This chapter provides an overview of the results of the 2023-26 Monitoring Round of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC), as presented in Part I of this report. It contains a high-level summary of the key findings across the four dimensions of the monitoring framework: a whole-of-society approach to development, the state and use of country systems, transparency, and leaving no one behind.
Making Development Co‑operation More Effective Progress Report 2026
Abstract
The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (the Global Partnership) is the primary multi-stakeholder vehicle for driving development effectiveness to “maximise the effectiveness of all forms of co-operation for development for the shared benefits of people, planet, prosperity and peace.” The four principles for effective development co-operation (country ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, and transparency and mutual accountability) were endorsed by 161 countries and 56 organisations at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness which took place in Busan in 2011. The Global Partnership monitoring exercise provides a means to translate development effectiveness ambition into action while promoting collective accountability through the lens of the four effectiveness principles. In this sense, the monitoring framework in its entirety represents a tool for collective accountability, which is cross-cutting and overarching across the monitoring framework (Table 1.1). The four dimensions are the core blocks of the framework, reflecting how the principles are implemented in practice. The evidence generated is grouped around these four dimensions: a whole-of-society approach to development, the state and use of country systems, transparency, and leaving no one behind. The components are conceptual sub-groupings of evidence collected within each dimension and used to facilitate the narrative around the results emerging from each of the dimensions. Additional details on the monitoring framework can be found in Annex B.
The Global Partnership also generates official data on progress towards three Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets: (1) respect each country’s policy space and leadership (SDG 17.15); (2) multi-stakeholder partnerships for development (SDG 17.16; see Box 1.1); and (3) adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment (SDG 5.c). These results are also summarised in this report.
The 2026 progress report consists of two parts, moving from evidence and analysis to country-level reflection, dialogue and action. Part I presents the results of the 2023-26 Monitoring Round based on the data collected. It starts with an overview of key findings across the four dimensions of the monitoring framework (Chapter 1), followed by thematic analysis of whole-of-society approaches to development and leaving no one behind (Chapter 2), the quality and use of country systems supporting country ownership (Chapter 3), the predictability of development co-operation funding (Chapter 4), accountable and transparent co-operation (Chapter 5), and private sector engagement in development co-operation, drawing on the first Kampala Principles Assessment (Chapter 6). Part II (not summarised here) documents how countries and development actors have used the monitoring results through the reflection, dialogue and action phase of the monitoring exercise, synthesising common challenges and policy responses (Chapter 7) and presents countries’ own accounts of dialogue processes, agreed actions and follow-up mechanisms (Chapter 8). The results below draw on evidence from the 44 countries participating in the 2023-26 monitoring round, organised around the four thematic areas and, where possible, compared with previous rounds’ findings to highlight progress and persistent challenges. All graphs show data from the 2023-26 round, unless otherwise specified.
Applying a whole-of-society approach to development
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calls for collective action by the whole of society to implement long-lasting development solutions. Governments have a unique responsibility to lead development, but their efforts cannot be successful without the inclusive and equitable participation of all actors. The whole-of-society dimension of the framework examines how partner country governments and development partners engage diverse development actors in development planning, follow-up dialogues on results, and in accountability mechanisms (Chapter 2). It also covers parliaments’ oversight of development co-operation (Chapter 5), the enabling environment for civil society organisations (CSOs) (Chapter 2), and the use of policies and dialogue mechanisms to support effective private sector engagement (Chapter 6).
By improving the quality of consultations with civil society organisations, governments and development partners can foster a more inclusive whole‑of‑society development process (Chapter 2). Overall, partner country governments and development partners alike engage a wide range of domestic stakeholders when formulating their development policies, though to a greater extent than in subsequent dialogues to discuss development priorities and results Figure 1.1). However, these efforts do not always translate into inclusive and substantive processes according to civil society organisations, who perceive that the quality of consultations and the uptake of their outcomes can be strengthened further. Country context also influences the extent to which a whole-of-society approach can be applied: in contexts facing extreme fragility, political instability may prevent effective and extensive engagement.
Share of partner countries with a national development plan in place engaging each stakeholder group
The efforts of both partner country governments and development partners are the starting point for a more enabling environment for CSOs (Chapter 2). However, CSOs, development partners and partner country governments’ perceptions of the CSO enabling environment – assessed against four thematic modules (Figure 1.2) – diverge significantly in most partner countries, especially on the space for CSO dialogue and the legal and regulatory environment. Development partners tend to view the quality of their development co-operation with CSOs more favourably than do CSOs (module 3 “development co-operation with CSOs”), highlighting that there is room for improvement when aligning funding priorities, and on advocacy by development partners with governments on enabling environment issues. Development partners and CSO representatives share similar assessments on the need for CSOs to strengthen the effectiveness and inclusivity of their own co-ordination mechanisms (module 2 “CSOs’ effectiveness”).
Average score per stakeholder group (partner country governments, development partners, CSOs) for each of the four modules of the CSO Enabling Environment Assessment
Note: The chart includes data from 34 countries where comprehensive reporting from all three stakeholder groups has been recorded (at least one stakeholder group did not report in each of the remaining ten countries). Each dot represents the assessment made by various reporting stakeholders. The average score to assess each module ranges from 0 (“negligible”) to 1 (“extensive”). For representation purposes, the minimum value in the chart is 0.4 (“basic”).
Parliaments largely receive information on development co-operation on request; however, low and sharply declining shares of development co-operation funding recorded in country budgets limit their ability to oversee planning and ensure accountability (Chapters 4 and 5). More than two-thirds of partner country governments (71%) report providing information on development co-operation resources to parliament; however, this information is primarily provided on request rather than systematically. Parliamentary scrutiny of development co-operation resources is limited by the low – and declining – share recorded on partner country budgets (down to 41% in 2026 from 61% in 2018) (Figure 1.3). Partner countries and development partners share responsibility for ensuring transparency and oversight of development co-operation resources in countries.
Proportion of development co-operation funding recorded on national budgets by partner countries, by type of partner country
Policies and dialogue guide private sector engagement in development co-operation, but dialogue could do more to address the partnership challenges faced by stakeholders – especially the private sector (Chapter 6). The Kampala Principles Assessment (KPA) – conducted for the first time in the Global Partnership 2023-26 monitoring round – generates findings on how stakeholders are contributing to improving the enabling environment for private sector engagement (PSE) in development co-operation. With increasing attention on the role of the private sector in development, the KPA focuses on the quality of PSE partnerships as a complement to other sources of evidence on the quantity of private finance being mobilised. Findings from the KPA show that both partner country governments and development partners are investing in strengthening policy frameworks to guide PSE in development co-operation (Figure 1.4). However, there is scope to improve the extent to which these policies and strategies define target groups, including vulnerable and marginalised populations. While governments and providers have made efforts to organise dialogues on engaging the private sector in development, private sector actors signal that they find it difficult to engage in partnerships with development partners, citing cumbersome procedures as a key barrier. Other stakeholders also highlight the importance of more trust building on PSE in development co-operation. The dialogues that are already being organised by governments and providers could be used to better address stakeholders’ priorities and concerns.
Number of partner country governments with a PSE-related policy and which have organised a PSE dialogue (left panel); share of development partners with a PSE-related strategy and which have organised a dialogue (right panel)
Note: The KPA, the only optional component of the monitoring framework, was undertaken by 25 of the 44 partner countries which participated in the 2023-26 round. Of these 25 countries, 24 partner country governments submitted KPA data, hence the left panel reflects a total sample size of 24. The right panel shows the share of development partner respondents (of those who engage the private sector in their development co-operation) in these 25 countries who, respectively, have a PSE policy and/or have organised a PSE dialogue.
Strengthening and using country systems
Strengthening the governance and functioning of core public sector institutions and systems is central to efforts to ensure that partner country governments can manage resources effectively and efficiently for greater development effectiveness. Using countries’ own systems – such as national development plans and country results frameworks, public financial management systems, and information management systems – allows development programmes to be better integrated in countries’ own expenditures, reducing duplication of effort, and increasing the leveraging effect of development co-operation resources and the sustainability of activities and results. The state and use of country systems dimension examines the strength of core public sector systems and the extent to which they are used by development partners. It covers the quality of national development planning, and the extent to which development partners align their support with these plans and make use of country results frameworks and planning tools (SDG indicator 17.15.1); the quality and use of public financial management systems and information management systems; and the existence of comprehensive accountability mechanisms for development co‑operation (Chapter 5). It looks at the predictability of development funding, the extent to which funding is recorded on national budgets, and progress on gender‑responsive budgeting (SDG indicator 5.c.1) (Chapter 4), and untying aid (Chapter 3).
Despite improvements on key aspects of development planning, efforts are still needed to strengthen progress reporting and to link plans to resources (Chapter 3). Almost all partner country governments have a national development plan, 91% of which include development priorities, targets and results indicators. Partner countries note that alignment between sectoral and national plans is improving and that they have strengthened their reliance on national statistical systems. However, gaps remain in monitoring progress and budget transparency (Figure 1.5). Strengthening monitoring and linking plans to resources will improve the quality and implementation of national development plans.
Share of countries with key elements in place in their national development strategies, by level of quality
Note: Shares calculated based on 44 partner country governments’ reporting on their national development strategies. The category “not assessed” refers to one country that did not report on their national development plan, as discussed in Chapter 3.
Development partners’ use of partner countries’ statistical systems is limited and has declined since 2018 (Chapter 3). Development partners continue to make moderate use of country-owned frameworks (SDG 17.15.1) in their interventions, but still only mainly align with partner countries’ objectives, making limited use of their results indicators and data to monitor progress on their interventions (Figure 1.6). The use of partner country government data and systems by development partners in monitoring the results of their interventions remains particularly low and has declined, in part due to concerns over the quality of national statistical systems. There is room for partner country governments to strengthen these systems through reforms led by national statistical offices to gather better and more timely data, and through innovative tools such as responsible artificial intelligence, supported by funding from development partners and their greater participation in existing networks, such as the Bern Network on Financing Data for Development.
Share of interventions with objectives and results indicators drawn from country-owned results frameworks and monitored using data from national statistical systems
Note: “SDG 17.15.1 – Use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools (average)” (left bar) is calculated as the average of the three elements assessing alignment at objectives, results and data level shown in the right-hand bars.
Strengthening public financial management (PFM) systems and increasing their use will require renewed joint action, especially to improve the quality and use of procurement systems (Chapter 3). While most partner countries with recent Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessments maintain PFM systems of medium quality (Figure 1.7, left-hand panel), significant challenges remain regarding the quality of procurement systems and budget transparency. Overall, progress on improving the quality of PFM systems is mixed, with the number of countries making progress being surpassed by those experiencing declines or showing no change. At the same time, development partners’ use of country PFM systems is moderate overall, with only 51% of development funds disbursed to the public sector using PFM systems – largely driven by particularly low and declining use of country procurement systems, which fell from 50% in 2018 to 34% in 2026 (Figure 1.7, right-hand panel). Providers vary widely in the extent of their use of country PFM systems, influenced by a mix of country conditions and provider preferences and constraints. Progress will require joint dialogue and action by government and development partners, both in individual countries and globally.
Number of countries by quality level of PFM system (left panel); and use of partner country PFM systems by providers, by type of system (right panel)
Note: In the right-hand graph, development partners’ use of PFM systems is calculated as the average proportion of disbursements to the public sector that used partner country budget execution, auditing and financial reporting procedures, as well as procurement systems.
Maximising the potential of information management systems (IMS) requires stronger system maintenance, integration and partner reporting (Chapter 3). The results show that across the 44 countries, the majority (34) have an operational and functioning IMS in place to capture development co-operation (Figure 1.8). However, partner countries face challenges in keeping these systems fully operational and using the information reported to inform budget and expenditure projections. Reporting to IMS by development partners shows gaps in coverage, as development partners do not report to the IMS in 25% of partner countries where they operate on average, and with lower reporting rates in challenging contexts. Addressing these issues will require efforts to ensure the systems are sustainably maintained, connected to other government processes, and supported by more consistent development partner reporting.
Number of countries with operational and comprehensive IMS (left panel); and average share of countries where providers report (right panel)
The forward-spending visibility of development co-operation shows no improvement and is accompanied by a decline in the share of development co-operation recorded on national budgets (Figure 1.9), weakening national governments’ ability to plan and budget for development efforts (Chapter 4). Medium-term predictability – the provision of forward expenditure plans for one, two or ideally three years ahead by development partners to partner countries – is essential for effective development planning and resource allocation. Despite long-standing commitments, reaffirmed recently at the fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, no meaningful improvement has been observed since 2014 in development partners’ provision of forward expenditure plans (averaged across one, two and three years ahead) to partner country governments (Figure 1.9). The share of development partners that provided such plans averaged 52% in 2018 and remains unchanged in 2026. As seen in previous monitoring rounds, across all types of development partners, there is a marked decline in the provision of forward expenditure plans for the third year ahead (Figure 1.9). Forward-spending visibility for the third year ahead is lowest in countries facing fragility (34%), compared to non-fragile contexts (52%). However, the proportion of development co-operation funding disbursed to the public sector as scheduled within the same fiscal year – known as annual predictability – is relatively high and shows a slight overall increase since 2011. On-schedule project expenditure can support predictable disbursement of development co-operation funding. Development partners and partner countries share responsibility for strengthening partner country systems that enable timely project expenditure, and for reducing deviations in disbursements, thereby minimising disruptions to service delivery and project implementation.
Proportion 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 2014-16; for the 2016 Progress Report the assessment covered 2016-18; for the 2019 Progress Report the assessment covered 2018-19; and for the 2026 Progress Report the assessment covers 2023-26.
Partner country governments have improved on gender-responsive budgeting, with stronger alignment between gender equality commitments and financing (Chapter 4). Sustained and well-targeted financing is essential to reach SDG 5 (achieve gender quality 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. 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 GEWE (Figure 1.10). 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. However, there has been a decline in the number of countries making allocations for GEWE publicly available, down from 23 countries in 2018 to 18 in the 2026.
Despite overall progress, gender equality commitments do not always translate into adequate resourcing (Chapter 4). 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 such policies and/or programmes were adequately resourced to meet their overall and gender equality objectives. Gender-responsive budgeting practices vary across countries, with notable gaps in tagging, auditing and tracking allocations, pointing to weaknesses in partner country systems. Despite gaps in budgetary practices, oversight by women’s groups and parliamentarians is strong, underscoring the importance of publicly available data. Yet, many countries still face gaps in ensuring public availability of information on gender allocations, use of sex-disaggregated data and gender assessments, underscoring the need for more robust data collection and reporting systems to strengthen gender-responsive budgeting efforts.
Number of partner countries meeting, approaching or not meeting the requirements to have in place a system 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. 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.
Shifting resources, modalities and global crises have not always been matched by equivalent developments in accountability structures in partner countries (Chapter 5). By requiring partner countries and development partners to hold each other responsible for jointly agreed commitments, mutual accountability actively builds trust and ensures that interventions are firmly aligned with national development priorities. However, few partner countries have most or all elements of a quality mutual accountability mechanism for effective development co-operation in place (Figure 1.11). This should be understood in the context of structural transformations within the global development finance architecture, which include declining levels of official development assistance (ODA), project fragmentation, and an increasingly diverse landscape of development actors. These limit the extent to which partner country governments are able to prioritise mutual accountability arrangements.
More than two-thirds of partner countries (68%) have a policy framework to guide development co-operation; however, fewer define roles and responsibilities for diverse development actors (Figure 1.11) (Chapter 5). Most countries with comprehensive policy frameworks set joint development co-operation effectiveness targets, but gaps in stakeholder-specific targets limit accountability and effective implementation. About a third of countries with development co-operation effectiveness targets conduct joint assessments to track progress, while even fewer do so regularly or with a broad range of actors. Only two countries make the results of these inclusive assessments publicly available, revealing a critical gap in accountability. Furthermore, in countries facing fragility, mutual accountability might require flexible, context-specific approaches. These findings, together with the broader shifts at play across the development landscape, suggest that partner countries may be transitioning towards restructuring their institutional arrangements, including through dialogues as part of this monitoring exercise (explored in chapters 7 and 8).
Number of countries that have in place each sequential element of a mutual accountability mechanism
Note: For methodological details on this graph, please refer to Figure 5.1 in Chapter 5.
The share of DAC members’ untied bilateral ODA appears to have largely stagnated since 2017 (Chapter 3). This stands in contrast to an earlier positive trend observed since the 2001 DAC commitment on untying ODA. Data on untying of aid reported to the OECD Creditor Reporting System and used for the Global Partnership monitoring exercise indicate that the share of DAC members’ untied bilateral ODA was slightly higher in 2017, at 82%, than in 2024. The levels over the intervening years of the two monitoring rounds have been broadly similar, peaking slightly in 2020 at 85%, followed by a slight decline to reach 79% by 2024 (shown in Figure 3.6 in Chapter 3).
Transparency
Transparency is a precondition for building trust and accountability and is critical for inclusive partnerships. Sharing information publicly generates domestic pressure for continuous improvements. Transparency also helps development partners to co-ordinate their support, promoting synergies while avoiding fragmentation and duplication of effort. The transparency dimension examines the extent to which partner country governments and development partners make information on development co-operation publicly available. It covers the publication of key information on development co-operation by partner countries, as well as development partners’ disclosure of country-level strategies. It also looks at the quality of development partners’ reporting to international transparency systems and standards (Chapter 5).
Transparency gaps persist in partner countries, as a moderate share of development partners publish their country strategies, and only about half of country governments make progress reports publicly available (Chapter 5). Across the 93 development partners participating in the 2023-26 round, 85% report having in place a country strategy or partnership framework to guide development co-operation across the 44 partner countries. Of these, less than two-thirds of development partners (63%) make their country strategies publicly available within partner countries (Figure 1.12). Most partner countries (91%) make their national development plans publicly available, whereas more than half (65%) publish related progress reports. Public availability of these documents allows civil society and other actors to help ensure the inclusive representation of vulnerable and marginalised groups in national development planning processes.
Proportion of development partners that make their country strategies publicly available, by type of partner
A growing number of development partners are making information on development co-operation publicly available to global systems and standards, though the quality of this reporting is unchanged, highlighting a lack of global improvement (Chapter 5). Of the development partners that reported to the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) in 2018 and 2025 and that also participated in both the 2018 and 2023-26 monitoring rounds, only 32% of their reporting was scored as excellent or good in 2025, similar to 33% in 2018 (Figure 1.13). Assessed development partners have not made significant improvements in providing forward-looking information and fall short when ensuring timely reporting; however, information on development co-operation is more comprehensive and accurate. When considering the quality of reporting to the CRS, around half of assessed development partners show progress. Of the 47 assessed development partners that reported to the CRS between 2018 and 2025 and that also participated in the 2018 and 2023-26 monitoring rounds, 51% have shown progress in the quality of their reporting, 34% have declined, and 15% report no change. A slight decline is observed, however, in the shares of development partners that received excellent, good and fair scores for their reporting to the IATI when compared to 2018. Of the 38 development partners with comparable data that reported to the IATI between 2018 and 2025 and that also participated in the 2018 and 2023-26 monitoring rounds, only 21% have made progress, while 29% are in decline. No change is recorded for half (50%) of these development partners.
Development partners’ ratings across two transparency systems and standards – the CRS and the IATI
Note: For methodological details on this graph, please refer to Figure 5.3 in Chapter 5.
Source: Percentages are authors’ calculations based on assessments provided by the OECD CRS and IATI secretariats.
Leaving no one behind
In the Nairobi Outcome Document from the 2nd High-Level Meeting of the Global Partnership (2016), partners reaffirmed the 2030 Agenda’s pledge to leave no one behind (LNOB) and recognised that “development co-operation must leave no one behind to be effective”. Partners also agreed that more and better data are required to generate knowledge about who is being left behind. They also recognised the need to continue to support gender equality and women’s empowerment, being critical for effective development co-operation, as well as the importance of focusing on children and youth to achieve inclusive, equitable and sustainable development for present and future generations. The LNOB dimension covers the extent to which women and girls, youth and children, and vulnerable and marginalised groups are consulted in development planning, dialogue and accountability processes; the inclusion of development priorities, targets and results indicators in development strategies; and the availability and use of disaggregated data and statistics to inform planning and monitor progress (Chapter 2).
To leave no one behind, partner country governments and development partners need to focus on those who are harder to reach (Chapter 2). Almost all partner country governments and development partners report setting priorities for some population groups, while harder-to-reach groups are at risk of their needs being unmet. Development priorities are included to a much lower extent by both partner country governments and development partners for population groups that are harder to reach, such as LGBTIQ+ groups, stateless people and refugees, ethnic minorities, Indigenous peoples and internally displaced people (Figure 1.14). This may be partially explained by the fact that some partner country governments do not recognise the presence of certain groups. For development partners, the recognition of their existence may come with political sensitivities in their relationships with some partner country governments, which may explain why explicitly priorities for these groups do not consistently appear in their country strategies.
Proportion of national development plans (of partner countries) and country strategies (of development partners) which include priorities targeting various population groups
Note: As defined under SDG.1.2, the category “the poorest” is defined as the men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions in partner countries.
Tracking progress on efforts to leave no one behind requires strong national statistical systems that can generate reliable and sufficiently disaggregated data (Chapter 2). Partner countries are increasingly disaggregating targets and results indicators, but practices remain uneven across socio‑economic and demographic groups. Across most partner countries, data gaps continue to limit the ability to monitor progress for the most vulnerable. Only a small proportion of partner countries report strong availability of disaggregated data. Most partner countries indicate that disaggregated data are available for only some results indicators, while significantly fewer countries (5) have data available for all results indicators. Data tend to be more available for disaggregation levels that are generally established in national statistical systems and are collected routinely (such as sex, age, and geographic area) (Figure 1.15), while disaggregation for more sensitive or specialised data (such as migration status or ethnicity/Indigenous identity) depends on whether survey instruments include the relevant questions, adequately cover harder-to-reach populations or successfully navigate political or social sensitivities. Addressing these gaps will require long‑term investment in strengthening national statistical systems, and more co-ordinated support from development partners.
Proportion of countries for which disaggregated data are available to monitor progress on results indicators, by disaggregation level
Fifty-two countries – comprising 28 partner countries and 24 bilateral development partners – have participated in the two most recent and consecutive Global Partnership monitoring rounds (2018 and 2023-26), generating results on SDG Indicator 17.16.1: the number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks that support SDG achievement.
Of the 52 countries, 62% (32 countries: 19 partner countries and 13 development partners) report a decline in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring, and an overall deterioration in performance, with more areas declining than improving (Figure 1.16). Only 15 countries – 7 partner countries and 8 development partners – report overall progress since 2018 against the specific elements that make up these monitoring frameworks (for details see source at the end of this box).
Partner countries show mixed progress, with some notable advances. More countries have made progress in tracking and budgeting for gender equality and women’s empowerment, and in improving national development strategies and results frameworks. Trends in the quality of public financial management systems are mixed, with declines in some countries matching improvements in others. Significant efforts are still needed to expand civil society participation and establish effective mutual accountability mechanisms for development co-operation.
Development partners show limited improvements but continue to moderately align with partner country priorities. Marginal gains are seen in annual predictability, although overall levels remain high, and development partners continue to align outcomes of new projects with partner country strategies. Further efforts are needed to strengthen development partner use of country-owned results frameworks and indicators, as well as government monitoring and statistical systems, when tracking the implementation of development co-operation projects. Concerted efforts are needed to improve medium-term predictability (forward expenditure plans), to untie aid, and to enhance reporting on co-operation activities and financial flows to global systems and standards.
Urgent action is required from all countries – whether receiving or providing development co-operation – to reverse the negative trend in the share of development co-operation recorded on national budgets and subject to parliamentary oversight.
Number of partner countries and development partners making progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks – SDG 17.16.1
Note: Based on results of 52 countries, which includes 28 countries receiving development co-operation and 24 countries providing development co-operation.
Source: SDG Indicator 17.16.1 metadata https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-17-16-01.pdf
Development actors have signed up to ambitious commitments on effective development co-operation at the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Sevilla in 2025 – progress towards these will ultimately depend on the extent to which partner country governments and development partners translate them into sustained action and follow up. Global Partnership monitoring data are relevant to these commitments, and the results show that significant efforts will need to be made for partners to meet them.
In a development co-operation landscape that is becoming more complex, fragmented and shaped by a wider range of actors and priorities, renewed efforts to strengthen country ownership, transparency, use of country systems and mutual accountability will be critical to ensure that co-operation delivers tangible results. The findings of this monitoring round highlight both persistent gaps and emerging opportunities: while progress remains uneven, the renewed emphasis of the monitoring exercise on reflection, dialogue and action provides development actors with a tangible opportunity and pathway to adapt co-operation practices to changing realities – and in so doing, support the implementation of these commitments. Taken together, the results point to the importance of more coherent, inclusive and country-led approaches grounded in evidence-based dialogue and strengthened partnerships. In this context, the Global Partnership can continue to support these efforts by facilitating dialogue, promoting learning and helping to translate evidence into action towards the Sustainable Development Goals, while helping to inform the evolution of development co-operation beyond 2030.