In contrast, in countries where there is no integrated national climate change action plan or domestic climate change policy framework, it has been observed that donors are more likely to finance their own priorities (see e.g. Cameron 2011, Zou and Ockenden, 2013). This is reported to be the case even when national climate change policy reports exist i.e. NAMAs or NAP As13 have been submitted to the UNFCCC, but it is not clear if this is a case of poor alignment or if systems are not in place to support these plans. For example, the use of country systems and procedures (such as national arrangements and procedures of public financial management, accounting, auditing, procurement, monitoring and evaluation) is encouraged, where appropriate (i.e. Busan 2011, and Manila Consensus 2011), to improve the effectiveness climate finance through reinforcing the sustainability of results and allowing recipient countries to take greater ownership. Practitioners recognise aid effectiveness principles and the benefits of using country systems (e.g. EC, 2008, GCCA, 2012).