Section 2 JP: Deciding to start a joint programming process

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

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.

Section One The Foundations of Working Better Together as Team Europe
Section Two Joint Programming
Section Three Joint Implementation
Section Four Consultations, partnership dialogue and communications

Deciding to start a joint programming process

The decision to engage in joint programming should be taken by Head of Delegation, together with Member State Heads of Mission, at country level. Factors to consider include the expected benefits and potential transaction costs of a joint programming process, along with an initial scoping of potential issues to be included in joint programming.

Anticipating the transaction costs associated with joint programming for participating partners in the short, medium and longer term allows solutions to be factored in from the earliest stage. Successful joint programming processes have all relied on dedicated support. A range of country-tailored solutions have emerged, such as: identifying and assigning internal staff resources from across the participating partners — including Member States seconding staff to EU Delegations; hiring specific secretariat or administrative support for joint programming coordination work; contracting external technical assistance to facilitate consultations and /or prepare relevant documents.

Useful things to consider mapping at the beginning

Develop a picture of past European ODA disbursements to identify trends in European support (sectors, amounts, channels) and compare the combined size of the partner country’s European counterparts (EU and MS) and of its other main partners (EU Aid Explorer is a useful resource).
Map the individual programming cycles of the EU and MS against the partner country’s national planning cycle (and/or political cycle) and ask MS to confirm with their headquarters whether they could synchronise with the country’s cycle. Sometimes European partners cannot immediately synchronise their bilateral programming plans with the national development plan and/or prefer an incremental approach to synchronisation and coordination. This incremental approach is based on everyone’s active participation in the joint programming process and a commitment to fully align in the next bilateral programming cycle (see annex 1).
Identify any upcoming events, e.g. pledging conferences, elections, reform processes, international events, that provide an opportunity for a joint European approach and/or outreach to national stakeholders. Finding a moment to visibly act as Team Europe early on in the process provides momentum and helps consolidate trust.
Create a list of ongoing country-level joint actions with MS, such as EU Country Roadmaps for Engagement with Civil Society, Gender Action Plans, Human Rights and Democracy Country Strategies, and if applicable, the Joint Humanitarian and Development Frameworks (JHDF), which might provide a basis on which to build further collaboration through a joint programming process.
Map the European presence in the existing aid coordination architecture, including on cross-cutting issues such as gender and the environment, to understand current resource investments by country colleagues.

Confirming partner engagement in the joint programme

Secure MS commitment through dialogue and consultation, especially with Heads of Cooperation, to understand their aspirations for a joint programming process.
Reach out to non-resident MS that are accredited to the partner country, to gauge their interest in being further associated with the joint programming process.
Like-minded partners can participate in a joint programming process at country level following a decision by MS Heads of Mission. Switzerland and Norway are often associated with European joint programming processes in an EU+ modality.
A decision to launch and participate in a joint programming process is best taken by Heads of Mission so as to provide clear direction to the Heads of Cooperation. As joint programming is voluntary, some MS may choose not to participate, and this should and cannot prevent the process from going forward. Other MS may wish to join the process at a later stage, while some may decide to start participating as silent members or observers before committing more firmly.

MALI

In 2018 European partners in Mali launched the second Joint Programming (JP) exercise with the participation of nine Member States and Switzerland. The process benefited from a joint mission from European partners capitals that helped review the past JP process and set the frame for the intensive work at country level. The Mali JP process has developed a unique and country tailored ecosystem approach to joint programming that has not only developed a joint programming document but also strengthened information sharing between the participating European partners in a reinforced working better together approach. The ecosystem is set out below and reflects in particular the need, identified in the JP process, to enhance information sharing and trust between European partners operating in a volatile country context.

Preparing a joint programming roadmap

A roadmap can help set out the anticipated steps in the preparation of a joint programme. The roadmap’s main objective is to identify and describe the main actions and indicate a potential timeline and sequence for their implementation.

The definition and agreement of a roadmap by Team Europe and other European partners can also provide an entry point to dialogue with partner country counterparts to build momentum in the move towards joint programming as well as to secure wider validation, visibility and commitment.

Roadmaps can be as detailed as needed for the country context although simple concise overviews are usually easier to work with. Awareness of political cycles, staff rotations, upcoming monitoring missions, evaluations or technical studies can prove useful, but the main consideration should be to set out a clear schedule that addresses all key steps with sufficient management oversight and quality assurance.

Developing a roadmap

Establish a structured coordination process (e.g. regular Heads of Cooperation meetings, periodic updates to Heads of Mission) that can begin to institutionalise the joint programming approach.
Estimate the potential scope of the joint programming document (beyond development issues, concerted priorities and participation) (see chapter 5).
Identify available resources to support the process (including external support if necessary).
Plan how to conduct the joint analysis — the most significant work stream — to be incorporated into the joint response.
Confirm the need for a conflict/situational analysis (see chapter 6).
Clarify the level of engagement of the partner government and identify opportunities for dialogue.
Communications and advocacy: conduct a stakeholder analysis to identify all key actors and perspectives/risks.
Draw up a timeline that includes sufficient time for any detailed analytical work that might be required, including political economy analysis or sector studies, as well as for proper coordination with all participating partners.
Identify opportunities to link to other events (meetings, consultations, etc.) where partners can ‘speak as one’ in political or policy dialogue and demonstrate an intervention logic that delivers better results.
Consider the value of a joint communication to respective headquarters sharing the roadmap (see role of headquarters below). Typical outputs of the roadmap process would include analysis, mapping, assessment of national processes/systems, high-level results, timeline, etc.

CAMBODIA

In Cambodia, the roadmap was a succinct rolling table of month-by-month actions drawn up at the beginning of the year as a work plan for the EU Development Counsellors group and updated the following year to reflect the actual timing of events. In this way it became an operational document that also provided a record of the process. The EU Delegation also contracted an aid effectiveness consultant to support the joint programming process in anticipation of the workload. The consultant provided secretariat services for the EU Development Counsellors group (drafting documents and inputs, keeping minutes, organising retreats, preparing extracts of aid statistics, etc.) and was available to support all European partners in their sector-lead facilitation role, together with the EU Delegation. This external support provided direct added value for all partners.

In addition to that, see annex 2 for the table outlining four different joint programming scenarios, with a progressively increasing set of components and associated level of effort.

The role of headquarters

Whereas headquarters are generally not directly involved in these initial stages, it is advisable to keep your colleagues in INTPA and/or NEAR and the EEAS geographical directorates updated on the process and to share any agreed-upon roadmap.

Headquarters counterparts will be in a position to provide remote support, including by indicating other partner countries with a similar context that have gone through the process and may have useful lessons to share. Support for facilitating initial discussions within the Team Europe group can be provided through the joint programming facility (contact the INTPA joint programming support functional mailbox listed in the 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:

Recent updates
Annexes
PDF version
E-book version
Contact

Table of contents

Section 2 JP: Deciding to start a joint programming process