Guatemala

The purpose of the Exploratory 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].

The experts did in particular:

• Assess the pre-election situation in the light of international standards for democratic elections and national legislation. The assessment will cover: (i) Political situation, (ii) Legal and Electoral framework, (iii) election administration, (iv) voter registration, (v) party and candidate registration, (vi) human rights and fundamental freedoms, (vii) potential for electoral violence, (viii) traditional and online media, as well as social media, (ix) security aspects, (x) logistics and operational matters, (xi) use of electoral ICT and (xii) any other relevant issues relating to the elections and possible deployment of an EU EOM.
• Assess, when relevant, the state of implementation of recommendations of previous EU election missions (both EU EOMs and EEMs).
• Make necessary preliminary logistics related enquiries and provide advice on how to organise the operational component of a possible EU EOM.
• Assess the security situation in the country, in particular in connection with the possible deployment of an EU EOM.

Advise on the composition, number and length of stay of the Core Team members and long and short-term observers of the EU EOM.

• Draft tentative specifications and Terms of Reference of a possible EU EOM and related estimated costs and budget breakdown.
• Assess the relevance of providing support to domestic observer organisations.
• Acquire updated information on EU election support (both EU and Member States) and other major partners (Canada, Norway and Switzerland) and possible other major actors plans in this field, including in the area of electoral assistance.
• Liaise closely with domestic and international election observation organisations that may be present on the ground regarding the preparation of elections.
• Prepare a number of specific reports as outlined in section 'VI. Output' of these ToR.
• If necessary, participate in the briefing of the EU EOM Core Team should the deployment of an EU EOM be decided.

The general objective of this evaluation is to provide an independent assessment of the performance of EU support to the Rule of Law (RoL) and Anticorruption in the period 2010-2021 in INTPA partner countries, funded under DCI, EDF, EIDHR, IcSP, CSO and relevant Trust Funds. The evaluation seeks to be a stock-taking and forward-looking exercise but will focus on learning i.e. the identification of key lessons on what has and has not worked and why.

In addition, the specific objectives for this evaluation are:

• To assess the EU support to independent, effective and efficient justice systems, notably a) legislative processes (legality), b) legal certainty and access to justice; and c) equality and accountability before the law, in terms of its impact on good governance (including stability, human rights and democracy, environmental governance and business climate).
• To look at actions aimed at promoting anti-corruption, public accountability and transparency, improving the justice systems and enforcing the principle of separation of powers.
• To pay specific attention to the inclusion of different groups (political, ethnic, religious, etc.), women and youth in decision making at all levels.
• To gather insights on the extent to which the different tools, instruments and modalities used in the EU response have been beneficial in providing effective support to partner countries and the interactions and coherence of those, notably of policy and political dialogue.
• To evaluate the rationale of the EU in these supports to RoL, as well as risk mitigation measures and the impact of policy dialogue, not least on societal and state resilience.
• To produce recommendations for decision-makers in DG INTPA, FPI, DG NEAR, DG ECHO, DG Trade, DG JUST and EEAS on how to improve the EU’s policy strategy and implementation.

The temporal scope of the evaluation is 2010 to 2021, with a particular focus on the previous MMF (2014-2020). The evaluation will focus on the support provided to core state institutions and civil society organisations, specifically: state institutions and oversight bodies, justice institutions, anti-corruption agencies, civil society and human rights institutions.

The general objective of the program of which this contract is a part was to improve the competitiveness of MSMEs and cooperatives in order to meet market requirements.

The specific objective (SO) of this contract was to improve MINECO's capacity to support the competitiveness of MSMEs and cooperatives in accessing formal markets and linking up to value chains.

The following results were achieved:

1. The process of implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement on MINECO's competition issues was supported.

2. Institutional capacity of MINECO strengthened to support market access for MSMEs and cooperatives.

The Programme's cross-cutting themes were: environmental assessment, gender equity and good governance.

The Evaluation of the EU development cooperation support to Higher Education in partner countries (2007-2014) evaluated the design and the implementation of policies, strategies and sector programmes of the EU’s past and current development cooperation support to higher education.

The main objectives of the evaluation were:

• to provide the relevant external co-operation services of the EU and the wider public with an independent assessment of the development cooperation support provided to higher education in partner countries over the period 2007-2014;
• to identify key lessons and forward-looking recommendations.

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 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 a comprehensive inventory incl. monetary flow of all relevant activities between 2007 and 2014;
• 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 (Cameroon, the Dominican republic, Egypt, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico, Moldova, South Africa) and drafting of country notes;
• A Synthesis Phase, producing a final report and dissemination of results to concerned stakeholders.

The report is available at: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-evaluation-eu-development-co-operation-support-higher-education-partner-countries-2007_en

The evaluation assessed three regional forestry projects that had support to small producers, development of value chains and the use of participatory approaches in common:

1. ForInfo: Livelihood improvement through generation and ownership of forest information by local people in products and services markets (Mekong, 2011–2015);

2. Finnfor-II: Integrated environmental and forest management co-operation (Central America, 2012–2016);

3. MFS: Sustainable forest management in the Andean region (South America, 2011–2016).

The purpose of the evaluation was to provide guidance to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland in planning and implementing regional forestry projects. It produced lessons for future forest sector co-operation and planning of other regional programmes. Specific objectives of the evaluation were to:

• Assess the added value of the regional approach compared to a country-based approach;
• Assess the success of the programmes in promoting sustainable forestry based livelihoods and increasing income of small producers;
• Identify the lessons learned from developing value chains and payment for ecosystem services.

The evaluation was conducted in several phases:

• An inception phase focusing on the design and the methodology of the evaluation;
• A desk and field phase with document review and visits to eight different countries in the three regions;
• A synthesis phase with global-level conclusions and recommendations across the three regional projects, presented in a final report to concerned stakeholders.

The gender analysis provided information on persisting gender inequalities in Guatemala and the underlying reasons. It has:

• taken into account the situation of exclusion of indegenous women and how this interrelates with other types of inequalities and
• its impact on the realization of human rights and/or the access to the benefits of development initiatives.

Likewise, it contained a reference to the commitment and capacity of the Guatemalan government to work on gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.