<p>To reflect the universal nature of target 17.16, this indicator is presented as the global aggregate number of countries reporting progress. For any country reporting towards one (or more) multi-stakeholder development effectiveness framework(s), the country is considered to be reporting progress when, for the year of reference, the number of indicators within the framework(s) that show a positive trend is greater than the number of indicators that show a negative trend.</p> <p><u>Countries providing development co-operation funding</u> and reporting in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks are assessed against the following elements: </p> <ul> <li><em>Aligning to country-defined development objectives: </em>Percentage of new development interventions whose objectives are drawn from country-led results frameworks.</li> <li><em>Using country-led results frameworks: </em>Percentage of results indicators contained in new development interventions which are drawn from country-owned results frameworks.</li> <li><em>Using national monitoring and statistical systems: </em>Percentage of results indicators in new development interventions which will be monitored using government sources and monitoring systems.</li> <li><em>Using national evaluation systems: </em>Percentage of new interventions that plan a final evaluation with country government involvement.</li> <li><em>Transparency of development cooperation</em>: Public availability of information on development cooperation according to international reporting standards. </li> <li><em>Annual predictability of development cooperation</em>: Proportion of development cooperation disbursed as development partners had scheduled at the beginning of the year. </li> <li><em>Medium-term predictability of development cooperation: </em>forward-looking spending plans made available to the partner government (indicative annual amounts of development cooperation support to be provided over the one-to-three years). </li> <li><em>Development cooperation on budgets subject to parliamentary oversight: </em>share<em></em>of development cooperation funds planned to/for the country’s public sector that are recorded in the annual budget submitted for legislative approval.</li> <li><em>Development cooperation delivered through country systems: </em>Proportion of development cooperation disbursed to a given country according to national regulations and systems for public financial management (i.e. budgeting, financial reporting, auditing) and procurement.</li> <li><em>Untied aid: </em>Proportion of development cooperation that is untied.<sup><a href="#footnote-2" id="footnote-ref-2">[1]</a></sup></li> </ul> <p><u>Countries receiving development cooperation funding</u> and reporting in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks are assessed against the following elements:<u></u></p> <ol> <li><em>Leading in setting up national priorities: </em>Countries strengthen their<em></em>national results frameworks.</li> <li><em>Creating an enabling environment for civil society organisations: </em>Civil society organizations operate within an environment that maximises their engagement in and contribution to development.</li> <li><em>Promoting private sector engagement and contribution to development: </em>Quality of public-private dialogue. </li> <li><em>Recording development cooperation on budgets subject to parliamentary oversight</em>: Share of development cooperation funds planned to/for the country’s public sector that are recorded in the annual budget submitted for legislative approval.</li> <li><em>Strengthening mutual accountability: </em>Mutual accountability among development actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews.</li> <li><em>Strengthening gender equality and women’s empowerment: </em>Existence of transparent government systems to track public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment. </li> <li><em>Strengthening domestic institutions: </em>Quality of the country’s budgetary and public financial management.</li> </ol> <p>Countries providing and receiving development cooperation funding are invited to select whether they would like to report against provider-specific commitments, against recipient-specific commitments, or against both sets of commitments.</p> <p>For countries reporting both as providers and recipients of development cooperation, progress is calculated separately based on the respective set of indicators described above. Disaggregated results will show the detailed performance in each category. For the ultimate count of the number of countries making progress, dual countries are accounted as making progress if progress is made as recipient <strong>or</strong> as provider of development cooperation. </p> <p>The baseline for assessing progress is the latest measurement available for each specific count When no baseline exists for a country, the first measurement available for an indicator constitutes the baseline for future measurements of progress.</p> <p>When a country meets and sustains all targets for the indicators it reports on (i.e. it is logically impossible to make further progress) it is considered as “making progress”. </p><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-2">1</sup><p> Estimates currently available for countries that are members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee. Data can be found at https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE7B <a href="#footnote-ref-2">↑</a></p></div></div>
<p>To reflect the universal nature of target 17.16, this indicator is presented as the global aggregate number of countries reporting progress. For any country reporting towards one (or more) multi-stakeholder development effectiveness framework(s), the country is considered to be reporting progress when, for the year of reference, the number of indicators within the framework(s) that show a positive trend is greater than the number of indicators that show a negative trend.</p> <p><u>Countries providing development co-operation funding</u> and reporting in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks are assessed against the following elements: </p> <ul> <li><em>Aligning to country-defined development objectives: </em>Percentage of new development interventions whose objectives are drawn from country-led results frameworks.</li> <li><em>Using country-led results frameworks: </em>Percentage of results indicators contained in new development interventions which are drawn from country-owned results frameworks.</li> <li><em>Using national monitoring and statistical systems: </em>Percentage of results indicators in new development interventions which will be monitored using government sources and monitoring systems.</li> <li><em>Using national evaluation systems: </em>Percentage of new interventions that plan a final evaluation with country government involvement.</li> <li><em>Transparency of development cooperation</em>: Public availability of information on development cooperation according to international reporting standards. </li> <li><em>Annual predictability of development cooperation</em>: Proportion of development cooperation disbursed as development partners had scheduled at the beginning of the year. </li> <li><em>Medium-term predictability of development cooperation: </em>forward-looking spending plans made available to the partner government (indicative annual amounts of development cooperation support to be provided over the one-to-three years). </li> <li><em>Development cooperation on budgets subject to parliamentary oversight: </em>share<em></em>of development cooperation funds planned to/for the country’s public sector that are recorded in the annual budget submitted for legislative approval.</li> <li><em>Development cooperation delivered through country systems: </em>Proportion of development cooperation disbursed to a given country according to national regulations and systems for public financial management (i.e. budgeting, financial reporting, auditing) and procurement.</li> <li><em>Untied aid: </em>Proportion of development cooperation that is untied.<sup><a href="#footnote-2" id="footnote-ref-2">[1]</a></sup></li> </ul> <p><u>Countries receiving development cooperation funding</u> and reporting in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks are assessed against the following elements:<u></u></p> <ol> <li><em>Leading in setting up national priorities: </em>Countries strengthen their<em></em>national results frameworks.</li> <li><em>Creating an enabling environment for civil society organisations: </em>Civil society organizations operate within an environment that maximises their engagement in and contribution to development.</li> <li><em>Promoting private sector engagement and contribution to development: </em>Quality of public-private dialogue. </li> <li><em>Recording development cooperation on budgets subject to parliamentary oversight</em>: Share of development cooperation funds planned to/for the country’s public sector that are recorded in the annual budget submitted for legislative approval.</li> <li><em>Strengthening mutual accountability: </em>Mutual accountability among development actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews.</li> <li><em>Strengthening gender equality and women’s empowerment: </em>Existence of transparent government systems to track public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment. </li> <li><em>Strengthening domestic institutions: </em>Quality of the country’s budgetary and public financial management.</li> </ol> <p>Countries providing and receiving development cooperation funding are invited to select whether they would like to report against provider-specific commitments, against recipient-specific commitments, or against both sets of commitments.</p> <p>For countries reporting both as providers and recipients of development cooperation, progress is calculated separately based on the respective set of indicators described above. Disaggregated results will show the detailed performance in each category. For the ultimate count of the number of countries making progress, dual countries are accounted as making progress if progress is made as recipient <strong>or</strong> as provider of development cooperation. </p> <p>The baseline for assessing progress is the latest measurement available for each specific country. When no baseline exists for a country, the first measurement available for an indicator constitutes the baseline for future measurements of progress.</p> <p>When a country meets and sustains all targets for the indicators it reports on (i.e. it is logically impossible to make further progress) it is considered as “making progress”. </p><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-2">1</sup><p> Estimates currently available for countries that are members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee. Data can be found at https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE7B <a href="#footnote-ref-2">↑</a></p></div></div>
None
<p><u>Countries providing development co-operation funding</u> and reporting in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks are assessed against the following elements: </p>
<ul>
<li><em>Aligning to country-defined development objectives: </em>Percentage of new development interventions whose objectives are drawn from country-led results frameworks.</li>
<li><em>Using country-led results frameworks: </em>Percentage of results indicators contained in new development interventions which are drawn from country-owned results frameworks.</li>
<li><em>Using national monitoring and statistical systems: </em>Percentage of results indicators in new development interventions which will be monitored using government sources and monitoring systems.</li>
<li><em>Using national evaluation systems: </em>Percentage of new interventions that plan a final evaluation with country government involvement.</li>
<li><em>Transparency of development cooperation</em>: Public availability of information on development cooperation according to international reporting standards. </li>
<li><em>Annual predictability of development cooperation</em>: Proportion of development cooperation disbursed as development partners had scheduled at the beginning of the year. </li>
<li><em>Medium-term predictability of development cooperation: </em>forward-looking spending plans made available to the partner government (indicative annual amounts of development cooperation support to be provided over the one-to-three years). </li>
<li><em>Development cooperation on budgets subject to parliamentary oversight: </em>share<em> </em>of development cooperation funds planned to/for the country’s public sector that are recorded in the annual budget submitted for legislative approval.</li>
<li><em>Development cooperation delivered through country systems: </em>Proportion of development cooperation disbursed to a given country according to national regulations and systems for public financial management (i.e. budgeting, financial reporting, auditing) and procurement.</li>
<li><em>Untied aid: </em>Proportion of development cooperation that is untied.<sup><a href="#footnote-2" id="footnote-ref-2">[1]</a></sup></li>
</ul>
<p><u>Countries receiving development cooperation funding</u> and reporting in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks are assessed against the following elements:<u> </u></p>
<ol>
<li><em>Leading in setting up national priorities: </em>Countries strengthen their<em> </em>national results frameworks.</li>
<li><em>Creating an enabling environment for civil society organisations: </em>Civil society organizations operate within an environment that maximises their engagement in and contribution to development.</li>
<li><em>Promoting private sector engagement and contribution to development: </em>Quality of public-private dialogue. </li>
<li><em>Recording development cooperation on budgets subject to parliamentary oversight</em>: Share of development cooperation funds planned to/for the country’s public sector that are recorded in the annual budget submitted for legislative approval.</li>
<li><em>Strengthening mutual accountability: </em>Mutual accountability among development actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews.</li>
<li><em>Strengthening gender equality and women’s empowerment: </em>Existence of transparent government systems to track public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment. </li>
<li><em>Strengthening domestic institutions: </em>Quality of the country’s budgetary and public financial management.</li>
</ol>
<p>Countries providing and receiving development cooperation funding are invited to select whether they would like to report against provider-specific commitments, against recipient-specific commitments, or against both sets of commitments.</p>
<p>For countries reporting both as providers and recipients of development cooperation, progress is calculated separately based on the respective set of indicators described above. Disaggregated results will show the detailed performance in each category. For the ultimate count of the number of countries making progress, dual countries are accounted as making progress if progress is made as recipient <strong>or</strong> as provider of development cooperation. </p>
<p>The baseline for assessing progress is the latest measurement available for each specific count When no baseline exists for a country, the first measurement available for an indicator constitutes the baseline for future measurements of progress.</p>
<p>When a country meets and sustains all targets for the indicators it reports on (i.e. it is logically impossible to make further progress) it is considered as “making progress”. </p><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-2">1</sup><p> Estimates currently available for countries that are members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee. Data can be found at https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE7B <a href="#footnote-ref-2">↑</a></p></div></div>
<p><u>Countries providing development co-operation funding</u> and reporting in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks are assessed against the following elements: </p>
<ul>
<li><em>Aligning to country-defined development objectives: </em>Percentage of new development interventions whose objectives are drawn from country-led results frameworks.</li>
<li><em>Using country-led results frameworks: </em>Percentage of results indicators contained in new development interventions which are drawn from country-owned results frameworks.</li>
<li><em>Using national monitoring and statistical systems: </em>Percentage of results indicators in new development interventions which will be monitored using government sources and monitoring systems.</li>
<li><em>Using national evaluation systems: </em>Percentage of new interventions that plan a final evaluation with country government involvement.</li>
<li><em>Transparency of development cooperation</em>: Public availability of information on development cooperation according to international reporting standards. </li>
<li><em>Annual predictability of development cooperation</em>: Proportion of development cooperation disbursed as development partners had scheduled at the beginning of the year. </li>
<li><em>Medium-term predictability of development cooperation: </em>forward-looking spending plans made available to the partner government (indicative annual amounts of development cooperation support to be provided over the one-to-three years). </li>
<li><em>Development cooperation on budgets subject to parliamentary oversight: </em>share<em> </em>of development cooperation funds planned to/for the country’s public sector that are recorded in the annual budget submitted for legislative approval.</li>
<li><em>Development cooperation delivered through country systems: </em>Proportion of development cooperation disbursed to a given country according to national regulations and systems for public financial management (i.e. budgeting, financial reporting, auditing) and procurement.</li>
<li><em>Untied aid: </em>Proportion of development cooperation that is untied.<sup><a href="#footnote-2" id="footnote-ref-2">[1]</a></sup></li>
</ul>
<p><u>Countries receiving development cooperation funding</u> and reporting in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks are assessed against the following elements:<u> </u></p>
<ol>
<li><em>Leading in setting up national priorities: </em>Countries strengthen their<em> </em>national results frameworks.</li>
<li><em>Creating an enabling environment for civil society organisations: </em>Civil society organizations operate within an environment that maximises their engagement in and contribution to development.</li>
<li><em>Promoting private sector engagement and contribution to development: </em>Quality of public-private dialogue. </li>
<li><em>Recording development cooperation on budgets subject to parliamentary oversight</em>: Share of development cooperation funds planned to/for the country’s public sector that are recorded in the annual budget submitted for legislative approval.</li>
<li><em>Strengthening mutual accountability: </em>Mutual accountability among development actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews.</li>
<li><em>Strengthening gender equality and women’s empowerment: </em>Existence of transparent government systems to track public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment. </li>
<li><em>Strengthening domestic institutions: </em>Quality of the country’s budgetary and public financial management.</li>
</ol>
<p>Countries providing and receiving development cooperation funding are invited to select whether they would like to report against provider-specific commitments, against recipient-specific commitments, or against both sets of commitments.</p>
<p>For countries reporting both as providers and recipients of development cooperation, progress is calculated separately based on the respective set of indicators described above. Disaggregated results will show the detailed performance in each category. For the ultimate count of the number of countries making progress, dual countries are accounted as making progress if progress is made as recipient <strong>or</strong> as provider of development cooperation. </p>
<p>The baseline for assessing progress is the latest measurement available for each specific count
ry.When no baseline exists for a country, the first measurement available for an indicator constitutes the baseline for future measurements of progress.</p><p>When a country meets and sustains all targets for the indicators it reports on (i.e. it is logically impossible to make further progress) it is considered as “making progress”. </p><div class="footnotes"><div><sup class="footnote-number" id="footnote-2">1</sup><p> Estimates currently available for countries that are members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee. Data can be found at https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE7B <a href="#footnote-ref-2">↑</a></p></div></div>