The findings of this report show the vibrancy of a diverse development effectiveness ecosystem and bring fresh impetus for collective learning and accountability. Led by partner country governments and in line with the Geneva Effective Development Co-operation Summit Declaration of 2022, the Global Partnership’s 2023-26 monitoring round has fuelled action in countries to drive change for more effective development co-operation.
Twenty years after the launch of the Paris Declaration monitoring survey in 2006, the original vision of aid effectiveness resonates more than ever: driving inclusive country-led learning and accountability improves policies, practices and partnerships to deliver long-lasting development impact. But the profound changes in international development co-operation have made the picture more complex: the diversity of actors, modalities, rationales and initiatives have reshaped priorities. This has implications for the future of development effectiveness, while raising important new opportunities.
Aid effectiveness – referred to as development effectiveness since the Busan Partnership Agreement for Effective Development Co-operation in 2011 – has always been a critical complement to development financing, entwining quality with quantity. Learning from the past 20 years is important to understand why progress has been slower than expected, and to pioneer new ways to drive effectiveness.
Several achievements stand out. First, aid effectiveness was the driving force behind shaping development co-operation into a more inclusive, country-owned and accountable endeavour. The ambition to shift from donor-driven programming to a shared ambition rooted in country ownership and inclusive partnerships seems self-evident today, but it was transformative at the time. It enabled developing countries to lead on defining their priorities, it broadened participation and it built trust. This helped create the conditions to respond to today’s reality of more diverse partners, more complex instruments and a demand for people-centred development. It also reshaped how governments plan and consult, how civil society participates in its own right, and how transparency and accountability are practised. In so doing, it brought new actors to the table – first around the Millennium Development Goals, and then the Sustainable Development Goals.
Second, despite challenges, development actors continue to engage in dialogue and take action to improve the quality, effectiveness and impact of development co-operation. Creating a space where partners collectively reflect on the evidence about their behaviour – including uncomfortable findings at times – is no small achievement for a voluntary agenda. Even so, as this report shows, after 20 years of monitoring, progress on development effectiveness remains mixed and, in some areas, disappointing. Notable progress includes improving national planning and budgeting processes, reducing duplication, encouraging joint analysis and building results frameworks long before delivery-focused reforms took hold. Yet progress falls short in other areas, including use of country systems, predictability and untying aid.
Third, in the run up to and since Busan, development effectiveness has evolved into a genuine multi-stakeholder global compact. The agenda offers shared language, behavioural norms and practical guidance for collaboration that respects diverse traditions. This has broadened the agenda and its norms, commitments and practices from narrow government-to-government co-operation around official development assistance (ODA) to include South-South partnerships; triangular co-operation; Arab providers; multilaterals and the UN; rights-based, people-centred and locally-led development; effective private sector engagement; philanthropic and decentralised engagement; and parliaments. This has shaped a renewed spirit of striving to the top, even though efforts and political buy-in across stakeholder groups remain uneven.
Trends and insights on ownership, quality and inclusion continue to draw political attention. Rising pressures from competing priorities – reducing poverty and inequality; addressing debt, security and climate challenges; worrisome trends in ODA and other financing; pressures on multilateralism; uneven public support; and the predominance of national priorities – are reshaping the purposes, coalitions and scope of development co-operation. As policymakers look to the future, co-operation grounded in the principles of development effectiveness will remain the litmus test for credible development co-operation. There is much at stake if development effectiveness weakens: local and country ownership, value for money and legitimacy and, ultimately, improvements for people and the planet.
Compelling storytelling matters: clear, evidence-based messaging from reports like this is needed. Development effectiveness should not be seen as a substitute for financing; it is an enabler and foundation for success, echoing the call from the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Sevilla to revitalise development effectiveness.
Through its unique governance and set-up, building on its long experience, the Global Partnership is best placed to forge new alliances of change. This requires political will and leadership by all actors to take risks, make difficult choices and forge a clear vision for greater coherence in a fragmented system. The Global Partnership will reinforce and support evidence-based dialogue by aligning in nimble and demand-driven ways with what constituencies are already pursuing, for example through the Busan Global Partnership Forum, and by sharing evidence at relevant global events.
Twenty years on, the development effectiveness agenda remains voluntary and country-led; with renewed ambition and political will, it can deliver what it has always promised: better policies, stronger partnerships and lasting impact for people and the planet.