[Added] New Organisation Identifier: XI-IATI-ESFD

The following addition to the IATI Organisation Identifier list has been proposed for Economic and Social Fund for Development (Lebanon).

As a Government body, they are not registered with any existing Lebanese or international identifiers, and are not provided a code from the Government.

Code: XI-IATI-ESFD
Name: Economic and Social Fund for Development
Description: The Economic and Social Fund for Development (ESFD) is a governmental body dedicated to alleviate poverty in Lebanon through the creation of employment opportunities and through the improvement of living conditions in disadvantaged communities.
URL: http://www.esfd.cdr.gov.lb/

If no objection is received this XI-IATI code will be approved and added in a week.

Comments (9)

Michelle Levesque • 4 years ago

Crazy question here. I understand that IATI gets involved when a country in which an organization or NGO is registered doesn’t have a registry which issues static registration numbers. But given the guidelines for building up codes why wouldn’t the IATI issued codes still start with the first two letters of the country in which the organization is headquartered?

In the above case why use XI and not LB-IATI-ESFD? Considering this organization is actually a government body makes it even more interesting to ensure it is affiliate with a single country?

I thought the XI and XM etc. are really for multi-national orgs which have member states and thus aren’t part of a single country.

IATI Technical Team • 4 years ago

Hi Michelle Levesque ,

Including a country code in XI-IATI identifiers is an interesting idea and has been raised before here, so I would suggest adding your thoughts about this there. Any country codes would have to be added to the end of the identifier, though, so that it doesn’t break the XI-IATI prefix.

If we could keep this thread specifically in regard to the approval/objection of XI-IATI-ESFD, that would be great.

Thanks!

Andy Lulham • 4 years ago

IATI-techteam:

Any country codes would have to be added to the end of the identifier, though, so that it doesn’t break the XI-IATI prefix.

Specifically on approval/objection of this code, I suppose the identifier used here could instead be XI-IATI-LB-ESFD?

Michelle Levesque • 4 years ago

I still don’t understand why the first two digits have to be XI. The middle reference indicates it is IATI.

Bill Anderson • 4 years ago

The original intention was that the first two digits describe the country of the register owner (not of an organisation in the registry). Plus XM for multilaterals and XI for international organisations.

Michelle Levesque • 4 years ago

Bill Anderson

Thanks for setting me straight. I thought it was for where the org was based. I learned something new.

matmaxgeds • 4 years ago

I was hoping these could also be tweaked to have the org type if we were going down that path i.e. XI-IATI-LB-NGO-ESFD…saves a lookup in a lot of cases

Michelle Levesque • 4 years ago

Andy Lulham can you help me understand the logic of including the location of the registration entity over the location of the actual organization being registered? I’m still scratching my head on this.

matmaxgeds I would not advocate for trying to make these org ids too complex so I would not recommend trying to include countries and types within the number as much as that might be helpful. We have code lists for org type but we don’t have code list for organization location which is why I was asking.

Knowing where a registration organization is located is not useful information from my perspective but it seems the ship sailed on that one. And I am fully aware that we are all over the map in our Org IDs so I don’t suggest trying to “fix” anything at this point.

IATI Technical Team • 4 years ago

Hi all,

As there have been no objections to creating an IATI identifier for the Lebanon Economic and Social Fund for Development, in order to allow the organisation to continue with their IATI publishing, XI-IATI-ESFD is now considered to be approved.

However, it is clear that there is an appetite to further the conversation about how IATI supplied identifiers should be formulated going forward. To this end, we have created a new topic for this to be discussed, where this thread (and others where this subject has been touched upon) is referenced:

Many thanks,
Josh

Please log in or sign up to comment.