banner WBT

Working Better Together

Resource
public
Working Better Together as Team Europe Through joint programming and joint implementation Guidance
0
 Views

Table of contents

Section 2 JP: Conducting a joint analysis

Working Better Together as Team Europe
Through joint programming and joint implementation

Guidance

A tool to help EU Delegations work better together with Member States as Team Europe and with like-minded partners and country stakeholders, through joint programming and implementation.

 

 

Conducting a joint analysis

The joint analysis is a significant input to the joint programming process. It assesses context, identifies priorities, documents risks and facilitates a common understanding of the challenges and opportunities for the partner country’s development, building on its national development plan. The joint analysis informs the joint response and provides the foundation of the joint programming document.

 

Preparing for a joint analysis

The 2016 Council conclusions on stepping up Joint Programming mandate that joint programming broaden its scope to address issues ‘beyond development’. Applying this at country level through a joint analysis will ensure a coherent and strategic European response to challenges such as promoting peace and security, working in fragile and conflict-affected areas, promoting democracy, human rights and gender equality, growth and sustainable development, responding to the threat of climate change, and securing economic objectives related to trade, investment and shared prosperity.

The scope of work and a feasible timeframe for preparing the joint analysis should be set out in the roadmap (chapter 8). The strategic direction, management and implementation of the joint analysis is determined at country level by participating partners. It may be that the joint analysis can build on existing studies undertaken by European partners or others and that through the joint programming process only a specific aspect of analysis may need to be undertaken by European partners.

Resources for undertaking analytical work should be identified, including for cross-cutting issues.

 

Activities in a joint analysis

A joint analysis should be concise and, where possible, derived from existing sources.

A useful starting point is to review the partner country’s national development plan and the SDG localisation process (including a Voluntary National Review if available), as well as assessing the existing country results framework, both for the nation as a whole and for priority sectors, including how it aligns with the SDGs. National monitoring capacity and data availability should also be examined. This initial review will help Team Europe better understand how the partner country perceives and identifies its medium-term development challenges.

The sources feeding into the joint analysis may include the following:

  • National Development Plan and results framework.
  • Latest Voluntary National Review (where available).
  • Existing EU and MS country strategy papers (where applicable).
  • The Paris 21 initiative and UN Rapid Integrated Assessment of policy alignment and monitoring systems. Economic and public financial management analyses, produced by the World Bank (Public Expenditure Reviews), regional development banks and the IMF (Article IV), detail economic trends, challenges and priorities.
  • Budget support and sector programme analysis and other relevant reviews/evaluations.
  • Gender analysis, country- and/or sector-specific, carried out by the EU Delegation, MS or by another international organisation, governmental institution or NGO, addressing structural barriers to gender equality (laws, social and cultural norms, etc.).
  • UN Human Development Reports (especially national reports if available) and multi-dimensional poverty indices to understand long-term socioeconomic development trends and challenges.
  • Environmental analysis, including climate change mitigation and disaster preparedness.
  • Analytical and human rights reports by civil society organisations.
  • Trade, investment and private sector analysis, including vulnerability to shocks, production capacity and labour migration (and the role of remittances).
  • Busan monitoring survey results  on meeting development effectiveness commitments, focusing in particular on aligning support and strengthening/using country systems.
  • Regional integration and cooperation initiatives identifying cross-border issues that may be addressed through regional initiatives.
  • National Development Plan or Poverty Reduction Plan.
  • MS bilateral strategies.

Additional analytical inputs may include:

  • Development Finance Assessment (if available) mapping different possible financing flows (beyond ODA), which allows a country to better connect planning and financing to reach the SDGs.
  • Integrated National Financing Frameworks (if available), which are a comprehensive framework mapping the landscape for financing sustainable development at country-level (including all financial and non-financial means of implementation of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda) and laying out a financing strategy to implement targeted policies and reforms in order to reach the SDGs.
  • Conflict sensitivity/conflict analysis, if relevant.
  • An assessment of the role of religion and religious actors in the specific context.
  • The EU Development-Humanitarian Nexus Action Plan, developed as a basis for humanitarian and development planning and programming.
  • Rights-based analyses focusing on capacity gaps of duty bearers and rights holders (see annex 5).
  • Consult the Human Rights and Democracy Country Strategy if available.
  • Civil Society Roadmap (if available) with a view to fully integrating the EU engagement with civil society as a building block of the joint programme (chapter 19).
  • Gender Action Plans prepared under the 2016-2020 global framework (country report, if available), and any future Gender Action Plans.

When conducting the joint analysis exercise, it is of particular importance to consult with as wide a range as possible of government institutions (including legislative organs and sub-national authorities), civil society organisations (including those representing persons in vulnerable or marginalised situations), MS implementing organisations and the private sector, including local and European chambers of commerce.

 

Some pertinent considerations

When conducting the joint analysis, attention must be given to process, content and future use:

  • The joint analysis is most useful when it remains analytical, avoids excessive description and attempts to convey a hierarchy of national priorities and mutual interests.
  • It does not need to be a standalone document. The most important aspect is a shared analysis of country context and priority needs by Team Europe: discussions can be more useful than purely focusing on a document.
  • Maximise the use of objective evidence, especially on political economy.
  • Use mapping to inform overall priority identification as well as to guide opportunities for joint implementation and division of labour.
  • Consultations are an important part of the joint analysis process. They will help to develop consensus, secure engagement and build momentum for the joint response and its insertion into the joint programme (see chapter 17).
  • Communications are equally important. Consider the use of joint statements and opportunities for dialogue during the joint analysis phase.
  • Some parts of the analysis may be sensitive. Arrangements for sharing the full document should be determined by the Heads of Mission or Heads of Cooperation.
  • Regional issues need to be considered.
  • For programming in European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) partner countries, analysis should take account of priority areas jointly agreed in line with the principle of differentiation, as set out in the revised ENP and multilateral policy frameworks.
moldova-small.png

MOLDOVA

 

In Moldova, preparing the joint analysis entailed devising a preliminary work plan dividing up the various tasks involved. It foresaw the structure of the document, the concrete milestones, and the distribution of sector analyses. Moldova had recently signed an Association Agreement with the EU covering many sectors, but during the drafting of the work plan disagreement persisted over definitions and the number of sectors to focus on. Thirteen sectors were finally chosen, with 13 sector leads and their teams working in parallel.
Regular coordination meetings were organised to monitor and manage this complex process. The EU Delegation encouraged partners to actively contribute to the analysis while ensuring that overall, the joint analysis document remained coherent and balanced. Broad consultations were conducted with the government, sector coordination councils, other key donors and civil society organisations to ensure that all sector descriptions contained accurate and up-to-date information.
Finally, the consolidated joint analysis paper was shared with donors, and discussed and endorsed by the Heads of Mission meeting. It was then presented to the Prime Minister and his cabinet by the Heads of Mission at a public event on 13 October 2016. The analysis was a comprehensive reference document of shared expertise.
As the Republic of Moldova is a close neighbour of the European Union, the joint programming exercise is less about technical division of labour and much more about reinforcing common policy dialogue and a coordinated approach in our assistance, supported by a solid analytical basis.

 

Outputs from the joint analysis

A typical structure of the joint analysis, informed by the activities identified above, will bring together the analytical inputs that will then be used to generate a joint response and the joint programme itself. It may be presented as follows:

  1. executive summary (drafted so as to be shared with a wide range of stakeholders);
  2. context analysis including socio-economic development and human rights trends, priorities and challenges, National Development Strategy, alignment with EU policies, localisation of SDGs;
  3. governance and institutional capacities assessment, as well as an appraisal of the capacities of civil society and private sector actors;
  4. mapping of current European and other donor support (and projections if available).

Depending on available time and resources, the joint analysis may also begin to outline some of the issues to be elaborated in more detail in the joint response:

  1. an early indication of priority areas for European actions;
  2. insights into alignment with EU policies, national priorities, systems and the SDGs;
  3. partnering principles and stakeholders (active participants and associated key actors);
  4. assessment of national monitoring and evaluation arrangements;
  5. challenges and risks to be taken into account in formulating a joint response.

The joint analysis could include a summary that can be publicly shared and can form the first part of a subsequent joint programming document. Keeping in mind the intended wide readership of the joint programming document, this summary should exclude any sensitive conclusions.

Securing a consensus on the joint analysis, especially with Heads of Mission, is essential. Disseminating and validating the findings of the joint analysis, possibly through a workshop, can provide useful branding and communication opportunities to promote European values and principles to a wide range of stakeholders, as well as providing greater visibility to the work of Team Europe and other like-minded European partners in country.

It is also useful at this stage to agree as Team Europe (at HoMs level) and with partner government counterparts on the extent to which they may wish to endorse the joint programme. This can then inform the final steps in developing a joint response and the actual joint programming document.

 

Role of EU headquarters

Headquarters can be consulted on the joint analysis and invited to comment, particularly on the proposed scope and priorities. In the case of EU Delegations, this consultation could include Commission line DGs, the EEAS, INTPA and/or NEAR geographical directorates and, when appropriate, thematic directorates. The final version should be shared with headquarters colleagues and with the joint programming support functional mailboxes (see Introduction, page 5).

 

Each section or chapter may be used separately to fulfill a specific need for guidance, which means there may be some overlap between the different parts of the document.

If you have any questions, you may contact the relevant helpdesk or functional mailbox: