Consultation on future monitoring of aid effectiveness in health

Meeting of IHP+ working group on mutual accountability

Meeting background

• IHP+ signatories to Global Compact commit to be held to account, by an independent monitoring mechanism

• IHP+Results consortium contracted to do three rounds of monitoring. • Their approach has evolved, in consultation with IHP+ Mutual

Accountability Working Group. – 2nd and 3rd rounds based on adapted Paris indicators. Are strengths and weaknesses of the

approach used – related to indicators, process and use of findings to change behaviour.– Was agreed that after 3 rounds, the approach would be reviewed

• Recent wider developments– Post Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation & its monitoring process;

interest in innovative sector specific approaches– More attention to strengthening domestic accountability mechanisms (eg COIA); shift from

global monitoring processes, if not from global reports (eg iERG approach)– Continued economic crisis and increased focus on results – Latest finding of progress but lack of 'step change' in health aid effectiveness

Meeting objectives

• To review lessons learned on monitoring aid effectiveness and results / strengthening accountability mechanisms (morning)

• To strategize on options for any future monitoring processes for IHP+ signatories (afternoon)

Meeting outcome and next steps

• Some useful and practical ideas on options for future monitoring approach, that can be presented for consideration to IHP+ signatories.

• During October / November: A closed IHP+ partners electronic discussion forum on options

• Feedback will be summarised and final proposal presented for decision at a special session in the IHP+ 4th Country Teams Meeting in Nairobi in December

Spares / later info

Country compacts and joint annual reviews as tools for greater mutual accountability

• 55% of country signatories of Global Compact have national compacts/MOUs (17/31). 6 more in preparation

• 70% signed by key development partners and 53% signed by CSOs too (significant difference "old" and "new" compacts)

• 76% of compacts have indicators for tracking progress (but only 21% have baselines)– Before mid-2010: 60%/15% – After mid-2010: 100%/29%

• All recent compacts bar one contain indicators equivalent to those monitored by IHP+Results

• 16/31 countries known to have joint annual reviews. Inclusion of review of compact / MOU commitments in JARs – little information.