COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Mutual Accountability and Transparency  A Fourth Chapter for the EU Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness
Date: 2010-11-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative transparency, aid policy, dissemination of information, humanitarian aid, international responsibility, liability of the State

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 5.11.2010 
COM(2010) 643 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Mutual Accountability and Transparency  
A Fourth Chapter for the EU Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

What is Mutual Accountability? .................................................................................. 4 

Aid Transparency - A Precondition for mutual accountability.................................... 4 

Mutual Accountability at National Level..................................................................... 7 

Mutual Accountability at International Level .............................................................. 9 

Accountability and Humanitarian Aid ......................................................................... 9 

Proposal for a Fourth Chapter of the Operational Framework .................................. 10 

Aid Transparency ....................................................................................................... 10 

Mutual Accountability at National Level................................................................... 10 

Mutual Accountability at International level ............................................................. 12 

EN 

2 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Mutual accountability  and transparency  are  central within the international aid effectiveness 
agenda.  Enhancing  transparency  and  respective  accountability  of  donors  and  partner 
countries,  towards  each  other  and  towards  their  own  citizens  and  parliaments,  is 
essential for maximising the impact of development assistance. 

In the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005), donors and partner countries agreed to 
jointly  assess  progress  in  implementing  commitments  through  mutual  assessment  reviews 
which should be in place by 20101. Donors also committed to provide better information on 
aid  flows;  partner  countries  committed  to  strengthen  the  role  of  national  parliaments  and 
stakeholders  in  implementing  development  strategies.  The  Accra  Agenda  for  Action  (2008) 
strengthened  these  mutual  accountability  commitments,  stressing  the  importance  of 
transparency and ownership and linking these to development results. Mutual accountability 
is  a  fundamental  principle  for  EU  development  policies  and  strategies.  The  European 
Consensus  on  Development  (2005)  states  that  the  EU  and  developing  countries  share 
responsibility  and  accountability  for  their  joint  efforts  in  partnership2.  The  importance  of 
strengthening mutual accountability was reaffirmed in the Council Conclusions in May 20083 
and was singled out as one of four key issues for the EU in the third High-Level Forum on 
Aid Effectiveness in Accra in September 20084. 

The EU has already created practical ways for working together on fulfilling the commitments 
of  the  Paris  Declaration  and  the  Accra  Agenda  for  Action:  The  establishment  of  an 
Operational  Framework  on  Aid  Effectiveness  in  November  2009  is  the  most  recent 
example  of  this  hands-on  practical  approach5.  It  contains  three  chapters  on  key  Aid 
Effectiveness  commitments,  specifically  Division  of  Labour,  Use  of  Country  Systems  and 
Technical  Cooperation,  and  sets  out  concrete  measures  for  achieving  results  on  the  basis  of 
EU teamwork. 

The  Framework  provides  a  powerful  vehicle  for  maximising  EU  impact,  thereby  building  a 
strong foundation in the run up to the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness to be 
held  in  Korea  in  20116.  However,  transparency  and  accountability  commitments  must 
also  be  reflected  in  creating  harmonized  practises  at  European  level,  i.e.  practicable 
arrangements  to  implement  existing  principles.  Here,  the  EU  must  again  lead  by 
example. 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

6 

of 

15 

the 

Millennium 

In 2008, only 14 of 54 countries were reported to have country level “mutual assessment reviews” in 
place to hold each other to account for mutual commitments. 
Paragraph 
(http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/european_consensus_2005_en.pdf 
Council Conclusions on "The EU as a global partner for development:  Speeding up progress towards 
the 
2008 
Goals 
Development 
(http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st09/st09907.en08.pdf) 
Council of 22 July 2008 (http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st12/st12080.en08.pdf) 
Council 
of 
(http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st15/st15912.en09.pdf 
Council 
(http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/COMM_PDF_COM_2009_0160_F_EN_COUNCI
L_CONCLUSIONS.PDF) 

Conclusions 

Conclusions 

Consensus 

November 

European 

(MDGs)" 

2009 

2009 

May 

May 

27 

18 

17 

of 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
The Council therefore, in June 20107, invited the Commission to  present this proposal for a 
common  EU  approach  for  implementing  commitments  on  mutual  accountability  and 
transparency,  with  a  view  to  establishing  a  common  EU  approach  at  the  meeting  of  the 
Foreign Affairs Council in November 2010. 

2. 

WHAT IS MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY? 

Improving  development  results  should  be  a  partnership  between  donor  and  beneficiary 
countries, based on mutual accountability. Mutual accountability lies at the heart of the Paris 
Declaration, and is a process by which two (or multiple) partners agree to be held responsible 
for the commitments that they have each voluntarily agreed, to improve development results. 
It helps build trust and partnership around shared agendas and provides the basis for results-
based aid. 

In  recent  years,  there  has  been  increased  focus  on  tackling  this  issue.  Despite  this,  mutual 
accountability is still a concept which is subject to considerable discussion and debate as to 
what it really means in both conceptual and practical terms. Nevertheless, most agree on two 
basic definitional aspects. Firstly, accountability requires that actions be reported, explained, 
or  justified,  so  as  to  be  answerable.  Secondly,  accountability  should  include  incentives  for 
donors  and  partner  countries  to  comply  with  the  assessment  of  how  well  they  implemented 
their mutual commitments', and to actually change their practice. 

Many  forms  of  mutual  accountability  exist. . In  democratic  government structures, agencies 
and  elected  officials  are  held  accountable  through  freedom  of  information  legislation, 
elections and judicial checks and balances. In the private sector, companies and organisations 
are  held  accountable  through  contractual  and  legal  frameworks.  In  aid  relationships,  only 
partial frameworks exist for mutual accountability. 

Discussions on mutual accountability usually focus on three areas. Firstly, the importance of 
aid  transparency.  Without  information  on  the  aid  being  provided,  it  is  not  possible  to  hold 
anyone  to  account  for  agreed  commitments.  Secondly,  there  is  the  issue  of  how  to  pursue 
mutual accountability at the national level, i.e. at partner country level. Thirdly, there is the 
question  of  how  to  pursue  mutual  accountability  at  the  international  level.  This  aspect  is 
related to the international aid architecture issue. 

3. 

AID TRANSPARENCY - A PRECONDITION FOR MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY  

Information  is  key  to  mutual  accountability.  Information  is  a  prerequisite  to  assessing 
performance  against  commitments  made.  If  donors  are  not  reporting  timely  information,  it 
will not be possible to hold anyone to account. Furthermore, a lack of timely, transparent and 
comprehensive information on aid flows prevent partner countries from being able to report 
fully on budgets to their legislature and citizens. 

In Accra, the following was agreed: 

(1) 

Donors will regularly disclose detailed and timely information on volume, allocation 
and,  when  available,  results  of  development  expenditure  to  enable  more  accurate 
budget, accounting and audit by developing countries. 

7 

Council Conclusions of 15 June 2010 (doc. 11080/10) 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Donors  and  developing  countries  will  regularly  make  public  all  conditions  linked  to 
disbursements. 

Donors  will  provide  full  and  timely  information  on  annual  commitments  and  actual 
disbursements so that developing countries are in a position to accurately record all aid 
flows in their budget estimates and their accounting systems. 

Donors will provide developing countries with regular and timely information on their 
rolling  three-  to  five-year  forward  expenditure  and/or  implementation  plans,  with  at 
least indicative resource allocations. 

At  international  level,  there  are  also  a  number  of  initiatives  being  carried  out  globally  to 
promote the aid transparency agenda: 

•  Creating common concepts and standards: 

–  The  OECD  Development  Assistance  Committee  (DAC) addresses  transparency 

issues within the context of the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness8  

–  The United Nations Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) assists the Economic 
and Social Committee (ECOSOC) in coordinating data on South-South aid flows 
and  analysing 
transparency  and  mutual 
accountability. 

relationship  between  aid 

the 

–  The  International  Aid  Transparency  Initiative  (IATI)  was  launched  at  the  High 
Level  Forum  III  in  Accra,  September  2008,  to  ensure  that  donors  make 
information  about  their  aid  publicly  available  in  a  way  that  people  can  easily 
understand.  

•  Setting up common technical tools and databases: 

–  OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) collates and publishes Official 
Development  Assistance  (ODA)  data  from  DAC  countries  through  the  Creditor 
Reporting System9 (CRS). The CRS is widely considered to be the gold standard 
in producing verified, high quality statistics on past aid flows. 

–  The  Development  Gateway  Foundation  runs  Aid  Data10  which is  one  of  the 
largest  online  directories  of  development  activities  worldwide  and offers  a  basic 
overview  of  who  is  doing  what  in  international  development.  Despite  these 
initiatives,  stakeholders  still  find  it  difficult  to  access  comprehensive  and  clear 
data, sufficiently detailed for their purposes.  

The usefulness of data is reduced if published too late (frequently with up to two years delay). 
The DAC CRS reporting tool is a good basis on which to build, but the information must be 
published  in  a  timelier,  more  qualitative,  more  extensive,  more  frequent  and  synchronised 
manner, and made available to all partner countries in a harmonised way. 

8 

9 
10 

In cluster C of the Working Party, in the related task team on predictability and aid transparency and in 
the framework of the DAC Aid allocation technical group 
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CRSNEW 
http://www.aiddata.org/home/index 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
Furthermore, to facilitate mutual accountability, there is a need for forward looking planning 
data and data  which allows assessment  of  conditionalities, potential social or environmental 
impacts,  or  intended  outcomes  and  results.  Partner  countries  also  need  to  be  assisted  in 
collecting aid data in their own budget systems. 

Currently, EU donors are already publishing some information about their aid. However, no 
harmonized  measures  have  been  put  in  place  in  response  to  the  above  commitments,  so 
methods variy greatly in terms of quality, quantity, scope, format, and frequency. 

Most  EU  Member  States  and  the  Commission  report  to  the  DAC  (Development  Aid 
Committee), but there is wide variation in their own publication of aid information, the level 
of detail they provide, on website or in country planning documents.. Not all donors publish 
detailed  information  at  the  level  of  headquarters;  some  for  example  publish  it  through  their 
embassies' websites. 

9 out of 28 EU donors (EU and its 27 Member States) have signed up to the International Aid 
Transparency  Initiative  (IATI)  (Denmark,  Finland,  Germany,  Ireland,  Netherlands,  Spain, 
Sweden, and UK, as well as the EU with the intention to publish aid information according to 
a common international format. 

Some  countries  provide  detailed  information  in  their  planning  documents  (such  as  Ireland), 
whilst others post information on their websites: for instance, Spain provides information on 
Official Development Aid (ODA) split by funding public entity, and by sector. Information on 
the following year's allocations are not all available at the same time, but follow each donor's 
budgetary  cycle  (inAugust  for  Finland,  in  October  for  Spain,  by  November  for  the 
Netherlands),  which  undermines  transparency  and  predictability  of  funding  for  the  partner 
countries. 

Nowadays,  the  only  EU  level  tool  for  providing  both  information  on  aid  volumes,  and 
monitoring  aid-related  commitments,  is  the  annual  Monterrey  report  presented  by  the 
Commission.  However,  it  does  not  make  information  available  to  the  partner  countries' 
governments,  who  need  timely  and  comprehensive  data  for  their  planning  and  budgetary 
processes, or to other stakeholders (civil society). 

A  practical  tool  -  TR-AID  (Transparent  Aid)  -  is  being  developed  by  the  European 
Commission  with  the  objective  of  coordinating  humanitarian  and  development  aid  funding 
amongst EU donors. TR-AID is a web-based system that combines data from multiple sources 
and  provides  easy  access  to  comprehensive  information,  so  that  the  data  can  be  used  in 
decision-making.  TR-AID  supports  the  implementation  of  the  various  EU  commitments  on 
aid effectiveness. It was initially conceived as a tool to help EU donors' transparency towards 
each  other  by  sharing  information  about  their  aid,  and  as  an  instrument  for  increased  EU 
coordination.  In  the  medium-term,  it  aims  to  ensure  broader  transparency  towards  other 
stakeholders: other donors, partner counties, civil society and the general public. 

There  is  a  genuine  added  value  to  acting  jointly  at  EU  level:  adopting  the  same  standards, 
quality and frequency of information publication. Developing the right EU  approach should 
enable  us  to  better  meet  the  commitments  made  in  Accra,  while  using  the  opportunities 
offered  by  the  EU  framework,  the  tools  already  developed  at  EU  level  and  the  potential 
benefits  of  an  EU  approach  for  partner  countries  in  terms  of  reducing  financial  and 
administrative burdens. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

4. 

MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

At  present,  no  common  practice  exists  whereby  donor  and  partner  countries  can  be  held 
mutually accountable to their respective commitments. 

The Monterrey report indicates that some EU donors took part in mutual assessment reviews 
(Austria,  Finland,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Spain,  Sweden  and  the  UK)  but  very 
little  information  was  provided  on  the  framework  used,  the  criteria,  the  scope  of  the 
assessment,  and  the  stakeholders.  Moreover,  they  did  not  always  provide  a  full  overview 
because this information was not monitored at headquarters level. 

Donors are partially accountable to partner countries through the national Public Expenditure 
and Financial Accountability (PEFA) reports on the predictability of budget support, financial 
information  provided  by  donors  for  budgeting  and reporting on  project and  programme aid, 
and how much aid is managed using national procedures. For each of these criteria, scores are 
provided. 

Some  partner  countries  are  accountable  towards  donors  according  to  a  specific  donor 
approach,  related  to  each  donor's  requirements,  strongly  linked  to  tendering  procedures, 
contracts and specific financing agreements. 

The Monterrey questionnaire is currently the only monitoring tool at EU level that provides 
information  on aid-related  commitments by EU donors. But it does not provide  donors' and 
partner countries assessments of progress in implementing their mutual commitments. Instead, 
donors report on whether/how they implemented mutual accountability frameworks. 

A common EU approach to hold EU donors and partner countries accountable towards their 
mutual commitments makes sense for all EU donors. Such a harmonised approach would be 
useful also to increase the impact, coherence and results focus of our aid. In addition, it would 
reduce costs for the partner countries by having only one common framework through which 
they need to be accountable to all EU donors. 

At national level, there is a need for some basic building blocks in order to facilitate mutual 
accountability. 

Firstly, it must be clear who is holding whom to account. Mutual accountability involves not 
only the governments of donors  and partners, but equally involves those who are governed. 
This  aspect,  known  as  domestic  accountability,  can  involve  a  wide  range  of  domestic 
stakeholders  including  parliaments,  local  authorities,  civil  society  organisations,  women's 
groups, the media, political parties, etc. These domestic actors have vital roles to play in terms 
of providing input for national  development strategies,  scrutinising  progress in fulfilling aid 
effectiveness  and  development  commitments,  and  ultimately  sanctioning  governments  for 
poor performance. 

Mutual accountability also requires an arena, i.e. agreement on where the process is to take 
place. One way of accomplishing this is by establishing frameworks for aid management such 
as  joint  Performance  Assessment  Frameworks  (PAF)  where  development  partners  can  meet 
and  assess  the  fulfilment  of  commitments  and  decide  on  how  to  follow-up.  There  is  no 
universally-agreed template for how a PAF should be designed and carried out. Preferably, it 
should be based on existing relationship forums. These could have more formalised rules and 
procedures,  or  be  based  on  more  informal  arrangements.  They  can  take  the  form  of  annual 
consultations, consultative groups, joint review panels, etc. The most important aspect is that 

EN 

7 

   EN 

a PAF provides an arena conducive to establishing reciprocal trust and confidence. It should 
help  to  create  synergies  between  existing  local  aid  management  processes  and  should  be 
integrated into existing frameworks for dialogue. 

Furthermore, it is also necessary to define the focus of accountability, i.e. agreement on what 
the relevant parties are to be held accountable for. This involves creating a shared agenda to 
set  out  clear  goals  and  commitments  for  both  sides.  This  shared  agenda  could  include 
elements  regarding  national  or  sector  development  plans  and  strategies,  i.e.  agreement  on 
what the assistance should be used for. It could also focus on aid effectiveness commitments, 
for  instance  agreement  on  how  assistance  is  to  be  channelled.  The  important  point  is  that 
clarity  is  established  as  to  each  party's  responsibilities,  and  thus  what  they  will  be  held 
accountable for. 

Joint Performance Assessment Framework in Practice – Examples 

Mozambique 

The Mozambican mutual  accountability framework is based on an independent evaluation 
of the Programme Aid Partners performance in Mozambique.  
Donors  scrutinise  Government  performance  on  the  basis  of  country’s  monitoring  and 
evaluation  framework  for  its  poverty  reduction  plan  and  on  monitoring  progress  in 
development. 
Donors are assessed on the basis of a matrix of commitments and a rating (points) system, 
aggregated  into  global  levels  of  performance  (very  good,  medium  high,  medium,  medium 
low, low) 

Aid  performance  monitoring  efforts  are  further  enhanced  by  the  ODA  Mozambique 
(ODAMOZ)  database  -  which  provides  vital  information  on  donor  financing  –  and  the 
Development Observatory. Mozambique is one of the few countries to have developed an 
institutional  framework  for  participatory  poverty  monitoring  at  national,  provincial  and 
local  levels.  Efforts  to  support  better  transparency  and  domestic  accountability  need  to  be 
further strengthened.   

Rwanda 

Two  Joint  Review  Mechanisms:  Common  Performance  Assessment  Framework  (CPAF) 
and Donor Performance Assessment Framework (DPAF) 
A  total  of  26  indicators  are  used  to  assess  the  performance  of  the  donors,  grounded  in 
internationally and nationally agreed targets on the quality of aid. The assessment is done on 
the  basis  of  an  annual  cycle,  timed  to  coincide  with  the  assessment  and  discussion  of 
government  performance  in  the  context  of  the  Government  Performance  Assessment 
Framework. 

–  Donors  facilitate  data  collection  and  aggregation  by  self-reporting  on  a  number  of 
indicators on a timely basis. It is anticipated that the Development Assistance Database 
will be upgraded to facilitate this reporting. 

–  Collection,  aggregation  and  analysis  of  data  into  DPAF  matrix  (led  by  the  Ministry  of 

Economy and Finance). 

–  Results  are  presented  and  discussed  in  the  Development  Partners  Coordination  Group, 
with more focused discussions taking place in the Budget support Harmonisation Group. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
–  Donor  internal  responses/planning,  action  plans  shared  with  the  government  and 

Development partners. 

5. 

MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL 

Mutual  accountability  is  also  being  promoted  in  many  international  fora.  These  include 
independent  peer  reviews  such  as  the  OECD  DAC  peer  reviews,  the  annual  EU  Report  on 
Financing  for  Development  (Monterrey  Report),  non-official  assessments  of  performance 
such  as  the  EU  Aid  Watch  by  Concord  (Confederation  of  European  civil  society 
organisations), and other types of reporting and analysis carried out by the IMF/World Bank 
(Global  Monitoring  Report),  ECOSOC  Development  Cooperation  Forum,  UNECA/OECD 
(Mutual Review of Aid Effectiveness), the G8 (Accountability Report on Development issued 
in 2010), the Paris Survey and the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness. 

Mutual accountability at the international level should reinforce accountability at the national 
level.  However,  this  does  not  always  occur  effectively,  sometimes  due  to  the  lopsided  aid 
relationship  between  donors  and  partners.  The  agenda  for  accountability  at  the  international 
level could at times better reflect the concerns and interests of partner country governments 
and  stakeholders.  Moreover,  partner  country  stakeholders  often  lack  sufficient  analysis  and 
information,  and  as  a  result  are  unable  to  engage  fully  and  on  equal  terms  with  donors. 
Furthermore, international efforts to promote mutual accountability lack the means for partner 
country countries to sanction donors, or of making donor commitments enforceable. 

6. 

ACCOUNTABILITY AND HUMANITARIAN AID 

Good Humanitarian Donorship principles and good practices were established by 16 donors in 
200311. These principles seek, inter alia, to promote partnership and good donor practices in 
financing,  management,  accountability.  By  firmly  endorsing  these  principles  through  the 
European  Consensus  on  humanitarian  aid12,  the  EU  has  shown  its  strong  commitment  to 
responsible  and  accountable  humanitarian  donorship13.  The 
promoting  effective, 
accountability  framework  addresses the  specificity  of  humanitarian  aid  and  in  particular:  its 
needs based approach, the speed of delivery, the short term horizon and its reactive nature.  

Various  mechanisms  and  tools  exist  to  ensure  transparency  and  coordination  of  the  EU 
humanitarian assistance: 

•  An operational strategy with a well established methodology for budgetary allocations on a 
needs based approach. This strategy and detailed forward-looking planning is shared  and 
coordinated with all relevant stakeholders; 

•  A reporting system developed and managed by the Commission, called "14-points", which 
provides  real-time 
the 
information  on  humanitarian  assistance 
Commission and Member States. This system is linked to the Financial Tracking System 

implemented  by 

11 

12 
13 

The Principles and Good practice of Humanitarian Donorship, Stockholm, 17 June 2003; endorsed by 
the OECD 
Official Journal C 25/1, 30.1.2008 – Section 3.3 on effectiveness and accountability of humanitarian aid 
idem 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
operated  by  UN-OCHA  which  provides  similar 
humanitarian assistance. 

information  on 

the  worldwide 

7. 

PROPOSAL FOR A FOURTH CHAPTER OF THE OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK 

In  order  to  address  the  wide  discrepancies  between  the  different  EU  donors,  both  regarding 
transparency  and  mutual  accountability  practices,  it  is  important  to  define  an  EU  common 
approach, and practical steps to be taken jointly at EU level in order to implement our joint 
commitments. 

The following section constitutes the proposed text to be included as a fourth chapter to the 
Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness. 

7.1. 

Aid Transparency 

The  Commission  and  EU  Member  States  will  provide  comprehensive  and  comparable 
information on development expenditure on a regular basis by: 

1. 

2. 

Publicly  disclosing  information  on  aid  volume  and  allocation  following  the 
OECD/DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS) standard format, on a quarterly basis, 
by  the  beginning  of  October  2011,  with  a  maximum  information  time  lag  of  three 
months. 

Provide  country-level  information  on  forward-looking  data,  on  an  annual  basis, 
starting as of the beginning of July 2011: 

2.1  Based  on  the  DAC  Survey  on  Donors'  Forward  Spending  Plans  methodology 
disclosing at least three, and up to five year forward-looking data on global aid 
spending, for all partner countries; 

2.2  Disclosing  at  least  three,  and  up  to  5,  year  forward-looking  aid  allocations 
sector  by  sector,  for  all  countries  of  the  Fast  Track  Initiative  on  Division  of 
Labour. 

3. 

Make the EU Annual Report on Financing for Development a model of transparency 
and accountability by using the Monterrey questionnaire process to track progress at 
headquarters and country level. 

4. 

Use the TR AID tool in order to publish and share their data with each other; 

4.1 

In a first phase on a voluntary basis, with no specific data format required; 

4.2 

In a second phase on a mandatory basis, after the Fourth High Level Forum on 
Aid Effectiveness in Korea in 2011, using a common standardised data format 
to be determined in line with international standards. 

7.2.  Mutual Accountability at National Level 

The Commission and EU Member States will, in and with, all partner countries: 

EN 

10 

   EN 

1. 

Establish  a  joint  framework  for  monitoring  joint  commitments,  building  upon 
existing systems whenever possible14:  

•  In countries under the Division of Labour Fast Track Initiative (FTI), facilitators 
will,  in  cooperation  with  EU  Delegations,  initiate  discussions  on  mutual 
accountability  with  the  partner  government  and  other  domestic  stakeholders.  In 
non-FTI  countries,  the  EU  Delegation  will  organise  a  meeting  to  agree  which 
donor will initiate discussions on mutual accountability. 

•  Within  partners  countries’  priorities  and  targets,  establish  a  joint  Performance 
Assessment Framework by July 2011 to regularly review donor performance on 
their country level aid effectiveness commitments. Member States will encourage 
partner country leadership in this process.  

•  The joint Performance Assessment Framework should be established on the basis 

of the following guiding principles:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Inclusiveness: it should aim to include all donors in-country as well as 
the national budget; 

Reciprocity:  it  should  cover  both  donor  commitments  and  partner 
country commitments; 

Comparability: it should monitor performance of individual donors in a 
comparable manner; 

Regularity: assessments should be undertaken at least once a year; 

Self-reporting:  donors  and  the  government  should  commit  to  provide 
data of their operations in-country on a regular basis measured against 
pre-determined criteria.  

•  These Performance Assessment Frameworks should be assessed in time to publish 
results  of  the  country  level  joint  performance  and  share  with  headquarters  by 
November 2011, and to carry out necessary adjustments. 

•  The implementation of these joint commitments will feed into the ongoing policy 
dialogues  between  donors  and  partner  countries  at  project,  sector  and  national 
levels. The EU will also use policy dialogue to encourage public debate so as to 
hold both donors and governments accountable. 

In the process described above, the EU and its Member States will support the role of 
civil society organisations including women’s groups and media, local governments 
and  parliament,  in  holding  governments  and  donors  to  account,  including  the 
provision of necessary capacity development support. 

In the case of EU candidate countries and potential candidates the Annual Report on the Instrument for 
Pre-Accession  and  the  joint  monitoring  committees  form  a  basis  for  aspects  of  a  Performance 
assessment framework. These vehicles can be adapted to more systematically provide relevant data such 
as financial analysis and data on aid effectiveness commitments 

2. 

14 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
7.3.  Mutual Accountability at international level 

The EU and its Member States will work together towards a common vision on the future aid 
architecture following the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, by July 2011.  

They will:  

1. 

2. 

Coordinate their position in discussions on international mutual accountability under 
different fora, including the UN Development Cooperation Forum and the Working 
Party  on  Aid  Effectiveness.  This  includes  supporting  efforts  by  the  Development 
Cooperation Forum to collect and disseminate independent and authoritative analysis 
and assessments on mutual accountability. 

Support  a  more  inclusive  framework  for  a  strengthened  involvement  of  partner 
countries, local authorities, parliamentarians, and civil society. 

EN 

12 

   EN