MOPAN'S effectiveness
1.
As a substantive input into existing bilateral or more collective discussions (e.g. Germany with UNRWA on the environment). 2. To sound an alarm about unsatisfactory ratings either during “normal dialogue” or as a means to pressure for changes (one country uses its high level of earmarked funding to ensure that its priorities are taken into account). But MOPAN assessments can be more actively and broadly used in specific situations. For example, when a member particularly values a partnership with an MO that is assessed, or when the report is delivered in time to revise an MO strategic framework that is important to the member. In this case, the report will become part of the dossier constituted to help prepare the upcoming board meeting (e.g. France, Germany, USA). It is only at this stage that questions are factored in about the relevance of a MOPAN report to a country’s chief concerns about an institution or its quality. Being an IL can help increase the relevance of MOPAN reports to members’ needs (see below). Some countries go much further, however, and make systematic, strategic use of MOPAN assessments in their relationships with MOs: • Switzerland notes the areas that MOPAN assessments identify as needing improvement in its dialogue agenda and keeps them on the agenda until they have been addressed. They can be discussed by operational or high-level dialogue. • Denmark and Sweden have organisational performance partnership strategies with MOs. Case managers are asked to use MOPAN assessments to review the areas of cooperation and then to assess progress. These partnerships then form the basis of dialogue. • Finland has a comprehensive strategy of influence that is implemented through plans and reports written for each partner MO and form the basis of the partnership. These documents look at 17 performance areas, including the five areas covered by MOPAN. More than 60% of these documents quote MOPAN assessments. A recent evaluatijudged this strategy of influence to be effective.66 Moreover, on at least some occasions, members have discussed MOPAN products in specific arenas and to support collective strategies. For instance, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) report was discussed in the Rubens Group and SEAH was discussed in the Geneva Group and others.67,68 Switzerland discussed the UNRWA assessment with other countries that are sensitive to the question of protection. Institutional Leads as an opportunity for additional dialogue In theory, being an IL is an excellent way to reinforce dialogue and to influence MOs, as we saw in some MOPAN member countries—France, Norway, Sweden, and the USA. Active ILs can ensure that their specific concerns are taken into account but they need to know a country’s history with an MO quite well or be able to consult colleagues on these matters to do so. 66 67 68
Finnish Development Policy Influencing Activities in Multilateral Organisations (2020). https://um.fi/publications/-/asset_publisher/TVOLgBmLyZvu/content/evaluointiraportti-ulkoministeri-c3-b6-vaikuttaa-monenkeskisten-j-c3-a4rjest-c3-b6jen-toimintaan-1/384998 The Rubens Group consists of Norway, UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. The constituency of the Geneva Group partly covers that of MOPAN, but also includes Mexico, Russia, and Turkey. https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geneva_Group_(United_Nations). The other groups are the CHS Alliance Webinar and a DAC High-Level Meeting.
74
