The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is one of them. It is a UN agency that does vital work, leading international efforts to defeat hunger. However, despite its importance the Multilateral Aid Review confirmed that as an organisation it needs to perform much better if it is to deliver the outcomes that we all want to see.

Part of the issue is being able to show the impact that the FAO has. This isn't easy. The more I've worked with colleagues in FAO, the more I understand how fundamental FAO treaties, standard setting and technical advice are to developing countries working to provide for their people. But to be honest, anyone would be forgiven for not immediately grasping how a Convention on, say, plant protection, agreed by representatives in Rome, really makes a difference to a poor village in, say, India.

So we thought we'd go and find out. If DFID could help find a way to establish the links in that chain, and if FAO could present the information so that people can more readily understand their work and impact, perhaps we could help to address some of the organisational challenges FAO faces – namely, ensuring that all of its activities are contributing effectively to the desired outcomes, and demonstrating and communicating in a systematic way the results achieved by the agency.

Let me give this a go. The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) - a FAO Treaty with 175 countries as contracting parties – is about the movement of plants and plant products across international boundaries. The aim is to control the spread of pests and diseases and to protect local eco-systems.

In India it worked like this. FAO supported India’s Department for Agriculture and Cooperation, and the relevant national agencies, to analyse the economic and ecological impact of adopting the plant health measures and to discuss issues with trading partners. On adoption of the measures in India and by regional trading partners, FAO India was there to support implementation of Pest Risk Assessments and Surveillance Systems (to minimise the spread of pests through trade) and approaches to plant protection (to protect local plants and eco-systems). The ultimate result was fewer pests in the country, higher crop production and better pasture, grazing plants and forests.

The men of Tinginaput village, India, return from a hard day’s labour in the fields. Picture © Abbie Trayler-Smith / Panos Pictures / Department for International Development

Still confused? Look at it like this. Both the Eurpean Union and US (for example) demand rigorous checks to ensure that the plant pests and food-borne pathogens don't make it past national borders. If India did not conform to plant health standards, and was not able to guarantee good quality crops and safe, well managed eco-systems, would it be able to play its role (and India is poised to play an even greater one) in world markets? Undoubtedly not. Preventing the spread of pests and diseases also protects livelihoods, including those of India's rural poor.  

I was convinced, and impressed with both the results that I saw in Chennai in India (for example) and with the strong working relationship between FAO and India as an active member of the organisation. The message is getting out there – check out the new FAO Impact leaflets and see for yourself…

Community health worker, Rebati, gives baby Adilya polio and other life saving vaccinations. Picture: Pippa Ranger/DFID

What I was in Delhi to ask about was how important was the contribution of the World Health Organisation in particular?

The answer is, pretty crucial. We were told so not just by the WHO country team, but also by national and state government partners, medical officers and the mothers of children benefitting from the immunisation programme...

... including Dr Pooja Sarin who proudly presented to us the clinic she runs in Mehrauli, Delhi. As she spoke she referred to a well-thumbed copy of the WHO Immunisation Handbook for Medical Officers. She also ended with a ringing endorsement of India's state-run facilities, which should all be compliant with WHO guidelines and global best practice; "My children were vaccinated in this clinic. I would always bring them to state-run clinics over private ones because I know that they follow WHO guidelines."

What WHO had produced on polio eradication was a set of practical guidance and training, specific to the Indian national context, for immunising all children against polio. WHO delivered the technical advice and expertise to help make the Government's target of attaining polio free status a reality. Importantly, what WHO and Indian medical staff learned along the way is also now being shared with other countries battling the same foe, for example during a recent WHO delegation to Nigeria.

Protecting the next generation. Picture: Caroline Irby/ DFID

Immunisation programmes, including against polio, are of course just one aspect of the organisation's work in India. 

The recently agreed WHO Country Cooperation Strategy has improved health and equity in India at its heart with three key objectives - i) supporting an improved Government of India role in global health; ii) promoting access to and utilisation of affordable, efficiently networked and sustainable services for the whole population; and iii) helping to confront the new epidemiological reality of India. WHO, along with agency partners in the UN Country Team, prioritises its delivery in the nine states in India with the highest proportion of people living in poverty – Odisha, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Assam and Rajasthan. 

How WHO delivers on such an important set of objectives goes to the heart of what the UK and DFID expects from our development funding to the agency. India was an incredibly valuable context in which to consider the impact that a normative and standard setting agency like WHO can and should be having.  These agencies play a vital role providing technical expertise, neutral advice and convening power, data and analysis, to help governments to meet international standards, and to deliver progress against MDG targets and on government poverty reduction and development plans. In India, WHO provides something that only agencies like this can - considerable support over a long time period  to achieve significant outcomes that have wide a ranging impact. It took 15 years to near-eradicate polio in India following the initial adoption of WHO guidelines in 1995. The process was non-linear, with successes and setbacks, where anything less than full, robust support would have been insufficient.

To continue to succeed in this role, WHO needs to ensure that it is focusing on its proven comparative advantage, and monitoring its organisational effectiveness and delivery of results to demonstrate value for money from the funding it receives. DFID will be looking closely at these things when refreshing the Multilateral Aid Review (MAR) assessment of WHO next year.

So are the global standards and guidelines, researched and drafted in Geneva and across the world, important for achieving great things in world health? This was one tick in the credit column.

Kadiatu Bassie with her three month-old baby, Mamie, who was vaccinated against pneumococcal disease in Sierra Leone. Picture: Doune Porter / GAVI

DFID spends over 40% of its annual programme budget through multilateral organisations, including the United Nations, World Bank and European Union - on everything from peacekeeping and responding to humanitarian disasters, to delivering education, immunisation and infrastructure programmes. It is vital that we hold those organisations to account for spending UK aid money well.

That is why last year the DFID Secretary of State asked us to undertake a rigorous assessment of all of the multilateral organisations we fund.  Are they focusing on the development objectives that matter to the UK? Are the organisations themselves set up to spend British taxpayers' money effectively?

In March 2011 the UK published its Multilateral Aid Review (which from now on I'll refer to as the MAR). The MAR was cutting-edge and had real impact internationally. No other donor country had published before an explicit comparison of the performance of a wide range of organisations, linking those assessments to funding decisions.

The MAR confirmed that the multilateral system is a critical partner in delivering the UK's development objectives and making a difference for the world's poorest. But we were also tough. We cut funding to multilateral organisations that were performing poorly. Others were placed in 'special measures' and are on notice to make improvements quickly.

Humanitarian assistance in Haiti. Picture: Russell Watkins/ DFID

DFID continues to assess the performance of our partner multilaterals. We want to see more of the results they are achieving at country level, and to see whether they are improving in areas the MAR assessed as weak.

This blog is to share some of the good work that multilaterals deliver with UK aid, and to show why multilaterals are such important partners in DFID's fight against poverty.

I'll be reporting back on behalf of my team from missions to countries across Africa and Asia. I'll also be talking to DFID staff in our country offices, highlighting examples of good multilateral performance and what we can learn from those examples. I hope that this blog can create the space for a conversation and debate around the opportunities and best practice for working alongside the UK's multilateral partners.