2018 Monitoring Round: Update on status and highlights 16th Steering Committee Meeting 30 November 2018, New York Presentation structure: Status of the current monitoring round (JST to present) Drivers of participation, and observed factors contributing to successful monitoring exercise (JST) Profile of participating countries, and current implementation status (JST) What’s Next, from here to SLM and beyond

Reinvigorating Effectiveness for the 2030 Agenda 11-12 September, Paris 190+ Participants, 80+ Countries Boosting 2018 monitoring round and shaping direction for 2019 SLM Effectiveness instilled in national policies & practice, countries are internalising the monitoring effort Challenging political climate for effectiveness agenda; must adapt to new modalities & contexts and communicate better GPEDC comparative advantage stems from equal footing and real-life lessons and data from country-level.

2018 Monitoring Round: Status and Highlights 1. Sustaining Global Reach: Country participation keeps growing Some examples of new countries joining Global Partnership monitoring: Antigua and Barbuda Bosnia and Herzegovina Cape Verde Equatorial Guinea Georgia Ghana Guinea Bissau Haiti Talking points: Emphasize that GPEDC monitoring is consolidating while gaining traction in all regions, with an increased # of participating partner countries over time, reaching about 86 countries for this round. Remind that this is a big achievement for GPEDC given the increasingly difficult international political climate since Nairobi. Highlight some of the countries that are running GPEDC monitoring since 2014, such as Bosnia, Georgia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Jordan or Montenegro. While they come from extremely different development contexts but they all found relevance in the monitoring exercise as a way to create the type of partnerships needed for the SDGs at country level. Jordan Montenegro Panama Saint Lucia Seychelles Sri Lanka West Bank and Gaza

2018 Monitoring Round: Status and Highlights 2. Factors Driving Participation Observed Factors Contributing to Successful Monitoring Exercise Contributors: Participation in previous exercises Relative importance of effective development co-operation management Ongoing country-led processes, such as voluntary national reviews or new development policies Deterrents: Electoral periods and political crises International isolation Weak administrative capacity + limited external support and engagement Institutionalization of process in country systems facilitates timely and comprehensive reporting Development partner support makes a difference for high participation levels of other partners and quality of multi-stakeholder dialogue Talking points (2) Inform that we are making efforts to better understand how can we be useful to countries and their partners, as to remain relevant. Highlight some of the contributing factors, such as: (1) prior participation, which adds value in following up, (2) importance of issues related to development cooperation, such as managing a broad set of development partners or ensuring that these resources (which are important for the government) are effectively managed and aligned to national development priorities, as well as (3) supporting ongoing country-led processes, such as strengthening partnership efforts for SDGs; SDG follow up and review, informing review and new development strategies or cooperation policies, national accountability mechanisms, and so on. Explain that we also find factors that prevent countries from participating, even when there is political will, such as: (1) Electoral processes, political transitions or crises, which creates temporary constraints for participation; (2) International sanctions regimes in some cases (e.g. North Korea, Iran, etc) [you can omit this point] (3) Situations in which weak administrative capacity by the partner government is not matched with donor engagement and support to the process Discuss the factors and hurdles that define the quality and inclusiveness of this decentralised country-led monitoring process: (1) Participation requires less effort and is more timely in countries with more institutionalised processes and sound information systems (most data and information readily available in their own systems, like in the Cambodia case). (2) Support to partner countries by a development partner at country level, either financially or helping on the coordination, is translated into broader participation of all the development community and higher quality multi-stakeholder dialogue and participation. This made a difference in 2016 and we are observing a similar differentiation in this round. (3) The level of participation and accuracy of the reported information is linked to the proactivity and commitment to the monitoring shown in practice by each actor at country level. Those partners increasing their commitment this time around are showing more and better data reported on their activities. But this requires sustained engagement and investment by all. Proactivity by all actors is helping ensure inclusive monitoring processes

2018 Monitoring Round: What’s Next 2. Profile of participating countries 3. Current Status: Starting the final validation phase for many participating countries Data gathering Validation Reporting Good mix of countries participating, across low and middle income countries engaged in the process, balanced mix in numbers. Relative shares we see that UMICs one third, LMICs two thirds, LICs 90% Looking from another perspective, all twenty G7+ countries are participating in this round. 92% of LDCs participate (Note, the 4 exceptions being: Djibouti, Eritrea, Lesotho and Zambia) - increased level of participation by upper middle income countries, Current status: At the moment, some countries are completing the data gathering process, with many countries already moving into the final validation phase During the validation phase, data is shared at country level and with development partners at headquarters level, to ensure broad ownership and awareness.

2018 Monitoring Round: What’s Next 4. Strategy for Global Influence Countries complete monitoring round GPEDC Progress Report Senior Level Meeting HLPF 2019 SDG Data Data 1 Profiles 2 Profiles 3 4 GPEDC evidence successfully anchored in the UN-led review, informing follow-up on SDGs and FFD. Now we want to ensure impact of this evidence; 2 challenges: one off report, structure doesn’t speak to various target groups rethought strategy: sequenced approach to build momentum towards SLM monitoring data released early on, to inform UN SG report SDGs, UN FfD Report, half of the VNRs to be presented at 2019 HLPF – kick off conversation on results! Three CHAPTERs Country profiles will deepen the country-deliberations Final section summarising the key messages and recommendations stemming from the GPEDC Senior-Level Meeting – SEPT HLPF - Aim: build momentum towards SLM, make it easier to use the results, and set a direction for the global effectiveness agenda going forward. QUESTION: How to ensure that SLM USES the results? Action January February March April May June July September Beyond