Just want to flag that we had a similar discussion on this a few years ago.
The original intention for the definition of "Accountable" was the country institution with whom an aid agreement has been signed. For example:
- Ministry of Agriculture implements the project => Implementing
- Ministry of Finance signs the agreement/MoU => Accountable
This field was originally proposed in the context of enabling alignment with country budgets - see 2010 Steering Committee paper. There is some discussion on it in the 2012 Study on Reflecting Aid Flows in Country Budgets:
There are also cases where the accountable institution – i.e. the institution signing the aid agreement – may not be the institution benefitting from the funds.
IATI Guidance from 2016 also points in the same direction.
If we follow this definition, there would be a limited number of projects that this is related to, and it would be particularly focused on projects funded by official donors. Following the finalisation of the methodology for aligning aid with country budgets, it is worth considering whether this field is still needed. However, even with that methodology, in the example above, the information that "Ministry of Finance signed the agreement" would only be visible if we retained the accountable organisation. I guess the question is: how valuable is that information?
In any case, I think this field could definitely do with a clearer definition than the one currently published on the IATI Standard website.