Joint Programming in Conflict-Affected and Fragile States

The report shows that EU Joint Programming has been recognised as a tool for bringing together political & cooperation spheres, as well as involving other key actors (humanitarian, security, peacebuilding, stabilisation) in common planning processes.

​The overall message and recommendation emerging from the findings is: in complex, fragile and conflict-affected settings, Joint Programming cannot be implemented as a standardized mechanism merely focused on delivering a product (the joint strategy). It should be promoted as a flexible process, centred around joint conflict and risk analysis as an important starting point.

If accompanied by a light and pragmatic joint response and results framework, Joint Programming can help address fragmentation and create a critical mass. Joint Programming should provide a gradually evolving, multi-actor platform where a growing array of partners should find their own incentives to participate, as part of a fragility-and-resilience-focused strategy.

The study shows that the role played by some of the following, specific incentives have been particularly important for getting the Joint Programming process started in conflict and fragile settings:

- Many interlocutors primarily see Joint Programming as an opportunity for better information-sharing on the evolving situation on the ground and systematising joint needs assessments.
- Others see it as an opportunity for adopting a more medium-term, resilience-based approach and joint vision. It can be seen as a way of strengthening joint EU and Member State positioning on certain key issues, vis-a-vis the government or other donors.
- In other cases, the Joint Programming and assorted mechanisms are a way of eliciting an increasing effort from Member States which may not be present in the country and ensuring an effective dialogue with Partner Country governments.

Disincentives affecting Joint Programming are primarily about the lack of capacity by EU and Member State personnel in the country to deal with additional tasks. The workload of existing commitments often intrudes on the more strategic thinking that should occur. There may also be a reluctance to share security information. High Staff turnover leads to conflicting priorities for 'above work horizon' programming.

This report is part of a series of studies on Joint Programming that will be published this year in support of evidence-based policies to help create better European partnerships at country level.