SRBCs offered a rapid funding response in a high-risk environment. All SRBC recipient countries were characterized by social vulnerability, macroeconomic fragility, political instability, weak institutions and governance, lack of state legitimacy, volatile aid, and substantial and increasing risk levels. All countries displayed an urgent need for a large volume of funding. Most often, these situations arose in structurally fragile countries hit by a health, economic, political, climate and/or security crisis. Sometimes, situations of fragility were exacerbated by political change, natural or climate catastrophes, or external shocks (e.g., a drop in commodity prices). In these contexts, the EU’s response has been to provide a rapid response in an emergency context, with budget support funding discussed with the IMF, to close an existing financing gap. On average, SRBCs represented 5% of domestic revenues. 

SRBCs were usually prepared very rapidly, and conditions for disbursement could be adapted during implementation. Although the eligibility criteria were the same as for Sustainable Development Goals contracts (SDG-Cs) and sector reform performance contracts (SRPCs), they were interpreted more flexibly for SRBCs and their results were assessed through policy commitment and intent, rather than the policy track record. Flexibility was also shown in the way variable tranche performance indicators could be revised, the length and amounts of the contract could be adapted, and additional tranches could be provided in response to specific unexpected challenges. 

This flexibility did not undermine the important role of the variable tranches as an incentive to reach specific targets: overall, only 75% of the planned value of variable tranches were disbursed. However, it was found to have diminished their potential role in stimulating the adoption of pro-stability and pro-growth policies.

Policy dialogue was key to all SRBCs, given that eligibility criteria were assessed on the basis of policy intent and political commitment, and disbursement conditions could be re-assessed rapidly in reaction to changes in the situation. The dynamic interpretation of disbursement conditions required intense and continuous discussions, focusing mostly on budget and fiscal issues, PFM, and fundamental values. Policy dialogue was most often undertaken bilaterally, but it was often undermined by a lack of political backing or consensus, weak institutional capacities, and the overbearing weight of the ministry of finance in discussions that concerned line ministries. 

Technical dialogue was based on the performance indicators, which usually targeted the government actions (input and process indicators) that are essential for state functioning: economic and financial governance, social sectors (education, health, food security), and democratic governance. A characteristic of the EU’s dialogue has been the concept of “proximity.” The EU’s presence on the ground, and the direct management of the SRBCs by the EU delegations (with headquarters support), facilitated these technical discussions, which often evolved into a more structured dialogue (through the setting up of monitoring platforms or committees), and facilitated dialogue between the ministry of finance, the services responsible for the actions covered by the performance indicators, the EU delegations, and technical assistants. In several cases, proximity and the rapid mobilization of funds through the SRBC also provided an opportunity for the policy dialogue to open the door to political dialogue in complex situations (e.g., in Afghanistan, Burundi before 2016, and The Gambia). 

Technical assistance was often used but was not a driver in these programs. Most programs planned for technical assistance to strengthen governments’ weak institutional capacities, but with little coordination among development partners and only a weak connection with the programs, the technical assistance was merely able to provide limited knowledge transfer and/or follow-up actions.