copy the linklink copied!8. Looking forward: Initial reflections of Global Partnership stakeholders

This chapter presents initial reflections of various Global Partnership stakeholders on the 2019 monitoring results, drawn from written contributions from Global Partnership Steering Committee members, discussions at the 2019 Monitoring Dialogue (Bonn, May 2019), sessions of the 2019 Senior Level Meeting (New York, July 2019) and a post-monitoring survey conducted among national co-ordinators. It highlights possible priority areas for future action, as well as actions already taken by some stakeholders to enhance effectiveness in line with the objectives of the monitoring exercise.


“The multi-stakeholder approach of the Global Partnership, which brings all development actors together on a more equal footing, will be a key factor to achieve effective contributions to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.” (Statement of the Co-Chairs at the GPEDC Senior Level Meeting)  

Global Partnership monitoring evidence is informing action to enhance effectiveness and drive progress towards achieving the 2030 Agenda. This chapter presents initial stakeholder reflections on the 2019 monitoring results and highlights possible priority areas for future action. It draws directly on written contributions provided by Global Partnership Steering Committee members,1 as well as on discussions at the 2019 Monitoring Dialogue (Bonn, May 2019), sessions of the 2019 Senior Level Meeting (New York, July 2019) and a post-monitoring survey conducted among national co-ordinators. It also notes some of the actions that stakeholders have already taken to enhance effectiveness in line with the objectives of the monitoring exercise. These inputs have been consolidated by the Global Partnership OECD-UNDP Joint Support Team, but do not represent the views of either the OECD or the UNDP. Rather, the material presented in this chapter should be understood as the direct reflections of participating stakeholders as provided to the Joint Support Team.

“The monitoring process is the cornerstone of the GPEDC and is unique in its orientation towards contributing to behavioural change.” (International Trade Union Confederation)  

Stakeholders remain committed to the development effectiveness agenda as an important accelerator for sustainable development, although the inputs also reinforce that progress has been uneven. Global Partnership monitoring continues to be seen as an important tool for providing data and evidence to contribute to increased learning, enhance development effectiveness and maximise the contributions of all stakeholders to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In this vein, it was welcomed that the 2019 Progress Report highlights where progress is lagging and indicates where action is needed by partner countries, development partners and other development actors and where multi-stakeholder efforts can be multiplied.

“The data of the 2018 monitoring round hint at a mixed picture of the state of effectiveness, suggesting that more needs to be done in order to truly implement effective development co-operation.” (Germany)  

copy the linklink copied!Strengthened ownership and alignment are needed to accelerate development progress

Recognising that ownership over development co-operation is critical, stakeholders pointed to the need to build increased institutional capacity to lead and manage co-operation partnerships and resources. This includes building strong development planning, management and accountability systems as well as ensuring both an institutional mandate for the management of development co-operation and adequate administrative capacity to deliver. Partner countries are already taking steps to strengthen their leadership role: Uganda, for example, is developing a new co-operation policy and strengthening its system to track and manage co-operation resources. There was also recognition that strengthened leadership from partner country governments, including leadership in demanding effectiveness from their development partners, is needed to bring about behaviour change on the part of development partners.

It is important not only to build strong planning, management and accountability systems, but also to ensure stronger links between these systems. Strengthening the links between national development strategies, results frameworks, resources and monitoring systems was recognised as a priority. Enhancing partner countries’ statistical capacity, with a specific focus on data for leaving no one behind, was also a priority. At the Senior Level Meeting (SLM), Myanmar shared its approach to strengthening these links through its Sustainable Development Plan, which serves as a national results framework and simultaneously provides a detailed strategic planning matrix that guides all development actors in the implementation of development initiatives. To ensure full implementation of its development effectiveness agenda, Myanmar has established the new Ministry of Investment and Foreign Economic Relations and has adopted a new development assistance policy to improve coherence and co-ordination of development co-operation.

Development partners’ alignment to countries’ priorities must be improved. Continued development partner support of the effectiveness agenda, including stronger alignment to partner countries’ development priorities, was cited as key to effectiveness. Some development partners indicated they plan to integrate the effectiveness principles during the preparation of new development co-operation strategies, with the aim of strengthening the results orientation and use of country systems, improving predictability, boosting multi-stakeholder partnerships, reducing fragmentation and improving collaboration, and encouraging the partner country government’s involvement in programme evaluations.

Partner countries highlight the importance of building trust as a prerequisite for strong partnerships among development actors. Commitment and actions by both development partners and partner country governments are considered important for building mutual trust among development actors. It was emphasised that trust requires sharing of information, including by facilitating the involvement of communities in development initiatives to foster stronger ownership and acceptance. It was noted, as well, that building trust requires strengthening capacities so that all actors are able to come together on an equal footing. The Global Partnership was recognised as the platform to build this trust. To make this change happen, it was stressed, good use must be made of the Global Partnership, a unique place where all stakeholders convene as peers.

“We need to work to build trust. If this is not done, then effectiveness will never be achieved.” (Uganda)  

copy the linklink copied!Facilitating the active engagement of the full range of stakeholders requires concerted effort

Initial reflections highlighted that for many stakeholders, reversing the trend of shrinking space for civil society is a pressing priority. Development partners recognised the importance of their support to civil society organisations (CSOs) as a way to increase civil society space. For their part, CSO representatives at the SLM recognised the need to implement the Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness and strengthen their internal accountability systems to ensure these systems are progressive; well managed; and connected at the national, regional and sectoral level. Networking among CSOs from different countries was identified as helpful to building capacity in those countries where it is most needed. In response to this priority, several development partners indicated they plan to work to improve CSO effectiveness and the enabling environment for CSOs and encourage increased policy space through support to CSOs.

“The capacity to engage in dialogue – together with the enabling environment for civil society – is one of today’s greatest challenges, as well as a tremendous opportunity to advance effective development co-operation.” (Center for International Private Enterprise)  

Improved capacity for dialogue and inclusion of diverse private sector stakeholders in public-private dialogue were considered vital for forging effective partnerships. Some stakeholders expressed the intention to support higher quality and more inclusive public-private dialogue (PPD) and for translating the newly launched Kampala Principles on Effective Private Sector Engagement in Development Co-operation into practical guidelines for country-level practitioners. There was also stakeholder support for continuing to engage with governments and the private sector through social dialogue. At the SLM, partner countries that have been taking action to improve PPD at the country level shared their experiences. The government of Burkina Faso provided the examples of its newly created PPD directorate and its strengthening of the legal framework to enhance an enabling environment for private sector. The government of Peru pointed to its establishment of a framework to encourage multi-stakeholder partnerships that emphasise the role of the private sector as a development actor.

Strengthened parliamentary oversight over development co-operation is needed to ensure that resources are spent effectively, fight corruption and increase transparency in the use of co-operation resources. At the SLM, the International Parliamentary Union provided a number of suggestions for improving parliamentary oversight of development co-operation, including involving parliaments in negotiations pertaining to official development assistance; establishing binding procedures for funding disbursements, with reporting on the use of funds; and introducing regular parliamentary debates on development issues.

copy the linklink copied!There is a need to move from evidence to action, using monitoring results to further SDG progress

Data and evidence should be better used to inform dialogue and behaviour change. It was noted that increased focus on putting in place both country-level and global follow-up processes is needed. At the country level, results need to be analysed in context to inform further action and build political momentum for effectiveness efforts. In this vein, it was suggested that a dedicated Global Partnership process be put in place to help stakeholders put monitoring results to practical use. Such a process could support partner countries, development partners and other development actors to elaborate action agendas based on their specific monitoring results. A further suggestion was to better link monitoring results with the Global Partnership’s country-level work, with a focus on ensuring effectiveness efforts are undertaken with a view to improve progress towards the SDGs. Constituency-specific and global-level dialogue was also highlighted as crucial to driving enhanced effectiveness and addressing so-called unfinished business.

“We need practical action using the data from the latest monitoring round at country level to develop action plans for improvement.” (European Union)   

Many stakeholders are already using Global Partnership monitoring results to improve planning, partnerships and actions for greater effectiveness. In the post-monitoring survey undertaken with national co-ordinators, most partner countries indicated that they plan to use the results as a baseline to track country-level progress towards effectiveness commitments and to structure national development dialogue processes. Some partner countries also indicated that they plan to use the monitoring results to review the policies that inform development co-operation and to improve partnerships with the private sector and civil society. Some development partners indicated that they are already or will be analysing results to identify actions that are needed to improve effectiveness; others plan to use results to improve the effectiveness of their programming in country contexts or engage in country-level dialogue. There was also an appetite for in-depth discussion in the OECD Development Assistance Committee to identify actions that development partners can take and to identify priorities for support to partner countries.

copy the linklink copied!Global Partnership monitoring must continue to adapt to the challenges of the 2030 Agenda

Global Partnership monitoring remains a vital tool in the pursuit of sustainable development and work to adapt the exercise to the evolving co-operation landscape should continue. The Global Partnership has already made strides in adapting its monitoring framework to better respond to context-specific needs and the changing modalities of co-operation. There was broad support for the continuation of this work, including for further reviewing the monitoring process. Regarding the process, it was noted that maintaining the country-led nature of the exercise, including integrating the monitoring with existing processes and systems, is essential. Other suggestions to adapt the monitoring exercise included exploring means to further simplify the process, particularly with a view to ensure that all development actors are able to actively engage; revisiting the frequency of monitoring rounds; considering smaller and targeted samples; undertaking studies to complement the broader monitoring exercise; providing contextual capacity support to partner country governments (e.g. regional approaches for small island developing states); and improving the alignment between the monitoring exercise and the SDG follow-up and review process, including with voluntary national reviews. Discussions at the SLM confirmed the intention of all Global Partnership stakeholders to work to further strengthen the monitoring exercise as an essential element in enhancing sustainable development impact.

“Our monitoring process must become more influential in triggering change at country level that boosts development effectiveness, working toward the 2030 Agenda and other global policy processes.” (Statement of the Co-Chairs at the GPEDC Senior Level Meeting)  


← 1. Inputs were provided by the CANZUS constituency (including consolidated views of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States), the Center for International Private Enterprise, the European Union (including consolidated views of EU institutions and member states), Germany, the International Trade Union Confederation, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD and UNDP 2019

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at

8. Looking forward: Initial reflections of Global Partnership stakeholders