*A consolidated summary of the feedback provided to the virtual consultation below is available in English and in French*



You can read this consultation page in Spanish or French using the automatic translate function on the left-hand corner of this page.

Please open page in a web browser, not on a mobile device.


1. First, sign up (or log in, if returning user) to the Knowledge Platform. E-mail info@effectivecooperation.org if you have any technical difficulties. 

2. Next, add your feedback to the discussion in the comment box below (scroll down).



As a key Global Partnership stakeholder, we invite your views to test the ideas put forward in the draft monitoring proposal. The proposal covers elements of both the monitoring framework and process. It is developed by Co-Chairs and derived from previous Steering Committee guidance and earlier consultations with stakeholders. 

This online consultation will run from 25th October to 12th November Your feedback will shape a further revised proposal, to be submitted for consideration at the next Steering Committee meeting in December 2021.  



  • Please read the draft monitoring proposal (English, French, Spanish) and review the questions below, to guide your feedback and comments, which you can post in the discussion thread below.
  • For a detailed overview of the suggested technical changes, by contour, please refer to the Annexes, which can be reviewed and commented on directly in the document (English, French, Spanish).

  • To comment below, please first sign up to the Knowledge Platform here.


⓵ What are your views on the proposed changes to the monitoring process?
  • Do you agree with the proposed approach on the occurrence of the monitoring exercise? If not, what concerns do you have and how could these be mitigated?
⓶ What are your views on the proposed draft monitoring framework? 
  • Do you agree with the four "focus areas" and that these areas will help attract political and strategic-level attention to the Global Partnership monitoring evidence?
  • To what extent do you think the draft framework and evidence to be generated will incentivize participation in the monitoring exercise?
⓷ If your expectation is for a simpler framework, which main measurement areas would you propose to drop?



Comments (80)

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

?  A warm welcome to all stakeholders! The consultation is now live. We look forward to your comments on the monitoring proposal! 

? Please remember to sign up to the Knowledge Platform here, before joining the consultation!


Page 10, partie en gras: au lieu de "En mettant examinant ces diverses considérations," Mettre " En examinant ces diverses considérations,........

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Cher M. Dosse SOSSOUGA, merci beaucoup de votre examen attentif du document et de votre observation. Nous allons corriger la phrase en fonction de votre suggestion. Cordialement, l'équipe d'appui conjointe OCDE/PNUD 

Rebekah Chew
Rebekah Chew

Merci beaucoup Kossi Essoglina Samye. Votre examen attentif du projet de proposition de suivi est très apprécié et nous apporterons les corrections utiles que vous avez signalées. 

Richard Kajombo
Richard Kajombo

Hie, thanks for the documents. I am Richard Jack Kajombo from Malawi, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development. My concern relates to the draft monitoring framework, when I was going through it and the tables which have been included in the documents, I thought it will include and reflect  the critical elements of the Results Based Monitoring and Evaluation (RBM&E) Framework to ensure that the Focus Areas, processes, inputs, outputs and outcomes  contribute to the achievements of the set of results and impacts in the long term. The management of the monitoring framework needs to take into consideration the needs of the relevant stakeholders and ensure that all actors are contributing directly or indirectly to achieving a set of results and also ensure that the Focus Areas, processes, products and services contribute to the achievement of desired results (outputs, outcomes and higher level goals or impact). It will be helpful in this draft if one of such tables are included so that results we are interested to monitor are properly followed and we can account for the progress that can be made in making sure that the framework enables stakeholders to monitor progress of each Focus Area of interest.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thanks a lot Richard Jack Kajombo for the very helpful suggestions - we really appreciate you taking the time to respond. The GPEDC monitoring looks at various elements of how partner countries and development partners put in practice the elements of RBM&E. These are captured under the Focus Area on “Quality and Use of Country Systems” (see also Table 6 of the proposal which shows how the monitoring looks at different country systems and processes, including planning and monitoring). While it is not indicated in detail in the proposal, the framework looks at the quality of national development strategies and country results frameworks, as well as at how development partners align to results defined by partner countries at country level. (For more details, see the 2018 monitoring guide on what is captured.) However, in doing so, the monitoring does not look at results/impact of development co-operation in the traditional sense intended in the RBM&E approach. The GPEDC monitoring rather focuses on the quality of development co-operation and development partnerships, by tracking progress made in the implementation of the Busan commitments (which are about the ''how” and less about impact and final outputs and results of development interventions). This is based on the idea that monitoring progress on the implementation of the commitments should lead to better knowledge/learning as to what works and what doesn’t. It also facilitates accountability on how to work together as partners, to promote better co-ordinated policies and practices for, ultimately, better development outcomes.

As per the management of the monitoring framework itself, elements of the proposed revised monitoring exercise try as much as possible to reflect the needs of relevant stakeholders, to ensure that these stakeholders are accountable for the implementation of results/progress they have committed to (the reform follows a commitment-based approach to ensure that core data points are linked directly to commitments made by stakeholders). While a robust RBM&E approach to this is not envisioned as a follow-up on the results of the monitoring, the new focus on Action Dialogues [introduced by the reform] provisions for a dedicated process at country level where stakeholders can digest and ask each other questions on the country-specific monitoring results in order to then develop an action plan to make improvements going forward.

Wendy Flores
Wendy Flores

Muchas gracias al equipo de seguimiento por la remisión de los documentos de la nueva propuesta. 

Felicitaciones por los cambios propuestos y por el enfoque que se esta planteando, mas cercano al país. Esto permitirá tener una visión más clara y concreta de los resultados de las rondas de monitoreo para los países, un poco más ajustados a sus realidades.

En varios espacios de diálogo hemos planteado las interrogantes que luego nos dejan los resultados, como ser: Como manejo estos resultados? que puedo hacer para mejorar mis indicadores? Que recomendaciones podría obtener después de estos resultados para mejorar la eficacia? 

Resalto el hecho que se consideren algunas buenas practicas del pasado como talleres de socialización en los países, ya que esto reforzará las alianzas de la AGCED en los países (ser fuerte en el país), y además de ellos nos permitirá a los países que los diferentes socios nacionales tengan un mayor conocimiento y motivación para participar en las Rondas.

Asimismo, y con respecto al Dialogo de Acción y después de la experiencia del Dialogo realizado el 12 de octubre, será muy valioso contar con una guía orientadora para la realización de los mismos, y que a la vez motive a los socios al desarrollo, a participar activamente.

El informe de país después de las Rondas de Monitoreo, la vemos como la herramienta que nos permitirá tener una visión mas amplia y comparativa de las acciones que estamos realizando para lograr que la cooperación sea eficaz. Asimismo, a través de este informe se podrían brindar algunas orientaciones o recomendaciones en cada una de las áreas que se deben fortalecer.   





Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Many thanks Wendy Flores for this thoughtful and constructive feedback! Great to see that you agree with the thrust of the proposal and that this looks overall like something that will be of benefit to countries that lead the monitoring exercise.

Well noted on the point that policy guidance on possible actions to address the monitoring results would be useful. It would be interesting to hear thoughts from others in this online consultation on whether this type of guidance would be useful, and where this type of guidance could be best communicated.

We also welcome your very useful feedback on the Action Dialogue that took place recently in Honduras, and indeed do envision that a guide would be developed to assist countries in the new monitoring process to strengthen the use of results at the end of the monitoring process by having a multi-stakeholder dialogue that aims to discuss the underlying challenges and reasons behind the results and agree on a set of actions to improve these results and lead to stronger, more effective partnerships.

Suren Poghosyan
Suren Poghosyan


from my experience, it is critical to see these processes from the in-country perspective where the government counterparts are already engaged in various monitoring and reporting processes. Ideally, the number of monitoring processes is limited while the use of it can be as wide as possible. Hence, if there could be found more flexible modalities for the countries so they align the existing monitoring system (and the calendar) with the GPEDC monitoring then that can support the overall process, imho. A possible example of that is the VNR process.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Many thanks Suren Poghosyan for this useful insight! Indeed the suggested change on the occurence - or frequency - of the monitoring exercise aims to provide the flexibility for countries to align the exercise with national processes, like the VNR process, so that the monitoring results can feed into other national processes. 

Would be great to hear others thoughts on the proposed change to the occurence of monitoring exercise too! 

Brian Tomlinson
Brian Tomlinson

Dear Colleagues,

Congratulations on the hard work in putting together the proposals for the revision of the monitoring framework and the monitoring process.  There is much to be commended in these proposals.  I have attached a commentary.  I do so from my experience in closely following the evolution of the GPEDC's commitment to monitoring since Busan and as former Chairperson for the GPEDC's Monitoring Advisory Group prior to the last monitoring round.

Brian Tomlinson

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Many thanks Brian Tomlinson for your continued engagement in the work of the Global Partnership, which is greatly appreciated given your past experience! These reactions will each be carefully considered. Well noted on your comment regarding the clarity of the main body of the proposal, particularly with regard to the annex. Also well noted on the various reflections on the monitoring process; indeed several of these lead back to a question/discussion on resourcing and partnership arrangements that will need to be addressed prior to the re-launch of the exercise. The aim is for the monitoring exercise to be re-launched following the endorsement of a new monitoring proposal at the Third High Level Meeting (HLM3) of the GPEDC, taking place at the end of 2022. This timing will inevitably be a factor in finalising the monitoring proposal ahead of HLM3. Well noted also on the specific comments regarding Annex 1. 

To pick up in detail here perhaps on just one element that your useful feedback outlines, you mention that the proposal on the occurrence of the monitoring exercise to shift to waves over 3 or 4 years rather than every 2 years raises serious resource implications engaged civil society actors and that momentum would be lost between rounds. We're particularly keen to hear views from all stakeholders on the occurrence of the monitoring exercise, including how this would impact your constituency and whether the benefits would outweigh the negatives or vice versa. Looking forward to hearing more thoughts on this issue! 

Suzely  Garrido
Suzely Garrido

¿Cuáles son sus opiniones sobre los cambios propuestos para el proceso de seguimiento?

Los cambios propuestos presentan una oportunidad para que los países socios continúen participando en las rondas de monitoreo de manera  más eficiente,  con la intención de hacer coincidir el levantado de información con los ejercicios nacionales  de revisión voluntaria que dan cuenta del cumplimiento de los ODS, y en el caso de Guatemala  de las Prioridades Nacionales de Desarrollo que resultaron del ejercicio de vinculación  de la Agenda 2030 de Desarrollo Sostenible con el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo.

Asimismo, la generación prevista de documentos para propiciar un dialogo respecto a los resultados logrará cumplir con los objetivos del ejercicio de monitoreo  de evidenciar cómo estamos contribuyendo  y qué se necesita mejorar  para orientar las acciones de los socios cooperantes de manera que cumplan con los compromisos de eficacia.

Un acompañamiento constante y más fortalecido ha sido reclamado por los países socios en los diferente espacios de diálogo que se han promovido para llegar a esta propuesta,  por lo que es necesario  que tanto el proceso como el marco, cuenten con una guía detallada para cada uno de los usuarios (países, cooperantes, OSC, sector privado, beneficiarios), de manera  que se sientan identificados  con el proceso y sepan  que van a obtener del mismo una vez concluya.

 ¿Cuáles son sus puntos de vista sobre el proyecto de marco de seguimiento propuesto?

La propuesta busca responder de mejor manera a los diferentes contextos y requerimientos de los países socios, enfocándose en las cuatro áreas de interés, como lo es la responsabilidad colectiva del desarrollo, el respecto hacia los procesos de los países y la responsabilidad de informar sobre lo que hacemos para no dejar a nadie atrás.

Y en ese proceso será necesario que exista un fuerte acompañamiento así como divulgación de los objetivos de las rondas por parte de la Alianza, de manera que los socios del desarrollo a los que se les pondrá mayor énfasis (OSC, SECTOR PRIVADO) se interesen en participar del proceso, motivados por la utilizad de la información.

Si su expectativa es un marco más simple, ¿qué áreas principales de medición propondría eliminar?

Más que eliminar, consideramos que darle relevancia al tema de transparencia es fundamental para lograr avanzar en sistemas que permitan  generar datos que logren evidenciar las otras tres áreas de interés.

Un sistema fortalecido evidenciará mayor compromiso de manera que las iniciativas de cooperación puedan territorializarse y enfocarse en no dejar a nadie atrás, en la medida que lo establezcan los mecanismos nacionales de planificación del desarrollo y sean utilizados por las fuentes cooperantes.

Respecto a un marco más simple, se sugiere que los socios respondan directamente  en una plataforma de acceso al país, que acumule los datos y puedan modificarse sin necesidad de que deban ser compilados nuevamente por segunda o tercera vez.


Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you Suzely Garrido for these very thoughtful reflections! Your feedback on the proposed shift to the occurrence of the monitoring exercise is well noted, and it is interesting to hear that this proposed shift would make it more efficient for Guatemala to lead the monitoring exercise in future. It's also noted that you see the flexibility in this proposal to allow for the results of the monitoring exercise to feed into national voluntary review exercises as also mentioned above by Suren. Well noted also on the feedback that a guide specific to each constituency would be useful, so that each can play a meaningful role both in the monitoring process and use of results. 


Comment on behalf of Alessandro Motter:


  • The exercise once again would only run in partner countries. While development partners are to contribute to the exercise, they are not themselves being solicited directly. Yet it’s hard to see how many development cooperation commitments development partners have made over the years can be monitored from the standpoint of their work with partner countries only. There are aspects of the four focus areas that are unique to development partners. For example, under LNOB, they should be monitored for their aid allocations to countries (too often still based on geopolitical considerations, not on relative actual needs).  It may be too late to add but ideally a separate indicator framework should be designed for development partners to respond to directly from their capitals.


  •  Institutionalization of the exercise (pp. 11-12) is discussed primarily in terms of making the whole thing fit into national reporting cycles. The GP indicator framework appears to remain largely superimposed to whatever monitoring indicators countries already utilize. IPU had suggested that “institutionalization” should seek to embed the GP indicator framework as much as possible into national frameworks. The paper rightly points out that this is happening in just a few countries at the moment, but does not present an argument as to why more countries cannot be interested in adopting at last parts of the GP indicator framework. Undoubtedly, this will require a bigger upfront investment at first but will result in a much more manageable monitoring exercise for partner countries for years to come. IPU suggests adding the following to the discussion on pp. 11-12: partner countries will be invited to incorporate the GP indicator framework into national reporting processes with assistance to that effect made available by the JST and/or Steering Committee members.


  • The proposed “Exit survey” on p. 13 does not sound workable given the extended timeline of the whole exercise in each country. Who will respond, and with what degree of reliability? IPU proposes that an evaluation of the whole exercise be conducted directly by the proposed (re-constituted) Action Dialogues to be convened at the end of each monitoring exercise.
Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you Alessandro Motter for this thoughtful feedback! Indeed the monitoring process in itself is a capacity building, partnership strengthening exercise. Development partners are requested to report on their behaviour; at country level at the request and leadership of the partner country government once they have decided to lead the exercise in country. There are other data collected at global level from development partners, however, one of the unique features of the GPEDC monitoring exercise is that it generates and collects data at country level. In putting this draft proposal together, there has been careful consideration to not duplicate data or other reporting mechanisms at global level. Well noted on your reflection regarding institutionalisation. This can manifest in several ways; systems (or the national frameworks as you mention), mechanisms (and the timing of those mechanisms and processes), and also policies. While noting that each country is different and no-one-size-fits-all, it has been good practice in the past for partner countries to institutionalise the monitoring across each of these where/as possible. Several proposed changes in the monitoring process aim to further enable partner countries to institutionalise the monitoring exercise. Also well noted on the exit survey. This is something that has been done in previous rounds, but now with the suggested change that, beyond the national coordinator, stakeholders engaged in the monitoring process could also complete this survey to provide a more 360 view on how the exercise was conducted and where improvements could be made in the future.

Fabiola Soto Narváez
Fabiola Soto Narváez

México celebra la reflexión y cambios propuestos, tanto al proceso, como al propio marco de monitoreo de la AGCED. Como es bien sabido, México ha sido un gran promotor de la Agenda de la Eficacia a nivel global y ha participado en dos mesas rondas de monitoreo. Asimismo, ña AMECID ha trabajado para implementar los principios de esta agenda en la cooperación que impulsa, ya que éstos forman parte tanto de su marco jurídico como de su marco programático.

Asumiendo una naturaleza de cooperante dual (como receptor y proveedor/oferente de Cooperación Sur-Sur y Triangular), México se ha encontrado en una posición un tanto peculiar al llevar a la práctica el marco de monitoreo sin que se reconozca su carácter de cooperante dual. Sin duda la dicotomía oferente/receptor prevalece en gran parte de los países; no obstante, es muy importante que los actores con una naturaleza dual, vean reflejada su realidad en el marco mismo, para poder visibilizar su rol de cooperante dual de manera adecuada. Sería deseable que ahora que se plantean cambios al marco y al proceso, esta dimensión sea tomada en consideración para enriquecer el nuevo marco de monitoreo.

Para México es muy importante trabajar hacia una cooperación eficaz de manera progresiva y sería muy beneficioso poder visibilizar sus avances a través de una herramienta como el nuevo marco de monitoreo de la AGCED. Por lo que felicitamos la iniciativa para que el instrumento busque plantear una ruta de trabajo a mediano y largo plazos con los países en desarrollo, de acuerdo a sus capacidades y prioridades, para avanzar en la agenda y para que se diseñe un monitoreo agregado (o macro) del propio Marco de Monitoreo.

Sobre los indicadores, nos parece que es necesario que éstos reflejen únicamente los esfuerzos y realidades del país al que se está monitoreando, evitando hacer juicios de valor unilaterales a sus instrumentos de planeación o sus sistemas nacionales externos. En la medida en que los indicadores se centren en el propio país, será más fácil definir una agenda nacional que avance hacia una cooperación más eficaz.

Por último, nos parece muy necesaria la búsqueda de complementariedades, sinergias y colaboraciones con otras agendas globales y/o foros de cooperación para el desarrollo, con el fin de evitar duplicidades y asegurar que los países participen optimizando sus esfuerzos. 

Compartimos la información sobre el Sub-grupo de CSS en el marco del Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development (ONU/OCDE), que puede servir como insumo para las discusiones sobre la CSS.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Many thanks to you Fabiola Soto Narváez for these useful comments, and also to Mexico as a long-time supporter and engaged partner of the GPEDC! Well noted on your feedback regarding the perspective of dual countries. With thanks to the pioneering work that Mexico did in the last work programme on monitoring the effectiveness of SSC, which is now continued by Colombia through Action Area 2.3, this is a critical element to adapting the Global Partnership monitoring framework to remain relevant and useful for partner countries as modalities and the roles of development cooperation actors continue to evolve. To this end, many thanks for sharing the note from the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development SSC Sub-Group. Also very well noted on the need to seek complementarities, synergies and collaborations with other global agendas and/or development cooperation forums! 

Innocent MUGABE
Innocent MUGABE

I would like to thank the teams that have worked on putting these proposed changes to the GPEDC monitoring rounds and most of these proposals are recommendable and i have provided my inputs to the annex in the google docs which i hope will feed in the final monitoring framework.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you Innocent MUGABE for your detailed review of the proposal and the annex, and your very useful insights on the proposed changes! The feedback on transparency, LNOB, predictability, untied aid and multilateral donorship are all very well noted. 

Kim Bettcher
Kim Bettcher

My comments are in response to the Kampala Principles technical working paper.

2.2 (b) Monitoring... five interrelated Kampala Principles
State of the Policy Framework, "whether DPs and PCGs use policies/strategies/results frameworks to articulate objectives and goals for PSE" - This can be broken down further: Does the framework exist, is it used/aligned, and was there an inclusive process? Note that a project level framework need not reproduce a national policy/strategy framework but should align.

Contribution of PSE to sustainable development results - What is measured? Is it project design, stakeholder perceptions, or evaluated outcomes? Is this assessed on the project's own terms or according to SDG indicators or national goals? In measuring targeted impact (leave no one behind), consider the possible tradeoff in precision of targeting versus mobilizing greater private sector resources. 

Degree to which the private sector considers it easy to partner with other stakeholders, "what the private sector considers critical for effective partnering" - This needs to be fleshed out. It may include barriers to starting a partnership, risks of partners not meeting commitments, awareness of opportunities, quality of communication.

Uptake of the KPs - Manage expectations; at the outset, the baseline will be low.

Kampala Principle 3 does not appear to be reflected in this section. There is no mention of inclusive dialogue nor inclusive partnerships.

"singling out or clustering by individual KPs is not currently suggested." - This is fine for the current purpose. Still, it may be worth noting that principle-level assessments can be valuable to stakeholders at the project level outside of the global monitoring exercise.

2.3 Data Collection Approach

Dedicated KPs Assessment Module - Additional guidance on the selection of stakeholders is desirable. Ideally, those selected are both representative and informed about PSE in development cooperation. With such a small number selected, results may vary widely according to: experience with the national policy framework or project implementation; which development partner supports the work; modality of PSE experience. If necessary to get a fuller picture of PSE modalities, one idea might be to consult more than two private sector stakeholders, but not to weight the private sector voice unduly in the report out.



Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you Kim Bettcher for this very insightful feedback! Your continued engagement on this area of effectiveness and sharing of experience are greatly appreciated. Well noted on both remarks related to the monitoring, including the need to flesh out further some areas and manage expectations, as well as on the data collection approach and methodology.

Moses Ayuk BATE
Moses Ayuk BATE

Regarding the Draft Monitoring Proposal (Revised Framework and Process), the focus on ownership by GPEDC stakeholders and the whole-of-society approach should aim at ensuring that partner country governments actually lead the monitoring process involving multiple stakeholders. The point is to make sure the monitoring exercise informs the broader national development assessment framework. 


Associating the monitoring exercise with the Action dialogue is very much welcome. The aim should be to ensure a better dissemination of the monitoring findings, contribute to the broader national development debate, as well as to enhance accountability.


The suggestions for supporting partner countries technically, and especially financially, is extremely useful. Resource limitations have been a major setback in past monitoring exercises. Such resources could be used for organising multi-stakeholder consultations and workshops, and eventually, to recruit a consultant for complementary analysis in the monitoring exercise which could enhance independence of findings.


Finally, post-monitoring surveys are very much welcome for continuous improvements in the monitoring process. It is important to identify clearly who evaluates who.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you Moses Ayuk BATE for these reflections, which no doubt draw on your experience as part of the government of Cameroon in the Ministry of Economy, Planning and Regional Development. As a country that is leading an Action Dialogue in 2021, your positive feedback on embedding Action Dialogues within the monitoring process going forward is well noted. Also well noted on the need for technical and financial resource support for partner countries to lead the monitoring exercise. 

Emmanuel LAO
Emmanuel LAO

Monitoring Team 

Dear Monitoring Team,

In addition to what Mr. Moses BATE has posted for Cameroon, I would like to attach here a french version of our contribution which gives also our feedback on the proposed reform on  the periodicity  of the Monitoring exercice as well as our opinion on the four focus areas.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

(Version française ci-dessous)

Thank you Emmanuel Lao for sharing your feedback to the proposal. It is well noted that the greater flexibility proposed would allow Cameroun to better complete the information requested and increase its relevance, to institutionalise the framework, which is very important feedback given that enabling institutionalisation is a key ambition of the reform

Thanks also for raising the point on the need for adequate resources to undertake the data collection. We also take note of your suggestion on the simplification of the questionnaire and the need for clarification on the data required.

Merci Emmanuel Lao d'avoir partagé vos commentaires sur la proposition. Il est bien noté que la plus grande flexibilité proposée permettrait au Cameroun de mieux compléter les informations demandées et d'augmenter leur pertinence, d'institutionnaliser le cadre, ce qui est un feedback très important étant donné que permettre l'institutionnalisation est une ambition clé de la réforme. 

Merci également d'avoir soulevé le point sur la nécessité de disposer de ressources adéquates pour entreprendre la collecte des données. Nous prenons également note de votre suggestion concernant la simplification du questionnaire et la nécessité de clarifier les données requises. 

Ian Mitchell
Ian Mitchell

At the Center for Global Development, we use the monitoring data to feed into two of our indices (the Commitment to Development Index and Quality of ODA), which we use to scrutinise providers/ high income countries ((ie development partners). These two products attract some media interest and our conversations with providers support the original aims of the monitoring round ie (i) drive behaviour change towards more effective development co-operation; and (ii) support global accountability for implementation of Busan commitments.

I would make three comments on the proposals.

First, the monitoring round is really the only substantive information on what countries that receive assistance think about providers' development assistance. It is therefore very important. I'm concerned that this gets too little attention in the proposals. It appears - though it is hard to judge - the current set of questions relating to 'development partners' will be retained. There are only a small number, and I would strongly encourage that to be the case. I'm not sure of the value of the set of questions on development partners country strategies - consulting and engaging vulnerable groups would seem to be primarily for partner countries to own. 

Second, on the timing. It would be helpful to have a more regular flow of information from the monitoring exercise, and I'd be broadly supportive of the move to phases for that reason. However, the response rate and coverage of partnerships is very important - so, I would hope that it would be a goal of these proposals to improve the rate among respondents (especially as there appears to be support). Without high response rates, the monitoring results lack reliability, and is not sufficiently representative for providers to be challenged. 

Third, on the grouping by focus areas may help with attention. Still, the GPEDC could attract much more attention and scrutiny by writing up the results in a more compelling way, and making clear which development partners are not fulfilling their commitments. The web interface is useful, but is not the same as a press release and report, highlighting which providers did not fulfil the basic principles in their approach, and which did.

Overall, the original aim of Busan and the preceding meetings was to improve PROVIDER practice. The Monitoring data shows that there has been little progress over time. The consultation seems to make little reference to Development Partner (ie provider) performance and monitoring but the ultimate proposals surely need to have increased quality of data and scrutiny as their fundamental goal.  

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Many thanks Ian Mitchell for this very useful input, and also thanks to the Center for Global Development for the ongoing engagement in the work of the Global Partnership! Well noted on all three points. Indeed key aspects related to development partners' assistance will be retained. Annex I provides a detailed account of which areas/questions would be not retained, and indeed some of these are on development partners country strategies but well noted on the point here regarding their consultation with vulnerable groups. Also well noted on the timing of the exercise. As you point out, the response rate is an important element and ties closely to the ownership and commitment of stakeholders to engage in the monitoring exercise, as well as resourcing and partnership arrangements, which is mentioned above by a representative from the government of Cameroon. In terms of writing up the results in the most compelling way, this feedback is well received and will be considered together with Alessandro's comment on this aspect of the proposal. The emphasis on provider practice is a timely reminder, given, as you mention, the results from past monitoring rounds. 

Nada Tawfik
Nada Tawfik

Dear Colleagues,

Please find hereunder the comments on the Monitoring Proposal:

  • The proposed changes don’t seem to capture the new trends on the international development agenda, such as climate change as a cross-cutting theme.

Suggestion: We can include SDG Indicator 13.2.1: Number of countries with nationally determined contributions, long-term strategies, national adaptation plans and adaptation communications, as reported to the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

  • There is no measure of complementarity/coherence of international development interventions either from a partner country’s perspective or that of development partners.
  • The survey relies on quantitative analysis which doesn’t necessarily accommodate the diversity of development cooperation modalities, and hence needs to be complemented with qualitative information (a mixed-methods approach) as to give context to the analysis and enhance the monitoring survey’s ability to reflect on-the-ground results and highlight the strengths of partnerships and different modalities in achieving impactful change.
  • “It is suggested that the monitoring exercise shift from a global biennial exercise to being conducted in open waves” where countries choose one (or more) 12 month ‘wave’ in which to complete the exercise within a 3-4 year period.

Based on the assumption that x countries partake in a wave, and their results will be aggregated and compared, it would be risky to rely on this method especially if the sample is too small or the countries fall on different ends of the spectrum. Maybe if we divide countries into strata and specify the min. and max. number of countries required to partake per wave, we can avoid an unbalanced participation of countries and ensure that countries have access to the needed support during the specified timeframe.

Points that need further clarification:

  • Identify the type of support that would be provided to partner countries.
  • In case of using the open wave approach, we need to clarify the reporting period whether it would be by calendar year or countries’ fiscal year (which will greatly vary), and how the results would be aggregated and compared etc.


Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thanks Nada Tawfik for your suggestions and well noted and appreciated on the points that need further clarifications. We agree that quantitative measurements need to be complemented with qualitative ones. The proposal suggests to collect qualitative information that helps to enrich the findings and analysing the results to bring to the surface different needs and challenges in different contexts (see Table 5 of the proposal with some examples).

Thanks also for pointing to the risk of unbalanced participation in different waves. To mitigate that risk, it will be crucial to have early engagement of partner countries and a commitment for participation if possible as early as the HLM3 (in late 2022).

As per the need to capture climate change in the monitoring framework, while its importance as a cross-cutting issue in development is not disputed, including SDG indicator 13.2.1 would be beyond the current scope of the monitoring framework. This however does not exclude the possibility to use external data in the analysis (including existing SDGs) when they are helpful to complement/better explain the results coming from the country level exercise.

Andrea Ries
Andrea Ries

The changes are well justified and will, in principle, increase the quality and the impact of the GPEDC monitoring. Action dialogues, country results briefs, development partner profiles, etc. will important elements and address existing challenges.

For the Action Dialogues it will be imporant that the GPEDC does not create a new and free standing process but that they are enbedded in the Agenda 2030 landscape in the countries and linked or integrated into exisiting foras and processes.

The option “Regional Waves” has, in my view, advantages.

  1. Regional platforms could play a significant role in quality management (capacity building, quality control).
  2. The pressure across partner countries to undertake the exercise will remain, particularly if regional platforms or partners become engaged (see point 1).
  3. Comparisons across regions will stimulate the discussions (e.g. regional exchange, conferences).
  4. Important: “regions” could also be clusters of 3-5 countries. The important point is that there is a “regional wave”, beyond country borders.

To have a specific tool for fragile countries makes sense.

Andrea Ries
Andrea Ries

We welcome and agree with the proposed contours for the indicator framework, particularly: 

  • The bigger attention given to Data and Statistics, as the statistical system consitutes an imporant country system, that is essential for all four effectiveness principlse. We also have seen from the last monitoring exercise, that this a area where progress is still slow and hence the monitoring could give incentives to advance; 
  • To address LNOB on a practical level, is an added value and to my knwolege no such data exists and this can support the debate in the context of the Agenda 2030 and decade of action.
Andrea Ries
Andrea Ries

The proposal indicates that specific indicators to measure Effectiveness of South South Cooperation will be added based on ongoing work of SSC partners in the GPEDC. We very much support this and it will be imporant to also offer SSC a way to engage in the monitoring based on a framework which responds to the SSC context. 

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you, Marie Maasbol, for contributing perspectives from the European Commission, which are well received and appreciated. It is good to hear of the EC’s support for many of the elements of the monitoring process proposal, and agreement with the benefits they can bring, including related to better enabling institutionalisation. Efforts to confirm participation of countries well in advance will be key, as you point out. The suggestion to extend the cycle from 3-4 years to 4-5 years is noted. An important rationale for not extending beyond 3-4 years is to ensure global aggegration of results from all waves in a cycle on a regular basis, to feed into HLM dialogue, and to keep global momentum which is a priority for many stakeholders. In addition, exchanges with the UN Statistical Division have advised that to maintain custodianship of the three SDG indicators, GPEDC should provide regular global aggregates, so for this reason the maximum period of every 4 years is proposed (more detail can be found in the paper on occurrence of the monitoring exercise that was produced before the 21st Steering Committee meeting).


Your feedback also includes a number of specific suggestions and observations related to the monitoring framework, and thank you for acknowledging that a range of issues will need to be considered as part of the technical work that will continue into next year. This includes, for example, as you note, more work to define how the LNOB focus area would be refined further. Your feedback points to the opportunity for the monitoring exercise to gather a range of evidence relevant to effectiveness, and a few elements of your response suggest areas where the monitoring should capture additional or more in-depth information. As noted from other respondents to this consultation, as well as in earlier forums and Steering Committee meetings, ideas for collecting additional data need to be balanced with calls for not increasing the complexity of the framework. Yet, given earlier feedback from stakeholders, the proposal does, for example, provision for including additional data on reasons for not using PFM systems. It is also suggested to put more emphasis on the proportion of ODA to the public sector. (See more detail on this in Annex I, section on UCS). Your broader feedback about how use of country systems is defined, as well as how ownership as a concept is captured in the monitoring including as concerns the role of the government, are also well noted.


Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Commentaires de KOUASSI Adjé Vincent de Paul,

Directeur de la Coopération et de la Coordination de l’Aide,

Ministère du Plan et du Développement,

Côte d’Ivoire

1. Quel est votre avis concernant le projet de proposition de cadre de suivi ?

J’apprécie les propositions relatives au processus de suivi. J’apprécie particulièrement la flexibilité proposée quant au calendrier de l’exercice. En effet, parfois, l’occurrence de l’exercice ne coïncide pas avec le timing du cycle programmatique des stratégies sectorielles et nationales de développement de la Côte d’Ivoire. Un cycle de 3 à 4 ans serait fortement apprécié, parce qu’il traverse forcément un programme triennal ou quinquennal de développement. Cela permettrait de disposer de résultats plus probants. Le changement dans certains domaines demande en effet du temps. Le cycle de 2 ans était relativement trop court. L’idée des vagues est donc la bienvenue. Elle permet en effet d’intégrer le processus en tenant compte des spécificités des cadres programmatiques. Toutefois, il faudra prévoir comment rendre comparables à temps réel les progrès obtenus et les rendre comparables d’un pays en développement à un pays.

J’apprécie également l’idée d’utiliser les résultats de l’exercice de suivi pour alimenter le dialogue d’action. Cela me parait plus concret que par le passé, où les résultats de l’enquête de suivi n’avaient pas un usage précis, ni un cadre précis pour leur dissémination ou leur discussion au niveau national. Cela rejoint donc l’idée d’une plus grande institutionnalisation pour que les résultats soient mieux partagés et utilisés au plus haut sommet de l’Etat pour aider à la prise de décisions relatives à la planification d’actions concrètes pour trouver solutionner aux défis nouveaux qui entravent l’atteinte des objectifs de développement durable (ODD).

Enfin, la proposition d’inclure l’assistance technique en nature à l’offre de soutien et de ressources est une bonne proposition. Cette proposition rejoint d’ailleurs notre volonté de disposer en Côte d’Ivoire, d’une masse critique de personnes capables de négocier, mobiliser des ressources, connaitre les différents guichets et les modes opératoires des partenaires au développement, exécuter les ressources suivant les priorités au niveau national et en lien avec les ODD et les principales problématiques soulevées au niveau international, etc.

2. Quel est votre avis concernant le projet de proposition de cadre de suivi ?

A propos du cadre de suivi, le fait de n’avoir abandonné aucun élément-clé est une bonne initiative. L’ancien support de collecte utilisé dans l’enquête de suivi semblait un peu lourd, avec des questions parfois pas nécessaires ou dont on pouvait déjà savoir la réponse en observant d’autres indicateurs.

Mettre l’accent sur les variables qualitatives est une chose excellente. En effet, parfois, le « discours » des différents acteurs sur les raisons du changement, de la non utilisation des mécanismes nationaux ou de la modification des actions prévues, est plus riche en information que la simple mesure des performances réalisées. Des données qualitatives, bien décortiquées, permettraient de mieux comprendre les informations contenues dans les données quantitatives.

En outre, le dialogue avec les Organisations de la Société Civile (OSC) et le Secteur Privé est une véritable préoccupation. Prévoir des mécanismes concrets pour connaitre le volume des appuis extérieurs qui transitent par ces acteurs, mais aussi l’usage qui en est fait serait d’un grand apport pour mieux rendre compte de l’efficacité du partenariat au développement.

Pour ne laisser personne pour contre, la proposition faite est très pertinente. Mon commentaire sur ce point est qu’il est important d’utiliser les statistiques nationales et microéconomiques, désagrégées, plutôt que de rester le plus souvent sur des données macroéconomiques qui cachent beaucoup de disparités entres les personne humaines. Il faudra par ailleurs prévoir de façon concrète, comment mettre les outils de planification, et d’évaluation sur des problématiques spécifiques. Les indicateurs définis doivent le plus possible être mesurables dans tous les pays.

Lorsque les différents acteurs sentent que l’exercice de suivi comprend des questions et indicateurs spécifiques qui leur sont adressés et dont les éléments de réponses et les résultats même de l’exercice de suivi seront utilisés pour des discussions ou des débats futurs au niveau sectoriel ou national, cela peut les inciter à non seulement produire de la bonne information, mais aussi à s’intéresser au processus.

3. Si vous souhaitez un cadre de suivi simplifié quelles les principales mesures que vous proposeriez d’abandonner ?

D’une façon générale, je propose que les indicateurs et les données faciles à comprendre ou interpréter par des personnes qui ne sont pas forcément économistes, statisticiens ou mathématiciens, etc. La culture statistique n’est en effet pas développée dans les pays en développement.

En outre, je constate que le projet de cadre de résultat proposé ne retient que des pourcentages. Bien que les pourcentages soient parlants, il serait bon de diversifier les indicateurs.

a) Au niveau de la qualité et de l’utilisation des systèmes nationaux

  • Commentaire et proposition: En effet, bien que je comprenne la volonté de voir les pays améliorer leur système national pour la gestion des finances publiques, je crains que mettre le terme qualité mentionné ici ne soit comme une porte ouverte pour certains partenaires qui pourraient s’appuyer sur le manque de qualité des systèmes nationaux pour justifier leur non utilisation. Existe-il, en effet, un barème ou des critères concrets pour qualifier un système national de système de qualité ou fiable ? Supprimer le terme « qualité » dans le titre ou le remplacer peut-être par amélioration qui est beaucoup plus progressif, mais qui pose toujours le problème du seuil à atteindre pour être considéré comme système de qualité.

b) Au niveau du rôle des organisations de la société civile (OSC)

  • Commentaire et proposition: le cadre de suivi prévoit que les OSC opèrent dans un environnement qui maximise leur engagement et leur contribution au développement. Je voudrais partager l’espoir que ce point prend en compte le fait que les OSC doivent rendre compte elles-aussi des ressources dont elles bénéficient et l’usage qui en est fait, afin de rendre plus exhaustive l’évaluation de l’effet de l’appui extérieur, dans le cadre du partenariat mondial.




Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

(français ci-dessous)

Thank you Adje Vincent de Paul KOUASSI for your valuable contributions. We take good note of the experience from Côte d'Ivoire that the 2-year cycle was too short and that the proposed flexibility in the timing of the exercise is well appreciated. It is also very useful to know that a cycle of 3 to 4 years would allow for more relevant results for your country and that the waves would facilitate integration of this process within your own programmatic frameworks. 
As you pointed out, comparability over time and between countries is a crucial element, which we will continue to consider as the proposal is developed further.

Your feedback regarding the data collection tool and redundant questions is well noted, as well as your comments regarding the importance of using disaggregated national and microeconomic statistics for "Leaving no one behind".

Thank you also for pointing to the challenges related to the quality of national systems. We take note of your suggestion to define more clearly the criteria for a reliable and quality system, and also for recognising progress.

Regarding the environment for CSOs, you mentioned that the organisations themselves also need to be accountable for their resources and their operations. This is indeed important and it is addressed in one of the modules of indicator 2 on CSO effectiveness and enabling environment. The proposal is to maintain this indicator as it currently is, which includes a question about the extent to which CSOs are aligning with accountability mechanisms, including transparency.

Thank you once again, M. Kouassi for your participation and thoughtful inputs.


Merci Adje Vincent de Paul KOUASSI pour vos précieuses contributions. Nous prenons bonne note de l'expérience de la Côte d'Ivoire selon laquelle le cycle de 2 ans était trop court et de votre appréciation de la flexibilité proposée dans le calendrier de l'exercice. Il est également très utile de savoir qu'un cycle de 3 à 4 ans permettrait d'obtenir des résultats plus pertinents pour votre pays et que les vagues permettraient une meilleure intégration de ce processus dans vos propres cadres programmatiques. Comme vous l'avez souligné, la comparabilité dans le temps et entre les pays est un élément crucial, que nous continuerons à prendre en compte à mesure que la proposition sera développée.

Vos commentaires concernant l'outil de collecte de données et les questions redondantes sont bien notés, ainsi que les commentaires concernant l'importance d'utiliser des statistiques nationales et microéconomiques désagrégées pour ne laisser personne pour contre.

Nous vous remercions également d'avoir souligné les défis liés à la qualité des systèmes nationaux. Nous prenons note de votre suggestion de définir plus clairement les critères d'un système fiable et de qualité, ainsi que de la reconnaissance des progrès.

En ce qui concerne l'environnement des Organisations de la Societé Civile (OSC), vous avez mentionné que les organisations elles-mêmes doivent également rendre compte de leurs ressources et de leurs opérations. Ce point est effectivement important et il est abordé dans l'un des modules de l'indicateur 2 sur l'efficacité des OSC et l'environnement favorable. La proposition est de maintenir cet indicateur tel qu'il est actuellement, qui inclut une question sur la mesure dans laquelle les OSC s'alignent sur les mécanismes de responsabilité, y compris la transparence.

Merci encore, M. Kouassi, pour votre participation et vos contributions réfléchies.


Diego Lopez
Diego Lopez

Dear colleagues,

Please find below trade unions’ views on the monitoring process and framework.

  1. What are your views on the proposed changes to the monitoring process?

We agree with clearly aligning the process with country contexts and institutionalisation of the process to ensure the results feed into national processes. However, we consider that institutionalisation would not necessarily need greater flexibility in the timeframe of the monitoring process, on the contrary, we believe that having more regular rounds would help to better link the monitoring to country processes.

We welcome the inclusion of new Action Dialogues based on the results of the monitoring to contribute to behavioural change. We think that this is especially important for the indicators related to the inclusive partnerships principle, namely the indicator on the Enabling Environment for CSOs and the one on Private Sector Engagement/ Kampala Principles implementation.

We consider that the inclusion of development partner profiles to increase accountability and action on the monitoring results at global level is also a positive step.

We are however concerned about the shift from a global biennial exercise to the new approach on open waves that would take place every three to four years. We consider that this approach will lead to a loss of momentum of the monitoring process.

  1. What are your views on the proposed draft monitoring framework?

We agree with the four focus areas and are happy to see that the GPEDC will continue reporting on the three SDG indicators through the monitoring framework. The new approach with a specific focus area on collective accountability and whole-of-society approach to development is especially welcome as it will contribute to better incorporate different stakeholders in the framework and strengthening the multi-stakeholder nature of the Global Partnership.

We are happy to see a specific focus area on leave no one behind but believe that it would be important to further discuss and refine the approach to ensure that it is strongly reflected in the new monitoring framework and better incorporated in initiatives towards behavioural change.

We welcome the inclusion of trade unions as one of the stakeholders that will be consulted on the indicator on assessing the Enabling Environment for CSOs.

On the new indicator on the Kampala Principles, we consider that basing this indicator on the methodology used for indicator 2 on the Enabling Environment for CSOs is a good approach that can lead to a robust indicator and would like to see a measure of the respect for labour rights by the private sector reflected in the assessment module of the indicator.

We also believe that effective multilateral donorship is an interesting area that should be further explored in the framework.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thanks, Diego Lopez, for your feedback to the proposal. It is encouraging reading of ITUC’s support for the inclusion of Action Dialogues and – based on resources - the production of development partner profiles, as well as your agreement with the four focus areas. The suggestion to further refine the LNOB approach - pointed out also by other stakeholders - is well noted. 


We take good note of your concerns related to the shift to a 3-4 years exercise. The proposal foresees a strong emphasis on the dialogue and the use of results after the data collection period. This, together with the release of country results briefs and snapshots of results for partner countries at different moments within a monitoring round has great potential to keep momentum for the GPEDC monitoring at country and global level. It also represents an increase in the opportunities for visibility of monitoring results compared to the past.

Héctor Cortázar
Héctor Cortázar

Dear Colleagues, 

From the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI), we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Lines below some general thoughts on this.

1.  What are your views on the proposed changes to the monitoring process?

We congratulate the proposal and recognize that in a most cases the contributions of the stakeholders have been considered for the improvement and reform of the monitoring framework.  Regarding the occurrence approach, we agree that flexibility on the schedule and approach seems to be a quality for this exercise to be carried out adequately at the national level. However, we have doubts about its applicability and feasibility, as too much flexibility can be a problem for the commitment and engagement of development countries and other stakeholders such as CSO and private sector.

2.  What are your views on the proposed draft monitoring framework?

We believe that the four areas identified still retain the spirit of the effectiveness agenda, but also respond to and align with other international commitments and processes such as the 2030 Agenda. In this sense, the improvements proposed for the reform of the framework and the monitoring exercise are important to recover the lost political appetite in order to regain the interest of stakeholders and thus be able to achieve better results. However, a closer approach is still pending with middle-income countries that are mostly located in Latin American region and where there are regional forums that could well serve as a link for a greater understanding of the role of development cooperation in national contexts, especially due to the upward trend of the South-South cooperation in international development cooperation.

Additionally, it would be important not only have national dialogues on the results, but also to have regional dialogues in order to compare and verify aspects of improvements or good practices that can be shared between countries. Finally, we recognize the importance of the private sector in international development cooperation and therefore the incorporation of the Kampala Principles as a new measurement method in the monitoring exercise and thus demonstrate its contribution to  national development.

3.  If your expectation is for a simpler framework, which main measurement areas would you propose to drop?

Rather than eliminating, we consider that giving relevance to the areas of transparency and collective accountability is essential to achieve progress in national systems that allow the generation data and that it turn can highlight the other areas.  

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Dear Héctor Cortázar and colleagues from APCI,

Thank you very much for your comments to the proposal. We take note of your remarks regarding flexibility of the process and of your support for the four focus areas identified in the proposal.

You mentioned the rising importance of South-South Cooperation (SSC) and of the private sector. Indeed, both these elements have been recognised by GPEDC leadership and stakeholders as priorities for the new monitoring exercise, as they were endorsed by the Steering Committee earlier this year as two of the contours of the revised monitoring framework. Work to develop a monitoring approach for SSC is being led by Colombia through GPEDC Action Area 2.3. Efforts are also underway to develop an approach to monitor the Kampala Principles, and you can find more details on the initial thinking on this in the proposal annex I (see page 19).

Your point about the importance of regional dialogues in order to compare, discuss and share practices between countries is also well noted.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thanks Maria Sundström for sharing the feedback from the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Sida. We note your appreciation for the changes proposed to the process, including as related to the occurrence, the Action Dialogues and the country results briefs. As you point out, it will be key to have adequate resources to match the level of ambition of these changes.

We appreciate your welcome of the focus on LNOB, as well as of the emphasis on mutual accountability and whole-of-society approaches. On the latter, we take note of your views on how the monitoring exercise should reflect different implementation modalities and efforts towards multi-stakeholder partnerships. Thank you as well for highlighting your agreement that there is value in capturing some complementary qualitative data to illuminate the reasons for certain behaviours, as this type of information can be an important input to Action Dialogues at the country level.

As per the need to recognise the value of support delivered through multilateral organisations, Annex I (subsection on effective multilateral donorship) includes a proposal in this regard. As emerged from the consultations with stakeholders earlier this year, it is proposed to build on existing data as much as possible and to avoid duplication with existing processes (see also feedback received from Canada and Austria in this consultation).

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you very much, Sarah Neumann, for the very comprehensive and considered feedback on the part of Germany. We agree that a more visual presentation of the new monitoring process will be important to ensure stakeholders have a good understanding of how this would work, and this is something we will work on, looking forward. More broadly, your points on the importance of clear communication, also in connection with mobilising participation and engagement, are well taken. As you note, the comprehensiveness of the documentation is important during the reform in the interest of transparency, but there will certainly be a need for more simple and direct communications as we go ahead, and to incentivise continued, and upscaled, interest in the exercise.


We take note of your reflections on the focus areas and in particular on LNOB. There has been pronounced support for highlighting LNOB in the monitoring, including as has come out in this virtual consultation. At the same time, the proposal also provisions for the revised monitoring to include an adaptation to fragile contexts, drawing on the earlier GPEDC work on this, as well as approaches for SSC and private sector engagement. Your considered comments on other aspects of the framework will also be reviewed carefully.


We also take note of your concerns about the complexity of the framework and process. The consultations earlier this year generated a lot of expectations from stakeholders of additional data/evidence they would like to see collected through the exercise; as a result the reporting scope is not drastically reduced. An appreciable reduction in the scope of the framework (e.g. dropping any core measurement areas) will require an agreement on which area(s) should be dropped. Taking steps in this direction has been consistently challenging, as concrete proposals from stakeholders have not been forthcoming. It will be important to minimise complexity of the process to the extent possible, including through clear guidance materials, as you rightly point out. Inasmuch as it relates to complexity, the fact of having a multi-stakeholder exercise and drawing on data collected from different actors and at different levels, does present challenges (alongside of course considerable benefits and opportunities). Your suggestion to consider digitalising the process is also noted. Looking forward, particularly as it relates to data collection, it will be important that the potential advantages of technological solutions are weighed alongside the specific characteristics of this monitoring exercise, for example noting that not all actors who are expected to report and validate data have access and/or facility to do so digitally. Thank you again for your feedback!


Annika Kaipola
Annika Kaipola

Please find comments from Finland regarding the questions posed on views on the proposed changes to the monitoring process:

Do you agree with the proposed approach on the occurrence of the monitoring exercise? If not, what concerns do you have and how could  these be mitigated?

  • We appreciate the strong country level focus as well as focus on using the monitoring results in a more systematic way. While agree with the main elements of the proposed process: To have “waves” and a cycle of 3-4 years so that each (partner) country can implement the monitoring at a time suitable for its development cooperation policy. Important is to ensure comparability of data and information.
  • How to incentivize learning from others, e.g. inter-country dialogues?  
  • Good to continue to have national coordinators. However, in order to enhance WOS participation, should there be focal points representing other stakeholders as well, e.g. civil society and the private sector?
  • Could the Action Dialogue be called Development Effectiveness Dialogues?
  • For countries that would benefit from support - could there not be a central support given by JST rather than only have "champions" from development partners?  This links with the question below on incentivization of participation. 

⓶ What are your views on the proposed draft monitoring framework

  • Do you agree with the four "focus areas" and that these areas will help attract political and strategic-level attention to the Global Partnership monitoring evidence?
    • We appreciate WOS and LNOB approach. On LNOB we suggest to consider integrating - in addition to gender - also age and disability in the sets of indicators.
    • However, focus on results -principle is now "diminished" into use of country systems. This is not helpful. Monitoring should capture whether expected results are set, result monitoring done with sufficient quality and disaggregation, data and knowledge analysed and implementation directed on the basis so that the expected results can be achieved. 
    • On country systems, should development partners report also on their support  towards enhanced national systems (e.g. support to coordination/information management systems)  rather than only using country systems?

To what extent do you think the draft framework and evidence to be generated will incentivize participation in the monitoring exercise?

    • See question above. In addition, if participation is left completely open (and on voluntary basis), there is a risk that only a handful of countries do this and globally the picture remains anecdotal. What would be the best way to "push" for broader participation?
Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you Annika Kaipola for your feedback on the proposal; all well noted! We take note of your support for the proposed cycle of 3-4 years. As you point out, ensuring comparability is very important and it has been one of the key considerations at the heart of the proposal for this shift. Thanks also for pointing to the risk of a low participation rate. To mitigate that risk, it will be crucial to have early engagement of partner countries and a commitment for participation if possible as early as the HLM3 (in late 2022).

On your question related to focal points representing other stakeholders, yes, it is suggested that in addition to national co-ordinators [representing partner country governments] – who will continue to lead and co-ordinate the exercise – there could be “stakeholder champions” from different stakeholder groups (depending on country context, these could include from civil society and the private sector; see page 12 of the proposal for more details).

We confirm that on LNOB, in addition to gender, other groups of the population will be represented (including age and disability; see more details in Annex I under the dedicated subsection on LNOB). We also confirm that while one of the focus area is called “quality and use of country systems”, it includes all previous measurements relevant also for the Focus on Results principle, so there is no practical diminishment of the attention to that important principle in terms of evidence to be collected. For example, the monitoring will continue to track whether results are set by partner countries and development partners, and greater attention will be given to data disaggregation in the new framework (more details can be found in Annex I under the subsections on alignment to partner countries strategies and priorities; and data and statistical systems).

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you very much, Edite Singens, for sharing feedback on the proposal. It is good to hear that Portugal generally agrees with the four focus areas, as well as that the occurrence approach will offer the flexibility needed to better facilitate partner countries’ participation. We take note of your observations on the potential impacts on development partners, including smaller providers. To reduce unpredictability, it will indeed be very important to encourage confirmation, well in advance to the extent possible, of which countries will join each wave, so that all actors involved in the exercise can plan accordingly. We also take note of your observation on favouring the use of globally-sourced data to the extent possible. While the exercise does make use of some key global data (as shown in Table 4 in the proposal), the use of country-sourced data is also critical, as the monitoring is a country-led exercise and there is great value in having the results, and dialogue around the results, be in response to a ‘’snapshot’’ of the effectiveness picture in a given country, based on the data available at country-level.

We also welcome your observation that there is scope for better communicating how results are calculated following each round. The methodology for calculation of the indicators (Monitoring Guide for national coordinators and the Technical Companion) and the full dataset with monitoring results are all publically available. Additionally, following the previous monitoring round, data profile tools and self-reflection guides were launched by the JST to aid analysis, reflection and use of monitoring results by partner countries, development partners and other stakeholders. The JST has also provided detailed explanations to development partners and other stakeholders that request data and results-related clarifications. Please do let us know if Portugal would be interested in a bilateral exchange on your results at any point - we would be happy to do so!

Casey Kelso
Casey Kelso

WINGS appreciates the opportunity to provide our input to this consultation on behalf of our philanthropy network of some 190 members. 

On the first question: 

  1. What are your views on the proposed changes to the monitoring process? Do you agree with the proposed approach on the occurrence of the monitoring exercise? If not, what concerns do you have and how could these be mitigated.

Answer 1. WINGS appreciates changes to the monitoring process that maximises civil society input, so a longer duration of the country-level process compared to the previous monitoring is best to give philanthropy more time to engage with government and other stakeholders in the process, as well as identify and interact with the national co-ordinator. A one-off consultation would not be suitable, as this engagement is a continual process.  

On the second question: 

2.What are your views on the proposed draft monitoring framework? Do you agree with the four "focus areas" and that these areas will help attract political and strategic-level attention to the Global Partnership monitoring evidence? To what extent do you think the draft framework and evidence to be generated will incentivize participation in the monitoring exercise?

Answer 2. WINGS acknowledges and supports improvements to the monitoring framework, and notes: 

  • WINGS is in agreement with the Four Focus Areas, but in particular WINGS would underline the collective focus of philanthropy is upon "accountability and whole-of-society approach to development,". As noted in the Nairobi outcome document (paragraph 11) there is a GPEDC commitment to inclusive development partnerships that explicitly acknowledges the role of working with philanthropy "to maximise its specific contribution to sustainable development". 
  • We note on page 21 of the main proposal, and in the table of Annex II, that "(a) CSOs (will be) continuing to report on enabling environment, (b) smaller/domestic foundations and trade unions proposed to now also report on enabling environment (exact reporting format needs to be decided)." It would be important then to consult further with philanthropy to decide upon the exact reporting format that small, local foundations will use to report on their enabling environment. 
    • In future discussions leading up to the HLM next year, there is a common goal among foundations and philanthropy to develop the clear definition of an enabling environment for philanthropy, including the regulatory and legal conditions for an enabling environment. We would propose that this definition will shape the reporting format that is adopted.
    • Additional or supplementary sources should also be relied upon to reflect better diverse stakeholder views as part of the Whole of Society approach. Currently, there are no references to any. In the case of philanthropy, the Civicus Civil Society Monitor, the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy Global Philanthropy Environment Index and Global Philanthropy Tracker, and the Charities Aid Foundation's World Giving index should be explicitly mentioned in the framework as additional supplementary sources. This use of supplementary sources should NOT replace the responsibility of the GPEDC and joint Support Team to carry out their responsibilities for monitoring. 
    • WINGS supports the OECD DAC suggestion to consider how the DAC recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development and Humanitarian Assistance can connect to the new monitoring framework.
  • On incentivising participation in the monitoring process, we note that the national action dialogues need to be well integrated into the framework, and that resourcing for the national dialogue process should be committed, so that the monitoring framework will be translated from good intentions into concrete discussions resulting in impact.

On the third question, 3. If your expectation is for a simpler framework, which main measurement areas would you propose to drop?

Answer: 3. As we only joined the GPEDC at the end of 2019, we don't have enough elements to suggest dropping any of the primary measurement areas.


Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you for your comments, Casey Kelso and colleagues from WINGS. It is good to know that the proposed changes to the monitoring process are appreciated and would give philanthropy more time to engage with government and other stakeholders in the process. We also take note of your agreement with the four focus areas, particularly with the collective focus of philanthropy captured under accountability and a whole-of-society approach to development. Thank you also for suggesting additional evidence that can help reflect diverse stakeholder views as part of a whole-of-society approach. As mentioned in the proposal, other data generated by external/secondary global sources may be considered to enrich interpretation of the monitoring results.

Awa Maty Basse
Awa Maty Basse

Un des enseignements majeurs tirés de l’exercice est la conscience de l’efficacité de la coopération pour le développement au service des politiques publiques dans le pays ainsi que le souci du Gouvernement du Sénégal de respecter ses engagements internationaux à travers quatre faits majeurs :

  1. l’approche participative d’association de divers acteurs ;
  2. la mise en œuvre d’un plan d’action national pour l’efficacité de l’aide au Sénégal ;
  3. la participation à des activités internationales et
  4. l’implication dans divers exercices de suivi ou d’évaluation de ces documents adoptés par la communauté internationale.

Appréciations sur le processus de suivi révisé

Les défis exprimés lors des consultations ont été pris en compte dans le cadre de la proposition de l’exercice de suivi révisé.

Effectué les exercices de suivi sur un cycle de 3 à 4 ans est fortement apprécié pour disposer de résultats plus probants car le cycle de 2 ans était relativement trop court. Donc l’idée des vagues va permettre d’intégrer le processus en tenant compte des spécificités des différents cadres existants. Toutefois, la comparabilité de l’exercice de suivi entre les différents pays qui participeraient à l’exercice de suivi doit être plus flexible ainsi que la comparabilité pour un pays d’une année à l’autre. Ainsi, il faut encourager la participation des pays d’une même région à une vague en même temps pour permettre aux pays de tirer les leçons de leurs pairs.

Par ailleurs, du moment que les données récoltées ne changent que très peu d’une année à l’autre et que les changements des indicateurs ne sont pas drastiques, donc la comparabilité reste assurée pour les données récoltées des cycles avant et après la révision de l’exercice de suivi. Au niveau national, pour une meilleure appropriation du processus par les parties prenantes, nous engageons d’effectuer un suivi sur plusieurs vagues.

Par ailleurs, la multitude d’acteurs et le recours à des formes variées de participation et de collecte des données requièrent un renforcement de capacités des parties prenantes. La prise en compte d'engagements du secteur privé dans la proposition de l'exercice de suivi révisé est hautement appréciée. Ainsi, la proposition d’inclure l’assistance technique en nature à l’offre de soutien et de ressources est une bonne proposition.

Appréciations sur le projet de proposition de cadre de suivi

En ce qui concerne le cadre de suivi, l’ancien outil de collecte de données était un peu lourd et parfois difficile à renseigner par certaines parties prenantes.

En perspective des prochains exercices, il serait appréciable de :

  • partager plus d’informations sur les succès ou difficultés qui ont été rencontrés avec des indicateurs précis ;
  • inclure des informations qualitatives de la part des partenaires au développement ainsi que sur leurs alignements sur les engagements internationaux.

Nous sommes en phase avec la simplification quant au remplissage des données, car cela avait posé des défis lors de la dernière complétion de l’exercice de suivi.

Lors du dernier processus de suivi en 2018 au Sénégal il y a eu des défis en relation aux évaluations PEFA qui n’étaient pas disponibles. Mais selon, l’Équipe d’Appui Conjointe que le passage au système de vagues va permettre de choisir un moment auquel ces évaluations seront disponibles. Par ailleurs, puisque les pays partenaires ne sont pas assez impliqués dans la définition de ce qui est catégorisé comme aide liée ou non-liée, il est difficile de faire part de leur appréciation pour cet indicateur.

Ainsi, la proposition d’organiser des Dialogues d’Action permettra certainement de partager les résultats des exercices de suivi afin de permettre aux parties prenantes de s’approprier les résultats pour une coopération efficace pour « Ne laisser personne de côté ». Le souhait des acteurs de partager les résultats de l’exercice, d’effectuer des échanges et d’assurer leur utilisation constitue déjà un atout quant à la réussite des Dialogues d’action qui seront engagés au Sénégal.

Par rapport à la qualité et à l’utilisation des systèmes nationaux, nous sommes tous conscient que les pays doivent améliorer leurs systèmes nationaux de gestion des finances publiques. Toutefois, l’appréciation de la « Qualité » des systèmes nationaux est trop ambiguë d’autant plus que des critères d’appréciation ne sont pas clairement définis.



Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

(Version française ci-dessous)

Thank you Awa Maty Basse for this very attentive feedback! Your appreciation of the proposed shift to the occurrence of the monitoring exercise to a 3-4 year cycle and its importance for having results that are more conclusive is well noted. As you point out, ensuring comparability between countries in different waves and between cycles is very important and it has been one of the key consideration at the heart of the proposal for this shift. It is also well noted how you see useful to encourage countries in a region to participate in the same wave to increase peer learning, and it is indeed something that the new monitoring aims to do.

Thanks also for sharing the challenges encountered by Senegal in past data collection and well noted on the need for simplification and knowledge sharing. 


Merci Awa Maty Basse pour ce feedback très attentif ! Nous prenons bonne note de votre appréciation de l'évolution proposée de la fréquence de l'exercice de suivi vers un cycle de 3-4 ans et de son importance pour obtenir des résultats plus concluants. Comme vous le soulignez, il est très important d'assurer la comparabilité entre les pays dans les différentes vagues et entre les cycles, et c'est l'une des principales considérations au cœur de la proposition de ce changement. Il est également bien noté comment vous voyez utile d'encourager les pays d'une région à participer à la même vague pour augmenter l'apprentissage par les pairs, et c'est effectivement quelque chose que le nouveau suivi vise à faire. 

Merci également d'avoir partagé les défis rencontrés par le Sénégal dans la collecte de données passée et bien noté le besoin de simplification et de partage des connaissances. 


Dear colleagues, congratulations for this deep and thorough exercise. Please find the comments from APC-Colombia regarding the monitoring reform proposal, below:


  1. What are your views on the proposed changes to the monitoring process?

(Do you agree with the proposed approach on the occurrence of the monitoring exercise? If not, what concerns do you have on how could these be mitigated? )


Colombia has not participated in the monitoring process before. Therefore we consider the new occurrence schema of the monitoring exercise will open more opportunities to non-participant countries to be part of the mechanism. In this sense, we agree with the higher degree of flexibility and occurrence within the new monitoring process. 


A 4-years monitoring occurrence would increase the time frame between each report which could affect the level of stakeholder’s engagement. Nevertheless, we believe a 3 year monitoring logic would still allow countries to measure the effectiveness of their cooperation at least 2 or 3 times during the last remaining 9 years of the decade of Action for the sustainability agenda. (2023, 2026, 2029).We see this with positive eyes, since it would alleviate the reporting burden and it would provide countries with 3 key moments to assess the performance of their cooperation and thus taking measures and decisions on time in order to improve the SDG achieving.


On the other hand, we believe it would be convenient to include a “Basic First Steps Manual” for countries that are not yet participating in the monitoring process and may be interested in joining it. That is to say, facilitating a standard guide with clear steps that can be at the same time agile and adaptable to different time frames depending on the country needs and turning points. New countries to start their first monitoring report can be provided with technical assistance from champion’s stakeholders and a reinforced Joint Support Team (JST) at least during their first year.


Overall we welcome the higher focus on national-level implementation as an opportunity to develop tools for implementing the effectiveness principles in the practice of Cooperation. An example-driven approach should facilitate this mainstreaming through toolkits or other tools. We see this change of focus as a solid first step towards that goal.


Concluding, documentation and discussion spaces should be provided to clarify key terms and specialized language, in order to better engage the technical staff who will be responsible for assembling the information for the monitoring process. This documentation, along with a toolkit on best practices for implementation, would contribute greatly to the appropriation of the vision on the part of all countries.



  1. What are your views on the proposed draft monitoring framework?

(Do you agree with the proposed 4 focus areas and that these areas will help attract political and strategic-level attention to GPEDC monitoring evidence?)


Yes, the Leave No One Behind (LNOB) inclusion in the context of the decade of action can help leverage the support of more countries and high political influential people. It is important though to guarantee the feasibility and utility of what the indicators might measure in this area. On the same line, we consider its essential to preserve the spirit of the original four areas now that they are going to be merged, especially country ownership and focus on results.


(To what extend do you think the proposed framework and evidence to be generated will incentivize participation in the monitoring exercise?)


The new focus area LNOB can indeed help incentivize participation of new countries to the monitoring process and help align the monitoring exercise to other international development frameworks and initiatives. It gives a political boost that might help change the perception of the exercise into a technical mechanism with deeper political impact.  


We also suggest that the new GPEDC monitoring framework give more weight to the engagement of private sector (enterprises, foundations, philanthropy), to the effectiveness agenda, deepening the use of the Kampala principles and looking to articulate them to the OECD Private finance for sustainable development (PF4SD) initiative and its Impact standards for financing sustainable development[1], that look at how investors can enhance their contribution to the SDGs, promote impact integrity and avoid SDG washing. This could be more attractive to Least Developed Countries and Low-Income countries who might see in the engagement of private sector an opportunity to support their development.


  1. If your expectation is for a simpler framework, which main measurement areas would you propose to drop? 


If pressed, we would not drop an entire area but some of the measurement points, to make the process simpler. For example, we would drop the parliamentary supervision and approval to development cooperation, since the Colombian Parliament does not have a decision-making in role in international cooperation matters, and creating one would cause important delays in the process.


As is the case for many of the countries involved in AA 2.3 regarding South-South Cooperation, information regarding international cooperation is produced yearly and released to the general public through our website. Ad hoc reports can also be produced upon request from Parliament members or commissions, yet these are not legal requisites.


[1] https://www.oecd.org/publications/oecd-undp-impact-standards-for-financing-sustainable-development-744f982e-en.htm


Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Luis Roa, Thank you, Luis, for taking the time to share these insights and perspectives from Colombia on the draft proposal. It is particularly valuable to hear that the increased flexibility offered through the proposal on occurrence could be an important piece of the picture to incentivise partner countries which have not done the monitoring before to participate in the future. We also appreciate your point on the importance of having clear guidance materials to support countries to participate meaningfully in the exercise. The perspectives you shared on the framework-related areas are equally valuable, including your view that having an explicit focus on LNOB could be another incentive for countries to participate, as well as that it can attract political level interest and engagement in the exercise, which is critical indeed. It is similarly helpful to hear that more focus on engagement with the private sector in the monitoring exercise, such as through inclusion of the Kampala Principles, can incentivise countries' participation as well. We take note as well of your thoughtful point on how the issue of parliamentary oversight is reflected in the framework, including the experiences of countries involved in the AA 2.3 work.

Lorenz Noe
Lorenz Noe

Dear members of the team,

Thank you for consulting us in this process. Below, please find comments by Open Data Watch (ODW) Research Manager Lorenz Noe on behalf of ODW and our colleagues at PARIS21.

What are your views on the proposed changes to the monitoring process?

Do you agree with the proposed approach on the occurrence of the monitoring exercise? If not, what concerns do you have and how could these be mitigated?

  • The process of revisiting the occurrence of the monitoring exercise is a worthwhile exercise. With regards to the open wave, there is a risk that giving countries too wide a window might cause lapses in data collection and reporting or if countries do follow up, it might be bunched at the end, producing a scramble and risking quality of data. There is a need to couple an open wave with incentives to report early and maybe participate in more than one wave. The regional or country context are also good options for grouping countries. These groupings might also allow for more focused partner help with monitoring and reporting results.

What are your views on the proposed draft monitoring framework?

Do you agree with the four "focus areas" and that these areas will help attract political and strategic-level attention to the Global Partnership monitoring evidence?

To what extent do you think the draft framework and evidence to be generated will incentivize participation in the monitoring exercise?

  • The four focus areas work (Collective Accountability and a Whole of Society Approach to Development, Quality and Use of Country Systems, Transparency of Development Cooperation, and Leaving no one behind (LNOB)) capture the ambitiousness of this global monitoring exercise. We are particularly heartened to see the emphasis on the cross-cutting importance of Data and Statistics and the emphasis on improving and using country systems, as well as leaving no one behind.
  • On improving country systems on data and statistics through improved financing, we would refer to the June 2021 workshop hosted by the Bern Network on Financing Data for Development and the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC), outcome document attached. The workshop also emphasized the importance of South-South collaboration in supporting peer countries and learning from their efforts to improve country systems.
  • The focus on leaving no one behind in particular will be a way to engage with a multitude of communities to improve data systems, from gender data, to data on migration and refugees, to data on people with disabilities, and other intersectional data collection efforts.
Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you, Lorenz Noe and ODW/PARIS21 colleagues, for taking the time to share these insights on the draft proposal, as well as for sharing this relevant document which may be of interest to other colleagues following this discussion. It is particularly valuable to hear that you approve of the overall four focus areas of the draft proposal. Your point on how the focus on LNOB can be a way to drive stakeholder engagement is also encouraging: indeed, we envisage Action Dialogues as multi-stakeholder dialogues to facilitate country-level discussions – including, in the case of data and statistical systems, for relevant stakeholders to exchange on bottlenecks and attendant actions to improve the quality and use of these systems. The work of ODW/PARIS21 is also relevant in this context. With regard to the occurrence of the monitoring exercise, as you point out, comparability over time and between countries, as well as maintaining data quality, are crucial elements which we will continue to consider as the proposal is developed further. Your point on the risk of unbalanced participation across waves is also noted. To mitigate that risk, it will be crucial to have early engagement of partner countries and a commitment for participation as early as possible, and already by the time of HLM3 (in late 2022) for those countries who will undertake monitoring in 2023. Many thanks again for your contribution.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Comments on behalf of Gudrun Matt

Republic of Austria, Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs, Planning and Programming of Bilateral and Regional Development Cooperation

  • In general, we welcome the Draft Monitoring Proposal on a Revised Framework and Process, which better responds to different country contexts – in particular fragile contexts – as well as to the roles of a broader range of cooperation actors, underlining the fact that the mandate of the reform is not to negotiate or renegotiate commitments.
  • We agree that the reform should better leverage the monitoring results. Therefore we welcome a scaled-up approach to the use of monitoring results to drive stakeholder dialogue, accountability and action. “Action Dialogues” as focused multi-stakeholder discussion on the monitoring results in the final stage of the monitoring  as obligatory part of the monitoring exercise is an excellent ideal to ensure that the results are acted on. The new country results briefs would be a valuable element thereof.
  • As development partner, we are also open to the idea of the proposed development partner profiles which would detail the development partners monitoring results and would be produced at the end of a full round (every 3-4 years).
  • We welcome the greater flexibility in the timeframe to allow partner countries to maximise synergies with country activities and processes, enabling the strengthening of existing mechanisms as well as allowing for the results to feed into national processes (SDG follow-up and review, national coordination mechanisms on development co-operation, and/or dialogues with development partners. Comparability of results will need to be discussed.
  • Regarding the proposed revised framework, we especially welcome the contour and action area “Leaving no one behind” (LNOB) as key principle in the Agenda 2030 and also in our development cooperation. In our view more focus on LNOB is needed to ensure effective development cooperation. We therefore fully support the proposed intention to capture the pledge to LNOB.
  • While the new contour of “collective accountability” responds to the broader range of cooperation actors and rightly embraces the whole- of-society approach, we nevertheless see a certain danger of leading to the impression that the focus on partner country governments´ accountability is fading.
  • We especially welcome the new approach to recognise the efforts of bilateral donors to support the effectiveness of the multilateral system, which is relevant for bilateral partners that increasingly channel resources through multilateral partners. We support the proposal to complement the presentation of monitoring results for bilateral partners in the GPEDC monitoring online dashboard by providing contextual information about (available) characteristics of how the individual development partner funds the multilateral system (the information coming from existing data).
  • To be able to fully assess the proposal to “remove indicators which do not provide useful evidence”, an exhaustive list of those indicators would be useful, as the Matrix in Annex II does not go into great detail.
  • Finally, it should be noted that despite all the improvements proposed it unfortunately does not seem that the new monitoring exercise will be much lighter and less complex than before. What can be done at this point to make the exercise lighter?
  • Another uncertainty factor in the draft proposal is the requirement of increased resources and capacity in order to be successful and meet expectations.
Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you Gudrun Matt for your feedback on the proposal. We note your appreciation of the greater flexibility in the timeframe of the exercise, the Action Dialogues and the new country results briefs and possibly profiles for development partners based on resource availability. As you and other stakeholders point out, having adequate resources will be crucial to match the level of ambition of these changes. Ensuring comparability is also very important and has been one of the key considerations at the heart of the proposal. We also take note of your support for the proposed approach on effective multilateral donorship and of the importance that this effort draws on existing data.

It is also interesting to hear your concern on the fact that “collective accountability” could lead to the impression that the focus on partner country governments´ accountability is diminishing, as this is something we had not heard yet from other actors.

We also take note of your concerns on the fact that the framework is not less complex than before. While various sub-data points are suggested to be removed, the consultations earlier this year generated a lot of expectations from stakeholders of additional data/evidence they would like to see collected through the exercise; as a result the reporting scope is not drastically reduced. An appreciable reduction in the scope of the framework (e.g. dropping any core measurement areas) will require an agreement on which area(s) should be dropped. Taking steps in this direction has been consistently challenging, as we see that even through this e-consultation, concrete proposals from stakeholders have not been forthcoming.

Javier Sanchez Cano
Javier Sanchez Cano

Thanks very much for this very complete and thorough exercise and for having given us the opportunity to participate in it. As we said before, it is important that the monitoring process and its outcomes suggest practical pathways for development actors to engage in more effective behaviour. Traditionally, participation and consultation of non-central governmental actors (regional and municipal governments) have been limited. However, opening up the monitoring framework and process too much or too quickly to these agents might pose a challenge to the coherence of the whole, and produce conclusions and recommendations which might be of general validity, but no actionable by a specific development actor. Having said this, it'd be convenient that subnational data and statistics are also a part of the monitoring process, to make the picture at country level more complete.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Dear Javier Sanchez Cano, thank you for your contribution and for raising the importance of actionable results, while also pointing out that there may be challenges to including sub-national actors directly in the exercise. At the same time, depending on country context, for the multi-stakeholder Action Dialogues, it may be worth exploring the involvement of these actors to engage in the dialogue on monitoring results. We also take good note of your comment regarding the value of including subnational data and statistics for a more complete picture of effective development cooperation at country level.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Comments on behalf of Anar Mamdani

(Director, International Assistance Relations | Strategic Policy Branch (PFM) | Global Affairs Canada | Government of Canada)

We commend the production of this useful document and look forward to seeing a strategic forward looking revised version at the Steering committee meeting. We particularly appreciated the tables which make the focus of the document much clearer. We also appreciate the focus on delivering results and demonstrating impacts of the assistance efforts, as well as your efforts to simplify the monitoring process and provide reasonable timelines for all through the open waves approach. The stronger focus on country ownership should also help to make the data relevant nationally but it will be essential to ensure that links are made between the different countries and their results to enable peer learning and promote the adoption of best practices. It is critical that the data produced by the Monitoring rounds is both useful and practically used to generate behaviour change. We had a few questions and comments on the document: ·

Table 2:

o LNOB requires data. This is recognized in Table 1, but not in Table 2 (it mentions partner countries’ planning, results and PFM, but not statistical systems, whereas development partners’ are expected to use partner countries planning, statistical and PFM systems)

o LNOB, we believe that instead of development partners being held accountable for gender-responsive budgeting – it would probably be more effective to promote gender-responsive country strategies and development interventions? We also note that gender-responsive budgeting doesn’t appear in tables 4 and 5 in relation to development partners, which could imply a mistake in table 2.

o The responsibilities mentioned for CSOs seem to be missing. They could include commitments on quality disaggregated data generation and transparency, on ensuring aid is inclusive and provided with no discrimination (LNOB), on civil society engagement with the partner countries in which they operate on policy development, including on the NDCs (especially for local CSO). ·

Table 4

o Quality and use of country systems column: Missing a word: % of partner countries that have ??? (collected by PEFA)

o Transparency of Development cooperation column: % of partner countries with information management systems for development cooperation publicly available (including on projects that engage the private sector) [ADD] and compatible with the IATI standard § Suggest to further specify that these systems be compatible with the IATI standard, per the additional language in red above. This would make the publication and exchange of information with these systems much easier. IATI-compatible systems are available and are being adopted. IATI is also part of the Busan framework.

o Transparency of Development cooperation column: % of development partners regularly reporting to these systems § This new data point is acceptable, especially if partner country systems are compatible with the IATI standard.

o Transparency of Development cooperation column: Assessment of development partners’ reporting to the OECD-CRS, OECD-FSS and IATI § This could be an opportunity to propose changes to the methodology of the OECD-FSS to improve predictability (amongst others), and better align with the Busan commitments. A review of the monitoring framework would be an opportunity to raise the bar on donor transparency to meet the needs of partner countries. § For Information - the IATI Secretariat is currently developing a new data quality index to monitor IATI publishers which should be released before the HLM3. ·

Table 6:

o Under National Budget: this is written as a responsibility of the partner countries but it should also be a responsibility of the donor country to provide timely information to their partner country national counterparts. (Same point applies to Table 4 under the Quality and use of country systems column) ·

On the use of PFM systems

o There is a wide range of PFM systems that could be relevant to international assistance. Their use is informed by several factors and should remain a choice. Strengthening those systems in partner countries should continue to be promoted. ·

Alignment with the DAC

o Throughout this process and more broadly as the GPEDC reforms what effectiveness international assistance means, it will be critical to avoid duplication of efforts between this forum and the DAC and build on each fora’s strength and value added.

o Effective multilateral donorship, for example, is already being researched at the DAC.

We look forward to a better definition of some of the indicators to know the level of effort that would be required to report on them in a useful and relevant way.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you Anar Mamdani for the detailed feedback; it is very helpful and greatly appreciated! It is encouraging to hear your support for the proposed wave approach to simplify the monitoring process. As you point out, it will be critical that data produced is useful and usable to promote behaviour change.

Thanks for your observation on the quality of statistical systems for partner countries; Annex I of the proposal provides more details (see the subsection on data and statistical systems). This includes the suggestion to discuss this as part of the Action Dialogues, building on the existing information available from other processes/organisations. This is therefore the reason for this element not being included in the framework itself, as this is something that will not be collected through the monitoring exercise at country level.

On the responsibilities for CSOs, while these are not listed in detail, we confirm that the assessment of CSO enabling environment and CSO development effectiveness will be retained. Among others, this includes elements of CSO transparency and accountability (see page 64 of the 2018 Monitoring Guide for more details on what is measured under indicator 2).

Thanks for your suggestions related to the measurement of transparency. We take note of your support for the data point on development partners regularly reporting to AIMS. However, we see difficulties in holding partner countries to account for aligning their own information management systems to the IATI standard, as there has not been an explicit commitment from partner countries to do so. As per the improvements to OECD-FSS measurement, the methodology for this indicator is under the custodianship and control of the OECD DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics (WP-STAT), therefore changes to it are beyond the scope of the GPEDC monitoring reform. Members could however provide their suggestions for improvements directly to the Working Party.

As you point out in relation to development co-operation on budget, it is also a responsibility of development partners to provide timely information to partner countries; we confirm that this element will continue to be captured in the revised framework (see Annex I under predictability for more detail).

Well noted also on the need to avoid duplication of efforts between GPEDC and the DAC, especially with reference to effective multilateral donorship. We confirm that the suggested approach on this area is not to collect new information but rather to make available - also in the space of the GPEDC - the existing and available data as contextual information. This includes what is already produced by the OECD for DAC members, which can help complement their monitoring results (see Annex I under the dedicated subsection on multilateral donorship for more details).

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Comments on behalf of Marc Anglade

(Coordonnateur National STC-CAED, HAITI)

Je voudrais tout d’abord remercier l'équipe de suivi pour la préparation et la soumission des jeux de documents concernant la nouvelle proposition. Je profite pour remercier et féliciter l’ensemble des participants qui, à un titre ou un autre, ont participé au processus tant pour la qualité des changements proposés que de la méthodologie d’ensemble.

Disons tout de suite que la proposition fournit un ensemble d’éléments qui répondent mieux aux différents contextes nationaux et par là offre une vision plus claire des résultats des cycles de suivi. Donc des résultats qu’il est plus facile d’appréhender par l’ensembles des acteurs. 

L’adhésion est donc acquise quant aux domaines d’intervention. Cependant, je voudrais faire les remarques qui suivent :

• J’ai toujours discuté de l’importance de la flexibilité et des nécessaires changements à apporter en la matière. Et, là par exemple, la possibilité d’un pays de s’inscrire à plusieurs vagues à l’intérieur d’un même cycle de suivi est considérable. Notamment pour les Etats fragiles qui sont confrontés parfois à des situations qui changent d’une année à l’autre, ce qui peut influer sur la collecte des données et leur qualité. Changements qui peuvent affecter de manière importante et soudaine le volume, les modalités et la qualité (dont le niveau d’alignement et d’appropriation) des flux de la coopération ainsi que la collecte. 

• Il est donc intéressant et important que la proposition comprend des adaptations en terme de cadre pour les pays fragiles. 

• Il convient aussi de signaler que l’adoption du NOD en 2016 a donné un ancrage très fort quant à la participation multipartite sans exclusion d’aucun acteur à notre mécanisme de dialogue, de concertation, de coordination et de suivi de flux de coopération au développement ceci tant au niveau :

 National avec le Comité d’Efficacité de l’Aide (CEA). Le CEA est une table stratégique qui réunit les PTFs, des représentants des Ministères liés à la coopération au développement, les représentants des parlementaires, des OSC, des syndicats, et une représentation des collectivités territoriales.  La présence de la société civile et du secteur privé est aussi assurée lors de la préparation des CEA. 


 Sectoriel à travers les Tables sectorielles et Thématiques


 Régional voire communale avec les Tables sectorielles départementales et les Tables communales de concertation (ces dernières sont un chantier en cours)

• Finalement, il est important d’ajouter que dans nos pays, s’il est fondamental de publier, de vulgariser les résultats des Dialogues d’Actions, il est essentiel d’avoir des rencontres pour partager ces résultats et en discuter avec les acteurs. C’est ce que nous nous proposons de faire aussi à travers nos mécanismes de concertation et de coordination. C’est l’un des moyens d’avoir un suivi efficace et que ces résultats servent d’intrants aux programmes et politiques sectorielles. 


Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

(français ci-dessous)

Thank you Marc Anglade and it is great to know that you generally appreciate the changes proposed to the monitoring exercise. Thank you for your considerations regarding fragile states and how sudden changes faced by them can affect development cooperation flows and data collection on this, and that the flexibility offered through the waves approach will be welcome from this perspective.

Thank you also for sharing Haiti's experience with multi-stakeholder mechanisms for dialogue, coordination and monitoring of development cooperation at various levels. We take note of your remark regarding the importance of disseminating and discussing monitoring results through existing mechanisms, as effective ways to input into sectoral programs and policies. These are certainly complementary to the proposed Action Dialogues as efforts to support the use of monitoring results.


Merci Marc Anglade et c'est bien de savoir que vous appréciez généralement les changements proposés à l'exercice de suivi. Merci pour vos considérations concernant les États fragiles et la façon dont les changements soudains auxquels ils sont confrontés peuvent affecter les flux de la coopération au développement et la collecte de données à ce sujet, et que la flexibilité offerte par l'approche par vagues sera la bienvenue de ce point de vue.

Merci également de partager l'expérience d'Haïti en matière de mécanismes multipartites de dialogue, de coordination et de suivi de la coopération au développement à différents niveaux. Nous prenons note de votre remarque concernant l'importance de la diffusion et de la discussion des résultats du suivi par le biais des mécanismes existants, comme moyens efficaces de contribuer aux programmes et politiques sectoriels. Ceux-ci sont certainement complémentaires aux Dialogues d'action proposés en tant qu'efforts pour soutenir l'utilisation des résultats du suivi.

Kathleen  Virtusio
Kathleen Virtusio

Comment from the Philippines:


What are your views on the proposed changes to the monitoring process? Do you agree with the proposed approach on the occurrence of the monitoring exercise? If not, what concerns do you have and how could these be mitigated?


We agree with the proposed approach as this provides greater flexibility for partner governments to align the timing of the monitoring process with relevant country-level exercises [e.g., Voluntary National Reviews (VNR) on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), medium-term national development plan formulation, etc.]. These country-level exercises may provide relevant data/evidence which can input to the monitoring process, and vice versa. In the Philippine context, our government may explore the possibility of conducting the monitoring exercise prior to the VNRs on the SDGs, i.e., mid-2023 for the 2025 VNR.


What are your views on the proposed draft monitoring framework? Do you agree with the proposed ‘’focus areas’’ and that these areas will help attract political and strategic level attention to GPEDC monitoring evidence?


We confirm the relevance of the proposed focused areas in leveraging national political support to the GPEDC. The new emphasis on “leaving no one behind”, specifically on capturing and engendering the inclusion of women and marginalized sectors in the development process (e.g., participation in development plan consultations, and inclusion of gender-disaggregated indicators in country results frameworks, etc.) is a timely change in the new monitoring framework. This focus area also resonates within the local context as evidenced by the strategies on ensuring economic and social opportunities for all, which are stipulated in our current medium-term national development plan. Overall, the new monitoring framework sufficiently captures areas of accountability, ownership, and transparency, among others, which are still highly significant in the development co-operation setting.


Further, while we understand that the indicators in the draft monitoring framework are still subject to further refinement, the JST may revisit the applicability of the indicator on the “% of partner countries with publicly available information management systems for development co-operation” under the focus area on Transparency of Development Co-operation. Government’s information management systems are usually developed and utilized internally within an organization, and are not made readily available for public use. The indicator on “% of partner countries that make information of development co-operation publicly available” is a more relevant indicator which can capture said focus area.


To what extent do you think the proposed framework and evidence to be generated will incentivize participation in the monitoring exercise?


While the proposed framework generates valuable evidence in policy-making, ultimately, the participation of the partner country in this monitoring exercise will depend on the commitment of the government to track the progress of the country’s implementation of the sustainable development agenda (particularly on the three development co-operation indicators), alongside the country’s adherence to international commitments on effective development co-operation.  


Nevertheless, we welcome the conduct of Action Dialogue, which is proposed to be introduced in future monitoring rounds, as a noteworthy initiative to jumpstart broader country-level discussions on how to further institutionalize the results of the monitoring exercise. Moreover, the proposed development partner profiles will bolster the need for development partners to ensure its commitment of aligning its assistance to partner country priorities and country-owned results framework.


If your expectation is for a simpler framework, which main measurement areas would you propose to drop?


Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you, Kathleen Virtusio, for sharing Philippines’ views on the monitoring proposal. It is good to know that you agree with the proposed approach on the occurrence and that your government may explore the possibility of conducting the monitoring in 2023, prior to the 2025 VNR.

We also take note of your support for the proposed focused areas and particularly for the new emphasis on “leaving no one behind”. It is encouraging to hear that this focus area resonates within your local context and is in line with your national development plan.

Regarding your comment on transparency of development co-operation at country level, this indicator and respective data points will be further refined in the coming months and we take note of your observation about government information systems being mostly used internally and of your suggestion to reframe it.

We also welcome your appreciation for the proposal regarding Action Dialogues and Development Partner profiles.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you, Josefina Villegas for sharing the feedback from CPDE, which we see draws on the comments shared by Brian as separate input. It is encouraging to see your appreciation on the proposal, especially on its references to the unfinished business, the steps taken to integrate the LNOB pledge, and the focus on Private Sector Engagement.


We take good note of the concerns you raised on the occurrence of the monitoring. You point out the potential challenges in the application and management of the waves especially in relation to the support that CPDE will be able to provide to focal points/stakeholder champions at country level. This is well noted and adds to the call for adequate resources to underpin the process, also for what concerns the role played by CSOs.


Well noted also on the need to better clarify the reporting process in a changed occurrence. We confirm that at the end of each round - as done in the past - aggregate results from all participating countries and stakeholders will be made available (either in the form of a progress report or other types of products such as a tracking platform or online dashboard). As per GPEDC monitoring contributions to SDG reporting, we confirm that the waves approach will not compromise the role of the monitoring in this regard. There have been consultations with the UN Statistics Division and a confirmation that a rolling approach is indeed possible and already used to report on other SDG indicators (see section 2.2 in the paper on linkages to the 2030 Agenda prepared for the 21st Steering Committee Meeting).


Thanks also for re-emphasing the observations raised by Brian on the Action Dialogues. As you indicate, the country results briefs will be key to inform the Dialogue and the time between the data submission and their production will provide space to organize and resource an effective engagement. We see that the Action Dialogue at the end of the process can have a catalytic effect for further engagement and follow-up dialogue on specific outcomes of the monitoring (e.g. the assessment on CSO enabling environment and CSO development effectiveness).


Finally on untied aid, building on the very helpful suggestions made by CPDE in the consultations earlier this year, it is proposed that country-specific de facto untied aid data could supplement overall untied aid figures to support the Action Dialogue and/or feed into the country results brief and development partner profiles. It is also proposed to offer an opportunity for development partners to provide complementary information around initiatives or policies supporting the private sector in partner countries (see Annex I, subsection on untied aid for more details).

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you, M.K Munyoro, for sharing the feedback on the proposal on behalf of the Africa Youth Technical Group. Thank you also for providing very interesting figures showing that youth are one of the groups of the population left behind and that is critical to reflect their needs to meet the commitment of LNOB.


As you point out, the revised framework aims to generate specific data points on youth (as well as other population groups) that are relevant to the commitments made in the Nairobi Outcome Document.  We confirm that further work will continue on that direction as the reform goes ahead to next phases.


For what concerns simplification of the monitoring, your suggestion to focus on data collection at country level and the need for technical support are well noted. On the latter, the suggested system of stakeholder champions would help in that regard.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

We also would like to acknowledge and thank Jonas Wikstrom, for taking the time to share insights directly into the annex of the proposal. Your points on coordination among data producers and users, and between development partners and National Statistical Organisations, is well-taken. Indeed, we envisage Action Dialogues as multi-stakeholder dialogues to facilitate country-level discussions – including, in the case of data and statistical systems, for relevant stakeholders to exchange on bottlenecks and attendant actions to improve the quality and use of these systems. We also take note of your important point on data quality and data literacy, also in light of the data already produced on this by other institutions (PARIS21, World Bank, ODW, etc.). Many thanks again for your contribution.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you, Jacqueline Wood, for your comments in the annex of the proposal. We take note of your suggestion to explore simple and practical adjustments to Indicator 2 in light of the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance.

Thank you for the suggestion to add a reference to LNOB under indicator 2 in Annex II. You rightly point out that CSOs often work with people living in the most marginalised situations. Although we recognise civil society’s role in LNOB, we did not mention LNOB in that table because no new element related to LNOB was being added to indicator 2, different from other indicators. But this is a relevant point and we can reflect that in future overviews of this kind.  

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

 Thank you Alejandro Guerrero, for your detailed feedback in the annex of the proposal, it is greatly appreciated! We take good note of your suggestion related to the question on SDG inclusion in national development strategies/country results frameworks. Your observations and the alternative approach suggested in relation to project evaluations are also well noted and will be considered as technical work continues.

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Comments on behalf of Yuko Santo (Senior Policy Researcher, International Cooperation Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan)

Japan has been advocating to promote dialogue between partner countries and development partners, and to utilize existing system and mechanism of partner countries in the monitoring process. We appreciate that the draft proposal by the secretariat takes these suggestions into account. Thus, we don’t have any particular comments on the overall direction of the draft proposal including the utilization of monitoring results, and the focus areas. However, on the “occurrences” of the monitoring, it is preferable that an appropriate frequency of the monitoring excise (“occurrences”) should be considered in terms of efficiency and feasibility of its implementation within the limited resources of the secretariat and the development partners. For example, we are concerned that the “open wave” option could be challenging, due to large amount of work involved in following up the partner counties and/or different levels of participation by the partner countries, resulting in loss of momentum of the monitoring system as a whole.


Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you very much, Yuko Santo, for this feedback from the perspective of Japan. It is very good to hear of Japan’s appreciation for how the proposal provisions for encouraging dialogue between partner countries and development partners, as well how it will encourage that the systems and mechanisms of partner countries are used for the monitoring process. We also register that you do not have any objection to the four focus areas. We take note of your reflections on the potential implications of the open waves occurrence. It will be important to take steps to ensure that this approach does not translate into an overall loss of momentum. One such way for example, as indicated in the proposal, will be to have shorter but more regular reports on the periodic results of the monitoring, following each wave and/or timed to relevant global thematic events. This can keep more regular visibility of the monitoring exercise. Confirming which countries will participate in each wave well ahead of time – to the extent possible – will also be important in order for all stakeholders involved in the exercise to plan ahead accordingly, including for their role in country-level follow up. Thank you again for your feedback!

Monitoring Team
Monitoring Team Moderator

Thank you, Your Excellency Minister CHHIENG YANARA, for sharing your views about the GPEDC monitoring draft proposal during the 2021 Busan Global Partnership Forum. We appreciate Cambodia’s ongoing engagement in the monitoring exercise and in the reform process, and take special note of the remarks made in paragraphs 9-16 of the written version of the contribution, concerning engagement, impact and context.


Regarding engagement, the challenges faced by Cambodia to raise interest and resources for the monitoring process at country level are also experienced by other partner country governments. The importance of strengthening engagement with the private sector, non-state actors and southern partners on effectiveness work is another reflection shared by others. In this sense, the multi-stakeholder nature of the monitoring will remain a key element of the exercise and a Whole of Society approach will gain stronger emphasis. The proposal also foresees that private sector, civil society organisations and trade unions continue reporting to specific indicators and that they participate in the Action Dialogues in the final stage of the monitoring process.


We also take note of your remarks about a disconnect between development partners’ headquarters and respective country offices in the context of the monitoring exercise, and the importance of coherent and systematic coordination. The suggested system of stakeholder champions could help in that regard. A development partner champion located in country could support stakeholder coordination, capacity building, as well as provide logistical and organisational support.


In terms of impact, your suggestion of a follow-up mechanism where all stakeholders can meet, discuss progress and agree on actions is welcome and is reflected in the proposal. The Action Dialogues, seen as a crucial and required part of the exercise, aim to promote an exchange between stakeholders on the underlying reasons for certain results and areas of disagreements, and contribute to maximizing the impact of the monitoring exercise. As you rightly pointed out, these dialogues are more effective if embedded in existing coordination mechanisms, rather than as a parallel structure. To support this institutionalization, the proposal envisions that partner countries identify at the planning stages what are the relevant existing mechanisms that can be a good fit to link with the monitoring exercise.


Finally, you raised some important contextual considerations. The fact that the development cooperation landscape is evolving and that some countries are shifting from grants to concessional loans certainly has implications for the monitoring exercise. The importance of other global initiatives such as the SDGs also calls for better positioning of the monitoring as a contributing factor rather than a stand-alone process, as you clearly noted. This monitoring proposal aims to embrace these changes in various ways. It proposes an auxiliary component that focuses on how Southern partners view and hold themselves to account for their co-operation, it also expands to capture beyond-ODA flows such as loans that do not meet the ODA concessionality criteria and it encourages more institutionalised reporting of large foundations. The new monitoring will also maintain its ability to report on three SDG indicators, and it aims to facilitate other linkages to the SDGs and its related processes.


Your observations regarding the need for capacity and resources for a well functioning monitoring exercise are also well noted. These are collective challenges, and the GPEDC Co-Chairs and Steering Committee will be discussing and reflecting on possible ways to address them going forward.