Monitoring the Paris Declaration in 2011 Preliminary Findings

1. Monitoring theParis Declaration in 2011Preliminary Findings Working Party on Aid Effectiveness Paris, 5-8 July 2011

2. Overview • Monitoring and the 2011 Survey- Why? What? How? • What do the findings tell us? • Some notes on the process • What next?

3. Monitoring the Paris DeclarationWhy? What? How? 2005: Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness Five principles,56 commitments ... and agreement to monitor progress against targets established for 2010 12 indicators of progress measured at the country level

4. Monitoring the Paris DeclarationWhy? What? How? • Aims of the Survey • Stimulate dialogue at the country level: • Identify opportunities and bottlenecks to make aid more effective • Foster a shared understanding • Track progress over time • At the global level: • Monitor implementation of the PD, supporting political accountability • Evidence and learning – a key input to HLF-4

5. Monitoring the Paris DeclarationWhy? What? How? • What is being monitored? • Progress towards agreed targets using standard indicators • Efforts in other areas not captured by the indicators • e.g. elements of the Accra Agenda for Action • Qualitative observations on opportunities and challenges at the country level • Complementary evidence through optional modules (gender equality; inclusive ownership) • Monitoring the Fragile States Principles

6. Monitoring the Paris DeclarationWhy? What? How? • How is progress monitored? • Three successive Surveys • 2006 Baseline Survey (the state of play in 2005) • 2008 Survey (stock-taking, informing HLF-3) • 2011 Survey (were the 2010 targets met?) • A country-led process • Managed by national co-ordinators in partner countries, with support from donors • Dialogue with a broad range of stakeholders • Global co-ordination and support (OECD, UNDP and World Bank)

7. Monitoring the Paris DeclarationWhy? What? How? • Increasing Survey coverage 34 partner countries 36% of global aid 55 partner countries 58% of global aid 76 partner countries 76% of global aid • Broader stakeholder participation(emerging donors, civil society, parliamentarians more involved in some countries) % of global core aid covered by the Survey (est.)

8. Have the 2010 targets been met?(Preliminary 2010 aggregates, 32 baseline countries) 2005 Baseline 19% 2010 Target 50% 75% 50% 38% 85% 44% 43% 51% 49% 50% 54% 47% 40% 1 696 1 145 565 42% 71% 40% 89% 87% >87% 66% 43% 46% 40% 20% 22% 66% 41% 44% 7% 25% 38% 100% 44% 48%

9. Findings beyond the 12 indicators • More participatory approaches in development strategies, but challenges for civil society activity in some countries • Technical co-operation better co-ordinated, but further efforts needed to ensure support for capacity development is demand-driven • Improved country systems in 1/3 of countries, but a decline observed in others • Donors are not making systematic use of country systems where these are more reliable • Transparency – some promising initiatives, but work in progress • Efforts to enhance medium-term predictability of aid limited • Limited efforts to reduce the fragmentation of aid

10. Looking beyond the headlines • Significant variations across countriesand donors on many indicators and issues • Particular challenges in fragile states and situations • There may also be variations across donor types, regions and groups of partner countries • Analysis of these trends is ongoing

11. Some notes on the process • Report on Progress since Paris • Evidence from the Surveys... • ... and other relevant and credible evidence • Country chapters – detailed analysis of progress and challenges in each partner country • These findings are provisional • Data validation and verification is ongoing • Findings are still subject to change • Final Report available September 2011

12. What next?

13. Further information • Draft Report on Progress since Paris(room document for discussion) • Survey website: www.oecd.org/dac/pdsurvey • www.busanhlf4.org