Elaboration of a SEAH framework – SEAH Note for Practitioners

respect. In the last assessment cycle, one way to change this may be to organise meetings between MOPAN members and the organisations for which potential funding changes are being considered. IOM is clearly an exception in this regard. The IL’s commitment to promoting a more strategic vision for the organisation also took the form of encouraging other IOM members states to provide core funding.

Main findings

• Assessments are used in a more limited way to support the establishment of a partnership between an MO and countries. These are mostly uses to support the MO’s fundraising strategy, especially to get longer term or non-earmarked funding. • None of these uses by MOs are directly related to additional funding from members who have not used these fundraising initiatives to address strategic concerns.

MOs use new MOPAN products to support strategic reflections.

As MOPAN’s analytical products are unique to their specific context and cannot be compared to one other, specific findings are provided here for the two cases examined.

Elaboration of a SEAH framework – SEAH Note for Practitioners

A SEAH framework was developed over a period of three years at the prompting of the Netherlands and UK in 2018, when a case study was also initiated involving United National High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the World Bank Group (WBG), the World Food Programme (WFP), and the World Health Organization (WHO). Subsequently, 40 international stakeholders (including experts and multilateral stakeholders) were consulted on what became the SEAH framework that MOPAN began using in its 2020 assessment cycle. A “Note for Practitioners” was published in January 2021. This was the first time that MOPAN engaged in such a collaborative process to develop indicators. Most of the MO staff who were interviewed acknowledged that the note for practitioners was the best synthesis to date on SEA and SH, and that it was also thorough and informative about donors’ standards and expectations. Compared to other guidelines, it is adapted to sectors outside the UN and humanitarian organisations, is in tune with the OECD DAC recommendations in this area, and draws on best practice to provide a blueprint to develop a relevant strategy in the domain.

The uptake was very broad and thorough (see Table 14):

• Action plan indicators across UN agencies were updated in 2021 to take some MOPAN indicators on SEAH into account.

• For the MOs who were restructuring their sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) and sexual harassment (SH) unit when the note for practitioners was issued, it became a guiding framework to structure their protection from sexual exploitation abuse and harassment (PSEAH) strategy on this topic (IOM, GFATM, WFP). • Some MOs used MOPAN’s SEAH indicators to build their own monitoring framework, either choosing some (ILO) or aligning to MOPAN’s 16 indicators (UNESCO) strictly.