Working Better Together in a Team Europe Approach

The decision to engage in joint programming should be taken by the Head of Delegation, together with Member State Heads of Mission, at country level. Preparations for joint programming usually start when a new national development plan is developed in the partner country or a major change in the country context (transition from conflict, post-election reforms, etc.) occurred. The start of a new strategic programming period or a review process for several important development partners can also be an occasion to take the decision to start joint programming.

Factors to consider when deciding on joint programming include the expected benefits of a joint programming process, along with an initial scoping of potential priority areas to be focused on in joint programming.

Successful joint programming processes have all relied on dedicated support. Kick-start support (short to medium term expert missions) can be requested from INTPA D1, through its dedicated European Development Policy and Team Europe approach technical assistance facility, however, long-term solutions ultimately need to be explored. A range of country-tailored solutions have emerged, such as: identifying and assigning internal staff resources from across the participating partners – including Member States seconding staff to EU Delegations; hiring specific secretariat or administrative support for joint programming coordination work (see Chapter 2.8 for more details); contracting external technical assistance to facilitate consultations and /or prepare relevant documents.

Preparing a joint programming roadmap

A roadmap can help set out the anticipated steps in the preparation of a joint programme. The roadmap’s main objective is to identify and describe the main actions and indicate a potential timeline and sequence for their implementation.

The definition and agreement of a roadmap by the actors following a Team Europe approach and other European partners can also provide an entry point to dialogue with partner country counterparts to build momentum in the move towards joint programming as well as to secure wider validation, visibility and commitment.

Roadmaps can be as detailed as needed for the country context although simple concise overviews are usually easier to work with. Awareness of political cycles, staff rotations, upcoming monitoring missions, evaluations or technical studies can prove useful, but the main consideration should be to set out a clear schedule that addresses all key steps with sufficient management oversight and quality assurance.

Developing a roadmap – key components:

0.1. Confirming partner engagement in joint programming

• Secure MS commitment through dialogue and consultation, especially with Heads of Cooperation, to understand their aspirations for a joint programming process.
• Reach out to non-resident MS that are accredited to the partner country, to gauge their interest in being further associated with the joint programming process.
• Like-minded partners can participate in a joint programming process if relevant, agreed by EU Heads of Mission and HQ and in accordance with general instructions.
• A decision to launch and participate in a joint programming process is best taken by the Head of Delegation, together with Member State Heads of Mission. As joint programming is voluntary, some Member States may choose not to participate, and this should and cannot prevent the process from going forward. Other Member States may wish to join the process at a later stage, while some may decide to start participating as silent members or observers before committing more firmly.
• Whereas headquarters are generally not directly involved in these initial stages, it is advisable to keep your colleagues in Member States and EU (INTPA and/or NEAR and the EEAS geographical directorates) updated on the process and to share any agreed-upon roadmap. Such an early advice can facilitate the substitution of bilateral programming documents by joint programming. Headquarters counterparts will be in a position to provide remote support, including by indicating to other partner countries with a similar context that have gone through the process and may have useful lessons to share. Support for facilitating initial discussions within the Team Europe approach group can be provided through the joint programming facility (contact the INTPA joint programming support functional mailbox listed in the Introduction).

0.2. Establish preliminary coordination structures

• Establish a structured coordination process by using, where possible, pre-existing mechanisms (e.g. regular Heads of Cooperation meetings, periodic updates to Heads of Mission) that can begin to institutionalise the joint programming approach.
• Identify available resources to support the process (including external support if necessary).

0.3. Agree on scope and content of the joint programming Document (Outline)

• Estimate the potential scope of the joint programming document (beyond development issues, concerted priorities and participation)
• Agree on a general outline for the joint programming document, by including existing TEIs in the outline (see examples in the next chapter).
• Plan how to conduct the joint analysis.
• Confirm the need for a conflict/situational analysis (see Chapter 6).

Image

In Cambodia, the roadmap was a succinct rolling table of month-by-month actions drawn up at the beginning of the year as a work plan for the EU Development Counsellors group and updated the following year to reflect process. The EU Delegation also contracted an aid effectiveness consultant to support the joint programming processs in anticipation of the workload. The consultant provided secretariat services for the EU Development Counsellors group (drafting documents and inputs, keeping minutes, organising retreats, preparing extracts of aid statistics, etc) and was available to support all European partners in their sector-lead facilitation role, together with the EU Delegation. This external support provide direct added value for all partners.

0.4. Agree on how to ensure involvement of all relevant stakeholders to the process

• Clarify the level of engagement of the partner government and identify opportunities for dialogue.
• Communications and advocacy: conduct a stakeholder analysis to identify all key actors and perspectives/ risks.
• Draw up a timeline that includes sufficient time for any detailed analytical work that might be required, including political economy analysis or sector studies, as well as for proper coordination with all participants.
• Identify opportunities to link to other events (meetings, consultations, etc.) where partners can ‘speak as one’ in political or policy dialogue and demonstrate an intervention logic that delivers better results.
• Consider the value of a joint communication to respective headquarters sharing the roadmap Typical outputs of the roadmap process would include analysis, mapping, assessment of national processes/ systems, high-level results, timeline, etc.

0.5. Useful things to consider mapping at the beginning:

Browse the Team Europe Explorer library to obtain the latest available infographic on ODA of actors following a Team Europe approach to the country, in a given year⁹⁴.

Image

These infographics include a picture of the most recent validated European ODA disbursements (by the OECD DAC) showcasing trends in European support (amounts) and compares the combined size of the partner country’s European counterparts (EU and Member States) and of its other main partners (sources: OECD DAC CRS, IATI, TOSSD and the EU Aid Explorer are useful resources)⁹⁵.

• As these infographics and their main three sources do not provide a complete picture of ongoing and planned donor funding (only recent past disbursements), Team Europe approach actors may also decide to request INTPA’s support (through the EDP facility) for developing a tailored, more updated mapping. Note that such mapping rely relies on surveys with participants as a primary source, it can easily become a very complex and work-heavy exercise for all sides, due to the need for constant cross-checking and updating. It is therefore important to find ways to simplify it – for example, a number of Team Europe Approach actors groups decided to only map out donor presence by sector, without detailing the amounts by sector.
• Others decided to focus their detailed mappings on the specific areas of the TEIs only, as a starting point- rather than having a more comprehensive mapping.
• Map the individual programming/ country strategy or plan cycles of the EU and Member States against the partner country’s national planning cycle (and/or political cycle) for the purpose of identifying entry points for alignment between the objectives of JP and individual country strategies, as well as opportunities for new, synergetic action and funding⁹⁶.
• Identify any upcoming events, e.g. pledging conferences, elections, reform processes, international events, that provide an opportunity for a joint European approach and/or outreach to national stakeholders. Finding a moment to visibly act as actors following a Team Europe approach early on in the process provides momentum and helps consolidate trust.
• Create a list of ongoing country-level joint actions and strategies with Member States, such as EU Country Roadmaps for Engagement with Civil Society, Gender Action Plans, Human Rights and Democracy Country Strategies, and if applicable, the Joint Humanitarian and Development Frameworks (JHDF), which might provide a basis on which to build further collaboration through a joint programming process⁹⁷.
• Map the European presence in the existing aid coordination architecture, including on cross-cutting issues such as gender equality and the environment, to understand current resource investments by country colleagues.
• Map country priorities of actors following a Team Europe approach against the NDP priorities – on the basis of their existing county (or regional) strategies/plans.

Example of Working Better Together Roadmap outline (adapted based on Somalia example)

(non-prescriptive, to be adapted to each country context - recommended length: 4 pages max.):

Background/ Introduction:

• Relations between EU and Members in a Team Europe approach and partner country
  • Political relations
  • Development cooperation and humanitarian aid of EU and Member States in partner country
• Table: ODA Disbursements of EU and Member States in a given year (Infographic) and/or over a given period (OECD DAC CRS extract)
• Table: Overview EU and Member States’ programming/ country strategy/ plan cycles against partner country´s national programming cycle

Team Europe approach in partner country

• WBT as TE approach and methods
• Lessons learned from previous joint programming, joint implementation and Team Europe Initiatives in this and other similar relevant contexts
• Status on joint programming, joint implementation and Team Europe Initiatives
• Perspectives and expectations towards WBT in a Team Europe approach:
  • Actors following a Team Europe approach
  • Partners and stakeholders in a Team Europe approach
• Agreed timeline and next steps (including partner dialogue, stakeholder consultations etc.)

Annexes:

• List of documents: Existing or planned situation/ context/ sector analysis for partner country.
• NDP, actors following a Team Europe approach and TEI priorities matching table for partner country.
• Agreed outline for the joint programming document.
• Tailored mapping of European presence in country (where requested).

Agreed joint programming and TEI Roadmap/ Timeline - Somalia

94 These infographics are updated annually by INTPA and are accessible at: https://team-europe-explorer.europa.eu/oda/infographics
95 See the Team Europe Explorer (a one-stop shop for funding information, https://team-europe-explorer.europa.eu), the OECD Creditor Reporting System in OECD Data Explorer (https://data-explorer.oecd.org) and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) site (https://iatistandard.org) and TOSSD.online (https://tossd.online).
96 The synchronisation of individual programming cycles with the NDP cycle is not an obligation in the context of Joint Programming. Some Member States have been able to synchronise their cycles (on a voluntary basis) with the national cycle in certain partner countries, but the main purpose of mapping the cycles is information- sharing.
97 The Eu Civil Society Roadmap may also be integrated with joint programming so that they are routinely jointly addressed during implementation and monitoring to become mutually reinforcing.