Making Development Co‑operation More Effective Progress Report 2026

7. Moving from monitoring to policy through reflection, dialogue and action

Abstract

This chapter analyses how partner countries and development stakeholders used the reflection, dialogue and action phase of the fourth Global Partnership monitoring round to translate monitoring findings into policy responses. Drawing on country dialogue processes, it identifies common effectiveness challenges, highlights the policy measures proposed to strengthen the effectiveness of development co-operation and outlines how these will be followed up.

Key findings

• By March 2026, 22 of the 44 participating partner countries had successfully led and convened country-level action dialogues as part of the reflection, dialogue and action phase. Five key areas were commonly discussed as needing improvement: (1) alignment with national planning and country results frameworks; (2) national statistical systems, information management systems (IMS) and transparency in development co-operation; (3) predictability and budget integration; (4) reliance on public financial management (PFM) systems; and (5) inclusive engagement with non-state actors. Across each of these areas, partner country governments, development partners and, in many countries, other development actors made commitments to take action to improve these areas.

• Reflecting diverse country realities, the dialogue outcomes and agreed policy measures spanned a wide spectrum, ranging from incremental procedural changes to more structural reforms designed to embed effectiveness commitments within national governance systems. In several instances, dialogue outcomes were strategically shaped by broader macroeconomic transitions within the national development financing landscape. In addition, because each country possesses a distinct political context and development co-operation landscape, the translation of monitoring evidence into policy action unfolded through country-specific and adaptive processes.

• Several partner countries have successfully moved beyond reflection towards concrete shifts in reporting practices, system use and co-ordination behaviour. Although the depth of these reforms varies, numerous partner country governments have begun embedding effectiveness commitments more firmly within their national planning, budgeting and co-ordination frameworks. This structural integration reflects a broader objective of institutionalising development effectiveness principles far beyond the confines of the Global Partnership monitoring cycle itself.

• A diversity of approaches emerged for institutionalising accountability and follow-up mechanisms to allow development actors to jointly track progress on effectiveness commitments. These included establishing or strengthening formal accountability mechanisms, responding directly to significant gaps identified in current monitoring data. While stakeholders in the majority of participating countries signalled a strong intention to strengthen mutual accountability mechanisms, the degree of formalisation varies significantly. Rather than creating entirely new structures, stakeholders in some partner countries agreed to track dialogue commitments through established policy co-ordination mechanisms.

Part II of this report explores the reflection, dialogue and action phase of the fourth Global Partnership monitoring round and examines how partner countries and development stakeholders are using monitoring findings to inform policy responses. This chapter provides an overview of this final phase of the monitoring exercise and describes how it has been implemented through country-led, multi-stakeholder dialogue processes. It also provides a cross-country analysis of the policy responses emerging from these dialogues, identifying common reform priorities and patterns in the commitments agreed to strengthen the effectiveness of development co-operation. Finally, it looks specifically at accountability and follow-up mechanisms for the commitments made throughout the reflection, dialogue and action phase. Chapter 8 shines a spotlight on each of the countries that have undertaken this final phase of the monitoring and provides a country-by-country account of the dialogue processes and their outcomes.

7.1. The new reflection, dialogue and action phase moves countries from monitoring to policy response

The "reflection, dialogue and action" phase is a new feature of the fourth Global Partnership monitoring round, designed to systematically connect monitoring findings with policy responses in countries. Agreed upon at the 2022 Effective Development Co-operation Summit in Geneva (GPEDC, 2022[1]), this final phase empowers countries to use evidence to strengthen accountability, inform policy dialogue, reinforce multi-stakeholder partnerships and establish joint actions to improve the effectiveness of development co-operation in partner countries. As an opportunity for accountability, joint learning and shared responsibility rather than a mere reporting exercise, this phase aims to actively build trust – strengthening confidence in partners’ intentions and capabilities – and reinforce country ownership. In a context where development co-operation resources are under increasing scrutiny, it offers a platform to enhance the impact of development partners’ support. Ultimately, the reflection, dialogue and action phase seeks to foster renewed trust and more effective partnerships grounded in a shared responsibility for achieving sustainable results.

As of March 2026, 22 of the 44 participating partner countries had successfully led and convened these country-level action dialogues.1 These countries – Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the Dominican Republic, the Gambia, Honduras, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Uganda, Yemen and Zambia – used the monitoring results as an opportunity to reflect on progress, identify priorities and advance more effective development partnerships. Furthermore, at the time of writing, an additional 10 countries have indicated that they have plans to conduct a country dialogue on the results. Unless stated otherwise, the partner countries referred to in Part II of this report refer to the 22 countries that undertook a dialogue on the results. Box 7.1 describes the process involved.

Box 7.1. What did the process look like for the reflection, dialogue and action phase?

The process typically involved sequenced technical reflection meetings with specific stakeholder groups, followed by consolidated, high-level multi-stakeholder dialogues aimed at building political agreement on priority actions and reforms. National authorities convened inclusive country-level dialogues bringing together development partners and a broad range of stakeholders to review the findings and agree on follow-up actions aligned with national priorities, while also in some countries adapting participation to the specific challenges of fragile contexts. Development partners and, to varying degrees, civil society organisations participated in reviewing the results. Private sector actors, including business associations and trade unions, engaged in most cases, whereas philanthropic and academic institutions were engaged more selectively.

Notably, eight participating countries face extreme fragility, which can pose particular challenges to convening a truly multi-stakeholder dialogue, and in some cases, to meeting in person. Among these challenging environments, Burkina Faso and Yemen used distinct processes to accommodate local circumstances while maintaining the core principles of an inclusive and evidence-based dialogue resulting in actionable outcomes. Yemen consulted development partners, civil society and the private sector in stakeholder-specific exchanges, held within the context of larger development co-operation governance and co-ordination processes. These resulted in reforms that have already been largely implemented. Burkina Faso consulted stakeholders at a technical level, and consolidated policy recommendations conferred to each stakeholder group in a government report.

Because each country possesses a distinct political context and development co-operation landscape, the translation of monitoring evidence into policy action unfolded through country-specific and adaptive processes (see Box 7.2 for examples). As a result of this variance, the reflection, dialogue and action phase took different forms in its execution and with different modes of follow-up. Rather than treating this phase as a one-off procedural step, many governments integrated the dialogues into existing co-ordination platforms or ongoing policy processes between government and other stakeholders. Such approaches specifically aimed to strengthen these national co-ordination mechanisms, recognising their role in aligning development partners with domestic priorities, facilitating regular policy dialogue and supporting follow-up of agreed commitments. Monitoring findings frequently fed into broader policy debates already underway, demonstrating that the relationship between evidence, dialogue and policy adjustment is a continuous cycle of learning and accountability. While discussions in some countries extended beyond the strict boundaries of the Global Partnership monitoring framework to address issues beyond the development effectiveness agenda, all dialogue outcomes and their agreed actions remain firmly situated within their unique country contexts.

The United Nations development system played a supporting and facilitatory role in enabling these country-level action dialogues. Beyond the technical support at headquarters level provided by the OECD-UNDP Joint Support Team throughout the monitoring exercise, UNDP Country Offices supported or co-organised many of the dialogues at the request of partner countries. In addition, through funding channelled from UNDP headquarters, UNDP Country Offices provided seed funding to 19 partner countries to support the substantive and operational organisation of the final phase of the monitoring, some of which was still forthcoming at the time of writing. Resident Coordinators or their offices supported 15 dialogues, providing assistance through opening remarks or acting as co-conveners alongside national authorities.

For more information about the objectives and process of the reflection, dialogue and action phase, please refer to the guidance note on the Global Partnership website, at https://www.effectivecooperation.org/book-page/action_dialogue_guidance.

7.2. Countries are moving from effectiveness challenges to action in five key areas

The analysis in this chapter draws on the monitoring results, as well as complementary country evidence, alongside outcome documents and summary reports that were produced through these dialogue processes. It also benefits from in-person participation by the authors at two of these dialogue processes, as well as virtual participation in dialogues in six countries.

A wide range of priorities, commitments and outcomes emerged from the reflection, dialogue and action phase of the monitoring exercise. This section examines these outcomes across five key areas identified through analysis of the dialogue processes completed by March 2026 in the 22 countries that used this final phase to generate actionable recommendations through inclusive, country-led dialogues:

• Aligning with national planning and country results frameworks.

• Enhancing national statistical systems, information management systems (IMS) and transparency in development co-operation.

• Improving predictability and budget integration.

• Increasing the reliance on public financial management (PFM) systems.

• Fostering inclusive engagement with non-state actors.

The subsections that follow detail the specific, country-led commitments established to drive these systemic improvements and translate monitoring data into concrete behavioural change.

Key area 1: Aligning with national planning and country results frameworks

Development partners’ weak alignment with partner countries’ national priorities emerged as a central concern. When development partner interventions rely on parallel results frameworks or monitoring systems, they fragment national planning efforts, create overlapping initiatives and increase transaction costs by doubling up reporting requirements (Chapter 3). Consequently, many partner countries and development partners reiterated their commitment to increasing their reliance on national results frameworks and indicators when designing and implementing development co-operation interventions.

To take action, many partner country governments committed to strengthening their national results frameworks. Dialogue participants identified structural challenges that can hinder development partners’ increased alignment with national priorities and results frameworks. For example, discussions in several partner countries highlighted that the fragmentation of results frameworks across numerous sectoral strategies and development partners called for a unified, accessible repository where all national results indicators are consolidated. In response, partner countries committed to clarifying indicators, improving data availability and integrating these frameworks more systematically into broader national planning and monitoring processes. The need for such targeted efforts was documented in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, the Gambia, Honduras, Mozambique, Nigeria, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Uganda and Zambia. For example, in Uganda, the government committed to establishing a Joint Accountability and Results Framework (JARF) as a cornerstone of its national partnership architecture. The aim is to provide a transparent, systematic mechanism for tracking commitments, strengthening mutual accountability and reinforcing the role of government, development partners, civil society and the private sector in advancing development effectiveness. For more details see Uganda’s section in Chapter 8.

Reciprocally, development partners in most countries where there was a dialogue agreed to enhance alignment with country results frameworks during the design and implementation of their interventions. During the dialogues, development partners emphasised that clearer indicators, improved data availability and more robust national monitoring systems would make it easier for them to rely on these country-owned frameworks for project design and reporting. In Nigeria, for instance, stakeholders agreed that by 2027, at least 80% of development partners’ project indicators should be drawn from country-owned results frameworks. This commitment responds directly to the country’s monitoring findings that while nearly all development partners’ project objectives currently align with national goals, only a much smaller share of the underlying indicators do so. Achieving this target aims to systematically connect development partner programmes with national systems and reduce the proliferation of parallel reporting frameworks. For more details see Nigeria’s section in Chapter 8.

Overall, the dialogue outcomes point to a renewed emphasis on reinforcing national planning and results frameworks as the central reference point for development co-operation. Ultimately, co-ordinated action from both partner country governments and development partners can drive meaningful improvement. By increasing the use of country-owned indicators, stakeholders seek to minimise parallel frameworks and firmly align development partner programmes with national priorities for sustainable development.

Key area 2: Enhancing national statistical systems, IMS and transparency in development co-operation

Addressing systemic weaknesses across both national statistical systems and information management systems (IMS) emerged as a cross-cutting priority to enhance overall transparency during the reflection, dialogue and action processes. This focus reflects the monitoring results set out in Chapter 3, which highlight persistent data gaps, uneven quality in national statistics and underutilised information management platforms. While national statistical systems and IMS operate as separate and distinct frameworks, stakeholders consistently addressed them as interconnected challenges because a robust information architecture that provides credible, timely and disaggregated data underpins accountability, transparency and the effective co-ordination of development co-operation. For example, in Sierra Leone, gaps in the timeliness of external financing data have historically limited the government’s budgeting capabilities. To resolve this, development partners agreed to regularly provide the government with comprehensive co-operation data, aiming to facilitate its direct inclusion in national budgets and reporting cycles (see Sierra Leone’s section in Chapter 8). In addition, across many of the countries, dialogue participants generally agreed that limited disaggregated data constrains efforts to target marginalised populations, while weak IMS hinder the comprehensive tracking of financial flows. Consequently, participants strongly emphasised the need to improve systematic reporting and the public disclosure of development information across both systems.

Development partners cited the perceived lack of timeliness and suitability of national data for monitoring specific interventions, as well as their need for standardised indicators and programme-specific results frameworks, as factors affecting their use of national data. In several instances, agreements also explicitly sought to enhance data availability on other vulnerable or marginalised populations. Discussions during the Indonesian multi-stakeholder dialogue, for example, highlighted that the use of national statistical systems remains limited, with development partners often relying on donor-specific templates, contractor-generated data, or global results frameworks rather than drawing on national data sources.

To address critical data gaps, numerous partner country governments committed to strengthening their national statistical systems. Targeted measures were agreed in Bangladesh, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, DRC, the Gambia, Honduras, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia and Zambia. Most of these commitments aim to improve the availability and use of disaggregated data, and especially to encourage both partner country governments and development partners to increase the use of gender-disaggregated data across planning, budgeting, project appraisal and decision-making processes. For example, in the Philippines, the government agreed to a wide range of measures to strengthen the national statistical system. These include improving interoperability across official statistical systems, sectoral administrative systems and subnational data platforms; mainstreaming disaggregation of data (e.g. by sex, age, geographic location and other relevant characteristics) using systems such as the Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS),2 registries and administrative data sources; and integrating disaggregated indicators into planning and monitoring frameworks. These measures aim to better inform prioritisation efforts and improve how development results are tracked across population groups and locations.

Demonstrating a comprehensive approach to data reform, one partner country committed to developing and implementing a robust national data strategy. In Nigeria, the government committed to establishing a national data strategy that aims to increase disaggregated data coverage of national statistics from 17% to 60% by 2028. Recognising that stronger data systems drive better policy outcomes, the government also agreed to update its national development strategy (2026-2030) with disaggregated targets for all vulnerable groups. These measures directly respond to the country’s specific monitoring findings, which indicate that development partners frequently bypass the country’s national indicators due to gaps in data quality and timeliness. Furthermore, the government committed to fully implementing gender-responsive budgeting to meet SDG indicator 5.c.1 standards by introducing systems to track and publicise budget allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment (Chapter 4).

For their part, development partners in several contexts were recommended or explicitly committed to increase their reliance on government data for project design, monitoring and reporting. Development partners in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, Mozambique, the Philippines and Uganda established agreements to better integrate national statistics into their programme workflows. For example in the Dominican Republic, the government reports that although national statistical system data are available for most results indicators, only 62% of results indicators for development partners interventions are monitored using government data. In response to these results, development partners in the Dominican Republic committed to increasing their use of government data when designing their development interventions, and to strengthen country capacities to produce statistics and evaluate plans, policies and projects. Commitment to increase the use of government data responds directly to monitoring findings that show that development partners often default to their own indicators and data sources when national statistical systems or results frameworks appear incomplete. For more details see the Dominican Republic’s section in Chapter 8.

Recognising that comprehensive information on development co-operation facilitates better planning and citizen participation, all partner countries that hosted dialogues agreed to measures to enhance their aid IMS. A wide array of measures were agreed and spanned a broad operational spectrum. In Indonesia, Nepal, Nigeria and the Philippines, partner country governments committed to standardising formats to ensure IMS data are interoperable with national public financial management (PFM) systems. Other initiatives focused on expanding data inputs: for instance, stakeholders in Nigeria, the Philippines and Zambia agreed to integrate national development plan metrics, SDG indicators and subnational data into their systems. Honduras committed to incorporating cross-cutting data on climate, gender and marginalised populations, while the Dominican Republic agreed to extend the scope of its national system (SINACID) to capture all co-operation flows and actors. In a notable systems upgrade, stakeholders in Nepal agreed to adopt a new Development Finance Information Management System (DFMIS) to better reflect its evolving financing landscape. The previous information management system had been in place since 2009 with support from UNDP, Denmark (DANIDA) and the UK (DfID), and required updating to current data reporting standards. The renewed platform has been operational since early 2025. It introduces advanced analytical tools and seeks to strengthen the government’s capacity for transparent public reporting on development co-operation.

To ensure sustained accountability for development results, stakeholders in multiple dialogues agreed on measures to systematically enhance the public disclosure and systematic reporting of development co-operation information. Recognising transparency as a prerequisite for parliamentary scrutiny and civic oversight, participants in 14 countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, DRC, the Gambia, Honduras, Indonesia, Lesotho, Nigeria, the Philippines, Somalia and Zambia) committed to producing periodic, publicly accessible reports through both printed and digital channels. In Nigeria, the government, development partners and non-state actors committed to achieving 100% quarterly reporting compliance to the national information management system. This initiative will use verified data from the Nigeria Development Co-operation Dashboard (NDCD) and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) to publish comprehensive annual reports. Furthermore, partner country governments in Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Honduras, Lao PDR, Nigeria and the Philippines committed to upgrading national information systems to support the production of digital visualisation tools that seek to enhance public accessibility.

To sustain these systemic upgrades, many dialogue participants also committed to strengthening the technical capacities required for effective data management. At the government level, this entails improving fundamental skills in data entry and validation, while also enhancing the analytical capabilities of development partners and non-state actors. Strengthening data capacities was discussed in Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, the Gambia, Honduras, Indonesia, Nigeria, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sierra Leone and Uganda. For example, in Cambodia, following monitoring findings that the country’s PFM systems could be more gender-responsive, the government committed to building cross-institutional capacity for gender-disaggregated budget tracking, while development partners agreed to support decentralised planning by training provincial officials to use this data in programme design.

Taken together, the dialogue outcomes highlight the importance of stronger national data systems and greater transparency in development co-operation. Improving the availability, reporting and public disclosure of development co-operation information can help governments better plan interventions, track progress towards national priorities and monitor the implementation of agreed commitments, while also strengthening parliamentary scrutiny, civic oversight and trust among development stakeholders.

Key area 3: Improving predictability and budget integration

Addressing persistent weaknesses in the predictability and inclusion of development co-operation resources on national budgets emerged as a critical priority across the majority of action dialogues. Participants in 16 partner countries (Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, DRC, The Gambia, Honduras, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Uganda and Zambia) discussed targeted measures to improve predictability, integrate resources into national planning and budgets and strengthen parliaments’ oversight role in these processes. As detailed in Chapter 3 on the use of public financial management systems and in Chapter 4 on budgeting, these discussions respond to monitoring findings that show a lack of improvement in medium-term predictability, a declining share of development co-operation recorded on national budgets and limited parliamentary oversight. Without greater forward visibility of funding, partner country governments are fundamentally constrained in their ability to plan, allocate and account for development resources effectively.

To resolve systemic constraints on fiscal planning, development partners agreed on measures specifically designed to increase the medium-term predictability of development funding. Development partners in Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, DRC, the Gambia, Lao PDR, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Uganda and Zambia established commitments primarily focused on sharing their short- and medium-term spending plans more comprehensively and frequently. In Sierra Leone, for example, the government and development partners agreed to improve predictability by ensuring that development partner funding is accurately tracked through the IMS and clearly reflected in the national budget. This commitment responds to the country’s limited forward visibility of development finance – with medium-term spending plans previously reported by only a minority of partners – and capitalises on the widespread use of the country’s existing IMS for reporting on development co-operation flows.

To encourage development partners to make funding more predictable and increase visibility on their forward-spending plans, partner country governments in 11 countries committed to recording a larger share of development co-operation flows directly on their national budgets (Bhutan, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Uganda and Zambia). These governments also committed to enhancing parliamentary oversight of development co-operation. These measures aim to ensure that development partners routinely report disbursements and forward-spending plans through government systems, which directly supports the publication of consolidated reports for parliamentary scrutiny. For example, at the time of the monitoring exercise, Zambia's country-specific findings revealed that the government had received medium-term spending plans from only a quarter of its development partners, highlighting a severe lack of forward visibility (the average for all countries is around half of development partners that provide forward-spending plans). In response to these findings, during the reflection, dialogue and action phase in Zambia, development partners explicitly committed to sharing their medium-term spending projections with the government. Concurrently, the Government of Zambia agreed to incorporate these projections into the national budget and submit an annual, consolidated development co-operation report to parliament. These reciprocal commitments provide a specific, action-oriented path forward that will allow the Government of Zambia to better plan for development activities and allocate resources, as well as provide greater transparency to the public with projected development co-operation resources recorded in the national budget (see the section on Zambia in Chapter 8). Ultimately, the dialogue outcomes underscore that overcoming persistent challenges related to predictability and budget integration requires sustained, co-ordinated and reciprocal action.

Key area 4: Increasing the reliance on public financial management (PFM) systems

Addressing the uneven use of national PFM systems emerged as another critical priority during country-level dialogues on the monitoring results. As recently as 2025, partner countries and development partners agreed to the Sevilla Commitment (UN DESA, 2025[2]), which renewed commitments to strengthen existing national systems rather than establish parallel ones. Strengthening partner countries’ domestic systems by using them, rather than perpetuating the use of development partner’s systems, can bolster country ownership (Knack, 2013[3]). On the other hand, limited reliance on national procurement, budgeting and reporting frameworks continues to drive fragmentation, sustain parallel implementation arrangements and increase transaction costs for partner country governments. To mitigate these challenges, partner country governments and development partners in 15 countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, DRC, the Gambia, Honduras, Indonesia, Lesotho, Mozambique, Nigeria, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Uganda and Yemen) agreed on targeted measures to strengthen the use of national PFM systems for the procurement, accounting, disbursement, reporting and auditing of development co-operation resources.

To strengthen and use PFM systems, stakeholders negotiated reciprocal commitments tailored to their specific institutional contexts. In Cambodia, Lesotho, Mozambique, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, partner country governments explicitly called on development partners to increase their use of existing PFM systems. In some countries, this is part of a long ongoing conversation to nudge development partners to use country systems. For example, in 2019, Nigeria initiated significant reforms by expanding federal budget coverage to include both projects funded by development partners and the revenues and expenditures of the nine largest government-owned enterprises. This policy shift aimed to enhance transparency and central oversight by addressing previous gaps in budget coverage and ensuring that development partner contributions and key public entities were more comprehensively reflected in government financial reporting (PEFA, 2019[4]). Since then, a significant improvement has been achieved in the use of PFM systems by development partners in Nigeria, increasing from 28% in 2018 to 56% in the 2023-26 monitoring round. In other countries, including the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Indonesia, the Philippines and Uganda, partner country governments committed to proactively strengthen their PFM systems, while development partners signalled a willingness to expand their use in procurement and budgeting processes.

The dialogue in Uganda exemplifies a reciprocal approach that can be helpful to overcome persistent barriers to PFM system use. In response to country-specific monitoring findings that showed a limited and declining use of Uganda’s PFM systems – often attributed to concerns about the absorptive capacity of national institutions – the Government of Uganda agreed to take concrete action to strengthen its PFM systems. Development partners in Uganda, however, cited as persistent barriers internal procedural constraints and a general institutional preference for using their own systems, suggesting that meaningful progress depends as much on internal policy adjustments by development partners as it does on the strengthening of partner country systems. In response to the Government of Uganda committing to strengthen their PFM systems, however, development partners committed to increasing their use of the government’s national procurement and budgeting procedures. This example highlights that the reciprocal commitments put in place through the reflection, dialogue and action phase provide an opportunity for both the partner country government and development partners to discuss the barriers to progress and find possible steps towards a solution. In this particularly difficult area for achieving progress, mutual accountability and tracking progress together will be critical.

In fragile contexts, where use of country systems can face heightened resistance, dialogues focused on foundational, pre-emptive actions in order to gradually rebuild institutional trust. For example, country-specific results for Yemen indicated zero use of national PFM systems by development partners – a stark but typical characteristic of extreme fragility. Severe concerns about the absorptive capacity of national systems, compounded by high political and reputational risks alongside stringent development partner procedural constraints, have entrenched parallel implementation arrangements. Seeking to re-establish and strengthen country ownership despite these severe challenges, and backed by development partners, the Government of Yemen prioritised its reintegration into the Yemen Partner Group, a co-ordination body that had previously convened without direct participation of the partner country government. Concurrently, the partner country government agreed to seek technical support from international financial institutions to systematically rebuild its PFM capacities, aiming to eventually reinforce the state's oversight role in development co-operation (see the section on Yemen in Chapter 8).

On a related note, discussions surrounding the untying of aid remain highly sensitive, reflecting complex geopolitical pressures that currently limit broad consensus on this longstanding effectiveness commitment. Closely linked to the use of national procurement systems, the topic was formally prioritised only in Bangladesh, the Dominican Republic and the Philippines. It is unclear whether so few countries took up discussion of untied aid because it is not a priority, or because the barriers to change (perceived or otherwise) are presently too high. Informally on the margins of dialogue proceedings, some bilateral development partners candidly noted increasing pressure from their domestic constituencies to demonstrate tangible economic returns for ODA – such as contracts awarded to domestically owned companies – while also ensuring that development co-operation does not conflict with broader foreign and economic policy objectives. It was noted, moreover, that unrestricted procurement introduces a political risk that contracts may be won by highly competitive firms from third-party nations not favoured by the development partner's strategic interests, potentially triggering domestic backlash. In contrast, other development partners underscored the lack of untied aid as a critical barrier to more effective development co-operation that, if addressed, could support a gradual shift to sustainable development that is owned and led by the partner country. Navigating these constraints to greater untied aid requires sustained, nuanced dialogue. In the Philippines, for example, development partners and the partner country government committed to taking several practical steps forward. The Philippines’ Department of Finance is exploring steps to increase transparency over partner selection and funding arrangements, specifically clarifying whether funding is tied to designated suppliers. Furthermore, stakeholder dialogues have brought to the fore the importance of opening ODA-funded procurement to local suppliers where feasible, which would also involve the government tracking the share of untied aid through national ODA monitoring systems.

Taken together, the dialogue outcomes reflect a concerted, shared effort to gradually increase reliance on national public financial management systems while pragmatically addressing the barriers that limit their use. The negotiated commitments clearly indicate that meaningful progress requires a dual approach: partner country governments must continue strengthening their domestic systems, while development partners must concurrently adjust internal policies that currently incentivise parallel implementation arrangements. This includes reducing the use of development partner financial management systems outside national public financial management frameworks, as well as the management of funds outside the national budget, the use of separate accounting and auditing procedures and project-specific financial reporting that is not integrated into government systems. As discussed in Chapter 3, Global Partnership results suggest that strengthened PFM systems do not translate into a linear increase in development partners’ use of country systems. Ultimately, these country dialogues on the monitoring results seek to start or continue discussion on the use of PFM systems. Dialogue, and subsequent action, provide an opportunity to bridge the gap between persistent operational challenges and the overarching goal of enhancing country ownership and moving towards sustainable, country-owned development.

Key area 5: Increasing and improving engagement with non-state actors

Although stakeholder engagement in development planning is widespread, the quality, inclusiveness and institutionalisation of participation remain highly uneven across varying country contexts. As highlighted in Chapter 2 on the whole-of-society approach and leaving no one behind, gaps in meaningful consultation, constrained civic spaces and limited engagement with vulnerable groups pose significant obstacles to effective development co-operation. This challenge occurs against the backdrop of a concerning global trend of shrinking civic space (CIVICUS, 2025[5]). Building on these findings, dialogue participants noted that inconsistent engagement with civil society organisations (CSOs), the private sector, academia, trade unions and local governments undermines the comprehensiveness of national development planning. Inclusive partnerships are central to achieving global sustainable development, as they mobilise the resources, knowledge and capacities of diverse actors and recognise the complementary roles they play in advancing shared goals. By bringing together a plurality of actors and perspectives, inclusive partnerships can help ensure that development efforts are better adapted to local contexts and needs. Stakeholders observed that limited participation of diverse actors runs counter to the inclusive whole-of-society approach agreed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015[6]). This can result in development co-operation failing to reach the locations or sectors where it is most needed. At the same time, engaging a broader range of actors can introduce additional complexity, particularly in contexts marked by power imbalances, shrinking civic space or fragile institutions, requiring careful balancing between country ownership and inclusivity. To address this, stakeholders pursued five broad types of measures in the reflection, dialogue and action phase.

First, several partner country governments committed to establishing new, inclusive co-ordination platforms designed to foster systematic dialogue and information sharing among state and non-state actors. In the Gambia, Honduras, Indonesia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Uganda and Zambia, stakeholders recognised that dedicated multi-stakeholder platforms are essential for cohesive development planning. In Nigeria, for example, stakeholders agreed to convene an annual CSO-government-development partner roundtable to build trust and jointly shape policy, alongside a twice-yearly multi-stakeholder development forum. This forum aims to bring together government, parliament, civil society, the private sector, academia and community representatives to co-design solutions for development priorities, reflecting a broader effort to institutionalise regular dialogue within national decision-making frameworks.

Second, beyond creating new platforms, some partner country governments committed to expanding the diversity of constituencies actively engaged within existing co-ordination mechanisms. In Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Lao PDR, these commitments reflect a shifting development landscape where sustainable outcomes increasingly depend on diverse actors and financing sources beyond traditional development co-operation. Not least, a growing focus on private sector engagement in development co-operation emerged, illustrated by the strong interest in the 4th Global Partnership monitoring round's optional Kampala Principles assessment.3 In the Dominican Republic, the partner country government and development partners agreed to promote stronger participation from civil society, businesses, academia, local governments and representatives of vulnerable groups in priority-setting and mutual accountability exercises. Furthermore, stakeholders in Cambodia, the Dominican Republic and the Philippines deliberately focused on engaging organisations that represent marginalised populations, with the Government of Cambodia committing to integrating their recommendations into national strategies. To systematically enhance engagement with the private sector, in Burkina Faso the government agreed to strengthen business participation in sectoral dialogue frameworks, while the government in Lao PDR committed to revitalising consultation mechanisms such as the Lao Business Forum to involve the private sector earlier in policy formulation. Similarly, dialogue participants in Cambodia emphasised the importance of engaging private sector actors alongside development partners and civil society to better align private investments with national priorities.

Third, stakeholders across more than half of the participating countries stressed that formal structures must translate into more meaningful, substantive participation for non-state actors.  In Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, DRC, the Gambia, Honduras, Indonesia, Lesotho, Mozambique, Nigeria, the Philippines, Somalia, Uganda and Yemen, dialogue participants emphasised that merely establishing platforms for dialogue is insufficient. Meaningful participation requires moving beyond superficial consultation to enable stakeholders – particularly CSOs – to actively contribute to priority setting, implementation and monitoring throughout the entire policy cycle. This type of engagement helps ensure that dialogue platforms function, not only as co-ordination spaces, but also as mechanisms for accountability and policy influence. In the Philippines, for instance, the government agreed to harmonise multi-stakeholder engagement mechanisms across government to promote the safe, inclusive participation of grassroots organisations representing marginalised groups. This reform aims to systematically integrate community perspectives into policy formulation while strengthening the enabling environment for civil society representation. This builds on how the Philippines has already used the Integrated National Financing Framework (INFF) approach to host multi-stakeholder financing dialogues, with CSO engagement helping ensure that SDG investment gaps and the priorities of marginalised communities informed a national roadmap for more effective development financing (INFF Facility, 2024[7]). Likewise, stakeholders in Indonesia highlighted the critical need to involve non-government actors more systematically in day-to-day policy discussions on development (see the section on Indonesia in Chapter 8).

Fourth, dialogue outcomes frequently addressed the need for robust regulatory environments governing civil society organisations and private sector entities to facilitate their active engagement. Participants in Cambodia, Honduras, Nigeria, Pakistan and the Philippines discussed measures to harmonise and simplify regulatory frameworks, including rules related to registration, permits, financial disclosure and organisational governance. In Nigeria, the government agreed to conduct a joint government-CSO review of the CSO legal framework and encouraged development partners to allocate at least 20% of their civil society funding to Nigerian-led organisations by 2027, aiming to empower domestic actors. Concurrently, efforts to simplify regulatory procedures for private sector engagement were prioritised in Lao PDR and the Philippines, recognising that private sector participation requires predictable regulatory frameworks. In Lao PDR, the government and development partners agreed to streamline administrative procedures to mobilise private sector resources through blended financing approaches.4 In the Dominican Republic and Honduras, partner country governments and private sector actors agreed to promote public-private partnerships and the joint implementation of development projects.

Fifth, stakeholders across multiple dialogues prioritised improving the access of civil society and private sector actors to crucial information and tangible partnership opportunities. Dialogue participants in 15 countries (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, the Gambia, Honduras, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Yemen and Zambia) specifically recognised the critical role CSOs play in development co-operation, including areas such as service delivery, knowledge sharing and the oversight of development co-operation. For example, highlighting that non-state actors can provide valuable contributions for the co-creation of development solutions, partner country governments and development partners in Lao PDR and the Philippines committed to improving the public disclosure of financing opportunities. In another example, the Dominican Republic government and CSOs committed to enhancing data access and information channels to ensure the timely dissemination of project calls. During the reflection, dialogue and action phase, it was agreed that this will be achieved by fostering closer co-ordination with the National Center for the Promotion of Nonprofit Organisations (CASFL) and by integrating the development co-operation agenda into established dialogue spaces, such as the Economic and Social Council (ESC) and EU-CSO mechanisms.

Ultimately, these dialogue outcomes reflect a realisation of the need to fundamentally strengthen the role of non-state actors in development policy processes. The five areas discussed on whole-of-society engagement suggest that strengthening multi-stakeholder engagement is as much about ensuring that existing mechanisms enable meaningful participation and influence over decisions as it is about creating new platforms. While many partner countries already possess formal co-ordination platforms, the new commitments highlight an ambition to deliberately shift towards making participation more inclusive, structured and meaningful. Where diverse actors are systematically involved in shaping priorities, implementation and oversight by addressing regulatory barriers and expanding access to information, development co-operation is more likely to reflect local realities, reach underserved constituencies and benefit from broader domestic accountability. Embedding such inclusive dialogue within national planning and co-ordination systems can therefore help translate the principles of country ownership and inclusive partnerships into more effective and responsive development co-operation (Bhattacharya, Khan and Altaf, 2023[8]).

Strengthening the effectiveness of development co-operation also requires greater coherence within domestic public finance frameworks. Across the five areas outlined above, a common structural pattern emerges that the monitoring findings alone do not fully explain. The persistent gaps in budget integration, PFM use, alignment with national frameworks and mutual accountability are not solely a result of co-ordination failures between development partners and governments. They also reflect a deeper challenge: in many partner countries, public finance systems themselves – spanning revenue mobilisation, public expenditure management and debt – remain internally fragmented and insufficiently aligned with national development priorities. When tax policy, spending allocations and debt management are designed and managed in silos, the resulting incoherence raises the cost of delivering development outcomes and creates structural incentives for development partners to route around national systems rather than through them. Box 7.2 showcases two examples of countries (Lao PDR and Indonesia) where strengthening the effectiveness of domestic public finance frameworks is key in a context of macroeconomic transition.

Box 7.2. How macroeconomic transitions influence dialogue outcomes

In several instances, dialogue outcomes were strategically shaped by broader macroeconomic transitions within the national development financing landscape. In Lao PDR, for example, the dialogue phase unfolded in the context of the country’s impending graduation from least developed country (LDC) status. The dialogue and outcome documents explicitly link effectiveness reforms to the necessity of shifting from an aid-driven model towards a more integrated and diversified financing framework for sustainable development. This effort includes commitments to strengthen domestic resource mobilisation, enhance public financial management systems, streamline administrative procedures for ODA and upgrade national monitoring systems to manage increasingly complex combinations of public, private and climate-related finance. In this context, dialogue commitments signal a broader repositioning of development co-operation, with ODA increasingly framed as a catalytic resource within the wider development finance landscape of partner countries.

Another example is Indonesia which, as an upper-middle-income country, relies less on concessional financing and more on technical assistance, knowledge partnerships and catalytic investment. In this context, the dialogue highlighted that Indonesia’s expanding role in South-South and triangular co-operation increases expectations for strong domestic systems, transparency and inclusiveness. Institutional reforms discussed therefore focused on addressing fragmented institutional responsibilities across ministries, strengthening co-ordination mechanisms and formalising grant management arrangements, including through inter-ministerial bodies such as the Grant Working Group and the National Co-ordination Team for South-South and Triangular Co-operation. Dialogue outcomes consequently emphasise improving co-ordination, strengthening information systems and aligning development co-operation with national systems and priorities.

See Chapter 8 for more details of these countries’ initiatives.

7.3. Countries are institutionalising accountability and follow-up mechanisms

Translating monitoring findings into concrete policy adjustments ultimately depends on credible mechanisms to review progress and hold stakeholders accountable. While the dialogue processes illustrate how partner countries are beginning to adjust their development co-operation practices, the long-term effectiveness of these reforms relies on robust, regular oversight. The Global Partnership monitoring framework tracks the existence of country-level mutual accountability mechanisms as a core element of effective development co-operation. Consequently, this section examines both the overarching discussions regarding the status of these mechanisms and the specific arrangements established to follow up on the commitments generated during the reflection, dialogue and action phase. By bringing stakeholders together to review evidence and agree on actionable measures, this final phase of the monitoring exercise serves as a vital tool for accountability in its own right.

To ensure lasting impact, accountability for the development effectiveness commitments made must be sustained well beyond the reflection, dialogue and action phase. This sustained focus is shaped by two interconnected dimensions: the broader accountability arrangements discussed during the dialogues and the specific mechanisms designed to track agreed-upon commitments. As detailed in Chapter 8 of this report, the resulting policy adjustments suggest that several partner countries have successfully moved beyond reflection towards concrete shifts in reporting practices, system use and co-ordination behaviour. Although the depth of these reforms varies, numerous partner country governments have begun embedding effectiveness commitments more firmly within their national planning, budgeting and co-ordination frameworks. This structural integration reflects a broader objective to institutionalise development effectiveness principles far beyond the confines of the Global Partnership monitoring cycle itself.

Across the varied country contexts, stakeholders exercise accountability for development effectiveness commitments through three distinct operational approaches.  First, accountability is exercised directly through dialogue, where participants jointly review monitoring findings and agree on corrective actions during the final phase itself. Second, it is maintained through timelines for follow-up, where actors commit to the periodic review, reporting and tracking of agreed actions, thereby extending accountability over time. Third, it is achieved through institutionalised accountability, which embeds the review of effectiveness commitments within existing or recurring co-ordination mechanisms or formal frameworks established for the purpose, complete with defined roles, indicators and procedures for assessing progress. While most partner countries have successfully established commitments in the first two areas, fewer have advanced towards fully specified institutional arrangements, indicating that formalisation remains uneven across different development contexts.

The establishment or strengthening of formal accountability mechanisms emerged as a recurrent priority, responding directly to significant gaps identified in current monitoring data. As detailed in Chapter 5, the Global Partnership monitoring framework continues to capture a limited prevalence of robust mutual accountability mechanisms. This priority also reflects broader shifts in the development co-operation landscape, where traditional aid co-ordination architectures are rapidly evolving to accommodate a wider range of non-state actors and financing sources beyond ODA (UN, Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development, 2024[9]). In many instances, the drive to build new mechanisms stems from a shared recognition among partner country governments and development partners that existing policy frameworks and consultation spaces are currently insufficient to ensure systematic, inclusive and results-oriented follow-up.

While stakeholders in the majority of participating countries signalled a strong intention to strengthen mutual accountability mechanisms, the degree of formalisation varies significantly. Participants in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, the Gambia, Honduras, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Mozambique, Nigeria, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Uganda and Zambia envisioned achieving this through joint assessments, strategic reviews, or enhanced co-ordination platforms. However, most of these commitments currently remain at the level of political agreement or forward-looking intent rather than fully specified institutional arrangements. A notable exception is Uganda, where the partner country government, development partners, CSOs and the private sector formally agreed to establish a Joint Accountability Results Framework (JARF). This framework is designed to serve as the primary co-ordination mechanism, featuring actor-specific roles, detailed indicators, baselines and targets. By doing so, Uganda seeks to establish a recurring, performance-based mechanism explicitly dedicated to assessing progress on development effectiveness commitments.

Rather than creating entirely new structures, stakeholders in some partner countries agreed to track dialogue commitments through established, recurring policy co-ordination mechanisms. In the Dominican Republic, the outcomes of the dialogue and follow-up will be embedded within and contribute to strengthening the National System for International Co-operation for Development (SINACID), the country’s established co-ordination framework (GPEDC, 2026[10]). In Lao PDR, existing co-ordination structures – particularly the Round Table Process and its associated sector working groups – are reaffirmed as the central mechanism for dialogue and co-ordination, providing the institutional basis within which follow-up is expected to take place. In Honduras, follow-up is expected to take place within the context of an existing national multi-stakeholder co-ordination forum used for development co-operation dialogue.

Delving deeper into the analysis presented in this chapter, the following chapter (chapter 8) presents a country-by-country summary of the reflection, dialogue and action processes undertaken by each of the countries that have completed the process to date. Each country summary outlines: (1) how the dialogue process was organised; (2) the key effectiveness challenges specific to the country; (3) the action-oriented outcomes and commitments proposed by governments and development stakeholders to address the challenges; and (4) an indication of the follow-up mechanism to track implementation progress on the commitments made.

References

[8] Bhattacharya, D., T. Khan and N. Altaf (2023), Unpacking ’ownership’ in development co-operation effectiveness: Perspectives of Southern recipients, UNU-WIDER, Helsinki, https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2023/336-9.

[5] CIVICUS (2025), People Power Under Attack 2025 - A report based on data from the CIVICUS monitor, https://civicusmonitor.contentfiles.net/media/documents/GlobalFindings2022.pdf.

[10] GPEDC (2026), The Dominican Republic and its Partners Chart a Participatory Path Towards More Effective Development Co-operation, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/resources/dominican-republic-and-its-partners-chart-participatory-path-towards-more-effective.

[1] GPEDC (2022), 2022 Effective Development Co-operation Summit Declaration, https://effectivecooperation.org/Summitoutcomedocument.

[7] INFF Facility (2024), Making Finance Work for People and Planet: How countries are building their sustainable finance ecosystem through integrated national financing frameworks, https://www.undp.org/publications/making-finance-work-people-and-planet-how-countries-are-building-their-sustainable-finance-ecosystem-through-integrated-national.

[3] Knack, S. (2013), Building or Bypassing Recipient Country Systems: Are Donors Defying the Paris Declaration?, World Bank, http://econ.worldbank.org.

[4] PEFA (2019), Nigeria Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Performance Assessment Report, https://www.pefa.org/node/166.

[6] UN (2015), Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.

[2] UN DESA (2025), Outcome Document of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, https://financing.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/ffd4-documents/2025/Compromiso%20de%20Sevilla%20for%20action%2016%20June.pdf.

[9] UN, Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development (2024), Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2024: Financing for Development at a Crossroads, United Nations, https://doi.org/10.18356/9789213588635.

Notes

← 1.  In addition to the 22 countries that held some form of dialogue that engaged non-state actors to some extent, one additional country, Ethiopia, held a dialogue between government and bilateral and multilateral development partners. 

← 2.  A nationwide data collection tool to collect disaggregated data at the household level, to assist in the design, implementation and impact monitoring of poverty-reduction initiatives, led by the Philippine Statistics Authority.

← 3.  The Kampala Principles Assessment (KPA) is an evidence-based process introduced into the GPEDC monitoring framework to evaluate and enhance the effectiveness of private sector engagement in development co-operation. In the 2023-26 monitoring round, 25 out of 44 partner countries participated in the KPA. For further information on private sector engagement and the KPA, see Chapter 6 in Part I of this report.

← 4.  Blended finance refers to “the strategic use of development finance for the mobilisation of additional finance towards sustainable development in developing countries”, with “additional finance” referring primarily to commercial finance (OECD definition).