The Busan Monitoring Framework is used to assess progress in achieving commitments related to development effectiveness. The consultation will feed into the final proposals on how to revise the monitoring framework. These proposals will be finalised by the MAG in June and will be potentially incorporated in the net monitoring round.
Below you can find the comments as submitted:
Eurodad comments on indicators 9 and 10
First of all thanks for this opportunity. I will focus my comments on indicators 9 and 10.
This indicator is very relevant for assessing partner country ownership and management of development cooperation. Eurodad largely agrees with the recommendations put forward by the MAG and would like to highlight two elements:
“Assess jointly country systems using mutually agreed diagnostic tools. Based on the results of these assessments, providers of development co-operation will decide on the extent to which they can use country systems. Where the full use of country systems is not possible, the provider of development co-operation will state the reasons for non-use, and will discuss with government what would be required to move towards full use, including any necessary assistance or changes for the strengthening of systems. The use and strengthening of country systems should be placed within the overall context of national capacity development for sustainable outcomes.”
It is questionable whether a CPIA+ will meet this commitment. The GPEDC should explore alternative diagnostics prioritising those being developed by partner countries.
2: The issue of informal aid tying practices needs to be addressed. It is not credible that there is a clear mismatch between de jure reporting of tied aid vs. de facto reporting of tied aid. Eurodad fully supports a breakdown of the amount of procurement contracts awarded in provider and recipient countries. The GPEDC could build on the OECD DAC monitoring of the 2001 DAC Recommendations on Untying ODA to the Least Developed Countries.
This indicator remains very relevant and will become more so as many donors have produced private sector strategies that blur the line between development objectives and commercial self-interest. If not properly monitored this could potentially lead to a resurgence of tied aid practices.
Many of the points raised related to indicator 9 are relevant to indicator 10. Once again Eurodad largely agrees with the recommendations put forward by the MAG. It would indeed be incredibly useful to have data on the amount of local products and services bought in recipient countries to promote sharing of best practices and assess whether development cooperation has acted as a stimulus and economic multiplier in the local economy. In this light it is worth discussing whether the indicator should focus less on international contract bidding and more on the impact of development cooperation in supporting the development of local markets in partner countries.
As with the previous indicator the issue of informal tying practices needs to be addressed. The 2015 OECD DAC progress report
on aid untying notes:
“In addition, concerns remain about the high shares of contracts that continue to be awarded to domestic suppliers in a number of donor countries. The DAC should invite the Members concerned to ensure that their procurement procedures are also de facto untied.”
As previously mentioned, the GPEDC can build on reporting of ex anti and ex post contract allocation as covered in the OECD DAC monitoring of the 2001 DAC Recommendations on Untying ODA to the Least Developed Countries.