Organisation type codes - additions (included 2.03)


(IATI Technical Team) #1

This proposal is part of the 2.03 upgrade process, please comment by replying below.


**Schema Object** Codelist

**Type of Change** Additions

**Issue** There is a need to distinguish between national NGOs and country-based INGOs; and between domestic NGOs with national and local (CBO) reach.

**Proposal** Add the following codes to the [OrganisationType]( codelist:

  • 24 - Country-based INGO
  • 25 - Community-based Organisation
**Standards Day** Not discussed


Consultations on definitions of "local organizations"
Version 2.03 Decimal Upgrade - Index of Proposals
Version 2.03 Decimal Upgrade - Index of Proposals
(Herman van Loon) #2

Is it possible to provide definitions for all IATI organization types? The most recent code list ( ) does not provide such a definition. Without a definition, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of the proposed codes and its compatibility with the current OECD/DAC organization type standard.

(Ole Jacob Hjøllund) #3

Adding to this codelist can hardly be discussed in isolation. As agreed in Dar, we must align the IATI codes to the Channel codes of DAC - either by adopting the DAC standard or by propper mapping. Current discrepancies endanger the concept of the ‘common standard’, and adding new would be quite disastrous. Reg. the Grand Bargain we do have another issue - also touched upon in Dar; do anybody know the source of the outlandish ‘definitions’ in annex I of the document? A bit worrying that such annexes slips into circulation, without any concern about existing, international standards like DAC’s type of aid. And a bit funny that it doesn’t appear to be used in the text itself - only in the annex, and then without any indication of the source. Hard to know whether it is something to act on, or it could be ignored.

(Aria Grabowski) #4

This is definitely a piece that is missing and is really important in terms of identifying if more local organizations are involved and receiving funds. I also believe increasing the flow of funds to local organizations is in the grand bargain, so this would provide a way to actually measure that commitment and hold organizations accountable.

(Ole Jacob Hjøllund) #5

Nope - ‘Grand Bargain’ is simply reinventing the Wheel. The definition of their ‘localisation marker’ doesn’t call for anything else than DAC’s definition of channelcodes 12000 + 23000. But from a footnote on the last page of the April-report to IASC on the issue, it is obvious that they haven’t even bothered to download a copy of the current Directive.

If we should opt for a disintegration of the org-typology below the level needed to monitor the 25% commitment, then it’s entirely possible. But it must be designed with a clear parent-reference to the channel-codes in question. Not an independent tag.

(Herman van Loon) #6


[As agreed in Dar, we must align the IATI codes to the Channel codes of DAC - either by adopting the DAC standard or by propper mapping. Current discrepancies endanger the concept of the ‘common standard’, and adding new would be quite disastrous. ]

Fully agree.

(Yohanna Loucheur) #7

Fully agree with OJ.
Also please see this thread:

(IATI Technical Team) #8

This topic has been included for consideration in the formal 2.03 proposal

(Wendy Rogers) #10

We now have sight of the latest set of proposed (nb not yet formally agreed and published) organisation type definitions as required to support the tracking of funding for the Grand Bargain localisation workstream and as proposed by the Grand Bargain working group for localisation.

An initial cross-mapping of the definitions to both the existing IATI organisation types and those from the DAC channel code list has highlighted that in order to support the Grand Bargain initiative it would also be necessary to add the following to the IATI codelist:

11 Local government
71 Local private sector

However, I would also agree that both the IATI and the GB definitions should be harmonised with the DAC channel code definitions. Given that there are some pre-existing differences between the IATI codelist and the DAC channel code lists it looks like this could / should actually only happen as part of an integer IATI Standard upgrade?

(Yohanna Loucheur) #11

The table linked seems to have more additions than 11 and 71 (ie 24 and 25). Could you clarify the status of these?

That being said, it may well be that an integer upgrade will be necessary. The good news is that the GB goal of identifying organizations based in aid recipient countries can be achieved via other means, such as Org identifiers.

(Sam Moody) #12

I’m a bit late to the party but I’m looking at this from the point of view of localisation and especially Charter for Change. I’m based within Christian Aid in the UK.

Just to confirm, am I right in thinking that under the proposal the new codelist would be as follows:

The existing ones -

10 Government
15 Other Public Sector
21 International NGO
22 National NGO
23 Regional NGO
30 Public Private Partnership
40 Multilateral
60 Foundation
70 Private Sector
80 Academic, Training and Research

Plus the new ones -

24 Country-based INGO
25 Community-based Organisation
11 Local government
71 Local private sector

From the Charter for Change point of view, we have so far been working with a slightly different list of classifications but in general I believe that it is possible to map these classifications against those on this proposed list. I’m pleased that the new ‘country-based INGO’ category is aimed at distinguishing between national NGOs and the affiliated country offices of an INGO (which may or may not have their own legal entity and to some extent autonomy). One of the classifications that we have been using in Charter for Change is ‘Southern International NGOs’ and I’m not completely sure if these organisations would appear in IATI as ‘International NGOs’ or ‘Country-based INGOs’ but in either case it wouldn’t be included in the record of flows to local/national actors and so this isn’t vital to the localisation tracking.

Moving away from C4C to the Grand Bargain, which is broader and is signed by donor governments, I have had a look at these classifications in comparison to a definitions paper from the localisation marker working group. I worry a bit that it will be difficult to work out where some of the suggested classifications would fall in terms of localisation. For example, academic institutions could be based in the recipient country or elsewhere and so we wouldn’t necessarily know whether a particular transfer to an academic institution should be included in the calculation of financial flows to local/national actors.

My sense is that in the end it will be tricky to generate the data needed to track aid localisation using the ‘organisation-type’ codelist without making the organisation types unfit for other tracking activities not related to localisation. Perhaps the answer is to start with these additions to the organisation type codelist for IATI 2.03 and then learn from our experiences in time for the next integer upgrade.

(Yohanna Loucheur) #13

I am increasingly confused by this discussion.

In the GB process, 2 new definitions were agreed for “Local Actors”:

1- Local and national nonstate actors
Organizations engaged in relief who are headquartered and
operating in their own aid recipient country and with
autonomous governance, financial and operational decisionmaking.

2- National and sub-national state actors
State authorities of the affected aid recipient country engaged
in relief, whether at local or national level.

Where do the initial additions - 24 Country-based INGO and 25 community-based organization - come from? What is their purpose? And where is the proposal to add 71 Local private sector coming from? And why is 11 Local government not aligned with GB wording (ie does “local” mean sub-national?)

In addition, as Sam signaled:

The right approach, in my opinion, would be to in fact reduce the number of organization types and derive the country of origin (hence the “local” or “non-local” status) from the organization identifier.

Finally, the proposed changes seem to take us away from the desired harmonization between the DAC and IATI codelist, not closer to it.

(Wendy Rogers) #14

Many thanks to both @YohannaLoucheur and @smoody for your comments and I shall try and address the issues that you have raised.

I should perhaps start by clarifying that the original purpose of this proposal was to:

  1. Enhance the currently embedded IATI organisation type codelist so that it aligns as closely as possible with the list of ‘Definitions of national or local responders’ as defined by the IASC Humanitarian Financing Task Team Localisation Working Group. The IASC HFTT LWG was set up to support Grand Bargain signatories, Charter for Change & potentially any other monitoring body or interested party with (amongst other things) the tracking of funding to country and community based NGOS etc. Also as @YohannaLoucheur has pointed out the HFTT LWG list of definitions provides greater granularity that the original 1. Local and national nonstate actors and 2 National and sub-national state actors (as referenced above)
  2. Align the list of IATI organisation types wherever possible with the latest DAC organisation types as provided on the ‘latest’ version of the DAC channel code list

In order to achieve the two points above we have proposed the addition of 4 new organisation types to the IATI organisation type codelist. They are:

24 Country-based INGO
25 Community-based Organisation
11 Local government
71 Local private sector

Please also see the mapping spreadsheet to understand how these new additions align to both the DAC and the HFTT LWG lists.

However, I agree with Yohanna that it is possible to use other fields within published IATI data such as or the relevant use of organisation identifier to identify the geographic location of a referenced organisation and this is why we have not eg proposed the addition of a specific entry for ‘Southern International NGOs’. In addition, I would agree that this would also mean that it is not completely necessary to add the entry for ‘71 Local private sector’ but we have done so in order to provide alignment with the other two lists?

In addition, @smoody the use of such other IATI geographic elements may also help with the issue you raise with regard to Academic institutions etc.

Finally, whilst these proposals do not completely align with the existing DAC definitions we would definitely want to work to bring all three lists as closely together as possible ideally for the next integer upgrade when perhaps we may be able to make the IATI organisation type codelist a ‘non-embedded’ list that is simply derived from the DAC list (rather than the ‘embedded’ list that it is now)? Also, given that the work of the Grand Bargain is happening ‘now’ I do not think that we can wait for this alignment to take place first.

Final Technical Proposal for the 2.03 Upgrade
(Yohanna Loucheur) #15

Wendy, thank you for the additional information.

I’m afraid it adds slightly to the confusion though, since the table you link to shows 24 as “Country-based NGO”, rather than “Country-based INGO” as stated in your message.

The problem with this approach is that publishers will have to integrate the new codes in their systems, making future changes all the more difficult. We should thus strive to minimize differences with the DAC codelists, not add to them, as we consider how best to implement GB-related changes.

On this basis, we can support the addition of a new code for “Partner country-based NGO” (clearer wording aligned with DAC codelist). We would prefer to have this under code 23, replacing “Regional NGO” (a confusing and little-used category), as it would better align with the DAC codelist, but can live with 24.

This addition will cover the GB requirements as outlined in the letter from the co-conveners of the GB Workstream 2, which recommended a new type, “Local Actors”, along with definitions distinguishing state and non-state actors “for integration into the OECD and FTS tracking systems.”

This new “Local Actors” type does not require further disaggregation; local and national actors are part of the same type. We therefore do not support the addition of the proposed code 25 “Community-based Organization”.

Finally, we support the addition of 2 new codes under 70 Private sector: 71 “Private sector in provider country” and 72 “Private Sector in aid recipient country”. This would better aligne with the DAC categories (in consideration for future merger) and be much clearer than “Local”.

As mentioned above, definitions should be added to the IATI Organisation Type codelist for all types, including of course the new ones.

(Herman van Loon) #16

Agree with @YohannaLoucheur. Looks like Yohanna’s the last proposal satisfies both the GB requirements and will align with the OECD/DAC standard. @Wendy Could you please add the OECD/DAC 63000 and 90000 category to your very mapping spreadsheet?

63000 63000 Private sector in third country
63000 63001 Private bank in third country
63000 63002 Private non-bank in third country

90000 90000 Other

(IATI Technical Team) #17

Following the call to seek consensus on the humanitarian proposals that took place on 5th September 2017 this proposal has been accepted for inclusion as part of v2.03 . However work must continue to align the IATI Organisation Type codelist with the DAC channel code list.

The codes that will be added are:

11 Local Government
24 Partner country based NGO
71 Private Sector in Provider Country
72 Private Sector in Aid Recipient Country
73 Private Sector in Third Country
90 Other

Additions to Organisation-Type codelist
(IATI Technical Team) #18

This proposal has been been included in the 2.03 upgrade. It can be viewed in the following two Discuss posts:

Organisation Type codelist - descriptions
(IATI Technical Team) #19