AID & DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING AFTER BUSAN

1. AID & DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESSMONITORING AFTER BUSAN Kristiina Kuvaja Unit for Aid and Development Effectiveness and Financing EuropeAid (DEVCO A3)

2. Paris Monitoring as a background • Three monitoring rounds (2006, 2008, 2011) • Total of 13 indicators: • Ownership – 1 indicator • Alignment – 8 indicators • Harmonisation – 2 indicators • Managing for results – 1 indicator • Mutual accountability – 1 indicator • One set target achieved globally (coordinated support for capacity development). • Increased interest among partner countries: number of participating countries increased from 32 to 78.

3. Busan outcome document on the monitoring framework: • Country level: Accountability frameworks with indicators responding to specific needs. • Global level: Selective and relevant indicators and targets to monitor progress on rolling basis; arrangements will be reviewed in the context of post-MDG framework

4. Focus of Busan monitoring • Focus on Busan priority themes, not comprehensive coverage of all commitments. • Purpose beyond assessing progress • Supports accountability at global and local levels • Stimulates broad-based dialogue and learning • Focus in monitoring is on behaviour change.

5. Monitoring arrangements • Participation in monitoring takes place on a voluntary basis. • Data collection is based on the existing country level monitoring processes to the maximum extent and international sources of data. • Data is collected in connection to the Ministerial meetings.

6. Monitoring arrangements (cont.) • Core set of global indicators to ensure comparability • Menu of indicators to provide country level flexibility • Support provided by OECD/UNDP to support country level monitoring • At the country level participation of wide range of stakeholders (CSOs, local authorities, private sector,…) is encouraged.

7. Sources of data • Data collected at the country level and is aggregated to the global level • Use of country systems • Use of results frameworks • Data is collected from global source • Untying • Fragmentation • Qualitative sources of data used together with data collected with indicators.

8. Identified themes for global monitoring • PBIG has identified the following themes to be included into set of core indicators for global monitoring: • Results • Inclusive ownership and partnership • Transparency • Predictability • Accountability • Gender Equality • Capacity Development and Country systems • Fragmentation (tbc) • Monitoring and indicators should focus on a specific commitment stated in the Busan outcome document.

9. Indicators under discussion • Use of country-led results frameworks • Enabling environment for civil society • Environment for private sector development • Transparency • Predictability (annual, mid-term) • Aid is on budgets • Aid is captured in accounts • Mutual accountability • Gender equality • Quality of PFM systems • Quality and use of procurement systems • Programme-based approaches • Aid is untied • Aid is less fragmented

10. Open issues under PBIG discussion • Content and number of indicators as well as targets • The source of data (aggregation from country level or global source of data). • Synergies with indicators and monitoring of the New Deal. • Role of the emerging economies/South-South cooperation in monitoring.

11. Monitoring Busan time-bound commitments Busan outcome document contains time bound commitments in following themes: • Untying (2012) • Transparency (2012 › 2015) • Predictability (2013) • DoL, coordination (2013) • Proliferation of multilateral channels (2013) • Cross-country division of labour (2012) How do we monitor these commitments and how does it complement the global survey?