How to define a GLOBAL project?

Moderators

No moderators on this discussion

If you have an activity that is global in focus/reach/scope/benefit , how to use the IATI country/region codes accordingly?

Looking at regions, it would not seem the OECD-DAC 998 code is about Global:

998 Developing countries, unspecified

The activity-scope element can help describe Global through code 1:

1 Global The activity scope is global

However, a recipient-country or recipient-region can be useful for data users, such as d-portal.

I noticed UNFPA just publish (cc/ Martin Akerman ) :

 <recipient-country code="GLOBAL" percentage="100"/>

… which I’m sure will “upset” some.

So - should Global activities

omit country/region elements
“hack” as above
refer to a different region vocabulary (such as…?)
any combination of the above, or none…

Thoughts and answers welcome!

Comments (8)

Martin Akerman • 7 years ago

Thanks for opening this discussion, Steven. Looking forward to seeing what everyone thinks.

Yohanna Loucheur • 7 years ago

The problem with “global” is that it’s, well, global… So a portion of the benefits would not be for developing countries, thus cannot count as ODA. Martin, when you code something as global, is that what you mean? Does this mean that not all UNFPA activities would be oda-ble?

Presumably, if using “global”, you’d also have to code Types of Flow appropriately (ie % of global that is not ODA recipients)?

Hayden Field • 7 years ago

The RegionVocabulary Codelist includes a 99 code for custom vocabularies.

As such, something along the lines of <recipient-region code="GLOBAL" vocabulary="99" /> would be a minimal valid method of expressing the information UNFPA is trying to convey in the example (the vocabulary-uri attribute is optional, as is percentage if there is only a single region/country specified).

(there may alternatively be a better solution under RegionVocabulary code 2, though I don’t know what list that refers to)

Andy Lulham • 7 years ago

hayfield:

As such, something along the lines of <recipient-region code=“GLOBAL” vocabulary=“99” /> would be a minimal valid method of expressing the information UNFPA is trying to convey in the example

Good suggestion!

hayfield:

(there may alternatively be a better solution under RegionVocabulary code 2, though I don’t know what list that refers to)

Eek! In general, I suppose Vocabulary codelists should all have URLs attached. They mostly seem to, but this seems like a good example where adding them would be handy.

Steven Flower • 7 years ago

I missed Bill Anderson ’s customary rant about synching of region codes at the TAG this year!

In terms of vocab=2 , is this the codelist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_M.49 (Martin Akerman ? Bill Anderson ?)? And so , I guess global could be:

<recipient-region code="001" vocabulary="2" />

In terms of data use, then I would imagine the pay-off here could be how projects such as IATI Studio or D-portal then utilise region codes multiple vocabularies

Sangita Dubey • 6 years ago

For me, the ideal solutions would be to have the OECD-DAC introduce a “Global” code, and a methodology for determining what percentage of Global is aid related.

The one year to date when FAO reported aid expenditures to the OECD (2013 data), we developed a methodology for allocating a percentage of expenditures on regional and global public goods towards development. The OECD DAC secretariat approved the approach, and asked us to share with other organizations (e.g. ILO). Methodology: the “developing” country share of agriculture value-added (from national accounts) for the region/world determined the percentage of expenditure to development.

Forcing organizations to determine what share of a global public good is for development is not transparent to the data user, and would vary from one organization to anther (ILO is certainly not going to use agriculture value-added; and for FAO, it is an imperfect measure too). I think it is more transparent to have a Global DAC code, and an OECD methodology to allocate expenditure shares to development.

Thoughts on this?

Hubert Drolet • 6 years ago

Sangita Dubey Steven Flower
Interesting conversation that definitely needs to happen as coverage of data increasingly goes beyond ODA eligible flows.

As Canada’s rep at the OECD-DAC WP-STAT, I can speak about the 998 code. As Yohanna pointed out, this issue is about the DAC’s codelist for countries not yet being catered for non-ODA flows.

For non-ODA portion of global projects, the instructions we have received for the time being, is to code against the “998 Developing countries, unspecified” in conjunction with the appropriate Type of Flow code (e.g. OOF)

In a nutshell, the labels on the codes have to be modernized. In my view there is absolutely no need to have a new code for “global – non-developing countries”… instead we should rename the existing 998 code, and use it in conjunction with the appropriate Type of Flow.

Canada is happy to bring this issue forward at the next June meeting
Thanks!

Hubert Drolet • 6 years ago

I should also mention that best practices here is to code at the lowest possible level (country-region-global). Sometimes global is the best information we have at the time of commitment. However, the coding should be revised as more information on spending becomes available.

Please log in or sign up to comment.