This proposal is part of the 2.03 upgrade process, please comment by replying below.
Standard
Activity
Schema Object
iati-activity/default-aid-type/@vocabulary
iati-activity/default-aid-type/@vocabulary-uri
iati-activity/transaction/aid-type/@vocabulary
iati-activity/transaction/aid-type/@vocabulary-uri
Type of Change
Schema addition
Codelist addition
Issue
Defining types of aid (project-type interventions, budget support, debt relief, technical cooperation, etc) is a critical piece of data for users to understand and analyse IATI data. The global standard for this classification is the OECD DAC CRS Type of Aid codelist. This is currently the only list available in the IATI standard. There are, however, use cases in which additional information may be required to define the aid modality. The standard can accommodate this by allowing additional vocabularies from recognised sources to be used in addition to the DAC list.
Proposal
- Allow for multiple occurrences of iati-activity/default-aid-type and iati-activity/transaction/aid-type elements
- Occurs 1..*
- Add attributes iati-activity/default-aid-type/@vocabulary and iati-activity/transaction/aid-type/@vocabulary
- Definition An code for the vocabulary aid-type classifications. If omitted the AidType codelist is assumed. The code must be a valid value in the AidTypeVocabulary codelist.
- Occurs 0..1
- Add attributes iati-activity/default-aid-type/@vocabulary-uri and iati-activity/transaction/aid-type/@vocabulary-uri
- Definition The URI where this vocabulary is defined
- Occurs 0..1
- Guidelines
- Each selected vocabulary should only be used once for each activity (iati-activity/default-aid-type) or transaction (iati-activity/transaction/aid-type)
- All activities and/or transactions should contain a code from the DAC Type of Aid Vocabulary
- The above guidelines should be converted to rules at the next integer upgrade.
- Add AidTypeVocabulary codelist
- A non-embedded codelist should be created
Standards Day
It was recommended that the IATI Technical Team and IATI WP-STAT members engage with the OECD DAC with regard to future modifications to the DAC Type of Aid codelist. There was also consensus that the vocabulary approach could provide more flexibility/granularity.
Links
I fail to see why has this been included in 2.03? I see no valid use case and there seems to be no consensus on this topic.
Sorry - I have been disconnected …
This is a problem that must be fixed by DAC, as I argued in London. And for that purpose I have provided a first draft, and submitted it for initial discussions in WP-STAT asap. I will mail you a copy, and if you can advise me on how to share it with any reader of this thread I would be happy to do that as well.
For my response on the issue of classifying cash transfers please see this post.
The first use case for adding a vocabulary here relates to the Grand Bargain commitment to reduce the earmarking of donor contributions, for which a classification system of earmarking modalities has been developed (see Annex 1 to the Grand Bargain).
I think it is correct for the standard to include this classification. It could be introduced as a new element, but it seemed logical to add it as an aid type vocabulary.
earmarking.PNG1313×813 204 KB
Would be nice if the OECD/DAC Aid Typology would cover the Grand bargain requirements. The 2.03 addition of a new Aid Typology could than be depreciated in 3.01.
Sharing of this document can be done with Google Docs.
@bill_Anderson: thank, this sheds some light on this topic.
Concerning the classification of cash transfers apparently some work needs to be done.
Concerning the earmarking discussion: this reminds me of the DAC classification for core (=non-earmarked) and non-core (=earmarked) contributions. This is a part of the DAC aid-type classification. The classification above looks like a more fine-grained classification solely for the purpose of distinguishing between all shades of earmarking.
So the question seems to be: do you just want to indicate the level of earmarking (the first colored column) or do you want to represent all aid types (the 2nd and 3th column) in IATI. If you only want to do the former, I would say a 4 valued code list and one additional element would be enough. If you intend the latter, I would be very reluctant since we are than introducing a fully fledged new Aid typology where we already have one in the form of the international DAC standard aid typology.
I agree with Yohanna Loucheur that we should be careful with introducing new aid typologies.
You ask what I want to do? As Technical Lead I want to reflect IATI’s commitment to the Grand Bargain (a commitment shared by many of its members including the Netherlands and Canada).
Signatories of the Grand Bargain have committed to the use of a system for classifying earmarking modalities which contains 12 values grouped into 4 categories.
If you disagree with this, is this not a matter for your humanitarian colleagues to take up in Grand Bargain channels?
I believe we have a misunderstanding here. The discussion is not if we should add the possibility to add earmark modalities to IATI or not. The discussion is about how we should do that.
The Grand Bargain requirement is that donors and aid organizations are transparent about their level of earmarking, so that the goal to reduce earmarking of contributions can be monitored.
To meet this requirement it could be sufficient to just add an earmarking element to the activity standard, with 4 possible values defined in a codelist(‘Unearmarked’, ‘Softly earmarked’, ‘Earmarked’, ‘Tightly earmarked’).
I would be very reluctant to add the whole aid typology from annex 1 to the standard for the following reasons:
Can anybody who has been involved in the discussion about the content of Annex 1, shed some light on this (Ole Jacob (OJ) Hjøllund ?). The text on page 12:
suggests that what is enough to make the distinction between earmarked and non-earmarked or softly earmarked.
Bill Anderson Ben Parker A possible solution might be to use the same approach for earmarking as is chosen for the CRS purpose code, where a distinction is made between the 3 digits CRS code (high level sector classification) and the 5 digit CRS code (detailed level classification).
An earmarking codelist is, from the IATI angle, a third-party, non-embedded codelist. As is the case with DAC codelists, the content is not under our control. All we need to do is reference the codelist as a valid vocabulary.
Bill Anderson Doesn’t exactly the same argument apply to the CRS purpose 5digit and 3digit codelists? Here we do support both the course and fine level grain for IATI publication.
Apologies, Herman van Loon , I missed this post
Herman:which I take to mean that you are happy with both parts of the earmarking list being optionally available.
Do you therefore agree to:
Apologies, Herman van Loon , I missed this post
Herman:which I take to mean that you are happy with both parts of the earmarking list being optionally available.
Do you therefore agree to:
Yes, that would be fine: it would allow IATI publishers to publish on
1 - the high level earmarking (Unearmarked, Softly earmarked, Earmarked, Tigthly earmarked)
OR
2 - on the detailed level (A - L). The high level earmarking can be derived from the detail codes.
I am still a bit doubtful about to call this an aid typology since the whole purpose of Annex 1 is to determine the level of earmarking. Wouldn’t it be an idea to keep this distinction clear by adding this vocabulary a new element ‘Earmarking’?