IATI Consultations Archive

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

Definition of a "Funding" organisation

The standard asks publishers to provide details of a number of organisations participating in an activity, according to their role. It caters for the following roles:

  • Funding - "The country or institution which provides the funds"
  • Extending - "The government entity (central, state or local government agency or department), or agency within an institution, financing the activity from its own budget"
  • Implementing - "The intermediary between the extending agency and the ultimate beneficiary. Also known as executing agency or channel of delivery. They can be public sector, non-governmental agencies (NGOs), Public-Private partnerships, or multilateral institutions"
  • Accountable - "The government agency, civil society or private sector institution which is accountable for the implementation of the activity."
Confusion has arisen over the definition of the funding organisation: whether this refers to the original source of funds, or the organisation that at activity level is the immediate source of funds for the execution of the activity.  This proposal has been drafted by Bill Anderson but has not been discussed or agreed by the IATI Technical Secretariat.
Here is a scenario:
Organisation A funds Organisation B to carry out Activity 1. As part of Activity 1 Organisation B funds Organisation C to carry out Activity 2.
  1. When Organisation A reports to IATI about Activity1 it is clear that  "Funding" = A " + "Implementing" = B
  2. When Organisation B reports to IATI about Activity 1 does it report ?
    1. "Funding" = A + "Implementing" = B
    2. "Funding" = B (From its point of view it owns the activity and is in control of the funds)  
  3. And what happens when Organisation B is reporting about Activity 2?
    1. "Funding" = A  + "Implementing" = C
    2. "Funding" =  A; "Extending" = B  + "Implementing" = C
    3. "Funding" = B   + "Implementing" = C



Change the definition of "Funding" to "The country or institution which is the original provider of funds". 

Provide guidance that the roles of organisations in an activity should be reported in the same way by all reporters of the activity (i.e. the point of view of the reporting organisation is of no consequence)

Provide guidance encouraging the use of "Extending" for non-funding organisations that disburse funds to sub-contracted organisations. 

If necessary add a further role to the standard which indicates who "owns" an activity.

i.e. These proposals support the use of 2.1 and 2.2 


Have more questions? Submit a request


  • 0
    Theo van de Sande

    We (Dutch MFA) are struggling with the exact same issue.

    case 1 is clear, as indicated.

    case 2 B reporting on activity 1, approach 1 funding A, implementing B seems OK. Prob lem: how is guaranteed that report by organisation A on activity 1 can be linked to report by B on that same activity? Through the use of a single/joint activity number preceded by two different IATI identification numbers for organisation A (in the report under 1) and B (in the report under 2)?

    case 3 B reporting on activity 2, approach 3 seems to me the most logical one: B decides in its own right to fund this activity, implemented by C. Not in the least while C would report activity 2 as funding B en implementing C, analogous to B on activity 1. Here also the problem with linking it with activity 1. No problem when C is also reporting, but if not the 'related project or activity' field can be used (including the use of the identifier/act.nr of B).


Article is closed for comments.