This chapter examines how partner country governments and development partners contribute to the effective financing of development co-operation in ways that support country ownership. It assesses the predictability and forward visibility of development co-operation resources, the extent to which development co-operation is recorded on national budgets, and the integration of gender-responsive budgeting. Together these dimensions provide insights into whether financing arrangements reinforce national systems, strengthen accountability and enable partner countries to plan and implement their development priorities in a coherent, gender-responsive and sustainable manner.
Making Development Co‑operation More Effective Progress Report 2026
Abstract
The medium-term predictability of development co-operation funding has stagnated, with only half of development partners providing partner countries with forward-spending plans covering one, two or three years ahead in 2026, the same as in 2018. In addition, the majority of these plans (67%) only look one year ahead, and gaps are particularly pronounced in countries facing fragility. These gaps constrain countries’ ability to budget and plan ahead effectively, highlighting the need for concerted efforts from development partners to improve the predictability of financing to support coherent and sustainable development planning. Some development partners are experimenting with multi-year frameworks and flexible funding mechanisms that may offer a way forward.
Recording of development co-operation on national budgets by partner country governments has declined significantly: from 61% in 2018 to 41% in 2026. While some countries capture a high share of development resources on budget, many record only a minimal portion. This challenge is reinforced by the limited provision of forward expenditure plans from development partners, particularly over multi-year horizons, underscoring the shared responsibility of partner countries and development partners to improve the tracking of development co-operation resources in countries. Development partners and partner country governments that formalise their co-operation through a country strategy or partnership framework are more likely to have funding on budget and expenditure plans covering up to a three-year horizon.
The annual predictability of development co-operation funding by development partners remains high overall and has improved modestly since 2018, rising from 85% to 88% of funding disbursed within the same fiscal year as scheduled. While overall predictability is strong, most countries experience both under- and over-disbursements, which can disrupt planning and project implementation. Development partners cite delays in project expenditure and changes in country context as reasons for deviating from planned disbursements. This highlights the shared responsibility of development partners and partner country governments to strengthen the absorptive capacity of country systems and ensure reliable delivery of development co-operation funding.
Gender-responsive budgeting is expanding, with 45% of partner country governments meeting requirements to track and publicly report budget allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment, up from 31% in 2018. Despite overall progress and strong oversight by women’s groups and parliamentarians, gaps remain in adequate resourcing, tracking and data transparency of gender-responsive allocations. Strengthened budgetary practices, monitoring, use of sex-disaggregated data, gender assessments and public disclosure, as well as consistent and targeted funding from development partners, are all needed to ensure tangible progress towards national gender equality commitments.
Predictable development finance is essential to ensure the effectiveness of development co-operation. The importance of predictability has been reinforced through key international commitments, including the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (OECD, 2005[1]), the Busan Partnership Agreement (OECD, 2011[2]), and the Sevilla Commitment at the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (UN DESA, 2025[3]). These agreements emphasise both the timely disbursement of development co-operation funding to the public sector according to annual schedules (“annual predictability”) and the sharing of forward-looking expenditure plans (“medium-term predictability”). Predictable development co-operation enables partner countries to plan and implement development programmes effectively, thereby strengthening country ownership of development efforts. It also builds trust between development partners and partner countries, allowing the latter to hold development partners to account and ensuring a more transparent and co-operative relationship.
Future visibility on development co-operation finance allows partner countries to incorporate it into national budgets, supporting transparency and parliamentary oversight to ensure that resources contribute to achieving national development priorities. This coherence is particularly important for gender-responsive budgeting, which ensures that national commitments to gender equality are matched with adequate resource allocations, transparently and through country systems that advance gender-responsive goals. Reporting on gender-responsive budgeting to the Global Partnership monitoring framework provides an official data source for SDG Target 5.c (Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels).
This chapter assesses the predictability and inclusiveness of development co-operation funding in the following sections. Section 4.1 deals with forward-spending visibility, while Section 4.2 assesses the extent to which development co-operation is recorded on partner countries' national budgets. Section 4.3 continues the predictability theme, looking at the annual predictability of development co-operation funds. Finally, Section 4.4 reports on gender-responsive budgeting as part of monitoring SDG Target 5.c.
Medium-term predictability of funding is essential for effective development planning and resource allocation. The Global Partnership assesses medium-term predictability – forward-spending visibility – by tracking the share of development partners that provide partner countries with forward expenditure or implementation plans for one, two or ideally three years ahead. Availability of these plans allows partner countries to plan and manage their programmes effectively over the short and medium term, and to incorporate development co-operation into national budgets so it can be subject to parliamentary oversight.
Despite long-standing commitments – reaffirmed recently at the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (UN DESA, 2025[3]) – there has been no meaningful improvement in the medium-term predictability of development co-operation. Development partners’ provision of forward expenditure plans to partner country governments has remained largely the same since 2014 (averaged across one, two and three years ahead)1 (Figure 4.1). The share of development partners that provided such plans averaged 52% in 2018 and remains unchanged in 2026. Results from the 2023-26 round show that most participating partner countries (40 of 442) report receiving forward expenditure plans to some extent (i.e. plans looking either one, two or three years ahead). However, the share of development partners providing such plans varies considerably across countries and across the length of the forward-planning period. Of the 40 partner countries, only 11 received expenditure plans covering the next three years from either all, or more than two-thirds, of their development partners. Meanwhile, 21 partner countries received plans looking either one, two or three years ahead from less than half of their development partners, including 9 countries that received them from less than a quarter of development partners. These variations are not associated with significant differences in country context, indicating that the observed gaps may potentially be driven by factors linked to development partner programming.
As seen in previous monitoring rounds, forward visibility declines over longer time horizons. The 2023-26 round finds that the proportion of development partners providing expenditure plans is highest for plans looking one year ahead (67%) but decreases significantly for those looking two and three years ahead (48% and 41%, respectively; Figure 4.1). Limited availability of forward expenditure information can prevent partner country governments from sequencing investments across sectors, designing coherent medium-term programmes, or committing domestic resources alongside development co-operation funding, all of which can lead to fragmented or delayed interventions. It also hampers their ability to negotiate or co-ordinate co-financing arrangements, undermining efforts to leverage development co-operation strategically to integrate it into national budgeting and sector strategies (OECD/UNDP, 2019[4]); (OECD, 2023[5]).
Share of development partners that provided forward-spending plans (looking 1, 2 & 3 years ahead) across all partner countries
Note: For the 2014 Progress Report, the assessment covered the years 2014-16; for the 2016 Progress Report the assessment covered the years 2016-18; for the 2019 Progress Report the assessment covered the years 2018-19; and for the 2026 Progress Report the assessment covers the years 2023-26.
There has been no significant improvement in the low provision, by all types of development partner, of expenditure plans for the third year ahead (Figure 4.2). Several structural factors related to development partner programming may help explain this pattern. Development partners’ institutional and budgeting processes often constrain the systematic sharing of forward-spending information. Although some DAC members operate multi-year programming frameworks aligned with their country strategies, the requirement for annual parliamentary approval of aid budgets in provider countries can limit their ability to offer firm multi-year commitments to partner country governments (OECD, 2020[6]); (OECD, 2020[7]); (OECD, 2025[8]). The increasing share of earmarked contributions to multilateral organisations adds further uncertainty for partner countries. While the timing and amount of core funding is largely determined by providers’ budget cycles, earmarked funding is more volatile, as it can be provided at any time of year for any duration and can be impacted by shifts in political or economic priorities in provider countries. Any increases in earmarking therefore, given its fluctuating nature, can lead to abrupt adjustments, jeopardising planning and longer-term programmes (OECD, 2023[5]); (Ihl et al., 2025[9]). Denmark’s multi-year framework agreements with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and World Food Programme (WFP) are practical examples of a way to address these challenges, with most contributions not earmarked in order to enable agile and rapid deployment of resources (OECD, 2021[10]). Recent reporting by development partners to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) confirms the gaps observed in the provision of forward-looking information,3 leaving significant scope to enhance the transparency of development finance flows (see Chapter 5 for analysis of development partners’ reporting to the IATI). On a positive note, some DAC members are introducing budgeting mechanisms designed to reduce year-to-year volatility and to improve predictability in an accountable manner.4 These include proposals for real-time co-ordination and monitoring of aid decisions that could further strengthen the transparency and reliability of forward expenditure planning for partner country governments (OECD, 2023[5]).
Share of partner countries that received forward expenditure plans from development partners, for the third year ahead, by type of development partner
Note: For the 2014 Progress Report, the assessment covered the years 2014-16; for the 2016 Progress Report the assessment covered the years 2016-18; for the 2019 Progress Report the assessment covered the years 2018-19; and for the 2026 Progress Report the assessment covers the years 2023-26. Unlike Figure 4.1, which covers a full three-year period, the forward expenditure plans in this figure show data for the third year alone. Additionally, while Figure 4.1 measures the share of development partners providing such plans, this figure measures the share of partner countries receiving them. As these two charts use different measurement units and aggregation methods, their percentages are not directly comparable or expected to match, despite reflecting related aspects of medium-term predictability.
Forward-spending visibility gaps are widest in fragile contexts. In countries facing fragility, around one in three development partners (34%) provide forward expenditure plans for the third year ahead, compared to over half in non-fragile contexts (52%). This reinforces longstanding concerns about the necessity of predictable development financing in order to plan effectively where needs are often greatest. The DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) Nexus (OECD, 2019[11]) identifies predictable, flexible and multi-year financing as a critical enabler of effective HDP nexus programming, allowing for timely crisis response and a reduction of fragmented, short-term interventions. Two-thirds of the recommendation’s adherents – comprising DAC members and UN entities – have seen improvements in the predictability and flexibility of multi-year financing since the recommendation was adopted. However, only about half of implementing partners receiving these resources5 have noticed improvements in predictability (OECD, 2024[12]). This points to a persistent gap between development partner reforms and operational realities.
Organisational and political constraints continue to limit sustained financing commitments, especially in fragile contexts, despite growing recognition that predictable financing is essential for addressing crises (OECD, 2024[12]). In countries facing fragility, development partners frequently have to deal with rapidly evolving circumstances that require the reallocation of resources in response to shocks, disasters, humanitarian emergencies or shifting political priorities. This volatility reduces the reliability of forward expenditure projections and constrains multi-year planning for both development partners and partner country governments. Overlapping global crises and heightened instability in development finance over the past decade may have further limited the medium-term predictability of development co-operation flows. To balance the need for responsiveness with the desire for predictable support, some development partners have adopted alternative approaches: for instance, Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom have implemented mechanisms such as resilience funds,6 flexible mid-year allocations and long-term framework agreements with trusted implementing partners. These approaches allow partners to maintain consistent support while retaining the flexibility to respond to changing country contexts (Thompson, 2020[13]).
The overall share of development co-operation recorded on partner countries’ budgets has declined since 2014 (Figure 4.3).7 Ensuring development co-operation is accurately recorded on national budgets is a shared responsibility, requiring development partners to provide timely, precise projections that partner country governments can reflect in their budgets and financial planning (see related reflections by Zambia and their development partners in Chapter 7). This is vital to match development co-operation resources with national development priorities and to empower the domestic institutions tasked with financial oversight (see Box 4.1 for an example from Bangladesh). Over three-quarters of partner countries (34 of the 44 countries)8 recorded development co-operation on their national budgets to varying degrees. Across these countries that recorded development co-operation on budget, the average share recorded has declined significantly over time: from 61% in 2018 to 41% in 2026 (Figure 4.3).9 Although some countries continue to record a high proportion of development co-operation on budget – 13 countries record more than 60%, with 4 exceeding 90% – many others only capture a minimal share. Among the remaining 21 countries with a low or very low share of development co-operation on budget, 16 have less than 40% of development co-operation resources recorded, while 5 countries report no resources recorded at all. This variation and overall decline in on-budget recording is observed across partner country categories, as shown in Figure 4.3. It demonstrates that challenges in integrating development co-operation into national budgets are not confined to any single income group or partner country context. Such uneven recording on budget by partner countries can constrain their ability to plan and co-ordinate the effective use of development co-operation resources. It undermines parliamentary oversight and transparency in these countries, while also limiting their ability to track allocations against national priorities (see Chapter 5 for further information on parliamentary oversight).
Share of development co-operation funding recorded on national budgets by partner countries, by type of partner country
Development partners’ weak provision of forward-spending plans hinders partner countries’ ability to include development funds on their national budgets. The 21 partner countries with low or very low shares of development co-operation recorded on budget also have generally limited receipt of forward expenditure plans from development partners. Only 5 of these countries receive such plans from more than 50% of their development partners, while the remaining 16 receive plans from less than 50%, including 2 countries that report receiving no forward expenditure plans at all. As the availability of multi-year forward expenditure information can help governments to plan for and capture development co-operation on national budgets, the modest share of development partners providing such forward expenditure plans is concerning (Figure 4.1). Furthermore, in a majority of partner countries, among those that record any share of development co-operation on budget (25 out of 29 countries, including 7 facing extreme fragility), the amounts reported on budget exceeded development partners’ planned disbursements. Both under- and overestimation of funding weaken governments’ ability to account for development resources. These challenges are compounded by the increasing fragmentation of the development co-operation landscape, characterised by a growing number of actors and smaller, more dispersed financing flows (World Bank, 2022[14]). This trend increases transaction costs for partner countries and makes it challenging to capture development co-operation funding comprehensively on national budgets.
These difficulties highlight the shared responsibility of development partners to provide accurate forward-spending information and of partner countries to record and integrate it effectively into national budgeting and planning processes. Fulfilling this shared responsibility can be improved through formalised co-operation arrangements in countries. Development co-operation is 10% more likely to be recorded on budget where development partners and partner country governments have formalised their co-operation through a country strategy or an agreed partnership framework. Similarly, development partners with a country strategy are 15% more likely to share forward expenditure plans which cover at least one year of the three-year horizon than those without one. These findings, which were also true of the 2016 and 2018 rounds, underscore that sustained partnerships and formalised frameworks can strengthen predictability, planning and accountability in development co-operation. Country dialogues, as discussed in Part II, explore the value of partnerships for effective development co-operation (see Chapter 7).
Bangladesh stands out among partner countries for the high share of development co-operation financing captured in the national budget, at around 95%. In addition, all development partners that reported on their co-operation in Bangladesh and whose financing was recorded to a high extent (86% and above, including several at 100%) also provided forward expenditure plans covering up to three years ahead. This strong on-budget recording may also be supported by country-level budgeting and planning frameworks that enable the integration and oversight of development co-operation resources.
Bangladesh’s Medium-Term Budget Framework (MTBF) links annual budgets to sector priorities through a multi-year planning approach, allowing ministries to align spending with policy objectives and anticipated resources. Complementing this, the Annual Development Programme (ADP) consolidates domestic and externally financed projects – including loans and grants from development partners – into a unified sector-wise development budget. The ADP is prepared annually but informed by the MTBF’s medium-term ceilings, ensuring coherence between multi-year priorities and yearly implementation. The Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED) in the Ministry of Planning tracks project implementation, expenditure and progress across ADP projects. Together, these budgetary frameworks and systems enable Bangladesh’s government to systematically incorporate development financing information provided by development partners into budgeting, planning and oversight processes.
Source: Bhuiyan, S.J. and M. Shumshunnahar (2018[15]), Medium-Term Budgetary Framework for Fiscal Efficiency: Bangladesh Case, https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v8i4.13850.
The proportion of development co-operation funding that is disbursed by development partners to a partner country’s public sector within the fiscal year for which it was scheduled – known as annual predictability – shows an overall increase since 2011.10 High annual predictability is particularly important as it enables partner country governments to execute projects in real time, ensuring that development co-operation resources are available when planned and needed within the fiscal year. Unlike medium-term predictability, which supports multi-year forward planning (discussed in Section 4.1), annual predictability directly affects the timely absorption of disbursed funds, helping to prevent delays in project implementation or gaps in service delivery. The results from the 2023-26 round show that annual predictability, averaged across all reporting development partners, remains high, with a marginal increase observed since 2018, rising from 85% to 88% in 2026 (Figure 4.4). This improvement is observed across most types of development partners. Based on findings from the 2023-26 round, funding from bilateral development partners (92%) is more predictable than funding from multilateral partners (87%) and exceeds the overall average (88%). Among multilateral development partners, multilateral development banks (MDBs) have strengthened funding predictability since 2018. While it is encouraging that overall predictability remains high, even small deviations in disbursement timing can disrupt ongoing activities, particularly in sectors with rigid implementation schedules – such as infrastructure, education or health programmes – where timely funding is critical for maintaining continuity and planned outcomes. This underscores the need for continuous improvements by development partners to ensure disbursements follow planned annual schedules and support country-level development efforts effectively.
Share of development co-operation funding disbursed to the public sector as scheduled within the same fiscal year, by type of development partner
Note: Global aggregates are calculated using scheduled disbursements for the public sector expressed in USD as weighting variable.
Despite overall gains in annual predictability across development partners, the monitoring results show a notable decline for UN entities, with average predictability falling from 82% in 2018 to 63% in 2026 (Figure 4.4). Performance varies widely among the 27 UN entities reporting in the 2023-26 round. Of those with the highest volume of disbursements, some have seen significant declines in predictability: WFP’s predictability fell from 69% to 32%, UNDP’s from 81% to 61%, UNICEF’s from 88% to 68%, and UNFPA’s from 87% to 62%. Meanwhile, some entities, like the International Labour Organization (ILO), which provides highly predictable funding to partner countries overall, saw a drop in the predictability of their annual disbursements due to a significant decline in one country. Ten other UN entities with large to moderate disbursements, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), maintained high or very high predictability. Smaller UN entities with lower disbursement volumes and less predictable funding also impacted the overall average for UN entities, highlighting how both the size of operations and the disbursement of funds influence how annual predictability of funding is assessed.11
The decline in UN entities’ annual predictability and disbursements to partner countries may reflect broader financing challenges faced by the UN development system itself. The Multilateral Performance Network’s (MOPAN) review of UN mandate delivery suggests that over 80% of UN development system funding was earmarked in 2023,12 with core resources making up just 13%, which limits the UN’s ability to allocate resources predictably and sustain operations in countries (MOPAN, 2025[16]). MOPAN’s most recent assessments further highlight that funding contractions alongside reliance on earmarked contributions may explain why many UN entities have had to scale back or delay activities, weakening their delivery capacity (MOPAN, 2025[17]). The impacts of this erosion of core funding and increase in volume of earmarked funds to multilateral organisations flow downstream to partner countries, contributing to financial instability and lack of predictability. Moreover, shifts in development partners’ priorities can lead to abrupt reductions of funding to multilateral partners and, specifically, to UN entities (OECD, 2023[5]). These external funding patterns pose challenges for UN entities in meeting their same-year funding commitments. Notwithstanding this, all development partners, including those within the UN development system, bear a critical responsibility to enhance the predictability of their funding to partner countries.
Annual predictability is complicated by the fact that development partners continue to both over- and under-disburse development co-operation funding, with widest variations seen in low and lower-middle income countries. In 25 of the 44 partner countries participating in the 2023-26 round, development partners under-disbursed by a total of USD 2.7 billion compared to the amounts originally scheduled to the public sector for that financial year. Conversely, in 17 out of 44 participating countries, development partners over-disbursed by a total of USD 5.7 billion than the amounts originally scheduled. Variations between planned and actual disbursements – whether shortfalls or excesses – can disrupt the delivery of development programmes and affect governments’ capacity to implement their priorities as planned. These fluctuations complicate fiscal management and can weaken planning, budgeting and execution, especially where public resources and implementation capacities are limited (OECD/UNDP, 2019[4]). The widest overall variation in planned versus actual disbursements occurs in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), which also see the largest over-disbursements. Low-income countries (LICs), however, face the largest under-disbursements. Upper-middle-income countries (UMICs) have a narrower gap, reflecting more predictable funding. Overall, 86% of funding to LICs and LMICs is predictable, compared to 93% for UMICs, highlighting that low- and lower-middle income countries experience relatively larger fluctuations between planned and actual disbursements.
Development partners in LICs cite both project expenditure delays (29%) and changes in country context (25%) as reasons for the deviations in disbursements. All 14 LICs reporting in the 2023-26 round face some form of fragility, including 6 in extreme fragility, which may account for the challenges in country context. Similarly, in LMICs, development partners frequently cite delays in project expenditure by government implementing partners (38%) as the primary reason for fluctuations in disbursements. When considering such project expenditure delays, the absorptive capacity of partner country systems for development co-operation funding plays an important role. Among the LICs with data on the quality of their public financial management (PFM) systems (7 out of 14 countries), most reported a decline in quality (4 countries), while 3 countries reported no improvement. Although PFM systems are used to a greater extent in LMIC contexts, owing to the greater reliance on loans that require use of national systems (as discussed in Chapter 3), only half of these countries (9 out of 18) reported progress on improving the quality of PFM systems. High-quality PFM systems strengthen a country’s ability to absorb funds by ensuring procurement, budgeting and project execution follow predictable procedures. Development partners may be more likely to disburse funds as planned when projects are executed on time and the risk of underutilisation or mismanagement is lower. This can directly support on-schedule funding flows and highlights the shared responsibility of both partner countries and development partners to strengthen country systems that facilitate timely project expenditure and ensure timely disbursements to minimise disruptions to service delivery and project implementation.
Some development partners, across a range of partner types, are strengthening the annual predictability of their development co-operation funding. Since 2018, some development partners have shown notable improvements in annual predictability. Among the multilateral actors, the EU institutions (see Box 4.2 below) and some multilateral development banks, including the World Bank and the African Development Bank (AfDB), show marked improvements in the annual predictability of their funding. UN entities such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) have also made significant progress, demonstrating that predictability reforms are achievable even across large and complex funding portfolios. Some bilateral partners, such as Spain and Australia, have similarly maintained and, in Spain’s case, improved, the predictability of their funding to partner countries. These improvements in predictability across different types of development partners are encouraging, especially amid marginal overall gains in predictability.
The European Union (EU) provides a good practice example of substantial improvement in annual predictability (from 70% in 2018 to 96% in 2026). The EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) establishes a long-term development co-operation budget and sets out expenditure ceilings for EU development co-operation policies and programmes over five to seven years (OECD, 2025[18]). It is implemented through annual budgets, which must remain within the defined limits of the MFF. This structure ensures that partner countries receive predictable annual allocations, allowing for consistent funding support each year. By aligning funding with strategic priorities and maintaining clear annual financial guidelines, the MFF promotes stability and helps partner countries to reliably plan and implement development programmes. The MFF provides an opportunity for peer learning for other development partners that are seeking to adopt policies and practices that enhance funding predictability.
Source: OECD (2025[18]), OECD Development Co‑operation Peer Reviews: European Union 2025, https://doi.org/10.1787/7adcf387-en.
Partner country governments have improved on gender-responsive budgeting, with stronger alignment between gender equality commitments and financing. Sustained and well-targeted financing is essential to deliver on gender equality commitments, empower all women and girls and realise SDG 5 (achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls). The Global Partnership monitoring exercise records and assesses countries’ data against SDG Indicator 5.c.1, which measures the proportion of countries that have systems to track budget allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment (GEWE) and to make this information publicly accessible (Box 4.3). A comparison of the 29 countries with SDG 5.c.1 data available for both the 2018 and 2023-26 rounds shows an increase in the number of countries (from 9 to 13) meeting all three requirements to track and publicly disclose budget allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment (Figure 4.5). This indicates that gender-responsive budgeting is expanding, with 45% of partner country governments meeting requirements to track and publicly report budget allocations for GEWE, up from 31% in 2018.
Number of partner countries meeting, approaching or not meeting the requirements to have a system in place to track and make allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment (GEWE) public – SDG 5.c.1
Note: 2018 and 2026 data are based on 29 comparable partner countries. See Box 4.3 for further details. A country is considered to be approaching requirements when 1 or 2 out of the 3 requirements that make up SDG 5.c.1 are met.
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Indicator 5.c.1 measures the proportion of countries that have systems to track budget allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment (GEWE) and to make this information publicly accessible. Developed in collaboration and under the co-custodianship of UN Women, the UNDP and OECD, the indicator establishes the international standard for gender-responsive budgeting. It monitors progress towards SDG Target 5.c, which calls on countries to “adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels” (UNGA, 2015[19]), linking policy commitments to the financial resources required for their implementation.
SDG 5.c.1 (a Tier I indicator1) evaluates countries across three key requirements: (i) whether a government has gender-responsive policies or programmes with corresponding resource allocations; (ii) if mechanisms exist to track these allocations throughout the budget cycle, from planning to evaluating expenditure impact; and (iii) whether information on allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment is made publicly available.
In the 2023-26 round of the Global Partnership monitoring exercise, 44 countries reported SDG 5.c.1 data, while UN Women received reporting from 17 additional countries through a parallel process during the same period.2 This indicator remains a key tool for assessing governments’ capacity to translate gender equality commitments into concrete, transparent and adequately resourced budget practices, highlighting both progress achieved and areas requiring further improvement.
1. For a definition of Tier I indicators see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/tier-classification/#:~:text=Tier%201%3A%20Indicator%20is%20conceptually,where%20the%20indicator%20is%20relevant.
2. Data on the additional 17 partner countries that reported to UN Women through a parallel process in 2025 can be accessed at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/dataportal/database.
Source: United Nations General Assembly (2015[19]). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/70/1.
While countries are generally making progress overall in meeting the three requirements, there is a decline in countries making information on allocations for GEWE publicly available. More countries report advances since 2018 in reflecting aspects of public expenditure in gender-responsive policies and/or programmes (requirement 1 of SDG 5.c.1), as well as in using PFM systems that support gender-related or gender-responsive goals (requirement 2) (Figure 4.6). However, there has been a decline in the number of countries making allocations for GEWE publicly available (requirement 3), down from 23 countries in 2018 to 18 in the 2023-26 round. This decline indicates a weakening of transparency in financial commitments, which can hamper accountability, reduce public trust and limit the ability to track progress on gender equality initiatives. Publicly available information on allocations is essential to ensure that resources are allocated effectively and that domestic stakeholders can have oversight of the country’s efforts to meet gender equality commitments (UN Women, 2023[20]).
Number of partner countries meeting each of the three requirements to have in place a system to track and make allocations public for gender equality and women’s empowerment (GEWE) – SDG 5.c.1
Note: Data presented in the figure are based on 29 comparable partner countries. See Box 4.3 for further details.
Encouragingly, 15 additional countries reported on SDG 5.c.1 for the first time during the 2023-26 round. Of these countries, seven already meet all three requirements, while another seven are approaching them. Only one country does not yet meet any of the requirements. These first-time reporters can use these results as a baseline against which to assess their strengthening and enhancement of country systems for tracking and disclosing gender-related budget allocations. By establishing a clear baseline on SDG 5.c.1, these countries can better identify gaps and improve gender-responsive budgeting efforts. Taken together, of the 44 partner countries participating in the 2023-26 round, 20 countries (45%) fully meet the requirements to have a system in place for gender responsive budgeting, 20 countries are approaching meeting all the requirements, while 4 countries do not meet the requirements.
Despite overall progress, gender equality commitments are not always matched by adequate resourcing. Among the partner countries that report having government policies and/or programmes designed to address clearly identified gender equality goals – including where gender equality was not the primary objective – just over half (52%) report that these policies and/or programmes are adequately resourced to meet their overall and gender equality objectives. Adequate resourcing in partner countries is critical to ensure that policy commitments translate into tangible results, enabling effective implementation, sustained impact, and accountability for progress towards GEWE (UN Women, 2023[20]). Development partners can support partner country-led gender-responsive budgeting efforts by engaging in dialogue and ensuring well-designed programming based on a gender analysis, as well as ensuring consistent and targeted funding for GEWE objectives (OECD, 2022[21]); (OECD, 2024[22]).
Gender-responsive budgeting practices vary across countries, with notable gaps in tagging, auditing and tracking allocations, pointing to weaknesses in country systems. While more than half of partner countries (66%) include specific guidance on gender-responsive allocations in budget call circulars (or equivalent directives), this does not always translate into systematic tracking within the country. Fewer than half of countries (45%) tag budget allocations to identify linkages with gender equality objectives, and only around a third (36%) conduct audits of the budget to assess the extent to which it promotes gender-responsive policies. Based on the Open Budget Survey (OBS) 2023,13 this gap in tagging and auditing of gender equality objectives may be linked to the lower technical capacity of PFM systems to support overall planning and tracking of budget allocations and expenditures. When looking across income groups, around half (55%) of lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) have PFM systems that promote gender-related or gender-responsive goals (requirement 2 of SDG 5.c.1), low-income countries (LICs) are at 58% and upper-middle-income countries (UMICs) are at 57%, suggesting that in all country categories, support is needed to establish quality PFM systems to improve tagging and auditing of gender equality objectives. Around two-thirds (65%) of countries prepare budget execution reports that track the extent to which allocations for gender equality have been applied in practice. While this is an encouraging sign of transparency and provides a useful retrospective view of spending, robust tagging and auditing remain essential. Without consistent tagging, it is difficult to monitor gender equality allocations in real time, and without independent auditing, there is a lack of formal mechanisms that assess whether expenditures achieve their intended gender equality objectives (see related reflections by Cambodia and their development partners in Chapter 7).
Strong oversight by women’s groups and parliamentarians underscores the importance of publicly available data. A majority of countries (83%) report that women’s groups and parliamentarians play an active role in monitoring local and national budget allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment. This oversight is crucial as it acts as a "social audit",14 ensuring that gender commitments made in budget call circulars are translated into improvements for women and girls, especially when official reporting systems have many gaps. Across country types, similarly high levels of oversight are reported, highlighting the importance of civic engagement in holding governments accountable. However, the effectiveness of this oversight depends on the availability of information on gender allocations, which – as reported above – is often not made publicly available (requirement 3 of SDG 5.c.1). In the 2023-26 monitoring round, only 59% of countries reported that allocations for GEWE are made publicly available.
Effective use of sex-disaggregated data, gender assessments and publicly available data on gender equality allocations is critical for evidence-based, gender-responsive budgeting. Over half of partner countries (64%) report using sex-disaggregated data to inform budgetary decision making, while 59% conduct ex ante gender impact assessments (conducted prior to programme implementation). However, fewer countries (41%) report conducting ex post gender assessments (after programme implementation), which are essential for evaluating the outcomes of gender-related expenditures. The lack of comprehensive data and gender assessments limits countries’ ability to monitor progress and translate gender equality commitments into measurable outcomes, underscoring the need for more robust data collection and reporting systems to strengthen gender-responsive budgeting efforts.
References
[15] Bhuiyan, S. and M. Shumshunnahar (2018), Medium-Term Budgetary Framework for Fiscal Efficiency: A Conceptual Analysis of Bangladesh Case, https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v8i4.13850.
[9] Ihl, J. et al. (2025), “The effectiveness of core and earmarked funding in multilateral development cooperation - systematic review”, DEval Discussion Paper, Vol. 2, https://www.deval.org/fileadmin/Redaktion/PDF/05-Publikationen/Berichte/2025_Multilaterale_EZ/DEval-DP-02-2025-MultilateralDC-Web.pdf.
[23] International Budget Partnership (2023), Open Budget Survey 2023: 9th Edition Summary, International Budget Partnership, https://internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/IBP-OBS-Global-Report-2023-v4-Final-Artwork.pdf.
[16] MOPAN (2025), Closing the UN Mandate-Results Gap: Realigning Incentives for Lasting Impact, Multilateral Performance Network, https://www.mopan.org/en/our-work/performance-insights/multilateral-effectiveness-in-a-shifting-landscape/mandates-thematic-brief-summary.html.
[17] MOPAN (2025), Mapping of Multilateral Organisations’ Response to the Current Funding Environment, Multilateral Performance Network, https://www.mopan.org/en/our-work/performance-insights/multilateral-effectiveness-in-a-shifting-landscape/mapping-thematic-brief.html.
[18] OECD (2025), OECD Development Co‑operation Peer Reviews: European Union 2025, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7adcf387-en.
[8] OECD (2025), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Switzerland 2025, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b83b7007-en.
[22] OECD (2024), DAC Recommendation on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5022 (accessed on 9 March 2026).
[12] OECD (2024), International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF) Report on the implementation, dissemination and continued relevance of the DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/INCAF(2023)1/FINAL/en/pdf.
[5] OECD (2023), Development Co-operation Report 2023: Debating the Aid System, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f6edc3c2-en.
[21] OECD (2022), Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls: DAC Guidance for Development Partners, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0bddfa8f-en.
[10] OECD (2021), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Denmark 2021, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e9b77e5-en.
[6] OECD (2020), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Ireland 2020, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c20f6995-en.
[7] OECD (2020), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: United Kingdom 2020, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/43b42243-en.
[11] OECD (2019), DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development Peace Nexus, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-5019.
[2] OECD (2011), Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation: Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Busan, Republic of Korea, 29 November - 1 December 2011, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/54de7baa-en.
[1] OECD (2005), Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264098084-en.
[4] OECD/UNDP (2019), Making Development Co-operation More Effective: 2019 Progress Report, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/26f2638f-en.
[13] Thompson, C. (2020), “Financing in fragile contexts”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, Vol. 88, https://doi.org/10.1787/e87c2402-en.
[3] UN DESA (2025), Outcome Document of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, United Nations, https://financing.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/ffd4-documents/2025/Compromiso%20de%20Sevilla%20for%20action%2016%20June.pdf.
[20] UN Women (2023), Strengthening Public Finance Management Systems for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment, https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/Strengthening-public-finance-management-systems-for-gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment-en.pdf.
[19] UNGA (2015), Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations General Assembly, https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/70/1.
[14] World Bank (2022), Understanding Trends in Proliferation and Fragmentation for Aid Effectiveness During Crises, The World Bank, https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/ef73fb3d1d33e3bf0e2c23bdf49b4907-0060012022/original/aid-proliferation-7-19-2022.pdf.
← 1. Medium-term predictability of development co-operation has been assessed as part of the Global Partnership's monitoring framework since 2014. These trends are included for visual representation in Figure 4.1.
← 2. Of the 44 partner countries participating in the 2023-26 monitoring round, 4 did not provide information on medium-term predictability.
← 3. Results of the forward-looking dimension of IATI’s assessment are based on 47 development partners that reported to both the 2023-26 monitoring round and IATI in 2025; see Chapter 5.
← 4. According to the OECD Development Co-operation Report 2023, they are Belgium, Denmark the European Union, Germany, Ireland and Switzerland (OECD, 2023[5]).
← 5. Implementing actors referred to under the DAC Recommendation on the HDP Nexus are UN entities and international NGOs.
← 6. Resilience funds can be defined as multi-year flexible financing mechanisms that use joint risk analysis to strengthen the absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities of local systems before, during and after a crisis.
← 7. Share of development co-operation recorded on budget has been assessed as part of the Global Partnership’s monitoring framework since 2014. These trends are included for visual representation in Figure 4.3.
← 8. Out of the 44 partner countries, 10 did not report information on share of development co-operation recorded on national budget.
← 9. When comparing the same countries that reported to both the 2018 and 2023-26 monitoring rounds, a similar negative trend is observed in recording development co-operation on budget.
← 10. Annual predictability of development co-operation has been assessed as part of the Global Partnership’s monitoring framework since 2011. These trends are included for visual representation in Figure 4.4.
← 11. For each category of development partner, annual predictability averages are weighted by the volume of disbursements reported by individual partners or agencies, meaning that those disbursing larger amounts have a greater influence on the overall average for that group, including the UN development system.
← 12. Earmarked funding refers to resources that are restricted by the donor to a specific geographic area, thematic sector or project. These funds are tied to the donor’s specification and cannot be flexibly reallocated, for example by the UN organisation’s governing body, to other areas of its strategic mandate.
← 13. The Open Budget Survey (OBS) 2023 is the 9th edition of the world’s only independent, comparative and fact-based research instrument for measuring public budget accountability. Produced by the International Budget Partnership (IBP), the 2023 survey assessed 125 countries based on three pillars of the "budget accountability ecosystem", namely transparency, public participation and oversight (International Budget Partnership, 2023[23]).
← 14. A social audit is a community-led monitoring process that allows citizens to evaluate whether government services and budget expenditures match their actual delivery and impact on the ground. Unlike a traditional financial audit, which focuses on accounting accuracy, a social audit compares official records with community experiences and physical inspections.