Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament -  Increasing the impact of EU aid : a common framework for drafting country strategy papers and joint multiannual programming
Date: 2006-03-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, aid system, cooperation policy, development aid, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 2.3.2006 
COM(2006) 88 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

INCREASING THE IMPACT OF EU AID: 

A COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR DRAFTING COUNTRY STRATEGY PAPERS 
AND JOINT MULTIANNUAL PROGRAMMING 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

INCREASING THE IMPACT OF EU AID: A COMMON FRAMEWORK FOR 
DRAFTING COUNTRY STRATEGY PAPERS AND JOINT MULTIANNUAL 
PROGRAMMING 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

Preamble ..................................................................................................................... 4 

The common framework and joint multiannual programming: part of the EU 
contribution .................................................................................................................. 4 

Background to the country-strategy-paper framework and joint multiannual 
programming ................................................................................................................ 4 

1.3. 

Preliminary remarks ..................................................................................................... 6 

2. 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3. 

A revised framework for better programming ....................................................... 7 

Principles of effective programming............................................................................ 7 

The nine essential components for country strategies.................................................. 8 

Procedure for drafting a country strategy paper with joint multiannual programming 
in mind ......................................................................................................................... 9 

2.3.1.  The basic principles.................................................................................................... 10 

2.3.2.  The various stages of joint multiannual programming .............................................. 10 

Stage 1: Joint analysis............................................................................................................. 11 

Stage 2: Beyond a joint analysis to a joint strategic response ............................................... 11 

ANNEX: Common format for country strategy papers (CPSs) ............................................... 12 

PART 1: COUNTRY STRATEGY PAPER ........................................................................ 12 

CHAPTER 1: FRAMEWORK FOR RELATIONS BETWEEN THE DONOR AND 

THE PARTNER COUNTRY.................................................................................. 12 

1.1. General objectives of the donor’s external policy ........................................................ 12 

1.2. Strategic objectives for cooperation with the partner country ................................... 12 

1.3. Main bilateral agreements.............................................................................................. 12 

CHAPTER 2: COUNTRY DIAGNOSIS ............................................................................. 12 

2.1. Analysis of the political, economic, social and environmental situation in the partner 
country ...................................................................................................................... 12 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
2.1.1 Political situation............................................................................................................. 12 

2.1.2 Economic and social situation......................................................................................... 14 

2.1.3 Social situation, including decent work and employment............................................... 16 

2.1.4 The country in the international context ......................................................................... 16 

2.1.5 Environmental situation .................................................................................................. 17 

2.2. Development strategy of the partner country............................................................... 17 

2.3. Analysis of the viability of current policies and the medium-term challenges .......... 18 

CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW OF COOPERATION AND POLITICAL DIALOGUE, 

COMPLEMENTARITY AND CONSISTENCY.................................................. 18 

3.1 Overview of the donor’s past and present cooperation (lessons learned) .......................... 18 

3.2 Information on the programmes of other donors (complementarity)................................. 19 

3.3 Description of the political dialogue between the donor and the partner country ............. 19 

3.4 Description of the state of the partnership with the partner country and progress towards 

harmonisation............................................................................................................. 19 

3.5 Analysis of consistency with the donor’s other policies .................................................... 19 

CHAPTER 4: THE DONOR’S RESPONSE STRATEGY ................................................ 20 

PART 2: WORK PROGRAMME ........................................................................................ 21 

ANNEXES............................................................................................................................... 21 

1. Summary table for the country............................................................................................. 21 

2. Country environmental profile ............................................................................................. 21 

3. Prospective financial matrix of donors................................................................................. 22 

4. Country migration profile (where necessary)....................................................................... 22 

5. Description of the CSP drafting process, stressing the involvement of non-state actors and 

local authorities .......................................................................................................... 22 

6. Harmonisation road map (where there is one) ..................................................................... 22 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

PREAMBLE 

Making aid more effective is one of the essential objectives on the European Union’s agenda. 
The international conference held in Monterrey from 18 to 22 March 2002 set an international 
process  in  motion  that  eventually  resulted  in  the  adoption  of  the  Paris  Declaration  on  the 
harmonisation and aligning of aid (2 March 2005). In this connection, the EU has consistently 
stressed  both  the  need  for  collective  progress  on  increasing  the  effectiveness  and  impact  of 
aid, and its own responsibility to push for this. 

It is essential that all objectives connected with external policy and other EU instruments be 
taken  into  account  in  the  interests  of  coherent  and  effective  aid.  Development  policy  has  a 
part  to  play  in  the  achievement  of  the  EU’s  external  policy  objectives,  alongside  other 
instruments such as defence and security policies, and commercial, environmental and other 
policies.  

1.1. 

The  common  framework  and  joint  multiannual  programming:  part  of  the  EU 
contribution 

At the high-level forum in Paris in February/March 2005, the EU presented a work plan with 
practical commitments for rapid and collective implementation of the principles spelled out in 
the  Paris  Declaration.  One  of  the  key  elements  of  this  voluntary  contribution  is  the 
commitment  to  gradually  introducing  joint  multiannual  programming  by  revising  the 
framework for the 2000 country strategy papers. Joint multiannual programming is part of the 
EU action plan for effective aid. 

The underlying principles, nature and timetable for this process were worked out respectively 
at successive Council meetings (GAERC) in November 2004 and April and November 2005. 

Before laying the foundations for joint multiannual programming, it was essential to gather all 
the  available  information  for  a  proper  understanding  of  how  the  Member  States’  (and  other 
donors’)  various  programming  systems  work,  to  take  on  board  existing  good  practice  (as 
recognised by the OECD) and to fully integrate the measure on the ground. 

Three  in-depth  studies  were  carried  out  in  2005  in  Tanzania,  Uganda  and  Zambia.  Lessons 
were  also  learnt  from  past  experience  and  from  the  reviews  carried  out  as  part  of  the  EU’s 
harmonisation  programme  in  four  pilot  countries:  Vietnam,  Nicaragua,  Morocco  and 
Mozambique. 

The three studies, the findings of which were analysed with the help of the Member States, 
provided an additional reliable source of guidance for the revision of the CSP framework. 

1.2. 

Background  to  the  country-strategy-paper  framework  and  joint  multiannual 
programming 

The  programming  framework  for  Community  CSPs  (commonly  known  as  the  “CSP 
framework”)  was  adopted  in  2000  as  part  of  the  RELEX  reform,  as  a  multiannual 
programming  tool.  It  was  intended  as  a  basic  structure  on  which  to  model  all  Community 
CSPs  and  a  source  of  information  for  the  Member  States  when  drawing  up  their  strategy 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
papers.1 The objective was to improve the coherence and quality of external aid programming, 
to  make  it  more  reliable  and  effective  and  to  promote  greater  complementarity  with  what 
Member States were doing in the field of development cooperation in line with Articles 177 
and 181 of the EC Treaty. 

The  Commission  put  the  framework  into  effect  without  delay  in  programming  the  first 
generation  of  CSPs  and  RSPs  (2002-06)  and  mid-term  reviews  (2004)  for  all  developing 
countries receiving support from the European Development Fund and the ALA, Meda, Tacis 
and Cards programmes.  

Progress reports on implementation of the CSP framework, produced by the Commission at 
the  request  of  the  Council  in  2001,  2002  and  2005,  showed  that  rigorous  use  of  CSP/RSPs 
was an effective and satisfactory way of improving the quality of its programming. 

In  2003,  the  Council  concluded  that  the  CSP  framework  had  indeed  made  a  significant 
contribution  to  achieving  the  goal  of  multiannual  programming  and  to  increasing  the 
effectiveness  and  quality  of  the  EU’s  external  aid.2  It  noted  that  the  exercise  had  improved 
coordination  and  complementarity  between  Community  and  bilateral  aid,  particularly  in 
relation  to  aid  from  Member  States  closely  involved  on  the  ground.3  In  most  cases,  the 
authorities in the partner countries were closely involved in the programming process, which 
increased  the  sense  of  ownership  and  coherence  between  the  Commission  strategy  and  the 
process of national development. 

The  2004  mid-term  reviews  further  improved  the  quality  of  the  CSPs  and  made  them  even 
more effective by increasing consistency between development policy and other external and 
internal EU policies and by strengthening the results-based approach, with the introduction of 
more rigorous performance indicators. These made it possible to assess the partner countries’ 
achievements, particularly in relation to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  

The  CSP  framework  must  be  considered  as  an  ongoing  process,  to  be  constantly  improved 
and adjusted to keep pace with a changing agenda and improvements in the effectiveness of 
aid.  It  has  become  increasingly  clear  that  coordinated  programming,  carried  out  jointly  at 
European level, can make an even more significant difference in terms of the effectiveness of 
aid and achievement of the MDGs. 

In 2004 the ad hoc group on harmonisation, when asked for suggestions on how the EU might 
strengthen  coordination,  harmonisation  and  alignment,  stressed  that  joint  multiannual 
programming should facilitate policy coordination, promote harmonisation of procedures and 
enable decisions to be taken concerning complementarity. It should enable donors gradually 
to  align  their  activities  on  the  partner  country’s  multiannual  programming  cycles  (poverty-
reduction strategies and budget processes) and increase the scope for Member States and the 
Commission to synchronise their programming process and thus, in the long term, bring down 
transaction costs considerably. 

1 

2 
3 

Council Conclusions of 10 November 2000 on the harmonised framework for country strategy papers, 
point III, SEC(2000) 1049. 
Conclusions adopted by the Council (GAERC) on 18 March 2003, doc 6941/03. 
In line with the guidelines for reinforcing operational coordination between the European Community 
and the Member States, adopted by the Council in January 2001. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  breakthrough  at  European  level  came  in  November  2004  when,  in  its  conclusions,  the 
Council expressly called on the Commission to revise the 2000 CSP framework to incorporate 
provisions making multiannual programming possible. 

The  principle  of  joint  programming  was  reaffirmed  and  strengthened  in  the  new  “European 
Consensus  on  Development”,  the  EU’s  new  development-policy  statement  published  in 
December 2005. 

1.3. 

Preliminary remarks 

According to the Council conclusions of November 2004, “The framework will be one of the 
instruments for  the  implementation  of  multiannual  programming  for  all  assistance  provided 
by  Member  States  and  the  Commission  […]  [It]  will  [also]  provide  guidance  to  implement 
joint multiannual programming at country level.”4  

EU-wide adoption of the nine essential CSP components that are referred to in section 2.2 and 
that underlie the common format proposed in the annex, is the first milestone on the road to 
making  external  aid  more  effective.  It  is  fundamental  to  harmonisation  and  coordination  of 
aid. 

Joint multiannual programming is a flexible process that must be implemented in line with the 
changing situation in each partner country. Its form and structure will vary from one country 
to another (see section 2.3). 

4 

Report of the Ad Hoc Working Party on Harmonisation - Advancing Coordination, Harmonisation and 
Alignment:the contribution of the EU, 14670/04, 15. November 2004, p. 37. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

A REVISED FRAMEWORK FOR BETTER PROGRAMMING 

This document updates the 2000 CSP framework setting out the basic elements to be included 
and the various stages of drafting CSPs. 

The revised framework is divided into three sections: 

•  The first (section 2.1) restates the guiding principles for programming. 

•  The second (section 2.2) is a summary of the nine essential components of future 

CSPs. A proposal for a common format is attached. 

•  The third (section 2.3) outlines the main stages of the procedure for drawing up 

future CSPs and arrangements for joint multiannual programming 

2.1. 

Principles of effective programming 

The programming process must be guided by certain underlying principles. These have been 
formulated and refined in recent years at European level; many of them feature, as partnership 
commitments, in the Paris Declaration (ownership, harmonisation, alignment, management by 
results and mutual responsibility). They have a guiding influence on the structure of the CSPs 
and the essential elements within them, as described below: 

•  The partnership framework. Strategies must be based on the cooperation and partnership 

agreements and must be consistent with regional strategies. 

•  Compatibility  with  the  objectives  of  the  European  consensus.  The  main  objectives  of 
development policy will be to eradicate poverty through sustainable development, meet the 
MDGs  and  promote  democracy,  good  governance  and  respect  for  human  rights.  These 
objectives will be pursued in all developing countries and applied to the “development aid” 
component of all Community strategies for cooperation with non-member countries. 

•  Consistency. The strategy and the programming documents must be exhaustive and must 
take  account  of  the  objectives  of  development  policy  and  other  policies  that  define 
relations with the partner country. 

•  Differentiation  is  required  in  view  of  the  diverse  nature  of  the  EU’s  partners  and  the 
challenges facing them. The concept must be applied to general policy and to cooperation 
programmes. 

•  Cross-cutting  themes  must  be  borne  in  mind,  in  line  with  the  European  Consensus 
(democracy, good governance, human rights, children’s rights and the rights of indigenous 
peoples, gender equality, a sustainable environment and HIV/AIDS). 

•  The  effectiveness  of  aid  will  also  depend  on  other  important  factors  such  as  division  of 
labour,  complementarity  and  harmonisation.  Everything  must  be  geared  towards 
maximising  the  sharing  of  information  between  all  concerned  and  complementarity  with 
the  activities  of  Member  States,  other  donors  and  multilateral  agencies.  Where  possible, 
coordination should take place in the partner country in question. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
•  Budget support, general or sectoral, should be used for implementation wherever possible: 

this is the golden rule if aid is to be made more effective, and it should be reinforced.  

•  Focus  (with  flexibility)  means  selecting  a  limited  number  of  areas  for  inclusion  when 

programming Community aid. 

•  Ownership by the partner country and alignment. The partner country’s agenda will be at 
the  heart  of  preparations  for  the  strategy  and  programming,  and  these  will  gradually  be 
aligned with the agenda. 

•  A  results-based  approach.  Programming,  implementation  and  evaluation  must  always 

include key indicators for measuring the impact of aid. 

•  Involvement  of  civil  society  and  other  actors.  Partnership  must  be  extended  to  include 
non-state  actors  and  the  private  sector,  which  should  be  involved  in  discussing  policy, 
drawing  up  the  cooperation  strategy  and  implementing  programmes.  Other  players, 
particularly local authorities and parliaments, should also be involved.  

•  Learning  from  the  past  and  reviews.  Lessons  learned  from  the  past  experience  of  the 
partner countries and of donors (field workers and headquarters), and the results of external 
and  internal  evaluations  should  all  be  taken  into  consideration  and  should  inform  the 
choices  made  at  the  programming  stage.  Furthermore,  CSPs  are  effective  only  if  their 
performance is regularly evaluated and strategies adjusted in the light of the findings. 

2.2. 

The nine essential components for country strategies 

The  proposed  new  CSP  framework  retains  intact  the  same  tried  and  tested  basic  approach 
developed for the 2000 framework. However, it is updated to take account of new practices 
that have emerged on the international scene and of the EU’s new commitment, discussed in 
the previous section. It introduces certain elements that are indispensable for joint multiannual 
programming on a country-by-country basis. 

The proposed format for the CSPs has been worked out in detail and is shown in the annex. It 
includes the following essential components which, as past experience has shown, make for 
high-quality programming:5  

(1) 

(2) 

the framework for relations between the donor and the partner country; 

an analysis of the political (internal and external), economic, commercial, social and 
environmental situation; 

(3) 

the partner country’s agenda, including the development strategy; 

(4) 

an analysis of the viability of current policies and of medium-term challenges, based 
on the analysis of the country’s situation and its agenda; 

5 

Titles will be amended to fit the CSP drafter and partner country. In other words, the word “donor” will 
be replaced by the entity drafting the CSP and “partner country” by the name of the country.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

an overview of past and present cooperation with the donor (lessons and experience), 
taking  account  of  all  external  aid  instruments,  complementarity  with  other  donors’ 
programmes and consistency with other external aid and policy instruments; 

a  description  of  the  state  of  the  partnership  with  the  country,  including  political 
dialogue and progress towards harmonisation; 

the  donor’s  cooperation  strategy  and  specific  objectives,  the  consistency  of  the 
strategy  with  other  external  aid  instruments  and  policies,  and  complementary  with 
other donors; 

on  the  basis  of  the  elements  above,  a  work  programme  or  National  Indicative 
Programme  (NIP)  stating  measurable  objectives,  with  performance  indicators,  the 
contribution  to  be  made  by  the  various  donors  and  the  nature  and  scope  of  the  most 
appropriate support mechanisms; 

annexes: a summary table for the country, a short environmental profile, a prospective 
donor  matrix,  a  migration  profile  (where  necessary)  including  the  international 
protection  aspect,  an  account  of  consultations  with  non-state  actors  and  a 
harmonisation road map where there is one. 

The  Commission  plans  to  draw  up  its  CSPs  using  these  nine  essential  components  and  the 
proposed format for expanding on them (see annex). It will take a gradual approach, starting 
immediately  with  the  ACP  countries,  followed  at  a  later  date  (mid-term  review)  by  Asia, 
Latin America, the countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy and Russia, for 
which second generation CSPs (and RSPs) are being drafted on the basis of the old model and 
are nearing completion. 

The Commission would point out that most of the components are to be found in the strategy 
documents  drawn  up  by  the  Member  States  bilaterally.  In  its  opinion,  the  new  CSP 
framework,  which  includes  essential  components,  could  also  be  used  by  the  Member  States 
for bilateral aid without their having to make any substantial changes to their procedures, and 
the framework is flexible enough for them to adapt it to fit the specific circumstances of each 
country.  Moreover,  the  Member  States  that  are  in  the  process  of  introducing  programming 
documents could use the new framework for their CSPs. 

Not only does the format suggested in the annex give the Member States the opportunity to 
anchor their own  bilateral strategies on the nine components and the new CSP strategy, but 
the  Commission  thinks  that  it  is  probably  the  most  appropriate  way  forward  for  joint 
multiannual  programming,  particularly  with  regard  to  the  sharing  of  certain  aspects  of 
programming (see section 2.3.2). It should therefore, where possible, be used by the Member 
States. 

Lastly, it is also important to make the programming mechanisms  as flexible  as  possible so 
that they can gradually be synchronised with each other and aligned with the partner country’s 
political and budget agenda. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
2.3. 

Procedure  for  drafting  a  country  strategy  paper  with  joint  multiannual 
programming in mind 

The  new  CSP  framework  should  make  it  easier  for  the  Commission,  Member  States  and 
perhaps other partners to start joint multiannual programming. 

The  Community/EU’s  task  is  to  make  it  easier  for  them  to  do  so,  to  promote  broad 
participation and encourage participation by the partner country.  

2.3.1.  The basic principles 

Joint  programming  must  be  a  flexible,  gradual  and  open  process,  with  the  partner  country 
playing a leading role, and emanating from the bottom up. 

•  Flexible, in that it must be able to take on different forms depending on the situation in the 
partner  countries  [for  instance,  in  terms  of  institutional  capacities  and  the  quality  of 
national development policies (PSRPs)] and on the donors and their political or procedural 
readiness for harmonisation. 

•  Gradual,  in  that  it  must  make  provision  for  gradual  “integration”  stages  as  the  situation 

develops. It may include all or some of the Member States. 

•  Open, in that it should not be restricted to Member States. Joint programming is part of the 
international  movement  which  it  sets  out  to  invigorate.  Where  moves  are  already  being 
made  to  introduce  joint  programming,  European  joint  programming  should  be  able  to 
merge into that process, giving it new impetus through coordination and a joint European 
vision. 

•  It  is  crucial  that  the  partner  country  play  a  leading  role  in  preparing  the  ground  and 
coordinating  joint  programming;  it  must  be  based  on  the  country’s  poverty-reduction 
strategy or equivalent strategy, and on its budget cycle. In this way, partners will be able to 
genuinely  align  themselves  with  each  other  and  converge  with  a  view  to  improving 
complementarity (division of labour) and reducing transaction costs in the long term. If the 
country does not have the capacity to play a leading role, it must be given the support it 
needs  to  acquire  it.  In  the  meantime,  donors  will  themselves  be  able  to  develop  joint 
programming in line with emerging programming priorities and cycles (shadow alignment 
for low-income countries and fragile states) or existing priorities and cycles (in the case of 
middle-income countries). 

•  For each country, the decision to go ahead with joint programming and the form and thrust 
of  it  will  be  a  matter  for  the  relevant  Commission  delegation  and  other  development 
partners on the ground. That is the level at which coordination and harmonisation should 
happen. Joint programming is one of the elements that could, if necessary, be included in a 
road map for coordination and harmonisation in the partner countries. Frequent exchanges 
between headquarters and local offices and regular monitoring will be required to ensure 
the process reaches the highest political level.  

2.3.2.  The various stages of joint multiannual programming 

In keeping with the flexible and gradual character of joint multiannual programming, it must 
be  divided  into  stages  on  the  basis  of  a  joint  or  harmonised  conception  of  CSPs.  In  other 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
words,  the  Member  States  should  use  the  nine  essential  components  for  CSPs,  with  the 
requisite flexibility, as they appear in the revised format annexed. 

Stage 1: Joint analysis 

Experience  and  analyses  both  show  that,  whatever  models  are  used,  there  are  a  number  of 
elements  common  to  the  various  donors  for  a  given  country.  These  elements  are  seen  as 
essential  for  drawing  up  a  cooperation  strategy.  In  order  to  reduce  transaction  costs  for  the 
partner country, these elements must be shared and pooled. 

the  global  political  situation,  appraisal  of 

The elements correspond to Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Part I of the common format (see annex). 
They  are:  evaluation  of 
the  country’s 
macroeconomic,  social  and  environmental  background  (with  a  list  of  macroeconomic  and 
poverty-related indicators harmonised on the basis of the government’s agenda), formulation 
of the partner country’s priorities, analysis of lessons from cooperation in the past, analysis of 
consistency  with  the  partner  country’s  other  policies,  analysis  of  complementarity  between 
different partners’ activities and setting out of the harmonisation agenda. 

Stage 2: Beyond a joint analysis to a joint strategic response 

Joint  programming  means  bringing  together  all  the  various  analysis  elements  (see  stage  1), 
but it does not exclude a more ambitious joint response strategy for some or all the Member 
States involved for a given partner country.  

A  joint  response  strategy  comprises  the  elements  referred  to  in  Chapter  4,  Part  I  of  the 
attached common format, i.e. joint setting of cooperation objectives with the partner country, 
selection of focal areas, with a division of labour between the partners (donor matrix), outline 
financial allocations and risk analysis, and commitments by the partner countries on the basis 
of a joint agreement. Performance indicators will be agreed on, where possible on the basis of 
the  relevant  country  strategy  papers.  The  indicators  will  be  discussed  with  the  government. 
There will also be a joint approach to monitoring and evaluation, and joint annual reviews of 
results and of implementation of the poverty reduction strategy. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX: Common format for country strategy papers (CSPs) 

PART 1: COUNTRY STRATEGY PAPER 

1. 

CHAPTER  1:  FRAMEWORK  FOR  RELATIONS  BETWEEN  THE  DONOR  AND  THE 
PARTNER COUNTRY 

For the EC/EU 

1.1. 

General objectives of the donor’s external policy 

1.2. 

Strategic objectives for cooperation with the partner country 

Strategy  papers  must  reflect  the  policy  guidelines  set  out  in  the  “European  Consensus  on 
Development”. They must also reflect the EU’s commitments with regard to the effectiveness 
of aid (Paris Declaration, additional EU commitments). 

They will also set out the donor’s main objectives in its dealings with the partner country in 
the regional context (in the case of the EU, these include the European Neighbourhood Policy, 
the  Cotonou  Agreement,  the  Asia,  Latin  America  and  Africa  Strategies  and  the  European 
Programme for Reconstruction and Development in South Africa). 

1.3.  Main bilateral agreements 

Describe  the  association  and  partnership  agreements  (e.g.  the  Economic  Partnership 
Agreements – EPAs) binding the donor and the partner country, stating the fields covered and 
the objectives pursued. 

2. 

CHAPTER 2: COUNTRY DIAGNOSIS 

2.1. 

Analysis  of  the  political,  economic,  social  and  environmental  situation  in  the 
partner country 

This  analysis  should  include  all  major  domestic  policy  developments  and  issues  and  all 
significant external factors. 

2.1.1 

Political situation 

The  CSP  must  analyse  the  country’s  political,  institutional  and  security  situation  in  a  broad 
context, including governance, progress towards democracy, the rule of law and observance 
of human rights. The regional context must be specifically addressed here. This section should 
therefore examine the following aspects: 

•  The main obstacles at national level to progress towards a situation in which human rights 
are  respected,  protected  and  promoted.  The  analysis  will  identify  the  priorities  and 
objectives  permitting  progress  towards  respect  for  fundamental  human  rights  in  all 
circumstances. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
•  The content and any shortcomings of the partner country’s plans/policies concerning social 
cohesion,  employment  and  gender  equality;  the  gender  representativeness  of  the 
administration  and  the  position  with  regard  to  international  commitments  on  gender 
equality.  Commitments  and  compliance  under  international  conventions  concerning 
children’s rights must also be described. Special attention must be paid to child labour and 
to  trafficking  and  violence  against  women  and  children.  The  protection  afforded  for  the 
rights of minorities and indigenous peoples must also be examined. 

•  Observance of democratic principles, including in particular an assessment of the electoral 
process  and  public  participation  in  the  democratic  process  (free  elections  by  universal 
suffrage,  multiparty 
to  political  activity,  participatory 
decision-making  process,  the  role  of  the  media,  civil  society  and  other  non-state  actors, 
etc.), the possibility of changing the government without violence, etc. 

system,  equal  access 

•  The  organisation  of  government,  the  authorities’  decision-making  procedures.  Particular 
attention must be paid to examining the various levels of power and the division of powers 
between  central,  regional  and  local  tiers  of  government  and  the  effectiveness  of  their 
interaction  (decentralisation  and  devolution).  The  main  constraints  faced  by  “key 
institutions”  in  fulfilling  their  respective  mandates  (including  the  capacities  the  national 
statistical system to provide statistics and indicators in the different domains), institutional 
transparency  and  accountability  for  the  management  of  public  resources  and  affairs;  the 
institutional  capacity  to  draw  up  and  implement  measures  against  corruption  money 
laundering, fraud and tax avoidance; the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. 
The role of parliaments in their dual function of making law and overseeing the executive 
must be examined, as must the degree to which civil society is involved in the political and 
social debate. 

•  The  government’s  position  with  regard  to  the  key  international  conventions,  especially 
those concerning the environment, human rights, gender equality, refugees, labour law, the 
International Criminal Court, terrorism, organised crime and corruption. 

•  Potential  factors  for  conflict,  the  risk  of  national  or  regional  conflict  breaking  out, 
continuing or flaring up again, and key cultural and social factors directly influencing the 
political process (e.g. ethnic tensions or migratory flows). 

•  The  security  system,  including  the  division  of  powers  between  the  difference  agencies,6 
and the decision-making procedure and democratic and civilian oversight over the security 
system. 

•  The overall security situation. The following questions must be posed: Are there signs of 
violent conflict in the country and/or region? Is the country’s stability threatened by armed 
violence? What is the influence of neighbouring countries? Is there a national small-arms 
manufacturing industry? Does the level of crime in the country threaten its development? 
What is the situation with regard to the various forms of organised crime and illegal drugs? 
Is there a threat of terrorism in the country or region? 

6 

The OECD-DAC defines the security system as the body of institutions and other agencies involved in 
maintaining the security of the state and its citizens. Security System Reform and Governance, Policy 
and Practice, DAC Guidelines and Reference Series (Paris: OECD 2004). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Any evidence pointing to a fragile state, e.g. the incapacity to perform the basic functions 
of  government  (security,  basic  social  services,  human  rights);  identify  support  measures, 
such as government reform.  

•  The  regional  context  of  the  country,  its  relations  with  its  neighbours  and  the  impact  of 

these factors on the political, institutional and security situation in the country. 

This analysis should serve to identify the type of partnership: efficient, difficult/fragile state, 
post-conflict. 

Accordingly, in fragile states, post-conflict countries and specific cases of countries that have 
yet  to  achieve  “structural  stability”  or  are  showing  signs  of  increasing  instability,  greater 
attention  should  be  given  to  analysing  measures  taken  to  ensure  security  and  stability, 
including  conflict  prevention  and  management,  post-conflict 
intervention  strategies 
(demobilisation,  disarmament,  re-integration  (in  particular  of  women  and  child  soldiers), 
rebuilding,  humanitarian  mine  clearance,  support  for  action  against  illegal  arms  trafficking 
and dissemination of small arms and light weapons, etc.), and the introduction of the rule of 
law  and  democracy  (including  broader  participation  of  civil  society  and  a  more  equitable 
distribution of power). The issues of transition and LRRD will have to be taken into account. 

A chronology of recent events and the national and regional agenda will be annexed as basic 
information. 

2.1.2.  Economic and social situation 

The CSP must include an analysis of macroeconomic performance, covering both the public 
and the private sectors, an analysis of structural change and of important sectoral changes. It 
must also include an analysis of the structure of the country’s trade at bilateral, regional and 
multilateral levels, including the foreseeable impact of economic partnership agreements. 

It must analyse issues of good governance in the financial, tax and legal fields. The aim is to 
gauge  the  extent  to  which  the  country  is  implementing  international  recommendations  on 
transparency and the effective exchange of information to prevent and counter financial and 
corporate malpractice, including in the tax field.  

Economic situation, structure and performance 

This  part  must  analyse  the  partner  country’s  economic  performance  in  a  manner  permitting 
comparison with other countries. It will identify the principal economic sectors contributing to 
gross domestic product and assess trends in their competitiveness, especially in the light of the 
prospects for the liberalisation of bilateral, regional and multilateral trade. Particular attention 
should be given to analysing the respective roles of the public and private sectors and the state 
of  infrastructure,  especially  as  regards  transport,  water,  energy  and  information  and 
communications technologies. The analysis must also address variations in the terms of trade, 
the external debt burden, the degree of diversification of export earnings and dependency on 
public and private external transfers, including remittances from migrants. The importance of 
service activities, especially financial services, and in particular those specifically offered to 
non-residents  (offshore  centres),  will  also  be  addressed.  The  employment  situation  will  be 
studied with particular attention to equal economic opportunities for men and women. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
The  analysis  should  also  highlight  the  potential  sources  of  macro-economic  and  social 
instability  in  order  to  make  the  EC/EU  planning  process  flexible  enough  to  deal  with  such 
instability if and when it occurs. 

A  table  with  key  macroeconomic  indicators  will  be  annexed  to  facilitate  and  structure  the 
overview of the situation and any forecasts for the years ahead. 

Structure and management of public finances 

This  section  will  examine  the  state  of  public  finances  and  the  external  debt,  analyse  the 
quality of public finances and the structure of budget revenue and expenditure, point out any 
imbalances and indicate whether measures have been taken to remedy them. 

Assessment of the reform process 

As a general rule, the objectives of economic reform programmes, and in particular economic 
stabilisation  and  structural  adjustment  programmes,  are  to  balance  the  economy,  eliminate 
distortions,  introduce  appropriate  incentives  and  create  favourable  conditions  for  the 
development of the private sector, while allowing and guaranteeing the effective and efficient 
working  of  the  public  sector.  A  key  aspect  of  such  programmes  is  the  need  to  ensure  that 
markets  are  open  and  that  the  economy  is  able  to  profit  from,  and  manage  successfully, 
external competitive forces (including those generated by regional integration initiatives). 

The analysis  must  check the overall consistency of  the policy pursued and identify possible 
weaknesses and inconsistencies. It is important to analyse the impact and viability (including 
the  issue  of  institutional  capacities)  of  the  main  sectoral  reforms  and  to  consider  how  these 
reforms  might  influence  growth  and  development.  In  this  context,  the  impact  of  reforms 
international 
aimed  at 
administrative and judicial cooperation in the field of services, especially financial services, 
will also be examined, among others, in relation to the fight against money laundering, fraud 
and tax avoidance and corruption. 

information  exchange  and 

transparency,  effective 

increasing 

Particular attention must be given to reforms in the fields of political, administrative and fiscal 
decentralisation  and  issues  relating  to  regional  planning,  given  their  potential  impact  on 
poverty, especially in rural areas. 

Trade policy and external environment, in particular regional cooperation agreements 

The  country’s  trade  policy  must  be  analysed,  especially  the  country’s  openness  (tariff  and 
non-tariff)  and  the  regulatory  framework’s  consistency  with  the  country’s  commitments. 
Consistency  with  the  country’s  development  aims  and  foreign  trade  agreements,  especially 
regional  integration  schemes  involving  the  country,  the  impact  of  such  schemes  on  the 
economy and actual progress towards the creation of a regional market will also be examined. 

This  analysis  could,  where  relevant,  use  the  results  of  trade-policy  reviews  by  the  World 
Trade Organisation (WTO). 

Particular attention must be paid to the demands of economic transition, regional convergence 
and trade opening. The assessment of reform must take such undertakings or obligations into 
account. It must include an analysis of the country’s economic performance in the framework 
of  the  regional  integration  process  to  which  it  belongs  (e.g.  macroeconomic  convergence 
criteria) and its influence on the country’s economy. This section also includes an analysis of 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
the  scope  for  integration,  ways  of  increasing  the  benefits,  and  related  issues  such  as 
infrastructure, regional markets and financial and economic structures. 

2.1.3. 

Social situation, including decent work and employment 

CSPs  must  analyse  the  situation,  trends  and  progress  or  delays  in  the  social  sectors  and  in 
terms  of  food  security.  They  must  therefore  cover  demographic  factors  (population  growth, 
breakdown by age, relationship between rural and urban population and trends, the existence 
and  nature  of  migratory  flows)  and  such  sectors/fields  as  education,  research,  health 
(including  sexual  and  reproductive  health,  HIV/AIDS,  malaria  and  tuberculosis),  social 
protection,  including  social  security  networks,  support  programmes  for  disadvantaged  and 
vulnerable groups, including the disabled, employment opportunities and working conditions 
and housing, rural development and access to agricultural markets. All these aspects, and in 
particular  employment  policy  and  the  fairness  of  the  tax  system,  are  crucial  to  achieving  a 
satisfactory level of social cohesion. 

A major part of the analysis will involve reviewing the fairness of access to services and their 
use  for  disadvantaged  and  vulnerable  groups,  such  as  children,  women  and  indigenous 
peoples, and determining whether the policies pursued address the concerns of these groups, 
gender equality or HIV/AIDS issues and the needs of indigenous communities.  

The strategy papers will examine the country’s progress towards eradicating poverty in terms 
of  the  MDGs,  analyse  the  reasons  for  the  trends  observed,  in  particular  gender  differences, 
and review the main challenges and issues, their magnitude and their breakdown (by age, sex 
and geography). 

To  facilitate  and  structure  this  overview,  a  table  setting  out  the  key  social  development 
indicators  will  be  annexed.  This  table  will  include  at  least  the  10  key  indicators  chosen  for 
monitoring the MDGs, which gauge the country’s performance and progress in the matter of 
poverty  reduction  and  social  development.  Where  possible,  it  will  provide  data  for  the 
reference  year  1990,  data  for  the  most  recent  years,  estimates  for  the  years  ahead  and 
intermediate  and  final  objectives  for  2015.  These  indicators  can  be  supplemented  by  other 
indicators monitored in the PRSP. 

Comments must be made on the quality of data and the frequency with which it is updated. To 
ensure comparability in time, data sources must be used as consistently as possible and any 
change in indicators and/or sources accounted for.  

2.1.4.  The country in the international context 

Where  relevant,  this  section  will  refer  to  any  regional  or  international  developments  that 
might affect cooperation between the donor and the country concerned.  

These  include  the  country’s  political  relations  in  the  region,  and  in  particular  international 
and/or regional agreements, regional policies and  any progress  towards regional integration, 
or the existence of armed conflicts in the region. 

It  is  also  important  to  highlight  the  role  actually  or  potentially  played  by  the  country  in  the 
regional and multilateral context (beacon, pole of stability), its capacity to play a leading role 
in the provision of public goods (e.g. peacekeeping, managing water resources in cross-border 
water  basins  to  protect  the  environment,  etc.)  and  its  capacity  to  take  part  in  international 
cooperation on such issues as terrorism, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
their  means  of  delivery,  trafficking  and  dissemination  of  small  arms  and  light  weapons, 
people trafficking, illegal migration, etc., which have a tendency to spill over. 

2.1.5.  Environmental situation 

This chapter will be based on an analysis of the environmental conditions in the country and 
the recommendations made in the “Country Environmental Profile”, a summary of which will 
be annexed. 

This  section  will  give  an  overview  of 
the  availability  and  use  of 
environmental/natural resources and in pollution in the country and, possibly, the region that 
directly  affect  or  influence  poverty  reduction  (link  with  MDG 7)  and  food  security.  It  will 
show clearly the main environmental challenges facing the country and the main obstacles to 
be  overcome.  Particular  attention  will  be  given  to  problems  and  needs  arising  from  climate 
change.  

trends 

in 

The  country’s  institutional  situation  and  its  specific  capacities  in  the  area  of  managing  the 
environment  and  natural  resources  will  be  described  along  with  the  legislative  framework. 
The CSP will also examine the existence or lack of regulatory reforms in the area. Lastly, the 
environmental impact, if any, of national sectoral policies will be described. 

Achievements in the area of the environment and the management of natural resources will be 
examined,  either  as  cross-cutting  issues  in  major  cooperation  programmes  (including  their 
environmental impact) or as specific projects or programmes. 

Stock  will  be  taken  of  the  country’s  accession  to  international  agreements  in  the  different 
domains  (climate  change,  biodiversity,  desertification,  chemical  products,  etc.)  and  the 
measures actually taken to apply them. The country’s specific needs in the matter will also be 
indicated. The “Country Environmental Profile” will take account of vulnerability to natural 
disasters  (risk  profile)  accompanied,  where  appropriate,  by  a  specific  analysis  identifying 
needs and measures in relation to prevention and preparedness, etc. 

2.2. 

Development strategy of the partner country 

This  section  must  provide  a  summary  of  the  aims  and  objectives  of  the  government  of  the 
country  concerned,  as  defined  (a)  in  the  official  documents  presenting  the  range  of  policies 
implemented, (b) in any national plan, reform strategy or medium- or long-term development 
programme  and  (c)  in  any  sectoral  development  programme.  This  statement  should  be 
supplemented by an indication of how the government proposes to achieve these objectives. 

This  section  must  review  the  country’s  commitments  under  the  framework  of  the  regional 
integration  process  of  which  it  is  a  member  (e.g.  creation  of  a  customs  union,  economic 
convergence, common market, sectoral policies, including those relating to security matters, 
partnership with the EU) and multilaterally (e.g. African Union, WTO, etc.). 

Particular attention must be given, where relevant, to the policies pursued by the country to 
develop ties with the diaspora and foster its involvement, to channel remittances, to promote 
economic emigration or to limit the impact of the brain drain. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
2.3. 

Analysis of the viability of current policies and the medium-term challenges 

In the light of the analysis of the country’s situation and political agenda, and especially its 
poverty reduction strategy (PRSP), a critical summary will be provided of the viability of the 
country’s  current  policies  and  medium-term  prospects,  showing  both  strengths  and 
weaknesses. 

This  section  will  help  clearly  identify  future  challenges  facing  the  government  and  the 
budgets it will be making available to tackle them, with due regard for complementarity. The 
most promising fields for future cooperation between the partner country and the donor will 
be chosen with a view to reducing poverty, i.e. fields in which national priorities realistically 
and viably match the objectives of the donor and the donor’s specific comparative advantages 
compared to other donors.  

In  the  case  of  low-income  countries,  e.g.  those  eligible  for  IDA,  especially  the  HIPC 
initiative,  the  national  agenda  will  be  linked  to,  or  treated  as,  a  poverty  reduction  strategy 
paper (PRSP). Under the principle of ownership, the CSP will support the partner country’s 
PRSP and its strategy of development or reforms in pursuit of the MDGs and align itself as far 
as  possible  on  the  systems  and  procedures  of  the  country’s  other  partners.  This  principle  of 
ownership  must  be  adapted  in  the  event  of  difficult  partnerships  or  post-crisis  situations  in 
particular,  and  alternative  approaches  must  be  sought  (shadow  alignment,  work  with  civil 
society, etc). Where this foundation exists, the EC, Member States and, possibly, other donors 
will harmonise their cooperation aid as far as possible. 

3. 

CHAPTER  3:  OVERVIEW  OF  COOPERATION  AND  POLITICAL 
DIALOGUE, COMPLEMENTARITY AND CONSISTENCY 

3.1. 

Overview of the donor’s past and present cooperation (lessons learned) 

In the event of joint programming, each donor will draw up a separate chapter providing an 
overview of its cooperation with the partner country. 

The CSP must contain a summary of the results of the donor’s past and present cooperation 
with  the  partner  country  and  of  the  lessons  learned  in  order  to  update  knowledge  and 
incorporate  best  practices.  It  is  important  that  this  statement  should  cover  all  external  aid 
instruments for the country, including regional cooperation, issue-based programmes, global 
initiatives and humanitarian aid. 

The  previous  CSP’s  sectors  of  intervention  must  be  evaluated  in  the  light  of  the  results 
obtained so far on the basis of progressive qualitative and quantitative performance indicators, 
with due regard for the requisite flexibility. 

Account  will  be  taken  of  general  recommendations  specifically  made  in  evaluations  of 
strategies by the partner country, if there are any, evaluations of specific sectors and projects 
and annual reports. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
3.2. 

Information on the programmes of other donors (complementarity) 

This  section  must  provide  as  accurate  and  comprehensive  a  picture  as  possible  of  the 
programmes  of  the  Member  States  and  other donors,  indicating  how  they  complement  each 
other.  Specify  as  far  as  possible  the  amounts  involved  and  their  breakdown  by  intervention 
sector.  Where  they  exist,  the  partner  country’s  analytical  instruments  (PRSP,  etc.)  will  be 
used. 

This  section  should  also  discuss  what  type  of  instruments  the  donors  are  using  in  their 
cooperation and whether there is a sectoral or regional focus to their efforts. 

A prospective financial matrix of donors will be annexed for detailed information. 

3.3. 

Description of the political dialogue between the donor and the partner country 

This section will cover the development of the political dialogue between the government and 
the donor, in particular concerning aspects such as the human rights situation, governance, the 
rule of law, etc. 

3.4. 

Description  of  the  state  of  the  partnership  with  the  partner  country  and 
progress towards harmonisation 

The  CSP  must  describe  progress  towards  improving  the  coordination  of  policies,  the 
harmonisation  of  procedures  for  programming  rounds  and  the  alignment  on  the  partner 
country’s budget cycles. This analysis will be based inter alia on the progress indicators laid 
down in the Paris Declaration. 

More specifically, this section will report on the progress of any coordination/harmonisation 
process  in  the  country  at  European  level,  and  in  particular  on  the  dialogue  between  the 
Commission and the Member States and the existing coordination system, briefly describe the 
guidelines in the “road map” on the EU’s harmonisation and alignment in the partner country, 
describe  the  application  of  the  common  framework  at  European  level  and  explain  the 
stage/type of joint programming chosen for the country. It will state the future guidelines and 
implementation  plan  for  joint  programming.  Where  relevant,  it  will  describe  the  other 
harmonisation  processes  under  way  in  the  country  and  the  donors’  position  on  these 
initiatives,  and  their  complementarity  and  links  with  the  harmonisation  process  at  European 
level. 

This  section  will  provide  information  on  the  donors’  initiatives  to  align  on  the  partner 
country’s  multiannual  programming  rounds  (poverty  reduction  strategies  and  budget 
processes). 

It will describe the role, attitude and position of the partner country in the harmonisation and 
alignment process and its capacity/willingness to play a leading role. 

3.5. 

Analysis of consistency with the donor’s other policies 

It is widely recognised that development policy alone will not enable the developing countries 
to progress.  

Policies  other  than  aid  policy  are  at  least  as  important  in  so  far  as  they  contribute  or  affect 
developing countries in their efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
The  principle  of  consistency  with  other  EU  policies  requires  special  attention.  This  section 
must,  where  relevant,  address  the  following  areas:  trade,  the  environment,  climate  change, 
security,  agriculture,  fish,  the  social  dimension  of  globalisation,  employment  and  decent 
work, migration, research and innovation, the information society, transport and energy. 

The  objective  is  to  promote  the  possible  synergies  between  other  EU  policies  and 
development policy in the response strategy. 

4. 

CHAPTER 4: THE DONOR’S RESPONSE STRATEGY 

This section should set out the strategic choices for cooperation in the partner country on the 
basis of its needs, strategies, priorities and resources and according to the evaluation of: 

–  the partner country’s development strategy and the viability of interventions in the light of 
the  country’s  political  and  institutional,  economic,  trade,  social  and  environmental 
situation; 

–  the objectives of the donor’s development policy, other aspects of external action and other 

policies; 

–  the  country’s  needs  and  progress  towards  the  MDGs  and  its  commitment  to  achieving 
them,  referring  where  possible  to  indicators  and  statistics  delivered  by  the  national 
statistical system; 

–  the relative magnitude of the financial and administrative resources to be made available 
and  their  potential  impact  (for  example,  in  terms  of  improved  country  economic 
performance and poverty reduction);  

–  the  comparative  advantages  of  the  donor  in  relation  to  complementarity/the  division  of 
labour  between  development  partners,  especially  vis-à-vis  the  Member  States  and/or  the 
Commission; 

–  where  relevant,  the  results  of  the  analysis  of  the  consistency  between  the  donors’  other 

policies and the development objectives; 

–  any risks associated with the strategy that could jeopardise its success (political, economic, 

security, environmental impact). 

The  programming  process  must  be  guided  by  the  principle  of  concentration.  This  means 
selecting a limited number of sectors of intervention rather than scattering efforts across too 
many different sectors. This is crucial to the effectiveness of aid.  

The  choice  of  implementation  method  must  also  be  explained,  given  the  principle  of 
switching  from  a  project-based  to  a  programme-based  approach,  accompanied,  wherever 
possible, by structural/sectoral aid. 

For each selected focal area, the CSP should define overall and specific objectives. 

If  there  is  a  joint  response  strategy,  this  section  must  contain  a  division  of  labour  between 
development partners. If not, it must provide a specific justification of the value added by the 
EC as compared to other donors. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Cross-cutting  issues  must  be  mainstreamed  in  each  priority  area:  i)  democracy,  good 
governance,  human  rights,  the  rights  of  the  child  and  the  rights  of  indigenous  peoples; 
ii) gender equality; iii) environmental sustainability; iv) HIV/AIDS. 

The  partner  country’s  commitments,  drawn  up  in  cooperation  with  the  government,  will  be 
listed and the risks of the response strategy analysed. 

In  order  to  determine  whether  the  priority  sectors  have  a  potential  environmental  impact,  a 
reference  will  be  made  to  a  clear  commitment  to  carry  out  a  strategic  environmental 
assessment. 

PART 2: WORK PROGRAMME 

All the aspects examined in the CSP feed into a work programme or NIP. 

The NIP is essentially a management tool covering a period of several years to identify and 
define,  in  a  transparent  manner,  the  selected  areas/sectors  of  cooperation  for  financing  and 
appropriate measures and actions for attaining the objectives set down. More specifically, it 
must  set  out  the  overall  and  specific  objectives,  the  target  groups,  the  expected  results,  the 
programmes  to  be  implemented  to  achieve  the  objectives,  the  type  of  assistance  to  be 
provided and a calendar. The commitments agreed with the partner country will be reiterated. 

In this connection, performance indicators must be fixed for each sector in partnership with 
the  partner  country  and  the  other  partners.  These  indicators  must  be  confined  to  a  few 
essential indicators of different types (inputs, direct achievements, results and impact). There 
should  be  a  particular  emphasis  on  results-based  indicators,  which  have  the  advantage  of 
increasing  the  partner  country’s  ownership  of  the  policies  to  be  applied  to  achieve  the 
objectives. The indicators must also be clearly defined and measurable. In this connection, the 
donors need to agree to use common indicators to assess performance in each sector against 
the  objectives.  In  the  countries  concerned,  this  should  be  done  using  the  monitoring  system 
laid down in the PRSP, which should be incorporated into the national budget cycle. 

Where  appropriate,  the  work  programme  should  also  give  an  approximate  idea  of  the 
resources  allocated,  the  financing  method  (aid,  projects,  budget  support)  and  the  financial 
legal basis. 

ANNEXES 

1. 

Summary table for the country 

This  table  provides  basic  information  on  the  country  concerned.  The  tables  showing  the 
macroeconomic indicators and the 10 key poverty indicators will be included in it. 

2. 

Country environmental profile 

This  analysis  of  the  environmental  conditions  in  a  country  or  sector  includes  the  following 
information:  a  description  of  the  natural  and  human  environment,  including  the  profile  of 
vulnerability  and  exposure  to  the  risk  of  natural  disaster,  the  legislative  and  institutional 
framework,  information  on  the  links  between  the  social,  economic  and  environmental 
situations, key data on areas where environmental action is needed and recommendations for 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
the  future,  an  analysis  of  the  cooperation  from  an  environmental  point  of  view  as  to  its 
integration in programs and projects in other areas and/or as to its integration as focal sector. 

3. 

Prospective financial matrix of donors 

This annex summarises the known interventions of other donors, including the Member States 
and  multilateral  donors.  It  will  transparently  reflect  at  least  the  results  of  the  local 
coordination/harmonisation referred to above. It will highlight, where relevant, the division of 
labour  and/or  complementarity.  The  matrix  will  be  both  retrospective  and  prospective, 
covering both the past and the period 2006-2013. 

This  matrix  will  also  be  a  useful  contribution  to  the  CDF/PRSP  exercise  if  that  is  being 
developed in the partner country. 

4. 

Country migration profile (where necessary) 

A migration profile must be drawn up for every country in which migration (South/North or 
South/South) and/or asylum issues could influence development prospects. 

It  contains  any  information  relevant  to  the  design  and  management  of  a  common  migration 
and development policy. It includes information on migratory flows (refugees and economic 
migrants), taking in gender issues and the situation of children. It also provides information 
on the country’s skills needs, skills available in the diaspora and remittances to the country. 
Where relevant, the profile will analyse the routes taken by illegal migrants and the activities 
of people-trafficking networks. 

5. 

Description of the CSP drafting process, stressing the involvement of non-state 
actors and local authorities 

This  involves,  in  particular,  explaining  how  non-state  actors  and  local  authorities  were 
involved  in  the  programming  discussions  and,  more  generally,  assessing  the  progress  made 
and  to  be  made  towards  consolidating  the  involvement  of  these  actors  in  the  development 
process (discussion of the country’s development priorities in the framework of the PRSP, the 
participatory  nature  of  the  budgetary  processes,  the  capacities,  potential  and  constraints  of 
different types of actors, etc.). 

6. 

Harmonisation road map (where there is one) 

EN 

22 

   EN