Recommendations in the Joint Programming Evaluation Report 2017 - what is in it for me?

Keep JP strategic, flexible and pragmatic.

R4. Use JP process to improve EU collaboration as a group on the ground, identifying the key capacities and interests of the EU and MS for JP to see how they can complement and provide mutual benefits. Use the JP process to build a more joint vision/ response to country challenges both internally and in its dealings with the partner country and external actors. EU and MS should deliver as much as possible joint messages and speak with one voice and further the pragmatic ways for joint implementation. EU should better inform MS of what it plans to do. Within this process, participation by all MS should be facilitated, allowing them to fill various roles and responsibilities.

COMMENT: Although the aid landscape in Myanmar is somewhat fragmented, JP has brought about some degree of synchronisation regarding the roles and responsibilities, as indicated in the Country Note. However, the Evaluation of the European Union's Joint Programming Process of Development Cooperation suggests otherwise, giving a more negative perspective than the reality (page 24). The general report should be in line with the country report, where a more realistic perspective was given.

R1. The Commission and EEAS should review the intervention logic of Joint Programming to update its strategy, in consultation with EUD and MS HQ and field staff (as to reflect a shared vision). The desired impact “increased EU aid effectiveness” in the initial intervention logic should be reformulated as “better EU contribution to development” and the two primary expected outcomes from JP should be “better coordinated and more strategic EU-MS aid” and “joint EU-MS positions and messages”. An additional output could be added: “comprehensive and coherent EU approach”. EU and MS should also clarify how they expect JP to contribute to aid effectiveness principles over time and who are the main target beneficiaries of JP at different levels. This update should be reflected in texts and guidance.

Comments:

Agree that the strategy need to be updated and with words "The desired impact “increased EU aid effectiveness” in the initial intervention logic should be reformulated as “better EU contribution to development” and the two primary expected outcomes from JP should be “better coordinated and more strategic EU-MS aid” and “joint EU-MS positions and messages”. "

Disagree with " EU and MS should also clarify how they expect JP to contribute to aid effectiveness principles over time and who are the main target beneficiaries of JP at different levels. ": this would needlessly complicate the exercise, requiring a major time investment which is not available in the field, and the benefits of this are far from clear. It looks more like rather philosophical consideration from the evaluators.

R2. The EU and MS should define more precisely the overall scope or perimeter of JP and how this translates into its guidance, as well as the specific scope and focus of JP in a given country. JP should take into account broader funding and strategic issues. At country level it should focus on what EU and MS do best/is most needed/is not well covered by others.

Comments:

Agree: JP differs in Rwanda very much from the textbook, as the government leads the process. 

R3. JP process and products should be enhanced allowing more flexibility and ease adjustments over time, ensuring frequent exchanges at strategic level, defining the specific focus of JP at the start of each country process and fostering JP uptake (using existing platforms to provoke dialogue/foster common responses, considering the use of joint result monitoring).

Comments:

Agree: see also answer under R2

R4. Use JP process to improve EU collaboration as a group on the ground, identifying the key capacities and interests of the EU and MS for JP to see how they can complement and provide mutual benefits. Use the JP process to build a more joint vision/ response to country challenges both internally and in its dealings with the partner country and external actors. EU and MS should deliver as much as possible joint messages and speak with one voice and further the pragmatic ways for joint implementation. EU should better inform MS of what it plans to do. Within this process, participation by all MS should be facilitated, allowing them to fill various roles and responsibilities.

Comments:

Agree: this is already the case in Rwanda.

Disagree with the words " EU should better inform MS of what it plans to do ": JP requires information to flow both ways, not just from EU to MS. This looks like an out-of-date view from the evaluators.

R5. JP supporting services (guidance pack, experience-sharing, technical assistance) should be continued and consolidated, adding clarifications when needed and/or further disseminating them to EU and MS staff in the field and HQ. Ensure institutional memory with regard to JP exercises, in country offices and at HQ.

Comments:

Partially agree, as long as the process does not become top-heavy from the HQ side.

R6. Clarify roles and ensure both political and cooperation actors are engaged throughout the process. Ensure the political dimension is explicitly part of JP, along with the aid / development dimension. Continuously engage the two parties. Define respective roles. EEAS HQ should engage with MS HQ and EUD with MS Ambassadors.

Comments:

Agree… but: JP tends to be rather technical and the political side can easily loose interest because of this. Hence "continuously engage" could be wishful thinking and might need some refining in the engagement process.

 

 

R7. Deepen the dialogue with national stakeholders. Consider each milestone in the JP process as an opportunity for strategic dialogue with national stakeholders (line and technical ministries; Parliament; civil society; the private sector; diaspora when applicable…). When there is already a well-established forum for strategic dialogue, consider how JP can bring value to it. In parallel, continue emphasising good practices in aid transparency and aid predictability.

Comments:

Agree: this is already the case in Rwanda. However, the desire from the government to engage in a strategic dialogue is not the same across the country local actors.

R8. The incentives for investing in JP should be improved. MS Embassies/field offices to discuss the benefits of JP with the top leadership at HQ and with Ambassadors upstream. This could enable some MS to play an active role in leading parts of JP. MS to clarify who is the go-to person/unit at HQ for support, and to clarify their role. EU and MS to recognise and reward staff efforts on JP, e.g. by reflecting them in job descriptions. EU and MS to examine to what extent JP documents may replace or integrate bilateral programming documents.

Comments:

Disagree: what is described are not "incentives". An attempt to "incentivise" JP comes in the first part of the sentence " EU and MS to recognise and reward staff efforts on JP, e.g. by reflecting them in job descriptions ", but falls flat in the words after "e.g." as "reflecting in job descriptions" can hardly be considered as a reward.