Desk Phase of the Evaluation of European Community Support ... · FRAMEWORK CONTRACT: EVALUATION OF...

FFRRAAMMEEWWOORRKK CCOONNTTRRAACCTT:: EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN OOFF TTHHEE EEUURROOPPEEAANN CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN

AAIIDD IINN PPRROODDUUCCTTIIVVEE SSEECCTTOORRSS AANNDD BBUUDDGGEETTAARRYY AARREEAASS AADDEE IINN AASSSSOOCCIIAATTIIOONN WWIITTHH IIBBMM AANNDD EEPPUU--NNTTUUAA

ADE s.a. Rue de Clairvaux, 40

B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium

Tel.: +32 10 45 45 10 Fax: +32 10 45 40 99 E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.ade.be

Desk Phase of the Evaluation of European Community Support to Private Sector Development in Third Countries

FFiinnaall RReeppoorrtt

27 May 2004

TThhiiss rreeppoorrtt hhaass bbeeeenn pprreeppaarreedd wwiitthh tthhee ffiinnaanncciiaall aassssiissttaannccee ooff tthhee EEuurrooppeeaann CCoommmmiissssiioonn..

TThhee vviieewwss eexxpprreesssseedd aarree tthhoossee ooff tthhee CCoonnssuullttaanntt aanndd ddoo nnoott rreepprreesseenntt tthhee ooffffiicciiaall vviieewwss ooff tthhee CCoommmmiissssiioonn..

DESK PHASE OF THE EVALUATION OF EC SUPPORT TO PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT IN THIRD COUNTRIES ADE - IBM - EPU

Final Report – 27 May 2004 Table of Contents

Table of Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 MANDATE AND PURPOSE............................................................................................................1 1.2 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................1 1.3 RESULTS AND USERS ....................................................................................................................2 1.4 CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................2

2. METHOD AND APPROACH...........................................................................................5 2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................5 2.2 THE INTERVENTION LOGIC .......................................................................................................5 2.3 THE DEFINITION AND SCOPE.....................................................................................................6 2.4 EVALUATION QUESTIONS ...........................................................................................................6 2.5 SOURCES OF INFORMATION........................................................................................................7

2.5.1 Literature review..................................................................................................................7 2.5.2 The Common RELEX Information System (CRIS) .....................................................8 2.5.3 Countries and projects analysis .........................................................................................8 2.5.4 Contacts and meetings........................................................................................................9 2.5.5 Survey....................................................................................................................................9

3. FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................11 3.1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................11 3.2 EU COOPERATION POLICY .......................................................................................................11 3.3 EC STRATEGY TO SUPPORT PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT............................................14

3.3.1 Four decades of history ....................................................................................................14 3.3.2 A single intervention logic based on the most recent policy declarations ................15

3.4 EC INTERVENTIONS TO SUPPORT PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT.................................20 3.4.1 Institutional Support .........................................................................................................20 3.4.2 Financial services ...............................................................................................................23 3.4.3 Intermediary Organisations..............................................................................................27 3.4.4 Partnership .........................................................................................................................29 3.4.5 Business development services........................................................................................32

4. ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 37 4.1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................37 4.2 RELEVANCE ................................................................................................................................37

4.2.1 More competitive enterprises in third countries would contribute to the goals of EU external policy ..............................................................................................37

4.2.2 Does the EC has a relevant approach to enhance the competitiveness of third countries enterprises? ..............................................................................................39

4.3 EFFECTIVENESS..........................................................................................................................41 4.3.1 Institutional Support .........................................................................................................41 4.3.2 Financial services ...............................................................................................................42


Final Report – 27 May 2004 Table of Contents

4.3.3 Intermediate Organisations..............................................................................................43 4.3.4 Partnership .........................................................................................................................43 4.3.5 Business Development Services ......................................................................................44 4.3.6 Effectiveness: overall analysis..........................................................................................44

4.4 SUSTAINABILITY .........................................................................................................................45 4.5 COHERENCE AND COORDINATION ........................................................................................47

4.5.1 Coherence with other EU policies or programmes......................................................47 4.5.2 Donor coordination ..........................................................................................................49

4.6 CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES .............................................................................................................50 4.6.1 Gender ................................................................................................................................50 4.6.2 Environment ......................................................................................................................51 4.6.3 Social issues ........................................................................................................................52 4.6.4 Good governance ..............................................................................................................53

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 55 5.1 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................55 5.2 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................58

6. NEXT STEPS.............................................................................................................. 63 6.1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................63 6.2 APPROACH ..................................................................................................................................63

6.2.1 Country selection rationale ..............................................................................................63 6.2.2 Data collection ...................................................................................................................65 6.3.3 Hypothesis to test..............................................................................................................65

6.3 ORGANISATION..........................................................................................................................67 6.3.1 Inception stage...................................................................................................................67 6.3.2 Facts finding stage .............................................................................................................68 6.3.3 Analytical and reporting stage..........................................................................................69

ANNEXES ANNEX 1 – TERMS OF REFERENCE ANNEX 2 – INTERVENTION LOGIC

ANNEX 3 – EVALUATION QUESTIONS

ANNEX 4 – DESCRIPTION OF PSD PROJECTS ANNEX 5 – DESCRIPTION OF SOME PSD PROGRAMMES AND INSTRUMENTS ANNEX 6 – TYPOLOGY OF ACTIVITIES ANNEX 7 – LIST OF COUNTRIES AND PROJECTS ANALYSED ANNEX 8 – QUESTIONNAIRE ANNEX 9 – PSD QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS ANNEX 10 – LEGAL BASES FOR COOPERATION ANNEX 11 – PERSONS CONTACTED AND/OR MET ANNEX 12 – BIBLIOGRAPHY


Final Report – 27 May 2004 List of acronyms

List of acronyms

ACP Africa, Caribbean, Pacific ALA Asia & Latin America (countries/region) ASIA-ITC Asia Information Technology Communications BDS Business Development Services CAP Common Agricultural Policy CARDS Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and

Stabilisation CBIK Centre for Business Information (Kenya) CDE Centre for the Development of Enterprise CIS Commonwealth of Independent States CRIS Common RELEX Information System CSE Country Strategy Evaluation CSP Country Strategy Paper DAC Development Assistance Committee (OECD) DAG Decision on Global Authorisation EBAS EU-ACP Business Assistance Scheme EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction & Development EC European Commission ECIP European Community Investment Partners Facility EDF European Development Fund EDP Export Development Programme (Zambia) EFF Export Financing Facility (Zambia) EIB European Investment Bank EJADA Euro-Jordanian Action for the Development of Enterprise (Jordan) ETE Euro-Tunisia Enterprise (Tunisia) EU European Union Euro-TAP Viet The Technical Assistance Programme for Transition to Market

Economy (Vietnam) FA Financing Agreement FCFA Franc CFA FDI Foreign Direct Investment FEMIP Facilité Euro-Mediterranéenne d’Investissement et de Partenariat GRATIS Ghana Regional Appropriate Technology Industrial Service HIPC Highly Indebted Poor Country HQ Headquarters IFC International Finance Corporation IFI International Financial Institutions IMF International Monetary Fund IMP Industrial Modernisation Programme (Egypt and Tunisia) LA Latin America LDCs Less Developed Countries LLDCs Least Developed Countries MED - MEDA Mediterranean


Final Report – 27 May 2004 List of acronyms

MS Member States NAFES National Fund for Enterprise Support NIP National Indicative Programme NIS New Independent States (of the former Soviet Union) OCTs/PTOs Overseas Countries & Territories / Pays & Territoires d’Outre-mer ODA Overseas Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OSCE Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe PACA Proposition d'Affectation de Crédit Accélérée PASP Proyecto de Apoyo al Sector Privado

Project of Support to the Private Sector PMS Proposition de Mobilisation de Service PSD Private Sector Development PSDP Private Sector Development Programme (Egypt and Jordan) RELEX External Relations SADC Southern African Development Community SADCC Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference SEDO Small Enterprise Development Organisation (Egypt) SFD Social Fund for Development (Egypt) SME Small and Medium Enterprise SMEDF Small and Medium Enterprise Development Fund (Vietnam) SUFFICE Support for Feasible Financial Institutions and Capacity-building

Efforts (Uganda) TACIS Technical Assistance to CIS countries TDP Trade Development Programme (Kenya) TERF TACIS Enterprise Restructuring Facility TRTA Trade Related Technical Assistance UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organisation USAID US Agency for International Development UTICA Union Tunisienne de l’Industrie du Commerce et de l’Artisanat WB World Bank WTO World Trade Organisation


Final Report – 27 May 2004 i

Executive Summary

Introduction

This report presents the results of a desk evaluation of the European Commission (EC) strategy and actions to support private sector development (PSD) in third countries1 over the period 1994-2003. It aims to contribute to improve coherence of the Commission’s sectoral approach and at enhancing coherence between objectives in PSD support and the Commission’s other policy objectives. The evaluation is based on an assessment of the Commission’s co-operation activities to support PSD relative to the various objectives of the different national and regional co-operation and development programmes.

Findings

Section 3 of the report presents the main factual elements collected from different sources: policy documents; CRIS database; country and project documents from a sample of PSD projects; interviews with EC staff involved in policy elaboration and in implementation; and a questionnaire send to 25 EU Delegations. The section describes: (a) the main characteristics of the European Union’s cooperation policy with third countries or regions; (b) the Commission’s strategy to support the PSD in third countries and its relation to the overall cooperation policy of the EU; and (c) the main characteristics of the different types of interventions to support the PSD in third countries and their relation to the EC’s strategy to support PSD.

European Union’s external policy

The EU’s external policy2 has several objectives to which the support to private sector development can make a significant contribution. Namely: A sustainable economic, social and environmental development in third countries; The gradual integration of third countries into the world economy; The reduction of poverty in third countries; Building peace and ensuring political stability and security in third countries; The enhancement of the political, economic and cultural presence of the EU.

These objectives are, to some degree, present in all cooperation agreements with third countries or regions. However, the weight given to each of these overall objectives depends on several factors such as the level of socio-economic development, the historical relations

1 Most third countries considered are covered by five cooperation programmes: ACP, ALA, MEDA, TACIS and

CARDS. 2 Composed mainly by its Trade; Development; and Foreign and Security policies.


Final Report – 27 May 2004 ii

with EU’s Member States, geopolitical considerations, etc. This in turn determines the priority areas of action of the EC within the different cooperation agreements.

European Commission’s strategy to support PSD

The EC proposes a single coherent framework where support for the business sector is harmonised in all third countries. However, interventions in the five regions can differ according to their specificities and to the priorities of the EU policy in these regions. As stated in several policy documents, the purpose of the Commission’s support to PSD is to enhance the competitiveness of the business sector3 of third countries in local and international markets. This purpose is meant to contribute to the achievement of the above-mentioned overall objectives. In order to achieve this purpose, several activities are proposed in order to reach the following results: Macroeconomic, legal and regulatory frameworks are more conductive to PSD; Financial markets are reinforced and their capacity to finance investment is

increased; The capacity of intermediary professional organisations is enhanced; Investment and business-to-business co-operation are increased; Business development services (BDS) increasing SME’s competitiveness are more

effective; Development of micro-enterprises is reinforced; Enterprise management and organisation are improved.

Main characteristics of PSD interventions

A sample of PSD interventions was selected and analysed in detail through all project phases. This sample included 29 national projects or programmes in 11 countries and 2 regional programmes. The projects or programmes were analysed following an evaluation questions grid that was elaborated to cover the five evaluation criteria4 as well as coherence, coordination, complementarity and crosscutting issues. Information was not always available for each of these aspects. This documentary analysis was complemented by a questionnaire sent to 25 EU Delegations in countries participating to the five cooperation programmes covered by the evaluation, out of which 16 replies were obtained. Both, the sample of projects and the survey covered different types of PSD interventions. The report describes, for each of these types, its role in the general PSD strategy and its main characteristics, particularly regarding the formulation and implementation stages. Findings from this analysis are too diverse to be extensively presented in this summary; they include:

3 The business sector is defined as including private and public owned enterprises operating under market conditions. 4 Relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.


Final Report – 27 May 2004 iii

The approach to support PSD varies from region to region and sometimes within the same region. No documentary information could be collected on projects carried out under the CARDS and TACIS programmes;

There is no sign that the formulation of the interventions is based on detailed analyses of the problems to address. Further, little information is available on the benefits obtained by the projects;

Information on coherence, coordination and complementarity was often not available on the documents collected in Brussels but the survey gives more information on this aspects. They were often identified as affecting (positively or negatively) the implementation of projects. References to crosscutting issues were in most cases absent;

Institutional support interventions cover a large range of institutions and domains and seem to become central to PSD support, which is in line with the strategy proposed by the Commission. Ownership by the beneficiaries appears as a key factor to ensure successful implementation.

Financial services interventions have faced a number of implementation problems (insufficient demand, insufficient involvement of local financial institutions, etc.) and, in most cases, provision of credits has been offered at lower rates than the market. On the other hand, interventions have been effective in delivering expected outputs and monitoring information on this type of intervention is more frequent than for other types of interventions;

In all regions analysed, there have been interventions supporting intermediary organisations. These activities have been carried out for several years but in most cases, little information is available in documents collected in Brussels regarding the organisations supported or the use of the subsidies received. The survey, however, points at the effectiveness of this type of intervention;

Several interventions to encourage business-to-business partnership took place at national level but very little information on the results obtained was found from documents or the survey. Follow-up seems more systematic in the case of regional programmes.

A shift to privilege the development of business development services markets has taken place at the strategic level but the implementation of programmes has not yet followed this trend. Programmes are characterised by being demand-driven, implemented on a cost-sharing basis, with beneficiaries of diverse size and status, with overall high disbursement rates in spite of often-difficult beginnings.


Final Report – 27 May 2004 iv

Preliminary conclusions and recommendations

Based on a desk study, preliminary conclusions are presented. These conclusions can be completed by further investigations also relying on case studies and field visits. C1 Significant progress has been made towards a single coherent approach. The

formulation of the Commission strategy to support PSD in third countries has been clarified, unified between the different regions and presented as a comprehensive approach addressing problems at different levels.

C2 The analysis of why and under which conditions the purpose of PSD support is relevant to contribute to the overall objectives of EU external policy is not sufficiently shared with EC staff in charge of PSD support.

C3 The importance of project identification and preparation studies is generally underestimated. Few interventions have been identified on the basis of clear feasibility studies. Their relevance is therefore often not substantiated.

C4 Insufficient preparation of PSD interventions also leads to unclear definition of the objectives and baseline situation. Effectiveness of the interventions is therefore generally hard to assess, although activities are carried out and disbursement rates are generally high.

C5 A discrepancy between the objectives actually pursued at the field level and strategic objectives is sometimes observed. It is particular the case of credit and BDS services interventions, suggesting that more importance was given to the delivery of the services than to the development of sustainable supply capacities.

Sustainability depends on a large measure on the type of intervention: In the case of institutional support, ownership from the partner government is a key

factor for sustainability. The sustainability of partnerships built with the support of the EC is not known since

little follow-up of the effects of these interventions has been made so far.

C6 to C8

In the case credit and BDS services interventions, sustainability has to be ensured at two levels: sustainability of the effects of these services and sustainability of the activities themselves. None of these aspects is generally assessed.

C9 Although the importance of foreign direct investment (FDI) is widely accepted, very few PSD interventions aim at attracting it. Effectiveness of interventions in terms of their influence on FDI is never assessed.

C10 The extent to which other EU policies and interventions affect beneficiaries of PSD programmes is seldom explicitly considered.

C11 Donor coordination exists mainly at country level and depends on individual initiative. National and regional EC programmes are not always coordinated

C12 Crosscutting issues have had little influence on the design or implementation of PSD interventions.


Final Report – 27 May 2004 v

Based on the above conclusions, the following preliminary recommendations are proposed: R1 A more explicit justification of how PSD support contributes to the overall objectives the

EU’s external policy will help knowing how to do it in each context and how to assess its effectiveness.

R2 More should be done to ensure systematic knowledge management at the different stages of the intervention process: Information gathering and analysis, staff training, on the job guidance at all levels of decision, exchange of experience and knowledge accumulation.

R3 The design and the formulation of the justification of the different instruments of PSD support should be done in close cooperation with other donors.

R4 PSD interventions should be presented as a part of EC Country Strategies, with a clear justification of the reasons why PSD support interventions have been selected.

R5 Interventions’ expected results should always be clear and quantified when possible, objectively verifiable indicators should be identified in all cases. This is also true for demand-led interventions.

R6 Multi-purpose programmes are difficult to design properly, difficult to manage and their performances is difficult to assess. They should be avoided. Single purpose projects clearly related to sectoral policies should be preferred.

R7 Interventions providing financial or non-financial services should not propose prices and conditions below market levels in order to facilitate disbursement.

R8 In many cases, PSD interventions could usefully be complemented with trade related assistance. Opportunities to design interventions benefiting from the complementarity between these two sets of instruments should not be missed.

R9 EU market protection and subsidies to some EU productive sectors have major consequences on PSD in third countries. Evaluations of the coherence between EU policies and development cooperation objectives could be launched.

Next steps

The present evaluation was carried out between October 2003 and May 2004 based on the analysis of documents collected in Brussels. This approach has imposed certain limits to the overall assessment. Strategic and policy aspects can be well covered through documents and interviews in Brussels, but implementation and impact of projects and programme are difficult to assess without field missions. It is therefore proposed to complement this desk evaluation with a Field and Synthesis Phases as foreseen in the original TOR. These phases will basically aim at carrying out field missions and integrating the findings of the missions with the findings of the desk study in order to reach an overall assessment of EC support to the development of private sector in third countries.


Final Report – 27 May 2004 page 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Mandate and purpose

The 2003 evaluation plan of the EuropeAid Cooperation Office requested the Evaluation Unit to undertake an evaluation of the European Community Support to Private Sector Development in third countries. As stated in the terms of reference, the evaluation should contribute to improve the coherence of the Commission’s sectoral approach based on the assessment of the Commission’s co-operation activities in Private Sector Development (PSD) relative to the various objectives of the different national and regional co-operation and development programmes. It should also aim at enhancing the coherence between objectives in private sector development support and the Commission’s other policy objectives, notably in favour of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the EU and in international trade.

1.2 Background

Based on the wide consensus that enterprises, and in particular private sector enterprises, make an important contribution to economic growth and to help fight poverty, international organisations have widely confirmed the importance of supporting private sector development in their policy documents and in their programmes. Communications from the European Commission1 and Council Regulations2 have clearly expressed the importance attached by the European institutions to the development of business and private sector. Over time, and in particular during the last decade, the European Commission has developed various co-operation instruments for the sector. Most were designed to meet the specific requirements of a region while respecting the EU’s external policy or development objectives. Some have been discontinued and new ones have been created. Recently the management of some of these instruments was trusted to the European Investment Bank, whose own resources add to the global contribution of the European Commission. Private sector development is also a relatively important element of several large multisectoral regional programmes. No global evaluation of the Commission support to private sector development has been made yet. Moreover, several large-scale programmes in support to the private sector have come into maturation and reforms in both country and regional strategy programming and in aid delivery have recently been introduced. 1 See: COM(1998) 667; COM(2001) 98; COM(2003)267. 2 Council Resolution 8435/99, May 1999; Council Regulations: i.a: EC N°2258/96 (ALA); 2259/96 (South Africa);

2698/2000 (MEDA); Cotonou Partnership Agreement (2000).



At a time where wide resonance is given to the need to stimulate economic growth, to create employment, to fight against poverty and to allow for integration into the world economy, the European Commission is committed to reinforce its support to the business sector of third countries.

1.3 Results and users

The main result expected from this study is an ex-post evaluation of the Commission strategy and actions to support PSD over the period 1994-2003 through the assessment of the key issues reflected in the evaluation questions. The evaluation provides an assessment of the steps being taken by the Commission to improve the relevance and coherence in regard to programming, targeting and setting up the instruments chosen. It further considers possible effects of private sector development to poverty reduction. The final report proposes a general overall judgement regarding the fundamental aspects on the Commission’s past performance and the relevance of its proposed approach. It also contains findings and recommendations expressed clearly enough to be translatable into operational terms by the European Commission. The evaluation should indeed serve policy and sectoral decision-making and project management purposes. The main direct users include the Board of Commissioners of the RELEX family, as well as those relevant to the RELEX family services: DG Development, RELEX, EuropeAid, DG Enterprise and DG Trade, and EU Delegations in the countries covered by this exercise. The evaluation will also generate results of interest to an audience that includes geographical desks and those responsible for intervention in other sectors (for example, trade, agriculture and other economic cooperation instruments), the wider Commission circle on a strategic level like DG Budget as well as governmental and civil society partners.

1.4 Contents

This Final Report is organised as follows: Section 1 introduces the report. Section 2 presents the method and approach used to conduct the evaluation. It explains how the Intervention Logic, the definition and scope, and the evaluation questions were obtained. It also gives the various sources of information that were used to gather data and answer to the evaluation questions defined. It is complemented by Annexes 2 and 3. Section 3 describes the main findings that the evaluation team obtained from the different sources of information consulted in Brussels. It is divided in three levels: EU regional cooperation policy, the Commission’s strategy to support private sector development in third countries and, finally, the Commission’s interventions to support private sector development in the different cooperation programmes.



Section 4 analyses, based from the findings presented in section 3, the Commission’s strategy and interventions to support private sector development over the past decade, according to evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability); coherence; complementarity and coordination; and cross-cutting issues such as gender, environment and good governance. Finally, section 5 presents the main conclusions and recommendations of the desk evaluation. The annexes include: The terms of reference for this evaluation exercise (Annex 1); The presentation of the Commission Intervention Logic in the sector, both general

and regional (Annex 2); Evaluation question grids containing the evaluation questions, judgement criteria,

indicators and sources of information (Annex 3); A descriptive analysis of EC PSD interventions based on the project list elaborated

by the team (Annex 4); A brief description of a sample of PSD-specific instruments and institutions

(Annex 5); A typology of activities in the sector (Annex 6); A brief presentation of the sample of projects analysed by the evaluation team

(Annex 7); The questionnaire sent to a sample of 25 Delegations in third countries (Annex 8); A descriptive analysis of the answers to the questionnaire (Annex 9); Legal bases for cooperation (Annex 10); List of people contacted and met (Annex 11); Bibliography (Annex 12).



2. Method and approach

2.1 Introduction

This second section describes the method and approach used by the evaluators to conduct the present desk evaluation. It presents the objectives pursued and the steps followed by the evaluation team to reach them. First of all, the evaluation team re-constructed the Intervention Logic of the European Commission (EC) support for PSD in third countries. Based on this Intervention Logic and on other policy documents, the evaluators then established the definition of the expression “support to private sector development” and identified the scope of the present evaluation. Third, they proposed a set of evaluation questions, judgement criteria and indicators aimed at assessing the previously defined scope of the evaluation. These tasks were achieved during the first phase of the evaluation and presented in an Inception Note in January 2004. Following these first steps began the facts finding and analysis stages of the evaluation. Several sources of information were used to gather as much information as possible in order to answer the evaluation questions: literature review, CRIS database, countries and projects documents, interviews with EC staff involved in policy elaboration and in implementation, and a questionnaire send to 25 EU Delegations.

2.2 The Intervention logic

The choice was made to attempt to re-construct one single intervention logic to reflect EC’s support to private sector development in all regions. The COM(2003)267 and the Guidelines3 were used as a basis to re-construct the intervention logic for the whole period of evaluation, that is from 1994 to 2003. The analysis undertaken by the evaluators identifies thus a global framework common to all regions but it also points out regional differences. The EC various policy documents do indeed reflect various historical, economic and geopolitical contexts and therefore do not focus on the same priorities. Therefore, support to private sector development, although aiming to the same purpose, can take various forms. As a consequence, besides the general Intervention Logic applying for all geographical sectors of interventions, regional Intervention Logics have also been identified to take into account the specificities of each area of intervention. Section 3.3 presents the EC strategy to support private sector development and a summary of the reconstructed intervention logic. Annex 2 presents the Intervention Logic in detail.

3 Guidelines for EC support to private sector development, 2003.



2.3 The definition and scope

The definition of the expression “support to private sector development” used in this desk evaluation was drawn out from the analysis of policy documents, interviews with EC officials and the reconstructed intervention logic. As for the identification of the scope of the evaluation, it was based on the definition above. Geographically, it is to cover countries under five cooperation programmes: ACP, ALA, CARDS, MEDA and TACIS.

2.4 Evaluation questions

The terms of reference of the evaluation did not provide evaluation questions but requested that the evaluation should be based on a set of questions, based on evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability) and articulating key issues of concern to the stakeholders. Among these evaluation questions, at least one had to be dedicated to assess how far the Commission’s programme has integrated crosscutting issues, as well as coherence, coordination and complementarity aspects. The evaluation team identified eleven evaluation questions during the Inception stage of the evaluation. These questions were identified on the basis of the different levels of the Intervention Logic, i.e. overall objectives, purpose and expected results of the Commission’s PSD strategy in third countries. The first question refers to the relevance criterion at the level of the purpose vis-à-vis overall objectives. Indeed, the criterion of relevance is to be understood here as the relevance of the PSD programme purpose with respect to the overall objectives of EU’s external policy, i.e. how far is the PSD programme purpose of enhancing competitiveness of the business sector relevant to the EU overall objectives of contributing to a sustainable economic, social and environmental development; to a gradual integration of third countries into the world economy; to the reduction and eradication of poverty in third countries; to building peace and ensuring political stability; and contributing to enhancing the political, economic and cultural presence of the EU. Secondly, the issue of effectiveness is split into five separate questions, each one considering the issue of effectiveness from the perspective of a different type of expected result of the Intervention Logic. As a result, effectiveness is analysed from the perspective of: Support to the macroeconomic, legal and regulatory framework that constitutes

the business environment of PSD support; Support to the local financial system and institutions that should allow enterprises

to develop their potential; Support to intermediary organisations, enhancing their capacity of action both at

the level of political dialogue and in terms of services to their members;



Support to the development of enterprises partnership, increasing the opportunities of business-to-business co-operation and their benefits;

Support to the creation or reinforcement of business development services (BDS) markets that help increasing SME’s competitiveness.

Thirdly, the issue of efficiency is seen as intending to examine the main features of programme implementation and their evolution and to assess how far these features, like various types of resources and procedures, contributed to or hindered reaching the expected results at lower cost. Various elements have been taken into consideration to examine efficiency, like the dichotomy regional/single country approach; the process of deconcentration of EC services; and the shift towards the use of local services to enterprises instead of using external expertise. But it has revealed very difficult to measure some of these outside the context of a specific project. Finally, coherence of PSD approach with other EU policies; coordination and complementarity between donors; and crosscutting issues such as gender, environment and good governance have constituted the subjects of three additional evaluation questions. As for the sustainability criterion –to what extend are the effects of the interventions likely to continue after the end of the Commission’s support-, it is assessed in an eleventh and last question. For each evaluation question, several judgement criteria were determined. For each criterion, one or more quantitative or qualitative indicators were proposed. Finally, potential sources of information were proposed for each indicator. A grid per Evaluation Question, including a rationalisation to the question, is presented in Annex 3.

2.5 Sources of information

2.5.1 Literature review

The process of information collection started with the review of European Commission’s official strategy documents relating in particular to private sector development support, and to development and economic cooperation policy4 in general. Particular attention was given to the Communications from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Commission’s approach or strategy for private sector development, and on its development policy5. The same attention was given to its recent Note of Information on its PSD implementation strategy toward growth and fighting against poverty in ACP countries, and to the recent Guidelines for EC Support to Private Sector Development.

4 A preliminary list of strategy documents was given in the Terms of Reference of the evaluation (Annex 1). This list

has been largely completed during the evaluation process. See Bibliography in Annex 12. 5 COM (1998) 667; COM (2003) 267; COM (2000) 212.



2.5.2 The Common RELEX Information System (CRIS)

The Common RELEX Information System (CRIS) represents the main source of information for the identification of the European Commission’s programmes and projects worldwide. For each intervention entry, it provides on line information about the technical, financial and accounting progress. CRIS was used to compile a “project list” providing an overview on the EC’s interventions in the field of Private Sector Development in third countries from 1994 to 2003. Since “Private Sector Development” is not a sector by itself, the evaluation team selected those sectors and/or sub-sectors which were more likely to include private sector development-related projects6. The compilation of the project list was structured into three steps: data collection, data “clearing”, and comparison and completion of the projects list with the lists of interventions provided by several EuropeAid Units in charge of PSD in the different regions. For TACIS and CARDS countries, almost no project information was found on the CRIS database. CRIS was the evaluators’ main source of information on the Commission’s interventions to support PSD; therefore, a particular attention and much time had to be dedicated to compiling and verifying the project list.

2.5.3 Countries and projects analysis

Following the review of policy and strategy documents, the evaluators focused on country and project documentation. On the basis of the project list constructed from CRIS database (see section 2.5.2 above), a preliminary list of countries, where PSD seemed to have received some attention, was determined7. This list was counterchecked with EuropeAid staff in the various regional Units, in order to complete or correct it. On the basis of this sample of projects, the evaluation team started collecting both country programming documentation (i.a. Country Strategy Papers, National Indicative Programmes, Delegation Annual Reports) and project documents (financing agreements, terms of reference, progress reports, monitoring and evaluation reports). In order to compensate the lack of information in CRIS databases, EuropeAid staff in various Units, and sometimes Delegation staff were contacted to try to obtain project documentation (see section 2.5.4 below). For ACP countries, a search in the archives of DG Development was carried out to find relevant documentation on selected countries. No project document was made available to the evaluation team on PSD projects on TACIS or CARDS countries; this implies that the team has been unable to analyse support to private sector development in TACIS and CARDS countries.

6 See Annex 4 for the detail on data collection and treatment, the list of projects from CRIS and a descriptive analysis. 7 The list of countries and projects analysed is presented in Annex 7.



2.5.4 Contacts and meetings

In order to get more documentation on the countries and projects selected for deepen analysis, or to discuss on a specific issue concerning Commission’s PSD approach in third countries, the evaluators contacted and/or met numerous persons directly involved in PSD management or implementation8. Because the evaluation does not comprise any field missions, all the persons consulted, excepted in few cases, were based in Brussels. In total, fifty persons working for the Commission or other organisations were consulted by the evaluators. Most of them come from EuropeAid or RELEX offices. Some EC staff working in DG Budget, DG Development, DG Enterprise, DG Trade and DG EcFin were contacted as well. The evaluators also contacted staff coming from other institutions like the EIB and CDE, and EU Delegation members in a few countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Niger). Finally, consultants who have been undertaking the monitoring programmes in the various regions were also consulted.

2.5.5 Survey

Parallel to the countries and projects analysis, the evaluators designed and launched a survey intended to EU’s Delegations in third countries. The survey was conducted through a questionnaire containing ten sections, each of them focusing on the delegations’ main experience in relation to: Five types of interventions aiming to support private sector development:

i) Interventions to support the regulatory and institutional framework; ii) Interventions to reinforce the financial system and to improve access to

financial resources; iii) Interventions to support intermediate organisations; iv) Interventions to support business-to-business partnership; v) Interventions to encourage provision of non-financial services for SMEs.

Five horizontal themes:

i) EC deconcentration process; ii) A multi-country or single-country approach for the support to PSD; iii) The coherence between the EC strategy to support PSD and other EU

policies or interventions; iv) Coordination and complementarity; v) Crosscutting issues.

The three last horizontal themes (coherence; coordination and complementarity; and cross-cutting issues) applied to all Delegations. The other two themes and the five types of intervention only applied to the countries that implemented them. As one can see, there is 8 The list of persons contacted and/or met is detailed in Annex 11.



a strong link between the formulation and organisation of questions addressed to the Delegations and the evaluation questions identified in section 2.4. In total, twenty-five Delegations were chosen to answer the survey, out of which sixteen replies were received. The Evaluation Unit introduced the questionnaire to the selected Delegations, and the evaluators then distributed a personal user ID and password by email, which gave access to the questionnaire on ADE’s website. The questionnaire could thus be directly filled in through the web, but a word version was also available on request for delegations facing problems with Internet access. The software used to present the questionnaire and process the answer was Professional Quest, from Dipolar. Two versions of the questionnaire were made available: one in English and one in French. The deadline for the answers was set on 18th April 2004. The questionnaire is presented in Annex 8, while Annex 9 present an analysis of the answers received.



3. Findings

3.1 Introduction

This section presents the main factual elements collected through the analysis of documents, interviews in Brussels and the survey. They are organised as follow: First, we present the main characteristics of the European Union’s cooperation policy with third countries or regions9. Second, we present the Commission’s strategy to support the development of the private sector in third countries and how this strategy relates to the overall cooperation policy of the EU. Third, we present, for the different types of interventions to support the development of the private sector in third countries, their main characteristics and how they relate to the Commission’s strategy to support PSD. For this, we have -as described in section 2.5.3- chosen a sample of PSD programmes in four regions (ACP, MEDA, Asia and Latin America) according to the availability of sources in Brussels.

3.2 EU cooperation policy

The European Union sustains cooperation relations with different regions and countries around the world. This evaluation concentrates on cooperation with the developing countries, the countries in transition and/or reconstruction, the so-called “emerging economies” and Mexico10. These countries have different levels of socio-economic development and play distinct geopolitical roles. Therefore, cooperation with each of them differs substantially, in particular, in terms of the objectives of cooperation and the prioritisation of funds allocated. Cooperation with groups of countries is often framed under specific agreements for cooperation programmes with an internal European legal basis. The five cooperation programmes considered for this evaluation are: ACP, ALA, MEDA, TACIS and CARDS. A list of the main documents providing the legal bases for cooperation with third countries and regions, during the period 1994-2003, is presented in Annex 1011. ACP countries are the main beneficiaries of EU aid and the EU is also their largest investor. Moreover, the ACPs represent the largest proportion of LLDCs in the world, most of which are very small economies with poor links with the world economy, and face globalisation in one of the last wagons. The historical relations between the ACPs and the EU, from the Yaoundé Conventions to the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, have evolved towards a clear link between development support and a policy framework favourable to trade and development. Focus is on the removal of barriers to trade, regional co-operation and enhancing all trade-related co-operation areas.

9 The sub-section is largely drawn from “Clarifying the definitions of EC economic co-operation with third countries”

(EC-ADE, 2002). 10 This definition of “third countries” is based on the COM(2003) 667 on the Commission’s approach to PSD support. 11 For a more complete bibliography, see “Clarifying the definitions of EC economic co-operation with third

countries” (EC-ADE, 2002).



While EU relations with the ACPs have been established with poverty reduction as their main objective, areas including countries that are in average more developed than the ACPs tend to have relations with the EU directed towards a “partnership”, in which mutual interest of economic agents is an essential element of the relation. The “partnership” approach has been developed in EU co-operation in particular with the ALA and MED countries. In Asia and Latin America, partner countries often have a rather developed society, many of them are middle income while some are very poor, and distances are huge on the continents and in relation to the EU. Their economic and political situation, the relatively new mutual awareness approach between them and the EU, and the objective of increasing EU presence on “emerging” markets, drives co-operation towards partnership, in which economic instruments play an important role. MED countries have a long tradition of trade with all parts of the world and with the EU in particular, due to their long common border. However, political relations between the two regions have been troubled at various times in history. Mediterranean countries are in general low or middle-income economies, while security issues are a priority for the EU in its relations with this region. Furthermore, institutional changes in the private and public sectors play an increasing role in the region being historically state-led. One of the main objectives of the co-operation is to create a Euro- Mediterranean free trade area. Security is also one of the foremost concerns as regards co-operation with the CIS. Nuclear activities in these territories are the most insecure in the world and add to widespread economic and physical insecurity in the region. Their recent status of independent breakaway states from the USSR demands a thorough process of transition from a planned to a market economy, with very high social costs. Therefore the key institutional foundations of a market economy and democracy have to be established. Furthermore, the interdependency between the Russian Federation and the EU is significant in terms of trade; trade benefits will increase once the elements of a regulated market economy are in place. In the Balkans, after an initial period of cooperation concentrated on post-war reconstruction, EU cooperation has developed a more strategic focus and currently aims at the stabilisation and association process of these countries with the European Union. Among others, it covers: Reconstruction; stabilisation of the region; return of refugees; support for democracy, the rule of law and human and minority rights; the development of a sustainable market-oriented economy; poverty reduction and gender equality; and interregional cooperation. EU co-operation is part of the Stability Pact agreed between major donor countries, regional and international organisations and international financing institutions. Because of its geographical proximity and interest in the reconstruction of the area, the EU’s stake in the stabilisation and association process is very strong. These regional differences are reflected in the objectives and implementation modalities of EU cooperation policy. Indeed, the EU Treaty and the Commission Communication (2000)212 on development policy state that the Community development policy shall foster: (i) poverty reduction, (ii) integration into the world economy and (iii) sustainable



development while at the same time it should contribute to the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law and the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In addition to these goals, external relations with non-OECD countries address the issues of security and stability and aim at enhancing the political, economic and cultural presence of the EU in these regions. How are these objectives articulated for each of the cooperation programmes? Poverty reduction is the main goal of all its actions in the ACP countries. EU relations with the CIS and the Balkans are also concerned about poverty reduction and specifically address the adverse social consequences of transition. Similarly, cooperation with the poorest Asian and Latin American countries has as its main objective the reduction of poverty. The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Agreement places among its long-term objectives the establishment of an area of prosperity through sustainable and balanced socio-economic development and poverty reduction. The integration into the world economy is a EU objective that concerns all regions covered by its external relations policy. The ACP group faces a major challenge in this sense due to its marginal position in the world economy. Trade liberalisation is seen as an essential contribution to development and poverty reduction. In the Balkans, MED and ALA, regional co-operation is an objective as such, being at the same time a mean towards trade liberalisation and thus, the integration of these countries into the world economy. Regarding the CIS and the Balkans, as areas neighbouring on the EU, their integration into the EU co-operation area and the abolishment of trade barriers precedes association with the European Union. Security and stability are seen as major elements towards the building of democracy, the establishment of the rule of law, and respect for human rights. These objectives are at the same time pre-conditions for all European cooperation interventions. Building peace and ensuring physical security are the EU’s prime concerns towards (re-) establishing stability in the Balkans in parallel with post-war reconstruction. In this framework, improved living conditions for displaced persons and refugees after the years of conflict are put among the goals of EU relations with these countries. Some of the ACP countries, some regions of CIS (Caucasus and Central Asia) and the Mediterranean countries also attract the EU support in these areas. Enhancing the EU’s political, economic and cultural presence in the region is the main feature of the EU external policy in the ALA countries. The intermediate level of development of most these countries and their geographical distance from the EU steer co-operation into areas of mutual interest to both regions, from private investment to cultural awareness. Similar elements can be found in other territorial zones, for example the third pillar of the Euro Med Partnership or cultural co-operation with the ACP.



3.3 EC strategy to support private sector development

3.3.1 Four decades of history

Until the mid-eighties the development paradigm was strongly influenced by the idea that international markets favoured industrialised countries. Accordingly, developing countries could only grow behind protective trade barriers that kept out exports from the industrialised world. Therefore, an autonomous or self-sufficient development was encouraged. Further, it was believed that free markets alone could not generate adequate growth and the necessary structural economic changes, and that governments had to have a major role in planning and promoting the economy, including public sector enterprises to undertake the investments that the market would not provide. In the late eighties, however, the failure of these policies and the success of mainly Asian export-oriented economies led to seriously questioning protectionist approaches. Weaknesses of the macro-economic environment were identified as the main problem and IFIs and donors responded with structural adjustment programmes. During the nineties, other dimensions of the national contexts, such as obstructive institutional settings, corruption, poor governance and unpredictable policy changes were also identified as major problems to address in order to promote economic growth. The European Union’s cooperation with ACP countries reflects this evolution. The overall objectives of cooperation have been made clearer during that period of time. Addressing poverty has become explicitly the overarching objective of European aid to developing countries. Enhancing the competitiveness of developing countries enterprises on the global market has also been identified as a necessary condition to promote growth and poverty reduction. In other regions the situation was slightly different. In Asia and Latin America, the context was different and the relative weight of European aid was much more limited, preventing the EU from having the same influence on the institutional and economic framework. In these areas, the concept of mutual interest between economic actors has been put forward and the priority was given to the setting up of direct partnerships between institutions and companies from these regions and European counterparts12. EU cooperation with countries that are eligible to assistance through the TACIS and CARDS programmes was almost inexistent until the early nineties. The CARDS programme (Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation) was established after the conclusion of the OBNOVA and PHARE programmes. Based on that background, the European Commission (EC) approach to support PSD in ACP countries has been balanced, since the beginning of the period under review (1994), between three levels of intervention called “macro” (enhancing the macro-economic, 12 COM (1995)495 on perspectives of the partnership with Latin America for the period 1996-2000 and, later on,

COM(2001)469 on the strategic framework for enhanced partnership between Europe and Asia.



institutional and regulatory framework in order to stimulate local and foreign investment), “meso” (supporting intermediary institutions such as the financial sector or representative organisations) and “micro” (direct financial and non financial support to enterprises)13. This approach has been very clearly formulated in the COM (1998) 66714. In May 1999, the Council extended to all developing countries, an approach based on the Communication of 1998. More recently, the European Commission has issued two important documents on private sector development15. The main innovations of this strategy are: a harmonised Community approach and the proposal to concentrate on five areas of intervention.

3.3.2 A single intervention logic based on the most recent policy declarations16

Although these last documents are fairly recent and therefore could not have guided the interventions under evaluation, it seemed relevant to use them as the basis on which the intervention logic of the Commission in the sector had to be rebuilt. Indeed, a) the five areas of intervention proposed in the above-mentioned documents cover most past interventions and, b) despite the inconvenience in terms of fairness of the judgement, assessing the interventions against the most recent strategy improves the usefulness of the evaluation since it allows for providing recommendations which will be more relevant for future decisions. The choice has also been made to attempt to re-construct one single intervention logic to reflect EC support to PSD in all regions. Interventions in the five regions differ according to their specificities and to the different priorities of the EU policies in these regions, as presented in section 3.2. However, since 1999, the EC proposes a single coherent framework where support for the business sector is harmonised in all third countries, which justified launching this global sector evaluation instead of five regional ones. The intervention logic proposed in Graph 3.1 presents the links between overall objectives of the European external policy; the purpose of the Commission’s PSD strategy aiming at contributing to these objectives; the expected results needed to reach this purpose; and the activities carried out to deliver these results. Graphs presented in Annex 2 are regional interpretations of the same intervention logic. They show that, despite regional variations of EU priorities, since the purpose of PSD support is the same in all regions, it is possible to identify a common set of objectives against which the interventions can be evaluated.

13 See notably the Convention of Lome IV, art 111, Mauritius, November 1995; Le livre vert sur les relations entre

l’Union Européenne et les pays ACP à l’aube du 21ème siècle, Brussels, 1997, p 35-36; and the Convention of Cotonou, June 2000, art 21.

14 A European Community strategy for private sector development in ACP countries, COM(1998)667, November 1998.

15 The “Guidelines for European Commission support to private sector development” in February 2003 and the COM(2003)267 on “European Community co-operation with third countries: The Commission’s approach to future support for the development of the business sector” in May 2003.

16 A more detailed presentation is available in Annex 2.



Figure 3.1 - Budget distribution by region (1994-2003)

Region Total budget

planned

(Million €)

MEDA 1,570.87

ACP 1,529.63

Asia 534.14

TACIS 457.03

Latin America 155.07

CARDS 3.00

TOTAL 4,249.73

a) Overall objectives

The EU’s external policy has three main components: Trade Policy, based on uniform principles especially with regard to the

conclusion of tariff and trade agreements and measures to protect trade; Development Policy, which aims to the sustainable economic, environmental and

social development of the developing countries, especially the most disadvantaged among them; their smooth and gradual integration into the world economy; and the campaign against poverty17; and

Foreign and Security Policy, which reflect a more political dimension and is centred on the aims of peace and security, consolidation of democracy and the rule of law, and human rights and fundamental freedoms.

As a whole, the external policy has several objectives for which the support to private sector development can make a significant contribution. Namely: A sustainable economic, social and environmental development in third countries; The gradual integration of third countries into the world economy; The reduction of poverty in third countries; Building peace and ensuring political stability and security in third countries; The enhancement of the political, economic and cultural presence of the EU.

17 According to the terms of the EU Treaty, Community policy in this (development) area should contribute to the

general objective of developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law, and that of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.

MEDA37.0%

ACP36.0%

Asia12.6%

TACIS10.8%

Latin America3.6% CARDS

0.1%



The prioritisation of these objectives is not the same in all regions, as explained above. The regional adaptations of the common intervention logic presented in Annex 2 reflect these specificities.

b) Purpose

Overall and regional policy documents converge to define the Commission’s support to PSD as aiming at enhancing the competitiveness of the business sector18 of third countries in local and international markets. The purpose of enhancing the competitiveness of local firms in local and international markets is meant to contribute to the achievement of each of the overall objectives of the programme. This relationship is presented in several policy documents and studies and, in particular, in the Guidelines19. The possibility of identifying a unique purpose allows for a clear definition of the scope of what is understood by EC support to PSD:

European Commission’s support to PSD includes all interventions aiming at enhancing the competitiveness of the business sector of third countries in local and international markets.

c) Expected Results

The expected results of the Commission’s support to private sector development have been sorted according to the level of the intervention: macro, meso and micro. Macroeconomic, legal and regulatory framework is more conductive to PSD; Financial markets are reinforced and their capacity to finance investment is

increased; Capacity of intermediary professional organisations is enhanced; More investment and business-to-business co-operation; More effective (non-financial) services increasing SME’s competitiveness; Development of micro-enterprises; Enterprise management and organisation improved.

18 The business sector is defined as including private and public owned enterprises operating under market conditions.

Agricultural production has been excluded from the analysis but not agricultural products processing. 19 See Annex 2.



Capacity of intermediaryprofessional organizations is

enhanced

Macroeconomic, legal andregulatory framework ismore conductive to PSD

TACISMain objective: Support

to the process oftransition towards a

market economy

Contribute to asustainable economic,social andenvironmentaldevelopment in thirdcountries(Nice Treaty,COM(2002)212, etc.)

Contribute to the gradualintegration of thirdcountries into the worldeconomy(Nice Treaty,COM(2002)212, etc.)

Contribute to reductionand eventual eradicationof poverty in thirdcountries(Nice Treaty,COM(2002)212, etc.)

Contribute to buildingpeace and ensuringpolitical stability andsecurity in thirdcountries(Nice Treaty, variousregulations)

Enhancement of thepolitical, economic andcultural presence of theEU(Nice Treaty, variousregulations)

Overall Objectives

To strengthen thebusiness sector by

enhancing itscompetitiveness in

local and internationalmarkets

Support for institutional and structural reformswith a direct effect on PSD

Support to firm's restructuring and privatisation

Support to facilitate partnership between firms(meetings, workshops, forums, etc.)

Support to enhance human resources andcapacities (training, etc.)

Support to local financial institutions & thereinforcement of a reliable financial system

Upgrading of local firms (TA, development ofmanagement skills, etc.)

Support to intermediary organisationsrepresenting the private sector

More investment &business-to-business co-

operation

More effective (non-financial) servicesincreasing SME'scompetitiveness

Development of micro-enterprises

Purpose ActivitiesExpected Results

Enterprises' managementand organization improved

Encouragement of transfers of know-how andtechnologies & support to cooperation between

industry and scientific research

Encouragement of trade and investmentbetween European and local companies

Support for the development and creation ofSME's and micro-enterprises

Direct capital contributions to local companiesor to financial intermediaries

MEDAMain objective:

Création of a Euro-Mediterranean free

trade area

ACPMain objective: Support

to the fight againstpoverty

Latin AmericaMain objective: Support

socio-economicdevelopement

CARDSMain objective: Support

to the process ofstabilization and future

association

EU cooperation withthird countries

Support for institutional and structural reformswith an indirect effect on PSD, including budget

support

Financial markets arereinforced and their capacity

to finance investment isincreased (including micro-

finance)

* Note: EU's external policy includes, among otrhers, its TradePolicy, Development Policy and Foreign and Security Policy.The objectives selected are here those to which the Private SectorDevelopment Support Policy can contribute

EU's External Policy* EC's Support to Private Sector Development

AsiaMain objective: Support


Graph 3.1 - INTERVENTION LOGIC



d) Activities

The numerous interventions supported by the EC to contribute to the development of the business sector in third countries have been grouped in 12 types of activities. Support for institutional and structural reforms with an indirect effect on PSD,

including Budget Support; Support for institutional and structural reforms with a direct effect on PSD; Support for local financial institutions and the creation of a reliable banking

system; Direct capital contributions to local companies or to financial intermediaries; Support to facilitate partnership between firms through meetings, workshops; Support to intermediary organisations representing the private sector; Encouragement of trade and investment between European and local companies; Transfers of know-how and technologies and cooperation between industry and

scientific research; Support to enhance human resources and capacities; Support for the development and creation of SMEs and micro-enterprises; Upgrading local firms; Support to firm restructuring and privatisation.

Table 3.1 - Distribution of funds (million €) by region and type of intervention

Activity ACP MEDA Asia LA TACIS Total

Institutional and structural reforms 641.82 452.51 167.24 10.09 299.75 1,571.41

Human resources 160.89 607.86 62.03 35.64 0.00 866.42 Micro/SMEs 252.62 236.98 21.90 97.47 0.00 608.48 Trade/investment 199.65 30.00 73.39 10.84 0.00 308.79 Restructuring privatisation 6.25 117.74 8.50 0.00 144.48 276.97 Know-how and technology 43.14 30.50 147.71 0.80 0.00 222.14 Finance/banking 94.60 41.70 60.47 0.00 2.50 200.27 Upgrading local firms 79.86 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86.86 Partnership 27.86 46.57 0.23 0.24 0.00 74.67 Intermediary organisations 16.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.15 Not available 7.29 10.30 17.59 Total 1,530.13 1,570.86 541.47 155.08 457.03 4,249.75



3.4 EC interventions to support private sector development

3.4.1 Institutional Support

A stable macroeconomic situation with sound economic fundamentals and a predictable and enforceable legal and regulatory framework (including tax legislation and the financial system) are essential prerequisites for a sustainable development of private sector. Most donors increasingly stress the fact that the main constraints hampering PSD are to be found in the public sector and that direct support to enterprises should be avoided as long as these conditions are not reasonably met. Numerous interventions are made to improve the macro-economic and institutional environment with the aim of reducing poverty, sometimes in counterpart to debt reduction20. In some regions, the priority is given to supporting the economic and institutional evolution towards an open and competitive market economy. In all cases technical assistance and financial support are provided to improve: The macroeconomic trends, which have to be sustainable; The legal framework, norms and regulations to make them compatible with global

market requirements and, in some cases (MED, CARDS) with European norms; The overall transparency and predictability of political and administrative practices; The taxation system, to make it transparent, stable effectively enforceable; Financial markets, to provide a sustainable access to credit to finance profitable

investments; Sectoral policies are also supported in different fields such as communications,

education and health. Improvement in these sectors is critical for PSD and, at the same time, the private sector may also provide a major contribution to develop them.

Improving the institutional and economic framework is a critical condition to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). In most countries, there is little hope to finance private sector development, and therefore economic growth, without mobilising FDI. Institutional support is therefore a major dimension of PSD support. The relative importance given to that dimension of the PSD support policy of the EC is increasing. EC approaches may, however, widely differ from one region to another as shown by the examples of Asia and MED countries in Box 3.1.

20 See the World Bank led HIPIC initiative and PRSP.



Box 3.1 - Two approaches to institutional support Asia Programme The importance of the institutional, regulatory and economic environment for the development of the private sector is proposed in the framework of the cooperation with Asian countries since the early 1990s. In the Developing Countries of Asia and Latin America Regulation of 1992, two main lines of cooperation were foreseen: (i) development aid for the poorest countries and population groups and (ii) economic co-operation with countries or regions with high growth potential. Indeed, the innovative approach of the Regulation was that “economic co-operation is aimed at improving the business and regulatory environment in partner countries in order to stimulate two-way trade and investments with the direct participation of the private sector to the benefit both of the Union and the partner country”21. This policy decision has further been reaffirmed in later years. The strategy towards Asian countries, called the New Trade and Co-operation Strategy and proposed in the COM(1994)314, aims to develop closer political relations with the region, accepting its growing relative weight in the world economy and the international political scene. It states that the main thrust of the present and future policy in Asia is related to economic matters and the main objectives are: (i) to strengthen the Union’s economic presence in Asia in order to maintain the Union’s leading role in the world economy, (ii) to contribute to stability in Asia by promoting international co-operation and understanding, (iii) to promote the economic development of the less prosperous countries and regions in Asia, and (iv) to contribute to the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Asia. Within this framework, interventions to promote private sector development concentrate at the “macro” level as opposed to the “micro” level. The “meso” level, interventions to support intermediate organisations are carried out through a specific regional programme. MEDA Countries A very different approach is noted in the following case of cooperation with MEDA countries. The COM(2003)58722 on Private Sector Development support in the Mediterranean indicates that a lack of private sector development is a key explanation for the insufficient economic growth of MEDA economies over the last decade. Further, it indicates that the State is still heavily involved in the real and financial sectors, that the reform and privatisation processes have been slow and that, overall, the environment is not favourable to PSD: obsolete company laws, investment codes and tax and custom regulations and, more in general, weak legal frameworks (enforcement law and property rights) contribute to a climate of uncertainty. However, the Communication considers that the responsibility for developing an environment more conductive to PSD lies primarily with the partner countries and proposes to intervene on another area. As the lack of a well-functioning market of financial services is also pointed out as an important problem, the Communication proposes to concentrate resources to solve this specific problem through the creation of the programme FEMIP, the “Facilité Euro-Med d'Investissement et de Partenariat”. It points out that: “the often unfavourable private sector environment in the region makes the case for a tailor-made private sector development instrument even more compelling”.

21 COM(1994)314. 22 COM(2003)587 “Communication from the Commission to the Council: Shaping support for Private Sector

Development in the Mediterranean”.



In the different cooperation regions, a number of legal or economic reforms have been carried out with the support of the EC and have resulted in the creation or improvement of related regulations or institutions in several regions. They indeed cover a large range of institutions and domains. Among the sample of projects and programmes analysed23, they include:

i) Legal framework reforms such as the drafting of a Competition Law and the creation of the Competition Directorate at the Ministry of Industry and Trade under the Euro-Jordanian Action for the Development of Enterprise (EJADA) in Jordan or the development of the Industrial Property Rights legislative and regulatory framework under the Technical Assistance for Transition to Market Economy (Euro-TAP Viet) in Vietnam;

ii) The development of the business services capacities such as the Centre for Business Information (CBIK) under the Trade Development Programme (TDP) in Kenya or the establishment of the standards and metrology institution under EJADA;

iii) The support to intermediate organisations such as the Export Development Programme (EDP) in Zambia, which channelled sector assistance through the corresponding professional organisations.

Most of the interventions analysed are components of a larger EC project or programme, although they are not really part of a sector-wide approach. Otherwise, no firm commonalities have been found between these projects particularly in terms of their type, field, country of implementation, etc. As indicated above, Commission’s interventions have been successful in supporting institutional reforms in a variety of countries and regions. A good example of this is Vietnam where Euro-TAP activities properly delivered their output while the SME Development Fund (SMEDF) partially reached its objectives24. One can argue that EC interventions are more likely to deliver in countries where projects have a strong support from the local government but, if relevant, this aspect has not been captured through the examination of a cross-section of countries or regions. Some PSD projects can be supported by local authorities while others are not, due to lack of capacity or political willingness from partner governments or by other reasons. The survey, however, shows that among the factors of success for this type of intervention one finds: the strong demand for services, the strong involvement of the beneficiaries and the good correspondence between the needs of the target group and the actions implemented. The survey shows also that among the factors that negatively influence the achievement of objectives in this kind of interventions are: the length of the negotiations and implementation of a new structure, political resistance, unrealistic goals, and environment obstacles (inadequate conditions for privatization, business environment not conductive). 23 See Annex 7 for a list of the projects and programmes analysed. 24 The evaluation of the project (2002) concludes that for some of the components, SMEDF attained its objectives (e.g.

lending operations) while for others delivery was not sufficiently in line with programmed activities and expected results (e.g. training activities). It should be noted though that a phase II of SMEDF has been launched (the financing agreement has been signed on April 16th 2003).



Ownership is, as expected, a key element. In some cases, interventions have failed to deliver outputs as planned when the support of the local public sector was not sufficient. For instance, in Tunisia, the government did not accept the structures created to implement the Industrial Modernisation Programme (IMP) and requested the EC to use existing public institutions. As a consequence, the programme started with 3 years of delay. The survey also mentions the lack of consultation with local stakeholders as a factor hampering the implementation of interventions to support institutional and regulatory reforms. In other cases, the problem has been rather the support of the local private sector. According to the Uganda’s CSP 2002 (page 11), past PSD interventions had a limited success in improving the efficiency of public institutions promoting PSD “due mainly to the lack of genuine private sector involvement as well as to the limited impact of this support in improving the enabling environment.” While the lack of support of the public sector can be explained by its own policy agenda, a lack of support of the private sector is more surprising and raises questions regarding the appropriateness of the intervention. An element that also seems to be important is the level of coordination with other donors or financial institutions. In Jordan, from 1989, the EU supported broad economic reforms in coordination with IMF, WB, USAID and other institutions. These reforms and macro-economic stabilisation are considered fairly successful although the overall process has been slow25. In the field of reforms related to the financial sector and to its institutions, interventions generally have included a component aiming to reform the financial sector and in particular to develop its capacity to mobilise savings and mainstream it to the targeted enterprises. This reform component has generally failed, as it did not lead to a change in the behaviour of the financial intermediaries towards targeted enterprises. This was for instance the case for SMEDF in Vietnam, as the methodology to reach the objective was never properly defined, or in Zambia, where no local operator was ready to take over the activities of the programme26.

3.4.2 Financial services

Commission’s interventions aimed at providing financial services should be distinguished according to their nature: either support to investment financing and development of financial markets or support to micro-enterprises through micro-finance. As far as investment financing and development of financial markets is concerned, the EC guidelines for European Commission Support to Private Sector Development emphasise the following: 25 Source: Jordan’s Country Strategy Paper 2000-2006. 26 According to the evaluation of SMEDF, there was an impact on the services provided to SMEs (although segmented

and concentrated the North and South areas). Nevertheless, it also highlights that fact that, even though, the project activities that should have provided assistance to the banks in the development of new products or marketing strategies to enhance their capacity to increase saving mobilisation were eventually non-existent due to the local economic environment.



Its features take the non-exclusive forms of technical assistance for promoting the

overall investment environment and/or direct capital contributions for financing specific investment projects;

Its objective is to facilitate investments contributing to improve the general economic and social situation of the beneficiary country;

They should meet demand from local private operators where this demand cannot be met by the local financial system due to lack of funds or suitable financial instruments;

They should channel their operations through local intermediary financial institutions27 so as to increase their capacity to mobilise local savings; and

They should operate on the conditions applicable to similar operations on the local capital markets28 and aim for financial profitability while pursuing development objectives.

Projects analysed mostly aim at facilitating the access of local enterprises to financial resources and include credit schemes adapted to SMEs. For instance, in Vietnam, the SMEDF includes a component aimed at improving access to credit for SMEs through the establishment of a revolving fund and working through local financial institutions (five commercial banks). In Ghana, the SME Development Programme provides equity capital contributions, term loans and leasing arrangements; the associated funds comprised a Business Development Planning Fund (€ 0.48 million) and an Enterprise Fund (€ 3.5 million). In Egypt, the Private Sector Financing Scheme (1995) provided credits for SMEs through Cairo Bank during a period of 2 years. Other projects were not explicitly targeted to SMEs but reached them indirectly, like for instance the Export Financing Facility (EFF) in Zambia (a component of the Export Development Programme, EDP) which was established to complement the existing financial arrangements within the Government’s policy framework to provide additional credit against export documentation and short term credit for procurement of inputs and marginal capital expenditure. Implementation modalities included revolving funds (SMEDF in Vietnam, EFF in Zambia, AFELEN in Niger); the provision of credit lines (PASP in the Dominican Republic); the generation of an economic network in the private sector easing the access of (future) entrepreneurs to the classic banking system (Credit programme in St. Louis, Dakar and Ziguinchor in Senegal); the establishment of a Loan Guarantee Schemes (EJADA in Jordan or PASPME/TANYO in Niger); the establishment of a credit scheme (GRATIS in Ghana); equity capital contributions; term loans; and leasing arrangements. Resources were mobilised through the establishment of funds (like for instance the Business Development Planning Fund and an Enterprise Fund in Ghana) and channelled to beneficiaries through local financial institutions (i.e. a commercial bank). 27 Financial intermediaries may be inter alia commercial or development banks, investment or venture capital funds and

other financial institutions. 28 Flexibility and in particular interest rebates are allowed in three cases: (i) financing of infrastructure projects in LDCs

or in post-conflict situations, (ii) financing of restructuring operations in a context of privatisation and (iii) financing of projects with a significant social or environment component.



The objective of these interventions is to facilitate the access of local firms to financial instruments by (i) providing credit, in principle at market rates and (ii) reforming the financial sector and, in particular, to develop its capacity to mobilise savings and mainstream it to the targeted enterprises. However, it is observed that, in order for commercial banks to use the funds facilities, the practice has been to offer lower rates than the market. Moreover, the reform component generally failed, as it did not lead to a change in the behaviour of the financial intermediaries towards targeted enterprises, in particular for SMEs and micro-enterprises. This is best illustrated by SMEDF in Vietnam, where rates had to be lowered for funds to be effectively used by local commercial banks and the methodology to reach the objective of familiarising financial intermediaries with SMEs was never properly defined. Other projects of this type were characterised by implementing difficulties like for instance in Senegal where the SMEs credit programmes in Dakar, Ziguinchor and St. Louis were reoriented following the lack of resources to finance the implementation, the deterioration of reimbursement rates, high operation costs, and weakened management. Similarly, the micro-finance component of Micro-Projects Programme in Uganda (preceding the SUFFICE Programme) has been severely criticised in their evaluation, for both their management and their design. Figures relative to the number of loans granted are often not reported in the documents that were available for this evaluation but, when they are, they indicate a relatively large variation from programme to programme. Indeed, according to available information, the number of loans provided ranges from 17 in Jordan (Loan Guarantee Scheme of EJADA in the sectors of food and beverage, chemicals/fertilisers, plastic, garment and tourism) to 243 under SMEDF in Vietnam. For the SME credit programme in Senegal, 46 projects were financed in 3 years of implementation of the Dakar component and 78 in 2 years of implementation of the Ziguinchor component. The same variability can be observed as far as amounts lent are concerned. Documents refer to loans reaching FCFA 572 million (around € 87,000) for the SME credit scheme in Dakar and FCFA 330 (around € 50,000) in Ziguinchor. In Egypt, the Small Enterprise Development Organisation (SEDO) component of the Social Fund for Development (SFD) targeted to micro and small enterprises has lent a total of £E 937 million (around € 126 million29) with an average loan amounting to around £E 20,778 (around € 2,800). These results, however, cannot be related to the targets of each of the projects, as these targets are rarely available on project documents such as financing agreements. Moreover, when these are available, other documents referring to the projects (EU Delegation Annual Reports, CSP, CSE or even project evaluations) often refer to other indicators. Given the development objectives pursued by the EU, job creation has often been defined as a condition to benefit from support facilitating access to financial resources. However, it has been observed that such conditionality is not always possible due to implementation

29 At a current exchange rate of € 1 per £E 7.40.



modalities and the objectives specific to private sector operators (e.g. commercial banks). For instance, in Vietnam, the selection of projects for access to fund resources was originally conditioned to their contribution to employment creation. Nevertheless, in the course of implementation, the risk of default -and therefore the selection process- was transferred to private banks, which used their own selection criteria among which employment creation was not included. More in general, there is a potential conflict among the multiple objectives of many such projects (e.g. job creation, growth potential, repayment capacity, etc.) that is rarely tackled at the formulation stage of the project. Commission’s interventions to support PSD have also contributed to the establishment of credit schemes oriented towards micro-enterprises. The objective of such interventions is to create a favourable and competitive environment to ensure a better financing supply by enhancing the performances, the capacities of micro-finance institutions mainly through the provision of technical assistance while limiting interventions taking the form of grants to exceptional cases. Micro-finance aimed at supporting micro-enterprises covers a full range of financial services such as loans, savings, insurance and deferred payments/credit cards for the poor. Micro-credit is the most traditional form of the provision of micro-finance. According to the EC guidelines, given the competitive nature of the private sector and the relatively poor performances of the non-market approach adopted in the past, micro-finance activities should be managed commercially, which should increase their effectiveness and sustainability. Furthermore, following a peer review on the Commission’s operations on micro-credit30 the Direction of EuropAid Cooperation office has decided that, given the little comparative advantage that the EC may have as a donor institution, no new credit lines should be launched in the field of micro-finance31. Few projects on micro-finance have been included in the sample of projects analysed. A possible explanation for this bias is that micro-finance projects are often part of larger (integrated or rural) development programmes which have not been considered as PSD interventions in this evaluation32. Yet, two projects included a micro-finance component: in Uganda, under the Support for Feasible Financial Institutions and Capacity-building Efforts (SUFFICE) project, 7 micro-finance institutions had received loan fund finance and 6 had received matching grants for capacity building. The first phase of the project had achieved some success in increasing the level of outreach to micro-enterprises, thereby promoting income growth and employment in the micro-enterprise sector33. In Jordan, the Social Development Fund component “Financial and Investment Sector reform” also provided micro-credits in social and rural domain. Nevertheless, information concerning the amounts lent, the number of beneficiaries reached or the associated job creation are rarely available in the available documents.

30 Carried out in 2003 in the frame of the CGAP’s Microfinance Donor Peer Reviews. 31 Instruction Note 3959 on EC Position with Regard to Credit Lines, 4 March 2004. 32 See Annex 4 for a description of the selection process and a list of DAC sector codes used. 33 See Monitoring report (2001).



3.4.3 Intermediary Organisations

At meso or sectoral level, the Commission’s activities supporting private sector development are mainly intended to support the institutional capacities of intermediary organisations or structures, also known as facilitators34. These organisations offer services to private sector enterprises and represent them in their dialogue with the authorities. As with other interventions types, and in line with the international strategy to support PSD35, interventions supporting intermediary organisations should comply with the principles of outreach36, cost effectiveness and sustainability. The EC Guidelines for EC Support to Private Sector Development proposes two different types of cooperation with intermediary organisations according to various criteria. On the one hand, interventions may emphasise strengthening the capacity of intermediary organisations for policy dialogue with the authorities with a view to improving the business and investment environment, strengthening business development services markets, and supporting the organisation of business-to-business cooperation meetings. On the other hand, where intermediary organisations are more developed, the approach will encourage business-to-business partnerships through local intermediate organisations. In all regions analysed, the European Commission has supported private sector intermediary organisations in both their functions: representation of the private sector in its dialogue with the authorities and/or supply of services to businesses. In most cases, these interventions were part of a larger programme. In some countries, like Zambia, support to representative organisations is considered as a priority. In other cases, it is stated that support and training to these representative organisations is necessary to ensure the sustainability of the assistance to SMEs. That was the case of the Proyecto de Apoyo al Sector Privado (PASP) in Dominican Republic where institutional reinforcement of the intermediary organisations was seen as a pre-condition to a more effective political dialogue. In others, like Tunisia, private sector organisations are less represented: the Euro-Tunisia Enterprise (ETE) and the Industrial Modernisation Programme (IMP) are implemented trough intermediate organisations that remain closely related to the Tunisian state (e.g. CEPEX, FAMEX). The focus on the capacity of intermediary organisations to conduct policy dialogue was already highlighted as part of an integrated approach in the COM(1998)667. Nevertheless, only relatively new projects include this aspect and not much information is provided about the results achieved. It is the case of the EC’s support to the reinforcement of the intermediary organisations’ capacity to enter into a dialogue with the political authorities in Vietnam where improving this capacity to dialogue is an objective of the recent SPF ongoing project.

34 The Guidelines for EC Support to Private Sector Development, Feb2003, distinguish between the roles of

‘facilitator’ (or service providers) and ‘financier’ because their objective and interests are different. 35 See Guidelines of the Donors’ Committee for Small Enterprise Development. 36 The principle of outreach refers to the maximisation of the proportion of the target population of SMEs having

access to the services proposed. See also section 3.4.5.



Information about results achieved in this field is sometimes very succinct in documents collected in Brussels and vary from a project to another one: Under the EJADA project in Jordan, a “participative approach” is reported37 to

have led to the drafting of the Competition Law and the setting up of a new Competition Directorate at the Ministry of Industry and Trade. According to the same source, the project effectiveness would be the result of a strong indigenous support.

In the case of Dominican Republic, two events were organised under the PASP project in 1999 to discuss notably the steps towards a better coordination around SMEs. According to its Financing Agreement, the preparation of PROEMPRESA, the project that followed up to PASP, was done with the active participation of the private sector. The process had also taken into account the recommendations and studies emanating from the various workshops organised within the private sector.

In the case of Egypt’s Private Sector Development Programme Phase I (PSDP-I) which ended in 2001, the aim was to develop the capacity of the Federation of Egyptian industries and its representation role in view of the dialogue with the government. However, according to the Independent Programme Review 2001, the project was unable “to reinforce Egypt’s private sector support institutions” and the impact was negligible -though there were some improvements from 1998- because “Law 153 put serious obstacles to execution of activities since August 1999”.

Little information is also available from documents collected in Brussels on the actual influence of the private sector representatives on the policy decisions. According to financing agreements or other project documents, projects like the Industrial Modernisation Programme (IMP) in Egypt have been developed by an ad hoc Task Force representing the private sector, various Ministries and academic economists. On the other hand, the evaluation of the DIAGNOS programme reports that in the ACP region governments are perceived to play an important role in the consultation process while the private sector representatives are only perceived to play a minor role. This has been confirmed at the occasion of field missions undertaken recently under the Trade and Transport sectoral global evaluations38 to Tunisia, Vietnam, Zambia, Kenya and Ethiopia. They reported that intermediary organisations felt that they do not have much influence on policy decision or even much interaction with the government. The survey, on the other hand, indicates that intermediate organisations funded by the Commission are indeed consulted by the government although with different degrees of frequency and that their involvement on policy matters has increased over the years. Further, in many cases intermediate organisations also have contacts with international organisations (sectoral, professional or trade-related international organisations).

37 Source: Industrial Modernisation Programme, Mid-Term Evaluation, Final Report, IMC Consulting Ltd, September

2003. 38 Field missions undertaken in 2003 for the Trade Related Technical Assistance and Transport Sector global

evaluations commissioned by the Evaluation Unit of EuropeAid and currently carried out by ADE.



Commission’s interventions to support intermediate organisations have also aimed at allowing them to provide more and better services to their member enterprises. In Zambia for instance, EDP I aims to develop export capacity of coffee, horticulture/flowers, tobacco and cotton textiles sectors. Activities were carried out through intermediate organisations, which as a consequence, developed in terms of number and membership39. In Kenya, TDP I initiated a trade information delivery systems under the form of the establishment of a national trade information centre, the Centre for Business Information in Kenya (CBIK). TDP II continued is this direction by the development of CBIK. There is however a real lack of information regarding intermediary organisations receiving funding from the EC: the documentation consulted provides hardly any indication about the types of services provided to their members or about the evolution of the quantity or quality of the services provided after having received EC support. There is also no indication about the interest shown by their members to receive such services.

3.4.4 Partnership

The encouragement to the creation of partnerships between EU and ACP businesses or other private sector actors was one of the priority activities for PSD identified by the Commission’s already in 199840. Such partnerships were seen as a major tool in enhancing the competitiveness of businesses, facilitating their integration in the global economy. Various types of partnerships were considered, like joint ventures, licensing or franchising agreements, subcontracting relationships, etc. More recently41, the Commission’s involvement in investment and inter-business cooperation promotion activities in all regions has been directed at improving a sustainable and environmentally friendly development, with a view to increasing the efficiency and competitiveness of the countries concerned, and in particular their export prospects. Activities will mainly take the form of cross-sectoral programmes, like Pro-Invest, Asia-Invest, AL-Invest and other specific projects42. Yet bilateral interventions to promote partnership between EU and third countries’ firms will continue to be implemented. According to the Guidelines, these interventions are expected to be flexible and tailored to regional specificities and will vary according to the selected approach: economic cooperation, comprising the concept of mutual interest, or development cooperation, based more on the participation of intermediaries. Support to intermediary organisations will be relatively more developed in the ACP region than in Asia, Latin America and the Mediterranean regions where intermediaries are better established and more effective. The identification and creation of ‘networks’ is seen as a key element with a proactive role at all stages. 39 For the 4 intermediate organisations supported by the EC, membership went up from 240 to 570 between 1994 and

1998. 40 COM(1998) 667. 41 COM(2003) 267 and EC Guidelines for PSD, 2003. 42 See Annex 5.



At bilateral level, interventions took place in several countries. The PSDP project in Egypt aimed to support joint ventures and partnerships. Between 1996 and 2000, the project participated to the organisation of 3 matchmaking events, Europartenariat conferences (in the Netherlands, Spain, Austria and Germany), workshops and seminars (workshop on Strategic Alliance, ECIP Seminar in Cairo and Alexandria, MED Partenariat in Cairo and Euro Partenariat-Cairo). In Jordan, the EIIC component of the EJADA programme conducts demand-driven partner research, charging for its services. Interventions also consisted in the promotion of inter-sector fairs, which is the case of ETE in Tunisia; 150 Tunisian and 150 European enterprises participated to fairs and meetings, 600 bilateral contacts were organised, and 15 partnership agreements were signed within one year. But figures concerning the number of agreements resulting from this type of interventions are rare. In most cases, if information is available, it only relates to invitations and assistance but not on the number of letters of intent or agreements signed. No information could be found with regard to partnership promotion activities on projects undertaken in Kenya, Zambia or Vietnam for instance. The same is true for interventions aimed at promoting foreign direct investment in the partner countries. In Tunisia, the Foreign Investment Promotion Agency (FIPA) activities led to contacts with 200 EU firms, 20 of which visited Tunisia and 3 of which eventually invested in the country. These observations are confirmed by the results of the survey. There is very little information in this kind of events, their nature, results or follow-up. At regional level, whereas programmes like Pro-Invest are recent43, other horizontal regional programmes were launched several years ago. That is the case of AL-Invest, which started with a pilot phase in 1993 and whose third phase will start in 2004. AL-Invest is a programme that aims to support in a systematic and continual way the investments, transfers of technology, joint ventures and long-term trade agreements between companies of the European Union and Latin America. It works through single-sector meetings, through which European and Latin American companies seek to reach investment and commercial agreements. Its target is to co-finance 50 events per year. Results obtained between 1996 and 200244 were: 40 meetings per year in average; More than 35,000 EU and Latin American participating enterprises; 615 trade agreements registered, with an average value of € 273,000; 68 investment agreements registered, with an average value of € 704,000; A total value of all agreements amounting to € 215 million.

43 Pro-Invest was officially launched on 22 October 2002. 44 Source: AL-Invest website.



The total budget disbursed from 1993 until 2003 amounts to € 98 million and the return of the activities (turnover and investments as compared to EC subventions) was estimated at 7 to 1 over the period 1996-200245. A high concentration of activities in the largest Latin American countries (Argentine, Mexico, Brazil) was observed. Agro-industry; environment; and machinery and mechanical equipment are the three main sectors in which agreements were signed, amounting to near to 40 % of the transactions. Asia-Invest is in its second phase since 2003. Its specific purpose is to enhance direct business co-operation between economic operators in the EU and Asia, with a focus on SMEs and to support a dynamic private sector in Asia to seize new business opportunities and development, an objective that would be complemented with a set of interventions aiming at the reinforcement of the business environment and at stimulating trade and investment flows between the two regions. It provides a range of grants, support instruments for networking and matchmaking and access to an extensive network- and partners-search database. Specific instruments for matchmaking activities were elaborated to respond to evolving business needs: Asia-Venture, Asia-Enterprise and Asia-Partenariat. But Asia-Invest also offers technical assistance to Asian enterprises and institutional reinforcement support, through Asia-Invest Alliance and Asia-Invest Forum. These instruments are complemented by specific co-operation in fields like information technologies and communications (Asia IT&C programme) or the search of resource-efficient and sustainable solutions to environmental problems (Asia Pro-Eco) Limited information was available at this stage regarding the results of Asia-Invest. During Phase I (1997-2001), 143 projects were supported, 60 business matchmaking meetings and 70 seminars were organised and 600 commercial partnerships agreements achieved. Pro-Invest, that started operating late 2002, is a EU-ACP partnership programme for the promotion of investment in ACP countries, with a budget of € 110 million over a period of 7 years, financed by the EDF and managed by a PMU in Brussels. Its activities are in line with the policies of the Lomé Convention and the Cotonou Agreement that offer an increased role to the private sector in the development process. One of its two dimensions is the support to the development of long-term partnerships between EU and ACP enterprises, or among ACP enterprises. Its grants are awarded to qualifying intermediary organisations and enterprises on a demand-driven and cost-sharing basis. Pro-Invest intends to organise an average two major ACP-EU partner-matchmaking events per year in key ACP sectors and 20-30 smaller events and missions. It will as well co-finance 150-200 actions supporting individual projects emanating from these events. Its operations are demand-driven, except for the major key sector programme initiatives. Since the start of its operations in October 2002, the following activities were organized:

45 Source: interviews with EuropeAid officials. The evaluation report of AL-Invest (“Évaluation Finale du Programme

AL-Invest”, P-E International, 2001) shows a figure of 8.5% for a shorter period.



One key sectoral event was organised and two are in preparation; 19 sub-sectoral or sub-regional events took place; 735 enterprises have already participated to date; 30 individual actions of assistance were offered to enterprises, as post-event

support; 24 business development services and 35 policy dialogue workshops were

organised46. No particular concentration of activities is observed in larger countries but is rather a direct function of promotion activities linked with the organisation of key sector meetings and other programme initiatives.

3.4.5 Business development services

Interventions in support to SMEs at the micro level in the form of non-financial services form one of the five areas of intervention of Commission’s support for the development of the business sector47. These interventions complement interventions at the macro and meso levels. Their overall objective is to improve the competitiveness, productivity and export capacity of third country’s SMEs, allowing them to respond to the gradual integration into the world economy. As with other interventions types, BDS interventions should meet the objectives of outreach48, cost effectiveness and sustainability. These objectives can only be achieved by the creation or reinforcement of business development services (BDS) markets and not by the direct provision of such services by the donors. Therefore, EC’s intervention in this area is aimed to focus on the facilitation of a sustained increase in the demand and supply of services. This approach entails to give priority to support for intermediaries, building capacity among local providers49, to base the strategy on what already exists locally and to use market forces. The direct delivery of services to SMEs is, however, one of the oldest and most widespread activities of PSD support programmes. The EC has financed many such interventions, some of which are handled by the CDE in the case of ACP countries. The shift towards the facilitation has been put into practice rather slowly and, moreover, among the project documents analysed, it is not always possible to know whether services were provided directly or through the use of local expertise. In the case of services offered by the CDE, current practice is to use local expertise if possible and only when not available, the request for services is sent to headquarters. The survey, on the other hand, points out that 75% of the Delegations consider that there has been a shift to an approach based on the encouragement of the local supply of services in their case although it also points out to the fact that, most often, both local and foreign expertise provide BDS to SMEs. 46 Source: Pro-Invest, March 2004. 47 See COM(2003)267 but also COM(1998) 667 and the EC Guidelines for PSDS, 2003. 48 The principle of outreach refers to the maximisation of the proportion of the target population of SMEs having

access to the services proposed. 49 See COM(1998)667, section 4.2 ‘Main elements of an Integrated Strategy’ and section 3.4.3 of this report.



Box 3.2 - The traditional approach to BDS

“Traditionally, donors and governments have intervened in BDS markets at the level of the BDS transaction: directly providing services to SEs [Small Enterprises] via public BDS providers, or permanently subsidising services delivered by other BDS providers. In the old approach, donors and governments have tended to substitute for underdeveloped BDS markets, possibly crowding out existing or potential commercial providers of services. Traditional approaches have failed to achieve high outreach (access to services by a large proportion of the target population of SEs), since the numbers of SEs served is limited by the amount of subsidies available. In addition, institutional sustainability has been low, since programs often cease when public funds are exhausted; this effect has often been masked in industrialised countries by the much greater level of funding available.”

Guiding Principles for Donor Intervention on Business Development Services for Small Enterprises (Committee of Donor Agencies for Small Enterprise Development, Washington, February 2001).

Whereas BDS projects can be identified in all regions, very little information is available regarding quantitative targets, expected results and actual results. In the best cases, some actual results were found but comparisons with targets were not possible. For example, a survey undertaken under Egypt’s PSDP indicated that out of 553 company names listed, 35 reached the last phase of supplied services and completed a business plan but no target figure could be found. In the case of the Ghana GRATIS project, Phase II mentions an increase of beneficiaries from 11,000 in 1998 to 16,000 per year but Phase III speaks about ‘clients’ rather than ‘beneficiaries’, making the comparison impossible. In Dominican Republic’s PASP, five projects were reported to be under implementation, four were approved and fifteen being studies during the take-off phase in 1998. No original target figures were available but the results were considered too low and led to a change of strategy50. On the other hand, the survey carried out by the evaluation team indicates that for 50% of the Delegations, the rate of use of services is in line compared to expectations, for 25% of them it is above expectations and for the last 25%, the use of services is below expectations. Although little quantitative information has been found, several common characteristics among interventions aiming to support business development services arose from the analysis of documents and the survey: Programmes are often demand-driven in order to better respond to the real needs of local business. However, in many cases, demand has been lower than expect at the start of the programme. This has been the case of the PASP in Dominican Republic or the TANYO in Niger. The demand for services is affected by its cost, the information available to potential beneficiaries, the appropriateness of the programme to the need of local business and the local context (the political and economic situation as well as the more specific business environment). For instance, under Jordan’s EJADA programme in early 2003, a dramatic drop in demand for BDS happened to be witnessed due to the

50 Source: Dominican Republic’s Delegation Annual Report, 1998.



regional political instability. In the case of the PASP in Dominican Republic the programme reacted through an information campaign and a decrease in the cost borne by the beneficiaries although there is no indication that an analysis was made in order to know the exact causes of such insufficient demand51. Business development services are usually offered according to a cost-sharing principle. In order to be coherent with the general Commission’s strategy to support private sector development, cost-sharing should applied sensitively and support should tend towards a situation in which private enterprises bear the full cost of the services they use. Subsidies should be used selectively, for instance on investment restructuring activities, and its use should always be justified in detail. Based on the documents analysed, it is far from being the case: According to the PASP Final Evaluation Report (2000, section 5.5), “Under PASP, Dominican Republic, a 50% co-financing was criticised by some of the business services suppliers and beneficiaries. Pressure to increase the Programme’s share arose when a new phase of the EC Caribbean Export offered the opportunity of a cost-sharing rule amounting up to 2/3 of the investment level. The same percentage was offered by the new EU EBAS scheme”. In Egypt, the Independent Programme Review of the PSDP judges that “Cost sharing is not always proportional to the economic and financial dimension of some of the smaller scale enterprises (…) The choice to keep a lower level of cost-sharing is right, since the demand for activities would certainly fall with a sudden increase. An increase should be more gradual”. In Jordan, a comparative study was undertaken and indicated that the services provided under the EJADA programme were much more expensive than those provided under National Fund for Enterprise Support (NAFES, Japan Fund) because it used the services of European experts52. To compensate for this fact, the cost-sharing ratio under the EJADA programme was fixed at a lower level than in the case of the NAFES programme. Significant variations can be found about the size and status of the beneficiary enterprises benefiting from the various BSD interventions in the various regions. This variation can be noted among regions but also within a region or even within a country over time. For example, while the former PASP project in Dominican Republic targeted SMEs employing minimum 10 people, the following and ongoing project PROEMPRESA redirected its target to smaller enterprises with a high growth potential. PROMEPRESA justifies this evolution by the fact that other Commission financed PSD activities (notably EBAS and CDE) cannot reach smaller size enterprises. CDE however targets enterprises starting from 5 employees. In Egypt, the Independent Project Review of PSDP noted “a scarce representation of small enterprises and the lower end of medium ones. […] Only 37% of the total companies diagnosed can be considered SMEs, others are large enterprises”. According to the Review, the reason was that the project was demand-driven. In Jordan, EJADA’s clients have as much as 600 employees; the clients of NAFES, a similar programme funded by Japan, 51 Further, it is also indicated in the Delegation Annual Report 1998 that it was foreseen to engage foreign experts to

design a model in order to identify the needs of potential beneficiaries, the programme however had started two years earlier.

52 In terms of services, the difference is that EU experts are seen as having a wider experience in specific areas such as international marketing, conformity with EU standards and certification, state of the art technology, etc.



have less than 100 employees; those of Jordan-US Business Partnership (JUSBP), funded by USAID, have between 5 and 250 employees. From another point of view, some schemes distinguish between existing enterprises and start-ups. Under EJADA, which is in fact an Industrial Modernisation Programme (IMP), no assistance was originally given to start-ups because it was not seen relevant to ‘modernisation’ nor to ‘improvement of competitiveness’ (though the Ministry of Industry and Trade expressed that it will address start-ups later on). But under a majority of interventions, on the opposite, services are offered for the creation of enterprises as well, in particular under these project that provide credit lines (such as in Senegal, Niger, Mali, Burkina, etc.). Interventions aiming to developing BDS markets should have simultaneously covered demand, supply and supply/demand transactions53. Little information is, however, available from the documents analysed on the supply of business development services. Generally, whereas information is usually not given about the evolution of the service suppliers market in any specific country, information indicates that local consultants and partner organisations become both projects’ actors and indirect beneficiaries. This is the case for instance of the Dominican Republic where PROEMPRESA’s new approach states that all project activities will be subcontracted to partner organisations (intermediaries, NGOs, etc) and to local consultancies. This is also the case of the CDE programme that offers specialised training opportunities to local consultants and intermediary organisations, and encourages their own supply of services to local enterprises. According to the survey, the local supply of non-financial services has had a positive evolution since 1994 as it has increased in 92% of the countries and remained constant in 8% of them. Notwithstanding the often-observed low demand, reports indicate a wide use of programme facilities in some countries. In some cases, it is after the programme has been adapted (usually by lowering the cost borne by beneficiaries). In Tunisia, despite considerable early difficulties, ETE successfully disbursed all funds and local private operators have largely used the programme facilities. According to the Union Tunisienne de l'Industrie, du Commerce et de l'Artisanat (UTICA), uptake of business upgrading services under ETE was strong (particularly among larger SMEs) even though more attention could be paid to studying the requirements of individual sub-sectors. The impact of ETE also seems significant, as annual sales to export markets have grown by more than 10% for 35% of the enterprises having benefited from the programme. When analysing the use of programme facilities, time should also be taken into account: in Kenya, experience reveals that positive developments may take some time to materialise. This is illustrated by the case of the Centre for Business Information (CBIK-TDP) that was negatively assessed in an evaluation conducted immediately after termination of the project in view of its limited use by beneficiary enterprises. The next evaluation, on the contrary, found that a few years after the end of the project, the CBIK had been well

53 Guidelines(2003).



appropriated by the beneficiaries and was largely used and viewed by the operators as a most valuable tool. The degree of satisfaction of local enterprises and the usefulness of the services received is hard to assess from the project documentation under review. Information about this subject is rare. In our sample of countries, Ghana’s Woodworking programme is the only case where it is mentioned that the forestry certification programme that had been developed for SMEs will be pursued at their own cost. The evaluation of the PASP in Dominican Republic could only quote one particular case of information on beneficiary’s satisfaction.



4. Analysis

4.1 Introduction

Based on the above findings, the following analysis provides a preliminary assessment on the basis of the usual evaluation criteria. At this stage of the evaluation, these findings only rely on document analysis, interviews in Brussels and a survey based on questionnaires sent to a sample of Delegations. Case studies and field visits can complement the findings and allow for more precise analysis. Evaluation questions have been formulated54 for each evaluation criterion. The analysis below is based on the answers to these questions. Efficiency has not been addressed due to the lack of information available in Brussels about the practicalities and the costs of interventions. The survey has given some more information, specially regarding the effects of the deconcentration process and the multi-country approach on the efficiency of PSD projects. Results seem to point out to a higher efficiency due to the deconcentration but are not clear enough regarding the multi-country approach55. These findings should be complemented with field observations in order to elaborate an overall assessment of the efficiency of the Commission’s interventions to support PSD.

4.2 Relevance

4.2.1 More competitive enterprises in third countries would contribute to the goals of EU external policy

The relevance for the European Commission to support PSD relies on the assumption that the low competitiveness of the business sector in partner countries is a major constraint preventing progress towards the objectives of the EU external policy in these countries. A direct assessment of such a politically fundamental assumption cannot be done in the framework of this evaluation. It is however important to ask whether the EC has analysed this assumption and how. This was the aim of the first evaluation question: How has the assumption according to which a more competitive business sector contributes to the general objectives of the EU external policy in the different regions been checked? Links between the purpose of PSD support and the overall objectives of the EU external policy are listed for each of these objectives in EC policy documents, especially in the Guidelines. A sustainable economic, social and environmental development in third

countries. “Development is considered to be sustainable if it is economically efficient,

54 See Annex 3. 55 See Annex 9 for a description of the results of the survey.



politically democratic and pluralistic, socially equitable and environmentally sound”56. Private sector development in a context of competition, which imposes innovation, efficiency, mobility and openness to the rest of the world, directly contributes to the efficiency of the economic sphere while at the same time providing the resources for social equity and environmental soundness when properly regulated.

The integration of third countries into the world economy.

Integration into the world economy can be achieved through trade and regional economic integration. In both cases, the existence of a competitive business sector is a necessary condition for the developing economies to benefit from access to the global market. This is especially true in the perspective of setting up free trade areas with Europe, as stated for the MED and, in the longer term, for ACP countries.

The reduction of poverty in third countries.

Private sector development can contribute to poverty reduction in two basic ways: First, the private sector can act as a trigger for higher productivity and economic growth and, therefore, provide greater employment and income opportunities for the poor. Second, the private sector can complement the role of government as a provider of basic services and infrastructure for the poor. Other institutions, such as the World Bank, also point out these relations between PSD and poverty reduction57. However, analysis carried out notably by the World Bank show that this impact on the poor can only materialise if conditions such as secure property rights including for politically weak groups, fair and predictable taxation, equal access to public services, are met. Those kinds of conditions are rarely pointed out in EC documents.

Building peace and ensuring political stability and security in third countries.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sees the main role of economic cooperation as bringing or reinforcing peace, stability and security in a given area in a context of transition from a planned to a market economy. It follows from the interviews that a dynamic private sector can promote social groups likely to act as lobbying forces for transparency, democracy, modernisation, and openness to the rest of the world. This view is shared by the members of the DAC58.

The enhancement of the political, economic and cultural presence of the EU.

The development of commercial relations between European and local firms can reinforce the presence of the EU in those countries while sharing knowledge and prosperity. In particular, EU enterprises could provide capital, technology, access to markets and technical and management skills to their partners in countries where entrepreneurial resources are largely underused, while accessing themselves to foreign markets, natural resources and labour force. When this kind of partnership is possible, a situation of mutual benefit can arise. This is the case of MED, Asia and Latin America regions.

56 COM (2000)264. 57 Private Sector Development Strategy Directions for the World Bank Group, April 2002. 58 DAC orientations for development co-operation in support to private sector development; June 1994.



Commission’s policy papers issued during the period under review make explicit links between PSD and the main objectives of EU external policy, but do not provide detailed analysis of how more competitive enterprises contribute to these different goals. The guidelines and recent Communications explicitly refer to work done by other institutions. Other donors share the view that PSD is a critical dimension of economic growth, hence of poverty reduction. Their experience show that, though the link between a more competitive private sector and reduced poverty is not really challenged, systematic analysis of this relation allows to broaden the scope of impacts of PSD on poverty reduction, hence to design the interventions in support to PSD in order to maximise their effects on such goals.

4.2.2 Does the EC have a relevant approach to enhance the competitiveness of third countries enterprises?

As stated in the most recent communications, the Commission’s approach to support PSD is presented as an integrated strategy that include seven dimensions. The relevance of each of these dimensions, called above “expected results” of the activities, with regard to the purpose of enhancing the competitiveness of enterprises, relies on the assumption that these dimensions address the main constraints hampering this competitiveness. One can find some justifications of the relevance of each dimension in policy documents, but some of them rely on implicit assumptions, which are not always verified. Detailed analysis of some of these assumptions would require field observations that can be done at a later stage of the evaluation. 1. Macroeconomic, legal and regulatory framework is more conductive to PSD.

Several studies have shown that a stable macroeconomic situation with sound economic fundamentals and a predictable and enforceable legal and regulatory framework (including tax legislation and the financial system) are preconditions for a sustainable development of private sector. This is not really questioned. All observations converge towards the conclusion that enhancing the macro-economic and institutional framework is critical. However, that kind of intervention is only relevant in countries where a sufficient level of ownership of the results of EC aid can be expected.

2. Financial markets are reinforced and their capacity to finance investment, including for micro-enterprises, is increased. The development of efficient financial markets and institutions capable of mobilising domestic and international savings and allocating scarce capital where returns are highest is a second prerequisite for private sector development, including micro-enterprises. This approach, in line with market forces, is likely to be relevant. However, activities carried out under this heading are not always relevant and sometimes counterproductive. Indeed, “enhancing financial markets” is a recent presentation of the purpose of a broad range of interventions generally called “financial support” within which a certain level of ambiguity has been observed. Indeed many interventions of this area mainly aim at facilitating access of SMEs to financial resources. This very different objective is not compatible with the aim of reinforcing financial markets, since subsidised interests, which indeed facilitate access to financial resources are not sustainable for the local financial sector and, therefore



have a negative impact on this sector. The underlying assumption that justifies subsidising interest rates is that the cost of credit is a major constraint hampering enterprises development. This means in fact that these enterprises are not profitable enough to borrow at these rates and subsidised interests should not be used to increase their liabilities. Further, this assumption is seldom verified at project identification stage.

3. Capacity of intermediary professional organisations is enhanced.

Business associations in the formal and informal sector are a powerful tool to boost the capabilities of the private sector through training, dissemination of information, and by organising partnership relations between local and foreign firms. It is also a preferential partner to discuss policy matters with the government. Developing the civil society and especially increasing the political weight of independent entrepreneurs increases the political support to reforms towards a more enabling institutional and economic environment. In countries where the EU primarily looks for peace, openness, the rule of law and security, a growing independent middle class developed thanks to the growth of private enterprises, can play a critical role.

4. More investment and business-to-business co-operation. Commission’s support to investment and to trade-related activities assumes that most third countries still need external support to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) and to engage in business exchanges as ways to finance new methods and expand but also as a vehicle for the transfer of know-how and the development of managerial skills. Using development assistance (ODA) to increase the flow of FDI, which is the only sustainable flow of resources, seems to be among the most relevant use of public aid. The Asian experience indeed shows that this flow of foreign investment has provided the basis for development. However, if this link is sometimes put forward in principle, few activities directly aiming at attracting FDI have been identified. Encouraging business-to-business cooperation is more frequent. The principle seems attractive but field analysis will be needed to check the assumption according to which companies really able and willing to build sustainable partnerships need development assistance to establish such contacts.

5. More effective (non-financial) services increasing SMEs competitiveness.

Besides financial services, private firms need other services and capabilities in order to develop to their best potential, “enhance their competitiveness, gain access to modern technology, improve management and seek new markets”59. As it is the case for financial services, activities aiming at delivering such services give in some cases the priority to facilitating access to these services, notably through subsidising these services. However, if the main aim is to support sustainable markets of these services, the relevance of subsidising their provision is questionable. The debate is however more open than for financial services. The relevance of subsidising may be higher in the case of advice in the context of large restructuring of enterprises than for the support for daily accounting.

59 COM(2003)267.



6. Development of micro-enterprises. Micro-enterprises are a growing and dynamic element of development economies. In many cases they involve an important part of the informal economy. A flourishing micro-enterprise sector generates output, employment and incomes and strengthens inter sectoral linkages, leading to more integrated economies and balanced growth. It also promotes a broad-based participation -particularly by the poor and by women- in productive activities, leading to more equitable income distribution. The relevance of supporting this sector as a way to address poverty is hardly questionable.

7. Enterprises’ management and organisation is improved. Privatisation and restructuring programmes undertaken in conjunction with broader economic reforms to increase competition and correct relative prices are central to a more efficient allocation of resources and to a higher productivity. They are also essential to the long-term development of the private sector, contributing to strengthen market forces and competitive conditions, to develop local capital markets and financial institutions, and to create new opportunities.

4.3 Effectiveness

This section analyses how far PSD interventions have effectively deliver expect results. It corresponds to Evaluation Questions 2 to 6, which relate to five types of PSD interventions.

4.3.1 Institutional Support

Institutional support is an area where the comparative advantage of the European Commission is among the highest. However, it is more in their capacity to address the set of comprehensive and systemic constraints of the private sector that their effectiveness could be challenged. TDP in Kenya and EDP in Zambia, for instance, evidence this. These PSD programmes have the objective to enhance the export capacity of the partner countries, to contribute to improving the countries’ terms of trade, and accelerating export and private sector-led growth and employment creation. If the interventions undertaken have been successful in developing some of the partner countries’ institutions, they nevertheless failed to overcome the overall institutional or structural bottlenecks limiting their export capacity. An appropriated institutional, regulatory and economic framework is a pre-condition to an effective support to private sector development and consequently to any PSD intervention. This understanding has been well integrated in the cooperation with the Asian region where PSD support concentrates on “macro” level support (i.e. institutional aspects) in order to create an environment conductive to PSD. A different approach has been taken in the MEDA region where face to often unfavourable private sector environment, the EC proposes to focus on “tailor-made” interventions such as the FEMIP, aimed to solve an insufficient supply of credits to private firms. In other regions the approach is less clear-cut but, in general, project documents seldom identify an appropriated institutional, regulatory and economic framework as an assumption or risk for the intervention.



4.3.2 Financial services

According to the Guidelines, the COM(2003)267, and already the COM(1998)667, the objective of interventions providing financial services is not only to provide finance for specific projects but to strengthen the local financial sector in a sustainable way. In practice, however, provision of credits has been offered at lower rates than the market and, in many cases, operations have been carried out by an institution specially set up and not by a local operator. Further, there is no sign that the design of the interventions is based on a detailed analysis of the problem, including the functioning of the local financial market. In particular, it is often simply stated that micro and SMEs have no access to credit but the reasons are not analysed. The lack of analysis may lead to the design of programmes that are not the most appropriated to address the insufficient development of local financial markets. An indication of this mismatch can be the fact that some programmes have faced a much lower demand for credits than expected. Indeed, there are several, non-exclusive, possible causes preventing micro and SMEs from having access to credit. In each specific case, according to the nature of the obstacles, the modalities of implementation of the programme should be different. These possible causes include: Micro and SMEs do not have the capacity to elaborate appropriated credit

dossiers; Micro and SMEs do not have the profitability needed to pay (market) interest

rates; The cost of analysing a small dossier is too high for local financial institutions; Local financial institutions are unable to assess the risk of lending to a micro or

SME. Local financial institutions have assessed that the risk of lending to a micro or SME and have concluded that the risk is high. In both cases, they apply a high interest rate or refuse to consider a request coming form a micro or SME;

Local financial institutions request conditions that are not appropriated to micro or SMEs (collaterals, type of information, etc.).

Another reason affecting the effectiveness of EC interventions aiming to reinforce local financial markets is the little comparative advantage that the EC may have as a donor institution. The peer review on the Commission’s operations on micro-credit60 is opening the way to a more comprehensive reflection on the value added of the Commission in interventions involving credit lines. This type of intervention has faced a number of different implementation problems (insufficient demand, insufficient involvement of local financial institutions, etc.) and no elements have been found to state that EC interventions have reinforced financial markets and increased capacity of local financial institutions to finance micro and SME. On the other hand, interventions have been effective in delivering expected outputs (significant

60 Carry out in 2003 in the frame of the CGAP’s Microfinance Donor Peer Reviews.



volume of loans, beneficiary firms, disbursement rates, reimbursement rates, etc.) and monitoring information on this type of intervention is more frequent than for other types of interventions. These results are confirmed by the survey61.

4.3.3 Intermediate Organisations

The support to intermediate organisations is already encouraged in the COM(1998) and reinforced in the Guidelines and Communication. The capacity of such organisations to carry out a policy dialogue with the government is considered key to build private sector confidence in government action, in defining policy priorities, and in achieving ownership of reforms. Further, intermediate organisations can provide business development services to their members and represent their interests in the national and international fora. Intermediary organisations are also view as an important part of the civil society, whose development can contribute to the construction of a democratic state. The reinforcement of intermediate organisations is coherent with a greater focus on interventions contributing to develop an environment more favourable to the development of the private sector. In all regions analysed, there have been EC interventions supporting intermediary organisations, often as part of a larger programme. These activities have been carried out for several years but in most cases, very little information is available regarding either the intermediate organisation supported (their nature, membership, types of services they provide to their members, etc.) or regarding the use of the subsidies received in documents collected in Brussels. The survey, however, points at a greater effectiveness of this type of intervention. An assessment on this issue would need further investigations in the field.

4.3.4 Partnership

Most partnership interventions have been carried out in the frame of regional programmes such as Asia-Invest, AL-Invest, and Pro-Invest. These programmes share the same main objective, while having also their own specificities. In most cases, these programmes have been effective in organising partnership activities and, often, a follow-up of the agreements reached after a partnership activity is also done. It is difficult, however, to relate these outputs with expected results as in many cases objectively verifiable targets have not been specified. Yet, programmes keep detail track of the activities and the results, which is not always the case of partnership interventions under national programmes. A question remains regarding the level of coordination between these programmes and other PSD projects in the frame of bilateral cooperation. The flow of information is not always ensured. Better coordination between regional and national intervention can improve their effectiveness. In the frame of national programmes, partnership activities have most often been part of larger PSD programmes. In most of these cases, however, very little information is available (either through project documents or through the survey) regarding expected results, activities undertaken, agreements obtained after an activity, or other possible forms 61 See Annex 9.



of benefits. Given its difficulty and its heaviness, it is likely that the follow up of partnership promotion meetings with the support of the EC is seldom done.

4.3.5 Business Development Services

According to the Guidelines, the development of the BDS market has been encouraged since 1995. This type of intervention should have simultaneously covered demand, supply and supply/demand transactions. Further, it should have been based in the principles of outreach, cost effectiveness and sustainability. According to these principles, “the objectives of outreach and sustainability can only be achieved in well-developed markets for BDS, and not by direct provision by donors and governments”62. However, the direct provision of services and/or their provision with subsidies is still often observed. In that sense, these interventions do not achieve the objective of “developing BDS and making them sustainable”63. In some cases, subsidies have been proposed or increased as a consequence of a lack of demand for the services proposed. However, demand can be insufficient because the price is too high, because services proposed do not respond to the needs of potential beneficiaries or because these firms are not sufficiently informed about the existence or the utility of the services proposed. In the case of the programmes analysed, it is the first hypothesis that has systematically been chosen, without apparent justification. Further, there is no evidence either that a correct diagnosis has been made before starting the programme to make sure that a potential demand for the services to be proposed existed. Even when activities have been carried out, in many cases target were not explicit and it is therefore difficult to know to what extent expected result were achieved. It is, however, possible to state that most of these programmes successfully provided some business development services to local firms.

4.3.6 Effectiveness: overall analysis

Based on the documents analysed, it is possible to state that interventions aiming to develop business development services, to promote partnership agreements and to reinforce intermediate organisations share a number of characteristics: Very often, they are part of a larger, multi-component, programme; It is not clear how the different components of these programmes are coordinated; It is not clear either how beneficiaries (intermediate organisations, firms, etc) are

targeted (if the focus is on certain sectors or on certain type of organisations or firms, etc);

Programme documents seldom include explicit objectively verifiable targets or a system of monitoring indicators to measure performance; and

62 Guidelines, page 64. 63 Guidelines, page 69.



There is little systematic information regarding the implementation of the project and the results obtained, even in evaluation reports.

An explanation to this lack of information (base-line and follow-up) could be that when interventions are a component of a larger, complex, multi-component programme and not a project by itself, the design and follow-up of the intervention is less carefully crafted. Field missions could explore whether this information exists at the Delegation or PMU. The analysis of project documents further suggests that identification analysis is weak for most types of interventions (to develop business development services, to promote partnership agreements, to reinforce intermediate organisations but also to reinforce local financial markets). First, it is hardly ever analysed whether the context (institutional, regulatory and economic) is appropriated to encourage private sector development. Yet, the context should be considered as a condition to any effective intervention to support PSD. Second, within the frame of the intervention itself, documents analysed show no detailed analysis of the problem to be addressed. This problem is particularly acute in the case of interventions aiming to create or reinforce financial markets or markets for business development services. Yet, this analysis is required for a proper design of the intervention.

4.4 Sustainability

Sustainability generally refers to whether the benefits produced by the project at purpose level are likely to continue after external funding ends and whether the project’s long-term impact on the wider development process can be sustained64. Sustainability, therefore, does not necessarily imply that the activities carried out in the frame of the project should be sustainable. In some cases, however, it is desirable that the activities implemented through the project are replicated after the project has ended. It is particularly the case for PSD projects that aim to reinforce financial markets or that aim to develop a market for business development services. The present overall assessment of sustainability of PSD interventions takes into account both aspects: sustainability of the benefits produced by the project and, when appropriated, sustainability of the activities proposed. Overall, it is difficult to assess the sustainability of the benefits of the Commission’s PSD interventions based on the available documents. Very little information was available regarding the indicators proposed by the evaluation team65. This kind of information, specific to the projects, can be collected more easily through field missions. Some elements can nonetheless be highlighted: First, an environment conductive to the development of the private sector is a basic condition for the sustainability of any type of PSD intervention, although only in few cases this is explicitly stated. For instance, Dominican Republic’s CSE indicates: “Interventions like (…) PASP placed little emphasis on improving the policy environment… This probably contributed to the limited impact and sustainability of these interventions.” 64 Evaluation Guidelines, page 14. 65 See Annex 3.



Second, sustainability seems more likely where PSD interventions reach institutions. It is the case of projects aiming to enrich and improve the private sector surrounding environment such as institutional support, capacity building, etc. Particularly, when ownership is ensured, when design is clear and appropriated, and when beneficiaries are well defined. Projects aiming to harmonise practices or standards fit particularly well into this description (e.g. the Centre for Business Information (CBIK) under TDP in Kenya or the establishment of the standards and metrology institution under EJADA). Other interventions providing institutional support also ensure sustainable benefits when these basic conditions are met. Some interventions contributing to improve private sector practices and/or competences also meet these conditions and are likely to produce sustainable benefits as the competences, when relevant to the beneficiaries, are an acquis. Although there is little information on the long-term effects of the projects, there are signs that indeed beneficiaries consider these projects are highly useful. For instance, an ex-post evaluation found that the CBIK in Kenya was, few years after the end of the project, well appropriated by the beneficiaries and was largely used and viewed by the operators as a most valuable tool. In Vietnam, on the other hand, the EBIC had “reached” some 6,000 interlocutors in some form or other (mainly workshops and seminars, enquiries and press reports) and its disappearance as a ‘one stop shop’ for information on the Single Market and doing business with Europe appeared to be a general source of regret among the interlocutors, whether public or private sector representatives. Finally, interventions are less likely to be sustainable when they offer a direct support to private sector operations without generating a substantial change in behaviours, practices or knowledge capital. For example, the expected sustainability of Vietnam’s SMEDF relied on changing the behaviour of local financial institutions practices through training and hands on operation. However, training was very limited and, in spite of high rates of reimbursement and effective loan operations, local operators were not interested in taking over the programme. One explanation to this is the negative real interest rates at which the programme worked. Indeed, financial and business development services have often been provided with subsidies in spite of the strategy proposed by the Commission as early as 1998: “[The Community will] only support activity that is sustainable in the medium-long term, without recourse to subsidy. Private enterprises should sooner or later be expected to bear the full cost of the credit or other services that it uses” (COM(1998), page 16). In many cases, sustainability was to be ensured through the transfer of the programme to local private operators but, most often, private operators were not interested in taking over the programme (e.g. SMEDF in Vietnam and EFF in Zambia). The survey further shows that few provisions to ensure that business development services provided with the support of the Commission will continue to be provided after completion of the project or programme. Among the 6 Delegations that have answered to the question (out of 12 that answered the section on BDS), 50% propose a solution such as the transfer to a private organization, the strengthening of specific institutions or the government financial



support. The other 50% admit that nothing or very few in project documents has been decided to ensure the continuity of the services. The provision of services at a low cost (e.g. SMEDF in Vietnam, PASP in the Dominican Republic, EFF in Zambia) has therefore induced a high demand for the services but has weakened overall sustainability. Further, the weak sustainability of these projects is not independent from their weak design and the gap with respect to the PSD strategy proposed by HQ as mentioned in section 4.3.

4.5 Coherence and Coordination

4.5.1 Coherence with other EU policies or programmes

It is difficult to rigorously gauge how the effectiveness and impact of the Commission’s PSD interventions have been hampered by other EU policies. From a factual point of view, no information could be found in the documents available for this evaluation concerning the existence of complaints emanating from governments or public/private operators benefiting from EC funded PSD programmes concerning possible conflicts or problems resulting from the implementation of particular EU policies. However, it is not because the actors do not notify an official complaint that they are left unaffected by EU policies, as the expression of a disagreement or regrets on the attitude of the EU can, for instance, be formulated during private interviews. This was in particular the case for some Tunisian private sector operators, which expressed regrets that the CAP still maintains a strong protection of EU agricultural markets66. Further, the survey shows that out of the 12 Delegations that answer on the section on coherence, 40% found that PSD interventions are affected by other European projects, programmes or policies and 27% stated that there have been complaints concerning EU policies, regulations or programmes expressed by the beneficiaries, the Government or the operators of PSD programmes. The difficulties reported are: The Common Agricultural Policy; The new regulation on Official Feed and Food Controls (COM/2003/0052); European trade restrictions on some processed agro-based products and The too numerous programmes at ALL-ACP, regional and national levels.

It remains that there is little dispute concerning the fact that, in general, the delivery of PSD interventions would, in first instance, be affected by the EU trade policy, in particular with respect to its main objective of increasing the beneficiary’s competitiveness and contributing to its integration in the world trading system. Supporting the competitiveness of third countries’ enterprises may indeed loose much of its relevance if Europe does not waive obstacles against imports from the same countries. Identically, policies that lead towards dumping subsidised products on the world markets also negatively affect the competitiveness of impact enterprises benefiting from the Commission’s PSD interventions.

66 See Evaluation of Trade-Related Assistance by the European Commission in Third Countries, 2004.



Most PSD programmes incorporate the objective to increase the private sector’s competitiveness to expand the countries or regions export capacity, thereby contributing to an export-led growth process. The full delivery of such programmes therefore implies that new or upgraded export capacities are not constrained by trade policy provisions limiting market access. From this point of view, the issue of coherence is real as market access is today mainly restricted by the implementation of technical barriers to trade and/or rules of origin, which become more and more complicated and drastic. In some cases, this has even led to a serious erosion of the preferences granted by the EU to partner countries. See for instance, Brenton and Manchin (2000) assessing the extent to which preference granted by the EU remain hardly exploited by the beneficiary countries due to the restrictiveness and complexity of the regime governing the associated rules of origin67. Based on the available documentation, it is nevertheless difficult to assess the extent by which the existence of such trade policy provisions effectively affects the Commission’s PSD interventions under review. Project identification seldom (if ever) addresses the issue of the coherence with the other European programmes or policies. Moreover, such aspects, although central to appreciate the project’s delivery, are not covered by the follow up, monitoring or evaluation procedures and reporting. Coherence with trade policy is nevertheless implicitly recognised and in part addressed by the Commission’s PSD programmes. The trend has indeed been to increase the number and importance of trade related components in EC PSD programmes and in particular those coping with market access issues. For instance, EBIC in Vietnam is meant to train local operators on how to deal with EU standards so as to develop their export capacity on EU markets. Identically, ETE and to a larger extent the successor IMP in Tunisia include Metrology, Standards, Testing and Quality components so as to comply with EU regulations and obtain accreditation. In Jordan, EJADA provides advice to SMEs about products that are under no or high quotas and that could easily enter the EU market. From this point of view, Trade Related Assistance programmes aiming at increasing the capacity to accede European markets are an important and necessary complement to most PSD interventions. As the Commission is implementing PSD programmes in many countries and regions, the issue of coherence could also be addressed across PSD programmes. From this point of view, sharing experience between teams working in very different contexts could be fruitful. Inter-service working groups have been set up to that end but the documentation consulted provides no indication about the meetings between working groups in charge of PSD or about how the various Commission’s programmes could possibly influence each other. Common strategy papers have been elaborated but it is very difficult to know who was involved in their preparation and thus if the various relevant actors were consulted and able to share their experience.

67 Brenton P. and M. Manchin, “Making EU Trade Agreements Work: The Role of Rules of Origin”, CEPS Working

Document N° 183, March 2002. According to their findings, only one third of EU imports from developing countries which were eligible for preferences actually entered the EU market with reduced duties.



4.5.2 Donor coordination

Programming documents do not give a clear idea concerning the extent of coordination taking place between the European Commission and other donors in the field of PSD nor on how other donors activities are taken into account in the design of the Commission’s PSD interventions. In each of the country analysed, programming documents indeed refer to other donors’ activities (mainly EU Member States, EIB, USAID, Canada, Japan, UNIDO, World Bank, and IMF) but the information reported is too narrow to establish a basis for coordination or avoid programmes overlaps. In particular, CSPs generally list the donors active in the country but do not detail the content of their interventions. The survey refers rather to overall coordination on the sector but results are not clear-cut: 57% of the 14 Delegations that answered this section indicate that there is multi-donor coordination group on private sector development. In most cases, co-operation with other donors is absent from the PSD projects practices. Few projects are actually multi-donor interventions; it seems that each donor has its own panel of projects to finance and manage. Moreover, the success of the intervention of the few projects that are multi-donor is mitigated and very different from a country to another. For instance, the GRATIS project in Ghana and the SFD programme in Egypt were globally successful, when the micro-finance programme in Uganda preceding the SUFFICE project (the Micro-Projects Programme) is considered as a failure. Coordination has mostly been implemented through the creation of consultative or working groups composed of the main donors in the country (this is for instance the case in Jordan, Egypt, Ghana, Vietnam). Sometimes, coordination is organised only for some aspects of the project, on a case-by-case basis rather than being systematically structured in an institutional framework. The EJADA programme, in Jordan, is a good illustration of such practice. Finally, coordination also takes the form of a punctual multi-donor review of the programme, as it is the case in SFD in Egypt. The role played by the European Commission in the coordination process is variable. In some cases, the EC seems to take the initiative and the lead (like for instance, in the Dominican Republic, Uganda, Jordan or Egypt), either because the government does not assume this task or because the EC constitute a reference point for other donor programmes. In other cases on the contrary (Vietnam, Tunisia), the EC is rather passive, its coordination activities being limited to the dissemination of information and keeping each other aware about one another activities in the sector. In such instance, it appears that it is the country’s authorities that play the main role in terms of donor coordination. In general, it seems that the EC mainly concentrates its coordination efforts to other EU MS while coordination with other donors is more superficial and/or takes place rather irregularly. The effectiveness of coordination practices has recently evolved. In the past, donors did not pursue complementarity analysis and policy coordination. Coordination activities were often limited to consultation and information and seldom took the form of a policy dialogue leading to common decisions. In practice, each donor developed its own PSD activities and implemented its own PSD support structure, causing an institutional proliferation rather than an institutional coordination. This situation made the PSD



environment even more complex and led to programmes overlaps and an inefficient use of resources. The Delegations give now more importance to its coordination function since some country strategy evaluations pointed to serious drawback in this domain. The case of Senegal is an interesting illustration. The new country strategy is now trying to improve the situation and emphasises the need of a better coordination in order to improve the impact of the interventions and the efficiency of the PSD strategy in the country.

4.6 Crosscutting issues

The present section analyses the attention given by the PSD programme to four main crosscutting issues: gender; environment; social issues such as working conditions or child labour; and good governance.

4.6.1 Gender

In some cases, country programming documents (e.g. NIPs or CSPs for Tunisia, Jordan, Egypt, Vietnam, Ghana) make reference to the necessity to target the needs of women, to enhance their role in economic life and to give them the possibility to benefit from appropriate social support. They happen to make a call to tackle the issue of female entrepreneurship; they would however not indicate how this might take effect and what kind of actions should be foreseen. The strategy documents remain thus laconic on the manner this crosscutting issue should be treated, noting only that actions can be developed when appropriate and on an ad-hoc basis. Reference to the issue of female entrepreneurship in PSD projects is rare. In some cases, project documents recognise that an important share of Small and Micro-enterprise entrepreneurs are women but notwithstanding this fact, women are not a specific target of the projects (e.g. Dominican Republic). While the gender equality concern happens to be mentioned in some project financing agreements, which state that the project management will evaluate the gender impact of the project and integrate gender aspects into the different components, the documents usually provide no gender indicators. In Egypt, the financing agreement of the PSDP foresaw that a number of activities should be undertaken to promote the participation of women and that Business Associations should be encouraged to target women’s needs within their sector. However the project’s final evaluation report does not mention that any action was taken in that direction. In the absence of indicators and when nothing is known about the way the gender issue has been addressed by the project from its start, evaluation reports do not address the issue. The words ‘women’ and ‘gender’ are most often mentioned, when they happen to be mentioned, in relation to the objective of fighting against poverty. This means that there is at least some recognition that women represent a large share of the poor. But the specific focus on women is rare, even in projects whose overall objective is to fight against poverty.



Box 4.1 - A case of good practice

As far as ensuring the participation of women into a SME project, the Egyptian Social Development Fund (SFD) with its large Small Enterprise Development Organization (SEDO, € 86 million) component is a positive example. SFD focuses on combating poverty and as such was involved in the design of a poverty map that offers a support mechanism to identify and target low-income groups, a number of indicators and various programs of assistance and services that are aimed at low-income groups, in particular female-headed households. SFD has adopted a policy that emphasises women’s role in the small enterprise sector. Its gender strategy to implement this policy has three main components:

Developing women’s skills and capabilities; Feminising the culture of entrepreneurship; Establishing a businesswomen network.

A Women and Development Unit was created in 1998, that changed its name into a Gender Unit later on. The SEDO Work Plan 2003 indicates that equal opportunities will be given to women to attend training aimed at strengthening skills and capabilities to establish successful enterprises. Gender disaggregated statistics are used by SEDO, distinguishing between men and women among the borrowers, and showing that in 1999, the percentage of SEDO loan activities to women was as high as 32.3% though no affirmative action had been taken in favour of women. In such a case, it is only regrettable that the evaluation of SEDO Non-Financial Services undertaken in 2003 did not carried out any gender analysis.

4.6.2 Environment

Recent Country Strategies do usually make a reference to this crosscutting issue and in some countries, environment became one of the country priorities (e.g. Dominican Republic, CSP 2001-2007). In some cases, Environment Impact Assessment would be undertaken for large projects (Jordan). But as for gender issue, CSPs remain laconic on the manner the environment question should be treated, noting that actions related to these issues can be developed when appropriate and on an ad hoc basis. At project document level, some financing agreements or TOR suggest that the project will actively support activities aimed at solving environmental problems (Egypt, SFD and SEDO), or that they will not support SMEs that do act negatively on the environment or do not respect national environmental standards (Jordan). Some have an “opportunistic” perspective on the environmental issue, recognising its importance as a commercial asset to the tourist industry or recognising the adoption of environmental standards as a condition for a better access to the EU market. Others combine the purpose of increased competitiveness of the industry with the principle of sustainable environmental management (e.g. Woodworking sector development programme in Ghana). Means proposed to reach the entrepreneurs are the sensibilisation to environmental problems into training programmes (Jordan, Ghana) and political dialogue (Dominican Republic). Unfortunately, project evaluation reports usually skip the subject.



Box 4.2 - A case of good practice

A specific and positive case is that of Ghana’s woodworking programme. Its overall objective is the growth of the country’s export revenue through support of non traditional exports in the woodworking sector, while at the same time ensuring the compatibility of these developments with the principles of sustainable forest management. More and more companies are realising the need to conserve the tropical forests and avoid the wasteful depletion of this resource. Companies have been advised on forestry certification and certification programmes have been developed. The target is that, by 2004, 250,000 ha will be certified as “sustainably managed” by the Forest Stewardship Council, through a higher share of lesser-used species in wood processing.

Some EU funded institutions are integrating the environmental issue in their strategic approach of the private sector support. In its preparation of sector programmes, the CDE gives priority to sectors that will preserve the environment. In the field of timber, it has developed three programmes of timber certification and woodworking in Central Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. The CDE has also developed a programme based on environment protection, with 3 components: Prevention and protection of pollution risks; Answering the demands of international commitments regarding the environment; Sustainable development.

The activities implemented are: technical assistance and institutional strengthening including sensibilisation and training at public and private levels; enhancing the creation of enterprises and consulting in the environment sector; enhancing environment and partnership; and elaboration of reference documentation. Within this programme, the CDE intends to offer sensibilisation to the environmental issue through intermediary organisations. The EIB develops as well an environmental approach in some countries. In Dominican Republic for example, a condition accompanying the credit line provided by EIB to the local financial institution was that the SMEs that would benefit from credit would not cause any damage to the environment. The environment is only beginning to be taken into account by PSD programmes in more concrete ways. For instance, actions are being implemented in order to raise awareness of private sector actors on their contribution to a more sustainable management of the resources. However, the follow up of the activities implemented and results achieved is yet very limited.

4.6.3 Social issues

As far as working conditions, child labour, and other social issues are concerned, it appears from the documentation consulted that they were not taken into account. Only in one case (Tunisia), security standards and references to be taken by enterprises are an issue raised in the identification and formulation report of an industrial modernisation programme.



4.6.4 Good governance

No specific reference to this fourth crosscutting issue could be found in the documents consulted. Some recent country programming documents are starting to mention the principle of good governance as part of the overall EU cooperation strategy with the country (e.g. Ghana, Senegal, Vietnam) but no specific link with the private sector is made in spite that good governance is an integral part of a country’s institutional and regulatory framework. Yet, a conductive institutional and regulatory framework is considered as a condition to PSD and is also the first area of intervention proposed by the Guidelines and the COM(2003)267. The fact that good governance is an issue not yet taken into account in countries were the Commission funds interventions to support PSD, suggests an insufficient awareness of the importance of the institutional and regulatory aspects to PSD.



5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Preliminary conclusions

Based on a desk study, only preliminary conclusions can be presented. These conclusions can be completed by further investigations relying also on case studies and field visits.

The EC approach to support PSD is now much more consistent and comprehensive…

C1 Significant progress has been made towards a single coherent approach. During the period under evaluation, the formulation of the European Commission’s strategy to support private sector development in third countries has been clarified, unified between the different regions and presented as a comprehensive approach addressing problems at different levels68. PSD support has a single purpose in all regions, supported by a broad range of activities, which can vary from region to region. The policy includes interventions at “macro” level (policies, regulations, central institutions), “meso” level (intermediary institutions) and “micro” level (direct support to enterprises). However, this coherent formulation of the policy is fairly recent in some regions and has not influenced all the interventions under evaluation.

…. But knowledge management has not followed.

C2 The relevance of PSD support with regard to EU external policy goals is widely shared among donors, but could be more explicitly justified to provide guidelines for action.

The overall objectives of EU external policy are known and they are prioritised in the different regions according to their specific conditions but the problems to address in order to reach these objectives are not always clearly identified69. Therefore, the role of PSD and the conditions to ensure that PSD interventions effectively contribute to such overall objectives are not clearly stated. In general terms, the view that enhancing the competitiveness of third countries’ enterprises is a relevant objective to contribute to goals such as poverty reduction and the integration of third countries into the world economy is widely shared among donors. However, despite the step forward made by the elaboration of the Guidelines for EC support to PSD, the analysis of why and under which conditions the purpose of PSD support is relevant to contribute to each of the overall objectives of EU policy is generally

68 See section 3.3.2. 69 See section 4.2.1.



absent, weak or relies on other institutions’ analysis. Further, when these analyses are available, they are not sufficiently shared with the EC staff in charge of PSD support, which has an effect on the relevance of specific interventions70. As a consequence of the lack of explicit reference to the EU global objectives, one does not find special focus on priorities such as poverty reduction in the design and implementation of PSD support interventions. C3 The importance of project identification and preparation studies is generally underestimated. Few

interventions have been identified on the basis of clear feasibility studies analysing the problem to address, the national context, and market situation (existence of demand, competitors, etc). Their relevance is therefore often not substantiated.

C4 Insufficient preparation of PSD interventions also leads to unclear definition of the objectives and

the baseline situation. Effectiveness of the interventions is therefore generally hard to assess. Activities are carried out, disbursement rates are generally high but in most cases, initial situation, expected results and/or their targets have not been clearly stated. In most cases, interventions are components of larger programmes. The results expected from each component and the actual cost of each of them are not clear. Many of the interventions at enterprise level are designed to be demand driven. In some cases this argument has been used to explain why no quantitative objectives have been fixed71.

Some interventions change their purpose underway

C5 Objectives actually pursued do not always correspond to the objectives proposed at the strategic level Some interventions, such as credit schemes or non-financial support to enterprises, provide services or credits below market conditions72 although their initial purposes were to contribute to the development of a local financial market or to promote local non-financial services. This suggests that the teams in charge of the implementation of these programmes have given more importance to the delivery of these services in the short run than to the development of sustainable supply capacities.

70 See section 4.3.6. 71 See section 4.3.6. 72 See section 4.3.2 and 4.3.5.



Sustainability does not receive sufficient attention

C6 Sustainability depends on a large measure on the type of intervention. In the case of institutional support, ownership from the partner government is a key factor for sustainability.

In some cases PSD support teams had to struggle against government resistance to provide their support. In these cases their inputs where not effective or sustainable. In other cases, such as in projects aiming at harmonising norms, genuine political support has been obtained and the effects appear to be sustainable73. C7 The sustainability of partnerships built with the support of the EC is not known since little

follow-up of the effects of these interventions has been made so far74. C8 In the case financial and non-financial services provided to enterprise, the sustainability has to be

ensured at two levels75:

The sustainability of the effects of these services on the beneficiaries, which is generally not assessed.

The sustainability of the activities themselves. These activities are sustainable if they are taken over by private actors after the end of European support. Early signs of sustainability could be given by replicability. If no private player has tried to provide the same services in competition with the project, it is unlikely that these services will be taken over at the end of the EC intervention. None of the interventions analysed so far has been successfully taken over by private actors.

C9 While it is widely accepted that no sustainable private sector development can be expected without

an important contribution of foreign direct investment (FDI), very few PSD support interventions (with the exception of partnership building) are openly aiming at attracting FDI and effectiveness of EC intervention in terms of influence on FDI is never assessed76.

Coherence: A EU more open to imports would provide an effective support to PSD in third countries

C10 The extent to which other EU policies and interventions affect beneficiaries of PSD programmes is seldom explicitly considered

Project identification documents rarely address the issue of the coherence with other EU policies or programmes. Explicit complaints from beneficiaries of PSD support

73 See section 4.3.1 and 4.4. 74 See section 4.3.4. 75 See sections 4.3.2, 4.3.5, 4.3.6 and 4.4. 76 See section 4.3.



programmes have been recorded from the survey but not from the documents. Field mission may provide more information. There is a contradiction between supporting export-oriented private sector development in developing countries on the one hand, and protecting European markets against imports through subsidies or non-tariff barriers on the other77. This is especially true in agriculture where the tariffs increase with the level of product processing. This has a direct impact on rural enterprises, which are the most likely to impact on poverty78.

Coordination is in progress, at least at country level

C11 Donor coordination exists mainly at country level and depends on individual initiative. National and regional EC programmes are not always coordinated79

Crosscutting issues: some references to gender and environment, no evidence of influence on implementation

C12 Crosscutting issues have had no influence on the design or implementation of PSD interventions80.

5.2 Preliminary recommendations

This desk evaluation allows for preliminary recommendations, based on the above conclusions. Further information, collected through field observations and case studies, is necessary to verify these preliminary results. Providing an effective support to the sustainable development of private sector is a very relevant dimension of EU economic co-operation policy. However, it is also one of the most difficult areas for international aid. Effective interventions are especially hard to design, to negotiate, to carry out and their effects are difficult to assess, notably for the following reasons: Interventions are sensitive to formal and less explicit policies, regulations and

institutional practices and to the features and variations of global and local markets. Comprehensive ex-ante analyses are therefore critical to design the most relevant intervention in each context.

To negotiate with governments, other donors and private sector representatives at local level can be a difficult task in some cases. Supporting private sector with public money is also an activity that may raise various political reactions within Europe. Knowing and being able to explain as clearly as possible why (in relation

77 Among the numerous studies available on that question, see the last “Global Economic Prospects” of the World

Bank: Realising the Development Promise of the Doha Agenda. 78 See section 4.5.1. 79 See section 4.5.2. 80 See section 4.6.



to EU policies but also to local problems and context) such interventions are undertaken is therefore important.

Once launched, interventions are likely to be more sensitive to policy or market changes than in other sectors. Knowledge on the initial situation has to be updated more frequently than for interventions in other sectors. Permanent information gathering and analysis are necessary to anticipate these changes and to adapt the programmes.

In such a sensitive field, sharing experience is critical to accumulate knowledge, share day-to-day information and reinforce negotiation capacity.

R1 A more explicit justification of why the EC provides PSD support in order to contribute to the

overall objectives of its policy will help knowing how to do it in each context and how to assess its effectiveness.

The EC should invest more in justifying and disseminating its policy. This would help the staff and other parties to make decisions with a clearer perception of the overall objectives to which they are expected to contribute. This could notably lead to more sector-specific approaches. Indeed, market or policy changes may have very different impacts on enterprises according to the sector in which they operate.

Box 5.1 - Intergration into the world economy

Opening a developing economy to the world market usually has positive and negative consequences. Some sectors benefit from new growth opportunities, but others are likely to be crushed by foreign competitors. Providing PSD support to contribute to the opening of an economy requires therefore a detailed analysis of the consequences of this process. On that basis, the EC may contribute to boost the most competitive sectors or to help mitigating the social effects in the least competitive enterprises through conversion programmes. Both interventions could be relevant but both need detailed analyses to be designed and carried out properly.

This could also lead to a more explicit focus on poverty in the areas where poverty reduction is the overarching objective. Indeed, even if it is true that in all cases private sector development can contribute to poverty reduction, the specific way to support PSD may be different if the impact on poverty has to be maximised81. In these countries some form of “poverty impact assessment” is needed. R2 More should be done to ensure systematic knowledge management at the different stages of the

intervention process: Information gathering and analysis, staff training, on the job guidance at all levels of decision, exchange of experience and knowledge accumulation.

The guidelines for EC support to PSD present a good summary describing the different interventions of a comprehensive approach to support PSD. However, they do not say how to do things such as: analysing a given context in order to select the most relevant interventions, negotiating them or managing them in unpredictable environments. The needs in terms of knowledge management generated by such a sophisticated approach 81 See for instance the private sector strategy directions for the World Bank Group (April 2002).



have been underestimated. The complexity of PSD support justifies the setting up of flexible support teams, organised in a network, which would provide training tools, organise training sessions, provide direct or internet-based helpdesk, provide ad-hoc specialised expertise, monitor interventions, accumulate lessons from experience and circulate them. R3 The design and the formulation of the justification of the different instruments of PSD support

should be done in close cooperation with other donors. Multi-donor interventions are often seen as cumbersome and slow disbursing. Numerous evaluations confirm that conclusion in various sectors. However, negative experiences in that field should not prevent from seeking economies of scale at different stages of the intervention cycle. PSD interventions can benefit from much more analytical work. Analysis and related information management are expensive but that burden could be shared more systematically with other donors. This has not necessarily to be done through multi-donor studies, but for instance through multi-donor harmonisation of terms of reference for identification and feasibility studies, harmonisation of local market and project monitoring procedures in order to share more information and analysis in a more systematic way. This implies enhanced co-ordination not only at country level but also between the HQs of the different donor institutions. The above-mentioned network (see R2) could maintain, as an operational arm of existing multi-donor working groups, permanent relations with other donors to facilitate this collaboration. R4 PSD interventions should be presented as a part of EC Country Strategies, with a clear

justification of the reasons why PSD support interventions have been selected. At least in countries where the European Community is an important donor, PSD interventions should be clearly presented as part of a coherent co-operation strategy. Institutional support for instance can be provided through different channels such as SWAP or budgetary aid. Attracting more FDI as a condition for initiating sustainable growth could be a priority stated in all country strategies and therefore an explicit priority of PSD support interventions. R5 Interventions’ expected results should always be clear and quantified when possible, objective

verifiable indicators should be identified in all cases. This is also true for demand led interventions. Even in the case of demand-led interventions, expected results should be clearly stated. As done by private firms, market studies are necessary. If a small part of the potential beneficiaries are supposed to be reached, expected results will be sized on the basis of the resources invested. If the project is supposed to be a major player on its market, the size of this market must be known in order to size the intervention and its results.



R6 Multi-purpose programmes are difficult to design properly, difficult to manage and their performances is difficult to assess. They should be avoided. Single purpose projects clearly related to sectoral policies should be preferred.

In the past, when the project was the main instrument of EC cooperation and policy dialogue was still very limited, multi-purpose programmes where used to aggregate projects into more or less coherent “packages”. Now, where country strategies are drafted or sectoral policies negotiated and monitored, single purpose projects can be designed, according the PCM rules, as instruments aiming at alleviating precise constraints hampering the implementation of these policies. Where possible, progress towards a true sectoral approach should be encouraged. R7 Interventions providing financial or non-financial services should not accept prices and conditions

below market levels in order to facilitate disbursement. This is clearly stated in European and other donor’s policy papers but not respected in the field. The Commission should accept that in some cases, interventions have been poorly designed and have no market at a price that meets costs. In those cases, lowering the price kills any hope of sustainability and, most often, the project looses all its relevance. Such projects should preferably be redesigned or interrupted. In the cases where the sustainability of the activity is not required (support to a one-shot restructuration before privatisation, for instance), it should be clearly stated in the projects documents. Ambiguities at that level may negatively disturb markets whose development the EC wishes to support. R8 In many cases PSD interventions could be usefully complemented with trade related assistance.

Opportunities to design interventions benefiting from the complementarity between these two sets of instruments should not be missed.

R9 EU market protection and massive subsidies to some EU productive sectors have major

consequences on PSD in third countries. In line with what has been done for the fisheries agreements, other evaluations of the coherence between EU policies and development cooperation objectives could be launched.

Removing all subsidies and protection to European agriculture or textile sector would have much more effect on PSD in third countries than any aid programme. This major issue of coherence is frequently pointed out but its practical consequences on selected sectors or enterprises supported by the EC are not often analysed, as developed in section 4.5.1. Two years ago EuropeAid launched an evaluation of the coherence between the Fisheries Agreements with developing countries and the EC cooperation programmes with these countries. Similar coherence analysis could be done about some aspects of the CAP or of the trade policy. Clearly, one cannot expect that such evaluations will lead to major changes in such sensitive policies but they are likely to identify practical issues, which could lead to suggesting adjustments that could be very important for third countries enterprises and acceptable for European decision makers. The alternative of not taking any action in that sense will lead towards a rapid erosion of the credibility of the European concern for improving coherence between policies to the benefit of developing countries.



6. Next steps

6.1 Introduction

The present evaluation was carried out between October 2003 and May 2004 based on the analysis of documents collected in Brussels. This approach has imposed certain limits to the overall assessment of the EC support to the development of private sector in third countries. Strategic and policy aspects can be well covered through documents and interviews in Brussels, but more specific aspects regarding the implementation and impact of projects and programme are difficult to asses without field missions. For instance, the information system of the Commission is not designed to support sectoral evaluations, which means that the list of projects elaborated on the basis of the CRIS database82 is only indicative. Further, in the case of TACIS and CARDS countries, it was not possible to identify even an indicative list of projects. It is therefore proposed to complement this desk evaluation with a Field and Synthesis Phases. They will basically aim at carrying out field missions and integrating the findings of the missions with the findings of the desk study in order to reach an overall assessment of EC support to the development of private sector in third countries.

6.2 Approach

6.2.1 Country selection rationale

The budget available for the Field and Synthesis Phases is unknown when drafting this report. Therefore, only general principles and a long list of countries can be proposed at this stage. This list will be discussed with the Evaluation Unit and the Reference Group. In the first place, the sample of countries to be visited can be selected on the basis of the diversity of the PSD support activities recently carried out. Second, the regional distribution should reflect the importance of private sector development among the different regional programmes. Third, in order to best exploit the results of the present evaluation, countries already analysed should be given priority -as long as they meet the first criterion. Fourth, countries presenting a specific interest either because a change in strategy has been implemented during the period under evaluation, or because they can be considered as examples of best practice should also be considered. These countries should be selected in coordination with the geographical units and after an examination of the questionnaires. Without prejudging on the results of the discussions with the Evaluation Unit and the Reference Group, we present below the list of countries initially considered for analysis for

82 See section 2.5.2 and Annex 4.



this evaluation; the countries finally selected based on the availability of project documents in Brussels; the countries to which the questionnaire was proposed and the answers collected. This long list of countries is proposed as a basis for discussion.

Table 6.1 - List of countries

Initially selected

Docs available

Questionnaire sent

Reply received

ACP Benin x x Burkina Faso x Dominican Republic x x x x Ghana x x x x Kenya x x x x Madagascar x x Malawi x Mauritius x x Niger x x Senegal x x x x Uganda x x x Zambia x x

Asia

Bangladesh x x Indonesia x Pakistan x x Thailand x x Vietnam x x

CARDS

Bosnia-Herzegovina x x x Latin America Bolivia x x Mexico x x Peru x x

MEDA

Egypt x x x x Jordan x x x Morocco x x Tunisia x x x x

TACIS

Georgia x Moldova x Ukraine x x



6.2.2 Data collection

The purpose of country missions is to validate the preliminary findings of this evaluation by carrying out a comprehensive analysis of PSD interventions in the field. During these visits, the evaluation team will carry out structured interviews with the Delegation, local authorities, intermediate organisations and beneficiary firms. Further, they will collect information (documents and data) to complement the information already collected during the desk study. Based on this information, the teams will produce or complete: Country Profile sheets reflecting the general background of the country with

emphasis on PSD (institutional, legislative and regulatory framework, economic situation and market development, local government’s strategies and policies, etc.). Commission’s support to PSD will be analysed against this background.

Project Identification sheets reflecting the history of the project from

programming to evaluation stage. They will be designed to uncover the elements most useful to our analysis: trends; examples of best practices; common design or implementation problems; etc.

Evaluation Questions sheets that contain, as presented in Annex 3, the

evaluation questions, judgement criteria and indicators to assess the criteria. A justification of the question is also included to frame the exercise. Sources to complete Evaluation Questions sheets are already detailed in Annex 3. These sheets will, if necessary, be adapted to reflect the preliminary conclusions of this evaluation.

The teams will receive detailed guidelines for data collection and production of the three sets of sheets (country, project and evaluation question). When relevant, these sheets will already include the information collected during this desk evaluation. Data collection methods and the content of the sheets will be discussed with the team leaders of the different country teams during a “country missions kick-off workshop” (see section 6.3.2) in order to ensure a maximum or harmonisation on the approach and the consistency of the information collected. These three sets of information (country, project and evaluation question sheets) will complement the information collected during the desk evaluation both through document analysis and the survey and the whole will serve as the basis for the overall analysis and the drafting of conclusions and recommendations.

6.3.3 Hypothesis to test

In each country and for selected interventions, the whole cycle of the project will be analysed: identification, feasibility, negotiation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation (if any). For these cases, the intervention logic will be rebuilt and criteria such as relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, ownership by local stakeholders, sustainability, coherence and coordination will be assessed using a project fiche as described in section 6.3.2.



Based on the preliminary conclusions and recommendations from this report, the analysis of the interventions will include the elements listed below, which will be used to complete the evaluation questions fiches proposed at the inception stage of this evaluation and presented in Annex 3. To what extent are PSD advisors at the Delegations, technical assistants and local

managers of EU financed intervention aware of the EC policy to support PSD and able to justify the relevance of this intervention with regard to the problems observed in the country and to the EU cooperation objectives in the country?

What do they know about other donors’ policies in that country (especially EU member states)?

How have the interventions in this country been identified, designed and negotiated? By whom? With whom? On the basis of what information?

On what basis has it been decided to have PSD interventions in the country? What were the problems to address? What where the criteria to select the PSD activities to carry out?

Are PSD interventions related with explicit sectoral policies? How have the beneficiaries been identified? How have their needs been assessed? What are the main professional organisations in the country? What is their role?

Are they supported by the EC? With what effects? Have they been involved in the project identification process?

In the case of interventions providing financial or non-financial services, how have the market studies been done? On what basis have the prices been fixed? Do we find competitors providing the same services? At what prices? Do they see the project as a threat or as an opportunity?

Can we find any evidence of effects of EC interventions (notably institutional support and partnership building) on FDI?

Have the expected results of the interventions been clearly stated? Have the results been monitored?

How do the beneficiaries see the intervention? What is their perception of its relevance, of its effectiveness?

Any interaction with other EC financed interventions? With other donor financed interventions?

Any interaction with private sector action? Any conflict or complaint at that level? Any sign of market distortion due to EC interventions? How does the coordination with other donors work? Is the intervention designed to be sustainable? How will this sustainability be

ensured? Any evidence that it is likely to be successful? To what extent are cross-cutting issues such as gender, environment, labour

conditions and good governance taken into account? What are the effects of deconcentration on policy dialogue, project design, project

implementation, donor coordination?



Does any European policy such as the CAP, the trade policy, environmental or food safety or social norms impact on EC supported enterprises?

6.3 Organisation

The same Core Team that carried out the present evaluation would lead the Field and Synthesis Phases. This will ensure proper exploitation of the analysis and conclusions of the first phase. The team will further ensure the overall coordination of the study and contacts with the Evaluation Unit and the Reference Group. When necessary, the team will be broadened to cover specific sectoral experience and participate to parallel field missions. It is proposed to divide the Field and Synthesis Phases in three major stages: 1. Inception stage: Elaboration of methodology for field phase Elaboration of specific TOR for field missions Writing of Inception Note

2. Facts finding stage: Pilot mission Field missions Synthesis of the findings

3. Analytical and reporting stage Analysis based on review of documents, questionnaires and field missions Elaboration of conclusions and recommendations Writing of Final Report

6.3.1 Inception stage

The inception stage will allow the Core Team to adapt and clarify the present approach once the final list of countries, the methodology and the budget will have been approved by the Evaluation Unit. The Core Team will:

Meet Brussels-based EC officers in charge of PSD programmes and members of

the Reference Group in order to refine the approach to the Completion Phase; Draft specific TORs for each field mission; Build the evaluation teams for these missions.

Specific methodology for this phase and terms of reference for each field mission will be proposed in an Inception Note of the Completion Phase. This Note will also include a more detailed approach for the two following stages and it will be discussed with the Reference Group.



6.3.2 Facts finding stage

a) Pilot mission

The proposed terms of reference for the field missions will be checked during a first mission mainly staffed with the members of the Core Team. The team will spend two weeks in the country and, based on this pilot experience, they will adjust the terms of reference of the other country missions.

b) Country missions kick-off workshop

The team leaders selected for the country missions will gather in Brussels for a three-days workshop. The first day will be dedicated to discussions with the Core Team based on: The final report of the documentary evaluation and the above mentioned

Inception Note; The results of the pilot mission; The specific country TORs; The documentation available in Brussels.

The second day will be used for a workshop with the Reference Group, relevant EC desk officers and sector specialists. The workshop will allow validating the conclusions of the pilot mission and of the modifications made to the country-specific terms of reference. During the third day, the team leaders will finalise the preparation of their mission with the Core Team and through bilateral dialogue with the relevant EC task managers.

c) Field missions

As most evaluation questions actually require different skills to be properly addressed, teamwork will remain the rule. An experienced evaluator will lead each field mission. The skills of the different experts will allow each of the country teams to be able to cover political, institutional, economic and social aspects as well as more sector specific aspect according to the type of interventions more frequently carried out in the country (finance, partnership, BSD, etc). Further, each country team will include at least one local consultant with working experience in the country. Local consultants will contribute, in addition to their own experience on private sector development, with their understanding of the local institutional frame, the political and economic situation, and the role of the different stakeholders. Ensuring a close coordination between the teams will be a priority in order to maximise the focus on the need to draw general conclusions instead of spending too much time on case studies for themselves. Therefore, the team leaders of the country missions will meet with the Core Team after the missions and before the elaboration of the synthesis of the findings.

ANNEXES

Annex 1 – Terms of Reference

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AN EVALUATION OF European Community support to Private Sector Development

in third countries

Second draft

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. MANDATE

2. THE POLICY BACKGROUND

3. PURPOSE AND RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION

4. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

5. EVALUATION QUESTIONS

6. THE EVALUATION’S BASIC COMPONENTS FOUR MAIN PHASES OF EVALUATION FOUR METHODOLOGICAL STAGES FIVE KEY EVALUATION CRITERIA

7. THE EVALUATION’S FOUR PHASES AND REPORTING 7.1 DESK PHASE

7.1.1. Starting the Evaluation and producing a Launch Note 7.1.2. Structuring the Evaluation and drafting an Inception Note 7.1.3. Desk Study and delivery of Desk Phase Report

7.2 FIELD PHASE 7.3 FINAL REPORT-WRITING PHASE 7.4 DISSEMINATION AND FOLLOW-UP

8. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION OF THE EVALUATION

9. EVALUATION TEAM

10. TIMING AND BUDGET CALENDAR COST OF THE EVALUATION AND PAYMENT MODALITIES

ANNEX 1 : DOCUMENTS, EC REGULATIONS AND INSTRUMENTS (NOT EXHAUSTIVE)

EVALUATION OF EC SUPPORT TO PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT IN THIRD COUNTRIES ADE - IBM - EPU

Final Report – 14 May 2004 Annex 1/page 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AN EVALUATION OF European Community support to Private Sector Development in third countries

1. MANDATE

Systematic and timely evaluation of its expenditure programmes is an established priority for the European Commission (EC), and the 2003 evaluation plan requested to undertake an evaluation of EC support to private sector development in third countries to fulfil its obligation to render accounts for the management of allocated funds and the results achieved. It has been decided to undertake this evaluation also in the light of the fact that no global evaluation of the sector has been made. An evaluation of the sector is further merited by the coming into maturation of several large-scale programmes as well as by the introduction of reforms in both country and regional strategy programming and in aid delivery.

2. THE POLICY BACKGROUND

Private Sector Development covers a wide range of activities and stretches over more than a sector. For the period under analysis there is no definition for the field of ‘Private Sector Development’ (PSD) agreed and applicable to all instruments and regions. Elements of a definition are contained in the different regulations and legal bases, the most encompassing being the definition through the Cotonou Agreement where, at least for the investment facility, also public entities are eligible if managed according to commercial principles. PSD can be subsumed under Economic cooperation which is an integral part of the EC's external policy as spelled out in the Maastricht Treaty. The three main objectives of external policy are: poverty reduction, integration into the global economy and sustainable development. The proposed operational definition of economic cooperation1 is based on several elements, the first three being fundamental and relevant for this evaluation:

facilitating trade, direct support for private firms, improving the economic and institutional environment.

To encourage the development of an active private sector the Community already has put in place a wide variety of instruments, each with its own raison d'être, procedures and legal basis. These instruments are often tailored to meet the specific requirements of the partner countries within the framework of the Community's cooperation agreements. Moreover, a number of large regional programmes have either a private sector focus or contain private sector- related activities.

1 " Study to clarify the definition of EC Economic Co-operation with third Countries " : final report, March 2002).



In particular in the Mediterranean region Community support has taken the form of traditional project financing, sectoral support to national industrial modernisation programmes, support to privatisation and support to the reform of national fiscal and financial systems. Technical assistance, including trade and investment promotion activities, has also been made available. Support for the private sector has often been undertaken in close co-operation with the European Investment Bank (EIB). In Asia and Latin America the Community manages the ALA -INVEST instrument through which support is provided to Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) in the form of Technical Assistance and trade /investment promotion and partnership programmes. In the Balkans the new CARDS Regulation, approved in the year 2000, provides a new medium term programming framework (2000-2006) for the promotion of Stabilisation and Association Agreements and support for efficient market economies, based upon private sector development and trade integration at both the international and regional levels. The TACIS Regulation has the same medium term objectives for the Newly Independent States (NIS). In the ACP countries the PRO -INVEST Facility mainly focuses on capacity building and the development of small businesses in the framework of poverty alleviation strategies. Recently new instruments have been created managed mainly by the EIB (the FEMIP Facility for the third partner countries in the MED region and the Cotonou Investment Facility for the group of the ACP countries). In response to commitments stemming from the conferences of Monterrey and Johannesburg, as well as in support of NEPAD and the Doha Development Agenda the Commission is presenting and discussing the draft “Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament (2003) on ‘European community co-operation with third countries: the commission’s approach to future support for the development of the Business sector. This Communication aims to simplify, rationalise and harmonise Community support for business and private sector development in partner countries on three different levels: the macro-economic, sectoral and enterprise levels. It has to be also noted that EuropeAid Co-operation office finalised, in February 2003, Guidelines for European Commission Support to Private Sector Development. These guidelines are designed as a tool for staff responsible for preparing and implementing projects and programmes.

3. PURPOSE AND RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION

The primary purpose of the present evaluation is to identify key lessons pertaining to the wide variety of instruments available, and their application in partner countries. The evaluation should be built around a testing and verification of the logic and consistency of individual actions against stated objectives and anticipated impacts. As the evaluation should contribute to improved coherence, it should assess the European Commission’s co-



operation activities in private sector development, relative to the general and specific objectives of the different regional and country co-operation and development programmes. The evaluation should consider the complementarity of individual actions against the strategy and stated overall objectives of the Commission. It should also aim at enhancing coherence between objectives in PSD and the Commission’s other policy objectives, notably of support to SMEs in the EU (European Charter of Small Enterprises) and Trade issues (including TRTA), as well as a more rational strategic decision-making (including within Country Strategy Papers). The evaluation should also consider the coordination and complementarity of activities managed by the EIB without evaluating these.

The main result of the evaluation will be an ex-post evaluation of the EC strategy and actions over the period 1994-20032 through assessments of key issues reflected in the Evaluation Questions (see below; to be defined). These issues should include the quality and impact of PSD policy dialogue and accompanying policy actions; the impact of Commission assistance in relation to economic and social development goals; the coherence and complementarity of EC assistance with other EU policies; the degree of attention given to cross-cutting and horizontal issues, and the relevance and efficiency of instruments, working practices and financial mechanisms. The evaluation should assess the steps being taken by the Commission to improve the relevance and coherence in regard to programming, targeting and setting up the instrument chosen. The evaluation should also test the given definitions for Private Sector development, business sector and economic cooperation in view of their responsiveness to the objectives of external cooperation as laid out in the Maastricht treaty. The evaluation should consider possible effects of Private Sector Development to Poverty reduction. As part of its function, the evaluation should come to a general overall judgement based upon well-founded conclusions regarding the fundamental aspects on the Commission’s past performance and the relevance of its proposed approach. The final report should contain findings and recommendations expressed clearly enough to be translatable into operational terms by the Commission. The evaluation should serve policy and sectoral decision-making and project management purposes. This requires addressing the principal concerns of the Board of Commissioners of the RELEX family, as well as those relevant to the RELEX family services. DGs DEV, RELEX, AIDCO ENTR and TRADE, and EC Delegations in the countries covered by this exercise will thus be the main users of the Evaluation. However, the evaluation should also generate results of interest to an audience that would include geographical desks and those responsible for intervention in other sectors (for example, trade, agriculture and other economic cooperation instruments), the wider Commission cercle on a strategic level like DG BUDG as well as governmental and civil society partners.

4. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

The evaluation will cover the Commission’s actions in the field of Private sector development as set out in the different legal bases. The Consultant will begin by reviewing the evolution of the Commission’s policy as regards development and external co- 2 Period to be finetuned at the beginning of the exercise.



operation in favour of the private sector development since 1994. This review will be based upon Commission policy statements, regulations, sector guidelines, instructions on programming and on the design of sector interventions, and the results of relevant evaluations undertaken in the sector, and will require the definition of any major differences in approach between different regional programmes. The consultant will identify where and as appropriate cycles in PSD programming and major developments in approaches and will, with the launch note propose a regional finetuning of the period covered by the evaluation. The countries covered by the evaluation will be selected during the desk phase on the basis of rational criteria agreed with the Steering Group. From this analysis, the consultant will proceed to an evaluation of the Commission’s actions in this sector in ACP countries and in the regions covered by the regulations TACIS, ALA, MEDA and CARDS.

5. EVALUATION QUESTIONS

The evaluation will be based on a set of key questions. These questions are intended to give a more precise and accessible form to the evaluation criteria (see §6.3 below) and to articulate the key issues of concern to stakeholders, thus optimising the focus and utility of the evaluation. Identified in the first instance by the evaluation team, these evaluation questions (of a maximum of 10) should be grouped in thematic clusters in accordance with the main issues relating to the Commission co-operation in favour of Private Sector Development. The evaluation questions will be discussed with the Evaluation Unit, and finally debated within, and validated by the Steering Group. For each Evaluation Question there should be at least one appropriate Judgement Criterion, and for each such criterion the appropriate quantitative and qualitative Indicators will be identified and specified. This, in turn, will determine the appropriate scope and methods of data collection (see below). Questions should be drafted in such a way that they clearly reflect an evaluation exercise (which calls for a judgement of quantity, quality and/or intensity). For instance, the evaluation question on implementation issues could be drafted as follow: How far has the implementation and delivery of EU-supported activities, especially the choice of beneficiaries, funding instruments and donor mix, facilitated the achievement of specific objectives? Among the Evaluation Questions, at least one should be dedicated to assess how far the programme has integrated crosscutting issues (such as gender, environment, human rights, capacity building). Other question(s) shall also be dedicated to how far the programme under study took account of co-ordination, complementarity and coherence aspects (as mentioned in Article 177 of the Maastricht Treaty). Besides specific answers, the evaluation questions shall also lead the evaluators to produce an overall assessment of the EC co-operation support to Private Sector Development.



6. THE EVALUATION’S BASIC COMPONENTS

The basic approach to the evaluation will consist of four main phases (see dedicated chapter below) in the course of which four sequential methodological stages will be developed. This approach will call upon five key evaluation criteria.

Four Main Phases of Evaluation 1. Desk Phase

2. Field Phase

3. Final Report-Writing Phase

4. Dissemination and Feedback of findings and recommendations

Four Methodological Stages 1. Structuring of the evaluation

2. Data Collection

3. Analysis

4. Judgements

Five Key Evaluation Criteria The evaluation must lead to a set of conclusions (based on findings and analysis) and to related recommendations. The assessment will be based on five key evaluation criteria: impact, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. The adopted approach should include the following basic tasks:

1. Identify, explain and hierarchise the objectives of the EC’s Support of Private Sector Development, in terms of their intervention context, logic and coherence. Identify key clusters or major areas of activity where PSD support has been focused, with a view to subsequent analysis. Assess the relevance of PSD objectives, programmes and actions, both to the Commission’s and EU’s more general objectives and to the priorities and needs of beneficiary countries and regions.

2. Identify all recorded impacts. Assess the intended impact corresponding to each objective, indicating how these intended impacts fit within broader and changing (economic, political, sociological, cultural, environmental) contexts. Identify unintended impacts or dead-weight/ substitution effects (and compare them to intended impacts).

3. Assess effectiveness in terms of how far the intended results were achieved (actual results).

4. To the extent that the interventions were effective, assess the efficiency of PSD support in terms of how far funding, personnel, regulatory, administrative, time and other resources and procedures contributed to, or hindered the achievement of results.



5. Assess the sustainability of the strategy/strategies and their component programmes, that is the extent to which their results and impacts are being, or are likely to be, maintained over time.

7. THE EVALUATION’S FOUR PHASES AND REPORTING

7.1 Desk Phase

7.1.1. Starting the Evaluation and producing a Launch Note

Prior to embarking in the structuring phase of this study, a Launch Note will be submitted to the Evaluation unit in which the consultant will have set out in full: (i) the team’s understanding of the Terms of Reference, (ii) their proposed general approach to the work (methodology, scope, etc.), (iii) the proposed composition of the full evaluation team (with CVs), (iv) a budget proposal.

This Launch Note will be circulated to the Steering Group members for comments.

7.1.2. Structuring the Evaluation and drafting an Inception Note

Once the Launch Note has been circulated to the Steering Group and approved by the Evaluation Unit (after any agreed amendments have been made), the work will proceed with the Structuring Stage of the evaluation and shall lead to the production of an Inception Note for consideration by the Evaluation Unit and the Steering Group.

During this structuring stage, the evaluation team will hold exploratory meetings with the relevant Commission Services, discussing with individual desk officers in Headquarters the programmes for which they are responsible. The largest part of the work will be dedicated to the analysis of all relevant key documentation on recent and current Commission co-operation in favour of PSD, including data on the pertinent policy and programming documents and instruments, and also taking account of any key documentation produced by other international donors and agencies.

On the basis of the data collected, the evaluation team will proceed, in the Inception Note, to an analysis which main aim is threefold: (a) deconstructing the intervention logic of PSD policies, programmes and activities in different geographical regions; (b) drafting a set of Evaluation Questions.

• Deconstructing the intervention logic consists in setting out the key objectives of the Commission’s approach to Private Sector development, assessing the intended impacts related to the objectives. The evaluation team should point out their logic, context and overall coherence, including relevant aspects of the programme's external coherence in relation to other EU policies, the needs and policies of beneficiary countries, their macro-



economic and legal framework, other donors’ activities, and other geopolitical factors;3

• Once all objectives have been identified and ordered into a hierarchy, the team will draft the key Evaluation Questions (see above).

7.1.3. Desk Study and delivery of Desk Phase Report

Once the Inception Note has been debated within the Steering Group and that the Evaluation Questions have been validated, the team of consultants will proceed with the final stage of the Desk Phase of the evaluation. This final stage consists mainly in identifying and setting out proposals for the following:

• Identify, for each Evaluation Question, an appropriate judgement criterion (or criteria); and select relevant quantitative and qualitative indicators for each Judgement Criterion identified;

• Propose suitable methods of data and information collection both in Brussels and in proposed field trips - additional literature, interviews both structured and open, questionnaires, seminars or workshops, case studies, etc. - indicating any limitations and describing how the data should be cross-checked to validate the analysis;

• Present appropriate methods of analysis of the information and data collected, again indicating any limitations;

• Indicate the basis to be used for making the judgements, which should be directly related to the Judgement Criteria (set up during this first phase but adaptable should the field findings so dictate).

At the conclusion of this work, the evaluation team will present to the Evaluation Unit a Draft Desk Phase Report (following the structure set out in Annex 3). This report shall set out in full the results of this first Phase of the evaluation. It should also detail the consultants’ proposed approach and methodology for the upcoming Field Phase of the evaluation (e.g. analytical grid for case studies, model for structured interviews, example of questionnaires, etc.), and final confirmation of the full composition of the evaluation team, including local consultants as appropriate. The analysis should include a proposed list of activities, projects and programmes for in-depth study in the field. The field mission should not start before the proposed approach and methodology have been approved by the Evaluation Unit.

After the Steering Group has discussed this Draft Report, the evaluation team will be given up to 10 working days to produce the Final Desk Phase Report.

3 Nota Bene: Although the assumptions, conditionality and risks attached to each objective do not appear in this logical

diagram they shall be assessed in the course of the analysis.



7.2 Field Phase

1. Following satisfactory completion of the Desk Phase, the evaluation team will proceed to the field missions (see calendar below). The fieldwork, the duration of which shall be cleared with the Steering Group (it should typically last around three weeks), shall be undertaken on the basis set out in the Final Desk Phase Report and agreed by the Steering Group and by the Delegations of countries proposed for visits. Field visits should reflect the importance of the different instruments in terms of volume of resources devoted in different regions, their specificity, the need for geographical diversity, and the need to illustrate/validate preliminary evaluation findings through analysis of well-chosen case studies. If during the course of the fieldwork any significant deviations from the agreed methodology or schedule are perceived as being necessary, these should be explained to the Steering Group through the Evaluation Unit.

2. At the conclusion of the field study the team will (i) give a detailed on-the-spot de-

briefing to each Delegation in chosen countries on their provisional findings; (ii) give a general de-briefing (based on all missions) to the Steering Group in Headquarters soon after returning from the field; and (iii) proceed to prepare the Field Mission Report for delivery to the Evaluation Unit no later than ten working days after de-briefing to the Steering Group. This report will be presented to, and debated within the Steering Group.

7.3 Final Report-Writing Phase

3. The Final Report (as well as previous notes and reports) will be drafted in English, and be structured as set out in Annex 4.

4. The evaluation team will deliver a Draft Final Report to the Evaluation Unit no

later than July 2004. On acceptance, the report will be circulated for comments to the Steering Group, which will convene to discuss it about 15 working days after circulation, in the presence of the evaluation team.

5. On the basis of comments received both from the Steering Group and the

Evaluation Unit, the evaluation team will make the appropriate final amendments and submit their Final Report to the Evaluation Unit within one month of the last meeting. The evaluators may either accept or reject the comments made by the Steering Group members, Delegations’ members, or relevant stakeholders, but, in case of rejection, they shall motivate (in writing) their refusal and annex the relevant comments and their responses to the report.



6. The redaction of the Final Report (as well as previous reports and notes) must be of outstanding quality. The findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations should be thorough. They should reflect a methodical and thoughtful approach, and finally their logical development should be clear.

7.4 Dissemination and Follow-Up

7. After approval of the final report, the Evaluation Unit will proceed with the Dissemination of the results (conclusions and recommendations) contained within this Report. The Unit will: (i) make a formal Judgement on the Quality of the evaluation; (ii) draft a 2-page Evaluation Summary; (iii) circulate a Fiche Contradictoire for discussion with the relevant Services. The Quality Judgement, the summary, and the Fiche Contradictoire will all be published on the Evaluation Unit’s Web-site alongside the Final Report and the Field Phase Report.

8. Furthermore, the evaluation team (or selected members) may, on the basis of the

Final Report, participate in a Seminar in Brussels during which they will make a presentation to the EC services and relevant stakeholders on the evaluation’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The organisation of such event will depend on the expression of the Commission’s interest and on the availability of sufficient time and resources.

8. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION OF THE EVALUATION

The management and supervision of the evaluation will rest with the Evaluation Unit at EuropeAid Co-operation Office. The progress of the evaluation will be followed closely by a Commission Steering Group consisting of members of the RELEX family services as well as other relevant Directorate Generals under the chairmanship of the Evaluation Unit. The principal functions of this Steering Group will be:

to discuss the Terms of Reference drawn up by the Evaluation Unit as well as the evaluation questions proposed by the consultants;

to discuss the inception note and subsequent reports (see section 9 below) produced by the consultants;

to act as interface between the consultants and Commission services;

to provide the consultants with information and documentation on activities undertaken in the sector;

to advise on the quality of work done by the consultants;

to assist in feedback of the findings and recommendations from the evaluation into future programme design and delivery.



9. EVALUATION TEAM

This evaluation is to be carried out by a team with advanced knowledge of, and experience in at least the following fields: development co-operation policy, macroeconomics, private sector development, SME promotion and finance, trade and investment promotion, business, agro-economy, social development (including gender expertise). Consultants should also possess an appropriate training and documented experience in the management of evaluations, as well as evaluation methods in field situations. The team should comprise consultants familiar with the different regions covered. The Team composition should be agreed, but may be subsequently adjusted if necessary in the light of the Evaluation Questions once they have been validated by the Steering Group. The Evaluation Unit recommends strongly that consultants from beneficiaries countries be employed (particularly, but not only, during the Field Phase).



10. TIMING AND BUDGET

Calendar

The evaluation will start in September 2003 with completion of the Final Report scheduled for July 2004. The following is the indicative scheduleT:

Evaluation’s Phases and Stages

Notes and Reports

Dates Meetings Dates

Desk Phase Starts mid-Sept 2003

Starting Stage Launch Note early Oct 2003.

Structuring Stage Inception Note mid-Nov 2003

Steering Group Meeting

Late Nov 2003

Desk Study Draft Desk Report early Jan 2004


mid Jan 2004

Final Desk Report End Jan 2004

Field Phase Feb 2004 De-briefing post-

Field Phase Presented to the

Steering Group March 2004

Field Phase Report End March 2004


Early April 2004

Final Report-Writing Phase

Draft Final Report Early May 2004


May 04

Final Report June/ July 2004

Dissemination SeminarTT Sept/Oct4 2004

T The dates mentioned in the above table may only be changed in view of optimising the evaluation performance, and with the agreement of all concerned. ** Subject to agreement by the Evaluation Unit.

Cost of the Evaluation and Payment Modalities

1. The cost of the evaluation should not exceed € 300.000 2. The Payments modalities shall be as follow: 30% at the acceptance of the Inception

Note; 50% at acceptance of Draft Final Report; 20% at acceptance of Final report.

4 Taking into account the summer break.



ANNEX 1

RELEVANT DOCUMENTS (LIST NOT EXHAUSTIVE)

Published Evaluations : Evaluation of EC financial assistance to Mediterranean countries through the European Investment bank Evaluation of the Cross-Border Initiative (CBI) regional economic integration programme in Southern and Eastern Africa Evaluation of Economic Cooperation between the European Community and partner states in Asia and Latin America Independent appraisal of the European Community Investment Partners (ECIP) financial instrument EVALUATION OF PHARE FINANCED LABOUR MARKET AND SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM PROGRAMMES IN LITHUANIA AND SLOVAKIA - EVALUATION OF PHARE FINANCED SME SUPPORT PROGRAMMES EVALUATION OF PHARE AND TACIS CO-FINANCING PROGRAMMES WITH THE EBRD Evaluation of TACIS Enterprise Restructuring Facility (TERF) Study to clarify the definition of EC Economic Co-operation with third Countries Ongoing Evaluations : Sectoral/thematic evaluations : • Transport • Economic Co-operation MEDA • Trade-related assistance • Strategic evaluation of financial support to SMEs (managed by DG BUDG) Regulations and other docs Communication (2000) 212 "The European Community's development policy" http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/com/cnc/2000/com2000_0212en01.pdf Council resolution of November 2000 http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/lex/en/council20001110_en.htm « Supporting Private Sector Development » (1998) and "Private sector development strategy -Directions for the World Bank group" (2001) Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 177 (ex article 130 of the Treaty of Maastricht) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/fr/treaties/dat/ec_cons_treaty_fr.pdf COM (2000) 264: "Integrating environment and sustainable development into



economic and development cooperation". http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2000/com2000_0264en02.pdf Presidency conclusions. Göteborg European Council 15 and 16 June 2001(ref. SI(2001)500) http://ue.eu.int/fr/Info/eurocouncil/index.htm COM (2000) of 16 May Rev 8 "Reform of the management of external assistance" http://www.cc.cec/EUROPEAID/rextap/Rextap.htm COM(1998)667 "A European strategy for private sector development in ACP countries" .http://www.cc.cec/EUROPEAID/Cris/guide/index_instruct.htm COM (2000)264 "Integrating environment and sustainable development into economic and development cooperation. Elements of a comprehensive strategy. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2000/com2000_0264en02.pdf COM(2001)416 « Promoting core labour standards and improving social governance in the context of globalisation ». http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/pdf/labour_standards.pdf Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/csr/pr020702_fr.htm COM (2001) 469 "The strategic framework for enhanced partnership between Europe and Asia". http://158.166.117.19/index.html "European Community external cooperation programmes" http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/odi_report/index_fr.h tm Regional annual reports http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/reports/index_en.htm ACP-EU Partnership Agreement (Cotonou Agreement) http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/cotonou/index_fr.htm Resolution 8435/99 of the Development Council of 21 May 1999. Council Regulation (EEC) No 443/92 of 25 February 1992 MEDA II, Council Regulation (EC) No 2698/2000 TACIS, Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 99/2000 CARDS, Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 http://www.cc.cec/EUROPEAID/Cris/Guide/index.htm Guidelines for the implementation of TRTA" AIDCO 2002



d) Synthesis

Findings from the field missions will be complemented with the results of the present evaluation: desk study and survey. All findings will then be synthesised by the Core Team with the additional participation of the team leaders of the field missions. This synthesis will be the basis for the overall assessment on the Commission’s support to private sector development and for the elaboration of the conclusions and the recommendations. The team will present the main findings to the Evaluation Unit and the Reference Group during a workshop in Brussels.

6.3.3 Analytical and reporting stage

Based on the synthesis of the findings and the discussions held with the Reference Group, the team will concentrate, during this stage, on the analysis required to answer the evaluation questions. The indicators made available by the findings will provide the information needed to address the judgement criteria and, in turn, the criteria will be used to answer the evaluation questions, which will be used to provide an overall assessment of the EC strategy in the transport sector. Conclusions will be drawn from this analysis and these will lead to recommendations. Identifiable links between each recommendation and the relevant conclusion, analysis and findings will be ensured.

Annex 2 – Intervention logic



Annex 2 – Intervention logic

To re-construct the intervention logic, the team has followed a logical framework analysis. The first graph shows the causal relationship between overall objectives, programme purpose, expected results and activities. The 5 other graphs are a regional interpretation of the same intervention logic in order to fit the specificity of each of the regions with which the EC has cooperation agreements.

Overall objectives

“Overall objectives explain why the programme is important to society, in terms of the longer term benefits to final beneficiaries and the wider benefits to other groups (…) The overall objectives will not be achieved by the project alone but will require the contributions of other programmes and projects as well”1.

The overall objectives of EC interventions to support private sector development have been derived from EU’s external policy under the assumption that economic co-operation and the support for private sector development are part of the EU’s external policy. The EU’s external policy has three main components: Trade Policy, based on uniform principles especially with regard to the conclusion of

tariff and trade agreements and measures to protect trade; Development Policy, which aims to the sustainable economic, environmental and

social development of the developing countries, especially the most disadvantaged among them, their smooth and gradual integration into the world economy and the campaign against poverty2; and

Foreign and Security Policy, which reflect a more political dimension and is centred on the aims of peace and security, consolidation of democracy and the rule of law, and human rights and fundamental freedoms.

A number of other European Union's policies are closely linked to external affairs, especially environment, agriculture and fisheries, science and research, the information society and the harmonisation of standards for the internal market. All these policies have objectives that guide the relations between the EU and the different regions and countries with which the EC has co-operation agreements.

1 Manual on Project Cycle Management (EC, 2001) page 17. 2 According to the terms of the Treaty, Community policy in this (development) area should contribute to the general

objective of developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law, and that of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.


Final Report – 14 May 2004 Annex 2 /page 2


enhanced




market economy






Overall Objectives












operation










MEDAMain objective:


trade area







association



support



finance)





INTERVENTION LOGIC - GENERAL



EC’s support to private sector development is part of the EU’s external policy3. EC interventions in other sectors of activity (such as transport, education, etc.) are also part of the EU’s external policy and aim as well to contribute to the objectives of the EU’s external policy. Among the many objectives of EU’s external policy, there are those for which the support to private sector development can make a significant contribution. Namely: 1. A sustainable economic, social and environmental development in third countries.

2. The gradual integration of third countries into the world economy.

3. The reduction of poverty in third countries.

4. Building peace and ensuring political stability and security in third countries.

5. The enhancement of the political, economic and cultural presence of the EU.

Note that these five objectives are only a subset of all the objectives of the EU’s external policy, those to which private sector development can contribute, and that they are central to the cooperation with one or more regions. Indeed, the EC maintains cooperation relations with a heterogeneous group of third countries that have different levels of socio-economic development and play distinct geopolitical roles. These elements influence the prioritisation of the funds allocated and the choice of objectives. Therefore, EC co-operation with each region concerned differs considerably, in general, and in particular on its support to the private sector development4. ACP countries are the main beneficiaries of EU aid (all sectors included) and the EU is also their largest investor. Moreover, the ACP countries have the largest proportion of LDCs in the world, most of which are very small economies with poor links with the world economy, and face globalisation in one of the last wagons. The historical relations between ACP countries and the EU, from the Yaoundé Convention to the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, have evolved towards a clear link between development support and a policy framework favourable to trade and development. Focus is on the removal of barriers to trade, regional co-operation and enhancing all trade-related co-operation areas. This is reflected in the second graph (ACP region), where the overall objective of EC support to private sector development is to support sustainable economic, social and environmental development; the gradual integration of third countries into the world economy; and poverty reduction, but where all types of interventions are actually implemented. While EU relations with ACP countries have been established with poverty reduction as their main objective, areas composed of countries that are in average more developed than ACP countries tend to have relations with the EU directed towards “partnership”, in which the mutual interest of economic agents is an essential element of the relation. The

3 Guidelines for European Commission Support to Private Sector Development (EC – AIDCO, 2003), page 7. 4 The following paragraphs are largely drawn from paragraphs are largely drawn from the study Clarifying the

definitions of EC economic co-operation with third countries (ADE, 2002).



“partnership” approach has been developed in EU co-operation in particular with the ALA and MED countries. In Asia and Latin America, partner countries often have a rather developed society; many of them are middle income while some are very poor; and distances are huge on the continents and in relation to the EU. Their economic and political situation; the relatively new mutual awareness approach between them and the EC and the objective of increasing EU presence on “emerging” markets, drives co-operation towards partnership, in which economic instruments play an important role. This situation is reflected in the third (Asia region) and fourth graphs (Latin America region), where the overall objectives are the gradual integration of third countries into the world economy and the enhancement of the political, economic and cultural presence of the EU. In both regions, interventions to support privatisation or firm restructuring are rather limited. Moreover, in Asia the development of micro-enterprises is not an expected result. MED countries have a long tradition of trade with all parts of the world and with the EU in particular, due to their long common border with Europe. However, political relations between the two regions have been troubled at various times in history. Mediterranean countries are in general low or middle-income economies. Security issues are a priority for the EC in its relations with this region. Furthermore, institutional changes in the private and public sectors play an increasing role in a region where the economy has been historically state-led. One of the main objectives of the co-operation with the EC is to create a Euro-Mediterranean free trade area. In terms of private sector development, the fifth graph (MEDA region) shows that the overall objectives include: the gradual integration into the world economy; building peace and ensuring political stability and security; and the enhancement of the political, economic and cultural presence of the EU. As for Asia, the development of micro-enterprises is not an expected result. Security is also one of the foremost concerns as regards co-operation with the CIS. Nuclear activities in these territories are the most insecure in the world and add to widespread economic and physical insecurity in the region. Their recent status of independent breakaway states from the USSR demands a thorough process of transition from a planned to a market economy, with very high social costs. Therefore the key institutional foundations of a market economy and democracy have to be established. Furthermore, the interdependency between the Russian Federation and the EU is significant in terms of trade; trade benefits will increase once the elements of an effective market economy are in place. The Balkans is facing the challenge of post-war reconstruction. EC co-operation is centred on the construction of infrastructures, the transition from a planned to a market economy with a view to integrating the Balkans into the EU co-operation area, and bringing about regional integration. EU co-operation is part of the Stability Pact agreed between major donor countries, regional and international organisations and international financing institutions. Because of its geographical proximity and interest in the reconstruction of the area, the EU’s stake in the stabilisation and association process is very strong. The sixth graph (TACIS and CARDS regions) shows the intervention logic for TACIS and CARDS regions.


Final Report – 14 May 2004 Annex 2/ page 5


enhanced




market economy

Overall Objectives












operation










MEDAMain objective:


trade area







association



support



finance)








Contribute to buildingpeace and ensuringpolitical stability andsecurity in third countries(Nice Treaty, variousregulations)


INTERVENTION LOGIC for ACP countries




enhanced




market economy






Overall Objectives












operation










MEDAMain objective:


trade area







association



support



finance)





INTERVENTION LOGIC for the ASIA Region




enhanced




market economy

Overall Objectives












operation










MEDAMain objective:


trade area







association



support



finance)





Contribute to a sustainableeconomic, social andenvironmentaldevelopment in thirdcountries(Nice Treaty,COM(2002)212, etc.)


Contribute to reductionand eventual eradication ofpoverty in third countries(Nice Treaty,COM(2002)212, etc.)

Contribute to buildingpeace and ensuringpolitical stability andsecurity in third countries(Nice Treaty, variousregulations)


INTERVENTION LOGIC for the LATIN AMERICA Region




enhanced




market economy






Overall Objectives












operation










MEDAMain objective:


trade area







association



support



finance)





INTERVENTION LOGIC for the MEDA Region




enhanced




market economy






Overall Objectives












operation










MEDAMain objective:


trade area







association



support



finance)





INTERVENTION LOGIC for TACIS and CARDS Regions



Purpose

“The purpose is the objective to be achieved by implementing the project and likely to outlive the project. The purpose should address the core problem (…) There should only be one project purpose per project”5

From the analysis of EC policy documents on private sector development support it can be deduced that the purpose of EC interventions to support the development of the private sector in third countries is to enhance the competitiveness of local firms in local and international markets. This objective is clearly established in, for instance, in COM(2003)267 on EC approach to future support for the development of the Business Sector (EC, 2003):

“The Community’s actions in this area will aim at creating a policy framework, at the national and regional level, which supports and fosters competitiveness, market economy and good governance” (page 5, when presenting the first area of intervention) “The purpose of the Community support for the promotion of investment and technology transfer (…) will be to enhance (…) sustainable and environmentally friendly investment and inter-enterprise cooperation agreements. This with a view to increasing the efficiency and competitiveness of the economies concerned and in particular to enhance export prospects.” (page 6, when presenting the second area of intervention) “The Commission’s programme for SME’s will encourage private sector companies to enhance their competitiveness, gain access to modern technology, improve management and seek new markets” (page 10, on presenting the fourth area of intervention)

The Guidelines for EC support to Private Sector Development (EC-AIDCO, 2003) are equally explicit regarding the purpose of the support to private sector development:

“The Cotonou Agreement (…) seeks to establish at the end of a period of 20 years a free trade relationship between the European Union and the ACP regions. Achievement of this objective depends on improved competitiveness and effectiveness of ACP firms.” (page 14)

It further states that the strategy for ALA countries is designed to “integrate the partner countries better into international trade” (page 14) while for MEDA countries,

“the challenge is to promote foreign investment through economic liberalisation, create a more integrated regional market and make the private sector more competitive to cope with international competition” (page 15).

For TACIS and CARDS regions, the objective is formulated in terms of promoting the market economy (Guidelines for EC support to Private Sector Development, pages 16-17). The objective of enhancing firms’ competitiveness is in this case implicit. It can be argued

5 Manual on Project Cycle Management (EC, 2001), page 18.



that a market economy is a precondition to the development of the private sector as it provides the environment in which private firms will be created and will develop. The purpose put forward is also coherent with former EC policy documents. COM(1998) 667 on the EC strategy for private sector development in ACP countries (EC, 1998) refers to the same objective of increasing firms competitiveness:

“EC support to private sector development (…) is now based on the explicit assumptions that (a) ACP countries will predominantly be market economies and that (b) their development prospects depend on making full use of opportunities for export growth, inward investment and improved competitiveness of companies, including their ability to integrate innovation and to acquire knowledge and know-how.”

Further, it is stated that “The proposed strategy seeks simultaneously to promote ACP countries’ international competitiveness and their ability to advance towards poverty elimination through broad-based growth and job creation.” (pages 8-9) The purpose of enhancing the competitiveness of local firms in local and international markets is justified by the fact that “competition tends to promote innovation, and the spread of best practice, which are essential to productivity and income growth. At the same time, competitive forces limit profits –on average- to normal rates of return required to remunerate owners of firms for the risk they take”6. The purpose of enhancing the competitiveness of local firms in local and international markets is meant to contribute to the achievement of each of the overall objectives of the programme. The causal relationships are presented in several policy documents and studies and, in particular, in the Guidelines. These links are summarised in the following paragraphs:

A sustainable economic, social and environmental development in third countries. Development is considered to be sustainable if it is economically efficient, politically democratic and pluralistic, socially equitable and environmentally sound. Private sector development can directly contribute to the efficiency of the economic sphere while at the same time contribute indirectly to democracy and pluralism and to social equity and environmental soundness when properly regulated.

The gradual integration of third countries into the world economy. Integration into the world economy can be achieved through trade and regional economic integration. In both cases, the existence of a competitive business sector is a necessary condition, as stated in the Guidelines for EC support to Private Sector Development (EC-AIDCO, 2003), page 10.

The reduction and eventual eradication of poverty in third countries. Private sector development can contribute to poverty reduction in two basic ways: First, the private sector can act as a trigger for higher productivity and economic growth and, therefore, provide greater employment and income opportunities for the poor. Second, the private sector can complement the role of government as a provider of basic services and infrastructure for the poor. As mentioned in the Guidelines for

6 Private Sector Development Strategy – Directions for the World Bank Group (World Bank, 2002), page 8..



EC support to Private Sector Development, “harnessing private initiative to the fight against poverty is a major factor in the use of the private sector as an instrument for fostering development” (page 9).

Building peace and ensuring political stability and security in third countries. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sees the main role of economic cooperation as bringing or reinforcing peace, stability and security in a given area in a context of transition from a planned to a market economy. Further, it follows from the interviews that a capable and well-developed private sector can also act as a lobbying force for transparency, democracy, modernisation, and openness to the rest of the world.

The enhancement of the political, economic and cultural presence of the EU. The development of commercial relations between European and local firms can reinforce the presence of the EU in those countries while sharing knowledge and prosperity. In particular, EU enterprises could provide capital, technology, access to markets and technical and management skills to their partners in countries where entrepreneurial resources are largely underused. When this kind of partnership is possible, a situation of mutual benefit can arise, this is the case of MED, Asia and Latin America regions.

Expected Results

“Results are “products” of the activities undertaken, the combination of which achieve the Purpose of the project”7

Expected results can be understood as sub-objectives of the programme achieved through the activities implemented. Once attained, their combination will achieve the programme purpose. The results proposed in the intervention logic are based on three sources. In the first place, COM(2003) 267 on EC approach to future support for the development of the Business Sector (EC, 2003) and the Guidelines for EC support to Private Sector Development (EC-AIDCO, 2003) propose five areas of intervention on which the EC will concentrate its support to the development of the private sector. For each of these areas, particular objectives and an approach -to guarantee a coherent PSD policy framework- are put forward. The objective of each of the suggested five areas of intervention can be considered as the result expected from the activities the EC will carry out and, on the whole, they are the expected results of the programme. Second, interviews and past policy documents showed two additional expected results with specific weight in certain regions or periods. The “enhancement of the capacity of intermediary professional organisations” is an important expected result that has been (and still is) aimed to in several regions. It could be argued that it is part of area N° 4 “More effective (non-financial) services” but the support to intermediary professional organisations is important enough to be considered as an expected result by itself. “Enterprises management and organisation improved”, which is the result of interventions

7 Ibid.



aiming to support local firms’ restructuring and/or privatisation, is also an expected result that reflects the importance of such type of interventions in the TACIS region. Third, as described below, the evaluation team elaborated a list of projects supporting the development of private sector using the Common Relex Information System (CRIS). This list of projects reflects the activities actually implemented by the EC and allowed to check the appropriateness of the expected results proposed. The expected results of EC support to private sector development are presented next. They have been sorted according to the level of the intervention: macro, meso and micro: 1. Macroeconomic, legal and regulatory framework is more conductive to PSD

(corresponding to area of intervention N° 1).

2. Financial markets are reinforced and their capacity to finance investment is increased (corresponding to area N° 3).


4. More investment & business-to-business co-operation (corresponding to area N° 2).

5. More effective (non-financial) services increasing SME’s competitiveness (corresponding to area N°4).

6. Development of micro-enterprises (corresponding to area N° 5).

7. Enterprises’ management and organisation improved. How does each expected result contribute to achieve the purpose of the programme, namely, to enhance the competitiveness of local firms in local and international markets? 1. Macroeconomic, legal and regulatory framework is more conductive to PSD.

Several studies have shown that a stable macroeconomic situation with sound economic fundamentals and a stable and enforceable legal and regulatory framework (including tax legislation and the financial system) are preconditions for a sustainable development of private sector. In particular, it has been observed that: (i) under unstable macroeconomic situations private firms seek to maximise short term windfall profits rather than work with long term objectives and (ii) that when the “rules of the game” are not appropriate, transparent and enforced for everyone, private capitals tend to disappear and investment to decrease. In this area, budget support can play a supporting role for the development of the private sector as it can be granted -under certain conditions- in support of national development strategies that are consistent with the Community’s development policy objectives to underpin structural reforms.

2. Financial markets are reinforced and their capacity to finance investment,

including for microenterprises, is increased. The development of efficient financial markets and institutions capable of mobilising

domestic and international savings and allocating scarce capital where returns are highest is a second prerequisite for private sector development, including micro-



enterprises. Indeed, private firms cannot develop to their best potential without access to credit that is cost-effective.


Business associations in the formal and informal sector are a powerful tool to boost the capabilities of the private sector through training, dissemination of information and by organising partnership relations between local and foreign firms. It is also a preferential partner to discuss policy matters with the government.

4. More investment & business-to-business co-operation.

EC support to investment and to trade-related activities assumes that most third countries still need external support to attract foreign direct investment and to engage in business exchanges as ways to finance new methods and expand but also as a vehicle for the transfer of know-how and the development of managerial skills.

5. More effective (non-financial) services increasing SME’s competitiveness.

Besides financial services, private firms need other services and capabilities in order to develop to their best potential, “enhance their competitiveness, gain access to modern technology, improve management and seek new markets”. Among these services we find training (including managerial training) and technical services (business plans, market identification, etc.).

6. Development of microenterprises.

Microenterprises are a growing and dynamic element of development economies. In many cases they involve an important part of the informal economy. A flourishing microenterprise sector generates output, employment and incomes and strengthens intersectoral linkages leading to more integrated economies and balanced growth. It also promotes a broad-based participation -particularly by the poor and by women- in productive activities, leading to more equitable income distribution.

7. Enterprises’ management and organisation improved.

Privatisation and restructuring programmes undertaken in conjunction with broader economic reforms to increase competition and correct relative prices are central to a more efficient allocation of resources and to a higher productivity. They are also essential to the long-term development of the private sector, contributing to strengthen market forces and competitive conditions, to develop local capital markets and financial institutions, and to create new opportunities.



Activities

“Activities [are] the actions (and means) that have to be taken or provided to produce results. They summarise what will be undertaken by the project”8.

The evaluation team has elaborated a typology of EC interventions to support private sector development. Each of these types corresponds to one or more of the expected results in the sense that the implementation of the activity contributes to the achievement of the expected result. The typology of activities was based on the same three sources than the list of expected results. First, policy documents such as the COM(2003) 267 on EC approach to future support for the development of the Business Sector (EC, 2003) and the Guidelines for EC support to Private Sector Development (EC-AIDCO, 2003), illustrate proposed orientations and each of the five fields of action with examples of interventions. Second, interviews with officials involved in the implementation of projects allow the team to test the comprehensiveness of the typology. Finally, the list of projects gave us a view on the actual action of the EC. Support for institutional & structural reforms with an indirect effect on PSD, including

Budget Support. Refers to activities that improve the macroeconomic, legal and regulatory framework on areas that do not directly affect the private sector. For example, “Support for national programme for state reform & modernisation” (7 ACP DO 52).

Support for institutional & structural reforms with a direct effect on PSD. As the above, refer to activities that improve the macroeconomic, legal and regulatory framework but on areas that have directly impact on private sector development. For example, “DIAGNOS Programme” and “Institutional support to the private sector in Malawi” (7 ACP MAI 116).

Support for local financial institutions & the creation of a reliable banking system. This type refers to activities that reinforce the financial system such as “Banking System Consolidation” (BH9606.01).

Direct capital contributions to local companies or to financial intermediaries. These activities are mainly managed by the EIB or other specialised institution with which the EC establishes a cooperation agreement.

Support to facilitate partnership between firms through meetings, workshops. For instance, “Forum Agro-Industriel UE/Afrique de l'Ouest 1995” (8 ACP ROC 18) or Europartenariat Espana 98 (MEDA 1998/0079).

Support to intermediary organisations representing the private sector.

8 Ibid.



These refer to activities to directly support intermediary organisations rather than activities carried out with their support: “Programme d’appui au COLEACP” (8 ACP TPS 5); “Swaziland Sugar Association II” (7 ACP SW 25).

Encouragement of trade and investment between European and local companies. For example, “Promotion du Commerce Extérieur et des Investissements” (7 ACP RPR 349) and “Apoyo a la promoción de exportaciones” (ALA/1993/000-977).

Transfers of know-how and technologies and cooperation between industry and scientific research. For example, “Industrial cooperation on machine tools” (ASE/B7-3001/94/106) and “Innovation, Technologie et Qualité dans les Entreprises” (MEDA 2000/2075).

Support to enhance human resources and capacities. For example, “EU-Chine Junior Managers training programme” (B7-301/96/CHN/2) and “Appui au programme de mise à niveau de la formation professionnelle, MANFORM” (MEDA/TUN/001 - 1997/0240).

Support for the development and creation of SMEs and microenterprises. For example “Micro & Small Enterprise Development Programme, MSEDP” (7 ACP ET 107), “Small and Medium Enterprises Development Fund-Phase II” (Asia 2000/2469) and “SME Support” (BH9606.02).

Upgrading local firms. For instance: “EU-ACP Business Assistance Scheme (EBAS)” (8 ACP TPS 3) or “Private Sector Development Programme - Business Service Team BST” (MEDA/JOR/628/000/A).

Support to firm restructuring and privatisation. For example, “SWARP Spinning Mills II” (7 ACP ZA 67), “Enterprise Restructuring and development” (TACIS RU9401.01) and “Public Enterprise Reform and Privatisation Programme” (MEDA SEM/04/220/004A).

A typology of the activities is presented in annex 6. Moreover, an analysis of the EC supported activities is detailed in annex 4.

Annex 3 – Evaluation questions


Final report – 14 May 2004 Annex 3/page 1

Annex 3 – Evaluation questions

The terms of reference, the analysis of the intervention logic discussed with many of the members of the Reference Group, the list of interventions and the standard evaluation criteria have provided the basis to formulate evaluation questions, which shape the analysis. Each question is presented in a table, which provides: The justification of the question which explains the role of the question in the analysis, What needs to be analysed to address the question, Some judgement criteria, indicators and sources.

These lists of criteria and indicators have been adapted during the data collection phase. Indeed, a more detailed analysis of the interventions portfolio helped finding more accurate criteria and indicators. The number of questions amounts to 11. The questions are grouped under the evaluation criteria as follows:

Relevance

1. How has been checked the assumption according to which a more competitive business sector contributes to the general objectives of the EU external policy in the different regions?

Effectiveness

2. What kind of institutional and economic reforms have been the most effectively carried out with the support of the EC in the different countries or regions? What where the critical preconditions for a successful support?

3. To what extent have EC interventions reinforced financial markets and increased the capacity of local financial institutions to finance SMEs and micro-enterprises?

4. To what extent did intermediate organisations supported by the EC actually increase their capacity to conduct a policy dialogue with the government? To what extent did these organisations actually improve the quality or quantity of the services provided to member enterprises?

5. To what extent were business-to-business partnership agreements reached with the support of the EC? What kind of benefits did the partner’s draw from their cooperation?

6. How far did services to SMEs actually facilitate access of entrepreneurs to economic, commercial and technical information? How far did interventions aiming to facilitate access of SMEs to economic, commercial and technical information achieve their objectives? To what extent did the EC supported suppliers of services cooperate or compete with other suppliers operating under market conditions? To what extent have the recent EC policy changes, aiming at building on the service supply market capacities, led to a more effective delivery?

Efficiency

7. What are the main obstacles hampering the implementation of PSDS interventions? To what extent does the evolution toward a more regional approach have an effect on the efficiency of EC interventions (decision delays, implementation procedures, costs). To what extent does the



deconcentration of the EC services impact on efficiency (decision delays, implementation procedures, payment delays). The EC has recently decided to increasingly support the local supply of services to enterprises instead of using external expertise. What are the consequences of this evolution on the efficiency of the services? How does it compare with the CDE approach?

Coherence

8. To what extent has the EC contribution to PSD been hampered or supported by other EU policies such as the CAP, trade, industrial and competitiveness policies, by regulations such as environmental, social and intellectual property rights regulations, or by programmes such as the TRA or EC programmes aiming at facilitating regional integration? Are the EC approaches carried out in the different regions coherent with each other? Are they coherent with enterprises support programmes carried out in Europe? Do the different regional teams share the lessons they draw from their experience?

Coordination and complementarity

9. What are the practical procedures of coordination between donors, including MS, in the different regions, at central and local levels? Do we find cases where explicit co-operation between donors (especially the EC and some MS) is carried out? Do we observe forms of competition between donors (especially bilateral), focusing for instance on the same successful sectors or enterprises, or protecting the interests of their “own” enterprises at the expenses of the overall effectiveness of the PSDS policy?

Cross Cutting issues

10. Does the EC financed PSD programme show concern for issues such as promoting women led enterprises, ensuring acceptable working conditions notably for women, protecting the environment, or promoting better governance practices?

Sustainability

11 To what extent are the effects of the interventions likely to continue at the end of the EC support?



RELEVANCE

Evaluation Question No. 1 How has been checked the assumption according to which a more competitive business sector contributes to the general objectives of the EU external policy in the different regions?

Justification of the question

The EC support to PSD in third countries has been defined as covering the EC supported interventions aiming at enhancing the competitiveness of the business sector in these countries. Assessing their relevance requires to assess the relevance of this specific objective against the issues addressed by the overall objectives of the European external policy. The relevance for the EC to support PSD relies on the assumption that the low competitiveness of the business sector in partner countries is a major constraint preventing progress towards the EU external policy objectives in these countries1. A direct assessment of such a politically fundamental assumption cannot be done in the framework of this evaluation. It is however important to ask whether the EC has analysed this assumption and how.

What needs to be analysed? Analysis and policy documents justifying the role of private sector/business sector in contributing to the objectives of the EU external policy.

Judgement Criteria Indicator Comments/sources The EC or EU institutions have explicitly substantiated the fact that a more competitive private sector will contribute to achieve the objectives of the EU external policy

Explicit reference to the objectives of the EU external policy in PSD policy documents issued by the EU.

EC communication on private sector development, guidelines on PSD, regional agreements, other EC policy papers.

This justification is convincing or, at least, shared by the main donors and Member States

PSD documents issued by other donors refer or justify to the role of PSD (in development, growth and stability).

WB, IFC, EC, UNIDO, DAC, EIB documents; Academic papers; Minutes of international conferences (Monterrey, Johannesburg); Interviews.

1 These objectives include: poverty reduction; integration in the world economy; sustainable development; peace, political stability and security; and the enhancement of the political,

economic and cultural presence of the EU.



EFFECTIVENESS

Evaluation Question No. 2 What kind of institutional and economic reforms have been the most effectively carried out with the support of the EC in the different countries or regions? What where the critical preconditions for a successful support?


Institutional support is a broad concept under which various kinds of interventions are carried out. Assessing the effectiveness of institutional support interventions raises the question of the lack of benchmarks. Against what can we compare the effectiveness of such activities? Evaluation Question 2 suggests comparing them with each other; comparing different kinds of institutional support and the different contexts under which these interventions are carried out. The evaluation will allow to sort these interventions in categories and to see “what works and under which conditions”. Some reforms are more difficult to implement than others. Some reforms are desirable but likely to fail (or even to be harmful) as long as other reforms have not been carried out. Some conditions such as genuine political support are always necessary2.

What needs to be analysed? Outcome of institutional support programmes.

Judgement Criteria Indicator Comments/sources Legal or economic reforms have been carried out and regulations or institutions created or improved with the support of the EC. (Common) features of these interventions.

Institutional reforms have been succesfully supported by the EC

(Common) features of the countries in which these interventions were carried out. Legal, economic, regulatory or institutional reforms which the EC planned to support have not been implemented as expected.

(Common) features of these interventions. Institutional reforms supported by the EC have failed

(Common) features of the countries in which these interventions were not implemented as expected.

DIAGNOS evaluation; Country programmes (to get the expected results); Delegations' activity reports; Evaluations; National and regional policy and legal documents; Survey.

2 For the second indicator include whether they were requested by the government or suggested/imposed by the EC or other donors. The ownership problem is likely to be important for

this type of intervention.



EFFECTIVENESS

Evaluation Question No. 3 To what extent have EC interventions reinforced financial markets and increased the capacity of local financial institutions to finance SMEs and micro-enterprises?


In many developing and transition countries, owing notably to an unreliable institutional and judicial environment, commercial banks are reluctant to lend to SMEs. Moreover, micro enterprises have nearly no access to financial institutions. EC interventions aiming at contributing to solve this problem often take the form of: (i) support of a financial system reform and/or (ii) development of specific financing instruments facilitating access to credit for SMEs and micro enterprises. Some interventions aiming specifically at facilitating access to credit for SMEs and micro enterprises use local financial institutions as intermediaries. In such cases, a second objective of the intervention is often to induce a change in the behaviour of these local institutions by getting them used to work with SMEs. In some cases, the EC and the EIB co-operate to facilitate the access to credit to SMEs. These interventions are part of the scope of the evaluation only in so far as the resources used are raised by the EC while managed by the EIB.

What needs to be analysed? Reforms of the financial system supported by the EC. Programmes developed with the support of the EC aiming at facilitating access to credit for SMEs and micro enterprises.

Judgement Criteria Indicator Comments/sources Existence of credit schemes adapted to SMEs. Number of loans to SMEs3. Amounts lent to SMEs (total and/or average)4. Number of beneficiary SMEs.

SME-oriented credit schemes are designed and implemented by the EC

Number of jobs created (Only if employment creation was an objective of the programme). Existence of credit schemes adapted to micro enterprises.

Micro enterprise-oriented credit schemes are designed and implemented by the EC

Number of loans to micro enterprises5.

Activity reports (at project/programme level); Interviews; Surveys.

3 It is important to know whether initial project documents (feasibility studies, financial proposals or agreements, etc.) include base-line information. Existence of this information shows that

an assessment of the situation was made when identifying the project. Moreover, this information provides a benchmark against which the results of the project can be measured in the future. Non existence of this information is therefore significant in terms of the evaluation. The indicator can also include the evolution during the life of the programme, if available!

4 Idem



Amounts lent to micro enterprises (total and/or average)6. Number of beneficiary micro enterprises.

Number of jobs created (Only if employment creation was an objective of the programme!).

Collaterals required are better adapted to SMEs and micro enterprises Existence of adapted regulations. Project reports

EC interventions do not create distortions in financial markets Existence of complaints from the different stakeholders. Project related documents, interviews.

5 Idem 6 Idem



EFFECTIVENESS

Evaluation Question No. 4

To what extent did intermediate organisations supported by the EC actually increase their capacity to conduct a policy dialogue with the government?

To what extent did these organisations actually improve the quality or quantity of the services provided to member enterprises?


Strong intermediate organisations representing the business sector have an important political role to support a PSD enabling environment. They also provide useful services to their members and act as an effective channel allowing donors to reach local enterprises. EC support to these organisations is effective if intermediate organisations increase their capacity to conduct a policy dialogue and to offer services to member enterprises.

What needs to be analysed? Professional organisations supported by the EC.

Judgement Criteria Indicator Comments/sources Interventions aiming at supporting intermediate organisations. Intermediate organisations are supported by EC interventions Intermediate organisations supported by the EC. Nature of services provided. Intermediate organisations supported by the EC provide more

and better services to their members and members use these services

Evolution of the number of companies benefiting from these services.

Activity reports; Survey; Interviews.

Local enterprises spontaneously participate to intermediate organisations Evolution of membership. Activity reports;

Survey Government organises policy orientation meetings involving business sector organisations. Evidences of consultation during the preparation of institutional reforms.

Intermediate organisations have an influence on policy decisions

Evidence that business sector’s views have been taken into account.

Activity reports; Survey; Interviews.



EFFECTIVENESS

Evaluation Question No. 5 To what extent were business-to-business partnership agreements reached with the support of the EC? What kind of benefits did the partner’s draw from their cooperation?


Business-to-business partnerships aim at allowing third countries enterprises to access technology transfers, management support, export facilities to European markets and at opening to European enterprises an access to third countries inputs or outputs markets. The EC finances and organises meetings aiming at facilitating direct contacts between local and European enterprises. The effectiveness of this activity relies on the number of genuine partnerships build due to these contacts.

What needs to be analysed? Activity reports may provide some information but it is likely that the views of the members of the delegations who have participated to these events will be the main source. Europe based enterprises, which have participated to these events, could also provide some information.

Judgement Criteria Indicator Comments/sources

EC interventions aim to Agreements have led to foreign direct investment or other benefits for the partners

Partnership-matching activities supported by the EC.

Evaluations of instruments or specific programmes.

Number of partnership meetings organised. Agreements of mutual interest are signed Number of agreements signed following a

partnership meeting.

Evidence of investment from European firms in local business following agreements signed. Agreements have led to foreign direct investment or other

benefits for the partners Evidence of other forms of benefits following agreements signed.



EFFECTIVENESS


How far did services to SMEs actually facilitate access of entrepreneurs to economic, commercial and technical information? How far did interventions aiming to facilitate access of SMEs to economic, commercial and technical information achieve their objectives? To what extent did the EC supported suppliers of services cooperate or compete with other suppliers operating under market conditions? To what extent have the recent EC policy changes, aiming at building on the service supply market capacities, led to a more effective delivery?


One of the oldest and most widespread activities of PSD support programmes is the direct delivery of services to SMEs. The EC has financed many of such programmes, some of which are handled by the CDE. A recent evolution has led to a more indirect approach in which the EC does no longer provide the services directly to the SMEs but rather supports the development of a local supply capacity.

What needs to be analysed? Specific programmes of services to SMEs.

Judgement Criteria Indicator Comments/sources The delegations receive complaints for “unfair competition” from the private suppliers of services Number of complaints Professional organisations (survey)

Services are used Rate of use of services Survey New business centres are open Number of public services available to enterprises

Supply of services to enterprises is increased Number of consulting firms appeared on the market. Number of enterprise using services for the second time or more Number of enterprises ready to pay the full price of these services (increasing or not?). Enterprises having used subsidised services are convinced of

their usefulness % of enterprises expressing their satisfaction and/or usefulness of the services received – impact.

Activity reports, EBAS evaluation, CDE activity reports, survey.



EFFICIENCY


What are the main obstacles hampering the implementation of PSDS interventions? To what extent does the evolution toward a more regional approach have an effect on the efficiency of EC interventions (decision delays, implementation procedures, costs). To what extent does the deconcentration of the EC services impact on efficiency (decision delays, implementation procedures, payment delays). The EC has recently decided to increasingly support the local supply of services to enterprises instead of using external expertise. What are the consequences of this evolution on the efficiency of the services? How does it compare with the CDE approach?

Justification of the question The set of activities carried out in the framework of PSDS is very diversified. In some cases it involves other EU institutions (EIB or CDE) or operates according to specific rules related to various instruments. The final beneficiaries are often very small units, which implies that the funds are spread in tiny interventions managed by local institutions.

What needs to be analysed ? The main features of programme implementation: institutional settings, information and financial flows, decision making.

Judgement Criteria Indicator Comments/sources Direct investment: management costs are lower thanks to the experience of institutions such as the EIB Projects accounts Project documents, interviews

The regional approach compared to national approach: benefits exceed the drawbacks

Delays for decisions (project preparation, implementation payments).

Interviews; Evaluations; Surveys

Deconcentration has allowed for faster and more accurate decisions at design, implementation and payment levels

Delays for decisions (project preparation, implementation payments).

Interviews; Evaluations; Surveys

Local suppliers are more efficient than foreign expertise Value for money of the services. Projects documents, interviews, surveys



COHERENCE WITH OTHER EC POLICIES


To what extent has the EC contribution to PSD been hampered or supported by other EU policies such as the CAP, trade, industrial and competitiveness policies, by regulations such as environmental, social and intellectual property rights regulations, or by programmes such as the TRA or EC programmes aiming at facilitating regional integration? Are the EC approaches carried out in the different regions coherent with each other? Are they coherent with enterprises support programmes carried out in Europe? Do the different regional teams share the lessons they draw from their experience?


Supporting the competitiveness of third countries enterprises may loose much of its relevance if Europe does not waive obstacles against imports from the same countries. Policies that are limiting imports or that lead toward dumping subsidised products on the world market have a negative impact on these enterprises. On the other hand, any policy deliberately aiming at facilitating access to the European market is likely to be coherent, as well as policies such as promoting regional integration between third countries, Trade Related Assistance, etc. The EC is investing much in PSD within Europe as well as in various third countries. Sharing experience between teams working in very different contexts could be difficult but fruitful. Inter DG working groups have been set up to that end.

What needs to be analysed? EU policies identified as having an impact (positive or negative) on PSD.


Number of meetings Signs of influence between programmes Common strategy papers

Working groups joining various EC officers in charge of PSDS within the EC meet regularly and allow for building a collective experience

Other information

Interviews, Working groups reports.

Complaints from beneficiaries, governments or operators of EC funded PSD programmes EU policies/regulations/interventions are hampering the

improvement of the competitiveness of third countries enterprises Academic or WTO documents providing

evidences of such constraints.

Interviews, evaluations, surveys, TRA evaluation, WTO documents.



COORDINATION AND COMPLEMENTARIY


What are the practical procedures of coordination between donors, including MS, in the different regions, at central and local levels? Do we find cases where explicit co-operation between donors (especially the EC and some MS) is carried out? Do we observe forms of competition between donors (especially bilateral), focusing for instance on the same successful sectors or enterprises, or protecting the interests of their “own” enterprises at the expenses of the overall effectiveness of the PSDS policy?

Justification of the question Interventions such as institutional support, macro-economic policy advice, are very sensitive to contradictory approaches between donors.

What needs to be analysed? Multi-donors relations, other donors policies/programmes.

Judgement Criteria Indicator Comments/sources Explicit reference to other donors policies or activities. EC participates to multidonor coordination processes at central

and country levels Multi-donors meetings Conflicting interventions identified? No conflicts are found between EC supported and other

donors programme/policies Signs of obstruction against information circulation.

Country programmes/ general strategy papers DAC report on private sector. Multi-donors working groups meetings minutes.

Multi-donor interventions are successfully carried out Effectiveness of multi-donor programmes. Activity reports; Evaluations.

Complementarity is developed with other EU-funded programmes, notably with regional programmes

Signs of complementarity between PSD and other EU-funded programmes.



CROSS CUTTING ISSUES

Evaluation Question No. 10 Does the EC financed PSD programme show concern for issues such as promoting women led enterprises, ensuring acceptable working conditions notably for women, protecting the environment, or promoting better governance practices?

Justification of the question These “cross cutting issues” are identified by the EC as policy priorities that should be reflected in all EC interventions. In such a broad evaluation assessing the effectiveness of the interventions in terms of progress made along these lines would be difficult. However finding signs of concern or in some cases, signs of negative impact could be possible.

What needs to be analysed? Policy documents, activity reports, evaluations.

Judgement Criteria Indicator Comments/sources Monitoring figures are gender sensitive, notably the number of women led enterprises monitored, proportion of (micro-) credits granted to woman, share of women in the labour force, … are known

Gender sensitive statistics

Information to be provided by enterprises likely to benefit from the programme include questions about issues such as child labour.

Working conditions are looked at Environmental impact assessments are done when the EC supports enterprises Existence of Environmental impact

assessments/monitoring. EC supported professional organisations give signs of sensitivity to gender, environment Specific actions in that line.

EC supported professional organisation play an active role in improving governance Signs of action aiming at improving governance.

Monitoring, Project evaluation reports, Survey.



SUSTAINABILITY

Evaluation Question N° 11 To what extent are the effects of the interventions likely to continue at the end of the EC support?

Justification of the question Businesses may deserve public support if they are seen as providing the economic basis for a sustainable development. Benefiting enterprises should not permanently rely on public support. Institutional and economic reform should last after the removal of European TA etc.

What needs to be analysed? The effects of the interventions are unlikely to be sustainable if some conditions are not met.


The number of enterprises increases in the supported sectors Number of businesses created – number of businesses closed down.

Repayment rate of loans are high enough in EC supported institutions Bank accounts

Services to business become self supporting Existence of non subsidised private companies providing such services.

Businesses are able and willing to pay for services Existence of non subsidised private companies providing such services.

Bad loans problems are solved before the end of intervention Bank balance sheets

Reforms benefit from ownership and political support In democracies, importance of the political majority supporting the reforms.

Activity reports Evaluations Evaluations. Accounts of supported banks Surveys.

Annex 4 – Description of PSD projects


Final Report – 14 May 2004 Annex 4 / page 1

Annex 4 – Description of PSD projects

This Annex 4 contains three sections: Section 4.1 presents the data sources that were consulted during the preparation of the Inception Note and explains how the data collected were processed. Section 4.2 presents, by region, the PSDS Project List that was built on the basis of the above work. Section 4.3 provides a descriptive analysis of EC PSD interventions across the various regions, and by region.

4.1 Data Sources and Treatment

The Common RELEX Information System (CRIS) represents the main source of information for the identification of the European Commission’s programmes and projects worldwide. For each intervention entry, it provides on line information about the technical, financial and accounting progress. The evaluators used this source of information to compile a comprehensive “project list” providing an overview on the EC’s interventions in the field of Private Sector Development in third countries from 1994 to 2003. Following the restructuring of EC services, data from different services are being harmonised in a single platform. As this process has not yet been completed, CRIS currently includes two databases: the so-called CRIS Saisie and CRIS Consultation databases. CRIS Consultation was created as a consultation platform regrouping three different databases to be used during the transition period. CRIS Saisie does not yet contain the interventions financed by the EDF. Therefore, the evaluation team used both sources to establish the project list. The compilation of the project list was structured into three steps: 1) data collection - from both CRIS Saisie and CRIS Consultation; 2) data “clearing”; and 3) comparison and completion of the projects list with the lists of interventions

provided by several EuropeAid Units in charge of PSD in the different regions.

4.1.1 Step One: Data Collection

Since “Private Sector Development” is not a sector by itself, the evaluation team selected those sectors and/or sub-sectors which were more likely to include private sector development-related projects. Table 1 shows the list of selected sectors and sub-sectors:



Table 1

DAC CODE (Sectors)

CRS CODE (sub sectors)

DESCRIPTION

11300 SECONDARY EDUCATION

11330 Vocational Training 11400 POST SECONDARY EDUCATION

11420 Higher Education 11430 Advanced technical and managerial training

15000 GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY

15010 Economic and development policy 15020 Public sector financial management 15030 Legal and judicial development 15050 Strengthening civil society 15064 Demobilisation

16000 EMPLOYMENT

16110 Employment policy and administrative management 24000 BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

24030 Formal sector financial intermediaries 25000 BUSINESS AND OTHER SERVICES

24040 Informal/semi-formal financial intermediaries 25010 Business Services 25020 Privatisation

31100 AGRICULTURE

31165 Agricultural alternative development 32100 INDUSTRY

32110 Industrial policy and administrative management 32120 Industrial development 32130 SME Development 32140 Cottage industry and handicraft 32161 Agro industries 32162 Forest Industries 32163 Textiles, leather and substitutes 32164 Chemicals 32165 Fertiliser plants 32166 Cement/lime/plaster 32167 Energy manufacturing 32168 Pharmaceutical production 32169 Basic metal industries 32170 Non-ferrous metal industries



DAC CODE (Sectors)

CRS CODE (sub sectors)

DESCRIPTION

32171 Engineering 32172 Transport equipment industry 32181 Technological research and development

33100 TRADE

33110 Trade policy and administrative management 33120 Wholesale/retail trade 33130 Export promotion

33200 TOURISM

33210 Tourism policy and administrative management 43000 OTHER MULTI-SECTOR

43050 Non-agricultural alternative development Additionally, the following sectors were used to retrieve data from CRIS Consultation:

CODE DESCRIPTION 25011 Services d’appui 50000 Développement de l’industrie du bâtiment A2 Support to Private Sector & Assistance in Economic Dev. PR Private sector, Restructuring, Privatisation, SME’s SE Support for Enterprises

For each intervention classified under the selected sectors, the following information was retrieved:

CRIS Consultation CRIS Saisie Country Beneficiary geographical zone Project number Project No (1) Project number 2 Project Title Project title Amount Planned Contracted Contracts Paid Paid Source of financing Source of financing DAC Code Number DAC Code Number Name of the person in charge Breakdown number



4.1.2 Step Two: Data Clearing

The data collected from both the CRIS Saisie and the CRIS Consultation were merged into one Excel table. The merged list contained several duplications of the same items for the following reasons: Projects were sometimes classified under different sectors and/or financing sources

(national/regional) and therefore repeated; Different phases of one project’s financing procedures (such as PMS, DAG, PACA,

EDF, etc) are recorded in the CRIS databases; Some projects were registered in both CRIS Saisie and CRIS Consultation.

The complete list, i.e. including duplicated and other anomalies, included 4155 intervention lines. In order to “clear” the list, the following steps were undertaken: Identification and removal of the duplicates of the same project/programme; Identification and removal of the items which referred to different phases of the same

project’s financing procedures; Removal of those projects which had a zero planned budget; Identification and removal of those projects that fell outside the scope of the current

evaluation for “geographical” reasons (i.e. all the projects in the “accession countries” and all the OCTs/PTOs );

Identification and removal of those projects/programmes that fell outside the scope of the evaluation for their nature (national or regional programmes; structural adjustment programmes; total budgets for funding instruments; etc). Examples: - T.A. to NAO (various projects in ACP) - 8 ACP TPS 108 – PROINVEST (€ 110,000,000) - CARDS/2003/004-817(EC)- 2003 Action Programme for Serbia (€220,000,000)

Then, the following two steps were taken: Small interventions with a planned budget inferior to € 200.000,00 were removed from

the list. It appears indeed that expenses made under that threshold are mostly project preparation studies or other studies, and evaluations, not projects.

EIB managed-interventions and funding instruments such as CDE, EBAS or AL-Invest, for example, were identified and will be analysed separately.

For the cases that were not clear (i.e. projects that had the same name, country, etc. but had different planned budgets; cases where minor mistakes were identified; cases in which the country or region was not well identified from the code used), the evaluators agreed on: Deleting the duplicates when the planned budgets did not differ too much (less than

the double); and Correcting the mistakes when possible and asking the members of the Reference

Group for clarification in the other cases.



Draft lists of programmes/projects distributed by region (ACP, MEDA, TACIS, CARDS, Asia and Latin America) were presented to the Members of the Reference Group. This first round of consultation allowed the evaluators to include in the list some projects and programmes that had not been found in the databases. After this process, the list was made up of 380 interventions. Each one was then associated to one of the types of activity identified in the Intervention Logic. This allowed both to adjust the Intervention Logic and to analyse the nature of EC interventions supporting private sector development. This analysis is presented in the following pages together with the list of interventions by region. The possibility to create a reliable and accurate “project list” including all the EC interventions in the field of private sector development between 1994 and 2003 was limited by the quality of data contained in the databases. The following difficulties were encountered in the data collection and treatment phases: Past activities were not always registered. In the past, it was not obligatory to assign each intervention to a sector, as it is the case

now. The recorded data are not always reliable – especially in terms of budgets planned,

allocated and paid. Mistakes can be identified only by comparing the data collected with the data provided by task managers, regional desks etc.

Some projects seem to appear several times in the lists, sometimes with different allocations, titles and numbers.

Project titles do not always provide enough information on the type of intervention.

4.1.3 Step Three: Completion of the CRIS project list with the lists provided by EuropeAid Units

Following the presentation of the draft Inception Note to the Reference Group (15 December 2003), the Units in charge of PSD in the different regions were requested by the Evaluation Unit to revise the list of interventions presented and, if necessary, to provide the evaluation team with an amended list of projects. This way of proceeding allowed increasing the reliability of the data on which the evaluation will be based. The evaluation team received project lists from three different EuropeAid Units: C3 (ACP), D3 (Asia) and E3 (Latin America). The ACP list was mostly composed of ongoing projects; the evaluators examined the list and added the projects that were not mentioned in their initial CRIS-based list. No project title from the CRIS database was deleted in order to keep past interventions. Furthermore, pending or suspended projects as well as small interventions (<200,000.00 €) were not taken into account. As for the new Latin America list, it was only composed of new projects (recently approved or propositions of interventions to be approved in 2004). These interventions fall outside of the evaluation period and therefore have not been included in the list. For the Asia project list, a close collaboration with Unit D3 has been established, in order to ensure that the information used was correct and complete.



For more transparency, the origin of the interventions (“CRIS” or “Unit”) is noted in the tables presented in Paragraph 4 of the present Annex. It is worth to note that the EuropeAid Unit D3 (MEDA) also provided a complete list of interventions but this was before the redaction of the draft report; therefore the MEDA project list was already complete from the beginning and no change has been brought in the final version of the list presented in this Annex.

4.2 Project list

This section presents the list of the 380 relevant EC projects extracted from the CRIS databases (see paragraph 4.1 above). The projects have been gathered by region. Each regional table provides for each project: Country code Country name* Date (year)* Project number Project title Source (CRIS databases or Unit in charge of PSD for the region concerned)* Type of activity* Planned budget (in million €) Source of financing Budget line* DAC code number and DAC code description.

The basic data come directly from the CRIS databases but some specific columns were added by the evaluators in order to carry out the analysis presented above (Par. 2 and 3). For transparency on the origin of the information, the columns that were added are marked in the tables by an asterisk (*). The country name derives from the country code. and the title of the budget line from the name of the source of financing. For some projects the starting date is part of the project number. Finally, the type of activity representing the project was derived from the project title.



4.2.1 ACP project list

Country name *

Year* Project number Project title Activity Type * Planned

(million €) Source of financing

Budget line title DAC Code Number

DAC Code description

Angola 7 ACP ANG 44 Return & reintegration qualified African nationals – Phase III Micro/SMEs 0.50 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION

Antigua & Barbuda FED/AB/07001/

000 Upgrading and expansion of

Antigua Hotel Training Centre Institutional & structural

reforms (direct) 2.20 EDF 07 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND ADMIN. MANA

Benin 8 ACP BEN 21 Programme d'Appui régional l'intégration (PARI)-Phase II -

volet secteur privé

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 1.50 EDF 08 15010

ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING

Benin FED/BEN/07023/000 Appui au secteur privé Institutional & structural

reforms (direct) 5.50 EDF 08 25010 BUSINESS SERVICES

Benin 8 ACP BEN 15 Appui régional à l'intégration (PARI) - UEMOA Phase II

Institutional & structural reforms (indirect) 1.50 EDF 08 15010


PLANNING

Botswana 7 ACP BT 49 Vocational training programme (6/47+7/48+7/49). Human Resources 0.66 EDF 07 11330 VOCATIONAL TRAINING



Botswana 8 ACP BT 3 Francistown CTVE/VTC vocational training programme Human Resources 15.00 EDF 08 11430 ADVANCED TECH. &

MANAGERIAL TRAINING

Botswana 7 ACP BT 54 Botswana trade development programme (Foundation Phase)

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 0.27 EDF 07 33110 TRADE POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Botswana 7 ACP BT 46 Botswana tourism development programme (+6BT44)

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 1.16 EDF 07 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Burkina Faso 8 ACP BK 27 Programme d'appui régional à l'intégration (PARI) - Phase II -




PLANNING



Country name *





Burkina Faso 8 ACP BK 22 Appui régional à l'intégration (PARI) - UEMOA Phase II



PLANNING

Burkina Faso 7 ACP BK 151

Appui au développement du secteur privé: Programme de

renforcement des capacités des entreprises

Upgrading local firms 6.00 EDF 07 25010 BUSINESS SERVICES

Cape Verde 7 ACP CV 17 Appui au démarrage de l'école technique de PRAIA Human Resources 0.93 EDF 07 11430 ADVANCED TECH. &

MANAGERIAL TRAINING

Cape Verde 7 ACP CV 15 Viabilisation d'une zone à usage industriel à PRAIA. Intermediary org. 1.15 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT

Cape Verde 7 ACP CV 14 Return & reintegration qualified African nationals – Phase III Micro/SMEs 0.30 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION

Central Africa Rep 6 ACP CA 48 Elaboration document PST II

(1997-2000) ? 0.23 EDF 06 15010 ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING

Chad 8 ACP CD 29 Chad - Cameroon oil export system (8 cm 30)_(20996-20998)


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Chad 8 ACP CD 022-025

Appui budgétaire pour la réduction de la pauvreté 6417/CD

Institutional & structural reforms (indirect) 37.10 EDF 08

Comoros 7 ACP COM 25 Appui mise en place centre national artisanat Comorien

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 0.28 EDF 07 32140 COTTAGE INDUSTRIES

AND HANDICRAFT

Comoros 7 ACP COM 011 Promotion et développement des petites entreprises Micro/SMEs 1.30 EDF 07

Cuba CUB/RELEX/2001/0084 Programme DEADE ? 1.94 ?

Cuba CUB/B7-311/98/096 Appui à la Réforme Bancaire Finance / banking 0.61 ?

Cuba CUB-

AIDCO/2002/0584

Programme au perfect. de l'administration financ. et de la

pratique comptable Finance / banking 3.45 ?



Country name *





Cuba 2002 2002/0534 Cuba 2002 - Assistance technique

en relation avec les projets et programmes CE/Cuba

Restructuring / privatisation 0.25 B73110B00

Political, economic & cultural cooperation with LA countries

25020 Privatisation

Cuba CUB-

AIDCO/2001/0279

Progr. d'appui au secteur des entreprises et promotion des

invest. à Cuba Trade / Investment 2.80 ?

Dominican Rep 8 ACP DO 19 Devt of tech. & prof. education in

Dominican Republic Human Resources 13.25 EDF 08 11330 VOCATIONAL TRAINING

Dominican Rep 7 ACP DOM 12 Eco-tourism site development Institutional & structural

reforms (direct) 0.52 EDF 07 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Dominican Rep 7 ACP DO 32 Programme d'appui au secteur

privé Institutional & structural

reforms (direct) 4.20 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Dominican Rep 8 ACP DOM 10 Dominica Eco-tourism

development programme ETDPInstitutional & structural


Dominican Rep 7 ACP DO 52 IMM. support for nat. prog. for

state reform & modernisation Institutional & structural

reforms (indirect) 2.21 EDF 07 15010 ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING

Dominican Rep 8 ACP DO 22 Programme d'appui aux petites

entreprises Micro/SMEs 9.80 EDF 08 32120 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Dutch Indies 7 PTN NEA 047 Small enterprises stimulation programme Micro/SMEs 7.40 EDF 07

Dutch Indies Dutch Caribbean promotion in Europe Partnership 0.30 ?

Dutch Indies 7 PTN NEA 012 Business Development Scheme II Upgrading local firms 4.00 EDF 07

Eritrea 8 ACP ERY 10 Emergency demobilisation and reintegration support program Micro/SMEs 2.25 EDF 08 15064 DEMOBILISATION

Eritrea 7 ACP ERY 27 Emergency demobilisation and reintegration support program Micro/SMEs 4.75 EDF 07 15064 DEMOBILISATION

Ethiopia 7 ACP ET 82 Strengthening national training & research capacity economics Human Resources 1.05 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION



Country name *





Ethiopia 7 ACP ET 49 Return & reintegration qualified African nationals - Phase III Micro/SMEs 0.38 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION

Ethiopia 7 ACP ET 107 Micro and small enterprise development programme

(MSEDP) Micro/SMEs 7.00 EDF 07 24030

FORMAL SECTOR FINANCIAL

INSTITUTIONS

Fiji 8 ACP FIJ 8 Novotel Denarau Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 5.00 EDF 08 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Gambia 8 ACP GM 09 Structural Adjustment Support Program 6281/GM

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 9.20 EDF 08

Gambia 8 ACP GM 017-018

Poverty Reduction Budget Support Programme 6505/GM

Institutional & structural reforms (indirect) 4.26 EDF 08

Ghana 7 ACP GH 54 Woodworking sector development programme

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 3.85 EDF 07 32162 FOREST INDUSTRIES

Ghana 8 ACP GH 11 Gratis 3 (g. regional approp technol ind serv. Phase III) Know how / technology 4.35 EDF 08 25020 PRIVATISATION

Ghana 7 ACP GH 22 Return & reintegration qualified African nationals Phase III Micro/SMEs 0.32 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION

Ghana 7 ACP GH 6 TA to the woodworking sector in Ghana (extension of 6.GH.18) Upgrading local firms 0.32 EDF 07 32162 FOREST INDUSTRIES

Guinea 8 ACP GUI 043-044

Projet d'Appui Budgétaire pour la Réduction de la pauvreté

6504/GUI

Institutional & structural reforms (indirect) 11.40

Guinea Bissau 7 ACP GUB 39 Programme d'appui a la formation professionnelle technique Human Resources 0.96 EDF 07 11330 VOCATIONAL TRAINING

Guinea Bissau 8 ACP GUB 17 Programme d'appui régional à l'intégration (PARI)-Phase II -




PLANNING

Guinea Bissau 8 ACP GUB 019-023

Programme d'appui aux réformes économiques 6345 GUB




Country name *





Guinea Bissau 8 ACP GUB 9 Appui régional à l'intégration (PARI) - UEMOA Phase 2



PLANNING

Guinea Bissau 7 ACP GUB 24 Return & reintegration qualified African nationals Phase III Micro/SMEs 0.40 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION

Guinea Bissau 8 ACP GUB 38 Support to the reintegration of ex-combatants in rural areas Micro/SMEs 3.00 EDF 08 15064 DEMOBILISATION

Guyana 8 ACP GUA 8 Guyana training agency Human Resources 1.80 EDF 08 11330 VOCATIONAL TRAINING

Guyana 7 ACP GUA 16 Development small business credit initiative (+6/17&6/21). Micro/SMEs 0.57 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT

Guyana 8 ACP GUA 9 Linden economic advancement programme Micro/SMEs 12.50 EDF 08 32130 SME DEVELOPMENT

Haiti FED/HA/07022/000 Appui au secteur privé Institutional & structural

reforms (direct) 7.40 EDF 08 33110 TRADE POLICY AND ADMIN. MANAGE

Ivory Coast 8 ACP IVC 12 Programme d'appui régional l'intégration (PARI)-Phase II -




PLANNING

Ivory Coast 8 ACP IVC 8 Appui régional a l'intégration (PARI) - UEMOA Phase 2



PLANNING

Ivory Coast 7 ACP IVC 83 Ivoirienne de Manufactures Intermediary org. 0.68 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Ivory Coast 6 ACP IVC 55 Marché du gros à Bouaké (7IVC48) Micro/SMEs 2.40 EDF 06 33120 WHOLESALE/RETAIL

TRADE

Jamaica 8 ACP JM 4 Trade development programme Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 6.00 EDF 08 33110 TRADE POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Jamaica 7 ACP JM 2 Return and reintegration of qualified nationals for develop Micro/SMEs 1.00 EDF 07 16110 EMPLOYMENT POLICY

AND ADMIN. MGMT.

Jamaica FED/JM/05020/001

Small and micro enterprise credit scheme, 2nd programme Micro/SMEs 4.00 EDF 08 16110 EMPLOYMENT POLICY

AND ADMIN. M



Country name *





Kenya 7 ACP KE 89 Technical education support programme Human Resources 5.00 EDF 07 11330 VOCATIONAL TRAINING

Kenya 7 ACP KE 84 Establishing sustainable tourism development base in Kenya


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Kenya 7 ACP KE 81 Trade Development Programme Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 3.13 EDF 07 33130 EXPORT PROMOTION

Kenya 7 ACP KE 94 Global private enterprises III Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 3.66 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT

Kenya 8 ACP KE 18 Tourism diversification & sustainable development

programme


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Kenya 7 ACP KE 80 Support towards estab. core funct. & progs. within Kippra Intermediary org. 1.99 EDF 07 15010


PLANNING

Kenya 7 ACP KE 45 Return & reintegration qualified African nationals Phase III Micro/SMEs 0.77 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION

Kenya 7 ACP KE 91 Micro-enterprises support

programme (6KE60+7KE90+7KE91)

Micro/SMEs 1.36 EDF 07 25010 BUSINESS SERVICES


programme. (6KE60+7KE90+7KE91)



programme. (6KE60+7KE90+7KE91)


Kenya 7 ACP KE 85 Support services programme Upgrading local firms 1.45 EDF 07 15010 ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING

Kenya 8 ACP KE 12 Support services programme Phase 2 Upgrading local firms 1.93 EDF 08 15010


PLANNING

Kiribati 8 ACP KI 7 Kiribati training programme II Human Resources 6.40 EDF 08 11330 VOCATIONAL TRAINING



Country name *





Lesotho 7 ACP LSO 22 Asparagus expansion programme -transitional phase Micro/SMEs 0.53 EDF 07 32161 AGRO-INDUSTRIES

Madagascar 7 ACP MAG 108 Madagascar PG UCB FF/3 AG Lomé IV ? 0.55 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT

Madagascar 7 ACP MAG 107 MAG PG BMOI 4E AFF/2E AG (10MEC) Lomé IV ? 0.62 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT

Madagascar 7 ACP MAG 84 Projet formation décentralisée opérateurs touristiques +6/88 Human Resources 0.33 EDF 07 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Madagascar 6 ACP MAG 88 Projet formation décentralisée opérateurs touristiques +7/84 Human Resources 0.98 EDF 06 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Madagascar 7 ACP MAG 38 Action mise en confiance/assises inter. tourisme Malagache Intermediary org. 0.71 EDF 07 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Madagascar 6 ACP MAG 86 Prog. Appui Maison Tourisme & Entreprise Touristique (PAMT). Intermediary org. 0.93 EDF 06 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Madagascar 8 ACP MAG 35 Projet d'appui aux microfinances rurales Micro/SMEs 1.98 EDF 08 24040

INFORMAL/SEMI-FORMAL FINANCIAL

INSTITUTIONS

Madagascar 7 ACP MAG 21 Programme développement de l'artisanat Micro/SMEs 3.00 EDF 07

Madagascar 6 ACP MAG 103 Participation manifestation printemps Paris (avril-mai 97) Partnership 0.22 EDF 06 33130 EXPORT PROMOTION

Madagascar 7 ACP MAG 81 Programme de promotion commerciale et touristique Trade / Investment 0.63 EDF 07 33110 TRADE POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Madagascar 7 ACP MAG 58 Aqualma II. Project Trade / Investment 3.50 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Madagascar 8 ACP MAG 48 Cotona III (Société Cotonnière

d'Antsirabe, une des 6 grandes unités textiles)

Trade / Investment 10.00 EDF 08 32163 TEXTILES, LEATHER AND SUBSTITUTES

Malawi 7 ACP MAI 116 Institutional support to the private sector in Malawi

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 1.92 EDF 07 25020 PRIVATISATION



Country name *





Malawi 8 ACP MAI 31 Blantyre hotels Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 4.00 EDF 08 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Mali 7 ACP MLI 93 Appui au crédit initiative S.A. Finance / banking 4.13 EDF 07 24040 INFORMAL/SEMI-

FORMAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Mali 8 ACP MLI 17 Programme d'appui régional a l'intégration (PARI)-phase II -




PLANNING

Mali 8 ACP MLI 15 Appui régional a l'intégration (PARI) - UEMOA Phase 2



PLANNING

Mauritania 8 ACP MAU 47 Grands moulins de Mauritanie projet Trade / Investment 4.00 EDF 08 32161 AGRO-INDUSTRIES

Mauritius 6 ACP MAS 39 Appui à "l'industrial & vocational training board" (IVTB). Human Resources 1.98 EDF 06 11330 VOCATIONAL TRAINING

Mauritius 8 ACP MAS 7 Tourism development plan for Rodrigues and Mauritius


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Mauritius 8 ACP MAS 6 Support to the clothing technology centre Know how / technology 1.37 EDF 08 32163 TEXTILES, LEATHER AND

SUBSTITUTES

Mauritius 7 ACP MAS 48 Technology development in private firms Know how / technology 0.00 EDF 07

Mauritius 7 ACP MAS 51 Mahebourg market reconstruction Micro/SMEs 1.85 EDF 07 33120 WHOLESALE/RETAIL TRADE

Mauritius 8 ACP MAS 10 Appui aux petites et moyennes entreprises Micro/SMEs 7.00 EDF 08 25010 BUSINESS SERVICES

Mozambique 7 ACP MOZ 79 Support to the development

environmentally friendly tourism sector


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Mozambique 8 ACP MOZ 14 EU-Mozambique private sector development prog.

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 4.80 EDF 08 25010 BUSINESS SERVICES



Country name *





Mozambique 8 ACP MOZ 37 Accord Amorim hotels Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 5.00 EDF 08 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Mozambique 7 ACP MOZ 50 Return & reintegration qualified African nationals Phase III Micro/SMEs 0.40 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION

Namibia 7 ACP NAM 47 Okapuka II 14Aff/1e Auth glob Lomé IV ? 0.92 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT

Namibia 7 ACP NAM 34 Namibia tourism development

programme (+ 8NAM001/Dev. Phase)


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Namibia 8 ACP NAM 9 Trade & investment development programme (TIDP)


Namibia 8 ACP NAM 1 Namibia tourism development

programme/dev. phase (+NAM034)


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Niger 7 ACP NIR 50 Programme de formation

professionnelle & technique (NIGETECH)

Human Resources 3.15 EDF 07 11330 VOCATIONAL TRAINING

Niger 8 ACP NIR 11 NIGETECH 2 Human Resources 7.00 EDF 08 11330 VOCATIONAL TRAINING

Niger 8 ACP NIR 25 Programme d'appui régional à

l'intégration (PARI) - Phase II - volet secteur privé



PLANNING

Niger 7 ACP NIR 4 Appui au développement du secteur privé au Niger


Niger 8 ACP NIR 12 Appui régional à l'intégration (PARI) - UEMOA Phase 2



PLANNING

Niger 7 ACP NIR 73 Financement de l'AT du projet "PROFORMAR" Micro/SMEs 0.66 EDF 07 32140 COTTAGE INDUSTRIES

AND HANDICRAFT

Niger 8 ACP NIR 38 Suivi des petites et moyennes entreprises Micro/SMEs 1.00 EDF 08

Niger 7 ACP NIR 113 PROFORMAR II Micro/SMEs 1.85 EDF 07 11330 VOCATIONAL TRAINING



Country name *





Niger 8 ACP NIR 56 SYRENE: Systèmes Ruraux et

micro-entreprise d'artisanat utilitaire

Micro/SMEs 1.96 EDF 08 32140 COTTAGE INDUSTRIES AND HANDICRAFT

Nigeria 7 ACP UNI 52 Economic Management Capacity Project (EMCAP)



PLANNING

REG - Afrique Australe 8 ACP RAU 04 SADC EU Mining Forum Partnership 1.95 EDF 08

REG - Afrique Australe 8 ACP RAU 10 EU-SADC Investment promotion

programme Trade / Investment 16.33 EDF 08 25010 BUSINESS SERVICES

REG - Caribbean 8 ACP RCA 44 Caribbean financial services

corporation (CFSC) Finance / banking 8.00 EDF 08 24030 FORMAL SECTOR

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

REG - Caribbean 8 ACP RCA 24

Dvlmpt vocational tertiary education & training in Caribbean Region-Univ. of technology JM

Human Resources 2.60 EDF 08 11430 ADVANCED TECH. & MANAGERIAL TRAINING

REG - Caribbean 8 ACP RCA 35 Caribbean regional tourism sector

development programme Institutional & structural


REG - Caribbean 8 ACP RCA 4

Caribbean regional trade development programme

(CRTDP)

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 11.20 EDF 08 33130 EXPORT PROMOTION

REG - Caribbean FED/REG/0760

1/001 Regional tourism sector

programme Institutional & structural

reforms (direct) 12.80 EDF 07 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND ADMIN. MANA

REG - Caribbean 8 ACP TPS 125 Integrated Programme for the

Caribbean Rum Industry Institutional & structural

reforms (direct) 70.00 EDF 08

REG - Caribbean 7 ACP RPR 762 OECS export capability

enhancement programme Trade / Investment 1.20 EDF 07

REG - Central Africa 8 ACP RCE 16

Appui à la CEMAC - Phase préparatoire - Communauté

Économique et Monétaire de l'Afrique Centrale (CEMAC)



PLANNING



Country name *





REG - Eastern Africa 8 ACP ROR 26 COMESA regional competition

policy Institutional & structural

reforms (direct) 0.75 EDF 08 33110 TRADE POLICY AND ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

REG - GPR (?) 8 ACP GPR 18 African lion mining fund Finance / banking 8.00 EDF 08 24030

FORMAL SECTOR FINANCIAL

INSTITUTIONS

REG - indian Ocean Développement tourisme pays

Commission Océan Indien Institutional & structural

reforms (direct) 6.39 ?

REG - indian Ocean

Programme régional développement échanges pays

Océan Indien Partnership 12.46 ?

REG - Pacific 8 ACP RPA 11

Transitional technical assistance EU-SPTO programme for

development sector of the pacific region (South Pacific Tourism

Organisation)

Intermediary org. 0.60 EDF 08 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

REG - Western Africa 8 ACP ROC 43 Programme d'appui à la BOAD Finance / banking 1.99 EDF 08 15020

PUBLIC SECTOR FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT

REG - Western Africa 8 ACP ROC 31

Programme d'appui régional à l'intégration (PARI) - Phase II -




PLANNING

REG - Western Africa 8 ACP ROC 30

Programme d'appui à l'OHADA (Organisation pour l'harmonisation du Droit des Affaires en Afrique)

Institutional & structural reforms (indirect) 4.00 EDF 08 15030 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

DEVELOPMENT

REG - Western Africa 8 ACP ROC 21 Appui régional à l'intégration

(PARI) - UEMOA Phase 2 Institutional & structural

reforms (indirect) 53.00 EDF 08 15010 ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING

REG - Western Africa 8 ACP ROC 7 2ème Foire commerciale de la

CEDEAO Partnership 0.95 EDF 08 33110 TRADE POLICY AND ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

REG - Western Africa 8 ACP ROC 18 AGRO-IND 2000: Forum Agro-

industriel UE - Afrique de l'Ouest Partnership 1.90 EDF 08 33130 EXPORT PROMOTION



Country name *





Regional 7 ACP RPR 639 CAURIS II ( ) 5E AFF/2E AG Lomé IV (10 MECU) ? 0.38 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT

Regional 8 ACP TPS 119 Commod Price Risk Management Finance / banking 1.78 EDF 08

Regional REG 8 7002 005 Trust Fund Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Finance / banking 1.90 EDF 08

Regional 8 ACP TPS 117 Support for masters programme in banking and finance in Africa Human Resources 0.35 EDF 08 24040


INSTITUTIONS

Regional 7 ACP RPR 611 Feasibility study SADC intra-Regional skills development

programme Human Resources 0.55 EDF 07 15010


PLANNING

Regional 7 ACP RPR 575 Grain marketing training programme Human Resources 1.99 EDF 07 33110 TRADE POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Regional 8 ACP TPS 41 Collaborative MA prog in econ. for anglophone Africa Phase 2 Human Resources 2.00 EDF 08 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION

Regional 7 ACP RPR 568 Support collaborative masters progr. Economics (EX-7RPR383). Human Resources 2.40 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION

Regional 7 ACP RPR 755 Collaborative MA prog in econ. for anglophone Africa Phase 2 Human Resources 3.73 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION

Regional 7 ACP RPR 580 OECS human resources

development tertiary level programme

Human Resources 5.95 EDF 07 15010 ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING

Regional 6 ACP RPR 553 Stratégie & prg de développement du commerce intégré


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Regional 7 ACP RPR 762 OECS export capability enhancement programme


Regional 7 ACP RPR 785

Caribbean regional trade development programme

augmentation de plafond Projet 8 ACP RCA 4




Country name *





Regional 7 ACP RPR 615 Support for implementation of the CBI



PLANNING

Regional 8 ACP TPS 154 Economic integration support

programme to the BLNS - Phase I (Replaces 8 RAU 15)



PLANNING

Regional 7 ACP RPR 459 Programme régional

développement échanges pays Océan Indien (PRIDE)

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 7.62 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT

Regional 7 ACP RPR 335 ACP-EC trade development project


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Regional 7 ACP RPR 753 Intégration des états ACP dans le système commercial mondial


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Regional 7 ACP RPR 447 Caribbean regional trade sector programme


Regional REG / 7106/007 Programme d'appui Régional à l'intégration (PARI)

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 15.00 ?

Regional 8 ACP TPS 003 EU-ACP business assist scheme (EBAS) and DIAGNOS


Regional 8 ACP TPS 125 Integrated development

programme for Caribbean rum industry

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 70.00 EDF 08 32161 AGRO-INDUSTRIES

Regional 7 ACP RPR 445 SOLAS: Programming and testing. (Safety of Life at Sea???)



PLANNING

Regional 8 ACP TPS 82

Programme d'appui a l'OHADA (Organisation pour

l'Harmonisation du Droit des Affaires en Afrique)

Institutional & structural reforms (indirect) 2.00 EDF 08 15030 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL

DEVELOPMENT

Regional 7 ACP RPR 361 Cariforum secretariat programme Unit



PLANNING



Country name *





Regional 7 ACP RPR 678 COLEACP support programme (February1998-January2000) Intermediary org. 0.55 EDF 07 33110 TRADE POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Regional 6 ACP RPR 567 Programme appui au COLEACP Intermediary org. 0.76 EDF 06 33110 TRADE POLICY AND ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Regional 6 ACP RPR 477 COLEACP 1997 Interim project Intermediary org. 1.78 EDF 06 33110 TRADE POLICY AND ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Regional 8 ACP TPS 5 Programme appui au COLEACP Intermediary org. 3.99 EDF 08 33110 TRADE POLICY AND ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Regional 7 ACP RPR 672 Technology development in private firms Know how / technology 2.90 EDF 07 25010 BUSINESS SERVICES

Regional 8 ACP TPS 114 Programme Initiative Pesticides Know how / technology 29.12 EDF 08

Regional 7 ACP RPR 581 Appui marché bétail, viande en Afrique Ouest et Centre Micro/SMEs 0.30 EDF 07 33120 WHOLESALE/RETAIL

TRADE

Regional 7 ACP RPR 287 Return & reintegration qualified African nationals - Phase III Micro/SMEs 6.98 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION

Regional 8 ACP TPS 152 Contribution to the multi-country demobilisation and reintegration program. Greater Great Lakes

Micro/SMEs 20.00 EDF 08 15064 DEMOBILISATION

Regional 8 ACP TPS 153 Emergency demobilisation and reintegration support program Micro/SMEs 20.00 EDF 08 15064 DEMOBILISATION

Regional 7 ACP RPR 684 Séminaire "Exposition Universelle Lisbonne" (Juillet 1998) Partnership 0.21 EDF 07 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Regional 6 ACP RPR 370 ID for organisation pluri-sectoral 1-ON-1 IND. & BUS. SADC Partnership 0.22 EDF 06 25010 BUSINESS SERVICES

Regional 7 ACP RPR 450 Soutien a la biennale de Dakar Partnership 0.31 EDF 07 33130 EXPORT PROMOTION

Regional 7 ACP RPR 551 Projet pilote d'accompagnement suivi forums industriel sect Partnership 0.50 EDF 07 25010 BUSINESS SERVICES

Regional 7 ACP RPR 425 Foire commerciale de la CEDEAO Partnership 0.66 EDF 07 33130 EXPORT PROMOTION



Country name *





Regional 7 ACP RPR 496 Participation manifestation touristique en 1996 (+7REG29,30) Partnership 0.88 EDF 07 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Regional 7 ACP RPR 438 Forum agro-industriel UE/Afrique de l'Ouest 1995 Partnership 1.25 EDF 07 33130 EXPORT PROMOTION

Regional 8 ACP ROC 18 Agro-ind 2000: forum agro-industriel UE - Afrique de l'Ouest Partnership 1.95 EDF 08

Regional 8 ACP TPS 69 Financement de la participation des pays ACP A l'Expo2000 Partnership 1.96 EDF 08 25010 BUSINESS SERVICES

Regional 7 ACP RPR 418 Each (Europe Africa Cooperation for Handicrafts). Partnership 2.14 EDF 07 32140 COTTAGE INDUSTRIES

AND HANDICRAFT

Regional 7 ACP RPR 280 Organisation du pavillon de la créativité au SIAO '94 Trade / Investment 0.22 EDF 07 32140 COTTAGE INDUSTRIES

AND HANDICRAFT

Regional 7 ACP RPR 374 Regional project of "train for trade" Trade / Investment 0.30 EDF 07 33110 TRADE POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Regional 7 ACP RPR 518 Regional project of train for trade Trade / Investment 0.39 EDF 07 33110 TRADE POLICY AND ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Regional 6 ACP RPR 535 Develop. Commerce & Services

1995 (+7RPR354,7PTOREG18/19/20)

Trade / Investment 0.50 EDF 06 33130 EXPORT PROMOTION

Regional 7 ACP RPR 349 Promotion du commerce extérieur et des investissements Trade / Investment 2.01 EDF 07 33130 EXPORT PROMOTION

Regional 7 ACP RPR 354 Develop. Commerce & Services

1995 (+6RPR535,7PTOREG18/19/20)

Trade / Investment 5.87 EDF 07 33130 EXPORT PROMOTION

Regional 8 ACP RAU 10 EU-SADC Investment Promotion Programme Trade / Investment 18.33 EDF 08

Regional 8 ACP TPS 108

PROINVEST (EU-ACP Partnership Programme for the

Prom. of Invest. & Techn. Flows to ACP)

Trade / Investment 110.00 EDF 08



Country name *





Regional 8 ACP TPS 150 Centre for the Development Enterprise - Budget 2002 Upgrading local firms 20.38 EDF 08

Regional 8 ACP TPS 137 Strengthening fishery products health conditions in ACP/Oct

Countries Upgrading local firms 42.68 EDF 08 33110 TRADE POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Rwanda 7 ACP RW 73 Premier Prog. prioritaire de Génération d'Emploi (PPGE) Micro/SMEs 1.99 EDF 07 16110 EMPLOYMENT POLICY

AND ADMIN. MGMT.

Senegal 7 ACP SE 43 Appui au développement régional Ziguinchor (Cellule crédit) Finance / banking 2.29 EDF 07

Senegal 8 ACP SE 34 Programme d'appui régional à

l'intégration (PARI) - Phase II - volet secteur privé



PLANNING

Senegal 8 ACP SE 25 Appui régional a l'intégration (PARI) - UEMOA Phase 2



PLANNING

Senegal 7 ACP SE 66 Reconstruction marché Kermel à Dakar Micro/SMEs 1.36 EDF 07 33110 TRADE POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Senegal 7 ACP SE 56 Programme prioritaire de génération d'emplois Micro/SMEs 1.91 EDF 07 16110 EMPLOYMENT POLICY

AND ADMIN. MGMT.

Senegal 7 ACP SE 57 Appui programme PME région Dakar Micro/SMEs 1.94 EDF 07 33110 TRADE POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Senegal 7 ACP SE 11 Programme développement de la région de Saint-Louis (Dev. PME

COPARE) Micro/SMEs 20.50 EDF 07

Seychelles 8 ACP SEY 5 Tourism capacity building project Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 0.42 EDF 08 33210 TOURISM POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Seychelles 7 ACP SEY 25 Victoria market rehabilitation Micro/SMEs 0.67 EDF 07 33110 TRADE POLICY AND ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

South Africa 1999 99.73200 - 21 SADC ESIP Programme component ? 2.00 B73200

European programme for reconstruction & development (EPRD)



Country name *





South Africa 2001 01. 73200 - 02 Private Sector Development - Risk Capital Facility Finance / banking 58.90 B73200


South Africa 1998 1998/0007 1998/07 - Khuphuka - skills

training and employment programme

Human Resources 4.62 B73200 European programme for reconstruction & development (EPRD)

11330 Formation professionnelle

South Africa 1998 1998/0014 1998/14 - Recognition of prior learning Human Resources 7.40 B73200



South Africa 1997 1997/0008 1997/08 - Labour market skills development programme Human Resources 46.00 B73200


11430 Formation technique supérieure de gestion

South Africa 1998 1998/0002 1998/02 - Technical and business education initiative in south Africa Human Resources 8.50 B73200



South Africa 1996 1996/0014 1996/14 - Department of Trade

and Industry Policy Support Programme

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 2.36 B73200


25010 SERVICES COMMERCIAUX

South Africa 1999 99.73200 - 19 Support to the Wild Coast Development



South Africa 2000 2000/0034 2000/34 TA to the EPRD (European Programme for

Reconstruction and Development)

Institutional & structural reforms (indirect) 2.12 B73200A00


15010 Planification économique et du développement

South Africa 1998 1998/0003 1998/03 - Financial Management Improvement Programme (FMIP)

Institutional & structural reforms (indirect) 12.00 B73200


15020 Gestion financière du secteur public

South Africa 1998 1998/0010 1998/10 - Technology support for SMMEs pilot programme Know how / technology 5.40 B73200


32130 Développement des PMEs



Country name *





South Africa 1995 1995/0006

1995/06 Private Sector Development Programme: Small

and Micro-Enterprises Development Programme

Micro/ SME 11.00 B73200 European programme for reconstruction & development (EPRD)


South Africa 2001 01.73200 - 03 Local Economic Development Limpopo (Northern Province) Micro/SMEs 34.00 B73200


South Africa 1996 96.73200 - 11 Trade and Investment Develop program Trade / Investment 8.90 B73200


Suriname 7 ACP SUR 25 N.V.COMFISH 12AFF/1E AUTH GLOB Lomé IV ? 0.65 EDF 07 32161 AGRO-INDUSTRIES

Suriname 7 ACP SUR 18 Suriname tourism development programme


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Suriname 8 ACP SUR 8 Integrated tourism development programme


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Suriname 7 ACP SUR 29 Programme management unit in Ministry of Planning & Dev Coop



PLANNING

Swaziland 8 ACP SW 16 Private sector support programme Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 5.90 EDF 08 32130 SME DEVELOPMENT

Swaziland 7 ACP SW 25 Swaziland Sugar Assoc II Intermediary org. 3.00 EDF 07 32161 AGRO-INDUSTRIES

Swaziland 8 ACP SW 7 Strengthen govt's trade policy anal, relations & promotion Trade / Investment 1.20 EDF 08

Tanzania 7 ACP TA 122 Institutional strengthening for the tourism sector


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Togo 7 ACP TO 80 Programme d'appui régional à l'intégration (PARI)-Phase II -




PLANNING

Togo 7 ACP TO 73 Appui régional à l'intégration (PARI) - UEMOA Phase 2



PLANNING



Country name *





Trinidad & Tobago 7 ACP TR 21 Small business development

programme Micro/SMEs 2.00 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Trinidad & Tobago 6 ACP TR 13 Support to Caribbean Business Ltd Upgrading local firms 0.42 EDF 06 25010 BUSINESS SERVICES

Trinidad & Tobago 8 ACP TR 1 Support to Caribbean Business Ltd Upgrading local firms 0.48 EDF 08 25010 BUSINESS SERVICES

Trinidad & Tobago 8 ACP TR 14 Support to Caribbean business

service Ltd (CBSL) Phase II Upgrading local firms 1.98 EDF 08 32130 SME DEVELOPMENT

Uganda 9 ACP UG 1 Support to feasible financial

institutions and capacity building efforts (SUFFICE), Phase II

Finance / banking 3.55 EDF 09 32161 AGRO-INDUSTRIES

Uganda 8 ACP UG 37 Uganda sustainable tourism development programme USTDP


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Uganda 7 ACP UG 47 Small-scale enterprise development programme Micro/SMEs 1.93 EDF 07 32120 INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT

Uganda 9 ACP UG 2

Extension et augmentation de plafond du projet 8 ACP UG 14,

Selon Note 12250 DE MR NAQVI

Upgrading local firms 0.23 EDF 09 15010 ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING

Vanuatu 8 ACP VA 23 Vanuatu tourism education and training project Human Resources 2.00 EDF 08 11330 VOCATIONAL TRAINING

Vanuatu 8 ACP VA 4 Rural tourism development programme


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Zambia 8 ACP ZA 29 CEIL INC PER LETT. EDF DCAO/LOWE 56155 DD

20/01/2000+7ZA88


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Zambia 7 ACP ZA 88 Zambia tourism development programme/foundation phase

(+8ZA029/300000)


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Zambia 8 ACP ZA 3 Private sector development programme




Country name *





Zambia 7 ACP ZA 76 Rehabilit. & development of urban markets (see also 8ZA015) Micro/SMEs 0.37 EDF 07 33110 TRADE POLICY AND

ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Zambia 7 ACP ZA 45 Return + réintegr. of qualified African nationals, Phase III Micro/SMEs 0.50 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION

Zambia 8 ACP ZA 15 Development + rehabilitation of urban markets (see also 7ZA076) Micro/SMEs 1.40 EDF 08 33120 WHOLESALE/RETAIL

TRADE

Zambia 7 ACP ZA 84 Micro credit delivery for empowerment of the poor Micro/SMEs 1.51 EDF 07 24040


INSTITUTIONS

Zambia 1996/0011

SA/ 96-73200-11 Trade and Investment Development

Programme for Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises

Micro/SMEs 8.91 B73200 European programme for reconstruction & development (EPRD)


Zambia 2002 AFS/2002/ 004-554 (EC)

SA/1006/00 - sector wide ent., employment and equity programme - SWEEEP

Micro/SMEs 25.00 ? 32130 SME development

Zambia 7 ACP ZA 67 SWARP Spinning Mills II. Restructuring / privatisation 6.00 EDF 07 32163 TEXTILES, LEATHER AND

SUBSTITUTES

Zambia 8 ACP ZA 28 Export Development Programme Ph. II (EDP II) Trade / Investment 6.50 EDF 08

Zambia 8 ACP ZA 53 Lumwana study Trade / Investment 7.00 EDF 08 32120 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT



Country name *





Zimbabwe 7 ACP ZIM 44 T.A. to Ministry of Environment and Tourism (+6ZIM49)


ADMIN. MANAGEMENT

Zimbabwe 7 ACP ZIM 35 Return & reintegration qualified African nationals Phase III Micro/SMEs 0.50 EDF 07 11420 HIGHER EDUCATION



4.2.2 Asia project list

Country name *



Budget line title* DAC Code Number


Bangladesh 2002 2548 Bangladesh South Asia Enterprise Development Facility Micro/SMEs 10,00 B7-3000

Financial & technical cooperation with Asian countries

32130 SME development

Bangladesh 2003 5641 Small project Facility Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 3,00 B7-3010

Political, economic & cultural cooperation with Asian countries

43010 Multisector aid

China 1999 3251 EU-China Financial Services Project Finance / banking 8,50 B7-3000


15010 Planification économique et du développement

China 1998 3244 EU-China Programme for the Development of Vocational

Training for the Industry Human Resources 15,48 B73000



China 1996 3266 EU-Chine Junior Managers training programme Human Resources 11,65 B7-3010



China 1999 3261 China-Europe International Business School - Phase II Human Resources 10,95 B7-3010


11420 Higher education

China 2001 4916 Interpreters SCIC China Human Resources 0,39 B7-3010 Political, economic & cultural cooperation with Asian countries

11430 Advanced Technical and Managerial Training

China 2000 3255 EU-China Civil Aviation Co-operation - Consolidation Phase

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 8,00 B7-3010


21050 Air transport

China 2003 5976 EU-China Civil Aviation Co-operation - Consolidation Phase



21050 Air transport

China 1999 5608 EU-China Civil Aviation Co-operation - Phase 1



21050 Air transport



Country name *





China 1999 2573 EU-China Civil Aviation Co-operation - Launching Phase



21050 Air transport

China 2002 3258 Energy/Environment Know how / technology 20,00 B7-3010 Political, economic & cultural cooperation with Asian countries

23010 Energy policy

China 1998 5868 EU-China Small Project facility Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 0,92 B7-3010



China 2000 3256 EU-China Small Project Facility II Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 8,00 B7-3010



China 2000 3254 EU - China Enterprise Reform Project

Restructuring / privatisation 8,50 B7-3000



India 2000 959 EU-India Civil Aviation Co-operation project



31050 Air transport

India 1998 2666 EU-India Maritime Transport Project



31050 Air transport

India 2001 965 EU-India Small Project Facility Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 4,20 B7-3010



India/ Malaysia/ Thailand

1999 2592 EBIC Programme India, Malaysia, Thailand Micro/SMEs 2,10 B7-3010


32130 SMEs' Development

India/ Malaysia/ Thailand

1998 3504 EBIC Interim Programme India, Malaysia; Thailand Micro/SMEs 1,30 B7-3010



Indonesia 2002 954 EU-Indonesia Small Project Facility






Country name *





Indonesia 2003 5664 EU-Indonesia Trade Support Programme Trade / Investment 8,50 B7-3010


33110 Trade Policy and admin manag

Macao 2000 2586 EU-Macau co-operation in the legal field. Consolidation of the

legal system Human Resources 0,99 B7-3010


11110 Education policy and administrative management

Macao 1998 2593 EC-Macao Tourism Programme Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 0,70 B7-3010


33200 Tourism

Macao 1999 3139 EU-Macau Offshore Services Development Programme



15030 Development of the judicial and legal services

North Korea 2002 2603 Pilot project Training/Institutional Support Human Resources 0,97 B7-3000


15010 Econ& dev policy/planning

Pakistan 2002 2640 Financial services sector reform program Finance / banking 50,00 B7-3000


240 Financial sector reform budget support

Philippines 2002 2472 EU-Philippines Small Project Facility Micro/SMEs 3,00 B7-3010



REG - ASIA 1997 4601 EC-ASEAN Cogeneration Programme Phase III Know how / technology 16,76 B7-3010


23010 Energy policy and administrative management

REG - ASIA 1998 3150 ASEM Trust Fund (phase 1) Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 15,00 B7-3010 / B7-

3000

Political, economic & cultural cooperation

with Asian countries/Financial & technical cooperation with Asian countries

25010 Economic and social reform



Country name *





REG - ASIA 2001 2599 ASEM Trust Fund (phase 2) Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 20,00 B7-3010 / B7-

3000


with Asian countries/Financial & technical cooperation with Asian countries

25010 Economic and social reform

REG - ASIA 2000 2585 EC-ASEAN Energy Facility Know how / technology 18,00 B7-3010 Political, economic & cultural cooperation with Asian countries


REG - ASIA 2003 6006 EC-ASEAN Energy Facility + 20% Know how / technology 3,50 B7-3010



REG - ASIA 2000 3277 EU-Asian Civil Aviation Co-operation Project



31050 Air transport

REG - ASIA 2001 2598 EU-Asia Pro Eco Know how / technology 31,50 B7-3010 Political, economic & cultural cooperation with Asian countries

41010 Environmental and administrative management

REG - ASIA 2002 2649 ASEAN APRIS Institutional & structural reforms (indirect) 4,00 B7-3000


50000 General Programme Assistance

REG - ASIA 1998 3152 Asia IT & C Phase I Know how / technology 35,00 B7-3010 Political, economic & cultural cooperation with Asian countries

32181 Techological research and development

REG - ASIA 2003 5627 Asia ITC 2 Know how / technology 10,00 B7-3010 Political, economic & cultural cooperation with Asian countries

32181 Techological research and development

REG - ASIA 1997 4641

EC-ASEAN Regional Economic Co-operation Programme on

Standards, Quality and Conformity Assessment

Know how / technology 9,00 B7-3010 Political, economic & cultural cooperation with Asian countries

33110 Trade Policy and admin manag

REG - ASIA 1995 + 1998

(China)

2624 + 2627 (China) ASIA INVEST I Trade / Investment 24,79 B7-3010


25010 Business Support



Country name *





REG - ASIA 2002 4032 ASIA INVEST II Trade / Investment 35,00 B7-3010 Political, economic & cultural cooperation with Asian countries

25010 Business Support

Sri Lanka 1996 2637 European Business Information Centre Micro/SMEs 0,32 B7-3010



Thaïland 1992 3276 Electricity Network Upgrade Programme (ENUP) Know how / technology 3,00 B7-3010



Thaïland 1994 5845 European Business Information Centre Micro/SMEs 2,20 B7-3010



Vietnam 1993 5896 European Technical Assistance Programme Vietnam I



15020 Public sector financial management

Vietnam 2002 2474 European Technical Assistance Programme Vietnam II



15020 Public sector financial management

Vietnam 1997 2667 Human Resources Development in Tourism Human Resources 10,80 B7-3010


33200 TOURISME

Vietnam 2002 2970 Labour Market Project Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 10,00 B7-3000


16110 Employment policy and administrative management

Vietnam 2000 MIS n° 96/032 Small and Medium Enterprises Dev.Fund-Phase I Finance / banking 0,97 B7-3000



Vietnam 2002 2466 Small and Medium Enterprises Dev.Fund-Phase II Finance / banking 1,00 B7-3000



Vietnam 2001 2587 European Business Information Centre EBIC Micro/SMEs 0,99 B7-3010





Country name *





Vietnam 2003 5885 Private sector support programme Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 9,05 B7-3010



Vietnam 2003 5814 Small project Facility Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 2,00 B7-3010



Vietnam 2002 NA Interpreters SCIC Vietnam Human Resources 0,85 B7-3010 Political, economic & cultural cooperation with Asian countries

11430 Advanced Technical and Managerial Training

Vietnam 2001 2595 EC-Vietnam Co-operation in the Audio-Visual Sector Know how / technology 0,95 B7-3010


22030 Radio/television/print media



4.2.3 CARDS project list

Country name *

Year Project number Project title Activity Type * Planned




Bosnia Herzegovina BH9606.01 Banking System Consol. Finance / banking 1.00 B75410B00

Assistance for the countries of the western Balkans

PR Private sector, Restructuring, Privatisation, SME's

Bosnia Herzegovina BH9606.02 SME Support Micro/SMEs 2.00 B75410B00

Assistance for the countries of the western Balkans

PR Private sector, Restructuring, Privatisation, SME's



4.2.4 Latin America project list

Country name *



Budget line title*DAC Code Number


Argentina 1999 ALA/1999/ 002-488 (EC)

Mejora eficiencia y competitividad eco. argentina

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 6.20 ? ? 33110 Trade Policy and admin manag

Argentina 1996 1996/0162 Normalizacion y certificacion industrial Know how / technology 0.80 B7311

Political, economic & cultural cooperation with LA developing

countries

32181 Recherche et développement technologiques

Bolivia 1995 1995/0990 Appui au secteur tourisme Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 0.97 B75020

Cooperation with Eastern Europe,

Central Asia & the Western Balkans

33200 TOURISME

Bolivia 1996 1996/0187 APEMIN = Appui à la petite exploitation minière Micro/SMEs 9.67 B7310

Financial & technical cooperation with LA developing countries

43050 Développement alternatif

Bolivia 2002 2002/0467

APEMIN II- Programa de desarrollo sostenible en áreas

mineras tradicionales del Occidente boliviano

Micro/SMEs 11.00 B73100B Financial & technical cooperation with LA developing countries


Bolivia 2002 ALA/2002/ 005-816 (EC)

APEMIN II- Programa de desarrollo sostenible en áreas

mineras tradicionales del Occidente boliviano

Micro/SMEs 7.00 ? ? 43050 Non Agricultural Alternative development

Bolivia 1996 1996/0041 PRAEDAC = Programa de apoyo

a la estrategia de desarrollo alternativo en el Chapare

Micro/SMEs 24.65 B7310 Financial & technical cooperation with LA developing countries


Bolivia 2002 ALA/2002/005-847; BOL/B7-

3110/2002/2003

Trade Development Investment Promotion Programme Trade / Investment 6.30 ? ? 33130 Export Promotion

Brazil 2000 ALA/2000/ 002-446 (DE)

Technological Centres Network and Support to SME in Brazil Micro/SMEs 8.00 ? ? 32181 Techno research and

development

Central America 1996 1996/0357 Present. en Am. Central-México y

Cuba de "E.C.C.O." Partnership 0.24 B78700 Promotion of commercial relations 33200 TOURISME



Country name *





Chile 1994 1994/0182 Desarollo del sector turistico (NTP/92/512/908)



with Asian developing countries

33200 TOURISME

Chile 1996 1996/0155 Proy. integr. apoyo desarrollo sector turístico



countries

33200 TOURISME

Columbia 1997 1997/0377

Creación del Laboratorio Colombiano de Diseño para el

Desarrollo de Artesanía y la Pequeña Empresa

Micro/SMEs 0.95 B73110


countries

32140 Artisanat

Honduras 1995 ALA/1995/ 000-990 (EC)

AFOPH - Appui à la formation professionnelle au HND Human Resources 5.30 ? ? 11330 Vocational Training

Mexico 2002 2002/0492 Programa Integral de Apoyo a Micro, Pequeñas y Medianas

Empresas Micro/SMEs 24.00 B73110


countries


Mexico 2003 ALA/2003/ 002-448 (EC)

Programa Integral de Apoyo a Micro, Pequeñas y Medianas

Empresas Micro/SMEs 12.00 ? ? 32130 SME development

Nicaragua 1995 ALA/1995/ 002-428 (EC)

Appui à la formation professionnelle au Nicaragua Human Resources 10.40 ? ? 11330 Vocational Training

Nicaragua 1996 1996/0089 Support for the Tourism sector in Nicaragua


Financial & technical cooperation with LA developing countries

33200 TOURISME

Nicaragua 1995 1995/0213 Support for the tourism sector in Nicaragua/Phase I




33200 TOURISME

Paraguay 1995 1995/0147 APOYO A LA PROMOCION TURISTICA DEL PARAGUAY




33200 TOURISME



Country name *





Peru 1995 ALA/1995/ 000-986 (EC)

FORM. PROFESIONAL TECNOL. Y PEDAGOGICA Human Resources 9.00 ? ? 11330 Vocational Training

Peru 1993 ALA/1993/ 000-977 (EC)

Apoyo a la promoción de exportaciones Trade / Investment 3.77 ? ? 25010 Business services

REG - Latin America 1994 1994/0192 FORMADITUR II Human Resources 0.36 B73011



33200 TOURISME

REG - Latin America 2002 2002/0546

Assistance aux Petites et Moyennes Entreprises et Institutions

financièrement faibles Micro/SMEs 0.20 B73110B


countries


Uruguay 1997 ALA/1997/ 001-018 (EC)

Programa de apoyo a la creación de una Escuela de Artes y Oficios en

Uruguay para la formación de artesanos y su inserción profesional

Human Resources 10.58 ? ? 11330 Vocational Training

Venezuela 1995 1995/0060 PROMOEX-Promoción export. no tradicionales Trade / Investment 0.77 B73011






4.2.5 MEDA project list

Country name *


million €) Source of financing



Algeria 2000 Appui à la modernisation du Secteur Financier

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 23.25 B74100 MEDA

Algeria Programme de modernisation et

d'assistance aux réformes administratives

Institutional & structural reforms (indirect) 25.00 B74100 MEDA

Algeria 1998 MED/1998/ 003-367 (EC)

Appui au développement des PME/PMI en Algérie Micro/SMEs 57.00 B74100 MEDA 32130 SME development

Algeria 1998 1998/0708 Appui à la restructuration ind. et à la privatisation

Restructuring / privatisation 41.50 B74100 MEDA 25020 Privatisation

Egypt 1995 SEM/04/220/015A

Banking Sector Support programme Finance / banking 11.70 B74051 Protocols

Egypt 2002 2002/0557

Assistance to the Reform of the Technical and Vocational

Education and Training System (TVET)

Human Resources 66.00 B74100 MEDA 11330 Formation professionnelle

Egypt 1997 1997/0733 Industrial modernisation Programme

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 250.00 B74100 MEDA 32120 Développement industriel

Egypt 1999 Private Sector Development Programme II Micro/SMEs 20.00 B74051 Protocols

Egypt 1993 MED/1993/ 005-060 (EC)

Public Enterprise Reform and Privatisation Programme


Egypt 1994 SEM/04/220/004A

Public Enterprise Reform and Privatisation Programme

Restructuring / privatisation 43.00 B74051 Protocols

Egypt 2002 Trade Enhancement Programme A (TA) Trade / Investment 20.00 B74100 MEDA

Jordan 1999 Industrial modernisation Programme (EJADA)


Jordan 2002 Support for regulatory reform and privatisation




Country name *





Jordan 1997 1997/0302 Private Sector Development

Programme - Business Service Team BST

Upgrading local firms 7.00 B74100 MEDA 25011 Services d'appui

Lebanon 1999 1999/2062 Programme de modernisation industrielle - MEDA 1999/0209

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 11.00 B74100 MEDA 32120 Développement industriel

Morocco 1998 MED/1998/ 003-410 (EC)

Appui aux institutions financières de garantie aux PME (PAIGMAN) Finance / banking 30.00 B74100 MEDA 15020 Public sector financial manag.

Morocco 1997 1997/0587

Appui à la mise à niveau de l'enseignement technique et de la

formation professionnelle au Maroc (MAR/B7-4100/IB/97/0587)

Human Resources 73.60 B74100 MEDA 11430 Formation technique supérieure de gestion

Morocco 2002 2002/0687

Appui au Développement de la Formation Professionnelle dans les secteurs du Tourisme, du Textile et

des Nouvelles Technologies de l'Info et de la Com


Morocco 2002 MED/2002/ 004-631 (EC)

Appui au Développement de la Formation Professionnelle dans les secteurs du Tourisme, du Textile et

des Nouvelles Technologies de l'Info et de la Com

Human Resources 50.00 B74100 MEDA 11330 Vocational Training

Morocco 1998 1998/0504 Appui au Ministère de la Privatisation

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 5.00 B74100 MEDA 25020 Privatisation

Morocco 1998 Appui au programme pour la promotion de la qualité NORMES Know how / technology 15.50 B74100 MEDA

Morocco 2002 2002/0688 Programme d'Appui aux entreprises Micro/SMEs 93.80 B74100 MEDA 32130 Développement des PMEs

Morocco 1995 1995/2198 Programme de Développement du Secteur Privé (EME - Euro Maroc

Enterprise) Micro/SMEs 23.00 B74100 MEDA 32130 Développement des PMEs

Morocco 2000 Project pilote d'appui au micro crédit Micro/SMEs 0.70 B74100 MEDA



Country name *





Palestinian Authority 2002 2002/0693 Emergency Support Programme to

SMEs in West Bank and Gaza Strip Micro/SMEs 10.00 B74200

Community operations connected with the Israel/PO Peace agreement


Palestinian Authority 2002 2002/0620 Emergency Support to the SMEs

of East Jerusalem Micro/SMEs 5.00 B74200

Community operations connected with the Israel/PO Peace agreement


REG - MEDA 2000 2000/2073 Promotion of Euro-Med Market instruments & mechanisms

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 9.90 B74100 MEDA 32110 Politique de l'industrie et

gestion administrative

REG - MEDA 2000 2000/2196 Economic cooperation foundation's activities - ME1/B74100/95/038

Institutional & structural reforms (indirect) 0.25 B74100 MEDA 15010 Planification économique et du

développement

REG - MEDA 2000 2000/2075 Innovation, Technologie et Qualité dans les Entreprises Know how / technology 15.00 B74100 MEDA 32110 Politique de l'industrie et

gestion administrative

REG - MEDA 1999 1999/2350 Contrats-cadre pays tiers IB - BUSINESS CENTRE GWB Micro/SMEs 0.48 B74100 MEDA 32120 Développement industriel

REG - MEDA 1998 1998/0079 Europartenariat Espana 1998 Partnership 3.35 B74100 MEDA 25011 Services d'appui

REG - MEDA 1997 1997/0042 Euro-partenariat Hellas Partnership 3.22 B74100 MEDA 32130 Développement des PMEs

REG - MEDA 2000 2000/2191 Mediterranean Investor guides - tender/IB/AMS/371 Trade / Investment 1.36 B74100A

MEDA - expenditure on administrative

management 25010 SERVICES COMMERCIAUX

REG - MEDA 1997 1997/0046 Private Participation in Mediterranean Infrastructure Trade / Investment 0.96 B74100 MEDA 50000

DEVELOPPEMENT DE L'INDUSTRIE DU

BATIMENT

REG - MEDA 2000 2000/0017 The Private Participation in

Mediterranean Infrastructure - Programme - Phase 2

Trade / Investment 1.68 B74101 MEDA 16110 Politique de l'emploi et gestion administrative

Syria 1997 1997/0593 HIBA - Higher Institute of Business Administration -

(SYR/B7-4100/IB/97/0593) Human Resources 18.00 B74100 MEDA 11420 Enseignement supérieur,

université



Country name *





Syria 1996 1996/0851 Cultural Tourism Development

Program - SYR/B7-4100/IB/MEDA/96/0851

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 3.11 B74100 MEDA 33210 Politique du tourisme et gestion

administra

Syria 2000 Syrian-European Business Centre II (SEBC II) Micro/SMEs 18.00 B74100 MEDA

Syria 1995 Syrian-European Business Centre I (SEBC I) Micro/SMEs 9.00 B74051 Protocols

Tunisia 1997 1997/0240

Appui au programme de mise à niveau de la formation

professionnelle (MANFORM) (TUN/B7-4100/IB/97/0240)


Tunisia 1997 MED/1997/ 004-660 (EC)

Appui au programme de mise à niveau de la formation

professionnelle (MANFORM) (TUN/B7-4100/IB/97/0240)

Human Resources 45.00 ? 11330 Vocational Training

Tunisia 1994 1994/0368 Création de deux centres de formation professionnelle

(SEM/04/212/009/A) Human Resources 14.00 B74051 Protocols 11430 Formation technique supérieure

de gestion

Tunisia 1998 Amélioration de la compétitivité Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 10.00 B74100 MEDA

Tunisia 2002 2002/0558 Programme de Modernisation Industrielle

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 50.00 B74100 MEDA 32130 Développement des PMEs

Tunisia 2000 Porgramme de développement du

secteur privé (Euro-Tunisie-Enterprise)

Partnership 20.00 B74100 MEDA

Tunisia 1996 1996/0021 Programme de développement du

secteur privé - "Euro-Tunisie Entreprise"

Partnership 20.00 B74100 MEDA 25011 Services d'appui

Tunisia 1996 1996/0018 Assistance technique pour la privatisation


Tunisia 1997 1997/0006 Appui promotion investissements extérieurs Trade / Investment 6.00 B74100 MEDA 32120 Développement industriel



4.2.6 TACIS project list

Country name *





Armenia 1996 AR9601.01 Private sector development Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 6.65 B75200B00

Assistance to partner countries in eastern Europe & central

Asia

SE Support for Enterprises

Armenia 2000 AR0001.02 Private Sector/Econ. Dev Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 1.40 B75200B00


Asia

A2 Support to Private Sector & Assistance in Econonmic Dev.

Armenia 1998 AR9801.02 Support for enterprise Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 2.00 B75200B00


Asia


Armenia 1995 AR9501.02 Enterprise Restr. & Dev. Restructuring / privatisation 2.00 B75200B00


Asia


Azerbaijan 1996 AZ9601.02 Private Sector Development Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 1.70 B75200B00


Asia


Azerbaijan 2000 AZ0002.02 Private Sector/Econ. Dev Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 4.80 B75200B00


Asia


Azerbaijan 1998 AZ9801.03 Support for enterprise Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 3.50 B75200B00


Asia


Azerbaijan 1995 AZ9501.02 Enterprise Restr. & Dev. Restructuring / privatisation 1.80 B75200B00


Asia




Country name *





Azerbaijan 1994 AZ9401.02 Privatisation and Restruc Restructuring / privatisation 1.90 B75200B00


Asia


Belarus 1995 BI9501.01 Enterprise Support Restructuring / privatisation 1.63 B75200B00


Asia


Belarus 1994 BI9401.01 Enterprise Restruct. Dev. Restructuring / privatisation 5.00 B75200B00


Asia


Cross border 2000 CB0001.03 Private Sector/Econ. Dev Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 2.00 B75210B00

Cross border cooperation in

structural matters A2 Support to Private Sector &

Assistance in Econonmic Dev.

Cross border 1998 CB9801.03 Support for enterprise Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 1.73 B75210B00


structural matters SE Support for Enterprises

Cross border 2001 CB0101.03 Support to Private Sector Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 4.00 B75210B00


structural matters A2 Support to Private Sector &


Georgia 1996 GE9601.02 Private Sector development Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 4.65 B75200B00


Asia


Georgia 2000 GE0001.02 Private Sector/Econ. Dev Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 2.60 B75200B00


Asia


Georgia 1998 GE9801.04 Support for enterprise Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 3.63 B75200B00


Asia


Georgia 2001 GE0101.02 Support to Private Sector Institutional & structural 1.00 B75200B00 Assistance to partner A2 Support to Private Sector &



Country name *





reforms (direct) countries in eastern Europe & central

Asia


Georgia 1995 GE9501.02 Enterprise Restr. & Dev. Restructuring / privatisation 1.92 B75200B00


Asia


Georgia 1994 GE9401.01 Priv. and restructuring Restructuring / privatisation 3.60 B75200B00


Asia


Kazakhstan 1997 KA9701.02 Struct & Inst Reforms Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 7.47 B75200B00


Asia


Kazakhstan 1999 KA9901.01 Support for enterprise Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 8.80 B75200B00


Asia


Kazakhstan 1995 KA9501.01 Support to Enterprise Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 5.98 B75200B00


Asia


Kazakhstan 1994 KA9401.01 Enterprise Restructuring Restructuring / privatisation 6.30 B75200B00


Asia


Kyrgyzstan 1999 KI9901.01 Support for Enterprises Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 5.38 B75200B00


Asia


Kyrgyzstan 2001 KI0101.02 Support to Private Sector Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 2.80 B75200B00


Asia

A2 Support to Private Sector & Assistance in Economic Dev.



Country name *





Moldova 2001 MO0101.02 Private Sector Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 3.00 B75200B00


Asia


Moldova 1997 MO9701.02 Private sector development Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 4.30 B75200B00


Asia


Moldova 1999 MO9901.02 Support for Enterprises Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 5.03 B75200B00


Asia


Moldova 1995 MO9501.02 Enterprise Restr. & Dev. Restructuring / privatisation 1.50 B75200B00


Asia


Moldova 1994 MO9401.05 Enterprise Restruct. & De Restructuring / privatisation 1.58 B75200B00


Asia


Mongolia 1998 MG9801.02 Support for enterprise Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 1.00 B75200B00


Asia


Mongolia 1996 MG9601.02 Support for Enterprises Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 1.83 B75200B00


Asia


Mongolia 1994 MG9401.01 Enterprise Restruct & Dev Restructuring / privatisation 2.56 B75200B00


Asia


Russia 1994 RU9401.07 Facilities ? 4.50 B75200B00 Assistance to partner countries in eastern Europe & central




Country name *





Asia

Russia 1995 RU9503.01 Lake Baikal TA Centre ? 1.80 B75200B00


Asia


Russia 2000 RU0002.02 Private Sector/Econ. Dev Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 12.00 B75200B00


Asia


Russia 1997 RU9702.01 Support for enterprise Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 27.50 B75200B00


Asia


Russia 1995 RU9501.01 Support for Enterprises Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 39.76 B75200B00


Asia


Russia 1996 RU9601.01 Support for Enterprises Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 32.86 B75200B00


Asia


Russia 1994 RU9401.01 Enterprise Restruct & Dev Restructuring / privatisation 29.70 B75200B00


Asia


Russia 1994 RU9402.01 Enterprise Restruct & Dev Restructuring / privatisation 8.20 B75200B00


Asia


Russia 1994 RU9403.01 Enterprise Restructuring Restructuring / privatisation 1.00 B75200B00


Asia


Russia 1998 RU9801.02 Enterprise support Restructuring / 32.09 B75200B00 Assistance to partner SE Support for Enterprises



Country name *





privatisation countries in eastern Europe & central

Asia

Russia 1999 RU9901.02 Enterprise support Restructuring / privatisation 17.90 B75200B00


Asia


TACIS Region 1995 WW9506.05 Other Projects ? 4.00 B75200B00


Asia


TACIS Region 1994 WW9407.07 Banking Sector actions Finance / banking 2.50 B75200B00


Asia


TACIS Region 1994 WW9407.01 Institutional support Institutional & structural

reforms (direct) 10.00 B75200B00


Asia


TACIS Region 1997 WW9712.05 Support for enterprise Institutional & structural

reforms (direct) 1.50 B75200B00


Asia


TACIS Region 1994 WW9407.02 Enterprise Level Support Restructuring /

privatisation 2.50 B75200B00


Asia


Tajikistan 1997 TA9701.02 Support for enterprise Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 1.30 B75200B00


Asia


Turkmenistan 1997 TU9701.01 Struct & Inst reforms Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 3.33 B75200


Asia




Country name *





Turkmenistan 1999 TU9901.01 Support for Enterprise Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 1.00 B75200


Asia


Turkmenistan 1995 TU9501.02 Enterprise Restr. & Dev. Restructuring / privatisation 1.00 B75200


Asia


Turkmenistan 1994 TU9401.02 Restructuring & developm. Restructuring / privatisation 1.83 B75200


Asia


Ukraine 2000 UR0002.02 Priv. Sector & Econ. Dev Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 14.00 B75200B00


Asia


Ukraine 1997 UR9701.03 Support for enterprises Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 16.05 B75200B00


Asia


Ukraine 1998 UR9801.02 Support for enterprise Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 11.38 B75200B00


Asia


Ukraine 1996 UR9602.02 Support for Enterprises Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 11.18 B75200B00


Asia


Ukraine 1999 UR9901.02 Support for enterprise Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 15.85 B75200B00


Asia


Ukraine 2001 UR0103.02 Support to Private Sector Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 10.00 B75200B00





Country name *





Asia

Ukraine 1995 UR9501.01 Enterprise Support Restructuring / privatisation 10.70 B75200B00


Asia


Ukraine 1994 UR9401.02 Enterprise Restruct+Devel Restructuring / privatisation 4.45 B75200B00


Asia


Uzbekistan 1998 OU9801.02 Support for Enterprises Institutional & structural reforms (direct) 6.80 B75200B00


Asia


Uzbekistan 1995 OU9501.02 Enterprise Support Restructuring / privatisation 2.00 B75200B00


Asia


Uzbekistan 1994 OU9401.03 Enterprise restr. & develp. Restructuring / privatisation 3.30 B75200B00


Asia




4.3 Descriptive Analysis of EC PSD projects

4.3.1 Analysis of interventions across the regions

This section presents a short analysis of the total EC interventions in the PSDS sector across all the regions covered by this evaluation. This total was reached by adding up all regional project lists prepared (see above)1. The analysis focuses on the distribution of planned interventions according to two criteria: Beneficiary region Type of activity

By beneficiary region

Based on the above list of projects, the distribution of the total budget for PSDS activities under the period 1994-2003 shows that 37% of the total went to the Mediterranean region. The ACP region directly follows the MED region with 36%. The Asia region comes next with 12.6% followed by the TACIS region with about 11%. Latin America receives nearly 4% of the total budget. In the Balkans/CARDS region very few PSDS interventions were implemented until now.

Figure A4-1 - Budget distribution by region (1994-2003)

Region Total budget

planned

(million €)

MEDA 1,570.87

ACP 1,529.63

Asia 534.14

TACIS 457.03

Latin America 155.07

CARDS 3.00

TOTAL 4,249.73

1 The project “EU-China Civil Aviation Co-operation - Consolidation Phase” (No 5976, 2003, € 1.6 million) is not

included in the analysis.

MEDA37.0%

ACP36.0%

Asia12.6%

TACIS10.8%

Latin America3.6% CARDS

0.1%



By type of activity

The various projects in support to PSD planned in the various regions during the period 1994-2003 were classified according to their main type of activity. Their distribution by type of activity shows that 37% of the interventions focused on Support for institutional and structural reforms with a direct or indirect effect on PSD followed by 20.4% on Support to enhance human resources and capacities. Support for the development and creation of SMEs and micro-enterprises represented 14.3% of the total and was followed by Encouragement of trade and investment between European and local companies with 7.3% and Support to firm's restructuring and privatisation with 6.5%. A minor but not negligible amount was allocated to other types of activities: Encouragement of transfers of know-how and technologies & support to cooperation between industry and scientific research (5.2%), Support to local financial institutions & the reinforcement of a reliable financial system (4.7%) and Upgrading local firms (2%). Support to facilitate partnership between firms (meetings. workshops. forums. etc.) and Support to intermediary organisations representing the private sector represented together 2.2%.

Figure A4-2 - Budget distribution by type of activity (1994-2003)

Activity Total budget

planned (million €)

Institutional & structural reforms 1,571.41

Human resources 866.42

Micro/SMEs 608.48

Trade/investment 308.79 Restructuring/ privatisation 276.97

Know how & technology 222.14

Finance/ banking 200.27

Upgrading local firms 86.86

Partnership 74.67

Intermediary org. 16.15

Direct capital 0.00

not available 17.59

TOTAL 4,249.73

Institutional & structural reforms

37.0%

Human resources20.4%

Micro/SMEs14.3%

Trade/investment7.3%

Restructuring/ privatisation

6.5%

Know how & technology

5.2%

Finance/ banking4.7%

Intermediary org.0.4%

non available0.4%

Upgrading local firms2.0%

Partnership1.8%



4.3.2 Analysis by region

This section presents a rough analysis of the EC project lists presented by region. This analysis focuses on the distribution of PSDS projects planned within a region according to four criteria: Type of activity, Beneficiary country or sub-region, Financing source, Date.

4.3.2.1 ACP Countries

By type of activity

The various PSDS projects planned in the ACP area during the period under consideration were classified according to their main type of activity. Figure A2-3 shows that Support for institutional and structural reforms is the most frequent type of activity, with 42% of the total ACP budget for PSDS. Support for the development and creation of SMEs and micro-enterprises and Encouragement of trade and investment between European and local companies follow with 16.5 and 13%. Support to enhance human resources and capacities comes in fourth position, with around 10.5%, and is followed by Support to local financial institutions & the reinforcement of a reliable financial system (6.2%) and Encouragement of transfers of know-how and technologies & support to cooperation between industry and scientific research (5.2%). Four other types of activities are also pursued but in a less important way, since they share 6% only of the total budget.



Figure A4-3 - Budget distribution by type of activity (ACP - 1994-2003)



Institutional & structural reforms 641.82

Micro/SMEs 252.62

Trade/investment 199.65


Finance/ banking 94.60



Partnership 27.86

Intermediary org. 16.15 Restructuring/ privatisation 6.25

Direct capital 0.00

Not available 7.29

TOTAL 1,530.12

By beneficiary country or sub-region

EC PSDS interventions in the ACP region can also be classified according to the geographical coverage of the interventions: Bilateral cooperation (58.4% of the total ACP budget for PSDS). Regional cooperation (41.6%).

Bilateral cooperation finances PSDS projects in 48 countries. For a better visibility, figure A2-4 below shows the ranking of the 10 countries with the highest planned budget for PSDS in the ACP2 region; the other 38 partner countries are gathered under a single line called Others. South Africa is the country where the highest amount was planned (26.5%) followed by Zambia (8%) and Chad (7%). The next 7 countries (Kenya, Dominican Republic, Botswana, Senegal, Niger, Guinea Bissau and Madagascar) represent from 3 to 5% of the bilateral PSDS cooperation budget. The other 35 countries share 31% of the total PSDS budget in the ACP region.

2 South Africa is considered here as an ACP member country.


41.9%

Micro/SMEs16.5%






2.8%

Partnership1.8% non available

0.5%


0.4%

Intermediary org.1.1%



Figure A4-4 - Budget distribution by country (ACP - 1994-2003)

Country Total budget

planned

(million €)

South Africa 215.91

Zambia 67.76

Chad 57.40

Kenya 42.15

Dominican Rep 35.98

Botswana 31.42

Senegal 31.00

Niger 30.62

Guinea Bissau 24.56

Madagascar 23.45

Others 254.12

TOTAL 814.36

As far as the regional cooperation is concerned, PSDS projects developed at the level of the entire ACP area obtain the largest share, with more than 68% of the regional cooperation budget. The PSDS projects under ACP sub-regional cooperation represent 32% of the budget. The Caribbean is the region planning most resources to PSDS (16%). followed by Western Africa (9%). The other regions represent less than 5% of the budget.

Figure A4-5 - Budget distribution by region (ACP - 1994-2003)

Region Total budget

planned

(million €)

ACP region 488.68

Caribbean 113.80

Western Africa 64.84

Indian Ocean 18.85

Austral Africa 18.28

GPR 8.00

Central Africa 1.97

Eastern Africa 0.75

Pacific 0.60

TOTAL 715.76

South Africa 26.5%

Zambia 8.3%

Chad 7.0%

Kenya 5.2%

Dominican Rep 4.4%

Others31.2%

Senegal 3.8%

Niger 3.8%

Guinea Bissau 3.0%

Madagascar 2.9%

Botswana 3.9%

ACP region68.3%

Caribbean15.9%

Western Africa9.1%

Indian Ocean2.6%

Austral Africa2.6%

GPR1.1%

Pacific0.1%

Central Africa0.3%

Eastern Africa0.1%



By financing source

In total, 4 successive EDF funds and 1 specific budget line have been used to finance projects in the ACP area. The 8th and 7th EDF provided 80% of the total budget for PSDS under the period while the 6th EDF and 9th EDF account for respectively 1% and 0.2% of the total budget considered. Finally, the Budget Line B-73200, European Programme for Reconstruction & Development, represents 14.7% of the projects. The CRIS database gives no indication on the budget line used to finance some of the projects. One project in Cuba was encoded under Budget Line B-7311 Political, economic & cultural cooperation with LA countries.

Figure A4-6 - Budget distribution by financing source (ACP - 1994-2003)

Budget line Total budget


EDF 08 905.15

EDF 07 301.96

B73200 European programme for reconstruction & development (EPRD)

224.81

EDF 06 14.83

EDF 09 3.78

B73110 Political, economic & cultural cooperation with LA countries

0.25

n.a. not available 79.35

TOTAL 1,530.12

By date

No analysis per year of the ACP projects for PSDS can be made at this stage since the identification code of FED-funded projects (84% of the total funding) do not provide information on the date of the project.

EDF 0859.2%EDF 07

19.7%

European programme for

reconstruction & development

(EPRD)B7320014.7%

non availablen.a.

5.2%

EDF 061.0%

EDF 090.2%

Political, economic &

cultural cooperation with

LA countriesB731100.0%



4.3.2.2 Asian Countries

By type of activity

The various PSDS projects planned in the Asian area during the period under consideration were classified according to their main type of activity. Figure A2-7 shows that eight types of activity out of the eleven types identified earlier have been planned in Asia over the past 10 years. The Institutional & structural reforms and Encouragement of transfers of know-how & technology were the most frequent activities with respectively 30.9% and 27.3% of the total planned budget. Encouragement of trade and investment between European and local companies comes next with 27.3%. Support to enhance human resources and capacities and Support to local financial institutions & reinforcement of a reliable financial system come in fourth and fifth position with a little more than 11% each. The other 3 types of activity supported in the region obtain less than 6% of the budget.

Figure A4-7 - Budget distribution by type of activity (Asia - 1994-2003)







Finance/banking 60.47

SMEs 21.90 Restructuring/ privatisation 8.50

Partnership 0.23


Direct capital 0.00


TOTAL 541.46


30.9%


27.3%



Finance/banking11.2%

SMEs4.0%


1.6%

Partnership0.0%



By beneficiary country

The analysis of the distribution of PSDS planned budgets among the partner countries over the period shows that the regional interventions were the most financed with more than 50% of the total. The regional importance accorded to PSD support in this region is different from the strategy adopted in MEDA, TACIS or Latin America, which does not focus on regional PSD projects. As far as single countries are concerned, China is the major beneficiary country in the region, PSDS representing 20%, Pakistan. Vietnam and India followed with 9 to 6% of the budget. PSDS Projects were also planned in seven other countries but for relatively marginal amounts (less than 3% of the total).

Figure A4-8 - Budget distribution by country (Asia - 1994-2003)



Asia region 237.55

China 97.02

Vietnam 83.92

Pakistan 50.00

India 33.60

Indonesia 14.68

Bangladesh 13.00

Thailand 5.20

Philippines 3.00

Macao 2.21

North Korea 0.97

Sri Lanka 0.32

TOTAL 541.46

Asia region43.9%

China

Vietnam15.5%

Sri Lanka0.1%

North Korea0.2%

Macao0.4%

India6.2%

Indonesia2.7%

Philippines0.6%

Thaïland1.0%

Bangladesh2.4%

Pakistan9.2%



By financing source

The analysis of the budget lines shows that 79% of the projects were planned under BL 7-301 Political, economic & cultural cooperation with Asian countries and 20% under BL 7-300 Financial & technical cooperation with Asian countries.

Figure A4-9 - Budget distribution by financing source (Asia - 1994-2003)



B7301 Political. economic & cultural cooperation with Asian countries

424.96

B7300 Financial & technical

cooperation with Asian countries

109.42

n.a. Not available 7.09

TOTAL 541.46

It is important to note that, since January 1st, 2004, the number of the budget lines have changed for the Asia programme. Budget line B7-300 has been replaced by the number 191001 and budget line B7-301 is now 191002. The budget lines titles have however remained identical.

Not availablen.a.1%

Financial & technical

cooperation with Asian countries

B730020%

Political, economic &

cultural cooperation with Asian countries

B730179%



By date

The analysis of the data shows that the two main project planning periods in Asia were 1997-98 and 2000-2002. One can assume at this stage that these important planning exercises correspond to new programming exercises for the region.

Figure A4-10 - Budget distribution by year (Asia - 1994-2003)

Year Total budget


Year Total budget


1992 3.00 1999 26.70 1993 19.00 2000 78.46 1994 2.20 2001 57.08 1995 0.00 2002 151.18 1996 12.19 2003 41.15 1997 36.56 n.a. 11.75 1998 76.40 TOTAL 569.06

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

milli

on €

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 n.a.



4.3.2.3 CARDS

Since only 2 PSDS-specific CARDS projects have been identified and extracted from the EC databases, there is no ground for a detailed statistical analysis by criteria. However the following comments can be made: Both projects are located in Bosnia Herzegovina. Their starting date is not available. They correspond to two types of activity: Support for the development and creation of SMEs

and micro-enterprises (66%) on the one hand. and Support to local financial institutions & reinforcement of a reliable financial system (34%) on the other hand.

The total planned budget amounts to 3.000.000 € and was planned under BL 7541 Assistance for the countries of Western Balkans.

4.3.2.4 Latin America

By type of activity

The various PSDS projects planned in the Latin America region during the period under consideration were classified according to their main type of activity. Figure A2-11 shows that the Support for the development and creation of SMEs and micro-enterprises was the most frequent type of PSDS activity planned within the framework of the EU - Latin America co-operation policy. It represented 63% of the total planned budget in the Latin America region over the period. Support to enhance Human Resources and capacities came next with 23%. and was followed by Encouragement of trade and investment between European and local companies and Institutional & structural reforms, with about 7% each.



Figure A4-11 - Budget distribution by type of activity (LA – 1994-2003)



Micro/SMEs 97.47


Trade/investment 10.84 Institutional & structural

reforms 10.09


Partnership 0.24

Finance/banking 0.00 Restructuring/ privatisation 0.00


Direct capital 0.00


TOTAL 155.07


The analysis of the distribution of planned budgets among partner countries over the period shows that Bolivia and Mexico were the main beneficiaries, combining together more than 60% of the total planned budget. Peru. Nicaragua. Uruguay and Brazil came next with 5 to 8% each. The rest of the budget is spread between the 7 other partner countries and the regional level, which amounted only to 0.4% of the total.

Micro/SMEs62.9%

Human resources

23.0%


Partnership0.2%


0.5%Institutional &

structural reforms6.5%



Figure A4-12 - Budget distribution by country (LA – 1994-2003)



Bolivia 59.59

Mexico 36.00

Peru 12.77

Nicaragua 11.24

Uruguay 10.58

Brazil 8.00

Argentina 7.00

Honduras 5.30

Chile 1.84

Colombia 0.95

Venezuela 0.77 Region Latin

America 0.56

Central America 0.24

Paraguay 0.24

TOTAL 155.07

By financing source

The CRIS database does not provide Budget Lines numbers relative to about 50% of the total amount planned for PSDS in the region. On the other hand a project identified for Bolivia is noted by CRIS under BL 75020, Cooperation with Eastern Europe, Central Asia & the Western Balkans. Taking these limitations into consideration, the analysis of the information available shows that 59% was planned under BL 7-310 Financial & technical cooperation with LA developing countries, and 34.6% under BL 7-311 Economic cooperation with LA countries. According to CRIS, a few projects in the years 1994-95 were planned under BL 7-301 Political. economic and cultural cooperation with Asian developing countries, which is now used for Asian countries only. We understand that there was a change in the affectation of the BL, which would have earlier been used for the whole ALA region.

Bolivia38.4%

Mexico23.2%

Peru8.2%

Nicaragua7.2%

Argentina4.5%

Brazil 5.2%

Honduras3.4%

Region Latin America

0.4%

Uruguay6.8%

Paraguay0.2%

Central America0.2%

Venezuela0.5%

Colombia0.6%

Chile1.2%



Figure A4-13 - Budget distribution by financing source (LA – 1994-2003)



B7310 Financial & technical cooperation with LA developing countries

45.73

B7311


countries

26.86

B7301



2.71

B75020

Cooperation with eastern Europe. central

Asia & the western Balkans

0.97

B7870 Promotion of commercial relations 0.24


TOTAL 155.07

Non availablen.a.

50.7%

Financial cooperation with

LA countries B731029.5%

Economic cooperation with

LA countries B731117.3%

Promotion of commercial

relationsB78700.2%

Economic cooperation with Asian countries

B73011.7%

Cooperation with eastern

Europe B750200.6%



By date

The distribution of planned budgets over the period 1994-2003 shows that most of the interventions were planned in 1995-96 and in 2002. It can be assumed at this stage that these important planning exercises correspond to new programming exercises for the region.

Figure A4-14 - Budget distribution by year (LA – 1994-2003)

Year Total budget


Year Total budget


1993 3.77 1999 6.20

1994 1.29 2000 8.00

1995 27.10 2001 0.00

1996 36.68 2002 48.50

1997 11.53 2003 12.00

1998 0.00 TOTAL 155.07

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

mill

ion

€

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003



4.3.2.5 MEDA

By type of activity

The various PSDS projects planned in the MEDA area during the period under consideration were classified according to their main type of activity. Figure A2-15 shows that Support to enhance human resources and capacities and Support for institutional and structural reforms with a direct effect on PSD are the most frequent types of activity in the region, representing respectively 39% and 29% of the total planned budget. Support to enhance human resources and capacities represents mainly vocational education and training and updating of enterprises (“mise à niveau”) in specific industrial sectors. Support for the development and creation of SMEs and micro-enterprises comes next with 15%, and is followed by Support to firm restructuring & privatisation, with 7%. Other types of activity represent only 3% or less.

Figure A4-15 - Budget distribution by type of activity (MEDA – 1994-2003)



Human resources 607.86 Institutional & structural

reforms 452.51

SMEs 236.98 Restructuring/ privatisation 117.74

Partnership 46.57





Direct capital 0.00


TOTAL 1.570.87



28.8%

SMEs15.1%

Finance/banking2.7%

Partnership3.0%




7.5%


1.9%




The analysis of the distribution of planned budgets among the partner countries over the period shows that 79% of these budgets were implemented in Egypt (28%), Tunisia (28% as well) and Morocco (23%). Planned budgets in Algeria represent 9%. Figures corresponding to other partner countries amount to 1 to 5%, while 2% were allocated to MEDA regional projects starting in 1997.

Figure A4-16 - Budget distribution by country (MEDA – 1994-2003)


planned

(million €)

Tunisia 450.70

Egypt 433.94

Morocco 357.16

Algeria 146.75

Jordan 72.00

Syria 48.11

MEDA region 36.21

Palestinian Authority 15.00

Lebanon 11.00

TOTAL 1,570.87

Tunisia28%

Egypt28%

Morocco23%

Algeria9%

Jordan5%

Palestinian Authority

1%

Lebanon1%

Syria3%

MEDA region2%



By financing source

Ninety percent of the EC interventions in the Mediterranean area in support to the private sector in the period 1994-2003 were planned under the Budget Line B-74100. These interventions correspond to measures taken to accompany the reforms to economic and social structures in the Mediterranean non-member countries. Their total amounts over the period to € 1.571 million.

The other interventions were planned under the former Protocols or under the budget line specific to Community operations connected with the Israel/PO Peace Agreement.

Figure A4-17 - Budget distribution by financing source (MEDA – 1994-2003)



B74100

MEDA (measures to accompany the reforms to

economic & social structures in the

Mediterranean non member countries)

1,411.81

B74051

Third & fourth Financial Protocols with the

southern Mediterranean countries

97.70


B74200 Community operations

connected with the Israel/PO Peace agreement

15.00

B74100A MEDA - expenditure on administrative management 1.36

TOTAL 1.570.87

MEDAB7410089.9%

n.a.2.9%

Israel/PO Peace

agreementB742001.0%

ProtocolsB740516.2%

MEDA - Admin.

managementB74100A

0.1%



By date

The distribution of planned budgets over the period 1994-2003 shows a high concentration in years 1997 and 2002. At this stage, it can be assumed that these amounts correspond to the planning of new interventions to be financed under the MEDA I and MEDA II programmes corresponding respectively to the periods 1995-1999 and 2000-2006.

Figure A4-18 - Budget distribution by year (MEDA – 1994-2003)

Year Total budget


Year Total budget


1993 23.24 1999 76.48

1994 57.00 2000 90.15

1995 43.70 2001 0.00

1996 33.11 2002 380.36

1997 679.48 not available 25.00

1998 162.35 TOTAL 1.570.87

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

mill

ion

€

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 non available



4.3.2.6 TACIS

By type of activity

Contrary to the other regions, TACIS projects concentrated on three types of activities only. Support for institutional and structural reforms with a direct effect on PSD was the most frequently planned activity, with more than 65% of the total budget. Support to firm restructuring & privatisation, which amounted to 32%, comes next. Finally Support to local financial institutions & reinforcement of a reliable financial system received 0.5% of the budget.

Figure A4-19 - Budget distribution by type of activity (TACIS – 1994-2003)




Restructuring/ privatisation 144.48

not available 10.30


Direct capital 0.00




Micro/SMEs 0.00

Partnership 0.00



TOTAL 457.03

Institutional & structural reforms65.6%


31.6%

non available2.3%





EC PSDS projects have been planned in all 13 countries of the TACIS region during the period 1994-2001. The largest share went to Russia (45% of the PSDS planned budget) and to Ukraine (20%). The other TACIS countries planned PSDS interventions for a budget ranking from 0.3 to 6% of the total. The funds planned for PSDS interventions through regional projects amounted to 4.5% of the total. Moreover, Cross border projects received 2%.

Figure A4-20 - Budget distribution by country (TACIS – 1994-2003)


planned

(million €)

Russia 207.31

Ukraine 93.61

Kazakhstan 28.55

TACIS Region 20.50

Georgia 17.40

Moldova 15.41

Azerbaijan 13.70

Uzbekistan 12.10

Armenia 12.05

Kyrgyzstan 8.18

Cross-border 7.73

Turkmenistan 7.16

Belarus 6.63

Mongolia 5.39

Tajikistan 1.30

TOTAL 457.03

Russia45.4%

Ukraine20.5%

Kazakhstan6.2%

TACIS Region4.5%

Georgia3.8%

Moldova3.4%

Azerbaijan3.0%

Uzbekistan2.6%

Armenia2.6%

Kyrgyzstan1.8%

Crossborder1.7%

Tajikistan0.3%

Turkmenistan1.6%

Mongolia1.2%

Belarus1.5%



By financing source

Nearly 99% of the EC interventions in the TACIS area in support to the private sector in the period 1994-2001 were planned under the Budget Line B-75200, Assistance to partner countries in Eastern Europe & Central Asia. A small part of the budget, corresponding to the Cross border projects, comes from Budget Line B-75210 Cross border cooperation in structural matters.

Figure A4-21 - Budget distribution by financing source (TACIS – 1994-2003)



B75200 Assistance to partner countries in eastern

Europe & central Asia 449.30

B75210 Cross border

cooperation in structural matters

7.73

TOTAL 457.03


structural mattersB752101.7%

Assistance to partner

countries in eastern

Europe & central Asia

B7520098.3%



By date

The planning of TACIS interventions for PSDS was rather regular over the 1994-2001 period. However, a decrease in the budgeted amount is observed for the last two years of the period (2000-2001).

Figure A4-22 - Budget distribution by year (TACIS – 1994-2003)

Year Total budget


Year Total budget


1993 0.00 1999 53.96

1994 88.93 2000 36.80

1995 74.10 2001 20.80

1996 58.86 2002 0.00

1997 61.45 2003 0.00

1998 62.13 TOTAL 457.03

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

mill

ion

€

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Annex 5 – Description of some PSD programmes and instruments



Annex 5 – Description of some PSD programmes and instruments

5.1 PSD instruments

The preparation of the Intervention Logic of this PSDS Evaluation was based inter alia on the analysis of a sample of PSD-specific instruments1 financed under the EU’s external policy with third countries. These PSD-specific instruments are all regional except for the TERF (TACIS) that is aimed at Russian enterprises only. In the table below, these various PSD-specific instruments are presented by geographical area. For each instrument, the first column presents: Budget and source of funding; Period covered; Name of the organisation/institution managing the programme (if different from the

EC); General objective(s); Specific objective(s); Source of information.

The second column summarises the intervention fields or the type of activities that can be financed by the instrument. Basically, the PSD-specific instruments presented here can be classified into two categories: Those (the majority) financing PSDS activities under grants; Those providing funds for equity or quasi-equity operations and managed by

institutions like the EIB and the CDE. Some of these instruments include technical assistance aimed at supporting the implementation of the core activities. That is notably the case of the investment facilities.

1 Instrument is understood here as a financing tool created by the EU to fund activities with specific characteristics in

terms of, for example, objectives, beneficiaries, etc. In our case, we consider instruments that facilitate the funding of activities that aim to support the development of the private sector in third countries.



5.1.1 ACP

INSTRUMENT ACTIVITIES

PRO-INVEST Partnership Programme for the Promotion of Investment and Technology Flows in ACP countries.

(REG/70012/038 - Sector Nr 25010) Created in 2001. Total cost: € 110 million (EDF) Managed by a PMU in Brussels with correspondents in certain countries. General Objectives: poverty reduction; sustainable development for the wellbeing of the citizens. Programme Purpose: to promote, on a regional basis, sustainable and environmentally friendly investment and inter-enterprise cooperation agreements (I&ICAs) in key sectors to increase the competitiveness of the ACP economies.

ESIP at SADCC level. € 16.325 (8th EDF) - starting middle-2002.

Source: EuropeAid/guide/docs/spds/annex13 FP of PROINVEST II.doc

Two facilities:

INTER€POWER (Institutional Strengthening): improvement of intermediary organisations, on a regional and group basis: Development of private sector advocacy and

policy dialogue; Organisation of business to business cooperation

meetings; Development of investment-related business

development services; Training of local consultants; Capacity-building for targeted institutions.

INVEST€TECH (Support to key sectors) : Regional surveys; Prospectivity studies and surveys on key (sub)

sectors; Project support; Business to business cooperation meetings,

including regional sector meetings.

EBAS (EU-ACP Business Assistance Scheme) 1999 to July 2002: € 20 million (EDF). General Objectives: to support the private sector in eligible ACP countries in order to promote social and economic development and help fight poverty. Programme purpose: to increase the competitiveness of ACP enterprises and strengthen the capacity of private sector and non-financial intermediaries through better access to more effective business development services. Source: The EU-ACP E.B.A.S.- A Synthesis (DG VIII); Mid-Term Evaluation report, March 2002

Area: Enterprise competitiveness. A demand driven matching grant scheme (EBAS paid up to half of the consultancy costs for a company or professional association). It offered: Grants to 1000 business and professional

associations improvement projects (towards the use of management consultancy services) in 60 countries;

Capacity building with Intermediary Organisations such as Chambers of commerce, investment promotion agencies, professional associations, women entrepreneur associations, and co-operatives.

DIAGNOS 1999-2002 Total spent: € 2.7 Million Transition towards an “integrated approach” to development policy (Council of Ministries Nov1998).

Area: Policy framework Analysis of the major constraints to the macro-economic and business environment in beneficiary countries. Based on this analysis, elaboration of an




General Objectives: to provide a diagnostic of the political, institutional, administrative, financial and legal framework in order to foster the development of the private sector in the beneficiary countries, improving its enabling environment. Programme Purpose: to identify the constraints of the business environment/investment climate and to design country or region-level programmes of support to private sector development. Source: europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/theme/ private_fr.htm

action plan that will feed into the economic policy dialogue and the NIP. Main activities: 1) analytical work to identify possible partners as well as principal constraints; 2) diagnostic reports on the constraints to the development of the private sector; 3) workshops to validate the results; 4) identification of priority sectors; 5) information campaign and network for the partners; 6) institutional support to foster political dialogue and increase the organisational capacities of the private sector; 7) administrative management.

INVESTMENT FACILITY (INFAC) 2003-2008: € 2.2 billion (9th EDF). Revolving fund. Managed by EIB. General Objectives: To offset the lack of available financial instruments and funding affecting most ACP enterprises. Programme purpose: To strengthen the capacity of local financial institutions and financial capital markets; to encourage foreign investment and to stimulate full integration into world economy as well as job creation; to aid the development of the private sector by financing projects and commercially viable enterprises and companies. Source: CE/TFN/GCF4/30-EN, DG VIII

Provides risk capital in the form of: Equity participation in ACP enterprises; Quasi-capital assistance to ACP enterprises; or Guarantees and other credit enhancements both

for foreign and local investors or lenders; Ordinary loans on concessional terms if certain

conditions are met. Beneficiaries: SMEs, local financial institutions and enterprises in the process of being privatised, in all economic sectors.

5.1.2 Asia and Latin America


AL-INVEST 1994-2004 (Pilot phase + Phases I and II): € 98 million. General Objective: Economic and social development. Programme Purpose: To increase EU investments in Latin America and enhance commerce between both regions. Source: europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/al-invest/how8_it_works_en.cfm

Activities meant to encourage relations between companies in the two regions, in particular SMEs. Organisation of sectorial meetings organised by network of economic operators for L.A/EU SMEs. ATLAS: transfer for knowledge between the 200 Chambers of Commerce concerned (€ 2.4 million)



@LIS (Alliance for the Information Society) Adopted in December 2001. Budget: € 85 million, of which 75% from EC contribution. General Objective: to reinforce the EU-Latin America partnership in the field of information society. Programme Purpose: Facilitate the integration of Latin American

countries in a global information society; Promote the dialogue; Increase the interconnection between research

and development communities of both regions; Meet the needs of local communities and

citizens; Implement innovative applications that are

duplicable. Source: uropa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/alis

Three intervention fields: Dialogue on political and regularity changes and

on the standards; Networks of regulators, researchers and

stakeholders; Demonstration projects.

ASIA-INVEST (ALA Reg. 443/92) - from 1997 ASIA-INVEST II: 2003-07 Managed by AIDCO by a team under BL 7-300A. Budget: € 41 million. General Objectives: correspond to those of COM(2001) 469 on EU-Asia: EU presence in Asia; raising awareness of EU in Asia; mutual trade and investment flows; PSD strengthening; enhance export capabilities and FDI prospects of LDCs in Asia. Programme Purpose: Measures to foster direct EU-Asia business cooperation - focus on SMEs. Measures to improve business environment (and unlock new opportunities). Source: europa.eu.int/europeaid/projects/asia-invest

Grants for: Matchmaking activities: 3 types of instruments:

Asia-VENTURE, Asia-INTERPRISE, Asia-PARTENARIAT (according to country economic reality and business size).

T.A. to Asian enterprises; investment and trade facilitation studies.

Institutional reinforcement of intermediary business organisations: 2 instruments: Asia-INVEST ALLIANCE and Asia-INVEST FORUM.

Instruments under Asia-Invest 2003-2007: Asia-VENTURE: € 1.5 million Asia-INTERPRISE: € 10.5 million Asia-PARTENARIAT: € 8 million Asia-INVEST T.A.: € 4 million for T.A. Asia-INVEST Trade Facilitation Studies: € 2

million Asia-INVEST ALLIANCE: € 4 million Asia-INVEST FORUM: € 2 million

ASIA-ITC Programme Purpose: to increase cooperation in ITC between EU & Asian participating countries. Source: europa.eu.int/europeaid/projects/asia-itc

Grants for collaborative projects (re ITC know-how transfer, regulatory structures, etc).



5.1.3 MEDA

INSTRUMENTS ACTIVITIES

FEMIP (« Facilité Euro-Med d'Investissement et de Partenariat »). 18 October 2002 Barcelona - a EIB facility accompanied with € 25 million for T.A. from EU; Turkey: € 6 million, other countries: € 19. million. Priorities of actions: PSD (local SMEs or FI); Support to social dimension projects and

investments; Economic & privatisation reforms; New financial instruments and T.A.

Source: www.eib.org/lending/med/docs/en/femip_progress.pdf

At banking level: equity and quasi-equity operations. A novel component: T.A. and Investment Support, complementary to EIB interventions: T.A. for preparation and implementation (Feasibility studies, training, monitoring and consulting).

5.1.4 MEDA ALA SA


ECIP 1988-98: € 286 million spent 1995-99: budget € 250 million Financial instrument for ALA MED SA (South Africa). General Objectives: to support the development of ALAMED countries through FDI and the expansion of EU enterprises (notably SMEs). Programme Objective: to promote the creation of joint ventures (JV) in emerging markets. Source: Independent Appraisal of ECIP Financial Instrument, December 1999.

Demand-led instrument. No quotas/ no focus to any region or sector or size of enterprises. Five facilities: Grants for identification of potential JV partners; Interest-free loans for Feasibility studies; Equity (loans) in JVs; Interest-free loans for training costs in JVs; Grants for BOO/BOOT schemes.

Average commitment: € 113.000 (1988-1998).



5.1.5 TACIS


EU-EBRD Investment Preparation Facility (“Bangkok Facility”) - TACIS 2003 2003: € 10 million (BL 7-520) Source: europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/tacis/ publications/annual_programmes/eu_ebrd_2003_en.pdf

T.A. for investment project preparation and implementation in various sectors (not only PSD).

TERF Enterprise Restructuring Facility TERF I, 1998-2000 - TERF II, 2000-2002 TERF I and II: € 11.6 million Overall objective: to contribute to the development of Russian economy by enhancing the potential of private and privatised medium and large enterprises. Programme Purpose: to initiate and accelerate the restructuring of selected Russian enterprises enhancing their performances; to enable selected medium and large enterprises to work successfully under market economy requirements; to promote enterprises restructuring. Source: Evaluation of TACIS TERF, July 2001.

A consulting facility, initiating and accelerating reform processes in medium and large Russian enterprises. Consulting services to Russian enterprises at discounted prices with client contribution scheme (some sectors excluded like military, oil, tobacco). Counterpart organisation: the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs.



2. Institutions supporting PSD

The European Investment Bank (EIB), the EU’s long-term financing institution created by the Treaty of Rome, has been given responsibility to operate the ACP Partnership’s Agreement’s Investment Facility. The EIB also manages the FEMIP (“Facilité Euro-Med d’Investissement et de Partenariat”) that provides investment support in MED countries. The Centre for the Development of Enterprises (CDE) is a joint EU-ACP agency providing assistance for the creation and development of ACP enterprises. The CDE has been given responsibility to manage the Pro-Invest programme.


CDE - Centre for the Development of Enterprise Joint EU-ACP agency, financed by EDF. 5-year budget: € 90 million. General Objectives : to fight poverty and contribute to the creation of wealth through assisting the private sector. Specific Objective : to assist ACP businesses to become more competitive and to foster partnership between European and ACP businesses.

Assistance for creation and development of ACP enterprises, intermediary institutions (complementary to ProInvest) and consulting companies. Programme-based approach offering assistance to several enterprises in the same sector. Also offers integrated assistance to selected individual enterprises outside the scope of those programmes. Provision of up to 2/3 of the cost of assistance but not investment finance.

EIB - European Investment Bank created by the Treaty of Rome; shareholders are the Member States; Board of Governors composed of the Finance Ministers of these States. Overall Objectives: as the EU main financing institution, the EIB contributes towards the integration, balanced development and economic and social cohesion of the Member Countries. Outside the Union the EIB implements the financial components of agreements concluded under European development aid and cooperation policies. Specific Objective to further the objectives of the European Union by making long-term finance available for sound investment.

Financing capital investment projects in EU countries and in countries that have cooperation agreements with the EU. Provision of loans to public and private borrowers to support productive projects and programmes or other investments aimed at promoting the private sector in all economic sectors. Principal source of investment capital for the private sector in the ACP. Financing of large-scale infrastructure and industrial projects by means of individual loans (upwards of € 25 million). Indirect funding of Small and Medium scale projects through global loans - lines of credit made available to financial institutions, operating either in the EU or in the ACP, for on-lending in smaller portions. Loans to private and public sectors eligible for interest rate subsidies provided that certain conditions are met. Management of the Partnership Agreement Investment Facility.

Annex 6 – Typology of activities


Final Report – 14 May 2004 Annexe 6 / page 1

Annex 6 – Typology of activities

The table below presents a typology of the activities undertaken in the field of private sector development support. The twelve different types of activities presented here were identified on the basis of the analysis of various EC PSDS policy documents and of the project list that was elaborated by the evaluators1. Column 1 presents the name of each activity. Column 2 indicates their abbreviations, as used in tables or charts in this report. Column 3 indicates the type of partner with whom the EC is undertaking the activity under consideration. Column 4 provides a few examples of projects financed by the EC under each category. These examples are taken from the project list.

1 See Annex 4.



Activity Type Abbreviation Partners Examples of activities

Support for institutional & structural reforms with an indirect effect on PSD

Institutional & structural reforms (indirect) Government

Programme d'Appui à l’OHADA (Organisation pour l'harmonisation du Droit des Affaires en Afrique);

Programme de modernisation et d'assistance aux réformes administratives (MEDA).

Support for institutional & structural reforms with a direct effect on PSD

Institutional & structural reforms (direct) Government

Institutional Support to the Private Sector in Malawi; Mejora eficiencia y competitividad economica Argentina; Support to Private sector (TACIS).

Support for local financial institutions & the creation of a reliable banking system

Finance / banking Government & financial institutions

Appui aux institutions financières de garantie aux PME (MEDA);

Appui à Crédit Initiative S.A. (Mali); Banking Sector actions (TACIS).

Direct capital contributions to local or foreign companies or to financial intermediaries (EIB)

Direct capital Financial institutions & local firms

Private Sector Development Global Loan (Cameroon); SME Upgrading (Lebanon).

Support to facilitate partnership between firms through meetings, workshops

Partnership Local firms & intermediary associations

Forum Agro-Industriel UE/Afrique de l'Ouest 1995; Foreign direct investment seminar in Vietnam; Europartenariat España 98 (MEDA).

Support to intermediary organisations representing the private sector Intermediary org. Intermediary

associations

Programme Appui au COLEACP; Swaziland Sugar Assoc II; Programme Appui Maison Tourisme & Entreprise Touristique

(PAMT) (ACP).

Encouragement of trade & investment between European & TC companies

Trade / investment Local firms & intermediary associations

Promotion du Commerce Extérieur et des Investissements (ACP);

EU-Indonesia Trade Support Programme; PROMOEX-Promoción exportationes no tradicionales (Latin

America). Trade Enhancement Programme (MEDA).



Activity Type Abbreviation Partners Examples of activities

Transfers of know-how & technologies and cooperation between industry & scientific research

Know how / technology Local firms & intermediary associations

1998 Technology Support for SMEs Pilot Programme (ACP); Industrial cooperation on machine tools (Asia); Normalizacion y certificacion industrial (Latin America); Innovation, Technologie et Qualité dans les Entreprises

(MEDA).

Support to enhance human resources & capacities Human Resources

Local firms & intermediary associations

1997 Labour Market Skills Development Programme (ACP); EU-Chine Junior Managers training programme; Appui au programme de mise à niveau de la formation

professionnelle, MANFORM, Tunisie (MEDA).

Support for the development & creation of SMEs & micro enterprises Micro / SMEs

Local firms & intermediary associations

Micro & Small Enterprise Development Programme, MSEDP (ACP);

Small and Medium Enterprises Development Fund-Phase II (Asia);

SME Support (CARDS); Syrian-European Business Centre (MEDA).

Upgrading local firms Upgrading local firms Local firms & intermediary associations

Private Sector Development Programme - Business Service Team BST (MEDA).

Support to firm restructuring & privatisation Restructuring / privatisation Government &

local firms

SWARP Spinning Mills II (ACP); Enterprise Restructuration & Development (TACIS); Public Enterprise Reform and Privatisation

Programme (MEDA).

Annex 7 – List of countries and projects analysed



Annex 7 – List of countries and projects analysed

7.1 ACP

PROJECT NAME ACRONYM BUDGET

(MILLION €)STARTING

DATE OVERALL OBJECTIVE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE(S) COMPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Dominican Republic

Programa de Apoyo al Sector Privado1996-2000

PASP 4.20 1996

Contribute to the adaptation, modernisation and restructuration of the Dominican economy

To increase SMEs productive and commercial capacity. 4 components: a) Support to SMEs, b) Support to Intermediaries, c) Support to financing d) Political dialogue

Credit line managed by a local Bank. Credit range: € 10,000- € 50,000. Average term: 27 months. 50% to agro-industry. Payments defaults: 1% by end 1999. Beneficiary SMEs identified through intermediate organisations. Move from the original demand-driven attitude to a more pro-active behaviour by launching a series of participative enterprise diagnostics, intense promotion campaign (TV and press), and flexibility with regard to the 50% cost-sharing requirement. (Source: Annual Report 1998)

Programa de Apoyo a las pequenas empresas 8/DO/7002/01

PRO-EMPRESA 9.80 2002

To enhance a consolidated, sustainable, equitable development, source of job creation.

To support the development of small enterprises with high growth potential, identified as the target group best able to contribute to the modernization of the local productive sector and to reaching the social impact looked for.

Project ongoing. No mid-term evaluation report available yet.






Ghana

Ghana Regional Appropriate Technology Industrial Service

GRATIS

Phase II: 3.00 Phase III:4.35

Phase II:1994 Phase III:2000

To promote grassroots industrialisation through the establishment of a network of regional centres (ITTU) throughout the country.

Establishment of a network of 9 regional Industrial Technology Transfer Units (ITTU). Other elements of the programme include technical support, entrepreneurs training and a credit scheme for ITTU clients.

One component of the GRATIS project is a credit scheme for the ITTU clients including hire purchase of machinery and working capital.

SME Development Programme

SMEDP 4.80 1995

To assist small entrepreneurs to prepare a business plan and to secure funding of specific investment projects.

To provide financial assistance to SMEs to enable the preparation of business development plans and investments projects. Creation of the Business Development Planning Fund, managed by Empretec Ghana Foundation.

A low level of implementation was registered during the first 18 months, due to difficult macro-economic environment (high inflation and interest rates) and difficulties encountered by several companies to comply with managerial, legal and administrative requirements. By end 1997, improvements were observed.

Woodworking Sector Development Programme

WWSDP 4.85 1998

To improve the efficiency in the woodworking sector and widen Ghana's export base and revenue.

Better business and processing practices for woodworking sector SMEs

Kenya

Trade Development Programme I

TDP I 3.13 1996

To strengthen the institutional capacity of the Export Promotion Council (EPC), establish foundations for a national trade information centre, the Centre for Business Information in Kenya (CBIK)






Trade Development Programme II

TDP II 8.00 2001

To broaden and deepen the results of TDP I with focus on a wide range of institutions, private and public, engaged in the delivery of services to exporters or in the development of export capacity

Specific activities foresee: (i) institutional support and capacity building re trade policy, compliance with international agreements/regulations, regional integration (ii) Export Finance Assessment with analysis of export finance and credit guarantee mechanism (iii) trade information with the development of CBIK and (iv) enterprise level support for SME with product and market development (code of ethics, adoption of ISO and technology transfer)

Tourism Diversification and Sustainable Development Programme

TDSDP 24.00 2001

To carry on activities in the form of financial support and technical assistance in various areas

Implementation started effectively in January 2003

Niger

Agence de Financement et d'Encouragement de la Libre Entreprise au Niger 1993-1998 7/ACP/NIR/004

AFELEN

Equipment and operating: 3.35 Credit line: 8.65

1993

Objectives not specified. It can be deduced from the F.A. that the project will assist the Niger government in its policy of strengthening the private sector to compensate for the State's "disengagement".

The project will try to compensate for the lack of financial resources for the private sector. Funds will be deposited in 3 local banks that will grant credit to beneficiaries according to AFELEN’s instructions.

Non-profit organisation made of representatives of professional sectors, under permanent audit. The Niger Govt put in place in early ‘90s a set of 18 rules that would govern the public policy of support to the private sector. AFELEN to follow these rules. No final project evaluation performed but project fully privatised by end 2003.






Credit no longer provided under this new arrangement - services and guarantees only offered to investors, commercial banks providing the credit side of the operations (Source: Delegation in Niamey).

Projet d'Appui et de Suivi des PME 8 ACP NIR 38

PASPME/TANYO 2001

To contribute to the development of the private sector by facilitating access for SMEs to bank financing.

Project taking over from AFELEN. Work as an intermediary between banks and SMEs. Set up a Guarantee Fund with the funds still available from former AFELEN - was mandated to follow up the recovery of AFELEN's credits. Identifies and assess investment programmes submitted by entrepreneurs, forwards them to the banks with a max. 50% guarantee, and in case of agreement by the bank, offers a project follow up during the loan duration.

Senegal

Appui au Développement des PME dans la Région de Dakar

Dakar PME 1.99 1995

Contribute to the development of private economic activities in the region of Dakar.

Reinforcement of the existing SMEs, promotion of new enterprises, creation of an economic network generating jobs. Access to credit to finance investments of entrepreneurs.

46 projects financed by end 1997. Results achieved, but below expectations.

Programme de Développement de la Région de St Louis

St Louis DP

Total: 22.5 PSD Support: 7.6

1994

Support to the economic development and the well being of the population at the economic, medical and environmental levels.

Support to private sector: creation of a economic network in the private sector, in order to promote the development of productive activities and to

Judiciary procedure because of a embezzlement of assets.






create jobs. The beneficiaries are Senegalese (future) entrepreneurs that have difficulties to access to the classic banking system.

Appui au développement économique de la région de Ziguinchor

Ziguinchor DP 1.99 1994

Contribute to the development of private economic activities in the region of Ziguinchor.

PROPAC: support to fishery enterprises. PME: promotion of new enterprises, creation of an economic network generating jobs. Access to credit, information and sensibilisation, support to the creation of dossiers.

PME: By end 1997, 137 dossiers, 78 projects financed. Results achieved, but below expectations.

Uganda

Support to Feasible Financial Institutions and Capacity Building Efforts

SUFFICE

Phase I: 1.70 Phase II:3.55

Phase I: 1999 Phase II:2003

Develop an inter-linked chain of sustainable and efficient financial institutions offering unsubsidised, high quality and diversified financial products and services to micro and small entrepreneurs in urban and rural areas of the country.

Programme aimed at supporting the development of appropriate financial systems for micro and small enterprises. Amalgamation of 3 credit programmes previously funded under the 7th EDF Micro projects. Three 3 key components: financial services, capacity building and research and documentation.

According to the MR, good overall assessment of SUFFICE Conception relevant according to PSD in the country and good progress made in achieving planned results (Source: project synopsis and monitoring report). In 2001, 7 micro finance institutions received loan fund finance and 6 received matching grants for capacity building (source: MR) The SUFFICE project had problems of donor competition (source: Country Strategy Evaluation 2001).






Zambia

Export Development Programme

EDP I 10.00 1993

To double foreign exchange earnings from four sectors with significant growth potential (coffee, horticulture / flowers, tobacco and cotton textiles) through support to the exporters' professional associations

Activities leading to reforms concerned: (i) The introduction of quality control, maintenance and inspection procedures and establishing of laboratories for testing, and (ii) Market research and market development activities, including the monitoring of world market trends and identification of market opportunities / requirements. Other activities included: financing (EFF), training, X promotion, etc.

Activities were carried out through intermediate organisations, which as a consequence developed in terms of number and membership. In Zambia, this type of project (support to intermediary organisations) seen as a priority.



7.2 Asia




ASIA

Asia-Invest Asia-Invest

Phase I:30

Phase II:35

Phase I:1997

Phase II:2003

Asia-Invest is a European initiative that aims to promote and support Euro-Asian business cooperation. The programme provides assistance to intermediary organisations to facilitate mutually beneficial partnerships between companies in Europe and Asia, as well as to strengthen the framework conditions to increase trade and investment flows between the two regions.

Specific objective: More business-to-business matchmaking opportunities and partnership building. Three instruments: Asia-Venture (small scale), Asia-Enterprise (medium scale) and Asia-Partenariat (large scale). Other specific objectives of the programme: Enhancing Asian private sector development, and increasing institutional capacity building, networking and dialogue.

Results of Phase I (1997-2001): 143 projects supported, 60 business match making meetings, 70 seminars, 600 commercial partnerships. Targets? Phase II (2003-2007) ongoing (calls for proposals).

VIETNAM

Technical Assistance Programme for Transition to Market Economy

Euro-TAP



Reforms in various fields.

Components include: (a) Accounting and auditing (Introduction of practices and harmonization with European standards) (b) Liberalization of insurance market (New legislation, increase technical expertise among local companies, introduction of

Status: Competed (Source: Evaluation of Euro-TAP)






European practices and liberalization of market) (c) Standards and Quality Assurance Project (d) Intellectual property rights (legislative and regulatory framework)

Private sector support programme

PSSP 9.05 2003

To improve capacity to dialogue between government and professional organisations.

Status: On going (very recent).

Small and Medium Enterprise Development Fund

SMEDF



To provide improved financial services to SMEs to enhance social and economic development in 21 provinces in Vietnam. Achieved through a refinancing facility operated through selected Vietnamese commercial banks from on lendings at commercial rates to SMEs.

Includes a component aiming at improving access to credit through the establishment of a revolving fund, working through local financial institutions (i.e. 5 commercial banks). It also contains a component aimed at the reform of financial sector to develop the capacity of financial sector to mobilize and mainstream savings towards SMEs.

The reform component failed. (Source: SMEDF evaluation)

Small Project Facility SPF 2.00 2003

Promotion of dialogue between government, donors and civil society (including professional organizations).

Status: On going (very recent).



7.3 Latin America




AL-INVEST1994-ongoing AL-INVEST

Pilot Phase + Phase I +

Phase II : 98.00

1994

Increasing European investments in Latin America, as well as enhancing commerce between both regions.

Al-Invest is a Programme of the European Commission (EC) to support in a systematic and continual way the investments, transfers of technology, joint ventures and long-term trade agreements between companies of the European Union and Latin America.

Works through sectoral meetings, where EU and L.A. companies can agree investments and commercial agreements. Demand-driven. Results: period 1996-2002: an average of more than 45 events per year, with over 35.000 enterprises participating. Average value of trade agreements (615): € 273.000. Average value of investment agreements (68): € 704.000. Return of the activities ("taux de succès") assessed to 7 to 1 (Source: AL INVEST website and Europaid). NB: high concentration of activities in the 5 large Latin American countries. Phase III for an amount of € 46 mill to be launched in 2004.



7.4 MEDA




EGYPT

Industrial Modernisation Programme

2000-2006

IMP 250.00 2000

To promote GDP growth and the competitiveness of the private enterprise sector, with special emphasis on SMEs in the context of liberalisation and internationalisation. Will also foster employment and entrepreneurship.

To assist private enterprises in their development To strengthen business associations, support institutions and services To strengthen the Ministry of Industry To improve the sector policy framework.

Designed to be complementary to three ongoing projects (at the design time): Public Enterprise reform and Privatisation, Banking Sector Support Programme, Social Fund for Development. Would integrate several features of EU- PSDP. Special focus on SMEs (Source: MR 2003) Components: Industrial Modernisation Centre Policy support activities TA on foreign investment, exports, competitiveness, business management, industrial training. 20 Business Resources Centres Institutional development. Programme audit, monitoring and evaluation activities. (Source: F.A + MR 2003.).

Private Sector Development Programme

PSDP I 25.00 1996

To promote economic growth and diversification and the development of a market economy in Egypt through assistance to private business.

To improve the performance of enterprises in local, regional and international markets and thus increase outputs, exports and employment.

Status: End of Phase I in 2001. Followed by Phase II. Components: Business Support programme - Business upgrading - Marketing and export development - Business collaboration - Information - Institutional development programme.






Private Sector Development Programme EGY/B74051/IB/98/0316

PSDP II 20.00 1999

Phase II will pursue toe overall objective of increased growth and competitiveness of the private sector.

To improve the performance of the private local businesses (in particular SMEs) in local, regional and international markets, increasing output, quality, exports and employment. To raise awareness of and to improve business support services by means of support to business support organisations and the local consulting industryTo provide business support operations that will be consistent with the overall aims and objectives of the Egyptian IMP, once it becomes operational.

Components: Business Support programme - Business upgrading - Marketing and Export development - Business collaboration - Information Institutional development programme. The results of both phases were evaluated together in a single report in January 2001 (IPR).

Social Development Fund II Component: Enterprise Development Programme (EDP - SEDO)

SDF II, EDP - SEDO 88.00 1998

To create employment through support for new and existing enterprises by providing a package of TA, training and credit.

To create target-driven financially sustainable credit and services to small enterprises (SMEs) To develop a commercial approach that maximises revenues and minimizes costs To provide service and credit packages that are required by customers To create 20 to 25% of all non-farm jobs required annually in Egypt To maintain the value of capital

Financial and non-financial services. Non-financial services (NFS): awareness of existing services and potential benefits relatively low..(Source: Evaluation of SEDO NFS, 2003). Banks attitude not easy to change. SEDO does not provide enough incentives to and within banks to stimulate SMEs lending or develop their internal capacity to make such loans (Source: Multi Donor Review 2000 p.92). Aimed originally at low income beneficiaries but its targeting has become less focused in recent years, this leading to more potential






with a real positive return To focus all SEDO activities on small (and medium) sized enterprises' customers needs.

entrepreneurs. SEDO opted for the broad target group but retains a de facto subsidized approach (Source: Multi Donor Review 2000 p.95).

Social Development Fund (SFD) II

SFD 155.00 1998

To promote economic growth, reduce unemployment, create jobs and contribute to overall poverty reduction in Egypt.The programme will alleviate constraints facing the micro and small business sector in Egypt and strengthen the productive capacity of Egypt.

To improve and expand sustainable job creation in Egypt through credits to micro and small enterprises in order to increase their output and employment. The Enterprise Development Programme (EDP) seeks to increase employment and income generating opportunities in the small enterprise sector, by encouraging the creation of new business and the expansion of existing productive activities. This is achieved by providing small businesses and potential entrepreneurs with TA, training and know-how and credit.

Components: - Enterprise Development Programme (EDP-SEDO) - 88 mio - Community Development Programme (EDP) - 28 mio - Public Works Programme (CDP) -16 mill - Human Resources Development Programme (HRDP) -8 mill - Institutional Development Programme (IDP) - 7.2 mio.

Competitive Upgrading of SMEs (EIB)

25.00 1998 Competitive Upgrading of SMEs

Risk capital facility provided via the EIB through local banks. (Source NIP 1996-99)

Followed by EIB initiatives to complement IMP: innovative capital initiative; credit line for PSD via Egyptian banks. March 2002: launching of FEMIP (Source: Annual report 2002).



JORDAN

Industrial Modernisation Programme: Euro-Jordanian Action for the Development of Enterprise2001-2005

EJADA 40.00 1999

To enhance the capacity of the private sector, in particular SMEs, to contribute to the growth of GNP per capita as well as to facilitate the insertion of Jordan into Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area.

1. To improve the performance of private industry through the provision of non-financial services for beneficiary enterprises and strengthening SME support institutions 2. To enhance the availability and effectiveness of financial instruments, especially for medium and long-term financing3. To strengthen the capacity of vocational training and other education provider to contribute effectively to the aims of industry modernisation 4. To strengthen the institutional capacity of the MIT and Ministry of Planning and to assist Jordanian institutions to establish a conductive environment, including policy support to ensure smooth implementation of the Association Agreement.

Components: - Direct, non-financial support to SMEs - Financial support schemes for SMEs and start-ups at reasonable rates of interest - Vocational training and human resources development - Policy support and institutional strengthening. A Government Decree was issued in June 2003 (with € 7.7 mio budget) for the creation of a Jordan Enterprise Development Corporation that will implement JUMP, a Jordan Upgrading Modernisation programme that will ensure a follow up to EJADA programme after 2005 (Mid-term evaluation of EJADA, page 67)

Private Sector Development Programme 1996-2001

PSDP 7.00 1997

To increase real income, growth and employment creation through increased competitiveness and productivity of the private sector.

To intervene in an integrated way in favour of PS development in a number of key areas: - to render individual enterprises more efficient and stronger

Activities: - Business Support services: business upgrading; business collaboration and investment promotion; information and data services. - Development of Business Associations:



through acquisition of know-how, training and improved management - to make good quality information on domestic, regional and international markets more widely available - to promote the establishment of effective and durable collaboration, joint-ventures and partnerships with EU firms - to help business associations to act as a service providers to their private members - to help business associations become more effective in their task of improving the environment for the private sector in general and for their members in particular.

support to their development through analysing and articulating their members’ interests and identifying the types of services they require”. (Source: Project Synopsis).

TUNISIA

Euro-Tunisia Enterprise ETE

Phase I: 20.00 Phase II: 20.00

Phase I:1996 Phase II:2000

Support to the economic transition process in Tunisia and in particular the process of economic modernisation, which should enable Tunisia to face the challenges and retrieve, the benefits related to the liberalisation process foreseen in the EU-Tunisia Association

ETE objective is to implement an integrated intervention in favour of the private sector. It aims at increasing the efficiency of enterprises through the acquisition of technical knowledge, the use of performing management and production methods, training and the access to appropriate financial means. The needs in

ETE should have started in 1997 but actually started end 2000. Promotion of inter-sector fairs, which is said to increase the likelihood of partnership (Source: PSDP Operational Evaluation Report, Oct 2002). ETE and IMP are implemented trough intermediate organisations which remain closely related to the Tunisian state (e.g. CEPEX, FAMEX). Private sector organisations are less represented.



Agreement. terms of specific information on internal, regional and international markets are also taken into consideration.

Industrial Modernisation Programme

IMP 50.00 2002

Supports the actions of the GoT aiming at an economic and social sustainable development of the country in the context of the EU-Tunisia EPA. Aims at easing the insertion of the Tunisian economy in the Euro-MED FTA by increasing the general level of Tunisian enterprises productivity and fostering industrial reorientation.

Foresee reforms related to (i) Quality-Metrology-Normalisation with support to the upgrading the Tunisian legal framework related to normalisation (technical norms, conformity and evaluation methods) and to the implementation of the national metrology system (insertion of the national metrology system into the official international instances and its conformity with international standards), (ii) reinforcement of the national system of patent management with strengthening of the national industrial property system and (iii) support to the new system of financial guarantee aimed at improving the access of SMEs to financing.

IMP started in June 2003. (Source: IMP FAs and TAPs)

Annex 8 – Questionnaire



Annex 8 – Questionnaire

In addition to the desk assessment phase documents and material and interviews with key actors in the services, DGs RELEX, DEV, EuropeAid, ENTR and TRADE in Brussels, the evaluation methodology proposed a questionnaire survey addressed to a sample of Delegations. The idea of the questionnaire was to test hypotheses relating to the design and implementation of the Commission’s PSD policy by reference to specific examples. The questionnaire developed by the evaluation team focused on the delegations’ main experiences in relation to: Five types of interventions aiming to support private sector development:

- Interventions to support the regulatory and institutional framework. - Interventions to reinforce the financial system and to improve access to financial

resources. - Interventions to support intermediate organisations. - Interventions to support business-to-business partnership. - Interventions to encourage provision of non-financial services for SMEs.

Five horizontal themes:

- EC deconcentration process. - A multi-country or single-country approach for the support to PSD. - The coherence between the EC strategy to support PSD and other EC policies or

interventions. - Coordination and complementarity. - Cross-cutting issues.

The three last horizontal themes (coherence; coordination and complementarity; and cross-cutting issues) applied to all Delegations. The other two themes and the five types of intervention only applied to the countries that implemented them. In total, twenty-five Delegations of third countries have been chosen to answer the survey. These Delegations are: Bangladesh Indonesia Pakistan Benin Jordan Peru Bolivia Kenya Senegal Bosnia & Herzegovina Madagascar Thailand Burkina Faso Malawi Tunisia Dominican Republic Mauritius Uganda Egypt Mexico Ukraine Georgia Morocco Ghana Niger



The questionnaire was accessible to the selected Delegations on ADE’s web site, thanks to a user ID and password, which was communicated by email to each of them. The software used to present the questionnaire and process the answer was Professional Quest, from the company Dipolar. Two version of the questionnaire were available: one in English and one in French. The responses collected will not be quoted attributably in the final report of the evaluation, but will be used primarily to gauge the perceptions of actors in the field to the existing acquis, guidelines and management arrangements in the sector. The following pages present the word version of the questionnaire.



Introduction

The Evaluation Unit of EuropeAid is currently carrying out an Evaluation of European Community support to Private Sector Development in Third Countries. As stated in the terms of reference, the evaluation should contribute to improved coherence of the EC’s sectoral approach based on the assessment of the EC’s co-operation activities in private sector development (PSD) relative to the various objectives of the different national and regional co-operation and development programmes. It also aims at enhancing coherence between objectives in private sector development support and the Commission’s other policy objectives, notably in favour of SMEs in the EU and in international trade. The main result expected form this study will be an ex-post evaluation of the EC strategy and actions over the period 1994-2003 through assessments of the key issues reflected in a series of 11 evaluation questions. It should provide an assessment of the steps taken by the Commission to improve the relevance and coherence in regard to programming, targeting and setting up the instruments chosen. It should consider possible effects of private sector development on poverty reduction. The final report should contain findings and recommendations expressed clearly enough to be translatable into operational terms by the Commission. The evaluation should indeed serve policy and sectoral decision-making and project management purposes.

The main direct users of this evaluation will include the Board of Commissioners of the RELEX family, as well as those relevant to the RELEX family services: DG DEV, RELEX, Europaid, DG-ENTR and DG-TRADE, and EC Delegations in the countries covered by this exercise.

As described in the Inception Note (click to access it), the evaluation is shaped around a series of 11 evaluation questions. One of the sources used to answer these questions is the present survey, which is sent to a sample of EU-delegations in third countries with which the EU has cooperation agreements. The survey is organised in 10 sections reflecting 5 types of interventions aiming to support private sector development and 5 horizontal themes:

1. Interventions to support the regulatory and institutional framework; 2. Interventions to reinforce the financial system and to improve access to financial

resources; 3. Interventions to support intermediate organisations; 4. Interventions to support business-to-business partnership agreements; 5. Interventions to encourage non-financial services provided to SMEs; 6. EC deconcentration process; 7. A multi-country or single-country approach for the support to PSD; 8. The coherence between the EC strategy to support PSD and other EC policies or

interventions; 9. Coordination and Complementarity; 10. Cross-cutting issues.



The questionnaire provides a brief introduction to each theme. Questions are standardised as much as possible so as to ensure comparability and to reduce the time necessary to complete the questionnaire. Moreover, note that not all sections apply to all Delegations. The evaluation and, therefore, the questionnaire, cover the period 1994-2003. However, if the information available does not cover the whole period, answers covering part of it will also be useful. If you have any question, do not hesitate to contact the consultants from ADE. The team leader of the evaluation is Mrs Ivory Yong, tel. 00 32 10 47 19 15. The contact person for the survey is Mrs Stéphanie Godelaine, Email [email protected], tel. 00 32 10 45 45 10. The contact official in the Evaluation Unit is Mrs Susanne Wille (tel. 00 32 2 295 52 00). The results of the questionnaire will serve to answer the evaluation questions in the final evaluation report. After its approval by the EC services, the final evaluation report will be made available to the public. Please send us back the questionnaire before 18 April 2004.

We thank you for your co-operation



0. Identification

Country: Name of the person who completed the questionnaire: Position of the person who completed the questionnaire: Phone number: Fax number: Email address:



1. Interventions to support the regulatory and institutional framework

The institutional, regulatory and legislative framework determines the conditions in which the private sector operates. The EC has identified the importance of supporting all efforts made by partner countries to create an environment more conductive to the expansion of the private sector. The strategy adopted to evaluate this kind of interventions is to list the interventions implemented in different countries and compare them with each other so as to possibly identify some systematic conditions, contexts or fields of interventions in which the EC PSD support has been particularly effective. If this type of intervention has not been carried out in your country, please go to the next section. 1.1 In the table below, list the main institutional reforms supported by the EC within

the area of private sector development. As far as possible, include interventions since 1994. Please notice that even partial information about these interventions is useful for the purpose of the study. For each intervention, we request general information (ID number, very brief description, date, expected duration, budget) but also: Whether the reform was proposed by the government, by the EC or by other

donor, Whether the purpose of the intervention was reached: fully (if it was

implemented as planned), partially (if some components of the intervention were not implemented), or not at all (if for some reason a planned intervention was not implemented)

Whether you can indicate any possible explicative factor for the degree of implementation of the reform.

Intervention

Name and ID

Brief description of purpose

Start date

Expected duration Budget Proposed

by1 Purpose reached2

Explicative factors

1 Please choose between the following options :

- Government - EC - Other donor

2 Please choose between the following options : - Fully - Partially - Not at all



1.2 Were the reforms supported by the EC part of the policy agenda of the government? Yes No

1.3 In your view, what are the main factors enhancing or hampering the

implementation of EC interventions aiming to improve the institutional, regulatory and legislative framework?



2. Interventions to reinforce the financial system and to improve access to financial resources for SMEs and micro-enterprises

In many developing and transition countries, commercial banks are reluctant to lend to SMEs and micro enterprises. EC interventions aiming at contributing to solve this problem often take the form of: (i) support to a financial system reform and/or (ii) development of specific financing instruments facilitating access to credit for SMEs and micro enterprises. Some interventions aiming specifically at facilitating access to credit for SMEs and micro enterprises use local financial institutions as intermediaries. In such cases, a second objective of the intervention is often to induce a change in the behaviour of these local institutions by getting them used to work with SMEs. If this type of intervention has not been undertaken in your country, please go to the next section. 2.1 Is access to financial resources for SMEs and micro-enterprises in your country a

major difficulty? Yes No

2.2 Has the EC supported programmes to facilitate access to credit for SMEs?

Yes No

2.2.1 If yes and information is available, please briefly specify for these programmes:

Intervention Name and

ID

Brief description of purpose

Start date

Expected duration Budget

Number of

beneficiary SMEs

Total amounts

lent

Repayment rate3

Others (e.g.: jobs

created)

3 Please choose between the following options:

- Less than 50% - 50-85% - More than 85% - NA (programme just started)



2.3 To your knowledge, have there been any remarks or complaints stating that one of the programmes mentioned above created distortions in the financial markets (unfair competition)? Yes No

2.3.1 If yes, please specify.

2.4 According to the programme documents, is it expected that after completion of

the programme the activities will be taken over by local operators? Yes No

2.4.1 If yes and if one or several programmes have already been completed,

please indicate whether local operators have taken over the activities of the programme. Yes No

If yes, please indicate which operators and under which conditions. If not, do you know why?



2.5 In your view, what are the main factors enhancing or hampering the implementation of EC interventions aiming to reinforce the financial system and to improve access to financial resources for SMEs and micro-enterprises?



3. Interventions to support intermediate organisations

Strong intermediate organisations representing the business sector (e.g. professional associations, chamber of commerce, promotion agencies) have an important political role to support a PSD enabling environment. They constitute a key channel through which the point of view of private sector operators can be relayed at the level of institutional decision makers. They can also defend the interest of their members in the international arena, provide useful services to their members and act as an effective channel allowing donors to reach local enterprises. If this type of intervention has not been undertaken in your country, please go to the next section. 3.1 If the EC programme supports intermediate professional organisations, please list

them in the table below and provide any information you may have regarding:

- the nature of the organisation; - the evolution of their membership; - the evolution of the quantity of the services they provide; - the evolution of the number of firms benefiting from the services they provide; - whether they are formally involved by the government in the process leading

to the elaboration or modification of national policies; - whether they have defended the interests of their members vis-à-vis an

international institution or (foreign) professional intermediate organisation.

Identification of Intermediate Organisation

Evolution since EC support started

Organisation name

Nature of the organisation4 Membership

Number of services provided

Number of beneficiary

firms

Dialogue with government5

Dialogue with international

organisations6

4 Please choose between the following options: Chamber of commerce; Sector representation; SMEs representation;

Exporters or trade association; Investment promotion agency; Consultants association; Employers association; Technological innovation group; Other.

5 Please choose between the following options: - Never been consulted, - Systematically consulted, - Occasionally consulted, - Regularly consulted.

6 Please choose between the following options: - Yes, with trade-related international organisation, - Yes, with sectoral international organisation, - Yes, with private professional intermediate or professional organisation, - No.



3.1.1 Do you consider that factors other than the support from the EC have influenced the evolution of the capacity of intermediate organisations to provide services to their members or to conduct policy dialogue? Yes No

If yes, please specify these factors

3.1.2 For those intermediate organisations that have never been involved in

policy dialogue with the government, what are the reasons for this absence of involvement?

3.1.3 For the organisations that have been involved in policy dialogue with the

government, has there been, generally speaking, an increase in involvement over the last years? Yes No

3.1.4 Do you consider that the point of view of business sector organisations

expressed in these consultations has been taken into account in the elaboration of the policy/reform? Yes No



3.2 Have these intermediate organisations been created with the support of the EC or did they exist before the start of the programme?

3.3 Do they have other means of financing their activities? 3.4 In your view, what are the main factors enhancing or hampering the

implementation of EC interventions aiming to enhance the capacity of organisations representing the business sector?



4. Interventions to support business-to-business partnership

Business-to-business partnerships aim at improving local enterprises access to investments, technology transfers, management support, export facilities to European markets and at easing European enterprises’ access to local inputs or outputs markets. The EC finances and organises meetings aiming at facilitating direct contacts between enterprises. If this type of intervention has not been supported in your country, please go to the next section. 4.1 If the EC programme has organised partner-seeking meetings, please list them in

the table below. Also provide any other information you may have regarding the date in which the meetings took place, the number of participants and the results obtained.

Event name Date Number of

participants

Number of letters of

intent signed within one

year

Number of agreements

signed within one year

Nature of follow-up7

Date of follow-up8

4.2 Please, describe the benefits that partners most often say they have drawn from

their partnership agreements

7 Please choose between the following options:

- Questionnaire - Interviews - Other

8 Please choose between the following options: - After one year - After six months - After three months



4.3 In your view, what are the main factors enhancing or hampering the implementation of EC interventions aiming to encourage business-to-business partnership agreements?



5. Interventions aiming to encourage non-financial services provided to SMEs

In many third countries, there is a need for non-financial services for SMEs while at the same time the supply of such services is very limited. A number of EC interventions attempt to address this problem. In the past, these interventions have often taken the form of a direct delivery of services. In such cases, the intervention could address the demand from SMEs for non-financial services but it did not allow the supply of services to develop. A recent evolution has led to a more indirect approach in which the EC does no longer provide the services directly to the SMEs but rather supports the development of a local private capacity to supply these services. The existence of business centres is crucial to support this development. If this type of intervention has not been supported in your country, please go to the next section. 5.1 If the EC programme supports the provision of non-financial services to SMEs,

what is the nature of these services? Organisational and managerial support General business development support Marketing assistance Technology development and transfer Assistance in preparing business plans Support for sectoral economic studies Training of business people Other

5.1.1 If other, please specify.

5.2 Most often, who provides these non-financial services to SMEs?

Foreign expertise Local expertise Both



5.3 How is the rate of use of services provided (directly or indirectly) by the EC

compared to expectations? Above Below In line

5.4 What has been the evolution of the local supply of non-financial services for SMEs

since 1994? Increased Remained constant Decreased

5.5 Do you consider that in your country there has been a shift from a direct provision

of services to an approach based on the encouragement of the local supply of services? Yes No

5.6.1 If yes, how do you compare both approaches in terms of the results

achieved?

5.6.2 How do you compare both approaches in terms of the efficiency of the

intervention (decision delays, implementation procedures, cost, etc.)?



5.6 In your view, what are the main factors enhancing or hampering the implementation of EC interventions aiming to improve the provision of non-financial services for SMEs?

5.7 According to the project documents, what provisions ensure that the non-financial

services provided with the support of the EC will continue to be provided after completion of the project or programme?



6. EC deconcentration process

The deconcentration process has shifted a number of responsibilities from Headquarters to the Delegations. The objective of this group of questions is to know the effect that this process has had on the design and implementation of the interventions aiming to support the development of the private sector. If your Delegation has not been deconcentrated, please go to the next section. 6.1 Has the deconcentration led to a better identification of needs?

Yes No No effect

Please explain

6.2 Has the deconcentration made it possible to speed up the decision making process

during the identification and implementation stages of the interventions? Yes No, it remained of comparable duration No, it has become longer

Please explain

6.3 As a result of the deconcentration, how are the costs of the intervention compared

to costs of interventions of a similar dimension before the deconcentration? Higher Comparable Lower



Please explain

6.4 As a consequence of the deconcentration, the workload -related to implementation

procedures- of project managers at the Delegation: Has increased Is comparable to the situation before Has reduced

Please explain

6.5 Overall, do you consider that the deconcentration has made the EC interventions

more efficient for supporting PSD? Yes No

Please explain



7. A multi-country or single-country approach for the support to private sector development

In some regions, preference has been given to provide the support to the development of the private sector at a multi-country level instead of country level. The choice of the level at which support is given may have effects on the design and implementation of EC interventions to support the development of the private sector. 7.1 Has there been an evolution towards a multi-country approach for the

implementation of EC interventions in your country: Yes No

7.1.1 If no, do you think such approach is desirable in your region? Yes No

Please explain and then go directly to the next section

7.2 Has the evolution towards a multi-country approach led to a better identification

of needs? Yes No

7.2.1 Please explain



7.3 Has the evolution towards a multi-country approach made it possible to speed up the decision making process during the identification and implementation stages of the interventions? Yes No, it remained of comparable duration No, it has become slower


7.4 As a result of the evolution towards a multi-country approach, how are the costs

of interventions compared to costs of similar interventions at national level Higher Comparable Lower


7.5 As a consequence of the evolution towards a multi-country approach, the

workload -related to implementation procedures- of project managers at the Delegation: Has increased Is comparable to the situation before Has reduced



7.5.1 Please explain 7.6 Overall, do you consider that the evolution towards a multi-country approach has

made the EC intervention more efficient? Yes No




8. The coherence between the EC strategy to support PSD and other EC policies or interventions

Among the conditions needed to attain the results expected from interventions supporting the development of the private sector, there is the need for coherence between these PSD interventions and other EU policies and interventions. Indeed, EC contribution to PSD can been either supported or hampered by other EU policies such as the CAP, trade, industrial and competitiveness policies; by regulations such as environmental, social and intellectual property rights regulations; by programmes such as the Trade Related Assistance; or by EC programmes aiming at facilitating regional integration. On the other hand, the EC is investing many resources to support the development of the private sector in other third countries of the same region, in other regions and within Europe. Sharing experience between the teams working in very different contexts can be difficult but fruitful. Inter DG working groups have been set up to that end. 8.1 In your view, is the achievement of the objectives of any of the EC project or

programmes to support the development of the private sector enhanced or hampered by any other EC project, programme or policy? Yes No

8.1.1 If yes, please specify

8.2 To your knowledge, have there been any remarks or complaints concerning EU

policies, regulations or programmes expressed by the beneficiaries, the Government or the operators of PSD programmes? Yes No



8.2.1 If yes, please specify 8.3 Do you have any contact with fellow officers in charge of PSD from Delegations

in other countries in order to share experiences? Yes, from Delegations in the same region Yes, from Delegations in other regions No

8.3.1 Please describe what kind of contacts you have.

8.4 Do you have any contact or coordination activities with fellow officers in charge of

regional or multi-country PSD programmes such as Pro-Invest, AL-Invest, Asia-Invest, CDE or other PSD-related multi-country programmes of which your country can benefit? Yes, with the management unit(s) in the region Yes, with the officer in charge in Brussels No

8.4.1 Please describe what kind of contacts or coordination activities you have

had with these regional programmes (visits, seminars, reports or others; frequency, regularity; involving or not the authorities; etc)



8.5 Are you aware of the experience of the EC on private sector support within

Europe? Yes No



9. Coordination and Complementarity

Other donors, including Member States, may also support the development of the private sector in the country. The coordination between the different donors is important to avoid the duplication of efforts, the waste of public monies and contradictory approaches. It also helps to better achieve the objectives of the programmes. Interventions such as institutional reform, macro-economic policy advice or the support to key sectors of the local economy are particularly sensitive to contradictory approaches between donors. The objective of this group of questions is to know about the possible mechanism of coordination between the different donors supporting the development of the private sector in your country. 9.1 Is there a multi-donor coordination group on Private Sector Development Support

in your country? If not, please go to Question 9.2. Yes No

9.1.1 If yes, since when?

9.1.2 How often are the meetings organised? Annually Twice a year Quarterly Occasionally (at demand)

9.1.2 Who participates to the coordination group?

9.1.3 Who leads the coordination group?



9.1.4 What kinds of issues are discussed during these meetings?

9.1.6 Is there an attempt to distribute tasks between different donors? Yes No

If yes, please specify

9.1.7 In your opinion, is there rather convergence or divergence of views

between the EC approach to PSD support and other donors’ programmes and policies?

9.2 Is there any multi-donor programme to support PSD?



9.3 In your view, is the achievement of the objectives of any of the EC projects or

programmes to support the development of the private sector enhanced or hampered by any other project, programme or policy of a Member State? Yes, by an intervention of a Member State Yes, by an intervention of a non-Member State No

9.3.1 If yes, please specify

9.4 Please feel free to comment on donor coordination



10. Cross-cutting issues

Cross cutting issues, such as gender issues, the environment and good governance, are identified by the EC as policy priorities that should be reflected in all EC interventions. Our evaluation does not attempt to assess the actual contribution made by PSD interventions to the progress made on these issues. The objective of this group of questions is to know to what extent these issues are currently integrated in PSD interventions. 10.1 In the table below, please indicate how cross-cutting issues have been taken into

account by the EC PSD programmes implemented in your country

How have cross-cutting issues been taken into account? Gender issues Environment Good

governanceNot taken into account At identification stage At implementation stage As eligibility criteria for projects or beneficiaries By developing specific monitoring indicators By encouraging private sector initiatives for good practices

By providing guidance to public authorities on how to deal with cross-cutting issues

Through the inclusion of an impact assessment At evaluation stage Others

i. If others, please specify:

10.2 In your opinion are there cross-cutting issues that should be taken into account in

the design and implementation of PSD interventions but are not addressed so far by EC programmes: Yes No



10.2.1 If yes please mention which ones and explain why 10.3 Please feel free to comment on the integration of cross-cutting issues in EC

interventions to support the development of the private sector

We thank you for your time

Annex 9 – PSD Questionnaire analysis


Final report – 14 May 2004 Annex 9/ page 1

Annex 9 – PSD Questionnaire analysis

9.1 Introduction

As stated in the evaluation’s methodology, the evaluation team conducted a questionnaire survey among third countries Delegations to complete its desk analysis and to test hypotheses relating to the design and implementation of the Commission’s PSD policy by reference to specific examples. In order to collect a significant number of answers without overloading too many Delegations, the evaluators and the Commission decided to ask to 25 Delegations to participate to the survey. The evaluators have chosen these Delegations according to their previous document analysis and to the relative importance that the country strategy gives to Private Sector Development, through its overall PSD programme or through one particular project. The 25 Delegations that were chosen are:

Bangladesh Indonesia Pakistan Benin Jordan Peru Bolivia Kenya Senegal Bosnia Herzegovina Madagascar Thailand Burkina Faso Malawi Tunisia Dominican Republic Mauritius Uganda Egypt Mexico Ukraine Georgia Morocco Ghana Niger

The chart that follows presents the distribution by programme of the 25 selected Delegations.

Chart 9.1 – Selected Delegations –distribution by programme

ACP44%

Asia16%

MEDA16%

Latin America12%

TACIS8%

CARDS4%



The first deadline proposed to the Delegations to answer to the questionnaire was fixed on the 18th April 2004. By this date, 11 answers had been received. Five other countries had partially answered to the questionnaire and had saved their form in “draft version”. Nine countries had not answered at all. In order to give more time to the Delegations to complete the questionnaire and to collect a larger number of definitive answers, it was decided to extend the period of time given to participate to the survey. The second deadline was fixed to the 7th May, and a reminder was sent to the Delegation that had whether not answered yet, or answered in draft version only. By the end of this second deadline, 16 definitive answers were obtained, including 2 partial answers, but that had been confirmed by their author as being correct and exploitable for the analysis (Egypt and Kenya). With 16 completed questionnaires out of 25, the final answer rate amounts to 64%. The countries that have accepted to participate are1:

Bangladesh Ghana Peru Benin Kenya (partial) Senegal2 Bolivia Madagascar Thailand Bosnia Herzegovina Mauritius Tunisia. Dominican Republic Mexico Egypt (partial) Pakistan

The distribution by programme of the countries that have answered, and on which this analysis will be based, is the following:

Chart 9.2 – Countries that have answered to the survey Distribution by programme

1 Malawi had also begun to answer to the questionnaire in « draft version », but the Delegation has unfortunately not

confirmed that the information encoded was correct and could be used by the evaluators for the survey analysis. Its answer has thus not been taken into account in this analysis.

2 The EC Delegation in Senegal specifies that it does not manages projects specifically “Private sector” related, but has however accepted to participate to the survey.

ACP43%

Asia19%

Latin Americ a19%

MED A13%

C ARD S6%

TACIS0%



This distribution by programme is similar to the distribution of the selected Delegations to which the survey was sent. However, one difference to notice is that no TACIS country has participated to the survey. The following descriptive analysis follows the structure of the questionnaire: Interventions to support the regulatory and institutional framework; Interventions to reinforce the financial system and to improve access to financial

resources; Interventions to support intermediate organisations; Interventions to support business-to-business partnership; Interventions to encourage provision of non-financial services for SMEs. EC deconcentration process; A multi-country or single-country approach for the support to PSD; The coherence between the EC strategy to support PSD and other EU policies or

programmes; Coordination and complementarity; Cross-cutting issues.

9.2 Interventions to support the regulatory and institutional framework

In eight countries, the EC has implemented during the past 10 years one or several interventions to support the regulatory and institutional framework. In total, 23 projects are presented. For 17 projects a budget is given, which total amounts to 601,005,417 €. The majority of the projects presented are rather recent (after year 2000), but some of them (3) have already begun nearly ten years ago. The expected duration of the projects are very different, going from one to eight years, but the majority varying between 2 and 5 years. In most cases, the government proposes the intervention. Moreover, 75% of the eight Delegations assert that the institutional reforms supported by the EC were part of the policy agenda of the government. In other cases, the intervention is proposed by the EC or possibly by another donor.

Table 9.1 – Who proposed the institutional reform project?

Government 53% EC 31% Other donor 16%

As far as the project results are concerned, the initial purpose is at least partially reached in most cases. One intervention only has not reached its objective at all, because there has not been any continuity in the project3. The chart below presents the success rate of these institutional reforms. 3 One other intervention is mentioned as being not successful at all, but it is only because the project has not yet

started.



Chart 9.3 – Was the purpose of the instutitional reform reached ?

The main reason of a partial reach of the objectives is the fact that the project is still on going, which is a totally legitimate justification. Other explicative factors are the length of the negotiations and implementation of a new structure, political resistance, unrealistic goals, or environment obstacles (inadequate conditions for privatization, business environment not conductive). On the other side, factors of success mentioned are the strong demand for services, the strong involvement of the beneficiaries or the good correspondence between the needs of the target group and the actions implemented. Finally, most of the Delegations report that some obstacles have hampered the implementation of these EC interventions. Among these difficulties, we can mention: The complexity of the competitiveness factors; The lack of capacity to implement a too ambitious planning; The lack of consultation with the stakeholders and include their views in the policy

formulation, lack of dialogue with the local partners; The weakness of the Government authorities: lack of initiatives, weak capacity to

create a business-enabling environment, administration not prepared to implement the changes.

One country specifies that a consequence of these obstacles is the underdevelopment of the formal private sector, most of the business activities remaining in the informal sector.

9.3 Interventions to reinforce the financial system

For all 16 Delegations, access to financial resources for SMEs and micro enterprises is a major constraint to private sector development. Facing this situation, the EC has supported programmes to facilitate the access to credit for SMEs in 14 of these countries. In total, 28 projects are presented, including 6 EIB interventions. The number of projects per country varies from 1 to 3. It seems that the EC has been conscious of the problem for some time already, because many projects have started before 2000.

fu lly2 4 %

p a r tia lly6 4 %

n o t a t a ll1 2 %



The duration of the projects is often rather long: most of the interventions lasted form 4 to 8 years; two interventions have a period of action of more than 10 years.

Chart 9.4 - Number of beneficiary SMEs of the credit programmes

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

0 20.000.000 40.000.000 60.000.000 80.000.000 100.000.000 120.000.000

Budget

Num

ber o

f SM

Es

The number of beneficiary SMEs is reported for only 43% of the projects. This number is very different from one intervention to another and it is difficult to say if it is directly related to the budget of the project (See Chart 9-4). The budget is mentioned in the questionnaire for only 18 interventions. The total rises to 656,300,000 €. The repayment rate is given for very few projects, but in every case it is very high (more than 85%). Only one country mentions complaints about the creation of unfair competition: “Some donors have criticized [the programme] as market-distorting. However, it is doubtful that banks would otherwise lend to the target clientele (e.g. small traders)”. Twelve countries say that the activities will be taken over by local operators after the completion of the programmes, but this expectation has been put into practice in only 5 of them until now. Among the factors hampering the implementation of the credit interventions, we can highlight: The absence of uniform regulations applicable to MFIs, unclear legislative

environment, institutional weakness; The lack of infrastructure at peri-urban and rural areas and of skilled staff; The lack of entrepreneurial skills of the borrowers; The position of the financial sector: lending to small companies is often perceived

as high risk by the banks. The banks requirements are thus high and not “poor friendly”, the cost of credit and rate of interest are high;

The rigidity of the financial system (no competition); The lack of communication and information.



9.4 Interventions to support intermediate organisations

The EC supports intermediate professional organizations in ten countries out of 16. In total, 28 organizations are mentioned. According to the answers given, their number of beneficiary firms varies from 20 to 700. The nature of the organizations is diversified, as shown in the graph 9.5 below. In almost all countries, the intermediate organizations already existed before the start of the EC programmes. Two Delegations specify however that EC support has played an important role in the development of these existing organizations or in the establishment of new intermediaries in the country.

Chart 9.5 – Nature of EC supported intermediate organisation

As far as the political dialogue with the government is concerned, each of these intermediaries is occasionally (32%), regularly (32%) or systematically consulted (36%), but never “not consulted”. Moreover, 75% of the Delegations notice that there has been an increase in their involvement over the years, and feel that the point of view of the business sector organizations has been taken into account in the elaboration of the policy. The dialogue with an international organization is also very frequent. In most case, it is with a sectoral international organization (38%), but some intermediaries have also contacts with a private professional intermediate or professional organization (23%), a trade-related international organization (19%) or another intermediate organization (15%). 69% of the Delegations consider that factors other than the support from the EC have influenced the evolution of the capacity of intermediate organizations to provide services to their members or to conduct policy dialogue. The main factors cited by the Delegations are: The ability of the intermediate organizations to respond to the needs of their

members;

Sector representation

14%

Other14%Chamber of

commerce22%

Investment promotion agency

11%

Employers association

18%

Exporters or trade

association7%

Technological innovation

group7%

SMEs representation

7%



Their capacity to generate a self sustaining service, and thus to ensure their financial sustainability;

The involvement of the government and the amount of government resources injected in the development of these institutions, the public-private dialogue;

Institutional changes, like the recent liberalization of the economy; Other donors’ programmes.

Intermediate organizations have always other means of financing their activities than EC funding. These other sources of financing are: Membership subscriptions; Government subsidies; Other donors funding; Income from investments.

Finally, the main factors enhancing the implementation of EC interventions are, according to the Delegations, the availability of financial instruments (such as CDE, EIB, PROINVEST) and the importance of the EC financial assistance, and the access to competences that do not exist in the country. One country quotes as well the high level of political support. On the other hand, factors hampering EC activities are: The institutional weakness, lack of government awareness and involvement; The internal weakness of these intermediate organizations, their lack of capacity to

approach and market themselves in Europe; The existence of other organizations with similar objectives, resulting in

overlapping, and the absence of rationalisation of these structures; The strict control of the government on the development of independent

organisations.

9.5 Interventions to support business-to-business partnership

In half of the countries analyzed, one of several partner-seeking meetings have been organized within an EC programme. Little information is given on these events. However, it seems that they are in general relatively recent (after 2000) and that they were very different in terms of size. Indeed, each meeting has attracted from 25 to 5,000 participants; significant differences are also observed within a same country. Almost no indication on the number of agreements reached is mentioned in the replies to the questionnaire. The information is given for 3 meeting only, and the numbers put forward go from 1 to 176 agreements. Not enough information is available to say if there is a link between the number of participants and the number of commercial agreements reached. The same difficulty appears for the nature and the date of the follow-up of these events: almost no information is available. The only thing that can be pointed out is the experience



of Mexico, which has realized the follow-up of each of its 5 partnership meetings through a questionnaire, after a period of six months or one year. According to the Delegations, partners draw different kind of benefit from these meetings: Exchange of views, networking; Partner search, sectoral meetings, business contacts; Exposure to other markets, possibility to establish alliances with European

companies, access to the European market; Technology transfer, learning of new strategies.

Factors of success of these partnership meetings are the effectiveness of local antennas, the quality of the events organized and the adequate targeting of the companies invited. Among the difficulties encountered, the economic crisis which forces the SMEs to focus on the short term, relegating their efforts for their medium and long-term strategies, or the lack of interest of European business, are cited by the Delegations.

9.6 Interventions aiming to encourage non-financial services provided to SMEs

In twelve countries out of 16, the EC programme supports the provision of non-financial services to SMEs. The EC often supports several types of services in each country. In total, the nature of these services is very diversified, as shown in chart 9.6 below. No specific service is more offered than the others. The support for sectoral economic studies is the only type of service that seem to be a little less supported by the EC.

Chart 9.6 – Nature of non-financial services to SMEs

General business development

support13%

Marketing assistance

13%

Training of business people14%

Other13%

Support for sectoral economic studies

7% Assistance in preparing business

plans14%

Technology development and

transfer13%

Organisational and managerial support

13%



Among the other type of non-financial services supported, we find quality and accreditation services, human resource management services, technical assistance, provision of infrastructure and equipment, market studies and other specific services (like export related services). Most often, both local and foreign expertise provide these non-financial services to SMEs. For 50% of the Delegations, the rate of use of services is in line compared to expectations, 25% of them feel that it is above expectations and for the last 25%, the use of services is unfortunately below expectations. In all countries, the local supply of non-financial services has had a positive evolution since 1994 since it has increased in 92% of the countries and remained constant in 8% of them. No decrease of the supply has been observed in any of the 12 countries. Other positive trend: 75% of the Delegations consider that there has been a shift from a direct provision of services to an approach based on the encouragement of the local supply of services in their country. For them, local supply of services presents a panel of advantages: it is more economical than an EC funded supply, delays might be shorter and procedures are shorter and less complicated. Moreover, private services establish a long-term relationship between the enterprise and the consultant, which EC support does not allow. On the other hand, the quality of local supply may not be of same level. Some countries propose an encouragement of the demand driven approach from the enterprises, and a partially subsidised system for promoting the flow of non-financial services. Unfortunately, few provisions ensure that the non-financial services provided with the support of the EC will continue to be provided after completion of the project or programme. Among the 6 Delegations that have answered to the question, 50% propose a solution like the transfer to a private organization, the strengthening of specific institutions or the Government financial support. The other 50% admit that nothing or very few in the project documents has been decided to ensure the continuity of the services.

9.7 EC deconcentration process

The deconcentration process has shifted a number of responsibilities from the Headquarters to the Delegations. The questionnaire investigated what effects this process had on the design and implementation of interventions in favour of the private sector development and highlighted in this respect four themes: the identification of needs, the decision process, the costs of the intervention, the workload of project managers at the Delegation and the efficiency of interventions. 12 of the 16 Delegations that completed the questionnaire have responded to the section on the deconcentration process (two of which have not responded to all questions). Two thirds of the respondents consider that the deconcentration led to a better identification of needs. The main reason invoked is the fact that being on the ground permits a better contact and close interaction with private sector actors (potential partners, beneficiaries, stakeholders, etc.) and, accordingly, a better understanding of the situation.



The task managers are also more involved with the content of the projects and tend to have a more proactive approach. In turn, as mentioned by one Delegation, national authorities better recognize the role of the Delegation. From a more procedural point of view, one Delegation also indicated that the deconcentration allowed for a more important involvement of the Delegation in the elaboration of the Country Strategy Paper and thus of the identification of needs. One third stated that the Delegation was already strongly involved in the identification process before and accordingly considered that the deconcentration did not lead to a better identification of needs. Delegations are nearly unanimous in saying that the deconcentration made it possible to speed up the decision making process during the identification and implementation stages of the interventions. The explanation in most cases is rather obvious: as it is precisely the decision process that has been deconcentrated and as there is thus no (or less) need to consult the headquarters, time consuming interactions between the headquarters and the Delegation have been significantly reduced. In addition, the above-mentioned closer interaction with private sector actors and a better understanding of the situation in the country also contributed to speeding up the decision process. It was however stated by one Delegation that the fact that decisions with respect to the commitments are still of the competence of the headquarters, may create delays in the analysis of new application files. Further, one Delegation considered that the duration remained comparable due to legislative barriers that were rather specific to the country in question. One Delegation considered that it was too early to give an opinion on this, although it expected a speeding up of the process. In terms of the evolution of the costs of the interventions before and after the concentration, the opinions are more scattered, as appears from the pie below.

Chart 9.7 – Level of intervention costs before and after the deconcentration

Most Delegations that have answered to the questionnaire state that the costs are comparable. However few explanations are given in this respect. One Delegation states that external expertise is still required; others simply state that they do not observe any evolution. Those that consider costs to be lower invoke the closer interaction with

Higher8%

Comparable33%

Lower25%

Not known17%

No answer17%



partners, the reduction in time of reporting and monitoring and a greater efficiency in general. Some Delegations indicated that they had no means to compare. No clear explanations are available for the Delegation that considered costs to be higher. Except in one case, Delegations are unanimous to say that as a consequence of the deconcentration, the workload (related to implementation procedures) of project managers at the Delegation has increased. The main reason is that the Delegation participates much more in all the phases of the project cycle (including identification and project formulation) and has to carry out the tasks related to this increase of responsibilities, such as managing the calls for proposals, negotiate contracts, monitoring and project implementation, reporting, etc. Some of them however indicate that more resources are available to carry out the additional tasks. One Delegation stated that there was no increase in the workload, precisely because the additional tasks had been compensated by the allocation of additional resources. All the Delegations (11) that responded to this question consider that the deconcentration has made the EC interventions for supporting PSD more efficient. This improvement in terms of efficiency is related to the issues discussed above. The better identification of needs and the closer coordination with PSD actors are indeed evoked as factors that promote efficiency, as well as the reduction of delays in the decision making process, also closely related to the previous. One Delegation underlines however the fact that the lack of deconcentration of financing instruments is one of the factors that hampers efficiency.

On the basis of the responses to the questionnaire, the main effects of the deconcentration may be summarized as follows:

A better identification of needs (except in those countries where the Delegation was already closely involved in the identification process) due to a closer interaction with the private sector actors and a better understanding of the situation of the country;

A speeding up of the decision making process: less time consuming interaction with the headquarters and a more smooth interaction with local actors;

Intervention costs that are mostly comparable or even lower; A heavier workload due to the more important involvement of the Delegation in

all the phases of the project cycle; A greater efficiency due to a better identification of needs and a reduction of

delays, without resulting in higher costs.

9.8 A multi-country or single-country approach for the support to private sector development

In some regions, preference has been given to providing support for the development of the private sector at a multi-country level instead of at country level. This might have effects on the design and implementation of the EC interventions to support the development of the private sector.



On the 12 Delegations that responded to this theme, only 2 have been confronted with an evolution towards a multi-country approach for the implementation of EC interventions, one delegation considers it is too early to decide this, and another one does not respond. With respect to the issue of speeding up the decision making process during the identification and implementation stages of the intervention, one of the respondents for which the multi-country approach took place states that in his view the centralized approach is faster and more efficient in managing the decision making than multiple national programmes where too many instances are involved. In terms of workload one of these two Delegations states that the centralized management leads to a reduction of the administrative work, while the second one thinks that the workload is still comparable to the situation before, while nevertheless expecting an increase when parts of the multi-country programs will become deconcentrated. Not much information is provided by these two respondents neither in terms of cost of the multi-country approach (one of them just stated that expertise costs do not depend of the multi-country approach), nor in terms of efficiency of the approach (one respondent suggests that a more efficient formula could be the combination of the multi-country and deconcentrated bilateral approach). The question to know whether the Delegations think the evolution towards the multi-country approach is desirable in their region has only be posed to those Delegations that have not (yet) been confronted with such an evolution. 50% (5 Delegations) of those respondents are in favour of such an evolution and 50% do not think that such an approach would be desirable in their region. Those that are favourable to the multi-country approach state that there is a need for more regional coherence and underline the benefits of existing regional programmes to valorise the potentialities of a specific region and to promote regional integration. On the other hand the Delegations that are not favourable underline the differences in institutions, regulatory framework, economic development, political situation, etc. of countries of a same region. In their view, in multi-country programmes, instruments are not enough adapted to the specific needs and the development stage of a specific country. In one case difficult political relations between two countries of a same region are invoked and in another case the multi-country approach is described as being too slow and bureaucratic.

Only a minority of Delegations (2 on 12 respondents) has been confronted with the multi-country approach. Given this limited number of cases it is difficult to draw conclusions in terms of speed of the decision making process, increase of workload, especially since the opinions expressed do not really converge The remaining Delegations are divided when it comes to decide whether or not they think the introduction of the multi-country approach in their country is desirable or not:

50% are in favour, as they think that more should be done to valorise the potential of the region to which they belong and to promote a stronger regional integration;

50% are not favourable, mainly because in their view a multi-country approach cannot take into account sufficiently the specificities of each country and target the support accordingly.



9.9 The coherence between the EC strategy to support PSD and other policies or interventions

The coherence between the EC strategy to support PSD and other policies is a difficult issue to assess only on a questionnaire basis. More direct dialogue and interviews with the Delegations are desirable to ensure a good comprehension of the matter and an adequate assessment of the issue. This section presents the first elements that can be drawn from the survey, and it is proposed that a more detailed analysis of this issue will be done on the second phase of the PSD evaluation during the field missions. Among the twelve Delegations that have answered to the coherence questions, 40% think that the achievement of the objectives of EC projects to support the development of the private sector is enhanced or hampered by other EC project, programme or policy. Moreover, 27% specify that there been complaints concerning EU policies, regulations or programmes expressed by the beneficiaries, the Government or the operators of PSD programmes. The difficulties reported are: The Common Agricultural Policy; the new regulation on Official Feed and Food

Controls (COM/2003/0052) will be an obstacle for agricultural exports to Europe. The European trade restrictions, that are perceived to be hampering the export of

some processed agro-based products into Europe. The too numerous programmes at ALL-ACP, regional and national levels, which

seem to do the same thing. In general, the Delegations have developed contacts with other Delegations and headquarters in Brussels. 67% of the Delegations have contacts with fellow officers in charge of PSD from other Delegations in the same region but none of them have contacts with Delegations situated in other regions. Besides, 67% have developed contact or coordination activities with fellow officers in charge of regional or multi-country PSD programmes such as Pro-Invest, AL-Invest, Asia-Invest, CDE or other PSD-related multi-country programmes of which their country can benefit: 42% with the officer in charge in Brussels and 25% with the management unit in their region. 33% do not have any contacts with other Delegations. Finally, only 25% of the Delegations are aware of the experience of the EC on private sector support within Europe.

9.10 Coordination and complementarity

As for the coherence issue, the coordination and complementarity question is a difficult issue to assess only on a questionnaire basis. More direct dialogue and interviews with the Delegations are desirable to ensure a good comprehension of the matter and an adequate assessment of the issue. This section presents the first elements that can be drawn from the survey, and it is proposed that a more detailed analysis of this issue will be done on the second phase of the PSD evaluation during the field missions.



Among the 14 Delegations that have answered to the coordination questions, 57% only report that there is a multi-donor coordination group on Private Sector Development Support in their country, which is in addition very recent (after 1998 except for one country). The coordination meetings are organized quarterly or occasionally (at demand). Among the participants to the coordination group, we generally find the main donors of the country involved in the sector, the Ministry of Private Sector and other representatives of the government. In two countries the EC leads the coordination group. In general, there is an attempt to distribute tasks between the different donors. Very various issues are discussed during the meetings. The main subjects of the agendas are: Information sharing on policy and PSD strategy, presentation of the different

donors programmes; New interventions aimed to improve coordination and coherence between

partners; Needs, obstacles, discussions on how to overcome political obstacles; Business environment, recent political/economic developments affecting the

private sector; Search for funding; Ensure that multilateral and bilateral support is deployed as efficiently and

effectively as possible. Most of the Delegations that have given their opinion think that there is rather convergence of views between the EC approach to PSD support and other donors' programmes and policies. However, in 69% of the countries there is no specific multi-donor programme to support PSD, Among these ones, three countries mention though that an effort is being made to establish such a programme. Finally, 92% of the Delegations feel that the achievement of the objectives of the EC projects to support the development of the private sector has not been hampered by any other project, programme or policy of a Member State. Only one country mentions an intervention of a Member State as creating an obstacle for one of its EC funded PSD projects.

9.11 Cross-cutting issues

Cross-cutting issues, such as gender issues, the environment and good governance, are identified by the EC as policy priorities that should be reflected in all EC interventions. Rather than attempting to assess the actual contribution made by PSD interventions to the progress made on these issues, the questionnaire aimed at finding out to what extent these issues are currently integrated in PSD interventions. 11 of the 16 Delegations that responded to the questionnaire answered to the questions related to the cross-cutting issues. For the 5 Delegations that did not respond to this theme, it is not clear whether or not cross-cutting issues were integrated in the PSD interventions. The table below summarizes – for the Delegations that responded to this



question – which cross-cutting issues were taken into account at what stage of the project cycle, and how the cross-cutting issues were integrated. The figures indicate the number of Delegations having ticked a particular box. Overall the table shows that, at least at the identification and implementation stage, each cross-cutting issue has been mentioned by around 50% of the responding Delegations. In terms of the evaluation stage (last row) this is only the case for a minority, that becomes even smaller when it comes to taking cross-cutting issues taken into account as eligibility criteria – although this could function as a strong incentive – or through the inclusion of an impact assessment. The same is true for developing specific monitoring indicators and providing guidance to public authorities. More has been done in terms of encouraging private sector initiatives for good practices. Overall, gender issues seem to have been taken slightly more into account than environment and good governance issues.

How have cross-cutting issues been taken into account?

Gender issues

Environment

Good governance

At identification stage 5 6 5 At implementation stage 5 5 6 As eligibility criteria for projects or beneficiaries 3 1 2 By developing specific monitoring indicators 2 1 2 By encouraging private sector initiatives for good practices 5 4 3

By providing guidance to public authorities on how to deal with cross-cutting issues 1 3 1

Through the inclusion of an impact assessment 1 2 0 At evaluation stage 4 3 3 A closer look at the answers shows that 10 of the 11 Delegations that responded have at one moment or another integrated at least two cross-cutting issues. Most of them have had a rather constant approach to the issues, integrating them at several stages of the project cycle and using them in different manners. Only 5 Delegations responded to the question asking whether they thought that EC programmes did not address certain cross-cutting issues that should be taken into account in the design and implementation of PSD interventions so far. Three Delegations considered that this was not necessary. One Delegation stated that education and human resources development needed to be better in line with PSD. The fifth one stated that more needed to be done in terms of gender, notably in terms of support to the work of women, support to organizations representing women and support to female entrepreneurs. Finally, an issue that was raised by one Delegation was the difference of perception of gender issues in Europe and in some of the beneficiary countries and the need to establish in this respect a framework that is acceptable by both parties.



In 10 of the 11 countries that responded to the questions on this theme, cross-cutting issues (at least two) have been taken into account at one stage or another of the project cycle. Cross-cutting issues have been integrated mostly at the identification and implementation stage. They have also been taken into account by encouraging private sector initiatives for good practices. Some suggestions have been made for improvement, such as incorporating education as a cross-cutting issue or giving more attention to ‘cultural differences’ when dealing with gender issues

Annex 10 – Legal bases for cooperation



Annex 10 – Legal bases for cooperation

EC documents providing legal basis for cooperation with third countries and regions during the period under evaluation.

ACP programme

Lomé Conventions IV and IVb. Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific

Group of States (ACP) of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000.

ALA programme

Council Regulation 443/92 of 25 February 1992 on financial and technical assistance to, and economic cooperation with, the developing countries in Asia and Latin America.

Proposal for a Regulation of the EP and Council concerning Community Cooperation with Asian and Latin American Countries and amending Council Regulation (EC) 2258/96 (COM (2002) 340).

CARDS programme

Council Regulation 3606/89 of 18/12/1989 on economic aid to the Republic of Hungary and the Polish People's Republic (establishing the PHARE Programme).

Council regulation 1628/96 of 25/07/1996 relating to aid for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (establishing the OBNOVA Programme).

Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000 on assistance for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2415/2001 of 10 December 2001.

MEDA programme

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1762/92 of 29 June 1992 on the implementation of the Protocols on financial and technical cooperation concluded by the Community with Mediterranean non-member countries.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1763/92 of 29 June 1992 concerning financial cooperation in respect of all Mediterranean non-member countries.

Council Regulation (EC) 1488/96 of 23 July 1996 on financial and technical measures to accompany (MEDA) the reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.



Council Regulation (EC) 2698/00 of 27 November 2000 amending Regulation (EC) 1488/96 of 23 July 1996 on financial and technical measures to accompany (MEDA) the reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.

TACIS programme

Council Regulation No 2053/93 of 19 July 1993 concerning the provision of technical assistance to economic reform and recovery in the independent States of the former Soviet Union and Mongolia.

Council Regulation 1279/96 of 25th June 1996 concerning the provision of assistance to economic reform and recovery in the New Independent States and Mongolia.

Council Regulation 99/2000 of 29th December 2000 concerning the provision of assistance to the partner states in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Annex 11 – Persons contacted and/or met



Annex 11 – Persons contacted and/or met

Last name First name Service or Institution

Directorate Unit

Filon Rudie EuropeAid TACIS - CARDS A1 Loppé Juliette EuropeAid TACIS - CARDS A3 Forsberg Lars-Erik EuropeAid TACIS - CARDS A3 Comelles Nuria EuropeAid TACIS - CARDS Chellafa Nadia EuropeAid MEDA B3 Mari Simona EuropeAid MEDA B3 Nagti Nadia EuropeAid MEDA B3 Delanghe Koen EuropeAid MEDA B4 André Corinne EuropeAid MEDA B5 Como Odoardo EuropeAid ACP C3 Rodriguez Manuel EuropeAid ACP C3 Salinas Claudio EuropeAid ACP C3 Cantell Samuel EuropeAid Asia D3 Gilissen-Degryse Sylvie EuropeAid Asia D3 Nino Page Fernando EuropeAid Asia D3 Crespo Antonio EuropeAid Latin America E2 Caivano Garcia Mario EuropeAid Latin America E3 Delcroix Nicola EuropeAid General Affairs H6 Wille Susanne EuropeAid General Affairs H6 Lindemans Agnes EuropeAid 03 Schwaiger Ingrid EuropeAid 03

Mogni Andrea Relex Planning Services for External Relations 03

Rumbold Clive Relex Western Balkans D3

De Luzenberger Raoul Relex Eastern Europe, Cuacasus, Central Asian Republics E2

Koistinen Anne Relex Eastern Europe, Cuacasus, Central Asian Republics E2

Stewart-David J. Relex Eastern Europe, Cuacasus, Central Asian Republics E2

Balbinot Marie-Ange Relex Middle East, South Mediterranean F3

Caldarone Maurizio Relex Middle East, South Mediterranean F4



Last name First name Service or Institution

Directorate Unit

Frisch Peter Relex Middle East, South Mediterranean F4

Gatzelu Frank Relex Middle East, South Mediterranean

Hahlen Renate Relex Asia H5 Konig Helena Relex Asia H5

Latorre-Zacares Ana-Rosa DG Budget Own Resources, evaluation and financial programming. Evaluation.

B5

Schwarz Andreas DG Dev Development policy and Sectoral issues B2

Traore Amadou DG Dev Development policy and Sectoral issues B2

Gonzales Sanchez Serafin DG Entr Enterprise policy A2 Williams Andrew DG Entr Enterprise policy A2 Obregon Juan Antonio DG Trade C1 Di Mauro Francesca EcFin International issues D4 Priestley Mark EU Del BiH Mellado Diego EU Del Egypt Economic Cooperation

Laafia Ibrahim EU Del Egypt Modernisation of Economy Sector

Samzun Guy EU Del Niger Economic & Trade Adviser Morgenstern Dieter EIB Matos Rosa Fernando CDE Director

Delchambre Jean-Marie CDE Control & Operational Follow up

Sow Hamed CDE Geographical Coordination Keene Patrick PRO INVEST

Pantelias Sarantis EPU MED Monitoring Project Director

Cerutti Fernando SOGREAH Asia Monitoring Team Leader

Annex 12 – Bibliography



Annex 12 – Bibliography

ADE, 2002, Clarifying the definitions of EC economic co-operation with third countries. ADE, 2003, Evaluation of Economic Cooperation between the EU and MED countries.

Final Report. Afrique de l'Ouest - Communauté Européenne, Document de stratégie de coopération

régionale et Programme indicatif régional pour le période 2002-2007. ASIAFCO, 2002, Mid Term Evaluation of the EBAS Programme. Final Report. Barnes, C. and Sebstad J. (Management Systems International), 1999, Guidelines for

Microfinance Impact Assessment. Botzung/Chetelat/Boukar, 1997, AFELEN: Evaluation à mi-parcours, Rapport final. Caribbean Forum of ACP States - The European Community, Caribbean - Regional

Strategy Paper and Regional Indicative Programme for the period 2003-2007. COTA, 2000, An Evaluation of Phare financed labour market and social security reform

programmes. Case studies in Lithuania and Slovakia. Final Report. COTA, 2001, MEDA Global Allocation Evaluation 95-2000. Synthesis Report. Cox, A. and Chapman, J (ODI), 1999, Les programme de coopération extérieur de la

Communauté Européenne. Politique, Gestion et Répartition. Delegation of the EC, 1994, EC Comments on the report concerning EIB Global Private

Enterprise II project. Delegation of the EC, 1995, Cooperation between Ghana and the EU, Annual report

1994. Delegation of the EC, 1995, Cooperation between EU & Republic of Kenya, Annual

report 1994. Delegation of the EC, 1995, Coopération entre la CE et la République du Sénégal, Rapport

annuel 1994. Delegation of the EC, 1995, Cooperation between EU & Republic of Uganda, Annual

report 1993/1994. Delegation of the EC, 1995, Cooperation between EU & Republic of Zambia, Annual

report 1994. Delegation of the EC, 1996, Cooperación entre la UE y la República Dominicana, Informe

anual 1995. Delegation of the EC, 1996, Cooperation between Ghana and the EU, Annual report



annuel 1995. Delegation of the EC, 1996, Cooperation between EU & Republic of Zambia, Annual

report 1995.



Delegation of the EC, 1997, Cooperación entre la UE y la República Dominicana, Informe anual 1996.

Delegation of the EC, 1997, Cooperation between Ghana and the EU, Annual report 1996.

Delegation of the EC, 1997, Cooperation between EU & Republic of Kenya, Annual report 1996.

Delegation of the EC, 1997, Coopération entre la CE et la République du Sénégal, Rapport annuel 1996.

Delegation of the EC, 1997, Cooperation between EU & Republic of Uganda, Annual report 1995/1996.

Delegation of the EC, 1997, Cooperation between EU & Republic of Zambia, Annual report 1996.

Delegation of the EC, 1998, A private sector chapter in a post Lomé arrangement. Delegation of the EC, 1998, Cooperación entre la UE y la República Dominicana, Informe

anual 1997. Delegation of the EC, 1998, Cooperation between Ghana and the EU, Annual report


report 1997. Delegation of the EC, 1998, Cooperation between EU & Republic of Zambia, Annual

report 1997. Delegation of the EC, 1999, Cooperation between Ghana and the EU, Annual report

1998. Delegation of the EC, 1999, Cooperación entre la UE y la República Dominicana, Informe

anual 1998. Delegation of the EC, 1999, Evaluation du Programme d'appui au secteur privé (PASP) 7

ACP DO 32 - Projet de termes de références. Delegation of the EC, 1999, Cooperation between EU & Republic of Kenya, Annual


annuel 1997. Delegation of the EC, 1999, Cooperation between EU & Republic of Zambia, Annual

report 1998. Delegation of the EC, 2000, Cooperation between Ghana and the EU, Annual report


report 1999. Deloitte & Touche, 1999, Independent Appraisal of the EC Investment Partners (ECIP)

Financial Instruments. Development Council, 1999, 2180th Council Meeting. Resolution on EC Strategy for the

development of the private sector in Developing Countries, 8435/99.



DFC S.A., 2002, Mission d'évaluation opérationnelle du programme de développement du secteur privé en Tunisie - Euro Tunisie Entreprise - Rapport final et annexes.

DIAGNOS, 1999, Méthodologie. Programme DIAGNOS. DIAGNOS, 2001, Appui macroéconomique dans le cadre de l'Accord de Cotonou. DIAGNOS, 2001, Développement du secteur privé. Intégration du secteur privé dans les

documents de stratégie d'appui au développement. EBIC (European Business Information centre in Vietnam), 2003, Final Report 2001-2003

- Capacity building for Vietnamese SMEs. EC, 1994, Towards a New Asia strategy, COM(94) 314 final - Communication from the

commission to the council . EC, 1995, Agreement amending the Fourth ACP-EC Convention of Lomé signed in

Mauritius on the 4th 1995, http://www.acpsec.org/gb/lome/lome4_e.htm. EC, 1995, Barcelona Declaration adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference, 27-

28/11/95, http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/euromed/bd.htm. EC, 1995, Egypt - Country Orientation Paper, Draft 3 rev3. EC, 1995, Jordan - Country Orientation Paper, Version FR.3. EC, 1995, Morocco - Country Orientation Paper. EC, 1995, Perspectives of the partnership with Latin America for the period 1996-2000,

COM(1995)495, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.

EC, 1995, Tunisia - Country Orientation Paper. EC, 1996, Green Paper on relations between the European Union and the ACP countries

on the eve of the 21st century - Challenges and options for a new partnership. EC, 1997, Euro-Mediterranean Partnership - Private Sector Development. EC, 1997, Specific Financing Agreement between the EU and the Social Development

Fund - Phase II, EGY/B7-4100/IB/97/0361. EC, 1998, A European Community strategy for private sector development in ACP

countries, COM (1998) 667 final - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.

EC, 1998, Memorandum concerning financial and technical cooperation 1997-1999 - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan - European Union.

EC, 1999, Euro-Mediterranean Partnership - Country Strategy Papers - 2000-2006 - Jordan.

EC, 1999, Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Tempus (PHARE and TACIS) Annual Report 1999.

EC, 2000, Annual Report on the Implementation of the European Commission's external assistance - ACP.

EC, 2000, Integrating environment and sustainable development into economic and development co-operation policy. Elements of a comprehensive strategy., COM (2000) 264 final - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.



EC, 2000, Reform of the Management of External Assistance, 16 2000, Rev 8 - Communication to the Commission.

EC, 2000, The European Community's development Policy, COM(2000) 212 final - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.

EC, 2000, The TACIS Programme Annual Report 1999, COM (2000) 835 final - Report from the Commission.

EC, 2001, Annual Report on the Implementation of the European Commission's external assistance.

EC, 2001, Creating an entrepreneurial Europe. The activities of the European Union for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), COM (2001) 98 final - Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Region.

EC, 2001, EC - Vietnam Country Strategy paper 2002-2006. EC, 2001, Enhancing EUROMED cooperation on transport and energy, EUROMED

Report, Issue No 26 - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.

EC, 2001, Europe and Asia : a Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships, COM(2001) 469 final - Communication of the Commission.

EC, 2001, Framework Arrangement for Private Sector Development Programmes (PSDPs) or similar programmes. Manual of Procedures (updated 1 2001).

EC, 2001, Manual on Project Cycle Management. EC, 2001, Promoting core labour standards and improving social governance in the

context of globalisation, COM (2001) 416 - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.

EC, 2001, Proposal for Council Decision concerning the signature of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Croatia on behalf of the European Community - Proposal for Council and Commission Decision concerning the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of one part and the Republic of Croatia of the other, COM (2001) 371 final.

EC, 2002, Corporate Social Responsibility: A business contribution to sustainable development, COM(2002) 347 final - Communication from the Commission .

EC, 2002, Directives pour la mise en œuvre de la facilité d'investissement. EC, 2002, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

concerning Community's cooperation with Asian and Latin American countries and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2258/96, COM (2002) 340 final.

EC, 2002, The Stabilisation and Association process for South East Europe. First Annual Report, COM (2002) 167 final - Report from the Commission.

EC, 2003, A New Partnership for South East Asia, COM (2003) 399/4 - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.



EC, 2003, European Community Co-operation with Third Countries: The Commission's approach to future support for the development of the Business sector, COM(2003) 267 final - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.

EC, 2003, La mise en œuvre de la Charte Européenne de petite entreprises, COM(2003) 21 final/ 2 - Rapport de la Commission au Conseil et au Parlement Européen.

EC - AIDCO, 1995, Convention de financement spécifique - Programme de développement du secteur privé (Euro Tunisie Entreprise), Annexe I.2 DISPOSITIONS TECHNIQUES ET ADMINISTRATIVES.

EC - AIDCO, 1997, FINANCING AGREEMENT - Vietnam Human Resources Development in Tourism - VNM/B7-3010/IB/97/0234.

EC - AIDCO, 2000, Annual Report on the Implementation of the European Commission's external assistance - Asia.

EC - AIDCO, 2000, Annual Report on the Implementation of the European Commission's external assistance - Latin America.

EC - AIDCO, 2000, Annual Report on the Implementation of the European Commission's external assistance - South-Eastern Europe: The Balkans.

EC - AIDCO, 2000, Annual Report on the Implementation of the European Commission's external assistance - South Mediterranean, Near and Middle East.

EC - AIDCO, 2000, Annual Report on the Implementation of the European Commission's external assistance - The Partner States of Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

EC - AIDCO, 2002, FINANCING PROPOSAL - European Technical Assistance Programme for Vietnam (ETV2), Project VNM/AIDCO/2002/0589 including the financial agreement between the EC and Vietnam.

EC - AIDCO, 2002, FINANCING PROPOSAL - Labour Market Project, Project VNM/AIDCO/2002/0484 including the financial agreement between the EC and Vietnam.

EC - AIDCO, 2002, FINANCING PROPOSAL - Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise development Fund - Institutional Support to Lending Institutions, Project VNM/AIDCO/2000/2469 including the financial agreement between the EC and Vietnam.

EC - AIDCO, 2003, FINANCING PROPOSAL - Vietnam private sector support programme (VPSSP), Project N°2003/005-885.

EC - AIDCO, 2003, Guidelines for European Commission Support to Private Sector Development, version 1.0.

EC - AIDCO, 2003, Guidelines for the implementation of Trade Related Assistance, version 1.0.

EC - AIDCO, 2004, European Commission > EuropeAid > Programmes and projects > Asia-Invest, Including Asia-Invest funded projects.

EC - AIDCO/DG DEV, 2003, Note d'information sur la mise en œuvre de la stratégie d'appui au développement du secteur privé pour la croissance et la lutte contre la pauvreté dans les pays ACP, AIDCO/C3 D(2003)38403.



EC Delegation to Vietnam, 2003, EU Economic and Commercial Counsellors’ 2003 Report.

EC Delegation to Vietnam, 2004, Development and Cooperation - Overview of projects in Vietnam.

EC - DG DEV, 1994, Secteur privé, Réunion OCDE - juin 1994. EC - DG DEV, 1995, EC note - Consultative Group Meeting for Ghana in Paris, June

1995. EC - DG DEV, 1995, Memorandum of understanding between the government of the

Republic of Kenya & the Commission of the EU on the Revision of the National Indicative Programme for Kenya , LOME IV Convention.

EC - DG DEV, 1995, Note CE - République Dominicaine: situation politique et économique actuelle et état de notre coopération.

EC - DG DEV, 1995, Programación de LOME IV, Segundo Protocolo financiero, República Dominicana, Estrategia de cooperación.

EC - DG DEV, 1995, Report of the mission by M. Minguella to Nairobi ("Microenterprise support programme").

EC - DG DEV, 1995, Séminaire "Appui au secteur privé", Ministère de la coopération - France & CEFB 1995.

EC - DG DEV, 1996, Cadre de la coopération Sénégal / CE, Programme Indicatif National.

EC - DG DEV, 1996, Document de discussion relatif à la création d'un cadre pour le développement du secteur privé dans les pays ACP.

EC - DG DEV, 1996, Framework of cooperation Republic of Uganda / EC, National Indicative Programme.

EC - DG DEV, 1996, Le secteur privé dans le domaine agricole, Eléments de réflexion. EC - DG DEV, 1996, Regional Indicative Programme, Southern Africa Developement

Community - CE. EC - DG DEV, 1996, Programación del 8° FED, Estrategia de cooperación, Republica

Dominicana. EC - DG DEV, 1996, Programmation du 8ème FED, Document de stratégie Sénégal. EC - DG DEV, 1996, Programmation du 8ème FED, Programme-cadre de coopération

Ouganda. EC - DG DEV, 1996, Programming for the 8th EDF, Regional Strategy paper West

Africa. EC - DG DEV, 1996, Rapport de mission, Suivi des projets PME - ligne de crédit au Mali,

Burkina Faso et Sénégal. EC - DG DEV, 1996, 8th EDF programming Strategy paper Kenya. EC - DG DEV, 1996, 8th EDF programming Strategy paper Zambia. EC - DG Dev, 1997, Adaptation des modalités de l'aide dans les secteurs sociaux: à propos

des conséquences at implications du passage à un approche sectorielle, Questions de Développement Humain e Social No 4.



EC - DG DEV, 1997, Draft of Commission's communication on EC support for private sector development in ACP countries.

EC - DG DEV, 1997, Framework of cooperation Dominican Republic / EC, Second National Indicative Programme.

EC - DG DEV, 1997, Framework of cooperation Ghana / EC, National Indicative Programme for the 8th EDF.

EC - DG DEV, 1997, Framework of cooperation Republic of Kenya / EC National Indicative Programme (EDF VIII).

EC - DG DEV, 1997, Framework of cooperation Republic of Zambia / EC, National Indicative Programme.

EC - DG DEV, 1997, Mission report on the Annual Meetings of donors for SME development.

EC - DG DEV, 1997, Mission to Zambia and Kenya. EC - DG DEV, 1997, Private sector development, post Lomé

Future orientations and options. EC - DG DEV, 1997, Rapport de mission au Burkina Faso et au Niger. EC - DG DEV, 1997, Rapport de mission au Sénégal et au Bénin . EC - DG DEV, 1997, Rapport de mission sur les séminaires régionaux - évaluation des

lignes de crédit et des projets d'appui aux PME, Kenya et Bénin. EC - DG DEV, 1997, Texte de la brochure CE sur l'appui au secteur privé dans les pays

ACP. EC - DG DEV, 1998, Draft Communication, A European Community strategy for private

sector development in ACP countries. EC - DG Dev, 1998, Gender issues in the European Development Cooperation, Human

and Social Development Issues, No 9. EC - DG DEV, 1998, Joint meetings on PSD with IDA, IFC & MIGA; DG VIII, EIB &

CDI. EC - DG DEV, 1998, Minutes of the MS experts meeting on support for PSD. EC - DG DEV, 1998, Note sur les privatisations et la réforme des entreprises publiques

dans les pays ACP. EC - DG DEV, 1998, Report on a mission to Ghana, July 1998. EC - DG DEV, 1999, Conclusions de la révision à mi-parcours du PIN Ghana. EC - DG DEV, 1999, Note - DIAGNOS au Sénégal. EC - DG DEV, 1999, Document d'information des services de la CE

Les orientations et approches communes prises au sein des différents programmes communautaires d'appui au développement du secteur privé, aux investissements et à la coopération économique avec les PVD.

EC - DG DEV, 1999, ECIP progress report 1998. EC - DG DEV, 1999, Modalités de mise en œuvre de la communication de la Commission

sur "Une stratégie communautaire d'appui au développement du secteur privé dans les pays ACP".

EC - DG DEV, 1999, Workshop on PROINVEST, June 1999.



EC - DG DEV, 1999, Zambia - Aide mémoire, Mid term review of the 8th EDF NIP. EC - DG Dev, 2000, L'Approche Sectorielle et les programme d'Appui aux Politiques

Sectorielle Economiques et Sociales, Questions de Développement Humain e Social No 4.

EC - DG Dev, 2001, Draft guidelines for the definition of indicators in Country Strategy Papers .

EC- DG Dev, 2001, Note d'orientation sur la programmation. Appuis macro-économiques et budgétaires dans le cadre du 9ème FED et des Documents-cadres pour la Réduction de la Pauvreté (DCRP).

EC - DG DEV, 2002, Republica Dominicana – CE, Documento de Estrategia d Cooperación y Programa Indicativo 2001-2007.

EC - DG DEV, 2002, Uganda – EC, Country Strategy Paper & National Indicative Programme for the period 2002-2007.

EC - DG DEV, 2002, Zambia – EC, Country Strategy Paper & Indicative Programme for the period 2001-2007.

EC - DG DEV, 2003, Sénégal – CE, Document de Stratégie de Coopération et Programme Indicatif, pour la période 2002-2007.

EC - DG Dev, The Investment Facility (IF): European Development Fund, CE/TFN/GCF4/30-EN.

EC - DG Dev, Private sector and development policy, Towards a new partnership ?, http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/theme/private_en.htm.

EC - DG DEV, Republic of Ghana – EC, Country Strategy Paper and Indicative Programme for the period 2002-2007.

EC - DG DEV, Strategy paper 1996-2000 Ghana. EC - DG Enterprise, 2000, The European Charter for Small Enterprises. EC - DG Enterprise, 2003, Entrepreneurship in Europe, doc on basis of COM(2003) 27

final - Green Paper. EC - DG Regio, 2002, ISPA-PPP. Operational Guidelines for successful Public-Private-

Partnership, Working Draft 13/6/2002. EC - RELEX, Regional Strategy: Andean Community 2002-2006. EC - RELEX, 1995, Financing Memorandum between the European Union and the Arab

Republic of Egypt, Private Sector Development Programme (PSDP) . EC - RELEX, 1995, MASHREQ and MAGHREB Country Orientation Papers (1996-

1998). EC - RELEX, 1995, Tunisia Private Sector Development - Financial proposal. EC - RELEX, 1996, Euro-Mediterranean Partnership - MEDA Bilateral Indicative

Programmes 1996-1998. EC - RELEX, 1996, Jordan - Indicative Programme 1996-1998. EC - RELEX, 1997, Assistance Strategy Paper on EU support for Private Sector

Development. Draft., Directorate Southern Mediterranean, Middle and Near East. EC - RELEX, 1997, EU support to Private Sector Development in the Mediterranean

Region.



EC - RELEX, 1997, Mise à jour du programme indicatif Jordanie 1996-1998. EC - RELEX, 1998, Direction Méditerranée du Sud, Moyen et Proche-Orient - Priorités

politiques 1998. EC - RELEX, 1998, Financing Memorandum between the European Union and the

government of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Private Sector Development Programme II (PSDPII) .

EC - RELEX, 1998, Projets d'appui au développement du secteur privé et à la transition économique dans la région méditerranéenne.

EC - RELEX, 1999, PHARE and OBNOVA Indicative Programme. EC - RELEX, 2000, Cooperation that counts: A focus on the European Union's TACIS

Programme 1999 . EC - RELEX, 2000, Guide to TACIS small projects programmes and other support

structures. EC - RELEX, 2000, The European Union and the countries of Eastern Europe, the

Caucasus and Central Asia. EC - RELEX, 2001, BIH at a Crossroads. The Road to Europe and Prosperity or Isolation

on the Fringes? The EC's programmes of assistance to support Economic Revitalisation in BiH. Draft.

EC -RELEX, 2001, TACIS Regional Cooperation: Strategic Considerations 2002-2006 and Indicative Programme 2002-2003.

EC - RELEX, 2002, Latin America Regional Strategy (2002-2006). EC - RELEX, 2003, TACIS Regional Cooperation: Regional Strategy Paper and Indicative

Programme 2004-2006. EC - RELEX, CARDS Assistance Programme to Western Balkans. Regional Stategy Paper

2002-2006. EC- RELEX, EuroMed Partnership. Regional Strategy Paper 2002-2006 & Regional

Indicative Programme 2002-2004. EC- RELEX, TACIS Regional Cooperation: Indicative Programme 2000-2003. ECODES, 2002, ASEM Countries. A Review of ASEM Trust Fund Phase 1. Final Report. ECODES Consortium, 2002, Vietnam - Small and Medium Enterprise Development

Fund - Volume 1 : Evaluation of the Existing Project, Project VNM/B/-3000/96/032 including SMEDF annual reports 1997 to 1999.

ECODES Economic Development, 2001, EGYPT - Independent Programme Review (IPR) of private sector development (PSDP 1 & PSDP 2).

EEC, 1995, Interregional Framework Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Southern Common Market and its Party States, of the other part - Joint Declaration on political dialogue between the European Union and Mercosur.

EEC, 1997, Consolidated version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Treaty of Amsterdam).

EEC, 1998, Framework Agreement on Cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Cartagena Agreement and its member countries, namely the



Republic of Bolivia, the Republic of Colombia, the Republic of Ecuador, the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Venezuela.

EEC, 1999, Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States of the one part and the Republic of South Africa of the other .

EEC, 1999, Framework Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.

EEC, 2000, Partnership Agreement between members of the ACP group of states of the one part and the European Community and its member states of the other part., Cotonou Agreement.

EEC, 2001, Treaty of Nice. Amending the Treaty on European Union, the treaties establishing the European Community and certain related acts, 2001/C 80/01.

EEC, 2003, Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and its Member States of the one part and the Andean Community and its Member States, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela of the other part.

EGEval, 2003, Typology of Action Supported by the EC in the Education Sector. EIB, 1995, EIB letter - EU support for small business in the Dominican Republic. EIB, 2002, Financing in the ACP: Supporting private enterprise and investment in

developing countries. EU-ACP, 2003, Resolution adopted by the EU-ACP Joint Parliamentary Assembly on the

promotion of private sector in the context of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, ACP-EU 3548/03 fin.

European Business Information Centre (EBIC) in Vietnam, 2004, The European Business Information Centre (EBIC) in Vietnam.

European Council, 1992, Council Regulation (EEC) No 443/92 of 25 February 1992 on financial and technical assistance to, and economic cooperation with, the developing countries in Asia and Latin America, Official Journal L 052, 27/02/1992 P. 0001 - 0006 .

European Council, 1992, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1762/92 of 29 June 1992 on the implementation of the Protocols on financial and technical cooperation concluded by the Community with Mediterranean non-member countries .

European Council, 1992, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1763/92 of 29 June 1992 concerning financial cooperation in respect of all Mediterranean non-member countries.

European Council, 1995, Council Decision of 20 November 1995 concerning the provisional application of certain provisions of the Interregional Framework Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Southern Common Market and its Party States, of the other part., 96/205/EC.

European Council, 1996, Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 1279/96 of 25 June 1996 concerning the provision of assistance to economic reform and recovery in the New Independent States and Mongolia, 1279/96.



European Council, 1996, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1488/96 of the 23 July 1996 on financial and technical measures to accompany the reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean (MEDA) Partnership.

European Council, 1996, Council Regulation (EC) No 2259/96 of 22 November 1996 on development cooperation with South Africa.

European Council, 1998, Council Regulation (EC) 2836/98 of 22 December1998 on integrating gender issues in development cooperation, 2836/98.

European Council, 1999, Council Decision of 22 February 1999 concerning the conclusion of a framework of Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, 1999/194/EC.

European Council, 1999, Council Decision of 22 March 1999 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community of the interregional framework cooperation agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of one part, and the Southern Common Market and its Party states of the other part, 1999/279/EC.

European Council, 1999, Council Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 99/2000 of 29 December 1999 concerning the provision of assistance to the partner States in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 99/2000.

European Council, 2000, Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000 on assistance to Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia repealing Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 and amending Regulations (EEC) 3906/89 and (EEC) No 1360/90 and Decisions 97/256/EC and 1999/311/EC, 2666/2000.

European Council, 2000, Council Regulation amending Regulations (EEC) No 1488/96 of the 27 November 2000 on financial and technical measures to accompany the reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean (MEDA) Partnership, 2698/2000.

European Council, 2001, Presidency Conclusion: Göteborg European Council 16 and 17 June 2001, SN/200/1/01/REV 1.

European Council, 2001, Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia of the other part, 2001/0049 (AVC).

European Court of Auditors, 1997, Annual Report concerning the financial year 1996, together with the institutions' replies - Volume II Statements of assurance, JO C 348 (18.11.1997) http://www.eca.eu.int/EN/reports_opinions.htm.

European Court of Auditors, 1998, Special Report no 18/98 on the Community measures to encourage the creation of joint enterprises in the fisheries sector.

European Court of Auditors, 2000, Special Report No 9/99 concerning research activities in the field of agriculture and fisheries (FAIR programme - Fisheries, Agriculture, Agro-Industrial Research) together with the Commission's reply, 2000/C/92/01.

European Parliament and the Council, 2000, Regulation (EC) N 1726/2000 of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 June 2000 on development cooperation with South Africa.



EVA - EU Association, 2001, Evaluation of TACIS Enterprises Restructuring Facility (TERF) covering the Russian Federation. Final Report.

EVA - EU Association, 2001, Evaluation of the Economic Cooperation between the European Community and partner states in Asia and Latin America. Final Report.

EVA - EU Association, 2001, Evaluation of the financial assistance for the Mediterranean countries managed by the EIB on behalf of the EC .

EVA - EU Association, 2002, Evaluation of the Cross Border Initiative regional programme in Southern and Eastern Africa (verify title), Evaluation Programme of the European Commission Aid in the fields of Institutional Capacity Building and Economic Infrastructure.

IMC Consulting Ltd., 2003, JOR/B7-4100/1B/99/0189, Industrial modernisation programme, mid term evaluation, Final report.

IMP, 2003, Progress Report Oct2003, IMP. IMP, 2004, Progress Report Jan2004, IMP. Independent Review Team for Development Assistance Group, Sub-group on SFD, April

2000, Multi-Donor Review of SFD, Final Report. Industrial Modernisation Programme, 2003, IMP - Progress Report (draft). Industrial Modernisation Programme, 2004, IMP - Progress Report (draft). Investment Development Consultancy, France, Development Strategies, Italy, 1999,

Evaluation de la stratégie Pays de la CE: Sénégal 1995-1999. Investment Development Consultancy, France, Development Strategies, Italy, 2000,

Evaluation of EC Country Strategy: the Dominican Republic 1996-2000. Investment Development Consultancy, France, Development Strategies, Italy, 2001,

Evaluation of Country Strategy: Uganda 1996-2000. Maxwell Stamp, 1999, Evaluation of Phare and TACIS Co-financing programmes with the

EBRD. METRA SOFRES LTD., 1998, Evaluation of Euro-TAP Viet (Technical Assistance

Programme for Transition to a Market Economy in Vietnam). Final Report, EC - DG IB/C/5 - Contrat Cadre Asia Lot VI.

MicroRate - InterAmerican Development Bank, Performance Indicators for Micro Finance Inistitutions. Technical Guide.

Millennium Project (UN), Millennium Development Compact. M. McQueen, C. Phillips, D. Hallam, A. Swinbank, 1997, ACP-EU Trade and Aid Co-

operation Post-Lomé IV: Improving Supply Responses in ACP countries - Complementarities between Government and Private Sector, with particular reference to SMEs, http://www.acpsec.org/gb/summit/cwealth/chap4rev.htm.

Monk, Bateman, Kudela, 2000, An Evaluation of PHARE-financed programmes in support of SMEs. Final synthesis report.

MWH, ODI, ECDPM, 2003, Evaluation de la Stratégie Pays de la Commission Européenne pour le Maroc. Rapport Final.

OECD - DAC, 1994, DAC Orientations for Development Co-operation in Support of Private Sector Development. Note by the Secretariat, DCD/DAC(93)32/REV2.



Oldsman, E. Hallberg, K., 2002, Framework for Evaluating the Impact of Small Enterprise Initiative.

PARTICIP GmbH, 2003, Thematic Evaluation of the integration of gender in EC development cooperation with third countries. Final Report.

Region of Eastern and Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean and the European Community, 2002, Eastern and Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean - Regional Strategy Paper and Regional Indicative Programme for the period 2002-2007.

S. D. Barwa (SEED - Small Enterprise E Development), 2003, Impact of Start Your Business (SYB) Training on Women Entrepreneurs in Vietnam, ILO Office in Vietnam.

Social Development Fund PMU, 2003, SFD Annual Workplan for 2003, Section 4: SEDO.

Southern Africa Development Community and the European Community, Southern Africa Development Community - Regional Strategy Paper and Regional Indicative Programme for the period 2002-2007 (Draft).

STEM - VCR, 1995, EURO-TUNISIE ENTREPRISE, Un programme pour le Développement du Secteur Privé en Tunisie.

T&B Consult, 2003, Evaluation of DIAGNOS - Draft Report. Van der Loeff, Bram Schim, 2003, Financing ACP projects: the EIB and the Cotonou

Investment Facility, The Courier ACP-EU No 198, May-June 2003. World Bank, 1998, Africa Can Compete: A Framework for World Bank group support for

Private Sector Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank, 2001, Private Sector Development strategy - Issues and Options. World Bank, 2001, Adjustment Lending Retrospective. Final Report. World Bank, 2002, Private Sector Development strategy - Directions for the World Bank

Group. World Bank, 2003, World Bank Group Private Sector Development Strategy

Implementation Progress Report. Yamamoto, Chiaky, 2001, The Role of Private Sector Development in Past Strategy

Papers.

Date post:	10-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times