Suche nach Schlagworten '00005028'

The mandate for this study was to undertake an evaluation of EU external action as managed by three DGs: DG RELEX, DG DEV and DG AIDCO. The Terms of Reference identified two main objectives (ToR, Feb 2010, Section 1 – reproduced in Annex 1):· To provide an overall independent assessment of the visibility of the Commission’s external action· To identify key lessons to improve current and future Commission strategies on visibility.The ToR also set out the temporal scope, 2005 to 2010, and a geographical scope that is essentially global with the exception of the EU enlargement countries. Stakeholders from both inside and outside the EU, in both partner countries and global organisations, were to be covered. The main element to limit the focus of the study was the designation of six themes which were to be the object of thematic studies involving six field visits to different countries (listed below – section 1.3).Finally the ToR also asked for the evaluation to be forward looking, providing lessons and recommendations concerning visibility and also on coordination within the EU and on coherence within the EU and internationally.[Author vide copyright]

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Purpose of the Evaluation
1.2 Background of the Evaluation
1.3 Methodology
1.4 Analysis of the main findings for each Evaluation Question
1.5 Main Conclusions and Recommendations
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Synthesis of the Commission’s Strategy and Programmes
2.2 Context
2.3 Purpose of this Evaluation
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Judgement Criteria & Indicators
3.3 Data & Information Collection
3.3.1 Thematic Studies
3.3.2 Media Coverage Analysis
3.3.3 E-Survey
3.3.4 Interviews with Brussels-based actors
3.3.5 Eurobarometer reports analysis
3.3.6 Case studies of specific events and partnerships
3.4 Methods of Analysis
3.5 Methods of Judgement
4. MAIN FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Findings from the Thematic Studies and the other Data Sources
4.1.1 Findings from the Thematic Studies
4.1.2 Case studies of specific events and partnerships
4.1.3 Findings from other sources
4.2 Answers to each Evaluation Question
4.2.1 EQ1: The image of EU external action
4.2.2 EQ2: Do the Visibility communication priorities achieve their objectives?
4.2.3 EQ3: A single, clearly defined Visibility strategy for EU external action?
4.2.4 EQ4: Perceptions of the benefits of EU external action
4.2.5 EQ5: Coordination between the EU institutions and with the EU Member States?
4.2.6 EQ 6: Coherence of message across external and internal policies?
4.2.7 EQ 7: Value added of the EU as a global actor in major international fora?
4.2.8 EQ8: Adequacy of EC resources to carry out the visibility strategy
4.2.9 EQ9: Stakeholder perceptions of results relative to the costs
4.2.10 EQ10: Translating visibility strategies into action plans
| 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
5.1.1 The image of EU external action is generally in line with pre-Lisbon officialpriorities
5.1.2 Communication work on EU external action lacks overall direction and leadership
5.1.3 Working in partnership with others is essential but there is a trade-off in lower EUvisibility
5.1.4 The image of EU external action varies geographically as well as by constituency
5.1.5 The nature of the EU imposes constraints that impact on its visibility
5.1.6 The resources for promoting the visibility of EU external action have been adequate
5.2 Recommendations
5.2.1 Reaffirm, renew and strengthen the established image of EU external action
5.2.2 Provide stronger central direction and leadership for communication work on EUexternal action
5.2.3 Agree that ‘working in partnership’ is an intrinsic part of the image of EU externalaction and a core message for communication
5.2.4 Manage sensitively geographic and constituency variations in the visibility of EUexternal action
5.2.5 Pay special attention to the impact on visibility of the EU’s specific nature
5.2.6 Review the distribution of resources for promoting the visibility of EU externalaction particularly at the level of EU Delegations
5.2.7 Other specific recommendations for each theme
5.3 Summary of key conclusions and recommendations
LIST OF BOXES, FIGURES AND TABLES
VOLUME 2 – ANNEXES PART 1
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE
ANNEX 2: THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
ANNEX 3: THE EU LEGAL FRAMEWORK: THE EXTERNAL ACTION OF THE EU
ANNEX 4: INTERVENTION LOGIC
ANNEX 5: STANDARD FORMAT FOR COLLECTING EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE EQS
ANNEX 6: THE ORGANIZATION OF COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE COMMISSION
ANNEX 7: COUNTRY SELECTION
ANNEX 8: GUIDELINES FOR THE THEMATIC WORK
ANNEX 9: EVIDENCE FROM INTERVIEWS WITH EU OFFICIALS IN RELATION TO THE EQS
ANNEX 10: REPORT FROM INTERVIEWS WITH CIVIL SOCIETY
ANNEX 11: LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED
| VOLUME 3 – ANNEXES PART 2
ANNEX 12: MEDIA COVERAGE ANALYSIS
ANNEX 13: E-SURVEY – SYNTHESIS REPORT
ANNEX 14: THE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE UNITED NATIONS
ANNEX 15: EUROBAROMETER SURVEY
ANNEX 16: CASE STUDY: TUNISIA
ANNEX 17: BIBLIOGRAPHY
VOLUMES 4-9: THEMATIC REPORTS ON THE SIX THEMES
VOLUME 4: THEMATIC REPORT ON CRISIS AND FRAGILE STATES
VOLUME 5: THEMATIC REPORT ON FINANCIAL & ECONOMIC CRISIS
VOLUME 6: THEMATIC REPORT ON FOOD CRISIS
VOLUME 7: THEMATIC REPORT ON MIGRATION - PART 1: MALI & PART 2: LAMPEDUSA
VOLUME 8: THEMATIC REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
VOLUME 9: THEMATIC REPORT ON ENVIRONMENT, BIODIVERSITY AND DEFORESTATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACRONYMS
GLOSSARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 SCOPE
1.2 METHODOLOGY
1.3 CAVEATS
1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE
2. OVERVIEW OF THE IFS
2.1 THE IFS RATIONALE
2.2 REGULATION AND FOCUS
2.3 THE CRISIS RESPONSE COMPONENT
2.4 THE CRISIS PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT
2.5 TOTAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS TO DATE
2.6 IFS STAFF RESOURCES
3. RESULTS3.2 DISAGGREGATED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
3.3 SCORECARD — DESIGN OF IFS CRISIS RESPONSE INTERVENTIONS
3.4 CRITICAL ASPECTS OF IFS CRISIS RESPONSE IMPLEMENTATION
3.5 STRATEGIC AND CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
ANNEX 1: INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED
ANNEX 2: DOCUMENTS
ANNEX 3: EVALUATION TEAM BIOGRAPHIES

The period covered by the evaluation, 1996-2007, was a time of political-military crises and worsening poverty and insecurity for the Central African Republic. This continued the trend which started immediately after Independence and which led the Central African Republic into a situation of chronic structural crisis.The management of the revenues from the exploitation of the local natural resources by the country’s leaders only benefited the very few. Over the reporting period the human development indicators worsened, and no sustainable economic growth was generated by the private sector. Hardly any new infrastructures were developed, and those that existed continuously deteriorated.The country remained almost fully dependent on Official Development Assistance (ODA) flows, which have gradually become scarcer with the increase in military conflicts and political crises. Systematic ODA flows were not reinstated until 2005 in the wake of the elections that followed the coup d’état of 2003.For years the European Commission was therefore faced with a large number of challenges, with an obligation to react rapidly and put in place responses both adapted to the country’s needs and consistent with Community rules. Between 1997 and 2007, the Commission mobilised €128m - that is €28 per inhabitant. More than two-thirds (68%) of disbursements were for macroeconomic support (€52.5m) and transport (€35.1m).[Author vide copyright]

Liste des sigles et abréviations
Appréciation globale
Résumé
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
1.1 Objectifs et champ de l’évaluation
1.2 Contexte de la réponse stratégique
1.3 Finalité de l'évaluation
2 Méthode d’évaluation
2.1 Les critères de jugement et les indicateurs
2.2 La démarche évaluative
2.3 Mise en œuvre de la méthode
3 La stratégie d’aide communautaire et son contexte
3.1 Contexte politique et socio économique
3.2 Stratégie d’aide au développement de la CE
3.3 Activités des autres PTF en RCA
4 Réponses apportées aux questions d’évaluation
4.1 Adaptation des stratégies de la CE aux besoins de la RCA et aux principes communautaires
4.2 Efficacité et impacts des appuis macroéconomiques
4.3 Efficacité et impact des appuis au secteur des transports
4.4 Efficacité et impacts dans le secteur de la santé
4.5 Combinaison efficiente des outils
4.6 Cohérence avec la stratégie régionale de la CE
4.7 Cohérence avec la Facilité de Paix pour l’Afrique
4.8 Cohérence, coordination-complémentarité et valeur ajoutée
4.9 Prise en compte des priorités transversales
4.10 Intégration de l’approche LRRD
5 Conclusions et recommandations
5.1 Conclusions
5.2 Recommandations
| 1.Termes de référence de la mission
2. Matrice d’information
QE1 - Dans quelle mesure les stratégies développées par l’aide de la CE - en particulier en ce qui concerne les objectifs, les secteurs de concentration et les modalités de participation des parties prenantes - ont-elles correspondu (i) aux objectifs et principes communautaires, (ii) aux priorités exprimées par le Gouvernement, (iii) aux besoins et aux capacités humaines et administratives du pays et (iv) aux évènements politiques de la période?
QE2 - Dans quelle mesure les interventions de la Commission en matière d’appui macroéconomique ont-elles contribué à une meilleure gestion des finances publiques, à favoriser la stabilité macroéconomique et la réduction de la pauvreté?
QE 3 - Dans quelle mesure les interventions de la Commission, dans son rôle de chef de file du secteur des transports, ont-elles permis (i) d’effectivement augmenter la mobilité des marchandises et des personnes en facilitant les échanges intérieurs et l’accès aux ports, (ii) de réduire les prix à la consommation dans les principaux centres urbains et (iii) d’améliorer durablement le système financier et technique d’entretien du réseau prioritaire?
QE4 - Dans quelle mesure les interventions de la Commission ont-elles contribué à améliorer l’état de santé de la population par un renforcement de l’accès aux services de santé et l’amélioration de la qualité des soins?
QE5 - Dans quelle mesure la Commission a utilisé une combinaison d’outils (ressources, instruments financiers, procédures et cadre réglementaires) adaptée à l’atteinte des objectifs stratégiques des différentes périodes, et particulièrement des périodes de crises?
QE6 - Dans quelle mesure les stratégies et programmes régionaux ont-ils été programmés, préparés et mis en œuvre en recherchant ou non des effets cumulatifs (synergies), en évitant les contradiction et les doubles emplois avec les stratégies communautaires de niveau national (et réciproquement) pour la lutte contre la pauvreté, | 6.2. Projets et approches sectorielles de la CE
6.2.1. Environnement
6.2.2. Bonne Gouvernance et Questions Transversales
6.3. Divers
7. Liste des projets 8 et 9ème FED en RCA (1996-2006)
8. Liste des personnes rencontrée
| la gestion des conflits et l’exploitation des ressources naturelles?
QE7 - Dans quelle mesure, la combinaison d’outils communautaires et d’autres instruments horizontaux d’intervention comme la Facilité de Paix pour l’Afrique ou la politique extérieure communautaire dans la région ont accompagné la sortie de crise de la RCA?
QE 8 - Dans quelle mesure, dans un contexte difficile, la qualité de la relation établie par la CE avec les autres partenaires techniques et financiers de la RCA a permis d’améliorer la cohérence et la complémentarité des interventions et de dégager une valeur ajoutée communautaire à un niveau global et/ou sectoriel, au sein d’une coordination avec les États membres?
QE9 - Les priorités transversales ont-elles été prises en compte dans la programmation, la préparation et la mise en œuvre des interventions de la Commission?
QE10 - Dans un contexte d’instabilité chronique, l’approche communautaire, notamment relative à l’État de droit et la bonne gouvernance, a t’elle intégré de manière anticipée des dimensions de prévention des conflits et de LRRD dans la programmation et la mise en œuvre de ses programmes?
3. Cartes de la RCA
4. Analyse des principaux documents stratégiques de la CE
4.1. Documents de politique européenne
4.2. Analyse de principaux documents de stratégie pays
4.3. Documents de stratégie de coopération régionale
4.4. Diagramme des effets
5. Annexes à la QE2
5.1. Documents
5.2. Synthèse des écarts budgetaires
5.3. Aspects juridiques de la réforme des finances publiques en RCA
5.3.1. Interventions de la Banque Mondiale
5.3.2. RCA : Tableau Récapitulatif des Indicateurs de Performance PEFA
5.3.3. Processus d’accession au point de décision PPTE
5.3.4. Chronologie finances publiques RCA
5.3.5. Matrice des declencheurs PTE
5.3.6. Matrice simplifiee des appuis macro economiques et reforme des finances publiques en RCA (1996-2008)
6. Liste des documents consultés
6.1. Programmation et stratégie de la CE

Foreword by Federica Mogherini
Executive Summary
A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy: “Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe”
1. A Global Strategy to Promote our Citizens’ Interests
2. The Principles Guiding our External Action
3. The Priorities of our External Action
3.1 The Security of Our Union
3.2 State and Societal Resilience to our East and South
3.3 An Integrated Approach to Conflicts and Crises
3.4 Cooperative Regional Orders
3.5 Global Governance for the 21st Century
4. From Vision to Action
Acknowledgements

The paper highlights the importance of a stronger commitment to more effective European coordination on the field in the context of crisis and fragility. It aims at presenting a first analysis of the characteristics that are specific to situations of crisis and fragility and the needs encountered on the field in order to draw recommendations for coordination among European actors that are better suited to Fragile States.[Author vide copyright]