Count

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires mobilizing and strengthening multi stakeholder partnerships that can bring and effectively use all the available knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources for sustainable development. The quality of the relationship between all the relevant partners defines the strength of the global partnership for sustainable development. The indicator provides a measure of countries’ efforts to enhance these multi stakeholder partnerships, and by extension the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, by looking at progress made on a set of indicators that track how well country governments and development partners are working together towards sustainable development. Reflecting the spirit of the global partnership for sustainable development, and the universal nature of the SDGs, the indicator monitors the contribution and behaviour of both provider and recipient countries in establishing more effective, inclusive multi-stakeholder partnerships to support and sustain the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. It does so by measuring their respective but differentiated commitments to strengthen the quality of their development partnerships.

The indicator tracks the number of countries reporting progress in multi stakeholder monitoring frameworks that track the implementation of development effectiveness commitments supporting the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs).

The indicator presented as a global aggregate is generated through a bottom-up approach whereby data is collected at the country level and can therefore be disaggregated back at the level of countries (for both development cooperation providers and recipients) for national analysis and mutual dialogue. The data can also be further disaggregated according to individual indicators (i.e. specific dimensions of effective development cooperation) that are included within the multi- stakeholder frameworks. To foster regional policy dialogue, disaggregation at the regional level is possible and encouraged. Some existing platforms are already using the evidence for regional monitoring, learning and policy discussions (e.g. NEPAD in Africa, the Asia-Pacific Development Effectiveness Facility in Asia-Pacific, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, the UN Regional Economic Commissions).

Indicator 5.6.2 is calculated based on official government responses collected through the United Nations Inquiry among Governments on Population and Development. The Inquiry, mandated by the General Assembly in its resolution 1838 (XVII) of 18 December 1962, has been conducted by the Secretary-General since 1963. All questions required for indicator 5.6.2 are integrated into Module II on fertility, family planning and reproductive health of the Inquiry.

To reflect the universal nature of target 17.16 this indicator is presented as the global aggregate number of countries reporting progress. For any country reporting towards one (or more) multi-stakeholder development effectiveness framework(s), the country is considered to be reporting progress when, for the year of reference, the number of indicators within the framework(s) that show a positive trend is greater than the number of indicators that show a negative trend. Countries providing development co-operation funding and reporting in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks are assessed against the following elements: • Aligning to country-defined development objectives: Percentage of new development interventions whose objectives are drawn from country-led results frameworks. • Using country-led results frameworks: Percentage of results indicators contained in new development interventions which are drawn from country-led results frameworks. • Using national monitoring and statistical systems: Percentage of results indicators in new development interventions which will be monitored using government sources and monitoring systems. • Using national evaluation systems: Percentage of new interventions that plan a final evaluation with country government involvement. • Transparency of development co-operation: Public availability of information on development co‑operation according to international reporting standards. • Annual predictability of development co-operation: Proportion of development co-operation disbursed as development partners had scheduled at the beginning of the year. • Medium-term predictability of development co-operation: forward-looking spending plans made available to the partner government (indicative annual amounts of development co-operation support to be provided over the one-to-three years. • Development co-operation on budgets subject to parliamentary oversight: share of development co-operation funds planned to/for the country’s public sevtor that are recorded in the annual budget submitted for legislative approval. • Development co-operation delivered through country systems: Proportion of development co-operation disbursed to a give country according to national regulations and systems for public financial management (i.e. budgeting, financial reporting, auditing) and procurement. • Untied Aid: Proportion of development co-operation that is untied Countries receiving development co-operation funding and reporting in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks are assessed against the following elements: 1. Leading in setting up national priorities: Countries strengthen their national results frameworks. 2. Creating an enabling environment for civil society organisations: Civil society organizations operate within an environment that maximises their engagement in and contribution to development. 3. Promoting private sector engagement and contribution to development: Quality of public-private dialogue 4. Recording development co-operation on budgets subject to parliamentary oversight: Share of development co-operation funds planned to/for the country’s public sector that are recorded in the annual budget submitted for legislative approval. 5. Strengthening mutual accountability: Mutual accountability among development actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews. 6. Strengthening gender equality and women’s empowerment: Existence of transparent government systems to track public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment 7. Strengthening domestic institutions: Quality of the country’s budgetary and public financial management. Countries providing and receiving development co-operation funding are invited to select whether they would like to report against provider-specific commitments, against recipient-specific commitments, or against both sets of commitments. For countries reporting both as providers and recipients of development co-operation, progress is calculated separately based on the respective set of indicators described above. Disaggregated results will show the detailed performance in each category. For the ultimate count of the number of countries making progress, dual countries are accounted as making progress if progress is made as recipient or as provider of development co-operation. The baseline for counting progress is the latest measurement available for each specific country, dating back to 2010 . When no baseline exists for a country, the first measurement available for an indicator constitutes the baseline for future measurements of progress. When a country meets and sustains all targets for the indicators it reports on (i.e. it is logically impossible to make further progress) it is considered as “making progress”.

Data release at global level is scheduled for the first quarter in the year that immediately follows the national data gathering processes.

Data is collected biennially, starting from the year 2014. Monitoring rounds have been planned for years 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, and 2030. Data generated by countries for 2016 was made available to country level, regional and global reporting processes on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

The design of the indicator has practical benefits: • the indicator allows for relevant monitoring frameworks to be updated in line with evolving commitments and country specific context without affecting the spirit of the indicator; • the indicator does not presume a globally-set multi-stakeholder framework, acknowledging the diversity of complementary efforts supporting effective development cooperation; • the indicator allows participating countries to choose whether they would like to report as a provider of development co-operation, as a recipient, or both. Data collection for the Global Partnership monitoring framework is led by low and middle-income countries receiving development co-operation. Progress of countries providing development co-operation in implementing development effectiveness commitments is captured through their partnership behaviour in those low and middle-income countries. Depending on each case, middle income countries that currently are both recipient and providers of development cooperation opt to report in their role as recipient and/or provider of development cooperation.