Summary, webinar organised by SIGMA on the quality of annual monitoring reports on the implementation of PAR-related strategies, held on 19 February 2021.

1. 2 Rue André Pascal
75775 Paris Cedex 16
France
mailto:sigmaweb@oecd.org
Tel: +33 (0) 1 45 24 82 00
www.sigmaweb.org
This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union (EU). It should not be reported as representing the
official views of the EU, the OECD or its member countries, or of partners participating in the SIGMA Programme. The opinions expressed
and arguments employed are those of the authors.
This document, as well as any data and any map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory,
to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
© OECD 2021 – The use of this material, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found on the OECD website
page http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.
Annual Monitoring Reports on Implementation of PAR-related
Strategies:
Key Lessons from 2020 and Suggestions for 2021
SUMMARY
This seminar brought together 36 participants from 7 countries who are responsible for preparing annual
monitoring reports on PAR-related strategies. The discussion drew on analytical work done by SIGMA
during 2020 to identify the current strengths and weaknesses in the process of developing and using
monitoring reports.
The starting point for the seminar was to underline the ultimate purpose of annual monitoring reports.
The monitoring report is not an end product but rather an important contribution to the broader objective
of promoting reform implementation. The monitoring report should not be seen as an exam that must be
passed and in which negative information should be hidden or ignored. Rather it should be understood as
a means to self-improvement. Key watchwords are honesty and transparency.
At the same time, participants recognised the many real-world obstacles that mean that monitoring
reports are challenging to prepare and less useful in practice than they should be. For example, participants
noted that it is difficult to avoid the annual monitoring report process becoming a routine, a tick-the-box
exercise, given the many other tasks that central institutions have to undertake. Participants also
recognised that it is easy to become a prisoner of structure – the focus is on filling in the data rather than
providing useful, relevant information that will help to refine policies. Moreover, several participants
noted that monitoring reports are produced by multiple actors that are engaged in complex institutional
relationships with one another. Simply coordinating across so many policy areas is challenging, as is the
process of getting validated, harmonised data and information. In a complex institutional system, it is also
difficult to encourage others to provide information that suggests that objectives have not been achieved.
Important reputational stakes can be involved. There are also many methodological issues to face. Lack of
common, identified outcome indicators on which to base an assessment was mentioned, as was the
frequent changes in PAR strategies that make consistent reporting difficult. Finally, the monitoring report
system needs champions to promote good practice and demonstrate the value of the system.
Despite the numerous obstacles, the seminar identified many positive signs. In particular, learning and
experience are important. The more you use monitoring reports, the easier they are to produce and the
more useful they become. Familiarity is a way to liberate the process from the problem of box-ticking and
make it a more positive element in the policy process. Participants highlighted a number of systematic
improvements: better linkages to financial reporting; mainstreaming of an aligned, harmonised
methodology; better use of IT systems to improve coordination and data collection, among other things.
To help improve the quality of monitoring reports even further, SIGMA promoted a forward-looking
agenda of advice on how to make monitoring reports more valuable and more accessible. SIGMA advice

2. 2
included working on what is currently missing or underdeveloped in current reports: inadequate financial
reporting, lack of communication activities and little emphasis on risk management. Going beyond these
missing elements, high-quality monitoring reports should also strive to:
 Tell a compelling story, even while respecting structure.
 Show success and impact on people. It is not just about dry statistics such as numbers of actions.
 Fit individual actions into their bigger picture – how does the action contribute to the attainment
of reform vision?
 Try to identify trends and build them into the story.