Blomeyer & Sanz will work with the Global Fund to ensure integrity in procurement of mosquito nets

Source: Flickr by Julian Harneis

Together with the Basel Institute on Governance  our firm has been appointed Integrity Monitor for procurement of Long-Lasting Insecticidal Nets (LLINs) in the fight against malaria. The work started in October 2016.

The Global Fund is an international partnership organisation designed to accelerate the end of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria as epidemics. The role of the Integrity Monitor is to facilitate transparency and accountability in the LLIN bidding and registration process, as well as to identify and promote industry best practices in reducing corruption risks through anti-corruption Collective Action. The project is the first of its kind conducted by the Global Fund, which has obtained commitment from the world’s leading manufacturers of LLINs to participate in an Integrity Pact for global LLIN procurement.

As Integrity Monitor, we will work with the companies to identify best practices for their compliance programmes; develop guidance for the implementation of the Integrity Pact and over time seek to develop a multi-stakeholder approach for the expansion of this work.


Blomeyer & Sanz is conducting the independent external evaluation of the European Fisheries Control Agency

Blomeyer & Sanz was commissioned in May 2016 to conduct the second independent external evaluation of the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA). EFCA is a European Union agency established in 2005 to organise operational coordination of fisheries control and inspection activities by the Member States and to assist them to cooperate so as to comply with the rules of the Common EU Fisheries Policy in order to ensure its effective and uniform application.

Blomeyer & Sanz will conduct the independent evaluation which is foreseen to be published in the first half of 2017. More information on the activities of EFCA can be found here

Evaluation for Club de Madrid in Haiti, November 2015

Blomeyer & Sanz is conducting an evaluation of the project “Promoting Dialogue for Democratic Reform in Haiti”. This project is an initiative of Club de Madrid with the financial support of the European Union. It aims at supporting Haitian leaders to overcome the current political challenges and, at the same time, promoting dialogue to address Haiti’s structural obstacles to democratic reform.

In light of this evaluation, a mission took place in Haiti in November 2015. During the mission, our evaluation team met with stakeholders involved in the project, including representatives from various international organizations (e.g. MINUSTAH, the UN Mission for stability in Haiti, and UNDP), embassies (e.g. Canada, United States of America, and Mexico), and the EU Delegation. The team also met with Haitian private sector stakeholders, civil society organizations and political leaders. In addition, two focus group meeting were organised with representatives from various NGOs and representatives from religious groups. The evaluation will be completed early January 2016.

New publication on the composition of the European Commission’s expert groups, October 2015

Screen Shot 2015-11-02 at 09.54.14In October we published a new study for the European Parliament committee on budgetary control. The study is titled: Composition of the European Commission’s Expert Groups and the Status of the Register of Expert Groups. The study provides insights into the development, since 2012, of the Expert Groups system. The specific focus of this study is an assessment of the European Commission’s compliance with a set of European Parliament conditions attached to budget reserves.

‘The study finds that the European Commission, despite some progress, continues to fall short of full compliance with the European Parliament conditions on balance and transparency. Based on this study’s findings, it is considered that a more systematic approach to balance would help overcoming information asymmetries and contribute to throughput legitimacy. Enhanced transparency also has potential to enhance Expert Group outputs. This study therefore recommends a systematic approach to balance, the promotion of full transparency, more resources for Secretariat General oversight and enforcement, and the systematic evaluation of Expert Group performance at the level of the system of Expert Groups and for all individual Expert Groups.’