Transaction Type Codelist - Update

Standard Management Modifications, Additions, Improvements
#1

Hi all -

USAID is requesting a bug fix to the transaction type codeslist codes 12 and 13 (outgoing pledge and incoming pledge) to remove the word ‘pledge’ and replace it with a word that is more consistent with organization’s intended humanitarian commitments. We do not seek to add a new code or redefine the existing one, this is simply about changing the name of the code.

Some organizations (including ours) do not participate in pledging events and in many cases there are legal issues with promising funding, inhibiting the use of pledging as it is traditionally conceived. For organizations that have ‘announced’ funding or ‘pending outgoing commitments’, ‘pledge’ is not an appropriate term and cannot be used to publish this pending commitment data - leaving us with no other available code to publish this information.

At this time, it appears only one organization is using these pledge codes.

We propose in codes 12 and 13 (outgoing pledge and incoming pledge) that the word ‘pledge’ should be removed and replaced with a more appropriate word such as ‘pending outgoing commitment,’ ‘announced funding,’ or ‘commitment in process.’ We welcome other words and suggestions to updating this term to be more inclusive to organizations who do not take part in pledging events.

#2

The current name of ‘pledge’ was agreed upon because it reflects the terminology already used in the humanitarian community. The definition comes from UNOCHA: https://fts.unocha.org/glossary - “A non-binding announcement of an intended contribution or allocation by the donor. The recipient organization and response plan or project are not necessarily specified.” Nick from FTS explains more about this here: TransactionType codes (included 2.03)

There were no objections when the two transaction types were included during the 2.03 upgrade process. As you can see from the definition it is not specific to UN pledges.

image

We would like to hear from other organisation if they face the same challenge.

#3

Obviously, there is a challenge - since the purpose of ‘pledging events’ is to mount political pressure to realise actual commitments. And when participants, sometimes, even are called to sign their pledge, it is intended to confuse the concept and make it look like a commitment. But we will only make matters worse if we introduced a third concept. Let’s stick with the existing definition, that a pledge is only an expression of intentions - it isn’t binding, not even when it’s written and signed.

PS: We are currently considering to publish our commitment-budgets as pledges. These budgets reflects ‘intentions’ on which commitments we are likely to issue, once the grant or Finance Act is approved, and would serve a purpose for transparency and ‘forward looking’ qualities of our IATI data. But obviously, such budgets or ‘pending commitments’ are not binding in any respect.

#4

Dear OJ et al,

I believe the challenge is that the word “pledge” in the American context and possibly other Anglophone countries has a very specific and legal connotation. While it may be understood within this community and even the UN that a “pledge is only an expression of intentions”, that isn’t what the general anglophone/non-UN public understands it to be and I think that is the issue Andi is trying to raise.

A pledge is considered a contract and has both a legal and accounting implication which I believe renders it impossible for USAID and possibly other organizations based in the US at least from using the transaction type to record non-binding intentions.

I wasn’t around when these definitions and names were assigned so I don’t know how the words got “approved” but if the community really does agree that these transaction types are not intended to be legally binding but rather an intention then I can see why this is and will continue to be an issue for USAID and again, possibly other US based publishers.

I’m guessing the reason why this isn’t an issue for the UN is that the accounting standards used by the UN is IPSAS and “pledge” doesn’t have that connotation.

Kind Regards,
Michelle

#5

I don’t think IATI could or should adjudicate on this matter. We have taken our lead from UN OCHA, which I believe to have been the correct approach. (Just as we take our lead on the definitions of commitments and disbursements from OECD DAC)

Transaction Type Code 12 = " Indicative, non-binding advice of an intended outgoing commitment." This is not just an “understanding within the community” but the definition of the code in the standard. Am I correct that the only disagreement is with the name and not the definition?

Is this not the same as the UK using the Country Code “MM” but insisting (mostly) on calling the country Burma? We all know what the code refers to…

Is the solution to change the name to “Pledge or xxx”? Is this acceptable to UN OCHA?

1 Like
#6

I agree. I wasn’t aware of the semantic ambiguity of that word, so let us find a label to the code that is understandable to all users. It seems that we agree on the meaning of the code. And we do not need extra codes to distinguish between ‘Intentions’ and process-lingo like ‘pending’ or ‘announced’ - those are feasibly published as one code, clearly separated from the legally binding commitments.

#7

Apologies all, I moved this into the wrong category. You should now be able to respond to this post.

#8

Hi all -

Re-opening this thread to see if there are any other thoughts on updating the name of this field.

Would there be any appetite to updating the name to “Pledge or Announcement”? This may solve the problem in getting around the connotations of the word ‘pledge.’

We have data we would like to publish that has been announced, but we cannot publish it in the current name in the codelist (‘pledge’) - we are hoping to find an easy solution!

#9

Dear Andie,

I see you said “announced funding” and “pending commitment” up above. Are those still preferable or do you have other suggestions for the name that won’t contradict formal accounting rules in the UK an US and will work for USAID and other US gov reporters?

Kind Regards,
Michelle

#10

Thanks, Michelle. In terms of preferences, I believe “Announced funding” would be our preference. However, after recent discussions with our team, we would be open to many options - including keeping the word ‘pledge’ in the name, but creating the option for pledge OR xyz.

Anyway, we are open to being flexible in an update - we just want to have some sort of name that we can report our data under.

#11

Thanks for the suggestion @AVaughn and my proposal would be to slightly tweak the transaction type to incoming/outgoing ‘pledge or public statement’. It is by definition of it being a transaction type related to funding and its intended use was always to capture when some sort of public statement of intent in relation to funding had been made (but not yet formally committed via contract etc.) eg by a minister making an announcement in the respective host parliament, by a gov dept. public press release, by a statement at a pledging conference etc

#12

Thanks @Wendy - We would be able to report our data under that option.

Do others have any strong opinions on including ‘Or Public Statement’ into that transaction type code name?

#13

Transaction type is a core codelist in IATI and any modifications to the codelist can currently only happen at a minor or major upgrade.See codelist management page for reference.

#14

Thanks, @petyakangalova - our original proposal is to try and update this name slightly as a bug fix to codes 12 and 13 since we do not seek to add a new code or redefine the existing one, just simply change the name of these two codes.

1 Like
#15

@AVaughn, just to summarize. What you are proposing is a clarification in the name of the two codes without any change to the definition and meaning of the code as below:

12- Outgoing Pledge or Public Commitment
13- Incoming Pledge or Public Commitment

As I mentioned already any changes can only happen at a minor or major upgrade. In order to consider this change as a bug fix, it will be really good to hear from others on whether there is support for the proposed clarification. @ximboden , does that align with UN OCHA’s definition?

#16

Thanks for clarifying @petyakangalova. Yes, we are just hoping for additional clarification to the name of the field - not the definition. Additional clarification in the name would enable us to report against this field.

I think our proposal would be (in order of preference):

Outgoing/Incoming Pledge or Public Statement
Outgoing/Incoming Pledge or Announced Funding
Outgoing/Incoming Pledge or Public Commitment

As you can see, we are open to what comes after the ‘or’ above - really any additional clarification would be helpful.

@ximboden it would be good to hear your thoughts.