Joint Programming Integrating bilateral and Joint Programming Quality requirements Joint Programming Technical Seminar, November 2014, Brussels EEAS/VI.B.2 Development Cooperation Coordination Division DEVCO/A2 Aid and Development Effectiveness and Financing

Council Conclusions on EU common position for Busan (2011) 'It [Joint Programming] allows the EU and the Member States to substitute their individual country strategies'

Why substitution/integration? Single process, no duplication and less transaction costs Clear procedure, no double adoption of bilateral and joint programming documents Buy in and ownership of (programming) staff Bottom line: Logical priority to joint programming processes, setting a common EU vision and division of labour

Common aspects (DCI, EDF, ENI) JP DOCUMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED AS EU BILATERAL PROGRAMMING DOCUMENT IF MEETS QUALITY REQUIREMENTS TIMING: REVIEWS

Example: Regulation Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) (1) 11.3.c: No strategy paper shall be required for: countries or regions for which a joint multiannual programming document between the Union and Member States has been agreed 11.4 Strategy papers shall be reviewed at their mid-term or on an ad hoc basis as necessary, in accordance, as appropriate, with the principles and procedures laid down in the partnership and cooperation agreements concluded with the partner country or region concerned … the joint multiannual programming document referred to in point (c) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 of this Article may be considered as the multiannual indicative programme, provided that it complies with the principles and conditions established in this paragraph, including an indicative allocation of funds, and with the procedures provided for in Article 15.

Example: Regulation Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) (2) 11.5 Multiannual indicative programmes for geographic programmes shall set out the priority areas selected for Union financing, the specific objectives, the expected results, clear, specific and transparent performance indicators, the indicative financial allocations, both overall and per priority area and, where applicable, aid modalities Indicative financial allocations, priorities, specific objectives, expected results, performance indicators and, where applicable, aid modalities may also be adapted as a result of reviews 15.1 The Commission shall approve strategy papers referred to in Article 11 and shall adopt multiannual indicative programmes referred to in Articles 11, 13 and 14 by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2014. That procedure shall also apply to reviews which have the effect of significantly modifying the strategy or its programming.

Requirements for country analysis (EU programming instructions DCI/EDF, 2012) A concise analysis and assessment of the partner country's NDP (in max 11 pages) consisting of: – Country constraints, challenges and perspectives Political, economic, social, environmental situation; sustainability and capacity – Country Development Priorities and Objectives (in NDPs) – Consistency with EU development policy – Performance Assessment and Monitoring (of NDP) – Conclusion and proposal for the overall lines of the EU response (including sector choices)

Template for Multi-annual Indicative Programme (EU programming instructions DCI/EDF) 1. The overall lines for the EU response 1.1. Strategic objectives of the EU's relationship with the partner country 1.2. Choice of sectors 2. Financial overview 3. EU support per sector 3.1 (indicative amount million €) The following overall and specific objectives will be pursued: For each of the specific objectives the main expected results are: For each result, the main indicators are: Donor coordination and policy dialogue are: The Government's financial and policy commitments are: When needed, the appropriate type of environmental assessment The overall risk assessment of the sector intervention: 3.2 (if foreseen) 3.3 (if foreseen) 4. Measures in favour of civil society 5. B-allocation 6. Support measures 6.1. Measures to support or accompany the programming, preparation or implementation of actions; support facility (Technical Cooperation Facility) 6.2. Support to the National Authorising Officer (for EDF) + DONOR MATRIX

Reviews and synchronisation Programming in principle for Review synchronised with the country planning cycle Reviews allow for adapting MIP to changing country needs and priorities, JP & division of labour Exception: allowing for two MIPs: if JP started in 2013/14 and strong expectations at field level (credibility)

Link between EU programming and Joint Programming: current practice So far no JP document fully meets (quality) requirements Processes of endorsement not coherent – long period between submission draft by DEL and endorsement HQs – different timelines of MIP and JP processes (e.g. Chad, Ghana, Rwanda, Togo) – parallel processes disincentive because considered as additional burden and variety of ownership As a consequence JP's inclusion in MIP/NIP adoption procedures vary Only some JP documents included as annexes to the MIP: Cambodia, Laos, Guatemala, Myanmar/Burma, Namibia

Merging EU programming and Joint Programming: first ideas For EU MIP/NIP reviews are the window of opportunity to replace MIPs/NIPs by EU Joint Country Programs JP documents to replace the current MIPs and NIP Ensure that EU JP documents meet MIP/NIP requirements Address EU specific challenges (individual vs joint results; adoption procedure of jointly owned document; EU specifics such as NAO, TCF) Identify country cases

Windows for JP/review 2012/ To be confirmed Bolivia BangladeshAlgeriaCambodia (2)Afghanistan Burundi BeninArmeniaHondurasEgypt Cambodia Burkina FasoGhana (2)Kenya (2)Haiti Chad Bolivia (2)Guatemala (2)NicaraguaJordan Comoros Burundi (2)LiberiaParaguay (2)Libya Côte d'Ivoire Chad (2)Myanmar/Burma (2)Moldova Ethiopia Côte d'Ivoire (2)Philippines Morocco Ghana El SalvadorRwanda (2) Pakistan Guatemala Ethiopia (2)Senegal (2) Somalia Kenya GeorgiaSierra Leone South Sudan (2) Laos Laos (2)Togo (2) Timor Leste Mali Malawi Tunisia Myanmar/Burma Mauritania Vietnam Namibia Mozambique Zimbabwe Paraguay Nepal Rwanda Niger Senegal Palestine South Sudan Tanzania Togo Uganda Vietnam Yemen

Possible cases Bolivia, Laos, Nepal and Senegal; Others? Example Laos, guidance given by EEAS/DEVCO note to EU Delegation, August 2014: – We fully support your proposal to replace the bilateral analysis and strategy by the joint programming document (containing the joint analysis and joint strategy), where the planned structure and content satisfies each donor's requirement. – This will considerably reduce transaction costs and increase the impact of the joint efforts of the EU and Member States. – For the EU this means as per Art of the DCI Regulation that the EU will use the joint programming document as the only programming document, provided that it complies with the DCI requirements – In essence this means the EU and Member States will do a 'Joint MIP' with no further bilateral multi-annual programming documents. – We also agree with the proposal that bilateral implementation plans, which for the EU equals the Annual Action Programme (AAP), will be restricted to the implementation details of the contribution to the joint strategy.

Conclusion on merging EU and Joint Programming  Integration of EU and JP improves quality and efficiency both at field and headquarters (including adoption procedure)  Busan Council conclusions allow for JP documents substituting individual strategies  In principle, also EU regulation allows for JP documents to be considered as EU programming document (MIP) …  … if the JP document meets certain EU quality requirements, as laid down in regulation and instructions  EU programming almost completed. So, next opportunity for moving towards JP=MIP/NIP is (mid-term of ad hoc) review which …  … have to be synchronised with partner country cycle  Next step: identification of country cases to implement this approach

Questions for break out sessions 1.Does your organisation's current (or near future) guidelines in principle allow (or not prevent) JP documents to be considered as your programming document? 2.What are the related requirements for considering JP documents as your programming document? 3.Are there already examples where the JP document has been accepted as your programming document? If yes, for which countries? If not fully, which parts? 4.What are your organisation's timelines/windows for taking further steps towards such an approach (for instance ending of your current programming cycle or programming review dates)? 5.What are the specific challenges your organisation might face to take further steps in this direction? 6.Which countries on the JP list offer opportunities to start implementing this approach (see the JP tracker that has been shared)?

Regulation European Development Fund (EDF) (1) 5.2.b No strategy paper will be required for: countries or regions for which a joint multiannual programming document between the Union and Member States has been agreed; 5.4 For the purpose of this Regulation, the joint multiannual programming document referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2 of this Article and complying with the principles and conditions established in this paragraph, including an indicative allocation of funds, may in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 14 be considered as the multiannual indicative programme in agreement with the partner country or region. 5.5 Multiannual indicative programmes shall set out the priority sectors selected for Union financing, the specific objectives, the expected results, the performance indicators and the indicative financial allocation, both overall and per priority area. They will also explain how the proposed programmes will contribute to the overall country strategy referred to in this Article and how they will contribute to delivery of the Agenda for Change. 7.2 Strategy papers and multiannual indicative programmes, including the indicative allocations therein, may be adjusted taking into account the reviews as foreseen in Articles 5, 11 and 14 of Annex IV of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.

Regulation European Development Fund (EDF) (2) Annex IV of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement (version 2010): 5.1.b Financial cooperation between the ACP State and the Community shall be sufficiently flexible to ensure that operations are kept constantly in line with the objectives of this Agreement and to take account of any changes occurring in the economic situation, priorities and objectives of the ACP State concerned. In this context, the National Authorising Officer and the Commission shall: undertake a mid-term and end-of-term review of the CSP and the indicative programme in the light of current needs and performance. 5.2 In exceptional circumstances referred to in Article 3(4), in order to take into account new needs or exceptional performance, an ad hoc review can be carried out on the demand of either Party. 3.4 … the Community may, in order to take account of new needs or exceptional performance, increase a country's programmable allocation or its allocation for unforeseen needs….

European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) (1) 16 The Union and its Member States should improve the coherence, effectiveness and complementarity of their respective policies on cooperation with neighbouring countries. To ensure that the Union's cooperation and that of the Member States complement and reinforce each other, it is appropriate to provide for joint programming, which should be implemented whenever possible and relevant. Proper cooperation and coordination with other non-Union donors should also be ensured. 5.2 The Union, the Member States and the EIB shall ensure coherence between support provided under this Regulation and other support provided by the Union, the Member States and European financial institutions. 5.3 The Union and the Member States shall coordinate their respective support programmes with the aim of increasing effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of support and policy dialogue and preventing overlapping of funding, in line with the established principles for strengthening operational coordination in the field of external support and for harmonising policies and procedures. Coordination shall involve regular consultations and frequent exchanges of relevant information during the different phases of the support cycle, in particular at field level. Joint programming shall be implemented whenever possible and relevant. When this cannot be achieved, other arrangements, such as delegated cooperation and transfer arrangements, shall be considered with a view to ensuring the highest degree of coordination.

European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) (2) 7.5 The single support framework documents shall be reviewed when necessary, including in the light of the relevant Union periodic reports and taking account of the work of the joint bodies established under the agreements with partner countries, and may be revised in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2014. The programming documents referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article shall be reviewed at their midterm or whenever necessary, and may be revised in accordance with the same procedure. 7.8 Member States shall be involved in the programming process, in accordance with Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2014. Those Member States and other donors that have committed to jointly programme their support with the Union shall be particularly closely involved. The programming documents may also cover their contribution as appropriate. 7.9 Where Member States and other donors have committed to jointly programme their support, a joint multi-annual programming document may replace the single support framework and the programming documents referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4, on condition that it meets the requirements set out in those paragraphs. Art 9.1 after g: The programming document shall cover a period of seven years and shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2014. It shall be reviewed at mid-term or whenever necessary and may be revised in accordance with that procedure.