MATERIAL Y METODOS.

I-2.6.1

Commission strategy/programming documents explain how the Commission’s PSD strategy fits into the wider Commission’s country/regional strategies and priorities

I-2.6.2

Commission strategy/programming documents explain how the Commission’s have been prioritised with regard to the PSD needs of the country

I-2.6.3

Stakeholders consider that the Commission’s PSD support was part of a wider prioritised approach of the Commission in the country/region as well as prioritised with respect to PSD need of the country

I-2.6.4

A methodological procedure has been adopted for selecting areas of intervention per country, as per the 2005 Evaluation Recommendation RI-1, including: an assessment of priority needs; selection of interventions with Commission comparative advantage; and an assessment of whether pre-conditions of intervention are met

Findings at JC level - Tunisia Evaluation

The GBSs with PSD components largely supported national development plans which had in turn been framed by the AA requirements to modernise the financial sector, enterprises’ competitiveness etc.

Some TAs were funded to support the drafting of the GBS conditionalities, in order to better identify needs and conditionalities needed.

Findings at JC level –

Moldova Evaluation

No information aside from the information provided in Annex 1 on the Overall context, which specifies that:

 TACIS priority areas (Council regulation 99/2000) include “Support to the private sector and assistance to economic development” ;

 The Partnership and cooperation Agreement (PCA) which is the legal basis for the EC’s engagement with Moldova agreed in 1998 for a 10 years term. It includes SMEs under the Economic area of cooperation.

 The 2002-2006 CSP identified 3 major areas of cooperation, including private sector and economic development and MSMEs as a sub-area of cooperation.

 The 2004-2006 CSP/NIP included Support for private sector and economic development, and in particular expert/investment promotion and support to micro-enterprises, SMEs and small farmers in rural areas, as priority areas. p.139-140.

Findings at JC level – El Salvador

No specific information aside from the finding that: “The EC strategy and interventions responded well to the main needs and priorities of the population of this country. [...]the EC was able to find, as far as possible, common ground with national

Evaluation policies, which was a difficult exercise given the high polarisation of the successive right-wing Governments. There was indeed littleGovernment concern in EC priority areas such as poverty, inequalities, decentralisation, or small and medium enterprises, during most of the period.”

(Executive Summary / Page ii).

On the last indicator, the evaluation gives evidence of the lack of - or a poor needs assessment which resulted in inadequate targeting of beneficiaries, away from micro and small enterprises “lack of an identification study impeded benefiting from adequate data on the universe and characteristics of the beneficiaries and hereby better targeting the intervention. The lack of a precise targeting led to a contradiction between the objectives and methods of the project rather directed towards the small and medium enterprises and the supposed beneficiaries which should have been the micro enterprises. The absence of a midterm evaluation did not permit to correct this problem – and others- on time;” (p. 39).

Findings at JC level

Burkina Faso (1999-2008)

Fair to say that Commission’s PSD interventions were part of a wider strategy to stimulate growth and reduce povery but no evidence of prioritisation.

Guyana

(1997-2007) Yes. The Evaluation Report notes in this respect: _{“The interventions are in line with several instances of best practices as identified in the PSD}

Evaluation:

 A methodological procedure has been devised for selection of the areas of intervention for PSD support in Guyana. An identification study for the economic diversification of Linden, a pre-feasibility study and a “Training Programme Guyana – Inception Report have been carried out to define the focus of the projects.

 Key constraints conditioning success in the areas of intervention have been identified through a participatory approach and have for the most part been addressed. The LEAP addressed key constraints whereas the GTA project design did not tackle the migration of skilled technical and key management personnel. One could legitimately criticise the financing of projects concerned with vocational and technical training if there is no strategic plan to reverse the brain drain problem.” pp.37-38

Findings at JC level -

Microfinance

The EU/ACP Microfinance Programme was a Centralised Operation and little evidence is available of a strategic attempt to align programming with the Commission’s wider country or regional strategies and priorities, or to match the Programme grants with beneficiary country PSD needs in particular.

Source: EC, EU/ACP Microfinance Programme Final Evaluation

Findings at JC level - BizClim

BizClim was a Centralised Operation and there is no evidence in the final evaluation to suggest that operations were decided as part of a strategic approach to PSD in each country or region of operation. As noted in the Final Evaluation, the selection procedure was notably fast in comparison to other intra-ACP operations and did not include any criteria directly related to EC priorities in the country/region:

 « The typical BizClim request for funding took the form of an email presenting the project idea to the PMU, which then decided to put the application forward or not based on predetermined selection criteria. If the answer was positive, the PMU, in consultation with the applicant, prepared the AIP, which was then submitted to the Validation Committee. The AIP constituted the basis for the TOR of any BizClim intervention or project. Usually BizClim went through the application process much faster than other intra-ACP programmes, especially when comparison is made with Pro€invest although this is not always pertinent since a good number of BizClim

interventions were intended to fund events rather than actually projects. In some particular cases, however, the organization of BizClim business forums and conferences was preceded by diagnostic studies.

The selection criteria established by BizClim included:

- Recommendations made by the funded interventions likely to be followed up by

activities (e.g. mainstreaming in overall policies and strategies, funding from donors, adoption of laws);

- Proposal passed the test of the 3Cs (consistency, coherence, complementarities);

- Existence of strong support by key stakeholders. »

Source: EC, Final Evaluation Private Sector Enabling Environmnet Facility,

Findings at JC level

MEDA II

The MEDA II Regulation strengthens the programming process so as to render it more strategic, notably with the introduction of the Country and Regional Strategy Papers (CSP and RSP) and the National and Regional Indicative Programmes (NIP and RIP) intended to render coherent the cooperation strategy of the Commission in MPC with national / regional priorities. (p14)

CSPs/RSPs identify national/regional priority areas of interventions linked to the overall objectives of Barcelona and the AA. However they do not analyse how and to what extent the resources proposed are expected to contribute, over the period of their deployment, to the reduction of the internal constraints. (p31)

Generally bilateral interventions advocate the potential benefits of regional cooperation but few practical activities are planned to develop regional networks, or functional cooperation at the level of the region or groups of countries. (p31) There are examples though of strategies developed at regional level focusing on trade and private sector development, governance, Civil Society, migration, and natural resources and the environment. (p20)

Under MEDA II the Inter-service Quality Support Group (iQSG) gives its opinion on CSPs/RSP, NIPs/RIP and on the annual national and regional financing plans. (p18)