1 / 9

Session 3 Stock take of the first monitoring round

Session 3 Stock take of the first monitoring round. Key findings Lessons learned UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team www.effectivecooperation.org. First monitoring round. When? 2013 – 2014 Who?

jemima
Download Presentation

Session 3 Stock take of the first monitoring round

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Session 3Stock take of the first monitoring round Key findings Lessons learned UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team www.effectivecooperation.org

  2. First monitoring round • When? 2013 – 2014 • Who? • 46 Developing Countries participated (incl. LICs and MICs from Africa, Asia, Pacific, Latin America) • Data was reported for 77 co-operation providers (incl. bilateral & multilateral agencies + global funds) and covered 46% of country programmable aid

  3. First monitoring round • How were findings used? • Global Progress Report (April 2014) • Key messages informed policy dialogue at Mexico HLM • At country and regional levels: varied use • Countries including the results in their own development cooperation reports • Cambodia, Nepal • Regional reports • PIFs (use of monitoring data to inform peer reviews in the Pacific) • AP-DEF (use of monitoring data to inform the Asia-Pacific EDC Reports)

  4. Key findings: Overarching political narrative “A glass half full” • Core ‘aid effectiveness’ gains broadly sustained in a difficult aid climate – a good basis for further progress • Country ownership continues to strengthen – gains made in 2010 around strengthening and using country systems broadly sustained; investments in strengthening country systems are paying off in the long term. • Inclusiveness is translating into stronger recognition and engagement of non-state development actors, and commitment to ensure that development benefits both men and women – but more is needed to make inclusive partnerships a full reality. • Transparencydrive starting to show results – but these need to be geared towards countries’ needs

  5. Key findings: where are the bottlenecks? Ownership and results • Stronger country-level dialogue needed to promote alignmentwith the priorities and systems of developing countries. • Need to increase the use of country systems (no change since 2010). Inclusive partnerships • Moving towards a common understanding of a CSO EE; promoting country-leveldialogue in existingaccountabilityframeworks. • Need to further understand the requirements for meaningful Public-PrivateDialogue to take place. • Development cooperation architecture is still skewed towards a government-centred, North-South perspective. Transparency and accountability • Transparency efforts respond effectively to local needs and country contexts. • Medium-term predictability remains a real challenge. • Targeted efforts are needed to make mutual accountability processes and reviews more transparent and inclusive.

  6. Lessons learned regarding the monitoring process Country-led monitoring: the way to go • Importance of developing country government leadership • Drawing on existing data and monitoring systems and frameworks: more or less the case, depending on country context: • A significant number of countries used existing government partnerships and monitoring mechanisms • Many countries set up an ad hoc process for the GPEDC monitoring • The exercise led to increased dialogue and transparency between the government and providers at the country level Room for improvement: Participants called for: • Increased participation • Bettersensitisationahead and of and throughout the process (incl. towards providers at HQ land country level) • A more structuredprocess (+ more time for data collection and validation) • More efforts to support the use and dissemination of findings

  7. How has the process and framework been improved for the 2015-16 monitoring round? (1/2) Stronger process streamlining • Clearer roles and processes • More time allocated for: training country-level data collection & validation (6 months) and dissemination & dialogue around findings • More inclusive process • Earlier engagement and greater country participation • Providers of development co-operation, CSOs and other stakeholders are being engaged from early on and throughout the process.

  8. How has the process and framework been improved for the 2015-16 monitoring round? (1/2) Strengthened methodologies for the four new indicators • Extensive consultation process for the review of each methodology • Final review by the Monitoring Advisory Group Greater support for the implementation • Three regional workshops, online Helpdesk, targeted support, user-friendly tools, etc. Broader use of monitoring findings • More time allocated to pre-HLM country level dissemination and discussions. • Country profiles & data to inform country-level policy dialogue. • Further engagement of regional platforms for regional assessments (e.g. NEPAD, PIFs, AP-DEF ). • User-friendly data visualisationtools and formats, policy briefs, actionable recommendations.

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

More Related