Our stories. Find out more about our work towards the Sustainable Development Goals.

Where do I start?It’s been quite the year and half for us at the RCO Maldives.When people see the final United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework, they will see a polished document with a few strategic priorities, a logical theory of change, and a neat results framework that appears to fit together almost effortlessly.  What they will not see are the hundreds of emails, increasingly creative document filenames, meetings that ran over time, cups of cold coffee, or conversations about a single indicator that somehow lasted an entire afternoon. Nor will they see the moments when we thought we had finally reached agreement, only to discover that someone, usually quite reasonably, had one more concern. And they certainly will not see the people behind the Framework.I came into this process as the data and results person. My job was to make sure that the Framework made sense on paper: that the indicators were measurable, baselines and targets were realistic, agency commitment were reflected in the results framework, and the whole thing could live within UN INFO.But as the process unfolded, it increasingly dawned on me that UNSDCF formulation is far from straightforward. It is an exercise in negotiation, coordination and, at times, endurance and one that requires a strong and honest partnership with the Government.This is the story of how we got there. First we had to look back before moving forward. Before deciding where the UN in the Maldives wanted to go, we first had to ask ourselves what had happened during the 2022–2026 cycle. That meant completing the final Evaluation of the current Cooperation Framework.  On paper, this sounds simple enough, that is, develop the Terms of Reference (TOR), select evaluators, conduct interviews, review evidence, receive the evaluation, clear it, and move on. In reality, the TOR alone involved what felt like a million rounds of revisions, with multiple discussions between the RCO, the Development Coordination Office (DCO) and the Peer Support Group (PSG) before it could be finalised. Eventually, we got there. But our first lesson was already clear: a process can be technically sound and still take a very long time to become institutionally comfortable. Once the evaluators were on board, the consultations began. Around 133 interviews and focus group discussions were conducted, alongside 72 stakeholder survey responses. We asked government counterparts, UN agencies, development partners and others to reflect honestly on what had worked, where the UN had added value, and what could have been done differently.For the RCO, one of the many challenges was that this was happening alongside everything else. There was no magical period in the calendar when everyone stopped their regular work and said, “Right, now let us formulate the next Cooperation Framework.” The existing Framework was still being implemented. There was hardly any leeway to the annual reporting deadlines. UN INFO needed updating. Meetings still had to be organised. And, of course, there were a dozen other deadlines that were completely indifferent to our formulation timeline.Maldives was also selected for the PSG’s Hyper-Care Mission, bringing DCO and PSG colleagues to Maldives for intensive technical sessions with the UN Country Team (UNCT) and UN Thematic and Programme Groups (UNTT). The sessions covered the role of evaluation and Country Analysis in shaping the new Framework, Leave No One Behind, inclusive growth, resilience, climate action, community resilience and economic transformation. Fitting everything into the schedule was no small feat. But the mission provided valuable guidance and helped us think more strategically about the Framework we want to build. With the evaluation underway, we also needed to develop the Country Analysis. Drawing on the UNCT’s earlier foresight exercise and relevant analysis and publications from the UN and its partners, this was another exercise in balancing technical rigor with. Initially we brought in a local consultant to support the process, however as our luck would have it, to balance the internal and external requirements from stakeholders, we soon had to let go of the idea and adjust to developing the Country Analysis internally within the RCO. The Country Analysis is never simply about putting together the best available statistics. In Maldives, as in many countries, the way an issue is framed matters. The Government needs to recognise itself in the analysis and some discussions inevitably became sensitive. And that was another lesson under our belt: sometimes the most important part of a process is not how quickly you can produce the document, but whether the people who need to use it recognise it as theirs and owns the analysis. Then came the Theory of Change. We had evidence about where the country was and where the previous Framework had taken us. Now we had to answer the harder question: So, what should the UN actually do about it?Enter our CF international consultant.  Our international CF consultant became central to this process, helping us navigate the technical and strategic challenges. The Theory of Change required us to move beyond lists of programmes and projects and ask more fundamental questions: What change are we trying to contribute to? What is within the UN’s influence? Where is Government leadership essential? And what should the UN collectively offer, beyond what individual agencies were already doing?This required extensive consultation with the UNCT, UN thematic and programmatic colleagues, and the RCO. Every agency naturally viewed the country through the lens of its own mandate. Our challenge was to step back from those individual perspectives and build a shared direction. Although that sounded simple, it wasn't.At various points during the process, we were reminded that this was not simply a UN document. The Cooperation Framework is jointly owned, meaning that the Joint Steering Committee became an important part of the process with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) at the helm. The RCO and MFA had to work together to steer the formulation. For an RCO, this is where coordination becomes much more than scheduling meetings. It becomes diplomacy. It becomes knowing when to push, when to listen, when to clarify, and when to let a conversation breathe. If there was one moment that made the formulation process feel particularly real, it was the Strategic Prioritization Workshop. The discussions were intense and agencies pushed back on one another’s perspectives. Honestly, that pushback was necessary. If everyone had immediately agreed with everything, I would have been more worried. A Cooperation Framework that tries to include every agency's priority, every programme, every sector and every issue become everything, and therefore nothing.The difficult part was getting from: “This is important to my agency.” To “This is important enough to be part of our collective UN strategic offer.” Those are not the same thing.And this is where I watched our consultant worked his magic. He had to manage very different personalities, mandates and perspectives around the table. His role was not simply to provide technical expertise, but to help a group of people with different priorities arrive at a common direction. That required patience, persistence and political acumen. By the end of the retreat, we had moved closer to the strategic priorities that would eventually form the backbone of the new Framework.One particularly valuable moment of the retreat was an in-person session with the Joint Secretary of the MFA, who quite literally took the “hot seat” and responded openly to the questions, concerns and, at times, grievances raised by the UNCT. Her willingness to speak candidly about how the UN is perceived from the Government’s perspective, while also acknowledging where we could do better, and gave the UNCT an UNCT an opportunity to step back, listen, and think critically on how we could strengthen our collective approach.   Once we had made progress internally, it was time to listen to everyone else.  Stakeholder consultations were central to the process, with MFA support helping ensure relevant government ministries and institutions were represented. Thematic discussions brought together stakeholders to examine emerging priorities, changes in the country, areas where the UN could add value, and challenges requiring broader partnerships. These discussions were sometimes very different from what happened inside the UN. Government counterparts would question assumptions. Stakeholders would raise issues we had not sufficiently considered. Some conversations reinforced our thinking. Others made us go back to the document. We learnt that consultation is not asking people to approve what you have already decided. If it is done properly, consultation should make you change the thing you thought you had already finished. And that happened repeatedly.Eventually, we reached the much-awaited stage. The draft Cooperation Framework. Or, more accurately, drafts. Because there was never really just one draft. There were versions, revised versions and versions with tracked changes.  From my perspective, the most painful part was the results framework. This was where everything eventually had to become concrete. Outcomes had to connect to indicators. Indicators needed baselines and the targets had to be realistic. Responsibilities needed to be clear. The theory of change needed to flow into the results architecture. And everything had to be something that agencies could actually report against. Adding to the pressure was the fact that the Cooperation Framework had to be finalised before individual UN agencies could move forward with their Country Programme Documents (CPDs), making it critical that we stayed on schedule and kept the formulation process moving. This is where being the “data person” became both useful and slightly a liability as well.  Once you start looking at the results framework closely, you see all the cracks. An indicator may sound perfectly good until you ask: What is the baseline? Who collects the data? How often? Who is responsible for reporting it? And finally, will this still make sense four years from now? Suddenly, one seemingly innocent indicator becomes a 45-minute discussion.One of the biggest challenges was that the RCO could coordinate, facilitate and push, but ultimately, agencies had to own their commitments. We could ask, remind and convene. We could explain why a target needed to be changed. But we could not simply decide on behalf of an agency what it would commit to.That division of responsibility is something I think many RCO colleagues will recognise. You are responsible for making the collective product work, but you do not necessarily have the accountability to implement said work stream. So much of coordination becomes the art of influencing without controlling. And sometimes, the real skill lies in mastering the delicate art of the tenth follow-up.When it was time for the Validation Workshop, the document had already travelled a very long road. The validation workshop allowed us to test whether the Framework reflected our collective discussions, while preparing ourselves for yet another round of comments and revisions. We also somehow managed to present the new Framework to development partners and Member States based in both Malé and Colombo.  After months of analysis, consultations, retreats, workshops, revisions, emails, meetings (which sometimes could have been emails), spreadsheets and discussions about indicators, we reached the point where the new Cooperation Framework could be signed.  There is something strangely quiet about reaching the end of a process like this. The document is finally there, the signatures are on the page, the photographs are taken, and everyone goes back to work. But for those of us who lived through the process, the Framework means something more. It is ultimately a human document: behind every outcome is a conversation, every indicator a negotiation, and every strategic priority a choice shaped by different mandates, perspectives and expectations. For RCOs, this is perhaps the least visible part of our work. Coordination is not simply a function; it is listening, translating, persuading, knowing when to push and when to let go, and, sometimes, sending the same email one more time.Throughout this journey, our Resident Coordinator's support made a real difference. He gave the RCO team the space and trust to take the lead in driving the formulation process, while stepping in at the right moments to provide guidance, facilitate difficult discussions and help move things forward. He consistently recognised and appreciated the work put in by both the RCO and the UNCT, which helped keep the team motivated through what was, at times, an exhausting process. In all honesty, the RCO dream team made a very complicated process not only possible but, on many occasions, surprisingly enjoyable (and occasionally even fun!). And just when we thought we were approaching the finish line, there were still the design and layout to finalise, photographs to collect, and agency signatures to chase. Even these seemingly small tasks came with their own challenges and required considerable coordination to bring everything together. Looking back, I learned that evidence is essential, but it does not create consensus. That ownership matters as much as a technically sound Framework and that consultation and pushback are not obstacles, but part of the process. The signing is not the end; it is where implementation begins and where all those carefully negotiated commitments must become real. The document is the visible product, but the real achievement is the collective way of working that develops while creating it. When I look at the final Framework, I do not just see outcomes, indicators and targets. I see the long road behind it, the team that kept going, the leadership that made space for us to do our work, and, most importantly, the people who walked this journey together. That is the Framework behind the Framework.Written by: Shaha Shakeeb, Data & Results Reporting Officer, UN Resident Coordinator’s Office, MaldivesEdited By: Huda Adam, Head of RCO, UN Resident Coordinator’s Office, Maldives