In Bangladesh, IATI data is of mixed quality. Some DPs reporting to the AIMS have not begun publishing to IATI, while others are publishing only very old data to IATI. On the other hand, there are many DPs with good quality data in IATI, and some DPs publishing to IATI are not accounted for at all in the AIMS.
Publish What You Fund’s Aid Transparency Index provides a reasonable proxy for IATI data quality, given that IATI is the most highly-weighted component of the Index. Rather than repeating all of the analysis required for the Index, we use the most recent results across all organisations as a guide.
|Development Partner||FY14 Disbursements (USD millions)||FY14 Rank||PWYF Rating|
|World Bank||942.96||1||Very good|
|UK, DFID||225.32||4||Very good|
|Sweden, Sida||7.67||20||Very good|
Disbursements refer to AIMS data as at 2015-11-17 for FY14, in millions of USD. PWYF Rating refers to Publish What You Fund’s 2014 Aid Transparency Index
Analysis of specific donors’ data
A number of DPs face specific challenges with their data. These challenges are captured in this section not to criticise them, but to ensure that they are adequately taken into account in the course of this work. In some cases this may mean DPs changing the way they publish data at headquarters level, and in others it may mean that the importing tool needs to be flexible to deal with nuances in the way data is published. In time, there may be arguments for changes to the IATI Standard or the way in which it is interpreted in order to make it easier for software to handle these specificities or differences. However, we suggest any changes to the Standard should be made only once different approaches have been thoroughly tested.