LPIC Lidapatty International Consulting S.A.S.
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights
(EIDHR)
LPIC Lidapatty International Consulting S.A.S.
Ă?ndice: Pg.
0
1
List of acronyms and abbreviations Introduction
Figure 1.1 Purpose of the EFI evaluation according to EU Regulation 236/2014. Art. 17. Figure 1.2 External Financing Instruments – EFIs
2
Background, institutional context and evolution of the EIDHR since 2007
The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) Figure 2.3 EIDHR Coordination mechanisms EIDHR co-operation partners Figure 2.4 EIDHR Stakeholders Description and analysis of the evolution of the EIDHR since 2007 Figure 2.5 EIDHR Features Figure 2.6 EIDHR Focus areas 2014-2020 Figure 2.7 EIDHR Principles
3
Overall evaluation design
Figure 3.1 Evaluation main features Figure 3.2 Evaluation elements
Pg.
3.1
Evaluation phases
Figure 3.1 Evaluation phases Inception phase Desk Stage Field phase Synthesis and consultation phase
4
Global intervention logic
Figure 4.1 Intervention logic
5
Evaluation questions, judgement criteria and areas of investigation (indicators)
5.1
EQ 1 on relevance
5.2
EQ 2 on effectiveness, impact, sustainability
5.3 5.4
EQ 3 on efficiency
EQ 4 on added value
Pg.
5.5
EQ 5 on coherence, consistency, complementarity and synergies
5.6
EQ 6 on leverage
6
Approach and methodology
6.1
Overview of tools and methods for upcoming phases
Figure 6.1.1. Gathering and quality assessment of the evaluation evidence Figure 6.1.2. Evaluation tools
6.2
Evaluation sample
Figure 6.2.1: Comparison selection to the global number of actions Aymeric Figure 6.2.2: Selection of projects for in-depth study
Pg.
6.3
Approach for inventory of the evidence base
Figure 6.3.1. Overview of documents collected General overview Figure 6.3.2: General overview of EU contribution to EIDHR, 2004-2016 (Mâ‚Ź) Allocation by EIDHR objective Figure 6.3.3: EIDHR budget allocation by objective (Mâ‚Ź) Leverage Implications for the evaluation
6.4
Data challenge
Figure 6.4.1: Temporal scope of documents collected Consultation strategy
7
Organisation
8
Work plan and schedule of evaluation process
9
Annex: Inventory of the evidence base
0 List of acronyms and abbreviations
06
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
CIR Common FPI Foreign Policy Implementing Instrument Regulation
IOM International
EEAS
European Organisation for External Action Service Migration
EFI External Funding IPA Instrument for Pre- Instrument
Accession
EIDHR
European Instrument ISG Inter-Service Steering for Human Rights and Group Democracy
ENI European
MFF Multi-Annual Financial
Neighbourhood Instrument
Framework
EOM Electoral Observation Mission
Inception Report
July 2016
07
Intro
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
duction This study is one of a series of EU External Financing Instrument (EFI) evaluations designed to feed into the EFI Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report required by the Common Implementing Regulation (CIR) before the end of 2017. The main purpose of this study is to provide an independent assessment of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) which would provide lessons for improving current and future programming and implementation. The Common Implementing Regulation (CIR), was established for the first time in March 2014, to provide a single set of rules for the implementation of the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), European the Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI), EIDHR, the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) II, the Partnership Instrument (PI). Prior to this, implementing rules were included in each separate instrument. The CIR (Article 17) calls for a MTR Report of the six EFIs and the CIR itself, to be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council by the end of 2017. However, as the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation and Greenland Decision also require a similar report, and the EDF requires a Performance Review it has been decided that all the ten instruments will be covered by the MTR Report. According to Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 Art. 17 the purpose of all EFI evaluations, including the one on the EIDHR, is to provide an assessment for improving the implementation of the Union’s assistance. This study shall inform decisions on the renewal, modification or suspension of the types of actions implemented under the EIDHR Instrument. The mid-term review report shall cover the period from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2017(1) and shall focus on the achievement of the objectives of the EIDHR by means of indicators measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of the Instrument. The geographic scope is all eligible countries under the EIDHR regulation. According to Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 Art.17: the purpose of all EFI evaluations is fourfold as shown in figure 1.1
(1) According to the ToR this study will cover till 1st of June 2017. Aspects related to the strategic relevance of the previous EIDHR programming period (2007 – 2013) will be assessed in order to identify outcomes and impact of the EIDHR, as a significant amount of available data refers to this period.
Inception Report
July 2016
09
Figure 1.1 Purpose of the EFI evaluation according to EU Regulation 236/2014. Art. 17.:
10
Added Value
Address the added value of the EIDHR, the scope for simplification and 3 C’s between the EFIs
Continued Relevance
Continued relevance of EIDHR objectives: contribution to a consistent EU external action and, to EU priorities for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
Findings and Conclusions
Findings and conclusions concerning the long-term impact of the Instrument
Leverage Effect
Information about the leverage effect achieved by the funds of the EIDHR
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Figure 1.2 External Financing Instruments - EFIs Main Heading IV Instruments Instrument for Democracy & Human Rights Instrument Contributing to Stability and Peace Instrument for for Nuclear Safety Partnership Instrument EDF
(outside butget)
Greenland Instrument
Development Cooperation Instrument
European Neighbourhood Instrument
Pre-Accession Instrument
DCI Thematic Program Global Public Goods
DCI Thematic Program Civil Society Organisations & Local Authorities
DCI Pan-African Program
Common Implementing Regulation This study will be coordinated with other on-going evaluations (6) and will provide inputs to the coherence report, common implementing regulations’ report (see figure 1.2). Complementarities between instruments will be relevant especially with the DCI and the IcSP. The main users of this evaluation include the European Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS), the Council of the European Union, and the European Parliament. The evaluation may also be of interest to the wider international development community, such as partner countries, EU Member States and their National Parliaments, EU expert groups, donors and international organisations, civil society organisations, and the general public interested in external assistance. Inception Report
The evaluation of the EIDHR is being undertaken at mid-point of its current implementation (2014-2020). It should be understood as part of a set of separate but interlinked evaluations of each EFI, which will be undertaken during 2016 and the first half of 2017. Evaluation roadmaps for each of the EFIs were published in November 2015 and are available via the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/index_en.htm The EIDHR Roadmap can be found at this link: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_ devco_004_evaluation_eidhr_en.pdf
July 2016
11
Background, institutional context and evolution of the EIDHR since 2007 The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) is the concrete expression of the EU commitment to support and promote democracy and human rights in third countries. Its general objectives (2) are:
Supporting, developing and consolidating democracy in third countries, by enhancing participatory and representative democracy, strengthening the overall democratic cycle, in particular by reinforcing an active role for civil society within this cycle, and the rule of law, and improving the reliability of electoral processes, in particular by means of EU Electoral Observation Missions; enhancing respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as proclaimed in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments, and strengthening their protection, promotion, implementation and monitoring, mainly through support to relevant civil society organisations, human rights defenders and victims of repression and abuse. The EIDHR is complementary to its other external assistance instruments and channelled mainly through civil society organisations. It is established to contribute to achieving the Union’s policies relating to human rights, including the objectives outlined in the Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy (3) adopted by the Council on 25 June 2012 and its new 2015-2019 Action Plan (4). Its budget for the period 2014-2020 is EUR 1,332,752,000. The EIDHR represents a key added-value to the EU policy toolbox, thanks to its flexibility, its ability to provide assistance independently of the consent of the governments and public authorities of the third countries concerned, as well as its mixing of advocacy and field operations. Its interventions are being implemented under the EIDHR Multi-annual Indicative Programme 2014-2017 and its consecutive annual and bi-annual actions plans, and is guided by a range of strategies, tools and mechanisms as shown in figure XX. 12
0
2
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Figure 2.3 EIDHR Coordination mechanisms
HR Country Strategies elaborated by EU Delegations: orientations for the implementation of EIDHR at country level
EU Guidelines on HR
Tool-Box: a Rights-Based Approach: HR for EU development cooperation
Commission Staff Working Document of 30 April 2014 (SWD 152/2014)
Coordination and consultation mechanisms with major stakeholders
EIDHR co-operation partners EIDHR objectives involve many stakeholders (shown in figure xx in the white frames) and they target mainly Human Rights Defenders, local civil society, citizens in third countries and Human Rights Institutions at EU, global, regional and national level (frames in orange). Objectives 1, 2, 3 and 5 are managed by DEVCO, Unit B1 and objective 4 by the Foreign Policy Instruments, Unit FPI 5. The EIDHR also seeks further complementarities with other EFIs such as the DCI, the IcSP and other donors and Human Rights Institutions and organisations (frames in grey).
(2) Article 1 of the Regulation (EU) No 233/2014. (3) Joint Communication “Human Rights and democracy at the heart of EU external action – Towards a more effective approach” of 12 December 2011(COM(2011)886) adopted by the Council on 25 June 2012 (11855/12) (4) Joint Communication “Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (2015-2019): Keeping human rights at the heart of the EU agenda” of 28 April 2015 (JOIN(2015)16) adopted by the Council on 20 July 2015 (10897/15)
Inception Report
July 2016
13
Figure 2.4 EIDHR Stakeholders
- CSO & national, regional and international HRD organisations involved, EU MS and Institutions
-EU Delegations. Incountry stakeholders. CSO, Independent political foundations, national parliamentary bodies
-CSO, domestic observer groups, democracy watchdogs, national,regional and interregional organisation, MS &EU Election Observers
CSO&LA, GPGC, IcSP
1. Objective 1 — Support to HR and HRD
CSO&LA, IcSP, geographic instruments
HRD
1. Objective 1 — Support to HR and HRD
Objectives 1, 2, 3 & 4 managed by DEVCO Unit B1
Electoral institutions
LCS
Citizens
1. Objective 1 — Support to HR and HRD
-The country’s voters, election authorities, public institutions and administration, political parties, civil , international community; EU Parliament, EU Council, EC UN mechanisms, GIZ, working group EU Delegation to AU
4. Objective 4 — EU EOMs
-Global network -EU MS, OHCHR, UNESCO, the Council of Europe, OSCE & leading NGO -Danish Institute for Human Rights DCI, EDF, IcPS, other measures EIDHR / CSO, reg. Org., domestic observers
Citizens
1. Objective 1 — Support to HR and HRD
Objective 4 managed by Foreign Policy Instruments - FPI 5
EIUC
Acronyms CSO HRD EU MS DCI CSO&LA GPGC IcSP
Civil Society Organisations OHCHR United Nations Office of the High Com missioner for Human Rights Human Rights Defenders UNESCO EU Member States OSCE Organisation for Security and Thematic programs Cooperation in Europe CSO and Local Authorities EDF European Development Fund Global Public Goods and Challenges AU: African Union Instrument contributing to Stability and GIZ: Gesellschaft für International Zusammenarbeit Peace 14
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Description and analysis of the evolution of the EIDHR since 2007
EIDHR main features are:
Figure 2.5 EIDHR Features Non-partisan approach
Worldwide coverage Focus on CSOs and local activities
Window to EU EOM
Independence of action
Figure 2.6 EIDHR Focus areas 2014-2020
Linkage between democracy & HR
EIDHR’s specific objectives have been better defined in the current strategy with respect to the protection of human rights and support of democratic processes. Compared to the 2007-2013 EIDHR, the 2014-2020 EIDHR has been adjusted to address new realities and is more strategic in its focus (see figure 1.6 below), including in particular): stronger wording on the role of civil society
more support for int. & reg. HR protection follow up to EOM recommendations
emphasis on each vulnerable group
emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights
The 2014-2020 instrument has also a stronger focus on the most difficult countries and emergency situations where human rights and fundamental freedoms are most in danger. In such situations. The 2014-2020 EIDHR is also procedurally easier to use, enabling the EU to provide more support for the development of thriving civil societies and their specific role as key actors for positive change in support of human rights and democracy. This includes increasing the EU’s capacity to react respond in a more flexible and timely manner through ad hoc grants. This will particularly be the case where less speedy solutions would expose beneficiaries to the risk of serious intimidation or retaliation and in order to address the urgent protection needs of human rights defenders on the ground, human rights emergencies.
Figure 2.7 EIDHR Principles
Phisical and political constraints
Flexible, reactive and tailor-made.
No nationality restriction
Confidential Balanced: target/call, global/regional/local Inception Report
July 2016
15
03
Overall evaluation design This is an instrument evaluation as a whole, not of the projects and programmes implemented under it. It is an evaluation at the level of outcomes and is not an impact evaluation. The overarching question could be phrased as “How well did this instrument accomplish what it was set up to do?” [“Why or why not? And, what were the factors that influenced its success or failure? How well does the instrument respond to new challenges in the political and institutional context?” ] The EQs should be interpreted as, e.g., whether the design and application of the EIDHR were conducive to the relevance of the actions financed (EQ1); whether the EIDHR was designed and applied in such a way as to deliver coherently against stated policy objectives and effectively against expected results (EQ2). While the quality of the actions financed is of interest, the evaluation must look to the instrument to analyse why and how actions financed were successful or unsuccessful, and the criteria applied will be those set by the instrument. Emphasis will be placed on reconstructing the process by which the new EIDHR was designed, with particular attention to the weaknesses and issues that it was supposed to address. The Better Regulation guidelines, together with the evaluation methodology of DG DEVCO, serve as guidance for the evaluation and consultation stage.
16
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Figure 3.1 Evaluation main features Evaluation main features The intervention logic forms the backbone of the analytical framework
Evidence-based evaluation, with focus on EIDHR procedures & operative structure
Quantitative and qualitative methods (consultation of stakeholders)
Each question has been structured into judgement criteria (JC) and specific areas of attention per JC required to provide an answer based on a synthesis of evidence (see Section 5). The proposed design of the evaluation includes also the identification of following elements:
Figure 3.2 Evaluation elements Evaluation Elements Data to be collected, sources & methods
3.1
Methods to analyse data
Assessment of the data
Consultation strategy with EIDHR stakeholders
Work plan and schedule for evaluation process
Evaluation phases
Figure 3.1 Evaluation phases Meetings / Approach and matrix / Inventory
Inception
In depth analysis / Interviews / Approach for the field
Desk
Findings and Conclusions Field
Interviews with focus groups / Site visits / Data collection
Answers to EQ / Conclusions and recommendations / Open Public Consultation
Synthesis and consultation
Inception Report
July 2016
17
Inception phase The inception stage has been an essential step in the evaluation process, as it enabled to clarify the theory of change, to define the strategic questioning, and to structure the evaluation overall. It covered the following tasks:
Introductory meeting and preliminary interviews: At the very start of this evaluation, the Team Leader and one of the HR experts participated in a briefing session. The purpose of the briefing was for the evaluation team to meet and be briefed by the Evaluation manager, relevant Inter-service Steering Group (ISG) members individually, and to meet any other key players. Further the team was briefed by the Common Implementing Regulations (CIR) evaluation, was introduced to the Human Rights and Democracy Unit in DEVCO (B1) and by the Electoral Observation Missions (EOMs) (FPI 5). Expectations and focus were discussed and main focal points of contact established to share knowledge, cross fertilise ideas, develop common grounds of understanding, and facilitate data collection throughout the evaluation.
Inventory of spending and non-spending activities: The evaluation constructed an overview of EU activities under this instrument. The portfolio has been analysed in order to i) gain an overview and deepen understanding of the evidence base and ii) provide a transparent and robust basis for defining evaluation questions (EQs), for selecting activities for in-depth study and visit, and for informing the analysis. Data available in CRIS, Data Warehouse and EIDHR website (http://www.eidhr.eu/library) has been extracted by the evaluation team, and other data sources have been provided by the CIR evaluation and other relevant stakeholders.
Intervention logic: The team presents a fully reconstructed intervention logic. This has been built up from a consideration of the theory of change linking the 5 objectives set out in the Multiannual Indicative Programme (MIP 2014-2017 with the intended impacts and the activities financed under the Annual Action Plans (AAP).
18
Set of evaluation questions: The evaluators took the provided set of EQs (the same for all evaluations). Key aspects of importance were set out in the ToR, section 5; and based on the work done on the intervention logic, the team proposed a set of Judgement Criteria (JC) and indicators under each EQ. Sources of information per EQ and a methodological approach to collect and to analyse the EQ are the basis for an evidence based evaluation likely to be useful with clearly identified approaches on how collect the evidence.
Selection of activities to be examined in-depth during the desk phase: in discussion with the ISG and in light of the inventory, the team has in this inception report submitted criteria for the selection of activities to be examined in-depth. Criteria aim at ensuring representativeness across different parameters, including the geographic location and the size of the projects. Moreover, interventions should be selected on the basis of their relevance for answering the EQs that will have been defined.
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Desk Stage The desk stage will enable the team to continue the collection and analysis of data with a view to provide preliminary answers to the EQ as well as to identify information gaps to be filled during subsequent phases. It will cover the following different tasks:
Strategy analysis: document analysis of strategy-level documentation, in particular EIDHR and CIR implementation procedures, MIPs, EIDHR and related policies and strategies; call for proposals, international reference documentation on themes examined; interviews with EU staff.
In-depth analysis of activities: examination of available documentation on a series of interventions selected during the inception stage, including review of project documentation, EU electoral observation reports and pre-electoral assessments, metaanalysis of monitoring reports and evaluations conducted, and examination of their alignment with partner country development strategies.
Additional HQ-level interviews with EU staff, at the level of senior management and t task managers involved in key activities selected for in-depth study. On election observation some member state desks will be contacted as well as the European Parliament.
Inception Report
Stakeholder survey: we propose to consider the use of a web-based survey targeting mainly targeted actors and if relevant beneficiaries. It will be web-based and be kept short (max. 15’ response time) and it will be linked to relevant evaluation questions/ judgement criteria. The questionnaire will be discussed with EU staff. We intend to launch it at the end of the desk phase so as to benefit from first findings, to have it running in parallel to field missions and to have results available when starting the synthesis phase.
Desk analysis will result in development of preliminary findings in response to the EQs, when solid documentary evidence exists, as well as identification of remaining information gaps and working hypotheses to be addressed during the field phase.
Approach for the field phase and selection of projects to be visited: the team will detail in the desk report the approach and work plan for the field phase, including criteria to select mission countries and activities to be visited. These will be part of the desk phase selection of activities.
July 2016
19
Field phase As outlined in the ToR a total of 4 countries will be visited. As all team members are senior and familiar with at least one chosen region the missions will be single person ones except the first mission where the senior adviser will also participate. Thus a total of 30 days have been foreseen for field visits in selected countries with an additional 30 days for planning and reporting and follow up related to the field work. It has been calculated so as to allow on average 5 missions of minimum 4 days on the spot with 6 days allowed on average, with flexibility of configurations. The field missions will mainly consist of:
Semi-structured interviews and possibly focus groups, with incountry stakeholders such as EU and other donor staff; implementing partners; government (where relevant); electoral management bodies and non-state actors (e.g. domestic observation groups and human rights defenders); and end beneficiaries. The team will use interview guides on the basis of the preliminary findings and information gaps detailed in the desk report.
Additional documentation/data collection, which weren’t received before and would be available in the countries notably at the EU Delegations.
Site visits organised to observe on-site activities deployed and/ or achievements reached, and to meet targeted end beneficiaries, where relevant and feasible. At the conclusion of the field mission, the evaluators will provide feedback on preliminary findings to the EU Delegations of the visited countries.
Synthesis and consultation phase The evaluators will analyse all information collected during the desk and field phases, including survey results, so as to enable responses to be formulated to the evaluation questions identified at the outset of the evaluation process, and on this basis to draw overall conclusions and recommendations. Particular attention will be paid to triangulation of information, cross-fertilisation by team members, consideration of international best practices. The evaluators will also consider a few additional interviews to test possible recommendations, so as to increase their operational character and ownership by EU services. We will be guided by the Chapeau contract team leader on the inputs and format required for the public consultation, response to questions and summaries. As mentioned earlier, our team leader with her communication capacities and fluency in the languages of the consultation will ensure good communication. A draft final report will be made available for an Open Public Consultation, which will feed into the final report. 20
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
3.2
Evaluation challenges
This study will face a number of challenges – all of which are possible to mitigate – and which are related to the fact that (i) it is one of a series of EFI evaluations to feed into a common EFI MTR, a new kind of exercise for EU external aid; (ii) it is one of the first strategic evaluations of EU external aid which has to apply the Better Regulation provisions; and (iii) it is a complex strategic evaluation, following DEVCO’s methodological approach. It will in particular face the following challenges:
Inception Report
•
Coordination with other EFI evaluations- it is essential that that the evaluation is closely coordinated with the
other studies, issues of mismatch in timing, misunder standings and professional bias can occur – this will be mitigated by ensuring close communication and coordina tion between the team leaders and also at company level.
•
Tight calendar - mitigated by adopting a swift decision making; respect of deadlines by all parties.
•
Limited country visits for in-depth assessment – mitigated by ensuring senior staff who are familiar with the countries being visited and can thus quickly extract the necessary information and a close coordination with other evaluation teams visiting other countries.
•
Open public consultation and face-to-face consultations- it is difficult to plan how much effort will be needed for these new types of activities, which may also very much depend from the coordination and complementarity between the evaluation studies.
•
Defining the relevant baseline, whether just prior to the EI DHR regulation in March 2014, or more generally during the EIDHR 2007-2013. Different JCs and EQs may well have different baselines, some corresponding to a single point in time and others to an interval. Another challenge will be to consider how lessons from strategic evaluations of EIDHR interventions were taken up and led to changes in policy and practice.
July 2016
21
Global intervention logic
0
Intervention logic: as mentioned above, clarifying the EIDHR engagement rationale within the EU and rights based approach policy context, and unpacking the intervention logic will be an essential building stone for the evaluation – the EIDHR had already done considerable work in this regard as noted in Annex 6 of the ToR. The team has analysed the theory of change behind cooperation objectives and expected results, specifying implicit or explicit assumptions and logical linkages. The analysis provides a first, ‘faithful’ logic based on official documents. Figure 4.1 is largely self-explanatory and presents an intervention logic and theory of change that is common for all the regional facilities. Essentially: Inputs to activities to outputs – Direct grants and call for proposals to award grants with the aim of reinforcing an active role for civil society within the democracy cycle in third countries, are combined with other aid methods like: i) service contracts to increase stakeholders’ capacities and support to electoral and democracy processes, and ii) contribution agreements with international organisations with the aim of strengthening regional and international HR protection mechanisms. Grants and contribution agreements aim also to enhance a financial leverage, political or policy engagement, the grants aim more specifically to enhance efficiency and to increase the EU reaction capacity in emergency support. Outputs to outcomes - The improvements in project design and implementation arising from EIDHR are expected to lead to increasing, awareness and understanding of HR principles and instruments, the compliance with HR obligations, the domestic accountability and transparency in election processes and strengthening international and regional frameworks for HR protection. Outcomes to impacts - In turn the outcomes arising from improved project performance and quality will enhance the intended project effects which can be grouped as: i) respect and observance of HR and fundamental freedoms, ii) consolidation of democracy in third countries, and iii) creation of a political civil society environment for sustainable development. The contribution to these effects and the extent and nature of their ultimate impact will be dependent on what projects are being selected by a particular aid method. Grants emphasise on the first and third expected effect, the contribution agreements on the first effect and the service contracts on the second expected effect. 22
4
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Not surprising, a number of high-level assumptions underlie these outputs and outcomes. EIDHR relies on the human resources of the European Commission, the FPI, EEAS and the EUDs. Important assumptions are thus: a) EU organisation structures in place and staff informed, with capacity to programme and implement funds, b) procedures allow timely delivery of actions. Key actors in the identification and formulation process are DEVCO HQ, EUD, FPI & EEAS, as well as implementing partners. Obvious assumptions are: a) policy priorities covered by EIDHR, b) programming documents consistent with regulation and coordinated, c) actions consistent with beneficiaries’ needs and based on dialogue with civil society, d) System in place to check progress and report on results, e) funding spent as designated, f) countries absorb allocations. Figure 4.1 also indicates a number of drivers behind the intervention logic. Drivers are external factors that tend to promote and positively influence the delivery of results and impacts. Demand for grants: this is a crucial driver that influences the effectiveness of the aid modality in delivering additional quality either at output or outcome level. Demand comes from the beneficiary and is beyond the direct control of the EIDHR itself. EIDHR can however influence demand by targeting situations. Design factors: A crucial driver for ensuring a stream of projects that deliver results is the existence of projects that are potentially highly feasible. Positive externalities: where a project has many positive externalities such as HR protection and democracy improving measures then the EIDHR is likely to add greater value. There are also external factors and assumptions that negatively influence the intervention logic moving from inputs to impacts: a) Conditions of political instability in partner countries; b) Existing political agendas in partner countries, including governments and CSOs do not consider HR, transparency and democracy issues, and c) natural or man-made disasters and catastrophes. Under these factors, even a well-designed project is unlikely or at least less likely to deliver sustainable results and impact – whether or not financed through EIDHR.
Inception Report
July 2016
23
Figure 4.1 Intervention logic
EQ 4: Added Value INPUTS
EQ 5: 3 C’s & synergies ACTIVITIES
∙HR crises facility S U P P O R T M E A S U R E S
Grants Direct Award
Grants - Call for Proposals
∙Calls for Proposals - CBSS ∙Global call for HRD & HR priorities Technical Assistance:
Service Contracts
Contribution Agreements
Support to democracy. ∙A citizens’ org ∙Media and freedom of expression
EOMs + exploratory M. + EFM+ EAT
Support to ∙EIUC and Global Campus ∙NHRI, reg. (AU) and intern. (OHCHR) ∙ICC ∙HR Dialogues
EQ1: Relevance
EQ3: Efficiency
ASSUMPTIONS Preconditions
a) EU organisation structures in place and staff informed & with capacity to programme and implement funds.
b) procedures allow timely delivery of actions.
a) System in place to check progress and report on results.
b) policy priorities covered by EIDHR
EQ 6: Leverage
EQ 5: 3 C’s & synergies OUTPUTS
∙HRD protected in due time ∙HRDs legislation implemented ∙Urgent cases of violation are timely addressed ∙Submissions/intervetions /complains for HR violations EU reaction capacity reinforced ∙EIDHR Campaigns and communication ∙Efficiency in emergency support Electoral processes, democratic cycles improved
IMPACT
OUTCOMES
Fragile CSO supported, HRD protected,
∙Awareness and understanding of HR principles and instruments
Compliance with HR obligations ∙Domestic accountability, rule of law, effective oversight, representative democracy Transparency and confidence in election process
∙Key actors capacities improved ∙Contributions to UPR ∙International and transitional justice improved
International and regional frameworks for protection, promotion and monitoring of HR strengthened
d) actions consistent with beneficiaries’ needs and based on dialogue with civil society.
Drivers Demand for grants Design Factors and adequation aid modality/Project Positive externalities
+ _
External Factors political instability in partner countries;Existing political agendas do not consider HR, transparency and democracy issues. natural or man-made disasters and catastrophes.
E Q2: Effectiveness, Impact, Sustainability
EQ3: Efficiency
c) Programming documents consistent with regulation and coordinated.
∙Respect for and observance of HR and fundamental freedoms. ∙Democracy and democratic reforms in third countries consolidated. ∙Political civil society environment conducive to sustainable development is created.
e) policy priorities covered by EIDHR.
f) No interruptions from natural & man-made disasters
g) procedures allow timely delivery of actions
h) funding spent as designated
26
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Evaluation questions, judgement criteria and areas of investigation (indicators) if appropriate, revised evaluation questions, and proposed judgement criteria per evaluation question and proposed quantitative and/or qualitative indicators related to each judgement criterion. If necessary, the Inception Report will also include suggestions of modifications to the composition of the evaluation team.
Inception Report
July 2016
27
5.1 EQ1
EQ 1 on relevance To what extent do the overall objectives (EIDHR Regulation, Article 1), the specific objectives and priorities (EIDHR Regulation, Annex) and the design (5) of the EIDHR respond to: (i) EU priorities and beneficiary needs identified at the time the instrument was adopted (2014)? (ii) Current EU priorities and beneficiary needs, given the evolving challenges and priorities in the international context (2017)? Rationale Information sought in this area includes: • A timeline showing congruence/divergence of the instrument five objectives against an evolving human rights context, including global, regional, and country-specific challenges, and institutional policy changes, e.g. to what extent the EIDHR responds to the demands of Agenda 2030, including its universality. • A map showing the geographic spread of beneficiaries of EIDHR to include those countries where there is a serious lack of fundamental freedoms and which should be the priority countries of the instrument; this map would also produce information on which countries have not been covered but would fall in the category of priority country (and could yield entry points into assessing the potential limits of the instrument). • A broad quantitative breakdown of contracts per objective and subthemes within each objective so as to assess whether these have been sought after and thus, relevant, as well as to assess which objectives might either have been less relevant or point to themes that are particularly difficult to addess (for example LGBTI rights). • Evidence to confirm that EIDHR is a flexible, demand-driven instrument that fills a niche that is not covered by other EFI’s. Relevance concerns whether the EIDHR is consistent with the priorities and policies of the EU, as well as needs of partner country actors. . The question will cover relevance both at the beginning of the evaluation period and subsequently as the policy and institutional context have evolved on both the donor and beneficiary sides. In addressing the first, it will be asked whether the changes in EIDHR design implemented in 2014 adequately addressed concerns, gaps, and problems that had been identified in 2007-13. In addressing the second, the concern will be whether EIDHR has exhibited the flexibility, always a key concern for relevance, to adapt to change.
(5) i.e. how it all fits together
28
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Specific focus JC 11 This JC will require evidence on the EIDHR’s design and fitness for purpose to implement EU development policy and strategy as expressed in, e.g., the Consensus on Development (now being reviewed in light of Agenda 2030), the Agenda for Change, Article 208 of the TFEU, and the Busan Partnership Agreement. Among EU priorities are differentiated and diversified needs, good governance, and global public goods and challenges, as well as engaging with state and non-state actors. The global partnership aspects of EU development policy require effective mechanisms for aligning with partner needs and priorities. In the evaluation it will be important to systematically seek to understand the (political economy and other) reasons why the EIDHR achieved congruence / divergence, as this may help to later on formulate realistic suggestions for the future. This JC will examine the flexibility of the EIDHR to adapt to new developments. One of the most obvious of these is the transition from MDGs to SDGs, including SDG 17 with its emphasis on global partnerships. Specific focus JC 12 This JC will examine the flexibility of the EIDHR to adapt to new developments. One of the most obvious of these is the transition from MDGs to SDGs, including SDG 17 with its emphasis on global partnerships. The EIDHR is underpinned by Article 21(2) of the Treaty on the European Union and which defines democracy, the rule of law and the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms as guiding principles of the EU’s external actions. This principle is reflected in the June 2012 EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, which states that “the EU will promote human rights in all areas of its external action without exception”. The EIDHR is one of the EU’s key instruments to fulfil this prince. It is a response instrument, i.e. by definition designed to flexibly react to developments and needs of the main stakeholder group, i.e. civil society in its various forms (organised or unorganised groups or individuals) working on human rights issues globally. The evaluation covers two consecutive strategy periods of EDIHR, i.e. from 2011 to 2013 and from 2014 to 2017 and serves as a mid-term assessment point for the latter period, which is governed by a multi-annual indicative programme covering the same period.
Inception Report
July 2016
29
EQ1
To what extent do the overall objectives (EIDHR Regulation, Article 1), the specific objectives and priorities (EIDHR Regulation, Annex) and the design of the EIDHR respond to: (i) EU priorities and beneficiary needs identified at the time the instrument was adopted (2014)? (ii) Current EU priorities and beneficiary needs, given the evolving challenges and priorities in the international context (2017)? Both strategies EIDHR reflect changes in the global state of human rights, and which include a shrinking of the democratic space in many countries, as well as the un-democratic nature of many countries and where political elites, despite the existence of elections and some political competition, are not accountable to their citizens. Discrimination of ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities is widespread and not limited to specific geographic regions with set socio-economic characteristics. The period since the adoption of the current strategy in 2014 has seen a continuation of this trend globally and in many countries and regions the situation has deteriorated significantly for human rights activists and civil society organisations working on different aspects of the human rights agenda, as well as for the specific vulnerable groups (LGBTI etc.). An effective democratic system needs regular, inclusive, transparent and credible elections. This is why the European Union’s election observation missions and the election assistance programmes are a fundamental part of the EU’s action to promote democracy, human rights and civil society participation worldwide. Electoral observation is a flagship activity of EU external relations. Electoral observation is not only focused on election day, but aims to contribute to improve democratic processes. Elections are seen as critical moments of the democratic cycle as committed to by third countries that signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 2000, in recognition of its growing role and increasing support for election observation activities, the European Commission adopted the Communication on EU Election Assistance and Observation (COM(2000)191). In 2005 the EU adopted, under the auspices of the United Nations, the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation. Since then an ever-growing number of international and regional observer groups have endorsed this document, which has become the golden standard for credible and professional international election observation. Engaged from the outset in the elaboration of these principles, the EU has recommitted to the Declaration of Principles with the adoption in July 2015 of its second EU Action Plan for Human Rights and Democracy.
30
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
The Handbook for European Union Election Observation is the main tool for EU election observers, and a wider public interested in democratic elections. But it is also an important building bloc for EU external action: for a more democratic and stable neighbourhood and for inclusive and open societies. EU election observation is based on a long-term approach, encompassing all aspects of an electoral process, and grounded in international human rights law. Relevance will be concerned with establishing to what extent EIDHR continued to be able to respond to stakeholder’s needs, and the thematic issues (as laid out in the five objectives) the instrument is designed to support. The evaluation will assess to what extent the level of ambition reflected in the current objectives of the instrument – to contribute towards the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law and of respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms – continue to reflect the changed global context or whether they might necessitate changes.
Judgement criteria JC1.1: Strategic congruence/ divergence of the EIDHR instrument against EU human rights policies and guidelines and with the situation at country level. I-111 Extent to which DCI Regulation aligns with EU development policy documents and commitments as of 2014. 112 Extent to which DCI Regulation consistent with EU overall policy framework documents as of 2014.
Inception Report
Judgement criteria I-1.1.1 EIDHR programming documents (including calls for proposals) show explicitly how the instruments takes up and responds to changes in the human rights situation at country and regional level. I-1.1.2 The ceiling amounts per objective area corresponds to stakeholder needs, as evidenced through sufficient responses under each area and disbursement rate for funds (i.e. the supported objective areas have been relevant as stakeholders have made use of them).
July 2016
31
EQ1
To what extent do the overall objectives (EIDHR Regulation, Article 1), the specific objectives and priorities (EIDHR Regulation, Annex) and the design of the EIDHR respond to: (i) EU priorities and beneficiary needs identified at the time the instrument was adopted (2014)? (ii) Current EU priorities and beneficiary needs, given the evolving challenges and priorities in the international context (2017)?
Judgement criteria
113 Extent to which DCI geographic programming processes give voice to major stakeholders, resulting in alignment with partner country needs. 114 Extent to which regional and thematic programmes have been effectively deployed in countries not qualifying for DCI ODA. 115 Extent to which DCI thematic programmes cover major EU priorities in global public goods and challenges identified while engaging CSOs and LAs in a strategic manner.
Judgement criteria
I-1.1.3 EIDHR interventions target priority countries as specified in the EIDHR strategy periods 2011-2013 and 2014-2017. I-1.1.4 EIDHR interventions explicitly support priorities of EU human rights policies, including the Multi-annual Indicative Programme, the Annual and Bi-annual Action Plans for both Strategy periods, the Human Rights Country Strategies where they exist, and EU guidelines on human rights and horizontal themes.
116 Extent to which PanAf effectively supports the Joint Africa Europe Strategy (JAES). JC 1: EOMs contributions to the achievement of the EU’s broader objective to support democracy based on participation and representation in partner countries. JC 1.2 Flexibility of EIDHR compared to other EFI instruments I-121 Smooth transition process from MDGs to SDGs (Including SDG 17 on partnerships) in DCI programme design and programming (review of Consensus to be taken into account). I-122 Extent to which DCI has been flexible enough to address emerging nexuses of concern – migration, climate, security, etc. 32
I 1.1: Evolution of requests for EOMs I 1.2: Missions on priority list carried out and divergences from the priority list.
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Judgement criteria
Judgement criteria
I-123 Extent to which Paris commitments on climate change are being incorporated into DCI programming. I-124 Extent to which DCI programming has increasingly stressed partnership with private sector (see also EQ on leverage). I-125 Extent to which regional and thematic instruments address income disparities and exclusion in countries not qualifying for DCI ODA. JC 1.3 Challenges requiring coordinated global responses adequately covered by XXX identified areas of concern.
I-1.3.1 Evidence of beneficiary participation in the design & implementation of EIDHR financed interventions at the strategic level (consultations on the previous strategy period have fed into the ongoing strategy and stakeholders see their views reflected). I-1.3.2 Main stakeholders and beneficiaries confirm EIDHR capacity to respond to the needs of target groups of the instrument (civil society in its various forms as stipulated in the strategy).
JC 1.4. Appropriateness, usefulness and timeliness of the CIR in terms of helping to respond to needs that EIDHR is to address.
Inception Report
I-1.4.1 I-1.4.2 I-1.4.3
July 2016
33
EQ1
To what extent do the overall objectives (EIDHR Regulation, Article 1), the specific objectives and priorities (EIDHR Regulation, Annex) and the design of the EIDHR respond to: (i) EU priorities and beneficiary needs identified at the time the instrument was adopted (2014)? (ii) Current EU priorities and beneficiary needs, given the evolving challenges and priorities in the international context (2017)? Documentary study and literature review
•
EU Human Rights policies and guidelines (6), including the 2012 EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, including the current 2015-2019 Action Plan; the “Toolbox: a Rights Based Approach, encompassing all Human Rights for EU Development Cooperation”
•
EIDHR Strategies for 2011 2013 and 2014-2017 and Multi-Annual Indicative Programmes, Annual and Bi-Annual Action Plans supporting the strategies
• Policy documents at EU level: Commission Communication on Election Assistance and Electoral Observation (2000); European Parliament Resolutions on Election Assistance and Electoral Observation (2001/2008); Council document on Election assistance and observation; Handbook for EU Election Observation)
34
Methods of analysis (read point 6.1 of inception report)
Quantitative data collection - data analysis through CRIS database to establish a breakdown of a) contracts per country/geographic spread; b) contracts per objective and sub-theme under each objective where applicable; c) clarity on which countries and regions in the priority category have not been reached through the instrument Qualitative data collection - in-depth documents analysis on agreed sample of countries covering both strategy periods, including trail of country-level documents (human rights country strategies etc.; call for proposals; grant awards; project reports etc.) to establish convergence with EU human rights policies; needs as identified through Human Rights Country Strategies as well as third party reports (UN Universal Periodic Review, CoE’s peer reviews etc.), Amnesty International etc.); and to gain an understanding of the ratio of demand and supply for EIDHR financing as well as patterns of demand for EIDHR funding.
(6) These include guidelines adopted on the death penalty; torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; on dedicated Human Rights dialogues; Children and Armed Conflict (CAAC); Human Rights Defenders; Promotion and Protection of the Rights of the Child; Violence against Women and Girls and Combating all Forms of Discrimination against them; Promoting compliance with International Humanitarian Law Under the EU Action Plan; Freedom of Religion and Belief; LGBTI rights.
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Documentary study and literature review
• Policy documents at international level: Declaration of Principles of International Election Observation and Code of Conduct •
Consecutive EU Annual Reports on Human Rights and Democracy in the World
•
Policy dialogue documents, including Human Rights Dialogues; Human Rights Country Strategies
•
Calls for Proposals
•
CRIS Database of contracts
•
MDG Agenda
•
Action fiches
• Financing Agreements/ Decisions •
Thematic Evaluation reports on EIDHR (7)
• Regional Workshops conclusions •
Third party reports (Human Rights Watch; Amnesty International; Conciliation Resources; CoE CAT reports; UN OHCHR UPR and other regular monitoring reports; OSCE; Global Witness etc.)
Methods of analysis (read point 6.1 of inception report)
Interviews: To collect views from selected stakeholders at global, regional, national and local level (provide detail on what kind of stakeholders will be interviewed) Interviews with staff from FPI, DEVCO and EP Democracy and Election Coordination Group to gain insight in the actual decision-making process on election observation missions. Verification of preliminary findings and additional quantitative and qualitative data collection: interviews to be held with the different stakeholder groups on the basis of non-attribution and in specific cases (human rights defenders at risk), anonymity, using the questionnaire to corroborate/refute findings • Stakeholder interviews: -EU: DEVCO, EEAS, EUD’s including Human Rights Focal Points) -Beneficiaries/grant recipients (in-country and outside), including civil society and international organisations (UN, CoE etc.) -Third party stakeholders: think tanks; academia (where relevant) Other donors: in sample countries; at HQ level (Sigrid Rausing Trust head office is in London, f.e.)
(7) The evaluators note that most of the thematic evaluations as found on the EIDHR library predate the evaluation period and even the instrument and rather cover its predecessor, the European Initiative for Human Rights.
Inception Report
July 2016
35
EQ1
To what extent do the overall objectives (EIDHR Regulation, Article 1), the specific objectives and priorities (EIDHR Regulation, Annex) and the design of the EIDHR respond to: (i) EU priorities and beneficiary needs identified at the time the instrument was adopted (2014)? (ii) Current EU priorities and beneficiary needs, given the evolving challenges and priorities in the international context (2017)? Documentary study and literature review
Methods of analysis (read point 6.1 of inception report)
On-site visits: Visits of projects (provide detail on what kind of analysis will be done on the actions’ sites) Survey on the field: A structured questionnaire to collect data and opinions (provide detail to whom it should be addressed – see point 6.1 and detail about what to include in the questionnaire to be filled by stakeholders during the field visits) •
Extrapolation - document review to feed into preliminary findings and preparation of interview questionnaire per stakeholder group
Illustrative country case studies: Extracted from the country visited actions (mention what will be analysed within the country note to be prepared during the field visit – I will send to you an example of country note) EUD web-survey: A Slide presentation and the Draft Final Report with its executive summary, will accompany the report and survey during Open Public Consultation (just 3 questions will be included by instrument): include which stakeholders should participate at this survey.
36
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
5.2 EQ 2 on effectiveness, impact, sustainability EQ2
To what extent does the EIDHR deliver results against the instrument’s objectives, and specific EU priorities? (8)
Rationale Information sought in this area includes: •
To what extent does the EIDHR contribute towards the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law and of respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and more specifically towards:
•
supporting, developing and consolidating democracy in third countries, by enhancing participatory and representative democracy, strengthening the overall democratic cycle, in particular by reinforcing an active role for civil society within this cycle, and the rule of law, and improving the reliability of electoral processes, in particular by means of EU EOMs;
•
enhancing respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as proclaimed in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments, and strengthening their protection, promotion, implementation and monitoring, mainly through support to relevant civil society organisations, human rights defenders and victims of repression and abuse (EIDHR Regulation, Article 1).
•
To what extent has the EIDHR contributed to the European Union’s priorities for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth?
•
To what extent does the EIDHR mainstream EU policy priorities (e.g. gender equality, empowerment, participation, climate change) and other issues highlighted for mainstreaming in the instrument, and, where relevant, deliver on the commitments including the financial allocations (EIDHR Regulation preamble, Article 2.3)
•
To what extent does the EIDHR promote principles of aid effectiveness, such as ownership as well as cooperation, partnership, regular exchanges of information and consultations with civil society (EIDHR Regulation preamble)
•
To what extent are the processes condusive to programming, identification/formulation of effective actions (EIDHR Regulation, Article 4)?
(8) Cf. background documents in Annex 1. Evaluators will need to look at both the current EIDHR2014-2020 and the previous EIDHR 2007-2013 to respond to this question. Evaluators should distinguish the findings between the two periods.
Inception Report
July 2016
37
EQ2
To what extent does the EIDHR deliver results against the instrument’s objectives, and specific EU priorities? (8)
• To what extent has the process of differentiation (including graduation) affected the implementation of the EIDHR in view of its worldwide mandate? •
To what extent is the EIDHR flexible enough to respond to changing needs and emerging issues in the fields of human rights, elections and democracy? (e.g. changed policy priorities, changed contexts).
Effectiveness concerns the achievement of results against set objectives, as well as an assessment of factors influencing performance. As the evaluation explores to strategy periods, results will be discussed separately for both periods. This will allow for comparisons of the relative effectiveness of both strategy periods and a possibility to extrapolate some of the factors determining performance. The evaluation will also assess whether the way in which the objectives at the level of the instrument are framed overall—in terms of a positive/upward trajectory (“consolidation of democracy”, “enhancing participatory and representative democracy”)—is appropriate, given that such positive results might not have materialised in many countries for reasons outside the control of EIDHR but where the absence of the instrument might have led to an even further deterioration (for example in relation to human rights defenders in the Russian Federation). The evaluation will therefore capture overall results, as well assessing whether in those thematic areas where there have been no clear positive results there is sufficient evidence to argue that EIDHR has made a contribution to preserve the status quo or to prevent further deterioration. With regards to the forward looking aspect of the evaluation, there might as a result of the assessment be the potential for a more realistic framing of the objectives at the level of the instrument. The quality of an electoral competition has to be continuously re-assessed and im¬proved: democracy remains incomplete without a level playing field, a fair competition between candidates, freedom of expression, of assembly and as¬sociation, the respect for human rights and a neutral and independent election management body, endowed with adequate resources to efficiently administer the electoral process. A vibrant civil society and diverse media landscape are also es¬sential pre-requisites. Electoral observation is not just the task of one day. For this reason the European External Action Service, the Council, the Commis¬sion and Member States are committed to a systematic follow-up to recommenda¬tions contained in reports by EU Election Observation Missions: it is the whole elec¬toral cycle that matters. From an EIDHR point of view it is important to establish if EOMs have influenced the programming in other objectives of the EIDHR or in other (geographical or thematic) instruments.
38
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Judgement criteria
Judgement criteria
JC 2: The extent to which EOMs have influenced interventions that support the entire democratic cycle through electoral assistance, capacity building or support to civil society initiatives.
(read point 6.1 of inception report)
Quantitative data collection:
CRIS Database
• Documents relating to sample (calls for proposals, awards agreement, progress and completion reports; Human Rights Focal Points’ reports/assessments, documentation in relation to the Human Rights Dialogue with the sample countries; third party reports such as from UN bodies or the Council of Europe or the regional human rights instruments’ organisations on the human rights and democracy situation in the country; Annual Reports on the instruments; strategic evaluations) Stakeholder interviews with: EIDHR beneficiaries; EC DEVCO; EUD’s in sample countries, including HR Focal Points;
Inception Report
I 2.2: Cases where EOM recommendations were followed up by EFMs and/or political dialogue. Methods of analysis
Documentary study and literature review •
I 2.1: Cases where EOM recommendations were followed up by the use of other instruments (DCI, EDF, IPA II).
Qualitative data collection through in-depth desk review of documents related to the sample, in particular with view to mapping the results of the interventions and comparing them to the objectives at intervention level as well as, consolidating all results, coming to an assessment at results at instrument level. Qualitative data collection: • Analysis and grouping of recommendations of EOM reports •
July 2016
Consultation of main geographical instruments in countries where EOMs were carried out to see if recommendations can be linked to programming
39
EQ2
To what extent does the EIDHR deliver results against the instrument’s objectives, and specific EU priorities? (8) Documentary study and literature review
Methods of analysis (read point 6.1 of inception report)
•
Analysis of the EOM evaluation report (RfS: 2016/375913) Analysis of reports on policy; political dialogue where EOM recommendations were on the agenda
Interviews: Qualitative data collection through beneficiary interviews to corroborate findings as well as in order to establish the sustainability and impact of the results achieved. Interviews with staff from FPI, DEVCO and Delegations in a sample of countries where EOMs were carried out to assess the link between EOM recommendations and use of other instruments. On-site visits: Survey on the field: Question in survey to EUD on the influence of EOMs on programming within EIDHR and with other instruments. Illustrative country case studies: EUD web-survey:
40
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Inception Report
July 2016
41
42
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Inception Report
July 2016
43
44
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Inception Report
July 2016
45
46
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Inception Report
July 2016
47
48
Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Inception Report
July 2016
49