DPG Architecture Review – Final Report

1.Report

1.1Background

Discussions in the DPG on the rationalization of the donor architecture led to the nomination of a small Task Force (TF) with the following assignment:

  1. review the functioning of the DPG architecture
  2. formulate basic principles for DPG architecture
  3. submission of an implementation plan to the DPG in May 2006

The Task Force consisted of Denmark, CIDA, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, UNDP and WB.

1.2Process

The TF activities consisted of the following steps:

  1. collection of the T.O.R.’s of the various Working Groups
  2. a round table discussion with the chairs of the Working Groups
  3. a detailed review of the activities of all Working Groups
  4. submission of a final report to the DPG

1.3Analysis

After analysing these documents and discussion we draw the following conclusions:

  • Flexibility: Changing development environment in Tanzania and in HQ. Working groups need space to be effective. Different working groups are at different stages of evolution (towards SWAps, harmonization)
  • Interlinkages: the present and future architecture is and will be determined by decisions regarding the Division of Labour between donors and the way the GoT will structure the dialogue with the donor community.
  • Need for clearity: Current diagram of structure not conceptually clear – mixes apples and oranges (e.g. mix of DP-led, GoT-led, and tripartite discussion, plus…)
  • Country Ownership: DPG architecture must be based first on country-defined concepts, including Mkukuta and GoT-led sector/thematic dialogue (and this is not entirely clear yet)
  • Accountability: accountability of chairs, group members, sub-groups need to be clear and monitorable. This should be monitored independently or by peers.
  • Transparency: decisions must be understandable, defensible, inclusive
  • The JAS is already in implementation – many working groups have made progress in reforming and formalizing their structure and procedures.

1.4Recommendations

A wholesale reform of the DPG architecture is not required. However, we believe that implementation of the commitments of the Joint Assistance Strategy – including increased use of budget support and pooled funding modalities – will require clearer, and more resilient and cost-effective processes of DP organization and information sharing. In that sense the future architecture should clearly reflect the consequences of the JAS implementation and should result in a substantial reduction of transaction costs both for the GoT and the donors.

Based on the work of the task force, we have a set of general recommendations (below) and a proposal for their implementation (section two). We hope that implementation of these recommendations will improve the cost-effectiveness of DP dialogue in the short term. We also hope that this rationalized approach will provide an adequate framework for the evolution of DPG functions as the JAS is implemented.

Recommendations:

  1. Define principles for the Division of Labour as soon as possible in order to determine the scope of the donor architecture and to clarify the purpose(s) of inter-DP dialogue, and its relationship to Government-led dialogue processes;
  2. Within the framework of the JAS-implementation a GoT-led discussion should be finalised as soon as possible on the dialogue structure. After the finalization of these discussions a graphic representation of DP dialogue structures and their relationship to Government-led dialogue structures should be made/developed.
  3. Define common roles and responsibilities of groups and individual positions (e.g. lead donor) within the DPG structure;
  4. Develop and apply common principles (applicable to DPG and all DP WGs) for the conduct of inter-DP dialogue, and DP dialogue with Government counterparts;
  5. On the basis of these principles, develop flexible common standards for DPG and DP WG management and support;
  6. Provide a credible process for monitoring: (a) progress in implementing these recommendations; (b) their utility (and modifications, as appropriate); (c) transaction costs of DPG architecture.

2.Proposal

2.1Introduction

DPs are providing development assistance to Tanzania, consistent with their individual programming objectives and regulations and try to ensure that the assistance their organization is providing is cost-effectively administered and used for the planned purposes. They represent and communicate the policy positions of their governments or agencies.

In view of the internationally agreed harmonisation and alignment strategy, the donor arechtecture in Tanzania needs to be adapted to these demands that were translated in the Joint Assistance Strategy of the GoT.

2.2Structure

The DP structure includes the logic and levels of inter-DP dialogue, and its relation to nationally led processes (see annex 1). Essentially, the DP structure consists of inter-DP dialogue groups at different levels. The DP dialogue structure is related to a similar structure on the GoT side. The key elements of the structure are apex groups (e.g. DPG), sector/thematic working groups, and task forces of both of these.

The DP structure should:

  • Align directly with GoT-led dialogue structures, based on the Mkukuta
  • accept that alignment will never be perfect, particularly for crosscutting themes, but groups should be situated in their main Mkukuta “home”;
  • Contain a minimum number of levels – ideally two levels only, DPG and WGs
  • working groups should try to avoid creating additional permanent sub-groups, though task forces are often required to (temporarily) deal with specific issues
  • Ensure through the TOR’s of the WG’s that all the cross cutting issues stated in the MKUKUTAincluding gender, HIV/AIDS, Governance and the environment are properly adressed at sector/cluster level.
  • Be straightforward and conceptually consistent
  • diagram should try to represent every possible configuration and interrelationship of working groups
  • task forces (e.g. JAS core group) should generally not be included in diagram, unless someone really needs the detailed version
  • Focus on sector/thematic dialogue, and not on funding mechanisms (except GBS)
  • Cover some priority areas for the GoT for which at present no WG exists (e.g. Power)
  • Ensure through the TOR’s of the WG’s that cross cutting issues such as gender and environment are properly adressed at sector/cluster level.

2.3Roles and Responsibilities

According to the JAS,

DPs are mutually accountable with the GoT to domestic stakeholders and to each other for their actions in fulfilling their shared commitments in development cooperation. They furthermore facilitate domestic accountability by being transparent in the provision of their development assistance…as well as by engaging in open dialogue with the GoT and other domestic stakeholders. (4.3)

In order to meet this commitment in a transparent and consistent fashion, every group within the DP structure should have a clearly defined function and responsibility . The quality and effectiveness of DP dialogue depends on everyone within the structure understanding both their roles and responsibilities, as well as the requirements of others that they depend on.

Element / Main Function(s) / Main Responsibilities
DPG /
  • Represent a common DP position to GoT on key issues such as MKUKUTA, GBS, JAS, etc?
/
  • Facilitate formulation of common DP position on key issues
  • Support DP dialogue through common services and information sharing
  • Promote best practice in aid effectiveness
  • Manage DPG Secretariat
  • Monitoring of DP WGs

DPG Secretariat /
  • Facilitate sharing of key information among DPs in areas of DP responsibility
/
  • Records management
  • Platform for information sharing (intranet, etc.)

DPG Co-Chairs /
  • Represent DPs (positions) in meetings with key GoT officials
  • Facilitate DPG meetings and processes

DP Working Groups /
  • Develop a common DP position on key sector/thematic issuesto be dicussed by lead-co-chair with GoT
  • Coordinate and align DP sector/thematic programs and projects
/
  • Assemble and provide information and analysis to DPs on key sector/thematic issues

DP Representative (in DPG, WG, or task force) /
  • Represent individual DP position in DPG and WGs
  • Contribute to formulation of a common position, in line with JAS and other existing agreements

Lead Partner (in WG) /
  • focal point for communication with GoT and with DPG on sector/thematic issues and DP position
/
  • report to DPG as required
  • record-keeping
  • ensure consideration of crosscutting issues
  • provide secretariat for group

Active Partner (in WG) /
  • contribute to formulation of a common DP position on key sector/thematic issues
/
  • ensure consideration of crosscutting issues
  • actively monitor and analyse sector/thematic performance and key issues

Delegating Partner (in WG)
Cluster Groups (if necessary) /
  • to be determined
/
  • to be determined

At present some blanks still exist in this overview given the fact that the discussion on Division of Labour and the strcuture of the GoT-led dialogue have not yet been finalised. It is however believed that the diagram reflects the need for a consistent hirarchy in the DPG architecture as a consequence of the common position of donors regarding the JAS.

2.2Principles

  1. Unity:
  2. All DP groups are considered part of one DP architecture, with DPG as apex organization (no groups are operate in isolation);
  3. Sector/thematic dialogue should not be duplicated – e.g. sector dialogue should occur principally in the main sector group; fund committees should deal mainly with administrative/financial requirements (incorporating, as appropriate, follow-up requirements determined by the broader group)
  4. Accountability:
  5. GoT needs to know that DP groups are representing the considered consensus view of all DPs (with exceptions noted to consensus, where appropriate)
  6. DPs need assurance that DP dialogue processes and analysis in all sectors/themes are being conducted adequately, and that DP positions are well-founded.
  7. Monitoring of DPWG will be undertaken by DPG through a Peer review mechanism
  8. Consistency/Fidelity:
  9. with JAS, Paris Declaration, other national and international agreements/commitments
  10. Inclusiveness:
  11. Financing modalities or agency-specific procedures should not exclude any DP from participating in DPG/GoT work related to harmonization/coordination and implementation of Mkukuta/ZPRP
  12. Transparency:
  13. (DP?)Chairs do not speak on behalf of group on key issues without fair warning and prior agreement from all group members
  14. Generally speaking Contractors, or technical advisors to GoT should not chair DP groups,
  15. Commitment:
  16. “Lead donorship” is an agency commitment, even if selection is based on individual characteristics. Agencies must provide adequate time, resources, to chair. Generally speaking, lead donor organization should provide secretariat for WG (or a technical agency – e.g. UNAIDS, FAO) , supported by DPG central services as required.
  17. Subsidiarity.
  18. Dialogue on issues should occur at the lowest level possible in the DP structure – task forces should be created for addressing specific issues, and dissolved as soon as possible

2.3Standard Procedures

Certain minimum, flexible standards for the procedures of the DPG and its working groups will help to ensure some consistency in relations of DPs with each other, with the GoT, and with Tanzanian civil society. They will also help to ensure transparency in DPG activities and basic standards of accountability. DP WGs should review their terms of reference/operating procedures to ensure that they meet these standards, and adjust them as required.

  • Standard naming of DP working groups (e.g. Environment-DPWG, Education-DPWG, etc.)
  • WGs, DPG, TFs (and sub-groups, to the extent they continue to exist) should have written TORs, covering the following essential elements:
  • Purpose of group
  • Membership (process for allowing new members??) – how many people per DP
  • Description and accountabilities of different roles within group, including functions of secretariat
  • Frequency of meetings, notification, records-keeping
  • Fair process for selection and replacement of lead donor
  • Transparent
  • Inclusive
  • Some measure to ensure continuity (over time, and during absences of chair) – e.g. troika, deputy, co-chairs
  • Lead donors/chairs of all WG’s should be decided by DPG (and by GoT) preferrably at the same moment in time.
  • Lead donors/chairs could be removed (de-ratified) by DPG (and by GoT) in instances where principles are demonstrably not being respected
  • Lead donors should report to the DPG on key issues regarding national processes in a sector and/or cluster.

2.4Code of Conduct

  • Commitment to JAS, GoT leadership, to harmonization…
  • Respect and courtesy
  • Declare conflict of interest
  • Attendance
  • Respect consensus, single channel of communication with GoT
  • Transparency, information sharing

2.6Monitoring

The DPG in its TOR’s has indicated that its work would be subject to a review. So far this has not taken place. The TF is of the opinion that the discussion on the donor architecture should be brought under the framework of the JAS-implementation plan. It would thus automatically be included under the JAS-monitoring framework and become subject to external review.