IATI allows for the same activity to be reported by a range of participants and/or observers. There is currently no unambiguous method of creating a link between these activities.
It is proposed that a code is added to the RelatedActivityType codelist which is used by iati-activity/related-activity/@type.
This list currently contains values for
We haven't yet come up with a good name for the new code, but it should mean "The same activity reported by an other organisation"
For technical details about implementing this proposal go to: https://github.com/IATI/IATI-Schemas/issues/131
If it really the same activity should it be reported by multiple organisations? If it is really the same activity than it will have exactly the same attributes (sector, country codes, etc.).
Wouldn't it be enough to only refer to related activities on the transaction level, specifying from which provider activities incoming funds are received and to which recipient activities disbursements are made? Multifunded activities will have incoming funds from multiple providing activities (from other organisations or from your own organisation e.g. private funding).I do not know if this will be enough for the representation of a heirarchy of projects belonging to the same organisation.
Maybe the definition of the related activity should be confined to represent heirarchies of projects of the same organisation. Transactions should be used to relate projects between organisations. For data consumers this will otherwise create all kind of double counting and inconsistency problems because there is no garantee that the same activity is really defined the same by different publishers.
If two implementing organisations are working on the same project isn't it useful for the linking information to be available?
Related activity type already caters for two donors (multi-funded). It would make sense to allow this connection to be made wherever possible where there is not a direct flow of funds from one to the other (which should be captured in a transaction).
'multifunded' is redundant when the incoming funds are reported on transaction level with their provider reference.
When extending the functionality of the related activity field, the question remains what kind of relations (without funds transfer) exist and are relevant. E.g joint programming without funds transfer? Others?
This would mean multiple values for the codelist, or an additional attribute stating the type of relation.
I am not sure I understand the intended meaning and use of 'multifunded' here. When referring from activity A to another related activity B as 'multifunded' (using teh RelatedActivityType), what does that signify?
- that the related activity B is funded by the activity A or
- that the related activity B is the activity which funds multiple activities (including the activity A) or
- that A and B belong to a group funding other activities?
- something else ...
Could you please clarify with an example?
Donor A reports its contribution to a co-funded project. Donor B does the same. There is no other way for Donor A to provide the information that Donor B has also reported on this same project.
Thanks for the explanation. I understand now and agree.