1. Session 3 Stock take of the first monitoring round
Key findings
Lessons learned
UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team

2. First monitoring round
When? – 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
Although the numbers did not demonstrate clear progress on the indicators, the overarching political narrative from the report was “a glass half full”. Why such a positive outlook?
The report reveals that despite global economic turbulence, changing political landscapes and domestic budgetary pressures, commitment to the Busan principles remains strong. Achievements made on important aid effectiveness commitments that date back to 2005 have been broadly sustained – confirming that political commitment can translate into better practices at the country level, given sufficient time and sustained commitment.
Also, country ownership continues to strengthen, inclusiveness is translating into action and the transparency drive is starting to show results.
Despite a glass half full – much remains to be done to meet the targets that the Global Partnership set for 2015…

3. 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 Asia- Pacific EDC Reports)
Although the numbers did not demonstrate clear progress on the indicators, the overarching political narrative from the report was “a glass half full”. Why such a positive outlook?
The report reveals that despite global economic turbulence, changing political landscapes and domestic budgetary pressures, commitment to the Busan principles remains strong. Achievements made on important aid effectiveness commitments that date back to 2005 have been broadly sustained – confirming that political commitment can translate into better practices at the country level, given sufficient time and sustained commitment.
Also, country ownership continues to strengthen, inclusiveness is translating into action and the transparency drive is starting to show results.
Despite a glass half full – much remains to be done to meet the targets that the Global Partnership set for 2015…

4. 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
Although the numbers did not demonstrate clear progress on the indicators, the overarching political narrative from the report was “a glass half full”. Why such a positive outlook?
The report reveals that despite global economic turbulence, changing political landscapes and domestic budgetary pressures, commitment to the Busan principles remains strong. Achievements made on important aid effectiveness commitments that date back to 2005 have been broadly sustained – confirming that political commitment can translate into better practices at the country level, given sufficient time and sustained commitment.
Also, country ownership continues to strengthen, inclusiveness is translating into action and the transparency drive is starting to show results.
Despite a glass half full – much remains to be done to meet the targets that the Global Partnership set for 2015…

5. 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.
The report findings highlighted some important bottlenecks that we must address….
Ownership and results
Stronger country-level dialogue needed to promote greater alignment with the priorities and systems of developing countries.
Vast efforts to guide use of country systems needs to enable informed and sustainable increases in the use of systems.
Inclusive partnerships
Moving towards a common understanding of an enabling environment for CSOs; promoting country-level dialogue in existing accountability frameworks
Expanding our approach to Public Private Dialogue beyond whether it is happening, to understanding the requirements for meaningful dialogue to take place
Transparency and accountability
Strengthening the understanding of what timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information means in practice for developing countries so that all transparency efforts respond effectively to local needs and country contexts.
Medium-term predictability remains a real challenge; urgent action needed from providers to adjust policies and procedures so that medium-term co-operation plans can be regularly updated and communicated to developing countries.
Targeted efforts are needed to make mutual accountability processes and reviews more transparent and inclusive, extending participation to emerging providers, civil society organisations and the private sector.

6. 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
The report findings highlighted some important bottlenecks that we must address….
Ownership and results
Stronger country-level dialogue needed to promote greater alignment with the priorities and systems of developing countries.
Vast efforts to guide use of country systems needs to enable informed and sustainable increases in the use of systems.
Inclusive partnerships
Moving towards a common understanding of an enabling environment for CSOs; promoting country-level dialogue in existing accountability frameworks
Expanding our approach to Public Private Dialogue beyond whether it is happening, to understanding the requirements for meaningful dialogue to take place
Transparency and accountability
Strengthening the understanding of what timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information means in practice for developing countries so that all transparency efforts respond effectively to local needs and country contexts.
Medium-term predictability remains a real challenge; urgent action needed from providers to adjust policies and procedures so that medium-term co-operation plans can be regularly updated and communicated to developing countries.
Targeted efforts are needed to make mutual accountability processes and reviews more transparent and inclusive, extending participation to emerging providers, civil society organisations and the private sector.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. তোমাকে ধন্যবাদ Gracias Thank you Dankjewel Hvala Merci Asante مننه
ありがとう
Gracias
Thank you
Dankjewel
Hvala
Merci
Asante
مننه
شكرا
Obrigado
Salamat