Working Better Together in a Team Europe Approach

The 2018 study on joint programming in conflict-affected and fragile states⁶⁶ shows that, in highly volatile contexts with a fragmented aid landscape, coordination tools such as joint programming can help address such fragmentation by supporting a more strategic, resilience-centred approach and strategy to EU action on the ground.

Here are some of the key findings from the 2018 study, which have been complemented by newer/later lessons learned and findings from the field on the value learned joint programming in fragile and conflict- affected states.

• EU security and geopolitical interests call for a coherent, multi-level approach to joint programming in fragile and conflict-affected countries requires multi-level action: European relations with conflict-affected countries are often marked by strong European geopolitical and security interests, which, at times, appear not to be fully aligned with development and humanitarian objectives. In highly sensitive and fast-moving contexts, political developments can overwhelm implementation of development cooperation. EU joint programming has widely been recognised by respondents in the study as a good tool for bringing together the political and cooperation spheres, and for including other key actors (humanitarian, security) in common planning processes, in the interests of a more coherent and integrated approach. However, beyond country level, policy coherence is also important at regional and global level. Regional and global TEIs could be a good tool to that end (see also related chapter under Section 3).
• With regard to resilience-centred joint programming, steps have been taken in some countries to ensure that joint strategies are based on more integrated approaches. In Burundi and the Central African Republic, for example, joint programming strategic objectives selected by joint programming members have deliberately been centred around the broader notion of ‘resilience’, to link the more urgent humanitarian responses with medium-term development efforts.
• There is a need for a flexible, overarching framework and terminology. Joint programming should be promoted as a flexible and adaptable process, centred around joint conflict and risk analysis as an important starting point. This can be accommodated by allowing for regular (annual or six-monthly) reviews of the Joint Strategy document, so that it can be adapted to a new national development plan or results framework, for example.
• In the absence of a national development plan, it can be helpful to accept alternatives for aligning JP, by looking at the subnational and/or sector level: align the joint strategy with sector policies and local development plans, where possible/ applicable and/or internationally shared commitments (2030 Agenda/ SDGs). As stated above, integrated national financing frameworks (INFFs) established in more than 80 countries can provide a useful reference source for analysis of the development finance landscape⁶⁷.
• In fragile and crisis contexts, it is often difficult to try to address all core elements of joint programming (joint analysis, joint response, joint results framework, division of labour and joint financial forecasts) from the start. This can be overcome by starting with what is feasible, then moving towards what is desirable. Some countries may decide to start with the principle of concentric circles, by limiting the exercise, in its first phase, to what is considered feasible in the specific country context. For example this approach may entail:
  • a joint risk and conflict analysis and/or a joint development partner mapping;
  • strengthening EU coordination in a limited number of sectors or areas (TEIs can be a good starting point here; they can be used as a tool for focusing action on key areas of high shared interest (see also the section on ‘Team Europe Initiatives’ and on ‘joint implementation’);
  • involving just a limited number of EU Member States and, where appropriate, non-EU actors in tighter coordination;
  • assessing private sector investment potential in key areas that would benefit from adopting a right-financing approach, as advocated by the United Nations (see below);
  • creating joint humanitarian-development appeals, or funding mechanisms.
• In contexts affected by high staff turnover and high workloads, actors following a Team Europe approach should consider jointly co-financing a joint programming (+TEI) support secretariat to seek support.
• It is important, where possible, to make use of an inclusive, country-owned process. Make the joint programming process as flexible as possible, to enable the country to gradually take ownership at country level. Start the dialogue with civil society actors, community representatives, approachable local authorities and line ministries, and gradually open it up to the national level. Working with the (often under-developed) private sector can also be a more neutral entry point for discussion with the authorities (e.g. in Afghanistan).
• In exceptional circumstances (for example, where there is no dialogue with ruling authorities whose legitimacy is contested), it can be considered starting the joint programming process without partner involvement or with occasional involvement, while still maintaining the principle of joint programming as an inclusive, multi-actor exercise. In such situations it can be considered producing two versions of the joint programming document – an internal version for actors following a Team Europe approach actors and an external version for others. Technical cooperation with the authorities could be maintained if necessary for effective implementation of activities.
• In crisis contexts, joint programming processes should always include all relevant actors following a Team Europe approach (e.g. DG ECHO and Member States’ humanitarian institutions – where applicable) and (external) partners in a Team Europe approach (peace, humanitarian and civil society organisations). This is key to designing holistic and coherent responses to the needs of the population, under a Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus approach.

⇒ For more detailed recommendations and guidance about each joint programming phase and component, please see the following points in Annex 1: Detailed guidance for each joint programming phase:

• Deciding to start a joint programming process
• Conducting a Joint Analysis
• Preparing a joint response and finalising the joint programming document
• EU approval procedures for joint programming documents
• Monitoring the Implementation of joint programming
• Joint programming scenarios and document templates.

66 https://capacity4dev.europa.eu/library/report-joint-programming-conflict-affected-and-fragile-states_en
67 https://inff.org/