Appendices
The answer to the relevance question is largely considered a way to better describe MOPAN and what it can and cannot do, and to identify potential strategic and technical changes for the future. Table 22 summarises our approach.
Table 22. Relevance summary Issues or claims investigated
Information used
MOPAN members engage in accountability relationships with MOs. Effective accountability requires considering factual knowledge about MOs against clear standards of value (some standards are shared among members and some are country-specific). To what extent are MOPAN assessments addressing these needs sufficiently today?
MOPAN members’ perception that their needs are being and have been satisfied.
Standards of value are changing. Much effort has been made to adapt the MOPAN methodology in line with changes in the multilateral context (e.g. the SDGs). How did these efforts address the needs of MOPAN members?
Mapping members’ expectations of accountability standards to be used
Members develop different strategies of influence on MOs, including long-term partnership strategies and core funding vs. earmarking strategies. To what extent do MOPAN assessments address the needs of MOPAN members in steering this cooperation?
Collection of conditions related to usefulness and their satisfaction
Alignment of MOPAN methodology with members’ expectations of new standards Identification of members’ strategies for MOs and needs concerning partnership strategies Alignment of MOPAN methodology and other products with these needs
MOPAN methodology is deeply rooted in RBM and a particular view of how to improve performance. To what extent is the RBM approach relevant to all the assessed MOs (e.g. centralised vs decentralised; development organisation vs. MDBs, normative organisations, etc.) How relevant is this approach to the needs of MOs?
Identification of MOPAN core assumptions about performance and clarification of their implications
MOs and independent organisations have worked to develop new accountability system-wide frameworks (e.g. the UN system, MDBs) while reducing the “accountability burden”. To what extent is MOPAN relevant to these efforts? To what extent does MOPAN complement or overlap with other accountability mechanisms and assessments?
Identification of other efforts to develop accountability frameworks, and their rationale
Comparison with current trends in multilateral performance and expression of needs by MOs
Comparison with MOPAN on rationale and methodology
114
Lines of evidence Survey of MOPAN members Interviews with MOPAN members and Secretariat staff Review of key documents: Previous evaluations and reviews of MOPAN, SC and bureau meeting and workshop minutes, previous MOU materials, PWB documents Interviews with MOPAN members and Secretariat staff Review of key documents, including MOPAN studies and TWG material SEAH case study Interviews with MOPAN members and Secretariat staff Within case studies: review documentation regarding cooperation between members and MOs UNDS case study Review of key documents Literature review Survey of MO focal points Interviews with MOPAN members, Secretariat staff, consultants, external stakeholders (including within case studies) Literature review Interviews with MOPAN members and Secretariat staff Interviews with external stakeholders engaged / or informed about these efforts (e.g. OIOS, UNEG, JIU, evaluation units…), including in case studies
