Cutting through the aid reporting chaos

The report identifies a lack of coherence between the coding systems used for procurement (such as UNSPSC and CPV) and those used for reporting (such as OECD DAC CRS and IATI). This fragmentation creates barriers for innovators attempting to enter the humanitarian and development markets, as it is difficult to track what products are being procured and how they are reported. The authors recommend harmonizing reporting formats, clarifying stakeholder responsibilities, and developing user-friendly platforms to match solution providers with donor needs.

• There is a significant lack of continuity and connection between the coding systems used during the procurement phase and those used for end-of-project reporting.
• Different international organizations utilize distinct and often incompatible coding systems for procurement: the UN uses the UN Standard Products and Services Code (UNSPSC), while the EU employs the Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV).
• The OECD's Creditor Reporting System (CRS) sectoral codes are the most widely used for reporting and serve as the basis for the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) 'common code', but they are primarily used for end-of-project reporting rather than procurement.
• The fragmentation of reporting systems hinders the ability to track financial flows from donors to final recipients, as most organizations lack systems to collect data beyond the first-level recipient.
• Innovators in the WASH sector find the diversity of tendering platforms intimidating and difficult to navigate, which obstructs the adoption of new technologies.
• In the context of humanitarian aid, detailed WASH data is often lost because activities are grouped under general 'Emergency Response' or 'Material relief' codes rather than specific water or sanitation categories.
• Current aid reporting systems primarily serve the interests of donors and their domestic audiences rather than the recipient countries or solution providers.
• To improve innovation uptake, the report recommends that donor organizations clarify how innovative companies can enter the procurement process and develop platforms that match solution providers' activities to donor needs.

APA

Fadhila, A., Barquet, K., Dickin, S., & Schmidt, N. (2022). Cutting through the aid reporting chaos. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/swashgrow-10.51414-sei2022.003.pdf

Chicago

Fadhila, Audinisa, Karina Barquet, Sarah Dickin, and Niklas Schmidt. Cutting through the aid reporting chaos. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2022. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/swashgrow-10.51414-sei2022.003.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Fadhila |first1=Audinisa |last2=Barquet |first2=Karina |last3=Dickin |first3=Sarah |last4=Schmidt |first4=Niklas |title=Cutting through the aid reporting chaos |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=January 2022 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/swashgrow-10.51414-sei2022.003.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{fadhila2022cutting, author = {Fadhila, Audinisa and Barquet, Karina and Dickin, Sarah and Schmidt, Niklas}, title = {{Cutting through the aid reporting chaos}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2022}, month = jan, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/swashgrow-10.51414-sei2022.003.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }