[CLOSED] OPEN CONSULTATION TO TEST DRAFT MONITORING PROPOSAL

?  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!

Mes salutations à l'équipe de surveillance, 

Mes félicitations pour ce beau travail. 

Ci-jointes en fichier attaché, me petites contributions qui portent sur la forme du document.

Très cordialement, 

Contributions_Samye_Projet de proposition.docx8.42 KB

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.

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.   

Saludos

Colleagues,

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.

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

Reactions to the Draft Monitoring Proposal.docx23.93 KB

¿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.

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.

EN_Annex Monitoring Proposal draft for consultation_IPU COMMENTS.docx154.02 KB

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.

Note on the outcome of the subgroup on SSC_updated after WG (2).pdf754.8 KB

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.

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.

KEB

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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. 

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you very much for the opportunity to input to the great work done on the monitoring system reform through this consultation process. Please find attached the comments from the European Commission. 

GPEDC-EC comments on Nov 2021 proposal.docx19.04 KB

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.

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.

2. 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.

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.  

Comments on behalf of Pierre Amadou NEBIE (Development Effectiveness and Aid Coordination Specialist, UNDP, Directorate General of Strategy and Aid Coordination (DGSCA) / Ministry of Planning and Development, Abidjan. Republic of Côte d'Ivoire)

Contributions au document Projet de proposition de suivi cadre et processus revisés PAN v12 nov 2021.docx27.39 KB

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for the hard work put into developing this proposal and for the opportunity to comment through this consultation process. Please find attached the comments that have been prepared by Swedish MFA/Sida.

SE comments on draft monitoring proposal GPEDC Nov 2021.docx20.77 KB

Dear colleagues,

congratualistions and the great work done. We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback throught the open online consultation. Please find attached the comments from Germany (Federal Ministry on Economic Cooperation and Development).

Warm regards,

Sarah Neumann

211112_GER_Comments_Global Partnership Monitoring Zero Draft.docx27.93 KB

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?

Dear colleagues,
Please find attached comments from Portugal.
Best regards,

Edite Singens

Camões IP - Planning, Programming and Statistics Office (GPPE)

Consultation on GPEDC proposals for monitoring reform_PT comments.pdf768.86 KB

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.

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.

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.

2. 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.

3. 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

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.

Bern Network-GPEDC roundtable outcome note - Final-back-front.pdf585.64 KB

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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?

None.

Comments on behalf of Josefina Villegas

(Policy and Membership Coordinator - CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness)

Feedback changes to GPEDC monitoring rev03 - clean.docx558.07 KB

Comments on behalf of M.K Munyoro (Africa Youth Technical Group)

Africa Youth technical Group MK Munyoro_Submission to GPEDC consultation.docx21.36 KB

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.

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.  
 

 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.

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.

Comments on behalf of His Excellency Minister CHHIENG YANARA, during the 2021 Busan Global Partnership Forum.

FINAL_SHORT_Yanara_Speech_for_Busan_Partnership_Forum_Comment.pdf227.81 KB