Second Monitoring Round (2015-2016): Archived Information
Please find here all support tools available for stakeholders participating in the 2015-16 Monitoring Round of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation.
Key Monitoring Tools
- This is the main document of reference to support participants in the monitoring exercise. Here you will find everything you need to know about the process, timeline, your role and the specific set of ten indicators being monitored during the 2015-16 monitoring round. This document provides guidelines for all stakeholders participating in the monitoring exercise, including: governments, providers of development co-operation, and other stakeholders (including the private sector, civil society organisations, trade unions, parliamentarians, subnational governments).
Other Important Reference Materials
- This list shows the countries that have expressed interest in participating in the 2015-16 monitoring exercise as of 14 June 2016. Countries interested in participating and not included in the country list are invited to notify their intentions to the UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team by writing to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Terms of Reference (TOR)
- These documents provide standard terms of reference for the various stakeholder groups explaining the role and what is expected of the different focal points. This information is also included in the Monitoring Guide but is presented in a different format here for ease of reference.
- National Coordinator (Government) / Coordinateur National (AR / EN / ES / FR)
- Provider of Development Co-operation Focal Point / Fournisseurs de Cooperation au Développement (AR / EN / ES / FR)
- CSO Focal Point / Point Focal OSC (AR / EN / ES / FR)
- Private Sector Focal Point / Point Focal Secteur Privé (AR / EN / ES / FR)
- Parliamentarian Focal Point / Point Focal Parlementaires (AR / EN / ES / FR)
- Trade Unions Focal Point / Point Focal Syndicat (AR / EN / ES / FR)
- Subnational and Local Government Focal Point / Point Focal Autorités Locales (AR / EN / ES / FR)
- This table provides exchange rate information to allow reporting of country data in US Dollars. Last updated: 10 February 2016.
- General Questions
- Monitoring Process
- Data Collection, Validation & Reporting
- Indicator 1: Development Co-operation is Focused on Results That Meet Developing Countries’ Priorities
- Indicator 2: Civil Society Operates Within an Environment That Maximises its Engagement in and Contribution to Development
- Indicator 3: Engagement and Contribution of the Private Sector to Development
- Indicators 5a & 5b: Development Co-operation is More Predictable (Annual Predictability) & Development Co-operation is More Predictable (Medium Term Predictability)
- Indicator 6: Aid is on Budget Which is Subject to Parliamentary Scrutiny
- Indicator 7: Mutual Accountability Among Development Co-operation Actors is Strengthened Through Inclusive Reviews
- Indicator 8: Gender Equality & Women’s Empowerment
- Indicators 9a & 9b: Quality of Country Public Financial Management (PFM) Systems & Use of Country Public Financial Management Procurement Systems
- Indicator 10: Aid is Untied
- This document providers additional clarifications and guidance on indicator 1. It contains definitions on the meaning of the different sectors/types of interventions/etc which may be helpful for providers of development co-operation when filling out the fields for each project in the data collection tools.
- (Optional) These terms of reference will help national coordinators hire and guide a consultant that could carry out the in-depth analysis of an existing public-private dialogue platform, and suggest ways to strengthen the dialogue going forward. This module 3 is optional, but a few participating countries have indicated an interest in carrying out this analysis.
- This official invitation letter, signed by the three ministerial Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership, launched the 2015-2016 monitoring round on 15 September 2015.
- This brief information leaflet provides some high level information on the process and timeline of the Global Partnership 2015-2016 monitoring round. It accompanies the official invitation letter above, signed by the three ministerial Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership.
nov16 - 17All DayAfrican Pre-Monitoring Workshop: Strengthening the Second Round of Monitoring(All Day) Addis Ababa, EthiopiaEvent Type :Global Partnership,Monitoring,Peer Learning Event,Regional Workshop
First Monitoring Round (2013-2014): Archived Information
Monitoring Advisory Group
The Global Partnership’s Monitoring Advisory Group was established in 2015 to provide technical expertise and advice to strengthen the monitoring framework and ensure its relevance in the rapidly evolving post-2015 landscape.
General Information and Administrative Documents
- Monitoring Advisory Group Terms of Reference (April 2015)
- List of members of the Monitoring Advisory Group
- Work Plan (EN / ES / FR)
Monitoring Advisory Group Final Report
- Summary of the Final Report of the Monitoring Advisory Group
- The Final Report of the Monitoring Advisory Group
- Assessing the Current Indicator Framework: A compendium of MAG advice
Monitoring Advisory Group and JST Reflections on the 2nd Round of Monitoring
Monitoring Advisory Group: Recommendations and Documentation (July-December 2015):
- Indicator 1, Feedback from the GPEDC Experts Advisory Group: Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities
- Indicator 2, Feedback from the GPEDC Experts Advisory Group: Civil society operates within an environment, which maximises its engagement in and contribution to development
- Indicator 3, Feedback from the GPEDC Experts Advisory Group: Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development
- Indicator 4, Feedback from the GPEDC Experts Advisory Group: Information on development co-operation is publicly available
- Incentivizing Behavioural Change
- MAG Response to the Concept Note for the 2016 Monitoring Progress Report (CN prepared by the JST)
Initial Review of the Global Partnership Monitoring Framework and Indicators by the Monitoring Advisory Group (January 2016):
- Introduction and General Comments on the Review
- Indicator 1: Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities.
- Indicator 2: Civil society operates within an environment which maximises its engagement in and contribution to development.
- Indicator 3: Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development.
- Indicator 4: Information on development co-operation is publicly available.
- Indicators 5a &5b: Annual and mid-term predictibilty of development cooperation.
- Indicator 6: Aid is on budget, which is subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
- Indicator 7: Mutual accountability among cooperation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews.
- Indicator 8: Measure government efforts to allocate and track resources for gender equality.
- Indicators 9a &9b: Quality of developing country public financial management systems. Use of country public financial management and procurement systems.
- Indicator 10: Percentage of Aid that is Untied.
JST Reflections on the 2nd Round of Monitoring and Monitoring Advisory Group Feedback
- Global Partnership Position Paper – JST Reflections on MAG Recommendations
- Global Partnership Pilot Indicators – refined methodologies for Indicators 1, 2 and 3
Documentation to Support the Monitoring Advisory Group’s Work
- Nature of the data and main challenges
- Global Partnership Pilot Indicators – refined methodologies for Indicators 1, 2 and 3
Monitoring Advisory Group Meetings and Events
The third Monitoring Advisory Group (MAG) meeting took place from 5 to 7 February 2016 at Glen Cove, United States of America. Nine out of 12 MAG members, representatives of the 3 Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (Malawi, Mexico and the Netherlands) and the OECD-UNDP Joint Support Team (JST) were present at the meeting. The meeting was chaired by the MAG member Brian Tomlinson facilitating
dynamic and open discussions and exchange through plenary and break-out sessions. The meeting aimed at advancing the review of the GPEDC monitoring indicators and framework, further developing the MAG recommendation on the GPEDC theory of change, and finalising advice on the 2016 Progress Report. The meeting also identified key areas of further work and lead persons for each deliverable as elaborated under session 10 in this report.
- Outcome Document
- Final MAG Response to the 2016 Progress Report Concept Document
- MAG Theory of Change (ToC) Summary
- JST Reflection on MAG ToC and Progress Report Papers
- MAG Response to Summary of Indicator 4: Transparency Consultation
- The Global Partnership Theory of Change: An Exposition and Critique
The second meeting of the Global Partnership’s Monitoring Advisory Group (MAG) was held in Paris on 28-29 September 2015, and brought together members of the MAG, representatives of the GPEDC’s Co-Chairs’ offices, and the UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team.
The MAG acknowledged the importance of effective development co-operation to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Without behavior change for more effective use of development co-operation, strong financial commitments, knowledge sharing and collective action, accomplishing the 2030 agenda will be at significant risk. In that context, the MAG underscored the key contribution that the GPEDC monitoring framework can bring to the post-2015 and FfD follow-up and review mechanism. In particular, the importance of making the GPEDC monitoring framework “politically irresistible” and meaningful at the country level was emphasized.
The MAG agreed on a detailed work plan for the coming months, which includes the following areas:
- Track 1 – Finalising the methodology for the 4 new indicators: (a) Recommendations on the finalisation of the methodology for Indicator 4 (transparency)
- Track 2 – Strengthening the second monitoring round: (a) An overall think piece on the underlying/implicit Theory of Change (TOC) that informed the current monitoring framework and a proposed approach for the subsequent review; (b) Recommendations on the 2016 Progress Report’s structure, informed from the overall Theory of Change; (c) Recommendations on the set of the review/testing questions that will be used by the Joint Support Team to collect country level stakeholders’ feedback on the monitoring framework and process, following the second monitoring round.
- Track 3 – Strengthening the relevance of the GPEDC monitoring in the post-2015 context: (a) An analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the current 10 indicators, application of the TOC to each indicator, identification of missing elements, and recommendations on how to strengthen/revise the existing monitoring framework
The MAG appointed Brian Tomlinson as its Chair, and agreed that its next meeting would take place in early February 2016. This meeting will aim at reviewing progress made in the deliverables above and at producing a document that will inform the discussions at the 9th meeting of the Global Partnership’s Steering Committee.
The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (Global Partnership) Advisory Group (AG) on Monitoring met for the first time on 20-21 May 2015 in in New York. The group was established to provide technical expertise and advice to strengthen the Global Partnership’s monitoring framework and to ensure its relevance to the post-2015 context. It is composed of 12 high-level technical experts from governments of both programme countries and development partners, think tanks, civil society organisations (CSOs) and private sector.
Track 1: Pilot indicators
A session was dedicated to the refinement of the four pilot indicators. The AG members engaged in discussions around the methodologies developed for each indicator and started outlining the envisaged areas of work to (1) finalise the current methodologies ahead of the second monitoring round; and (2) further improve the indicators for the forthcoming broader review of the monitoring framework. For indicator 1 (use of country results frameworks), discussions focused on the need to further deepen and unpack the conceptual understanding of country results frameworks (CRFs) including the way they translate at national levels. For indicator 2 (CSO enabling environment and development effectiveness) and indicator 3 (quality of public-private dialogue), the proposed methodologies were overall considered technically sound and relevant by the AG. Members however agreed that further consideration on the options for operationalisation was needed, including on the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders to ensure credible and inclusive processes. For indicator 4 (transparency), the AG members agreed that, given the different nature of the OECD-DAC and IATI reporting systems, a meaningful approach would consist of: using the data coming from these systems separately; focusing on ways to present the data (i.e. separately but in a consistent manner); and ensuring sufficient time for consultation ahead of and during the monitoring exercise for this indicator.
Track 2: Strengthening the second monitoring round
Several recommendations were provided and more are expected ahead of and during the 2nd monitoring round. The issue of ensuring greater political buy-in and broad-based participation by all stakeholders was raised as a main concern in order to strengthen the monitoring exercise going forward. Overcoming gaps in data collection / analysis and improving the quality of the 2016 Progress Report were also discussed, including the structure of report, options for quality assurance, credibility of policy recommendations and use of findings. While members highlighted that the monitoring exercise itself is about promoting transparency on the progress made and the bottlenecks encountered, there was a strong call for further political discussion concerning how to make better linkages between Global Partnership monitoring exercise and the efforts towards enhancing accountability against the commitments of Busan Partnership Agreement. AG members planned to provide further inputs on the several points discussed ahead of the 2nd round.
Track 3: Review of the monitoring framework to ensure its relevance to the post-2015 context
The meeting provided a good opportunity to start brainstorming on how to strengthen the relevance of the Global Partnership Monitoring Framework in the post-2015 context. A few entry points were discussed, particularly regarding the conceptual framework; its relevance for non-traditional providers / post 2015; and how to ensure bridges between the Global Partnership monitoring framework and the post-2015 inter-governmental processes led by the UN as well as other recognized accountability frameworks. During the next AG meeting, members plan to further outline the areas of work for this track, in view of delivering concrete recommendations for a strengthened framework ahead of the 2nd High-Level Meeting.
During this kick-off meeting, the AG members demonstrated enthusiastic engagement and a strong sense of ownership over the expected work.
On the Advisory Group:
On the GPEDC Monitoring framework:
- Factsheet on the set of 10 indicators of the GPEDC monitoring framework
- Table on sources of information for each indicator
- Strengthening the Global Partnership Monitoring framework (document presented in the January 2015 Steering Committee meeting)
- Update on progress since the January 2015 Steering Committee meeting
- Proposed process and timeline for the second monitoring round (shared for comments through an online consultation in April 2015)
- Outcomes from the workshop held in Mexico in December 2014 on “The development effectiveness agenda: approaches from the South”
- Strengthening the quality of development partnerships (flyer on positioning the GPEDC in the Financing for Development discussions – ahead of the Addis Ababa conference)
Pilot indicators: background information and latest versions of the methodology notes
- Indicator 1– Development cooperation is focused on results that meet developing countries priorities
- Indicator 2– Civil society operated within an environment whcih maximises its engagement in and contribution to development
- Indicator 3– Measuring the quality of public-private dialogue at the country level
- Indicator 4– Transparency: information on development co-operation is publicly available
Key documents from the first monitoring round:
- Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership (EN / ES / FR)
- Data Collection Spreadsheet