Monitoring Busan Commitments: New Indicators and Approach

1. Session 5The new indicators Rationale and approach for the new indicators UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team www.effectivecooperation.org

2. Refining the new indicators • 5 new indicators wereintroduced to reflect broader scope of Busan • Indicator 8 (gender equality) – successfully monitored in 1stround. • Indicators 1,2,3,4 - still under development during 1st round  Methodologies refined during 2015, in consultation • with a broad range of stakeholders.

3. Indicator 1: Use of country results frameworks

4. Indicator 1 looks at the extent to which "development co-operation focuses on results that meet country's priorities" • Why is this Busan commitment important? • Overwhelming evidence shows that country ownership of development co-operation efforts ensures greater effectiveness and sustainability; • Focus on country priorities helps to aid coordination and harmonisation; • Monitoring providers’ behavior  Aims to prevent parallel results frameworks, or creating the need for additional M&E efforts not related to the country’s own priorities.

5. The process of defining & refining indicator 1 underwent several rounds of consultations & country testing • Initial approach piloted in countries • Budget supportas a proxy to measure the extent of use of country results frameworks; • However: • Other aid modalities can also rely on country results frameworks; • Some providers emphasize some aid modalities vs others. • Refined approach light tested in additional countries • Assessment of providers’ use of CRFs in two selected sectors, at project design stage and at project reporting stage; • However, sampling issues and heavy process at the country level. • Final revised approach for 2nd Round • Basic assessment of use of CRF and/or other government planning tools by providers in approving new projects, with providers’ inputs; • Focus on all new 2015 projects above US$ 1 million, and look at project objectives, results indicators, M&E systems used.

6. Indicator 1: Main characteristics of the refined approach • Highlights of the current methodological approach • Indicator emphasizes a focus on providers’ behavior (+country context) • Focus on sector level instead of national (operational CRFs often at sector level) • Broad concept of “CRF”  more accurate picture of different country and sector-level realities • Data useful as entry point for country-level dialogue on CRF use & on needs for planning/M&E strengthening. • How is it measured? • Country-sourced data (country-led process): • 1a. The degree to which (and the ways in which) providers use Country-led Results Frameworks (CRFs) project level measurement • 1b. Existence and characteristics of CRFs  qualitative assessment

7. Indicator 1: Focus on use of Country Results Frameworks, complemented by country context info • 1a. How is “use of CRFs” being measured? • 1b. How is the “country context” assessed? • Brief qualitative self-assessment; • Complemented by: • Evidence from section 1a; • A quick mapping of existing planning tools. For each new dev. project (2015) above US$ 1 million in the country Objectives/Focus Gov. Sector Plans Results Indicators % Sector Planning RFs Indicator Sources % Use of Gov. Sources Final Evaluation Gov. Participation

8. Indicator 2: CSO enabling environment and development effectiveness

9. Why is it relevant to monitor CSO enabling environment and CSO development effectiveness? • CSOs – key development actors • Promoting rights-based approaches • Shaping dev. policies and partnerships • Implementing dev. programmes and projects (raising funds) • Complementing the action of the states by delivering services to citizens • Busan (building on Accra): • recognition of CSOs as independent dev. actors in their own right • call for: • an EE in which CSOs can maximise their contribution to dev. • CSOs to strengthen their accountability & contribution to DE • 2030 Agenda andAAAA • engagement of all stakeholders to achieve SDGs, incl. CSOs • CSO EE not explicitly mentioned, but embedded as a component ofGoals 16 and 17 • Inclusive follow-up and review mechanism of the SDGs  key role to play for CSOs

10. CSO Enabling Environment • What does it refer to? • Political, financial, legal and policy conditions (national and international) within which civil society operates. It can include: • Law, policy and practice respecting freedom of association,the right to operate without state interference, the right to pursue self-defined objectives, and the right to seek and secure funding from national & international sources • Institutionalised, inclusive and transparent multi-stakeholder dialogue fora • Effective support from development providers to empower CSOs • What is the state of play? (CPDE, 2015) • Progress: • basic rights inscribed in constitutions • laws enabling access to public information • creation of institutionalised spaces for dialogue • Challenges: • Complex registration processes • limitations on foreign funding access • restricted right to work on certain topics • shrinking space for CSO advocacy

11. CSO development effectiveness • What does it refer to? • Istanbul Principles – CSOs are effective as development actors if they: • Respect and promote human rights and social justice • Embody gender equality and equity while promoting women’s and girls’ rights • Focus on people’s empowerment, democratic ownership and participation • Promote environmental sustainability • Practice transparency and accountability • Pursue equitable partnerships and solidarity • Create and share knowledge and commit to mutual learning • Commit to realising positive sustainable change • What is the state of play? (CPDE, 2015) • Progress • e.g. Cambodian CSOs adopting a code of conduct in the spirit of Istanbul Principles • Challenges • lack of timely access to information • capacity issues • misappropriation and inadequacy of funds • minimal collaborations between CSOs

12. How was the indicator developed? • Since Busan, efforts to build a meaningful indicator: • Step 1. First monitoring round – lessons learned (2013-14) • CIVICUS originally envisaged • Step 2. Refining the indicator (Dec 2014- July 2015) • Close collaboration with the Task Team on CSO DE and EE (incl. CPDE) • Consultation: informal working group, light country testing, broad consultation • Step 3. Second monitoring round (2015-16) • Further strengthening the indicator, on the basis of feedback from round 2 for subsequent rounds:

13. Key features of the indicator • Key objectives: sparking dialogue around CSO EE and DE, building a multi-stakholder assessment, identifying progress made and room for improvement • Grounding the indicator at the country level – contextual approach • Holding each stakeholder group accountable (governments, providers and CSOs), through a questionnaire: • qualitative assessment (primary data) • 16 questions structured around 4 modules : • Space for multi-stakeholder dialogue on national policies; • CSO dev. effectiveness; • Official dev. cooperation with CSOs; • Legal and regulatory framework. • Building on the work of the CPDE, Task Team, Istanbul Principles, OECD/DAC 12 lessons for partnering with CSOs • Government-led exercise, through a multi-stakeholderprocess for data collection & validation.

14. Indicator 3: Quality of public private dialogue

15. Why is it relevant to monitor the quality of public-private dialogue? 633C • The private sector – key development actors • advancing innovation • creating wealth, income and jobs • mobilising domestic resources • in turn contributing to poverty reduction • Busan • The for-profit private sector is a central driver of dev. • Importance of inclusive dialogue • Call for the participation of the private sector in the design and implementation of dev. policies & strategies to foster sustainable growth and poverty reduction. • 2030 Agenda andAAAA • Vital role of the private sector to finance the 2030 Development Agenda • Increasing role of ODA as a catalyzer of private finance

16. Public-Private Dialogue • What does it refer to? • Structured interaction between the public and the private sector to: • Promote right conditions for PSD • Ensure more inclusive and sustainable policy reforms • Example: • The Philippines’ National Competitiveness Council (NCC) • “Promoting a more competitive Philippines and instill a culture of excellence, through PP sector collaboration as means to reduce poverty through inclusive growth.”

17. How was the indicator developed? • Since Busan, efforts to build a meaningful indicator: • Step 1. First monitoring round (2013-14) • Step 2. Refining the indicator (Nov 2014- June 2015) • Close collaboration with the World Bank • Piloting in 3 countries • Consultation: PPD international workshop in Copenhagen, discussions with private sector representatives of the GPEDC’ SC • Step 3. Second monitoring round (2015-16) • Further strengthening the indicator, on the basis of feedback from round 2 for subsequent rounds

18. Key features of the indicator • Focus on the quality of PPD (proxy to capture private sector engagement in improving public policies) • Key objectives: sparking multi-stakeholder dialogue, building a joint assessment of the state of quality of PPD, incentivisingbehaviourchange • Rather than a single indicator, a PPD country profile, combining global data (i.e. module 1) and country-sourced data (i.e. module 2&3) • Overview of the country-level context for PPD and assessment of a given dialogue platform, through 3 modules: • Legal and regulatory context for PPD • Existing quantitative indices – compiled by the JST • Country’s readiness to host, create or sustain a dialogue process • Country-level qualitative questionnaire / assigned score • Government-led exercise, through a multi-stakeholder process for data collection & validation • Effectiveness of a given platform • In-depth assessment on the quality of a selected PPD Platform (optional, commissioned by the Government)

19. Indicator 4: Transparency

20. Indicator 4: Transparency Indicator • What is being measured? • Degree of transparency of development co-operation flows and information • How is it being measured? • 3 dimensions in the common approach, asagreed in Busan: • Classifies providers within broad categories, depending on degree of progress in implementing the common approach. • What global sources of information? • + Transparency Dimensions Timely Comprehensive Forward-looking

21. Indicator 4: Transparency Indicator • What is the current challenge with this indicator? • Instead of converging towards the common standard, OECD & IATI methodologies are starting to diverge (e.g. type scoring, indicator composition, reporting, year). • Proposed GPEDC approach for consultation • Proposal reflecting technical consensus. • Ongoing consultation (Sept-Dec): IATI, OECD Working Party-Statistics, GPEDC stakeholders. • GPEDC Steering Committee endorsement (in early 2016 meeting or virtual) • Data becomes available in Dec 2015  included in 2nd Monitoring Round

22. Thank you তোমাকে ধন্যবাদ ありがとう Gracias Dankjewel Hvala Merci Asante مننه شكرا Obrigado Salamat