Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC

Results Reporting by Donor Agencies (DAC/WP EFF – Cluster MfDR)

Presented by Adrian Maître, SDC, and Daniel Low-Beer, GFATM EU Expert Group on Results, 1st Meeting, 16 Nov 2011, Brussels

Background

• Topic stems from

JV MfDR

Cluster MfDR (WP EFF)  work plan 2010-2011 of • Emerging landscape of Donor Result Reports – Mostly new; unlike MO – Some interest in sharing experience • Pressure by authorizing environment to show results risk of parallel systems  • Emerging National Systems  bypass/weaken them use/strengthen them vs.

Purpose

•

Contribute to

increased demand/use of national results systems (by donors) •

Contribute to

some harmonization in donor’s results reporting – Including: Strengthened MfDR practice at donor’s level

Implementation

• Core group (CAN, CH, GER, GFATM, NL, US, DAC Secretariate) • Mandate to MDF (Herman Snelder) and Goss Gilroy (Bernard Wood) • Main steps: – Stock taking (  Draft report) – International Workshop (  Final report) – Principles for results reporting (  Proposal)

Overview of products

• Conceptual frame: purpose of report content  data/information source  type of • 12 case studies (fact sheets) • Main findings • Recommendations 

Principles

• Draft tool for Gap analysis (Principles vs. Actual practice/planned approach)

Some findings (examples)

• Accountability main purpose, then: Decision making, Learning – Little follow up on utility (audience level) • Partner country systems are not a significant source of data/information – Difficulties obtaining data, issues with data (not) being up to date • Many MfDR elements missing in reporting • Some support for joint reporting (vs. harmonized reporting)

How to bring this forward?

• Agree on principles • Gap analysis, exchange at donor level, strengthen topic in DAC Peer Reviews?

• «Learning initiatives» (country level)  part of Country Results/Accountability Agreements • Further discussions – E.g. country level reporting vs. global issues – Dialogue with MDB regarding results frameworks, key indicators

Results Reporting Principles

Daniel Low-Beer Global Fund for AIDS, TB and malaria Chair Global Programs Learning Group

Results at heart of aid effectiveness Accra Action Agenda 2008 “Achieving development results — and openly accounting

for them — must be at the heart of all we do. More than ever, citizens and taxpayers of all countries expect to see

the tangible results of development efforts” • • Measuring results and reporting - “Donors will align their monitoring with country information systems.” Managing for results – “use information to improve decision-making”

Global Programs Learning Group

• Global Programs across health, education, environment, cities alliance – Results based partnerships: critical to their work – Performance based funding • Global Fund: 130 countries, rating, result based finance • GAVI: active use of incentives for funding – Wider role of results as a “common currency” to coordinate partners and development • “invisible hand” of results and transparency + limits

Principles for Results Reporting by donors • Donors: funders, bilateral, multilateral, more general relevance • Aim to support – Comparable and reliable results reporting – – Better showcase the development results to constituencies Reduce burden for countries by standardisation • • Country level - reporting should rely on partner country systems as much as possible Corporate level – publish similar content: organisational performance; aid effectiveness issues, donor’s contribution to results and developing country results

Results TRAINS

•

Transparency

– methods for data collection and analysis, including indicators and targets – explanation of results attribution versus contribution – operational performance, including disbursements by program, units, country – – organisational issues: priorities, internal efficiency, strategy, lessons learned aid effectiveness issues – Donor’s contribution to results, including outputs and outcomes – – Balanced content in terms of positive and negative aspects of performance Donors make data generated available to public on a timely basis •

Results-based decisions

– Use of evidence for management decisions – Policies to integrate into agency planning and budget decisions – – Clear communication plan to disseminate results for wider discussion Results reporting therefore needs to be strategic

• •

Alignment with country reporting

– – Timing and use common indicators Based on country systems by default – Contribution to results in terms of outputs and outcomes

Investment in country results systems

– –

Using country data therefore support systems Invest in a harmonised way in monitoring and evaluation

•

National results rather than attribution to donors

–

Show financial and technical contributions to national results

–

Focus on their added value rather than attribution to a particular donor

•

Subscribe to MfDR Good Practice

– –

Include a results chain, indicators, output and outcome, baseline data Targets should be included where appropriate

Conclusion

• Donors commit as well as partner countries • “It is recognised that the application of these principles will require a considerable shift … the principles will be just a first step to promote improved effectiveness of donor reporting and use of aid to develop country capacity on results reporting. Yet it will provide an important framework to promote and coordinate these developments within institutions” Join the RESULTS TRAINS