COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Comprehensive evaluation of the European Commission's humanitarian aid 2017-2022
Date: 2026-02-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), European Commission
Subjects: EU action, aid evaluation, cooperation policy, distribution of aid, emergency aid, financing of aid, humanitarian aid, international humanitarian law, non-governmental organisation, the EU's international role

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.2.2026  SWD(2026) 62 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Comprehensive evaluation of the European Commission's humanitarian aid 2017-2022 {SWD(2026) 63 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

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

2.  What was the expected outcome of the intervention? ..................................... 3 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives ................................. 3 

2.2.  Point of comparison ............................................................................. 10 

3.  How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? .......................... 12 

4.  Evaluation findings (analytical part) ............................................................. 18 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? .................. 18 

4.2.  How  did  the  EU  intervention  make  a  difference  and  to  whom?  (EU 
added value) ......................................................................................... 43 

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? ......................................................... 46 

5.  What are the conclusions and lessons learned? ............................................. 51 

5.1.  Conclusions ......................................................................................... 51 

5.2.  Lessons learnt ...................................................................................... 52 

ANNEX I.   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .............................................................. 56 

ANNEX II.   METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ............................ 59 

ANNEX  III.    EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON 
ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ...................... 59 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ................................................. 97 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ........................ 99 

ANNEX VI. THEORY OF CHANGE ....................................................................... 115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AAP 

ACF  

CBPF  

DG ECHO 

DRC  

DP  

EDF 

EHRC  

EiE 

ENI 

ENPI  

ERCC 

ESSN 

EU  

EUTF  

FFPA 

FPA 

FTS 

HAR 

HCT  

HIP  

IASC  

ICRC 

Accountability to Affected People 

Action contre la Faim/ Action Against Hunger  

Country-based pooled fund  

Directorate General for European Civil Protection and 
Humanitarian Aid Operations  

Danish Refugee Council  

Disaster Preparedness  

European Development Fund  

European Humanitarian Response Capacity  

Education in Emergency  

European Neighbourhood Instrument  

European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument  

Emergency Response Coordination Centre 

Emergency Social Safety Net  

European Union  

EU Trust Fund  

Financial Framework Partnership Agreement 

Framework Partnership Agreement  

Financial Tracking Service  

Humanitarian Aid Regulation 

Humanitarian Country Team  

Humanitarian Implementation Plan  

Inter-Agency Standing Committee  

International Committee of the Red Cross 

 
 
 
IcSP 

IFRC 

IHL  

IOM  

IRC  

IPA 

MFF 

MPCT 

NDICI 

NGO  

OCHA  

TFEU 

UCPM 

UN  

UNHCR  

UNICEF  

WASH  

WFP  

Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace  

International Federation of the Red Cross  

International Humanitarian Law  

International Organization for Migration  

International Rescue Committee  

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 

Multiannual Financial Framework  

Multi-purpose cash transfer  

Neighbourhood,  Development  and 
Cooperation Instrument  

International 

Non-governmental Organisation  

United  Nations  Office  for 
Humanitarian Affairs 

the  Coordination  of 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  

Union Civil Protection Mechanism  

United Nations  

Office of the United Nations  High Commissioner for 
Refugees  

United  Nations  International  Children’s  Emergency 
Fund  

Water Sanitation and Hygiene  

World Food Programme  

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Staff Working Document presents the results of a comprehensive evaluation assessing 
the European Commission’s humanitarian aid actions during a 6-year period, 2017-22 (the 
latest comprehensive evaluation of the EU’s humanitarian aid was finalised in 2018 and 
covered the period 2012-16). 

It  is  compulsory  under  the EU  Financial  Regulation (1)  to  evaluate  programmes  and 
activities which entail significant spending.  

This evaluation is implemented under:  

-  Art. 214 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU),  

-  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 on humanitarian aid (‘the 

Regulation’) and  

- 

the  policy  framework  of  the  European  Consensus  on  Humanitarian  Aid  (the 
Consensus) and specific humanitarian sector policies. 

The evaluation takes into account other policy initiatives of the evaluation period, such as 
the  2021  Communication  ‘the  EU’s  humanitarian  action:  new  challenges,  same 
principles’ (2).  

The evaluation assesses both the strategic and operational levels of the EU’s humanitarian 
aid  interventions.  It  examines  how  well  the  Commission  has  exercised  its  role  as  a 
humanitarian donor in relation to its partners and the wider humanitarian system, and the 
results achieved in different crisis contexts during the period assessed. This includes an 
analysis of the EU's policy and implementation frameworks put in place for humanitarian 
aid, as well as the delivery of this aid to the end-beneficiaries. 

It  does  not  cover  the  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  (UCPM)  and  the  Emergency 
Support Instrument which have been evaluated separately (3). However, it examines the 
coherence and complementarity between these instruments.   

The geographical scope of the evaluation is global and focused on identifying the lessons 
from the European Commission’s response to major crises during the evaluation report.  
An external study carried out between July 2023 and February 2025 (4) is the main source 
of evidence for this document. The external study is a meta-evaluation, which built upon 
the findings and the conclusions drawn in the 33 specific evaluations carried out during the 
evaluation  period  2017-2022  (including  evaluations  of  the  Commission’s  responses  to 
geographical  humanitarian  crises,  of  humanitarian  thematic  policies  and  of  DG  ECHO’s 

(1) Article 34(1), Regulation EU/Euratom 2018/2046, as amended in 2022 

(2) COM (2021) 110  

(3) Evaluation of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (2017-2022) SWD (2024) 213 final  

(4) Comprehensive evaluation of the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid (2017-2022) conducted by 

ICF  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
partnerships). The external evaluation team complemented the information gathered through 
the meta-evaluation with several data collection activities. 

The external  study  was  based on a total  of 19 evaluation  questions  (see Annex 3). The 
questions  were  organised  around  the  five  main  evaluation  criteria  presented  in  the 
European  Commission's  Better  Regulation  Guidelines (5)  (effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence,  relevance,  EU  added value of  the European Commission’s humanitarian aid 
actions) complemented by a criterion focusing on the sustainability of the EU humanitarian 
aid interventions. 

Methodological approach  

The methodological approach was designed to integrate multiple data sources and a variety 
of data collection and analytical methods. It combined quantitative and qualitative research 
methods to collect data from relevant sources.  

To reach evidence-based conclusions, the following methods were used: document review;  
social media analysis; portfolio analysis of projects, 100 interviews; three online surveys 
(to DG ECHO; DG ECHO partners;  and local  implementing  partners);  an Open Public 
Consultation;  thirteen  workshops;  five  case  studies  and  six  field  missions  to  the 
Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Pakistan, and Ukraine, as well as remote field 
activities covering the Middle-East  (Syria, Yemen) and the Latin America and Caribbean 
(LAC) regions.   

The evaluation is based upon detailed information from documents and sources such as for 
example Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs), projects proposals, a sample of 300 
EU-funded  humanitarian  projects (6);  humanitarian  actions  database  (‘HOPE’),  existing 
thematic  policies  and  guidance,  and  Grand  Bargain  annual  independent  reports (7).  For 
example,  the  analysis  of  the  Humanitarian  Implementation  Plans  provided  detailed 
information about humanitarian aid needs and their evolution across different regions and 
sectors. It highlighted the key factors considered by DG ECHO in its programming and 
outlined DG ECHO’s strategic priorities and objectives for each region.  The evaluation 
assessed  also  the extent  to  which the implemented actions were  aligned  with  the needs 
identified and the priorities established in the HIPs. The analysis of the thematic policy 
documents followed a similar approach, with a view to assess their relevance, coherence 
and completeness.  

The evaluations completed during the 2017-2022 period were all reviewed as part of the 
meta-evaluation conducted under this comprehensive evaluation. The research carried out 
in the context of these evaluations largely consisted of – as for the current comprehensive 
exercise  –  in-depth  studies  of  a  representative  sample  of  actions,  field  visits,  and 
consultation with stakeholders.  

There were limitations inherent in the methodologies and research tools applied.   

Challenges  encountered  include  the  rapidly  changing  security  environment  and  the 
difficulty  to  engage  with  the  assisted  population  in  some  contexts.  These  issues  were 
mitigated by extending the field phase, organising activities remotely, and broadening the 
scope of interviewees (e.g., including local community representatives).  

(5)  SWD (2021) 305 final  

(6)  including an analysis of the proposals and description of the actions submitted by partners (in the “Single 

Forms”) and the assessment and monitoring of those projects by DG ECHO (in the “FichOps”) 

(7)  Grand  Bargain  annual  independent  reports  are  yearly  assessments  of  the  progress  and  challenges  in 
implementing the Grand Bargain, an agreement between humanitarian donors and aid organisations to 
make humanitarian aid more effective and efficient 

2 

 
 
Despite  improvements  in  the  data  collection  and  monitoring  system  since  the  previous 
evaluation,  some  gaps  were  observed  in  the  availability  of  quantitative  data  in  certain 
instances, as well as difficulties in aggregating and comparing data (e.g., across sectors or 
regions of interventions). 

Certain  limitations  affect  also  the  assessment  of  EU  humanitarian  aid  outcomes.  In 
particular,  it  is  not  always  possible  to  distinguish  with  absolute  accuracy  the  extent  to 
which a specific outcome is attributable to EU-funded interventions, as opposed to those 
of other donors, including Member States acting independently. 

Moreover,  while  consistent  efforts  are  made  to  evaluate  the  costs  and  benefits  of 
humanitarian action, such assessments are inherently complex. Factors such as the indirect 
nature  of  many  benefits,  the  long-term  impact  of  interventions,  and  the  challenges  in 
quantifying human suffering and resilience make precise cost-benefit analysis difficult. 

These  limitations  were  mitigated  by  the  consultation  activities  and  the  qualitative  data 
collected. In light of these mitigation approaches, it is considered that the evidence base of 
the external support study was sufficient to draw evaluation findings and conclusions. They 
are confirmed by multiple sources of information, and the mitigating measures taken to 
address the limitations were deemed adequate. The Commission, therefore, concurs with 
the external evaluator's findings.  

Methodological information on how the evaluation was conducted and its limitations is 
further detailed in Annex II.  

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1. 

  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Background  

The  concept  of  humanitarian  aid  stems  from  the  establishment  of  the  Red  Cross 
movement and the first Geneva Convention in the 1860s. It encompasses aid and action 
designed to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain and protect human dignity during 
and in the aftermath of human-induced crises and natural disasters. In more recent years, 
prevention of and preparedness for such situations have been added to the definition. The 
concept differs from other forms of assistance and foreign aid in that it is guided by the 
principles of: 

-  Humanity: saving human lives and alleviating suffering wherever it is found; 

- 

Impartiality: acting solely on the basis of need, without discrimination between or 
within affected populations;  

-  Neutrality: acting without favouring any side in an armed conflict or other dispute 

where such action is carried out; 

- 

Independence:  the  autonomy  of  humanitarian  objectives  from  the  political, 
economic, military or other objectives that any actor may hold with regard to areas 
where humanitarian action is being implemented. 

Legal basis  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
The  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union (8)  states  that  the  aim  of 
humanitarian aid is to ‘provide ad hoc assistance and relief and protection for people in 
third countries who are victims of natural or human-induced disasters, in order to meet the 
humanitarian needs resulting from these different situations.’ Humanitarian aid operations 
must  be  conducted  in  compliance  with  the  international  law  and  the  humanitarian 
principles.  

EU humanitarian aid operations are funded based on the Humanitarian Aid Regulation 
(HAR) (9). Application of the Regulation does not depend on the duration of a specific 
multiannual financial framework (MFF) and provides an adequate and flexible basis for 
the continuation of EU humanitarian operations. The Humanitarian Aid Regulation sets 
out  the  objectives  of  EU  humanitarian  aid  and  identifies  the  types  of  activities  and 
organisations eligible for funding. It also defines the roles of the Commission in managing 
the EU’s humanitarian aid, which are essentially properly executing the EU’s humanitarian 
aid budget, on the one hand, and promoting coordination with EU Member States, the UN 
system and third-country donors, on the other hand.  

The Statement on the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid (10), jointly agreed in 
2007 by the Parliament, the Commission, the Council and the EU Member States, defines 
a  common  vision  and  practical  approach  to  guide  humanitarian  aid  at  the  EU  level. 
Through the Consensus, the EU reaffirmed its commitment to the fundamental principles 
of  humanitarian  aid  –  humanity,  neutrality,  impartiality  and  independence  –  and  to 
advocate  strongly  and  consistently  for  the  respect  of  International  Humanitarian  Law 
(IHL).  

The EU humanitarian objectives as set in the HAR (11) and in the European Consensus 
on Humanitarian Aid (12) are the following:    

European 
Consensus 
Humanitarian Aid (2008) 

on 

the 

Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 

To  provide  a  needs-based  emergency 
response aimed at preserving life, preventing 
and  alleviating  human 
suffering  and 
maintaining  human  dignity  wherever  the 
need arises if governments and local actors 
are overwhelmed, unable or unwilling to act. 

aid 

humanitarian 

EU 
encompasses 
assistance,  relief  and  protection  operations 
to  save  and  preserve  life  in  humanitarian 
crises or their immediate aftermath, but also 
actions  aimed  at  facilitating  or  obtaining 
access to people in need and the free flow of 
assistance.  EU  humanitarian  assistance  is 
provided  in  response  to  man-made  crises 

(a) to save and preserve life during emergencies and their immediate 
aftermath  and  natural  disasters  that  have  entailed  major loss of  life, 
physical, psychological or social suffering or material damage; 

(b) to provide the necessary assistance and relief to people affected by 
longer-lasting crises arising, in particular, from outbreaks of fighting 
or wars, producing the same effects as those described in subparagraph 
(a), especially where their own governments prove unable to help or 
there is a vacuum of power; 

(c) to help finance the transport of aid and efforts to ensure that it is 
accessible  to  those  for  whom  it  is  intended,  by  all  logistical  means 
available,  and  by  protecting  humanitarian  goods  and  personnel,  but 
excluding operations with defence implications; 

(8) OJ C 326/47, 6.10.2012, Article 214 

(9) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid. OJ L 163, 2.7.1996. 

(10) Joint Statement by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting 
within the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission, OJ C 25, 30.1.2008. 

(11) Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid. Available at:  https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31996R1257 as of 12 July 2024. 

(12) European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid (2008). 

4 

 
 
 
European 
Consensus 
Humanitarian Aid (2008) 

on 

the 

Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 

(including  complex  emergencies)  and  to 
natural disasters as needed. 

(DRR), 

including 

Local  response  to  crisis  and  Disaster  Risk 
disaster 
Reduction 
preparedness  and  recovery,  are  essential  to 
save 
lives  and  enable  communities  to 
increase  their  resilience  to  emergencies. 
Capacity  building  activities  to  prevent  and 
mitigate  the  impact  of  disasters  and  to 
enhance humanitarian response are also part 
of EU humanitarian aid 

(d)  to  carry  out  short-term  rehabilitation  and  reconstruction  work, 
especially on infrastructure and equipment, in close association with 
local  structures,  with  a  view  to  facilitating  the  arrival  of  relief, 
preventing the impact of the crisis from worsening and starting to help 
those affected regain a minimum level of self-sufficiency, taking long-
term development objectives into account where possible;  

(e) to cope with the consequences of population movements (refugees, 
displaced  people  and  returnees)  caused  by  natural  and  man-made 
disasters and carry out schemes to assist repatriation to the country of 
origin and resettlement there when the conditions laid down in current 
international agreements are in place;  

(f) to ensure preparedness for risks of natural disasters or comparable 
exceptional circumstances and use a suitable rapid early-warning and 
intervention system;  

(g)  to  support  civil  operations  to  protect  the  victims  of  fighting  or 
comparable  emergencies,  in  accordance  with  current  international 
agreements. 

In  addition,  the  EU  civil  protection  legislation  explicitly  refers  to  the  need  for  the 
Commission and Member States to promote synergies between civil protection assistance 
and humanitarian aid (13), i.e. ensure complementarity between the two types of assistance 
and respond efficiently to crisis that have both immediate and longer-term humanitarian 
consequences.  An example is the EU response to the Beirut port explosion in Lebanon 
(August 2020), where the EU civil protection Mechanism was activated immediately, with 
deployment from search and rescue teams from Member States. The EU allocated also €33 
million in humanitarian funding, with aid focussing on healthcare, shelter, food assistance, 
and psychosocial support.  

Humanitarian aid is a shared competence and EU Member States can act in parallel. The 
Commission may take initiatives to enhance the efficiency and complementarity between 
actions of the EU and Member States. EU humanitarian aid operations are expected to be 
coordinated and consistent with those of international organisations, in particular those of 
the UN system.  

The evaluation period was marked by the adoption in 2021 of a Communication on ‘The 
EU’s humanitarian action: new challenges, same principles’ (14), a renewed strategic 
outlook setting out how the EU, working with partners and donors, can address increased 
humanitarian  needs:  by  enabling  a  better  environment,  boosting  effective  delivery  and 
expanding the resource base, showing leadership at a time when the delivery of principled 
aid is acutely needed, as well as putting compliance with IHL and related advocacy efforts 
at the heart of EU external action.  

Some key objectives included: 

•  Ensuring that EU humanitarian aid can be delivered swiftly and efficiently to those 

in need,  

•  Promoting flexible and efficient funding mechanisms, 

(13) Decision No 1313/2013/EU 

(14)  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  EU’s 
humanitarian action: new challenges, same principles, COM(2021) 110 final, 10 March 2021. 

5 

 
 
•  Tackling the root causes of crises by linking humanitarian, development, and peace 

efforts, 

•  Expanding the resource base for humanitarian action, 

•  Enhancing the EU’s engagement and leadership in humanitarian effort. 

Scope of action  

As  principled  humanitarian  donor,  the  European  Commission  provides  humanitarian 
assistance worldwide, based on needs and humanitarian principles. The Commission 
intervenes not only in large-scale humanitarian crises, sudden and rapid onset disasters, 
but also in forgotten/neglected crises (i.e. crises receiving no or insufficient international 
aid, political and media attention) delivering humanitarian assistance in the core sectors of 
food,  nutrition,  health,  water  sanitation  and  hygiene  (WASH),  protection,  education  in 
emergencies,  shelter  and  settlements,  and  other  actions  to  assist  and  protect  the  most 
vulnerable  populations  and  increase  their  resilience  through  actions  in  disaster 
preparedness.  

Humanitarian assistance addresses the needs of the most vulnerable and thus contributes 
to the achievement of key Sustainable Development Goals, such as the goals on ending 
hunger,  ensuring  healthy  lives,  education,  gender  equality,  climate  action,  water  and 
sanitation.  

The  European  Commission  provides  humanitarian  aid  and  relief  through  its  partner 
organisations  (United  Nations  agencies,  Red  Cross  and  Red  Crescent  movement,  non-
governmental organisations and Member States’ Specialised Agencies).  

The  Commission  plays  also  a  leading  role  in  humanitarian  advocacy  in  many  crises, 
including  on  promoting  the  respect  for  IHL  and  humanitarian  access,  in  steering  and 
developing  thematic  policies,  in  supporting  multilateral  actions,  and  in  coordinating 
approaches with EU Member States.  

The Commission (DG ECHO) has a permanent worldwide humanitarian network of 450 
field  staff  spread  over  almost  40  countries.  The presence  of  field  humanitarian  experts 
across the world enables the Commission to have, through first-hand information, an up-
to-date  overview  of  humanitarian  needs  in  each  country  or  region,  facilitating  the 
development  of  intervention  strategies  and  policies.  Field  offices  are  consulted  for  the 
design  of  the  HIPs,  the  selection  of  the  projects  to  be  funded,  the  implementation  of 
policies, and the monitoring of projects and reporting.  The field offices provide technical 
support to EU-funded operations and facilitate donor’s coordination at field level.   

Implementation framework  

Based  on  the  Humanitarian  Regulation  and  the  Financial  Regulation,  the  Commission 
adopts  financing  decisions  which  provide  the  legal  basis  for  funding  individual  actions 
carried out by 200 EU Humanitarian partners. EU-funded actions can be implemented by 
three  types  of  partners:  Non-Governmental  Organisations  (NGOs),  International 
Organisations (including UN agencies and other international organisations, such as ICRC 
and  IFRC)  and  Member  States’  Specialised  Agencies  (MSSAs).  The  main  financing 
decision  is  the  Worldwide  decision  (WWD),  adopted  annually,  which  covers  all  main 
humanitarian crises.  

The Decision indicates the objectives of humanitarian actions, the amounts of the Union 
contribution,  the methods of  implementation  and  the  flexibility  clause.  The  Flexibility 
clause  allows  for  the  possibility  to  reallocate  part  of  the  funds  among  the  different 

6 

 
objectives  of the decision, and to  allocate additional  budget  (up to  20% of the amount) 
without a new decision, enabling to response to emerging needs. 

The European Commission committed to devote 15% of its initial humanitarian budget to 
forgotten  crises  and,  as  of  2019,  to  dedicate  10%  of  its  humanitarian  assistance  to 
Education in Emergencies. 

information  on 

In  the  context  of  the  Worldwide  Decision,  the  European  Commission  (DG  ECHO) 
prepares  and  publishes  'Humanitarian  Implementation  Plans  (HIPs)',  which  provide 
identified  within  each 
more  detailed 
country/region of operation. They are a reference for humanitarian actions covered by the 
WWD and contain an overview of humanitarian needs to be addressed in a specific country 
at a particular time. Humanitarian Implementation Plans serve as reference documents for 
DG ECHO staff and partners to take decisions on the actions to be funded. Consultations 
with  partners  are  organised  ahead  of  the  HIP  drafting  to  exchange  on  the  needs  and 
priorities.  

the  operational  priorities 

The Humanitarian Implementation Plans are composed of five sections: (1) context and 
results  of  the  needs  assessment  (2)  humanitarian  needs  (3)  humanitarian  response  (4) 
humanitarian-development peace nexus (5) envisaged DG ECHO response, defining DG 
ECHO’s expected response and results of the humanitarian operations to be financed. 

Details on the priorities to be funded and the assessment criteria are included in a technical 
annex to the HIP. In addition, the thematic policy annex, also attached to the HIP, recalls 
the general principles, policy framework, assistance modalities and guidelines that need to 
be considered by DG ECHO partners in the design of humanitarian interventions.  
The  Humanitarian  Implementation  Plans  are  published  on  DG  ECHO’s  website (15). 
Partners  can  then  submit  project  proposals  aligned  with  the  HIPs  priorities.  HIPs  are 
regularly  updated  to  reflect  evolving  humanitarian  needs,  funding  availability  and 
operational contexts (16).   

In addition,  the European Commission  (DG ECHO) has  developed  a series of thematic 
policies  to  guide  its  humanitarian  aid  programming.  These  policies  (for  example, 
Protection,  cash  assistance,  disaster  preparedness)  provide  strategic  direction  and 
operational  guidance  for  partners  implementing  EU-funded  humanitarian  actions (17). 
Thematic policies ensure that assistance is  efficient  and addresses the specific needs of 
vulnerable populations in a consistent manner. 

Needs assessment  

Every year, DG ECHO assesses the humanitarian needs around the globe to take informed 
decisions and allocates humanitarian funding subsequently.  

Needs assessment methodology 

Before  2021,  DG  ECHO  used  an  in-house  methodology  and  tool  named  Integrated 
Analysis  Framework  (IAF):  The  Integrated  Analysis  Framework  (IAF)  methodology 
provided  a  comprehensive  structure  for  analysing  crises  in  a  country,  through  a 
dedicated template.  

(15)  Financing decisions (HIPs) - European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations 

(16)  DG Echo partners Website 

(17)  Policy guidelines - European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations 

7 

 
 
Sections within the IAF template addressed different aspects, such as crisis specifics, 
food  and  nutrition  assessments,  and  potential  disaster  risk  reduction  strategies. 
Information came from global quantitative indices and in-depth qualitative assessments 
conducted by humanitarian experts as well as data from implementing partners.  

DG ECHO improved in 2021 its methodology for conducting the annual assessment of 
humanitarian needs. This methodology has been integrated into a specialized IT tool, 
the Funding Information Tool (FIT). FIT is used to assess humanitarian needs and, based 
on this assessment, to calculate an initial proposed budget for each country according to 
the available EU humanitarian aid budget. 

The methodology aims to promote a more objective and evidence-based approach in the 
funding allocation process. 

Quantitative  information:  Quantitative  data  is  sourced  from  well-known  and 
established indexes, such as the  INFORM  Risk  Index (18) and the  INFORM  Severity 
Index (19). The INFORM Risk Index identifies countries at risk from humanitarian crises 
and  disasters  that  could  overwhelm  national  response  capacity,  while  the  INFORM 
Severity  Index  measures  the  severity  of  humanitarian  crises  on  a  global  scale.  These 
indexes  integrate  numerous  evidence-based  indicators  and  data  regarding  crisis  or 
country risk and severity, thereby enhancing decision-making processes. Both indexes 
are grounded in a solid scientific foundation (20). 

Qualitative  information:  To  further  analyse  the  complex  aspects  of  dynamic  crisis 
situations,  DG  ECHO  field  staff  (Technical  Assistants  based  in  country  offices  and 
Thematic Experts based in regional offices) provide qualitative assessments, based on 
their proximity to local communities and humanitarian partners working on the ground, 
and on their professional expertise. The information provided from DG ECHO Field is 
complemented  by  DG  ECHO  headquarters  staff  based  on  regular  exchanges  with 
partners  and  information  provided  to  the  humanitarian  community  by  UN  agencies, 
ICRC, IFRC and International NGOs.  

Monitoring framework  

DG ECHO Partners are required to submit a comprehensive logical framework together 
with their proposals, with SMART (21) indicators (including where feasible standard Key 
Result  Indicators  (KRI)  established  by  DG  ECHO),  targets  (e.g.  number  of  targeted 
beneficiaries)  as  well  as  an  analysis  of  risks  and  mitigating  measures.  During 
implementation, partners collect data, analyse progress compared to the original planning, 
and report on the implementation of the action at the end of the project and through interim 
reports for projects of a longer duration 

The Commission’s field staff is carrying out joined monitoring visits on the ground with 
partners, which includes meeting the beneficiaries. At least one such visit is taking place 
per funded action. Findings are shared with the partners and any issue detected followed 
up.  

(18) https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/inform-index/INFORM-Risk  

(19) https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/inform-index/INFORM-Severity 

(20)  See Annex 2, INFORM Risk and INFORM Severity indexes 

(21)  specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound 

8 

 
  
 
Theory of change 

Based  on  the  objectives  of  the  evaluation,  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the  theory  of 
change  of  the  humanitarian  aid  interventions  developed  in  the  context  of  the  external 
evaluation is displayed in Annex VI.  

The  theory  of  change  comprises  three  clusters,  outlining  the  main  functions  of  the 
European Commission in humanitarian aid.  

The first cluster (DG ECHO’s internal operations, coordination, and policy development) 
outlines DG ECHO’s enabling activities to influence and shape the humanitarian system, 
and to increase the overall effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian aid. DG ECHO 
aims to deliver more effective assistance to those in need, while also building resilience 
and promoting long-term solutions in crisis affected areas.  

The  second  cluster  (DG  ECHO’s  response  to  humanitarian  needs)  refers  to  the  core 
mission of delivering humanitarian aid through sectoral and cross-cutting interventions and 
programmes.  

The third cluster (DG ECHO’s role in research, advocacy, and communication) focuses on 
activities and outputs to enhance the effectiveness and reach of these humanitarian efforts. 
It  includes  activities  designed  to  inform  decision-making,  influence  policy  through 
advocacy  activities,  generate  public  support  through  increasing  visibility  and  public 
awareness  of humanitarian aid  and foster accountability  and improvement through data 
collection and analysis activities. 

Figure 1- Overview of the Theory of change for the European Commission's 
Humanitarian Aid (2017-2022) 

Source: External support study  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  annex,  specific  graphs  map  the  underlying  rationale  for  intervention,  objectives  and 
commitments, inputs, activities, outputs, results and impacts (in the short and long term) 
(figure 2, 3, 4, annex 6). In addition, assumptions underpinning the achievements of short-
term results and long-term impacts that have been tested during the evaluation process are 
further detailed (figure 5, annex 6).  

Building on the Theory of change, the evaluation explored the extent to which the EU has 
contributed to humanitarian crisis response through its actions  

- 

- 

- 

at global level – through its funding and advocacy efforts,  

at  crisis  level  –  through  its  programming  and  operational  response  to  specific 
crises, 

at  internal  level  –  through  the  implementation  of  funded  actions,  partnerships, 
tools and internal mechanisms.  

2.2. 

Point of comparison  

The  previous  comprehensive  humanitarian  evaluation,  published  in  2018 (22),  provided 
evidence of the EU’s performance during 2012-2016 and serves  as  the  baseline for the 
evaluation of the EU’s humanitarian aid interventions during 2017-2022.  This enabled to 
understand the changes to the overall context in which the European Commission operates 
since 2016, the extent to which challenges identified persist, and assess the progress and 
results achieved during the evaluation period.  

Relevance: 

-  The  EU  was  considered  a  principled,  needs-based  donor  with  some  unique 
features,  such  as  its  approach  to  partnerships,  its  field  network  and  its  role  in 
shaping the humanitarian system.  

-  The EU humanitarian aid objectives were considered as very relevant to address 

the continuing global humanitarian needs. 

-  Funding was concentrated in sectors with the most pressing humanitarian needs, 

such as food security, health and protection.   

Identified challenges  

-  Some  areas  for  improvement  and  adjustments  were  noted.  For  example,  the 
evaluation noted that in some cases a longer-term funding approach would have 
been  useful.  The  evaluation  suggested  that  there  was  a  scope  to  involve  local 
partners more in EU-funded actions. The evaluation considered that more could 
be done to boost the link between humanitarian aid and more medium and long-
term development action, in particular to reflect contextual relevant developments 
(funding  gap,  protracted  crises,  etc.)  which  were  affecting  humanitarian  aid 
delivery.  

-  Budget allocations were relevant to the needs of the targeted populations and were 
based on comprehensive and robust needs assessments. As resources were limited 
compared to the overall humanitarian needs, the EU was obliged to make strategic 
choices during the period evaluated.  

(22)  European Commission (2018) Comprehensive evaluation of the European Union humanitarian aid 2016-

2020 

10 

 
 
-  The evaluation pointed out that there was further scope to involve local partners 
to a greater extent in implementing EU-funded measures, in both quantitative and 
qualitative terms.  

Coherence: 

-  The evaluation highlighted that the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality 
and independence were consistently reflected in the Commission’s humanitarian 
policies and strategies and in most EU-funded actions.  

-  Keeping  EU  humanitarian  aid  separate  from  other  external  policy  instruments 

safeguarded its independence.  

-  Externally, the European Commission strengthened cooperation with other donors 

and actively promoted complementarity and coherence 

Identified challenges  

-  More  regular  coordination  with  emerging  donors  and  at  field  level  was 

recommended.  

Effectiveness: 

-  There was ample qualitative evidence that EU-funded actions were effective and 
helped  save  lives,  reduce  morbidity  and  suffering,  and  supported  the  human 
dignity and protection of populations affected by disasters.  

-  The scale of funding for humanitarian aid actions enabled the Commission to have 
a  real  impact  on  the  ground,  addressing  the  needs  of  a  significant  number  of 
beneficiaries in many different areas.  

-  The European Commission played a leading role in key initiatives and policies at 

global level such as the Grand Bargain (23). 

Identified challenges  

-  The European Commission’s advocacy efforts were found to  have been largely 
effective,  but  a  more  strategic  approach  with  clear  priorities  and  actions  would 
have been beneficial.  

Efficiency: 

-  Qualitative  indicators  and  stakeholder  views  suggested  that  the  Commission's 

humanitarian actions were cost-effective overall.  

-  The European Commission (DG ECHO) adopted and promoted innovations and 
best  practices  supporting  cost  effectiveness  of  humanitarian  aid,  such  as  cash 
transfers.  

Identified challenges  

-  The  evaluation  noted  that  DG  ECHO  monitoring  systems  could  be  adapted  to 
make  them  better  able  to  analyse  the  efficiency  and  value  for  money  of  its 
humanitarian interventions.  

(23)  The Grand Bargain is an agreement aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian 

aid, launched during the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016 

11 

 
 
Sustainability: 

-  The  European  Commission  placed  greater  emphasis  on  promoting  nexus 

approaches and on defining exit strategies.  

Identified challenges  

-  Measures  to  further  increase  sustainability  included  promoting  coordination 
between  humanitarian  relief  and  development,  including  beneficiaries  in  the 
design and delivery of aid and providing multi annual funding. 

EU added value: 

-  The EU’s added value was evident in its global field network, focus on forgotten 

crises, and principled approach.  

-  The  European  Commission  (DG  ECHO)  performed  well  in  coordinating  and 

sharing information with Member States. 

-  The EU played a strong role in enhancing the quality of aid through the promotion 

of best practices, innovation, and international initiatives.  

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

Since  the  last  evaluation  (2012-2016),  global  humanitarian  needs  have  continued  to 
dramatically increase. The humanitarian situation has deteriorated in many parts of the 
world  due  to  persistent  conflict  and  insecurity,  the  impact  of  climate  change,  failed 
governance,  epidemiological  outbreaks,  food  insecurity,  as  well  as  the  impact  of  major 
new  or  deteriorating  crises.  In  addition,  in  a  context  of  general  inflation,  costs  of 
humanitarian operations were on the rise, making it even more difficult for donors and aid 
organisations to fulfil the demands for humanitarian assistance. 

The evaluation period was characterised by numerous humanitarian crises, some of which 
are still ongoing or have evolved into protracted crises (24).  

The crisis in Syria began before the start of the evaluation period and remains one of the 
world's  largest  refugee  crises,  due  to  its  severity  and  duration.  The  Rohingya  refugee 
crisis intensified significantly in 2017 and led to a mass exodus of people from Myanmar 
to Bangladesh. The military coup in Myanmar in February 2021 marked the beginning of 
what  is  today  one  of  the  top  5  humanitarian  crises  worldwide.  Afghanistan  has 
experienced  poverty,  food  insecurity,  and  conflict  since  before  2017,  significantly 
worsening following the Taliban's takeover in 2021. Yemen is grappling with one of the 
worst  crises  throughout  the  evaluation  period,  enduring  eight  years  of  armed  conflict, 
resulting  in  a  protracted  situation  with  escalating  humanitarian  needs.  Ethiopia  is 
confronting multiple concurrent humanitarian crises, exacerbated by an escalating drought 
and outbreaks of conflict and violence. In the  Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), 
decades  of  clashes  between  armed  groups,  widespread  violations  of  human  rights,  and 
gender-based  violence  have  caused  unprecedented 
levels  of  protection  needs, 
vulnerabilities and risks, and displacement.   

New  crises  also  emerged  during  the  evaluation  period.  The  growing  political  and 
economic  crisis  in  Venezuela  worsened  living  conditions,  prompting  millions  to  seek 

(24)  UN OCHA. 2020-2023. Global Humanitarian Overview (2020 to 2023). A protracted crisis is a long-
lasting humanitarian emergency where large segments of the population face chronic vulnerability due 
to conflict, natural disasters and weak governance.  

12 

 
 
refuge in neighbouring countries.  Haiti’s social and political instability culminated in an 
acute  security  crisis  characterized  by  failing  governance  with  dire  humanitarian 
consequences.  Increasing  levels  of  armed  violence  in  Central  America  also  prompted 
large-scale displacement, resulting in one of the largest refugee crises in the region and 
requiring a significant increase in humanitarian aid between 2019 and 2020. In Pakistan, 
a series of shocks in 2020 and climate-induced disasters in 2022 led to a heightened need 
for humanitarian assistance. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine since February 
2022 forced millions of people out of their homes, generating alarming humanitarian needs 
among the Ukrainian population and causing severe spillover effects globally, in particular 
on food security driving needs to unprecedented levels.  

In some cases,  humanitarian conditions  improved during the evaluation period. In 
Libya,  humanitarian  needs  peaked  in  the  initial  half  of  the  evaluation  period  due  to 
conflict, violence and political and economic instability. However, the ceasefire agreement 
in  2020 marked a turning point, leading to improved conditions. Similarly, in  Iraq, the 
conclusion of large-scale military operations against the so-called Islamic State led to a 
progressive shift from humanitarian to development-focused planning.   

Overall,  as  a  result,  humanitarian  crises  –  and  thus  the  nature  of  humanitarian  needs  – 
continuously increased in number, complexity, and severity. The number of people in need 
of humanitarian assistance increased from 136 million in 2018 to 324 million in 2022 (25).    

In  the  context  of  growing  humanitarian  needs,  the  humanitarian  system  scaled  up  its 
response  between  2017  and  2022,  with  estimated  total  international  humanitarian 
assistance  growing  by  89.9%,  from  USD  21.8  billion  in  2017  to  USD  41.4  billion  in 
2022 (26).  A  particularly  stark  increase  (38%)  in  humanitarian  funding  was  recorded 
between 2021 and 2022 rising from USD 30 billion to USD 41.4 billion. This contrasted 
with  the  slower  growing  trend  that  characterised  the  humanitarian  system  during  the 
evaluation  period. This  increase  responded  to  record  appeals,  with  coordinated  plan 
requirements standing at USD 51.6 billion. This was largely driven by appeals for Ukraine, 
as well as other appeals, such as for Haiti and Ethiopia.  

Although  international  humanitarian  assistance  funding  grew  throughout  the 
evaluation period, needs and funding requirements increased at a far higher pace. As 
a  result,  the  humanitarian  funding  gap  increased. In  2017,  the  volume  of  unmet 
requirements amounted to USD 9.9 billion. By 2022, unmet needs increased to USD 21.3 
billion (27).  

EU Humanitarian aid funding 2017-2022 

Between 2017 and 2022, the European Commission continued to be one of the world’s 
leading humanitarian aid donors, although with a decreasing share (EU humanitarian 
aid  funding ranged from 9.7% of global total humanitarian funding in  2017 to  6.3% in 
2022). During the evaluation period, according to UN OCHA (United Nations Office for 
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) FTS data (28), the European Commission was 
the  third  largest  individual  donor  after  the  US  and  Germany.  The  European  Union’s 
humanitarian  aid  budget  remained  relatively  stable  during  the  evaluation  period,  with 
fewer fluctuations compared to other donors. Over the evaluation period, the EU provided 

(25)  Global Humanitarian Overview (UN OCHA) 

(26)  UN OCHA. OCHA Financial Tracking Service., data extracted on 30.01.2024, and UN OCHA (2023) 
Global Humanitarian Overview.   

(27)  Figures extracted from the Global Humanitarian Overview (UN OCHA) 

(28)  UN OCHA, Financial Tracking Service  

13 

 
 
funding to support the implementation of 3,386 actions, with a total value of EUR 13,086 
million (29).  

Figure 2- EU humanitarian aid funding (contracted amounts) per year 

Source: ICF analysis based on EVA data, extracted 26 February 2024  

Between 2017 and 2022, the initial available humanitarian aid funding amounted to EUR 
8 billion. This budget was increased through the reception of substantial reinforcements of 
EUR 5.1 billion, representing 39% of the total available budget (EUR 13.1 billion). These 
reinforcements were crucial for the EU to remain a principled humanitarian actor providing 
a  credible  level  of  humanitarian  funding  in  a  drastically  deteriorating  humanitarian 
landscape. The reinforcements have been predominantly sourced from the EU’s reserves 
(30), redeployments from within the MFF and amending budgets. Additional funding also 
came from the European Development Fund and external assigned revenue from Member 
States.  

The  top  10  partners  funded  during  the  evaluation  period  included  UN  agencies  (World 
Food  Programme  (WFP),  the  UN  Refugee  Agency  (UNHCR),  UNICEF,  International 
Organization  for  Migration  (IOM)),  International  Organisations  (IFRC,  ICRC),  and 
international NGOs (Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), International Rescue Committee 
(IRC),  Danish  Refugee  Council  (DRC),  Action  Against  Hunger/  Action  contre  la  Faim 
(ACF).  

Figure 3 - Top 10 funded partners 

Source: ICF analysis based on EVA data, extracted 26 February 2024.  

(29) ICF analysis based on EVA (ECHO Visual Analytics) data, extracted February 26, 2024 

(30)  Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve (SEAR), Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR) 

14 

 
 
 
As  a  global  donor,  the  European  Union  supported  humanitarian  aid  and  disaster  relief 
efforts worldwide, in five regions – Africa (the region receiving most funding), Europe, 
Middle East and Northern Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean.  
Excluding the modality of multi-purpose cash transfer (MPCT) (31), the top three funded 
sectors  across  the  evaluation  period  were  food  security  and  livelihoods  (EUR  2,275 
million,  17%),  health  (EUR  1,689  million,  13%)  and  protection  (EUR  1,501  million, 
11%) (32).  These  sectors  were  consistently  the  top  three  funded  sectors  per  year.  Food 
security and livelihoods was the most funded sector, except in 2020 and 2021, where health 
was the most funded due to the COVID pandemic.  

Main developments during the 2017-2022 period  

As mentioned above, the main policy developments in the area of humanitarian aid during 
the evaluation period were embedded in the European Commission’s Communication of 
March 2021 (33). By the end of the evaluation period, key actions across all priority areas 
of the 2021 Communication had progressed (34), addressing also conclusions of the latest 
comprehensive  evaluation.  In  some  areas,  the  Commission  had  already  delivered  on 
specific  commitments  set  out  in  the  Communication  or  presented  a  clear  roadmap  and 
timeframe  for  delivery  (such  as  the  European  Humanitarian  Response  Capacity,  or  the 
organisation  of  the  first  European  Humanitarian  Forum).  In  others,  it  had  engaged  in  a 
longer-term strategic effort with Member States and key partners (such as on the promotion 
of  IHL  compliance,  or  work  on  expanding  the  donor  base).  Specifically,  significant 
progress  was  made  on  the  implementation  of  commitments  taken  under  the  “Grand 
Bargain”, - greater transparency, reduced management costs, needs assessments, multi-
year  arrangements,  accountability  to  affected  populations  -  with  the  ultimate  goal  of 
enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the humanitarian response. 

The first set of changes aimed to improve DG ECHO’s relations and arrangements with 
its partners, with a focus on simplification and efficiency. 

  Since 2021, the EU Humanitarian Partnership Certificate 2021-2027 has replaced 
the  previous  Framework  Partnership  Agreements  that  used  to  govern  the 
relations  with  partner  NGOs.  The  new  partnership  certificate  was  developed  to 
ensure  that  partner  NGOs  applying  and  potentially  receiving  EU  funding  and 
implementing  humanitarian  projects  met  specific  administrative  and  compliance 
standards (in line with the provisions of the 2018 Financial Regulation). Under the 
new process,  partner NGOs  must undergo an  ex-ante assessment.  If  conditions  are 
met, they are awarded a Partnership Certificate, which remains valid for 7 years. In 
addition  to  strengthened  accountability,  the  prolongation  of  the  duration  of  the 
partnership  to  7  years  (aligned  to  the  duration  of  the  Multi-annual  Financial 
Framework)  has  brought  significant  simplification:  under  the  previous  Framework 
Partnership Agreement, DG ECHO and partner NGOs had to renew their partnership 
agreements every 4 years.   

  The framework agreements regulating DG ECHO’s partnerships with international 
organisations – namely the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the 

(31)  In  2016,  DG  ECHO  introduced  a  specific  category,  MPCT.  The  overall  funding  dedicated  to  this 

modality was EUR 3,208 million, representing 24% of overall DG ECHO assistance and cover 

(32) ICF analysis based on EVA data, extracted on 26 February 2024. 

(33)  See Appendix of the Communication: overview of key actions COM (2021)110 final  

(34)  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  on  the  follow-up  of  the  Communication  on  the  EU’s 

Humanitarian Aid Action: new challenges, same principles. SWD (2022)52 final 

15 

 
 
International  Federation  of  the  Red  Cross  and  Red  Crescent  National  Societies 
(IFRC)) were adapted in 2022. The framework agreements enshrine the partnership 
between DG ECHO and the IOs by setting out the contractual terms of a stable and 
long-term cooperation. These agreements facilitate and simplify the cooperation on 
individual  proposals  to  deliver  humanitarian  aid.  The  new  Financial  Framework 
Partnership  Agreement  (FFPA)  replaced  the  former  Framework  Partnership 
Agreement (FPA) to keep the framework up to date with EU legislative framework.  

 

In  addition,  in  2020,  DG  ECHO  began  to  explore  new  ways  of  working  with  its 
partners, particularly through pilot Programmatic Partnerships (PPs) (35). The aim 
of the PPs was to promote a strategic multiannual approach, by supporting initiatives 
of  shared  interest  between  DG  ECHO  and  its  partners,  while  also  providing  more 
predictable  funding.  The  pilot  Programmatic  Partnerships  covered  a  three-years 
period,  while  in  principle,  humanitarian  actions  are  funded  on  a  yearly  basis.  This 
approach responded to concerns raised by stakeholders and highlighted in the 2018 
evaluation.   

DG ECHO first signed four pilot Programmatic Partnerships with NGO partners - 
ACTED, Concern, International Rescue Committee, and Save the Children-. In 2021, 
three  additional  Programmatic  Partnerships  were  signed  with  UN  agencies  and 
International Organisations: the United Nations International Children’s Emergency 
Fund (UNICEF), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 
and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). In 
2022,  the  third  –  and  last  –  pilot  phase  was  launched  with  ICRC  and  OCHA.  An 
internal  lessons  learnt  exercise  was  conducted  in  2021  and  allowed  to  adjust  the 
mechanism  taking  account  of  the  experience  gained  during  the  first  wave  of 
implementation and of the feedback of both DG ECHO and the partners. As of 2023, 
DG  ECHO  decided  to  roll  out  the  PPs  by  incorporating  the  model  in  geographic 
Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs) (36).  

In line with the Grand Bargain and the 2021 Communication, and as outlined in the 2018 
evaluation,  the European Commission continued to  support the localisation agenda,  to 
promote  the  inclusion  of  local  implementing  partners  in  the  projects  it  supports.    The 
adoption in 2023 of a guidance note on the promotion of equitable partnerships with local 
responders reflected the outcome of consultations and development of the approach over 
the evaluation period (37). 

During the evaluation period, DG ECHO continued to develop a number of policies and 
guidance  that  outline  the  Commission’s  position  on  key  issues  and  provide  concrete 
recommendations to its implementing partners. The overall objective was to ensure quality, 
coherence,  and  accountability  of  EU  funded  humanitarian  operations.  DG  ECHO 

(35)  European  Commission,  DG  ECHO  Programmatic  Partnerships  aim  to  develop  a  multi-annual 
partnership over a period of at least 24 months, or longer when  relevant.  They are meant to support 
strategic and geographic priorities/initiatives of shared interest between DG ECHO and the partner (or 
consortium  of  partners),  while  addressing  humanitarian  emergency  needs  in  a  more  effective  and 
efficient manner. 

(36) Each year, the European Commission adopts a 'worldwide decision' covering all the humanitarian aid 
actions  the  Commission  expects  to  fund  during  a  given  period.  In  the  context  of  this  decision,  the 
Commission  prepares  and  publishes  humanitarian  implementation  plans  (HIPs)  which  provide  more 
detailed information on the operational priorities identified 

(37) European Commission, DG ECHO (2023). Promoting Equitable Partnerships with Local Responders in 

Humanitarian Settings.  

16 

 
 
 
published  policies  on  disability  inclusion (38),  education  in  emergencies (39),  and 
logistics (40),  addressing  some  gaps  identified  by  the  previous  evaluation.  In  2021,  DG 
ECHO  published  the  disaster  preparedness  guidance  note (41).  In  2022,  DG  ECHO 
published minimum environmental requirements (42), which became mandatory in 2023, 
and published associated guidance on their implementation in 2022 (43). In addition, during 
the evaluation period, DG ECHO started to undertake a review of its guidance on two of 
the main core sectors, food security and  health,  with  the adoption  foreseen  for the first 
quarter of 2025.  An evaluation on the WASH sector was started  to assess whether the 
policy  needs  updating.  Similar  reflections  started  to  review  the  policies  relating  to 
Nutrition and Gender.  

The European Commission also developed new tools and modalities during the evaluation 
period,  in  order  to  enhance  its  flexibility  and  better  respond  to  crises.    The  European 
Humanitarian  Response  Capacity  (EHRC),  launched  in  March  2022,  enabled  the 
Commission to directly intervene and ensure the rapid delivery of humanitarian assistance 
by  mobilising  operational  tools  (e.g.,  stockpile  of  relief  items,  aviation  services, 
warehousing, experts) and putting them at disposal of humanitarian partners, EU Member 
States and emergency operators. The capacity drew on the experience gained during the 
COVID 19 pandemic, including the use of repatriation flights to transport humanitarian 
cargo  and  the  establishment  of  the  “EU  Humanitarian  Air  Bridge” (44)  to  support  the 
delivery  of  essential  humanitarian  aid  to  third  countries.  The  Emergency  Response 
Coordination Centre (ERCC) is managing the EHRC, thus ensuring close coordination and 
complementarity with the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM).  

In the field of coordination and advocacy, some areas for improvements were identified in 
the 2018 evaluation.  On the basis of the idea put forward in the 2021 Communication, the 
European Commission organised, jointly with the French Presidency of the Council of the 
European Union, the first European Humanitarian Forum on 21-23 March 2022, which 
became an annual platform for a strategic exchange between the EU’s political decision-
makers  and  the  wider  international  humanitarian  community  on  key  humanitarian 
challenges.  Further editions  were organised in  2023 and 2024, in  cooperation with  the 
respective EU Presidencies.  

Progress on the monitoring framework  

Since the previous evaluation period, DG ECHO has adapted its evaluation and monitoring 
methods to align with evolving policy priorities. In particular, DG ECHO agreed on a set 

(38)  European  Commission,  DG  ECHO  (2019)  The  inclusion  of  persons  with  disabilities  in  EU-funded 

humanitarian aid operations  

(39)  European Commission, DG ECHO (2019) Education in Emergencies in EU-funded Humanitarian Aid 

Operations  

(40)  European Commission, DG ECHO (2022) Humanitarian Logistics Policy  

(41)  European Commission, DG ECHO (2021) Disaster Preparedness  

(42)  European  Commission,  DG  ECHO  (2022)  DG  ECHO’s  minimum  environmental  requirements  and 

recommendations  

(43)  Guidance on the operationalisation of the minimum environmental requirements and recommendations 

for EU-funded humanitarian aid operations.  

(44)  EU Humanitarian Air Bridge - European Commission 

17 

 
 
of standard Key Result Indicators better adapted to report on the humanitarian aid projects 
performance (45).  

However  standard  KRIs  were  not  consistently  used  by  partners  across  sectors  (who 
preferred using their own “custom” indicators), and where such indicators were used, their 
reporting was not done systematically and consistently by all partners.  In addition to the 
monitoring and reporting done by its partners, the Commission’s field staff continued to 
conduct regular field visits, including meeting with beneficiaries (each EU-funded action 
is visited at least once per year, with the purpose of verifying the progress of the action, 
detect issues to be addressed, and identify needs for adjustment of actions. For example, 
92,4% of projects completed in 2022 were “monitored on site”). 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

[effectiveness, efficiency, coherence] 

Effectiveness 

The European Union provides humanitarian relief throughout the world in a principled and 
needs based manner. The available humanitarian funding is used to assist as many people 
in  need  in  the  greatest  number  of  countries  as  possible,  through  a  swift,  efficient,  and 
comprehensive response.  

In 2022, in response and in line with its principled mandate, EU humanitarian aid provided 
emergency  assistance  globally,  supporting  95%  of  the  countries  targeted  by  the  UN 
appeals (46). Some 106.4 million direct beneficiaries were estimated to have been reached 
in 2022 (47).  The EU supports humanitarian action in more than 110 countries, most of 
them  on  the  upper  end  of  the  OECD  fragility  index,  and  with  very  limited  coping 
capacities.  

Effectiveness of EU-funded actions 

80% (80/100) of partners consulted during the external evaluation agreed that EU-funded 
interventions generated the expected results and achieved their objectives. Partners also 
indicated  that  EU-funded  interventions  played  an  important  role  in  improving  living 
conditions  of  affected  people  (48),  reducing  mortality  (49),  alleviating  suffering  (50), 
reducing vulnerability and improving resilience (51), and preserving the dignity of life (52). 

(45)  See  for  example  section  6  of  the  Humanitarian  protection  thematic  policy  document  “monitoring, 

evaluation, and indicators” 

(46)  Humanitarian Aid, Programme performance statement 2023 

(47)  DG  ECHO  Annual  Activity  Report,  2023,  data  collected  from  partners,  estimation  methodology 

described in the “efficiency” section  

(48) Survey with partners=75% (75/100). 

(49) Survey with partners=69% (69/100). 

(50) Survey with partners=64% (64/100). 

(51) Survey with partners=61% (61/100). 

(52) Survey with partners=73% (73/100). 

18 

 
 
DG  ECHO’s  HIPs  (Humanitarian  Implementation  Plans) (53),  detailing  operational 
priorities  per  regions  or  sectors,  were  informed  by  thorough  needs  assessments (54) 
allowing DG ECHO and its partners to identify the most pressing needs within the HIPs 
and  comprehensively  addressed  all  acute  needs.  The  consultation  mechanisms 
underpinning the needs assessments of DG ECHO’s HIPs were crucial to ensuring their 
relevance to the humanitarian contexts, at regional or country level.  

EU humanitarian aid interventions were systematically guided by the HIPs, ensuring that 
funding  was  directed  to  the  most  urgent  and  under  addressed  humanitarian  needs.    For 
example, in 2022, the EU provided humanitarian assistance in over 80 countries, across a 
wide  range  of  sectors,  ensuring  coverage  of  all  areas  with  critical  humanitarian  needs, 
including both sudden-onset disasters and protracted crises (55).  

These  findings  were  echoed  across  the  consultation  activities.  DG  ECHO’s  needs 
assessment  was  well-regarded  by  the  majority  of  stakeholders  consulted  for  this 
evaluation (56), who noted that it effectively identified the most pressing needs, ensuring 
that humanitarian efforts were aligned with most urgent priorities.  

The  EU's  sectoral  funding  closely  aligned  with  the  needs  and  share  of  total  funding 
allocated: despite minor differences in sector categorisation, all the main sectors for which 
funding was required as per FTS data were covered.   

For  example, the evaluation  of  the European Union’s humanitarian interventions in  the 
food  assistance  and  nutrition  sectors  (57)  found  that  they  made  a  strong  contribution  to 
improving  food  security  and  nutritional  status  among  beneficiaries  and  contributed  to 
achieving  the  main  desired  impact  of  saving  and  preserving  life.  EU-funded  actions 
improved food consumption and the nutritional status of beneficiaries, alleviating suffering 
and saving lives (58).  

In Yemen, the European Commission supported humanitarian responses contributing to 
averting famine, which was consistently outlined as the largest risk by the international 
community, as well as bringing under control the largest-ever recorded cholera outbreak. 
Effectiveness  was  also  noted  in  food  security,  reaching  6-13.5  million  beneficiaries 
through  in-kind  food,  cash  or  voucher  support,  and  improved  food  consumption  scores 
(FCS) (59). 

The feedback from consultations confirmed that EU-funded actions were effective overall 
and  generated  both  non-quantifiable  and  quantifiable  results  and  impacts  on  the  life  of 

(53)  See also section 2.1 describing the HIP process  
(54) DG ECHO undertook comprehensive needs assessments to ensure needs-based strategies by combining 
quantitative indicators from global indexes (top-down approach) and qualitative information from field staff 
and experts (bottom-up approach). Throughout the evaluation period, DG ECHO relied on INFORM Risk 
data,  and  in  2021,  it  revised  its  methodology  to  place  more  emphasis  on quantitative data,  incorporating 
INFORM Severity data and People in Need (PIN) values.  

(55) DG ECHO Annual Activity Report 2022  

(56)  Public consultation, interviews with stakeholders  

(57)  Combined evaluation of the European Union's humanitarian interventions in the Sahel and in the food 

assistance and nutrition sectors 2016-2020 - Publications Office of the EU 

(58)  Meta evaluation 

(59)  Meta-evaluation,  Evaluation  of  the  European  Union’s  humanitarian  interventions  in  Yemen  and  in 

humanitarian access, 2015-2020 - Publications Office of the EU 

19 

 
 
 
assisted populations (60). This was substantiated by the beneficiaries (61), at project level, 
who  indicated  that  the  assistance  received  addressed  their  needs.  For  instance,  all 
beneficiaries  consulted  in  Ethiopia  and  Ukraine  (62)indicated  that  the  support  received 
helped their household to address some of their basic needs. Illustrative examples of results 
and impacts include the improvement of beneficiaries’ well-being and living conditions, 
enhanced food security, healthcare, safety, and nutritional status, increased awareness of 
disaster preparedness issues, and improved ability to cope with immediate after-effects of 
disasters. 

Examples of results and impacts achieved  on the livelihoods and well-being of assisted 
populations  -  where  consultation  with  the  assisted  population  was  a  component  of  the 
thematic or geographical evaluation – are shown in the box below. 

Findings from the meta-evaluation 

Türkiye. The evaluation of the ESSN-2 (63) (Emergency Social Safety Net 2), funded 
and implemented within the framework of the Facility for Refugees in Türkiye, found 
that  DG  ECHO’s  assistance  had  positive  impacts  on  beneficiaries’  ability  to  access 
health, education, and protection services. Refugee households were also more likely to 
send their children to school. 

Iraq,  Syria,  Yemen.  Beneficiaries  consulted  in  previous  evaluations  covering  these 
countries  were  satisfied  with  the  services  provided  as  part  of  DG  ECHO’s  response. 
They underlined how the support received had been crucial to improving their ability to 
manage the crisis and increase their resilience.   

Afghanistan. Health-related programmes funded by the EU were valued. Beneficiaries 
from  two settlements  in  Herat  reported that the  EU-funded psychosocial intervention 
significantly  reduced  violence  levels,  including  domestic  violence.  Children  from  a 
school in Herat affirmed that awareness-raising sessions on land mines and remnants of 
weapons  improved  their  knowledge  about  safety.  WASH  interventions  enhanced 
general awareness and knowledge of the basics of personal and communal hygiene in 
settlements among beneficiaries.  

Disaster  Preparedness.  The  evaluation  of  DG  ECHO’s  interventions  in  Disaster 
Preparedness (64) found that DG ECHO support to Disaster Preparedness made tangible 
contributions  at  national  and  local  levels.  The  DG  ECHO  community  Disaster 
Preparedness  projects  examined have been found to  build the capacity of beneficiary 
communities, government  agencies, and implementing partners to  cope  with  the next 

(60)  Meta evaluation. The majority of partners and local implementing partners agreed that DG ECHO played 
an  important  (or  crucial)  role  in  improving  the  living  conditions  of  affected  people,  reducing 
morbidity/mortality and preserving the dignity of life.  

(61)  To note that – as explained in the external study - data collected from assisted populations are limited 
and fragmented. While the feedback from assisted population was collected during monitoring missions 
of DG ECHO staff, this was not analysed and reported in a standardised manner in project documents. 
The direct consultation of assisted population may also prove challenging in some difficult contexts with 
limited or no access and for safety and security reasons, including for the evaluation teams. 

(62)  as part of the external evaluation study, the evaluation team carried out field visits and organised focus 

groups with assisted people  

(63)  Evaluation of the Emergency Social Safety Net Programme, January 2018-March 2020  

(64)  Evaluation of the EU’s interventions in disaster preparedness, 2015-2020 

20 

 
 
 
 
disaster,  including  applying  knowledge  and  lessons  to  engage  in  more  timely  and 
effective humanitarian response operations (i.e. contingency plans). Assisted population 
consulted felt more prepared following Disaster Preparedness efforts funded by the EU. 
Effective  community-level  examples  include  functioning  early-warning  systems, 
contingency planning, logistics and stockpiling.   

Venezuela.  Assisted  populations  consulted  in  the  evaluation  of  DG  ECHO’s 
humanitarian  interventions  in  the  Venezuelan  regional  crisis (65)  reported  that  DG 
ECHO’s health interventions strengthened their health conditions. This was achieved by 
enhancing good health habits, improving the conditions of the communities.  

Effectiveness of the humanitarian thematic policies  

The  external  supporting  study  assessed  that  EU-funded  actions  addressed  the  needs  of 
different vulnerable groups; infants and children under five, persons with disabilities and 
pregnant  women  features  among  the  most  targeted  groups (66).  Overall,  this  finding 
resonates  with  those of the previous  evaluation,  which investigated the  extent to which 
EU-funded actions targeted the most vulnerable groups.  

For instance, concerning the Education in Emergencies policy, data reported in DG ECHO 
annual  activity  reports  showed  a  considerable  increase  in  the  number  of  children 
reached during the evaluation period (from 1.86 million in 2019 to 6.0 million in 2022). 
On gender, analysis (67) of the Gender-Age Marker (68) shows an overall improvement in 
the integration of gender and age considerations into humanitarian responses supported by 
the  European  Commission  over  the  evaluation  period  (between  86%  (2019)  and  95% 
(2022)  of  actions  integrated  gender  and  age  considerations).  The  Disability  inclusion 
guidance  helped  steer  clear  progress  in  terms  of  the  attention  paid  to  persons  with 
disabilities. 

In line with the guidance note on disaster preparedness, DG ECHO continued to encourage 
its partners to include preparedness and risk considerations into all humanitarian actions 
they supported. DG ECHO continued to  systematically include resilience strengthening 
objectives in the Humanitarian Implementation Plans.  The analysis (69) of the resilience 
marker (70)  shows  that  the  great  majority  of  funded  interventions  integrated  resilience 
considerations. The analysis suggests that most funded actions (86% on average) included 
measures to strengthen local preparedness capacity to respond or adapt to identified risks.  

The  assessment  of  thematic  evaluations  suggests  that  DG  ECHO’s  sectoral/thematic 
policies  contributed  to  enhancing  the  quality  of  DG  ECHO’s  responses,  although  the 
impact  varied  across  sectors.  DG  ECHO’s  partners  and  local  implementing  partners 

(65)  DG ECHO’s response to the Venezuelan regional crisis, 2017-2021 (combined with UNHCR) 

(66)  Meta evaluation, project review of DG-ECHO funded actions in the 2017-2022 period, page 142 of the 

external evaluation,  

(67)  Gender-Age Marker assessment report (DG ECHO, 2021) gender-age_marker_2018-2021_web.pdf 

(68)  The gender-age marker is a tool designed to ensure that humanitarian aid projects address the specific 
needs  and  capacities  of  different  genders  and  age  groups.  It  is  compulsory  for  partners  to  fill  in  the 
marker, an indicator of the categories of people targeted and reached by EU funded actions  

(69)   External evaluation, Review of DG ECHO annual activity reports and HIPs 2027-2022  

(70)  The  resilience  marker  developed  by  DG  ECHO  is  a  tool  designed  to  assess  how  well  humanitarian 

actions funded by DG ECHO integrate resilience considerations.  

21 

 
 
 
considered the thematic policies helpful in improving the design of their funded action (by 
providing guidelines on action design or enhancing the mainstreaming of certain aspects 
such as disability and protection).  This was particularly the case for the protection, disaster 
preparedness, gender, and cash transfer policies.  The WASH and nutrition policies, on the 
other hand, were perceived by some DG ECHO partners to have had less impact on the 
design of the funded interventions (71). 

This finding is in line with the previous evaluation where most of DG ECHO partners and 
local  implementing  partners  believed  that  the  thematic  policies  facilitated  the  effective 
delivery of actions.  

Similarly,  the  thematic  policies  in  general  contributed  to  the  prioritisation  of  actions  to 
fund. Most thematic policies include specific criteria to be considered by DG ECHO Staff 
when  evaluating  proposals  and  allocating  funding.  Evidence  collected  during  the 
evaluation  shows  that  in  most  sectors,  EU  humanitarian  interventions  were  generally 
aligned with the thematic policies.  

Based  on  consultations  and  documents  review,  the  external  supporting  study  provided 
some examples of ways in which thematic policies contributed to enhancing the quality of 
implementation of humanitarian responses. These included: promoting broader acceptance 
of  certain  standards;  enhancing  the  importance  of  certain  sectors  (e.g.  EiE,  disability 
inclusion,  logistics,  environment);  and  ensuring  that  actions  were  aligned  with 
humanitarian standards and best practices.  

The cash-first principle in the cash transfer policy, for example, was considered as a key 
factor enhancing the quality and effectiveness of EU- funded interventions.  As explained 
in the policy, updated in 2022, preference for cash assistance is grounded in evidence that 
cash  programming  is  more  efficient,  faster,  and  more  people  centred  (cash  is  people’s 
preferred modality of assistance in most cases). During the evaluation period, the share of 
cash in DG ECHO’s programming consistently increased - in 2022 it represented 22%.   

Over the evaluation period, DG ECHO has been actively building internal capacity on cash 
(through trainings), working with partners and supporting them in improving their cash 
programming, and advocating towards other donors and agencies.  

The thematic policies also served as guiding principles for monitoring the implementation 
of funded actions by DG ECHO staff.  

Partners were generally familiar with DG ECHO’s policies and guidelines (72), while local 
implementing  partners  generally  had  a  good  level  of  knowledge  of  most  DG  ECHO’s 
thematic policies (73). The policies on protection, gender and cash transfer appeared best 
known by DG ECHO partners while the health, nutrition, supply chain and logistics, and 

(71)  External evaluation, survey with DG ECHO partners  

(72)  External support Study –Interviews with DG ECHO partners (11 out of 24); Survey with DG ECHO 
partners (Did not know the policy: food assistance: 24%, 24 out of 100; WASH :19%, 19 out of 100; 
cash transfers: 14%, 14 out of 100; nutrition: 25%, 25 out of 100; DRR/DP: 15%, 15 out of 100; gender: 
13%, 13 out of 100; health: 20%, 20 out of 100; protection: 11%, 11 out of 100; S&S: 28%, 28 out of 
100; EiE: 26%, 26 out of 100; supply chain and logistics: 26%, 26 out of 100). 

(73)  External support Study –Interviews with local implementing partners (3 out of 11); Survey with local 
implementing partners (did not know the policy: food assistance: 38%, 24 out of 63; WASH: 38%, 24 
out of 63; cash transfers: 37%, 23 out of 63; nutrition 49%, 31 out of 63; DRR/DP: 44%, 28 out of 63; 
gender: 30%, 19 out of 63; health: 51%, 32 out of 63; protection: 24%, 15 out of 63; S&S: 49%, 31 out 
of 63; EiE: 43%, 27 out of 63; supply chain and logistics: 49%, 31 out of 63). 

22 

 
 
Shelter  and  Settlement  policies  were  less  known.  Knowledge  of  policies  among  local 
implementing partners varied considerably  between sectors. The protection, gender and 
cash  transfer  policies  were  best  known,  while  the  health,  nutrition,  supply  chain  and 
logistics, and S&S policies were not known by about half of the respondents interviewed 
in the context of the external support study.  

However, the extent to which (and how) DG ECHO’s partners and implementing partners 
used  the  policies  differed  considerably  across  thematic  areas.  The  previous  evaluation 
similarly  found  that  most  DG  ECHO  partners  used  policies  to  design  and  implement 
actions, but that their use and level of awareness varied across sectors and geographies. 

During  the  evaluation  period,  DG  ECHO  made  efforts  to  enhance  its  partners’ 
understanding of the thematic policies and facilitate their implementation. These included: 
strategic and high-level dialogues with key Partners, information and training (e.g. training 
sessions,  e-learnings,  workshops,  webinars  and  discussions  on  the  implementation); 
providing feedback to partners on the implementation and how to ensure alignment, as part 
of the appraisal of proposals and monitoring visits to funded actions; adding a thematic 
policy annex to  the HIPs.  The annex outlines the general  principles, policy framework, 
assistance  modalities,  cross-cutting  issues  (e.g.  risk-informed  approach,  protection 
mainstreaming,  accountability  to  affected  populations,  gender-age  mainstreaming)  and 
thematic guidelines that need to be taken into account by DG ECHO’s partners in designing 
humanitarian interventions supported by the European Commission.  

In  addition  to  the  impact  on  the  quality  of  the  European  Commission  responses,  the 
external  evaluation  provided  evidence  on  the  positive  contribution  of  DG  ECHO’s 
thematic policies at  a broader strategic/policy level.  Through the thematic policies, DG 
ECHO  played  a  leading  role  in  putting  some  topics  at  the  forefront  in  humanitarian 
responses,  such  as  the  use  of  cash,  the  importance  of  disability  inclusion,  disaster 
preparedness, and environmental considerations.  Some of DG ECHO’s thematic policies 
were also considered to have influenced other donors’ (e.g. Member States) and partners’ 
approaches to humanitarian aid. For example, one DG ECHO partner mentioned using DG 
ECHO’s thematic policy on disability in developing their own organisational policy. 

This finding is in line with the previous evaluation, where most DG ECHO partners and 
local  implementing  partners  believed  that  the  thematic  policies  facilitated  the  effective 
delivery  of  actions.  However,  some  factors  might  have  presented  challenges  to  the 
effectiveness  of the thematic policies. For example, some partners consulted during the 
external  evaluation  mentioned  as  a  challenge  the  growing  number  of  thematic  policies 
requirements (74), in some cases their insufficient capacity and resources to implement all 
policy requirements; and contextual challenges (for example government restrictions and 
logistical challenges). However, these identified challenges did not affect implementation 
of  thematic  policies  on  the  ground  and  DG  ECHO  made  efforts  to  financially  support 
partners on implementation of policies (through funding allocated under the ERC HIP (75) 
and since 2023, the strategic humanitarian supply chain and logistics HIP).   

Effectiveness of partnerships 

The different types of partnership models and the new partnership initiatives launched and 
implemented by DG ECHO during the evaluation period, facilitated strategic engagement 

(74)  External support study, interview with ECHO partners (10 out of 24).  

(75)  Enhanced Response Capacity HIP, 

23 

 
 
with its partners and the achievement of common objectives, leveraging the strengths and 
particularities offered by both DG ECHO and its partners. 

For  example,  the  evaluation  of  DG  ECHO’s  partnership  with  ICRC (76)  found  that  the 
partnership was mutually beneficial and brought added value to DG ECHO and ICRC’s 
responses  to  humanitarian  needs.  Under  this  partnership,  DG  ECHO  benefitted  from 
ICRC’s access to hard-to-reach areas, ICRC’s role in promoting IHL and their expertise 
and reliability in delivering humanitarian aid. The evaluation of DG ECHO’s partnership 
with UNHCR (77) also found that they were well aligned in their strategic priorities and 
objectives, approaches to needs assessments, vulnerability, and risk analysis.  

Some  stakeholders  consulted  as  part  of  the  evaluation  process  outlined  that  the  newly 
introduced  pilot  PPs  provided  predictability,  enabling  partners  to  focus  on  longer-term 
priorities and adapt their capacities accordingly. They also facilitated stronger relationships 
between  DG  ECHO  and  its  partners  and  allowed  them  to  explore  innovative  ways  to 
enhance crisis response (e.g. on issues such as localisation or anticipatory actions) (78). 

Some  stakeholders  consulted  as  part  of  the  evaluation  process  reported  success  of 
multiannual strategies in achieving humanitarian objectives. The extended timeframe and 
predictable funding allowed DG ECHO partners to strengthen community trust, enhance 
local actor capabilities, and foster ownership by national and local governments. Feedback 
from  the  assisted  population  during  the  field  visits  conducted  as  part  of  the  evaluation 
process indicated high satisfaction with the services provided through DG ECHO pilot PP 
funding. For example, in Ethiopia, targeted training and the establishment of health posts 
in  remote  areas led to  improved vaccination  coverage, hygiene practices, nutrition,  and 
maternal and child health (79).  

Some partners reported concerns with regards to some elements of their partnership with 
DG  ECHO,  including  among  others,  increased  administrative  burden  (which  may  be 
related to  the new policy developments  deemed  to  enhance the quality  of humanitarian 
action) and scrutiny (which is necessary for transparency and accountability reasons). The 
administrative  and  reporting  requirements  in  the  framework  of  pilot  PPs  were  also 
mentioned. The level of administrative and reporting requirements for pilot PPs was the 
same as for non-PPs. However, given the scale of these pilot PP (multi-country; important 
allocations), the volume of reporting was consequently substantial.  Close reporting, but 
not beyond usual requirements, was justified by the objective to improve the quality of 
interventions  under  this  modality  and  to  meet  the  transparency  and  accountability 
standards.  

This  is  to  be  balanced  with  the  fact  that  since  the  introduction  of  the  Humanitarian 
Partnership Certificate 2021-2027, certified NGO Partners can apply directly for funding 
for specific humanitarian actions without undergoing a capacity assessment for each EU 
funding application. This Certificate enhances accountability and transparency in the use 

(76) Combined evaluation of the European Union’s humanitarian interventions in the Horn of Africa 2016-

2020, and DG ECHO’s partnership with the International Committee of the Red Cross  

(77)  Combined evaluation of DG ECHO’s response to the Venezuelan Regional Crisis and of DG ECHO’s 

partnership with UNHCR, 2017-2021  

(78)  External support study, thematic workshop on programmatic partnerships  

(79)  External support study, case study on pilot programmatic partnerships  

24 

 
 
of  EU  funds  while  also  reducing  the  administrative  burden  for  both  DG ECHO  and  its 
Partners. 

Effectiveness at strategic level 

At strategic level, the external study noted that the European Commission’s efforts 
contributed  towards  achieving  the  objectives  stated  in  the  HAR  and  other  global 
frameworks.  

This was accomplished through the European Commission’s efforts and role in: 
−  Advocating for needs-based delivery of principled humanitarian aid. 
− 

− 

Increasing  visibility  of  humanitarian  crises  and  needs.  In  the  LAC  region,  for 
example, the EU, among the first donors to fund interventions in Venezuela (80), 
was vocal about the growing humanitarian needs resulting from the crisis, playing 
a substantive role in leading donor’s groups.  
Improving  donor  practices.  The  European  Commission  was  at  the  forefront  of 
promoting cash-based interventions. In particular, the Commission played an active 
role in donors’ coordination through the donor cash forum and the Commission’s 
cash  policy  (revised  in  2022).  The  Commission  is  furthermore  one  of  the  rare 
donors committed to reach 35% of its humanitarian assistance in the form of cash.   
−  Enhancing  humanitarian  policy  and  operational  leadership.  For  example,  DG 
ECHO’s  support  to  logistics  enabled  the  effective  delivery  of  humanitarian  and 
civil protection assistance. The logistics support filled critical gaps in global supply 
chain,  particularly  when  commercial  transport  was  disrupted.   Specifically, 
evidence indicates that the Humanitarian Air Bridge provided effective logistical 
support to the COVID-19 response, enabling the delivery of medical supplies and 
vaccines (81).  

−  Enhancing  coherence  and  complementarity  of  humanitarian  response.  -The 
European Commission provided consistent support to international humanitarian 
coordination mechanisms (e.g. OCHA), participated in humanitarian coordination 
mechanisms (e.g. clusters, HCTs (82)), and encouraged its partners to participate. 

−  Preserving the humanitarian space and advocating for respect for IHL  

In addition, during the 2017-2022 period, the EU met its financial commitments on 
education in emergencies and forgotten crises. As of 2019, the EU allocated 10% of the 
humanitarian aid budget to Education in Emergencies, in line with its commitment to this 
sector.  This  target  has  helped  to  significantly  scale  up  the  number  of  Education  in 
emergencies projects between 2015 and 2019, with over 300 projects funded globally (83).  
Similarly, providing rapid and flexible assistance both in major crises and in the so-called 
forgotten crises has become a hallmark of the EU’s profile as a donor. The initial funding 
allocation to crises was over 15%, as per the EU financial commitment. This target was 
for example met in 2021, with  more than 30 % of the initial  budget  spent on forgotten 

(80)  Case study 5, external support study  

(81)  Meta evaluation. Evaluation of Humanitarian Logistics in the European Commission’s civil protection 

and humanitarian aid operations 2018-2020.  

(82)  HCT (Humanitarian Country Team) is a key decision-making forum at the country level, composed of 
various  humanitarian  organisations,  working  together  to  coordinate  and  implement  humanitarian 
responses.  

(83)  Education in emergencies project mapping report  

25 

 
 
crises,  in  areas  facing  chronic  humanitarian  needs  but  lacking  sufficient  donor 
presence (84).    

The  evaluation  report  notes  that  the  European  Commission  also  made  important 
steps to advance its Grand Bargain commitments, following the  endorsement of the 
Grand  Bargain  in  2016.  The  European  Commission  was  a  key  member  of  the  Grand 
Bargain Facilitation Group, providing continued momentum to the Grand Bargain process 
via annual meetings as well as coordination and information sharing. However, margins of 
improvement exist in several workstreams (85).  

Progress towards the achievement of Grand Bargain commitments 

Cash-based programming. DG ECHO prioritised cash-based modalities where feasible 
and appropriate, in line with its target of 35% of aid delivery through cash transfers. The 
EU/DG ECHO funded large-scale cash programmes through multi-year programming and 
continued to advocate with its partners and through cash working groups for increased and 
coherent use of cash. Many regions witnessed a shift towards the systematic adoption of 
cash-based  modalities,  in  part  influenced  by  DG  ECHO's  role  in  promoting  cash  as  a 
default modality in response.  

Localisation. A majority of stakeholders  was positive about the European Commission 
(DG ECHO)’s increased efforts on the localisation agenda during the evaluation period but 
underlined some scope to enhance support to local and national actors.  Best practices are 
included in the 2023 guidance on promoting equitable partnerships with local responders. 
Throughout  the  evaluation  period,  DG  ECHO  also  invested  in  Country-Based  Pooled 
Funds (CBPFs), a key mechanism to support local responders (86). 

Enhanced  quality  funding.   In  2022,  the  EU/DG  ECHO  committed  to  increasing  the 
share of its multi-year (87) portfolio by at least 30% by the end of 2023 (compared to 2021). 
Further  to  this  commitment,  the  EU/  DG  ECHO  reached  and  even  surpassed  the  30% 
increase.    Contributions to CBPFs and pilot PPs were important steps to deliver on these 
commitments.  

Humanitarian  needs  assessments.  The  European  Commission  allocates  humanitarian 
funding based on thorough needs assessments to ensure aid reaches those who need it most. 
As explained in section 2, continuous improvements in methodologies and tools enhance 
the accuracy and reliability of these assessments. During the evaluation period, methods 
and tools were enhanced to provide accurate information about people in need and those 
who have received aid. To respond to the priority to coordinate needs assessments between 
humanitarian agencies, the European Commission (DG ECHO) continued to support the 
development of the Joint Intersectoral Analysis Group’s (JIAF) methodology, tools and 
process, led by UN OCHA, setting  international  standards for analysing and estimating 
humanitarian  needs,  across  different  sectors.    The  purpose  of  the  JIAF  is  to  introduce 
reliable,  people-centred,  intersectoral  needs  assessments  to  support  evidence-based 
decision-making. However, evidence indicates that more efforts are needed to better rely 

(84)  DG ECHO Annual Activity Report 2021 

(85)  A  workstream  is  a  thematic  area  of  reform  under  the  Grand  Bargain  agreement,  where  signatories 

cooperate to implement specific commitments  

(86)  country-based  pooled  funds  are  humanitarian  financing  mechanisms,  managed  by  UN-OCHA,  to 
respond to emergencies or crises by pooling contributions from various donors into a single unearmarked 
fund.  

(87)  In the Grand-Bargain, multi-year funding is defined as funding with a duration of 24 months or more  

26 

 
 
on inter-agency, intersectoral analysis, including that available through the Humanitarian 
Needs Overviews (88).   

Harmonised  reporting.  The  8+3  reporting  template  –  a  standardised  humanitarian 
reporting format that includes 8 core questions (common to all donors who signed up to 
the Grand Bargain) and up to 3 optional ones – used by a growing number of donors and 
aid agencies (89) was incorporated into the reporting tool of DG ECHO and launched with 
pilot PPs. However, some stakeholders noted that reporting was an area for improvement, 
such  as  further  efforts  to  standardise  reporting  frameworks  across  different  donors 
(indicators and benchmarks).  

Participation revolution. Accountability to Affected People (AAP) was reflected in DG 
ECHO’s policies and programmes, which emphasised participatory approaches and active 
participation of beneficiaries in the entire project cycle. Partners were requested to provide 
details  on  the  involvement  of  beneficiaries  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  the 
proposed action. Data collected show that all project documents from the sample of 300 
analysed by the external evaluation provided details on involvement of beneficiaries in the 
design or implementation of the action. 

Humanitarian-Development-Peace  nexus  (HDP  nexus).  DG  ECHO  took  steps  to 
promote the HDP nexus approach to better connect urgent relief and longer-term solutions 
in  the  2017-2022  period.  Additional  efforts  to  advance  its  operationalisation  remain 
necessary (see section on sustainability).     

In addition to the specific elements assessed above, the following factors contributed to 
the effectiveness of EU humanitarian aid action:  

−  DG ECHO’s speed of response to emerging crises (90).  
−  DG  ECHO’s  flexibility (91)  (e.g.  to  adapt  funding  and  actions  in  light  of  changing 

contexts),  

−  DG ECHO’s strong field presence and humanitarian expertise and DG ECHO field 

staff’s regular monitoring visits to funded actions (92),   

−  DG ECHO’s use of different tools and instruments.  (e.g. Emergency Toolbox (93), 

EHRC, ERC (94) HIPs), 

(88)   Metcalfe-Hough,  V.,  Fenton,  W.  and  Manji,  F.  (2023)  The  Grand  Bargain  in  2022:  an  independent 

review. HPG commissioned report. London: ODI 

(89)  The purpose of the harmonised reporting template, also called ‘8+3 template’, is to standardize, simplify 
and harmonize the reporting of humanitarian projects and programs. The template is designed to cover 
the full range of humanitarian activities, from short-term projects to multi-annual programs 

(90)  External  support  study  Survey  with  DG  ECHO  staff,  DG  ECHO  partners,  and  DG  ECHO  local 

implementing partners 

(91)  External support study  

(92)  For  example,  92.4%  of  projects  that  finished  in  2022  were  “monitored on  site”  (DG  ECHO  Annual 

Activity Report 2022) The rate was similar in previous years  

(93)  The  Emergency  Toolbox  is  one  of  the  instruments  the  European  Commission  uses  to  assist  in 
unforeseen,  sudden-onset  crises  outside  the  EU.  The  Emergency  Response  Coordination  Centre 
manages the various funding tools within this footbox (Acute Large Emergency Response Tool, Small-
scale Tool, Epidemics Tool, Disaster Response Emergency Fund)  

(94)  With  the  Enhanced  Response  Capacity  (ERC),  DG  ECHO  dedicates  part  of  its  budget  to  support 
initiatives that seek to increase the capacity of the humanitarian community to respond to crises in the 
most effective and efficient manner 

27 

 
 
−  DG  ECHO’s  support  to  operations  and 

in 
logistics.   (e.g.  development  of  the  Humanitarian  Logistics  Policy,  launched  by  the 
European Commission at the end of January 2012, setting up of EU Humanitarian Air 
Bridge and EHRC) (95), 

increasing  (proactive)  role 

−  Good  working  relationships  with  its  network  of  partners  enhanced  the 
effectiveness  of  EU-funded  actions  (at  field  level)  and,  more  broadly,  strategic 
coordination (HQ and field level),  

−  European Commission’s support to coordination efforts.  (e.g. support to UN-led 
regional  coordination 

coordination  mechanisms  and  active  engagement 
mechanisms (96),  

in 

−  European Commission’s advocacy efforts (97).  

The  following  factors  were  identified  as  the  main  barriers  to  the  effectiveness  of  EU 
humanitarian  action:  the  humanitarian  funding  gap,  security  issues,  IHL  violations, 
logistical and access constraints and the increasing complexity and severity of crises, as 
well as the limited engagement of national and local actors.  

As an illustration of the effectiveness and benefits of EU-funded humanitarian actions two 
examples  of  success  stories  from  the  angle  of  assisted  populations  are  presented  in  the 
boxes below (98).  

Strengthening  forecast-based  early  actions  in  cyclone-prone  coastal  regions  in 
Bangladesh (STEP)  

Purpose and context of the action: In Bangladesh, several coastal regions are vulnerable to 
cyclones, which can have devastating effects on people’s livelihoods. The EU-funded project, 
‘Strengthening  forecast-based  early  actions  in  cyclone-prone  coastal  regions  in  Bangladesh’ 
(STEP) was designed to strengthen the resilience of the communities living in those regions. In 
Mariala  Village,  Sreeula  Union,  Assasuni,  and  Satkhira,  the  STEP  project  assisted  fish 
cultivators  to  develop  an  anticipatory  action  plan  to  be  prepared  against  frequent  cyclone-
induced  tidal  surges.  It  also  supported  the  reactivation  of  the  Ward  Disasters  Management 
Committee  (WDMC)  and  development  of  an  early  action  plan  in  preparation  for  cyclone 
landfalls.  

Results: The project enhanced community resilience against the negative impacts of cyclones. 
As  a  result,  when  the  Sitrang  cyclone  hit  in  2022,  both  communities  managed  to  protect 
themselves  from  potential  devastating  consequences.  Following  the  early  action  plan,  fish 
cultivators netted resistant ghers (in fish enclosures) that prevented the fish from being washed 
away by the cyclone. In line with the early action plan, the local population regularly monitored 
the condition of the embankment protecting their village and was able to take immediate action 

(95)  The evaluation of humanitarian logistics in the European Commission’s CP and humanitarian operations 
found  that  DG  ECHO’s  support  to  logistics  enabled  the  effective  delivery  of  humanitarian  aid 
interventions. 

(96)  The  evaluation  found  that  DG  ECHO  played  a  significant  role  in  mobilising  and  coordinating 
humanitarian donors and actors in the MENA and LAC regions, for example through pledging events 
and active engagement in regional coordination mechanisms. 

(97)  The evaluation case studies found that DG ECHO’s advocacy efforts for improved access at different 

forums and levels helped to enhance access in both DRC and Ukraine. 

(98)  These examples were shared by implementing partners as part of the consultation activities carried out 
in  the  framework  of  the  external  evaluation.  Results  and  impacts  concern  ‘better  preparedness  and 
response  to  disasters’  (Bangladesh)  and  ‘learning  opportunities  from  regained  access  to  education’ 
(Uganda). 

28 

 
 
 
to repair it when it was damaged by the Sitrang cyclone. This prevented the water from flooding 
the village. 

Story from an assisted person: ‘This year. I have prepared an early action plan with the help 
of  the  STEP  project  to  get  prepared in  case  of  a  cyclone.  When  I  got  the  forecast regarding 
Sitrang, I have taken the initiative to follow-up the early action plan developed to save my assets 
(…) When the cyclone Sitrang has been forecasted, some fish in my gher could not be sold as 
they were too small yet. According to the early action plan, I had netted my pond. I […] have 
been  able  to  save  my  fish  from  being  washed  away  for  the  first  time’  (fish  cultivator  from 
Mariala village). 

Story from an assisted person: ‘The STEP project assisted us in preparing an inclusive plan to 
implement early action before the landfall of a cyclone. According to the plan, other members 
of the WDMC and I regularly kept an eye on the condition of the embankment. We also formed 
a small team of local people to be deployed at a moment’s notice to repair the breach of the 
embankment. Required materials were also arranged. On 22 November 2022, two days before 
Sitrang  landfall,  we  came  to  know  that  a  point  near  Babulaler  Ghat  village  was  about  to  be 
breached. We took immediate action, mobilised all the resources instantly, and started to repair 
the embankment. We were finally able to stop water from flooding our community. We only 
spent BDT 50,000 on this action, which saved the fish, crops, and infrastructure worth around 
BDT 5,000,000’ (representative of the WDMC).   

Source: Survey with DG ECHO partners; STEP project. 

Uganda: Equitable access to quality and transformational education for refugee and 
host communities (EQUATE) 

Purpose and context of the action: In Uganda, thousands of children from refugee and host 
communities do not have access to education. Funded by the EU, the Equitable Access to Quality 
and Transformational Education for Refugee and Host Communities (EQUATE) project aimed 
to  improve  conflict  affected  children’s  access  to  inclusive  and  equitable  education  in  Rhino 
Camp, Imvepi and Palabek refugee settlements in the West Nile Sub-Region of Uganda.  

Results achieved: The EQUATE project addressed the barriers faced by most vulnerable out-
of-school children in enrolling in primary and secondary education programmes. It conducted 
Accelerated Education Programmes (AEP), helping beneficiaries to return to school, such as 
young mothers who were forced to drop out of school because of a lack of resources and family 
barriers.  Activities  included  providing  school  materials,  financial  support,  infrastructure 
building and renovation (including breastfeeding sheds). 

Story from an assisted person: ‘I got the information about free access to education through 
EQUATE project from a friend at our centre Paluda in Palabek Refugee Settlement. He told me 
about the opportunity for young mothers like me to go back to school. That is how I managed to 
join Paluda Secondary School which is supporting over a hundred young people who dropped 
out of school but are willing to rejoin with no limitations or restrictions. (…) I am getting a lot 
of knowledge. The project has supported me with some money to help me and my child at home. 
They are paying for my school fees, and I am very happy about that (…). I am now into learning 
and working towards achieving my dream. I am currently in school and getting new knowledge. 
I also encourage my friends to return back to school’ (a young mother living in the Palabek 
refugee settlement). 

Story from an assisted person: ‘The project has helped me stay in school. I also get support 
and guidance from my teachers and fellow learners. WIU (Windle International Uganda) also 
encourages us to perform better, and this gives us hope of becoming of becoming better people 

29 

 
 
in future…’ (South Sudanese person residing in the Palabek refugee settlement who had dropped 
out of school for financial reasons). 

Source: Survey with local implementing partners; World Vision and Windle International 
Uganda – EQUATE.  

Efficiency  

EU humanitarian aid actions, generate a range of costs and benefits.  

Costs  typically  include  financial  expenditures  on  logistics,  personnel,  supplies,  and 
coordination with partners, as well as costs related to prioritising certain crises over others.  

On the benefit side, the expected outcomes include saving lives, reducing human suffering, 
improving  health  and  nutrition,  restoring  dignity,  and  enhancing  resilience  in  affected 
communities. There are also broader benefits such as stabilizing fragile regions, reducing 
forced displacement, and supporting international solidarity and EU visibility.  

Evaluating  these  impacts  often  involves  both  quantitative  methods  (e.g.  cost  per 
beneficiary, mortality reduction) and qualitative assessments (e.g. improved well-being or 
access to services). 

The assessment  of cost  effectiveness  (i.e.  cost  per person  reached)  of EU humanitarian 
action,  and  more  broadly  in  the  humanitarian  sector,  remains  challenging  for  several 
reasons. First, isolating the impact of a specific intervention is difficult as EU humanitarian 
actions often overlap with those of other donors and actors, creating attribution issues. In 
addition, cost in different contexts or situations are not always comparable. Third, many 
humanitarian benefits such as restored dignity, reduced suffering, or improved resilience 
are inherently difficult to quantify.  

Over the period covered by this evaluation. the European Commission continued its efforts 
to improve the assessment of cost-effectiveness (and efficiency) of the humanitarian aid 
interventions  

The improvements during the evaluation period mostly concerned the standardisation of 
data to evaluate the results and impact of interventions, including the adoption of standard 
KOIs and KRIs, revising the methodology to aggregate quantitative data by partners, and 
strengthening reporting requirements  for partners. For example, since 2019, DG ECHO 
field  and  desk  officers  are  asked  to  estimate  the  number  of  people  reached  by  their 
interventions. A new methodology was then developed and implemented, since 2021, to 
better  estimate  the  number  of  people  reached  by  the  EU  humanitarian  interventions, 
through a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis as part of DG ECHO efforts 
to improve the accuracy of its key indicators. 

Estimation of number of people reached  

In 2021 DG ECHO developed a methodology to estimate the number of people reached 
through  humanitarian  aid  actions.  The  methodology  provides  guidance  on  managing 
estimates in (co-)funded actions  and avoiding double-counting. Data from partners is 
collected via the “Single Form” IT tool and internal DG ECHO database, focusing on 
individuals directly benefiting from aid.  

While  indirect  beneficiaries  are  noted,  the  annual  exercise  focuses  on  those  directly 
reached,  and  a  key  aspect  is  then  differentiating  between  direct  and  indirect 

30 

 
beneficiaries. Actions such as emergency assistance and medical consultations directly 
impact  individuals,  whereas  infrastructure  improvements  might  affect  a  broader 
community indirectly.  

The methodology tackles double counting by ensuring individuals are counted only once 
across different sectors and areas. For ongoing actions, adjustments consider whether 
aid is one-off or continuous.  

For co-financed actions, people reached are estimated according to the proportion of EU 
funding.  

An Excel tool supports users in estimating figures and eliminating double counting. DG 
ECHO desks input data through sequential steps, adjusting for overlapping actions and 
funding ratios, and make final judgment calls to refine figures.  

This "people reached estimation" exercise is conducted annually between May and June 
for  the  previous  year.  The  results  are  published  in  an  internal  tool  called  the  CID 
(Country Information Dashboard). 

Through this method, the European Commission endeavours to improve transparency 
and accuracy in reporting the reach of its humanitarian efforts. 

The assessment of efficiency (e.g. by region or type of partner) is without prejudice to the 
needs-based allocation of humanitarian aid to the most appropriate areas or modalities of 
intervention.  

Efficiency of budget allocation 

The external evaluation found that efficiency and cost-effectiveness were often considered 
when making strategic choices about funding allocation, although in most cases they were 
not a determining factor.  

Consistently with findings from the previous evaluation, EU humanitarian aid budget 
allocations were based on needs (99) and considered the concurrent actions of other 
donors (in contexts of comparable needs and insufficient resources, they also considered 
wider policy priorities  when allocating funding  as noted in  the previous evaluation).  In 
addition, the trends in funds allocated generally reflected changes in the severity of the 
crisis (e.g. evolution of the funding for Afghanistan, or Ukraine).  

The  EU's  flexibility  to  amend  and  top  up  budgets  in  response  to  evolving  crises  was 
highlighted (100).  Recent  or  emerging  needs  and  contextual  changes  were  appropriately 
reflected  in  policy  documents  and  funding  decisions.    For  example,  the  EU's  ability  to 

(99)  DG ECHO's financing decisions are based on comprehensive needs assessments using quantitative data 
from the INFORM Risk and Severity Indexes and qualitative data from field reports. The changes to the 
methodology  introduced  in  2021  increased  the  weight  of  quantitative  data  to  80%,  marking  an 
improvement in the needs-based approach. 

(100) Meta evaluation. Evaluation of the EU humanitarian aid intervention in the African Great Lakes region, 
2013-2017, evaluation of the European Union’s humanitarian interventions in Afghanistan, 2014-2018, 
evaluation of the European Union’s humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa Region, 2014-2018.  

31 

 
 
 
 
adapt  to  the  evolving  humanitarian  needs  in  Sudan  and  South  Sudan  in  2022  was  an 
example of flexibility and timeliness in funding decisions, even in acute crises. Another 
example was in the LAC region, where  the EU  was among the first donors to fund the 
response to the Venezuela regional crisis and played a leading role in advocacy with other 
donors,  contributing  to  improve  partners’  compliance  with  international  standards  for 
humanitarian assistance.  

EU humanitarian aid funding was aligned with and complementary to wider global trends:   
For example, the EU’s share of global funding remained stable (between 12% and 13%) 
between 2018 and 2021 (101).  

Along  with  a  detailed  description  of  the  most  acute  humanitarian  needs,  most  HIPs 
reflected  existing  operational  and  administrative  constraints,  DG  ECHO’s  response 
capacity and other donors’ availability to address existing needs.  

Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of EU-funded actions   

The European Commission (DG ECHO) made efforts to promote the use of cost-effective 
analysis in the design of its interventions.  

For  example,  for  the  sake  of  comparing  proposals  addressing  similar  needs  in  similar 
contexts,  new  cost  efficiency  requirements  were  included  in  documents  submitted  by 
partners to support DG ECHO’s assessment of projects’ cost benefit based on standardised 
information (e.g. Percentage of operational support costs).  

Based on the sample of projects analysed (102), the external evaluation concluded that: 

- 

- 

- 

the overall efficiency of EU-funded actions remained relatively stable throughout 
the evaluation period. For example, the weight of support costs over direct costs 
fluctuated only slightly between 2017 and 2022. 

the efficiency of EU-funded actions was similar across regions. Factors driving 
differences  included  high  price  volatility,  the  high  costs  of  operating  in  certain 
countries, conflict, political instability, and security and logistical challenges that 
affected the ability of humanitarian actors to plan their interventions. 

it  was  difficult  to  compare  efficiency  across  sectors,  because  of  the  different 
modalities of intervention and types of activities in different sectors. Actions in 
sectors with a high transfer component (the value of the output that arrives to the 
end-beneficiary),  such  as  Multi-purpose  Cash  Transfer-  when  applicable  -  and 
Food Security and Livelihood were among the sectors with the highest efficiency 
of  transfer.  These  results  are  in  line  with  previous  evaluations,  which  provided 
generally  positive  evidence  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of  cash  transfers  when 
appropriate.   

-  DG  ECHO  monitored  efficiency  and  cost-effectiveness  throughout  the  project 
cycle. DG ECHO staff (both at HQ and field experts) have to take efficiency into 
account when analysing the financial aspects of the actions during the selection 

(101) external support study p.183 Humanitarian action database (HOPE, data extracted on 26 February 2024) 

and OCHA FTS data extracted on 11 Augst 2023  

(102) External study, annex 8  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
and implementation of the projects: adequacy of means and costs, ratio between 
costs of results (goods and services delivered) and other costs (support costs).   

The box below provides findings from some geographic evaluations (carried out during 
the evaluation period) with regards to cost effectiveness.  

Findings from the meta-evaluation 

The evaluation of the EU’s humanitarian response to the  Rohingya refugee crisis in 
Myanmar and Bangladesh found that the majority of DG ECHO’s efforts to improve 
cost-effectiveness  was  at  the  selection  stage  of  interventions,  with  the  aim  to  avoid 
duplicating efforts, encouraging synergies and coordination.  

In Yemen, the geographical evaluation found that DG ECHO’s careful programming 
contributed  to  the  overall  cost-effectiveness  of  its  humanitarian  response,  notably  by 
avoiding gaps and overlaps and adapting to the evolution of needs. Illustrations were 
found  in  the  fact  that  preferred  delivery  modalities  contributed  to  cost-effectiveness: 
using the RRM as an entry point for multi-purpose cash assistance was cost effective as 
it avoided duplication of efforts and because it was relevant to meet beneficiaries needs. 
Similarly,  in  the  Horn  of  Africa,  DG  ECHO  took  steps  to  ensure  cost-effectiveness 
throughout the project cycle. The relevant HIPs also set out priorities with regards to 
transfer modalities, such as the use of cash to improve cost-effectiveness.  

In the Sahel, EU-funded actions appeared to be cost-effective, based on the analysis of 
the  cost  per  beneficiary,  alpha  ratio,  and  the  initial  versus  final  costs.  However,  the 
available data did not allow a full assessment of efficiency.    

Examples of strategic choices and approaches that the European Commission applied to 
improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of its humanitarian responses included: 

-  Supporting  coordination  mechanisms  and  humanitarian  enablers (103)  in  some 
regions.  For  example,  in  Venezuela,  the  European  Commission  supported 
coordination  at  national  and  local  level  to  improve  partners’  compliance  with 
international standards for humanitarian assistance.  
-  Using multi-partner grants to promote joint actions 
-  Contributing to Country Pooled Funds  
-  Use  of  Emergency  Rapid  Response  Mechanisms  and  crisis  modifier (104)  to 
increase  the  timeliness  of  the  response.    e.g.  the  Mecanismo  intersectorial  de 
repuesta de emergencia (MIRE) in Colombia, which focused on rapid response 
through a consortium of INGOs.  

The  main  suggestions  from  some  stakeholders  on  measures  to  improve  the  efficiency 
and/or cost effectiveness of EU-funded actions included: 

−  simplification and streamlining of processes: for example, some partners indicated 
that  DG  ECHO’s  administrative  and  reporting  requirements,  particularly  the 

(103) In the humanitarian sector, a humanitarian enabler refers to a service, system or actor that facilitates the 

effective delivery of humanitarian assistance  

(104) The main goal of the Crisis Modifier is to allow for a rapid and effective response to emerging crises 

within the context of an ongoing humanitarian action  

33 

 
 
 
 
detailed yearly reporting for the Single Form could be challenging. On the timing 
and requirements of HIPs, some stakeholders called for longer deadlines and better 
communication of changes (105 ). 
flexibility  and  predictability  of  funding  (more  unearmarked  or  soft-earmarked 
funding; multiannual funding).  

− 

These suggestions were notably addressed with the piloting of programmatic partnerships 
in  2020,  2021  and  2022,  providing  longer  term  predictability  to  partners,  simplified 
reporting (106),  joint  monitoring  and  enhanced  dialogue  with  partners  at  both  field  and 
headquarters level.   

For example, the 8+3 reporting template, which focuses on narrative reporting only, was 
incorporated into the reporting tool of DG ECHO and launched as a pilot with four pilot 
programmatic  partnerships.  The  8+3  format  was  also  enabled  for  the  launch  of  new 
programmatic  partnerships  with  international  organisations  and  non-governmental 
organisations for projects as of 2023 (107). The 8+3 Template covers narrative questions 
and consists of 8 core questions and up to 3 additional questions. The 8+3 Template does 
not concern quantitative questions. 

The set of changes conducted during the evaluation period aiming to improve DG ECHO’s 
relations  and  arrangements  with  its  partners,  with  a  focus  on  simplification  and 
efficiency is further described in section 3.  

Internal and external factors affecting cost-effectiveness  

According to the external study, due to the specificity of humanitarian assistance, some 
internal factors had affected in some cases the cost-effectiveness of EU-funded actions.  

A minority of the stakeholders consulted during the evaluation mentioned:  

− 

− 

− 

the complex administrative processes and requirements on partners, despite being 
deemed necessary for accountability and transparency,  
the short funding  cycles and  annual  contracting  delays, impeding in  some cases 
long-term  cost-effective  planning.  Indeed,  the  average  duration  of  an  EU 
humanitarian aid funded action in the 2012-2016 period was 12 months, with none 
of the actions lasting more than 24 months. This assessment was nuanced by the 
results  of  the  framework  partner  survey  as  part  of  the  external  survey  which 
revealed  that  close  to  70%  of  the  respondents  considered  that  humanitarian  aid 
funding cycle facilitated the delivery of EU funded actions. This showed that, in 
most situations, humanitarian aid short funding cycle was adapted to the emergency 
response provided by the framework partners, 
the  fragmentation  of  activities  across  multiple  actions  and  multiple  layers  of 
partners. This issue is addressed through initiatives like programmatic partnerships, 
which aim to consolidate actions under broader strategic frameworks, 

(105) External survey, interview with DG ECHO staff and local implementing partner s 

(106) including in the proposals and description of the actions submitted by partners (“Single Forms”) and the 
assessment  and  monitoring of  those  projects  by  DG  ECHO,  at  field  and  headquarters  level  (internal 
“FichOps”) 

(107) DG ECHO (2023) Grand Bargain. Self-reporting exercise.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
− 

in  some  cases,  inconsistent  coordination  efforts,  and  limited  investment  by  DG 
ECHO partners in local and national responders resulted in fragmented activity and 
higher management costs.   

In addition,  external  factors affected the cost-effectiveness  of EU humanitarian actions, 
including: access constraints/restrictions and insecurity (leading to delays and increased 
operational costs); restrictive government policies, high operating costs (e.g. hard-to-reach 
areas;  inflation  and  market  fluctuations);  and  external  shocks  (e.g.  the  COVID-19 
pandemic,  for  example,  disrupted  operations  and  increased  costs).  For  example,  high-
inflation significantly limited cost-effectiveness during the responses to the regional crisis 
in Venezuela and Yemen.  

The  European  Commission  demonstrated  high  flexibility  and  helped  to  deal  with  the 
consequences of the hampering external factors. For instance, where external shocks or 
constraints  hindered  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  humanitarian  aid  intervention,  the 
European Commission used budget modifications, reallocations of resources from partners 
or other donors, and operational adjustments to ensure satisfactory financial performance. 
In  addition,  its  efforts  to  mitigate  some  of  the  internal  factors,  such  as  enhanced 
coordination through cluster mechanisms, investment in preparedness, and promotion of 
localisation were appreciated by some stakeholders. 

Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of thematic policies  

According  to  stakeholders  consulted  during  the  external  evaluation,  thematic  policies 
generally improved the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the European Commission’s 
interventions  (e.g.  policies  on  cash,  logistics,  food  assistance  and  nutrition;  disaster 
preparedness).  

Thematic policies were suitable for guiding the planning and use of available resources. 
For example, stakeholders recognised the thematic policy on cash as conducive to cost-
effectiveness. It referred to the TCTR (Total Cost Transfer Ratio, the value of output that 
arrives to the end beneficiary, compared to the value of the input) as a standard way to 
measure efficiency.  Additionally, the disaster preparedness policy mentioned several risk 
reduction measures to increase cost effectiveness.  

A minority of DG ECHO partners expressed concerns about the high number of policies 
and  the  associated  administrative  costs  and  burden.  Nevertheless,  comprehensive  and 
disaggregated data on the specific financial burden of thematic policy compliance are not 
systematically collected or reported across stakeholders.  

Coherence  

Internal coherence  

The EU continued being recognised as a principled donor, adhering strongly to the 
humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence.  

As in the previous evaluation period, humanitarian principles continued to be enshrined in 
the design and implementation of the EU’s humanitarian interventions. The EU’s advocacy 
also played a crucial role in upholding these principles. 

For  example,  the  European  Union’s  advocacy  with  government  and  local  actors  on  the 
ground,  as  well  as  with  partners,  was  successful  in  promoting  humanitarian  principles. 

35 

 
 
Successes included DG ECHO's prioritisation of humanitarian principles in its dialogue 
with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which aimed to ensure 
that the organisation's members would willingly adopt and respect these principles.   

Externally,  DG  ECHO  partners  conducted  capacity-building  initiatives  to  uphold 
humanitarian  principles,  fostering  adherence  of  funded  actions  to  these  principles.   For 
instance, two organisations had internal codes of conduct on humanitarian principles, while 
others provided annual training to their staff (108).  

The previous comprehensive evaluation did not assess the coherence between DG ECHO’s 
thematic policies and the EU’s humanitarian objectives.  For this evaluation period, a new 
analytical  framework  developed  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation  (109)  shows  that  DG 
ECHO’s thematic policies were aligned with the EU’s  humanitarian objectives:  all 
policies  referred  to  humanitarian  principles,  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Regulation,  and  the 
European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid.  

Thematic policies were internally coherent. This was ensured through cross-referencing, 
mainstreaming  approaches,  and  consultations  with  key  partners  and  stakeholders  when 
adopting  or  updating  policies.  The  evidence  did  not  highlight  any  specific  example  of 
trade-offs or contradictions among thematic policies. However, the evaluation noted that 
the increasing number of policies and mainstreaming requirements created a challenge for 
some  DG  ECHO  partners  during  the  evaluation  period.  To  contribute  to  the 
implementation  of  policies,  the  EU  financially  supported  partners  through  funding 
allocated under the Enhanced Response Capacity HIP (110), and since 2023, the strategic 
supply chain and logistics HIP (111).  

The EU’s humanitarian aid interventions were internally coherent at both strategic 
and operational level. This is in line with the previous evaluation which found that the 
coherence between EU-funded actions was ensured through the appraisal process and DG 
ECHO’s multisectoral approach.  

The  European  Commission  had  several  tools  and  funding  mechanisms  serving 
different  purposes  and  used  in  different  contexts  during  the  evaluation  period, 
complementing  one  another.  These  included  the  EHRC,  the  UCPM,  the  Emergency 
Toolbox, the ERC HIP (112), and geographical HIPs. Some were already in place before 
2017  (e.g.  UCPM,  Emergency  Toolbox),  while  others  were  developed  during  the 
evaluation period (e.g. EHRC, ERC HIP).  

New instruments developed during the evaluation period addressed gaps and challenges 
without overlapping with other DG ECHO tools or funding streams. For instance, the ERC 
HIP  focused  on  initiatives  that  might  not  have  been  covered  by  geographical  funding 
envelopes due to the emerging or cross-cutting nature of the issues to be addressed through 
policy support and innovation. 

(108) External study report pages 102-104 

(109)  Analytical framework developed in the context of the external study report  

(110) The Enhanced Response Capacity HIP funds initiatives aimed at strengthening the global humanitarian 
system.  For  example,  the  ERC  HIP  can  finance  disaster  preparedness  projects,  addressing  priorities 
outlined in the guidance note on disaster preparedness   

(111) The supply chain and logistics HIP funds initiatives aiming at improving humanitarian logistics, as set 

out in the Humanitarian Logistics Policy.    

(112)  Enhanced Response Capacity  

36 

 
 
The EU’s humanitarian aid interventions were coherent and complementary with the 
UCPM, given the different objectives of each instrument.  

Indeed,  the  legislative  and  policy  frameworks  for  civil  protection  (UCPM  Decision  No 
1313/2013/EU) and humanitarian aid (Humanitarian Aid Regulation, European Consensus 
on  Humanitarian  Aid)  acknowledge  and  recognise  the  potential  benefits  of  synergies 
between civil protection operations and humanitarian actions, while clearly delineating the 
respective mandates and scope of both instruments.  

The  Emergency  Response  Coordination  Centre  (ERCC),  ERCC  Liaison  Officers,  and 
Rapid Response Coordinators ensure that when the UCPM is activated, DG ECHO can 
successfully  coordinate  its  internal  operations,  including  between  civil  protection  and 
humanitarian aid staff.  

Examples  of  synergies  included  humanitarian  and  civil  protection  coordination  during 
UCPM activations in Madagascar (in response to the tropical cyclone Batsirai in February 
2022) and Pakistan (in response to the summer floods in August 2022).  

The  deployment  of  DG  ECHO  humanitarian  experts  and  ERCC  Liaison  Officers  with 
humanitarian aid expertise was considered good practice to strengthen synergies between 
humanitarian action and civil protection. The potential of the Humanitarian Aid Bridge 
for UCPM deployment was also highlighted. For example, during the UCPM activation in 
response  to  the  2021  earthquake  in  Haiti,  the  EU  Humanitarian  Air  Bridge  not  only 
delivered assistance from humanitarian partners but also pooled and delivered Slovenia’s 
assistance under the UCPM.   

Internal  factors  that  contributed  to  the  internal  coherence  of  the  EU’s  humanitarian  aid 
interventions  included  coordination  efforts  within  DG  ECHO,  between  DG  ECHO 
partners, and between DG ECHO, its partners, and local implementing partners.  

A  minority  of  stakeholders  indicated  that  more  could  be  done  to  enhance  synergies 
between the EU’s humanitarian aid interventions and the UCPM. This is in line with the 
evaluation of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (113) which found an ongoing need to 
ensure a better mutual understanding between humanitarian aid actors, and UCPM team 
members of their respective operations, requirements, and ways of working.  

External coherence  

During  the  2017-2022  period,  evidence  provided  by  the  external  support  study 
indicates that DG ECHO and its partners sought to coordinate their humanitarian 
activities with those of other donors, at both strategic and operational level.   

Coherence with EU Member States  

At strategic level, the European Commission coordinated its humanitarian interventions 
with those of Member States, primarily as part of the COHAFA (114) meetings, as a forum 
to  discuss  EU  humanitarian  strategies  and  policies,  as  well  as  the  EU’s  response  to 
humanitarian crises.  During COHAFA meetings between 2017 and 2022, the European 
Commission (DG ECHO) and its partners provided Member States with regular updates 
on  operational  and  thematic  priorities,  relations with  Strategic  Partners,  ongoing  crises, 

(113) Evaluation of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, SWD(2024)213 final  

(114)  Council Working Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid  

37 

 
 
 
challenges in humanitarian aid delivery, progress towards objectives of the Grand Bargain, 
and  other  topics.  Additionally,  Member  States  adopted  common  messages  on  specific 
humanitarian crises (e.g. Yemen, Afghanistan), presenting a united and coherent  stance 
which was also reflected in DG ECHO’s operational strategies. 

One example of strategic coordination with Member States occurred in 2022, during the 
French Presidency of the Council of the EU. During this period, the EU, EU Member States 
and Norway signed the non-binding humanitarian aid donors’ declaration on climate and 
the  environment (115),  followed  later  by  Switzerland  and  Canada.  The  EU  and  Member 
States are also coordinating their positions on humanitarian work within the UN in New 
York or Geneva and are preparing joint statements to be delivered at the Executive Boards 
of different UN organisations like WFP or UNHCR. 

Beyond  the  regular  coordination  in  COHAFA,  DG  ECHO  was  also  convening  regular 
meetings of Directors/Director-Generals to provide for further coordination and strategic 
guidance  on  humanitarian  topics.  Member  States’  representatives  highlighted  the 
usefulness  and  added value of ad hoc coordination meetings on specific  crises,  such  as 
those relating to events in Afghanistan and Ukraine.  

The European Humanitarian Forum, which was first held in 2022, was also regarded as a 
useful setting where the European Commission (DG ECHO) could enhance its strategic 
dialogue  with  Member  States.   For  example,  through  the  Forum,  DG  ECHO  put  an 
increased focus on addressing the humanitarian funding gap. 

Evidence collected during the external evaluation (116) indicated that more could be done 
to  leverage  European  Commission  (DG  ECHO)  and  Member  States’  humanitarian 
coordination. Examples included leveraging COHAFA as a platform to facilitate activities 
beyond information-sharing ones. The evaluation identified areas where Member States 
could better coordinate with the European Commission, including strategic programming 
and planning joint visits in assisted countries for advocacy or communication purposes.  

At  operational  level,  the  European  Commission  actively  sought  to  coordinate  its 
humanitarian  aid  interventions  with  Member  States  present  in  the  field,  as  part  of  the 
overall coordination efforts in a given theatre of operations.  For instance, the evaluation 
of  the  EU’s  humanitarian  response  to  the  Rohingya  refugee  crisis  in  Myanmar  and 
Bangladesh found that the European Commission often took an informal lead coordination 
role with EU Member States for humanitarian issues (117). 

Coherence with other donors  

The  EU’s  humanitarian  aid  interventions  were  coherent  and  complementary  with 
those  of  other  donors.  DG  ECHO’s  efforts  in  donor  coordination  (e.g.  joint  advocacy 
efforts;  participation  in  clusters;  specific  initiatives  or  forums)  were  central  to  such 
coherence.  For  example,  the  European  Commission  was  involved  in  different  working 
groups  and  forums,  including  the  Good  Humanitarian  Donorship  initiative,  the 

(115) European Commission – humanitarian aid donors’ declaration on climate and environment  

(116)  External survey, page 114 (interviews, thematic workshop)  

(117) Evaluation of the European Union’s humanitarian response to the Rohingya refugee crisis in Myanmar 

and Bangladesh, 2017-2019  

38 

 
 
International  Committee  of  the  Red  Cross  Donor  Support  Group,  the  Stockholm 
Group (118), and the OCHA Donor Support Group (ODSG). 

Other  initiatives  and  events  led  or  co-led  by  the  European  Commission  (DG  ECHO) 
included the European Humanitarian Aid Forum, and a number of ad hoc conferences and 
events bringing together a wide variety of donors, such as the annual Brussels conference 
on Syria (119).  The Commission also engaged bilaterally with like-minded donors (e.g. the 
US,  Canada,  Australia)  and  with  emerging  donor  countries  to  expand  the  humanitarian 
donor base and foster greater coordination and collaboration (e.g. Saudi  Arabia, United 
Arab Emirates). Engagement and cooperation efforts also targeted non-traditional donors 
(e.g. private sector, financial institutions).  

This resonates with findings of the previous evaluation, which found that  the European 
Commission  maintained  close  relationships  with  other  donors  on  a  bilateral  basis  and 
played  an  active  role  in  coordination  mechanisms  to  promote  coherence  among 
humanitarian donors.  

The  European  Commission  participated  and/or  encouraged  its  partners  to 
participate in existing coordination mechanisms (e.g. clusters, HCTs) to avoid overlaps, 
duplications  of  efforts  and  sharing  first-hand  information  on  the  needs  These  efforts 
enhanced the coherence of the humanitarian assistance delivered.  

For instance, in the Sahel region, the European Commission (DG ECHO) played a leading 
role  in  humanitarian  coordination  and  was  seen  by  a  great  majority  of  stakeholders 
interviewed  as  a  key  promoter  and  proponent  of  a  coordinated  response (120).   In  the 
Dominican  Republic,  DG  ECHO  and  the  US  Bureau  for  Humanitarian  Affairs  (BHA) 
conducted regular information-sharing activities and co-funded several partners in the field 
of  disaster  preparedness (121).  In  the  Southern  Africa  and  Indian  Ocean  Region, 
information-sharing  and  joint  advocacy  with  other  donors  (e.g.  FCDO (122))  took  place 
regularly, fostering a more coherent response to regional humanitarian challenges.   

Coherence with the EU’s external financing instruments 

Humanitarian aid addresses immediate needs during crises, while development initiatives 
contribute to build long-term resilience and infrastructure.  

The EU’s external financing instruments include the European Neighbourhood Instrument 
(ENI), the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), the IcSP (123), the 
European Development Fund (EDF), and EU Trust Funds (EUTFs).  

By design, these instruments focus on development, peace, resilience, neighbourhood, and 
enlargement  policies  and  complement,  rather  than  overlap  with,  EU  humanitarian  aid 

(118)  The Stockholm Group includes USA, Germany, the EU, Sweden and the United Kingdom  

(119)  As  part  of  the  2024  European  Humanitarian  Forum,  a  high-level  panel  discussion  took  place  on 
expanding the resource base, gathering representatives from a variety of donor governments, the UN 
and private sector actors 

(120) Meta evaluation, evaluation of the European Union’s humanitarian interventions in Sahel 2016-2020 

(121) Meta evaluation, evaluation of the EU’s interventions in disaster preparedness, 2015-2020 

(122) The  Foreign,  Commonwealth  and  Development  Office  (FCDO)  is  a  Ministerial  Department  of  the 

government of the United Kingdom  

(123)  Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) 

39 

 
 
funding  through  the  HIPs.  In  2021,  the  NDICI  (Neighbourhood,  Development  and 
International Cooperation Instrument) entered into force as the main funding instrument 
for EU external action.  

The  EU’s  humanitarian  interventions  were  coherent  with  other  EU  external 
financing instruments, as each instrument pursued different objectives. Where possible, 
synergies were exploited. For instance, different EU external financing instruments were 
used in a complementary manner with DG ECHO’s humanitarian aid interventions (e.g. 
IcSP (124), IPA (125)). Efforts allowed for interservice cooperation in programming, such 
as  the  contribution  of  DG  INTPA  to  the  preparation  of  Humanitarian  Implementation 
Plans, and involvement of DG ECHO in the programming of the NDICI (126) and the 11th 
European Development Fund (EDF).  

While evidence showed overall coherence between the EU’s humanitarian interventions 
and the different EU external financing instruments, the external evaluation noted that, as 
for the previous evaluation period, there could be stronger cooperation between DG ECHO 
and  other  EU  actors  responsible  or  involved  in  the  management  of  external  financing 
instruments.   

Internal  factors  that  contributed  to  enhanced  coherence  included  DG  ECHO’s 
acknowledgement  of  the  importance  of  humanitarian  coordination  through  existing 
structures and its efforts to work with other EU services and bodies at headquarters and 
field  level.  Regular  Strategic  dialogues  with  key  partners  brought  together  various  EU 
services  together  with  partners  around  priority  areas,  further  ensuring  this  internal 
coherence.  Additionally,  the  European  Commission’s  joint  advocacy  efforts  with  other 
actors  also  strengthened  coherence  and  enhanced  complementarity  with  other 
humanitarian interventions.  

Sustainability  

Compared  to  the  previous  evaluation  period,  sustainability  elements  were  more 
consistently  incorporated in  DG ECHO’s HIPs and thematic policies, as  well as in  DG 
ECHO partners’ proposals and throughout the implementation of humanitarian actions.  

These  included,  among  others,  participatory  approaches,  an  increased  focus  on  disaster 
preparedness – with the adoption of the disaster preparedness policy in 2021- and other 
capacity building activities embedded in EU-funded actions.  

Throughout the evaluation period, DG ECHO prioritised actions that integrated strategies 
linking  projects  to  longer-term  goals  developed  with  national  and  local  authorities  to 
ensure local ownership and sustainability beyond the humanitarian programme cycle.  

The  external  study  indicates  a  notable  increase  in  EU-funded  actions  showcasing 
continuity  of  results  or  sustainable  effects,  rising  from  30%  in  the  previous  evaluation 

(124) Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace, the main instrument supporting security initiatives and 

peace-building activities in partner countries 

(125) Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 

(126) In 2021, the Neighbourhood Development and International Cooperation Instrument entered into force 

as the main funding instrument for EU external action. 

40 

 
 
period to over 58% over the evaluation period (127)), reflecting the European Commission's 
efforts to ensure the sustainability of funded actions. To identify actions presenting impact 
continuity or sustainability measures, the project review considered the following types of 
sustainable activity: stockpiling of material for future crises, sustainable cash programmes, 
integration of activities in formal structures (national or local), building of structures (e.g. 
schools, health services), capacity building of local partners (local humanitarian actors), 
capacity  building  of  national  actors,  and  actions  focusing  on  empowering  the  local 
population and target community.  

The  analysis  of  DG  ECHO’s  thematic  policies  and  guidelines  shows  that  sustainability 
elements were consistently incorporated in policy documents although to different degrees 
of detail, encouraging DG ECHO partners to enhance sustainability considerations in their 
proposals and project implementation.   

For example, the policy on cash transfers and the guidance note on disaster preparedness 
emphasise the reduction of environmental impacts, albeit through different methods. The 
cash transfers policy focuses on leveraging technology, market assessment and other tools 
to  reduce  the  physical  and  carbon  footprint  of  aid  distribution,  while  the  disaster 
preparedness  guidance  note  integrates  sustainability  by  embedding  environmental 
considerations into broader community resilience and risk reduction strategies. 

Through  the  resilience  marker,  DG  ECHO  assessed  the  extent  to  which  funded  actions 
integrated  resilience  considerations.  The  marker,  completed  first  by  partners  when 
submitting proposals, is based on four key criteria, each framed by a question addressing 
risk and vulnerability analysis, do not harm and conflict sensibility approach, strengthening 
local preparedness and long-term strategy to reduce humanitarian needs. The final mark is 
determined  by  DG  ECHO  as  part  of  the  final  report,  based  on  the  overall  resilience 
performance of the project (128).  

An  analysis  of  the  resilience  markers  suggests  that  the  great  majority  of  funded 
interventions integrated resilience considerations (129)  

Persistent challenges highlighted by previous evaluations of the period included planning 
of exit strategies and ensuring sustainability in more complex or less stable contexts.  

Stakeholders and documentation highlighted some aspects which DG ECHO could adopt 
to further enhance sustainability: 

•  Durable  solutions:  DG  ECHO’s  guidance  on  the  operationalisation  of  the 
minimum environmental requirements, published in 2022, provides requirements 
and  recommendations  for  delivering  a  more  environmentally  sustainable 
emergency response in all funded sectors. Some experts consulted highlighted that 
focusing  on  environmental  solutions,  particularly  in  the  WASH  and  shelter  and 
settlements sectors, could improve sustainability; 
Increased multiannual funding: Some stakeholders indicated that standardising 
and  increasing  multi-year  actions  and  pilot  PPs  funding  and  continuing  disaster 
preparedness funding could help to enhance sustainability;  

• 

(127) European Commission (2017) Comprehensive evaluation of the European Union humanitarian aid 2012-

2016, Project review (302 actions).  

(128)  Resilience marker general guidelines (2022) 

(129)  External evaluation, portfolio analysis  

41 

 
 
•  Wider  economic  activities:  sharing  and  circular  economies  systems  have  the 
potential to make the humanitarian sector more efficient and sustainable, especially 
in logistics, shelter, and transport sectors (130); 

•  Focus on localisation: localisation of humanitarian action is a means of increasing 
sustainability  and  strengthening  resilience (131).  The  2022  consultation  with 
humanitarian actors to  inform  the localisation guidance  indicated  that increasing 
(direct) financial support to local and national actors and supporting their capacity 
is a key element of project sustainability (132); 

•  Focus on the HDP nexus: closer collaboration with development actors is essential 
to  bridge  the  gap  between  humanitarian  aid  and  development  and  enhance  the 
sustainability of EU-funded actions. This aligns with previous evaluation findings, 
which  emphasized  the  need  to  strengthen  cooperation  between  DG  ECHO  and 
development partners.  

Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus approach  

The  European  Commission  took  steps  to  operationalise  the  Humanitarian-
Development-Peace  (HDP)  Nexus  approach.  Efforts  to  promote  dialogue  and 
cooperation between humanitarian, development, and peace actors were evident at both 
headquarters and field levels, with the establishment of HDP nexus coordination groups 
and task forces. 

This  was  in  line  with  the  2021  Communication  on  humanitarian  action,  advocating  for 
systematic EU joint analysis of risks, needs, vulnerabilities and structural  crisis drivers, 
alongside coordinated programming and planning of EU policies.  

Some  stakeholders  reported  that  the  HIPs  were  updated  to  match  evolving  needs  and 
priorities,  reflecting  a  flexible  approach  to  integrating  HDP  nexus  principles  into 
humanitarian planning.  

The  integration  of  a  dedicated  chapter  in  the  HIPs  was  seen  as  a  positive  step  towards 
achieving long-term resilience and sustainable development outcomes.  The HDP nexus 
chapter in the HIPs outlines opportunities for partners to engage in HDP nexus processes 
at respective country level. This may mean a description of ongoing nexus processes at the 
EU  or  UN  level,  as  well  as  identification  of  specific  sectors  or  population  groups  for 
engagement (for example support to self-reliance of refugees in Uganda or joint support to 
education sector with development actors in Somalia).  

DG ECHO’s active promotion of the HDP nexus approach through multi-year and quality 
funding,  DP,  resilience,  and  early  recovery  projects  was  also  positively  regarded.  In 
addition, the HDP nexus approach was integrated into EU instruments, such as the NDICI 
Global  Europe  programming  to  support  countries  most  in  need  and  contribute  to 
international commitments such as the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement. 

Despite coordination challenges, there were success stories in the operationalisation of the 
HDP nexus, demonstrating effective integration of humanitarian, development, and peace 
activities.  Across  different  regions,  DG  ECHO  and  EU  services  successfully 
operationalised the HDP nexus approach through coordinated efforts and  integration of 

(130)  Foresight analysis conducted in the context of the external evaluation  

(131) European Commission, DG ECHO (2021). Disaster Preparedness guidance note.  

(132) Groupe UR (2022). The Promotion of Equal Partnerships between DG ECHO and Local and National 

responders. Presentation and analysis of the results of the first consultation.  

42 

 
 
disaster preparedness and development initiatives. Success stories in the Southern Africa 
and Indian Ocean, Upper Nile Basin, and West and Central Africa regions highlighted the 
importance of strategic collaboration, innovative funding mechanisms, and alignment with 
local  and  international  partners  to  address  complex  humanitarian  and  development 
challenges.  Examples  included  disaster  preparedness  and  social  protection  initiatives  in 
Chad,  Uganda,  and  Mozambique.  These  highlighted  the  importance  of  collaborative 
frameworks and partnerships with local and international stakeholders to address complex 
crises and promote long-term resilience.  

The  external  evaluation  highlighted  the  need  for  additional  efforts  to  operationalise  the 
HDP  nexus:    flexibility,  coordination,  and  funding  predictability  could  be  further 
strengthened with a view to facilitating complementarity between humanitarian, peace and 
development actions and improved clarity on governance structures. Some stakeholders 
suggested strengthening coordination between DG ECHO and development actors (within 
and outside the Commission) to address the root causes of crises. 

The evaluation noted that effective HDP nexus might be also hindered by external factors, 
including  rapidly  evolving  situation  in  some  contexts  disrupting  long-term  planning. 
Additionally,  limited  engagement  by  development  and  political  actors,  in  particular  in 
politically  estranged  contexts,  can  further  constrain  progress.  National  strategies  that 
would  constitute  a  basis  for  HDP  nexus  collaboration  might  also  be  lacking  in  some 
contexts. 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? (EU added 

value)  

Consistently with findings from the previous evaluation, the humanitarian aid interventions 
funded  by  the  EU  generated  a  clear  added  value  compared  to  what  individual  Member 
States could have achieved.  

The European Commission’s wider global and local presence compared to other donors, 
including the capacity to draw on a network of EU delegations and DG ECHO field offices 
spread in 40 countries, was recognised as unique, as other donors often lack such a global 
presence. DG ECHO’s thematic and technical expertise resulted in a good understanding 
of  needs  and  contexts  in  the  field,  as  well  as  shortened  communication  lines  with 
implementing partners. Information gathered in the field and analysed by DG ECHO was 
crucial in enhancing the capacity of DG ECHO partners and other actors to respond to the 
identified needs in the most appropriate way.  

DG  ECHO’s  thematic  policies  were  seen  as  an  important  way  to  contribute  to  policy 
mainstreaming and technical capacity building, despite the challenge identified by some 
partners to implement all policy requirements. DG ECHO's programming was sensitive to 
filling gaps left by other donors, including the forgotten crises or sectors less covered.  DG 
ECHO  identified  gaps  in  humanitarian  response  through  needs  assessment,  as  well  as 
through partner consultations. In response, DG ECHO strategically allocated funding to 
neglected contexts and less-covered areas such as Education in Emergencies and protection 
This  targeted  approach  ensured  that  ECHO’s  programming  complemented  broader 
humanitarian efforts and addressed critical unmet needs.  

Additionally,  DG  ECHO's  global  stance  as  a  strongly  principled  donor,  particularly  its 
neutrality  and  impartiality  compared  to  other  donors,  was  highlighted  by  the 

43 

 
evaluation (133). DG ECHO’s operational independence from the foreign policy, political, 
and  security  agendas  of  individual  governments  proved  to  be  a  significant  asset.  This 
autonomy facilitated access and dialogue with a broad range of actors, including those who 
might otherwise be inaccessible due to political constraints.  

In  delivering  humanitarian  aid,  DG  ECHO  leveraged  the  resources,  expertise  and 
capacities of its wide and extensive partnership network comprising UN agencies, IOs and 
NGOs. These partnerships approaches were seen as generating added value.  

The European Commission's key advocacy role was acknowledged as generating added 
value, including in promoting IHL, humanitarian principles, humanitarian access, and the 
need to invest in disaster preparedness and capacity-building of local actors to strengthen 
local resilience.  

As outlined by the evaluation support study (134), the European Commission (DG ECHO) 
was valued for its advocacy role in key humanitarian issues, such as its commitment to 
maintaining specific crises (e.g. the Syrian refugee crisis, Venezuelan crisis) and issues 
(e.g.  the  use  of  cash,  localisation  efforts,  DRR  and  DP  initiatives)  on  the  international 
humanitarian agenda (135).   

The 2021 Commission Communication “the EU’s humanitarian action: new challenges, 
same  principles”  also  highlighted  the  importance  of  increasing  the  advocacy  for  a 
substantially enhanced humanitarian financing effort and a better sharing of responsibility 
among donors (136).  

The  EU  is  a  reference  donor  across  the  globe  and  its  funding  was  crucial  to  achieving 
sufficient  levels  of  funding.  DG  ECHO  could  respond  quickly  to  humanitarian  crises, 
providing flexibility to adapt its support to the specific requirements of each crisis,  and 
facilitating  a  unified  approach  by  enhancing  coordination  and  coherence  of  the  overall 
response. 

The use of different preparedness and rapid response instruments in response to crises was 
also seen as generating added value.  

Findings from the meta-evaluation 

The evaluation of the EU’s humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa region (137) 
found that EU Member States perceived the European Commission (DG ECHO) added 
value in strengthening coordination and playing a key role in convening other donors. 
DG ECHO offered a sustained presence and a strong and principled advocacy within 
each humanitarian response.  

(133) External evaluation – interviews, meta evaluation and surveys 

(134)  External evaluation, Case study 5, DG ECHO as a global actor  

(135)  Case study 5, DG ECHO as a global actor, interviews of DG ECHO partners and other donors  

(136) European Commission (2021) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and 
the  Council  on  the  EU’s  humanitarian  action:  new  challenges,  same  principles.  EUR-Lex  - 
52021DC0110 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

(137) Evaluation of the European Union’s humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa  Region, including 

humanitarian coordination, 2014-2018 

44 

 
 
 
The evaluation of the EU’s humanitarian response to the  Rohingya refugee crisis in 
Myanmar  and  Bangladesh (138)  found  that  DG  ECHO’s  comparative  advantage  with 
respect  to  individual  Member  States  drew  from  its  technical  expertise,  in-depth 
understanding  of  humanitarian  needs  and  the  operating  context,  and  its  principled 
approach.  

The evaluation of the EU’s humanitarian interventions in Yemen (139) found that DG 
ECHO’s added value primarily stemmed from its field presence and expertise, the high-
level commitment of DG ECHO’s team on coordination and advocacy efforts, as well 
as its principled approach.  

The evaluation of the EU’s humanitarian interventions in the Horn of Africa (140) also 
highlighted  DG  ECHO’s  field  presence  technical  expertise,  sectoral  coverage,  and 
extensive  partnership  network  as  amongst  the  main  elements  showcasing  its  added 
value.  

DG ECHO’s response to the Venezuelan regional crisis (141) was perceived as having 
generated  significant  added  value,  both  for  budgetary  reasons  (namely  the  amount, 
timing, and nature of the funding), and as a result of DG ECHO’s comparative advantage 
vis-à-vis other donors. These mostly related to DG ECHO’s field and technical expertise 
and principled humanitarian approach.  

Interrupting  EU  humanitarian  aid  interventions  and  funding  would  have  severe 
negative consequences. This would create a substantial financial gap of about EUR 2,181 
million per year, corresponding to 6.5% of all global funding in humanitarian aid (142). In 
addition  to  the  significant  impact  on  beneficiaries,  other  effects  would  include  reduced 
coordination, increased fragmentation, reduced adherence to humanitarian aid principles, 
decreased compliance to International Humanitarian Law (and the corresponding increase 
of humanitarian needs). In many contexts (e.g. Yemen, Syria, Myanmar), DG ECHO was 
one of the main EU actors providing support and ensuring a presence on the ground giving 
a high visibility to the EU, even in contexts where the EU could not engage at a political 
level.  

Actions with the potential to maximise EU added value include: enhancing the European 
Commission  (DG  ECHO)’s    role  in  coordination;  strengthening  advocacy  activities; 
continuing efforts towards localisation and capacity-building of local  actors; supporting 
and strengthening the field network; facilitating the implementation of thematic policies 
through  capacity  building  and  engagement  including  within  DG  ECHO;  enhancing 

(138) Evaluation of the European Union’s humanitarian response to the Rohingya refugee crisis in Myanmar 

and Bangladesh, 2017-2019  

(139) Evaluation of the European Union’s humanitarian interventions in Yemen, 2015-2020 

(140) Evaluation of the European Union’s humanitarian interventions in the Horn of Africa 2016-2020 and 

DG ECHO’s partnership with the International Committee of the Red Cross  

(141) Evaluation of DG ECHO’s response to the Venezuelan regional crisis and of DG ECHO partnership 

with UNHCR (2017-2021) 

(142) Estimated as the average of annual figures over the evaluation period. This percentage does not consider 
the recent budget cuts from major donors such as the US which in comparison positions the EU as a 
much bigger and reliable donor   

45 

 
 
 
sustainability and HDP nexus considerations; and simplifying administrative procedures 
and enhancing multi-year funding.  

DG ECHO’s role in shaping the humanitarian agenda and ensuring visibility of 
certain crises (143) 

DG ECHO played a substantive role in shaping the humanitarian agenda by raising the 
visibility of certain crises. In the MENA region, DG ECHO was instrumental in raising 
and  maintaining  awareness  of  the  needs  related  to  the  Syria  crisis,  such  as  Syrian 
refugees’ needs in different countries of the region (e.g. the Brussels Conferences on 
Supporting  the  Future  of  Syria  and  the  Region  gathered  a  number  of  donors). 
Stakeholders  consulted  referred  to  DG  ECHO’s  positive  impact  and  donors’ 
mobilisation role for the Yemen crisis.  

In  the  LAC  region,  DG  ECHO  was  among  the  first  donors  to  fund  interventions  in 
Venezuela  and  to  be  vocal  about  the  growing  humanitarian  needs  resulting  from  the 
crisis.  Its  advocacy  efforts  helped  to  raise  the  profile  of  other  less  visible  areas  or 
populations in need in the region, notably Ecuador and indigenous populations. 

In  both  the  MENA  and  LAC  regions,  DG  ECHO  was  not  the  largest  donor  but  was 
among the main donors for size and number of funded interventions, adopting a strategic 
approach focused on complementing other donors’ efforts.  

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

The EU's overarching humanitarian aid objectives enshrined in the  Humanitarian 
Aid  Regulation  (HAR)  remained  relevant  in  the  face  of  a  rapidly  changing 
humanitarian landscape, increasing humanitarian needs and shrinking resources.  

The  most  relevant  objective  focused  on  saving  and  preserving  life,  alleviating  human 
suffering, and maintaining human dignity.  

Climate change emerged as a more significant driver of humanitarian needs compared to 
the previous evaluation period, leading to an on increased focus on disaster preparedness. 
Throughout the evaluation period, DG ECHO consistently met or exceeded targets for its 
result indicator on humanitarian aid operations that incorporated disaster preparedness. For 
example, some stakeholders noted a shift towards disaster preparedness in the Southern 
Africa and Indian Ocean region due to the increasing frequency and severity of disasters, 
making disaster preparedness a key pillar in the region's HIPs (144).   

In  line  with  the  findings  from  the  previous  evaluation,  the  EU’s  commitments  towards 
forgotten  crises  (devote  15%  of  its  initial  humanitarian  budget  to  forgotten  crises)  and 
Education  in  Emergencies  –  (commitment  to  aim  to  dedicate  10%  of  the  humanitarian 
assistance  as  of  2019)  -  were  relevant  to  addressing  significant  underfunding  and 
increasing needs, advance humanitarian policy discussions and highlight issues otherwise 
overlooked in the humanitarian system. The majority of stakeholders emphasised that these 
commitments are especially relevant as advocacy tools, highlighting critical humanitarian 

(143)  External study - Case study 5 on DG ECHO as a global actor. 

(144) External study – Geographical workshops (Southern Africa and Indian Ocean)  

46 

 
 
 
challenges and ensuring that Member States and other donors continue to fund forgotten 
crises and Education in Emergencies.  

DG ECHO’s overall strategy was relevant for maximising efforts in line with Grand 
Bargain commitments. The European Commission made significant progress compared 
to the previous evaluation period in aligning its approach with and implementing several 
Grand  Bargain  commitments,  including  quality  funding,  cash  programming,  and 
localisation. For example, notable developments during the evaluation period included the 
European  Commission  (DG  ECHO)’s  doubling  of  its  contributions  to  country-based 
pooled funds in 2022, from EUR 4 million to EUR 8 million across South Sudan, Ukraine, 
Venezuela  and  Afghanistan,  providing  EU  humanitarian  funding  to  local  and  national 
partners (145), bringing the share of funding to local organisations above the 25% target. 
Some stakeholders emphasised the importance for DG ECHO to continue exploring ways 
to  increase  opportunities  for  multi-year  and  more  flexible  financing  to  better  support 
partners on the ground.  

DG  ECHO’s  strategies,  as  outlined  in  the  Humanitarian  Implementation  Plans 
(HIPs),  were  well  aligned  with  the  EU’s  overarching  objectives,  policies  and 
commitments. DG ECHO employed analytical tools to align its funding allocations with 
EU objectives and commitments.  These tools included FIT (146), INFORM (e.g. INFORM 
risk  and  INFORM  severity  index),  and  to  a  lesser  extent  the  Global  Humanitarian 
Overview.  

HIPs  served  as  relevant  reference  points  and  their  preparation  was  informed  by 
thorough  needs  assessments.  DG  ECHO  continuously  updated  its  methodology  to 
enhance  HIPs  relevance,  by  combining  quantitative  information  from  global  and 
qualitative information from field staff and experts.  

HIPs  were  effectively  tailored  to  specific  contexts  and  on-the-ground  needs,  largely 
striking an appropriate balance between tailored regional and country-specific approaches 
Some  regional  evaluations  highlighted  that  adopting  a  regional  approach  effectively 
identified priority needs while customising responses to specific in-country circumstances. 
Consultations  with  key  stakeholders  confirmed  these  findings,  with  stakeholders 
considering  DG  ECHO  to  have  effectively  tailored  HIPs  to  particular  contexts  and 
vulnerable  target  populations (147).  Illustrative  examples  from  the  meta-evaluation  are 
provided in the box below: 

Findings from the meta-evaluation 

The evaluation of the EU’s humanitarian interventions in Sahel (148) found that, from 
2017 onwards, DG ECHO adopted a more country-focused strategy in the Sahel, while 
considering regional commonalities, such as identifying three common response pillars, 
funding multi-country projects, and initiatives like the nutrition transition strategy and 
the Global Alliance for Resilience Initiative (AGIR). 

(145) In 2023, DG ECHO expanded its contributions to CBPFs, making its highest support per year so far 

(EUR 10 million in total). DG ECHO. Grand Bargain Self Reporting 2024. 

(146) The Funding Information Tool  

(147)  External  evaluation,  geographical  workshops  (Southern  Africa  and  Indian  Ocean  workshops,  Upper 

Nile Basis workshop) 

(148) Evaluation of the European Union’s humanitarian interventions in Sahel, 2016-2020 

47 

 
 
The evaluation of DG ECHO’s response to the Venezuelan regional crisis (149) found 
that  DG  ECHO’s  strategy  demonstrated  a  degree  of  flexibility  in  adapting  to  the 
evolving situation and changing needs. 

The evaluation of the EU’s humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa region (150) 
found  that  DG  ECHO’s  strategies  were  developed  through  iterative  processes  at  the 
country level, involving DG ECHO experts and partners and allowing flexibility to tailor 
strategies to needs. Simultaneously, HIPs were tailored to the specific situations of each 
country. 

The consultation mechanisms underpinning the needs assessments of DG ECHO’s 
HIPs were crucial to ensuring their relevance to the humanitarian context, although 
the  consultations  varied  by  country  and  context.  While  HIPs  were  comprehensive, 
challenges  identified  by  some  stakeholders  included  ensuring  an  adequate  and 
proportionate level of detail for both new and ongoing crises and achieving an appropriate 
level of detail for the HIPS and respective annexes. 

Most HIPs demonstrated the flexibility needed to adapt to changing conditions. HIPs 
were  regularly  reviewed  and  adapted  in  line  with  the  evolution  of  the  situation  on  the 
ground  and  to  provide  additional  funding  to  DG  ECHO  partners  were  needed.    For 
example, DG ECHO adapted its strategy in Afghanistan twice due to the escalating conflict 
in 2021. The introduction of specific measures, such as Emergency Response Mechanisms 
and crisis modifiers, enhanced the flexibility of DG ECHO’s approach compared to the 
previous  evaluation  period,  making  it  more  adaptable  to  an  increasingly  dynamic  and 
evolving humanitarian context.  

However,  a  limited  number  of  stakeholders  emphasised  that  the  extended  HIP  process, 
while essential for consultations, meant that in some cases HIPs did not fully reflect the 
rapidly  changing  needs  on  the  ground.  They  considered  that  the  lengthy  process  of 
gathering information for HIPs, which involves anticipation and forecasting, often leads to 
misalignment with the evolving context, as significant changes can occur between their 
ratification in Brussels and the actual implementation of funding.  

However, the HIP is sufficiently general to cater for possible changing needs which could 
intervene  between  the  publication  of  the  HIP  and  the  deadline  for  submission  of  the 
proposals.  What is more, the HIP is updated whenever relevant and in  particular when 
additional funding is made available. There is therefore little risk of misalignment.   

Relevance of DG ECHO thematic policies  

DG  ECHO’s  thematic  policies  provided  essential  frameworks  for  guiding  and 
prioritising funded actions.  

For example, evaluations  of DG ECHO humanitarian interventions highlighted positive 
examples  of  the  usefulness  of  its  policies  in  Afghanistan  and  Iraq  (incorporation  of 
protection risk analyses and targeted approaches), as well as in the context of the Rohingya 
crisis (provided a framework for operational implementation and coordination). 

(149)  DG ECHO response to the Venezuelan crisis 2017-2021 

(150)  Evaluation of the European Union’s assistance in the Central Africa Region 2014-2018  

48 

 
 
 
The  external  evaluation  concluded  that  the  content  of  individual  thematic  policies 
remained relevant overall. Thematic policies were valuable tools for highlighting emerging 
issues and served as reference points for various organisations and Member States.  For 
example,  the  policy  on  disability  inclusion  not  only  inspired  the  IASC  (Inter  Agency 
Standing  Committee) (151)  guidelines  that  were  being  developed,  but  one  local 
implementing partner also used it to develop their own guidelines. Alignment of projects 
proposals to DG ECHO thematic policies was one of the selection criteria applied by DG 
ECHO when assessing the projects, which facilitated a strong uptake of policies.  

Thematic policies were generally comprehensive and up-to-date, although this varied by 
policy. For example, the protection thematic policy was widely used as a framework to 
guide  and  prioritise  actions.  Although  no  thematic  policy  was  deemed  outdated  by  a 
majority  of  stakeholders,  a  minority  of  stakeholders  suggested  that  the      gender,  food 
assistance  and  livelihood,  WASH  and  nutrition  thematic  policies  could  be  updated,  in 
particular  to  continuously  align  them  with  the  most  recent  international  standards.  DG 
ECHO updated its food assistance and livelihood and health policy guidelines in 2025; DG 
ECHO  is  also  currently  working  on  the  revision  of  the  WASH  policy  guidelines. 
Consultation with relevant stakeholders were key to shaping and adequately informing the 
preparation, update and review of thematic policies.  

The  use  of  cash-based  modalities  increased  throughout  the  evaluation  period, 
influenced by DG ECHO’s advocacy. Cash-based assistance has become the preferred 
modality  in  humanitarian  aid  due  to  its  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  flexibility, 
empowering assisted population with the freedom to purchase what they need most. DG 
ECHO and its partners conducted thorough assessments to determine the most appropriate 
delivery  modality.  Where  cash-based  modalities  were  not  chosen,  reasons  typically 
included lack of relevance to  the  action, logistical  challenges, and national  government 
restrictions. 

For example, in Ukraine, where many beneficiaries are proficient in using information and 
communications  technologies  (ICT),  the  use  of  cash  transfer  modalities  and  digitalised 
beneficiary registration processes allowed for faster aid delivery in territories of Ukraine 
(temporarily) occupied by Russia with restricted humanitarian access (152). 

Partnerships  

Data collected in the context of the external evaluation confirmed the feedback provided 
by DG ECHO partners after the implementation of the pilot programmatic partnerships. 
There  was  general  satisfaction  with  DG  ECHO's  partnership  approaches,  particularly 
because of the enhanced funding flexibility and predictability of multiannual strategies. 
The range of partnership approaches adopted by DG ECHO, including the Humanitarian 
Partnership  2021-2027,  enabled  appropriate  responses  to  various  crises.  DG  ECHO’s 
flexibility  and  smooth  operational  processes  were  highlighted  as  strengths  by  some 
stakeholders.  Continuous  dialogue  with  partners  facilitated  successful  projects 
implementation.    This  was  in  line  with  the  results  from  the  previous  evaluation,  which 
noted that DG ECHO selected appropriate partners to work with.  

(151) The IASC is a humanitarian coordination forum established by the United Nations General Assembly in 
1991.  It  brings  together  the  executive  heads  of  19  organizations  to  formulate  policy,  set  strategic 
priorities, and mobilize resources in response to humanitarian crises.  

(152) External evaluation study, case study 1 on humanitarian access  

49 

 
 
Despite engaging with Member States Specialised Agencies (MSSAs), only a small part 
of  the  overall  budget  was  allocated  to  these  partners (153).  There  is  potential  to  further 
explore these partnerships, particularly in protracted crises, to develop the HDP nexus and 
exit strategies. 

Strategic  dialogue  meetings  with  partners  enabled  strategic  discussions  and  leveraging 
partners'  capabilities.  These  sessions  offered  a  platform  to  discuss  shared  interests  and 
concerns,  exchange  perspectives  on  strategic  priorities,  evaluate  challenges  and 
opportunities,  and  explore  methods  to  strengthen  collaboration.  For  example,  strategic 
dialogue  meetings  were  conducted  with  UN  partner  organisations  (e.g.  UNHCR,  WFP, 
UNICEF), IOs (e.g. ICRC), and Voluntary Organisations in Cooperation in Emergencies 
(VOICE) (154). During the evaluation period, high-level dialogues were also held with the 
WHO and IOM. 

Stakeholders  valued  innovative  and  long-term  strategies  such  as  Programmatic 
Partnerships  and  multi-year  funding,  which  were  seen  as  beneficial  for  effective 
humanitarian responses and better aligned with Grand Bargain commitments. DG ECHO's 
partnership  modalities  were  praised  for  their  relevance  and  responsiveness  to  on-the-
ground needs, allowing flexibility and adaptability in dynamic humanitarian situations and 
enabling timely and efficient crisis responses.  

This facilitated better programming, procurement, and quick responses to emerging crises. 
Pilot  PPs  provided  increased  funding  predictability,  enabling  partners  to  adopt  a  more 
strategic perspective, with pre-committed funding for three years.  

The piloting of a new modality may have contributed at times to an increased workload 
for selected organisations and for DG ECHO, especially at the inception of these ambitious 
projects.  Indeed,  setting  up  these  new  multi-annual  and  multi-country  programmes 
requested a period of intensive exchanges and finetuning inherent to a pilot phase.  

Despite  demanding  preparations  to  launch  the  pilot  PP,  the  administrative  workload  is 
expected to  be  nonetheless overall  reduced.  Indeed, the multi-annual and multi-country 
nature of the grants provided many advantages to the partners: predictability which allowed 
economies of scale and staff retention; no need to put forward new proposals each year for 
the countries covered by pilots, and less reporting.  Should these projects have been funded 
through  yearly  grant,  the  administrative  burden  would  have  been  much  higher,  as 
individual  yearly  country  proposals  would  have  had  to  be  assessed.  For  example,  for 
OCHA and IFRC, this would have represented each year around 25 proposals. This would 
have also implied an equal number of final reports and hence a heavier burden on partners 
and more resources mobilized on ECHO’s end. 

In  addition,  the  enhanced  dialogue  helped  to  discuss  further  how  to  further  exploit  the 
potential of the programmes to reach better outcomes. Lessons learned and feedback from 
partners showed that this was a valued feature of the funding modality.  

(153) Partnerships with MSSAs were not covered under previous evaluations, preventing any comparison over 

time  

(154) European Commission, DG ECHO (n.d.). Strategic dialogues with partners, available at  https://civil-

protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/partnerships/relations/strategic-dialogues_en  

50 

 
 
5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

The evaluation sought to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, added 
value, and sustainability of the Commission’s humanitarian aid actions.  

The  EU's  overarching  humanitarian  aid  objectives  enshrined  in  the  Humanitarian  Aid 
Regulation  (HAR)  remained  relevant  in  the  face  of  a  rapidly  changing  humanitarian 
landscape and increasing humanitarian needs.  

The  evaluation  underlined  the  key  features  of  the  European  Commission  in 
delivering principled humanitarian aid and disaster relief including: 

-  a  strong  emergency  response  capacity  built  on  several  humanitarian  aid  tools, 
complementary to support provided under the Union Civil Protection Mechanism 
(UCPM) and the Emergency Support Instrument.  

- 

its  flexibility  to  adapt  humanitarian  funding  and  actions  in  light  of  changing 
contexts,  

-  a wide range of partners, allowing to cover a variety of needs in different parts of 

the world, 

- 

- 

- 

- 

its humanitarian thematic policies and policy expertise, contributing to enhance the 
quality of humanitarian response, 

the power of presence in the field (thanks to 50 humanitarian field offices in 40 non-
EU  countries)  which  gives  granularity  to  the  context  analysis,  supports  and  co-
shapes the humanitarian response, even in politically complex contexts, 

its advocacy role, including the ability to speak and negotiate in different United 
Nations (UN) fora, 

its  leadership  on  humanitarian  policy  framed  by  a  well-established  support  to 
humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law 

The  performance  of  the  EU  humanitarian  assistance  is  linked  to  its  dedicated  flexible 
instrument.  It  guarantees  a  life-saving  needs-based  response  and  the  respect  of  the 
humanitarian principles, which all partners must adhere to in order to receive funding for 
humanitarian aid actions.   

EU’s humanitarian interventions were effective overall and addressed the most pressing 
needs,  although  effectiveness  varied  across  countries,  regions  and  sectors.  EU 
humanitarian aid funding is considered essential by its partners across different regions, 
including more geographically remote ones where its presence is more limited. 

Over the period covered by this evaluation, the European Commission continued its efforts 
to improve the assessment of cost-effectiveness (and efficiency) of the humanitarian aid 
interventions  The  evaluation  underlined  the  importance  of  further  promoting  efficiency 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and  effectiveness  of  humanitarian  action  in  all  sectors,  including  by  strengthening  the 
humanitarian-development-peace nexus, promoting quality funding, locally led responses, 
and cash assistance where relevant and possible  

5.2.  Lessons learnt  

The EU cannot  afford to  leave the challenge of chronic humanitarian underfunding 
unaddressed, as this would lead to severe consequences, impacting particularly the most 
vulnerable  groups  in  need.  The  EU  supports  humanitarian  action  in  more  than  110 
countries,  most  of  them  on  the  upper  end  of  the  OECD  fragility  index,  and  with  very 
limited  coping  capacities.  Non-action  would  literally  mean  loss  of  human  life  and 
increased human suffering: as demonstrated by the evaluation, even small amounts of aid 
can make a significant difference in saving lives and alleviating suffering in remote areas. 

Humanitarian assistance is a vital public good in the rules-based international system and 
is  an  investment  in  community  resilience.  A  qualitative,  accountable,  principled 
humanitarian action by the EU is a strong confirmation of the EU’s commitment to global 
solidarity  and  human  rights,  enhancing  its  reputation  and  influence  on  the  world  stage.  
Investment in humanitarian assistance contributes also to global stability, preventing crises 
from spiralling into security threats, economic downturns and the prospect of failed states. 

The European Commission is confirmed as a key humanitarian player and should 
continue  strengthening  its  engagement  and  leadership  in  global  humanitarian 
affairs.    

The  Commission’s  global  stance  and  focus  on  forgotten  crises,  and  its  needs-based 
approach were highly relevant. The Commission’s efforts to promote compliance with IHL 
and principled humanitarian action, and to shape the humanitarian agenda through strategic 
influence  and  efforts  to  mobilise  like-minded  and  emerging  donors  were  widely 
recognised.   

At strategic level, the Commission increased its advocacy and outreach with EU Member 
States  and  other  donors  to  align  priorities  and  amplify  collective  influence  on  global 
humanitarian issues such as outreach for a substantially enhanced humanitarian financing 
effort. However, evidence indicates that more could be done to better leverage European 
Commission and Member States’ humanitarian coordination, particularly at strategic and 
programming levels, beyond information sharing, for example to establish joint responses 
towards specific crises.  

The importance of thematic policies is confirmed and efforts should be maintained 
to foster their visibility and uptake.  

➢  The Commission is ensuring that its thematic policies are fit for purpose and has 
updated or developed new policies, when and where needed, in order to address the 
main  challenges  in  humanitarian  assistance.  For  example,  in  2022,  DG  ECHO 
adopted  minimum  environmental  requirements  for  humanitarian  aid,  which 
became mandatory in 2023. An evaluation on the WASH sector was started in view 
of  assessing  the  necessity  for  an  update  of  the  policy.  The  Commission  will 
continue to invest in capacity-building to foster socialisation and uptake of thematic 
policies among DG ECHO and partners’ staff.  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
➢  The Commission is a strong supporter of IHL, as demonstrated by its firm positions 
on the international scene and the adoption of guidelines on promoting compliance 
with IHL. 

In a global context where the humanitarian system is underfunded and the overall 
gap between available resources and humanitarian needs is expected to grow, the 
need to further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of EU humanitarian aid 
interventions is also confirmed.  

In that respect and since 2022, the Commission made important further progress, piloting 
nexus  programmes,  promoting  quality  funding  and  multipurpose  cash  transfers  where 
feasible, publishing guidelines on localisation and initiating a reflection on strategic supply 
chain.  It  also  includes  requirements  on  partners  to  ensure  compliance  with  DG  ECHO 
policies  to  strengthen  quality  of  EU  humanitarian  operations  and  efforts  to  track 
humanitarian  policy  implementation.  These  efforts  were  undertaken  following  constant 
assessment and evaluation of past programmes. 

In  addition,  more  predictable  funding  (through  multi-year  funding),  the  systematic 
provision  of  crisis  modifiers,  flexibilities  embedded  in  regional  programmes,  softly 
earmarked support to main partners programmes addressing main EU priorities have the 
potential to generate economies of scale, reduce the administrative burden identified by 
some stakeholders and bring more efficiency gains allowing partners to reach out to more 
beneficiaries 

➢  The  European  Commission  has  made  consistent  outreach  to  like-minded  and 
emerging  donors  in  order  to  address  the  funding  gap,  including  through  the 
organisation  of  pledging  conferences  and  high-level  events,  in  particular  the 
European Humanitarian Forum.  

➢  In  2023,  DG  ECHO  rolled  out  the  Programmatic  Partnership  model  supporting 
longer-term projects focusing on shared strategic priorities. 12 new Programmatic 
Partnerships  were  launched  that  year.  This  model  notably  brought  more 
predictability  to  partners  through  multi-annual  grants.  At  the  same  time,  the 
evaluation recognised that there were margins to reduce the administrative burden 
lined to the implementation and monitoring of programmatic partnerships.  In line 
with  the  Grand  Bargain’s  commitment  to  quality  funding,  The  European 
Commission  also  promoted  more  flexible  funding  and  when  feasible  multi-year 
funding,  applied  more  specifically  to  projects  on  disaster  preparedness,  and 
education in emergencies. 

➢  Since  2019,  the  European  Commission  has  been  contributing  to  Country  Based 
Pooled Funds along with other funding instruments that provided flexible funding, 
including to local partners.  

➢  In  2023,  the  European  Commission  (DG  ECHO)  published  its  guidance 
“promoting equitable partnerships with local responders in humanitarian settings” 
and  has  actively  rolled  it  out,  making  significant  progress  towards  reaching  the 
expected target 25% of funding channelled to local actors as directly as possible.  

53 

 
 
 
  
 
 
➢  The European Commission is continuing to strengthen the operationalisation of the 
HDP nexus, in collaboration with relevant development and peace actors, filling 
gaps identified at operational level. The European Commission is developing, in 
collaboration with other services, an integrated approach to fragility, ensuring that 
humanitarian, development, peace and other policies work together to better link 
urgent relief and longer-term solutions in a Team Europe approach.  

➢  The  Commission  continues  to  uphold  its  advocacy  to  improve  the  delivery  of 
assistance,  though  enhanced  partnerships  and  dialogues  with  donors  and  aid 
organisations.  

➢  Considering that supply chain is a crucial element of the humanitarian aid response, 
the  Commission  plans  to  promote  joint  approaches  in  logistics  by  pooling 
resources,  encouraging  humanitarian  partners  to  organise  and  self-manage 
common logistics and supply chain services in areas such a transport, warehousing, 
fleet sharing. This has the potential to generate important cost savings.  

➢  The Commission is steadily increasing the disaster preparedness budget line and 
the  mainstreaming  of  preparedness  within  humanitarian  projects.  In  2023,  the 
Commission approved a roadmap to progressively scale up anticipatory action. 

The  European  Commission’s  humanitarian  aid  unique  features  (field  network, 
network of partners, internal tools and instruments) have proven to add value to 
the humanitarian system. The Commission is adapting them to respond timely to 
evolving needs.   

➢  The European Commission has developed tool and operational modalities allowing 
to respond quickly to new and unforeseen events: crisis modifier, rapid response 
mechanisms, emergency toolbox, and European Humanitarian Response Capacity.  

➢  The European Commission (DG ECHO) is strengthening the expertise of its field 
network,  playing  a  crucial  role  in  needs  assessment,  response  coordination, 
monitoring of funded action, and coordination with stakeholders 

➢  The  European  Commission  is  using  regular  strategic  dialogues  with  its  main 
partners to enhance strategic and operational coordination and advance its policy 
priorities.  

DG ECHO is adapting its evaluation and monitoring systems to make them more 
suitable to analysing the effectiveness and efficiency of its actions.     

➢  To address the gaps on the availability of quantitative data in certain instances, as 
well  as  difficulties  in  aggregating  and  comparing  data  (e.g.,  across  sectors  or 
regions of interventions), DG ECHO is continuously updating its monitoring and 
reporting frameworks, taking also into account the Grand Bargain commitments.  
This endeavour goes beyond DG ECHO and should be addressed jointly with other 
stakeholders,  considering  the  general  challenges  of  the  collection  of  data  and 
measurement of impact in the humanitarian system.  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
➢  DG  ECHO  is  continuing  to  streamline  the  indicators  used  for  humanitarian  aid 
projects and improving the analysis and use of data.  For example, DG ECHO is 
currently working to improve and harmonise the use of standard (non-custom) Key 
Result Indicators with a view to improve data collection monitoring and coherence. 
For  the  sake  of  simplification,  the  development  and  use  of  common  standard 
indicators for the whole humanitarian system should be encouraged. 

➢  DG  ECHO 

is  enhancing 

the  assessment  of 

transparency  and  cost 
efficiency/effectiveness  elements  of  the  proposals  it  receives,  both  at  selection 
stage (of EU funded actions) and at contracting stage (after negotiation with the 
pre-selected partner). These changes will apply to any new contract or modification 
funded on 2025 HIPs.  

55 

 
 
 
ANNEX I.   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

A.  Lead DG: European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) 

B.  Reference in Decide: PLAN/2022/1683 

C.  Organisation and timing:  

•  The external support study was supervised by an Inter-service Steering Group 
(ISG), composed of representatives of the EEAS and the following European 
Commission  (EC)  DGs:  CLIMA,  ECHO,  ENV,  FPI,  HERA,  INTPA,  JRC, 
NEAR, SANTE and SG.  

•  The first ISG meeting was held on 5 December 2022 and discussed the Call for 

Evidence and the Terms of Reference of the evaluation. 

•  The  European  Commission  contracted  an  external  company  to  carry  out  a 
supporting study. The contract for the external support study was signed on 30 
June 2023 for 16 months initially, from  July 2023 to  October 2024 and was 
extended until 14 February 2025.  

•  Four meetings with the evaluation team (external company) and the ISG were 

held: 

−  10 July 2023: Kick off meeting 
−  19 October 2023: Inception report meeting 
−  15 January 2024: Desk report meeting  
−  9 September 2024: Field report and Draft final report meeting 

•  The last  meeting with  the ISG was held  on  5 March 2025 and discussed the 

Commission’s Staff Working Document 

D.  Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board:30 April 2025.  

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board provided a negative opinion.  The shortcomings 
have been addressed in the Staff Working Document. The main points addressed 
are the following: 

(1) The report is not clear about the evidence, data sources and methods of its 
collection and analysis. The report should be explicit about the type of data 
that is  available on humanitarian aid  interventions, what  is  being  monitored, 
collected and how the available data are used in the evaluation. There should 
be  systematic  references  throughout  the  report  to  the  sources  of  evidence  to 
support  statements  and  findings,  indicating  and  taking  into  account  their 
limitations.  The  points  of  comparison  based  on  the  findings  of  the  previous 
evaluation should be formulated in a way that allows the reader to understand 
developments  over  time  and  whether  there  has  been  any  progress  on  the 
identified shortcomings. 

Addressed by: The report describes in more detail the existing data used to assess 
humanitarian  aid  actions  -  including  the  requirements  to  assess  the  proposals 
56 

 
 
submitted by partners as well as the monitoring system in place. References have 
been  added  on  the  sources  of  evidence.  The  points  of  comparison  based  on  the 
findings of the previous evaluation have been added under each evaluation criteria.  

(2) The report does not adequately analyse the implementation modalities and 
tools and how they ensure an effective and efficient implementation of the 
humanitarian  aid  provided.  The  report  should  substantiate  its  findings  on 
effectiveness, efficiency and relevance, following the standard analytical tools 
provided in the BR toolbox. It should explain how funding is allocated, provide 
analysis of key implementation modalities and tools such as the Humanitarian 
Implementation Plans, certification of partners, cash transfers, localisation of 
aid, thematic policies, harmonised reporting, including analysis of all related 
costs.  The  report  should  better  distinguish  various  types  of  situations  (e.g. 
emergencies vs. protracted crises). It should analyse how the needs assessment 
is carried out and evaluate whether and to what extent funding goes where it is 
most needed and how potential overlaps are prevented. 

Addressed by: Several clarifications have been included in the report on the key 
implementation modalities and their lessons learnt – with the report describing in 
more detail how the funding is allocated (e.g. Humanitarian Implementation Plans, 
certification of partners, reporting). The report is analysing in more detail how the 
needs assessment is carried out.    

(3) The  efficiency,  costs  and  benefits  are  neither  sufficiently  identified  nor 
assessed.    The  report  should  identify  and  describe  the  costs  and  benefits.  It 
should  better  analyse  the  efficiency  of  interventions  taking  into  account  all 
costs to stakeholders and difficulties in measuring and attributing the benefits. 
The  report  should  provide  analysis  on  the  issues  flagged  by  stakeholders 
regarding administrative burden and the room for simplification 

Addressed  by:  The  section  on  efficiency  in  the  report  has  been  revised.  The 
methodology used by the external evaluator, including the challenge of measuring 
the impact of humanitarian aid is presented more prominently. The report provides 
more  analysis  on  certain  issues  flagged  by  stakeholders  (e.g.  administrative 
burden).  

(4) The report’s conclusions regarding the positive assessment of effectiveness, 
efficiency, and relevance are not underpinned by the available evidence. 
The evaluation conclusions should be aligned with the available evidence and 
analysis  better  explaining  the  varied  results  across  sectors  and  different 
situations. Identified shortcomings should be clearly spelled out. The lessons 
learned from the assessment need to be better highlighted to understand what 
works  and  what  does  not,  and  what  are  the  reasons  and  consequences. 
Operational conclusions and lessons should be drawn regarding the evidence 
gaps  (both  in  terms  of  data  and  methods)  and  potential  for  monitoring  and 
reporting simplification 

Addressed  by:  The  points  of  comparison  based  on  the  findings  of  the  previous 
evaluation have been added under each evaluation criteria to allow the reader to 

57 

 
understand developments over time and whether there has been any progress on the 
identified  shortcomings.  Conclusions  are  better  aligned  with  the  evidence  and 
analysis of the document. The sections clarifying how DG ECHO is adapting its 
evaluation and monitoring systems to make them more suitable to  analysing the 
effectiveness and efficiency of its actions are further developed in the report.  

E.  Evidence: Several information sources were used to reach triangulated conclusions, 
i.e. document review; portfolio analysis of the EC's projects database (‘HOPE’); 
in-depth  review  of  a  sample  of  more  than  100  projects;  90  key  informant 
interviews;  three  online  surveys  (to  DG  ECHO;  DG  ECHO  partners;  and  local 
implementing partners); an Open Public Consultation; thirteen workshops; and five 
case studies. 

F.  External expertise: The evaluation support study was carried out by ICF SA, who 
were  selected  through  a  reopening  under  DG  ECHO’s  framework  contract.  The 
current Staff Working Document aims at fully reflecting the results of the external 
exercise. 

58 

 
  
 
 
ANNEX II.   METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED  

DG  ECHO  commissioned  an  external  support  study  to  inform  the  Evaluation  by  the 
conduction of quantitative and qualitative data analysis from relevant sources and to help 
mitigate,  to  the  extent  possible,  the  impact  of  data  limitations  on  the  results  of  the 
evaluation.  

The evaluation began in July 2023 and comprised of five phases: inception; desk research; 
consultation; analysis and synthesis; dissemination and learning. 

The previous comprehensive evaluation of the EU’s humanitarian aid (2012-2016) served 
as a baseline for this evaluation.  

As a meta-evaluation, this evaluation builds upon the findings and the conclusions drawn 
in the 33 specific evaluations carried out during the evaluation period 2017-2022, including 
evaluations  of  the  Commission’s  responses  to  geographical  humanitarian  crises,  of 
humanitarian thematic policies and of DG ECHO’s partnerships.  

In  addition,  to  inform  the  evaluation  questions,  the  evaluation  team  carried  out  the 
following data collection activities:  

−  A review of documentation, based on the mapping and rapid review of 238 sources 
and documents, followed by an in-depth desk review of qualitative and quantitative 
data. The desk research included an analysis of the whole portfolio of EU-funded 
actions (3386 actions) during the evaluation period, and an in-depth review of a 
sample of 300 projects funded by DG ECHO and implemented by its partners; For 
this sample of projects, the evaluation team analysed the SingleForms (standardised 
document  used  by  partners  of  DG  ECHO  to  submit  action  proposals  for  EU 
funding)  and FichOps (documents reviewing the details of humanitarian projects 
funded  by  DG  ECHO)  to  extract  key  information  (quantitative  and  qualitative) 
relevant to each evaluation question. The sample of 300 projects has been selected 
to  be  representative  of  DG  ECHO  portfolio,  to  the  extent  possible,  while  also 
covering the specific focus and thematic areas  selected for case studies.  75% of 
projects were randomly selected. The remaining 25% of projects were selected on 
the  basis  of  the  focus  and  thematic  areas  chosen  for  the  case  studies  and  gaps 
identified. 

−  A social media analysis; 
−  2  inception  workshops  (on  the  theory  of  change  and  the  meta-evaluation),  10 
geographic and thematic workshops with DG ECHO staff (from headquarters and 
field offices) and partners, and one foresight workshop (with humanitarian experts, 
networks, academia, etc.); 

−  14 scoping interviews and 86 key informant interviews  
−  An Open Public Consultation; 
−  3 online surveys, targeting DG ECHO staff, DG ECHO certified partners, and local 
implementing partners. In addition, a Delphi survey enabled to collect qualitative 
and  quantitative  insights  about  the  key  challenges  and  opportunities  in  the 
foreseeable future. 

−  5 case studies, including 4 in-country (DRC, Ethiopia, Pakistan and Ukraine) and 
2 remote field missions (in the MENA and LAC regions). In addition to the project 
site visits, the case studies comprised a tailored review of relevant documentation, 
in-depth review of projects, additional interviews with key stakeholders (including 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
from local authorities, civil society organisations, local implementers of projects 
etc.), as well as focus groups with, inter alia, assisted population.  

−  A  children  drawing  projects  which  aimed  to  gather  feedback  from  227  children 

targeted by the EU’s humanitarian interventions.  

The  consultation  activities  gathered  stakeholders’  perspectives  on  the  relevance, 
coherence,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  EU  added  value  and  sustainability  of  the  EU’s 
humanitarian action, provided significant findings about the main achievements and the 
gaps and limitations across the evaluation period, and allowed to draw some lessons learnt, 
and to put forward some ideas for potential improvements going forward. This evaluation 
also  includes  a  foresight  component,  including  a  presentation  of  the  drivers  of 
humanitarian  crises  and  their  possible  impact  on  the  evolution  of  the  humanitarian 
landscape in the short to medium-run and an analysis of DG ECHO’s analysis to adapt its 
response.  

The external  study therefore  combined quantitative and qualitative research methods to 
collect data from relevant sources and mitigate the impact of data limitations to the extent 
possible. In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, the external support study provided 
a  triangulation  and  verification  of  data  collected  from  different  sources  to  answer  the 
evaluation  questions,  draw  conclusions,  highlight 
learnt  and  produce 
recommendations.  

lessons 

The figure below gives an overview of the different phases of the external support study.  

During the conduction of the external support study as well as in the overall preparation of 
this  Evaluation,  several  limitations  and  impediments  were  encountered  and,  where 
possible, mitigated.  

First, due to the nature of the work of DG ECHO, and the very rapidly changing political 
and security environment in the geographical areas of humanitarian interventions -in the 
scope of this evaluation, the organisation and conduct of the field missions for the case 
studies happened to be challenging and some of the activities were interrupted or had to be 
re-scheduled or carried  out  remotely  which resulted in  the expansion of the field  phase 
(over the planned schedule) and delayed the evaluation process. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In relation to the above, it proved challenging to conduct some site visits and to engage 
directly  with  assisted  population  in  some  instances.  Some  tasks  of  the  envisioned 
participatory  approach  (e.g.  mobile  surveys)  could  not  be  implemented.  The  depth  and 
quality of the data collected through the “children’s drawing projects” was limited. This 
was  partially  compensated  by  additional  consultations  and  interviews  (e.g.  with  local 
community representatives, focus groups). 

Second,  the  stakeholder  consultation  activities  (e.g.  surveys,  targeted  interviews, 
workshops, field visits etc.) occurred in  a period marked by multiple (including sudden 
onset) crises and need for urgent humanitarian and emergency responses, which hampered 
the availability of some stakeholders. Furthermore, the high turnover among field staff of 
stakeholder organisations made it difficult to get information and insights from the first 
years  of  the  evaluation  in  some  contexts.  It  was  mitigated  by  the  extension  of  the 
consultation phase and broadening of the scope of the interviewees.  

Third,  the  low  response  rate  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation  (despite  wide-ranging 
communication and promotion on the website, through social media etc.) can be explained 
by  the  launch  in  parallel  of  targeted  surveys  to  specific  audiences,  including  key 
stakeholders, which provided satisfactory response rates.  

Fourth, despite the improvements in the data collection and monitoring system since the 
previous evaluation, some gaps were observed, as well as the difficulty to aggregate and 
compare data (e.g. across sectors of interventions). For instance, the analysis based on the 
Key  Results  Indicators  (KRIs)  and  Key  Outcome  Indicators  (KOIs)  data  should  be 
considered  with  caution.  Standard  KRIs  are  not  consistently  used  nor  systematically 
reported  by  all  partners  across  sectors.  Although  the  results  based  on  these  indicators 
should  be  considered  in  light  of  these  inherent  data  limitations,  the  external  study 
considered these indicators provided a helpful quantitative indication and assessment of 
the  overall  effectiveness  of  DG  ECHO’s  intervention  across  sectors  and  areas  of 
intervention. DG ECHO is currently working to improve the use of standard KRIs (besides 
custom KRIs) and make it compulsory, with the aim of harmonising their use and thus 
improving quantitative monitoring of its actions.  

In addition, this evaluation shed light on the challenge to accurately measure the number 
of beneficiaries and the broader impact of EU humanitarian actions (because of the risk of 
double  counting  -same  people  get  support  through  different  actions/  sectors  (e.g.  food, 
health  etc.)  and  from  different  organisations).  As  of  2021,  DG  ECHO  developed  a 
methodology  for  estimating  the  number  of  persons  reached  through  a  combination  of 
quantitative and qualitative analysis. However, as such data was not available for the whole 
evaluation period, it could not be used. 

In  this  evaluation  process,  the  limitations  quoted  above  were  mitigated  by  the  ample 
consultation activities carried out and the wealth of the qualitative data collected (including 
about EU humanitarian projects monitoring etc.).  

Despite these limitations, and in light of mitigation approaches adopted to address them, 
the evidence base was sufficient to draw solid evaluation findings. The conclusions of the 
external  support  study  are  considered  reliable  enough  and  provide  a  comprehensive 
understanding of the results.  

Assessment of the contractor:  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overall, DG ECHO agrees with the assessment and evaluation process executed by the external 
contractor.  The  number  and  wide  range  of  activities  undertaken  underscores  the  detailed 
analysis. Furthermore, the external contractor proactively provided suggestions to mitigate the 
existing limitations and showed flexibility to adjust the tasks and activities, e.g. re-planning 
some field missions, broadening the scope and increasing the number of interviews, etc.   
Needs assessment methodology - INFORM RISK and INFORM SEVERITY indexes  

INFORM is a partnership that started a decade ago as a collaboration of UN agencies, the 
European Commission, donors, and experts. Its purpose is to address the emerging needs 
for common evidence–based coordinated allocation of humanitarian aid and to meet the 
requirement  of  EU  and  global  humanitarian  systems.  INFORM  has  become  a  suite  of 
shared quantitative, analytical products to support decision-making at different phases of 
the  crisis  management  cycle.  The  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  of  the  European 
Commission  is  the  scientific  and  technical  lead  for  all  INFORM  products.  Among  the 
INFORM products, the INFORM Risk Index and INFORM Severity Index are integrated 
into DG ECHO's Humanitarian funding allocation tool to support the needs assessment 
process.  

INFORM Risk 

The  INFORM  Risk  index (155) identifies countries  at  risk from  humanitarian crises and 
disasters that could overwhelm national response capacity.  

INFORM  Risk  (156)  has  three  dimensions.  Each  dimension  encompasses  different 
categories,  which  are  user-driven  concepts  related  to  the  needs  of  humanitarian  and 
resilience actors.  

1.  The hazard and exposure dimension reflects the probability of physical exposure 

associated with specific hazards.  

2.  The  vulnerability  dimension 

represents  economic,  political  and  social 
characteristics of the community that can be destabilised in case of a hazard event.  
3.  The lack of coping capacity dimension considers factors that measure the ability of 
a country to  cope with  disasters in  terms  of formal,  organized activities and the 
effort  of  the  country’s  government  as  well  as  the  existing  infrastructure  which 
contribute to the reduction of disaster risk.  

(155)  Marin Ferrer M, Vernaccini L and Poljansek K. INFORM Index for Risk Management: Concept and 
Methodology, Version 2017, EUR 28655 EN. Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Publications Office of the 
European Union; 2017. JRC106949   

(156) The JRC is responsible for the methodology and data collection for INFORM Risk Index.  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure: INFORM Risk Index component 

The INFORM Risk index is a multiplicative equation in which all three dimensions have 
the weight of a one third. Results are provided on a ten-level categorisation (scale of 0.0–
10.0),  where  ten  represents  the  highest  risk.  The  risk  equals  zero  if  one  of  the  three 
dimensions is zero.  

Risk = Hazard&Exposure 1/3 × Vulnerability 1/3 × Lack of coping capacity 1/3 

The JRC is responsible for the methodology and data collection for INFORM Risk Index. 
More  information  on  the  INFORM  Risk  index  methodology  and  its  results  and  data  is 
available under the following link: 
https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/inform-index/INFORM-Risk 

INFORM Severity 

The INFORM Severity index (157) is a composite indicator that measures the severity of 
humanitarian crises against a common scale at the global level. Its model aims to assist 
in 
decision-makers  and  contribute 
humanitarian action. Existing methods of measuring crisis severity at global level are not 
widely  or consistently  adopted and face a number of technical  challenges. The primary 
advantage of the INFORM Severity index is that it allows measurement of severity against 
an objective, common scale, which can be applied to all crises.  

improved  effectiveness  and  coordination 

to 

While the JRC is responsible for the methodology of the INFORM Severity index, data for 
Severity  is  gathered  by  ACAPS,  an  independent  (non-profit  &  non-governmental) 
information provider that is free from the bias or vested interests of any specific enterprise, 

(157) Poljansek, K., Disperati, P., Vernaccini, L., Nika, A., Marzi, S. and Essenfelder, A.H., 2020. INFORM 
Severity Index, EUR 30400 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN  978-
92-76-23014-4 
(online),10.2760/613430 
(print), JRC122162 

(print),  doi:10.2760/94802 

(online),978-92-76-23015-1 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
sector,  or  region.  ACAPS’  team  consists  of  about  60  professionals  located  around  the 
world in addition to headquarters in Geneva. 

INFORM Severity has three dimensions that describe: 

1.  The  impact  of  the  crisis,  in  terms  of  the  scope  of  its  geographical,  human  and 

physical effects; 

2.  The conditions of people affected, including information about the distribution of 
severity (i.e. the number of people in each category of severity within a crisis); 
3.  The  complexity  of  the  crisis,  in  terms  of  factors  that  affect  its  mitigation  or 

resolution. 

Figure: INFORM Severity Index components 

The impact of an event generates different conditions for affected people, in a context that 
can make it more or less complex to provide assistance to them. This is represented by the 
formula: 

Severity = Impact x Conditions of Affected People + Complexity 

A weighting is applied at the dimension level as follows. The overall severity is therefore 
most sensitive to the conditions of affected people. 

Figure: Inform Severity model 

64 

 
  
 
The three dimensions are in mutually consequential relationship. The impact of an event 
generates different conditions for affected people, in a context that can make it more or 
less complex to provide assistance to them. The INFORM Severity index is therefore a 
sum of 70% impact (1/3) and conditions of people affected (2/3) and 30% complexity of 
the crisis. Results are provided on a five-level categorisation (scale of 1.0–5.0), where five 
represents the highest severity.  

Criteria for inclusion of crises in the Severity Index: 
A crisis is included in the INFORM Severity Index when BOTH of the following criteria 
- which apply to all types of crises - are met: 

The  number  of  people  affected  is 
at  least  30,000 OR at  least  1% of 
the population of the country 

AND 

The number of people in need is at 
least 10,000 people 

Some crises may be included in the results but the final Severity value is not calculated 
due to lack of data for parts of the Index. The Severity value is only calculated when all 
three dimensions are present. A crisis phases out of the Index when no updates have been 
made to the monitored sources for 3 months. 

The  Severity  index  aggregates  information  from  a  range  of  credible,  publicly  available 
sources, such as UN agencies, governments and other multilateral organisations. Indicators 
are updated as soon as more up-to-date or more reliable information is available. Due to 
the dynamic and chaotic nature of humanitarian emergencies and the lack of a globally 
systematic approach to data collection, the information in the INFORM Severity index will 
never  be  completely  perfect,  so  expert  judgement  is  needed  in  deciding  what  data  to 
include.  

More information on the INFORM Severity index methodology and its results and data is 
available under the following link: 
https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/inform-index/INFORM-Severity   

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

Indicators 

EQ1. To what extent was the EU overall approach 
to  humanitarian  aid,  including  its  objectives  and 
commitments  relevant  and  equipped  to  address 
global  humanitarian  needs  while  fulfilling  other 
requirements  (e.g.  financial  management  and 
accountability)  and to  what  extent  does it  remain 
relevant  and  appropriate  to  respond  to  future 
humanitarian crises? 

JC1.1  The  overarching  objectives  of  EU  humanitarian  aid  remain 
relevant and appropriate to meeting ongoing and future humanitarian 
needs  and  challenges  (i.e.  they  do  provide  a  framework  for  both 
immediate/early/short-term  response  to  emergencies  and  medium 
and  longer-term,  anticipatory,  preparedness  and  response  actions, 
the latter mostly for protracted and recurrent crises) 

*Mapping of EU objectives 
* Mapping of humanitarian needs, trends and direction over time 
* Mapping of humanitarian aid volumes, trends and direction over time 
* Extent to which EU objectives were in line with humanitarian needs, trends and direction over time 
* Identification and mapping of future trends and challenges 
* Evidence of recent/ emerging humanitarian issues and challenges being reflected in EU policy 
documents (e.g. 2021 communication) and statements  
* Evidence of EU objectives preventing or constraining DG ECHO’s ability to respond to 
humanitarian needs and challenges  
* Stakeholder feedback on the current and future relevance of EU humanitarian objectives 
*Evidence of EU objectives’ adequacy vis-a-vis identified future needs and requirements of the 
humanitarian system 

JC1.2  The  EU’s  commitments  (e.g.  allocating  15%  funding  to 
forgotten crises; 10% to education) are justified and necessary and 
are expected to remain relevant in the coming years 

* Mapping of the EU’s commitments and evidence of how these enable DG ECHO to provide a better 
response to humanitarian needs and challenges 
* Progress made on the various EU commitments   
* Stakeholders feedback on the necessity and relevance of existing EU commitments 
* Evidence that EU commitments are and expect to remain relevant 
*Evidence that EU’s commitments are justified and necessary vis-a-vis identified future needs and 
requirements of the humanitarian system 

JC1.3  The  EU’s  overall  approach  to  humanitarian  aid  strikes  an 
appropriate balance between its commitments (i.e. in the context of 
Grand  Bargain)  and  constraints  (e.g.  requirements  relating  to 
financial management and accountability) 

*  Evidence  of  dilemmas,  trade-offs,  limitations  and  constraints  associated  with  applying  EU’s 
commitments in (practice 

66 

 
 
  
 
 
Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

Indicators 

 EQ2.  To  what  extent  were  the  EU  strategies, 
policies,  and  types  of  modalities  appropriate  and 
relevant  to  respond  to  the  humanitarian  crises 
during the evaluation period?  

JC2.1  Strategies  (as  reflected  in  HIPs)  are  aligned  with  the  EU’s 
to 
overarching  objectives  and  commitments  with 
humanitarian aid  

respect 

* Extent to which strategies (HIPs) were aligned with EU objectives and commitments (likert scale 
based qualitative assessment – fully aligned, partially aligned) 
* Share of HIPs demonstrating understanding of system wide needs assessments, programme specific 
needs assessments and Accountability to Affected Populations  
* Stakeholder feedback on the alignment between EU strategies and EU objectives and commitments’ 

To what extent did the EU consider evolving needs 
and EU objectives when designing its responses? 

JC2.2  Strategies  in  place  for  addressing  humanitarian  needs  are 
appropriate, comprehensive and context-adapted, include entry and 
exit criteria, and address specific challenges of forgotten crises and 
access 

* Evidence of comprehensive needs assessments informing priority setting in annual strategies (HIPs) 
* Evidence of HIPs being tailored to specific contexts and flexible to respond to evolving/ emerging 
needs taking into account specific challenges 
* Evidence of appropriate entry and exit criteria being included in annual strategies 
* Share of DG ECHO funding going to forgotten and/or under-the-radar crises and critically under-
funded crises 
* DG ECHO funding to forgotten and/or under-the-radar crises relative to needs  
* Share of HIPs that consider access challenges and include context specific strategies to enhance 
access 

JC2.3 DG ECHO’s thematic policies provide a relevant and useful 
framework to guide and prioritise partners’ actions  

* Extent to which references to DG ECHO’s thematic policies can be found in funding proposals 
* Evidence of alignment between actions and thematic policies 
* Stakeholder feedback on the relevance and usefulness of DG ECHO’s thematic policies for 
prioritising actions 

JC2.4  Individual  thematic  policies  are  up-to-date  (i.e.  remain 
relevant to current and emerging humanitarian needs and challenges 
and there are no gaps in coverage) 

* Assessment of the extent to which DG ECHO’s thematic policies reflect new/ emerging needs, 
challenges as well as opportunities  
* Evidence of gaps in coverage of DG ECHO’s thematic policies and prioritisation of these gaps 
*Assessment of the extent to which individual thematic policies collectively align and address future 
needs and requirements of the humanitarian system 

JC2.5 The types of modalities of humanitarian aid are appropriately 
prioritised considering the context and needs identified 

* EU humanitarian funding by type of modalities 
* Evidence of comprehensive assessment of modalities in HIPs and funded actions 
* Stakeholder feedback on the appropriateness of modalities in different contexts 

67 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

Indicators 

EQ3. To what extent were the different modalities 
of  association  with  partners  (Certificate,  FPA, 
FFPAs,  FAFA),  as  well  as  new  initiatives  (e.g. 
pilot Programmatic Partnerships), appropriate and 
relevant to respond to humanitarian crises? 

JC3.1  The  range  of  partnership  approaches  (Certificate,  FPA, 
FFPAs, FAFA) allows the European Commission and its partners to 
respond appropriately to different crises and contexts  

* Share of funding channelled through different types of partners  
* Partners’ feedback on different approaches to partnership  
* Type and share of partners involved in strategic partnerships and programmatic partnerships 
* Evidence that DG ECHO chooses appropriate partners given the humanitarian needs, partners’ 
expertise and capacity,  pool of available partners to work with and local context 
* Role and extent of involvement of local organisations in design and delivery of DG ECHO funded 
actions – analysis by partner, partnership type, geography and crisis context 

JC3.2  The  range  of  partnership  approaches  available  provides 
mutually  beneficial  forms  of  partnership  with  different  types  of 
actors  (e.g.  INGOs,  international  organisations,  local  actors,  MS 
agencies) 

* Evidence that partnerships are mutually beneficial  
* Strengths and weaknesses of different partnership approaches  

JC3.3 New partnership approaches (e.g., pilot PPs) allow the EU to 
provide more multi-annual, flexible, predictable funding 

* Share of EU funding to multi-annual projects 
* Share of EU funding to pilot (PP) 
* Stakeholders feedback on multi-annual funding and (pilot) PP and the extent to which they provide 
more flexible and predictable funding 

JC3.4 The current range of modalities of associations with partners 
remains  relevant  and  appropriate  considering  new  and  emerging 
trends and challenges affecting the humanitarian aid landscape in the 
future 

* Evidence of emerging trends and challenges and their potential impact on partnerships 
* Stakeholders feedback on the relevance of the partnerships in the future 
*Extent to which current range of association modalities and stakeholders engaged through them are 
adequate vis-a-vis expected future partnership, adaptation, and innovation needs to be addressed by 
DG ECHO 

interventions  consistent  with 

EQ4. To what extent were the EU’s humanitarian 
aid 
four 
their  design  and 
humanitarian  principles 
implementation,  particularly  considering 
the 
challenges posed by restricted humanitarian access 
in conflict-related crises? 

the 

in 

JC4.1  The  humanitarian  principles  of  humanity,  neutrality, 
impartiality  and  independence  (grounded  in  IHL)  are  overall 
consistently  reflected  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  EU 
interventions  

* Evidence of DG ECHO policies and strategies reflecting and reinforcing the four humanitarian 
principles  
* References to / coverage of the fundamental humanitarian principles in the action design (Single 
Forms) and the documentation of DG ECHO’s selection procedures (FichOps), DG ECHO’s mission, 
audit, and monitoring reports  
* Stakeholders feedback on the consideration of the humanitarian principles in EU interventions 

JC4.2 In complex contexts with restricted humanitarian access, the 
tension  between  humanitarian  principles  and  practicalities  of 
delivering humanitarian assistance are successfully resolved 

* Evidence of different approaches and positions taken in applying the humanitarian principles in 
specific situations/interventions 
* Share of partners reporting challenges to ensuring compliance with humanitarian principles  

68 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

Indicators 

* Mapping of the types of challenges encountered (frequencies, contexts) and how these were 
addressed 

JC4.3  Internal/external  factors  which  contributed  and/or  hindered 
the alignment between EU interventions and humanitarian principles 
are identified 

* Evidence of factors that contributed/ hindered the alignment with humanitarian principles 

EQ5.  To  what  extent  were  the  thematic  policies 
internally  coherent  and  aligned  with  the  EU’s 
humanitarian aid objectives?  

JC5.1 The thematic policies are aligned with the EU’s humanitarian 
aid objectives  

* Mapping of alignment between thematic policies and EU’s policy objectives and commitments 
* Identification of any potential contradictions, trade-offs or ambiguities  
* Stakeholders feedback on the alignment and potential contradictions 

JC5.2 The set of thematic policies are internally coherent and any 
trade-offs  or  contradictions 
implementation  are 
successfully resolved  

in  practical 

* Mapping of alignment between thematic policies  
* Identification of any potential contradictions, trade-offs or ambiguities  
* Stakeholders feedback on the alignment and potential contradictions 

internally 

interventions 

EQ6. To what extent were the EU’s humanitarian 
aid 
coherent, 
complementary, and avoiding overlaps, including 
with  the  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  and 
Instrument?  How 
the  Emergency  Support 
successful  was 
internal  coordination  of 
operations? 

the 

JC6.1  The  EU’s  humanitarian  aid  interventions  are  internally 
coherent, complementary, and avoiding overlaps, including with the 
Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  and  the  Emergency  Support 
Instrument.  

* Evidence of synergies (or lack of them) between UCPM and Humanitarian aid  
* Evidence on intra-ECHO dialogue and discussion, information sharing etc.   
* Evidence of decision making to ensure synergies  
* Identification of possible conflicts or overlaps between EU funded actions (in terms of objectives, 
activities implemented across the themes/sectors, etc.) 

JC6.2  DG  ECHO  successfully  coordinates  its  internal  operations. 
Opportunities  for  synergies  between  the  various  instruments 
(UCPM, ESI) are systematically considered and exploited. 

* Nature and types of coordination at HQ and field levels 
* Evidence of success stories and missed opportunities in achieving coherence and complementarity 

JC6.3. Internal/ external factors which contributed and/or limited the 
internal  coherence  of  the  EU’s  humanitarian  aid  interventions  are 
identified 

* Evidence of factors contributing/limiting internal coherence 

69 

 
 
  
 
Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

Indicators 

JC7.1  The  EU’s  humanitarian  aid  interventions  are  coherent  and 
complementary with those of the Member States and other donors.  

EQ7. To what extent were the EU’s humanitarian 
interventions  coherent  with  other  EU 
aid 
instruments  as  well  as  with  MS  and  other 
humanitarian 
interventions?  How 
successful  is  the  coordination  of  operations  with 
those of other actors? 

actors’ 

* Evidence of synergies (or lack of them) between EU and Member States HA 
policies/strategies/priorities 
* Evolution of External Assigned Revenues  
* Evidence of information/ knowledge and lessons sharing, joint risk assessments, joint advocacy, etc 
* Evidence of participation and engagement in formal or informal coordination mechanisms  
* Evidence of joint communication campaigns (with MS and other donors) 
* Evidence of harmonised approaches to risk assessment, reporting etc. 
* Nature and types of coordination at HQ and field levels 

JC7.2  The  EU’s  humanitarian  aid  interventions  are  coherent  and 
complementary,  and  avoiding  overlaps,  with  the  EU’s  external 
financing instruments.  

* Evidence of synergies (or lack of them) between ECHO and EU external financing instruments 
* Evidence on dialogue and discussion, information sharing etc. between relevant DGs and EU 
institutions  
* Evidence of decision making to ensure synergies  
* Nature and types of coordination at HQ and field levels 

JC7.3  DG  ECHO  actively  coordinates  its  interventions  with  other 
(non-EU)  humanitarian  actors.  Opportunities  for  synergies  are 
actively exploited. 

* Nature and types of coordination at HQ and field levels 
* Evidence of harmonised approaches and synergies 
* Evidence of joint communication (with non-EU actors) 

JC7.4. Internal/external factors which contributed and/or limited the 
coherence  and  complementarity  of  the  EU's  humanitarian  aid 
interventions  with  other  EU  instruments  and  other  humanitarian 
interventions are identified 

* Evidence on political or institutional barriers preventing coordination and collaboration between 
relevant DGs and EU institutions 
* Evidence of obstacles to improve coherence and/or factors hindering coherence 

EQ8. What was the EU Added Value of the EU’s 
humanitarian  aid  interventions?  How  could  EU 
Added  Value  be  maximised 
the  global 
humanitarian scene? What would happen if the EU 
stopped its humanitarian aid interventions?  

in 

JC8.1  The  EU's  humanitarian  aid  interventions  generate  added 
value,  drawing  from  DG  ECHO's  specific  mandate,  role  and 
comparative advantage 

* Identification of factors giving a particular EU added value to DG ECHO compared to other donors 
* Evidence or examples of DG ECHO’s policies and priorities reflected in other donors’ and 
international humanitarian agencies’ strategies, plans and/or approaches  
* Donors’ and international humanitarian agencies’ feedback on DG ECHO’s influence beyond 
funding 

70 

 
 
  
 
Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

Indicators 

JC  8.2  Stopping  EU  humanitarian  aid  interventions  would  have 
negative consequences for the affected people and the humanitarian 
system overall 

* Share of projects that would not have gone forward (same scale, scope, timeline) in absence of DG 
ECHO funding 
* Assessment based on evaluation evidence gathered (under effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and 
coherence) and stakeholders’ views 
*Extent to which discontinuation of EU humanitarian aid would negatively affect collective ability of 
humanitarian system to address expected future needs and requirements 

JC8.3 Some measures and approaches should be put in place in order 
to  maximise  the  added  value  of  future  EU  HA  interventions 
considering the future humanitarian aid landscape 

* Identification of measures and opportunities to increase DG ECHO added value in the future 
*Future needs and requirements of the humanitarian system that DG ECHO could address providing 
unique added value  

JC8.4  Specific  elements  of  DG  ECHO  (e.g.  the  field  network, 
thematic policies, pilot PPs, advocacy) generate and will continue to 
generate specific EU added value considering future challenges and 
trends 

*  Identification  of  the  different  dimensions  of  DG  ECHO  added  value/  comparative  advantages  in 
different 
contexts  
*  Identification  of  factors  enhancing  or  reducing  DG  ECHO’s  added  value  in  different  contexts  
* Identification of specific aspects contributing to the development of EU added value. Investigate the 
following components: field network, promotion of IHL, advocacy, partnership approaches, thematic 
policies 
*Evidence of expected added value to be provided by specific elements implemented by DG ECHO to 
addressing future needs and requirements of the humanitarian system 

in 

EQ9. To what extent were the objectives stated in 
the  HAR, 
the  relevant  EU  and  global 
frameworks achieved? To what extent did the EU’s 
humanitarian aid interventions respond to the most 
pressing/urgent needs? 

JC9.1  EU’s  humanitarian  aid  interventions  addressed  the  most 
pressing/urgent needs 

* Degree of alignment between the needs addressed by EU's humanitarian aid interventions and the most 
pressing/urgent  needs  identified  by  DG  ECHO  (HIPs)  and  at  international  level  (HNOs) 
*Stakeholder views on the extent to which funded actions addressed the most urgent needs 

71 

 
 
  
 
Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

Indicators 

JC9.2 The EU's humanitarian aid strategic and operational response 
contributed to progress observed  in  the  achievement of  objectives 
stated in the HAR and other global frameworks 

*Extent to which progress towards the objectives stated in the HAR and relevant global frameworks 
can be observed  
* Evidence of the type and volume of activities/ interventions/ measures implemented supporting this 
objective  
* Evidence of how actions contributed to achieving outputs and outcomes articulated in the Theory of 
Change 
* Share of DG ECHO funded projects exceeding or meeting KRI/KOIs  
* Analysis of KOIs/ KRIs  
* Performance of DG ECHO communication campaigns 
* Analysis of DG ECHO’s contribution to wider outcomes and impacts in certain contexts  
* Evidence of unintended effects (positive or negative)  
* Stakeholder views on the extent to which funded actions achieved their objectives and generated 
expected outputs, outcomes 

JC9.3 Internal/external factors (other than thematic policies and the 
different 
the 
contribution  of  EU's  humanitarian  aid  response  to  progress  in  the 
achievement of these objectives  

facilitated/hindered 

approaches) 

partnership 

* Mapping of critical barriers and success factors to the achievement of expected results and outcomes  
*  Evidence  of  DG  ECHO  support  to  achieving  results  (e.g.  advocacy,  communications,  support  to 
operations, field network) 

EQ10.  To  what  extent  were  the  objectives  of the 
thematic policies achieved? To what extent did the 
thematic policies contribute to the effectiveness of 
the  EU’s  humanitarian  interventions?  How  well 
were they known by all operating partners? 

JC10.1  EU's  humanitarian  aid  strategic  and  operational  response 
contributed to achieving DG ECHO thematic policies objectives 

* Extent to which progress towards the achievement objectives of DG ECHO's thematic policies was 
observed (per thematic policy) 
* Degree to which and evidence of how EU's strategic and operational response contributed to 
achieving DG ECHO thematic policy objectives 
* Stakeholders views on the level of achievement of the thematic policies objectives 

JC10.2  DG  ECHO’s  sectoral/  thematic  policies  and  guidelines 
improved the quality of DG ECHO’s interventions  

* Partner feedback on utility and impact of DG ECHO’s thematic policies  
* Evidence of use of DG ECHO’s standards and guidelines and impact on overall effectiveness of 
operations 
* Evidence and examples of DG ECHO thematic policies contributing to improved quality  
* Evidence of successful approaches to increase complementarity and synergies between sectoral 
policies and how these approaches could be scaled up and/or replicated in other contexts 
* Practical challenges in implementing these policies 

JC10.3  DG  ECHO’s  partners  have  high  levels  of  awareness  and 
understanding of DG ECHO’s thematic policies  

* Level of awareness about DG ECHO's thematic policies among partners consulted 
* Evidence of references to DG ECHO's thematic policies in documents reviewed published by DG 
ECHO partners 

72 

 
 
  
 
Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

EQ11.  To  what  extent  did  the  different  types  of 
partnership  that  are  possible  under  the  EU’s 
humanitarian  aid  policy  contribute  to  achieving 
common 
(EU  and  partners’)  humanitarian 
objectives? To what extent were the objectives of 
multi-year  strategies  such  as  those  of  the  pilot 
Programmatic  Partnerships,  achieved?  To  what 
extent  did  they  contribute  to  the  effectiveness  of 
EU’s humanitarian aid interventions? 

JC11.1  The  different  types  of  partnership  models  facilitated  the 
achievement of common (EU and partners') humanitarian objectives, 
each model in a unique way  

Indicators 
* Degree of alignment between the EU's humanitarian objectives and those of a sample of partners 
* Comparative analysis of effectiveness of different forms of partnerships 
* Stakeholder (DG ECHO and partners) feedback on the extent to which different types of 
partnerships contributed to the alignment of humanitarian objectives between the EU and its partners 
* Evidence of joint communication between DG ECHO and its partners 

JC11.2  The multi-year  strategies  (multi-year actions  and pilot  PP) 
delivered the anticipated benefits  

* The extent to which multi-year actions achieved their KOIs and KRIs 
* The extent to which pilot PPs achieved their KOIs and KRIs 
* Stakeholder feedback on the benefits generated by multi-year actions and PPP 

JC11.3 Multi-year strategies are more effective than annual funding 
cycles 

* Comparative analysis of effectiveness of multi-year strategies (including PPP) vs annual funding 
cycles 
* Stakeholder feedback on the effectiveness of multi-year strategies compared to yearly action 

EQ12. What concrete results were achieved from 
the  angle  of  assisted  populations?  What  was  the 
benefit and the quantified impact on their lives and 
livelihoods? What success stories can be gathered 
from the evidence? 

JC12.1  DG  ECHO-funded  interventions  generate  concrete,  non-
quantifiable results and impacts on the life of assisted populations 

* Qualitative analysis of DG ECHO’s contribution to impact on lives and livelihoods of assisted 
populations in certain contexts  
* Stakeholder feedback (assisted populations) on the impact that DG ECHO-funded interventions had 
on their life 

JC12.2  DG  ECHO-funded  interventions  generate  quantifiable 
results and impacts on the life of assisted populations 

* Quantitative analysis of DG ECHO’s contribution to impact on lives and livelihoods of assisted 
populations in certain contexts 
* Levels of satisfaction among assisted populations  

JC12.3 Success stories from the angle of assisted populations can be 
identified 

*  Evidence  of  success  stories  reported  by  assisted  population  consulted  or  identified  in  documents 
reviewed 

EQ13. To what extent were the EU humanitarian 
aid interventions efficient/ cost-effective? 

JC13.1  DG  ECHO  took  appropriate  actions  to  ensure  cost-
effectiveness  when  making  strategic choices  about  its  portfolio of 
assistance and throughout the project cycle 

*  Evidence  of  DG  ECHO  considering  cost  in  relation  to  effectiveness  and  timeliness  when  making 
portfolio  choices  (i.e.,  selecting  partners,  sectors,  approaches,  geographical  locations,  beneficiaries, 
transfer modalities) 

* Evidence of DG ECHO considering economy, efficiency and cost-effectiveness in selecting partner 
proposals and negotiating contracts  

*Evidence that lessons learned were considered in these decisions 

73 

 
 
  
 
Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

Indicators 

JC13.2  DG  ECHO-funded  actions  were  implemented  in  a  cost-
effective and efficient manner 

* Evidence that DG ECHO partners considered costs and timeliness when designing their actions, e.g. 
in terms of methods of delivery, suppliers, choice of local partners / staff, etc. 
* Evidence of (i) DG ECHO and (ii) DG ECHO’s partners monitoring efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of funded actions  
* Qualitative evidence that actions funded by DG ECHO were efficient/ cost-effective 
* Quantitative evidence (e.g. administrative costs as a % of total budget, cost per unit/ person assisted) 
that actions funded by DG ECHO were cost-effective 
* Evidence of cost-effective approaches taken (and factors contributing to efficient implementation) 

JC13.3  Internal  and  external  factors  affecting  cost-effectiveness 
were  identified  and  adequately  mitigated  throughout  the  project 
cycle 

* Factors affecting cost effectiveness of interventions in different contexts 
* Evidence of mitigation measures implemented to increase efficiency 
* There are feedback and learning mechanisms (examples of efficient delivery are identified and 
disseminated) 

JC13.4 Obligations imposed by the EU to partners in terms of, e.g. 
reporting, eligibility rules, requests for funds, etc. were necessary (to 
ensure accountability and transparency and proportionate (i.e. they 
did not generate unnecessary administrative burden) 

* Evidence that obligations imposed by the EU ensured accountability and transparency 
* Partners feedback on reporting, eligibility rules, requests for funds, etc  

JC13.5  Room  for  further  efficiency/cost-effectiveness  in  future 
interventions is identified 

* Stakeholders feedback on opportunities to improve efficiency/ cost-effectiveness in the future 
* Evidence of lessons learned identified by DG ECHO and its partners regarding efficiency/cost-
effectiveness of interventions that could be applied widely 

EQ14.  To  what  extent  were  the  EU  systems, 
policies  and  partnerships  efficient/  cost-effective 
(strategic level)? 

JC14.1  DG  ECHO’s  budget  allocations  are  based  on  needs  and 
actions of other donors. 

* Evidence that DG ECHO’s budget allocations are based on needs and considered other aspects (gaps 
in response, partner presence and capacity, own budget) 

* Evidence that DG ECHO’s budget allocations considered the actions of other donors (i.e. share of 
HIPs that took account of actions and funding of other donors)  

*  Proportion  of  DG  ECHO  funding  compared  to  total  humanitarian  funding  (to  be  used  with  a 
comparator) 

* Stakeholder feedback on the extent to which DG ECHO's budget allocation took into account the needs 
and actions funded by other donors 

74 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

Indicators 

JC14.2. DG ECHO budget allocations strike an appropriate balance 
between  needs,  gaps,  own  budget  constraints  and  wider  political 
considerations. 

* Evidence that DG ECHO’s funding allocations were not skewed by political considerations  

* Evidence of changes in budget allocation over the evaluation period (across sectors / geographies) 
mapped against context changes 

*Stakeholder feedback on the extent to which DG ECHO struck an appropriate balance between needs, 
gaps, budget constraints and wider political considerations 

JC14.3 The EU’s systems and processes (i.e., the funds allocation 
system  –  including  for  disaster  preparedness  and  sudden  onset 
disasters, IT systems, HIP and project management cycles) allow for 
a cost-effective/ efficient European Commission's humanitarian aid 
response 

* Time to approve, time to grant indicators  
* Timeliness of DG ECHO decisions relating to funding allocations or changes  
* Qualitative evidence that EU systems (IT, HIP, project management) were efficient 
* Partner feedback on efficiency of different systems and processes  
* Speed of EU humanitarian aid response relative to other donors 

JC14.4  DG  ECHO’s  sectoral/  thematic  policies  and  guidelines 
improve the cost-effectiveness of DG ECHO’s interventions  

* Evidence and examples of DG ECHO thematic policies contributing to improved cost-effectiveness 
or efficiency 
* Partner feedback on any costs or administrative burden resulting from compliance with thematic 
policies  

JC14.5 Different types of partnerships contribute to efficiency and 
cost-effectiveness in a differentiated manner  

* Comparative analysis of efficiency of different types of partnerships 

JC14.6  Multi-annual  strategies  such  as  the  pilot  PPs  contribute  to 
maximising efficiencies and cost-effectiveness 

* Partner feedback on relative cost-effectiveness of annual grants versus pilot PPs 

JC14.7 Specific measures and approaches could be implemented to 
improve 
the  European 
Commission's humanitarian aid system and processes 

the  efficiency/cost-effectiveness  of 

* Stakeholders feedback on opportunities to improve efficiency/ cost-effectiveness of the EU 
humanitarian system 
*Identified opportunities to improve efficiency/cost-effectiveness in light of possible futures of the 
humanitarian system and of the drivers and factors shaping it 

EQ15. To what extent did the EU’s humanitarian 
aid  interventions  manage  to  provide  sustainable 
support  for  living  conditions,  alleviate  suffering 
and save lives?  

JC15.1 Sustainability elements are incorporated into the design and 
implementation of EU's humanitarian aid interventions 

* Evidence of sustainability consideration included in the HIPs and thematic policies 
* Evidence of DG ECHO considering sustainability in project selection 
* Mapping of sustainability elements implemented in funded project  
* Stakeholders feedback on sustainability elements introduced 

75 

 
 
  
 
Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

Indicators 

JC15.2  EU's  humanitarian  aid  interventions  provide  sustainable 
support for living conditions, alleviate suffering and save lives 

* Share of DG ECHO-funded actions that have high resilience marker and were considered sustainable 
* Share of DG ECHO-funded actions including an exit strategy 
* Examples of sustainable interventions 
* Evidence that pilot PPs and multi-year actions contributed to increased sustainability 
* Sustainability of ECHO’s support from the perspective of assisted populations 
* Stakeholders feedback on the sustainability of the funded actions implemented 

JC15.3  Factors  that  contribute/hinder  sustainability  (internal  and 
external) are identified 

* Evidence of success factors leading to increased sustainability 
* Evidence of difficulties hindering the development of a consistent approach to sustainability  

JC15.4 There is room for better incorporating sustainability in the 
design and implementation of EU's humanitarian aid interventions  

* Stakeholders feedback on opportunities to improve sustainability of the EU humanitarian interventions 

EQ16.  How  well  did  the  HDP  Nexus  work, 
considering  both  the  continuum  and  contiguum 
aspects?  

JC16.1  DG  ECHO  offers  the  necessary  tools,  flexibility  and 
predictability (e.g. multi-year funding) to allow partners to address 
DRR,  resilience  and  early  recovery  in  projects,  and  to  ensure 
successful handover from humanitarian to development actors 

* Evidence of efforts to align DG ECHO’s humanitarian response with development assistance in 
different contexts 
* Mapping of EU tools supporting DRR, resilience and early recovery 
* Evidence of the use of specific tools and inclusion of specific elements in project design to increase 
DRR, resilience and early recovery 
* Examples of successful handover from humanitarian to development actors 
* Stakeholders feedback on DG ECHO tools 

JC16.2  The  EU's  humanitarian  aid  contributed  to  the  HDP  nexus 
work in the field 

*Evidence of approaches to the nexus in DG ECHO’s policies and HIPs 
* Evidence of mechanisms to promote dialogue and cooperation between H-D-P at HQ and field levels 
* Documentary evidence and stakeholder feedback on the existence and quality of dialogue and 
cooperation between DG ECHO and D-P actors (HQ and Field level) and their outcomes 
* Share of funded actions which include H-D, D-P, H-P or triple nexus activities  
* Share of funded actions that secured additional funding from other donors to continue / scale-up the 
action  
* Examples of DG ECHO funded interventions that were mainstreamed into the regional / national / 
local agenda 
* Stakeholder feedback on the effectiveness of various approaches (continuum vs contiguum) and 
configurations (HD-DP-HP)   

76 

 
 
  
 
Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

Indicators 

JC16.3 In contexts where the HDP Nexus was operationalised in the 
field, examples of how this led to better synergies between the three 
levels  can  be  identified  (including  good  practices  and  lessons 
learned) 

* Evidence of success stories on the HDP nexus 
* Evidence that DG ECHO funded actions have led to better synergies between the three levels 
* Evidence that DG ECHO-funded actions have led to changes in knowledge, awareness and/ or 
behaviour around the nexus  

JC16.4 Internal and external factors hindering the operationalisation 
of the HDP Nexus (overall and between each pair) 

* Mapping of factors that hindered the successful practical implementation of the double and triple 
nexus in different crisis contexts (e.g. estranged context) 
* Evidence of measures implemented to mitigate the effect of hindering factors 
* Stakeholder feedback on the existence and impact of internal and external factors hindering the 
operationalisation of the HDP Nexus 

JC16.5 There is room for learning, feedback loops and reflection on 
how to implement triple nexus and navigate these challenges 

* Evidence that formal and informal mechanisms for feedback and learning around the nexus among 
EU institutions are in place and used (in the field and at HQ level) 
* Room for more effective feedback and learning mechanisms among EU institutions (field and HQ 
level) is identified 
* Stakeholder feedback on how to promote reflection and ensure learning around the nexus 

the  future  of 

Q1:  What  could 
the  global 
humanitarian system entail in the near-term? How 
could  different  factors  and  drivers  influence  and 
shape this? 

Q.1.1 What drivers and factors are expected to influence the future 
of the humanitarian system in the short, medium and longer term? 
What trends and trajectories are expected to characterise these future 
drivers  and  factors?  What  degree  of  consensus  is  there  around 
current projections? To what degree are current assumptions about 
future trends and projections based on robust evidence? 

*Political, economic, sociological, technical, legal, environmental, and military drivers and factors 
expected to influence and shape the future of the humanitarian system 
*Mapping of different possible trends and trajectories concerning key drivers and factors expected to 
influence the future of the humanitarian system in the near-term. 
*Degree of consensus and certainty surrounding expected future trajectories and trends 
*Weak signals and wildcards that could influence the near-term future of the humanitarian system 

Q1.2  What  would  be  the  implications  of  the  plausible,  alternative 
future trends identified, and their interactions, for the future of the 
humanitarian system?  

*Plausible implications for the humanitarian system stemming from identified drivers of change and 
their associated future trends  
*Potential implications for the future of the humanitarian system of 'Low-probability – High-impact' 
trends, weak signals, and wildcards 

Q2:  How  should  DG  ECHO  navigate  the  future 
humanitarian aid landscape and what should be its 
role in the humanitarian system in the near future?  

Q2.1. What cross-cutting needs, challenges, and opportunities could 
stem  for  DG  ECHO  from  plausible  futures  of  the  humanitarian 
system? 

*Strategic needs, challenges, and opportunities for DG ECHO stemming from plausible futures of the 
humanitarian system 
*Critical adaptation and innovation needs stemming from plausible futures of the humanitarian system 

77 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Evaluation framework 

EQ 

JC 

Indicators 

Q2.2. What strategic initiatives and investments should DG ECHO 
adopt  to  prepare  for  and  mitigate  against  challenges  and  harness 
opportunities  stemming  from  plausible  futures  identified?  What 
partners  and  stakeholders  could  facilitate/hinder  DG  ECHO's 
efforts? 

*Possible policy, programming or other measures that DG ECHO could adopt to prepare for and 
mitigate against potential implications / address identified adaptation and innovation needs  
*Possible policy, programming or other measures that DG ECHO could adopt to contribute to shaping 
the future humanitarian system, considering the identified challenges and opportunities 

*Critical barriers and enablers likely to influence possible policy/programming/ other measures and 
adaptation and innovation efforts 
*Stakeholders and partners that could support or disrupt possible policy/programming measures and 
adaptation and innovation efforts. 

78 

 
 
  
 
Key evaluation findings 

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ1 

JC1.1. The overarching objectives of EU humanitarian aid remain relevant and appropriate to 
meeting ongoing and future humanitarian needs and challenges (i.e. they provide a framework 
for both immediate, early, short-term anticipation and response to emergencies and medium or 
longer-term preparedness and response actions, the latter mostly for protracted and recurrent 
crises) 

  The EU's overarching humanitarian aid objectives remained pertinent in the face of a rapidly 
changing humanitarian landscape and increasing humanitarian needs. The most relevant 
objective focused on saving and preserving life, alleviating human suffering, and 
maintaining human dignity.  

  The evaluation period saw an increased focus on DP, which was relevant and likely to 

continue to be relevant given the effects of climate change, such as the rising frequency and 
intensity of disasters. 

JC1.2 The EU’s commitments (e.g. allocating 15% funding to forgotten crises; 10% to 
education) are justified and necessary and are expected to remain relevant in the coming years 

  The EU’s commitments towards forgotten crises and EiE were relevant to addressing 

significant underfunding and increasing needs. 

  Stakeholders felt that the EU's focus on forgotten crises and EiE were relevant to addressing 
significant underfunding issues in the humanitarian landscape. These commitments also 
helped to advance humanitarian policy discussions and bring attention to less-highlighted 
issues. Challenges were identified with the practical applicability of the EiE target across 
specific contexts. 

  Although implementation of commitments outlined in the 2021 Communication was in its 
early stages in the evaluation period, these were found to be relevant and necessary, 
particularly commitments on climate change, adherence to IHL, localisation, and donor 
practices. 

JC1.3 The EU’s overall approach to humanitarian aid strikes an appropriate balance between its 
commitments (i.e. in the context of the Grand Bargain) and constraints (e.g. financial 
management and accountability requirements) 

  DG ECHO’s overall strategy was pertinent for maximising efforts in line with Grand Bargain 

commitments. 

  DG ECHO made progress in aligning its approach with several Grand Bargain commitments, 

including quality funding, cash programming, and localisation. 

  The implementation of these commitments was actively pursued, within the financial, 

legislative, and administrative frameworks, rising humanitarian needs worldwide, and the 
growing limited resources for humanitarian action leading to a growing humanitarian 
funding gap.    

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ2    

JC2.1 Strategies (as reflected in HIPs) are aligned with the EU’s overarching objectives and 
commitments with respect to humanitarian aid  

79 

 
 
  DG ECHO’s strategies, as outlined in the HIPs, were generally well aligned with the EU’s 

overarching objectives and commitments. 

  DG ECHO used effective analytical tools, such as the FIT tool and INFORM index, to ensure 

that funding allocations were aligned with EU objectives and commitments. 

In the face of growing humanitarian needs, a financing gap limited the reach of DG ECHO’s 
strategies. 

  DG ECHO occasionally fell short of clearly communicating or defining its strategy regarding 

variations to annual funding allocations to its partners. 

JC2.2 Strategies in place for addressing humanitarian needs are appropriate, comprehensive and 
context-adapted, include entry and exit criteria, and address specific challenges of forgotten 
crises and access 

  HIPs served as relevant reference points and their preparation was informed by thorough 

needs assessments. 

  DG ECHO continuously updated its methodology to enhance HIPs relevance. HIPs were 
effectively tailored to specific contexts and on-the-ground needs, mostly striking an 
appropriate balance between tailored regional and country-specific approaches.  

  The consultation mechanisms underpinning the needs assessments of DG ECHO’s HIPs were 
crucial to ensuring their relevance to the humanitarian context, although the implementation 
of consultations varied by country and context. 

  While HIPs were comprehensive and covered many relevant topics, there is potential for 
improvement by ensuring an adequate and proportionate level of detail for both new and 
ongoing crises, as well as determining the appropriate amount of detail for the HIPs and their 
annexes. 

  Most HIPs demonstrated the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; however, the 

extended process of drafting and approving HIPs, while essential for thorough consultations, 
meant that HIPs did not fully reflect the rapidly changing needs on the ground. This 
underscores the need for realistic expectations of the process, recognising the necessary 
compromises between comprehensive input and timely responsiveness to evolving needs.   

  While most HIPs included entry and exit criteria, the level of detail and quality of entry and 

exit criteria in HIPs varied considerably. While some exit criteria may be missing as they are 
not immediately actionable, it is advisable that they are identified early so that they are 
relevant and effective when the time for implementation arrives. 

  Stakeholders had mixed views on the relevance of DG ECHO’s exit and entry criteria, with 
many struggling to form clear views, indicating potential awareness issues and highlighting 
challenges such as cross-sectoral cooperation and national authority involvement in drafting 
HIPs. 

JC2.3 DG ECHO’s thematic policies provide a relevant and useful framework to guide and 
prioritise partners’ actions  

  DG ECHO’s thematic policies provided essential frameworks for guiding and prioritising 

funded actions. 

  The relevance of thematic policies in guiding and prioritising actions varied between policies 

and stakeholder groups. 

  Thematic policies were valuable tools for highlighting emerging and less-discussed issues. 

80 

 
 
JC2.4 Individual thematic policies are up-to-date (i.e. relevant to current and emerging 
humanitarian needs and challenges, with no gaps in coverage)  

  Thematic policies were generally comprehensive and current, although this varied by policy. 

  Some policies, such as those on protection, DP, EiE, cash transfers, supply chain and 

logistics, and health were noted for their thoroughness and relevance. 

  While no policies were outdated, some could benefit for review and update, including those 

on gender, S&S, food assistance, livelihoods, WASH and nutrition. 

  Consultations with relevant stakeholders were crucial to enhancing the relevance of thematic 

policies. 

JC2.5 The types of modalities of humanitarian aid are appropriately prioritised considering the 
context and needs identified 

  The use of cash-based modalities increased throughout the evaluation period, influenced by 

DG ECHO’s advocacy. 

  DG ECHO and its partners conducted thorough assessments to determine the most 

appropriate delivery modality. 

  When cash-based modalities were not chosen, the reasons typically included lack of relevance 

to the action, logistical challenges, and national government restrictions. 

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ3 

JC3.1 The range of partnership approaches (Certificate, Framework Partners Agreement (FPA), 
Financial Framework Partnership Agreement (FFPA), Financial and Administrative Framework 
Agreement (FAFA)) allows the European Commission and its partners to respond appropriately 
to different crises and contexts  

  The range of partnership approaches adopted by DG ECHO, including the Humanitarian 

Partnership 2021-2027, FPA, FFPAs, and FAFA, enabled appropriate responses to various 
crises. However, there were areas where improvements could enhance effectiveness of 
response (e.g. administrative burden). 

  Stakeholders highlighted DG ECHO’s flexibility and smooth operational processes were 
highlighted as strengths. Continuous dialogue with partners facilitated successful project 
implementation. 

  However, partners reported several concerns with regards to some elements of their 

partnership with DG ECHO, with some of them associating these issues with the new 
Humanitarian Partnership Certificate and related process. These concerns included, among 
others, increased administrative burden and scrutiny (e.g., audits), with a negative effect on 
operational efficiency.  

  Stakeholders praised the strategic dialogue meetings with partners, including UN 

organisations and international bodies, for enabling strategic discussions and leveraging 
partners' capabilities. However, the dialogue could benefit from more opportunities to act on 
lessons, monitor and follow-up on implementation of donor requests, and improve 
information dissemination between the strategic and operational levels. 

  DG ECHO made significant progress in advancing the localisation agenda and Grand Bargain 
commitments, as evidenced by the 2023 guidance note on ‘Promoting equitable partnerships 

81 

 
with local responders in humanitarian settings’ and the increased involvement of local 
organisations in DG ECHO-funded actions during the evaluation period. 

JC3.2 The range of partnership approaches available provides mutually beneficial forms of 
partnership with different types of actors (e.g. international NGOs (INGOs), IOs, local actors, 
Member State agencies) 

  Stakeholders were generally satisfied with DG ECHO's partnership approaches, appreciating 
innovative and long-term strategies such as PPs and multi-year funding, which were seen as 
progressive and beneficial for effective humanitarian responses. 

  Stakeholders praised DG ECHO's partnership modalities for their relevance and 

responsiveness to on-the-ground needs, allowing flexibility and adaptability in dynamic 
humanitarian situations and enabling timely and efficient crisis responses. 

  Despite the engagement with Member States’ specialised agencies (MSSAs), only a small 

part of the overall budget was allocated to these partners. There is potential to further exploit 
these partnerships, particularly in protracted crises, to develop the HDP nexus and exit 
strategies. 

JC3.3 New partnership approaches (e.g. pilot PPs) allow the EU to provide more multiannual, 
flexible, predictable funding 

  DG ECHO’s introduction of new partnership approaches, particularly multiannual strategies, 

brought enhanced funding flexibility and predictability. 

  Stakeholders valued pilot PPs for their flexibility, allowing resources to be carried over from 
one year to the next. This facilitated better programming, procurement, and quick responses 
to emerging crises. 

  Pilot PPs provided increased funding predictability, enabling partners to adopt a more 

strategic perspective with pre-committed funding for three years. However, the lack of ‘legal 
certainty’ due to the non-binding nature of the letter of intent and the risk of budget 
reductions in subsequent years limited full predictability. 

  While pilot PPs aimed to reduce administrative burdens, the requirement for detailed annual 
reports and scrutiny on annual workplans remained time-consuming. Additionally, the 
process for defining the focus of pilot PPs was top-down, with insufficient involvement from 
country offices, although this improved with the 2023 PPs. 

JC3.4 The current range of modalities of associations with partners remains relevant and 
appropriate considering new and emerging trends and challenges affecting the humanitarian aid 
landscape in the future 

  Stakeholders found the current range of association modalities suitable and adaptable in 
addressing current and future humanitarian emergencies, effectively encouraging 
partnerships and aligning well with stakeholders' needs and expectations. 

  DG ECHO’s multiannual strategies, such as pilot PPs and multi-year funding, were 

considered more adaptable and better aligned with the Grand Bargain commitments than 
traditional annual funding models, providing comprehensive coverage and strategic 
relevance. 

82 

 
Key conclusions and findings related to EQ4    

JC4.1 The humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence 
(grounded in IHL) are overall consistently reflected in the design and implementation of EU 
interventions 

  DG ECHO was recognised as a principled donor, adhering strongly to the humanitarian 

principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence. 

  DG ECHO implemented measures to ensure these principles were consistently integrated into 
EU interventions, including proposal-based funding and robust monitoring mechanisms at 
operational level, partnering only with accredited organisations at coordination level, and 
maintaining the right to separate from the EU’s political agenda at strategic level.  

  DG ECHO’s advocacy played a crucial role in upholding these principles. 

JC4.2 In complex contexts with restricted humanitarian access, the tension between 
humanitarian principles and practicalities of delivering humanitarian assistance are resolved 
successfully  

  During the evaluation period, DG ECHO partners generally faced additional burdens to 

ensure adherence to humanitarian principles, with the primary issues being securing access to 
territories and cooperation with state actors, which were resolved to the extent possible. 

  Greater engagement with local partners on risk accountability and transfer could help to 

address future challenges. 

JC4.3 Internal/external factors that contributed and/or hindered the alignment between EU 
interventions and humanitarian principles are identified 

  Factors hindering the alignment of DG ECHO-funded actions with humanitarian principles 
include DG ECHO’s perceived dependence on the EU’s foreign policy agenda, growing 
humanitarian needs and increased risks from growing local actor involvement. 

  Factors that supported coherence include the internal commitment of DG ECHO staff to 
humanitarian principles, close communication between DG ECHO and its partners, and 
external capacity-building efforts by DG ECHO's partners. 

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ5 

JC5.1 The thematic policies are aligned with the EU’s humanitarian aid objectives  

  DG ECHO’s thematic policies were aligned with the EU’s humanitarian objectives, 

particularly Article 2(a) of the HAR, ‘to save and preserve life during emergencies and their 
immediate aftermath […]’.  

JC5.2 The set of thematic policies are internally coherent and any trade-offs or contradictions in 
practical implementation are successfully resolved  

  Evidence indicates that thematic policies were internally coherent. This was ensured through 
cross-referencing, mainstreaming approaches, and consultations with key stakeholders when 
adopting or updating the policies. In some cases, cross-referencing was not ensured, as some 
policies were older than others.  

  The evidence did not highlight any specific example of trade-offs or contradictions among 
thematic policies that needed to be addressed in practical implementation. However, the 

83 

 
increasing number of policies and mainstreaming requirements was a significant challenge 
for partners during the evaluation period.  

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ6 

JC6.1 The EU’s humanitarian aid interventions are internally coherent, complementary, and 
avoid overlaps, including with the UCPM and the ESI  

  During the 2017-2022 period, the EU’s humanitarian aid interventions were internally 
coherent at both strategic and operational level. DG ECHO used several tools (e.g. 
European Humanitarian Response Capacity (EHRC), UCPM) and funding mechanisms (e.g. 
geographical HIPs, Enhanced Response Capacity (ERC) HIPs) for different purposes and in 
different contexts, complementing each other. For instance, the ERC HIP focused on 
initiatives that may not have been covered by DG ECHO geographical funding envelopes 
due to the emerging or cross-cutting nature of the issues to be addressed through policy 
support and innovation. 

  The EU’s humanitarian aid interventions were coherent and complementary with the UCPM 

and the ESI, given the different objectives of each instrument.  

JC6.2 DG ECHO successfully coordinates its internal operations. Opportunities for synergies 
between the various instruments (UCPM, ESI) are systematically considered and exploited 

  Overall, DG ECHO coordinated its internal operations successfully. Examples of synergies 
between DG ECHO’s humanitarian aid and the UCPM included DG ECHO’s humanitarian 
and CP coordination during the UCPM activations in Madagascar and Pakistan.  

  Synergies and complementarity between CP and humanitarian operations could be enhanced. 
A minority of stakeholders highlighted that the increasing number of UCPM activations 
outside the EU could potentially affect the perception of DG ECHO’s and its partners’ 
adherence to humanitarian principles. This was due to the fact that UCPM assistance is 
delivered on the basis of national authorities’ requests for assistance, which might not 
always fully align with needs assessments based on humanitarian principles.  

  The EU’s humanitarian interventions were coherent and avoided overlaps with ESI, given its 
specific scope and objectives. Stakeholders displayed limited awareness and provided little 
feedback on ESI.  

JC6.3. Internal/external factors that contributed and/or limited the internal coherence of the 
EU’s humanitarian aid interventions are identified 

Internal factors that contributed to the internal coherence of the EU’s humanitarian aid 
interventions included coordination efforts between DG ECHO HQ and DG ECHO field 
staff, among DG ECHO partners, and between DG ECHO, its partners, and local 
implementing partners. Other contributing elements included alignment between objectives 
and implementation methods, cross-sectoral and mainstreaming approaches.  

  The main internal factor that hindered internal coherence was a perceived disconnect 

between DG ECHO HQ and field staff, and among DG ECHO field staff. According to 
stakeholders, this perceived disconnect reflected the early stages of introduction of new 
instruments or policies (such as pilot PPs, localisation), which were not always commonly 
understood by all DG ECHO staff during early phases of implementation. Although 
coordination between DG ECHO field staff and DG ECHO HQ enhanced internal 
coherence, stakeholders also indicated that the field network has been given limited 
attention to (and limited resources) during the evaluation period. A minority of stakeholders 

84 

 
 
mentioned other internal factors, including limited strategic coordination among DG ECHO 
HQ units and resourcing issues (staff turnover, workload, insufficient human resources).  

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ7 

JC7.1 The EU’s humanitarian aid interventions are coherent and complementary with those of 
the Member States and other donors 

  During the 2017-2022 period, the EU’s humanitarian aid interventions were coherent and 

complementary with those of Member States. However, evidence indicates that more could 
be done to better leverage DG ECHO and Member States’ humanitarian coordination, 
particularly at strategic and programming levels, such as by seeking to leverage the Council 
Working Group on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA) as a platform to facilitate 
more than information-sharing activities. 

  The EU’s humanitarian aid interventions were coherent and complementary with those of 
other donors. DG ECHO’s efforts in donor coordination (e.g. joint advocacy efforts, 
participation in clusters, specific initiatives or forums) were key to coherence here. 

JC7.2 The EU’s humanitarian aid interventions are coherent and complementary, and avoid 
overlaps with the EU’s external financing instruments 

  The EU’s humanitarian interventions were coherent with other EU external financing 

instruments, as each instrument pursued different objectives. Where possible, synergies 
were exploited. For instance, different EU external financing instruments were used in a 
complementary manner with DG ECHO’s humanitarian aid interventions (e.g. Instrument 
contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)). 
There were also efforts allowing for cross-fertilisation in programming, such as the 
participation of DG INTPA in HIP preparation and the participation of DG ECHO in the 
programming of the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation 
Instrument – Global Europe (NDICI), and of the 11th European Development Fund (EDF). 

In 2021, the NDICI entered into force as the main funding instrument for EU external action. 
Evidence, while limited, suggests that the NDICI could function as a platform to facilitate 
programming and coordinated actions across services with respect to promotion of the HDP 
nexus.  

  While evidence showed overall coherence between the EU’s humanitarian interventions and 
the different EU external financing instruments, cooperation between DG ECHO and other 
EU actors responsible or involved with the management of such funds could be 
strengthened. 

  Coordination between DG ECHO, Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) and EEAS 

was effective. Coordination between DG ECHO and DG INTPA was less effective. 
Stakeholders were less aware of the effectiveness and results of coordination between DG 
ECHO and the Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (DG 
NEAR). 

JC7.3 DG ECHO actively coordinates its interventions with other (non-EU) humanitarian 
actors. Opportunities for synergies are actively exploited 

  DG ECHO coordinated its humanitarian interventions with those of other (non-EU) 

humanitarian actors. This was mainly achieved through contribution to and support of 
coordination mechanisms and the UN humanitarian coordination architecture.  

85 

 
 
  For example, DG ECHO participated and/or encouraged its funded partners to participate in 

existing coordination mechanisms (e.g. clusters, HCTs). These efforts enhanced the 
coherence of the humanitarian assistance delivered.  

JC7.4. Internal/external factors that contributed and/or limited the coherence and 
complementarity of the EU's humanitarian aid interventions with other EU instruments and 
other humanitarian interventions are identified 

Internal factors that hindered the coherence and complementarity of the EU’s humanitarian 
interventions with other EU instruments and other non-EU humanitarian actors included 
resourcing issues, limited coordination between different European Commission services, 
and limited involvement of national and local actors. Internal factors that contributed to 
enhanced coherence included the importance given by DG ECHO to humanitarian 
coordination through existing structures and its efforts to work with other EU services and 
bodies, both at HQ and field level. DG ECHO’s joint advocacy efforts with other actors also 
enhanced coherence and complementarity with other humanitarian interventions.  

  External factors that hindered the coherence and complementarity of the EU’s humanitarian 
interventions with other EU instruments and other non-EU humanitarian actors included 
recent changes to other EU actors’ priorities, duplication of efforts stemming from new 
initiatives, and parallel coordination structures and diverging planning cycles for EU 
financing instruments. The Team Europe approach was seen as an external factor 
contributing to coherence. 

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ8    

JC8.1 The EU's humanitarian aid interventions generate added value, drawing from DG 
ECHO's specific mandate, role and comparative advantage 

  The humanitarian aid interventions financed by DG ECHO generated a clear EU added 

value. 

  The main aspects of DG ECHO’s added value included: global and local presence compared 

to other donors; thematic and technical expertise; thematic policies; a programming 
approach also sensitive to filling in gaps; its stance as a strongly principled donor; role in 
coordination and advocacy; network of partners; flexibility and financial added value; a 
toolbox of instruments for preparedness and rapid response to crises.  

JC8.2 Stopping EU humanitarian aid interventions would have negative consequences for the 
affected people and the humanitarian system overall 

  Evidence indicates that interrupting EU humanitarian aid interventions and funding would 
have severe negative consequences. This would create a substantial financial gap of about 
EUR 2,181 million per year, corresponding to 6.5% of all global funding in humanitarian 
aid. 

  Other effects would include reduced coordination, increased fragmentation and reduced 

adherence to humanitarian aid principles.  

JC8.3 Some measures and approaches should be put in place to maximise the added value of 
future EU humanitarian aid interventions considering the future humanitarian aid landscape 

  Actions that DG ECHO could put in place to enhance EU added value include: strengthening 

its role in coordination; strengthening advocacy activities; continuing efforts towards 

86 

 
 
localisation and capacity-building of local actors; supporting and strengthening the field 
network; facilitating the implementation of thematic policies; enhancing sustainability and 
HDP nexus considerations; considering simplification of administrative procedures and 
enhancing multi-year funding. 

JC8.4 Specific elements of DG ECHO (e.g. field network, thematic policies, pilot PPs, 
advocacy) generate and will continue to generate specific EU added value considering future 
challenges and trends 

  Specific elements of DG ECHO’s approach are likely to continue to generate EU added 

value, given the future challenges and (political, economic, societal, technological, legal and 
environmental) trends identified. 

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ9    

JC9.1 EU humanitarian aid interventions addressed the most pressing/urgent needs 

JC9.2 The EU's humanitarian aid strategic and operational response contributed to progress 
observed in the achievement of objectives stated in the HAR and other global frameworks 

  Overall, the EU’s humanitarian interventions addressed the most pressing needs and 
contributed to progress towards the achievement of objectives stated in the HAR.  

  Although effectiveness varied across countries, regions and sectors, evidence indicates that 
DG ECHO-funded actions were effective overall and achieved their intended objectives. 
During the evaluation period, the majority of KOIs and KRIs were either achieved or 
exceeded. Previous evaluations also indicated that, overall, DG ECHO-funded actions 
were effective and achieved their objectives, contributing to saving and preserving lives.  

  At the strategic level, DG ECHO’s efforts contributed to the achievement of objectives 
stated in the HAR and other global frameworks, such as advocacy efforts in preserving 
humanitarian space and promoting the respect of IHL. 

  DG ECHO made important steps to advance its Grand Bargain commitments. These 

included efforts on the localisation workstream (e.g. contribution to CBPFs), cash-based 
programming (e.g. funding large-scale cash programmes and promoting the use of cash as 
the preferred modality), and enhanced quality funding (e.g. PPs). However, margins for 
improvement exist in several workstreams, particularly localisation, enhanced quality 
funding, and the HDP nexus.   

  Evidence offers a strong basis to suggest that DG ECHO's humanitarian interventions were 
successful in addressing pressing needs and contributing to HAR’s objectives. However, 
several limitations prevent formulation of a comprehensive assessment of the 
effectiveness of DG ECHO’s strategic and operational humanitarian response during the 
2017-2022 period. In addition to the complexity of attribution, challenges and limitations 
included data scarcity, a lack of baseline information, suboptimal monitoring and 
evaluation systems, the lack of DG ECHO country-specific KPIs, the absence of 
comparable indicators across funded actions, and a strong focus on monitoring outputs.  

JC9.3 Internal/external factors (other than thematic policies and the different partnership 
approaches) facilitated/hindered the contribution of the EU's humanitarian aid response to 
progress in the achievement of these objectives  

Internal factors that contributed to the effectiveness of DG ECHO’s humanitarian aid 
included flexibility; advocacy efforts; multi-year funding; thematic policies; multi-

87 

 
 
sectoral approach; support to operations and logistics; coordination efforts; use of 
different tools and instruments; good working relationships with DG ECHO partners; and 
speed of response. The main external factors that contributed to the effectiveness of 
humanitarian interventions were DG ECHO partners’ capacity and availability of actors 
on the ground, including local actors. 

  The main internal factor that hindered progress in achieving objectives was limited 

engagement of national and local actors. External factors included: the humanitarian 
funding gap; security issues; logistical; and access constraints; IHL violations; the 
increasing complexity and severity of crises (e.g. polycrises); limited reliable data on 
humanitarian needs; national authorities’ interference in the delivery of humanitarian 
assistance (or reluctance to receive humanitarian assistance); unintended impact of the 
sanctions regime (EU and beyond); limited presence of partners; and the COVID-19 
pandemic.  

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ10    

JC10.1 The EU's humanitarian aid strategic and operational response contributed to achieving 
DG ECHO thematic policies objectives 

  Not all of the policies explicitly define general and specific objectives. In some cases, these 
are implicit in the text of the policies. Where general objectives are stated, they mostly 
align with the objectives of providing assistance and protection and saving life.  

  Although the evidence did not allow a full assessment of the extent to which the EU's 

humanitarian aid response contributed to achieving the thematic policies’ objectives, it 
suggests that the results and outcomes of funded actions and DG ECHO’s strategic 
activities progressed towards the achievement of (some) of the objectives of the thematic 
policies. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement in advancing the policies’ objectives 
in some sectors. 

JC10.2 DG ECHO’s sectoral/ thematic policies and guidelines improved the quality of its 
interventions  

  DG ECHO’s sectoral/thematic policies contributed, at least somewhat, to enhancing the 

quality of its responses. This impact varied across sectors. 

  DG ECHO’s partners generally considered that the thematic policies helped them to 
improve the design of their funded actions. This was particularly the case for the 
protection, DP, gender and cash transfers policies. Local implementing partners also 
considered the policies to provide a useful framework for their humanitarian interventions. 

  The thematic policies generally contributed to the prioritisation of actions to fund, although 

this impact varied across sectors. 

  The policies contributed, to some extent, to improving the effective delivery of DG ECHO-
funded actions. This depended in part on the extent to which the funded actions were 
aligned with and adequately implemented the policies.  

  DG ECHO sought to support its partners to improve the quality of their interventions 

through the implementation of the policies (e.g. training and guidance). 

  Evidence provides some examples of factors that might have hindered the effectiveness of 
the thematic policies and their contribution to improving the quality of DG ECHO’s 
interventions (e.g. growing number of thematic policies and mainstreaming requirements; 
partners’ insufficient capacity and resources to implement all policy requirements; DG 

88 

 
ECHO thematic experts not systematically consulted in the different phases of the project 
cycle; contextual challenges). 

JC10.3 DG ECHO’s partners have high levels of awareness and understanding of its thematic 
policies  

  A great majority of DG ECHO’s partners were aware of DG ECHO’s thematic policies. 
Local implementing partners also had a good, if somewhat lower, level of awareness of 
most of DG ECHO’s thematic policies. The protection, gender and cash transfer policies 
were best known among the DG ECHO partners and local implementing partners.  

  The extent to which (and how) DG ECHO’s partners and implementing partners used the 

policies differed considerably across thematic areas. 

  Despite the generally good level of awareness of the thematic policies among DG ECHO’s 
partners, the survey of DG ECHO staff suggests that the level of understanding of those 
policies varied across thematic areas. For instance, DG ECHO’s shift towards a system-
wide approach (rather than a community-based approach) in the DP policy was not 
systematically understood or implemented.   

  DG ECHO made efforts to enhance its partners’ understanding of the thematic policies and 
facilitate their implementation (e.g. training, feedback, addition of a thematic policy annex 
to the HIPs). 

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ11    

JC11.1 The different types of partnership models facilitated the achievement of common (EU 
and partners') humanitarian objectives, each model in a unique way  

  There was good alignment of humanitarian objectives between the EU and its partners, with 

different partnership models contributing to this alignment by leveraging the unique 
expertise of various partners. DG ECHO’s strategic and high-level dialogues further 
supported this alignment. 

  The introduction of pilot PPs by DG ECHO, as well as multi-year actions, facilitated the 
achievement of common humanitarian objectives, promoting long-term planning, 
innovative localisation efforts, and the scaling-up of anticipatory actions. These 
partnerships provided predictability, enabling DG ECHO’s partners to focus on longer-
term priorities and adapt their capacities accordingly. 

  Despite these successes, DG ECHO’s administrative and reporting requirements, 

particularly the detailed yearly reporting for pilot PPs and the Single Form, posed 
significant challenges for partners, especially local partners, who have fewer resources to 
dedicate to administrative compliance.  

JC11.2 The multi-year strategies (multi-year actions and pilot PPs) delivered the anticipated 
benefits  

  Multi-year strategies delivered anticipated benefits by providing funding predictability and 
stability, which enabled better strategic planning and effective crisis response. Multi-year 
actions and pilot PPs were particularly successful in scaling-up anticipatory action, 
enhancing sustainable outcomes, and advancing the localisation agenda in line with Grand 
Bargain commitments. 

  Despite some partially achieved KRIs in closed pilot PPs, stakeholders reported overall 
success of multi-year strategies in achieving humanitarian objectives. The extended 

89 

 
timeframe and predictable funding allowed DG ECHO partners to strengthen community 
trust, enhance local actor capabilities, and foster ownership by national and local 
governments, particularly in the development and implementation of anticipatory action 
protocols. 

  Feedback from the assisted population and national authorities indicated high satisfaction 

with the services provided through DG ECHO pilot PP funding. Significant improvements 
were noted in health practices and overall well-being, while the establishment of health 
posts in remote areas facilitated regular vaccination programmes, provision of basic 
medicines, and treatment of health emergencies. 

JC11.3 Multi-year strategies were more effective than annual funding cycles 

  Multi-annual strategies provided more predictable and stable funding compared to annual 

cycles, fostering enhanced cooperation with national actors and advancing the localisation 
agenda. This approach enabled more structured investments, strategic planning, and 
sustainable project implementation, leading to potentially more sustainable outcomes. 

  Despite no significant discrepancy in the achievement of KRIs between multi-year and 
annual actions, multiannual strategies facilitated a transition from a purely emergency-
focused approach to a more comprehensive approach. This allowed DG ECHO and its 
partners to incorporate sustainable activities into national plans, strengthening local 
capacities and systems adaptable to future crises. 

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ12    

JC12.1 DG ECHO-funded interventions generate concrete, non-quantifiable results and 
impacts on the lives of assisted populations 

JC12.2 DG ECHO-funded interventions generate quantifiable results and impacts on the lives 
of assisted populations 

JC12.3 Success stories from the angle of assisted populations can be identified 

  Evidence indicates that DG ECHO-funded interventions generated both non-quantifiable 
and quantifiable results and impacts on the lives of assisted populations. Examples 
included beneficiaries’ improved well-being and living conditions, better food security, 
healthcare, safety, nutritional status, greater awareness of DP issues, and ability to cope 
with immediate after-effects of disasters.  

  Overall, beneficiaries consulted as part of this (and previous) evaluations indicated that the 
assistance received addressed their needs and generated quantifiable and non-quantifiable 
results and impacts. For instance, in Ethiopia, beneficiaries indicated that the assistance 
addressed their need for childbearing and childcare, strengthening their knowledge of 
appropriate breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices. In Ukraine, the assisted 
population highlighted that quality of life had improved, with respondents feeling more 
confident about legal issues and having better access to health services.  

  Feedback collected from children as part of this evaluation reveals a positive picture about 
the assistance received as part of a selection of DG ECHO-funded actions in Bangladesh, 
Venezuela, and Ethiopia.  

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ13 

JC13.1 DG ECHO took appropriate action to ensure cost-effectiveness when making strategic 
choices about its portfolio of assistance and throughout the project cycle 

90 

 
  DG ECHO continued its efforts to improve the assessment of cost-effectiveness (and 

efficiency) of humanitarian aid interventions.  

  DG ECHO often considered efficiency and cost-effectiveness aspects when making 

strategic choices about funding, although in most cases they were not a determining factor.  

  DG ECHO made efforts to promote the use of CEA in the design of interventions. 

  Dashboard ratings of ‘cost-effectiveness/efficiency/transparency’ provided a satisfactory 

measure of the efficiency of funded actions. 

  The extent to which DG ECHO considered cost-effectiveness/efficiency and timeliness 

when selecting partners is unclear. 

JC13.2 DG ECHO-funded actions were implemented in a cost-effective and efficient manner 

  DG ECHO-funded actions were implemented in an efficient manner, albeit with some 

differences between regions, sectors and types of partners.  

  The overall efficiency of DG ECHO-funded actions remained relatively stable during the 
evaluation period. The Southeast Europe and Eastern Neighbourhood region and the 
MENA region featured higher-than-average total (and indirect) costs per person assisted, 
as well as share of actions with indirect costs above threshold.  

  The different modalities of intervention and types of activities carried out in different 
sectors made it difficult to compare efficiency. Actions in sectors with a high transfer 
component, particularly cash, were particularly efficient.  

  DG ECHO partners performed differently in the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of funded 

actions, based on their unique capacities and advantages relative to other partners. 

  DG ECHO monitored efficiency and cost-effectiveness throughout the project cycle, but 
this assessment was not consistently applied and understood across all interventions. 

JC13.3 Internal and external factors affecting cost-effectiveness were identified and 
adequately mitigated throughout the project cycle 

Internal factors had a negative impact on the cost-effectiveness of DG ECHO-funded 
actions. These included complex administrative processes, short funding cycles, and 
fragmentation of activities. 

  External factors that limited the cost-effectiveness of actions included: access constraints 
due to security issues or government policies; economic shocks; and problems related to 
the COVID-19 pandemic. However, DG ECHO’s flexibility facilitated relationships with 
partners and smoothed dealing with the consequences of external factors. 

JC13.4 Obligations imposed by the EU to partners in terms of reporting, eligibility rules, 
requests for funds, etc. were necessary (ensured accountability and transparency) and 
proportionate (no unnecessary administrative burden) 

  The requirements imposed on partners were necessary for accountability and transparency, 
but some requirements were burdensome (e.g. Single Form, reporting requirements). 

  DG ECHO should continue its efforts to simplify and streamline processes to achieve 

greater administrative efficiency. 

JC13.5 There is room for further efficiency/cost-effectiveness in future interventions  

91 

 
 
  Future interventions could be more efficient and cost-effective by optimising funding 
approaches, enhancing operational practices, and strengthening learning strategies. 

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ14 

JC14.1 DG ECHO’s budget allocations are based on needs and actions of other donors 

JC14.2. DG ECHO budget allocations strike an appropriate balance between needs, gaps, own 
budget constraints and wider political considerations 

  DG ECHO’s budget allocations were based on needs and considered the concurrent actions 
of other donors. In contexts of comparable needs and insufficient resources, they also 
considered wider policy priorities when allocating funding. 

  DG ECHO's level of funding was in line with global trends, an indication that when 

allocating resources DG ECHO struck a balance between its own needs assessments and 
wider funding flows in the humanitarian aid environment. 

  DG ECHO's flexibility to amend and top up budgets in response to evolving crises was 

highlighted as a successful approach that at least partially addressed the mismatch between 
needs and available resources in the humanitarian sector. 

JC14.3 The EU’s systems and processes (the funds allocation system – including for DP and 
sudden onset disasters, IT systems, HIP and project management cycles) allow for a cost-
effective/efficient European Commission humanitarian aid response 

  The efficiency and cost-effectiveness of DG ECHO’s systems and processes improved 

during the evaluation period. 

  The system for the allocation of funding was adequate and improved over time. 

  DG ECHO’s budget absorption capacity was very high overall. 

  DG ECHO implemented several measures to improve the efficiency of the financial 

management system. 

  While the efficiency of DG ECHO’s audit and control systems was not consistently 

assessed, various indicators suggest satisfactory performance, with signs of improvement 
over the evaluation period. 

  Other systems within DG ECHO (HR, IT) were efficient, while learning mechanisms for 

humanitarian aid could be improved. 

JC14.4 DG ECHO’s sectoral/thematic policies and guidelines improve the cost-effectiveness 
of DG ECHO’s interventions 

  The thematic policies generally improved the cost-effectiveness of DG ECHO’s 

interventions. 

  Policies for cash, logistics, food assistance and nutrition were particularly conducive to 

cost-effectiveness. DP was recognised as intrinsically cost-effective. 

  Several stakeholders, especially DG ECHO partners, expressed concern about the high 

number of policies and associated administrative costs and burden. 

JC14.5 Different types of partnerships contribute to efficiency and cost-effectiveness in a 
differentiated manner 

92 

 
  Different types of DG ECHO partners contributed to the efficiency and cost-effectiveness 
of funded actions differently, based on their unique capacities and advantages relative to 
other partners. 

  Different types of partners also differed in the measures they took to ensure efficiency and 

cost-effectiveness in the delivery of DG ECHO-funded actions. 

JC14.6 Multiannual strategies such as the pilot PPs contribute to maximising efficiencies and 
cost-effectiveness 

  Multi-annual strategies such as pilot PPs could contribute to improving cost-effectiveness, 
although it might be too early to tell whether they increased the efficiency of DG ECHO-
funded actions. 

  The administrative and reporting burden was broadly the same under the two modalities of 

partnership. 

JC14.7 Specific measures and approaches could be implemented to improve the 
efficiency/cost-effectiveness of the European Commission's humanitarian aid system and 
processes 

  Specific measures and approaches could be implemented to improve efficiency and/or cost-
effectiveness. These include ensuring the flexibility of funding through softly earmarked 
funding and other flexible funding arrangements, e.g. multi-year funding, progress towards 
empowering local and national responders, and planning more realistic coverage for 
administrative costs. 

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ15    

JC15.1 Sustainability elements are incorporated into the design and implementation of EU 
humanitarian aid interventions 

  Sustainability elements were more consistently incorporated in DG ECHO’s HIPs and 
thematic policies compared to the previous period, as well as in DG ECHO partners’ 
proposals and throughout the implementation of humanitarian actions. 

JC15.2 EU's humanitarian aid interventions provide sustainable support for living conditions, 
alleviate suffering and save lives 

  There was a notable increase in DG ECHO-funded actions showing continuity of results or 
sustainable effects, rising from 30% to over 58%. This improvement reflects DG ECHO's 
efforts to ensure the sustainability of funded actions. 

  DG ECHO-funded actions emphasised capacity-building for local institutions and 
communities, enhancing local ownership and the likelihood of sustained benefits. 
Approximately 38.5% of actions focused on empowering local populations, 17% on 
capacity-building for national/local actors, and 15.5% on capacity-building for local 
humanitarian partners. 

  The majority of sustainable activities were implemented in sectors such as health (36 
actions), WASH (30), protection (24), nutrition (18), and DP/prevention (18). These 
efforts contributed significantly to the resilience and long-term impact of interventions. 

93 

 
  The sustainability of DG ECHO's humanitarian interventions varied between sectors and 
contexts (e.g. DRR). Some challenges remained, especially planning exit strategies and 
ensuring sustainability in more complex or less stable contexts. 

JC15.3 Factors that contribute/hinder sustainability (internal and external) are identified 

  Key factors identified as limiting the sustainability of DG ECHO-funded actions included: 
a lack of planning for sustaining results during the project planning and delivery phase; 
insufficient involvement of communities and beneficiaries; and misalignment between 
different EU initiatives. Challenges such as volatile security conditions, short-term funding 
cycles, and the nature of protracted crises also hindered sustainability efforts. 

  Enabling factors contributing to achieving sustainable effects included: DG ECHO's 

increased focus on capacity-building with local partners; collaboration with development 
partners to integrate humanitarian and development strategies; flexibility in adapting 
project designs; and the adoption of multiannual strategies providing a more stable funding 
environment for better strategic planning. 

JC15.4 There is room for better incorporation of sustainability in the design and 
implementation of EU's humanitarian aid interventions  

  Focusing on innovative and durable environmental solutions, as per DG ECHO’s Guidance 
on the operationalisation of the minimum environmental requirements, could significantly 
enhance the sustainability of DG ECHO-funded actions. Developing tools and 
methodologies to make responses greener and more climate-friendly could improve long-
term outcomes and resilience. 

  Standardising multi-year actions and extending pilot PPs funding, alongside closer 

collaboration with development actors, could bridge the gap between humanitarian aid and 
development. This approach could provide a more predictable funding environment, 
allowing for better strategic planning and enhancing the sustainability of interventions. 

Key conclusions and findings related to EQ16    

JC16.1 DG ECHO offers the necessary tools, flexibility and predictability (e.g. multi-year 
funding) to allow partners to address DRR, resilience and early recovery in projects, and to 
ensure successful handover from humanitarian to development actors 

  Despite DG ECHO’s active promotion of the HDP nexus approach through multi-year and 
quality funding, DRR, resilience, and early recovery projects, its efforts were hindered by 
differing mandates, funding cycles, and geographical focus of relevant EU services. 

  Throughout the evaluation period, the EU strengthened its efforts to link humanitarian 

assistance, peacebuilding, and development initiatives. It advocated for a more integrated 
approach, despite numerous conceptual, political, and institutional challenges. 

  Evidence highlights the varying programming logics and timeframes between DG ECHO 

and other EU entities (DG INTPA, EEAS), which impeded coordinated actions across EU 
services. 

  While DG ECHO provided tools and support to operationalise the HDP nexus approach, 

stakeholders reported insufficient tools, flexibility, and funding predictability to facilitate 
complementarity between humanitarian and development programmes. 

JC16.2 The EU's humanitarian aid contributes to the HDP nexus work in the field 

94 

 
  The HDP nexus approach has been integrated into EU instruments, such as the NDICI-

Global Europe programming. This aims to support countries most in need and contribute 
to international commitments such as the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement. 

  Efforts to promote dialogue and cooperation between humanitarian, development, and 

peace actors were evident at both HQ and field levels. HDP nexus coordination groups and 
task forces were established, although the process depended heavily on individual efforts. 

  Despite progress in some areas, overall cooperation among EU entities was suboptimal. 
Stakeholders suggested improving coordination between DG ECHO and development 
actors to address the root causes of crises and enhance the operationalisation of the HDP 
nexus. 

JC16.3 In contexts where the HDP nexus was operationalised in the field, examples of how 
this led to better synergies between the three levels can be identified (including good practices 
and lessons learned) 

  Despite coordination challenges, there are success stories in the operationalisation of the 
HDP nexus by DG ECHO and other EU services, demonstrating effective integration of 
humanitarian, development, and peace activities. 

  Across different regions, DG ECHO and EU services successfully operationalised the HDP 
nexus approach through coordinated efforts, joint action plans, and integration of disaster 
preparedness and development initiatives. Success stories in regions such as the SAIO, 
Upper Nile Basin, and West and Central Africa highlight the importance of strategic 
collaboration, innovative funding mechanisms, and alignment with local and international 
partners to address complex humanitarian and development challenges. 

  Across various countries, DG ECHO demonstrated effective coordination and integration 
of the HDP nexus approach, successfully aligning humanitarian, development, and peace 
efforts. Examples include joint action plans, disaster preparedness, and social protection 
initiatives in Chad, Uganda, and Mozambique. These highlight the importance of 
collaborative frameworks and partnerships with local and international stakeholders to 
address complex crises and promote long-term resilience. 

JC16.4 Internal and external factors hindering the operationalisation of the HDP nexus 
(overall and between each pair) 

  There were internal barriers to HDP nexus implementation. DG ECHO faced significant 
internal challenges in operationalising the HDP nexus, including: different funding 
priorities and cycles between humanitarian and development sectors; lack of structured 
coordination mechanisms; insufficient resources and institutional capacities; and varying 
approaches and objectives between actors. 

  There were also external barriers to HDP nexus implementation. These included: the 

absence of national strategies; limited willingness of governments to cooperate; restricted 
humanitarian space; political instability: and lack of coordinated mechanisms between 
development donors and humanitarian clusters. 

JC16.5 There is room for learning, feedback loops and reflection on how to implement the 
HDP nexus and navigate these challenges 

  There was insufficient cooperation between DG ECHO and other Commission services 
working on the HDP nexus. Further improvements could be achieved by facilitating 
regular interactions and joint initiatives, improving strategic alignment and operational 

95 

 
effectiveness. Enhanced cooperation could ensure a more holistic response to crises, 
leveraging the strengths of both humanitarian and development actors. 

Implementing continuous learning, feedback mechanisms and reflective practices could be 
essential for the effective operationalisation of the HDP nexus, as there is a need for 
ongoing learning and adaptation. 

  The use of benchmarking exercises to explore and adopt best practices from Member States 

and other international donors could significantly enhance DG ECHO's HDP nexus 
implementation. For example, Denmark's Integrated Humanitarian and Development 
Framework and Switzerland's Unified Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and 
Development offer valuable lessons. By adopting similar approaches, the Commission 
could ensure better coordination, resource utilisation, and a more comprehensive response 
to crises. 

  Human resources-related challenges included the lack of rotation between DG ECHO HQ 

and field staff and the need for staff with development backgrounds. Revising the selection 
process for field positions and promoting staff rotations could help to align strategic and 
operational plans, fostering better synergy and knowledge-sharing within DG ECHO. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

Cost effectiveness  

The efficiency and cost-effectiveness of humanitarian actions are considered at different levels and 
through different means, such as: 

- 

- 
- 

the design and selection of the EU-funded projects. Indeed, cost-effectiveness is 
part  of  the  Single  Form  where  partners  submit  their  proposals  and  DG  ECHO 
decides which actions to fund. 
the monitoring of the actions by DG ECHO field officers. 
the use of the different  aid  modalities according to  their  cost-effectiveness  (e.g. 
cash versus in-kind assistance),  

-  coordination efforts to avoid duplication  
- 

logistics 

The methodology for the allocation of humanitarian funding is based on thorough needs assessment 
and is essential to ensure that the allocation of aid is relevant and effective and targets the people 
most in need (and is no dependent on the cost of the action). This implies that cost-effectiveness is 
not a determining factor in the allocation of humanitarian aid, which remains primarily needs-based. 
Indeed, the cost of an action can vary considerably from one country / context to another, because of 
different specific conditions (e.g. economic, logistics, access), which are not related to the efficiency 
of  the  action  itself.  This  would  create  bias  if  the  humanitarian  actions  or  responses  were  to  be 
compared from one country (or sector) to another. 

In addition, as documented in a study carried out by DG ECHO in 2021 “Better Evidence for DG 
ECHO impact on Beneficiaries”, the assessment of cost-effectiveness (i.e. costs per person reached) 
at DG ECHO and more broadly in the humanitarian sector, remains challenging, for several reasons: 
It may be difficult to isolate the effect of a specific humanitarian action from other 
similar actions, 
It  may  be  difficult  to  attribute  results  and  impacts  of  interventions  to  a  specific 
actor  while  EU-funded  actions  receive  support  from  several  donors  (attribution 
problem), 

- 

- 

-  Given the urgency of humanitarian emergencies and interventions (e.g. for sudden 

crises), planning and monitoring documents may be limited.  

-  The  effects  of  humanitarian  aid  actions  may  be  difficult  to  measure  and  un-

quantifiable, 

-  Subsequently,  the  necessary  elements  to  conduct  cost  effectiveness  analysis  are 
limited and as a consequence, DG ECHO relies mostly on a qualitative assessment 
of the cost-effectiveness of its actions. 

Benefits  

Member States often look at the EU as a donor to provide assistance in crises where they are not able 
to intervene in a national capacity. Member States also benefit from the EU’s ‘humanitarian advocacy 
role, which aims to increase humanitarian space to ensure access to hard-to-reach areas and ensuring 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
last  mile  delivery.  In  addition,  the  EU  coordination,  as  well  as  efforts  to  push  for  more  effective 
provision of humanitarian aid, encourage economies of scale.  

A potential discontinuation – or even reduction -  of DG ECHO's interventions in the humanitarian 
aid field would result in i) a substantial financial gap affecting the ability of the humanitarian system 
globally  and  the  EU  particularly,  to  address  humanitarian  needs  and  achieve  results;  ii)  reduced 
coordination,, increased fragmentation and extra costs (considering the size and capacities of some 
EUMS); iii) reduced adherence to humanitarian aid principles iv) increased challenges and decreased 
compliance to International Humanitarian Law and the EU’s ability to build a strong global rules-
based order based on multilateralism  v) increased instability in third countries.   

Simplification and burden-reduction  

More predictable funding (through multi-year funding), simplified reporting, flexibilities embedded 
in regional programmes, guidance provided in DG ECHO’s thematic policy documents have the 
potential to generate economies of scale, reduce the administrative burden and bring more 
efficiency gains allowing partners to reach out to more beneficiaries and/or to provide more quality 
support. 

Possibility  to  apply  simplified  reporting  (8+3  reporting  template)  following  the  Grand  Bargain 
commitments  could  reduce  the  administrative  burden  on  stakeholders  while  also  potentially 
simplifying the reporting regarding the instrument.  

98 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

This  Stakeholder  Synopsis  Report  provides  an  overview  of  the  results  from  the  stakeholder 
consultation  carried  out  in  the  context  of  the  Comprehensive  Evaluation  of  the  European 
Commission's Humanitarian Aid (2017-2022). The evaluation was carried out by ICF on behalf 
of  the  European  Commission  (DG  ECHO)  between  August  2023  and  December  2024.  The 
objective of consultations conducted was to ensure that all relevant stakeholders were given an 
opportunity to express their views on the EU’s humanitarian aid during the 2017-2022 period. 
This report accompanies the Final Evaluation Report and should be read in conjunction with it.  

Consultation strategy and stakeholder types 

The  consultation  strategy  relied  on  several  methods  to  ensure  a  comprehensive  and 
representative collection of views  from  a wide  range of stakeholders. These are described in 
detail below.  

Scoping interviews 

The evaluation team  conducted 14 scoping  interviews to  discuss the expectations around the 
evaluation and identify key areas or issues of focus. The data collected informed the refinement 
of the evaluation approach. Stakeholders consulted in the scoping interviews include DG ECHO 
staff (5); DG ECHO partners (5); and other European Commission services, namely DG INTPA, 
DG NEAR, FPI, and the EEAS (4).  

Inception workshops 

Two inception workshops were held. These include a Theory of Change workshop, aimed at 
enabling  refining  the  Theory  of  Change,  and  a  meta-evaluation  workshop,  to  assess  whether 
findings  from  the  meta-evaluation  were  applicable  to  DG  ECHO’s  humanitarian  aid  and  to 
explore whether previous recommendations had been implemented. Both workshops gathered a 
selection of DG ECHO staff, including headquarters staff, field staff, and thematic experts. The 
Theory of Change workshop was attended by 20 participants and 15 participants attended the 
meta-evaluation workshop.   

Targeted consultations: Key Informant Interviews and workshops 

The evaluation team conducted 86 Key Informant Interviews with different stakeholder groups, 
as outlined in the table below.  

Key Informant Interviews conducted 

Stakeholder type 

DG ECHO HQ 

DG ECHO thematic experts 

Number of 
Interviews 

16 

7 

99 

 
 
 
Stakeholder type 

DG ECHO field staff 

DG ECHO partners 

Local implementing partners 

Member States  

Other donors 

Networks and research institutes 

Other EU Institutions and Entities 

Clusters 

Development actors 

Private sector 

Number of 
Interviews 

5 

24 

11 

7 

2 

3 

4 

4 

2 

1 

In addition, 11 workshops gathering key stakeholders were conducted, including six thematic 
workshops  and  four  geographical  workshops.  The  table  below  provides  an  overview  of 
participants attending each workshop. 

Overview of participants per workshop 

Workshop 

Participants 

Geographical workshops 

South  East  Asia  and  the 
Pacific 

Participants: 12 

DG  ECHO  field  staff  (9);  DG  ECHO  thematic 
experts (2); DG ECHO HQ (1) 

Southern Africa and Indian 
Ocean 

Participants: 13 

DG  ECHO  field  staff  (10);  DG  ECHO  thematic 
experts (1); DG ECHO HQ (2) 

West (and Central) Africa 

Participants: 16 

DG  ECHO  field  staff  (14);  DG  ECHO  thematic 
experts (2) 

100 

 
 
Workshop 

Participants 

Upper Nile Basin 

Participants: 9 

DG ECHO field staff (8); DG ECHO HQ (1) 

Thematic workshops 

Pilot 
Partnerships 

Programmatic 

Participants: 16 

DG ECHO partners (16) 

Thematic policies 

Participants: 17 

DG ECHO HQ (6); DG ECHO thematic experts 
(9), DG ECHO field staff (2) 

HDP Nexus 

Participants: 17 

DG ECHO (12); DG INTPA (1); DG NEAR (2); 
FPI (1); EEAS (1) 

Partnerships and projects 

Participants: 15 

DG ECHO partners (15) 

Advocacy workshop 

Participants: 15 

DG ECHO HA (8); DG ECHO field staff (6); DG 
ECHO field staff (1) 

Strategy,  priority  and  EU 
added value 

Participants 10 

DG  ECHO  HQ  (5);  European  Parliament  (1); 
Member States (4) 

Foresight workshop 

Participants: 16 

DG  ECHO  partners  (13);  Networks/Research 
institutes (3) 

Case studies: case study interviews and focus groups 

The  evaluation  team  conducted  field  missions  to inform  the  preparation  of  five  case  studies. 
Case study interviews (both remotely and in-person) with key stakeholders (e.g. DG ECHO field 
staff  and  thematic  experts,  national  authorities,  DG  ECHO  partners,  local  implementing 
partners,  etc.)  were  carried  out  in  selected  countries.  Stakeholders  consulted  for  case  studies 
were  selected,  in  collaboration  with  DG  ECHO  and  its  partners,  based  on  their  expertise, 
familiarity or relation to the theme being examined and the geographic area of work. In addition, 
ten focus groups with assisted population were conducted. The table below presents an overview 
of the interviews and focus groups conducted for the five case studies.  

101 

 
Case studies interviews and focus groups conducted 

Case study 

Humanitarian access 

Disaster Preparedness and Response 
to natural hazards 

22 

16 

Interviews 
conducted 

Focus 
participants 

groups 

 NA (158)  

4 online focus groups: 

Qasim  Mangrio  and 
Hohli villages, Pakistan 
(9) 

Ameer Hassan KK and 
Nawab  Abdul  Aziz 
villages, Pakistan (10) 

Dharar  and  Phangario 
villages,  Pakistan  #3 
(13) 

Possarko  and  Sayansar 
villages, Pakistan (11) 

in-person 

3 
groups: 

focus 

Gondar, Ethiopia (2) 

Janamora, Ethiopia (26) 

Janamora, Ethiopia (26) 

in-person 

3 
groups: 

focus 

Boryslav, Ukraine (13) 

Lviv, Ukraine (8) 

Yavoriv, Ukraine (14) 

Pilot Programmatic Partnerships 

25 

DG  ECHO  Shelter  and  Settlements 
in forced displacement contexts 

 21 

DG ECHO as a Global Actor 

32 

NA 

(158) The evaluation team could not conduct focus groups in DRC due to safety and security considerations in the rural 

areas of the selected EU-funded interventions. 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
Online surveys 

Three  online  surveys  were  conducted  to  inform  the  evaluation.  The  table  below  presents  the 
stakeholder groups consulted and responses received to surveys. 

Online surveys responses 

Survey 

N. of responses received 

DG ECHO HQ and field staff  

94 responses overall: 

46 from HQ staff and 

48 from field staff. 

DG ECHO partners 

100 responses 

Local implementing partners  

63 responses 

Projective drawing technique 

The projective drawing technique aimed to gather feedback from children reached by the EU’s 
humanitarian  interventions,  to  depict  and  describe  their  personal  stories  and  most  significant 
change resulting from their involvement in EU-funded actions. The evaluation team identified a 
selection  of  partners  and  funded  actions  to  engage  in  the  projective  drawing  technique. 
Participants were children involved in EU-funded actions, who were asked to participate by local 
test coordinators. In total, 227 children across Bangladesh, Venezuela, and Ethiopia participated. 

Public consultation 

A Public Consultation  was conducted to  capture  the views of the general public. The Public 
Consultation was launched by DG ECHO on the European Commission's 'Have your say' portal. 
A total of 37 respondents from across four respondent groups replied to the consultation. Five 
respondents  uploaded  position  papers.  An  analysis  of  responses  received  is  provided  in  the 
Public Consultation Factual Summary Report.  

Findings from the stakeholder consultation 

This section presents findings of consultations by stakeholder group focussing on DG ECHO 
partners, local implementing partners and assisted population.   

DG ECHO staff 

The majority of DG ECHO staff consulted through the online survey agreed that the EU’s 
overall humanitarian aid objectives remained relevant across the 2017-2022 period (159). The 

(159) Survey with DG ECHO staff. Save and preserve life=96% (90/94); Provide necessary relief and assistance to people 
affected by long-lasting crises=69% (65/94); Help finance the transport of aid=72% (68/94); Carry out short-term 
rehabilitation  work=51%  (48/94);  Ensure  preparedness  for  risks  of  natural  disasters=72%  (68/94);  Support  civil 
operations= 68% (64/94).  

103 

 
 
 
majority of DG ECHO staff consulted also considered the commitment to forgotten crises (160) 
and the commitment to EiE (161) appropriate and justified to address existing funding shortfalls 
on these issues in the humanitarian system.    DG ECHO  staff consulted indicated that DG 
ECHO  strategies,  as  described  in  the  HIPs,  were  aligned  with  the  EU’s  overarching 
objectives  and  commitments  (162),  and  were 
informed  by  comprehensive  need 
assessments (163). This was achieved using different analytical tools, such as the FIT tool. A 
minority of stakeholders noted that whilst the FIT tool shows much promise, there is room for 
improvement, primarily for it to include more qualitative data (164). DG ECHO staff agreed that 
HIPs  were  tailored  to  specific  contexts  and  were  flexible  to  respond  to  evolving  needs  (165). 
Crisis  modifiers  were  also  regarded  as  tools  ensuring  the  flexibility  of  DG  ECHO’s 
approach (166). In terms of modalities, the majority of DG ECHO staff indicated that DG ECHO 
appropriately prioritizes the types of modalities considering specific contexts and needs (167). 
Thematic policies were seen as valuable tools for facilitating discussion and highlighting 
lesser-known issues (168). Thematic policies were generally seen as comprehensive and up to 
date (169), although this varied by policy. In terms of partnerships, 84% (79/94) of DG ECHO 
staff responding to the survey indicated that having different types of partners helped achieving 
common humanitarian objectives. 45% (42/94) agreed with the statement that the modalities of 
association with the different types of partners allowed DG ECHO and its partners to respond 
appropriately to different crises, while 22% (21/94) disagreed. DG ECHO staff had mixed views 
on the relevance of strategic partnerships, with some stakeholders indicating the need to better 
foster strategic relations with partners (170). A minority of staff indicated the potential to better 
exploit partnerships with Member States Specialised Agencies (171). As regards pilot PPs, 52% 
(47/94) of DG ECHO staff indicated that pilot PPs provided more flexibility and predictability 
of  funding.  As  regards  multi-year  funding,  79%  (65/94)  of  DG  ECHO  staff  indicated  that 

(160) Survey with DG ECHO staff (Relevant - 72%, 68/94, Partially relevant – 17%, 15/94); Interviews with DG ECHO 
HQ (6 out of 16); Interviews with DG ECHO thematic experts (3 out of 7); Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (1 
out of 5); Geographic workshop (West (and Central) Africa).  

(161) Survey with DG ECHO staff (Relevant: 33%, 31/94, Partially relevant – 32% 30/94; Not relevant – 32%, 32/ 94); 
Interviews with DG ECHO thematic experts (2 out of 7). 26 out of 94 DG ECHO staff responding to the survey 
indicated that the EiE commitment is less relevant (Open question).  

(162) Survey with DG ECHO staff=70% (66/94) 

(163) Survey with DG ECHO staff=70% (66/94); Interviews with DG ECHO thematic experts (2 out of 7); Interviews with 
DG ECHO field staff (1 out of 5); Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (2 out of 16); Geographic workshops (Southern 
Africa and Indian Ocean workshop, Upper Nile Basin workshop, West (and Central) Africa workshop). 

(164) Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (4 out of 16); Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (2 out of 5); Interviews with DG 

ECHO thematic experts (1 out of 7). 

(165) Survey with DG ECHO staff=81% (76/94) 

(166)  Geographic  workshops  (Southern  Africa  and  Indian  Ocean  Workshop;  Upper  Nile  Basin  Workshop;  West  (and 

Central) Africa workshop; South-East Asia and the Pacific workshop) 

(167) Survey with DG ECHO staff= 69% (65/94); Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (1 out of 5); Interviews with DG 

ECHO HQ (3 out of 16); Interviews with DG ECHO thematic experts (1 out of 7). 

(168) Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (2 out of 5); Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (3 out of 16); Thematic workshop 

(Thematic policies workshop). 

(169) Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (10 out 27); Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (1 out of 5); Interviews with DG 
ECHO thematic experts (4 out of 7). Survey with DG ECHO staff: for each policy, the majority of DG ECHO staff 
(50% or more) consulted agreed that each thematic policy is up-to-date and addresses new and emerging needs.  

(170) Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (7 out of 16), DG ECHO Thematic experts (2 out of 7). 

(171) Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (4 out of 16). 

104 

 
 
multi-year  funding  provided  more  flexibility  and  predictability  of  funding,  though  only  34% 
(31/94) indicated that multi-year funding was more effective than annual funding cycles.  

DG  ECHO  staff  indicated  that  the  EU’s  humanitarian  interventions  were  internally 
coherent and complementary (172). 46% (43/94) of DG ECHO staff responding to the online 
survey indicated that the EU’s humanitarian interventions avoided overlaps with the Union Civil 
Protection Mechanism (UCPM). During other consultation activities, staff consulted provided 
examples that illustrated how DG ECHO’s humanitarian aid and the UCPM leveraged synergies 
during  the  evaluation  period  (173).  Only  26%  (34/94)  indicated  that  the  EU’s  humanitarian 
interventions were coherent and avoided overlaps with the Emergency Support Instrument (ESI), 
although 60% (57/94) did not have an opinion on this matter or were not aware of coherence 
with ESI. As regards Member States, DG ECHO staff indicated that DG ECHO actively sought 
to coordinate its humanitarian interventions with those of Member States (174). However, they 
also reported that there is room to enhance coordination with Member States (175). As regards 
other  donors,  DG  ECHO  staff  agreed  that  DG  ECHO  actively  sought  to  coordinate  its 
humanitarian aid interventions with those of other donors and non-EU humanitarian actors, both 
at strategic and operational levels (176). According to DG ECHO staff (59%, 54/94), DG ECHO 
actively sought to avoid overlaps with the EU’s external financing instruments (e.g., EU 
Trust Funds), and cooperation with FPI and EEAS was somewhat effective, while they were less 
knowledgeable about coordination with DG NEAR (177). DG ECHO staff indicated the need to 
further enhance coordination with other EU actors, particularly DG INTPA (178).   

(172) Survey with DG ECHO staff=62% (31/94); Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (2 out of 5); Interviews with DG 
ECHO HQ (4 out of 16); Interview with DG ECHO thematic expert (1 out of 7); Geographic workshop (South East 
Asia and the Pacific workshop).  

(173) Case study 2: Disaster Preparedness and response to natural disasters; Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (12 out of 16); 
Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (4 out of 5); Interviews with DG ECHO thematic experts (4 out of 7); Scoping 
interviews with DG ECHO (3 out of 5); Meta-evaluation workshop; Geographical workshops (Southern Africa and 
Indian Ocean; West (and Central) Africa workshop); Survey with DG ECHO staff (2 out of 13 - open question). 

(174) Survey with DG ECHO staff=57% (54/94); Interviews with DG ECHO  HQ (12 out of 16); Interviews with DG 
ECHO  thematic  experts  (2  out  of  7);  Scoping  interviews  with  DG  ECHO  (2  out  of  5);  Thematic  workshops 
(Advocacy workshop) 

(175) Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (11 out of 16); Interviews with DG ECHO thematic experts (3 out of 7); Thematic 
workshop (EU added value and strategy workshop). Survey with DG ECHO staff (7 out of 17 – Open question N. 
12).  

(176) Survey with DG ECHO staff (other donors)=76% (72/94); (non-EU humanitarian actors)=59% (54/94); Interviews 
with  DG  ECHO  HQ  (15  out  of  16);  Interviews  with  DG  ECHO  field  (4  out  of  5);  Geographical  and  thematic 
workshops (Southern Africa and Indian Ocean ; Upper Nile Basin ; West (and Central) African ; South East Asia and 
the Pacific; Thematic policies ; Advocacy workshop; EU added value and strategy);  Scoping interviews with DG 
ECHO (3 out of 5).  

(177) For FPI, DG ECHO staff responding to the survey indicated that coordination was effective (51%, 40/94); for EEAS, 

DG ECHO staff responding to the survey indicated that coordination was effective (59%, 48/94).  

(178) Survey with DG ECHO staff=15% (12/94); Interview with DG ECHO thematic expert (2 out of 7); Interviews with 
DG ECHO field (2 out of 5); Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (10 out of 16); Online survey with DG ECHO Partners 
Staff: 13 out of 47 - Open question. N-17.2. 

105 

 
 
DG ECHO staff noted the following aspects as providing an EU added value: DG ECHO’s field 
presence (179), its thematic and technical expertise (180), advocacy role (181), global stance as 
a principled donor and needs-based approach to funding (182) and its flexibility( 183).   

The majority of DG ECHO staff agreed that the EU humanitarian interventions addressed 
the most pressing, urgent needs (184), and contributed to achieving the HAR objectives (185). 
The majority of DG ECHO staff indicated that DG ECHO played an important (or crucial) role 
in improving living conditions of affected people (186), reducing morbidity and mortality (187); 
and preserving the dignity of life (188). In addition, they indicated that DG ECHO played an 
important role in: i) preserving the humanitarian space and ensuring respect for IHL (189); ii) 
strengthening needs-based delivery of principled humanitarian aid (190); iii) increasing visibility 
of  humanitarian  crises  and  needs (191);  iv)  enhancing  coherence  and  complementarity  of 
humanitarian  response (192);  and  v)  enhancing  humanitarian  policy  and  operational 

(179) Survey with DG ECHO staff= 99% (91/92); Thematic and geographic workshops (Southern Africa and Indian Ocean; 
EU added value and strategy workshop; West (and Central) Africa workshop; Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (15 
out of 16); Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (5 out of 5); Interviews with DG ECHO thematic experts (5 out of 
7). 

(180) Survey with DG ECHO staff=92% (85/94); Thematic workshop (Advocacy workshop); Interviews with DG ECHO 
HQ (9 out of 16); Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (3 out of 5); Interviews with DG ECHO thematic experts (5 
out of 7).  

(181) Survey with DG ECHO staff=65% (60/94); Thematic and geographic workshops (South East Asia and the Pacific; 
EU added value and strategy; Upper Nile Basin; West (and Central) Africa; Advocacy workshop); Interviews with 
DG ECHO HQ (10 out of 16); Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (3 out of 5); Interviews with DG ECHO thematic 
experts (3 out of 7) 

(182)  Survey  with  DG  ECHO  staff=70%  (65/94);  Thematic  and  geographic  workshop  [EU  added  value  and  strategy 
workshop;  West  (and  Central)  Africa;  Advocacy  workshop);  Interviews  with  DG  ECHO  HQ  (10  out  of  16); 
Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (3 out of 5); Interviews with thematic experts (3 out of 7).  

(183) Survey with DG ECHO staff=69% (64/94); Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (6 out of 16); Interviews with DG ECHO 

thematic experts (3 out of 7).  

(184) Survey with DG ECHO staff=86% (81/94); Interviews with DG ECHO  HQ (14 out of 16); Interviews with DG 
ECHO thematic experts (6 out of 7); Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (3 out of 5); Geographical workshop 
(Southern Africa and Indian Ocean Workshop).  

(185) Survey with DG ECHO staff=69% (65/94); Interviews with DG ECHO  HQ (14 out of 16); Interviews with DG 
ECHO thematic experts (6 out of 7); Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (3 out of 5); Geographical workshop 
(Southern Africa and Indian Ocean Workshop).  

(186) Survey with DG ECHO staff=69% (65/94) indicated that DG ECHO played an important (55%, 52) or crucial (14%, 

13) in this sense.  

(187) Survey with DG ECHO staff=55% (52/94) indicated that DG ECHO played an important (41%, 39) or crucial (14%, 

13) role in this sense.  

(188) Survey with DG ECHO staff=65% (61/94) indicated that DG ECHO played an important (52%, 49) or crucial (1%, 

12) role in this sense.  

(189) Survey with DG ECHO staff=63% (59/94); Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (8 out of 16); Interviews with DG ECHO 

field staff (2 out of 5); Interviews with DG ECHO thematic experts (1 out of 7). 

(190) Survey with DG ECHO staff=79% (74/94). 

(191) Survey with DG ECHO staff=64% (60/94). 

(192) Survey with DG ECHO staff=59% (55/94). 

106 

 
 
leadership (193). DG ECHO staff also agreed that EU strategies contributed to the aims of global 
commitments, including the Grand Bargain (194).  

The majority of DG ECHO staff agreed that the EU's systems and processes have been 
conducive  to  an  efficient  and  cost-effective  humanitarian  response (195).  They  indicated 
that DG ECHO considered cost-effectiveness and timeliness when making strategic choices 
(196).  However,  DG  ECHO  staff  was  divided  when  asked  the  extent  to  which  these  factors 
influence the final decisions, with the relative majority stating that these are considered, but are 
not a determinant factor (197) (e.g. due to contextual volatility, insufficient training or guidance 
for field staff on how to take these considerations into account, and insufficient collection of 
cost data at the field level). The majority of DG ECHO staff agreed that allocations were 
based  on  needs (198)  and  that  recent  or  emerging  needs  and  contextual  changes  were 
appropriately reflected in policy documents and funding decisions (199). They indicated that 
these were considered in strategic decisions about allocations. However, only 41% (39/94) of 
DG ECHO staff indicated that DG ECHO sufficiently takes into account the actions of other 
donors when taking funding decisions. Similarly, only 42% (40/94) indicated that DG ECHO’s 
decisions relating to funding allocations or changes were made in a timely manner. Overall, DG 
ECHO staff indicated that thematic policies generally improved the cost-effectiveness of 
DG ECHO’s interventions (200). However, a minority of DG ECHO staff expressed concerns 
over  the  high  number  of  policies  currently  in  place,  given  partners’  difficulties  in  meeting 
mainstreaming requirements (201). DG ECHO staff had mixed views regarding the efficiency of 
the different modalities of association  with partners and multi-year funding. On the pilot 
PPs, only 13% (12/91) of DG ECHO staff surveyed indicated that pilot PPs were more efficient 
than consecutive actions funded on an annual basis, with some stakeholders expressing concerns 
about the lack of a clear view of how pilot PPs translated into efficiency gains on the ground (202). 
Nevertheless, pilot PPs provided a higher level of predictability by allowing partners to adopt a 
more strategic perspective (203). 

Only  a  minority  of  DG  ECHO  survey  respondents  (47%,  44/94)  reported  that 
sustainability elements were incorporated into the design and implementation of the EU’s 
humanitarian aid interventions. The majority of respondents (58%, 54/94) stated that there 
was  room  for  better  incorporating  sustainability  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  EU 
humanitarian aid interventions. Several interviewees recognised DG ECHO's increasing focus 
on  environmental  sustainability  considerations  and  disaster  preparedness,  which  was 

(193) Survey with DG ECHO staff=64% (60/94). 

(194) Survey with DG ECHO staff=53% (50/94). 

(195) Survey with DG ECHO staff=56% (52/92).  

(196) Survey with DG ECHO staff= 57% (54/94); Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (6 out of 16). 

(197) Survey with DG ECHO staff=44% (41/94). 

(198) Survey with DG ECHO staff=54% (51/94). 

(199) Survey with DG ECHO staff=51% (48/94).  

(200) Survey with DG ECHO staff=48% (44/92) (average across all policies); Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (5 out of 

16); Thematic workshop (Thematic policies workshop). 

(201) Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (6 out of 16); Interviews with DG ECHO field staff (3 out of 5); Interviews with 

thematic experts (1 out of 7); Thematic workshop (Thematic policies workshop). 

(202) Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (4 out of 16). 

(203) Case study 3: Pilot Programmatic Partnerships; Survey with DG ECHO=52% (47/91). 

107 

 
 
acknowledged as a significant element of their sustainability efforts (204). On the HDP Nexus, 
only  40%  (38/94)  of  DG  ECHO  staff  consulted  indicated  that  the  EU’s  humanitarian  aid 
contributed  to  operationalising  the  Nexus  in  the  field,  with  several  stakeholders  highlighting 
different  factors hindering this (e.g. different  funding  cycles, priorities, and mandates among 
HDP actors) (205). 

DG ECHO partners 

The  majority  of  partners  consulted  agreed  that  the  EU’s  overall  humanitarian  aid 
objectives  remained  relevant  across  the  2017-2022  period (206).  Partners  indicated  that  DG 
ECHO  strategies,  as  described  in  the  HIPs,  were  informed  by  comprehensive  needs 
assessments (207),  were  tailored  to  specific  contexts (208),  and  were  flexible  to  respond  to 
evolving  needs (209).  They  also  indicated  that  strategies  considered  access  challenges  (210), 
addressing specific challenges of forgotten crises (211), and were tailored to the needs of most 
vulnerable groups (212). Consultation with partners for the development of HIPs were regarded 
as enablers for their relevance (213). The need to better include local actors in such consultations 
was highlighted by a minority of partners (214). Partners agreed that DG ECHO appropriately 
prioritises the types of modalities, considering specific contexts and needs (215). DG ECHO’s 
advocacy on the use of cash as a modality was also positively regarded. Partners emphasised the 
importance for DG ECHO to continue exploring ways to increase opportunities for multi-year 
and more flexible financing (216). They indicated that their partnership with DG ECHO was 
suitable  and  adaptable  in  light  of  current  and  future  emergencies (217),  and  that  the  different 
modalities of association with DG ECHO allowed them to respond appropriately to different 

(204) Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (6 out of 16); Interviews with DG ECHO Thematic experts (3 out of 7); Interviews 

with DG ECHO field staff (4 out of 5).  

(205) Thematic and geographic workshops (Southern Africa and Indian Ocean workshop; EU added value, strategy, and 
priority,  Upper  Nile  Basin;  West  (and  Central)  Africa;  South  East  Asia  and  the  Pacific  Workshop,  HDP  Nexus 
workshop); Survey with DG ECHO staff. Interviews with DG ECHO HQ (13 out of 16); Interviews with DG ECHO 
field staff (4 out of 5); Interviews with DG ECHO thematic experts (4 out of 7). 

(206) Survey with partners staff. Save and preserve life=97% (97/100); Provide necessary relief and assistance to people 
affected by long-lasting crises=90% (90/100); Help finance the transport of aid=74% (74/100); Carry out short-term 
rehabilitation work=73% (73/100); Ensure preparedness for risks of natural disasters=86% (86/100); Support civil 
operations= 75% (75/100).  

(207) Survey with partners staff=81% (81/100). 

(208) Survey with partners staff=86% (86/100). 

(209) Survey with partners staff=68% (68/100). 

(210) Survey with partners staff=73% (73/100). 

(211) Survey with partners staff=58% (58/100). 

(212) Survey with partners staff=75% (75/100). 

(213) Interviews with partners (9 out of 24). 

(214) Partnerships and projects workshop. 

(215) Survey with partners staff=79% (70/100). 

(216) Interviews with partners (2 out of 24); Foresight workshop; Partnerships and projects workshop; pilot Programmatic 

Partnership workshop. 

(217) Survey with partners=73% (73/100); Interviews with partners (10 out of 24); partnerships and projects workshop. 

108 

 
 
crises (218). Although pilot Programmatic Partnerships were positively regarded, partners noted 
margins for improvement as regards the administrative burden (219).  

On  the  alignment  with  the  humanitarian  principles,  79%  (79/100)  of  partners  consulted 
reported  not  encountering  challenges  when  trying  to  ensure  consistency  with  the  four 
humanitarian principles in  DG ECHO-funded actions.  Partners also  expressed positive views 
with regards to the internal coherence of DG ECHO’s humanitarian response, both at strategic 
and  operational  levels (220).  Partners  had  mixed  views  regarding  the  coherence  between  DG 
ECHO’s  humanitarian  aid,  the  UCPM,  and  ESI,  with  some  stakeholders  being  less 
knowledgeable about the latter instruments. As regards external coherence, partners positively 
regarded  DG  ECHO’s  efforts  in  coordination  fora,  such  as  cluster  mechanisms (221).  53% 
(53/100) of partners indicated that DG ECHO played an important role in enhancing coherence 
and complementarity of humanitarian response.  

DG ECHO partners noted the following aspects as providing an EU added value: DG ECHO’s 
field network (222), its expertise (223), its global stance as a principled donor (224), flexibility 
(225), and its partnerships approaches (226). 79% (79/100) of partners indicated that a potential 
discontinuation of DG ECHO’s funding would have a negative impact, as the scope and scale 
of their organisation’s humanitarian assistance would be reduced.  

80% (80/100) of partners consulted agreed that DG ECHO-funded interventions generated 
the expected results and achieved their objectives. Partners also  indicated that DG ECHO 
played  an  important  role  in  improving  living  conditions  of  affected  people  (227),  reducing 
mortality (228), alleviating suffering (229), reducing vulnerability and improving resilience (230), 
and preserving the dignity of life (231). In addition, they also agreed that DG ECHO contributed 
to preserve humanitarian space and ensuring respect of IHL (62%, 62/100), increasing visibility 
of humanitarian crises and needs (75%, 75/100), enhancing humanitarian policy and operational 
leadership  (65%,  65/100).  DG  ECHO’s  multi-year  funding  was  regarded  as  contributing  to 
effectiveness  (64%,  64/100),  as  well  as  its  advocacy  efforts  (51%,  51/100),  and  its  speed  of 
response to emerging crises (67%, 67/100).  

(218) Survey with partners=73% (73/100) 

(219)  Case  study  3:  pilot  Programmatic  Partnerships;  Interviews  with  partners  (10  out  of  24);  pilot  Programmatic 

Partnerships workshop; partnerships and projects workshop; Scoping interview with partner (1 out of 5) 

(220) Strategic level: Survey with partners=71% (71/100); Operational level: Survey with partners=68% (68/100) 

(221) Interviews with partners (16 out of 24); Partnerships and projects workshop; Case study 4: Shelter and Settlements 

in forced displacement contexts.  

(222) Survey with partners=68% (68/100); Interviews with partners (17 out of 24); Partnerships and projects workshop. 

(223) Survey with partners=63% (63/100); Interviews with partners (8 out of 24). 

(224) Survey with partners=69% (69/100); Interviews with partners (11 out of 24). 

(225) Survey with partners=60% (60/100); Interviews with partners (9 out of 24). 

(226) Survey with partners=53% (53/100); Interviews with partners (10 out of 24). 

(227) Survey with partners=75% (75/100). 

(228) Survey with partners=69% (69/100). 

(229) Survey with partners=64% (64/100). 

(230) Survey with partners=61% (61/100). 

(231) Survey with partners=73% (73/100). 

109 

 
 
63%  (63/100)  of  partners  consulted  agreed  that  DG  ECHO  funding  allocations  to  specific 
countries  and  regions  were  based  on  needs.  54%  (54/100)  of  partners  also  agreed  that  DG 
ECHO funding allocations took efficiency and cost-effectiveness criteria into account in an 
appropriate  way,  and  60%  (60/100)  reported  that  DG  ECHO  monitored  efficiency  and  cost-
effectiveness throughout the project cycle. Partners implemented different actions to ensure the 
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of funded actions, such as, among others, the use of local staff, 
local  procurement,  feedback  and  learning  mechanisms,  assessment  of  the  most  appropriate 
modality, and working through local partners. Partners (87%, 87/100) reported considering costs 
and timeliness when designing DG ECHO-funded actions, as well as factors affecting efficiency 
and cost-effectiveness (81%, 81/200). They (64%, 64/100) also agreed that cost-effectiveness 
obligations imposed by the EU upon partners were necessary and proportionate, although they 
also  highlighted  that  administrative  burden  (e.g.,  associated  to  reporting  requirements) 
remained an issue during the 2017-2022 period (232).  

Partners  reported  implementing  different  actions  to  ensure  the  sustainability  of  the  funded 
actions, such as ensuring capacity building at national and local level (89%, 89/100), community 
engagement and participation (86%, 86/100), integration of DG ECHO-funded activities with 
national/local  systems  (71%,  71/100),  advocacy,  policy  dialogue,  and  coordination  (66%, 
66/100),  and  environmental  considerations  52%  (52/100).  However,  they  also  identified 
different factors affecting the sustainability of the funded actions, such as the lack of planning 
for  sustainable  results,  insufficient  involvement  of  communities,  lack  of  alignment  between 
different EU initiatives, and lack of strategic focus on elements known to be more sustainable 
(e.g.,  livelihoods  activities,  DP).  On  the  HDP  Nexus,  63%  (63/100)  indicated  that  the 
operationalisation of the Nexus remains limited. They had mixed views whether DG ECHO’s 
humanitarian  aid  contributed  to  operationalising  the  HDP  Nexus.  According  to  partners, 
different factors affect the operationalisation of the HDP Nexus, such as lack of coordination 
between humanitarian, humanitarian, and peace actors, and different funding priorities or cycles 
between them (233).  

Local implementing partners 

The  majority  of  local  implementing  partners  consulted  agreed  that  the  EU’s  humanitarian 
objectives (234)  and  commitments  related  to  forgotten  crises (235)  and  EiE (236)  remained 
relevant during the 2017-2022 period. For instance, DG ECHO’s focus on EiE was regarded as 
relevant  given  that  the  sector  was  sometimes  left  unaddressed  by  other  donors.  Local 
implementing partners also positively regarded DG ECHO’s advocacy on the use of cash as the 
preferred modality as particularly relevant (237).  

Only a minority (2%, 17/63) indicated encountering challenges when ensuring the alignment 
with humanitarian principles when implementing the actions. 89% (56/63) indicated that DG 
ECHO-funded were internally coherent, and complementary with those of other donors and 
humanitarian actors in the field (83%, 52/63). They (73%, 46/63) indicated that DG ECHO field 

(232) Interviews with partners (16 out of 24); Case study 3: pilot Programmatic Partnerships. 

(233) Interviews with partners (19 out of 24); Survey with partners staff=64% (64/100); Foresight workshop.  

(234)  Survey  with  local  implementing  partners.  Save  and  preserve  life=97%  (61/63);  Provide  necessary  relief  and 
assistance to people affected by long-lasting crises=90% (57/63); Help finance the transport of aid=87% (55/63); 
Carry  out  short-term  rehabilitation  work=81%  (51/63);  Ensure  preparedness  for  risks  of  natural  disasters=89% 
(56/63); Support civil operations= 79% (79/63).  

(235) Survey with local implementing partners=75% (47/63); Interviews with local implementing partners (5 out of 11). 

(236) Survey with local implementing partners=76% (48/63).  

(237) Interviews with local implementing partners (5 out of 11).  

110 

 
 
staff actively engaged with coordination mechanisms, and that exchanges with DG ECHO field 
staff contributed to the successful implementation of the funded actions.  

According to local implementing partners, the following aspects of DG ECHO’s humanitarian 
aid provided an EU added value (238): DG ECHO’s field network (53%, 33/63), its expertise 
(63%, 40/63), its coordination role (57%, 35/63), its global stance as a principled donor (64%, 
40/63); its thematic policies (62%, 38/63), its flexibility (57%, 36/63), partnerships approaches 
(61%, 39/63), speed of response (54%, 34/63), and its emergency response tools (64%, 39/63).  

The majority of local implementing partners indicated that DG ECHO-funded actions they were 
involved in have reached the number of assisted populations targeted and achieved their 
objectives (239).They  also  reported  that  DG  ECHO  played  an  important  role  in  enhancing 
humanitarian  policy  and  operational  leadership,  strengthening  needs-based  delivery  of 
humanitarian aid, increasing visibility of humanitarian crises and needs, preserving humanitarian 
space  and  ensuring  respect  of  IHL,  improving  donor  practices,  influencing  and  shaping  the 
global  humanitarian  system,  improving  living  conditions  of  affected  people,  preserving  the 
dignity of life, alleviating suffering, reducing vulnerability and improving resilience.  

Local implementing partners reported having considered costs and timeliness when designing 
DG  ECHO-funded  actions  (89%,  56/63),  as  well  as  factors  affecting  efficiency  and  cost-
effectiveness (84%, 51/63). They also agreed that the cost-effectiveness obligations imposed by 
the  EU  upon  partners  were  necessary  and  proportionate  (77%,  49/63),  although  a  minority 
indicated  that  administrative  burden  remains  an  issue (240).  Local  implementing  partners 
consulted took different measures to ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of 
DG  ECHO-funded  actions,  such  as  the  use  of  local  staff,  local  procurement,  feedback  and 
learning mechanisms, and assessing the most appropriate modality.  

Similarly, they reported  adopting different  measures to  enhance the  sustainability of funded 
actions, such as community engagement and participation, capacity building at national/local 
levels, advocacy, policy dialogue and environmental considerations. On the HDP Nexus, 57% 
(36/63) indicated that DG ECHO provided the necessary tools flexibility, and predictability to 
facilitate  complementarity  between  humanitarian  and  development  actors,  and  53%  (33/63) 
agreed that DG ECHO’s humanitarian aid contributed to operationalising the HDP Nexus in the 
field.  According to  local implementing partners consulted (241), different  factors hindered the 
operationalisation of the Nexus, such as lack of coordination between different actors, lack of 
institutional  capacities  in  the  country  of  implementation,  legal  and  political  barriers,  lack  of 
national  strategies  linking  humanitarian,  development  and  peace  efforts,  and  operational 
challenges.  

Assisted populations 

Assisted populations consulted for this evaluation indicated that the support they received 
generated concrete quantifiable and non-quantifiable results on their lives and well-being. 
Assisted population consulted during focus group discussions in Ethiopia and Ukraine indicated 
that the support received helped their household to address some of their basic needs (242). In 

(238) Survey with local implementing partners; Interviews with local implementing partners (11 out of 11).   

(239) Survey with local implementing partners=88% (55/63); Interviews with local implementing partners (8 out of 11).  

(240) Interviews with local implementing partners (5 out of 11). 

(241) Survey with local implementing partners; Interviews with local implementing partners (9 out of 11).  

(242)  In-person  focus  group discussions  with  assisted  populations  in  Ethiopia;  In-person  focus  group  discussions  with 

assisted populations in Ukraine. 

111 

 
 
Ukraine, the support provided led to non-quantifiable results by improving the living conditions 
of  beneficiary  internally  displaced  people  and  generating  a  stronger  sense  of  confidence  and 
security.  Beneficiaries  received  legal  and  psychological  assistance,  in  addition  to  financial 
support to access health services, provision of IT appliances, and improved WASH facilities. In 
Ethiopia,  assisted  population  indicated  that  the  assistance  received  as  part  of  a  pilot  PP 
addressed  their  needs  for  childbearing  and  childcare,  strengthening  their  knowledge  of 
appropriate  breastfeeding  and  complementary  feeding  practices.  In  Pakistan,  assisted 
population  consulted  reported  that  the  assistance  helped  them  to  assure  education  for  their 
children, buy food for their livestock, repay debts, get livestock vaccinations, and gain a better 
understanding  of  risks  and  preparation  to  react  to  the  impact  of  extreme  weather  events. 
Improved hygiene conditions, access to drinkable water, and adequate shelter during heavy rains 
were also reported as valuable results achieved by DG ECHO-funded interventions.  

Feedback collected from children consulted for this evaluation shows a positive picture of 
the assistance received as part of a selection of DG ECHO-funded actions in Bangladesh, 
Venezuela, and Ethiopia. The data suggest positive feelings towards the school environments 
in  all  countries  and  regions  that  were  part  of  this  study.  In  all  three  countries,  the  drawing 
exercise  suggested  a  very  positive  atmosphere  in  the  classrooms  of  DG  ECHO-funded  EiE 
projects. Reasons included the opportunity to learn, meeting friends, and getting school supplies 
(e.g. backpacks with notebooks and pens). In Bangladesh, drawings suggested that teachers were 
seen as important figures in students’ lives. In Venezuela, drawings suggested positive emotions 
and happiness about being in school. 

Other stakeholders   

In addition to DG ECHO staff, partners, local implementing partners, and assisted population, 
feedback was also gathered from a broader range of stakeholders. The number of consultations 
with these stakeholders was smaller compared to other groups. These stakeholders were likely 
to focus their feedback on specific elements of DG ECHO’s humanitarian interventions. Their 
views and feedback are summarised below. 

Member States’ representatives and other third country donors (243)  

According to these stakeholders, the EU’s humanitarian objectives and commitments remained 
relevant and appropriate during the evaluation period. These stakeholders positively  regarded 
DG ECHO’s needs-based approach and its advocacy on the humanitarian principles and respect 
of  IHL.  DG  ECHO’s  participation  to  coordination  mechanisms  and  support  to  UN-led 
coordination architecture was also considered key in fostering the effectiveness of humanitarian 
assistance  and  coherence  with  actions  implemented  by  other  donors.  However,  all  Member 
States  consulted  highlighted  that  there  is  unexploited  potential  when  it  comes  to  strategic 
coordination between the EU and Member States on humanitarian assistance.  

Other EU entities and bodies (244) 

 Other EU entities and bodies consulted agreed that the EU’s humanitarian interventions were 
coherent  with  the  EU’s  external  financing  instruments.  However,  a  minority  of  stakeholders 
reported  that  coordination  among  different  EU  services  managing  different  EU  funding 
instruments could be strengthened. The different funding cycles and priorities across different 
EU  services  were  regarded  as  factors  hindering  coherence.  A  minority  of  stakeholders  also 
positively regarded DG ECHO’s increased focus on Disaster Preparedness. On the HDP Nexus, 

(243) Interviews with Member States (7); Other donors (2); EU added value and strategy workshop. 

(244) Interviews with other EU entities and bodies (5); Workshop on the HDP Nexus; Scoping interviews (4) 

112 

 
 
these  stakeholders  generally  agreed  that  the  operationalisation  of  the  HDP  Nexus  remains 
limited,  notwithstanding  the  EU’s  efforts  in  this  sense.  They  identified  some  factors  that 
hindered  the  operationalisation  of  the  Nexus,  such  as  the  different  mandates  between 
development  and humanitarian actors, lack of structural  coordination, and differing priorities 
across EU services. 

Clusters and development actors (245)  

These  stakeholders  positively  regarded  DG  ECHO’s  thematic  policies,  with  some  policies 
showcasing DG ECHO’s focus on emerging trends (e.g., environmental sustainability) or sectors 
that were deprioritised by other donors (e.g., EiE). They also positively regarded DG ECHO’s 
needs-based approach and its engagement in coordination mechanisms to foster coherence with 
initiatives and actions carried out by other humanitarian actors and donors. Respondents also 
highlighted  the  added  value  of  DG  ECHO’s  field  network,  its  expertise  and  advocacy  role. 
However,  they  underlined  that  more  efforts  are  needed  to  advance  on  some  Grand  Bargain 
commitments,  particularly  those  related  to  enhanced  quality  funding,  the  HDP  Nexus, 
localisation, and simplification. A minority of stakeholders also highlighted the need to decrease 
administrative burden on DG ECHO’s partners.  

Networks, research institutes, and private sector (246) 

These stakeholders agreed that the EU’s humanitarian objectives and commitments remained 
relevant  and  appropriate  during  the  2017-2022  period.  They  also  agreed  that  DG  ECHO’s 
humanitarian interventions generated added value, given DG ECO’s field presence, needs-based 
approach and flexibility. All networks and research institutes consulted underlined the need to 
enhance efforts on Grand Bargain commitments, particularly those on localisation and the HDP 
Nexus. They identified different factors hindering the operationalisation of the HDP Nexus, such 
as different mandates and cycles between development and humanitarian actors. Finally, they 
positively regarded DG ECHO’s increased focus on environmental and Disaster Preparedness 
considerations.  

Findings from the public consultation 

A majority of respondents to the public consultation indicated that DG ECHO’s approach 
and  focus  on  the  different  humanitarian  crises  was  relevant  to  the  most  pressing 
humanitarian needs during the period evaluated (2017-2022). Respondents highlighted some 
contributing  factors,  such  as  DG  ECHO’s  needs-based  approach  and  the  flexibility  of  DG 
ECHO’s funding mechanisms.  

In addition, most respondents indicated that DG ECHO’s humanitarian aid was effective in 
saving and preserving life during emergencies and providing the necessary assistance to those 
in need of aid. Respondents highlighted several factors that in their view contributed to such 
effectiveness, including DG ECHO’s strong field presence, expertise, diverse range of adequate 
partners, needs-based approach, coordination efforts, and thematic policies.  

They  also  indicated  that  DG  ECHO’s  humanitarian  aid  was  internally  coherent.  Several 
hindering factors affecting internal coherence were mentioned, such as an increased disconnect 
between DG ECHO HQ and field staff, and different approaches among DG ECHO field staff. 
While  respondents  agreed  on  the  coherence  between  DG  ECHO  humanitarian  aid  and  the 
UCPM, they also  highlighted areas of  concern.  Respondents  indicated that  the Team  Europe 

(245) Interviews with clusters (4); Interviews with development actors (2). 

(246) Interviews with networks and research institutes (3); Interview with private sector (1); Foresight workshop 

113 

 
 
approach enhanced synergies between DG ECHO and Member States. They also highlighted 
their appreciation for DG ECHO’s efforts in engaging with third countries, other donors, and 
other international organisations.  

Respondents also noted that the operationalisation of the HDP Nexus remained limited, 
urging increased cooperation among different Commission’s services on development aid.  

A  majority  of  respondents  agreed  that  DG  ECHO’s  humanitarian  response  generated 
added value compared to that of Member States. This perception was associated to several 
elements, including DG ECHO’s funding size, global reach, field network, expertise, partnership 
models, needs-based approach, role in policy development, advocacy, and focus on forgotten 
crises.  

114 

 
ANNEX VI. THEORY OF CHANGE  

Figure 1.  Overview of the Theory of change for the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid (2017-2022)  

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.  Detailed mapping of the rationale for intervention, objectives and commitments, inputs, and external factors of the Theory of change for 

the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid (2017-2022 

 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.  Detailed mapping (I) of the activities, outputs, results, and impacts of the Theory of change for the European Commission's Humanitarian 

Aid (2017-2022)  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.  Detailed mapping (II) of the activities, outputs, results, and impacts of the Theory of change for the European Commission's 

Humanitarian Aid (2017-2022)  

3 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5.  Detailed mapping of the assumptions of the Theory of change for the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid (2017-2022)  

4