Working Better Together in a Team Europe Approach

The joint response is the foundation of the joint programming document. It builds on the joint analysis to set out how actors following a Team Europe approach and any like-minded partners in a Team Europe approach plan to work better together. Together the joint analysis and the joint response can also become a part the joint programming document, if agreed among joint programming participants. By identifying priority areas for action, the joint response articulates a common vision on challenges before detailing how participating development partners will engage collectively and individually to support the implementation of EU External Action priorities, national development priorities and the SDGs. The joint response is given substance by incorporating a joint results framework and indicative financing commitments.

From joint analysis to joint response

The joint response comprises the main substance of the joint programming document. Before proceeding, it is therefore essential that the conclusions of the joint analysis be agreed by all participating actors’ Heads of Mission. To maximise credibility and legitimacy, the partner country government and other national actors should also have the opportunity to comment on the main findings and proposals included in the joint analysis. Clarifying how the partner government will be involved in the final steps of joint programme preparation is also useful, especially if they are interested in endorsing the joint programming document.

To complete the joint response and have it feed directly into the joint programming document, it is necessary to clarify the extent of coverage – including ‘beyond aid’ issues – and the resources that fall within its remit, e.g. country programmable bilateral assistance, centrally-managed programmes, European Investment Bank and other Member States development banks’ lending, scholarships, humanitarian support, etc.

Structure and content of the joint response

Depending on the vision at country level, the joint response may include the following components for each of its priorities/ strategic objectives:

i. Analysis of Government response to the challenges identified in the Joint Analysis:

This section places the European strategic objectives in the context of the National Development Plan and the SDGs, as well as the EU priorities. It sets out the priority focus for the future joint programming document and demonstrates the alignment with national and EU priorities/systems, and, if applicable, with the SDGs too.

ii. Response of the European development partner group, alignment, added value and leader(s):

This section highlights how actors following a Team Europe approach plan to support the government in its national response, by drawing on the expertise and respective comparative advantages of each actor following a Team Europe approach. The joint response becomes a shared narrative that conveys the common interests and specific priorities of actors following a Team Europe approach and, whenever relevant, other like-minded partners in country (if duly associated) under each strategic objective. If there is a TEI that responds to one or more of the overall joint programming objectives, a short description of the TEIs should be integrated into this section, including by making reference to the TEI concept notes that can be added in annex to the JP document. One way to introduce the TEIs in that context would be to explain that TEIs will help translate JP strategic objectives into concrete action and collective impact, by using the most appropriate mix of Team Europe approach modalities and instruments, under the selected specific JP objective. They are a way of deepening the JP exercise in specific areas of high, shared interest. Also, highlight the importance of involving like-minded development partners, if considered effective in light of the existing development partner coordination set-up in the partner country.

iii. Joint implementation

This section will allow to identify partnerships for future joint implementation and action in order to translate the joint, strategic objectives into tangible action.

Selecting strategic joint programming priorities

Joint programming develops common approaches to strategic issues. It can incorporate existing bilateral work and design new programmes that build on common interests and collective expertise. To establish the scope of joint programming while ensuring it remains feasible and realistic, the following approach is suggested:

• Head of Delegation, together with Member State Heads of Mission, should be closely involved in determining the scope of the joint programming document. They are most closely acquainted with their country’s and EU policy and, as senior-level advocates for joint programming at country level, they will have national counterparts with decision-making responsibility on strategic, complex and potentially sensitive issues.
• The joint analysis will indicate the strategic issues that are most relevant to the partner country context as well as the potential for – and risk involved in – designing a successful response.
• Review the mapping exercise to identify existing support for strategic issues identified in the context analysis. This will establish the foundation for joint programming work.
• Informed by the context analysis, convene a discussion that will reconcile partner country realities with European policy priorities. This will inform the selection of priority sectors as well as programme design.
• In partner countries where Team Europe Initiatives have been designed in the absence of a joint programming document, the latter’s focus areas can also serve as a reference/ starting point for this discussion, as the TEI objectives will need to be embedded into the JP objectives. That said, joint programming strategic objectives are supposed to be broader and more encompassing than the TEI’s area-specific objectives (see also section on TEIs for further details).
• Policy initiatives such as the Gender Action Plan III/CIIP¹¹³, the EU Civil Society Roadmap¹¹⁴, the Action Plans on Human Rights and Democracy¹¹⁵, and the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus¹¹⁶ already share common mechanisms, principles and goals with joint programming and may be integrated with the joint programming process in various ways.
• Use the outcome of internal reflections in dialogue with the government, national stakeholders and other development partners working on similar issues. It is strongly advised to include dialogue/consultations with the people (rights-holders) often represented by civil society organisations that will be affected by or benefit from the interventions, in order to create a participatory process in line with the rights-based approach. Existing/ ongoing structured dialogue mechanisms of actors following a Team Europe approach and civil society, such as the mechanisms established to follow up on the CSO roadmap dialogue, can be used to that end. Where relevant, reference the national plan, international treaties and obligations, and the SDGs to frame the discussion in a normative manner.
• Develop a vision and/or proposal for how like-minded partners – including those not participating in joint programming – could work together to address specific strategic issues (agreed results can be included in the joint results framework).
• Set up an expert working group if specific expertise is required and resources are available. This group can lead on some or all of the tasks outlined above to inform the final decision on the scope of work and implementation modalities.
• When consensus about joint strategic interests and priorities is reached, agree on a detailed outline for the joint response and highlight any potential for joint implementation or division of labour.
• Manage partnerships and messaging through deliberate and careful use of communications to indicate policy direction and expected results on strategic issues.

Including cross-cutting priorities in joint programming

As with strategic issues, cross-cutting priorities¹¹⁷ can be mainstreamed across all areas of action in the joint programming document and/or included as specific areas for joint focus. The joint analysis may select cross-cutting issues to be prioritised as well as indicate entry points for each of the areas of intervention. When considering the cross-cutting issues to be prioritised, attention should be paid to integrating ongoing and complementary policy initiatives undertaken at country level with Member States involvement in joint programming. These include the Gender Action Plan¹¹⁸, the EU Civil Society Roadmap¹¹⁹, and the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus¹²⁰.

Image

In Bolivia, the joint programming document has included gender as an integral cross-cutting. More specifically, the participating partners have adopted gender mainstreaming principles for cooperation in Bolivia and committed to promoting gender equality throughout their programmes. They have agreed to use national law and international agreements as a reference for defining future support to include proposals from women’s organisations in their programme design, to contribute to the development of measures on gender inequality and to allocate budgetary and technical resources to promoting gender equality. The joint programming document also highlights the shared approach to fostering increased transparency of national investments in gender equality and pushing for the establishment of formal accountability spaces.
The results framework for the Bolivia joint programming document includes a specific gender indicator monitoring the number of development cooperation instruments that incorporate gender mainstreaming.

JP participants may also be able to contribute to a pool of experts in cross-cutting priorities, either using in-house or external resources. In the context of the SDGs, which are multi-sectoral and inter-dependent, many UN agencies may be able to provide guidance on mainstreaming initiatives. The inter-dependent nature of the SDGs may also help to inform joint programming priorities and results that fully integrate issues previously seen as cross-cutting rather than fully embedded.

Image

In Cambodia, the European partners found that the absence of a coordination group on climate change in the existing aid coordination framework meant that support in this area was fragmented, with a high risk of duplication and limited institutional capacity-building. As a group, European partners pursued a three-track approach: starting their own internals coordination; lobbying for the creation of a coordinating group in the aid coordination framework and including a specific result on climate change in the results framework. The lobbying and advocacy work resulted in the creation of a government coordination group open to development partners for specific meeting and to which the EU was invited as a key partner in recognition of its advocacy work on climate change. The joint results framework was also updated to include as indicator taken from the country’s intended Nationally Determined Contribution in an area of key policy interest for the European partners, namely forest cover.

113 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2184
114 All Roadmaps can be found on Capacity4dev. Also updated Roadmaps will be added here as soon as they become available.
https://capacity4dev.europa.eu/groups/public-governance-civilsociety/info/roadmaps_en
115 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_492
116 Council conclusions 9383/17
117 Programmes and actions under the NDICI Global Europe shall mainstream the fight against climate change, environmental protection, human rights, democracy, gender equality and, where relevant, disaster risk reduction, and shall address interlinkages between the SDGs, to promote integrated actions that can create co-benefits and meet multiple objectives in a coherent way. Those programmes and actions shall be based on a comprehensive multi-disciplinary analysis of context, capacities, risks and vulnerabilities, integrate a resilience approach and be conflict sensitive, taking into account conflict prevention and peacebuilding. They shall be guided by the principles of ‘do no harm’ and of ‘leaving no one behind’ (Article 8.8).
118 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2184
119 https://capacity4dev.europa.eu/groups/public-governance-civilsociety/info/roadmaps_en
120 Council conclusions 9417/17