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 collectionsurvey

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

15
Data collectionsurvey

• 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
  checkdocuments 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
  organisationstheir 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
Challenges Engaging Partners

• Partners want to participate in MOPANs 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

31
lOOKING AHEAD