COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-term review report of the External Financing Instruments
Date: 2017-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, democracy, development aid, financial aid, fundamental rights, human rights, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2017  SWD(2017) 604 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-term review report of the External Financing Instruments {COM(2017) 720 final} - {SWD(2017) 463 final} - {SWD(2017) 600 final} - {SWD(2017) 601 final} - {SWD(2017) 602 final} - {SWD(2017) 605 final} - {SWD(2017) 606 final} - {SWD(2017) 607 final} - {SWD(2017) 608 final} - {SWD(2017) 609 final}  
 
 
Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 2 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 

1.1.  Purpose of the evaluation .................................................................................. 3 

1.2.  Scope of the evaluation ...................................................................................... 3 

2.  BACKGROUND OF THE INITIATIVE .................................................................... 4 

2.1.  Structure ............................................................................................................. 7 

3.  METHOD .................................................................................................................... 9 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY ................................................................ 11 

4.1.  Programming implementation ......................................................................... 11 

4.2.  Monitoring and evaluation systems ................................................................. 12 

5.  RESPONSES TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................ 15 

5.1.  Relevance ......................................................................................................... 15 

5.2.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 17 

5.3.  Efficiency ......................................................................................................... 19 

5.4.  Added Value .................................................................................................... 21 

5.5.  Coherence, consistency, complementarity and synergies ............................... 21 

5.6.  Leverage .......................................................................................................... 23 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 25 

ANNEX 1. EVALUATION QUESTIONS ..................................................................... 27 

ANNEX 2. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .............................................................. 28 

ANNEX 

3.  SYNOPSIS  REPORT  OF  THE  STAKEHOLDERS' 
CONSULTATION ................................................................................................... 29 

ANNEX 3. ACRONYMS ................................................................................................ 33 

ANNEX  4.  EXTERNAL  EVALUATORS'  REPORT,  INCLUDING  ITS 

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................ 35 

1 

 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

This  Staff  Working  Document  evaluates  the  European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and 
Human Rights (EIDHR) 2014-2020 at its mid-term, covering the period January 2014 to 
June 2017. 

With  a  budget  of  EUR  1.33  billion,  the  EIDHR  is  the  expression  of  the  EU's 
commitment to support and promote democracy and human rights in third countries, in 
line  with  the  European  Union's  policies  in  these  fields.  Its  general  objectives  are 
supporting,  developing  and  consolidating  democracy,  and  enhancing  respect  for,  and 
observance  of  human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms  worldwide.  The  EIDHR  is 
mainly implemented through civil society organisations. 

The main findings of the evaluation are as follows: 

At the mid-term of its implementation, the 2014-2020 EIDHR has overall proven to be 
"fit for purpose". In particular, with its wide and comprehensive scope, the EIDHR was 
and  has  remained  an  enabling,  flexible  and  responsive  instrument  to  protect  and 
promote  human  rights  and  democracy  worldwide,  at  international,  regional  and  local 
levels. With its focus on the most pressing and emerging human rights and democracy 
challenges, especially in the most difficult environments, it is an instrument that is more 
than ever relevant to the political priorities of the EU. 

Although it is particularly difficult to measure the direct contribution of the instrument 
to  any  overall  improvement  –  or  absence  of  deterioration  –  of  the  human  rights  and 
democracy  situation  worldwide  due  to  the  absence  of  indicators  at  instrument  level, 
there  is  nevertheless  evidence  at  output  level  that  the  EIDHR  is  largely  on  track  to 
deliver on its objectives and commitments and is already effective in delivering results 
on each of its specific objectives.  

The  EIDHR  is  deemed  generally  efficient  and  responsive  thanks  to  a  relatively  low 
level  of  administrative  expenditure  and  in-built  flexibility.  The  latter  is  however  not 
always used to its full extent at Delegation level. The call for proposals process which is 
the favoured modality to select projects for funding is found lengthy, burdensome and 
over-competitive by civil society organisations.  

The  EIDHR  creates  space  for  political  and  democratic  dialogue.  The  election 
observation  activities  and  their  follow-up  play  a  key  role  in  promoting  democratic 
elections.  

The specific features and added value of the EIDHR make it a "niche" instrument, able 
to  operate  where  the  others  do  not  or  cannot,  and  is  crucial  to  human  rights  work 
through civil society. In times of decreasing overall funding available to support human 
rights  and  democracy  worldwide,  the  EIDHR  is  able  to  fill  in  gaps,  add  value,  and 
complement support provided by Member States and other development partners. 

The  findings/conclusions  of  the  evaluation  will  feed  into  the  reflection  on  how  to 
improve the implementation of the EIDHR for the remaining period until 2020, and on 
the  future  set  of  External  Financing  Instruments  for  the  next  Multiannual  Financial 
Framework. 

2 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  Purpose of the evaluation 

This  Staff  Working  Document  presents  the  results  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the 
European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and  Human  Rights  (EIDHR)  2014-20201.  The 
evaluation assesses whether the EIDHR is fit for purpose, based on its performance to-
date, to deliver on its objectives of supporting, developing and consolidating democracy 
in  third  countries,  and  enhancing  respect  for,  and  observance  of  human  rights  and 
fundamental  freedoms  worldwide2.  Its  purpose  is  to  inform  future  work  on  the 
instrument  and  its  actions.  In  particular,  this  evaluation,  which  is  part  of  a  set  of  ten 
evaluations covering all the EU External Financing Instruments3, informs the Mid-Term 
Review Report4, which draws conclusions across the External Financing Instruments. 

This  document  is  largely  based  on  an  external  evaluation  by  independent  consultants 
provided in Annex 4. 

1.2.  Scope of the evaluation 

The temporal scope of the evaluation corresponds to the requirements for the Mid-Term 
Review  Report  set  out  in  Article  17  of  the  Common  Implementation  Regulation.  It 
therefore focuses on the period January 2014 to June 2017. However, as it takes place at 
mid-term where many of the actions supported under the EIDHR during the evaluation 
period  have  only  started  to  be  implemented,  it  is  too  soon  at  this  stage  to  measure 
overall  long-term  impact  on  the  situation  of  human  rights  and  democracy  worldwide. 
Therefore the focus of the evaluation, and the assessment of effectiveness in particular, 
are at the output level.  

Nevertheless, since the EIDHR is mainly implemented in centralised management mode 
under  the  N+1  rule5,  all  foreseen  actions  under  the  2014  and  2015  Annual  Action 
Programmes,  as  well  as  most  of  the  actions  under  the  2016-2017  Multiannual  Action 
Programme,  have  already  been  contracted  with  partners  and  entered  into  the 
implementation  phase.  Some  of  these  actions  have  even  already  been  closed.  The 
availability of  both  aggregated and disaggregated  data  has  therefore  been  sufficient  to 
focus on the current EIDHR, without having recourse to data from the previous EIDHR 
(2007-2013), except for comparison purposes. 

1  Regulation  (EU)  No  235/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  March  2014 
establishing a financing instrument for democracy and human rights worldwide, OJ L77, p 85. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0235  
2 Art. 1 of the EIDHR Regulation. Ibid. 
3 The Development Cooperation Instrument, the 11th European Development Fund which is outside of the 
EU  budget,  the  European  Neighbourhood  Instrument,  the  European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and 
Human Rights, the Greenland Decision, the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace, the Instrument 
for Pre-accession Assistance, the Instrument on Nuclear Safety Cooperation, the Overseas Countries and 
Territories  Decision,  the  Partnership  Instrument  and  the  Common  Implementing  Regulation.  For  the 
purpose  of  this  exercise,  the  evaluation  of  the  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories  Decision  is  included 
within the evaluation of the 11th European Development Fund. 
4 As requested in Article 17 of the Common Implementing Regulation, Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  March  2014,  OJ  L77,  p.  95.  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1506604071864&uri=CELEX:32014R0236  
5 Meaning that all implementing contracts must be concluded by 31 December of year n+1, year 'n' being 
the year in which the financial commitment was made. 

3 

 
                                                 
The  countries  covered  under  the  evaluation  are  those  eligible  under  the  EIDHR 
Regulation, i.e. any country outside the European Union6.  

In  accordance  with  the  EU  Better  Regulation  Guidelines7,  the  following  evaluation 
criteria are used: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, and EU added value. 

2.  BACKGROUND OF THE INITIATIVE  

The  External  Financing  Instruments  take  a  major  part  of  the  Multiannual  financial 
framework8  –  Heading  IV  Global  Europe,  which  provides  the  EU  with  the  tools 
necessary to reinforce its role on the world stage and to ensure that it is able to live up to 
its  ambitions  in  promoting  its  interests  and  values  such  as  democracy,  human  rights, 
peace,  solidarity,  stability  and  poverty  reduction  and  to  help  safeguard  global  public 
goods.  

Adopted in  early  2014, the External Financing  Instruments were  designed to  facilitate 
and  support  policy  implementation,  with  the  intention  of  remaining  relevant  until  the 
end  of  2020,  thereby  enabling  the  EU  to  implement  external  action  policy  as  needed 
within the defined principles and objectives.  

Table 1: Multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 – Heading IV instruments 

Heading IV Global Europe 2014 - 2020 

Development Cooperation Instrument 
European Neighbourhood Instrument 
Instrument for Pre-accession assistance 
Humanitarian aid 
Instrument contributing to Stability and 
Peace 
Common Foreign and Security Policy 
Margin 
Agencies, EU Aid Volunteers, Emergency 
Response Centre and others 
European Instrument for Democracy and 
Human Rights 
Guarantee fund for External actions 
Partnership Instrument 
Macro-financial Assistance 
Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation 
Greenland  

EDF9 

€ millions 
19 662 
15 433 
11 699 
6 622 

2 339 

2 339 
2 286 

1 396 

1 333 

1 193 
955 
565 
225 
218 

30 506 

External Financing Instruments highlighted in blue 
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/index_en.cfm  

In  particular,  the  European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and  Human  Rights  (EIDHR)  is 

6 See preamble, paragraph 1 of the EIDHR Regulation 
7
  Better  Regulation  Guidelines:  Enhancing  transparency  and  scrutiny  for  better  EU  law-making 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4988_en.htm 
8 Council Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual 
financial  framework  for  the  years  2014-2020,  OJ  L  347/884,  p.  884.  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1311  
9 The European Development Fund (EDF) which provides aid for development cooperation with African, 
Caribbean and Pacific countries, as well as overseas countries and territories is not funded from the EU 
budget  but  from  direct  contributions  from  EU  Member  States.  Although  it  is  considered  one  external 
financing instrument for the purpose of this exercise, the EDF operates outside the EU budget. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
the expression of the EU's commitment to support and promote democracy and human 
rights  in  third  countries10.  Its  two  general  objectives,  as  defined  in  Article  1  of  the 
EIDHR  Regulation,  are:  (1)  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;  (2) 
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 working mainly with and in support of civil society and its actions11. It is 
established to contribute to the implementation of the European Union's policies relating 
to  human  rights  and  democracy,  including  the Strategic Framework on Human  Rights 
and Democracy and the 2012-2014 Action12 as well as the 2015-2019 Action Plan13. Its 
budget for the period 2014-2020 is EUR 1,332,752,000. 

The  2011  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  renewal  of  the  EIDHR14  as  well  as 
other evaluations at instrument level15 or projects level revealed several strengths:  

(i) independence of action, allowing working without the need for government consent, 
which  is  a  critical  feature  especially  in  the  sensitive  areas  of  democracy  and  human 
rights; 

(ii)  flexibility  and  capacity  to  timely  respond  to  changing  circumstances,  in 
complementarity to  geographic and other thematic instruments;  

(iii)  intervention  in  the  most  difficult  situations  and  contexts  where  human  rights  and 
fundamental  freedoms  are  at  greater  risk.  In  order  to  protect  the  physical  safety  of 
activists  and  others  whose  lives  may  be  seriously  endangered,  the  details  of  such 
projects may not be made public. 

10 Source: Lisbon Treaty (Art 21) 
11  Ca.  95%  of  Objectives  1,  2,  3  and  5  is  implemented  by  local  and  international  civil  society 
organisations,  while  Objective  4  is  implemented  through  service  contracts.  Source:  external  evaluation 
report  
12 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) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0886:FIN:EN:PDF  
13  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 
https://ec.europa.eu/anti-
trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/council_conclusions_on_the_action_plan_on_human_rights_and_de
mocracy_2015_-_2019.pdf 
14  Impact  Assessment  of  the  EIDHR  Regulation,  SEC(2011)1479  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=SEC:2011:1478:FIN  
15 Study on Legal Instruments and Lessons Learned from the Evaluations managed by the Joint 
Evaluation Unit covering DCI, ENPI, INSC, IfS, EIDHR, ICI (July 2011): 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/ devco /files/evaluation-cooperation-ec-legal-1292-main-report- 
201107_en_0.pdf 

(10897/15) 

5 

 
                                                 
The  2011  Impact  Assessment  also  concluded  that  the  budget  of  the  EIDHR  was  too 
limited given its vast geographical and thematic scope. The EIDHR was and still is one 
of the smallest of the existing EU external financing instruments and only represents 1% 
of the overall EU Official Development Assistance.  

The main lessons incorporated into the 2014-2020 Regulation at the time of its design 
led  to  a  better  definition  of  the  EIDHR's  specific  objectives  with  respect  to  the 
protection of human rights and support of democratic processes, including in particular:  

(i)  a  stronger  focus  on  the  most  difficult  countries  and  emergency  situations  where 
human rights and human rights defenders are most in danger;  

(ii) a stronger accent on the role of civil society, with a focus on their participation in 
decision making processes as the basis for active citizenship; 

(iii) a stronger emphasis on gender equality and support to rights of vulnerable groups 
(national, ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender 
and  inter-sex  persons  (LGBTI),  indigenous  peoples,  persons  affected  by  caste-based 
discrimination, etc.); 

(iv) a stronger emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights;  

(v)  a  commitment 
recommendations and improve democratic and electoral processes.  

to  better  follow  up  EU  Electoral  Observation  Missions' 

Compared  to  the  2007-2013  EIDHR,  the  2014-2020  EIDHR  increased  approximately 
by  21%  in  budget16  and  has  been  adjusted  to  address  new  challenges,  to  be  more 
strategic  in  its  focus  and  procedurally  easier  to  use,  thus  enabling  the  EU  to  provide 
concrete  support  to  contribute  to  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  promptly  to  human 
rights  emergencies  and  to  provide  more  support  to  international  and  regional  human 
rights protection mechanisms. 

Underlying  this  set  of  actions  is  the  principle  of  complementarity  and  coherence  with 
the  wider  set  of  external  financing  instruments,  as  enshrined  in  the  preamble  of  the 
EIDHR  Regulation17.  In  accordance  with  the  Lisbon  Treaty,  the  programmes  and 
policies  promoted  by  the  EIDHR  must  be  coherent  with  other  initiatives  for  external 
action. Figure 1 below sets out how the EIDHR fits into the wider set of instruments and 
policies in the fields of democracy and human rights.  

16 EIDHR 2014-2020 overall budget is EUR 1,333M.  
17 Preamble paragraphs (14), (16) and (22), EIDHR Regulation. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 1. Intervention Rationale of the EIDHR within the overall EU action in the fields 
of  Democracy  and  Human  Rights  as  reconstructed  by  the  external  evaluators  of  the 
EIDHR (2017) 

2.1.  Structure 

The European Union's strategic orientation in delivering on the purpose of the EIDHR is 
based on five interlinked objectives, which are set out in Annex 1 to the Regulation as 
follows:  
  Specific  Objective  1  -  Support  to  human  rights  and  human  rights  defenders  in 

situations where they are most at risk;  

  Specific Objective 2 - Support to other priorities of the Union in the field of human 

rights;  

  Specific Objective 3 - Support to democracy;  
  Specific Objective 4 - EU Election Observation Missions (EOMs);  
  Specific  Objective  5  -  Support  to  targeted  key  actors  and  processes,  including 

international and regional human rights instruments and mechanisms.  

To achieve these objectives, the EIDHR has provided a rather broad variety of 
interventions:  

  Grants to civil society and human rights defenders in third countries under the 
Country Based Support Scheme (CBSS) using the standard call for proposals 
process managed by the EU Delegations.  

 

‘Global’ calls for proposals/grants to civil society organisations to support specific 
human rights priorities.  

7 

 
 
 
 
  Emergency grants to human rights defenders at risk under the EIDHR Emergency 

Fund and ProtectDefenders.eu.  

  Confidential grants under the Human Rights Crisis Facility to civil society and 
human rights defenders where it is impossible for these to be supported without 
exposing them to risk or violating rules in their countries.  

  Targeted actions identified in the EIDHR Annual Action Programmes to support 
key actors (for example, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human 
Rights, the International Criminal Court or the National Human Rights Institutions) 
and support to the media, Parliaments and political parties.  

  Service contracts with specific service providers, including for the conducting of the 

EU election observation missions and related activities.  

Figure 2 below presents the intervention logic of the instrument from inputs to impact, 
as reconstructed by the external evaluators.  

Figure 2. Intervention logic of the EIDHR as reconstructed by the external evaluators of 
the EIDHR (2017) 

2.2.  Baseline 

As  this  is  a  mid-term  evaluation,  the  baseline  has  been  set  at  January  2014  when  the 
EIDHR  2014-2020  was  adopted.  Therefore  the  evaluation  compares,  to  the  extent 
possible, the situation on 1 January 2014 (Common Implementation Regulation, Article 

8 

 
 
 
17.3)18 with the current situation. For some evaluation criteria, where data is unavailable 
for  this  reference  date,  earlier  baselines  have  been  used,  as  described  later  in  this 
document (see sections 5.2 and 5.3 on effectiveness and efficiency), considering that the 
main objectives of the instrument have not been changed from the former to the current 
EIDHR. 

The  EIDHR  Regulation  does  not  include  any  strategic  and  operational  indicators  to 
measure results. 

3.  METHOD 

This  evaluation  is  supported  by  an  external  evaluation  carried  out  from  July  2016  to 
May  201719.  The  external  evaluation  of  the  European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and 
Human Rights (EIDHR) was managed by an Inter-service Steering Group through the 
following steps: an inception report (which explained how the evaluation design would 
deliver  the  information  required);  a  desk  report  (providing  initial  responses  to 
evaluation  questions);  visits  to  Israel,  Palestine,  Peru  and  Uganda  to  meet  key 
interlocutors to obtain first-hand view in-country; country desk studies on Pakistan and 
Russia;  a  survey  to  EU  Delegations  covering  all  instruments;  an  Open  Public 
Consultation on the draft report which comprised a 12-week online survey and targeted 
meetings with Member States in March 2017; and a final report. The external evaluation 
also took into account various studies and reports, including special reports of the Court 
of  Auditors20  and  the  results  of  a  specific  Evaluation  of  EU  Election  Observation 
Activities21  managed  by  the  Foreign  Policy  Instruments  service  of  the  Commission 
(FPI) in cooperation with the European External Action Service (EEAS).  

The external evaluation used a non-experimental methodology. This was based on the 
reconstructed  logic  of  intervention  for  the  EIDHR  and  testing  the  extent  to  which  in 
practice  this  intervention  logic  has  worked  as  intended.  The  process  of  the  external 
evaluation  has  been  robust  and  the  evidence  reasonably  solid,  despite  the  fact  that 
instrument-level  strategic  and  operational  indicators  to  measure  results  were  not  yet 
fully  in  place,  which  made  measuring  effectiveness  and  results  difficult  during  the 
consultation phase. 

The  present  evaluation  equally  draws  from  the  experience  and  sound  judgement  of 
Commission services in charge of managing the EIDHR, in consultation with the EEAS 
which is in the lead for its programming22. It is based on several external and internal 
sources of information:  

p. 

of 

95. 

11  March 

2014,  OJ  L77, 

18 Common Implementing Regulation, Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1506604071864&uri=CELEX:32014R0236 
19 Evaluation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) 2014-2020 (June 
2017): 
  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation-european-instrument-democracy-and-human-rights-
eidhr-2014-2020-draft-evaluation-report-1_en  
20 For example, the European Court of Auditors Special Report on EU support for the fight against torture 
and the abolition of the death penalty (2015);  . 
21 Evaluation of EU Election Observation Activities, July 2016 – January 2017, 
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/25845/evaluation-eu-election-observation-
activities_en 
22 Programming is the stage where the priorities of EU assistance to a partner country, region or theme are 
defined. 

9 

 
                                                 
- structured consultations, ad hoc meetings and near daily contacts at Headquarters and 
Delegation level with the main stakeholders concerned by the instrument: human rights 
defenders,  international  and  local  civil  society  organisations,  the  Office  of  the  United 
Nations  High  Commissioner  for  Human  Rights  (OHCHR),  the  International  Criminal 
Court,  regional  human  rights  mechanisms,  national  human  rights  institutions,  national 
electoral bodies, etc.;  
- the data23 on the growing number of requests for support under the EIDHR Emergency 
Fund  for  human  rights  defenders  at  risk  which  reflect  the  trends  of  violence, 
criminalisation,  harassment  and  smearing  campaigns  against  human  rights  defenders 
worldwide  also  measured  by  specialised  international  non-governmental  organisations 
(NGOs);  

-  the  implementation  and  monitoring  reports  of  EIDHR-funded  projects  received  and 
reviewed by the Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development on 
a regular basis, including implementation issues in countries where restrictive laws and 
practices  (such  as  freezing  of  accounts)  have  been  passed  which  hinder  the  proper 
implementation of foreseen activities. 

23 Source: Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development 

10 

 
 
                                                 
4. 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 

This  section  looks  at  the  progress made  in  implementing  the  European  Instrument  for 
Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) since 2014 and the monitoring systems used to 
measure progress. In line with being an instrument-level evaluation, the focus has been 
kept as much as possible on the programming rather than action level.    

4.1.  Programming implementation 

The  EIDHR  has  been  implemented  in  an  efficient  manner  since  2014.  A  Multiannual 
Indicative  Programme  (MIP)  has  been  adopted  for  the  period  2014-201724.  While  a 
Special  Measure25  and  an  Annual  Action  Programme26  framed  the  initiatives  to  be 
implemented  respectively  for  2014  and  2015,  a  Multiannual  Action  Programme 
(MAAP)  established  the  work  programme  for  years  2016  and  201727.  100%  of  the 
EIDHR budget for 2014-2017 has been committed. There have been no specific delays 
or problems so far in execution. 

Since  2014,  the  EIDHR  programmes  maintained  the  instrument's  worldwide  coverage 
and  their  actions  can  be  regrouped  in  five  axes  of  work  in  line  with  the  overall 
objectives of the EIDHR Regulation:  

1.  reinforcing the EU's capacity to intervene in the short-, medium- and long-term, 
including to address the most difficult situations and to react quickly to human 
rights emergencies;  

2.  supporting  local  civil  society  organisations  at  grassroots  level,  including  in 

remote areas;  

3.  launching  capacity  building  programmes  in  the  area  of  democracy,  human 

rights, and human rights education;  

4.  contributing  to  increasing  transparency  and  trust  in  the  electoral  process  by 

means of Electoral Observation Missions (EOMs); 

5.  strengthening key international and regional multilateral actors. 

In operational terms, this has notably translated into a focus on: 

  supporting individual human rights defenders in emergency situations under the 
EIDHR  Emergency  Fund28  and  the  EU  human  rights  defenders  mechanism 
ProtectDefenders.eu29; 

of 

final 

7529 

C(2014) 

21.10.2014 

Commission 

Implementing 

24 
Decision 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/commission-implementing-decision-maap-eidhr-
20150207_en.pdf  
25  Commission  Implementing  Decision  C(2014)  5142  final  of  24.7.2014.  This  Special  Measure  was 
adopted to avoid a financing gap while waiting for the adoption of the 2014-2017 Multiannual Indicative 
Programme. 
http://www.eidhr.eu/files/dmfile/SpecialMeasureconcerningtheWorkProgramme2014fortheEuropeanInstr
umentforDemocracyandHumanRights.pdf  
26 Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 2025 final of 1.04.2015  
27  Commission 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/commission-implementing-decision-maap-eidhr-
20150207_en.pdf  
28  EIDHR  Emergency  Fund  awards  urgent  small  grants  of  up  to  EUR  10  000  to  HRDs  or  CSOs  at 
imminent risk, including where the latter are not registered and without the need for co-funding. 

implementing  Decision  C(2015) 

7  December 

2015 

8548 

final 

of 

11 

 
                                                 
  addressing in a flexible and reactive way under the EIDHR Human Rights Crises 
Facility30, countries and urgent situations where human rights and fundamental 
freedoms are most at risk and where disrespect for those rights and freedoms is 
particularly pronounced and systematic; 

 

launching annual global calls for proposals covering five main EU priorities in 
the field of human rights in parallel, allowing for a longer-term response in each 
priority  area:  (i)  Human  rights  and  their  defenders  where  they  are  the  most  at 
risk,  (ii)  Human  Dignity,  (iii)  Economic,  Social  and  Cultural  rights,  (iv)  anti-
discrimination and (v) other priorities planned in the multi-annual programming 
or linked to new unforeseen areas; 

  supporting participatory and representative democracy, through civic education, 
enhancing  the  role  of  civil  society  and  ordinary  citizens  in  the  democratic 
process, and supporting fundamental freedoms and access to information; 

  continuing global programmes in the above areas, as well as launching a call for 

proposals on promoting women and youth in political party systems;   

  steadily supporting key international actors such as the United Nations Office of 
the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Criminal Court;  

 

initiating support to networks of National Human Rights Institutions; 

  continuing the EU support to the Master of Human Rights and Democratisation 

as well as the launching of other targeted initiatives; 

  deploying,  upon  invitation  of  partner  countries,  EU  Election  Observation 
Missions,  Election  Expert  Missions  and  Election  Follow-Up  Missions  with 
robust  principles  and  methodology  of  electoral  observation  developed  on  the 
basis of over two decades of operational experience with a view to encouraging 
professionalism  and  transparency  in  electoral  management,  discouraging 
irregularities  and  abuse,  and  inspiring  public  confidence  in  the  electoral 
processes.  

4.2.  Monitoring and evaluation systems 

In the EIDHR Regulation, no specific monitoring or evaluation system was mentioned 
for  the  purpose  of  measuring  its  overall  performance  (e.g.  its  flexibility  and 
complementarity with other instruments). Neither was an intervention logic established 
at  the  time  the  instrument  was  adopted  which  would  have  shown  the  external  and 
internal assumptions on which it was based, thus making it easier to measure changes.  

Furthermore, the objectives of the EIDHR lend themselves more to qualitative than to 
quantitative assessment. The changes encouraged by EIDHR activities are often related 

29 ProtectDefenders.eu is a three-year project financed under the EIDHR (EUR 15 million) to implement 
the EU Human Rights Defenders mechanism, established to protect defenders at high risk and facing the 
most  difficult situations worldwide.  It  is led  by  a  consortium  of  12  NGOs  active  in  the  field  of human 
rights.  
30 EIDHR Human Rights Crises Facility grants direct awards up to 1 MEUR to address the most difficult 
human rights situations and/or when a call for proposals is inappropriate. Since 2014, the allocation has 
been EUR 3.5 million annually. 

12 

 
 
                                                                                                                                               
 
to  legislation,  practices  and  attitudes  that  do  not  easily  get  measured  through 
quantitative analysis, especially not in the short term. In a very fluid environment where 
the  EIDHR  works  through  civil  society  organisations,  the  assessment  of  EIDHR’s 
results  should  be  seen  more  in  terms  of  contribution  than  in  terms  of  direct  and 
attributable effect. 

The  EU  International  Cooperation  and  Development  Results  Framework  created  in 
201531 defines quantitative indicators for the collection, aggregation and presentation of 
three  types  of  result  data:  (level  1)  wider  development  progress  made  by  partner 
countries  (impact-level  indicators);  (level  2)  partner  country  results  to  which  the  EU 
contributed  through  EU-funded  projects;  (level  3)  the  European  Commission's  own 
organisational performance in respect to international cooperation and development.  

In  terms  of  level  2  (outcome  and  output  indicators),  it  is  possible  to  aggregate  these 
indicators at instrument level; however they have their limitations for the purpose of this 
evaluation.  They  only  report  results  from  projects  that  have  closed  from  mid-2013  to 
mid-2016. The results are therefore mostly coming from projects implemented under the 
previous EIDHR and will not, for the time being, show the performance of the current 
instrument. 

The following monitoring tools have been employed: 

What 

Results 
Orientated 
Monitoring 

EU 
International 
Cooperation 
and 
Development 
Results 
Framework 

Other 
monitoring 

Who 

When 

Why 

Managed by HQ; 
executed by external 
ROM experts in 
consultation with EU 
Delegations  

Managed by HQ, 
executed by external 
consultants in 
consultation with EU 
Operational Managers 
in Delegations and HQ 

Project implementing 
partners and 
contractors  
EU operational 
managers in 
Delegations and HQ 

Once in a lifetime up 
to once a year during 
the implementation 
phase; usually 
organised in form of 
an annual mission to 
a country 
Annual exercise 

  Provide recommendations for project 

management; 

  Gives overview of EC aid portfolio 

performance,  

  Contributes to lessons learned (via 

meta-analysis) 

  Provide systematic collection of 

results data achieved by projects and 
programmes (above 750,000 EUR) 
that have closed. 

  Show annual progress on indicators 

against which DEVCO must report at 
an aggregated level. 

On-going process 

  To check the progress, take remedial 

action, update plans 

On-going process  

  Follow up of projects progress and 

performance for operational steering 
and contract management and 
administration; 

  Reporting on portfolio performance 
for strategic decision-making 

31 Commision Staff Working Document: Launching the EU International Cooperation and Development 
Results Framework; https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/staff-working-document-launching-eu-international-
cooperation-and-development-results-framework_en  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluations 

Project/Programme 
Evaluations: Managed 
by EU operational 
manager in 
Delegation/HQ, 
conducted by external 
evaluators 
Strategic Evaluations: 
Managed by DEVCO 
Evaluation Unit, 
conducted by external 
evaluators 

At particular 
milestones: Mid-
term, Final or Ex-
Post  

  Provide recommendations for project 
management based on in depth 
analysis; 
Identification of lessons learned 

 
  Accountability for results 

Approx. 10 
evaluations per year 
according to multi-
annual work plan 

  Provide input for strategic decision 
making on country, sector or global 
level and especially for programming; 

  Accountability for results of public 

expenditure 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  RESPONSES TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

In  line  both  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  on  evaluations  introduced  by  the 
Commission in 201532, and the requirements of the Common Implementing Regulation 
(CIR)33,  the  main  assessment  criteria  are:  relevance;  effectiveness;  efficiency; 
coherence, EU added value, consistency, complementarity and synergies; and leverage. 

5.1.  Relevance 

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 (mid-2017)? 

With its wide and comprehensive scope defined in Article 2, the EIDHR was conceived 
to  be  an  enabling,  flexible  and  responsive  instrument  to  protect  and  promote  human 
rights  and  democracy  worldwide.  As  attested  in  the  external  evaluation  report,  its 
programming and implementation so far have been fully in line with this objective, with 
the EIDHR having been able to address both well-identified and emerging challenges, 
even in the most difficult environments.  

The instrument is rooted in the EU's approach according to which democracy is the only 
political regime where human rights can be fulfilled. As the external evaluation states, 
the  way  in  which  the  two  general  objectives  of  the  instrument  (human  rights  and 
democracy) have been delineated in the specific objectives has improved the coherence 
and  ability  to  respond  to  human  rights  and  democracy  challenges.34  This  in  turn 
increases  the  relevance  of  the  EU’s  response  and  addresses  the  main  problems  noted 
during the impact assessment of the previous EIDHR35. 

In  particular,  with  its  in-built  flexibilities  and  specific  features36  as  well  as  increasing 
focus on the protection of human rights defenders, the EIDHR has been able to increase 
focus  on  countering  the  phenomenon  commonly  called  "shrinking  space  of  civil 
society"37  and  the  criminalisation  of  human  rights  defenders.  Despite  increasing 

p. 

32  Guidelines  on  evaluation  (including  fitness  checks),  https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-
guidelines-evaluation-and-fitness-checks_en 
33 Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014, OJ 
L77, 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
95 
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1506604071864&uri=CELEX:32014R0236 
34 Source: external evaluation report, section 4.3. 
35  EU  (2011)  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper:  Impact  Assessment  Accompanying  the  Document 
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Financing Instrument for The 
Promotion  Of  Democracy  And  Human  Rights  Worldwide 
final. 
www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres.../COM_SEC(2011)1478_EN.pdf 
36 Such as the ability to operate without government's consent, possibilities for direct award of grants in 
the  most  difficult  human  rights  situations  as  well  as  to  guarantee  confidentiality  of  funding  when 
required. 
37 Civil Society Organisations in many countries have been experiencing a shrinking space in which they 
cannot operate freely. A number of governments interpret the role of civil society organisations in a more 
restrictive way, limiting their input in policy-making and curbing freedom of speech and opinion. Other 
governments have led efforts to bar, restrain, or control the work of civil society. Restrictive laws have 
emerged, imposing arbitrary procedures for the registration of associations or restrictions to their funding, 
in  particular  from  foreign  sources.  Harassment  of  international  and  domestic  NGOs  is  also  increasing 

-  SEC(2011)  1478 

15 

 
                                                 
independent  and  active 

restrictions hampering the emergence, development and protection of civil society, the 
EIDHR  has  continued  supporting 
local  civil  society 
organisations as indispensable counterweights to public authorities as well as agents of 
democratic  change  and  sustainable  development.  By 
liaising  and  exchanging 
information  with  domestic  observers,  EU  Electoral  Observation  Missions  (EOM) 
recognise  the  importance  of  local  civil  society  organisations  to  actively  engage  in 
election  process,  including  through  domestic  observation38.  Hence,  the  local  civil 
society can benefit from the EOM’s presence. Elections are key moments in a country’s 
democratic  cycle  and  election  observation  can  help  identifying  weaknesses  and 
opportunities  for  improvement  of  the  electoral  process,  thus  contributing  to  the 
promotion of democracy in partner countries and inclusive development. 

The external evaluation demonstrates39 that the EIDHR is already contributing to efforts 
for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development  Goals  of the 2030 Agenda 
adopted  in  September  2015.40  Specifically,  with  its  focus  on  human  rights,  gender 
equality,  vulnerable  groups,  economic,  social  and  cultural  rights,  and  the  inclusion  of 
environmental human rights defenders, the EIDHR is already contributing to achieving 
the Sustainable Development Goals 1-8, 10 and 12-16. 

Since  2014,  the  EIDHR  has  coherently  reflected  and  contributed  to  implementing  EU 
policies  on  human  rights  and  democracy,  notably  the  2015-2019  EU  Action  Plan  on 
Democracy and Human rights41, contributing to its concrete implementation42.  

Furthermore,  by  explicitly  recognising  that  democracy,  human  rights,  the  rule  of  law 
and  good  governance  on  the  one  hand,  and  inclusive  and  sustainable  development  on 
the other are inextricably linked and mutually reinforcing, the EIDHR is in line with the 
new  European  Consensus  on  Development43  adopted  in  June  2017  which  makes 
democracy,  rule  of  law,  human  rights,  gender  equality,  and  good  governance  the 
principles  and  values  guiding  EU  development  action  as  well  as  key  elements  of  its 
concrete response throughout the 5 pillars44 of the Consensus, especially under People 
and Peace. The acknowledgment in the new Consensus45 of the importance of a rights-
based  approach  to  development  (RBA)  validates  the  role  played  by  the  EIDHR  in 
developing  the  EU  RBA  methodology  and  training46  and  its  contribution  to  better 

either  from  the  authorities  or  by  their  failure  to  protect  them  from  attacks  coming  from  extractive 
industries pressures, illegal trafficking, or land issues disputes. 
38 Source: external evaluation report, page 18 
39 Source: external evaluation report, page 19 
40 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld  
41 Council Conclusions on the Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2015 – 2019, 
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/4083/eu-action-plan-human-rights-and-
democracy-2015-2019_en  
42 Source: external evaluation report, page 19 
43The European Consensus on Development is a shared framework for development cooperation for the 
EU  and  its  Member  States,  it  is  a  blueprint  which  aligns  the  EU  development  policy  with  the  2030 
Agenda 
Sustainable  Development..https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/new-european-consensus-
development-our-world-our-dignity-our-future_en  
44 People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnerships 
45 See page 7 of the Consensus. 
46  Notably  'A  Tool-box  –  Rights-based  approach  encompassing  all  human  rights  in  EU  development 
cooperation',  SWD(2014)152  final  (April  2014),  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/rights-based-
approach-development-cooperation_en  

for 

16 

 
                                                                                                                                               
integrating  human  rights  as  a  goal  and  a  means  into  the  other  external  financing 
instruments. 

EU  Delegations  have  mostly  implemented  their  country  specific  allocations,  i.e.  the 
Country-Based Support Scheme (CBSS), based on consultations with local civil society 
and priorities agreed in their locally adopted Strategies, allowing for a strong alignment 
of the instrument with both the country-based challenges and the EU policy priorities at 
local level.  

5.2.  Effectiveness 

To what extent does the EIDHR deliver results against the instrument's objectives, and 
specific EU priorities? 

Measuring  effectiveness  of  EIDHR  at  instrument  level  has  faced  a  number  of 
challenges. As  already  mentioned  in  section  4.2.,  activities  in  the  fields  of  democracy 
and  human  rights  lend  themselves  more  to  qualitative  than  to  quantitative  assessment 
and  face  problems  of  attribution.  Therefore,  it  is  particularly  difficult  to  measure  the 
direct  contribution  of  the  instrument  to  overall  improvement  –  or  absence  of 
deterioration – of the human rights and democracy situation worldwide. Lastly, the fact 
that  a  specific  intervention  logic  and  strategic  and  operational  indicators  to  measure 
results  were  not  in  place  at  instrument  level  in  2014  has  made  it  difficult  to  measure 
precisely the effectiveness of the EIDHR.47 

At  output  level,  however,  there  is  evidence  that  the  EIDHR  is  already  effectively 
delivering results on each of its specific objectives: 

  Specific  objective  1:  Overall,  there  has  been  a  significant  increase  in  financial 
support  dedicated  to  human  rights  and  human  rights  defenders  in  situations  where 
they  are  most  at  risk48.  The  external  evaluation  pays  notably  tribute  to  the 
effectiveness and the responsiveness of the support to human rights defenders at risk 
under the EIDHR Emergency Fund and the grant to ProtectDefenders.eu, with each 
awarded  grant  potentially  saving  a  life  and/or  allowing  supported  human  rights 
defenders to continue to work on democracy and human rights issues in their home 
countries. This can be considered as an invaluable 'value for money' compared to the 
very small 'investment' (i.e. up to EUR 10,000) per defender supported.49 

  Specific  objective  2:  The  support  to  other  human  rights  priorities50  has  also  been 
considerable51,  continuing  EIDHR  support  in  areas  where  it  is  one  of  the  only 

47  This  last  issue  has  been  recently  addressed  and  a  set  of  operational  indicators  are  currently  being 
finalised. 
48 Increase in levels of financial commitment from EUR 66.64M in the period 2011-13 to EUR 76.38M in 
the period 2014-17 (to 13 January 2017) and increase in number of actions from 218 in the period 2011-
13 to 311 under the current programme (to 13 January 2017), Source: DEVCO 
49 Source: external evaluation report, page 24 
50  Following  priority  areas  have  been  defined:  (i)Human  rights  and  their  defenders  where  they  are  the 
most at risk, (ii) Human Dignity, (iii) Economic, Social and Cultural rights, (iv) anti-discrimination and 
(v) other priorities planned in the multi-annual programming or linked to new unforeseen areas. 
51 Source: external evaluation report, page 24 

17 

 
                                                 
instruments  to  intervene  (e.g.  fight  against  torture  and  the  death  penalty),  moving 
forward  on  the  principles  of  interdependence  and  inter-relatedness  of  rights,  and 
reinvigorating  focus on economic, social and cultural rights. 

  Specific objective 3: Support has concentrated on the involvement of civil society in 
the  democratic  cycle, 
including  domestic  observation  and  protections  of 
fundamental freedoms, as well as more general civic education. Support to domestic 
accountability  has  also  increased,  recognising  that  issues  of  accountability  and 
transparency  are  not  restricted  to  electoral  periods.   Parliamentary  strengthening 
activities, and a global call for proposals on political parties focusing on women and 
youth, aim to drive political participation and representation. Global targeted actions 
on (i) citizens observers and accountability and (ii) freedom of expression and media 
have augmented the activities at country level. 

  Specific  objective  4:  Even  though  measuring  the  effectiveness  of  election 
observation is a challenge – primarily as it is impossible to link the success, failure 
or quality of an election process to any single factor – the external evaluators found 
evidence  that  election  observation  is  effective  in  improving  the  reliability  of 
electoral  processes  and  that  the  follow-up  of  EOMs'  recommendations  has 
improved.  It  is  also  believed  that  the  presence  of  observers  on  the  ground 
contributes  to  reducing  the  possibility  of  election-related  violence  and  tampering 
with  results.52  The  recently  completed  Evaluation  of  EU  Election  Observation 
Activities  (July  2016  –  January  201753)  concludes  that  EU  election  observation 
activities  are  judged  to  be  effective  in  all  evaluation  question  areas  identified  as 
relevant  to  effectiveness  and  that  clear  signs  of  impact  were  found  during  the 
evaluation. 

  Specific objective 5: Funding targeted to some of the key actors and processes  for 
the international, regional and national protection of human rights (e.g. International 
Criminal  Court    or  National  Human  Rights  Institutes)  has  increased  under  the 
current  EIDHR  and  has  allowed  critical  actors  to  continue  operating  despite  the 
current challenges to multilateralism (e.g International Criminal Court or the United 
Nations system).  

Thanks to the flexibility provided to the instrument and its particular focus on situations 
where human rights are most at risk (i.e Specific objective 1), the EIDHR has been able 
to  respond  to  the requirement  of  the  recital  18 of  the  EIDHR  Regulation  which states 
that ‘the Union should be able to respond in a flexible and timely manner’.   

In  contributions  received  during  the  Open  Public  Consultation,  some  concerns  were 
raised regarding  the possibly limited impact of  the instrument  given its wide thematic 
and geographical scope (more than 110 countries covered) and the relatively small size 
of its budget. The external evaluation however finds that with relatively small funding 
EIDHR achieves important results, with special mention to be given to the effectiveness 
and value for money of support to human rights defenders. In addition, the instrument's 

52 Source: external evaluation report, page 30-31 
53 Evaluation of EU Election Observation Activities, July 2016 – January 2017 
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/25845/evaluation-eu-election-observation-
activities_ro  

18 

 
 
                                                 
worldwide  mandate  and  broad  scope  appropriately  reflect  the  universality  and 
indivisibility of human rights and limiting the geographical coverage would be against 
the  nature  of  the  instrument.  Furthermore,  the  level  of  economic  development  of 
'graduated'54  countries  is  not  necessarily  in  line  with  their  track  record  in  terms  of 
democracy  and  human  rights  and  it  has  therefore  been  correct  to  remain  engaged  in 
graduated  countries,  especially  as  the  EIDHR  is  one  of  the  very  few  instruments 
available  to  EU  Delegations  to  maintain  support  to  civil  society.  The  EIDHR  also 
allows operating in those countries where human rights, democracy, governance or rule 
of law are not included as sectors of concentration of EU bilateral assistance, or where 
no bilateral programmes exist. Despite relatively small country allocations, the EIDHR 
has  been  used  to  provide  support  to  key  human  rights  and  democracy  issues,  that 
coupled  with  an  increased  level  of  political  dialogue  and  diplomacy,  thus  not  only 
filling in the ‘gap’ but also having a multiplier effect. Thus had the geographic coverage 
or  scope  been  narrowed  down,  the  effectiveness  of  the  instrument  would  have 
decreased.  

5.3.  Efficiency  

To what extent is the EIDHR delivering efficiently?  

The  relatively  low  and  stable  level  of  administrative  expenditure  of  the  EIDHR  (ca. 
7.5%  of  overall  budget  on  average  over  the  2007-2017  period55)  makes  it  an  efficient 
instrument compared to the volume of funds to be managed overall.  

The external evaluation deems also its implementation efficient with an increased size 
of grants (as compared to the previous EIDHR) coupled with an increased use of "sub-
granting"  to  reach  out  to  smaller  civil  society  organisations  at  grassroots  level.  The 
disbursement rate (time  taken from commitment to  first  payment to  beneficiaries) and 
absorption  rate  (time  taken  from  commitment  to  last  payment  to  beneficiaries)  since 
2014 is also faster compared to the previous EIDHR as well as other external financing 
instruments.  

Implementation  modalities  foreseen  in  the  Common  Implementing  Regulation  (CIR), 
whether specific to the EIDHR or applicable to all external financing instruments, have 
contributed to efficiently implement the instrument. 

The  2014  EIDHR  Annual  Action  Programme  was  adopted  as  a  "special  measure" 
allowing  for  support  to  be  provided  without  a  gap  between  the  end  of  the  previous 
Regulation  on  31  December  2013  and  the  adoption  of  the  2014-2017  Multiannual 
Indicative Programme a few months later. The possibility offered by the CIR to use the 
multi-annual programming approach has  successfully been  implemented for the 2016-
2017 Multiannual Action Programme (MAAP). Indeed, the EIDHR is to a large degree 

54 Middle income countries or upper middle income countries that have not been recipient of EU bilateral 
financial assistance since 2014 in application of the graduation principle contained in the policy document 
for  Change’.  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/european-development-policy/agenda-
‘Agenda 
change_en  
55  Source:  Directorate  General  for  International  Cooperation  and  Development  and  external  evaluation 
report, p.39  

19 

 
 
                                                 
implemented through recurrent actions that are carried on from year to year56. Adopting 
the  actions  for  the  2016-2017  as  soon  as  in  December  2015  reduced  transaction  costs 
and  improved  planning,  transparency  and  predictability  of  funds  and  themes  for  the 
concerned stakeholders and the Delegations (e.g. allowing them to pool funds of two to 
local  calls  for  proposals  and  enhance 
three  budget  years 
complementarity  and  coherence  with  the  'Civil  society  organisations  and  local 
authorities'  (CSO/LA)  programme  of  the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument  (DCI) 
which also has a MAAP). 

to  rationalise 

the 

The  provisions  allowing  to  award  grants  without  calls  for  proposals  and  without  the 
need  for  co-funding  for  low-value  grants  (for  example  to  support  human  rights 
defenders  at  risk),  or  in  declared  crisis  situation  or,  a  new  feature  since  2014,  in 
"countries or  situations where there is a serious lack of fundamental freedoms, where 
human  security  is  most  at  risk  or  where  human  rights  organisations  and  defenders 
operate  under  the  most  difficult  conditions"57  have  all  been  used  when  necessary  to 
respond  to  urgent  situations  on  the  ground.  This  increased  flexibility  has  allowed  the 
Commission to finance crucial projects of up to EUR 1 million and assist civil society 
organisations and human rights defenders at risk in a much reduced time frame through 
the EIDHR Human Rights Crises Facility58.  

The possibility in the CIR for grants to be provided to entities without legal personality 
and,  in  exceptional  and  duly  justified  cases,  any  other  body  or  actor  when  this  is 
necessary to achieve the objectives of the EIDHR59 has been used under the EIDHR to 
somehow  counter  the  effects  of  restrictive  legislations  on  the  registration  or  foreign 
funding  of  NGOs  in  numerous  countries  worldwide.  It  is  also  possible  to  consider  as 
"local" civil society organisations registered outside a given country but whose statutes 
demonstrate  that  their  activities  actually  relate  to  that  country.  However,  not  all 
Delegations are aware of these possibilities, which are now routinely part of the EIDHR 
global  calls  for  proposals,  or  are  not  using  them  to  the  fullest  extent,  which  can  be 
addressed through greater outreach to EU Delegations.  

Finally, the call for proposals process, which is the default modality for awarding grants 
pursuant to the EU Financial Regulation60, remains a lengthy, complex, burdensome and 
over-competitive61, with a lower success rate of local organisations and a very low ratio 
of selected projects compared to the applications received. To somehow counter these 
well-known  limitations,  the  provision  for  'financial  support  to  third  parties'  has  been 
used to allow larger national and international civil society organisations to sub-grant to 
both  registered  and  unregistered  small,  grassroots  civil  society  organisations  and 
individual defenders at risk, or where it might be otherwise difficult for them to secure 
funding because of a restrictive environment. 

56 Such as the local and global calls for proposals, the Emergency Fund for Human Rights Defenders at 
risk,  the Human  Rights Crisis  Facility,  the  annual  voluntary  contribution  to  the  Office of  the UN  High 
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), etc. 
57 Article 2 of the EIDHR Regulation 
58 See section 2.1. above 
59
60 Regulation (EU, Euratom ) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 
2012  on  the  financial  rules  applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the  Union  and  repealing  Council 
Regulation 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
No 
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32012R0966   
61 Source: external evaluation report p. 42 

 Article 11 (2) (c) of the CIR. 

1605/2002 

Euratom) 

(EC, 

20 

 
 
                                                 
5.4.  Added Value 

To what extent does the EIDHR add value compared to interventions by Member States 
or other key donors? 

One of the critical assumptions underlying the EIDHR is that its action adds value to the 
support to democracy and human rights provided by EU Member States and other major 
development partners. First of all, the Commission is the only development partner to 
combine support to human rights and democracy so comprehensively in its policies and 
priorities62  (including  beyond  the  EIDHR),  and  it  is  by  far  the  biggest  donor  when  it 
comes to human rights in particular63.  

With more financial means than any Member State has specifically dedicated for human 
rights and democracy64, the EIDHR has a worldwide scope (unlike Member States that 
focus more and more their development assistance to least developed countries) and a 
more holistic approach to democracy and human rights than most UN agencies65. The 
wide thematic scope of the instrument allows it to cover specific issues such as the fight 
against the death penalty or election observation, which are practically not covered by 
Member  States.  This  is  also  the  case  when  it  comes  to  more  sensitive  human  rights 
issues and defenders at risk.66 In this latter case, the action of the Commission through 
the  Emergency  Fund  for  human  rights  defenders  at  risk  has  been  built  on  close 
cooperation with Member States: typically, in case of an urgent temporary relocation to 
Europe, the Member State would process a visa while the Commission would provide 
the flight ticket and relocation costs.  

The presence of Electoral Observation Missions (EOMs) can add value to the electoral 
processes inter alia through constructive engagement with national institutions and civil 
society organisations, and by enhancing and complementing democratisation efforts by 
Delegations  and  Member  States,  including  through  follow-up  efforts  to  EOM 
recommendations67. EOMs are deployed using credible methodology,68 based on a long-
term observation, country-wide coverage and comprehensive assessment of the electoral 
process.  Part  of  this  methodology  requires  that  EOMs  are  deployed  following  the 
recommendations  of  Exploratory  Missions  which  assess  the  potential  usefulness  and 
feasibility of EOMs. 

The  EIDHR  has  thus  been  able  to  fill  in  gaps  and  add  value  to  support  provided  by 
Member States and other development partners. 

5.5.  Coherence, consistency, complementarity and synergies 

To what extent does the EIDHR facilitate coherence, consistency, complementarity and 
synergies vis-à-vis other external financing instruments? 

62 Source: external evaluation report, p. 44 
63 Source: OECD/DAC (using ‘commitments’ to all DAC countries and the DAC Code 15160), http://stats.oecd.org/qwids/   
64 Source: Ibid. 
65 Source: external evaluation report, p. 43 
66 Source: external evaluation report, p. 43 
67 Source: external evaluation report, p47-48 
68 
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/handbook_for_eu_eom_2016.pdf 

Observation, 

Handbook 

European 

Election 

Union 

page 

for 

34, 

21 

 
                                                 
Compared  to  the  2007-2013  EIDHR,  the  current  EIDHR  has  improved  its  internal 
coherence and consistency, primarily thanks to the clear definition of the five specific 
objectives  which  has  helped  address  the  main  problems  identified,  allowing  to  better 
focus  on  the  most  vulnerable  groups  and  on  the  most  pressing  and  emerging  human 
rights and democracy challenges.69  

The  Common  Implementing  Regulation  explains  that  actions  must  complement  other 
tools,  and  make  the  most  efficient  use  of  available  resources.  The  EIDHR  presents 
several  unique  features  that  facilitate  coherence,  consistency,  complementarity  and 
synergies vis-à-vis other external financing instruments.  

Contrary to the geographical instruments that generally work in close cooperation with 
partner  countries  to  undertake  structural  reforms  at  national  level  (through  mutually 
agreed programmes), the EIDHR provides support to civil society without the approval 
of the governments and/or other public authorities of third countries to foster democratic 
change and reinforce human rights from within the societies. This feature, particularly 
critical in the sensitive areas of democracy and human rights, enables action in the most 
difficult  situations,  creating  synergies  and  complementarity  where  geographical 
instruments  are  unable  to  act  as  well  as  in  countries  where  there  is  no  bilateral 
assistance programme70. The EIDHR has also started since 2014 to support networks of 
National  Human  Rights  Institutions,  which  are  by  statute  independent  from  the 
government,  to  reinforce  their  capacities  in  promoting  and  protecting  human  rights  at 
national, regional and global levels.  

The EIDHR is the only EU external financial instrument that provides direct support to 
electoral  observation.  This  is  the  only  component  of  the  instrument,  under  Specific 
Objective  4,  that  operates  upon  invitation  of  partner  governments.  However,  when 
deployed,  Electoral  Observation  Missions  (EOMs)  are  independent  and  provide  an 
informed and factual assessment of an election process. The independence of EOMs is 
guaranteed  by  Memorandum  of  Understanding  signed  with  the  host  country  which 
ensures unimpeded access to all election stakeholders, freedom of movement and non-
interference in activities and statements of EOMs. 

On electoral assistance71, the EIDHR provides support to local civil society for domestic 
observation, while cooperation through geographic instruments, informed by the EOM 
recommendations, 
the  capacities  of  electoral 
management  bodies  (e.g.  in  Jordan,  Nepal).  Through  this  synergy  among  different 
instruments,  electoral  assistance  is  tailored  towards  implementing  support  strategies 
throughout  the  entire  electoral  cycle,  aiming  to  improve  electoral  processes  and 
strengthen implementing capacities of national stakeholders.  

typically  works  on  reinforcing 

Other geographic or thematic programmes, such as the CSO-LA thematic programme of 
the Development Cooperation Instrument72 or the Civil Society Facility of the European 

69 Source: external evaluation report, p. 43 
70 Source: external evaluation report, p. 45 
71  Electoral  assistance  consists  of  "building,  in  the  recipient  country,  sustainable  and  cost-effective 
institutional  capacity  to  organize  democratic  elections  which  have  the  full  confidence  of  contesting 
parties,  candidates  and  the  electorate,  whilst  reducing  the  potential  for  election-related  violence. 
Electoral  assistance must also  help  foster national  and  local  ownership  throughout the  electoral  cycle, 
including in the pre- and post-electoral phases.", EC-UNDP Electoral Assistance Guidelines (April 2016) 
72 https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/dci_en.htm_en 

22 

 
                                                 
Neighbourhood  Instrument,73  also  aim  at  supporting  civil  society  in  partner  countries. 
Beyond this similarity of actors supported, the differences between the two programmes 
ensure  their  complementarity  and  synergies.  The  CSO/LA  programme  aims  at 
strengthening civil society organisations as actors of governance, supporting their work 
at grassroots level, in particular regarding their participation, enabling environment and 
capacity to act. The EIDHR does not only have an immediate rapid reaction focus to the 
most  pressing  human  rights  issues;  it  also  aims  at  building  local  civil  society 
organisations' resilience by reinforcing their monitoring and advocacy capacities. 

The  EIDHR  is  also  complementary  to  crisis-related  actions.  The  external  evaluation 
found that while the Instrument Contributing to Stability and Peace remains the primary 
EU  instrument  to  respond  to  crises  and  emergency,  the  EIDHR  has  been  effective  in 
providing support in crisis and emergency situations. This has been particularly thanks 
to its worldwide coverage and the flexibility provisions, in particular the waver for the 
need for co-financing in human rights crisis.74  

5.6.  Leverage 

To what extent has the EIDHR leveraged political or policy engagement? 

The external evaluation brings evidence that the EIDHR creates (or recreates) space for 
political  and  policy  engagement  with  civil  society  by  giving  it  means  to  monitor  and 
denounce  human  rights  violations  and  to  advocate  and  lobby  for  policy  reforms  at 
national  level.75  Almost  all  EIDHR-funded  projects  contain  at  least  some  elements  of 
awareness-raising, advocacy and lobbying at global, national and/or local levels. As an 
example,  ProtectDefenders.eu  includes  awareness-raising  and  advocacy  on  the  issues 
faced by human rights defenders. In addition, the urgent temporary relocation of human 
rights defenders in danger not only can save their lives, but most often also allows them 
to continue their fight for human rights and fundamental freedoms through other means 
from  abroad,  and  build  their  capacities  to  be  even  more  effective  when  they  return  to 
their countries. 

The  existence  of  consultation  processes  with  civil  society  organisations  –  both  at 
Headquarters  and  Delegation  levels  –  is  an  additional  EIDHR's  feature.  For  example, 
the EIDHR has strengthened civil society involvement in preparing for, and following 
up  on  the  formal  EU  human  rights  dialogues  with  partner  countries  through,  for 
example,  mobilising  expertise  and civil  society  input  through  the  organisation  of  civil 
society  seminars  at  local  and  regional  level76.  Civil  society  organisations  are  also  key 
partners for EOMs, being involved in citizen observer activities and in contributing to, 
as  well  as  implementing  EOMs'  recommendations.  The  EOM  reports  can  also  add 
weight to existing specific recommendations, and thus assist civil society organisations 
in their overall democratisation efforts.  

EIDHR projects also complement other tools, which are used to implement EU policies 
on  democracy  and  human  rights.  This  is  notably  the  case  as  far  as  the  EU's  external 

73 https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/policy-highlights/civil-society_en 
74 Source: external evaluation report, page 45. 
75 Source: external evaluation report, page 47 
76 Source: external evaluation report, p. 48 

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
trade  policy  is  concerned,  with  the  financing  under  the  EIDHR  of  civil  society  and 
social partners' actions to monitor that the countries currently benefitting from the EU's 
Generalised  Scheme  of  Preferences+77  (GSP+)  meet  their  commitments  to  ratify  and 
effectively  implement  core  international  conventions  relating  to  human  and  labour 
rights, environment and good governance. 

Another important aspect when addressing the leverage of the instrument is its ability to 
create space for dialogue on democratic governance issues with governments in partner 
countries.  As  demonstrated  by  the  external  evaluation78,  the  EOM  findings  and 
recommendations also create space for diplomacy and dialogue on electoral reform (e.g. 
Lebanon  and  Pakistan79)  and  have  led  to  significant  legislative  and  administrative 
changes    in  several  partner  countries  (e.g.  Cambodia  and  Honduras80).  The  brochure 
"Beyond  Election  day:  Best  practices  for  follow-up  to  EU  Elections  observation 
missions"81,  launched  in  June  2017,  highlights  best  practices  for  leveraging  EOM's 
recommendations, notably through  political dialogue and democracy  support activities 
and have led to reform in several partner countries.  

77 The Special Incentive Arrangement for Sustainable Development and Good Governance (GSP+) grants 
full removal of EU customs tariffs on over 66% of product tariff lines while helping developing countries 
manage the new responsibilities that come from ratifying and implementing 27 core international 
conventions on human and labour rights, environmental protection and good governance.  
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/import-and-export-rules/import-into-eu/gsp-rules/gsp+/  
78 Source: external evaluation report, page 47 
79 Source: Beyond Election Day, page 39 
80 Source: Beyond Election Day, page 45 
81  Beyond  Election  Day  –  Best  Practices  for  Follow  –up  to  EU  Election  Observation  missions, 
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eom_brochure_2017.pdf  

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

1.  At the mid-term of its implementation, the 2014-2020 EIDHR has overall proven to 
be  "fit  for  purpose".  In  particular,  with  its  wide  and  comprehensive  scope,  the 
EIDHR has remained an enabling, flexible and responsive instrument to protect and 
promote human rights and democracy worldwide. It has been able so far to address 
both well-identified and emerging human rights and democracy challenges, even in 
the most difficult environments – confirming that EIDHR remains very relevant for 
the political priorities of the EU. 

2.  Compared  to  the  2007-2013  EIDHR,  the  refined  definition  of  the  five  specific 
objectives  of  the  current  EIDHR  has  improved  its  internal  coherence  and 
consistency  and  helped  address  the  main  problems  identified,  allowing  to  better 
focus on the most vulnerable groups and on the most pressing and emerging human 
rights and democracy challenges.  

3.  The  fact  that  a  specific  intervention  logic  as  well  as  strategic  and  operational 
indicators to measure results were not in place at instrument level in 2014 makes it 
difficult  to  measure  effectiveness  and  impact  of  the  EIDHR  over  the  medium  to 
long-term.  It  is  particularly  difficult  to  measure  the  direct  contribution  of  the 
instrument to any overall improvement – or absence of deterioration – of the human 
rights and democracy situation worldwide. A new set of indicators is currently being 
developed in order to be able to be aggregated at instrument level. 

4.  Nevertheless, at output level, there is evidence that the EIDHR is largely on track to 
deliver  on  its  objectives  and  commitments  and  is  already  effectively  delivering 
results  on  each  of  its  specific  objectives.  It  is  deemed  generally  efficient  and 
responsive thanks to a relatively low level of administrative expenditure and in-built 
flexibility.  The  latter  is  however  not  always  used  to  its  full  extent  at  Delegation 
level. The call for proposals process which is the norm to select projects is however 
considered lengthy, burdensome and over-competitive by the applicants from among 
the civil society organisations.  

5.  The  instrument's  worldwide  mandate  and  broad  thematic  scope  reflect  the 
universality  and  indivisibility  of  human  rights  and  actually  contribute  to  its 
effectiveness.  Shall  EIDHR's  scope  be  limited,  it  might  lose  its  ability  to  address 
most  pressing  human  rights  situation  and  complementarity  with  other  instruments 
and programmes. 

6.  The election observation activities play a key role in promoting democratic elections 
through offering impartial assessment and constructive recommendations which can 
be followed up by national stakeholders, including civil society organisations. 

7.  Support  to  democracy  and  human  rights  is  also  provided  under  other  EU  External 
Financing  Instruments,  but  the  specific  features  and  added  value  of  the  EIDHR 
make it a "niche" instrument, able to operate where the others do not or cannot, as 
well as at a different level through civil society.  

8.  In  times  of  decreasing  overall  funding  available  to  civil  society  organisations 
operating  in  the  fields  of  human  rights  and  democracy  worldwide,  the  EIDHR  is 

25 

 
able to fill in gaps, add value, and complement support provided by Member States 
and other development partners. 

9.  The  EIDHR  creates  space  for  political  and  democratic  dialogue.  It  does  not  only 
significantly  contributes  to  the  ability  of  civil  society  to  advocate  for  reforms  and 
change from within their societies, it also provides Commission services, the EEAS 
and EU Delegations with considerable input into their political and other dialogues 
with partner countries. 

26 

 
ANNEX 1. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

To  what  extent  do  the  overall  objectives  (EIDHR  Regulation, 
Article  1), 
(EIDHR 
Regulation, Annex) and the design of the EIDHR respond to: 

the  specific  objectives  and  priorities 

Relevance 

(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)? 

Effectiveness, 
impact and 
sustainability 

To  what  extent  does  the  EIDHR  deliver  results  against  the 
instrument's objectives, and specific EU priorities? 

Efficiency 

To what extent is the EIDHR delivering efficiently? 

Added value 

To what extent  do the EIDHR programmes add value compared 
to interventions by Member States and other Key Donors? 

Coherence, 
consistency, 
complementarity 
and synergies 

To what extent does the EIDHR facilitate coherence, consistency, 
complementarity and synergies both internally between its own 
set of objectives and programmes and vis-à-vis other EFIs? 

Leverage 

To  what  extent  has  the  EIDHR  leveraged  political  or  policy 
engagement? 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

The  external  evaluation  of  the  EIDHR  started  in  July  1st  2016.  The  Final  report  was 
received on 20 June 2017, on schedule.   

The EIDHR Evaluation reference group, from hereinafter called Inter-service  Steering 
Group  (ISSG),  which  provided  oversight  of  the  external  evaluation,  comprised  of  a 
number of Commission services and EEAS..   

The external evaluation of the EIDHR was managed by the ISSG through the following 
steps  –  Inception  Report  (how  the  evaluation  design  will  deliver  the  information 
required),  Desk  Report  (initial  responses  to  evaluation  questions),  visits  to  Israel, 
Palestine,  Peru  and  Uganda  to  meet  key  interlocutors  to  obtain  first-hand  view  in-
country, country desk studies on Pakistan and Russia, a survey covering all instruments, 
an  Open  Public  Consultation  on  the  draft  report  which  comprised  a  specific  12-week 
online survey and targeted meetings with Member States and a Member of the European 
Parliament in March 2017, key messages, and Final reports.   

There were 7 ISSG meetings over the course of the EIDHR external evaluation to cover 
initial  briefing,  provide  feedback  on  inception,  desk,  key  messages,  draft  Final,  and 
Final reports. There were also four meetings (2 in September 2016, 1 in December 2016 
and 1 end of March 2017) of all the consultants with all the evaluation managers, and 
relevant  EU  staff  to  promote  understanding  and  exchange  on  complementarity  and 
synergy between instruments under evaluation. 

Information/data used in the EIDHR external evaluation is drawn from a comprehensive 
document review including all relevant regulations (EIDHR, Financial Regulation, CIR) 
as  well  as  all  other  external  financing  instruments;  international  covenants  and 
conventions;  programming  documents;  European  Commission  Communications,  staff 
working documents and key policy documents; the 2011 impact assessment of the 2007-
2013 EIDHR Regulation and all available evaluations in the period 2007-2016; Annual 
Reports,  Electoral  Observation  Reports,  Activity  Reports,  Result  Oriented  Monitoring 
Reports,  and  strategic  and  management  plans;  budget  documents;  publications  of  key 
partners;  publications  and  reports  of  external  stakeholders  (such  as  Amnesty 
International and Human Rights Watch) and development partners; and an assessment 
of  all  actions  funded  under  the  EIDHR  in  the  period  2011-2013  and  2014  to  January 
2017.  This  internally  held  data  reflects  the  best  available  data  of  this  service.  In 
addition,  information  was  collected  through  interviews  with  key  internal  and  external 
interlocutors.    A  number  of  project  evaluations  –  commission  by  the  EU  -  were  also 
reviewed.  

The EIDHR external evaluation was commissioned to provide the main information for 
this SWD evaluation.  The ISG quality assessed the external evaluation as satisfactory at 
their meeting of 4 July 2017. 

28 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3. SYNOPSIS REPORT OF THE STAKEHOLDERS' CONSULTATION 

The consultation strategy provided by the external consultants was intended to make the 
evaluation  as  participatory  as  possible.  As  further  elaborated  in  the  table  below,  the 
strategy consisted primarily of face-to-face interviews, emailed questions, telephone and 
Skype interviews with: 
  EU management and staff at headquarters level. 
  EU Delegation management and staff in selected countries.  
  EU stakeholders (EU Parliament and its Committees). 
  Beneficiaries and partners at international level and in sample countries. 
  Those  responsible  for  the  Chapeau  contract,  EFI  evaluation  teams,  and  the  team 

conducting the EOM and CIR evaluations.  

  Member States  and key Development  Partners at international level and in  sample 

countries. 

  External  stakeholders  including  UN  Agencies,  INGOs  and  other  organisations  at 

international level and in sample countries.  

In addition: 
  Those responsible for the Chapeau contract distributed a survey questionnaire to all 

EUDs and shared the results with the evaluation team. 

  An open public consultation process was conducted from 7 February to 3 May 2017 
and involved the publication of all draft evaluation reports of all EFIs online and a 
request for comments from members of the public; organisations and associations; 
research  and  academic  institutions;  industry,  business  or  workers’  organisations; 
public  authorities;  European  platforms,  networks  or  associations;  and  anyone. 
Comments were invited around four set questions on the EIDHR (with the last being 
open-ended  and  allowing  any  additional  comments  to  be  made)  and  an  additional 
question  included  for  comments  on  any  of  the  other  EFIs.  A  total  of  71 
organisations and individuals responded to all or some of the questions posed. 

  A technical workshop with representatives of the European Parliament and Member 

States on 27 March 2017 to solicit feedback on the Draft Report. 

  A face-to-face meeting was held with a Member of the European Parliament and her 

staff on 28 March 2017.  

The table below illustrates who was consulted, for what reason, how, and at which stage 
in the process. 

Who 

Why 

How 

Desk phase 

DEVCO B1 Management 
and senior staff 

DEVCO B2 

DG NEAR 

EU priorities, EIDHR background and development; consultation 
processes related to development of the Regulation, MIPs and 
AAPs; implementation (CBSS, global calls, sample projects); 
monitoring process and indicators; recommendations; 
coherence and complementariness. planning and organisation 
of the evaluation. 

Process to develop the EIDHR, links with CSO-LA 

Background on DG NEAR and ENI, relationship with DEVCO, 
complementariness, responsibilities for implementation when it 

Face-to-face interviews, 
follow-up telephone calls 
and emailed questions 

Face-to-face interviews, 
follow-up telephone calls 
Face-to-face interviews, 
follow-up telephone calls 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Who 

Why 

How 

comes to Russia, Israel and Palestine, relevance, coherence with 
ENI.  

EEAS (Global 1, Global 5, 
COHOM) 

Relationship between DEVCO and EEAS, COHOM, EOMs 
(background, history, implementation) 

EOMs (background, history, implementation).  

Face-to-face interviews, 
follow-up telephone calls 
and emailed questions 
Face-to-face interviews 

FPI 5 
Assistant to EU Special 
Representative on 
Human Rights 

DEVCO 01  

DG ECHO 

Sub-Committee on HR 
and Democracy 

Member States  

International and 
Regional human rights 
institutions 
CSOs / INGOs and 
philanthropic institutions 
focused on democracy 
and human rights 

All EUDs (Chapeau 
survey) 

Beneficiaries / partners 
in flagship projects 82 

EFI evaluation teams 

Validation phase 

EUD Management and 
Staff 

Member States and key 
DPs 

Beneficiaries 

NHRIs and Electoral 
Commissions (if relevant) 

Role of the EUSR, relevance, coherence. 

Face-to-face interview 

Process to develop current versions of all EFIs, processes to be 
followed when developing new versions of EFIs.  

Relevance, relationship with DEVCO, synergies, 
complementariness, possible overlaps  
Relevance, complementariness with other EFIs, levels of 
consultation 
To assess levels of awareness of the EIDHR, extent to which it is 
taken into account when planning / budgeting, 
complementariness and added value (including in the area of 
election observation).  
To asses levels of awareness of the EIDHR, its relevance to 
human rights (including civil and political rights) and democratic 
principles, effectiveness and added value.  

Face-to-face interviews, 
follow-up telephone calls 
and emailed questions 

Face-to-face interview 

Face-to-face interviews 

Face-to-face interviews, 
follow-up telephone calls 
and emailed questions 

Face-to-face interviews, 
follow-up telephone calls 

To asses levels of awareness of the EIDHR, its relevance to 
human rights (including civil and political rights) and democratic 
principles, effectiveness and added value.  

Face-to-face interviews, 
follow-up telephone calls 
and emailed questions 

The survey was intended to allow all EUDs to address general 
questions related to the EFIs as well as specific questions raised 
on the EIDHR. 
Experiences vis a vis grants provided / service contracts 
(efficiency and effectiveness in the broader framework of the 
EIDHR), relevance, effectiveness (although to a limited degree) 
other sources of funding, challenges faced, added value of the 
EIDHR, ‘leverage’ opportunities created, support received under 
other EFIs and level of coherence / complementariness created. 

Evaluation teams for all other EFIs will be consulted on the 
coherence, consistency, complementarity and synergies 
between the EIDHR and all other instruments. 

Questionnaire  

Face-to-face interviews, 
follow-up telephone calls 
and emailed questions 

Face-to-face interviews 
discussions and emailed 
correspondence. 

Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coordination with MS and 
other DPs, consultation processes, priorities, relationship with 
geographic EFI and other EFIs (such as CSO-LA), problems 
encountered, recommendations.  
To assess levels of awareness of the EIDHR, extent to which it is 
taken into account when planning / budgeting, relevance of 
EIDHR, complementariness and added value. 
Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of 
support; added value; monitoring and evaluation; key areas 
where support should be increased; general experiences with 
regard to EIDHR 
Discussions varied depending on whether or not they are 
beneficiaries (in which case similar questions to beneficiaries 
were used) or not (in which case, these 

Face-to-face interviews, 
telephone calls and 
emailed questions 

Telephone interviews 

Face-to-face interviews, 
telephone calls and 
emailed questions 

Face-to-face interviews 

82 OHCHR, UNODC, ICC, IEUC, Danish Institute for Human Rights.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Who 

Why 

How 

INGOs, UN Agencies, 
Philanthropic institutions 

Synthesis phase  

Representatives of the 
European Parliament and 
Member States 
Research institutions; 
academia; citizens / 
individuals; 
organisations; 
associations; industry, 
business and workers’ 
organisations; public 
authorities; EU 
platforms, networks and 
association. 

Member of European 
Parliament and staff 

+- were consulted on background on human rights, democracy 
and elections).  
Human rights and democracy challenges, responsiveness of 
EIDHR, relevance of activities funded via EIDHR to sample 
country.  

Face-to-face interviews, 
follow-up telephone calls 
and emailed questions 

Presentation of key findings and feedback.  

Technical workshop 

The Draft Report (and executive summary translated into 
French, Spanish and Portuguese) shared on the internet to invite 
comments on any aspects of the study and its findings before 
finalising the Final Report. A summary of comments received is 
attached as Annex F to the external evaluation report.  

Open public consultation 
process  

Relevance, complementariness, responsiveness to new EU policy 
and priorities, levels of consultation, balance between human 
rights and democracy, visibility of support provided under the 
EIDHR, whether the EIDHR helps to increase interactions with 
civil society, current political environment 

Face-to-face meeting  

The  Open  Public  Consultation  (OPC)  took  place  between  February  7th  and  May  3rd 
2017.  This was an online survey and targeted meetings. The results of the OPC have 
been included in the body of the external evaluation report, where appropriate. 

A  total  of  71  organisations  and  individuals  responded  to  all  or  some  of  the  questions 
posed  in  the  online  survey.  Overall,  there  is  generally  consensus  that  the  EIDHR  is 
relevant and is addressing its objectives. Predictably, most organisations focused on the 
‘relevance’  of  the  EIDHR  from  the  perspective  of  whether  or  not  it  is  relevant  to  the 
human  rights  and  democracy  issues  as  seen  from  their  perspective  and  called  for 
increases  in  support  to  their  own  specific  areas  of  focus.  As  a  result,  numerous 
comments suggested an increase in focus on particular issues, including gender equality, 
child  rights, persons  with disabilities, human rights  defenders, social  and economic or 
labour  rights,  or  on  an  increased  focus  on  their  country  of  origin.  Also,  civil  society 
organisations  showed  some  resistance  to  EOMs  (and,  in  one  case,  support  to 
international  organisations)  under  the  assumption  that  Objective  4  (i.e.  EOMs)  was 
reducing the amount of funding available to them. All public authorities that responded 
believed  the  EIDHR  to  be  relevant,  fit  for  purpose,  aligned  with  EU  policies  and 
priorities and able to address human rights and democracy challenges. Most agreed that 
it is flexible and responsive and adds value to the support provided by Member States 
and other development partners. One confirmed that monitoring and evaluation needs to 
be  improved  by  finalising  the  indicators  and  one  raised  concerns  about  the  level  of 
consultation with Member States. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  majority  of  respondents  focused  on  implementation  issues  rather  than  on  the 
instrument  itself.  Although  the  evaluation  is  really  at  instrument  level,  the  external 
evaluation  also  dealt  with  implementation  issues  and  the  OPC  confirmed  some  of  the 
issues  already  raised  in  the  draft  report.  In  particular  in  this  regard,  it  was  noted  that 
understanding amongst some beneficiaries of what the rules actually mean is limited at 
times and more might be done to ensure that these are properly understood. Both larger 
non-governmental organisations and Member States called for more consultation when 
it  comes  to  setting  priorities.  Concerns  were  also  expressed  around  the  need  for  an 
increase  in  the  EIDHR  budget  to  counter  the  fact  that  some  development  partners, 
notably the USA, are reducing funding to civil society.   

In  addition  to  the  comments  received  online,  evaluation  teams  held  a  technical 
workshop  with  representatives  of  the  European  Parliament  and  Member  States  on  27 
March 2017. Comments received during the workshop included the need for the report 
to  include  more  of  a  focus  on  measuring  effectiveness  and  impact,  and  even  for  an 
evaluation of support under the previous EIDHR. However, this was beyond the scope 
of  the  current,  instrument-level  evaluation  (and  beyond  what  is  required  by  the 
consultants’  terms  of  reference).  There  was  also  a  suggestion,  in  line  with 
recommendations  in  the  external  evaluation  report,  that  the  language  used  in  the  CIR 
could  be  simplified  to  make  the  level  of  flexibility  created  clearer  to  EU  Delegations 
staff.   

The team leader for the evaluation also met with a Member of the European Parliament 
on 28 March 2017 to discuss the relevance of the EIDHR, its responsiveness to new and 
changing  EU  priorities  and  evolving  human  rights  and  democracy  challenges,  the 
visibility  of  support  to  CSOs,  and  how  to  make  the  EIDHR  more  effective  and 
responsive to the needs of CSOs.  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3. ACRONYMS 

AAP 

Annual Action Plan 

DG BUDG 

Directorate General for Budget 

CIR 

CSO 

Common Implementation Regulation 

Civil Society Organisation 

CSO/LA 

Civil Society Organisations / Local Authorities programme  

DAC 

DCI 

Development Assistance Committee 

Development Cooperation Instrument 

DG DEVCO  Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development 

DP 

EDF 

EEAS 

EFI 

Development partner 

European Development Fund 

European External Action Service 

External Financing Instrument 

EIDHR 

European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights 

ENI 

ENPI 

EOM 

EU 

EUD 

EUR 

EUSR 

FPI 

GSP+ 

HR 

HQ 

IcSP 

IfG 

IfS 

INGO 

INSC 

IPA 

ISG 

European Neighbourhood Instrument 

European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument 

Election Observation Mission  

European Union 

EU Delegation 

Euro 

EU Special Representative on Human Rights 

Foreign Policy Instruments service 

Generalised Scheme of Preferences+ 

Human rights 

Headquarters 

Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace 

Instrument for Greenland 

Instrument for Stability 

International Non-Governmental Organisation 

Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation 

Instrument of Pre-Accession Assistance 

Interservice Group 

LGBTI 

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Inter-sex persons 

33 

 
LS 

Legal Service 

MAAP 

Multiannual Action Plan 

MIP 

MS 

MTR 

Multiannual Indicative Programme 

Member States 

Mid-Term Review 

DG NEAR 

Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations 

NGO 

NHRI 

OECD 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

National Human Rights Institution 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

OHCHR 

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 

OJ 

PI 

RBA 

ROM 

SDG 

Official Journal 

Partnership Instrument 

Rights-Based Approach 

Results-Oriented Monitoring 

Sustainable Development Goals 

SecGen 

Secretariat General 

SWD 

UN 

Staff Working Document 

United Nations  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4. EXTERNAL EVALUATORS' REPORT, INCLUDING ITS ANNEXES 

The  external  evaluation  can  be  found  here:  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/public-
consultation-external-financing-instruments-european-union_en 

35