The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: Assessing a moving target

Keijzer, Niels; Burni, Aline; Erforth, Benedikt; Friesen, Ina Working Paper The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: Assessing a moving target Discussion Paper, No. 22/2021 Provided in Cooperation with: German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), Bonn Suggested Citation: Keijzer, Niels; Burni, Aline; Erforth, Benedikt; Friesen, Ina (2021) : The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: Assessing a moving target, Discussion Paper, No. 22/2021, ISBN 978-3-96021-162-4, Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Bonn, https://doi.org/10.23661/dp22.2021 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/240616 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Discussion Paper 22/2021 The Rise of the Team Europe Approach in EU Development Cooperation Assessing a Moving Target Niels Keijzer Aline Burni Benedikt Erforth Ina Friesen The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation Assessing a moving target Niels Keijzer Aline Burni Benedikt Erforth Ina Friesen Bonn 2021 Discussion Paper / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik ISSN (Print) 1860-0441 ISSN (Online) 2512-8698 Except as otherwise noted, this Open Access publication is free to read, share and adapt under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-96021-162-4 (printed edition) DOI:10.23661/dp22.2021 Printed on eco-friendly, certified paper Dr Niels Keijzer is a senior researcher with the research programme “Interand Transnational Cooperation” at the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). Email: [email protected] Dr Aline Burni is researcher with the research programme “Interand Transnational Cooperation” at the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). Email: [email protected] Dr Benedikt Erforth is researcher with the research programme “Interand Transnational Cooperation” at the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). Email: [email protected] Dr Ina Friesen is a researcher with the research programme “Interand Transnational Cooperation” at the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). Email: [email protected] Published with financial support by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) © Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik gGmbH Tulpenfeld 6, 53113 Bonn  +49 (0)228 94927-0  +49 (0)228 94927-130 Email: [email protected] http://www.die-gdi.de Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank their colleagues Julian Bergmann, Christine Hackenesch, Svea Koch and Frederik Stender for their helpful comments on a draft version of this paper. They also gratefully acknowledge the research assistance provided by Anna Hörter and Alma Wisskirchen. The authors wish to express their gratitude to all interviewees who contributed to the research inquiry. The views and opinions expressed in this paper, as well as any errors and omissions, are those of the authors. Contents Acknowledgements Abbreviations Executive summary 1 1 Introduction 5 2 Methodological considerations: analysing a moving target 7 3 The evolution of “Team Europe”: broadening scope and substance 8 3.1 The emergence of Team Europe during the first wave of COVID-19 (first half of 2020) 8 3.2 The expansion of a concept (mid-2020) 10 3.3 2021: Aligning Team Europe with the EU’s long-term ambitions 13 3.4 Perceptions of Team Europe by EU and member state officials 14 3.5 A closer look at the Team Europe Initiatives 15 3.6 Intermediate conclusions 17 4 Assessing Team Europe: visibility and flexibility prioritised over partner ownership and effectiveness 18 4.1 Visibility 21 4.2 Effectiveness 23 4.3 Ownership 25 4.4 Integration 29 5 Conclusions and policy recommendations: moving Team Europe forward 31 5.1 Increasing EU visibility 31 5.2 Striking the right balance 32 5.3 Policy recommendations to strengthen Team Europe 33 References 35 Figures Figure 1: Key dimensions associated with Team Europe and their assumed interlinkages 20 Tables Table 1: Contributions under Team Europe according to priority lines of action 9 Boxes Box 1: Team Europe sub-concepts 12 Box 2: Seven principles for TEIs 16 Box 3: Regional initiatives 17 Abbreviations COVAX COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access CSO civil society organisation DAC Development Assistance Committee DG Directorate General DG Meeting Directors General meeting EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EC European Commission EEAS European External Action Service EIB European Investment Bank EU European Union EUR Euro G7 Group of Seven G20 Group of Twenty INTPA International Partnerships MFF Multiannual Financial Framework MIP Multi-annual Indicative Programme MS member states NEAR Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations NDICI Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PCD Policy Coherence for Development PESCO Permanent Structured Cooperation TAIEX Technical Assistance and Information Exchange TE Team Europe TEI Team Europe Initiative(s) SDG Sustainable Development Goals UN United Nations WHO World Health Organization The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: assessing a moving target German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 1 Executive summary Objective of this paper This paper analyses the European Union’s (EU’s) evolving motivations, priorities and approaches to development cooperation under the label of “Team Europe”, following its introduction in April 2020 as the EU’s global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It assesses what Team Europe is, to what extent and how the Team Europe approach has changed EU development cooperation, and what effect it has had on EU initiatives to support partner countries. It also discusses the implications of Team Europe for the EU’s development policy in the medium and long term. By analysing the EU’s efforts, perceptions and considerations in relation to Team Europe, this paper contributes to further clarifying its content, objectives and expected results. For this reason, the paper’s analysis is primarily targeted at policy-makers co-shaping European development policy, yet may also inform academic debates on soft-law integration approaches in EU development policy. At the time this paper was being prepared, the COVID-19 pandemic and the EU’s policy discussion on how to respond to it through its external policies had been ongoing for over a year and had not yet reached an endpoint. Researching Team Europe therefore meant assessing a moving target. To research the EU’s evolving approach, the analysis is primarily based on 17 semi-structured interviews with 23 respondents, conducted between February and May 2021, and complemented by a review of relevant literature, policy statements, and public and grey policy documents. What is “Team Europe”? EU efforts under the label of “Team Europe” were launched in April 2020 and sought to provide an immediate and short-term financial response to the pandemic, through the combined efforts of the EU, its member states, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). These early efforts centred on mobilising EUR 36 billion – a sum comprising repurposed planned development interventions, grants and guarantee funding. After a ministerial meeting in June 2020, the scope of Team Europe expanded as new purposes and goals were added to the initial focus on financial support. The ministers emphasised that the EU’s longer-term external response to the pandemic should be addressed in the preparation of strategies for allocating European funding under the next seven-year budget cycle (2021–2027) that were still under negotiation at that time. Beyond the EU’s own development cooperation engagement, Team Europe was also increasingly used to refer to the EU’s efforts to support the multilateral system, specifically those multilateral initiatives directly addressing the pandemic. In this paper, Team Europe is considered as a process that operates on three levels. At country level, EU delegations and member state missions and embassies are invited to work together in order to bring to the fore country-level packages. This coordination exercise is continued at the HQ level, where member states agree on common policies within the Foreign Affairs Council. Lastly, Team Europe aims to strengthen the internal Niels Keijzer et al. 8 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 3 The evolution of “Team Europe”: broadening scope and substance Following the prioritisation in the European Consensus on Development, in 2006 the European Commission presented proposals under the title “EU aid: delivering more, better and faster”, which placed key emphasis on joint programming of development cooperation between the Community and the member states (EC, 2006). The emphasis on joint programming increased even more after the global economic and financial crisis in 2008– 2009. Joint programming refers to a structured planning process whereby the EU and member states with an in-country presence seek to develop a joint strategy fully aligned to the partner country’s national development plan. As such, it provides a basis for joint action. According to Commission self-reporting, joint programming is currently implemented in 78 developing countries.1 Since the member states have not been willing to delegate further development policy competences to the European level, the Lisbon Treaty, efforts to strengthen the EU’s collective effectiveness in development cooperation are pursued by soft-law initiatives, and joint programming remains key to pursuing this objective (Orbie & Lightfoot, 2017; Kugiel, 2020; Bergmann, Delputte, Keijzer, & Verschaeve, 2019). Against this background, the pursuit of enhanced coordination of EU and member states’ development policies by the Team Europe approach is not fully new. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic and the current geopolitical competition represent a critical juncture as they offer a greater impetus for the EU’s collective, coordinated, flexible and prompt action to support partner countries to face global challenges. When the work on this paper began in early 2021, the term Team Europe had been in use for just over a year. Over the course of 2020, the term Team Europe evolved from an emphasis on the “what” (COVID-19-related development funding) to an increased focus on the “who” (EU institutions, member states, and development finance institutions) and the “how” (the EU and its member states working together) dimensions. This section presents a policy reconstruction of Team Europe, based on an analysis of key policy proposals and public communication from the European Commission, as well as the political statements adopted by EU ministers responsible for development policy (Council Conclusions) in June 2020 and April 2021 (Council of the EU, 2020; 2021a). The European Parliament has been informed by the European Commission of its proposals in relation to Team Europe, though it is not directly involved or providing scrutiny of the efforts under this label. The section provides a dynamic interpretation of Team Europe as per its definition and use within EU development policy processes during this period. The purpose of this section is to provide a framework to guide the analysis of the evolving conceptualisation of Team Europe. 3.1 The emergence of Team Europe during the first wave of COVID-19 (first half of 2020) In a blog post published on 28 March 2020, the European Commissioner for International Partnerships Jutta Urpilainen emphasised that the COVID-19 pandemic required a global response. She called on the EU and its member states to mobilise all tools and resources that could contribute to this international response. In order to effectively manage these contributions, the EU’s approach would need to be “as coordinated as it is comprehensive”, 1 For more information, see the European Commission’s Joint Programming Dashboard: https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/joint-programming-tracker/ The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: assessing a moving target German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 9 and the EU and its member states should “work together as a real Team Europe” (Urpilainen, 2020). The idea of Team Europe as presented in the Commissioner’s blog post was that the EU should coordinate its response in dialogue with its partners, but also make “efforts to form a united front against the pandemic with other major international players, partner governments, financial institutions, civil society, the private sector and others” (Urpilainen, 2020). The ambition to form a united front should be seen in the context of the increased geo-political competition during the pandemic and the EU’s aspiration to position itself as a global leader and reliable partner (Burni, et al., 2021). Hence, the term Team Europe emphasises European self-coordination – in contrast to earlier European approaches to development policy, which, at least rhetorically, focused on partner coordination and sought to strengthen the leadership of developing country governments (Lundsgaarde & Keijzer, 2018). Following the announcement in the Commissioner’s blog post, the proposals for Team Europe were formally presented on 8 April 2020, when the European Commission issued a Joint Communication on the EU’s Global response to COVID-19 (EC, 2020a). The document emphasised the need for rapid action and proposed prioritising the mobilisation of financial support to partner countries in order to help them cope with the pandemic and its consequences. It was announced that “Team Europe” would attract “contributions from all EU institutions and combine (…) the resources mobilised by EU member states and financial institutions, in particular the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)” with the objective of providing “a critical mass that few others can match” (EC, 2020a, p. 1). Team Europe was presented as an example that the EU, under a geopolitical Commission, was ready to take responsibility on the global stage and to lead the fight against the pandemic (EC, 2020a, p. 1). The Communication presented three Team Europe priorities: 1) support for the urgent, short-term emergency response to humanitarian needs; 2) the strengthening of health systems; and 3) the mitigation of economic and social consequences. The Communication laid out a table with the individual contributions for each priority, totalling EUR 15.6 billion. The bulk of the contributions were dedicated to the mitigation of expected economic and social consequences caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The geographic focus of Team Europe was turned on the most affected countries in need of health support, including countries in Africa, the Neighbourhood, the Western Balkans, the Middle East and North Africa, parts of Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition, Team Europe aimed to address the needs of the most vulnerable people, including migrants, refugees, internally displaced persons and their host communities (EC, 2020a, p. 1). Table 1: Contributions under Team Europe according to priority lines of action Priority line of action EU contribution to Team Europe package (EUR million) Support the urgent, short-term emergency response to humanitarian needs 502 (3.2%) Support to strengthen health systems 2,858 (18.3%) Mitigation of economic and social consequences 12,281 (78.5%) Total 15,641 Source: Adapted from EC 2020a, p.10. Niels Keijzer et al. 10 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) In line with these official objectives and motivations, the EU’s approach to Team Europe during the first wave of COVID-19 focused on a rapid and visible response and the pooling of financial resources by the EU, the member states, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). These contributions would throw a lifeline to the most affected countries until the end of 2020. Planning beyond this point proved difficult, as the EU, the member states and the Parliament were still in the process of negotiating a new EU budget for the period 2021–2027. Not being able to access “fresh” funds, the EU had to redirect budgets of other cooperation programmes/instruments. These budget constraints in part explain Team Europe’s initial emphasis on the mobilisation of development finance and its short-term focus (Burni et al., 2021). Taken together, the Joint Communication of 8 April 2020 served the purpose of displaying the EU’s combined weight in the international system as the world’s foremost civilian power and provider of development cooperation and stern defender of multilateralism and global coordination. The EU did not miss the opportunity to link this display of power to its normative ambitions and orientations, in an attempt to differentiate itself from other global powers. The Communication stressed that both the EU’s core values and strategic interests should guide any European response, stating that “the EU will continue to promote and uphold good governance, human rights, the rule of law, gender equality and nondiscrimination, decent work conditions, as well as fundamental values and humanitarian principles”. Finally, the document emphasised the EU’s commitment to multilateralism by stating that the EU “will put its full weight behind the UN Secretary General’s efforts to coordinate UN-wide response” (EU, 2020a, p. 1) and further elaborated on the wide range of multilateral actors (WHO, G7, G20) it was going to coordinate its response with. Although the Communication did not clarify the internal architecture and practical implementation of Team Europe, it indicated that it was not a stand-alone short-term crisis management tool, but would further integrate the EU’s long-term objectives, such as the European Green Deal, and the Digital Agenda. 3.2 The expansion of a concept (mid-2020) As the term “Team Europe” became better known and gained political traction over the summer of 2020, its conceptualisation expanded beyond the initial focus on short-term bilateral cooperation support. The President of the European Commission played a key role in expanding the understanding of Team Europe. Responding to the call from the World Health Organization (WHO) for a global collaboration for the development, production and equitable global access to new health technologies, Ursula von der Leyen took a leading role in setting up a high-profile pledging conference on 4 May 2020, which aimed at raising EUR 7.5 billion to develop a “universal and affordable” vaccine (EU [European Union], 2020b). Accelerating research efforts to develop effective treatments, vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics, and ensuring their universal availability at an affordable price had already been identified as one of the key challenges in the fight against the pandemic in the 8 April Joint Communication. After almost reaching the goal by raising EUR 7.4 billion (EC, 2020b), the Commission launched a new campaign with the international advocacy organisation Global Citizen, “Global Goal: Unite For Our Future”. This campaign had raised EUR 15.9 billion by the end of June 2020 and The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: assessing a moving target German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 11 the European Commission stated that “Team Europe” had contributed significantly to the success of the pledging summit (Burni et al., 2021). Rooted in the EU’s aspiration to present itself as a capable global leader, Team Europe actions were accompanied by coordinated communication campaigns about the engagement and cooperation with partners (EU, 2020a, p. 3). The preparation of political statements on Team Europe also played a key role in systematising and confirming the expansion of Team Europe. Statements like the June 2020 Council Conclusions on the one hand confirmed and took stock of existing approaches, and on the other hand allowed for the addition of new purposes and processes under the Team Europe label. EU ministers responsible for development cooperation reconvened in the Foreign Affairs Council on 8 June to adopt Council Conclusions on Team Europe, a political statement (Council of the EU, 2020) and an updated table with financial contributions by all associated official EU actors. The Council Conclusions stated the Council’s full support of the Team Europe approach and its policy priorities and highlighted the role of EU Delegations in coordinating and ensuring inclusive participation of all member states’ diplomatic networks, European financial institutions, and other relevant actors at country level, in line with their commitment to joint programming and joint implementation, which, since 2018, has been referred to as the “Working Better Together approach” (Council of the EU, 2020, p. 3). The Council Conclusions further stressed the “importance of a joint, swift, visible, and transparent action of Team Europe, in full coordination with partner countries and the UN”, emphasising the essential role of country ownership as well as cooperation with civil society organisations and the private sector. During the summer period, the EU’s delegations all over the world began to prepare the thematic choices for EU development cooperation during the next EU budget period 2021– 2027. During this preparatory process, known in EU-speak as “pre-programming”, EU heads of cooperation were instructed to begin a dialogue with member states’ embassies in partner countries to determine joint flagships. Joint flagships were groups of projects and programmes targeting a common theme and were subsequently presented under the label of Team Europe Initiatives. The changing focus on expanding Team Europe beyond its short-term activities was further demonstrated during the preparations of Council Conclusions under the German EU Presidency. Initial discussions for these Council Conclusions considered adding debt relief and multilateral action as new areas to be considered as part of the Team Europe approach. The Council Conclusions on Team Europe were initially planned to be adopted by the end of 2020, yet only came into being on 23 April 2021 due to some member states’ sensitivities around agreed language on gender equality (Council of the EU, 2021a). The term “Team Europe” subsequently appeared in four Council statements on development policy adopted on 14 June 2021, illustrating the notion’s general acceptance by policy-makers. Although these statements addressed different topics, including middle-income countries, overall development finance figures, human development and the architecture for external investment, they all found grounds for making Team Europe references, indicating that the term had been truly mainstreamed in development debates. With no officially adopted definition between the EU institutions and the member states, variations of the term have also begun to emerge. Box 1 presents the various “sub-concepts” that feature in the policy Niels Keijzer et al. 12 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) discussions, with working definitions representing the authors’ interpretation of the terms, as derived from the statements in which they appear. Box 1: Team Europe sub-concepts Team Europe Approach EU support to partner countries’ short-term needs and longer-term programmes to counter structural impacts of COVID-19 on societies and the economy, in the spirit of “building back better and greener” (Council of the EU, 2021b). Alternative definition: reference to European external investment actors working together as opposed to independently from one another (linked to “European Financial Architecture for Development”) (Council of the EU, 2021d). Team Europe Toolbox The combination of financial (official development assistance (ODA) and investments) and non-financial (technical assistance and dialogue) instruments that the EU and the member states have at their disposal to cooperate with middle-income countries (Council of the EU, 2021c) Team Europe Spirit Refers to commitment of EU and member states to contribute their share to ensuring optimal visibility and effective communication of Team Europe (Council of the EU, 2021c). Source: Authors Due to the political traction it gathered, the term “Team Europe” has been increasingly used in other contexts beyond international development cooperation. One example concerns the use of the term “Team Europe approach” by EU ministers responsible for migration policy.2 This paper will, however, restrict its analysis to the use of Team Europe within the confines of EU development policy. The Commission’s Communication “Strategic Foresight”, published on 9 September 2020, introduced “resilience” as the new compass for EU policy-making and specified ways in which the EU could future-proof its policies and increase its resilience. This document presents a much stronger connection between Team Europe and the EU’s global positioning than the previous documents. Pointing to the geopolitical void left by the United States’ and China’s willingness to assume a bigger role on the global stage, the Communication presented Team Europe as a key instrument to increase the EU’s geopolitical resilience through the mobilisation of strategic resources for humanitarian and development aid and the EU’s insistence on global accessibility of COVID-19 vaccines and medicines (EC, 2020c, p. 14). At the Foreign Affairs Council held in Brussels on 21 September 2020 “Team Europe” was referred to as an example of cooperation to be followed in the EU’s relation to the African Union for the next decade. Team Europe, here, was no longer connected to the COVID-19 response alone but to the ministers’ decision to develop joint strategic priorities and to focus on tangible results. At the video conference of development ministers two months later on 23 November 2020, ministers discussed how Team Europe could better complement debt relief efforts at multilateral and country level, and support partner countries in preparing a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. 2 See https://twitter.com/josepborrellf/status/1371588253850083328?lang=en The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: assessing a moving target German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 13 3.3 2021: Aligning Team Europe with the EU’s long-term ambitions The Commission’s Communication “A united front to beat COVID-19” of 19 January 2021 stated that Team Europe had delivered two external response packages in 2020: (1) the EUR 38.5 billion recovery package, including EUR 449 million in the form of humanitarian aid and (2) EUR 853 million in support of COVAX mobilised through Team Europe, making the EU as a whole COVAX’s biggest donor” (EC, 2021, p. 9-10). The Communication further suggested setting up an EU Vaccine Sharing Mechanism, which would structure the provision of vaccines shared by member states with partner countries through the “proven Team Europe approach”, with special attention to be given to the Western Balkans, the Eastern and Southern neighbourhood and Africa (EC, 2021, p. 11). The Council Conclusions on Team Europe from 23 April 2021 clearly demonstrated that Team Europe had been broadened over the course of the previous year and was now a constitutive part of the EU’s long-term policy ambitions, including the achievement of the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the goals of the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, the document emphasised that Team Europe is “fully committed to the promotion of an environmentally friendly recovery and investments in ambitious climate action in line with the objectives of the European Green Deal”, that it contributes to inclusive and sustainable economies and societies and boosts resilience in order to reduce the risk of future crises (EC, 2021, p. 3). A core element of Team Europe’s commitment to improving global health is to ensure fair and equitable global access to safe, affordable and effective vaccines (EC, 2021, p. 4). In contrast to previous documents, these Council Conclusions provide details on how the members of Team Europe are meant to achieve these ambitious goals. Stating that Team Europe acts in line with partner countries’ development needs and priorities, the document instructs all members of Team Europe to work together “in an inclusive and coordinated manner” and “to closely coordinate and jointly design, implement and monitor Team Europe Initiatives in an inclusive manner” (EC, 2021, p. 5). This includes “proactive information sharing, close consultation, coordination and flexibility” (p. 2), increasing the visibility of their joint engagement as Team Europe in a strategic manner, and using the new visual identity of Team Europe (EC, 2021, p. 4). The goal of these efforts is not only to achieve a sustainable recovery from the pandemic but also to further increase the effectiveness of the EU's joint engagement beyond the crisis (EC, 2021, p. 4). Finally, yet importantly, the Council’s statement refers to the Team Europe Initiatives (TEIs) in relation to ongoing efforts to promote joint programming and implementation in EU development policy, albeit without detailing the nature of this relationship. It states that “The Council emphasises that safeguarding coherence regarding the programming of EU funds under the envisaged Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) is essential, in particular with regard to the relationship between TEIs and Joint Programming/Working Better Together.” In view of the central role and place of TEIs in current policy discussions on Team Europe, and indeed in the wider EU development policy debate, the remainder of this section presents the interviewees’ perception of Team Europe, the evolving understanding of TEIs, their objectives and the process through which they are being elaborated. Niels Keijzer et al. 14 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 3.4 Perceptions of Team Europe by EU and member state officials In order to complement the conceptualisation of Team Europe presented in the policy documents with its perception by EU and member state officials, we asked the interviewees what they understood Team Europe to be. The majority of the respondents described the approach as “a brand”, “a label”, “a marketing strategy”, and “a communication strategy” aimed at giving more visibility to the EU’s engagement in partner countries. Interestingly, the respondents did not acknowledge the added value of the pooling of funds that was presented by the Commission as the core innovation of the Team Europe approach. The perception of Team Europe as a brand demonstrates the crucial role the aim to increase the EU’s visibility played in the approach and implies that Team Europe is primarily understood as a self-focused image campaign. As pointed out by one interviewee, Team Europe was not a new approach but a mere re-branding of what the EU is (or should) already be doing, as it is the EU Delegations’ task to promote synergies and coherence between member states and increase the EU’s visibility in partner countries. Reflecting on the origin of the term “Team Europe”, which was supposedly first coined by Director-General Koen Doens and inspired by Belgium’s slogan for its national team “Team Belgium”, one respondent pointed out that the conceptual reference to a sports team with a winner and a loser at the end of the game had initially raised concerns. The respondent reported that some actors raised questions regarding the relationship between Team Europe and Team Africa and asked whether Team Europe would be playing against Team Africa. Particularly in relation to the colonial past, concerns were raised that Team Europe would become a self-referential discourse. Another respondent failed to see the added value of the concept, arguing that the multitude of different terms and concepts within the EU was confusing to developing countries, who had difficulty understanding the difference between the Commission and the member states. However, overall, Team Europe is perceived as a welcome approach. Smaller member states, in particular, appreciate the inclusive approach of Team Europe as it opens the possibility of engaging partner countries with whom they had not previously collaborated. These member states thus suggest that Team Europe has an increased, if not an entirely new, emphasis on inclusivity. Whereas some member states perceived the change from the COVID-19-focused Team Europe approach to the broader concept as gradual, others stated that the change was sudden and it only occurred to them that Team Europe was here to stay when the list of TEIs was distributed in autumn 2020. This difference in awareness of the change in the concept might be a reflection of different member states’ engagement and integration in the discussion process. The proliferation of the term Team Europe to describe any measures by the EU led several interviewees to caution that it was not clear whether everyone referring to Team Europe knew what Team Europe was and how it originated. Some see the broadening of Team Europe and different actors’ wish to shape it as a natural process, whereas others pointed to the danger of some actors “hijacking” Team Europe for their own purposes and making it too broad. Those respondents wanting Team Europe to be closely aligned with the EU’s development agenda stated that the increasingly broad application of the term might not be welcome. In spite of these different views on the broadening of the concept, respondents The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: assessing a moving target German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 15 demonstrated a shared understanding of Team Europe as an approach that was here to stay, even if its content might change with time. Discussing the implementation of the Team Europe approach, the majority of our respondents focused on Team Europe Initiatives that will be elaborated on in the following section. 3.5 A closer look at the Team Europe Initiatives Team Europe Initiatives (TEIs) are joint activities by the EU, its member states, and the European development finance institutions. The TEIs were initially exclusively national in focus and presented key “flagships” for a joint EU engagement in the bilateral cooperation with the country concerned on a limited number of topics. The preparation of these TEIs in the EU’s partner countries began in summer 2020 and has been led by the EU delegations, in cooperation with other member states and, when applicable, the EIB and EBRD.3 All the EU actors present in a given country were free to suggest, design, finance and implement TEIs, which should bring together the best possible mix of modalities, tools and partners (e.g. civil society organisations (CSOs) and the private sector). At a later stage in the process, efforts were made also to associate “non-resident member states” with selected TEIs, based on their interest.4 While the preparation of TEIs showed important differences from one country to another and was as much driven by informal networking and personalities as by instructions from Brussels, the most recent Council Conclusions determined some key features, presented in Box 2. TEIs are financed both from the EU budget – and are therefore guided by NDICI programming guidelines – and by the participating EU member states. The joint programming processes at country level should reflect and incorporate the Team Europe Initiatives, and, in turn, TEIs that are identified should feed into the ongoing and future joint programming processes (EU, n.d.). 3 An exception concerns the countries under the EU’s neighbourhood policy who, with the exception of Libya, have adopted bilateral association agreements with the EU. The partnership priorities for cooperation are developed jointly by the EU and the country concerned, and subsequently serve as the basis for potential TEIs, which is why, for these countries, the preparation of TEIs started in 2021. 4 The term “non-resident member states” refers to EU member states that do not have an embassy or other kind of permanent representation in the country concerned. Niels Keijzer et al. 16 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) Box 2: Seven principles for TEIs 1. TEIs need to aim to achieve the greatest transformative impact and systemic change in line with the policy first principle and the strategic objectives and values of the EU. TEIs need to contribute to the objectives and targets under the envisaged NDICI. TEIs need to be planned in a strategic and coherent manner, be linked to political and policy dialogues, and to support reforms. 2. TEIs need to be aligned with the development needs and priorities of partner countries. They need to be designed and implemented through participation with relevant partners, including those implementing actions on the ground. 3. TEIs need to abide by the principles of transparency and accountability, sustainability, effectiveness and results, “do no harm”, country ownership and inclusive partnership. 4. TEIs need to leverage the development potential of the private sector and civil society, and support and empower their independent and active role in democratic transformation. 5. TEIs need to build towards increasing the use of Joint Programming as the preferred approach, where feasible. They can also draw on bilateral engagements of member states and other Team Europe members. Established Joint Programming procedures should be reviewed to increase speed, usability and flexibility. 6. TEIs need to be set-up at country and regional/multi-country level. Thematic TEIs should be explored at global level. 7. TEIs need to be regularly monitored and evaluated and, if need be, adjusted. Source: Council of the EU (2021a) The list of TEIs is currently available to Member States but not to the public and other stakeholders, including those based in the countries where the TEIs will be pursued. Although the level of information on the individual TEIs varies, they do not seem to follow a common framework, although were systematically included in the EU’s Multi-Annual Indicative Plans for the period 2021–2027. Overviews of geographic TEIs have been circulated to working-level member state representatives, with those TEIs that have advanced furthest in their preparation having been presented as two “batches” of 48 and 50 initiatives during informal meeting of EU Directors General in February and May 2021. While these informal meeting of EU Directors General do not allow for formal decisions to be taken, with the Commission and EEAS instead circulating minutes in the form of “operational conclusions”, the regular meetings provided an important channel for dialogue and feedback between the EU and its member states about Team Europe. As the preparation of national TEIs gained speed and enthusiasm, discussions about the idea of potential regional or global TEIs continued. This enthusiasm came, in particular, from Europe-based stakeholders, who were discussing the TEIs in a number of seminars held during the first half of 2021. The preparation of these regional and global TEIs, still ongoing, was inevitably conducted in a more top-down manner than were the national TEIs. A number of criteria were considered for the regional TEIs, which are presented in Box 3. The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: assessing a moving target German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 17 Box 3: Regional initiatives The regional initiatives are currently being planned. In order to qualify as a regional TEI the proposed initiative must adhere to the following principles: • The initiative must address regional challenges that require a collective regional (or multi-country) response and provide real added value to country programming from a multi-country, regional or continental perspective. • It must be underpinned by strategic (joint) policy dialogue that aims to support transformational change by delivering concrete results for the region/sub-region and partner countries. • It must address critical regional bottlenecks that constrain the development at country, multi-country, regional or continental level. • The initiative must be open to all members of Team Europe who are interested in working together in the design, financing, implementation and monitoring of TEI actions. • As for the geographic coverage, a TEI must target a minimum of three partner countries. • At least four Team Europe members have to make a financial contribution to the initiative. In regions or specific sectors where few European actors operate, a TEI can be set up by two Team Europe members who must follow the criteria for national TEIs. • As for Sub-Saharan Africa and sectors where sufficient EU actors exist, the NDICI–Global Europe financial contribution should, in principle, not exceed 50% of the total (indicative) amount of a TEI, with the remaining contribution being covered by other participating Team Europe members. In other regions, the EU contribution should, in principle, not exceed 70%. • A TEI proposal should ensure partner country ownership, with Team Europe members securing the buy-in of existing regional bodies/institutions, national governments and other key stakeholders • A TEI should include concrete interlinkages between results that fall under two or more priority areas of the relevant regional Multi-Annual Indicative Plans (MIPs) and/or address crosscutting issues. For regions where the number of priority areas in the regional MIP is fewer than three, the results could fall under one or more priority areas. Synergies and complementarities between country and regional MIPs should be maximised. Source: European Commission (n.d.) 3.6 Intermediate conclusions The above reconstruction of the policy discussion around Team Europe shows an expanding approach as opposed to a redirection of Team Europe: over time new purposes and goals were added, rather than earlier efforts being replaced. This is a natural effect of a simultaneously pragmatic and opportunistic approach that mainly aims to increase the visibility of Team Europe. Although Team Europe started as an immediate response to COVID-19, the approach can now be seen as embracing both the shortand medium-term health, social and economic consequences of the pandemic, and the subsequent containment measures. Beyond the EU’s own development cooperation engagement, Team Europe is also increasingly used to refer to the EU’s efforts to strengthen the shaken multilateral system and enhance its resilience, as well as to exercise Europe’s leadership in the world and advance the EU’s priority agendas. To this end, Team Europe is a process that operates on three levels. At country level EU delegations and member state missions and embassies are invited to work together in order formulate country-level ‘packages’. This exercise in coordination is continued at the HQ Niels Keijzer et al. 24 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) First, the lack of focus on effectiveness might be explained by the early stage of the discussion of TEIs, which may only begin to be implemented over the course of 2021 and at a later stage in Neighbourhood countries, for which TEI preparations started only in 2021. At this stage, in fact, respondents showed different understandings and expectations of what it will mean for TEIs to be “implemented” and how much joint work this will entail. However, effectiveness has to be taken into account from the very start of an initiative and not be an afterthought once the initiative is up and running. One respondent pointed out that the monitoring requirement for TEIs were established quickly, requiring quarterly inquiries regarding the transfer of funds. Other respondents were more cautious, questioning what will happen to the funding and wondering whether they will ever see reporting on what the money will be used for. Second, it can be argued that in this early, formative, stage of preparing TEIs it was not yet possible or a priority to think about and plan for effectiveness. In part, this was due to various different individual interests. In addition, the TEIs were perceived as “packages”, i.e. as the sum of what the EU and the member states would support in terms of cooperation on a specific theme or topic, rather than a joined-up strategy. At the level of individual interventions by the EU and the member states that contribute to TEIs, it is likely that effectiveness will be considered as part of the established planning processes. This approach to planning could potentially evolve in those cases where TEIs were prepared in and are expected to contribute to EU joint programming and joint implementation processes, where expectations for collective effectiveness would likely need to be clarified. Thirdly, the main understanding among respondents at this stage was that TEIs served first and foremost to promote EU visibility. Some noted that the EU does not experience a lack of means to contribute to global development, but a lack of recognition for what it does. They expected that this perceived discrepancy between the size of Europe’s contribution to global development and the assessment of this contribution by others could be adjusted by means of Team Europe. For that reason, effectiveness was frequently linked to the extent to which Team Europe efforts could deliver on the visibility returns that the EU and the member states expected. Though the assessment of the potential of Team Europe to increase EU aid effectiveness varies among different actors, most do share the conviction that it has to provide good results and success stories on the ground and demonstrate what the EU is capable of delivering, especially in light of the geopolitical competition with China. This said, current discussions on TEIs did pay particular attention to the effectiveness of the process. On the one hand, the process was perceived by member state respondents as flexible and responsive, and, as such, as effective. Several interviewees referred repeatedly to the informal meetings at EU Director General (DG) level, at which member states could suggest changes to the approach laid out by the Commission and EEAS. Specifically, member states were satisfied with the follow-up of the concerns they expressed on issues, such as: (1) how to involve non-resident member states in the preparation of selected TEIs that had been prepared under the leadership of the EU Delegation and member states with a presence in the country; and (2) how to enable member states with smaller bilateral cooperation programmes and budgets to contribute to TEIs. While valuing this degree of flexibility, other respondents did express concerns over the lack of process effectiveness in terms of the difficulty of anticipating and committing to the planning process moving forward. During one of the meetings of DGs the Commission The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: assessing a moving target German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 25 suggested that they were constructing the path while walking, which was understandable for the above reasons and successful to date but did leave several operational questions unanswered for the member states. It is for this reason that some maintained that, while being different from the standard EU programming period linked to the budget instruments, the TEIs were part of it and would therefore have to be approved through the established comitology process in which member states approve the EU’s country strategies and programmes as prepared. Some respondents suggested that Team Europe makes EU development cooperation more effective because the common approach allows for better prioritisation. More critical interviewees pointed out that it was not clear how the collective efforts would increase the effectiveness of EU cooperation, since the approach did not include any special mechanisms or special features that would ensure better efficiency. The fact that most member states point out that they are only proposing TEI for areas in which they are already engaged can mean that they apply (and perhaps extend) existing know-how. However, following a business-as-usual routine can also mean that member states do not use the chance to change and increase effectiveness. Moreover, the dynamic whereby TEIs seek also to include contributions by member states not present in the country or region represents a potential source of innovation and complementarity, but also a potential for experimentation and trialby-error. While some cooperation approaches may be successfully introduced in new countries, such as an increased use of twinning, they also have the potential to be ineffective in the region for a host of reasons. All in all, the experiment that Team Europe in essence represents, as a new way of working between the EU, the member states and implementing institutions, creates tensions with the ambition to be successful in terms of providing a visible and effective European contribution to global development. 4.3 Ownership Although not prominent in the public communication about Team Europe, the concept of ownership represents an important element of EU development cooperation in general. We understand national ownership as the idea that cooperation choices should be jointly determined with and supported by partner country governments. In other words, to display some level of national ownership, the mobilisation of existing and new funds, as well as the development of innovative crisis response tools under Team Europe, should be in line with partner countries’ needs and expectations. In today’s EU development policy debate, the concept of ownership mediates the objective of a more assertive EU approach to cooperation that is explicit about its interests and values, and a strong emphasis on the desire to reorient the EU’s existing partnerships with third countries and regions away from what is commonly referred to as a “donor–recipient” relationship. In this context, the EU seeks to modernise the notion of development cooperation as consisting of relations between equals, which is reflected in the mainstreaming of the term “partnerships” under the current EU Commission. The policy discussion suggests that the EU may articulate its interests while at the same time remaining sufficiently demand-driven in its cooperation approach. Rather than recognising the trade-offs between both goals, the EU’s approach in the context of the TEIs seeks to square the circle by using a static understanding of ownership, whereby ownership is assumed if cooperation choices focus on priorities reflected in a country’s national Niels Keijzer et al. 26 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) development strategy. This is in contrast to a dynamic understanding of ownership, whereby ownership is present when “actors involved in a dedicated development co-operation relationship consider their involvement in terms of control over process and substance to be both sufficient and desirable over time” (see Keijzer & Black, 2020, p. O6). The principle of ownership plays a relevant role in the Council Conclusions on Team Europe Global Response to COVID-19 from 8 June 2020, which emphasised that the allocation of resources to partner countries should be based on a joint needs assessment in cooperation with partner countries and aligned with their response plans to COVID-19 (Council of the EU, 2020, p. 8). As a potential trade-off to this endeavour, the Council further states that Team Europe should be implemented in line with the EU’s broad external policy strategy and values, namely “promoting equitable, sustainable and inclusive recovery processes in line with the Green Deal” (Council of the EU, 2020, p. 3). In June 2020, the Council highlighted in its Conclusions “the role of EU Delegations in coordinating and ensuring inclusive participation of all member states’ diplomatic networks, including European development agencies, the EIB and other European financial institutions, as well as other relevant actors at country level, in line with the Working Better Together approach”. The Council further stressed the importance of coordinating Team Europe packages with partner countries’ and other international donors’ efforts. Even though there is no explicit definition of “country ownership” in official communications, the idea that EU support should take into account the needs of partners is present in Team Europe, although not prominently (Council of the EU, 2020). The order of priorities as presented in the Council’s statement appears to suggest that the EU sought to promote ownership primarily among European actors participating in TEIs and, in the second instance, among non-European actors, including stakeholders in the partner countries. In general, the EU’s understanding of country ownership is first and foremost inwardlooking. Resulting from intra-European coordination, EU support is aligned with the partner country’s needs as expressed in its official long-term strategies. This approach rests on two key assumptions. First of all, it assumes that the partner country concerned is sufficiently politically stable to ensure long-term commitment to the adopted strategies, as opposed to going through democratic changes in government whereby such strategies may undergo a change. Secondly, it suggests that governments are sufficiently representative of the electorate, as are, by extension, the national development plans they adopt. Specific mechanisms of participation or consultation seem equally absent from the Team Europe framework. However, the key coordinating role of EU delegations is often stressed. Both EU and member state representatives consider EU delegations as the main actors in establishing dialogue with partner countries and communicating their prospects to EU headquarters. This understanding refers primarily to national TEIs, whereas regional and global TEIs are mainly driven by headquarters. When asked about ownership, interviewees often only mentioned the EU delegations, which suggests that stakeholders tend to assume that the delegations’ job is to ensure country ownership. The preparation of regional and global TEIs was led by Brussels-based stakeholders, while at this level there was no standardised equivalence of a national development plan to align these to. The principles suggested for regional TEIs (see Box 3; section 2) call for efforts to The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: assessing a moving target German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 27 ensure “buy-in of existing regional bodies/institutions, national governments and other key stakeholders”, which also suggests that the formulation of these TEIs is led by European stakeholders. In the case of one such regional TEI targeting investment in Africa, which was launched at the Summit on Financing African Economies hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on 18 May 2021, several consultations were made in preparation. This included an online seminar during the week before the summit, where ample consultation was enabled, though with the agenda set by the EU.6 Overall, our findings show that only limited attention to partner country “ownership” was present in official documentation and in the daily work on Team Europe by EU and member state representatives. Team Europe is somehow concerned with partner country’s needs and approval, but this appears as an underlying or accessory principle, which is also present in other EU initiatives. EU initiatives have been described as being conducted “in dialogue”, “aligned” or “in consultation” with partner countries. In other words, “ownership” is not prominent in or exclusive to Team Europe. The degree of engagement strongly depends, however, on the level of the project itself and the expectations of the partner country. Interviewees from the EU and member states emphasised that the EU does not propose anything “without discussing or getting the approval of partners”. One interviewee went as far as saying that partner countries were not at the centre of the Team Europe discussions, which they did not perceive as a major problem or something negative. Another group of interviewees stated that partner countries have different expectations of the EU. Some countries want to “see quick action” and wish to have things “delivered”, regardless of the “brand” attached to it. Other partners are more active and precise when communicating their priorities to the EU. As an example, one interviewee mentioned that when EU headquarters collected the demands of partner countries, while one of them proposed three Team Europe Initiatives (TEIs), another proposed a single initiative. Therefore, they concluded, partner countries differ in their approaches and levels of engagement, as well as priorities regarding EU support. One respondent mentioned that no objections about the (lack of) involvement of partner countries have been heard so far, and if there were problems of this kind, “the EU would have heard complaints”. From the interviews, we could discern that Team Europe has not been perceived as something new by partner countries, but rather that it is deemed a continuation of the status quo. While there is a bottom-line agreement that TEIs are to be designed in cooperation with partner countries, our interviews show that Team Europe has not put a mechanism for feedback or consultation with partner countries in place. The process and outputs of the consultation with partner countries predominantly depend on the work conducted by EU delegations on the ground and their reports to Brussels. In fact, several interviewees pointed out that dialogue with partners depends mainly on the EU delegation in place and that it is largely driven by personalities and good relations on the ground, as opposed to detailed instructions from Brussels. One interviewee highlighted that dialogue with the partner depends specifically on the head of the delegation. Another 6 For more information on the regional TEI, see https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_2543. The workshop preparing the TEI was observed by two of the authors. Niels Keijzer et al. 28 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) interviewee said that the member states received mixed messages on how active EU delegations had been and how open they were to engage with certain member states on TEIs. Although Brussels sent similar instructions to the delegations, “personal matters” of the delegations could influence how Team Europe is implemented in the field. As a matter of fact, in early June 2021, the International Partnerships Commissioner assessed that some delegations have been too “passive”, despite instructions from Brussel to promote engagement with civil society and local authorities in partner countries. She had earlier assessed that an important challenge for promoting the European Green Deal, was to “convince the partners”. The Commissioner announced that an evaluation of EU delegations’ work with local stakeholders would take place (Chadwick, 2021), since there seemed to be considerable variety in their performance and efforts to promote dialogue with partners. Our assessment is that there are different understandings of “ownership” among EU and member state actors involved in Team Europe, without a consensual meaning emerging from our study. Moreover, ownership among European actors is given greater priority and is pursued in a more dynamic manner than the ownership of partner countries and regions. Many interviewees shared the idea that “ownership” refers to “partner needs”. They mostly agreed that those demands can be channelled via EU delegations or member states embassies. Often times, what is framed as “ownership” is the simple agreement or communication with the partner’s national government. Furthermore, another major idea linked to “ownership” emanating from the interviews is that the EU does not go “against” the needs or wills of partner countries. The EU does not “intervene without the request of the partner”. In this sense, one common notion attached to “ownership” is that actions taken by the EU should and indeed do have the approval of partners – most of the time assumed to correspond to the government of that country. Finally, there is a latent tension between the EU strategic agenda (e.g. Green Deal, migration management, etc.) and partner countries’ central interests or needs. One member state interviewee observed that partner countries have their own needs, but the EU (Commission) also has its thematic priorities (e.g. Green Deal). Sometimes the needs of a partner country are more “basic”, “fundamental” or “material” necessities and there can be a trade-off to consider in relation to what is prioritised by the EU. The urgency of the crisis drove an ad hoc application of the Team Europe approach at the country level, with large variation among countries (Jones, 2021). For the time being, Team Europe initiatives remain largely donor-driven and fully in line with EU priorities, even though there is an effort to get information from the delegations on the ground. At the same time, there is no agreed understanding of “ownership” among Team Europe actors, the performance of EU delegations in engaging with local stakeholders is mixed, and there is no clear toolbox on how to engage with such local actors, nor monitoring mechanism to assess the engagement of EU delegations on the ground. The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: assessing a moving target German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 29 4.4 Integration With the Belgian national football team being one of the suggested inspirations for Team Europe,7 one of its primary goals is to promote further cooperation between different European stakeholders. The EU Treaties grant the EU and its member states parallel competences in the field of development policy and instruct that they should complement and reinforce one another (EU, 2009, Art. 208). Yet, member states have very different starting points in this regard. Only a minority of member states engage in bilateral development policies worldwide, with an appropriately sized budget and national implementation capacity, while others have more limited bilateral means and a more selective geographic focus. Moreover, increased cooperation does not always translate into a more permanent state of integration. The TEIs were welcomed by member states, many of whom had been involved from the start by means of a bottom-up approach whereby the initiatives “on the ground” were led by the EU delegations. This allowed member states who had a presence, such as an embassy, in the country concerned to take part. This approach made it harder, however, for those, usually smaller, member states who did not have a diplomatic representation in the partner countries concerned. During the first phase of preparing TEIs, much emphasis was placed on developing a “package” whereby member states were invited to specify the financial value of their contributions, which again placed those with considerable bilateral programmes at an advantage. Since the beginning of 2021, a more balanced approach has begun to emerge, informed by Brussels-based discussions on the need for “inclusivity”. Non-resident member states were also at the table, and non-financial contributions to Team Europe were included in the discussion. Non-financial contributions mainly include member states’ public sector expertise; as evidenced by the Commission’s Technical Assistance and Information Exchange scheme (TAIEX), these contributions are typically short-term in nature and comprises workshops, expert missions to the partner country, or study tours to the EU member states concerned by partner country officials.8 While the TEIs have demonstrated some flexibility, those member states with most means and the broadest presence have nonetheless enjoyed an advantage in contributing to the definition of TEIs. Differences between member states also means that while increasing cooperation is possible for all in an interest-driven and sensitive manner, member states’ willingness to cooperate does not automatically reflect a willingness for further integration. For the European Commission – which led the process and is by definition involved in each TEI agreed – the recent cooperation is a natural basis to be taken further in the form of more structured cooperation. This motivation is not necessarily (and uniformly) shared by the member states. Interviewees noted that those partner countries where joint-programming exercises were already ongoing enjoyed something of a head start with TEIs, since they were already used to interacting regularly on cooperation planning and processes. The engagement in TEI planning of the representatives of member state does not, however, necessarily reflect their interest in taking the associated joint programming processes 7 See https://teambelgium.be. Another suggestion was a Finnish multi-stakeholder business initiative, which is called “Team Finland”: https://www.team-finland.fi/en 8 For more information on TAIEX, please refer to https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/tenders/taiex_en Niels Keijzer et al. 30 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) further, nor can it be assumed that in those countries where joint programming processes were still nascent, the participation of member states in TEI planning reflects their motivation to take their newfound cooperation immediately to the next level. While member state respondents valued the flexible approach taken by the EU to preparing the TEIs, some also observed a certain “make it up as you go along” approach, where uncertainty reigns with regards to the steps following the planning stage. Hence, apart from “bundling” initiatives in the form of TEIs, the actual practical implications of these initiatives – and their associated objectives – remained unclear. This also meant that the actual implications in terms of day-to-day cooperation between the EU and the member states in the context of the TEIs was not specified, with most having the expectation that context-relevance will take priority over standardisation. There is some tension between this pragmatic and adaptive approach and the European Commission’s efforts to strengthen the communication of Team Europe as a whole and to stress the linkages to established joint programming processes. A different reading emerged from the traction generated by Team Europe, particularly in the period when programming decisions for the 2021–2027 period were being considered. Interviewees noted that it would have been a hard sell to convene Directors General from the member states (or even ministers) to speak about either joint programming or “working better together”, terms that were respectively perceived as bureaucratic and vague. That TEIs were discussed for several consecutive meetings at DG level has first of all meant a considerable increase in discussions on EU cooperation in the field of development policy, and perhaps implied some degree of “integration by stealth”. Some interviewees suggested that the recommendation for TEIs to be more flexible in terms of the type of contribution it could accommodate from member states came from the member states and was mentioned during a January 2021 DG meeting. While the regular DG meetings allowed for informal and formative exchanges on Team Europe and the TEIs in particular, this choice of forum also brought some downsides. These became clear in 2021, when DG meetings were twice invited to adopt shortlists of TEIs that were at an advanced stage of preparations. After the most recent meetings the Commission and EEAS began to circulate “operational conclusions” of the meetings, which represented a kind of chair’s summary and thus enabled the meeting forum to at least prepare decisions. Member state respondents nonetheless maintained that the decisions on the TEIs were linked to the programming for NDICI–Global Europe, and that therefore the final decisions were to be made by member states through the established comitology process. In addition, the iterative nature of the TEI preparation also meant that expectation management of a moving target would prove a challenge. The inclusiveness discussion illustrates this, as it reflects an implicit expectation among some member states that – as was the case with the EU Trust Fund – they would informally be entitled to a certain degree of involvement in implementation. In this context, several member states are seeking to profile their own bilateral cooperation implementing agencies and consider EU development finance as a potential source of income. While some considered it a more recent development, others traced the discussion on inclusiveness back to almost 15 years ago, when the European Consensus on Development included commitments by the Commission to capitalise on the (then) new member states’ experience and strengthen their role as donors (EU, 2006). The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: assessing a moving target German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 31 Last, but not least, interviewees also indicated an associated integration agenda within EU institutions. While the Directorate-General for International Partnership (DG INTPA) was seen as fronting the wider Team Europe agenda and actively pushing the link to joint programming processes, the EEAS was perceived to be closer to the member states in favouring a more pragmatic approach and not directly linking the Team Europe process to joint programming by default. The Directorate-General for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations (DG NEAR), by comparison, was considered as less enthusiastic about Team Europe, also as programming processes linked to association agreements did not allow the same degree of flexibility in terms of the EU and the member states defining potential flagships while consulting government representatives. In the case of the “neighbourhood states”, partnership priorities are jointly formulated by the EU Delegation and the partner country under the association agreements concluded with them, which in turn provides a starting point for cooperation. Last, but not least, several interviewees also stressed the need for the head of cooperation in each of the EU delegations to work closely with the political sections as well as with the Head of Delegation, which would represent an additional area for further integration. 5 Conclusions and policy recommendations: moving Team Europe forward This paper has analysed the EU’s evolving motivations, priorities and current approaches to development cooperation following the introduction of the label “Team Europe” in April 2020 as the European Union’s global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. After addressing the question of what Team Europe is, the analysis looked at whether and how the Team Europe approach has changed EU development cooperation, assessed the effects it has had on EU actions in support of partner countries, and discussed the implications of Team Europe for the EU’s development policy in the medium and long term. The study was based on policy documents and official statements, as well as on interviews with EU and member state officials engaged in development policy. 5.1 Increasing EU visibility The ability to increase EU visibility is perceived as Team Europe’s main positive aspect. The analysis has shown that Team Europe’s potential to increase the visibility of the development cooperation engagement of the EU and its member states is generally accepted and welcomed as the concept’s priority and main goal. The gradual fading of Western dominance and simultaneous rise of emerging powers, notably the People’s Republic of China, is no longer news but an inexorable path towards a multipolar world. In reaction to this systemic transformation, Europe belatedly, as some would argue, discovered the importance of power politics in a world where authoritarianism is on the rise and the protection granted by long-standing allies such as the US could no longer be taken for granted. Now, the EU seeks to transform itself from a benevolent bystander into a shaping force of global politics, which also incarnates and defends democratic and liberal values. The EU’s market and regulatory power remain the central tools to realise such ambitions, but increased visibility of its actions to support partner countries can also be an important component of this strategy. In addition, enhanced defence cooperation, highlighted by Niels Keijzer et al. 32 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) initiatives such as the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), and the selfpresentation of the EU as a defender of human rights and rules-based multilateral order and a force of good in the fight against environmental degradation and socio-economic inequalities, have become instruments to accomplish the Union’s leadership ambitions. Under the heading of “open strategic autonomy”, the EU propagates a more realist worldview – reducing international dependencies – whilst simultaneously embracing a reinvigorated form of multilateralism, viewing itself as leader of the “free world”. By securitising the pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis, the EU has elevated Team Europe to yet another instrument in support of European strategic and economic interests, aligned with EU values and priorities. The considerable traction of Team Europe as a label, now finding its way into political communication beyond the specific domain of development policy, has resulted in different understandings as to what it means, and some potential challenges in terms of expectation management – but it is generally considered to have been successful, particularly in promoting more visibility. 5.2 Striking the right balance Two issues remain to be addressed in support of Team Europe: trade-offs between EU priorities and partners’ ownership and the balance between flexibility and result-orientation. Team Europe represents a promising process in the EU’s development policy, enabling further cooperation between the EU, its member states, EIB and EBRD, and contributing to increasing the EU’s collective effectiveness in this area. The dynamic and flexible approach taken and the considerable amount of investment in internal dialogue were considered key in both generating and sustaining the political traction of Team Europe. Nevertheless, two key issues are identified, which are not sufficiently addressed in the current debate, and which, if they continued to be neglected, could negatively affect the goals and evolvements of Team Europe. The first issue concerns the discrepancy between EU ownership and the ownership of developing country stakeholders, including those addressed by the cooperation initiatives concerned. In spite of the efforts made by the EU Delegations to involve developing country stakeholders at an early stage of the programming process, the interview findings suggest that intra-European ownership over Team Europe Initiatives has been given priority over developing country ownership. A frequent assumption among stakeholders appears to be that such ownership can be promoted after the EU has defined its priorities. Neglecting this trade-off could negatively affect the effectiveness of the EU’s cooperation, but particularly the sustainability of the results achieved. The second issue concerns the trade-off between flexibility and results-orientation. While enthusiasm and momentum drive the preparation of Team Europe, evidence of results must sustain it. This enables a moment to formalise the expected results of Team Europe both at the general and the specific level (that of individual TEIs), publicly communicating these and ensuring adequate investment in independent evaluation and dedicated accountability. By striking a fine balance between the much-lauded flexibility and a necessary degree of institutionalisation and predictability, the EU’s Team Europe may remain effective over time. The rise of the Team Europe approach in EU development cooperation: assessing a moving target German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 33 These challenges can be explained by the specific period during which Team Europe has been given further shape, namely towards and after the adoption of the EU’s MFF for 2021– 2027 and the corresponding periods in which external action spending prioritised for this period are determined (“programmed”). The specific period not only explains the focus on intra-European processes, but also the flexibility that stems from the aim to involve a wide range of member states. During this time the member states’ engagement is, moreover, in part driven by the promotion of their national interests and that of their respective implementing agencies and financial institutions, as appropriate. 5.3 Policy recommendations to strengthen Team Europe An open question at this stage, therefore, is to what extent the focus on and traction of Team Europe will be consolidated beyond the point where decisions on the distribution and management of the involved EU budgetary resources have been made. Beyond the TEIs, member state support for Team Europe appears more fragmented and varied across the themes and regions concerned. Consolidating the traction and support for Team Europe is paramount to ensuring the success of the ambitions and expectations both generated by and emanating from the past period. Based on the analysis presented in this paper, we elaborate four recommendations for strengthening Team Europe that can be considered by decision-makers: 1. Visibility ambitions: There is a broad consensus that visibility is a key objective for Team Europe. This requires a communication strategy that breaks this down further into how to make Team Europe more visible within the EU, in developing countries, and to the EU’s international partners. Further clarifying and differentiating the visibility ambitions of Team Europe and the steps to achieve them is key to informing further communication efforts now that the concept has been put “on the map”. 2. Joint evaluation of Team Europe: One key assumption underlying Team Europe and preceding efforts to promote joined-up action in development policy is that, when working together, the EU and member states can achieve things that go beyond the sum of their individual parts. In order to consolidate this benefit, the EU and its member states should jointly and regularly evaluate their efforts in order to ensure that those responsible for TEIs are held accountable for the results and that lessons are learned. Preparations can be made for these evaluations in parallel to the remaining steps in the programming process. They could build on recent similar exercises, including the joint evaluation of the EU’s Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. 3. Regular ministerial exchanges within the Council: While Team Europe is now ubiquitous in the EU institutions’ communications on its various international engagements, to date only two political statements have been adopted that express the shared understanding between the EU and its member states as to the overall aims and priorities behind Team Europe. Decision-makers should consider including Team Europe as a regular agenda item for the meeting of EU development ministers in the Foreign Affairs Council that takes place every six months. Such regularly adopted Council Conclusions are important landmarks that guide further action and also provide