Post-Busan monitoring results for Ethiopia
How was data collected in Ethiopia?
Updated 15 May 2014
Data for five indicators was collected
in Ethiopia:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Aid predictability
Aid on budget
Mutual accountability
Gender equality
Use of country systems
- Audit
- Procurement
- Financial reporting
- National budget execution
Government decided that the
reference year would be Ethiopian
Fiscal Year 2004 (roughly July 2011 –
June 2012) so that data used was
already validated by partners.
The data for these indicators was
initially drawn from the country’s aid
management platform in August
2013. To complement the AMP,
development partners provided
data, government focal points were
consulted, and government budget
documents were also used. For
countries or agencies with no
available data on the AMP, data
reported by partners for this specific
exercise were used.
A validation exercise took place in
November 2013 with members of
the Development Effectiveness
Taskforce (Italy, EU, World Bank,
UNDP,
and
MoFED).
Crossreferencing took place throughout
the monitoring period between the
Ministry of Finance and Economic
Development
(MoFED)
and
development partners, facilitated by
the DAG secretariat.
The 2013 monitoring
exercise captured 82%
of Ethiopia’s ODA
Table 1: How do providers in
Ethiopia compare relative to their
performance in other countries in
2013?
AfDB
Australia
Austria
BADEA
Canada
EU
Finland
France
Germany
Global
Fund
IFAD
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Kuwait
Norway
OFID
Saudi
Arabia
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
United
Nations
United
States
World
Bank
# 5a 5b 6 9b
18    
18    
9    
6    
21    
45    
12    
23    
33    
17




21
7
11
41
20
9
13
13
































6




13
16








19




44




32




40




# refers to the number of countries in the
survey in which the provider was present.
5a: Annual predictability
5b: Medium-term predictability
6: Aid on budget
9b: Use of country PFM and procurement
systems
Page 2 of 5
Table 2: Comparing 2013
monitoring results in Ethiopia with
2010
Indicator
5a. Annual
predictability
5b. Mediumterm
predictability
6. Aid on
budget
7. Mutual
accountability
9a. Quality of
PFM and
procurement
systems
9b. Use of
country PFM
and
procurement
systems
10. Aid untied
2010
88%
2013
89%
Status

85%
(new in
2013)
49%
66%

Yes
Yes

3.5
3.5

66%
51%

70%
87%

Page 3 of 5
Table 3: How does the quality of
ODA to Ethiopia compare to the
global average in 2013?
Indicator
5a. Annual
predictability
5b. Mediumterm
predictability
6. Aid on
budget
9b. Use of
country PFM
and
procurement
systems
10. Aid untied
How is the quality of country systems
assessed?
3 dimensions are rated under criteria
13 on the quality of budgetary and
financial management:
comprehensive and credible budget
linked to policy priorities;
effective financial management
systems to ensure that the budget is
implemented as intended in a
controlled and predictable way; and
timely and accurate accounting and
fiscal reporting, including timely and
audited public accounts and effective
arrangements for follow-up.
Page 4 of 5
Ethiopia
avg.
Global
avg.
89%
84%
Above
85%
70%
Above
66%
63%
Above
51%
49%
Above
87%
79%
Above
Source: OECD/UNDP (2014), Making Development Co-operation More Effective: 2014 Progress Report, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Contact:
Mr. Dawit Ayele ([email protected]) or Ms. Emily Bosch ([email protected])
www.mofed.gov.et
www.dagethiopia.org
Page 5 of 5