Working Better Together in a Team Europe Approach

An effective joint programming monitoring plan is key for monitoring the implementation of joint programming. Below are some of the key issues to address and consider in the monitoring of the implementation of joint programming.

Quantitative Results Monitoring

The JRF is the basis for monitoring results in a quantitative manner. Implementation reports provide a picture of overall progress in achieving the joint programming objectives. TE approach actors agree on the frequency of monitoring when agreeing on the joint response. Often an annual reporting exercise is agreed upon – in some cases, country joint programming groups decided to monitor only on a mid-term and final basis (midterm and final report).

If data collection against certain indicators is proving difficult over time, JRF reviews should be envisaged’.

Adding qualitative insights

Given the qualitative and quantitative nature of monitoring, it may be necessary to think about additional ways to inform the process, e.g. by ensuring expertise in specific areas such as gender equality and human rights. Joint missions/project visits can reinforce the joint nature of the participants’ work and help provide further insights and human stories alongside specifically commissioned studies or analysis from local think tanks or research organisations.

A more formal evaluation plan could be incorporated into the joint programming document outlining how scheduled evaluations by actors following a Team Europe approach– or other active partners’ public expenditure reviews, sector and budget support reviews, etc. – will be drawn on as well as identifying a specific joint programming evaluation. An important aspect of evaluations is measuring to what extent the working principles of a rights-based approach (i.e. participation, non-discrimination, accountability and transparency), as well as gender equality and women’s empowerment, have been applied in the different sectors of intervention.

Make the monitoring system greater than the sum of its parts

The EU and most Member States have their own monitoring capacity. Joint programming provides an opportunity to bring this expertise together, increase collaboration and foster joint learning and more coherent sector dialogue. Insights from the collective monitoring expertise can inform analysis and joint messaging for use in communications and advocacy, while the implementation cycle should benefit from dedicated reflection and learning. Linking the technical monitoring exercise with messaging (especially for HoMs) and communications will also ensure added value, visibility and impact.

The use of management information systems

The monitoring plan may recognise the value of a joint management information system for actors following a Team Europe approach to easily share documents. Adapting, or directly applying, an existing system used by a participating partner is a good option. The criteria for selecting a management information system should include its ability to aid the collection, storage, analysis and reporting of information. Data sharing protocols should also be developed to ensure a consistent data standard and quality.

Consider the co-financing of a JP and TEI support secretariat

Support, specifically at the technical monitoring level but also beyond that, can be essential to provide impetus for the continuous implementation and follow-up of agreed results. This can be assured by setting up joint-up TEI and JP technical assistance facility at partner country level, which can be either continuous (e.g. Dedicated JP secretariat in Mali) or ad hoc (Bolivia: upon demand support from an existing think tank). Colombia made use of an existing structure, the TA financed by Spain for supporting the former EU Trust Fund, to continue support for JP and TEI implementation. Such a facility can be either co-financed (through voluntary contributions from TE approach actors) or financed by one development partner (Spain in Colombia; EU technical cooperation facility in various other countries). The core functions of such a facility could involve, among others:

• Help the TE approach actors’ group organise and set the agenda of regular TEI and JP meetings. Document the meetings through minutes.
• Support the JP and TEI reporting exercises.
• Organise joint project visits and visibility actions / events.
• Regularly update existing development partner mappings
• Help facilitate joint messaging – e.g. through the drafting and continuous updating of policy dialogue ‘fiches’.
• Help facilitate joint coordination between all levels (HoMs, HoCs, Technical level).
• Advise on how to make TE approach actors’ programming exercises more aligned with the JP and TEI objectives.
• Support consultations with stakeholders and the linkages between JP & TEI consultations and those organised in the framework of the EU Civil Society Roadmap/ EU GAP III/CLIP, the Human Rights and Democracy Strategy, implementation of the EU Youth Action Plan, etc.

Using monitoring for structured policy dialogue and advocacy

Scheduled European reporting and joint programming dialogue, ideally aligned with the local government planning cycle, will maximise the visibility and influence of the European partners. A joint communications or public diplomacy plan that includes an online European presence will help maximise the impact of monitoring products across different media.

Monitoring reports should also identify specific issues to be taken up in dialogue with other development actors such as sub-national authorities in priority areas, civil society, parliament, academia, and other development partners.

Monitoring should be engaging, inclusive and help mutual trust-building

The final set of monitoring arrangements will be determined to some extent by the decision of the EU and participating Member States to replace their bilateral programme with the joint programming document and the individual reporting timelines set by Capitals for actors following a Team Europe approach. It may also be shaped by the legacy of existing monitoring systems and practices employed by the EU, Member States and the wider development partner architecture.

Clarify the delegation of responsibilities – evolved Division of Labour concept

Monitoring of the joint programming document will include tasks related to data collection and analysis, tracking implementation milestones and validating evidence. It is also necessary to identify responsibilities for aggregate reporting and analysis. These tasks should be allocated among those participating in joint programming or outsourced to ensure that monitoring work is completed in a timely manner. Unlike the M&E of a classic programme, the continuous monitoring of joint programming as a process however also requires continuous coordination work and thus a division of labour for such coordination.

The notion of ‘division of labour’ has evolved over time It is now less about imposing sector concentration¹³². Rather, today it is more about sharing the coordinating workload at sector level or by policy area between the EU and MS (concept of European leads) in order to frame the local discussions in a pragmatic way that supports implementation, helps to ensure the active involvement of all partners and increases the specialisation of the joint EU/MS input. It also has the potential to promote greater joint implementation in cases where there is scope for more than one partner to pool financial and human resources in working towards a common objective.

Image

In Kenya, The EU(+) Joint Cooperation Strategy in Support of Kenya’s Medium-Term Plan 2014 – 2017 was based on guiding principles covering the five themes of joint programming in Kenya: division of labour, use of country systems, joint monitoring, the Kenyan government’s role and joint communication and visibility. The Joint Cooperation Strategy is structured around these principles and contains sections on the expected benefits of joint programming, together with a joint analysis of Kenya’s development challenges and opportunities, EU support and alignment to implement Kenya’s Medium-Term Plan II — including priority sectors, division of labour, capacity development, and use of country systems. Sections on indicative financial allocations to the Medium-Term Plan, monitoring and evaluation, including a set of indicators based on the national plan, joint implementation, joint communication and visibility and synchronisation, complete the joint strategy.

Joint programming ‘Chef de file’ – designation & roles

In order to ensure appropriate follow-up and M&E on the agreed objectives, results and indicators, It is advisable that ‘Chef de file’ are selected among the Team Europe approach group – it can be one lead and one co-lead, on a rotating basis, according to the following criteria:

• willingness to take on a leadership role.
• Proven sector expertise in the areas / sectors relevant to the objective (past and ongoing programmes and/ or policy dialogue activities in those areas).
• established and cordial relationships with government counterparts, other development partners and civil society organisations present in the sector/area

The roles of the Chef de file should be kept light and manageable – they are not discarding the rest of the TE approach actors group’s from their respective responsibility for advancing the JP objectives. Rather, Chef de file will take on a light coordinating role involving the following tasks:

• On the occasion of the monthly Heads of Cooperation meetings, highlight points of high, shared interest within their areas of responsibility, for which it is recommended to develop and promote a joint positioning of the Team Europe approach+ Team in order to advance the JP objectives and agreed results. Motivate members who have the opportunity to interact with the government in JP-relevant sectors to document such meetings and their results for the TE+.
• The Chef de file would then be responsible for coordinating more sector-specific positioning and documents, advancing the joint dialogue and encouraging joint implementation, and contributing to joint reporting in those areas/sectors as well as ensuring the linkages between these thematic JP groups and other fora at national level. For example, the JP WG meetings should be scheduled in a way that they can help preparing joint positions to be taken forward within national working groups. The JP chairs could, to that end, be provided with the authority to represent the JP participants group within these national fora, if this authority is validated by all participants.
• For the drafting of the annual report, each Chef de file will be in charge of gathering the contributions of each TE approach+ actor involved in their area of responsibility.
• The leaders will also be able to make proposals to the group about programmes that, according to them, could be of interest for a joint field visit or for joint visibility actions (e.g. events or missions with media accompaniment).

Implementing the ‘division of labour’

The joint response signals the start of the European division of labour. Ensure that division of labour is highlighted in the joint response, ensuring agreement on what the lead coordinating partners’ responsibilities include. Leading policy dialogue on behalf of the group, sharing of information, hosting of coordination meetings, creating joint policy briefs including key messages for Heads of Mission, reporting in line with the joint results framework, organising joint missions, etc., could all be considered.

132 3 sectors max. by donor, which was deemed unrealistic by many JP participants.