banner WBT

Working Better Together

Resource
public
Working Better Together as Team Europe Through joint programming and joint implementation Guidance
0
 Views

Table of contents

Section 4: Joint policy dialogue

Working Better Together as Team Europe
Through joint programming and joint implementation

Guidance

A tool to help EU Delegations work better together with Member States as Team Europe and with like-minded partners and country stakeholders, through joint programming and implementation.

 

 

Joint policy dialogue

The approach to consultation outlined in the previous chapter should set the stage for strategic policy dialogue. In this context, strategic means that the dialogue is informed, structured and sequenced to move the participants towards the achievement of specific objectives and goals. It is a structured dialogue, meaning it is planned, has concrete outputs, is scheduled for maximum effectiveness, managed in a transparent manner, and implemented with a provision for follow-up action

Policy coherence is an additional guiding principle. This involves reconciling development and political positions in the joint programming relationship so that a common position is formed and reflected throughout the intervention logic to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Linking dialogue to results

The new European Consensus on Development (the European Consensus) states that at country level, the EU and MS will enhance joint programming to increase their collective impact by bringing together their resources and capacities as well as using joint results frameworks to maintain momentum, inform dialogue and enhance mutual accountability. The 2016 Council conclusions state that joint programming can be an effective tool to enhance coordination at country and sector level and reinforce coordinated policy dialogue; and the evaluation of joint programming provides evidence that joint programming processes can contribute to improving political and policy dialogue.

The 2030 Agenda, with its multi-partner and cross-sector approach, may be seen as an entry point for wideranging dialogue. Policy dialogue could be structured around localisation, financing and monitoring (see graphic below).

DIALOGUE ENTRY POINTS & 2030 AGENDA

t-_75-localising-nationalising_text.png
t-_75-financing_text.png
t-_75-measuring_reporting_text.png

 

Regardless of the specific topic, strategic and structured policy dialogue tends to achieve the best results when:

  1. a public policy transformation is already underway;
  2. the government’s lead actors are receptive and well-prepared;
  3. the profile, legitimacy and credibility of respective stakeholders are high;
  4. there is a window for change, for example a binding global commitment, political pressure from within the country, or an emergency situation;
  5. the agenda focuses on issues of interest to both sides with potential for mutual benefit.

The timing of policy dialogue, together with prevailing partnership dynamics, will therefore affect the degree of leverage for Team Europe. Structured policy dialogue must also be seen as a continuous process so that each dialogue event, whether formal or informal, can be used to build partnership and consensus.

 

Ensuring readiness for policy dialogue

To maximise the value of joint policy dialogue, it is essential that there be clear communication channels between the government and joint programming partners in the run-up to the dialogue. In some countries, monitoring based on a joint results framework (see chapter 13) and the adoption of a ‘cluster’ approach to joint programming have supported strategic policy dialogue focusing on accountability for implementation.

Political and operational sections in EU Delegations and MS embassies and implementing agencies must be involved for a coherent and prioritised approach. Responsibilities can be informed by the division of labour associated with the joint programming process.

Good practices on policy dialogue can be further found in the 2017 Budget Support Guidelines. In summary, the guidelines state that effective dialogue requires a pro-active, strategic, structured and documented approach, and is based on robust monitoring and evaluation of data generated ideally by the partner country.

Four steps are outlined:

t-_76-graph-policy-dialogue-steps_blue_0.png

 

Activities to support joint policy dialogue

As Team Europe comes together to adopt common approaches and speak with a single voice, these specific activities, depending on the time and resources available, could be considered:

  1. Analyse possible challenges/constraints to effective joint policy dialogue. Initial collective preparatory work can prove helpful, such as awareness-raising on aims, ambitions and possible barriers to joint policy dialogue in different priority areas of the joint programming document.
  2. Identify focal point(s) in government responsible for dialogue on specific issues. From a stakeholder analysis perspective, it is necessary to understand ‘who calls the shots’ and who the important intermediaries are to support European coordination efforts.
palestine-small.png

PALESTINE

 

In Palestine, the Joint Programming Document 2017-2020 directly responds to the Palestinian National Policy Agenda and was prepared based on six years of joint policy dialogue, using flexible locally developed and managed policy dialogue tools. Sixteen sector strategy fiches established leads and active donors for each sector (cluster approach), with specific roles and responsibilities. These are working documents, regularly updated, and used by the EU Delegation and the Member State embassies/field staff to pass on collective messages and information to Palestinian counterparts (way forward, financial means). They are backed by a results-oriented framework aiming at steering a structured, coherent and results-oriented policy dialogue, with stronger monitoring and evaluation features.

 

  1. Map sector relationships to results: It may be challenging to understand the linkages between the central agencies, the line ministries and sub-national administrations and how resources, results and accountability are connected. Mapping the roles and influence of key officials will ensure that dialogue is targeted to the appropriate counterparts that are accountable for results.
  2. Joint programming partners nominate a lead who will be tasked with preparing an overview of the sector, the main issues, and an approach to preparatory meetings to identify shared priorities. This should draw on the previously agreed division of labour and the work of a sector coordination group.
  3. Identify other major and influential non-EU development partners in the sector. Recognise that in some instances partners can exert considerable influence irrespective of their development cooperation budget and verify the extent to which these actors have shared priorities for the sector.
  4. Develop a timeline to show possible opportunities for dialogue. These might include points at which:―a new policy or development plan is being designed or developed;―there are actions to pursue the SDGs at local level;―evaluations, reviews, impact assessments, or major technical or feasibility studies are being conducted.
  5. Schedule (joint) evaluations, reviews and technical studies to provide timely input to policy dialogue, including to analyse risks and mitigating factors that can be included in the dialogue.
  6. Initiate a multi-donor discussion. Use sector/national coordination, monitoring and reporting mechanisms to identify dialogue objectives. Additional resources may be mobilised for any analytical work required (a dialogue facility, such as a joint programme secretariat, may provide on-going support for technical assistance, workshops, coordination tasks or joint missions). Together with analytical work, the outcome will inform harmonised policy positions.

  7. Based on consultations and analysis, agree on a procedure for drafting and validating policy briefs. These briefs will represent policy positions to be used at all dialogue opportunities by all participating partners. Developing a number of policy tools of varying length and detail will allow them to be used selectively depending on speaker, event and audience (see chapter 20 on communication). Ensure that cross-cutting issues, such as environment and gender equality, are reflected in these policy papers.

    cambodia-small.png
    laos-small.png

    		 Cambodia and Laos, joint policy briefs were developed through the joint programming process by lead partners under the division of labour. In Cambodia, the briefs were essentially key messages for Heads of Mission and were presented in a 1 to 2-page format so as to be accessible as meeting briefs.

     

  8. Identify and mitigate the risks of dialogue failure: These can relate to people, process and issues, with some potential risks summarised in the table below.

    People Process Issues
    Leadership, power and influence Unclear design process/roles Partial coverage/content
    Selection/level of participants Poor partnering context Priority issues not prepared
    Reluctant engagement Setting/format not conducive No mutual interest
    Lack of trust or expertise No follow-up mechanism Poorly prepared messaging
  9. Structure Heads of Mission/Cooperation preparation meetings to include updates on policy dialogue in key areas (e.g. public administration and governance) or to discuss negotiation strategy, the division of responsibilities and the inclusion of follow-up arrangements.
  10. Evaluate joint policy dialogue by evaluating the outcome so that, as part of a structured and strategic process, incremental improvements can be made.
  11. Convene regular combined discussions between Heads of Mission and Heads of Cooperation on joint programming implementation, the impact of policy dialogue, and follow-up priorities.

Each section or chapter may be used separately to fulfil a specific need for guidance, which means there may be some overlap between the different parts of the document.

If you have any questions, you may contact the relevant helpdesk or functional mailbox: