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: EU approval procedures for joint programming documents

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.

 

 

EU approval procedures for joint programming documents

Joint Programming should be promoted and strengthened, while being kept voluntary, flexible, inclusive, and tailored to the country context, and allow for the replacement of EU and Member States’ programming documents with EU Joint Programming documents.

New European Consensus on Development, para. 75

For the EU and every Member State, there are two options for finalising the joint programming document (including the joint analysis, joint response and joint results framework):

  1. A joint programming document that replaces the bilateral programme to become the single programming document. It can apply only to those donors whose policies allow it (i.e. it need not be applied to all participating donors).
  2. A joint programming document that does not replace a bilateral programming document.

In both cases, the headquarters units responsible for joint programming should ensure that the position on replacing bilateral strategies is updated and communicated organisation-wide, especially to country-based staff. Specific country-level exceptions or pilots can be used to inform future policy on adopting the joint programme as a single programming document. For clarity and transparency, the joint programming document should clarify how — and for which donors — the joint programme replaces or complements the bilateral programme.

A joint programming document that replaces the bilateral programming document

To facilitate the headquarters analysis and approval process, the following is useful:

  • The joint programming document should be reviewed by each partner for compliance with their own programming policies before a Heads of Mission meeting.
  • The draft joint programming document should be informally discussed with the relevant headquarters policy and geographical units. For the EU, this is INTPA/NEAR/EEAS, who will consult with the relevant services ahead of the country team meeting.
  • For the EU, approval will require country-level agreement on the draft joint programming document by participating HoMs; inter-service consultation; appropriate involvement of the European Parliament; appropriate involvement of MS experts; and a Commission Decision.

The draft joint programming document should clearly and individually identify the contribution of the EU and each MS for each priority area. The contribution to the expected results should be explicit (for the EU, this informs the Commission Decision).

For the EU, a joint programming document will have the same legal status as the country programming document it replaces. The same programming instructions, adoption process and timeline therefore apply and a country team meeting with line DGs is obligatory. The EU Delegation should abide by the legal and programming requirements set by the European Development Fund (EDF), Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and European Neighbourhood Instrument  (ENI) and subsequently the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) when adopted, or any applicable regulation. These instruments require that EU programming documents set out specific objectives, priority sectors, expected results, performance indicators, and indicative financial allocations, both overall and broken down by priority.

For MS and other participating donors, the replacement process is determined by each partner’s own rules. Respective headquarters are invited and encouraged to review the joint programming document and to take a decision on replacement of its own bilateral strategy. While the identification of priority sectors is determined at country level, each donor should confirm their own indicative financial allocations.

Regarding the signature, the Commission Decision can specify that the Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Partnerships or his/her designate is entitled to sign the joint programming document.

laos-small.png

LAOS

 

The European joint programming document for LAO People’s Democratic Republic 2016-2020 replaces the EU Multiannual Indicative Programme for 2016-2020. The structure and content were conceived for this purpose, and the parts of the document which relate to the EU and to the content that is required by a MIP can be identified

 

A joint programming document that does not replace a bilateral programming document

The joint programming document will be reviewed and approved by participating headquarters. They will ensure coherence with bilateral programming documents and wider policy commitments (e.g. EU Commission Decisions).

For the EU, a joint programming document that does not replace the EU bilateral programming document is not adopted through an amending Commission Decision. In this case, the joint programme document is regarded as a coherent and coordinated response to the partner country priorities by the EU and MS.

While the identification of priority sectors is determined at country level, each donor should confirm their own indicative financial allocations. The draft joint programme document should therefore identify individual EU and MS financial contributions. The financing framework will present projections of support over the joint programme period and must detail funding by donor and by priority sector. Funding may be further disaggregated by year, terms (loan/grant) and type (investment, technical assistance and humanitarian).

For the EU, in addition to the above, the minimum requirements for the joint programme are as follows:

  1. The joint programming document should contain a section that explicitly states that the document fully reflects the existing EU country Multi-Annual Indicative Programme/National Indicative Programme/Single Support Framework and that the MIP/NIP/SSF remains the legal basis for EU support until it expires (see wording below).
    ‘La base légale de la contribution de l’UE est le PIM/PIN/IEV 2014-2020 (pays). Ceci prévoit une allocation indicative de ... EUR aux priorités de la stratégie conjointe comme suit: allocation d’x EUR du PIM/PIN/IEV à la priorité 1, allocations d’y EUR à la priorité 2 ...’

    [‘The MIP/NIP/SSF 2014-2020 remains the legal basis for the EU support to (country). It foresees an indicative allocation of EUR … to the priorities of the joint strategy as follows: allocation of x EUR from the MIP/NIP/ SSF to priority 1, allocation of y EUR to priority 2 …’]
    To clarify the relationship between the MIP/NIP/SSF and the joint programme, an internal breakdown of the EU contribution to the joint programme should be provided (in an annex to the document or in a note from the Head of Delegation) according to the template below:
Joint Programming document EU contribution EU bilateral MIP/ NIP/SSF (with reference) * Other EU funds if applicable: with appropriate references  
Previous bilateral support Regional funds (RIP) Thematic budget lines Others (EIB, Trust Funds etc.)
Priority 1   Funding by each MIP sector        
Priority 2            
Priority 2+N            
Total            

*If useful, the EU contribution through the MIP/NIP/SSF can be disaggregated to show committed and un-committed funds. Additional EU actions funded through different financing instruments with a valid legal basis (Commission Decision) and specified in the financing framework may also be included in the joint programme to fully reflect the breadth of cooperation.

  1. Joint programming documents under preparation should be reviewed by the relevant geographical units (INTPA/NEAR/EEAS for the EU). They will consult with the corresponding sections (Commission/EEAS for the EU) before country-level Heads of Mission agree the final document.
  2. INTPA/NEAR/EEAS geographical units will hold a country team meeting and EEAS will inform the EU Delegation of its outcomes. These outcomes should be taken into account as the process of finalising the joint programme continues.
  3. Financial contributions for each partner should be respectively reviewed and confirmed by headquarters and country teams. The presentation of the combined financial contribution will form a key part of the ‘working better together’ commitment. For the EU it should also confirm coherence with the sectors of the MIP/NIP/SSF.
  4. After the final joint programming document draft has been completed, the document is formally transmitted by Member States Heads of Mission to the relevant geographical unit directors, with the joint programming units/division (functional mailboxes) in copy, with the request to start the approval procedure.
  5. Once the EU geographical unit(s) has/have checked the consistency of the joint programming document with their own country programming documents (MIP/NIP/SSF in the case of the EU) (sectors and financial allocations), they will confirm to the central services (in the case of the EU: Legal Service, Secretariat-General and DG BUDG) whether the joint programming document is fully coherent in financial and sectoral terms with the country programming document.
  6. The EEAS regional director replies via a signed letter to the Head of Delegation, stating that the formal requirements for the joint programming document have been met, that the joint programming document is fully consistent with the MIP/NIP/SSF, and confirming their support for the joint programming document.
  7. When the joint programming document has been approved by all participating partners according to their own rules and procedures, country-level visibility events (such as a press release or signed joint declaration) can be organised. Texts should be checked with the EEAS Legal Division and INTPA/NEAR legal unit(s) (who will liaise with the Commission Legal Service) to ensure that the content does not create any legal obligations.

The EU and [list of development partners] in [partner country] today launched the [local name for joint response / joint programme] for the period [---]. The [Joint Programming document] sets out how the EU and participating partners will coordinate their support for the [national development strategy]. This support is focused on the following sectors: [---]. These are the bases for sustainable development of [partner country] and its commitment to the achievement of the SDGs.

The EU and participating partners estimate their contribution through the JP document to be [EUR and local currency]. These resources will support [partner country] in implementing its national development strategy/national reforms/[sector strategies]/achieving the SDGs, particularly Goals on [priority sectors].

  1. When a draft joint programming document is received by geographical unit desk officers, they are encouraged to contact the joint programming teams in the EEAS/INTPA/NEAR to request the paper on ‘How to setup a Country Team Meeting in the context of joint programming’.
  2. A joint programming document that does not replace a bilateral document may not be signed if it causes legal ambiguity. A Declaration may be issued instead to promote visibility and national ownership, along the following lines:

As a result of strengthened coordination carried out by the EU Delegation in [name of country] with [list of participating MS], [other donors as appropriate] and the Government of [name of country], the Joint Programming document for the period [---] is launched today. Together we look forward to implementing the [local name for joint programming document] in close partnership with the Government of [name of country] and other stakeholders [indicate as appropriate: civil society, private sector, other development partners, etc.] Signature and date (HoMs and partner country representative).

 

Each section or chapter may be used separately to fulfil 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: