[CLOSED] Online Consultation on the Monitoring Advisory Group’s Proposals for Revising the Indicators and Framework (April 11 – May 9, 2016 )

[CLOSED] - This consultation ran from April 11 to May 9, 2016.

Effective Accountability for the Busan Principles in Delivering the SDGs:

Revising the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) Monitoring Indicators and Framework 

An Online Consultation on the Monitoring Advisory Group’s Proposals for Revising the Indicators and Framework (April 11 – May 9, 2016 )

 

PLEASE NOTE: This consultation is open to all interested stakeholders (including developing country governments, development co-operation providers and non-state actors) and contributions may be bade in English, Spanish, or French. The consultation will run from April 11 to May 9, 2016 at 11:59PM Eastern Standard Time, and will take place on the Global Partnership Teamworks community site.  A link to the documentation for the consultation and guiding questions can be found at the bottom of this message.

All comments should be provided directly through the Teamworks platform. Please note that while the discussion is publicly available, you will be asked to join the Global Partnership community space to provide written input. Directions on how to sign up to the teamworks space can be found here (English / French / Spanish).

 

Background to the Consultation: A note from GPEDC Monitoring Advisory Group Chairperson, Brian Tomlinson

 Background

The GPEDC Monitoring Advisory Group (MAG) is a twelve-member body of experts that was mandated in 2015 by the GPEDC Co-Chairs and Steering Committee to review and refine the GPEDC Monitoring Framework in the context of Agenda 2030. Effective development co-operation is recognised as an essential dimension for advancing the SDGs.

The purpose of the Global Partnership is to encourage sustainable change in the institutions, policies and behaviour affecting development co-operation, consistent with the commitments made by all stakeholders in Busan in 2011 and in Mexico in 2014. In 2012, the Global Partnership adopted 10 indicators to demonstrate progress in essential areas for these commitments – strengthening country ownership for results, putting inclusiveness at the center of effective partnerships for development, and increasing transparency and predictability for mutual accountability among development partners.

The ten indicators which comprise the overall framework have been implemented  through two rounds of partner country-led monitoring. Results from the first round of global monitoring (2013-2014) culminated in the first Monitoring Progress Report, whose analysis fed into the inaugural High-Level Meeting of the GPEDC in Mexico (2014). Similarly, results from the second round of GPEDC monitoring will inform discussion at the second High-Level Meeting of the GPEDC in Nairobi (November 2016).

The Monitoring Advisory Group (MAG)’s work to refine the Monitoring Framework

The GPEDC’s Steering Committee has agreed that a renewed GPEDC Monitoring Framework relevant to the post-2015 landscape is critical to determining progress and stimulating policy dialogue on the contribution of development co-operation in implementing the SDGs.

To this end, the GPEDC Steering Committee has mandated the MAG to provide technical-level, expert guidance and recommendations on:

a) The strengths and weaknesses of the current indicators and their methodologies;

b) The relevance of these indicators for monitoring the quality of development partnerships for achieving Agenda 2030; and

c) Proposals to revise and strengthen the GPEDC Monitoring Framework and its indicators in the context of delivering the SDGs.

Over the past several months, the MAG has examined each of the ten indicators and its methodology. The group then developed an assessment framework based on the relevance of the indicator to the original intentions of the Busan commitments; the efficiency in collecting data (ease with which national actors were able to source data); and the usefulness of the indicator and its monitoring process in supporting country-level multi-stakeholder dialogue and advancing development effectiveness.

At its February 2016 meeting, the MAG summarised this analysis and set out draft proposals for a revised GPEDC Monitoring Framework, with proposals on how to best strengthen each of the ten indicators. 

The MAG’s proposals took into account its reflections on a GPEDC theory of change. The Monitoring Framework has a key role in addressing the challenges and issues in achieving more effective development co-operation through the Global Partnership (subject of a MAG consultation in March 2016). 

While the MAG considers the current indicators highly relevant to assessing the implementation of the principles for effective development co-operation, it is also open to proposals for new indicators.

Building on the experience of two rounds of partner country-led monitoring, the MAG is interested in your reflections on its proposals, your ideas for strengthening the GPEDC Monitoring Framework (including new indicators that meet its test of relevance, efficiency and usefulness as described above), and ways forward for creating synergies with the SDG review process.

At its June meeting, the MAG will finalise its advice and proposals for a revised Monitoring Framework, including on the indicators and effective methodologies for advancing the purposes of the Global Partnership, based in part on your contributions.

Brian Tomlinson (brian.t.tomlinson@gmail.com)

Chairperson, Monitoring Advisory Group

 

Document for Consultation:

MAG proposals for the indicators:  Monitoring Advisory Group Recommendations and Feedback on the GPEDC Indicator Framework.

You might also want to consult:  GPEDC Theory of Change: Issues for Discussion - Monitoring Advisory Group (February 2016)  

 

Questions to Guide the Consultation:

1.     Relevance:  Do the indicators adequately reflect / measure meaningful progress on the ground? Are the indicators relevant to / in the spirit of the Busan commitments and principles?

 2.     Efficiency:  Can the indicators be measured efficiently and over time or is the data collection process prohibitively complex / time consuming? Do the indicators encourage multi-stakeholder engagement in the collection of data and in the verification of findings (as applicable)?

3.1.   Usefulness: Do stakeholders see the indicators as useful and effective in furthering positive behaviour change (toward achieving the relevant Busan commitment) and promoting effective development co-operation? Is the monitoring process contributing to incentives for all relevant actors to change?     

3.2    Is the indicator drawing attention to established co-operation practices in ways that inform multi-stakeholder dialogue and increase accountability? 

 

Comments

Colby Silver a CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness Fri, May 13,2016

CSO PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS (CPDE)

Contribution to the e-consultation on GPEDC’s monitoring framework

 

The CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the e-consultation on the GPEDC’s global monitoring framework. We appreciate the Monitoring Advisory Group (MAG) for its work, which we see as useful to both producing a better monitoring framework and revising the scope of GPEDC as a whole. Below are CPDE’s overall comments, followed by specific suggestions on individual indicators in reply to the questions asked.

 

Overall comments

CPDE believes the MAG’s proposed revisions to the GPEDC monitoring framework represent a good contribution to the discussion on the indicators. The importance attributed to the monitoring exercise in the zero draft of GPEDC’s 2nd High Level Meeting outcome document further shows how timely and necessary this contribution is. We therefore generally support the MAG’s reflections and hope their suggestions will be endorsed.

 

In particular, we support the MAG’s suggestion that an incentive system for the GPEDC framework be explored at the Kenya High-Level Meeting, including developing special capacity and technical support to countries for data collection, processing and reporting; holding annual meetings of National Coordinators and Focal Points of key constituencies for sharing experience and knowledge[1]; providing technical advisory support to National Coordinators and Focal Points on the application of indicators; improving country-level communication and awareness of the framework and indicators; moving beyond government engagement to also involve other stakeholder focal points in sensitisation activities; organising in-country meetings of national focal points from key constituencies; and conducting regular surveys of focal points to identify issues, challenges and areas of need.

 

In the spirit of constructive criticism, we also wish to highlight areas in the MAG’s Review of the GPEDC Monitoring Framework and Indicators that deserve deeper reflection. These areas include:

 

-       The need to further specify how exactly the GPEDC framework can complement the SDG indicators. The MAG rightly underlines the complementarity of the two indicator sets. However, it does not provide concrete ways forward on how this complementarity can be ensured in “reviewing the means of implementing the SDGs relating to development cooperation”[2]. The overall impression is that the GPEDC indicator framework can be applied to all SDGs – and the whole spectrum of development finance – with no specific guidance or focus on development co-operation.

-       The need to simplify the revised monitoring framework in order to reach a better balance between relevance and usability of the data collected. In general, all of the MAG’s recommendations on individual indicators are relevant, however they tend to add complexity to the overall framework, making it more cumbersome for National Coordinators to complete their task. The revisions to the first three indicators are particularly burdensome, despite the MAG’s best intentions, to the point that the questions raised seem to generate more from an assessment, rather than a monitoring, approach. CPDE is concerned that moving in this direction might jeopardise the efficiency and ultimate usefulness of individual indicators, particularly at country level. Several additional surveys are recommended across several indicators, which may just be too much to handle. To reach a better balance among the three criteria adopted by the MAG (relevance, efficiency and usefulness) we recommend 1) asking National Coordinators and other country-level Focal Points for feedback on how manageable the current monitoring round has been so far 2) separating the GPEDC monitoring exercise (on the ‘what progress has been made’) from periodical evaluations (on the ‘why progress has/has not been made’)[3]; and providing regular capacity-building support to National Coordinators and other country-level Focal Points, for example in the context of capacity-building activities in support of SDG implementation run by UNDP Country Offices.

As a final recommendation, CPDE suggests making the information on the monitoring process (and its modalities) more transparent, accessible and available from the very start, i.e. sharing which organizations are invited for consultation; contact lists of governmental focal points and other key contacts from key constituencies; and a more detailed timeline. This information would contribute to more effective operational support to the monitoring process on the ground.

 

Specific comments to individual GPEDC indicator revisions

 

Indicator 1 – Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities.

CPDE broadly agrees with the MAG’s suggestions, which make this indicator more relevant and a better proxy for country ownership. On this indicator in particular, it would be beneficial to consult the National Coordinators and country-level Focal Points involved in the second monitoring round, as they can provide useful insights on the complex challenge of aligning development co-operation to national priorities.

 

We especially support the MAG’s point on the need for more conceptual work on what it means to promote democratic country ownership. In this regard, CPDE stands ready to help with this kind of reflection or any other step that can help take into account the priorities not just of the government, but also of other key development constituencies representing the whole country.

 

In addition, we recommend the MAG promote a common basic definition of ‘development results’, as this notion remains highly arbitrary among development stakeholders, often leading providers to identify results with their own framework definitions, rather than the developing country’s. CPDE wishes to recall here that in defining the Focus on results principle the Busan Partnership agreement calls for “a lasting impact on eradicating poverty and reducing inequality[4]. We ask that Indicator 1 fully reflects this call by measuring how much development co-operation in a given country actually improves the living conditions of the most destitute and marginalised population groups, in line with national development priorities. We hope this step will also lead to assess providers’ performance based on the country’s goalposts, rather than their own.

 

Indicator 2: Civil society operates within an environment which maximises its engagement in and contribution to development

We appreciate the importance the MAG attributes to this indicator, which remains our top priority as civil society organisations. We also agree with the statement that Indicator 2 represents a unique added value to the SDG review process by looking into the contribution of CSOs as development actors in their own right.

CPDE believes it is essential to first take into account the experience of the second monitoring round for Indicator 2 before proceeding with any revisions. In this regard, CPDE itself is in the process of collecting feedback from its 28 participating country-level Focal Points through internal discussions. Preliminary findings from this exercise point to the need to:

-       simplify the process, or at least allow for a lot more time for intra-constituency and multi-stakeholder consultations;

-       address the challenge of transaction costs in organising appropriate in-country consultations;

-       identify better ways to sensitise relevant stakeholders on the importance of Indicator 2 and encourage them to participate in the monitoring process;

-       and nuance the answer options in the questionnaire, which are often binary (yes/no options). Sector-specific group discussions may help gather more accurate information than what is currently provided in the questionnaire. However, this alternative may also prove to be more cumbersome.

 

We will share the outcomes of CPDE’s internal debriefing once it is completed. For now, we suggest caution in requesting more information from country-level focal points. While, for example, the suggestion of carrying out a survey or adding guiding questions may respond to the need for a clearer

 

picture of what CSOs experience on the ground, we are concerned about the growing complexity of this exercise. In this sense, the MAG seems to move in a direction opposite to what it intends to do to improve the efficiency of Indicator 2. CPDE therefore strongly recommends drawing the next steps from the feedback gathered from National Coordinators and CSO Focal Points before making alternative or further revisions.

 

Indicator 3: Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development

CPDE welcomes the MAG’s reflections on this indicator. Nevertheless, we were hoping for more ambitious revisions, particularly in terms of inclusiveness and relevance to effective development co-operation. The following specific comments incorporate the contribution submitted by CPDE member ITUC:

a)    public-private dialogue or PPD does not sufficiently capture the private sector’s engagement and contribution to development, as envisaged in the Busan and Mexico outcome documents.

b)    measuring the developmental impact of the private sector is indeed possible with the right mixture of technical tools (tailor-made indicator) and political will. As a fundamental step, we recommend assessing the private sector’s impact on development against the development effectiveness principles. Here are four practical examples of what this kind of assessment could measure:

-       whether relevant socio-economic actors, such as social partners, have been included in policy-making (democratic country ownership);

-       number of decent jobs or domestic enterprises created (results focus);

-       whether complaint mechanisms/freedom of association (FOA)/collective bargaining practices are in place, in line with ILO Conventions provisions (accountability);

-       degree of accessibility of fiscal reporting systems (transparency).

Ways to complement the measuring of the developmental impact of the private sector include carrying out assessments on tax revenue, foreign exchange earning, reserve accumulation, and import substitutions. Assessments could also focus on whether buffering for local communities following bankruptcy of an economic venture has been considered by the private sector or the state; and/or whether environmental re-enculturation of devastated natural environments of local communities following prolonged exploitation is part of the agreements.

c)     Indicator 3 tends to restrict its focus on public/state authorities as it does not reflect the entire spectrum of socio-economic actors that are (or should be) actually part of the policymaking environment. CPDE calls for the full inclusion of these actors in the dialogue, starting with civil society organisations and trade unions. In particular, social partners’ dialogue should be fully included in the indicators framework and we welcome the MAG’s suggestions in this respect. Social dialogue is any type of negotiation, consultation or exchange of information between representatives of employers, workers and governments on issues generally relating to economic and social policy. It can take place at different levels, from enterprise or sectoral, to national level. Social dialogue requires an enabling environment and an effective institutional framework. This begins with respect for fundamental freedoms of right to association and right to collective bargaining. Representative and independent employers and workers' organizations, sound industrial relations practices, functioning labour administrations, including labour inspection, and respect for the "social partners" are the other building blocks of social dialogue. Social dialogue has a function to ensure businesses respect working conditions and consequently serves as means to ensure accountability of businesses and private sector actors in their operations. This will require the collection of data directly assessing the existence and use of the social dialogue at country level.

d)    Concrete tools for measuring the private sector’s contribution to development – such as the ILO guidelines on sustainable enterprises – already exist and should be used as a reference;

e)    Concerning the proposed matrix on the private sector we suggest the following changes:

-       Replace the "small / medium / large enterprises" classification, which is open to any kind of interpretation, with the following: (i) micro enterprises / (ii) domestic companies / (iii) multinational enterprises (MNEs) and local subsidiaries / (iv) private foundations;

-       Remove “private foundations” from the sector column as it represents a specific private sector group, alongside the domestic private sector and MNEs;

-       Add a stand-alone box for the extractive industry in the “sector” column.

 

Indicator 4: Transparency: information on development co-operation is publicly available

CPDE broadly agrees with the MAG’s analysis of this indicator. We are especially supportive of its suggestion to look into the demand side for data by developing a thorough assessment of developing country needs.

 

While we understand the challenge – and impracticality, to a large extent – of developing a common standard that is a combination of three main supply-side systems (CRS, IATI and FSS), we recommend continuing to monitor the extent to which progress has been made in making timely, comprehensive and comparable open data on development cooperation available, in a way that meets the needs of multiple stakeholders. In addition, we agree with the proposal to strengthen and update the existing political commitment to transparency at HLM2, as well as the proposal to include an explicit commitment on data use. This new approach may ultimately lead to producing an indicator that is more relevant, manageable and useful to developing countries than the current one, without reneging on the commitment agreed in paragraph 23c of the Busan Partnership agreement.

 

Finally, we suggest that revisions to Indicator 4 allow for the possible inclusion of other international financing flows for sustainable development, including those managed by the private sector. This step would make the GPEDC monitoring framework even more useful and relevant to the SDG review process.

 

 

Indicator 5a and 5b: Development co-operation is more predictable

Here, too, we generally agree with MAG’s proposals. We find Indicator 5 to be still highly relevant and believe it is important to continue monitoring providers’ performance even when there is no sign of progress. This is because behavior change takes time and it is usually the result of incentives, positive and negative ones, as the MAG itself notes in its Review of the GPEDC Monitoring Framework and Indicators document. Predictability also directly relates to necessary mutual trust and shared responsibility for results.

At the same time, we agree this kind of monitoring should be coupled with a periodical multi-stakeholder assessment or evaluation of why there has been no progress. Developing countries should be consulted about the frequency of these additional exercises to ensure they are manageable and sustainable. In this regard, the MAG may want to rely on a few relevant Global Partnership Initiatives (GPIs), e.g. the ones on results and accountability, which may be able to support these additional assessment efforts in an inclusive fashion.

 

Indicator 6: Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny

We fully support the MAG’s proposal for revising this indicator.

 

Indicator 7: Mutual accountability among development co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews

CPDE finds the MAG’s analysis to adequately reflect the state of play for Indicator 7, especially in relation to the overlap of efforts between GPEDC’s monitoring and UNDCF’s Mutual Accountability Survey. In this regard, we recommend significantly closer coordination between GPEDC and UNDCF on country data exchange. GPEDC’s second Progress report should also reflect the depth of relevant DCF Survey findings.

The one issue where we recommend caution, however, is the suggestion to balance developing country-led efforts with provider HQ monitoring on this and other GPEDC indicators (Step Forward c). While we agree there is a need to hold providers more to account in the context of GPEDC monitoring, this recommendation should be far more nuanced to avoid undermining the principle of democratic country ownership. We invite the MAG to further reflect and provide clearer guidance on how developing countries would be able to exercise their leadership in this important part of the monitoring exercise.

 

 

 

 

Indicator 8: Gender equality and women’s empowerment 

In general, CPDE agrees with the MAG’s view that the current Indicator 8 is not ambitious enough and is too narrowly focused compared to the magnitude of the dimension it is supposed to measure.

Specifically on the Steps Forward suggested by the MAG, we would like to note the following[5]:

a)    We assume the MAG is referring to SDG 5 on gender equality and empowerment of women and girls, not SDG 8. In this case, inasmuch as the approach suggested is meant to build synergies between GPEDC’s monitoring framework and the SDGs, revisions to GPEDC Indicator 8 should compensate for the lack of clear recognition of the human rights of women and girls in SDG 5. This is because the SDGs are not premised on a human rights-based approach, therefore they lack the full commitment to achieve gender equality, women’s human rights and sustainable development. A revised GPEDC indicator should include stronger and deeper gender equality and women’s rights targets.

b)    A revised gender responsive budgeting system needs to include clear targets and apply to the national and all sector-specific budgets, not just selected sector budgets. Enumerating several criteria with no real commitments backing them up will not advance the interests of women and girls. There is an urgent need for strong financial commitment for gender equality and women and girls’ empowerment – this means including a target for financing women’s rights organisations.

c)     CPDE strongly supports this Step Forward and further recommends including grassroots organisations to ensure truly inclusive participation. CSOs operating at national, regional and global level are essential, however they cannot replace the voice of grassroots organisations.

d)    We suggest refining the MAG’s proposal to measure providers’ allocation to Women’s Rights Organisations by looking more specifically into the core funding made available. This is because project-based approaches, coupled with shrinking civic space, often cripple these organisations. Indicator 8 needs to focus on measuring donors’ commitment to core funding. The indicator should also include an obligatory sex-disaggregated data requirement.

e)    As noted in the sections above, we recommend consulting with concerned stakeholders on the ground before launching additional surveys. That said, the MAG’s suggestion to conduct a survey on gender equality disbursements should not be limited to INGOs but also include national and community-level organisations.

 

Indicator 9a and 9b: Effective institutions: developing countries’ systems are strengthened and used

CPDE fully agrees with the MAG’s analysis of Indicator 9a and 9b and thinks the ways forward proposed go in the right direction. In particular, we support revisions that strengthen the former Indicator, such as exploring the possibility of using the new Collaborative Africa Budget Reform Initiative’s (CABRI) measurement on the quality of financial institutions as an alternative or complement to the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA). 

 

Indicator 10: Aid is untied

Here, too, we agree with the MAG’s analysis and suggested ways forward. CPDE believes this indicator will become more and more relevant to GPEDC monitoring and the SDGs in light of the increasingly important role played by private sector stakeholders, who are often involved in tied aid practices.

As a point for improvement, we welcome the MAG’s guidance on how Indicator 10 might be revised to also capture technical co-operation, which is currently identified as a key measurement challenge.

For more detailed recommendations on Indicators 9 and 10, please refer to the contribution submitted by CPDE member Eurodad.

 

 

 

 

 



[1] This kind of meeting could be held, for example, during the Annual Busan implementation Forum in Korea.

[2] See MAG, Review of the GPEDC Monitoring Framework and Indicators, page 3.

[3] Please refer to our specific recommendation on the need for periodical GPEDC evaluations in CPDE’s submission in reply to the e-consultation on the Theory of Change.

[4] Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, paragraph 11b.

[5] The following paragraphs refer to the equivalent sequence in the MAG’s proposal for Indicator 8, section 4.  

Attachment(s) CPDE contribution to GPEDC indicators consultation - final.pdf
Colby Silver a I-WATCH (Investment Watch Initiative) from Cameroon
Fri, May 13,2016

Investment Watch's Proposal regarding Aligning the Global Partnership For Effective Development Cooperation Process with the 2030 Development Agenda Landscape.

Submitted by: Charles Bongwen Linjap

Question 1 (Relevance):

No, firstly, the indicators do not entirely measure actual behavioral changes on the ground especially measuring the kind and quality of services delivered towards citizens. The GPEDC should be citizen-driven process and not just something limited to institutional multi-stakeholder dialogue if it wants to improve on the 2030 Agenda development landscape. THE GPEDC should be able to measure citizen’s engagement in the entire monitoring process and so therefore the indictors should be citizen-driven than government-driven. For instance, GPEDC Indicator 2 regarding civil society operates within an environment which maximizes its engagement in and contribution to development. A true measure for tracking progress regarding the enabling environment for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) can be easily gathered through the creation and operationalization of a new set of citizen-driven indicators thus :

> Existing laws that guarantee free association, free speech and free public gathering for citizens as pre-conditions for effective civic participation and engagement with government.

> Existing fiscal incentives or laws that ease fundraising for civil society entities.

> Existing dialogue platforms between the government and CSOs.

> The quality of collaboration between the government and CSOs.

> The quality of collaboration between civil society and the development cooperation providers.

> The quality of collaboration between civil society and the private sector.

Secondly, the GPEDC should focus on encouraging dialogue amongst stakeholders rather than being a data-driven process in tracking the implementation and quality of services in the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal landscape.. It should focus on fostering sustainable open dialogue with stakeholders and create a reporting mechanism on this regarding best practices, lessons learnt and knowledge sharing amongst stakeholders. THE GPEDC should understand that development is domestically driven process and should have a roadmap for tracking private sector contribution in development. For instance, concerning indicator 3, engagement and contribution of the private sector to development can be measured by fixing an entirely new set of indicators thus:

> Existing government-private sector dialogue platforms.

> The quality of collaboration between the government and the private sector.

> Domestic private sector financial flow into development.

> Private Foreign Direct Investment financial flow into development.

> Timeline for the creation of a new business.

> Number of decent jobs created by the private sector.

> Accessing business capital by private sector actors.

 

Question 2: Efficiency: 

The data collection process is too burdensome and less cost-efficient. It takes time and resources to gather data to inform the GPEDC process. It is more data-driven than collecting quality interventions regarding behavioral changes on the ground with respect to stakeholders. GPEDC should be more dialogue focused than being data-driven for it to truly drive significant behavioral changes across stakeholders especially with developing countries confronted by endemic corruption and governance related issues. 

The GPEDC indicators do not necessarily encourage multi-stakeholders dialogue in the data collection process. It has simply created a situation whereby every stakeholder wants to protect its “niche” within the entire GPEDC process especially the government. The GPEDC process should be citizen-driven in order to guarantee behavioral changes for genuine developmental impact and transformations in the future. The GPEDC has rather over-empowered the government at the detriment of other stakeholders. It is very important to make reporting an inclusive process for all with each stakeholder playing an equal role in the process. Appointing a national government coordinator makes the government overbearing on other stakeholders. THE GPEDC should not be a government-driven process because some governments do not even bother to organize joint validation dialogue meetings in order to approbate the final report submitted to the GPEDC process by CSOs like the case study of the Republic of Cameroon, conducted by a consortium of CSOs dubbed “Investment Watch”.

In Cameroon, according to Investment Watch’s findings regarding Cameroon government’s voluntary engagement and resolve with the GPEDC process, found out that the GPEDC process is merely a cosmetic process in Cameroon, and the national coordinator of the GPDEC process did not organize a final validation meeting with CSOs to validate the final GPEDC report. Worthy to note is that, the GPEDC process should be a process based on leveraging the outcome of development processes and services to genuinely impact the lives of grassroots citizens in a sustainable manner within the landscape of the 2030 development agenda.

 

Question 3.1 (Usefulness):

No, some of the indicators have outlived their usefulness and are no longer effective in furthering positive behavioral change amongst stakeholders. The GPDEC monitoring process has created a situation whereby stakeholders are simply fighting to protect their respective “niches” without a due consideration of grassroots citizens. The GPDEC process needs to be overhauled for genuine engagement with grassroots citizens in order to trigger genuine behavioral changes within entire the GPEDC process.

For instance, in some countries the government does not see other stakeholders as equal partners in fostering development and as such the government is not very collaborative with civil society entities like the case of Cameroon and most often, the government is extremely suspicious of civil society actors. Worthy to note is that most of the GPEDC indicators are old and have outlived their usefulness. It is absolutely necessary to invent a new set of indicators as proposed in question 1 inter-alia. The development cooperation providers have very limited collaborative and a dialogue space with civil society entities especially in developing and least developed countries.

In terms of changing the indicators, Investment Watch is proposing that:

A true measure for tracking progress regarding the enabling environment for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) can be easily gathered through the creation and operationalization of a new set of citizen-driven indicators thus :

> Existing laws that guarantee free association, free speech and free public gathering for citizens as pre-conditions for effective civic participation and engagement with government.

> Existing fiscal incentives or laws that ease fundraising for civil society entities.

> Existing dialogue platforms between the government and CSOs.

> The quality of collaboration between the government and CSOs.

> The quality of collaboration between civil society and the development cooperation providers.

> The quality of collaboration between civil society and the private sector.

For instance, concerning indicator 3, engagement and contribution of the private sector to development can be measured by fixing an entirely new set of indicators thus:

> Existing government-private sector dialogue platforms.

> The quality of collaboration between the government and the private sector.

> Domestic resource mobilization financial flow by the private sector into development.

> Private Foreign Direct Investment financial flow into development.

> Timeline for the creation of a new business.

> Number of decent jobs created by the private sector.

> Accessing business capital by private sector actors.

 

Question 3.2 (Is the indicator drawing attention to the established co-operation practices in ways that inform multi-stakeholder dialogue and increase accountability):

Yes but not entirely. The GPEDC indicators do not carry all aspects that are related to development effectiveness. It is vital to build coherence between domestic and

international resource mobilizations financial flows as well as coherence between domestic and international accountability indicators. Genuine accountability can only be developed when all parameters are brought tighter to track the quality of development cooperation at all levels.

It is therefore equally very vital; to build a new set of indicators within the scope of tracking financial flows in the scope of implementing and tracking the 2030 agenda thus:

> Domestic resource mobilization financial flow by the government.

> Domestic resource mobilization financial flow by the private sector into development.

> International resource mobilization financial flow by bilateral partners.

> International resource mobilization financial flow by multilateral partners.

> Private Foreign Direct Investment financial flow into development.

Attachment(s) Investment Watch%27s proposal regarding aligning the GPEDC process with 2030 Agenda.pdf
Megan Gerecke a Consultant, World Health Organization, Department of Country Cooperation and Collaboration with the UN System from Switzerland from Switzerland
Mon, May 09,2016

General comments:

The WHO congratulates the OECD-UNDP Joint Support Team and the participating countries on the monitoring process and the important contribution it makes towards effective development cooperation.  The Organization notes the following:

-          The process would benefit from more explicit definitions of the information required for each question. In particular, it would be useful to circulate provider-specific guidelines alongside the survey. Such guidelines should be developed in consultation with provider headquarters to capture different business models of different stakeholder; it would be useful if they explicitly specify which figures country offices should extract from internal reporting frameworks for each question. Detailed guidance will be particularly important if provider profiles are to be created. While country offices should remain flexible in light of different country-led interpretations of the indicators, centralized guidance could increase consistency of provider data. WHO experience showed that there was wide variation in country offices’ interpretation of the sub-questions and the way in which they responded. While internal processes (i.e. guidelines and validation) corrected for many of these discrepancies, some variability remains. This raises a particular challenge for tracking progress as this variation may obscure trends over time.

-          As highlighted in WHO’s response to the consultation on the Theory of Change, without provider-specific reporting, the monitoring process is unlikely to spark positive behaviour change among providers.

-          If provider profiles are to be created,

  • centralized figures from headquarters could complement country-level response to ensure consistency in reporting over time.
  • it would be useful to solicit qualitative inputs from each provider regarding their alignment with the Busan principles. While standardized indicators are useful to quantify providers’ behaviour, narratives could provide insight on the quality of the response (e.g., modalities by which providers ensure development cooperation is country-led; other ways they support the use of government systems and results frameworks – e.g. policy advice on the creation of such frameworks/systems).

-          A qualitative post-hoc evaluation of country and providers’ satisfaction with the results of the monitoring processes could help pinpoint areas where behaviour change is needed; the GPEDC could consider following up with partners to see whether the recommended behaviour changes were adopted.

-          There are a lot of sub-questions; as much as possible these should be reduced. It was time-consuming for country offices to fill out the survey.

 WHO-specific comments

As the 2011 UNDG Report on Paris Declaration monitoring highlighted, the WHO, like other UN system organizations, is not a traditional donor and thus the indicators – which are tailored to such donors – cannot fully capture the breadth and diversity of ways in which the UN supports national development process (e.g. brokering partnerships, policy advice, etc.)  This limits the indicators’ relevance, efficiency and usefulness in relation to the UN. The limitation is particularly true for specialized technical agencies like the WHO; for example, the indicators do not capture WHO’s role in supporting countries to develop government systems (9b) and frameworks (1a). If provider profiles are created and include the UN system organizations, it will be important to adapt the monitoring process to better reflect UN work.

Indicator-specific comments

Indicator 1a looks at the use of country-led results frameworks in interventions; the WHO notes that:

-          It would benefit from a focus on the modalities by which country-led results frameworks are systematically included in development providers’ work. For instance, in the case of the WHO, this occurs through Country Cooperation Strategies, jointly agreed upon with the government. Attention to internal processes (and the extent to which they are applied) could help ensure providers’ alignment with the Busan principles across countries and over time.

-          More attention could be paid to providers’ role in supporting the development of national frameworks (e.g., WHO support for national health policies and strategies).

-          Developing a common interpretation of this indicator was difficult as the indicator’s focus on projects/intervention was not easy to apply to WHO work (i.e. programmatic technical cooperation).

Indicator 5a looks at predictability; the WHO notes that:

-          This indicator presents averages, but in truth, there are two distinct elements driving the average – on one hand, the failure to deliver on commitments and, on the other, the ability to mobilize and disburse additional funds. Particularly for agencies like the WHO that channel funds, the underlying reasons behind these two phenomena are quite different and it could be useful to analyse the two elements separately.

Indicator 9b looks at use of government systems (budget execution, financial reporting, auditing and procurement); the WHO notes that:

-          When applied to the WHO, this indicator does not capture the spirit of the Busan principles. For the WHO, indicator 9b is principally composed of direct budget support. As a provider of technical cooperation, the WHO contributes to strengthen national capacities and encourage the use of national systems. The WHO aims to limit the use of direct budget support only to countries that lack resources for implementation. Thus – in direct opposition to the indicator’s target – development progress would be reflected in a decreasing share of funds that fall under this indicator.

Ann-Christin Solas a Junior Development Advisor in the field of Aid/Development Effectiveness from Germany
Mon, May 09,2016

Please find below the comments of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) for the Online Consultation on the Monitoring Advisory Group’s Proposals for Revising the Indicators and Framework:

General comments:

  • We highly welcome the efforts undertaken by the MAG to assess the current indicators and monitoring framework with respect to relevance, efficiency and usefulness. An open, realistic discussion on the guiding questions outlined is of immense importance in order to strengthen the overall monitoring framework and to make the GPEDC monitoring an integral part of the SDG follow-up. Therefore we are grateful for the opportunity given to comment on the assessment and proposals of the MAG.

  • At the same time we want to raise the issue of timing of the online consultation. With data gathering and validation still going on and no aggregated data available yet, providing detailed feedback on data gathering problems and the usefulness of indicators seems rather difficult. In addition this monitoring round also has revealed issues in data quality which need to be discussed in order to live up to the standard of providing relevant data for evidence-based policy making. The experience from our data collection processes are revealing that a lot of interpretation of the data to be provided has dominated in the country processes which leads to many questions regarding the credibility of basing conclusions across countries or even donors within a country. Hence, we want to stress the importance of ensuring a comprehensive, timely and inclusive review process.  The current online consultation and comments provided through this channel can only be a first step towards a reviewed monitoring framework that can be presented in Kenia.

  • We are strongly supportive of the MAG’s view that analyzing and addressing challenges and causes for not reaching the defined indicator targets (i.e. predictability or aid on budget) is at least as important as the monitoring exercise itself.  If monitoring continues and no progress takes place the legitimacy of the GPEDC-monitoring process will be challenged. Therefore, we would like the see the GPEDC going forward in this direction by identifying common challenges and highlighting approaches to solve these.

  • We welcome the efforts undertaken by die MAG to development a ToC for the GPEDC monitoring framework. The current version of ToC does not manage to fully grasp the complexity of processes and activities needed to achieve “behaviour and institutional change”, “improved and effective development cooperation” or “development outcomes”. However, mapping all complex interrelations seems rather impossible. Therefore the greatly simplified ToC provides a good starting point to develop a common understanding on how behavior change and better outcomes can be achieved through the monitoring.

  • In regard to the common objective to incentivize behavioral change and policy change the following aspects seems to be important to voice: All indicators of the monitoring framework must be perceived as useful – besides the importance of sustainability and quality of indicators – by all stakeholders in order to incentivize data gathering and ensuring relevance of the monitoring effort. The question of usefulness should be especially directed to partner country governments, as they have the lead for the monitoring process on country level.

Relevance of GPEDC monitoring and indicators for SDG follow-up process:

  • The GPEDC has valuable experience in designing and conducting monitoring processes on state level that are inclusive of diverse stakeholders; indicators of the GPEDC monitoring framework refer explicitly to the inclusion of civil society (2), the private sector (3) and women (i.e. gender equality) (8). That practical experience can be useful to inform SDG monitoring and follow-up processes. To the extent that the indicator framework as is collects data relevant to the SDG process, these should be utilized in a synergetic matter.

  • The 2030 Agenda and GPEDC indicator framework demonstrate considerable overlap in promoting a global partnership for development cooperation (§36 Busan outcome document, § 60, 61, 63 Agenda 2030). In particular, the new Global Partnership as a stand-alone SDG 17 corresponds closely to indicators 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the GPEDC with regards to increased accountability, transparency and effectiveness both within receiving countries and in relation with donor countries.

  • However, the GPEDC indicator framework will benefit from applicability to donors beyond those committed to DAC principles, which are so-called emerging donors, the private sector, and philanthropic organizations.

  • While the SDG agenda and its monitoring primarily focus on the “what” question, the GPEDC’s monitoring framework tries to capture the progress on effective design of development cooperation and thereby  contributing to the “how” question. Hence, there is a great linkage between the GPEDC’s efforts in monitoring effective development cooperation and future indicators of goal 17 of the SDG agenda, especially goal 17.16 focusing on the Global Partnership Goal. In regard to efficiency of both monitoring processes – thematic overlaps need to be taken into account and synergies used in order to avoid parallel data gathering processes.

  • Similarly, to measure the progress on the effectiveness principles included in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) the use of data sources from the GPEDC monitoring is recommended by the Inter Agency Task Force on Financing for Development thereby confirming the relevance of the GPEDC indicator set for monitoring of the means of implementation of the SDG agenda.

Comments on the recommendations of the MAG regarding the 10 indicators:

We believe that the reflections and recommendations made by the MAG to improve the monitoring framework and the indicators are on track. In light of this general affirmation we would like to share our first thoughts and comments on the indicators with you; please see the attached document. 

 

 

Attachment(s) Comments_GPEDC Indicators_Germany.pdf
Edite Singens a Camões IP. - Institute for Cooperation and Language from Portugal
Mon, May 09,2016

GPEDC - Online Consultation on the Monitoring Advisory Group’s Proposals for Revising the Indicators and Framework (May 2016)

Portugal Comments

The MAG analysis is most welcome for a renewed process in the GEPDC monitoring framework in order to improve its relevance and usefulness.  

Although the monitory framework is making significant progress, it is still needed to solve several constraints such as monitoring fragilities (e.g. indicator’s methodologies, such as the one of Transparency; the number of effective participants that are actually able to finish the monitoring process; the diversity of each member; the awareness and global political attention that is needed), and the fact that the GPEDC must continue to position itself vis-a-vis to the follow-up of the 2030 Agenda.  

The link between the GPEDC monitoring and the follow up Agenda 2030, the international political relevance of development effectiveness commitments, the issues of methodological consistence and data quality stand as important elements that cross-cut all indicators.

We welcome, in general, the reflections and suggestions made, in particular the ones related to Indicators 4 (Transparency), 5 (Predictability), 9 (Use of Country Systems) and 10 (Untying).

Indicator 4 - Transparency

This indicator must rely on the quality of information that is being made available, on a balanced approach between the different systems, and should recognize gradual steps on the implementation plans by different providers. The assessment of the three dimensions of the indicator – Timeliness, Comprehensiveness, and Forward Looking Information - must be balanced and equitable.  It should consider, whenever possible, the three systems of the Common Standard:

•          Timeliness assessed in CRS, FSS and IATI.

•          Comprehensiveness assessed in CRS, FSS and IATI.

•          Forward looking information assessed in FSS and IATI.

 

 We also strongly support the Accuracy dimension to be part of the indicator. An assessment of quality must be a core element on transparency.

Indicator 5 - Predictability

Portugal has one specific concern regarding indicator 5a). The reporting of lines of credit might penalize the provider country, since the amount disbursed depends entirely on the partner country, who decides what amount of the line of credit will use. A low use of a line of credit from partner country results on a low proportion of the reported amount scheduled for disbursement.

Indicator 9 - Use of Country Systems

The redefinition of this indicator should take into account all development cooperation contexts, especially fragile or LDC countries, often with institutions and systems that require further capacity building, mostly in the area of public financial management.

The actual measurement only reflects some aspects of the country systems and tends to penalize providers that implement main development activities in fragile countries, therefore facing more difficulty in making using country systems as the default approach.

Indicator 10 - Untying

Although this indicator uses the measure already in place by the OECD/DAC, Portugal believes that a clarification of the methodology for assessing the tying status should continue to be pursued, in order to harmonize reporting practices amongst donors. For example, it should be considered to exclude from the coverage of the Recommendation not untiable aid modalities (such as imputed student costs).

Portugal sees the improvement of the methodology as an important condition to promote transparency and accuracy in reporting and thus fair comparable report amongst provider´s efforts.

 

Some general difficulties with the current methodology continue to be the language and the lack of clarification in some concepts used, not always aligned with DAC statistical definitions and thus inviting for misunderstandings. 

 

Attachment(s) Consulta Publica MAG Indicators_09Maio2016_Portugal_VF.pdf
Jorunn B. Johannessen a Trainee for The Royal Norwegian Embassy in Addis Ababa from Ethiopia
Mon, May 09,2016

The Norwegian Embassy in Addis Ababa provided data for Indicator 1, 5a and 9b. Thank you for letting us comment on the process.

Efficiency – suggestions and comments:

  • If it is possible, it would be more effective if the countries could provide information from their own fiscal year.

  • We appreciate the help from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Cooperation (MoFEC). There were many questions raised during the collection of the data, particularly under Indicator 5a and Q14. We suggest a more clear definition of the questions in Indicator 5a and 9b, with relevant examples.

  • The data collection took longer than expected to complete, mostly because of many questions and the need for clear answers. A better and more simple guide provided would be helpful.

 

  • Norway does not keep track of planned disbursements after it has been disbursed. In addition, it is problematic to provide inputs on planned disbursements when Norway does not follow the same fiscal year as Ethiopia. It was therefore not possible for us to answer 5a Q13.

Jeroen Kwakkenbos a Policy and Advocacy Manager from Belgium
Mon, May 09,2016

Eurodad comments on indicators 9 and 10

First of all thanks for this opportunity. I will focus my comments on indicators 9 and 10.

Indicator 9.

This indicator is very relevant for assessing partner country ownership and management of development cooperation. Eurodad largely agrees with the recommendations put forward by the MAG and would like to highlight two elements.

1: The usage of CPIA is problematic as it does not conform with the Busan agreement to:

“Assess jointly country systems using mutually agreed diagnostic tools. Based on the results of these assessments, providers of development co-operation will decide on the extent to which they can use country systems. Where the full use of country systems is not possible, the provider of development co-operation will state the reasons for non-use, and will discuss with government what would be required to move towards full use, including any necessary assistance or changes for the strengthening of systems. The use and strengthening of country systems should be placed within the overall context of national capacity development for sustainable outcomes.”

It is questionable whether a CPIA+ will meet this commitment. The GPEDC should explore alternative diagnostics prioritising those being developed by partner countries.

2: The issue of informal aid tying practices needs to be addressed. It is not credible that there is a clear mismatch between de jure reporting of tied aid vs. de facto reporting of tied aid. Eurodad fully supports a breakdown of the amount of procurement contracts awarded in provider and recipient countries. The GPEDC could build on the OECD DAC monitoring of the 2001 DAC Recommendations on Untying ODA to the Least Developed Countries.

Indicator 10

This indicator remains very relevant and will become more so as many donors have produced private sector strategies that blur the line between development objectives and commercial self-interest. If not properly monitored this could potentially lead to a resurgence of tied aid practices.

Many of the points raised related to indicator 9 are relevant to indicator 10. Once again Eurodad largely agrees with the recommendations put forward by the MAG. It would indeed be incredibly useful to have data on the amount of local products and services bought in recipient countries to promote sharing of best practices and assess whether development cooperation has acted as a stimulus and economic multiplier in the local economy. In this light it is worth discussing whether the indicator should focus less on international contract bidding and more on the impact of development cooperation in supporting the development of local markets in partner countries.

As with the previous indicator the issue of informal tying practices needs to be addressed. The 2015 OECD DAC progress report on aid untying notes:

“In addition, concerns remain about the high shares of contracts that continue to be awarded to domestic suppliers in a number of donor countries. The DAC should invite the Members concerned to ensure that their procurement procedures are also de facto untied.”

As previously mentioned the GPEDC can build on reporting of ex anti and ex post contract allocation as covered in the OECD DAC monitoring of the 2001 DAC Recommendations on Untying ODA to the Least Developed Countries.

Jessie Post a Project Manager from Netherlands
Mon, May 09,2016

Dear members of the MAG,

UCLG has read the discussion papers concerning the current indicators and would like to share some thoughts and suggestions with you, all directed towards greater acknowledgement of the role of local and regional governments in implementation of development cooperation.

Based on the discussion papers we have formulated input on 5 indicators.

Indicator 1: Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities

The way in which country results frameworks (or similar documents) have been drafted and are being implemented is currently not taken into account, which makes it difficult to assess genuine ownership within the country. The suggestion of the MAG to use the monitoring framework as a baseline to see how a country determines its priorities is very useful: we would add that a guiding question needs to be included on the way in which non-governmental stakeholders and local governments are being involved in the definition, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of country results frameworks.

The target would thus not only be that providers use country results frameworks, but also that all stakeholders are formally involved in the definition of the framework.

 

Indicator 3: Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development

It is important to recognize that enabling conditions for public private dialogue is not only taking place at the national level, but also at the local level and that therefore local governments have an important role to play in ensuring an enabling business environment (local taxation, cadastre, infrastructure, markets etc.). This could be included in indicator factsheets.

 

Indicator 6: Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny

When measuring the degree of commitment to development cooperation of a country, it is important to also consider that development cooperation cash flows do not always run through national governments. In fact, some donors/implementing organizations choose to run cash flows through either civil society organizations or local governments, to avoid that money gets trapped at the national level and never reaches the targeted beneficiaries. It is difficult to monitor this (and it should not be our objective to do so either, as it may increase bureaucracy), but it should be taken into consideration/be mentioned within this indicator.

 

Indicator 7: mutual accountability among development co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews

UCLG agrees with the discussion paper that this indicator is highly relevant. However, (mutual) accountability is only functional when there are, asides accountability between national states, in-country checks and balances in place, i.e. when local governments/civil society/citizens can hold their governments accountable, to ensure that the accountability between the states is based on in-country priorities and policies. Without such domestic/upward and downward accountability one cannot speak of true mutual accountability between states. This should be added in the targets.

 

Indicator 9: effective institutions: developing countries’ systems are strengthened and used

Local governments have an important role in the definition of procurement procedures and public financial management systems. When measuring the quality of PFM systems, the GPEDC needs to have clear vision on when these systems are most successful. In our view, in countries with good-quality PFM systems there is enough attention for domestic resource mobilization (including frameworks for fiscal decentralisation and local taxation and sufficient capacities to ensure collection of these resources. Furthermore, it needs to be clear how local governments can get access to financial markets. The indicator should thus not only speak about the PFM systems, but about when these are effective and what role different stakeholders have.

 

Finally, we would like to underline that it is difficult to thoroughly review a monitoring framework when we only get to see the discussion papers concerning them, and do not have access to the actual indicators (including targets etc.). During the last review process we also received indicator factsheets, see file attached for an example. For future, similar review processes, it is essential that all relevant information is accessible online as it will help to come up with more concrete recommendations on targets and indicators.

If you need any extra information following these comments, please let us know.

Kind regards,

Renske Steenbergen and Jessie Post on behalf of United Cities and Local Governments

João de Almeida Pedro a Project Manager at Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation from Portugal
Mon, May 09,2016

Contribution of the Foundations’ Representative (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation) to the GPEDC-SC:

We think that the suggestions put forward by the MAG - aimed at improving the indicators - are going in the right direction, and we support them. In particular, concerning the contribution of private foundations:

  1. We agree with the MAG’s suggestion to ensure that private foundations are more appropriately included under the revised GPEDC Monitoring Framework. The current monitoring framework includes separate indicators on two non-state actors, i.e. civil society (Indicator 2) and private sector/ business (Indicators 3), but it does not capture the involvement of foundations in the development co-operation process. As highlighted by the MAG private foundations “have different aims and motivations from the private companies”. They cannot be confused with the CSO either, as they have a number of distinguishing features, and in fact they are often one of the CSO’s fund providers.
  2. Several scenarios could be considered and evaluated in relation to their relevance, efficiency and usefulness as suggested by the MAG.
    1. Introduce an individual indicator for philanthropy. This option would be relevant, as foundations’ broader role in global development efforts is increasingly acknowledged and valued. However, it would not be equally relevant for all developing countries, as the level of maturity of national philanthropic scenes and the presence of international foundations might be quite low in a number of developing countries (e.g. foundations avoid to invest in fragile or conflict-ridden environments). If this option is chosen, the indicator could be “optional”. In addition, introducing an individual indicator for philanthropy along with two other indictors on CSOs and the private sector might not be efficient. It would imply having three separate assessment processes relating to a dialogue with non-state actors at the country level. It would probably put too much burden on the national co-ordinators. The experience of the 2nd round of the monitoring exercise will be important in understanding the efficiency issues relating to the indicator 2 and 3 (i.e. how many countries have actually provided the data).
    2. Introduce philanthropy-related module/ questions to other indicators. This option could imply building a common indicator for all non-state actors, with a number pf questions / analyses specific to each stakeholder.
    3. Building on and strengthening existing efforts: Other ongoing efforts and sources of data can provide relevant and useful information on foundations’ involvement in the development co-operation process. In particular, In addition, the Global Partnership Initiative 21 “Guidelines for Effective Philanthropic Engagement” has developed guidelines that serve as a practical and non-binding tool that helps governments and foundations to dialogue on how best to work together at the global, regional and national levels. Since its launch, the initiative has piloted the guidelines in India, Mexico, Myanmar, Kenya and South Africa (soon), contributing to enhanced collaboration between foundations and governments in these countries. The methodology of the country pilots is in fact quite similar to the one currently used by the GPEDC to collect the data on the indicator n° 2 (CSO). In Phase I, the pilots help assess the nature of engagement between foundations and government, as well as capture experiences, obstacles, good practice and expectations from both sides, through the use of a questionnaire (one for foundations, one for government). In Phase II, during one to two workshops, the participating actors co-develop a set of recommendations and possible targets to be jointly achieved (“action plan”), highlighting how engagement between foundations and the government can be made more effective. The methodology of the country pilots can be considered as useful and effective in furthering behavioural change in relation to the Busan commitment. It provides country-level insights and the process itself (survey and multi-stakeholder workshops around specific themes) create the necessary avenues for dialogue and cooperation between foundations and government. However, it does not seem feasible for the pilot countries methodology to be solely implemented by the national co-ordinators (similar issues of efficiency and burden of the process as for the Indicator 2). The results of the above mentioned country pilots will be included in the 2nd Monitoring Report, and presented at the Second High-Level Meeting of the GPEDC in Kenya. The MAG could usefully build on these efforts and experience for the revised GPEDC Monitoring Framework.
Jeff Balch a Director at AWEPA from Netherlands
Sat, May 07,2016

The global indicator #6 refers to aid on budgets that are subject to scrutiny by parliaments. This indicator has two parts, of which only the first has been monitored. Aid numberes on budget are tracked, but the quality of parliamentary scrutiny is ignored. We as parliamentary stakeholders have from the outset objected to this omission. Our interest is in the quality of parliamentary scrutiny and the strength of oversight powers and capacity. The GPEDC has not yet taken this recommendation seriously. We were told that it would be taken up after the first monitoring round, and we see this as a key priority now. Parliamentary stakeholders see this addition as important for the relevance of the whole monitoring operation, but especially for success in meeting aid-on-budget targets. Parliamentary oversight of the executive is the main legitimate, constitutionally-mandated function to hold governments to account for development spending, and yet the GPEDC has not acknowledged its importance when it comes to monitoring. On the contrary, the amounts of ODA allocated for strengthening parliamentary capacity are not known because they are not measured. This matters. We want to see these amounts kept track of, and we want the monitoring effort to track their impact via existing (e.g. PEFA, IPU) measures. As the quality of parliamentary scrutiny of budgets improves, providers are more inclined to provide budget support. Without it, they won’t.

Jacqueline Wood a Senior Policy Advisor from Canada
Sat, May 07,2016

Task Team Feedback on MAG Assessment and Proposals for GPEDC Indicator Two

The Task Team welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the process of reflection on the GPEDC Monitoring Framework. We limit our feedback here to Indicator Two of the Framework: Civil society operates in an environment which maximizes its engagement in and contribution to development.

Relevance:

This indicator remains highly relevant to the Busan commitments. In particular it is of course relevant to the Busan (and subsequently Mexico) commitments on civil society, which both call for provision of an enabling environment and for CSOs to advance their effectiveness. It is also relevant to other aspects of Busan, such as the principle of inclusiveness, and the commitment to deepen and operationalize democratic ownership. CSOs are key actors in development cooperation, contributing not only financially but also in the form of ideas, expertise, and often, linkages to the most vulnerable.

The Task Team has reflected on the relevance of Indicator Two to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as outlined in a discussion paper available on the Task Team’s website (www.taskteamcso.com): Assessing CSO Engagement: The Global Partnership and the Sustainable Development Goals Monitoring Frameworks. Amongst other things the paper highlights the relevance of Indicator Two to SDGs 16 and 17 on good governance and means of implementation respectively. It further suggests Indicator Two can be positioned as a “multi-purpose indicator” addressing more than one SDG target.

Efficiency:

The multi-stakeholder method of assessing Indicator Two; that its content covers four modules each with multiple questions; and that it assesses the practice of three stakeholder groups, renders it a relatively burdensome indicator. Questions need to continue to be asked about the trade-off between efficiency of monitoring and the value of a comprehensive indicator that has the potential, if taken seriously, to spur multi-stakeholder dialogue on the CSO enabling environment and CSO development effectiveness. More is said on this issue of usefulness below.

Simultaneously, the voluminous characteristic of the Indicator Two questionnaire was to some part also a response to a general feeling of Indicator Two requiring some clarification and deepening. The Task Team, as part of Global Partnership Initiative 12, has assisted the GPEDC Joint Support Team in refining Indicator Two, including by offering its own four-part framework as a model. As part of this initiative the Task Team will also develop CSO Enabling Environment guidelines. These guidelines intend to build a common understanding of the four parts of the Indicator Two framework and will be ready for distribution by the next High Level Meeting of the GPEDC. They may be deemed to offer a complementary resource to the GPEDC monitoring framework as relates to Indicator Two in the future.   

As part of Global Partnership Initiative 12, the Task Team is also undertaking a Stock-take of the Indicator Two monitoring exercise in a small number (11) of countries participating in the GPEDC 2015/16 monitoring round. We hope the findings will allow us to comment further on Indicator Two monitoring as experienced by varied stakeholders in country. This commentary will need to be qualified however by the fact that 2015/16 is only the first time Indicator Two has been monitored at country level, thus a learning curve is to be expected.

The reliability of Indicator Two may be questionable, whether the results are determined in a multi-stakeholder consensus fashion or otherwise. However, that the possibility of complementing Indicator Two data with additional evidence submissions exists can help to enhance reliability.

Usefulness:

Indicator Two monitoring has the potential to affect behaviour change in a way that increases the effectiveness of development cooperation, though not as a stand-alone exercise. Its potential will depend on factors such as for example whether the results/report is actually used by various country level actors, and as noted by the MAG, the incentives for behaviour change. Indicator Two is very much a political as well as a technical development cooperation indicator. As such, were Indicator Two monitored in a multi-stakeholder fashion as is the intent, a commitment to an ongoing and systematic multi-stakeholder dialogue on the Indicator Two results and progress might help bring about behaviour change. Its potential will also depend on factors such as how country results are presented in the GPEDC monitoring report, and, whether there is any concrete follow-up action proposed at the next HLM, including follow-up to address bottle-necks, and potentially, to bolster the GPEDC monitoring linkages to SDG monitoring.

The following comments are offered on the Steps Forward section of the MAG Indicator Two Assessment and Proposals document:

Step a) – In principle the idea of a survey to reach out to a wide and diverse swath of CSOs for greater inclusion in Indicator Two monitoring is a good one. However, surveying CSOs exclusively runs the risk of disproportionately weighting the perspectives and experience of CSOs over other concerned stakeholders. This would have the potential to negatively impact the credibility of Indicator Two monitoring, which already, as noted, has the potential to be a politically sensitive exercise.

Step b) – Further thought needs to be given as to how to reduce the demands of the current module structure. Asking CSOs to only provide data on the questions/modules that are most relevant to them and their country context would indeed eliminate collecting data on issues that are of less concern. But in so doing, it would risk thus being biased on the negative and gap areas, and not on areas of progress or good practice. Further, as with step a), the onus on asking CSOs to provide data only of relevance to them begs the question of whether all stakeholders participating in Indicator Two monitoring would be invited to provide data only on the questions/modules they deem of most relevance. This suggests that a preferred option would be to ask fewer key questions for all four modules. As a complementary tool, stakeholders could consult the Task Team’s forthcoming CSO Enabling Environment Guidelines to get a sense of the four parts of the Indicator Framework.

The proposal to retain the CSO development effectiveness module is a good one.

Step c) – The option of retaining contributions on this indicator from various sources at various levels is a good one.

Step d) – While some of the additional questions proposed could be useful, they might better be included as part of the Indicator Two guidance. Given our feedback on Step b) above, this would be preferable to adding new questions.

The proposed addition to Module Two seems superfluous given the content of the three other modules. In addition, given the multi-stakeholder nature of Indicator Two, it would only be feasible if the same type of question were asked of other stakeholders in modules three and four e.g. to partner country governments and development cooperation providers:  “What changes in CSO development effectiveness and accountability practice would facilitate facilitate the establishment of enabling legal and regulatory frameworks”? “What changes in CSO development effectiveness and accountability practice would enable and enhance your effectiveness as development cooperation provider”?

As regards the recommendation for Module Three to be directed at providers’ HQs – this might be useful also in helping to advance donor awareness and in turn engagement in the Indicator Two monitoring exercise.

Liz Steele a EU Representative from United Kingdom
Fri, May 06,2016
Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the MAG proposals on the GPEDC monitoring process.
Please find attached Publish What You Fund’s position on Indicator 4 and transparency.
To highlight a few key points:
  • We think the methodology for the current transparency indicator (4) measuring the “common standard” is not fit for purpose and that trying to reconcile CRS, FSS and IATI data under one indicator simply does not make sense and is distracting from the real issues at stake.
  • We welcome the steps forward proposed by the MAG and in particular a greater focus on the users of aid information and the proposal to increase mutual accountability by looking at the transparency of PFM and AIMS in partner countries.
  • Progress has been made by aid providers in publishing to IATI: donors representing 25% of total aid have met the Busan commitment and are now publishing timely, comprehensive and comparable open data on development cooperation compared with 0% in 2011 – see our 2016 Aid Transparency Index. Partner country governments are now using the data at country level but this is currently far too limited in scope. More work needs to be done to support data use in partner countries, especially by civil society partners and accountability stakeholders as part of the policy dialogue process.
  • Our common objective -  as highlighted in the recommendations we are proposing - should be to encourage others to follow suit, build on progress to-date and identify the gaps where more work need to be done.
  • Therefore we recommend that the Busan commitment on aid transparency is refreshed at HLM2, building on progress to-date and supporting the Global Partnership’s emphasis on promoting mutual accountability:
  1. Development providers commit to publishing all international financing flows for sustainable development to the IATI Standard by 2020, with a particular focus on improving the quality of their data and publishing results and forward-looking information.
  2. Partner country governments commit to increasing the transparency and effectiveness of national systems including by integrating IATI data in their Aid Information Management Systems and ensuring that these are open and accessible to other development stakeholders groups.
  3. All development partners commit to using the data themselves and to supporting data use among stakeholders in particular at country level, with a specific focus on accountability stakeholders such as civil society organisations, parliamentarians and journalists.
  4. The indicator methodology is revised to reflect this approach. 
Attachment(s) PWYF Input to MAG ToC Indicator 4.docx
Carolyn Nimmo a Development Manager from New Zealand
Wed, May 04,2016

New Zealand is grateful for the opportunity to provide input into the monitoring process for the GPEDC.  As a provider, we were asked to provide data on indicators 1, 5a and 9b.

Relevance: the indicators do raise awareness of the commitments by various parties, help measure progress towards meeting those commitments and stimulate discussion within and between the parties.  One suggestion for improvement: 

  • We ask that consideration be given to allowing reporting to be on the partner country’s latest financial year, or a previous financial (or calendar) year if more recent data is not available.  We believe the most important factors are consistency between providers in relation to each country and the trend over time within each indicator rather than a quantum at any point in time.  We acknowledge that international aggregation and comparability are important but believe that the Busan Principle of developing country ownership and leadership is best facilitated by a monitoring process that is as country-centric as possible.

Efficiency: the data was not too difficult for us to obtain, but we had some challenges with interpretation:

  • Question 12 of indicator 5a: “How much of this [funding disbursed at country level] was for the government sector?” We wondered: Are state owned enterprises included?  Do we include funds intended to provide services the government cannot provide on its own, but that do not go through government accounts because of inadequate controls in partner financial systems. eg we fund a police programme for the PNTL but not through PNTL.  We received a prompt and helpful answer from the Joint Steering Team (that the funds must be both for and through the government), but a clear definition of ‘for the government sector’ for this Indicator would be very welcome.

  • Indicator 9b, on the use of partner systems, was also a challenging Indicator for us and we would appreciate further definition and discussion.  For example, even if we provide general or sector budget support, we may provide additional support to the recipient government for procurement because they are too small to have a procurement unit that can manage procurement for all the donors and activities.  And audits in some of our recipient countries are years behind schedule so we may require separate audits for that reason, even if they are scheduled in the partner’s system.

  • For Indicator 1, our most challenging question was q10, the extent of government involvement in evaluation.  We would like to see an option between “no government involvement” and “government defines evaluation scope” because many of our evaluations are jointly designed: perhaps “government has strong role in design of evaluation”?  Further, we think it is healthy that evaluations are jointly designed, to meet the needs of both parties.

We would like to praise the Joint Steering Team for its initiative to help the national coordinators of 9 small Pacific Island countries gather data by seeking reporting from provider headquarters on the 9 countries at once for passing on to the national coordinators.  This was a good balance of country leadership and giving support in an efficient way when asked.

A further example of efficiency is that the Indicators are similar to those in the annual Tracking the Effectiveness of Development Efforts in the Pacific report which is presented to leaders at the Pacific Islands Forum each year.  The two processes are useful in bringing attention to the practices of the various parties and facilitating discussion on potential changes.

 

teonilde Lopez a Oficial a cargo del seguimiento a la Eficacia de la AOD/Ministerio de Economía, Planificación y Desarrollo/ ViceministCoop. Int. from Dominican Republic
Tue, May 03,2016

Haré comentarios generales en términos de la Relevancia/ pertinencia; Eficiencia y Utilidad de los indicadores de acuerdo a las preguntas guía. Un análisis sobre los indicadores y sus metodologías lo hará la Consultora que nos acompañó en la encuesta.

Relevancia:  Sí lo son, tanto para la medición del progreso a nivel de campo, como en reflejar el espiritu y compromiso de Busan.

Eficiencia: Los indicadores pueden aplicarse/medirse en el tiempo de duración establecido para la encuesta.  Pienso que para otros países, depende de su complejidad y de cuan grandes son y del nivel de entrenamiento de los equipos para cada Punto Focal. La recolección de los datos y el proceso de verificación de los resultados es sumamente complejo. La parte mas difícil fue lograr que los diferentes actores se empoderasen e interesasen por el tema y asumieran los TdR y constituyendo sus equipos de trabajo, los cuales a su vez debían empoderarse del tema.

Utilidad: No creo que los "interesados" se preocupen por pensar si los indicadores son útiles y eficaces para la promoción de un cambio de comportamiento positivo hacia el logro de los compromisos de Busan, ni en la promoción de la Cooperación al Desarrollo eficaz. Yo personalmente creo que la metodología induce al cambio y es útil y eficaz para medir el logro de los compromisos, tanto cuanto se cuenta con una linea de base y metas específicas. Sí, es el proceso de seguimiento el que contribuye a inducir un cambio positivo en los diferentes actores participantes, y el proceso sinérgico que se va dando en los diferentes países al asumir las diferentes "recetas" del momento, las actuales, en lo que a nosotros concierne, los que trabajamos por introducir los principios de la Eficacia de la AOD.

3.2 La rendición de cuentas se dá, más que por un diálogo entre las partes, cuando se adopta un marco de Gestión por resultados y se pone a disposición de las partes interesadas de la información sobre cooperación y otros recursos para el desarrollo.

paola simonetti (ITUC) a Coordinator Development Policy from Belgium
Fri, April 29,2016

This is the contribution of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC):

We think that the suggestions put forward by the Monitoring Advisory Group (MAG) - aimed at improving the indicators - are going in the right direction, and we support them.

 

In particular, for indicator 3:

 

1)     It is true that public/private dialogue -PPD (for building a policy environment) is not sufficient to assess the contribution of PS to development (which is actually the content of Busan and Mexico declarations). Therefore, there is an issue of insufficient RELEVANCE of this indicator overall;

2)     Measuring the "developmental" impact of PS is actually possible but it requires more adequate/tailored made indicators and obviously it requires political will by both public and private entities. Indicators showing the impact/results of PS in development should be shaped on the effectiveness principles, for instance:

 

  • Country democratic ownership: inclusion of relevant socio-economic actors such as social partners in policy making
  • Accountability: existence of complaint mechanisms/FOA/collective bargaining practices (in line with ILO Conventions provisions)
  • Transparency: i.e. accessible fiscal reporting systems Development results: n. of decent jobs created ; n. of domestic enterprises created

 

3)     When it comes to DIALOGUE, it is actually a very limited analysis to restrict the focus on public/state authorities as it does not reflect the entirety of the socio-economic subjects that are (or should be) actually part of the policy making environment. Social partners dialogue should be fully included in the indicators framework and we welcome the suggestions of the MAG in this respect. Social dialogue is any type of negotiation, consultation or exchange of information between representatives of employers, workers and governments on issues generally relating to economic and social policy.  It can take place at different levels, from enterprise or sectoral, to national. Social dialogue requires an enabling environment and an effective institutional framework. This begins with respect for fundamental freedoms of right to association and right to collective bargaining. Representative and independent employers and workers' organizations, sound industrial relations practices, functioning labour administrations, including labour inspection, and respect for the "social partners" are the other building blocks of social dialogue. Social dialogue  has a function to ensure businesses respect working conditions and consequently serves as means to ensure accountability of businesses and private sector actors in their operations .  This will require the collection of data directly assessing the existence and use of the social dialogue at country level;

 

4)     Concrete tools already exist (such as the ILO guidelines on sustainable enterprises) and should be used as a reference ;

 

5)     Regarding the proposed matrix on the private sector, rather than the "small / medium / large enterprises" which is open to any kind of interpretation, we would suggest: (i) micro enterprises / (ii) domestic companies / (iii) MNEs and local subsidiaries. Regarding the "sectors", there should be stand-alone box for the extractive industry. And "Private foundations"  should be moved away: it's not a "sector" that is comparable to agriculture, manufacturing, etc. Should be moved to the above distinction within the private sector (micro, domestic, MNE)

Jennifer ANDRE from Myanmar
Thu, April 28,2016

Hello everyone,

Thanks for this great initiative, which was very useful during the government transition. Below are key comments and I'm happy to discuss them in further details.

  • Regarding indicator 1, it would be useful to cover all development programmes, not only new ones. Focusing on new development programmes does not give the broad ODA overview and another initiative had to take place (almost at the same time) to cover the whole scope.
  • Indicator 2: defining a CSO representative is a difficult task and some questions could be covered without multi-stakeholder consultation such as the existence of law for freedom of expression.
  • Indicator 3, the scoring system should use a set of specific questions to facilitate the score given to each key stakeholder.

It was a pleasure to work on this initiative which was welcome by the government and other stakeholders. Great success for us here.

Best wishes to all,

Jennifer

Mungai Lenneiye a 2015 to Present: Founder and Executive Director I direct from Zimbabwe
Wed, April 27,2016

To paraphrase what former President Mkapha of Tanzania said, "the MDGs [and by extension the SDGs] are the minimum commitments if we are to remain human".  Effective Aid Coordiantion is the practical example of global solidarity between citizens in wealthier countries with those in poorer countries in search of the eternally elusive Inclusivity that various philosphical and ideological prounouncements have made with respect to desired trajectory of human development.  

Overall, aid effectiveness has tended to focus more on the the relationships between institutions and their leadership, and not sufficiently on processes that engender empowerment - making sure that citizens fully participate, through their own institutions and not those controlled by a local elite (talking with international counterparts) acting through NGOs, CSOs, and other not-for profit organizations.  To try and tackle this fundamental weakness:-

 

Indicator 1 could included a measure of % of aid managed by citizens through Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) with democratically-elected leadership.

Indicator 2 could go beyond general "enabling environment" and report on numer of CBOs involved in aid management to deliver results on the ground.

 

Indicator 6 could set a target of at least matching national resources to aid budgets going to programs directly managed by CBOs as a measure of growth in partnership between aid agencies and national governments in promoting inclusive development.

 

Indicator 9 could capture information on the inclusion of CBO activities to demonstrated the effective of national Fiduciary Systems (PFM and Procurement) in support of broad-based grassroots development efforts.

 

Indicator 10 could have a reverse indicator: % of aid fully tied to CBO financing.

 

SDGs are primarily a reflection of results achiveved from the partnership between local actors (communities, local leadership in Government and Private Sector) and interntal financiers (be they Governments or Philanthropic organizations often ran by multi-national cooperations).  Putting resources and management tools in the hands of ordinary citizens organized to improve their own communities could have a major impact on the ability of most developing countries to meet their own SDGs.

Mungai Lenneiye a 2015 to Present: Founder and Executive Director I direct from Zimbabwe
Wed, April 27,2016

To paraphrase what former President Mkapha of Tanzania said, "the MDGs [and by extension the SDGs] are the minimum commitments if we are to remain human".  Effective Aid Coordiantion is the practical example of global solidarity between citizens in wealthier countries with those in poorer countries in search of the eternally elusive Inclusivity that various philosphical and ideological prounouncements have made with respect to desired trajectory of human development.  

Overall, aid effectiveness has tended to focus more on the the relationships between institutions and their leadership, and not sufficiently on processes that engender empowerment - making sure that citizens fully participate, through their own institutions and not those controlled by a local elite (talking with international counterparts) acting through NGOs, CSOs, and other not-for profit organizations.  To try and tackle this fundamental weakness:-

 

Indicator 1 could included a measure of % of aid managed by citizens through Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) with democratically-elected leadership.

Indicator 2 could go beyond general "enabling environment" and report on numer of CBOs involved in aid management to deliver results on the ground.

 

Indicator 6 could set a target of at least matching national resources to aid budgets going to programs directly managed by CBOs as a measure of growth in partnership between aid agencies and national governments in promoting inclusive development.

 

Indicator 9 could capture information on the inclusion of CBO activities to demonstrated the effective of national Fiduciary Systems (PFM and Procurement) in support of broad-based grassroots development efforts.

 

Indicator 10 could have a reverse indicator: % of aid fully tied to CBO financing.

 

SDGs are primarily a reflection of results achiveved from the partnership between local actors (communities, local leadership in Government and Private Sector) and interntal financiers (be they Governments or Philanthropic organizations often ran by multi-national cooperations).  Putting resources and management tools in the hands of ordinary citizens organized to improve their own communities could have a major impact on the ability of most developing countries to meet their own SDGs.

Jakob Schemel from Lao People's Democratic Republic
Tue, April 26,2016

First of all, congratulations for moving forward the Global Partnership monitoring - not an easy, nor popular task.

 

As provider focal point, the main improvement that I would wish for is to have a short guide that explains to providers the inputs THEY need to provide. Only a fraction of the massive 74 page guidance that was shared would be relevant for providers.

Yes, we did a briefing session. No, not a single provider had even started to look at the guidance, and I also could not get across all the detailed aspects in the briefing session, leaving it to me to explain every detail to every single provider.

I would therefore propose in the next round to complement the comprehensive 74 page guidance with a slim 4 pager for providers. This could be for instance 2 pages with key definitions and 2 pages on the indicators. I would be happy to provide inputs to any such draft if for instance you consulted with the provider focal points of first and second round.

 

Further points:

  • Indicator 1 could alternatively refer to the respective development partners’ country strategy. Why pick random projects, where most may only have one eligible project.
  • Major issues within the current methodology continue to be the double-reporting. Development partners continue to be confused on this particular point, even if they attended the briefing and were advised personally. A short, clear point on this could be emphasized.
  • I am not sure why data from 2014 is not admissible where there is no 2015 data yet?
  • The Excel formatting could be opened up. Also the designations of development partners are inconsistent, e.g. “Food and Agriculture Organisation [FAO]” and “WFP” and “UN Agencies (ILO)”.
  • In general, the language requires an overhaul in my view, e.g. “scheduled for the Government sector” is inviting for misunderstandings.  
Type forum
Date Created Mon, April 11,2016
Created By Anna Whitson
Original Space Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation Community
Cross posted in Development Effectiveness for Africa
Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation Community
# of Teamworks Views 1042
# of Teamworks Recommendations 1
Visibility Public
Domain of origin Teamworks