Global Partnership Monitoring Framework Key findings

1. Global Partnership Monitoring FrameworkKey findings Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop Seoul, 10-11 March 2014

2. 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”

3. Crafting evidence-based key messages • Is progress happening? Are we on track to meetourtargets? • What are the key successfactors for progress? • What actions/commitmentsneeded to address the challenges at country, region, and global levels? • Whatlessoneslearned for future monitoring to support country implementation, monitoring and accountability?

4. OWNERSHIP AND RESULTS • Use of country results frameworks • Aid on budget • Quality and use of country systems • Aid untying

5. Ownership and Results – state of play • Country ownership continues to strengthen. • Sustained achievements on strengthening and using country systems. • No overall change since2010 on quality of country systems (CPIA) • 49% of cooperation use national systems; no significant change since2010 (15 countries above 60%, 14 countries saw an increase; 22 countries saw a decrease) • Weakcorrelationbetweenquality of systems and use • A slightimprovement on aid on budget • 64% in 2013 (compared to 57% in 2010) • 7 countries have reached the target of 85% • Important variations acrosscountries; Notable recording of funds on budget beyondwhatwasscheduled; Fund inclusion gaps alsoexist

6. 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 • Preliminaryconclusions: great variation among providers; but consistent provider behavioracross countries • Continousprogress on untyingaid: 79% in 2012 (compared to 77% in 2010)

7. Ownership and Results – way forward • Results: What are the operationalprocedures and instruments thatneed to be put in place for furtherprogress – use of resultsframework, country systems, etc. • Country Systems: How canwepromotegreater use of a system, encouraging providers to implementtheiroperationalpolicies (most have updated the policies on this)? • Aid on Budget: Continous challenges– budget preparationprocess continues to behampered. Greaterneed for transparency at country level? How candevelopmentcooperationbeintegratedbetter to informcountry’sdevelopment planning and budgetingprocess? • Untying: somereportinginconsistenciesremain: isit a political or technical issue? Can greater value for money beachievedthrough international bidding for the remainingactivitieswhich are tied?

8. Inclusive partnerships • Enabling environment for CSOs • Private sector engagement • Gender equality

9. 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.

10. Inclusive Partnerships – state of play • Increasednumber of countries to ensurethat public expenditureistargettingbothwomen 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

11. Inclusive Partnerships – wayforward • CSOsenablingenvironment: How to promote country level dialogue on the CSO enablingenvironmentin existingaccountabilityframeworksand provide a basis to feedinto the CIVICUS EEI? • Privatesector engagement: Need to identifywhat’s the best way of takingthisindicatorforward • Gender equality: what support needed to ensure that countries have such systems in place?

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

13. 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.

14. Transparency and Accountability – state of play • 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

15. Transparency and Accountability – WayForward • 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.

16. Observations from the process • Strong country leadership, increasedreliance on countries’ ownsystems and data • country leadership not alwaysmatchedwith provider engagement • The reverse side of the coin: whoowns the data • Growingdiversityamongreportingproviders • New indicators: • Interesttowardsgenderequality, results and transparency pilots • More needed to define measurable actions for CSO enabling environment and private sector engagement Overall: Monitoring frameworkisuseful and relevant to support country efforts and dialogue. More efforts to focus on country-process

17. Emerging Key Messages: Glass HalfFull 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…

18. Crafting evidence-based key messages • Is progress happening? Are we on track to meetourtargets? • What are the key successfactors for progress? • What actions/commitmentsneeded to address the challenges at country, region, and global levels? • What are key messages for Mexico HLM?