Institutional Leads as an opportunity for additional dialogue

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  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 67  The Rubens Group consists of Norway, UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. 68  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.

ILs sometimes play an important role. Norway is a typical example. The Norwegian IL for the UNESCO assessment managed to create momentum by proposing to the UNESCO secretariat that all UNESCO permanent delegations be informed and invited to a presentation of the assessment when it started. They were all subsequently convened at a presentation of the findings. United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) are other examples of the Norwegian IL’s commitment to actively use the position. The interest in being an IL can vary widely, however. For many countries, and especially for small to medium-sized countries, finding persons to act as ILs can be difficult. Those ministries or agencies that are asked to provide an IL can see this more as one more task to be done rather than as an opportunity. MOPAN representatives can have a hard time convincing them to participate, which is why members widely appreciated the recent learning event on being an IL. But some MOs can also be high on the priority list of several members that may actually begin to compete to be an IL. This results in frustrating situations where even when they want to these countries might not become an IL (e.g. Italy for International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)). In a somewhat different manner, being part of the reference group of an analytical study can also be leveraged in support of use, as was the case with the UNDS study: Finland, Italy, Germany, the three interviewed reference group members, all relied on the study to draft their national position during the intergovernmental negotiations on the review of the Resident-Coordinator system, a major aspect discussed by the study.

Main findings

• A few countries use MOPAN systematically in their relationship with MOs. • Some countries use MOPAN assessments non-recurrently in their dialogue with MOs, either as a substantial input to existing discussions or where there are accountability and management issues to address. There is a greater probability that an assessment will be used when a high-priority partnership exists with an MO. • Some countries do use the opportunity of being an IL to influence MOs, but this is quite rare, especially some countries can find it difficult to nominate an IL.