IATI Consultations Archive

Live discussions and consultations can be found at discuss.iatistandard.org.

Overview of Version 2.01

This provides a thematic summary and contents list of the proposed content for Version 2.01

  1. Strengthening the core of the standard
    1. Reporting Organisation
    2. IATI Identifier
    3. Participating Organisation
    4. Title
    5. Description
    6. Activity Date
    7. Sector
    8. Transaction
  2. Additional mandatory conditions
    1. Budget dates
    2. Planned-disbursement start date
  3. Language neutral code lists
    1. Activity Date Type
    2. Gazetteer Agency
    3. Organisation Role
    4. Transaction Type
    5. Vocabulary
  4. A consistent approach to multi-lingual names, descriptions and free text.
    1. Standardise text fields
  5. A consistent approach to organisation identifiers
    1. DAC-derived organisation identifiers
    2. Government departments and public agencies
  6. Bring general guidance into standard rules
    1. Timeliness
    2. Units of aid
    3. Multi-level reporting
    4. Reporting of  financial values omitted through exclusions and thresholds. 
  7. Improvements to the Organisation Standard
  8. Replicate more activity-level elements at transaction level
    1. Sector
    2. Recipient-region and recipient-country
  9. Miscellaneous
    1. Recipient-region and recipient-country merge
Have more questions? Submit a request


  • 0
    Bill Anderson

    Thanks Mark.

    • I agree with your suggestions on Organisation file and will work these into the overview and detail. 
    • The proposal to the Steering Committee will include a section on timetable and process - which once approved will be set in stone
    • Will add an explanation on the implementation of mandatory requirements.
    • I do not agree with your proposal on exclusions for a number reasons:
      • To add an attribute to every element in the standard is unwieldy.
      • For the vast majority of publishers this will be impossible to implement
      • Commercial and privacy exclusions are usually global in nature.
      • Security exclusions will not be helped by pinpointing to the authority exactly where data is being hidden from them.
    • What I do think needs to be established is clear guidance on the inclusion of aggregated financial balances that have not been reported as the result of EITHER exclusions OR thresholds.
    • I will however, if you wish, submit this to the SC in an addendum of issues not supported by the Secretariat.
  • 0
    Mark Brough

    Thanks Bill - please do submit the proposal. Feel free to split it into two parts if you support the aggregated financial balances subject to exclusions/thresholds.

    Just a few of points of clarification on specific exclusions:

    1) Many publishers will not be able to publish this (in a similar way to not being able to publish other parts of the standard). That doesn't mean we should make it impossible to publish this information in a standard-compliant way for those that want to do so.

    2) Both global and specific exclusions exist; we should find a better way to deal with both.

    3) If exclusions could easily be deanonymised and thereby counter the intended effect of an exclusion then those activities should not be published at all. This is no different from the current situation.

Article is closed for comments.