Making Development Co‑operation More Effective Progress Report 2026

Reader’s guide

The Global Partnership monitoring exercise: background and context

The monitoring exercise is the flagship instrument of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC). It tracks progress on commitments made by stakeholders to strengthen the effectiveness of their development co-operation, which are underpinned by the four development effectiveness principles: country ownership, a focus on development results, inclusive partnerships, and enhancing transparency and mutual accountability. The monitoring exercise also contributes to follow-up of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by generating official data for SDG 17 and SDG 5, and by helping countries assess how effectively all actors work together to support national development priorities and development results.

The monitoring exercise is voluntary and country-led. Since the establishment of the GPEDC in 2011, there have been four monitoring rounds, with this report representing the culmination of the fourth round (2023-26). Following the third round (2018), a comprehensive reform of the monitoring exercise took place, with the aim of strengthening the evidence framework and monitoring process. While nearly all measurements (indicators) were retained (see Annex A), enabling the framework to track progress and trends over time on core commitments – some of which are rooted in the 2005 Paris Declaration and others introduced in 2012 with the creation of the GPEDC – the framework was refined to enhance clarity and relevance. The full monitoring framework is set out in Annex B.

However, based on demand from stakeholders, the framework for the 2023-26 round was also enriched to include new areas of evidence. These include private sector engagement in development co-operation through the Kampala Principles Assessment (KPA), and stakeholders’ efforts to meet the pledge to leave no one behind (LNOB). In addition, an adapted questionnaire for countries facing fragility and conflict was made available on an optional basis. More details on these new elements, and how they affect the global results, can be found in the box below.

The monitoring process for the 2023-26 round also differs in significant ways from how the first three global rounds were organised, reflecting consultations with stakeholders during the monitoring reform that preceded rollout of the 2023-26 round. The duration of the 2023-26 round spans four years, a “rolling” round that allowed partner countries significant flexibility to lead the process at a time and over a duration most suitable to their national context. In addition, the 2023-26 round differs in that it places equal emphasis on the generation of data and on the use of the evidence to inform a country-led process of reflection, dialogue and action. Partner countries were thereby invited to undertake (and complete) data collection any time within the three-year window between 2023 and 2025, with country dialogues continuing into 2026.

As such, this 2026 Progress Report is structured to reflect the dual nature of the 2023-26 round: Part I presents data-based evidence from the monitoring framework, while Part II synthesises insights emerging from countries’ reflection, dialogue and action processes.

Process and methodology

As a voluntary exercise, partner countries confirm their participation by responding to an official invitation issued by the Co-Chairs of the GPEDC. For the 2023-26 round, 60 countries initially expressed an interest in undertaking the exercise: of these, 46 countries initiated data collection, of which 44 had completed data collection and 22 had completed the reflection and dialogue based on their results at the time of writing this report. Several others continue to plan reflection and dialogue activities. Each participating country assigns a focal point in government, known as a National Co-ordinator, to co-ordinate their process. This role involves not only co-ordinating data reporting from multiple stakeholders, but also ensuring reporting across government institutions, and reviewing all data before making the official submission to the OECD-UNDP Joint Support Team. In addition to their technical role, the National Co-ordinator plays a convening role, leading outreach and engagement with a range of stakeholders in their country, including during the phase of reflection, dialogue and action.

Multi-stakeholder reporting is a key characteristic of the Global Partnership monitoring exercise. The partner country government, through the National Co-ordinator, is encouraged to invite reporting from all their bilateral and multilateral development partners to ensure a comprehensive overview of development co-operation in the country. Civil society organisations (CSOs) also have a reporting role through the CSO Enabling Environment Assessment and the Kampala Principles Assessment, with the latter also involving reporting by private sector representatives and trade unions (see box below). However, the multi-stakeholder nature of the exercise does not limit data reporting to those with formal roles. National Co-ordinators are encouraged to engage a range of stakeholders (including subnational governments, parliamentarians, and domestic philanthropy actors) throughout the process, particularly during the country-level dialogues.

The OECD-UNDP Joint Support Team provides support to National Co-ordinators and other stakeholders throughout the country-level process, including with guidance materials, tailored virtual briefings and on-demand helpdesk support on the process and methodology. In addition, the Joint Support Team reviews draft data submissions by all reporting stakeholders across all participating countries, with a view to ensuring consistent application of the global methodology and to encourage comprehensive reporting. However, National Co-ordinators have primary responsibility for reviewing data and ensuring its accuracy (see Annex C for details on improved data comprehensiveness in the 2023-26 round). The Joint Support Team also supports National Co-ordinators in organising multi-stakeholder workshops and dialogue events to reflect on and discuss monitoring results. In many cases, this has been carried out with support from UN country teams, including the Resident Co-ordinator’s Office and UNDP country offices. UNDP country offices have channelled small grants to 25 countries, primarily for carrying out activities within the reflection, dialogue and action phase.

Specific assessments: private sector engagement and fragile contexts

The Kampala Principles Assessment (KPA)

The Kampala Principles Assessment (KPA) on Private Sector Engagement in Development Co-operation was introduced to the monitoring framework in the 2023-26 round. While the KPA is an integral part of the framework, it is the only optional element. Before beginning the data collection process, National Co-ordinators determined whether to undertake the KPA, with 25 of the 44 countries opting to undertake it. Further details on the KPA can be found on the Global Partnership website¹.

The fragility-adapted questionnaire

Feedback from stakeholders following earlier monitoring rounds indicated a need to adjust the monitoring to reflect challenges faced in implementing the effectiveness commitments in fragile and conflict-affected situations. Starting from the 2023-26 round, an optional adapted questionnaire was made available to countries and contexts in fragile and post-conflict situations. Similar to the KPA, prior to starting data collection National Co-ordinators decided, based on their particular context, whether to use the fragility-adapted questionnaire or the standard questionnaire. Five partner countries opted for the fragility-adapted questionnaire in the 2023-26 round. Where relevant, sections of this report refer to findings that emerged from this subset of countries by referring explicitly to the “fragility-adapted questionnaire”. This is distinct from analysis that compares the sub-set of countries facing extreme fragility, for which the OECD multidimensional fragility framework classification is used (see Annex A), regardless of whether these countries opted for the fragility-adapted questionnaire.

1. https://effectivecooperation.org/our-monitoring-exercise

How to read this report

This section clarifies key terminology and methodological conventions (see also Annex A) used throughout the report:

• “Partner country” refers to developing countries and territories that reported to the 2023-26 Global Partnership Monitoring Round (listed in Annex A). Participation in this process and mention of any participant in this document are without prejudice to the status or international recognition of a given country or territory.

• “Development partners” or “providers” refer to official agencies, including state and local governments, or to their executive agencies that provide development co-operation. They include Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and non-DAC bilateral partners, as well as multilateral development partners, such as multilateral development banks and vertical funds (see Annex A for a list of the development partners that participated).

• Four global monitoring rounds have taken place. This report refers to the year(s) of a given round, e.g. the 2023-26 round (rather than the 4^th round) and the 2018 round (rather than the 3^rd round). References to 2026 data refer to the data collected during the 2023-26 round.

• Unless otherwise specified, the source of all data and findings referenced in this report is the 2023-26 round of the Global Partnership monitoring exercise, or earlier monitoring rounds which are clearly specified as such. This applies also to sources for all charts and figures.

• All percentages that refer to partner countries are to be interpreted as proportions of the overall 2023-26 monitoring sample of 44 partner countries unless otherwise specified. Some percentages describe a subset of the 44 partner countries, and this is indicated in the text when relevant.

• Comparisons with previous rounds reflect results calculated using the number of participating countries in those respective rounds (as detailed in Annex A). For certain measurements illustrating specific partner country behaviours, trends are based on the subset of 38 countries with data available for both the 2018 and 2023-26 rounds. In such cases, this is explicitly noted in the text.

• “Development co-operation flows/resources/funding’’ refers to official development assistance (ODA) and other official flows (OOF) to partner countries, based on OECD definitions of ODA and OOF.

Useful resources

Methodology: Extensive guidance materials for the 2023-26 round are available in the Global Partnership website and provide details on the monitoring framework as well as the country-level process. These include dedicated methodological notes explaining how results have been calculated and a glossary with definitions of terms used in the monitoring exercise. A summary of methodological considerations for this report can also be found in Annex A.

Country results: The Dashboard on the Global Partnership website has individual country pages for each of the 44 partner countries, where the country-specific results (Excel datasets, Country Results Briefs, and Complementary Evidence Briefs) can be accessed. A visualisation of results from the 2023-26 round is available on the website, as is the global dataset for the round. Following multi-stakeholder dialogue events organised to discuss monitoring results and inform action at the country level, related outcome documents led by partner country governments, including action plans and stakeholder commitments and summaries of the process and outcomes, can also be accessed via the individual country pages. Part II of this report also includes country-level accounts with details on what was discussed and agreed to support more effective development co-operation as part of the reflection, dialogue, and action process using the monitoring results.