Effective Development Co-operation
MULTILATERAL ORGANISATIONS
EFFECTIVE MULTILATERAL SUPPORT
The need for an effective multilateral system has never been more important to address the nature and scale of today’s global challenges, from record numbers of displaced persons to era-defining pandemics. Enhancing the effectiveness of the multilateral system requires behaviour change by both development partners that fund multilateral organisations, but also by multilateral organisations themselves. Drawing on the unique convening power of the Global Partnership, multilateral organisations and key partners aim at making a substantive multi- stakeholder contribution to the global discourse on (i) an effective multilateral system, based on the effectiveness principles, and (ii) how bilateral partners can most effectively support the multilateral system, as we work towards the 2030 Agenda. This will include analytical work across different types of partners to promote mutual learning and exploring how partners’ effective support to the multilateral system could be measured, building on other efforts at the global level.
MULTILATERAL PARTNERS' PERFORMANCE FROM 2018: A SNAPSHOT
Scroll down for detailed information on Multilaterals' performance from 2018 monitoring round.
MULTILATERAL ORGANIZATIONS AT THE DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION SUMMIT
KNOWLEDGE SHARING PLATFORM FOCAL POINT FOR EFFECTIVE MULTILATERAL SUPPORT
FEATURED DOCUMENTS
LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR MULTILATERAL PARTNERS
Do you want your organization to be part of the effectiveness community? Please briefly explain why.
MULTILATERAL PARTNERS' PERFORMANCE MONITORING DATA
I. Multilateral development co-operation partners[1] align their projects to partner country priorities, results indicators, statistics, and monitoring and evaluation systems more than bilateral partners (Figure 1).
Multilateral partners continue to maintain high (88%) alignment of project objectives to partner country priorities. Their reliance on partner country monitoring systems and statistics (56% in 2016 to 59% in 2018), as well as partner country involvement in project evaluations have improved (64% in 2016 to 67% in 2018). However, multilateral partners used country-owned results frameworks and planning tools to a medium extent (66%), a slight decrease when compared to 67% in 2016 (SDG 17.15.1), a trend observed for most development partners.
Among multilateral development co-operation partners:
↑ Multilateral development banks (MDBs) have improved on drawing from country-owned results frameworks for results indicators outlined in projects, as well as monitoring results indicators using national statistics and monitoring systems.
↑ Vertical funds and other international organisations have reported more than 90% alignment of project objectives to partner country-led priorities. The Islamic Development Bank and the World Health Organisation perform best on average across all elements of alignment (above 90%).
Figure 1. Comparison of project-level alignment of multilateral and bilateral partners
Source: Global Partnership 2018 Monitoring Round.
[1] In the 2018 Global Partnership monitoring round, 86 partner countries reported on development co-operation funding received from 69 multilateral development partners, including 16 multilateral development banks, 28 UN agencies, 13 vertical funds and initiatives, the European Institutions and 11 other international organisations
II. Despite marginal improvement in annual predictability of development co-operation provided by multilateral partners, forward visibility has declined, jeopardizing partner countries’ ability to plan and budget effectively.
The share of development co-operation disbursed within the same year as was planned slightly increased for multilateral partners since 2016 (from 81% to 83%) but remains lower than in 2011 (85%). Multilateral partners perform less well in this area compared to bilateral partners, for which annual predictability remains much higher on average (92%) (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Proportion of development co-operation disbursed in the same year for which it was originally planned (bilateral and multilateral partners)
Source: Global Partnership 2018 Monitoring Round.
Among multilateral development co-operation partners:
↑ All types of multilateral partners have improved predictability on average since 2016, nevertheless progress is mixed among and within multilateral groups (see Figure 3) with Vertical Funds, MDBs and Other International Organisations (OIOs) being more predictable than UN agencies and EU Institutions.
Figure 3. Proportion of development co-operation disbursed in the same year for which it was originally planned (multilateral partners)
Source: Global Partnership 2018 Monitoring Round.
Multilateral partners share with partner countries forward expenditure plans to a lower extent compared to 2016 (from 75% to 70%). While this declining trend is consistent across most development partners, multilateral partners perform better than bilateral partners (63% in 2018), in this aspect (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Proportion of development co-operation for which forward expenditure plans are made available to partner countries (bilateral and multilateral partners)
Source: Global Partnership 2018 Monitoring Round.
Among multilateral development co-operation partners:
↑ Despite the decline, MDBs perform better than other multilaterals (see Figure 5), with the World Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development making available to partner countries forward expenditure plans covering 80% of their estimated development co-operation funding, which is much higher than the global average.
Figure 5. Proportion of development co-operation for which forward expenditure plans are made available to partner countries (multilateral partners)
Source: Global Partnership 2018 Monitoring Round.
Furthermore, partner countries’ parliaments are overseeing a decreasing share of development co-operation from multilateral partners (declined from 67% to 61% between 2016 and 2018). This weakens the ability of governments to be accountable to their domestic stakeholders. However, multilateral partners perform better than bilateral partners (59% in 2018), in this aspect.
III. Multilateral partners’ use of countries’ public financial management systems has marginally increased
Multilateral partners’ use of countries’ public financial management (PFM) systems has increased marginally since 2016 (52% to 53% in 2018), but has not improved since 2011 (53%). The overall use of PFM systems for multilaterals in 2018 is similar to that of bilateral partners (Figure 6); although for the latter group this has improved since 2011.
Figure 6. Proportion of development co-operation disbursed using partner countries’ PFM systems (bilateral and multilateral partners)
Source: Global Partnership 2018 Monitoring Round.
Among multilateral development co-operation partners:
↑ MDB’s, followed by EU Institutions, lead in using country PFM systems. On the other hand, the use of PFM systems continues to be particularly low for UN agencies (figure 7).
Figure 7. Proportion of development co-operation disbursed using partner countries’ PFM systems (multilateral partners)
Source: Global Partnership 2018 Monitoring Round.
IV. Among development partners, multilaterals lead in engaging government and national development actors in the development of their country strategies
When preparing country strategies, multilateral development partners involved civil society organisations (CSOs) in 90% cases. When preparing country strategies, multilateral development partners involved private sector actors in 69% cases. Multilateral partners’ engagement with both types of stakeholders is more extensive than that of bilateral partners.
However, the CSO perception in most partner countries is that consultation with development partners is episodic, unpredictable and not systematically implemented. CSOs and private sector actors play the role of implementers for 11% of multilateral development co-operation projects.
V. Multilateral development co-operation partners perform well in global assessments of transparency.
In the 2018 Monitoring Round, half of multilateral partners achieved a rating of excellent in the assessment of information reported to the OECD-Creditor Reporting System (CRS) (compared to less than a third in 2016). Similarly, multilateral development partners perform well in the OECD-DAC Forward Spending Survey (FSS) and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) assessments, with a greater proportion of multilaterals achieving a rating of excellent compared to 2016[1].
Among multilateral development co-operation partners:
↑ UN agencies are the top performers, with 57% rated as excellent in the CRS transparency rating. The Asian Development Bank has excellent scores in all three assessments; the African Development Fund, UNICEF and EU institutions have “excellent” scores in two of the three assessments and a score of “good” in the third[2].
[1] The results for transparency (Indicator 4) of the 2016 and 2018 Monitoring Rounds capture the latest assessments available at the time of reporting for each of the respective rounds. CRS data for the 2018 round refer to assessment on reporting to the CRS in 2017; CRS data for the 2016 round refer to assessment on reporting to the CRS in 2014. FSS data for the 2018 round refer to the 2018 survey; FSS data for the 2016 round refer to the 2015 survey. IATI data for the 2018 round refer to scores extracted from the online platform in December 2018; IATI data for the 2016 round refer to scores extracted in May 2016.
[2] Out of the multilateral development co-operation partners that report on all three assessments.
