The Global Partnership’s monitoring framework tracks progress achieved in implementing the four agreed effective development co-operation principles: ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships and transparency and accountability. The framework is country and territory-led, based on developing countries and territories’ own data and information systems, involves the full range of key development stakeholders (including civil society, the private sector and other actors) and contributes to strengthening mutual accountability for implementing commitments and promoting country* and territory-level dialogue between development partners.

The monitoring framework consists of a set of ten indicators which focus on strengthening developing countries and territories’ institutions, increasing the transparency and predictability of development co-operation, enhancing gender equality, as well as supporting greater involvement of civil society, parliaments and the private sector in development efforts.

While other international accountability frameworks monitor what results and outcomes stem from development co-operation (e.g. the monitoring of progress under the Sustainable Development Goals), the Global Partnership monitoring framework seeks to capture behaviour change by focusing on how stakeholders engage in development co-operation.

Participating Countries/Territories and Organisations (2016)

The Global Partnership’s second monitoring round (2015-2016) draws on data from 81 countries/territories receiving development co-operation and nearly 100 countries/territories and organisations providing it.

Click a country or territory on the map or select a country or territory above to explore progress in that area.

Background and Objectives of Global Monitoring

The Global Partnership monitoring exercise provides evidence on progress, opportunities and obstacles in the implementation of commitments for more effective development co-operation agreed in Paris, Accra and Busan in order to:

  • Support accountability for the implementation of development co-operation commitments
  • Stimulate and inform multi-stakeholder dialogue around how to improve the effectiveness of development co-operation at national, regional and international levels
  • Promote agreement on ways to enhance implementation of development co-operation commitments and support accountability at the national level

Lessons learned from the Global Partnership monitoring exercise will also serve as major inputs on the effectiveness of development financing to the ECOSOC Financing for Development Forum and the High-Level Dialogue on Financing for Development.

Global Indicators and Targets

The Global Partnership monitoring framework’s 10 indicators measure progress in areas related to the four effective development co-operation principles: ownership, focus on results, inclusive development partnerships and transparency and mutual accountability among development partners. Some of the indicators are based on those encapsulated by the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005), while others were introduced in 2012 to capture the broader dimensions of the Busan Partnership agreement, as called for by developing countries/territories. A global target is available for each indicator; however, stakeholders can agree to different targets at the country/territory level based on their own country/territory context and experience.

Rather than ranking countries/territories or organisations, the Global Partnership monitoring indicators aim to generate evidence-based dialogue on development co-operation, its policies and its effectiveness to facilitate mutual accountability and learning among development partners at all levels (global, regional and national level).

A detailed description of each indicator is provided in Annex II of the Monitoring Guide, which includes fact sheets setting out the means of measurement, method of calculation and data source for each indicator. Page 5 of the Monitoring Guide describes the sources and types of data being collected for each indicator.

Indicator
Description
2015 Target

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

Extent of use of country results frameworks by cooperation providers

All providers of development co-operation use country results frameworks

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

A preliminary assessment of CSO Enabling Environment building on qualitative, multi-stakeholder information

Continued progress over time

Indicator 3
Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development

A three-dimensional index providing a measure of the quality of public-private dialogue

Continued progress over time

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

Measure of state of implementation of the common standard by co-operation providers

Implement the common standard – All development cooperation providers are on track to implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information on development co-operation

Indicator 5(a)
Development co-operation is more predictable – Annual Predictability

Proportion of development co-operation funding disbursed within the fiscal year within which it was scheduled by co-operation providers; and Halve the gap – halve the proportion of aid not disbursed within the fiscal year for which it was scheduled (Baseline year 2010)

Halve the gap – halve the proportion of
development co-operation funding not disbursed within the fiscal year for which it was scheduled.
By 2015: 90% of funding is disbursed as scheduled.

Indicator 5(b)
Development co-operation is more predictable – Medium-term Predictability

Proportion of development cooperation funding covered by indicative forward spending plans provided at country level

Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development co-operation funding not covered by indicative forward spending plans.
By 2015: plans cover 92% of estimated funding for 2016, 85% for 2017 and 79% for 2018.

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

% of development co-operation funding scheduled for disbursement that is recorded in the annual budgets approved by the legislatures of developing countries

Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development co-operation flows to the government sector not reported on government’s budget(s) (with at least 85% reported on budget) (Baseline year 2010)

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

% of countries that undertake inclusive mutual assessments of progress in implementing agreed commitments

All developing countries have inclusive mutual assessment reviews in place (Baseline year 2010)

Indicator 8
Gender equality and women’s empowerment

% of countries with systems that track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment

All developing countries have systems that track and make public resource allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment (Baseline year 2013)

Indicator 9(a)
Effective institutions: country systems are strengthened

Quality of developing country public financial management systems

Half of developing countries move up at least one measure (i.e. 0.5 points) on the PFM/CPIA scale of performance (Baseline year 2010)

Indicator 9(b)
Effective institutions: developing country systems are used

Use of country public financial management and procurement systems

Reduce the gap. [use the same logic as in Paris – close the gap by two-thirds where CPIA score is >=5; or by one-third where between 3.5 and 4.5] (Baseline year 2010)

Indicator 10
Aid is untied

% of aid that is fully untied

Continued progress over time (Baseline year 2010)

Progress Reports

The second monitoring round of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation concluded with the launch of the 2016 Progress Report: Making Development Co-operation More Effective.

How to Participate

Learn how to join the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation

Support current or future monitoring rounds

Participating Countries/Territories and Organisations (2013 - 2014)

The first monitoring round (2013-2014) drew on data from 46 countries/territories receiving development co-operation and 77 countries/territories and organisations providing it.

The 2014 Progress Report (EN / ES / FR) covers roughly half of all Official Development Assistance (ODA) programmed for developing countries/territories.

Click a country or territory on the map or select a country or territory above to explore progress in that area.

Progress Report

The first monitoring round of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (2013-2014) concluded with the launch of the 2014 Progress Report: Making Development Co-operation More Effective.

The report reviews progress at the half-way point between 2011, when new commitments were made globally, and the 2015 target date for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

EN  /  ES  /  FR

Key Findings

Overall, findings from the first round of global monitoring (2013-2014) demonstrate strong commitment to improving the effectiveness of development co-operation. Efforts amplify the voices of developing countries/territories in the global debate are starting to make a tangible impact on how development co-operation is carried out. Global economic turbulence, regional conflicts and budgetary pressure in many high-income countries/territories have not shaken the international community’s determination to make development co-operation work better.

Longstanding efforts to change the way development co-operation is delivered are paying off. The first Progress Report found that developing country ownership continues to strengthen and there is greater recognition of the important role played by non-state actors in development co-operation. Successes in improving the quality of aid delivery include untying aid and sharing information on development co-operation more transparently. Yet much more needs to be done to improve co-operation practices to fully respond to developing countries and territories’ priorities and ensure benefits to their citizens.

The report provides a central piece of evidence to answer the question of whether development co-operation has become more effective in the past two years. ‘The quality – not just the quantity – of development co-operation is receiving a great deal of attention all over the world, and it is improving’, state the Ministerial Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation from Indonesia, Nigeria and the United Kingdom.

Progress on Indicators


Ownership and Results of Development Co-operation
Indicator
2015 Target
Status

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

All providers of development co-operation use country results frameworks

Too Early to Assess

Indicator piloted in eight countries. Preliminary feedback suggests great variation in use between providers but consistent provider behaviour across countries.

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

Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development co-operation flows to the government sector not reported on government’s budget(s) (with at least 85% reported on budget) (Baseline year 2010)

Some Progress

64% of scheduled funding is reported on government’s budgets. Only seven countries have reached or are close to reaching the 85% target.

Indicator 9(a)
Effective institutions: country systems are strengthened

Half of developing countries move up at least one measure (i.e. 0.5 points) on the PFM/CPIA scale of performance (Baseline year 2010)

No New Progress

No overall change in the quality of countries’ public financial management systems.

Indicator 9(b)
Effective institutions: developing country systems are used

Reduce the gap. [use the same logic as in Paris – close the gap by two-thirds where CPIA score is >=5; or by one-third where between 3.5 and 4.5] (Baseline year 2010)

No New Progress

No change in use of country systems: Development cooperation funding using PFM and procurement systems remained at its level of 2010 (around 49%).

Indicator 10
Aid is untied

Continued progress over time (Baseline year 2010)

Some Progress

79% of bilateral ODA is untied (in comparison with 77% in 2010).

Inclusive Development Partnerships
Indicator
2015 Target
Status

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

Continued progress over time

Too Early to Assess

Further thinking needed on measurement due to data limitation. Mixed picture with evidence of positive examples of government efforts to facilitate the work of civil society organisations however, notable challenges prevail in many countries.

Indicator 3
Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development

Continued progress over time

Too Early to Assess

Indicator pilot ongoing. Other sources of evidence suggest that the quality of private-public dialogue matters.

Indicator 8
Gender equality and women’s empowerment

All developing countries have systems that track and make public resource allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment (Baseline year 2013)

A Good Start

One third of the countries have systems in place with indications of others committed to track gender allocations more systematically.

Transparency and Accountability for Development Results
Indicator
2015 Target
Status

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

Implement the common standard – All development cooperation providers are on track to implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information on development co-operation

A Good Start

The average provider publishes once-a-year data that is six to nine months old and provides information for 50% of common standard data fields. Transparency of forward
information is a challenge: 25% of providers do not
publish any forward-looking information through the
systems of the common standard.

Indicator 5(a)
Development co-operation is more predictable – Annual Predictability

Halve the gap – halve the proportion of
development co-operation funding not disbursed within the fiscal year for which it was scheduled.
By 2015: 90% of funding is disbursed as scheduled.

Some Progress

84% of scheduled disbursements were disbursed as planned (in comparison to 79% in 2010).

Indicator 5(b)
Development co-operation is more predictable – Medium-term Predictability

Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development co-operation funding not covered by indicative forward spending plans.
By 2015: plans cover 92% of estimated funding for 2016, 85% for 2017 and 79% for 2018.

A Good Start

Forward spending plans cover: 83% of estimated total funding for 2014, 70% for 2015 and 57% for 2016.

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

All developing countries have inclusive mutual assessment reviews in place (Baseline year 2010)

Some Progress

59% of countries have mutual assessment reviews in place. Encouraging efforts are underway to mutually track progress, but more is needed to make reviews inclusive and transparent.



The Global Partnership’s Monitoring Advisory Group was established in 2015 to provide technical expertise and advice to strengthen the monitoring framework and ensure its relevance in the rapidly evolving post-2015 landscape.

The group is composed of 12 high-level experts from developing country/territory governments, development co-operation providers, think tanks and civil society organisations.

View a collection documents and event details from past monitoring advisory group meetings.

Current Role of the Monitoring Advisory Group
  • Provides technical expertise for refining the methodology of the Global Partnership’s four global pilot indicators (use of country results frameworks, CSO enabling environment, private sector engagement and transparency)
  • Contributes expertise through quality assurance of the 2016 Progress Report by supporting the translation of key findings into actionable and policy-relevant recommendations
  • Provides guidance on ways in which the monitoring framework can be expanded to include non-traditional co-operation modalities including South-South Co-operation, triangular co-operation and other innovative development approaches
  • Provides substantive input to ensure the monitoring framework’s relevance to post-2015 accountability efforts


*For ease of reference, the term ‘country’ is used to refer to developing countries and territories that reported to the Second Monitoring Round. Participation in this process and mention of any participant is without prejudice to the status or international recognition of a given country or territory.