European Union cooperation with Guatemala 2007 - 2020 : country evaluation. Volume 1.
Date: 2023-01-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for International Partnerships
Subjects: EU aid, Guatemala, aid evaluation, capacity building, competitiveness, cooperation policy, development aid, food security, human rights, peace, report, settlement of disputes

COUNTRY EVALUATION 

EUROPEAN UNION COOPERATION 
WITH GUATEMALA 2007 - 2020 

Volume 1 

September 2022 

International 
Partnerships 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prepared by: 

A Consortium of the firms ADE, PEM consult and IRAM 

Evaluation leader: PEM consult with LPIC www.pem.dk,www.lidapatty.com 

Consortium Leader: ADE SA 

Rue de Clairvaux 40, Box 101 

1348 Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium) 

+32 10 45 45 10 

ade@ade.eu 

www.ade.eu 

Framework Contract Europe Aid/140122/DH/SER/multi (EVA 2020) 

Contract No. 300013544 

Contract title: Evaluation of the European Union Cooperation with Guatemala – 2007 - 2020

Lida Rodriguez – Team Leader 

Andrea Lamprea – Communication expert 

Authors 

Ramón Borjas – Core expert 

Marco Castro – Core expert 

Patricia Soto – National expert 

Gabriel Perez – National expert 

Juan Francisco Leal Rodriguez – PFM expert 

Eric Buhl-Nielsen - Quality control expert 

Ivan Naletilic – Evaluation manager 

Contact information: 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for International Partnerships (DG INTPA) 
Directorate D - Sustainable Development Policy and Coordination 
Unit  D.4  -  Performance,  Results  and  Evaluation;  Internal  Communication,  Knowledge  Management  and 
Collaborative Methods 
E-mail: INTPA-EVALUATIONS@ec.europa.eu  
B-1049 Brussels, Belgium 

EU International Partnerships: 
https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/our-impact/monitoring-and-evaluation_en 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission  as  part  of  the  assessments  of  the  Directorate-General  for 
International Partnerships (INTPA). However, it only reflects the views of the authors, and the European Commission is not liable 
for any consequence stemming from reusing this publication. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet 
(http://www.europa.eu). 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-59381-2 

ISSN 2529-3338 

doi:10.2841/91836 

MN-04-22-234-EN-N 

Manuscript completed in December 2022. 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023 

© European Union, 2023 

The reuse policy of European Commission documents was implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU dated December 
12, 2011, with respect to reusing Commission documents (JO L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except when otherwise noted, reusing 
this  document 
license 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).  This  means  reuse  is  allowed  provided  appropriate  credit  is  given  and  any 
changes are indicated. 

is  authorized  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0 

(CC-BY  4.0) 

International 

To use or reproduce elements not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the 
respective rights holders. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION COOPERATION WITH GUATEMALA (2007-2020) 

List of abbreviations ....................................................................................................... IV 

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... i 

1.  Introduction, context and methodology .................................................................... 1 

1.1. 

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

1.2. 

Context ......................................................................................................................... 1 
1.2.1.  EU Cooperation in Guatemala ....................................................................................................... 2 
1.2.2.  The Theory of Change of the 2007 – 2020 EU-Guatemala Program ............................................ 4 

1.3.  Methodology ................................................................................................................ 7 
1.3.1.  Scope ................................................................................................................................................ 7 
1.3.2.  Evaluating Team ............................................................................................................................. 7 
1.3.3.  Methodology of the Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 7 
1.3.4.  Evaluation Questions and Judgment Criteria (CJ) ....................................................................... 8 
1.3.5.  Selection of the Sample of Projects ................................................................................................ 9 
1.3.6.  Collection Stage and Summary of Information ............................................................................. 9 
1.3.7.  Limitations and Corrective Actions ............................................................................................. 10 
1.3.8.  Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................................. 11 

2.  Main Findings ........................................................................................................ 13 

2.1. Strategic Relevance ......................................................................................................... 13 

2.2. Results ............................................................................................................................ 16 
Justice .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 
Food and Nutrition Security  ..................................................................................................................... 23 
Competitiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 28 
Support to Civil Society .............................................................................................................................. 33 
Efficiency .................................................................................................................................................... 38 

2.3. Complementarity of EU Cooperation .............................................................................. 42 

2.  Lessons Learned, Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................... 46 

3.1. 

Lessons Learned......................................................................................................... 46 

3.2.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 49 

3.3.  Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 55 

3.  ANEXOS ................................................................................................................ 61 

Annex 1 Sectoral Intervention Logic .............................................................................. 62 

Annex 2 Sample of Selected Projects .............................................................................. 65 

INDEX OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Total Amounts by Sector ................................................................................................................. 3 

Figure 2. Timeline of EU Cooperation in Guatemala, 2007-2020 ................................................................... 5 

Figure 3. Reconstructed Intervention Logic of the 2007 – 2020 EU - Guatemala Program ............................ 6 

Figure 4. Evaluating Team ............................................................................................................................. 7 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

Figure 5. Evaluation Stages and Deliverables................................................................................................. 8 

Figure 6. Distribution of the Total Amount Contracted by the EU with Guatemala, Broken Down by MIP

38 

INDEX OF GRAPHICS 

Graphic 1. History of Change, General Community ..................................................................................... 15 

Graphic 2. History of Change, Peace and Justice ......................................................................................... 17 

Graphic 3. History of Change, Academia ..................................................................................................... 18 

Graphic 4. History of Change, the Church ................................................................................................... 20 

Graphic 5. History of Change, Human Rights Defenders ............................................................................ 21 

Graphic 6. History of Change, State Institutions .......................................................................................... 22 

Graphic 7 History of Change, Food Security ................................................................................................ 24 

Graphic 8. History of Change, Farmers ........................................................................................................ 26 

Graphic 9. History of Change, Seniors ......................................................................................................... 27 

Graphic 10. History of Change, Competitiveness ......................................................................................... 29 

Graphic 11. History of Change, Youth .......................................................................................................... 31 

Graphic 12. History of Change, the Private Sector ........................................................................................ 32 
Graphic 13. History of Change, Civil Society………………………………………………………………….34 

Graphic 14. History of Change, Gender ........................................................................................................ 35 

Graphic 15. History of Change, Indigenous Communities ........................................................................... 37 

Graphic 16. History of Change, Decentralisation ......................................................................................... 40 

Graphic 17. History of Change, Other Donors.............................................................................................. 44 

Graphic 18. History of Change, Key Actors .................................................................................................. 46 

INDEX OF TABLES 

Table 1. Evaluation Questions ........................................................................................................................ 8 

Table 2. People who were consulted as part of the evaluation process. ....................................................... 10 

Table of Contents – Volume 2 - Available on Demand 

Evaluation Question 1 – Strategic Relevance ................................................................................................. 1 

Evaluation Question 2a – Peace and Security .............................................................................................. 29 

Evaluation Question 2b - Food and Nutrition Security ................................................................................ 46 

Evaluation Question 2c - Competitiveness ................................................................................................... 72 

Evaluation Question 3 – Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and Local Authorities (LAs) ......................... 91 

Evaluation Question 4 - Efficiency .............................................................................................................. 112 

Evaluation Question 5 – Coherence ........................................................................................................... 137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

List of Abbreviations 

TA 
ADESEP 

ADPACCA 

Technical Assistance 
Private Sector Development Support Program (LA/2013/236-83) 

Support Program for the Design and Application of Common Central American Policies 
(LA/2004/016-89) 

AECID 

Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation 

AGEXPORT 

Guatemalan Association of Exporters 

BS 

ASPAC 

AVSF 

EIB 
DAC 
CEDAW 
CICIG 
CIACS 
JC 
COLAC 

Budget Support 

Support for the Sustainability of Small Peasant Agriculture (LA/2009/020-39) 

Agronomists and Veterinarians Without Borders 

European Investment Bank 
Development Assistance Committee 
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 
International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala 
Illegal Bodies and Clandestine Security Apparatuses 
Judgment Criteria 
European Union Working Group for Latin America 

COHOM 

Human Rights Group of the European Council 

CONASAN 

National Council for Food and Nutrition Security 

CONED 

National Decent Employment Commission 

COPREDEH 

Presidential Commission for the Coordination of Executive Policy on Human Rights 

CRETEC 

National Technical Regulation Commission 

CRIS 

Common External Relations Information System of the European Union 

CSO-LA 

Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities 

DACs 

DCI 

HR 
DIA 

DG-INTPA 

DG-NEAR 
DSA 
DSV 
DEU 
EAMR 
BSE 
EEAS 
USA 
MS 
ENSMI 
ENPDC 
EUR 

Development Assistance Committee 
Development Cooperation Instrument 

Human Rights 
Department of Food Safety 
Directorate-General for International Partnerships of the European Commission (formerly 
DG-DEVCO) 
Directorate General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations 
Department of Animal Health 
Department of Plant Sanitation 
Delegation of the European Union in Guatemala 
External Assistance Management Report 
Budget Support Evaluation 
European External Action Service 
United States of America 
Member states 
National Maternal and Child Health Surveys 
National Strategy for the Prevention of Chronic Malnutrition in Guatemala 
Euro 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

FAO 
IMF 
FSLN 
FCSO 
FONGI 
G-13 
GIZ 
PFM 
GT 
HQ 
ICD 
IDPP 
EIDHR 
GHI 
IICA 
INTEC 
INACOP 
INACIF 
LA 
LAC 
LNS 
MAGA 
MARN 
PPO 
CAF 
MINECO 
MINEDUC 
MINGOB 
MIP 
MODA 
MSMEs 
MSPAS 
SPS Measures 
OHCHR 
OAV 
SDG 
OECD 
OAS 
ILO 
OH 
NGO 
UN 
PAHO 
CSOs 
JO 

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 
International Monetary Fund 
The Sandinista National Liberation Front 
Forum of Civil Society Organisations 
Forum of International NGOs in Guatemala 
Donor Group 
German Agency for International Cooperation 
Public Finance Management 
Guatemala 
Headquarters – Central Office 
Geographic Instruments 
Public Institute for Criminal Defence 
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights 
Global Hunger Index 
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture 
Regional and Central American Economic Integration Program (LA/2016/039-051) 
National Institute of Cooperatives 
National Institute of Forensic Sciences of Guatemala 
Latin America 
Latin America and the Caribbean 
National Health Laboratory 
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Farming and Food 
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources 
Public Prosecutor’s Office 
Common Assessment Framework 
Ministry of the Economy 
Ministry of Education 
Ministry of the Interior 
Multiannual Indicative Program 
Acute Malnutrition Monitoring 
Micro, Small and Medium Size Enterprises 
Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 
Offices for Attention to Victims 
Sustainable Development Goals 
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 
Organisation of American States 
International Labour Organisation 
Outcome Harvesting 
Non - Governmental Organisation 
United Nations 
Pan American Health Organisation 
Civil Society Organisations 
Judicial Organisation 

PAFFEC 

Family Farming Program for Strengthening the Farmer Economy (2012 – 2018) 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

PAPESAN 

2009 – 2015 State Policy Support Program for Food and Nutrition Security (LA/2013/024-
452) 

PASF 
PARJ 
EQ 

PEJ 

PDH 
CSP 
PFM 
PESAN 
GDP 
WFP 
PNC 
NDEP 
UNDP 
PRDC 

PRACAMS 

PREVI 
PRONACOM 
CAR 
LAC 
ROM 
FNS 
EEAS 
SCEP 
SEICMSJ 
SEGEPLAN 
SESAN 
SEJUST 
NQS 
SICA 
SIECA 
UNS 
TOR 
EU 
UNICEF 
USA 
USAID 
VISAR 

VISAN 

HIV 

Public Administration Support Facility 
Support Program for Justice Reform 
Evaluation Question 

Program for Generating Employment and Vocational Education for Youth in Guatemala 
(LA/2011/023-514) 

Human Rights Division of the Public Prosecutor’s Office 
Country Strategic Plan 
Public Finance Management 
Strategic Program for Food and Nutritional Security 
Gross domestic product 
World Food Program 
National Civil Police 
2017 – 2032 National Decent Employment Policy 
United Nations Development Program 
Chronic Malnutrition Reduction Program 

Regional Program to Support Quality and the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures in Central America (LA/2009/021-513) 

Program for the Prevention of Violence and Crime Against Women, Children and Adolescents 
National Competitiveness Program 
Central America Region 
Latin American Countries 
Results Oriented Monitoring 
Food and Nutrition Security 
European External Action Service 
Executive Coordination Secretary of the Presidency 
Executive Secretary of the Coordinating Body for the Modernisation of the Justice Sector 
Secretary of Planning and Programming of the Presidency 
FSN Secretariat 
European Union Support Program for Security and Justice in Guatemala 
National Quality System 
Central American Integration System 
Secretariat of Central American Economic Integration 
United Nations System 
Terms of Reference 
European Union 
United Nations Children's Fund 
United States of America 
United States Agency for International Development 
Vice Ministry of Agricultural Health and Regulations 
Vice Ministry of Food and Nutrition Security of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Farming 
and Food 
Human Immunodeficiency Virus 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

EXECUTIVE 

SUMMARY 

Executive Summary 
Introduction

This  report  provides  an  account  of  the  main 
findings,  recommendations,  conclusions  and 
lessons  learned  from  the  assessment  of  the 
European Union (EU) cooperation in Guatemala 
from 2007 to 2020. In addition, it was sought to: 
i)  assess  the  performance  of  European  Union 
support  in  terms  of  political  dialogue  and 
financial assistance to Guatemala; ii) measure the 
contribution of European Union interventions to 
country-level 
provide 
recommendations on strategies, instruments and 
tools 
and  designing  new 
interventions;  and  iv)  provide  a  stakeholder 
analysis, identifying the most promising scenarios 
for  cooperation  in  prioritized  sectors  under  the 
new Multiannual Indicative Program (MIP) 2021-
2027. 

for  planning 

targets; 

iii) 

Methodology 

impact 

(DAC): 

relevance, 

The assessment was performed under the current 
the 
Europe  Aid  Methodology.  Specifically, 
assessment  applied 
the  evaluation  criteria 
the  Development  Assistance 
adopted  by 
Committee 
coherence, 
and 
efficiency, 
effectiveness, 
sustainability.  In  addition,  it  analysed:  i)  the 
flexibility and adaptability of European Union’s 
support; ii) the added value of European Union’s 
cooperation;  iii)  the  transformative  impact;  iv) 
the  visibility  of  the  financed  interventions;  v) 
political  dialogue  on  key  issues;  vi)  the  sectors’ 
selection;  vii)  selection  of  modalities;  and  viii) 
cross-cutting  issues,  such  as  gender  and  human 
rights  (HR).  Finally,  following  the  Terms  of 
Reference  (TOR),  the  Outcome  Harvesting 
(OH)  Methodology  was  used  to  delve  into  the 
changes achieved by civil society actors through 
cooperation, with which a theory of change was 
developed  based  on  actors  involved  in  the 

European Union strategy. This made it possible 
to identify the actors, their main changes and the 
instruments  that  were  used,  attributable  to  the 
actions  developed  by  the  European  Union 
cooperation in Guatemala. 

Main findings 

to 

the  changing  needs  of 

Strategic  relevance:  The  assessment  showed 
that  the  European  Union  country  program 
the 
answered 
Guatemalan  people,  responded  to  a  dynamic 
political  agenda  and  to  the  European  Union 
global commitments. This was especially true in 
the  area  of  support  and  dialogue  with  Civil 
Society Organisations (CSO) and Human Rights. 
It  was  confirmed  that  the  European  Union 
strategy and instruments are highly valued by all 
international actors and beneficiaries. 

However,  the  planning  and  consulting  process 
did not delve into the political-economic analysis 
to  understand  the  governance  structure  and  to 
respond to challenges from participants who had 
the capacity to hinder the fulfilment of objectives 
and  of  expected  results  of  projects/programs. 
it  was  demonstrated  that  the 
Additionally, 
specific  weight of  European  cooperation  in the 
country’s  context  is  lower  compared  to  that  of 
other  co-operators,  who  have  larger  support 
budgets  or  are  more  focused  on  sectoral  or 
territorial levels. 

On the other hand, a highly relevant scenario was 
identified,  where  the  themes  of  the  country 
program  addressed  the  main  problems  for  the 
development  of  Guatemala.  However,  since 
2018, a decreasing relevance was observed due to 
a  limited  impact  and  capacity  to  effectively 
influence  at  the  country  level,  mainly  due  to 
institutional 
adequate 
flexibility  was  evidenced  to  integrate  lessons 

changes.  Moreover, 

i 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

learned and modify the intervention models from 
a  strategic  and  operational  perspective,  without 
losing  sight  of  the  development  objectives 
despite the gaps in implementation times. Finally, 
budget  support  (BS)  operations,  despite  their 
relevance, were less effective than expected. 

Results  and  strategic  sectors  from  both  the 
2007-2013 and 2014-2020 Multiannual Indicative 
Program; The following was identified: 

conflicts, 

to  care,  and  promoted 

Justice  and  peace:  The  European  Union 
contributed  to  improving  the  management  of 
violence  against  women  and  children,  from 
prevention 
their 
rehabilitation and reintegration into Guatemalan 
society using various      cooperation modalities. 
In  turn,  the  European  Union  contributed  to 
improving  social  infrastructure  and  institutional 
coordination 
by 
to  manage 
strengthening Civil Society Organisations and the 
justice system at the national and territorial levels. 
However, limitations persisted in the latter, due 
to  a  complex  political  and  institutional  context. 
Additionally, they promoted peaceful coexistence 
through  dialogue,  accompanying  communities 
and  local  authorities  to  raise  cases  and  file 
complaints  regarding  human  rights  violations 
with national and international bodies, facilitating 
venues 
dialogue, 
for  multi-stakeholder 
influencing  public  policies  and  implementing 
protection means for defenders. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  the  assessed  period,  the 
European Union promoted reforms to the justice 
system hand in hand with institutions, such as the 
reforms carried out within the framework of the 
work  of  the  International  Commission  Against 
Impunity  in  Guatemala  (CICIG).  However,  the 
results were limited due to the lack of institutional 
coordination.  In  addition,  the  European  Union 
coordinated and complemented its actions with 
other  donors  to  increase  access  to  justice  for 
women,  youth  and  children,  and  to  strengthen 
the  institutional  capacity  for  protecting  them. 
They  mobilized  platforms  such  as  the  National 
Convergence  for  Human  Rights,  the  Filter 
Group  and  G-13.  This  was  done  in  a  dynamic 
political  context  that  has  been  a  continuous 
challenge,  especially  since  2017,  when  the 
Government's  openness  to  these  issues  was 
reduced  and  cases  of  stigmatisation  and 

criminalisation  against  human  rights  defenders 
increased. 

people.  According 
exchange 
the 

Food and Nutrition Security (FNS): included 
two budget support operation exercises with the 
2007-2013  Multiannual 
Indicative  Program 
framed  within  the  Food  and  Nutrition  Security 
Policy  and  Agricultural  Policy  (specifically  the 
family farming component), which did not show 
an  improvement  in the  nutritional status  of  the 
the 
Guatemalan 
assessment, 
the 
Government  and  the  European  Union  was  not 
fluid and the reports did not show progress in the 
sector, nor in its indicators. The budget support 
operations  were  complemented  with  specific 
grants  awarded  to  Civil  Society  Organisations, 
which were able to mobilize important processes 
in  the territory  around  this important  issue  and 
strengthen  formal  and  informal  venues  for 
dialogue. 

to 
between 

It 

the 

Later, with the 2014-2020 Multiannual Indicative 
Program,  local  governance  was  strengthened  in 
achieving  a  multi-sectoral  and  comprehensive 
approach. 
sustainable 
promoted 
improvement of diet quality through the United 
Nations System (UNS). However, these changes 
are not yet visible, since malnutrition rates persist 
in the country. The evaluation showed that these 
actions with the United Nations System appeared 
disjointed  from  each  other  and  have  a  low 
institutional  presence.  However,  through  the 
Outcome  Harvesting,  changes  were  identified 
through  more 
in 
strategic 
strengthening the capacities of social institutions 
increasing  the 
and 
capacities and competencies of cooperatives and 
producer associations in terms of good practices 
for  increased  production  of  food  inputs.  In 
addition, the problem of malnutrition and food 
security  was  made  visible  by  strengthening 
national  monitoring  systems.  Finally,  it  was 
identified  that  there  is  strategic  information  on 
the  sector,  such  as  the  Great  Crusade  for 
Nutrition  Baseline,  which  allows  for  more 
strategic and territorialized investments. 

local  organisations  and 

investments 

Competitiveness: the evidence collected in the 
framework  of  the  assessment  reflected  that 
promoting  inclusive  and  sustainable  economic 
growth in Guatemala is a process that requires an 
increasing  competitiveness  and  the  capacity  to 
exchange  goods  and  services  at  a  regional  and 
international level by Micro, Small and Medium 

ii 

 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

and 

(MSMEs) 

cooperatives. 
Enterprises 
Concrete progress is evident in this process with 
actions such as the approval and implementation 
of  the  Decent  Employment  Public  Policy 
(NDEP),  support  for  formulating  the  National 
Quality Policy and developing and implementing 
technological tools to facilitate trade and improve 
competitiveness and quality, by strengthening the 
National Quality System (NQS). 

However,  European  Union  cooperation  had  a 
limited  impact  on  promoting  competition  law 
and  promoting  policies  on  Sanitary  and 
Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures, that would reduce 
poverty by generating a structural impact at the 
country  level  and  leading  to  the  generation  of 
formal 
opportunities 
income 
employment.  It  became  evident  that 
is 
it 
necessary 
to  advance  decentralisation  and 
strengthen  the  workforce  and  relationships 
between employees and employers. 

and 

for 

These  efforts  were  complemented  by  the  use 
of    a  request  for  proposals  modality  for 
to  non-profit 
awarding  grant  contracts 
organisations that supported Micro, Small and 
Medium Enterprises, cooperatives or producer 
groups.  This  strategy  generated  very  positive  
impacts        when  working on  issues, such  as 
innovation,  business  development  guidelines, 
exporting  and  others,  depending  on  the 
sector’s  competitiveness.  There  was  also 
evidence of ample space for inter-institutional, 
inter-sectoral,  and  international  coordination, 
which was only used to a limited extent. 

contributed 

Strengthening Civil Society Organisations: 
The  European  Union 
to 
promoting and consolidating networks within 
Civil Society Organisations and the community 
in  general,  both  at  the  territorial  and  sectoral 
levels, to increase their level of incidence on the 
national public agenda, including issues related 
to  Human  Rights.  In  addition,  the  European 
Union 
citizen 
participation  in  formulating  and  developing 
inclusive public policies on issues, such as rural 
development and Food and Nutrition Security, 
decentralisation  and  gender.  Likewise,  the 
European 
citizen 
observatories on issues, such as human rights, 
and  promoted  and  followed  up  on  citizen 
oversight  and  social  control  initiatives.  The 

supported 

provided 

support 

Union 

to 

to 

through 

contributed 

the 
European  Union 
governance of the Food and Nutrition Security 
sector 
institutional  strengthening, 
promoting multi-level and multi-actor dialogue 
for  decision-
information 
and  managing 
making, where farmers and indigenous people 
played  a  leading  role.  This  was  especially 
evident 
and 
departments,  which  indicates  the  importance 
of  continuing  to  territorialize  the  European 
Union’s  actions  in  Guatemala,  in  order  to 
contribute  effectively  to  development  at  the 
national and local levels. 

specific  municipalities 

in 

and 

Finally, the European Union accompanied the 
multi-stakeholder 
participatory 
formulation  of  the  human  rights  policy  with 
civil society, adding to a strategic commitment 
to developing the Roadmap and Human Rights 
instruments  were  very 
Strategy.  These 
effective,  and  they  linked  strengthening  the 
actions of agents of change with human rights 
defenders. In this way, it contributed to more 
for  political  participation  of 
promotion 
vulnerable 
enrichment  of 
groups, 
procedures  and  practices  for  the  effective 
resolution  of  conflicts  and  the  protection  of 
human rights.  

the 

instruments,  modalities 

Efficiency: In the evaluated period, the various 
cooperation 
and 
resources,  were  appropriate  and  adapted  to 
changes  in  the  environment.  Nevertheless, they 
were delays in implementation in particular cases 
and  very  limited  synergies  with  the  sectoral 
political dialogue. However, the Government of 
Guatemala valued the budget support operations 
as a valuable support for public finances, which 
generated positive impacts on the administration 
and Guatemala’s fiscal policy. 

By  the  end  of  2019,  during  the  government 
transition,  the  dialogue  between  the  European 
Union  and  the  government  had  limitations 
regarding institutional commitment and its ability 
and capacity to make the necessary adjustments 
at  the  sectoral  level,  with  respect  to  investment 
oriented  towards  development  objectives.  This 
affected the progress of the Food and Nutrition 
Security and Justice sectors. In competitiveness, 
better results were observed due to institutional 
commitment  and  the  involvement  of  other 
sectors,  such  as  entrepreneurs,  cooperatives, 

iii 

 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

Micro,  Small  and  Medium  Enterprises  and 
employees in dialogue with sectoral institutions. 

Based on the sector results in Peace and Security, 
the implementation and strengthening actions by 
the Offices for Attention to Victims (OAV) and 
National Civil Police (PNC) allowed formulation 
of  a  first-instance  situational  diagnosis  and 
integration of an inter-institutional coordination 
set  up  serving  the  Judicial  Organisation  (JO). 
Together, this support assisted the Secretary for 
Children  and  Adolescents  in  conflicts  with 
criminal  law  and  permanent  support  for  the 
Secretary for Women and Gender. In Food and 
Nutrition  Security,  throughout  the  evaluation 
period, the fact that was a state priority allowed 
the  European  Union  cooperation  to  effectively 
and sustainably support the governance structure 
of  Guatemala's  Food  and  Nutrition  Security 
in  reducing 
despite  not  making  progress 
malnutrition.  The  efficiency  of  the  cooperation 
was  directly  related  to  these  political  priorities, 
institutional  stability  and  the  quality  of  the 
dialogue  between  the  European  Union  and  the 
Government  of  Guatemala  at  a  sectoral  level. 
The  cooperation  within  competitiveness,  was 
found  to  be  efficient  due  to  using  different 
cooperation  modalities,  an  appropriate  inter-
institutional articulation with public institutions, 
and  adequate  synergy  with  the  private  sector, 
the  Guatemalan 
and 
cooperative 
Association  of  Exporters 
(AGEXPORT). 
Finally, in supporting Civil Society Organisations, 
accompanying organisations were identified as a 
long-term  process  in  Guatemala  and  is  highly 
valued  by  civil  society  participants  and  the 
international  community.  The  observed  results 
and  changes  have  favoured  strengthening  the 
sector and contributed to the European Union’s 
sectoral  and  human  rights  strategy,  combining 
this contribution in different institutional realms. 
The Roadmap and coordinated European Union 
action  at  a  country  level  with  Brussels  have 
decisively contributed to increasing the efficiency 
and effectiveness of actions with a closer political 
perspective and strategy in its actions.      

sector 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  TA  when  it  had  a 
strategic  nature  and  with  profound  political, 
economic  and  social  contextual  knowledge  was 
highly efficient by providing specific information 
and  knowledge  at  the  EU’s  request.  This 
compared  favourably  with    some  international 

Technical  Assistance  that  was  oblivious  to  the 
changing environment did not know the context 
and often failed to approach the institutions and 
establish  trusting  relationships.    Provided  they 
were strategic in their approach, evidence showed 
that  hiring  high-level  experts,    both  local  and 
international, 
important  for  guaranteeing 
greater  knowledge  of  the  context,  a  greater 
external vision of problems and a consolidated, 
strategic  and  innovative  approach  when  facing 
the change process. This skill is highly needed in 
the  country,  especially  in  sectors  with  potential 
niches. 

is 

The 

European 

coordination 

Union 
Complementing 
and 
Cooperation: 
complementarity  processes  were  found  to  be 
increasingly relevant in the Guatemalan context 
for promoting concrete actions that contribute to 
developing and defending democracy, as shown 
in  project  examples.  The  complex  country 
environment  demanded  flexibility,  a  territorial 
approach and response capacity. With respect to 
revealed 
the 
this 
weaknesses  of  coordination  and  gaps 
in 
implementation  phases,  which  affected  the 
opportunity to align efforts. 

environment, 

strategy 

to 

(MS)  and  donors 

Still,  the  European  Union  was  seen  as  a  key 
participant  in  coordinating  with  other  Member 
States 
the 
improve 
its 
effectiveness  of  cooperation,  supporting 
alignment  and  reducing  its  fragmentation.  The 
benefits of this coordination process go beyond 
efficiency in using resources. It added value and 
developed  an  advocacy  capacity  that  helped 
address the complex challenges in Guatemala and 
its territories, which require a more local strategic 
and political perspective. 

However, although the European Union plays a 
very active role in general, areas for improvement 
have  been  identified,  taking  advantage  of  the 
development  of  Team  Europe  initiatives  and  the 
possibility  of  increasing  joint  programming.  In 
the  evaluation  period,  it  was  demonstrated  that 
Team  Europe   still  does  not  have  the  capacity  to 
make a Joint Declaration on Human Rights and 
Justice  issues  locally,  even  though  it  has  a 
common interest in defending human rights. This 
niche has been filled by the institutional structure 
of  the  EU  from  Brussels.  Additionally,  there  is 

iv 

 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

potential for synergies with other donors; a task 
still to be explored. 

In  this  way,  the  new  Multiannual  Indicative 
Program  is  seen  as  an  opportunity  to  generate 
new  internal  coordination  spaces,  mechanisms 
and  instruments  with  the  European  Union  and 
externally,  as  long  as  these  venues  are  defined 
with  the  actors  who  demonstrate  the  will  for 
changes and political action with respect to key 
reforms associated with the new strategy. 

Lessons learned 

1.  Multi-actor  projects, 

including  various 
institutions  and  partners,  generate  greater 
sustainability and expanded impact. 

the 

from 

beginning 

2.  Economic interventions are more effective if 
they  are  designed  based  on  a  value  chain 
approach and articulated with the territories. 
3.  Recognition of the agendas and priorities of 
different  actors  for  the  implementation  of 
actions 
allows 
developing strategies at the political level that 
are appropriate for the context and territory. 
4.  The  coordinated  work  to  strengthen  civil 
society and public institutions to develop and 
implement specialized care protocols with a 
gender  and  human  rights  approach  allows 
progress  in  the  reduction  of  violence,  the 
peaceful 
and 
increasing  access  to  justice  for  people  in 
vulnerable situations. 

resolution  of 

conflicts 

5.  Strengthening the PPO based on the training 
and  education  of  prosecutors  and  public 
defenders,  staffing,  capacity-building  and 
creating,  supporting  and  strengthening  the 
Special Prosecutor's Office Against Impunity 
(FECI) increased the institutional capacity of 
the justice sector (PARJ, SEJUST). 

6.  Strengthening  civil  society  and  defending 
human rights remained constant in all sectors 
various 
that  were 
instruments, modalities and resources, which 
strengthened 
to 
development. 

supported  with 

contribution 

their 

7.  Subsidy  contracts  for  organisations,  Micro, 
Small and Medium Enterprises, cooperatives 
and producer groups, are an implementation 
modality that was found to be effective and 
efficient  in  responding  structural  problems, 
such as hunger, food insecurity and poverty. 

8.  A  multi-sectoral  approach  to  implementing 
European Union cooperation in Guatemala 
makes it easier to progress in solving multi-
causal problems. 

9.  Subsidy  contracts  for  organisations  that 
support  Micro, 
and  Medium 
Small 
Enterprises,  cooperatives  and  producer 
groups are an implementation modality that 
has  direct positive  impacts at  an  economic, 
environmental  and  social  level  in  value 
chains,  rural  communities  and  specific 
prioritized vulnerable groups.  

leadership 

10.  The political will and coordination between 
different institutions and actors, with clearly 
identified  needs  and  execution  capacities, 
generate  a  greater  probability  of  success  in 
the proposed actions. 
11.  The  European  Union’s 

in 
implementing  the  gender  and 
inclusive 
approach  in  the  team  set-up  and  project 
formulation  broadens 
for 
the  capacity 
advocacy with the national government. 
12.  Implementing  a  participatory  public  policy 
for  human  rights 
formulation  process 
defenders, 
tripartite  dialogue, 
fostering 
allows  for  high  levels  of  ownership  by 
participants. 

13.  Coordination between the municipalities and 
associations  is  positive  for  governance  and 
the  possibility  of  leveraging  social,  political 
and economic capital. 

14.  Following up on strategic litigation processes 
for  communities  highlights  the  European 
Union’s work with the defenders. 

Conclusions: 

1.  The  European  Union  demonstrated  relevance 
and  coherence  in  the  framework  of  its  global 
commitments  and  it  sought  to  be  flexible  in 
achieving development objectives. 

2.  The  willingness  and  ability  of  the  actors  to 
cooperate throughout the evaluated period with 
appropriate  incentives  was a  determining factor 
in the quality of the interventions. 

3.  The  justice  sector  was  strengthened  at  the 
national, regional and territorial institutional level 
through a process of support for change actors 
prioritized  in  the  strategy.  This  was  despite  the 
fact  that  impunity  and  corruption  were  great 
challenges in consolidating the Rule of Law in the 
country. 

v 

 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

4.  Coordination  among  civil  society  and  state 
institutions was a key factor that built trust and 
capitalized  on 
the 
cooperation’s impacts. 

learning  and  amplified 

5.  Significant progress was made in the institutional 
strengthening of the Food and Nutrition Security 
in Guatemala, but it was not enough to achieve 
the strategic objectives foreseen in the European 
increase  the 
cooperation,  which  sought  to 
productivity and diversity of productive units and 
rural  households  to  improve  the  Food  and 
Nutrition Security. 

contribution  was  made 

6.  In  the  competitiveness  sector,  a  decisive  and 
permanent 
in 
strengthening  the  National  Quality  System  and 
developing public policies that promote quality, 
competitiveness  and  decent  work/dignified 
employment in the country, in coordination with 
other  donors.  However,  there  is  a  pending 
agenda  in  formulating  other  public  policies  to 
support the structural impact at the national level. 
7.  Achievements  were  identified  at  the  level  of 
government  and  private  infrastructure,  business 
institutional 
development 
strengthening.  These  actions  also  contributed 
and favoured competitive development, access to 
markets,  international  recognition,  streamlining 
paperwork,  decentralisation  and  the  generation 
of more formal and decent jobs. 

services, 

and 

8.  There  was  progress  related  to  exchanging 
experiences, participation in dialogue spaces with 
actors  from  civil  society,  the  State,  and  the 
international community, and a general interest in 
implementing organized follow-up actions. 
9.  The  European  Union  strongly  supported  the 
promotion  and  defence  of  human  rights  in  the 
country.  However,  given  the  lack  of  dialogue 
among 
the 
Delegation of the European Union policy, there 
was  a  lack  of  speed  in  political  action  against 
human  rights  violations  and  the  adoption  of 
public policy. 
10.  The  various 

the  cooperation 

section  and 

instruments,  modalities 

and 
resources  were  appropriate  and  adapted  to 
changes  in  the  environment,  even  when  there 
were  delays  in  execution.  The  sectors  that 
demonstrated the greatest efficiency were those 
that  had  the  political  will  of  their  counterparts, 
with an adequate accountability process and the 
platforms for structured dialogue. 

11.  The support provided to Guatemala through the 
budget support operations was efficient and had 

vi 

positive impacts on the country’s administrative 
and  fiscal  policy,  allowing  an  increase  in  tax 
revenues  through  issuing  and  approving  laws, 
public policies and plans in this regard. This was 
in addition to achieving the Public Expenditure 
and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment 
to  improve  the  Public  Finance  Management 
(PFM) system. 

12.  The  joint  action  by  the  European  Union  as  a 
block  was  fundamental  in  leading  to  structural 
changes  and  greater  efficiency  of  the  European 
Union’s actions in Guatemala. In the last year of 
the  evaluation,  Brussels  took  no  an  important 
role in the current socio-political context of the 
country  to  support  the  actions,  generating 
consensus within Team Europe. 

13.  The upcoming Multiannual Indicative Program is 
seen as an opportunity to generate new spaces for 
coordination, as long as it is built with the actors 
that demonstrate a will and political action for key 
reforms  of  the  new  strategy.  The  evaluation 
showed  that  there  were  change  agents  with 
whom  concrete  results  can  be  achieved  and 
capitalized. 

Recommendations: 

on 

the 

the 
above 
Based 
recommendations  imply  explicit  actions  for  the 
EU team to pursue, which are indicated below: 

conclusions, 

1.  Develop  an  analysis  of  the  political 
economy 
that  helps 
in  Guatemala 
understand  the  reconfiguration  of  its 
relationships,  cultural  and 
territorial 
diversity, and changes in the face of needs 
and risks. This could be implemented by: 
●  Drafting  a  map  of  actors  that  allows 
learned  and  good 
recognizing 
practices  of  the  work  carried  out  with  the 
European  Union  and  in  dialogue  with  the 
Member States. 

lessons 

●  Presenting a diagnosis on the reconfiguration 
of  relations  between  political,  social  and 
economic actors in the country regarding the 
key  issues  on  the  European  Union  agenda 
established  in  the  Multiannual  Indicative 
Program  to  improve  the  conditions  of 
governance and governability. 

●  Identifying  the  European  Union  partners 
who  have  a  common  ethical  and  technical 

 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

agenda, which will bring greater visibility and 
sustainability  of  the  European  Union’s 
actions in the country. 

2.  Co-create a political dialogue strategy at 
all  levels  within  the  European  Union  in 
political, 
Guatemala 
that 
commercial  and  cooperation 
issues 
following Brussels’ guidelines. This could 
be implemented by: 

links 

and 
accompanied  by 

●  Identifying the political dialogue actions that 
in 
require  coherence 
Guatemala, 
strategic 
messages  that  capitalize  on  the  learning  of 
the  Delegation  and  promote 
inclusive 
communication for development. 

innovation 

●  Developing  a  strategy  for  Team  Europe, 
which includes other donors, to promote the 
defence  of  Democracy,  the  Sustainable 
Development  Goals  (SDGs)  and  the  2030 
Agenda  in  Guatemala  to  increase  impact, 
visibility and innovation. 

●  Activating  joint  working  groups  with  the 
Member States and other strategic actors of 
the international community with respect to 
promote 
issues 
the 
transformations and changes at the sectoral, 
social and territorial level. 

different 

to 

civil  and  political  rights,  and  carrying  out 
human  rights  training  processes  for  the 
diplomatic corps and institutions in general. 
the 

contribute 

● Continuing 

to 

to 

decentralisation process. 

4.  Design 

and 

implement 

a 
communication, visibility and incidence 
strategy. This could be implemented by: 
●  Generating  specific  thematic  campaigns 
that make it possible to collect the lessons 
the 
learned  and  good  practices  of 
Delegation 
and 
implementing communication, visibility and 
advocacy  actions  at  the  local,  regional, 
national  and  international  level,  with  the 
support of Brussels. 

strengthening 

in 

● 

●  Developing  a  strategy  with  national  and 
local  media  to  disseminate  peacebuilding, 
sustainable development, human rights, and 
other actions that contribute to the country 
and its democracy. 
Seeking  to  link  strategic  actors  of  the 
country in developing the European Union 
Agenda  from  a  sectoral  perspective  and 
cross-cutting  issues,  taking  advantage  of 
topics, 
pact, 
competitiveness and gender. 

green 

such 

the 

as 

3.  Strengthen 

governance 

through 
for  dialogue  and 
promoting  spaces 
collective  multi-actors  and  multi-level 
construction.  This  could  be  implemented 
by: 

● Designing  a  trust-building  strategy  around 
the  new  Multiannual  Indicative  Program 
themes  that  will  encourage  constructive 
dialogue  with  the  actors  of  change  (public, 
civil  society,  and  private)  that  have  shown 
political will and effectiveness in their work, 
as well as with those that have demonstrated 
their ability to hinder actions and results. 
● Identifying  the  existing  multi-actor  and 
multi-level  spaces  with  the  Member  States 
and  other  strategic  participants,  where  they 
are interested in continuing with generating 
capacities and incidence in public policy. 
● Continuing  to  monitor  the  human  rights 
situation 
the 
conditions  for  civil society to  exercise  their 

in  Guatemala, 

including 

5.  Design, 

implement  and  evaluate  an 
knowledge  management 
adequate 
strategy 
project 
that 
monitoring, the evaluation of results and 
impacts, systematisation of learning and 
the  exchange  of  experiences.  This  could 
be implemented by: 

combines 

●  Prioritizing  actions  aimed  at  capitalizing  on 
existing knowledge management in the work 
with civil society, specifically in monitoring, 
evaluation,  learning  and  accountability,  as 
information  and 
well  as  collecting  the 
learning  from  the  Country  Evaluation  to 
enrich  human  rights  and  civil  society 
strategies. 

●  Building a joint vision of the delegation on 
the  work 
in  knowledge 
to  be  done 
management  and  identifying  allies  for  its 
implementation in line with the Multiannual 
Indicative  Program,  Roadmap,  Democracy 
and Human Rights Strategy, among others. 

vii 

 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

● 

systems,  which 

the  existing 
Identifying  and  adjusting 
monitoring 
facilitate 
gathering  and  reporting  information  in  the 
systems of allies and co-operators to improve 
decision-making,  as  well  as  actions  that 
guarantee transparency among the actors. 

●  Having  a 

territorialized  approach 

in 
implementing  the  strategy  to  disseminate 
the  results  and  changes  generated  by  the 
European Union and its Member States at 
the  local,  departmental,  national,  regional 
and international level. 

6.  Continuing to support the territories and 
social  and  sectoral  processes  based  on 
the combination of different instruments 
and cooperation modalities. This could be 
implemented by: 

●  Continuing  with  the  different  cooperation 
modalities,  carrying  out  an  analysis  by  the 
type of actor in the different territories, and 
recognizing 
the 
processes  (not  just  projects),  in  order  to 
consolidate  a  common  vision  towards 
development. 

strengthening 

and 

●  Making adjustments to the implementation 
of BS with the national government, seeking 
to condition the allocation of resources to 
real changes at the level of institutions and 
policies (not only at the level of individual 
officials). 

●  Seeking to generate greater articulation and 
alliances at the national and territorial levels, 
to 
and 
implementable  models  horizontally  and 
vertically. 

generate 

changes 

help 

●  Implementing  Technical  Assistance  with 
proven  trust-building  methodologies  with 
the  European  Union  and 
its  strategic 
partners, guaranteeing full knowledge of the 
context; and constantly reading the political, 
social, 
economic 
situation. 

environmental 

and 

●  Identifying  sectors  that  have  potential 
actors  of  change  with  limited  budgets,  in 
order for dialogues to be more relevant and 
promote  changes  for  local  and  territorial 
development. 

that 

justice, 

initiatives 

to  ensure 

7.  Strengthening  political  dialogue  and 
cooperation actions regarding the issues 
of  peace,  democracy,  gender,  human 
rights  and 
the 
institutional 
continuity  of  ongoing 
processes,  and  continuing  to  support 
citizen 
promote 
transparency  and  access  to  information 
in these areas and topics.      This could be 
implemented by: 
●  Coordinating cooperation, dialogue and 
follow-up  actions  with  the  European 
Union  from  Brussels  and  Geneva  and 
the Member States through instruments, 
such  as  the  Universal Periodic  Reviews 
before  the  United  Nations  Human 
Rights Council, the Commission on the 
Elimination  of  all  Forms  of  Violence 
or 
Against  Women 
promoting  follow-up  by  the  European 
Union Working Party on Human Rights 
(COHOM), among others. 

(CEDAW), 

the 

●  Continuing  and  giving  greater  visibility 
to  the  actions  developed  to  apply  the 
guiding  principles  of  business  and 
rights,  ensuring  articulation 
human 
between 
and 
trade,  politics 
cooperation section of the Delegation of 
the European Union, capitalizing on the 
support of strategic partners, such as the 
Office  of  the  United  Nations  High 
Commissioner for Human Rights in this 
matter. 

●  Strengthening  and  further  enhancing 
actions  with 
the  European  Union 
Working Party on Latin America and the 
Caribbean 
to  coordinate 
efforts  in  favour  of  the  human  rights, 
peace, justice and democracy agenda in 
Guatemala. 

(COLAC) 

●  Providing 

support 

Assistance  to  citizen 
victims'  organisations 
actions of social control and visibility. 

and  Technical 
initiatives  and 
that  promote 

8.  Continuing  with  the  actions  taken  on 
issues  related  to  Food  and  Nutritional 
Security,  capitalizing  on  learning  by 
taking  advantage  of  the  process  of 

viii 

 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

updating  policies  announced  by  the 
National  Government.  This  could  be 
implemented by: 

the  different 

●  Making the results and concrete lessons 
learned in this sector visible, taking into 
account 
cooperation 
modalities and different actors involved, 
in  order  to  unify  the  view  of  the 
Multiannual 
Program. 
Specifically, it is recommended to review 
what failures and weaknesses there were 
in the process to collect lessons learned 
and 
improvements  when 
cooperating in this sector. 

implement 

Indicative 

●  Taking advantage of the multi-actor and 
multi-level  dialogue  venues  created 
within  the  framework  of  implementing 
the  Rural  Development  and  Food 
Security Law, as well as the entities and 
civil  society  organisations  that  were 
strengthened.  This  includes  presenting 
concrete  results  by  strengthening  the 
scenarios 
the  municipalities, 
in 
communities and regions. 
support 
to 

academia’s 
involvement  and  that  of  other  actors  in 
achieving  greater  results  and  expanding  the 
impact, taking advantage of the actions carried 
out previously. 
Increasing 
leading  participation  of 
the 
farmers,  indigenous  people  and  youth  in 
implementing  subsidies  for  the  Food  and 
Nutrition  Security  sector,  contributing  to 
strengthening  the  social  fabric  around  food 
security with more direct investments. 

associations 

9.  Continuing  with  institutional  support 
and  Medium 
Small 
and  Micro, 
and 
Enterprises, 
cooperatives 
to 
competitive  development  in  Guatemala, 
based  on 
implementation  of 
sustainable and inclusive public policies 
for improving the business environment 
investment,  economic 
by  promoting 

contribute 

that 

the 

●  Continuing 

● 

growth, social development and regional 
integration 
the  new 
Multiannual  Indicative  Program.  This 
could be implemented by: 

line  with 

in 

● 

Promoting  articulation  between  regional 
initiatives  and  local  initiatives,  seeking  to 
identify  synergies  and  complementarities  of 
public  or  private  initiatives  or  initiatives 
the 
supported  by  other  members  of 
international  community, 
the 
including 
development  of  circular  economy  actions, 
which require quality and traceability systems 
that  can  benefit  from  the  infrastructure  of 
the National Quality System of Guatemala. 

●  Strengthening  dialogue  with  actors  from 
different  sectors  that  share  the  European 
Union’s  vision  for  development,  especially 
for the new Multiannual Indicative Program 
agenda  of  Good  Governance  and  Human 
Development, which supports inclusive and 
sustainable growth, within the framework of 
the green deal. 

provided 

formulating 

●  Continuing  the  effective  support  that  has 
been 
and 
in 
inclusive 
implementing  sustainable  and 
public policies, such as the competition law, 
public 
employment 
generation  and  environmental  policies, 
among others prioritized by the Multiannual 
Indicative Program. 

finance  programs, 

●  Promoting horizontal and vertical scalability 
to  encourage  innovation  and  digitalisation 
initiatives in alliance with other co-operators. 
●  Articulating  cooperation  actions  with  key 
regional integration actors, taking advantage 
of: i) Guatemala's leadership, ii) the presence 
of the Central American Integration System 
(SIECA)  in  the  country,  iii)  the  association 
agreement, and iv) the more than Euro one 
billion annual European Union exports. This 
should  be  part  of  the  political  dialogue 
strategy  and  incorporate  the  results  of  the 
political economy analysis. 

ix 

 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

INTRODUCTION 

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 

1.  Introduction, context and methodology 
1.1. Introduction  
This report accounts for the main findings, recommendations, conclusions and lessons learned from the 
evaluation of EU Cooperation in Guatemala from 2007 to 2020. The objective of this independent exercise 
was  to  provide  information  on  the  progress  and  scope  of  cooperation,  lessons  learned  and 
recommendations  on  actions,  strategies,  programs  and  projects  implemented  in  the  stated  framework, 
which will guide future action in the country. 

The main users of the evaluation of the Delegation of the European Union in Guatemala (DEU) and the 
Commissioners of the EU, officials responsible for management of the EU in Brussels, geographic and 
thematic  units  of  the  Directorate  General  for  International  Partnerships  (DG-INTPA)  and  European 
External  Action  Service  (EEAS),  Member  States  (MS)  of the  EU  and Government  of  Guatemala. The 
evaluation can also be of interest for the international development community in general. 

Furthermore,  the  evaluating  team:  i)  assessed  the  performance  of  EU  support  in  terms  of  the  political 
dialogue and financial assistance to Guatemala; ii) measured the contribution of EU intervention in the 
country-wide  objectives;  iii)  provided  recommendations  on  the  strategies,  instruments  and  tools  for 
planning and designing new interventions; and iv) provided an analysis of the interested parties, identifying 
the most promising collaboration scenarios in sectors prioritized under the new 2021-2027 MIP. 

Based  on  Terms  of  Reference  (TOR),  the  report  includes:  i)  a  brief  description  of  the  purpose  and 
objectives  of  the  evaluation;  ii)  the  description  of  the  applied  methodology  and  explanation  of  the 
limitations observed in performing the exercise in terms of access to information, contextual factors and 
other  variables,  and  ethical  considerations;  iii)  a  detailed  presentation  of  the  findings  as  a  result  of  the 
analysis of the information collected in desk work and field visits; and iv) lessons learned, conclusions and 
recommendations for the EU and cooperation with Guatemala. 

In  this  way,  the  report  meets  these  requirements  in  three  chapters:  1)  introduction,  context  and 
methodology of the evaluation; ii) main findings and iii) lessons learned, conclusions and recommendations. 

1.2. Context 
For most of the 20th century, Guatemala has had a complicated political history characterized by long 
periods of military governments. A democratic opening process began in 1944, which ended in 1954 with 
a military coup. This led to a new period of dictatorship and a prolonged armed conflict. 

Guatemala  began  its  path  towards  reconciliation  between  the  parties  to  the  conflict  since  the  Peace 
Agreements were signed in 1996, and institutional efforts have been made to reform the State by creating 
new regulatory frameworks. This includes the decentralisation process, in order to address the causes and 
problems of an armed conflict that lasted over thirty-six years. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

Since the start of the century, significant progress has been made in legislative and institutional spheres to 
consolidate peace, and dialogue spaces between the State and civil society have been created. However, the 
country is still facing challenges in addressing the structural causes of the conflict that keep it as one of the 
countries in the world with the highest inequality. A majority of the population lives in poverty and extreme 
poverty. According to the United Nations1, though the country ranks as the largest economy in the Central 
American region, it has enormous gaps in nutrition, health, education, employment and welfare indicators 
for the population in the social dimension, as shown in this analysis.  

Society demonstrates a high level of unrest due to the deficient administration of services, impunity, lack 
of legal certainty of land, the unconsulted exploitation of natural resources and failure to apply Convention 
169 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), as well as unresolved structural issues.  

Guatemala has situations involving violence and insecurity, with high homicide and femicide rates, and 
crimes  against  the  physical  integrity  of  persons  and  property.  Crime  is  the  result  of  a  long  process  of 
institutional  weakening,  marginalisation  and  inequality. Dismantling  the state structures  that  carried  out 
violence during the armed conflict created a gap the state has not been able to fill, which has benefited 
parallel power groups and organized crime. Even though, to date, there has been progress in specialized 
justice with respect to femicide and other forms of violence against women, the Public Prosecutor's Office 
(PPO) has strengthened its capacity to fight impunity, and there has been a decrease in the homicide rate, 
greater institutional efforts are still required for prompt and effective access to justice and effective equality 
of rights. 

On an environmental level, the country’s biodiversity and natural resources are not exploited sustainably. 
The population is exposed to climate change and the recurrence of natural disasters, which seriously damage 
the economy and infrastructure. 

As  a  multicultural  and  multilingual  country,  it  is  important  to  recognize  and  guarantee  the  right  of 
indigenous communities to be consulted and to participate in decision on development. However, progress 
complying with these commitments is limited, reason why building a pluricultural, multi-ethnic and multi-
lingual  nation  is  a  pending agenda.  Moreover, sexually diverse  populations  and  people  living  with HIV 
(Human  Immunodeficiency  Virus)  often  face  stigmatisation  and  discrimination,  as  well  as  frequent 
violations of their HR (Human Rights). This is an obstacle to exercising their rights and accessing legal and 
health care services. In addition, the population of “seniors” has completely forgotten in terms of rights 
and benefits (public spending on this group is minimal). 

1.2.1.  EU Cooperation in Guatemala 
The EU’s technical and financial support for Guatemala began in 1997 in light of the Peace Agreements 
signed in 1996. The first Country Strategic Plan (CSP) was launched in 2002, and it covered the 2002-2007 
period.  The  Plan  supported  less  priority  areas  in  order  to  have  more  of  an  impact  and  contribute  to 
development. Since then, two multi-annual plans have been carried out: the 2007-2013 CSP and the 2014-
2020 Multiannual Indicative Plan (MIP), which are the subjects of this evaluation. 

The comparative data of total budgets by sectors financed by the EU are presented below. 

1   United  Nations  System,  “Análisis  de  la  Situación  del  País”,  Guatemala,  December  2014.  https://onu.org.gt/wp-

content/uploads/2016/04/Estudio-de-Situacion-Guatemala.compressed.pdf   

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

FIGURE 1. TOTAL AMOUNTS BY SECTOR 

Source: Prepared by author based on evaluation and monitoring reports. 

The 2007 – 2013 Country Strategic Plan (CSP) 

The preparation process for the 2007-2013 support program began in 2004 with a fact-finding mission, 
which was be basis of a conceptual note discussed with relevant actors and interested parties in Guatemala. 
The need to continue supporting the implementation of the Peace Agreements and strengthening MSMEs 
economically was established from these participatory spaces. In this way, the 2007 – 2013 CSP was focused 
on two main areas: 

i)  Social  cohesion  and  security,  which  included  promoting  democracy  with  respect  to  indigenous 
communities and their rights, reducing violence by integrating youth into society and providing 
support to the justice sector. 

ii)  Economic growth and commerce, which contained a rural development program that included 
agriculture, food safety and commerce, as well as national and regional institutional development. 

The 2014 – 2020 Multiannual Indicative Program (MIP) 

The 2014 – 2020 MIP was developed in a participatory fashion through consultations at all levels with 
relevant actors of the development ecosystem. This document was focused on three main sectors and four 
support measure areas: 

i)  Food safety, which included improving the nutritional condition of women and children under 5 
years of ages, as well as providing support to improve the production capacity of rural families, 
taking into account the environment and climate change. 

ii)  Conflict resolution, peace and security, which covered strengthening capacities to reduce violence 
levels with a focus on at-risk groups. It developed mechanisms to prevent and transform social 
conflicts. 

iii)  Competitiveness, which meant improving competitiveness and the commercial capacity of MSMEs 
and cooperatives, including strengthening national institutions that provided support to MSMEs 
and cooperatives to comply with the international standards and requirements of the EU-Central 
America Association Agreement.  

3 

 
 
 
  
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

1.2.2.  The Theory of Change of the 2007 – 2020 EU-Guatemala Program 
As  a  fundamental  part  of  the  evaluation,  the  Intervention  Logic  of  cooperation  between  the  EU  and 
Guatemala was reconstructed. This process was carried out in a participatory fashion with the Reference 
Group and presented to the chief of cooperation and those responsible for the Cooperation Section of the 
DEU. 

The  reconstruction  of  the  theory  of  change  was  presented  generally  and  by  sector.  A  timeline  of  EU 
cooperation in Guatemala is presented below, taking into account the presidential terms and four main 
areas  of  the  relationship  between  the  parties:  CSO,  FNS,  peace,  security,  justice  and  HR;  and 
competitiveness (see figure 2). These four areas are included in the general intervention logic (see figure 3) 
and in annex 1 of this report. They are included for purposes of consulting the sectoral logic. 

4 

 
 
Civil Society 

Competitiveness 

Food Security 

Peace, Justice and HR 

FIGURE 2. TIMELINE OF EU COOPERATION IN GUATEMALA, 2007-2020 

Source: Prepared by authors.

5 

 
 
 
 
FIGURE 3. RECONSTRUCTED INTERVENTION LOGIC OF THE 2007-2020 EU - GUATEMALA PROGRAM 

Reconstructed Intervention Logic – General Theory of Change 

Resources/ supplies 

Activities >> Products 

Results 

Medium-term impact 

Impact 

Modalities 

-Budget support 
-Project program 
-Thematic programs 
(CSO/EIDHR) 
-Regional Programs 
-Blending 
-Political dialogue 
-Scheduling and need analysis 
-Coordination between donors 

Interested Parties 

-State Agencies of Guatemala 
-Civil Society 
-The Private Sector 
-Regional Organizations 
-Member States of the EU 
-Other donors 

Raising awareness: 
The target population and all relevant 
parties with an added awareness of social 
cohesion, security, peace and economic 
issues. 
Rights and representation: 
Improved protection systems for rights 
and the participation of indigenous 
communities and civil society. 
Dialogue mechanisms: 
Education provided to rural workers, 
youth and other target groups. Dialogue 
between citizens and the State improved. 
Strengthening capacities: 
Strengthening the institutional and 
human capacities of organizations, public 
institutions and other key economic and 
social actors on a municipal and national 
level. 
Public utilities: 
Improving social and economic services 
(for example, water and sanitation 
infrastructure, health care services, 
education, commercial network and links 
with national and regional markets). 
Policies/ standards and public 
regulations: 
Promoting social and economic policies, 
improving commercial regulations and 
adopting standards. 
Cross-cutting: 
Addressing gender, youth, indigenous 
groups, climate and the environment. 

Driver of the impact: greater stability and optimism as a result of a change in 
behaviour and practices + “peace dividends” that create a new drive for economic 
growth. 

Driver of the impact: comprehensive socioeconomic reforms as the result of 
changes in the attitudes of citizens, the public sector and the private sector. 

Peace and Security 

-Better integration in society and more political participation 
by marginalized and vulnerable groups. 
-Implementing effective conflict resolution procedures and 
practices. 

Food Security 

-Improvements in productive capacity, with a greater 
diversification of food ingested in agricultural homes and 
non-agricultural rural homes. 

Competitiveness 

-Improvements in the competitiveness and commercial 
capacity of MSMEs and cooperatives in the national, regional 
and global market. 

Cross-cutting 

-Reduction of environmental degradation and the effects of 
climate change. 
-Gender equality. 

-Peaceful coexistence in the 
country. 

-More Food and Nutrition 
Security in agricultural and 
non-agricultural homes. 

-Reduction in poverty, 
inequality and exclusion. 

-Stimulation of inclusive and 
sustainable economic 
development. 

-Society’s transformation towards 
peaceful coexistence, social 
cohesion and security in the 
country. 

-The economy’s transformation 
towards inclusive and sustainable 
development promoted by 
diversification and an increase in 
the production capacities and 
competitiveness of a private sector 
integrated into national, regional 
and international markets. 

Strategic Relevance 

Results 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Assumptions: the government proactively contributes and provides political 
and operational support for implementing cooperation activities. The peace 
agreements and other and implemented as expected. 

Assumptions: benefiting institutions contribute human resources, pay 
for operating costs and provide the necessary spaces to properly 
implement cooperation activities. 

Source: Prepared by authors.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

1.3. Methodology 
1.3.1.  Scope 
The legal, temporal and thematic scope of the evaluation has been established in the TOR. The relevant 
geographic  instruments  (ICD)  were  covered,  as  well  as  the  two  thematic  instruments  (CSO  /  LA  and 
EIDHR).  Commitments  and  disbursements  were  included,  as  well  as the  amounts  that  were  not  finally 
committed during the 2007-202 period, emphasizing the 2014-2020 MIP. 

Thematically, the evaluation covered the sectors defined in the 2014-2020 MIP, namely: i) Food Security; 
ii)  Justice,  Peace  and  Security;  and  iii)  Competitiveness.  The  analysis  of  the  regional  schedule  / 
implementation in Central America and its synergy with the bilateral program was also included. 

In addition, the evaluation took into account the political dialogue of the EEAS and its activities related to 
Guatemala; commercial relations between the EU and Guatemala and its impact on economic development; 
and the activities related to the coordination with the MS of the EU and other actors. 

1.3.2.  Evaluating Team 

FIGURE 4. EVALUATING TEAM 

Team leader, expert 
in international 
cooperation and civil 
society 
OH Methodology 

Expert in 
competitiveness and 
efficiency 
measurement 

Food security expert 

Competitiveness 
expert 

Peace and justice 
expert 
OH Methodology 

Expert in 
communication for 
development and 
social innovation 
OH Methodology 

Budget support 
expert 

Source: Prepared by authors. 

1.3.3.  Methodology of the Evaluation  
The evaluation was performed following the methodological guidelines of the DG-INTPA, applying he 
evaluation criteria adopted by the DAC of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 
(OECD), namely: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. In addition to 
these criteria the evaluation analysed: i) the flexibility and adaptability of EU support; ii) the added value of 
EU  support;  iii)  the  transformative  impact;  iv)  the  visibility  of  interventions  funded  by  the  EU;  v)  the 
political dialogue on key topics for the EU (related to relevance, coherence and impact); vi) the selection of 
sectors (related to relevance and coherence); vii) the selection of modalities (related to effectiveness and 
efficiency);  and  viii)  cross-cutting  topics  (sensitivity  to  conflict,  HR,  gender  and  environmental 
sustainability). 

The evaluation used mixed methods for collection and for the analysis of information, combining qualitative 
and quantitative methods. In addition, as a requirement of the TOR and in order to deepen the changes 
attained through cooperation in the country, the following aspects were made to be cross-cutting: 

1.  The evaluation methodology used the Outcome Harvesting (OH) approach to perform analyses 
from  a  theory  of  change  based  on  actors, the  focus  of rights  and the  EU’s  contribution to  the 
general  community  of  Guatemala.  Volume  2  shows  the  details  of  this  methodology  and  the 
respective theories of change based on actors, as well as the results obtained from this exercise. 
2.  The  budget  support  evaluation  methodology,  around  three  different  dimensions:  relevance,  the 
sectoral  policy  (FNS)  supported  by  this  modality,  and  the  analysis  of  the  modality’s  efficiency. 
Volume 2 shows how this methodology became cross-cutting within the evaluation matrix. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

In order to identity the findings, lessons learned, conclusions and recommendations for EU Cooperation in 
Guatemala in the period to be evaluated, the exercise was divided into three stages: 1) start, 2) desk and 
field, and 3) summary and disclosure. Figure 4 shows the main activities and deliverables of each one of 
these stages. 

FIGURE 5. EVALUATION STAGES AND DELIVERABLES 

Source. Prepared by authors. 

1.3.4.  Evaluation Questions and Judgment Criteria (JC) 
Volume 2 shows the evaluation questions associated with the DAC of the OECD, the judgment criteria 
(JC) that guided the collection and analysis of information, other key aspects and the relationship they have 
with the reconstructed intervention logic. The EQ that guided the exercise are presented below: 

TABLE 1. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

EVALUATION QUESTION (EQ) 
Strategic Relevance 
EQ1. Has the EU country program provided answers to the changing needs of the people of Guatemala and, at 
the same time, answered to the EU’s global commitments? 
Results 
EQ 2A. Peace and Security - Has the EU country program achieved (2007-2013 MIP) or is it probable it will 
achieve (2014-2020 MIP) the provided strategic results to (i) prevent violence and crimes against women and 
children; (ii) rehabilitate and reinsert women and youth; and (iii) strengthen the country’s mechanisms for 
preventing and transforming social conflicts? 

8 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

EQ 2B. Food and Nutrition Security – Has the EU country program achieved (during the 2007-2013 period) or 
is it probable it will achieve (at the end of the 2014-2020 scheduling program still being implemented) the 
provided strategic results? 
EQ 2C. Competitiveness – Has the EU country program achieved (during the 2007-2013 period) or is it 
probable it will achieve (at the end of the 2014-2020 scheduling program still being implemented) the provided 
strategic results? 
EQ 3. Civil Society Organisations (CSO) and Local Authorities (LA) – Has the EU’s support contributed to 
CSOs being able to achieve the provided strategic results? 
Efficiency 
EQ 4. How have the resources provided by the EU been used? 
Complementarity of EU Cooperation 
EQ 5. Has the EU country program been complementary and created relationships with the support provided by 
MS and other donors? 

1.3.5.  Selection of the Sample of Projects  
The sample was selected in order to cover the most important interventions of the focal sectors and variety 
of criteria covered in this evaluation: 

●  Volume  of  funding:  The  interventions  with  the  broadest  scope  and  most  relevance  were 
prioritized along with the DEU officials in Guatemala in charge of managing them. These criteria 
made sure a substantial percentage of the EU’s funding was reflected in each sector. 

●  Maturity:  The  interventions  implemented  for  enough  time  to  produce  tangible  outcomes  and 
impacts were prioritized. For example, this was applied to some interventions that received support 
in more than one implementation period or through more than one source of funding2. 

●  Temporal coverage: The sample was defined by gathering the interventions that were contracted 

in both periods that cover the evaluation, with a special emphasis on 2014 – 2020. 

●  Relationship  with  the  JC:  The  most  relevant  interventions  were  selected  for  the  evaluation 

questions.  

The sample for each sector included three to five interventions per sector following the criteria above. They 
covered a significant proportion of the EU’s investment, which is to say 50 to 99 percent of the amount 
planned (committed) at the end of the N+3 period in each sector (considering the amendments introduced 
to extend the commitment and execution periods, when it applies) (see Annex 2). In addition, a sample of 
projects was not chosen for the interventions with CSOs. The OH methodology was used instead, seeking 
to demonstrate the changes made to the actors with the EU’s contribution. Under this methodology, during 
the desk phase, a survey was designed and applied to the civil society organisations involved in the EU’s 
interventions  during  the  evaluation  period.  This  was  in  order  to  ascertain  their  perception  of  the 
contribution  received,  the  changes  achieved  and  the  capacities  developed  or  strengthened  from 
implementing the projects in which they participated (see Volume 2). 

1.3.6.  Collection Stage and Summary of Information  
The desk phase began once the projects were selected, during which time the team carefully reviewed the 
relevant documentation for the period to be evaluated. Meetings and interviews were held with people 
during this phase virtually (20) – some of them from the DEU, DG-INTPA, government representatives 
and  stakeholders.  The  intervention  logic  was  reconstructed,  evaluation  questions  were  reviewed  and 
adjusted,  and  the  inventory  of  EU  interventions  in  Guatemala  was  taken  during  these  meetings  and 
interviews.  The  collected  information  was  analysed  and  organized,  taking  into  account  the  evaluation 
questions,  CJs  and  their  respective  indicators,  analysis  of  the  information,  sources  of  verification  and 
quality of the evidence. The evidence was given a score from 1 to 4, where 1 was Low (no information), 2 

2These  aspects  were  already  confirmed  during  the  current  start  phase,  for  example,  after  initial  consultations  with  the  DEU  for  the 
"Competitiveness" focal area. Very valuable projects were detected (for example, in support of creating sources of jobs) whose initial phases 
were in the 2007 - 2013 period and are being complemented with a phase 2 under the 2014 – 2020 MIP. Similar criteria have been applied to 
projects  for  providing  equipment to  improve  the country's  quality  infrastructure,  with  contributions  from both national MIPs  and  regional 
programs managed by SIECA.  

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

was Medium (scant information), 3 was Medium High (lack of information), and 4 was High (complete 
evidence). 

This information is shown in detail in Volume 2 of this final evaluation report, which  can be requested 
expressly from the depository of this evaluation process.  

Subsequently, semi-structured interviews and virtual and on-site focus groups were held in the field phase, 
and based on a stakeholder map and indicative list of actors involved in the programs selected for the sample 
(see Volume 2). In the case of the collection process for the OH, processes for gathering information were 
also carried out with beneficiaries and stakeholders. The following table summarizes the people who were 
consulted as part of the evaluation process: 

TABLE 2. PEOPLE WHO WERE CONSULTED AS PART OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS 

Sector 

Number of Interviews 

DEU, OH, INTPA, Government, others3 
Relevance and coherence  
Justice and peace4 
CSO5 
Competitiveness 
FNS and efficiency 
Cooperating partners 
Total  

20 
20 
26 
24 
53 
18 
12 
173 

Finally,  during  the  process  of  summarizing  the  information,  the  evaluating  team  analysed  the  gathered 
information  and  preliminary  findings  obtained from  the  previous process,  formulating  responses  to  the 
EQs  to  proceed  with  identifying  lessons  learned  and  conclusions,  and  subsequently  formulating 
recommendations. The work was based on the following tasks: 

-  Triangulating information to check its validity and the emergence of key issues. The empirical basis, 
accuracy and credibility of oral sources were compared to those of written sources, and national sources 
were compared to international sources, as well as the opinions of different stakeholders. 

-  A collective construction process and constructive review by the team members, each one contributing 
their specific perspective regarding each EQ. The conclusions and recommendations were also enriched 
by the team members’ multi-sectoral perspectives. 

-  Considering the best international practices in areas covering by the evaluators’ analysis. 
-  A perspective with forward-looking goals: as described above, special attention was paid to providing 
useful  and  implementable  recommendations  that  applied  to  the  current  and  future  context  of  both 
Guatemala and the EU’s priorities in terms of international partnerships. 

1.3.7.  Limitations and Corrective Actions  
The following groups of limitations and the respective  measures to mitigate them were identified in the 
evaluation. Volume 2 presents them in detail.  

a)  Complexity and scope due to the magnitude and depth of the evaluation, which made it difficult 
to  define  the  sample  and  evaluate  the  results  in  terms  of  policy  dialogue,  identifying  tangible 
changes. To this end, a methodology was implemented that helped analyse the information, define 
key criteria for selecting the sample and include the OH as part of the evaluation to strengthen the 
EU’s changes and contributions. 

3 Meetings prior to field work. 
4 Interviews with actors were used for the OH exercise.  
5 Interviews with actors were used for the OH exercise. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

b)  Access  and  availability  of  data  and  information  reflected  in  access  to  data  in  the  Common 
External Relations Information System (CRIS) and high staff turnover. A detailed documentary 
review was carried out to mitigate these risks, which included ROM reports, case studies, academic 
and CSO articles and interviews on EU staff and that of other stakeholders. 

c)  COVID-19. The limitations during the pandemic for the evaluating team and key actors, as well as 
in situ restrictions, were overcome by implementing virtual interviews. They complemented those 
performed  face  to  face.  These  limitations  were  also  overcome  by  designing  and  implementing 
surveys taken remotely and, in general, due to the evaluating team’s capacity to adapt. 

1.3.8.  Ethical Considerations 
The evaluation incorporated the approach based on rights and inclusion, as well as all parties’ commitment 
(INTPA, consultants) to the privacy of sources of information. For this reason, the following approach was 
adopted: 

Confidentiality and Data Management 

The  anonymity  and  privacy  of  the  stakeholders  who  were  interviewed  was  respected.  Information  was 
processed confidentially. Prior consent from the source was secured before including any traceable quotes 
(in  writing  or  through  an  appropriate  witness).  Public  domain  data  not  considered  confidential  was 
accessible to all team members. Confidential or sensitive data and data not in the public domain was stored 
separately  on  a  secure  server  and  shared  with  the  team  on  an  "as  needed"  basis.  All  evaluators  were 
instructed  to  remove  any  data  that  may  be  sensitive  from  their  computer  records  at  the  end  of  the 
assignment. 

Gender and Human Rights Dynamics 

One of the most important elements in the evaluation was the topic of equality in the participation of men 
and women. For this reason, the consulted information and sources sought balance, whenever possible. 
Moreover,  a  differential  view  between  men,  women  and  other  population  groups  in  more  vulnerable 
conditions  was sought  in  the  process  of  gathering  information.  For  example, focus  groups  and specific 
interviews were conducted for women. 

The topic of gender equality and the empowerment of women was assessed, as was the human rights-based6 
approach, in the different interventions included in the sample of projects reviewed by the evaluating team. 
With respect to the EU's human rights approach, it was relevant to talk to representatives of the MS. 

Special attention was paid to the assessment of the extent to which the EU could contribute to improving 
the strategy described for the situation of women and the population in vulnerable conditions in general: 

  The role of women in peace-building and women's access to rights, including specific issues to address 
and reduce the high levels of femicide and other forms of violence against women in Guatemala, as 
well as women's limited access to justice, basic services and the labour market, and their limited political 
participation.  The  relevant  role  of  women  in  preventing  and  resolving  conflict,  peace  negotiations, 
peace-building, peacekeeping, humanitarian response and post-conflict reconstruction. 

  Attention  to  and  the  participation  of  indigenous  communities,  taking  into  account  how  the  social, 
economic  and  political  disadvantages,  discrimination  and  limited  participation  of  indigenous 
communities in national affairs in Guatemala are addressed. The high levels of social and environmental 
conflicts that affect them, mainly related to land tenure and natural resource management were also 
analysed. 

6 Gender equality and the empowerment of women is known as “GEEW,” and the human rights-based approach is “HRBA.” 
GEEW goes beyond the main focus of SDG 5, which covers the entire sustainable development agenda, as a policy of the 
entire  organization  within  the  United  Nations  System,  which  is  committed  to  leading  by  example.  HRBA  is  a  conceptual 
framework for the process of human development based on the international standards on human rights. Operationally, it is 
aimed at promoting and protecting human rights. It seeks to analyze the inequalities in center of the problems of development 
and correct the discriminatory practices and unjust distributions of power that prevent progressing in development and often 
result in abandoning groups of people. 

11 

 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

  With respect to the participation of youth, the way in which there have been contributions to the need 
to create more opportunities for income generation and greater access to the formal job market for 
young people was analysed, seeking to generate a better quality of life. 

  Recognition and care for the elderly. This analysis took the special vulnerability of the elderly, known 

in Guatemala as "seniors" into account. 

The evaluation required the participation of people with security risks, such as HR defenders, to answer to 
sensitive issues, such as Peach and Security and Civil Society. Their personal data was handled appropriately 
and carefully to make sure they felt trust and shared their observations with complete freedom. 

The  evaluating  team  considered  the  effectiveness  and  impact  of  EU  actions  in  its  analysis  to  include 
human rights and gender in the scope of their: 

  Political dialogue, economic diplomacy (EQ1) 
  Dialogue on human rights with stakeholders in Guatemala (EQ 2A and 3) 
  Declarations on HR and gender, campaigns and public events (EQ 1 and 3) 
  National human rights and gender strategies, in coordination with EU member countries (EQ1, 

EQ2A and EQ3) 

In terms of conflicts of interest, the team leader was in charge of making sure no team member had any 
type of conflict of interest during the evaluation process. Each one of them was asked directly, and their 
answers were validated by the team leader, making sure the evaluators involved in the exercise had not been 
previously involved in any user institution or institution that was a part of the evaluation. They also made 
sure the evaluators would have no interest in influencing the evaluation’s results. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

MAIN 
FINDINGS 

2.  Main Findings 

The main findings by evaluation question are presented below, and the main results of the OH process have 
also been included. Volume 2 presents the findings in greater depth, and Volume 2 of the Evaluation shows 
the indicators and evidence found throughout the process in detail.  That volume is available to the reader 
and must requested from the EU. In addition, Volume 2 presents the main evidence derived from the OH. 

2.1. Strategic Relevance 

EQ 1. Has the EU country program provided answers to the changing needs of the people of 
Guatemala and, at the same time, answered to the EU’s global commitments? 

The interventions of the EU cooperation in Guatemala sought to capitalize on lessons learned, 
in order to ensure more strategic actions with more coordination and cooperation with the different actors 
and have a greater impact with better results.  

The country program of the EU answered to the changing needs of the people of Guatemala and, 
at the same time, answered to a political, dynamic agenda and the EU’s global commitments.  

The DEU followed the required process  to design interventions, adhering to the strategy set  out at the 
country  policy  level.  It  was  also  consistent  with  the  vision  and  strategies  of  the  MS  and  international 
organisations to respond to the needs of the population of Guatemala. Different actors from civil society, 
the indigenous community, the public sector and other strategic actors from the international community 
were involved in the consultation process for each program, seeking greater participation. This participation 
was also differentiated during project implementation, where sectoral and territorial coordination spaces 
were promoted. 

The  planning  and  consultation  process  did  not  delve  into  the  political  analysis,  including  the 
governance structure, to identify and answer to the challenges and frames of reference of actors 
with the capacity to veto and hinder the expected objectives and results of projects and programs. 

Although the technical analysis was methodologically adequate to meet the country's needs, it should have 
been  supported  by  a  realistic  political  analysis  to  more appropriately  propose  its  practical  feasibility.  As 
indicated by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (2020), the country’s complex context is recognized  – that 
"Guatemala is in a crisis stage7." In some cases, the power relations between public and private actors limit 
the  effective  support  of  cooperation  and  policy  development,  since  the  institutional  framework  is 
susceptible to pressure from particular actors. This aspect was confirmed by different interviewed actors. 

7 Friedrich Ebert Foundation (2020). Problemas estructurales para el desarrollo económico de Guatemala  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

In this sense, a key factor in the co-creation of intervention processes for the development of a shared 
vision is to map the power and influence structure for intervention areas and identify the actors with a role 
in supporting or limiting the projects or programs. According to the interviews conducted in the field phase, 
changes in government caused conflicts in the traditional political structures in many cases. The roles of the 
beneficiaries and actors who are not affected by these change processes should be assessed, since they may 
have a role in limiting or hindering the interventions. Accordingly, the planning and consultation process 
had to delve deeper into the power and influence structure, identifying points of consensus and divergence. 
As  an  example,  actors  from  the  business  sector  highlighted  the  importance  of  having  a  scenario  that 
promotes  free  competition  and  an  economic  system  without  privileges,  as  well  as  dialogue  with  the 
economic elite, in order to generate changes at the political level. In addition, this implies political support 
at the start of new administrations to promote development, seeking to recognize and minimize the risks of 
the aforementioned power and influence structures. 

The specific weight of European cooperation in the country context is lower when compared to 
that of other cooperating partners. Others have more extensive country assistance budgets or are 
much more focused at a sectoral or territorial level. 

Cooperation from the Unites States8 for the period from 2014 to 2020 reported an investment of US$819.7 
million9, which is four times more than the EU’s investment in the 2014-2020 MIP. Specifically, the United 
States invested the equivalent of 75% of the 2014-2020 MIP in 2019. Other countries, though they invested 
less amounts for cooperation, sought to focus efforts in sectors and/or territories, becoming benchmarks 
in their intervention areas. 

A  highly  pertinent  scenario  was  identified  in  which  the  topics  covered  the  main  problems  for 
development  in  Guatemala.  However,  a  decreasing  relevance  was  observed  as  of  2018,  with  a 
limited capacity to effectively make an influence in the country. 

The  reconstruction  of  the  intervention  logic  allowed  validating  the  pertinence  of  the  different 
projects/programs  regarding  the  general  objective  and  expected  impact  with  actors  in  the  field  phase. 
Nevertheless,  the  hypotheses  that  supported  that  logic  did  not  take  into  account  political  risk  or  the 
complexity of creating long-term changes, forcing the objectives of the development intervention to change 
throughout the year due to the complex and dynamic environment. This happened in order to be consistent 
with the requirements of beneficiaries, the country’s needs, global priorities and the policies of partners and 
the EU. 

As some actors in the international sector indicated, “it is difficult to make many changes at the same time. It is more 
effective to make small, long-term changes.” In this sense, it was observed that the most appropriate selection of 
agents of change and institutions with needs and the will to implement actions with a greater actual impact 
on a country is important, “implementing projects through key partners with a capacity to influence. This intermediation 
can elevate project costs, but at the same time guarantee due process and accountability.” 

Adequate flexibility to integrate lessons learned and modify the intervention models from strategic 
and operational standpoints, without losing sight of the development objectives, was evident. It is 
worth mentioning that there were significant implementation time gaps, which were mainly related 
to operational aspects. 

The EU demonstrated relevance and coherence with respect to the development objectives. It sought to be 
flexible in achieving the proposed objectives.  Various actors consider the EU their main partner in a tense 
political environment, where civil society organisations are considered enemies of the state. 

However, gaps became evident due to a slow response capacity in coordinating timely action. This kept the 
projects/programs from being adequately aligned with the country context. In light of this situation, it was 
identified that resources were relocated in the midst of the complex events of the context, and the subsidy 

8 USAID / Actividades de USAID Guatemala.  2021 
9 https://results.usaid.gov/results/country/guatemala?fiscalYear=2020 

14 

 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

projects were adapted in an innovative manner. These innovations were made known through instruments, 
such as Casa de Europa Guatemala.10 

Budget support operations (BS), despite their relevance, were less effective than expected due to 
institutional changes. 

This can be explained by institutional risk factors, design flaws and implementation times, in a context where 
the value of the EU’s contribution was limited and not always relevant to the country's policies. Monitoring 
and accountability systems were generally weak when it came to identifying changes in the interventions and 
caused delays in disbursements. This created tension in dialogues with the institutional framework. On the 
other hand, there were weaknesses in risk analysis, which consisted of  failing to point out difficulties in 
policies and the commitment and capacity of assisted government institutions and organisations involved 
in implementation. 

Both the design and pertinence of projects/programs, implementation process and cross-cutting 
topics were important for effective execution. 

The EU adapted the intervention modalities to the realities of institutions, recognizing that the intervention 
models  and  profiles  of  institutions  are  inseparable  and  require  a  long-term  vision.  It  was  evident  that 
interventions have a higher probability of success when coordinated between different institutions nationally 
and internationally, at a more territorial level through key partners that have a capacity to influence, and 
when  topics  are  worked  on  in  a  cross-cutting  fashion.  Initiatives  that  involve  several  actors  have  clear 
advantages: i) they allow a greater availability of counterparty resources, ii) the capacity to influence expands 
horizontally (broadening coverage in territories, value chains, etc.) and vertically (multi-level influence in 
territories,  institutions  and  policies),  and  iii)  favours  learning  and  understanding  between  the  different 
participants, as well as long-term sustainability in light of political and environmental changes, among others. 
These processes evidently have higher costs, but it is more feasible to produce change with them than acting 
in an isolated manner, ensuring greater accountability. Finally, it is worth mentioning the importance of 
project  development  in  cross-cutting  topics,  such  as  attention  to  vulnerable  groups,  indigenous 
communities, topics related to environmental protection and climate change, and gender. 

In many cases, some actors think the EU’s response came too late, losing its effectiveness in light of changes 
in the environment (political and government) and the limiting factors in design with basic assumptions that 
are  not  always  met  (for  example,  proper  political  support).  Despite  this,  the  EU  and  its  flexibility  and 
adaptation in assigning resources through other cooperation modalities and redirection of efforts, was able 
to make changes in the general population. The main changes they were able to make to the actor “General 
community” as a result of the EU’s contribution to Guatemala during the evaluated period are summarized 
below based on the OH. 

GRAPHIC 1. HISTORY OF CHANGE, GENERAL COMMUNITY 

10 Casa Europa is a virtual space where information on the EU’s programs and projects executed in Guatemala is stored. There, they share 
conferences and activities of the DEU and its projects.  https://www.casadeeuropa.com/inauguracion/ 

15 

 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

Instruments of Change 

Change Obtained 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH.  

2.2. Results 
Justice 

EQ 2a. Has the EU country program achieved (2007-2013 MIP) or is it probable it will achieve 
(2014-2020  MIP)  the  provided  strategic  results  to  (i)  prevent  violence  and  crimes  against 
women and children; (ii) rehabilitate and reinsert women and youth; and (iii) strengthen the 
country’s mechanisms for preventing and transforming social conflicts? 

The  EU’s  work  in  the  sector  of  peace,  security,  justice  and  HR  has  evolved  with  time,  adapting  to  the 
country’s  conditions,  challenges  and  complexities.  It  seeks  to  reach  the  most  vulnerable  populations  to 
promote their access to justice and implement specific attention protocols to cases of violence and violations 
of  their  HR.  It  is  recognized  that  the  period  with  the  most  changes  and  achievements  was  during  the 
implementation of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Changes on an 
institutional level decreased in 2017, and the stigmatisation and criminalisation of HR defenders increased. 

In this sense, there were high levels of corruption, impunity, institutional deterioration, criminalisation of 
leaders,  defenders, students,  judges  and prosecutors,  as  well  as  high  rates  of  violence  against  vulnerable 
groups (women, indigenous communities and youth) and low levels of access to justice for these groups at 
the beginning of the intervention. In this context, by successfully combining the four cooperation modalities 
(program-budgets,  grants,  contribution  agreements  and  delegation  agreements),  the  EU  contributed  to 
strengthening some institutions and officials in the sector, specifically the PPO and the JO. Joint work with 
other donors, CSOs and NGOs for the defence and protection of human rights was also fundamental when 
it  came  to  improving  attention  to  victims  of  gender-based  violence  (GBV)  and  other  violations  of 
fundamental  rights.  Furthermore,  the  EU  contributed  to  implementing  peaceful  conflict  resolution 
mechanisms,  encouraging  dialogue  and  raising  the  visibility  of  violations  on  a  national  level  and  before 
international  bodies.  Finally,  the  intervention  contributed  to  increasing  the  Guatemalan  community's 
awareness  of  the  importance  of  human  rights  and  citizen  participation  for  influencing  public  policies.  
Interviews with actors from the church, academia and civil society confirmed this finding. 

16 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

GRAPHIC 2. HISTORY OF CHANGE, PEACE AND JUSTICE11 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

The EU contributed to improving the management of violence against women and children from 
prevention  to  attention,  promoting their rehabilitation  and  reinsertion  into Guatemalan  society. 
They did so through all the cooperation modalities and successfully making the gender approach 
cross-cutting in the peace, justice and security sector. 

A comprehensive improvement in the management of violence against women and children was observed, 
with an approach that covered everything from prevention to effective attention to victims. On one hand, 
this was thanks to the program-budgets (Support Program for Justice Reform, PARJ) and the EU Security 
and Justice Support Program (SEJUST), which contributed to strengthening the institutions of the justice 
sector, specifically the PPO and JO, in two spheres: i) the development and implementation of specialized 
attention  protocols  for  victims  from  gender  and  HR  approaches,  and  ii)  education,  training  and  the 
specialisation of prosecutors and judges. 

On the other hand, it was through the delegated cooperation (PREVI-AECID) and grants provided during 
the evaluation period. The CSOs dedicated to attending to victims of GBV were strengthened, equipping 
them  with  better  tools  to  accompany  cases,  increase  effective  access  to  justice  and  develop  prevention 
strategies. Among these tools and strategies are: education to influence public policies on gender and justice, 
facilitating dialogue spaces with the State, and specialized financial and legal support to carry out the victim 
support process. 

One of the actors that was also involved in performing these actions was Academia, which was able to 
engage to provide its support to research, education and information collection processes. They were able 
to strengthen their capacities to coordinate with the public sector, as shown in the graphic below. 

11 The investment in Human Rights was 12.7 m Euros, which are not added to the amount in the figure for Peace and Justice. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

GRAPHIC 3. HISTORY OF CHANGE, ACADEMY 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH.  

Finally, and particularly through the grants to CSOs, access to justice for indigenous women was improved 
from a cultural pertinence approach. This was done by opening dialogue spaces with local authorities and 
joint work with institutions in the justice sector, as well as networks of indigenous women in the territories, 
based on respect for a different vision of what justice and reparation mean to them. For example, alongside 
the  Public  Defender  of  Ixil  Women  and  some  CSOs,  GBV  cases  have  been  monitored  with  the  PPO, 
authorities  from  the  Ministry  of  Education  (MINEDUC)  and  local  authorities.  However,  some  threats 
associated  with  preventing  this  type  of  violence  were  observed,  since  actions  have  been  focused  on 
providing effective attention to victims, complaint mechanisms and sanctioning cases. The figures for these 
aspects remain alarming. 

The social infrastructure and institutional coordination to manage conflicts by strengthening CSOs 
and the justice system on a national and territorial level were improved. Nevertheless, limitations 
persist due to the complicated political and social context. 

In terms of conflict management, communities and local authorities were provided support to elevate cases 
and complaints to national and international authorities, facilitate multi-actor dialogue spaces, implement 
protection mechanisms for defenders, and influence public policies. In addition, the EU’s commitment to 
reducing  violence,  peacefully  solving  conflicts,  access  to  justice  for  the  vulnerable  population  and 
strengthening the  capacities  of  CSOs  and  public  institution  was  clearly  evident  and  increasing  as  of  the 
moment  the  Peace  Agreements  were  signed  in  Guatemala.  They  did  so  through  all  the  cooperation 
modalities implemented in a complementary manner. The SPJR program, and subsequently SEJUST, sought 
to strengthen the institutions of the justice sector and improve the coordination and harmonisation of the 
strategies and actions of the JO, PPO, Ministry of the Interior (MINGOB), Public Institute for Criminal 
Defence  (IDPP)  and  National  Institute  of  Forensic  Sciences  of  Guatemala  (INACIF).  Jointly,  both 
programs contributed to implementing effective criminal mechanisms to reduce high rates of impunity and 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

violence, as well as to improve the security of citizens and social conflicts. Actors from both civil society 
and members of institutions who were consulted during the evaluation confirmed the above. 

On the other hand, the determined support from the EU to transitional justice in the country promoted a 
greater  institutional  capacity  to  protect  the  groups  most  affected  by  violence.  Women  and  victims’ 
organisations  were  especially  strengthened  through  the  FCSO-SEJUST  project  in  their  roles  of  social 
auditing and influencing public policies. This contribution was also achieved through the EU’s support for 
strategic litigation processes related to HR violations, the protection of defenders and support for territory 
defence  processes,  especially  indigenous  territories.  In complementation  to  and  coherence  with  the  HR 
Strategy and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), the EU worked to 
strengthen the Human Rights Division of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate major cases of HR 
violations, supporting highly complex hearings12. The sentences uttered in these cases contributed to the 
national reconciliation process, especially in terms of social cohesion, which was one of the objectives of 
the  intervention  logic.  In  this  way,  it  can  be  asserted  that  the  EU  has  contributed  to  development  in 
Guatemala  during  the  evaluated  period,  since  it  has  contributed  to  strengthening  the  social  fabric,  has 
provided support in the process of influencing public policies in favour of HR and has improved vulnerable 
populations’ access to justice. 

Another one of the actors that has contributed to strengthening the social fabric, defending HR and social 
support, working hand in hand with the EU, has been the church. Through this actor, a change related to 
its inclusion in the intersectoral dialogue and follow-up and monitoring for the HR situation in the country 
has stood out. The EU contributed to associating this actor with the dialogue between the State and CSOs, 
in order to improve trust between both parties and create constant monitoring and follow-up mechanisms 
for the HR situation. In the framework of the Roadmap, this actor has been able to be associated by funding 
specific projects that attend to youth and women, as well as strategic dialogues with the church in settings, 
such as the National Convergence for Human Rights. 

12The EU provided its support in trials that led to sentences in the case against General Ríos Mont, the case of Genocide against the Ixil People, 
the case of the women of Sepur Zarco, and other cases. 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

GRAPHIC 4. HISTORY OF CHANGE, THE CHURCH 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH.  

The EU promoted peaceful coexistence through dialogue, providing support to communities and 
local  authorities  to  elevate  cases  and  present  complaints  of  HR  violations  before  national  and 
international authorities, facilitate multi-actor dialogue spaces, implement protection mechanisms 
for defenders and influence public policies. 

This was achieved by providing support to strategic litigation related to HR violations, protecting defenders 
and assisting territory defence processes, especially for indigenous communities. In addition, a significant 
improvement in the access to and coverage of attention and criminal investigation in high-risk territories 
for crime, which mostly affects the vulnerable population, was observed. To this end, work with the Office 
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the contributions to the CICIG and grants and 
projects  with  international  organisations,  such  as  OXFAM,  CARE  and  AVSF,  were  fundamental.  As 
mentioned before, and in complementation to and coherence with the HR Strategy, the EU also worked to 
strengthen the Human Rights Division of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate major cases of HR 
violations. These contributions were essential for going to court and contributing to the truth and memory 
in the complex contexts of HR violations. This finding was validated by the CSOs working directly with 
indigenous communities and local authorities, which positively assessed the EU’s support in elevating these 
cases to national and international justice. 

In that framework, it was identified that one of the actors with the most changes in the peace, justice and 
security sector was HR defenders. As was noted, the EU played a fundamental role in achieving this change 
through coordinating and funding dialogue spaces, strengthening the capacities and training of defenders 
and their organisations, raising awareness in State institutions and encouraging citizen participation in favour 
of their work. All this was in order to increase recognition and appropriation of this population’s rights. 

GRAPHIC 5. HISTORY OF CHANGE, HR DEFENDERS 

20 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

Instruments of Change 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH.  

The EU’s contribution to the CICIG improved the State’s capacity to multi-dimensionally manage 
conflicts, since it increased the effective coordination of cooperation regarding the reforms of the 
justice system.  

The  contribution  to  the  CICIG  sought  to  significantly  reduce  the  corruption  and  impunity  related  to 
criminal  structures  or  agents  of  the  State,  called  Illegal  Clandestine  Security  Apparatuses  (CIACS). 
Concretely, it contributed to the professionalisation and training of judges and prosecutors with respect to 
HR, investigation and criminal analysis and to revealing cases of corruption in the high levels of the State. 
A greater awareness of the importance of the fight against corruption and impunity, and democracy and the 
Rule of Law was generated through this work in some public officials, CSOs, student movements, youth 
and communities. This, in turn, motivated them to influence the implementation of structural reforms in 
the justice sector, in order to process social conflicts within a framework of legality, strengthening the Rule 
of Law. Some of these reforms were even approved13. The actors of State institutions who received this 
support to be strengthened, as well as actors in academia and other interviewed donors, clearly mentioned 
the  above.  It  caused  a  greater  number  of  youth  and  women  to  lead  changes  and  transformations  on  a 
territorial, social, political and institutional level. This change was validated by actors of civil society who 
worked directly with the EU in its various grants, receiving technical support to influence public policies 
more. However, there were limitations, such as the high level of resistance of business and political groups 
to the CICIG’s actions. They looked for mechanisms to discredit its authority and decisions. The constant 
changes  in  staff  and officials  in  the  justice sector  were also  identified  as  a  limitation.  This  situation has 
become a recurring practice to delay the advancement of investigative and sanctioning proceedings in the 
country. 

13 Reform to the Code of Criminal Procedure, Reform to the Law against Organized Crime and Agreement 2-2007 of the PPO, Amendment of the 
Regulations of Decree 70-97 of the Congress of the Republic, Witness Protection Law, Creation of the Law of Criminal Jurisdiction in High Risk 
Proceedings, Reform to the Law against Organized Crime regarding effective collaboration, among others. 

21 

 
 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

The EU coordinated and complemented its actions with other donors to increase the  access to 
justice of women, youth and children, and to strengthen the institutional capacity to protect them. 

On one hand, this coordination and complementation with other donors to improve access to justice was 
evident through the PREVI Program, the contributions to the CICIG and, in general, the promotion of 
multi-actor  dialogue  spaces.  The  support  provided  to  the  CICIG  was  particularly  fundamental,  and  it 
demonstrated  the  coordination  with  other  donors  for  strengthening  the  PPO  and  JO  and,  thereby, 
improving access to justice and institutional capacity. In addition, the complementation was evident through 
the sectoral action funded with the EIDHR by providing support to HR defenders and territorial leaders. 
In addition, in an exit context of the CICIG, the Filter Group14 became open to discussing and making 
cases related to justice operators feasible. This group was observed as an innovative and useful mechanism 
that  has  had  the  EU’s  continuous  support  in  putting  the  HR  guidelines  and  strategy  into  practice,  in 
complementation with the MS and other donors. They have a common agenda and priorities. This finding 
was confirmed by the interviewed donors, CSOs and State institutions. In order to materialize this support, 
joint  and  complementary  actions  were  taken  with  MS,  which  helped  speed  up  the  processing  of  cases, 
protect defenders and establish protocols to prevent revictimization, among others. Finally, the work carried 
out  through  the  Filter  Group  and  G-13,  and  constant  and  coordinated  dialogue  with  the  National 
Convergence for HR and public institutions, showed the EU’s capacity to coordinate and complement its 
actions with other donors. 

In this sense, another one of the actors in which changes were observed as a consequence of the EU’s 
support in Guatemala were some State institutions, specifically in the justice sectors, such as the PPO and 
JO.  The  Program’s  theory  of  change  identified  structural  weaknesses  in  the  justice  and  democratic 
government  system.  Even  though  this  situation  has  not  fully  changes,  more  open  spaces  for  dialogue 
between  CSOs,  the  State  and  defenders  have  been  observed  for  managing  territorial  conflicts  based  on 
promoting respect for and due diligence with prior consultation processes, in which the EU assisted strategic 
litigation  processes.  The  different  modalities  of  cooperation  (program-budgets,  grants  to  CSOs, 
contribution agreements and delegation agreements) contributed to achieving this objective. 

14 Filter Group comprised of MS, members of the international community and members of the system of nations dedicated to defending HR in 
Guatemala. They meet periodically and review specific cases.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

GRAPHIC 6. HISTORY OF CHANGE, STATE INSTITUTIONS 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

The  EU  led  and  promoted  dialogue  between  civil  society  and  the  Government  with  respect  to 
topics  that  affect  women,  children  and  youth,  adapting  to  a  dynamic  and  challenging  context, 
especially  since  2017,  and  mobilizing  coordinated  work  with  platforms,  such  as  the  National 
Convergence for Human Rights, the Filter Group and G-13. 

Said  concrete  mechanisms reflected  the  adaptation  of EU  cooperation  to  the  country’s  needs  as  of  the 
moment the Peace Agreements were signed, especially emphasizing the promotion of multi-actor dialogue 
spaces.  This  finding  was  confirmed  by  actors  from  CSOs,  academia  and  some  State  institutions,  which 
showed the importance of EU participation in these dialogue spaces for make them dynamic, generating 
consensuses and placing critical issues of HR violations in Guatemala on the international agenda. Through 
these spaces, the EU properly answered to the challenges in Guatemala with its multiple vulnerabilities. The 
fragility of impacts before 2017 existed due to the high staff turnover in institutions from the sector, since 
each  Government  period  implied  setbacks  in  capacity-strengthening  processes  and  overlap  with 
government plans. This also included the interests of certain actors to discredit the actions taken in light of 
these issues and the criminalisation of agents of change, such as HR defenders. 

Food and Nutrition Security  

PE2b. Food and Nutrition Security: Has the EU country program achieved (during the 2007-
2013 period) or is it probable it will achieve (at the end of the 2014-2020 scheduling program 
still being implemented) the provided strategic results?  

Throughout the evaluation period, EU cooperation helped keep FNS as a State priority, effectively and 
sustainably impacting its structure in Guatemala. The FNS political and institutional framework was made 
operational; there were “insured” budgets; decisions were made by consensus with representatives of civil 
society; and there was a FNS planning process based on the local environment. It includes a functioning 
FNS monitoring and information system, as well as a surveillance and early alert system. 

23 

 
 
         
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

The effectiveness of cooperation was directly related to institutional stability and the quality of dialogue 
between the DEU and Government of Guatemala. This represented an obstacle that prevented achieving 
the strategic objectives of the FNS in the country. The challenges that have been obstacles to implementing 
cooperation ranged between political, institutional, diplomatic and climatic crises and the pandemic. They 
occurred almost in sequence, causing constant changes in the environment of development. As indicated 
by State officials, this “constant recovery from a crisis” required a high capacity for adaptation and creativity 
by the DEU.  

Despite these limitations, the following graphic summarized the history of change of the FNS sector, in 
which  concrete  changes  were  evident  due  to  the  EU’s  contributions.  It  is  necessary  to  clarify  that  said 
changes have been more attributable to concrete cooperation actions that the actions through BS. 

GRAPHIC 7. HISTORY OF CHANGE, FOOD SECURITY 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

The EU’s support for FNS had a symbolic influence on the current FNS budget.  

In the framework of the MIP, between 2007-2020, the EU’s investment in Guatemala was €321.1 million. 
The  FNS  sector  was  the  sector  that  received  the  most  benefits,  with  a  total  of  €116.3  million.  This 
represented at estimated 2% of the total amount invested by the Government in the FNS sector in the same 
period.  Of  the  €116.3  million  the  EU  invested  in  FNS,  the  main  implementer  was  the  Government  of 
Guatemala,  with  a  total of  €56.1  million  (48.2%  of  the  total),  followed  by  the  UNS,  with  €50.0  million 
(42.9%)  and,  distantly,  TA  services,  with  a  joint  total  of  €6.2  million  (5.4%).  These  three  investments 
together comprised 96.6% of the total invested amount. The remainder was assigned through grants and 
direct support provided to civil society.  

Through the Government, the 2007-2013 MIP supported the FNS sector with two BS exercises that 
were framed in the Food and Nutrition Security Policy and Agricultural Policy (specifically the 
family  agriculture  component).  There  was  no  evidence  of  having  improved  the  nutritional 
condition  of  the  population  of  Guatemala.  Greater  national  appropriation  and  a  reduction  of 

24 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

dispersed efforts was expected. The support began with the Food and Nutrition Security Budget Support 
(FNSBS) in 2009 with a total investment that amounted to over 37 million euros. This BS presented the 
reduction of the prevalence of chronic malnutrition in children under the age of 5 as a more significant 
indicator (weighting of 25%). According to the documentary review, the Government presented progress 
reports in the reduction of chronic malnutrition, which were subsequently disproved by official sources, 
demonstrating structural weaknesses and credibility issues in accountability. In this sector, EU cooperation 
helped make FNS a State priority, and it supported government transition processes while keeping the issue 
in the political agenda and its budgets. 

Taking into account the relevance of the issue, the PAFFEC was decided to be continued from 2013 until 
the closure of the MIP period. The contract was implemented despite the inconsistencies in the previous 
reports. These actions, even though they reflected the DEU’s flexibility, threatened the guiding principles 
of the BS. There was also the aggravating factor that, in the time between signing and implementing this 
BS, it was not taken advantage of to apply lessons learned under the FNSBS. These lessons learned reflected 
the fragility and randomness of the minimum conditions necessary for the effective performance of a BS, 
which  were  specifically:  i)  difficulties  in  conditions  for  dialogues  that  allow  the  instrument  to  promote 
structural changes; ii) a limited effectiveness of help for the FNS; iii) a weak level of national appropriation 
iv)  management  of  the  instrument  that  did  not  always  demonstrate  proactivity  by  the  Delegation;  v) 
complementary measures that did not operate within an appropriate context and achieved no results; vi) 
delays in the disbursements of the variable tranches; and vii) a lack of transparency in budgetary execution 
and institutions’ performance. 

What is evident is that, with respect to 2010, the percentage of funds from the Government of Guatemala 
increased compared to the funds originating from the BS. This support worked as a stimulus to invest more 
money in the FNS. As a result, the PAFFEC failed to achieve the objectives and impact provided in its 
design documents. In terms of changes to the living conditions of the prioritized population, the program 
was not able to reduce poverty in the rural areas of the 22 prioritized municipalities of Alta Verapaz and 
Quiché. On the contrary, the latest official data shows increases in food insecurity and acute malnutrition. 
These  indicators  can  be  associated  with  the  scarcity  of  assets  and  means  of  subsistence.  However,  by 
mobilizing resources through specific grants given to CSOs and international organisations, changes were 
generated and processes were strengthened in territories surrounding this issue. This shows that investments 
by sector aimed at actors with a willingness and interest, such as farmers, indigenous people and youth, have 
been essential in the development of the sector and, in itself, cooperation in Guatemala. 

One relevant actor that exemplifies this situation is farmers. From the theory of change based on actors, 
they identified the issues of exclusion and poverty as the initial situation. Even though the expected change 
and the proposal described in terms of living conditions were not accomplished, the changes related to 
improving  their  capacities,  strengthening  community  and  grassroots  organisations  and  increasing  the 
promotion of agricultural products stand out, as shown in the graphic for the following history of change.  

25 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

GRAPHIC 8. HISTORY OF CHANGE, FARMERS 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

Through the UNS, the 2014-2020 MIP strengthened local governance to obtain multi-sectoral and 
comprehensive  coverage,  and  it  promoted  Communication  for  Development,  in  order  to 
sustainably improve the quality of nutrition. These changes are not yet visible, since the diets of 
those who are most vulnerable remain without changes and in deficit. 

The investments in the FNS began with 4 CSO-LA contracts amounting to a total of 1.8 million in 218. In 
November  2019,  the  contribution  agreement  was  signed  with  the  Pan  American  Health  Organisation 
(PAHO)  to  implement  the  project”  Supporting  the  Primary  Health  Care  System  to  fight  chronic 
malnutrition in Guatemala” worth 20 million euros. Towards the beginning of 2020, speculations regarding 
the impact of COVID-19 in the world and the PAHO/WHO began preparing a response plan and training 
Health Care staff jointly with the Government. On March 9, the Government decreed a state of emergency, 
and  the  first  case  was  registered  days  later.  Consequently,  Guatemala  closed  its  borders  and  began  a 
quarantine process. One month later, the agreement was signed with the World Food Program (WFP) to 
implement  the  “Comprehensive  approach  to  promote  resilience  in  communities  vulnerable  to  food 
insecurity and climate crises, especially droughts, in Guatemala,” worth 15 million euros. Two months after 
entering  into  this  contract,  the  agreement  was  signed  with  the  United  Nations  International  Children's 
Emergency Fund (UNICEF) to implement the “Comprehensive strategy to fight chronic malnutrition, in 
support  of  the  strategy  to  prevent  chronic  malnutrition.”  At  that  time,  there  was  no  certainty  of  the 
magnitude of the impact COVID-19 would have, and the contracts were based on conditions existing in 
2019. Moreover, at the end of the evaluation period, there is baseline information of the Grand National 
Crusade for Nutrition, which can be very useful for establishing the cooperation goals in this matter and 
promoting a coordination process between implementing agencies. 

Even though, as mentioned in the finding, a positive change has not been identified in terms of the diet of 
the most vulnerable people, the recognition and strengthening of capacities to transfer knowledge stand out 
from  the  history  of  change  of  the  senior  population.  The  capacities  provide  support  for  generational 

26 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

succession processes, which are important within the dynamics promoted by projects financed by the EU 
surrounding family agriculture. The details of this change are shown in the following graphic. 

GRAPHIC 9. HISTORY OF CHANGE, SENIORS 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

TA services had a weak institutional insertion and complementation of the contributions of their 
contracts.  

The EU provided support to the Government of Guatemala through different TA processes, which were 
focused  on  improving  human  and  institutional  capacities.  According  to  the  monitoring  reports 
commissioned by the EU, the case of the FNS included three versions of TA: i) TA services provided under 
the BS for FNS, such as the PAFFEC, were not able to create a positive work dynamic with institutions. 
Equipment was left isolated or with little or no manoeuvring capacity; ii) the TA implemented through the 
Impact, Resilience, Sustainability and Transformation Program for FNS – FIRST (FAO/EU) reflects more 
positive  results,  prioritizing  common  topics  in  the  national  government’s  agenda;  and  iii)  the  services 
provided through smaller and more specific contracts, which were focused on strengthening capacities and 
learning clear and specific products installed. Most interviewed actors agreed that the last two types of TA 
were well-received and had key actions regarding FNS. 

There was scarce evidence of complementation between the different TA modalities. Although they were 
designed by the DEU with the intention to enhance their contributions, in practice the contracts responded 
to their own logic without observing their coordination and contribution to the entire process of building 
institutional capacity. The DEU did not adequately manage linking and complementing TA contracts and 
other instruments to the chain of expected impacts on rural development and FNS.  

Another  factor  that  limited  effectiveness  and  efficiency  was  the  TA  contracts’  focus  on  delivering  and 
fulfilling  products,  rather  than  facilitating  institutional  change  processes,  managing  for  results  and 

27 

 
 
           
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

marginalizing cross-cutting issues, such as gender, the environment and specialized attention to indigenous 
communities.   

Current strategic investments have results that can support updating the current actions. 

The DEU funded the baseline of the Grand National Crusade for Nutrition through INCAP-INE-SESAN. 
This  is  the  most  significant  chronic  malnutrition  study  of  the  last  7  years.  The  survey  included  the  first 
impacts of COVID-19 on FNS, and it was positioned in a privileged manner to make strategic updates to 
the ongoing activities and design. The country has established goals for reducing chronic malnutrition in the 
short and long-term. In addition, it funded the PINN CATIE Program, which is an opportunity to promote 
more cost-efficient interventions against malnutrition in Guatemala. This program helped design and start-
up  the  Acute Malnutrition Monitoring  (MODA). The PINN  was  able to  create  changes  in  planning  and 
budget assignment to improve nutrition, promote improvements and strengthen decision-making and/or 
management  to  close  the  identified  gap  between  the  problem  of  malnutrition  and  the  solution.  Both 
processes are good practices and important inputs to resume in future programs. 

Competitiveness 

PE 2c. Has the EU country program achieved (during the 2007-2013 period) or is it probable 
it will achieve (at the end of the 2014-2020 scheduling program still being implemented) the 
provided strategic results?  

The  theory  of  change  based  on  actors  identified  an  initial  situation  of  low  competitiveness  of  national 
companies. As a consequence, it also identified difficulties entering international markets, deficiencies in 
the  country's  human  capital,  limited  opportunities  for  entering  the  job  market,  and  an  unfavourable 
environment  to  guarantee  the  labour  rights  of  Guatemalan  workers.  However,  the  EU  contributed  to 
improving the capacities of young people and vulnerable populations to promote and demand inclusive 
and sustainable economic growth through its determined support facilitating multi-actor and multi-level 
dialogue in the competitiveness sector, training and TA, as well as implementing and starting up BS and 
providing  grants.  The  main  changes  achieved  in  Guatemala’s  competitiveness  sector  as  a  result  of  EU 
support during the evaluation period are presented in the following table: 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

GRAPHIC 10. HISTORY OF CHANGE, COMPETITIVENESS 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

Progress has been made in the process of promoting inclusive and sustainable economic growth, 
although it is unlikely the expected results will be achieved on a country level in terms of increasing 
the competitiveness and international exchange capacity of MSMEs and cooperatives. There has 
also  been  progress  in the  generation  of  income  and  formal  employment  opportunities  to  show 
impact in terms of poverty reduction. 

The EU’s actions demonstrated progress in achieving the expected strategic result, covering it from various 
areas: i) support for developing capacities and strengthening and implementing tools for competitiveness15 
and corporate development services16, ii) support in supplies17, iii) support for preparing and implementing 
legislation and policies, especially the National Decent Employment Policy (NDEP), iv) taking advantage 
of current commercial agreements, and v) the economic reactivation after COVID-19, among others. 

However, with over 500,000 MSMEs in Guatemala, the expected result is ambitious, and there are multiple 
challenges limiting the economic development of MSMEs. The factors are mostly structural, and it is not 
always  feasible  to  address  them  through  cooperation,  such  as:  limited  connectivity,  limited  access  to 
infrastructure and limited sources of funding. Furthermore, obtaining results was hindered by the lack of 
business development services, administrative obstacles, the poor management of economic and human 
resources,  poor  specialisation  or  targeting,  segmentation,  and  a  lack  of  innovation,  among  others. 
Nevertheless,  positive  impacts  were  observed  from  the  efforts  despite  these  difficulties.  Some  of  the 

15 In this context, the tools for competitiveness refer to services provided by the components of the National Quality Systems (normalization, 
technical  regulation,  conformity  evaluation  procedures  –  accreditation,  certification,  sampling,  tests,  registration,  etc.-  metrology,  information 
systems of the system’s components). 
16  Training,  transfer  of  technology,  marketing  support,  corporate  advising,  tutoring  and  information,  business  plans  with  the  Link  &  Sirolli 
methodology, market analyses for e-commerce sales in Europe, etc. 
17 A delivery equal to Q11.5 million that seeks the efficiency, deconcentration and decentralization of services provided to MSMEs and Cooperatives 
through MINECO, MAGA and MSPAS: laboratory equipment, measuring equipment, the calibration of the National Quality System, IT equipment. 

29 

 
 
        
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

impacts were in cooperation with other donors, as in the case of the donor roundtable with projects on the 
matter of youth. 

There  was  a  high  level  of  coherence  with  the  national  political  and  institutional  framework  in 
support of competitiveness. Coherence was more evident when it came to technical initiatives than 
financial ones. 

As mentioned in the background of the NDEP, “decent employment in recent years has hardly shown favourable 
progress. Millions of Guatemalans are still forced to work in low quality jobs or opt for migration. This situation affects women 
and youth even more (1 out of every 4 young people does not work or study). The unemployment rate ranges between 2.4-3.2% 
and, out of every 10 Guatemalans, 7 have jobs that are not regulated by an employment contract. Guatemala has the highest 
levels of informality in Latin America, and the country still faces large challenges related to educating its human capital, 
according to the National Survey on Employment and Income (ENEI, for the Spanish original) in 2016, of the total number 
of employed people, 74% had, at most, an incomplete secondary education and only 3.6% completed higher education studies.” 

In light of this situation, support was provided for the approval and implementation of the 2012-203218 
NDEP, which has contributed to development and economic and social transformation, promoting decent 
employment for everyone, particularly youth and women. This is in line with the country’s policy. In this 
sense, the support provided to this issue in the evaluation period has had significant and positive progress, 
such  as  an  increase  in  availability  and  work  conditions,  professional  education,  labour  competitiveness, 
educational reinsertion and levelling, a boost in enterprises, associativity, assurance of sustainability, social 
protection  and  making  proceedings  more  expedited,  to  mention  some  aspects.  This  progress  is  in 
accordance with the 4 axes of the Policy. In addition, it is worth noting that this political and institutional 
support included successful joint work between various ministries (MINTRAB, MINECO, MINEDUC, 
MIDES),  successfully  taking  advantage  of  coordination  spaces.  The  fact  is  that  the  public  policy  has 
transcended governments. It guides and coordinates the efforts of the main actors seeking to improve the 
employment conditions in the country. It is also important to highlight that, even though there is no law 
yet that provides utmost legal support to the NDEP, governmental decree 178-2021 was recently published, 
which  gave  life  to  the  National  Decent  Employment  Commission  (CONED).  This  decree  is  the  main 
element of the institutional framework provided for its implementation. 

In  this  sense,  significant  changes  in  youth  were  identified.  Among  these  changes,  an  increase  in  their 
participation in decision-making spaces, new capacities for their professional development and economic 
inclusion, and training to formalize and improve their own productive projects stand out. All these changes 
were caused by the EU’s contribution. 

18 SUPPORT PROGRAM FOR DECENT EMPLOYMENT IN GUATEMALA (LA/2019/040-889).  The funding decision was approved 
towards the end of 2018, and the Funding Agreement was signed on December 12, 2019. 

30 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

GRAPHIC 11. HISTORY OF CHANGE, YOUTH 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

EU cooperation had a limited influence on promoting the competition law and policies related to 
SPS Measures to have a structural impact on a country level. 

A limited influence was observed when it came to promoting the competition law and policies related to 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures to have a structural impact on a country level. This finding was 
confirmed by interviews with CSOs. It was due to external factors, which include limitations in the capacities 
of key partners, such as ministries, and political positions on economic issues. 

In  the  case  of  the  National  Policy  on  Sanitary  and  Phytosanitary  Measures  (PNMSF,  for  the  Spanish 
original), even though inter-ministry coordination and dialogue was anticipated regarding strengthening SPS 
Measures, interviewed actors from the private sector stated there were difficulties implementing them due 
to a lack of coordination on a ministry level, with: the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Farming and Food 
(MAGA), the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance (MSPA), and the Ministry of Environment 
and Natural Resources (MARN). There was also a lack of coordination on an inter-ministry level, with the 
Vice-ministry of Food and Nutrition Security (VISAN) and the Vice-ministry of Agricultural Sanitation and 
Regulations (VISAR), both of the MAGA. There were also limitations for the implementing actors in terms 
of management and decision-making. For this reason, results were limited in this sphere. 

Progress  was  recorded  in  the  development  and  implementation  of  technological  tools  for 
facilitating commerce and improving competitiveness. 

This  aspect  was  evident  from  the  support  provided  to  complying  with  the  Commerce  Facilitation 
Agreement  and  progress  in  the  Deep  Integration  Process  –  Customs  Union  between  Guatemala  and 
Honduras - through the support given to strengthening the NQS, the country’s analytical infrastructure 
(laboratories), the institutions in charge of applying the SPS Measures and Corporate Development Services. 

31 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

These  are  tools  for  competitiveness  and  were  supported  by  bilateral  and  regional19  programs.  The 
complementation  and  harmonisation  of  implemented  actions  was  observed  in  this  way,  as  verified  by 
regional organisations, the political sector and CSOs. 

The actor most benefited from this progress was the private sector, in which  changes aimed at attaining 
more  and  better  capacities  for  MSMEs,  SMEs  and  cooperatives,  progress  related  to  public  policies  on 
competitiveness, business and HR, and strengthening unconventional sectors assisted by the instruments 
described in the following graphic stand out. 

GRAPHIC 12. HISTORY OF CHANGE, PRIVATE SECTOR 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

In addition, institutional strengthening20 was especially aimed at the MSPAS, VISAR/MAGA, Ministry of 
the Economy (MINECO), Vice-ministries of MSME Development and Investment and Competition, and 
the National Cooperatives Institute (INACOP). Here, it was evident from interviews with actors from the 
government, business and international consortium sectors that those in charge of applying SPS Measures 
had the greatest management and coordination weaknesses, reason why the results were more limited. In 
addition,  the  joint  work  with  the  National  Competitiveness  Program  (PRONACOM)  was  limited  and 
carried  out  through  one  of  the  support  programs  managed  by  MINECO.  With  respect  to  integration 
processes, they have consisted of a multi-year effort in which there is still much to be done. This is because, 
after more than 60 years, the region has not been able to establish a Central American Customs Union. 

19 (LA/2014/034-127 “Support provided to improve the competitiveness and commercial capacity of MSMEs and Cooperatives;” LA/2004/016-
89  “Program  to  support  designing  and  applying  Common  Central  American  Policies  -  ADPACCA  LA/2009/021-513  “Regional  Program  for 
Quality Support and the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures in Central America – PRACAMS”, LA/2016/039-051 Regional and 
Central American Economic Integration Program -INTEC-). 
20 This strengthening included training, technical assistance and exchanging experiences.  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

The modality of calls for proposals for awarding grant contracts to non-profit organisations that 
support MSMEs, cooperatives or groups of producers had positive impacts. 

It  was  identified  that  the  implementation  of  the  guidelines  of  the  Communication  of  the  European 
Commission COM (2014) 263 of May 13, 201421, with the objective of encouraging collaboration with the 
private  sector  to  reach  inclusive  and  sustainable  economic  growth,  was  successful.  The  above  allowed 
identifying best practices that can be replicated and scaled in productive chains and territories. 

On  a  general  level,  the  organisations  responsible  for  executing  grant  contracts  and  government  actors 
indicated that the modality of calls showed positive impacts in terms of: generating productive alternatives, 
decent employment, the sustainable use of natural resources and agritourism, empowering and dignifying 
women, promoting their organisation and entrepreneurial capacities, rural development, increasing exports, 
encouraging the diversification of income, improving product sales in local and national markets through 
commercial partnerships and value chains and boosting multi-actor processes. 

There  was  a  broad  space  for  inter-institutional,  inter-sectoral  and  international  coordination. 
However, its leverage was limited. 

Based on interviews with other donors and TA service providers, it was identified that there is an extensive 
space  for  inter-institutional  coordination,  particularly  between  ministries,  international  organisations, 
cooperation agencies from other countries, MS, and the private sector, to boost competitive development 
initiatives and promote economic development and the reduction of poverty. However, the coordination 
was not used to its full advantage because some ministries have worked independently for year and with 
different approaches. These were issues that needed to be complementary and closely related. For example, 
the MAGA and its vice-ministries, the VISAR and VISAN, work completely independently. In this case, 
coordinated work between these two vice-ministries is necessary to make progress in food security goals. 
Another example is the “From farm to table” strategy, in which coordination and complementation between 
the  MAGA,  de  Department  of  Regulation  and  Food  Control  of  the  MSPAS  and  MARN  has  not  been 
evident. 

In  the  case  of  coordination  or  complementation  between  various  donors  on  an  international  level, 
coordination was scarce. For example, the ADESEP and INTEC programs were identified, which could 
have been closely complementary to other donors’ programs. However, it was observed through interviews 
with staff from the regional and international sectors, that the manager of said projects felt its leadership 
was threatened and did not follow up on the joint work proposal presented by another donor. 

Support to Civil Society 

PE 3. Has the EU’s support contributed to CSOs being able to achieve the provided strategic 
results? 

The EU’s support for civil society in Guatemala was strategic for improving dialogue within civil society to 
formulate, implement and follow up on public policies, as well as to promote, prevent and protect HR and 
strengthen the Rule of Law. This was ratified by the direct and indirect influence actors of the EU, as well 
as final beneficiaries, and can be identified in the histories of change of this population group. It must be 
taken  into  account  that  the  perception  of  MS  in  terms  of  work  with  civil  society  was  modified  in  the 
evaluation period, in accordance with the changes in the National Government and present needs. 

21 “A Stronger Role of the Private Sector in Achieving Inclusive and Sustainable Growth in Developing Countries (available 
at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documentsregister/detail?ref=COM(2014)263&lang=en)   

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

GRAPHIC 13. HISTORY OF CHANGE, CIVIL SOCIETY22 

 Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

The EU contributed to promoting and consolidating the networks within CSOs and the community 
in  general  on  a  territorial  and  sectoral  level,  in  order  to  increase  their  level  of  influence  on  the 
national public agenda, including topics related to HR. 

After  the  peace  agreements,  the  civil  society  in  Guatemala  consolidated  legally  incorporated  grassroots 
organisations  with  legal  capacity.  The  EU  promoted  this,  seeking  to  create  agreements  around strategic 
topics to manage partnerships. Initially, these partnerships were made with the Health Defender Network 
and the farmer platforms in the framework of the Rural Development and Food Security Roundtable. More 
recently,  work  has  been  carried  out  to  establish  effective  dialogue  with  the  private  sectors,  such  as  the 
dialogues with the palm sector. It is worth mentioning that this dialogue has been promoted in formal and 
informal  spaces  between  various  actors  of  the  public  sector,  private  sector,  indigenous  communities, 
women, farmers, CSOs, networks and the community in general. 

The  EU’s  strategy  combined  generating  capacities  for  more  qualified  participation  in  these  spaces  by 
individuals and organisations and identifying key topics for more strategic dialogue. This perception was 
reiterated by government actors, actors from the international community and CSOs in general. Moreover, 
the EU engaged in direct liaising with the International NGO Forum (FONGI), who deal with issues, such 
as the criminalisation of HR defenders or the impact of the NGO Law approved in 2020. According to 
actors from the civil society and other donors, this coordination was fundamental for elevating the dialogue 
with  the  international  community  and  having  a  greater  influence.  Finally,  in  the  same  way,  the  need  to 
capitalize on lessons learned was observed with respect to the social dialogue promoted by the EU, as a 
necessary tool to improve collective construction, reduce conflict and have more long-term results. 

22 The invested amount does not include assistance from the justice sector, food security or competitiveness. These are reflected in the sectoral 
budgets. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

The EU assisted citizen participation in formulating and developing inclusive public policies, such 
as rural development and food security, decentralisation and gender. 

This assistance was developed in line with the EU’s values and priorities. Three good practices for civil 
society’s participation in public policies were recognized in the evaluation period, which were: i) formulating 
and implementing the national comprehensive rural development policy, in which farmer movements were 
the protagonists and their continuous participation in food security spaces has been pursued; ii) formulating 
and developing the country’s gender policy, including promoting the enforceability of the rights of women, 
which was achieved with the active participation of women’s movements in the various formal spaces of 
public  policy  (such  as  Community  Development  Councils);  and  iii)  formulating  and  developing  the 
decentralisation policy. 

The following graphic shows the main changes promoted by the EU’s cooperation in terms of gender in 
Guatemala, which was a cross-cutting sector to the different programs and projects implemented in the 
country  during  the  evaluated  period.  During  the  initial  situation,  it  was  identified  that  the  country  had 
complicated dynamics in terms of gender, with high rates of violence against women, discrimination and 
scant  recognition  of  their  rights,  as  well  as  low  levels  of  participation  in  decision-making  spaces. 
Contributions were made to the empowerment of women, especially indigenous women, due to the EU’s 
cooperation during the evaluation period, in order to recognize and exercise their rights. It stands out that 
the EU contributed to establishing a solid political, regulatory and institutional framework for the topic of 
gender through various cooperation modalities. 

GRAPHIC 14. HISTORY OF CHANGE, GENDER 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

Specifically, the EU provided support to strengthening associations, such as commonwealths, increasing 
funding  for  municipalities  to  be  more  autonomous,  increasing  the  participation  of  citizens  and  local 
authorities  in  formulating  public  policies  (not  only  that  of  decentralisation)  and  providing  support  to 
electoral  decentralisation  processes  at  voting  centres.  They  also  provided  support  for  strengthening  the 
National  Development  Council  System  by  assisting  its  functioning  and  legitimacy  and  qualifying  and 

35 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

empowering  social  leadership.  In  general,  all  interviewed  actors  agreed  with  the  importance  of  having 
provided support to the process, even though these spaces have been slightly discredited in recent years due 
to political tension with the last governments, as expressed by some actors of civil society and connoisseurs 
of the democratic and participatory process in the country. This was complemented by the contribution to 
developing specific programs, such as the NDEP to support youth directly. 

The EU provided support for developing various citizen observatories on key issues, such as HR. 
In  addition,  it  promoted  and  followed  up  on  citizen  initiatives  of  individual  and  collective 
inspection, and even support initiatives for institutional processes led by national and international 
CSOs, the church and other actors. 

By creating citizen observatories led by academia, the private sector and other donors, information was 
generated and managed independently, which was fundamental in this process. Members of civil society 
and the international community mentioned this, who recognized that changes in the national government 
had an impact on the management of information. Moreover, this has been done in the justice sector, where 
a judicial observatory was created as a result of the work with the CICIG to formulate recommendations 
aimed at improving the judicial system’s performance. The country is also talking about monitoring and 
auditing the resources for specific policies, such as the FNS policy. In this case, academia mentioned the 
great  opportunity  in  the  sector  to  develop  a  public  policy  that  responds  to  the  population’s  real  needs. 
Finally, it is worth mentioning that, within the framework of support to communities, especially youth and 
indigenous communities, concrete commitments were made to: i) promote citizen participation and conflict 
resolution;  ii)  provide  technical  training  for  employability;  iii)  prevent  violence  among  youth;  and  iv) 
accompany  strengthening  their  own  structures  (in  the  case  of  indigenous  communities).  In  general,  the 
different actors recognize the modalities of EU support for different types of populations, focusing on the 
vulnerable population. 

The  EU  strengthened  FNS  governance  through  institutional  and  budgetary  strengthening 
(SESAN),  and  information  management  for  decision-making  in  work  with  academia.  It  also 
included developing specific projects that required coordination between civil society and local 
authorities, in which farmers and indigenous people have had a leading role. 

First, the EU contributed to strengthening the formal participation spaces of the law of the FNS system, 
with which continuous consultations have been performed on the topic. It was even the general basis for 
generating the Interuniversity Support Network for Food Security. Assisting and strengthening the national 
food  security  information  system  was  another  great  success  for  EU  support,  with  the  participation  of 
authorities. Finally, it is worth mentioning the grants to CSOs that participate actively in this governance 
and promote adopting practices that reinforce food security in the country, where farmers and indigenous 
people have been present. Significant changes in indigenous communities have stood out based on these 
agents of change, which are related to progress in the issues mentioned in the graphic below. 

36 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

GRAPHIC 15.  HISTORY OF CHANGE, INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

The  EU  contributed  to  formulating  the  public  policy  on  HR  with  civil  society  (including  HR 
defenders),  public  institutions  (COPREDEH,  PDH  and  the  PPO)  and  the  international 
community. They added to a strategic proposal for strengthening the actions and protection of HR 
defenders, taking advantage of their coordination with the Roadmap. 

The above was done by assisting women and indigenous people in their access to justice, contributing to 
enriching procedures and practices for effective conflict resolution and HR protection. In this sense, work 
in HR was performed in three ways: i) support to grants that promote defending rights and HR defenders 
– strengthening capacities and support for strategic litigation-; ii) support for initiatives that cover the topics 
related to conflict in the land and territory – internal organisational strengthening and a defence network 
for the right to territory-; and iii) generating spaces to support the formulation of public policies on HR – 
presenting cases in the Filter Group as part of the EU’s follow-up on the country’s situation. 

In general, it was evident that this is an area in which to continue learning, collecting the lessons learned 
from cooperation on the matter and providing support to these defenders. Moreover, attention protocols 
were  created  for  this  population  by  specialized  prosecutors,  which  demonstrates  progress  in  access  to 
justice. In this sphere, the work performed through the contribution to the UNDP to support developing 
the CICIG’s functions was fundamental. In this way, they contributed to important structural reforms in 
the justice, peace and security sector whose objective was to strengthen the Rule of Law and democracy in 
the country. The MS, other donors and even actors from the public sector mentioned the above. 

In this sense, contributions were made to formulating a draft public policy for HR defenders in Guatemala, 
which is important because organisations of human rights defenders now have a greater capacity to influence 
public policy, as well as methodologies for documenting and denouncing cases of human rights violations 
in the country. The draft of this policy was approved. However, it is currently at a standstill. In addition, 
and in complementation, work was performed with student and youth movements, such as the Justicia Ya! 
Collective,  to  promote  citizen  awareness  regarding  impunity.  Finally,  the  impact  of  these  actions  was 

37 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

observed  to  generate  better  dialogue  conditions  between  institutions  and  indigenous  movements.  Using 
these results as a framework, effective coordination between the Roadmap and the Human Rights Strategy 
was evident in the evaluation process as a strategic tool to join efforts around common agendas. This has 
particularly represented an opportunity since 2017, with the Government's reduced openness to HR. This 
was mentioned by members of the DEU and MS. 

The EU contributed to implementing the gender approach with civil society, the Government and 
the international community through direct support to justice, in order to attend to this type of 
violence, prevention programs, projects that contribute to assisting HR defenders and grants for 
these types of projects, benefiting Guatemalan women. 

There was tangible progress in the EU’s contribution to the political participation of women.  A greater 
awareness of the need to implement public policies and actions focused on gender equality and eliminating 
violence against women was raised in CSOs and in public institutions. The actions implemented through 
the Gender Action Plan (GAP III) were coherent, effective and pertinent when it came to contributing to 
empowering women and preventing sexual and gender-based violence. It was observed that women and 
their organisations have higher levels of empowerment, leadership and the capacity to have an influence in 
decision-making spaces. Moreover, some public institutions and their officials have improved their capacity 
to properly attend to women who have been victims of violence. The EU has provided support in preparing 
specialized attention protocols with a gender and HR approach. On the other hand, in terms of access to 
justice, significant progress was observed for women. The EU decidedly provided support for strengthening 
public institutions of the justice sector, especially emphasizing the need to have differential attention. The 
international community, CSOs and actors from the public sector mentioned the above. 

Efficiency 

PE4. How have the resources provided by the EU been used? 

The various instruments modalities and resources were appropriated and adapted to the changes 
in  the  environment.  Dialogue  between  the  EU  and  the  Government  during  the  government 
transition  towards  the  end  of  2019  demonstrated  limiting  factors  in  the  capacity  to  make 
adjustments to the investment. 

In general, the efficiency of instruments and modalities the EU used depended on the quality of dialogue 
between the EU and the Government of Guatemala. At the end of 2019, during the government transition, 
this  dialogue  had  difficulties  making  the  necessary  adjustments  in  light  of  the  investment  aimed  at  the 
development objectives. The total amount of help in Guatemala from 2007 – 2020 was 321.1 million euros. 
The figures show that bilateral cooperation, which represented most of the funding, increased significantly 
between the multiannual indicative plans (MIP). 

FIGURE 6. DISTRIBUTION OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT CONTRACTED BY THE EU WITH 

GUATEMALA, BROKEN DOWN BY MIP PERIODS 

Distribution of the total amount contracted by the EU with Guatemala, broken down by MIP periods 

Figures on contracts and payments distributed by year, 2007 - 2020 

Contracted 

Paid 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

Source. Prepared by authors. 

The  progress  of  disbursements  was  in  line  with  the  contracts,  which  indicates  that  the  operations  were 
carried out with relative fluidity. The total amount of disbursements was close to 100% in 2016. As of then, 
the disbursements gradually became more disperse due to the rate of implementation of new projects. 

The first MIP had strategic  investments  aimed  at  improving  the  institutional  capacities  of  the  FNS  and 
Justice specifically. It sought to create changes in malnutrition and the access to justice of the community 
of  Guatemala.  Results  in  this  area  were  affected  by  a  deterioration  of  the  quality  of  dialogue,  lack  of 
consensuses, limited institutional capacity and a lack of political willingness, which caused financial support 
for the Government to decrease up to 19%. Despite this performance, concrete improvement results can 
be seen in competitiveness. It is worth mentioning that different cooperation modalities were combined for 
this period: project approach, BS, grants and the contribution agreement (CICIG). 

For the second period, more weight was placed on contribution agreements in the FNS sectors and for 
Justice and HR due to the changes to institutions’ agendas. Continuous support for this agenda contributed 
to promoting and defending HR in the country and democracy in general. Moreover, generating dialogue 
spaces with different actors was fundamental for this period. 

Upon observing the changes between the two MIPs, the EU demonstrated flexibility by understanding the 
difficulties  of  the  cooperation  environment,  tripling  the  support  channelled  through  international 
organisation  and  reducing  the  support  trusted  to  the Government  of  Guatemala  from  43 million  to  18 
million euros. Results were observed in the improvement of public finance management and the increase 
in the capacities of public institutions, particularly in the prioritized intervention areas. 

Changes  occurred  in  implementing  programs,  decreasing  the  contributions  to  the  Government  of 
Guatemala and increasing the direction of resources to other actors, such as MS and NGOs. The 2014-2020 
MIP (146.8 million EUR) was focused on three sectors and had an additional assignment of 5 million EUR 
in TA to help strengthen the Government’s capacities in relevant areas. At this point, it is important to 
highlight  that, by  nature,  Guatemala  is  a  very  centralist  State.  Evidence  of  this  is  the  way  resources  are 
managed and dependence on the current government for their execution. Herein lies the importance of the 
EU’s efforts and contributions in light of the topic of decentralisation, in which the changes shown in the 
following graphic are highlighted, obtained through OH. 

39 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

GRAPHIC 16. HISTORY OF CHANGE, DECENTRALISATION 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

The  BS  were  a  valuable  support  for  public  finance  and  had  positive  impacts  on  Guatemala’s 
administrative and tax policies. 

Contributions  were  made  through  these  types  of  instruments  to  increase  the  State’s  tax  income  by 
strengthening the Superintendence of Tax Administration (SAT, for the Spanish original). It was especially 
strengthened in terms of electronic bills, through which, not only was the cost of billing reduced, but tax 
information was able to be obtained in real time. In addition, the issuance of the Law for Strengthening Tax 
Transparency and the Governance of the Superintendence of Tax Administration (Decree 37-2016) was 
also assisted, by means of which bank secrecy was eliminated. This allowed the SAT to follow up on the 
institutions subject to the oversight and inspection of banks, information on bank movements, transactions, 
investments and other operations and services carried out by any individual or legal entity, as long as said 
information was requested for tax purposes under a guarantee of confidentiality. 

In addition, contributions were made to preparing and approving the Law for Strengthening Public Finances 
and  Tax  Transparency  (2019).  It  brings  together,  orders  and  prioritizes  the  strategic  reform  actions  the 
Government  of  Guatemala  has  undertaken  to  carry  out  in  the  short,  medium  and  long-term  to  reach 
international tax transparency standards and good practices in public finances. 

Support was also provided to preparing the Reform Action Plan of the Public Finance Management (PFM) 
System and inputs for eligibility for the BS program. The preparation of the Conceptual Framework for 
implementing the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and the Technical Tax Risk Framework 
(MTRF, for the Spanish original) was approved in this context. 

Lastly, the EU funded 3 PEFA evaluations that helped government authorities, particularly the Ministry of 
Public Finance (MINFIN, for the Spanish original), establish improvement priorities in the public finance 
management (PFM) system of Guatemala. This is how contributions were made to implementing punctual 

40 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

and specific improvements that resulted in progressively strengthening the system. It is the way towards 
having a comprehensive reform plan for the PFM system. 

In Peace and Security, the implementation and strengthening of Offices for Attention to Victims 
(OAV)  of  the  National  Civil  Police  (PNC)  allowed  formulating  a  first  instance  situational 
diagnosis.  It  also  allowed  integrating  an  inter-institutional  coordination  roundtable  of  the  JO, 
which provides support to the Secretary of Children and Adolescents in conflict with criminal law 
and provides continuous support to the Secretary of Women and Gender. 

The EU also contributed to strengthening the Executive Secretary of the Coordinating Instance for the 
Modernisation  of  the  Justice  Sector  (SEICMSJ,  for  the  Spanish  original),  to  design  the  structure  and 
functions of the Statistical Analysis Unit, an M&E mechanism based on a baseline. It is assumed that the 
management  of  information  allows  providing  better  services  to  this  population.  Even  though  there  are 
records of this development, there is no evidence that it influenced greater prevention and attention. The 
contribution on the matter demonstrated the capacity to adapt of the cooperation, to create changes in these 
vitally important topics for women, children and adolescents, as well as the community in general. 

In FNS, EU cooperation throughout the evaluation period helped keep FNS as a State priority, 
effectively  and  sustainably  impacting  the  FNS  structure  of  Guatemala.  The  effectiveness  of 
cooperation has been directly related to institutional stability and the quality of dialogue between 
the DEU and the Government of Guatemala. 

The resources strengthened the institutional apparatus without achieving the expected results. The problem 
arose from the BS operation’s deficient design, which meant the disbursements of the variable tranches 
were not executed as originally planned. This was due to the fact that the levels some indicators required 
had  not  been  met,  and  they  were  not  very  relevant  for  what  was  to  be  measured.  FNS  actions  funded 
through  BS  were  complemented  with  grants  for  civil  society.  They  sought  to  have  an  impact  on  the 
productivity and diversification of family farming, as well as the generation of information on the sector 
that could provide tools for developing public policies. 

Good  efficiency  was  observed  in  competitiveness  due  to:  the  cooperation  modalities,  inter-
institutional  coordination  between  public  institutions  and  good  synergy  with  the  private  and 
cooperative sectors. 

The  results  in  this  sector  were  positive,  since:  i)  the  cooperation  modalities  were  properly  combined, 
including a project approach with government institutions, in addition to grants for cooperatives and the 
civil  society,  in  order  to  have  a  top-down  and  bottom-up  approach;  ii)  there  was  inter-institutional 
coordination  between  MINECO,  Mintrabajo,  MARN  and  MAGA,  in  which  the  good  performance  of 
Mintrabajo  especially  stood  out;  and  iii)  good  synergy  was  obtained  with  the  private  sector,  in  which 
European  companies,  usually  Spanish,  Italian  and  German,  participated,  and  national  companies 
participated, though to a lesser degree. Great work by AGEXPORT stood out, brining effective public-
private collaboration with an innovative spirit. In addition, there was useful and effective TA in achieving 
results with a varied team of experts in terms of nationality, age, experience and high-quality professionalism, 
who put their knowledge and skills to the service of obtaining results. According to the information collected 
in interviews, some people mentioned there was an acceptance problem from some people who received 
TA when it was only international. They mentioned it was necessary to know the Guatemalan context better 
in their recommendations. 

Significant efforts were made in support of the institutions responsible for PSP Measures. However isolated 
actions without an integrating logic were observed on a ministerial level with the MSPAS and MARN, and 
inter-ministerial level with the VISAN, Department of Food Safety (DIA), Department of Animal Health 
(DSA) and Department of Plant Sanitation (DSV). 

A high level of innovation and experience was recognized through, for example, the evolution of the NQS. 
The support for this system was continuous and coordinated on a national and regional level. Its state now 

41 

 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

is only the result of the contributions it received through cooperation. Today, Guatemala has a real support 
system for the productive business sector and health and justice sectors (less so, but progress is being made), 
by  coordinating,  establishing  or  modernizing  its  elements  and  obtaining  international  recognition.  This 
support is the result of the extensive experience the TA had on the subject, how it used this tool daily and 
its capacity to transfer capabilities. 

Finally,  in  the  case  of  the  competitiveness  sector,  the TA  carried  out  actions  that  directly  benefited  the 
productive business sector in many cases, such as through support for using regional and international trade 
agreements, support for fulfilling international commitments, the tools required for competitiveness (NQS), 
business development tools, support for strengthening human capital according to the productive sector’s 
demands, among others. It has a strategic partner for fulfilling the proposed objectives, and which has a 
heavy influence on the country's decisions. 

Support for CSOs has been a long-term process in Guatemala that has been highly valued by civil 
society actors, international cooperation and local governments. The results and changes favoured 
strengthening the sector and contributed to the EU's sectoral and HR strategy, combining this 
contribution  in  institutional  spaces.  The  Roadmap  contributed  to  increasing  the  efficiency  of 
actions in  a  decisive  way  by  facilitating  the  coordination  of  agendas  and  actors  with respect  to 
specific issues and in specific territories. 

The resources invested in strengthening civil society and defending human rights helped achieve important 
changes in strengthening CSOs, promoting coordination between different agendas and different territories, 
and promoting tripartite dialogue. It became evident that this dialogue was possible for specific issues, such 
as reviewing trade union issues, discussions on the social impact of palm cultivation, and others. This was 
an important first step in recognizing the work with civil society. 

Another fundamental topic had to do with the participation of civil society and human rights defenders in 
formulating  and  implementing  public  policies.  There  is  evidence  of  the  participation  of  civil  society  in 
formulating  public  policies on  rural  development  and  gender  and  in  regulatory  developments  related to 
international guidelines and standards for the protection of HR throughout the evaluated period. However, 
it is clear that work identifying limiting factors to implementing public policies must continue, as well as 
civil society’s work monitoring them and following up on them. There was much less evidence collected on 
the  EU’s  contribution  in  these  two  areas.  Finally,  results  and  changes  in  the  areas  of  prevention  and 
protection  of  HR  were  evident,  combining  the  contribution  in  institutional  spaces  and  in  directly 
strengthening the different CSOs. In this sense, the work carried out to date by the EU in this  area was 
considered positive. 

Finally,  the  strategic  TA  has  been  more  efficient  when  it  comes  to  providing  information  and  specific 
knowledge by request compared to international TA. International TA often fails to get close to institutions 
and  establish trusting relationships based  on  a  knowledge  of the  context. The  evidence  shows  that  it  is 
important to hire local and international experts to ensure a greater knowledge of the context and a broader 
external view of the problems. 

2.3. Complementarity of EU Cooperation  

EQ5. Has the EU country program been complementary and created relationships with the 
support provided by MS and other donors? 

Since it was designed, the EU country program sought to be coherent with the EU’s objectives and 
Guatemala’s country policies through a clear intervention logic aimed at the development goals. 
However, it was identified that the complex country environment, which requires flexibility and a 
capacity to respond, caused a lack of coordination and implementation time discrepancies that 
affected the opportunity to align efforts. 

42 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

The MIP proposed a clear and coherent intervention logic, but, as mentioned before, it was nurtured by 
hypotheses  or  assumptions  that  were  not  always  complied  with  in  a  complex  and  dynamic  country 
environment. It required generating lessons learned, adaptability and flexibility to aim cooperation towards 
the  development  goals.  In  this  way,  priorities  were  redefined  in  light  of  situational  events,  including  a 
political dialogue with the Government. As some actors mentioned, this flexibility, though it was necessary, 
faced significant gaps in implementation times, with a slow response capacity when it came to coordinating 
timely action and helping projects/programs be properly aligned with the country’s policies and coordinate 
with other MS and donors. 

The  EU  is  considered  a  key  actor  in  coordination  with  other  MS  and  donors  to  improve  the 
effectiveness of cooperation, providing support for alignment and reducing the fragmentation of 
cooperation.  This  coordination  process’  benefits go  beyond  efficiency in using resources.  They 
include  adding  value  and  a  capacity  to  influence  as  a  common  block  in  light  of  the  complex 
challenges Guatemala is facing. 

The EU is the natural entity that brings together cooperation between MS, incorporating other international 
organisations. The MIP’s design emphasized coordination between donors. In this way, the three identified 
intervention areas arise from a “agreement process in exercising joint scheduling” with MS, as suggested by 
the MIP. 

The EU is considered a partner in Guatemala. It is not only another cooperation partner, but also a joint 
platform.  In  this  sense,  the  EU's  added  value  is  not  only  in  assigning  financial,  technical  and  human 
resources, but is mainly in promoting a common vision for sustainable development on a country level. All 
the MS are integrated and coordinated with civil society, public institutions and the private sector based on 
that common vision, enhancing their impact at micro-, meso- and macro-levels shared dialogue spaces for 
building a shared vision. 

In addition, the interventions benefit from complementation and synergies with other interventions funded 
by other countries and donors, favouring a broader impact and improving advocacy.  In fact, the limitations 
of  political  advocacy  in  EU  initiatives  were  sought  to  be  remedied  through  the  MSMEs  with  the  best 
positions in their sectors, territories and ministries. In this sense, the CICIG is an emblematic example of 
coordination with other MSMEs and donors. 

Most interviewed actors highlighted the added value of the EU with respect to promoting their value and 
HR, as well as the work with civil society. They see the EU as a relevant actor in these fields and a guarantee 
of good work and transparency. “The EU is a relevant actor. Beneficiaries call attention because they see how work is 
done differently and they see results.” 

In summary, with respect to other donors, the EU cooperation program promoted coordination spaces 
with other donors through exchange spaces in which strategic and relevant topics for the country were 
discussed, such as HR defence. Joint actions were successfully coordinated from these spaces, in order to 
create  changes  and  impacts  in  specific  sectors  and  territories.  To  this  end,  the  EU’s  contributions  were 
fundamental for strengthening dialogue spaces between donors, such as the Filter Group and G-13, which 
were seen as being highly relevant for coordinating high-impact actions throughout the evaluation. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

GRAPHIC 17.  HISTORY OF CHANGE, OTHER DONORS 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

Coordination processes are increasingly more relevant in the Guatemalan context to arrive with 
specific  actions  that  contribute  to  development  and  to  defending  democracy,  according  to 
examples of concrete projects. 

It is worth mentioning that there was coordination in terms of specific programs with other donors and 
actors in the international community. For example, the education program of the Threshold Program of 
the  Millennium  Challenge  Corporation  (cooperation  with  the  USA)  was  built  on  the  work  the  Youth 
Employment Program of the EU performed before in terms of occupational families (in the context of the 
national labour education system). This resulted in MINEDUC developing new technical expert careers. 
Moreover,  it  must  be  taken  into  account  that  these  coordination  exercises  sought  to  understand  the 
cooperation characteristics of each actor, their similarities and differences. 

Although the EU has a generally very active role, areas for improvement were identified, especially 
taking  into  account  that  Team  Europe  has  no  Joint  Declaration  capacity  on  issues  of  HR  and 
Justice. In addition, there is potential for synergies with other actors, such as the USA. 

In interviews, it was stated that cooperation “includes no common policy regarding Guatemala. (It is known that) the 
EU could lead this agenda for creating a common front and pushing internal dialogue.” In this sense, it was observed 
that a political and diplomatic complementation strategy was missing, which limited the extended impact. 

As  highlighted  in  the  interviews,  “everything  this  delegation  does  is  political,  and  cooperation  is  a  tool  of  politics.” 
Coherence on a political level has more weight that it does on a technical level, and cooperation must be 
properly coordinated with the political component, and vice versa. In this sense the EU has positioned itself 
as a collaborator, colleague and dialogue instrument for other delegations, even when its conditions before 
the  Government  of  Guatemala  have  not  been  the  best.  They  have  helped  coordinate  and  complement 
actions in sectors, such as civil society, HR, justice and peace, competitiveness and FNS. 

44 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

Based on interviews with CSOs, it was indicated that using the social capital created with respect to the issue 
of human rights is important, seeking partners who can boost policies in both the public and private sectors. 
This includes seeking synergies and complementation with what other donors are doing. These other donors 
have other diplomatic pressure mechanisms that, if exercised jointly by the international community, could 
have a greater impact.  The above is true because the EU has much to say in the defence of HR. However, 
this position has not been fully taken advantage of when a specific problem arises. The actors mentioned 
that their statements come too late or not at all. 

In order to favour alignment, according to some MS, “Brussels can have a significant role in generating influence to 
support generating the G13 consensus.” Brussels must also be proactive, closely monitoring the country’s complex 
context  to  promote  coordination  and  coherence  between  MS.  In  addition,  and  in  accordance  with  the 
consulted international organisations, one challenge of cooperation in Guatemala, including organisation 
and donors outside the EU, is helping its central offices understand the country’s complex context and 
generating more dialogue between cooperation and political sections within the DEU. 

The new MIP is viewed as an opportunity to generate new coordination spaces, as long as these 
spaces are built with actors who have a willingness and political action for key reforms to the new 
strategy. 

The  coherence  and  added  value  of  European  cooperation  was  assessed  with  different  institutions  and 
international cooperating parties through the interviews, including the potential of the new MIP. In this 
sense, it was indicated that “the new MIP, as proposed, could accelerate EU interventions or become an obstacle due to 
some  sectors’  rejection.”  In  addition,  regional  initiatives  of  the  EU  have  been  mentioned  (Eurosocial+, 
Euroclima+, ERASMUS+, Al-Invest verde, etc.). They favour developing spaces related to the new MIP. 
Coordination and complementation are important when it comes to promoting the expanded impact of the 
interventions. 

As observed below, the EU contributed to making national and international institutions promote defending 
HR and carry out joint and coordinated work. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

GRAPHIC 18. HISTORY OF CHANGE, KEY ACTORS 

Source. Prepared based on the results of the OH. 

2.  Lessons Learned, Conclusions and Recommendations  

Lessons Learned 

3.1. 
1.  Multi-actor projects including diverse institutions and partners create more sustainability and 

a broadened impact.  

Interventions have a higher probability of success when coordinated between different institutions. An 
example of this is the Decent Employment Program in which the Ministry of the Economy participates 
in coordination with the Ministries of Labour and Social Welfare, Education, and Social Development, 
or  the  Spain–  SICA  Project.  Multi-actor  initiatives  have  clear  advantages:  i)  they  allow  a  greater 
availability of counterparty resources; ii) the capacity to influence is expanded horizontally (expanding 
coverage in territories, value chains, etc.) and vertically (multi-level influence in territories, institutions 
and policies); and iii) they favour learning and understanding between the different participants, as well 
as long-term sustainability in light of political and environmental changes, among others. Multi-actor 
work also has limiting factors, such as greater transaction costs for coordination between institutions 
and people, including longer consensus processes for aligning objectives and processes, and internal 
conflicts  that  require  mediation  and  facilitation  processes,  among  others.  In  order  to  effectively 
intervene,  it  is  important  to  understand  the  complex  interdependence  between  these  institutions  to 
ensure coordinated actions that increase the impact. 

2.  Economic interventions are more effective if designed from the value chain and coordinated 

with the territories.  

MINECO and exporting companies indicated that coordination must be carried out from the value 
chain  towards  territories,  not  the  other  way  around,  as  a  lesson  learned.  The  justification  for  this 
statement, as indicated in the histories of change for Competitiveness, is based on the fact that capacities 
must be developed in territories with a global market view, including compliance  with international 

46 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

standards. This was the experience in agribusiness sectors, such as that of cacao, cardamom, coffee and 
others. Territories are critical links in a global value chain, but their aim is focused on the target market. 
Trying to create an entire value chain from a territory can require a lot of time and resources in a highly 
competitive setting. 

3.  Recognizing the agendas and priorities of different actors for implementing actions from the 

start helps develop political strategies that are appropriate for the context and territory.  

Assessing and analysing the agendas and priorities of different actors with a capacity to influence and a 
capacity to hinder compliance with the expected objectives and results of projects/programs allows 
designing  a  political  strategy  grounded  in  the  context  and  needs  that  make  their  implementation 
possible. Otherwise, a strategy would be created that, though it is pertinent and relevant to the country, 
does not correspond to the interests, power or influence that effectively motivate key actors. In this 
sense, the effectiveness of intervention is improved upon recognizing the configuration of relationships 
between political, social and economic actors in the country with respect to the key topics of the EU’s 
agenda. 

4.  Joint  work  to  strengthen  civil  society  and  public  institutions  and  develop  and  implement 
specialized  attention  protocols  with  gender  and  HR  approaches  helps  make  progress  in 
reducing violence, peacefully solving conflicts and increasing access to justice for vulnerable 
populations. 

Although there are still pending challenges to linking the vulnerable population to implementing analysis 
and  M&E  mechanisms  to  peacefully  transform  conflicts  and  reduce  violence,  specifically  for  the 
indigenous population, greater involvement by women and the development of tools to reduce gender-
based violence on national and territorial levels are significant achievements in the framework of the 
implemented actions, such as PREVI, SEJUST and FOSC. Public officials and HR rights defenders 
were trained and educated on the standards that these protocols should have as a result of these actions. 
This had a clear impact on improving attention to cases of violence against young people, women and 
children.  In  the  midst  of  this  achievement,  the  role  CSOs  played  was  essential  to  the  extent  they 
contributed to finding these mechanisms and adapting them to the needs of the Guatemalan context. 
Women and victims' organisations particularly carried out important advocacy and social auditing work 
to  finally  implement  institutional  changes  (legislative  changes  and  changes  in  public  policies),  and 
thereby reduce gender-based violence. 

5.  Strengthening  the  PPO  by  training  and  education  prosecutors  and  public  defenders, 
equipping, developing and creating capacities, and providing support and strengthening for 
the  Special  Prosecutor's  Office  against  Impunity  (FECI)  increased  the  justice  sector’s 
institutional capacity (PARJ, SEJUST). 

Access and coverage in terms of attention and criminal investigation in territories identified as having a 
high  risk of  crime,  which  mostly  affects  vulnerable  populations,  can  be  improved  through  support, 
training and technical assistance for the PPO, Human Rights Division of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, 
and creating and strengthening the Women and Children Division of the Public Prosecutor’s Office 
(PREVI, SEJUST). 

6.  Strengthening civil society and defending human rights remained constant in all the sectors 
that received support through various instruments, modalities and resources, which reinforced 
their contributions to development. 

The  variety  of  support  modalities  provided  the  possibility  to  address strategic  topics,  such  as  FNS, 
competitiveness and HR through different modalities and actors, among other things. This facilitated 
the  participation of  different  actors  within society,  incorporating  different  strategies  focused on the 
same strategic objectives. The steadfastness of support for organized civil society and the defence of 
human rights stood out from within the variety of present actors. The EU continuously invested in 

47 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

strengthening  Guatemala  and  defending  human  rights.  It  was  able  to  strengthen  the  country’s 
institutional and human aspects, promote work coordinating between different agendas and different 
territories and encourage tripartite dialogue. 

7.  Grant  contracts  to  organisations,  MSMEs,  cooperatives  and  groups  of  producers  are  on 
implementation  modality  with  more  effective  and  efficient  contact  when  it  comes  to 
influencing structural problems, such as hunger, food insecurity and poverty. 

Of the €116.3 million the EU invested in Guatemala’s FNS, 3.4% was executed through grant contracts. 
Although they have a more modest coverage (both in terms of benefited territory and population) than 
contracts executed through the Government of Guatemala (with a total of €56.1 million - 48.2% of the 
total), followed by the UNS (with €50.0M, equal to 42.9%) and, distantly, TA services (with a joint total 
of €6.2 million - 5.4%), the achieved results propose a more balanced portfolio in future MIP as a lesson 
learned, since they were effective and efficient in reaching the expected results. 

8.  A multi-sectoral look in implementing the EU’s cooperation in Guatemala facilitates making 

progress in solving multi-causal problems.  

According to the available information, there is evidence in Guatemala that sectoral support for multi-
causal  problems  generated  limited  results,  making  it  difficult  for  cooperation  to  contribute  to 
development. This was evident in the implementation of the 2007 – 2014 MIP, in which sectoral BS 
sought to reduce chronic child malnutrition, hunger, food insecurity and poverty. During this period, 
the  political-organisational-operational  difficulties  of 
in  scenarios  with  scant 
collaboration and resources were evident. Taking this into account, the 2014-2020 MIP sought multi-
sectoral interventions that allowed intra- and intersectoral coordination linked to coherence in managing 
public policies, recognizing the multi-causality of the problems.  In this way, a more comprehensive 
approach was sought on a territorial level through United Nations agencies. This should, of course, also 
take into account the ongoing political commitment, expanded governance, monitoring and evaluation, 
transparency and accountability. 

implementation 

9.  The  grant  contracts  for  organisations  to  support  MSMEs,  cooperatives  and  groups  of 
producers are another modality of implementation that shows direct positive impacts on an 
economic,  environmental  and  social  level  in  value  chains,  rural  communities  and  specific 
prioritized vulnerable groups. 

On  an  economic  and  social  level,  grant  contracts  generate  more  and  better  jobs  in  specific sectors, 
promote young people and women’s organisational capacity to create enterprises, increase community 
savings and economic empowerment among women, increase exports, and improve product sales in 
local and national markets through business partnerships and value chains, which grow according to 
the number of people linked to productive chains with export potential. In addition, social cohesion 
increases when the dynamization of dialogue processes with rural communities, the council of Mayan 
peoples, municipalities, intersectoral roundtables and multi-sectoral work can be observed. 

On  an  environmental  level,  they  cause  sustainable  businesses  to  develop  under  the  forestry  and 
agroforestry models, sustainably taking advantage of non-timber products, watching over the forest and 
preventing fires, safeguarding biodiversity, and other actions. 

10.  The  political  will  of  and  coordination  between  different  institutions  and  actors  with  clearly 
identified needs and the capacity to execute them creates a greater probability of success in 
the proposed actions.  

Joint  work  between  various  ministries  (MINTRAB,  MINECO,  MINEDUC,  MIDES),  the  private 
sector, academia and even other cooperating parties has a greater probability of success. This aspect 
was confirmed through the approval of the NDEP, which transcended governments, when it carried 
out work successfully between various ministries. A positive impact was made, increasing the availability 

48 

 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

of work conditions, professional education, the competitiveness of labour, reinsertion and educational 
levelling.  Start-ups,  associations,  the  assurance  of  sustainability,  social  protection,  the  facilitation  of 
proceedings, and other aspects were promoted. 

11.  The  EU’s  leadership  in  implementing  an  inclusive  gender  approach  in  creating  teams  and 

formulating projects increases its capacity to influence the national government. 

The EU’s continuous support for making the gender approach cross-cutting is fundamental when going 
beyond a discursive proposal and demonstrating concrete results in Guatemala. The history of change 
of  gender  shows  concrete  results  that,  compared  to  the  expected  result,  shows  that  the  EU’s 
contribution was positive and able to influence different government levels. 

12.  Implementing  a  participatory  public  policy  formulation  process  for  HR  defenders, 

encouraging tripartite dialogue, allows for high appropriation levels by participants.  

According  to  the  actors,  the  participatory  process  of  public  policy  and  appropriation  process  by 
different actors has shown significant results despite the constriction of the country’s participatory space 
due  to  recent  governments.  Actors  are  willing  to  continue  with  the  necessary  political  support  and 
actions. 

13.  Coordinating with municipalities and commonwealths is positive due to the governance and 

possibility to leverage social, political and economic capital. 

There are specific cases of projects and actions in the evaluation period in which local authorities have 
facilitated implementing them and obtaining results. This is particularly important in a country where 
national government changes have made dialogue and implementing concrete proposals difficult and 
led to a lack of budget. In addition, these projects with local authorities demonstrate that multi-sectoral 
and multi-actor solutions with a more coherent and comprehensive outlook can be brought forward, 
ensuring a greater impact on the territories. 

14.  Support  in  strategic  litigation  processes  for  communities  demonstrates  the  EU’s  work  with 

defenders. 

Civil society, the international community and the community in general recognize the EU’s work. The 
issues addressed since 2017 have been difficult to evolve, and the EU’s persistence on the matter has 
been acknowledged. Primarily CSOs, other donors and MS mentioned this.  

3.2. Conclusions 

Conclusion  #1  The  EU  demonstrated  pertinence  and  coherence  in  the  framework  of  its  global 
commitments, and sought to be flexible to achieve the development goals. 

The DEU continued the process required to design interventions, sticking to the strategy announced as the 
country’s policy. In addition, it was coherent with the vision and strategies of other MS and international 
organisations to answer to the needs of the Guatemalan population. 

However,  as  stated  in  the MIP  intervention  logic,  the assumption  or  hypothesis  was  that  “the government 
proactively  contributes  and  provides  political  and  operational  support  to  implementing  the  activities,”  including  an 
appropriate  contribution  of  technical  resources  and  capital.  In  practice,  the  design  hypotheses  were  not 
fulfilled, which forced the EU to modify the implementation of initiatives on the go and required mitigation 
actions. 

The events made it evident that the strategy announced as a policy by government actors did not always 
correspond to the implementation strategy in practice. The design did not adequately assess the political risk 
of agendas and the priorities of different actors with influencing or vetoing capacities. 

49 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

It is recognized that, in a complex environment, the EU maintained its framework of reference towards the 
development goals, promoting and implementing pertinent and coherent actions despite the dynamics with 
the Government and lack of internal consensus within the MS. 

This  pertinence  and  coherence  has  been  flexible  enough  to  promote  the  development  agenda,  creating 
partnerships with key partners, managing delegated cooperation, coordinating multi-actor initiatives, etc. 

Conclusion  #2  Actors’  will  and  capacity  to  cooperate  throughout  the  evaluated  period  with 
adequate incentives was a determining factor in the quality of the interventions. 

An intervention that initially seems to be well-structured and aligned with international best practices may 
end up with unexpected results. Institutions and processes are neither neutral nor merely instrumental. In 
fact, they are the environment in which development models are forged, moulded and where they acquire 
their true meaning. 

Changes on an institutional level are more than technical changes through which some rules are replaced by 
others. It is necessary to act through processes that promote gradual, slow changes with few exceptions, in 
which old concepts, ideas and interests progressively lose importance and are replaced by new ones. These 
processes must be developed gradually over time through various initiatives, in order to attain this type of 
change. As stated by some actors in the international sector, "changes in Guatemala take time, and you have to 
know when to take advantage of political changes." 

The  intervention’s  flexibility  reflects  the  capacity  to  adapt  work  models  to  the  country  context  and  the 
profile of institutions. In the interviews, particularly those with academia, they emphasized that "development 
interventions should not be based on products, but on long-term processes, with a broader framework of intervention, considering 
political incidence in a country where changes have historically been gradual." 

It was identified that interventions are more likely to be successful when coordinated  between  different 
institutions. Multi-actor initiatives have clear advantages: they allow for greater availability of counterparty 
resources; they expand the capacity to influence horizontally (expanding coverage in territories, value chains, 
etc.) and vertically (multi-level influence on territories, institutions and policies); they favour learning and 
understanding between the different participants; and they favour long-term sustainability in light of political 
and environmental changes, etc. 

Conclusion  #3  The  justice  sector  was  strengthened  on  a  national,  regional  and  territorial  level 
through a determined process of providing support to agents of change and actors prioritized in 
the  strategy.  This  occurred  even  though  impunity  and  corruption  were  a  major  challenge  for 
consolidating the Rule of Law in the country. 

The way the justice sector was strengthened was demonstrated by the improvement of officials’ capacities, 
specifically  in  terms  of  human  rights  and  gender,  the  formulation  and  implementation  of  specialized 
attention  protocols  for  victims,  and  improvements  in  communities  and  leaders’  capacities  to  carry  out 
strategic litigation processes in favour of defending their territories. The above, as a whole, contributed to 
achieving  the  three  strategic  results of the sector:  i)  preventing  violence  and  crimes  against  women  and 
children;  ii)  rehabilitating  and  reintegrating  women  and  youth;  and  iii)  strengthening  the  country's 
mechanisms to prevent and transform social conflicts. 

Conclusion #4 Coordination between civil society and state institutions to build trust and capitalize 
on lessons learned was fundamental for amplifying the impacts of cooperation. 

The coordination and multi-actor dialogue spaces promoted to this moment by the EU (Filter Group, G-
13 and others) had good results in terms of the visibility of HR problems, taking joint positions between 
cooperating parties and influencing public policies. Support was provided to trust-building actions to bring 
CSOs and the State close together in a context of democratic regression that affects the conducive space 
for these organisations and leaders to perform their work, seeking to bring together lessons learned. 

50 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

Conclusion  #5  Significant  progress  was  made  in  the  institutional  strengthening  of  FNS  in 
Guatemala, but not  enough  progress  was  made to  reach  the  strategic  objectives  expected  from 
European cooperation, which sought to increase the productivity and diversity of productive units 
and rural households to improve FNS. 

Two moments can be identified in EU support, within the EU’s contribution to FNS. The first is that, even 
though the BS did not achieve the proposed strategic objectives, it was possible to strengthen the actions 
of the SESAN and MAGA and implement specific reforms in the public finance management system. This 
gave  way  to  mobilizing  local  support,  which  generates  more  income  for  the  government.  The  second 
moment was when the second BS, which had already been contracted (PAFFEC) was continued without 
entering  into  new  arrangements  and,  instead,  providing  support  to  public  finance  management  through 
complementary operations, such as the PASF. Based on the ROM and performance level of BS operations, 
this decision was well justified. More direct and efficient operations were sought to be carried out in FNS 
in this process, and they were implemented by United Nations agencies. It must be taken into account that 
these new contracts were designed under conditions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and separately. For 
this reason, there are significant updates to be made to adjust to the new reality and ensure more coordinated 
field work. 

During the evaluation period, it became evident that the EU was creative and able to adapt to the constant 
changes  in  Guatemala’s  development  environment,  which  hindered  implementing  cooperation  actions. 
However, those characteristics were not enough because of the magnitude of the challenges in the country, 
the  new  context  and  the  need  for  more  coordinated  work  with  unified  information.  In  view  of  the 
information produced on the country’s food security situation, there is a possibility to strengthen the EU's 
actions and contribute decisively to advancing strategic goals. 

Conclusion #6 Contributions were made in the competitiveness sector to strengthen the NQS and 
develop public policies that promote quality, competitiveness and decent work/employment in the 
country, in coordination with other donors. However, there is a pending agenda of formulating 
other public policies to sustain the structural impact on a country level. 

During the period covered by this evaluation, the NQS was continuously supported by the EU programs 
on a national and regional level, with the following objectives: a) to integrate, strengthen and modernize the 
system’s components and b) obtain international recognition. 

Today,  after  this  decisive  and  continuous  support  for  strengthening  the  NQS,  it  is  considered  that  the 
National Technical Regulation Commission (CRETEC, for the Spanish original) and certification authority 
still  require  strong  support.  However,  the  system  has  become  a  tool  for  the  competitiveness  of  the 
productive sectors and MSMEs, in an infrastructure that develops trust in consumers and an instrument 
that grants credibility and transparency to government institutions. 

The current challenge is to decentralize it, improve its distribution and promote its use by MSMEs, in order 
to take advantage of the benefits the System has to offer. The purpose is for them to insert themselves into 
globalized markets. With respect to regional infrastructure, progress has been less significant. 

In  the  case  of  support  provided  by  the  PEJ  (Program  for  Generating  Employment  and  Vocational 
Education  for  Youth  in  Guatemala)  and  Support for Decent  Employment  programs  in  Guatemala,  the 
2017-2032 Decent Employment Policy was approved, demonstrating considerable positive impacts. These 
impacts were complemented by coordinated work with other donors. As mentioned in the Competitiveness 
section, although there is no law that provides the NDEP the utmost legal support, Government Decree 
178-2021 was recently published (as a result of many years of cooperation and advocacy promoting decent 
employment/work).  It  brought  the  CONED  to  life,  which  is  the  main  element  of  the  institutional 
framework provided for implementing the NDEP. 

51 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

Knowing that commerce in goods and services globally is regulated through the WTO agreements, including 
the topic of technical barriers to trade (TBT Agreement), it is indispensable to have an NQS with excellence 
levels  that  allow  the  productive  sector  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunities  on  the  international  and 
regional  market  and  negotiated  commercial  agreements,  as  well  as  defend  the  legitimate  imperative 
objectives on national security, prevent practices that could lead to error, protect human health and safety, 
and protect the lives and health of plants, animals and the environment. It is important to keep in mind that 
“without political influence, impacts are diluted and project efficiency is lost. 

Conclusion #7 Achievements were identified in terms of government and private infrastructure, 
corporate development services and institutional strengthening. Actions in this regard contributed 
to and favoured competitive development, access to markets, international recognition, quickening 
proceedings, decentralisation and generating more formal and decent employment. 

With the EU’s support in the evaluated period, both national and regional programs provided support to 
strengthening  the  analytical  infrastructure  without  interruptions  by  reinforcing  laboratories  of  the 
VISAR/MAGA, the National Health Laboratory (LNS, for the Spanish original) of the MSPAS. They also 
created the Cacao Quality Laboratory (AGEXPORT) under the grant modality. Although this support has 
been continuous and carried out through various modalities23, the cost-benefit ratio is unprofitable. It could 
be said that the demand surpassed the offer and no options have been accepted or put into practice to solve 
said situation. One example is the “Public-Private Partnership” model for creating the “Network of private 
laboratories accredited and recognized by the government sector,” which provide services on behalf of the 
State. The received support also lacked sustainability. 

In terms of support through corporate development services, there is evidence of positive results in the 
provision  of  those  services,  which  answered  to  the  needs  of  MSMEs  and  helped  them  favour  their 
competitive development, access to markets, improve their production methods, improve their companies’ 
performance in administrative, logistical, financial and technological matters, strengthen their human capital 
and generate more formal and decent jobs. 

Support provided through corporate development tools helps the sector close gaps and take advantage of 
opportunities  arising  from  trade  agreements,  increase  inclusive  and  sustainable  economic  development, 
create jobs and entrepreneurship, reduce irregular migration, and increase production and competitiveness 
on a global scale. 

Conclusion #8 Progress was made with respect to experience exchanges, participation in dialogue 
spaces  with  actors from  civil  society, the  State  and  the  international  community,  and  a general 
interest in implementing organized monitoring actions. 

During the evaluation period, it was found that the EU provided support to a great number of territorial 
and local initiatives. These local initiatives require more articulation on a national level, reason why they 
found  an  alternative  in  exchanging  experiences.  However,  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  generation  of 
knowledge about existing experiences and spaces for dialogue is systematic, nor have the different actors 
involved in EU actions adopted a culture of accountability in the country. It is worth mentioning that the 
Road  Map  and  Human  Rights  Strategy  are  two  strategies  in  Guatemala  that  have  made  it  possible  to 
coordinate  the  strategic  issues  of  work  with  civil  society  in  the  country  with  respect  to  its  internal 
strengthening and work coordinating with other organisations on a sectoral or territorial level. 

There  is  evidence  that  formal  and  informal  dialogue spaces  are  crucial  for  obtaining  more  influence  on 
agendas  and  the  formulation  and  implementation  of  public  policies.  This  is  the  case  for  Development 
Councils, through which citizen participation is coordinated with governments of different levels (national, 
departmental, municipal and/or community). The role of these spaces as instruments for developing the 
Decentralisation Law (2005), Law on Rural Development and Food Security, and Public Policy on Gender 

23 Donation of equipment, the implementation of analytical methodologies, support for establishing management systems, 
support for developing information systems, training, exchanging experiences, etc. 

52 

 
 
                                                           
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

can  particularly  be mentioned.  Even  though  these  have  been  important spaces,  information  was  found, 
which indicates that these spaces have been slightly discredited and co-opted by corruption. Despite this, 
the EU’s support for these spaces in general and qualifying them through various leaders remains positive. 

Conclusion #9 The EU decidedly provided support to promoting and defending HR in the country. 
However,  due  to  a  lack  of  dialogue  between  the  cooperation  section  and  the  DEU’s  policies, 
political action in light of HR violations and the adoption of the public policy was slow. 

The EU achieved a much more effective level of interactions on a local level due to its recognition and 
legitimacy with respect to other actors. This contributed to facilitating dialogue and collaboration spaces 
between  HR  organisations  to  seek  joint  solutions  between  EU  projects,  which  organisations  and  other 
actors in the international community highly valued. It seems that deepening the dialogue with the private 
sector is fundamental to be able to implement the guiding principles of Business and HR. 

There  is  particularly  evidence  of  EU support  to  make progress  in formulating the  public  policy  on HR 
defenders. According to all the interviewed actors, this was decisive in drafting and positioning this issue on 
the public agenda, as well as generating a multi-actor dialogue on the need to implement it. This, of course, 
was  accompanied  by  a  direct  contribution  to  strengthening  organisations  for  strategic  litigation  and 
complaints. 

Conclusion #10 The various instruments, modalities and resources were appropriated and adapted 
to the changes in the environment, even when there were delays in execution. The sectors with the 
highest  demonstrated  efficiency  were  those  in  which  counterparties  had  a  political  will,  proper 
accountability and structured dialogue platforms. 

Upon individually evaluating the instruments the EU used in Guatemala, each one had results. Nevertheless, 
when grouping the progress on a sectoral level, peace, justice and competitiveness stand out, mainly due to 
an elevated capacity for dialogue (compared to the rest of the sectors). 

Proactive  contributions,  political  and  operational  support,  human  resources,  operational  costs  and  the 
necessary spaces for adequate implementation were all assumptions that the Government of Guatemala 
scarcely met, directly affecting the effectiveness of cooperation, especially in the BS. 

Failures to comply with the agreements and assumptions by the Government of Guatemala have not led to 
substantial changes in the cooperation instruments. This also applies to the BS, which have experienced 
conceptual distortions under the tutelage of the DEU in Guatemala. 

Conclusion #11 The support provided to Guatemala through the BS was efficient and had positive 
impacts on the country’s administrative and tax policies, allowing tax income to increase by issuing 
and approving laws, public policies and plans in that regard. That was in addition to obtaining the 
PEFA assessment to improve the PFM system. 

The evaluation showed that public finances were positively impacted by the EU’s contribution. In this sense, 
the following improvements to the country's PFM system were observed: (i) an increase in tax income; (ii) 
support in issuing the Law for Strengthening Tax Transparency and the Governance of the Superintendence 
of  Tax  Administration  (Decree  37-2016);  (iii)  contributing  to  formulating  and  approving  the  Policy  for 
Strengthening Public Finances and Tax Transparency in 2019; (iv) providing support in preparing the Action 
Plan  for  Reforming  the  Public  Finance  Management  (PFM)  System;  and  (v)  providing  assistance  in 
improving the PFM System by funding 3 PEFA assessments. The result of this was an increase in national 
income earmarked for priority issues, such as FNS. 

Conclusion #12 Joint actions by the EU as a block were essential for leading to structural changes 
and more efficiency in the EU’s actions in Guatemala. In the last year of the evaluation, Brussels 
won  an  important  role  in  the  country’s  current  socio-political  context  to  support  these  actions, 
creating a consensus inside Team Europe. 

53 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

The EU is considered a key actor in coordinating with other MS and donors to improve the effectiveness 
of cooperation, supporting alignment and reducing the fragmentation of cooperation. The EU is the natural 
entity that brings together cooperation between the MS, also incorporating other international organisations. 
In this sense, the Donors Group (G13) is the platform that supports coordinating efforts on three levels: 
political,  technical/political  and  technical  sectoral  or  thematic.  These  are  essentially  related,  but  are 
distinguished by their functions and members. 

The EU has positioned itself as a collaborator, colleague and instrument of dialogue for other embassies. 
This is particularly true for Sweden, which was a great partner for the last three years, when it was excluded 
from the political dialogue due to its critical position towards the Government. 

The benefits of this coordination process go beyond efficiency in using resources. They include added value 
and the capacity to influence as a common block in light of the complex challenges the country is facing. 
The EU is viewed as a primary partner in Guatemala, not only as just another cooperating party, but a joint 
platform. It has been indicated that the "greatest value of an entity, such as the EU, is to be able to bring together MS 
as a common front, whether in terms of statements, funding or when approaching local authorities. This is because speaking out 
as a group carries a greater weight than speaking as a single multilateral organisation, due to the damage it may cause to its 
reputation.” 

The DEU collectively succeeded in promoting coordinated positions on sensitive subjects, such as the fight 
against corruption and impunity, including transitional justice. The DEU’s temporary chairmanship over 
the  local  donor  coordination  group,  G13,  was  an  essential  facilitating  factor  in  this  process,  as  was 
strengthening bilateral dialogue. 

In addition, interventions benefit from complementation and synergies with other interventions funded by 
the EU and other donors, favouring a broader impact and improving influence.  Actually, the limitations of 
political influence in EU initiatives are being addressed through MS in a better position in terms of sectors, 
territories and ministries. In addition, the CICIG is an emblematic example of coordination with other MS 
and donors. 

Actors have highlighted the EU’s added value with respect to promoting its values and HR, and its work 
with civil society. They perceive the EU as a relevant actor in these fields and as a guarantee of good work 
and transparency. "The EU is a relevant actor. Beneficiaries call attention because they see how work is done differently and 
they see results." 

Conclusion #13 The new MIP is considered an opportunity to generate new coordination spaces, 
as long as these spaces are built with actors who demonstrate political willingness and action with 
respect to key reforms to the new strategy. The evaluation showed the agents of change with whom 
concrete results can be achieved and with whom using instruments of change can be capitalized. 

The  coherence  and  added  value  of  European  cooperation  were  assessed  with  the  different  institutions 
through  the  interviews,  including  the  potential  of  the  new  MIP.    The  EU’s  added  value  is  not  that  of 
assigning  financial,  technical  and  human  resources.  It  is  mainly  promoting  a  common  vision  for  the 
country’s sustainable development, integrating all MS. It also coordinates with civil society, institutions and 
the private sector, promoting greater influence on micro-, meso- and macro-levels in a space for shared 
dialogue, seeking to build a shared vision. 

In this sense, it was indicated that "the new MIP, as it has been proposed, can be an accelerator of EU interventions or 
an obstacle due to some sectors’ rejection."  The main sector identifying the potential of the new MIP to expand 
business opportunities and new work spaces, in order to promote sustainable growth and job creation by 
providing  support  to  transitioning  to  a  low-carbon,  resource-efficient  and  more  circular  economy  in 
Guatemala is the exporting business sector. 

54 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

3.3. 

 Recommendations 

Recommendation #1. To develop a political economy analysis in Guatemala to understand how 
the  country  has  reconfigured  its  relationships  with  the  Government,  the  Rule  of  Law  and  the 
production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services, as well as changes in 
terms of needs and risks. 

Justification: The results of this evaluation show the changes that have been made to EU cooperation in 
Guatemala based on changes in priorities, the challenges from the context due to changes in governments 
and public policies, and economic changes due to  the production model and companies’ positioning on 
local, departmental, national and regional levels. Throughout this process, forces have been reconfigured in 
the political, social, environmental and economic context, which EU cooperation must recognize in order 
to propose an effective political dialogue, cooperation and trade relations strategy. 

Actions:  

●  Preparing a map of actors that helps recognize lessons learned and good work practices carried out 
with the EU and in dialogues with MS, in order to identify and/or recognize actors to implement 
the EU’s strategy in Guatemala. 

●  Presenting  a  diagnosis  for  the  reconfiguration  of  relationships  between  political,  social  and 
economic actors in the country with respect to key topics of the EU agenda established in the MP, 
and  in  accordance  with  it  cooperation  values,  to  help  improve  governance  and  governability 
conditions. 
Identifying  the  EU’s  partners  with  meeting  points  and  a  common  agenda  under  ethical  and 
technical criteria that help make the EU’s actions in the country more visible and sustainable. This 
must also be done with the international community through existing groups such as G-13 or the 
Filter Group. 

● 

This recommendation is related to conclusions #1, 2, 4 and 5. 

Recommendation  #2.  To  co-create  a  political  dialogue  strategy  on  all  levels  within  the  EU  in 
Guatemala that links political, commercial and cooperation issues in prioritized topics within the 
EU’s agenda, in dialogue with MS and other strategic actors. 

Justification: The results of this evaluation show multiple outcomes in the area of cooperation and trade 
that require better and more coordination with political issues. For this reason, the need has been observed 
to develop a joint strategy for this purpose. Political dialogue is a fundamental strategy to achieve desired 
results with greater impact, in accordance with the conditions of the local, departmental, national, regional 
and international context. 

Actions:  

● 

Identifying the political dialogue actions that require coherence and innovation in Guatemala due 
to changes in the social, political and economic context, accompanied by strategic messages that 
capitalize on the lessons learning of the Delegation and promote inclusive communication. 

●  Developing  a  strategy  for  Team  Europe  that  includes  other  cooperating  parties  with  similar 
principles  in  Guatemala.  The  reason  for  this  is  to  promote  defending  Democracy  and  the 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda in Guatemala through the leadership 
of the EU and MS, in order to increase impact, visibility and innovation. 

●  Activating joint work groups with MS and other strategic actors from the international community 
with respect to different topics, in order to ensure coordinated and collective work that promotes 
transformations and changes on a sectoral, social and territorial level. 

55 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

This recommendation is linked to conclusions # 1, 2, 4, 5, 11 and 12. 

Recommendation  #3.  To  strengthen  governance  through  dialogue  spaces  and  collective  multi-
actor  and  multi-level  construction,  seeking  to  improve  the  efficiency,  effectiveness,  impact  and 
sustainability of the MIP’s actions in the framework of long-term processes. 

Justification:  In  developing  the  evaluation,  dialogue  spaces  were  observed  to  be  fundamental  for  the 
scheduling, formulating and implementing public policies in the framework of the prioritized sectors agreed 
upon between the EU and Guatemala. They were able to coordinate the actions of civil society, national 
and  local  authorities,  the  international  community,  other  state  institutions,  such  as  the  PPO,  and  other 
sectors,  such  as  the  private  sector,  churches  and  academia.  It  is  necessary  to  continue  these  actions  by 
coordinating the EU's instruments for dialogue with civil society, such as the Roadmap and the HR Strategy. 

Actions:  

●  Designing a trust-building strategy around the topics of the new MIP that allows for constructive 
dialogue with agents of change (public, civil society and private) who have demonstrated a political 
will and effectiveness in their daily work, bringing together the lessons learned from projects that 
promoted multi-actor and multi-level spaces. 
Identifying the existing multi-actor and multi-level spaces jointly with MS and other strategic actors, 
where they may be interested in continuing to generate capacities and influence public policies. To 
this  end,  Team  Europe’s  initiatives  proposed  in  the  country  are  necessary,  combined  with  the 
support for projects by civil society that favour these spaces. 

● 

●  The  EU,  on  all  levels,  must  continue  monitoring  the  HR  situation  in  Guatemala,  including  the 
conditions of civil society for exercising their civil and political rights and carrying out HR education 
processes for the diplomatic corp. 

●  The EU, on all levels, must continue contributing to the decentralisation process as an action. 

This recommendation is linked to conclusions # 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12. 

Recommendation  #4.  Designing  and  implementing  a  communication,  visibility  and  influence 
strategy for the EU that helps increase the impact and efficiency and identify the contribution to 
development with the international community, the Government, implementing partners and the 
community in general. 

Justification:  Guatemala  has  a  high  context  communication  culture,  where  manners,  gestures,  attitudes, 
behaviours,  etc.  (the  external  part  of  the  process)  is  matter  or  substance,  and  can  influence  the 
implementation of a project/program. For this reason, it is necessary to work on the set of actions necessary 
to achieve results. Furthermore, it is evident that, with good communication, it is possible to increase the 
capacity to influence common issues defined in the EU Agenda in Guatemala. 

Actions: 

●  Generating specific thematic campaign to help gather lessons learned and good practices of the 
Delegation to implement communication, visibility and influence actions jointly, taking advantage 
of the initiatives of Team Europe and others that can be coordinated in the framework of groups, 
such as G-13, the Filter Group and others. 

●  Developing  a  strategy  with  national  and  local  media  to  disclose  peace-building,  sustainable 

development, HR and other actions that contribute to the country and its democracy.   

●  Seeking to link strategic actors from the country in developing the EU’s Agenda based on a sectoral 
outlook and cross-cutting topics, taking advantage of issues, such as competitiveness and gender. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

This recommendation is linked to conclusions #1, 2, 4, 11 and 12. 

Recommendation  #5.  To  design,  implement  and  evaluate  a  proper  knowledge  management 
strategy that combines monitoring projects, assessing results and impacts, systematizing lessons 
learned and exchanging experiences with respect to the strategic topics of the MIP. 

Justification:  The  information  collected  during  the  evaluation  period  suggests  it  is  necessary  to  have  an 
organized knowledge management strategy that provides more information for the EU's political dialogue 
with  the  National  Government,  local  authorities,  civil  society,  and  more  specific  populations,  such  as 
indigenous people, youth, women, and others. It is important to capitalize on  project monitoring with a 
strategic view of the EU's action plans and priorities. This also provides information for evidence-based 
decision-making and more communication on the results and impacts of EU cooperation in the country. 

Actions: 

● 

In the short-term, prioritizing actions aimed at capitalizing on the existing knowledge management 
in work with civil society organized in monitoring, evaluation, lessons learned (documents and/or 
exchanges) and accountability is required, in addition to collecting information and lessons learned 
from  the  Country  Evaluation  for  officials  of  the  EU  program  in  Guatemala  to  enrich  the  HR 
strategy and Civil Society. 

●  Building a joint vision of the Delegation for the work to be performed in knowledge management 
and identifying partners for implementing it in line with the MIP, Roadmap, Democracy and HR 
Strategy, and others. 
Identifying  and  adjusting  the  existing  monitoring  systems  for  them  to  facilitate  collecting  and 
reporting  information  in  the  systems  of  partners  and  cooperating  parties  to  improve  decision-
making, as well as actions that ensure transparency between actors. 

● 

●  Having  a  territorialized  approximation  in  implementing  the  strategy  to  disclose  the  results  and 
changes  generated  by  the  EU  and  its  MS  on  a  local,  departmental,  national,  regional  and 
international level. 

This recommendation is linked to conclusions #2, 5 and 8. 

Recommendation #6. To continue providing support to territorial, social and sectoral processes 
based on the combination of different cooperation instruments and modalities. 

Justification: The information collected during the evaluation period shows specific projects that yielded the 
expected results and impact as a result of working with specific communities in different areas of Guatemala. 
In this sense, according to the information on sustainability and impact, it is necessary to continue providing 
support  to  the  processes  that  have  experience  working  with  the  EU  and  a  significant  social  capital  to 
continue achieving results and scaling them up to different levels. For this reason, it makes sense to support 
processes, rather than specific projects, that demonstrate the EU's contributions in the long-term. 

Actions: 

●  Continuing  the  different  cooperation  modalities,  deepening  an  analysis  by  type  of  actor  in  the 
different territories and recognizing and strengthening processes (not just projects). This is in order 
to  consolidate  a  common  vision  towards  development.  The  analysis  of  the  proposed  political 
economy for the short-term must enrich this vision. 

●  Making  adjustments  to  the  BS’  implementation  with  the  National  Government,  seeking  to 
condition  the  assignment  of  resources  to  real  changes  by  institutions  and  policies  (not  only 
individual officials. 

57 

 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

●  Seeking to generate more coordination and national and territorial partnerships that help generate 
changes and implementable models horizontally (productive chains, associations and others) and 
vertically (institutions, policies and others). 
Implementing TA with proven trust-building methodologies with the EU and its strategic partners. 
This is in order to guarantee full knowledge of the context and constant reading of the political, 
social, environmental and economic situation. 

● 

This recommendation is linked to conclusions #2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. 

Recommendation #7. To strengthen political dialogue and cooperation actions in terms of peace, 
democracy, gender, HR and justice to ensure the continuity of ongoing institutional processes and 
continue  providing  support  to  citizen  initiatives  that  promote  transparency  and  access  to 
information on these topics. 

Justification: This recommendation aims to continue working  on and reaping results in terms of justice, 
peace  and  human  rights  in  a  country  context  that  requires  cooperation  and  promoting  processes  to 
strengthen democracy and the Rule of Law due to the regressive context in terms of governance and high 
social  conflict.  Moreover,  this  needs  to  be  more  visible  in  the  MIP.  This  sector’s  importance  in  EU 
cooperation  instruments  and  strategies  in  Guatemala  must  not  be  minimized,  since  the  progress  it  has 
attained  so  far,  especially  in  the  capacities  of  civil  society,  requires  continuity  and  funding.  This 
recommendation could be implemented through the following actions: 

●  Coordinating cooperation, dialogue and monitoring actions with the EU from Brussels and Geneva 
and the MS, through instruments, such as the Periodic Universal Reviews before the Human Rights 
Council of the United Nations, CEDAW or promoting follow-up by the HR Group (COHOM), 
among others. 

●  Continuing and providing greater visibility to the actions developed to apply the guiding principles 
of  business  and  HR,  ensuring  coordination  between  the  business  section,  political  section  and 
cooperation section of the Delegation of the EU, and capitalizing on the support from strategic 
partners, such as the OHCHR, on this matter. 

●  Strengthening  and  activating  the  “Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean”  Group  (COLAC)  to 
coordinate actions in favour of the HR, peace, justice and democracy agenda in Guatemala. 
●  Providing  TA  to  citizen  initiatives  and  victims’  organisations  that  promote  social  control  and 
general  visibility  actions  for  the  HR,  Justice,  Gender  and  Peace  context  in  Guatemala,  thereby 
contributing to transparency and access to information. 

This recommendation is linked to conclusions #3,4, 6, 8 and 9 

Recommendation  #8:  Continuing  the  actions  developed  on  the  topics  related  to  Food  and 
Nutrition Security, capitalizing on the lessons learned and taking advantage of the policy update 
process announced by the National Government. 

Justification:  The  factors  contributing  to  food  insecurity  are  more  acute  and  related  to  each  other.  The 
combination  of  impacts  caused  by  COVID-19,  climate  change  (for  example,  Eta/Iota),  and  a  global 
inflationary process, will exert pressure on the increase of poverty and, consequently, chronic and  acute 
malnutrition. This precarious situation is forcing the different sectors to rethink what is possible and put up 
a common front in the fight against hunger. In Guatemala, the National Food Security System is still in 
effect, and it is led by the  Vice  President of the Republic with direct advice from the  SESAN. Various 
secretaries participate in it, and it receives support from various sectors, from both cooperation and civil 
society organisations. 

Actions: 

58 

 
 
 
  
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

●  Making  the  concrete  results  and  lessons  learned  in  this  sector  visible  taking  into  account  the 
different cooperation modalities and involved actors to unify the outlook on the following actions 
based on the MIP. More specifically, it is recommended to review what flaws and weaknesses there 
have  been  in  the  process,  in  order  to  collect  lessons  learned  and  implement  improvements  in 
cooperation in this sector. 

●  Taking advantage of the multi-actor and multi-level dialogue spaces created in the framework of 
implementing the Law on Rural Development and Food Security as well as the institutions and civil 
society organisations that were already strengthened and have shown concrete results, reinforcing 
the scenarios in municipalities, commonwealths and regions. 

●  Continuing to support the involvement of academia and other actors to obtain more results and 
broaden the impact, taking advantage of the performed actions, such as that which was done with 
the National Nutrition Information Plan, existing information and particularly the results of the 
baseline of the Grand National Crusade for Nutrition. This is in order to strengthen dialogue and 
reinforce other production factors that come together to impact FNS, such as access to water, land, 
agricultural funding and other factors. 
Increasing  the  participation  of  farmers,  indigenous  people  and  youth  in  leading  roles  in 
implementing  grants  in  the  FNS  sector,  thereby  contributing  to  strengthening  the  social  fabric 
surrounding food security with more direct investments. 

● 

This recommendation is linked to conclusion #5. 

Recommendation #9. To continue with support for institutions and civil society that contribute to 
competitive  development  in  Guatemala,  sustained  by  implementing  sustainable  and  inclusive 
public  policies  for  improving  the  business  environment  and  promoting  investment,  economic 
growth, social development and regional integration in line with the new MIP. 

Justification:  Multiple  actors  mentioned  this  recommendation  in  fieldwork,  identifying  it  as  a  necessary 
element to improve influence on policies, especially for competitive development, promoting sustainable 
and  inclusive  public  policies.  This  is  in  addition  to  improving  the  business  environment  by  providing 
companies the necessary conditions to invest, innovate, compete and be successful, which favours economic 
and social growth and competitiveness. 

Actions: 

●  Favouring the coordination of regional initiatives and local initiatives, seeking to identify synergies 
and  complementation  from  public,  private  or  initiatives  supported  by  other  members  of  the 
international  community.  This  includes  performing  circular  economy  actions,  and  they  require 
quality and traceability systems that can benefit from Guatemala’s NQS infrastructure. 

●  The EU, at all levels, must strengthen dialogue with actors from different sectors that share the 
EU’s vision for development, especially in the new MIP agenda for Good Governance and Human 
Development. It must sustain inclusive and sustainable growth in the framework of the Green Deal. 
●  Continuing the effective support to formulating and implementing sustainable and inclusive public 
policies,  such  as  the  competition  law,  public  finance  program,  job  creation  and  environmental 
policies, among other policies prioritized by the MIP. 

●  Promoting  horizontal  (territories,  value  chains,  etc.)  and  vertical  (institutions,  policies,  etc.) 
scalability to boost innovative initiatives and digitalisation, in partnerships with other cooperating 
parties. 

●  Coordinating the actions of cooperation with key actors in regional integration, taking advantage 
of:  i)  the  leadership  of  Guatemala;  ii)  the  SIECA’s  presence  in  the  country;  iii)  the  association 

59 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

agreement;  and  iv)  the  over  one  billion  in  annual  exports  by  the  EU. This  must  be  part of the 
political dialogue strategy and incorporate the results of the political economy analysis. 

This recommendation is linked to conclusions #6, 7 and 8.  

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

3. 

  ANEXOS 

ANNEXES 

Final Report 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

Annex 1 Sectoral Intervention Logic 
Peace and Justice Sector 

62 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

Actions 

Effects 

Better primary health care for women and children 

The strategy of the first 1,000 days helps address chronic malnutrition 

Families have better and sustainable access to food 

Diversification in small-scale agriculture through sustainable practices helps 
improve income (and diversity of diet) 

A resilient food system 

Better governance models on a local and territorial level to link the public sector 
and social organizations 

An increase in rural families’ income 

The purpose of funding is to improve 
the health and nutrition of the most 
vulnerable people. This is specifically 
done by: Providing support to the 
primary health care system to fight 
chronic malnutrition, the 
comprehensive strategy for fighting 
malnutrition, the comprehensive 
approach to promote resilience in 
vulnerable communities to food 
insecurity and climate crises 
(droughts), strengthening the 
capacities of public institutions and 
increasing rural income. 

Intermediate Impact 

Reducing malnutrition of women in 
reproductive ages and children 
under 5 

Reinforced proper food intake 
practices 

An increase in family income and 
sustainable livelihoods for food 
production 

Mitigation of the effects of soil 
degradation, silviculture and water 
due to climate change, including 
improving municipal execution. 

Strengthening institutional 
capacities for executing public 
budgets related to FNS and social 
protection 

Impact 

Reducing maternal and 
child mortality 

Improving the capacities 
of rural families 
sustainably by 
strengthening the 
SINASAN 

Comprehensive strategy 
for fighting chronic 
malnutrition 

Transforming the 
economy towards 
inclusive and 
sustainable 
development 
driven by 
diversification and 
an increase in 
production 
capacities 

COVID-19 has impacted: 
-the livelihoods of thousands of Guatemalan 
families, reason why food insecurity levels 
have increased 
-creating a lack of primary health care 

Ethnic minorities are committed to improving their nutrition and actively participate in development and FNS 
programs. 

Political, civil and community leaders remain committed to promoting food and nutrition security. 

Small farmers are willing to adopt and implement climatically smart agricultural practices. 

63 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation of EU Cooperation 
in Guatemala 2007-2020 

Competitiveness 

64 

 
 
 
Annex 2 Sample of Selected Projects 
Three projects on a national scale were chosen to evaluate the “Peace and Security” sector, namely: 

●  AECID:    LA/2017/387-155  “Preventing  violence  and  crime  against  women,  children  and 

adolescents.” 

●  CICIG: 2017/385-212 – Funding the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala. 
●  SEJUST: DCI-ALA/2010/021-929 Support for Security and Justice in Guatemala to be evaluated 

(SEJUST), a project that occurred to the PARJ: Support Program for Justice Reform. 

In terms of Food Security: 

●  LA/2019/039-234 “Support for the primary health care system to fight malnutrition in 

Guatemala.” 

●  LA/2013/024-452 Support for the Sustainability of Small Farmer Agriculture 
●  LA/2009/020-396 Support Program for the Strategic Food and Nutrition Security Plan of 

Guatemala. 

Three projects on a national scale were initially selected to evaluate the “Competitiveness” sector, namely:  

●  LA/2011/023-514 “Program for Generating Employment and Vocational Education for Youth 

in Guatemala” (PEJ). 

●  LA/2014/034-127  “Support  for  improving  the  competitiveness  and  commercial  capacity  of 

MSMEs and Cooperatives.”  

●  LA/2018/40889 “Support Program for Decent Employment in Guatemala. 

The evaluators and the DEU in Guatemala also agreed to consider a sample of projects on a regional scale 
in Central America, for which contact was made with the DEU in Costa Rica. The following were selected: 

●  LA/2004/016-89  “Support  Program  for  Designing  and  Applying  Common  Central  American 

Policies - ADPACCA (closed); 

●  LA/2009/021-513 “Regional Support Program for Quality and the Application of Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Measures in Central America – PRACAMS” (closed);  

●  LA/2016/039-051  “Regional  and  Central  American  Economic  Integration  Program  –  INTEC 

(ongoing); and 

●  LA/2013/236-83  “Support  Program  for  the  Development  of  the  Private  Sector  –  ADESEP 

(closed in May 2021). 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre 
nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 
- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 
- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Commission Directorate 
General for International Partnerships - 
INTPA 

INTPA Mission 
Our mission is to contribute to sustainable development, 
the eradication of poverty, peace and the protection of 
human rights, through international partnerships that 
uphold and promote European values and interests. 

Follow us: 

: @EU_Partnerships 

: EUPartnerships 

: eu_partnerships 

: EUintheWorld