MULTILATERAL ORGANISATION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT NETWORK

The MOPAN Common Approach 2009Presentation to DAC Network on Development Evaluation 15 June 2009

1

Purpose

Introduce MOPAN andCommon Approach Background

Data collection and follow-up Key players Challenges – Looking ahead

Discussion

2

What is MOPAN?

Informal network 15 like-minded donor countries Common interest in assessing

organisational effectiveness of major multilateral organisations they fund

3

How does MOPAN work?

Joint assessments Share information Draw on experience in monitoring

and evaluation

4

Current MOPAN members

Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, The United Kingdom

5

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.

6

Common Approach

Aiming to support dialogue between MOPAN members, multilateral organisations and their partners.

7

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.

8

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.

9

Common Approach

New methodology, but builds on previous MOPAN experience of bilateral assessments and dialogue with multilateral organisations and learning

10

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.

11

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.

12

Organisations assessed 2009

UNICEF UNDP AfDB World Bank (IDA and IBRD)

13

Data collection—survey

Survey measures: Four Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

relating to management:

Strategic, operational, relationship, and knowledge management

More detailed micro-indicators (MIs).

14

Data collection—survey

Survey completed by three sources:

1. MOPAN member officials at HQ level, including missions, delegations and representations

2. MOPAN member officials,country level

3. Multilateral organisation direct partners, country level.

15

Data collection

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

16

Direct Partners

Organisations receiving direct transfer of finances or technical assistance from multilateral organisation.

Can be government, non-government, private sector corporations.

17

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

18

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

19

Findings

Multilateral organisations invited to respond to review findings

20

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.

21

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.

22

Reporting

Country reports (nine countries) Institutional reports (four

multilateral organisations) Timeframes for development of

draft and final reports being finalised.

23

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

24

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

25

Key players

MOPAN Institutional Leads Key interface between MOPAN and

multilateral organisations under review Liaise between MOPAN and multilateral

organisations at HQ level

26

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

27

Key players

Consultants Manage implementation of

Common Approach 2009 Prepare reports Prepare presentations of findings

28

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.

29

Challenges: Engaging Partners

Partners want to participate in MOPAN’s work

Highlighted additional areas for inclusion in CAMO Policies and Procedure

Transparency of MOs

Alignment of MOs

How to Participate in the survey and dialogue

Link to mutual accountability agenda

30

LOOKING AHEAD

31