The road to IATI: are NGO concerns justified?
|
Version 0 of 1. Some 200 organisations have committed to a common standard and time schedule for publishing aid information under the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). This is great news for transparency advocates. But in a Center for Global Development blog earlier this month Will McKitterick pointed out that of the 125 international NGOs that published data in the IATI registry, only six are US-based organisations. McKitterick noted: "The US NGO community seems to be dragging its feet. Some see costs as their main impediment. Others are concerned that publishing could put their staff and activities at risk. But there is good reason to consider these apprehensions overblown ..." I, on the other hand, am not so sure. This week, Plan International USA is uploading its data on the IATI website for the first time – and it's been a long and complex road. <strong>Reality bites</strong> As Linda Raftree, Plan USA's project manager in charge of IATI publishing effort, said: "We started wanting to be as transparent as possible … publish everything IATI asked for … but after wider consultation with other teams, we ended up with something a bit more realistic." Rather than publishing everything all at once or making a quick decision on publishing a limited data set and being done with IATI, we've designed a three-phase process that will allow us to improve our internal systems while gradually publishing more and more of our data. In phase one, we will publish a set of data points from some 15 programmes funded by large institutional donors like USAid and MCC where Plan is the lead partner. This data is already shared publicly, in some cases, in greater detail, for example on USAid's website. However, it is not in an open or standard format on these other sites, and that is our value added in this case. In phase two, we intend to publish additional information on phase one programmes, and we'll also include programmes where we are a secondary recipient. Again, this data is available elsewhere but not in the IATI's open format. In phase three we hope to publish all our fundings. Phase three is the most challenging because: 1) IATI is not set up for the kind of private funding that organisation's like Plan, World Vision and Greenpeace collect from the general public and 2) our internal systems are set up to track the funding and impact of community-based programmes implemented with pooled funds. This is different to IATI requirements. <strong>Slow progress</strong> I acknowledge that there is a big gap between "publish everything" and "publish data on 15 grants." Luckily, IATI has been designed as a "publish as you can" standard, meaning that we are able to take an initial step toward publication now, even if we are not ready to "publish everything" yet. IATI has been a catalyst for identifying internal improvements to be more transparent and accountable. Why did we scale back on our ambition in the first phase? The answer is partly people, partly systems and partly concerns over losing our competitive edge, for example: • Publishing to IATI meant that we needed an open information policy. Developing it took buy-in and many conversations across all parts of the organisation – finance, programmes, compliance, donor relations, child protection, legal, etc. This was time consuming. • Plan's information systems were not originally designed to align with IATI. Publishing to IATI has meant identifying which data can be pulled from which system, and figuring out how to re-align and improve these systems. For now, our IATI information is being compiled manually. • Unlike DfID, the US government doesn't require international NGOs receiving funding to publish it on IATI, and so there is not a level playing field for all NGOs when it comes to transparency and the IATI standard. 'Early adopter' organisations like ours may be revealing information about our ideas, approaches and operations that might affect our competitiveness when it comes to grant funding, and we have legitimate concerns about this. As Sam Worthington, president and CEO of Interaction says: "If individuals or organisations fear being punished as a result of the information they make available, progress will be slow." <strong>A marathon and not a sprint</strong> Claudia Schwegmann, founder of OpenAid Germany, wrote a great blog earlier this year with the very catchy title, "My CEO will tear off my head, if I suggest to him that we implement IATI". I certainly understand why Schwegmann's blog would allude to a CEO being horrified by IATI. There are risks as I've outlined above. But there is good reason to persist in these efforts. Our commitment to publishing to IATI standards is driven by principle (how could we advocate effectively for transparency and increased accountability if we are not willing to walk the talk?) and, if we are honest, by self-interest. The US NGO rating agencies are moving towards placing greater weight on transparency and accountability – see for example the changes coming to Charity Navigator's rating system. Schwegmann said: "In the Istanbul principles (pdf), [civil society organisations] have confirmed their own responsibility to increase transparency and thus strengthen the effectiveness of aid and development. IATI is beyond doubt the best way to honour this commitment." But IATI will only be useful to the aid sector as a whole when more organisations agree to take those first steps and to open increasing amounts of information so that the goals of IATI can be achieved: better co-ordination, greater sharing of successes and failures, improved resource allocation, and – most importantly – improved overall impact for those we are here to serve. But, as we're learning, this is a marathon and not a sprint. <em>Tessie San Martin, president and CEO of </em><em>Plan International USA</em><em>. Follow @PlanUSA on Twitter</em> <strong>This content is brought to you by </strong><strong>Guardian Professional</strong><strong>. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, sign up free to become a member of the </strong><strong>Global Development Professionals Network</strong> Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |