MULTILATERAL ORGANISATION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT NETWORK

1. MULTILATERAL ORGANISATION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT NETWORK The MOPAN Common Approach 2009 Presentation to DAC Network on Development Evaluation 15 June 2009

2. Purpose • Introduce MOPAN andCommon Approach Background • Data collection and follow-up • Key players • Challenges – Looking ahead • Discussion

3. What is MOPAN? • Informal network • 15 like-minded donor countries • Common interest in assessing organisational effectiveness of major multilateral organisations they fund

4. How does MOPAN work? • Joint assessments • Share information • Draw on experience in monitoring and evaluation

5. Current MOPAN members • Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, The United Kingdom

6. Common Approach • Annual assesment of select group of multilateral organisations in 8-10 developing countries. • Generates information members can use to fulfil responsibilities and obligations as bilateral donors.

7. Common Approach • Aiming to support dialogue between MOPAN members, multilateral organisations and their partners.

8. Common Approach • Provides evidence base for MOPAN members, multilateral organisations and direct partners to discuss organisational effectiveness in order to build better understanding and improve performance.

9. Common Approach • Derived from, and meant to replace, seven existing bilateral assessment tools and forestall the development of other assessment approaches. • Does not examine development effectiveness, achievement of development results or scrutinise administrative economy or efficiency.

10. Common Approach • New methodology, but builds on previous MOPAN experience of bilateral assessments and dialogue with multilateral organisations and learning

11. Why a Common Approach? • Growing demands internationally to better understand how public funds are used for international aid purposes, including multilateral assistance. • No widely accepted, coherent approach to assessing effectiveness.

12. Why a Common Approach? Need to: • Capture voice of direct partners, not just MOPAN member views • Harmonise work to avoid duplication • Broaden and deepen original ‘perceptions-based’ approach.

13. Organisations assessed 2009 • UNICEF • UNDP • AfDB • World Bank (IDA and IBRD)

14. Data collection—survey • Survey measures: • Four Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) relating to management: Strategic, operational, relationship, and knowledge management • More detailed micro-indicators (MIs).

15. Data collection—survey Survey completed by three sources: • MOPAN member officials at HQ level, including missions, delegations and representations • MOPAN member officials,country level • Multilateral organisation direct partners, country level.

16. Data collection • Respondents provided with ‘document fact check’—documents published by multilateral organisations they can use to inform their survey responses.

17. Direct Partners • Organisations receiving direct transfer of finances or technical assistance from multilateral organisation. • Can be government, non-government, private sector corporations.

18. Findings • Country level • Support discussion between developing country partners, bilateral donors and the multilateral organisations, as part of the process of strengthening mutual accountability at country level • Strengthen relationships with multilateral organisations at country level

19. Findings • HQ level • Input to those responsible for the governance of multilateral organisations • Input to multilateral cooperation policies • Input to wider debates about multilateral organisational effectiveness

20. Findings • Multilateral organisations invited to respond to review findings

21. Findings • Not used to rank performance of multilateral organisations, or evaluate how well they deliver on development objectives and projects. • Not possible to compare multilateral organisations—their mandates and structures vary too much in scope and nature.

22. Findings • Because the MOPAN assessment is repeated at intervals of time, findings will help determine if multilateral organisation effectiveness in survey areas change over time.

23. Reporting • Country reports (nine countries) • Institutional reports (four multilateral organisations) • Timeframes for development of draft and final reports being finalised.

24. Key players MOPAN Secretariat (Denmark 2009) • Oversee and coordinate work of lead consultants, HQ Focal Points, Institutional Leads, Country Leads • Seek advice from working groups • Act as primary contact point for external partners

25. Key players MOPAN HQ Focal Points • Liaise with Country Leads • Ensure support in their organisations • Organise/supervise survey HQ level • Support survey process in-country • Coordinate comments on draft reports

26. Key players MOPAN Institutional Leads • Key interface between MOPAN and multilateral organisations under review • Liaise between MOPAN and multilateral organisations at HQ level

27. Key players • MOPAN Country Leads • Liaise with HQ Focal Points and focal points of multilateral organisations at country level • Build awareness of, and support for, Common Approach • Organise assessment at country level • Lead country-level dialogue on findings and coordinate comments

28. Key players Consultants • Manage implementation of Common Approach 2009 • Prepare reports • Prepare presentations of findings

29. Challenges: Balance Between • Low transaction costs for MO and MOPAN staff • Simple tool • Not a full-blown assessment. • Provide useful data and meaningful information to make decisions (perception based + objective). • Replace all bilateral assessment instruments.

30. Partners want to participate in MOPAN’s work Highlighted additional areas for inclusion in CA MO Policies and Procedure Transparency of MOs Alignment of MOs How to Participate in the survey and dialogue Link to mutual accountability agenda Challenges: Engaging Partners

31. lOOKING AHEAD