This chapter reviews the quality and use of the key public sector systems that underpin partner country ownership of development efforts: national development plans and country results frameworks, public financial management systems, and information management systems. It adopts a mirroring approach that reflects the distinct but inter-connected commitments of partner country governments and development partners. Partner countries lead on establishing and maintaining high-quality systems and processes, while development partners are expected to align with and strengthen these systems by using them in their country operations. The chapter also identifies the main challenges facing both partner country governments and development partners in improving and using these systems.
Making Development Co‑operation More Effective Progress Report 2026
Abstract
Almost all partner country governments have a national development plan, 88% of which include development priorities, targets and results indicators. Partner countries note that alignment between sectoral and national plans has improved and that they have strengthened their reliance on national statistical systems. However, gaps remain in monitoring progress and budget transparency.
Development partners' use of country results frameworks (SDG indicator 17.15.1) has stagnated at 64% since 2018. While their objectives are mainly aligned with partner countries’, they make limited use of partner country national statistical systems and results indicators (at 54% and 46% respectively), mainly due to concerns over the quality of national statistical systems. There is room for partner country governments to strengthen these systems through stronger policies and innovative tools to enhance data quality and efficiency. Development partners can support this through more funding targeting core statistical systems and co-ordinating their funding with other partners to avoid fragmentation.
The quality of countries’ public financial management (PFM) systems has improved in the timing of legislative budget approval and in the coverage of internal audit, but significant efforts are needed to strengthen procurement and budget transparency further. Development partners’ use of PFM systems remains moderate, with 51% of development funds disbursed to the public sector using PFM systems in 2026. This reflects particularly low and declining use of country procurement systems, which fell from 50% in 2018 to 34% in 2026. Use is also uneven across countries and development partners, influenced by a mix of country-level conditions and provider preferences and constraints. Progress will require joint dialogue and action by government and development partners, both at the country and global levels, as it also requires adjustments to providers’ policies to address institutional rigidities that hinder greater use.
Information management systems (IMS) are in place in 34 of the 44 partner countries assessed, but partner country governments face challenges in keeping them fully operational and using the information reported to inform budget and expenditure projections. Development partners do not report to the IMS in 25% of partner countries where they operate, with reporting rates lowest in countries facing extreme fragility and in low-income countries. 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.
Strengthening the governance and performance of core public sector institutions is essential for governments to be able to manage resources effectively and accelerate the delivery of development outcomes. Partner country governments play a leading role in ensuring that their national development plans and results frameworks, which set the overarching vision for countries’ development priorities, are of high quality and developed through inclusive, whole-of-society approaches, as discussed in Chapter 2. This chapter begins by reviewing partner countries’ national development plans and their inclusion of indicators for measuring results (Section 3.1). Development partners can reinforce this ownership of the development process by aligning with, and making use of, these country-led frameworks and systems, thereby helping to strengthen them in practice. This expectation is reflected in SDG indicator 17.15.1 (Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development cooperation), the monitoring results of which are presented in Section 3.2. Two key elements of countries’ systems for managing and implementing development co-operation effectively are strong public financial management (PFM) systems, backed up by functioning information management systems (IMS) which provide partner country governments with a comprehensive and up-to-date view of all international development funding flowing to the country, not just ODA, as well as funding channelled to the public sector. The quality and use of these two key elements of partner country systems are also assessed in this chapter: Section 3.3 for PFM and Section 3.4 for IMS. Progress in the use of country systems is also linked to broader practices such as the extent to which aid is untied (see Box 3.2).
Almost all partner countries have established national development plans, and many of these are comprehensive. National development strategies outline how governments set priorities and articulate the results they aim to achieve, thereby reinforcing country ownership. Almost all countries participating in the monitoring (43 of 441) report having national development plans in place. Most national development plans are comprehensive, i.e. they include priorities, targets and results indicators (Figure 3.1). Targets and associated results indicators are included in the national strategies in 88% of partner countries, reflecting partner country governments’ clear focus on defining specific development results. They are included in sector strategies to a lesser extent (12% of partner countries). In addition, four of the five countries that opted to complete the fragility adapted questionnaire2 conducted national fragility assessments that informed the preparation of their national development plans. In all four countries, governments co-ordinated the identification of priorities set out in their national development plans with humanitarian and peace and/or security counterparts within the government, reflecting a co-ordinated process in formulating national development plans in these contexts.
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 detailed in endnote 1.
Many countries report greater alignment between their national and sectoral strategies, as well as an increase in the use of national statistics to inform their results framework, but one-third still face significant data gaps. Of the 37 countries that participated in both the 2018 and 2023-26 rounds, 25 record improvements in the alignment of sectoral and subnational strategies with their national development plans, enabling the tracking of the contribution of these strategies to achieving the goals set out in the national development plan. In addition, a significant number (26) of partner country governments record improvements in the reliance on their statistical systems to report progress on results indicators. This may reflect an improvement in the quality of statistical systems for many countries, as found by the Open Data Inventory (ODIN) initiative which indicates that the quality of statistical systems improved overall in 162 countries between 2022 and 2024-25 (Open Data Watch, 2024[1]). However, ODIN findings suggest uneven performance across countries: on average, the countries facing extreme fragility that participated in the 2023-26 round record lower levels of data coverage and openness than other countries (Open Data Watch, 2024[2]), partly due to insufficient resources allocated to their statistical systems (OECD, 2025[3]). One-third of the countries assessed in this monitoring exercise whose national plan includes a results framework indicate that data are only available to allow them to report on less than half of the results indicators,3 highlighting the limits to partner country governments’ ability to rely on their national statistical systems. This finding underscores the need to further strengthen national statistical systems to enable more systematic monitoring of progress against the targets and indicators set, including tracking interventions targeting the most vulnerable populations, as discussed in Chapter 2.
Despite improvements on key aspects of development planning, efforts are still needed to strengthen progress reporting and to link plans to resources. Progress reports are “a lever for transparency and accountability, enabling national and international stakeholders to assess policies’ effectiveness” (Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances de Madagascar, 2024[4]). They help to assess whether implementation of national plans is on track or whether there is need for a course correction. Most countries recognise the importance of monitoring progress against the priorities set in their national development strategies. However, more than 25% of partner country governments report not having prepared progress reports, limiting the extent of public accountability that such reports enable (Figure 3.1). In addition, about one-third of national development strategies do not include information on public expenditure decisions, or do not include a budget (Figure 3.1). When policies include budgets, fiscal objectives and policy priorities are better aligned, and including information on public expenditure helps plan resource allocations and supports the effective provision of public services (OECD, 2025[5]). National development plans that include information on the resources needed for their implementation also allow development partners to make informed decisions on development co-operation resource allocations, in line with their commitment to mutual accountability. This was reaffirmed during the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (UN DESA, 2025[6]). In this context, Integrated National Financing Frameworks (INFFs) can support countries in strengthening the link between national development priorities and financing strategies by providing a structured approach to aligning public and private resources with national plans.4 Consistent with the findings in this section, evidence from country dialogues (Chapter 7) identifies alignment with national planning and country results frameworks as one of the five key priority areas.
Use of country-owned results frameworks remains uneven across contexts
Since 2012, development partners have repeatedly committed to using partner countries’ results frameworks. Since the endorsement of the Busan Partnership Agreement (OECD, 2011[7]), development partners have pledged to anchor their support in country results frameworks (CRFs) and avoid, wherever possible, creating parallel systems for monitoring and reporting on development interventions. These pledges were recently reinforced in the Sevilla Commitment, which calls to strengthen existing national systems rather than establish parallel systems in order to reinforce collective responsibility and align with country-driven development agendas (UN DESA, 2025[6]), discussed further in Chapter 7. In connection with this commitment, the Global Partnership monitoring measures the extent to which development partners make use of partner countries’ results frameworks. Since 2016, this has also been the key indicator for SDG target 17.15 on respecting each country’s policy space and leadership (Annex B). The following paragraphs present findings on the use of country results frameworks for all providers, while Box 3.1 compares the results for bilateral partners, which are the focus of reporting on SDG indicator 17.15.1 (Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development cooperation), and multilateral partners.
By defining their priorities and expected results, partner country governments determine their own path towards sustainable development. When projects funded through development co-operation align with these national frameworks, development partners put the principle of respect for a country’s policy space and leadership into practice. The Global Partnership monitoring exercise is the official source of data for assessing progress towards SDG target 17.15: “respect each country’s policy space and leadership”. In the context of the SDG follow-up and review, the Global Partnership provides data on SDG indicator 17.15.1 for DAC and non-DAC bilateral development partners, which measures the extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development co-operation, as presented in Figure 3.2. Multilateral partners’ results are included for reference. Multilateral partners tend to use country results frameworks more extensively than bilateral development partners, although the gap has narrowed between 2018 and 2026.
SDG 17.15.1 Use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools, by type of development partner
Note: Average of the shares of development partners’ interventions for which objectives, results, indicators and data are drawn from partner country government planning tools, results frameworks and national statistical systems.
Development partners continue to make moderate use of country-owned frameworks in their interventions, but still mainly only align with countries’ objectives, while making limited use of partner country results indicators or data. Development partners use country-owned results frameworks and planning tools in about two out of three interventions (64%) – a level which has stagnated since 2018 (Figure 3.3). As with past results, development partners’ alignment with countries’ objectives is high, with 91% of newly approved interventions using objectives drawn from partner government plans. Alignment is lower for results measurement, with only about half (54%) of all interventions using results indicators drawn from partner countries’ results frameworks, a decrease from 59% in 2018. The use of partner country government data and national statistical systems by development partners in monitoring the results of their interventions remains particularly low and has declined since 2018. Across all types of development partner, the overall share of results indicators monitored using national statistical systems is lower (at 46%) than the share of results indicators drawn from countries’ results frameworks. However, some development partners – such as multilateral development banks – tend to use national statistical systems to a higher extent than DAC members and UN entities (Figure 3.4).
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.
Share of interventions with objectives and results indicators drawn from country-owned results frameworks and monitored using data from national statistical systems, by type of development partner
Note: This chart represents the share of interventions with objectives and results indicators drawn from country-owned results frameworks and monitored using data from national statistical systems across all development partners: DAC members, multilateral development banks, UN entities and other development partners (non-DAC bilateral development partners, vertical funds and other international organisations).
Development partners sometimes refrain from aligning with government plans, relying instead on their own or international frameworks. Nine per cent of all development partners’ interventions do not align with objectives defined in governments’ plans. In these cases, development partners tend to draw on their own corporate strategies instead, or on plans developed by the international community or to address needs of population groups that are not reflected in national development plans. Besides objectives identified by the international community, development partners operating in countries that opted to select the fragility adapted questionnaire sometimes draw objectives from humanitarian assessments, fragility assessments jointly undertaken with the government, resilience strategy plans, as well as multi-donor trust funds co-led by the government. They do this partially as a result of administrative constraints, as detailed below.
In countries facing extreme fragility, development partners use country results frameworks to a lesser extent than in non-fragile contexts and rely far less on government data, partially due to weaker national statistical systems. Despite overall strong alignment between objectives regardless of the country context, the use of partner country results’ indicators and data from national statistical systems is even more limited in countries facing extreme fragility. Similarly, 36% of results indicators in interventions implemented in partner countries facing extreme fragility are monitored using national statistical systems, while this share is almost 50% in other partner countries. On average, the quality of such systems in countries facing extreme fragility is lower than in other countries, both in terms of openness and coverage (Open Data Watch, 2024[2]).
Limited data quality and relevance reportedly constrain development partners’ use of country results indicators and data from national statistical systems. Across countries, development partners mainly explain their limited use of national statistical sources to monitor progress on their interventions by their perceptions that data are unavailable, of inadequate quality or outdated. In some instances, national data sources are not used when the nature or the scope of the intervention does not allow for it (e.g. small-scale projects or data generated by the project itself). Development partners’ own reporting requirements can also limit their use of national statistical data sources, with some development partners indicating using their own systems to allow for cross-country comparability of data. Similar reasons are identified for the limited use of results indicators. When development partners do not use data from national statistical systems to monitor progress on their interventions, data mainly come from their own organisations. However, development partners do make use of data originating from the partner country (CSOs, academia, or private sector organisations) in 35% of the projects where national statistical systems are not used.
Partner countries and development partners can take steps together to improve the use of country systems
Partner country governments can use their policy frameworks for development co-operation to encourage development partners to align their interventions with existing national planning tools. In the Dominican Republic, for example, development partners’ use of country results frameworks is high, with almost all their objectives aligned with those in government planning tools and more than 60% of results indicators drawn from the country’s results frameworks and able to be monitored using the national statistical system. The Dominican Republic’s policy framework for development co-operation encourages development partners to align the objectives in their interventions with those in the national plan (República Dominicana, Ministerio de Economía Planificación y Desarrollo, 2016[8]). Alignment has been strengthened through reinforced partnerships between the government and development partners as a result of joint monitoring and evaluation initiatives (see the Dominican Republic example in Chapter 7). In addition, the policy framework has set a key performance indicator aimed at measuring “the percentage of approved international co-operation initiatives aligned with the thematic priorities of the national policy framework”.
In partner countries that have strengthened the quality of their statistical systems, development partners’ use of country results frameworks is high or has improved.5 For example, in Kenya, development partners’ use of country results frameworks is high and has increased significantly (from 63% in 2018 to 75% in 2026). Kenya recently published its Second Strategy for Development of Statistics (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2023[9]), developed through an inclusive approach involving development partners. It states that all producers of data and statistics are expected to align their data and statistics plans with the strategy’s priority areas. Kenya is also one of the countries implementing the Data for Now initiative, which supports national statistical offices to leverage innovative sources, technologies and methods for the streamlined production and dissemination of better, more timely and disaggregated data for sustainable development (UN DESA, n.d.[10]).
Some countries are adopting emerging tools like responsible artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance data quality, efficiency and the production of official statistics. For example, the Gambia uses generative AI to enhance data quality, automate classification and modernise official statistics (PARIS21, 2026[11]). Looking ahead, partner country governments can explore the use of responsible AI in official statistics, i.e. in adopting these technologies in a trustworthy, ethical and sustainable manner (UNECE, 2025[12]). The use of AI can help strengthen the capacities of National Statistical Offices (NSOs) in routine tasks such as automation, streamlining data integration, enhancing quality assurance and reducing the burden on both staff and respondents, making production cycles faster and more accurate (PARIS21, 2025[13]).
By increasing financial support and co-ordinating their funding through existing initiatives, development partners can accelerate the strengthening of partner country national data systems. Development partners can increase core financial support to NSOs for the strengthening of data and statistics. This is often a priority for partner countries, but not the preferred approach for development partners, who tend to offer one-off, project-type support, leaving less room for quality improvements of administrative data systems (OECD, 2021[14]). Advocacy efforts for increased funding have nevertheless recently led to greater funding of core statistical systems led by OECD DAC members (PARIS21, 2025[15]). An example is New Zealand’s partnership with the Pacific Community to establish the Pacific Data Hub (OECD, 2023[16]). The Bern Network on Financing Data for Development provides a platform where partner country NSOs and development partners discuss avenues to strengthen the quality and use of data and statistics through various means: pooling arrangements to fund system-wide improvements, scaling up funding in countries, and co-ordinating their funding with other partners to avoid fragmentation (Bern Network, 2025[17]). The Sevilla Platform for Action initiative FfD4 and the Future of Data: Strengthening Systems for Sustainable Financing particularly emphasises this last point, as efficient financing can only be achieved by harmonising funding streams and improving collaboration to optimise the impact of funding (Sevilla Platform for Action initiative, 2025[18]).
Strong public financial management (PFM) systems are key for implementing national development policies and ensuring that domestic and international resources are managed effectively. A strong PFM system is essential for ensuring effective and efficient use of domestic and international public finance; national PFM systems are where these resources are brought together in practice, under the ownership of the partner country government. Development partners’ support to strengthening PFM systems, by using them when delivering funding to the public sector, is in turn key to reinforcing country ownership and achieving sustainable development outcomes. The Public Expenditure Financial Accountability (PEFA) framework responds to joint commitments made by partner countries and development partners to develop mutually agreed diagnostic tools to assess performance under the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (OECD, 2005[19]), and under the Busan Partnership Agreement (OECD, 2011[7]). Building on these commitments, the Global Partnership monitoring exercise assesses progress in strengthening systems, based on a selected number of results from PEFA assessments for four areas – budgeting, procurement, reporting and auditing – which are critical for effective development co-operation. It also assesses the extent to which development partners make use of these systems. The results are summarised in this section.
PFM systems show improvement in key areas, but significant efforts are needed to strengthen procurement methods and budget transparency. Of the 44 countries participating in the 2023-26 round, 27 have two consecutive and recent PEFA assessments available.6 Across these 27 countries, the overall quality of PFM systems remains mixed. The majority (18 countries) have medium PFM quality, while only 4 show high-quality systems and 5 fall into the low-quality category (Figure 1.7, Chapter 1). Consistent with global patterns, PFM quality is lowest in least developed countries (LDCs) and increases with income, with highest quality recorded in upper-middle-income countries (UMICs). This gradient reflects possible structural constraints and implementation challenges typically faced in lower‑income settings. Recent PEFA assessments are not available for most of the reporting countries facing extreme fragility, an absence that may signal underlying weaknesses in PFM systems and limited capacity to assess them, or a deprioritisation of these exercises in contexts of acute crisis or conflict. Trends over time are also mixed, with 11 countries recording improvements in PFM quality, 12 showing a decline and 4 remaining broadly unchanged at low to medium quality levels since the 2018 round. Patterns identified in PEFA global reports data for the 27 countries show that strengths include the timeliness of budget approval and the comprehensiveness of annual budget documentation (PEFA, 2022[20]); (Kirova, Gurazada and Allen, 2023[21]). Public procurement remains a major challenge, with over half of countries having very low scores in this area. According to PEFA, this is often due to the prevalent use of non-competitive methods, which has implications for the quality and efficiency of government expenditure. Challenges are also widespread in budget execution, particularly the ability to maintain planned expenditure levels through the fiscal year, as well as in public access to fiscal information.
Use of partner country PFM systems remains moderate, with variation across provider types and general limited use of procurement systems
Despite long-standing commitments, providers’ use of partner country PFM systems has not increased. The importance of strengthening country systems by using them has been consistently recognised over the past two decades, under the Paris Declaration, the Accra Agenda for Action and the Busan Partnership Agreement, and most recently in the Sevilla Commitment (UN DESA, 2025[6]), as well as in recent analyses (Piatti-Fünfkirchen et al., 2021[22]); (Syquia, 2023[23]).7 Despite these long‑standing commitments and the recognition of the benefits of relying on PFM systems, overall use has shown little improvement over time, suggesting that persistent challenges have remained unaddressed. Yet by using these systems rather than setting up parallel ones, development partners help to strengthen national institutions, thereby contributing to the ownership and long-term sustainability of development efforts (OECD/UNDP, 2016[24]).
Only half of development funds are disbursed to the public sector using PFM systems – and the use of procurement systems is very limited and has declined significantly since 2018. About half (51%) of development funds disbursed to the public sector use PFM systems (budget, audit, financial reporting and procurement), on average, a slight decline since 2018 (53%) (Figure 3.5) and only slightly higher than the level observed in 2011. Development partners tend to make higher use of budget execution and financial reporting procedures (63% and 56% of funding to the public sector, respectively), both of which have increased since the 2018 round. Use of auditing remains at a similar level as in 2018. The use of procurement systems is particularly limited and has declined significantly since 2018 (34% of funds disbursed to the public sector in 2026 versus 50% in 2018), which contrasts with the gains in the use of budget and financial reporting systems. This may reflect development partners’ recognition that using countries’ procurement systems carries significantly higher fiduciary and reputational risks (OECD, n.d.[25]); (OECD, 2023[26]), heightened by the prevalence of non-competitive procurement methods in partner countries, as highlighted in recent PEFA assessments. As with findings from the 2018 round, development partners’ average use of PFM systems remains higher in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) than in other income groups, which seems to largely reflect greater reliance on loans to deliver development funding in LMICs (OECD/UNDP, 2019[27]). The average use of PFM systems is lowest in LDCs (42% versus 57% in all other countries), although the difference in average PFM system quality between LDCs and other country groups is not large, according to PEFA scores.
Providers’ use of PFM systems as proportion of disbursements to the public sector, trends by component
Note: The use of PFM systems is calculated as the average proportion of disbursements to the public sector that used auditing, budget execution and financial reporting procedures, and procurement systems.
“Tied aid” refers to ODA that is offered on the condition that it is used to procure goods or services from the ODA provider, or a limited set of countries. The first formal international commitment to untie aid was made through the OECD‑DAC Recommendation on Untying ODA (OECD, 2001[28]). The recent Sevilla Commitment, paragraph 39 (g), also draws attention to the continued need to advance progress in this area (UN DESA, 2025[6]). Untying ODA means removing barriers to open competition, giving ODA recipients the freedom to access goods and services from virtually any country through international competitive bidding. Where an ODA provider is using partner country systems, untying ODA can increase ownership and strengthen country systems. By contrast, when aid is tied, development partners are often required to follow their own procurement rules, which limits reliance on partner countries’ PFM systems. Tying ODA can also lower the quality of projects and increase their cost by as much as 15-30% (OECD, 2022[29]).
The Global Partnership monitoring exercise indicates that the share of DAC members’ bilateral untied ODA has declined slightly, from 82% in 2017 to 79% in 2024 (Figure 3.6). This is based on data reported to the OECD Creditor Reporting System. The trend between the two monitoring rounds shows minor fluctuations but a lack of demonstrable progress between 2017 and 2024. This suggests stagnation of the earlier positive trend following the 2001 commitment on untying ODA which saw untying increase until 2020 (OECD, 2022[29]). Data for 2024 suggest results are similar regardless of partner country income level and fragility status. While most DAC members have reduced the share of their aid that is untied, more positively, 12 countries – including several newer ODA providers – have increased theirs (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia and the United States).
The above may, however, not give the complete picture as “informally tied aid” remains a factor. While most DAC members formally untie their aid, de facto barriers to entry for developing country suppliers may persist, for example through informal barriers (e.g. access to information on contract opportunities, contract size and complexity). OECD data on contract awards finds that although suppliers from developing countries covered by the DAC Recommendation on Untying ODA received 40% of untied contracts by number in 2019-23, they accounted for only 10% of total contract value, underscoring persistent barriers to entry and limited progress in shifting procurement towards local suppliers, particularly for larger contracts.
Average share of untied aid, DAC members
Source: OECD (2026), Creditor Reporting System, OECD.Stat (https://data-explorer.oecd.org/?lc=en)
Overall, trends in the use of partner country PFM systems are mixed across development partners. When looking at the results across the three main provider groups,8 the overall use of PFM systems is higher for MDBs (53%) than for DAC members (48%) and UN entities (43%), despite variation in their use of PFM components (Figure 3.7). When looking at trends, overall use of PFM systems has declined since the 2018 round for both MDBs and DAC members, with MDBs affected by reduced reliance on procurement systems and DAC members by deterioration in the use of auditing and procurement systems, despite improvements in budget execution. These declines may also reflect the introduction of more stringent procurement rules by development partners, meaning that more partner country procurement systems do not fully meet their requirements.9 On the other hand, UN entities have increased their overall use of country PFM systems significantly since the 2018 round, with improvements across all PFM components, driven by large advances made by UNICEF, UNDP and FAO.10 UNICEF stands out for its efforts to strengthen and work through partner country PFM systems (Box 3.3). Among the other development partner groups not shown in the figure, use of PFM systems is high for vertical funds (77%), largely driven by the high use reported by the Global Fund.
Providers’ use of PFM systems as a proportion of disbursements to the public sector, by type of provider
Note: The use of PFM systems is calculated as the average proportion of disbursements to the public sector that used auditing, budget execution and financial reporting procedures, and procurement systems. Analysis based on provider groups with the most complete data. Annex A provides more details on the composition of the groups, including those not covered in this analysis.
UNICEF represents a useful example of how organisational policies and efforts can translate into higher use of country PFM systems. Its average use of PFM systems has improved significantly between the 2018 and 2023-26 monitoring round (from 29% to 64%). In 2017, the organisation introduced a global programme framework on Public Finance for Children (PF4C) (UNICEF, 2017[30]), which sets an approach for engaging with national budgeting, expenditure and reporting systems. The framework encourages UNICEF staff to analyse, support and work through country PFM processes to strengthen how public resources for children are planned, allocated and monitored. The programme is accompanied by a Global Learning Programme for programme and management staff in country offices, regional offices and headquarters which builds competencies in budget and expenditure analysis, identifying PFM-related challenges and solutions, and strengthening collaboration with ministries of finance and sector ministries (UNICEF, n.d.[31]). Furthermore, the PF4C Toolkit introduced in 2021 provides step‑by‑step guidance for diagnostics and for designing programme support that works through national procedures (UNICEF, 2021[32]). Evidence from the Eastern and Southern Africa Region demonstrates how UNICEF country offices are applying these tools to improve budget processes, strengthen expenditure tracking, and enhance transparency in social sector spending (UNICEF, 2024[33]).
Partner country conditions and provider choices affect the use of PFM systems
Use of PFM systems by providers varies widely across partner countries and cannot be explained by system quality alone. While aggregate values seem to mirror PEFA strengths and weaknesses, with higher use of budget systems and lower use of procurement systems, country-level values reveal a more complex picture. Some countries with high PEFA scores see limited use of PFM systems by development partners, while others with weaker systems record relatively higher use.11 Different development partners in the same country do not follow the same approach, with some using systems extensively, and others using them minimally or not at all. Part of the variation in the use of partner country PFM systems reflects the delivery modalities chosen by development partners: instruments such as budget support and loans typically require, by design, a higher degree of reliance on national systems (Moritz and Gurazada, 2024[34]). Furthermore, while there may be a relationship between the quality of a partner country’s PFM system and its use by development partners, the correlation is very weak, suggesting that system quality alone does not translate into higher use. Recent analysis by multilateral development banks reinforces this finding. According to World Bank and Asian Development Bank analyses, development partners’ decisions to use partner country PFM systems not only reflect fiduciary assessments, but also a wider set of governance and contextual considerations, including rule of law, political governance, macroeconomic conditions, human rights, perceived integrity or reputational risks, and providers’ perception of risk and risk tolerance (Piatti-Fünfkirchen et al., 2021[22]); (Syquia, 2023[23]).
A mix of partner country and provider-related factors affect the use of country PFM systems. According to development partners, the main reasons for limited use of PFM systems are almost equally split between partner country related factors (43% of responses) and development partner related factors (40% of responses).12 Of the remaining responses, 6% pertain to the use of subnational PFM systems that are not captured in the monitoring framework, while 11% fall under the “other” category, which may suggest project-specific issues. Partner country factors are mainly perceptions of the limited absorptive capacity of systems and institutions (20%), concerns about the quality of PFM systems (13%), and political or reputational risks (10%), which include concerns about governance, instability and adherence to principles essential for providers. Provider-related factors that lead them to use their own systems instead of the partner countries’ include procedural or bureaucratic constraints (17%), and a general preference for using their own systems for unspecified reasons (14%). An additional 9% of responses illustrate more specific reasons for preferring development partners’ own systems and procedures. The most frequently cited is compliance with internal policies and rules which prescribe the use of agency-specific financial and procurement procedures. Other reasons include reliance on third-party implementers with their own specific approaches, risk management and governance concerns, and project-specific technical requirements, where specialised procurement or technical assistance projects necessitate tailored processes.
Progress will depend on joint efforts
Progress on both the quality and use of PFM systems can be accelerated through joint dialogue and action. The Busan Partnership Agreement indicated that where the full use of country systems is not possible, the provider of development co-operation “will state the reasons for non-use, and will discuss with government what would be required to move towards full use, including any necessary assistance or changes for the strengthening of systems” (OECD, 2011[7]). Among the development partners citing quality concerns, two-thirds (67%) reported engaging in such discussions, and in most cases (64%) these discussions have led to agreements or action plans. In addition, almost half of development partners’ country‑level strategies include support to strengthen PFM systems, either through technical co‑operation or participation in multi‑donor PFM programmes. While recognising that not all development partners are positioned to take on this role in every context, use of PFM systems is found to be higher for development partners that are engaged in supporting PFM strengthening. Country-level data confirm that when development partners have strategies in place signed by government and which include an agreement on use of PFM systems, they also tend to make greater use of such systems.13 These represent encouraging signs that progress on both the quality and use of country PFM systems can be accelerated through dialogue and joint action (see the examples of Viet Nam in Box 3.4 and Uganda in Chapter 7). In countries facing extreme fragility or operating in a highly constrained civic and political space, structured dialogue may be less feasible and alternative flexible and context-specific mechanisms may be required to support PFM system strengthening (OECD, 2023[35]). At the same time, progress will also require complementary action at the global level, where development partners can address institutional rigidities, update corporate guidance, and create the incentives needed to enable greater use of country PFM systems.
Viet Nam is one of the countries that has improved the quality of its PFM systems, according to the comparison of the two most recent PEFA assessments (2024 and 2013). While overall quality is medium and areas for improvement remain, the 2024 PEFA assessment shows that Viet Nam has advanced its PFM reforms, notably by reinforcing fiscal discipline, reflected in reduced expenditure arrears, strengthened cash management through more reliable commitment data, and enhancing budget transparency (PEFA, 2024[36]). It also highlights greater efficiency in public service delivery, supported by a more effective procurement system, which has become more competitive and transparent, thanks to a new Procurement Law and government procurement platform. Over the past decade, Viet Nam has modernised its PFM framework through major new laws on budgeting, accounting, debt, assets, public investment and financial oversight, alongside a 2022 financial strategy promoting efficiency and transparency. These reforms align the system with international good practices, such as medium-term fiscal planning, updated accounting standards, whole‑of‑government financial reporting and improved budget disclosure.
These reforms have been supported by development partners, first through a Multi-Donor Trust Fund (up until 2016) managed by the World Bank, and more recently through the PFM Analytical and Advisory Assistance programme, co‑financed by the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs and Global Affairs Canada and administered by the World Bank. The programme provides technical support across core PFM functions, including treasury management, accounting standards and public investment processes. Viet Nam is still receiving sustained PFM support from multiple donors, including the EU, Germany, Switzerland and others, focusing on tax administration, fiscal reporting, debt management, and sub‑national PFM strengthening.
These joint efforts, under the leadership of the government, have led to improvements in the quality of Viet Nam’s systems and have likely contributed to an environment which encourages development partners to use strengthened systems. While the use of PFM systems by development partners has varied over time, Viet Nam continues to be among the countries with the highest levels of PFM system use in the 2023-26 round (79% of funding disbursed to the public sector, on average across budget, audit, financial reporting and procurement systems).
Use of strengthened PFM systems needs to be coupled with functioning information management systems (IMS) for development co-operation. These provide partner country governments with the data needed to align external support with country priorities. IMS can provide an overview of international development funding flowing to the country, not just ODA, as well as funding channelled to the public sector. Full ownership and transparency cannot be achieved if this information is only available retroactively on global platforms. Hence, development partners are expected to report to and support the strengthening of IMS. Under the Busan Partnership Agreement, partner country governments and development partners agreed to establish country level aid information management systems, and make information on publicly funded development activities publicly available (OECD, 2011[7]). In response to this commitment, the Global Partnership monitoring exercise looks at the existence of countries’ information management systems for development co-operation, including but not limited to aid information management systems, as well as whether development partners report to these systems.
Most countries have IMS in place but their potential to inform budget and expenditure projections remains unfulfilled. Across the 44 countries, the majority (34) indicated having an operational and functioning IMS to capture development co-operation. Most of these systems (28) are highly comprehensive in the scope of development co-operation data they capture (Figure 3.8). They typically capture a wide range of flow types and project or programme information and integrate inputs from a broad set of bilateral and multilateral partners, including UN entities and MDBs. However, fewer countries collect information from non-traditional partners, with 15 systems collecting information from international NGOs and 9 capturing data from private foundations. Information gathered is widely used for reporting purposes, but less consistently for budgeting and medium‑term planning. All 34 countries use the information gathered to analyse development funding and produce reports, and most countries indicate using it to inform dialogue with development partners (30) or to report to parliaments (28). However, fewer countries systematically use IMS to inform national budget preparation (26) or medium‑term expenditure projections (23). Recognising the importance of IMS for planning and citizen participation, all partner countries that hosted dialogues (see Chapter 7) agreed to measures to enhance their systems.
Number of partner countries with an operational and comprehensive IMS (left graph); and average share of partner countries where providers report (right graph)
Overall, while most development partners report to partner country IMS, gaps remain in coverage, especially in challenging contexts. On average, development partners do not report to the IMS in 25% of partner countries where they operate (Figure 3.8, right-hand graph). Reporting rates are lower in countries facing extreme fragility and in low-income countries, where governments may have reduced ability to co-ordinate reporting and/or development partners may prioritise crisis response rather than reporting tasks. Reporting patterns also vary by provider type, with MDBs and DAC members tending to report in most countries, while UN entities lag behind. Importantly, although providers do not report in 25% of countries, when they do report, they generally meet government requirements, providing the information requested by government in 94% of countries and at the required frequency in 84% of countries.
Partner countries and development partners face interconnected challenges in keeping IMS fully operational; solving this will require co-ordinated efforts. When asked about the most common challenges in keeping their system operational, partner countries frequently cite the lack of compatibility between the IMS and other government systems. This is followed by the fact that system upgrades are often constrained by limited financial resources or insufficient political will. This challenge may also reflect the fact that many systems were originally designed or adopted with insufficient attention to local capacity building and long‑term sustainability (Park, 2017[37]). Development partners point to the partial functioning of the systems as a key barrier to their reporting, followed by difficulties aligning with requested data formats. Additionally, they cite lack of clarity on the use of information collected and irregular calls for updates by partner countries, which together may reduce incentives to report and make it difficult to assign appropriate reporting responsibilities. Despite these constraints, approximately three in five partner country governments provide training or user guides to support development partners in their reporting. However, less than half have established data management plans, which are essential for long-term sustainability. To strengthen the quality of these systems, they need to be locally owned and aligned with existing government systems, rather than as stand‑alone tools (see the example of Nepal in Chapter 7). While user support measures are helpful, developing and implementing system management plans can help address structural bottlenecks. Development partners can play a critical role by aligning their support with nationally led priorities in a co-ordinated manner. This must be matched by a stronger commitment from development partners to consistently report to partner country systems, supported by clear guidance from headquarters.
References
[40] Asian Development Bank (2021), Sustainable Public Procurement: Guidance Note on Procurement, https://www.adb.org/documents/sustainable-public-procurement.
[17] Bern Network (2025), The Bern Network - About, 2025, https://bernnetwork.org/about-us (accessed on 25 February 2026).
[41] Islamic Development Bank (2025), Guidance Note on Use of Country Procurement Systems under IsDB project financing, https://www.isdb.org/project-procurement/sites/pproc/files/media/documents/IsDB%20-%20Guidance%20Note%20on%20Use%20of%20Country%20Procurement%20System%20%28UCPS%29.pdf.
[39] JICA (2021), Guide for Procurement and Evaluation Procedures under Japanese ODA Loans (November 2021 Ver.2.2), https://www.jica.go.jp/english/activities/schemes/finance_co/guide/evaluation/guide_procurement.html.
[9] Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2023), The Second Kenya Strategy for Development of Statistics - An Agenda for Transformation and Modernization of Data and Statistics, https://www.knbs.or.ke/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/The-Second-Kenya-Strategy-for-Development-of-Statistics-Pocket-Version.pdf (accessed on 11 February 2026).
[21] Kirova, S., S. Gurazada and R. Allen (2023), Is PFM Performance Improving? IMF PFM Blog, International Monetary Fund, https://blog-pfm.imf.org/en/pfmblog/2023/02/is-pfm-performance-improving.
[4] Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances de Madagascar (2024), Rapport de Suivi sur la Mise en oeuvre des Programmes du Gouvernement 2023 [Report on Monitoring the Implementation of the Government’s Programmes - 2023].
[34] Moritz, P. and S. Gurazada (2024), Public financial management and budget support are key to achieving better development results, https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/governance/public-financial-management-and-budget-support-are-key-to-achiev (accessed on 18 February 2026).
[5] OECD (2025), Quality Budget Institutions: Developments in OECD countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8e811202-en.
[3] OECD (2025), States of Fragility 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/81982370-en.
[26] OECD (2023), “Managing risks in the public procurement of goods, services and infrastructure”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, Vol. 33, https://doi.org/10.1787/45667d2f-en.
[35] OECD (2023), More Effective Development Co-operation and Fragility: DAC Perspectives on Effective Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC%282023%2940/en/pdf (accessed on 29 April 2026).
[16] OECD (2023), OECD Development Co‑operation Peer Reviews: New Zealand 2023, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/10883ac5-en.
[29] OECD (2022), 2022 Report on the Implementation of the DAC Recommendation on Untying Official Development Assistance.
[14] OECD (2021), Effectiveness Issues in Development Co-operation for Data and Statistics, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/system/files/2021-11/Issues%20Paper%20-%20Effective%20Support%20for%20Development%20Data_GPEDC_FINAL.pdf.
[7] OECD (2011), Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation: Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Busan, Republic of Korea, 29 November - 1 December 2011, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/54de7baa-en.
[19] OECD (2005), Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264098084-en.
[28] OECD (2001), DAC Recommendation on Untying Official Development Assistance, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5015 (accessed on 29 May 2026).
[25] OECD (n.d.), Integrity in public procurement, web page, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/integrity-in-public-procurement.html (accessed on 18 February 2026).
[27] OECD/UNDP (2019), Making Development Co-operation More Effective: 2019 Progress Report, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/26f2638f-en.
[24] OECD/UNDP (2016), Making Development Co-operation More Effective: 2016 Progress Report, OECD, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266261-en.
[1] Open Data Watch (2024), A Decade of Progress: Advancing Open, Inclusive, Official Statistics, https://odin.opendatawatch.com/biennialReport2024 (accessed on 9 February 2026).
[2] Open Data Watch (2024), Open Data Inventory (ODIN), https://odin.opendatawatch.com/ (accessed on 11 February 2026).
[11] PARIS21 (2026), Catalogue of AI use cases, https://www.paris21.org/artificial-intelligence-official-statistics-task-team (accessed on 11 February 2026).
[15] PARIS21 (2025), Support to Statistics 2025 - Maintaining momentum to protect hard-won gains, https://www.paris21.org/knowledge-base/press-2025-paris21-partner-report-support-statistics-2025-maintaining-momentum.
[13] PARIS21 (2025), Towards AI-Ready National Statistical Offices: A Framework for Strengthening NSO Capacity in Low-and Middle-Income Countries, https://www.paris21.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2025-12/ai-readiness-nso-framework.pdf.
[37] Park, K. (2017), “An analysis of Aid Information Management Systems (AIMS) in developing countries: explaining the last two decades”, Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 4-7, https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.312.
[36] PEFA (2024), Viet Nam Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA), PEFA, https://www.pefa.org/node/5376.
[20] PEFA (2022), 2022 Global Report on Public Financial Management, https://www.pefa.org/global-report-2022/en/report/global-pfm-performance/ (accessed on 18 February 2026).
[22] Piatti-Fünfkirchen, M. et al. (2021), Following the Government Playbook? Channeling Development Assistance for Health through Country Systems, World Bank Group, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/332531634794859261.
[8] República Dominicana, Ministerio de Economía Planificación y Desarrollo (2016), Política de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo de la República Dominicana [International cooperation policy for development of the Dominican Republic], https://mepyd.gob.do/mepyd/wp-content/uploads/archivos/libros/politica-de-ci%20para-el-desarollo-extenso.pdf (accessed on 11 February 2026).
[18] Sevilla Platform for Action initiative (2025), FfD4 and the Future of Data: Strengthening Systems for Sustainable Financing, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/meetings/hlg-meeting-40/FfD4%20and%20the%20Future%20of%20Data%20(40th%20meeting%20HLG-PCCB).pdf (accessed on 25 February 2026).
[23] Syquia, J. (2023), What can be done to improve the use of country governance systems? (Governance Brief 51), https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/424f/1ffc54e7343db020d09a26aa5df3dd76f388.pdf.
[6] UN DESA (2025), Outcome document of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, https://financing.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/ffd4-documents/2025/Compromiso%20de%20Sevilla%20for%20action%2016%20June.pdf.
[10] UN DESA (n.d.), Data For Now in Kenya, https://unstats.un.org/UNSDWebsite/capacity-development/data-for-now/country-details/Kenya (accessed on 11 February 2026).
[12] UNECE (2025), Framework on Responsible AI for Official Statistics - HLG-MOS Applying Data Science and Modern Methods Group, https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2025-10/Responsible%20AI%20for%20Official%20Statistics%20Framework_ADSaMM%20Group_HLG-MOS_0.pdf.
[33] UNICEF (2024), Making Government Budgets Deliver Better for Children, https://www.unicef.org/esa/media/13901/file/Making%20Government%20Budgets%20Deliver%20Better%20for%20Children.pdf.
[32] UNICEF (2021), The UNICEF Public Finance Toolkit. A resource guide for selecting, adapting and applying public financial analysis tools, https://www.unicef.org/documents/public-finance-toolkit.
[30] UNICEF (2017), UNICEF’s Engagements in Influencing Domestic Public Finance for Children (PF4C) A Global Programme Framework, http://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/.
[31] UNICEF (n.d.), UNICEF Global Learning Programme on Public Finance for Children (PF4C), https://agora.unicef.org/course/info.php?id=33860 (accessed on 24 February 2026).
[38] World Bank Group (n.d.), World Bank Procurement Framework, https://www.worldbank.org/ext/en/what-we-do/project-procurement/framework (accessed on 18 February 2026).
← 1. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s administrative structure does not feature a comprehensive national development strategy that encompasses the entire country. At the time of reporting, Bosnia and Herzegovina had relevant development strategies in place or under preparation across different levels of government, but decided not to report against these strategies.
← 2. Five countries facing fragility opted to undertake an adapted version of the monitoring exercise (a fragility questionnaire) to capture elements that they consider relevant to their context. These countries are the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen. Four of these countries indicated having conducted a fragility assessment to inform national priorities. In the remaining country, the extent of engagement through other processes was not assessed. See the Reader’s Guide at the front of this report for more details on the fragility questionnaire.
← 3. Sixteen partner country governments that reported having a national development plan which includes a results framework indicated that data to monitor progress against the results indicators are only available for some (45-55%) or few (less than 45%) indicators.
← 4. An Integrated National Financing Framework is a country-led approach that brings together all sources of finance into a coherent strategy to fund national sustainable development priorities and the SDGs. INFFs were first introduced by UN Member States in the 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and serve as a key tool to operationalise this global financing framework at the national level by aligning policies, mobilising resources and strengthening how financing is planned and used.
← 5. According to ODIN data (Open Data Watch, 2024[2]), higher quality national statistical systems are associated with greater use of country results frameworks by development partners on average, although the correlation is not statistically significant.
← 6. The subset of 27 countries analysed comprises those with a most recent PEFA assessment (conducted no earlier than 2018), and which was not included in the progress analysis presented in the 2019 Progress Report of the Global Partnership.
← 7. Under the Paris Declaration, development partners committed to use country systems and procedures to the maximum extent possible; where use of country systems is not feasible, they committed to establish additional safeguards and measures that would strengthen rather than undermine country systems and procedures.
← 8. The comparison focuses on the groups of development partners with the most comprehensive reporting across providers groups and partner countries: MDBs, UN entities, and DAC members. Data from other bilateral partners and other multilateral organisations were received but were not comprehensive enough across countries to allow for robust cross-group comparison.
← 9. Multilateral development banks have strengthened their procurement frameworks in recent years, including the Asian Development Bank (Asian Development Bank, 2021[40]) and the Islamic Development Bank (Islamic Development Bank, 2025[41]). The World Bank has progressively updated its procurement framework, which provides rules and mandatory requirements (World Bank Group, n.d.[38]). Japan has also issued a Handbook for Procurement under Japanese ODA Loans, including anti‑corruption rules and transparency requirements (JICA, 2021[39]).
← 10. Within UN entities, UNICEF, UNDP and FAO together account for 69% of all funding reported to the public sector underpinning the use of PFM systems indicator. As a result, improvements in their use of PFM systems since the 2018 round had a strong influence on the group’s overall aggregated score.
← 11. Although aggregate results based on the weighted average show no apparent difference in PFM system use between countries facing extreme fragility and other countries, a different picture emerges when looking at simple averages across those countries. In countries facing extreme fragility, average use drops to 0.34, compared to 0.43 in all other settings. This suggests that the weighted average is being pulled up by a few development partners with large disbursements and relatively high system use, masking lower overall use among the broader group of partners operating in these environments.
← 12. Based on answers provided by development partners to the question on key reasons for limited use of PFM systems.
← 13. Analysis of OECD data from the Creditor Reporting System shows that the share of ODA explicitly directed to PFM in the 44 countries participating in the 2023-26 round represented around 4% of total ODA flows to those countries for the period 2018-2024, with very little variations across years. Furthermore, the share of PFM-targeted ODA tends to be higher in countries with stronger PEFA scores and lower in those with weaker ones. This could indicate that while providers may engage in dialogue on quality issues where systems are weaker, such dialogues do not automatically translate into larger volumes of PFM‑targeted ODA. In practice, dedicated PFM support may be higher where systems are more mature and where lower perceived fiduciary risk attracts larger investments.