Thanks Bill, this is a very interesting example to work on.
A few reactions from a (non-involved) donor’s perspective on your tips and/or Reid’s responses:
I think some level of coordination is possible in most cases, at least for the initial partners/funders. It would be healthy to have such discussions to improve sector coding (based on the initiative’s description, I don’t understand why this is not coded 100% 13010, since this code includes vital registratin very specifically). Keeping in mind though that consensus may not always be achievable (for one, sometimes it IS very hard to assign sectors to a project).
That’s a really interesting idea that would apply beyond co-funded projects (though not all projects). Will give some thought to its feasibility.
Assume by accountable agency you mean UNDPm as stated in the data above? If so, first thing to note is that this is erroneous - the Malawi National Registration Bureau (or higher-level unit under which it falls) is most likely the accountable agency, according to the standard.
Second, we may get higher quality data if all partners discuss/agree on coding. In this example, UNDP is coding this project 15113 “Anti corruption”, which seems quite strange. Discussing with partners may have resulted on them choosing 13010. That said, the proposed coding could be included in the project proposal as a first step toward common coding.