In the report published on 13 July, the AfDB (sovereign) climbed up four places in the rankings to top the index, “setting the standard for high-quality data publication”, according to the PWYF. The general transparency trend has been showing “significant steps” forward over the past 10 years.
The index rates aid organisations across 35 categories, each corresponding to the availability and accessibility of certain types of information.
The benefits of transparency
The not-for-profit PWYF plays a key role in demonstrating the impact and efficacy of aid, as it is the only independent tool for aid transparency, helping the development community learn from each other’s choices.
Gary Forster, the CEO of the PWYF, commended the publicly funded side of the AfDB, saying, “[AfDB] have made a real effort to engage with our team to be fully transparent. Their technical staff are evidently supported by the senior management, and they have put in place the processes and culture to ensure accountability.”
The World Bank, United Nations Children’s Fund and Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance – also received a “very good” score – despite the latter facing criticism for the COVAX initiative in an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
According to Forster, accountability and success come hand in hand. He said: “We have seen that organisations that buy into transparency become more effective in their own right – they can make clearer decisions.”
The most significant setback on transparency was for the Global Fund, an organisation which focuses on combatting diseases like HIV, TB, and malaria.
It fell 19 points below its 2020 score, dropping 14 places in the ranking to achieve a “good” rating.
In response to its lower rating, the Global Fund commended the index for their recommendations and impartiality. Its statement reads: “The Global Fund partnership is committed to aid transparency as one of its founding principles. The Global Fund has made significant efforts to continually improve both the quality, quantity and timeliness of what it reports.”
It continued: “In 2022, the organization is taking steps to increase the availability of programmatic data and provide more detail on country summaries through its digital platforms. The Global Fund will continue to address concerns highlighted as part of the latest index.”
The UK’s Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) dropped seven places in the index. The government significantly reduced foreign aid spending in the latest round of budget cuts from the Conservative Party government.
The chair of the parliament’s international development committee, member of parliament Sarah Champion, said she was disappointed by the rating, stating, “Transparency in aid spending is vital. Without high-quality data, we cannot be sure that aid is reaching the world’s poorest people and delivering value for money.”
She added: “The FCDO must explore how to improve the quality of the data it publishes. The committee will continue to hold the department to account on this.”
Although many institutions have recorded transparency success over the past 10 years – 31 organisations now rank “very good” or “good” (the highest amount since the index began) – numerous global crises have limited wider humanitarian triumphs.
The Ukraine crisis has spurred global inflation levels and increased daily living costs such as food and fuel.
Hunger in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel have also been made worse by climate disasters and local violence.
The PWYF is also suffering from a lack of funding, which may force the only aid transparency index to close.
Forster remains hopeful. He said: “Yes, we are struggling to raise the funding. What the index has ensured is not only the amount of transparency but that we check how good the information they are sharing actually is.”
He concluded: “Without the index, we worry that the global data set will deteriorate unless something else comes along. There isn’t anything else out there.”