Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC
Results Reporting by Donor Agencies
(DAC/WP EFF – Cluster MfDR)
Presented by Adrian Maître, SDC, and Daniel
Low-Beer, GFATM
EU Expert Group on Results,
1st Meeting, 16 Nov 2011, Brussels
Background
• Topic stems from JV MfDR  work plan 2010-2011 of
Cluster MfDR (WP EFF)
• Emerging landscape of Donor Result Reports
– Mostly new; unlike MO
– Some interest in sharing experience
• Pressure by authorizing environment to show results 
risk of parallel systems
• Emerging National Systems  use/strengthen them vs.
bypass/weaken them
Purpose
• Contribute to increased demand/use of national
results systems (by donors)
• Contribute to some harmonization in donor’s
results reporting
– Including: Strengthened MfDR practice at donor’s
level
Implementation
• Core group (CAN, CH, GER, GFATM, NL, US,
DAC Secretariate)
• Mandate to MDF (Herman Snelder) and Goss
Gilroy (Bernard Wood)
• Main steps:
– Stock taking ( Draft report)
– International Workshop ( Final report)
– Principles for results reporting ( Proposal)
Overview of products
• Conceptual frame: purpose of report  type of
content  data/information source
• 12 case studies (fact sheets)
• Main findings
• Recommendations  Principles
• Draft tool for Gap analysis (Principles vs. Actual
practice/planned approach)
Some findings (examples)
• Accountability main purpose, then: Decision
making, Learning
– Little follow up on utility (audience level)
• Partner country systems are not a significant
source of data/information
– Difficulties obtaining data, issues with data (not) being
up to date
• Many MfDR elements missing in reporting
• Some support for joint reporting (vs. harmonized
reporting)
How to bring this forward?
• Agree on principles
• Gap analysis, exchange at donor level,
strengthen topic in DAC Peer Reviews?
• «Learning initiatives» (country level)  part of
Country Results/Accountability Agreements
• Further discussions
– E.g. country level reporting vs. global issues
– Dialogue with MDB regarding results frameworks,
key indicators
Results Reporting Principles
Daniel Low-Beer
Global Fund for AIDS, TB and malaria
Chair Global Programs Learning Group
Results at heart of aid effectiveness
Accra Action Agenda 2008
“Achieving development results — and openly accounting
for them — must be at the heart of all we do. More than
ever, citizens and taxpayers of all countries expect to see
the tangible results of development efforts”
• Measuring results and reporting - “Donors will align
their monitoring with country information systems.”
• Managing for results – “use information to improve
decision-making”
Global Programs Learning Group
• Global Programs across health, education,
environment, cities alliance
– Results based partnerships: critical to their work
– Performance based funding
• Global Fund: 130 countries, rating, result based finance
• GAVI: active use of incentives for funding
– Wider role of results as a “common currency” to
coordinate partners and development
• “invisible hand” of results and transparency + limits
Principles for Results Reporting by donors
• Donors: funders, bilateral, multilateral, more general relevance
• Aim to support
– Comparable and reliable results reporting
– Better showcase the development results to constituencies
– Reduce burden for countries by standardisation
• Country level - reporting should rely on partner country systems as
much as possible
• Corporate level – publish similar content: organisational
performance; aid effectiveness issues, donor’s contribution to
results and developing country results
Results TRAINS
• Transparency
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
methods for data collection and analysis, including indicators and targets
explanation of results attribution versus contribution
operational performance, including disbursements by program, units, country
organisational issues: priorities, internal efficiency, strategy, lessons learned
aid effectiveness issues
Donor’s contribution to results, including outputs and outcomes
Balanced content in terms of positive and negative aspects of performance
Donors make data generated available to public on a timely basis
• Results-based decisions
–
–
–
–
Use of evidence for management decisions
Policies to integrate into agency planning and budget decisions
Clear communication plan to disseminate results for wider discussion
Results reporting therefore needs to be strategic
• Alignment with country reporting
– Timing and use common indicators
– Based on country systems by default
– Contribution to results in terms of outputs and outcomes
• Investment in country results systems
– Using country data therefore support systems
– Invest in a harmonised way in monitoring and evaluation
• National results rather than attribution to donors
– Show financial and technical contributions to national results
– Focus on their added value rather than attribution to a particular donor
• Subscribe to MfDR Good Practice
– Include a results chain, indicators, output and outcome, baseline data
– Targets should be included where appropriate
Conclusion
• Donors commit as well as partner countries
• “It is recognised that the application of these principles will
require a considerable shift … the principles will be just a first
step to promote improved effectiveness of donor reporting
and use of aid to develop country capacity on results
reporting. Yet it will provide an important framework to
promote and coordinate these developments within
institutions”
Join the RESULTS TRAINS