Bug fix: Incorrect org type description

(Amy Silcock) #1

At version 2.03 new organisation types were added to the OrganisationType codelist.

One of these was: 24 - Partner Country based NGO

As part of the change descriptions for each org type were created but only added for the new codes. However, code 24 accidentally got the wrong description according to the Mapping Spreadsheet as seen on the github issue.

It should read:

  • National NGO / CSOs only in partner countries

Rather than the International NGO description:

  • NGOs not based in an aid recipient country and carrying out operations in one or more aid recipient countries.

This also brings up the need for agreement on the descriptions for all organisation types. This conversation is to be had in preparation for the next upgrade (tbd).

If there are no objections within 7 days, the tech team will implement the bug fix to correct the description of OrgType code 24 to: National NGO / CSOs only in partner countries

(Michelle Levesque) #2

Dear Amy,

What is the definition of ‚Äúpartner countries‚ÄĚ?

Kind Regards,
Michelle

(Amy Silcock) #3

Hi Michelle,

It’s IATI/UN language for a DAC developing country or an aid recipient country.

(I think - will check though)

(Michelle Levesque) #4

Dear Amy,

I know the UN refers to ‚Äúprogramming countries‚ÄĚ which are close but not the same as the OECD recipient countries. I just may not have realized they are also called partner countries. I‚Äôm wondering if it is an OECD term rather than UN. I‚Äôll be interested to find out what you find out.

Kind Regards,
Michelle

(SJohns) #5

Hi, maybe it would be clearer to write ‚ÄėNational NGO / CSO based in aid recipient country‚Äô rather than ‚Äėpartner country‚Äô - then it would also make sense alongside the other definitions (ie ‚Äėprivate sector in aid recipient country‚Äô)?

At some stage it may be worth having a conversation about coming away from OECD definitions, as the term ‚Äėaid recipient‚Äô is old-school and doesn‚Äôt take into account other types of financing, including south-south cooperation. IATI itself talks about resources rather than aid. Also, there are increasing numbers of organisations (ie trade unions, networks, social enterprises etc) that are partnering with donors on funded projects that are not NGOs.

2 Likes
(Amy Silcock) #6

@Wendy and @YohannaLoucheur it would be good to hear your views on this.

(Matt Geddes) #7

I would suggest that whichever we are using i.e. partner, recipient etc, we will run into trouble e.g. with countries that are both providers and recipients of aid - therefore I think we need to move away from this distinction - it only works for the OECD DAC because they also define which countries can be ODA ‚Äėaid‚Äô recipients and go on from there - IATI doesn‚Äôt make this distinction and has more than OECD DAC reporters and therefore it starts to fall apart as a distinction.

My favourite related story is that China signed the Busan declaration…but only as a recipient - therefore it signed and everybody could say yay, China is on board, but as it do so as a recipient, it did not feel that its aid should be bound by any of the commitments.

1 Like
(Wendy Rogers) #8

I think @matmaxgeds makes a very good point and I would add that we are constantly coming across instances and examples of ‚Äėloaded‚Äô terminology with have different meanings in different eg hum. and dev. contexts. However, for purposes of practicalities I would be happy (at least for now) with an ever so slightly tweaked version of @SJohns suggestion of ‚ÄėNational NGO / CSO based in assistance recipient country‚Äô ?

1 Like
(Anna Petruccelli) #9

If not too late how about ‚ÄėLocal and National NGO / CSO based in aid/assistance recipient country‚Äô to include also smaller organisations working at sub-national level?

1 Like
(Wendy Rogers) #10

Works for me. Thanks @AnnaPe

1 Like