Self-
evaluation

The strategic alignment situates the specific project proposal in relation to IFAD’s Strategic Framework 2016 – 2025, the related COSOP, and to the relevant SDGs, as well as national context.

This dimension assesses the likelihood of achieving the development objective, which is closely linked to the underlying ToC. The ToC should illustrate the causal pathways that are expected to be activated by projects' inputs and activities and the related outputs in order to achieve intended results and impacts.

This dimension is reviewed and assessed at all stages of the design phase. The target group and the targeting strategy/approach to be followed should be specified highlighting what is the strategy for social inclusion including for ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples.

IFAD committed for IFAD11 that at least 25% of its projects are gender-transformative and 100% are gender-mainstreamed. To qualify as a gender-transformative and/or gender-mainstreamed project at design, certain criteria need to be met. Details on criteria are indicated in the PDR.

This review dimension applies only for projects to be categorized as youth-sensitive, assessing the quality of the project’s youth-sensitive interventions. IFAD committed for IFAD11 that at least 50% of its projects are youth-sensitive. To qualify as a youth-sensitive project at design, certain criteria need to be met. Details on criteria are indicated in the PDR.

This review dimension applies only for projects to be categorized as nutrition-sensitive, assessing the quality of the project’s nutrition-sensitive interventions. IFAD committed for IFAD11 that at least 50% of its projects are nutrition-sensitive. To qualify as a nutrition-sensitive project at design, certain criteria need to be met. Details on criteria are indicated in the PDR.

This dimension is reviewed and assessed at all stages of the design phase. It assesses the extent to which the project has analysed the current status of the natural resource base alongside current and future climatic trends in the project area and possible environmental and climatic risks/vulnerabilities that may arise as a result.

The policy engagement activities help to address challenges and bottlenecks in the theory of change, adequate policy engagement activities should be clearly assigned by responsibilities and budgeted in project implementation. In addition, policy engagement should be presented in the proposal as a strategic mean to promote scaling up and uptake – therefore contributing to ownership and sustainability of the project.

The project proposal presents the overall financing plan, including that of IFAD and cofinancing with details about amounts per different type of co-financiers and in-kind vs. cash cofinancing.

The proposal describes the nine key risk dimensions as specified in the Integrated Project Risk Matrix (IPRM) that could potentially affect the achievement of a project’s objectives.

Logframe is a key element for the overall evaluability of the project, as it provides the basis for monitoring and evaluation of the progress made of the project in all its phases. The Logframe should be consistent with the theory of change.

The quality of the EFA is not rated during DEM reviews, however it is checked if the PDR presents an EFA as integrated part of the project design’s logic. Reviewers can identify key issues related to the quality of the EFA. The EFA is a fundamental step in the design of development projects. Completing such analysis is important as it helps clarifying the logic of the intervention.

The exit strategy is closely linked to the sustainability of the benefits. Therefore, project proposals need to present related key assumptions, measures to promote sustainability and/or systematic changes required. Ideally, an exit strategy should seek to find a pathway for scaling up well-performing project activities, leading to greater impacts after the project ends.

All of IFAD's project design need to comply with IFAD's Social, Environmental and Climate Assessment Procedures (SECAP). Therefore, all SECAP requirements need to be appropriately addressed and complied with. In addition, all project proposals need to adequately justify the SECAP category and the climate classification.

Reviewers can identify key issues related to the quality of the Procurement Plan. This procurement plan needs to be in line with the guidelines set in IFAD’s Procurement Handbook. The timeline of each planned procurement action is realistic and estimated costs for each planned procurement action are reasonable. Procurement packaging has been done in a way that facilitates the use of the most competitive and efficient procurement method that ensures the best value for money.

This dimension is reviewed and assessed at all stages of the design phase. The finance officer (FO) assigned to the country is a mandatory element of the PDT and participates in the design mission directly or through an accredited consultant, whose deliverables are validated by the FO prior to ORMS input. Overall, consideration is given to whether I) Lessons learned have been considered and incorporated in the design, II) The FM arrangements are detailed and specific with consideration of the project specific activities as outlined in the Project Description of activities/components, III) FM arrangements adequately consider/address arrangements related to cofinancing planned for the project, IV) Reliance on country systems has been considered and if needed, specific issues pertaining thereto have been addressed.

This dimension is a confirmation by OPR that the project has the right resource allocation. As well, it confirms the right use of the financing instruments. No score will be attributed to this dimension.

This dimension is assessed at DRM and QAG final desk review stage. At DRM stage it considers to what extent have OSC recommendations, as recorded in the OSC minutes, been taken into account in designing the project. At QAG final desk review it considers to what extent have DRM recommendations been addressed as recorded in the DRM Compliance Note.

The project proposal identifies clearly the Government's lead agency for the project and the likely implementing agency or agencies. The PDR should provide a more in-depth institutional analysis about implementation capacities of key institutions, roles & responsibilities, relations among them and structures for project management and oversight.

The project proposal needs to present a clearly formulated start-up plan with steps and timelines to ensure expeditious project start-up. The plan needs to be realistic and includes adequate budgetary provisions and has been agreed with government.

The project proposals needs to identify key processes and responsibilities for M&E with a clear sequencing of M&E activities for data collection, a clear description of M&E methods used and monitoring mechanisms of output, outcome and objective indicators. It is important that the project proposal describes clearly how M&E activities are being planned, with clear responsibilities and a dedicated budget.

Reviewers can identify key issues related to the quality of the AWP&B. The AWP&B needs to be aligned with the project's strategic approach and with the logframe. Institutional responsibilities for AWPB delivery need to be clearly defined.

The PIM sets out the project’s organizational framework and its detailed implementation arrangements for each component. The PIM spells out various aspects related to project management such as organizational, operational, technical, administrative, human resource management (e.g. ToRs for project staff), budgeting, disbursement, etc.

The KM plan also addresses how lessons and good practice from implementation will be systematically analysed, documented, used and shared and supplemented with evidence from its M&E system.

The rating measures the consistency of project design and objectives with the needs of target groups, IFAD policies and government policies or priorities, both at the time of project appraisal and in today’s context.

The rating summarizes conclusions regarding the extent to which the project has met its broad objective. It takes into account the performance under each outcome in terms of output delivery, and outcomes and impact attainment.

The rating measures how economically project resources and inputs were converted into results and the extent to which the project was implemented smoothly.

The rating measures the extent to which the stream of benefits results from project implementation is likely to continue after project completion.

The rating measures the extent to which the project had increased households’ incomes and assets (both physical and financial), as measured by the impact surveys or other surveys.

The rating measures the extent to which the capacities of poor women and men, individually and collectively, have been built and their capabilities expanded or strengthened in the course of project implementation.

Ensuring the food security of poor rural men and women is another operational outcome of IFAD. The rating measures key elements of food security: availability, access to food and stability of access, and as measured through the surveys.

The rating measures project results in terms of increasing the productivity or production of crops, livestock, non-timber forest resources or fisheries and diversification of agriculture in the project area.

This rating measured the changes in the capacities of the organizations and institutions supported during project implementation. It also measures the changes that may have taken place in the policy or institutional framework as a result of project-led policy dialogue activities.

The rating assesses the extent to which the project has contributed to reducing rural poverty. It also assesses the extent to which project activities and resources have targeted poor rural women and men and whether the rural poor have benefited from project implementation and improved their livelihoods means, food security, or incomes.

The rating measures the changes in gender roles or gender relations induced by the project. The changes in the status of women within target communities is also assessed.

When relevant, the rating measures the changes in farmers’ physical access to markets, in their access to market prices and information or in their bargaining power with traders.

This rating measures the extent to which the project has successfully tested and implemented pilot innovation activities, if the process was properly documented and if adequate learning systems were in place.

The rating measures the extent to which the project is positioned to have some of its approach and/or innovations implemented on a larger scale or replicated elsewhere by the government or other partners.

The rating measures the positive or negative changes that have taken place in the natural resources base as a result of project interventions. The extent to which the project has contributed to a reduction of harmful agricultural practices is also reviewed.

For projects implemented in areas prone to extreme weather events and/or affected by more extensive climate-related stresses, the rating measures the extent to which project beneficiaries and local communities were empowered to mitigate, prevent, or prepare for climate-related problems.

The rating measures the extent to which the project has reached out to its intended target groups. It includes a review of the quality of the targeting strategy and mechanisms adopted and implemented by the project.

The rating measures the overall IFAD’s performance while designing the project, supervising project implementation and providing implementation support.

The rating measures the overall Borrower’s performance while implementing the project.