1 Technical Seminar on Joint Programming 27 November 2012 Session 3 Prospects for additional countries DEVCO/A3 Aid and Development Effectiveness and Financing EEAS VI.B.2 Development Cooperation Coordination Division

Purpose of this session  Present our assessment of JP potential and progress made in countries (additional to the six countries)  Collect Member States’ views on JP potential and progress made  Common understanding on prospects of JP for additional list of countries  To make it clear: we are not deciding in which countries JP should be taken on, but identify countries with potential and a way to move ahead (session 4)

Windows for synchronisation and JP

First issue for discussion  Do we in general support the proposal to move JP forward in an additional list of countries?

Second issue for discussion  What are the views on our assessment of the potential in the following 16 countries?

JP processes underway in 16 countries  Joint analysis started in: Bolivia, Burma/Myanmar and Burundi; as next step add additional elements of JP  Agreement on JP in: Cambodia (HoMs report), Honduras, Ivory Coast, Paraguay and Senegal to move ahead now or later  Option of JP discussed in: Algeria, Egypt, El Salvador, Liberia and Tanzania; further consultations needed  Follow-up to the Heads of Missions' report: Bangladesh, Moldova and Tunisia

Third issue for discussion  What are the views on other countries’ potential besides these 16 countries? To be discussed region by region (see next slides)

Joint Programming Potential (1)  West Africa: Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo  Central Africa: Burundi, Chad, Rwanda

Joint Programming Potential (2)  East Africa: Comoros, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania  Southern Africa: Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Joint Programming Potential (3)  Asia/Pacific: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Timor Leste, Vietnam  Latin America and Caribbean: Bolivia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay

Joint Programming Potential (4)  Neighbourhood East: Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, [Ukraine]  Neighbourhood South: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, oPt, Tunisia

12 Technical Seminar on Joint Programming 27 November 2012 Session 4 Next steps and facilitation DEVCO/A3 Aid and Development Effectiveness and Financing EEAS VI.B.2 Development Cooperation Coordination Division

EU Procedure for JP document (1)  For EU part in JP: apply same process /procedure in Brussels as for a bilateral/single proposal without JP  JP document in-country prepared under guidance of heads of missions; including required consultation (CSOs, etc.). This is where support by consultants could come in.  Once agreed by EU HoMs JP doc sent to EEAS and DEVCO; follow in-house assessment procedure (CTM, etc.)  HoD will see that MS and other donors handle the JP doc through their own system (including role of their capitals)

EU Procedure for JP document (2)  Following endorsement by HQs finalise JP in-country with partner country, then initialled by HoMs and if possible partner country  Final document to be transmitted by HoMs to capitals  Adoption and formalisation according to individual donor procedures/requirements Again: for the EU part, our own procedure apply: same as for single programming doc, but take account of Member States’ and other donor contributions  Consider signing ceremony (only after legal basis DCI or 11 th EDF)

Role of HQs: promotion & facilitation (1) EEAS/DEVCO will contiune to regularly inform and discuss with Member States:  Council: CODEV working group and FAC/DEV [placeholder: informal ministerial?]  EU Directors General meetings  Technical seminars

Role of HQs: promotion & facilitation (2)  Missions to EU MS capitals by EEAS/DEVCO  In-country support missions: EEAS/DEVCO (possible together with EU MS) and consultants  Joint programming training: open to Member States; option: train the trainers  Country desks: informal network/contacts with EU MS

How to assess JP feasibility in-country: HoMs reports  Transmission note to programming instructions:  ‘if in conducive circumstances for JP, then send Heads of Mission’s report’  Added value of HoMs reports:  Enables shared position of EU and MS on the ground  Positive experience in first wave ‘11-country’ exercise  HoMs reports for other countries recommended

Next steps  Technical Seminar on 27 November: - Present current progress - Present potential list of JP countries - Identify potential for additional JP countries  EU Development DGs meeting on December - Present, discuss and conclude on outcome of technical seminar  Request for HoMs JP feasibility assessment reports in countries identified

Issues for discussion  On the next steps for the additional countries: - What should we present to the EU DGs meeting? - how should we communicate with our field offices and ensure common/coherent messages  should the HoMs report approach be replicated?  How can we ensure that EU and Member States approval procedures of the actual JP documents go in parallel?  How should EEAS/DEVCO further inform/support Member States?