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: Preparing a joint response and finalising the joint programming document

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.

 

 

Preparing a joint response and finalising the joint programming document

The joint response is the foundation of the joint programming document. It builds on the joint analysis to set out how Team Europe and any other participating like-minded partners plan to work better together. By identifying priority areas for action, the joint response articulates a common vision on challenges before detailing how participating donors will engage collectively and individually to support the implementation of EU External Action priorities, national development priorities and the SDGs. The joint response is given substance by incorporating a joint results framework and indicative financing commitments.

 

From joint analysis to joint response

The joint response comprises the main substance of the joint programming document. Before proceeding, it is therefore essential that the conclusions of the joint analysis be agreed by all participating partner Heads of Mission. To maximise credibility and legitimacy, the partner country government and other national actors should also have the opportunity to comment on the main findings and proposals included in the joint analysis. Clarifying how the partner government will be involved in the final steps of joint programme preparation is also useful, especially if they are interested in endorsing the joint programming document.

To complete the joint response and have it feed directly into the joint programming document, it is necessary to clarify the extent of coverage — including ‘beyond aid’ issues — and the resources that fall within its remit, e.g. country programmable bilateral assistance, centrally-managed programmes, European Investment Bank and other MS development banks’ lending, scholarships, humanitarian support, etc.

 

Structure and content of the joint response

Depending on the vision at country level, the joint response may include the following components:

Country context analysis and strategic objectives

In its simplest form, the context analysis provides the analytical basis that informs a common Team Europe position on national development issues and is essentially the main findings of the joint analysis work (including the assessment of drivers of change) that underpins the intervention logic of the joint response. The European partners’ strategic objectives should be stated based on this analysis.

Sector analysis and joint programme priorities

The joint response becomes a shared narrative that conveys the common interests and specific priorities of Team Europe and, whenever relevant, other like-minded partners in country, if duly associated under each strategic objective. This narrative should be mainstreamed in sector analysis, support modalities and in the identification of partnerships for future joint implementation and action.

This section places the European strategic objectives in the context of the National Development Plan and the SDGs. It sets out the priority focus for the future joint programming and demonstrates the alignment with (a) EU and MS priorities, (b) national priorities/systems, and (c) the SDGs.

Including aspects of the division of labour (see chapter 10) is useful, notably with regard to setting out the concept of European partners leading by priority policy area. Discussions on the division of labour and joint implementation (see section 3) will also help to identify issues, roles and responsibilities.

Including cross-cutting priorities in joint programming

As with strategic issues, cross-cutting priorities can be mainstreamed across all areas of action in the joint programming document and/or included as specific areas for joint focus. The joint analysis should confirm the cross-cutting issues to be prioritised as well as indicate entry points for each of the areas of intervention.

When considering the cross-cutting issues to be prioritised, attention should be paid to integrating ongoing and complementary policy initiatives undertaken at country level with MS involvement into the joint programming. These include the Gender Action Plan, the Civil Society Roadmap, and the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus.

bolivia-small.png

BOLIVIA

 

Bolivia has included gender as a cross-cutting issue that is integral to the joint programming document. More specifically, the participating partners have adopted gender mainstreaming principles for cooperation in Bolivia and committed to promoting gender equality throughout their programmes. In particular, they have agreed to use national law and international agreements as a reference for defining future support to include proposals from women’s organisations in their programme design, to contribute to the development of measures on gender inequality and to allocate budgetary and technical resources to promoting gender equality. The joint programming document also highlights the shared approach to fostering increased transparency of national investments in gender equality and pushing for the establishment of formal accountability spaces. The results framework for the Bolivia joint programming document includes a specific gender indicator monitoring the number of development cooperation instruments that incorporate gender mainstreaming.

 

Participating partners may also be able to contribute to a pool of experts in cross-cutting priorities, either using in-house or external resources. In the context of the SDGs, which are multi-sectoral and inter-dependent, many UN agencies may be able to provide guidance on mainstreaming initiatives. The inter-dependent nature of the SDGs may also help to inform joint programming priorities and results that fully integrate issues previously seen as cross-cutting rather than fully embedded.

cambodia-small.png

CAMBODIA

 

In Cambodia, the European partners found that the absence of a coordination group on climate change in the existing aid coordination framework meant that support in this area was fragmented, with a high risk of duplication and limited institutional capacity-building. As a group, European partners pursued a three-track approach: starting their own internal coordination; lobbying for the creation of a coordinating group in the aid coordination framework and including a specific result on climate change in the results framework. The lobbying and advocacy work resulted in the creation of a government coordination group open to development partners for specific meetings and to which the EU was invited as a key partner in recognition of its advocacy work on climate change. The joint results framework was also updated to include an indicator taken from the country’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution in an area of key policy interest for the European partners, namely forest cover.

 

Results framework and monitoring plan

Set out how progress in the strategic objectives will be monitored through a joint results framework. The joint results framework should, where possible, draw on existing national indicators measured through national systems which reflect the strategic priorities of the joint programme and its intervention logic (i.e. the links between resources, actions and expected results). Alignment of selected indicators with the SDG targets and indicators should be highlighted where possible.

Monitoring arrangements (see chapter 13), ideally derived from or complementing national processes, should also be described, together with any plans to conduct a mid-term review of the joint programming. Regular monitoring provides opportunities for dialogue with national actors to further consolidate Team Europe visibility and to convey joint messages.

 

Activities to prepare a results framework

Establish strategic objectives for the joint programme

The strategic objectives will be determined as a clear picture emerges regarding the specific challenges and issues to be addressed by the joint programme. Once they are agreed, they can provide an entry point to defining higher-level results, especially outcome and impact, and to anticipate the link between resources and results.

Identify stakeholders and incorporate results into preliminary consultations

To frame the discussion at an early stage, participating partners should share current monitoring arrangements (policy, process, level, etc.). Team Europe development agencies and Programme/Task Managers should be involved in discussions about indicators related to their specific areas of expertise. Consultations with national stakeholders (government, parliament, CSOs, academia and the private sector), especially concerning the national results framework and the SDGs, will inform understanding on priorities, policies and capacity concerns at an early stage.

Agree on the purpose of the results framework

The purpose of the joint results framework and its relationship to other monitoring obligations should be discussed at an early stage to ensure a common understanding of its role and to encourage all participants to think critically about its structure and content.

Experience to date has shown that joint results frameworks can be used to:

  • underpin policy dialogue by signalling key priority messages and providing an evidence base;
  • establish a logical and verifiable link between resources and activities with higher level results;
  • improve accountability in terms of project/programme results;
  • contribute to overall monitoring of national development goals and to provide visibility for the joint programme’s collective impact; and
  • monitor commitments to the development effectiveness agenda.

Define key results and the scope of the results framework

The scope of the results framework should be agreed based on the activities prioritised in the joint programme. It will be necessary to take a strategic view on result and indicator selection, also taking into account other joint strategic documents produced at country level, such as the CSO Roadmap and the Gender Action Plan. Participation of CSOs and the private sector in the monitoring process should be considered. Depending on data availability and timeliness, a smaller number of representative results might be easier to monitor and communicate than an extensive list.

Experience to date indicates that including ambitious, higher-level results indicators can help to focus dialogue on the bigger picture. In order to account for potential attribution difficulties, a number of countries (e.g. Honduras, Ecuador) decided to complement what they saw as country impact indicators through a set of more tangible joint results indicators (showing how the group collectively contributes to the impact indicators through their programmes) or development effectiveness indicators (showing how joint programming has led to working better together at partner country level, e.g. number of joint positions taken to the policy dialogue; joint missions; joint evaluations, etc.). This approach is in line with the model used for the EU’s Global Results Framework, which proposes three levels of results indicators (1. Country progress/impact indicators; 2. EU contribution indicators; 3. INTPA institutional performance indicators).

nicaragua-small.png

NICARAGUA
 

In Nicaragua, the EU and MS combined four different results frameworks to produce a tailored joint results framework. This took the SDGs as a starting point, because it was agreed that it should allow for the monitoring of the joint programming contribution to the SDGs. In addition, results from the National Plan for Human Development, the EU Results Framework and the results framework of each participating agency mostly drew on national indicators from this National Plan. Mechanisms for coordinating the monitoring and evaluation of the results were outlined and now include an annual update of results. This annual update requires discipline from all partners but allows for regular adjustments of the results framework as needed.

 

Review potential links with national monitoring systems and results frameworks

A review of the national monitoring mechanisms, information systems and results frameworks (including data availability and quality) can support an agreement on the feasibility of using national systems.

Important factors to take into account when accommodating the partner country system include translation of Agenda 2030 commitments into national frameworks, the country’s own incentives for delivering development results, accountability for results (national, sector, agency level), and the extent to which the results framework can be managed and monitored. The partner country use of routine data systems, additional research and census/surveys should be considered.

In the absence of a national results framework, participating partners could consider the SDG results framework and/or other specialist monitoring processes, such as the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability assessments under public finance management, Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement on climate change, or the Global Partnership development effectiveness survey. Other results may already be formulated in budget support performance assessment frameworks. Using international indexes (e.g. ‘Doing Business’ or ‘Rule of Law’) and related indicators has also proven to be a useful and very measurable way of making country progress comparable at global level.

cambodia-small.png

CAMBODIA

 

In Cambodia, the European partners did not wish to create a parallel system for monitoring results, but rather boost existing national processes. The European Strategy results framework was therefore aligned with the Government’s own strategy and associated national processes for results management including the national process of agreeing joint monitoring indicators between government and the development partners in 19 sectors. The results framework in Cambodia was intended as a concise framework that includes the outcomes which are of particular importance for the European external cooperation programmes and which provide a platform for policy dialogue. In this context, one representative output indicator was selected for each area of European partners’ focus and support, as well as some additional indicators in areas European partners felt were not covered by the 19 sectors but which were important for the group. The results framework was originally 14 output indicators although after the first monitoring report this was expanded to 21 to better capture the breadth of European support in Cambodia (the added indicators covered higher education scholarships and TVET, anti-corruption, green energy, sustainable production, social protection, support for the CSO enabling environment and climate change).

Experience shows that the following principles were key for Cambodia:

  • use of the joint results framework as a tool for policy dialogue;
  • importance of alignment to country priorities;―selectivity in the choice of results to be monitored;
  • references to the SDG targets that the joint programming priorities contribute to; and
  • keeping the joint results framework comprehensible for external stakeholders and manageable for the European group.

 

Explicitly address assumptions and risks

A poorly designed results framework represents a risk to the credibility of the entire joint programme. In terms of the monitoring system, attention should therefore be given to risks and assumptions related to country level data collections, evidence generation and data processing, and support for national statistical and information systems. The accessibility and reliability of data sources should be confirmed, along with the timeliness and frequency of data collection and analysis, as the joint results will provide the basis for dialogue, reporting and advocacy work.

Include cross-cutting issues and joint values

Joint programming documents are underpinned by the common values of participating partners: commitments to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment, environmental sustainability, an enabling environment for civil society, protection for human rights and democratic governance.

These common issues should be incorporated into the joint results framework. This can be done by ensuring they are reflected in main sector priorities and/or as standalone results. Existing agreed priorities/indicators listed in other policy documents could be drawn on: Civil Society Roadmaps (chapter 19), Gender Action Plan, Human Rights and Democracy Country Strategies and the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus (chapter 6).

Formulate the joint results framework

When putting the final results framework together, consider the following:

  1. An ambitious yet attainable joint results framework rests on the careful consideration of result levels (output/outcome/impact), the quantity of indicators and their measurability.
  2. Place sufficient emphasis on higher-level results, as this will be of more interest to national counterparts and can provide a better basis for policy dialogue. Complement such country progress/ impact indicators through more tangible ‘Team Europe contribution indicators’ where needed and applicable, to achieve better attribution and visibility.
  3. Select quality SMART indicators (including, at least, disaggregation by sex, age and disability) that can be reliably collected on a timely basis. Ensure that baselines and targets are agreed with those responsible for the monitoring work (chapter 13).
  4. Consider a division of labour in monitoring responsibilities, in line with the division of labour in sector coordination and policy dialogue leadership amongst European partners (chapter 10).
  5. Development effectiveness indicators (annex 4) can be a driver for improvements in delivery. They also include measures of the enabling environment for the private sector and civil society, as well as gender equality and women’s empowerment.
  6. Include measures to ensure that joint programme activities comply with policies on environmental, social and economic sustainability and the protection of human rights.
  7. Institutionalise links to other joint initiatives such as the CSO Roadmap, the EU Gender Action Plan and Human Rights and Democracy Country Strategies, and the joint Humanitarian and Development Framework documents (if not directly incorporated).
  8. Reference the respective SDGs in the results framework to facilitate national and donor reporting. Where applicable, show how the selected joint indicators align with SDG indicators (e.g. if the formulation is the same or compatible).
  9. Consider integrating outcomes: indicators shared with the UN, the Word Bank, the African Development Bank or the IMF could be incorporated into the results framework to demonstrate integration among development partners, facilitating common monitoring among them when using similar indicators across all interventions. Indicators should quantifiable and process-based.
  10. The joint programme’s communications strategy (chapter 20) should include links to monitoring work so that results can be used to form the evidence base in reporting and advocacy.
mali-small.png

MALI

 

The joint programming process in Mali includes the European Joint Programming Document 2020-2024 for Mali and the joint declaration of commitment from European partners. A set of 14 sectorial documents, each one focusing on a specific area of work falling within the scope of the objectives listed in the joint programming document. A matrix of indicators reflecting the targets identified in each of the 14 sectorial documents to assist with joint monitoring of the European response. A Google Drive folder containing all information/documentation falling within the scope of the JP. The latter provides “live memory” of the European partners’ joint resources and has proved essential for enhanced donor coordination and cooperation in a very challenging environment. An operational database of European projects in Mali that is updated on a regular basis. A report on the modus operandi of the Delegation and Member States in Mali and a list of in-country technical assistance being provided by European partners. Biweekly and ad hoc meetings between the EU Delegation, Member States Heads of Cooperation as well as Heads of Cooperation from Switzerland and Norway, the UK, Canada and other partners. Reports are made available through the shared Google drive. Last but not least, an embryonic secretariat to support the working better together approach, currently composed of a technical assistance, but meant to expand and become a fully-fledged Secretariat in support of joint action at country level.

 

Resourcing

The European indicative financing framework presents projections of support by Team Europe and, whenever relevant, other duly associated like-minded partners in country. The financing framework should at least detail funding by donor and by priority sector. It may be further disaggregated by year, type of ODA (loan/grant) and type of assistance (investment, technical assistance or humanitarian aid).

In addition to resources provided to governments, CSOs and private sector actors, Team Europe and other donors’ funding to multilateral institutions — both core funds and those programmed at country level — could also be included to provide a complete picture.

Implementation and management arrangements

The joint programming should draw on country coordination mechanisms as far as possible. This will ensure that the joint programme strengthens national ownership of the coordination function. Arrangements for dialogue with government and other national partners should be described, together with a consultation schedule linked to monitoring.

This section could also set out key partnership principles for Team Europe, including those related to the 2030 commitment to leave no one behind as well as to the Global Partnership development effectiveness commitments, depending on the country context.

Indicate any additional coordination arrangements required for strategic European planning and monitoring and for joint communications and visibility. Where joint implementation (see section 3) and policy dialogue modalities have been agreed, these could also be described.

Challenges and risks

The challenges and risks to joint programming are both internal to Team Europe and external. Internal risks relating to coherence and the ability to work better together should be discussed, and mitigation measures foreseen.

Risks may be of a political, financial/fiduciary or environmental nature, or they may be related to partners, capacity or security. The possibility that the joint programme itself might introduce some risks, either to the environment, to people living in vulnerable situations, to partners or to the reputation of the EU and MS should also be considered, using the ‘do no harm’ principles.

 

Important considerations to keep in mind:

  • The joint response is the core of the joint programming document and conveys key messages to external actors on European priorities and intentions.
  • Depending on how extensive, inclusive and conclusive the consultations were during joint analysis, consider whether further dialogue is necessary, especially with national partners.
  • The final steps towards agreement can be intensive. Provide for time for Heads of Cooperation to pause and reflect in order to make the document as ambitious as possible while representing a consensus.
  • The structure and content of the joint programme should meet participating partners’ expectations and requirements so that it is acceptable to all (see chapter 12 on EU approval of joint programming documents).
  • The joint programming document can either: (a) directly replace a participating Member State’s bilateral programming strategy; or (b) provide a strategic framework under which participating MS align and coordinate their own bilateral programming.

If the joint programming document is not replacing the bilateral programming documents, it is advisable to include a specific text clarifying the link between bilateral documents and the joint programme.

 

kenya_small.png

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.

 

Finalising and approving the joint programming document with headquarters input

Consult the latest programming instructions from the EU and all participating partners when drafting a joint programming document. Team Europe headquarters should have a say in the document draft, and INTPA Performance, Results and Evaluation; Internal Communication, Knowledge Management and Collaborative Methods Unit can provide further guidance and feedback on results frameworks.

For EU colleagues, see chapter 12 on the joint programming approval process to further understand the implications of the consultation with headquarters. Remember also that for the EU portion of the joint programming document, current EU programming instructions apply: guidance on key priorities, consultation, modalities, fragmentation across sectors, etc.

 

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: