1. Overview of the 2018 Global Partnership Monitoring Round

This chapter provides an overview of the results of the 2018 Monitoring Round of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. It presents a high-level summary of how partner countries are putting in place the building blocks for an effective, whole-of-society development effort, and how development partners are supporting these country-led efforts.

    

Effective partnerships are a cornerstone of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Global development challenges, and threats to hard-won development gains, have not eased since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Indeed, they are ever more pressing, complex and inter-related (Biermann, Kanie and Kim, 2017[1]). The 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a roadmap to tackle these challenges through a whole-of-society approach, one that builds on the collective actions of all stakeholders to deliver long-lasting solutions for people and the planet while leaving no one behind. Partnerships are pivotal to attaining all the SDGs. This is clearly set out in SDG 17, which calls for strengthening the means of implementation and revitalising the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015[2]).

International efforts to strengthen the effectiveness of development co-operation build on over a decade of lessons, with the aim of ensuring that all available resources are mobilised and used in a way that maximises their potential. Following consecutive processes in Rome (2003), Paris (2005) and Accra (2008), the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation was endorsed in 2011 by 161 governments as well as heads of multilateral and bilateral institutions, representatives of civil society, the private sector, parliamentarians, and other stakeholders committed to strengthening the effectiveness of their joint efforts for development (OECD, 2011[3]). The Busan Partnership defined four internationally agreed principles for effective development co-operation (Figure 1.1), and marked a fundamental shift, moving beyond a focus on traditional aid to a recognition of the increasingly important roles of diverse development actors (GPEDC, 2016[4]).

The Global Partnership spurs action for more effective partnerships in order to achieve long-lasting development results

The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (hereafter Global Partnership) is a unique multi-stakeholder platform to advance the effectiveness of development efforts by all actors in delivering results that are long-lasting and contribute to the achievement of the SDGs, including the commitment to leave no one behind. The Global Partnership provides practical guidance and shares knowledge to improve development impact, and it supports country-level implementation of the internationally agreed effectiveness principles (Figure 1.1).

The Global Partnership was established by the Busan Partnership agreement and conducts global monitoring to track progress against the commitments and actions agreed in Busan. The Global Partnership’s flagship instrument is its biennial monitoring exercise, which since 2013 has tracked progress towards the effectiveness principles, and is the recognised source of data and evidence on upholding effectiveness commitments. Data generated from the Global Partnership monitoring provide evidence for SDG follow-up and review. The Global Partnership is the sole contributor for data on three SDG targets: 1) respect each country’s policy space and leadership (SDG 17.15); 2) multi-stakeholder partnerships for development (SDG 17.16); and 3) adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment (SDG 5.c).

The Global Partnership monitoring exercise has two fundamental objectives. The first is to assess how effectively governments have established a conducive environment to lead national development efforts, enable the full participation of the whole of society and maximise the impact of joint efforts. The second is to assess how development partners deliver their support in a way that is focused on country-owned development priorities and that draws on existing country systems and capacities to reduce burden and ensure sustainability of results. The 2019 Progress Report addresses these two objectives in turn. After an overview of the results (Chapter 1), Chapters 2, 3 and 4 look at the first of the two objectives, focusing on country ownership and examining how partner countries are putting in place the building blocks for an effective, whole-of-society development effort. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 focus on how effectively development partners support such country-led efforts. Finally, Chapter 8 presents views of Global Partnership’s stakeholders to the evidence presented in the report.

Figure 1.1. Principles for effective development co-operation

Note: CSO: civil society organisations; MDB: multilateral development bank.

Source: GPEDC (2017[5]), Effective co-operation principles website, http://effectivecooperation.org/about/principles

The 2018 Global Partnership Monitoring Round: Key facts

The data gathered during the 2018 Global Partnership Monitoring Round constitute the evidence base for the Progress Report.1 This Monitoring Round, the third biennial monitoring round, was launched in June 2018.2 Data collection and validation continued until March 2019. A record 86 partner countries and territories participated. Most of the participating countries are low and middle-income countries; more than half are fragile contexts; and 22 are small island developing states. Almost all least developed countries (43, or 91% of the total) participated in the Monitoring Round (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2. Partner countries that participated in the 2018 Monitoring Round

Number of countries by region, income and fragility classification

Note: All of the high-income countries that participated are small island developing states.

Sources: Income classification: World Bank (2018[6]), “Classifying countries by income”, http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/stories/the-classification-of-countries-by-income.html; fragility classification: OECD (2018[7]), States of Fragility 2018, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264302075-en.

The 86 participating partner countries that led country-level data collection on the effectiveness of their development co-operation did so in collaboration with more than 100 development partners (Figure 1.3) and hundreds of civil society organisations, private sector representatives, foundations, trade unions, parliamentarians and local governments.

Figure 1.3. Types of development partners that participated in the 2018 Monitoring Round

Number of development partners by type of partner

Notes: “DAC members” include 29 bilateral member countries and the European Union. “Other bilateral” includes all bilateral partners that are not part of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). “Other international organisations” are those that are not multilateral development banks, United Nations (UN) agencies or vertical funds/initiatives.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888934018830

This Progress Report covers:

• More than 3 300 projects and programmes (USD 64.7 billion3). Individual projects and programmes reported are the basis for assessing the extent to which development partners use country-owned results frameworks, monitoring and statistics systems.

• Development co-operation funding in the amount of USD 58.8 billion disbursed as grants and loans by development partners, including USD 37.8 billion disbursed directly to the public sector in the 86 participating countries.4 Disbursements made to the public sector are the basis for assessing the predictability of development co-operation and the use of country systems. To avoid double counting in a situation in which one development partner disburses funds on behalf of another, reporting covers only the development partner that made the final disbursement at country level. This approach does not aim to quantify overall support provided by development partners, but rather to assess the quality of support provided.

Infographic 1.1. Global Partnership monitoring and the SDGs

Progress in leading and supporting development efforts

Partner country governments have made significant progress in strengthening national development planning. Since 2011, the proportion of partner countries with a high-quality national development strategy has almost doubled (from 36% to 64%). Moreover, partner countries, like their development partners, are embedding the SDGs into their planning, signalling increasing use of the SDGs as a shared framework for results. Nearly all national development strategies (91%) approved since 2015 reference the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. However, continued effort is needed to embed SDG targets and indicators to ensure national development planning charts a clear and measurable path to SDG implementation.

Still, to reap the full benefits of strengthened development planning, strategies must be better linked to implementation resources and matched with robust monitoring and evaluation. Only half of partner country governments (53%) use information on resourcing their national development strategy to inform their national budget. Merely one-third (35%) report having the necessary data to track implementation of national strategies, and only 19% conduct gender audits of the budget. This signals the need to step up efforts in support of strengthening national systems and capacity to ensure that better development planning translates into effective implementation and monitoring, enabling the necessary feedback loop to further strengthen partner countries’ development policies and practices.

Figure 1.4. Partner countries’ progress in development planning is significant

Moreover, development partners’ alignment to partner country priorities and country-owned results frameworks is declining. Development partners increasingly use the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs as a framework for results around shared objectives. However, alignment of project objectives to partner country priorities, as well as reliance on country-defined results, statistics and monitoring systems, has decreased for most development partners since 2016. While multilateral development banks have increased their reliance of country-owned results frameworks (72% in 2018), the decline is most pronounced for bilateral development partners (from 64% in 2016 to 57% in 2018). Accelerated efforts to use country-owned results frameworks, and to use and strengthen national statistics and monitoring systems, will reinforce support for partner countries’ policy space and leadership as called for in SDG Target 17.15. Moreover, concerted efforts are needed from both partner countries and development partners to use and strengthen national statistics and monitoring systems.

Figure 1.5. Use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by development partners is declining

Forward visibility of development co-operation at country level is weakening. Partner countries report a limited availability of forward expenditure and implementation plans from their development partners. Medium-term predictability is decreasing, particularly for three years ahead. Data from the 2018 Monitoring Round show that, on average, partner country governments had forward visibility and could start medium-term planning on only 56% of the development co-operation funding they expected to receive from their development partners three years ahead (in 2021). This decline is mirrored in the fall of the share of development co-operation finance recorded on partner countries’ budgets subject to parliamentary scrutiny – from 66% in 2016 to 61% in 2018 – undermining domestic accountability over these resources. Together, this trend puts at risk the ability of partner countries to effectively plan and budget for their development efforts, and limits accountability over national development efforts maintained through parliamentary oversight.

Figure 1.6. Decreasing forward visibility of development co-operation

Strengthened public financial management (PFM) systems have not been matched with significantly increased use by development partners. Partner countries are making steady progress in strengthening PFM systems, with the strongest gains relating to aspects of budget formulation. Continued effort is needed in the areas of auditing and procurement, as well as to ensure that PFM systems respond to gender equality goals. Globally, use of country public financial management systems has increased slightly, from 50% in 2016 to 53% in 2018, primarily driven by a notable increase in the use of procurement systems (from 37% in 2016 to 50% in 2018). However, Global Partnership monitoring data show that the quality of PFM systems is not the determining factor for the extent of their use. Rather, the longer development partners engage in partner countries and the larger the share they channel to the public sector, the more they tend to use the public sector’s financial management systems. This indicates that using country systems benefits from building institutional knowledge and relies on practice and improvements over time.

Figure 1.7. Progress in strengthening and using public financial management systems

Note: PFM: public financial management; DAC: Development Assistance Committee; MDB: multilateral development bank; IO: international organisations.

Reinforcing a whole-of-society approach to development

More systematic and meaningful consultations with development actors are needed both by partner country governments and development partners. In designing national development strategies, partner country governments consult a broad range of national stakeholders, such as civil society, the private sector, parliamentarians, subnational governments and development partners. Still, quality of government consultation with civil society organisations (CSOs) has declined and the legal and regulatory frameworks to facilitate CSO operations have weakened. CSOs in only 5% of partner countries report that their input is consistently reflected in national development policies. Furthermore, results of the 2018 Monitoring Round show that of all national stakeholders, development partners consult most with CSOs and to a lesser extent also engage other partner country stakeholders in the preparation of their country strategies and programmes. However, CSOs report that these consultations are not systematic, which hinders their ability to provide quality input. Results indicate that these engagement opportunities by both partner country governments and development partners could be more regular, predictable and involve a more diverse set of actors.

Figure 1.8. Partner country governments and development partners consult with a variety of stakeholders

The enabling environment for civil society organisations is deteriorating. CSOs report that there has been a decline in the legal and regulatory frameworks that provide protection for CSOs. Furthermore, CSOs in 27% of partner countries report that CSO expression is either extensively or fully controlled by government. Moreover, CSOs in 32% of partner countries report that those CSOs working with marginalised and at-risk populations experience harassment from public authorities. Moreover, CSOs do not consider development partners’ funding mechanisms to be predictable, transparent or accessible to a diversity of CSOs and report in most countries (82%) that funding received is primarily driven by the providers’ own interests and priorities. CSOs play a fundamental role in development, and partner country governments as well as development partners must redouble efforts to foster an enabling environment for CSOs in order to deliver on the 2030 Agenda and its call for a whole-of-society development effort. Concerted action by partner countries and development partners can support CSOs as equal partners in their own right, bringing knowledge on local development needs and priorities.

Figure 1.9. Civil society organisations’ enabling environment is deteriorating

Partner country governments view the quality of public-private dialogue (PPD) more favourably than private sector stakeholders. There is consensus among partner country governments and private stakeholders (large firms, small and medium-sized enterprises, and trade unions) that mutual trust and willingness to engage in policy dialogue exist. However, all stakeholders report limited capacity to engage. The most significant divergence between views is on the inclusiveness of PPD. This signifies challenges in how governments are implementing and convening public-private dialogue. Despite challenges, however, results also show that when the foundations for high-quality dialogue are in place, PPD is geared towards results and leads to joint action. Maximising private sector contributions to inclusive growth and sustainable development requires a conducive operating environment to which quality PPD is critical. Improving the quality of PPD in partner countries requires increased capacity, strengthened relevance and the inclusion of a wider range of private sector actors.

Figure 1.10. Views on the quality of public-private dialogue are diverging

Note: SME: Small and medium-sized enterprise.

Transparency and mutual accountability in an evolving development landscape

There is mixed progress in making development co-operation more transparent. More development partners report to global information systems and standards to make information on development co-operation publicly available. Since 2016, the number of development partners reporting to the OECD Creditor Reporting System and to the International Aid Transparency Initiative has increased, signalling broadening uptake of the Busan commitment for transparent and accountable development co-operation information. Information provided by development partners is also more comprehensive; however, progress on timely and forward-looking information on development co-operation is uneven. In addition, availability of information on development co-operation at a global level complements information provided and collected at country level. Nearly all partner countries have an information management system in place for development co-operation, and most (83%) development partners report to these systems. However, there is room for improvement regarding consistency and quality of reporting at country level.

Figure 1.11. Transparency of development co-operation remains steady

In response to the evolving development landscape and the ambition of the 2030 Agenda, mutual accountability mechanisms are becoming more inclusive. Traditional mutual accountability structures are more prevalent, and have strengthened, in partner countries for which official development assistance remains important. More than half (52%) of the 42 least developed countries that reported on mutual accountability have quality mutual accountability mechanisms in place. Partner countries that are less dependent on development assistance are moving to other, more holistic accountability structures that respond to increasingly diverse sources and modalities of development finance. Overall, an increasingly diverse set of development partners are engaged in mutual accountability mechanisms at country level. However, fewer partner countries are setting targets for effective development co-operation for these diverse partners. Amidst this flux in development co-operation, to ensure that over a decade’s experience and lessons on effective partnering are able to benefit new co-ordination approaches and structures taking shape, it is essential to embed the effectiveness principles, including mutual accountability, in these new frameworks, and ensure that these changes do not result in a loss of transparency and accountability.

Although the development co-operation landscape is evolving, development partners continue to value mutual accountability structures and processes. Results of the 2018 Monitoring Round show that the vast majority of development partners perceive mutual accountability assessments as a key component to improve the ways of working at country level, and this signals the need to continue to invest in these mechanisms. However, the modalities of engagement are diversifying and development partners’ disbursements to the public sector are decreasing as a relative share of co-operation portfolios.

Figure 1.12. Quality mutual accountability mechanisms are evolving

Shifts in development co-operation structures at country level have implications for the Global Partnership monitoring process. Government institutions are changing the way they organise themselves to manage development co-operation, including reshaping co-ordination mechanisms and structures in response to the 2030 Agenda. These structural shifts take time, but have already impacted the way the 2018 Monitoring Round was undertaken at country level, meriting further attention from the Global Partnership community ahead of its next monitoring round. Guided by the findings of the 2019 Progress Report, the Global Partnership will carry on adapting its monitoring to reflect the opportunities and challenges of the 2030 Agenda and ensure continued relevance and cutting-edge data in a changing world.

Looking forward: Initial reflections of Global Partnership stakeholders

Stakeholders remain committed to the effective development co-operation agenda as an important accelerator for sustainable development, while acknowledging that progress to date has been uneven. In this vein, Global Partnership monitoring continues to be seen as an important tool to enhance development effectiveness. Reflecting on monitoring results, stakeholders noted that strengthened ownership and alignment are needed to accelerate sustainable development and that concerted effort is required to fully and meaningfully engage diverse development actors. Stakeholders also raised the need to move from evidence to action, starting with contextualising results, and to continue adapting the monitoring process.

References

[1] Biermann, F., N. Kanie and R. Kim (2017), “Global governance by goal-setting: The novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 26-27, pp. 26-31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010.

[5] GPEDC (2017), Effective co-operation principles, website, UNDP, New York, http://effectivecooperation.org/about/principles.

[4] GPEDC (2016), Nairobi Outcome Document, Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, New York and Paris, http://effectivecooperation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OutcomeDocumentEnglish.pdf.

[7] OECD (2018), States of Fragility 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264302075-en.

[3] OECD (2011), Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/49650173.pdf.

[2] UN (2015), Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations General Assembly, New York, https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf.

[6] World Bank (2018), “Classifying countries by income”, http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/stories/the-classification-of-countries-by-income.html.

Notes

← 1. Annex A provides further detail on the indicators and coverage of the monitoring exercise.

← 2. The launch of the 2018 Monitoring Round was timed to align to partner country annual fiscal cycles, many of which end in December, and to allow for the completion of a comprehensive, multi-stakeholder review to strengthen the monitoring framework.

← 3. This amount refers to the total budget for those projects and programmes that were newly approved during 2017 and which may also span across several years. Therefore, disbursements could be phased during subsequent years.

← 4. The data covered by the 2018 Monitoring Round represent at least three-fourths of the equivalent of country programmable aid (CPA) for 59 countries (68%) and at least half of the equivalent of CPA for 70 countries (82%). The data cover less than 25% of the equivalent of CPA for only 5 (6%) of the countries. CPA is used as a reference point because it provides an approximation of the overall resources transferred by development partners to partner countries. CPA is a subset of the total gross bilateral official development assistance that is subject to multi-year planning at country/regional level. More details on CPA can be found at: https://data.oecd.org/oda/country-programmable-aid-cpa.htm

1. Overview of the 2018 Global Partnership Monitoring Round