Working Better Together in a Team Europe Approach

The joint analysis is a significant input to the joint programming process. It assesses context, identifies priorities, documents risks and facilitates a common understanding of the challenges and opportunities for the partner country’s development, building on its national development plan. The joint analysis informs the joint response and provides the foundation of the joint programming document.

Preparing for a joint analysis

The 2016 Council conclusions on stepping up joint programming mandate that joint programming broaden its scope to address issues ‘beyond development’. Applying this at country level through a joint analysis will ensure a coherent and strategic European response to challenges such as promoting peace and security, working in fragile and conflict-affected areas, promoting democracy, human rights and gender equality, growth and sustainable development, responding to the threat of climate change, and securing economic objectives related to trade, investment and shared prosperity⁹⁶.

The scope of work and a feasible timeframe for preparing the joint analysis should be set out in the roadmap. The strategic direction, management and implementation of the joint analysis is determined at country level by participating partners. It may be that the joint analysis can build on existing studies undertaken by European partners or others and that through the joint programming process only a specific aspect of analysis may need to be undertaken by European partners.

Resources for undertaking analytical work should be identified, including for cross-cutting issues.

Activities in a joint analysis

A joint analysis should be concise and, where possible, derived from existing sources.

A useful starting point is to review the partner country’s national development plan and the SDG localisation process (including a Voluntary National Review⁹⁷ if available), as well as assessing the existing country results framework, both for the nation as a whole and for priority sectors, including how it aligns with the SDGs. National monitoring capacity and data availability should also be examined. This initial review will help the actors following Team Europe approach better understand how the partner country perceives and identifies its medium-term development challenges.

The sources feeding into the joint analysis may include the following:

• National Development Plan and results framework.
• Latest Voluntary National Review (where available).
• Existing EU and Member States country strategy papers and other resources such as the ODA infographics⁹⁸ (where applicable).
• The Paris 21 initiative⁹⁹ and UN Rapid Integrated Assessment¹⁰⁰ of policy alignment and monitoring systems. Economic and public financial management analyses, produced by the World Bank (Public Expenditure Reviews), regional development banks and the IMF (Article IV), detail economic trends, challenges and priorities.
• Budget support and sector programme analysis and other relevant reviews/evaluations.
• Gender analysis, country- and/or sector-specific, carried out by the EU Delegation, Member States or
  by another international organisation, governmental institution or NGO, addressing structural barriers to
  gender equality (laws, social and cultural norms, etc.).
• UN Human Development Reports¹⁰¹ (especially national reports if available) and multi-dimensional poverty
  indices to understand long-term socioeconomic development trends and challenges.
• Environmental analysis, including climate change mitigation and disaster preparedness.
• Analytical and human rights reports by civil society organisations.
• Trade, investment and private sector analysis, including vulnerability to shocks, production capacity and
  labour migration (and the role of remittances).
• Busan monitoring survey results¹⁰² on meeting development effectiveness commitments, focusing in
  particular on aligning support and strengthening/using country systems.
• Regional integration and cooperation initiatives identifying cross-border issues that may be addressed
  through regional initiatives.
• National Development Plan or Poverty Reduction Plan.
• Member States bilateral strategies.
• Development Finance Assessment (if available) mapping different possible financing flows (beyond ODA),
  which allows a country to better connect planning and financing to reach the SDGs¹⁰³.
• Integrated National Financing Frameworks (if available), which are a comprehensive framework mapping
  the landscape for financing sustainable development at country-level (including all financial and non-
  financial means of implementation of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda)¹⁰⁴ and laying out a financing
  strategy to implement targeted policies and reforms in order to reach the SDGs.
• Civil Society Roadmap¹⁰⁵ (if available) with a view to fully integrating (when possible) or at least considering the EU engagement with civil society as one of the building blocks of the joint programme.
• GAP III/CLIP, with a view of ensuring that gender commitments are fully taken on board in the joint
  programme process.
• Conflict sensitivity/conflict analysis, if relevant¹⁰⁶.
• An assessment of the role of religion and religious actors in the specific context.
• The EU Development-Humanitarian Nexus Action Plan¹⁰⁷, developed as a basis for humanitarian and
  development planning and programming.
• Rights-based analyses focusing on capacity gaps of duty bearers and rights holders (see annex 5)¹⁰⁸.
• Consult the Human Rights and Democracy Country Strategy if available.

When conducting the joint analysis exercise, it is of particular importance to consult with as wide a range as possible of government institutions (including legislative organs and sub-national authorities), civil society organisations (including those representing persons in vulnerable or marginalised situations), Member States implementing organisations and the private sector, including local and European chambers of commerce.

Some pertinent considerations

When conducting the joint analysis, attention must be given to process, content and future use:

• The joint analysis is most useful when it remains analytical, avoids excessive description and attempts to convey a hierarchy of national priorities and mutual interests.
• It does not need to be a standalone document. The most important aspect is a shared analysis of country context and priority needs by actors following a Team Europe approach: discussions can be more useful than purely focusing on a document.
• Maximise the use of objective evidence, especially on political economy.
• Use mapping to inform overall priority identification as well as to guide opportunities for joint implementation and division of labour.
• Consultations are an important part of the joint analysis process. They will help to develop consensus, secure engagement and build momentum for the joint response and its insertion into the joint programme (see Chapter 17).
• Communications are equally important. Consider the use of joint statements or other appropriate communication products, as well as opportunities for dialogue during the joint analysis phase.
• Some parts of the analysis may be sensitive. Arrangements for sharing the full document should be determined by the Heads of Mission or Heads of Cooperation.
• Regional issues need to be considered for programming in European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) partner countries, analysis should take account of priority areas jointly agreed in line with the principle of differentiation, as set out in the revised ENP and multilateral policy frameworks¹⁰⁹.

Image

In Moldova, preparing the joint analysis entailed devising a preliminary work plan dividing up the various tasks involved. It foresaw the structure of the document, the concrete milestones, and the distribution of sector analyses. Moldova had recently signed an Association Agreement with the EU covering many sectors, but during the drafting of the work plan disagreement persisted over definitions and the number of sectors to focus on. Thirteen sectors were finally chosen, with 13 sector leads and their teams working in parallel.

Regular coordination meetings were organised to monitor and manage this complex process. The EU Delegation encouraged partners to actively contribute to the analysis while ensuring that overall, the joint analysis document remained coherent and balanced. Broad consultations were conducted with the government, sector coordination councils, other key development partners and civil society organisations to ensure that all sector descriptions contained accurate and up-to-date information.

Finally, the consolidated joint analysis paper was shared with development partners, and discussed and endorsed by the Heads of Mission meeting. It was then presented to the Prime Minister and his cabinet by the Heads of Mission at a public event on 13 October 2016. The analysis was a comprehensive reference document of shared expertise.

As the Republic of Moldova is a close neighbour of the European Union, the joint programming exercise is less about technical division of labour and much more about reinforcing common policy dialogue and a coordinated approach in our assistance, supported by a solid analytical basis.

Outputs from the joint analysis

A typical structure of the joint analysis, informed by the activities identified above, will bring together the analytical inputs that will then be used to generate a joint response itself. It may be presented as follows:

1. Executive summary (drafted so as to be shared with a wide range of stakeholders);
2. context analysis including socio-economic development and human rights trends, priorities and challenges, National Development Strategy, alignment with EU policies, localisation of SDGs;
3. governance and institutional capacities assessment, as well as an appraisal of the capacities of civil society and private sector actors;
4. mapping of current European and other development partner support (and projections if available).

Depending on available time and resources, the joint analysis may also begin to outline some of the issues to be elaborated in more detail in the joint response:

• an early indication of priority areas for European actions;
• insights into alignment with EU policies, national priorities, systems and the SDGs;
• partnering principles and stakeholders (active participants and associated key actors);
• assessment of national monitoring and evaluation arrangements;
• challenges and risks to be taken into account in formulating a joint response;
• an early indication of what type of joint commun

The joint analysis could include a summary that can be publicly shared and can form the first part of a subsequent joint programming document. Keeping in mind the intended wide readership of the joint programming document, this summary should exclude any sensitive conclusions.

Securing a consensus on the joint analysis, especially with Heads of Mission and political advisors, is essential.

Disseminating and validating the findings of the joint analysis, possibly through a workshop, can provide useful branding and communication opportunities to promote European values and principles to a wide range of stakeholders, as well as providing greater visibility to the work of actors following a Team Europe approach and other like-minded European partners in country.

It is also useful at this stage to agree as actors following a Team Europe approach (at HoMs level) and with partner government counterparts on the extent to which they may wish to endorse the joint programming document. This can then inform the final steps in developing a joint response and the actual joint programming document.

Developing and incorporating a conflict analysis

Conflict analysis is a structured analytical process that offers key insights into the risks for violent conflict and conflict dynamics in a specific area, country or region. For the EU, such analysis is mandatory when programming its actions within fragile and conflict-affected settings.

While the analytical approach remains flexible to accommodate different timelines and environments, key elements of the analysis generally include: 1) a brief overview of the historical and current environment, describing the type and scope of past or ongoing violent conflict, or related risks; 2) structural and proximate causes of (potential) violence, and patterns of resilience; 3) actors that shape the conflict (including parties to the conflict, people affected by it and those with an interest or stake therein); 4) potential scenarios for violence; 5) mapping of ongoing conflict prevention and stabilisation activities; and 6) recommendations to ensure conflict-sensitive engagement and conflict prevention.

In the context of joint programming, two main options can be explored:

1. A conflict/situational analysis in the initial phase of the joint programming process. A conflict scan through a desk study and workshop, for example, could precede the joint programming analysis and response.
2. A conflict/situational analysis to inform the existing joint programming process. An established joint programming initiative can be reviewed and revised, for example if the need arises to formulate a combined humanitarian and development response.

Conducting a survey or similar information-gathering exercise could be of use before embarking on a conflict/ situational analysis. Some partners may have already conducted their own analysis that can be incorporated.

The conclusions of the conflict/situational analysis are important inputs to the joint programming process and provide the underlying foundation for the joint analysis. This will then inform a conflict-sensitive joint response¹¹⁰. In countries where a nexus plan exists, the joint programming process should, if possible, build on it.

Role of EU headquarters

Headquarters can be consulted on the joint analysis and invited to comment, particularly on the proposed scope and priorities. In the case of EU Delegations, this consultation should include the EEAS, INTPA/NEAR and FPI and possibly also other relevant Commission DGs and services. The final version should be shared with headquarters colleagues and with the joint programming support functional mailboxes (see Introduction, page 5).

Example of Outline¹¹¹ for the Introduction and Joint Analysis – Bolivia:

1. Executive Summary and Introduction (Max. 4 Pages)
   • 1.1 Executive Summary
   • 1.2 Introduction¹¹² :
     • - Political, Economic and Development Relations between actors following a Team Europe approach and Bolivia
     • - OECD DAC CRS of actors following a Team Europe approach Funding overview, over the last 10 years
     • - Table on actors following a Team Europe approach programming cycles
     • - WBT, JP and TEIs in Bolivia (state of play)
2. Joint Analysis of The Development Context in Bolivia (Max. 10 Pages)
   • 2.1 National Development Plan and Country SDG Progress Analisis
   • 2.2 Political Situation and Human Rights (Peace Pillar of the 2030 Agenda)
     • 2.2.1 Political situation, democracy and the rule of law, institutional transparency
     • 2.2.2 Decentralization
     • 2.2.3 Human Rights
     • 2.2.4 Civil society
     • 2.2.5 Gender equality, women’s rights and violence
   • 2.3 Economic Situation (Prosperity Pillar Of The 2030 Agenda)
   • 2.4 Social Situation: Poverty & Inequalities, Employment, Health, Education, Social Protection, Migration (People Pillar of the 2030 Agenda)
   • 2.5 Management of Natural Resources, Biodiversity and Climate Change (Planet Pillar of the 2030 Agenda)
   • 2.6 Effects and Consequences of the Pandemic in the Country

96 Council conclusions 8554/16
97 UN Voluntary National Reviews Database. Each country page includes, if available, voluntary national reports. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/vnrs/
98 Can found via https://team-europe-explorer.europa.eu
99 Consult, for example, Paris 21 website. Information on country statistics available here: https://statisticalcapacitymonitor.org/country/
100 62 See, for example, Rapid Integrated Assessment (RIA) Tool to facilitate mainstreaming of SDGs into national and local plans: https://www.undp.org/publications/rapid-integrated-assessment
101 Visit UNDP webpage for Human Development Reports: https://hdr.undp.org/
102 https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/assessingprogressonimplementingthebusanprinciples.htm
103 For example the Development Finance Assessment of Laos: Development Finance for the 8th National Socio-Economic Development Plan and the Sustainable
Development Goals in Lao PDR
104 UN General Assembly, Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa Action Agenda), 27 July 2015, A/
RES/69/313, available at https://undocs.org/A/RES/69/313.
105 Visit Public Group on Civil Society on Capacity4dev: https://capacity4dev.europa.eu/groups/public-governance-civilsociety/
106 See, for example, the OECD Report ‘Do No Harm: International Support for State building’, available at
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/do-no-harm_9789264046245-en
107 For example, Uganda case: https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_nexus_action_plan.pdf
108 A rights-based approach, encompassing all human rights for EU development cooperation, SWD(2021) 179 final, is a toolbox for integrating this approach into all EU development instruments and activities. Available at https://capacity4dev.europa.eu/library/human-rights-based-approach-hrba-toolbox_en
109 See, for example, the '20 Deliverables for 2020 agenda under the Eastern Partnership' available at https://www.eeas.europa.eu/node/17364_en
110 An EU staff handbook on operating in situations of conflict and fragility is available at https://capacity4dev.europa.eu/library/team-europes-official-development-assistance-kenya-2021
111 Non-prescriptive, inspirational outline. All content outlines need to be adapted to the specific country context.
112 For the content of the introduction, the findings and content of the JP roadmap (see previous chapter) can be used as a basis.