Perhaps I should clarify my concern with creating new XI-IATI Identifiers, including (but not limited to) one for FIABEL.
In a nutshell, XI-IATI identifiers undermine data quality and all but prevent traceability. For instance, if a donor provides funding to FIABEL, the donor has some record of FIABEL in its systems, with its legal entity, contact information, banking information etc. This XI-IATI-FIABEL is not part of FIABEL’s legal entity and won’t be recorded in the donor system, hence won’t be used in the IATI activity.
Similarly, an organisation receiving funding from FIABEL won’t record FIABEL’s identifier as XI-IATI-FIABEL, hence won’t use it for e.g. incoming transactions.
One could argue that FIABEL can communicate this IATI identifier to its funders or recipients, and hope they add it to their own systems and data. However, this will not solve the need to identify FIABEL in other types of data (e.g. contracting). It will make all IATI data that refers to FIABEL incompatible with data in other related standards.
Also, perhaps a smaller point, but an XI-IATI identifier does not convey information about the country in which FIABEL is based, which makes it less useful for some use cases.
Creating XI-IATI-FIABEL (and other such identifiers) may be an easy short-term fix, but is probably not the ideal solution going forward. We know that it’s hard to change an organization identifier, so let’s not do this without considering longer-term implications.