Global Partnership Monitoring FrameworkKey findings

Asia-Pacific Regional WorkshopSeoul, 10-11 March 2014

Monitoring approach and key findings• Paris Declaration evaluation: Ownership, alignment and

harmonisation, results and accountability are relevant for all forms or co-operation. Their implementation has contributed to strengthen standards of partnerships and legitimised demand particularly from developing countries that good practice be observed

• Busan: country-led monitoring• 46 countries submitted data. Expectations for broader

future participation: countries revising accountability processes to reflect Busan principles

• Over 70 co-operation providers reported data to national governments. Process reviews the quality of almost half (46%) of global “country programmable aid”

Crafting evidence-based key messages

• Is progress happening? Are we on track to meet our targets?

• What are the key success factors for progress?

• What actions/commitments needed to address the challenges at country, region, and global levels?

• What lessones learned for future monitoring to support country implementation, monitoring and accountability?

OWNERSHIP AND RESULTS

• Use of country results frameworks• Aid on budget• Quality and use of country systems• Aid untying

Ownership and Results – state of play• Country ownership continues to strengthen.

• Sustained achievements on strengthening and using country systems.• No overall change since 2010 on quality of country systems (CPIA)• 49% of cooperation use national systems; no significant change

since 2010 (15 countries above 60%, 14 countries saw an increase; 22 countries saw a decrease)

• Weak correlation between quality of systems and use

• A slight improvement on aid on budget• 64% in 2013 (compared to 57% in 2010)• 7 countries have reached the target of 85%• Important variations across countries; Notable recording

of funds on budget beyond what was scheduled; Fund

inclusion gaps also exist

Ownership and Results – state of play

• Too early to say whether strengthened commitment to ownership translated into increased use of countries’ own results frameworks• 8 pilot• Preliminary conclusions: great variation among providers; but

consistent provider behavior across countries

• Continous progress on untying aid: 79% in 2012 (compared to 77% in 2010)

Ownership and Results – way forward• Results: What are the operational procedures and instruments that need to be

put in place for further progress – use of results framework, country systems, etc.

• Country Systems: How can we promote greater use of a system, encouraging providers to implement their operational policies (most have updated the policies on this)?

• Aid on Budget: Continous challenges– budget preparation process continues to be hampered. Greater need for transparency at country level? How can development cooperation be integrated better to inform country’s development planning and budgeting process?

• Untying: some reporting inconsistencies remain: is it a political or technical issue? Can greater value for money be achieved through international bidding for the remaining activities which are tied?

Inclusive partnerships

• Enabling environment for CSOs• Private sector engagement• Gender equality

Inclusive Partnerships – state of play• Indicators are new – “younger” indicators.

• Too early to say – indicator not available (due to limited data availability)

• Positive examples of efforts by government to facilitate the work of CSOs: improved legislation; institutionalised CSO engagement in national policy dialogue.

• CSOs continue to face important challenges: i.e. creation of mandatory and/or complex process for CSO, etc.

• Private sector indicator – challenge in identifying appropriate proxy for assessing public sector engagement

• Initiatives to promote public-private sector dialogue attached greater

attention to the organizational effectiveness and outcome-focus

of formalized structure.

Inclusive Partnerships – state of play• Increased number of countries to ensure that public expenditure is

targetting both women and men

• 12 countries have an system in place to track and make public allocations

• 4 countries have a system but allocations not made public

• Efforts are being made (public statement) in most countries

Inclusive Partnerships – way forward• CSOs enabling environment: How to promote country level dialogue on

the CSO enabling environment in existing accountability frameworks and provide a basis to feed into the CIVICUS EEI?

• Private sector engagement: Need to identify what’s the best way of taking this indicator forward

• Gender equality: what support needed to ensure that countries have such systems in place?

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY• Transparency• Predictability (annual and medium-term)• Mutual accountability

Transparency and Accountability – state of play• Transparency drive started to show results

• a good start… But more needed: Average provider: data once a year, data 6-9 months old. Information for 50% of data fields. 75% provide forward looking information.

• Increased availability of information not yet translating systematically to greater support to countries strategic planning and accountability

• Annual predictability: some progress, 84% disbursed according to plan. 22 countries received less than scheduled (17 more). Large variations within countries.

• Medium-term Predictability:

A good start, but Busan commitments not met

• Mutual Review of Progress: some progress 59% (27 out of 46 countries) meet 4/5 criteria

2014 83%

2015 70%

2016 57%

Aid/partnership policy in place

National targets (gov & partners)

Progress assessed regularly

Local gov /non-executive stakeholders

Results made public in timely manner

Transparency and Accountability – state of play

Transparency and Accountability – Way Forward• Transparency : more frequent reporting, fresher data. More systemic

completion of data fields, start with country envelopes. How to translate this into support for countries’ strategic planning?

• Annual predictability: Eliminate funding shortfalls; improving accuracy of funding schedules (also upwards); providing disbursement schedules in the first place.

• Medium-term Predictability: Adjusting providers policies/procedures so that plans can be regularly updated and communicated. Address possible mismatch between information provision at global an country level

• Mutual Review of Progress: Encouraging momentum to build on, efforts are underway. Need targeted action to make reviews more inclusive and transparent.

Observations from the process

• Strong country leadership, increased reliance on countries’ own systems and data country leadership not always matched with provider

engagement The reverse side of the coin: who owns the data

• Growing diversity among reporting providers

• New indicators: Interest towards gender equality, results and transparency

pilots More needed to define measurable actions for CSO enabling

environment and private sector engagement

Overall: Monitoring framework is useful and relevant to support country efforts and dialogue. More efforts to focus on country-process

Emerging Key Messages: Glass Half Full or Empty?

• Effectiveness and accountability matter

• A sense of urgency that much more efforts are needed to bring about significant level of behavioural changes

• Reform takes time but it works – need to continue investing, also in ‘younger’ Busan commitments

• A stronger relationship with shared visions at country level – building trust

• Inclusiveness is on the table – but not yet a full reality

• Transparency drive starting to show results – but these need to be geared towards countries’ needs

• Countries increasingly own monitoring – need to support data quality and providers’ country engagement

Commitments → action → behaviour change

• Monitoring spurs actions and reinforces accountability – use what we have and make it work even better…

Crafting evidence-based key messages

• Is progress happening? Are we on track to meet our targets?

• What are the key success factors for progress?

• What actions/commitments needed to address the challenges at country, region, and global levels?

• What are key messages for Mexico HLM?