von George Danielidze
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
| [1.] Gd/Fragment 118 05 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2016-03-06 22:33:02 Schumann | BauernOpfer, ENPI Azerbaijan 2007, Fragment, Gd, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 118, Zeilen: 5-20 |
Quelle: ENPI Azerbaijan 2007 Seite(n): 17, 18, Zeilen: 17: 6ff; 18: 8ff |
|---|---|
| The evaluation suggests that during the first few years, the Tacis programme was mainly governed by a “top-down” approach. This was partly a consequence of the need for institution building in the countries in transition, and partly an insufficient sense of ownership on the part of the national authorities. It is said in the evaluation that National Indicative Programmes (NIPs) tended to be over detailed, which meant they were not flexible enough at project identification level to respond to evolving needs. The main recommendations were integrated into the current 2004-2006 National Indicative Programme, which will be analysed hereafter.
As a result of the evaluations and then recommendations made, the EC will focus in this new programming exercise on defining strategic priorities and objectives rather than specific activities or delivery mechanisms. National authorities are being involved in this process from the very beginning and have shown a greater level of commitment and ownership as a result of the clearer political framework provided by the ENP. It is stated that the EU-Azerbaijan Action Plan adopted on 14 November 2006 goes along these lines. Thus, “future assistance will build on the substantial work carried out to date but aim to increase the impact by making future assistance more integrated and coherent.”193 193 European Commission – European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument Azerbaijan; Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013. p.18 |
A Country Strategy evaluation for Azerbaijan was also finalised in 2003. The main recommendations were integrated into the current 2004-2006 National Indicative Programme but they also remain relevant to this new programming exercise.
The evaluation suggests that overall the relevance of the TACIS assistance has been high and it has responded to needs. However, in particular during the first few years, the programme was mainly governed by a “top-down” approach. This was partly a consequence of the need for institution building in the countries in transition and partly due to an insufficient sense of ownership on the part of the national authorities. In the specific case of Azerbaijan this problem seemed less severe than in other TACIS countries. Furthermore, National Indicative Programmes (NIPs) tended to be overdetailed which meant they were not flexible enough at project identification level to respond to evolving needs. The EC will focus in this new programming exercise on defining strategic priorities and objectives rather than specific activities or delivery mechanisms. National authorities are being involved in this process from the very beginning and have shown a greater level of commitment and ownership as a result of the clearer political framework provided by the ENP. The EU-Azerbaijan Action Plan adopted on 14 November 2006 goes along these lines. [Seite 18] In the areas of good governance and legal and administrative reform future assistance will build on the substantial work carried out to date but aim to increase the impact by making future assistance more integrated and coherent. |
Der Quellenverweis bezieht sich nur auf das Zitat, nicht jedoch auf die vorangehenden zwei Abschnitte - die dort großteils wörtliche Übernahme bleibt ungekennzeichnet. |
|
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Schumann, Zeitstempel: 20160306223438