COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Mid-term evaluation of the Partnership Instrument for cooperation with third countries Accompanying the document REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-term review report of the External Financing Instruments
Date: 2017-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU financial instrument, development aid, foreign policy, innovation, international cooperation, sustainable development, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2017  SWD(2017) 608 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Mid-term evaluation of the Partnership Instrument for cooperation with third countries Accompanying the document REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-term review report of the External Financing Instruments {COM(2017) 720 final} - {SWD(2017) 463 final} - {SWD(2017) 600 final} - {SWD(2017) 601 final} - {SWD(2017) 602 final} - {SWD(2017) 604 final} - {SWD(2017) 605 final} - {SWD(2017) 606 final} - {SWD(2017) 607 final} - {SWD(2017) 609 final}  
 
 
CONTENTS 

Executive summary ..................................................................................................................... i 

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 

1.1 Purpose of the evaluation .............................................................................................................. 1 

1.2 Scope of the evaluation ................................................................................................................. 1 

2. Background of the initiative ................................................................................................... 2 

2.1 Description of the PI and its objectives ......................................................................................... 2 

2.2 Geographical focus and programming principles ......................................................................... 3 

2.3 Intervention logic of the Partnership Instrument .......................................................................... 5 

2.4 Baseline ......................................................................................................................................... 8 

3. Method ................................................................................................................................... 8 

4. Implementation state of play ................................................................................................ 10 

5. Answers to the evaluation questions .................................................................................... 16 

5.1 Relevance .................................................................................................................................... 16 

5.2 Effectiveness, impact, and sustainability .................................................................................... 17 

5.3 Efficiency .................................................................................................................................... 21 

5.4 Added Value ............................................................................................................................... 22 

5.5 Coherence, consistency, complementarity and synergies ........................................................... 23 

5.6 Leverage ...................................................................................................................................... 25 

6. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 26 

Annex 1. Procedural information ............................................................................................. 28 

Annex 2. Synopsis report of the stakeholders' consultation ..................................................... 33 

Annex 3. PI Common Indicators .............................................................................................. 46 

Annex 4. Acronyms .................................................................................................................. 49 

Annex 5. External evaluation ................................................................................................... 51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

This Staff Working Document evaluates the performance of the Partnership Instrument at its 
mid-term, covering the period from January 2014 to June 2017. 

Background: The Partnership Instrument was designed to fill a gap in the European Union's 
external actions  by  providing the ability to  pursue  cooperation  in  the  European  Union  (EU) 
interest  or  of  mutual  interest  with  partner  countries.  Building  on  more  limited  previous 
experiments  with  the  Instrument  for  cooperation  with  industrialised  countries,  in  2014  the 
Partnership  Instrument  was  intended  to  innovate  by  being  made  of  world-wide  application, 
explicitly not subject to requirements for official development assistance (ODA), and charged 
with  the  task  of  promoting  cooperation  and  alliance-building  on  issues  of  EU  or  mutual 
interest and challenges of global concern. It is designed for the EU as a global actor partnering 
with third countries - notably middle-income countries and in particular strategic partners - on 
a peer-to-peer basis. 

The  Partnership  Instrument  is  a  policy-supporting  instrument  strengthening  the  EU  by 
promoting  its  interests,  values  and  visibility  externally.  It  operates  under  the  framework 
defined  by  the  Global  Strategy  in  support  of  EU  foreign  policy  objectives.  The  Partnership 
Instrument  is  the  only  thematic  instrument  in  Heading  4  that  specialises  in  articulating  the 
external  dimension  of  internal  policies.  It  thus  brings  coherence  and  adds  value  to  the  EU's 
action internally and externally, by interconnecting policy areas (e.g. climate/energy). Actions 
cover  challenges  of  global  concern  like  climate  change  and  environmental  protection; 
enhancing  widespread  understanding  and  visibility  of  the  EU  and  of  its  role  on  the  world 
scene by means of public diplomacy; the international dimension of the Europe 2020 strategy 
for jobs and growth; improving access to markets and boosting trade, investment and business 
opportunities  for  EU  companies  (with  particular  emphasis  on  SMEs).  This  responds  to  the 
calls  to  strengthen  the  nexus  between  internal  and  external  policies  expressed  in  the  EU 
Global Strategy and the reflection papers on the future of the EU. A key focus of Partnership 
Instrument  actions  is  therefore  support  for,  and  follow-up  to,  trade  negotiations,  policy 
dialogues and bilateral and regional summits, international fora and alliance-building. 

Relevance – fitness for purpose: The evaluation shows that the Partnership Instrument is fit 
for purpose1. It has  proven its relevance  to  long  standing  EU priorities. Its actions  reflected 
the  different  strands  of  the  strategic  framework  of  the  EU's  external  actions  as  well  as  the 
Commission's 10 priorities; also, they prefigured, and supported, the EU Global Strategy and 
the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development  (Sustainable  Developments  Goals).  The  key 
element of fitness for purpose is its flexibility and its ability to adapt to the new and changed 
policy priorities that have arisen since its adoption. This flexibility is due to the design of the 
instrument, in particular the adaptability and global application of its programming. To date, 
four Annual Action Programmes (AAPs) have been adopted comprising a total of 77 actions 
targeted  at  particular  policy  needs  and  interests  articulated  by  the  Commission  services  and 
the European External Action Service (EEAS). All stakeholders, including EU Member States 
and  outside  stakeholders,  have  confirmed  during  the  evaluation  process  their  broad 
satisfaction with the instrument’s performance. Programming in two different phases, allows 

1  "Fit  for  purpose"  means  achieving  the  objectives  for  which  the  instrument  was  designed,  Article  17  Common 

Implementation Regulation." 

i 

 
 
 
                                                 
for  a  faster  response  to  changing  agendas.  Not  being  tied  geographically  to  particular 
countries  or  regions,  the  Partnership  Instrument  has  successfully  achieved  its  objective  of 
global reach: while actions implemented in strategic partner countries represent over half of 
the  budget  so  far,  nearly  the  same  amount  represents  multi-country/regional/global  actions 
which include other partner countries.  

Its  flexibility  is  also  due  to  the choices  made  on  its implementation,  notably  rapid-response 
tools,  such  as  the  "Policy  Support  Facility"2  (PSF)  and  the  "Technical  Assistance  and 
Information Exchange"3 (TAIEX). By June 2017, 98 actions have been implemented through 
PSF  and  59  actions  through  TAIEX.  Despite  their  limited  size  in  terms  of  budget  and 
duration, these facilities have proven to be key in responding in a tailored way and with the 
necessary flexibility and rapidity, to emerging political priorities, and in seizing windows of 
opportunity  for  advancing  agendas  and  building  alliances  by  providing  necessary  expertise 
and technical assistance.  

Effectiveness  and  impact:  The  Partnership  Instrument  has  been  effective  in  delivering 
results. It is on track towards reaching its objectives and is ahead of the overall EU target as 
regards  spending  on  climate  action.  However,  more  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  the 
mainstreaming  within  Partnership  Instrument  actions  of  overarching  themes  (like  gender). 
The decision-making process has evolved towards an even greater concentration on strategic 
EU priorities like the Juncker Commission’s 10 priorities along with the EU Global Strategy, 
and  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals.  This  requires  Partnership  Instrument  actions  to  be 
fully concentrated on achieving meaningful policy impacts. In this respect some aspects need 
further improvement: increasing provision of resources and input by policy-making services 
to  ensure  they  are  fully  involved  in  designing,  programming  and  implementing  the  actions; 
enhancing  the  active  role  of  EU  delegations  in  the  formulation  of  actions;  improving  in  the 
remaining  implementation  period  the  visibility  of  Partnership  Instrument  actions,  especially 
within  the  EU  institutions  but  also  externally;  and  realising  the  full  potential  of  actions 
through better follow-up. 

Some  measures  were  already  taken.  For  example,  the  Commission  services  recently 
concentrated resources in regional teams to  better  manage  Partnership Instrument actions in 
EU delegations; to provide more support to delegations for projects under their remit; and to 
stimulate  a  more  active  participation  of  delegations  in  the  design  of  Partnership  Instrument 
actions.  Furthermore,  in  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  design  and  implementation  of 
Partnership  Instrument  actions  require  a  high  level  of  involvement  Commission  services 
responsible  for  different  policies  and  from  the  EEAS,  actions  to  be  included  in  the  annual 
programme are prepared by "policy clusters" of relevant experts. Securing sufficient provision 
of  resources  and  input  from  Commission  and  EEAs  policy-making  services  and  their  full 
involvement from design, through programming to implementation is a continuing challenge. 
Further reflection is underway to link the Partnership Instrument programming more closely 
to  the  policy  guidance  emanating  from  the  project  teams  under  the  Commission's  Vice 
Presidents.  

The awareness and visibility of the Partnership Instrument has been identified as one of the 
main weaknesses limiting its use and application, as only those services best acquainted with 

2 Short-term technical assistance provided by private consultancies. 
3 Short-term technical expertise provided by expert working in Member States public authorities. 

ii 

 
 
 
                                                 
it  propose  most  priorities  and  design  most  actions.  In  terms  of  external  visibility,  Member 
States expressed their interest in receiving more details on Partnership Instrument actions and 
emphasised  the  need  for  an  increase  of  information  sharing,  notably  for  better  coordination 
between the EU and Member States in partner countries. In response the Commission services 
have stepped up its efforts to present information to Council geographical working groups and 
within the responsible Partnership Instrument Committee. 

Efficiency:  The  external  evaluation  and  stakeholder  consultation  confirmed 
that 
implementation of the instrument is considered to be adaptive, efficient and flexible and it is 
able to react particularly fast to emerging needs.  

Monitoring and evaluation processes presented weaknesses during the initial implementation 
of the instrument, but a monitoring and evaluation framework has now been consolidated to 
ensure better performance and impact data in the future. 

EU  added  value:  The  Partnership  Instrument  demonstrates  its  added  value  being  the  only 
instrument  which  can  be  deployed  globally  and  which  explicitly  pursues  EU  interests,  and 
mutual  interests  with  partner  countries.  There  is  consensus  that  the  EU  level  is  the  most 
appropriate  for  action  in  Partnership  Instrument  fields  of  intervention.  Withdrawing 
Partnership Instrument support would reduce the ability of the EU to pursue partnerships with 
a  wide  range  of  partner  countries,  failing  to  live  up  to  its  bilateral  and  international 
commitments as well as to the partners’ expectations. 

Coherence,  complementarity:  The  processes  put  in  place  by  the  Commission  service 
managing the instrument ensure an inclusive and coordinated approach to programming and 
implementation  which  reinforces  the  coherence  of  Partnership  Instrument  actions.  In  this 
sense,  a  good  degree  of  complementarity  exists  with  interventions  by  Member  States,  with 
some examples of good practice of coordination taking place between the EU delegations and 
Member  States'  embassies  in  third  countries  where  Partnership  Instrument  actions  are 
implemented. Overall, Member States and the Commission services/EEAS agree on the added 
value  Partnership  Instrument  interventions  bring  to  EU  cooperation  /  dialogue  with  partner 
countries. 

The  Partnership  Instrument  is  found  to  be  externally  and  internally  coherent  by  design. 
Inclusive  and  participatory  decision-making  processes  have  ensured 
its 
implementation,  it  facilitates  coherence,  consistency,  complementarity  and  synergies  both 
internally (with other policies) and externally (with stakeholders and partner countries). 

that 

in 

Leverage: Financial leverage is not a requirement and has occurred only to a limited extent. 
On the other hand, the political and policy leverage is directly inscribed in the design of the 
Partnership Instrument. Since its creation the Partnership Instrument has acted as an enabler, 
opening up areas for political and policy dialogue and cooperation.  

Conclusion: The conclusions of the evaluation will feed into the reflection on how to further 
refine the implementation of the Partnership Instrument for the remaining period until 2020, 
and  on  the  future  set  of  External  Financing  Instruments  for  the  next  Multiannual  Financial 
Framework. 

iii 

 
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Purpose of the evaluation 

This  Staff  Working  Document  presents  the  results  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the 
Partnership  Instrument4  (PI)  2014-2020.  The  evaluation  assesses  whether  the  PI  is  fit  for 
purpose,  based  on  its  performance  to-date,  to  deliver  on  its  objective  of  advancing  and 
promoting  the  EU's  and  mutual  interests.  Its  purpose  is  to  inform  future  work  on  the 
instrument  and  its  actions.  In  particular,  this  evaluation,  which  is  part  of  a  set  of  ten 
evaluations  covering  all  the  EU  External  Financing  Instruments5,  informs  the  Mid-Term 
Review Report6, which draws conclusions across all External Financing Instruments. 

This document is based on an external evaluation carried out by independent consultants (see 
Annex  5)  and  on  an  open  public  consultation  which  gathered  views  of  stakeholders  (see 
Annex 2). 

1.2 Scope of the evaluation 

The  temporal  scope  of  the  evaluation  corresponds  to  the  requirements  for  the  Mid-Term 
Review  (MTR)  Report  set  out  in  Article  17  of  the  Common  Implementation  Regulation 
(CIR)7 i.e. it focuses on the period January 2014 to June 2017. 

In order to usefully feed into the MTR report, the evaluation is set at instrument level. Due to 
the  novelty  of  the  PI,  the  focus  has  not  only  been  on  the  PI  Regulation,  but  also  on  the 
Multiannual  Indicative  Programme  (MIP)  for  the  period  2014-2017  and  on  concrete  actions 
contained in the Annual Action Programmes (AAPs). The evaluator as part of their task also 
conducted additional evaluations on a sample of actions covering all four specific objectives 
of the PI and the main regions covered by the instrument. This meant that the evaluation of 
the instrument was backed by evidence collected on its real performance. 

The countries covered by the evaluation are those eligible under the PI regulation (see section 
2.1  and  2.2)  with  a  particular  focus  on  6  countries  in  which  action-level  evaluations  took 
place: Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and the United States of America. 
In  accordance  with  the  EU  Better  Regulation  Guidelines8  and  the  Common  Implementing 
Regulation  (CIR)9,  the  following  evaluation  criteria  are  used:  relevance,  effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence, added value and leverage. 

4 Regulation (EU) No 234/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a Partnership 

Instrument for cooperation with third countries (later referred to as "PI Regulation").. 

5  The  Development  Cooperation  Instrument,  the  11th  European  Development  Fund  which  is  outside  of  the  EU  budget,  the 
European Neighbourhood Instrument, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the Greenland Decision, 
the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace, the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance, the Instrument on Nuclear 
Safety  Cooperation,  the  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories  Decision,  the  Partnership  Instrument  and  the  Common 
Implementing  Regulation.  For  the  purpose  of  this  exercise,  the  evaluation  of  the  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories 
Decision is included within the evaluation of the 11th European Development Fund. 

6  As  requested  in  Article  17  of  the  Common  Implementing  Regulation,  Regulation  (EU)  No  236/2014  of  the  European 

Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014, OJ L77, p. 95. 

7 Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014. 
8  Commission  Communication  Better  Regulation  for  Better  Results  –  An  EU  Agenda,  COM  (2015)  215,  and  Commission 

Staff Working Document Better Regulation guidelines, SWD (2015) 111. 

1 

 
 
 
                                                 
2. BACKGROUND OF THE INITIATIVE 

The External Financing Instruments form part of the 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework's11  Heading  IV 
"Global  Europe"12  which  provides  the  EU  with  the 
tools  necessary  to  reinforce  its  role  on  the  world 
stage  and  to  ensure  that  it  is  able  to  live  up  to  its 
ambitions  in  promoting  its  interests  and  universal 
values  and  principles  such  as  democracy,  human 
rights,  peace,  solidarity,  stability  and  poverty 
reduction and to help safeguard global public goods. 

Adopted  in  early  2014,  the  External  Financing 
Instruments  (EFIs)  were  designed  to  facilitate  and 
support policy implementation, with the intention of 
remaining  relevant  for  the  entire  duration  of  the 
2014-2020  Multi-annual  Financial  Framework 
thereby enabling the EU to implement external action 
policy  as  needed  within  the  defined  principles  and 
objectives. 

Table 1: Heading IV Global Europe 2014-
202010 

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

€ millions 

19 662 
15 433 
11 699 
6 622 

2 339 

2 339 
2 286 

1 396 

1 333 

1 193 
955 
565 
225 
218 

30 506 

2.1 Description of the PI and its objectives 

EDF 

The  Partnership  Instrument  is  one  of  the  key 
innovations in  Heading IV specifically designed  to  advance and promote EU and mutual 
interests  (as  an  overall  objective).  It  was  designed  as  a  direct  response  to  a  changing 
international  context,  with  the  emergence  of  new  actors  and  the  evolution  of  the  EU’s 
relations  with  third  countries  and  the  growing  need  for  new  partnerships  with  countries  of 
strategic interest. 

With  this  changing  context  in  mind,  the  PI  is  innovative  in  both  scope  and  objectives. 
Namely,  it  has  a  mandate  to  expand  cooperation  partnerships  and  policy  dialogues  to  areas 
and subjects beyond development cooperation,13 and to support EU policies as well as address 
challenges  of  global  concern  in  this  context  of  new  partnerships  and  emerging  actors, 
including  at  the  regional  (subnational)  and  urban  authority  levels.  It  builds  on  experience 
gained  with  the  Instrument  for  Cooperation  with  Industrialised  Countries  (ICI)14  but  with  a 
broader policy scope and global application. The PI was designed to be flexible to respond to 

9 Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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, 15.3.2014, p. 95–
108. 

10 The Multi-annual Financial Framework is divided into six broad groups of expenditure called "Headings". The EFIs make 

up the majority of Heading IV: Global Europe. External Financing Instruments highlighted in blue. Source: 
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/index_en.cfm. 

11  Council  Regulation  (EU,  EURATOM)  No  1311/2013  of  2  December  2013  laying  down  the  multiannual  financial 

framework for the years 2014-2020, OJ L 347/884, p. 884. 

12 The Multi-annual Financial Framework is divided into six broad groups of expenditure called "Headings". The EFIs make 

up the majority of Heading IV: Global Europe. 

13 There is no mandatory requirement for PI spending to qualify as official development assistance. 
14  Regulation  (EU)  No  1934/2006  of  the  Council  of  21  December  2006  establishing  a  financing  instrument  for  cooperation  with 

industrialised and other high-income countries and territories, OJ L 405/41, 30 December 2016. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
 
 
 
global  challenges  and  to  the  fast-changing  nature  of  relations  with  partner  countries,  e.g.  to 
rapidly underwrite EU agreements reached at summits with concrete supporting actions under 
the PI's remit. To contribute to the overall objective, the PI finances actions in line with the 
following four specific objectives (Article 1(2)a-d of the PI Regulation): 

  Supporting  the  Union's  bilateral,  regional  and  inter-regional  cooperation  partnership 
strategies by promoting policy dialogue and by developing collective approaches and 
responses to challenges of global concern; 
Implementing  the international dimension of "Europe 2020"15 strategy; 
Improving  access  to  partner  country  markets  and  boosting  trade,  investment  and 
business  opportunities  for  companies  from  the  Union,  while  eliminating  barriers  to 
market  access  and  investment,  by  means  of  economic  partnerships,  business  and 
regulatory cooperation; 

 
 

  Enhancing widespread understanding and visibility of the Union and of its role on the 
world scene by means of public diplomacy, people-to-people contacts, cooperation in 
educational  and  academic  matters,  think-tank  cooperation  and  outreach  activities  to 
promote the Union's values and interests. 

2.2 Geographical focus and programming principles 

The PI has a global reach and is intended to address issues and challenges at global, regional 
and bilateral level. Given the wide scope and relatively limited financial envelope (EUR 954 
million),  the  first  Multiannual  Indicative  Programme  for  the  period  2014-201716  further 
specifies  a  focus  on  both  established  (Canada,  Japan,  the  Republic  of  Korea,  the  Russian 
Federation, and the United States) and emerging (Brazil, China, India and Mexico)17 strategic 
partners and other countries of strategic interest to the EU, including countries that are no 
longer eligible for bilateral development aid (so called  graduated countries18). De facto, the 
PI is deployed mainly in the regions of Asia-Pacific, the Americas, the Gulf as well as Russia 
and Central Asia as illustrated by indicative financial allocations set out in the MIP (see table 
2  below).  Despite  the  focus  defined  in  the  MIP,  the  PI  maintains  its  ability  to  intervene 
anywhere in the world where needed, based on the EU's interests and policy agendas. 

15  Commission  Communication,  COM/2010/2020,  Europe  2020:  A  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth, 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC2020. 

16  C(2014)4453  final,  Commission  implementing  decision  of  3.7.2014  on  the  adoption  of  the  first  multiannual  indicative 
programme for the period 2014-2017 under the Partnership Instrument for cooperation with third countries. 
17 All EU strategic partners are under focus except for South Africa, which is still benefitting from development assistance 
from the EU. 
18 Graduated countries are those already on sustained growth paths and/or able to generate enough own resources, which will 
result in less or no EU development grant and the pursuit of a new relationship/partnership with the EU. Communication 
from the European Commission: Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change, COM(2011) 637 
final, 13.10.2011. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2: Indicative financial allocations 2014-2020 (EUR million, MIP)19 
Specific objectives 

Obj. 1  Obj. 2 

Obj. 3 

Obj. 4 

Totals 

Totals 
(without 
4.1)* 

Priorities 
Asia-Pacific 
Americas 
Russia, Central Asia & Arctic 
Gulf Countries 
Total per priority 
Total per specific objective 
Reserve 
Total Operational Appropriations 
Total administrative support 
Grand total PI-MIP 

Source: MIP 

1 
142 
126 
51 
12 
331 
331 

2 
68 
60 
10 
3 
141 
141 

3.1 
75 
55 
20 
2 
152 

3.2 
45 
25 
5 
2 
77 

4.1 
35 
33 
14 
6 
88* 

4.2 
35 
29 
19 
2 
85 

229 

173 

365 
295 
105 
21 
786 
786 

400 
328 
119 
27 
874 
874 

48.2 

834.2 

922.2 

38.2 

872.4 

960.4 

(*) EUR 88 million of the total PI amount has been inscribed for the promotion of the international dimension of higher education through 
the Erasmus+ Programme. The implementation, monitoring and evaluation of funds allocated to this programme is governed by Regulation 
(EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014, not by the PI Regulation, and is beyond the scope of 
this evaluation. 

According to the MIP (p. 11), the need for complementarity of Partnership actions with other 
EFIs is particularly emphasised as regards the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)20, 
European  Neighbourhood  Instrument  (ENI)21  and  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession  Assistance 
(IPA  II)22.  For  the  latter  two,  the  MIP  defines  complementarity  in  negative  terms,  i.e.  for 
countries covered by these instruments the PI would a priori not support bilateral cooperation. 
Careful articulation needs to be assured in particular with the DCI's thematic "Global Public 
Goods and Challenges" (GPGC) programme. Nevertheless, while thematic programmes of the 
DCI mainly contribute to its primary objective of poverty eradication in the long term, the PI 
is  intended  to  advance  and  promote  EU  and  mutual  interests.  Therefore,  although  global 
challenges (e.g. climate change, energy, environment) are not to be addressed by the PI  from 
a development perspective it does not exclude PI action (in the pursuit of EU - and mutual – 
interests)  where  this  cannot  be  done  thematically  or  quickly  by  the  DCI.  As  regards  the 
European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and  Human  Rights  (EIDHR)23  and  the  Instrument 
Contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace  (IcSP)24,  the  MIP  (p. 11)  states  that  the  PI  may  act  in 
synergy with them, if appropriate. This is fully consistent with the formers' legal basis. 

The  MIP  sets  out  further  principles  for  programming:  maintain  a  thematic  approach  (rather 
than  country-focused)  to  programming  in  line with  the  four  PI  specific  objectives; focus  on 
first  identifying  EU's  interests  in  the  countries  of  strategic  importance  to  the  EU  and  only 

19 The calculations in the section below (share by objective) exclude priority 4.1, funds allocated to the Erasmus+ Programme, as well as 

reserve funds and administrative support provisions. 

20 Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a financing 

instrument for development cooperation for the period 2014-2020, OJ L 77, 15.3.2014, p. 44–76. 

21 Regulation (EU) No 232/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a European 

Neighbourhood Instrument, OJ L 77, 15.3.2014, p. 27–43. 

22 Regulation (EU) No 231/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing an Instrument 

for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II), OJ L 77, 15.3.2014, p. 11–26. 

23 Regulation (EU) No 235/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a financing 

instrument for democracy and human rights worldwide, OJ L 77, 15.3.2014, p. 85–94. 

24 Regulation (EU) No 230/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing an instrument 

contributing to stability and peace, OJ L 77, 15.3.2014, p. 1–10. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
then, identifying concrete actions to promote them; avoid excessive fragmentation of activities 
in  order  to  maximise  impact;  and  establish  an  appropriate  degree  of  flexibility  to  allow  for 
effective response to changing environments. All these aspects are covered by the evaluation. 

2.3 Intervention logic of the Partnership Instrument 
The intervention logic (IL) of the Partnership Instrument was designed in 201625 through a 
participative  approach  involving  in  particular  Commission  policy-making  services  active  in 
implementing the PI and using its actions. It is set at instrument level to reflect the pitch of the 
evaluation.  The  IL  as  presented  hereafter  was  designed  based  on  the  PI  and  the  CIR 
regulations and the 2014-2017 MIP. 

The  overall  objectives  of  the  PI  Regulation  are  reformulated  into  impact  and  outcome 
statements.  The  outputs  and  activities  have  been  grouped  in  typologies  and  were  identified 
through  the  analysis  of  concrete  actions  in  Annual  Action  Programmes  (AAPs)  2014,  2015 
and 2016 (first phase). The IL includes three types of inputs (political, technical and financial 
and human) necessary for the implementation of the PI. It is completed by the pre-conditions 
which  need  to  be  met  prior  to  implementation  as  well  as  assumptions  at  various  levels 
required to realise the logical chain of results. The intervention logic is set out in figure 1 on 
page 7. 

In  this  exercise  it  was  important  to  set  the  ambition  at  the  right  level  and  to  capture  the 
policy-supporting  function  of  the  PI.  The  overall  objectives  of  actions  were  sometimes 
established  as  too  ambitious26  (e.g.  to  reduce  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  to  contribute  to 
climate change mitigation, greater sustainability through energy efficiency), while the PI with 
its limited funds can hardly be expected to contribute e.g. to a decrease in CO2 emissions or to 
an overall increase in trade with country X. The IL therefore helps to frame the thinking when 
designing  PI  actions  by  putting  emphasis  on  the  real  effects  which  the  PI  is  designed  to 
produce,  i.e.  to  influence  policy-making  processes  in  partner  countries  on  certain  issues 
which  can  lead  to  longer-term  effects,  such  as  the  adoption  of  ambitious  targets  for  CO2 
reduction by country X or the development of a technological standard by country Y in order 
to  create  a  level-playing  field  for  European  businesses  (see  a  practical  example  below  in 
Table 3).  These  are  examples  of  political/policy  changes  that  PI  actions  aim  to  bring  about 
which  then  may  in  turn  help  to  contribute  to  some  other  longer-term  objectives  (CO2 
emissions  reduction,  increase  in  trade).  To  realise  the  later,  however,  other  additional  steps 
need to be taken which go beyond the scope of a possible PI impact. 

The political and policy changes PI aims to contribute to are in line with the ambition of the 
EU to act as a soft or normative power. Through cooperation and sharing of examples, rules, 
standards and values, the PI through its actions can indirectly influence the agenda and policy 
in its bilateral relationships and on the global scene contributing to an impact defined as "EU 
and mutual interests have been advanced and promoted" and through this to the Commission 
general objective no. 9 "The EU as a stronger global actor"27. 

25 Study to develop indicators, monitoring system and to assess the first phase of implementation of the Partnership Instrument (November 

2016).  

26 Ibid, p. 37. 
27 See 10 priorities of the European Commission for 2015-2019, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities_en. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 3: Example of specific objective/outcome and overall objective/impact 
Specific objective 
To initiate a process leading towards adoption of ICT 
standard  on  machine-to-machine  (M2M)  compatible 
with EU/international standards in [country] 
Potential outcome: 
[country]  set  up  a  task  force  to  develop  standard  on 
M2M  and  elaborated  a  roadmap  with  deadline  to 
adopt the standard by 2019 

Overall objective: 
To  contribute 
standards in [country] with EU standards 

to  higher 

interoperability  of  ICT 

Potential impact: 
[country]  adopted  a  standard  on  M2M  compatible 
with  EU  standards  in  2020  and  engaged  in  further 
standardisation cooperation 

6 

 
 
 
 
7 

 
 
2.4 Baseline 

As this is a mid-term evaluation, the baseline has been set at January 2014, when the PI 2014-
2020  was  adopted  and  implementation  began.  Therefore  the  evaluation  compares,  to  the 
extent  possible,  the  situation  on  1  January  2014  (Common  Implementation  Regulation, 
Article  17.3)  with  the  current  situation.  As  the  PI  was  conceived  as  an  entirely  new 
instrument,  there  is  by  definition  no  comparable  baseline  to  refer  to.  The  PI  common 
indicators included in  Annex 3 recognise this  starting point of the instrument by setting the 
baseline for indicators at 0 (zero). 

3. METHOD 
This evaluation follows the approach set out in the PI evaluation roadmap28. It is supported by 
an external evaluation carried out by independent experts from June 2016 to June 2017 and 
managed by a reference group with Commission services and EEAS representatives through 
the  following  steps:  an  inception  report  (which  explained  how  the  evaluation  design  would 
deliver  the  information  required);  a  desk  report  and  meeting  (providing  initial  responses  to 
evaluation  questions);  validation  phase  including  field  visits  to  Argentina,  Brazil,  Brussels, 
China, India, Mexico, and the United States; a development of two databases covering all PI-
supported actions with results and achieved values of common PI indicators29; a survey to EU 
delegations  covering  all  instruments;  an  "emerging  messages"  meeting;;  working  sessions 
with  the  evaluation  teams  of  other  EFIs;  and  a  final  report.  In  addition  to  the  external 
evaluation, an Open Public Consultation30  was organised on the draft report. It comprised a 
specific  12-week  online  survey  and  targeted  meetings  with  institutional  (Member  States, 
European  Parliament)  and  external  stakeholders  (academia/think-tanks/research,  civil 
society/culture, international organisations, and business) in March 2017. 

Challenges and mitigating measures 

The  process  of  this  evaluation  is  considered  to  be  robust  since  it  builds  on  an  external 
independent evaluation and since it was followed by a reference group comprised of various 
Commission and EEAS services (i.e. going beyond the Commission service which manages 
the  instrument).  The  evidence  gathered  is  considered  to  be  solid  since  it  builds  on  various 
sources:  desk  review;  monitoring  data;  evaluation  of  a  sample  of  actions;  extensive 
stakeholder  interview  programme  involving  internal  and  field  visits  with  interviews  of 
external  (partner  country)  stakeholders;  open  public  consultation  with  institutional  and 
external  stakeholders.  Two  challenges  were identified  at the  outset  and  mitigating measures 
were built into the terms of reference to overcome them: 

1) The PI was a new instrument with first actions starting implementation only at the end of 
2014, hence monitoring data was available only for a short period up until September 201631. 
During this period, most actions remained in progress and only a few were fully completed. 

28 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_fpi_003_evaluation_pi_en.pdf 
29 For the analysis of the databases see external evaluation report, Volume II: Final Report – Annexes, Annex 8. 
30 https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/public-consultation-external-financing-instruments-european-union_en 
31 September 2016 was selected as a cut-off date for monitoring data which needed to be collected, compiled and assessed by 

the external evaluator in order to deliver the draft final report in December 2016. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
Moreover,  there  was  no  evaluation  evidence  based  on  similar  past  interventions32  because 
there was no "predecessor instrument" upon which to gauge or trace an outline of an evidence 
base.  As  a  mitigating  measure,  the  external  evaluation  design  included  two  additional 
exercises to gather evidence: 

  Data collection on results achieved so far by all individual actions already completed 

or under implementation by September 2016 

  Specific mid-term and final evaluations of 13 PI actions (covering all 4 objectives and 
different geographical areas) to gain an in-depth understanding of the operations in the 
field (Argentina, Brazil, Brussels, China, India, Mexico, and the United States) 

2) The second challenge was linked to the first mitigating measure (data collection on results 
achieved  so  far).  Data  had  to  be  retrieved  from  progress  reports  drafted  by  implementing 
partners  as  well  as  internal  progress  reports  drafted  by  project  managers.33  This  led  to  the 
following mitigating measure: 

  The  documentary  review  was  complemented  by  primary  data  collection  through 
systematic  consultation  of  PI  project  managers34.  Nevertheless,  data  was  not  always 
available  for  the  common  PI  indicators  which  were  defined  ex  post  (in  2016)  and 
therefore the reported values are likely underestimates of real performance35. 

The  indicator  values  are  those  reported  by  implementing  partners  (and  complemented  by 
interviews with project managers) which is a regular practice. This data, analysed in Annex 8 
of the external evaluation report, was complemented by an extensive stakeholder consultation 
with  94  interviewees  from  EEAS,  Commission  services,  EU  delegations,  European 
Parliament and Member States' representatives in the PI Committee. In addition, views were 
gathered from partner country institutions which were stakeholders in the 13 actions selected 
for  mid-term  and  final  actions  evaluations.  Views  of  institutional  (Member  States  and 
European  Parliament)  and  outside  stakeholders  (representing  23  organisations,  of  which  6 
implementing  partners)  were  also  collected  through  a  targeted  face-to-face  consultation 
meeting.  Surveys  of  EU  delegations  and  the  Open  Public  Consultation  with  13036  replies 
complemented the range of views gathered. 

This  approach  ensured  that  evidence  at  different  levels  could  be  gathered,  analysed  and 
usefully exploited and triangulated37 to answer the evaluation questions at the mid-term of the 
implementation of the PI. The findings and conclusions of the evaluator are sufficiently robust 
and  backed-up  by  evidence  and  Service  for  Foreign  Policy  Instruments  managing  the  PI 
agrees  with  them.  As  a  result,  section  4  (implementation  state  of  play)  and  5  (replies  to 
evaluation questions) build on the findings of external evaluation and refer also to stakeholder 
views gathered during the open public consultation. 

32 The PI builds on the ICI instrument, but is broader in thematic and geographical scope. No strategic evaluation is available 

for the ICI instrument. On project level, three flagship projects under ICI were evaluated of which two have been 
discontinued under the PI and only one has been continued due to positive results demonstrated by the evaluation (EU 
gateways / business avenues), see https://www.eu-gateway.eu/file/284/download?token=uyytRTJI. 

33 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 2-3. 
34  For  13  actions  selected  for  individual  action  evaluation,  this  data  collection  was  enriched  by  consultation  of  external 

stakeholders. 

35 This is explained in the external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 11. 
36 Altogether 124 replies were received online and 6 additional submitted by e-mail by Member States. 
37 Triangulation is a technique that facilitates validation of data through cross verification from two or more sources. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
As  regards  section  4,  to  complement  the  external  evaluation  report,  other  sources  are 
exploited and documented: new data based on the first phase of AAP 2017 adopted in May 
2017;  internal  PI  monitoring  system  to  update  statistics  on  number  of  PI  actions;  data  on 
financial execution; FPI Annual Management Plan and Annual Activity Report for 2016; and 
the study on indicators and monitoring from 2016. 

4. IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 

This  section  provides,  first,  an  overview  of  programming  progress,  structures  and 
arrangements  put  in  place  for  implementation,  modalities  and  geographical  and  thematic 
coverage of PI  actions to date. In the second part, it analyses financial execution and in the 
third part, presents the monitoring arrangements put in place as well as performance to date. 

4.1 Implementation progress: multiannual and annual programming, structures put in 
place, modalities, geographical and thematic coverage 

The  MIP  sets  out  priorities  in  terms  of  geographical  and  thematic  focus,  programming 
principles and indicative financial allocations (see above in section 2). 

As regards the annual programming procedure, a significant development was noted by the 
external  evaluator  who  found  the  processes  increasingly  aligned  with  the  strategic 
priorities.38 The PI is implemented through Annual Action Programmes (AAPs). For AAP 
2014  and  2015,  Commission  services,  the  EEAS  and  EU  delegations  were  asked  to  submit 
proposals for action. As assessed by the external evaluator, this approach led, in some cases, 
to  a  lack  of  strategic  priority  setting,  insufficient  targeting  and  fragmentation  of  support.39 
These limitations were recognised early on by the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments and 
a new cluster approach40 was put in place from the AAP 201641 onwards to define better the 
thematic  and  regional  strategic  priorities  around  which  projects  are  subsequently  identified 
and  formulated  and  to  ensure  input  from  relevant  policy-making  departments  on  priority-
setting. 

Partnership actions are formulated and implemented in cooperation with policy-relevant staff 
in  Commission  services,  the  EEAS  and  the  EU  delegations  (the  PI's  "client"  services).  The 
client  services  provide  content,  technical  input  and  policy  steer  which  is  combined  with 
overall  coordination  and  project  management  input  by  the  Service  for  Foreign  Policy 
Instruments,  a  Commission  service  managing  the  PI.  The  external  evaluator  found  that  this 
innovative decision-making has strengthened the coordination reflex of the client services 
(beyond  the  PI)  and  that  this  coordination  puts  into  effect  the  coherence  required  with 
other EFIs.42 

38 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 22. 
39 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 25. 
40 This approach brings together relevant EEAS and Commission services around geographical and thematic "clusters". For 

further details see external evaluation report, Volume II: Final Report – Annexes, Annex 13. 

41 Nota bene that preparation of AAP 2016 started in April 2015, therefore the cluster approach started being implemented 

about one year after the adoption of the PI Regulation. 

42 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 22 and 45. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 2: PI main strands of action as of June 2017 per PI objective 
COM 1, 2, 3, etc. refer to the priorities of the Juncker Commission 

On  the  basis  of  the  cluster  approach,  nine  main  strands  of  PI  action  were  developed  (see 
figure 2) which take into account the overall strategic framework of the EU's external action 
as represented by the Global Strategy for the European Union's Foreign and Security Policy 
(EUGS)43,  the  Commission’s  10  priorities  as  well  as  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals 
(SDGs)44.  Thereby  the  PI  respects  the  programming  principle  set  out  in  the  MIP  (p. 11)  of 
avoiding  excessive  fragmentation  of  activities  in  order  to  maximise  impact.  The  external 
evaluator assesses that many actions pursue more than one specific PI objective.45 Synergies 
are often created with specific objective 3 (market access). For example, by acting on climate 
change, opportunities to create a level playing field for EU businesses with green technologies 
are also explored and where possible integrated in the same action. 

By  June  2017,  four  AAPs  for  the  PI  were  adopted  totalling  77  actions  (see  table  4  below). 
Reflecting the requirement by the PI Regulation (Article 1) and the MIP (p. 11) to ensure an 
appropriate 
level  of  flexibility  to  allow  for  an  effective  response  to  changing 
environments, AAPs have  been  prepared  since 2015 in  two  phases every year (once in the 
second and  again in  the third/fourth quarter). The external evaluation shows evidence46 that 
this  implementation  method  provides  for  more  flexible  responses  than  other  EFIs  which 
typically have one programming cycle per year. 

43  Shared  Vision,  Common  Action:  A  Stronger  Europe,  A  Global  Strategy  for  the European  Union's Foreign  and  Security 

Policy, June 2016. 

44 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations, September 2015. 
45 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 44. 
46 See external evaluation report,, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 7 and 29. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Number of actions fiches  Decided amount (EUR million) 

Table 4: Overview of AAPs, number of actions fiches, total decided amounts 
AAP year 
AAP 2014 
AAP 2015 (both phases) 
AAP 2016 (both phases) 
AAP 2017 (first phase) 
Total 

19 
17 
22 
19 
77 

107 
103.72 
109.15 
87.6 
407.47 

Partnership  actions  have  been  so  far  mainly  directly  managed  either  through  service 
contracts  or  grants  by  FPI  in  Headquarters  or  in  EU  delegations47.  Each  action  "fiche" 
provides in general for one action which may be implemented through one or several projects 
(contracts/grants or delegation agreements). The action "fiche" for public diplomacy provides 
for  more  actions  organised  along  four  main 
interventions  and  different 
countries/regions. 

types  of 

Actions reflected in a "fiche" are generally of a longer-term and structural nature, referred to 
as  standalone  actions48.  Given  the  applicable  internal  Commission  and  comitology 
procedures,  it  takes  generally  from  1.5  to  2  years  from  the  initial  project  idea,  through 
identification and formulation of an action "fiche", adoption of AAP and procurement to the 
start of implementation. 

Given  the  limitations  of  potentially  lengthy  procedures  for  implementing  actions  and  to 
procure services on the market, the PI opted for a number of rapid-response tools that can be 
mobilised on short notice to respond with the necessary flexibility and rapidity to emerging 
political  priorities49,  the  "Policy  Support  Facility"  (PSF)  and  "Technical  Assistance  and 
Information  Exchange"  (TAIEX).  As  well  as  ad  hoc  intervention  by  these  rapid  tools,  they 
can also serve as bridging facilities to grasp or maintain the political momentum (for example 
in  relation  to  a  summit  meeting  or  a  negotiation)  and  to  prepare  grounds  for  a  longer-term 
structural action. The "client" services identify emerging priorities or policy needs and submit 
proposals  which  are  assessed  applying  fast  procedures  with  consultation  of  all  relevant 
departments.  This  ensures  that  there  is  no  duplication  with  other  interventions  and  that  no 
other  EFI  could  act  as  an  alternative  source  of  funding.  PSF  proposals  are  then  formally 
approved  by  the  PSF  Panel  composed  of  representatives  of  EEAS  and  Commission's 
Directorate  General  for  Trade  (for  trade-related  actions).  The  time  taken  from  proposal  to 
approval/decision is very short, on average less than two weeks for TAIEX and less than three 
weeks for PSF. After approval, the action is rapidly contracted due to the use of framework 
contracts (FWCs). The external evaluator underlines the usefulness of having put in place a 
specific and thematically broad framework contract for the PSF, since it enables a very fast 
reaction.50 The same applies for TAIEX, which is an existing mechanism used in other EFIs 
and implemented through an existing service contract. Under the PSF  98 actions and under 
TAIEX 59 actions have been financed so far. 

47 PI has deployed in 2014 operational and financial managers in 9 strategic partner countries (Brazil, Canada, China, India, 
Japan,  Mexico, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States), in 2016 in Indonesia. In 2017, two 
regional  teams  have  been  created  to  cover  Americas  and  Asia-Pacific  regions  and  reach  out  beyond  strategic  partner 
countries, one situated in Brazil (extension of existing bilateral team) and one newly based in Bangkok. 
48 "Standalone action" is an internal FPI term not used in the PI Regulation. 
49 Technically also action fiches included in the AAPs, but non-programmed. 
50 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 29 and 30. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  evaluator  finds  that  the  PI  has  achieved  its  intended  global  reach.  In  the  sample 
evaluated,  half  of  the  PI  spend  (EUR  130  million)  represented  actions  implemented  in  the 
strategic  partner  countries51  and  nearly  the  same  amount  (more  than  EUR  120  million) 
represented  multi-country/regional/global  actions  where  other  partner  countries52  are 
covered along with strategic partners. In addition, especially under PSF and TAIEX, actions 
were also implemented in other partner countries53. The amount of these actions was lower 
(EUR 5 million) due to their shorter duration and smaller size.54 

the  number  of  actions 

Updated  statistics  as  (as  of  June  2017)  for  the  total  of  246  PI  actions  (standalone,  PSF  and 
TAIEX)  are  presented  in  figures  below.  In  total,  the  number  of  actions  in  strategic  partner 
countries  equals 
in  other  partner  countries  and  multi-
country/regional/global actions combined. The pattern is more or less similar for standalone 
actions.  However,  the  number  of  standalone  actions  implemented  solely  in  ‘non-strategic’ 
partner  countries  is  relatively  low  (only  3)  in  comparison  with  strategic  partner  countries 
(where FPI and other staff of Commission services are concentrated) suggesting the value of a 
specialist PI staff presence in EU delegations. TAIEX, on the other hand, shows the highest 
number of actions implemented in ‘other’ partner countries. 

Figure  3:  No.  of  all 
PI actions (N=246) 

Figure  4:  No.  of 
standalone  actions 
(N=87) 

Figure  5:  No.  of 
PSF actions (N=98) 

Figure  6:  No.  of 
TAIEX 
actions 
(N=59) 

4.2 Financial implementation 

As regards financial implementation (see table 5 and figure 7), the PI is well on track in terms 
of  amounts  decided  and  contracted.  The  PI  was  successful  in  both  AAP  2014  and  2015  in 
contracting  all  actions  by  the  year  following  the  adoption  of  the  AAP  (N+1  deadline).  The 
Service for Foreign Policy Instrument responsible for the management of the PI monitors this 

51 9 countries as listed above in footnote no. 47. 
52 Afghanistan, Arctic states, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Costa 
Rica,  Cuba,  Ecuador,  Grenada,  Iceland,  India,  Indonesia,  Kuwait,  Laos,  Malaysia,  Maldives,  Myanmar,  Nepal,  Norway, 
Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor Leste, 
UAE, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam. 

53 Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, 

Maldives, Mongolia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Taiwan 

54 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 16-17. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
internally  by  an  indicator55  included  in  its  Annual  Management  Plan56  and  reported  in  its 
Annual Activity Report from 2016.57 

Table 5: PI financial implementation 

Figure 7: PI financial implementation 

Source: DEVCO Data Warehouse, extracted 01/06/2017 
Based on operational appropriations, excluding contribution  
to Erasmus+ 

Below, an analysis is made of allocated resources (total of EUR 407.47 million)  per region as 
well as per PI specific objectives (see figures 8 and 9). Overall, PI implementation is on track, 
with the Asia-Pacific region consuming funds more rapidly than the Americas. The envelope 
for  Russia,  Central  Asia  and  the  Arctic  is  under-consumed  due  to  the  current  political 
relationship with Russia which limits cooperation solely to civil society and people-to-people 
contacts. Thematically, Objective 4.2 Public Diplomacy has been front-loaded to respond to 
high demand.  Objective 3.1 Market Access shows high consumption in Asia-Pacific mainly 
due to the Gateway programmes implemented in South-East Asia, Japan, Korea and the pilot 
in  China.  The  financial  analysis  together  with  stakeholder  feedback  indicate  that  the 
deployment  of  funds  per  specific  objective  and  per  region  is  in  line  with  initial  targets  and 
continues  to  be  instrumental  to  the  achievement  of  EU  interests  abroad.58  In  fact,  the 
allocations  being  indicative,  full  alignment  was  never  an  objective.  The  deployment  of 
resources is dependent on the priorities set annually for different regions and on the capacity 
of the EEAS and Commission services to identify relevant actions.  

Figure 8: Decided amounts per region (EUR million) 

Figure  9:  Decided  amounts  per  objective 
(EUR million) 

55 Number of action fiches within AAP timely contracted by N+1. 
56 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/management-plan-2016-dg-fpi-march2016_en.pdf, pp. 11-13. 
57 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/aar-fpi-2016_annex_en_0.pdf, Annex 12: Performance tables, pp. 147-

154. 

58 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 21-22. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Over time, it has become apparent that the PI meets a clear demand by relevant policy-making 
departments in the Commission and the EEAS. This is helped by the fact that overall annual 
allocations (all regions and objectives combined) are limited in size, which reinforce the focus 
on the nine main strands of action (see figure 2 above) to achieve the desired impacts. 

4.3 Monitoring arrangements and performance to date 

From  the  outset  of  PI  implementation,  logical  frameworks  were  developed  for  most  of 
standalone actions and the indicators contained therein were to be monitored by implementing 
partners  through  progress  reports.  An  additional  system  of  internal  progress  reports  drafted 
every  six  months  by  PI  project  managers  was  established.  However,  there  was  initially  no 
overall monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework at instrument level with clearly defined 
common indicators, as confirmed by the evaluator.59 

The Commission service managing the PI decided to further consolidate the M&E system and 
developed  in  2016  an  overall  intervention  logic,  a  set  of  common  PI  indicators,  related 
guidelines  and  reporting  templates.60  The  system  places  responsibility  on  implementing 
partners  for  data  collection  and  reporting.  PI  project  managers  perform  quality  review.  In 
addition, FPI updated the system of internal progress reports in December 2016 to focus more 
on performance and to include final reports on PSF and TAIEX actions. 

The external evaluator performed a first data collection against the common PI indicators for 
all actions for which progress reports were available up until September 2016. This exercise 
required  a  retrospective  assignment  of  observed  results  against  the  newly-defined  set  of 
indicators through a manual process of document review complemented by consultations with 
PI  project  managers61.  None  of  the  actions  examined  were  required  to  report  against  the 
common  indicators,  so  it  was  not  possible  to  capture  the  full  performance.  The  external 
evaluator states that the figures (see Annex 3) are likely to underestimate the true numbers of 
results achieved by September 2016.62 

The external evaluator concludes that the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments, managing 
the PI, took important steps to strengthen the M&E framework of the instrument. The external 
evaluator makes some recommendations with a view to consolidating the system in terms of 
quality control  of reported data or  on follow-up on the use  of the reporting  template by the 
implementing  partners.63  As  a  result,  a  project  was  put  in  place  in  May  2017  to  train64  PI 
project  managers,  colleagues  from  client  services  and  implementing  partners  in  the 
development  of  quality  logframes,  the  use  and  development  of  indicators;  to  provide  a 
helpdesk  function  for  ad-hoc  queries;  to  quality  review  reported  information;  as  well  as  to 
continue with retrospective data collection for ongoing actions (for which common indicators 
can  no  longer  be  introduced  in  their  monitoring  framework)  in  order  to  gather  as  complete 

59 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 32 and 48. 
60  Study  to  develop  indicators,  monitoring  system  and  to  assess  the  first  phase  of  implementation  of  the  Partnership 

Instrument (Particip in consortium with Ecorys, November 2016). 

61 In case of the sample of actions for final evaluations, these have been complemented by interview with stakeholders of the 

action. 

62 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 11-13. 
63 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 48 and 50. 
64 First training took place on 20 June 2017 and will continue with targeted training sessions during autumn in Brussels and 

all EU delegations with PI staff. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
evidence as possible on the performance of the PI. The project runs until the end of 2019 with 
a view to reinforcing the M&E framework of the PI. 

5. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1 Relevance 

To  what  extent  do  the  overall  objective  (PI  Regulation,  Article  1(1)),  the  four  specific 
objectives (PI Regulation, Article 1(2)), the thematic priorities (PI Regulation, Annex) and the 
design of the PI respond to: 

 
 

(i) EU priorities identified at the time the instrument was adopted (2014)? and  
(ii)  Current  EU  priorities,  in  particular  as  regards  its  strategic  relationship  with 
countries  covered  by  the  PI,  given  the  evolving  challenges  and  priorities  in  the 
international context? 

Overall answer: The objectives and implementation of the PI responded to EU priorities at the 
time of adoption and still respond to EU priorities today, having successfully adapted to new 
and changing needs and priorities of both the EU and partner countries. 

The  PI  was  created  in  direct  response  to  a  changing  international  context,  with  the 
emergence of new actors and the evolution of the EU’s relations with third countries and the 
growing  need  for  new  partnerships  with  countries  of  strategic  interest.  It  was  designed  to 
enhance political and policy cooperation of the EU bilaterally, regionally and globally with a 
broader spectrum of countries, across a broader range of policy areas and with the principle of 
partnership between equals. As such, it constitutes an “innovative” instrument because it was 
intended to expand cooperation beyond development cooperation, pursue foreign policy and 
“create a positive environment for a deepened relationship” with partners65. 

The external evaluation demonstrates that the PI was and remains directly relevant to long 
standing  EU  priorities  and  but  also  to  the  new  and  changed  policy  priorities  that  have 
arisen since the instrument was adopted, based on desk review and interviews.66 The broad 
wording of the PI objectives is considered a positive, enabling factor.67 Flexibility is not 
only  due  to  the  design  of  the  PI  Regulation;  it  is  also  the  result  of  the  way  the  PI  is 
implemented.  The  Common  Implementing  Regulation  (CIR)  and  the  Financial  Regulation 
create  broadly  the  same  rules  for  EFIs  decision-making  and  implementation,  but  choices 
made in the method of implementation and programming of the PI ensure that it responded 
to changing EU priorities.68 

–  This  is  particularly  due  to  the  PSF  and  TAIEX  tools;  and  the  roll-out  of  the  annual 
programme in two phases (allowing for flexible adaptation). It is also due to the fact that PI is 
not  geographically  pre-allocated  by  country,  and  neither  financing  agreements  nor  co-
financing are required from partner countries.69 The PI responded flexibly to new needs and 
the  changing  context  of  partner  countries,  new  international  commitments  such  as  the  Paris 

65 Recital 4, PI Regulation 
66 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 7. 
67 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 6. 
68 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 7. 
69 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 7. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
Agreement70 and new priorities established in the Global Strategy for the European Union’s 
Foreign  and  Security  Policy71.  The  external  evaluator  concluded  that  the  responsiveness  of 
the  Partnership  Instrument  is  in  part  due  to  its  inclusive  nature,  with  an  active 
involvement  of  stakeholders  across  EU  service  lines  whereby  project  identification  and 
programming  is  driven  by  Commission  services  and  EEAS  policy  departments  and  EU 
delegations.72 This allows checks to ensure that no other financing instruments are available 
for  the  proposed  actions.  In  practice,  in  the  case  of  EU  industrialised  partner  countries, 
strategic  partners  and  graduated  countries,  the  PI  is  the  only  instrument  to  support  bilateral 
cooperation.73 For other partner countries, the PI is used where an EU strategic interest exists 
and  where  the  actions  considered  cannot  be  funded  by  other  instruments,  as  confirmed  by 
stakeholders’  views.  On  the  downside,  it  is  noted  that  all  EU  delegations  are  not  yet  well 
informed of the possible use of the PI in their countries, which may have resulted in smaller 
uptake of potential PI support in some areas (e.g. central Asia).74 

5.2 Effectiveness, impact, and sustainability 

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

What lessons can be learned from the programming and implementation of PI assistance to 
improve the effectiveness, impact and sustainability of financial assistance? 

Overall answer: The PI is effective in delivering results, as supported by evidence. This is a 
positive achievement given the early stage of implementation. The outcomes observed so far 
and  the  expected  results  indicate  that  the  PI  actions  designed  so  far  will  contribute  to  the 
achievement of all PI specific objectives. With 28.6% of funding allocated to climate change 
action,  the  PI  is  exceeding  the  overall  EU  target  (20%).  However,  the  overarching  themes 
indicated  for  mainstreaming  in  the  CIR  Regulation  are  not  systematically  addressed  in  the 
design and implementation of PI actions. 

The decision-making process - which has evolved to become more strategic - facilitated active 
involvement  and  ownership  of  PI  actions  on  the  part  of  client  policy  departments  and  so 
contributed to more effective actions. Some lessons identified include: EU delegations could 
potentially  play  a  more  active  role  in  the  formulation  of  actions;  there  is  a  need  for  client 
departments to provide more support to the implementation of the actions; visibility of the PI 
especially  internally  needs  to  be  further  improved.  As  regards  sustainability,  many  larger 
actions have been designed with a view to achieving sustainable impacts, but it is too early in 
the  implementation  process  to  draw  conclusions.  Smaller  actions  on  the  other  hand  are  not 
necessarily expected to lead to sustainable effects. 

70 Paris Climate Agreement reached on 12 December 2015 in Paris at the 21st Conference of the Parties within the United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

71 Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe, A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign And Security Policy, June 2016 
72 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 8. 
73  Cooperation  with  graduated  countries  is  possible  under  DCI  thematic  programmes,  however  bilateral  cooperation  is  no 

longer available. 

74 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 8. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Effectiveness  of  the  PI  has  been  measured  against  evidence  collected  for  PI  common 
indicators  (see  Annex  3).  As  explained  in  the  section  above  on  methodology,  it  was  not 
possible to compare achieved results with those of a similar predecessor instrument, i.e. there 
was  no  benchmark  or  baseline.  Nevertheless,  there  is  solid  evidence75  of  the  PI  having 
influenced policy / political processes in partner countries and/or the development of mutual 
relationships  with  these  countries,  with  53  outcomes  recorded  to  date.  For  example,  the  PI 
provided  many  of  the  concrete  deliverables  contributing  to  a  successful  conclusion  of  the 
recent  EU-India  summits  in  2016  and  2017.  The  number  of  outcomes  delivered  so  far 
constitutes  a  positive  achievement,  especially  since  few  actions  have  been  completed76.  It 
should be noted that this figure is likely an underestimate of true results (see section 4.3). 

Real  impacts  take  time  to  materialise.  Nevertheless,  the  recorded  outcomes  (see  previous 
paragraph)  suggest  that  the  PI  support  deployed  is  working  towards  the  expected 
impacts77,  as  recognised  notably  by  external  stakeholders78.  Document  analysis  and 
stakeholder feedback confirm that PI actions to date are delivering outcomes that address 
all  four  of  the  PI's  specific  objectives.  In  addition,  the  analysis  of  PI-funded  actions 
themselves  also  shows  that  there  are  a  substantial  number  of  actions  (around  one  in  every 
four)  that  contribute  to  more  than  one  of  the  four  specific  PI  objectives.  The  observed 
outcomes  indicate  that  the  design  of  PI  actions  contributes  to  the  achievement  of  each 
specific  objective.  An  example  of  an  actual  impact  already  achieved  is  a  change  in  the 
partner’s country legislation (the removal of a trade barrier on non-pasteurised cheese) in the 
aftermath  of  the  TAIEX  Expert  Mission  on  EU  Regulations  and  safety  on  non-pasteurized 
cheese in South Korea.79 

A  number  of  internal  and  external  factors  were  identified  as  drivers  of  effective 
implementation of the PI: 

  Timeliness  of  intervention  –  both  in  terms  of  speed  of  action  necessary  to  react  to 
evolving context (especially thanks to the PSF and TAIEX arrangements)80; as well as 
in situations where support from other EFIs is being phased out and the PI can be used 
to avoid vacuum (cf. countries recently graduated from development cooperation). 

  Identification  and  pursuit  of  mutual  interest  with  partner  countries  is  a  critical 
factor  increasing  effectiveness  of  PI  actions,  as  stressed  unanimously  during  the 
external  stakeholder  consultation81.  Identification  of  areas  of  mutual  interest  is 
essential in  developing  a  new  approach  to  bilateral  and  multilateral  partnerships  and 
provides  an  opportunity  for  the  EU  to  promote  its  policies,  principles  and  values  in 
areas of shared interest. This sends a strong political signal in terms of the recognition 
of  the  partner’s  agenda,  in  turn  creating  a  favourable  environment  for  enhancing 
political and policy dialogue82. 

75 See external evaluation report, Volume II: Annexes, Annex 8. 
76 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 13. 
77 See external evaluation report, Volume II: Annexes, Annex 8, p. 85. 
78 See external evaluation report, Volume II: Final Report – Annexes, Annex 11, p. 110. 
79 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 14-15. 
80 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 17. 
81 See external evaluation report, Volume II: Final Report – Annexes, Annex 11, p. 111. 
82 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 18. 

18 

 
 
 
                                                 
  The  Partnership  Instrument  needs  a  stable  environment  /  political  situation  in  the 
partner  countries.  It  is  not  a  crisis  instrument  and  does  not  have  the  vocation  to 
address  the  deterioration  of  the  political  situation  in  a  third  country83.  Nevertheless, 
the  PI  can  serve  as  an  'opener'  or  'enabler'84  as  it  can  be  deployed  quickly  when  a 
window  of  opportunity  appears  to  open  or  help  develop  new  areas  of  cooperation 
with specific countries85. 

As regards climate change spending, the Partnership Instrument currently exceeds EU’s 
target, with 28.6% of funding allocated to activities related to climate change. Additionally, a 
further 4.3% has been allocated to biological diversity86. 

As  regards  the  cross-cutting  themes  highlighted  for  mainstreaming  in  the  CIR,  i.e.  gender 
equality,  disability  access,  support  to  the  rule  of  law,  democracy  and  human  rights,  climate 
change87  and  biodiversity,  the  external  evaluator  found  that  there  is  limited  or  missing 
structural  attention  to  their  mainstreaming  within  funded  actions  and  further  scope  for 
improvement  of  the  PI's  contribution  to  these  issues,  for  instance  through  systematic 
screening  in  the  programming  process88.  PI's  performance  in  this  regard  was  positively 
assessed by external stakeholders who called in particular for continued support for actions on 
climate change and the environment89. 

As  regards  programming,  the  external  evaluator  notes  that  some  stakeholders  find  that 
priorities  set  for  the  PI  are  sometimes  too  general,  which  creates  a  risk  of  diluting  the 
resources90. As noted above in sections 4.1 and 4.2, the risk of spreading resources too thinly 
was addressed by defining nine main strands of action. The external evaluator also noted that 
there is an ongoing tension between the flexible implementation of the PI and its political 
nature on the one hand, and the need for a longer-term vision on the other hand91. In this 
sense,  the  external  evaluator  assessed  as  positive  the  "cluster"  approach  uniting  policy 
departments concerned by a particular theme, country or region as this enhances coordination 
and  improves  definition  of  actions  along  strategic  priorities,  thus  ensuring  that  support  is 
targeted  where  most  value  can  be  added.  However,  some  institutional  and  structural 
challenges in this process remain:92 

  Some Commission policy departments need at times additional resources and input to 
define  their  external  priorities.  Input  from  EU  delegations  into  this  exercise  is 
expected to help in this regard. 

  Despite the steer provided by the EEAS, there is scope for more involvement at higher 
level,  including  through  regular  discussion  with  EEAS  management  and  closer 
involvement of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security 

83 This is the principle role of another EFI, the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace. 
84 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 35. 
85 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 18. 
86 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 19. 
87  Nota  bene,  mainstreaming  of  climate  change  and  biodiversity,  as  well  as  other  issues,  is  different  form  targeted  action 

through which these topics may be specifically addressed. 
88 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 19. 
89 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report – Annexes, Annex 11, p. 110. 
90 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 29. 
91 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 22. 
92 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 22 and 23. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                 
Policy / Vice-President of the European Commission's cabinet (towards which FPI has 
already made steps). 

  Lack of wide knowledge and understanding of the PI and its objectives among some 
internal stakeholder groups (some Commission departments and some delegations). 

Overall, the internal processes have led to the identification of effective actions93. The cluster 
approach  proved  instrumental  in  facilitating  ownership  of  the  instrument  by  the  relevant 
policy experts in headquarters and in delegations. Given that PI is a new instrument dealing 
with new challenges, the processes are still open to further adaptation. 

Findings  from  the  external  mid-term  and  final  evaluations  of  specific  actions  and  from 
stakeholders’  views  indicate  that  EU  delegations  could  play  a  more  active  role  in 
identifying and designing actions for funding, given their knowledge of the local context in 
partner countries and the critical role they have played in implementing actions to date94. This 
is  increasingly  recognised  and  delegations  are  now  providing  input  into  the  annual 
programming  process.  The  involvement  of  PI  staff  in  regional  teams  is  a  step  towards  an 
increased empowerment of the relevant delegations. Nevertheless, final decisions on priorities 
should stay in headquarters to maintain strategic direction. 
Involvement  of  Commission  and  EEAS  policy  departments  presents  challenges95.  From  the 
EEAS,  there  is  sometimes  a  perceived  lack  of  political  steer  with  initial  inputs  to  design  of 
actions  coming  rather  from  delegations  or  Commission  departments96,  although  the  cluster 
approach  was  designed  to  facilitate  the  priority  setting  and  strategic  guidance  on  policy 
objectives. The involvement of the Commission services is necessary to provide the technical 
steer  to  design  and  implementation  of  actions.  Where  this  is  not  secured,  it  may  lower  the 
quality  of  the  deliverables97.  The  external  evaluator  concludes  that  there  is  scope  for 
Commission  services  to  provide  more  support  to  the  design  and  implementation  of 
actions98. 

Communication on the Partnership Instrument and its results is also important, both internally 
within  the  Commission  services  and  externally  to  stakeholders  in  partner  countries.  In  the 
public consultation, the lack of visibility of the instrument was identified as a weakness99. In 
the  current  implementation  period,  increased  visibility  could  help  potential  Partnership 
Instrument users to make the most of the instrument, and clarify expectations in partner 
countries  about  what  the  instrument  can  and  cannot  do,  especially  in  countries  that  are 
graduating from development assistance100. 

Findings from external evaluations of specific actions confirm that the degree to which the PI-
funded actions are sustainable is very much dependent on the nature of each action. Not all 
actions require sustainability  – indeed some are focussed on specific events or issues which 
are  designed  to  be  one-off,  and  for  which  longer-term  sustainability  is  neither  required  nor 

93 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 10. 
94 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 23. 
95 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 22. 
96 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 23. 
97 As an example from one action suggests: see external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 18. 
98 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 23. 
99 See external evaluation report, Volume II: Final Report – Annexes, Annex 11, p. 110. 
100 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 24. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                 
desired.  External  action  evaluations  found  that  larger  actions  were  designed  to  achieve 
sustainable outcomes, but as the majority of these actions are still ongoing, it is too early to 
assess101. 

5.3 Efficiency 

To what extent is the PI delivering efficiently? 

Overall answer: Programming and implementation arrangements set up for the PI reflect the 
need for the instrument to be more flexible than other EFIs. Achieving flexibility involves a 
proportionate cost and a reasonable administrative burden. This ensures that the PI is fit for 
purpose. A common monitoring and evaluation framework is being consolidated, which, once 
fully implemented, will strengthen the evidence base for future evaluations. 
Quantitative  evidence  on  efficiency  was  overall  limited102;  the  analysis  draws  mainly  on 
qualitative data. 

Ratios of administrative costs to overall budget for each EFI are presented in table 6 below. 
The external evaluator considered that the ratio of administrative costs to overall budget of the 
Partnership  Instrument  is  proportionate  and  reasonable  when  compared  with  other  EFIs 
because  flexibility  is  part  of  its  raison  d'être,  requiring  higher  resources,  and  because  it  is 
overall  directly  managed  by  the  Commission  (FPI),  meaning  that  administrative  costs  are 
borne  by  the  Commission  since  management  is  not  "outsourced"  (as  would  be  the  case  in 
indirect  management).  In  addition, the  instrument  supports  a  wide  variety  of  actions,  which 
require  tailored  management  and  administration,  and  are  to  a  very  large  extent  contracted 
separately. Institutional and external stakeholders confirmed that the PI's administrative costs 
are  reasonable  and  in  line  with  what  the  instrument  is  expected  to  achieve  and  what  it  has 
delivered against its objectives to date103. 

(% 
admin/total) 

Operational 
appropriations 

Administrative 
support 

Table 6: Overview of the ratio of administrative costs to overall budget for all EFIs 
External 
Financing 
Instrument 
IPA II 
ENI 
DCI 
PI 
EIDHR 
IcSP 
INSC 
Total 
Source: Budget of the European Union 

11,798.0 
15,979.4 
19,341.9 
921.6 
1,244.4 
2,182.8 
315.4 
64,374.8 

326.3 
339.3 
608.5 
34.1 
76.9 
64.9 
9.9 
1,530.4 

2.7% 
2.1% 
3.0% 
3.6% 
5.8% 
2.9% 
3.1% 
2.3% 

Executive 
Agency 

Total 
2020 
million) 

2014-
(EUR 

12,129.9 
16,335.8 
19,966.9 
956.7 
1,321.2 
2,247.7 
325.3 
65,952.3 

5.5 
17.0 
16.5 
1.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
47.2 

There  is  a  consensus  among  institutional  stakeholders  that  the  PI  is  implemented 
flexibly. Flexibility is facilitated by the policy support mechanisms available (PSF, TAIEX), 
as  well  as  unique  features  of  its  management:  the  absence  of  country  allocations,  country 
strategy papers or financing agreements; and the adoption of the AAP in two phases allowing 

101 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 24. 
102 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 27. 
103 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 28. 

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
for  updated  priorities  during  the  year.  The  action-level  external  evaluations  provide  strong 
evidence of this flexibility in implementation. 

Some  stakeholders  consulted  were  concerned  that  priorities,  as  currently  framed,  are  too 
general, creating a risk that support would be spread to thinly across a large number of 
issues. Steps were taken to address this risk by strengthening the strategic direction of PI 
decision-making, notably by the cluster approach for identifying actions104 (see section 5.2). 

Contracting is particularly fast under PSF, as evidenced by the external evaluator, as well as 
under  TAIEX105.  It  takes  on  average  three  months  from  submission  of  PSF  concept  note  / 
TAIEX application through its approval to its contracting. Based on qualitative evidence, the 
consensus is that the administrative burden is proportionate to PI-supported actions106. 

The external evaluator noted that the CIR rules are interpreted flexibly. In fact, a number of 
rules set out by the CIR are not relevant for the PI, such as untying of aid107. 

Finally, a common monitoring and evaluation framework is being consolidated, which, once 
implemented, will strengthen the evidence base for future evaluations108. The set of common 
indicators  developed  for  the  PI  covers  almost  the  whole  range  of  PI  interventions,  with  the 
exception  of  impact  for  public  diplomacy  activities  which  proved  challenging  in  terms  of 
monitoring. Efforts were however made to develop contextual indicators for public diplomacy 
at  least  for  strategic  partner  countries,  through  an  exhaustive  perception  study  and  work  is 
ongoing  on  the  drafting  of  public  diplomacy  indicators109.  Further  details  can  be  found  in 
section 4.3. 

5.4 Added Value 

To what extent do the PI actions add value compared to interventions by Member States or 
other key actors? 

  Where  the  PI  is  operating  in  the  same  field  as  EU  Member  States  and  other  key 
actors, does it add value in terms  of  size of engagement,  particular expertise and/or 
particular weight in advocacy? 

  What  would  be  the  most  likely  consequences  of  stopping  or  withdrawing  the  PI 

support? 

Overall answer: The PI presents a clear EU added value due to its design and its specialisation 
in the support for the promotion of strategic EU interests and objectives. There is a consensus 
that the EU level is the most appropriate for action in the areas/countries/international for a on 
which  the  PI  focusses,  notably  for  its  distinctive  approach  to  cooperation,  the  expertise  it 
mobilises on a wide range of topics and the leverage it allows on other actors. Withdrawing PI 
support  would  leave  the EU without the means to  pursue partnerships  with a wide range of 

104 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 29. 
105 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 31. 
106 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 30. 
107 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 31. 
108 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 27. 
109 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 32. 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
partner countries, failing to live up to its commitments as well as to the partners’ expectations 
and losing leverage for its policy objectives. 

The EU added value of the Partnership Instrument is multifaceted and reflects stakeholders’ 
different perspectives. From an internal perspective (the EU and Member States), the added 
value of the PI comes from the design and legal architecture of the instrument, its scope and 
its leverage. The external evaluation confirms that the PI successfully addresses EU priorities 
and  fundamentally  brings  EU  interests  to  the  fore  by  supporting  the  implementation  of  and 
giving  substance  to  partnerships  and  tackling  global  challenges  and  by  promoting  EU 
international agenda in a way that could not be achieved by other instruments or actors110. 

There is a consensus through evidence gathered by the external evaluation and  in particular 
by external stakeholders that the EU is the most appropriate level of intervention in the areas / 
countries  /  international  fora  concerned  by  the  Partnership  Instrument,  ranging  from  areas 
where the EU has exclusive competence (e.g. external trade) to areas relating to promoting the 
concept of the EU, its ideals and values (i.e. public diplomacy)111. 

The instrument, by filling the gap in EU external actions for the pursuit of EU interests, is a 
unique means of covering those areas of external action with limited or no other sources of 
funding by other EFIs. The creation of the Partnership Instrument led to a change in approach, 
enabling the EU to pursue its strategic objectives and interests with partner countries across 
the globe. Overall, EU stakeholders agreed that without PI funding the EU would be a very 
challenging situation as it would be left without the means to support and sustain its strategic 
partnerships  and  interests,  thereby  weakening  its  credibility  and  international  standing112. 
Partners  also  perceive  the  EU’s  approach  to  cooperation  /  dialogue  with  its  focus  on 
consensus building as an added value of an intervention at EU level (as opposed to Member 
States level). 

From an external perspective, the added value of the action enabled by the PI lies in the fact 
that action at EU level is considered the most appropriate. Partners identify three reasons to 
support this: the broad enabling scope of the instrument, the EU’s approach with its focus on 
consensus-building and also on leverage113 (see section 5.6). 

5.5 Coherence, consistency, complementarity and synergies 

To what extent does the PI facilitate coherence, consistency, complementarity and synergies 
internally  between  its  own  set  of  objectives  and  actions,  vis-à-vis  other  EFIs,  other  EU 
policies and instruments, and interventions by other actors (including EU Member States)? 

Overall  answer:  The  inclusive  and  participatory  PI  decision-making  processes  have  ensured 
that  the  Partnership  Instrument  facilitates  coherence,  consistency,  complementarity  and 
synergies both internally and externally. 

Making  the EU  a  stronger  global  actor  is  a  Commission  priority,  and  this  requires bringing 
together  more  effectively  the  tools  of  EU  external  action.  The  PI  is  aligned  with  this 

110 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 34. 
111 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 34. 
112 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 34. 
113 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 35. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
priority114  since  it  covers  the  pursuit  of  EU  interests,  the  external  projection  of  its  internal 
policies  and  implementation  of  the  external  dimension  of  Europe  2020.  Cases  where  PI 
actions complement the achievement of other EU objectives have been identified notably with 
regard  to  development  policy;  climate  change,  environment  and  commodities  trade,  market 
access and investments; research; and public and cultural diplomacy. 

As regards other EFIs, there are in principle no issues concerning complementarity with ENI 
and  IPA  II  as  the  PI  a  priori  does  not  intervene  in  countries  under  the  scope  of  these 
instruments.  As  for  EIDHR  and  IcSP,  no  evidence  of  overlap  was  found  and  some 
opportunities for synergies were noted (such as PI's action on the abolition of death penalty in 
South-East  Asia  or  PI  public  diplomacy  action  in  the  USA  spreading  messages  on  the 
peacebuilding  role  that  the  EU  plays,  respectively).  The  most  important  relation  is  between 
the  PI  and  the  DCI.  In  particular  in  graduated  countries115,  the  PI  builds  on  cooperation 
supported by the DCI to establish a “deepened relationship”, e.g. from a project approach like 
the Clean Ganga initiative (under the DCI) to the water partnership with India (under the PI). 
The PI was set up as an innovative, foreign policy instrument to pursue cooperation beyond 
the  development  logic  and  towards  a  logic  of  “partnership  of  equals”116.  However,  bilateral 
assistance under the DCI does not stop with the cut-off date and ongoing projects coexist with 
PI  support.  No  evidence  of  overlaps  or  open  contradictions  with  the  DCI  were  found,  but 
there  remains  a  need  to  monitor  actions  under  both  instruments.  Arrangements  for  PI 
decision-making  and  for  gathering  stakeholders’  feedback  show  that  consultation  and 
information-sharing  with  DEVCO  services  managing  the  DCI  is  ensured  at  different  levels: 
"cluster"  meetings  on  different  policy  themes  or  countries,  Quality  Support  Groups  (to 
examine project proposals) and PSF selection panels117. 

Opportunities were used for complementarities and synergies between the PI and internal EU 
instruments  with  an  external  dimension.  The  external  evaluator  identifies  several  occasions 
where synergies were found, e.g. with the COSME and Horizon 2020 programmes118. 

Despite some overlaps between specific objective 2 (which is of a more overarching nature as 
it refers to the international dimension of the Europe 2020 Strategy) and specific objectives 1 
and  3,  the  internal  coherence  of  the  PI  was  found  to  have  been  achieved  at  the  level  of 
individual actions. In particular, synergies towards trade-related interests exist across the PI-
supported actions which either explicitly fall under the specific objective 3 or mainstream a 
trade / market-access component119.  
The  processes  put  in  place  by  the  PI  ensure  an  inclusive  and  coordinated  approach120  to 
programming and implementation reinforces such coherence in PI actions. 

Finally, a good degree of complementarity exists with interventions by Member States with 
coordination taking place in third countries where PI actions are implemented between the EU 
delegations  and  Member  States'  embassies.  Overall,  Member  States  appreciate  the  PI  for 

114 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 41. 
115 See footnote 14 above. 
116 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 42. 
117 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 43. 
118 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 43 and 44. 
119 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 44. 
120 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 45. 

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
the added value its interventions bring to cooperation / dialogue with partners. But they 
continue  to  weigh  the  opportunity  costs  of  the  promotion  of  EU  as  opposed  to  national 
strategic interests on an ad hoc basis121. As a case in point, Member States were divided as to 
the perceived complementarity or even potential competition between the Gateways/Business 
Avenues  projects  and  their  bilateral  actions.  Certain  Member  States  raised  the  issue  of 
tensions  with  the  Gateways/Business  Avenue  actions  in  partner  countries  where  they  have 
already  actions  with  similar  objectives122.  The  external  evaluator  pointed  to  the  efforts  of 
Commission  service  managing  the  PI  to  raise  awareness  through  presentations  to  Council 
geographical  working  groups  and  suggests  more  should  be  done  on  this  front  also  vis-a-vis 
the  PI  Committee123  and  in  the  concerned  partner  countries  through  EU  delegations.  In  this 
regard, during the stakeholder consultation, Member States were interested in receiving more 
data  on  PI  supported  actions,  in  particular  in  relation  to  the  state  of  implementation  of 
ongoing actions, as well as results from the monitoring and evaluation activities124. Finally, PI 
actions are found to be coherent with interventions of other key actors at multilateral level125. 

5.6 Leverage 

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

Since its creation, the PI has demonstrated political and policy leverage. It acted as an enabler, 
opening up areas for political and policy dialogue and cooperation. Financial leverage is not a 
condition for deployment of PI support given its primary aim of pursuing EU interest, but the 
conditions under which leverage should be sought remains a strategic question for the future. 

The 2011 Impact Assessment anticipated that the Partnership Instrument would be critical for 
capitalising  on  the  EU’s  relative  weight  when  it  comes  to  respond  to  global  challenges,  as 
well  as  in  strengthening  cooperation  with  different  categories  of  partners.  The  PI  was 
expected  to  be  critical  for  political  and  policy  engagement  because  it  would  link  dialogues 
and partnerships  with  specific cooperation activities. External evaluation at instrument level 
and the in-depth individual action evaluations provided evidence of the good performance to 
date  of  the  Partnership  Instrument  in  this  respect,  and  this  was  also  recognised  by  Member 
States  in  the  stakeholder  consultation126.  The  political  leverage  that  the  Partnership 
Instrument is designed to aim for is its distinguishing feature within the set of EFIs127. 
The PI focuses on the promotion of EU strategic interests, a role which is not legally assigned 
to any other EFI. PI is designed to support dialogue between the EU and its partners, placed 
on  an  equal  footing,  thereby  exiting  fully  from  the  traditional  donor  logic.  There  is  a 
consensus among stakeholders that the strengthening of policy and political dialogues is the 
most obvious example of the unique political leverage of the Partnership Instrument128. 

121 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 46. 
122 See external evaluation report, Volume II: Final Report - Annexes, p. 114. 
123 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 26 and 47. 
124 See external evaluation report, Volume II: Final Report – Annexes, Annex 11, p. 113. 
125 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, pp. 46-47. 
126 See external evaluation report, Volume II: Final Report – Annexes, Annex 11, p. 113. 
127 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 36. 
128 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 36. 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  fact,  there  is  a  two-way  process  between  policy  dialogue  and  concrete  realisations 
supported by the PI. The PI gives substance to dialogues/partnerships by supporting concrete 
initiatives; 
in 
dialogues/partnerships. This triggers a self-sustaining momentum which is valued across the 
range of EU bilateral relations. 

initiatives  raise 

the  EU’s  and 

these  concrete 

its  partners’ 

interest 

As for financial leverage, given the focus in the design of the instrument on the EU's interests 
this means that it does not rely on co-financing. Stakeholder views were split on whether this 
constitutes a missed opportunity (partner countries may be interested to contribute financially 
where  they  see  strong  interest)  or  a  condition  for  the  EU  to  formulate  its  actions 
independently.  Grants  under  calls  for  proposals  require  match  funding  of  25%.  One 
standalone  action  is  leveraging  money  from  the  EU  industry  (EU-China  Aviation 
Partnership).  There  is  evidence  of  in-kind  support  provided  by  administrations  of  some 
partner countries129. 

Overall, financial leverage will be more of a strategic consideration in the medium- to long-
term given the relatively small budget of the PI and the corresponding constraints in terms of 
the scope of (follow-up) actions and upscaling. Securing funding from other actors might help 
overcome this limitation, while enhancing the sustainability of the impact of EU actions under 
the  PI  through  a  commitment  from  its  partners130.  However,  when  the  EU  interest  is 
paramount  it  is  not  always  desirable  or  appropriate  to  expect  co-financing  from  the  partner 
country. Co-financing could in certain circumstances undermine the argument that the action 
is in the "EU interest".  

6. CONCLUSIONS  

1.  At  the  mid-term  of  its  implementation,  the  Partnership  Instrument  has  proven  its 
continued relevance to long standing EU priorities and demonstrated its flexibility through 
responses  to  new  and  changed  policy  priorities  that  have  arisen  since  its  adoption.  This 
flexibility is not only due to the PI Regulation, but also through choices made in the way 
the instrument is implemented. 

2.  Available  performance  evidence  proves  the  effectiveness  of  the  PI  in  delivering  results, 
which is a positive achievement given the early stages of implementation. The instrument 
is on track towards reaching its objectives and is ahead of the overall EU target as regards 
spending  on  climate  action.  However,  more  structural  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  the 
mainstreaming of overarching themes set out in CIR Regulation within funded actions. 

3.  PI serves to support EU interests and policies across a range of EU objectives, therefore 
its  target  "clients"  are  EU  and  Member  States  policy-makers.  The  decision-making 
process has evolved towards more concentration on strategic EU priorities. Some aspects 
need further improvement: increasing provision of resources and input by policy-making 
services  to  ensure  they  are  fully  involved  in  designing,  programming  and  implementing 
the  actions;  enhancing  the  active  role  of  EU  delegations  in  the  formulation  of  actions; 
increasing  information  sharing  with  Member  States;  and  improving  the  visibility, 

129 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 37. 
130 See external evaluation report, Volume I: Final Report, p. 37. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                 
knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  objectives  of  the  PI,  especially  within  the  EU 
institutions, so that its full potential is realised in the current implementation period. 

4.  The implementation of the PI is considered to be adaptive, efficient and flexible. Reaction 
to emerging needs is particularly fast through the PSF and TAIEX mechanisms as well as 
due  to  flexible  programming  through  the  adoption  of  AAP  in  two  phases.  Strategic 
direction  of  the  PI  was  strengthened  through  the  introduction  of  the  "cluster"  approach 
gathering all relevant EEAS and Commission policy departments on particular themes or 
countries. This was also instrumental in defining nine main priority interventions for the 
PI  along  with  the  EU  Global  Strategy,  ten  Commission  priorities  and  the  Sustainable 
Development Goals. This ensues PI actions are focused on achieving meaningful impacts. 
There are notable improvements in the monitoring and evaluation framework which have 
the  potential  to  ensure  robust  performance  data  in  the  future  as  compared  to  the  first 
stages of implementation of the PI. 

5.  The  PI  is  the  only  instrument  providing  means  to  flexibly  pursue  EU  strategic  interests 
globally, demonstrating a clear EU added value. There is a consensus that the EU level is 
the most appropriate for action in PI fields of intervention. Withdrawing PI support would 
reduce the ability of the EU to pursue partnerships with a wide range of partner countries, 
failing to live up to its bilateral and international commitments as well as to the partners’ 
expectations. 

6.  The  PI  is  externally  and  internally  coherent  by  design.  In  practice  inclusive  and 
participatory  PI  decision-making  processes  ensured  that  in  its  implementation,  it 
facilitates  coherence,  consistency,  complementarity  and  synergies  both  internally  and 
externally. The high level of involvement from "client" EEAS and Commission services is 
a  condition  sine  qua  non  for  the  implementation  of  the  PI,  but  to  secure  sufficient 
provision of resources and input from these services remains a challenge. 

7.  Financial  leverage  is  not  a  requirement  and  has  occurred  to  a  limited  extent.  More 
important  is  the  political  and  policy  leverage  potential  inscribed  in  the  design  of the  PI. 
This leverage potential has been realised as the PI has acted as an enabler, opening up new 
and wider areas for political and policy dialogue and cooperation. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG: Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) 

The evaluation of the Partnership Instrument is one of a set of ten evaluations covering most 
External Financing Instruments131 under Heading 4 of the Multiannual Financial Framework 
2014-2020. In view of ensuring consistent EU external policies, all the evaluations have been 
carried out simultaneously and are interlinked. 

Organisation and Timing 

This  evaluation  was  initiated  in  2015.  The  evaluation  roadmap  was  published  in  November 
2015132. An Inter-Service Group (ISG) was constituted to specifically steer the work of the PI 
evaluation.  It  is  composed  of  representatives  of  twelve  European  Commission  services 
(including 3 central services) and the European External Action Service. 

The  evaluation  is  largely  informed  by  an  external  evaluation  conducted  by  independent 
consultants. The external evaluation started on 1st June 2016. The Final report was received 
on 23rd June  2017, on schedule.  The  evaluation process, lead by the ISG, was conducted in 
four phases, see Figure 2. 

Process overview and Quality assessment 

The  external  evaluation  of  the  PI  2014-2020  was  commissioned  to  provide  the  main 
information  for  this  Staff  Working  Document.  The  evaluation  was  carried  out  fully  in  line 
with  the  indications  provided  in  the  above-mentioned  roadmap.  The  evidence  base  in 
particular consisted of primary sources, secondary sources, and a consultation. A total of six 
countries were visited by the external evaluation team to conduct field visits for the sample of 
PI  actions  selected  for  the  mid-term  and  final  evaluation  as  well  as  to  collect  further 
information for the external evaluation of the Partnership Instrument. The sample of actions 
covered all 4 specific objectives of the PI and different regions and was agreed together with 
the ISG. 

The external evaluation managed by the ISG involved a kick-off meeting, an inception report 
and  meeting  (which  explained  how  the  evaluation  design  would  deliver  the  information 
required);  a  desk  report  and  meeting  (providing  initial  responses  to  evaluation  questions); 
validation  phase  including  field  visits  to  Argentina,  Brazil,  Brussels,  China,  India,  Mexico, 
and  the  United  States  of  America  to  both  perform  mid-term  and  final  individual  action 
evaluations  as  well  as  to  collect  further  information  from  EU  delegation  staff  and  partner 
country  stakeholders  on  the  PI;  a  development  of  two  databases  covering  all  PI-supported 
actions  to  date  with  results  and  achieved  values  of  common  PI  indicators;  a  survey  to  EU 
delegations  covering  all  instruments;  an  "emerging  messages"  meeting;  a  draft  final  report 
and meeting; an Open Public Consultation on the draft report which comprised a specific 12 
weeks  online  survey  and  targeted  meetings  with  institutional  (Member  States,  European 
Parliament)  and  external  stakeholders  (academia/think-tanks/research,  civil  society/culture, 

131  Development  Cooperation  Instrument,  11th  European  Development  Fund  (EDF),  European  Neighbourhood  Instrument, 
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, Greenland Decision,  Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace, 
Instrument  for  Pre-Accession,  Instrument  on  Nuclear  Safety  Cooperation,  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories  Decision, 
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 EDF. 
132 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_fpi_003_evaluation_pi_en.pdf  

28 

 
 
 
                                                 
international organisations, and business) in March 2017; working sessions with the external 
evaluation teams of other EFIs; and a final phase with a final meeting and the final report. 

The  ISG  reviewed  the  external  evaluation  process  at  all  stages.  Due  to  the  novelty  of  the 
Partnership Instrument, the external evaluator did additional efforts to collect monitoring data 
of  all  ongoing  and  finalised  actions  to  establish  a  results  database  and  to  collect  data  on 
common  PI  indicators.  The  data  are  analysed  in  detail  in  the  annexes  to  the  external 
evaluation  report.  The  consultation  strategy  deployed  by  the  evaluator  was  extensive  and 
included  key  internal  players  from  the  EU  institutions  as  well  as  views  from  external 
stakeholders to triangulate the findings and to alleviate any possible bias. The reliability of the 
data used by the external evaluators is found to be high. The quantity of information analyses 
also  appears  satisfactory.  The  overall  evidence  used  by  the  external  evaluation  was  quality 
assured by the ISG. 

Evaluation questions 

Relevance  

1. To what extent do the overall objective (PI Regulation, Article 1(1)), four specific 
objectives (PI Regulation, Article 1(2)), the thematic priorities (PI Regulation, Annex) and the 
design133 of the PI respond to: 

(i) EU priorities identified at the time the instrument was adopted (2014)? 

(ii)  Current  EU  priorities,  in  particular  as  regards  its  strategic  relationship  with  countries 
covered  by  the  PI,  given  the  evolving  challenges  and  priorities  in  the  international  context 
(2017)?  

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 
PI help to translate political commitments between the EU and partner countries into 
concrete measures. 

  To what extent actions undertaken under the PI have responded to 'global challenges' in 

the area of climate change, energy and environment? 

Effectiveness, impact, sustainability 

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

Information sought in this area includes: 

  To what extent does PI contribute to advancing and promoting EU's and mutual interests, 

and more specifically towards: 

133 i.e. how it all fits together 

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
o  Supporting the Union's bilateral, regional and inter-regional cooperation partnership 
strategies by promoting policy dialogue and by developing collective approaches and 
responses to challenges of global concern; 

o  Implementing  the international dimension of "Europe 2020" strategy; 
o  Improving access to partner country markets and boosting trade, investment and 

business opportunities for companies from the Union, while eliminating barriers to 
market access and investment, by means of economic partnerships, business and 
regulatory cooperation; 

o  Enhancing widespread understanding and visibility of the Union and of its role on the 
world scene by means of public diplomacy, people-to-people contacts, cooperation in 
educational and academic matters, think tank cooperation and outreach activities to 
promote the Union's values and interests. 

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

sustainable and inclusive growth?  

  To what extent does the PI 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? 

  To what extent are the processes condusive to programming, identification/formulation of 

effective actions (PI Regulation, Articles 4-7)?  

  To what extent is the PI flexible enough to respond to changing needs? (e.g. changed 
policy priorities, summit/high-level dialogue conclusions, written agreements such as 
MoUs, changed contexts)  

Efficiency 
3. To what extent is the PI delivering efficiently?  

Information sought in this area includes: 

  What is the ratio of administrative costs (as defined as “PI Support Expenditure” in the 

Draft General Budget of the EU134) to overall budget? 

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

  Are there areas, such as administrative/management procedures, where the PI can be 

simplified to eliminate unnecessary burden? 

  To what extent is the PI in line with the implementing rules of the CIR ? Specifically in 

terms of :  

134  See  Title  19, 

item  19-01-04-04,  pages  912-913  of 

the 

latest,  2016  draft  budget  http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/budget/data/DB/2016/en/SEC03.pdf 

30 

 
 
 
                                                 
o  Implementation 

  Subject matter and principles 
  Adoption of action programmes, individual measures and special measures 
  Support measures 

o  Provisions on the Financing Methods 
  General financing provisions 
  Taxes duties and charges 
  Specific financing provisions 
  Protection of the financial interests of the Union 

o  Rules on nationality and origin for public procurement, grant and other award 

procedures 

o  Climate action and biodiversity expenditure 
o  Involvement of stakeholders of partner countries 
o  Common rules 

  Eligibility under the PI 
o  Monitoring and evaluation of actions 

  To what extent are the following in place and functioning: 

o  appropriate monitoring  processes and indicators for measurement of the 

performance of the PI instrument 

o  relevant strategic and operational indicators  to measure results achieved by the 

PI? 

Added value 

4.  To what extent do the PI actions add value compared to interventions by Member States or 
other key actors? 

Information sought in this area includes: 

  Where the PI is operating in the same field as EU Member States and other key actors, 
does it offer added value in terms of size of engagement, particular expertise, and/or 
particular weight in advocacy? 

Coherence, consistency, complementarity and synergies  

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

Information sought in this area includes: 

  To what extent are the different PI actions coherent/complementing/overlapping with one 

another? 

  To what extent are the different PI actions aligned with EU interests? 
  To what extent are the actions consistent with EU external action policies? 

31 

 
 
 
  To what extent do the actions complement/overlap/stimulate synergies with other external 

action financing instruments?135  

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

development policy? 

  To what extent does the PI complement/overlap with interventions of other key actors, in 

particular EU Member States?  

Leverage 

6. To what extent has the PI leveraged further funds and/or political or policy engagement?  

7.  How  could  the  PI  be  enhanced  to  achieve  its  policy  objectives  more  effectively  and 
efficiently?  

8.  How  can  programming  and  implementation  of  PI  assistance  be  enhanced  to  improve  the 
impact and sustainability of financial assistance? 

135  Note  the  respective  mandates  of  Directorate-General  for  International  cooperation  and  Development  and  Service  for 

Foreign Policy Instruments in EIDHR, PI and IcSP  instruments 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 2. SYNOPSIS REPORT OF THE STAKEHOLDERS' CONSULTATION 

The stakeholder consultation for the mid-term review of the PI 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 Roadmap136, 
the consultation approach involved collecting input from a wide range of stakeholders on the 
PI 2014-2020 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  guidelines137,  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.  No 
feedback was received on the Roadmap.    

2.  Interviews 

The  external  evaluation  team  conducted  interviews  with  various  stakeholders  during  all 
phases of the evaluation: 

1.  Interview  programme  including  94  interviews  with  the  European  External  Action 
Service,  Commission  services,  EU  delegations,  European  Parliament  and  Member 
States representatives in the PI Committee. 

2.  The online survey to EU delegations was open between October 2016 and February 

2017.  

3.  The  Online  Public  Consultation  was  online  between  February  and  May  2017  and 
was complemented by a series of additional face-to-face consultations on the external 
evaluation draft final report. The evaluators participated in a series of meetings with PI 
external and institutional stakeholders (including the Policy Forum on Development) 
that took place in Brussels in March 2017.  

4.  Lastly, the interviews carried out during the fieldwork for the external individual 
action  evaluations  of  a  sample  of  13  Pi  actions  further  fed  into  the  evidence  base. 
They gathered data from a wide range of internal and external stakeholders (including 
staff at EU delegations, partner countries’ representatives, implementing partners and 
stakeholders of PI-funded actions such as NGOs or business representatives). 

The objectives of the interviews were to (i) address gaps in the documentation reviewed, (ii) 
understand realities on the ground, including through external mid-term and final evaluations 
of  a  sample  of  13  PI  actions,  especially  during  the  seven  field  visits  (Argentina,  Brazil, 
Brussels,  China,  India,  Mexico,  and  the  United  States  of  America),  and  (iii)  triangulate 

136 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_fpi_003_evaluation_pi_en.pdf 
137 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_tool_en.htm  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
findings especially when the evidence collected was based on internal EU documentation and 
sources. 

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

Introduction 

In  the  context  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Partnership  Instrument,  the  Open  Public 
Consultation consisted of two pillars: 

Firstly, an online public consultation (OPC) took place from 7 February to 3 May 2017. The 
OPC  run  in  parallel  for  all  the  evaluations  of  the  EFIs.  The  OPC  gave  the  possibility  to 
interested  parties  to  express  their  views  and  opinions  on  the  external  evaluation  draft  final 
reports, made publically available on the OPC website. The purpose of the consultation 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 external evaluations. 

  Preliminary  ideas  on  the  future  external  financing  instruments  after  the  current  ones 

have expired by 31 December 2020. 

It also fulfilled the consultation requirement stipulated in the Better Regulation Guidelines. 

All  stakeholders  in  beneficiary  and  EU  countries  were  welcome  to  participate  in  this 
consultation:  public  national  and 
local  authorities,  non-governmental  organisations, 
academics,  development  agencies  and  bodies,  think  tanks,  consultancies,  private  sector 
organisations, development banks and citizens. The participants were invited to complete the 
online questionnaire provided and available in English. In addition, the participants were able 
to submit contributions in any official EU language. 

The OPC was disseminated by the European Commission. 

Secondly,  to  further  support  the  online  consultation  exercise,  a  series  of  face-to-face 
consultations with stakeholders were organised in Brussels (for all EFI evaluations): 

  21  March  2017:  external  stakeholders  (think  tanks  /  academia  /  research,  NGOs, 
international organisations, business) were invited to exchange their views on the PI, 
the  evaluation  and  the  future  of  the  Instrument  and  the  overall  set  of  EU  External 
Financing  Instruments  after  2020  with  the  evaluators  and  Commission  services 
representatives.  

  23 March 2017: all the EFI external evaluation teams presented their draft conclusions 
at the Policy Forum on Development. The Forum provided an opportunity to engage 
with  external  stakeholders  from  a  variety  of  backgrounds  and  exchange  on  the 
performance to date of EU cooperation, as well as its future orientation.  

  27-28  March  2017:  this  technical  workshop  included  institutional  stakeholders 
(representatives of the Member States and the European Parliament). Its objective was 

34 

 
 
 
 
to collect their feedback on the external draft evaluation reports, the EFIs to date and 
their performance, as well as their views on the future of the EU’s toolbox.  

Our  analysis  of  the  feedback  received  through  these  different  exercises  is  presented  in  this 
Annex.  Firstly,  we  detail  our  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the  face-to-face 
consultations.  These  consultations took  place  under  Chatham  House  rules.  Views  cannot  be 
attributed  to  individuals  and  the  report  respects  participants’  anonymity.  The  paragraphs 
below summarise the findings and conclusions of the different consultations on the basis of 
the responses and views collected, as analysed by the external evaluation team. Secondly, we 
analyse  the  responses  submitted  to  the  online  public  consultation.  Respondents  indicated  if 
their entries could be directly published with their details or not, what determines when and 
how we were in a position to attribute the feedback received in this report.  

Overall, the feedback was often not substantiated by concrete evidence. It has been taken into 
consideration with a view to consolidating our evidence base at instrument and action level, 
confirming or differing from the data collected through other tools and presented in the main 
report.  

Key messages 

  The PI constitutes the appropriate instrument to pursue and promote political / policy 

dialogues. 

  The PI is filling a critical niche in the EU’s toolbox of EFIs. 
  The PI is a flexible instrument. The implementation choices have made it an enabling 
instrument,  fit  for  purpose,  and  reactive  to  emerging  priorities  /  challenges.  This 
flexibility is a luxury in the EU’s toolbox, compared to the implementation modalities 
of the other EFIs.  

  The  broad  geographical  and  thematic  scope  of  the  PI  is  an  enabling  characteristic of 
the instrument. However, given the relatively limited envelope of the PI,  careful and 
strategic prioritisation is required for a targeted use of the instrument.  

  It was suggested to revise the actual geographical coverage of the instrument in order 
to reflect the strategic importance / potential of partnerships with e.g. Central Asia and 
Africa. 

  The  resources  invested  by  the  FPI  have  enabled  to  deploy  the  PI  quickly  after  its 
creation  and  to  have  already  an  impact  on  EU  cooperation  worldwide.  In  particular, 
FPI staff in EU delegations adds value to the implementation of the PI, what increases 
the effectiveness of the use of the funding available. 

  The PI is performing well with regard to the EU’s targets of climate change spending. 
Stakeholders called for a continued support to climate change action and environment, 
especially in a new international situation after the 2016 US elections.  

  The  lack  of  visibility  of  the  PI  has  been  identified  as  a  weakness.  More  information 
and awareness raising activities are needed for the different stakeholder categories.  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
External stakeholder consultation 

The  meeting with  the PI  external  stakeholders included representatives from  many  different 
sectors,  ranging  from  environment  and  climate  change,  foreign  policy,  relations  with 
particular  partner  countries  /  regions,  public  and  cultural  diplomacy,  migration  and  human 
rights, international economics, business and digital economy.  

Academia / think-tanks / research 

Bruegel, Public Policy and Management Institute, NFG Research Group “Asian Perceptions 
of  the  EU”,  European  Partners  for  the  Environment,  European  Institute  for  Asian  Studies, 
Friends of Europe, Centre for European Policy Studies, Carnegie Europe, and La Compagnia 
di San Paolo 

Two separate contributions were submitted by email (ECDPM and the EU-LAC Foundation) 

Civil society / Culture 

EU-Russia  Civil  Society  Forum,  Climate  Action  Network  Europe,  Nature  Code,  European 
Union  National  Institutes  for  Culture,  Goethe  Institute,  Equinoccio,  Wildlife  Conservation 
Society 

International organisations 

IOM, WWF, International Union for Conservation of Nature 

Business 

Eurochambres,  European  Business  Organisations  Worldwide  Network,  Plastics  Europe, 
Digital Europe 

External stakeholders unanimously agreed that the PI was filling a critical niche in the EU’s 
toolbox. The approach implemented through the PI – based on the promotion of EU strategic 
priorities  –  and  the  support  provided  to  cooperation,  political  and  policy  dialogues  across  a 
wide range of partner countries add value to the EU’s external action. The EU decides which 
objectives  it  pursues  and  how  with  its  distinctively  foreign  policy  instrument.  A  consensus 
emerged on the fact that the promotion of partnership on an equal footing and the existence of 
mutual  interests  are  success  factors  for  the  PI.  This  cooperation  modality  generates  interest 
from partner countries which want to be considered as equal partners (e.g. cultural platform 
where the implementing partner was approached by non-strategic partners which would like 
to participate in the initiative). With the example of EU action on climate change supported 
by  the  PI,  external  stakeholders  also  emphasised  that  the  PI  was  aligned  with  the  EU’s 
multilateral agenda and e.g. the international commitments made at COP21138. 

Civil  society  organisations  (CSOs)  working  on  values  in  challenging  context  outlined  the 
dilemma  between  values  and  interests  that  the  EU  was  facing.  The  key  is  to  ensure that,  in 
addition  to  actions  directly  aligned  with  /  supporting  EU  values  (e.g.  actions  on  migration, 
conference on LGBT rights, corporate social responsibility (CSR), exchange of expertise on 

138 Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

36 

 
 
 
                                                 
security  and  justice,  study  on  death  penalty),  these  values  should  be  mainstreamed  in  all 
actions (e.g. on ETS in China, the EU requires consultation of local populations and the CIR 
requires  the  mainstreaming  of  horizontal  objectives  such  as  gender,  human  rights  and 
democracy) because they constitute a critical dimension of its foreign policy (TEU). 

Because of the nature of the instrument, the PI’s direction is not decided in consultation with 
external stakeholders but decision-making remains as participatory as possible, from both an 
internal point of view (good coordination and consultation throughout the EC and the EEAS) 
and an external point of view to the extent possible (e.g. additional stakeholder consultation 
meetings organised in the context of the external evaluation, in-country consultation between 
EU delegations and Member States embassies). 

The Partnership Instrument has a relatively small budget compared to most of the other EFIs, 
notably  the  EFIs  managed  by  the  Commission's  Directorate-General  for  International 
cooperation and Development. In this context and to achieve results, it is critical that its use is 
strategic: the EU should clearly define its priorities and identify where it adds the more value. 
External stakeholders note that possibilities to use more the financial leverage of the PI should 
be more systematically explored (noting for instance that the possibility to use public private 
partnerships could be explored to increase the resources available).  

The  way  the  PI  is  deployed  involves  relatively  important  administrative  costs  for  the  FPI, 
which are a necessary trade-off to ensure an appropriate management of the instrument. There 
was a strong consensus that this ensures the PI is adequately managed, remains flexible and 
provides the appropriate support to EU cooperation. The reduction of these costs would imply 
a  reduction  of  the  managing  resources,  what  could  in  turn  put  in  jeopardy  the  quality  of 
delivery  and  results  of  the  instrument.  Stakeholders  expressed  their  concern  that,  given  the 
fact  that  the  resources  of  Commission  services  were  already  strained,  it  was  critical  to 
maintain the capacity of PI institutional stakeholders necessary for direct management of PI 
actions  (the  stakeholders  consulted  highly  value  direct  management  over  delegated 
management). 

As regards the administrative burden on the implementing partners, one stakeholder provided 
anecdotal  evidence  of the  scope  for  its  reduction  by  pointing  to  the  fact  that    implementing 
partners have to produce hard copies of a plane ticket (and not their electronic ticket) for the 
travelling expenses to be reimbursed. This burden is however not specific to the PI but results 
from requirements set in the Financial Regulation, the Common Implementing Regulation and 
further  operationalised  in  EU  documents  that  guide  implementation,  i.e.  PRAG  and 
Companion.  

A  few  stakeholders  (implementing  partners  and  think  tanks)  noted  the  existence  of 
weaknesses in the way the PI was implemented and / or the actions designed. These included 
the  need  to:  (i)  effectively  mainstream  horizontal  themes  (e.g.  diversity  –  including  gender 
balance  and  disability  –  for  conference  panels);  and  (ii)  identify  local  partners,  existing 
events, etc. to partner up and adding an EU dimension to activities of other actors, which is 
expected to increase the value for money of the support, strengthen the political and financial 
leverage of PI support and create more ownership for local partners, while reducing the risk of 
overcrowding.  At  the  level  of  the  design  of  activity,  it  was  also  suggested  to  update  the 
methods used in communication activities (e.g. it was suggested to introduce live surveys); 

37 

 
 
 
A  minority  of  stakeholders  ask  what  the  steps  to  consolidate  the  monitoring  and  evaluation 
framework were. They noted the measurement challenge, notably with regard the impact of PI 
actions and in particular of public diplomacy actions. The (very) long time span of some of 
these actions is challenging, and so is the issue of the measurement of the perceptions on the 
EU. The FPI recognised these challenges and outlined that work is ongoing, e.g. building on 
the perception study to develop public diplomacy indicators.  

The forward-looking discussion with external stakeholders focused on the following: 

  Finalise the rethinking of the promotion of mutual interest and align the architecture of 
the EU’s toolbox accordingly and to put the emphasis on forward-looking (rather than 
reactive) programming  

  Rationalise  the  toolbox  to  simplify  the  general  architecture  and  overcome  the  silo 
mentality.  Further  strengthening  the  coherence  of  the  EU’s  toolbox  is  expected  to 
ensure a sustainable impact and to help the EU to deliver its external action agenda – 
e.g. by setting up thematic policy framework for discussion (for instance on migration) 
  Ensure the financing instrument dedicated to cooperation takes into consideration the 
needs  of  the  different  categories  of  partner  countries  (from  strategic  partners  to 
emerging countries) 

  Strengthen  the  strategic  use  of  the  PI  to  ensure  the  most  cost-effective  use  of  its 
relatively  limited  envelope  –  that  includes  the  need  for  the  instrument  to  be  more 
forward  looking  than  reactive  and  to  carefully  consider  subsidiarity  and  EU  added 
value (including in coordination with Member States actions) 
  Ensure that EU values are mainstreamed in the actions supported 
  Further strengthen coordination in the field (EU delegations, Member States and other 

stakeholders present) 

  Reduce the administrative burden for implementing partners 

Institutional stakeholder consultation 

Representatives  from  the  European  Parliament  and  from  Member  States  attended  the 
institutional stakeholder consultation meeting: 

European Parliament 

MEP’s  assistants  (including  AFET  Committee  and  Working  group  on  EFIs),  AFET 
committee member, DG External Policies 

Member States 

Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Latvia, 
Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and United Kingdom 

Institutional stakeholders recognise the value added to EU cooperation by the PI since 2014. 
The  political  and  policy  leverage  it  creates  fills  a  gap  in  the  EU’s  toolbox  and  provides  an 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
appropriate  instrument  to  pursue  cooperation  with  partner  countries  (ranging  from  Strategic 
Partners to graduated countries and upper middle income countries) on an equal footing. The 
“PI window” has enabled the EU to position itself on key issues, notably challenges of global 
concern such as climate change, and promote its strategic priorities. Institutional stakeholders 
focused in particular on the following dimensions: 

  Member  States  share  a  positive  feedback  on  the  Partnership  Instrument  and  its 
performance  to  date  and  some  Member  States  called  for  a  strengthening  of  the 
instrument, including “large” Member States. Smaller Member States perceive the PI 
as  creating  opportunities  for  them  to  be  more  influential  in  the  design  and 
implementation  of  actions  (e.g.  through  their  participation  to  exchanges  –  for 
companies and local administrations – and TAIEX actions) than on their own. Overall, 
the PI is perceived as a niche instrument that fills a gap in the EU’s toolbox. There is a 
growing  interest  for  what  the  PI  can  do  in  partner  countries,  sometimes  in  very 
different situations, given its global reach and its encompassing thematic scope.  

  However, a minority of Member States highlighted that there was a continued need to 
enhance the coherence with Member States initiatives to avoid any duplication and/or 
contradictions  with  PI-supported  actions  (larger  Member  States  raised  the  issue  of 
tensions  with  the  Gateways/business  avenue  actions  in  partner  countries  where  they 
have already actions with similar objectives). 

  Member States expressed their interest in receiving more (implementation) data on PI-
supported actions, notably financial data on implemented / ongoing actions, and on the 
monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  to  measure  results  (noting  in  particular  the 
challenge in measuring the impact of public diplomacy actions). While information of 
the  Member  States  might  happen  on  an  informal  basis  (notably  in  third  countries, 
where  coordination  is  ongoing  between  EU  delegations  and  Member  States  bilateral 
embassies),  there is  scope for improvement. A  Member State suggested adopting the 
model of the Market Access Advisory Committee, which monthly meetings provide an 
opportunity to share information between concerned stakeholders. Member States also 
expressed  their  interest  in  being  more  involved  in  the  PI  decision-making  as  they 
consider  discussing  the  orientation  of  the  instrument  is  in  their  strategic  interest. 
However, the current decision-making framework, reflecting the foreign policy nature 
of  the  PI,  does  not  provide  for  Member  States  role  in  the  programming  of  the 
instrument (but only for the approval of the AAPs).   

  The discussion emphasised also the need to make a strategic use of the instrument. In 
the  context  of  a  relatively  limited  envelope  in  particular,  it  is  critical  to  define  EU 
priorities, set expectations realistically and ensure that the PI is indeed deployed as a 
last  resort  instrument.  Reflections  on  the  actual  use  of  the  Partnership  Instrument  is 
paralleled  by  a  (re-)  thinking  of  the  allocation  of  the  funding  available.  First,  at  the 
micro  level,  a  few  Member  States  highlighted  the  imbalance  in  the  allocation  and 
actual  spending  of  PI  support,  identifying  Central  Asia  as  the  poor  child  of  the  PI  – 
that point has already been taken into consideration and more efforts are progressing 
cooperation  with  that  region.  Second,  at  the  macro  level,  the  adoption  of  the  EU’s 
Global  Strategy  provides  a  strategy  framework  for  EU  external  action  that  the  PI 
contributes to implement (the second phase of the AAP 2016 and the first phase of the 
AAP 2017 are in line with this document and structured along the strategic priorities 
identified).  

39 

 
 
 
  There is a consensus on the need to increase the visibility of the PI and with it the EU’s 
visibility.  The  public  diplomacy  component  of  the  PI  is  attracting  attention  and 
Member States were also keen to ensure that visibility objectives are mainstreamed in 
the actions.  

  Looking  forward,  the  rationale  of  the  EU’s  toolbox  needs  to  be  brought  to  the  fore 
more. In particular, each instrument needs to be underpinned by a narrative framework 
on  how  the  EU  engages  with  partner  countries  through  the  most  appropriate 
instrument. That is expected to be linked to the strategic discussions on EU priorities 
and  the  geographical  balance  of  the  funding  available  across  the  different  partner 
countries and the category they belong to. 

Online Public Consultation 

Profile of Respondents  

Overall, 124 responses to the OPC on EFIs were received, of which 52 substantial responses 
with answers to the PI-specific questions and additional comments on the PI / EFIs submitted, 
while the other responses (72) replied to questions related to other EFIs). Six responses have 
also been submitted via email directly by an EU platform (European Disability Forum) and an 
international  organisation  (the  FAO),  as  well  as  by  public  authorities  from  Member  States. 
The  questionnaires  returned  by  Member  States  via  email  also  included  their  answers  to 
forward-looking  questions  raised  during 
institutional 
stakeholders in Brussels.  

the  face-to-face  meeting  with 

The  breakdown  of  the  total  number  of  responses  (58,  namely  52  received  online  and  six 
submitted separately) is presented in Figure 8.  

Respondents  indicated  whether  they  represented  a  particular  organisation  or  provided  their 
input in their individual capacity. 39.7% of the responses were submitted by organisations / 
associations and 27.6% by public authorities. Respondents were further profiled on the basis 
of the country of residence. The geographical spread of the responses is very wide and cover 
Member States (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France with a separate entry 
submitted  by  the  Government  of  Nouvelle  Calédonie,  Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia, 
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, with 32% 
of  the  answers  coming  from  Belgium)  and  partner  countries  (Albania,  Haiti,  Israel,  Jordan, 
Kenya,  Lebanon,  Mexico,  Moldova,  Turkey,  Ukraine,  the  USA  and  Yemen).  Where 
respondents have indicated their responses could be published and attributed, it is specified in 
the analysis below.  

40 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Figure 8: Breakdown of 58 responses by sector of respondents’ profile  

Citizen / individual 
(3) 

Industry / business / workers' 
association 
(2) 

Other 
(2) 

Research / academia  
(4) 

Organisation / association  
(23) 

EU platform / network / 
association (8) 

Public authority 
(16) 

Analysis of the PI 

The questions raised focused on the performance of the PI to date and included: 
  How well do you think the PI has addressed its objectives? 
  Do  you  think  the  PI  was  an  adequate  instrument  to  respond  to  global  challenges  and  to 
advance EU and mutual interests and that it enhanced the EU’s ability to engage on these 
issues? 

  Do you think the PI  has  delivered relevant  and useful results  advancing co-operation and 
dialogue with a range of countries on issues such as climate change, the protection of the 
environment,  energy,  economic  and  trade  relations  or  the  promotion  of  the  European 
Union's values? 

  Do you think the PI has allowed the EU to engage strategically with countries that are not 
covered  by  other  EU  instruments  and  by  focusing  on  policy  issues  for  which  no  other 
funding  sources  are  available?  Has  the  PI  been  complementary  to  the  other  EU  external 
financing instruments? 

How well do you think the PI has addressed its objectives? (26 responses submitted) 

The respondents share the view that the PI is meeting its objectives in general terms (despite 
the  lack  of  a  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  when  the  PI  was  set  as  noted  by  one 
respondent),  notably  because  it  is  well  aligned  with  EU  interests  and  political  agenda.  A 
respondent from a European network based in Belgium outlines in particular that the PI has 
provided the means to engage at the appropriate level with emerging countries, which would 
have otherwise fallen out of the traditional cooperation channels. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Two issues are raised: 

1.  Two respondents raise their concerns as to the possible contradiction between what the 
PI is doing in the field of trade and economic diplomacy and what Member States are 
undertaking. They call  for better coordination  between the two levels of action.  It is 
noteworthy  that  they  use  the  same  wording  which  seems  to  indicate  a  degree  of 
coordination  in  their  response  (a  public  authority  from  Italy  and  a  public  authority 
from Belgium).  

2.  A response from a public authority in Poland raises a concern as to the use of the PI in 
relation  with  the  concept  of  strategic  partners.  They  outline  the  challenges  in  the 
relation  with  the  Russian  Federation  and  called  for  an  appraisal  of  the  partnership, 
underlining that support could be deployed elsewhere.  

Do  you  think  the  PI  was  an  adequate  Instrument  to  respond  to  global  challenges  and  to 
advance  EU  and  mutual  interests  and  that  it  enhanced  the  EU’s  ability  to  engage  on  these 
issues? (20 responses submitted) 

Overall, respondents’ tone is positive as regard the capacity of the Partnership Instrument to 
respond to global challenges and advance EU and mutual interests. A contribution submitted 
by a Member State gives the example of the Arctic region where the PI could be used more to 
fight against climate change in line with the Paris agreement.  

However,  criticisms  are  still  raised  about  the  definition  of  EU  interests  actually  pursued 
through the PI. A few stakeholders (environmental CSOs)  share the view that more could be 
done  to  address  global  challenges,  as  for  instance  WWF  Belgium  which  notes  that  EU 
interests seem to be limited to economic and trade interests (and also that CSOs such as itself 
are not involved in the design of PI actions). In the same vein, IUCN Belgium also raises the 
question  of  the  actual  contribution  of  the  PI  to  the  targets  set  for  the  climate  change  and 
biodiversity  funding.  The  Government  of  Nouvelle  Calédonie  calls  for  enhanced 
communication on the possibility for Overseas Countries and Territories to engage with the PI 
(which  might  reflect  the  environmental  concern  in  the  Pacific  region).  Contradictory  views 
are  also  expressed  with  regard  to  EU  interests,  and  to  the  economic  and  trade  agenda 
specifically: the two same respondents as under question 1 (a public authority from Italy and a 
public  authority  from  Belgium)  reiterate  that  PI  actions  might  go  against  Member  States 
efforts in third countries in that domain while another one responds that more could be done 
to pursue these economic interests in support of European SMEs.  

Respondents do not provide evidence supporting their answers and a Polish public authority 
outlines that, given the relative novelty of the PI, it is still too early to assess if it is adequate 
to respond to global challenges. 

Do  you  think  the  PI  has  delivered  relevant  and  useful  results  advancing  co-operation  and 
dialogue  with  a  range  of  countries  on  issues  such  as  climate  change,  the  protection  of  the 
environment, energy, economic and trade relations or the promotion of the European Union's 
values? (17 responses submitted) 

Overall, even if they did not provide concrete evidence, respondents tend to agree that the PI 
is  already  successful.  It  triggers  or  strengthens  a  dialogue  at  the  right  level  and  around 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
strategic  topics,  including  global  challenges  such  as  climate  change,  with  partner  countries. 
Interestingly, one respondent notes that the PI is well synchronised with the agenda of partner 
countries, which tends to indicate that as a foreign policy instrument, it is important to build 
on the EU’s and partners’ mutual interest (e.g. in Mexico on issues related to biodiversity), as 
well as to align with international developments to keep the momentum for action (e.g. of the 
momentum created for COP13 on biodiversity in Mexico). 

The PI has not only allowed for bilateral but also for regional cooperation, which – on topics 
such  as  climate  change  ahead  of  COP21  –  was  considered  successful.  One  German 
organisation  notes  that  the  PI  allows  to  substantiate  the  EU’s  international  agenda,  for 
instance by supporting actions to implement the Paris agreement on climate change and meet 
the targets the EU has set to itself. However, authorities / organisations representing business 
interests  in  three  Member  States  (Greece,  Italy  and  Belgium)  still  note  that  the  PI  could  be 
more successful if better coordination was achieved with Member States initiatives on trade 
promotion – while a Polish public authority calls for more PI support in that respect because 
not all Member States have resources available for that type of action. 

The contribution of PI processes to the formulation of effective actions is noted: a Belgium 
European network recognises the value of PI processes in harnessing the necessary expertise 
to formulate potentially effective actions, to tailor cooperation and to adjust to new contexts. 
But  there  is  scope  for  improvement  according  to  IUCN,  as  the  PI  results  could  be 
strengthened if CSOs’ expertise was better taken into consideration in the design of PI actions 
on global challenges.  

Overall, the flexibility of the PI is considered to be a key strength and an enabling factor for 
cooperation between the EU and its partner countries. 

Do you think the PI has allowed the EU to  engage strategically with  countries that are  not 
covered by other EU instruments and by focusing on policy issues for which no other funding 
sources  are  available?  Has  the  PI  been  complementary  to  the  other  EU  external  financing 
instruments? (20 responses submitted) 

The responses provided to this question are supported by little evidence. There seems to be an 
agreement that the PI has provided an instrument for cooperation with countries that are not 
eligible to other [bilateral] assistance from the EU. The PI has enabled to maintain and further 
cooperation  with  these  countries  on  a  wide  range  of  topics.  More  generally,  Slovakia  in 
particular notes that the PI is a niche instrument in the EU’s toolbox, strengthening the EU’s 
capacity to pursue different types of agenda with different partners through the most relevant 
instruments.  

Concrete  evidence  of  complementarities  between  the  PI  and  other  actions  /  instruments  is 
very  limited.  One  response  indicates  a  good  degree  of  coherence  with  the  creation  of 
synergies  between  the  PI  action  and  BIOFIN,  a  DEVCO  funded  project.  Calls  for  more 
coordination  are  made  in  general  terms  by  authorities  /  organisations  representing  business 
interests  on  trade  missions  to  third  countries  and  by  environmental  organisations  on 
environment-related actions (e.g. WWF Belgium on coordination between the PI and the DCI 

43 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
GPGC  thematic  programme,  which  however  does  not  specify  how  coordination  should  be 
improved).  

The online public consultation also invited respondents to share any other views they would 
have on the PI (17 responses submitted) and on EFIs (32 responses submitted).  

Views submitted on the PI are disparate.  

One  respondent  values  the  very  active  involvement  and  inputs  from  the  EU  delegation  in 
Mexico, involvement which allowed seizing the opportunity window in that partner country 
(but the topic of the action implemented is not specified.  

Other respondents formulate a number of recommendations: 

1.  Need  for  enhanced  consultation  of  CSOs  at  the  design  stage  (environmental  CSOs, 

business organisations) 

2.  Definition  of  a  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  and  its  rolling  out  (German 
organisation),  including  the  definition  of  public  diplomacy  indicators  (research 
institute, the Netherlands) 

3.  Need to enhance communication on the PI at several levels: 

a.  Inform more Member States and involve them more at the design stage (Polish 

public authority) 

b.  A German organisation questions the focus of the support on strategic partners 

and “short term goals notably linked to specific negotiations”.  

c.  Four Member States  call for better communication  on PI support,  where it  is 
deployed (in particular to also reflect on regional / global actions) and how this 
support is articulated with the multilateral agenda of the EU 

d.  Communicate more on the partnership dimension of the PI to avoid it is seen 
as  a  unilateral  instrument  (German  organisation),  and  possibly  to  increase 
partners’ buy-in as they would value a more equal relationship with the EU 

4.  Need to strive for more coherence of EU external action and between EU internal and 

external policies 

5.  Revision  of  the  procurement  rules  for  Business  avenues  to  increase  the  cost-

effectiveness of PI support  

6.  Request  for  monitoring  evidence  on  actions  on  disability  /  mainstreaming  disability 
(ONCE and European Disability Forum) and for the mainstreaming of children-related 
concerns (Lumos) 

7.  Exploring the potential for a combined support ENI-PI  

Additional  remarks  on  EFIs  are  less  relevant  as  they  largely  relate  to  respondents’  specific 
experience with particular projects or on specific topics not covered by the PI. The analysis 
notes that the following is interesting for the PI: 

  External  stakeholders  welcome  the  new  visibility  guidelines,  more  user-friendly,  and 
renewed  transparency  efforts  while  the  CIR  does  not  seem  to  have  significantly 
contributed to transparency – this seems to echo the recurrent comment about the lack 
of  information  on  PI  support  publicly  available  in  general  and  communicated  to 
Member States in particular; 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  There is an underlying concern for the administrative burden borne by implementing 
partners,  with  a  reference  to  the  too  fast  changing  reporting  templates  that  they  are 
required  to  use,  and  to  the  excessive  burden  put  on  SMEs  to  participate  in  the 
procurement process under the instruments (including under the PI);  

  The  capacities  of  EU  delegations  need  to  be  strengthened  by  increasing  number  of 

staff (United Cities and Local Governments Middle East and West Asia section); 

  CSOs and LAs re-emphasise their interests in being more involved in the design and 

implementation of the actions / projects supported by the EFIs; 

  Environmental  organisations  request  information  on  the  20%  climate  target  of  EU 

spending for a better tracking of EU objective; 

  The  FAO  emphasises  overall  the  importance  of  enhancing  the  flexibility  of  the 
external instruments,  for the EU to be in  a position  to  provide a  mix  of  responses to 
global challenges.  

Lastly,  there  was  a  consensus  among  Member  States  which  replied  in  writing  to  forward 
looking questions on the future of the EU’s toolbox on the need for: 

  Flexible instruments, to respond to changing priorities / circumstances / challenges 
  Simplification of the toolbox 

Enhanced transparency and accountability of the use of EU support through the EFIs. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3. PI COMMON INDICATORS 

Source:  Partnership  Instrument  Programme  Statement  for  2018,  PI  mid-term  external 
evaluation139 

Outcome indicators 

Indicators 

Baseline 
(2014) 

to 

to 

strategies 

beneficial 

approaches 

OC1: Number of processes related to state-level 
and  sub-state  level  (bilateral,  regional,  multi-
lateral)  partnership 
and  policy 
dialogues which have been influenced. 
OC2:  Number  of  processes  related  to  non-state 
level  partnership/agreements  which  have  been 
influenced 
OC3:  Number  of  processes  related  to  partner 
country  approaches  to  challenges  of  global 
concern which have been influenced. 
OC4:  Number  of  processes  related  to  partner 
country  practices  on  challenges  of  global 
concern which have been influenced 
the 
OC5:  Number  of  processes  related 
positions partner  countries  take  in  the  run-up  to 
or during regional/international fora which have 
been influenced 
OC6:  Number  of  processes  related  to  partner 
the 
country 
achievement of the Europe 2020  strategy which 
have been influenced 
OC7:  Number  of  processes  related  to  partner 
country  practices  beneficial  to  the  achievement 
of  Europe  2020  strategy  which  have  been 
influenced 
OC8:  Number  of  processes  related  to  partner 
country  practices  on  trade,  investment  and 
business which have been influenced 
OC9:  Number  of  processes  related 
the 
removal of barriers to market access, investment 
and business which have been influenced 
OC10:  Number  of  processes  related  to  the 
negotiation,  implementation  or  enforcement  of 
EU  trade  and  investment  agreements    with 
partner countries which have been advanced 
OC11: Change in EU companies’ perceptions of 
the  business,  trade  and  investment  climate  in 
partner countries 
OC12:  Percentage  of  participants  targeted  by 
outreach and advocacy events who acknowledge 
a  positive  change  in  their  perception  of  EU 
and/or international policies and standards 
Total 

to 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Achieved values (September 2016) 

Specific 
obj. 1 
8 

Specific 
obj. 2 
4 

Specific 
obj. 3 

Specific 
obj. 4 
4 

Total 

16 

4 

7 

4 

3 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

1 

6 

8 

0 

4 

6 

1 

5 

2 

4 

1 

30 

9 

9 

5 

53 

139 See external evaluation report, Volume II: Final Report - Annexes, Annex 8 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Output indicators140 

Indicators 

Baseline 
(2014) 

OP1: Number of occasions where an activity 
under the Action has improved the basis for the 
activation, renewal or moving forward of a 
process 

OP2: Number of occasions where an activity 
under the Action has improved the basis for a 
process which leads to the adoption of, or 
approximation to, EU and/or international 
standards 

OP3: Total number of knowledge-based products 
developed 

OP4: Number of people participating in an event 

OP5: Percentage of participants in the event who 
report having enhanced their knowledge 

OP6: Number of EU companies participating in 
the event 

OP7: Percentage of participating EU companies 
who report an enhancement of their knowledge 

OP8: Number of written statements (with 
recommendations/ conclusions, etc.) emanating 
from the event 

OP9: Number of press releases/policy 
briefs/opinion pieces etc. produced by an activity 
under the Action 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Achieved 
values 
(September 
2016) 

Number of 
relevant 
actions 

Of which, 
have 
reported 
data 

98 

67 

19 

9 

46 

6 

46 

29,201 

86% 

54 

0 

120 

109 

58 

73 

56 

36 

36 

46 

46 

25 

25 

2 

3 

0 

6 

5 

140,  141  Through  data  collection  exercise,  relevant  activity  and  output  indicators  were  identified  depending  on  the  nature  of 
each action. The number of these relevant actions is indicated in the column "Number of relevant actions". However, only a 
subset  of  these actions  were reporting  data  against  these  indicators,  as  indicated  in  the column  "Of  which,  have reported 
data". This implies that the breakdown presented in the tables is likely to underestimate what the PI has been supporting / 
contributing to in terms of activities and outputs. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Activity indicators141 

Indicators 

Baseline 
(2014) 

A1: Total number of events organised and 
supported (aggregated) 

Number of visits, exchanges, study 
tours 
Number of business missions 

Number of technical meetings 

Number of group events*  

Number of training activities 

Number of outreach and advocacy 
**  

A2: Person-days of expertise or technical 
assistance provided 

A3: Number of public/media/communication 
campaigns organised and implemented 
(aggregated) 
(*) Conferences, debates, workshops, seminars 
(**) Networking events, cultural collaboration activities 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Achieved 
values 
(September 
2016) 

209 

6 

20 

39 

83 

28 

33 

2,092 

5 

Number of 
relevant 
actions 

Of which, 
have 
reported 
data 

70 

13 

8 

17 

35 

14 

13 

57 

36 

50 

6 

4 

11 

31 

9 

6 

11 

6 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4. ACRONYMS 

AAP 

Annual Action Programme 

AFET 
Committee 

European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs 

CIR 

COP 

CSO 

CSR 

DCI 

EDF 

EEAS 

EFI 

Common Implementation Regulation 

Conference  of  the  Parties  of  the  United  Nations  Framework  Convention 
on Climate Change 

Civil Society Organisation 

Corporate Social Responsibility 

Development Cooperation Instrument 

European Development Fund 

European External Action Service 

External Financing Instrument 

EIDHR 

European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights 

ENI 

EU 

FPI 

GD 

European Neighbourhood Instrument 

European Union 

Service for Foreign Policy Instruments 

Greenland Decision 

GPGC 

Global Public Goods and Challenges 

IcSP 

ICT 

IL 

INSC 

IPA 

LGBT 

M2M 

M&E 

MEP 

MIP 

MTR 

ODA 

Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace 

Information and Communication Technology 

Intervention logic 

Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation 

Instrument of Pre-Accession Assistance 

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 

Machine-to-machine 

Monitoring and evaluation 

Member of the European Parliament 

Multiannual Indicative Programme 

Mid-Term Review 

Official Development Assistance 

49 

 
 
 
PI 

PSF 

SDG 

Partnership Instrument 

Policy Support Facility 

Sustainable Development Goals 

TAIEX 

Technical Assistance and Information Exchange 

50 

 
 
 
ANNEX 5. EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

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

51