The main objectives of this evaluation were to provide the relevant services of the European Union and the interested stakeholders with:

• an overall independent assessment of the past performance of the PACED, paying particular attention to its intermediate results measured against its expected objectives; and the reasons underpinning such results;
• key lessons learned, conclusions and related recommendations in order to improve current and future Actions.

In particular, this evaluation served to understand the performance of the Action, its enabling factors and those hampering a proper delivery of results in order to adjust its design or implementing modalities;
The main users of this evaluation were the EU Delegations, the NAO's, the Central Banks, the ministries of Finance and Plan and other relevant national partner institutions in PALOP/TL involved in the implementation of the Action evaluated.
The specific Evaluation Questions as formulated below were indicative. Based on the latter and following initial consultations and document analysis, the evaluation team discussed them with the Evaluation Manager and proposed in their Inception Report a complete and finalised set of Evaluation Questions with indication of specific Judgement Criteria and Indicators, as well as the relevant data collection sources and tools.
Once agreed through the approval of the Inception Report, the Evaluation Questions became contractually binding.
Relevance:
To what extent activities implemented, and to be implemented, were consistent with beneficiaries' requirements and country needs?
Effectiveness:
To what extent services provided have contributed to expected results making the best use possible of the available resources?
Efficiency:
To what extent outputs were achieved with the lowest possible use of resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, administrative costs, etc.)?
Perspectives of impact:
To what extent activities implemented had the positive and durable expected impact? Can it be said that the activities and outputs logically allowed the objectives to be achieved?
Coherence of the Action:
Were there contradictions between the different levels of objective? Were there duplications between the activities/components of the Programme? Were there duplications between the PACED and other interventions (from the beneficiary or other donors)? Were complementarities between PACED and other interventions duly capitalized?
The questions coverd the following fields of analysis:

• a) Evaluation of the preliminary results of the action, including factors that have determined its success and failures;
• b) Assessment of the impact of the activities implemented within the beneficiary institutions;
• c) Assessment of the adequacy of the measures adopted to counter delays and deadlocks in the implementation of the action;
• d) Evaluation of the index of appropriation of the results of the action by the beneficiaries;
• e) Evaluation of the beneficiaries’ perception of the results of the action (methodology applied, successes, failures, solutions encountered, etc.); Identification of measures taken by beneficiaries to ensure the sustainability of the results of the action.