Evaluation of the European Commission's support to the ACP SADC region
Dolf Noppen, Per Kirkemann, Nicholas Charalambides, Theodor Mutter and Giulia Pietrangeli
[ Share with a friend
Volume One вЂ“ Main report
Download complete version - 1.3Mb ~ 7 min (97 pages)
Summary: Objectives and Scope
The present report covers the Evaluation of the CommissionвЂ™s support to the Southern African Development Community вЂ“ SADC вЂ“ (1996 вЂ“ 2007) and is a regional level
The main objectives of the evaluation are:
The Evaluation was carried out during the period April 2006 вЂ“ July 2007, covering the EDF8 and EDF9 period (during which period a number of EDF6 and EDF7 interventions were still being implemented), and overlapped, to some extent, with the EDF 10 preparation process. The principal sectors covered under the
evaluation were: Regional Integration and Trade; and Transport and Communications (identified as focal sectors). These two sectors, together with Food Security, span the broad sectoral approach as seen both by the two SADC RIPs and by SADCвЂ™s own Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP). In addition, as a result of the prevalence and importance of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Southern Africa, special attention was paid to HIV/AIDS.
To provide the relevant external co-operation services of the EC and the wider public with an overall independent assessment of the CommissionвЂ™s past and
current relations with SADC
To identify key lessons in order to improve the current and future strategies and programmes of the European Commission.
Whereas the EDF8 RSP/RIP still had a strong peace and structural stability focus, the EDF9 RSP/RIP shifted this to a primarily poverty reduction focus, thus linking in with the MDGs as well as taking into account the fact that greater stability was coming to the region with the ending of a number of armed conflicts.
The Evaluation was structured around ten evaluation questions built around internationally recognised evaluation and assessment criteria. However, already during the desk phase it was agreed that relevance was central to the evaluation as it was recognised that with the considerable delays in implementation, drawing conclusions on actual impact would be premature вЂ“ particularly so for many of the EDF9 interventions still in the pipeline.
Volume Two - Synthesis report
Download complete version - 2.1Mb ~ 12 min (364 pages)
This annex contains the data supporting the responses to the ten evaluation questions, which guided the Evaluation of the CommissionвЂ™s support to the Southern
African Development Community (SADC).
The text of the ten evaluation questions, as approved during the Desk Phase, and around which the Evaluation was structured, is shown in the table on the next page. Accordingly, this Annex is divided into ten main sub-sections, each of which covers one Evaluation Question.
The responses to the evaluation questions are based on a set of judgement criteria elaborated during the EvaluationвЂ™s Desk Phase. Each of these Judgement Criteria
contains a number of Indicators, which contribute to addressing each judgement criterion. The indicators have been used to structure the data made available to the
Evaluation Team during the Desk and Field Phases.
Based on these data, responses have been formulated for each of the Evaluation Questions. These responses are contained in Chapter 6 of the Main Report.
Supporting data on which this annex draws are to be found in:
Annex 3: Intervention Logic
In addition, Annex 7 contains a list of reference documents and documents which were consulted during the evaluation.
Annex 5: List of Projects
Annex 6: Background to the Region
Annex 8: Desk Analysis of CSP/NIPs for the SADC Region
Annex 9: Country and Sector Reports from the Field Visits
It may be noted in particular that the information contained in Annex 9 is a result of those interviews carried out with the persons and institutions detailed in Annex 10 (List of persons met). Team members asked respondents for their views and, in order to allow for an as free and frank a discussion as possible, it was agreed that the remarks would be non-attributable. In addition, many of the points included in Annex 9 were made by several commentators вЂ“ and hence, direct citing of individuals has mostly been avoided.