Transcript Slide 1
Global experience in monitoring the Paris Declaration, and agreements on monitoring Busan commitments
Brenda Killen Aid Quality and Architecture Division Development Co-operation Directorate, OECD
“We’ll always have Paris”
LESSONS FROM PARIS…
3
HLF 4: an evidence-based process
• Monitoring the implementation of the Paris Declaration and AAA – Surveys (2006, 2008, 2011): 78 countries in 2011 (incl. 12 countries looking at Fragile States Principles) • Evaluating the Paris Declaration (independent process) – 22 countries and 18 donors/agencies • Additional sources of information
Quick overview on PD evidence
:
2005 Baseline 1. Operational Development Strategies 19% 2a. Reliable Public Financial Management (PFM) systems 3. Aid flows are aligned on national priorities 44% 46% 4. Strengthen capacity by co-ordinated support 49% 5a. Use of country PFM systems 40% 6. Strengthen capacity by avoiding Parallel PIUs 1 696 7. Aid is more predictable 42% 43% 8. Aid is untied 87% 9. Use of common arrangements or procedures 43% 10a. Joint missions 20% 22% 10b. Joint country analytic work 41% 44% 48% 11. Results-oriented frameworks 7% 12. Mutual accountability 44% 50% 22% 52% 1158 48%
(32 baseline countries)
2010 Target 75% 38% 50% 85% 50% 51% 54% 565 71% >87% 89% 66% 40% 66% 38% 100%
What have we learned?
1. Survey helped to maintain interest 2. Survey stimulated dialogue at country level 3. Ownership from participants 4. Regional approach was useful 5. Scope for more locally-owned analysis 6. Survey only tells part of the story
Increased interest in the survey
2008 2011 2006 34 partner countries
36% of global aid
55 partner countries
58% of global aid
76 partner countries
76% of global aid % of global core aid covered by the Survey (est.)
“I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship”
MONITORING BUSAN PARTNERSHIP…
A country focussed – globally light approach
COUNTRY LEVEL FRAMEWORKS
Own indicators and targets Lead by the country Results made public
+ INTERNATIONAL LEVEL FRAMEWORK
Selective indicators and targets, measured globally or aggregating country-level information Monitor progress on a rolling basis Managed by the Global Partnership
Why a global monitoring framework?
SUPPORTS ACCOUNTABILITY SERVE AS A REFERENCE POINT FOR COUNTRY LEVEL FRAMEWORKS STIMULATE BROAD-BASED DIALOGUE AND LEARNING
Approach to global monitoring
• Global progress reports produced to inform ministerial level meetings • No more centrally managed surveys – use of existing sources of data when and as they become available • Data collection at country level to be grounded in existing national monitoring processes • Continued support through a Global Help Desk Facility • Overall assessment of progress to draw on indicators and complementary qualitative evidence • Periodic reviews of global indicators and underpinning methodology through the Steering Committee
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Global indicators Thematic
Development co-operation is focused on that meet developing countries’ priorities
results Indicator
Extent of use of country results frameworks by co-operation providers (specific criteria to be finalised).
Civil society
operates within an environment which maximises its engagement in and contribution to development Engagement and contribution of the
private sector
to development
Transparency
: information on development co-operation is publicly available Development co-operation is more
predictable
Enabling Environment Index Measure to be identified Measure of state of implementation of the common standard by co-operation providers a) annual: proportion of aid disbursed within the fiscal year within which it was scheduled by co-operation providers; b) medium-term: proportion of aid covered by indicative forward spending plans provided at the country level Aid is on budgets which are subject to
parliamentary scrutiny Mutual accountability
co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews among development
Gender equality
and women’s empowerment % of aid scheduled for disbursement that is recorded in the annual budgets approved by the legislatures of developing countries.
% of countries that undertake inclusive mutual assessments of progress in implementing agreed commitments.
% of countries with systems that track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment.
9 10 Effective institutions: developing
systems
are strengthened and used
countries’
(a) Quality of developing country PFM systems; and (b) Use of country PFM and procurement systems.
Aid is
untied
% of aid that is fully untied.
Global Indicators: Info to be provided by countries
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Thematic
Development co-operation is focused on that meet developing countries’ priorities
results Indicator
Extent of use of country results frameworks by co-operation providers (specific criteria to be finalised).
Civil society operates within an environment which maximises its engagement in and contribution to development Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development Transparency: information on development co-operation is publicly available Development co-operation is more
predictable
Enabling Environment Index Measure to be identified Measure of state of implementation of the common standard by co-operation providers a) annual: proportion of aid disbursed within the fiscal year within which it was scheduled by co-operation providers; b) medium-term: proportion of aid covered by indicative forward spending plans provided at the country level Aid is on budgets which are subject to
parliamentary scrutiny Mutual accountability
co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews among development
Gender equality
and women’s empowerment % of aid scheduled for disbursement that is recorded in the annual budgets approved by the legislatures of developing countries.
% of countries that undertake inclusive mutual assessments of progress in implementing agreed commitments.
% of countries with systems that track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment.
9 10 Effective institutions: developing
systems
are strengthened and used
countries’
(a) Quality of developing country PFM systems; and (b) Use of country PFM and procurement systems.
Aid is untied % of aid that is fully untied.
Country level monitoring
• Essential for realising the Busan commitments as delivery is at the country level.
• Led by developing countries according their specific demands • Existence of country level monitoring reinforces global monitoring.
• Could be coordinated regionally
Global Indicators
Linkages between global and country level
Country level indicators Country level data needed for global level Gives a reference on how others are doing Regional organisations key for support and accountability Country results could be reported at the Global Partnership Joint OECD/UNDP could provide support for menu of indicators