Our projects

The evaluation covered all EU external action support to connectivity in the Enlargement and Neighbourhood regions between 2014 and 2022. It served a dual purpose of accountability and learning. The main objectives are to: i) provide an independent and evidence-based assessment of the EU’s past and current external action support in the area of connectivity in the transport and energy sectors, and ii) based on this assessment, provide lessons learnt and recommendations for decision-makers at EU level to inform ongoing and future decision making.

The specific objectives of the evaluation were:

• To assess whether the EU support on connectivity has contributed to achieve the objectives articulated in the EU’s strategic policy framework and whether those results justify and strengthen the approach followed for the current programming period;
• To assess the extent that the EU support has contributed to enhance connectivity in the energy and transport sectors at both policy and implementation level;
• To assess the EU’s toolbox especially grants, technical assistance, blending of loans, risk capital, equity and guarantees and whether it has contributed to catalysing investments on connectivity;
• To identify how the most recent engagement in connectivity supports the operationalisation of the Global Gateway, and derives lessons learnt to further strengthen Global Gateway implementation in the context of the Economic Investment Plans (EIPs);
• To assess the interplay between regional, multi country and bilateral interventions and the synergies created to stimulate regional integration;
• To assess the Working Better Together approach and the private-public dialogues and partnerships and their impact on the effectiveness, predictability and sustainability of long-term interventions;
• To assess the extent to which the EU connectivity support in energy and transport sectors have contributed to supporting the twin green and digital transitions.

The analysis covered both spending and non-spending actions and examines all funding mechanisms and modalities of implementation (including grants for investments and technical assistance, financial instruments such as guarantees, budget support) used under the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) II and III, the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI), and the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe (NDICI-GE). This also included operations under the Western Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF), the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF) and the European Fund for Sustainable Development (Plus) (EFSD / EFSD+).

Since the 10th EDF and from 2013, EU support represents a total amount of EUR 307 million broken down into three successive programs: (i) The Project to Accelerate Progress Towards Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5 (PAP MDG4&5) financed by the 10th EDF since 2013 (EUR 40 million, 23 ZS); (ii) The Program to Strengthen Supply and Development of Access to Health Care in the DRC (PRO DS) financed by the 11th EDF since 2016 (EUR 217 million on 40 ZS of 8/26 provinces); (iii) United for Health and Education financed by NDICI since 2021 (EUR 50 million).

The overall objective of this evaluation is to provide an independent comprehensive analysis of the performance of the EU Health Programme (between 12/2013 and 07/2023) in the 8 beneficiary provinces, paying particular attention to its different levels of results in comparison with its expected results, and the reasons that explain possible gaps in the achievement of results. The main lessons, conclusions and recommendations that emerge will help improve current and future interventions.

The overall objective of this evaluation was to provide an independent global analysis of the performance of the EU Health Programme (between 12/2013 and 07/2023) in the 8 beneficiary provinces, paying particular attention to its different levels of results compared to its expected results, and the reasons for any gaps in the achievement of results. The main lessons, conclusions and recommendations identified aim to improve current and future interventions. In particular, the final evaluation serves to:

(i) highlight to all stakeholders (Congolese, development partners, EU) the contribution made by the 3 programmes;

(ii) capitalise on the programmes to enrich not only the DRC's health strategies and policies, but also the programming of future EU interventions in the DRC;

(iii) improve synergies between technical and financial partners; and

(iv) improve the health of target populations.

Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) reviews aim to assist the European Commission’s services and EU Delegations in monitoring of and reporting on EU financed development and cooperation projects and programmes in third countries through independent reviews of the progress of their implementation and the achievement of project results.

ROM services to be provided through this contract are clustered in three components:

++Component 1:++

ROM Reviews. ROM contractors will assess the performance of EU-funded interventionson the basis of the following OECD DAC evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability.

ROM reviews will cover:

• A sample of EU funded interventions during the inception phase of implementation. The ROM review will support the Operational Manager (OM) in confirming or updating intervention logic and logframe matrix, in reviewing the monitoring system of the IP, in assessing risks and mitigation measures and fine tune the calendar of activities with a view to improve the performance of the intervention across the OECD DAC criteria.==
• ROM reviews will assist the OM in adressing the main implementation problems.==
• Other interventions for which Commission services request a ROM review on demand (interventions which could not be visited by EU OMs or for which there is a lack of sector expertise in the EU Delegation/operational unit in HQ).==
• Blending operations, focused on asessing the value added of the EU contribution and on the performance of blending interventions in terms of socio-economic development.==

++Component 2:++

Quality assurance and support at design stage for a sample of interventions. Provide technical support to EC services in the formulation of intervention logics and related logical frameworks matrices (logframes) and monitoring and reporting arrangements for a sample of interventions.

++Component 3:++

Results report (at corporate and intervention level). The Contractor will provide services to encode and quality control results data for a set of interventions subject to results reporting. ROM contractor will ensure quality control of data included in the intervention's logframes. Such quality controls will include, amongs others: verifying that the logframe is correctly encoded and up-to-date , enssuring that the latest values related to logframe indicators are available, and supporting the aggregation of intervention-level results into the EU Results Framework or other frameworks.

The global objective of this evaluation is twofold. First, it aims to provide the relevant services of the European Union and interested stakeholders with an independent overall assessment of the performance of the "Investment Support to the Wadi Al Arab Water System II Project and EU support to the Water sector in Jordan," with a particular focus on the different levels of results measured against the expected objectives and the reasons behind these results. Second, the evaluation seeks to identify key lessons learned, draw conclusions, and offer related recommendations to inform decision makers on how to improve current and future interventions.

The specific objective for this evaluation are:

- To serve the EU Delegation to Jordan and the relevant services in HQ in order to conclude the Wadi

Al-Arab System II programme, and align results in existing and future support programmes.

- To draw lessons that can be replicated in other EU interventions in the water sector.

The evaluation will assess the intervention(s) using the six standard DAC evaluation criteria, namely:

relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact. In addition, the evaluation will

assess the intervention(s) through an EU specific evaluation criterion, which is the EU added value.

Furthermore, the evaluation team should consider whether gender equality and women’s empowerment, environment and adaptation to climate change were mainstreamed (when relevant); the relevant SDGs (SDG 6,13) and their interlinkages were identified; the principle of Leave No One Behind (this includes persons with disability, indigenous peoples, children, and the elderly) and the Human Rights Based Approach was followed during design, and the extent to which they have been reflected in the implementation of the intervention, its governance and monitoring.

The objective of this facility is to improve the overall quality of the NDICI Rapid Response and Peace, Stability and Conflict Prevention thematic areas by providing high quality research services.

We will provide the FPI with flexible and ad hoc research services and prepare literature reviews and rapid assistance reports in the thematic areas specified below.

The global objective of this specific contract is to improve the European Union’s policies toward, and overall engagement with, Civil Society Organisations in Israel.

The specific objective of this contract is to provide EUD Israel with a comprehensive and detailed overview of the state of Civil Society Organisations in Israel, highlighting challenges, needs and opportunities, and articulating recommendations for future engagement.

This global case study aims to provide an in-depth assessment of the collective response to the COVID-19 pandemic within the SIDS group of countries, with a focus on the extent to which the response efforts took into account the unique characteristics of SIDS and tailored the response accordingly. The case study covers the response to both direct and indirect impacts of the pandemic in SIDS, from January 2020 to December 2022.

More specifically, the case study examines support to SIDS through various financing instruments and programmes by diverse donors, across a wide range of thematic areas. It encompasses assistance labelled as “COVID-related” as well as, to the extent possible, other sectors, acknowledging the pandemic’s wide-ranging socio-economic impact.

Enabel commissioned the end-term evaluation (ETE) of the Water and Sanitation Kigoma Region Project (WASKIRP).

The WASKIRP project was aligned with Tanzania's development goals under the Water Sector Development Programme (WSDP) (2006–2025) by enhancing water infrastructure, supporting Community-Based Water Supply Organisations (CBWSOs), and providing Water, Sanitation, and Health (WASH) training to ensure sustainable village water services. The initiative, backed by an initial budget of €8.8 million (€8 million from Belgium and €800,000 from Tanzania), collaborated with local authorities, including the Rural Water and Sanitation Agency (RUWASA) and community leaders, to address water supply challenges across six districts in the Kigoma region, serving approximately 200,000 residents across 15 villages.

The end-term evaluation aimed to generate evidence-based findings that highlighted both the project's positive impacts and its added value, while also identifying areas requiring further attention from the WASKIRP phase-out intervention team and the Enabel formulation teams.

Beyond assessing project performance, the evaluation provided actionable and realistic recommendations aligned with its objectives, offering valuable guidance for future interventions in similar sectors.

A key component of the evaluation was the extraction of lessons learned from both the project formulation and implementation phases, emphasising experiences—both positive and negative—that had influenced performance, achievement of results, and impact generation.

The ETE covered all OECD-DAC evaluation criteria (relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability), albeit at varying levels of depth. The primary focus was on the specific analysis of efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the principles and criteria established by the OECD and the DAC for Development Aid, with adjustments made by Enabel.

It integrated cross-cutting themes such as gender and the environment, as well as horizontal aspects, including results-based steering and monitoring. In line with the human rights-based approach, special attention was given to gender in this intervention, which was designed to be as environmentally neutral as possible.

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

• An overall independent analysis of the performance of the Justice Sector Support Programme (JSSP), paying particular attention to its different levels of results in comparison with its expected objectives, and the reasons for these results;
• The main lessons, conclusions and recommendations arising from it in order to improve current and future interventions.

In particular, this evaluation serves to understand the performance of the YSAP, its determining factors and those that have hindered the achievement of results, so as to be accountable for the use of EU resources in relation to the results of the YSAP and to serve as a basis for reflection for the next strategic programming of Team Europe in Togo.

The general objective of this assignment was to provide UNDP, national governments, and other key stakeholders with an independent assessment of the contributions of UNDP’s country programmes in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan toward achieving national development priorities and the Sustainable Development Goals.

The specific objectives of the evaluations

• To provide an assessment, in both qualitative and quantitative terms, of the relevance, implementation conditions, and performance of UNDP country programmes, particularly their efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, impact, and added value, with an emphasis on experiences from the design and execution of programme activities;
• To evaluate UNDP’s cooperation potential with national and international stakeholders and its added value within the broader development ecosystem in Central Asia;
• To identify lessons learned (both positive and negative), best practices, and actionable recommendations, particularly regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the programmes and the factors that facilitated or hindered their contributions to national and regional development objectives.

The results of these evaluations informed the preparation of the next UNDP Country Programme Documents, contributing to enhanced programme design and implementation in the region. They also strengthened accountability to stakeholders and fostered institutional learning within UNDP, while aligning with the broader objectives of the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework.

The geographical scope of this evaluation covered Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

The thematic scope encompassed UNDP’s interventions across several key ars:

• Governance and institutional reforms, with a focus on transparency, accountability, and digital transformation;
• Inclusive economic development, including private sector engagement, social protection, and green and digital economies;
• Environment and climate resilience, particularly in disaster risk reduction, renewable energy, and sustainable urban development.