COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the 11th European Development Fund Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Midterm Review Report on the External Financing Instruments
Date: 2017-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, European Commission
Subjects: ACP countries, EU aid, EU financial instrument, European Development Fund, development aid, financial aid, overseas countries and territories, poverty, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2017  SWD(2017) 601 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the 11th European Development Fund Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Midterm Review Report on the External Financing Instruments {COM(2017) 720 final} - {SWD(2017) 463 final} - {SWD(2017) 600 final} - {SWD(2017) 602 final} - {SWD(2017) 604 final} - {SWD(2017) 605 final} - {SWD(2017) 606 final} - {SWD(2017) 607 final} - {SWD(2017) 608 final} - {SWD(2017) 609 final}  
 
 
Contents 

Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2 

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 

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

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

2. Background to the initiative ............................................................................................... 4 

Description of the 11th EDF and its objectives ................................................................... 4 

Baseline .............................................................................................................................. 7 

3. Method ............................................................................................................................. 10 

4. Implementation state of play ............................................................................................ 11 

5. Responses to the evaluation questions ............................................................................. 14 

Relevance ......................................................................................................................... 14 

Effectiveness .................................................................................................................... 16 

Efficiency ......................................................................................................................... 18 

Coherence ......................................................................................................................... 19 

Added value ...................................................................................................................... 20 

Leverage ........................................................................................................................... 21 

6. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 22 

Annex 1. Evaluation questions ................................................................................................. 23 

Annex 2. 11th EDF reconstructed intervention logic ................................................................ 26 

Annex 3- Procedural information ............................................................................................. 27 

Annex 3a Response to the opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board ..................................... 31 

Annex 4 -Synopsis report of the stakeholders' consultation .................................................... 34 

Annex 4a. External Evaluation Summary of Open Public Consultation Contributions .......... 40 

Annex 5. Acronyms .................................................................................................................. 69 

Annex 6. External evaluators' report, including Annexes ........................................................ 70 

1 

 
 
Summary 

This Staff Working Document evaluates the performance of the 11th European Development 
Fund (EDF) at mid-term, for the period January 2014 to mid-2017. 

With  a  budget  of  EUR  30,506  million  for  the  period  2014-2020,  directly  financed  by 
European  Union  Member  States  outside  of  the  Union's  budget,  the  EDF  is  the  largest 
financing  instrument  contributing  to  turn  into  action  the  European  Union's  development 
policy and external action. Its objective is to help 79 countries in Africa, the Caribbean and 
the Pacific alleviate poverty and to support the 25 Overseas Countries and Territories that all 
have a special link with some EU Member States to improve their competitiveness and reduce 
their vulnerability. 

The 11th EDF is a relevant instrument to meet the objective of poverty reduction in our partner 
countries. Its  flexibility largely  enables the  EU  to  respond to  changing needs  of  its partners 
and changing EU priorities while offering a stable medium-term framework. 

The  various  factors  underlying  persistent  poverty  in  African  Caribbean  and  Pacific  States, 
international  commitments  such  as  the  United  Nations  Sustainable  Development  Goals 
translated  into  EU  policy  through  the  2017  European  Consensus  for  Development  and 
unprecedented migration/refugee flows justified an increased emphasis on security concerns 
and migration issues by addressing the root causes of irregular migration. 

It is difficult to measure the performance of the 11th EDF in the absence of indicators in the 
legal  base  beyond  the  Millennium  Development  Goals/Sustainable  Development  Goals. 
Despite progress, there is still not enough focus on results. Its effectiveness largely depends 
on  the  partner  countries  policies  and  reforms.  The  use  of  National/Regional  Authorising 
Officers has not always proven to be a satisfactory way to ensure ownership and partnership, 
which are key principles of the EDF. Their functioning is considered to have often hindered 
effectiveness  and  efficiency.  Despite  some  inefficiencies  at  the  level  of  the  procedures  to 
implement  projects  and  programmes,  the  11th  EDF  is  an  overall  efficient  instrument.  For 
example, it is on-track in terms of budget execution, compared with the preceding EDF.  

The coherence among the various components of the 11th EDF is satisfactory despite missed 
opportunities for synergy. There is also some overlap between the thematic component of the 
Development Cooperation Instrument and the 11th EDF. 

The  11th  EDF  has  a  proven  added-value  among  the  set  of  the  EU’s  External  Financing 
Instruments, and also compared to the instruments of Member States and other Development 
Partners.  For  example,  the  instrument  has  the  flexibility  to  cover  issues  that  other  External 
Financing  Instruments  cannot,  such  as  support  to  peace  and  security  through  the  African 
Peace  Facility;  it  also  has  valuable  financial  flexibility  through  its  reserve  to  respond  to 
unforeseen needs and the non-application of the budgetary principle of annuality. 

The elements highlighted in this evaluation will feed into the reflection on how to improve the 
implementation of the 11th EDF for the remaining period until 2020, and on the future set of 
External Financing Instruments for the post-2020 period. 

2 

 
 
 
1. Introduction 

This  Staff  Working  Document 1  constitutes  the  11th  European  Development  Fund  (EDF) 
Performance Review. It assesses whether the 11th EDF, which covers the period 2014-2020 is 
fit for purpose to deliver on its objectives2 of reducing and eventually eradicating poverty in 
the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States and of attaining sustainable development of 
Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs). It is largely based on an external evaluation3. 

Purpose of the evaluation 

This  evaluation  is  retrospective  and  responds  to  Article  18  of  Council  Regulation  (EU) 
2015/322  of  2 March  2015  on  the  implementation  of  the  11th  EDF  which  requires  a 
Performance Review at the latest by the end of 2018. This evaluation takes place in 2017 so 
as to be aligned with and ensure consistency with the Mid-Term Review of the EU's External 
Financing  Instruments 4  under  Heading  4  'Global  Europe' 5  of  the  2014-2020  Multiannual 
Financial  Framework6,  even  if  the  EDF  is  not  funded  from  the  EU  budget.  The  Mid-Term 
Review  of  the  instruments  will  culminate  in  a  Mid-Term  Review  Report,  as  defined  in  the 
Common Implementing Regulation7. 

Scope of the evaluation 

The evaluation covers the period from 1 January 2014 to 1 June 2017. It includes all the 11th 
EDF components managed by the European Commission8, i.e. cooperation with ACP States at 
national,  regional  level  and  intra-ACP  levels,  and  cooperation  with  Overseas  Countries  and 
Territories at territorial and regional levels.  

This  mid-term  evaluation  concentrates  on  the  11th  EDF  as  an  instrument  of  the  EU's 
development policy and external action. This means that the evaluation focuses, to the extent 
possible, on the elements contained in the Regulation on the implementation of the 11th EDF9 
(e.g. its principles, scope, flexibility and complementarity with other instruments) rather than 
on  the  programmes  and  projects  that  have  been  put  in  place  on  the  basis  of  the  instrument. 

1 Also  called  ‘evaluation’  throughout  the  text  (to  be  distinguished  from  the  ‘external  evaluation  report’  in  Annex  6  to  this 
Staff Working Document). 
2 See Article 1 of Council Regulation 2015/322 of 2 March 2015 on the implementation of the 11th European Development 
Fund, OJ L 58 of 3 March 2015, p. 1. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32015R0323 
3 Evaluation of the 11th European Development Fund, Final Report, June 2017 (see Annex 6) 
4  The  Development  Cooperation  Instrument,  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. The EDF, although not funded from the EU budget, is one of its External Financing Instruments. 
5 The  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  is  divided  into  six  broad  groups  of  expenditure  called  "Headings".  The  external 
financing instruments make up the majority of Heading 4: Global Europe. 
6 Council Regulation 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-
2020, OJ L347 of 20 December 2013: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013R1311&from=EN 
7 Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014, OJ L77, p. 95 
8 The ACP Investment Facility and the OCT Investment Facility are administered by the European Investment Bank and are 
therefore not included in this evaluation (see table 1 in section 2 below). 
9 Referenced in footnote 2. 

3 

 
 
                                                 
Development  Cooperation  policies  associated  with  the  EDF  legal  base  are  not  within  the 
scope of this evaluation: they are the object of other evaluations10.  

The geographic  scope of the evaluation corresponds to that referred to in the Regulation on 
the implementation of the 11th EDF11. 

In  accordance  with  the  EU  Better  Regulation  guidelines12,  the  following  evaluation  criteria 
are used: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value and leverage. 

2. Background to the initiative 

The  External  Financing  Instruments  make  up  a  major  part  of  the  above-mentioned 
Multiannual Financial Framework's Heading 4 which, together with the EDF which functions 
outside the EU budget, provides the EU with the tools necessary to fulfil its role on the world 
stage  and  to  ensure  that  it  is  able  to  live  up  to  its  ambitions  in  promoting  its  interests  and 
universal  values  and principles such as  democracy, human rights,  peace, solidarity,  stability 
and poverty reduction and to help safeguard global public goods.  

Adopted  early  2014,  the  External  Financing  Instruments  were  designed  to  ensure  policy 
implementation,  with  the  intention  of  remaining  relevant  for  the  entire  duration  of  the 
Multiannual Financial Framework and therefore enabling the EU to implement external action 
policies as needed.  

Description of the 11th EDF and its objectives 

The  European  Union  maintains  privileged  relations  with  the  ACP  group  of  79  countries 
under the EU-ACP Partnership Agreement also known as  'Cotonou Agreement'13. The main 
objective  of  the  Cotonou  Agreement  is  to  reduce  poverty  towards  its  eradication.  The 
Agreement is based on fundamental principles: (i) equality of the partners and ownership of 
the  development  strategies,  (ii)  participation  of  various  kinds  of  actors,  (iii)  pivotal  role  of 
dialogue,  and  the  fulfilment  of  mutual  obligations,  and  accountability,  (iv)  differentiation 
(according to partners' situation) and emphasis on the regional dimension. 

The EU also enjoys a close relationship with 25 Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) 
that have constitutional links with four Member States14. The OCTs are associated to the EU 
through a regime based on the provisions of Part IV of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
EU and the detailed rules and procedures laid down in the Overseas Association Decision of 
25 November  2013 15 .  The  Overseas  Association  Decision  seeks  to  strengthen  OCTs' 

10 See for example, the Joint communication on a renewed partnership with the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the 
Pacific (2016): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016JC0052&from=en  
11 This includes the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States signatories to the ACP-EU Partnership 
Agreement, South Sudan, and the 25 Overseas Countries and Territories mentioned in the Overseas Association Decision.  
12 Commission communication 'Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda', COM (2015) 215 
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/better_regulation/documents/com_2015_215_en.pdf , and 'Better Regulation Guidelines' 
Commission Staff Working Document, SWD (2015) 111 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/guidelines/docs/swd_br_guidelines_en.pdf. 
13 Partnership Agreement 2000/483/EC between the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the 
EU, of the other part, OJ L317, 15 December 2000, p. 3, Agreement as amended by the Agreements signed in Luxembourg 
on 25 June 2005 (OJ L287, 28 October 2005, p.4) and in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010 (OJ L287, 4 November 2010, p.3). 
See:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2000.317.01.0003.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2000:317:TOC 
14 Denmark, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom 
15 Council Decision 2013/755/EU of 25 November 2013 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the 
European Union, OJ L344, 19 December 2013, page 1. See: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:344:0001:0118:en:PDF 

4 

 
 
                                                 
sustainable  development  by  enhancing  their  competitiveness  and  their  resilience,  reducing 
their  economic  and  environmental  vulnerability  and  promoting  cooperation  with  other 
partners. 

The  successive  European  Development  Funds,  funded  by  the  EU  Member  States  outside  of 
the EU budget, have been the EU's main financing instrument for providing development aid 
to  the  ACP  countries  and  the  OCTs  since  the  1st  EDF  in  1959.  The  objectives  of  the  11th 
EDF  are  to  reduce  and  eventually  eradicate  poverty  in  the  ACP  countries,  and  to  attain 
sustainable development of the OCTs. 

The  11th  EDF  was  created  by  an  intergovernmental  agreement  (the  Internal  Agreement)16 
signed  in  June  2013  that  entered  into  force  on  1  March  2015  after  ratification  by  all  EU 
Member  States.  While  the  High  Representative's  role  is  to  ensure  the  overall  political 
coordination of the Union's external action, the Commission implements the EU budget and 
thus  also  the  Union’s  external  cooperation  programmes17.  An  EDF  Committee  of  Member 
States has been set up for the 11th EDF resources that the Commission administers18. 

The  11th  EDF  intervention  logic  has  been  reconstructed  on  the  basis  of  (i)  the  above-
mentioned Internal Agreement and the Regulation on the implementation of the 11th European 
Development Fund, (ii) logical steps that lead from the EU’s development cooperation policy 
objectives to EDF instrument, as well as (iii) explicit and implicit assumptions that underlay 
each  of  these  different  steps.  The  intervention  logic  features  in  Annex  2  to  the  present 
document. 

With total financial resources of EUR 30.5 billion for the period 2014-202019, the 11th EDF, 
which is extra-budgetary, is the largest of all EU's External Financing Instruments in terms of 
volume,  representing  the  equivalent  of  almost  half  of  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework 
Heading 4 'Global Europe'20 of EUR 66,262 million for the same period. As funds under the 
10th EDF could no longer be committed beyond 31 December 2013, a Bridging Facility21 with 
limited  resources  (EUR 1.630  billion)  was  put  in  place  to  cover  the  period  from  1  January 
2014 until the entry into force of the 11th EDF. Funds committed under the Bridging Facility 
the  11th  EDF.  Because  of 
inception  conditions, 
were  accounted  for  under 
implementation of the 11th EDF reached cruising speed only towards the end of 2016. 

these 

The EDF resources are mainly channelled via non-reimbursable assistance, broken down into 
different components as shown hereafter in Table 1. 

16 Internal Agreement between the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting 
within the Council, on the financing of the European Union aid under the Multiannual Financial Framework for the period 
2014 to 2020, OJ L 210 of 06 August 2013 p. 1, and Council Decision 2015/355 of 02 March 2015 adopting the rules of 
procedure of the European Development Fund Committee, OJ L61 p. 17. See: 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/internal-agreement-11edf-2013-2020_en.pdf 
17 See Article 9 of the Council Decision of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European 
External Action Service, OJ L 210 of 03 August 2010, page 30. See: 
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eeas_decision_en.pdf 
18 See Article 8 of the Internal Agreement 
19 Under the 10th EDF the total financial resources were EUR 22 682 million.  Source: Internal Agreement for the period 
2008 to 2013, Article 1, OJ L 247 of 9 September 2006, page 34. See: 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/internal-agreement-10edf-2006_en.pdf  
20 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013R1311&from=EN. 
21 Council Decision of 12 December 2013 regarding transitional EDF management measures from 1 January 2014 until the 
entry into force of the 11th European Development Fund, OJ L 335 of 14 December 2013, p. 48. See: 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/edf-bridging-facility-decision-2013-759_en.pdf 

5 

 
 
                                                 
The  Commission  determines22 the  multiannual  indicative  resource  allocations  for  each  ACP 
country  and  region  and  for  intra-ACP  cooperation  on  the  basis  of  criteria  laid  down  in  the 
Cotonou  Agreement 23.  In  line  with  programming  instructions 24,  the  11th  EDF  funds  are 
programmed  per  country  and  per  region,  jointly  with  the  partner  countries,  regions  and 
territories.  Non-allocated  resources  constitute  reserves  that  help  ensure  a  level  of  financial 
flexibility and can be used for countries' or regions' unforeseen needs. The initial amount of 
the non-allocated reserve in 2014 was EUR 5 800 million, meaning 19% of the EDF envelop 
was initially unallocated compared to 6% for the Development Cooperation Instrument25.  

Table 1: 11th EDF components26 

11th EDF components27 

11th EDF (EUR millions)  

1-  Cooperation with ACP 
1.1.Bilateral  cooperation  with  7428 ACP  partner  countries:  45 
in  Sub-Saharan  Africa,  14  in  the  Caribbean  and  15  in  the 
Pacific 

29,089 

24,365 

1.2.Regional cooperation 

1.3.Intra-ACP cooperation to address shared challenges facing 
ACP  countries,  among  which  support  to  global  initiatives 
and the African Peace Facility 

1.4.ACP Investment Facility29 

2-  Cooperation with OCTS 

2.1. Territorial cooperation 

2.2. Regional cooperation 
2.3. OCT Investment Facility30 

3-  Support expenditure31  

Total 

3,590 

1,134 

364.5 

359.5 

5 

1,052.5 

30,506 

22 Source: Article 3 of Council Regulation 2015/322 of 02 March 2015 on the implementation of the 11th EDF 
23 Source: Annex IV of the Cotonou Agreement and Title II of Council Regulation 2015/322. 
24 Instructions for the Programming of the 11th EDF, May 2012: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/node/37678 
25 Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014, OJ L77, p. 44: 
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/regulation_eu_no_2332014_of_the_ep_and_the_council_establishing_a_financing_instr
ument_for_development_cooperation_2014-2020_0.pdf 
26 June 2017, Source: European Commission Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development 
27 Internal Agreement, see footnote 13.  
28 Four  countries  among  the  signatories  of  the  Cotonou  Partnership  Agreement  do  not  receive  EDF  funds  under  bilateral 
cooperation: Bahamas, Equatorial Guinea, South Africa, Sudan 
29 The  ACP  Investment  Facility  is  a  risk-bearing  revolving  fund  supporting  investments  by  private  and  commercially  run 
public entities in the ACP countries. It is managed by the European Investment Bank. 
30 Managed by the European Investment Bank 
31 Almost 80 % of the support expenditure is devoted to staff in Delegations and headquarters working on the implementation 
of the 11th EDF and the necessary infrastructure in the EU Delegations for implementation. The remaining funds are used (by 
amount  order)  for  evaluations  and  results  oriented  monitoring,  development  and  management  of  IT  systems,  studies, 
technical  cooperation  and  accompanying  measures,  audit  and  financial  obligations  of  the  Commission  linked  to  the 
implementation of the EDF, communication activities. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
Baseline 

ACP States 

As this is a mid-term evaluation, the baseline has been set at January 2014, which corresponds 
to  the  11th EDF  (2014-2020)  inception.  Therefore,  the  evaluation  compares,  to  the  extent 
possible, the situation in January 2014 with the situation as of June 2017. It should be noted 
that  the  objective  of  the  instrument,  poverty  reduction,  remains  the  same  as  in  the  previous 
EDFs. 

Pursuant to the implementing Regulation of the 11th EDF, the indicators used to measure the 
achievement of the 11th EDF objectives32 are the indicators of the Millennium Development 
Goals (MDGs) adopted following the September 2000 UN Summit33 and, subsequently, of the 
Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs) 34.  There  are  no  specific  indicators  for  the  EDF 
instrument to measure its overall performance. This is due to the fact that (i) the fight against 
poverty  in  developing  countries  is  a  global  effort  and  (ii)  the  success  of  development 
cooperation  largely  rests  on  the  willingness  and  capacity  of  partner  countries  to  implement 
relevant policies and institutional frameworks conducive to development. 

At the time of design and adoption of the 11th EDF, poverty remained a major problem in the 
ACP countries. The 2015 deadline for the MDGs' achievement was looming with insufficient 
global  progress  being  achieved.  Table  2  on  the  following  page  with  selected  MDGs/SDGs 
indicators  shows  the  difficult  situation  faced  by  the  ACP  States 35.  Moreover,  for  certain 
countries that had been able to move out of poverty, progress was often temporary. Security 
issues, economic shocks, environmental degradation and climate change, food insecurity are 
among factors that directly threaten the sustainability of hard-won gains over poverty. 

Overseas countries and territories 

The  financial  support  provided  by  the  EU  to  OCTs  is  not  based  solely  on  their  socio-
economic situation. OCTs are all islands, some of them isolated and, in a majority of cases, 
with small populations. Most of the OCTs are dependent on fossil fuels and on a limited range 
of economic resources, making their economy  vulnerable to external shocks.  The OCTs are 
host  to  wide  terrestrial  and  marine  biodiversity:  climate  change  constitutes  a  threat 
undermining their sustainable development. Some OCTs are particularly vulnerable to natural 
disasters. 

The 2013 Overseas Association Decision36 reflects a paradigm shift, from a focus on poverty 
reduction  to  a  reciprocal  relation  focused  on  cooperation  on  mutual  interests,  and  places 
special emphasis on priorities which are relevant for the OCTs, such as the enhancement of 

32 See Article 1, Regulation 2015/322 (see footnote 2). 
33 The UN Summit in September 2010 adopted the United Nations Millennium Declaration committing to a new global partnership to reduce 
extreme poverty and setting out a series of time-bound goals with a deadline in 2015, the Millennium Development Goals. See: 
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/ 
34 The Sustainable Development Goals are part of 'Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development', which is a 
universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity. The 17 Goals build on the 
successes of the MDGs, while including new areas such as climate change, economic inequality, innovation, sustainable consumption, peace 
and justice, among other priorities. The SDGs were adopted at the September 2015 UN Summit. See: 
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html 
35 The  composition  of  the  MDG/SDG  regions  and  sub-regions  based  on  UN  geographical  divisions  partly  reflects  the  groups  of  the  ACP 
States.  Whilst  sub-Saharan  Africa  and  Oceania  largely  match  respectively  the  African  and  Pacific  States  signatories  of  the  Cotonou 
Agreement, the Caribbean States are included with Latin America as one single region in the MDGs/SDGs context which makes it  difficult 
to have an exact picture of the MDGs/SDGs situation in those countries. 
36 See footnote 13 

7 

 
 
                                                 
their  competitiveness,  the  strengthening  of  their  resilience,  reduction  of  their  vulnerability, 
and  promotion  of  the  cooperation  between  OCTs  and  their  regional,  European  and 
international partners.  

8 

 
 
 
Table 2 - Selected Millennium Development Goal and Sustainable Development Goal indicators37 

MDGs / SDGs 

Selected indicators  

Target 

MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and 
hunger / SDG 1: End poverty in all its 
forms everywhere 
MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and 
hunger / SDG 2: End hunger, achieve 
food security and improved nutrition 
MDG 2: Achieve universal primary 
education / SDG 4: Ensure inclusive 
and equitable quality education 
MDG 3 and SDG 3: Promote gender 
equality and empower women 
MDG 4: Reduce child mortality / SDG 
3: Good health and well being 
MDG 5: Improve maternal health / 
SDG 3: Good health and well being 

MDG 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria 
and other diseases  

Percentage of people living on less than USD 
1.90 a day  

Proportion of under-nourished people  

Halve, between 1990 and 2015, 
the proportion of people living 
under poverty line 
11.8% (i.e. half of the 
percentage in 1990) 

Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who 
reach the last grade of primary 

Children to complete a full 
course of primary schooling 

Gender parity index for gross enrolment ratio 
in secondary education 
Under five mortality rate 40 
(deaths per 1 000 live births) 
Maternal mortality ratio 
(maternal deaths per 100 000 live births, 
women aged 15-49) 
Estimated number of new HIV infections per 
year per 100 people aged 15-49  

Between 0.97 and 1.03 

Reduce by 2/3 between 1990 
and 2015  
To be reduced by ¾ between 
1990 and 2015 

Have halted by 2015 and begun 
to reverse the spread of 
HIV/AIDS 
Halve by 2015 the proportion 
of population without 
sustainable access to safe 
drinking water  
Deal comprehensively with 
developing countries' debt42 

Developing 
regions 

Sub-Saharan 
Africa 

Oceania 

Caribbean and 
Latin America 

Y38 200239: 33% 
Y 2012: 15% 

Y 2002: 57% 
Y 2012: 43% 

Y 2002: 48% 
Y 2012: 30% 

Y 2002: 13% 
Y 2012: 6% 

Y 2013: 14%  
Y 2014/2016: 
11% 
Y 1990: 65% 
Y 2011: 70% 

Y 1990: 0.96 
Y 2012: 0.77 
Y 2012: 53 
Proj. 2015: 47 
Y 1990: 430 
Y 2013: 230 

Y 2001: 0.10 
Y 2012: 0.06 

Y 2013: 25% 
Y 2014/2016: 
22% 
Y 1990: 55% 
Y 2011: 58% 

Y 1990: 0.84 
Y 2012: 0.76 
Y 2012: 98 
Proj. 2015: 86 
Y 1990: 990 
Y 2013: 510 

Y 2001 2012 41 

Y 2013: 12% 
Y 2014/2016: 
12% 
Y 1990: 60% 
Y 2011: 50% 

Y 1990: 0.87 
Y 2012: 0.86 
Y 2012: 55 
Proj. 2015: 51 
Y 1990: 390 
Y 2013: 190 

Y 2001: 0.04 
Y 2012: 0.03 

Y 2012: 87% 
(target met) 
Y 2015: 89% 

Y 2012: 64% 
Y 2015: 68% 
(target not met) 

Y 2012: 56% 
Y 2015: 56% 
(target not met) 

Y 2013: 8% 
Y 2014/2016:5% 

Y 1990: 62% 
Y 2011: 75% 

Y 1990: 1.07 
Y 2012: 1.06 
Y 2012: 19 
Proj. 2015:17 
Y 1990: 300 
Y2013: 190 
(Carib. only) 
Y 2001: 0.12 
Y 2012: 0.05 
(Carib. only) 
Y 2012: 94% 
(target met) 
Y 2015: 95% 

Y 2010: 3% 
Y 2012: 3.1% 

Y 2010: 2.4% 
Y 2012: 3.3% 

Y 2010: 1.5% 
Y 2012: 1.8% 

Y 2010: 6.7% 
Y 2012: 6.6% 

MDG 7: Ensure environmental 
sustainability / SDG 6: clean water and 
sanitation 

Proportion of population using an improved 
drinking water source  

MDG 8: Develop a global partnership 
for development / SDG 17: 
Partnerships for the goals 

Debt burden measures as external debt 
service payments to proportion of export 
revenues (percentage) 

37 Source: for detailed information on the results for each MDG indicator, please see the Millennium Development Goals Report 2014 (baseline) and 2015 (achievements) 
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/reports.shtml and the Sustainable Development Goal report 2016 https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/  
38 Key: Y = Year, proj = projection 
39 While the baselines in this table are based on the MDG report of 2014, the data itself has been collected between 2010 and 2013. 
40 All regions with the exception of sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania have reduced their under-five mortality by more than half between 1990 and 2012. 
41 For this indicator, results are broken down per African region: West Africa 0.41 to 0.16, Central Africa 0.63 to 0.29, Eastern Africa: 0.36 to 0.21, Southern Africa: 1.98 to 1.02 
42 The debt burden of developing countries was much lower than in the year 2000 but not declining further. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3. Method 

This  evaluation  is  informed  by  an  external  evaluation  carried  out  by  a  team  of  consultants 
from August 2016 to May 201743. There was no divergence compared to the roadmap for this 
evaluation44,  published  in  November  2015.  Various  stakeholders45 have  provided  input  into 
the 12-week open public consultation on the draft external evaluation report that is also taken 
into  account  in  this  evaluation.  A  total  of  320  stakeholders  were  met  through  a  series  of 
meetings organised during the period of the open public consultation. More information can 
be found in Annex 2.  

As  mentioned  in  the  "Scope  of  the  Evaluation"  this  Staff  Working  Document  is  set  at 
instrument-level.  In  terms  of  the  method  used,  a  focus  was  put  on  reviewing  strategic 
documents  such  as  country/thematic  evaluations  and  programming  documents,  rather  than 
project-level documents.  

Unless mention is made to the contrary, this Staff Working Document relies on and concurs 
with  the  findings  and  conclusions  of  the  external  evaluation.  Examples  of  where  the  text 
disagrees or brings nuances to the external evaluation can be found in Section 6: Leverage.  

Limitations – Robustness of process and findings 

The process of this evaluation is robust and the evidence reasonably solid. However, specific 
limitations  faced  by  the  external  evaluation  need  mentioning  in  particular  (see  Annex  2  for 
further details): 

  The  evaluation  was  pitched  at  instrument-level  meaning  project-level  data  was  not  the 
focus,  although  such  data  could  have  further  informed  the  overall  findings.  The 
instrument-level focus also means that the development policies which are set outside the 
instrument, but upon which the instrument is based, were not analysed.  

  There was no comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system defined in the EDF legal 

base.  

  The  11th  EDF's  implementation  was  in  its  early  stages  when  the  collection  of  evidence 
was  made.  To  mitigate  this,  evidence  has  also  been  collected  when  necessary  from  the 
10th EDF. 

  There was a very limited number of recent data regarding the EDF performance in OCTs. 
  The  very  broad  nature of  the  partner  countries  where  interventions  take  place (over  100 

countries and territories) made aggregation and comparisons between data difficult. 

When evaluating the instrument, it must be taken into consideration the fact that its support 
can only be seen as a contributing factor towards any results achieved: 

  The  fight  to  eradicate  poverty  in  ACP  countries  is  a  highly  ambitious  agenda.  Many 
factors,  both  internal  and  external,  affect  the  development  of  those  countries.  An 

43 See Annex 6 for the external evaluation.  
44 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_devco_003_evaluation_edf_en.pdf 
45 Such  as  EU  Member  States,  European  Parliament,  civil  society  organisations,  local  authorities,  ACP  partner  countries, 
Overseas Countries and Territories (see Annex 4a for further details) 

10 

 
 
                                                 
important  number  of  official  development  cooperation  providers  play  an  active  role, 
together with an increasing number of private donors including foundations.  
In  addition, it is for the partner countries to adopt  and implement the necessary reforms 
and policies that are the driving force behind these achievements. 

 

Moreover, there are number of characteristics that pose constraints when analysing the EDF. 
For example: the broad nature of the objectives that are pursued. 

4. Implementation state of play 

This  section  looks  at  the  progress  made  in  implementing  the  11th  EDF  since  2014  and  the 
monitoring systems used to measure progress.  

11th EDF implementation 

As  of  June  2017,  with  50%  of  its  budget  committed46,  31%  contracted  and  13%  paid,  and 
considering the fact that the 11th EDF reached its cruising speed only towards the end of 2016, 
implementation of the 11th EDF is deemed efficient. 

Cooperation with ACP States 

Most of the 11th EDF National Indicative Programmes47 were signed in 2014 and the first part 
of 201548 and all Regional Indicative Programmes between May and June 2015. The duration 
of the programming process was long which, in a fast-changing environment, and combined 
with other factors, could have jeopardised the relevance of EDF-funded actions49.  

Table 350 Level of implementation of the 11th EDF – ACP countries, illustrates the level of 11th 
EDF implementation with ACP partners as of June 2017. 

46 The funds are committed when individual actions are approved by the Commission; they are contracted upon the signature 
of a contract to implement the action.  
47 National or Regional Indicative programmes are programming documents jointly elaborated with partner countries/regions 
that define the strategy and priorities (sectors of cooperation) for EU aid over the instrument's duration, 2014-2020 in the case 
of the 11th EDF. 
48 Another 4 were signed in the second half of 2015, 3 in the first half of 2016, 1 in June 2017 (Central African Republic) 
whereas no NIP has yet been signed with Guinea Bissau. 
49 See external evaluation report, paragraph 166, page 44 (Annex 6 to this Staff Working Document). 
50 Source: European Commission Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development  

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
The level of commitments after 3 and a half years of implementation out of 7 is at almost 50% 
of  allocated  funds  for  regional  and  intra-ACP  cooperation  and  already  at  almost  60%  for 
cooperation at national level, thus pointing to efficient cooperation with partner countries and 
regions in identifying actions for support. The relatively low amount paid is not a concern as 
it  is  mainly  due  to  most  programmes  and  projects  becoming  operational  mostly  from  2016 
onwards and spanning over a few years. 

The  non-allocated  resources  (reserve  funds)  initially  amounted  to  EUR  5,800  million.  Top-
ups to National Indicative Programmes occurred for Somalia and Chad51, thus responding to 
all  such  requests  made  by  partner  countries.  Also,  the  reserve  funds  have  been  extensively 
used  up  until  June  2017  to  cater  for  unforeseen  needs  at  country  and  regional  level.  This 
includes  the  mobilisation  of  EUR  1.5  million  for  the  European  Emergency  Trust  Fund  for 
stability  and  addressing  root  causes  of  irregular  migration  and  displaced  people  in  Africa52. 
This capacity to respond to emerging needs shows the financial flexibility of the instrument, 
especially  when  compared  to  other  external  financing  instruments:  20%  of  the  11th  EDF 
geographic  programme  is  unallocated  compared  with  only  6%  for  the  Development 
Cooperation Instrument (the geographic component). The consumption of 48.1% of the 11th 
EDF reserves midway through it’s implementation also points to an efficient use of resources.  

Territorial and regional cooperation with OCTs 

Despite  some  initial  delays53,  after  two  years  and  a  half  of  the  instrument's  existence,  two-
thirds of the EUR 229.5 million territorial envelope for OCTs is either signed or in the final 
stage  before  signature,  which  demonstrates  the  relative  efficiency  of  the  processes  in  place 
under the 11th EDF. The programming of the OCT regional programmes has required a longer 
timeframe  because  of  the  requirement  for  a  more  intensive  co-ordination  exercise  between 
OCTs to agree on priorities and the difficulty of conciliating diverse local realities such as the 
nature of economic drivers, the level of development, and the population size.  

A reserve of EUR 21.5 million has been set aside. It has not yet been used but, similarly as for 
ACP countries, its existence participates in the flexibility of the instrument. 

Costs and benefits 

Costs  to  manage  the  11th  EDF  are  linked  to  human  resources,  infrastructure  including  EU 
Delegations and offices in ACP States and OCTs, evaluations and results oriented monitoring, 
technical  cooperation  and 
development  and  management  of  IT  systems,  studies, 
accompanying  measures,  audit  and  financial  obligations  of  the  Commission  linked  to  the 
implementation of the EDF, and communication activities.  

The support expenditure amounts to 3.45% of the total 11th EDF budget54, which represents a 
low  level  of  functioning  costs,  slightly  below  the  support  expenditure  for  the  Development 
Cooperation instrument amounting to 3.81% of the DCI budget. As of June 2017, 38.9% of 

51 These top ups were approved on the basis of the need to further support Chad's social stability and economic recovery, and 
to maintain the EU's level of engagement with Somalia after all the funds had been committed in 2016 . 
52 The creation of this Trust Fund was formally launched at the Valetta Summit on migration (11-12 November 2015) that 
brought together European and African Heads of State and Government in an effort to strengthen cooperation and address the 
challenges and opportunities of migration. See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/international-
summit/2015/11/11-12/ 
53 The  causes  of  the  delays  mainly  revolve  around  the  difficulties  faced  by  some  OCTs  regarding  the  definition  of  the 
concentration  sector.   In  some  cases, the mobilisation  of technical assistance to support  the Territorial  Authorising  Officer 
with the programming process could only be undertaken in 2015. 
54 See table 1 above 

12 

 
 
                                                 
the available amount for support expenditure has been committed which shows a conservative 
use of these funds. The EU has a Delegation in most ACP partner countries and one office in 
an  OCT  (New  Caledonia).  These  costs  are  considered  by  Commission  services  to  be 
proportionate  to  meet  the  principle  of  partnership,  which  requires  a  presence  in  the  partner 
countries and regions, and to deliver efficiently while ensuring the adequate protection of the 
EU's financial interest. 

The  benefits  of  the  cooperation  with  ACP  States  and  OCTs  are  considerable.  Sustainable 
prosperity  and  peace  in  the  ACP  States  and  OCTs  that  are  home  to  a  total  of  1.5  billion 
people 55 benefit  Europe  by  contributing  to  addressing  mutual  challenges  such  as  climate 
change  and  demographic  unbalances,  by  offering  new  economic,  trade  and  investment 
opportunities for both sides and by reducing mutual security threats.  

Procurement contracts  statistics demonstrate the economic benefits of the 11th EDF for EU-
based  companies.  The  2016  figures  report  that  52.8%  of  contracts  and  grants  from  the 
11th EDF, 
to  EU-based  companies  and 
organisations. 

irrespective  of  untied  aid,  were  attributed 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

In  the  Regulation  on  the  implementation  of  the  11th  EDF,  no  comprehensive  monitoring  or 
evaluation  system  is  mentioned  for  the  purpose  of  measuring  the  instrument's  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. 

the  Millennium  Development  Goals  and  subsequently 

The  only  references  to  indicators  in  the  Regulation  are  for  impact-level  indicators  (namely 
those  from 
the  Sustainable 
Development  Goals).  A  number  of  these  indicators  are  included  in  the  EU  International 
Cooperation  and  Development  Results  Framework  which  was  created  in  201556.  However, 
these indicators can only show the EU's contribution to development results as many factors 
such as partner government policies and interventions of other donors will influence what has 
been achieved. 

The  EU  Results  Framework  mentioned  above  defines  quantitative  indicators  for  the 
collection,  aggregation  and  presentation  of  three  types  of  result  data:  (level  1)  wider 
development  progress  made  by  partner  countries  (see  impact-level  indicators  mentioned 
above);  (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. 
For example, they only report results from projects that have closed from mid-2013 to mid-
2016 and they only measure quantitative aspects such as the number of teachers trained and 
the  number  of  children  immunised.  This  means  in  reality  that  the  results  are  coming  from 

the  Caribbean 

55 Source:  Joint  communication  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  'A  renewed  partnership  with  the  countries  of 
Africa, 
See: 
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/http_eur-lex.europa.pdf 
56  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  "Launching  the  EU  International  Cooperation  and  Development  Results 
Framework", SWD(2015)80 final. See: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/swd-2015-80-f1-staff-working-paper-
v3-p1-805238_en_0.pdf 

22  November 

Pacific', 

(2016) 

2016, 

JOIN 

final. 

and 

the 

52 

13 

 
 
                                                 
projects implemented under the previous EDF and do not, for the time being, show the overall 
performance of the current instrument. 

Situation in terms of poverty in ACP States 

The ACP States are still facing very serious poverty situations. There are disparities in their 
level  of  development.  For  example,  while  Mauritius  ranks  64  out  of  188  countries  in  the 
human development index57 as reported in 2016, the Central African Republic is at the very 
bottom ranking 188. The MDGs were far from being achieved by the end of 2015 despite the 
fact that the number of people in extreme poverty declined by an estimated 130 million58. 

Table 2 above shows progress albeit limited in the fight against poverty. This progress cannot 
be  directly  attributed  to  the  EDF  although  the  external  evaluation  report  quotes  some 
multilateral aid reviews that found the EDF to have been critical for progress in MDGs and 
poverty reduction59, pointing at the instrument’s relevance and effectiveness. 

5. Responses to the evaluation questions 

Relevance 
To what extent did the overall objectives and principles as foreseen in Articles 1 and 2 of the 
Cotonou Agreement as well as in Articles 1 and 2 of the 11th EDF Implementation Regulation 
and the design of the EDF respond to EU priorities and beneficiary needs in 2014? To what 
extent can they accommodate changed parameters since then? 

This  Staff  Working  Document  agrees  with  the  external  evaluation  report  and  various 
stakeholders’  opinion 60  that  the  11th  EDF  is  relevant  to  the  EU's  objective  of  poverty 
reduction.  

The programming61 of the aid appropriately reflected the EU development policy in existence 
at its inception, as developed in the Agenda for Change62 and the 2005 European Consensus 
on Development63. The new concepts64 of the Agenda for Change were overall well promoted 
in  the  programming  instructions.  To  enhance  ownership  and  facilitate  opportunities  to 

funding 

allocations.  See 

long  and  healthy 

life,  being  knowledgeable  and  have  a  decent  standard  of 

57 The  Human  Development  Index  (HDI)  is  a  summary  measure  of  average  achievement  in  key  dimensions  of  human 
development:  a 
living.  See 
http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI 
58 Source : Millennium Project, UN: www.unmillenniumproject.org 
59 See external evaluation report, paragraph 38, page 13 and its Annex 5, paragraph 38. 
60 See the Summary of the Open Public Consultation contributions at Annex 4a, paragraph 8 on page 3, paragraph 3.1.1.5 on 
page 6 and paragraph 23 on page 6. 
61 Programming is the decision-making process through which the Commission together with the High Representative of the 
Union for Foreign Affairs and Security, the partner countries and regions define development assistance strategies, priorities 
and 
2012: 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/node/37678 
62 Communication COM(2011)637 final of 13 October 2011 "Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda 
for Change" http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A52011DC0637&qid=1412922281378&from=EN, Council conclusions of 14 May 
2012 https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/public-fragility/document/councils-conclusions-agenda-change and European 
Parliament resolution of 23 October http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-
2012-0386+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN 
63 Although the 'Joint statement by the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European Union 
Development Policy: the European Consensus' was adopted in 2015, it was published in the Official Journal C46 of 24 
February 2006, p1. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ%3AC%3A2006%3A046%3A0001%3A0019%3AEN%3APDF 
64  The  new  concepts  applied  were:  differentiation,  sector  concentration,  EU/Member  States  joint  programming,  and 
synchronisation with the partner countries’ development plans cycle. 

11th  EDF,  May 

the  Programming 

Instructions 

the 

for 

of 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
encourage Joint Programming65 the EU intended to synchronise the duration of the National 
Indicative  Programmes  with  that  of  the  partner  country.  However,  this  did  not  occur  in  the 
vast majority of cases because of the choice made by the Commission to simplify procedures 
by adopting National Indicative Programmes for the whole MFF period: 2014-20. 

It  is  too  early  for  this  Staff  Working  Document  to  conclude  whether  the  11th  EDF  is  a 
sufficiently  enabling  instrument  to  fully  implement  the  new  European  Consensus  on 
Development  adopted  on  7 June  2017,  which  focuses  on  the  implementation  of  the 
internationally  agreed  Sustainable  Development  Goals,  although  there  is  a  large  overlap 
between the 11th EDF and the policy orientation of the new Consensus. It is also the case with 
recent international commitments, such as the Agenda 203066, the 2015 Paris Agreement on 
Climate  Change67,  or  with  the  Global  Strategy  for  the  European  Union’s  on  foreign  and 
security policy68.  

Following  lessons  learned  from  the  10th  EDF  which  experienced  a  complex  and  lengthy 
programming process, the 11th EDF programming based itself on the partners’ development 
plans,  both  at  national  and  regional  level  instead  of  requiring  the  elaboration  of  Country  or 
Regional  Strategy  Papers.  Nevertheless,  stakeholders  (such  as  EU  platforms)  expressed  the 
views  that  consultation  during  programming  should  be  more  inclusive  as  they  have  been 
mostly limited to some organisations that may not be sufficiently representative69. 

The external evaluation points at a tension between the ownership and partnership principles 
of the 11th EDF and agendas perceived as deviating from the fundamental objective of poverty 
alleviation  such  as  security  and  migration  that  have  been  financially  supported  by  the  11th 
EDF.  However,  this  evaluation  assesses  that  peace  building  (as  funded  through  the  African 
Peace  Building  Facility  under  the  intra-ACP  component)  and  addressing  root  causes  of 
migration  (as  with  the  European  Emergency  Trust  Fund  for  stability  and  addressing  root 
causes  of  irregular  migration  and  displaced  people  in  Africa70)  are  fundamental  aspects  of 
sustainable development. The evaluation nevertheless takes note from the external evaluation 
and  stakeholders’  opinion 71 that  the  governance  rules  of  the  Trust  Fund  and  recourse  to 
accelerated procedures may require attention. 

The  flexibility  of  the  11th  EDF  is  an  important  element  of  relevance  as  partners'  changing 
needs  and  EU  changing  priorities  can  be  addressed.  As  much  as  the  instrument  is 
fundamentally a strong anchor for medium- to long-term development strategies, it contains 
several elements of flexibility: (i) the possibility of ad hoc reviews of the programming72; (ii) 
the reserve funds to respond to unforeseen needs and to mitigate adverse short-term effects of 
exogenous shocks73, the importance of which was pointed out by EU Member States during 

65 EU  joint  programming  means  the  joint  planning  of  development  cooperation  by  the  EU  development  partners  (e.g.  EU 
Member States or other donors) working in a partner country. 
66 See http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html. 
67 The Paris Agreement brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and 
adapt to its effects. See: www.unfccc.int 
68 See https://europa.eu/globalstrategy 
69 See  Annex  4a,  paragraph  20,  page  5;  paragraph  31,  page  8;  paragraph  33,  page  9;  paragraphs  35  and  36,  page  10; 
paragraph 39, page 10. 
70 See section 4 ‘Implementation state of play’. 
71 See Annex 4a, paragraph 18, page 5 
72 See section 5 above ‘Implementation state of play’ for more details. 
73 Source:  Article  2  §  c  of  the  Internal  Agreement  between  Member  States  on  the  financing  of  aid  in  accordance  with  the 
Cotonou Agreement (see footnote 13). 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  open  public  consultation74;  (iii)  its  multiannual  time  perspective  and  the  fact  that  the 
budgetary  principle  of  annuality75 does  not  apply  to  it,  (iv) the  ability  to use  funds  for  non-
Official  Development  Assistance  actions,  such  as  supporting  peace  and  security  operations 
through the African Peace Facility. Overall, the 11th EDF has more flexibility than the other 
instruments under the EU budget76.  

Effectiveness 

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

Performance of the 11th EDF is difficult to measure in the absence of indicators attached to 
the  instrument  itself.  As  mentioned  above 77 ,  the  results  of  the  fight  against  poverty  in 
developing countries depends on many factors. 

Most  partner  countries  have  experienced  progress  in  poverty  reduction  and  human  and 
economic development over the last ten years. For example, the last Millennium Development 
Goal  Report  (2015)78 shows  that  sub-Saharan  Africa  has  seen  a  6%  reduction  in  extreme 
poverty since 2011. However, it is difficult to measure the direct impact of the 11th EDF on 
development  outcomes  such  as  poverty  reduction  because 
indicators  reflect 
development progress over the long-term and the 11th EDF has only been operational for two 
years. As a result, the data available is  also resulting  from actions taken under the previous 
EDF.  Moreover  multiple  actors  contributed  to  these  development  outcomes;  they  cannot  be 
directly attributable to the EDF. This shows that because the Millennium Development Goal 
and  Sustainable  Development  Goal  indicators  are  the  only  measures  of  performance 
mentioned  in  the  EDF  legal  base,  there  will  only  be  a  partial  picture  emerging  of  what  the 
EDF's performance has been.  

those 

The  Commission  has  strongly  enhanced  results  reporting  on  projects  and  programmes  with 
the  launch  of  the  EU  International  Cooperation  and  Development  Results  Framework79 in 
2015.  It  produced  its  first  report  on  selected  results  in  July  2016 80 .  This  evaluation 
nevertheless  agrees  with  the  external  evaluation  and  views  expressed  by  some  public 
authorities81 that a focus on results is lacking at the instrument level.  

This  Staff  Working  Document  agrees  with  the  external  evaluation  report  that  the  11th  EDF 
institutional structures and processes are propitious for effectiveness82. The situation of staff 
in  Delegations  both  in  numbers  and  qualifications  has  improved  but  remains  an  area  for 
careful monitoring. 

to 

the 

budget 

general 

74 See Annex 4a, paragraph 8, page 3. 
75 Annuality is the budgetary principle according to which expenditure and revenue are programmed and authorised for one 
year,  starting  on  1 January  and  ending  on  31  December.  Source:  Article  9  of  Regulation  966/2012  on  the  financial  rules 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
applicable 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012R0966&from=EN 
76 See the external Coherence Report, page 7/8. 
77 See the paragraph on limitations, above in this Staff Working Document. 
78 http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf  
79 See https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/devcos-results-framework_en 
80  This  report  presents  selected  results  achieved  from  EU  funded  development  cooperation  projects  and  programmes 
completed  between  mid-2013  and  mid-2014  in  EU  partner  countries.  See:  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/eu-international-
cooperation-and-development-first-report-selected-results-july-2013-june-2014_en 
81 See Annex 4a, paragraph 10, page 4. 
82 See external evaluation report, page 10 (Annex 6 to this Staff Working Document). 

Union: 

the 

of 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Following  on  from  the  2011  Impact  Assessment83,  it  can  be  concluded  that  several  of  the 
problem drivers mentioned in the assessment have been addressed in the 11th EDF making it a 
more able to meet its objectives. For example, in response to problems raised of fragmented 
support:  (1)  the  11th  EDF  established  a  differentiation  approach:  least  developed  countries, 
low-income  countries  and  countries  in  crisis/fragile  situations  were  given  priority  in  the 
resource allocation process in order to focus more effectively on where EU assistance could 
have  the  greatest  impact;  and  (2)  sector  concentration  was  implemented  so  that  the  average 
number  of  sectors  was  three  per  country/region.  However,  according  to  the  external 
evaluation  report 84 ,  the  selection  of  sectors  was  sometimes  made  through  a  top-down 
approach  from  the  Commission,  which  was  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  ownership  and 
partnership  principles.  In  response,  the  Commission  services  consider  that  partner  countries 
commitment was ensured through the co-signature of the programming documents which set 
out the sectors of intervention, after dialogues took place.  

In  terms  of  mainstreaming  EU  priorities85,  progress  has  been  noted  in  the  areas  of  climate 
change  and  environment 86.  The  emergence  of  some  tools,  such  as  the  Environment  and 
Climate  Change  Mainstreaming  Facility87 has  helped  step-up  efforts  on  mainstreaming  into 
EDF-funded  cooperation.  Some  stakeholders  point  at  insufficient  attention  to  these  issues 
from development partners88. On mainstreaming human rights issues, despite the creation in 
2014  of  a  Toolbox  on  a  rights-based  approach  encompassing  all  human  rights  for  EU 
development  cooperation89,  mainstreaming  is  still  considered  a  "work-in-progress"  by  EU 
staff in  Headquarters.  Plus,  evidence90 suggests  that partner governments' lack of interest or 
resistance  to  human  rights  often  represents  a  major  obstacle  in  mainstreaming  such  issues. 
Some stakeholders expressed their disappointment at the limited mainstreaming of issues such 
as rights of persons with disabilities91. 

This evaluation notes issues linked to the existence and functioning of NAOs and RAOs92. It 
is  the  role  of  the  NAO/RAO  to  represent  the  country/region  in  the  activities  related  to  EU 
cooperation funded with the 11th EDF and the European Investment Bank, which can include: 
planning  EU  assistance,  identifying  and  designing  interventions,  and  assessing  and  auditing 
those  interventions.  While  this  structure  has  been  created  to  ensure  ownership,  some 
stakeholders point at the weaknesses and limits of the system as, for example, in some cases, 
they  can  represent  a  barrier  between  line  ministries  benefiting  from  EU  support  and  EU 
delegation  staff 93.  The  evaluation  finds  that  their  functioning  is  very  often  not  prone  to 

83 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/cia_2011_en.htm#devco 
84 See Annex 6, paragraph 19, page 6 
85 Mainstreaming is defined by the European Commission as ‘the process of systematically integrating a selected 
value/idea/theme into all domains of the EU development cooperation to promote specific (transposing ideas, influencing 
policies) as well as general development outcomes’. 
86 11th  EDF  contributions  have  increased  from  3.3%  in  2014  to  23.3%  in  2016  against  DCI  climate  change  contributions 
increasing from 17.7% in 2014 to 24.9% in 2016. Source: Indicator 12b, EU Results Framework with input from the OECD 
DAC Creditor Reporting System 
87 The overall objective of the Environment and Climate Change Mainstreaming Facility is to improve the effectiveness of 
EU interventions that have effects on or are affected by environment and climate change, throughout EU thematic and 
geographic programmes. See: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/devco/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=32361&newsletter=227 
88 See Annex 4a, paragraph 17, page 5. 
89 Commission Staff Working Document (2014)152 final 
http://www.eidhr.eu/files/dmfile/SWD_2014_152_F1_STAFF_WORKING_PAPER_EN_V5_P1_768467.pdf 
90 Views of EU Delegations reflected in their External Assistance Management Reports to Headquarters. 
91 See Annex 4a, paragraphs 17 and 20, page 5. 
92 Article 35 of Annex IV to the Cotonou Agreement defines the role of the National Authorising Officer (NAO, at country 
level), the Regional Authorising Officer (RAO, at regional level) and the Territorial Authorising Officer (TAO, in each OCT) 
The NAO is often considered the entry point of EU Delegations into the national administration. 
93 See Annex 4a, paragraph 33, page 9. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
effectiveness, in particular at regional level. NAOs and RAOs also prove to be challenging in 
terms  of  efficiency.  An  explanation  often  given  relates  to  capacity  issues  despite  regular 
support in building capacity94. 

Efficiency 

To what extent is the EDF delivering efficiently? 

This  evaluation  assesses  that  the  11th  EDF  is  overall  efficient.  Lessons  learnt  from  the 
previous EDF were followed by action: 
  At  regional  level,  efficiency  has  considerably  improved  thanks  to  the  possibility  for 
national  administrations  and  a  wider  range  of  regional  actors  to  implement  regional 
projects  against  the  monopoly  of  the  Duly  Mandated  Regional  Organisations  in  the 
previous EDFs. 

  The  process  of  project  formulation  has  substantially  improved  with  a  considerably 
reduced timeline from project submission to approval while maintaining the same internal 
quality control process95. The duration of the formulation cycle is satisfactory. 

Overall  budget  execution  of  the  first  two  years  of  the  11th  EDF  shows  high  efficiency96, 
especially in comparison to the 10th EDF as pointed by the external evaluation report97.  

The relatively long timeframe for the entry into force of the 11th EDF could have impacted the 
overall  efficiency,  but  it  did  not,  mainly  thanks  to  the  Bridging  Facility  in  place  between 
January 2014 and March 201598. 

An additional new feature has been the alignment of the Regulation on the implementation of 
the 11th EDF99 with the provisions of the Common Implementing Regulation applicable to all 
other external financing instruments100. There is insufficient evidence to be conclusive on the 
derived  efficiency  gains  beyond  the  tenderers  benefitting  from  harmonised  rules  of  origin 
across financing instruments101. 

Inefficiencies have been pointed out by stakeholders regarding procedures. Despite additional 
efficiency gains mentioned by the external evaluation, such as the responsibility of amending 
contracts  and  proceeding  to  recommitments  being  entrusted  to  EU  Delegations,  the  EDF 
procedures  are  still  perceived  as  cumbersome  by  staff  in  Delegations  and  public  authorities 
who  shared  their  views  during  the  open  public  consultation102.  Some  public  authorities  also 
echo  the  external  evaluation  report  finding  according  to  which  efficiency  gains  obtained  by 
increasing the size of grant contracts have come at the expense of civil society organisations 
participation103. 

94 In 2013, 78% of the EUDs indicated the use of an EDF-funded NAO Support Unit. These Units have often been present for 
more than 10 years, with some dating back to the 7th EDF (1990-1995). Source: European Commission Directorate General 
for International Cooperation and Development. 
95 See external evaluation report, paragraph 60, page 18. 
96 See section 5 above on State of play of implementation 
97 See Annex 6, paragraph 52, page 16 
98 See section 2 above. 
99 Council Regulation 2015/322 of 02 March 2015, OJ L 58, p. 1 (referenced in footnote 2) 
100 Regulation 236/2014 of 11 March 2014 laying down common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union's 
instruments for financing external action, OJ L 77 of 15 March 2014, p. 95. See: https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-
enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/financial_assistance/ipa/2014/236-2014_cir.pdf 
101 Source: paragraph 63, page 19, of the external evaluation report. 
102 See Annex 4a, paragraph 32, page 9. 
103 See Annex 4a, paragraph 10, page 4. 

18 

 
 
                                                 
The external evaluation report mentions the ‘one size fits all’ nature of the EDF procedures 
that generates inefficiencies considering the existing differences between ACP countries and 
OCTs,  and  the  specificities  of  the  latter104.  The  relative  small  size  and  associated  limited 
administrative capacity of some OCTs can be a source of explanation for the perceived barrier 
represented  by  the  structure  and  procedures  of  the  EDF  in  terms  of  effectiveness  and 
efficiency. 

Coherence  

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

The 11th EDF intervention logic (Annex 2) includes a number of assumptions on coherence 
that  were  tested  by  the  external  evaluation.  For  example,  assumptions  were  made  on  the 
coherence  within  the  11th  EDF  components,  coherence  between  external  financing 
instruments,  and  coherence  with  other  policies  other  than  development  policy  (Policy 
Coherence for Development105).  

This  evaluation  finds  that  the  internal  coherence  between  the  components  of  11th  EDF  is 
satisfactory,  in  particular  because  the  programming  instructions  prevent  duplication  by 
providing that sectors funded from the national envelope cannot be funded from the regional 
envelope.  However,  this  may  have  negative  consequences in  terms  of  synergies  that  appear 
limited  among  the  ACP  components  as  highlighted  by  organisations  and  associations  that 
participated  in  the  open  public  consultation 106.  Complementarity  of  regional  cooperation 
between  OCTs  and  ACP  countries  has  improved  with  the  relative  alignment,  in  the  Pacific 
region,  of  the  sectors  of  concentration  of  the  11th  EDF  regional  programmes  for  OCTs  and 
ACP  countries  focusing  on  climate  change  and  biodiversity.  The  existing  provisions 
favouring regional cooperation among the different categories of regional actors (OCTs, ACP 
countries and their neighbouring outermost regions and non-ACP developing countries) have 
not been sufficiently used until now.  

In terms of coherence between the EDF and other instruments, there are three other EU EFIs 
operating  in  ACP  countries 107 :  the  Development  Cooperation  instrument 108 ,  through  its 
thematic  programmes  (Global  Public  Goods  and  Challenges,  and  the  Civil  Society 
Organisations  and  Local  Authorities)  and  its  Pan-African  Programme,  the  European 

to  benefit  developing  countries  and  increase 

104 See external evaluation report, paragraph 156, page 53 
105 Through Policy Coherence for Development, the EU seeks to take account of development objectives in all of its policies 
that are likely to affect developing countries. It aims at minimising contradictions and building synergies between different 
EU  policies 
the  effectiveness  of  development  cooperation.  See: 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/policy-coherence-development_en 
106 See Annex 4a, paragraph 14, page 4. 
107 See external evaluation report, paragraph 68, page 20. 
108 Regulation 233/2014 of 11 March 2014 establishing a financial instrument for development cooperation for the period 
2014-2020, OJ L77 of 15 March 2014, p. 44. This Regulation also provides for bilateral cooperation with countries not 
covered by the 11th EDF, thus avoiding overlap. See: 
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/regulation_eu_no_2332014_of_the_ep_and_the_council_establishing_a_financing_instr
ument_for_development_cooperation_2014-2020_0.pdf 

19 

 
 
                                                 
Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)109, and the Instrument contributing to 
Stability  and  Peace110.  Evidence  used  by  the  external  evaluation  shows  that  these  external 
financing instruments support actions that the 11th EDF is not best placed to support, such as 
direct  cooperation  with  civil  society  organisations  on  human  rights  issues.  However,  some 
duplications exist between the intra-ACP component and the DCI thematic programme111, as 
also highlighted by some stakeholders112. Complementarity of the 11th EDF and other EFIs for 
which OCTs are eligible is limited.  

As stated in the recent evaluation on Joint Programming (2017)113, there has been progress on 
Joint Programming with Member States where it has proven to be valuable for the EU and its 
Member  States,  although  it  is  still  in  its  early  stages  and  faces  challenges  such  as  ensuring 
ownership of the process and results by partner countries. For example, in Burkina Faso and 
Kenya, it has improved EU aid coordination and coherence and has led to complementarities 
and synergies114. 

Policy coherence for development has gained momentum under the 11th EDF. For example, 
the  analysis  of  trade  policy  support  to  development  in  regional  cooperation  shows  an 
increasing attention to the trade/development nexus115. 

Added value  

To  what  extent  do  the  EDF  programmes  add  value  compared  to  interventions  by  Member 
States or other key donors? 

This  evaluation  agrees  with  the  external  evaluation  report  that  the  main  factors  for  the  11th 
EDF's added-value are the nature of the partnership anchored in the Cotonou Agreement, the 
instrument's geographical scope, the different levels at which it operates116 combined with the 
volume of funds available, their predictability and the instrument flexibility described under 
‘relevance’. This evaluation also agrees with the public authorities who highlighted the EDF's 
specific added value in fragile contexts where there are fewer development partners117. 

For  the  OCTs,  the  11th  EDF  adds  value  by  linking  them  to  Europe  and  by  reinforcing  the 
OCTs as a group and thus their prominence in regional and global fora118. 

The 11th EDF's added value compared to EU Member States and other Development Partners 
mainly rests with its capacity to mobilise high volumes of funding over a long period, and in 
sectors  that  need  a  critical  mass  of  funds119.  This  is  less  the  case  in  the  Pacific  where  EU 
funding  is  significantly  smaller  than  funding  from  regional  donors,  particularly  Australia. 
Expectedly, both the regional and intra-ACP components, as illustrated by the African Peace 

109 Regulation 235/2014 of 11 March 2014 establishing a financial instrument for democracy and human rights worldwide, 
OJ L77 of 15 March 2014, p. 85. See: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2014:077:0085:0094:EN:PDF 
110 Regulation 230/2014 of 11 March 2014 establishing an instrument contributing to stability and peace, OJ L77 of 15 March 
2014, p. 1. See: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fpi/documents/140311_icsp_reg_230_2014_en.pdf 
111 See external evaluation report, paragraph 107, page 30  
112 See Annex 4a, paragraph 13, page 4. 
113 See  external  evaluation  of  EU  Joint  Programming  Process  of  Development  Cooperation  (March  2017) 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation-eu-joint-programming-process-development-cooperation-2011-2015_en 
114 External evaluation of EU Joint Programming Process of Development Cooperation and also Part D, Annex 20, page 288 
of the 11th EDF external evaluation report  
115 Source: annex 7 to the external evaluation report. 
116 See external evaluation report, page 20. 
117 See Annex 4a, paragraph 12, page 4. 
118 See external evaluation report, paragraph 94, page 27 
119 See external evaluation report, paragraph 70, page 21. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
Facility,  potentially  have  a  strong  added  value  in  addressing  issues  beyond  the  reach  of 
national cooperation instruments  and on issues  of regional integration  or  of a global nature. 
Supporting  the  African  Union  efforts  in  the  area  of  peace  and  security  was  possible  only 
because the EDF is not financed from the Union's budget120.  

Leverage  

To what extent has the EDF leveraged further funds and/or political or policy engagement? 

The 11th EDF is set to support domestic revenue mobilisation  (DRM) in particular to reflect 
the  commitment  made  in  2015  to  collectively  double  support  for  DRM  in  developing 
countries by signing the Addis Tax initiative121. Tracking expenditure on DRM has been fully 
in  place  only  since  July  2016  with  the  creation  of  a  separate  DRM  DAC  code  that  will  be 
applied  for  the  future.  There  is  therefore  insufficient  evidence  on  the  11th  EDF  leverage  on 
DRM. 

This evaluation disagrees with the external evaluation report finding that there is too limited 
evidence to draw definite conclusions as to whether the 11th EDF has contributed to leverage 
additional funds through blending122. Indeed, a dedicated external evaluation on blending as 
an EU aid delivery mechanism123 released in March 2017 concluded that blending124, through 
its  leverage  of  loans,  was  associated  with  around  twenty  times  more  development  funding. 
This  mobilisation  of  additional  funding  has  been  confirmed  in  half  of  the  cases  reviewed; 
44% of which were EDF-funded.  

Similarly,  this  Staff  Working  Document  differs  from  the  finding  of  the  external  evaluation 
regarding  a  possible  departure  from  the  EDF  fundamental  principles  of  ownership  and 
partnership  in  the  context  of  blending 125 .  National  and  regional  authorities  remain  fully 
involved  through  strategic  meetings  and  the  regional  steering  committees  established  in  the 
context  of  the  different  Regional  Indicative  Programmes  and  the  ACP-EU  Private  Sector 
Development  platform126.  The  EU  Platform  for  Blending  in  External  Cooperation 127 pays 
attention to the respect of those principles. 

Conditions are in place for the 11th EDF to continue its predecessor's positive track on policy 
dialogue,  especially  at  bilateral  level  and  as  the  EU  plays  an  important  role  in  donor 
coordination. The use of the budget support modality plays a key role in this respect and also 
in  reinforcing  the  political  dialogue  foreseen  in  the  Cotonou  Agreement,  as  the  respect  for 

to 

be 

the 

cannot 

budget. 

Union's 

charged 

implications 

120 See  Article  41  of  the  Treaty  on  the  European  Union:  operating  expenditure  arising  from  operations  having  military  or 
defence 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12008M041   
121 The Addis Tax Initiative was launched in the course of the 3rd Financing for Development Conference in Addis Ababa in 
2015. It intends to generate substantially more resources for capacity building in the field of domestic revenue mobilisation / 
taxation as well as more ownership and commitment for the establishment of transparent, fair and efficient tax systems. See 
https://www.addistaxinitiative.net/ 
122 See section 2.6., pages 36 to 38, of the external evaluation report. 
123 https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation-blending_en.  See  page  ii  (Executive  Summary) and  section  2.3  of  the external 
evaluation report. 
124 The principle of the blending mechanism is to combine EU grants with loans or equity from public and private financiers. 
The EU grant element can be used in a strategic way to attract additional financing for important investments in EU partner 
countries by reducing exposure to risk.  
125 See external evaluation report, paragraph 140, page 38. 
126 See the 19 September 2016 report on the activities of the EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation from August 
2014 until end of 2015 – COM(2016)600 final: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-600-EN-F1-
1.PDF 
127 http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2852 

21 

 
 
                                                 
fundamental values is a prerequisite where a Good Governance and Development Contract128 
is foreseen129. 

6. Conclusions 

This Staff Working Document shares the opinion of the external evaluation that the 11th EDF 
is a relevant instrument with appreciated flexibility features at instrument level. It is overall an 
efficient  instrument  with  proven  added-value  and  satisfactory  internal  coherence.  This  Staff 
Working Document also shares the opinion of the external evaluation on challenges raised in 
external evaluation that need attention in the process on how to improve the implementation 
of  the  11th  EDF  for  the  remaining  period  until  2020,  and  on  the  future  external  financing 
instrument(s) for the post-2020 period. For example, in order of magnitude: 

1.  There is a tension around the principles of ownership and partnership of the 11th EDF 
and  agendas  perceived  as  deviating  from  the  fundamental  objective  of  poverty 
alleviation  such  as  security  and  migration.  This  emerged  through  the  reported  top-
down approach  during programming of  funds,  during  consultation processes  that are 
not  sufficiently  inclusive,  and  in  the  context  of  new  aid  modalities.  This  tension 
around the principles is part of the result of an evolving set of policies which has seen 
more focus put on emerging priorities and challenges. 

2.  There  is  evidence  of  overlaps  between  the  11th  EDF  and  the  thematic  component  of 
the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument  as  both  programmes  are  able  to  support 
similar sectors. There are also missed opportunities of synergies between the various 
EDF components.  

3.  Data on results is limited. The absence of a monitoring and evaluation system at the 
level  of  the  instrument  beyond  the  Millennium  Development  Goals/Sustainable 
Development  Goals  does  not  make  it  possible  to  measure  changes  accurately.  For 
example, no indicators were provided on how to measure the instrument's flexibility or 
the level of consistency between instruments.   

4.  The  NAO/RAO  structure  which  was  initially  created  to  ensure  the  key  principles  of 
ownership and partnership has not fully fulfilled that role and their functioning is often 
seen as hampering effectiveness and efficiency. 

5.  Inefficiencies exist at the level of implementation procedures that have consequences 

on cooperation’s effectiveness, in particular with OCTs. 

6.  The  potential  for  cooperation  with  Member  States,  notably 

through  Joint 

Programming, is still not fully exploited. 

128 Good  Governance  and  Development  Contracts  are  a  type  of  budget  support  contract.  They  are  provided  whenever  the 
specific  objectives  are  focused  on  strengthening  core  government  systems  and  supporting  broader  reforms;  on  fostering 
domestic  accountability  and  strengthening  national  control  mechanisms  (an  important  basis  for  improving  governance  and 
adherence to fundamental values of human rights, democracy and rule of law); and addressing constraints to sustained and 
inclusive growth.  
129 See external evaluation report, paragraph 80, page 23. 

22 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex 1. Evaluation questions 

Relevance  

To what extent did the overall objectives and principles as foreseen in Articles 1 and 2 of the 
Cotonou Agreement as well as in Articles 1 and 2 of the 11th EDF Implementation Regulation 
and the design of the EDF respond to EU priorities and beneficiary needs in 2014? To what 
extent can they accommodate changed parameters since then? 

Information sought in this area includes: 

 

 A  timeline  showing  congruence/divergence  of  the  instrument  against  evolving  context, 
including global challenges, and institutional policy changes e.g. to what extent does the 
EDF  respond  to  the  demands  of  Agenda  2030,  including  the  need  to  co-operate  with 
emerging countries on implementing the SDGs. 

Effectiveness, impact, sustainability 

To what extent does the EDF deliver results against the instrument's objectives, and specific 
EU priorities?130 

Information sought in this area includes: 

  To  what  extent  do  EDF  programmes  contribute  towards  poverty  reduction,  and  more 

specifically towards: 
o  fostering sustainable economic, social and environmental development; 
o  consolidating  and  supporting  democracy,  rule  of  law  and  good  governance,  human 
rights  and  relevant  principles  of  international  law  (,Cotonou  agreement,  EDF 
Implementation Regulation ) 
implementing a rights-based approach encompassing all human rights with a focus on 
the  poor  and  vulnerable  groups  (e.g.  persons  with  disabilities,  children,  indigenous 
groups) (Cotonou agreement, EDF Implementation Regulation) 

o 

  To  what  extent  has  the  EDF  contributed  to  the  European  Union's  priorities  for  smart, 

sustainable and inclusive growth?  

  To  what  extent  does  the  EDF  mainstream  EU  policy  priorities  (e.g.  gender,  climate 
change)  and  other  issues  highlighted  for  mainstreaming  in  the  instrument,  and,  where 
relevant,  deliver  on  the  commitments  including  the  financial  allocations  (Cotonou 
Agreement, part 3, chapter 2, section 4) 

  To what extent does the EDF promote principles of aid effectiveness, such as ownership 
and joint programming (Cotonou agreement, part1, title 1,chapter 1, art 2, Implementation 
Regulation)  

  To what extent are the processes conducive to programming, identification/formulation of 
effective actions at national, regional and continental levels (Cotonou Agreement Annex 
IV)?  To  what  extent  have  the  specific  OCT  guidelines  facilitated  the  programming 
process? 

130 Evaluators will need to look at both the current EDF 2014-2020 and the previous EDF 2007-2013 to respond 
to this question. Evaluators should distinguish the findings between the two periods. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
  To  what  extent  the  process  of  differentiation  has  been  effectively  managed  e.g.  have 
countries  most  in  need  been  given  priority  in  the  resource  allocation  process,  have 
differentiated partnerships with new forms of strategic cooperation been developed as set 
out  in  Agenda  for  Change,  have  any  negative  effects  been  minimised  (Cotonou 
Agreement, Part 1, Title 1, Chapter 1, Article 2) ? 

  To what extent is the EDF flexible enough to respond to changing needs? (e.g. changed 
policy priorities,changed contexts) (Cotonou Agreement, Annex IV, Chapter 1, Articles 5, 
11 and 14) 

  To  what  extent  does  the  EDF  contribute  to  the  aims  and  objectives  of  the  Overseas 
Association Decision? To what extent does the split of fiancial resources between regional 
and  territorial  programmes  contribute  to  the  aims  and  objectives  of  the  Overseas 
Association Decsion?  

  To  what  extend  are  the  OCT  programmes  accompanyed  by  national/terrotorial  policies 

that support sustainable development? 

Efficiency 
To what extent is the EDF delivering efficiently?131 

Information sought in this area includes: 

  What is the ratio of support expenditure to EDF overall budget? 

  How  efficient  is  budget  execution  in  terms  of  time  taken  from  commitments  to 

payments? 

  Have the changes made to EDF 2014 – 2020 from the previous EDF 2007 – 2013 
brought  efficiency  gains?  E.g.  Has  the  new  regional  programmes  management 
brought positive change in terms of efficency of delivery?  

  Are  there  areas,  such  as  administrative/management  procedures,  where  the  EDF 

can be simplified to eliminate unnecessary burden? 

  To what extent is the EDF in line with its implementation Regulation? Specifically 

in terms of : 
- Objectives and general principles, 

- Programming and allocation of funds, 

- Implementation,  

- Decision-making procedures,  

- Final provisions  

 

 To what extent are the following in place and functioning: 

o  appropriate  monitoring  processes  and  indicators  for  measurement  of  the 

performance of the EDF instrument 

o  relevant strategic and operational indicators to measure results achieved by 

the EDF? 

131 Evaluations  will  need  to  compare,  where  possible,  information  from  the  current  EDF  2014-2020  with  the 
previous EDF 2007-2013. 

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
Added value 

To  what  extent  do  the  EDF  programmes  add  value  compared  to  interventions  by  Member 
States or other key donors? 

Information sought in this area includes: 

  Where the EDF is operating in the same field as other donors, does it offer added value in 
terms of size of engagement, particular expertise, and/or particular weight in advocacy? 

Coherence, consistency, complementarity and synergies  

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

Information sought in this area includes: 

  To what extent are the different EDF programmes coherent/overlapping with one another? 
  To what extent are the different EDF programmes aligned with EU development policy? 
  To what extent are the programmes consistent with EU external action policies? 
  To  what  extent  do  the  programmes  complement/overlap/stimulate  synergies  with  other 

external action financing instruments?  

  To what extent does the EDF complement/overlap with other EU instruments outside of 

development policy? 

  To what extent does the EDF complement/overlap with interventions of other donors?  

Leverage 

To what extent has the EDF leveraged further funds and/or political or policy engagement?  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2. 11th EDF reconstructed intervention logic 

26 

 
 
 
 
Annex 3- Procedural information 

This  evaluation  was  initiated  in  2015.  DEVCO  Management  took  the  decision  to  align  the 
11th EDF Performance Review on the Mid-Term Review of the MFF 2014-2020 EFIs so as to 
ensure coherence and consistency. 

The evaluation roadmap was published in November 2015. An Inter-Service Group (ISG) was 
constituted  to  specifically  steer  the  work  of  the  11th  EDF  evaluation.  It  is  composed  of 
representatives from Commission services and the EEAS. 

A  team  of  six  external  evaluators  was  contracted  by  the  Commission  in  August  2016.  The 
induction  period commenced  immediately with a series of interviews with  Commission  and 
EEAS  staff.  The  work  of  the  external  evaluators  was  closely  monitored  by  DG  DEVCO’s 
Unit in charge of ACP coordination, and reviewed by the ad hoc ISG. The latter met on seven 
occasions  with  a  view  in  particular  to  reviewing  the  inception  report,  desk  report,  the 
emerging messages further to the country visits, the drat external evaluation report, the post-
open public consultation revised draft evaluation report and assess the quality of the external 
evaluators’ work. 

There  were  also  four  meetings  of  all  the  external  evaluators  with  the  services  in  charge  of 
monitoring their work and relevant EU staff. The objective of these meetings was to promote 
understanding  and  exchange  on  complementarity  and  synergy  between  the  EFIs  under 
evaluation. 

The evaluation was carried out fully in line with the indications provided in the roadmap. The 
evidence  base  in  particular  consisted  of  primary  sources,  secondary  sources,  and  a 
consultation. A total of eight countries were visited by the evaluation team. Those countries 
were selected by the ISG to ensure coverage of the three main geographical areas where the 
EDF  operates  including  a  range  of  countries  in  Africa,  as  the  continent  is  the  biggest  EDF 
recipient. Attention was paid to include countries which are facing challenges that are high on 
the European agenda (migration, terrorism) and countries hosting regional organisations. Two 
OCTs were also included considering the lack of recent evaluation material on OCTs and the 
need to better understand their needs and challenges. 

List of countries visited by the external evaluation team:  

Region 

Country 

Key characteristics 

Africa 

Zambia 

Southern Africa 

Cooperation approach moved from budget support to projects.  

Burkina 
Faso 

Recent evaluation available (2014) 
11th EDF NIP: EUR 484 M 

Francophone, West Africa. 

Budget support country (recent evaluation available) 

Will  allow  for  regional  dimension  to  be  studied  (the  European  Union  Delegation  (EUD) 

27 

 
 
 
Region 

Country 

Key characteristics 

monitors the Regional Implementation Plan (RIP) for West Africa) 

Burkina  Faso  is  also  covered  by  the  EU  Emergency  Trust  Fund  for  Africa  (Sahel  Region  and 
Lake Chad window) 
11th EDF NIP: EUR 623 M 

Ethiopia  

Horn of Africa. Country covered by Emergency Trust Fund for Africa  

Sector budget support and pooled funding 

Simultaneous  evaluation  mission  with  the  evaluation  mission  of  the  Development  Cooperation 
Instrument (DCI) foreseen132 

Ethiopia hosts the African Union institutions. 
11th EDF NIP: EUR 745 M 

Cameroon  

Project  support,  but  budget  support  currently  being  considered.  Evaluation  covering  EDF  10 
available. 

Cameroon is also covered by the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (Sahel Region and Lake 
Chad window) 

Cameroon  is host to  the Interregional  Coordination  Centre  for  the Implementation of Regional 
Strategy for Maritime Safety and Security in Central and West Africa.  
11th EDF NIP: EUR 282 M 

Pacific 

Timor 
Leste  

Lusophone / Complementarities with the PALOP countries 

Fragile setting. Recent Country Evaluation available 

Importance of governance and human rights 

Support to democracy and elections 

Small State, New Deal 
11th EDF NIP: EUR 95 M 

Large OCT, evaluation of 10th EDF available 

Opportunity to look at collaboration with the ACP countries in the Pacific region 

Budget support recipient 
11th EDF allocation: EUR 29.8 M 

Mixed modalities of support 

Opportunity to look at regional integration. Dominican Republic plays a key role in the regional 
integration strategy for Haiti133. 

11th EDF NIP: EUR 72 M 

New 
Caledonia 

Caribbean 

Dominican 
Republic 

Aruba 

Medium OCT. Opportunity to look at collaboration with ACP countries in the Caribbean region 

11th EDF allocation: EUR 13 M 

132  The  DCI  evaluation  is  also  looking  at  the  Pan-African  programme,  which  would  help  explore 
complementarity with it. 
133 http://ec.europa.eu/development/body/region/docs/rb_en.pdf 

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The consultation took the shape of an on-line 12-week consultation of stakeholders between 
8 February  and  3  May  2017  that  yielded  125  responses  on  the  11th  EDF.  In  addition, 
DG DEVCO organised a series of face-to-face  meetings  with  key stakeholders at  which the 
external  evaluators  presented  their  draft  report  and  received  direct  feedback.  The  meetings 
were as follows: 

  Technical Workshop with representatives of the European Parliament (Secretariat and 
assistants to MEPs), Council of Ministers (Secretariat) and EDF Committee (Member 
States representatives); 

  Civil  society  and  Local  Authorities  representatives  gathered  in  the  Policy  Forum  on 

Development134; 

  ACP States’ Ambassadors and Ministers; 

  OCTs representatives. 

The Council of Ministers’ ACP Working Party also added the 11th EDF Performance Review 
on  the  agenda  of  its  21.03.2017  meeting  and  had  a  robust  discussion  with  the  external 
evaluators. 

The ISG reviewed the quality of the external evaluators' work. The external evaluation report 
is  found  to  be  overall  of  a  good  quality  especially  (despite  diverging  views  from  the 
Directorate General for international cooperation and development on blending), considering 
two main limitations faced by the external evaluators: 

 

the timeframe to complete their work was relatively short considering the complexity 
of the EDF instrument i.e. six months between inception (August 2016) and the first 
draft external evaluation report (January 2017). This short timeframe had an impact on 
the  depth  in  which  some  aspects  of  the  instrument  could  have  been  examined.  The 
external  evaluators  proved  to  be  very  flexible  in  accommodating  additional  factual 
input from Commission services until the very last stage of their report preparation. 

  secondary  sources  of  information  concerning  the  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories 
were  very  limited.  The  mitigation  measure  was  to  provide  as  much  information  and 
data as possible from the relevant DEVCO service 

The reliability of the data used by the external evaluators is found to be high. The quality of 
the data can easily be verified through the sources that are systematically mentioned. In case 
of information emanating exclusively from EU sources, the evaluators attempted as much as 
possible to triangulate with external sources of information to alleviate any possible bias. In 
addition,  information  was  collected  through  interviews  with  key  internal  and  external 
interlocutors.  A  number  of  evaluations  were  reviewed.  As  these  were  commissioned  by  the 

134 The Policy Forum on Development  brings together Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities from 
the European Union and partner countries with European Institutions and bodies to exchange about development 
cooperation. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
EU, they are quality assured. The quantity of information analyses also appears satisfactory. 
The overall evidence used by the external evaluation was quality assured by the ISG. 

30 

 
 
Annex 3a Response to the opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Overall opinion: POSITIVE 

Further 

(C) 
recommendations 

considerations 

and 

(1)  Staff  Working  Document  presentation. 
The  SWD 
self-standing 
should  be  a 
document,  which  a  non-expert  reader  can 
understand  without  having  to  consult  the 
external  study.  As  it  stands,  it  is  difficult  to 
grasp  the  full  range  of  different  aspects, 
including to what extent the assessment relies 
on  the  external  report  versus  other  material 
and  whether  or  not  the  Services  endorse  the 
studies'  conclusions.  The  SWD  could  better 
explain  the  context  of  EDF  programming  in 
developing  countries  and  what  factors  drive 
effectiveness 

(2) Analysis and methodology. A number of 
characteristics  of  the  EDF  pose  constraints 
for the evaluation analysis, including the very 
broad  conditions  for  interventions  in  some 
100  very  different  countries  of  all  sizes,  the 
very  broad  objectives  pursued,  the  relatively 
generous  flexibility  allowing  for  reallocation 
of  resources  within  the  programming  period, 
the  absence  of  a 
reliable  monitoring 
framework,  the  reliance  on  partnerships  and 
domestic  policies,  and  the  many  external 
factors 
results.  These 
constraints  should  clearly  appear  upfront, 
while placing all relevant elements better into 
context. Other relevant  issues that have  been 
left  out  include  the  main  changes  from  the 
10th EDF to the 11th EDF, and the relevance 
of  mutual  ownership  of 
the  Cotonou 
Partnership.  The  report  could  address  them 

affecting 

end 

Response 
from 
Cooperation and Development 

DG 

International 

More  information  has  been  provided  in  the 
SWD in order to better explain key issues to 
non-expert  readers.  For  example:  the  section 
the 
on  "Method"  explains  more  clearly 
relationship  between 
the 
the  SWD  and 
external  evaluation  report  including  where 
there  are  any  divergences  between  the  two; 
the  "Method"  and  the  "Scope"  provide  more 
clarity on the level of the evaluation; and the 
"Section  5"  gives  more  information  on  the 
role  of  the  National/Regional  Authorising 
Officer; and the "Method" also provides more 
information  on  the  factors  that  have  an 
impact on effectiveness. 

"Method".  These 

Several  characteristics  that  pose  constraints 
when evaluating the effectiveness of the EDF 
have  been  added  to  the  limitation  section 
characteristics 
under 
include:  the  broad  nature  of  the  EDF's 
the 
objectives  and 
countries 
the 
instrument;  and  the  lack  of  a  systematic 
monitoring  and  evaluation  system  defined  in 
the legal base. 

the  broad  nature  of 
that  are  covered  under 

also 

includes  more 
The  SWD  now 
information  on  the  changes  that  have  been 
made  since  the  10th  EDF  including  lessons 
learned from 10th EDF programming process 
(see  section  on  the  "Responses  to  evaluation 
questions").  

Information 
"Effectiveness"  about 

has 

been 

added 
the  EDF 

under 
Impact 

31 

 
 
 
   
too. 

intervention 

The 
logic  could  accurately 
reflect  links  between  spending  decisions  and 
operational  and  strategic  goals.  A  check  on 
effectiveness  means  to  assess  how  well  ex-
ante objectives have been met (e.g. as set out 
in the original Impact Assessment from 2011 
of  the  11th  EDF).  The  SWD  should  clarify 
what the implications and possible limitations 
are of evaluating 'at instrument level' relative 
to  'policy  level',  'programming',  'modality'  or 
'project'  levels.  It  should  point  out  how  the 
newly  implemented  results  framework  will 
address  the  limits  to  provide  evidence  for 
evaluation.  The  SWD  should  report  more 
accurately  on  the  stakeholder  views  to  shed 
more  light  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  EDF, 
taking account of their status as beneficiaries 
or not 

(3) Coherence. Coherence has many facets in 
the  context  of  the  EDF.  Internal  coherence 
relates to issues of human rights, gender, etc. 
Also  important  is  coherence  with  e.g.  other 
external policy programmes, with internal EU 
policies  and  with  efforts  of  Member  States, 
especially in view of the upcoming MFF. The 
analysis of coherence would gain from being 
more systematic 

more 

thoroughly 

(4)  References  to  the  external  study.  The 
SWD  needs  to  address  the  external  study 
conclusions 
and 
systematically.  It  needs  to  make  clear  where 
the  SWD  endorses  conclusions  identified  by 
the  external  study  and  where  not,  and  the 
reasons  and  evidence  for  this.  Notably,  the 
external  report  raises  a  number  of  concerns 
which  are  not  addressed  in  the  draft  SWD 
(e.g.  deterioration  of  partnership,  decreasing 
transparency  and  participation  of  CSOs, 
insufficient  lesson  learning  and  absence  of 
exit  strategies).  The report could  also further 
discuss the identified problems (for examples 
with NAOs and RAOs) and clarify what these 
problems  constitute  and  their  magnitude.  In 

Assessment  of  2011  and  the  problem  drivers 
that  have  been  addressed  since  then,  for 
example the concept of sector concentration. 

"Method" 

Further limitations have been added under the 
section  on 
the 
implications of having the evaluation pitched 
at  instrument  level  rather  than  policy  or 
project level.   

clarify 

to 

The section on "Implementation state of play" 
gives information on the results framework in 
particular  on  the  data  it  can  provide  and  its 
limitations.   

Stakeholder  views  are  included  under  the 
section  on  "Responses  to  the  evaluation 
questions" and it has been made explicit what 
is their status each time they are referenced.   

in 

The  section  under  "Responses  to  evaluation 
questions" includes an analysis of all forms of 
coherence  as  defined 
the  Terms  of 
Reference  for  the  external  evaluation,  for 
example,  coherence  between  the  external 
financing 
coherence  with 
internal  EU  policies,  and  coherence  with 
other  donors  (Member  States).  The  text 
clarifies  which  forms  of  coherence  are  being 
referred 
the 
to  and  makes 
assumptions in the intervention logic.   

instruments, 

links  with 

and 

external 

Under the section on "Method" text has been 
added to make clear the relationship between 
the  SWD 
study. 
the 
Furthermore,  information  has  been  provided 
on  where 
the  external 
the  SWD  and 
evaluation do not concur. The reasons for the 
differences are explained under the section on 
"Responses  to  the  evaluation  questions",  in 
particular see the part on "Leverage".  

in 

The  SWD  tackles  many  of  the  problems 
the  external  evaluation  for 
identified 
example:  tensions  between  objectives  (see 
section 
decreasing 
"Conclusions"); 
transparency  (see  section  on  "Responses  to 
evaluation  questions");  and  diminishing 

on 

32 

 
 
 
 
general, more detail is needed on the specific 
conclusions  in  order  to  be  operational  for 
future policy making 

participation of CSOs due to increase size of 
grant contracts (see section on "Responses to 
evaluation questions"). 

relevant 

to  what  extent 

(5)  Additional  comments.  The  analysis  of 
efficiency could identify the various types of 
involved  and  as  far  as  possible 
costs 
benchmark  against  other  programmes.  It 
could  also  discuss 
the 
programme  and  it  implementation  have  been 
simplified.  It  might  also  comment  on  the 
proportionality  of  the 
'one  size  fits  all' 
approach.  The  report  could  more  fully 
interactions  with  and 
describe 
incentives  for  partner  countries  as  this  is  an 
important aspect of programme effectiveness. 
The  issue  of  financial  instruments,  blending 
and leverage effect could be better addressed 
to  consider  any  unused  potential.  The  SWD 
could  also  include  considerations  of  how  to 
better 
of  EDF 
programmes  in  the  future  and  whether  the 
'results'  framework  under 
implementation 
will  be  sufficient  for  this  purpose.  It  could 
also  discuss  how  flexibility  can  be  attained 
while at the same time respecting the need for 
accountability and ensuring effectiveness. 

effectiveness 

assess 

More  text  has  also  been  added  on  the 
National/Regional Authorising Officers under 
the  section  on  "Responses  to  evaluation 
questions"  in  the  section  on  "Responses  to 
evaluation questions".  

The  section  on  "Conclusions"  has  been 
modified  to  give  the  readers  a  better  idea  of 
the order of magnitude of each point raised.  

Text  on  costs  and  benefits  is  included  in  the 
SWD  (under  the  section  on  "Implementation 
the  extent  possible. 
State  of  Play") 
Comparisons  between  other  programmes  are 
difficult due to a lack of comparable data.  

to 

the  SWD  states  how 

Under  the  section  "Implementation  State  of 
Play" 
the  results 
framework  can  be  used  to  measure  the 
effectiveness of the instrument.  

33 

 
 
Annex 4 -Synopsis report of the stakeholders' consultation 

The stakeholder consultation for the performance review of the 11th EDF began in late 2015 
and came to an end in May 2017. The majority of the consultation activities took place during 
the  Open  Public  Consultation  at  the  beginning  of  2017.  As  highlighted  in  the  evaluation 
Roadmap 135 ,  the  consultation  approach  involved  collecting  input  from  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholders on the 11th EDF at its mid-point.  

1.  Evaluation Roadmaps 

The consultation process began with the publication of the evaluation Roadmap, which was 
published  on  the  European  Commission  website  November  2015.  As  per  the  Better 
Regulation  guidelines136,  the  aim  of  the  Roadmap  was  to  give  stakeholders  and  the  general 
public an early opportunity to provide feedback on the evaluation and its approach. However, 
no feedback was received.   

2.  Interviews 

Whilst the evaluation approach used by the external evaluation maximised the use of available 
secondary  information,  importance  was  given  to  collecting  primary  data  through  interviews 
and  country  visits137.    The  external  evaluation  report  mentions  that  "The  interviews  were  a 
critical source of evidence for the evaluation"138. 

The  external  evaluators  proceeded  to  a  stakeholders'  analysis  and  consultation  strategy 139 
under the guidance of the Inter-Service Group that steered their work.  Sampling techniques 
were applied to ensure a selective approach amongst each stakeholder group, given the many 
thousands of stakeholders directly involved with the European Development Fund. 

The objectives of the interviews were to (i) address gaps in the documentation reviewed, (ii) 
better  understand  realities  on  the  ground,  especially  during  the  eight  field  visits,  and  (iii) 
triangulate  findings  especially  when  the  evidence  collected  was  based  on  internal  EU 
documentation and sources. 

Interviews took place at three levels140: 

  With  global  informants  to  complement  areas  that  were  inadequately  covered  from 

desk review; 

  With regional and country level informants by phone to complement areas not covered 

from desk review; 

  During  the  eight  field  visits  including  focus  group  discussions  with  stakeholders 

groups. 

The external evaluation team conducted over 170 semi-structured interviews with more than 
300  informants,  including  over  120  interviews  at  country  level141.    These  interviews  were 

135 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_devco_003_evaluation_edf_en.pdf  
136 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_tool_en.htm  
137 See  Annex  4  'Methodology',  page  48  of  the  external  evaluation  report,  (at  Annex  6  to  this  Staff  Working 
Document). 
138 Ibid, page 52. 
139 Ibid, table A7, page 54. 
140 Ibid, figure A5 
141 Ibid, table A3, page 33. 

34 

 
 
                                                 
undertaken  progressively,  throughout  the  evaluation  phases  leading  to  the  draft  report.    All 
interview  notes  were  included  in  an  interview  compendium.    These  notes  and  compendium 
have  been  treated  as  confidential  by  the  external  evaluators.    The  European  Commission 
services  have  not  had  access  to  them.    However,  it  is  possible  to  assert  that  the  external 
evaluation  has  included  numerous  elements  from  those  interviews  in  the  report  as  sources 
quote Meeting Notes with the abbreviation MN142.   

3.  Open Public Consultation – 7 February to 3 May 2017 

The Open Public Consultation on the draft evaluation report took place during 12 weeks and 
closed on the 3rd of May.  It was carried out at the same time as the consultation activities for 
the  set  of  ten  External  Financing  Instruments.  The  aim  was  to  gather  feedback  from  the 
broadest  possible  range  of  stakeholders,  including  those  in  beneficiary  countries  and  in  the 
EU Member States, on the emerging conclusions from the evaluations. 

This  Annex  focuses  on  the  retrospective  aspects  that  were  covered  under  the  Open  Public 
Consultation. However, there was also a forward-looking element to  the consultation which 
aimed  to  gather  preliminary  ideas  on  the  future  External  Financing  Instruments  after  the 
current ones have expired by 31 December 2020. 

The  Consultation  took  the  shape  of  (i)  an  online  consultation  which  included  some  guiding 
questions  to  facilitate  providing  feedback  and  (ii)  face  to  face  meetings  organised  with  key 
stakeholders.  In that respect, a technical workshop with representatives of Council working 
groups and of the EDF committee, together with representatives of the European Parliament, 
took place end of March 2017.   

a.  OPC online contributions 

In total, 125 respondents reacted to the OPC through the web-based platform concerning the 
performance reviews of the European Union’s (EU) External Financial Instruments; of these, 
62  addressed  all  or  some  of  the  four  EDF  guiding  questions.  The  main  category  of 
respondents were organisations and associations, both at global level (all External Financing 
Instruments)  and  for  the  EDF:  28  associations  responded  to  the  four  guiding  questions 
specifically  targeting  the  EDF.  The  EDF  also  received  a  high  level  of  interest  from  public 
authorities (17 responses). Very little input came from the private sector (2) or citizens (2); a 
few more from EU platforms or networks (8).  Responses came from within 15 EU Member 
States, only 4 ACP countries and 8 other countries. 

The  four  guiding  questions  asked  in  line  with  the  findings  and  conclusions  of  the  external 
evaluators were as follows:  

o  1) How well do you think the 11th EDF has addressed its objectives?  

o  2) Has the 11th EDF, for which partner country ownership is a specific feature, 

reflected the views of beneficiary countries and the full range of their 
constituencies?  

o  3) Do you think the regional and intra-ACP cooperation is efficient, effective and 

coherent with country level actions? 

142 See for example paragraph 61 on page 18 of the external evaluation report (Annex 6 to this Staff Working 
Document) 

35 

 
 
                                                 
o  The fourth question was open for any further comment. 

b.  Summary of OPC contributions 

Annex  4a  below  provides  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  input  received  through  the  on-line 
consultation,  and  the  manner  in  which  this  input  was  taken  into  account  for  the  evaluation.  
The summary below presents the main thrust of the responses received. 

The question that received most interest was question one on whether the 11th EDF has met its 
objectives  (56  responses),  followed  by  the  question  on  consultation  process  (45),  then  the 
open  question  (37).    The  least  interest  was  paid  to  the  question  on  regional  and  intra-ACP 
cooperation (29). 

For  question  one,  the  vast  majority  of  the  contributions  came  from  organisations  based  in 
Europe.  

The  contributions  of  the  public  authorities  -  18  in  total,  including  one  Overseas 
Country/Territory  (OCT)  -  were  largely  positive  and  reflected  agreement  with  the  main 
findings of the evaluation against the different evaluation criteria.  

There  was  overall  agreement  that  the  EDF  continues  to  be  highly  relevant  for  poverty 
reduction.  There  was  also  recognition  of  the  tension  highlighted  in  the  report  around  the 
pressure of responding to other agendas, although various respondents (Member States) were 
of the view that EDF reserves have been critical in addressing emerging priorities of the EU 
(migration and humanitarian crises).  

The contributions of organisations and associations constituted the majority of the responses 
to  this  question  (23).  Overall  the  responses  showed  agreement  with  the  findings  of  the 
evaluation.  Various  comments  also  showed  agreement  that  there  are  still  insufficient 
synergies  between  different  levels  of  the  EDF,  combined  with  a  lack  of  transparency  and 
coherence in regional programming. 

Other  comments  from  public  authorities  or  organisations  were  examined  by  the  external 
evaluation, but not in detail by this Staff Working Document because they were not directed 
at the instrument as such but at its implementation (where there are other legal bases, e.g. the 
Financial  Regulation143apply).  For  example:  the  limits  of  a  one-size  fits  all  approach  with 
implementation  procedures,  in  particular  for  the  OCTs;  how  trust  funds  and  blending 
contribute to fragmentation and lack of transparency; and how efficiency gains have been at 
the expense of CSOs).   

There were also a few  observations which while interesting are not reflected in the external 
evaluation, such as: 

Comments on the lack of an EU instrument for Middle Income Countries  - which is 

• 
beyond the scope of this instrument evaluation.  

• 
Observations  on  the  lack  of  opportunities  for  European  contractors  -  these  were  not 
taken into account as they do not pertain to the realm of an instrument-level assessment of this 
kind. 

143 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/regulations/regulations_en.cfm  

36 

 
 
                                                 
On question two: forty-five responses were received to the question about ownership, most of 
them  stemming  from  organisations  and  associations  or  EU  platforms.  Unfortunately,  not  a 
single  respondent  was  a  government  representative  of  the  ACP  countries,  who  are  directly 
concerned  by  the  finding  that  ownership  has  suffered  under  the  11th  EDF.  However,  the 
subject  was  discussed  and  commented  upon  at  the  meeting  with  the  ACP  ministers  in  May 
2017.  

Results  of  these  discussions  and  online  input  from  Europe  supported  the  findings  of  the 
evaluation  that:  (i)  despite  strong  existing  features  (such  as  alignment  with  the  partner 
countries' development priorities, and the existence of the National Authorising Officer role), 
there  was  a  certain loss of  ownership  from  the  10th  to  the  11th  EDF  and  (ii)  there  was  poor 
progress  in  widening  public  participation  in  the  different  phases  of  the  cooperation  cycle  – 
especially for Civil Society Organisations and cooperatives. 

A  total  of  29  responses  addressed  question  three,  related  to  efficiency,  effectiveness  and 
coherence  of  regional  and  intra-ACP  cooperation.  Overall  the  comments  support  the 
evaluation findings, without disagreements. The feedback included: limited synergies between 
EDF  component  programmes,  as  well  as  limited  dialogue  and  consultation.    Several 
comments pointed to the limited engagement of the regional cooperation with civil society, in 
contrast  with  the  legal dispositions  of  the  Cotonou  Partnership  Agreement.  There  were  also 
some  positive  comments  addressing  regional  and  intra-ACP  cooperation.  These  recognised 
the importance of the African Peace Facility. 

Under the fourth, open question, contributions touched  on a wide variety of different issues 
including  some  input  on  the  tension  between  EDF's  principles  and  EU  Trust  Funds  and 
blending. 

A  total  of  39  responses  were  received  to  this  question.  Most  responses  were  provided  by 
organisations  (16),  followed  by  public  authorities  (13)  and  EU  platforms  (6).  In  terms  of 
origin,  a  total  of  ten  responses  were  from  organisations  or  entities  based  in  Belgium.  The 
remaining responses were equally distributed among different countries. Three contributions 
were  made  by  ACP  countries  and  OCTs  covered  by  the  EDF.  Since  this  question  was  very 
open,  the  contributions  are  difficult  to  summarise,  but  in  general,  the  responses  tend  to 
confirm the findings of the evaluation.  

4.  Face-to-face meetings 

During the Open Public Consultation phase, a series of face-to-face meetings were organised 
as follows144: 

  Technical workshop with representatives of the European Parliament (Secretariats of 
the  Committees  and  assistants  to  MEPs),  Council  working  groups  and  EDF 
Committee; 

  Civil  society  and  Local  Authorities  representatives  gathered  in  the  Policy  Forum  on 

Development145; 

144 See Annex 3 to the present Staff Working Document. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                 
  ACP States’ Ambassadors and Ministers; 

  OCTs representatives. 

A total of 320 stakeholders participated in these face-to-face meetings.   

All  the  above-mentioned  meetings  provided  an  opportunity  for  the  external  consultants  to 
present their preliminary results and engage in a discussion with key stakeholders as well as 
creating an opportunity for the stakeholders to give input and ask clarifying questions before 
submitting their final feedback. 

More questions than feedback on the findings of the external evaluation were provided at the 
technical workshop.  A few questions touched upon the evaluation methodology such as on 
the  choice  of  countries  visited;  another  question  was  aimed  at  clarifying  the  sources  of 
information. The majority of the comments concerned the future direction of the instrument 
and will not be dealt with in this Staff Working Document.  

The gathering of the Policy Forum for Development146 with Civil Society Organisations and 
Local  Authorities  did  not  directly  result  in  changes  into  the  external  evaluation  report  that 
already  contained  a  series  of  considerations  related  to  these  actors,  for  example  on  their 
involvement in consultations.  Participants raised a number of comments regarding access to 
funds, including that more opportunities should be made available for CSOs/LAs to apply for 
projects  across  the  set  of  external  financing  instruments.    Technical  questions  on  the 
evaluation  methodology  were  raised  such  as  the  extent  to  which  CSOs/LAs  were  consulted 
during the field trips that took place.  Questions were raised on mainstreaming commitments 
such as climate change and whether the targets were being met. Others also wanted to know 
more about the role of private sector in the instruments.  

Representatives  of  ACP  States  welcomed  the  opportunity  of  exchanging  with  the  external 
evaluators.   As  with  the  other  face-to-face  meetings,  clarifications  were  sought.    The  report 
was well received.  The ACP States representatives stressed the importance of the EU-ACP 
partnership as a fundamental element of the EDF, and explained what they viewed as a lack of 
equality of partnership in terms of programming and implementation.  The flexibility of the 
EDF as an instrument was acknowledged with the mentioning that the rolling programming 
that  enables  the  necessary  adaptation  to  changing  needs.    On  the  role  of  the  NAO,  it  was 
mentioned that the situation varies from country to country and that the relationship with EU 
Delegations should also be considered in the equation.  The external evaluation team used the 
input  from  ACP  States  to  nuance  some  of  their  findings,  as  evidenced  for  example  in 
paragraph 33 on page 11147. 

The OCTs and EU Member States that participated in the meeting (including through video-
conference) briefly mentioned some of their specificities.  They asked clarifications from the 

145 The Policy Forum on Development  brings together Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities from 
the European Union and partner countries with European Institutions and bodies to exchange about development 
cooperation. 
146 The Policy Forum on Development  brings together Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities from 
the European Union and partner countries with European Institutions and bodies to exchange about development 
cooperation. 
147 See Annex 6 to this Staff Working Document 

38 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
external evaluators, mainly as to whether some findings applied to OCTs as well or solely to 
ACP  States,  for  example  on  complementarity  among  donors.    Experience  was  shared  about 
EDF  response  to  emergency  situations.    The  information  thus  gathered  did  not  lead  to 
modifications to the draft external evaluation report. 

The  Council  of  Ministers’  ACP  Working  Party  also  discussed  the  11th  EDF  Performance 
Review  (28  March  2017)  with  the  external  evaluators.    The  draft  external  evaluation  report 
was  globally  well  received  as  balanced  and  clear.    Questions  were  raised  on  the  evaluation 
process, and on the content of the findings.  Discussions provided their views on the potential 
risk  for  the  EDF  principles  of  partnership  and  ownership  identified  in  the  draft  report 
regarding  the  European  Emergency  Trust  Fund 148  governance  rules  and  recourse  to 
accelerated  procedures.    Comments  were  made  on  the  balance  between  the  instrument's 
predictability and flexibility.  Cross-cutting issues were felt to deserve more attention in the 
report.    Concern  was  expressed  about  the  finding  on  the  difficulty  to  assess  the  results  at 
instrument level.  The external evaluators increased the information on cross-cutting issues in 
their  report,  and  further  verified  information  regarding  the  above-mentioned  Trust  Fund, 
partly as a follow up to this meeting and partly as a result of further interviews with European 
Commission staff. 

148 European  Emergency  Trust  Fund  for  stability  and  addressing  root  causes  of  migration.    See  this  Staff 
Working Document, section 5, paragraph on relevance. 

39 

 
 
                                                 
Annex  4a.  External  Evaluation  Summary  of  Open  Public  Consultation 
Contributions 

This report has been prepared by 

Report authors: Muriel Visser (Team Leader), Karolyn Thunnissen, Javier Pereira, 
Paolo Scalia, Ana García Femenía, Fran Girling 

Consortium composed by DAI, Mokoro, Geotest, ICF International, HCL, 
Technopolis, Europe Limited, ETI Consulting 

Lead company 

FWC COM 2015 

EuropeAid/137211/DH/SER/Multi 

Specific Contract No°2015/368452 

Evaluation of the 11th European Development Fund 
(EDF) 

This evaluation was commissioned by the Evaluation Unit of 
the Directorate-General for International Cooperation and 
Development (European Commission) 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The opinions expressed in this document represent the authors’ points of view 
which are not necessarily shared by the European Commission nor by the 
authorities of the countries concerned. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
List of acronyms and abbreviations  43 

Table of Contents 

1 

2 

3 

Introduction 

Overview 

Question 1: Addressing EDF objectives 

3.1.1 

3.1.2 

Summary of contributions 

Response of the evaluation team 

45 

45 

46 

47 

51 

Question  2:  Extent  to  which  the  11th  EDF  has  taken  account  of  the  views  of 

4 
stakeholders 

4.1.1 

4.1.2 

Summary of contributions 

Response of the evaluation team 

Question  3:  Efficiency,  effectiveness  and  coherence  between  country,  regional  and 

5 
Intra-ACP cooperation 

5.1.1 

5.1.2 

Summary of contributions 

Response of the evaluation team 

6 

Question 4: Other views on the EDF   

6.1.1 

6.1.2 

Summary of contributions 

Response of the evaluation team 

7 

Question 5: Other views common to several or all instruments. 

7.1.1 

7.1.2 

Summary of contributions 

Response of the evaluation team 

52 

53 

56 

56 

57 

59 

59 

59 

62 

63 

63 

65 

67 

Annex 1. 
review assessment 

Outcome  of  OPC  responses  and  extent  of  disagreement  with  performance 

Tables 

Table 1. 

Table 2. 

Response rate to the OPC on EU’s EFIs by category of respondent   

Number of responses received by category of respondent and question. 

45 

46 

Table 3. 
objectives, by type of respondent and country of origin of respondent 

Number of responses to the question about whether the EDF has addressed its 

47 

Table 4. 
and country of origin of respondent 

Number of responses to the question about ownership, by type of respondent 

53 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
60 

63 

67 

67 

67 

68 

Table 5. 
cooperation, by type of respondent and country of origin of respondent 

Number  of  responses 

the  question  about  regional  and 

to 

intra-ACP 

57 

Number of responses to the question “other views”, by type of respondent and 

Number  of  responses  to  the  question  about  EFIs,  by  type  of  respondent  and 

Table 6. 
country of origin of respondent 

Table 7. 
country of origin of respondent 

Table 8. 
review assessment on addressing EDF objectives 

Outcome of the OPC responses and extent of disagreement with performance 

Table 9. 
review assessment on the issue of ownership  

Outcome of the OPC responses and extent of disagreement with performance 

Outcome  of  the  OPC  responses  and  extent  of  disagreement  with  findings  for 

Table 10. 
regional and intra-ACP cooperation   

Table 11. 
review assessment on the issue of EFIs 

Outcome of the OPC responses and extent of disagreement with performance 

Figures 

Figure 1. 

Number of responses received by category of respondent and question 

46 

List of acronyms and abbreviations 

APF 

BS 

CPA 

CSO 

DCI 

DP 

EDF 

EFI 

ET 

EU 

EUD 

EUTFA 

HQ 

ILO 

LA 

LDC 

LIC 

African Peace Keeping Facility 

Budget Support 

Cotonou Partnership Agreement 

Civil Society Organisation 

Development Cooperation Instrument 

Development Partner 

European Development Fund 

External Financial Instrument 

Evaluation Team 

European Union 

European Union Delegation 

European Union Trust Fund for Africa  

Headquarters 

International Labour Organization 

Local Authority 

Less Developed Country 

Low Income Country 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LRG 

MIC 

MS 

NAO 

NGO 

NIP 

OCT 

OPC 

RIP 

SDG 

UN 

Local and Regional Government 

Middle Income Country 

Member State 

National Authorizing Officer 

Non-Government Organisation  

National Implementation Plan 

Overseas Countries and Territories 

Open Public Consultation 

Regional Indicative Programme 

Sustainable Development Goal 

United Nations 

44 

 
 
 
1. Introduction 

1. 
The Open Public Consultation (OPC) on the nine evaluations of the European Union (EU) 
External Financing Instruments (EFIs) was launched on the 7th of February 2017, and closed on the 
3rd  of  May  2017.  It  included  an  open  access  platform  for  responses  to  the  evaluation  reports.  This 
report presents a summary of the responses received to the report of the Performance Review of the 
European Development Fund (EDF) over the OPC period. 

2. Overview 

2. 
In total, 125 respondents reacted to the OPC through the web-based platform concerning the 
performance reviews of the European Union’s (EU) External Financial Instruments (EFI); of these, 
half  addressed  all  or  some  of  the  four  European  Development  Fund  (EDF)  guiding  questions.  The 
main  category  of  respondents  were  organisations  and  associations,  both  at  global  level  (for  the  9 
performance  reviews)  and  for  the  EDF:  28  associations  responded  to  the  four  guiding  questions 
specifically targeting the EDF. The EDF also received a high level of interest from public authorities 
and  EU  platforms/networks  or  associations.  Table  1  shows  the  response  rate  by  category  of 
respondent.  

Table 1.  Response rate to the OPC on EU’s EFIs by category of respondent 

Organisation or association 
Public authority 
EU platform, network, or association 
Citizen/individual 
Industry, business or workers' organisations 
Research/academia 
Consultancy 
Other 
Grand Total 

Number of 
respondents 

Total 

62 
25 
11 
10 
8 
5 
2 
2 
125 

for EDF  
28 
17 
8 
2 
2 
4 
0 
1 
62 

share of 
total 

45% 
68% 
73% 
20% 
25% 
80% 
0% 
50% 
50% 

Source: ET calculation based on OPC responses as of 8th of May 2017 

3. 
Looking at the respondents to EDF questions by country of origin, responses were received 
from 27 different countries, 15 EU countries, 3 European non-EU countries, 4 African Caribbean and 
Pacific (ACP) countries and 5 other countries. Belgium was the most represented country in terms of 
respondents.  

4. 
It is to be noted that not all respondents responded to all the EDF questions. As illustrated 
Table  2  and  Figure  1  below,  there  is  a  strong  decrease  of  response  rate  moving  from  the  first 
question  (concerning  the  extent  to  which  EDF11  managed  to  address  its  objectives)  to  the  second 
question (asking whether the EDF11 reflected the views of beneficiary countries and the full range of 
their constituencies) and then to the third question (looking into the efficiency and  effectiveness of 
intra-ACP and regional cooperation and its coherence with country cooperation). For the last, open, 
question  for  EDF,  there  was  an  increase  in  responses.  The  very  last  question  asked  for  any  other 
views common to several or all instruments. 

45 

 
 
 
  
  
Table 2.  Number of responses received by category of respondent and question. 

Organisation or association 
Public authority 
EU platform, network, or association 
Industry, business or workers' organisations 
Research/academia 
Citizen/individual 
Consultancy 
Other 
Grand Total 

Q1 
Objectives 
addressed 
23 
18 
6 
2 
4 
2 

1 
56 

Q2 
Ownership 

17 
12 
8 
1 
4 
2 

1 
45 

Q3  
Regional & 
intra-ACP 
10 
12 
3 

2 
2 

29 

Q4  
Other 

Across 
EFIs 

15 
13 
6 
1 
1 
1 

37 

18 
6 
6 

1 
1 

1 
33 

Source: ET calculation based on OPC responses as of 10th of May 2017 

Figure 1. Number  of  responses  received  by  category  of  respondent  and 

question 

Other

Citizen/individual

Research/academia

Industry, business or
workers's organisations
EU platform, network, or
association

Organisation or
association

Public authority

Q4: Other

Q3: intra-ACP &
regional

Q2: ownership

Q1: Objectives
addressed

0

5

10

15

20

25

Source: ET, based on OPC responses as of 10th of May 2017 

5. 
The  next  section  of  the  report  summarizes  the  contributions  for  each  of  the  questions.  It 
provides an overview of the main contributions in terms of their origin, the key messages that were 
conveyed, as well as of any changes that this entailed in the evaluation report. 

Question 1: Addressing EDF objectives  

Question 1: How well do you think the 11th EDF has addressed its objectives? The main 
assessment  criteria  for 
impact  and 
sustainability;  efficiency,  EU  added  value;  coherence,  consistency,  complementarity  and 
synergies;  and  leverage.  Feel  free  to  comment  on  the  findings,  conclusions  or 
recommendations for any/all of the criteria. 

the  evaluation  are:  relevance;  effectiveness, 

46 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summary of contributions 

6. 
This question covered a very wide range of possible contributions, across all the evaluation 
criteria covered by the report. Organisations or associations (21 responses) and public authorities (18 
responses) formed the bulk of the 56 responses to this question. As noted above, the vast majority of 
the contributions came from organisations based in Europe.  

Table 3. 

Number of responses to the question about whether the EDF has addressed its 
objectives, by type of respondent and country of origin of respondent 

r
o
,

k
r
o
w
t
e
n

,

m
r
o
f
t
a
l
p
U
E

l
a
u
d
i
v
i
d
n
i
/
n
e
z
i
t
i

C
1 

n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a
r
o
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o
'
s
r
e
k
r
o
w

r
o
s
s
e
n
i
s
u
b

,
y
r
t
s
u
d
n
I

1 

11 

n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

5 

1 

1 
1 
1 
1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 
1 
1 
23 

1 

2 

1 

2 

6 

a
i
m
e
d
a
c
a
/
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
a

c
i
l
b
u
P

r
e
h
t
O

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 
3 
1 
1 
1 
1 

1 
1 

2 
1 

1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

18 

4 

l
a
t
o
T
d
n
a
r
G
1 
1 
20 
1 
2 
3 
2 
1 
3 
1 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
3 
1 
56 

Albania 
Austria 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Haiti 
Italy 
Jordan 
Kenya 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Moldova 
Morocco 
Netherlands 
Nouvelle-Calédonie 
Poland 
Slovak Republic  
Spain 
Sweden 
Togo 
Turkey 
UK 
Ukraine 
Yemen 
Grand Total 

Source: ET, OPC analysis of 10th of May 2017 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Views of public authorities 

7. 
The  contributions  of  the  public  authorities  –-  18  in  total,  including  one  Overseas 
Country/Territory (OCT) –- were largely positive and reflected agreement with the main findings of 
the evaluation against the different evaluation criteria.  

8. 
There  was  overall  agreement  that  the  EDF  continues  to  be  highly  relevant  for  poverty 
reduction. There was also recognition of the tension highlighted in the report around the pressure of 
responding to other agendas, although various respondents (member states –- MS) were of the view 
that  EDF  reserves  have  been  critical  in  addressing  emerging  priorities  of  the  EU  (migration  and 
humanitarian crises). Others, however, were concerned about the increasing lack of transparency on 
decision-making  (which  is  noted  in  the  report).  Some  tension  is  therefore  noted  here.  Various 
respondents  suggested  that  the  use  of  EU  funds  for  these  agendas  should  be  evaluated  against  the 
EDF’s poverty reduction objectives, with one observation of the need for being vigilant on how the 
private sector might be benefiting from blending arrangements. 

9. 
Two  respondents  noted  that  while  EDF  is  relevant,  the  EU  lacks  an  adequate  basis  for 
development cooperation with Upper Middle Income Countries (MICs), although poverty is a concern 
in these countries, and that there is insufficient focus on private sector development. 

10. 
Various responses echoed agreement on the territorial scope, concerns about the one-size fits 
all approach, and the need to review procedures, as well as broad agreement with the concerns raised 
in the evaluation report on insufficient lesson learning, monitoring (too much focus on procedures, 
too little on results), challenges to sustainability and absence of exit strategies. Broad agreement was 
also voiced through various comments  that flexibility remains  a  challenge, although some changes 
have  been  made,  and  a  particular  concern  that  these  changes  have  not  made  a  difference  at 
operational level, and in particular for OCTs. Concerns by respondents echoed those reported by the 
evaluation  about  the  fact  that  efficiency  gains  have  come  at  the  expense  of  decline  in  partner 
participation, especially Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) (see also Q2). 

11. 
Two  respondents  felt  more  prominence  could  be  given  to  the  important  achievements  at 
regional level in the Pacific, and also noted the importance of Budget Support (BS) for OCTs, but 
with the observation that there is too much focus on procedures, and too little focus on anticipating 
challenges  with  BS  and  ensuring  OCTs  can  handle  these.  There  were  various  comments  of 
agreement  that  there  is  insufficient  understanding  of  OCTs,  with  Headquarters  (HQ)  and  expertise 
that  is  put  at  the  disposal  of  OCTs  not  sufficiently  cognizant  of  OCT  specific  concerns  and 
procedures. 

12. 
Most respondents agreed that added value of the EDF lies mainly in the volume of money 
(as well as geographical scope and long-term horizon, and presence of EU in countries where MS are 
not  present).  Some  responses  also  highlighted  the  added  value  of  the  EU  as  an  honest  broker  and 
providing  a  balance  in  the  position  of  the  Member  States,  but  regretted  that  there  is  insufficient 
linking  with  the  discussions  in  Brussels  which  would  allow  for  stronger  agenda  setting  and  better 
coherence. A number of respondents singled out the specific added value in  fragile contexts where 
there are fewer Development Partners (DPs), and the EU has a specific role to play, and noted that 
this was not specifically highlighted in the evaluation report. 

13. 
In  terms  of  complementarities,  some  respondents  supported  the  evaluation  finding  of 
incoherence  between  the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument  (DCI)  and  EDF  which  needs  to  be 
resolved. There was also broad agreement that leveraging is weak and below what one would expect 
of an instrument of this size. Some contributors noted that trust funds and blending have contributed 
to fragmentation and lack of transparency. Respondents noted the value of regular consultation with 
other MS through the EU, but agreed with the evaluation’s findings that potential for joint strategies 

48 

 
 
 
between MS and EU  is  insufficiently  explored. Various respondents noted that there is  not  always 
good  collaboration  between  delegations  and  MS,  and  insufficient  willingness  to  take  on  a  joint 
agenda.  In  practice,  dialogue  is  reported  to  be  limited  to  sector  concentration  and  not  enough  on 
other critical (cross-cutting) agendas, e.g. climate change. 

Organisation or associations 

14. 
The contributions of organisations and associations constituted the majority of the responses to 
this  question  (23).  Overall  the  responses  showed  agreement  with  the  findings  of  the  evaluation 
around  insufficient  planning  for  exit  from  sectors  where  the  EU  had  an  added  value  and 
corresponding loss of expertise (combined with reduction in staff). Various comments also showed 
agreement  that  there  are  still  insufficient  synergies  between  different  levels  of  the  EDF,  combined 
with a lack of transparency and coherence in regional programming. 

15. 
As was the case for the public authorities, this category of contributors also noted the lack of 
transparency and accountability  mechanisms to  civil  society (in line with evaluation findings), and 
included suggestions that there should be a more active role for CSOs in monitoring impact, as well as 
much more active engagement of CSOs in regional priority setting. Various comments also showed 
agreement with the EDF11 findings around priority setting being driven by Brussels, the notion of 
joint programming having been lost. 

16. 
Various  responses expressed concerns about the blending facilities and whether these are  fit 
for  purpose,  and  in  particular  whether  they  respond  to  sustainable  development  objectives  in  line 
with country ownership.  

17. 
Many of the responses from this category of contributors focussed on specific cross-cutting 
agendas, on specific commitments under Cotonou, and on specific areas of focus within the mandate 
of  the  organisations  providing  the  response.  Thus  various  organisations  concurred  with  the 
evaluation’s  observations  regarding  insufficient  attention  to  environment  and  climate  change, 
although  with  the  specification that  the  main  shortcoming  of  the  EDF  was  insufficient  attention  to 
these  issues  at  national  level  and  that  these  issues  had  been  well  integrated  into  the  Regional 
Indicative Programmes (RIP), as well as at the Intra-ACP Cooperation Strategy.  Attention was also 
drawn  to  the  need  to  include  attention  to  child  rights  (in  line  with  various  United  Nations  (UN) 
conventions  on  children  and  on  disability),  to  human  rights,  and  to  gender  equality  in  EDF 
programming  priorities  as  well  as  in  data  collection  and  monitoring.  Two  organisations  also  noted 
insufficient  information  on  what  the  EDF  is  doing  for  persons  with  disabilities,  including  whether 
adequate  attention  is  being  placed  on  infrastructure  for  the  rights  of  people  with  disability.  One 
organisation  stressed  ‘meagre  performance’  on  population  issues  and  that  this  goes  against  the 
Cotonou  Agreement  which  provides  for  the  integration  of  ‘population  issues  into  development 
strategies in order to improve reproductive health, primary health care, family planning’. The same 
organisation also highlighted concerns that there was a progressive withdrawal by EDF from support 
to  basic  sectors  (education  etc.).  Various  suggestions  were  made  that  these  issues  should  be 
systematically mainstreamed and prioritized, notwithstanding the choice of sectors of concentration 
per  partner  country  and  that  European  Union  Delegations  (EUDs)  should  be  more  actively 
encouraged to look at opportunities integrating them in the National Implementation Plans (NIPs). 

18. 
There was some agreement voiced among this category of respondents with the evaluation’s 
findings  on  the  European  Union  Trust  Fund  for  Africa  (EUTFA).  One  organisation  specifically 
stressed  the  need  for  a  much  longer-term  approach  to  genuine  problems  of  conflict,  fragility  and 
resilience  which  addressed  the  root  causes  of  migration  including  conflict,  impoverishment  and 
human rights violations, and that this should be clearly reflected in the EUTFA’s allocations which 
should serve to address these factors. 

49 

 
 
 
19. 
The  important  role  of  the  EDF  in  supporting  the  African  Peace  Keeping  Facility  (APF) 
noted in the evaluation report was seconded by one organisation, although noting that this support does 
not extend to national efforts. 

EU platform, network or association 

20. 
Comments from this group covered a total of six entities. The responses concurred around a 
number of points made in the evaluation report related to weaknesses of the consultation processes, 
flexibility, and simplifications, with selected respondents making suggestions that centred around the 
importance  of  creating  mechanisms  and  capacity  for  consultation  with  non-state  actors,  ensuring  a 
say and access to EDF funds by subnational governments and local organisations, building capacity 
of  the  EUDs  to  be  able  to  manage  consultation  processes,  and  the  importance  of  simplifying 
procedures to allow this to happen. A specific set of comments also concurred with the evaluation’s 
recommendation  on  conducting  a  political  economy  analysis,  with  respondents  highlighting  the 
existence  of  other  analytical  documents  by the EU  (on  Human  Rights  etc.) as  possible  sources  for 
such an analysis.  

21. 
Various observations were made on cross-cutting issues, reflecting disappointment with the 
limited  degree  to  which  EDF11  planning  documents  include  references  to  gender  and  to  the 
achievement of climate targets (as reported in the evaluation), as well as disappointment on the lack 
of attention in the evaluation report itself to the rights of persons with disabilities.  

Industry, business or worker’s association 

22. 
Two comments were received under this category of contributors and they converged around 
the need to have  programmes  for MICs as these include most of the world’s poor.  There was also 
agreement  expressed  with  the  evaluation  team  findings  on  loss  of  expertise  in  transportation  and  the 
lack  of  adequate  exit  strategies,  and  an  acknowledgement  of  the  lack  of  sufficient  progress  in  this 
sector due to insufficient government commitment (also mentioned in the evaluation report). 

Research/academia 

23. 
Four  comments  came  from  this  category  of  respondents.  Respondents  concurred  with  the 
conclusions around the important role of the EDF in poverty alleviation. One organisation highlighted 
in particular the stronger focus of the EDF11 on least developed countries (LDCs) and low-income 
countries (LICs), which is also noted in the evaluation report. The same respondent noted that in its 
view  the  Cotonou  Agreement  had  been  substantially  eroded  with  the  move  of  two  its  key  pillars 
(trade  and  political  cooperation)  to  regional  structures,  and  stated  that  this  had  affected  the 
instrument’s capacity to apply an integrated approach (a point not noted in the evaluation report).  

24.  While the evaluation’s findings on sector concentration were noted, there was also a call by 
one  of  the  organisations  for  attention  on  the  need  to  be  cognisant  of  the  limitations  of  the  donor 
concentration,  another  point  not  mentioned  in  the  report,  and  specifically  that  “Donor’s  policy  of 
graduation, combined with sector concentration and deployed in a context of an imperfect division of 
labour,  may  result  in:  larger  volumes  of  aid  directed  towards  sectors  with  limited  absorption 
capacity,  overcrowding  or  saturating  those  sectors,  sector  saturation,  aid  inefficiency  and 
opportunity  costs  …  (and  may)  compromise  EU  desire  to  improve  impact,  notably  engaging  in 
sectors  where  there  is  insufficient  traction  for  reform,  reducing  its  effectiveness  and  limiting  EU 
leverage to facilitate and support partner-led change”. 

25. 
Various specific recommendations were made across the contributions related to improving 
the  programming  process;  broadening  participation  in  planning  and  implementation;  strengthening 
monitoring  and  evaluation  in  particular  of  regional  integration;  and  addressing  the  weaknesses  of 

50 

 
 
 
blending. 

Citizen/individual 

The  two citizen/individual contributions expressed agreement with the EDF conclusions on 

26. 
simplifying processes, strengthening monitoring, and improving sustainability. 

Other 

27. 
Only one organisation responded in this category to provide a list of recommendations in line 
with  comments  from  other  categories  of  respondents  on  the  need  to  strengthen  political  dialogue, 
build  capacity  for  meaningful  multi-stakeholder  governance,  simplification,  capacity  building  of 
the 
EUDs 
assessment/evaluation  of  trust  funds  should  be  done  against  the  same  goals  and  principles  as  the 
EDF, and the need to include target country constituencies (e.g. government) in the decision-making 
structures of trust funds and blending facilities.  

for  effective  dialogue,  as  well  as 

recommendations 

specific 

some 

that 

Response of the evaluation team 

28. 
The  contributions  across  different  stakeholder  groups  broadly  confirmed  the  evaluation 
team’s  findings  on  the  extent  to  which  the  EDF  has  addressed  its  objectives.  There  was  no 
disagreement  on  major  points,  but  some  contributions  prompted  further  fine-tuning  or  specific 
nuancing/clarification of points of detail/exemplification. This includes the following points: 

  That the EDF programmes and projects can have a particular role in fragile contexts where 
there are few MS/DP (the role that the EDF already plays in contexts with few MS/DP had 
already been mentioned in the report, but not specifically in relation to fragile states). 

  That  there  are  concerns  that  there  may  be  efficiency  implications  of  the  proliferation  of 
instruments  and  tools  under  the  EDF  (in  addition  to  lack  the  lack  of  transparency  of  these 
instruments which is already in the report). 

  That  the  performance  review’s  approach  of  working  with  countries  with  recent  evaluation 
evidence  contributed  to  an  under-representation  of  fragile,  conflict  and  post-conflict 
countries in the sample of the evaluation, which will be mentioned in the report as one of the 
limitations. 

  That  there  is  a  strong  view  from  various  constituencies  about  the  need  to  strengthen 
delegations’  capacity  in  planning  and  consultation  processes,  together  with  a  more  robust 
and transparent approach to consultation in general.  

  There  is  a  related  view  by  many  constituencies  on  the  need  for  the  EDF  to  respect  more 
consistently  commitments  to  gender,  climate  change,  reproductive  health  (there  are  also 
commitments  related  to  reproductive  health  that  arise  from  the  Cotonou  agreement  which 
have  not  been  followed  through  in  implementation  choices),  etc.,  and  for  these  to  be 
monitored.  Many  constituencies  made  recommendations  related  to  the  need  for  capacity 
strengthening of delegations to ensure climate change, gender equality, inclusion, and other 
cross-cutting  issues  can  be  fully  mainstreamed  and  not  just  taken  into  account  for  certain 
sectors,  and  that  results  achievement  is  adequately  monitored  (with  for  climate  change 
special attention needed in energy, agriculture and private sector development programmes).  
  A  number  of  respondents  noted  that  the  lack  of  political  weight  of  the  EDF,  and  its  poor 
added  value  in  political  dialogue,  reflects  insufficient  link-up  with  political  discussions  in 
Brussels, which requires better coordination among different services in Brussels to enhance 
the capacity of the EU to fully utilize external tools efficiently.  

51 

 
 
 
  That Blended finance (and the same was mentioned with respect to Trust Funds) should be 
assessed  against  the  same  principles  as  development  cooperation  in  general  and  the  EDF 
overall  –  poverty  reduction  objectives,  the  perspective  of  people  living  in  poverty,  gender 
equality,  sustainability  in  its  three  dimensions  (economic,  social  and  environmental),  and 
cost-effectiveness. 

  That there are views that local and regional government associations should be represented 

in the governing structures of Trust Funds and blending instruments.  

  The need to reflect in the evaluation report the recent findings of the blending evaluation and 
the  coherence  with  the  conclusions  of  the  DCI  evaluation,  a  recommendation  which  the 
evaluation has taken on board. 

  That there are various points related to OCTs that can be further emphasized in the report, 
namely: a) the important achievements at regional level in the Pacific (already mentioned); 
b)  that  expertise  put  at  disposal  by  the  EU  for  preparation  of  proposals  often  doesn’t 
understand the specific conditions of the OCTs; and c) that complementarity of the EDF and 
other EFIs for OCTs (even when eligible) is limited by lack of visibility of these opportunities, 
lack of expertise (human resources), and parallel but unlinked programming exercises.  
  That  the  specific  analysis  of  the  attention  in  EDF11  programming  to  the  rights  of  persons 
with disabilities (currently in an Annex) should be brought forward in the main report. The 
same will be done for other key cross-cutting issues – also an observation that the evaluation 
has taken on board by including a box on cross-cutting issues in the revised report.  

There  were  a  few  observations  which  while  interesting  are  not  reflected  in  changes  in  the 

29. 
report. These are listed below together with the evaluation’s rationale for not including them: 

  The observations made on the lack of an EU instrument for MICs, which we see as beyond 
the  scope  of  this  instrument  evaluation.  It  should  perhaps  be  an  issue  for  the  coherence 
report. 

  Observations were made on the lack of opportunities for European contractors – these were 
not taken into account as they do not in the view of the EDF Evaluation Team (ET) pertain to 
the realm of an instrument-level assessment of this kind. 

30. 
Table 8 in 0 attempts to capture, in quantitative terms, the outcome of the OPC in terms of 
globally agreeing or not with the findings and recommendations of the evaluation team, and shows 
that  there  was  broad  support  for  the  main  findings  and  recommendations  of  the  evaluation.  The 
assessment  was  challenging  for  this  question  because  of  the  broad  nature  of  the  question  which 
involved many different dimension, resulting in many respondents expressing agreement with various 
points,  but  perhaps  having  just  one  (usually  minor)  point  of  disagreement  or  nuancing.  Thus,  the 
column with confirmed findings reflects overall agreement with the findings, where opposition to a 
finding (next column) reflects whether a specific finding was contested (while the respondent might 
have  agreed  in  his/her  contribution  to  other  findings).  Also,  many  respondents  commented  only 
indirectly  on  areas  of  recommendation  so  the  table  reflects  on  explicit  agreement  with 
recommendations. 

Question 2: Extent to which the 11th EDF has taken account of the views of stakeholders  

Question  2:  Has  the  11th  EDF,  for  which  partner  country  ownership  is  a  specific  feature, 
reflected  the  views  of  beneficiary  countries  and  the  full  range  of  their  constituencies 
(including civil society organizations)? Please feel free to provide some specific examples. 

52 

 
 
 
 
Summary of contributions 

31. 
Forty-five responses were received to the question about ownership, most of them stemming 
from organisations and associations or EU platforms, as seen in Table 4 below. Unfortunately, not a 
single respondent was a government representative of the ACP countries, who are directly concerned 
by the finding that ownership has suffered under the EDF11. However, the subject was discussed and 
commented upon at the meeting with the ACP ministers in May 2017. Both the OPC survey and the 
OPC  discussions  provided  ample  evidence  to  back  up  the  findings  discussed  and  analysed  in  the 
performance review in terms of loss of ownership between EDF10 and EDF11 and poor progress in 
widening  public  participation  in  the  different  phases  of  the  cooperation  cycle  (programming, 
implementation,  monitoring,  evaluation).  The  OPC  responses  were  mostly  geared  towards  the 
participation of entities other than central Government (local government, CSOs, cooperatives, local 
communities, …); they provide additional evidence that enabled the evaluators to refine some of the 
statements made, as seen below when presenting the responses by type of respondent. 

Table 4.  Number of responses to the question about ownership, by type of respondent 

and country of origin of respondent 

r
o
,

k
r
o
w
t
e
n

,

m
r
o
f
t
a
l
p
U
E

l
a
u
d
i
v
i
d
n
i
/
n
e
z
i
t
i

C
1 

n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a
r
o
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o
'
s
r
e
k
r
o
w

r
o
s
s
e
n
i
s
u
b

,
y
r
t
s
u
d
n
I

n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

1 

9 

7 

1 

a
i
m
e
d
a
c
a
/
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
a
c
i
l
b
u
P

r
e
h
t
O

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 
2 

8 

1 

17 

1 

12 

4 

l
a
t
o
T
d
n
a
r
G
1 
1 
19 
1 
2 
3 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
45 

Albania 
Austria 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Haiti 
Italy 
Kenya 
Lithuania 
Morocco 
Netherlands 
Nouvelle-Calédonie 
Slovak Republic  
Spain 
Sweden 
Togo 
Turkey 
UK 
Ukraine 
Grand Total 

Source: ET, OPC analysis of 10th of May 2017 

53 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Views of public authorities 

32. 
All public authorities that responded to the second question confirmed that the EU processes 
ensure a good ownership by the Partner Country Government, due to the programming and execution 
processes and the existence of the National Authorizing Officer (NAO). However, they also saw  a 
diminished  ownership  with  EDF11,  and,  excepting  one  MS,  they  also  expressed  their  concerns 
regarding insufficient CSO, local authority and private sector involvement and eventual ownership. 
A few respondents also pointed out that the heavy administrative procedures of the EDF undermine 
ownership, especially for OCTs. 

Organisation or association 

33. 
All  of  the  17  associations  that  responded  to  this  question  bore  witness  to  the  lack  of  full 
engagement of CSOs, Local Authorities (LAs), cooperatives and the private sector with the EU at the 
various  stages  of  the  programme  cycle.  It  was  recognised  that  the  practice  is  variable  between 
countries,  with  some  having  made  good  progress  in  involving  and  widening  public  participation. 
However, on the whole, the existing engagement is felt to be insufficient as consultations are limited 
to specific associations which are not necessarily representative, either in sectoral or in geographical 
terms. Engagement and ownership are put even more at risk with  the shrinking space for CSOs in 
some  countries  (restrictive  legal  frameworks  and/or  practices)  and  the  use  of  new  EU  funding 
instruments  that  do  not  involve  consultations.  Several  respondents  also  called  attention  to  the 
importance  of  involving  local  communities  in  order  to  fulfil  the  Sustainable  Development  Goal 
(SDG)  agenda.  Finally,  some  actors  called  for  increased  attention  to  the  inclusion  of  specific 
thematic/sector support such as transport, gender and disabilities. 

34. 
Some  of  the  associations  extended  the  discussion  of  ownership  to  that  of  the  funding  of 
CSOs,  pointing  out  here  again  that  practices  are  variable  between  countries  and  that  whilst  some 
NIPs have included CSO envelopes, others have not and volumes and shares of funding are equally 
variable.  Some  examples  illustrating  this  variability  were  provided,  pointing  out  the  discrepancy 
between CSO support provided and CSO needs in view of their important role in the development of 
the country. 

EU platform, network or association 

35. 
Although  it  was  recognised  that  the  EDF  put  much  more  emphasis  on  stakeholder 
consultations  than  other  EFIs,  the  various  organisations  ranked  as  EU  platforms,  networks  or 
associations  confirmed  the  general  lack  of  truly  representative  multi-stakeholder  consultations  and 
participation  and  above  all  the  one  directional  nature  of  the  consultation  processes  (top  down 
approach).  As  with  the  responses  in  the  previous  category,  the  fact  that  consulted  CSOs  were  not 
particularly representative and that their views were not reflected in decisions taken, was highlighted. 

Importantly, the eight respondents in this category also drew attention to two issues missed out 

36. 
by the evaluators: 

 

the  importance  of  involvement  of  local  and  regional  governments  (LRGs):  local  policy 
priorities are deemed to be insufficiently taken account of in national planning and in joint-
programming with donors. The evaluation failed to pick up on this issue: it mentions national 
government, CSOs, the private sector, trade unions, religious leaders and representatives  of 
political  parties,  but  not  local  and  regional  governments,  which  are  major  players  in  those 
partnerships. The evaluation also failed to mention cooperatives as major local players. 

  The fact that, where consultations are held, they are always about country programmes, not 

about regional or intra-ACP programmes. 

54 

 
 
 
37. 
Another aspect that was possibly not sufficiently highlighted in the performance review was 
the fact that the ACP countries are not involved in the decision-making process relating to the use of 
the  reserve  funds  (limited  to  the  EDF  Committee)  thus  also  limiting  ownership,  equal  partnership, 
transparency and accountability. Finally, some aspects were highlighted such as the  need to include 
the  National  Organisations  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  in  consultations,  the  need  for  improved 
communication  between  ministries  and  specialists  that  focus  in  particular  on  cross-cutting  issues 
such as gender equality, human rights and climate change. 

Finally, there was also the interesting comment that budget support should be accessible to 

38. 
LRGs. 

Industry, business or workers’ association 

39. 
Only  one  European  international  trade  union  responded  to  the  question  of  ownership.  It 
confirmed the view held by previous respondents: consultations of non-state actors are sparse, very 
formal and without much influence on political choices already made by the EU and their access to 
EU funding is constrained by heavy procedures. The trade union calls for the promotion of a wider 
civil and social dialogue in all aspects of design, implementation, monitoring, trade agreements and 
political dialogue. 

Research/academia 

40. 
Of the four responses received from researchers, two provided confirmation of findings, one 
just confirmed that beneficiary countries’ views are represented in EDF and the other was not related 
to  EDF.  One  of  the  responses  cited  independently  realised  studies  that  confirmed  the  performance 
review’s  findings:  EDF  shows  good  alignment  with  country  programmes  but  found  it  difficult  to 
comply with EU policy priorities emanating from HQ; the NAO structure is not a guarantee of strong 
ownership, and may even sometimes be a stumbling block for reforms or tackling sensitive issues; 
focalising  the  cooperation  discussion  on  a  centralised  NAO  can  run  contrary  to  a  more  inclusive 
sector-based  dialogue  and  cooperation;  lastly,  the  centralised  governance  of  cooperation  and 
shrinking CSO space make it difficult for non-government actors to engage. 

A suggestion was made to integrate local researchers in the programme cycle and dialogue 

41. 
with the EUDs so that local specificities are taken proper account of. 

Citizen/private individuals 

42. 
Only  two  individuals  responded  to  this  question  and  agreed  that  civil  society  is  generally 
weak  and  not  sufficiently  supported  and  that  in  most  cases  the  EDF  has  reflected  the  views  of 
countries and their constituencies. 

Other 

43. 
There was one single response in the ‘other’ category. This respondent drew strong attention 
to  the fact  that the EDF did  not  include the LRGs in  its consultations (backed up by data from an 
independent  survey  amongst  37  countries)  and  has  thus  not  delivered  on  its  promise  of  an  inclusive 
policy dialogue. The respondent cited evidence that local priorities are not necessarily taken account 
of in national programming and donor joint programming which should not be just top-down but also 
bottom-up.  

44. 
The respondent also confirmed the bottleneck represented by some NAOs (again on the basis 
of  independent  studies)  and  the  need  to  review  their  role,  especially  in  countries  where  space  for 
CSOs and/or political opposition is reduced. Wider programme steering committees were called for, 

55 

 
 
 
and again the respondent called for the evaluation to extend its recommendation of inclusiveness not 
only  to  national  government,  CSOs,  the  private  sector,  trade  unions,  religious  leaders  and 
representatives  of  political  parties,  but  also  to  local  and  regional  governments.  Again,  similarly  to 
one of the earlier responses, it was suggested that budget support could be provided directly to local 
governments to support the decentralisation processes and local development. 

Response of the evaluation team 

  The  contributions  confirmed  the  evaluation  team’s  findings  and  conclusions  on  ownership 
and  partnership.  Whilst  most  respondents  recognised  that  alignment  of  cooperation  with 
national plans was realised, all respondents highlighted the uneven and partial stakeholder 
consultations  (in  geographic  and  sectoral  scope,  in  type  of  stakeholders  consulted).  Some 
also  noted  the  directive  manner  in  which  end  decisions  were  taken  and  regretted  the  top-
down  approach  to  programming  and  implementation.  Table  9  in  0  attempts  to  capture,  in 
quantitative terms, the outcome of the OPC in terms of agreement or disagreement with the 
findings and recommendations of the evaluation team. 

  Some respondents also took the opportunity of this question to: 

  underline the problems surrounding the NAO structure, which is too centralised and 
sometimes  undermining  possibilities  of  closer  and  more  inclusive  dialogue  with 
sector players; 

  comment on the uneven funding of CSOs, with great variation between countries and 
apparent  delinking  between  needs/role  of  CSOs  in  development  at  local  level  and 
support provided. 

 

Important points that came to the fore and which prompted the team to refine their analysis, 
conclusions and recommendations concerned testimonies as to: 

 

 

 

the  absence  of  consultations  with  cooperatives  and  local  governments,  which  are 
important local players 
the  important  role  of  devolution  and  local  communities  in  reaching  the  SDGs  and 
hence  the  need  for  the  EDF  to  pay  even  more  heed  to  full  involvement  of  local 
players in programming and execution of cooperation programmes  
the absence of discussion of the intra-ACP and regional programmes. 

  Some recommendations were also made, to: 

  Enhance  social  dialogue  with  inclusion  of  local  governments,  trade  unions, 

cooperatives, etc. 

  Extend the provision of budget support to regional and local governments 
  Revisit the role of the NAO so as to decentralise the cooperation dialogue. 

Question  3:  Efficiency,  effectiveness  and  coherence  between  country,  regional  and  Intra-ACP 
cooperation 

Question 3: Do you think the regional and intra-ACP cooperation is efficient, effective and 
coherent with country level actions? Please provide reasons to support your response. 

Summary of contributions 

45. 
A  total  of  29  responses  addressed  question  3,  related  to  efficiency,  effectiveness  and 
coherence of regional and intra-ACP cooperation (see Table 5 below). Overall the comments support 
the evaluation findings, without disagreements. The majority of comments evidence specific issues 

56 

 
 
 
 
and weaknesses of regional and intra-ACP cooperation.  Several of the shortcomings addressed by 
the evaluation are also pointed out by the OPC, including:  

 
 
 

the lack of synergies and coherence across national, regional and intra-ACP levels; 
limited capacities to address supranational goods; 
limited  transparency,  dialogue  and  consultation.  Several  comments  point  to  the  limited 
engagement of the regional cooperation with civil society, in contrast with the legal dispositions 
of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA). 

There  were  a  few  positive  comments  addressing  regional  and  intra-ACP  cooperation.  These 
recognized  the  importance  of  the  APF  although  advocating  for  increased  attention  to  conflict 
prevention and peace building. 

Table 5.  Number of responses to the question about regional and intra-ACP 

cooperation, by type of respondent and country of origin of respondent 

r
o
,

k
r
o
w
t
e
n

,

m
r
o
f
t
a
l
p
U
E

l
a
u
d
i
v
i
d
n
i
/
n
e
z
i
t
i

C
1 

n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

2 
1 

n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a
r
o
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

7 

1 
1 

1 

a
i
m
e
d
a
c
a
/
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
a
c
i
l
b
u
P

1 
2 

1 
1 

1 
1 
1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 
2 

3 

10 

12 

2 

l
a
t
o
T
d
n
a
r
G
1 
1 
11 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
29 

Albania 
Austria 
Belgium 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Haiti 
Kenya 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Morocco 
Netherlands 
Nouvelle-Calédonie 
Poland 
Slovak Republic  
Sweden 
Togo 
UK 
Ukraine 
Grand Total 

Views of public authorities 

Source: ET from OPC, 10th of May 2017 

46. 
A total of 12 responses were received from public authorities, including 7 MS, Morocco and 
New  Caledonia.  In  all  cases  evaluation  findings,  conclusions  and  recommendations  were  not 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
challenged and the majority of the comments converged with evaluation findings, evidencing critical 
issues of effectiveness and performance of regional and intra-ACP cooperation.  

47. 
Among the responses there was: mention of the outdated nature and lack of adaptation of the 
intra-ACP  structure  to  global  challenges;  recognition  of  the  potential  of  regional  cooperation  but 
regret that this potential is not being been tapped; agreement with evaluation findings on the lack of 
synergies across national, regional and intra-ACP cooperation; and on the lack of transparency in the 
intra-ACP  decision  making.  Two  contributors  comment  on  the  APF,  with  one  advocating  for  an 
increased  involvement  of  the  African  Union  and  long  term  provisions  for  the  APF,  and  another 
advocating  for  a  more  robust  and  strategic  approach.  The  negative  impact  on  regional  cooperation 
resulting from the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) is also pointed out. 

Organisation or association 

48. 
Comments from the 10 respondents converged in supporting evaluation findings particularly 
in  recognizing  untapped  opportunities  while  evidencing  issues  of  coherence,  complementarity  and 
effectiveness  of  the  regional  and  intra-ACP  mechanisms,  and  poor  transparency  of  regional 
cooperation. The inadequate role of the CSOs in regional and intra-ACP cooperation was mentioned 
across various  responses  as affecting the relevance  and coherence of EU cooperation, while it was 
considered of particular importance in the context of environmental and climate change challenges. 

49. 
Other responses pointed to the need to strengthen specific features of the regional and intra-
ACP instrument, including in terms of weaknesses of programming and organisational set-up and the 
limited  synergies  across  the  national,  regional  and  intra-ACP  levels  –  issues  which  the  evaluation 
report clearly raises. Particular mention was made of the weaknesses of programming "EDF11 intra-
ACP  programming  was  not  well  coordinated  and  lacked  consultation  with  EUDs  and  Regional 
Programmes",  and  of  the  limited  consultation  with  the  ACP  Secretariat.  In  terms  of  specific 
priorities  the  need  to  strengthen  support  to  health  (sharp  decrease  of  EDF11  support  to  the  health 
sector,  not  compensated  by  other  instruments)  and  lack  of  capacity  of  regional  and  intra-ACP 
cooperation to address acute cross-border and global needs was mentioned by respondents. A final 
comment  related  to  the  increased  attention  to  new  political  priorities  and  the  how  this  is  affecting 
EDF11  capacity  to  address  goals  for  poverty  reduction:  "There  should  be  no  more  depletion  of 
original development programmes towards growing political concern, under the risk of undermining 
the  EDF  objective  to  reduce  poverty".  A  specific  note  on  AFP  was  also  made  by  one  respondent, 
pointing  to  the  disproportionate  focus  of  AFP  on  peace  operations,  which  favours  short-term  and 
military management of crises and insufficient attention to conflict prevention and peace building. 

EU platform, network or association 

50. 
This  group  of  respondents  provided  three  comments.  The  responses  converged  with 
evaluation findings and addressed specific issues of EDF regional and intra-ACP mechanisms. One 
comment  stressed  that  while  some  level  of  complementarity  has  been  achieved  across  the  EDF 
envelopes, complementarities are missing with other mechanisms that EDF is resourcing, including 
the  Africa  Investment  Facility,  the  soon  to  be  approved  African  Investment  Platform  under  the 
European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD) or the EU Trust Fund for Africa. It was noted 
that  these  mechanisms  constrain  transparency  and  do  not  provide  evidence  of  contribution  to 
additionality  and  impact  toward  development  goals,  pointing  to  the  need  to  strengthen  monitoring 
and  evaluation  arrangements.  A  second  comment  supported  earlier  observations  from  the  public 
organisations  on  the  limited  focus  of  the  AFP  approach  with  insufficient  attention  to  conflict 
prevention and peace building. 

58 

 
 
 
Research/academia 

51. 
Two  responses  were  received  under  this  group  which  broadly  echo  the  observations  from 
other  organisations.  Additional  points  concern  the  lack  of  ACP  involvement  beyond  funding 
relationships and no real impact outside Brussels in ACP cooperation "with the notable exception of 
effective ACP coalitions in the WTO. The multilateral trading system has proved a fertile ground for 
collective ACP action and is widely considered as a success story." One of the comments highlights 
the  need  to  improve  the  theory  of  change  and  the  measurability  of  regional  and  intra-ACP 
cooperation, and the need to have a temporal timeline beyond the five-year cycle in order to achieve 
results related to regional integration. 

Citizen/private individuals 

52. 

Two short comments were received with limited relevance to the evaluation. 

Response of the evaluation team 

53. 
OPC responses converge toward the instrument evaluation and the assessment of regional 
and  intra-ACP  cooperation  mechanisms.  Several  comments  across  the  different  categories  of 
respondents  recognize  the  opportunities  and  potential  value  added  of  regional  and  intra-ACP 
cooperation. However, the comments point out how these mechanisms are not meeting expectations. 
Overall  the  responses  confirm  the  concerns  of  the  evaluation  about  structural  weaknesses  of 
regional  and  intra-ACP  cooperation.  Several  of  the  evaluation  recommendations  have  been 
explicitly  mentioned  by  the  comments,  including  the  need  to  strengthen  result  orientation,  to  build 
synergies across national, regional and intra-ACP envelopes, the need to increase transparency and 
of  an  increased  involvement  of  civil  society.  Of  particular  interest  is  the  discussion  by  one  of  the 
research  organisations  which  presents  an  in-depth  analysis  of  cooperation  mechanisms  and  of 
shortcomings of regional and intra-ACP cooperation as well as the changes brought under EDF11. 
Table  10  in  0  attempts  to  capture,  in  quantitative  terms,  the  outcome  of  the  OPC  in  terms  of 
agreement or disagreement with the findings and recommendations of the evaluation team. 

Question 4: Other views on the EDF  

Question  4:  If  you  have  any  other  views  on  the  EDF  you  would  like  to  share,  they  are 
welcome here. 

Summary of contributions 

54. 
A  total  of  39  responses  were  received  to  this  question.  Most  responses  were  provided  by 
organisations (16), followed by public authorities (13) and EU platforms (6). In terms of origin, a total 
of ten responses were from organisations or entities based in Belgium. The remaining responses were 
equally distributed among different countries. Three contributions were made by ACP countries and 
OCTs covered by the EDF. A full breakdown of the responses can be found in Table 6 below.  Since 
this question was very open, the contributions touch upon many different issues and are difficult to 
summarise. In general, the responses tend to confirm the findings of the evaluation. More details are 
provided below in the discussion of the responses by type of respondent.  

59 

 
 
 
Table 6.  Number of responses to the question “other views”, by type of respondent and 

country of origin of respondent 

r
o
,

k
r
o
w
t
e
n

,

m
r
o
f
t
a
l
p
U
E

l
a
u
d
i
v
i
d
n
i
/
n
e
z
i
t
i

  C

'
s
r
e
k
r
o
w
r
o
s
s
e
n
i
s
u
b

,
y
r
t
s
u
d
n
I

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

1 

n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

4 
1 
1 

1 

1 

6 

1 

n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a
r
o
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

8 

1 
1 
1 
1 

1 
1 

2 
16 

a
i
m
e
d
a
c
a
/
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

1 

y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
a
c
i
l
b
u
P
1 
4 

1 
1 

1 

1 
1 

1 
1 

1 

13 

1 

l
a
t
o
T
d
n
a
r
G
1 
17 
1 
2 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
39 

Austria 
Belgium 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Haiti 
Italy 
Kenya 
Lithuania 
Morocco 
Netherlands 
Nouvelle-Calédonie 
Poland 
Spain 
Togo 
UK 
Ukraine 
USA 
Grand Total 

Source: ET, OPC analysis of 7th of May 2017 

Views of public authorities 

55. 
The  contributions  from  the  13  public  authorities  that  responded  to  question  4  show  a  great 
diversity  in  terms  of  content  and  approach.  Several  comments  supported  some  of  the  findings  and 
recommendations of the evaluation in the following areas: 

  Difficulties in accessing EDF funding for certain stakeholders (e.g. CSOs) 
  Coherence between the EDF and DCI 
  Limited consultation with CSOs, the private sector and other stakeholders 
  Tension  between  EDF’s  core  values  and  the  Trust  Fund  and  emerging  instruments  such  as 

blending  
56. 
The contributions also reflected on some aspects that are specific to the role of EU MSs in 
the EDF. There were references to the need to pay more attention to internal EDF procedures to ease 
the  burden  on  MSs  and  allow  for  a  meaningful  participation,  and  to  the  importance  of  increasing 
consultation between EUDs and MSs at country level.  

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public  authorities  also  commented  on  some  information  they  would  have  liked  to  see 

57. 
reflected in the evaluation. These issues are discussed in the following section: 

  Sectoral breakdown of EDF support 
  Evidence of impact of EDF11 
  Consideration of EDF11 added value in relation to DCI 

58. 
The contributions also include a number of considerations about the future of the EDF that 
are beyond the scope of the evaluation. These include comments on the need to merge EDF and DCI, 
and  the  level  of  connection  between  EDF  support  and  EU  political  objectives  in  areas  such  as 
migration.  

Organisation or association 

There were 15 contributions from organisations and associations. These contributions confirm 

59. 
or support the findings of the evaluation in relation to: 

  Complementarity  between  the  EDF  and  other  instruments  and  specific  challenges  in  some 

cases (e.g. DCI). 

  Contradictions  between  EDF‘s  core  values  and  new  and  innovative  mechanisms  (blending 

and trust funds). 

  Limitations of one-size fits-all approach in the EDF. 
  Tensions  between  what  the  EDF  was  designed  to  do  and  what  it  is  being  asked  to  do,  in 

particular in relation to the EU migration and security agenda. 

60. 

The contributions also raise some issues that could deserve additional attention: 

  Weaknesses in the EDF’s approach to people with disabilities.  
  Role of CSOs in domestic accountability processes. 

61. 
Finally,  the  contributions  also  contain  a  number  of  considerations  and  recommendations 
about areas the EDF should support that do not relate to the contents of the evaluation report (e.g. 
biodiversity,  increased  support to  certain  actors,  etc.).  Some  of  the  more  general  recommendations 
are aligned with the recommendations in the report (e.g. capacity to adapt to local circumstances vs. 
one-size-fits-all  approach,  increased  transparency  and  strong  monitoring  and  evaluation  (M&E) 
systems. 

62. 
One business association also replied to this question. The response highlighted the potential 
contribution of infrastructure building to inclusive development and defended the use of the “doing 
business report” as a useful tool to measure good governance reforms.  This contribution is beyond 
the scope of the evaluation.   

EU platform, network or association 

A total of 6 different organisations in this category responded to question 4 of the OPC. The 

63. 
contributions confirm and support the evaluation findings on:  

  challenges  in  supporting  CSOs  and  other  stakeholders  such  as  political  parties  or 

cooperatives in their role as watchdogs (accountability) and democratic actors; 

  uncertainties and potential drawbacks of blending and trust funds; 
 

insufficient synergies and complementarity among the different levels (intra-ACP, regional 
and country) and lack of clarity about how Intra-ACP cooperation works; 

  added value of the EDF in terms of budget. 

64. 

The contributions also highlight certain areas of interest: 

61 

 
 
 
  strong focus on CSOs, but not to other stakeholders (e.g., cooperatives and political parties) 

 

in the debate about the EDF (not restricted to the evaluation); 
the  lack  of  connection  between  EDF  support  to  OCTs  and  other  forms  of  EU  support 
available to these territories. 

Industry, business or workers' organisations 

65. 
One European international trade union responded to this question. The response discussed 
the  implications  of  some  SDGs  and  the  related  International  Labour  Organization  (ILO)  work  on 
labour rights and included a set of recommendations and suggestions that could be relevant for the 
future of the EDF, but which do not relate to the contents of the evaluation. Certain specific aspects 
related to “ownership” are discussed above.  

Research/academia 

66. 
One research/academic institution responded to question 4. The reply confirmed the analysis 
made in the evaluation in relation to expertise, programming and sector concentration. The response 
also made a number of comments about the future of the EDF and the Cotonou agreement that are 
beyond the scope of the evaluation.  

Citizen/private individuals 

Only one response from a private citizen was received. The response does not provide any 

67. 
useful information in relation to the evaluation.  

Response of the evaluation team 

The  diversity  of  the  responses  to  question  4  of  the  OPC  makes  it  difficult  to  follow  the 
level  of 

68. 
approach  used 
agreement/disagreement with the contents of the evaluation.  

for  previous  questions  and  build  a  comparative 

table  of 

69. 
In general, those responses that referred to the contents and the analysis of the evaluation 
supported the findings and/or recommendations made in the report. More information on this can be 
found in the discussion per type of respondent above.  

Some of the responses referred to issues that respondents would have liked to see addressed 

70. 
in the report. The different issues and the team’s responses are listed below: 

  Sectoral breakdown of EDF support: this was not necessary to answer any of the evaluation 
questions  in  the  report.  After  a  detailed  analysis,  the  team  concluded  that  the  request 
responds to a specific interest of the organisation making the comment in a certain sector.  
  Evidence  of  impact  of  EDF11:  as  explained  in  the  report  and  the  methodology, 

implementation of EDF11 is just starting and it is too early to measure impact. 

  Consideration of EDF11 added value in relation to DCI: dealing with this would require an 

in-depth understanding of the DCI. It would be addressed in the coherence report.  

There are also some important points that came to the fore and which prompted the team to 

71. 
refine their analysis, conclusions and recommendations concerned testimonies as to: 

  The  lack  of  connection  between  EDF  support  to  OCTs  and  other  forms  of  EU  support 

available to these territories. 

62 

 
 
 
  Support  to  people  with  disabilities.  This  is  an  issue  that  was  reviewed  in  the  EDF’s 
contribution  to  the  coherence  report.  The  team  is  making  some  revisions  to  ensure  the 
discussion is more visible in the main report.  

  Visibility  of  EU  funding.  This  issue  was  also  addressed  in  the  EDF’s  contribution  to  the 

coherence report.  

Question 5: Other views common to several or all instruments. 

Question 5: If you have any other views common to several or all instruments you would 
like to share, they are welcome here. 

Summary of contributions 

72. 
Thirty three responses from 19 countries were received for the final question which invited 
comments across the EFIs. The majority of respondents were from organisations or associations (18) 
and also from European countries (11); see a full breakdown of respondents in Table 7. 

Table 7.  Number of responses to the question about EFIs, by type of respondent and 

country of origin of respondent 

l
a
u
d
i
v
i
d
n
i
/
n
e
z
i
t
i

C

r
o
,

k
r
o
w
t
e
n

,

m
r
o
f
t
a
l
p
U
E

n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

r
o
s
s
e
n
i
s
u
b

,
y
r
t
s
u
d
n
I

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o
'
s
r
e
k
r
o
w

r
o
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

r
e
h
t
O

Belgium 
Finland 
France 
Haiti 
Israel 
Italy 
Jordan 
Kenya 
Latvia 
Lebanon 
Moldova 
Netherlands 
Spain 
Sweden 
Turkey 
UK 
Ukraine 
USA 
Yemen 
Grand Total 

4 
1 
1 

1 

1 

6 

0 

4 

1 
1 
1 
1 

1 

1 
1 

1 
2 

1 
1 
1 
1 
18 

y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
a
c
i
l
b
u
P

1 

1 

1 
1 

1 

a
i
m
e
d
a
c
a
/
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

1 

l
a
t
o
T
d
n
a
r
G

9 
1 
3 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
2 
1 
1 
33 

Source: ET, OPC analysis of 9th of May 2017 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Views of public authorities 

73. 
There  were  six  public  authority  respondents.  The  one  non-European  country  respondent 
(Jordan) is not a beneficiary of the EDF. Comments were mainly addressed to the EFIs broadly or to 
specific EFIs (ENI, IPA, PI and IcSP), with little specific feedback on the EDF. There was limited 
consistency among  responses  as  they  addressed  different  issues.  However,  two  respondents  agreed 
that,  in  looking  forward,  the  EFIs  should  be  closely  tied  to  the  EU  Global  Strategy  and  evolving 
policy framework. 

74. 
Two responses emphasised a lack of suitable dialogue instruments to facilitate contribution 
from  Trade  Promotion  Organisations  (TPOs)  given  the  increase  in  EFI  projects  dedicated  to 
improving  trade  exchanges  and  FDI.  In  terms  of  lesson-learning  between  EFIs,  one  respondent 
recommended that a sideways view on complementarities and interactions should be included within 
the  recommendation  section  of  the  EFI  evaluations  (complementarity  and  synergies  between  EDF 
and  the  EFIs’  regulatory  framework  are  examined  in  Annex  20  of  the  Performance  Review).  One 
respondent agreed that the EDF should be tailored more to the OCTs’ particular contexts and levels 
of  development,  emphasising  the  lack  of  connection  between  EDF  funding  in  OCTs  with  other 
potential  sources  of  EU  funding  (as  also  highlighted  in  responses  to  Question  4).  The  respondent 
suggested that OCTs’ access to other EFIs should be facilitated and the notion of creating a dedicated 
instrument  for  the  OCTs  should  be  considered.  Furthermore,  it  was  agreed  that  the  EU’s  leverage 
and  added  value  with  OCTs  was  in  part  achieved  through  the  visibility of  its  partnership,  and that 
initiatives to increase this should be supported.  

Organisation or association 

75. 
The contributions of organisations and associations made up the majority of the responses to 
this  question  (18).  Many  of  the  responses  targeted  specific  non-EDF  instruments.  Some  were  not 
relevant or were too general/brief to be useful. 

76. 
Respondents  concurred  around  a  number  of  the  evaluation  findings  concerning  CSOs  and 
the need for the EU to play a greater enabling role. There was a consensus among respondents that 
the  EU  is  perceived  to  favour  engagement  with  large international  organisations,  MS  development 
agencies and private sector companies to the detriment of smaller CSOs and NGOs (both local and 
European).  One  respondent  highlighted  a  trend  where  CSOs  are  increasingly  excluded  from 
participation  and  EU  funding  opportunities  and  the  need  to  move  dialogue  and  initiatives  such  as 
Roadmaps beyond a tick-box approach to more genuine participation. One respondent suggests that 
funding predictability for CSOs would improve if the EU systematically published its Annual Action 
Programmes and Annual Work programmes.  

77. 
There was agreement with the evaluation findings around the increasing pressure on EFIs to 
tackle  political  priorities,  particularly  migration  and  security  issues.  One  respondent  noted  the 
insufficient transparency on how, and from where, additional funding is being channelled to finance 
the new migration agenda with initiatives such as the EU Trust Fund for Africa. Another respondent 
noted the lack of coordination between  different  entities (instruments and MS activities) managing 
funds related to security which leads to a risk of duplication and a lack of transparency. 

There  were  also  contributions  from  organisations  advocating  for  greater  spending  and 

78. 
commitment to biodiversity and disability-related assistance.  

79. 
Contributions  also  corroborated  the  evaluation  finding  around  the  cumbersome  and  time-
consuming nature of EU procedures, which are subject to frequent change, and the lack of consistent 
understanding among EU delegation staff of EU rules and procedures.  

64 

 
 
 
EU Platform, network or association 

80. 
The  contributions  of  EU  platforms,  networks  and  associations  echoed  some  of  the  issues 
raised by organisations and associations, including calls for greater commitment to climate funding 
and facilitating an enabling environment for CSOs. In particular, responses spoke to the increase in 
the grant sizes of EU calls for proposals that means cooperation is being concentrated on a smaller 
number  of  large  NGOs.  Suggestions  to  improve  local civil  society’s  access  to  EU  funding  include 
further  improving  consultation  and  dialogue,  improved  forecasting  of  calls  for  proposals  across  all 
instruments,  and  ring-fencing  calls  for  proposals  between  European  and  local  CSOs  to  increase 
equitable participation. One respondent stressed the need to improve and recognise the added value 
of  EU  MSs’  linkages  to  regions  and  countries,  and  that  MSs’  historical  and  privileged  positioning 
could be further leveraged by the EU.  

Research/academia 

81. 
One  research  organisation  responded,  concurring  with  the  evaluation’s  recommendation 
(R4) that programming should be based on robust political economy analysis, stressing the need to 
face  up  to  political  incentives  which  often  sit  behind  EFI  programming  and  implementation.  EFI 
programming that is informed by a political economy analysis, which balances various disbursement 
pressures, was noted as being important to improve the chance of impact, and is a recommendation 
that was made by the evaluation. 

Citizen/private individuals 

One  individual  responded  briefly  to  this  question  suggesting  a  radical  change  of  approach 

82. 
was necessary. 

Other 

There was one single entry for the ‘other’ category, with recommendations applicable to all 

83. 
instruments including increasing EU staff capacity, and multi-stakeholder in-country dialogues. 

Response of the evaluation team 

84. 
OPC  contributions  across  EFIs  understandably  drew  broad  responses  and  it  was  often 
unclear  which  specific  EFI  was  being  referred  to.  This  therefore  limits  the  relevance  to  the  EDF 
evaluation and the team’s ability to respond. However a few clear points emerged: 

  There  is  a  perceived  shrinking  operational  space  for  smaller  European  NGOs  and  local 
CSOs  to  engage  with  EU  funding  opportunities  and  participation,  in  part  given  the 
increasing  size  of  EU  grants  being  awarded  and  the  lack  of  genuine  dialogue  and 
participation. (See also Question 4 as well as EQ1 and encompassed in R1) 

  A key message was the need to improve transparency around financing of the new political 
agendas. Similarly, the need to couch EFI programming in robust political economy analysis 
was noted and is already one of the evaluation’s recommendations. 

  Suitability of the EDF instrument for the OCTs, the need to facilitate OCT access to other EU 
sources of finance and the notion of examining the possibility of a dedicated instrument for 
OCT cooperation which would take into account the specific needs and level of development 
experienced  by  the  OCTs  was  highlighted  and  is  reflected  in  one  of  the  conclusions  of  the 
evaluation. (C7) 

  There  was  a  clear  view  from  some  respondents  around  the  need  for  EFI  programming  to 

reflect EU commitments to climate change and issues of biodiversity. 

65 

 
 
 
Table  11  in  0  attempts  to  capture,  in  quantitative  terms,  the  outcome  of  the  OPC  in  terms  of 
agreeing or not with the findings and recommendations of the evaluation team. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1 

Outcome of OPC responses and extent of disagreement with performance review assessment 

Table 8.  Outcome of the OPC responses and extent of disagreement with performance 

review assessment on addressing EDF objectives 

Categories of respondents 

Number 

Findings 

Recommendations 

Public authority 
Organisation or association 
EU platform, network, or association 
Industry, business or workers' 
organisations 
Research/academia 
Citizen/individual 
Other 
Grand Total 

18 
23 
6 

2 
4 
2 
1 
56 

Confirmed  Opposed  Agree  Disagree  Suggestions 
2 
2 
3 

15 
17 
5 

3 
1 
1 

9 
4 
- 

- 
- 
- 

- 
4 
1 
1 
43 

- 
- 
- 
- 
5 

- 
- 
- 
- 
7 

- 
- 
- 
- 

1 
- 
1 
- 
15 

Source: ET, OPC analysis of 10th of May 2017 

Table 9.  Outcome of the OPC responses and extent of disagreement with performance 

review assessment on the issue of ownership 

Categories of respondents 

Number 

Findings 

Recommendations 

Confirmed  Opposed  Agree  Disagree  Suggestions 

Public authority 
Organisation or association 
EU platform, network, or association 
Industry, business or workers' 
organisations 
Research/academia 
Citizen/individual 
Other 
Grand Total 

12 
17 
8 

7 
16 
8 

3 
1 

1 
4 
2 
1 
45 

1 
4 
2 
1 
39 
Source: ET from OPC, 10th of May 2017 

4 

1 

1 

7 
5 

1 

1 
14 

Table 10.  Outcome of the OPC responses and extent of disagreement with findings for 

regional and intra-ACP cooperation 

Categories of respondents 

Number 

Findings 

Public authority 
Organisation or association 
EU platform, network, or 
association 

Confirme
d 
7 
7 

Neutral 
2 
2 

2 

0 

12 
10 

3 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Research/academia 
Citizen/individual 
Grand Total 

1 
0 
17 
Source: ET from OPC, 10th of May 2017 

2 
2 
29 

1 
2 
7 

Table 11.  Outcome of the OPC responses and extent of disagreement with performance 

review assessment on the issue of EFIs 

Findings 

Recommendations 

Categories of respondents 

Number 

Confirmed 

Opposed 

Agree 

Disagree 

Suggestions 

Public authority 

Organisation or association 
EU platform, network, or 
association 
Industry, business or workers' 
organisations 
Research/academia 

Citizen/individual 

Other 

Grand Total 

4 

5 

2 

1 

6 

18 

6 

0 

1 

1 

1 

33 

12 

0 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

8 

Source: ET, from OPC 10th of May 2017 

0 

0 

68 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Annex 5. Acronyms 

ACP 

DCI 

DRM 

African, Caribbean and Pacific States 

Development Cooperation Instrument 

Domestic Resource Mobilisation 

EIDHR 

European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights 

EU 

ISG 

MDGs 

MFF 

NAO 

OCTs 

RAO 

SDGs 

TAO 

European Union 

Inter-Service Group 

Millennium Development Goals 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

National Authorising Officer 

Overseas Countries and Territories 

Regional Authorising Officer 

Sustainable Development Goals (Agenda 2030) 

Territorial Authorising Officer 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6. External evaluators' report, including Annexes 

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

70