1. Consultation on future monitoring of aid effectiveness in health Meeting of IHP+ working group on mutual accountability

2. Meeting background IHP+ signatories to Global Compact commit to be held to account, by an independent monitoring mechanism IHP+Results consortium contracted to do three rounds of monitoring. Their approach has evolved, in consultation with IHP+ Mutual Accountability Working Group. – 2 nd and 3rd rounds based on adapted Paris indicators. Are strengths and weaknesses of the approach used – related to indicators, process and use of findings to change behaviour. – Was agreed that after 3 rounds, the approach would be reviewed Recent wider developments – Post Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation & its monitoring process; interest in innovative sector specific approaches – More attention to strengthening domestic accountability mechanisms (eg COIA); shift from global monitoring processes, if not from global reports (eg iERG approach) – Continued economic crisis and increased focus on results – Latest finding of progress but lack of 'step change' in health aid effectiveness

3. Meeting objectives To review lessons learned on monitoring aid effectiveness and results / strengthening accountability mechanisms (morning) To strategize on options for any future monitoring processes for IHP+ signatories (afternoon)

4. Meeting outcome and next steps Some useful and practical ideas on options for future monitoring approach, that can be presented for consideration to IHP+ signatories. During October / November: A closed IHP+ partners electronic discussion forum on options Feedback will be summarised and final proposal presented for decision at a special session in the IHP+ 4 th Country Teams Meeting in Nairobi in December

5. Spares / later info

6. Country compacts and joint annual reviews as tools for greater mutual accountability 55% of country signatories of Global Compact have national compacts/MOUs (17/31). 6 more in preparation 70% signed by key development partners and 53% signed by CSOs too (significant difference "old" and "new" compacts) 76% of compacts have indicators for tracking progress (but only 21% have baselines) – Before mid-2010: 60%/15% – After mid-2010: 100%/29% All recent compacts bar one contain indicators equivalent to those monitored by IHP+Results 16/31 countries known to have joint annual reviews. Inclusion of review of compact / MOU commitments in JARs – little information.