1. 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

2. Reinvigorating Effectiveness for the 2030 Agenda
11-12 September, Paris
190+ Participants, 80+ Countries
Boosting 2018 monitoring round and shaping direction for 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.

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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