

UNDP

$10,792 Cost carried over from Y1

$12,825 Cost carried over from Y1 Staff cost $40,000 Cost carried over from Y1 $30,000

Staff cost Staff cost

experience) 5.D.3 Building on 5.D.1 requirements, Scope, design and build a single log-in user interface to bring together access to all IATI products and tools (back end) 5.D.4 Web hosting fees and improvements

5.E. Contribution of IATI knowledge and experience 5.E.1 Conduct IATI relevant business intelligence/analysis to inform outreach work to the development policy agenda 5.E.2 Identify strategic opportunities for collaboration with other development actors. 5.E.3 Represent IATI in the development policy agenda/discussion in relevant international forums

5.E.4 Represent IATI in technical communities and at key events

DI DI UNDP

X X X

UNDP

$30,582 $30,582 Staff cost $10,792 Cost carried over from Y1 Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost Staff cost

TOTAL ACTIVITY COSTS

$32,000

$8,495 $6,796

$1,118,815

SALARY COSTS UNDP Senior management oversight Project Coordinator Project Coordinator (Carried over from Y1) Project Support Consultant (from Y1) Effective Development Support Consultant

FTE

In-kind In-kind

0.15 0.25 0.75 1 0.5

$ $ $ $ $

43,080 51,145 152,000 105,000 28,875

In-kind

0.2 0.6 0.5 1 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 1 N/A

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

40,000 79,739 64,853 105,248 36,401 52,723 82,294 94,327 27,074 82,434 52,723 84,580 34,150

In-kind

0.15 1 0.5 0.5 N/A

$ $ $ $ $

15,000 113,300 47,900 35,900 91,176

In-kind In-kind In-kind In-kind In-kind

0.05 0.03 0.25 0.25 0.5

$ $ $ $ $

8,209 49,257 41,047 41,047 82,094

In-kind In-kind

0.05 $ 0.4 $

2,800 6,200

DI Senior management oversight Senior Policy Adviser Technical Lead Programme Manager Programme Coordinator Business Analyst Business Analyst Business Analyst Business Analyst (East Africa) Systems Administrator Developer Developer Adviser (consultant 2.5 days p/m)

UNOPS Senior management oversight Logistics, Admin and Financial Specialist Transparency and Communications Officer Transparency and Communications Analyst Support Services

Sweden Senior Management Oversight Senior Policy Advisor Communications Specialist Policy Advisor Programme Officer

Ghana Senior Management Oversight Policy Officer

TOTAL STAFF COSTS TOTAL IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS

$ 1,750,575 $ 379,879

Cost breakdown for (1) Steering Committee Meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark Total Amount Amount of people covered DSA payment Total DSA Costs Average Flight Costs Sum Flight Costs Terminal Expenses Total Terminal Expenses Visa application fee per person Overall Visa application Fee Total visa costs Total event costs including venue, A/V equipment, Interpretation services, Decoration, etc.

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

20 384 30,720 2,000 40,000 152 3,040 4,000 4,000

22,500

Overall budget Sum

100,260

UN GMS costs 8%

8,021

Total (including UN GMS Cost)

108,281

Paper 3C - Annex A - Income Y1 - FY13-14

Membership fee and voluntary contribution for the IATI No 001

Membership Voluntary Residual Total amount fee contribution Funds received

Member United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

43,250 ‐

‐

43,250

Receipt Date

Comments

The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. The amount represents one year of membership fee. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. The 02‐Oct‐13 amount represents one year of membership fee. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 1,100. The amount 02‐Oct‐13 represents one year of membership fee.

05‐Sep‐13

002

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

43,250 ‐

‐

43,250

003

Publish What You Fund

1,100 ‐

‐

1,100

‐

60,111 60,111

‐

150,000 ‐

150,000

12‐Nov‐13 The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 150,000.

86,500 98,000 ‐

184,500

The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 184,800. The 18‐Nov‐13 amount of 300 is to be transferred to UNOPS. The amount represents two years of membership fee and voluntary contribution.

1,100 ‐

‐

1,100

18‐Nov‐13

86,500 176,750 ‐

263,250

004 005

006

007

008

UK ‐ Department for International Development (DFID) tThe William and Flora Hewlett Foundation United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bond Canada ‐ Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

05‐Nov‐13 The total amount of the signed agreement is GBP 38,652.

The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 1,100. The amount represents one year of membership fee. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 313,250. The second installment will be made after April 1, 2015. The received 03‐Dec‐13 amount represents two years of membership fee and voluntary contribution. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 2,200. The amount 06‐Dec‐13 represents two years of membership fee. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. The 06‐Dec‐13 amount represents one year of membership fee.

009

Transparency International

2,200 ‐

‐

2,200

010

African Development Bank (AfDB)

43,250 ‐

‐

43,250

011

Ireland ‐ Irish Aid

33,480 ‐

‐

33,480

The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. The second 10‐Dec‐13 installment will be made before September 2,2014. The amount represents one year of membership fee.

43,250 ‐

‐

43,250

12‐Dec‐13

012

Netherlands – Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Development Cooperation

013

European Investment Bank (EIB)

43,250 ‐

‐

43,250

13‐Dec‐13

014

United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)

43,250 ‐

‐

43,250

13‐Dec‐13

Sweden ‐ SIDA

‐

49,975 ‐

015 016

Germany ‐ Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)

49,975

18‐Dec‐13

44,684 ‐

‐

44,684

19‐Dec‐13

The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. The amount represents one year of membership fee. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. The amount represents one year of membership fee. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. The amount represents one year of membership fee. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 50,000. The difference is due to the bank charges. The total amount of the signed agreement is EUR 112,500. Second installment will be made before September 2,2014 and third installment will be made before September 2, 2015. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. The amount represents one year of membership fee.

017

United Nations Women (UN Women)

43,250 ‐

‐

43,250

26‐Dec‐13

018

Denmark ‐ Ministry of Foreign Affairs

125,854 ‐

‐

125,854

The total amount of the signed agreement is DKK 730,000, equivalent 27‐Dec‐13 to USD 129,750. The amount represents three years of membership fee. The difference will be reconcilied in the upcoming year.

129,750 35,250 ‐

165,000

43,250 ‐

019 020 004b 021

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Finland ‐ Ministry for Foreign Affairs UK ‐ Department for International Development (DFID) European Commission (EC)

The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 165,000. The 06‐Jan‐14 amount represents three years of membership fee and voluntary contribution. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. The 15‐Jan‐14 amount represents one year of membership fee.

‐

43,250

43,250 165,555 ‐

208,805

21‐Jan‐14

‐

183,445

31‐Jan‐14

183,445 ‐

022

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

43,250 ‐

‐

43,250

06‐Feb‐14

023

Australia ‐ Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

43,250 ‐

‐

43,250

27‐Mar‐14

024

Inter‐American Development Bank (IDB)

43,250 ‐

‐

43,250

16‐Apr‐14

025

The World Bank

43,241 ‐

‐

43,241

02‐May‐14

50,000

13‐May‐14

005b The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

43,250 6,750

The total amount of signed agreement is GBP 127,227. The amount represents one year of membership fee and voluntary contribution. The total amount of the signed agreement is EUR 140,000. The second installment will be made before September 2, 2014. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. The amount represents one year of membership fee. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. The amount represents one year of membership fee. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. The amount represents one year of membership fee. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. However, the amount of USD 43,240.74 was received as 9.26 was deducted by the bank for local charges. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 50,000. The amount of USD 43,250 represents one year of membership fee and USD 6,750 represents voluntary contribution. The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 1,100. The amount of USD 43,250 represents one year of membership fee

026

INGO Accountability Charter

1,100 ‐

‐

1,100

12‐May‐14

027

Belgium ‐ Belgian Development Agency (BTC)

43,225 ‐

‐

43,225

The total amount of the signed agreement is USD 43,250. However, 20‐Jun‐14 the amount of USD 43,225 was received in the UNOPS bank account. The difference of USD 25 will be reconcilied in Y2.

58.72

Interest earned.

‐

2,828.47

Interest earned.

1,160,984

865,725

60,111

2,089,707

Total amount received by 31 August 2014

2,089,707

Interest Interest

Total

43,250.00 82,604.00 1,434.00 43,250.00 1,100.00 86,500.00 258,138.00 * Kindly note that out of the total paid advancedmembership fee's the amount for Y2 is USD 175,534 and USD 82,604 are the advanced membership fee paid for Y3.

Meeting of IATI Steering Committee Members and Observers UN City, Copenhagen, Denmark 2014 Paper 4: Proposals on membership and observer status

INTRODUCTION The Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) adopted by the Steering Committee in October 2013 codify previous Steering Committee decisions and make it clear that, going forwards, membership of IATI is contingent on the payment of membership fees (SOP 2.1.1), subject to the exception set out in SOP 2.3.6 which proposes that a small, fixed fund should be established from voluntary contributions to assist partner countries and CSOs for whom payment of membership fees represents a barrier to participation. SOP 2.1.5 confirms that publishers who choose not to join IATI will not have a stake in the governance of the initiative, but can participate in the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and attend Steering Committee meetings as observers. The SOP also identifies some other groups and individuals who may attend the Steering Committee as observers (SOP 3.2.2 and 3.2.3), but does not adequately outline the purpose(s) and status of observers. This paper sets out options for consideration with regard to non-fee paying eligible1 members in each category, and for clarifying observer status, some of which would require a decision to amend IATI’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

1. Options for providers of development cooperation The central question the Steering Committee needs to resolve with regard to members in this category is whether eligible members who fail to pay their fees for a second year should continue to be regarded as full members or not and, if not, what other options – if any – should be open to them with regard to their future participation in IATI, (bearing in mind that this includes one third of the eligible members in this category). The Secretariat outlines the following options: a. No action should be taken against non-paying members at this point in time as their participation remains critical to IATI. b. Members who do not pay their fees for a second year in succession should no longer qualify as full members but can still attend IATI Steering Committee meetings as observers.

The SOP confirms that all organisations previously engaged in the IATI Steering Committee are regarded as eligible members.

1|Page

c. Members who do not pay their fees for a second year in succession should no longer qualify as full members and would not be invited to attend IATI Steering Committee meetings as observers either.

2. Options for partner countries and CSOs The participation of partner countries and CSOs has been fundamental to IATIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success and it is vital that this engagement is maintained. Exclusion of all non-paying members from IATI Steering Committee meetings would currently exclude all but one partner countries, so is not a viable option. But at the same time, IATIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s status as a truly multi-stakeholder initiative rests on all members making a contribution of some kind. The following options could be considered: a. No action should be taken against partner countries or CSOs that do not pay their fees at this point as their participation remains critical to IATI; b. In future, all partner countries and CSOs should be expected to make a financial contribution to IATI, however small (e.g. distinctions could be made between MICs and LICs, and between international NGOs and Southern CSOs); c. For partner countries and Southern CSOs that cannot pay membership fees themselves (either because they cannot afford to do so or because there are legal barriers that prevent them from doing so), the cost of membership will be covered by others (e.g. perhaps regional development banks, or willing donors, who could establish a pooled fund as suggested in SOP 2.3.6); d. Partner countries and CSOs that cannot make a financial contribution could make a contribution in kind instead. As examples, they may: i.

Contribute time and expertise to IATI country pilots;

ii.

Contribute to Steering Committee sub-groups or TAG working groups;

iii.

Promote IATI at regional or international meetings;

iv.

Lobby donors to provide high quality IATI data.

3. Clarifying observer status One of the options set out above proposes that eligible members who do not pay their membership fees should be still be allowed to attend IATI Steering Committee meetings as observers. Irrespective of whether the Steering Committee selects this option, it would be helpful to clarify the purpose(s) and limitations of observer status in the SOP. At present, the only difference between members and observers is that observers are not able to vote. In addition to ex-officio members (covered in SOP 3.2.3), there are potentially three different kinds of actors who may attend IATI 2|Page

Steering Committee meetings without being fee-paying members. These are set out below, with options for consideration. i.

Technical experts and other non-members with an interest in IATI, including the Chair of the Working Party on Statistics, plus AIMS providers such as Development Gateway and Synergy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; these are effectively covered by SOP 3.2.3, which makes it clear that they cannot vote (but by implication, they can speak). Proposed action: Confirm that technical and other experts can speak on all agenda items relevant to their expertise, whilst making it clear that they cannot contribute to governance and funding discussions and decisions, which are reserved for fee-paying members.

ii.

Potential new members. It has become IATIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s custom to invite potential new members to its Steering Committee meetings as observers, in order for them to learn more about IATI from its members, and equally for IATI to learn from the experience of those who are currently outside the initiative. This has proved to be a useful form of outreach â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for example, representatives from South Korea attended the March Steering Committee as observers, and have subsequently announced their intention to join in 2015. Proposed action: As below at (iii)

iii.

Eligible members who have not yet paid their fees. If the Steering Committee decides that going forwards, non-paying eligible members are regarded as observers (one of the options proposed above), it is important to clarify what this means in practice. Proposed action: If potential new members and non-paying eligible members are regarded as observers, it should be on the basis that they can take part in all informationsharing, networking and show-casing activities, whilst making it clear that they cannot contribute to governance and funding discussions and decisions, which are reserved for fee-paying members. The Steering Committee is also asked to consider whether: a. Potential new members and non-paying eligible members can attend IATI Steering Committee meetings as observers indefinitely; or

3|Page

b. Potential new members and non-paying eligible members can attend IATI Steering Committee meetings as observers for a maximum of two meetings (one year) before making a decision on whether to become full members.

Action requested Steering Committee members are invited to consider the options outlined above and to agree upon the best direction, keeping in mind that the spirit of IATI is one of openness and inclusivity and the potential risks associated with exclusion. Steering Committee members are also invited to clarify the purpose and status of observers. Decisions made by the Steering Committee will be reflected by making the appropriate changes to the SOP after the Steering Committee meeting.

4|Page

Meeting of IATI Steering Committee Members and Observers UN City, Copenhagen, Denmark 2014 Paper 5 - Future funding options and fundraising strategy

PURPOSE This paper outlines challenges faced in achieving a sustainable resource base for IATI using the funding model endorsed by the Steering Committee in March 2013. The paper sets out some options for making the funding model more sustainable and seeks the approval of the Steering Committee to pursue the recommended measures. This paper should be read in conjunction with the Paper 4 on membership which addresses some overlapping themes as well as the supporting Annex to Paper 5. BACKGROUND In September 2013, IATI moved to a new funding model intended to provide financial sustainability for the initiative. Prior to this point, under the leadership of the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, the initiative had been funded entirely by a small number of very generous donors. The new model was based on the premise of raising 70% of IATI’s budget from annual membership fees from providers of development cooperation and the remaining 30% from fees from partner countries and CSOs plus additional voluntary contributions, in line with the decision made by the Steering Committee in March 2013. This funding model is codified in IATI’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP 2.3 Membership Costs) which also confirms that the level of membership fees is to be approved by the Steering Committee on an annual basis but that efforts will be made to keep the level of fees stable. As a further step in ensuring stability, the SOP includes an undertaking that donors’ membership fees would not increase beyond $50,000 in financial year 2014/15). No clear distinction was made in the SOP between country classifications at the low income range, and those at lower and upper middle income levels. Current membership fees, based on the Y1 2013/14 budget, are shown on the following page:

1|Page

Membership Category

Annual Membership Fee Schedule = (Annual budget x 70%)/Number of providers of development cooperation

Worked example based on 2013/14 budget = ($2.1mil x 70%)/34 = ($1,4mil)/34 = $43,235

Provider of development cooperation

100% of membership fee

$43,250

Provider of development cooperation (budget below USD $250 million)

50% of membership fee

$21,625

Partner Country

2.5% of membership fee

$1,100

CSO and other organisations

2.5% of membership fee

$1,100

CHALLENGES WITH THE EXISTING FUNDING MODEL The current membership fee for donors was set on the assumption that all 34 eligible members 1 from the category of ‘providers of development cooperation’ would pay their annual membership fees. In practice, only 21 members in this category paid their fees in year one. Of these, six made additional voluntary contributions and/or paid future fees in advance. The remaining 13 eligible members in this category have not paid any membership fees for Year One and, of these, only the Global Fund has responded positively to the request for payment for Year Two, while two others have officially declined the payment of their membership fee. With regard to partner country members and CSOs and other organisations, a nominal membership fee of $1,100 a year was included in the SOP, although these were not collected in Year One while there was an expectation of potentially funding partner country memberships from other sources. Only Bangladesh has so far confirmed its commitment to make a payment for Year Two. Four CSO members have paid their first year’s fees of $1,100, with one of these paying fees for Year Two in advance. Of actual contributions collected in FY13/14, more than half of the budget was raised through additional voluntary contributions, taking the model closer in reality to 50:50.

The 36 signatories to the Framework for Implementation are considered as eligible members, joined by two new members in the donor category. UNOPS, UNDP and Sweden as members of the hosting consortium are not eligible to pay fees , and have instead provided contributions in kind. The EC is constitutionally unable to pay a membership fees, but has made a generous voluntary contribution instead.

2|Page

The Secretariat has continued to collect contributions following the established funding model for a full financial year (FY 13/14). However, non-payment of membership fees has led to a significant shortfall in the IATI budget and it has become clear that the funding model, discussed at length and adopted by the Steering Committee at its March 2013 meeting, has failed to place IATI on a secure and sustainable financial footing as was intended. A budget with minimal shortfall has been presented for FY 14/15, but this has been possible only because fees were received late in FY13/14 and a number of activities have therefore been reprogrammed for FY14/15, with corresponding budget rolled over. The Secretariat has no expectation of a similar rollover in FY 15/16 however, and a strategy must therefore be agreed and implemented urgently to address the issue of sustainability in the course of the second year of operation. Guidance is now sought from members as to how to proceed on the matter of funding and fundraising in a way that ensures sustainability and stability for the future. OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION In considering the reasons for the shortfall, the Secretariat has concluded that the 70:30 model combined with a $50,000 cap on donor membership fees has resulted in an outcome that is not financially viable. The Secretariat has reviewed the funding models of OGP and EITI as most similar to IATI, and has examined and discounted a number of scenarios, including applying a single flat rate to all eligible members. Based on this research it has concluded that raising 100% of IATIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s budget from a limited proportion of the member base is not sustainable in the future. There are two options set out below. Members are invited to consider the merits of each, and to offer other recommendations based on the experience of their own organisations. OPTION 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Increase membership fee for paying members beyond the current cap This option maintains the current 70:30 model but recognizes that the membership base is smaller than the original calculation of eligible members, and increases donor membership fees accordingly. In order to make up 70% of the total budget for Y2 this would mean a 62% increase in

3|Page

the membership fee for the 21 paying providers of development cooperation to $69,960, and for the four paying CSO members to $1,782. The remaining 30% of the budget would still need to be raised through additional voluntary contributions. By applying this model, the cap on membership fees currently stated in the SOP is removed, opening the way for likely increases in membership fees annually to meet the actual budget requirement. This option has the negative consequence of effectively penalising those members already meeting (and in some cases generously exceeding) their membership fee commitments. OPTION 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Set up a new fundraising strategy to increase the voluntary contributions This model more accurately reflects IATIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s actual fundraising in Y1, when a larger proportion of the budget was in fact raised through additional voluntary contributions than through membership fees. Many of these generous voluntary contributions in FY 13/14 were made as gestures of good will in recognition of the early cashflow challenges of the new Secretariat, and it cannot be guaranteed that the same level of voluntary contributions will be received in subsequent years.

This option accepts that not all eligible members will make contributions, making a 70:30 split unrealistic at this point in time. For Year 2 this leaves the initiative with a 50/50 model, wherein membership fees (including all categories) make up 50% of the budget and the remaining 50% is generated through additional voluntary contributions. This option requires a more active and elaborate resource mobilisation strategy, including a new focus on fundraising outside of the current membership base.

ACTION REQUIRED Steering Committee members are invited to consider the options presented above and provide guidance on the way forward to achieving a sustainable funding base to ensure the continued success of IATI. Within this discussion members are encouraged to keep in mind the fastapproaching political deadline set at Busan and the need to step up activities rather than suppress the ambition to support publishers in achieving their individual and collective commitments.

4|Page

Acknowledging the urgency of finding solutions to meet these funding challenges, the Secretariat has made some initial suggestions (Annex to Paper 5) outlining some possible fundraising avenues. Members should note that this Annex does not represent a complete analysis of all possible options however, and further work is underway including with the support of an expert fundraising consultant, offered as a contribution in kind by UNDP. Regardless of the option recommended by members, a new resource mobilisation strategy will need to be developed, and UNDP will lead this work in consultation with the Standing Sub-Group on Budget & Finance.

5|Page

Meeting of IATI Steering Committee Members and Observers UN City, Copenhagen, Denmark 15 October 2014 Annex to Paper 5: Potential options for incentivizing voluntary contributions

Introduction This paper takes a first step to outline what could be offered as a more incentivized approach to fundraising that could be implemented from within the current structure of IATI. It should not be seen as a final options paper but rather a starting point for further exploration together with the Sub-group on Budget and Finance. A

Soft earmarking workplan items

In Year 1 the Technical Advisory Group meeting was made possible by the generous financial support of the Government of Canada. This contribution was offered to IATI on the basis that the funds would be used to underwrite the costs of the meeting but without a requirement for a separate detailed report on the use of these specific funds. Instead, the funds were added to the pooled fund and used to cover the costs of what is one of the larger activities in the work plan, and reported on as part of the overall reporting arrangements. Considering the success of this mutual arrangement, similar arrangements could be considered by other donor members in relation to specific activities in the workplan which align with their own particular strategic priorities. IATI furthers donors’ own development effectiveness and transparency efforts and this approach may help them to justify programming resources beyond the membership dues alone. Soft earmarking could be considered for larger Y2 line items such as the TAG meeting (Activity 4.C.1), the costs of two annual Steering Committee meetings (Activity 4.A.1) and regional workshops (Activity 3.A.3). This coming year requires higher ambition and increased support to members to enable them to meet their 2015 transparency commitments. Some upgrades to the underlying technical infrastructure have been identified as extremely desirable (Activities 1.A.1, 1.A.2, 1.A.3) and these could potentially attract ‘soft earmarked’ support. Similarly, activities 2.C.2, 2.C.3 which relate to enhanced staffing beyond the core staffing requirement in the technical team could be the subject of soft earmarking.

In presenting this option, It should be understood that soft earmarking is only a complementary approach to support regular fundraising; it does not and cannot replace generous core programming contributions from members to sustain the initiative. B

Allowing for fundraising outside of the membership

Any adjustments to the funding model that the members approve will depend more heavily on voluntary contributions. There may be opportunities for certain activities to be underwritten by organizations/governments that are currently not official members but that are in the preliminary stages of becoming members, or are at a much earlier scoping or observer phase. Funding could also be sought from philanthropic foundations and private sector actors. Funding could also be sought from organizations which do not have a role to play in publishing or consuming IATI data, do not want or need stake in governance of IATI at Steering Committee level, but which do have aims that are philanthropic or driven by corporate social responsibility priorities to contribute financially to IATI. C

IATI branding changes to reinforce membership value and incentivize voluntary contributions

A more stringent set of criteria around the use of IATIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s brand could reinforce the value of the brand for all stakeholders as well as potentially incentivize voluntary contributions by introducing the possibility of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;patronageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. This status could be used for those organizations/governments that have made a voluntary contribution to IATI above and beyond their expected contributions. Patronage could also be a means by which to incentivize contributions from the private sector. If the members are not comfortable with allowing private sector organizations into the IATI funding ecosystem, there is still potential value in offering the accolade of patron to members who do provide voluntary resources in addition to their dues as a further incentive. Patrons could be given higher profile in IATI communications products including the website and the Annual Report as part of this arrangement. Action required Members are not expected to take action on this Annex but to use it to stimulate discussion on possibilities for fundraising for IATI.

Meeting of IATI Steering Committee Members and Observers UN City, Copenhagen, Denmark 15-16 October 2014 Paper 6: Best practice for IATI reporting by Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) and International Finance Institutions (IFIs)

INTRODUCTION This paper gives an overview of the consultation process between the IATI Secretariat1 and a group of representatives2 from Development Finance Institutions (DFIs), International Finance Institutions (IFIs) and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) (hereafter collectively referred to as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;DFIs and IFIsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;). It updates the Steering Committee on the agreement reached on best practice3 for these organisations wishing to publish to the IATI Standard, as requested at the March 2014 meeting.

PROCESS DFIs and IFIs work extensively with private sector counterparts. In this environment legal restrictions and related commercial confidentiality have to be taken into account when reporting on private sector operations. Thus, DFIs and IFIs have to approach publication to IATI in a slightly different way to traditional providers. Furthermore, the business models of these organisations do not allow for reporting on forward looking financial flows. The process to agree best practice for DFIs and IFIs implementing IATI began because of a broad recognition that the business models and practices of these types of organisations differ from those of traditional development cooperation and grant aid providers. Rather than proceeding on the basis of individual exclusion policies, the group were keen to arrive at a common understanding of how they could publish to IATI. There was consensus that these organisations would welcome clarity and reassurance that there would be acceptance of the need for them to take a slightly different approach to IATI, despite the fact that IATI itself has only a small number of mandatory fields for all types of publishers. In exploring these potential issues, the group used the Common Standard implementation schedule as the basis for its discussions, taking each element in turn and exploring whether DFIs 1

This process was led by the IATI Technical Team at Development Initiatives See Annex 1 for a list of organisations involved 3 See Annex 2 for the DFI and IFI implementation schedule template 2

1|Page

and IFIs would encounter any difficulties in providing these items of information when publishing to IATI.

AGREEMENT The final version of the agreed implementation schedule can be seen in Annex 2. Essentially, the following areas have been modified or removed from the schedule: •

Wording has been modified to better reflect different business models and use of language amongst DFIs and IFIs;

•

DFI and IFI publishers will not be required to publish forward looking information to IATI, either because it is not available due to demand-driven business models, or because it is commercially confidential;

•

Data on disbursements and expenditure may be delayed or withheld due to legal restrictions; and

•

Data on repayments – specifically on the sale of equity and loan repayments – will not be published due to commercial confidentiality.

ACTION REQUIRED No action is required from the Steering Committee. This paper is for information purposes only.

2|Page

ANNEX 1

Representatives from the following organisations were involved in some or all of the consultations and discussions with the IATI Secretariat during three face to face meetings and one conference call between May 2013 and April 2014: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

African Development Bank (AfDB) Asian Development Bank (ADB) Black Sea Trade and Development Bank CDC Group plc European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) 6. European Investment Bank (EIB) 7. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) 8. International Finance Corporation (IFC) 9. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) 10. Private Infrastructure Development Group (PIDG) 11. Swedfund 12. The World Bank

3|Page

Part I – Best practice for IATI reporting by DFIs and IFIs 1. Introduction At the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan in 2011, countries and organisations resolved to: “Implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forward-‐looking information on resources provided through development co-‐operation, taking into account the statistical reporting of the OECD-‐DAC and the complementary efforts of the International Aid Transparency Initiative and others. This standard must meet the information needs of developing countries and non-‐state actors, consistent with national requirements. We will agree on this standard and publish our respective schedules to implement it by December 2012, with the aim of implementing it fully by December 2015.”

2. Completing the Questionnaire This implementation schedule is intended for organisations to specify what information they already report and publish and to present a timetable, based on their specific situation, of the feasibility of publishing more information; that is, when, what, where and how organisations will publish more data. The Implementation Schedule is composed of four parts: I. Introduction and instructions (i.e. this tab) II. General questionnaire on comprehensiveness, timeliness and public availability of information. This part is to be completed by each country or organisation (tab Part II -‐ General) III. Detailed questionnaire on the availability of information at agency and activity level. This part, divided into two subparts (tabs), is to be completed by each publishing agency. IIIa. Agency Data -‐ Questions referring to the current and planned availability of published information at agency level (tab Part IIIa -‐ Agency Data). IIIb. Activity Data -‐ Questions referring to the availability of information at activity level. This is a general assessment of the agency's ability to provide more detailed information on its activities (tab Part IIIb -‐ Activity Data).

Special note for completing Part IIIa and IIIb of the questionnaire The format for completing each tab (IIIa and IIIb) is the same. Each tab is made up of a table consisting of five columns (Information Area, Definition, Status, Publication date and a Publication notes field where the agency can fill out additional relevant information, e.g. thresholds, exclusions or definitions specific to the publishing agency): 1) Information Area -‐ this column identifies each information item requested to be published. 2) Definition -‐ this column contains a question on the availability of information in your system to publish based on a short definition on the specific information item taken from CRS/FSS/IATI guidance. It reflects the definitions which were approved by the DAC Working Party on Aid Effectiveness in June 2012. 3) Status -‐ this column requests agencies to indicate, using a drop-‐down menu, the extent to which they are able to publish the information item. These are based on the following key: Fully compliant

Publishing in full compliance with the Standard.

Partially compliant Future publication

Publishing some data required by the Standard

Not publishing now

Cannot commit to a date for publication

Data will be published at a future date

Not applicable Not relevant to the agency (The colour coding is auto-‐generated through use of the drop-‐down menu.) For anything less than full compliance, the agency is invited to provide further information in the publication notes. This can include: -‐ dates for full compliance if partial compliance is expected initially -‐ information on future publication of data items -‐ e.g. potential dates or what it is dependent upon (e.g. new management systems) -‐ under what conditions data items under consideration could be published (e.g. implementing geo-‐coding or collecting of results data) -‐ why publishing this information is not applicable (e.g. not relevant to the agency, not part of the agency's business model, etc.) 4) Publication date -‐ identifies when the agency did, or in future can, start publishing data for this information area. The date should appear in mmm-‐yy format (e.g. Jan-‐12). If any additional information needs to be provided about the date, it should be added in the 'Publication notes'. (this expands on the summary in Part II.1F of what improvements will be made and by when to indicate the date each individual item will be published). 5) Publication notes -‐ a free text field where the agency can provide additional information, such as thresholds or exclusions specific to this information item, where internal definitions of a field may differ slightly (or significantly) from the common standard definitions, and any other relevant information not covered in the preceding columns or requiring further clarification.

Part II – General questions on comprehensiveness, timeliness and public availability of information To be completed for the whole organisation

Organisation Name: Date:

1. COVERAGE AND COMPREHENSIVENESS A.

To which system(s) do you currently report/publish: CRS FSS

IATI

Other This is an opportunity to detail information that is published in other places (e.g. online)

B. What is the coverage of your current reporting in terms of financial flows and what levels of aggregation do the reported data represent? (Tick all boxes that apply) CRS Flows covered / aggregation level

ODA

(1)

Official Export Credits

Other OOF

IATI PRIV

NGO

ODA

Official Export Credits

Other OOF

PRIV

Activity-‐level Semi-‐aggregate (by recipient country and sector/component) Aggregate (by recipient country only) C.

i) What, if any, thresholds do you apply for aggregating CRS data?

ii) What, if any, is the threshold on the value of activities below which you do not publish to IATI?

iii) Does your organisation hold data and information that is confidential due to commercial, security or other considersations? If yes, please specify.

iv) Does your organisation have a disclosure policy that covers the publication of sensitive, commercial or personal data? If yes, please add link.

i. If you publish through IATI, which agencies do the published data currently cover? Name(s) of agencies

Agency coverage

ii. In future, which agencies will your published data cover? Name(s) of agencies

By when?

iii. In future, which agencies will your published data not cover? Name(s) of agencies

iv. Please provide additional information related to current/future coverage of publishing (if necessary)

What improvements do you plan to the coverage (types of flows) and comprehensiveness (level of detail) of your data by 2015?

Flows covered ODA

OOF PRIV NGO

Improvements

By when?

NGO

2. FREQUENCY AND TIMELINESS A.

Frequency: At what intervals do you currently report to the CRS / publish through IATI? Monthly Quarterly Annually Other (specify) CRS IATI

Frequency: At what intervals would you be able to report to the CRS / publish through a publicly available website? Monthly Quarterly Annually Other (specify) CRS IATI

Timeliness: How soon after data are captured and available internally can you publish them? (Please give the soonest any data are available to publish, even if they cover only part of your aid e.g. country project data.) One month

One quarter

One year

Other (specify)

What improvements do you plan to the frequency and timeliness of your data and by when?

Flows covered

Improvements

By when?

ODA OOF PRIV NGO

3. FORWARD-‐LOOKING INFORMATION A.

i) Which approach does your organisation take to future planning? To what degree are you able to provide forward-‐looking information to IATI? How many years ahead are you able to provide information for?

Level of aggregation

Activity-‐level

Forward Spending Survey (FSS)

IATI

committed / ongoing projects also including planned / not yet committed projects also including remaining country budget envelopes

Semi-‐aggregate (by recipient country and sector/component) Aggregate envelopes (by recipient country) ii) For how many years ahead can you legally provide information?

iii) Please provide additional information related to forward-‐looking information, including if you use a fixed (e.g. 3-‐year) or rolling (extended by one year each year) planning framework.

If the above information relates to the DAC Forward Spending Survey (FSS), do you permit the publication of this information? If no, why not?

What improvements are you planning to provide more forward-‐looking information, and by when?

Flows covered ODA OOF PRIV NGO

Improvements

By when?

4. PUBLICATION A.

What information on your activities do you currently publish/plan to publish on your website? Currently Project Database Information and Reports Other (describe)

Planned Project Database Information and Reports Other (describe)

By when

Notes

Planned By when XML format for IATI registry Table(s)/ online tool(s) Only through OECD website/online databases Other (please name)

Notes

What formats/mechanisms do you currently use/plan to use for publishing data on your website? B. Currently XML format for IATI registry Table(s)/ online tool(s) Only through OECD website/online databases Other (please name)

Under which license do/will you publish your data (2) If neither of these, please specify why:

5. NOTES (1) Detailed definitions are available at: http://www.oecd.org/dac/aidstatistics/38429349.pdf ODA: Official development assistance is defined as those flows to countries and territories on the DAC List of ODA Recipients and to multilateral development institutions which are: i. provided by official agencies, including state and local governments, or by their executive agencies; and ii. each transaction of which: a) is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective; and b) is concessional in character and conveys a grant element of at least 25 per cent10 (calculated at a rate of discount of 10 per cent). Official export credits: official bilateral loans which are primarily export-‐facilitating in purpose. Other OOF: Other official flows are official sector transactions which do not meet the ODA criteria, e.g. official bilateral transactions intended to promote development but having a grant element of less than 25 per cent PRIV: Private flows at market terms undertaken by firms and individuals resident in the reporting country from their own private funds. NGO: NGO flows cover strictly private funds spent by NGOs/charitable organisations (as grants) on development cooperation (funds they raise themselves from private sources). This therefore would not include any ODA or OOF nor private flows at market terms.

(2) Definitions are available at: http://iatistandard.org/getting-‐started/licencing/licence-‐types IATI requires data published to the Standard to be compliant as either: Public Domain: no copyright, database rights or contractual rights exist over the data that has been published by an organisation. Examples include the Creative Commons’ CC0 tool and the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and Licence (PDDL). You can access an example IATI Public Domain licence. Attribution-‐Only: licenses that allow for use and reuse of the data, with the only restriction being that attribution (credit) be given to the organisation that has published the data. Examples include the Creative Commons’ Attribution Licenses (CC-‐BY) and the Open Data Commons Attribution Licence. You can access an example IATI Attribution-‐Only licence via: http://iatistandard.org/getting-‐ started/licencing/licence-‐types

Part IIIa -‐ Organisation data Separate sheet to be completed by each organisation that does/will publish data to IATI Organisation:

CRS donor/agency code (if available) or IATI Organisation Identifier:

Date:

This tab refers to the current and planned availability of published information at agency level. For each information item in the table, please make a general assessment of your agency's ability to provide the requested information. In the status column you can specify the degree of compliance of your system to provide information for each information item.

Information Item

Detailed information / Definitions

Annual forward planning budget data for agency

Does your agency publish its total development budget for each of the next three years (or most detailed available) on a rolling basis? For donor agencies, this will cover information as submitted to parliament; for foundations or multilaterals as submitted to their respective boards.

Organisation documents

Does your organisation publish documents that are related to the work-‐programme of your organisation?

Status

Publication date

Publication notes, including any field level thresholds or exclusions and definitions specific to publishing organisation

Part IIIb -‐ Activity data Separate sheet to be completed by each organisation that does/will publish data to IATI Organisation:

CRS donor/agency code (if available) or IATI Organisation Identifier:

Date:

This tab refers to the availability of information at activity level. For each information item in the table, please make a general assessment of your agency's ability to provide the requested information on all your activities. For details of the code values for an item refer to the codes lists in Part IV. In the status column you can specify the degree of compliance for each information item. For instance, if you can provide the requested information on most of your projects or programmes, you can indicate this by selecting "Fully Compliant", if only for some projects or programmes you can select "Partially Compliant" with an explanation in the notes column. Note that the common standard uses the term ‘activity’ to describe the reported unit for all types of development co-‐operation resources. An activity is any project, programme, contract, cooperative agreement or financial arrangement that is reported at a level of detail that is meaningful to the recipient and manageable by the donor. The cells highlighted with this colour represent overlap between IATI and CRS/FSS. For data fields overlapping with CRS, there are several cases where different application criteria are used, definitions adjusted, and codes lists extended. The cells highlighted with this colour represent partial overlap between IATI and the CRS/FSS.

Information Item

Detailed information / Definitions (See Part Status IV on code lists for further details)

Reporting Organisation

Does your system allow publication of the name and unique identifier of the organisation publishing the information? Does your system allow publication of a globally unique identifier for your activities? This should be in the form of the CRS ID or the IATI Organisation Identifier (for the reporting organisation) concatenated to that organisation's activity identifier.

Standard activity identifier

Other activity identifiers

Does your system allow publication of other activity identifiers, which can be used to identify an activity for multiple organisations? This can for instance be a donor's own project number.

Basic Activity Information Activity Title Activity Title (in recipient's language) Activity Description Activity Description (in recipient's language) Activity Status

Activity Dates (Start Date)

Does your system allow publication of a title of your aid activities (preferably official name used in project documents)? Does your system allow publication of long descriptions summarising the specific purpose or objective of your activities? Does your system allow publication of the current stage of the aid activity at the time the information is published/updated? The stages are based on an activity lifecycle, e.g. pipeline, implementation, completion etc. Does your system allow publication of expected/planned/actual start dates of your activities? Please specify in publication notes field if it is expected/planned start date for the project or actual start date (i.e. the date the physical progress of the project begins). Note that CRS only includes expected/planned start dates.

Activity Dates (End Date)

Does your system allow publication of expected/planned/actual completion dates of your activities? Please specify in publication notes field if it is expected/planned completion date for the project or actual completion date (i.e. the date the physical project ends). Note that the CRS only includes expected/planned completion dates. Activity Contacts Does your system allow publication of contact details for your activities? This can either be a generic contact or specific individual providing there are no privacy concerns and there is an automatic update when individual changes job. Participating Organisation (Source Does your system allow publication of the identity and role of of Funding/Finance) each organisation in activities (including the reporting organisation)? (How to use the participating organisation fields Participating Organisation to be decided on an individual basis) (Extending) Participating Organisation (Recipient/Client) Geopolitical Information Recipient Country Does your system allow publication of the country(ies) for whose benefit aid flows are provided (if applicable)? Recipient Region Does your system allow publication of supra-‐national areas for whose benefit aid flows are provided (if applicable)? This includes geographical or administrative regions grouping various countries (e.g. Sub-‐Saharan Africa) or 'global' for activities benefiting substantially all developing countries. Sub-‐national Geographic Location

Classifications Sector (DAC CRS)

Does your system allow publication of sub-‐national geographical identification of the target locations of your activities? These can be described by coordinates, administrative areas or a textual description. Note that the CRS allows for a textual description, while publication through IATI builds upon the UCDP/AidData geocoding methodology. Does your system allow publication of the specific sector(s) of the recipient's economic or social development that the transfer intends to foster, known as "purpose codes" in the CRS.

Publication date

Publication notes, including any field level thresholds or exclusions and definitions specific to publishing organisation

Information Item

Detailed information / Definitions (See Part Status IV on code lists for further details)

Sector (Agency specific)

Does your system allow publication of agency-‐specific sector codes for the recipient's economic or social development that the transfer intends to foster.

Policy Markers

Does your system allow publication of indicators tracking key policy issues, notably the CRS policy markers? This can be also used for donor specific thematic classifications. Does your system allow publication of identifiers to show the type of collaboration? For official donors, it would show if activities are bilateral; earmarked multilateral; core multilateral; core contributions to NGOs; core contributions to PPPs; or multilateral outflow. Other types may apply to foundations and NGOs.

Collaboration Type

Default Flow Type

Does your system allow publication of identifiers to show the classification of the flow? For official donors this means if activities are Official Development Assistance (ODA), or Other Official Flows (OOF) [non-‐concessional but developmental, i.e. excluding export credits]. Other types can be specified for other donors.

Default Finance Type

Does your system allow publication of identifiers to show the financing mechanism of the aid activity (e.g. grant, loan, capital subscription, export credit, debt relief, equity)? Other types can be specified for other donors.

Default Aid Type

Does your system allow publication of identifiers to show the type of assistance provided. For official donors broad categories are budget support, pooled funds, project-‐type interventions, experts, scholarships, debt relief, administrative costs)? Other types can be specified for other donors. Does your system allow publication of amounts by degree of restriction on where procurement of goods or services can take place, classified as untied (open procurement), partially tied (donor and developing countries) and tied (donor or group not including most developing countries).

Default Tied Aid Status

Financial Activity Budget

Does your system allow publication of planned budgets (by quarter or annual) for the lifetime of your activities?

Planned Disbursements

Does your system allow publication of planned disbursements and expenditures for your activities? Note that the FSS requests this information by calendar year while IATI recommends this to be specified by the financial year of the recipient country.

Economic Classification (Capital/Recurrent) Recipient's Administrative/Functional budget classification Financial Transaction Financial transaction (Commitment)

Format still to be finalised by IATI Steering Committee

Financial transaction (Disbursement & Expenditure)

Financial transaction (Reimbursement)

Financial transaction (Incoming Funds) Related Documents and Links Activity Documents Activity Website Related Activity Performance Conditions attached Y/N Text of Conditions

Results data

Format still to be finalised by IATI Steering Committee

Does your system allow publication of commitments? A commitment is a firm written obligation by the donor to provide resources of a specified amount under specified financial terms and conditions and for specified purposes for the benefit of the recipient. Does your system allow publication of disbursements and/or expenditures? A disbursement is the amount placed at the disposal of a recipient country or agency (in the case of internal development-‐related expenditures, the outlay of funds). An expenditure is the outlay by the implementing agency on goods and services. Please specify in the publication notes if you can publish disbursements and expenditures separately or only publish these jointly. (Wherever possible, subject to legal restrictions, the commitment figure will be published at the start of the commitment period and the total amount disbursed will be reported at the end of the commitment period*) Does your system allow publication of reimbursements? Reimbursements are disbursements that repay funds already spent by the recipient, as agreed in the terms of the loan or grant. (Optional field) Does your system allow publication of incoming funds? These are funds received from an external funding source (e.g. a donor).

Does your system allow publication of published documents that are related to your activities? Do you have websites with more information about individual activities? Does your system allow publication of links to other activities related to your activities; for example for multi-‐funded projects? Does your system allow publication of whether there are any special conditions attached to your individual activities (yes/no), and if so, the exact details of the conditions (optional)? Does your system allow publication of generic frameworks for the reporting of indicator-‐based targets and outcomes. Please note that there are no restriction on the choice of indicators, measures or baselines.

* This is due to legal and contractual restrictions. For financial instruments that do not have a clear or defined commitment period, commitments will be published as the board-‐approved figure (usually ‘up to $X’), which may differ from the final contract figure due to e.g. changes in market conditions between date of board approval and contract signing. Equity and revolving loan activities may not have an end of commitment period date.’

Publication date

Publication notes, including any field level thresholds or exclusions and definitions specific to publishing organisation

Meeting of IATI Steering Committee Members and Observers UN City, Copenhagen, Denmark 2014 Paper 7: Proposal for an Evaluation Working group

INTRODUCTION As proposed in the IATI Annual Workplan September 2014 – August 2015 and also foreseen in the original consortium proposal for the IATI hosting arrangement, the Secretariat plans to commission an external evaluation of IATI in early-2015. The outcomes of this evaluation will be helpful in informing the discussion on IATI’s future within the context of the wider post-2015 debate. It is expected that the evaluation will be carried out by an independent consultant/s on the basis of an open procurement process. The budget for this evaluation is $23,333 according to the original proposal. As IATI is a member-driven initiative, it is proposed that a working group of 4-5 people drawn from membership would be called upon to develop terms of reference (ToR) for the evaluation. The working group should reflect all IATI constituencies, e.g. partner countries, donor countries, multilateral organisations, civil society organisations (CSOs) and philanthropic foundations, and appoint its own chair. Secretariat members will be available as ex-officio members of the working group to assist with procurement issues and other secretarial duties. Steering Committee members are invited to discuss and agree upon the broad elements to be included in the evaluation and guiding principles for the working group.

Suggested elements in an evaluation An evaluation of IATI may contain a variety of elements and angles. The following bullets should not be seen as a complete scope of work, but rather examples of aspects to inspire further discussion. 

Results, e.g. assess IATI’s progress and impact to date from 2008 with regard to its mandate, role and responsibility, with special emphasis on data quantity, quality and usage;



Organisation, e.g. assess the strengths and weaknesses of IATI’s institutional arrangements including an indication on how the current or future alternative institutional arrangements might increase the impact and effectiveness of IATI’s future work;

1|Page



Operational work, e.g. assess how and where members and other stakeholders feel that IATI’s approach, technical support and outreach could have greater relevance to their work and to the international transparency agenda, including actionable, forward-looking recommendations for strengthening its performance in future.

Suggested guiding principles for the working group The Steering Committee is invited to comment on the following guiding principles for the evaluation working group. 

Development of ToR which should include objectives, scope of work, methodology, timeline, reporting issues and clarity on the skills and experience required by the consultant/s. As IATI is global in scope, the evaluation is expected to seek the views of all key stakeholder groups. Both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used and field visits may be considered.



Once the ToR has been agreed, it is proposed that the working group through its chair continues to oversee the delivery of the evaluation by the consultant/s.



As proposed in IATI Annual Workplan (above), the calculated budget for the evaluation is $23,333 at present, which is supposed to include consultant fees, travel costs, and per diems. However, the working group might wish to consider whether a larger budget is required, and in that case, take the necessary measures together with the Standing Subgroup on Budget and Finance.



The evaluation should be timed so that tentative conclusions and recommendations can be presented at the next SC meeting in spring 2015. A detailed work plan and timeline should be presented by the working group to IATI Chair and Vice-Chair no later than November 15th 2014.



The Secretariat will support the working group and the evaluation process in terms of accessibility to all relevant information.

Action requested Steering Committee members are invited to consider options for the broad elements to be included in the evaluation and to agree upon the best direction, including guiding principles. Steering Committee members are also invited to appoint members of an evaluation working group to prepare ToR and guide the evaluation. This group should include representatives of each stakeholder group, with volunteers sought at the Steering Committee meeting.

2|Page

Meeting of IATI Steering Committee Members and Observers UN City, Copenhagen, Denmark October 2014 Paper 8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Terms of Reference for a workshop on South-South cooperation

PURPOSE The attached concept note outlines a proposal for a technical workshop to factor South-South cooperation into the IATI Standard. This is one of the activities planned for Year Two as part of the original proposal of the hosting consortium approved in March 2013. ACTION REQUESTED This paper is shared with Steering Committee members for information and to guide discussions on improving data quality on Day One of the October 2014 Steering Committee meeting.

1|Page

Concept note: proposed technical workshop on integrating South-South and technical cooperation into the IATI Standard

Background South-South Cooperation (SSC) has evolved to assume increased importance in the changing global effective development cooperation architecture. In 2011, the value of South-South Cooperation was estimated at between $USD 16.1 billion and $19 billion1. The actual value, however, is indisputably higher, not only because much South-South development cooperation is unreported but also because it takes many forms, some of which are hard to quantify or monetize (e.g. technical cooperation, etc.). Driven by official as well as private initiatives, South-South Cooperation involves a wide diversity of partners, ranging from governments and international agencies to corporations, civil society organizations, and the private sector. The cooperation they provide is particularly esteemed by recipient countries as it complements and adds value to aid flows from traditional donors. In addition, the perspective of Southern providers is especially advantageous in the global development dialogue, since many were â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and others still remain â&#x20AC;&#x201C; aid recipients themselves, offering insights that draw on this experience. The central importance of SSC has been endorsed in a series of international conferences over the past decade, most notably at the Nairobi High Level Event on SSC in December, 2009. The outcome document from Nairobi acknowledged the need to enhance the development effectiveness of SSC by continuing to increase its mutual accountability and transparency, specifically encouraging providers of South-South Cooperation to improve data collection at the national level. However, though the international development landscape reflects a growing interest in the improved reporting of SSC, and while the information currently available from Southern providers of development cooperation is beneficial, it falls short of the scope and detail required for long-term planning and budgeting by recipient countries. Thanks to efforts by international initiatives like IATI, Southern providers are now making information about their development cooperation publicly available, but as they do so, the need for agreed-upon standards and definitions to describe and quantify South-South and technical cooperation becomes more apparent. Obvious institutional, political, and technical barriers to standardization remain, especially noting the vast diversity among Southern providers of development cooperation (e.g. SSC encompasses both Arab countries with a longstanding history in development finance and the emerging economies of the G20).

Report of the Secretary General on the State of South-South cooperation, 17 July 2014

2|Page

South-South Cooperation and transparency The growing role and contribution of Southern partners to development cooperation necessitates a deeper look at the transparency, efficiency, and impact of their development cooperation. Improved information flows would enable Southern providers to ensure that their efforts and partnerships in the Global South are tailored towards meeting the most pressing development demands of these countries. At the national level, there is a need to be accountable for public resources spent on SSC, and to ensure this information is easily accessible and understandable by citizens. In addition, recent discussions at the global level reflect the desire of many Southern providers to increase transparency, especially as many of them are engaged in both development finance and SouthSouth Cooperation. As an example, the communiqué of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation’s inaugural High-Level Meeting in Mexico included a commitment from South-South Cooperation partners to “improve the availability of information on the scope, results, and impacts of their cooperation actions.” Subsequently, support for a technical workshop on SSC emerged from the jointly hosted TIKA/UNDP conference on emerging donors in Istanbul in June, 2014, noting that, “A proposal was made for a technical workshop to address how existing tools and technologies [for example IATI] could be adapted to capture the contribution of SSC.”. Reporting on South-South and technical cooperation flows: data challenges Statements in these different fora have identified a clear need to simplify and standardize reporting across all providers of development cooperation. However, reporting on South-South and technical cooperation flows remains problematic at a technical level: for instance, some providers face difficulties in valuing the non-financial components of their development cooperation, such as technical assistance or in-kind donations. Limiting a SSC project’s financial value to estimates for operational expenses such as airfare, cost of materials, and logistical infrastructure does not put a value on the knowledge that is exchanged; thus making quantifying SSC projects accurately a challenge. In addition, only a small minority of development cooperation providers currently possess their own reporting mechanisms, which include different ways of classifying and calculating assistance. Often, where data does exist, it is difficult to collect and aggregate because of its format, language, and/or public availability. Objectives of the workshop The IATI Standard is already used by a wide range of stakeholders. It was, however, designed with a primary focus on financial flows and is currently not fit to report technical cooperation and other non-financial agreements. With sufficient political interest and inputs from current providers of SSC, the necessary technical investment would be worthwhile. Representing the first analytical steps toward a concrete integration of South-South and technical cooperation flows into the IATI Common Standard for aid reporting, the proposed workshop would seek to:  

Share learnings around the problems of capturing flows of development cooperation that are not easily monetized (i.e. technical assistance, in-kind donations, etc.); Consider how time, people, skills and services can be measured, valued, and reported;

3|Page

 

Build a draft extension to the IATI Activity Standard that can be used for testing the solutions proposed; and Identify and agree upon potential partner countries for pilot work.

Target audience The workshop will identify and draw upon best practices and technical inputs on integrating SouthSouth Cooperation and aid flows from current providers of SSC from among current members and observers. From invited countries, the workshop will encourage the attendance of practitioners who can provide empirical inputs on the management and quantification of South-South and technical cooperation at the working level, especially from those offices at the national level who are directly involved with IATI reporting and/or SSC (i.e. Ministries of Finance, External Relations, Donor Relations, etc.). Proposed format Details regarding venue, date, duration, and participation will be fleshed out further into the planning process. Outputs Proposed outputs of the workshop include:   

A technical discussion paper outlining available options of how time, people, skills and services can be measured, valued, and reported; A draft extension to the IATI Standard that could be used to test the reporting of technical cooperation; and A consensus around areas for pilot work and an agreement by partner countries to volunteer capacity and/or resources to undertake such work.

4|Page

Meeting of IATI Steering Committee Members and Observers UN City, Copenhagen, Denmark 2014 Paper 9: The GPEDC Transparency Indicator

INTRODUCTION In the lead up to the First High-Level Meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) held in Mexico in April 2014, the technical teams of the Global Partnership Joint Support Team, OECD DCD-DAC and IATI had insufficient time to fully test the draft methodology of the transparency indicator and engage in a more comprehensive consultation with those being assessed and those who wished to make use of the indicator. There was an online consultation in Autumn 2013 and as many views as possible were taken into account in that short period. Nevertheless, the resulting indicator had limited buy-in from many of its stakeholders, a situation compounded by unsatisfactory review procedures once scoring was shared. The IATI Secretariat believes it is essential for the future of the indicator to resolve these procedural shortcomings by ensuring that such issues are comprehensively addressed at this point. As a contribution to this process, the IATI Secretariat published its proposals for improvements to the indicator methodology for public consultation on 5th September. Comments were invited by 25th September, with the intention of updating these proposals on the basis of comments received for approval by the Steering Committee. Shortly afterwards, the DAC Secretariat also shared its thoughts on the future of the indicator in a paper circulated for discussion at the WP-STAT meeting on 17th September, to which IATI was invited. There was consensus in that meeting on the proposal for the establishment of a multistakeholder technical reference group comprised of the various constituencies of the GPEDC Global Partnership, including IATI, WP-STAT, non-DAC donors, multilaterals, developing countries and south-south providers, with a remit to address both the definition of the Common Standard, and modifications to the transparency indicator. In addition, the Joint Support Team is in discussion with the co-chairs of the GPEDC with regard to strengthening the overall monitoring framework and finalising the four pilot indicators, including transparency. A draft proposal is likely to be considered at the forthcoming annual GP workshop in

1|Page

Seoul in November, and a final proposal presented to the next GPEDC Steering Committee in January 2015. Taking into account both the GPEDC process and the DAC Secretariat proposal, the IATI Secretariat now proposes to revise its original proposals for improving the indicator methodology on the basis of comments received on the forum and at the IATI Steering Committee on 14/15 October as well as the proposed work on the IATI dashboard set out below.

Proposed approach In light of these recent developments, the Steering Committee is now invited to approve a twin-track approach, which mandates the IATI Secretariat to participate in the anticipated multi-stakeholder technical reference group established under the auspices of the GPEDC, whilst at the same time advancing IATIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own efforts to support its members in improving the quality of their data in line with their Busan commitments and December 2015 deadline. Subject to the approval of the Steering Committee, the Secretariat proposes to participate in any technical reference group that is established under the GPEDC on the basis of the proposals outlined in its consultation paper, which takes as its starting point the importance of measuring performance against the Busan 23c commitment on the electronic publication of timely, comprehensive, forward-looking information that meets the needs of partner country stakeholders. Consistent with the proposals in the consultation paper, the Secretariat advocates amending the methodology in order to make it more consistent and robust for the next iteration, and securing political buy-in from all stakeholders through adequate consultation and engagement, rather than going back to first principles. Improving data quality and assisting members to meet their December 2015 Busan commitments is a central part of the IATI Technical Teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work. To this end a range of statistics on IATI data are published nightly on the IATI Dashboard. In March 2014, the Secretariat informed the Steering Committee that the statistics published in the Annual Report would also be included on the dashboard. While the preparatory work for this has been done the statistics have not yet been made public as the Technical Team believes it is important that a consistent methodology should be applied to both the Annual Report and statistics underpinning the Indicator. The Technical Team believes that the dashboard is a useful platform on which to test out this single, improved methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and to consult with all publishers by demonstrating the 2|Page

methodology in practice. This methodology involves the logic in producing accurate statistics and NOT a scoring system that the indicator adds as a layer on top of the statistics.

Action required Steering Committee members are invited to confirm the following: 1) The Secretariat is mandated to take part in the proposed multi-stakeholder technical reference group that will refine the transparency indicator, using the existing consultation paper, updated on the basis of feedback from members as the basis of its initial contribution to this group. 2) The Secretariat is also authorised to advance IATI’s own work in enhancing data quality, supporting IATI members to meet their Busan commitments and deadline, including through the publication of nightly data quality statistics on the IATI dashboard, aligned to the IATI Annual Report and the evolving transparency indicator methodology. 3) The IATI dashboard statistics will also be used to “road-test” any proposed changes to the transparency indicator methodology, and – after consultation with all IATI stakeholders - this in turn will inform IATI’s subsequent input into the multi-stakeholder technical reference group. .

3|Page

Meeting of IATI Steering Committee Members and Observers UN City, Copenhagen, Denmark 16 October 2014 Paper 10 : Proposed Changes to the IATI Standards: Version 2.01 Introduction After six months of consultation, including three punctuation points at which Steering Committee members have been formally asked to express objections, consensus has been reached. The IATI Secretariat seeks formal approval for adoption of Version 2.01 of the IATI Standard, consisting of 

Version 2.01 activity schema



Version 2.01 organisation schema



Version 2.01 common schema



Version 2.01 codelists



Version 2.01 additional Rulesets



Substantive changes are summarised in this document

Supporting materials 

The 2.01 version of the iatistandard.org website, including revisions to guidance



Guidance for publishers migrating to 2.01 from 1.0x



A colour-coded table view of the activity schema, which highlights additions (green), deletions (red) and modifications (yellow)



A colour-coded table view of the organisation schema, which highlights additions (green), deletions (red) and modifications (yellow)



A full history of the consultation, including all comments is available on the Support Forum.



An extensive discussion on organisation identifiers also took place on the TAG mailing list.

Content This proposal is divided into eight sections. 1. Strengthening the Core of the Standard 2. Additional Mandatory Conditions 3. Language Neutral Codelists 4. Multi-lingual Text Fields 5. Improvements to the Organisation Standard 6. Replicate more activity-level elements at transaction level 7. Miscellaneous 8. Organisation and Activity Identifiers

Final Draft V1 - Page 1

1. Strengthening the Core of the Standard a. Enforcing Order on the Schema i. The order in which elements are reported MUST follow the sequence dictated by the Schema. ii. Schema cardinality rules are enforced. iii. Order and occurrences for the Activity standard are here. iv. Order and occurrences for the Organisation standard are here. b. Participating organisation i. At least one occurrence of participating-org is MANDATORY ii. For each occurrence of participating-org @role is MANDATORY iii. For each occurrence of participating-org @ref or participating-org/narrative is MANDATORY c. Title i. The title is MANDATORY d. Description i. The description is MANDATORY e. Activity Date i. At least one occurrence of activity-date is MANDATORY ii. All activities MUST contain a start date: either planned or actual f.

Sector / Transaction Sector i. Sector may now be reported at transaction level instead of activity level ii. Sector MUST be reported at either activity level or transaction level but not both iii. Multiple sectors per transaction can only be reported if they come from different vocabularies. iv. sector/@code OR transaction/sector/@code is MANDATORY v. If Sector/@vocabulary is not present then the DAC 5-digit vocabulary is assumed

2. Additional Mandatory Conditions a. Budget dates i. If the budget element is present then ii. period-start/@iso-date is MANDATORY and must be a valid ISO format iii. period-end/@iso-date is MANDATORY and must be a valid ISO format iv. period-end/@iso-date must be after period-start/@iso-date b. Planned Disbursment date i. If the planned-disbursement element is present then the period-start/@iso-date is MANDATORY

Final Draft V1 - Page 2

3. Language Neutral Codelists – Changes to Codes a. Activity Date Type i. See http://dev.iatistandard.org/201/codelists/ActivityDateType/ b. Gazetteer Agency i. see http://dev.iatistandard.org/201/codelists/GazetteerAgency/ c. Organisation Role i. see http://dev.iatistandard.org/201/codelists/OrganisationRole/ d. Transaction Type i. see http://dev.iatistandard.org/201/codelists/TransactionType/ e. Vocabulary i. Change name to SectorVocabulary ii. see http://dev.iatistandard.org/201/codelists/Vocabulary/ 4. Multi-lingual text fields a. Scrapping text of purely code elements In the following elements the @code attribute is all that is required and text MUST NOT be provided. i. Activity Standard activity-status; activity-scope; policy-marker; collaboration-type; default-finance-type; default-flow-type; default-aid-type; default-tied-status; transaction/transaction-type; transaction/flow-type; transaction/aid-type; transaction/finance-type; transaction/tiedstatus; transaction/disbursement-channel; document-link/category; documentlink/language; related-activity; crs-add/loan-terms/repayment-type; crs-add/loanterms/repayment-plan; location/exactness; location/location-id; location/administrative ii. Organisation Standard document-link/category; document-link/language b. Including nested, multi-lingual narrative elements for all elements containing free text Existing text() MUST be replaced with the narrative sun-element. i. Example 1 1. Current Usage <title xml:lang="en">English Title</title> <title xml:lang="fr">Titre français</title> 2. Proposed Change <title> <narrative xml:lang="en">English Title</narrative> <narrative xml:lang="fr">Titre français</narrative> </title>

Final Draft V1 - Page 3

ii. Example 2 1. Current Usage <sector vocabulary="RO" xml:lang="en code="456">Water and sanitation</sector> <sector vocabulary="RO" xml:lang="fr" code="456">Eau et assainissement</sector> 2. Proposed Change 3. <sector vocabulary="99" code="456"> <narrative xml:lang="en">Water and sanitation</narrative> <narrative xml:lang="en">Eau et assainissement</narrative> </sector> iii. Elements to be modified are: 1. Activity Standard reporting-org; participating-org; title; description; activity-date; contactinfo/organisation; contact-info/person-name; contact-info/job-title; contactinfo/mailing-address;recipient-country; recipient-region; location/name; location/description; location/activity-description; sector (for use only with reporting organisation's own codes); policy-marker (for use only with reporting organisation's own codes); country-budget-items/budgetitem/description; transaction/description; transaction/receiver-org; transaction/provider-org; transaction/recipient-country; transaction/recipientregion;document-link/title; conditions/condition; result/title;result/description; result/indicator/title; result/indicator/description; result/indicator/baseline/comment; result/indicator/period/target/comment; result/indicator/period/actual/comment 2. Organisation Standard reporting-org; iati-organisation; recipient-country-budget/recipient-country; document-link/title; document-link/recipient-country 5. Improvements to the Organisation Standard a. Add recipient-country to document-link i. Create a document-link/recipient-country element ii. Inherit properties from iati-activity/recipient-country iii. Allow multiple countries to be reported per document-link b. Create budget-line element i. Add a new complex element for use as a nested sub-element in reporting budget breakdowns within: total-budget; recipient-org-budget; recipient-country-budget

Final Draft V1 - Page 4

ii. Create a budget-line element iii. Create budget-line/@ref as a reporting organisation reference for the budget line iv. Create budget-line/narrative for a description of the budget line (repeated for multiple languages) v. Create budget-line/value inherited from the existing iati-activity/transaction/value element vi. Usage: budget-line should be used in addition to total-budget/value, recipient-orgbudget/value and/or recipient-country-budget/value. NB that it does not replace the existing reporting guidelines c. Replace iati-identifier with organisation i. Replace the iati-identifier element with an organisation-identifier element. d. Tightening up on version i. iati-organisations/@version is MANDATORY ii. iati-organisation/@version is DELETED iii. The value of @version MUST be on the version codelist 6. Replicate more activity-level elements at transaction level a. Add transaction/sector i. This element should inherit all characteristics from the activity-level sector element excluding percentage ii. If this element is used then the activity-level sector element MUST NOT be used iii. Only one sector per vocabulary can be reported for each transaction. iv. Multiple sectors per transaction can only be reported if they come from different vocabularies. b. Add transaction/recipient-country i. This element should inherit all characteristics from the activity-level recipient-country element excluding percentage ii. If this element is used then the activity-level recipient-country element MUST NOT be used iii. Only one recipient-country OR recipient-region may be reported per transaction. iv. If a transaction covers multiple countries and/or regions then the transaction needs to be split into constituent parts. c. Add transaction/recipient-region i. This element should inherit all characteristics from the activity-level recipient-region element excluding percentage ii. If this element is used then the activity-level recipient-region element MUST NOT be used iii. Only one recipient-country OR recipient-region may be reported per transaction.

Final Draft V1 - Page 5

iv. If a transaction covers multiple countries and/or regions then the transaction needs to be split into constituent parts. 7. Miscellaneous a. Combined usage of recipient-country and recipient-region i. Current guidance advising use of only one or other of these elements is reversed ii. recipient-region should only be used to indicate that the region as a whole is a recipient, not as an added description to a named recipient-country iii. if both elements are used percentages must be reported and they should add up to 100% across all recipient- elements b. Tightening up on version i. iati-activities/@version is MANDATORY ii. iati-activity/@version is DELETED iii. The value of @version MUST be on the version codelist iv. A new non-embedded codelist for IATI Version has been created c. Segmentation and file size i. A limit of 40MB is placed on the size of any single XML file. ii. Guidance to segment by country is no longer necessarily considered to be best practice. d. Redefine activity-website as a document-link i. Remove the iati-activities/iati-activity/activity-website element ii. Add documentary-category codelist categories for Organisation Webpage, Sector Webpage, Country Webpage and Activity Webpage e. Allow multiple languages to be specified for a single document i. Change cardinality of document-link/language from single to multiple occurrences ii. This applies to both Activity and Organisation standard f.

Delete all previously deprecated items i. Delete elements, attributes and codes that have previously been deprecated. ii. Delete (not deprecate) elements, attributes and codes that are being removed in this upgrade.

g. Planned-disbursement Type i. Delete planned-disbursement/@updated ii. Add planned-disbursement/@type (using IATI codelist BudgetType) h. Addition to RelatedActivityType Codelist i. Add a value to the codelist: ii. 5 - Third Party - A report by another organisation on the same activity (excluding activities reported as part of financial transactions - eg. provider-activity-id - or a cofunded activity using code = 4)

Final Draft V1 - Page 6

Vocabulary Codelists i. Add Sector Vocabulary codelist (derived from current Vocabulary codelist) and link to sector/@vocabulary ii. Add Policy Marker Codelist and link to policy-marker/@vocabulary

Date and DateTime formats i. All dates must validate against xsd:date

k. URL validation i. Where links are expected datatype is xsd:anyURI l.

Removal of "mixed=true" i. This is set as an option on many elements in the schema to allow a mix of text, elements and attributes. It has been removed from all occurrences of it in the schema.

m. Remove indicatorOutcomeType i. This is a type that is not in use and has been removed from the schema n. Rename crs-add/aid-type-flag i. Rename the element iati-activity/crs-add/aid-type-flag to iati-activity/crs-add/otherflags ii. Rename codelist AidTypeFlag to CRSAddOtherFlags o. Add contact-info/department i. Add a new element iati-activity/contact-info/department ii. Add a narrative sub-element p. Description Type i. All description types currently contain a type attribute. This is only applicable to iatiactivity/description ii. Delete the following attributes country-budget-items/budget-item/description/@type; result/description/@type; result/indicator/description/@type q. Embedded codelist descriptions i. Embedded codelist descriptions have been reviewed and updated ii. See https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gVpcS8DR_QDB8pxKdPHRuuRPmW... 8. Organisation and Activity Identifiers a. Reporting organisation i. The reporting-org element is MANDATORY. ii. ALL the following rules must apply to the organisation-identifier in reportingorg/@ref: 1. It is mandatory

Final Draft V1 - Page 7

2. The agency prefix MUST be a valid code in the IATI OrganisationRegistrationAgency code list 3. The identifier MUST be the same as that recorded by the publisher on the IATI Registry 4. The identifier MUST only contain alphanumeric characters and hyphen, underscore, colon or period [NB. Finalisation of this rule is pending] b. IATI activity identifier i. The iati-identifier is MANDATORY ii. It MUST be globally unique among all activities published through the IATI Registry iii. Once an activity has been reported to IATI its identifier MUST NOT be changed in subsequent updates, iv. It MUST be prefixed with EITHER the organisation-identifier found in reportingorg/@ref OR a previous reporting-org identifier reported in other-identifier/@ref v. The identifier MUST only contain alphanumeric characters and hyphen, underscore, colon or period [NB. Finalisation of this rule is pending] c. Other-identifier i. The definition of the element should be changed to allow both organisation and activity identifiers to be reported. ii. The following items have been removed: other-identifier/text(); other-identifier/@owner-name iii. The following items have been added: other-identifier/@type; other-identifier/@ref; other-identifier/owner-org; otheridentifier/owner-org/@ref; other-identifier/owner-org/narrative; other-identifier/ownerorg/narrative/@xml:lang; other-identifier/owner-org/narrative/text() iv. An OtherIdentifierType codelist should be added for use by other-identifier/@type. Values are: A1 - CRS Activity identifier; A2 - Reporting Organisation's internal activity identifier; A9 - Other Activity Identifier; B1 - Previous Reporting Organisation Identifier; B2 Other Organisation Identifier d. IATI Organisation Codelist i. IATI will establish its own registration agency with a published list of registered identifiers ii. The prefix for this agency will be XI-IATI iii. This list will initially be populated with ALL currently valid identifiers that are in use and that do not have a valid prefix. iv. IATI generated identifiers have no intrinsic meaning, irrespective of their derivation v. Any publisher may request IATI to generate a code for it. This will be a manual process with a quick turnaround.

Final Draft V1 - Page 8

HOTEL INFORMATION FOR IATI MEETINGS

First Hotel Østerport Oslo Plads 5, DK 2100 Copenhagen Tel :+45 7012 4646 Fax:+45 3312 2555 Email: reception.osterport@firsthotels.dk Web: www.firsthotels.dk

First Hotel G & Suites Gyldenløvesgade 19 DK 1600 Copenhagen V Tel: +45 4570 0015 Fax:+45 4570 0014 Email: reception.hotel@firsthotels.dk Web: www.firsthotels.dk

Adina Apartment Hotel Amerika Plads 7, DK 2100 Copenhagen O Tel : +45 3969 1000 Fax: + 45 8819 3699 Email: acph@adina.eu Web: http://www.adina.eu

First Hotel Excelsior Colbjørnsensgade 6 DK 1652 Copenhagen V Tel: +45 3324 5085 Fax:+45 3324 5087 Email: reception.hotel@firsthotels.dk Web: www.firsthotels.dk

First Hotel Twentyseven Løngangsstræde 27 DK 1468 Copenhagen K Te: +45 7027 5627 Fax:+45 7027 9627 Email: booking.twentyseven@firsthotels.dk Web: www.firsthotels.dk

Wakeup Copenhagen Carsten Niebuhrsgade 11 DK 1577 Copenhagen V Tel: +45 4480 0000 Fax:+45 4480 0001 Email: wakeupcopenhagen@arp-hansen.dk Web: www.wakeupcopenhagen.dk

Copenhagen Island Kalvebod Brygge 53 DK 1560 Copenahgen V Tel : +45 3338 9600 Fax: + 45 3336 9601 Email: Copenhagenisland@arp-ansen.dk Web: www.copenahgenisland.dk

Hotel Opera Tordenskjoldsgade 15 DK 1055 Copenhagen K Tel: +45 3347 8300 Fax: Email: hotelopera@arp-hansen.dk Web: www.hotelopera.dk

Updated: 16/09/20014

Welcome to Copenhagen

This little welcome package will feed you with the first basic information about Copenhagen after you arrival. This includes          

Transport Information – Getting around and to UN City Public transport prices and special tickets Emergency numbers Arrival at UN City Luggage Internet Access in UN City Useful apps for your stay in Copenhagen Currency exchange rates Opening hours City Map Including where to find an ATM and currency exchange offices

Contact Information UN City Marmorvej 51 2100 Copenhagen Denmark Phone: +45 4533 5000 Email: reception.dk@one.un.org

Transport Info – Getting around and to UN city From Kastrup Airport (CPH) to city centre and UN City there are three options: 1) Taxis are 350-400 DKK approx. to the city centre and to UN City directly. 2) Metro: All carriages from Kastrup will bring you to Norreport Station (city centre). To go to UN City, change to S-train going North (ticket is still valid) at Norreport and disembark at Nordhavn.* 3) Train – Oresundstog (more info) can take you to Copenhagen H/ Central where you can change to S-train going North (ticket is still valid) or as far as Osterport Station from which it’s a 20-25 minute walk to UN City.* *Please note: Public transport takes roughly 40 minutes from Airport to UN City. Metro (more info):  The driverless metro system runs 24/7 from Kastrup Airport.  Take any Metro train to the city (all trains are for Vanlose).  Change at Norreport to the Strain going North. S-Train (more info):  The closest S-train stop to UN city is Nordhavn just opposite UN City on the map and is served by trains A, B, C, E and H (see right map).  See lower map for walking directions, 10-15 min walk approx.

Taxis: Tel: (among others) +45 70 25 25 25 or +45 35 35 35 35  Taxis can also be arranged at the UN City Reception. Please allow 15-20 minutes for the taxi to arrive. Public transport - Prices and special tickets In Copenhagen it doesn’t matter which form of public transport you are taking but how many zones you are traveling. Form the airport to the centre and UN City it is generally 3 zones Normal ticket: 36 DKK (valid for 90 minutes) 24 hours ticket: 75 DKK 190 DKK 72 hours ticket: Emergency In case of emergency call

114 for ALARM 112 for SERVICE

Useful Apps  CPH Airport App www.cph.dk/app Arrival at UN City Please make sure to arrive latest 20-30 minutes before the beginning of the meeting at UN City to ensure a smooth start as security clearance may take up to 20 minutes. Luggage Your luggage can safely be left in the cloakroom of the basement floor in UN City where the meetings are held. Internet Access For wireless access during your stay at UN City, please logon to the network Network: UN-City-Guests Username: guest Password: uncity2013 Currency exchange rates of Danish Krona - DKK (17/09/2014) US Dollar: 1 DKK = 0.17 USD 1 USD = 5.75 DKK Euro: 1 DKK = 0.13 EUR 1 EUR = 7.44 DKK British Pound: 1 DKK = 0.11 GBP 1 GBP = 9.36 DKK

Please note that there are no arrangements for getting from the train station to UN City other than walking. Should you have any walking difficulties please feel free to make taxi arrangements.

Opening hours (usually) Banks: 10:00 to 16:00 Monday through Friday (Thursday until 17:30) Pharmacy: 09:00 to 17:30 Monday through Friday (Saturday until 13:00) 24hr pharmacy ‘Steno Apotek’ (opposite central station) Supermarket: 08:00 to 22:00 Monday through Sunday Bars: closing hours ~ 02.00 on weeknights