Results and Indicators
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Impact: To foster a functioning pluralistic, participatory and representative democracy |
Country ranking according to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
BTI Transformation Index 2016
Additional Information:
The Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) analyses and evaluates the quality of democracy, a market economy and political management in 129 developing and transition countries. It measures successes and setbacks on the path toward a democracy based on the rule of law and a socially responsible market economy. The BTI Status Index ranks countries according to their quality of democracy and market economy as of January 31, 2015. |
Country score on the Freedom House Index on Freedom of the Net (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Annual reports published by Freedom House
Additional Information:
The Freedom on the Net index measures each country’s level of internet and digital media freedom based on a set of methodology questions. The index also measures access and openness of other digital means of transmitting information, particularly mobile phones and text messaging services. Freedom on the Net provides analytical reports and numerical scores for 65 countries. Annual Reports are available on the Freedom House website starting in 2011. |
|
Country score on the Freedom House Index "Freedom of the Press" (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Annual reports published by Freedom House
Additional Information:
Freedom of the Press, an annual report on media independence around the world, assesses the degree of print, broadcast, and digital media freedom in 199 countries and territories. Published since 1980, it provides numerical scores and country narratives evaluating the legal environment for the media, political pressures that influence reporting, and economic factors that affect access to news and information. |
|
Country score according to the Worldwide Governance Indicator (WGI) on "Voice and Accountability"
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) projectreports aggregate and individual governance indicators for over 200 countries and territories over theperiod 1996–, for six dimensions of governance:Â
Voice and Accountability
Political Stability and Absence of Violence
Government Effectiveness
Regulatory Quality
Rule of Law
Control of Corruption
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi
Additional Information:
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) are a research dataset summarizing the views on the quality of governance provided by a large number of enterprises, citizen and expert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries.
The indicator on Voice and accountability captures perceptions of the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media. This indicator can help us monitor whether democracy is participatory and representative. Other potentially interesting WGI indicators include Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption.
Â
|
|
Country score according to the Worldwide Governance Indicator (WGI) on "Government Effectiveness"
(Numeric)
Data Source:
The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) projectreports aggregate and individual governance indicators for over 200 countries and territories over theperiod 1996–, for six dimensions of governance:Â
Voice and Accountability
Political Stability and Absence of Violence
Government Effectiveness
Regulatory Quality
Rule of Law
Control of Corruption
Â
Additional Information:
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) are a research dataset summarizing the views on the quality of governance provided by a large number of enterprises, citizen and expert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries.
The indicator on Government effectiveness captures perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government's commitment to such policies. This indicator can help us monitor whether democracy is functioning. Other potentially interesting WGI indicators include Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption.
Â
|
|
Global Democracy Ranking
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Full dataset for the 2015 ranking (latest year for which there is data available: 2016)
Additional Information:
The Democracy Ranking model refers to one political dimension [50%] and five non-political dimensions [which are aggregated with corresponding weights]: (1) gender (socio-economic and educational gender equality) [10%]; (2) economy (economic system) [10%]; (3) knowledge (knowledge-based information society, research and education) [10%]; (4) health (health status and health system) [10%]; (5) environment (environmental sustainability) [10%]. To every dimension different indicators are assigned (such as Freedom House scores on political rights, civil liberties, and press freedom, as well as TI's Corruption Perceptions Index and others). All indicators are transformed to a value rage of “1†to “100â€, where “1†represents the weakest (poorest) and “100†the strongest (best) value. More details here.Â
|
|
Country score according to the Electoral Democracy Index developed by V-Dem (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
The V-Dem website includes data for individual indicators or countries (use Firefox)
Additional Information:
V-Dem distinguishes among 7 high-level principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, participatory, majoritarian, consensual, deliberative and egalitarian, which are then further disaggregated into lower-levels of democracy such as regular elections, direct democracy, gender equality and others. |
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Improved trust in representative democracy |
Percentage of citizens who are [very/fairly] satisfied with the way democracy works in their country (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
- Afro Barometer
Additional Information:
Most "barometer" surveys will include questions assessing the level of trust in political institutions. For example, the Afro Barometer asks: |
Percentage of citizens/respondents who trust the [President/Prime Minister/ Parliament]
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Afro Barometer
Asian Barometer
Latinobarómetro
UNDP Public Perception Surveys
Additional Information:
Most "barometer" surveys will include questions assessing the level of trust in political institutions. For example, the Afro Barometer asks:
- How much do you trust each of the following…? President/Parliament/Courts
- Overall, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in [x]?
Similarly, the Asian Barometer asks:
“I’m going to name a number of institutions. For each one, please tell me how much trust do you have in them? Is it a great deal of trust, quite a lot of trust, not very much trust not very much trust, or none at all?â€
Please pay attention to the periodicity of surveys and publication of results.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Improved transparency and accountability of democratic institutions, including oversight by the parliament and civil society |
Country score according to the International Budget Partnership's Open Budget Index (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
International Budget Partnership's Open Budget Index (OBI) data available here https://www.internationalbudget.org/open-budget-survey/data-documents/
Additional Information:
The Open Budget Index (OBI) assigns each country a score from 0 to 100 based on the simple average of the numerical value of each of the responses to the 109 questions in the questionnaire that assess the public availability of budget information. |
Extent to which national law or constitution guarantees the right to information
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
First data collection foreseen by OHCHR in 2019. Some indicators may require baseline and endline assessments to be conducted by the Action
Additional Information:
This is a sub-indicator for the SDG indicator 16.10.02 on the "Number of countries that adopt and implement constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information". The methodology for this indicator is available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/?Text=&Goal=16&Target=16.10.
|
|
Status of signature and ratification of the relevant treaty obligations (e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – please specify), with no significant exemptions (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
First data collection foreseen by OHCHR in 2019. Some indicators may require baseline and endline assessments to be conducted by the Action
Additional Information:
This is a sub-indicator for the SDG indicator 16.10.02 on the "Number of countries that adopt and implement constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information". The methodology for this indicator is available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/?Text=&Goal=16&Target=16.10. |
|
Extent to which relevant treaty obligations (e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – please specify) are reflected, to the extent possible, in domestic Freedom of Information legislation
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
First data collection foreseen by OHCHR in 2019. Some indicators may require baseline and endline assessments to be conducted by the Action
Additional Information:
This is a sub-indicator for the SDG indicator 16.10.02 on the "Number of countries that adopt and implement constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information". The methodology for this indicator is available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/?Text=&Goal=16&Target=16.10.
|
|
Number of requests from the public/ media/civil society to access official information per year
(Numeric)
Data Source:
First data collection foreseen by OHCHR in 2019. Some indicators may require baseline and endline assessments to be conducted by the Action
Additional Information:
This is a sub-indicator for the SDG indicator 16.10.02 on the "Number of countries that adopt and implement constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information". The methodology for this indicator is available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/?Text=&Goal=16&Target=16.10
|
|
Extent to which public bodies release information both pro-actively and on demand
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
First data collection foreseen by OHCHR in 2019. Some indicators may require baseline and endline assessments to be conducted by the Action
Additional Information:
This is a sub-indicator for the SDG indicator 16.10.02 on the "Number of countries that adopt and implement constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information". The methodology for this indicator is available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/?Text=&Goal=16&Target=16.10.
|
|
Number of appeals in cases related to freedom of information addressed via independent administrative body e.g. information commissioner or ombudsman (please specify)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
First data collection foreseen by OHCHR in 2019. Some indicators may require baseline and endline assessments to be conducted by the Action
Additional Information:
This is a sub-indicator for the SDG indicator 16.10.02 on the "Number of countries that adopt and implement constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information". The methodology for this indicator is available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/?Text=&Goal=16&Target=16.10.
|
|
Right to Information (RTI) country rating
(Numeric)
Data Source:
RTI annual reports available at www.rti-rating.org.
Additional Information:
RTI Rating is a comparative assessment of the overall strength of a legal framework in this field. The rating indicates the strengths and weaknesses of the legal framework, and provides a handy means for pinpointing areas in need of improvement. More information is available on www.rti-rating.org
|
|
Score for legislature transparency (practice) given by Transparency International (TI) in the National Integrity System assessment (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Existing National Integrity Assessments available here https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis
Additional Information:
Question on legislature transparency (practice): To what extent can the public obtain relevant and timely information on the activities and decision-making processes of the legislature in practice? |
|
Score for executive accountability (practice) given by Transparency International (TI) in the National Integrity System assessment (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Existing National Integrity Assessments available here https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis
Additional Information:
Question on executive accountability (practice): To what extent is there effective oversight of executive activities in practice? |
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Strengthened CSO capacities and engagement opportunities in good governance, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, as well as youth and women's political and civic participation |
Number of CSO representatives trained by this Action on climate change/youth inclusion/ irregular migration/forced displacement/addressing and/or mitigating risks and vulnerabilities in fragile and conflict affected countries (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
Please specify the relevant training topic.
|
Number of members of CSOs trained by this Action in analytical/ advocacy/negotiation skills (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of members of CSOs trained by this Action in internal governance standards, transparency and accountability towards intended beneficiaries, constituencies, and social bases (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of members of CSOs working on climate change/youth inclusion/irregular migration/forced displacement/women's participation and addressing resilience who were trained by this Action in management/human resources/leadership skills (disaggregated by s
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
Please specify the relevant CSO sector.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Strengthened women’s CSOs’ capacities and opportunities for participation in decision-making |
Number of CSO representatives trained by this Action on gender equality and women's and girl's rights (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
|
Number of members of CSOs working on gender trained by this Action in analytical/ advocacy/negotiation skills (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of members of CSOs working on gender trained by this Action in internal governance standards, transparency and accountability towards intended beneficiaries, constituencies, and social bases (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of members of CSOs working on gender trained by this Action in management/human resources/leadership skills (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Policy debate on main EU policies and initiatives in the development field promoted |
Percentage of participants in Policy Forum on Development meetings rating the event as useful or very useful (disaggregated by sex and age)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Post-event evaluation reports
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Enhanced capacity of oversight bodies, including parliament and supreme audit authorities |
Extent to which internal oversight/ professional standards mechanisms are streamlined in public institution X [please specify]
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
|
Number of countries supported by the EU to strengthen revenue mobilisation, public financial management and/or budget transparency (EU RF 2.30)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Intervention M&E system
Additional Information:
Domestic revenue mobilisation (DRM) refers to the generation of government revenue from domestic resources, from tax or non-tax sources (royalties, licenses, levies or other income).Â
Public finance management (PFM) comprises the full budget cycle including revenue administration, budget preparation, budget execution with cash management, procurement systems, internal controls and internal audit, accounting and reporting, external audit and scrutiny.Â
Strengthening budget transparency can include EU support to public availability of accessible, timely, comprehensive, and sound budgetary information.Â
Interventions using all aid modalities may be considered for this indicator, e.g. budget support or non budget support interventions with technical assistance specific aimed at improving DRM, PFM and/or budget transparency.
|
|
Number of institutional integrity policies developed with the project’s support
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, record of institutional policies/Standard Operating Procedures
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of oversight reports submitted to Parliament with support from the intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of participants in training provided to oversight bodies, supreme audit authorities, parliamentary members, parliament staff showing improved knowledge of topic X
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Please specify the parliament staff and the topic X (thematic focus of the intervention)
Oversight bodies are understood here as specific institutions, such as a court of auditors, ombudsman institution and special agencies such as anti-corruption commissions. Please specify the relevant institution and training topics in the local context.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Improved legislative, representative, oversight, inclusion, budgetary and administrative capacity of the Parliament (including MPs and secretariat staff) |
Level of parliamentary members' awareness of international legislation and treaty obligations, reports of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), monitoring reports of international human rights commitments, etc.
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the results of pre- and post-intervention tests
Additional Information:
Please specify the areas that the EU intervention will focus on.
This indicator measures if MPs are aware of the state’s international treaty obligations (i.e. especially of the major human rights conventions) and of the annual reports of the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI). Such awareness can be measured through collecting information on their public position regarding specific thematic issues, public pronouncements, their voting on legislation and their sponsoring of specific legislation or participation in plenary and committee debates.
|
Number of countries supported by the EU to strengthen revenue mobilisation, public financial management and/or budget transparency (EU RF 2.30)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Intervention M&E system
Additional Information:
Domestic revenue mobilisation (DRM) refers to the generation of government revenue from domestic resources, from tax or non-tax sources (royalties, licenses, levies or other income).Â
Public finance management (PFM) comprises the full budget cycle including revenue administration, budget preparation, budget execution with cash management, procurement systems, internal controls and internal audit, accounting and reporting, external audit and scrutiny.Â
Strengthening budget transparency can include EU support to public availability of accessible, timely, comprehensive, and sound budgetary information.Â
Interventions using all aid modalities may be considered for this indicator, e.g. budget support or non budget support interventions with technical assistance specific aimed at improving DRM, PFM and/or budget transparency.
|
|
Number of draft legislation, policy papers and parliamentary inquiries prepared by MPs thanks to EU support on issues relevant for disadvantaged/ underrepresented groups and minority populations
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including policy documents/draft laws produced
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the capacity of MPs to address concerns of underrepresented groups. It provides information on how far MPs own the concept of representativeness and inclusion.
|
|
Number of external legislative analyses commissioned and delivered by the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, legislative analysis documentsÂ
Additional Information:
Status of studies on compliance with international treaty obligations on various topics (e.g. international treaty and convention obligations in areas such as human rights, women's rights, trade law etc.)
|
|
Number of IT, archive and Hansard tools provided by the intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of parliamentary members and committee staff trained by the Action showing improved knowledge in the relevant thematic areas [please specify in the local context] (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants, results of the pre- and post-training tests reported in the progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator measures how many members of parliament that were trained show an improved knowledge in the final evaluation of the training. This indicator could also be used as an outcome indicator, if it refers to how the trained MPs apply their knowledge, which could be verified through their performance in parliament and through six-months post training evaluation.
|
|
Number of parliamentary/committee members and support staff trained by the action on monitoring, reporting and enforcement of budgetary rules
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
 It must be disaggregated by sex.Â
|
|
Number of relevant/ quality/timely analytical reports on legislative proposals provided by staff trained by the intervention to committees
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including baseline and endline assessments of committee reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of twinning placements on financial systems development and management supported by the intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, with a database of participants
Additional Information:
This must be disaggregated by sex of participants.
This indicator measures the number of twinning placements between the parliament of an emerging democracy parliament and an established democratic parliament, aiming to provide advice and support.
|
|
Status of guidelines for assessing compliance of proposed legislation with international commitments in legislative processes
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including a baseline and endline assessments of the extent to which the guidelines are followed
Additional Information:
This indicator measures if guidelines exist and how they are used by MPs and Committees, i.e. the level of compliance of the draft laws provide information on whether the guidelines are used.Â
|
|
Status of strategy for financial management of the Parliament
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including strategy document produced
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Strengthened capacities of MPs and Parliament secretariat staff to execute its oversight, legislative and representation functions |
Number of MPs and Parliament secretariat staff trained by the Action on oversight, legislative and representative functions by the intervention, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Legislation on independent work of oversight bodies, including Parliament, developed/revised |
Status of the development/revision of the legislation on the independent work of oversight bodies, including Parliament
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator is appropriate at output level if the Action will directly support the revision/development of legislation in this field.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Strengthened capacity of political parties to translate citizens’ priorities into policies |
Number of CSOs interacting with parties thanks to support of the EU-funded intervention, with the aim of translating citizens’ priorities into policies
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
Number of draft legislation resulting from consultations with citizens organized with the support of the intervention, presented by the party
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of individual or group consultations between citizens and party representatives facilitated by the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of meetings of party policy working groups facilitated by the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of new, innovative issues on which party clarifies its position thanks to support of the intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the number of new, innovative policy issues mentioned for the first time in the electoral program for next parliamentary elections and adopted following consultations with constituency or party focus groups
|
|
Number of party members trained on dialogue with citizens with the aim of identifying priorities for policy formulation
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
It must be disaggregated by sex
|
|
Status of a list of issues agreed by each party as issues of national interest
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator is appropriate at output level if the EU-funded action will help the parties to define for themselves what they consider to be "issues of national interest".
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Enhanced safe and enabling environment for civil society including women’s organisations and human rights defenders |
Country score according to the CIVICUS Monitor (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Annual CIVICUS Monitor reports available here https://monitor.civicus.org/
Additional Information:
Each country is assigned a rating as follows: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed or closed. CIVICUS Monitor recognises that ratings alone may offer a crude measure of the state of civic space in any given context, which is why it emphasises the importance of up-to-date, locally-generated analysis to complement the ratings. Nonetheless, a rating system enables useful comparisons to be made across different countries, and also encourages the tracking of a country's overall civic space conditions over time. |
Status of legal framework governing the work of CSOs, including the possibility to receive international funding
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline legal assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Increased participation of CSOs in tackling climate change, youth inclusion, irregular migration, forced displacement, women’s participation in decision-making, and mitigating risks and vulnerabilities in fragile and conflict-affected countries |
Country score according to the CSO Sustainability Index
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Reports are compiled at the level of regions and are available on the USAID website https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracy-human-rights-and-governance/…
Additional Information:
The USAID CSO Sustainability Index measures the strength and overall viability of civil society sectors. The Index is not intended to gauge the sustainability of individual CSOs, but to fairly evaluate the overall level of development of the CSO sector as a whole.
Seven different dimensions of the CSO sector are analysed in the CSO Sustainability Index: (1) legal environment; (2) organisational capacity; (3) financial viability; (4) advocacy; (5) service provision; (6) infrastructure; (7) public image.
The Index uses a seven-point scale to facilitate comparisons to the Freedom House indices, with 1 representing the highest and 7 the lowest level of sustainability. More detail can be found here.
|
Level of inclusiveness of CSOs
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures how CSOs apply inclusiveness and non-discrimination in theory and in practice, i.e. do they apply the human rights-based approach, including anti-discriminatory practices in their mandate and strategy and is this also reflected in their recruitment policy and practice and reflected in their staffing structure?
|
|
Number of complaints about attacks against CSOs for carrying out their work
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU Human Rights Country Strategies and annual reports
UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders country reports
Annual reports of international human rights CSOs: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, World Organisation against Torture (OMCT), International Human Rights Federation (FIDH), The Observatory for the protection of Human Rights Defenders
Additional Information:
This indicator measures complaints filed by CSOs or their staff/members in a given country, which are usually filed through numerous mechanisms, national and international. The indicator provides important information on the political climate and political space for CSOs to carry out their work without interference and threats. The organisations publishing data and analysis on this include international networks for the protection of human rights defenders, reports of UN Special mechanisms and Treaty Body Mechanisms and annual reports of global human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
|
|
Number of countries which have adopted strategies aiming at gender equality (or if there is only one country: "Status of the Gender Equality Strategy")
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator tracks the status of the Gender Equality Strategy in the target country/countries. If the EU-funded intervention will directly help to develop this strategy (i.e. by providing technical assistance or organising consultations), then this indicator should be moved to output level.
|
|
Number of countries which have adopted youth strategies (or if there is only one country: "Status of the National Youth Strategy")
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Action Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator tracks the status of the National Youth Strategy in the target country/countries. If the EU-funded intervention will directly help to develop this strategy (i.e. by providing technical assistance or organising consultations), then this indicator should be moved to output level.
|
|
Number of countries with climate change strategies (a) developed and/or (b) implemented with CSOs supported by the EU
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
EU support to CSOs is measured at output level, and this outcome-level indicators follows up on this to see to what extent these beneficiary CSOs engaged in the development and/or implementation of climate change strategies. It is important to have a baseline and endline assessment in order to see what change the EU-funded support has made.
|
|
Number of CSOs (or number of people employed by CSOs) providing services or advocating for the rights of refugees and internally displaced persons in the country
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline CSO mapping to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Enhanced country ownership, partnership and constructive dialogue with civil society |
Number of Framework Partnership Agreements (FPAs) and platforms supported by the Action providing inputs to the High Level Political Forum
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Reports from the  High Level Political Forum
Additional Information:
EU reinforces its partnerships with CSO networks, including foundations, through Framework Partnership Agreements (FPAs). This indicator measures the extent to which FPA partners contribute inputs to the High Level Political Forum, before and after the support of the EU-funded Action.
|
GERF 2.29/ EURF 2.25 Number of government policies developed or revised with civil society organisation participation through EU support (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Intervention M&E system
Additional Information:
This indicator refers to the number of government policies and strategies developed with Civil Society Organisation (CSO) participation through EU support. The definition of CSO follows the 2012 EU Communication on Europe's engagement with Civil Society in external relations. The EU considers CSOs to include all non-State, not-for-profit structures, non-partisan and non-violent, through which people organise to pursue shared objectives and ideals, whether political, cultural, social or economic. Operating from the local to the national, regional and international levels, they comprise urban and rural, formal and informal organisations. The EU values CSOs' diversity and specificities; it engages with accountable and transparent CSOs which share its commitment to social progress and to the fundamental values of peace, freedom, equal rights and human dignity. Public participation can be defined as a process through which the government actively seeks the opinions of CSOs (interested and affected groups) for a policy initiative1. Public participation process comprises the following characteristics: For this indicator, participation of CSOs is defined as including at least one element of the following aspects: Public policies for this indicator are understood in a broad manner, including Government programme, strategies and legislations at national or sub-national levels. Policies on migration management or forced displacement are excluded from this indicator as they contribute towards another EU RF indicator. At central level developed/revised policies are counted for this indicator once they are endorsed by the Government. At the local level developed/revised policies are counted for this indicator once they are endorsed by the relevant authorities. |
|
Number of institutionalized mechanisms for greater engagement by political and civic actors (structural change)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Terms of Reference (ToR) for the functioning of thematic/sector coordination and consultation mechanisms
Meeting minutes of coordination mechanisms
Additional Information:
This indicator measures if and how many coordination mechanisms exist between public institutions, political parties and civil society. These can be Parliamentary Committee meetings or public hearings, meetings of political parties with CSOs or thematic roundtables with relevant line ministries to discuss draft laws and policies and national actions plans. The indicator provides information on how far a country’s government and its public institutions promote and support consultation with civil society to increase a public administration’s accountability, transparency and legitimacy of decision-making.
|
|
Proportion of supported policies / reforms taking into account recommendations made by civil society actors/CSOs supported by the EU
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
EU-funded interventions support CSOs to develop policy proposals and recommendations. This indicator measures how many of these proposals/recommendations were taken on board and approved as laws and policies by relevant public institutions. The indicator provides information on the level of access to decision-makers and influence/advocacy capacity of CSOs in a given country on specific topics.Â
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Independent and pluralistic media, access to information and the fight against disinformation |
Existence of a media-ownership regulation that addresses issues such as cross-media ownership, direct and indirect media ownership and effective control and influence over the media
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline review of regulations to be conducted by the ActionÂ
Additional Information:
|
Existence of a regulation to ensure the effective and manifest separation between the exercise of political authority or influence and control of the media or decision making as regards media content (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline review of regulations to be conducted by the Action
Additional Information:
|
|
Existence of freedom of expression guaranteed in law, according to the Media Sustainability Index
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
OHCHR International Standards for Freedom of Opinion and Expression - country reports and datasets available here in Media Sustanaibility Index (MSI) https://www.irex.org/resource/media-sustainability-index-msi
Additional Information:
The MSI assesses five "objectives" in shaping a "successful" media system:
(1) Legal and social norms protect and promote free speech and access to public information;
(2) Journalism meets professional standards of quality;
(3) Multiple news sources provide citizens with reliable, objective news;
(4) Media are well-managed enterprises, allowing editorial independence;
(5) Supporting institutions function in the professional interests of independent media.
Â
|
|
Number of media outlets that operate in the given country, disaggregated by public, private and community ownership, as well as by owners
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline mapping to be conducted by the intervention
Additional Information:
This indicator measures one aspect of media pluralism.
|
|
Percentage of media outlets following a sustainable business model and strategy
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be conducted by the interventionÂ
Additional Information:
|
|
Public availability of data on media ownership
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline reviews of publically available data to be conducted by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator examines whether data is available on media ownership, organisation and financing. For more information, see Council of Europe Committee of Ministers recommendations to member States on media pluralism and media ownership, 7 March 2018 CM/REC (2018)1
|
|
Status of media pluralism
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Reporters without Borders Annual Press Freedom Index
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the level of media concentration in a given country. The COE Committee considers that independent and sustainable public service and not-for-profit community media can serve as a counterbalance to increased media concentration. “It is of utmost importance that the mandates of public service media include the responsibility to reflect political pluralism and foster awareness of diverse opinions, notably by providing different groups in society – including cultural, linguistic, ethnic, religious, sexual or other minorities – with an opportunity to receive and impart information, to express themselves and to exchange ideas.†For more information, see Council of Europe Committee of Ministers recommendations to member States on media pluralism and media ownership, 7 March 2018 CM/REC (2018)1.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Parliamentary institutions exercise their oversight, legislative, representative and budgetary functions |
Extent and quality of parliament’s contribution to the legislative process
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments of legislative records to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the extent and quality of parliament’s contribution in the legislative process. Key criteria can include, for example, possibility in practice to amend draft legislation presented by the executive, whether the contribution considers compliance with international treaties and national law (especially the constitution), or whether evidence-based research is used. Please define clear criteria for the baseline and endline studies (the same criteria should be used for both studies).
|
Extent of Parliament’s involvement in the budget cycle
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments of parliamentary records to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures how parliament is involved and complies with core functions in the budget cycle, which is divided into four phases: 1. The budget formulation (i.e.: do parliaments gather information and public and interest group opinion and present recommendations on budget formulation to the executive?), 2. budget consideration and approval (consideration of the executive’s budget proposal in specialist committees, coordinated by finance committee?), 3. Oversight of budget implementation (do parliament’s specialist committee seek information on budget implementation from relevant line ministries, do committees conduct observation missions and 4. Budget audit (does the parliament audit government revenues and expenditure of the previous year together with the supreme audit institution, identifying weaknesses and recommending improvements?).Â
|
|
Extent to which information technology and information management systems are available and used by the parliament and contributes to effectiveness
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be conducted by the Action
Additional Information:
To measure this indicator, the following criteria can be considered to assess efficiency in parliamentary administration: 1. Status of the information technology and information management system available at the parliament (i.e. is there a digital archive, record keeping or voting system?), 2. Availability of (digital) documentation and archive systems, 3. Availability of Hansard recording system (transcripts of parliamentary debates), 4. The use of the different components of the parliamentary information management system by MPs and staff is monitored.
|
|
Extent to which legislation passed by the Parliament contributes to achieving the national Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) plan and the wider 2030 agenda
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
This indicator measures if and how Parliaments screen draft legislation in relation to its compliance with the national SDG agenda/plan.
Additional Information:
This indicator measures if and how Parliaments screen draft legislation in relation to its compliance with the national SDG agenda/plan.
|
|
Extent to which parliament reaches out to and interacts with citizens, civil society and media
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments of Parliamentary Rules of Procedure/Bylaws
Additional Information:
This indicator measures accessibility and transparency based on the following criteria established by the IPU for parliamentary self-assessments: 1. How open and accessible to the media and the public are plenary proceedings and committee hearings?, 2. How free from restrictions are journalists when reporting on parliament?, 3. How effective is parliament in informing the public about its work, i.e. plenary and committee calendar and agendas?, 4. How user-friendly is the procedure for individuals or groups to make submissions to committees or commissions of enquiry?, 5. How much opportunity do citizens have for direct involvement in legislation (referenda etc.)?Â
|
|
Level of diversity of political opinion represented in parliament
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments of Parliamentary records to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures how adequately the composition of parliament represents the spectrum of political opinions in a country.
|
|
Number of instances oversight instruments were used each year (questions, interpellations, hearings, commissions of inquiry, government questioning time), disaggregated by majority and opposition
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline analyses of parliamentary records to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures how frequently Parliament makes use of its oversight tools in relation to the executive. They have different oversight tools at their disposal: Â committee hearings, hearings in plenary sessions of the Parliament, creation of commissions of inquiry, questions, question time, interpellations, ombudsman, auditor general, and public account committees. TI NIS Question on Executive Oversight (law & practice): To what extent does the legislature provide effective oversight of the executive?
|
|
Percentage of citizens that express confidence in parliament’s ability to represent them effectively (disaggregated by sex)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline public perception surveys to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
|
|
Proportion of Members of Parliament who are young and members of marginalised and vulnerable groups
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline analyses of the list of members of parliament to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures how many MPs (of the overall number of MPs) who are young and members  of marginalised and vulnerable. Please specify which definition of 'youth' will be defined and who the marginalised and vulnerable groups are in the local context.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Strengthened contribution of political parties, on national and sub-national levels, to democratic societies |
Extent to which parties modify internal rules to formalize wider participation in decision making
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments of party internal rules & statues
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the extent to which parties modify their internal procedures and processes to ensure transparent and wide participation in decision making. Â For more information, please see Mapping and Study on Performance Indicators for EU Support to Political Parties (2014).
|
Level of inclusiveness of the internal decision-making processes of political parties
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
For more information, please see Mapping and Study on Performance Indicators for EU Support to Political Parties (2014).
|
|
Level of international outreach of political parties
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the outreach of a political party at the international level through meetings, public positions, membership in international alliances, solidarization with international initiatives, such as for example the Socialist International, in which social-democratic and socialist parties worldwide are members. Â For more information, please see Mapping and Study on Performance Indicators for EU Support to Political Parties (2014).
|
|
Level of quality of party policies and programmes
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments of party policy proposals, position papers and programmes - to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the capacity of parties to 1. prepare policies, programmes and positions, 2. whether this results in more complete/comprehensive proposals and 3. whether parties monitor and evaluate the implementation of the party policies. Â For more information, please see Mapping and Study on Performance Indicators for EU Support to Political Parties (2014).
|
|
Level of transparency of political parties on their interaction with lobbyists (especially private sector lobbyists)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the ActionÂ
Additional Information:
This indicator measures if and how political parties publish information on their interaction with private sector lobbyists. It should be analysed in close connection with the campaign financing of political parties.
|
|
Status of the funding practices and financial management of political parties
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action (including national laws on party financing, party statutes, programmes and internal regulations)
Additional Information:
This indicator measures if parties’ funding practices are transparent and their financial management accountable. The most critical aspects are campaign financing and foreign donations. To measure this indicator, information should be collected on the degree to which states require parties to disclose campaign and party finances and how far parties comply, if there are spending and contribution limits and what the legal framework and political parties’ practice on foreign donations is. For more information, please see Mapping and Study on Performance Indicators for EU Support to Political Parties (2014).
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Political party system is conducive to political participation |
Extent to which the public body in charge of dealing with political parties is impartial, transparent and accountable
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This includes registration, decision on providing public funding, illegalisation etc.
|
Number of draft laws, policy papers and parliamentary inquiries proposed by MPs on issues relevant to underrepresented groups
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments of Parliamentary  records to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
For more information, please see Mapping and Study on Performance Indicators for EU Support to Political Parties (2014), focus area 6: “Parties and society, participation of women, youth and disadvantaged groupsâ€.
|
|
Number of multi-party dialogue meetings per year
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the ActionÂ
Additional Information:
This is a quantitative indicator that aims to measure whether a multi-party dialogue in a given country is feasible or whether the political climate does not allow for such a dialogue. Measuring this indicator can include collecting information on whether multi-party dialogue platforms exists and if so, on what specific topics and if these dialogue platforms are functional. Â For more information, please see Mapping and Study on Performance Indicators for EU Support to Political Parties (2014).
|
|
Quality of the legal framework for political parties, including their registration and functioning
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action (including of national laws on party registration, functioning and financing)
Additional Information:
This indicator measures if the legal framework covers the requirements for registration and functioning of parties and whether a transparent, fair and affordable system of political party and campaign financing is in place, including provisions for disclosure, reporting, monitoring and enforcement. Â For more information, please see Mapping and Study on Performance Indicators for EU Support to Political Parties (2014).Â
|
|
Quality of the political party financing system
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the extent to which the political party financing system is equal, transparent, accountable.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Increased public participation, including of women and underrepresented groups, in the overall democratic process |
Number of women or members of underrepresented groups (e.g. ethnic/religious minorities, persons with disabilities) in leadership/managerial/ decision-making positions (e.g. campaign managers) within parties
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
|
Number of women or members of underrepresented groups (e.g. ethnic/religious minorities, persons with disabilities) included in party electoral lists
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making promoted |
Existence and status of institutionalized mechanisms to ensure inclusiveness in public institutions, private sector and political parties
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
National laws and regulations on quotas for underrepresented groups
Additional Information:
This indicator measures if mechanisms exist to ensure equal opportunities for members of underrepresented/ disadvantaged groups to access positions, in public service, the executive boards of private companies and political parties. A frequent mechanism applied is the formalization of quota, for example to ensure equal opportunities for women or disabled persons.
|
Number of women or members of underrepresented groups (e.g. ethnic/religious minorities, persons with disabilities) in parties
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, based on baseline and endline assessment of Parliamentary and administrative recordsÂ
Additional Information:
The level of representation of women and underrepresented groups provides information on their likelihood of being able to place their concerns/priorities on the political agenda of a country’s parliament and government. For more information, please see Mapping and Study on Performance Indicators for EU Support to Political Parties (2014), focus area 6.
|
|
GERF 1.29/ SDG 5.5.1/ EURF 1.8 Proportion of seats held by women in (a) national parliaments and (b) local governments (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
World Bank dataset for Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%) available here https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS
Additional Information:
SDG indicator 5.5.1(a), a detailed methodological note is available here: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/?Text=&Goal=5&Target=5.5. |
|
Proportion of the population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed within the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be commissioned by the intervention (until the SDG data starts being collected and published – OHCHR is a possible custodian agency)
Additional Information:
SDG indicator 10.3.1. This indicator measures how many persons have filed a complaint or responded in surveys that they feel discriminated against as compared to the total population of a country. This indicator can also be analysed in relation to the percentage of underrepresented/disadvantaged groups (women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQI, disabled persons, refugees/asylum seekers etc.). This is a Tier III indicator (meaning that there is no established methodology and standards or methodology/standards are being developed/tested).Â
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Improved transparency and accountability of democratic institutions, including oversight by the parliament and civil society |
Existence of independent national human rights institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles (A accredited) ( SDG 16.a.1)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
United Nations Statics - Open SDG Data Hub  http://www.sdg.org/datasets/indicator-16-a-1-countries-with-national-hu…
Intervention M&E system
Additional Information:
Related to SDG 16.a.1
|
Score for executive transparency (law) given by Transparency International (TI) in the National Integrity System assessment
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Existing National Integrity Assessments available here https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis
Additional Information:
Question on executive transparency (law): To what extent are there regulations in place to ensure transparency in relevant activities of the executive?
Minimum score (1); mid-point (3); maximum (5).
Â
|
|
Score for executive transparency (practice) given by Transparency International (TI) in the National Integrity System assessment (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Existing National Integrity Assessments available here https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis
Additional Information:
Question on executive transparency (practice): |
|
Score for legislature accountability (practice) given by Transparency International (TI) in the National Integrity System assessment
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Existing National Integrity Assessments available here https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis
Additional Information:
Question on legislature accountability (practice): To what extent do the legislature and its members report on and answer for their actions in practice?
Minimum score (1); mid-point (3); maximum (5).
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Partnerships between civil society organisations / foundations and the Commission and/or other international organizations established or strengthened |
Number of CSO platforms working on Aid Effectiveness, Resilience and National Budgets that receive an EU-funded grant
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This is a basic indicator that monitors only how many CSO platforms receive a grant. If possible, please add indicators on some of the key deliverables for each of these grants.
|
Number of existing Framework Partnership Agreement signatories that are awarded an EU-funded grant
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This is a basic indicator that monitors only how many FPA signatories receive a grant. If possible, please add indicators on some of the key deliverables for each of these grants.
|
|
Status of priority areas for cooperation with foundations
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Priority areas need to be defined in a working document so this indicator allows us to monitor if this takes place or not.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Enhanced cooperation between the EU and civil society on youth and preventing/countering violent extremism (P/CVE) |
Number of activities on P/CVE defined by CSOs themselves and funded by the EU
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
EU provides funding to CSOs who are engaging with you and other target groups on P/CVE issues. This indicator aims to capture the number of those final beneficiaries of EU-funded action.
|
Number of people whose awareness and engagement of P/CVE issues was strengthened by CSOs thanks to funding they received from the EU (disaggregated by sex and age)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
EU provides funding to CSOs who are engaging with you and other target groups on P/CVE issues. This indicator aims to capture the number of those final beneficiaries of EU-funded action.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Raised awareness on inequalities in target countries |
Number of people reached by the EU-funded intervention through awareness-raising campaigns on inequalities
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This is a relatively easy indicator to measure as it requires only the number of people reached by the given intervention and does not delve into the extent to which this target population absorbed or acted upon the information that was shared.
|
Number of people whose awareness of inequalities in the given country has been increased thanks to the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including results of baseline and endline surveys of the target population
Additional Information:
This is a more advanced indicator on awareness which requires a baseline and endline survey of the target population (i.e. conference participants, local target communities), to see whether they are better aware of inequalities after the EU-funded intervention than before.
|
|
Number of research reports on inequalities published with support of the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the research reports published with EU support
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Enhanced professional capacity of journalists, media outlets and media institutions to exercise the right to freedom of expression, access to information and to strengthen pluralism |
Existence of self-regulation and adherence to a media code of ethics by media actors supported by the intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures whether media actors have a reference for self-regulation, such as a Code of Ethics and whether they adhere to the standards they set for themselves. Such standards can include the verification of information, protection of sources, abstention from inciting violence. |
Number of illegal contents inciting hatred, violence and terrorism online detected and removed by online platforms thanks to support of the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the number of articles or online media publications with illegal content, especially in relation to terrorism and illegal hate speech that were detected with support from the intervention and effectively removed by the concerned online platforms. |
|
Number of media actors trained on investigative journalism (or please specify another relevant topic), disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants maintained by the project
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the number of media actors (professional and non-professional journalists in radio, print media, television and online journalism) that have received trainings or participated in related capacity development activities.
|
|
Number of media equipped by the EU-funded intervention with tools to collect/record information (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
List of equipment provided to media outlets
Additional Information:
This indicator measures whether the media actors supported have the necessary tools to carry out their work. Please add definition of tools (i.e. cameras, recording devices, computers etc.) |
|
Number of media outlets that develop reliable business plans thanks to support of the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including business plans
Additional Information:
This indicator measures whether the media outlets supported by the intervention have business plans that provide a short and medium-term guarantee for their sustainability, i.e. they have clear projection of income sources and subscribers and a risk management plan regarding possible scenarios of the development of the national media sector in their country of concern, they have innovative ideas to attract funding. |
|
Number of national and local media landscape assessments conducted with support from the intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Project assessment/mapping reports
Additional Information:
The indicator refers to mapping exercises conducted on the existence and type of local and national media outlets. The information collected on this indicator can also provide information on the plurality of the media landscape in a given country or region within a country.Â
|
|
Quality of independent reports on media freedom produced by or supported by the intervention
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures how complete a picture is produced on the situation of media freedom in a given country or context. The criteria applied by Reporters without Borders are pluralism, media independence, media environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and the quality of the infrastructure that supports the production of news and information.
|
|
Quality of reporting of trained media actors (print, TV, radio, online)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments of media reports to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures whether the training participants demonstrate in their reporting a better understanding of the training contents, such as for example related to fundamental rights, elections, gender, the rights of minorities etc.
|
|
Status of implementation of the “No Disconnect Strategy”
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the contribution of the intervention to protecting the internet as a driver for political freedom. The so called “No Disconnect Strategy†aims at supporting internet users, bloggers and cyber-activists in four ways: (1) Developing and providing technological tools to enhance privacy and security of people living in non-democratic regimes when using Information and Communication Technology (ICT). (2) Educating and raising awareness of activists about the opportunities and risks of ICT. In particular assisting activists to make best use of tools such as social networks and blogs while raising awareness of surveillance risks when communicating via ICT. (3) Gathering high quality intelligence about what is happening "on the ground" in order to monitor the level of surveillance and censorship at a given time, in a given place. (4) Cooperation. Developing a practical way to ensure that all stakeholders can share information on their activity and promote multilateral action and building cross-regional cooperation to protect human rights.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Enhanced protection and security of professional, non-professional and citizen journalists |
Number of Human Rights Defenders (HRDs), professional, non-professional and citizen journalists receiving protection and/or assistance from the Action
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EU Human Rights Defenders Mechanism
Progress reports (however, please note that these are not publicly available records as everything related to protection issues is confidential)
Additional Information:
This indicator measures how many journalists benefit from different support and protection measures facilitated by the intervention. In line with measures available through the EU Human Rights Defenders Mechanism or Reporters without Borders, these can include: a) temporary relocation of the threatened journalist and his/her family, b) legal assistance, c) financial resources for security measures in the home and office, d) secure transportation means, e) medical and psychological assistance.Â
|
Number of media and other institutions with capacity to provide safety and security to professional, non-professional and citizen journalists thanks to the EU-funded intervention (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline capacity assessment reports
Additional Information:
This indicator requires a capacity assessment before and after the intervention. |
|
Number of professional, non-professional and citizen journalists trained by the Action on protection and security issues, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator measures how many professional, non-professional and citizen journalists benefit from trainings on security and protection measures, rights and legal framework on freedom of expression, cybersecurity and other relevant topics.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Laws and policies in the field of freedom of expression and access to information developed/ revised and better implemented |
Number of CSO and media organization representatives participating in development/amendment of laws and policies on freedom of expression and access to information, with support from the intervention (disaggregated by sex) (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports, database of participants
Additional Information:
|
Status of development/amendment of laws and policies on freedom of expression and access to information
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator is appropriate at output level if the Action will directly support the revision or development of policies/laws on freedom of expression and access to information, with the aim of achieving compliance with international standards, such as the Council of Europe and UNESCO recommendations on media freedom and pluralism. Â
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Civil society and media institutions’ advocacy to improve access to information and freedom of expression strengthened |
Number of advocacy strategies for civil society and media institutions developed with the support of the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, advocacy strategies
Additional Information:
|
Number of civil society and media institution representatives trained by the EU intervention on advocacy (disaggregated by sex)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of meetings/exchanges/ conferences on access to information and freedom of expression with the participation of civil society, media institutions and public policy makers
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, database of participants
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Strengthened public awareness and debate of fundamental rights, including right to access to information, freedom of expression and right to legal identity |
Availability of awareness raising and campaign material on fundamental rights in languages other than the official state language, i.e. in languages of underrepresented ethnic groups
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including campaign or awareness raising material produced by the project
Survey/project data on interviews with persons from underrepresented groups in the intervention’s target area
Additional Information:
This indicator measures access to information material by underrepresented groups. Many countries are multilingual and indigenous languages might not be included as an official state language. In consequence, key documents on fundamental rights might not be available in other than the official language. Campaign/awareness raising material should also be adjusted to the capacity of the target group to adequately receive these. For example, the literacy rate of underrepresented ethnic groups might make it necessary to use other means than written material, for example audio or pictures. In addition, the terminology used in the awareness raising material needs to take into account that many human rights terms might not exist in the languages of different ethnic groups or indigenous peoples and need to be circumscribed in a way that allows them to understand the meaning.Â
|
Number of followers/ feedback/ comments on the intervention’s social network pages on fundamental rights established with support of the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
The project’s website and social media pages (i.e. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter)
Additional Information:
The indicator refers to the number of persons who have a) visited the intervention’s website, b) “liked†a content on the intervention’s social media sites (i.e. Facebook, Instagram) or c) posted comments or reacted to Tweets.
|
|
Number of media publications on fundamental rights specifically directed at women and underrepresented groups (youth, ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, etc.) published thanks to support of the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Media reports (print, radio, television, internet)
Â
Additional Information:
This indicator contributes to measuring the level of awareness of media of the rights of underrepresented groups and their willingness to promote public debate on the rights of these groups by publishing information on their situation.
|
|
Number of media publications promoting fundamental rights published with the support of the EU-funded intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Media reports (print, radio, television, internet)
Additional Information:
This indicator contributes to measuring the level of awareness of media of fundamental rights. It also provides information on whether media have the political space to publish such information or whether the country concerned faces a hostile environment with regards to media freedom.
|
|
Number of people reached through civil society campaigns/events on fundamental rights, access to information, freedom of expression and right to legal identity, thanks to support of the EU intervention (disaggregated by sex and age)
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of event participants
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the overall coverage of population in terms of their participation in different types of awareness raising activities supported by the intervention. These can include: 1. community dialogues, 2. radio programmes, 3. multimedia campaigns, 4. roundtables on specific topics, 5. workshops and 6. online and in-person trainings), disaggregated by sex and age group.
|
|
Number of people whose knowledge of their fundamental rights has been increased thanks to the EU-funded action, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline public/audience survey conducted by the Action
Additional Information:
Ideally, this type of research (survey) would be conducted by the media partners in the given project. It requires a baseline and endline survey, so that we could tell what difference our intervention/support has made.
|
|
Number of primary and secondary school curricula on fundamental rights developed and implemented with support of the Action
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator measures whether the curricula developed with the support of the intervention are taught at schools. To measure this indicator, the following criteria can be applied: there is most likely one curriculum applied at the national level or in case of a decentralized education system, the curriculum might be applied in the territorial entities according to the federal structure (or any other structure) of the education system in the country concerned.
|
|
Number of publications/videos (or other awareness raising material) on fundamental rights access to information, freedom of expression and right to legal identity accessible to the illiterate and/or disabled population
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Campaign or awareness raising material produced by the project
Survey/project data on interviews with persons with disabilities in the intervention’s target area
Additional Information:
This indicator measures access to information material by underrepresented groups. Streamlining a disability dimension into all EU development cooperation instruments still remains to be accomplished. DEVCO and EUDs can make a start by ensuring that all information material of projects/interventions can also be accessed by, for example, blind or deaf persons.
|
|
Number of training curricula on fundamental rights updated or developed by the Action for public service training institutes
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including training curricula of public service training institute
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Strengthened capacity of political parties to define transparent and inclusive governance rules |
Existence of manual and templates on disclosure, reporting, monitoring and enforcing of financial rules
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the manuals/templates developed
Additional Information:
|
Number of participants in party sessions to discuss political party decisions, including at branch level, disaggregated by sex, age and position in the party
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of party members trained on transparency and governance with the support of the intervention, disaggregated by sex, age and position in the party
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of party sessions facilitated by the EU-funded intervention to discuss political party decisions, including at branch level
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of policy papers, programs made available by the political parties to the wider public
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of workshops facilitated by the EU-funded intervention for discussing methods for candidate selection
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Status of a draft manual for party central and local level on how to organize selection and ranking of nominees
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including draft manual
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Enhanced opportunities for the engagement of underrepresented groups in parliamentary and political party activities |
Number of election candidates with disabilities or from minority communities trained on parliamentary and political party action the support of the intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Database of training participantsÂ
Additional Information:
|
Number of meetings between MPs/ political parties with CSOs and women’s /underrepresented groups’ organisations organised with EU support
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including meeting reports and lists of participants
Additional Information:
Underrepresented groups’ organisations can be made up by youth, people with disabilities and/or minorities.Â
|
|
Number of people from underrepresented groups who organize/take part in parliamentary and political party activities with support of the Action
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted by the intervention
Additional Information:
It must be disaggregated by sex
|
|
Number of rules and procedures developed by Parliament and political parties with support of the EU intervention to facilitate the engagement of underrepresented groups in parliamentary and political party activities
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including documents on rules and procedures developed
Additional Information:
|
|
Status of a strategic plan and calendar of party outreach activities to underrepresented and disadvantaged groups
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the strategic plan and calendar developed
Additional Information:
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Enhanced capacity of national authorities and electoral management bodies for the implementation of the electoral cycle |
Availability of public reports of domestic observers supported by the intervention
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator measures a) capacity/expertise of domestic observers to draft election observation reports and b) whether they have been able to publicly report without restrictions (i.e. without security or discrimination related impediments.
|
Level of accuracy of voter registers
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including a baseline and endline accuracy check
Additional Information:
This indicator is appropriate at output level if the EU intervention will directly improve the content of voter registers (i.e. by providing staff for data entry or checking). The indicator measures to what extent the voter registers used for the upcoming elections include all persons qualified to vote under national law and exclude persons not qualified to vote. Potential errors include minors, duplication of names, dead persons. Another aspect of accuracy is whether Internally Displaced Persons are granted the right to vote and are registered in their place of temporary settlement.
|
|
Level of knowledge of procedures by the electoral staff trained with support from the intervention
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the results of pre- and post-training tests
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the degree to which electoral staff correctly applies the election proceduresÂ
|
|
Number of electoral cycles supported and observed
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
The indicator refers to the electoral cycle and its 12 essential elements as defined by the Human Rights Council: 1. The legal framework for elections; 2. Electoral systems; 3. Boundary delimitations; 4. Election management, 5. Voter registration; 6. Voter education; 7. Candidacy and campaigning; 8. Voting processes; 9. Counting and tabulation; 10. Dispute resolution; 11. The media and 12. Election observation.
|
|
Number of national level dialogues on specific topics supported by the intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Please specify the topic of dialogue.
For example on women in politics or on coalition building, media monitoring, campaign financing etc.
|
|
Number of persons reached through civic education workshops
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Participant list of workshops
Additional Information:
It must be disaggregated by sex and underrepresented/disadvantaged group.
This indicator measures how many persons attended civic education workshops supported by the intervention.
|
|
Number of polling stations covered by electoral observers supported by the intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Reports of domestic observers
Reports of polling stationÂ
Â
Additional Information:
The indicator measures the coverage of polling stations within an election district or administrative-territorial division applied during the election process, by observers supported by the intervention. It contributes to an assessment of how significant the coverage of polling stations is compared to the national total of polling stations or compared to the total of polling stations in a particular electoral district or territorial entity and might also allow to identify whether there were any gaps in the coverage. Â The indicator measures the coverage of polling stations within an election district or administrative-territorial division applied during the election process, by observers supported by the intervention. It contributes to an assessment of how significant the coverage of polling stations is compared to the national total of polling stations or compared to the total of polling stations in a particular electoral district or territorial entity and might also allow to identify whether there were any gaps in the coverage. Â
|
|
Number of polling stations equipped with support from the intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
This indicator measures how many polling stations in a country (as compared to the total number) were equipped, for example with ballot boxes, pooling station kits.Â
|
|
Number of trained electoral observers supported by the intervention that were deployed
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports, Registers of domestic observers
Additional Information:
It must be disaggregated by sex, age, ethnic groups, disability.Â
This indicator measures how many persons were trained on election observation through the intervention and were actually deployed. This indicator provides information on the profile of domestic observers and can help to identify whether particular sectors of the population are under-represented in the election observation exercise.Â
|
|
Quality of public reports of domestic election observers supported by the intervention
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including baseline and endline quality assessments
Additional Information:
The quality refers to whether the domestic observers have covered key aspects of the electoral process in their reports. Key aspects are according to international standards: 1) periodicity of elections, procedures for calling elections, election monitoring bodies; 2) genuine elections: respect for freedom of association, freedom of assembly and speech, campaign financing, equal access to media; 3) stand for elections: nomination procedures, independent candidates, equal opportunities, no unreasonable restrictions; 4) universal suffrage: voter registration, personal legal identification, citizenship, no unreasonable restrictions; 5) right to vote: voter education, access to polling stations, votes counted appropriately; 6) equal suffrage: equivalent weight, election boundaries, secure ballots; 7) secret vote: privacy, no intimidation; 8) free expression of the will of the electors: correct transmission of results, complaints process, elected candidates installed into office, domestic and international electors. Other criteria for the quality of reports are whether they are consistent with other sources of information and the existence of clear procedures on the domestic observer organisation on how they verify information.Â
|
|
Status of electoral districting plans
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the districting plan document
Additional Information:
This indicator is relevant at output level if the Action will provide technical assistance for the development of the electoral districting plans.
|
|
Status of electoral violence risk management strategy
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the risk management document
Additional Information:
This indicator is relevant at output level if the Action will provide technical assistance for the drafting of the electoral violence risk management strategy.
|
|
Status of management plan for the EMB
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the management plan document
Additional Information:
This indicator is relevant at output level if the Action will provide technical assistance for the drafting of the EMB management plan.
|
|
Status of new draft electoral law
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the draft law document
Additional Information:
This indicator is relevant at output level if the Action will provide technical assistance for the drafting of the new electoral law. The target for this indicator should be the submission of the draft law to Parliament.
|
|
Status of organisational review of EMBs
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the organizational review report
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the support of the intervention to the institutional strengthening of EMBs. Such assessments can include: the applicable legal framework for the function of the EMBs and identification of gaps therein, human resources (number and technical capacity of staff, clear description of responsibilities), professional development strategies, budget, availability and use of IT tools, logistical capacity (especially related to movement).
|
|
Status of procedures for results transmission (including electronic)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the procedures document
Additional Information:
This indicator is relevant at output level if the Action will provide technical assistance for the drafting of the procedures for election results transmission.
|
|
Status of the EMB capacity assessment
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the EMB capacity assessment report
Additional Information:
This indicator is relevant at output level if the Action will provide technical assistance for the EMB capacity assessment
|
|
Status of the strategy on communication for the EMB
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the communication strategy document
Additional Information:
This indicator is relevant at output level if the Action will provide technical assistance for the drafting of the EMB communication strategy.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: More robust, functional, interconnected and universal legal identity services |
Level of access to civil registration centres (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
Please define a unit of measure: distance, opening hours, staffing, etc. This indicator provides information on how easy/difficult the access of population to the registration centre is. To assess the “level of access”, different elements can be taken into account: 1. Distance (in kilometres) of the registration centre from rural areas; 2. Availability of public transport to reach the centre; 3. Opening hours; 4. Physical access for persons with disabilities; 5. Number of staff at the centre as opposed to number of persons filing an application for legal documentation (service resources in relation to demand). |
Number of Civil Society Organisation(CSOs) representatives trained by the EU-funded intervention to enhance the legal identity services, disaggregated by sex, age, disability status, population group, Roma minority status (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Database of training participants
Additional Information:
It must be disaggregated by sex |
|
Number of people informed by the EU-funded intervention about procedures and requirements for obtaining legal identity documentation, disaggregated by sex, migration status, disability status, rural/urban, income quantile, age (generic), population group, Roma minority status (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
The indicator contributes at the national level to measuring progress on compliance with SDG 16.9: By 2030 provide legal identity for all including free birth registrations. The following definitions based on international law can be applied to types of documentation. See also: Legal Identity in the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development, Open Society Foundation 2016 |
|
Number of registration centres established and/or equipped with the support of the intervention
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
It must be disaggregated by urban/rural.
The indicator measures the number of registration centres that were built or otherwise established and opened for service with the support of EU funding.
|
|
Extent to which the legal identity documentation is managed by public offices (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline studies of personal records to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
Operational status must be of completeness and quality Legal identity documentation can be birth/death, marriage/divorce, personal identity cards issued etc. The operational status refers to the completeness and quality of data collected and of their regular updating and whether they are available online or paper records. The quality of data includes disaggregation by sex. Important note: by taking into account gender identity, some countries have introduced the third gender in order to provide an opportunity for persons who do not categorize themselves as either male or female or intersex persons. In some countries, the third gender category in legal documentation is only available to inter-sex persons, while in other countries it is also available to persons with a gender identity different from their sex assigned at birth. Countries that recognize the third gender currently include: Nepal, India, Germany, Austria, Australia and Canada. |
|
Status of legal provisions regulating registration and documentation in the country (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
The indicator measures how the legal framework for registration and personal identity documentation was improved, as a result of the support by the intervention. Many countries have multiple registration and documentation frameworks and it is not just the birth certificate that governs access to different public services and types of rights. An improvement would for example be removing any discriminatory provisions based in the legal framework that discriminate in the case of sex, religion or ethnicity. |
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Enhanced constitutional and legal framework for independent work of oversight bodies, including Parliament |
Score for legislature accountability (law) given by Transparency International (TI) in the National Integrity System assessment
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Transparency International - the global coalition against corruption- Existing National Integrity Assessments available here https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis
Â
Additional Information:
Question on legislature accountability (law): To what extent are there provisions in place to ensure that the legislature has to report on and be answerable for its actions?
Minimum score (1); mid-point (3); maximum (5).
Â
|
Score for legislature independence (law) given by Transparency International (TI) in the National Integrity System assessment (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Existing National Integrity Assessments available here https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis
Additional Information:
TI's National Integrity System evaluates key ‘pillars’ in a country’s governance system, both in terms of their internal corruption risks and their contribution to fighting corruption in society at large. The pillars analysed in a National Integrity System assessment typically include: legislative branch, executive branch, judiciary, public sector, law enforcement, electoral management body, ombudsman, audit inspection, anti-corruption agencies, political parties, media, civil society, business. |
|
Score for legislature independence (practice) given by Transparency International (TI) in the National Integrity System assessment (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Existing National Integrity Assessments available here https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis
Additional Information:
Question on legislature independence (practice): To what extent is the legislature free from subordination to external actors in practice? |
|
Score for legislature transparency (law) given by Transparency International (TI) in the National Integrity System assessment (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Existing National Integrity Assessments available here https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis Transparency International - the global coalition against corruption- in National Integrity System background rationale and methodology for Background methodology ttps://www.transparency.org/files/content/nis/NIS_Background_Methodology_EN.pdf Transparency International - the global coalition against corruption- NIS Assessment Toolkit Assessment toolkit online in https://www.transparency.org/files/content/nis/NIS_AssessmentToolkit_EN.pdf Transparency International - the global coalition against corruption- Annex 3 – NIS Indicators and Foundations - Indicators used https://www.transparency.org/files/content/nis/NISIndicatorsFoundations_EN.pdf
Additional Information:
TI's National Integrity System evaluates key ‘pillars’ in a country’s governance system, both in terms of their internal corruption risks and their contribution to fighting corruption in society at large. The pillars analysed in a National Integrity System assessment typically include: legislative branch, executive branch, judiciary, public sector, law enforcement, electoral management body, ombudsman, audit inspection, anti-corruption agencies, political parties, media, civil society, business. |
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Improved electoral operational efficiency, integrity and accuracy of electoral processes |
Electoral participation rate of registered voters
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Election Commission Records
EOM reports
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the participation of registered voters in the election. The participation rate also provides information on the level of credibility that the population attaches to the democratic process and democratic institutions and also on the level of legitimacy of the elected institutions. I.e. a low voter turnout carries the risk of decreasing the legitimacy and credibility of the elected institutions in the perception of the population.Â
|
Existence of a clear electoral calendar
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Electoral calendar published (online or offline) by the Election Commission and/or other competent authorities
Additional Information:
This indicator measures whether the competent authorities (Election Commission) have published a clear schedule for electoral events. If relevant, please specify some aspects that a 'clear' calendar should include in the local context.Â
|
|
Extent to which election cycle media coverage complies with international standards
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EOM reports, including recommendations, for two subsequent election cycles
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of complaints, including electoral fraud claims investigated by the appropriate authorities throughout the electoral process
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EOM Reports
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the number of fraud claims investigated by competent authorities such as the national Election Commission. (It can be different from the number of fraud claims filed with the Election Commission. Therefore, this indicator also provides information on the capacity of the Election Commission to investigate fraud claims).
|
|
GERF 2.26/ EURF 2.24 Number of countries supported by the EU to conduct elections and/or improve their electoral process (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Intervention M&E system
Additional Information:
Elections in this indicator should be understood as relating to national parliamentary, presidential, or local elections as well as specific referendums in EU partner countries. Support to an election should be understood to include activities aimed at improving the quality of the electoral process such as the updating of voter registers, domestic electoral observations and support to electoral commissions. For the purposes of this indicator, EU election observation missions are considered as support to improvement of electoral processes. |
|
Number of decisions taken by the Electoral Tribunal/Electoral Dispute Resolution Mechanism
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Records of Electoral Tribunal on cases filed and cases decided
EOM reports
Â
Additional Information:
This indicator measures how many decisions were taken by the Electoral tribunal. This might be assessed in relation to the number of cases brought before the tribunal. The indicator also provides information on the level of institutional capacity and quality of procedures of the Electoral Tribunal.
|
|
Number of reported incidents of violence during the election period
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EOM reports
Reports of the Election Management Bodies (Election Commission)
Reports of domestic election observer organisations
Additional Information:
The number of violent incidents provides information on whether elections have been free and fair or whether political violence has prevented citizens from exercising their right to vote or forced candidates to withdraw from their candidacy.
|
|
Percentage of registered voters from voting age population
(Numeric)
Data Source:
EOM reports, Census (for voting age population)
Additional Information:
|
|
Periodicity of elections
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Election Commission public announcement of elections/election calendar
Additional Information:
This indicator measures if the elections if a given country are held regularly, i.e. often enough to ensure that governmental authority continues to reflect the will of the people, as a basis of governmental legitimacy. States determine the permissible interval between elections, considering circumstances under which genuine elections cannot take place, for example because a state of emergency or armed conflict place restrictions on fundamental rights.
|
|
Status of implementation of recommendations of the Election Observation Mission (EOM)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessments to be commissioned by the Action
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the progress done by national authorities to implement recommendations by Election Observation Missions (EOM).EU Election Observation Missions issue a report with recommendations to improve future elections in the country where elections were observed. These recommendations can refer to measures covering different essential elements of the electoral cycle (see above). The EU tools for follow-up to EOMs can include political tools, operational tools, trade relations and action in multilateral fora such as the United Nations. For a list of best practice examples please refer to the indicator source. The indicator also provides information on the levels of improvement of the electoral cycle.
|
|
Status of organisational and operational capacity of Electoral Management Bodies (EMB)
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
EOM reports
Additional Information:
This indicator measures if the EMB is prepared to carry out its legal functions properly. EMBs are the institutional bodies responsible for the management of elections. Their legal framework and ascribed functions depend on the legal framework of the country concerned. They can be Electoral Commissions, Electoral Councils, Electoral Boards etc. and are responsible for managing some or all elements that are essential for the conduct of elections. In order to manage essential elements of the elections, EMBs need to have the staff number and technical capacity and infrastructure and financial resources to be in a position to 1. Determine who is eligible to vote, 2. Receiving and validating the nominations of candidates, 3. Conducting polling, 4. counting the votes and 5. tabulating the votes. These essential elements can be covered by several EMBs. EMBs might also be responsible for direct democracy instruments such as referendums, citizen initiatives and recall of votes. In addition to the essential elements, EMBs can be responsible for issues such as voter registration, boundary delimitation, voter education and information, media monitoring and electoral dispute resolution.Â
|
|
Status of the legal framework for elections in relation to stability and the rule of law/Status of compliance of the legal framework of elections with international standards
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
National election laws
EOM reports
Â
Additional Information:
This indicator measures if there have been any changes to the electoral legal framework in the months immediately (6 months) preceding election day. While this is no requirement under international law, limiting the timeframe for changes can promote legal certainty and predictability in the law. Applying the principle of the rule of law according to the UN definition accepted by the EU, it is required that: 1. The election law is publicly promulgated, 2. The election law is fairly applied, 3. There is procedural and legal transparency in the electoral legal framework and 4. All persons are equal before the law and the law is equally enforced. This includes that the legal framework contains proportionate and appropriate sanctions for a violation of election laws.
|
|
Timeliness of the public declaration of election results
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Election Commission announcement of election results
EOM Reports
Â
Additional Information:
The timeliness of the public declaration of results provides information of the capacity of the relevant election authorities (polling stations, Election Commission) to manage the vote count in a reasonable timeframe (2-3 days) and publish the results outside of the polling station as well as communicate them to the higher level for a consolidation of national results. The results have to be published from polling station level to national level
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Specific Objective - Outcome: Increased rates of registration for legal identity |
Number of people reporting official or unofficial payment for birth registration
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline survey to be conducted by the intervention
Additional Information:
|
Number of people who complained about the legal identity service (delays, inadequate service, staff incompetency), disaggregated by sex and urban/rural
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted by the intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of people who reported corruption of legal identity service officials/staff, disaggregated by sex and urban/rural
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline survey to be conducted by the intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Percentage of the population who report having all necessary documentation required to access public services
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Records of legal identity services
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the degree to which the population of a given country has all legal identity or legal documentation required to access basic public services, such as health and education. Apart from the birth certificate and the personal ID card, other important documentation includes marriage certificates and divorce documentation, passports for international travel, property/inheritance documents. The last is especially important for women/widows in order to have legal access to their husbands’ property in case of death (for example access to land).
|
|
Percentage of women and members of underrepresented groups (ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, LGBTQI) having access to all relevant identity documentation
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Baseline and end line surveys to be commissioned by the intervention
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the degree to which women and underrepresented groups within a population have access to all legal identity or legal documentation required to access basic public services, such as health and education. Apart from the birth certificate and the personal ID card, other important documentation includes marriage certificates and divorce documentation, passports for international travel, property/inheritance documents. The last is especially important for women/widows in order to have legal access to their husband’s property in case of death (for example access to land). A specific case, coherent with a human rights-based approach to legal identity documentation but only practised by very few countries so far, is the possibility to register as a third sex, for persons who do neither consider themselves male or female.Â
|
|
SDG 16.9.1 Proportion of children under 5 years of age whose births have been registered with a civil authority, by age (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Records of legal identity services
Additional Information:
Proportion of children under 5 years of age whose births have been registered with a civil authority, by age |
|
Proportion of the population in possession of legal identity documentation (disaggregated by sex)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
Records of legal identity services
Global ID4D Dataset http://id4d.worldbank.org/global-dataset
Additional Information:
This indicator measures the percentage of the population with and in consequence the percentage without legal identity documentation.Â
Accurate civil registers are a key prerequisite for adequate budgetary planning in relation to public services and for contributing to accurate voter registers. Good registration can also result in budget revenue for the government, i.e. through better data sharing within public administration, leading to efficient taxation or preventing the misuse of social benefits.
Â
|
|
Status of laws protecting data and privacy
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline assessment to be commissioned by the intervention
Additional Information:
This indicator measures if and how private data are protected under national law and to what extent the sharing of these data is prohibited. For more information, please see:  https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/articles/civil-registration-towards-holi…;
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Impact: To foster a functioning pluralistic, participatory and representative democracy |
Country score according to the Deliberative Democracy Index developed by V-Dem
(Numeric)
Data Source:
The V-Dem website includes data for individual indicators or countriesÂ
Additional Information:
V-Dem distinguishes among 7 high-level principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, participatory, majoritarian, consensual, deliberative and egalitarian, which are then further disaggregated into lower-levels of democracy such as regular elections, direct democracy, gender equality and others. V-Dem Democracy Indices and Indicators include macro-level indices that describe features of democracy at various levels (overall, mid-level and lower-level indices), as well as indicators that address very specific features of political systems.  |
Country score according to the Egalitarian Democracy Index developed by V-Dem
(Numeric)
Data Source:
The V-Dem website includes data for individual indicators or countries (use Firefox).
Additional Information:
V-Dem distinguishes among 7 high-level principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, participatory, majoritarian, consensual, deliberative and egalitarian, which are then further disaggregated into lower-levels of democracy such as regular elections, direct democracy, gender equality and others.Â
V-Dem Democracy Indices and Indicators include macro-level indices that describe features of democracy at various levels (overall, mid-level and lower-level indices), as well as indicators that address very specific features of political systems.
Â
|
|
Country score according to the Liberal Democracy Index developed by V-Dem
(Numeric)
Data Source:
The V-Dem website includes data for individual indicators or countries (use Firefox).
Additional Information:
V-Dem distinguishes among 7 high-level principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, participatory, majoritarian, consensual, deliberative and egalitarian, which are then further disaggregated into lower-levels of democracy such as regular elections, direct democracy, gender equality and others.Â
V-Dem Democracy Indices and Indicators include macro-level indices that describe features of democracy at various levels (overall, mid-level and lower-level indices), as well as indicators that address very specific features of political systems.
Â
|
|
Country score according to the Participatory Democracy Index developed by V-Dem
(Numeric)
Data Source:
The V-Dem website includes data for individual indicators or countries (use Firefox).
Additional Information:
V-Dem distinguishes among 7 high-level principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, participatory, majoritarian, consensual, deliberative and egalitarian, which are then further disaggregated into lower-levels of democracy such as regular elections, direct democracy, gender equality and others.Â
V-Dem Democracy Indices and Indicators include macro-level indices that describe features of democracy at various levels (overall, mid-level and lower-level indices), as well as indicators that address very specific features of political systems.
Â
|
|
Country score according to the Reporters Without Borders' (RSF) Press Freedom Index
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Reporters without Borders- For freedom of information - Â World Press Freedom Index
Additional Information:
The Index is compiled by pooling the responses of experts to a questionnaire devised by the RSF. This qualitative analysis is combined with quantitative data on abuses and acts of violence against journalists during the period evaluated. The criteria evaluated in the questionnaire are pluralism, media independence, media environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and the quality of the infrastructure that supports the production of news and information.
Country scores range from 0 to 100 (with 0 being the best possible score and 100 the worst).
|
|
Country score on the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
EIU annual reports https://infographics.economist.com/2018/DemocracyIndex/
Additional Information:
The Democracy Index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. It provides a snapshot of the state of democracy for 165 independent states, which make up the majority of the world’s states (micro-states are excluded). There is both an overall score as well as scores in individual categories. |
|
Number of cases of attacks against journalists brought to trial and sentenced (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
Register of court cases filed
Additional Information:
This indicator measures what the judicial system of a state does to avoid impunity for attacks against journalists. Attacks is understood here in very broad terms and can include verbal or written threats or intimidation, physical violence and violations of the right to life or the right not to be tortured. The indicator contributes to measuring whether there is enabling environment for freedom of expression and the exercise of the journalistic profession in a given country. |
|
Number of journalists imprisoned (OPSYS core indicator)
Data Source:
SDG data will be reported by UNESCO
Additional Information:
This indicator measures how many journalists are imprisoned for exercising their profession. The indicator provides additional information on the level of freedom of expression in a given country. Please use with care as the number may go down for reasons other than increased freedom, i.e. if journalists are exiled or if they begin to self-censor out of fear of reprisal. |
|
Number of journalists killed
(Numeric)
Data Source:
SDG data will be reported by UNESCO
Civil society data is available in reports from  CPJ and Reporters without Borders (RSF)
Additional Information:
Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent non-profit organisation, publishes the number of journalists killed on an annual basis.Â
SDG Indicator 16.10.1: Number of verified cases of killing, kidnapping, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture of journalists, associated media personnel, trade unionists and human rights advocates in the previous 12 months
Â
|
|
Percentage of people who are [very/somewhat] likely to vote in [upcoming] elections
(Percentage)
Data Source:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) - Research and Publications - Existing pre- and post-election surveys available. (https://www.ifes.org/issues/research-and-publications)
Additional Information:
The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) conducts innovative applied research to identify socio-political and programmatic factors that impact the development of robust democratic institutions and processes. These in turn inform the development of effective programming in the democracy and governance sector.
The IFES has already undertaken some pre- and post-election surveys in Myanmar and Nigeria, but the IFES and/or its methodology could be considered for monitoring future projects. For example, the survey includes the following question:
How likely are you to vote in the […] elections scheduled for later this year?
|
|
Total government revenue as a proportion of GDP, by source (SDG 17.1.1)
(Percentage)
Data Source:
United Nations Statistics - Â Open SDG Data Hub: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/?Text=&Goal=&Target=17.1
Additional Information:
Related to SDG 17.1.1
|
|
Voter turnout in latest [Parliamentary/Presidential] elections
(Numeric)
Data Source:
International IDEA Voter Turnout Website
Additional Information:
The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Voter Turnout Website contains the most comprehensive global collection of political participation statistics available. Regularly updated voter turnout figures for national presidential and parliamentary elections since 1945 are presented country by country using both the number of registered voters and voting age population (VAP) as indicators. Where available, the spoilt ballot rate is also included.
|
| Result | Indicator(s) |
| Output: Strengthened capacity of political parties to engage and communicate with peers and citizens |
Status of a Manual on party communication tools
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Progress reports, including the manual developed
Additional Information:
|
Number of party members, including those from party branches, participating in discussions organised by the Action on the communication plan, disaggregated by sex
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of party members trained by the Action on communication strategy and peer review by the intervention, disaggregated by sex and position in the party
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Progress reports
Additional Information:
|
|
Number of voters informed with support of the Action on party programmes and positions
(Numeric)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted by the intervention
Additional Information:
|
|
Status of multi-party platform to exchange knowledge and best practice
(Qualitative)
Data Source:
Baseline and endline surveys to be conducted by the intervention
Additional Information:
|