EU Joint Programming Country Experiences Alexander O’Riordan

Introduction “Our new country strategy paper is a one page note verbale with the joint programme attached.” EU MS “Finally we have a meaningful basis to work with our colleagues on bilateral desks like our Permanent Secretary wants.” Partner Country Ministry of Finance “This makes work easier: before we needed the Permanent Secretary to approve the country strategy and approve again the strategy aspects of the financing agreements.” Partner Country Ministry of Finance

EU Joint Programming Poorly Understood Joint…. Not Joint Implementation, Synchronisation of Programming; not Financing.

What does EU JP look like? + No standard format (DG letter: current coordination, joint analysis/response, DoL). + Ability to invoke our AE commitments (e.g. Busan). + Increases opportunities for joint implementation and better visibility. + Diminishes donor anxiety about diminishing funds (e.g. in the context of the increasing influence of China). + Synchronises programming/strategy but not necessarily project implementation and funding.

How Do We do JP? (Example Cambodia) 1. Analyse programming cycles. 2. Propose JP aligned with the partner’s plan (or use reporting, reviews as entry points), 3. Use existing analysis for common understanding of how to support the partner’s development plan, 4. Identify common priorities (cross-cutting, sectors) as the foundation for a joint strategy. 5. Most Importantly: Road-map for implementation.

Bolivia Timetable - Example Only Total ODA$850m$477m$628m ODA per Capita$91$50$65 National Strategy Second National Development Plan EC Belgium Denmark Germany Italy Netherlands Spain Switzerland

Concerns Raised At Country Level – Examples from Bolivia and Cambodia + No Instructions have been received on whether EU JP affects normal rules of operation. + Not clear if we have authority to change the standard formats for strategy and analysis. + HQ approval needed more often than is commonly understood (e.g. sectors/results). + Can HQ approve the whole JP or need only approve components of it (HQ country desks meet). + Need to recognise that changes of government could mean changed approaches.

1. Features of Advanced Countries + Discussions on how to operationalise JP and what that means? + How to manage the work load? + How to address unexpected occurrences? + Monitoring and moving towards common results frameworks, joint strategic studies (e.g. PEA). + Sharing and lessons learning (call for regular workshops/seminars with practitioners).

2. Features of Willing and Able Countries + How to manage the workload? + Who will do the initial analysis (particularly of sector concentration)? + Greater need for discussions to ensure a shared understanding (e.g. EU Heads of Cooperation Meets). + Support and Instructions from Headquarters (not always forthcoming). + How best to support and or respond to challenges at partner country level (two is enough, MS can lead)?

3. Features of Slow Joiners + Perception it does not apply in all contexts. + Notion that government does not want it (rarely confirmed in writing or even verbally). + Perceived as too labour-intensive (and at the beginning it does require extra support). + Fear that it will signal a changing of alliances within the broader donor community. + PROBLEM is: always involves denying some MS their desire to do JP for the sake of those who do not.

Messages for Capitals/HQs + Detail what cannot be decided at country level and request permission from HQs to proceed based on Country Level Decision Making. + Draft joint messages to HQs explaining what is happening, what support is needed and what road maps/timetables are being followed. + HQ based country desks could meet to discuss and facilitate (featured in South Sudan case). + Identify contact points and reinforce HQ support for joint programming at country level (clear instructions to support JP).

Conclusions Change the dynamic: we have agreed to do it so let us just move ahead with willing and able MS! Monitoring implementation of road maps and support next steps at all levels. Recognise HoCs have different levels of autonomy. Share good practices, create positive reinforcement, recognise significant good work is already done by MS and EUDs. Ask line a management to communicate more clearly to all staff their commitment to JP.