dd mm yyyy / Name / Role / Title / MFAT Div/Post or Org
Activity Manager (AM): / [???] / [???] / [???]
Activity Design (ADD) author: / [???] / [???] / [???]
Usually same as AM if ADD MFAT-led
Author of this appraisal: / [???] / [???] / [???]
Usually AM if ADD partner-led (or specialist). Cannot be same as author of ADD
Proposed implementation lead / : / [???]
Summary
Activity name: / [???] /Programme name: / [???] /
Country(s) where Activity is to be implemented: / [???] /
Sector: / [Click to select]EDV: InfrastructureEDV: FisheriesEDV: TourismEDV: Trade / Private sectorEDV: Agriculture / FisheriesEDV: Energy (incl renewable)HDV: Health, water supply, sanitationHDV: ScholarshipsHDV: EducationSSC: Law, justice, leadership, goveranceR&R: Humanitarian aidOTH: Activities across multi-sectorsOTH: Budget support for Niue and TokelauOTH: Multilateral agenciesOTH: Regional agencies Reflect the most significant component of the Activity. /
Expected MFAT budget: / $[???] If different/relevant Total budget: $[???] /
Proposed Type of Aid: / [Click to select]A01 General Budget SupportA02 Sector Budget SupportB01 Core support to NGOs, other private bodiesB02 Core contributions to multilateral organisatioB03 Specific purpose programmes managed by internaB04 Basket funds/Pooled fundingC01 Project-type interventionsD01 Donor country personnelD02 Other technical assistanceE01 Scholarships/training in donor countryE02 Imputed student costs /
Overall Activity risk: / [Click to select]LowModerateHighExtreme (hyperlink to completed Activity Risk Register)
Includes assessment of partner risk
[Click to select]Category ACategory BCategory CCategory P(A)Category P(B) Environmental and social impact category /
RECOMMENDATION: / [Click to select]Do not proceedAddress identified issues; resubmit for appraisalAddress identified issues; resubmit for approvalProceed; no changes are necessary /
Key issues: / List the key issues identified with the quality of the Activity design and the changes that will be/are being taken to address them. If n/a, delete.
§ [???]
E.g. ADD not completed to an adequate standard regarding:
· Analysis of relevant issues (country, region, sector, cross cutting etc)
· Specific development need(s) and activity(s) to address them
· Engagement of stakeholder(s), application of lessons learned
· Alignment with partner or MFAT development policies and strategies
· Logical Results Diagram that meets MFAT standards
· Measurement of results as per Results MeasurementTable and M&E Workplan to MFAT standards
· Risk management framework, including environmental & social risks
· Implementation period, approach and partner(s)
· Detailed management and governance arrangements
· Appropriate level of detail in budget, which must be linked to the Results Diagram
· Description of transition or exit planning /
Activity quality ratings
DAC Evaluation Criteria / Best Practice CriteriaRelevance / [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating / Development Effectiveness / [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating
Likely effectiveness / [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating / Managing for results / [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating
Likely efficiency / [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating / Gender equality & women’s empowerment / [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating
Likely impact / [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating / Human rights / [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating
Likely sustainability of benefits / [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating / Environment and climate change / [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating
Guidance
The appraisal should be brief. It does not need to repeat information contained in the Activity Design Document – the ADD should be linked as an attachment to the appraisal.
It should contain concise and objective judgments about what is likely or could be expected to happen based on the Activity Design Document presented.
Written comments should justify each section’s numeric rating.
Refer to the Activity Quality Policy for MFAT’s five point rating scale, measures for each rating, and a full list of aspects to consider for all of the DAC evaluation and best practice criteria. Remember that all the criteria are used in combination, not isolation, and that information may fit under more than one criteria so there may be overlap – use common sense to avoid repetition.
Note: Please delete the guidance text (i.e. the text in plum italics) before the final version of this document is published or distributed. In order to delete guidance text you need to temporarily remove protection by going File/Protect Document/Restrict Editing. You will need to resume protection in order to fill in the template. Do not enter a password when re-enforcing protection.
Relevance : Will this Activity do the right things? /Rating [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating /
In particular, consider the extent to which the Activity design:
· Is based on analysis of relevant issues (what are local development needs; sector, political, economic, social context etc)
· Links the specific development need(s) to be addressed, including any development effectiveness or cross-cutting issues, to the inputs and approaches to address those needs
· Aligns to MFAT policies, strategies and priorities
· Aligns to beneficiary & stakeholder capacities, views and participation (e.g. there is good stakeholder engagement, with contribution from…)
[???]
How well is this Activity designed to promote and pursue Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment? /Rating [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating /
In particular, consider the degree to which the proposed design:
· Integrates gender analysis (e.g. in the rationale, stakeholder analysis, risk management framework etc) and appropriately reflects the needs, strengths, voices, rights and involvement of women and men, girls and boys in Activity planning
· Integrates gender analysis in the Results Framework, including as appropriate outputs and outcomes, indicators, targets, sex-disaggregated data
· Appropriately identifies and targets opportunities for women’s economic and political empowerment e.g. violence against women, decision-making, employment, property, services, rights etc
· Considers availability of resources and competencies to deliver on gender equality and women’s empowerment outcomes
[???]
How well is this Activity designed to protect and promote Human Rights? /Rating [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating /
In particular, consider the degree to which the proposed design:
· Appropriately integrates analysis of human rights, capabilities and obligations regarding any potentially vulnerable or disadvantaged groups, such as children, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities (including their access to buildings and structures), in the rationale, stakeholder analysis, risk management
· Integrates analysis of human rights in the Results Framework, including as appropriate outputs, outcomes, indicators, disaggregated data
· Identifies and targets available opportunities for equality of access to, participation in and benefits from the Activity by potentially vulnerable or disadvantaged groups, or for implementation of human rights obligations. Refer here for guidance regarding disabled access.
· Considers availability of resources and competencies to deliver on human rights outcomes
[???]
Environment and Climate Change: Is this Activity design likely to enhance the environment and sustainability, and how well will it manage and mitigate any potential negative impacts? /Rating [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating
Environmental and social impact category: [Click to select]Category ACategory BCategory CCategory P(A)Category P(B)
Refer to classification framework and ADD and design appraisal rules in the Environmental and Social Impacts Operational Policy /
In particular, consider the degree to which the proposed design:
· Provides an appropriate and accurate rationale for the Environmental and Social Impact Category given
· Appropriately identifies possible interventions to promote environmental integrity and sustainability, opportunities to address environmental commitments made by NZ and/or partners, or support for climate change adaptation/mitigation or resilience to natural hazards etc
· Addresses all adverse impacts identified in the Impact Assessment (IA) and Impact Management Plan (IMP) in a way that demonstrates consistency with the Environmental and Social Impacts Operational Policy and relevant regulations of the partner Government
· Integrates the results of an assessment of environmental and social impacts or risks (e.g. in the rationale, stakeholder analysis, risk management and Results Framework, including outputs, outcomes, indicators, targets, baseline data etc
[???]
How well does this Activity design apply development effectiveness principles? /Rating [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating /
In particular, consider the degree to which the proposed design:
· Promotes or supports ownership by the development partner(s)
· Where the primary partner is a Goverment, proposes appropriate use of partner government PFM systems and includes Assessment of National Systems report
· Proposes use of partner or multi-stakeholder results monitoring frameworks and processes, including statistics collection systems
· Has a well-articulated approach and intention to develop the capacity of local partners
· Coordinates with other development initiatives and avoids duplication of effort [???]
Effectiveness : Is this Activity likely to work? /Rating [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating /
In particular, consider the degree to which the Activity design:
· Has a strong Results Diagram with logical flow between key outputs, outcomes and goal, and these reflect the development need(s) identified, and the diagram meets MFAT standards as per the Developing an Activity Design Guideline
· Has a risk management framework that includes risks and mitigations for implementing partners, development effectiveness and cross-cutting issues, and environmental and social impacts
[???]
Managing for Results: Are we likely to be able to assess the real progress of this Activity, and will this information be useful for Activity management? /Rating [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating /
In particular, consider the degree to which the proposed design:
· Has a Results Measurement Table that includes clear indicators, targets, baseline information and methods for measuring each output and outcome identified in the Results Diagram (including any cross-cutting or development effectiveness results), in accordance with MFAT standards as per the Developing an Activity Design Guideline
· Has an M&E Workplan that identifies the methodology and approach including key tasks required to implement the RMT, in accordance with MFAT standards as per the Developing an Activity Design Guideline
· Considers the ability and capacity to collect, analyse and reflect on Activity performance information, and the resonableness and appropriateness of cost (human and financial resources) of collecting such information
[???]
Efficiency : Is this Activity likely to make good use of tax-payer funds? /Rating [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating /
In particular, consider the degree to which the Activity design:
· Is likely to deliver value for money and convert resources (funds, expertise, time etc) to results – (e.g. the amount of funding is appropriate for the quantity and quality of development outcomes likely to be achieved.
· Provides a clear Activity implementation period, approach, and reflects capacities of proposed partner(s) to deliver and account for the Activity (e.g. the approach is technically feasible… based on proven performance… lessons from the past such as…)
· Sets out what procurement and financial management arrangements will apply and provides compelling reasons for their appropriateness to the activity and context
· Details management and governance arrangements including structure, and roles and responsibilites of partners)
[???]
Budget appraisal
Notes: The level of output (and if required input) detail required will relate to the Type of Aid chosen and to the partner and risk assessment. Reference to the Budget Appraisal template would also help with this section.
In particular, consider the extent to which the Activity budget is:
· Clearly linked to results in the Results Diagram. Outputs-based budgets should be used for project-type interventions and most forms of technical assistance
· Reasonable and cost-effective in the circumstances (e.g. the cost of each input or total output compares to market fee rates or similar activities; admin charges are within amounts MFAT would normally pay)
· Complete – includes sufficient details that match the Activity workplan and M&E Workplan (e.g. it reflects all work proposed to be undertaken including the number of people, days etc)
· Accurate – e.g. all totals (and formulas) are correct & add up
[???]
Impact : Is this Activity likely to achieve positive long-term changes? /Rating [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating /
In particular, consider the extent to which the Activity design:
· Is likely to achieve the goal and positive long-term effects, usually at the country / societal level (e.g. due to a good logical flow between outputs and outcomes)
· Is likely to deliver tangible benefits rather than negative results (whether intended or unintended, direct or indirect)
[???]
Sustainability : Is it likely that Activity benefits / outcomes will last? /Rating [Click to select]5. Very good4. Good3. Adequate2. Not adequate1. PoorNo Rating /
In particular, take into account the degree to which the design:
· Includes a description of transition or exit planning when support from the aid programme will change or end
· Considers durability of improved systems or processes or skills / knowledge and how these will be bedded-in or followed-up
· Considers the institutional environment, workforce planning etc
· Considers the political and financial viability of partner(s)
· Deals with asset maintenance and recurrent / long term costs
[???]
Conclusions and Recommendations
Write a concise concluding sentence about the overall quality of the design.
In conclusion, [e.g. the ADD has/not been completed to an acceptable standard / the quality of the ADD is/not adequate to proceed to implementation]
If there are issues with the design, state who will be/is responsible for doing what change(s) / action(s) to address them.
[e.g. AM to engage with DFAT on...; author to amend the design to: (a), (b)...; AM to update Risk Register to reflect...etc..]
I therefore recommend: Delete the ones that are not applicable.