Key Summary points from the DPG DoL session The new Dialogue Structure has significant implications on the

way we work. The principles of the new Dialogue Structure requires changes in a way we provide assistance and engage in dialogue.

The quality of dialogue with Government and among DPs is crucial for effective and functional DoL arrangements, requiring certain obligations of the DPG WGs to clarify the mandates, provide effective communication, and to be transparent and functional.

In supporting the quality of dialogue, the numbers do matter. The discussion on appropriate numbers of DPs per sector is therefore relevant.

There are inevitable linkages to decision-making process – HQ communication needed.

There is a need to fine-tune and clarify the definitions of lead, active, and delegating partners. There is also a need to have common understanding of implications of definitions.

Follow-up to DPG DoL Meeting DPG DoL meeting agreed:

DPG to undertake internal assessment/peer review of capacity to inform DP engagement.

Definitions to be clear. Need to reinforce or fine-tune definitions.

Effective and transparent communication DPG main interaction with GoT A short paper on DoL to communicate key issues on DoL

(implication and need for a change) Need to engage with Government to seek GoT’s views on

how the GoT foresees the dialogue to take place, and to gauge from GoT as to where there is need for changes.

Need for clarified definitions Ambiguity still exists. Deference between Active v.s. Delegating,

actively active v.s. silent active, lead v.s. chair Definitions ultimately change the direction of DoL DPG DoL Session on 27 May proposed:

Lead partner as a spokes person, has a responsibility of forging consensus for policy dialogue, and should have adequate capacity. Therefore, a chair/co-chairs equal leads. Annual rotation and how agency providing Secretariat support which may often involve the function beyond administrative tasks questioned.

Active partners should have adequate ‘in-country’ capacity to take up a leading role

A tighter definition of ‘delegating’ partners – delegating partners will not be part of DPG WGs, but a lead partner will ensure transparent and effective communication /information sharing (as it is expected overtime to shift to GBS or to new GoT-led project funding arrangements managed by active partners)

Proposed clarification on definitions Leads often chairs of DPG WGs aims to have longer-term

engagement as leads. Where applicable, the Troika system may be adopted as preferable system to allow for substantive engagement and continuity in dialogue. But where it is not applicable, leads to stay on more than one year (i.e. a longer-term lead and rotational active lead to support the lead, etc.).

Active partners as agreed in the DPG DoL session should have adequate in-country capacity to take up a leading role.

Delegating partners will not engage in DPG WGs, but will be informed through active and lead partners. Delegating partners continue to support existing projects, but overtime is expected to shift to GBS or new GoT-led project funding arrangements managed by active partners.

Next StepsDoL Matrix DoL Matrix revision per DPG DoL session and based on the agreed

definitions. A peer review at sector level with engagement of DPG HoCs. Criteria for a

peer review may be agreed to guide the review process. JAST WG to review the DoL Matrix for appropriate level of engagement,

facilitating GoT engagement. DPG note on DoL to HQs to be finalized as a joint communication to HQs DoL Matrix as a living document to guide future DP Cooperating

Agreements.

Quality of Dialogue (function of WGs to allow effective DoL) DCF meeting – opportunity to discuss the Dialogue Structure and DoL DPG Secretariat with Joint Communication Task Force re-visit DPG

Communication Strategy to ensure transparent communication. Implementation of the new Dialogue Structure – an opportunity to revisit

the objectives and mechanisms of dialogue (function of DPG WGs) at sector/thematic and cluster levels. JAST WG to define roadmap and guidance?

Joint Secretariat at DPG level to facilitate quality of dialogue?