1. The Global Partnership Monitoring Framework Indicator on Use of Results Framework Seoul GP Annual Workshop Indicator Clinic 6 November 2014effectivecooperation.org

2. Indicator 1: Development Cooperation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities Busan Partnership agreement “where initiated by developing country, transparent, country-led and country-level results frameworks and platforms will be adopted as a common tool among all concerned actors to access performance”. “providers of development cooperation will minimize their use of additional frameworks, refraining from requesting the introduction of performance indicators that are not consistent with countries’ national development strategies.” Indicator on Results Extent to which providers of development cooperation use country results framework Use of objectives and targets from national development strategy Use of country’s own indicators, national statistics and M&E systems

3. Methodology piloted in the first round Country Results Framework (CPF) A country’s approach to results and its associated M&E systems focusing on performance and achievement of development results. Construction of Indicator Methodology Nexus between the level of funding ultimately channelled in support of national priorities/expenditure programmes, the modalities with which this funding is disbursed, and its ties to CRFs Proportion of development co-operation funds disbursed thorugh modalities typically tied to CRFs (quantitative) Governments’ perception of the degree to which providers’ delivery of development co-operation bolsters CRFs (qualitative) Their direct utilisation; or Their active involvement in the process of developing and strengthening these systems

4. Methodology piloted in the first round Quantitative – actual use %of development cooperation funds disbursed through modalities associated with country results framework (e.g. direct budget support, Govt-managed pool funding, projects aligned with government programming, implementation and annual reporting cycle) Qualitative - perception Inclusion of a comprehensive results framework in the National and sector strategies DP support to programme-based approach (Govt perception)/ Inclusion of stakeholders in programme-based approaches (DP perception) Engagement in M&E frameworks/systems Use of M&E systems / integration of M&E systems in accountability structure

7. Lessons Learned Gathering necessary quantitative information complex Different understanding of what constitutes country results framework and modalities typically associated with use of results framework Difficult to quantify different level of alignment at various level Assumption on quantitative information driven not only investment but other factors (fiduciary risks, governance) Proposed Future Methodology Simplify country-monitoring process, based on perceptions Complemented by in-depth country analysis (institutional, policy and operational factors)

8. Country perspectives? Do you have concrete examples at country level of behavior changes in the use of country results framework? How can the indicator best support country efforts in implementing the Busan commitments? Can a simplified survey assessment provide a relevant tool to support country level dialogue? What key elements should be incorporated in the survey assessment? Concrete recommendations? How can refinement of the indicator capturing lessons learned? How can we build synergies with country’s work and BBs on results for further progress?