There is sufficient wealth of experience now to reflect more thoroughly on the IfS Crisis response component accomplishments since the creation of the IfS in 2007.
The objective was to draw lessons from what has worked and what has not, so that the effectiveness of the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace can be continuously improved.
The main objectives of this evaluation were to provide the relevant stakeholders in the European Union
(including policy-makers and the wider public) and elsewhere with:

• an independent assessment of the overall implementation of the IfS Crisis response component, paying particularly attention to the results achieved against its objectives;
• key lessons and recommendations in order to improve current and future action financed under the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace.

This evaluation will also be used to generate information for:

• the final evaluation of the IfS (2007-2013)18;
• the mid-term review of the External Financing Instruments19.

The evaluation did benefit from and drew upon from the findings of the existing project and programme evaluations of the IfS Crisis response component as well as from overall programme-level evaluation of the IfS (July 2011).
Specific objective(s)
The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact of the IfS Crisis response component (Article 3 measures) in (a) providing a response to situations of crisis or emerging crisis and (b) in contributing to stability by providing an effective response to help preserve, establish or re-establish the conditions essential to the proper implementation of the EU’s development and cooperation policies.
It did also assess the coordination and complementarity with other donors and actors, the consistency with the relevant EU policies and activities as well as with relevant international legal commitments.
The evaluation has covered the period 2007-2013. And it has mainly consisted on a meta-evaluation of existing IfS evaluations (project and instrument evaluations), complemented with few field- missions.
The evaluation did assess the implementation of the IfS using the standard 5 DAC evaluation criteria, namely: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. It should be noted that the IfS was not 'daccable' as not all the activities that fell within its remit were of a developmental nature. The methodology to be developed for this evaluation took account of this and contained a reflection on how the DAC evaluation criteria were best applied to the IfS.
In assessing the above criteria the evaluation took into account, where appropriate:
(a) the EU added value of the IfS, both regarding its design and implementation;
(b) the complementarity, consistency and coordination of the instrument with the EU external action strategy, with other EU instruments for external assistance and with the activities by EU
Member States, and other donors when relevant.
The evaluation team has also considered whether the following cross-cutting issues gender, human rights, conflict sensitivity, democracy and good governance were taken into account in the identification/formulation documents and whether they have been appropriately reflected in the implementation of the projects and their monitoring.
The evaluation lead to conclusions based on objective, credible, reliable and valid findings and has provided the EU with clear answers to the evaluation questions and a set of operational and useful recommendations to improve the future implementation and programming of actions.