INTRODUCTION . 17 The non-applicable MIs are the following: l MI 2.1c: Good governance7 l MI 5.1: Interventions aligned with national/regional priorities and intended national/regional results l MI 5.3: Capacity analysis [of national partner] informing intervention design and implementation, and strategies to address any weakness found are employed l MI 5.6: Intervention designs that include detailed and realistic measures to ensure sustainability (as defined in Key Performance Indicator [KPI] 12) l MI 6.3: Clear adherence to the commitment in the Busan Partnership for effective development co-operation on use of country systems l MI 6.8: Participation with national and other partners in mutual assessments of progress in implementing agreed commitments l MI 9.3: Interventions assessed as having contributed to significant changes in national development policies and programmes (policy and capacity impacts) or needed system reforms l MI 9.6: Interventions assessed as helping to improve good governance l MI 10.2: Interventions assessed as having helped to contribute to the realisation of national development goals and objectives l MI 12.1: Benefits assessed as continuing or likely to continue after project or programme completion or effective measures that exist to link the humanitarian relief operations to recovery, resilience and eventually to longerterm development results l MI 12.2: Interventions assessed as having built sufficient institutional and/or community capacity for sustainability or have been absorbed by government l MI 12.3: Interventions assessed as having strengthened the enabling environment for development. Moreover, the MOPAN assessment also applied specific interpretations of the terms “partner” and “intervention” in rating performance: “partner” is confined to implementing partners within UNRWA service areas and not to a broader appreciation of the institutions of a country, and “intervention” relates to the programme areas through which UNRWA delivers its services. Some of the MIs noted above (5.1, 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3) are of interest or have partial applicability to UNRWA because of the nature of the Agency. In such cases, no assessment of performance is made. However, the assessment team discusses the indicators as they pertain to UNRWA where it considered that this information would add to the broader interpretation of UNRWA’s performance in the context of the development landscape within which the Agency must operate. Lines of evidence The MOPAN assessment of UNRWA was undertaken between May 2017 and July 2018. It covers UNRWA’s headquarters operations and the operations at the field office level. As part of the methodology, it relies on the following lines of evidence: l Document review: The team collected and reviewed 150 documents, although more than this were screened for inclusion. Documents included public source documents such as reports, operational guidelines, independent reviews and evaluations and internal documents such as minutes of management meetings, planning and reporting templates for staff. Results documentation included nine independent evaluations – although these were primarily institutional evaluations rather than those focused on development results – and management reporting from 2016-18. 7. In considering whether structures and mechanisms are in place and applied within an organisation to support the implementation of global frameworks of cross-cutting issues, MOPAN defines the cross-cutting area of “good governance” as “peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development that reduce inequality, provide justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”. UNRWA’s mandate and strategy are considered as not directly sighted to this, and therefore this MI is considered non-applicable for purposes of assessing the organisational performance of UNRWA.