1 / 55

Session 6 Indicators clinics

This resource explores the extent of use of country-owned results frameworks by providers of development cooperation, in line with global targets set for 2015. It defines country results frameworks, examines how their use is measured, and discusses the importance of aligning interventions with national development strategies.

sfarmer
Download Presentation

Session 6 Indicators clinics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Session 6Indicators clinics UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team www.effectivecooperation.org

  2. Clinic AIndicators 1, 9b, 8

  3. Ownership and resultsExtent of use of country-owned results frameworks by providers of development co-operation INDICATOR 1 Global target for 2015:all providers of development co-operation use country-owned results frameworks in preparing their interventions

  4. Background INDICATOR 1 • Objectives of the indicator • Paris, Accra and Busan called for relying on partner country results frameworks and M&E systems in order to “increase the focus on development results that meet developing countries’ priorities”. • Underpinning commitments • 2011 - Busan commitment called for the adoption of transparent, country-led results frameworks as a common tool among all concerned actors to assess performance of development cooperation efforts, using indicators drawn from the country’s development priorities and goals. • Development cooperation providers also agreed to “minimise the use of additional frameworks, refraining from requesting the introduction of performance indicators that were not consistent with countries’ national development strategies”

  5. INDICATOR 1 Definitions Country Results Frameworks (CRFs): A country’s approach to results and its associated M&E systems, focusing on performance and achievement of development results. They include at least agreed objectives, and results indicators (e.g. output, outcome, impact indicators), with targets to measure progress in achieving them. They are often broadly stated in national development strategies and specified in more detail in government planning documents at the sector level. Results indicators: Measure the effect of the program/project. While results indicators generally encompass output, outcome and impact indicators, this indicator focuses on outcome indicators (and only on output indicators when the project results framework does not include outcome indicators)

  6. INDICATOR 1 Focus on use of Country Results Frameworks (complemented by country context info) • 1a. How is “use of CRFs” being measured? • 1b. How is the “country context” assessed? • Brief qualitative self-assessment by the national co-ordinator; • Complemented by: • Evidence from section 1a; • A quick mapping of existing planning tools. For each new dev. project (2015) above US$ 1 million in the country Objectives/Focus Gov. Sector Plans Results Indicators % Sector Planning RFs Indicator Sources % Use of Gov. Sources Final Evaluation Gov. Participation

  7. INDICATOR 1 Measurement of Extent of Use of CRFs (1a) • National coordinators • Identify the list of new projects approved in 2015 in the country which are equal or above US$ 1 million. • Emails a survey link to all relevant providers to report on those specific projects • Providers: Receive the link and provide information on the projects: • Descriptive fields (name, sector, amount, etc) • Assessment fields: • Whether the project objective/focus is aligned with [sector] planning tools (+provides link to reference) • Percentage of results indicators drawn from these planning tools (+provides link to reference) • Percentage of results indicators that rely on sources of data from the government to track progress • Whether the project has a final evaluation with government participation Refer to guide Qp1 to Qp10

  8. INDICATOR 1 Measurement of Extent of Use of CRFs (2) • National coordinators • Using online survey tool: Can access to providers’ responses as they are posted (and see the progress made in real time). • Using country spreadsheet: Will receive responses when the final excel files are submitted by providers back to national coordinators. • Validates and aggregates the data to answer the questions: Qg1. What is the share of new interventions that draw their objectives/development focus from government-led results frameworks, plans and strategies? Qg2. What is the share of results indicators included in the interventions’ results framework/logical framework that draw on results indicators from existing government-led results frameworks, plans and strategies? Qg3. What is the share of results indicators that rely on sources of data provided by existing country-led monitoring systems or statistics? Qg4. What is the share of new interventions that plan a final (ex-post) evaluation supported by the government?

  9. INDICATOR 1 Descriptive assessment of CRF approach (1b) • In addition to the quantitative scores, national coordinators are invited to provide a brief descriptive assessment of the current degree of development of national planning and M&E systems (1b) Qg5. Briefly describe the main characteristics of the country’s results framework or alternative similar priority-setting mechanisms that the country uses to set development goals and targets (max. 500 words) • Follow guiding questions (see p. 44 in guide) to develop your response • Also: • Use the inputs from the first part of the indicator (1a) to inform your response, if useful; • Mark existing planning documents described in p. 44.

  10. Use and strengthening of country systems9b. Use of developing country PFM and procurement systems INDICATOR 9 Global target for 2015: reduce the gap by 2/3 when the quality of PFM system (9a) is equal or above 5, reduce the gap by 1/3 when the quality of PFM systems (9a) is in between 3.5 and 4.5 (baseline 2010)

  11. INDICATOR 9 Preliminary remark Indicator 9 breaks down into 2 dimensions: • 9a: Quality of developing country PFM and procurement systems Based on the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), which offers a measure of the quality of a developing country’s budget and financial system. The UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team will use existing data from one of the CPIA’s criterion (i.e. indicator 13) to assess Indicator 9a. • 9b: Use of developing country PFM and procurement systems The monitoring of this indicator will happen at the country level, under the leadership of the national co-ordinator. The 2015 global target for indicator 9b varies according to 9a  This session focuses on 9b.

  12. INDICATOR 9b Definitions National systems for the management of funds:systems established in the general legislation (and related regulations) of the country and implemented in the line management functions of the government. Use of PFM and procurement systems: No particular development cooperation modalities automatically qualify as using country PFM and procurement systems. Most modalities including project support can be designed to use country PFM and procurement systems. Indicator 9b is built around a set of criteria to help determine when providers are – or are not – using country PFM and procurement systems.

  13. Background INDICATOR 9b • Objectives of the indicator • Measure provider’s use of developing countries’ PFM and procurement systems • Incentivise • strengthening of developing countries’ systems (by using the country’s own institutions and systems, providers will contribute to strengthen these institutions and systems and transaction costs will be reduced); • increased accountability of countries vis-à-vis their citizens and parliamentarians regarding the use of development cooperation funding. • Underpinning commitments • 2011 - Busan commitment to use country systems as the default approach for development co-operation in support of activities managed by the public sector (§19a). – reaffirming commitments from Paris (§21,26) and Accra(§15).

  14. How is it measured? INDICATOR 9b Note: The methodology does NOT change compared to the first monitoring round (2013-14) and comes from the Paris Declaration Survey Required data The national coordinator collects the following data from providers: (For each provider of development co-operation) In the reporting year of reference, how much development co-operation funding disbursed for the government sector used… • Qp15. …national budget executionprocedures (USD)? • Qp16. …national financial reportingprocedures (USD)? • Qp17. …national auditing procedures (USD)? • Qp18. …national procurement systems (USD)? A set of criteria can help providers determine whether they are (or not) using PFM and procurement systems (detailed in Guide) Measurement: Note: Qp12 (=total funds disbursed for the government sector) is used to calculate indicator 5a

  15. Highlights from the 2013-14 monitoring round INDICATOR 9b • In 2013, across all reporting countries, 49% of disbursement for the government sector used PFM and procurement systems (the most used component being budget execution) • This aggregated data shows no change for the 38 countries that participated both in the 2010 Paris Survey and in the 2014 monitoring, and it is still below the 57% target • Note: it was difficult to draw general conclusions on the correlation between the relationship between quality (9a)of PFM and procurement systems and their use (9b)by providers

  16. Gender equality and women’s empowermentPercentage of countries with systems that track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment INDICATOR 8 Global target for 2015: All developing countries have systems that track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment

  17. INDICATOR 8 Definitions Systems to track allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment: Processes and procedures in place to plan, approve, allocate and monitor public expenditures at the national and sector level in a way that ensures that expenditures are targeted appropriately to benefit both women and men. They can include gender budget statements, classifiers, gender markers. The system in place is overseen by a governmental body, in most cases the Ministry of finance , that considers gender impact in budget decisions. Allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment: Resources allocated at sector and local level to actions: • That specifically target only women and girls (direct allocation) • That target both women and men equally, but gender equality is a specific objective (direct allocations) • Where gender is mainstreamed (indirect allocations)

  18. Background INDICATOR 8 • Objectives of the indicator • Measure gov. efforts to track & make public allocations for gender equality • Incentivise (1) further efforts to collect, disseminate and harmonise data disaggregated by sex; (2) use of the data to inform policy decisions and guide investments; (3) targeting of public expenditures appropriately to benefit both women and men. • Underpinning commitments • 2011 - Busan commitment to accelerate and deepen efforts to collect, disseminate, harmonise and make full use of data disaggregated by sex to inform policy decision and guide investments, ensuring that public expenditures are targeted appropriately to benefit both women and men. • This indicator has been developed by UN WOMEN, in collaboration with the OECD-DAC Network on Gender Equality (GENDERNET)

  19. How is it measured (1/2)? INDICATOR 8 Note: The methodology does NOT change compared to the first monitoring round (2013-14) Required data: The national coordinator reports on the following 4 questions: • Qg14. Is there an official government statement on a system for tracking allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment? Yes/No • Qg15. Are allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment systematically tracked? Yes/No • Qg16. Is there leadership and oversight of the tracking system by the central government unit in charge of public expenditures? Yes/No • Qg17. Is gender equality focussed budget information publically available (e.g. through Parliamentary oversight and civil society scrutiny, publications, websites or other means)? Yes/No Measurement: A country is considered to have a system for tracking allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment in place when the response to at least one out of the first three questions is “yes”, and when the response to the forth question is “Yes”

  20. How is it measured (2/2)? INDICATOR 8 • Additionally, countries may indicate if they: • Use gender specific indicators and data disaggregated by sex to inform budget allocations and decisions at sector and/or local/district level • Conduct regular impact assessments of budget and expenditures which address how women and men benefit respectively from government expenditures

  21. Highlights from the 2013-14 monitoring round INDICATOR 8 • This indicator filled an important accountability gap in allowing for the first comparable assessment of the existence of systems to track and make public allocations on gender equality. • In 2013, out of 35 reporting countries for ind.8 , 12 had a system in place. • The existence of an official government statement on a system for tracking allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment (Qg14) was the most frequently observed. Number of countries with systems in place to track and make public gender allocations • This remains well below the 100% target, but it shows some progress since the PD Survey in 2010 (in 2013, an additional 11 countries had MA reviews despite stricter criteria used for defining MA review processes)

  22. Clinic BIndicators 5, 6, 7

  23. Annual and medium-term Predictability Proportion of development co-operation funding:5a. disbursed within the fiscal year within which it was scheduled by providers of development co-operation5b. covered by indicative forward spending plans provided at country level INDICATOR 5 Global target for 2015: 5a. Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development co-operation flows to the government sector not reported on government’s budget, with at least 85% reported on budget (Baseline year 2010) 5b. Halve the gap – Halve the proportion of development co-operation not covered by indicative forward spending plans (baseline 2013)

  24. Background INDICATOR 5 • Objectives of the indicator • Measure the predictability of development co-operation within a reporting year (5a) and at medium term (5b) • Contribute to increased ownership over development policies and reforms, by incentivising: • more accurate recording of development co-operation funding in national systems, • better planning and allocation of resources within and across sectors, • better implementation of national development strategies over the medium term, • Greater transparency and accountability. • Underpinning commitments • 2005 - Paris commitment to disburse aid in a timely and predictable fashion according to agreed schedules (PD §26), reaffirmed in Busan • 2011 - Busan commitment to provide available, regular, timely rolling three to five-year indicative forward expenditure and/or implementation plans as agreed in Accra (Busan §24a).

  25. How is it measured (1/2)? INDICATOR 5 INDICATOR 5a. Annual predictability Note: The methodology does NOT change compared to the first monitoring round (2013-14), and comes from the Paris Declaration Survey Required data: The national coordinator collects the following data from providers: (For each provider of development co-operation) • Qp11. How much development co-operation fundingdid you disburse at country-level in the reporting year of reference? USD ________ • Qp12. How much of this was for the government sector in the reporting year of reference? USD ________ • Qp13. How much development co-operation funding for the government sector did you schedule for disbursement at country-level in the reporting year of reference? USD ________ • Qp14. For reference purposes only, how much development co-operation funding for the government sector did you disburse through other providers (funds which are not captured in your responses to Qp11 – Qp13 above) at the country level in the reporting year of reference? USD ________ Measurement:

  26. How is it measured (2/2)? INDICATOR 5 INDICATOR 5b. Medium-term predictability Note: The methodology does NOT change compared to the first monitoring round (2013-14) Required data: The national coordinator reports on the following questions: Has the provider of development co-operation made available a comprehensive forward expenditure and/or implementation plan setting out expected development co-operation flows in... Qg5. Fiscal year ending 2016? (Yes/No) _____ Qg6. Fiscal year ending 2017? (Yes/No) _____ Qg7. Fiscal year ending 2018? (Yes/No) _____ [For all questions if “Yes”, report 1; if “No” report 0] To qualify as a yes, the Forward expenditure plan needs to meet 3 criteria • made available by the provider in written or electronic form • set out indicative information on future spending and/or implementation activities in the country, • present amounts by year (or in greater detail, e.g. by quarter or month) using the developing country’s fiscal year. Measurement: For country C for 1, 2 and 3 years ahead (y= 1, 2, 3) Cy = average of Qg5, Qg6 and Qg7 respectively across providers, weighted by the volume of the providers’ development cooperation disbursed in the reference year used for Qp11.

  27. Highlights from the 2013-14 monitoring round (1/2) INDICATOR 5 INDICATOR 5a. Annual Predictability • In 2013, 84% of scheduled development co-operation funding for the government sector was spent according to schedule. This represents a positive trend compared with 2010 (79%), but further progress is still needed to reach the target of 90%. • Aggregate results hide important variations across countries: results for individual countries show discrepancies in both directions, with funding gaps and compared to what was originally scheduled, or disbursements over schedule Actual disbursements as a proportion of scheduled disbursements in the reporting countries

  28. Highlights from the 2013-14 monitoring round (2/2) INDICATOR 5 INDICATOR 5a. Medium Term Predictability • In 2013, the availability of forward information decreased over the planning horizon: on average, 83% of estimated total funding were covered by forward-spending plans for the fiscal year ending in 2014, decreasing to 70% for 2015 and to only 57% for 2016 • To achieve the 2015 target of halving the proportion of funding not covered by indicative forward-spending plans, providers need to collectively ensure that by 2015 forward expenditure plans cover 92% of estimated funding for 2016, 85% for 2017 and 79% for 2018. Estimated proportion of total funding covered by forward expenditure plans

  29. Aid on BudgetPercentage of development co-operation funding scheduled for disbursement that is recorded in the annual budgets approved by the legislatures of developing countries INDICATOR 6 Global target for 2015: Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development co-operation flows to the government sector not reported on government’s budget, with at least 85% reported on budget (Baseline year 2010)

  30. INDICATOR 6 Definitions Annual budget: It is the annual budget as it was originally approved by the legislature. In order to support discipline and credibility of the budget preparation process, subsequent revisions to the original annual budget – even when approved by the legislature – should NOT be recorded under this indicator. Because: • it is the credibility of the original approved budget that is important to measure • Revisions to the annual budget in many cases are retroactive Development cooperation funding: For the purpose of this indicator, these funds focus on disbursements for the government sector (i.e. disbursed in the context of an agreement with administrations (ministries, departments, agencies, municipalities) authorised to receive revenue or undertake expenditures on behalf of central government. Includes: works, goods or services delegated to subcontracted entities (e.g. NGOs, semi-autonomous government agencies, private companies)

  31. Background INDICATOR 6 • Objectives of the indicator • Measure budget comprehensiveness: Capture the extent to which budgets cover aid resources expected at the time of the budget formulation process • Incentivise better ownership, alignment and accountability, by • a better knowledge of aid flows; • better alignment with priorities as outlined in the budget participation, • more accurate and comprehensive budget reports, • greater transparency in reporting by providers, • the possibility for parliaments to examine aid modalities, activities and achievements • Underpinning commitments • 2008 - Accra commitment to facilitate parliamentary oversight by implementing greater transparency in PFM, including public disclosure of budgets (AAA §24). • 2011 - Busan commitment to strengthen the role of parliaments in the oversight of development processes (§21a).

  32. How is it measured (1/2)? INDICATOR 6 Note: The methodology does NOT change compared to the first monitoring round (2013-14), and comes from the Paris Declaration Survey Required data: The national coordinator reports on the following question: (For each provider of development co-operation) • Qg8. How much estimated development co-operation funding was recorded in the annual budget of the reporting year of reference as grants, revenue or loans (concessional and non-concessional)? USD ______ Measurement: Note: Qp13 (= Dvpcoop funding scheduled for disbursement in year n by coop providers) is used to calculate indicator 5a

  33. Highlights from the 2013-14 monitoring round INDICATOR 6 • In 2013, 64% of scheduled development co-operation funding for the government sector was reflected in developing countries national budgets. This represents a positive trend compared with 2010 (57%), but remains far from the target of 85%. • Aggregate results hide important variations across countries: results for individual countries show discrepancies in both directions, with national budgets both under-estimating and over-estimating development cooperation funds Funding recorded in developing country budgets as a proportion of providers' scheduled disbursements

  34. Mutual accountabilityPercentage of countries that undertake inclusive mutual assessments of progress in implementing agreed commitments INDICATOR 7 Global target for 2015: All developing countries have inclusive mutual assessment reviews in place

  35. INDICATOR 7 Definition of Mutual assessment reviews • National exercises that engage both developing country authorities and providers of dev. cooperation at senior level in a mutual performance review • The reviews should ideally be conducted through inclusive dialogues involving: • Government ministries (incl. line ministries, relevant departments, central and local levels) • Providers of dev.cooperation (bilateral, multilateral and global initiatives) • “non-executive” stakeholders ( parliamentarians, private sector, civil society) • The assessment should be done regularly and can be supplemented by independent/impartial reviews

  36. Background INDICATOR 7 • Objectives of the indicator • Measure progress made by developing countries in undertaking mutual assessment reviews • Incentivise (1) stronger and more inclusive accountability mechanisms at country level; (2) participation of all stakeholders in mutual assessment of progress. • Underpinning commitments • 2005 - Paris commitment to jointly assess mutual progress in implementing aid effectiveness commitments (PD §50). • 2008 - Accra commitment to ensure mutual assessment reviews in place in all countries, with stronger parliamentary scrutiny and citizen engagement (AAA §24b). • 2011 - Busan commitment to encourage participation of all development co-operation actors in these processes (§18d); agree country-led frameworks to monitor progress and promote mutual accountability (§35a). • The indicator draws on questions from the UN-DESA national Mutual Accountabilty survey. The national co-ordinator is encouraged to liaise with the UN country Team (UNDP) to explore opportunities to synchronise the assessment of indicator 7 and the work around the MA survey

  37. How is it measured? INDICATOR 7 Note: The methodology does NOT change compared to the first monitoring round (2013-14), and comes from the Paris Declaration Survey. Required data: The national coordinator reports on the following 5 questions: • Qg9.Is there an aid or partnership policy or strategy in place defining a country’s development co-operation priorities? Yes/No • Qg10.Are there specific country-level targets for effective development co-operation for both the developing country government and providers of development co-operation? Yes/No • Qg11. Has an assessment towards these targets been undertaken jointly by the developing country government and providers at senior level in the past two years? Yes/No • Qg12. Have non-executive stakeholders (e.g. CSOs, Parliaments, private sector) and local government been actively involved in such reviews? Yes/No • Qg13. Have comprehensive results of such exercises been made public in a timely manner? Yes/No Measurement: A country is considered to have a mutual assessment of progress in place when the response to at least four of the above questions is “Yes”

  38. Highlights from the 2013-14 monitoring round INDICATOR 7 • In 2013, 59% of reporting countries had mutual assessment reviews in place The proportion of countries meeting the criteria for mutual assessment reviews: • This remains well below the 100% target, but it shows some progress since the PD Survey in 2010 (in 2013, an additional 11 countries had MA reviews despite stricter criteria used for defining MA review processes)

  39. Clinic CIndicators 2 and 3

  40. CSO enabling environment and development effectivenessExtent to which: - governments and providers contribute to an enabling environment for CSOs - CSOs are implementing development effectiveness principles in their own operations INDICATOR 2 Global target for 2015:Continued progress over time

  41. INDICATOR 2 Definitions CSO enabling environment (CSO EE): the political, financial, legal and policy context that affects how CSOs carry out their work. It can include: • Law, policy and practice respecting freedom of association, the right to operate without state interference, the right to pursue self-defined objectives, and the right to seek and secure funding from national & international sources • Institutionalised, inclusive and transparent multi-stakeholder dialogue fora • Effective support from development providers to empower CSOs CSO development effectiveness (CSO DE): CSO DE principles, also known as Istanbul principles, are internationally agreed principles meant to guide the work and practices of CSOs. Indicator 2 focuses on one of these principles, according to which CSOs are effective as development actors when they practice transparency and accountability. Multi-stakeholder dialogue: A policy process or development initiative that brings together two or more stakeholder groups (government, providers of development co-operation, CSOs, private sector, etc.), in order to establish a dialogue on matters of interest for the different parties, and on the basis of equality among the stakeholders.

  42. Background INDICATOR 2 • Objectives of the indicator • Assess the extent to which governments and providers contribute to an enabling environment for CSOs and to which CSOs are in alignment with development effectiveness principles. • Collect qualitative information at country level, to inform a global snapshot on the state of play of CSO EE and CSO DE (2016 progress report) • Spark multi-stakeholder dialogue (engaging governments, CSOs, providers, parliamentarians) at country, regional and global levels • Incentivize behaviour change of all stakeholders for effective implementation of Busan commitments • Underpinning commitments • 2011 - Busan commitment to enable CSOs to exercise their roles as independent development actors, with a particular focus on EE (§22a) and to encourage CSOs to implement practices that strengthen their accountability and their contribution to DE (§22b)

  43. How is it measured (1/5)? INDICATOR 2 Note: This is a new indicator. The methodology was refined in close collaboration with the Task team on CSO DE and EE (incl. CPDE), and light tested in El Salvador and Rwanda. Required data: The national coordinator reports on the following questions, in consultation with representatives from providers and CSOs (16 qualitative questions in four thematic modules + guiding questions detailed in the guide to facilitate responses) MODULE 1. Space for multi-stakeholder dialogue on national development policies • Qg+1. Are CSOs consulted by the government in the design, implementation and monitoring of national development policies? • Qg+2. Do CSOs have the right to access government information? • Qg+3. Are there resources and/or training opportunities for addressing capacity building of all stakeholders (including government, CSOs and co-operation providers) to engage meaningfully in multi-stakeholder dialogue?

  44. How is it measured (2/5)? INDICATOR 2 MODULE 2. CSO DE: accountability and transparency • Qg+4. In practice, are there CSO-managed processes in place to address transparency and multiple accountabilities in CSO operations? • Qg+5. Do CSO-initiated coordination processes exist to facilitate consolidated and inclusive CSO representation in policy dialogue (e.g. umbrella organisation, CSO network, consultation practices)? • Qg+6. Do mechanisms exist to facilitate coordination on programming among CSOs (collaboration to optimise impact and avoid duplication), and with other development actors? • Qg+7. Are there other significant initiatives related to CSO development effectiveness principles being implemented at the country level? • Qg+8. Do CSOs report annually to government on the basic finances, sectors of support, and main geographic areas of involvement in development?

  45. How is it measured (3/5)? INDICATOR 2 MODULE 3. Official development co-operation with CSOs • Qg+9. Do providers of development co-operation consult with CSOs on their development policy/programming in a systematic way? • Qg+10. Are providers promoting a CSO enabling environment in their co-operation with civil society? • Qg+11. Is the promotion of a CSO enabling environment an agenda item in providers’ policy dialogue with partner governments? • Qg+12: Do providers share information on their CSO support with the government? MODULE 4. Legal and regulatory environment • Qg+13. Is there a recognition of and respect for CSO freedom (association, assembly and expression), in the Constitution and more broadly in policy, law and regulation? • Qg+14. Is the legal and regulatory environment enabling for CSO formation, registration and operation? • Qg+15. Does the legal and regulatory environment facilitate access to resources for CSOs? • Qg+16. Does the legal and regulatory environment marginalise certain groups?

  46. How is it measured (4/5)? INDICATOR 2 Process: • National co-ordinator coordinates data collection and validation process, in liaison with • colleagues from relevant institutions/ministries • focal points from CSOs, providers (and possibly parliamentarians) • National co-ordinator is encouraged to: • convene a multi-stakeholder dialogue (kick-off), • seek CSOs and providers’ feedback on the questionnaire (focal points are invited to consult with their respective constituencies, and to provide consolidated feedback to the national co-ordinator) • re-convene a multi-stakeholder dialogue at the end of the process to jointly discuss and validate the findings, before sending them to the Joint Support Team. • To the extent possible, the national co-ordinator will seek consensus in the responses. Where agreement is not reached, focal points are invited to flag diverging views to the national co-ordinator. The level of agreement of each stakeholder group regarding will be registered in a table attached to the questionnaire

  47. How is it measured (5/5)? INDICATOR 2 Process: • Use of existing coordination platforms is encouraged to support the process and institutionalise the dialogue • Use of a consultant Governments can decide to use the services of a consultant, in order to: • Avoid overburdening the national co-ordinator • Enable a neutral and balanced assessment which effectively captures all stakeholder’s views The UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team can, to the extent possible, facilitate this process through technical support: • TORs • List of possible consultants • Technical guidance to steer the consultant’s work

  48. Engagement of private sector in developmentQuality of public private dialogue INDICATOR 3 Global target for 2015:Continued progress over time

  49. INDICATOR 3 Definitions Private sector: includes a wide range of actors such as domestic and foreign companies, large companies and SMEs, professional organisations, intermediary organisations. • The assessment of indicator 3 should cover a representative sample of private sector actors that play a different role in different sectors and industries of the country’s market (i.e. the largest sectors in the economy – both in terms of relative GDP contribution (e.g. often dominant business actors in export-oriented economic sectors) and employment generation (e.g. often SMEs and/or informal entrepreneurs). Public-private dialogue: An engagement mechanism to ensure more inclusive and sustainable policy reforms through a structured and participatory reform process. Structured interaction between the public and private sector in promoting the right conditions for private sector development, improvements to the business climate, and poverty reduction. • PPDs are diverse, with a broad scope of activity (cross-cutting or sector-specific issues; rural or urban, national or sub-national levels). Initiatives to promote PPD consist in most cases in establishing a combination of technical working groups, a secretariat and a high-level oversight structure. • Examples of PPDs: the Vietnam Business Forum, the National Competitiveness Council in the Philippines.

  50. Background INDICATOR 3 • Objectives of the indicator • Assess the quality of PPD at the country level (quality of PPD as a proxy to capture private sector engagement in improving public policies) • Collect qualitative information at country level, to inform a global snapshot on the state of play of PPD (2016 progress report) • Spark multi-stakeholder dialogue (engaging governments, private sector, CSOs (incl. trade unions), providers, parliamentarians) at country, regional and global levels • Incentivize inclusive dialogue with the private sector for building a policy environment conducive to growth and sustainable development • Underpinning commitments • 2011 - Busan commitment to enable the participation of the private sector in the design and implementation of development policies and strategies to foster sustainable growth and poverty reduction (§32b) • This indicator builds on tools developed by the World Bank

More Related