Working Better Together in a Team Europe Approach

The European indicative financing framework presents projections of support by actors following a Team Europe approach and, whenever relevant, other duly associated like-minded partners in country. The financing framework should at least detail funding by development partner and by priority sector. It may be further disaggregated by year, type of ODA (loan/grant/guarantees/equity/export credit/blending) and type of assistance (investment, technical assistance or humanitarian aid). It should be clear that any financing information included in the joint programming document is indicative and evolving, and can, by no means, legally bind the participating development partners. Other disclaimers can be included under the table, if needed, upon demand of actors following a Team Europe approach (see chapter on JP approval procedures for the exact formulation to use under the EU financial regulation). 

In addition to resources provided to governments, CSOs and private sector actors, actors following a Team Europe approach and other development partners’ funding to multilateral institutions – both core funds and those programmed at country level – could also be included to provide a complete picture.

Table 6 has been elaborated and modified based on many different models used within different countries, including in the from Dominican Republic, by attempting to make it as comprehensive and flexible as possible. It shows the type of commitments by development partner and JP objectives, during each development partner’s specific programming period (last column). However, some TE approach actors’ groups may opt for a more simplified version of this table (e.g. only showing overall development partner commitments by specific objective – not by subobjective – or giving a proxy idea (instead of an accurate number) about overall volumes by objective. The decision about this lies with the JP participants’ group – although some individual members’ own financial rules may require giving a more detailed account (e.g. in the case of the EU).

Image

Challenges and Risks

The challenges and risks to joint programming are both internal to the Team Europe approach and external. Internal risks relating to coherence and the ability to work better together should be discussed, and mitigation measures foreseen.

Risks may be of a political, financial/fiduciary or environmental nature, or they may be related to partners, capacity or security. The possibility that the joint programming document itself might introduce some risks, either to the environment, to people living in vulnerable situations, to partners or to the reputation of the EU and Member States should also be considered, using the ‘do no harm’ principles.

Important considerations to keep in mind:

• The joint response is the core of the joint programming document and conveys key messages to external actors on European priorities and intentions.
• Depending on how extensive, inclusive and conclusive the consultations were during joint analysis, consider whether further dialogue is necessary, especially with national partners.
• The final steps towards agreement can be intensive. Provide for time for Heads of Cooperation to pause and reflect in order to make the document as ambitious as possible while representing a consensus.
• The structure and content of the joint programming response should meet participating partners’ expectations and requirements so that it is acceptable to all (see chapter on EU approval of joint programming documents).
• The joint programming document can either: (a) directly replace a participating Member State’s country programming strategy; or (b) provide a strategic framework under which participating Member States align and coordinate their own country programming.

If the joint programming document is not replacing the country programming documents, it is advisable to include a specific text clarifying the link between country programming documents and the joint programming document.