Using IATI To Monitor the Grand Bargain Commitment on Earmarking

One of the commitments of the Grand Bargain is to ‘reduce the earmarking of donor contributions’.

Whilst IATI had already been identified by the Grand Bargain as a mechanism to enable greater transparency of humanitarian data there is also much interest in using IATI as a source of data to monitor the earmarking commitment of

  1. ‘… 30% of humanitarian contributions non-earmarked or softly earmarked by 2020.’
  2. ‘Reduce the degree of earmarking of funds …’

In order to support the monitoring of (un)earmarked funding it has been proposed to enable the reporting of earmarking within IATI by

With regard to enhancing the DAC aid type definitions @OJ_ has already produced some recommendations which I am therefore posting here to the community for further comments & thoughts etc.

In addition all the referenced aid-type definitions are here

1 Like

@OJ_ any update on the proposal?

@petyakangalova / @IATI-techteam as highlighted by @YohannaLoucheur, there’s no scope for an additional AidType vocabulary, but still only one listed (and no 99). Will we see a proposal for the Grand Bargain earmarking definitions?

Dear Steven et. al.

The proposal previously shared is in process. Currently it is open for written comments from members of WP-STAT (deadline cob 28. February) – based on these inputs, a proposal will be finalized for approval at the formal meeting in June.

As the standard-procedure for such updates, these changes/additions to the type_of_aid codelist will be applicable for the final statistical reporting on 2017-flows – thus just meeting the monitoring requirements of the Grand Bargain.

Yours OJ

There is a draft proposal that has been written and was reviewed / discussed within the team yesterday. A couple of small changes are required, though it should be posted on Discuss in the near future once there has been an opportunity to make these small changes.

Great, thanks for the updates @OJ_ & @hayfield

One concern I can see (as I read it), is that the proposal to the DAC declares that the earmarking types are “largely nonsense in the crucial annex”.

I take responsibility for any such statements – it is quite frankly how I read it. The annex to the Grand Bargain makes no sense and is not offering any clue regarding how it has emerged. It is not in line with any studies or proposed terminologies I am familiar with, from the 2 decades of efforts for ‘aid effectiveness’.

It just may be the case, that further efforts must be invested in this area – we might not end up with anything like a ‘perfect’ classification of different degrees of earmarking or consensus on which to judge as most harmful, already this spring.

Yours OJ

I just want to link this thread to the proposal that has been published

1 Like