Session 3
Stock take of the first monitoring round
Key findings
Lessons learned
UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team
www.effectivecooperation.org
First monitoring round
• When? 2013 – 2014
• Who?
 46 Developing Countries participated (incl. LICs and MICs
from Africa, Asia, Pacific, Latin America)
 Data was reported for 77 co-operation providers (incl.
bilateral & multilateral agencies + global funds) and covered 46%
of country programmable aid
First monitoring round
• How were findings used?
 Global Progress Report (April 2014)
 Key messages informed policy dialogue at Mexico
HLM
 At country and regional levels: varied use
 Countries including the results in their own
development cooperation reports
Cambodia, Nepal
 Regional reports
PIFs (use of monitoring data to inform peer reviews
in the Pacific)
AP-DEF (use of monitoring data to inform the AsiaPacific EDC Reports)
Key findings: Overarching political narrative “A glass half full”
•
Core ‘aid effectiveness’ gains broadly sustained in a difficult aid climate –
a good basis for further progress
•
Country ownership continues to strengthen – gains made in 2010 around
strengthening and using country systems broadly sustained; investments in
strengthening country systems are paying off in the long term.
•
Inclusiveness is translating into stronger recognition and engagement of
non-state development actors, and commitment to ensure that development
benefits both men and women – but more is needed to make inclusive
partnerships a full reality.
•
Transparency drive starting to show results – but these
need to be geared towards countries’ needs
Key findings: where are the bottlenecks?
Ownership and results
•
•
Stronger country-level dialogue needed to promote alignment with the priorities and
systems of developing countries.
Need to increase the use of country systems (no change since 2010).
Inclusive partnerships
•
•
•
Moving towards a common understanding of a CSO EE; promoting country-level
dialogue in existing accountability frameworks.
Need to further understand the requirements for meaningful Public-Private Dialogue to
take place.
Development cooperation architecture is still skewed towards a government-centred,
North-South perspective.
Transparency and accountability
•
•
•
Transparency efforts respond effectively to local needs and country contexts.
Medium-term predictability remains a real challenge.
Targeted efforts are needed to make mutual accountability processes and reviews
more transparent and inclusive.
Lessons learned regarding the monitoring process
Country-led monitoring: the way to go
•
Importance of developing country government leadership
•
Drawing on existing data and monitoring systems and frameworks: more or
less the case, depending on country context:
 A significant number of countries used existing government partnerships and
monitoring mechanisms
 Many countries set up an ad hoc process for the GPEDC monitoring
•
The exercise led to increased dialogue and transparency between the
government and providers at the country level
Room for improvement:
Participants called for:
•
Increased participation
•
Better sensitisation ahead and of and throughout the process (incl.
towards providers at HQ land country level)
•
A more structured process (+ more time for data collection and validation)
•
More efforts to support the use and dissemination of findings
How has the process and framework been improved for
the 2015-16 monitoring round? (1/2)
Stronger process streamlining
•
•
Clearer roles and processes
More time allocated for:
training
country-level data collection &
validation (6 months)
and dissemination & dialogue around
findings
More inclusive process
•
•
Earlier engagement and greater country participation
Providers of development co-operation, CSOs and other
stakeholders are being engaged from early on and throughout
the process.
How has the process and framework been improved for
the 2015-16 monitoring round? (1/2)
Strengthened methodologies for the four new indicators
• Extensive consultation process for the review of each methodology
• Final review by the Monitoring Advisory Group
Greater support for the implementation
• Three regional workshops, online Helpdesk, targeted support, user-friendly
tools, etc.
Broader use of monitoring findings
• More time allocated to pre-HLM country level dissemination and
discussions.
• Country profiles & data to inform country-level policy dialogue.
• Further engagement of regional platforms for regional assessments (e.g.
NEPAD, PIFs, AP-DEF ).
• User-friendly data visualisation tools and formats, policy briefs, actionable
recommendations.
ত োমোকে ধন্যবোদ
ありがとう
Gracias
Thank you
Dankjewel
Hvala
Merci
Asante
‫مننه‬
‫شكرا‬
Obrigado
Salamat