We wanted to update you that IATI has now replicated the latest updates from the OECD DAC with relevant changes and additions to the relevant codelists. Changes are now live on the IATI website. Changes were implemented in the below codelists:

1. AidType

In addition to changes to existing codes, note that there are three new codes:

  • B031     Contributions to multi-donor/multi-entity funding mechanisms
  • B032     Contributions to multi-donor/single-entity funding mechanisms
  • B033     Contributions to single-donor funding mechanisms and contributions earmarked for a specific funding window or geographical location

2. DAC 5 Digit Sector Codes

In addition to changes to existing codes, one new code has been added (12264- COVID-19 control).

3. Channel Codes

Detailed log of changes for AidType and Sector codes is available here: https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/STAT(2020)39/en/pdf

Log of channel category and channel codes is available here:  https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/STAT(2020)47/en/pdf 

 

 

Comments (14)

Ole Jacob (OJ) Hjøllund
Ole Jacob (OJ) Hjøllund

I could still find room for improvement in the xml-format used by OECD, to publish these codelists.

Since this is at the core of MasterDataManagement, among IATI-publishers as well as DAC-rapporteurs - and I am both - I would be happy to volunteer to take part in any future dialogue with the DAC-secretariat.

Apart from that, there is an issue for IATI to address, when a CRS-code changes name (from Type_of_Aid to Modality_of_Cooperation. How do we handle that, in the shorter time-perspective?

Petya Kangalova - IATI Secretariat
Petya Kangalova - IATI Secretariat

Ole Jacob (OJ) Hjøllund  thanks for the follow-up.

On improvements to the codelist, indeed our collaboration with the DAC was not just about IATI using the XML codelist but other users as well. If you have specific suggestions, you can message here or email support@iatistandard.org and I can share with our tech contacts at the OECD DAC.

On the name change, that is a really good point. The name was not changed/updated in the DAC XML codelist. The element in IATI is default-aid-type which aligns with the codelist name and there are other AidType vocabularies that can be used, so there won't be a change there.

My short term suggestion would be to add in the description of the OECD DAC codelist that AidType is now referred to as Modality of Cooperation. 

Hope this helps and let me know if you have any other suggestions.

 

Herman van Loon
Herman van Loon

That is i.m.o. a good suggestion Petya. Changing the name of an IATI data element would be a breaking change and could only be done in a major (integer) upgrade. Don't know if that is worth the trouble.

theo.sande
theo.sande

sharp as always OJ.

As a result of the latest updates of OECD/DAC we might also be struggling with the new methodology to add two parent channel codes 41400 and 41500 for inter-agency pooled funds and single agency thematic funds. As a result the MPTFO (eg) will receive its own channel code 41401 and donors and recipients should refer to this ID when supporting or receiving support from a trust fund administered by MPTFO, instead of referring to the UNDP identifier 41114.

Currently the UN pooled funds publish jointly (FAO, ILO, MPTFO-UNDP, OCHA) and seperately under publisher ID XI-IATI-UNPF, which apparently is already confusing since recipients (just as donors) seem to have a tendency to refer to UNDP identity XM-DAC-41114 instead of the XI-IATI-UNPF identity when MPTFO is the administrative unit for a particular trust fund.

Given the number and size of UN Trust Funds an issue to be solved for the sake of (linked) transparency

Ole Jacob (OJ) Hjøllund
Ole Jacob (OJ) Hjøllund

This is definitely also work in progress for us. We intend to solve it by some refinements to our strict hierarchy (channel-codes, organisations, creditor-data), allowing some 'virtual' organisations in our system, that allows payments to one creditor to count as flows trough different channels. I am e.g. defining an 'organisation' called 'OCHA-led country-based pool funds', allowing these flows to count against Channel 41401, while still using the same creditor-data (i.e. transferring funds to the very same bank-account) as our contributions to OCHA, reported against channel 41127.

Perhaps we could find ways to address common issues like this at the WS 10-11. March?

David Megginson
David Megginson

Thanks for the update. OECD DAC's new COVID-19 code "12264" is both a great idea and problematic:

  1. It's great because it gives us a way to tag individuals transactions as C19-related without relying on free text in titles and descriptions.
  2. It's problematic because it will eat up a percentage within a sector vocabulary. If you're doing healthcare response for COVID-19, how do you flag it? 50% 12220 "Basic health care" and 50% 12264 "COVID-19"?

Ideally, we'd modify the IATI standard to allow transaction/tag and transaction/humanitarian-scope for transaction-level flagging of special events like the pandemic, but given that it's so hard to change the structure of the standard 11+ years in, perhaps a new sector vocabulary code would be the way forward.

Herman van Loon
Herman van Loon

Hi David, could you please elaborate a bit? I do not see immediately what the problem is. If you are doing a healthcare response specifically targeted at COVID-19, I would say the activity is 100% 12264 "COVID-19". If it is only 50% targeting COVID and 50% other basic healthcare, then your example is i.m.o. a correct representation of the facts.

I would be reluctant to add these kind of details on the transaction-level even if it was possible in the IATI standard. It will introduce quite a lot of additional complexity and administrative burden, assuming that you can exactly pinpoint on the transaction level for which purpose the funds are to be spend (which I doubt in many cases).

Michelle Levesque
Michelle Levesque

For what it is worth, I have always found it problematic to mix and match what the code lists are for.  Here is seems OECD is mixing the type of services (traditional DAC codes) with an event such as COVID or a typhoon or act of war that necessitates the service.  It is similar to the challenge I find with trying to classify the humanitarian projects as emergency or appeal.  Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.  We lose the multi-dimensional aspect of these things when lists try to mix apples and oranges. 

David Megginson
David Megginson

Herman van Loon - Thanks for the reply. The problem is that COVID-19 isn't really a sector, it's a theme that's orthogonal to the main OECD sector types.

So if a reporting org has an activity that's targeting nutrition and teacher support in schools affected by COVID-19, how do they split it up? 33⅓% COVID-19, 33⅓% nutrition, and 33⅓% education? Michelle Levesque describes the problem well from an IM perspective.

theo.sande
theo.sande

Fully agree there Michelle. It is sheer madness to start using specific codes for multiple reasons and or for various goals, mixing sector with an event. I thought this is why we made it possible in the IATI standard to relate (entirely or partially) activities and/or transactions to a specific event or emergency, leaving the crs purpose code to designate what a purpose code is supposed to do. Additional stupidity is that by introducing a single COVID purpose code in the basic health group, the COVID crisis is reduced to a health crisis. A gross underestimaton of the character of the crisis and -as a result- of the response to it. I would even appreciated more that COVID was introduced as a policy marker that could be used in conjunction with all purpose codes.

Sometimes I feel sorry for not being a member of WP-STAT anymore.

David Megginson
David Megginson

Yes, either policy-marker or simply tag would do the trick for non-sectoral themes like COVID-19, Global Famine Relief, Gender, Mental Health, etc. Unfortunately, we don't allow either element inside transaction, so it's hard to be granular enough with them, especially for reporting orgs who publish giant omnibus activities with dozens or hundreds of transactions.

Herman van Loon
Herman van Loon

COVID is not the first example: malaria (12262) and tuberculosis (12263), HIV/AIDS (13040)  are also singled out from the infectious disease control sector (12250). So the problem mentioned by Michelle and David is not new. It seems that the OECD/DAC is repeating its approach for other infectious diseases. It remains to be seen btw if COVID will be a single event or (unfortunately) is going to stay like the examples above. 

David Megginson
David Megginson

Herman van Loon Thanks again for the reply, Herman van Loon — the challenge, again, as Theo and Michelle have mentioned, is that the 2020 Global Humanitarian Response Plan and others have used COVID-19 primarily as a policy marker more than a specific health response. C19-related aid activities can include income support, nutrition, education, etc. etc. as well as healthcare. I suspect most of the C19-related activities over the next couple of years will be outside the healthcare sector.

Herman van Loon
Herman van Loon

Which would suggest that we lobby for adding a new policy marker to the OECD/DAC? The OECD/DAC is very reluctant though to add new policy markers. They recently have adopted an 'hashtag' approach, where you can define the #COVID hashtag for any activity (comparable to using the IATI tag element). The disadvantage of this approach is that an activity can only be marked as 100% or 0% COVID relevant. It is also not on the transaction level (as non of the OECD/DAC data is). Using a policy marker would have the advantage to distinguish between 'principal' (the activity would not have existed if it did not score on COVID) or 'significant'  (the activity would have existed even if it did not score on COVID).


Please log in or sign up to comment.