REFINING THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP MONITORING FRAMEWORK FOR 2030

Transcription

1 REFINING THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP MONITORING FRAMEWORK FOR 2030 TECHNICAL NOTE 4 EXIT SURVEY: PARTNER COUNTRIES FEEDBACK ON THE 2016 MONITORING ROUND

2 CONCEPT NOTE EXIT SURVEY: PARTNER COUNTRIES FEEDBACK ON THE 2016 MONITORING ROUND At the end of the data collection process of the 2016 monitoring round of the Global Partnership, the Joint Support Team surveyed national co-ordinators teams to collect feedback on their experience throughout the monitoring exercise. Their answers are summarized as follows: Main reasons for participation. Most countries recognized the exercise as a mean to stimulate dialogue between stakeholders and support accountability for effective development cooperation. Countries that participated to previous rounds see the continuity of reporting as a way to track their progress toward commitments. For many countries participation was positively affected by the encouragement of the OECD-UNDP Joint Support Team and/or UNDP country offices. Countries also participated to ensure their national priorities were reflected in international dialogues and at the 2nd High Level Meeting of the Global Partnership. Figure 1. - Main reasons for participating to the 2016 monitoring round 71% 51% 46% 9% Stimulate dialogue between stakeholders and support accountability for more effective development cooperation Continuity of reporting Participation was encouraged by the Joint Support Team or UNDP country office Reflect national priorities in international dialogues and HLM 2 Participation was encouraged by a regional or thematic network Specific interests in a particular indicator/s Other reasons Most critical areas of support to help data collection. Timeliness and responsiveness of development partners are identified as the most critical elements in support of data collection, followed by in-country capacity and availability of resources to lead the exercise. Access to training to help understand the indicators and the data collection process is also considered important by respondents. While in-country capacity and resources have on average worked well in several countries, timeliness and responsiveness of development partners and other government ministries or units are considered as in need for improvement by a large number of respondents. In addition, remote support from the Joint Support Team is cited as the element of support that worked best during the exercise

3 REFINING THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP MONITORING FRAMEWORK Figure 2. Areas identified as most critical to help data collection and how well they worked in practice Most critical areas and how they worked in practice Development partners' responsiveness and timeliness < GAP > In-country capacity and availability of resources to lead the exercise Training to understand the indicators Responsiveness and timeliness of civil society/private sector focal points Responsiveness and timeliness of other government ministries or units In-country support from development partners Remote support from the UNDP-OECD Joint Support Team Quality of support provided. Countries are on average satisfied with the quality of guiding materials provided by the Joint Support Team, with the flexibility of timelines accorded to specific countries needs, and with the clarity of expectations for the process. However, countries are on average poorly satisfied with the quality of in-country support and with the lack of training opportunities to understand the indicators and the process. Figure 3. Satisfaction with the support provided by the Joint Support Team. Average score among: (4) Excellent, (3) Good, (2) Fair, (1) Needs Improvement Guiding materials 3.4 Flexibility offered with deadlines 3.1 Clarity on expectations 3.0 Remote support 2.9 Training opportunities 2.6 In-country support and collaboration

4 CONCEPT NOTE Use of findings. Most countries plan to undertake further analysis on the results at country level to track progress toward the commitments ( of respondents), and to use the results to inform multi-stakeholders dialogues on implications of the findings (76%). Many countries will use the outcomes to advocate for change in development partners current practices (70%), to develop a joint action plan for addressing challenges (), and to inform internal policy and institutional reviews (7). Countries will also make use of the results to inform strategic choices in partnering with bilateral and multilateral development partners (63%). Figure 4. Use of monitoring findings by countries. Percentage of respondents indicating each of the possible uses. As baseline to track progress on effective development cooperation in the country Country level analysis of results Set government position at the HLM 2 of the Global Partnership Inform multi-stakeholder dialogue on results and implications Advocate for change in development partners' current practices Formulate joint action plan to address challenges 79% 76% 70% Inform internal policy and institutional review Strategic partnering with bilateral and multilateral providers (e.g. ranking them) Discussions with peers in regional workshops and other events 57% 6 63% ] Future priorities. Strengthening country's results frameworks, increasing development partners alignment to them, and increasing transparency of development partners are identified as top priorities by respondents. Strengthening quality of country systems, improving annual predictability of development co-operation funding, and strengthening mutual accountability review processes are also cited as high priority by many respondents to the survey

5 REFINING THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP MONITORING FRAMEWORK Figure 5. Priorities areas for the future by indicator. Answers for the 77 participating governments Participating Governments: Priority areas for the future (by indicator) N=77 High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority 1a. Increasing providers'alignment to countries' priorities 1b. Strengthening the country's results framework/s and other strategic planning tools 4. Increasing providers' transparency of their development cooperation efforts 9a. Strengthening Country Systems 91% 8 83% 5% 12% 15% 1% 13% 5% 5a. Improving providers' annual predictability 81% 15% 7. Strengthening mutual accountability review processes 80% 16% 9b. Increasing Use of Country Systems by Development Partners/Providers 77% 16% 7% 10. Increasing the share of Untied Aid 68% 28% 3. Strengthening the quality of public-private dialogue 29% 5% 5b. Improving providers' medium-term predictability 65% 31% 6. Increasing the share of aid included on budget subject to scrutiny by parliaments 8. Having government systems in place to track allocations for gender equality 2. Improving the enabling environment and development effectiveness of CSOs 63% 60% 53% 33% 32% 39% 8% 8% - 5 -