The EaP Index looks at the progress of reforms in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine. 

The Index is based on a composite methodology, with 3 interrelated dimensions categorised into 18 thematic areas and 76 sub-thematic areas. The Index takes cross-cutting issues into account throughout its analysis, with particular attention placed on gender equality and human rights. 

The Index uses quantitative fact-based indicators gathered through an expert questionnaire comprising more than 800 questions and in-depth desk research, along with qualitative insights from expert thematic assessments and observations made by focus groups. 

Data collection for the EaP Index involves two components: an expert questionnaire and desk research. The questionnaire, answered by 60+ independent civil society experts from the six EaP countries, includes over 800 questions on various indicators. 88 new questions were added in 2023 for gender equality. Answers are coded numerically (1 = yes, 0 = no, 0.5 = partially). Desk research complements this by gathering national data, reports, and international indexes, aiming to map new legislation, assess its quality, and inform the Sustainable Development Goals section. Scores ranging from 0.00 to 1.00 reflect positive assessments or lack of progress in measured concepts. 

Following data collection, online Focus Groups are convened across the Index’s main thematic areas, with local experts from each of the six EaP countries, along with the EaP CSF Index team. These focus groups cross-check data for consistency, validate findings with local experts and coordinators, identify case studies, develop cross-country insights, and generate targeted recommendations. Additionally, preliminary results are compared with previous editions of the Index. 

Each chapter of the Index is drafted by civil society experts (with a sectoral coordinator role) specialised in the thematic areas covered by the Index.  Sectoral coordinators initiate the process by preparing the first draft based on the results of the expert questionnaire. Focus group discussions dedicated to each thematic area follow, leading to a refined second version of the draft. This draft is then editorially reviewed to ensure consistency and quality.  As a final step, each report is peer reviewed by independent experts. The Index is then consolidated by the Executive Editor and the EaP CSF’s Advocacy and EaP Index Manager. 

EaP Index experts are leading civil society figures in the EaP countries who share a rich thematic expertise in the thematic areas covered by the Index. In some EaP countries with repressive regimes, EaP Index experts are listed as anonymous. See the list of EaP Index experts for the 2023 edition. 

The 2023 edition of the Index covers the period September 2021-July 2023, with updates and references to relevant events until November 2023. 

Yes, the dataset is available for further consultation at: https://eap-csf.eu/2023-index-dashboard/  .

Each edition of the Index poses limitations. We are aware of the following: 

• Data availability and accuracy: Across the EaP region, national authorities do not necessarily collect and report data uniformly, leading to potential discrepancies and challenges in making accurate interpretations and comparisons. 

• Challenges in securing independent civil society experts covering some sectoral topics: the Index relies on independent civil society experts from the six EaP countries; identifying such experts to cover some sectoral areas of the Index (namely those pertaining to “Policy Convergence with the EU”) proved to be challenging in relation to some EaP countries;  

• Subjective metrics: the EaP Index relies on expert opinions and authentic insights from local experts and sectoral coordinators from the EaP region. This type of approach to social research may result in instances of unintended bias affecting the scores and rankings. 

• Changing dynamics and timeliness: The Index faces challenges in keeping up with the rapidly changing (geo)political, economic, and social dynamics across the EaP countries and their evolving relations with the EU. 

To address these limitations, we have: 

• Improved data collection and validation: consistency, quality and reliability of data have been improved thanks to the use of a new online data collection tool that replaces the former practices; the support of an independent data scientist was also sought to ensure the correctness of calculating scores.   

• Opened peer review process: the peer review process served as a quality control mechanism enabling the identification and correction of potential errors, biases, and inaccuracies. 

Check our Index Conceptual Framework and Methodology or contact us at advocacy@eap-csf.eu  .