Exclusive: ‘Demotivating,’ ‘a mess’ — study debunks Team Europe plans

The European Union’s push to get its development banks, member states, and staff delegations to collaborate more effectively is proving cumbersome and expensive, as well as failing to listen to what low-income countries actually want, according to an internal report seen by Devex. Prepared by consultants for the European Commission’s development department and soon to be discussed by EU state representatives in Brussels, the study assesses the impediments and incentives to joining so-called Team Europe initiatives, or TEIs. First trialed by the commission in 2020, these joint plans are an attempt to get EU development groups working together on issues such as decent work, digital transformation, or democracy, at national, regional, or global levels. Despite “process tensions” and “growing pains,” the authors wrote that the “overwhelming sense is one of positivity” toward TEIs emerging from their surveys and interviews, due partly to greater flexibility than previous attempts at joint programming, as well as the chance to learn from other players. But even commission staff themselves appear to not yet be sold on the approach, which has so far generated at least 162 TEIs — at least on paper — with more on the way. “TEIs are a great idea, and the interest is there,” one commission staffer told the authors. “However, the simple concept has been hindered by portraying it as more than it is (over-communication), resulting in a lack of understanding of the basics and TEIs remaining empty concepts fail to kick off.” What’s in it for me? Incentives to get involved in TEIs depend on the player. The commission wants greater visibility in Africa vis-à-vis Russia and China. Small EU states want more funding and new partnerships. Big donors such as Germany partly want to broaden the impact of their own development objectives. And development banks are legally obliged to pursue profit-making projects — though the report found that other players sometimes do not understand this. “The TEI process starts with what the EU needs, not what the partner state needs.” --— an official from a small EU state describing their impression of TEIs Describing EU delegation staff, one development banker said: “There are those with private sector experience and they love us, but there are others who are just used to NGO projects and think they can contact us in the same way.” The study’s authors also point to a contradiction: More than half of commission employees thought member states and development banks were motivated to join TEIs by the prospect of accessing EU money. “Nonetheless, the main objective of TEIs is that [member states] and [development finance institutions] contribute with their own funding, rather than implementing EU projects under a TEI,” the authors note. Two years of meetings Many of those interviewed for the study were blunt. “The amount of work required by HQ to design, implement and coordinate on TEIs seems disproportional to the potential benefits,” according to one EU staffer in a delegation. The same staffer called out management and governance structures, as well as requirements for reporting, monitoring, and consultation, saying “All these required by HQ are making the whole exercise more cumbersome, confusing and thus demotivating, also given that there are no additional resources provided for TEI implementation.” One official from a smaller, i.e., probably not French or German, development bank told the authors that their organization pulled out of a TEI with the commission after two years of meetings with little progress. “It became blurry, difficult, unreadable and frustrating for us, but also for the Commission,” the official said. “Operationally, it’s been a mess.” Another official from a smaller member state said: “The Germans currently lead a lot of [TEIs] because they have got so much finance and staff. It takes about a year for a TEI to even get off the ground, and it’s so expensive and bureaucratic that it can rule you out before it even gets to that point.” While one contributor from a small member state said “former colonial powers” were excluding European smaller players from TEIs. “They block everything that does not fit with their view of the region,” they said. “Some respect has to be given for us.” Beneficiaries beware Perhaps most concerning was the widespread impression that, as one official from a small EU state put it: “The TEI process starts with what the EU needs, not what the partner state needs.” Some worried that this “inward looking” and “eurocentric” approach would ultimately make the work itself less effective. As part of one TEI, for instance, participating EU states forged a common position on the African Continental Free Trade Area. “Yet, the lack of involvement of African counterparts (a perception shared by a number of interviewees) challenges effectiveness,” the authors wrote, “Since it did not foster good relations with African interlocutors.” Where to go from here The authors converted all of the above and more into six recommendations: 1. Reduce the “burden of coordination” through fewer meetings and rotating leadership roles. 2. Create a centralized TEI knowledge hub to replace about half a dozen existing repositories of information. 3. Greater resources and guidance for EU delegations. 4. Facilitating sectoral rather than national, regional, or global engagement, to make it easier for small donors to get involved. 5. More and earlier involvement of the recipient countries themselves. 6. More consultation among EU donors to overcome the challenges of different priorities and timelines. A commission spokesperson told Devex by email that the study was an “opportunity for Team Europe actors to express their views” on how to ensure the initiative is inclusive and coordinated. “Please note that the study reflects the views of the authors only,” the spokesperson added, “as it is stated in the disclaimer.”