Commission staff working paper

Evaluations

The Commission has an evaluation function which is responsible for evaluating the activities it funds, mostly using independent evaluators. The legal basis for this activity is set out under Article 18 of the Humanitarian Aid Regulation: the Commission is required to "regularly assess humanitarian aid operations financed by the Community in order to establish whether they have achieved their objectives and to produce guidelines for improving the effectiveness of subsequent operations." Furthermore, Article 27 (4) of the Financial Regulation requires EU Institutions to undertake evaluations in line with the guidance provided by the Commission.

Each year, an indicative Evaluation Programme is established after consulting the EU Humanitarian Aid Committee. This programme is flexible and can be adapted to include evaluations not in the original programme, in response to particular events or changing circumstances.

Evaluations can cover not only reviews of operations funded by the EU, but also thematic issues and partnerships. The aim is to increase the level of co-ordination within the Commission and with EU Member States and other major donors.

1. The 2009 work programme

The Commission continued to evaluate its major humanitarian aid programmes.

In 2009, thirteen evaluations and reviews were finalised or launched:

• 
  nine evaluations on Food Aid, DIPECHO Caribbean, DIPECHO Central Asia, the Regional Drought Decision [Horn of Africa], Burundi, Iraq, Nepal Sahrawi refugee camps and Sahel;
  
• 
  Three reviews/studies on mapping donor co-ordination at field level, gender, unit cost approach.
  
• 
  A call for tenders on air transport was also launched combining elements of both evaluation and review.
  

These evaluations and reviews provide valuable input for further sectoral policy development and increase the effectiveness of the EU’s humanitarian aid activities.

2. Results from some evaluations finalised in 2009

Sahrawi refugee camps: The evaluation took place between April and May 2009, focusing on the funding provided under the 2006-2008 decisions. The aim was to advise ECHO on priorities, make specific recommendations for improving the impact of its humanitarian response and provide advice on its strategy for 2009 onwards. ECHO-implemented action has had a continuous positive impact on the direct beneficiaries. It has helped to support family and community life in difficult circumstances. The food received makes a significant impact on the Sahrawi diet, as all assessments have demonstrated that the refugees continue to rely on the commodities provided. This action makes a difference ensuring that the refugees' most basic needs for food, water/sanitation, shelter and medicines are largely covered. The programme’s positive impact would be increased by a strategic policy to reduce the levels of vulnerability and security by means of more stable programmes and providing buffer stocks. Responses that protect and support food security should be further based on a sound analysis, in consultation with the beneficiary population. Responses in the form of shelter take account of people’s coping strategies and strengths. In the health sector, the number of players involved undermines concerted action and efforts to avoid any negative impact. Joint action, for example in schools for repairs and water/sanitation, has had an additional impact.

Burundi: The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the appropriateness of ECHO-implemented actions in Burundi over the period 2006–2009, in order to establish whether the objectives have been achieved, but focusing mainly on its LRRD strategy. EU assistance complied with its general objectives and responded to major humanitarian needs in the country. However, the evaluation found that one of its partners had continued with free distribution of food aid for too long, whereas food or cash for work would have been more appropriate and would have probably led to better results (regaining self-sufficiency). The repatriation and reintegration of 180 000 refugees has not led to major tension, which is considered to be a great success. Many people had feared that such a massive influx of refugees could lead to new outbreaks of violence. The main reasons justifying the presence of ECHO in Burundi are to follow up the repatriation and reintegration of the approximately 40 000 refugees still remaining in the camps in Tanzania and of approximately 15 000 refugees from 1972. At the moment, all these refugees are expected to be repatriated before the end of the year (2009). The follow-up of the reintegration process will take at least six months. The evaluation recommended that the Commission maintain a presence in Burundi until at least the end of 2011. This will also allow for an alert for the elections in 2010, which some fear might lead to new violence. The integrated approach to repatriation and reintegration should continue to be employed. Together with other stakeholders, the Commission should also address the problem of the refugees from 1972 who have remained without access to land.

DIPECHO programme in the Caribbean: Since 1999, ECHO has implemented six DIPECHO Action Plans in the Caribbean, supporting 66 projects implemented by twenty one different NGOs, UN agencies, academic institutions and government bodies. The evaluation covering the last two Action Plans running between 2006 and 2009 concluded that they have had a significant impact on the lives of poor communities in vulnerable areas of the region. For example, the four hurricanes that hit the island of La Gonave during August and September 2008 were reported to have caused six deaths in target communities, compared with more than twenty-four during similar events in 2006. Action plans are relevant given the high-risk nature of the region and the focus on addressing needs of vulnerable people in the highest-risk communities. This was reinforced by the severe flooding which occurred during the time frames of the action plan, affecting all the communities covered by the project in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. DIPECHO is, therefore, relevant to communities. Moreover, DIPECHO remains relevant, even essential, in that it is one of the very few funding sources for DRR initiatives in the region that targets the community level.

Further details of the evaluations carried out can be found on ECHO website at http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/evaluation/introduction_en.htm

4.