Issue 5 / Indicator 5
Mutual accountability among health development co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews
Partner Country Performance
Five national processes were monitored to assess the policy environment for mutual accountability: (i) the existence of an aid or partnership policy, (ii) the inclusion of development effectiveness indicators in the policy, (iii) the joint review of this policy, (iv) the involvement of civil society in the review, and (v) the public communication of the review results.
Two thirds of the 24 participating countries reported that at least four of the five mutual accountability processes were in place. The most common process was the establishment of targets for effective development cooperation, the least common was the public communication of results (Figure 4). All five processes were more frequently reported by the 17 countries that participated in previous rounds than by the countries that had joined for the first time.
In comparison to 2010/11 the number of countries that met the target criteria of having established at least four processes decreased slightly, however the data are not strictly comparable because more stringent criteria were applied in the 2014 monitoring round (Figure 5).
Development partner performance
About a third of development partners reported that they participated in mutual health sector assessments in all countries that had established such processes. Most development partners supporting more than three countries, participated in mutual assessments in 60-100% of those countries (Figure 16). The multilateral agencies and the global health initiatives that responded in a large number of countries had results ranging from 100% participation (UNICEF) to 50% (GAVI and Global Fund).
While most development partners reported an increase in participation in mutual assessments in the 2011 monitoring round, participation declined by 2014 in all but three countries
Germany, UK, UNAIDS, UNICEF and the EC reported that they participated in mutual assessments in all countries. By contrast, the global health initiatives (Global Fund and GAVI) found it particularly challenging to participate in these processes.