Honduras

The project will give support IHCAFE and SAG to put in place a data collection campaign protocol and a robust management system to strengthen the existing national coffee farmer registry, with the end goal to support compliance with the EUDR and potential future market regulation, support sustainability and coffee producers livelihoods policies, and prepare avenue for expanding the mechanism to other deforestation risk commodities.

The overall objective of this contract was to support the work of the EU Delegation to Honduras in enhancing the capacity of CSOs working in the country to act as actors of development and in their role as watchdogs and contributors to the GGIA’s 360-degree approach.

The specific objectives were:

• To ensure that structured dialogue on GGIA implementation in Honduras includes the participation of civil society and leaves no one behind.
• To ensure that the 2026 EU call for proposals for civil society is aligned with the current needs of Honduran CSOs and complements ongoing EU and EU Member State actions, contributing to the GGIA’s 360-degree approach.

Particip aimed to contribute to improving the electoral and democratic framework of Honduras during the inter-election period and raising awareness and understanding of the EU EOM recommendations and technical issues related to their implementation. In general, an EFM supports the consolidation of democracy, institution-building and democratic elections in Honduras in the context of the implementation of the 20231 EU recommendations.

Particip's specific objectives included:

• Assessing the state of play of the implementation of the recommendations of the 2021 EU EOM to Honduras;
• Assessing any electoral reforms adopted since the last EOM or which are under consideration (e.g. draft legislation) or planned and the degree to which these reflect EOM recommendations and their alignment with international standards for democratic elections;
• Identifying which EOM recommendations are most relevant to the prevailing country situation and the current phase of the electoral cycle;
• Generating additional impetus for – or contribute to ongoing debates on – electoral reform;
• Identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on EU EOM recommendations among the stakeholders and any political, technical, financial obstacles to electoral reform;
• Proposing actions to overcome obstacles to electoral reform, including measures to develop support for and national ownership of the recommendations;
• If helpful and requested, assisting the EU Delegation, EEAS and INTPA in their assessment on whether ongoing cooperation and conflict prevention projects are addressing the recommendations made by EU EOMs. Based on a brief overview of existing programmes, providing needed information to support identification of potential additional election/democracy support action that could contribute to strengthening the implementation of the recommendations and/or to the overall improvement of the electoral framework;
• Contributing to analysis by the EU Delegation, EEAS and INTPA with information to originate any other possible EU actions that could contribute to strengthening the implementation of the recommendations and/or to the overall improvement of the electoral framework;
• Preparing/updating with EU Delegation a follow-up plan to EU EOM recommendations.

The evaluation should allow an understanding of the cause-effect relationship between the activities, the direct effects and the impacts. Evaluations should have as main objectives contributing to accountability, decision making, learning and management improvement.

The main objectives of this evaluation are to provide the competent services of the European Union, the interested parties and the general public:

++ An independent evaluation of the implementation of the Budget Support Program for the forestry sector of Honduras (PAPSFOR), focusing in particular on its 'intermediate' results in relation to its objectives;

++ The main lessons and recommendations with a view to improving the current Action (if applicable) and future.

In particular, this evaluation will serve to evaluate the impact that the Program has had to date and better understand the public perception of this impact.

The main users of this evaluation will be the government, civil society, indigenous peoples, the timber industry, donors and the general public.

About Google TranslateCommunityMobile

The Finnish Fund for Industrial Cooperation (Finnfund) is the national Development Finance Institution (DFI) of Finland. Finnfund provides equity, loans and guarantees to private sector companies in developing countries and has as its’ overarching objective to further the economic and social development of its’ target countries.

The objective of the assignment is to evaluate how well Finnfund has implemented its’ mandate during the period 2008-2017, as defined by the Finnfund Act and the annual Ownership Steering Memorandums (OSMs) by the MFA. Core evaluation issues will be

• relevance and additionality;
• commercial risk management;
• environmental, social and human rights related risk management; and
• effectiveness in delivering desired outputs.

The evaluation will assess these issues through a desk study, interviews with key stakeholders in Finland, a benchmarking exercise comparing Finnfund to similar DFIs of other donors and field visits to three case study countries.

The results of the evaluation will feed into the development of Finland’s new development policy programme expected for the period 2020-2023.

The report is available at:

https://um.fi/publications/-/asset_publisher/TVOLgBmLyZvu/content/evaluointi-kehitysrahoitusyhtio-finnfundin-toiminnas-2/384998?curAsset=0&stId=44227

The mission assessed whether the MOSEF Program achieved the results provided for in DCI-ALA/2010/021-598 Financing Agreement. It provided an assessment on the relevance of the Financing Agreements and the effectiveness of the Contracts and subsidies, including the DTAs, the logical framework, the planning through the budgets and the congruence of the same. Moreover, the mission assessed the strategy and methodology developed by the Program and provided an opinion on the management of the Program, the current achievement of the Program and its impact on the forestry sector and specifically on the Forestry Policy. The evaluation also assessed the relevance and sustainability of the Programme.

General objective: To analyze the political, economic and institutional context in Honduras and the capacities of civil society organizations, private companies and other key players in the fight against corruption. This serves in order to establish the best mode and roadmap for implementing the components of stakeholders by identifying the key partners for the implementation process and preparing supporting documents to support the launch of the project.

Specific objectives (OE):

OE1: To analyse the political, economic and institutional context in Honduras in relation to corruption and to identify major factors and environmental influences, which need to be addressed to obtain long-term results in terms of political culture and the perception of corruption (theory of change).

SO2: To map and establish a typology of institutional civil society actors that are able to contribute to strengthening the democratic and inclusive institutional development of political parties.

OE3: Map and establish a typology of institutional civil society actors that are able to contribute to the strengthening of the understanding of democratic values, the importance of an ethical, inclusive and responsible political culture, with competence in the development of multi-media civic education programs - media aimed especially at the media and youth, future leaders and voters in Honduras

The mission assessed whether the CliFor program as it was proposed and executed to date was able to achieve the expected results in the Financing Agreement DCI- ALA/2013/330-728 and the various operational plans. The experts evaluated the relevance of the Financing Agreements and the effectiveness of the Contracts and subsidies, including technical and administrative agreements, the logical framework, the planning through the budgets and the coherence of the budget. Moreover, the mission reviewed the strategy and methodology developed by the program and gave an opinion on the management of the program, the actual achievement of the program and the impact that the achievements had. Another important topic of the analysis was to assess the relevance, suitability and sustainability of the the CliFor program.

The European Union sent an expert mission to assess the upcoming Presidential primary elections, ahead of the upcoming general elections in Honduras, tentatively foreseen for November 2017 at the time of the mission.

The purpose of the Pre-election Expert Mission was to collect factual information concerning this election process, in line with the criteria contained in the Commission Communication on Electoral Assistance and Observation [COM(2000)191].Moreover, the objective of the mission was to produce strategic analysis and reporting on the ongoing electoral processes and to provide input for electoral reform as well as confidence-enhancing measures during and after the elections.

The global objectives of the evaluation were:

a) to provide the relevant external and co-operation services and other impacted services of the EU (FPI, EEAS, DEVCO, NEAR) with an independent assessment of the achievement of the intended results of EU election observation missions and b) to identify key lessons and forward looking recommendations in order to improve future actions in this field.

The specific objectives of the evaluation were as follows:

a) The evaluation will assess EU election observation activities worldwide during the period January 2012–June 2016, using two of the standard five DAC criteria for evaluating Development Assistance, namely those of effectiveness and impact. As the evaluation should reflect a results-oriented management approach, these two DAC criteria were selected being the most relevant for this purpose.

b) The difference of this evaluation, compared to the wider one on the EIDHR in the context of the Mid Term Review Report, is that it is more focused on effectiveness and impact and takes also into consideration the beneficiaries' side with field visits of the evaluators in countries in which EU election observation has been conducted. This evaluation has also a shorter time span.