1. Regional Workshop on Joint Programming for Neighbourhood East and South Joint Programming: State of play EEAS/VI.B.2 Development Cooperation Coordination Division DEVCO/A2 Aid and Development Effectiveness and Financing

2. Regional Joint Programming workshops  Objectives: update from HQ; guidance; exchange experiences; address local challenges; identify good practice and support needed  Target group: EU Delegations and MS embassies (Heads of Cooperation's); also participation of EEAS, Commission and MS HQs  Regional Workshops were organised in:  Latin America, Guatemala, 20-21 January 2014 (support: Spain)  Central, East & Southern Africa, Ethiopia, 13-14 March 2014 (support: Belgium and the Netherlands)  West Africa, Ivory Coast, 4-5 June 2014 (support: France)  Planning:  Asia, Myanmar/Burma, April 2015 (support: Germany)

3. Workshop expectations (from country factsheets)  Gathering and sharing information; state of play  Learn/understand concept, definitions and key elements (like division of labour)  Link between joint programming and bilateral programming; and joint implementation  Seize opportunities and overcome challenges  Learn from other cases/experiences  Steps for way forward at country level  Networking

4. Joint Programming commitment: Single multi-annual country strategy of EU and MS Council Conclusions November 2011 1.Joint analysis of and joint response to partner country’s development strategy 2.Identification of sectors of intervention and in-country division of labour: who is working in which sectors 3.Indicative multi-annual financial allocations per sector and donor Principles: 1.It is mainly an in-country process led by EU Delegations and MS embassies 2.Alignment and synchronisation with partner country planning 3.Gradual approach

5. Joint Programming in EU "ENI regulation" The ENI regulation guides the programming of the European Neighbourhood Instrument ENI, which has – based on the relevant 2011 Council Conclusions - mainstreamed Joint Programming already for the Programming Period 2014 – 2020; all EU MS have approved these regulation. (Whereas 16) … it is appropriate to provide for joint programming, which should be implemented whenever possible and relevant … 5.3 The Union and the Member States shall coordinate their respective support programmes … 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.

6. Joint Programming: The value added  Speak with one voice  Improve complementarity of political message and action, which might lead to more impact  Gives EU an identifiable, visible face  Improve transparency, predictability, coordination  Reduce bureaucracy, fragmentation and costs for all actors involved  Living up to our aid effectiveness commitments

7. Illustration of potential (Example of Georgia, data OECD/DAC 2011) When EU+ acts as one Fragmented aid

8. In-country progress (1) 14 Joint Programming documents agreed (2012-2014):  Burma/Myanmar, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Ghana, Guatemala, Laos, Mali, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, South Sudan, Togo 3 Joint analysis/response strategies agreed (2012-2014):  Bolivia, Ethiopia, Cote d'Ivoire 7 additional Joint Programming documents in 2015/17:  Armenia (joint analysis), Georgia, Morocco (joint analysis), Palestine, Tunisia, Kenya, Paraguay 30+ countries considered for 2016-2018, incl.: Algeria, Egypt, Moldova, Ukraine Perhaps some of the other 5 ENI countries?: Azerbijan, Belarus, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya

9. In-country progress (2) Quality of documents has improved: better analysis, increased division of labour, inclusion of indicative allocations, first move towards results frameworks and monitoring

10. Windows for JP per year 2012-2014 2015201620172018 ? Bolivia Armenia Afghanistan Algeria? Cambodia phase 2 Azerbijan Burma/Myanmar Georgia BangladeshBolivia phase 2Honduras Belarus Burundi Morocco BeninBurundi phase 2Kenya phase 2 Jordan CambodiaKenyaBurkina Faso Egypt? Nicaragua Lebanon ChadParaguayChad phase 2Georgia phase 2Paraguay phase 2 Libya Comoros Côte d'Ivoire phase 2Ghana phase 2Rwanda phase 2 Côte d'Ivoire El SalvadorGuatemala phase 2 Ethiopia Ethiopia phase 2Liberia Ghana HaitiMali phase 2 Guatemala Laos phase 2 Moldova? Laos Malawi Palestine Mali MauritaniaPhilippines Namibia MozambiqueSenegal phase 2 Rwanda NepalSierra Leone Senegal NigerSouth Sudan phase 3 South Sudan PakistanTogo phase 2 Togo Tanzania TunisiaUkraine? Uganda Vietnam Yemen Zimbabwe

11. Regional breakdown Dark green = Joint programming agreed Middle dark = Potential, but not agreed yet Light green = No Joint Programming at this stage

12. Integration of Joint Programming and individual country strategies (1)  Council Conclusions Nov. 2011:  "Joint Programming (…) allows the EU and the Member States to substitute their individual country strategies".  "Joint programming does (…) not encompass bilateral implementation plans".  ENI regulation:  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.... on condition that it meets the requirements set out in those paragraphs

13. Integration of Joint Programming and individual country strategies (2) Single process, no duplication and less transaction costs Ideally, no double adoption of bilateral and joint programming documents Some MS already partly replace their bilateral programming documentation through joint programming documents  Next opportunity for joint programming: review of the EU ENI “Single Support Frameworks” where possible synchronised with partner country cycle

14. From Joint Programming towards joint implementation  Joint Programming probably facilitates joint implementation  Division of labour within sectors:  sector mapping; who does what (best), donor roles (lead, active); managing exits; indicative allocations  Use toolkit on Division of Labour (June 2009)  From sector coordination towards:  joint analysis/appraisals and sector response; joint aid modalities (budget support, pooled funding, delegated cooperation, trust funds); sector dialogue; facilitating work with non-EU donors  Joint sector results frameworks:  joint goals/indicators built on partner country systems; joint monitoring, evaluation and reporting; ensure EU-visibility

15. The way forward 1. Focus on implementation of JP commitments by EU and MS, of course fully adapted to specific country conditions, as it fits best, based on recommendations by EUD and EU MS Embassies to do Joint Programming. 2. The way forward is typically described in “Roadmaps”, led by the EU Delegations. The way forward will be discussed country by country later in this workshop. 3. EU guidance will be finalized in the next few weeks. They are based on good practice, have been shared and discussed with all EU MS in the fourth quarter of 2014 on "experts" and directors general levels, and will provide a useful reference for all involved in JP on how to move forward. 4. Monitoring & Evaluation.

16. And further info on: http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu /joint-programming Write to europeaid-A2@ec.europa.eu to register

17. Regulation ENI on Joint Programming (1) (Whereas 16) … it is appropriate to provide for joint programming, which should be implemented whenever possible and relevant. … 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 … 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. The Commission shall report on joint programming with Member States within the report referred to in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2014, and shall include recommendations in cases where joint programming was not fully achieved.

18. Regulation ENI on Joint Programming (2) 7.2 comprehensive multiannual single support framework shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) No 236/2014. That framework shall: – (a) review the progress made in relation to the policy framework and the achievement of previously agreed objectives and take stock of the state of play as regards relations between the Union and the partner country, including the level of ambition for the partner country's partnership with the Union; – (b) set out the objectives and priorities for Union support, mainly selected from those included in the documents referred to in Article 3(2) of this Regulation and in the partner countries' strategies or plans, where those strategies or plans are consistent with the overall policy framework, and for which the Union's regular assessment has shown the need for support; – (c) indicate expected results; and – (d) set out the indicative level of funding, broken down by priority.

19. Regulation ENI on Joint Programming (3) 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.

20. Questions for break out sessions Group 1 How should we deal with the sometimes large differences in the size of aid programmes between European donors in Neighbourhood? How can we include headquarter led and regional programmes in a JP process? How can we ensure division of labour in this context? Group 2 What is the added value of JP in highly political and unstable environments? How can we increase the political relevance of JP processes and documents, for instance to focus more on the political aspects of JP (joint analysis/strategy)? Group 3 How can we implement JP in countries where aid is a relative low share of national income and where partner countries are not leading on development (aid coordination)? How can we increase/ensure ownership in these cases? Group 4 How can we use JP to implement specific Neighbourhood policies? How can we put JP in the context of the specific Neighbourhood approaches such as Association Agreements, ENI action plans and the Southern Mediterranean Investment Coordination initiative (AMICI)? Group 5 Request from the floor or: How do we apply the key elements of JP in Neighbourhood context? What are pragmatic solutions, for instance by working bottom-up through increased joint implementation at sector level?