TWG 2019 Inception Reports forERG 20190717 PDF

This document includes the inception reports for:
1. Establishing how to assess the response of a multilateral

organisation to the 2030 Agenda
2. How to assess the performance of Multilateral

Organisations in safeguarding against sexual exploitation,
abuse and harassment
3. Reform of the UN Development System
4. Reviewing the results component (KPIs 9-12)
5. MOPAN Process and Methodology Differentiation
1
Establishing how to assess the response of a
multilateral organisation to the 2030 Agenda
Inception Report
2
Contents
Introduction 5
Background 5
Purpose, scope and focus 5
Methodology 7
Background to the methodology 7
Relationship to MOPAN assessments and other Case Studies 9
Method 10
The Review Framework - Inquiry matrix 12
MO selection and rationale 18
Limitations 18
Annex 1: MO Selection list 19
MO Selection for Fieldwork: Methodology and Recommendations 19
Stage 1. Classification for SDG implementation 19
Stage 2. Agency Typology 19
Stage 3. Diversity of thematic focus 19
Stage 4. Feasibility 19
Table 1: MO Selection List (Organisations assessed in 2015-2016, 2017-2018, 2019-20) 21
3
Acronyms
ADB Asian Development Bank

AfDB African Development Bank
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GAVI The Vaccine Alliance
GEF Global Environment Facility
GFATM Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria
GPE Global Partnership for Education
HQ Headquarters
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFC International Finance Corporation
ILO International Labor Organisation
IOM International Organization for Migration
MO Multilateral Organisation
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MOPAN Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network
OHCHR United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
QA Quality Assurance
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
TWG Technical Working Group
UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organisation
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
UN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Programme
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
WFP World Food Programme
WHO World Health Organisation
4
Introduction
Background
This document is the Inception Report for the case study Establishing how to assess the response of a
multilateral organisation to the 2030 Agenda and sets out the design and process for the case study approach.
Purpose, scope and focus

The purpose of the case study is to inform on how the MOPAN assessment methodology could be refined to
cover how a Multilateral Organisation (MO) is responding to the aims and objectives of the 2030 Agenda:
“Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. The global community is committed
to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda, as signified by 193 Member States adopting it in 2015. The Agenda is
results-focussed as the pathway to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and
transformative with respect to the way in which it is delivered.
The expectation is that both the way individual organisations work and the partnerships/collaborations between
agencies and stakeholders within and beyond development assistance will be reflective of this ‘transformative
approach’. The MOPAN methodology, to be relevant in the context of the 2030 Agenda and its global mandate
for transformation, needs to establish a means of assessment to identify if (i) the assessed organisations have
made a commitment to the 2030 Agenda; (ii) whether that commitment is being adopted and applied
throughout the organisation, and (iii) whether there is a reflection of the commitment in the results being
achieved.
The case study will be undertaken over a period of eight months (December 2018 – August 2019) and is expected
to contribute to MOPAN’s broader learning agenda. The expected outcome of the case study is a proposed
approach to integrating an assessment of a MO’s internalisation of the 2030 Agenda into the MOPAN indicator
framework and assessment process. The case study will construct and test the proposed approach. Through the
testing process, learning generated concerning the appropriateness of the approach will be fed back into the
proposed approach and any necessary amendments will be made.
This case study will explore three options for methodological changes regarding the SDGs:
Option 1: Include an additional KPI in MOPAN Methodology framework as a catalyst for accelerated and linked
organisational strategies, implementation, results and learning -a clear focus on whether the MO is transforming
itself in relation to the 2030 Agenda.
Option 2: Adjust and amend specific KPI micro-indicators and elements throughout the methodology to assess
better alignment of current operations across the MO to the 2030 Agenda – focusing on proxy measures on”
fitness to deliver” on the SDGs.
Option 3: Conduct a distinct preparedness review to assess whether multilateral organisations have organised
themselves in a way that will enable them to successfully deliver on the 2030 Agenda – in particular, assessing
the internal adaptation process an organisation is going through and establishing whether or not it is fit for
purpose. This would be a ‘bolt-on’ to the MOPAN assessment drawing on information generated by the MOPAN
assessment process.
The starting point for the design task of the case study was the ‘mirror’ principle of the MOPAN assessment –
considering for an MO the position attained against their stated intent, the efforts planned for and the effects
5
tracked and responded to by an organisation, in reference to the Generic Indicator Framework and Scoring and
Rating System of the MOPAN 3.0 Methodology.
The case study method will explore the three options, or potentially a further emergent option, leaving the
space for any further or novel options to emerge as the study progresses. Based on the findings of the options
at desk review stage, the case study would aim to develop and deploy robust and measurable indicators and
through this testing process propose a way forward for the MOPAN methodology to be further adapted and
refined in ways that provides an adequate assessment framework for the response of MOs to the 2030 Agenda.
6
Methodology
Background to the methodology
SDG Custodian and partner MOs

In implementing the case study, the proposed approach is cognizant of the fact that MOs may take two different
roles in the 2030 Agenda implementation, (i) Custodian Agencies and (ii) Partner organisations. “Custodian”
agencies are UN bodies (and in some cases other international organisations) formally responsible for compiling
and verifying country data, metadata, and for submitting the data, along with regional and global aggregates,
to the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD). Custodian status is allocated by the Secretariat (UNDESA1) to
MOs that have indicated that they wish to be responsible for addressing specific indicators within the SDGs. The
term “partner” in this context is used to indicate MOs that have expressed a desire to act on specific indicators,
but not to the level of custodian status. All MOs are expected to align with the 2030 Agenda and as such embed
the relevant SDGs within their implementation. Therefore, for the purpose of this case study, all MOs not
classified as custodian or partner agency will be termed ‘implementing partners’ and will be classified with
partner agencies.
Custodian agencies ensure that the data is internationally comparable and develop international standards and
methodologies to help countries in monitoring. Country-level data may be published in their databases and used
for thematic reporting.2 “Partner” agencies are organisations that have nominated themselves for a role in the
implementation of one or more SDGs in line with the intent of SDG 17 – partnership for the goals. Partnership
organisations are not formally named as having a responsibility for specific goals but have made an express
commitment to certain aspects of implementation.
Moving on from preparedness

The 2030 Agenda calls for action and for MOs to be fit for purpose. Hence, there is the need for the MOPAN
methodology to continue to evolve in ways that will allow tracking of an organisation’s preparedness,
incorporation and operationalisation of the 2030 Agenda. This builds on the earlier work of the Technical
Working Group (TWG) under cycle 2015-16 to incorporate the global moves on the SDGs within the broad lens
of Micro-indicator 1.3 and its underlying elements to ‘investigate if the strategic plan [of the MO] supports the
implementation of wider normative frameworks and associated results’. The 2030 Agenda has also emerged
within the 2017-18 assessment process as an issue that MOs are actively considerate of/ engaging on across all
functional areas.
Moving on from ‘preparedness’ and 3-4 years in to implementation of the 2030 Agenda the focus of MOPAN is
naturally moving on to the demonstrated capacity of MOs for (early) delivery of 2030 Agenda, as they move to
a position of being fully engaged in implementation according to their stated focus areas. Within this broad
frame and informed by this case study, the MOPAN steering Committee – through the TWG - will determine
what it wants to explicitly measure and ultimately know about organisational performance vis-à -vis the 2030
Agenda/ SDGs and how this can be best accomplished.
Core focus of the case study
1 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) acts as the Secretariat for the SDGs.
2 UNESCO, 2018, Quick Guide to Education Indicators for SDG 4, p.11.
7
The core focus of the case study will be on the means by which MOPAN can find a way of assessing:
 The determination by an MO of how specifically they need to transform – in principle and in process -
beyond a “business as usual” approach to their work to meet the expectations of 2030 Agenda (implicit
within this agenda is a ‘raising of the bar’ for all). For document review purposes documentation from
2015 onwards will be included, with 2015 being a ‘baseline’ or comparison point.
 The early actions taken by an MO to translate the above understanding into a clear and resourced
process of continuous improvement/reform within their systems and processes, including consideration
of additional resources required to work in closer cooperation and partnership; commensurate with the
capacity needed to deliver on this transformative agenda.
 The early actions taken on delivery which reflect ‘first and following moves’ in the practice of the 2030
Agenda and any points of reflection internally on what this experience reveals in terms of their readiness
to implement the proposed approaches.
 the extent to which they have built a strong “fitness to deliver” foundation for action and the extent
of progress from a whole organisational system perspective (i.e. where is the quantum leap forward or
where are stresses and strains showing?) and any related management response and respective results.
Rationale for a case study approach

The term ‘case study’ typically refers to a social or organisational research study set in real-time for a specified
and bounded phenomena, for example; a locality, a group of people with defined commonalities or users of the
same facility or stakeholders in a related intervention. Case studies are powerful tools to explore questions of
process, experience, and relationships, and are primarily qualitative. Statistical and quantitative data can be
added to triangulate qualitative evidence and provide context.
Case studies provide a richness of understanding of processes and actors in a given context, including a better
understanding of barriers and facilitators to activities as directly experienced. Case studies are highly context
dependent; when several are undertaken, this allows the impact of contextual factors to be drawn out which
can then inform the wider application and generalisation of research findings.
As a result, if purposefully chosen and analysed, case studies can be used to develop and test the voracity of
different scenarios, and how to assess within each. A case study is more likely to provide a robust test for a
scenario on how the MOPAN methodology could be refined to take account of the 2030 Agenda because the
researchers are exposed to the totality of information provided by actors. In contrast, a quantitative
methodology is less likely to elicit information which was not considered in the original conceptualisation. This
theme of how an emergent evaluative process can generate relevant factors that may not be present in the
initial framework and the evidence generated can be used to build a new scenario and a basis for new
knowledge.
The selection of cases can be made based on several strategies, such as, a random sample, purposive selection
of cases through stratification, maximum variation, selection of especially problematic or effective cases. In this
study, following discussions with the MOPAN Secretariat, cases have been selected based on a stratified
approach albeit taking into account geographical scope and availability of data. Details of the case MO selection
rationale are given in more detail below.
The proposed case study format uses a mixed methods approach with a strong focus on evidence gathering
initially from available documentation, including recent media releases and publications as well as from key
informants. As agreed by the Steering Committee TWG and the Secretariat during the scoping stage, the
8
methodology will aim particularly to gather evidence in a way which sheds light on how MOs catalyse change,
on the ground, within their organisation in respect to the 2030 agenda, especially;
- The government/country stakeholder perspective on how the MOs support the successful 2030
Agenda implementation;
- Opportunities for learning across the MOs;
- How MOs interact with each other and other partners ; and
Identifying examples of good practice and innovation.
Relationship to MOPAN assessments and other Case Studies
MOPAN has accumulated a vast body of information since 2015 through its assessment of more than 30
organisations. This places MOPAN in a unique position to build on and complement the individual institutional
assessments already conducted, as well as those currently underway. As such this Case study will utilise
evidence from previous MOPAN assessments to inform the future development and refinement of MOPAN
assessments and other MOPAN outputs. Additionally, this case study will ensure a complementarity with other
relevant case studies being conducted, particularly on UN reform to ensure a joined-up approach.
9
Method
Summary overview
The study will use a mixed methods approach, drawing on an in depth document review of current and previous
MOPAN assessment and relevant documentation. The document review will inform a process of developing a
composite hypothesis/or alternative scenarios for how progress towards the 2030 Agenda may be assessed.
Based on the findings of the initial review, working sessions will be undertaken to explore and test the
appropriateness and likely evidence generated by the proposed approach. The sample MOs will be used to test
the prototype approach (specific indicators and methods) with regards to usability. The sub-set of sample MOs
from within the 2019 cycle 3 cohort testing will be a ‘bolt-on’ at each assessment phase/milestone point,
through the document review and engagement with the MO’s HQ through semi-structured interviews. Where
possible HQ visits of the current cycle will be embedded in the on-going cycle. Additional side visits to HQs of
previous cycles will be made where convenient and applicable to assess the viability of the questions.
Evidence from the different reporting streams will be analysed and triangulated using a common framework in
order ensure consistency in the generation of learning and findings.
Document review
The document review will encompass available evaluation documentation, including MOPAN assessments from
previous cycles and additional secondary data. It is expected that the MOPAN documentation will provide
indications of whether the selected agencies are responding to the 2030 Agenda and the extent to which any
policy shifts, or restructuring has occurred. It will also require reference to the original documentation that
informed the MOPAN documentation and any pertinent updates related to the SDGs.
Building from the direction set within the TWG concept note (August 2018) – the emphasis on examining
whether the organisation is currently going through a rigorous and thorough internal process of recognising,
understanding and integrating the 2030 Agenda – the team will gather base knowledge about the deliberate
actions taken thus far of selected MOs as part of their organisational effectiveness in both preparing for and
implementing 2030 Agenda.
Guided by the above, and the initial thinking by the TWG on how MOPAN can engage with the methodological
changes regarding the SDGs, the team will consider the existing ‘hooks’ and/or natural points of alignment
within the MOPAN 3.0 Indicator Framework that relate to the transforming nature of 2030 Agenda; how an MO
adjusts/ improves the way it organises itself to deliver and the way it manages this change.
The literature and data review as part of the evidence gathering for the evaluation at MO level will include:
 MO documentation on SDGs implementation, frameworks and monitoring and measurement tools.

 MO documentation on results and monitoring, SDGs related evaluations, including single and joint
entity evaluations.
 Evidence from the MOPAN assessments, to date, for the selected MO.
 MO documents on strategies, policies, programmes, budgets, processes, partnership and programme
monitoring reports and evaluations.
Working sessions
Working with the base information through the desk review, the case study will then use working sessions, in
collaboration with the Secretariat to design a prototype approach to data gathering and analysis. This will be
10
guided by key considerations of what is most critical to assess. Key considerations include, asking what are
practical and proportionate tools and methods for assessment, while working to the extent possible within the
existing parameters and resourcing of the MOPAN 3.0 methodology.
The case study team will consider the acknowledgement of 2030 Agenda in earlier and current agency strategies
and policies and any specific institutional or programming shifts that have occurred with a view to 2030 Agenda
implementation. This may relate to commitments to specific SDG indicators and targets or may be a more
general focus on the 5 “P”s of the SDGs (People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnership) and principles such
as universality and “no-one left behind”.
HQ visits
The research team will visit up to six MOs depending on the emerging finding. The visits will be informed by
prior data and document reviews (see above) and discussions with the relevant MO leads. At this stage we
would anticipate fieldwork being up to 3 days focused on semi structured interviews with key staff. Field visits
could be shorter if a current 2019 MO is used and if fieldwork could overlap with planned field assessments.
Planning for each HQ visit will start with prior communications with the identified MO lead in order to. The
purpose of these is to introduce the evaluation team, discuss the case study approach and methodology, and
identify potential interviewees.
Working sessions
Working sessions will allow the case study team to reflect on the testing, with targeted follow up discussion and
with selected key informants (both from within the relevant assessment teams for cycle 2019 and potentially
within the MOs). Working sessions between the team and other relevant people, including the MOPAN
Secretariat (conducted by VC or in person if practice) will also provide a platform to draw conclusions on the
validity of the proposed approach and refinements to this.
Analysis
- Analysis will be based on the inquiry matrix so that there is a consistent approach taken to recording
and analysis. Evidence sheets will be developed for all 4 MOs.
- Evidence will be recorded on an Excel spreadsheet to ensure clear evidence for each line of inquiry.
Evidence sources will be noted (e.g. interviews, documents, MOPAN data). This will be used to support
triangulation and to weight evidence.
- An analysis and report of findings will be drafted based on this evidence sheet for each of the selected
MOs. This will be reviewed, and factual validation undertaken with the MO focal point.
- An initial overview analysis of the findings from selected MOs will be undertaken with commonalities
and discrepancies highlighted. This will be presented for reflection to the TWG, to draw out key findings,
identify emerging themes and learning for the final report. The team will reflect on internal challenge
and triangulation including with other teams working on MOPAN Case studies, particularly on UN
Reform.
- Following this, a final synthesis report setting out recommendations for the case for the inclusion of a
2030 Agenda lens and assessment approach embedded within the MOPAN assessments from 2020 and
beyond will be submitted to the MOPAN Secretariat for comment, and ultimately presented to the
Steering Committee meeting in Autumn 2019.
Ensuring a consistent approach across case studies

The team will ensure a consistent approach and quality through:
1. Use of the inquiry matrix to record and analyse data

2. Use of standard interview guides for semi-structured interviews
11
3. Regular virtual team meetings to review findings
4. Regular internal team communications
5. Internal reviews of findings for selected MOs
6. Quality assurance inputs and challenge from quality assurance leads
7. Ongoing and regular engagement with the MOPAN secretariat
Reporting
There will be a range of working products that would guide implementation such as the final selection of the
case study agencies, the case study scenario overview for field testing and the field testing plan.
 The major output will be a synthesis report that includes specific learning points as outlined above.
 The report would include detailed analysis of the different scenarios and the results of testing for
each selected agency.
 It would also include learning for the MOPAN 3.0 Assessment process in general terms, and specifically
reflecting on the process of, and outputs generated by, the case study approach to learning.
Quality Assurance (QA) will be carried out throughout the project with Dorothy Lucks as Team leader
responsible for QA, in addition Julian Gayfer will have oversight and QA functions as part of the overarching
management of the MOPAN 2019 cycle. The team will also work closely with the Secretariat throughout,
particularly at the end of the inception period, at the end of the fieldwork period, and during the completion
period for the final report.
Dissemination and publication will be undertaken by MOPAN.
The Review Framework - Inquiry matrix

An inquiry matrix (see Table 1 below) provides the main framework for the analysis and will be used at various
stages. It sets out the overall review questions covering 6 main areas, which then are broken down into more
detailed sub questions that can be tailored in each MO context to structure interviews and develop the building
blocks for the report.
The 6 main areas of inquiry will also be used to structure the final report findings and conclusions. They are:
 Responding to the 2030 Agenda: Is the 2030 Agenda mentioned in strategic documents and in what
way?
 Evolution of being fit for purpose: Has there been a shift (2016 on) in MO resources (budget or staffing)
to respond to SDGs priorities? Is there an effort by the MO to adjust skill sets and people in line with
the immediate and anticipated demands of the 2030 Agenda?
 Making effort and taking action: Are there specific programmes related to the SDGs in line with the
respective MO’s strategies – has this changed from their pre-2015 programming and if so, to what
extent? Are there innovative approaches being considered, commenced or implemented towards
transformational agendas.
 Working together, efficient and effective shared business processes:
12
Ensuring a holistic and streamlined approach of all actors involved, and considering strategic directions
and evidence of impact/effectiveness, have partnerships been put in place by the MO to implement the
2030 Agenda?
 Delivering results: Has the results framework of the MO been adapted to the 2030 agenda? Are the
steps outlined in strategy and operational documents been reflected in the results framework and
evaluation plans? Are there are indicators in place that link with the 2030 Agenda indicators framework?
Are these results being tracked? Are results becoming evident?
 Measuring impact:
Are systems in place or being prepared by the MO to measure the effect and impact of an internal
agenda on preparedness and response to 2030 Agenda? Is the MO ready to report on its contribution
to the 2030 Agenda? Is the leadership taking ownership of the 2030 Agenda call for accelerated impact.
13
Table 1: Inquiry matrix
Key area of inquiry: broad Sub-question Evidence sources/targeting of questions by stakeholder

question group
1. Responding to the 2030 1.1 Is the strategic plan and intended results based on a clear long-term vision Evidence against MOPAN MI 1.1, updated/current
Agenda: Is the 2030 Agenda aligning with the 2030 Agenda principles and indicators? If so, please detail. If individual agency corporate and strategic documents
mentioned in strategic no, what efforts are underway to do so?
documents and in what way?
1.2 Is the organisational architecture congruent with a clear long-term vision, Evidence against MOPAN MI 1.2, updated/current
aligning with the 2030 Agenda, and an associated operating model? If so, individual agency corporate and strategic documents
please detail. If no, what efforts are underway to do so?
1.3 How does the strategic plan support the implementation of wider Evidence against MOPAN MI 1.3, updated/current
normative frameworks and associated results that are aligned with the 2030 individual agency corporate and strategic documents,
Agenda Framework (e.g. UN Reform, QCPR, replenishment commitments, or interviews with agency staff
other resource and results reviews)?
1.4 Does the financial framework (e.g. division between core and no-core Evidence against MOPAN MI 1.4, updated/current
resources) support the mandate implementation? If so, please detail. If not, individual agency corporate and strategic documents,
please detail which efforts are underway to do so? interviews with agency staff
2. Delivering results: Are 2.1 How is the strategic plan and results framework being developed in order to Relevant documents (Strategic plan, annual work plans,
there specific programmes identify needs to be able to support the SDGs implementation? Has this regional and country strategy documents), interviews
related to the SDGs in line changed since 2015, and if so, to what extent? with agency staff
with the respective MO’s
strategies – has this changed 2.2 Do programmes cover not only thematic SDGs focus but also cross-cutting Annual reports, corporate and thematic evaluations,
from their pre-2015 2030 Agenda issues (e.g. leaving no one behind, gender equality, environmental interviews with agency staff
sustainability)? Please detail.
14
question group
programming and if so, to

what extent?
3. Evolution of being fit for 3.1. How does the organisational structure and staffing ensure that human and Evidence against MOPAN MI 3.1, interviews with agency
purpose: Has there been a financial resources are continuously aligned and adjusted to key functions that staff
shift (2016 on) in MO are essential to be able to respond to the 2030 Agenda priorities?
resources (budget or staffing)
to respond to SDGs priorities? 3.2. Are resource mobilization efforts consistent with the core mandate and Evidence against MOPAN MI 3.2, current/updated
strategic priorities that are aligned with the vision of the 2030 Agenda? If yes, resource mobilization strategies, interviews with agency
please detail. If no, what efforts are underway to do so? staff
3.3. In order to be able to better support the SDGs implementation, are aid Evidence against MOPAN MI 3.3, current/updated
reallocation/programming decisions responsive to the need that can be made resource mobilization strategies and possible reform
at a decentralized level? If yes, please detail. If no, what efforts are underway documents, interviews with agency staff
to do so?
4. Working together, efficient 4.1. Does planning, programming and the approval of procedures enable the Evidence against MOPAN MI 6.1, current/updated
and effective shared business agility in partnerships to implement the 2030 Agenda, when conditions change? partnership strategies, evaluations on partnership,
processes: While ensuring a Please detail. interviews with agency staff and partners
holistic and streamlined
approach of all actors 4.2. Are partnerships, to implement the 2030 Agenda, based on an explicit Evidence against MOPAN MI 6.2, current/updated
involved, and considering statement of comparative advantage e.g. technical knowledge, convening partnership strategies, evaluations on partnership,
strategic directions and power/partnerships, policy dialogue/advocacy? interviews with agency staff and partners
evidence of
impact/effectiveness, have
15
question group
partnerships been put in 4.3. Is there clear adherence to the commitment in the Busan Partnership for Evidence against MOPAN MI 6.3, current/updated
place to implement the 2030 Effective Development Cooperation on use of country systems when working partnership strategies, evaluations on partnership,
Agenda? with partners to implement the 2030 Agenda? interviews with agency staff and partners
4.4. Do strategies or design identify synergies between partners, to encourage Evidence against MOPAN MI 6.4, current/updated
leverage/catalytic use of resources and avoid fragmentation? Please detail. partnership strategies, evaluations on partnership,
interviews with agency staff and partners
4.5. Are key business practices (planning, design, implementation, monitoring Evidence against MOPAN MI 6.5, current/updated
and reporting) co-ordinated with partners (donors, UN agencies, etc.) in order partnership strategies, evaluations on partnership,
to implement the 2030 Agenda? Please detail. interviews with agency staff and partners
4.6. Is key information (analysis, budgeting, management, results etc.) shared Evidence against MOPAN MI 6.6, current/updated
with partners on an ongoing basis? Please detail. partnership strategies, evaluations on partnership,
4.7. Are clear standards and procedures for accountability implemented to Evidence against MOPAN MI 6.7, current/updated
support the success of the 2030 Agenda implementation? Please detail. partnership strategies, evaluations on partnership,
5. Measuring impact: Are 5.1. How does leadership ensure the application of an organisation-wide RBM Evidence against MOPAN MI 7.1, current/updated
systems in place or being approach that responds to the 2030 Agenda? Strategic Plan and Results Framework and related
prepared to measure the documents, corporate evaluations, interviews with
effect and impact of an agency staff
internal agenda on
5.2. How are corporate strategies, including regional and country strategies, Evidence against MOPAN MI 7.2, current/updated
based on a sound RBM focus and logic in order to respond to the 2030 Agenda? Strategic Plan and Results Framework and related
16
question group
preparedness and response documents such as regional a/o country strategies,

to 2030 Agenda? corporate evaluations, interviews with agency staff
5.3. Are results targets set based on a sound evidence base and logic in order to Evidence against MOPAN MI 7.3, current/updated
respond to the 2030 Agenda? Strategic Plan and Results Framework and related
documents, corporate evaluations, interviews with
agency staff
5.4. Do monitoring systems generate high quality, disaggregated and useful Evidence against MOPAN MI 7.4, M&E frameworks and
performance data in order to respond to the 2030 Agenda? methodologies, corporate evaluations, interviews with
agency staff
5.5. Is performance data transparently applied in planning and decision making Evidence against MOPAN MI 7.5, corporate evaluations,
in order to implement the 2030 Agenda? annual reports, interviews with agency staff
6. Making effort and taking 6.1 Are HR systems and policies performance based and geared to the Evidence against MOPAN MI 3.4, current/updated HR
action: Is there an effort to achievement of results that are in alignment with the 2030 Agenda? If yes, policies and other HR documents, interviews with agency
adjust skill sets and people in please detail. If no, what efforts are underway to do so? staff
line with the immediate and
anticipated demands of the 6.2 How does the organisation ensure that skill sets, and people are constantly HR documents such as organizational performance review
2030 Agenda? in line with the immediate and anticipated demands the 2030 Agenda results, HR policy documents indicating talent
priorities? Please detail. management and training, corporate evaluations, annual
reports, interviews with agency staff
17
MO selection and rationale
MO selection criteria:
MO selection is key to the case study process. The MOs covered by MOPAN assessments in the period
2015 to 2019 include a diverse range of MOs reflecting different functions (normative, financing,
coordination):
 Reflect various roles (Custodian, partner, specialized and multiple roles) in the implementation of
the 2030 Agenda.
 Reflect various different SDG thematic focus areas.
 Reflect a range of partnership approaches, successes and challenges on progressing the 2030
Agenda.
 Reflect a range of implementation or integration strategies.
The MO selection was designed to optimize the “testability” of the proposed scenarios. The chosen MOs illustrate
a critical approach to test the scenarios across a diversity of MOs to ensure a robust methodology is developed.
To avoid duplicated learning, the 4 MO selections are relatively different from one-another. This is based on the
focus of thematic areas within the 2030 Agenda, the individual SDGs, or integration/ implementation strategies.
This approach was designed to maximize the learning from the case study and is described in Annex 1.
Limitations
This case study has several limitations most of which are inherent in the nature of this approach and the available
time and budget, and need to be kept in mind as caveats or contextual considerations as the study proceeds and
when findings are discussed later.
One of the main challenges and limitations is the given the focus of each agency for the 2030 Agenda will be
different, the preparation of a common methodology is expected to be challenging. This may be mitigated by
trialling a customised approach. Additionally, each MOs current stage of preparedness and implementation of
SDGs is likely to be different and this too will need to be taken into account. The timing of the case study being
conducted over 9 months, and the resources mean that only a limited number of MOs can be include for detailed
consideration, however this can be mitigated against through the choosing of representative MOs, as outlined in
this section.
18
Annex 1: MO Selection list
All MLOs (Organisations assessed in 2015-2016, 2017-2018, 2019-20) that are not custodian agencies are
classified as an implementing agency to the 2030 Agenda as it is a universal agenda. The definition in the fourth
column is for those agencies with at least one specific designated indicator but also includes all other agencies
as implementing partner.
MO Selection for Fieldwork: Methodology and Recommendations

Stage 1. Classification for SDG implementation
The proposal stipulates a case-study assessment of MOs to assess the extent to which they have embraced the
2030 Agenda and are actively implementing its goals and targets. The first pillar of active implementation of the
2030 Agenda is that MOs have integrated elements of the 2030 Agenda into their own organizational strategies.
17 MLOs have a ‘custodian’ status for particular SDG targets. This means that they are mandated to engage with
other agencies, organisations and individuals in pursuit of actions to address the respective target and for formal
reporting to the High-Level Political Forum (HPLF) on those targets. Other agencies have taken on a responsibility
for specific indicators and are called ‘partner agencies’. The remaining agencies may not have an official
responsibility for SDG reporting but do have a responsibility to adopt the SDGs as a development framework for
implementation. Therefore, these agencies have been classified as ‘implementing agencies’. Consequently, the
33 agencies will be divided into two cohorts: custodian and partner.
Stage 2. Agency Typology
Secondly, MOs are shortlisted on the basis of the type of institution. This will ensure that the proposed assessment
methodology will be applicable across different MO types. For the purpose of the case study, the 33 MOs were
classified as: (i) United Nations Entities (generally specialized agencies); (ii) international finance institutions (IFIs);
(iii) Global Funds; and, (iv) Treaties/partnerships. There may be some MOs that have a dual function, and this also
would be considered in the selection process as part of feasibility and potential contribution to learning. Also,
the case study will explore the strength of existing partnerships and collaborations in order to understand the
complexities and challenges of building and maintaining partnerships. The case study sample should include at
least one of each type.
Stage 3. Diversity of thematic focus
Thirdly, MOs cover a wide range of thematic areas of operation. The 2030 Agenda emphasizes the importance of
the 17 thematic areas of the SDGs and the case study will attempt to cover a range of thematic areas to ensure
that the methodology proposed is applicable across different SDG areas of focus. Many agencies will have a
multiple focus and as such a broad sweep of sectors can be considered within a small sample. However, there
may be justification for including an MO with a narrow focus on one SDG to assess the extent to which a focused
mandate may generate faster readiness, adoption and implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
Stage 4. Feasibility
This stage of the assessment brings in pragmatic matters of how to operationalize the process of data collection
from the agencies. Where possible to optimize field testing, agencies from the current MOPAN cycle will be
included to enable the methodology to be integrated within the on-going MOPAN processes. The exact process
for how this will occur without compromising the validity of the on-going assessments is yet to be determined but
would be given detailed consideration as part of the initial scoping of the different options. However, the
19
possibility of carrying out specific field tests would also be considered feasibility, particularly where agencies from
previous MOPAN cycles are located in close proximity to on-going 2019 assessments.
The criteria outlined above reduced the list of MOs to include as potential case studies to a long list of 33
candidates (set out in Table 1).
20
MO Selection List (Organisations assessed in 2015-2016, 2017-2018, 2019-20)
Note: All MLOs that are not custodian agencies are classified as an implementing agency to the 2030 Agenda as it is a universal agenda. The definition in the
fourth column is for those agencies with at least one specific designated indicator but also includes all other agencies as implementing partner.
MO Assess. year Designated Designated agency for Type of Thematic focus Implementation/integration strategies (list max.4 main documents a/o
custodian specific indicators4 Organisation partnerships)
agency for3 (partner agency) or
aligned thematic focus
(implementing partner)
1 ADB 2017-18 Not a custodian Implementing partner IFI Economy, finance  ADB’s Corporate Results Framework 2017-2020 is aligned with the SDGs
agency  Core tenets of ADB’s Strategy 2020 aligns with the SDG framework
 Biennial Sustainability Report highlights integration of sustainability into
ADB’s operations and organizational activities during 2016–2017
 Technical assistance and knowledge support and creating DMC program
strategies that focus on aspects of the 2030 Agenda
2 AfDB 2015-16 Not a custodian Implementing partner IFI Economy, finance  AfDB’s Strategy is in alignment with SDGs (High-Five, key priorities that are
agency critical to achieve the SDGs)
 AfDB launched a tool for tracking progress on its "High-Five" key development
priorities and creating opportunities for corrective action.
 AfDB is partner of African Leadership in ICT for Knowledge Society
Advancement
 AfDB is partner of the Global Platform for Sustainable Cities (GPSC)
3 CGIAR 2019 Not a custodian Implementing partner Treaty/ Rural poverty, food  CGIAR’s Strategy and Results Framework is in alignment with SDGs
agency partnership security, human  CGIAR is partner of World Business Council for Sustainable Development
health and nutrition, (WBCSD) Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)
and sustainable
 CGIAR’s research for development and livelihood impact contributes to the
management of
natural resources SDGs
3 As in Tier Classification for Global SDG Indicators, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/tier-classification/

4 Ibid.
21
4 EBRD 2019 (this Implementing partner
has been
cancelled)
5 FAO 2017-18 19 SDG 1 indicator UN agency Food and agriculture  FAO’s Medium Term Plan is in alignment with SDGs
indicators  Together with FAO and WFP, IFAD builds a unique thematic partnership, the
2.a.2 RBAs (Rome Based Agencies), in supporting the SDGs implementation.
 FAO is partner at the Joint Programme on gender equality and women
empowerment - Rural women economic empowerment component.
2.1.1, 2.1.2,
2.3.1, 2.3.2,  The Committee of World Food Security (CFS), hosted by FAO with IFAD and
2.4.1, 2.5.1, WFP, is known as the foremost inclusive international and intergovernmental
2.5.2, 2.a.1, platform for all stakeholders to work together to ensure food security and
2.c.1, 5.a.1 (a), nutrition for all. FAO also launched six multi-stakeholder partnership - called
5.a.2, 6.4.1, Global Knowledge Products -to strengthen support on specific themes
6.4.2, 14.4.1,
covered by various SDGs.
14.6.1, 14.b.1,
15.1.1, 15.2.1,
15.4.2
6 GAVI 2015-16 Not a custodian Implementing partner Fund Health; Access to  GAVI’s Strategic Framework is in alignment with SDGs.
agency immunisation  GAVI joins the “Global Action Plan”, an initiative where 11 global health
organizations commit to new ways of working together for greater impact
(towards the SDGs)
7 GEF 2017-18 Not a custodian Implementing partner Fund Environment  SDGs are highly considered in GEF-7’s Programming Directions
agency  GEF occupies a unique space in the global partnership for sustainable
development and is supporting the vision embodied in the SDGs.
 GEF supports efforts across multiple, interlinked global environment domains
that are closely aligned with the SDGs.
8 GFATM 2015-16 Not a custodian Implementing partner Fund Health; AIDS,  GFATM Strategy is in alignment with SDGs
agency Tuberculosis and  GFATM joins the “Global Action Plan”, an initiative where 11 global health
Malaria organizations commit to new ways of working together for greater impact
(towards the SDGs)
 GFATM and WHO share a common commitment to Universal Health Coverage
(UHC) and the SDGs, a common Strategic Framework.
22
9 GPE 2017-18 Not a custodian Implementing partner Fund/ Education  GPE’s Strategic Plan is in alignment with the SDGs
agency Partnership  The GPE, the Partnership, has adopted SDG 4 as its global vision, and
emphasizes that education is central to achieving all 17 SDGs.
10 IDB 2015-16 Not a custodian Implementing partner IFI Economy, finance  IDB Group joins other MDBs’ to catalyze low-emissions and climate-resilient
agency development
 IDB’s Office of Outreach and Partnerships works with governments,
companies, academia, foundations, and others to forge and maintain
partnerships to advance the SDGs. In the past three years, they have helped
mobilize an annual average of $4 billion in resources from 400+ organizations,
all of which are allocated to projects that improve lives in the region.
11 IFAD 2017-18 Not a custodian Partner agency UN agency Poverty and hunger  IFAD’s fifth Strategic Framework (2016-2025) situates IFAD in the evolving
agency in rural areas global context and articulates its contribution to the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.
 Together with FAO and WFP, IFAD builds a unique thematic partnership, the
1 indicator
RBAs (Rome Based Agencies), in supporting the SDGs implementation.
 IFAD is partner at the Joint Programme on gender equality and women
1.4.2  IFAD joins Compact2025, an initiative for ending hunger and undernutrition
by 2025.
12 IFC 2019 (this

has been
cancelled)
13 ILO 2015-16 15 SDG 3 indicators UN agency Labour  Strategic Plan 2018-21 in alignment with SDGs
indicators  Major contribution to SDG8 through its “Decent Work and the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development: How to achieve the Sustainable Development
Goals through Decent Work”
1.1.1, 4.3.1, 16.10.1
1.3.1, 1.a.2,  ILO chairs Action Group of Alliance 8.7 (named after target 8.7), a global
5.5.2, 8.2.1, partnership for eradicating forced labour, modern slavery, human trafficking
8.3.1, 8.5.1, and child labour around the world.
8.5.2, 8.6.1,  ILO developed an integrated support tool for tripartite constituents, entitled
8.7.1, 8.8.1, Decent Work for Sustainable Development Resource Platform (DW4SD). The
8.8.2, 8.b.1,
web-based Platform and a trainers' guide were successfully tested.
23
10.4.1, 10.7.1,
14.c.1
14 IOM 2017-18 1 SDG indicator Implementing partner UN agency Migration  Strategic Plan in alignment with SDGs
 IOM chairs the Migration Action Group as a partner of Alliance 8.7
 IOM is in charge of the “Global Compact for Migration”, that is framed in a
way consistent with target 10.7 of the 2030 Agenda
10.7.2
 IOM holds the “Migration Governance Framework” that inter alia builds on
2030 Agenda principles.
15 Montreal 2019 Not a custodian Implementing partner Treaty/ Climate; Protection  Montreal Protocol leads together with UNEP the Ozon Action Programme
Protocol agency partnership of stratospheric supporting 4 different SDGs
ozone
16 OHCHR 2017-18 5 SDG 1 indicator UN agency Promotion and  OHCHR Management Plan in alignment with SDGs.
indicators protection of  OHCHR launched “Report on the contributions of the right to health
Human Rights framework to the effective implementation and achievement of the health-
related Sustainable Development Goals”.
5.1.1  OHCHR developed interactive database that explores links between human
10.3.1, 16.1.2, rights and the SDGs.
16.10.1, 16.a.1,
16.b.1
17 UNAIDS 2015-16 1 SDG indicator Implementing partner UN agency Health; HIV and  UNAIDS 2016–2021 Strategy in alignment with SDGs.
AIDS  UNAIDS joins the “Global Action Plan”, an initiative where 11 global health
(towards the SDGs)
3.3.1
 UNAIDS Fast-Track strategy outlines plans to step up the HIV response in low-
and middle-income countries to meet the SDG 3 target to end AIDS by 2030.
18 UNCTAD 2019 8 SDG 1 indicator UN agency Trade, investment  UNCTAD’s Strategic Plan is in alignment with the SDGs.
indicators and development  UNCTAD, together with FAO and UNEP, partners in technical assistance on
issues issues related to market access and trade-related aspects, supporting SDG 14.
 UNCTAD is leading inter-agency dialogue on monitoring and accountability of
17.4.1 the means for implementation targets, and accordingly, UNCTAD contributes
10.a.1, 12.6.1, to all 19 specific targets that belong to Goal 17.
16.4.1, 17.3.1,
24
17.5.1, 17.10.1,  UNCTAD hosts an online inventory of existing UNCTAD technical cooperation
17.11.1, 17.12.1 tools, research & analysis products, dialogue platforms and soft-law
instruments relevant to achieving the SDGs.
19 UNESCO 2017-18 22 SDG 5 indicators UN agency Contribution to  UNESCO’s medium-term Strategy in alignment with SDGs.
indicators peace and security  UNESCO holds “Education 2030 Framework for Action” that is described as
by promoting the roadmap for achieving SDG 4.
international  UNESCO is responsible for the coordination of the Global Action Programme
4.2.1, 4.b.1, 14.1.1, collaboration (GAP) on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).
1.a.2, 4.1.1, 14.2.1, 16.10.1 through  UNESCO published a guide for education professionals on the use of ESD in
4.2.2, 4.3.1, educational, learning for the SDGs, and consequently to contribute to achieving the SDGs.
4.4.1, 4.5.1, scientific, and  UNESCO hosts an online library that provides SDGs resources for educators.
4.6.1, 4.7.1, cultural reforms
4.a.1, 4.c.1,
6.5.2, 9.5.1,
9.5.2, 11.4.1,
12.8.1, 12.a.1,
13.3.1, 13.3.2,
14.3.1, 14.a.1,
16.10.2, 17.6.1
20 UNFPA 2017-18 4 SDG 13 SDG indicators UN agency Reproductive health  UNFPA’s Strategic Plan is in alignment with SDGs.
indicators  UNFPA’s Strategic Plan has a common chapter on the SDGs, together with
UNDP, UN Women, and UNICEF
 UNFPA joins the “Global Action Plan”, an initiative where 11 global health
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.3.1, 3.7.1, organizations commit to new ways of working together for greater impact
5.2.1, 5.2.2, 3.7.2, 3.8.1, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, (towards the SDGs)
5.6.1, 5.6.2 11.a.1, 16.1.3, 16.9.1,  A Monitoring Framework was developed as part of the joint UNECE–UNFPA
17.18.1, 17.19.2 project ‘Enhanced integration of population dynamics into development
planning: follow-up to the ICPD in the UNECE region’. This framework serves
as a tool that draws on and contributes to SDG monitoring. It was designed to
not require any additional data collection but draws on existing databases
such as data from Voluntary National Reviews.
21 UNIDO 2019 6 SDG Implementing partner UN agency Promotion and  UNIDO’ Medium Term Program Framework is in alignment with SDGS.
indicators acceleration of  UNIDO is in the process of elaborating a strategy to report on SDGs via their
industrial delivery of technical cooperation in their administrative system.
development
 UNIDO released an analytical publication titled Statistical Indicators of
inclusive and sustainable industrialization was released.
25
9.2.1, 9.2.2,  UNIDO's flagship and innovative initiative, the Programme for Country
9.3.1, 9.3.2, Partnership (PCP), is a new programmatic framework which has been
9.4.1, 9.b.1 developed as an integrated approach to achieve inclusive and sustainable
industrial development within the context of the 2030.
22 UNODC 2019 16 SDG 2 SDG indicators UN agency Drug control and  UNODC’s Strategic Framework in alignment with the SDGs.
indicators crime prevention  UNODC provides normative, analytical and operational assistance to Member
States for strengthening the effectiveness, fairness and accountability of their
3.5.1, 5.2.1, criminal justice institutions to tackle crime, corruption and terrorism.
5.2.2, 11.7.2, 10.7.2, 16.2.3 UNODC's work therefore supports all the targets included under SDG 16.
15.7.1, 15.c.1,  UNODC launched a Handbook on Results-Based Management and the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development
16.1.1, 16.1.3,
 UNODC is partner (together with UNDP) of the programme “Parliamentarians
16.1.4, 16.2.2, Advancing Anti-Corruption through the UN Convention Against Corruption
16.3.1, 16.3.2, (UNCAC)” that supports mainly Goal 16.
16.4.1, 16.4.2,
16.5.1, 16.5.2
23 UN Women 2017-18 6 SDG 10 SDG indicators UN agency Gender equality and  UN Women’s Strategic Plan is in alignment with SDGs.
indicators empowerment of  UN Women’s Strategic Plan has a common chapter on the SDGs, together
women with UNDP, UNFPA, and UNICEF
 UN Women joins the “Global Action Plan”, an initiative where 11 global health
5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.6.2, 5.a.1 (a), 5.a.2, (towards the SDGs)
5.2.2, 5.4.1, 11.7.2, 16.1.3, 16.7.1
 UN Women launched the report “Turning promises into action: Gender
5.5.1, 5.c.1
equality in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. The report
uncovers significant gaps for women’s empowerment and puts forth a robust
agenda to shift gears.
24 UN-Habitat 2015-16 11 SDG 9 SDG indicators UN agency Human settlements  UN Habitat’s new Strategic Plan (2020-2025) is in alignment with SDGs.
indicators and sustainable  UN Habitat developed work plans at the agency level to monitor and report
urban development on the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, specifically around the global monitoring
of SDG 11.
1.5.1, 5.a.1 (a), 6.1.1,
 UN Habitat develops a new strategy of portfolio development to ensure a
1.4.1, 1.4.2, 11.5.1, 11.6.2, 11.7.2,
11.b.1, 11.b.2, 13.1.2 greater convergence of thematic areas and their results expected to
6.3.1, 11.1.1, contribute to the transformative dynamic of NUA and 2030 Agenda.
11.2.1, 11.3.1,
11.3.2, 11.6.1,
26
11.7.1, 11.a.1,
11.c.1
25 UNHCR 2017-18 Not a custodian Partner agency UN agency Protection for  UNHCR’s Strategic Directions are in alignment with SDGs
agency refugees and  In the lead-up to the 2030 Agenda, UNHCR worked together with other
forcibly displaced agencies, such as IOM, OCHA and the Special rapporteur of the Human Rights
communities and of IDPs, to ensure that all persons of concern to UNHCR were included in its
1 SDG indicator stateless people guiding vision through the principle of “leave no one behind” that underpins
the Agenda.
10.7.2
26 UNRWA 2017-18 Not a custodian Implementing partner UN agency Relief and human  UNRWA’s Medium Term Strategy (2016-2021) is aligned with the SDGs.
agency development for  UNRWA joins “Youth Employment for Peace and Resilience”, multi-
Palestinian refugees stakeholder commitment led by UNDP and ILO with support from UNHCR and
UNRWA.
27 UNDP 2015-16 6 SDG 3 SDG indicators UN agency Global development  UNDP’s Strategic Plan is in alignment with SDGs.
indicators (poverty reduction,  UNDP’s Strategic Plan has a common chapter on the SDGs, together with
HIV/AIDS, UNFPA, UN Women, and UNICEF
democratic  UNDP joins the “Global Action Plan”, an initiative where 11 global health
1.2.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2 governance, energy organizations commit to new ways of working together for greater impact
5.c.1, 16.6.2, and environment, (towards the SDGs).
16.7.1, 16.7.2, social development,  Responding to requests from Member States for coherent and integrated
17.15.1, 17.16.1 and crisis prevention support from the UN development system in implementing the 2030 Agenda,
and recovery) UNDP spearheaded the development of the Mainstreaming, Acceleration,
Policy Support (MAPS) common approach, which was formally adopted by the
UNDG in October 2015.
28 UNOCHA 2015-16 Not a custodian Implementing partner UN agency Humanitarian;  UNOCHA’s Strategic Plan is in alignment with SDGs.
agency response to complex  UNOCHA joins the Connecting Business initiative (CBi), a multi-stakeholder
emergencies and initiative engaging the private sector in creating more resilient communities
natural disasters and meeting the needs of people affected by humanitarian emergencies.
 UNOCHA joins the Pacific Partnership for Atoll Water Security that will
facilitate improved knowledge sharing and advocacy between drought-
affected Pacific SIDS, relevant development partners, regional and
international organizations.
27
29 UNICEF 2015-16 17 SDG 7 SDG indicators UN agency Emergency food and  UICEF’s Strategic Plan is in alignment with SDGs.
indicators healthcare for  UNICEF’s Strategic Plan has a common chapter on the SDGs, together with
children UNDP, UN Women, and UNFPA.
 UNICEF joins the “Global Action Plan”, an initiative where 11 global health
2.2.1, 2.2.2, 3.8.1, 4.2.2, 4.a.1 (towards the SDGs).
3.1.2, 3.2.1,  UNICEF's Strategy for Health and Strategy for Water Sanitation and Hygiene
3.2.2, 3.b.1, (WASH), were both completed in 2015 and are aligned to the SDGs' timeline
4.2.1, 5.2.1, (2016-2030)
5.2.2, 5.3.1,
5.3.2, 6.1.1,
6.2.1, 8.7.1,
16.2.1, 16.2.3,
16.9.1
30 UNEP 2015-16 32 SDG 56 indicators UN agency Global environment  UNEP’s medium-term strategy is in alignment with SDGs.
indicators  UNEP’s report on “Rethinking Impact to Finance the SDGs” lays out and
develops the ideas behind the Positive Impact Initiative. It addresses financial
(This includes institutions, but also for businesses, national and local public authorities,
UN 1.4.2, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3, academia, civil society and everyday people.
Environmental 2.4.1, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 3.9.1,  UNEP and the European Commission have agreed to a ‘Roadmap on Healthy,
Programme, UN 3.9.2, 3.9.3, 4.7.1, 4.a.1, Productive and Resilient Oceans.’, supporting SDG 14.
Environmental 5.a.1 (a), 6.1.1, 6.2.1,  UNEP and WHO launched partnership on Environmental Health, supporting 6
Programme- 6.3.1, 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.a.1, different SDGs.
World 6.b.1, 7.a.1, 8.9.1, 9.1.1,
Conservation 9.1.2, 9.4.1, 11.1.1,
Monitoring 11.2.1, 11.3.1, 11.5.1,
Center, and UN 11.5.2, 11.6.1, 11.6.2,
Environment 11.b.1, 11.b.2, 12.8.1,
Climate 12.b.1, 13.1.1, 13.1.2,
Technology 13.2.1, 13.3.1, 13.3.2,
Center and 13.a.1, 14.3.1, 14.a.1,
Network.) 15.1.1, 15.2.1, 15.3.1,
15.4.2, 15.5.1, 15.6.1,
15.7.1, 15.8.1, 15.c.1,
16.10.2, 17.16.1,
2.4.1, 6.3.2, 17.18.1
6.5.1, 6.6.1,
6.a.1, 6.b.1,
28
8.4.1, 8.4.2,
12.1.1, 12.2.1,
12.2.2, 12.3.1,
12.4.1, 12.4.2,
12.5.1, 12.6.1,
12.7.1, 12.c.1,
14.1.1, 14.2.1,
14.5.1, 14.7.1,
14.c.1, 15.1.2,
15.4.1, 15.9.1,
15.a.1, 15.b.1,
17.7.1, 17.14.1
31 World Bank 2015-16 World Bank 22 SDG indicators IFI Economy, finance  World Bank’s corporate strategy is in alignment with the 2030 Agenda.
Group: 22 SDG  World Bank joins the “Global Action Plan”, an initiative where 11 global health
indicators organizations commit to new ways of working together for greater impact
(towards the SDGs).
1.2.2, 1.3.1, 2.3.2, 3.1.1,  World Bank published “Financing and implementing Sustainable Development
3.2.1, 3.2.2, 4.2.1, 4.6.1, Goals: Ideas for Action”
1.1.1, 1.2.1, 5.5.1, 5.a.1 (a), 5.a.2,  World Bank’s SDG Indicators Group, comprising subject matter experts across
1.4.2, 3.8.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.1, different thematic groups, provides technical input to the IAEG-SDGs and
5.1.1, 7.1.1, 8.b.1, 9.2.1, 10.7.2, reports the indicator estimates for which the institution is responsible. (Of the
8.10.2, 9.1.1, 16.10.2, 17.1.1, 17.18.3, 20 indicators for which the Bank is custodian or co-custodian (and therefore
9.3.2, 10.1.1, 17.19.1 directly responsible for) 8 are Tier 1, 11 are Tier 2 and 1 is a Tier 3 indicator.
10.2.1, 10.7.1, Over the two past years, 8 indicators have moved up from Tier 3 to Tier 2.)
10.c.1, 12.a.1,
15.a.1, 15.b.1,
16.5.2, 16.6.1,
17.3.2, 17.4.1,
17.13.1, 17.17.1
32 WFP 2017-18 Not a custodian Implementing partner UN agency Humanitarian aid,  WFP’s Strategic Plan (2017–2021) in alignment with the 2030 Agenda.
agency tackling hunger  WFP joins the “Global Action Plan”, an initiative where 11 global health
(towards the SDGs)
 WFP issued a report titled “World Food Assistance 2017: Taking Stock and
Looking Ahead”, analyzing trends, challenges and solutions in food assistance.
The report places humanitarian action, risk and vulnerability at the core of
achieving the SDGs, particularly SDG 2.
29
 WFP is partner at the Joint Programme on gender equality and women
 WFP joins Compact2025, an initiative for ending hunger and undernutrition
by 2025.
33 WHO 2017-18 34 SDG 13 SDG indicators UN agency Health  WHO’s Strategic Plan is in alignment with SDGs.
indicators  WHO’s “Universal Health Coverage Data Portal” shows where countries need
to improve access to services, and where they need to improve information. It
(This includes monitors target 3.8.
indicators 1.4.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1,  WHO launches the World Health Statistics series, an annual snapshot of the
assigned to 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, state of the world’s health. The 2018 edition contains the latest available data
WHO and WHO- 5.6.2, 13.2.1, 13.3.1, for 36 health-related SDG indicators.
FCTC.) 13.3.2, 16.1.3  WHO joins the “Global Action Plan”, an initiative where 11 global health
(towards the SDGs).
1.a.2, 2.2.1,
2.2.2, 3.1.1,
3.1.2, 3.3.2,
3.3.3, 3.3.4,
3.3.5, 3.4.1,
3.4.2, 3.5.1,
3.5.2, 3.6.1,
3.8.1, 3.8.2,
3.9.1, 3.9.2,
3.9.3, 3.a.1,
3.b.1, 3.b.3,
3.c.1, 3.d.1,
5.2.1, 5.2.2,
6.1.1, 6.2.1,
6.3.1, 6.a.1,
6.b.1, 7.1.2,
11.6.2, 16.1.1
30
How to assess the performance of Multilateral
Organisations in safeguarding against sexual
exploitation, abuse and harassment
Inception Report
31
Contents
Acronyms 33
1. Background 34
1.1 Purpose 35
1.2 Scope 35
1.3 Expected outputs 36
2. Methodology 38
2.1 Background to the methodology 38
2.2 Methods 40
2.3 The Inquiry Framework 45
2.4 MO selection and rationale 46
2.5 Intended use/users 49
2.6 Limitations 49
Annex 1: Inquiry Matrix 50
Annex 2: Typology for sample of MOs 51
Annex 3: Overview of SEA/SH prevention and response approaches evident in reviewed MOPAN agencies 54
32
Acronyms
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom)
FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation
GEF Global Environmental Fund
HQ Headquarters
IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee
IOM International Organisation for Migration
OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights
PSEA Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
SEA Sexual exploitation and abuse
SH Sexual Harassment
TWG Technical Working Group (MOPAN)
UN Women United Nations Women
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
WB The World Bank
33
Background
Background on process
MOPAN members agreed in April 2018 that the MOPAN 3.0 methodology presented a significant gap: it did not
explicitly measure organisations’ efforts in putting measures in place to prevent and address sexual exploitation
and abuse (within the MOs and the people they work with) and sexual harassment (within MOs). Given this
topic has gained a high profile due to recent revelations of abuses across the development sector, they decided
to explore the possibility of updating the MOPAN methodology to include this aspect.
This Case Study has therefore been commissioned by MOPAN as part of its methodology revision plan to update
the MOPAN 3.0 methodology to integrate safeguarding against sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) and
sexual harassment (SH) in multilateral organisations.
The Case Study, henceforth SEAH study, builds on a Concept Note elaborated by the MOPAN Secretariat with
three Technical Working Group (TWG) members (FR, NL, UK) and discussed by the TWG on 11 September 2018,
and a further Note presented to the TWG in November 2018 which proposed this case study and was adopted
by MOPAN’s Steering Committee on 29 November 2018.
The 2017-18 MOPAN assessments gathered factual information on SEAH safeguarding from the 14 MOPAN
agencies under review. This information is summarised in Annex 6. This case study will take a step further to
propose an update to the MOPAN 3.0 assessment framework (KPIs/MIs/elements), producing a set of new
or updated Elements that provide a way of monitoring how multilateral organisations (MOs) safeguard against
SEAH through:
 implementing their respective policies;

 rolling out guidance across the organisation;
 tackling barriers to reporting, recording, and follow-up;
 addressing power-dynamics between staff, implementing partners, and beneficiaries.
Background on the issue

As stated in the concept note, SEAH is relevant to multilateral agencies that have highly mobile and temporary
staff, significant reliance on implementing partners, decentralised governance and work with the most
vulnerable communities in unstable situations. Power and authority imbalances both within the agencies and in
the field further exacerbate the possibility of exploitation, abuse and harassment. While some organisations
have already devoted attention to these issues for over more than 15 years; for others, addressing issues
surrounding safeguarding against SEAH is a relatively new preoccupation. Standards, practices, and context
varies greatly from one organisation to another.
Developing indicators for performance requires clarity about the reference points or standards to be
measured against. In the area of safeguarding against SEAH, however, there is no internationally agreed single
standard of good practice yet that could build a solid anchor for indicators. Several are, however, emerging,
and will hopefully lead to a convergence of standards over time.
So far, significant efforts to define standards have been made by multilateral organisations and their inter-
agency bodies themselves (e.g. the Inter-Agency Standing Committee, IASC). The G7 Whistler Declaration, and
commitments made at the SEA Safeguarding Summit in October 2018 were further milestones, among others.
34
The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) is in the process of proposing a DAC Recommendation on how
to best prevent and respond to SEAH in development and humanitarian assistance and set and implement
international standards for current and future DAC members and implementing partners, in accordance with
their national legal and institutional frameworks.
Although this case study will remain appraised of developments in these various fora, building an international
good practice standard will be an effort that will not be concluded within the duration of this study. MOPAN’s
measures for SEAH safeguarding will therefore have to be updated in line with emerging standards over the
coming years.
Purpose
The case study aims to construct, test, and propose an approach for testing a MO’s practice on safeguarding
against sexual exploitation and abuse, sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct5 (SEAH) to be able to
integrate this further into the MOPAN indicator framework and assessment process in a proportionate and
cost-effective way. The MOPAN assessment framework provides a unique tool for introducing ways of
measuring: policy, practice, and performance on SEAH safeguards. Through examining current MO practices
on safeguarding, MOPAN can identify where MOs sit in relation to minimum standards and in doing so
identify prospective good practice for SEAH Safeguarding. This will serve to define indicators for the MOPAN
methodology wherein each indicator is based on a ‘reference point’, an international standard of good
practice. The case study echoes the Key Messages for Donors on PSEA issued by the IASC AAP/PSEA Task Team
for common reporting requirements, common definitions (of PSEA, AAP etc.) and common standards applied
by MOs.6 The study will include agencies under the UN umbrella, International Finance Institutions, and
specialised funds.
The main purpose of the case study is to propose an update to the MOPAN assessment framework and
methods so that the MOPAN assessment can, from the 2020 cycle onward, provide information on a MO’s
policy and practice in safeguarding against SEAH. A secondary purpose of this case study will be to generate
limited knowledge on how MOs are tackling issues of SEAH.
Scope
To purpose and test an approach for measuring and assessing MOs safeguarding practice, this Case Study will
draw from the cohort of the 14 MOs assessed as part of the 2017-18 cycle, 7 including, where relevant, the
organisation responsible for setting operational and ethical code of conduct (e.g. the World Bank for GPE and
GEF). The rationale for circumscribing the scope to these MOs is that
1) there is a base of current factual information already available from the 2017-18 assessments and
2) the diversity of the group of MOs provides fertile ground for testing; The MO cohort includes organisations
with both development and humanitarian remits, high levels of decentralisation, and a diversity of mandates,
5 “other sexual misconduct” is included because the terms SEA and SH, in their UN definitions used here, do not encompass the sexual abuse of multilateral
organizational personnel or others for whom the organization may have a duty of care by other multilateral organizational personnel, particularly where for
example, the alleged offender and victim may work for different multilateral entities.
6 Key Messages for Donors on PSEA Developed by IASC AAP/PSEA Task Team Members in IASC PSEA-focused Task Team Meeting on 14 May 2018
:https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/key_messages_for_donors_on_psea_28_may_2018.pdf
7 Asian Development Bank (ADB), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Global Environment Facility (GEF), Global Partnership for Education
(GPE), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), International Organisation for Migration (IOM), Office of the High Commissioner
on Human Rights (OHCHR), UN Women, United Nations Education, Science, and Culture Organisation (UNESCO), United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in
the Near East (UNRWA), World Health Organisations (WHO), and World Food Programme (WFP)
35
structures, and varying levels of maturity in their approach to SEAH that can serve to inform MOPAN’s
assessment practice going forward.
In line with the scope agreed by the TWG, the approach:
 Is in line with current emerging standards– ensuring that the case study frames its work in relation to
emerging consensus and standards, while acknowledging that those are evolving;
 Considers the full cycle of SEAH– methodological amendments covering prevention, reporting,
response and communication (see Figure 2);
 Reflects policy and reality – measuring the actual outcomes of policies in place.
While maintaining sight of all 14 MOs, the Case Study will conduct a more focused inquiry for a sub-set of 4 MOs
that will offer the richest potential source for learning on the development of an assessment approach. The
criteria and proposed sample is outlined in Section 2.4.
The Case Study seeks to provide measures to assess safeguards against at SEAH in the wider context of: ethics,
human rights, abuse of power, accountability toward affected populations, and duty of care toward staff and
personnel. The Study will seek to map out the international norms and multilateral organisations’ policies for
providing safeguarding, identifying minimum standards and good practice, and also to ascertain how
organisational culture supports, or constrains the reality of implementing safeguards against SEAH. The ‘building
blocks’ for the assessment are the key principles identified in the initial TWG concept note and the Inter Agency
Standing Committee Minimum Operating Standards for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (MOS-
PSEA). These principles are set out in detail in section 2.3.
 Policy, management, and coordination Policies in place and used (human resources, risk management,
ethics, code of conduct for contractors) Department and focal point dedicated to safeguarding SEAH;
 Prevention Training and awareness raising on SEA amongst personnel. Recruitment and personnel
management, code of conduct;
 Response and accountability Reporting, investigative, and complaints procedures in place with evidence
of use. Whistle-blower protection. Follow-up and disciplinary measures in place with evidence of use;
 Engagement and support of local community population Awareness and complaint mechanisms for
beneficiaries;
 Cross-cutting considerations Leadership prioritises safeguarding of SEAH. Victim/survivor centred
approach.
Expected outputs
With this in mind, the deliverable for the case study will be to propose an approach for how MOPAN’s
methodology can be enhanced, refined, or amended to provide a nuanced assessment of MO’s practice on SEAH
safeguarding (also refer to 2.3). This will include:
 Concrete proposal of a number of ‘elements’ (sub-MI level) that would serve to adjust or enhance the
MOPAN assessment framework by addressing aspects of SEAH safeguarding. Drawing on options
identified in the TWG concept note, define how the MOPAN methodology can integrate safeguards
against SEAH into MOPAN assessments.
36
 Recommendations for enhancing the methodological approach, in particular evidence collection, as
deemed necessary to capture insight on a MO’s practice of safeguarding of SEAH and associated
resource requirements (time and staff);
 Identify small enhancements that can be immediately adopted for cycle 2019, using the current
methodological framework, to capture knowledge on MOs’ practice on safeguarding SEAH based on
existing methodological approaches.
37
Methodology
Background to the methodology
Concepts and working definitions

For the purposes of this Case Study we draw upon the definitions set out in the United Nations Glossary on
Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (2017).8 These have also been adopted by the Inter Agency Standing Committee
(IASC) SEA Task Force, individual donors9, International Finance Institutions, and specialised funds (outwith
the UN umbrella).10
Table 1: Working definitions

United Nations Glossary on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (2017). 11
Safeguards Essential tools to prevent and mitigate undue harm.
Sexual abuse Actual or threatened physical intrusion of a sexual nature, whether by force or under unequal or
coercive conditions.
Sexual exploitation Any actual or attempted abuse of position of vulnerability, differential power or trust, for sexual
purposes, including, but not limited to, profiting monetarily, socially or politically from the sexual
exploitation of another.
Sexual exploitation and A breach of the provisions of ST/SGB/2003/13 (Special measures for protection from sexual
abuse (SEA) exploitation and sexual abuse), or the same definitions, as adopted for military, police and other United
Nations personnel.
Sexual harassment UN regulations discuss sexual harassment in relation to conduct in the work context; Defined as ‘any
unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favour, verbal or physical conduct or gesture of a
sexual nature, or any other behaviour of a sexual nature that might reasonably be expected or
be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to another, when such conduct interferes with work, is
made a condition of employment or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work
environment.12
Beyond UN regulations, the definition of sexual harassment, included in the UN Glossary, is broader and
does not require a link to the work environment. It is defined as any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal
or physical conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a
person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive
environment. While we recognise that sexual harassment is not limited to a work environment, for the
purposes of this study, our focus will be on unwelcome sexual advances and behaviour between staff or
within the workplace (short-term staff, consultants, implementing partners, contractors).
Source: United Nations Glossary on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (2017).
Sexual abuse, (sexual) exploitation, sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct are included within the
scope of this study given their inextricability from power dynamics within organisations, and between
personnel and beneficiaries. They can all be seen as part of a continuum of sexual violence that is determined
largely by power differentials and levels of vulnerability, either between staff, or staff and beneficiaries.
8 Thematic Glossary of current terminology related to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) in the context of the United Nations (2016), United
Nations.
9https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/749741/Listening-Exercise1.pdf
10 The World Bank Global Gender-Based Violence Task Force refers to UN definitions of SEA ref.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/482251502095751999/pdf/117972-WP-PUBLIC-recommendations.pdf
11 Thematic Glossary of current terminology related to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) in the context of the United Nations (2016), United
Nations.
12 Secretary-General’s Bulletin Prohibition of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority STSGB/2008/5
38
Multilateral organisations work across diverse country contexts, with local staff, contractors, and a high
proportion of short-term project-based staff. MOs have
direct interface with vulnerable populations and beneficiary
groups and often work through implementing partners for
which there are varying levels of ‘control’ and risk
assessment. Power differentials pervade these interactions,
and the need to safeguard against abuse across these
various interactions must be considered. This case study
aims to look at how organisations are implementing
safeguards across these relationships. Figure 1: Interactions
across key actors, and the distinction between SEA and SH
Figure 1 depicts how SEA and SH exist within multilateral

organisations. Sexual harassment (SH), which for the
purposes of this study is considered solely as it relates to the
workplace (the organisation), entails looking into internal
policies and procedures, human resource arrangements, power differentials, staff performance assessment,
reporting lines, etc..
We will refer to sexual exploitation and abuse and other sexual misconduct in terms of internal policies,
procedures, practices, and realities, in terms of how MOs safeguard local, international, short-term, and
permanent staff. The study will also touch on how multilateral organisations safeguard beneficiaries and local
communities from SEA perpetrated by staff, contractors or implementing partners.
While there may be common systems in place to prevent and detect SEA and SH, the distinction between SH
and SEA is important. The classification of misconduct, complaint mechanisms, and the level of accountability
that a MO has for each office varies.13 For example, in the UN System, SEA is a Category I serious misconduct,
which can, in some cases, be treated as a criminal offense and involves authorities external to the MO
(host/sending country, etc.), while SH is a Category II misconduct which can lead to disciplinary measures.
Complaint mechanisms are also different. SH is usually dealt with internally by human resources, or the head
of mission or department. For SEA, on the other hand, there is a multiplicity of options including specific
complaint centres set up by NGOs or local police. Our inquiry will seek to explore the differences between
these related but often divergent issues, and ensure that indicators adequately cover both issues.
13Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, Secretary-General's Bulletins https://www.un.org/preventing-sexual-exploitation-and-

abuse/content/policies
39
Figure 2: SEAH Lifecycle Components
The SEAH study will identify organisational practice throughout the ‘lifecycle’ to identify critical components
for determining an organisation’s performance in safeguarding against SEAH. Figure 2 depicts the SEAH
lifecycle from the development of policy and management structures to address SEAH, efforts to prevent
SEAH incidents, detecting and reporting incidents, and then an organisation’s response to both victims and
perpetrators.
Methods
Overview
On the basis of test indicators, the study will engage with MOs to test with regard to their:
 Relevance: What are the critical proxy indicators for assessing the level of interest, adherence, and
responsiveness to SEAH issues at different levels?)
 Feasibility: Is the indicator measurable? Can it be assessed?
 Proportionality: Does the indicator assess safeguarding of SEAH at a level that is appropriate for the
MOPAN Assessment?
 Representativeness: How well the proposed indicators represent the reality of a MO for assessing
safeguarding of SEAH.
We will undertake a focused inquiry with a sample of four MOs for which we will draw on factual information
from MOPAN assessments, additional policy documentation, and conduct HQ visits. Evidence from each of the
MOs will be analysed and triangulated to refine the proposed methodology and generate learning.
40
Figure 3: SEAH Case Study Process
The Case Study is sequenced to construct, test, and refine demonstrative and measureable indicators for the MOPAN framework. The key stages of the case
study are summarised in Figure 3 below.
41
Document review
We will use existing literature and data to establish base knowledge about the known position of a sample of
MOs (see 2.4). In addition to feeding into our selection criteria for the MOs sampled, this will also provide us
with knowledge about how the wider group is addressing safeguarding and will be referenced as relevant. This
will include review of relevant policies, guidance, and training in place or in development. Reviewing
documentation from a range of MOs (as indicated, this will include agencies under the UN umbrella,
International Finance Institutions, and specialised funds) will allow us to see how MOs are interpreting the
safeguarding of SEAH within their systems, processes, and programming. This information will feed into an
inquiry framework (see Annex 1) which we will use to build an understanding of the types of policies and codes
of conduct that the sample of MOs use to safeguard SEAH. The following sources will provide the basis for the
document review.
Sector-wide standards
The document review will draw on international normative instruments to provide performance standards for
SEAH practice and definitions. We will propose indicators that ascertain a MO’s endorsement of current
standards in the sector. We will also consider emerging requirements on the side of donors vis-à-vis multilateral
organisations (such as the DAC Recommendation on SEAH that is under development,14 and the DFID donor
commitment of October 2018). We will look to the developing sector-wide standards as a basis for deriving
applicable indicators which can be updated as standards evolve.
MOPAN assessments 2017-18

The 2017-18 MOPAN Assessment Cycle includes factual information about MOs’ practices on safeguarding of
SEAH. Most of the information included in the reports is drawn from MOs’ compulsory self-reporting letter to
DFID. Following DFID’s Feb 2018 request for information from all (137) organisations in receipt of DFID funding
about the effectiveness of their safeguarding. The information gathered from DFID provides information
about policies, procedures and measures to protect people; description of how incidents and allegations are
handled; and description of the organisational culture. As part of DFID’s engagement in this area, a body of
literature has been produced to highlight and add visibility to safeguarding issues. 15
Entry points in MOPAN Methodology (2017-18)

Within the current MOPAN indicator framework, there are a number of micro-indicators that provide an
opening for understanding the mechanisms that MOs have in place to: prevent, protect, and respond to issues
of SEAH. These could provide an entry point for understanding the organisations’ existing policies and
practices within the broad context of SEAH, and possibly provide a space for deepening the assessment
framework to more explicitly assess how the organisation addresses issues of safeguarding for SEAH. Focusing
in on an identified sample of MOs, we will look across the performance information on these indicators from
the 12 organisations assessed, so as to explore what it reveals about the SEAH safeguarding environment in an
organisation and what gaps exist in the current methodology.
 MI 2.1 (a) Gender equality and the empowerment of women (the root of the issue); (d) Human Rights and
(e) Protection (while the focus here is beneficiaries rather than staff the issues are correlated);
 MI 3.4 HR systems and policies performance based and geared to the achievement of results;
 MI 4.5 Addressing Issues of concern raised by internal controls (the one place where safeguards are
explicitly mentioned) and possibly
14 The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) is in the process of drafting a recommendation on how SEA should be dealt with by the sector (due
to be completed September 2019).
15 The team will make a consolidated request to DFID for the documents
42
 MI 4.6 Policies and procedures prevent, detect, investigate and sanction cases of fraud, corruption and
other financial irregularities (rather narrowly focused)
 MI 5.4 on Risk management strategies;
 MI 5.5 on Intervention design (related to gender and protection);
 MI 6.5 on co-ordination with other partners (UN agencies, INGOs etc.) on key business practices;
 MI 6.7 Clear standards and procedures for accountability to beneficiaries implemented (while the focus
here is beneficiaries rather than staff the issues are correlated).
The TWG Concept note proposed a number of measures for enhancing, adjusting, and drawing from the
indicators as a way to capture MO’s performance on SEA.
Given that we will be drawing on information from MOPAN reporting, it may be necessary to engage with the
authors of the MOPAN reports to seek clarification or additional information on the terminology, or
assessment of the MOs on these indicators as appropriate.
MO documentation
We will undertake a light touch review of additional documentation from MOs, supplementing information
provided in the MOPAN reports with specific information from the MOs on the following areas:
 Codes of Conduct / staff rules as relevant to SEAH, action plans etc.

 International commitments related to gender equity, human rights;
 MO policy and procedural provisions vis-à-vis safeguarding including zero-tolerance policies, codes of
conduct, implementing partner monitoring frameworks, monitoring mechanisms etc.
MO Headquarters Visits
The purpose of the HQ visits is to consult MO staff to develop an enhanced appreciation of how the MOPAN
methodology can assess SEAH for each MO. The MO visits, which will be conducted consecutively, will build on
each other to refine the proposed indicators and methodological approach through consultation with staff from
each MO. All MO visits will use a common interview guide, and validate the same proposed set of indicators to
produce a refined understanding of the possibilities and constraints of the proposed indicators, based upon
each MO’s practice and institutional set-up. The MO visits are sequenced so that two organizations are visited
(April 1-4), followed by a brief period for reflection, updating of methods and indicators, followed by two
subsequent HQ visits (11-12 April and 28-29 April).
Recognizing the sensitivity of the topic, it will be important that we establish the context and goal of the HQ
visits clearly from the outset as one of consultation rather than assessment. We will work collaboratively with
the MOs, to ensure that our approach to staff is appropriate and in full adherence to (UNEG and OECD DAC)
ethical standards16. The purpose of the MO visits is to test the suitability of proposed indicators.
Four MOs will be visited (outlined below). The visits will be informed by a preliminary data dive, document
reviews and planning discussions with the relevant MO leads. Each visit is expected to last between two to four
working days. Prior to the visit, interviews with focal points will be arranged.
We anticipate that HQ interviewees would include staff from: human resources, ethics offices, Ombudsman,
programme staff, donor relations, external affairs, possibly also staff counsellors and medical offices, and others
who may be involved in internal SEAH prevention task teams or training initiatives. We will, as much as possible,
seek to ensure that there is a gender balance of interviewees and that our interviews consult with staff at
different levels of seniority within the organisations.
16 UNEG - Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation (2008); UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN system
43
Planning for each MO visit will start with prior communications (a formal letter sent from the MOPAN
Secretariat) with the MO’s MOPAN focal point. The purpose of these is to introduce the evaluation team, discuss
the case study approach and methodology, and identify potential interviewees.
Each MO visit will be concluded with a debrief with the MO focal point. The purpose of in-person debriefs is to
share, discuss and validate how the information gathered during the visit has informed our understanding of
how safeguarding of SEAH can be assessed and to ensure accurate contextual interpretation of information and
identify any gaps in findings.
Each visit will be undertaken by two members of the team.
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews will be used as a way to consult MOs on possible approaches for assessing the
effectiveness and impact of their SEAH policy and practice.
An interview guide will be devised based on the inquiry matrix with questions being tailored to the specific
interviewee. As part of our commitment to ethical interviewing, in line with UNEG ethical guidelines, at the start
of each interview, the interviewer will assure the interviewee that interviews will not be attributed, but note
that the small number of interviewees may make confidentiality difficult. To mitigate this risk, we will ask the
interviewee to identify any comments that they specifically do not want to be recorded or reported. Our
recording will consist of written notes. If focus groups are considered appropriate in each country context then
they will similarly use a standard guide, with a more limited number of questions.
Remote interviews
In addition to face-to-face interviews during HQ visits, we will also carry out a limited number of remote
interviews with field-based staff. Where possible, we will rely on videoconferencing linkages facilitated by the
MO during the field visit.
Analysis
 Analysis will be based on the inquiry framework so that there is a consistent approach taken to
recording and analysis. Evidence sheets will be developed for all 4 MOs and for other external
stakeholders.
 Evidence will be recorded on an Excel spreadsheet to ensure clear evidence for each line of inquiry.
Evidence sources will be noted (e.g. interviews, focus groups, documents, MOPAN data). This will be
used to support cross-organisational triangulation and to analyse evidence;
 Report findings will be drafted based on this evidence sheet for each MO. In the debrief, we will share
initial findings with the MO as appropriate.
 An initial overview analysis of the findings from the different organisations will be undertaken with
commonalities and discrepancies highlighted and shared across the team. The group analysis process
will also ensure internal challenge and triangulation.
Ensuring a consistent approach across case studies

The team will ensure a consistent approach and quality through:
 Use of the inquiry matrix to record and analyse data;

 Use of standard interview guides for interviews;
 Regular virtual team meetings will be held to review findings;
 Regular internal team communications;
44
 Internal reviews of findings for case studies;
 Quality assurance inputs and challenge from our quality assurance leads;
 Ongoing and regular engagement with the MOPAN secretariat.
 Reflections and revisions paper following the initial two HQ visits which will provide an opportunity to
share learning across the team and make revisions to the indicators.
The review Framework

Our review framework draws from the building blocks on SEAH identified in the TWG concept note and the
IASC PSEA Minimum Operating Standards. These are set out below:
Main areas of inquiry Proposed indicators
1. Policy, Management, a. Relevant policies in place supported by implementation or action plans including:
and Leadership -Organisational statement on SEAH
-Zero tolerance
-Code of conduct for staff on SH
-Code of conduct for contractors
b. Organisational structure to address SEA, SH including:
 -department or focal point for SEA
 -management reporting processes in place
 -adequate resourcing for SEAH
c. Human resources enforces SEAH norms
 -Performance assessment processes include SEAH
 Leadership prioritisation of safeguarding SEAH
2. Prevention a. Training
 - Human resources provides mandatory, regular training for staff
b. Screening
 - Human resources supports screening of staff, contractors
c. Communications
 -Regular communications on relevant policies related to SEA and SH
d. Risk management structures activities in place
 Programming supports regular, culturally appropriate training and awareness raising
for communities/beneficiaries
3. Detecting, reporting a. Complaint mechanisms in place (Field and HQ)
b. Whistle-blower protection policy, covering SEAH, in place and utilized
c. Reporting systems utilized
d. Organisational culture enables reporting
4. Response, a. Remedial action that prioritises rights of victims
accountability,  -Assistance to victims
transparency  -Anonymity for victims
b. Enforcement of standards, sanctions, disciplinary measures
 -Investigation
 -Disciplinary measures
 -Referral for criminal activity
c. Regular reporting and community engagement
The lines of inquiry, drawing upon these main areas is set out in more depth in Annex 1. Through our analysis,
we will construct, test, and refine these indicators- seeking for ways to situate them within the MOPAN
framework, largely at the element level.
45
The case study is premised upon building an assessment approach by learning from organisations that have, or
are in the process of grappling with SEAH issues about how their policy and practice can be measured. As
proposed in the TWG concept note, the selection of MOs is based upon a purposive sample of organisations
that can provide the “richest potential source for learning on the development of an assessment approach.”
Criteria for the selection of the MOs is based upon a number of criteria including the MO’s level of
decentralisation, the perceived maturity of the organisation’s approach to SEAH issues, the staffing profile, and
the volume of activities implemented through partners. Below, the criteria that was considered in selecting
MOs and the proxy indicators that were applied to provide a rationale for the sample (Annex 6 sets out the full
typology used for the sample). Drawing from the suggestions in the TWG concept note, the main criteria for
sampling of MOs are:
Main criteria Rationale Indicators
 The scale and nature of Test assessment approach for a Type of organisation (UN Agency,
the challenge (level of variety of contexts, scales of International Finance Institution,
risk) for the MO given operation, and levels of risk to Specialised Fund.
relationship to beneficiaries, Nature of organisational mandate
beneficiaries and size of (humanitarian/development/normati
staff group;17 ve
Size of budget and workforce
 The prevalence of short- Identify methods that will capture • Level of decentralisation of MO
term staff and a human resource policy and (Number of duty stations)
decentralised practice for centralised and • Percent of total staff based in
organisation structure decentralised organisations. headquarters
• Percent of workforce comprised
of short-term staff
• Percent of workforce comprised
of consultants
 The high volume of Determine assessment approach • Level of work carried out by
activities implemented where the organisation has allocated to implementing partners
through partners challenging oversight and control
 ‘Maturity’ of SEAH Build assessment from • MO has policies, procedures,

approach organisations who have guidance, action plan and/or task
experience grappling with SEAH team in place to address SEAH)
safeguarding issues within their
systems.
17
https://www.unsceb.org/CEBPublicFiles/CEB_Personnel_Stats_2017.pdf
46
In accordance with these criteria, the organisations selected for case studies are:
Suggestion for HQ Location Level of SEA Safeguard System Type of aid Member of PSEA Level of Number of Number Budget Target Explanation
selection centrality Maturity Taskforce oversight & locations of staff Groups
direct control
World Bank Washington The World Bank hosts two of the
(opportunity to DC organisations assessed in the 2017-
cover GPE and 2018 MOPAN cycle (GPE, GEF),
GEF) maintaining codes of ethics and
provisions on harassment and
misconduct that constituent funds
Low - loans, Developing
Financial are party to. The World Bank is in
(Unknown) Medium Development No grants and 130 10,000 $2.65b countries,
institution the sample because of its global
credit govts
reach and the scale of its
operations. It is the only
international finance organisation
sample. It is included in order to
understand how to define indicators
for IFIs and specialised funds.
WHO Geneva Moderately High- WHO is an organisation that
Development Crises,
decentralised- predominately provides a great deal of direct
Medium UN agency and No 216 8049 $4.21b vulnerable
30% in direct assistance at a very large scale
Humanitarian groups
headquarters assistance across highly variable contexts.
WFP Rome WFP is included because of the
Medium -
Highly scale of its operations and the
Development direct Crises,
decentralised - challenge of its safeguarding of
High UN agency and Yes assistance and 313 6091 $5.7b vulnerable
14% in SEAH amidst crisis situations when
Humanitarian implementing groups
headquarters working through partners and also
partners
providing direct assistance.
UNHCR Geneva UNHCR are very active in the
IASC/AAP Task Team and have a
Medium - strong overview on how other
Highly Migrants, agencies are addressing SEAH. Their
Humanitarian direct
decentralised refugees, SEAH challenge is considerable and
High UN agency and Yes assistance and 436 9740 $7.99b
8% in displaced they have a high level of
Development implementing
headquarters peoples decentralization.
partners
47
Suggestion for HQ Location Level of SEA Safeguard System Type of aid Member of PSEA Level of Number of Number Budget Target Explanation
selection centrality Maturity Taskforce oversight & locations of staff Groups
direct control
IOM Geneva IOM, an organisation with
significant experience in
safeguarding SEAH, has the
unique challenge of working
largely through implementing
Highly Migrants, partners. It will be important to
Development Low - many
decentralised refugees, understand how to assess an
High UN agency and Yes implementing 237 4450 $956m
6% in displaced organisation’s ability to meet the
Humanitarian partners
headquarters peoples challenge of providing oversight
and control in an organisation’s
safeguarding of SEAH when most
engagement with beneficiaries is
through implementing partners
and nearly all staff are in the field.
UNFPA New York UNFPA provides an example of
how an organization with a more
Alternative options
$3.5 circumscribed mandate is

Moderately
Development billion Women addressing SEAH issues for a
decentralised
High UN Fund and Yes Medium 187 2658 over and girls, different sub-set of vulnerable
12% in
Humanitarian strategic youth groups. The nature of their
headquarters
period challenge is different to other
organisations with a largely
humanitarian remit.
48
Intended use/users
MOPAN Technical Working Group:

The case study will propose an approach to assessing a MO’s practice on safeguarding against SEAH for the TWG to
consider and integrate as appropriate. This may include additions or amendments to existing indicators, guidance on
how, and with whom to engage within a MO as part of the MOPAN assessment.
MOPAN Members:
MOPAN Assessors (as appropriate): The Case Study will seek to identify a) immediate steps for MOPAN assessors
involved in the 2019 MOPAN Assessment Cycle that can easily be integrated into current practice and methods and
b) additions and amendments to the assessment methodology.
Limitations
This case study has several limitations most of which are inherent in the nature of this approach and the available
time and budget, and need to be kept in mind as caveats or contextual considerations as the study proceeds and
when findings are discussed later:
 The coverage across the MOs is selective (4 MOs visited). Within the budget and time available this is
inevitable. MO selection has been purposive to enable positive learning, but may limit learning on
organisations with different organisational structures.
 Inquiry will take place primarily at HQ rather than in the field. Given time and resource limitations, and the
scope of the study, we have determined that it will be most efficient to conduct the inquiry at MO
headquarters. While we will undertake a limited number of phone and virtual conferences to connect with
staff in the field, we expect that the differing country contexts that affect and inform the extent that
safeguarding of SEAH is applied will vary significantly.
 Given the sensitive nature of the topic, we may not have the opportunity to gain the perspectives of those
staff who may have been most affected by SEAH issues within the MO. We will attempt to mitigate this by
assuring full confidentiality to all participants and by providing the opportunity for an open fora for
discussion during the HQ visits.
 Implementing partners, such as INGOs and commercial vendors, will not be directly interviewed in the data
collection. Our understanding of how safeguards are applied to contracts with implementing partners will be
informed by policy and procedure for contracting implementing partners and due diligence processes
applied to implementing partners that include safeguarding measures for staff and beneficiaries.
49
Annex 1: Inquiry Matrix
Key questions Rationale
Doc review
Interview
Definitions How do organisations interpret and apply key definitions around safeguarding, SEA,   Determine how the MOPAN methodology should define
and SH? SEA and SH, based upon MO practice and developing
international standards.
International Commitments What international standards and commitments of multilateral organisations could   Identify international norms and standards that the
Defining terms and
MOPAN draw on? MOPAN methodology should use as a reference point in

the assessment framework
standards
Sexual harassment and In what areas is it particularly important to understand the difference in the   Understanding and compare the different levels of
Sexual Abuse mechanisms for preventing, enforcing, responding to SEA versus SH? severity, accountability, and responsibility for SH and
SEA
1. Policy, Management,  Relevance What are the critical proxy indicators for assessing the level of   Determine with MO to what policies, practices,
and Leadership interest, adherence, and responsiveness to SEAH issues at different levels? procedures are in place across the main (4) areas of
 What kinds of policies are in place to support the following and what inquiry to be able to identify indicators.
2. Prevention mechanisms are there for enforcing these aspects of SEAH?
 How does the organisation ensure the dissemination, uptake, effectiveness, and
responsiveness of their safeguarding initiatives?
3. Detecting, reporting
 
Key areas of inquiry
Feasibility (can it be measured or assessed? And how?) Determine how to assess the indicators and what
methods are required.
4. Response,
Accountability and  Proportionality (does the indicator assess safeguarding of SEAH at a level that is  Determine the depth of analysis is required to make an
appropriate for the MOPAN Assessment?) assessment
Transparency
 Representativeness (how well the indicators represent the reality of a MO) of  Identify coverage and gaps of proposed indicators
proposed indicators for assessing safeguarding of SEAH.
50
Annex 2: Typology for sample of MOs
MO selection was conducted to offer the richest potential source for learning on the development of an assessment approach. The selection of MOs, drawing
chiefly on those assessed in the 2017-18 cycle, is designed to ensure gauge how SEAH can be assessed by consulting with a variety of organisations with varying
challenges and approaches to safeguarding SEAH. It does not represent primary information gathered by the Case Study team. The sample seeks to engage with
MOs deal with SEAH issues in both humanitarian and development contexts, each of which offers distinct challenges. To be able to understand how to assess an
organisation’s practice of safeguarding of staff against SEAH, and protection of beneficiaries with decentralised structures and systems, the sample considers
organisations with varying proportions of staff based at headquarters and in the field, To ensure that the methodology is applicable to different types of
organisations, the selection of MOs includes organisations under the UN umbrella and an International Finance Institution. Our selection also considered the
level of SEAH safeguard maturity- that is the extent that MOs have adopted policies, guidelines to prevent and report SEAH and also their participation in the
PSEA . We also considered organisations’ participation in the Prevention of Sexual Abuse and Exploitation (PSEA) Task Force as a way to understand different
ways to assess an organisation’s engagement with normative guidelines and international standards around SEAH. Our selection also considered practical issues
around the location of the HQ and the time available.
51
Table 1: MO Typology type, context and nature of the challenge 18
Decentralization % of Total
Name of Assessment Humanitarian or Decentralization: # of total staff based in Target groups - level of Budget Level of control
MO HQ Location Round Development Organisation Type locations with presence19 headquarters vulnerability 2018 and oversight
International Finance $32.2
ADB Manila 2017-2018 Development 35 Low
Institution Billion
Humanitarian and
FAO Rome 2017-2018 UN Specialized agency 148 56% $2.6 billion High
Development
Specialised global fund-
GEF Washington DC 2017-2018 Development 151 $35.48 m Low
hosted by World Bank
Specialised global fund-
GPE Washington DC 2017-2018 Development 62 School aged children $2.3 billion Low
hosted by World Bank
$155.5
IFAD Rome 2017-2018 Development UN Specialized agency 43 84% Rural populations Low
million
Humanitarian and Migrants, refugees, $956.5
IOM Geneva 2017-2018 UN agency 237 6% Low
Development displaced people million
Development, Normative (but
OHCHR Geneva 2017-2018 UN agency 66 $201.6 m Low
disperses humanitarian funds)
Humanitarian and $3.78
UN Women New York 2017-2018 UN agency 92 30% Women and girls Medium
Development and Normative billion
Humanitarian and Humanitarian crises, $5.79
UNDP New York 2015-2016 UN Fund 170 18% High
Development impoverished pops billion
UNESCO Paris 2017-2018 Development UN Specialized agency 86 52% Youth $648 billion Medium
Humanitarian and Particularly women $3.586
UNFPA New York 2017-2018 UN Fund 187 12% Medium
Development and Normative and girls, youth billion
Humanitarian and
UNHCR Geneva 2017-2018 UN agency 436 8% Migrants and refugees $7.99 b Medium
Development
Humanitarian and
UNRWA Multiple 2017-2018 UN agency 4 52% Palestinian refugees $760 m High
Development
Humanitarian and
WFP Rome 2017-2018 UN Fund 313 14% Impoverished pops $5.7 billion Medium
Development
Humanitarian and Crises, impoverished $4.421
WHO Geneva 2017-2018 UN Specialized agency 216 30% High
Development pops billion
International Finance $2.65
World Bank Washington DC 2015-2016 Development 130 Low
Institution billion
18 This information was derived from reporting in the 2017-18 MOPAN draft documents; Collation of self-reporting from MOs in response to 2018 DFID Safeguarding letter, and HR statistics on % of consultants/total
workforce; % short-term staff/total work force, % HQ staff, how many duty stations) https://www.unsystem.org/content/un-system-hr-statistics-report-2017. Proxy indicators for the level of control was derived from
organisational performance reporting on activities.
19 including multiple duty stations in a single country
52
Table 2: SEAH Safeguard Maturity20 (indicated by presence of policy)
Zero-tolerance
Raising/Comm
Organisational
Toolkit/Handb
Accountability
accountability
Guidelines on
Participation
taskforce on
Focal points
Mechanism
assessment
Action Plan
Monitoring
prevention
Awareness
Leadership
conditions
Grievance
Taskforce
approach
Contract
Conduct
Training
Code of
process
SEA/SH
Budget
policy
Policy
in UN
Staff
Risk
ook
s Total Ranking
Name of
MO
ADB X X X 3 Low
FAO X X X X 4 Low
GEF X X 2 Low
GPE X X 2 Low
IFAD X X X X 4 Low
IOM X X X X X X X X X X X 11 High
OHCHR X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 High
UN Women X X X X X X 6 Medium
UNDP X X X X X X X 7 Medium
UNESCO X X 2 Low
UNFPA X X X X X X 6 Medium
UNHCR X X X X X X X X X X X 11 High
UNRWA X X X 3 Low
WFP X X X X X X X X X 9 High
WHO X X X X X X X X 8 Medium
World Bank X X X X X X 6 Medium
10 4 5 5 5 10 2 6 1 1 9 8 1 3 5 2 10 2 8 97
20 Information derived from SEAH Box presented in 2017-18 MOPAN reporting which comes from MO self reporting on SEAH practices and policies.
53
Annex 3: Overview of SEA/SH prevention and response approaches
evident in reviewed MOPAN agencies21
Approach is present (X), under review ADB GEF IFAD IOM OHCHR UNESCO UNFPA UNHCR WFP WHO
(R), in development (D) or planned (P) (WB) (UN) (UN) (UN) (UN) (UN) (UN) (UN) (UN)
in reviewed MOPAN agencies
SEA/SH prevention and response approach Count of agencies %
R X X X R R R X
Policy 8 80%
X X
Code of Conduct 2 20%
X
Guidelines on prevention of SH 1 10%
X X X X X X
Zero-tolerance approach 6 60%
X X X X
Contract conditions for sub-contractors 4 40%
X
Contract conditions for sub-contractors/partners 1 10%
X X X X R X R X
Grievance mechanism (internal) 8 80%
X X R X
Grievance mechanism (external) 4 40%
X X X X X
Leadership 5 50%
X X X X
Focal points (prevention, investigation, training) 4 40%
X X X X X
Awareness raising/communications 5 50%
X
Training (external) - discretionary 1 10%
X
Training (senior staff) - mandatory22 1 10%
D
Training (staff) 1 10%
X X X X X
Training (staff) - mandatory 5 50%
X
Toolkit 1 10%
D
Action plan 1 10%
X X X
Taskforce 3 30%
X X X X
Budget 4 40%
21 Summary of the information collected as part of the 2017-18 MOPAN assessments, available at www.mopanonline.org
54
Approach is present (X), under review ADB GEF IFAD IOM OHCHR UNESCO UNFPA UNHCR WFP WHO
(R), in development (D) or planned (P) (WB) (UN) (UN) (UN) (UN) (UN) (UN) (UN) (UN)
in reviewed MOPAN agencies
SEA/SH prevention and response approach Count of agencies %
D X X
Risk assessment process for SEA/SH 3 30%
X P
Monitoring mechanism (of staff perceptions) 2 20%
X X X
Staff accountability (performance management) 3 30%
X
Organisational accountability (performance framework) 1 10%
X X X
Participation in UN-wide taskforce on SEA/SH 3 30%
External research into organisational gender barriers/SEA in P
field 1 10%
55
Reform of the UN Development System
Inception Report
56
Contents
Acronyms 58
Introduction and background 59
Purpose and objective 61
Scope and Focus 62
Approach and methodology 64
Selection of MOs 65
Limitations 67
Implementation Process 68
Expected output and outcome 70
57
Acronyms
BIG Business Innovation Group
CT Country Team
DCO Development Coordination Office
ECOSOC Economic and Social Council
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
HQ Headquarter
KPI Key Performance Indicator
M&E Monitoring & Evaluation
MI Micro Indicator
MO Multilateral Organization
MOPAN Multilateral Organisations Performance Assessment
QCPR Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review
RC Resident Coordinator
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SG Secretary General
UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNDS UN Development System
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services
UNSG Secretary-General of the United Nations
WHO World Health Organization
58
Introduction and background
One of the major changes to the multilateral architecture with a likely impact for the years ahead is
the UN reform initiated by the Secretary General in 2017:
”Our aim is clear: entities must work better together, across the United Nations system, and with
a greater emphasis on prevention to address the root causes of instability, vulnerability, exclusion and
conflict. Critical to that vision is the repositioning of sustainable development at the heart of the
United Nations, with the 2030 Agenda as the guiding framework. Sustainable and inclusive
development is an end in itself. It is also our best tool for building resilience, preventing crises,
ensuring human rights are a lived experience and sustaining peace.” (A/72/124 E/2018/3).
This vision of reform is to be operationalized inter alia in three important streams of work:
 Development. A new generation of country teams, centred on a strategic UN Sustainable
Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF) and led by an impartial, independent and
empowered resident coordinator.
 Management. A new management paradigm that empowers managers and staff, simplifies
processes, increases transparency and improves on the delivery of mandates.
 Peace and Security. The overarching goals of the reform are to prioritize prevention and
sustaining peace; enhance the effectiveness and coherence of peacekeeping operations and
special political missions and move towards a single, integrated peace and security pillar.
Many intentions and initiatives are presented in the Secretary General’s reports and other official
documents23 and resolutions24, of wide-ranging consequences for UN agencies and entities and
donors who work with them.
A system-wide strategic document is being developed setting out concrete actions aligned with the
cycle of the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR). The final document will inform the
further work on this study.
The system-wide strategic document reflects an initial set of responses of the UN Development
System (UNDS), anchored in four guiding principles:
 Coherence and alignment in support of the 2030 Agenda across the Charter of the United
Nations;
 System-wide functions that need to be strengthened in support of the 2030 Agenda; 
 System-wide instruments for measuring, monitoring and reporting on collective results; and,
 More effective funding mechanisms to underpin these efforts.
23 A/72/124, A/72/684 and A//74/73,
24 A/RES/72/279, A/RES/73/248
59
The reforms continue to evolve, and key documents are updated and operationalized providing more
detail on implementation and the changes proposed. Key areas for change include the revamping of
the regional approach, reconsidering the Resident Coordinator (RC) system, changes to the UNSDCF
process, reconfiguring UN Country teams and considering the UN foot print, introducing common
business services and back-office functions, proposals for strategic direction, oversight and
accountability for system-wide results, establishing an independent system-wide evaluation function,
and a funding compact. All in all, a very comprehensive reform effort meant to better equip the UN
system to work with the 2030 Agenda as the guiding framework.
Such a comprehensive, complex and long-term reform effort needs careful change management and
various structures have been set up to manage the reforms. Key units/institutions that this work
would engage with include the UN Transition Team, Development Coordination Office (DCO) on the
UN Secretariat side, as well as the Business Innovation Group (BIG). Furthermore, reporting is done
as part of the QCPR.
60
Purpose and objective
Given the intended effect on the whole UNDS, the purpose of the study is to inform the MOPAN
assessment framework and methodology for UN agencies, so that it might capture how the reforms
improve the effectiveness of the UNDS at HQ level as well as at country level.
The key objective of the case study is twofold:

 To assess how well the current MOPAN assessment framework is able to capture the changes
that UN organizations are initiating or completing in response to the reforms proposed by the
UNSG; and
 To explore what additional measures and changes could enable a stronger assessment.
It should be kept in mind that the current MOPAN framework is developed to capture key aspects of
development effectiveness across a variety of multilateral organizations with different mandates,
focus, business models and governance structures. The work will therefore be closely aligned to
other ongoing work on applying a differentiated approach to the MOPAN assessment.
The intent is for MOPAN to provide its members with information how reforms of the UNDS are
implemented; information that MOPAN members can use in their interactions with the UN teams
managing the reforms process, and in their interactions with individual UN entities. Furthermore, it
may provide the MOPAN Secretariat with information that is useful for reflection and analysis on the
global architecture and the multilateral system and its effectiveness overall.
The approach aims to avoid any duplicative efforts and make maximum use of existing monitoring
information from the UN agencies or other sources, consistent with the MOPAN spirit of conducting
assessments with minimal transaction costs for the agencies being assessed.
A challenge, common to all assessment of organizations in the midst of major reforms, is the “moving
target”. Methodologically this is being addressed by applying an open-ended, phased approach to
the study and defining clear priority areas that can be assessed at specific points in time with the
focus possibly to be adapted in iterations as the reform unfolds. This allows on-time adjustments and
ensure a continued relevance of proposals made.
The first phase will be undertaken over a period of five months (May 2019 – September 2019) and
will provide elements of an approach and a tool for assessment to be further tested and refined in
subsequent phases. Because of the ongoing and evolving nature of the reform of the UNDS and the
uncertainty as to the exact Multilateral Organizations (MOs) to be assessed in 2020, a high degree of
flexibility is needed with respect to the exact nature of the output. Maturity of implementation will
be significant element to consider when deciding what assessment criteria and tools to use for
example.
The focus in Phase One is at Headquarter level, as this is where the impetus for change comes from
and because it is too early to expect significant evidence of change at country level. Proposals for
Phase Two may include country level work, as well as testing the assessment tool on the next cycle of
UN agencies.
61
Scope and Focus
The scope of this study is the repositioning of the UNDS and selected reforms relating to the new
management paradigm. The Peace & Security areas of reform will not be considered at this time in
order to ensure feasibility within the given time and resources and the typology of organizations that
MOPAN is planning to assess in the short to medium term.
The work is not meant to evaluate, question, or assess the reforms, but to explore the
implementation of the reforms to gain insights that may inform the revision of the MOPAN
assessment framework. This is done from two angles. Firstly from the perspective of the Secretary
General and the units25 tasked with rolling out the reforms, communicating and developing tools and
new processes to UN entities. Secondly from the perspective of a limited number of UN entities to
assess how these proposals and guidance are being received and operationalized, i.e. what new
policies or processes are being introduced, what new indicators proposed, for example.
How reforms are received and implemented depends on the type of MO, and the selection of MOs to
be included in this case study will take this into account.
Three specific areas of the reforms have been identified as focus areas for this work, to be further
refined through the implementation phase:
 Reform of the Resident Coordinator (RC) system. In its resolution 72/279, the General
Assembly decided to deeply transform the UN’s development coordination system to better
respond to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with a reinvigorated, empowered
and independent RC at its helm. Delinked from the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP), the RC function is now fully dedicated to coordinating development activities on the
ground. This change took effect on 1st January 2019 and has implications for all the UN entities
that MOPAN assesses, and for how MOPAN members now should interact with the Country
Teams (CT) and therefore deserves special attention. The study will look at how it is rolled out
and how it is received and acted upon in the MOs covered by the case study, also considering
the revised Management and Accountability Framework.
 Shifting management paradigm. The Business Innovation Group (BIG), led by the Executive
Director of World Food Programme and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, proposes
innovative new initiatives which are being rolled out to streamline back office functions and
expand the use of shared services. Several of these are captured in indicators reported to
ECOSOC, and this study will in particular look at mutual recognition, Business Operation
Strategy and common premises. Other aspects may be included as the work evolves.
 Funding Compact. Improvements in the quantity and quality of funding to both core and non-
core/extra budgetary resources are necessary to realize the 2030 Agenda. To leverage pooled
funding and to fund the reinvigorated RC System and are thus key elements of the reform. This
work will in particular look at how well and how much the MOs are making use of the available
instruments.
25 Transition Team, DCO, BIG

62
These three areas have been chosen due to their criticality for the overall effectiveness of the UNDS
and because initiatives are considered sufficiently mature to be assessed to some extent in 2020.
The operationalization and details of these and other reform areas were clarified through the
Secretary General's presentation to the ECOSOC Operational Activities Segment, which took place
from 21 – 23 May 2019 at UN Headquarters in New York. Member States considered key responses
to the 2018 General Assembly resolution on repositioning the UN development system.
63
Approach and methodology
An inception phase including interviews with both UN and MOPAN partners helped sharpen the
scope and focus, based on an initial concept note prepared jointly by the MOPAN Secretariat.
The methodology for this study includes the review of reforms proposed in the Secretary General's
agenda for change on the one hand, and the efforts in selected MOs consistent with this agenda to
date on the other.
The current UN reform builds on previous efforts, in particular the “Delivering as One” concept of
2005 and the ECOSOC Dialogue conducted between 2014 and 2016. These prior reform efforts are
largely consistent with the current reform agenda and were undertaken in the context of the QCPR;
it is therefore sometimes challenging to strictly delineate the current reform from prior efforts,
particularly at country level.
The study will be conducted based on a document review and interviews, and possibly a survey.
It is not possible to cover the full UNDS and therefore a smaller sample of MOs are selected for this
first phase (see below for criteria).
Documents reviewed include decisions, policies, instructions, guidance, and M&E related documents
on the implementation of reforms from the UN Secretariat and the selected organizations, in
particular their governing bodies.
Interviews will be held with UN staff in different locations and at different levels. Interviews with the
UN Transition Team, DCO and BIG will focus on fully understanding all reform elements and obtaining
documents that show how these are being communicated to the MOs. Interviews in the selected
MOs focus on how reforms are received and implemented and in particular how change is monitored
and reported.
MOPAN members will be consulted through the Technical Working Group process. Because the
support by governing bodies is so important for the roll out of the reforms, it could be considered to
conduct a very short, targeted survey of the MOPAN members on the Boards of the MOs covered to
get their views of i) which are the most important reforms for that MO, ii) the benefits they see or
would expect from implementing reforms and iii) how they themselves support the reforms in that
MO.
64
Selection of MOs
The following agencies constitute a "long list" from which a smaller group has been selected for
Phase 1 based on feasibility and accessibility.
 In New York: UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF

 In Vienna: UNIDO
 In Geneva: ILO, WHO, UNHCR
 In Rome: FAO, WFP
 In Copenhagen: UNOPS
Selection criteria for MOs to be reviewed for this study are proposed:
 The type of MO: The Secretary-General’s reform puts emphasis on development,
management, and peace/security. From MOPAN’s perspective peace/security is out of scope,
consequently the selected MOs need to have a strong development focus to be representative
of reform efforts but also represent a variety of "typical" MOPAN organizations to capture the
management aspects and the differences and similarities of different types of organizations.
The reforms need approval by the governing bodies of the MOs, and the incentive and
obligation for different MOs to implement them vary. Therefore, the extent to which an entity
stands to gain or loose from the reforms is an element to be considered.
 Physical country presence: The re-design of the Resident Coordinator system is a centrepiece
of the current reform. While non-resident MOs will be affected programmatically by these
changes, the managerial and organizational impacts are somewhat limited since traditionally
they had already delegated significant aspects of country-level work to other UN entities.
 Operational capacities: Both normative and operational MOs are covered by the reform;
however, even operational MOs differ widely in their country-level setups. In line with the
concept of national ownership, several MOs largely or exclusively use national partners to
implement their activities, while others maintain independent operational capacities.
 Policy autonomy: Adapting organizational processes to UN reform triggers significant shifts to
policies, processes and systems. However, UN entities differ widely in their de jure and de facto
autonomy to change policies, either because of their governance (e.g. subsidiary part of the UN
Secretariat) or because of they have outsourced significant aspects of their operations to
another UN entity (e.g. UN Women/UNDP Memorandum of Understanding of 2018).
 Role in the reform process: Organizations such as WFP and UNHCR are deeply engaged in and
committed to the reforms through their lead role in BIG. UNDP also plays a particular role
because of the shifts to the RC system.
 On-going MOPAN reviews: In order to leverage ongoing assessment work, MOs that currently
are or recently have been assessed or part of case study work are prioritized.
65
These criteria are often not binary, as MOs might have both a development and a humanitarian
mandate, for instance. Also, not all criteria will be met by a large enough group of MOs, and hence the
criteria are not absolute.
For Phase 1 of the work feasibility means that a maximum of 6 organizations can be included. A key
criterion here is opportunities to piggyback on or benefit from a current engagement with an MO in
terms of other on-going MOPAN work.
The MOs selected for phase 1 are: UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, ILO, WHO and possibly UNHCR.
Opportunities to explore reform issues may also emerge from other ongoing MOPAN work including
assessment of UNIDO, and UNESCO or the SDG case study for example. And the study takes into
consideration other related MOPAN work such as the reflection on differentiation.
66
Limitations
This study has several limitations most of which are inherent in the nature of this approach and the
available time and budget, and need to be kept in mind as caveats or contextual considerations as
the study proceeds and when findings are discussed later:
 One of the main challenges and limitations is the given differentiation of MO's
intergovernmental nature and its formality and to what extent they are actually engaged in the
UN Reform. The preparation of a common methodology is therefore expected to be
challenging. This may be mitigated by trialling a customised approach.
 Additionally, each MO's current stage of preparedness and implementation of the UN reform
is likely to be different and this too will need to be taken into account
 The timing of the study being conducted over five months, and the resources mean that only a
limited number of MOs can be included for detailed consideration, however this can be
mitigated against through the choosing of representative MOs.
67
Implementation Process
A Reference group is being proposed to support implementation of the study. It would include 2-3
interested members (represented by staff directly involved in the reform process), and
representatives from the UN Transition Team and DCO. MOPAN may also wish to include a
representative of the BIG.
Further to discussion with Aid Data, it is proposed they are also included in the reference group in
view of a potential partnership for phase two, to collect data at country level as part of the
monitoring exercise.
A document review, to be initiated in May, will focus on two particular aspects:
 It will cover a review of existing monitoring documents in particular relating to QCPR and other
reform related indicators with the aim to map existing indicators against MOPAN KPIs/MIs and
elements, and
 It will identify documents relating to new processes or tools that demonstrate how the selected
agencies are initiating implementation of the reforms in the three areas of focus and how this
is being tracked.
Interviews are planned for June/July to get information on how reforms are received and what steps
are taken to implementing the reforms and obtaining further documentation.
There are opportunities (related to other events) in June for MOPAN Secretariat staff engaged in this
study to be in New York. This provides an opportunity to interact with the key stakeholders on the
UN side, and with permanent representations of MOPAN members to the UN on the basis of the
inception report.
Also, opportunities to gather information from ongoing MOPAN exercises in UNIDO, UNESCO and on
the SDG case study will be fully utilized.
A draft is expected to be available on time for the fall meeting of the MOPAN Steering Committee
(mid-October 2019).
68
Tentative Work plan Phase 1
May 2019
 Compare/Map QCPR and other UN documents and MOPAN Framework for

overlaps/relevance including both output and outcome targets for 2019, 2020, 2021 and
2022. For 2019 Report of the Chair of the United Nations Sustainable Development Group on
the Development Coordination Office (General Assembly resolution 72/279) E/2019/2
provides a number of relevant indicators
 Identify specific reforms in the areas of focus and refine the areas of focus
 Identify UN deliverables with implications for monitoring
June 2019
 Document review of docs from the Secretariat, BIG and selected MOs
 Develop semi structured interview guides
 Interviews with the relevant Geneva based MOs and BIG, inter alia
July / August 2019
 Further document review

 Interviews with the relevant New York based MOs, Transition Team, DCO, BIG, inter alia
 Analysis
August/September
 Further analysis
 Report Drafting
69
Expected output and outcome
The intermediary outputs of the study leading to a gradual build-up of the required knowledge to
develop a credible framework include the following:
i) A comparison/mapping of QCPR and other UN documents and MOPAN Framework for

overlaps/relevance including both output and outcome targets for 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.
Limited to the areas of focus.
ii) Based on the targets and indicators identified under i) above, a review of available
indicators/information from the selected MOs.
iii) Based on i) and ii) above, interview guides to be used for the interviews both at the level of the
reform-originating entities and the reform implementing entities, i.e. one interview guide for
the entities responsible for developing of rolling out the reforms and another for those
implementing it.
Looking ahead, the MOPAN methodology needs to establish a means of assessment to identify,
 if and to how the assessed organisations are committed to the SG reform,

 whether and how that commitment is being applied and operationalized throughout the
organisation, and
 to what extent this result in changes that meet the objectives of the reform.
The final output of the first phase of the study is a proposed approach and framework to capturing
how and how well specific reform elements are being adopted and implemented in selected
organizations in this early phase of implementation. The suggestion would include an initial estimate
of cost implications, based on estimated time required to obtain information and data.
This study will explore in this initial phase two options:
 Option 1: Develop additional KPIs/MIs/elements in MOPAN Methodology framework to

capture the degree to which the MO is implementing the UN Reform agenda. This is based on
the assumption that these KPI/MIs are assessed in addition to the "normal" assessment, i.e. as
an "add on".
 Option 2: Assess the existing KPI/MI and/or elements to assess if and how they might capture
the UN reform aspects, or if minor adjustments will allow for this.
For both options, guidance will be suggested on what kind of evidence may be considered to capture
how an agency is responding to the reforms.
Subsequently, for further work, different options could be considered, to be conducted in parallel
or in a phased approach:
 Option A is to apply the enhanced framework to the first batch of UN organizations assessed
as part of the regular MOPAN assessment on a pilot basis and subsequently draw lessons from
this.
70
 Option B is to expand the inquiry to cover more qualitative country level work to assess
implementation and outcomes and understand how benefits are generated or what might be
blockages.
The intention would be to refine the framework to better capture the outcome level. Actions to be
explored here could include those related to implementation of the new RC system, possibly in
selected countries where implementation has already progressed enough and/or where the new
UNDAF is being rolled out.
71
Reviewing the results component (KPIs 9-12)
Inception Report
72
Background
The Technical Working Group’s revised workplan (Dec 2018) identifies a Review of the results component as a
priority area for examination in 2019. Given the range of issues that could potentially be included, however, it
was decided that a short inception phase would be useful to establish a clear scope and direction for the
review in line with Members’ priorities.
Over the period April-May 2019, discussions were held with member country representatives26, the MOPAN
secretariat and teams leading on separate but related MOPAN studies looking at Agenda 2030 alignment and
differentiation. In addition, the presentation of KPIs 9-12 was reviewed for a small number of published
MOPAN assessments.
In May 2019, a draft proposal was provided to the MOPAN Technical Working Group (TWG) outlining five
different options for review, focused on two main areas of improvement: the current methodology and the
framework itself. Following feedback from the TWG and MOPAN Secretariat, the proposal was revised to
focus on those options of greatest interest to MOPAN members.
26 Norway, US, UK, Finland and Germany

73
Purpose and scope
The review will examine three main options to strengthen the results assessment framework under KPIs 9-12
in line with the interests of MOPAN members.
A. Streamline existing MIs and elements and align further with current development agendas:
This option will explore the scope to update the existing framework, in particular opportunities to
remove duplication and resolve potential overlaps between existing MIs and elements, and adjust
part/all of the existing framework to better reflect donor priorities expressed in current development
agendas. (Work will be coordinated with the current MOPAN case study examining the implications of
Agenda 2030 that is now under way);
B. Introduce differentiation to reflect differences between multilateral organisations:

This option works with the current framework but will explore the possibility and implications of
moving away from a common framework, to accommodate substantive differences in the nature of
results according to type of multilateral organisation. (Work will be coordinated with the current
MOPAN reflection exercise specifically examining differentiation that is now underway).
C. Revise the structure of the framework:

This option would explore the scope to tailor results framework to hold individual MOs to account for
performance against specific results prioritised by their governing bodies during the period (e.g.
replenishment commitments). Results would differ by MO (though system-wide priorities such as
efficiency of results may be common). For this option, the review will examine both evaluation studies
and MOs’ own monitoring data and consider how together they might inform a judgement on results,
taking into account qualitative differences in the nature of the two data sources. Consideration will
always be given to the potential to do more quantitative analysis work with existing data held by MOs.
The options are not mutually exclusive and may be considered in isolation or in a package. Methodological
implications of changes to the framework will also be considered.
In addition, the review will include a stocktake of the efforts by the five MOPAN cycle 2019 assessment teams
to establish an ex-ante assessment of confidence in the available results information. The review will examine
the teams’ initial findings and judgements about the sufficiency of results information available in terms of
breadth and depth, rigour and consistency.
The review will provide an assessment of the pros and cons of each option and package examined for the
MOPAN members to consider, potentially resulting in revisions to the MOPAN methodology (2020 cycle of
assessments).
For the purposes of the review, and options B and C in particular, three to four multilateral organisations will
be selected, covering different the types of multilateral organisations – from a results perspective – included
in the MOPAN assessments.
74
Assumptions
In examining the options to strengthen the results assessment system under KPIs 9-12, the review will work on
the assumption that there will be no significant change to the overall resources available for MOPAN
assessments.
The possibility adjusting the balance of effort within an institutional assessment (i.e. between KPIs) will be
considered, though the working assumption is that KPIs 1-8 will continue in their current form.
75
Outline of approach and method
The exercise will be participatory and collaborative in nature, involving discussions with the MOPAN
secretariat, interested MOPAN focal points from member countries and, where appropriate, other users of the
MOPAN reports in member countries.
Anticipated activities are:
 Desk-based document review, primarily of
o MOPAN reports (results assessment section).
o MOPAN assessment framework and methodology guidance
The purpose will be to inform the assessment of options examined in the review, not to assess the
quality of the MOPAN reports or the current framework per se.
 Semi-structured interviews with a range of key stakeholders to ascertain views and expectations,
including:
o Individuals at senior management level within the MOPAN donor agencies who have
responsibility for their countries support to multilateral effectiveness. This would be a sub-set
of MOPAN members (up to 10): including the current Chair (Sweden), those members close to
the earlier and current discussions on the results assessment aspect of the MOPAN
methodology (e.g. US, Canada, Norway, UK) and others (e.g. Australia).
o A limited number of Institutional Leads from the 2017-18 assessment cycle
o Representatives from different categories of multilateral organisations (MOs): covering focal
points and representatives in the evaluation function for three to four MOs (see below)
o A selection of experienced MOPAN assessors and MOPAN leads (5-6)
 Under option C, testing of possible approaches will require light touch review of recent evaluation
products and board papers from two/three multilateral organisations. The documents reviewed will
be publicly available via internet access and will not require special requests of those organisations.
The analysis will be used purely to inform this review and the details of the organisations selected will
not be published.
For budgetary reasons, interviews will be conducted largely remotely.
The organisations to be chosen as ‘typical’ of the range of multilateral organisations included in the MOPAN
assessments are:
 Asian Development Bank – multilateral development bank
 World Health Organisation – specialised agency with strong normative function
 United Nations Population Fund – covering UN funds and programmes
 International Organisation for Migration – a significant humanitarian role
For the stocktake exercise, the review will not re-examine the source evidence on which teams have based
their assessments but it will engage the teams to identify the challenges encountered in forming their
judgement and the basis on which their judgements were reached. The findings will inform the review of
options A-C.
76
The work will be conducted by a two-person team: Simon Henderson and Judith Friedman, both of whom are
experienced in the MOPAN assessment methodology, while Judith usefully overlaps with the differentiation
reflection exercise. Direction and oversight support will be provided by Julian Gayfer.
Meetings will be held regularly through the review with the MOPAN Secretariat to discuss progress and initial
findings.
77
Outputs
The following outputs as part of the working process will be produced during the course of implementation:
 Interim brief summarising the findings from the stocktake of the 2019 revised approach to results
assessment (August);
 Interim brief summarising the emerging findings/ proposals with respect to options A, B & C (August)
 Synthesis view on draft proposals – (to Secretariat by September 20th) - tabled to TWG
 A short, final report detailing the pros, cons and implications (including resourcing considerations) of
implementing each option – individually or as a package, where applicable for consideration by
MOPAN members (October). Providing a basis for prioritisation by MOPAN Members and
identification of areas for possible more detailed exploration.
78
MOPAN Process and Methodology Differentiation
Inception Report
79
Contents
Acronyms 81
Introduction 78
Background and Purpose 78
Context 79
Scope 79
Approach 79
Expected outputs 80
Methodology 81
Method 81
MO selection and rationale 82
Annex 1: Inquiry Matrix 84
Annex 2: Typology for sample of MOs 87
80
Acronyms
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom)
FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation
GEF Global Environmental Fund
HQ Headquarters
IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee
IOM International Organisation for Migration
OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights
PSEA Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
SEA Sexual exploitation and abuse
SH Sexual Harassment
TWG Technical Working Group (MOPAN)
UN Women United Nations Women
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
WB The World Bank
81
Introduction
Background and Purpose
The Technical Working Group’s revised workplan (Dec 2018) includes an exercise to explore differentiation of the
MOPAN 3.0 assessment modality. Differentiation, in this context, refers to the potential for adapting the MOPAN
process and methodology for different organisations in terms of the breadth, depth, length, frequency of assessment,
while retaining adequate levels of standardization of the process.
The standard assessment process as applied in the MOPAN 3.0 methodology has evolved from the 20 month process
used in cycle 2015-16 & cycle 2017-18 to the current more compressed 12-month approach in cycle 2019. The
configuration and application of the indicator framework has remained consistent over that period. The 2019 modality
and the emerging pattern of assessing an organisation on a 4-5 year cycle will be the point of departure for considering
the practical options for differentiation.
This short piece of exploratory work (hereafter ‘Differentiation study’) has been commissioned by MOPAN as part of
its methodology revision plan to draw on collective experience and perspectives on how the MOPAN methodology
and process has been applied to date, to inform possible directions for tailoring of the process for variations in the
context, nature, and capacity of multilateral organisations.
A Concept Note was developed in February 2019 and elaborated by the MOPAN Secretariat in March 2019. The
proposed scope for the Differentiation study was presented to the TWG in April 2019. This meeting offered an
opportunity to gauge the interests of MOPAN members.
The study explores options for tailoring the MOPAN process and methodology, guided by the following key principles
which were reinforced by TWG members at the meeting in April 2019:
 Exploratory: At this early stage, this study will be largely investigative and light-touch. MOPAN members have
suggested that this study should not reach conclusions but instead present options.
 Consolidation: This study will likely dovetail with work being conducted on the way (at an early stage) in which
MOPAN assesses results of multilateral organisations and within this differentiation of systems of ‘Results’.
The study will also draw on learning coming out of parallel cycle 2019 workstreams on Agenda 2030 and UN
Reform as applicable.
 Consistency and comparability: One of the important features of the MOPAN assessment is that is allows
organisations and donors to ‘chart performance’ of organisations over time and a standard, comparable
approach applied to all organisations. With this in mind, it is critical to ensure that the study maintains a level
of standardization that allows this.
 Proportionality: Differentiating the approach should be tailored proportionately – in that the changes do not
represent an overhaul of the process and methodology for each organisation but a clear, measured
adjustment that reflects specific aspects of the organisation.
 Resourcing: The study will seek to consider how to make best use of the overall budget framework for
conducting assessments.
 Practical experience: The study will seek to learn from the experience of assessors and MO focal points in
applying and using the MOPAN process.
In addition to the TWG meeting, the inception phase has included a short session with a group of 20 experienced
MOPAN assessors to draw on collective experience, and insights from previous and ongoing MOPAN assessments.
78
Context
Multilateral organisations vary hugely in scope, focus, ethos, capability, approach, external drivers and performance
history. Some have had multiple assessments and there is considerable evidence from previous assessments and their
own evaluations while others are smaller, newer, quite new to MOPAN, with more limited evidence. At present, the
MOPAN assessment approach is consistently applied across all MOs with very limited differentiation. Small
adaptations to the MOPAN methodology are integrated at the inception phase where, for example, additional cross-
cutting issues are integrated (into KPI 2) or where specific micro-indicators are deemed to be non-applicable due to
the organisational context, strategic purpose, or operating model.
Scope
The study aims to explore how the assessment process and methodology can balance standardization and
differentiation for MOPAN assessments. The study explores options, with pros and cons, for how the MOPAN
assessment process and methodology may be differentiated for different organisations in a proportionate way. The
study is being conducted from the starting assumption that the core MOPAN assessment framework remains in
place and the focus is on differentiating the process and methodology while keeping the fundamental approach as
the platform.
The study explores options for tailoring and differentiating the MOPAN process in order to get the most value from
the available resource in a way that makes best use of MOPAN analytical resources before and during HQ visits;
makes best use of all the available relevant evidence sources (including previous assessments and evaluations); and
draws on MO capacity to engage and respond in preparation for and during an assessment. This is driven by an
interest in enhancing the relevance and efficiency of the process by targeting the time spent in an assessment on the
most interesting and important issues and adopting a more streamlined and efficient approach on issues that are
well understood.
The study is an opportunity to learn from the practical experiences of teams and focal points in applying the MOPAN
process and framework to a diverse set of multilateral organisations and potentially identifying a common “core” of
every assessment.
Approach
The study draws on the experiences of organisations that have had a MOPAN assessment since 2015, with a particular
focus on the cohort of the 14 MOs assessed as part of the 2017-18 cycle.27 This reflects:
1) there is a base of current factual information already available from the 2017-18 assessments and
2) the diversity of the group of MOs provides fertile ground for testing; The MO cohort includes organisations with
both development and humanitarian remits, high levels of decentralisation, and a diversity of mandates (from
normative to operational), structures, and varying levels of maturity in their RBM systems.
While maintaining sight of all 14 MOs, the Study will conduct a more focused inquiry for a sub-set of 10 MOs that will
offer the richest potential source for learning on the development of an assessment approach. The criteria and
proposed sample is outlined in Section 2.2.
27Asian Development Bank (ADB), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Global Environment Facility (GEF), Global Partnership for Education (GPE),
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), International Organisation for Migration (IOM), Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights
(OHCHR), UN Women, United Nations Education, Science, and Culture Organisation (UNESCO), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), World
Health Organisations (WHO), and World Food Programme (WFP)
79
Expected outputs
The deliverable for the study will be an options paper setting out key issues, pros and cons for how the MOPAN
assessment process and methodology can be tailored to different types of MOs. This will include:
 Proposal for differentiation criteria to identify clusters for how organisations may be clustered based upon
their mandate, the maturity of their reporting systems, their familiarity with the MOPAN process (i.e. how
many MOPAN assessments they have been through), level of capacity.
 Recommendations for differentiating the methodological approach to consider how the approach may vary
in terms of the methods applied. This might include the level of engagement with MO for self-reporting, use
of a case-study approach to explore key issues, visits to field offices etc.
80
Methodology
Method
The methodology is designed to capture real-time learning from MO focal points, MOPAN assessors, and the MOPAN
Secretariat to gather experience on recent assignments for a range of MOs.
The study will engage with MOs to understand and test the:
 Relevance of the process, themes explored for MOs
 Efficiency of the process for the MO
This involves a focused inquiry with a sample of up to 10 MOs that have been purposively selected to represent a
cross-section of the diversity of the MOs.
For each MO included in the sample, the inquiry will draw on the following:
Multilateral Document review Interview with Interview with MO Interview with

Sour
organisation MOPAN Assessor Focal Point Secretariat

ce
Sample of up to 10 Review of Key issues that Key issues in Identified issues,

MOs selected for a inception notes emerged in applying experiencing the challenges and
‘deep dive’ review and MOPAN the MOPAN process MOPAN process opportunities
of the practical reports. and how to organisations for the for each MO in
experience guided the process and assessed. organisation- gaps sample
Approach
by criteria set out in framework has and opportunities

2.2 been interpreted
for each MO.
Up to 10 docs Up to 10 interviews Up to 10 Up to 5
Input
reviewed in detail with assessors interviews with interviews with

MO focal points Secretariat Staff
Document review
Detailed review of up to 10 MOPAN assessment reports to: a) understand the strategic context for the organisations,
and b) to understand how the process was applied.
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews as a way to consult assessors and MOs on their experience of the MOPAN process and
explore possible approaches for differentiating the approach. An interview guide has been devised based on an inquiry
matrix (see Annex 1) with questions being tailored to the specific interviewee.
As part of our commitment to ethical interviewing, in line with UNEG ethical guidelines, at the start of each interview,
the interviewer will assure the interviewee that interviews will not be attributed, but note that the small number of
interviewees may make confidentiality difficult. To mitigate this risk, we will ask the interviewee to identify any
comments that they specifically do not want to be recorded or reported. Our recording will consist of written notes.
Analysis
81
Analysis will be based on the inquiry framework so that there is a consistent approach taken to recording and
analysis. Through the analysis process the team will construct, test, and refine options for differentiating the MOPAN
process and methodology.

Criteria for the selection of the MOs is based upon a number of criteria including the MO’s level of decentralisation,
the perceived maturity of the organisation’s approach to performance issues, MO capacity to engage with the MOPAN
process, familiarity with the MOPAN process, scale of organisation etc. Annex 3 sets out the full typology used for the
sample. The following is a proposed sample of organisations for which to explore options for differentiation.
Suggested MO Type of Overall mandate Justification

organisation and results area
1. ADB IFI Financing Regional international finance organization with

mature systems and a high degree of familiarity with
the MOPAN assessment
2. ILO UN Agency Normative/ Blend of normative and programmatic work and the
Programmatic ‘beyond aid’ context in which they operate.
3. UNOCHA UN Agency Coordination Key coordination function so judgements of

organisational effectiveness and results of what they
do reflected in a more ‘multilateral system’ view
4. GAVI Fund/Partnership Financing New and fast-moving organisation now entering a

context of more systemic challenges
5. IOM UN Agency Programmatic- Highly decentralized organization with humanitarian

largely mandate, and high level of engagement with
humanitarian implementing partners
6. UNICEF UN Agency Programmatic- Large, mature organization with a high degree of

Humanitarian and familiarity with the MOPAN assessment
development
7. OHCHR UN Agency Normative Organisation only recently engaged in MOPAN

process with a largely normative role.
8. GPE Fund/Partnership Financing New and fast-moving organisation now entering a

context of more systemic challenges
9. IFAD UN Agency Programmatic/ UN agency with financing function with technical

financing assistance
82
Suggested MO Type of Overall mandate Justification
organisation and results area
10. UNHCR UN Agency Programmatic- Highly decentralized organization with humanitarian

largely mandate, and high level of engagement with
humanitarian implementing partners
83
Annex 1: Inquiry Matrix
Doc review interview
MOPAN assessment  What are key differences in the ways that the MOPAN assessment process has been Yes
differentiation in conducted from organisation to organisation
practice  How have assessments been tailored thus far to capture the unique context and Yes Yes
mandate of each MO
 What are the defining differences between organisations requiring different Yes
approaches to the MOPAN assessment?
 Where is self-reporting (making use of MO capacity) appropriate and feasible? Yes
 What are the core areas within the methodology for all organisations? Yes Yes
 What are the themes/specific issues that a differentiated approach might capture?- Yes Yes
84
Interview Guide:
QUESTIONS FOR EVALUATORS/ASSESSORS
Overall questions:
a) Which organisations have you assessed or are currently assessing?

b) Have you assessed an organisation that did not fit the MOPAN assessment framework?
i. If so, what were the discrepancies and challenges? How would you suggest addressing those?
c) Which organisations would you say the differentiation study should be particularly relevant to, based on the briefing Nick gave in Edinburgh, i.e. do not easily fit the
MOPAN standard model?
Assessment themes/areas:
d) Do you think the MOPAN assessment framework is covering all relevant themes and areas?
i. If not, what other themes or areas would benefit the assessment if added?
e) From your experience, are there any areas or themes covered in the assessment that could be omitted (unnecessary or not very important?)
f) Are there any assumptions built into the assessment framework (including on international best practice or what good performance looks like), which do not work
so well or could be better adapted for the organisations that you looked at?
Methodology:
g) Do you think there is anything missing in the methodological framework when applied to organisations that are not standard types?
h) Are there any methods or evaluation techniques that are not used that could have benefitted the assessment if applied?
i. If so, what are they and why?
i) Are there any methods applied that you think could be omitted/that are not useful/optimal?
i. If so, what are they and why?
j) Could the assessment have been improved by spending the available time in different ways, including less time on certain KPIs or more time on others?
Assessment process:
k) Is the assessment process useful and fit for purpose?

i. If yes, what is particularly useful and why?
85
ii. If no, which part of the process are less useful and fit to purpose and how would you suggest organising it instead?
Crosscutting questions:
l) Is there anything that is particularly good with the methodological approach and process that you think would be important to keep?
m) If the MOPAN assessment framework were to have some core (compulsory) themes (KPIs/methods) common for all assessments, and some themes/methods could
be applied if relevant (e.g. from a list of optional themes), which do you think the core themes common for all MOs should be, and what could be more flexible and
optional depending on the type/nature/mission of the organisation?
QUESTIONS FOR THE FOCAL POINTS (in the organisations)
a) When was the last MOPAN assessment of your organisation?

b) How did you perceive the assessment process?
c) How was the collaboration with the assessment team?
d) In your opinion, did the assessment cover all relevant aspects of your organisation?
i. If not, which aspects (themes/areas etc) did it not cover that you think it would be useful for the assessment to include?
ii. Did the assessment look into areas (themes/aspects) that you think are less relevant and could be omitted from the standard assessment?
e) How successful was the process in capturing the essence of what your organisation is about, including any particularly unusual or unique characteristics?
f) What do you think about the methodology applied? Is it relevant and fit for purpose?
i. If not, what is irrelevant or not fit for purpose for your organisation?
If the focal point is from an organisation that does not easily fit the current assessment framework, we will add the following questions:
g) What were the discrepancies (between the assessment framework and the set-up of the organisation)?
h) What could have been done differently to make the assessment more relevant and appropriate for your (type of) organisation?
86
Annex 2: Typology for sample of MOs
Name of MO Relative size Organisatio Mandate Type of Familiarit Level of

(based upon est. n Type results y with Decentralization: #
Total revenue MOPAN locations with
US$) (2016-2017) (assessm presence (including
ents multiple duty
conducte stations in a single
d to country)
date)
ADB 20,000,000,000 Internationa regional multilateral Intermedi 2003, 35

l Finance banks ary 2006,
Institution (financing) 2010,
(regional) 2013,
2018
AfDB 26,710,000,000 Internationa regional multilateral Intermedi 2004,

l Finance banks ary 2007,
Institution (financing) 2012,
(regional) 2016
FAO 1,296,446,139 UN leads international Normative 2004, 148

Specialized efforts to fight hunger. ; 2011,
agency It is both a forum for Programm 2014,
negotiating agreements atic 2018
between developing and
developed countries and
a source of technical
knowledge and
information to aid
development.
GAVI 715,000,000 Specialised Immunization/ health Intermedi 2012,

global System strengthening ary 2016
fund/partne (financing)
rship
GEF 693,000,000 Specialised Environmental Intermedi 2018

global fund- sustainability ary
hosted by (financing)
World Bank
GFATM 432,000,000 Specialised accelerate the end of Intermedi 2018

global fund diseases- prevent, test, ary
treat (financing)
GPE 483,000,000 Specialised Education sector Intermedi 2011

global fund- strengthening ary
hosted by (financing)
World Bank
87
ents multiple duty
d to country)
date)
IADB Internationa regional multilateral Intermedi 2011,

l Finance banks ary 2016
Institution (financing)
IFAD 526,796,000 UN (IFI for agricultural Intermedi 2010, 43

Specialized development) focused ary 2013
agency exclusively on rural
poverty reduction,
working with poor rural
populations in
developing countries to
eliminate poverty,
hunger and
malnutrition; raise their
productivity and
incomes; and improve
the quality of their lives.
ILO 669,901,812 UN promotes international Normative 2016

Specialized labor rights by ;
agency formulating Programm
international standards atic
on the freedom to
associate, collective
bargaining, the abolition
of forced labor, and
equality of opportunity
and treatment.
IOM 1,615,633,992 UN agency works to help ensure Programm 2018 237

the orderly and humane atic
management of
migration, to promote
international
cooperation on
migration issues, to
assist in the search for
practical solutions to
migration problems and
to provide humanitarian
assistance to migrants in
need, including refugees
and internally displaced
people
OHCHR 142,000,000 UN agency Human rights Normative 2018
88
ents multiple duty
d to country)
date)
UN HABITAT 226,603,200 UN Fund socially and Programm 2016

environmentally atic;
sustainable human Normative
settlements
development and the
achievement of
adequate shelter for all
UN OCHA UN agency coordinating agency for Intermedi 2016

humanitarian assistance ary
across multilateral
system
UN Women 334,568,866 UN agency builds on the important Normative 2014, 92

work of four previously ; 2018
distinct parts of the UN Programm
system, which focus atic
exclusively on gender
equality and women’s
empowerment.
UNAIDS 228,706,405 UN agency leads and inspires the Normative 2005,

world to achieve its ; 2012,
shared vision of zero Programm 2016
new HIV infections, zero atic
discrimination and zero
AIDS-related deaths.
UNAIDS unites the
efforts of 11 UN
organizations—UNHCR,
UNICEF, WFP, UNDP,
UNFPA, UNODC, UN
Women, ILO, UNESCO,
WHO and the World
Bank
UNDP 5,102,572,823 UN Fund Lead within UN system Programm 2004,

on supporting country atic 2007,
led development 2009,
processes 2012,
2016
89
ents multiple duty
d to country)
date)
UNEP 720,805,951 UN Fund is the voice for the Normative 2011,

environment within the 2016
United Nations system.
UNEP acts as a catalyst,
advocate, educator and
facilitator to promote
the wise use and
sustainable
development of the
global environment.
UNESCO 615,024,051 UN Covers all aspects of Normative 2018 86

Specialized helping to improve
agency education worldwide,
promote science and
protecting important
historical and cultural
sites around the world
UNFPA 895,349,201 UN Fund Normative 2005, 187

; 2008,
Programm 2010,
atic 2014,
2018
UNHCR 3,973,809,295 UN agency protects refugees Programm 2011, 436

worldwide and atic 2014,
facilitates their return 2018
home or resettlement.
UNICEF 4,883,697,720 UN Fund eradicate poverty, Programm 2002,

reduce inequalities and atic 2009,
build resilience so 2012,
countries can sustain 2016
progress.
90
ents multiple duty
d to country)
date)
UNRWA 1,274,684,991 UN agency Welfare and human Programm 2011,

development of four atic 2018
generations of Palestine
refugees. Its services
encompass education,
health care, relief and
social services, camp
infrastructure and
improvement,
microfinance and
emergency assistance,
including in times of
armed conflict.
WFP 5,908,911,778 UN Fund Aims to eradicate Programm 2013, 313

hunger and atic 2018
malnutrition. It is the
world’s largest
humanitarian agency.
Every year, the
programme feeds
almost 80 million people
in around 75 countries.
WHO 2,364,078,787 UN directing and Normative 2003, 216

Specialized coordinating authority 2007,
agency on international health 2010,
within the United 2013,
Nations system. The 2018
objective of WHO is the
attainment by all
peoples of the highest
possible level of health
World Bank (GEF; 252,800,000,000 Internationa focuses on poverty Intermedi 2003, 117
GPE) l Finance reduction and the ary 2005,
Institution improvement of living (financing) 2008,
standards worldwide by 2009,
providing low-interest 2012,
loans, interest-free 2016
credit, and grants to
developing countries for
education, health,
infrastructure, and
communications
91

TWG 2019 Inception Reports forERG 20190717 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

TWG 2019 Inception Reports forERG 20190717 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TWG 2019 Inception Reports forERG 20190717 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This document includes the inception reports for:

1. Establishing how to assess the response of a multilateral

2. How to assess the performance of Multilateral

3. Reform of the UN Development System

4. Reviewing the results component (KPIs 9-12)

5. MOPAN Process and Methodology Differentiation

Purpose, scope and focus 5

Background to the methodology 7

Relationship to MOPAN assessments and other Case Studies 9

The Review Framework - Inquiry matrix 12

MO selection and rationale 18

Annex 1: MO Selection list 19

MO Selection for Fieldwork: Methodology and Recommendations 19

Stage 1. Classification for SDG implementation 19

Stage 2. Agency Typology 19

Stage 3. Diversity of thematic focus 19

Table 1: MO Selection List (Organisations assessed in 2015-2016, 2017-2018, 2019-20) 21

ADB Asian Development Bank

Purpose, scope and focus

SDG Custodian and partner MOs

Moving on from preparedness

Core focus of the case study

Rationale for a case study approach

Relationship to MOPAN assessments and other Case Studies

 MO documentation on SDGs implementation, frameworks and monitoring and measurement tools.

Ensuring a consistent approach across case studies

1. Use of the inquiry matrix to record and analyse data

The Review Framework - Inquiry matrix

 Working together, efficient and effective shared business processes:

Key area of inquiry: broad Sub-question Evidence sources/targeting of questions by stakeholder

programming and if so, to

preparedness and response documents such as regional a/o country strategies,

MO Selection for Fieldwork: Methodology and Recommendations

Stage 2. Agency Typology

Stage 3. Diversity of thematic focus

3 As in Tier Classification for Global SDG Indicators, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/tier-classification/

12 IFC 2019 (this

1.3 Expected outputs 36

2.1 Background to the methodology 38

2.3 The Inquiry Framework 45

2.4 MO selection and rationale 46

2.5 Intended use/users 49

Annex 1: Inquiry Matrix 50

Annex 2: Typology for sample of MOs 51

 implementing their respective policies;

Background on the issue

In line with the scope agreed by the TWG, the approach:

Concepts and working definitions

Table 1: Working definitions

Figure 1 depicts how SEA and SH exist within multilateral

13Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, Secretary-General's Bulletins https://www.un.org/preventing-sexual-exploitation-and-

MOPAN assessments 2017-18

Entry points in MOPAN Methodology (2017-18)

 Codes of Conduct / staff rules as relevant to SEAH, action plans etc.

Each visit will be undertaken by two members of the team.

Ensuring a consistent approach across case studies

 Use of the inquiry matrix to record and analyse data;