This report sets out the findings of a learning focused case study on partnerships for MOPAN, focusing on collaboration among the three Rome-based agencies (RBAs): the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the World Food Programme. The study is based on their work in four countries: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Jordan and Madagascar. Considering that the three agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), and by reviewing the four countries in more detail and interviewing stakeholders in country, it has been possible to identify some of the factors that drive partnership in practice at country level. It should be noted that the MoU was signed in June 2018 and collaboration predates the MoU in the four countries reviewed. The four countries (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Jordan and Madagascar) included in this case study provide a highly varied and interesting context for learning about RBA collaboration, with a good range of different types of context. It is hoped that the priority attached to food security, agricultural development and humanitarian response in the countries means that the UN Rome-based agencies play an important role and have a large and demanding shared agenda of work.
However, it is important to note that these case studies cover a small sample of countries and do not explore RBA collaboration in its entirety. It is sensible therefore to view this case study as a learning product with lessons and recommendations which may be of interest more widely, but which should not be assumed to be representative of all country contexts or all types of collaboration.
This is the first pilot of a case study approach by MOPAN. As such this pilot MOPAN learning case study has considered the experience of the RBA collaboration at country level, with the intention to provide a different lens on partnership. While partnership is key to how multilateral organisations work and is part of the MOPAN 3.0 assessment framework, this partnerships case study is not an evaluation of the agencies and is separate and distinct from the MOPAN 3.0 institutional assessment process.
Main conclusions are based on exploring RBA collaboration in four country contexts, and it is hoped the learning will be of use to the RBAs, the United Nations (UN) system and others more widely seeking to understand, build on and deepen their partnerships, particularly in the wider context of UN reform. The conclusions are follows:
- A significant amount of collaboration is happening on the ground at country level, there is a broadly supportive context for it to continue to evolve. The country studies found many good examples of the RBAs working together. Other opportunities are being explored, and recent work on national level action plans and high level engagement with government including visits to Bangladesh and Ethiopia at senior level have helped to build a platform for further collaboration.
- The main drivers of the RBA collaboration work are country needs and context, as well as the direction set by the national governments in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In the countries considered for this study, the RBA collaboration has been mainly demand-driven and relevant to the SDGs and results. The collaboration should continue to evolve with country needs as the central driver. The changing needs of the countries, such as the way Bangladesh is evolving and its approach to the SDGs, mean that the RBAs need to be responsive to the changing context including how they collaborate.
- There are important positive enablers for RBA collaboration in place. These include the fact that staff in the RBAs have a good understanding of comparative advantage and each other’s roles. People and personal relationships are a very important underlying determinant of successful collaboration on the ground. This highlights the role that leadership in each of the agencies, at country level, plays in encouraging effective partnerships with the other RBAs.
- RBA collaboration is held back by a lack of alignment of business processes, by the fragmented nature of funding flows and by how donors work with individual agencies. The commitments in the MoU, agreed by the RBAs (with member states’ views represented in the management structures), need to be matched by support in how the donors work on the ground. For example, if donors focus on funding specific initiatives through individual agencies to deliver on their own priorities, the potential for RBA collaboration across agencies in support of country priorities is constrained.
- So far, RBA collaboration is typically at project level and somewhat transactional in nature rather than strategic. The collaboration is more frequent between two of the three agencies than a full tripartite partnership and generally works with government departments or other UN agencies and partners such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
- RBAs increasingly recognise the importance of the MoU. It is clear that collaboration on the ground has been evolving since well before the MoU was agreed, and that the MoU’s role is mainly facilitative. On the other hand, awareness of the MoU is rising, and staff interviewed felt that it can send a strong positive signal and has helped to encourage joint working.
Looking ahead, the study has considered what might help RBA collaboration to evolve further. Several key points are worth emphasising:
- It would be useful to be specific on expectations about how RBA collaboration should evolve. The main message could be that RBA collaboration should evolve naturally from discussions which are already happening around country needs and priorities, strategic approaches, and institutional mapping of capabilities and potential contributions of each agency. It would not be helpful if the discussion assumes uncritically that more collaboration is always a positive: partnerships needs to have a purpose.
- With that in mind, at country level, the agencies can consider how to move further and faster on aligning their country strategic planning work, within the context of collaborative work around the SDGs. This process has begun but could usefully develop further. This could naturally lead to exploring the potential for further RBA collaboration on issues where there are the most synergies between the three agencies, including in particular multisectoral issues.
- This would position the RBA collaboration at country level around the best ways of targeting collaboration within a strategic approach, building in flexibility on modes of implementation and continuing to ensure that decisions on how to work together are determined by the needs and issues in each country and by what each agency can specifically bring to the table.
- At headquarters (HQ) level, the agencies and donors can help facilitate collaboration by better aligning business processes and planning cycles. So far, staff at country level are working at project level and in relatively informal ways. They are finding workarounds when the differences in planning cycles, funding environments and capacity on the ground create obstacles to joint working.
- Increased alignment would require resolving some practical constraints that stem from differences in business processes. While the agencies have a common agenda, they also are intrinsically different from each other and have their own core business. Bridging across their different natures to get to more substantive co-operation is a challenge, beyond the low-hanging fruit of sharing information, facilitation of each other’s work opportunistically and working at project level.
- Finally, the importance of country context and needs for deciding on which partnerships to pursue has an interesting implication both for the agencies and MOPAN. It means that country needs should also be central in assessing the quality and evolution of the RBA collaboration. This is relevant both for how the RBAs assess internally and as part of how MOPAN looks at their performance. It emphasises the importance of evaluation evidence at country level, a current gap that could be considered in going forward. It also highlights that assessments which focus mainly at HQ level may not provide a detailed enough picture, unless they are able to draw on such evidence from decentralised evaluations.
