The Global Partnership is updating its current indicators to reflect the challenges of the 2030 Agenda and better track the effectiveness of all types of development co-operation.

All stakeholders were invited to provide feedback on the proposed revisions of the current indicators through this open consultation platform.

Consultations are now closed. This online exercise generated around 300 comments and suggestions from 40 partner countries, development partners, and other stakeholders. The Global Partnership is now revising the monitoring framework to address these suggestions.

To review proposals and comments, click on one of the indicators below:

Indicator 1A: Development partners’ use of country-led results frameworks deliver development co-operation

The extent to which development partners guide their development efforts in line with country-defined priorities and development results is a fundamental aspect of country ownership. This indicator corresponds to SDG 17.15.

Main issues with the current indicator:

The original indicator 1a reviewed whether new development programmes and projects were aligned with country-defined objectives and results, and whether progress was monitored relying on countries’ own statistics and monitoring and evaluation systems. The indicator only focused on project-level alignment. However, most development partners articulate their overall alignment to partner country priorities through country strategies or partnership frameworks, which then guide the focus of the projects to be approved in the country.

Proposed changes:

In the revised indicator, project-level estimates are complemented with an assessment of development partners’ country strategies or partnership frameworks. The additional module provides a basic assessment of the results-orientation and country ownership of these strategic frameworks.

Two Ways to Provide Feedback

Leave Comments on our Discussion Thread belowInsert Comments in Document

Consultation Questions:

  • 1Do you have specific suggestions on the proposed methodology?
  • 2Are there particular issues related to the data collection process for this indicator at country level that we should take into consideration?

Indicator 1B: Countries strengthen their national results frameworks

Development efforts are more likely to succeed and be sustained when countries take the lead in determining the goals and priorities of its own development, and sets a shared strategic agenda for how they are to be achieved.

Main issues with the current indicator:

The original indicator 1b mapped whether countries had one or more strategic planning tools in place, and a short narrative describing the country’s planning process. However, the methodology only provided indication of existence of these strategic plans, without assessing their quality or use. The indicator did not refer to the SDGs either.

Proposed changes:

The revised indicator addresses these shortcomings throughout a simple questionnaire that identifies whether: there are transparent, country-led frameworks in place; development results are prioritised (including SDGs); there are systems and data in place for monitoring; and whether results information is used for managing domestic and external resources.

Two Ways to Provide Feedback

Leave Comments on our Discussion Thread belowInsert Comments in Document

Consultation Questions:

  • 1Do you have specific suggestions on the proposed methodology?
  • 2Are there particular issues related to the data collection process for this indicator at country level that we should take into consideration?

Indicator 2: Civil Society organisations operate within an environment that maximises their engagement in and contribution to development

Civil society organizations maximise their development impact when the legal framework, the practices of governments, and the behavior of development partners foster a greater role for CSOs; and when CSOs’ own work is carried out in line with the effectiveness principles.

Main issues with the current indicator:

The original indicator 2 measured these multiple dimensions through a multi-stakeholder dialogue process organised around a common questionnaire. However, the previous methodology did not allow properly reflecting incremental progress, or capturing the specific characteristics of each country context, limiting the chances for a substantive country-level policy dialogue and action.

Proposed changes:

The revised indicator improves the questionnaire and eases the multi-stakeholder reporting process, while addressing the two issues described above.

Two Ways to Provide Feedback

Leave Comments on our Discussion Thread belowInsert Comments in Document

Consultation Questions:

  • 1Do you have specific suggestions on the proposed methodology?
  • 2Are there particular issues related to the data collection process for this indicator at country level that we should take into consideration?

Indicator 3: Quality of public-private dialogue

Maximising private sector contributions to development requires an effective engagement between the public and private sectors. Good public-private dialogue is recognised as a precondition for enhanced collaboration between the two actors.

Main issues with the current indicator:

The original indicator 3 measured the quality of public-private dialogue through a multi-stakeholder process, which produced an agreed assessment of the country’s situation. However, the original methodology focused on identifying whether the basic conditions for dialogue were in place, without delving into the quality and results of the dialogue.

Proposed changes:

The revised indicator addresses these shortcomings, by providing a more complete, actionable picture of the quality of public-private dialogue in the country (in terms of relevant content, inclusive and transparent processes, and actual results and joint action).

Two Ways to Provide Feedback

Leave Comments on our Discussion Thread belowInsert Comments in Document

Consultation Questions:

  • 1Do you have specific suggestions on the proposed methodology?
  • 2Are there particular issues related to the data collection process for this indicator at country level that we should take into consideration?

Indicator 4B: Transparency of development co-operation at country level

Transparent information on development co-operation is a crucial condition for effective partnerships and for accountability purposes.

Main issues with the current indicator:

To date, the Global Partnership monitoring framework only addressed this commitment from a supply-side perspective, looking at whether information had been made available at global level in online platforms, such as those at the OECD and IATI. The indicator did not address whether the information was indeed flowing to partner countries.

Proposed changes:

This new indicator 4b measures the extent to which development co-operation information is also incorporated in partner countries’ information management systems, and whether those governments are in turn making it available to their citizens.

Two Ways to Provide Feedback

Leave Comments on our Discussion Thread belowInsert Comments in Document

Consultation Questions:

  • 1Do you have specific suggestions on the proposed methodology?
  • 2Are there particular issues related to the data collection process for this indicator at country level that we should take into consideration?

Indicator 7: Inclusive, transparent mutual assessment reviews are in place

Mutual assessment reviews– when regular, results-oriented, transparent, and inclusive of all relevant development actors – can help enhance mutual accountability at country level. This in turn creates incentives for all actors to meet their commitments and improve on their performance.

Main issues with the current indicator:

The original indicator 7 assessed whether five criteria reflecting these parameters were in place, with an emphasis on traditional, government-donor arrangements. The shifting development co-operation landscape, with an increase in the number development actors and engagement modalities, calls for broadening the scope of mutual accountability, to reflect the extent to which all actors and development efforts are part of these processes.

Proposed changes:

The revised indicator updates the interpretation of the five criteria under that light. The indicator provides more granularity on the quality of these five elements, as well as on the extent of inclusiveness, transparency and scope of these mutual assessment review processes.

Two Ways to Provide Feedback

Leave Comments on our Discussion Thread belowInsert Comments in Document

Consultation Questions:

  • 1Do you have specific suggestions on the proposed methodology?
  • 2Are there particular issues related to the data collection process for this indicator at country level that we should take into consideration?

Indicator 8: Countries have transparent systems in place tracking public allocations for gender equality

Adequate and effective financing is essential to achieve the goal of achieving gender equality and empower all women and girls (SDG 5), as well as other gender related SDG targets.

Main issues with the current indicator:

The original indicator 8 measured the extent to which countries are tracking budget allocations for gender equality and making them publicly available, thus promoting greater transparency and accountability. The original methodological approach –organised around four criteria that described basic elements– did not provide a sense of the quality, relevance, or use of these tracking systems.

Proposed changes:

The revised indicator provides a broader assessment on whether these systems are in place, in terms of adequate processes and instruments, transparency, and actual use in budgeting processes. This revised indicator has been selected as SDG 5c.

Two Ways to Provide Feedback

Leave Comments on our Discussion Thread belowInsert Comments in Document

Consultation Questions:

  • 1Do you have specific suggestions on the proposed methodology?
  • 2Are there particular issues related to the data collection process for this indicator at country level that we should take into consideration?

Indicator 9A: Quality of countries’ public financial management systems

Government systems able to manage resources effectively help ensure greater development effectiveness. Indicator 9a measures the quality of countries’ public financial management systems.

Main issues with the current indicator:

The original indicator relied on World Bank staff estimates. Specifically, a specific measure in their Country Policy and Institutional Assessments, called CPIA 13). CPIA scores were difficult to unpack or interpret, and less sensitive to small changes. Countries also asked for a more objective measure.

Proposed changes:

The revised indicator is constructed based on the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Framework. PEFA assessments are the most common type of joint government-donor assessments of a country’s public financial management system. The sub-set of PEFA dimensions selected for indicator 9a reflects the quality of the budgeting process, auditing, financial reporting and procurement systems and practices. The indicator will monitor whether countries make progress in these various dimensions.

Two Ways to Provide Feedback

Leave Comments on our Discussion Thread belowInsert Comments in Document

Consultation Questions:

  • 1Do you have specific suggestions on the proposed methodology?
  • 2Are there particular issues related to the data collection process for this indicator at country level that we should take into consideration?

Other Refinements

This document provides a brief synthesis of proposed revisions to the Global Partnership monitoring framework, a discussion of refinements to indicators that will largely maintain their original methodologies (i.e. 4, 5a/b, 6, 9b, 10), and a summary of complementary efforts to strengthen the implementation, interpretation and usefulness of the monitoring process.

Please provide below your feedback on these additional changes to the monitoring process.

Two Ways to Provide Feedback

Leave Comments on our Discussion Thread belowInsert Comments in Document

Consultation Questions:

  • 1Do you have specific suggestions on the proposed methodology?
  • 2Are there particular issues related to the data collection process for this indicator at country level that we should take into consideration?