This is an abstract from the Synthesis Report of the Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration.
1. On the surface, mutual accountability is the area where the least
progress is reported in the evaluations. Some of the evaluations
argue that this commitment is less understandable than others,
but the sensitivity surrounding it is also a factor in many cases.
Deeper analysis of the evaluations shows that, although they all
view mutual accountability as a complex puzzle, more pieces of
the solution are actually at hand than is generally assumed. In fact,
they are already being used to varying degrees, and could be better
harnessed to fulfil this commitment, which is so fundamental to the
credibility of the Declaration.
2. The evaluations suggest that the joint processes for tracking
progress and resolving problems fall short of the goals of mutual
accountability. This is where the essentially political character of the
Paris Declaration and its commitments between parties comes most
sharply into focus – it is about the relationship itself – and brings
into play the political interests, values and priorities of the endors-
ing governments and institutions, and of their respective constitu-
ents. Direct political re-engagement is needed to re-orient and
revitalize this pivotal commitment to mutual accountability, and
should also help clarify the intended role and limits of the Monitor-
ing Survey in the overall assessment of implementation.
3. In order to capture what the evaluations actually had to say
about the implementation of the mutual accountability commit-
ment, it proved necessary to go beyond consideration of the single
indicator selected for the Monitoring Survey, and go back to the
carefully framed and reciprocal package of mutual commitments
in the Declaration itself. Some of the questions about mutual ac-
countability that had seemed more opaque or potentially divisive
– particularly expectations around who is accountable to whom and
for what – were in fact found to