Add SDG Indicators as standard vocabulary

(Pelle Aardema) #1


I couldn’t find if it was already discussed elsewhere, but I think we should add the SDG Indicators ( to the list of recognised indicator vocabularies (


IATI and SDGs - untangling threads
Possibly change SDGs from sector to policy markers (excluded 2.03)
[Added]Proposed addition to the Indicator Vocabulary Codelist
(Wendy Rogers) #2

Hi @pelleaardema just to let you know that you can currently link an activity to any of the SDG goals, targets or indicators via the element and by using the appropriate sector vocabulary . In addition, there was some initial discussion at the recent TAG as to whether these might be better managed as results indicator vocabularies but there was not any general consensus on this proposal?

Therefore we would be interested to hear the views of others?

(theo.sande) #3

Hi Wendy,
I think it is a great idea. It is an omission that should have been corrected long ago. With respect to results vocabulary we are still in the MDG era. Not really acceptable is it?
Your suggestion to refrain from adding the SDG results vocabulary falls short in many ways. A sector vocabulary is not a result, it is an input, an intention. So you could use the sector vocabulary to show how much you are investing in the various SDGs. But this does not say anything on the results actually achieved. And this what we want to report on, using the indicators as agreed upon in the SDG framework.
In addition, I hardly know any publisher that is going to sector code its activities twice; once against the OECD crs purpose codes and once against the SDG sectors (??). This why some are suggesting a mapping of the crs purpose codes against the SDGs.
In short, having it as a sector vocabulary is nice to have, having it as a results vocabulary is need to have.

(Wendy Rogers) #4

This issue relating to the SDGs has been alternatively discussed as part of the v2.03 std upgrade process at Possibly change SDGs from sector to policy markers (excluded 2.03)

Therefore I will ‘close’ this issue here

(Wendy Rogers) #5