Bosnia & Herzegovina

The objective of this facility is to improve the overall quality of the NDICI Rapid Response and Peace, Stability and Conflict Prevention thematic areas by providing high quality research services.

We will provide the FPI with flexible and ad hoc research services and prepare literature reviews and rapid assistance reports in the thematic areas specified below.

The main objectives of this assignment are to: i) provide an independent and evidence-based assessment of the EU’s past and current external action support in the policy area of Youth, and ii) identify lessons learnt and recommendations to inform strategic policy orientation on supporting youth, define synergy effects with the EU's political and reform objectives, and enhance the planning, design, implementation and monitoring of new interventions launched under IPA III and NDICI-GE.

The evaluation aims to assess the performance of EU assistance (spending and non-spending actions) in Enlargement and Neighbourhood regions in the following sectors:

• i)
  Youth engagement (including participation in policy making and youth work);
• ii)
  Youth economic integration (including youth employment and employability, entrepreneurship, digital skills formal and non-formal learning);
• iii)
  Youth social inclusion (including youth mobility, culture, school retention, sexual, reproductive and mental health);
• iv)
  Peace and security (regional cooperation and reconciliation).

The legal and temporal scope of the evaluation covers:

• IPA II and III, ENI, NDICI-GE, EIDHR, Erasmus+, Trust funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey;
• funding related to the last programming cycle (2014-2020), as well programming under the current programming cycle until 2022.

The main objectives of this evaluation were to provide the relevant services of the European Union and the interested stakeholders with:

• an overall independent assessment of the performance of the TACSO programme (in its three phases), paying particular attention to its different levels of results measured against its expected objectives; and the reasons underpinning such results
• key lessons learned, conclusions and related recommendations in order to improve current and future interventions.

In particular, this evaluation served:

• To inform the implementation of the programme fourth phase, which will be implemented through an extension of the current contract (TACSO 3);
• To inform the decision-making on the appropriateness of a potential fifth phase of the programme, to be launched with the next programming exercise (CSF 2024-2026);
• To inform the potential programme exit strategy to ensure the sustainability of its results.

The main users of this evaluation are the relevant EU services (DG NEAR HQ and EU Delegations of the targeted region) and the implementing partners.

The main objectives of this assessment were the following:

1) The effectiveness of the EU assistance in terms of achievement of policy objectives (outcomes) and results along all PAR areas; covering (i) the extent to which the main beneficiary institutions have used/ translated the project deliverables into government actions or improved their capacities and implemented the Action Plan on PAR; (ii) impact assessment of the Technical Assistance on institutional reforms.

2) The adequacy of the EU assistance types vis-à-vis objectives of the programmes and vis-a-vis the needs that institutions had on PAR based on the objectives of the action plan on PAR where an Action Plan was available.

3) Effectiveness of the EU assistance in improving the implementation of PAR and functioning of the PAR coordination process in BiH, capacities of PARCO and PAR co-ordinators and the coordination structure at political and technical level.

4) The effectiveness of donor co-ordination in PAR sector with special focus on PAR fund.

5) Potential future support needs in ranked order, including analyse and recommendations concerning each aid modality.

Background

In March 2017, the UfM Climate Change Expert Group (UfM CCEG) adopted a 5-years work-program, which stress the importance to strengthen climate finance in the Euro-Mediterranean region to address climate change issues. In April 2019, UfM Member States agreed to pursue the assessment of climate finance in the UfM region, with the view of providing sound basis for a renewed climate mandate of the UfM by 2020, with the new UfM Ministerial Declaration on Climate Change.

Target Groups

Target gruops of tehis technical assistance are: UfM Institutions, UfM Member States, International Financial Institutions, International Climate Change Institutions, Civil society representatives, Private sector Organisations and Institution interested in UfM regional integration.

Objectives

• The primary objective of this technical assistance is to enhance the knowledge of UfM Member States, International Financial Institutions, civil society representatives, private sector organisations and any other institution interested in the UfM regional integration, regarding the level of financial commitments made in 2018 and in 2019 to address climate change issues in the UfM region.
• The second objective is to explore the feasibility of financial mechanisms, which could be implemented in the UfM region with the aim of enhancing the mobilisation of climate finance for specific population or sectors, while building on lessons learned in some specific sectors (in particular in the water sector) or potentially in other regions, such as Caribbean or Latin America.

Expected Results

• R1 - to have a precise figure of financial commitments made to recipients in UfM developing countries in 2018 and in 2019, by public/private donors from developed/developing countries;
• R2 - to have a precise view of commitments and disbursements made by national governments, local authorities, private sector and, if possible, households addressing climate change in UfM developing countries;
• R3 - to have the methodology and process in place for monitoring, reporting and verifying climate finance commitments made in the UfM region, especially by ensuring the involvement of all relevant actors, including the scientific community, the private sector and NGOs;
• R4 - quantitative and qualitative analysis of financial mechanisms, which could be implemented in the UfM region with the aim of enhancing the mobilisation of climate finance for specific population or sectors.

The RPP Program Evaluation is being conducted to assess the implementation, management governance, and results of the program observed until the date of the evaluation to draw lessons for future programming. The evaluation was expected to benefit design and implementation of other similar ongoing and future Advisory Services and Analytics (ASA) activities. This Evaluation has assessed:

• 1.
  Program strategy design and approach: with a forward-looking approach, independent evaluator(s) will assess RPP strategy, and management and governance arrangements.
• 2.
  Country program performance: assessed based on the modified Organization for Economic Cooperationnand Development (OECD)/Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria, notably—Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Coherence and Sustainability. However where outcomes are already available, these were assessed.
• 3.
  Knowledge management performance: assessed based on the evaluation questions below, focusing on RPP’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency on producing frontier knowledge on areas relevant for the countries and topics it supports in an efficient and impactful way.
• 4.
  A list of the donor-specific criteria for external evaluations to be used (based on OECD-DAC criteria) will be shared with the evaluators. The scope of the evaluation has to be defined accordingly in the inception report.

The main objectives of this evaluation were to provide the relevant services of the European Union, the interested stakeholders and the wider public with:

• an overall independent assessment of the past performance of the IfS/IcSP support to mine;

action related projects and programmes;

• key lessons and recommendations in order to improve current (if relevant) and future actions;
• recommendations for the future within the frame of the EU guidelines on Mine Action that are currently subject to review.

In particular, this evaluation served the European Commission, the European External Action Service, and other relevant stakeholders with:

• an independent assessment of the overall IfS/IcSP support to mine action (2007-2017), paying particularly attention to the results achieved against its objectives;
• key lessons and recommendations to FPI.2 in order to improve current and future support for mine action related interventions financed under the IcSP;
• recommendations to the European Commission on the best way to approach and improve its support to mine action overall.

The main users of this evaluation will be the European Commission and the European External Action Service.

The objectives of the evaluation were to:

• support the decision-making, both at EU strategic (planning) level, and at the level of the design of the action programmes /interventions;
• feed into the reflection on the revision of future development policies in view of the recent adoption of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda;
• demonstrate whether already on-going/planned IPA (I) II, ENPI/ENI, DCI and EDF action programmes/interventions in the area of social protection have taken on board the latest lessons learnt from the previous programming period;
• provide recommendations on the best way to approach and improve its support to the development of social protection systems, in partner countries both in terms of the use of policy dialogue and financial assistance;
• contribute to the preparation and adjustment of action programmes, namely for IPA II, ENI, DCI and EDF assistance to the extent possible;
• feed in the Mid-term Review of financial instruments;
• feed in Mid-term Reviews of country/region multi-annual indicative programmes.

The evaluation used the five standard OECD/DAC evaluation criteria, namely relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. In addition, the evaluation also looked at the EU added value and the 3Cs.

The evaluation focused on EU support (policy dialogue and financial assistance) provided for the development of social protection systems in partner countries, more specifically on the social insurance and social assistance measures to address the following risks and needs: unemployment, parental responsibilities, sickness and healthcare, work accidents/employment injuries disability, loss of a spouse or parent, old age, housing and social exclusion.

The evaluation covered:

• IPA I beneficiary countries;
• ENPI partner countries;
• Countries covered by DCI and EDF.

The evaluation was conducted in four phases

• An Inception Phase, focusing on the design and the methodology of the evaluation including the reconstruction of the intervention logic and the compilation of an inventory;
• A Desk Phase, focusing on gathering and analysing existing data and information (through literature/document reviews and interviews/focus groups/surveys);
• A Field Phase, including preparation of field missions, visits to the case study countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia*, Malawi, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Palestine*) and drafting of country reports;
• A Synthesis Phase, producing a final report and dissemination of results to concerned stakeholders.

The purpose of the evaluation was to provide an overall independent assessment of the regional organisations and fora in the Western Balkans and the instrumental role they play in the regional integration and accession perspective including recommendations on possible streamlining.

The specific objectives of the evaluation were the following:

• Mapping of existing regional organisations and initiatives;
• Assessment of administrative and financial costs for its member countries of each organisation/initiative;
• Assessment of benefits for the region/countries of each organisation/initiative;
• Proposal for possible streamlining.

The evaluation mapped 56 organisations in the six Western Balkan IPA countries that were still active in June 2016 (cut-off date) and analysed 31 of them in detail. The key sectors included: connectivity (transport, energy and environment), competitiveness (industry and private sector development, trade), skills and mobility (human capital development, higher education), good governance, fighting crime and security cooperation.

The global objective of the evaluation was to provide the EUD to BiH with sufficient information to make an informed judgment about the past performance of the selected projects (their efficiency, effectiveness and impact), to document lessons learned and to provide practical recommendations for follow-up action.

The specific objectives of this project were:

• To assess in particular the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of project implementation, indicating clearly to what extent the results, purposes and overall objectives of the selected projects were achieved.
• To provide comparative assessment of efficiency, effectiveness and impact of EUD interventions based on the selected projects, including strengthens and weaknesses of the different implementation methods.
• To identify and document lessons learned, focusing on the design, implementation and management of the selected projects for improving of programming and identification of possible future actions under IPA II.
• To provide recommendations for practical follow-up action, with the emphasis on actions related to sustainability of project benefits

Relevant background

Since early 2007, the Commission, the UN-family and the World Bank have worked together in setting up a platform for cooperation on post-crisis needs assessments for natural disaster (Post-Disaster Needs Assessment, PDNA) and conflict (Recovery and Peacebuilding Assessment (RPBA), previously named Post-Conflict Needs Assessment, PCNA) scenarios. This trilateral cooperation was framed and formalised through the signature of a Joint Declaration on “Post-Crisis Assessments and Recovery Planning” in September 2008. The EU/UN/WB platform covers the whole PDNA/RPBA(PCNA) process, including strategic coordination, development of joint methodologies for post-crisis assessments, joint deployment of assessment teams, joint training and joint recovery planning and monitoring.

In line with the 2008 Declaration on Joint Post-crisis Assessments and Recovery Planning, the overall objective of the project is to assist and develop third countries’ in-country capacity to gradually assume a more prominent role in Post-Disaster Needs Assessments and Post-Conflict Needs Assessments (now changed to Recovery and Peacebuilding Assessments, RPBA).

The purpose of this project was:

• to support further development of joint PDNA/RPBA(formerly PCNA) methodologies, tools, training programmes, etc.;
• to support joint PDNA/RPBA(formerly PCNA) missions in-country/in region (in coordinating with EU Heads of Delegations and with the European External Actions Service (EEAS) and European Commission). While such support could cover any relevant technical field (long-term and short-term expertise), it is foreseen that a particular emphasis is put on expertise in mission planning and development of final reports/recovery frameworks.

The two phases of the project contributed to a variety of outputs and results, including:

• Phase 1 (01/01/2013 – 31/07/2015): revision of the PDNA methodology and development of the joint EU/UN/WB PDNA Guide, development of the Disaster Recovery Framework (DRF) Guide, review of the PCNA methodology, development of training and capacity building materials, delivery of information/capacity building sessions, joint PDNA/PCNA training courses for national authorities and regional/international organisations, support to over 15 joint EU/UN/WB PDNA/PCNA missions;
• Phase 2 (10/07/2015 – 09/07/2017): revision of the PCNA methodology and development of the RPBA methodology, development of training and capacity building materials, delivery of information/capacity building sessions, joint PDNA/RPBA training courses for national authorities and regional/international organisations, support to over 10 joint EU/UN/WB PDNA/RPBA missions.

The Evaluation of the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II) assessed whether IPA II is fit for purpose to deliver EU resources towards EU's external policy, both at start of the planning period (2014) and at the time of the evaluation (2017), and considered the place of IPA II – its complementarities and synergies – within the wider set of external financing instruments.

The objective of the IPA II evaluation was: 1) to provide the relevant external relations services of the European Union and the wider public with an independent assessment of the IPA II instrument, including complementarities/synergies between IPA II and the other EFIs; and 2) to inform the future programming and implementation of the current EFIs, as well as the next generation of the EFIs.

The evaluation was evidence-based using a non-experimental mixed methods approach combining quantitative and, more importantly, qualitative data and was guided by Evaluation Questions (EQ) covering EU evaluation criteria (relevance; effectiveness, impact and sustainability; efficiency; added value; coherence, consistency, complementarity and synergies; leverage).

The main analytical tools consisted of a rigorous assessment of documentation, analysis of statistics and quantitative data and a consultation of stakeholders (via interviews, group discussions, the online-survey focusing on EU Delegations and the Open Public Consultation).

The report is available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/final_report_ipa_ii_evaluation.zip