1

The European Union’s ENPI Programme for Georgia

The project is financed by the European Union

The project is implemented by IBF International Consulting

In collaboration with AFC Consultants International

Evaluation of the EIDHR Programme in

Georgia 2005-2007

Letter of Contract N°

2009/226183

FINAL REPORT

Prepared by:

Pierre Robert Lucy Mincheva Nino Khurtsidze

March 2010

2

“This report has been prepared with the financial assistance of the European Commission. The views expressed herein are those of the consultant and therefore in no way reflect the official opinion of the Commission”

3

Acknowledgements

This report was written by three independent consultants: Nino Khurtsidze, Lucy Mincheva and Pierre Robert. The consultants would like to thank all those who gave their time and contributed information during the evaluation. They would like to thank in particular the staff of the NGOs visited across Georgia who generously gave their time and shared insights, often at short notice. The consultants also extend thanks to the staff and project beneficiaries who joined activities and briefings, and whose dedication and commitment are essential to the success of the projects. They also thank the staff of the European Union Delegation in Georgia for facilitating the mission and providing a wealth of relevant information and guidance.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 6

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... 7

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Findings ....................................................................................................... 7

1.2.1 Impact on minorities and integration ........................................... 9

1.2.2 Impact on the fight against torture and ill-treatment ............... 9

1.2.3 Impact on the rights of people with disabilities ........................ 9

1.2.4 Impact on democratic election processes .................................. 9

1.2.5 Impact on ecological migrants ....................................................... 9

1.3 Recommendations to the EU ................................................................ 10

1.3.1 Relevance to conflict context ....................................................... 10

1.3.2 Complementarity with other EU programmes ......................... 10

1.3.3 Project design ................................................................................... 10

1.3.4 Human rights advocacy/awareness raising ............................. 10

1.3.5 Training for NGO representatives ............................................... 11

1.3.6 Inclusiveness and gender equality ............................................. 11

1.3.7 Opportunities for collaboration across EIDHR-supported projects 11

1.3.8 Use of operational grants; sub-granting ................................... 11

1.3.9 Recommendations on priorities .................................................. 11

1.4 Recommendations to NGOs ................................................................. 12

1.4.1 Beneficiaries buy-in and feedback ............................................. 12

1.4.2 Engagement with government and other state institutions . 12

1.4.3 Coalition-building ............................................................................ 13

2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 14

2.1 Objectives of the evaluation ...................................................................... 14

2.2 Scope of the evaluation: EIDHR in Georgia ..................................... 14

2.3 Impact of the Georgian social and political context on EIDHR ........ 15

3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 17

4 RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME .......................................................... 19

4.1 Consistency with EC and government policy .................................. 19

4.2 Response to needs ................................................................................. 19

4.3 Quality of the proposals ........................................................................ 20

4.4 Participation of beneficiaries in project design .............................. 21

4.5 Promotion of gender equality ............................................................... 21

5 EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY ........................................................... 22

5.1 Qualitative aspects .................................................................................. 22

5.2 Risk management .................................................................................... 22

5.3 Outreach to stakeholders ...................................................................... 23

5.4 Project management ............................................................................... 24

5.5 Examples of best practices ................................................................... 25

6 IMPACT OF THE PROGRAMME ................................................................... 27

6.1 Impact on minorities and integration ................................................. 27

6.2 Impact on the fight against torture and ill-treatment ..................... 29

6.3 Impact on the rights of people with disabilities .............................. 31

6.4 Impact on democratic election processes ........................................ 32

6.5 Other areas of impact ............................................................................. 33

5

7 SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROGRAMME ................................................. 34

8 COHERENCE OF THE PROGRAMME ......................................................... 37

8.1 Overview .................................................................................................... 37

8.2 EC added value ........................................................................................ 38

8.3 Operational modalities ........................................................................... 39

8.3.1 Programming .................................................................................... 39

8.3.2 Application process ........................................................................ 40

8.3.3 Feedback and backstopping ........................................................ 41

8.3.4 Complementarity ............................................................................. 42

9 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 44

9.1.1 Relevance to conflict context ....................................................... 44

9.1.2 Complementarity with other EU programmes ......................... 44

9.1.3 Project design ................................................................................... 44

9.1.4 Human rights advocacy/awareness raising ............................. 44

9.1.5 Training for NGO representatives ............................................... 45

9.1.6 Inclusiveness and gender equality ............................................. 45

9.1.7 Opportunities for collaboration across EIDHR-supported projects 45

9.1.8 Use of operational grants; sub-granting ................................... 45

9.1.9 Recommendations on priorities .................................................. 46

9.2 Recommendations to NGOs ................................................................. 46

9.2.1 Beneficiaries buy-in and feedback ............................................. 46

9.2.2 Engagement with government and other state institutions . 47

9.2.3 Coalition-building ............................................................................ 47

ANNEX 1: METHODOLOGY NOTE ...................................................................... 48

ANNEX 2: EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE ......................................... 54

ANNEX 3: LIST OF PEOPLE MET ........................................................................ 61

6

List of Acronyms

AEC Adult Education Centre

CSP Country Strategy Paper

DCI Development Cooperation Instrument

EIDHR European Instrument on Democracy and Human Rights

EUD European Union Delegation

IDP Internally Displaced People

IfS Instrument for Stabilisation

IIZ/DVV Institute for International Cooperation/German Adult Education Association

ISFED International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy

GBP Georgian Public Broadcasting

GIP Geneva Initiative on Psychiatry

GCRT Georgian Centre for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture

GoG Government of Georgia

GYLA Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association

MES Ministry of Education and Sciences

MoLHSA Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs

nGnI New Georgia – New Initiative

NGO Non-Government Organisation

NMP National Preventive Mechanism

NSA&LA Non-State Actors and Local Authorities

OPCAT Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture

PRI Prison Reform International

PSA Public Service Announcement

RRM Rapid Reaction Mechanism

TACIS Technical Assistance to Commonwealth of Independent States

TI Transparency International

TOR Terms of Reference

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

7

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Background

The European Union Delegation (EUD) in Georgia has commissioned a consortium led by IBF International to carry out an evaluation of its European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) programme from 2005 to 2007. The evaluation took place from January to March 2010, with a field visit in Georgia from 8 to 25 February. The terms of reference (TOR) required “a comprehensive evaluation of the impact and sustainability of outcomes of the EIDHR programme in Georgia”. The specific objectives of the evaluation were:

• “To assess the programme as whole focusing on outcomes and their sustainability, and on overall programme impact;

• “To provide an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current programming and operating modalities of the Programme and their capacity to achieve stated objectives;

• “To make strategic recommendations aimed at improving impact (e.g. choice of priorities, choice of sectors, operating modalities, etc.), including identification of opportunities for increased complementarity with other EC-funded instruments and programmes.”

In the period under consideration, the EC supported 28 projects:

- Micro-projects, with grants amounting to up to €100,000.

- Macro- and targeted projects, with grants normally amounting to up to €1m.

Within these, the evaluation focused on a sample of 12 micro- and 3 macro-projects, selected in consultation with the EUD to be representative of the sectors covered and of the geographical spread of activities funded. A list of the evaluated projects is included in the methodological note appended to this report.

A note on methodology, appended to this report, was submitted to the EUD in January 2010 prior to the mission to Georgia. This included a discussion of the terms of reference and outlined the evaluation team’s understanding of the needs.

1.2 Findings

In general, the relevance of the projects was high, in terms of the needs they were responding to and of alignment with EIDHR priorities. The projects largely addressed issues on which current resource allocations were given comparatively low priority or where civil society had a key role to play rather than, or complementary to, government.

In general terms, the projects have been relevant to EIDHR priorities and to underlying needs in Georgia. Weaknesses in relevance were related to the following factors:

8

• Some issues within the mandate of EIDHR were not covered, despite the existence of an underlying need, such as economic, social and cultural rights, including labour rights.

• The relevance of some projects was hampered by weaknesses in project design, such as lack of realistic objectives and achievable milestones (intermediate results).

• In some cases correctly identified needs were not directly addressed by project activities, and the project design did not clarify sufficiently what indicators of success would be used.

The evaluators found that the projects were generally effective, in the sense that they were on the way to achieving their objectives to an adequate degree. All projects have largely implemented the planned activities. It was difficult to assess the efficiency of the projects in view of the limited time the team could devote to each project visit. However information on attendance and participation suggested that activities reached the intended beneficiaries, despite occasional logistical difficulties.

While most projects were able to carry out the activities they had planned, some experienced problems in this respect, which may be ascribed to organisational capacity and risk management difficulties. These challenges could have been anticipated through more thorough project design, and mitigation approaches could have been adopted - such as working with different partners than those selected.

Projects generally had an appropriate level of engagement with civil society stakeholders. However, engagement with government seems generally to have been less effective. Some projects have had fruitful engagement with the Ombudsman’s Office and with local authorities at various levels, and there were some examples of effective lobbying of parliament and ministries on legislative issues. However, many of the projects lacked a well-designed, concerted advocacy strategy.

It was the general view of the team that project budgets were reasonable and consistent with prevalent practices in Georgia and internationally. Despite this generally positive picture, there were two concerns related to financial aspects:

• Some equipment costs seemed excessive.

• Conversely, some budgets included unrealistically low staff costs.

The team identified some valuable good practices, which seem to have been effective and could be emulated in future projects. These included:

• Challenging and working with local government;

• Developing private-public partnerships;

• Innovative approaches to promote integration

Generally, the projects appear to have achieved the expected impact, although they have done so at varying levels. In those cases where impact was the clearest, the reasons were, in essence, the following:

9

• Appropriate analysis of the situation to be addressed.

• Appropriate selection of “entry points” in the exercise of advocacy and/or awareness-raising.

• Provision, where necessary, of a high level of skills and competence: this enhanced the projects’ credibility with their target groups.

1.2.1 Impact on minorities and integration

Minorities’ integration turned out to be the leading area in terms of number of projects funded and activities implemented. The EIDHR programme had successfully addressed various aspects pertaining to the human rights of the minority and ethnic groups in Georgia, and fostered the development of culture of tolerance and respect to diversity. Some good initiatives also addressed the long term issue of integration.

1.2.2 Impact on the fight against torture and ill-treatment

The EIDHR has consistently supported the efforts to fight ill treatment and torture in Georgia through a series of macro and micro projects and longer term support. The few actors working in this area have also been quite successful in ensuring the continuity of their activities either with new EIDHR grants or support from other donors.

1.2.3 Impact on the rights of people with disabilities

EIDHR has rendered support to a number of projects which strengthened the role of civil society in fighting discrimination on any grounds, promoting the rights of vulnerable groups and fostering their integration into society. It has thus facilitated the process of integration of persons with impairments in society and contributed to the improvement of their quality of life and self-esteem.

1.2.4 Impact on democratic election processes

The micro-project Monitoring the Use of Administrative Resources in the 2008 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections helped promote free and fair elections in Georgia, by supporting the processes of democratisation through monitoring, awareness-raising, and empowerment of individuals and civil society to protect their rights and prevent further violations.

1.2.5 Impact on ecological migrants

The EIDHR generated impact in a very specific area, eco migrants, through its project in Ajara Sustainable Development Program for Ajara Ecomigrants (people displaced as a result of environmental degradation).

The key added value of the EIDHR programme is its unique focus on human rights and democracy. The EIDHR is unique in that it covers the broad range of human rights, and is framed in terms of support to the implementation of all rights covered in the International Bill of Human Rights.

10

1.3 Recommendations to the EU

1.3.1 Relevance to conflict context

The EUD should ensure that EIDHR applicants that propose to engage in peace-building or similar activities, should enhance the conflict analysis which underpins the design of their project, so that activities and indicators of success are clear. To that end, they should confront their analysis with that of other organisations with relevant expertise and/or credible research institutions.

1.3.2 Complementarity with other EU programmes

While the EIDHR programme already operates in a manner that is complementary to other EU funding programmes, complementarity could be enhanced by ensuring that NGOs applying for EIDHR grants are aware of the modalities of support under the Non-State Actors and Local Authorities programme, and can either apply for funding under that programme or develop linkages with organisations funded under that programme. Similarly, linkages should be encouraged between organisations working on IDP issues with EIDHR and IfS funding.

1.3.3 Project design

The EUD should:

• Explicitly remind applicants for EIDHR funding of the eligibility for EIDHR support of the promotion and protection of labour rights and other economic, social and cultural rights;

• Closely review the design of projects before signing the grant contacts, to ensure a realistic, appropriately narrow statement of objectives. It is important also to ensure that results, including intermediate results or milestones, are achievable and consistent with the project objectives;

• Ensure that the advocacy (or campaigning or lobbying) element of projects is explicitly stated, and that it is appropriately designed to enhance the visibility and clarity of expected results.

• Review project budgets prior to signing grant agreements, to make sure that costs are neither inflated nor underestimated.

1.3.4 Human rights advocacy/awareness raising

The EUD should amend the guidelines to applicants to remind them of the importance of the advocacy element, and/or awareness raising of human rights to the fulfilment of EIDHR criteria. All projects should enhance the element of advocacy for human rights, particularly in relation to authorities (local at all levels, and national) and in relation to stakeholders able to exercise an influence on the situation they are dealing with (such as opinion leaders, etc).

11

1.3.5 Training for NGO representatives

The EUD should continue its practice of training NGO representatives on financial reporting issues. However it should also consider expanding the training to other issues, in particular:

• Project design, to ensure that NGOs develop project proposals with more realistic objectives, results and milestones, and acquire better project management skills.

• Logical framework, to ensure that NGOs understand better the rationale of using log frames, and the way a log frame can be used in monitoring progress and identifying implementation challenges.

• Advocacy and lobbying (and more generally campaigning techniques) to ensure that the advocacy component of projects is more explicitly set out and that organisations acquire the necessary understanding of what is required for effective government lobbying.

1.3.6 Inclusiveness and gender equality

The EUD should amend the guidelines to applicants to ask them to specify how they will ensure that people from a range of backgrounds are involved in the project as beneficiaries, participants, staff and managers. In addition, the guidelines should require applicants to demonstrate how they ensure equal gender representation at all levels of their organisation.

1.3.7 Opportunities for collaboration across EIDHR-supported projects

The EUD should consider ways of encouraging collaborative activities between NGOs implementing projects with EIDHR funding, including the possibility of establishing a small fund to support such activities. In particular, collaboration should be encouraged in relation to advocacy and lobbying, between organisations with similar or complementary objectives, and bring together organisations with a credible track record on specific concerns and organisations with expertise in the legislative and policy-making processes.

1.3.8 Use of operational grants; sub-granting

The EUD should review the possibility of allocating operational grants in certain cases, where they can play a significant role in reinforcing the sustainability of beneficiary organisations. The EUD should also review the possibility of allowing grant beneficiaries to provide and administer sub-grants of less than €10,000. This could help small organisations without increasing the transaction costs at EUD level (provided the recipient of the main grant took responsibility for the sub-grant’s oversight).

1.3.9 Recommendations on priorities

In the context of the forthcoming EIDHR Call for proposals, the evaluation team recommends that the EUD should take account of the following recommendations for thematic priorities:

Integration. EIDHR projects targeting integration have demonstrated some effectiveness in relation to vocational training and mediation between minority groups

12

and mainstream authorities. Projects supporting cultural activities could effectively prolong these approaches, especially as instruments to support integration processes.

Children’s rights and juvenile justice. There appears to be an unmet need to address the prevention of social problems in a school setting (corresponding to the number of children’s rights), as are:

- Primary prevention of mental health problems;

- Primary Prevention of drugs misuse;

- Prevention of bullying in public schools and school violence.

Human rights promotion, advocacy and education. EIDHR should continue its emphasis on human rights as it is one of the few, and to our knowledge the most effective, instrument that allows NGOs to independently work in the sphere of human rights. Within this, the EUD should consider highlighting to applicants the broad range of human rights, including economic, social and cultural ones - labour rights in particular.

EIDHR-funded NGOs have identified the following needs in relation to human rights support:

- IDP rights

- Access to Justice in environmental matters

- Freedom of expression

- Combating torture and ill-treatment

- Combating domestic violence

- Work on psycho-social rehabilitation of people traumatized as a result of natural or man-made disasters - like war, displacement, earthquake, violence, etc.

1.4 Recommendations to NGOs

1.4.1 Beneficiaries buy-in and feedback

Organisations should systematically seek feedback from beneficiaries on the design and implementation of the projects (especially those involving training in language or skills), and regularly inform them of developments, achievements and challenges. This would enhance accountability and effectiveness.

1.4.2 Engagement with government and other state institutions

As part of the stakeholders analysis and project strategy, applicants should be required to specify how they will engage with government authorities at all appropriate levels, and with state institutions relevant to their field of activities.

13

1.4.3 Coalition-building

NGOs should, as a matter of course, systematically consider building coalitions to apply for EIDHR funding, ensuring that coalition members have complementary skills and experience. This approach could enhance in particular the advocacy aspect of projects.

14

2 INTRODUCTION

The European Union Delegation (EUD) in Georgia has commissioned a consortium led by IBF International to carry out an evaluation of its European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) programme from 2005 to 2007. A team of three independent consultants has prepared the present draft report on behalf of the consortium.

The evaluation took place from January to March 2010. Following a short preparation period, an inception note, appended to this report, was submitted to the EUD in January. A field visit was conducted in Georgia from 8 to 25 February, concluding with a workshop organised by the consultants, bringing together representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) supported by EIDHR in Georgia, as well as Delegation staff members and representatives of other donor institutions.

2.1 Objectives of the evaluation

The terms of reference (TOR) require “a comprehensive evaluation of the impact and sustainability of outcomes of the EIDHR programme in Georgia in the period 2005 – 2007, in order to provide the Delegation with recommendations concerning strategic programming and operational choices for EIDHR in future”. The specific objectives of the evaluation are:

• “To assess the programme as whole focusing on outcomes and their sustainability, and on overall programme impact;

• “To provide an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current programming and operating modalities of the Programme and their capacity to achieve stated objectives;

• “To make strategic recommendations aimed at improving impact (e.g. choice of priorities, choice of sectors, operating modalities, etc.), including identification of opportunities for increased complementarity with other EC-funded instruments and programmes.”

2.2 Scope of the evaluation: EIDHR in Georgia

According to the EUD, EIDHR has supported about 120 projects in Georgia since its introduction in 1999. According to the EC Cooperation Report for Georgia (2005), the EIDHR allocation between 2000 and 2005 was about €2m/year. According to the Georgia Country Strategy Paper (CSP) for 2003-06, Georgia was an EIDHR focus country from 2002 to 2004, with projects implemented in fields such as the fight against torture; combating discrimination; rule of law and democratisation/elections. That CSP foresaw the use of EIDHR in particular in the fields of governance/rule of law and conflict prevention and resolution, complementing programmes under Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS) for the period. Following the 2003 Rose Revolution (see below) the EC also implemented programmes under its Rapid Reaction Mechanism (RRM), particularly in relation to

15

rule of law and elections preparedness and monitoring – fields also related to the mandate of EIDHR.

In the period under consideration, the EC supported 28 projects, which fell under the following categories:

- Micro-projects, with grants amounting to up to €100,000.

- Macro- and targeted projects, with grants normally amounting to up to €1m.

The evaluation focused on a sample of 12 micro- and 3 macro-projects, selected in consultation with the EUD to be representative of the sectors covered and of the geographical spread of activities funded. A list of the evaluated projects is included in the methodological note appended to this report.

As indicated above, the main objective of the evaluation was essentially to assess the impact of the EIDHR programme as a whole. This was done by drawing information obtained from the study of the 15 projects in the evaluation sample.

2.3 Impact of the Georgian social and political context on EIDHR

EIDHR has been used in Georgia initially to contribute to the development of civil society, at a time when the government, then led by President Eduard Shevardnadze, was stating its support for democracy but was widely seen as failing to follow through on its rhetoric. In its 2003-06 CSP, the EC highlighted continuing human rights violations, such as “widespread” torture in pre-trial detention, criminal procedures inconsistent with international human rights standards, and “violent assaults” against members of religious communities. These concerns, compounded by weak rule of law and pervasive corruption, led to such political and social instability - and economic stagnation - that some observers were referring to Georgia as a failed state.

The increasing instability also led to civil unrest, which culminated on the occasion of the November 2003 parliamentary elections (the period of the “Rose Revolution”). Protests against the fraudulent elections led to the resignation of President Shevardnadze and to the presidential elections of January 2004, which were won by Mikheil Saakashvili and were followed by new parliamentary elections in March, which gave a strong majority to President Saakashvili’s supporters. Mikheil Saakashvili won a new five-year term in January 2008 when elections were held ahead of their normal term as a result of public protests against his government in late 2007.

The government stemming from the “Rose Revolution” has taken numerous steps in the years following its assumption of power to address major human rights concerns. These included reforms concerning the fight against corruption, legislation on legal aid, integration of ethnic minorities and support to returnees from forced exile. The police forces were reformed, leading to a dramatic improvement in the image of the police and to a significant reduction in complaints of ill-treatment in police custody.

However concerns remain in relation to the protection of human rights and the development of a democratic society. Key areas of continuing concern, as expressed

16

by international human rights organisations and the Council of Europe, include the following:

• Protection of civilians in conflict zones. Amnesty International reported allegations that military operations during the August 2008 conflict with Russia in South Ossetia were not conducted with “appropriate precautionary measures”.

• Internally displaced people (IDPs), mostly former residents of South Ossetia and Abkhazia displaced by the successive conflicts with Russia, are in continuing need of support. Although the Georgian authorities have provided IDPs with new housing and other support, their livelihoods remain insecure, as is their access to social services.

• While conditions in police custody have improved markedly, NGOs remain concerned about conditions in prisons, particularly for vulnerable groups such as juveniles.

• Media freedom also remains a concern: although information and news can be found in an increasingly lively Internet-based scene and the printed media does enjoy significant freedoms despite their critical reporting, TV media continue to experience difficulties from time to time, not only through government attempts to curb reporting, but also from opposition political forces.

• The Council of Europe, in a resolution in January 2008, called on the Government of Georgia (GoG) to implement further reforms in relation to eradicating corruption, reforming the penal code and criminal procedure legislation, and enhancing the fairness of the electoral system. Some of these reforms are in process, in particular concerning criminal laws and procedures.

17

3 METHODOLOGY

A note on methodology, appended to this report, was submitted to the EUD in January 2010 prior to the mission to Georgia. This included a discussion of the terms of reference and outlined the evaluation team’s understanding of the needs. To complement the methodology, the following points provide an overview of the team’s approach:

• Evaluation criteria. In keeping with the TOR the evaluation considered impact and sustainability issues. However it also considered the relevance and effectiveness of the programme, as well as some management aspects falling under the criteria of efficiency.

• Sources of information. The evaluation primarily used information from project documents and from its own investigations. Project documents included project descriptions agreed at the time grants were given (project outlines annexed to grant contracts, logical frameworks, budgets) as well as interim and final reports and, where available, evaluation reports. In addition each of the organisations was asked to respond to a questionnaire (available in English or Georgian). That questionnaire was also used as a broad interview guide during meetings and field visits.

• Data collection methods. The questionnaire used is appended to this report. In addition, interviews were held where possible with project beneficiaries, who were asked to describe the difference, if any, that the project made to them. The team also met representatives of other donor agencies implementing programmes in areas similar to those covered by EIDHR. The objective of these meetings was to compare the approach of the EC with that of other donors to draw lessons for future practice.

• Reference indicators. The key indicators of achievement used by the team during its consideration of the projects were those provided under each project’s logical framework. In addition, when looking at the achievements and shortcomings of the programme as a whole, the team relied on EC guidelines and legislation concerning EIDHR.

• Key limitations. It was not the objective to carry out 15 distinct project evaluations, and the team had neither the resources nor the time to do so. As a result, it could not carry out its own investigation into the achievements and shortcomings of individual projects, and largely relied on the accounts given on these points by representatives of the organisations concerned. As in any sampling approach, the team assumes, but cannot be certain, that the fifteen projects it selected were representative of the overall programme.

• Stakeholder participation. The team was able to meet a wide range of organisations operating from the capital Tbilisi as well as from key regional centres. Its meetings with other donor agency representatives indicated that the range of projects under consideration was consistent with the range covered by other donors active in similar fields. The team was not able to meet with beneficiaries for most of the projects, due to time constraints, but it did take into account publications and other documents (DVDs, published

18

statistics, etc), which gave a broad sense of any changes in the situation of beneficiaries in many of the projects concerned.

19

4 RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME

In general, the relevance of the projects was high, in terms of the needs they were responding to and of alignment with EIDHR priorities. The projects largely addressed issues on which current resource allocations by the GoG and donor governments were given comparatively low priority (as in the case of support to people with disabilities and eco-migrants displaced as a result of environmental degradation) or where civil society had a key role to play rather than, or complementary to, government (as is the case of support to media freedom, monitoring of transparency, etc).

4.1 Consistency with EC and government policy

All the projects fell within the approach set by the Georgia CSP, which highlights the priority given by the EC to supporting the promotion and protection of human rights. On the other hand, there were no clear links between the projects and policies of the GoG: when projects aimed at influencing GoG policy on a particular issue (media freedom, integration of minorities, education) it was often unclear what aspect of government policy the implementers expected to see change: many could not say clearly whether they were targeting a particular law, for example, or whether they were working towards a more general change in attitudes. The relative lack of clarity in this regard is explained partly by the small scale of the projects, and partly in some cases by the sensitivity of the human rights issues addressed by them.

It is also to be noted that the EIDHR is an EU funding instrument that does not involve consultations on its use with the host government. This is not to say that the programme is entirely separate from actions undertaken by the GoG. Many of the projects cooperate with Georgia’s Public Defender’s Office in areas such as juvenile justice, integration of ethnic minorities and freedom of expression. Several project implementers also work with local authorities, for example on the integration of people with disabilities and on social inclusion of members of minority groups.

As a result, it can be concluded that the projects were consistent with EIDHR priorities, and therefore also with EU strategy in Georgia as expressed in the successive strategy documents. However, while the projects were aligned with priorities, neither the sample of 15 projects nor the other projects funded during the period covered the entire range of rights included in the scope of EIDHR. While civil and political rights and issues related to governance were covered by funded projects, there were almost no projects covering economic, social and cultural rights. In particular, labour rights and health were not addressed in the range of projects (except, in the case of health, incidentally as part of projects focusing on other issues). It might be appropriate in future EIDHR calls for proposals to include the protection and promotion of economic, social and cultural rights as part of the priorities, in particular with regards to labour rights.

4.2 Response to needs

In addition to alignment with EIDHR priorities, relevance can also be assessed in terms of the projects’ response to underlying needs in Georgia. In this respect relevance was

20

generally adequate, though sometimes weak. It was adequate because all the projects sought to address issues of democracy and human rights where the current situation in Georgia is not fully satisfactory, and where civil society input can help make a difference. However the relationship between the identified need and the approach taken by the projects was sometimes unclear. For example a project focusing on youth participation through civic education correctly identified a need for more civic education of young people - but it was unclear how the activities were supposed to contribute in any significant way to respond to this need. Another project based outside Tbilisi, while broadly consistent with the identified need to improve governance, was of such a general nature that it was difficult to clarify how it could bring specific benefits to citizens and build the capacity of the target institutions.

4.3 Quality of the proposals

The project outlines that form the basis of the grant contract agreements between the EC and implementers were of unequal quality. While some outlines were well designed and strategically sound, others presented significant design weaknesses. These often led to difficulties in subsequent implementation and to misunderstandings among stakeholders. In theory, weaknesses in project design should be identified at proposal approval stage, and addressed during the grant contract finalisation stage. In practice, however, there was not enough time for the EUD to do so, because it had to deal with a complex approval process, involving liaison with many grant applicants at the same time and with Brussels, within a relatively short period.

The key weaknesses of the proposals were the following:

• Goals were often too general and vague, not always clearly connected to activities. For example one project sought to increase media freedom and provide the public with information about corruption in Georgia. However, the planned activities concerned only the second of these objectives, and the proposal did not say how the production of information about corruption would enhance media freedom. In another example from a macro project, the project outline had no less than four major objectives: to strengthen the existing NGO network contributing to the rehabilitation of torture victims; to increase the effectiveness of services to such victims; to implement international standards on the prevention of torture; and to enhance the capacity of the beneficiary and its partner NGOs. These four objectives were not realistic: some were not under the beneficiary's control (an NGO cannot implement international standards). Others were not compatible with the amount of resources available and the size of the tasks at hand.

• The relationship between goals and actual activities was often unclear because applicants were insufficiently familiar with the distinctions between goal, objectives and activities that the logical framework approach mandates.

• Widespread failure to build action capacity through meaningful coalitions. Many of the grantees were relatively small and specialised organisations. They had genuine expertise and credibility in their core area of work, but many tended to underestimate the expertise needed to deliver on some aspects of their proposals. For example, a project based outside Tbilisi, which planned to provide legal advice to repatriates did so, putting beneficiaries in touch with some lawyers. However the quality of the advice may not have been commensurate with repatriates’ expectations and needs, particularly in relation

21

to the complex property and citizenship issues at stake. In addition, the organisation itself did not have the capacity to conduct the sustained lobbying in Tbilisi that was necessary to increase the likelihood that the law on repatriation was amended. Its project would have gained in relevance and effectiveness if an appropriate coalition had been set up with a relevant legal and advocacy organisation, able to interact on an on-going basis with representatives of the GoG and Parliament.

4.4 Participation of beneficiaries in project design

None of the projects substantively involved future beneficiaries at the project design stage. In each proposal, the project design was developed on the basis of the applicants’ past experience with similar target groups. As a result, while it cannot be said that beneficiaries were explicitly consulted, lessons from previous similar projects were taken into account in project design. The projects appear generally to have been responsive to beneficiaries’ needs during implementation.

4.5 Promotion of gender equality

Gender seems to have been an important component of EIDHR projects over the period 2005-2007. Five micro projects supported under this programme dealt specifically with promoting gender equality. Furthermore, among the 15 projects reviewed by the team, many have been able to successfully address various aspects of women’s rights, including the cultural stereotypes that are impeding gender equality.

The project Folk High Schools in Samtskhe-Javakheti – a Chance for Integration of Minorities was able to generate tangible impact in this area by achieving integration of women and girls in social and cultural life. Through the Adult Education Centres of Akhaltshikhe and Akhalkalaki, women and girls were able to improve their knowledge and skills and in this process become more integrated in the life of their community, which is a significant achievement given the conservative and patriarchal traditions of the remote and strongly Armenian communities in the region. Much like this macro-project, the micro-projects reviewed by the Team did not have a separate gender component in their activities. However, some addressed this issue through partnering with women’s rights NGOs and others did so through making special efforts to reach women beneficiaries.

Another EIDHR macro project reviewed by the team – Fostering Civil Integration through Education and Freedom of Expression – did have a separate gender component, which tried to address women’s rights issue from two fronts. One was society’s approach to women and another is empowerment of women so that they are more proactive in realizing their modern role and opportunities. The most notable achievement of the project was facilitating an agreement among experts and NGOs working on gender issues to come together under the umbrella of the Civil Lobby on Gender, in order to jointly advocate for gender equality.

22

5 EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY

The evaluators found that the projects were generally effective, in the sense that they were on the way to achieving their objectives to an adequate degree. All projects have largely implemented the planned activities: where delays have occurred they were manageable and in those cases the implementing NGOs were actively working on plans to catch up and implement all planned activities during the project period. It was difficult to assess the efficiency of the projects in view of the limited time the team could devote to each project visit. Information on attendance and participation suggested that activities reached the intended beneficiaries, despite occasional logistical difficulties.

5.1 Qualitative aspects

Whereas the projects have been effective in terms of implementing planned activities, the evidence about the quality of these activities was contrasted and of varying nature from one project to another. While this made it difficult to give a synthetic assessment, the view of the evaluators was that quality was generally good. For example, the evaluators were told about the contents of training modules implemented by some of the organisations which appeared to be of appropriate quality, and delivered by appropriately trained personnel. Some of the organisations also appeared to have invested in training their own staff, which had a positive effect on the delivery of results.

Thus, although the evaluators did not witness many activities, they believe that the projects have been implemented to a satisfactory degree of quality, sometimes to an outstanding degree. This view is, to some extent, lent further support by the assessment of the projects’ impact (see below).

5.2 Risk management

While most projects were able to carry out the activities they had planned, some experienced problems in this respect, which may be ascribed to organisational capacity and risk management difficulties. For example, one project was not able to implement training sessions on HIV and drugs for law enforcement officers, apparently because of lack of access to appropriate government departments and levels. This component had to be removed from the project. In hindsight, the difficulties experienced were predictable, and might have been avoided through a more appropriate choice of partner.

Similarly, a project which had planned to target members of the judiciary with information about corruption and lobbying on freedom of the media, did not have the lobbying expertise, contacts and track record that would have made such high-level advocacy possible. In effect, this part of the project was shelved.

Both of these examples indicate that some implementing organisations faced difficulties related to unforeseen practical implementation challenges. However, these challenges

23

could have been anticipated through more thorough project design, and mitigation approaches could have been adopted - such as working with different partners than those selected.

5.3 Outreach to stakeholders

The issues of gender and inclusiveness highlighted in the relevance section above are also important to the projects’ effectiveness. Some projects have made specific efforts to address particularly poor and vulnerable individuals within their target groups.

Projects generally had an appropriate level of engagement with civil society stakeholders. Indeed, engagement with other civil society actors is generally of a high standard in all cases: schools, local communities, religious groups, etc, were involved appropriately to each project. In some cases the EIDHR-funded project is, in effect, helping other projects through coordination and exchange of information - or simply by providing a convenient meeting place.

However, engagement with government seems generally to have been less effective. Some projects have had fruitful engagement with the Ombudsman’s Office and with local authorities at various levels, and there were some examples of effective lobbying of parliament and ministries on legislative issues. However the successes in this field were relatively limited. Reasons for this appear to have included the following:

• Many of the projects lacked a well-designed, concerted advocacy strategy. Project implementers seemed to have assumed that their activities would generate enough publicity or visibility for their concerns to influence decision-makers without recourse to such a strategy. This, in practice, was not the case: contrary to this assumption, effective advocacy of government requires specific materials to be produced and presented to authorities.

• The implementing organisations did not always have the relevant advocacy or lobbying skills. In addition to thorough understanding of the issue at stake (and track record of addressing it, which many NGOs have), effective advocacy requires a good understanding of legislative and policy-making processes. Many NGOs lack experience in these fields.

To address these shortcomings, NGOs should include in project proposals explicit advocacy strategies that take account of their organisational strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore NGOs should be more pro-active in developing advocacy coalitions bringing together organisations with a range of different skills, including the capacity to analyse government policy, contribute to legal drafting and address legislative organs as well as individual government departments at appropriate levels.

Such coalitions would help circumvent the relatively weak organisational capacity of many Georgian NGOs, and would ensure that the different aspects of advocacy and lobbying (from selection of target audiences to development of messages, campaigning techniques and follow-up) are carried out by appropriately skilled actors. In addition, NGOs should consider seeking the support of pro bono experts in such fields as law and training.

24

5.4 Project management

It was not the objective of the evaluation to consider project management in detail. The team did not attempt to audit or otherwise assess the sincerity of financial reports provided by the implementing organisations. However, it was the general view of the team that project budgets were reasonable and consistent with prevalent practices in Georgia and internationally. One reason why the NGOs were able to present reasonably tight budgets was that some of them at least were able to spread project management costs across different projects. Another factor in the relatively low project budgets is that (as mentioned above) several of the projects were the continuation or reiteration of approaches already tested by the implementing organisations, thus reducing the start-up costs.

Despite this generally positive picture, the study of some individual project budgets provided a reminder that the EUD should carefully review project budgets prior to the signature of grant agreements. The evaluators found an instance of apparent overestimate of computer costs, and another instance of apparent underestimate of salary costs: these issues should be identified at an early stage to avoid difficulties in project implementation and reporting.

In other respects, project management seems to have been of good quality, as indicated by the level of detail given in interim narrative and financial reports. Many NGOs have noted that the strict financial reporting requirements of the EC are sometimes difficult to follow, but the reports seen by the evaluators suggest that the requirements were generally met satisfactorily. Other than reports to the EC, information appears to have circulated appropriately within the NGOs themselves, and staff met by the evaluators were aware of the projects, the EC’s funding, and of activities carried out. A further sign of the quality of project management was that all the project managers could provide satisfactory answers to the evaluators on most aspects of the projects, and had a clear understanding of the strategic approach and risks faced by their projects.

While some projects missed some reporting deadlines, the delays were manageable and were explained by managers’ workload. The evaluators heard no reports of significant staffing problems related to the projects.

One area where there was unmet demand for more project-related information concerned EIDHR micro-project NGOs themselves. NGOs praised the opportunity given to them by the EC to meet each other to discuss issues of interest – which they had done on some occasions before the meeting organised by the evaluators. Some (not all) NGOs felt that there was scope for EIDHR-funded NGOs to cooperate with each other, either in the context of the current projects or otherwise. In the evaluators’ view, the effectiveness of projects might be enhanced if the EIDHR-funded NGOs could carry out joint work on specific areas. For example, synergies could be found, to carry out joint public advocacy and government lobbying work, among EIDHR-funded NGOs working on similar issues (such as those related to juvenile justice and other aspects of criminal justice) or complementary ones (such as media freedoms and government transparency).

25

However, the EUD should exercise care when encouraging synergies among organisations it supports: while there is no reason not to encourage coordination amongst EIDHR-funded NGOs, the EC should ensure that it does not give rise to the assumption that further funding will only be available to NGOs that cooperate in that way. It is also important to avoid perceptions that EIDHR-funded NGOs constitute a “club” in which new entrants would be unwelcome. To dispel any such perceptions, it is important for the EUD to continue organising information sessions on EIDHR open to all NGOs. The issue of enhancing cooperation among beneficiary NGOs is discussed further in the section on coherence, below.

5.5 Examples of best practices

The following are examples of approaches used by projects, which seem to have been effective and could be emulated in future projects:

Challenging and working with local government

- Rather than providing direct financial support to the families who suffered from environmental degradation, one of the beneficiaries aimed at changing state policies toward this vulnerable group, which resulted in increased sustainability. As a result of consistently challenging the local authorities to address the grievances of those affected by erosion, raising awareness of citizens’ rights and working with the Ajaran government to devise solutions, the project was able to institutionalise support for the eco-migrants and has ensured that the impacted community is not splintered when resettlement takes place. Furthermore, this approach had a multiplier effect in that it contributed to the government devoting sizeable amounts of state funds to alleviate the socio-economic plight of ecological migrants and led to the development of a state-funded mechanism to assess coastal erosion problems and devise solutions.

- Similarly, a project implemented in Zugdidi challenged the local government to make public buildings handicap accessible and managed to achieve a measurable impact through working with the authorities.

Developing Private-Public Partnerships

- To achieve project objectives, one beneficiary maintained a successful referral system, where the Ministry of Justice Department for Probation and Non-Custodial Punishment, Prisons’ Republican Hospital, and medical units in partner prisons worked with the NGO to assist the prisoners or probationers in receiving the needed services. Medical hospitals, private doctor practitioners, and NGOs provided needed medical, psychological, and legal services to those who needed. This has proven to be a successful private-public partnership which could be duplicated in other projects.

26

- Throughout the implementation of the project, another beneficiary coordinated its monitoring work with three national monitoring organisations. The organisations met on a regular basis, exchanged information about the findings of their monitoring activities, and discussed joint actions to draw public’s and government’s attention to the revealed shortcomings. This is an example of best practices that could be duplicated in other high profile issue areas, such as juvenile justice reform.

- One beneficiary achieved project objectives by actively canvassing both Samtskhe-Javakheti region and the entire country to develop lasting partnerships with local governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders, which were complemented with national-level partnerships from the Public Defender’s Office, the Office of the President, and the Ministry of Education to carry out two nationally publicised 3-day inter-ethnic festivals in Akhaltsikhe and Akhalkalaki. It is noteworthy that the second festival, which began in Akhalkalaki, continued in Azeri-populated Kvemo Kartli region to promote inter-ethnic dialogue and integration there as well.

Promoting Integration and Building Bridges through Innovative Approaches

- 15 regional journalists completed a week internship at GBP and 10 GPB journalist worked for a week in two regions Samtskhe-Javakheti and Kvemo Kartli, in leading local media outlets. They went to community TV and radio stations and newspapers, where they conducted seminars (among other things, the GPB Code of Conduct) and helped prepare feature programmes, which were subsequently broadcasted on Georgian Public Broadcasting. This program is a good example of how projects can use people to people exchanges to promote tolerance and enhance cultural understanding through educational and humanitarian activities involving exchange of ideas and experiences among professionals of different backgrounds.

27

6 IMPACT OF THE PROGRAMME

Generally, the projects appear to have achieved the expected impact, although they have done so at varying levels. In those cases where impact was the clearest, the reasons were, in essence, the following:

• Appropriate analysis of the situation to be addressed.

• Appropriate selection of “entry points” in the exercise of advocacy and/or awareness-raising.

• Provision, where necessary, of a high level of skills and competence: this enhanced the projects’ credibility with their target groups.

Impact is seen both on the level of the targeted beneficiaries, and more widely, on strengthening the role of civil society in promoting human rights and democratic reform, promoting new approaches, policies and partnerships with the central and local authorities. Several major areas have been identified by the team with most concentrated impact, as described below.

6.1 Impact on minorities and integration

Minorities' integration turned out to be a leading area in terms of number of projects funded and activities implemented. Two of all nine macro projects supported over the period 2005-2007 dealt with minorities and ethnic groups. A significant number on the list of micro projects from the same period also dealt with issues related to this topic. The team of experts reviewed three projects under this thematic area and found that the EIDHR programme had successfully addressed various aspects pertaining to the human rights of the minority and ethnic groups in Georgia, and fostered the development of culture of tolerance and respect for diversity. Some good initiatives also addressed the long term issue of integration.

The Folk High Schools in Samtskhe-Javakheti – a Chance for Integration of Minorities macro project, for example, aimed at promoting the rights of minorities in one of the most multinational regions of Georgia, stretching along the Turkish and Armenian borders, with a mixed ethnic and religious landscape.1 The project sought to strengthen the capacity of ethnic minorities in the target region and empower them for more active participation in public, economic and cultural life. It must be kept in mind that next to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Samtskhe-Javakheti is often viewed as a problematic region, where tension may approach critical points. Some analysts even describe the region as a potential pre-conflict zone. In this context the two Adult Education Centres (AEC) established by the project played an important role. The AECs performed activities in several areas: a course programme addressing assessed needs and interests of the target groups; a civic awareness programme comprising activities like public debates, events and lectures on different topics; a cultural diversity component, which included the organization of interethnic festivals.

1 The region is populated by Armenians, Georgians, Russians, Greeks and Azeris, who follow different

religions (Armenian Gregorian, Orthodox Christian, Catholic, Muslim, etc.).

28

The “hidden curriculum method” pursued during the trainings aimed at cultivating tolerance, respect to the culture and religion of different minority groups, ability to openly discuss differences. Therefore, the project at large may be viewed as a conflict prevention tool, applied to a multi-ethnic environment.

Fostering Civil Integration through Education and Freedom of Expression is another example of a macro project which has effectively addressed the EIDHR priorities with respect to minority issues. It was aimed at integrating minorities into the wider Georgian experience (societal, professional, political, informational and educational) and reversing superficial stereotypes. The objectives of the project were multi-faceted ranging from strengthening the dialogue among national minority groups and the majority population, facilitating community self-expression and mutual understanding, giving a voice to the women and the young generation representing ethnic minorities, educating the media on issues of diversity and involving them in the process of community expression and understanding, all aimed at promoting a culture of tolerance, and encouraging bias-free and objective news contents. The project objectives were fulfilled through a variety of activities on different levels and with different partners. All these activities mutually complemented each other. The diversity training for teachers and Boards of Trustees from minority language schools in Kvemo Kartli, Samtskhe-Javakheti and Tbilisi, was swiftly complemented with teacher exchange programmes, while work on the Media Council development among other things also built on the internships of journalists from Tbilisi to the above regions and vice versa. A module on diversity for trainee teachers and journalists at the Caucasus School of Journalism and Illya Chavchavadze State University was elaborated in consultations with the Ministry of Education; 170 teachers and BoT members from 17 public schools in Akhaltsikhe, Akhalkalaki, Ninotsminda, Marneuli, Tsalka, Bolnisi, Dmanisi and Tbilisi received training on diversity issues; several exchange programmes for teachers were implemented where over 20 teachers were placed in different language schools, attended and ran classes, as well as experienced active social communications; internships for journalists with Azeri and Armenian background were organized with the GPB, and GPB journalists were placed with media outlets in Samtskhe-Javakheti and Kvemo Kartli; roundtables and discussions were conducted on diversity issues for the Ombudsman’s Office, the Media Council, the Citizens’ Panels and the Boards of Trustees, etc.

While with integration issues one may not expect immediate impact we believe that an excellent foundation has been laid for diversity to be used as an instrument of tolerance, conflict prevention and peace building. The necessary bridges between regions and the centre are already in place, the minorities have a channel of being represented in the Georgian Public Broadcaster, the Office of the Public Defender (the Ombudsman) is closely involved, etc.

Parallel to integration issues, the EIDHR projects in this area have also supported the provision of specific services to these groups. This is the case, for example, with the micro project Information and Consultation Centre for Meskhetian Repatriates. The project provided information and consultation services to the newly returned Meskhetian repatriates, promoted their integration into society, and cultivated tolerance and positive attitudes toward Meskhetians in residents of Samtskhe-Javakheti. The project was implemented in two locations, Akhaltsikhe and Adigeni districts, and included the establishment of an information centre for new repatriates, as well as 24-hour hotline for legal, social, medical, educational, or other matters, Georgian lessons, free legal assistance and medical care for the Meskhetians, as well

29

as public awareness campaign through Public Service Announcements (PSAs) and webpage.

The impact here is not only related to the target group, for whom the implementing NGO has become a trusted partner. This EIDHR funded project also promotes the efforts of the Government on the integration of the newly repatriated Meskhetians and the response to the illegal repatriation attempts from misinformed Meskhetians, who did not wait for the GoG feedback on their application, as set out in the current law. At the same time, the project seems to have had limited impact on developing positive attitudes toward Meskhetians, which could be a result of the activities of another organization, which is continuously undermining public opinion.

As already mentioned, the impact of EIDHR on the protection of the rights of minorities and the development of a culture of tolerance and diversity is not expected to be immediate. This instrument, however, has already established the necessary bridges and yielded some very good practices, which can be used further and replicated.

6.2 Impact on the fight against torture and ill-treatment

The EIDHR has consistently supported the efforts to fight ill treatment and torture in Georgia through a series of macro and micro projects and longer term support. The few actors working in this area have also been quite successful in ensuring the continuity of their activities either with new EIDHR grants or support from other donors.

The macro project Strengthening the System of Rehabilitation for Torture Victims in Georgia for example, is the second macro project in this area supported by EIDHR. It is rather broad in scope, covering the capital city and all regions, including the military conflict zones (Abkhazia, South Osetia) and surrounding areas (Gori, Pankisi Gorge, Zugdidi, Kodori Gorge), as well as the penal institutions in the whole country.

The overall goal of the project is fully in line with the priorities of EIDHR with respect to supporting actions on human rights and democracy issues, in areas covered by EU guidelines on torture. Essentially the project focuses on treatment and rehabilitation, legal and social support to persons who have been exposed to ill treatment, torture or pronounced stress, and its impact on the target groups is beyond doubt. With the inflow of new IDPs following the 2008 war, this service is sorely needed. Also, the very fact that there is an attempt to establish and develop a non-governmental system for rehabilitation deserves recognition. At the same time, the efficiency and expected impact would probably be better, if the target group were narrowed and better defined.2

2 The target groups defined by the project include: detainees and former detainees; IDPs from military

conflict regions (Abkhazia and South Ossetia); refugees from Chechnya; asylum seekers from Chechnya or other countries (Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan etc); civilian population still living in the military conflict zones; juveniles and children with imprisonment experience or sentenced prisoners, probationers and former prisoners with experience of torture and ill treatment, especially with sexual abuse and harassment; children with experience of violence in orphans houses, schools; state political repression victims from Soviet time, including second generation, victims of civil war in Georgia and current state abuse victims; prisoners with severe mental problems; family members of the direct target groups; doctors “at risk”

30

The micro project Support of Re-Socialization and Re-Integration of Prisoners and Persons under Probation into Society was also aimed to support the re-socialization and re-integration into society of tortured prisoners and persons on probation through psychological, social, medical rehabilitation and legal assistance. Parallel to this the project sought to strengthen the capacity of the probation officers and raise public awareness in this issue.

Clearly, the project had a positive impact on those 254 prisoners and probationers, who have received psycho-social and medical rehabilitation support or legal aid. Through the training of 47 probation officers the project has also been able to influence the development of good practices when working with probationers. Had these probationers been kept in their positions after the establishment of the new Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance, the impact of this EIDHR action could have be even greater. Unfortunately, the Ministry did not budget for as many probation officers posts as have been trained, and also some of the posts were occupied by personnel who have not been trained. Furthermore, based on the initial needs assessment, the implementing organization developed recommendations for the Ministry of Justice on how to avoid burn out in probation officers and motivate them. Prison monitoring, however, seems to have had limited impact, in part because the implementing organization was not granted the freedom of access to the facilities and in part because at the time of the project’s implementation there was no national mechanism of Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT).

EIDHR in Georgia has consistently supported also the efforts with respect to juvenile justice. The micro project Accomplishment and Extension of Juveniles’ Advocacy and Development System in Ajara Region was an extension of an earlier EIDHR project (Juveniles’ Advocacy and Development) implemented by the same organization. The overall project objectives were to provide legal aid to and ensure public reintegration of juveniles released from custody and police departments in Ajara, and promote, in collaboration with local government, the elaboration and functioning of the mechanisms to prevent the commission of crime by juveniles in Ajara. The activities included legal advocacy for juveniles imprisoned in Batumi prison #3, creation of mobile groups of a lawyer, psychologist and teacher on call 24-hours a day to provide support to detained juveniles, development of life-skills in targeted juveniles, outreach campaign on juvenile rights, training of high school teachers and psychologist on how best to prevent juvenile delinquency, etc.

During 2007-2009, a great deal of effort was spent on improving the juvenile justice system in Georgia, to bring it up to the internationally accepted standards. While much has improved during this time in juvenile justice system on both the national and regional levels, it is hard to estimate to what extent these improvements can all be attributed to the activities conducted under the reviewed project. For example, the initiation of rehabilitation processes in Batumi Prison No. 3 could be attributed not only to the implementing organization, but also to the work of such organization as UNICEF, NORLAG, and PRI, and their collaboration with the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance. The same could be said about the decision of Batumi City Hall to fund rehabilitation services for juvenile delinquents. However, the project had a direct impact on the lives of 62 juveniles who participated

(including doctors from the whole South Caucasian Region, Armenia and Azerbaijan); representatives of the law enforcement structures; judges, etc.

31

in the rehabilitation program or for 83 juveniles who received legal aid with the help of the Institute of Democracy and its partner organization.

6.3 Impact on the rights of people with disabilities

EIDHR has rendered support to a number of projects which strengthened the role of civil society in fighting discrimination on any grounds, promoting the rights of vulnerable groups and fostering their integration into society. It has thus facilitated the process of integration of persons with impairments in society and contributed to the improvement of their quality of life and self esteem.

The micro project We Are Born to be Equal and Different has contributed to the promotion of equal opportunities, a more favourable legal and social environment for people with impairments, and the protection of their rights. The Legal Advice Centre, established by the project provided legal aid to disabled residents of Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti Region, and developed a data-base of the people with impairments residing in the region. Brochures and PSAs for public outreach campaigns were developed and monitoring of buildings was conducted to ascertain their accessibility, suggestions for modifications were made to improve the situation. The impact was limited in some areas and more substantial in others. For example, the project activities carried out in Zugdidi had more substantive results for the people with disabilities, compared to those carried out in Tbilisi (e.g. monitoring of building and subsequent alterations, work with teachers and schools on inclusive education). One of the notable results of the project was working with the local government to make 90% of the monitored public building accessible to the disabled. These monitoring activities were also reflected in the Ombudsman’s report and have led to the GoG commitment to not only adopt minimum accessibility standards for building, but also establish a body charged with overseeing their implementation.

The micro project Supporting Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities promoted the rights of persons with disability in Ajara and created a sustainable environment conducive to improving their social conditions, through raising public awareness on disability and monitoring state-funded programs supporting people with disabilities. It also flowed from an earlier EIDHR project (Promoting the rights and interests of children with hearing impairments). Some of the sample activities implemented by the project included trainings for school teachers on inclusive teaching and for journalists on covering issues on disability, conducting studies of social conditions for disabled living in Ajara, advocating for the rights of people with disabilities, including children. One of the most important outcomes of the project has been the implementation of a baseline study on the situation of people with disabilities in Ajara. The survey has unearthed some interesting findings about the public perception of people with disabilities, as well as their own self-perception, which could lead to designing more targeted and innovative programmes in this area. The project also had a multiplier effect through training teachers on inclusive education and journalists on covering issues on disability. Impact of monitoring government-funded programs was limited, which seems to have been because the organization did not have a specific monitoring methodology.

Fighting Stigma and Discrimination of Mental Ill Health related to the promotion of non discriminatory reporting in the media, development of tolerant attitudes and social acceptance of mental ill health problems. The target groups of the action included

32

student journalists and acting journalists from various media; students of universities; policy-makers from the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs (MoLHSA), Ministry of Education and Sciences (MES), local governments, and Parliament of Georgia. The activities conducted were versatile and complemented each other. These included promoting non-discriminatory reporting; development of guidelines on non-discriminatory reporting; development of training modules for journalists; trainings of student journalists and journalists; monitoring of media coverage; radio programmes; seminars and lectures; movie shows; publications, etc. All activities were effectively fulfilled and nationwide outreach was achieved.

A very important component of the project, which contributes to its sustainability, was the assessment of the legislation, the publication of an analytical report on this issue and the continued work with policy makers (focus groups, discussions, round tables and conferences) towards advancing the rights of mentally ill people.

The project seems to have a much higher impact, compared to what one could expect from the comparatively limited budget. This is also attributed to the fact that some of the target groups were multipliers themselves (media, students, policy makers) and the project design included a strong capacity building component.

6.4 Impact on democratic election processes

The micro-project Monitoring the Use of Administrative Resources in the 2008 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections had the aim to promote free and fair elections in Georgia, by supporting the processes of democratisation through monitoring, awareness-raising, and empowerment of individuals and civil society to protect their rights and prevent further violations. The project was very timely, which in large part was because project implementer and the EU Delegation promptly reacted to the news that Georgia was to have early Parliamentary elections in May 2008, unscheduled Presidential elections in January 2008, and signed an Addendum in December 2007, modifying the original project timeline. The project targeted Georgian regional NGOs working on election monitoring issues and implemented such activities as monitoring of amendments to election legislation, public outreach campaign (publication of leaflets, media conferences, and hotline), training and coordination meetings to explain target NGOs the types of hard and soft administrative resources that the project intended to monitor and how to implement monitoring activities, etc.

Election monitoring was one of the high profile issues in Georgia, where numerous donors and civil society representatives implemented monitoring, public awareness, and training activities. Therefore, the impact of the reviewed project must be qualified in view of attributability. For example, the lack of baseline and follow up data hampers the team in determining to what extent the project raised the public’s knowledge of misuses of soft and hard administrative resources during 2008 election campaigns. However, the project implementer, in conjunction with partner CSOs, did contribute to some changes in the government’s behaviour, where Ministers were forced to either suspend programs that misused administrative resources for election purposes or give instructions to their staff to be mindful of remaining neutral and free from politics.

33

To some extent the Youth Vote - Increase Youth Participation through Innovation Civic Education Programme project also contributed to the general democratic process and the understanding of the election process, by targeting youth and exposing them to various democratic practices through public debates.

6.5 Other areas of impact

The EIDHR generated impact in a very specific area, ecological migrants, through its project in Ajara Sustainable Development Program for Ajara Ecomigrants. The project was highly relevant to the needs of Georgia and the Ajaran Autonomous republic, where sizeable numbers of people lost shelter due to environmental degradation and civil society organizations needed particular nurturing after the end of Abashidze regime. The project had a tangible impact on the improvement of the socio-economic situation of the target group representatives, following intensive lobbying of the national and local governments and legislatures, developing policy suggestions, providing legal advocacy services, and monitoring state expenditures. One of the most important aspects of the project was to ensure changes in the attitudes of the Ajaran government toward this problem. This has been achieved with assisting the government in developing long-term policies, as well as consistent monitoring and collaboration.

Good interaction with the local authorities was observed also with the Society and Self- Government in Kiziki project, which addressed issues like promoting civil initiative, contributing to transparent and democratic functioning of self-governing institutions, promoting civil society and encouraging civil initiatives, despite the limited impact the project had and the challenges to its sustainability.

It has not been possible to measure the impact of the projects with media focus e.g. Investigative Journalism in Help of Democracy and the extent to which it changed the public attitude to corruption. To some extent this refers also to the project Protecting the Human Rights of HIV/AIDS Infected and those at Highest Risk of Infection, aimed at promoting the human rights of drug users and people leaving with HIV/AIDS and facilitating their integration into society. In both cases the changes in public opinion require a long time and a lot of persistence.

In conclusion it can be said that over the years the EIDHR, through its funded projects, has made a crucial contribution to the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law in Georgia, cultivating respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Although there are numerous donors and programmes in the country supporting civil society and democracy at large, EIDHR remains the only instrument with exclusive focus on the protection of human rights. It is in this specific area that the most significant impact is observed, and where sustainability has been consciously sought by the EUD to Georgia.

34

7 SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROGRAMME

The organisations are all likely to remain dependent on external donor funding for the foreseeable future – in that sense they are not likely to become sustainable, at least in financial terms. However, seen more broadly, elements of sustainability have been built by the projects, and include the following:

• Buy-in and good practice;

• Relationship with relevant institutional stakeholders;

• Organisations’ own institutional capacity increase through the projects.

Sustainability could be further enhanced if the organisations were able to diversify further their sources of funding.

The issue of project sustainability is addressed by EIDHR already in the project design stage. All the applicants are expected to give it special consideration and map out relevant steps to secure the sustainability of their projects. Various approaches have been used by the grant recipients in the quest for sustainability, and usually the funded projects included a sizable capacity building component.

One of the most common approaches, seen with almost all projects, has been the creation of expert capacity through intensive training. As a result, Georgia now has a solid pool of NGO experts in various areas. Such capacity has been developed in almost all project areas over the period 2005-2007. In the case of minority issues these are the teachers in both the formal and the non formal educational sectors in Samtskhe-Javakheti. Similarly, in the case of fighting torture, or work in prisons there is already a significant number of experts trained and working successfully in different professional areas like rehabilitation, legal and social support, probation. Many other NGO activists have already acquired a strong background on issues related to democratic elections, disabilities, mental health, drug abuse, or other specific areas.

At the same time, the effective utilization of this expert capacity in some cases has been obstructed for reasons beyond the projects. Such is also the case with the probation officers. The grant recipient’s determination to achieve sustainability has been adequate, but there were issues which went beyond its control e.g. many of the probationers lost their positions with the creation of the new Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance.

Normally training goes hand in hand with curriculum development. While this has been mostly for project purposes, there are also some success stories where the curricula have become part of the formal educational system like in the case with the module on diversity for trainee teachers and journalists now taught at the Caucasus School of Journalism and Ilia State University, elaborated udder one of the macro projects funded by EIDHR, in consultations with the Ministry of Education.

Operational grants have been effective in contributing to beneficiaries’ long-term sustainability. EIDHR’s operational grants have beyond any doubt contributed to the

35

future sustainability of the services of those organizations which benefited from such grants.

EIDHR’s contribution to sustainability is also quite visible with the support provided for acquiring real estate property. The sustainability of the services provided to Meskhetian repatriates, for example, has been considerably improved through the EIDHR programme which allowed the implementing partner to buy the office space where it provides these services. The EU’s consistent engagement with the organization on the issue of Meskhetians through the EIDHR program further contributes to improving the NGO’s institutional capacity and promoting the sustainability of services to Meskhetians.

Similar is the case with the two adult education centres in Akhaltsikhe and Akhalkalaki. The support rendered through EIDHR, which helped acquire the real estate property has been of crucial importance for the smooth functioning of the centres after the completion of the project. However the purchase of property must be undertaken and approved with utmost care, to avoid a situation where a property is bought and refurbished only to realize that it is not suitable for sustaining project activities due to its location or similar permanent characteristic. The implementing organisations are also doing their best to make a transition from fully free to partly paid and then fully paid services for the vocational training courses, which they provide, and the trainees are already covering a certain amount of the course fee. Apart from this, other income generation methods are considered like renting out part of the office space, and some construction and renovation activities are under way for this purpose. In addition, the grant beneficiary organisation considered carrying out direct fundraising targeting local authorities. These are all efforts which deserve recognition. At the same time, external factors again, like the economic situation in the region, represent serious obstacles. The labour market in Samtskhe-Javakheti is still very limited, especially after the dismantling of the Russian military base, which was a major source of trade and employment, and the absence of job opportunities forces people to work outside the region and seek employment even in Russia or Armenia. More projects with focus on economic and enterprise development are generally needed around Samtskhe-Javakheti, and this would be a good direction for complementarity with other EU funded initiatives.

Institutional capacity building has been another avenue towards the achievement of sustainability, and a rather good one, as many of the bodies or mechanisms established throughout the different projects’ life seem to be still in place and functioning. Some of them are on a national level e.g. at the Ombudsman’s office, which alone is a guarantee for their work towards better human rights protection. This is the case with the Special Council on Ethnic and Minority Issues at the Ombudsman’s Office, for example. Next to this, through EIDHR support, the minorities now also have a channel for being represented in the Georgian Public Broadcaster and the special Council on Integration and Tolerance created within the President’s Office. The latter already adopted a national strategy and action plan on tolerance and integration.

There are also some good examples, though not so many on local level e.g. the Legal Advice Centre, which provides legal aid to disabled residents of Zugdidi and Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti region. Although the Centre functioned only during the

36

project period, the expert who used to run it is still employed by the NGO and can advise clients on legal issues.

Some new mechanisms were introduced through the EIDHR’s supported projects over the period under review, specifically related to monitoring. We should mention here the monitoring of the accessibility of public buildings to people with impairments, taking place in Zugdidi. The election monitoring project that looked at misuse of administrative resources is also a good example, as it combined educational and monitoring activities to change the government practices and the people’s mindsets.

The expert team also found that many publications were made available in various areas, as well as some assessment studies. The assessment of the legislation of Georgia with respect to the mentally ill, supported by EIDHR ad the publication and spreading of the analytical findings on this issue, are certainly a factor that contributes to the sustainability of work in the area of mental health. So does the baseline study of the situation of people with disabilities in Ajara.

Among the gaps identified by the team are following:

- Few of the reviewed projects attempted to influence the process of legislative drafting. In 2008 the Georgian Harm Reduction Network (a network of 13 organizations working in the field of human rights, prevention and treatment, chaired at this time by one of the EIDHR grant recipients) submitted 58,000 signatures in support of the legislative initiative to change harsh punishments for drug use and drug possession, but formally this was not integrated into the project and as of today nothing has followed. There was also an attempt to trigger amendments in the Administrative and Criminal Codes concerning drug use, and though they did not result directly from the respective EIDHR projects, they may have had a contributory effect. We also assume that considerable amount of work in this area is channelled through other micro or macro projects. At the same time drafting and adopting legislative amendments is such a lengthy process in any legal system that EIDHR should probably abstain from pursuing such an ambitious objective in a micro-project due to the relative brevity of EIDHR funded interventions.

- The media have not been used in the most effective way. Indeed, the media were involved in events aimed to promote the practice of non discriminatory reporting, or to develop tolerant attitudes and social acceptance of concrete issues. However, the media were involved in campaigns mostly for public awareness raising e.g. for fighting stigma and discrimination, but they have seldom been mobilized round a specific advocacy issue, that could have resulted in a policy decision or even legislative amendment. Had this been done, both the impact and sustainability would have been better.

- Some of the partnerships could have been selected more appropriately. For example, rather than creating brand new legal departments or legal centres, the projects would have been well advised to consider

37

cooperation with local NGOs with significant track record of working on legal issues to achieve the same effect. Furthermore, in cases when projects also aim to assist vulnerable or marginalized groups to receive proper legal aid, the project designs should have a component of cooperating with the Legal Aid Bureau of Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance to make sure that adequate legal representation is provided for these groups, even after the EIDHR project has ended.

8 COHERENCE OF THE PROGRAMME

8.1 Overview

The projects do not form a coherent whole: coherence among the projects cannot be expected from a programme of funding that is based on the appraisal of individual proposals. Indeed, the EC could be accused of bias if it tried to assess the proposals on a basis other than the merits of each application.

It is not entirely obvious that more coherence across projects would necessarily be a good thing in itself. The traditional view in the development assistance world, supported by the Paris Declaration, is that synergies across projects are beneficial, both in financial terms and because of the increased likelihood that coordinated projects may cause lasting changes. However, in human rights- and democracy-related projects, particularly at the small-scale level that the EIDHR micro-projects programme deals with, it is not obvious that seeking to develop synergies on a programme-wide basis would bring qualitative improvements to impact.

In the context of the micro-projects, it may be that the best approach is to have a multiplicity of “entry points,” independent of each other (or with only loose connections with each other). This may be particularly true in the case of Georgia, partly because sections of the public may feel human rights may be instrumentalised for political ends. In such a context, it may be most appropriate to conduct projects such as those funded by EIDHR in a range of fields, without trying to coordinate or finding synergies among them, lest this be perceived as engaging in politics.

However there appears to be a demand on the part of EIDHR implementers themselves for more coordination, and for liaison among project staff and NGOs that have EC funding in common. Some of this demand for more coordination can be met merely by convening meetings, as happened recently, to discuss an issue of common interest such as project management, etc. Such meetings may be sufficient to share basic information amongst project implementers and lead to joint activities, on a voluntary basis.

Should the EC and the partners wish to go further, avenues for more formal partnerships among EIDHR-supported NGOs could be envisaged. In practice, these would have to be consistent with EIDHR guidelines and procedures, and should therefore meet criteria including the following:

38

- Partnerships or collaborations should only be developed by NGOs after their application for EIDHR funding has been agreed. As a result of this condition, any collaborative activity should be supplementary to the programme agreed by the EC.

- The cost of collaborative activities should not be paid for from existing project budgets (except perhaps to the minimal extent of meeting administrative costs, for example, out of overheads budget allocations).

- Collaborative activities should not require time and/or resources so large that they risk jeopardising the effective implementation of the activities funded by EIDHR.

To support such collaborative activities, the EC might consider setting aside from its programme budget a small pool of funds which could be, on an ad-hoc basis, dedicated to funding the activities. To maintain the spirit of collaboration (and mitigate the risk that collaborative activities be used as a revenue stream by implementing NGOs) such funding should be limited to 3-5% of the programme budget.

Looking at the current set of projects, areas of collaborations that could be carried out and might be beneficial could include – but not necessarily be limited to:

- Mutual participation at each other’s training events;

- Attendance at each other’s public events (and possible use of these events as an advocacy platform);

- Mutual use of each other’s specialist skills, such as sharing of legal advice expertise among the relevant NGOs, or provision of such expertise to NGOs that do not have it;

- Development of joint advocacy – for example to lobby the government, or to campaign for media freedom, transparency, etc.

8.2 EC added value

The key added value of the EIDHR programme, as demonstrated by the overview of impact provided above, is its unique focus on human rights and democracy. NGOs have access to various other funding mechanisms (European and others) in a range of rights-related fields, such as legal aid, the fight against torture, election monitoring, law reform, etc. However the EIDHR is unique in that it covers the broad range of human rights, and is framed in terms of support to the implementation of all rights covered in the International Bill of Human Rights. In that sense, it is in itself a comprehensive instrument, with no real equivalent among other donors.

The programme also provides added value because it is part of a range of interventions, ranging from humanitarian to sector-specific. As anticipated in the CSP, the range of EIDHR-funded projects has complemented other interventions effectively.

39

8.3 Operational modalities

8.3.1 Programming

The structure of the EIDHR calls for proposals and operational modalities over the period of review 2005 – 2007 reveals some changes, which are not so tangible, but over time contributed to the streamlining of the procedure, expanded the scope of potential projects and led to the achievement of more lasting results.

Until 2006 it was believed that greater clarity and coherence of the thematic programming objectives was to be achieved through the definition and implementation of four thematic campaigns. Out of 4 such priorities structured under four thematic campaigns: (1) Promoting justice and the rule of law, (2) Fostering a culture of human rights, (3) Promoting the democratic process, and (4) Advancing equality, tolerance and peace, Georgia was eligible only for campaigns (2) and (3). In the 2005 EIDHR Call for proposals the minimum amount of the grants was €10,000, the maximum - €50,000 and the own contribution - 20 percent. While the strict definition of the scope of campaigns set some restrictions, the range of the grant funding gave a chance to NGOs which were not so experienced to access this opportunity and in many occasions, as confirmed by the interviews conducted by the team, played the role of a capacity building factor for the applicant NGO.

In 2006, although the campaigns remained, changes occurred both in the procedure and the range of the grants. The minimum grant level was set to €40,000, and the maximum – to €100,000. This was also, among other considerations, probably driven by the assumption that the NGOs which had already benefited from EIDHR funding had meanwhile accumulated sufficient experience to draft better projects and manage bigger funds, and this was also the conclusion of the team based on the interviews with some grant beneficiaries from this period.

In parallel came the decision to reduce the level of co-funding required from beneficiaries, from 20% to 10%. The rationale for this came from the recognition that NGOs in Georgia did not generally have the financial capacity or reserves to provide co-funding from their own funds. The reduction in the co-funding requirement was therefore meant to facilitate NGOs‘ search for additional donors to complement EIDHR grants. While the facilitation objective was apparently met (none of the beneficiaries seems to have had difficulties finding co-funding), representatives of one private foundation that has provided some of the co-funding have expressed concern to the evaluators about that process. They made the point that, when 10% co-funding is requested, the co-funder has neither the visibility nor the means to influence project design or management. From the point of view of such a donor, therefore, the process is somewhat unsatisfactory, leading them to ask why the EU is not offering to fund 100% of project costs.

The introduction of the Concept Note system helped save resources and proved to be a good tool for the applicants. The rules of the 2006 call for micro project proposals were tightened with respect to the eligibility of applicants – new requirement was introduced “legal persons registered in Georgia, and having their headquarters in Georgia”, versus “local independent division of an NGO with its headquarters in third country”, which has given priority to the genuine local NGOs. A very positive

40

development was the explicit highlighting of partnerships between NGOs in the capital city and regional NGOs as an asset in the evaluation of the submitted proposals.

In 2007 the overall objective of the call for proposals was broadly defined as “strengthening the role of civil society in promoting human rights and democratic reform, supporting rule of law and good governance and development equal participation of men and women in social, economic and political life”. In place of the campaigns which existed in the earlier calls, two broad lots were introduced: LOT 1 - Pursuit of common agendas for human rights and democratic reform in the beneficiary country (excluding Abkhazia and South Ossetia), and LOT 2 - Pursuit of common agendas for human rights and democratic reform in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

For the first time cross-cutting issues were specifically stressed - promotion of gender equality, protection and promotion of children's rights, the integration of environmental questions, the respect of the rule of law and the fight against HIV/AIDS. The specific requirement that all project designs should indicate how actions will affect the situation of women and children and how their needs have been taken into account was a good move to push for better impact.

Generally, all the above developments had a positive effect. The above programme level changes have been introduced smoothly and non-obstructively and contributed to expanding the scope of potential project proposals, increasing the expected impact and promoting the role of the genuine local NGOs in the democratic transition process.

8.3.2 Application process

The NGOs interviewed by the team indicated that the calls have been advertised broadly and well in advance. They have also appreciated the conscious effort of the European Delegation to Georgia towards making the application process easier. While in the 2005 call applicants were advised “to abstain from making telephone calls to the European Commission regarding this Call for Proposals”, in the case with the 2006 call an information session was already envisaged at the EC Delegation in Tbilisi, and the 2007 call expanded this practice further, offering information sessions also in Kutaisi, Zugdidi, Batumi, Telavi and Sukhumi. A possibility was even envisaged for additional information sessions in Tskhinvali.

While we could not solicit feedback from Sukhumi and Tskhinvali, in the rest of the cases this approach has been highly appreciated by our respondents. They are unanimous that the process has been transparent and conducive to their needs. Especially appreciated was also the informal and quick response to questions of technical nature from grantees, asked by telephone, and kindly provided by the EIDHR manager.

The introduction of a Concept Note in the 2006 call was welcome by the interviewed NGOs. It is viewed as saving time and resources, when used as a “gateway” to the submission of a full proposal. However, if both a Concept Note and a full proposal are requested, as sometimes happens, this will put an extra burden on the applicants. It is not a fair approach that convenience considerations on the part of EC Delegations in addressing programming delays should transfer additional constraints to the civil

41

society actors, who are anyway facing a number of other resource constraints. Recently, the tendency has been to employ the two-stage restricted call procedure more widely, and this trend is to be encouraged.

The application package is found not to be easy, but is also appreciated as a “capacity development” instrument itself. It is seen that many NGOs which initially invested a lot of time and effort in their first application, have been quite good in filing successful applications afterwards in subsequent calls. Many of the interviewed NGO members indicated that if the application package was provided in Georgian language as well this would make the process much easier, and lessen the number of inquiries to the EC Delegation. This would also be cost effective because at the moment hundreds of NGOs with little knowledge of English count on external interpreters for this and most probably receive translations which are different in quality.

In conclusion the team found that the application process is transparent. The calls are advertised widely and the EC Delegation to Georgia provides good support to the applicants. The two phase system of a Concept Note first, and a full proposal afterwards is a good approach that needs to be preserved. The application package may be provided in Georgian language as well (for reference purposes only, and not as a document to be filled in) to facilitate the process, and save time and resources.

8.3.3 Feedback and backstopping

Fairly good feedback is provided to the applicants about the process of evaluation and selection, with a high level of detail given already in advance through the evaluation grids for the Concept Note and the full proposal. The interviewed NGO leaders indicated they are happy with the support they receive during the period of project implementation and find the system flexible and friendly. Specially appreciated are the Logical Framework form and the intermediate reporting form. Most of the problems encountered refer to the financial reporting, but even in this case the system is found to be flexible, support is received from the EDHR office, and there is no rigid attitude whenever changes need to be made.

Most of the grantees experienced difficulties with the financial regulations for EU micro projects. The special workshop on this issue organized by the EUD once the projects are awarded greatly facilitated the subsequent process of financial reporting. Many of the grantees indicated that mid-term coordination meetings for all micro project grantees would also be very useful for comparison and exchange of information purposes.

It is clear, however, that many NGOs need training on issues other than financial reporting. As noted above, the relevance of projects was sometimes hampered by weak project design and their effectiveness by misunderstandings about project designs and the logical framework approach. These issues (project design and management, use of log frames) could also usefully be covered in training sessions, which could be funded from a small percentage of the programme budget. There is also a need mentioned above, for training on advocacy and lobbying, and more generally on campaigning techniques for NGOs, which the EU would be well-placed to help organise because such training would be of direct relevance to organisations benefiting from EIDHR funding.

42

8.3.4 Complementarity

The respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is now a feature of all forms of EU co-operation with third countries. Next to being seen as universal values to be pursued in their own, democracy and the protection of human rights are also an integral part of the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals, a tool for conflict prevention and resolution, and even a framework for combating terrorism3.

Therefore, the EIDHR needs to operate as part of a broader set of EU instruments, in order to achieve sustainable reforms and improvements, and maximize impact. From this point of view it is a catalyst which contributes to and enhances the action of the other EU instruments.

With regard to the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), there is clear complementarity with its five thematic programmes, and above all the Non-State Actors and Local Authorities in component (NSA&LA). As both NSA&LA and EIDHR are active in Georgia, this is an excellent opportunity for both programmes to complement each other. Indeed, this is already happening and there are multiple examples where EIDHR recipients have successfully mobilized NSA&LA funding after the expiry of the grant they received from EIDHR to build on the achievements accomplished. On the other hand, there were some examples of EIDHR-funded projects, that fit better the NSA&LA thematic. As EIDHR is the only programme with explicit focus on human rights, we believe that priority should be given to the projects which address this particular issue.

Another DCI thematic programme which allows complementarity is Investing in People. Only one of the interviewed organizations reported that it has benefited from this. We also understand from EUD-Georgia that interest in this programme has been rather low. Additional effort should be made to popularize this opportunity among civil society.

With regard to the Instrument for Stabilisation (IfS), the European Union’s post-conflict response after August 2008 has been used to the tune of €15m to respond to the needs of internally displaced people (IDP) under the UN Flash Appeal. This is even more valid with Phase two of the above programme – the additional allocation of €10m to further respond to the needs of people affected by conflict, e.g. old and new IDP as well as vulnerable people in Abkhazia. The support to socio-economic integration of IDP (incl. returnees in Gali district) could be strengthened further should the new round of EIDHR include such a priority as well. Also, next to the already existing confidence-building projects under the IfS, EIDHR could also bring more value.

As regards the ENPI, the already agreed EC programme to continue rehabilitation in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone, support IDPs and implement additional confidence building measures, the announced priority of supporting the needs of the

3 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Thematic

Programme for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide under the future Financial Perspectives (2007-2013).

43

new IDPs, in terms of further housing support, could be further strengthened with EIDHR-funded projects with focus on their social, economic and labour rights. Excellent complementarity has also been identified by the team with other budget support or technical assistance projects especially in the area of judicial reform.

44

9 RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter formulates recommendations based on the findings of the report. The recommendations are all addressed to the EUD, even though some of them may require consultations with Brussels. As it was not the aim of the evaluation to assess individual projects in detail, there are no recommendations addressed to individual implementers.

9.1 Recommendations to the EU

9.1.1 Relevance to conflict context

The EUD should ensure that EIDHR applicants that propose to engage in peace-building or similar activities, should enhance the conflict analysis which underpins the design of their project, so that activities and indicators of success are clear. To that end, they should confront their analysis with that of other organisations with relevant expertise and/or credible research institutions.

9.1.2 Complementarity with other EU programmes

While the EIDHR programme already operates in a manner that is complementary to other EU funding programmes, complementarity could be enhanced by ensuring that NGOs applying for EIDHR grants are aware of the modalities of support under the Non-State Actors and Local Authorities programme, and can either apply for funding under that programme or develop linkages with organisations funded under that programme. Similarly, linkages should be encouraged between organisations working on IDP issues with EIDHR and IfS funding.

9.1.3 Project design

The EUD should:

• Explicitly remind applicants for EIDHR funding of the eligibility for EIDHR support of the promotion and protection of labour rights and other economic, social and cultural rights;

• Closely review the design of projects before signing the grant contacts, to ensure a realistic, appropriately narrow statement of objectives. It is important also to ensure that results, including intermediate results or milestones, are achievable and consistent with the project objectives;

• Ensure that the advocacy (or campaigning or lobbying) element of projects is explicitly stated, and that it is appropriately designed to enhance the visibility and clarity of expected results;

• Review project budgets prior to signing grant agreements, to make sure that costs are neither inflated nor underestimated.

9.1.4 Human rights advocacy/awareness raising

The EUD should amend the guidelines to applicants to remind them of the importance of the advocacy element, and/or awareness raising of human rights to the fulfilment of EIDHR criteria. All projects should enhance the element of advocacy for human rights,

45

particularly in relation to authorities (local at all levels, and national) and in relation to stakeholders able to exercise an influence on the situation they are dealing with (such as opinion leaders, etc).

9.1.5 Training for NGO representatives

The EUD should continue its practice of training NGO representatives on financial reporting issues. However it should also consider expanding the training to other issues, in particular:

• Project design, to ensure that NGOs develop project proposals with more realistic objectives, results and milestones, and acquire better project management skills.

• Logical framework, to ensure that NGOs understand better the rationale of using log frames, and the way a log frame can be used in monitoring progress and identifying implementation challenges.

• Advocacy and lobbying (and more generally campaigning techniques) to ensure that the advocacy component of projects is more explicitly set out and that organisations acquire the necessary understanding of what is required for effective government lobbying.

9.1.6 Inclusiveness and gender equality

The EUD should amend the guidelines to applicants to ask them to specify how they will ensure that people from a range of backgrounds are involved in the project as beneficiaries, participants, staff and managers. In addition, the guidelines should require applicants to demonstrate how they ensure equal gender representation at all levels of their organisation.

9.1.7 Opportunities for collaboration across EIDHR-supported projects

The EUD should consider ways of encouraging collaborative activities between NGOs implementing projects with EIDHR funding, including the possibility of establishing a small fund to support such activities. In particular, collaboration should be encouraged in relation to advocacy and lobbying, between organisations with similar or complementary objectives, and bring together organisations with a credible track record on specific concerns and organisations with expertise in the legislative and policy-making processes.

9.1.8 Use of operational grants; sub-granting

The EUD should review the possibility of allocating operational grants in certain cases, where they can play a significant role in reinforcing the sustainability of beneficiary organisations. The EUD should also review the possibility of allowing grant beneficiaries to provide and administer sub-grants of less than €10,000. This could help small organisations without increasing the transaction costs at EUD level (provided the recipient of the main grant took responsibility for the sub-grant’s oversight).

46

9.1.9 Recommendations on priorities

In the context of the forthcoming EIDHR Call for proposals, the evaluation team recommends that the EUD should take account of the following recommendations for thematic priorities:

Integration. EIDHR projects targeting integration have demonstrated some effectiveness in relation to vocational training and mediation between minority groups and mainstream authorities. Projects supporting cultural activities could effectively prolong these approaches, especially as instruments to support integration processes.

Children’s rights and juvenile justice. There appears to be an unmet need to address the prevention of social problems in a school setting (corresponding to the number of children’s rights), as are:

- Primary prevention of mental health problems;

- Primary Prevention of drugs misuse;

- Prevention of bullying in public schools and school violence.

Human rights promotion, advocacy and education. EIDHR should continue its emphasis on human rights as it is one of the few, and to our knowledge the most effective, instrument that allows NGOs to independently work in the sphere of human rights. Within this, the EUD should consider highlighting to applicants the broad range of human rights, including economic, social and cultural ones - labour rights in particular.

EIDHR-funded NGOs have identified the following needs in relation to human rights support:

- IDP rights

- Access to Justice in environmental matters

- Freedom of expression

- Combating torture and ill-treatment

- Combating domestic violence

- Work on psycho-social rehabilitation of people traumatized as a result of natural or man-made disasters - like war, displacement, earthquake, violence, etc.

9.2 Recommendations to NGOs

9.2.1 Beneficiaries buy-in and feedback

Organisations should systematically seek feedback from beneficiaries on the design and implementation of the projects (especially those involving training in language or skills), and regularly inform them of developments, achievements and challenges. This would enhance accountability and effectiveness.

47

9.2.2 Engagement with government and other state institutions

As part of the stakeholders analysis and project strategy, applicants should be required to specify how they will engage with government authorities at all appropriate levels, and with state institutions relevant to their field of activities.

9.2.3 Coalition-building

NGOs should, as a matter of course, systematically consider building coalitions to apply for EIDHR funding, ensuring that coalition members have complementary skills and experience. This approach could enhance in particular the advocacy aspect of projects.

48

ANNEX 1: METHODOLOGY NOTE

1. Introduction

This note outlines the proposed methodology for the evaluation of the EIDHR programme in Georgia, based on the Terms of Reference (ToR) drawn up by the EC and on the experts’ own experience of working with civil society organisations in Georgia and elsewhere. It also takes into account the rules and policies of the EC related to EIDHR, in particular in relation to project cycle management and to EIDHR monitoring and evaluation requirements.

This note contains the following sections:

- Brief overview of the evaluation ToR

- Outline of the proposed evaluation approach and methodology

- Presentation of the proposed work plan

This note is submitted to ensure that the EC Delegation in Georgia agrees the proposed approach and work plan. The team will initiate contacts with the organisations concerned once the Delegation agrees the approach.

2. Aims and objectives of the evaluation

2.1 Comments on the Global and Specific Objectives defined by the ToR

According to the ToR the overall objective of the evaluation is:

“to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the impact and sustainability of outcomes of the EIDHR programme in Georgia in the period 2005 – 2008, in order to provide the Delegation with recommendations concerning strategic programming and operational choices for EIDHR in future.”

More specifically the sub-objectives are defined as follows:

• “To assess the programme as whole focusing on outcomes and their sustainability, and on overall programme impact;

• To provide an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current programming and operating modalities of the Programme and their capacity to achieve stated objectives;

• To make strategic recommendations aimed at improving impact (e.g. choice of priorities, choice of sectors, operating modalities, etc.), including identification of opportunities for increased complementarity with other EC-funded instruments and programmes.”

The following comments may be made, which affect the way the evaluation will be conducted:

49

• The evaluation is not merely a collection of individual project evaluations, but one that focuses at the programming and strategic level. However the evaluation should do so by drawing from the experience and conduct of the projects. This highlights the need to carefully sample the projects that will be studied in some depth, with a view to capturing good practices and innovations that may contribute to the Delegation’s future strategic thinking. It will be important also to make sure that any relevant lessons learned by projects outside the sample that will be studied in depth should also be captured.

• The main user of the evaluation, whose needs should be focused on, will be the EC Delegation in Georgia. By contrast, the funded organisations themselves are due to receive feedback through the evaluation process, but enhancing their organisational capacity is not directly envisioned as an outcome of the evaluation.

• The ToR require that the evaluation focus on three main criteria: relevance, impact and sustainability. This is appropriate because of the programme-level nature of the evaluation: the aim is not to seek improvements to the design and management of specific activities (which would be addressed through a focus on effectiveness and efficiency) but to help feed strategic-level thinking.

2.2. Constraints and Opportunities

The key constraints faced by the evaluation are likely to be related to time and geography, and to the process of sampling of the projects to be evaluated. With 15 projects to be considered in more depth, there will be little time to devote to each. There will also be inevitable limitations to the number of different locations that can be visited. Like any sampling process, the selection of some projects for special focus runs the risk that useful lessons from other projects might be lost. These issues are taken into account in the proposed methodology below.

The key opportunity is for the evaluation process to help bring lessons from past projects to bear on future programming. It will be important in that respect for the evaluation team to adopt an open, constructive and participative approach:

• The team should be open to the views of those that have carried out the project and of the other relevant stakeholders (beneficiaries in particular).

• The team should take a constructive approach: while all evaluations involve discussions of negative as well as positive points, the team should convey a sense that it is appreciative of good practices and that it avoids passing unnecessary value judgements.

• The team should take a participatory approach: it should ensure that it hears an appropriate variety of views in the course of the evaluation, and that these views are adequately reflected in reports and in the planned debriefing seminar.

3. Proposed Methodology

The evaluation will have two essential components:

• A review of the selected sample of projects;

• A synthesis of the findings in view of the strategic and programming requirements of the EC.

50

3.1. Evaluation of 15 projects

For the first element, the EC has proposed a list of 15 projects for evaluation (see section 3.3 below). The selection seems sensible and, except if specific problems occur (such as the unavailability of key people in particular projects, etc), it is proposed to take that sample as a basis of work.

However it would also make sense to also get some evaluative information about the other projects. Whereas the team originally suggested sending a questionnaire to all of the other project managers, this approach may not be very effective: project people may not feel comfortable answering a questionnaire if they are not otherwise involved in the evaluation process. Instead, it is proposed to conduct brief, structured telephone interviews with as many project managers as possible during the course of the field visit. The phone interviews will not aim to constitute evaluations: instead, they will focus on any major achievements and concerns that the projects may have given rise to, and will provide an opportunity to project managers to highlight key lessons from their project.

For each of the 15 projects that will be looked into in more detail, there should be available a reasonably complete information base, made up of:

- The project proposals;

- Annual reports, publications, any previous evaluation reports, financial reports, etc;

- Any other project-related documents, such as press articles, etc.

In addition, the team will visit the projects themselves. This will involve mostly visits to the offices of the organisations concerned. However, depending on circumstances, it might be possible for members of the team to attend events and/or meet with beneficiaries of projects. The team will also seek to meet independent observers who might have general knowledge of the sector concerned by the projects – such as academics, journalists, etc, who may have an outside perspective. If appropriate, and conditional on agreement by the Delegation, the team might also seek to meet representatives of other development aid organisations, which might fund projects in similar sectors.

The above categories will inevitably overlap somewhat, and practical constraints may mean that a full range of stakeholders may not be met for each project under consideration. However, the evaluation should ensure that, overall, an adequate and representative range of stakeholders are met, whose views can be triangulated (confronted with each other) so an objective assessment can be made.

For each of the 15 projects, the team will prepare a project review template, derived from the project monitoring forms used by the EC, with some additions:

- Project basic data: this section would outline the key features of the project, based on the original proposal and reports produced to date.

- Project objective: this section would set out the project objective based on the logical framework, and assess the design of the project.

51

- Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs): this section would set out the OVIs originally envisioned for the project, and assess their relevance.

- Progress towards fulfilling objective to date (according to OVIs). This section would assess the degree to which the OVIs have been fulfilled, and would provide an initial overview of the project management.

- Key results to date: this section would list the changes to which the project may have contributed and discuss attribution issues.

- Use of funds to date: this would provide an overview of spending and a sense of whether the project is on track, in financial and reporting terms.

- Recommendations: this section would offer suggestion for the remaining duration of the project.

- Project rating: this section would seek to rate the project (on a scale of 1 to 4), in terms of relevance, impact and sustainability. The rating would be purely indicative and would not be communicated to the implementers, but it would serve as an analysis tool for the team.

The template will have to be adapted to the specific circumstances of the projects: some will still be running, others will be completed already, and may have been evaluated. As a result, not all templates will be fully identical. However the team will attempt to make sure that they are sufficiently similar to allow for programme-level synthesis, as necessary for the second part of the evaluation.

3.2. Strategic and programmatic synthesis

While it will be important to conduct the evaluation of each project according to its own objectives and timeline – bearing in mind that some will be nearing their conclusion, while others will be much closer to their mid-tem – it will also be important to try and draw common patterns across different projects. This should allow in particular:

- To identify common challenges faced by the projects.

- To identify common lessons and best practices for the future.

- Where possible, to enhance cooperation among EIDHR-supported projects (and, in principle, other projects sharing similar aims and funded by other sources).

This information and common patterns will be compared to the key aims and objectives of the EIDHR in general and with those of the EC’s country strategy in Georgia. If appropriate, the analysis will also draw on experience in similar experiences by the EC in other countries, using existing evaluation reports.

52

3.3. Organisations to be evaluated

The table below lists the 15 projects that will be evaluated in more detail:

Budget 2005

CRIS No Title Organization Budget in

Euro

Contact person

122592 Support of re-

socializing &

reintegration of

prisoners & persons

under probation into

society

GCRT 39 962 Lela Tsiskarishvili

122773 Sustainable

Development Program

for Adjara Ecomigrants

Independent

Journalists

House

50 000 Aslan Chanidze, Mzia

Amaglobeli

893 307155

127537 Society and Self

Government in Kiziki

Caucasian

House

30 621 Anna Margvvelashvili

caucasianh@hotmail.co

m

128043 Investigative

Journalism in Help of

Democracy

Studio

Monitor

49 931 Nino Zuriashvili

niniz68@yahoo.com

102611 The Folk High Schools

in Samtskhe-

Javakheti- A Chance

for Integration for

Minorities

IIZ/DVV 400 000 Levan Kvachadze

53

Budget 2006

137565 Accomplishment and

extension of Juvenile

Advocacy and development

System in Adjara

Institute of

Democracy

99 802 Geno Geladze

137564 Protection of human rights of

HIV/AIDS infected and those

of highest risk of infection

Union

Alternative

79 453 David Otiashvili

138038 Monitoring the use of

administrative resources in

2008 presidential and

parliamentary elections

Transparency

International

Georgia

65 735 Tamuna Karosanidze

138116 Youth Vote project Debate

Education

Association

89 559 Nino Beriashvili

117657 Fostering Civil Integration

through Education and

Freedom of Expression

Foundation

ALPE

302 356 Zurab Guntsadze

EIDHR projects Budget 2007

162571 Supporting Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities

Step Forward 68 884 Manana Inaishvili

162562 Information and Consultation Centre for Meskhetian Repatriates

Tolerant 78 096 Tsira Meskhishvili

162696 Fighting Stigma and Discrimination of Mental Ill Health

GIP Tbilisi 72 418 Nino Makhashvili

162580 We are born to be equal and different

Association of Disabled Women and Mothers of Disabled Children DEA

78 080 Madonna Kharebava

148184 Strengthening the System of Rehabilitation for Torture Victims in Georgia

Empathy 680 000 Mariam Jishkariani

54

ANNEX 2: EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE

SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE

FWC Commission 2007 – Lot n° 4

REQUEST FOR OFFER N°

1. BACKGROUND

The European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) was created upon the initiative of the European Parliament in 1994 to support the activities of non-governmental organisations promoting human rights and democracy. Since its launch in Georgia in 1999/2000, EIDHR has supported about 120 projects.

There are three types of EIDHR projects in Georgia: “micro” projects, “macro” projects and "targeted" projects.

EIDHR micro projects are implemented by Georgian non-governmental, non-profit-making organisations and higher education institutions. The European Commission allocates between € 10,000 and € 100,000 to each project. However, the organisation must co-finance itself at least 10% of the project costs (from its own funds, or from another donor's grant). Micro projects can last from 6 to 36 months.

EIDHR macro projects can be implemented by Georgia non-governmental organisations or by European non-governmental organisations. These projects are of a larger size: the budget can be up to one million euro (minimum € 150,000), and the project can last up 36 months (minimum 12 months).

Targeted projects are of a magnitude similar to that of the macro projects. These are contracted where the Commission has identified urgent priorities which may not necessarily easily fall within the framework of published Calls for Proposals. These contracts are often concluded with international organisations. Targeted projects are contracted in Brussels, but managed locally by the Delegation.

The EC Delegation to Georgia regularly launches Country-based Support Schemes (CBSS) for microgrants. These are announced on the Delegation's website.

More detailed information on EIDHR Calls for proposals is available on:

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/cgi/frame12.pl.

http://www.delgeo.ec.europa.eu

Projects proposed for funding must match the priority topics and areas indicated when a new call is launched. In the past two years, there have been three main priorities:

55

- Fostering a culture of human rights

- Promoting the democratic process

- Advancing equality, tolerance and peace

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT

� Global objective

To carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the impact and sustainability of outcomes of the EIDHR programme in Georgia in the period 2005 – 2008, in order to provide the Delegation with recommendations concerning strategic programming and operational choices for EIDHR in future.

� Specific objectives

- To assess the programme as whole focusing on outcomes and their sustainability, and on overall programme impact;

- To provide an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current programming and operating modalities of the Programme and their capacity to achieve stated objectives;

- To make strategic recommendations aimed at improving impact (e.g. choice of priorities, choice of sectors, operating modalities, etc.), including identification of opportunities for increased complementarity with other EC-funded instruments and programmes.

� Requested services, including their implementation modalities when relevant

The main tasks to be carried out by the contractor are as follows:

a. An analysis of the trends in the sectors covered by the EIDHR objectives during the reference period.

b. Random assessment of the EIDHR (3 micro projects and one macro project per budget year) funded in Georgia which should take into account the following issues:

i. Impact of the actions (on target groups, final beneficiaries etc.);

ii. Sustainability of the actions (at financial, institutional and policy levels);

iii. Complementarity with other instruments.

iv. Based on the above elements, to provide an assessment of the programming and implementing modalities in terms of their ability to reach stated objectives.

56

c. Provide recommendations for the future focus of EIDHR addressing

strategic choice of priorities;

improvement of operating modalities;

identification of opportunities for complementarity with geographical programmes.

d. Conduct a briefing/workshop with CSO representatives to present findings. The selection criteria for participants will be jointly agreed with the Delegation at the start of the assignment.

The work to be carried out by the consultant will be based on three main criteria:

� Relevance, including the extent to which various problems and needs addressed by the EIDHR programme are relevant in the Georgian human rights and democracy sphere;

� Impact, the extent to which the aims and objectives of the EIDHR programme have contributed to positive change on a macro and a micro level;

� Sustainability, the extent to which outcomes of the EIDHR programme have been sustained and are likely to be sustained in the future.

� Required outputs

The experts shall produce a final report which will include

a) An executive summary of the main findings;

b) a description of the methodology employed;

c) a project-by-project evaluation (not more than 2 pages each);

d) a final section containing the following:

· the main conclusions of the evaluation; and

· a set of strategic and operational recommendations for increasing the

impact and sustainability of the programme.

The experts shall conduct a briefing for civil society representatives on the project's findings.

The evaluation shall present objective, credible, reliable and valid findings, based on facts found during the assignment, on all the issues raised above. The findings will lead to a set of conclusions, and related lessons, which will lead to a set of

57

recommendations, which should be expressed clearly enough to be translated into operational terms by the European Commission.

3. EXPERTS PROFILE

The Contractor shall provide 3 experts for the evaluation.

The expert team should consist of the following experts as a minimum:

� Expert 1 (Category I) : Evaluation Expert (25 mandays)

� Expert 2 (Category II): Expert on civil society support programmes in areas relevant to the Programme (20 mandays)

� Expert 3 (Category III): Expert on human rights and/or democratisation issues in Georgia (15 mandays)

Expert 1 will be responsible for developing the evaluation methodology and will have overall responsibility for the report content and for coordinating inputs to the report from the other experts. He/she will be primarily responsible for tasks b), c) and d) listed above.

Expert 2 will focus on issues of impact and sustainability of the programme and will be primarily responsible for task a) and work on tasks b) and c).

Expert 3 will focus on assessing overall trends during the reference period and will be responsible for task a) above.

Responsibility for task e) will be shared between the experts as appropriate and in consultation with the Delegation.

Expert 1

• An advanced University Degree in a field relevant to the assignment;

• Experience of a minimum of 5 evaluations with evaluations of EU-funded programmes, and specifically human rights or civil society focused programmes, being considered an advantage. The expert should have led the process in at least three evaluations;

• Knowledge of European Commission funding rules and procedures for external cooperation programmes;

• Previous experience in ENP East countries considered an advantage.

58

Expert 2

• University Degree or equivalent work experience in a field relevant to the assignment;

• Knowledge of EU-funded human rights programmes and EC aims in the field of human rights and democracy;

• Experience of having carried out evaluations of civil society support programmes in the last 5 years or of having implemented such programmes;

• Involvement in a civil society-focused project in the ENP East region in the last five years or equivalent evidence of knowledge of operating conditions for civil society in the ENP East region, and in Georgia in particular, considered an advantage (e.g. publications, etc.).

Expert 3

• University Degree in political sciences or similar

• At least 3 years of work experience in a human rights organisation or equivalent evidence of knowledge of the general human rights situation in Georgia, including the political and legislative context;

• Good analytical and drafting skills;

• Fluency in the Georgian language

59

4. LOCATION AND DURATION

� Starting period

The project is expected to commence in mid January 2010.

� Foreseen finishing period or duration

The project will be completed by mid March 2010.

� Planning

At the inception of the project, the Delegation project manager will provide the expert team with existing background reports and documents relevant to the evaluation.

Prior to their arrival in Georgia, the team will provide a short report to the project manager by email. This report should be brief, but should contain comments on the requested services, if any, the proposed methodological approach and the draft workplan/timetable.

At the start of the mission to Georgia there will be an opening meeting with the Project Manager in the Tbilisi Delegation to discuss the work-plan, expectations and logistical requirements of the project, and to ensure co-ordination during the project. This meeting will also assess the available information sources.

Implementation phase

The experts will be expected to spend approximately 70% of their mandays in Georgia. At the start of the mission to Georgia, the experts will meet with the project manager to discuss project rationale and expectations. During the implementation phase, the project team will execute the tasks as outlined above. Work will concentrate on developing the outputs as defined above. The experts will be expected to regularly update the project manager on progress. At the end of the mission, the project team will make a brief presentation of their draft conclusions and recommendations. The remaining project phase will be spent on drafting the report at the experts' home base.

There are no overlapping projects to this assignment. The Project Manager will ensure that ongoing projects of relevance to this study will fully cooperate with this project.

� Location(s) of assignment

Tbilisi and regions of Georgia

5. REPORTING

� Content

The expert team will provide a final report as described under the required outputs above. Prior to the briefing for civil society representatives, the team will provide their draft conclusions to the Delegation in written form.

60

� Language

The language of the report is English.

� Timing for submission and comments and, when relevant, for approval

The Consultant shall provide a draft final report by email within ten working days of their departure from Georgia.

The Delegation shall provide its comments within ten working days from receipt of the report.

The revised final report shall be presented to the Delegation within five working days of receipt of comments from the Delegation.

The reports should be written in a professional style (clear lay out, good narration, pleasant/easy to read).

� Number of report(s) copies

Two paper copies and two CD Roms.

6. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

� Items to foresee under ‘Reimbursable’

The allocation for reimbursable should foresee the per diem allocation, international travel, intra-city travel and services such as workshop/briefing organisation, interpretation, translation and photo-copying. Experts will be expected to be equipped with their own laptops. No equipment will be purchased as part of this assignment.

61

ANNEX 3: LIST OF PEOPLE MET

No Surname, First Name Position Institution

1 Pender, Helga Project Manager EU Delegation

2 Elizbarashvili, Ketevan Project Manager EU Delegation

3 Santeladze, Lali Director DVV International

4 Katsitadze, Liana Coordinator DVV International

5 Jikia, Dato Project Coordinator DVV International

6 Tsiskarishvili, Lela Executive Director GCRT

7 Rekhviashvili, Temur Prison Monitor GCRT

8 Jishkariani, Mariam Director RCT Empathy

9 Berulava, George Deputy Director RCT Empathy

10 Margvelashvili, Anna Reg. Program Coordinator Caucasian House

11 Galdava, Thea Program Manager Caucasian House

12 Vasques, Giuseppe Attache, Communications EU Delegation

13 Meskhishvili, Tsira Association Chair Assoc. Tolerant

14 Gulua, Thea Executive Director Adult Edu Assoc of Georgia

15 Aghdgomelashvili, Nino Project Coordinator GIP-Tbilisi

16 Javakhishvili, Jana Project Manager GIP-Tbilisi

17 Guntsadze, Zurab Director ALPE

18 Basilaia, Merab Media Programs Director ALPE

19 Berishvili, Nino Director Debate Edu Association

20 Lortkipanidze, Tata Technical Coordinator Debate Edu Association

21 Bobokhidze, Tamar Kvemo Kartli Coordinator Debate Edu Association

22 Vardiashvili, Nino Kvemo Kartli Coordinator Debate Edu Association

23 Zuriashvili, Nino Journalist Studio Monitor

24 Merabilishvili, Ivane Deputy Director Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

25 Chilashvili, Liana Office Manager Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

26 Murjikneli, Marina Trainer Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

27 Tateishvili, Nugzar Trainer Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

28 Tumanishvili, Khatuna Trainer Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

62

29 Tumanishvili, Nino Trainer Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

30 Bekauri, Guliko Trainer Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

31 Andguladze, Gia Director Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

32 Samsonadze, Tamar Student Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

33 Maisuradze, Khatuna Student Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

34 Kldiashvili, Natia Student Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

35 Kurashvili, Shorena Student Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

36 Beridze, Khatuna Student Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

37 Baghdoshvili, Maia Student Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

38 Taturashvili, Lela Student Akhaltsikhe Adult Edu Ctr

39 Khutsishvili, Ketevan Director Akhalkalaki Adult Edu Ctr

40 Tetvadze, Shorena Direction Coordinator Akhalkalaki Adult Edu Ctr

41 Murjikneli, Surman Trainer Akhalkalaki Adult Edu Ctr

42 Karapetian, Nana Trainer Akhalkalaki Adult Edu Ctr

43 Melikidze, Natela Trainer Akhalkalaki Adult Edu Ctr

44 Zumbadze, Nino Trainer Akhalkalaki Adult Edu Ctr

45 Gabrielian, Chinar Student Akhalkalaki Adult Edu Ctr

46 Gabrielian, Arevik Student Akhalkalaki Adult Edu Ctr

47 Gabrielian, Tanevik Student Akhalkalaki Adult Edu Ctr

48 Asaturian, Anaida Student Akhalkalaki Adult Edu Ctr

49 Paronian, Anait Student Akhalkalaki Adult Edu Ctr

50 Shekhposian, Elena Student Akhalkalaki Adult Edu Ctr

51 Gelashvili, Sophiko Civil Society Program Coordinator Emb. of the Netherlands

52 Vashakidze, Ketevan Georgia Country Director Eurasia Partnership Foundation

53 Otiashvili, David Executive Director Union Alternative

54 Natia Topuria Project Coordinator Union Alternative

55 Khvichia, Khatuna Project Management Specialist USAID

56 Tabatadze, Rusudan ROL Specialist USAID

57 Bakradze, Keti Project Management Specialist USAID

63

58 Inaishvili, Manana Director Step Forward

59 Diasamidze, Nino Project Coordinator Step Forward

60 Gedenidze, Nargizi Chair of the Board NGO Parent

61 Chanidze, Aslan Project Director Independent Journalists' House

62 Jalaghonia, Parmen Independent Journalists' House

63 Geladze, Genadi Director Institute of Democracy

64 Tsurtsumia, Zora Director Union Imedi (Batumi)

65 Beridze, Lamara Parent Step Forward Beneficiary

66 Beridze, Mariam Hearing Impaired Child Step Forward Beneficiary

67 Kharebava, Madonna Director DEA, Zugdidi

68 Gulordava, Nana Board Chair DEA, Zugdidi

69 Cherkezia, Shorena Office Manager DEA, Zugdidi

70 Esebua, Lali Project Coordinator DEA, Zugdidi

71 Gogokhia, Bakur Head legal consultation center DEA, Zugdidi

72 Kobalia, Nona PR Coordinator DEA, Zugdidi

73 Tsitashvili, Iveta Editor, Natlis Sveti DEA, Zugdidi

74 Kobaladze, Vakhtang Program Manager Open Society Georgia Foundation

75Akhalkatsi, Ani Program Coordinator Open Society Georgia Foundation