Q3. Synchronisation

January 21st 2014 – Latin American Regional Workshop on Joint Programming

1.National cycles

Alignment with JPPolitical cycle to be taken into account -> after elections, the new Gov. might come

with a new Dev.plan (Point of syncronisation)

NO SYNCRONIZATION = NO JPYes syncronization, but positively influence in the National Dev. Agenda

Do partner countries ALL have significant cycles to align to?

If national dev.plan is lacking, base on other existing documents

Syncronisation: with partner countries / among ourselves?Syncronize among ourselves: focus on the added value we can bring as a whole

Positive effects of syncronization may help graduated implementation (?)

What if a MS does not participate in JP?Stick to minimum if som MS reluctant to support/enter int specific intervention area

Budget cycle? De-link JP document / funds - Indicative envelop

Syncronisation depends on budget planning of each MS

Need to establish a Roadmap, with specific objectives

Establish a facilitating group with a small number of MS + EU Delegation to draft the Roadmap / other JP documents

Taking advantage of previous joint interventions giving way to best practices

Clearly settle common milestones (joint response, joint analysis...) + the decisions taking systems (preferably at field level, jointly between MS and EUD

Syncronisation vs flexibility

Flexibility of ourselves (each institution) Contradictions within EU (1 MIP or 2 MIPs): EU Syncronisation

Rolling cycles

Encourage flexibility on the cooperation implementation

Find acceptable modalities of work with your HQ (eg. Regarding DoL)

Monitoring implementation (methodology)Lead time: 2-3 years to get national speed

2. Flexibility

Annual review strategyRegular information sharing

Transparency in the priorities agendaGive phasing in time (2-3 years) to adapt to cycles

Transition period useful for each EU donnor to be in a position to do JP

Syncronsization on

A) MS side: Extention or shortening up of the existing programming cycleB) EU side: Splitting the MIPs to syncronize with Government

3. Efforts made by MS to adapt their bilateral programming to the national cycle

Programming vs fulfilment

Keep political support from MS capitals to the process

Narrowing the goals of each national policy

Positive effects -> opportunity for concrete cooperation in projects

Transition period useful for each EU donnor to be in a position to do JP

Phases of entry: EU3, EU5, EU6