Working Better Together in a Team Europe Approach

Learning from experience takes place at both country and global level. The European Union’s 2019 report ‘Global Strategy: Three Years On, Looking Forward^[20]’ observes that:

European foreign policy would become more effective through closer coordination between Member States, including better coordination between EU and Member States’ activities, and through greater consistency between what Member States agree to in EU settings and what their policies do in practice. This is true at the level of policy design – as demonstrated by common frameworks such as the European Consensus on Development –, on the ground within third countries (joint programming, joint results frameworks, joint implementation), as well as in multilateral contexts, notably by supporting the implementation of international law, including international humanitarian law, and the international commitments the EU and Member States have made.

The most strategic and comprehensive independent assessments of the Working Better Together approach include an evaluation of joint programming^[21] published in April 2017, and the analysis on joint programming made in an OECD Peer Review^[22] in 2018.

The evaluation highlighted that:

[Joint Programming] has also helped to make EU and Member States’ aid more harmonised, working towards commonly agreed objectives and adopting commonly agreed strategic approaches. Even though this might not yet have led to improved aid effectiveness indicators […], it has led to an improved division of labour within sectors and laid the foundation for more effective aid and more effective development.

The OECD Peer Review of the EU in 2018 concluded that:

The EU’s joint programming exercises help support the 2030 Agenda and advance the effectiveness agenda in partner countries, as they harmonise efforts towards joint analysis and commonly agreed objectives.

The Special Report ‘Programming the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe’ of the European Court of Auditors of June 2023 finds, however, that the number of joint programming strategies remains limited, and even less than the previous programming exercise. ‘Joint Programming is therefore not yet the most commonly used approach’^[23].

Regarding the Team Europe approach more specifically, the OECD’s most recent 2022 review²⁴ noted the first major successes of the approach in providing a joint response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

The new Team Europe approach forged a new way for Member States to act coherently and visibly at scale, bringing together EU institutions, Member States, and European Development Finance Institutions (E)DFIs). It disbursed EUR 34 billion (as of April 2021) in support to partner countries in addressing the acute and longer-term consequences of the pandemic and support a sustainable recovery aligned with the SDGs. The EU played a leading role in setting up the COVAX Facility with Team Europe’s contribution of approximately EUR 5 billion. Flexibility in the EU budget enabled it to respond to the COVID crisis at the end of a budgetary cycle, with substantial contributions from Member States, EIB, EBRD and European DFIs.

However, the OECD simultaneously points to the challenge of ensuring ‘continued stakeholder management and outreach’, so that Team Europe Initiatives can evolve ‘from a political response to the COVID crisis to a more holistic approach’.

As also confirmed by a recent analysis by the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM)^[25], Member State leadership and active involvement as well as pre-existing networks in country, and prior experience with EU coordination, for example under joint programming, is a positive factor in facilitating the design of TEIs.

The principle of ‘co-creation’ is important. Beyond co-creation at the design stage, experts supporting the TEI processes at country level^[26] also underline the need to continuously assess, update and take into account each party’s specific interest in and motivation, as well assets/comparative advantages for participating in the process. Such interests may differ not only between participating countries, but also between the types of participating actors by country (e.g. between Heads of mission, Heads of cooperation, political advisors, programme managers). This needs to be addressed/ responded to during TEI implementation in order to keep up the momentum and make the process continuously relevant for all participating members.

For example, as also noted by the ECDPM, there is a clear expectation from Heads of Cooperation in many Member States that the TEI processes will lead to more delegated cooperation from the EU. While it should be clear that this is not the primary goal of TEI processes, efforts can be made, by each actor following a Team Europe approach (Member States included), towards more systematically taking a Team Europe approach when designing their programmes, notably those that are meant to contribute to the TEIs.

On the other hand, Heads of Mission, particularly of those Member States with either no representation or small cooperation portfolios at country level, seem particularly interested in the enhanced visibility and communication – as well as the joint political and policy dialogue - offered by joint programming and TEIs.

Recent studies also highlight the importance of identifying what could drive the participation of DFIs in the TEI process:

The TEI design process has helped increase cooperation with the EIB and other (E)DFIs, and EUDs report improved relations with (E)DFIs and national development agencies’^[27]. 

‘It is notably through the development finance institutions and public development banks ((E)DFIs) that TEIs will also be able to reach out to private sector actors and tap into their financial resources. Until now, financial institutions have expressed great interest in getting involved in TEIs and in the Global Gateway strategy but have their own incentives and modus operandi’ – EFSD+ being cited as a key incentive for (E) DFI engagement^[28].

It is important that these different incentives are openly discussed between actors following a Team Europe approach and that concrete solutions are jointly sought on how to best respond to such expectations, in order to make the TEI processes relevant to all participants.

The processed involved in the Team Europe approach must also be flexible. For example, due to their specific modus operandi and organisational mandates, some actors following a Team Europe approach, such as some Member States’ DFIs, may not be able to take part in all meetings, outreach events, joint policy or political messages emerging from the processes involved , but they may still participate in other processes.

It is also important to actively ensure that the Team Europe approach remains inclusive and open to the participation of all Member States, considering their differences. Some of the key factors for ensuring such inclusiveness are: (i) timely and clear communication from the EU; (ii) the willingness and capacities of actors following a Team Europe approach, reducing the administrative burden associated with the design and implementation of joint programming and the TEIs; (iii) the availability of practical support for involvement in joint programming and the TEIs; (iv) the identification of areas where there is a particular need for the Member States’ available skills and expertise.

20 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eu_global_strategy_2019.pdf
21 Evaluation of EU Joint Programming Process of Development Cooperation (2011-2015), Final Report Volume I - Main Report, March 2017. Available at https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2019-09/evaluation-joint-programming-final-report-vol-i_en.pdf
22 https://www.oecd.org/dac/oecd-development-co-operation-peer-reviews-european-union-2018-9789264309494-en.htm
23 Special Report of the European Court of Auditors: “Programming the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe”. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AJOC_2023_200_R_0004
24 OECD DAC European Union Mid-term Review, 8-10 February 2022, Brussels – Paris
25 EDCPM Note no. 149 “Half-time analysis: How is Team Europe doing?”, Alexei Jones and Katja Sergejef, Sept. 2022. Accessible at: https://ecdpm.org/application/files/3916/6383/1497/Half-time-analysis-How-Team-Europe-doing-ECDPM-briefing-note-2022-bn-149.pdf
26 Lesson from INTPA’s EDP facility monthly team meeting discussions.
27 2021 Summary Report of EU Delegations’ Replies on Working Better Together: Team Europe Initiatives and Joint Programming
28 EDCPM, idem.