Methodologies for mutual accountability and Mutual Reviews of Development Effectiveness in Africa (MRDE) developed by the UN Economic Commission for Africa and the OECD, in consultation with African partners, international research and civil society institutions, have been tested and developed over recent years. The MRDE process is an example of a regular joint monitoring process of development commitments, delivery, results and identification of priorities regarding Africa. While limited to a region and broader in scope (given the number of sectors covered), it can provide some lessons to inform the development of a tracking system tailored to AR4D globally. Visit the conference site for more information: http://www.egfar.org/gcard-2012 Les Méthodes pour la responsabilité mutuelle et les Revues Mutuelles de l’Efficacité du Développement en Afrique (MRDE) développées par la Commission Economique des Nations Unies pour l’Afrique et l’OCDE, en consultation avec les partenaires africains, les institutions de recherche et la société civile, ont été testées et développées au cours des dernières années. Le processus des MRDE est un exemple d’un processus de suivi régulier et conjoint des accords de développement, de résultats et d’identification des priorités concernant l’Afrique. Bien que limitée a une région et d’une large portée, il peut fournir quelques leçons au développement d’un système de suivi adapté à la recherche agricole pour le développement au niveau mondial Visitez le site web de la GCARD2 pour plus d'informations: http://www.egfar.org/gcard-2012

1. DRAFT
Breakout Session C1.1 Public Investments Speaker Brief
OECD/DAC Mutual Review on Development Effectiveness, and Creditor Reporting
System
Karim Hussein (OCDE-APF)
Context – the problems being addressed
1. Methodologies for mutual accountability and Mutual Reviews of Development Effectiveness in
Africa (MRDE) developed by the UN Economic Commission for Africa and the OECD, in
consultation with African partners, international research and civil society institutions, have
been tested and developed over recent years. Five such reviews have been undertaken since
2005 and with an established methodology (see:
http://www.oecd.org/site/apfuneca/methodology/). Although it needs to be adapted to the
specificities of AR4D, lessons can be drawn from this experience to inform the establishment of
a feasible, relevant and reliable tracking and monitoring system for AR4D and using the results
to advocate for greater public investment in the sector.
2. Any approach to tracking public investments in AR4D needs to draw from official sources of
data on the ODA flows from the main international donor countries, most of which are members
of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC). To assist OECD/DAC
member development partners to track their ODA expenditure on different sectors over time, the
OECD/DAC maintains a Creditor Reporting System (CRS) Aid Activity Database, whose main
objective is to provide a set of readily available basic data that enables analysis on where aid
goes, what purposes it serves and what policies it aims to implement. It also shows how donor
resources are being delivered (i.e. through development programmes, government, or NGOs).
The CRS collects data on AR4D through reporting by donors on its agricultural research
purpose code. The CRS aims to collect sufficient core information to meet a variety of needs
and avoid a proliferation of parallel international reporting systems. Complete and accurate
reporting allows the Secretariat to respond to numerous data requests that would otherwise
require special surveys by the aid agencies themselves.
Current activities presented and discussed in the session
1. The MRDE process is an example of a regular joint monitoring process of development
commitments, delivery, results and identification of priorities regarding Africa. While limited to a
region and broader in scope (given the number of sectors covered), it can provide some lessons to
inform the development of a tracking system tailored to AR4D globally. Key lessons in building a
better system to track investments in AR4D include:
a. Undertaking tracking in consultation and partnership with key stakeholders and prepare
regular updates - this helps to validate conclusions and recommendations and ensure they
inform policy and investment decisions;
b. Developing a simple, clear, common framework: start simple, improve and refine with
experience and in consultation with stakeholders partners;
c. Analysing AR4D investment trends at global and regional levels and link between them;
1

2. d. Monitoring major commitments on funding AR4D and comparable data from variety of
(official) sources;
e. Complementing official sources with academic, private sector and civil society information
for the analysis;
f. Identifying key priorities for the future of AR4D – arising from tracking data and ensure fit
with key elements of the evolving aid and development effectiveness agendas;
g. Engaging key actors in data collection, identification of research priorities, implementation,
results monitoring and analysis. In the agriculture sector this would mean including actors
such as representatives of agriculture ministries, research and advisory services, research
users, producers and their organisations and adopting inclusive approaches to AR4D (e.g.
models for demand driven research, partnership approaches, consultative for a etc.).
2. OECD/DAC and AFSI members are currently reflecting on how to better track funding
commitments and results from AR4D spending within the CRS reporting system and Aid Activity
Database. OECD/DAC donors report to the CRS on AR4D funding primarily through DAC Code
5 on ODA to agriculture, and the related CRS purpose codes under this heading (e.g. 31182 –
agricultural research; 31191- agricultural services and others). However, consistency across
donors always lack in the types of AR4D funding they record under the different codes - meaning
that AR4D spending can be spread across purpose codes. This renders it difficult to get a
complete picture of donor ODA going to AR4D. The usefulness of CRS data in tracking AR4D
spending globally could be improved by raising awareness among donors on how to improve the
quality and consistency of reporting on AR4D, and possibly, if a consensus among OECD/DAC
members can be reached; adapting or clarifying CRS purpose codes relating funding for
agricultural research. This session provides an important opportunity to inform a wider range of
stakeholders on the relevance of tracking commitments to AR4D being undertaken in the OECD
and AFSI (L’Aquila Food Security Initiative) contexts and to support the process of building a
consensus on the way forward to improve tracking.
The CRS is used by donors to classify funding, identifying the sectors and subsectors being funded by
their ODA, rather than to describe or track AR4D funding in a detailed way. Therefore, realistically,
even changing CRS purpose codes used by donors to report on their AR4D funding will not achieve
the level of detail in reporting needed for improving tracking funding of the diverse streams of AR4D
activity. CRS data can only give an incomplete picture of all financing flows to AR4D. It reports
donor commitments and disbursements for sectors identified by the OECD/DAC in the CRS. It cannot
provide country level information (as does the ASTI) or information on all financial flows to AR4D in
a country – which is a role for national authorities and AR4D institutions operating at national level.
CRS information, therefore, needs to be complemented by other sources of information at the national
and sub national level to get a more complete picture of AR4D funding. It provides information on just
one source of funding for AR4D. Some information provided by the CRS and available at country
level is overlapping. Therefore, in order to get a fuller picture of funding for AR4D at country level,
trends in funding identified by the CRS as well as trends in funding for AR4D identified at national
level both need to be examined. This is a challenging task requiring new investment of human and
financial resources.
In the short to medium term, it may be possible to build a consensus among OECD/DAC donors
around promoting three types of improvements to CRS reporting on AR4D.
(i) To encourage a more standardized approach to coding through specific DAC guidance to member
country agencies and staff. This will not, however, provide sufficient information on resource
allocation and results at the sub-national, development programme, or research institute levels. Rather,
it is necessary to analyze reporting by national and regional agricultural ministries or research
institutions on these details on sources and allocation of expenditure.
2

3. (ii) The level of sophistication and detail of the description provided on AR4D ODA reported to the
OECD/DAC can only be increased through a more standardized approach to reporting and increased
quality (particularly in the description of the aid activities reported through the code). One approach to
achieve this would be to ask the OECD/DAC to agree common descriptors that provide detail on core
areas (e.g. production, crops, processing, etc,) on which AR4D funded by ODA is focused. They could
also clarify what should be reported under the CRS code for agricultural research as distinct from
agricultural extension, or other codes related to agriculture.
(iii) The CRS is fundamentally a reporting system established by donors for them to pool out
information that can then be made available and analysed by them. Rather than seeking a wholesale
change to this established reporting system, initial steps to improve reporting on AR4D funding in
donor systems at country level and ultimately feeding better quality data into the CRS, might include
urging a group of like-minded DAC donors that have identified the need to improve the use of CRS
codes related to AR4D to take the initiative and to pilot improvements in the way AR4D funding is
reported from country level up to HQ. They could then share lessons learned from this experience with
other OECD/DAC members through established OECD/DAC bodies and processes. For example, this
group might identify and jointly propose specific improvements on the use, quality and detail of CRS
reporting that could be debated and adopted in an incremental way by the whole OECD/DAC. On this
basis, this group of donors could take the initiative and make proposals for change within the
OECD/DAC. This would take time and be an interactive process among OECD/DAC members. In this
context it might be helpful for OECD/DAC members to start discussing the usefulness of providing
more specific principles and guidelines on reporting on AR4D from field to HQ within their systems
for financing development.
Intended outcomes
Commitments to collective actions in 2012-2014 (national, regional or international)
i. With existing resources
 National to international: The GCARD 2 could urge a group of like-minded OECD/DAC
donors that have identified the need to improve the use of CRS codes related to AR4D to take
the initiative and to pilot improvements in the way AR4D funding is reported from country
level to HQ. They could then share lessons learned from this experience with other
OECD/DAC members through established DAC bodies and processes.
 Regional: The GCARD 2 could call upon the OECD and UNECA to provide more space to
monitoring commitments by Africa and its international partners to AR4D in the 2013 MRDE
and future efforts on mutual accountability.
 International: The GCARD 2 could call on OECD/DAC donors work through its WP-STAT
(Working Party on Statistics) to adapt and improve CRS tracking, particularly the quality of
reporting on CRS purpose codes, for agricultural research for development. Supporting the
development of a consensus in the OECD/DAC on providing members with more detailed
guidance on AR4D reporting could be useful here.
 International: The OECD/DAC Secretariat will continue to support members of the AFSI
Working Group on Agricultural Research for Development to build a consensus around the
new indicators that might be needed in the CRS to monitor AR4D funding.
ii. With additional support
n/a
3

4. iii. With specific large scale programme investment
n/a
4