1. The Global Partnership Monitoring Framework General Issues www.effectivecooperation.org

2. Baselines and targets? For those indicators where data exists from the Paris Declaration monitoring, baselines can be set using 2010 data. For target setting, same rational as with Paris indicators (measure relative progress, “halve the gap” etc.) Targets set for 2015. For new indicators with no previous data, this first round of monitoring will provide baselines or pilot the methodology. The reference year for data will depend on data availability and may differ across countries/indicators.

3. What transactions should and should not be recorded in reporting? For the purpose of monitoring the Busan Partnership agreement at the international level, development co-operation funding primarily refers to Official Development Assistance (ODA). This includes all transactions undertaken: i) with the promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; and ii) at concessional financial terms (if a loan, having a grant element of at least 25%). In addition, developing countries interested in monitoring the effectiveness of a broader range of development co-operation funds (e.g. non-concessional lending) are encouraged to do so, provided that the following criteria are met: official source (bilateral or multilateral); and promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective.

4. How to include non-concessional development funding and still keep comparability with previous years? Since the monitoring framework includes indicators that some countries have been monitoring already through the Paris Declaration monitoring surveys, it will be important to maintain comparability with previous years to enable analysis of progress. The country spread sheet used for reporting country level data will include a separate rows to distinguish between concessional and non-concessional development co-operation funding. This will ensure comparability of data to previous years and will also enable some analysis on possible differences between cooperation financed by Official Development Assistance and by non-concessional development funding.

5. Should I report on funds disbursed during a calendar year or a fiscal year? The reporting year of reference is the latest fiscal year of the developing country for which there is information available. This also means that all data from providers of development co- operation is expected to be provided according to the developing country’s fiscal year. In developing countries where the fiscal year differs from the calendar year, and where monitoring data is easily available through existing systems, governments may wish to complement fiscal year data with calendar year data. While this would remain optional, it would contribute to facilitate aggregation and comparability of data.

6. The Global Partnership Monitoring Framework Indicators 2,3,4, and 10 www.effectivecooperation.org

7. Indicator 2: Enabling Environment for Civil Society (1) What will it achieve? Enable CSOs to exercise their role as independent development actors Maximise the contribution of CSOs to development How is it measured? Selected components of the Enabling Environment Index (focus on the legal and governance aspects) What is the target? Continued progress over time

8. Indicator 2: Enabling Environment for Civil Society (2) Definition: a set of conditions that impact on the capacity of citizens (whether individually or in an organised fashion) to participate and engage in the civil society arena in a sustained and voluntary manner Looking at: Legal and regulatory frameworks Other political and societal conditions having a bearing on civil society activities 4 dimensions: Socio-economic environment (education, communications, equity, gender equality) Socio-cultural environment (participation trends, tolerance, trust, solidarity) Governance Environment (civil society infrastructure, state effectiveness, policy dialogue, corruption, political rights and freedoms, associational and organisational rights) Legal environment (rule of law, personal rights, NGO/CSO law, media freedoms)

9. This indicator draws on the work of CIVICUS and consultations within the CSO Platform for Development Effectiveness Indicator developed under the auspices of CIVICUS, the World Alliance for Citizen Participation Promoting the index as a regular source of reliable, international and comparative quantiative information Drawing on existing sources and partnering with academia Methodology tested and preliminary index launched in April Review of methodology and refinement of the index ongoing with finalisation planned in July Next steps: Countries interested to have country-level dialogue on the enabling environment index can engage with their national CSO platform Indicator 2: Enabling Environment for Civil Society (3)

10. Indicator 3: Private Sector Engagement (1) What will it achieve? Promote better participation of private sector in the design and implementation of development policies and strategies and dialogue on reforms impacting the enabling environment for private sector development and investment Maximise the contribution of private sector to development How is it measured? A composite index looking at: Existence of an institutionalised mechanism or formalised structures to support the dialogue Representativeness of private sector actors engaged in the dialogue Some basic indications on the outcome of the dialogues (e.g. number of reform proposals and reforms enacted) What is the target? Continued progress over time

11. Indicator 3: Private Sector Engagement (2) This indicator draws on the work of World Bank Institute on public-private dialogue (collaborative initiative between World Bank, IFC, DFID and OECD) 12 good practice principles translating into the Public-Private Dialogue Evaluation Wheel to measure process effectiveness A basis for a better understanding of the nature, structure and sustainability of collaborative processes between public and private sector actors Country-level dialogue on capacity development needs and advisory services Further mobilisation of the private sector within the Global Partnership Next steps: Interest to participate in final consultations on the indicator construction and piloting? Indicator piloted through desk reviews and targeted interviews (July-August) Consultation on findings and validation of methodology, including close consultation with the Public-Private Co-operation Building Block and other relevant forums (September,TBC)

12. Indicator 4: Transparency (1) What will it achieve? Accelerate and deepen efforts to implement the common, open standard on transparency Improve the availability and public accessibility of information on development co-operation Provide the basis for enhanced accountability How is it measured? By assessing the: 1.Timeliness (freshness of information, frequency of updates) 2.Level of detail (data fields of the common standard) 3.Forward looking nature (what kind of information, how many years ahead) 4.Comprehensiveness of resource information What is the target? To fully implement the standard by 2015

13. Indicator developed in close consultation with the ad hoc group on the common standard, the IATI secretariat and the OECD Builds largely on the two main systems of the common standard, the IATI reporting standard and OECD/DAC reporting (CRS and FSS) Indicator 4: Transparency (2)

14. Issues to be finalised: Agreement on technical coverage of flows, inclusion/coverage of actors Agreement on final data sources and process to gather information and construct indicator values Agreement on the target – each provider has their own schedule Next steps Joint team to finalise the indicator, including discussions with the newly established IATI secretariat, and broader consultations with relevant stakeholders including through the ad hoc group Feedback: What are the transparency issues that matter at country level beyond the common, open standard? What’s the narrative beyond number crunching? Indicator 4: Transparency (3)

15. Indicator 10: Aid is Untied What will it achieve? Greater alignment and better value for money What is the measure? Percentage of ODA government sector that is fully untied What is the data source? Annual reporting by DAC donors to the OECD/DAC What is the target? Continued progress over time Feedback? Country perspectives on how to bridge the gap global reporting and plans and reality at country level?

16. The Global Partnership Monitoring Framework Indicators 1, 7 and 8 www.effectivecooperation.org

17. Indicator 1: Use of Country Results Frameworks (1) What will it achieve? Strengthen country results frameworks, and their associated M&E systems Use of countries’ own indicators, national statistics and systems to monitor progress Strengthen ownership and accountability What is the measure? The percentage of providers of development co-operation using country results frameworks What is the target? All providers use country results frameworks by 2015

18. Indicator 1: Use of Country Results Frameworks (2) Definition: A country’s approach to results and its associated monitoring and evaluation systems focusing on performance and achievement of development results It includes agreed objectives and output/outcome indicators with baselines and targets to measure progress towards objectives, as stated in national development strategies, sector plans and other frameworks (e.g. budget support performance matrices). Country results frameworks should have been developed through participatory processes, involving inclusive dialogue  Does this definition capture what constitutes a country results framework in various contexts and approaches? How could it be strengthened?

19. Indicator 1: Use of Country Results Frameworks (3) Possible dimensions to be assessed – using scenarios for each dimension (high, medium and low scale): Use of the objectives and targets from the National Development Strategy as a reference (e.g. looking at provider’s CAS and agreements) Use of the country’s M&E systems (incl. statistics) (e.g. looking at provider’s reporting processes) Alignment of actual programme delivery from design to reporting (e.g. looking at provider’s use of PBAs)  Do these dimensions capture the key elements of using country results frameworks?  What are the other aspects that should be considered: e.g. quality of country results frameworks; joint efforts to strengthen national development strategies and associated results frameworks; dialogue around these issues, etc.  Is the direction of the proposed approach appropriate? Could a more simple approach (e.g. focus on one dimension) be sufficient to generate dialogue?  What is the desirable balance between intentions (1, 2) and practice (3) ? Would focus on PBAs sufficient to measure ACTUAL use of agreed results frameworks?

20. Indicator 1: Use of Country Results Frameworks (4) Next steps : On the basis of feedback, definitions and criteria to be refined by the joint support team, including broader consultation (e.g. building block on results and accountability) More targeted inclusive consultation in a selected number of countries interested to pilot the indicator: Relevance: Assess if the approach is fit for the purpose? Is the proposed measure relevant for the country’s situation Feasibility and data sources: Can the information needed for the assessment be easily obtained? Role of joint support team?

21. Indicator 7: Inclusive Mutual Accountability Frameworks (1) What will it achieve? Stronger and more inclusive accountability mechanisms at country level; Participation of all stakeholders in mutual assessment of progress. How is it measured? The percentage of developing countries which undertake inclusive mutual assessments of progress. What is the target? All countries have inclusive mutual assessment reviews in place

22. Progress assessed through four questions: Q g 6. Is there an aid or partnership policy or strategy in place defining a country’s development co-operation priorities? Q g 7. Are there specific country-level targets for effective development co- operation for both the developing country government and providers of development co-operation? Q g 8. Has an assessment towards these targets been undertaken jointly by the developing country government and providers at senior level in the past two years? Q g 9. Have non-executive stakeholders (e.g. CSOs, Parliaments, private sector) and local government been actively involved in such reviews? Q g 10. Have comprehensive results of such exercises been made public in a timely manner?  A country is considered to have a mutual assessment of progress in place when the response to at least four questions are “Yes”. Indicator 7: Inclusive Mutual Accountability Frameworks (2)

23. The questions on mutual assessment of progress draw on mutual accountability work by the UN DESA for the UN Development Co-operation Forum This is a modified version of the previous indicator 12 of the Paris Declaration and builds on lessons learned UN DESA will co-ordinate a more in-depth survey on mutual accountability in the fourth quarter of 2013 in preparation for the 2014 DCF. Note: in 2010, 38% of countries had conducted a mutual assessment review (criteria slightly different, 2011 PD survey)  Feedback on lessons learned and experience managing various complementary initiatives on mutual accountability in the past? Suggestions to build a more streamlined approach? Indicator 7: Inclusive Mutual Accountability Frameworks (3)

24. Indicator 8: Gender equality and women’s empowerment(1) What will it achieve? Accelerate and deepen efforts to collect, disseminate and harmonise data disaggregated by sex Make full use of these data to inform policy decisions and guide investments Public expenditures are targeted appropriately to benefit both women and men What is the measure? The percentage of countries which have systems to track and make public allocations for gender and women’s empowerment What is the target? All developing countries have systems in place by 2015

25. Indicator 8: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (2) Progress assessed through four questions: Is there an official government statement on a system for tracking allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment? Are allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment systematically tracked? Is there leadership and oversight of the tracking system by the central government unit in charge of public expenditures? Is gender equality focussed budget information publically available (e.g. through Parliamentary oversight and civil society scrutiny, publications, websites or other means)?  A country is considered to have a system in place to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment when the response to TWO questions is “Yes” (Note: “Yes” to final question required)

26. Indicator 8: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (3) The indicator on gender equality and women’s empowerment draw on UN Women’s work Indicator developed under the auspices of the UN Women Methodology tested in March-April 2013 in 15 countries Indicator rolled out in 20 countries in 2013 and 65 UN-Women programme countries by 2017 (integrated in annual corporate reporting process) Bolivia, Cameroon, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Palestinian Authority, Peru, Rwanda, Senegal, Ukraine, Tanzania Next steps: Any interest? More countries invited to use the methodology (optional) and submit data to the UNDP-OECD joint support team Data analysed in collaboration with UN Women

27. The Global Partnership Monitoring Framework Indicators 5a+b, 6, and 9a+b www.effectivecooperation.org

28. Indicator 5: More Predictable Development Co-operation (1) What will it achieve? Increased ownership over development policies and reforms More accurate recording of development co-operation funding in national systems Better planning and allocation of resources within and across sectors Better implementation of national development strategies over the medium term Greater transparency and accountability

29. Indicator 5a: Annual Predictability (2) Annual predictability Indicator similar to previous PD indicator 7 No longer depends on the recording of disbursements in government accounts Numerator and denominator both sourced by self reporting by providers

30. Indicator 5a: Annual Predictability (3) How is it measured? [total ODA for the government sector] [Total ODA scheduled for the government sector scheduled for disbursement] % What is the target? - Halve the gap between 2010 and 2015 (estimated baseline: 75%)

31. How is it measured? For providers in country x: predictability at year t = average (t+1, t+2, t+3) For countries: details of aggregation to be finalised (note: need to review formula in guidance) One option: weighted average for each individual year t+1, t+2, t+3 What is the target? Halve the gap between by 2015 (baseline: 2011) Indicator 5b: More Predictable Development Co-operation (4)

32. Progress assessed as follows: A forward spending plan meets ALL THREE criteria if: Made available in written or electronic form Indicative information on future spending and/or implementation activities (committed/programmed resources and resources that have yet to be allocated Presentation by year, using the country’s fiscal year For each year of the next three years (Qg2, Qg3, Qg4), information provided needs to meet BOTH the additional two criteria: Comprehensive (sectors and modalities) Amounts and currency clearly stated -> Feedback? Is information available to assess each provider for year t+1, T+2 and t+3? Indicator 5b: Multi-year Predictability (5)

33. What will it achieve? Better ownership, alignment and accountability Better knowledge of aid flows Better alignment with priorities as outlined in the budget More accurate and comprehensive budget reports Greater transparency in reporting by providers Parliaments have occasions to examine the aid modalities, activities and achievements Indicator 6: Aid on Budget (1)

34. How is it measured? Indicator 6: Aid on Budget (2) [[[Total Volume of Aid recorded in countries’ annual budget as grants, revenues or ODA loans] [ODA to the government sector scheduled for disbursement] % What is the target? Halve the gap between 2010 and 2015 (with min. 85% reported on budget) Baseline to be calculated on the basis of PD 2011 survey (data only available for calendar year)

35. Aid on budget: Indicator is similar to previous PD indicator 3 Reflecting the extent to which government budgets reflect ex-ante aid estimates Denominator is now the amount of development co-operation funding scheduled for disbursement at the outset (rather than ex post disbursements) Indicator 6: Aid on Budget (3)

36. Indicator 9: Country Systems (1) What will it achieve? Strengthen developing country’s systems  Using a developing country’s own institutions and systems will strengthen these institutions and systems themselves  Reduce transaction costs Countries can be more accountable for use of development co-operation funding to their citizens and parliament

37. Quality of PFM systems (Indicator 9a) – measured by World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) A 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 Timely and accurate accounting and fiscal reporting => Used to determine the target for indicator 9b Use of country PFM and procurement systems (Indicator 9b) Qp6. National budget execution procedures Qp7. National financial reporting procedures Qp8. National auditing procedures Qp9. National procurement procedures Indicator 9: Country Systems (2)

38. Indicator 9a: Reliable PFM Systems (3) Plans for developing a new indicator to: Measure the strength of PFM systems and replace the CPIA Facilitate country-level dialogue Provide a country specific focus and create incentives for reforms Possible approach: Generalised process indicators (PEFA, OBI) Country level methodology – menu of options focusing on process or outcome (using existing sources + additional country specific measures) Interested countries and organisations (CABRI, IBP, PEFA, OECD) to look at pros and cons of different approaches and make recommendations to the PFM Task Force meeting (Fall 2013 TBC) For more information: www.effective-institutions.orgwww.effective-institutions.org

39. Indicator 9b: Use of Country Systems (4) How is it measured? What is the target? -For 9a equal or above 5: gap reduced by 2/3 -For 9a between 3.5 and 4.5: gap reduced by 1/3 -Note baseline 2010 (78 countries): 49% [[ODA disbursed to the government sector using budget execution + financial reporting + auditing + procurement] [ Total ODA disbursed to the government sector] %