Findings on policy level dialogue

• Author: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) (European Commission), Landell Mills International
• Pages: 103-108

Final Evaluation Report: Part B- NRC Partnership Evaluation

103

7. Findings on policy level dialogue

Finding 4: Dialogue takes place through a range of channels, in structured and unstructured ways,

involving all levels of DG ECHO and NRC.

Finding 5: Dialogue at the country level is functional and timely, based on a mutual desire to raise the

quality of programme performance. Partners attribute this to the quality of DG ECHO Technical

Assistance (TA) and the operational expertise of NRC.

Finding 6: DG ECHO and NRC share the view that the quality of dialogue, and therefore the

effectiveness and influence of the partnership, is very high. Mutual learning is highly valued by both

sides.

7.1. Structure and function of dialogue

Dialogue takes place between DG ECHO and NRC at several levels. At the highest level, the mechanism

for strategic dialogue is very strong. As well as mutual interest, this is dependent on an established and

close relationship between the Secretary General of NRC and the Director General of DG ECHO. High

level technical dialogue is at least weekly and can be daily because of the strategic implications arising

from work at country level in contexts that can be changing rapidly.

At policy level, senior NRC staff in Oslo and the representation offices in Brussels and Geneva maintain

an ongoing dialogue with their DG ECHO counterparts and describe it as organisationally mature. In

Brussels, NRC has a dedicated Partnership Adviser who engages at operational level with DG ECHO

DO’s to facilitate dialogue and resolution of any issues. However, this dialogue is mainly unstructured

and takes place on an as-needed basis rather than according to a schedule. NRC would like to develop

the partnership strategically but, in the absence of a more structured dialogue, are unclear how to reach

out at the senior level of DG ECHO between the very top and the country desk.

Some interviewees say that the mechanism for dialogue works well because both organisations are

relatively flat in structure and each party can simply pick up the phone to talk. Others in DG ECHO say

that NRC’s regional structure sometimes adds an unhelpful layer because the context of each country is

so different, and the region is not always a meaningful entity. For this reason, policy dialogue at regional

level is not structured.

At field level, dialogue is frequent but with greater dependence on individuals and a need to re-establish

the relationship when there is a change in personnel, which is sometimes frequent. NRC notes that

partner performance at local level depends on the relationship between DG ECHO in Brussels and the

field and that sometimes different messages are being conveyed and the formal response can be different

from informal agreements. This issue is covered in the efficiency section.

On both sides, at policy and operational levels, there is a desire to improve formal strategic dialogue. The

formal mechanisms of the Annual Partner Meetings (see below) and the HIP process serve a useful

purpose but often involve large numbers of people, and multiple technical and general agendas. Smaller

forums work better in terms of establishing trust and having focused dialogue. Although NRC shares its

strategies with DG ECHO, DG ECHO is unable to share strategies such as the Joint Humanitarian

Development Framework (JHDF), which is an important tool in relation to the nexus, but is confidential.

NRC has various ways of pursuing ad hoc strategic dialogue such as bringing staff from the field or Oslo

to Brussels to talk about key issues with DG ECHO. Continuous round table dialogue about Ukraine and

a forum on Afghanistan, for example, were very useful and DG ECHO was able to provide NRC good

access to the political wing of the EU. At other times, visits by NRC’s Oslo staff were not always perceived