human european consultancy in partnership with the Netherlands Humanist Committee on Human Rights and the Danish Institute for Human Rights
January 2006
By Christiane Tuijtelaars, Hilde Hey and Evan Fox-Decent
human european consultancy Hooghiemstraplein 155 3514 AZ Utrecht The Netherlands Tel +31 30 634 14 22 Fax +31 30 635 21 39 [email protected] www.humanconsultancy.com
The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Commission.
List of abbreviations 1 Executive summary 3 1. Introduction 13 1.1 Background 13 1.2 Research questions 14 1.3 Methodology 15
1.4 Structure and preparation of this report 16
2. The regional character of the Programa Andino 19
2.1 Introduction 19
2.2 Relevance of design of the Programa Andino as a regional programme 20
2.3 Efficiency of the Programa Andino as a regional programme 25
2.4 Effectiveness of the Programa Andino as a regional programme 30
2.5 Impact of the Programa Andino as a regional programme 35
2.6 Sustainability of the Programa Andino as a regional programme. 36
2.7 Lessons learned 38
3. The country projects of the Programa Andino 41
3.1 Human Rights context 41
3.2 Relevance of the (design of) country projects 45
3.3 Efficiency of the country projects 52
3.4 The effectiveness of the country projects 60
3.5 The impact of the country projects 65
3.6 Sustainability of the country projects 71
3.7 Gender component and EC visibility in the country programmes 74
3.8 Lessons learned and recommendations 77
4. Regional project on justice of the peace 81
4.1 Context, the RPJP’s justification within the PA, objectives and logframe 81
4.2 Relevance (design) of the regional project 87
4.3 Efficiency (implementation) of the regional project 92
4.4 Effectiveness (results) of the regional project 99
4.5 Impact of the regional project 106
4.6 Sustainability of the regional project 109
4.7 Gender component and EC visibility of the regional project 110
5.7 Gender component and EC visibility in the regional project 137
5.8 Lessons learned and recommendations 137
Annex A: Terms of reference for the External Evaluation of the Programa Andino 141 Annex B: Breve descripción de organizaciones implementadoras de los proyectos país 155
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
AECI Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional
APRODEH Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos
BID Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo
BM Banco Mundial
CAN Comunidad Andina de Naciones
CCAJAR Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo
CEJ Corporación Excelencia en la Justicia
CEJIS Centro de Estudios Jurídicos e Investigación Social
CERIAJUS Plan Nacional de Reforma Integral de la Administración de Justicia
CIDES Centro sobre Derecho y Sociedad
CINEP Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular
CNAI Corporación Nuevo Arco Iris
CNDDHH Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos
COFAVIC Comité de Familiares de Víctimas de los sucesos del 27 de Febrero y Marzo del 89 COSUDE Agencia Suiza para el Desarrollo y la Cooperación
CPME Coordinadora Política de Mujeres Ecuatorianas
EC European Commission
EIDHR European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights
EJRLB Escuela Judicial Rodrigo Lara Bonilla
ESCR Economic Social and Cultural Rights
EU European Union
FEDHU Frente Ecuatoriano de Derechos Humanos
IDL Instituto de Defensa Legal
ILDIS Instituto Latinoamericano de Investigaciones Sociales
ILO International Labour Organisation (OIT)
INREDH F Undación Regional de Asesoría en Derechos Humanos
IPC Instituto Popular de Capacitación
IU Interlocutor Unico
M & E Monitoring and Evaluation
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
OAS Organisation of American States
OIT Organización Internacional del Trabajo (ILO)
ONAJUP Oficina Nacional de Apoyo a la Justicia de Paz
OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator
PA Programa Andino
PADH Programa Andino de Derechos Humanos
POA Plan Operativo Anual
POG Plan Operativo Global
PROVEA Programa Venezolano de Educación-Acción en Derechos Humanos
RCO Regional Coordination Office
RNM Red Nacional de Mujeres
RPJP Regional Programme on Justice of the Peace (PA)
SERPAJ Servicio Paz y Justicia
SNPS Secretariado Nacional de Pastoral Social
SO Specific Objectives
UASB Universidad Andina Simón Bolivar
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
AECI Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional
APRODEH Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos
BID Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo
BM Banco Mundial
CAN Comunidad Andina de Naciones
CCAJAR Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo
CEJ Corporación Excelencia en la Justicia
CEJIS Centro de Estudios Jurídicos e Investigación Social
CERIAJUS Plan Nacional de Reforma Integral de la Administración de Justicia
CIDES Centro sobre Derecho y Sociedad
CINEP Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular
CNAI Corporación Nuevo Arco Iris
CNDDHH Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos
COFAVIC Comité de Familiares de Víctimas de los sucesos del 27 de Febrero y Marzo del 89 COSUDE Agencia Suiza para el Desarrollo y la Cooperación
CPME Coordinadora Política de Mujeres Ecuatorianas
EC European Commission
EIDHR European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights
EJRLB Escuela Judicial Rodrigo Lara Bonilla
ESCR Economic Social and Cultural Rights
EU European Union
FEDHU Frente Ecuatoriano de Derechos Humanos
IDL Instituto de Defensa Legal
ILDIS Instituto Latinoamericano de Investigaciones Sociales
ILO International Labour Organisation (OIT)
INREDH F Undación Regional de Asesoría en Derechos Humanos
IPC Instituto Popular de Capacitación
IU Interlocutor Unico
M & E Monitoring and Evaluation
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
OAS Organisation of American States
OIT Organización Internacional del Trabajo (ILO)
ONAJUP Oficina Nacional de Apoyo a la Justicia de Paz
OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator
PA Programa Andino
PADH Programa Andino de Derechos Humanos
POA Plan Operativo Anual
POG Plan Operativo Global
PROVEA Programa Venezolano de Educación-Acción en Derechos Humanos
RCO Regional Coordination Office
RNM Red Nacional de Mujeres
RPJP Regional Programme on Justice of the Peace (PA)
SERPAJ Servicio Paz y Justicia
SNPS Secretariado Nacional de Pastoral Social
SO Specific Objectives
UASB Universidad Andina Simón Bolivar
This report presents an evaluation of the Programa Andino de Derechos Humanos y Democracia 2002-2005. This regional human rights programme included five country projects, based in the member states of the Comunidad Andina de Naciones (CAN): Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela as well as two regional projects, one on Justice of the Peace with headquarters in Lima and one on Training and Information in Human Rights with headquarters in Quito.
An evaluation team, composed of three international and five local experts, visited all seven projects and their components in the five countries during November and December 2005. A desk study carried out before the start of the field missions determined the methodology for the five country missions. Revision of documents, interviews with EU officials and focus groups with bene-ficiaries were parts of the evaluation mission.
Conclusions
The regional character of the Programa Andino
There are few documents that sustain the way the regional Programa Andino (PA) was identified and designed. These documents state that the design of this regional human rights programme in the Andean Region was meant as a means of lessening the administrative burden related to the implementation of human rights activities in the region. Interviewed EU officers state that there was also the intention to achieve synergies and a greater impact by the means of a regional ap-proach.
According to some of these documents, the preparation of the regional programme included anal-ysis of human rights situations and participation of local institutions. However, this is not reflected in the design of the PA and not confirmed by the implementing organisations, especially in the country projects.
The objectives of the PA are very relevant to the needs of the Andean countries in human rights matters. However, these needs were not analyzed properly. Identification, design and planning of the regional programme did not follow all the steps of the project management cycle. Design of the programme and projects on regional and on national levels was done mostly through Europe-an services, without a thorough Europe-analysis of problems Europe-and needs Europe-and without a baseline study. If some of these took place, there was not enough transparency or clarity about the process and there was too little participation of the involved institutions in the final definition of the PA’s de-sign.
On the other hand, the two regional projects on Justice of the Peace and on Training and Informa-tion in Human Rights did have a regional design; in the first, partner organizaInforma-tions of the five coun-tries participated in the design, while the latter was designed by the leader of the consortium.
Since the PA was conceived by European officers, its appropriation by local projects and organisa-tions only took place after implementation started. The fact that there was no budget foreseen for the realization of regional events and exchange between countries and the different components of the programme is another indication it was not designed as a regional programme.
The conclusion is that the Programa Andino was not created as a regional programme. The only re-gional aspect foreseen was the rere-gional coordination of seven projects in the region. The adminis-trative burden was transferred from Brussels services to a single entity in the region.
Added value of the regional approach
The results of the PA at the regional level are mostly unforeseen since no common activities were planned from the start. The only space where all implementing organisations met were Regional Encounters and this is where some regional results originated.
All involved organisations and the final beneficiaries who benefited from the regional projects cel-ebrate the opportunity that the PA gave them to improve their knowledge and to exchange expe-riences with organisations in other Andean countries. This positive effect could have been stronger if regular contacts and exchange as well as common activities were planned and promoted from the start of the programme. It is also felt that general objectives were to widely formulated and that more specific common topics could have generated more interest among the involved organ-izations and inspired more regional coordination.
The impact of the PA on a regional level was the establishment of closer collaboration and interac-tion between NGOs and grassroots organizainterac-tions, creating positive synergies. PA NGOs have de-veloped a joint analysis of the regional human rights context and have, in some countries, reached joint positions and carried out common activities. Similarly, regional networks of NGOs working in the same area of activity have been strengthened due to the regional Justice of the Peace and Hu-man Rights Training and Information projects.
The conclusion is that a regional approach was not planned and only partially achieved due largely to regional encounters and exchanges that were planned and carried out only once the PA began. The regional approach prepared participating institutions for implementation of regional projects.
Added value of the Regional Coordination Office (RCO)
The RCO took over the administrative burden of the Brussels desk officers and had an important role in the promotion of the regional character of the PA. It was the RCO that took the initiative to organize regional encounters where all implementing organisations of the seven PA projects could meet to exchange experiences, increase their knowledge and deepen their insights through joint analysis of national and regional problems, leading to an increased awareness of the importance, convenience and possibility of regional activities.
The RCO also took the responsibility to review reports, train and support the country projects and regional projects’ coordinators and to provide ongoing administrative support to them.
After deconcentration of the EU cooperation services took place, EC Delegations took over part of the RCO’s role, which caused inconveniences for the implementing organisations. An important added value of the RCO in this confused and difficult process is that it has maintained the institu-tional memory, the expertise and the contacts that were built up during the previous years.
The conclusion is that the added value of the RCO was that it took over administrative tasks from Brussels officials, that its activities facilitated the execution of the projects and permitted the Pro-grama Andino to develop a regional character.
The Country Projects
The five country projects were mostly a sum of different parts and not a tightly integrated project. In these projects already existing activities of several organizations were continued, creating an opportunity to expand them to others topics or to other territories. In every country, 4 to 6 imple-menting organisations worked together, totalling 26 organisations in the five countries, with very different characteristics.
The definition of human rights activities on the local level was done by each participating organi-sation, and later these various designs were forced into a common planning matrix by externally contracted consultants. Hence, the participation of the implementing organisations in the design of the activities was limited to their own participation, which often was altered in the final design of the country project.
The experience and professionalism of the individual members of the country projects have per-mitted an acceptable implementation of these projects, making an adequate use of existing hu-man and financial resources. They also showed significant skill in hu-managing external and internal obstacles and in adapting their strategies and activities in order to continue executing the projects successfully.
The results of almost all individual parts of the country projects are important, but these were mostly achieved through independent activities of the consortiums’ members. In some cases, there was increased impact through agreements and cooperation with other members of the con-sortium and/or other organisations. These results contributed to the specific objectives of the dif-ferent country projects that aim at better human rights conditions and improvement of the democratic culture in the countries.
The objectives of the country projects are very wide and general; therefore, it is difficult to measure the extent to which the projects’ results have achieved a permanent impact. Nevertheless it is pos-sible to observe and appreciate impacts because of the efforts of individual implementing organ-izations; also, important impacts of the country projects as such can be observed in the cases where the consortiums’ partners decided to unite forces. This was also the case with joint efforts engaged in with other organisations or networks.
The greatest impacts that will continue to be felt beyond the life of the project are in those areas where the NGOs have been able to engage and secure commitments from local or national author-ities.
An unforeseen positive impact of the country projects is the strengthening of the implementing organisations, which passed through a learning process that prepared them for this kind of project and made their coordination and execution better than they were before. They learned that in spite of different backgrounds and experience, it is possible to execute common activities and im-prove their impact.
The country projects only partially achieved their specific objectives because the implementation period was too short to achieve substantial changes in democratic culture. Therefore, a longer im-plementation time or a second phase of the PA would have been necessary to cement more dura-ble changes to democratic culture.
The country projects ceased to exist with the end of EU funding. Three countries presented pro-posals for the continuation of their activities to the EU, but these were not accepted. In the other two countries, no attempts were made to continue the joint activities. However, many of the activ-ities will enjoy continuation with other funding, but not in the framework of the PA consortium of organizations.
The conclusion is that the country projects were the sum of different individual projects, which ac-complished their objectives and contributed to the country projects’ and the PA’s objective. The country projects’ objectives are similar to the PA’s objectives. The general PA objective presuppos-es rpresuppos-esults in different countripresuppos-es.
Regional Project Justice of the Peace
The Regional Project on Justice of the Peace (RPJP) is a project in support of Justice of the Peace and community-based justice in the five Andean countries. The decision to support this project within the context of the PA was well-founded because this is an exceptionally cost-effective way to support access to justice, and access to justice is a fundamental human right. The selection of the Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL) as Interlocutor Unico was justified for its leadership in the field and its location in Peru. Experience and institutional capacity also justified the selection of IDL’s NGO partners.
Design of the RPJP was consultative and collaborative, giving the implementing organisations ear-ly ownership of the project. Communication between IDL and the EU was fluid in the design stage, as was communication between IDL and its partners.
The RPJP executed more activities than were envisioned in the POG, and executed virtually its en-tire budget. Delays in financial distributions adversely affected some national coordinating organ-isations, and this was most pointedly the case during the deconcentration.
The results of the RPJP varied by country, given local dynamics and political circumstances. None-theless, the RPJP achieved impressive results in each country that exceeded a reasonable interpre-tation of the results set out in the POG. Valuable best practices were developed and the Red Andino
network has established itself as a major and indispensable player in its field.
The RPJP has had considerable impact, albeit to varying degrees, across the Andean region. The impact of the RPJP has been at the local level through the work of direct beneficiaries, at the state institutional level, and at the level of policy.
Impact has been positive and significant in terms of consolidating a culture of human rights and democracy.
The conclusion is that this regional programme made a significant and durable contribution to the objective of strengthening Justices of the Peace and community-based justice, which in turn made a significant and durable contribution to the PA’s general objective of promoting human rights and consolidating democracy.
Regional Project Training and Information on Human Rights
The Regional Project Training and Information in Human Rights is an educational project carried out by the Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar (UASB), in coordination with other local universities, and aims at the formation of students and specialists in the area of human rights in the Andean region.
This project did not result from a needs assessment or a stakeholder analysis. As a result, the logic of the interventions is not always clear. This project known as Programa Andino de Derechos Hu-manos (PADH) is the result of a human rights political vision of the UASB on the Andean region. Most importantly, the dominance of human rights activism and the lack of a systematic approach to human rights in the Andean region initiated the academic human rights programme. The lack of a needs assessment and a stakeholder analysis make it difficult to judge whether the defined ob-jectives of the project are the most relevant for the needs and whether the institutes selected are the best.
The regionalism of the PADH consisted in that institutions from the Andean countries together planned the content of the activities planned. Furthermore, the PADH implemented one educa-tional course in each of the five Andean countries. In addition, the human rights specialization course implemented in Quito had participants from all the Andean countries.
The project initiated by the UASB in Quito, sought cooperating institutes in the Andean region once the project obtained funding. The cooperating institutions were not involved in the design of the project but collaborated in the design of content of the activities.
This regional project has been very efficient in implementing the activities planned; it has imple-mented five human rights training courses, one in each of the participating countries, two human rights specialization courses, an Internet based human rights information centre and three region-al academic conferences.
The participating institutions cooperated to develop joint curricula and facilitated the develop-ment of an Andean human rights web page. The UASB in Quito lead the PADH, but the other par-ticipating institutions played a vital role in facilitating the project. The UASB in Quito was responsible for the administrative and financial reporting to the EU and as such, it maintained con-tacts with the RCO.
The human rights specialization course at the UASB in Quito is an excellent academic programme of post-graduate education. The most successful elements of the course are the interdisciplinary character, the replica and most importantly the regional dimension. The methodology of the spe-cialization course is interdisciplinary. This interdisciplinary approach supports the notion that hu-man rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. The most valuable element of the specialization course has been the regional component.
The Revista Andina addresses regional human rights issues. Revista Andina initiated as an informal collaborative effort, national coordinators sought contributions by local authors, and today it is a central element in the web page of the PADH and has become institutionalized.
The impact of this regional project is at the level of the students and at the policy level.
The sustainability of the project was only partly achieved. The UASB in Quito will continue to im-plement human rights specialization courses for Ecuadorian students and in Bolivia the UASB com-mences to implement a human rights specialization course for Bolivian students. The UASB considers human rights as one of their central areas of academic studies. However, the regional el-ement of the specialization course is not maintained.
The conclusion is that this regional project carried out all its planned activities and accomplished its objectives. It also contributed to the overall objective of the PA.
Coordination between projects at the national and regional level
Inside the country projects, implementing organisations coordinated their activities in Mesas de Participación what lead to exchanges and deepening of ideas and concepts and in some cases to joint activities between organizations or on the part of the consortiums as a whole. At the finalisa-tion of the country projects, these joint efforts are often seen as an important and unexpected re-sult of the country projects.
Inside the two regional projects, coordination of activities between member organisations was planned and took place on a regular basis. However, there was no coordination of activities be-tween the two regional projects.
There was little or no coordination between country projects, and little coordination of the two re-gional projects with the country projects.
There was exchange of experiences and joint analysis by the seven projects, during regional en-counters, created by the RCO. Most of the implementing organisations are now conscious of the importance of regional coordination, prepared and willing to implement regional activities.
The conclusion is that there was little coordination between the seven projects; this reflects the lack of a regional approach of the Programa Andino.
Recommendations
The lessons learned during the implementation and evaluation of the seven projects are translated into recommendations for the implementation of future projects that might be considered by the EIDHR.
1. The identification, design and planning of human rights projects with EU funding must follow all the steps of the project management cycle, and not as a mere formality. From the begin-ning, this process must be clear to all stakeholders, and participation of implementing organi-sations and other beneficiaries in the identification of needs and necessary activities is vital to the success of the projects.
2. A correct identification and design includes at least a well defined Global Operational Plan with verifiable indicators for objectives and results, coherent assumptions and monitoring and evaluation methods. It should also include considerations about the sustainability of the activities at the end of the project.
3. Consultation and collaboration early in the design process promotes ownership of the pro-gramme on the part of the implementing organisations. Training and assistance to the organ-isations might be necessary to achieve the correct design and planning of the activities and this must be considered in the time schedule and budget of the programme.
4. Working across a region with sufficiently similar characteristics can provide significant oppor-tunities for productive synergies to develop through regional exchanges. A future regional human rights programme should consider more bi-lateral or multilateral areas in which to exploit synergies based on common themes and issues.
5. Efforts should be made throughout the life of a project to avoid delays in remitting funds to implementing organisations, including proactive precautionary measures if a major adminis-trative change is foreseeable.
6. A future regional human rights programme must be an answer to problems that exist in the entire (Andean) region and at the same time be flexible to respond to the specific problems of every country. Permanent regional and national coordination offices are an important requi-site for the successful implementation of a regional programme.
7. Working in a consortium permits exchange of experiences and capacity building of participat-ing organisations. If the consortium is well established, synergies and more impact will be the result. The incorporation of strong and experienced NGOs and networks, with conceptual and political affinity, facilitates the achievement of planned results, impact and sustainability. Including small and less experienced NGOs will contribute to their capacity building. 8. Adequate budgets must be provided for the functioning of the coordinating and decision
making instances including travelling if the organizations are located or work in different regions; and for exchange and meetings of participants at a regional level.
9. Working at multiple levels – the legal framework and policy level, the institutional level, and in the field – permits the best opportunity to achieve lasting results and impact.
10. In order to assess the increase of knowledge and awareness, and thus the real impact of train-ing and education activities, it is necessary to implement a monitortrain-ing system to know how the beneficiaries are using what they learned in their daily practice and in their organisation. 11. Training workshops and seminars will produce more durable results if participants are invited
to a series rather than to a single session, and therefore consider designing training pro-grammes from the outset as a series of workshops or seminars.
12. Providing scholarships for post-graduate studies and integrating work with studies are an essential component of post-graduate studies, especially if these programmes have a regional dimension.
13. The EU should consider fine-tuning its data collection and reporting methodology so that its partners can report the actual total number of beneficiaries reached, as well as the extent to which beneficiaries participated in more than one activity. Similarly, the EU should consider requiring its partners to plan and budget for M & E systems and the required personnel to implement them, since only such systems are capable of tracking indicators systematically over the course of a multi-year project.
14. The gender perspective must be defined and socialized among the implementing organisa-tions at the start of a new human rights project, in order to have transparency and clarity not only about what is desired, but also about the necessary common actions and strategies to achieve the objectives.
15. Many of the beneficiaries of human rights projects are not familiar with the EU Logo and maybe even are unaware of what the European Union stands for. Therefore, it is necessary to find other more creative ways and methods to spread information about the EU and to increase its visibility.
16. For the sake of sustainability, when working in regions beset with political turmoil, consider extending the life of comprehensive programmes to five or six years, even if this means doing less each year, or plan a reduced and contingent “phase two” as a follow up.
17. A regional human rights programme must have independence from governments and also from the regional authority (SG-CAN), in order to monitor national and regional authorities’ compliance with local, regional and international norms. To increase impacts, alliances with public institutions must be sought, but should be structured in such a way that they do not imperil the independence and impartiality of human rights organisations that perform an important monitoring role.
18. It is very important that the EU services in all circumstances demonstrate their unconditional support to the consolidation of democracy and the defence of human rights, maintaining a coherent supportive relationship with the organizations that received EU funding for the same objective.
1.1 Background
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the overall regional approach of the Programa Andino
and consider the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the seven projects the Programa Andino encompasses.1 The evaluation also considers issues related to gen-der and EU visibility. The Programa Andino includes five country projects, based in Bolivia, Colom-bia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela; and two regional projects, one on the administration of justice with headquarters in Lima and one on human rights education with headquarters in Quito.
The countries of the Andean Community have similar human rights problems. Civil society is still weak and often unable to secure human rights protection through state institutions. Non-govern-mental organizations active in the field of human rights are committed but often lack the capacity and the skills to promote human rights and engage the state in human rights protection. The state institutions often lack the capacity, the expertise or the willingness to act in accordance with inter-national or constitutional human rights standards. Therefore, the idea behind consolidating hu-man rights efforts in the Andean countries into a joint programme was to allow coordination of efforts and thereby diminish administrative efforts and costs. Another possible motivation is the strengthening of local human rights initiatives by means of regional initiatives and exchanges of best practices between projects at the different levels.
The overall objective of the Programa Andino is defined as to contribute to the promotion and dis-semination of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Andean Community countries and, ultimately, to the development and consolidation of democracy.2 The programme is designed to promote information, campaigns, policy initiatives, training and education by supporting civil so-ciety organizations and, through them, to make people in these countries aware of what human rights are and the instruments for applying and safeguarding such rights.
The idea of a Programa Andino materialized after a mission undertaken in 1998 by the European Commission services.3 The Directorate Latin America of the Directorate General for External Rela-tions, of the European Commission, wished to consolidate efforts in the area of human rights as-sistance in the Andean Community. At the time, the EIDHR (European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights) did not yet provide funding for human rights projects in Latin America and as a con-sequence, the identification of the Programa Andino did not have its origin within EIDHR, but rather within the Directorate Latin America of the Directorate General for External Relations. However, the funding for the Programa Andino is obtained from the 1999 EIDHR budget.
1 See: TERMS OF REFERENCE for the External Evaluation of the Programa Anindo (Draft of 26 October 2005) TITLE: Pro-grama Plurianual para la Democracia y los Derechos Humanos en la Comunidad Andina REFERENCE: EuropeAid/B7-701/1999/075.
2 EIDHR, Programa plurianual para la Democracia y los derechos Humanos en la Comunidad Andina, Programme Summary Sheet, 1999 funding.
3 Interview Deputy Head of Unit, Directorate Latin America, External Relations Directorate-General, European Commis-sion, Brussels 17 November 2005.
The decisions for funding the Programa Andino were made when numerous changes were taking place within EC European Commission with regard to the funding of human rights initiatives in de-veloping countries. In April 1999, the Council approved two regulations (975/1999 and 976/1999), which established the legal basis for the work of the EU in the area of human rights and democra-tisation. With these regulations in place, a Human Rights and Democracy Committee was estab-lished. This Committee advises the Commission on EIDHR funding of projects over 1 million euro, such as the Programa Andino. A further change that affected the initiation of the Programa Andino
was that in January 2001, the EuropeAid Co-operation Office was created to coordinate all external aid programmes. EIDHR remains independent but is integrated into the EuropeAid Co-operation Office.
The Programa Andino had a very long preparatory phase. The idea for the programme materialized in 1998, funding for the programme was approved from the 1999 EIDHR budget, but contracts with the implementing organizations were only signed in November and December 2001, and the activities of the different projects did not start until early 2002. The grant totalled 11.375.000 Euro, and by the end of 2005 a contribution of a total of 9.989.000 euro had been made.4 The pro-gramme’s structure is based on seven projects, each with a specific budget and a selected imple-mentation organization responsible for coordination. The activities of the seven projects were carried out over a period of 48 months5 and were completed by 31 December 2005. As a means to coordinate and administer the Programa Andino, a Regional Coordination Office (RCO) was set up in Bogotá, Colombia.
1.2 Research questions
The regional approach of the Programa Andino is unique for the work of the EIDHR. Only one other regional programme exists for human rights and democratisation in Central America. Because the
Programa Andino is unique in its regional nature, EIDHR is interested in knowing what lessons can be learned from this regional approach. Furthermore, the EIHRD is interested in learning whether the seven projects have achieved their objectives. As the RCO played an important role in coordi-nating the Programa Andino, its function is also of interest. To assess these elements, the evalua-tion of the Programa Andino addressed the following main questions:
1. Was the Programa Andino created as a regional programme? 2. What has been the added value of the regional approach?
3. What has been the added value of the Regional Coordination Office (RCO) for the implementa-tion of the Programa Andino?
4 EIDHR, Programa plurianual para la Democracia y los derechos Humanos en la Comunidad Andina, Programme Summary Sheet, 1999 funding and ToR.
5 Some of the programmes were initially planned to run for just over three years (e.g., the Regional Programme on Jus-tice of the Peace was supposed to run for 41 months), but were extended to compensate for delays caused by the deconcentration of human rights activities to local EC Delegations.
4. To what extent have the two regional projects, one on education/ awareness building and one on the administration of justice/ access to justice, accomplished their project objectives? 5. To what extent are the project objectives of the five country projects integrated into the
over-all approach of the Programa Andino?
6. To what extent have the five country projects accomplished their projects objectives? 7. What level of coordination exists at the national level and the regional level between the
seven projects?
1.3 Methodology
The methodology used for the evaluation included the review and analysis of a wide range of doc-uments: Global Operational Plans, Annual Plans, financial and activity reports, prior evaluations, communication between the RCO and the different projects, research and educational materials produced by the projects, as well as policy and legislative proposals and results that flowed from Programa Andino activities. The evaluation team also conducted interviews with the EU staff in Brussels, the RCO, EC Delegations in each of the Programa Andino countries, the national and gional implementing organizations, trainers, beneficiaries, national public officials working in re-lated fields, and other donors.
With the implementing organizations, each of the components of the various projects were ad-dressed. However, as a means to judge the effectiveness and the impact of the seven projects, one specific component of all seven projects was analysed in detail. All seven projects engaged in hu-man rights education, therefore this activity was analysed in depth with implementing organisa-tions and beneficiaries across the Programa Andino. The evaluation team has reviewed and analysed the material produced for the human rights education activities, and the implementing organisations and beneficiaries were asked in detail about the activities, results and impact of hu-man rights education. With the beneficiaries of the different huhu-man rights education activities, fo-cus group interviews were planned. In many cases it was impossible to bring together numerous beneficiaries to participate in such groups due to the fact following reasons: the projects had been completed and contact with beneficiaries no longer existed, and the national local experts who formed part of the evaluation team had very little notice and time to prepare focus groups. While in some cases 10 or more beneficiaries of a single programme were interviewed in a single country, in other cases single beneficiaries were interviewed.
The international evaluation team was composed of Christiane Tuijtelaars, (team leader), Evan Fox-Decent and Hilde Hey.
Members of the team visited all five of the Andean countries and were assisted by local experts. The composition of the country teams was as follows:
• Bolivia, Christiane Tuijtelaars and Viviana Dipp between 26 November – 1 December and 9 – 10 December 2005;
• Colombia, Christiane Tuijtelaars and Fernando Medellin, between 2 - 8 December 2005; • Ecuador, Hilde Hey and Kathia Ferrufino, between 25 November - 1 December 2005; • Peru, Evan Fox-Decent and Tutty Barandiaran, between 5 - 10 December 2005; • Venezuela, Evan Fox-Decent and Mariana Alcalay, between 11-16 December 2005.
The international team met in Bogotá on 2 - 4 December 2005.
Christiane Tuijtelaars and Hilde Hey held interviews in Brussels on 16 – 17 November 2005.
Prior to the in-country missions, Hilde Hey wrote a Desk Study that summarised the purpose of the evaluation and the background of the Programa Andino. The Desk Study also established the eval-uation’s methodology and set out tentative agendas for the in-country missions. Lastly, the Desk Study formulated an outline of this report’s structure. The Desk Study was submitted to Brussels and met with approval. The international evaluation team made some minor revisions to the re-port’s proposed structure during its meeting in Bogotá, the most significant one being the inclu-sion of a separate chapter (chapter 3) on the regional characteristics of the Programa Andino.
1.4 Structure and preparation of this report
Christiane Tuijtelaars wrote chapter three (The regional character of the Programa Andino) and chapter four (The Country Projects of the Programa Andino) of this report. Evan Fox-Decent wrote chapter five (Regional Project on Justice of the Peace), and Hilde Hey wrote chapter six (Regional Project on Training and Information in Human Rights or PADH).
At the conclusion of the in-country missions, the country teams described above prepared prelinary reports for the relevant international experts on the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, im-pact and sustainability of the different projects of the Programa Andino in their respective countries. These preliminary reports played an indispensable role in the drafting of this report be-cause they alone permitted each international expert to take account of the major results and im-pacts of the various projects in each of the five Programa Andino countries.
Christiane Tuijtelaars and Viviana Dipp reported on Bolivia’s chapter of the Regional Programme on Training and Information in Human Rights (PADH) to Hilde Hey.
This same team reported on Bolivia’s implementation of the Regional Project on Justice of the Peace (RPJP) to Evan Fox-Decent.
Christiane Tuijtelaars and Fernando Medellin reported on Colombia’s implementation of the PADH to Hilde Hey, and on the RPJP to Evan Fox-Decent.
Evan Fox-Decent and Tutty Barandarian reported on Peru’s Country Project to Christiane Tuijte-laars, and on the PADH to Hilde Hey.
Evan Fox-Decent and Mariana Alcalay reported on Venezuela’s Country Project to Christiane Tui-jtelaars, and on the PADH to Hilde Hey.
Hilde Hey and Kathia Ferrufina reported on Ecuador’s Country Project on Christiane Tuijtelaars, and on the RPJP to Evan Fox-Decent.
While the international experts wrote the substantive chapters in this report, they wish to acknowl-edge the substantive contributions of the local experts to the drafting of the preliminary intra-team reports that made this report possible.
2.1 Introduction
The European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, EIDHR was founded in 1994 following an initiative of the European Parliament in order to have an instrument or financial budget to sup-port democratization initiatives and/or activities for the promotion and defense of human rights all over the world. It is part and a complement of the European Union’s larger set of cooperation instruments and programs. To implement the initiatives, NGOs as representatives of civil society are considered the essential counterparts.
The Andean Community of Nations (CAN), founded by the Cartagena Agreement in 1969, compris-es five countricompris-es: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. Since the 1970s CAN has been supported with development cooperation by the European Community. Comprising numerous in-itiatives in various areas of activity (e.g. fishing and agriculture), EC cooperation with the Andean region has focused on economic initiatives relating to the construction of the common market (customs, standards and specifications, competition rules, etc.), on the promotion of human rights, on humanitarian assistance and the fight against drugs. The EC is the main source of funding for Andean regional projects, the other sponsors having tended to opt for a national approach.
The EC Regional Strategy Paper for the CAN (2002-2006 CSP) shows that its focus is now on two priorities. The first is to support the Andean integration process through the various direct partic-ipants in that process, helping CAN to develop a single market and to project itself as a player on the international stage. The second is to support the creation of an Andean peace zone by concen-trating on various potential sources of conflict, such as the fight against drugs and the manage-ment of natural resources. The regional indicative programme for the period from 2002 to 2006 proposes three initiatives in the following domains: involvement of civil society, harmonisation of statistics and prevention of natural disasters.
The Programa Andino (PA) for Democracy and Human Rights was conceived by the Directorate Lat-in America of the Directorate General for External Relations and later fLat-inanced and implemented by the EIDHR in the regional context6 and is considered a “target project”, which means that it did not follow the normal procedures for the presentation and approval of projects through a call for proposals. Several years passed between the initial idea of implementing a regional human rights program in the Andean Region in the mid nineties and the start of its implementation7. As early as 1997 and 1998, visits were made to the five Andean countries by Brussels officials to find out through informal conversations the interest of some NGOs in implementing a regional Human Rights project. These visits were followed in 1999 by consultant missions to draft project proposals.
6 A similar program was implemented in Central America in the same conditions
7 Some of the origins of the programme cannot be traced because documents were not kept or disappeared somehow in the fundamental reorganization of the European Union’s cooperation sections that took place before and during the implementation of the program. Much of the following is based upon interviews with project officials both in Brussels and in the different countries.
In the same year, on 8.12.1999, the European Commission approved financing the AML/B7-703/IB/ 99/095 Programme “Democracy and Human Rights in the Andean Community 2000-2003” for an amount of € 11.375.000. The original contract deadline with the recipients was 31.12.2000 and this deadline had to be extended until 31 December 2001, to give the EC time to draft and sign the im-plementation contracts. The delay was mostly due to “the various modifications of the procedures, the introduction of successive models of contracts and extra work of certain units”8. Finally, con-tracts were signed with the seven projects that integrated the regional PA Programme by the end of 2001 and activities started between November 2001 and January 2002. The program was exe-cuted over four years between 2002 and 2005, and the last of the activities were closed by the end of 2005.
This chapter analyzes the regional character of the Programa Andino and endeavours to establish if it was envisaged and designed as a regional programme from the start, and if there was an added value contributed by the regional nature of the programme. This chapter emphasizes the design of the programme and its regional coordination, as its implementation by the seven integrating projects will be discussed in the following chapters.
2.2 Relevance of design of the
Programa Andino
as a regional
programme
The Programa Andino included five country projects, based in the member states of the CAN: Bo-livia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela as well as two regional projects, one on Justice of the Peace with headquarters in Lima and one on Training and Information in Human Rights with head-quarters in Quito. The overall objective of the Programa Andino is defined as to contribute to the promotion and dissemination of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Andean Commu-nity countries and, ultimately, to the development and consolidation of democracy.9
The objectives of the five country projects and the two regional projects all repeat or include as-pects of this general objective of the regional programme, and refer to the contributions they will make to a democratic culture, with respect for human rights and fundamental rights and in two cases (Ecuador and Venezuela) to a decrease in impunity for violations of human rights. The two regional projects also aim to make a contribution to the development and consolidation of democ-racy and the rule of law (estado de derecho) and to the promotion of fundamental and human rights.
8 “Communication to Mr Pattens´s Commission B7-703 Heading”, p.1
9 EIDHR, Programa plurianual para la Democracia y los derechos Humanos en la Comunidad Andina, Programme Summary Sheet, 1999 funding.
The programme was designed to promote information, campaigns, training and education by sup-porting civil society organizations and, through them, to make people in these countries aware of what human rights are and the instruments for applying and safeguarding such rights.
Identification and design The ways the identification of needs and the selection of the implementing organisations took
place are not very clear. Organisations in all five countries state that they were contacted by Euro-pean Union cooperation officials (Directorate Latin America of the Directorate General for External Relations) who invited them to present a programme for human rights promotion, and/or to form consortiums for the formulation of a country project.
On the basis of the few available documents and interviews with EU officials and NGO officials in both Brussels and in the involved countries, it is clear that European officials conceived the idea of implementing a regional programme, and there were initiatives to examine and make use of exist-ing interest in the Andean countries. Accordexist-ing to one document10, in preparing this programme, the results were considered of a study performed in the CAN countries during 1998 and particulary the experts’ recommendations about strategic priorities (ejes estratégicos) in every country. It also says that this programme was prepared in collaboration with the EC Delegations in the CAN mem-ber states and coordinated with the memmem-ber states representatives who participated in different meetings to define priorities and establish a coordination system, after evaluating the specific sit-uation of each country. It also states that since 1993 the democratization process in the Andean region was supported by a series of actions to promote human rights and the consolidation of democratic institutions. According to this document the specific objectives for each country project were the same and were defined previously. For every country a specific priority action line is defined, as will be explained in chapter 4.
A methodology is described for defining the general objective of the PA11:
• an analysis in every country of the human rights context and of ratification of international instruments. “Fichas” (summaries) were prepared about the situation found in every country. • An assessment of the specific situation in every country regarding respect and promotion of
human rights; this evaluation did not only consider the de facto situation, but also the dia-logue initiated in the framework of the Agreements with the Andean Pact.
• The elaboration of a pluriannual action plan (2000-2003) in every country of the Andean Com-munity. Every country project defines the priorities of the actions to be implemented taking into account the analysis and evaluations that were carried out, previous experiences in the execution of projects and the dialogue that was taking place in every society.
10 “Propuesta de Decisión de Financiación de acuerdo al Artículo B7-703 del Presupuesto,” IB/0058/99-ES, Bruselas, 15 de junio de 1999. Documento Interno. Section 2
The EU services that prepared the programme, refer to the regional approach only in terms of less-ening the administrative burden for the European cooperation services. The same reason is given for the country projects, which unite different NGOs in one structure “to assure their implemen-tation coherence, to avoid the bureaucratic and administrative burden and, in a word, simplify the management and execution of the country programmes”12. The selection of a single interlocutor in the country projects is supposed to produce a greater impact of the actions in the region in terms of effectiveness, coordination and complementarity13. There is no such reference about the regional programme. Besides these arguments, no other documental reference has been found by this evaluation mission about other objectives for implementing a regional programme, although these were mentioned in several interviews with EU officers.
In order to assess the question of the regional character of the Programa Andino a better definition should have been available about the motivation of the EU services for implementing it. A regional programme should at least analyze regional problems and needs and define a regional objective in accordance with the problems to be addressed. Also it should analyze stakeholders (institutions, beneficiaries) and expected results in the involved countries and define a regional approach for achieving them, i.e. selection of necessary activities in the region and in each country and the most indicated organizations and operative structure to implement them. If the only intention of the EU for implementing a regional programme was to lessen its administrative burden, this assessment could be limited to this matter; however on the basis of interviews with EU officers this evaluation mission will suppose that there was also the intention to strengthen local human rights efforts and to produce synergies and greater impact by means of the regional programme.
Selection of implementing organisations
The beneficiaries in the 1999 documents are civil society institutions who will be encouraged to work together. For the lead NGO of the consortium or “Interlocutor Unico” (IU) some criteria were defined: expertise in the field of human rights, experience in the implementation of HR projects, management capacity and previous experience with EC financing and roots in the specific country. The selection of the participating organisations in each country project was supposed to be de-fined by the organisation that was first contacted and the selection of the Interlocutor Único was to be a matter to be decided by the members of the new consortiums. In another preparatory docu-ment14, the country “fichas” are annexed and these include the names of “interlocutores únicos” or legal representatives, as well as a list of all the other organizations selected.
The organisations that were first contacted by the EU officials think that their selection was mostly for reasons of experience and previous relationships with the EU. The specifics of the country projects will be developed in chapter 4 of this report.
12 Ibid, section 5.2 13 Ibid, section 4.4
14 “Proyecto Decisión de la Comisión” relativa a proyectos y programas que deben financiarse con recursos del presupuesto de la Unión Europea LÏNEA B7/703. IB/0058/99-ES Bruselas (draft).
As for the two regional projects, no clear criteria were formulated to select the lead NGOs of the consortium nor the implementing organisations. The lead NGOs of these consortiums are a recog-nized human rights organization in one case, which had received EU funding for a similar project on a national level, and an Andean University in the other. The specific identification and selection conditions of the two regional projects will be developed in chapter 5 and 6 of the report.
The member organisations of the country projects all state that the identification of the projects was an EU initiative and that they were not involved in the identification of needs and the planning of activities. At the request of the EU officers they did present ideas and drafts about possible hu-man rights projects, but these were put together in national projects to be executed by a consor-tium in every country, by external consultants with little participation and or information of the involved organizations15. During interviews no one referred to the analysis and human rights as-sessment described above. Only after the start of the activities, some became aware of the regional character of the PA. On the other hand, the two PA’s regional projects did have partners in different countries and were conceived as regional projects from the start. However, this does not imply that they would also have relations with the other components of the PA on a regional level.
Regional coordination In order to coordinate the PA at a regional level, a Regional Coordinating Office (RCO) was planned
to function in Bogotá, but this Office was implemented only after the start of the Programme. Therefore it could not guarantee the regional character of the activities from the start. Once estab-lished, it had an important role in the reformulation of the projects, especially the country projects, and made an important effort to visualize and strengthen the regional character of the PA. In the perception of the projects’ implementing organizations the RCO is sometimes considered as part of the programme, and sometimes as part of the European supervising structure, the latter espe-cially after the deconcentration process.
The regional dimension of the PA was mostly guaranteed by the work of the RCO. The most impor-tant events that emphasized and reinforced the regional dimension were the Regional Encounters that were organized to share and exchange experiences among the different country and regional projects. However, only the two regional projects had funding for travelling; in the country projects no budget was foreseen for travelling and international exchanges, so these events had to be financed by contingency funds. Originally there was also a lack of funds for the RCO to fi-nance travel to support the local projects. No travel was budgeted for two persons from the RCO, should the regional coordinator need the support of his or her assistant. Later a redistribution of funds was approved by an addendum to the contract and these funds permitted staff from the RCO to travel to the PA countries.
15 Only in Peru implementing organizations and their activities were selected through a call for proposals. In Venezuela some say to have participated in planning activities.
Effect of deconcentration In October 2004 the deconcentration process was formally completed, in that month the RCO was integrated into the EC Delegation in Bogotá. Although still in charge of the Programa Andino, it also passed to be the section in charge of general human rights projects in Colombia. During 2004, at different moments, the responsibility for the country projects was transferred to the local EC Del-egation of each country. In the same year the responsibility for the regional Justice of the Peace project was transferred to the Lima Delegation, while the regional HR Training and Information Project stayed with the Bogotá Delegation16.
During that year and even during 2005, there was much confusion inside the various projects about the role of the RCO and the local CE Delegations post-deconcentration. In the Delegations new officials arrived with responsibility for different HR and other projects and with little or no knowledge about the Programa Andino, its structure and its local and regional operations. The RCO still maintained its contacts with the individual projects, more or less with the same functions, and the local Delegations took over the supervising role formerly carried out by the Brussels desk offic-er. An important added value of the RCO in this confused and difficult process is that it has main-tained the institutional memory, the expertise and the contacts that were built up during the previous years.
The transfer of the projects to the Delegations was not always fluid and without problems, both for reasons having to do with resistance from the projects’ implementing organisations and/or insuf-ficient communication about the deconcentration process Some Delegation officials did not un-derstand the operations and internal structures of the country projects nor their integration in a larger regional programme17. Specific problems in the countries are discussed in chapter 4 of this report.
Especially in the light of the continuing interest of the EU to reinforce civil society in the Andean countries18, this human rights programme was very relevant, but for some reasons this was not al-ways perceived by the EU instances.
Conclusions There are few documents that sustain the way the regional Programa Andino was identified and designed. These documents state that the design of this regional human rights programme in the Andean Region was meant as a means of lessening the administrative burden related to the imple-mentation of human rights activities in the region. Interviewed EU officers state that there was also the intention to achieve synergies and a greater impact by the means of a regional approach.
16 The EC Delegation in Ecuador is formally only an office and the head in Bogotá is formally responsible for Ecuador; all new projects will be directly be managed by Ecuador
17 During this evaluation mission some Delegations officials still recognized that they did not know about the regional character of the PA.
18 Recently the “Cooperation Project EU – Can in action with the Civil Andean Society” was launched, with the specific objec-tive to increase the participation of the Civil Society in the regional integration process of the Andean Community.
According to some documents the preparation of this regional programme included analysis of human rights situations and participation of local institutions. This is not reflected in the design of the PA that did not have all the characteristics of a regional programme.
The general objectives of the PA do respond and are relevant to the needs of the Andean countries in human rights matters. However these needs were not analyzed properly. Identification, design and planning of the regional programme did not follow all the steps of the project management cycle. Design of the programme and projects on regional and on national levels was done mostly through European services, without a thorough analysis of problems and needs and without a baseline study. If some of these took place, there was not enough transparency or clarity about the process and there was too little participation of the involved institutions in the final definition of the PA’s design.
Selection criteria for the “interlocutores únicos” were defined by the European officers; selection cri-teria for the other implementing organisations are not very clear. Since the programme was con-ceived by European officers, its appropriation by local projects and organisations only took place after the implementation started. The fact that there was no budget foreseen for the realization of regional events and exchange between countries and the different components of the pro-gramme is an indication it was not really designed as a regional propro-gramme.
On the other hand, the two regional projects on Justice of the Peace and Education and Training and Information in Human Rights did have a regional design, as will be explained in chapters 5 and 6. In the first, partner organizations of the five countries participated in the design, while the last was designed by the leader of the consortium.
2.3
Efficiency of the
Programa Andino
as a regional programme
For this pluriannual programme, a total budget of € 11.375.000 was used, being € 8.300.000 for the five country projects and € 1.689.000 for the two regional projects. The country projects that re-ceived the larger part of the budget were Colombia with € 3 million and Peru with € 2 million, the rest of the countries receiving € 1.1 million each. The regional Justice of Peace project also received € 1.1 million and the Human Rights Education Project € 589.000. For coordination purposes, an amount of € 560.000 was allotted. The rest was for other items, including visibility. A sum of € 2.125.000 was to be contributed by the implementing organizations, bringing the total budget of the PA to€ 13.500.000. There were no discussions about these amounts and their distribution, since these were established by the Brussels services and were never altered.
Role of the RCO As indicated, in order to coordinate the activities of the seven projects of the Programa Andino, a Regional Coordination Office was set up in Bogotá, Colombia. Bogotá was probably selected for the following reasons: Colombia had the most critical human rights situation in the region and it was the recipient of the largest amount of funds within the PA. By the end of 2001 the European Commission selected Colombia as one of three “priority countries” for human rights and democra-cy matters in Latin America19.
Before the RCO was established, the former Aidco F3 section (Human Rights and Democracy) was in charge of the contacts with and the implementation of the individual projects and the PA as a whole. Inside this section there was a desk officer in charge of the PA. It was this section that hired the regional Coordinator, and this Coordinator was in charge of relations with Aidco F3 until deconcentration of project supervision and general reorganization of the EU cooperation took place. Until 2004, the RCO was directly in charge of coordination of the seven projects, and was the mediator between the projects and Aidco F3. All project documents were sent by the country and the regional projects to the RCO, which after revision and possible request for amendments, gave its approval of them. With RCO approval in hand, local and regional projects sent the documents directly to Brussels with a copy to the RCO and to the local EC Delegation.
The evaluation mission did not find an official “mandate” for the RCO, which did not have a political role; its assignment was limited to technical assistance. According to different documents, the RCO’s most important functions were:
1. Assist the 7 projects of the PA in their management of Human Rights and Democracy projects; 2. Technical and financial follow-up and guidance;
3. Protection of the regional dimension of the PA; 4. Systematization of experiences and methodologies;
5. Facilitate communication between European Union services, EC Delegations and representa-tives of the seven projects.
The RCO started operating in 2002, after the contracts with the different projects of the PA were signed. Although this coordination instance is mentioned in the first drafts of the PA, it was only after the first regional coordinator started his work that most PA organizations really became aware of the regional character of the programme. This coordinator played a very important role in the promotion and visibility of the regional character of the programme among the involved NGOs, the EC Delegations and other actors in the five Andean countries. From the beginning the RCO was also in charge of other human rights projects in Colombia, since there was no one in charge of them in the EC Delegation in Colombia.
One of the reasons for implementing human right activities on a regional level, integrating differ-ent projects and activities into one programme, was to decrease the “administrative burden”20 that goes with separate implementation of a large number of initiatives. The RCO took over most of the bureaucratic work that was previously done by Brussels desk officers. RCO officials are con-scious that their role was very important, since desk officers in Brussels could not have carried out the coordination functions properly. In the new setting, RCO took over not only the coordination and supervision of the activities, but also took responsibility to review the reports, train and sup-port the country projects’ and regional projects’ coordinators and to provide ongoing administra-tive support to them.
The communication between the RCO and the country and regional projects was normally through Unidades de Gestión (UG) and through the Regional Coordinator in the case of the regional projects, both of which acted as representatives of their consortium. The RCO also facilitated com-munication between all the implementing organizations, a total of 36 institutions across the An-dean Region, including several institutional networks.
In the beginning the RCO necessarily worked rather autonomously. The location of its office out-side the EC Delegation permitted certain independence and sometimes decisions had to be taken rapidly as reactions from “Brussels” to inquiries often arrived with some delay. Therefore some-times decisions taken by the RCO were later criticized by Brussels. The positions taken by Brussels desk officers were not always consistent21. In the first years some annual narrative and financial re-ports of the PA projects were approved, that did not fulfil EU requirements. Later on, the revision of these reports was much stricter, but this previous experience made it more difficult for the RCO to convince the implementing organizations of the urgency to comply with EU requirements. Many of the PA NGOs viewed these as new requirements and a unilateral modification of their re-lationship with the EU and their operating procedure. They saw these new requirements as admin-istratively onerous, blamed them for excessive delays in fund distributions, which in turn caused delays or suspension of activities that were already planned.
The technical and financial follow-up provided by the RCO required a lot of training and assistance by the regional coordinator and his assistant, especially in the first year of implementation of the country projects. One of the first activities of both experts was to explain and assist the (re) elabo-ration of Planes Operativos Globales in all seven PA projects. Although most of the implementing organizations were well established and experienced NGOs, many of them were not familiar with EU requirements regarding planning and implementation of activities.
20 Several interviews in Brussels, among others with Mrs. Paola Amadei, Human Rights Unit DG RELEX 21 Interviews with RCO officials, also confirmed by some of the country projects.
Packages of instruments and formats regarding the project management cycle (planning, moni-toring and evaluation), the presentation of technical and financial reports, EU visibility, gender analysis and others were distributed and explained to every project by the RCO, with the assistance of the representatives of the Unidades de Gestión and the regional coordinators of the regional projects. Training events were organized on a regular basis on both national and regional levels, for the managers and administrators, who repeated these for representatives of the involved or-ganisations.
These unavoidable trainings and required instruments caused an initial resistance in most of the involved organisations, for the energy and time needed, and in the beginning they preferred to go on using their own familiar planning and administrative systems, which were also used for their other activities.
Two administrative and coordinating entities were built into the structure of the country projects: one was the organisation selected as Interlocutor Unico(IU) and the other was the coordinating unit or Unidad de Gestión (UG), consisting of a manager and an administrator. This latter entity was sup-posed to be located both structurally and physically outside the IU, although its relations with the IU mostly were more intensive than with the other organisations The country projects’ Plan Oper-ativo Global (POG) describe the functions of the UG as to guarantee the execution of the country project, to elaborate common POG and POAs (Plan Operativo Anual) as well as regular technical and financial reports, to guarantee the coherence and unity of project actions and to guarantee the contribution of the country project to the Programa Andino22. The role of the UG in the two region-al projects was fulfilled by a regionregion-al coordinator, who had more or less the same functions, but in these cases on a regional level and from the top down. Relations between the RCO, the UGs and the regional coordinators were fluid and balanced most of the time, these were the entities that best understood and contributed to the implementation of the regional character of the PA. Some-times there was confusion inside the country projects about the specific roles of the IU and the UG, as will be explained in chapter 4.
Monitoring and evaluation
The syst
