Thematic Evaluation of EU’S Support to Civil Society in the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo Under UNSCR 1244, Montenegro and Serbia) and Turkey

Brief Description of Main Deliverables/Outputs:
To provide an assessment of the intervention logic of EU assistance to support civil society in the Western Balkans and Turkey; To provide a judgement on the performance (either actual or expected) of assistance, particularly as regards its relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability; and Based on relevant findings, conclusions and lessons learned as per 1) and 2) above, to provide relevant operational recommendations for: (a) programming future EU assistance and (b) outline corrective measures, where applicable, to improve the implementation and monitoring of ongoing actions.

Role on the Assignment

Key Expert (evaluator) activities conducted and outputs provided:

Regarding specific objective 1, provided evaluation assessing the intervention logic followed in the IPA 2007-2009 national programs and the IPA multi-beneficiary programmes under Component I. The evaluator provided relevant findings, conclusions and lessons learned as well as (as per specific objective 3) operational recommendations improving the programming of future assistance to civil society. This included recommendations and concrete proposals on definition of objectives and related SMART indicators to facilitate measurement of performance and design of future support to civil society;

Regarding specific objective 2, the evaluation covered EU pre-accession financial assistance provided to civil society under both IPA 2007-2009 and the last two years (2005-2006) of pre-IPA assistance to the Western Balkans and Turkey. The evaluator evaluated the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of financial assistance. As per specific objective 3, the evaluation provided relevant recommendations to improve performance of this assistance where appropriate, including outlining corrective measures where applicable on the way assistance was implemented and monitored; and Ensured an internal quality control during the implementing and reporting phase of the evaluation. The quality control ensured that the draft reports comply with the above requirements and met adequate quality standards before sending them to stakeholders for comments. The quality control ensured consistency and coherence between findings, conclusions and recommendations, where findings reported are duly substantiated and that conclusions are supported by relevant judgment criteria.

Scroll to Top