NATIONAL-LEVEL
MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY:
THE WORK OF THE UN DCF
Nikhil Seth
Director, OESC, UNDESA
DCF High-Level Symposium
Bamako, 6 May 2012
CONTEXT



Mutual Accountability: one key workstream of DCF
DCF itself is a key global mutual accountability forum
Second phase (2008-10):

Comprehensive analysis/discussion at symposia of:
 Global
and Regional Mutual Accountability
 Global and National Level Transparency
 (especially) National Level MA
 Agreement of best practice norms
 All in International Development Cooperation Report

Third phase (2010-2012)
Deepening analysis
 National-level enhancement of MA and transparency
in cooperation with UNDP (“country-level results”) 2

NATIONAL-LEVEL MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY



Key goal of Monterrey, Doha, Paris, Accra to
enhance national level mutual accountability for the
effective delivery and development results of
development cooperation
Little progress pre-2008 (Paris Declaration survey)
Therefore DCF 2010 survey:
Comprehensive questionnaire aiming to cover all
aspects of national-level MA/transparency
 70 countries covered: 41 replied “yes” and described
MA, 16 replied “none” and 13 by desk study/email
 Process led by governments, variable participation of
other stakeholders via IPU/Better Aid cooperation

3
2010 SURVEY FINDINGS

Definition of national-level MA:



as well as being held accountable for development results
and aid management, programme countries hold providers
collectively and individually accountable for aid.
On this basis, only 7 countries had national MA,
change in provider behaviour patchy, only 2 involve
parliaments, local government and civil society
Key building-blocks bringing success are:
national aid policy
 locally-driven aid quality/results monitoring frameworks,
including annual targets for individual providers;
 comprehensive databases monitoring quality and results;
 annual report and high-level meeting to discuss progress 4

2010 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Annual review of national MA mechanisms for presence of
“components for success”, and progress in changing
behaviour and increasing results: → DCF 2011 survey
2. Improve existing mechanisms to spread best practice, and
establish new mechanisms in many countries in 2010-11,
with support from global or regional programmes for
systematic capacity-building to governments → UNDP
3. Separate programmes to reinforce capacity of parliaments,
local governments and CSOs on MA and wider aid issues
(not much progress but beginning to move)
4. For individual providers: systematic participation in nationallevel MA processes with targets for individual providers (EU
agreement, US + UN public commitment)
5
2011 NATIONAL MA SURVEY




Preliminary results, still being conducted
Conducted simultaneously with Paris Declaration
survey (still ongoing)
89 countries surveyed, 39 responses, another 20
expected but mostly those with little MA progress
Much greater and more systematic involvement of
non-executive stakeholders – IPU and Better Aid
systematically mobilising counterparts to participate
at national level
6
SLIGHTLY MORE AID POLICIES,
SLIGHTLY MORE PRECISE TARGETS
60
50
40
No Policy
30
Individual
Collective
20
None
10
0
2010
2011
7
RECIPIENT GOVERNMENT CHANGE
8
PROVIDER CHANGE
9