EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EuropeAid Co-operation Office
General Affairs
Evaluation
PPrroojjeecctt CCyyccllee MMaannaaggeemmeenntt
HHaannddbbooookk
a
March 2002
Version 2.0
Prepared by:
PARTICIP GmbH
Hildastrasse 66
D-79102 Freiburg, Germany
Phone: ++49-761-790740
Fax: ++49-761-7907490
E-mail: particip@particip.de
http://www.particip.com
In collaboration with
FTP International Ltd., FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland
Prospect C&S, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
South Research, B-3010 Kessel-Lo, Belgium
The second version of the PCM handbook has been produced by the
Evaluation Unit of the EuropeAid Co-operation Office. It has benefited
from the assistance of PARTICIP GmbH.
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Project Cycle Management
Handbook
Table of contents
1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
1.1. Contents .....................................................................................................................1
1.2. Target Groups ............................................................................................................1
1.3. How to Use the Handbook? .......................................................................................1
2. PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW ......................................................3
2.1. The Project Cycle and Key PCM Principles ...............................................................3
2.2. The Basic Format or Structure of Project and Programme Documents .....................5
2.3. Programming..............................................................................................................6
2.3.1. Introduction.....................................................................................................6
2.3.2. The Programming Process: An Overview.......................................................6
2.3.3. Fundamental Principles of Programming........................................................8
2.3.4. Checking the Quality of an Indicative Programme........................................10
2.4. Identification .............................................................................................................10
2.4.1. Introduction...................................................................................................10
2.4.2. Expected Outcomes of Identification ............................................................10
2.4.3. Major Tasks ..................................................................................................11
2.4.4. Project Identification Criteria.........................................................................12
2.5. Appraisal ..................................................................................................................14
2.5.1. Introduction...................................................................................................14
2.5.2. Expected Outcomes of Appraisal .................................................................15
2.5.3. Major Tasks ..................................................................................................16
2.5.4. Project Appraisal Criteria ..............................................................................16
2.6. Financing..................................................................................................................19
2.6.1. Introduction...................................................................................................19
2.6.2. Major Tasks and Expected Outcomes of Financing .....................................19
2.6.3. Project Financing Criteria .............................................................................19
2.7. Implementation, Including Monitoring and Reporting ...............................................21
2.7.1. Introduction...................................................................................................21
2.7.2. Expected Outcomes of Implementation........................................................21
2.7.3. Major Tasks to Be Managed at EC Level/Partner Country Level .................21
2.7.4. Implementation and Monitoring at Project Level: An Overview ....................22
2.7.4.1. What is Monitoring? ........................................................................25
2.7.4.2. Reporting on Progress....................................................................25
2.7.5. Monitoring of Implementation at EC and Partner Country Level...................26
2.8. Evaluation.................................................................................................................27
2.8.1. Introduction...................................................................................................27
2.8.2. Overall Responsibilities for Evaluation .........................................................27
2.8.3. Types of Evaluations ....................................................................................28
2.8.4. Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................28
2.8.5. What is the Difference Between Monitoring, Evaluation and Audit?.............29
2.8.6. Evaluation Reports: Outline and Issues to Be Considered...........................30
2.8.7. Managing the Evaluation Process: An Overview..........................................31
i
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2.8.8. Evaluation Studies: Some Procedural Aspects.............................................31
3. THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK APPROACH ­ A PROJECT DESIGN AND
MANAGEMENT TOOL....................................................................................................33
3.1. The Logical Framework Approach: An Introduction .................................................33
3.2. The Logical Framework Approach: Two Stages.......................................................34
3.3. The Analysis Stage ..................................................................................................35
3.3.1. Stakeholder Analysis ....................................................................................35
3.3.1.1. How to Proceed? ............................................................................36
3.3.1.2. Linking Stakeholder Analysis and the Subsequent Steps...............37
3.3.2. Problem Analysis ..........................................................................................37
3.3.3. Analysis of Objectives...................................................................................39
3.3.4. Analysis of Strategies ...................................................................................40
3.4. The Planning Stage..................................................................................................41
3.4.1. The Logframe Matrix.....................................................................................41
3.4.1.1. First Column: Intervention Logic .....................................................42
3.4.1.2. Second Column: Indicators.............................................................43
3.4.1.3. Third Column: Sources of Verification ............................................43
3.4.1.4. Fourth Column: Assumptions..........................................................43
3.4.2. How to Identify the Intervention Logic?.........................................................44
3.4.2.1. Using the Logical Framework to Plan Complex Interventions:
Interlocking Logframes....................................................................46
3.4.3. How to Identify Assumptions?.......................................................................49
3.4.4. Checking Quality Factors..............................................................................51
3.4.4.1. What are Quality Factors? ..............................................................51
3.4.4.2. How to Plan for Quality ...................................................................52
3.4.5. How to Identify Indicators (OVIs) and Sources of Verification (SOV)? .........54
3.4.6. How to Identify Means and Cost?.................................................................57
3.4.7. Final Quality Check of the Logframe.............................................................58
3.4.8. Using the Logical Framework to Develop Activity and Resource
Schedules .....................................................................................................59
3.4.8.1. Preparing Activity Schedules ..........................................................59
3.4.8.2. Preparing Resource Schedules ......................................................60
4. TOOLS FOR MANAGING PROJECT QUALITY.............................................................61
4.1. Using the LFA to Assess Project Proposals: An Overview.......................................61
4.2. Guide for Assessment of Project Proposals.............................................................61
4.3. The Quality Improvement Tool .................................................................................62
5. ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................65
5.1. Sector Programmes .................................................................................................65
5.1.1. How Do Sector Programmes Work?.............................................................65
5.1.2. Devising a Sector Programme: Issues to Consider ......................................66
5.1.3. The Sector Programme Cycle ......................................................................67
5.2. Developing a Country Strategy Paper (CSP) ...........................................................69
5.3. Details About Implementation...................................................................................70
5.3.1. Implementation: Three Main Periods............................................................70
5.3.1.1. The Inception Period.......................................................................70
5.3.1.2. Main Implementation Period ...........................................................70
ii
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
5.3.1.3. Final Period.....................................................................................70
5.3.2. Implementation: Three Major Principles .......................................................71
5.3.2.1. Planning and Re-planning: What, When and How?........................71
5.3.2.2. Overall Work Plan...........................................................................71
5.3.2.3. Annual Work Plans .........................................................................72
5.3.2.4. Planning of Management Activities.................................................78
5.3.3. Monitoring: Some Basic Steps......................................................................79
5.3.3.1. Major Monitoring Issues: Overview and Support Material ..............79
5.3.3.2. Monitoring of Activities and Means / Resources.............................79
5.3.3.3. Monitoring of Results ......................................................................82
5.3.3.4. Monitoring of Assumptions..............................................................84
5.3.3.5. Monitoring of Impacts......................................................................86
5.3.4. Reporting on Progress: What, When and How?...........................................86
5.3.4.1. Reporting Types and Formats ........................................................90
5.4. A Checklist for Preparing an Activity Schedule ........................................................91
5.4.1. Step 1 ­ List Main Activities..........................................................................91
5.4.2. Step 2 ­ Break Activities Down into Manageable Tasks...............................91
5.4.3. Step 3 ­ Clarify Sequence and Dependencies .............................................91
5.4.4. Step 4 ­ Estimate Start-up, Duration and Completion of Activities...............91
5.4.5. Step 5 ­ Summarise Scheduling of Main Activities.......................................92
5.4.6. Step 6 ­ Define Milestones...........................................................................92
5.4.7. Step 7 ­ Define Expertise .............................................................................92
5.4.8. Step 8 ­ Allocate Tasks Among Team .........................................................92
5.4.9. Step 9 ­ Estimate Time Required for Team Members..................................92
5.5. Preparing Resource Schedules................................................................................96
5.5.1. A Checklist for Specifying Means and Scheduling Cost ...............................96
5.6. Glossary ...................................................................................................................98
5.7. Useful References and Sites..................................................................................104
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Project Cycle ................................................................................................3
Figure 2: Merging PCM and Logframe Approach 3
Figure 3: The Project Cycle: Main Documents and Decisions 4
Figure 4: The Integrated Approach 5
Figure 5: The Logframe: What should be Outlined at the End of Identification 11
Figure 6: The Logframe: What Should Be Defined at the End of Appraisal 15
Figure 7: Implementation: A Learning Process 22
Figure 8: Information Needs and Levels of Management 26
Figure 9: Major Principles of Evaluation 27
Figure 10: Linking Evaluation Criteria to the Logframe 29
Figure 11: Comparing Monitoring, Evaluation and Audit 29
Figure 12: The Logical Framework 33
Figure 13: The Logframe Approach 34
Figure 14: Example of a Stakeholder Analysis 37
Figure 15: Problem Analysis 38
iii
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 16: Analysis of Objectives 40
Figure 17: Analysis of Strategies 41
Figure 18: How to Read the Logframe 42
Figure 19: Level of Objectives 42
Figure 20: The Vertical Logic 44
Figure 21: Building the Logframe: Specifying the Intervention Logic 45
Figure 22: Levels of Intervention: From Programme to Component 46
Figure 23: Levels of Objectives in a Nation-wide Sector Programme 48
Figure 24: Assessment of Assumptions 50
Figure 25: Building the Logframe: Completing Assumptions 51
Figure 26: Building the Logframe: Planning for Quality 54
Figure 27: Indicators: An Example 55
Figure 28: Indicators and the Project Cycle 55
Figure 29: Building the Logframe: Specifying Indicators and Sources of Verification 57
Figure 30: Building the Logframe: A Completed Logframe 58
Figure 31: Activity and Resource Schedules 59
Figure 32: Example of an Activity Schedule 60
Figure 33: Example of a Resource Schedule 60
Figure 34: The Role of Terms of Reference in Project Preparation 62
Figure 35: The Quality Assessment Tool 63
Figure 36: How the Quality Assessment Tool Works 64
Figure 37: The Sector Programme Cycle: What is Done and Major Outcomes 68
Figure 38: Developing a CSP 69
Figure 39: An Example for an Overall Work Plan/Activity Schedule 73
Figure 40: An Example for an Overall Work Plan/Activity Schedule 74
Figure 41: Preparing an Activity Schedule 95
Figure 42: Preparing a Resource Schedule 97
List of Tables
Table 1: Development Indicators and their Use within EC 8
Table 2: Quality Criteria for Assessment of Project Ideas 13
Table 3: Quality Criteria for Assessment of a Detailed Project Design (or Draft
Financing Proposal) 17
Table 4: Format for a Financing Proposal 20
Table 5: Approach to Documentation During Implementation 23
Table 6: Example of an Implementation Schedule 24
Table 7: Evaluation Criteria Used by the European Commission 28
Table 8: Report Outline for an Evaluation Report 30
Table 9: Terminology Used in the EC Context: Stakeholders, Beneficiaries, Target
Group(s) and Project Partners? 35
Table 10: How to Analyse Stakeholders? 36
Table 11: How to Establish a Problem Tree? 38
Table 12: How to Establish an Objective Tree? 39
Table 13: How to Do a Strategy Analysis? 41
Table 14: From Strategy Analysis to Intervention Logic 45
iv
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 15: Levels of Intervention: From Programme to Component 47
Table 16: How to Identify Assumptions? 50
Table 17: How to Check for Quality? 52
Table 18: Basic Questions to be Addressed to Ensure Sustainability 53
Table 19: How to Define OVIs and to Select SOV? 56
Table 20: How to Establish Means and Cost? 57
Table 21: Draft Standard Formats for Overall and Annual Work Plans and Major
Issues to be Described 75
Table 22: Major Management Activities for Project Managers 78
Table 23: Basic Steps of Monitoring 79
Table 24: Monitoring of Activities: Cumulative Monitoring Sheet 81
Table 25: Monitoring of Results: Quarterly and Cumulative Monitoring Sheet 83
Table 26: Monitoring of Assumptions: Overview Sheet 84
Table 27: Monitoring of Assumptions: Quarterly and Cumulative Monitoring Sheet 85
Table 28: Draft Standard Formats for Project Reports 88
Table 29: Overview on Critical Path Analysis 93
v
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
List of Abbreviations
ALA Asia and Latin America (ALA) countries
AWP Annual Work Plan
CSP Country Strategy Paper
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DG Directorate-General
DG DEV Development Directorate-General
DG RELEX External Relations Directorate-General
EC European Commission
ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Office
EcoFin Analysis Economic and Financial Analysis
EDF European Development Fund
EU European Union
EuropeAid EuropeAid Co-operation Office
FP Financing Proposal
GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit mbH
(German Agency for Technical Co-operation)
HQ EC Headquarters in Brussels
IADB Inter-American Development Bank
IMF International Monetary Fund
LF Logical Framework
LFA Logical Framework Approach
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MED Mediterranean (MED) countries
NIP National Indicative Programme
OFS Order For Service
OAS Overall Activity Schedule
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OO Overall Objectives
OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator
OWP Overall Work Plan
PCM Project Cycle Management
PIS Project Identification Sheet
PP Project Purpose
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
SOV Source of Verification
TOR Terms of Reference
UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNDP/GEF Global Environmental Facility
vi
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
1. INTRODUCTION
This handbook complements the PCM manual1
published in March 2001. While the
manual spells out the PCM principles, the handbook provides hands-on practical
advice on the phases of the cycle. Sector programmes and sector-wide approaches
(SWAP) are also considered in this handbook, but the handbook's main focus is on
project and programme cycle management. It is thus neither a handbook on SWAP
for e.g. health or education, nor a handbook on budget support programmes which
are under preparation by the competent unit within the EC.
This handbook is neither a procedures manual nor does it address policy issues particular
to the RELEX DGs. It presents PCM principles. As there are differences between
EC aid programmes in how issues are dealt with, the practice of the PCM
methods will have to be modified to suit the particular circumstances of the operating
environment. However, it complements the PCM manual by providing more detailed
guidance on how to use the techniques and tools presented there.
1.1. Contents
Chapter 1 introduces the handbook.
Chapter 2 introduces the project cycle. It presents the phases, their key characteristics,
the major tasks, the overall approach and the documents to be produced and
improved.
Chapter 3 introduces the Logical Framework Approach (LFA), explaining its role in
project design with a simple project example. It explains how sustainability / quality
factors can influence a project's chances for success, and indicates the range of
tools that are available to take account of these factors. It also explains how you can
use the logframe matrix to develop objective-oriented Activity and Resource Sched-
ules.
Where to
find what?
Chapter 4 describes how to use the Logical Framework Approach to improve the
quality of project documents and project design.
Chapter 5 provides additional details about issues raised in chapters 2 and 3, with a
special focus on important implementation aspects. It also provides a glossary and
bibliographic references (Internet links).
1.2. Target Groups
The handbook is addressed to all persons who want more detailed information
about planning, management and evaluation of projects and programmes funded by
the European Commission's external aid programmes.Target
groups Thus, it will be useful for those who attended PCM seminars and workshops run by
EuropeAid's Evaluation Unit, and others, both inside and outside the Commission,
who want to become more familiar with PCM and the Logical Framework Approach
to deepen their understanding of PCM and of its application.
1.3. How to Use the Handbook?
Each chapter has a brief introduction at the beginning. Those who have gone
through the training should use the handbook as a reference to have a better insight
of the issues raised.
1
1
Both documents are available in English, French and Spanish under
http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/methods/pcm.htm.
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
The following sections may be most relevant for particular types of target groups:
Group / Interest Chapter
Persons interested in an overview on PCM in EC's external
aid
2.
Persons interested in details about the Logical Framework
Approach
3. & 5.4
Persons involved in managing and monitoring projects in
the field ­ TA, Delegation staff, ministries
2.7, 5.3, 5.4
Persons in charge of planning, implementing and monitoring
feasibility studies ­ EC staff, consultants
2.5
Persons in charge of planning or implementing evaluation
studies
2.8
What is
most
relevant
for me?
PCM follows an evolutionary approach. Comments on contents and case studies
are welcome, and should be addressed to EuropeAid's Evaluation Unit (H/6).
2
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2. PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW
Throughout this handbook the word "project" refers both to a "project" ­ a group of
activities to produce a Project Purpose in a fixed time frame ­ and a "programme" a
series of projects whose objectives together contribute to a common Overall Objective,
at sector, country or even multi-country level.
2.1. The Project Cycle and Key PCM Principles
a
Figure 1: The Project Cycle
The way in which projects are planned and carried out follows a sequence beginning
with an agreed strategy, which leads to an idea for a specific action, oriented towards
achieving a set of objectives, which then is formulated, implemented, and
evaluated with a view to improving the strategy and further action. The project cycle
provides a structure to ensure that stakeholders are consulted and relevant information
is available, so that informed decisions can be made at key stages in the life of
a project.
Structured &
informed deci-
sion-making
The generic project cycle within EC external aid
programmes has six phases. In practice, the duration
and importance of each phase may vary for different
projects. However, within all EC programmes the
cycle shares three common themes:
1. Key decisions, information requirements and
responsibilities are defined at each phase.
2. The phases in the cycle are progressive ­ each
phase needs to be completed for the next to be
tackled with success.
3. New programming draws on evaluation to build experience as part of the institutional
learning process.
Aid co-operation and partnership programmes with non-member states involve often
complex processes that require the active support of many parties. PCM reflects the
decision-making and implementation process; the methodology applied for planning,
managing, evaluating projects is the Logical Framework Approach. PCM helps ensuring
that the stakeholders support the decisions, and that decisions are based on
relevant and sufficient information.
Figure 2: Merging PCM and Logframe Approach
Merging PCM and Logframe Approach
Project Cycle Management
Defines different phases in the
project life with well-defined
management activities and
decision making procedures
Logframe Approach
A methodology for planning,
managing and evaluating
programmes and projects, using
tools to enhance participation
and transparency and to improve
orientation towards objectives
The decision making
and implementation
process defined by
the organisation
Project Cycle Management Logframe Approach
Project management
methods and tools
3
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
PCM tries to ensure that:
1. projects respect and contribute to overarching policy objectives of the EC such
as respect of human rights, poverty alleviation and to cross-cutting issues such
as gender equality, protection of the environment (relevance to and compatibility
with theses issues in the broad sense);
What does
PCM aim
at? 2. projects are relevant to an agreed strategy and to the real problems of target
groups / beneficiaries;
3. projects are feasible, meaning that objectives can be realistically achieved within
the constraints of the operating environment and the capabilities of the implementing
agencies;
4. benefits generated by projects are sustainable.
For that purpose, PCM
1. uses the Logical Framework Approach to analyse the problems, work out suitable
solutions ­ i.e. project design, and successfully implement them.
How to
achieve?
2. requires the production of good-quality key document(s) in each phase, to ensure
structured and well-informed decision-making (integrated approach).
3. requires consulting and involving key stakeholders as much as possible.
4. puts emphasis on a clear formulation and focus on one Project Purpose, in
terms of sustainable benefits for the intended target group(s).
5. incorporates key quality issues into the design from the beginning.
The focus of EC co-operation will be more and more on sector programmes, i.e.
supporting a specific sector through the support to the sector policy, its development,
if required, and its implementation. Both the phases of the cycle and the basic
principle apply to sector programmes. Chapter 5.1 provides more details about the
sector programme cycle.
The following figure shows the major decisions to be taken and documents to be
produced during the life of a project.
Figure 3: The Project Cycle: Main Documents and Decisions
Decision how to
use results in
future
programming
DraftDraft
FinancingFinancing
ProposalProposal
EvaluationEvaluation
studystudy
Decision to continue
as planned or to reorient
project (midterm
evaluation)
Decision to
fund
The Project Cycle: Major Documents
and Decisions
FinancingFinancing
ProposalProposal
FinancingFinancing
AgreementAgreement
Priority areas,
sectors,
timetable
CountryCountry
Strategy PaperStrategy Paper
Decision whether to
draw up a formal
financing proposal
PrePre--
feasibilityfeasibility
studystudy
FeasibilityFeasibility
studystudy
Decision about
the need for
extension
Progress andProgress and
MonitoringMonitoring
ReportsReports
a
ProjectProject
IdentificationIdentification
SheetSheet
Decision which
options to study
further
4
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2.2. The Basic Format or Structure of Project and Programme Documents
A basic `format' is applied for all documents to be produced during the project cycle.
It follows the core logic of the Logical Framework Approach.
1. Summary
2. Background: Overall EC and Government policy objectives, and links with the
Commission's country programme or strategy, commitment of Government to overarching
policy objectives of the EC such as respect of human rights
3. Sectoral and problem analysis, including stakeholder analysis and their potentials
4. Project / programme description, objectives, and the strategy to attain them
















Including lessons from past experience, and linkage with other donors' activities
Description of the intervention (objectives, and strategy to reach them, including
Project Purpose, Results and Activities and main Indicators)
5. Assumptions, Risks
6. Implementation arrangements
Physical and non-physical means
Organisation and implementation procedures
Timetable (work plan)
Estimated cost and financing plan
Special conditions and accompanying measures by Government / partners
Monitoring and Evaluation
7. Quality factors
Participation and ownership by beneficiaries
Policy support
Appropriate technology
Socio-cultural aspects
Gender equality
Environmental protection
Institutional and management capacities
Financial and economic viability
Annex: Logframe (completed or outline, depending on the phase)
Figure 4: The Integrated Approach
The Integrated Approach
Standardised
documentation+Linked
objectives
Basic Format
1. Summary
2. Background
3. Sectoral and problem analysis
4. Project/programme description
5. Assumptions, risks and flexibility
6. Implementation arrangements
7. Quality factors
Annex: Logframe
Feasibility studies
Financing proposals
Progress reports
Evaluation reports
5500
1750
4250
750
400
1100
3100
Budget
5500
1750
4250
750
400
1100
3100
Budget
Salaries
Allowances
Vehicle Op.
Office
Tel/Fax
Seeds
Fertiliser
5000 5500
1250 1750
3750 4250
750 750
400 400
850 1100
2300 3100
Budget
Workplan
Workplan
Workplan
Results-based work plans and
budgets
Logframe
National / sectoral objectives
NEAP NIP
5
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
The following chapters provide an overview on the different phases of the project
cycle. Details about procedures and overall responsibilities between the DGs involved
in a phase can be found in the Interservice Agreement concluded between
the DG External Relations, DG Development and EuropeAid Co-operation Office2
.
They are not repeated in this handbook.
PCM and
procedures
2.3. Programming
2.3.1. Introduction
Programming is multi-annual and indicative. The work is coordinated by Commission
services with contributions from partner country authorities. The output is an
agreed multi-annual Indicative Programme. It constitutes the "Order For Service"
(OFS) sent formally from DG RELEX/DEV to EuropeAid. Any review thereof needs
to be adopted.
During the Programming phase, the situation at national and sectoral level is analysed
to identify problems, constraints and opportunities which co-operation could
address. This involves a review of socio-economic indicators, and of national and
donor priorities. The purpose is to identify the main objectives and sectoral priorities
for co-operation, and thus to provide a relevant and feasible programming framework
within which projects can be identified and prepared. For each of these priorities,
strategies that take account of the lessons of past experience will be formu-
lated.
Setting pri-
orities
"Guidelines for the Implementation of the Common Framework for Country Strategy
Papers" explaining the process in detail are available on the Internet3
. Overall procedures
and responsibilities for programming are described in the Interservice
Agreement.
2.3.2. The Programming Process: An Overview
The multi-annual programming documents, as defined by the different regulations,
are a part of the strategic framework vis--vis a partner country/region. Furthermore,
the standard Framework for Country Strategy Papers, which applies to EDF, ALA
and MED programming documents will also be applied progressively to all other
countries receiving financial assistance from the EC. Therefore, both programming
and implementation are (respectively will be) managed on the basis of a single, logically
coherent documentation, the Country Strategy Paper (CSP). A CSP should be
drafted on the basis of discussions with the partner country ensuring sufficient ownership
to facilitate a successful implementation. In this context, policy dialogue
should be encouraged and should lead, if possible, to mutual understanding and
consensus.
A CSP shall contain a series of key elements and keep the following structure:
1. A description of the EC co-operation objectives.
2. The policy objectives of the partner country.
3. An analysis of the political, economic and social situation, including the sustainability
of current policies and medium-term challenges.
4. An overview of past and ongoing EC co-operation (lessons and experience),
information on programmes of EU Member States and other donors.
5. The EC response strategy, identifying a strictly limited number of intervention
sectors that is complementary to interventions by other donors.
6
2
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/reform/document/intser_06_01.pdf
3
http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/lex/en/sec2000_1049_0_en.htm#menu
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
6. Once the response strategy is defined, it must be translated into a National Indicative
Programme (NIP). This may be an integral part of the overall CSP
document. The NIP is a management tool covering a period of several years
(from 3 - 5 years depending on the applicable Regulation/Agreement). It identifies
and defines the appropriate measures and actions for attaining the objectives
laid down. The National Indicative Programme should fully derive from and
be consistent with the preceding analysis.
Each of these points is further developed in the "Guidelines for implementation of
the Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers"4
. The order of the components
should not be altered and in total, the document should be 15 to 25 pages,
without annexes.
The indicative programme shall specify:
* Global objectives: Programming documents set out the strategic choices for EC
co-operation, on the basis of the EU's and the country's priorities, making possible
the setting of priorities within and across sectors and by instrument;
* Financial envelopes for each co-operation area including, where appropriate, the
indicative timing and size of each instalment of the Community contributions;
* Specific objectives and expected results for each co-operation area including
key domains for conditionalities and main performance and a limited number of
key outcome indicators (for a definition, see table below). These indicators must
relate to developments that are measurable in the short/medium term. If there is
a PRSP process (Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper) under way, the indicators
must correspond to those developed in that framework;
What needs to
be specified?
* How crosscutting issues are taken into consideration (gender, environment,
etc.);
* Programmes to be implemented in pursuit of these objectives and intended
beneficiaries and the type of assistance to be provided (e.g. macroeconomic
support, technical assistance, training, investment, supply of equipment, etc).
Furthermore, project ideas may be formulated and general criteria for their realisation
defined (such as geographical area, most suitable partners, suitable duration
of projects)5
.
The whole programming process reflects major elements of the Logical Framework
Approach, and shows that the approach is also valuable for setting co-operation objectives
at country or regional level.
4
See http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/lex/en/sec2000_1049_0_en.htm#menu
5
For ACP countries, there is a legal obligation to give the NIP an operational content
(Annex IV to the Cotonou Agreement). To the extent possible, concrete operations for which
preparations are at a sufficiently advanced stage to warrant funding in the short and/or medium
term shall therefore be included in the NIP. As the Cotonou Agreement prescribes rolling
programming, NIPs for ACP countries should also include a projection of tentative, but
nevertheless identifiable, proposals for follow-up in the subsequent years.
7
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 1: Development Indicators and their Use within EC
Development
Indicators
As a major step towards concerted international action for development, the
OECD, the United Nations and the World Bank have agreed to focus on a series of
key goals in partnership with developing countries. These goals have been endorsed
by major international conferences. A system for tracking progress has also
been agreed. A core set of indicators will be used - at a global level - to monitor
performance and adjust development strategies as required.
Within the EC, such kinds of development indicators are especially used in the
framework of CSP and sector programmes. As for EC activities, the use of indicators
meets three distinct and complementary needs, each requiring the monitoring
of a separate set of indicators:
1. Measure the performance of the country's development policies in terms of
economic growth, increasing standard of living and poverty reduction in the
short, medium and long term.
2. Measure the performance of sectoral development policies.
3. Monitor the implementation and impact of EC assistance.
As for all other types of indicators, it is imperative to consider the degree of measurability
of the indicators as a key criterion when selecting which indicators to follow.
Therefore, when defining each indicator, it is essential to pay attention to the
time and cost necessary to collect the data, and the frequency with which these
data could be obtained.
In terms of development policy, the following terminology is applied for indicators:
Input Indica-
tors
They measure the financial, administrative and regulatory resources provided by
the Government and donors. It is necessary to establish a link between the resources
used and the results achieved in order to assess the efficiency of the actions
carried out. E.g.: Share of the budget devoted to education expenditure, abolition
of compulsory school uniforms
Output Indica-
tors
They measure the immediate and concrete consequences of the measures taken
and resources used: E.g.: Number of schools built, number of teachers trained
Outcome Indi-
cators
They measure the short-term results at the level of beneficiaries. The term `results
indicators' is used as well. E.g.: School enrolment, percentage of girls among the
children entering in first year of primary school
Impact Indica-
tors
They measure the long-term consequences of the outcomes. They measure the
general objectives in terms of national development and poverty reduction. E.g.:
Literacy rates
Except for the term "Input indicators" which is usually not used as such within the
Logical Framework Approach (LFA), this terminology complies with the LFA:
* Output indicators would be located at the level of Activities, as they are direct
consequences of Activities implemented,
* Outcome indicators correspond to indicators at the level of the Results in a Logical
Framework,
* Impact indicators are measures at the level of the Purpose and the Overall Objectives
(one could distinguish between initial and long-term impact).
2.3.3. Fundamental Principles of Programming
The following principles shall motivate and inform all aspects of programming:
1. Poverty focus: EC development policy shall be centred on the objective to reduce
and, eventually, to eradicate poverty6
while taking into consideration other
6
Overall Statement by the Commission and the Council on the European Community's
Development policy, adopted by the Development Council on 10 November 2000.
8
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
objectives set out in Article 177 of the Treaty as well as in the regulations and international
agreements for each geographical region.
2. Policy mix: Strategy and programming documents must be comprehensive and
account for all EC policies, resources and instruments (the EC `policy mix'), that
are applied in a partner country (as trade policy, fisheries policy and Common
Foreign and Security Policy).
3. Country ownership: The starting points for the preparation of strategies and programming
are the EU/EC's co-operation objectives and the country's own policy
agenda. For countries that are involved in the World Bank initiative on the establishment
of Poverty Reduction Strategies, it is assumed that the starting point
will be the PRSP process.
4. Work sharing and complementarity: Every effort must be made to maximise information
sharing and ensure complementarity with the efforts of the government
(and civil society partners), Member States' interventions, and activities of
multilateral agencies.
5. Comprehensive country analysis: The approach to programming must be integrated
and consider the political, economic, trade, social, cultural and environmental
aspects of development.
6. Concentration of efforts on a limited number of areas: Six priority areas for EC
co-operation are identified in the Overall Policy Statement: trade and development;
regional integration, macroeconomic policies including support to the social
sectors, transport, food security/rural development and institutional capacity
building.
7. Cross-cutting and overarching policy issues: At every stage of execution of the
activities previously reviewed, a number of such concerns have to be considered:
the promotion of human rights, equality between men and women, the environmental
dimension, etc.). Also conflict prevention and crisis management require
systematic attention.
8. Other key aspects of EC development policy: In addition to the areas of concentration
and cross-cutting concerns, the statement recalls the importance of (i)
accelerated action targeting the communicable disease situation (such as
HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis), (ii) information and communications technologies
and (iii) supporting research in developing countries.
9. Wherever possible, the focus on individual projects should gradually be replaced
by a sector programme or policy-based approach; providing support to coherent
national policies in each sector or co-operation area.
10. Feedback: Lessons of past experience and results of relevant evaluations shall
systematically be taken into account and be fed back into the programming
process.
11. Focus on outcomes: The programming, implementation and review process
shall include systematic use of a few key outcome indicators, designed to show
and measure the impact of the EC resources committed.
12. Open partnership: The co-operation partnership shall be extended to civil society,
private sector and local authorities, which in many cases should be associated
with the policy dialogue and the implementation of projects.
9
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2.3.4. Checking the Quality of an Indicative Programme
The following questions may provide guidance when checking the quality of an Indicative
Programme:
* Are the objectives of the indicative programme clear and unambiguous? Do they
cover aspects of good governance, poverty alleviation, environmental protection
and gender equality?
* Are the sectoral objectives clearly linked to the objectives of the indicative pro-
gramme?
* Are the objectives clearly defined? Are the indicators appropriate?
* What are the assumptions and risks underlying the objectives? How critical to the
programme's success are they and how likely is it that they will be achieved?
* Have the goals and objectives been clearly understood and accepted by all relevant
partner country institutions?
2.4. Identification
2.4.1. Introduction
During the Identification phase, and within the framework established by the Country
Strategy Paper, the stress is on analysis of relevance of project ideas, which includes
an analysis of the stakeholders and of the likely target groups and beneficiaries
(who they are: women and men from different socio-economic groups; assessment
of their potentials, etc.) and of the situation, including an analysis of the problems
they face, and the identification of options to address these problems.
Sectoral, thematic or "pre-feasibility" studies may be carried out (including consultations
with stakeholders) to help identify, select or investigate specific ideas, and to
define what further studies may be needed to formulate a project or action. The outcome
is a decision on whether or not the option(s) developed should be further studied
in detail. Overall responsibility for Identification is with EuropeAid who initiates
missions, studies and related preparatory work (including consultations with others
donors and potential co-financing) in order to define the activities (projects, programmes,
sectoral support, etc.) to be financed. A priority list is established by DG
DEV/RELEX indicating which projects should be appraised immediately for a rapid
start of implementation, in the following year and so on.
Identifying
ideas and
further steps
2.4.2. Expected Outcomes of Identification
The expected outcomes of Identification are:
* Where required, a pre-feasibility study analysing a given situation, suggesting different
options to address this situation and suggesting the one(s) to be further
studied during appraisal to ensure these ideas are feasible.
* A Project Identification Sheet based, if possible, on the pre-feasibility study, and
examining the coherence between the project / programme proposed and the
objectives defined in the CSP/NIP,





indicating relevant experience to be taken into account,
determining the subsequent steps.
* A decision taken by the EC and the partner country
to appraise the suggested option(s) in detail (priority list),
to reject the project.
10
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
In terms of Logical Framework, the pre-feasibility study should establish a rough
project description covering basically the Intervention Logic and the Assumptions.
This means that it should go through the Analysis Stage and parts of the Planning
Stage of the LFA, establishing Stakeholder Analysis, Problem Analysis, Analysis of
Objectives, Strategy Analysis. In most cases, it will be sufficient to roughly elaborate
the Intervention Logic and the Assumptions for the preferred option, as well as give
indications for possible Indicators, especially at the level of the Project Purpose and
the Results. So the outcome would look as follows:
Figure 5: The Logframe: What should be Outlined at the End of Identification
The Logframe: What should be Outlined at the
End of Identification
Intervention
Logic
Sources of
Verification
Assumptions
Overall
Objectives
Project
Purpose
Results
Activities Means Cost
Pre-condi-
tions
Objectively
Verifiable
Indicators
In addition, the pre-feasibility study should provide a first draft for an implementation
Schedule. Such a schedule should outline the timing for the major elements of further
preparation and implementation. In cases where no pre-feasibility study is
made, the Implementation Schedule should be prepared by the task manager. In
both cases it will accompany the Project Identification Sheet and thus serve for decision
by DG DEV/RELEX about the further timing of appraisal and implementation.
It should regularly be updated by the task manager. During implementation, the project
managers are responsible for updating the schedule and to submit it as part of
the progress reports.
2.4.3. Major Tasks
At the level of an individual project, Identification will usually involve the following
major tasks:
1. Organising consultations with other donors throughout the phase.
2. Drafting TOR for the pre-feasibility study (Standard TOR are available on the
Intranet of EuropeAid ­ working tools), based on:
* the Overall Objectives of co-operation with the concerned partner country,
* background information about the country, sector, region concerned, including
overall sector strategies or sector support programmes,
* discussions with stakeholders likely to be concerned by the project,
* experience in the country in the same or comparable sectors or regions,
11
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
* lessons learnt through evaluation of similar projects7
.
3. Drafting tender documents for the pre-feasibility study according to the existing
procedures and selecting contractor according to existing procedures.
4. Briefing contractor and parties involved and monitoring pre-feasibility study mis-
sion.
5. Ensuring quality of outcome (reports) and feedback to parties involved, including
assessment and improvement of the project ideas and decision whether or not
further action is justified. If so, defining issues for a feasibility study and drawing
up terms of reference.
6. Drafting the Project Identification Sheet and submitting it for priority listing.
A typical pre-feasibility study mission would last several weeks in the partner country,
followed by a shorter period outside this country. This mission is one of the most important
stages in the planning of new projects. During the mission the study team
must work closely with the potential beneficiaries and target groups. The key focus
for the mission is:
1. To consult with proposed beneficiaries and target groups to assess their strengths
and weaknesses and to check their likely commitment to a project. This consultation
will take the form of individual and group meetings both with the potential
partner institutions and the beneficiaries / target groups. It is recommended to
hold a diagnosis workshop to run through the Analysis and parts of the Planning
Phase of the LFA as described above.
2. To ensure that potential project options are coherently defined with a logical
analysis of problems, achievable objectives linked to (sub-)sector objectives and
the objectives in the indicative programme as well as to the overarching policy ob-
jectives.
3. To define the Overall Objectives, Project Purpose and Results which are expected
from project activities for the preferred option.
4. To identify assumptions on which the project would be based.
5. To identify those factors which will influence the project's sustainability and the
likely partner's arrangements for the post-project period.
6. To provide a first estimate of means and cost.
7. To identify those aspects of the project where further analysis and planning work
will be required in order to ensure feasibility of the intervention, finalize planning
and draft the financing proposal.
8. To ensure that the project has an appropriate size, taking into account the capacity
of the likely partner institution and target groups.
2.4.4. Project Identification Criteria
When assessing the quality of project ideas at the end of the Identification phase
(i.e. the pre-feasibility study report), it should mainly be ensured that these ideas are
likely to be relevant and that they are as well likely to be feasible (most steps of the
sustainability check will take place during Appraisal). The following questions and
assessment criteria should provide guidance for this check:
7
The PCM training programme offers a tool for assessing first project ideas and for
drafting TOR for a feasibility studies. This Guide for Assessment of Project Proposals, which
is intended for in-depth analysis of project proposals prior to the appraisal phase can be
downloaded from the Intranet of EuropeAid ­ working tools.
The Guide contains instructions that provide a framework for analysing the coherence and
comprehensiveness of a project proposal. The project design is deconstructed and reconstructed,
in order to identify the gaps and inconsistencies, and thereby to identify questions
for inclusion in the terms of reference for a feasibility study.
12
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 2: Quality Criteria for Assessment of Project Ideas
Question Quality assessment criterion
1. Relevance
1.1 Are the project objectives
in line with the overarching
policy objectives of
strengthening good
governance, human rights
and the rule of law, and
poverty alleviation?
Outline project objectives are compatible with the overarching policy
objectives; they fully respect them in the approach and seek to contribute
to their achievement. The proposal indicates which of them are most
relevant and how they are linked to the project objectives.
1.2 Are the major stakeholders
of the project
clearly identified and de-
scribed?
The stakeholders likely to be most important for the project have been
consulted; and target groups and other beneficiaries have been identified.
They have expressed their interest and expectations, the role they
are willing to play, the resources and capacities they may provide, also
in a gender-differentiated way. The other stakeholders have expressed
general support for the likely objectives of the project. Conclusions are
drawn on how the project could deal with the groups (alternatives are
shown).
1.3 Are the beneficiaries (target
groups and final beneficiaries)
clearly identified?
Their socio-economic roles and positions, geographical location, organisational
set-up, resource endowment, etc. are described in detail.
Educational/skills level, management capacities and their specific
potentials are also described in detail, especially for the target groups,
providing a gender breakdown, where appropriate. The analysis
addresses options how the project could take advantage of and support
skills, potentials, etc. of the target groups.
1.5 Are the problems of target
groups and final beneficiaries
sufficiently de-
scribed?
They are described in detail, including information on the specific problems
faced by the target groups (including sub-groups) and the final
beneficiaries. Problem description of possible project partners show
their specific problems and relate them to the problems of the target
groups.
1.6 Is the problem analysis
sufficiently comprehen-
sive?
The causes of the problems of target groups / final beneficiaries have
been researched, and the problem analysis gives a clear indication of
how these problems are related (cause ­ effect).
1.7 Do the outlined Overall
Objectives explain why the
project is important for
sectoral development and
society?
The proposals outlines
* which longer term benefit the final beneficiaries find in the project,
* how the project fits within the sectoral policies of the Government
and the sectoral objectives stated in the Indicative Programme,
Country Strategy Paper, etc., and
* how the project fits within the overarching policy objectives of the
EC.
1.8 Does the Project Purpose
express a direct benefit for
the target groups?
The Project Purpose describes a direct benefit to be derived from the
project by the target groups at the end of the project as a consequence
of achieving the Results.
1.9 Does the EcoFin (Financial
and Economic) Analysis
provide adequate information
on the questions
raised above?
The EcoFin Analysis provides data on the possible incremental net
benefit of the beneficiaries as well as on the contribution to the
achievement of national and EU policy priorities, if possible for various
project alternatives.
13
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2. Feasibility
2.1 Will the Project Purpose
contribute to the Overall
Objectives (if the Assumptions
hold true)?
Previous experience (in other projects or regions) has shown a strong
causal relationship between the Project Purpose and Overall Objec-
tives.
2.2 Are Results products of
the implementation of Ac-
tivities?
All Results are a consequence of undertaking the related Activities.
2.3 Will the Project Purpose
be achieved if the Results
are attained?
There is evidence that there is a direct and logical link between the Results
and the Purpose in terms of means-ends relationship, i.e. the
achievement of the Results will remove the main problems underlying
the Project Purpose.
2.4 Can the Results and Purpose
realistically be
achieved with the Means
suggested (first estimate)?
Indicators for Results and Purpose are `specific' and are at least partly
described with measurable quantities, time frame, target group, location
and quality. There is also evidence that Indicators of the Results and
Purpose are realistic given the time frame set for the project.
2.5 Have important external
factors been identified?
Given the experience in the country and sector, and based on the analysis
of objectives, major external factors have been identified at the
relevant levels in the logframe.
2.6 Is the probability of realisation
of the Assumptions
acceptable?
For each Assumption, some evidence is provided that the probability of
realisation is acceptable.
2.7 Will the suggested project
partners and implementing
agencies be able to implement
the project?
The potential partners have actively participated in the identification
phase and have relevant implementing experience. If they do not have
this experience outline capacity building measures are already suggested
to enhance implementation capacity.
2.8 Does the EcoFin Analysis
provide adequate information
on the questions
raised above?
Efficiency is assessed roughly according to the EcoFin guidelines.
Relevant alternatives were analysed. The impact of main risks was as-
sessed.
Only if each criterion is met fully or at least fairly, it is recommendable to continue
with the appraisal of the project. Otherwise,
* satisfactory clarification of the issue under consideration should be sought, i.e.
complementary information should be gathered from concerned parties, or
* additional studies may be launched, etc. before deciding to continue with the appraisal
of the project by drafting TOR for the feasibility study ­ or
* the project idea should be completely rejected.
2.5. Appraisal
2.5.1. Introduction
During the Appraisal phase, EuropeAid launches any preparatory studies as may be
required and manages their technical, contractual and financial aspects. Relevant
project ideas are developed into project plans. The particular stress should be on
feasibility and sustainability / quality of the suggested intervention. Beneficiaries and
other stakeholders participate in the detailed specification of the project idea that is
then assessed for its feasibility (whether it is likely to succeed) and sustainability
(whether it is likely to generate long-term benefits). Again, checks need to ensure
that cross-cutting issues and overarching policy objectives are adequately considered
in the project design and objectives. A detailed Logical Framework with Indicators,
and Implementation, Activity and Resource Schedules, should be produced.
Defining details
of the
project
14
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
On the basis of these assessments, a decision is made on whether or not to draw
up a formal financing proposal and seek funding for the project.
The term "ex ante" evaluation is now frequently used for "Appraisal" or "Feasibility
Study". While Appraisal refers to studies during the preparatory phases of the project
cycle (pre-feasibility or feasibility studies), "evaluation" as such concerns the assessment
of an ongoing or completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation
and results (see section 2.8): "Ex ante evaluation is a process that
supports the preparation of proposals for new or renewed Community actions. Its
purpose is to gather information and carry out analyses that help to define objectives,
to ensure that these objectives can be met, that the instruments used are costeffective
and that reliable later evaluation will be possible. (...)"8
What is ex
ante evalua-
tion?
2.5.2. Expected Outcomes of Appraisal
The expected outcomes of Appraisal are:
* A feasibility study establishing whether the proposed project identified in the prefeasibility
study is relevant, feasible and likely to be sustainable, and detailing the
technical, economic and financial, institutional and management, environmental
and socio-cultural and operational aspects of the project. The purpose of the feasibility
study will be to provide the decision-makers in the Government and the
European Commission with sufficient information to justify acceptance, modification
or rejection of the proposed project for further financing and implementation.
* A decision taken by the EC and the partner country
to prepare a financing proposal based on the study


to reject the project
to further study certain aspects, if not yet clarified in a satisfactory manner
In terms of Logical Framework, the feasibility study should establish a detailed project
description covering all aspects of the logframe. In addition, an outline of an Activity
Schedule and a Resource Schedule should as well be prepared for the project.
Also, the preparation of a first draft financing proposal forms part of the appraisal.
Figure 6: The Logframe: What Should Be Defined at the End of Appraisal
The Logframe: What Should be Defined
at the End of Appraisal
Intervention
Logic
Sources of
Verification
Assumptions
Overall
Objectives
Project
Purpose
Results
Activities Means Cost
Pre-condi-
tions
Objectively
Verifiable
Indicators
Outline of Activity and Resource schedule
8
From the DG Budget's guide "Ex Ante" Evaluation: A Guide for Preparing Proposals
for Expenditure Programmes. For further details please refer to the site
http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/pdf/ex_ante_guide_en.pdf.
15
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2.5.3. Major Tasks
For an individual project Appraisal will usually involve tasks comparable to those of
the Identification phase. The drafting of the TOR for the feasibility study (Standard
TOR are available the EuropeAid Intranet homepage, working tools ­ PCM, will be
based on
* the decision made concerning which option to study in-depth,
* the pre-feasibility study report, taking into account the suggestions made there,
* lessons learnt through evaluation of similar projects.
Equally, the project design has to be assessed and improved, and a decision to be
taken as to whether or not to proceed with the preparation of a financing proposal.
A typical feasibility study mission will last several weeks. The key focus for the mission
will be:
1. To verify the relevance of the proposed project in addressing the existing problems,
suggested in or in addition to the options studied in the pre-feasibility
study. This means to check the validity of the logframe outline as it was developed
during the identification phase, and running in detail through the steps of
the Planning Phase.
2. To ensure that the project objectives are in line with the objectives in the indicative
programme, the overarching policy objectives of the EC and linked to the
(sub-) sector objectives.
3. To assess in detail the feasibility of the proposed project and to prepare / finalise
a logical framework planning matrix.
4. To assess in detail the potential sustainability of the project results after project
completion, based on consideration of the quality factors.
5. To prepare an Implementation Schedule, an outline for Activity and Resource
Schedules and the institutional structure for implementation stipulating the responsibilities
of various bodies, project timing/phasing, estimated cost per
budget item.
6. To draft design specifications, if required.
7. To prepare a draft Financing Proposal.
8. To provide recommendations for the next steps and any further actions necessary
to secure project financing and implementation and, possibly, the tender
documents for the selection of consultancy services.
Applying
quality cri-
teria
Holding a planning workshop towards the end of the mission (and focusing on final
agreement on Overall Objectives, Results, Activities, Indicators, the outline of Activity
and Resource Schedules and implementation arrangements) is strongly recommended.
This will help improving ownership by the target groups / beneficiaries9
.
2.5.4. Project Appraisal Criteria
Planning
workshops An
opportunity
to enhance
own-
ership
When assessing the quality of project design at the end of the appraisal phase, it
should be ensured that the project is relevant, feasible and likely to be sustainable.
The following questions and assessment criteria should provide guidance for this
check:
16
9
Standard TOR for the Moderation of a Logical Framework Planning Workshop are
available on the Intranet site of EuropeAid (working tools ­ PCM).
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 3: Quality Criteria for Assessment of a Detailed Project Design
(or Draft Financing Proposal)
Question Quality assessment criterion
1. Relevance
1.1 Are the project objectives in
line with the overarching policy
objectives of strengthening
good governance, human
rights and the rule of law, and
poverty alleviation?
The project objectives are compatible with these objectives they fully respect
them in the approach and seek to contribute to their achievement. The proposal
states clearly which of them are most relevant and how they are linked
to the project objectives.
1.2 Are the major stakeholders of
the project clearly identified
and described?
The most important stakeholders for the project identified during identification
have been confirmed and consulted; and the target groups and other
beneficiaries are clearly identified, have confirmed their interest and expectations,
the role they are willing to play, the resources and capacities they
will provide, also in a gender differentiated way. The other stakeholders
have confirmed their general support for the objectives of the project. Clear
conclusions are drawn on how the project intends to deal with the groups.
1.3 Are the beneficiaries (target
groups and final beneficiaries)
clearly identified?
Their socio-economic roles and positions, geographical location, organisational
set-up, resource endowment, etc. are described in detail. Educational/skills
level, management capacities and their specific potentials are
also described in detail, especially for the target groups, providing a gender
breakdown where appropriate. The analysis shows clearly how the project
will take advantage of and support skills, potentials, etc. of the target groups.
No major changes occur compared to the pre-feasibility study.
1.5 Are the problems of target
groups and final beneficiaries
sufficiently described?
They are described in detail, including information on the specific problems
faced by the target groups (including sub-groups) and the final beneficiaries.
Problem description of project partners show their specific problems and
relate them clearly to the problems of the target groups.
1.6 Is the problem analysis sufficiently
comprehensive?
The causes of the problems of target groups / final beneficiaries have been
researched, and the problem analysis gives a clear indication of how these
problems are related (cause ­ effect).
1.7 Do Overall Objectives explain
why the project is important
for sectoral development and
society?
The proposals clearly indicates
* which longer term benefit the final beneficiaries find in the project,
* how the project fits within the sectoral policies of the Government and the
sectoral objectives stated in the Indicative Programme, Country Strategy
Paper, etc., and
* how the project fits within the overarching policy objectives of the EC
1.8 Does the Project Purpose
express a direct benefit for
the target groups?
The Project Purpose describes a direct benefit to be derived from the project
by the target groups at the end of the project as a consequence of achieving
the Results.
1.9 Does the EcoFin (Financial
and Economic) Analysis provide
sufficient information on
the questions raised above?
The EcoFin Analysis has been performed according to the EcoFin guidelines
and provides extensive data on the incremental net benefit of the beneficiaries
as well as on the contribution to the achievement of national and EU
policy priorities
2. Feasibility
2.1 Will the Project Purpose contribute
to the Overall Objectives
(if the Assumptions hold
true)?
Previous experience (in other projects or regions) has shown a strong
causal relationship between the Project Purpose and Overall Objectives.
2.2 Are Results products of the
implementation of Activities?
All Results are a consequence of undertaking the related Activities.
2.3 Will the Project Purpose be
achieved if all Results are
attained?
There is clear evidence that there is a direct and logical link between the
Results and the Purpose in terms of means-ends relationship, i.e. the
achievement of the Results will remove the main problems underlying the
Project Purpose.
17
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Question Quality assessment criterion
2.4 Are the Means sufficiently
justified by quantified objec-
tives?
Indicators for Results and Purpose are `specific' and are described with
measurable quantities, time frame, target group, location and quality, if possible.
There is also confirmation of evidence that Indicators of the Results
and Purpose are realistic given the time frame set for the project.
2.5 Have important external factors
been identified?
External factors and accompanying measures have been comprehensively
identified at the relevant levels in the logframe.
2.6 Is the probability of realisation
of the Assumptions ac-
ceptable?
For each Assumption, supporting evidence is provided that the probability of
realisation is acceptable.
2.7 Will the project partners and
implementing agencies be
able to implement the pro-
ject?
Responsibilities and procedures have been clearly established, the partners
have actively participated in the appraisal phase, there is clear evidence that
they have relevant implementing experience and most of the capacity to
cope with the tasks of the project. If not: sufficient capacity building measures
are foreseen to enhance implementation capacity.
2.8 Does the EcoFin Analysis
provide sufficient information
on the questions raised
above?
Efficiency analysis was carried out according to the EcoFin guidelines.
Relevant alternatives were analysed in detail. Appropriate sensitivity tests
were carried out.
3. Sustainability
3.1 Will there be adequate ownership
of the project by the
target groups / beneficiaries?
Target groups and beneficiaries took the initiative to promote the initial idea,
they have been active participants in all phases of the planning process, and
major decisions have been validated by them or their representatives. They
agreed and committed themselves to achieve the objectives of the project.
3.2 Will the relevant authorities
have a supportive policy during
implementation and after
project completion?
Relevant authorities have demonstrated support to projects of this type
through the adaptation of rules, regulations and policies, and the commitment
of significant resources.
3.3 Is the technology approach
appropriate for the local con-
ditions?
Various alternatives have been examined, and in the selection the different
needs of the target groups and beneficiaries (men and women), local conditions
and capacities (technical, financial, etc.) have been taken into account.
3.4 Will the ecological environment
be preserved during
and after the project?
The appropriate level of Environment Assessment has been carried out (Environmental
Integration Form), and all necessary recommendations are integrated
in project design. This means that an environment management plan
which specifies the environmental (mitigating) measures to be undertaken
should be in place, as well as a plan for monitoring the environmental situation
of the project and for taking further environmental action should the
mitigating measures prove insufficient.
3.5 Will all beneficiaries have
adequate access to benefits
and products during and after
the project?
Socio-cultural norms and attitudes have been analysed for all major subgroups
of beneficiaries, and details are provided how these norms and attitudes
will be taken into account in the project to ensure a more equitable
distribution of access and benefits.
3.6 Will the project contribute to
gender equality?
Sufficient measures are built into the project to ensure that it will meet the
needs and interests of both women and men and will lead to sustained and
equitable access by women and men to the services and infrastructures.
3.7 Will the implementing agencies
be able to provide followup
after the project?
The implementing agencies have demonstrated a strong interest in continuing
to deliver Results post-project, adequate institution-building measures
have been built into the project to enable them to do so, and evidence exists
that the required resources (human and financial) will be available.
3.8 Does the EcoFin Analysis
provide sufficient information
on the questions raised
above?
The EcoFin Analysis was carried out according to the EcoFin Guidelines.
The Financial Analysis of the main stakeholders shows in detail that the project
is sustainable both during and after the project. The Economic Analysis
provides clear evidence that the project is sustainable internationally.
18
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2.6. Financing
2.6.1. Introduction
The financing proposal is completed and considered by the appropriate committee;
and a decision is taken whether or not to fund the project. A formal agreement with
the partner Government or another entity is then signed by both including essential
financing implementation arrangements.
Based on the previous studies and subsequent discussions, a final version of the
Financing Proposal needs to be drafted and assessed / examined during the Financing
phase by EuropeAid with regard to a set of quality criteria, and agreed by
DG RELEX/DEV. Subsequently, Financing Proposals are examined by the competent
authority (committee), and a decision is taken on whether or not to fund the project.
The EC and the partner country or another entity will then agree upon the modalities
of implementation and formalise these in a legal document which sets out
the arrangements by which the project will be funded and implemented.
2.6.2. Major Tasks and Expected Outcomes of Financing
The major tasks have already been mentioned above. The drafting of the final version
of the Financing Proposal will include specification of accompanying measures
to facilitate project implementation, if not yet done. A format for FP is outlined below.
The expected outcomes of Financing are:
* A final version of the Financing Proposal in the defined format which should cover
all aspects of the logframe
* A decision taken by the EC and the partner country:
to submit the financing proposal to the competent authority,
 to redesign or reject the project.
* A signed financing agreement or memorandum signed by the EC and the partner
country, including the Technical and Administrative Provisions for implementa-
tion.
2.6.3. Project Financing Criteria
When assessing the quality of project design before submission of the FP to the
competent authority, a further check should be made to ensure that the project is
relevant, feasible and sustainable. To check this, the same questions as in Chapter
2.5.4 should be used.
Applying
quality cri-
teria
19
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 4: Format for a Financing Proposal10
SUMMARY
A RELEVANCE
1. Consistency with global objectives
1.1 Overarching EC aid policy objectives and priorities
1.2 Objectives of the relevant Indicative Programme (national, regional)
1.3 Link with annual country review
2. Sectoral analysis
2.1 Features of the sector concerned
2.2 Status of national/regional policy
3. Analysis of the situation
6.1 Stakeholder analysis (including target groups, beneficiaries, other stakeholders)
6.2 Problems to be addressed at the level of the target groups / beneficiaries
4. Origins and preparation of the project
B FEASIBILITY
5 Project description
5.1 Overall Objectives including Indicators and Sources of Verification
5.2 Project Purpose including Indicators and Sources of Verification
5.3 Results including Indicators and Sources of Verification and related Activities
6. Project analysis and environment
6.1 Lessons from past experience
6.2 Linkage with other operations, complementarity and sectoral co-ordination between do-
nors
6.3 Results of economic and cross-sectoral appraisals
6.4 Risks and Assumptions (related to implementation)
7 Project implementation
7.1 Physical and non-physical means
7.2 Organisational and implementation procedures
7.3 Technology used
7.4 Timetable, cost and financing plan
7.5 Special conditions and accompanying measures to be taken by the Government
7.6 Monitoring arrangements
7.7 Evaluations/audits
C SUSTAINABILITY / QUALITY
8 Measures ensuring sustainability /quality
8.1 Participation and ownership by beneficiaries
8.2 Policy support
8.3 Appropriate technology
8.4 Socio-cultural aspects
8.5 Gender equality
8.6 Environmental protection
8.7 Institutional and management capacities
8.8 Economic and financial viability
D ANNEXES
9.1 Logical Framework (compulsory)
9.2 Stakeholder analysis, problem and objectives analysis (compulsory)
9.3 Implementation Schedule and Overall Activity Schedule (compulsory)
9.4 Environmental Integration Form (compulsory)
9.5 Gender Integration Form (compulsory)
9.6 Economic and Financial Analysis (compulsory)
9.7 Details about co-ordination meetings with other donors, especially Member States (op-
tional)
9.8 Others (to be specified)
10
At the moment, this format is different for the different co-operation instruments of EC
external co-operation. When preparing FPs, task managers should follow the officially approved
structure.
20
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2.7. Implementation, Including Monitoring and Reporting
2.7.1. Introduction
Once a project has been planned and financial support been secured, implementation
can start. The agreed resources are used to achieve the Project Purpose and to
contribute to the wider, Overall Objectives. This usually involves contracts for studies,
technical assistance, works or supplies. Progress is assessed (= monitoring) to
enable adjustment to changing circumstances.
The Interservice Agreement specifies overall distribution of responsibilities for Implementation.
As a general rule, EuropeAid is responsible for all aspects of implementation,
including, inter alia, procurement, contractual and financial management,
monitoring, audits, etc., and provides DG RELEX/DEV with regular feedback on the
basis of regularly-prepared monitoring reports.
2.7.2. Expected Outcomes of Implementation
The expected outcomes of Implementation are:
* A successful project meeting its Purpose and contributing to its Overall Objec-
tives.
* Evidence that means allocated have been used in an efficient, effective and
transparent way.
2.7.3. Major Tasks to Be Managed at EC Level/Partner Country Level
For a task manager, be it in a delegation or in HQ, or at the level of the partner
country, Implementation usually involves the following major tasks:
1. Preparing the tender documents for service, works and supply contracts, including
TOR for technical assistance (contractor), if required11
.
2. Monitoring of implementation, suggesting corrective measures if required to support
assurance of the quality of the outcome of the project
3. Supporting timeliness of means, where relevant, and facilitating communication
and information flow between and feedback to parties involved
4. Manage evaluations and audits, if required
5. Ensuring successful decision-making process concerning whether or not to pursue
the objectives of the project in a further phase (and to launch further preparatory
action) or to abandon the objectives of the project
The following chapters mainly focus on points 2 and 3. Mid-term and final evaluations
are important elements of implementation. While the first may have a relatively
direct impact on the project orientation (or re-orientation), the impact of the latter will
become more important for subsequent programming or identification. Such evaluation
exercises should not be mixed up with monitoring exercises. Details about
Evaluation are provided in Chapter 2.8.
11
Detailed tender procedures exist for each co-operation instrument of the EC. Projects
are either implemented by independent contractors (for TACIS, this is general) or by the
identified implementing agencies, with support of technical assistance.
21
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2.7.4. Implementation and Monitoring at Project Level: An Overview
Usually, projects and programmes are implemented over several years. Project
management is responsible for implementation, the latter generally being composed
of the following periods:
1. Inception period
2. Main implementation period
3. Final period
Throughout the implementation of the project and depending on the modalities foreseen
in the contract/financing agreements, three major principles apply:
1. Planning and re-planning. The initially prepared Implementation Schedule, logframe
and Activity and Resource Schedules are regularly reviewed, refined, and
updated accordingly.Implementation:
A learning
process
2. Monitoring. Project management has the task of establishing sufficient controls
over the project to ensure that it stays on track towards the achievement of its
objectives. This is done by monitoring (internal) which is the systematic and continuous
collection, analysis and use of information for management control and
decision-making. Implementation is a continuous learning process where experience
gathered is analysed and fed back into planning and updated implementation
approaches.
Figure 7: Implementation: A Learning Process
Implementation: A Learning Process
Re-planning
Decision making
Implementation Implementation
Monitoring
3. Reporting. Project management/implementing agency must provide reports on
progress. The aim of these reports is to provide sufficiently detailed information
to check the state of advance of the project in light of its objectives, the hoped
for Results and the Activities to be carried out. These reports cover also details
of budget implementation, and include the details of the future budgetary provisions
for the following reporting period. Progress reports are most likely to be
submitted on a quarterly basis. These principles are reflected in the approach to
documentation to be followed during implementation.
22
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 5: Approach to Documentation During Implementation
Inception period Main implementation period Final period
Inception report Quarterly progress
reports
year 1
Annual progress
report
year 1
Quarterly progress
reports
year 2
Annual progress
report
year 2
... Final report
Including:
Updated Logical
Framework
Updated Logical
Framework
Updated Logical
Framework
Updated Logical
Framework
Updated Logical
Framework
Updated Logical
Framework
& justification
of changes
Overall Work
Plan = Overall
Activity Schedule
Updated Overall
Work Plan =
Overall Activity
Schedule
Updated Overall
Work Plan =
Overall Activity
Schedule
Updated Overall
Work Plan =
Overall Activity
Schedule
Updated Overall
Work Plan =
Overall Activity
Schedule
Updated Overall
Work Plan =
Overall Activity
Schedule
Overall Resource
Schedule
Updated Overall
Resource
Schedule
Updated Overall
Resource
Schedule
Updated Overall
Resource
Schedule
Updated Overall
Resource
Schedule
Updated Overall
Resource
Schedule
Annual Work
Plan = Annual
Activity Schedule
year 1
Annual Work
Plan = Annual
Activity Schedule
year 1
Annual Work
Plan = Annual
Activity Schedule
year 2
Annual Work
Plan = Annual
Activity
Schedule
year 2
Annual Work
Plan = Annual
Activity Schedule
year 3
...
Annual Resource
Schedule year 1
Annual Resource
Schedule
year 1
Annual Resource
Schedule
year 2
Annual Resource
Schedule
year 2
Annual Resource
Schedule
year 3
...
Updated Imple-
mentation
Schedule
Updated Im-
plementation
Schedule
Updated Im-
plementation
Schedule
Updated Im-
plementation
Schedule
Updated Im-
plementation
Schedule
Final Imple-
mentation
Schedule
Details about each implementation period and outlines for Overall and Annual Work
Plans are provided in Chapter 5.3.
As for overall implementation, the Implementation Schedule is an important tool12
: It
is an administrative planning and monitoring document covering administrative milestones
and sequencing from the preparatory phases to project completion and
evaluation. It provides an idea on how these milestones are met, and whether delays
occur.
During Implementation, this can indicate the need for re-planning, given the fact that
e.g. the remaining period may not be sufficient to undertake certain works, studies,
etc. As all other planning documents, the Implementation Schedule has to be updated
by the project management, and should be included in the progress reports.
Conclusions with regard to deviations should be made there. While work plans are
objective-oriented and include resource scheduling related to these objectives, the
Implementation Schedule emphasizes resource categories that may require budgetary
commitments and / or tendering, as well as other administrative milestones like
reporting that may also lead to disbursements.
12
The table provides a suggested best practice template, which is not yet used as stan-
dard.
23
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 6: Example of an Implementation Schedule
Date of first preparation: dd/mm/yy Last date of modification: dd/mm/yy
02.01.00 01.07.03
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
X
X
Pre-feasibility Study Original planning*
Implement./planning**
Feasibility Study Original planning* xxx
Implement./planning** xxx
Original planning* xxxx
Implement./planning**
Original planning*
Implement./planning**
Original planning*
Implement./planning**
Original planning*
Implement./planning**
Original planning* I Q Q A Q Q Q A Q Q Q A F
Implement./planning** I Q Q A Q Q Q A Q Q F
Original planning*
Implement./planning**
Original planning*
Implement./planning**
* Original planning of first draft implementation schedule (date: dd/mm/yy)
** Implemenation status to date as per dd/mm/yy and current planning for remaining period
Codes:
Original planning: Present implementation status and planning
Tender duration planned for remaining period:
Contract duration planned Tender realised/planned for remaining period
Report submission planned: Contracts realised/planned for remaining period
1 Inception Report Report submitted/submission planned for
2 Quarterly Report remaining period:
3 Annual Report 1 Inception Report I
4 Final Report 2 Quarterly Report Q
3 Annual Report A
4 Final Report F
Possible extension
xxx
Commitment Date
xxxxxx
Project completion
Financing Agreement signed
Reports
Evaluations
Staff Training
TA
Construction W orks
Supplies
Implementation Schedule (for 4 year project)
Project Preparation Year 2 Year 3
Project number: Project Title:
Year 4Year 1
xxxxxxxx
Post Project
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxx
F
I
A
Q
24
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2.7.4.1. What is Monitoring?
Project monitoring is an integral part of day-to-day management. It provides information
by which management can identify and solve implementation problems, and assess
progress. The Logical Framework, the implementation Schedule and the Activity
and Resource Schedules provide the basis. The following basic issues need to
be regularly monitored:
* Which Activities are underway and what progress has been made (e.g. at
weekly intervals)?
What to
monitor?
* At what rate are means being used and cost incurred in relation to progress in
implementation (e.g. monthly)?
* Are the desired Results being achieved (e.g. quarterly update)? (efficiency)
* To what extent are these Results furthering the Project Purpose (e.g. half-yearly
analysis)? (effectiveness)
* What changes in the project environment occur? Do the Assumptions hold true?
Project management checks how the objectives are met, and analyses the changes
in the project environment including key stakeholder groups, local strategies and
policies. If progress falls short, corrective action has to be taken. Details of any action
have to be included in the next progress report.
2.7.4.2. Reporting on Progress
During the inception period of a project, mechanisms for communication have to be
established to ensure that the necessary information is generated and utilized in a
timely and effective manner. In this context:
* Progress review meetings are useful to review progress against the plan. This
may be also an opportunity for written reports to be presented and discussed, or
simply for a rapid oral assessment of current issues and problems.
* Project progress reports provide periodic summaries of project progress
incorporating key information from the physical and financial indicators included
in the logframe, Activity Schedule and Resource Schedule.
Progress reports are to be written in a standard format allowing for comparison between
reports over time. The purpose of progress reports is to provide updates on
achievements against indicators and milestones, using the following framework:How to re-
port?
Data about intended achievements, is compared with




Data on actual achievements, to identify...
significant deviations from plan, as a basis for...
identification of problems and opportunities, to identify...
corrective action and alternatives.
Chapter 5.3.4 provides details about reporting formats and types.
25
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2.7.5. Monitoring of Implementation at EC and Partner Country Level
It is important to relate information needs to the different levels of the management
structure. In reality, the level of detail of information required and the frequency of
reporting will vary according to the level of management. The following figure illustrates
this principle.
Who needs
the informa-
tion?
Figure 8: Information Needs and Levels of Management
Information Needs and Levels of Management
Volume of information
Summarised
Detailed
Flow of
information
EC Technical Unit
Delegation/Ministry
Programme management
Individual project/
component
EC Head of Unit
The details provided in progress reports will be most helpful for those close to the
"field-level". The others will need aggregated information, and a more independent
judgment of the progress, to launch the relevant corrective measures at their level, if
required.
In the EC context, several external monitoring systems are currently operational to
gather summary information for all Commission-funded external aid projects13
. In
principle, the same questions as for internal monitoring need to be asked at these
levels though not all the details will be required. In addition, the focus of the external
monitoring will not only lie on efficiency and effectiveness (including Assumptions)
but also cover questions of overall relevance, impact and sustainability14
. Both internal/project
level monitoring and external monitoring operate in a way that decisions
based on the observations and recommendations can be made in due course, thus
having a direct and rapid impact on project management.
13
The external monitors are contractors whose role is to analyse project progress, make
field visits to projects and prepare monitoring reports which are then submitted to those in
charge of supervising implementation (including task managers and delegation, partner institution,
etc.). They play an important role in providing an independent follow-up on progress
and in liaising with the parties involved to identify implementation problems.
14
More exhaustive lists of relevant monitoring questions can be found on the monitoring
sheets of these external monitoring systems.
26
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2.8. Evaluation
2.8.1. Introduction
Evaluation is an "assessment, as systematic and objective as possible, of an ongoing
or completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation and Results.
The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, developmental
efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. An evaluation should provide
information that is credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons
learned into the decision-making process of both recipients and donors"15
.
An evaluation can be done during implementation ("mid-term"), at its end ("final
evaluation") or afterwards ("ex post evaluation"), either to help steer the project or to
draw lessons for future projects and programming. "Ex ante" evaluation16
refers to
studies during the preparatory phases of the project cycle (pre-feasibility or feasibility
studies). These kinds of studies are treated in section 2.5.
A typical evaluation mission would last several weeks in the partner country, followed
by a shorter period in the European Union. The major principles governing
evaluation can be summarised as follows:
Figure 9: Major Principles of Evaluation
Major Principles of Evaluation
Impartiality & independence of the evaluation process in its function from the
process concerned with policy making, the delivery and management of
assistance (= separation of evaluation and responsibility for the project/
programme/policy)
Credibility depending on expertise and independence of the evaluators &
transparency to be sought through an open process, wide availability of
results, distinction between findings and recommendations
Usefulness: relevant, presented in a clear and concise way, reflecting the
interests and needs of the parties involved, easily accessible, timely and at
the right moment improved decision-making
Participation of stakeholders (donor, recipient...); if possible: views and
expertise of groups affected should form integral part of the evaluation;
involving all parties capacity building
DAC 1991
2.8.2. Overall Responsibilities for Evaluation
As regards responsibilities, two types of evaluation can be distinguished within EC's
external co-operation programmes:
1. Evaluation of individual projects: EuropeAid is responsible for the evaluation of
individual projects and for sending a copy of each completed evaluation report to
the service maintaining the database of all evaluations. Evaluation studies are
financed under project/programme funds.
2. Evaluation of the results of country/regional and sectoral policies and programmes,
of programming performance and of the policies mix: This type of
evaluation is managed by EuropeAid's Evaluation Unit (H/6) under the direct au-
15
OECD / DAC, 1998: Review of the DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development As-
sistance.
16
See http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/pdf/ex_ante_guide_en.pdf for a
guide.
27
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
thority of the Board of EuropeAid. The unit feeds the results back into the policymaking
and programming process.
The Evaluation Unit has a separate budget and is completely independent of the
operational services. It has also a key role as an advisory service:
* At the level of project evaluations it provides guidance, on request, to the services
concerned on such aspects as terms of reference, choice of consultants,
and quality of draft reports.
* The Unit participates in the activities of the Inter-Service Quality Support Group
(i-QSG) which focuses on the programming level, while "Office Quality Support
Groups" have the primary responsibility for looking at the quality of the design of
the funded operations.
2.8.3. Types of Evaluations
Evaluations can take place:
1. when the project is still under way: such interim evaluation are usually undertaken
at mid-term (mid-term evaluation), to review progress and propose alterations
to project design during the remaining period of implementation;
2. at the end of a project (final or end-of-project evaluation), to document the resources
used, results and progress towards objectives. The objective is to
generate lessons about the project which can be used to improve future de-
signs;
3. a number of years after completion (ex post evaluation), often focusing on
impact.
2.8.4. Evaluation Criteria
Evaluations under EC funds follow the evaluation criteria of the DAC that are closely
linked to the logframe.
Table 7: Evaluation Criteria Used by the European Commission
Relevance The appropriateness of project objectives to the problems that it was supposed
to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which
it operated, and including an assessment of the quality of project preparation
and design ­ i.e. the logic and completeness of the project planning
process, and the internal logic and coherence of the project design.
Efficiency The fact that the Results have been achieved at reasonable cost, i.e. how
well inputs/means have been converted into Results, in terms of quality,
quantity and time, and the quality of the Results achieved. This generally
requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same outputs,
to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.
Effectiveness An assessment of the contribution made by Results to achievement of the
Project Purpose, and how Assumptions have affected project achieve-
ments.
Impact The effect of the project on its wider environment, and its contribution to
the wider sectoral objectives summarised in the project's Overall Objectives,
and on the achievement of the overarching policy objectives of the
EC.
Sustainability An assessment of the likelihood of benefits produced by the project to continue
to flow after external funding has ended, and with particular reference
to factors of ownership by beneficiaries, policy support, economic
and financial factors, socio-cultural aspects, gender equality, appropriate
technology, environmental aspects, and institutional and management ca-
pacity.
28
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 10: Linking Evaluation Criteria to the Logframe
Linking Evaluation Criteria to the Logframe
Have and will products and benefits
be maintained?
Quality of planning and adaptation,
including relevance of problems to
correct beneficiaries, OVIs, means,
cost, assumptions, risks
Overall
Objectives
Project Purpose
+ Assumptions
Results
+ Assumptions
Activities
+ Assumptions
+ Pre-conditions
allocation
action
utilisation
change
Means
Efficiency
Effective-
ness
Impact
Relevance
Sustain-
ability
How were inputs and activities
converted into Results?
How well did the Results contribute
to the achievement of the Project
Purpose?
Which benefits on society and
sector?
2.8.5. What is the Difference Between Monitoring, Evaluation and Audit?
Frequently, there is confusion about what monitoring, evaluation and audit are,
where and how they differ and how they can be delimited from each other. The following
figures define and compare the three terms as they are in use in the EC external
co-operation context.
Figure 11: Comparing Monitoring, Evaluation and Audit
Evaluation, Monitoring and Audit (1)
once or twice, essentially at the end or 'ex
post' drawing lessons from the past in order to
orient future policies and actions but also
during implementation: mid-term evaluation to
(re-) orient implementation
When?
external evaluators specialised in the
subjects evaluatedWho?
in-depth analysisHow?
mainly analysis of the efficiency,
effectiveness, impact, relevance and
sustainability of aid policies and actions
What?
Evaluation:
Evaluation, Monitoring and Audit (2)
regularly, several times per yearWhen?
internal and external (staff, monitors.....)Who?
rapid and continuous analysis, immediately
useful to improve on-going actions; of key
importance to improving performance
How?
mainly analysis of efficiency and
effectiveness (i.e. measuring actual against
planned deliverables); is a systematic
management activity
What?
Monitoring:
Evaluation, Monitoring and Audit (3)
.
during or after implementationWhen?
external, professional auditorsWho?
verification of financial records (financial audit)How?
traditionally checks whether financial
operations and statements are in compliance
with the legal and contractual obligations. More
concerned with compliance, but better financial
management can also contribute to improving
current and future actions. More recently:
Performance audit is strongly concerned with
questions of efficiency and good management
What?
Audit:
29
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2.8.6. Evaluation Reports: Outline and Issues to Be Considered
The evaluation report should mirror the above evaluation criteria, taking into account
the nature of the project, the stage at which the evaluation is carried out, and the
users for whom the report is prepared. It should be kept in mind that information requirements
vary widely between the different types of users. When drafting Terms of
Reference it is necessary to decide the relative importance of each of the evaluation
criteria for a given study: usually, a mid-term evaluation will rather focus on questions
of efficiency (while impact issues will not be of highest importance); ex post
evaluations may rather focus on questions of impact and sustainability. In any case,
conclusions need to be based on the analysis, and the link between recommendations
and conclusions needs to be clear. Recommendations should either concern
the project in question or similar projects in the future, depending on the type of
evaluation.
A standard format for evaluation including explanatory comments can be found on
the Internet17
. However, the structure of an evaluation report should be determined
primarily by its intended main purpose and its target groups/users. In general, the
main sections of an evaluation report should be as follows:
Table 8: Report Outline for an Evaluation Report
I - Executive
Summary
It should be tightly drafted, and usable as a free-standing document. It
should be short, not more than five pages. It should focus on the main
analytical points, indicate the main conclusions, lessons learned and
specific recommendations. Cross-references should be made to the corresponding
page or paragraph numbers in the main text that follows.
II - Main Text The main text should start with an introduction describing, first, the project
or programme to be evaluated and, second, the evaluation objectives.
The body or core of the report should follow the five evaluation
criteria, describing the facts and interpreting or analysing them in accordance
with the key questions pertinent to each criterion.
III ­ Conclusions
and Recommenda-
tions
These should be presented as a separate final chapter. Wherever possible,
for each key conclusion there should be a corresponding recommendation.
The key points of the conclusions will vary in nature but will often
cover aspects of the evaluation criteria.
The ultimate value of an evaluation depends on the quality and credibility
of the recommendations offered. Recommendations should therefore be
as realistic, operational and pragmatic as possible.
Recommendations should be carefully targeted to the appropriate audiences
at all levels.
IV ­ Annexes ˇ Terms of Reference of the evaluation
* Names of the evaluators and their companies (CVs should be
shown, but summarised and limited to one page per person)
* Methodology applied for the study (phases, methods of data collection,
sampling etc)
* Logical Framework matrices (original and improved/updated)
* Map of project area, if relevant
* List of persons/organisations consulted
* Literature and documentation consulted
* Other technical annexes (e.g. statistical analyses)
* 1-page DAC summary, following the format incorporated in the contract
and annexed to this document.
17
http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/methods/index.htm
30
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2.8.7. Managing the Evaluation Process: An Overview
Managing an evaluation exercise usually involves the following major tasks for the
"evaluation manager":
1. Identifying the need for an evaluation and selecting the topics/themes to be
evaluated.
Major
tasks
2. Designing the evaluation, including setting the TOR.
3. Drafting tender documents for the evaluation study and selecting the contractor
according to the existing rules.
4. Briefing the contractor and the parties involved, supporting the evaluation mis-
sion.
5. Ensuring the production of a high quality evaluation report and of the dissemination
of evaluation findings and recommendations.
6. Supporting the use of evaluation findings.
Depending on the focus, the expected outcome of an evaluation is a decision taken
to continue project implementation as planned or to re-orient, or, in the worst
case, to stop, the project (mid-term evaluation);









concerning the question whether or not, in future, similar projects should be
initiated, i.e. consider this kind of project again in subsequent programming or
identification exercises (usually end-of-project or ex post evaluations);
how to consider the outcomes of the evaluation in the definition of policies,
co-operation strategies, and subsequent programming or identification exercises
- in the case of sectoral, thematic or cross-sectoral evaluations.
What to do
with the find-
ings?
Evaluations are useless unless they are used. Therefore, the following key issues
should be considered to ensure good feedback and subsequent use and integration
of evaluation findings in future implementation, programming or identification:
* Evaluation is a consultative process: consultation should be permanent to ensure
participation of relevant stakeholders, to enhance ownership of evaluation and its
results, e.g. through:
Consultation during identification of subjects
Consultation during preparation of TOR
Briefing sessions
Continuous discussion with and follow-up of external evaluators
In-country debriefing
Debriefing in Brussels
* Evaluation managers are responsible for keeping the services, delegations and
other closely involved organisations appropriately informed on progress at each
key stage of the evaluation.
* Evaluation needs appropriate diffusion of results, e.g. through seminars or workshops.
Usually evaluation findings are communicated and dispatched to the major
stakeholders involved in the evaluated project. For evaluations managed by
EuropeAid's Evaluation Unit the latter provides summaries and complete reports
to the public on the Internet (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/pro-
gram/index.htm).
Using workshops
for
dissemination
* Evaluation needs good feedback mechanisms: Quality Support Groups check
whether or not evaluation findings are taken into account in project proposals.
2.8.8. Evaluation Studies: Some Procedural Aspects
Major activities for evaluation studies managed by the Evaluation Unit comprise the
following - most of the activities are also relevant for studies managed by the other
services, such as evaluations of projects or programmes:
1. First briefing meeting between consultants and EC services at EC headquarters,
including clarification of terms of reference.
31
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
2. Desk phase: The consultants establish direct contact with the services to undertake
initial desk research, including collection of all relevant documentation and
discussions with the services.
3. Preparation and submission of an Inception Report for approval by the evaluation
manager (or other services), confirming proposed methodological approach
for the field and reporting (or synthesis) phases. Where the programmes/projects
to be visited by the evaluators were not identified from the outset but were decided
on the basis of the inception report after consultation with the services and
delegations, the evaluation manager informs the concerned services and delegations
of the confirmed decisions as much in advance of the visits as possible,
indicating any special needs and constraints.
4. The consultants contact delegations directly to finalise exact timing and (if still
necessary) projects and organisations to visit, keeping the contract managers in-
formed.
5. The consultants travel to the country/countries concerned, brief the delegation
and carry out the field visits and any other remaining research and discussions.
6. Before departing from the field the consultants debrief the parties involved in the
country on their provisional findings and recommendations.
7. The consultants prepare a draft final report, including key findings and recom-
mendations.
8. The consultants give a detailed de-briefing to the evaluation manager and the
other concerned services (which the contract manager invites) on their key findings
and recommendations.
9. The consultants finalise their draft report and submit it to the Unit.
10. If satisfied with the basic professional quality of the draft and compliance with
the terms of reference, the contract manager circulates the draft report for comments
to the concerned services and delegation, the latter forwarding it to partner
country stakeholders as appropriate.
11. On receipt of all comments from services, delegation and other concerned bodies
by the stipulated deadline, the Unit checks them and sends them to the consultants
with its own comments for consideration and any necessary revision of
the text.
12. After due consideration of the comments the consultants finalise their report and
send it to the Unit which carries out a final check that comments have been reasonably
considered, that the terms of reference have been respected and a
good professional standard of accuracy, balance, penetration, realism and clear
drafting maintained.
13. The Unit prepares a short (1-2 page) summary "EvInfo", following the summary
format laid down by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC).
14. The Unit distributes the report and EvInfo summary to all concerned services,
delegations and other main stakeholders, normally under a cover note by a staff
member of EuropeAid.
15. The Unit publishes the report and summary on the Internet.
16. The Unit initiates any agreed follow-up, feedback and dissemination procedures
(seminars, workshops, etc), in collaboration with the consultants, as appropriate.
17. For major evaluations, the unit prepares a `'fiche contradictoire' showing the responses
to the evaluation's main recommendations from the services, delegation
and, sometimes, other bodies closely involved; after clearance by the Director-General
concerned, the fiche is also published on the Internet with the report
and summary.
As mentioned above, in principle the same steps will apply to evaluations managed
by others than the Evaluation Unit. For delegation-led evaluations for instance, the
publication issue may not be that relevant, while the follow-up of the recommendations
may be.
32
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
3. THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK APPROACH ­ A PROJECT DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT
TOOL
3.1. The Logical Framework Approach: An Introduction
The core tool used within PCM for project planning and management is described
as the Logical Framework Approach (LFA). The LFA is a technique to identify and
analyse a given situation, and to define objectives and activities which should be
undertaken to improve the situation. After programme and project preparation, the
LFA is a key management tool for monitoring during implementation and evaluation.
It provides the basis for Activity Schedules and the development of a monitoring system,
and a framework for evaluation. It thus plays a crucial role in each phase of the
cycle.
The LFA:
Only a tool
Stakeholders should be involved into planning as much as possible. This requires
teamwork and facilitation skills on part of project planners. To be used effectively,
tools for technical, economic, social and environmental analysis support the LFA.
The tools used within the Commission include Environmental Impact Assessment,
Gender Impact Analysis, and Financial and Economic Analysis.
The LFA starts with an analytical process and gives structure to present the results
of this process. It makes it easier to:
* set out systematically and logically the level of objectives of projects / programmes
and the relationships between them;
* indicate whether they have been achieved;
* monitor the factors outside the scope of the project/programme which influence
its success.
Figure 12: The Logical Framework
The Logical Framework Matrix
Means Cost
Overall
Objectives
Project
Purpose
Results
Activities
Intervention
Logic
Sources of
Verification
AssumptionsObjectively
Verifiable
Indicators
Pre-condi-
tions
The main results of this process are summarised in a matrix (the Logical Framework
Matrix or, more brief: the Logframe) with 16 boxes which shows the most important
aspects of a project, summarising:
* why a project is carried out (Intervention Logic)
* what the project is expected to achieve (Intervention Logic and Indicators)
* how the project is going to achieve it (Activities, Means)
* which external factors are crucial for its success (Assumptions)
* where to find the information required to assess the success of the project
(Sources of Verification)
33
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
* which means are required (Means)
* what the project will cost (Cost)
* which pre-conditions have to be fulfilled before the project can start (Pre-
conditions)
3.2. The Logical Framework Approach: Two Stages
Projects are designed to address problems faced by beneficiaries. A properly
planned project addressing the real problems of the beneficiaries cannot be
achieved without an analysis of the existing situation. The LFA is an evolutionary, iterative
process starting with the thorough analysis of an existing situation as a basis
for later planning. Drawing up a logframe has two stages, which are carried out progressively
during the Identification and Appraisal phases of the project cycle:
1. The Analysis Stage (Context / Situation Analysis), during which the existing
situation is analysed to develop a vision of the `future desired situation' and to
select the strategies that will be applied to achieve it. The key idea is that projects
/ programmes are designed to address problems faced by beneficiaries,
both women and men, as well as to meet their needs and interests.
The LFA: Analysing
and planning
There are four steps to the Analysis Phase:
Stakeholder Analysis



Problem Analysis (image of reality)
Analysis of Objectives (image of an improved situation in the future)
Analysis of Strategies (comparison of different options to address a given
situation)
2. In the Planning Stage the results of the analysis are transcribed into a practical,
operational plan ready to be implemented. In this stage, the logframe is
drawn up, and Activities and resources are defined and scheduled (see chapter
3.4.8, where tools for activity and resource scheduling are described).
Figure 13: The Logframe Approach
Logframe - defining the project/
programme structure, testing its
internal logic, formulating
objectives in measurable terms,
defining means and cost (overall)
Activity scheduling - determining
the sequence and dependency
of activities; estimating
their duration, setting milestones
and assigning responsibility
Resource scheduling - from the
activity schedule, developing
input schedules and a budget
The Logframe Approach
Identify/
analyse
PLANNING PHASEANALYSIS PHASE
Stakeholder Analysis - identifying &
characterising major stakeholders, target
groups & beneficiaries, defining whose
problems will be addressed by a future
intervention
Problem analysis - identifying key
problems, constraints and opportunities;
determining cause and effect relationships
Analysis of objectives - developing
objectives from the identified problems;
identifying means to ends relationships
Strategy analysis - identifying the
different strategies to achieve objectives;
selecting the most appropriate
strategy(ies); determining the major
objectives (overall objectives and project
purpose)
Selectthe
optionDeduct
Definethe
projectlogic
Specifyingand
operationalising
Identify
stakeholders
34
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 9: Terminology Used in the EC Context: Stakeholders, Beneficiaries, Target
Group(s) and Project Partners?
1. Stakeholders: Individuals or institutions that may ­ directly or indirectly, positively or
negatively ­ affect or be affected by the outcomes of projects or programmes.
2. Beneficiaries: Are those who benefit in whatever way from the implementation of the
project. Distinction may be made between:
(a) Target group(s): The group / entity who will be directly positively affected by the project
at the Project Purpose level;
(b) Final beneficiaries: Those who benefit from the project in the long term at the level
of the society or sector at large, e.g. "children" due to increased spending on health
and education, "consumers" due to improved agricultural production and marketing.
3. Project partners: Those who implement the projects in the country.
3.3. The Analysis Stage
3.3.1. Stakeholder Analysis
Any individuals, groups of people, institutions or firms that may have a relationship
with the project are defined as stakeholders. In order to maximize the social and institutional
benefits of the project and minimise its negative impacts, stakeholder
analysis identifies all likely to be affected (either positively or negatively), and how. It
is important that stakeholder analysis take place at an early stage in the identification
and appraisal phases of a project.
Why consider
stakeholders?
In all societies, there are differences in the roles and responsibilities of women and
men, and in their access to and control over resources and their participation in decision-making.
Everywhere, women and men have inequitable access to services
(e.g. transport, health, education) and to opportunities in economic, social and political
life. Gender inequalities hinder growth and harm development. Failure to adequately
address gender issues can damage the effectiveness and sustainability of
projects and programmes, even unintentionally exacerbate existing disparities. It is
therefore vital to analyse the gender differences and inequalities and to take them
into account in the intervention, its objectives, strategies and resource allocation.
The stakeholder analysis must therefore systematically identify all gender differences,
as well as the specific interests, problems and potentials of women and men
among the stakeholder groups.
35
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
3.3.1.1. How to Proceed?
The following table provides an overview on the basic steps required to picture the
situation.
Table 10: How to Analyse Stakeholders?
1. Start with identifying the various stakeholders, in a gender-differentiated way, who:
(a) might be affected by the project;
(b) might affect the project;
(c) might become useful project partners even though the project may also be implemented
without their contribution;
(d) might become conflict partners as they may face the project as a threat for their
role and interests;
(e) will anyway be involved in the project.
2. Categorise them according to their role, differentiating between men and women:
(a) Is the stakeholder group (organisation, group of people, etc.) supposed to work in
the project, co-finance it, or benefit from the project?
(b) Is it a supporting organisation?
(c) Does it have a controlling function, etc.?
3. Characterise them from a social and organisational point of view, taking as well a
gender perspective:
(a) What are their social and economic characteristics?
(b) How are they structured / organised? How are decisions made?
(c) What is their status?
4. Analyse them with regard to expectations and relationships, taking again a gender
perspective:
(a) Identify their interests and expectations in the project
(b) Analyse the links and relationships between the various stakeholder groups.
5. Characterise their sensitivity towards and respect of cross-cutting issues (gender
equality, environmental protection, etc. - men and women)
(a) Are they sensitive to these issues?
(b) Do they consider impact of their tasks and activities on these issues?
6. Assess the potential, resources and capacities of the stakeholders (men and
women):
(a) What are the existing strengths on which the project could be build up?
(b) What are the potential contributions on which the project could be build up?
(c) What are existing deficiencies to be considered by the project?
7. Draw conclusions and make recommendations for the project;
(a) How to take the group into account?
(b) Which action to undertake?
(c) How to deal with the group?
At a certain point during the analysis process a decision has to be taken on which
objectives to adopt for the project, i.e. whose interests and views to give priority.
Ideally a consensus should be found between the stakeholders involved - realistically
an attempt should be made to achieve a compromise between the different
stakeholders' views and interests, although at times it might be more suitable to
concentrate on the priorities of core stakeholders rather than on a compromise, "nobody
is really committed to". When defining objectives it is important that it is agreed
upon and made transparent which views and interests are given priority to. Attention
has to be paid to potential conflicts arising from setting priorities. It should be carefully
considered where conflicts could arise, how they could be avoided or mediated,
and what impact it would have on the project if the conflicts cannot be avoided or
mediated.
Reviewing
stakeholder
analysis
regularly
In an ideal case the project / programme should be designed in a participatory planning
workshop, involving representatives of the main stakeholders, ensuring balanced
representation of the interests of women and men. Whenever logframes are
36
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
re-considered during the life of a project, the original stakeholder analysis should be
reviewed.
Stakeholder analysis and problem analysis are closely connected: without people's
views on a problem, neither its nature, nor their needs, nor eventual solutions will
become clear.
The findings of the stakeholder analysis accompany the LFA process and can be
pictured as a "transparency" that evolves throughout the early stages of the LFA
project design process and should be used as an overlay, be it for further elaboration
or cross-checking during other LFA stages.
Figure 14: Example of a Stakeholder Analysis
* raise their awareness on
impact of polluted
wastewater on region
* sensitise them
concerning cost of
environmental protection
* potentially willing
and capable to
pay for services
* very little
awareness of the
impact of waste &
wastewater on
ecosystem
* get access to
wastewater network
* get somebody to
collect waste
* most households
discharge waste
& wastewater into
river, not aware of
danger
house-
holds
Implications and
conclusions for the
project
* possible action
required
* how to deal with the
group
Potentials &
deficiencies
* resource
endowment
* knowledge,
experience...
* potential
contribution
Sensitivity to and
respect of crosscutting
issues
(environment,
gender equality,
etc.)
Interest & expectations
* interests,
objectives...
* Expectations
Characteristics
* social, economic
* gender
differentiation
* structure, organisation,
status
* Attitudes...
Stake-
holder
* little awareness of
the impact of
wastewater on eco-
system
* very much aware of
impact of external
pollution on their
fishery grounds
* Benefits of fishery
rather remain with
men
etc. ...
* raise their awareness on
impact of polluted
wastewater on region
* consider raising their
image with project
measures
* financial resources
for new
technologies
* Resource-saving
potential through
clean technologies
* maximise profits
* interest in image;
strong resistance in
case of profit losses
* important
economic factor
(strong lobby)
* no trade unions
* strong lobby &
influence on
government
industry x
* awareness raising among
all fisherfolk
* Include pollution control
measures
* familiar with river
and watershed
* know pollution hot
spots
* strong support for
pollution control
measures
* basis for living is
maintained
* decrease in income is
at least stopped
* resistance in case
rights to catch fish are
limited
* traditionally
important source
of income for
communities
* small but active
co-operative
fisherfolk
Stakeholder Analysis
3.3.1.2. Linking Stakeholder Analysis and the Subsequent Steps
Stakeholder analysis and problem analysis are closely connected as part of the initial
"Situation Analysis": without people's views on a situation the problems and potentials
will not become clear (stakeholder consultation) and without consultations of
stakeholders on a situation their views (interest, potentials, etc.) will not become
clear, without analysis of potentials, subsequent action by the project may not be
feasible by the stakeholders.
Stakeholder
analysis: point
of continuous
reference
All subsequent steps required to prepare a Logical Framework should be related to
the stakeholder analysis, making it a point of continuous reference. Whenever the
Logical Framework has to be revised the stakeholder analysis should be reconsidered,
as the landscape of stakeholders involved in a project evolves over
time. Thus, stakeholder analysis is not an isolated analysis step, but a process.
3.3.2. Problem Analysis
Problem analysis identifies the negative aspects of an existing situation and establishes
the `cause and effect' relationships between the problems that exist. It involves
three steps:Identifying the
real problems
of beneficiaries
1. Precise definition of the framework and subject of analysis;
2. Identification of the major problems faced by target groups and beneficiaries
(What is / are the problem/s? Whose problems?);
37
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
3. Visualisation of the problems in form of a diagram, called "problem tree" or "hierarchy
of problems" to establish cause ­ effect relationships.
The analysis is presented in diagram form showing effects of a problem on top and
its causes underneath. The analysis is aimed at identifying the real bottlenecks to
which the stakeholders attach priority and seek to overcome. The value of this type
of diagram is greatest if it is prepared at a workshop of those concerned (who therefore
know the situation), thus establishing a commonly shared view of the situation.
Table 11: How to Establish a Problem Tree?
Step 1: Identify major problems existing within a given situation (brainstorming)
Step 2: Select an individual starter problem
Step 3: Look for related problems to the starter problem:
Step 4: Establish hierarchy of cause and effects:
* Problems which are directly causing the starter problems are put below
* Problems which are direct effects of the starter problem are put above
Step 5: Complete with all other problems accordingly
Step 6: Connect the problems with cause-effect arrows
Step 7: Review the diagram and verify its validity and completeness
Note:
1. Problems have to be worded as negative situations
2. Problems have to be existing problems, not future ones or imagined ones
3. The position of the problem in the hierarchy does not indicate its importance
4. A problem is not the absence of a solution, but an existing negative situation
Once complete, the problem tree represents a comprehensive picture of the existing
negative situation:
Figure 15: Problem Analysis
Problem Analysis
Causes
Effects
River water quality
deteriorating
Wastewater treated
in plants does not
meet standards
Incentives for avoiding
high pollution of waste
water not operational
Bad quality of river fish Smaller catch for
fisher folk
Living conditions of local
people are worsened
Legal regulations are not
adequate to prevent
discharge of wastewater
Attractiveness for
tourism reduced
A procedure which allows to:
1. Analyse an existing situation
2. Identify key problems in this context (=negative existing situations)
3. Establishing cause-effect relations between problems in a tree/hierarchy
Uncontrolled dumping
of waste into river
Polluters are not
controlled
Population is not aware
of the danger of waste
dumping
Frequent diseases
among fish consumers
Income of population
reduced
Most households and
factories discharge
wastewater directly into river
There are two common difficulties that are experienced during problem identification
and analysis: inadequate problem specification, and the statement of `absent solu-
tions':
* Inadequate problem specification occurs when a problem is specified in
insufficient detail so that it does not communicate the true nature of the
problem. Statements such as `poor management' need to be broken down so
that we understand what the problem is, and can therefore analyse the
What is the
problem?
38
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
understand what the problem is, and can therefore analyse the underlying
causes - for example, the management problems might include poor financial
control, late delivery of key services, etc.
* Absent solutions are problem statements that do not describe the current
negative situation, but describe the absence of a desired situation. For example,
`Lack of trained staff' does not describe the specific problem (staff has insufficient
or inappropriate skills), and risks biasing the intervention towards
the absent solution (`training') when in fact it might be an issue of recruitment
or personnel management.
3.3.3. Analysis of Objectives
Analysis of objectives is a methodological approach employed to:
* Describe the situation in the future once the problems have been remedied,
with the participation of representative parties;
* Verify the hierarchy of objectives;
* Illustrate the means-ends relationships in a diagram.
The `negative situations' of the problem tree are converted into solutions, expressed
as `positive achievements'. For example, `agricultural production is low' is converted
into `agricultural production increased'. These positive achievements are in fact objectives,
and are presented in a diagram of objectives showing a means / ends hierarchy.
This diagram provides a clear overview of the desired future situation. Some
objectives may be unrealistic, so other solutions need to be found, or the attempt to
solve them abandoned.
Picturing
the future
Table 12: How to Establish an Objective Tree?
Step 1: Reformulate all negative situations of the problems analysis into positive situations
that are:
* desirable
* realistically achievable
Step 2: Check the means-ends relationships thus derived to ensure validity and
completeness of the hierarchy (cause-effect relationships are turned into
means-ends linkages)
Step 3: If necessary:
* revise statements
* add new objectives if these seem to be relevant and necessary to achieve
the objective at the next higher level
* delete objectives which do not seem suitable / convenient or necessary
Once complete, the objective tree provides a comprehensive picture of the future
desired situation, including activities necessary to achieve it (still formulated as ob-
jectives):
39
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 16: Analysis of Objectives
Analysis of Objectives
Means
Ends
A technique to:
1) describe the future situation that will be achieved by solving the problems
2) identify potential solutions for a given situation
3) turn the negative aspects into positive ones (desired, realistic)
River water quality
improved
Standards are met by
wastewater treatment
plants
Incentives for avoiding
high pollution of waste
water are effective
River fish quality meets
standards
Catch for fisher
folk stabilised
Living conditions of local
people improved
Legal regulations
are improved and
followed
Attractiveness for
tourism re-established
Uncontrolled dumping of
waste into river reduced
Regular control of
polluters effective
Awareness of population
on the danger of waste
dumping created
Rate of diseases due to river
fish consumption reduced
Income of population
increased
Direct discharge of
wastewater by households
and factories decreased
Connection of households
and factories to sewer
network ensured
Wastewater
treatment capacities
are increased
3.3.4. Analysis of Strategies
The final step of the Analysis Stage involves selecting the strategy(ies) which will be
used to achieve the desired objectives. Analysis of Strategies involves deciding
what objectives will be included IN the project, and what objectives will remain OUT,
and what the Project Purpose and Overall Objectives will be. This step requires:
* Clear criteria for making the choice of strategies,
* The identification of the different possible strategies to achieve the objectives.
In the hierarchy of objectives, the different clusters of objectives of the same type
are called strategies. One or more of them will be chosen as the strategy for future
operation. The most relevant and feasible strategy is selected on the basis of a
number of criteria to be agreed upon for each project individually. The following are
possible criteria:
Developing
criteria for
selection of
alternatives ˇ Priorities of and attractiveness to target groups, including time perspective of
benefits
* Resource availability:
external funds


counterpart / partner institutions' funds
expertise required / available
* Existing potentials and capacities (of target group/s)
* Relevance for sector / agreed strategy between EC and partner country and relevance
for contribution to overarching policy objectives
* Relationship and complementarity with other action
* Social acceptability
* Contribution to reduction of inequalities (e.g. gender)
* Urgency
40
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
These criteria will be used to compare the alternative project approaches and
choose one or more for future action. The criteria should be established by the concerned
parties, including beneficiaries and target groups, and best during a planning
workshop, including all these parties.
The selected strategy will then appear in the first column of the Logical Framework.
Table 13: How to Do a Strategy Analysis?
Step 1: Identify objectives you do not want to pursue (not desirable or not feasible)
Step 2: Group objectives, to obtain possible strategies or components (clustering)
Step 3: Assess which strategy/ies represents an optimal strategy according to the
agreed criteria
Step 4: Determine Overall Objective(s) and Project Purpose
Depending on the scope and amount of work entailed, the selected clusters or strategy
may form a `project-sized' intervention, or a programme consisting of a number
of projects.
Figure 17: Analysis of Strategies
Decision based on: urgency, budget,
policy priorities, human resources,
social acceptability, ...
Waste Strategy Wastewater Strategy
Overall
Objectives
Project /
Programme
Purpose
Results
Analysis of Strategies
OUT
IN
A technique to:
1) identify possible solutions that could form a project strategy
2) select one or more strategies
3) decide upon the strategy to form the project
River water quality
improved
Standards are met by
wastewater treatment
plants
Incentives for avoiding
high pollution of waste
water are effective
River fish quality meets
standards
Catch for fisher
folk stabilised
Living conditions of local
people improved
Legal regulations
are improved and
followed
Attractiveness for
tourism re-established
Regular control of
polluters effective
Awareness of population
on the danger of waste
dumping created
Rate of diseases due to river
fish consumption reduced
Income of population
increased
Direct discharge of
wastewater by households
and factories decreased
Connection of households
and factories to sewer
network ensured
Wastewater
treatment capacities
are increased
Uncontrolled dumping of
waste into river reduced
3.4. The Planning Stage
3.4.1. The Logframe Matrix
The main document of the LFA is the logical framework matrix. It is a way of presenting
the substance of an intervention in a comprehensive form. The matrix has
four columns and four rows:
* The vertical logic identifies what the project intends to do, clarifies the causal
relationships and specifies the important assumptions and risks beyond the project
manager's control.
* The horizontal logic relates to the measurement of the effects of, and resources
used by the project through the specification of key indicators, and the sources
where they will be verified.
41
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 18: How to Read the Logframe
How to Read the Logframe
Vertical Logic Horizontal Logic
3.4.1.1. First Column: Intervention Logic
The first column of the Logical Framework is called "Intervention Logic". It sets out
the basic strategy underlying the project:
* Means (2nd
column, 4th
row) - both physical and non-physical - allow to carry out
Activities;
* By carrying out these Activities, the Results are achieved;
* Results collectively achieve the Purpose;
* The Project Purpose contributes to the Overall Objectives.
Figure 19: Level of Objectives
Levels of Objectives
Intervention
Logic
Overall
Objectives
Project
Purpose
Results
Activities Means
Physical and non
physical means
necessary to
undertake activities
Tasks executed as part of the project
to produce the project's results
The results of undertaken activities
The project's central objective in
terms of the sustainable benefits for
the target groups as part of the
beneficiaries
High level objectives to which the
project contributes
The four levels of objectives are defined as follows:
1. The Overall Objectives of the project / programme explain why it is important
to society, in terms of the longer-term benefits to final beneficiaries and the
wider benefits to other groups. They also help to show how the programme
fits into the regional / sectoral policies of the government / organisations concerned
and of the EC, as well as into the overarching policy objectives of EC
co-operation. The Overall Objectives will not be achieved by the project
42
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
alone, it will only provide a contribution to the achievement of the Overall Ob-
jectives.
2. The Project Purpose is the objective to be achieved by implementing the project.
The Purpose should be defined in terms of sustainable benefits for the
target group(s) as part of the beneficiaries. The Purpose should also express
the equitable benefits for women and men among them. There should only be
one Project Purpose per project. Having more than one Project Purpose
could imply an excessively complex project, and hence possible management
problems. Multiple Project Purposes may also indicate unclear or conflicting
objectives. Clarifying and agreeing precisely what will define the project's success
is therefore a critical step in project design.
Only one
Project Pur-
pose!
3. Results are "products" of the Activities undertaken, the combination of which
achieve the Purpose of the project. They should be numbered.
4. Activities ­ the actions necessary to produce the Results. They summarise
what will be undertaken by the project. They should be related to the Results
by adequate numbering (Activity 1.1, 1.2....., 2.1, 2.2....).
3.4.1.2. Second Column: Indicators
They are the detailed description18
of:
* the Overall Objectives
* the Project Purpose
* the Results
The physical and non-physical Means (inputs) necessary to carry out the planned
Activities are placed in the `bottom' row of the second column, i.e. there are no Indicators
for Activities in the logical framework matrix. A rough estimation of the necessary
resources should be presented in this box. The Activities are related to the different
Results. Indicators for Activities are usually defined during the preparation of
an Activity Schedule specifying the Activities in more detail.
3.4.1.3. Third Column: Sources of Verification
Sources of Verification indicate where and in what form information on the achievement
of the Overall Objectives, the Project Purpose and the Results can be found
(described by the Objectively Verifiable Indicators).
The cost and sources of financing (EC, Government, etc.) are placed in the bottom
row of the third column.
3.4.1.4. Fourth Column: Assumptions
Assumptions are external factors that influence or even determine the success of a
project, but lie outside its control. They are the answer to the question: "What external
factors are not influenced by the project, but may affect its implementation and
long-term sustainability?"
Pre-conditions differ from Assumptions in that they must be met before a project can
commence; often these concern back-up measures by the partners. For example,
without the implementation of certain policy measures by the partner, the project rationale
may be undermined.
Compared to the other columns, the `Assumptions' column is lowered by one level
and there are no Assumptions at the level of the Overall Objectives.
18
They describe the project's objectives in terms of quantity, quality, target group(s), time,
place. A good OVI should be SMART, i.e.: Specific: measure what it is supposed to measure Measurable
and ­ Available at an acceptable cost ­ Relevant with regard to the objective concerned,
and cover it ­ Time-bound.
43
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
The vertical logic in the logframe, i.e. the relationship between the 1st
and the 4th
column, works as follows:
* once the Pre-conditions are met, the Activities can start up;
* once the Activities have been carried out, and if the Assumptions at this level
hold true, Results will be achieved;
* once these Results and the Assumptions at this level are fulfilled, the Project Purpose
will be achieved;
* once the Purpose has been achieved and the Assumptions at this level are fulfilled,
contribution to the achievement of the Overall Objectives will have been
made by the project.
Figure 20: The Vertical Logic
The Vertical Logic
Intervention
Logic
Assumptions
Overall
Objectives
Project
Purpose
Results
Activities
Pre-condi-
tions
+
+
+
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
3.4.2. How to Identify the Intervention Logic?
Once agreement can be reached among stakeholders on what should be the Project
Purpose, then the objectives that lie within the scope of the project can be transposed
from the objective tree into the matrix. The objectives selected for inclusion in
the project are set into the first column of the Logframe. There are four levels of objectives.
It is important to ensure that the levels of objectives are correct.
44
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 14: From Strategy Analysis to Intervention Logic
1. Identification of the Purpose
Select from the hierarchy of objectives the objective that describes a sustainable
benefit to the target groups, including both women and men. To do so, it is helpful to
start at the bottom of the tree. By moving higher, objectives that reflect sustainable
benefits can be identified.
2. Identification of the Overall Objectives
Select from the objective tree one or more objectives at the top which describe long term benefits
for society or the sector, to which the project will contribute.
3. Identification of Results
Select from the objective tree the objectives that ­ by the "means-to-ends" logic achieve
the Purpose, and are thus Results.
Add other Results that also further the achievement of the Purpose. These can be
identified following a supplementary analysis of the opportunities and risks of the
situation in question.
4. Transfer of objectives to the column Intervention Logic in the logframe (as OO, PP and R)
5. Identification of Activities
* Select from the objectives tree the objectives that ­ by the "means-to-ends" ­ produce
the Results and translate them into Activities. Activities are formulated with the verb in
front: "Organise training sessions", "Co-ordinate with major stakeholders", etc.
* Add other Activities identified after supplementary analysis of the opportunities and
risks of the situation in question, e.g. through additional studies, through discussions
with stakeholders (e.g. in a planning workshop), paying attention to the specific interests
of under-represented groups.
6. The means-ends relationships are again analysed, and additional Results and Activities
may be incorporated, as denoted below by the boxes with an asterisk.
Note:
* Add only main Activities in the Logframe
* Relate them to the Results by attributing numbers to each Activity (Activity 1.1 is related to
Result 1, Activity 4.3 to Result 4.). This helps maintaining means to ends relationships.
Figure 21: Building the Logframe: Specifying the Intervention Logic
Intervention
Logic
Sources of
Verification
AssumptionsObjectively
Verifiable
Indicators
Overall
Objectives
Results
Activities
Project/
Programme
Purpose
Means Cost
Pre-conditions
Living conditions of
local people
improved
River water
quality improved
1.1 Analyse environmental investments
of companies
1.2 Identify relevant clean technologies
1.3 Design incentives
1.4 Test and adapt incentives
1.5 Provide incentives
1.6 Launch improvement of legal
regulations and monitor their
effectiveness
1.7 Connect households and factories
1. Direct discharge of
wastewater by
households and
factories decreased
Building the Logframe: Specifying the
Intervention Logic
45
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
3.4.2.1. Using the Logical Framework to Plan Complex Interventions: Interlocking
Logframes
Complex interventions comprising a number of components or projects are usually
called "Programmes". These may be sector-wide programmes, nation-wide programmes
or regional programmes with a number of concerned sectors. The LFA
principles equally apply to this type of intervention, i.e. that to properly plan them it
will be necessary to run through the Analysis and Planning Stage.
In principle, each Logical Framework can be worked out in sub-logframes. Each of
these describes components of the "master" Logical Framework on a more detailed
level.
Figure 22: Levels of Intervention: From Programme to Component
Levels of Intervention: From Programme
to Component
Programme
Overall
Objectives
Project
Purpose
Results
Activities
Project Component
Overall
Objective
Project
Purpose
Results
Activities
Overall
Objective
Project
Purpose
Results
Activities
The system of sub-dividing a "master" Logical Framework is useful to show the coherence
of components in a programme or project and to develop each component
in more detail.
However, when preparing interlocking logframes, we should be clear about what exactly
we mean by "Purpose" or "Result" and who the target groups and beneficiaries
are.
46
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 15: Levels of Intervention: From Programme to Component
Sector Programme Roads Maintenance Project Private Sector Component
Overall Objectives:
Country competitiveness on international
markets improved
Investments into agricultural export crops
increased
Food supply stabilised
Project Purpose: Overall Objectives
Road network meets traffic demands Road network meets traffic demands
Results: Project Purpose: Overall Objectives
1. Heavy-vehicle overload reduced on
roads
2. Roads are upgraded and rehabilitated
3. Road network is expanded
4. Roads are better maintained 4. Roads are better maintained 4. Roads are better maintained
5. Performance of MOT improved
Activities: Results: Project Purpose:
4.1 Review and improve approach to
maintenance
4.1 Approach to maintenance reviewed
and improved
4.2 Involve private sector more in mainte-
nance
4.2 Private sector involvement in maintenance
effective
4.2 Private sector involvement in
maintenance effective
4.3 Improve road coverage by maintenance
teams
4.3 Coverage of roads by maintenance
teams improved
4.4 Increase effectiveness of maintenance 4.4 Effectiveness of maintenance teams
increased
4.5 Improve ownership of feeder roads
network maintenance by village/communal
teams
4.5 Ownership of feeder roads network
maintenance by village/communal teams
improved
Activities: Results:
4.1.1 ..... 4.1.1 .....
4.2.1 Screen competences of private sector
maintenance firms
4.2.1 Competences of private
sector maintenance firms
screened
4.2.2 Devise and implement capacity
building measures for private firms
4.2.2 Capacity building measures
for private firms devised and im-
plemented
4.2.3 Provide incentives for company
creation
4.2.3 Incentives for company creation
provided
4.2.4 Tender maintenance works 4.2.4 Maintenance works tendered
4.2.5 Monitor works regularly 4.2.5 Works regularly monitored
4.3.1 ......
Activities:
4.1.1.1 ...
4.2.1.1 List existing firms
4.2.1.2 Devise survey
4.2.1.3 Implement survey
4.2.1.4 Draw conclusions
4.2.2.1 ....
47
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
The following should provide guidance in defining the different levels of objectives in
a nation-wide sector programme:
* Worldwide, supra-regional, nation-wide benefits beyond the scope of the programme
at the level of the Overall Objectives, referring to the overarching policy
objectives of the EC;Finding the
right level of
objectives
* Sustainable benefits for all target groups and beneficiaries at national and overall
sectoral level, including equitable benefits for women and men, at the level of the
Purpose;
* Sustainable benefits for segments of target groups at national or regional sectoral
level, at the level of the Results.
Figure 23: Levels of Objectives in a Nation-wide Sector Programme
Levels of Objectives in a Nation-wide
Sector Programme
Intervention
Logic
Overall
Objectives
Project
Purpose
Results
Activities
What does it mean for a sector-
programme?
Products of sub-sector
programmes (results of subsector
programmes)
Sustainable benefits for segments
of target groups at national or
sectoral level (purpose of subsector
progammes)
Sustainable benefits for all target
groups at national and sectoral
level, including equitable benefits
for women and men
Nation-wide benefits (or beyond)
beyond the scope of the
programme to which it contributes
An example from the health sector
1. Nation-wide functioning health care
services established at schools
2. Awareness created among children and
parents about health care measures
3. Quality and efficiency of secondary
health care improved for school
children
Health status of school children
improved in A-land
Health status of population improved
* Mortality rates reduced
* Productivity increased
The objectives of one of the possible projects within the nation-wide sector programme
should correspond to the following levels of objectives described in Chapter
3.4.1.1:
* sustainable benefits for all target groups and beneficiaries at national and overall
sectoral level, at the level of the Overall Objectives, referring, where applicable,
to the overarching policy objectives of the EC, including gender equality;
* sustainable benefits for segments of target groups at national or regional sectoral
level, including equitable benefits for women and men, at the level of the Pur-
pose;
* "products" of Activities undertaken (ends) at national or regional sectoral level, at
the level of the Results;
This, again, shows that the Logical Framework is a useful tool for both project planning
and management, from large sector programmes to small interventions, and
provided it is not used as a `blueprint' only. As a dynamic tool, logframes have to be
re-assessed and revised as the project itself develops and circumstances change.
Logframes in
Progamming
Re-assess
logframes
during Im-
plementation
In addition, logframes and the system of cascading logframes can be applied to
Programming, too. The EC "Guidelines for implementation of the Common Framework
for Country Strategy Papers" foresee to formulate "Specific Objectives" (= Purpose)
and expected "Results" for each area of co-operation including key domains
for conditionalities and main performance and a limited number of key outcome indicators.
These indicators must relate to developments that are measurable in the
short / medium term. The guidelines emphasise that, if there is a PRSP process under
way, the indicators must correspond to those developed in that framework.
48
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Results and Purpose of a sector within the CSP / NIP will be achieved through implementation
of projects. This means that either one project alone or several projects
together will achieve the Results, and then all projects together will achieve the
"Specific objectives" of an area of co-operation. At this level, EC consensus is that
there may be several "Specific objectives" and not only one, as recommended for all
subsequent phases.
The system of cascading logframes is simply an aid to improve structuring of interventions.
It will make planning and management of implementation (including allocation
of responsibilities) of both simple and very complex interventions easier. The
system allows breaking down such interventions to a level where it can be seen
what is going to be done. This will as well increase transparency and accountability,
especially when dealing with "soft" sectors (such as education, training, institutional
strengthening...).
When breaking down complex programmes into more manageable bits, the following
should be kept in mind:Preparing
complex logframes:
What
to consider
* Keep wording and complexity of objectives as simple as possible.
* Avoid putting means-ends relationships into statements of objectives: ... due
to...; or: ... through... (both applies to all kinds of logframes).
* Use the number of objectives levels that allows you to clearly structure the intervention
(it may be 3, but also 5). In doing so, maintain means-ends relationships
between the levels in a way that levels within the hierarchy of objectives are not
omitted and that e.g. better roads maintenance (Result 4 of the sector programme)
is not due to an objective located several levels below, e.g. the screening
of competences (Activity 4.2.1).
* Stop latest at a level where operational planning / activity scheduling would start
(see Activities of "Private Sector Component" above).
3.4.3. How to Identify Assumptions?
It will have become apparent during the Analysis Stage that the project alone cannot
achieve all the objectives identified in the objective tree. Once a strategy has been
selected, objectives not included in the Intervention Logic and other external factors
remain. These are crucial for the achievement of Results, Project Purpose and
Overall Objectives, but lie outside the project's its control. These conditions must be
met if the project is to succeed, and are included as Assumptions in the fourth column
of the Logframe.
Beware of 'killer'
assump-
tions!
The probability and significance of external conditions being met should be estimated
as part of assessing the degree of risk of the project. Some will be critical to
project success, and others of marginal importance. A useful way of assessing the
importance of Assumptions is with the following flowchart. Once Assumptions have
been identified, they are stated in terms of the desired situation. In this way they can
be verified and assessed.
49
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 24: Assessment of Assumptions
Assessment of Assumptions
Will it be realised?
Almost certainly
Likely
Unlikely
Do not include in logframe
Include as an assumption
Is it possible to redesign the project in
order to influence the external factor?
Yes No
Do not include in logframe
Is the external factor important?
Redesign the project by adding
activities or results; reformulate the
Project Purpose if necessary The project is not feasible
NoYes
Table 16: How to Identify Assumptions?
1. Identify in the hierarchy of objectives such objectives that are not covered by the selected
strategy but important for the success of the project
2. Place them as external factors at the appropriate level of the logframe
3. Identify other external factors not included in the hierarchy which must be fulfilled to
achieve the Overall Objective, the Project Prpose and the Results
4. Identify necessary Pre-conditions which have to be met in order to start with project
Activities
5. Assess the importance of the external factors by using the assessment chart. Depending
on the conclusions:
* Take out the external factor (almost certainly)
* Include the external factor as an Assumption (likely)
* Redesign the project (unlikely)
6. Check the Intervention Logic and Assumptions on completeness beginning with the
Pre-conditions, to see whether the Intervention Logic is indeed logical and overlooks
nothing
50
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 25: Building the Logframe: Completing Assumptions
Intervention
Logic
Sources of
Verification
AssumptionsObjectively
Verifiable
Indicators
Overall
Objectives
Results
Activities
Project/
Programme
Purpose
Means Cost
Pre-conditions
Living conditions of
local people
improved
River water
quality improved
1.1 Analyse environmental investments
of companies
1.2 Identify relevant clean technologies
1.3 Design incentives
1.4 Test and adapt incentives
1.5 Provide incentives
1.6 Launch improvement of legal
regulations and monitor their
effectiveness
1.7 Connect households and factories
1. Direct discharge of
wastewater by
households and
factories decreased
ˇUpstream water quality
remains stable
Building the Logframe: Completing Assumptions
Construction permission
obtained
ˇMarket demand for y-fish
remains at least stable
ˇTourists are informed
about the improved
situation
Use of sewerage systems
socially acceptable
ˇUncontrolled dumping of
waste into river remains at
least stable
3.4.4. Checking Quality Factors19
A project can be said to be sustainable when it continues to deliver benefits to the
project / programme target groups for an extended period after the main part of the
donor assistance has been completed. In the past it has been found that projects
have failed to deliver sustainable benefits because they did not take sufficient account
of a number of critical success factors. Quality is not an issue only to be considered
shortly before the end of a project, but should be kept in mind from the planning
stage onwards.
Sustainability
starts with project
design
3.4.4.1. What are Quality Factors?
Experience has demonstrated that the longer-term sustainability of project benefits
depends on the following factors:
1. Ownership by beneficiaries ­ the extent to which target groups and beneficiaries
of the project / programme (including men and women) have participated
in its design and are involved so that it can have their support and be
sustainable after the end of the EC financing.
2. Policy support ­ the quality of the relevant sector policy, and the extent to
which the partner government has demonstrated support for the continuation
of project services beyond the period of donor support.
3. Appropriate technology ­ whether the technologies applied by the project can
continue to operate in the longer run (e.g. availability of spare parts; sufficiency
of safety regulations; local capabilities of women and men in operation
and maintenance).
4. Socio-cultural issues ­ how the project will take into account local sociocultural
norms and attitudes, and which measures have been taken to ensure
19
Here, "Quality" replaces the DAC term "Sustainability" to emphasise that quality is an issue
that applies from the beginning of project / programme design, whereas sustainability per se occurs,
or not, after the life of a project / programme.
51
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
that all beneficiary groups will have appropriate access to project services
and benefits during and after implementation.
5. Gender equality ­ how the project will take into account the specific needs
and interests of women and men and will lead to sustained and equitable access
by women and men to the services and infrastructures, as well as contribute
to reduced gender inequalities in the longer term.
6. Environmental protection ­ the extent to which the project will preserve or
damage the environment and therefore support or undermine achievement of
longer term benefits20
.
7. Institutional and management capacity ­ the ability and commitment of the
implementing agencies to deliver the project / programme, and to continue to
provide services beyond the period of donor support.
8. Economic and financial viability ­ whether the incremental benefits of the project
/ programme outweigh its cost, and the project represents a viable longterm
investment.21
The substance and relative importance of these factors will depend on the context
and on the specific features of the project / programme. Consideration of these issues
may lead to changes in the project design.
3.4.4.2. How to Plan for Quality
A project can be said to have sustainable impact when the target group continue to
derive benefits for an extended period after the main period of donor assistance has
ended. Having established the Intervention Logic (first column) and the Assumptions
(fourth column), the preparation of the logframe continues with a review (questions)
concerning the project / programme's quality. Table 18 provides the generic questions
that should be answered satisfactorily to enhance quality.
The procedure for incorporating quality into the project design is as follows:
Table 17: How to Check for Quality?
1. Identify which Activities and Results will have to be sustained beyond the period of EC
funding, enabling the target group to derive benefits in the longer term.
2. Formulate relevant questions concerning each quality factor. These questions should be
clarified by the concerned parties (stakeholders, target groups, Delegation, EC services,
proposing organisation), or appear in the Terms of Reference for a subsequent study, e.g.
in the feasibility study.
3. Scrutinise the Project Purpose, Results, Activities and Assumptions in the light of these
questions.
4. On the basis of the answers:
* rethink or add Results, Activities, Assumptions or Pre-conditions,
* commission further studies to delve more fully into the issues,
* formulate recommendations for implementation.
20
The most common tool for integrating environment into the different phases of the project
cycle is the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Details about this procedure can
be found on http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/environment/env_integ/env_inte-
gration_manual/index.htm.
21
The Financial and Economic Analysis Manual (EC, 1997) provides a comprehensive
methodology to be used at the different phases of the project cycle. Details about this procedure
can be found on the EuropeAid Intranet (working tools).
52
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 18: Basic Questions to be Addressed to Ensure Sustainability
1. Ownership by beneficiar-
ies
What evidence is there that all target groups, including both
women and men, support the project? How actively are and
will they be involved / consulted in project preparation and
implementation? How far do they agree and commit themselves
to achieve the objectives of the project?
2. Policy support Is there a comprehensive, appropriate sector policy by the
Government? Is there evidence of sufficient support by the
responsible authorities to put in place the necessary
supporting policies and resource allocations (human,
financial, material) during and following implementation?
3. Appropriate technology Is there sufficient evidence that the chosen technologies can
be used at affordable cost and within the local conditions
and capabilities of all types of users, during and after imple-
mentation?
4. Environmental protection Have harmful environmental effects which may result from
use of project infrastructure or services been adequately
identified? Have measures been taken to ensure that any
harmful effects are mitigated during and after project imple-
mentation?
5. Socio-cultural issues Does the project take into account local socio-cultural norms
and attitudes, also those of indigenous people? Will the project
promote a more equitable distribution of access and
benefits?
6. Gender equality Have sufficient measures been taken to ensure that the project
will meet the needs and interests of both women and
men and will lead to sustained and equitable access by
women and men to the services and infrastructures, as well
as contribute to reduced gender inequalities in the longer
term?
7. Institutional and management
capacity
Is there sufficient evidence that the implementing authorities
will have the capacity and resources (human and financial)
to manage the project effectively, and to continue service
delivery in the longer term? If capacity is lacking, what
measures have been incorporated to build capacity during
project implementation?
8. Economic and financial
viability
Is there sufficient evidence that the benefits of the project
will justify the cost involved, and that the project represents
the most viable way to addressing the needs of women and
men in the target groups?
This check is an important part of project design, and not taking it into account could
undermine both the feasibility and the sustainability of the project.
53
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 26: Building the Logframe: Planning for Quality
Building the Logframe: Planning for Quality
Intervention
Logic
Sources of
Verification
AssumptionsObjectively Verifiable
Indicators
Overall
Objectives
Results
Activities
Project/
Programme
Purpose
Means Cost
Pre-conditions
Living conditions of
local people
improved
River water
quality improved
1.1 Analyse environmental investments of
companies
1.2 Identify relevant clean technologies
1.3 Design incentives
1.4 Test and adapt incentives
1.5 Provide incentives
1.6 Launch improvement of legal regulations
and monitor their effectiveness
1.7 Connect households and factories
1.8 Raise awareness of households and
industry concerning impact of wastewater
1.9 Train municipalities in maintenance of
wastewater system
1. Direct discharge of
wastewater by
households and
factories decreased
Construction permission
obtained
ˇMarket demand for y-fish
remains at least stable
ˇTourists are informed
about the improved
situation
Use of sewerage systems
socially acceptable
ˇUpstream water quality
remains stable
ˇUncontrolled dumping of
waste into river remains at
least stable
3.4.5. How to Identify Indicators (OVIs) and Sources of Verification (SOV)?
Indicators ("Objectively Verifiable Indicators") describe the project's objectives in operationally
measurable terms (quantity, quality, target group(s), time, place). Specifying
OVIs helps checking the viability of objectives and forms the basis of the project
monitoring system. OVIs should be measurable in a consistent way and at an
acceptable cost.
What are
OVIs and
SOV?
Sources of Verification are documents, reports and other sources providing information
that makes it possible to check the Indicators.
A good OVI should be SMART:
* Specific: measure what it is supposed to measure
* Measurable and
* Available at an acceptable cost
* Relevant with regard to the objective concerned
* Time-bound
In addition, Indicators should be independent of each other, each one relating to
only one objective in the Intervention Logic, i.e. to one of the Overall Objectives, to
the Project Purpose or to one Result. Indicators at the level of the Results should
not be a summary of what has been stated at the Activity level, but should describe
the consequences. Often, it is necessary to establish several indicators for one objective,
if the single indicator does not provide a full picture of the change expected.
Together, these will provide reliable information on the achievement of objectives. At
the same time, the trap of including too many indicators should be avoided.
Indicators
should be in-
dependent
Also, the measurement and interpretation of OVIs should be identical if determined
by different persons, i.e. that different persons using the indicator would obtain the
same measurements. This is more easily done for quantitative measures than for
those that aim at measuring qualitative change. OVIs should already be defined during
identification and appraisal, but they often need to be specified in greater detail
during implementation when additional information is available and the demands for
Define indicators
as early
as possible
54
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
monitoring become apparent. Care should be taken to ensure that the OVIs for the
Project Purpose - the project's "centre of gravity" - do in practice incorporate the notion
of `sustainable benefits for the target group'.
Figure 27: Indicators: An Example
Indicators: An Example
Objective: Pollution load of wastewater discharged into the
Blue river is reduced
Select the indicator: Concentration of heavy metal compounds
(Pb, Cd, Hg)
Define the targets:
* Define the quantity: Concentration of heavy metal compounds
(Pb, Cd, Hg) is reduced by 75% compared to year x levels ...
* Define the quality: ... to meet the limits for irrigation water ...
* Define the target group: ... , used by the farmers of Blue
village, ...
* Define the place : ... in the Blue river section of the District ...
* Determine the time: ... 2 years after the project has started
In fact, the role of Indicators is not limited to project monitoring and evaluation. They
also play a vital role in all phases of the project cycle (see figure below).
Figure 28: Indicators and the Project Cycle
Indicators & the Project Cycle
Sectoral indicators provide basis
for performance monitoring of
co-operation programmes
Final selection of
indicators, identification of
key assumptions, &
development of budget
provide the basis for
developing an M&E plan
Monitoring compares
planned vs. actual
achievement of targets
(budget, activity schedule,
results) to identify necessary
remedial action
Discussion of objectives
& possible indicators
helps to identify
stakeholder interests, &
build ownership
Indicators & results-based
budget provide basis for
assessing and justifying allocation
of resources and for comparing
cost to anticipated benefits
Evaluation comparing
achievements and indicators
enables project success and
sustainability prospects to
be assessed, & lessons to
be learned
a
When Indicators are formulated, the Source of Verification should be specified at the
same time. This will help to test whether or not the Indicators can be realistically
measured at the expense of a reasonable amount of time, money and effort. The
SOV should specify:
How will we
know what is
being
achieved?
* the format in which the information should be made available (e.g. progress reports,
project accounts, project records, official statistics etc.)
* who should provide the information
55
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
* how regularly it should be provided. (e.g. monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.)
Sources outside the project should be assessed for accessibility, reliability and relevance.
The work and cost of collecting information to be produced by the project itself
should also be estimated and adequate means provided. There is often a direct
relationship between the complexity of the SOV (i.e. ease of data collection and
analysis) and its cost. If an OVI is found too expensive or complicated to collect, it
should be replaced by a simpler, cheaper and often indirect (proxy) OVI: e.g. instead
of conducting a detailed survey on incomes of farm households, the changes of
household expenditure may be assessed, e.g. sales of veterinary suppliers and
pharmacies, or of tools or household goods (clothes, energy saving stoves, etc.)
might be counted.
Table 19: How to Define OVIs and to Select SOV?
How to define OVIs?
1. Specify for each Result, the Project Purpose, and the Overall Objectives:
* the quantity: how much?
* the quality: what?
* the target group: who?
* the time / period: starting when and for how
long?
* the place: where?
Note: Indicators concerning the Overall Objectives tend to be more qualitative
than those applicable to the Project Purpose and the Results, which have
more quantitatively measurable components.
2. Check whether the Indicators or Indicatorss describe the Overall Objectives, Purpose
or Results accurately. If not, other Indicatorss should be added or new ones found.
3. Care should be taken to ensure that the OVIs for the Project Purpose - the project's
"centre of gravity" - do in practice incorporate the notion of `sustainable benefits for
the target group'.
How to choose SOV?
1. Decide what Sources of Verification are needed to obtain the information on OVIs.
2. Identify which sources are to be collected, processed and kept within the project, and
which are outside (existing sources).
3. Check sources outside the project to ensure that:
(a) their form/presentation is appropriate;
(b) they are specific enough;
(c) they are reliable;
(d) they are accessible (where and when);
(e) the cost of obtaining the information are reasonable.
4. Replace OVls for which no suitable sources can be found by others.
Note:
Use existing resources as much as possible to avoid additional cost, time and effort to be
deployed.
56
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 29: Building the Logframe: Specifying Indicators and Sources of Verification
Building the Logframe: Specifying Indicators
and Sources of Verification
Intervention
Logic
Sources of
Verification
AssumptionsObjectively Verifiable
Indicators
Overall
Objectives
Results
Activities
Project/
Programme
Purpose
Means Cost
Pre-conditions
Living conditions of
local people
improved
River water
quality improved
1.1 Analyse environmental investments of
companies
1.2 Identify relevant clean technologies
1.3 Design incentives
1.4 Test and adapt incentives
1.5 Provide incentives
1.6 Launch improvement of legal regulations
and monitor their effectiveness
1.7 Connect households and factories
1.8 Raise awareness of households and
industry concerning impact of wastewater
1.9 Train municipalities in maintenance of
wastewater system
1. Direct discharge of
wastewater by
households and
factories decreased
Construction permission
obtained
ˇMarket demand for y-fish
remains at least stable
ˇTourists are informed
about the improved
situation
Use of sewerage systems
socially acceptable
ˇUpstream water quality
remains stable
ˇUncontrolled dumping of
waste into river remains at
least stable
ˇThe income generated by the
catch of y-fish is increased by 30
% by 2003
ˇTourism revenues increased by
30% by 2004
ˇSocio-economic Survey report of
the Ministry of Economic affairs
ˇRate of diseases due to river fish
consumption reduced by 80 %
until 2003
ˇCatch of y-fish is increased by
20% until 2002, while maintaining
stock level
ˇRegional hospital and medical
statistics
ˇReports of River authority and
co-operatives
ˇ70 % of wastewater produced
by factories and 80% of
wastewater produced by
households is treated in plants
by 2002
Survey report of Municipalities
3.4.6. How to Identify Means and Cost?
The boxes "Means" and "Cost" replace OVIs and SOV at the level of Activities. OVIs
and SOV are thus not specified for Activities in the Logframe, but may be specified
later when preparing an Activity Schedule.
Means are physical and non-physical resources (often referred to as "Inputs") that
are necessary to carry out the planned Activities and manage the project. A distinction
can be drawn between: human resources and material resources.
Cost are the translation into financial terms of all the identified resources (Means).
They should be presented in a standardised format, which will specify the contribution
of the EC, the Government and any other party, such as target groups and
beneficiaries. The Activities should therefore be worked out sufficiently to enable estimates
of the necessary physical and non-physical means. This will include the
means and cost required for management support activities. An area for particular
attention is the cost of collecting data on OVIs. This estimate should be completed
at the end of the appraisal phase.
Table 20: How to Establish Means and Cost?
1. Work out the human, material and financial means necessary to carry out the planned Activities
under each Result. Classify them according to the requirements of the co-operation
mechanism.
2. Work out the human, material and financial means needed for management and support activities
not included in the Logical Framework (e.g. building of a co-ordination office, administrative
and accounting staff, etc.). For transparency reasons, you may just summarise all these
activities as a reminder at the bottom of the logframe. You can then identify the means required
and link them to the respective cost.
3. Calculate the cost of the resources thus established and shared among the financing partners;
prepare the total budget.
4. Classify the Cost by budget origin: EC, Government, target group or other donors.
5. List a summary of Means in the 2nd
column behind the Activities in the Logical Framework and
summarise the cost by budget origin in the 3rd
column behind the Activities.
57
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
3.4.7. Final Quality Check of the Logframe
Once the Means and Cost have been established, the logical framework matrix is
complete. It should now be reviewed one last time to check, whether:
* the vertical logic is complete and accurate;
* Indicators and Sources of Verification are accessible and reliable;
* the Pre-conditions are realistic;
* the Assumptions are realistic and complete;
* the risks are acceptable;
* the likelihood of success is reasonably strong;
* quality issues have been taken into account and, where appropriate, translated
into Activities, Results or Assumptions;
* the benefits justify the cost;
* additional studies are needed.
This check should be carried out first at the end of the planning workshop during
appraisal, but it can also be carried out independently by persons other than those
who drew up the Logical Framework, particularly EC and partner country officials.
The following figure shows what a completed logframe for the example project might
look like.
Figure 30: Building the Logframe: A Completed Logframe
Building the Logframe: A Completed Logframe
Intervention
Logic
Sources of
Verification
AssumptionsObjectively Verifiable
Indicators
Overall
Objectives
Results
Activities
Project/
Programme
Purpose
Means
A: Technical expertise, 20 PM
B: Investment
C: Maintenance
D: ....
Total
Cost (`000 )
EC Gvt. Other Total
400 400
1000 400 200 1600
........
3000 1000 600 4600
Pre-conditions
Living conditions of
local people
improved
River water
quality improved
1.1 Analyse environmental investments of
companies
1.2 Identify relevant clean technologies
1.3 Design incentives
1.4 Test and adapt incentives
1.5 Provide incentives
1.6 Launch improvement of legal regulations
and monitor their effectiveness
1.7 Connect households and factories
1.8 Raise awareness of households and
industry concerning impact of wastewater
1.9 Train municipalities in maintenance of
wastewater system
1. Direct discharge of
wastewater by
households and
factories decreased
Construction permission
obtained
ˇMarket demand for y-fish
remains at least stable
ˇTourists are informed
about the improved
situation
Use of sewerage systems
socially acceptable
ˇUpstream water quality
remains stable
ˇUncontrolled dumping of
waste into river remains at
least stable
ˇThe income generated by the
catch of y-fish is increased by 30
% by 2003
ˇTourism revenues increased by
30% by 2004
ˇSocio-economic Survey report of
the Ministry of Economic affairs
ˇRate of diseases due to river fish
consumption reduced by 80 %
until 2003
ˇCatch of y-fish is increased by
20% until 2002, while maintaining
stock level
ˇRegional hospital and medical
statistics
ˇReports of River authority and
co-operatives
ˇ70 % of wastewater produced
by factories and 80% of
wastewater produced by
households is treated in plants
by 2002
Survey report of Municipalities
58
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
3.4.8. Using the Logical Framework to Develop Activity and Resource Sched-
ules
The Logical Framework for a project describes often quite broadly, what Activities
are to be undertaken. After the logframe matrix has been completed, usually during
the appraisal phase, further planning can take place to add operational detail.
An Activity Schedule is a method of presenting the activities of a project, which identifies
their logical sequence and any dependencies that exist between them, and
provides a basis for allocating management responsibility for completing each Activity.
With the Activity Schedule prepared, further specification of Means and scheduling
of cost can start. Both Activity and Resource Schedules ought to be drafted during
the feasibility study. Detailed information about net recurrent cost implications of
the project may then lead to reformulation of the scope and ambition of the project.
The Overall Activity Schedule is updated and detailed Activity and Resource Schedules
are to be prepared during the first months of project implementation (inception
period).
Figure 31: Activity and Resource Schedules
ESTAB LISH M ENT O F PLANNING UNIT, M INISTRY O F TRANSPO RT
ACTIVITIES YEAR 1
Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12
1.1 Establish Planning Unit
1.1.1 Set up offices and equipment
1.1.2 Identify and recruit counterpart staff
1.2 Liaise with relevant departments 1 2 3
1.2.1 Convene steering committee
1.2.2 Hold regular steering committee meetings
1.2.3 Hold regular briefings for Ministers
and senior civil servants
1.3 Undertake planning studies 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.3.1 Agree with government priority areas
for planning studies
1.3.2 Convene working groups to undertake
planning studies
1.3.3 Undertake planning studies jointly with
government
1.4 Provide government with strategy plans 10
1.4.1 Make recommendations to government
1.4.2 Assist government in the development of a
framework for policy formulation
Milestones
1 Membership of PSC includes senior representatives from all relevant Departments
2 Terms of reference and schedule for PSC agreed
3 First 3 briefing meetings run and attended as planned
4 W ritten agreement of priority areas
5 W orking groups convened and schedules of work agreed
6 1st drafts of studies circulated
7 Comments received from relevant Ministries & departments
8 Studies completed
9 W orking groups agree on recommendations
10 Strategy recommendations submitted to government
EXPERTS TIME REQUIRED (days)
PM OM E1 E2 E3 PM OM E1 E2 E3
L 10
L 10
L S 1 3
L S 8 16
L S 20 20
L 2
L L L 10 10 10
L L L 40 40 40
L S S S 10 5 5 5
L S S S 5 10 10 10
KEY Total 56 49 65 65 65
PM = Project Manager
OM = Office Manager
E1 = Economist 1
E2 = Policy Specialist
E3 = Economist 2
L = Lead role
S = Support role
Activity and Resource Schedules
Logframe
Results-based Activity Schedule Results-based Resource Schedule
EST A BLISHM ENT O F A PLA NNING UNIT, M INIS T RY OF TR ANSP ORT
Ref A CTIV ITIE S/INP UTS U nit Q uantity per planning period Cost Funding C os t Codes
Cos ts per planning period
Projec t
A nnual
R ec urrent
1s t qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr per unit s ourc e Donor Govt 1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr Total Cos ts
AC T IVITIES
1.1 Esta blish Pla nning U n it
EQ UIPM E NT
Com puters no. 2 2 1.000 3,4 A/1.3 2.000 2.000 - - 4.000
Fax m odem no. 1 500 3,4 A/1.3 500 - - - 500
Offic e furniture lum p 1 3.000 3,4 A/1.3 3.000 - - - 3.000
SA LA RIES & A LLO W ANC E S (LOC AL)
Counterparts mm 4 4 4 4 200 5,2 B/2.1 800 800 800 800 3.200 3.200
Offic e s taff m m 2 3 3 3 100 5,2 B/2.1 200 300 300 300 1.100 1.100
ETC.
3.4.8.1. Preparing Activity Schedules
All information in an Activity Schedule can be summarised in graphical format. This
is called a Gantt Chart. An example is shown below. The format can be adapted to
fit with the expected duration of the project. An Overall Activity Schedule may only
specify Activities on a quarterly or monthly basis, while an individual's quarterly work
plan may use a weekly format.
59
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 32: Example of an Activity Schedule
ESTABLISHM ENT OF PLANNING UNIT, M INISTRY OF TRANSPORT
ACTIVITIES YEAR 1
Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12
1.1 Establish Planning Unit
1.1.1 Set up offices and equipment
1.1.2 Identify and recruit counterpart staff
1.2 Liaise with relevant departments 1 2 3
1.2.1 Convene steering committee
1.2.2 Hold regular steering committee meetings
1.2.3 Hold regular briefings for Ministers
and senior civil servants
1.3 Undertake planning studies 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.3.1 Agree with government priority areas
for planning studies
1.3.2 Convene working groups to undertake
planning studies
1.3.3 Undertake planning studies jointly with
government
1.4 Provide government with strategy plans 10
1.4.1 Make recommendations to government
1.4.2 Assist government in the development of a
framework for policy formulation
Milestones
1 Membership of PSC includes senior representatives from all relevant Departments
2 Terms of reference and schedule for PSC agreed
3 First 3 briefing meetings run and attended as planned
4 W ritten agreement of priority areas
5 W orking groups convened and schedules of work agreed
6 1st drafts of studies circulated
7 Comments received from relevant Ministries & departments
8 Studies completed
9 W orking groups agree on recommendations
10 Strategy recommendations submitted to government
EXPERTS TIME REQUIRED (days)
PM OM E1 E2 E3 PM OM E1 E2 E3
L 10
L 10
L S 1 3
L S 8 16
L S 20 20
L 2
L L L 10 10 10
L L L 40 40 40
L S S S 10 5 5 5
L S S S 5 10 10 10
KEY Total 56 49 65 65 65
PM = Project Manager
OM = Office Manager
E1 = Economist 1
E2 = Policy Specialist
E3 = Economist 2
L = Lead role
S = Support role
ESTABLISHM ENT OF PLANNING UNIT, M INISTRY OF TRANSPORT
ACTIVITIES YEAR 1
Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12
1.1 Establish Planning Unit
1.1.1 Set up offices and equipment
1.1.2 Identify and recruit counterpart staff
1.2 Liaise with relevant departments 1 2 3
1.2.1 Convene steering committee
1.2.2 Hold regular steering committee meetings
1.2.3 Hold regular briefings for Ministers
and senior civil servants
1.3 Undertake planning studies 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.3.1 Agree with government priority areas
for planning studies
1.3.2 Convene working groups to undertake
planning studies
1.3.3 Undertake planning studies jointly with
government
1.4 Provide government with strategy plans 10
1.4.1 Make recommendations to government
1.4.2 Assist government in the development of a
framework for policy formulation
Milestones
1 Membership of PSC includes senior representatives from all relevant Departments
2 Terms of reference and schedule for PSC agreed
3 First 3 briefing meetings run and attended as planned
4 W ritten agreement of priority areas
5 W orking groups convened and schedules of work agreed
6 1st drafts of studies circulated
7 Comments received from relevant Ministries & departments
8 Studies completed
9 W orking groups agree on recommendations
10 Strategy recommendations submitted to government
EXPERTS TIME REQUIRED (days)
PM OM E1 E2 E3 PM OM E1 E2 E3
L 10
L 10
L S 1 3
L S 8 16
L S 20 20
L 2
L L L 10 10 10
L L L 40 40 40
L S S S 10 5 5 5
L S S S 5 10 10 10
KEY Total 56 49 65 65 65
PM = Project Manager
OM = Office Manager
E1 = Economist 1
E2 = Policy Specialist
E3 = Economist 2
L = Lead role
S = Support role
3.4.8.2. Preparing Resource Schedules
Cost estimates must be based on careful and thorough budgeting. They will have
significant influence over the investment decision at project appraisal and subsequently
on the smooth implementation of the project if the go-ahead is given. Again,
the list of Activities should be copied into an input and cost schedule pro-forma.
Each Activity should then be used as a checklist to ensure that all necessary Means
under that Activity are provided for. This list may become very detailed.
Then, the Means necessary to undertake the Activities must be specified. It will
probably be necessary to aggregate or summarise the cost information. Project
costings should allow the allocation of cost to the different funding sources so that
each party is clear about their respective contributions.
Once Total Cost have been calculated, it is important to remember that the implementing
agency will be required to meet any recurrent cost of maintaining service
provision beyond the life of the project. Recurrent Cost may be covered (fully or
partly) through increased revenue that has been generated through project activities.
Whether or not this is the case, it is important that the net recurrent cost implications
of the project are clearly specified so that the future impact on the implementing
agency's budget can be determined.
Figure 33: Example of a Resource Schedule
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNING UNIT, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
Ref ACTIVITIES/INPUTS Unit Quantity per planning period Cost Funding Cost Codes
per unit source EC Govt Target
1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr group
ACTIVITIES
1.1 Establish Planning Unit
EQUIPMENT
Computers no. 2 2 1.000 EC 3,4
Fax modem no. 1 500 EC 3,4
Office furniture lump 1 3.000 EC 3,4
SALARIES & ALLOWANCES (LOCAL)
Counterparts pm 4 4 4 4 200 Gvt. B/2.1
Office staff pm 3 3 3 3 100 Gvt. B/2.1
ETC.
.........
TOTAL PER QUARTER
Total per year and
funding source
Project
Total
Annual
recurrent
1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr Total costs
EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG
2.000 2.000 - - 4.000 - - 4.000
500 - - - 500 - - 500
3.000 - - - 3.000 - - 3.000
800 800 800 800 - 3.200 - 3.200 3.200
300 300 300 300 - 1.200 - 1.200 1.200
5.500 1.100 - 2.000 1.100 - - 1.100 - - 1.100 - 7.500 4.400 - 11.900 4.400
Costs per planning period
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNING UNIT, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
Ref ACTIVITIES/INPUTS Unit Quantity per planning period Cost Funding Cost Codes
per unit source EC Govt Target
1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr group
ACTIVITIES
1.1 Establish Planning Unit
EQUIPMENT
Computers no. 2 2 1.000 EC 3,4
Fax modem no. 1 500 EC 3,4
Office furniture lump 1 3.000 EC 3,4
SALARIES & ALLOWANCES (LOCAL)
Counterparts pm 4 4 4 4 200 Gvt. B/2.1
Office staff pm 3 3 3 3 100 Gvt. B/2.1
ETC.
.........
TOTAL PER QUARTER
Total per year and
funding source
Project
Total
Annual
recurrent
1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr Total costs
EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG
2.000 2.000 - - 4.000 - - 4.000
500 - - - 500 - - 500
3.000 - - - 3.000 - - 3.000
800 800 800 800 - 3.200 - 3.200 3.200
300 300 300 300 - 1.200 - 1.200 1.200
5.500 1.100 - 2.000 1.100 - - 1.100 - - 1.100 - 7.500 4.400 - 11.900 4.400
Costs per planning period
60
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
4. TOOLS FOR MANAGING PROJECT QUALITY
4.1. Using the LFA to Assess Project Proposals: An Overview
During the preparatory phases of the project cycle, the Logical Framework Approach
is primarily intended as a participatory planning tool. However, it is also a powerful
tool for ex post analysis of project proposals, the only difference being that the
source of information for problems is the project proposal rather than primary data
sources such as interviews, surveys, reports and statistics.
The purpose of applying the LFA to a proposal is to identify weaknesses or gaps in
the project's design. These gaps will relate to the RELEVANCE, FEASIBILITY or
SUSTAINABILITY of the project, and will have to be addressed through the conduct
of additional studies, or from existing sources. It is important to note though that the
technique merely assists in the desk study of an existing proposal, and in no way
substitutes for the participatory planning approach that is central to the sound application
of the LFA.
Has the right
information
been provided?
There exist two tools for assessing and improving project proposals22
:
1. The Guide for Assessment of Project Proposals, which is intended for in-depth
analysis of project proposals prior to the appraisal phase. Its purpose is to assist
in the identification of key questions and issues for inclusion in terms of reference
for feasibility studies.
2. The Quality Improvement Tool ("Improving the Quality of a Financing Proposal /
Feasibility Study"), which is intended for quality checking and improving of draft
financing proposals prior to their submission to the relevant financing committee.
4.2. Guide for Assessment of Project Proposals
Ideally, issues of relevance, feasibility and sustainability are addressed twice during
project preparation ­ once during the Identification phase (as part of a pre-feasibility
study23
) and then more comprehensively during the appraisal phase (as part of a
feasibility study). However, project proposals are often received `ready-made' from
partner governments and institutions, and for this and other reasons a significant
proportion of projects in fact undergo only one study. In the absence of a two-study
approach to project preparation, it is vital that process managers are able to ensure
the quality of terms of reference for what is usually a `one-shot' exercise.
The importance
of Feasibility
Study
TOR!
22
They can be downloaded from the Intranet of EuropeAid ­ under working tools.
23
A Pre-feasibility Study examines the options for addressing priorities identified during
the Programming stage. Alternative interventions are identified, and the study determines
whether it is worth going ahead with a Feasibility Study to define the project in more detail.
61
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 34: The Role of Terms of Reference in Project Preparation
The Role of TOR
Indicative
Programme
Terms of
Reference
Prefeasibility
Study
Terms of
Reference
Feasibility
Study
Project
ideas
Financing
Agreement
Financing
Proposal
relevance
feasibility &
sustainability
coherent framework
a
Reality?
Indicative
Programme
Terms of
Reference
Feasibility
Study
Project
ideas
Financing
Agreement
Financing
Proposal
relevance,
feasibility &
sustainabilitya
The Guide to Assessment contains instructions that provide a framework for analysing
the coherence and comprehensiveness of a project proposal. The project design
is deconstructed and reconstructed, in order to identify the gaps and inconsistencies,
and thereby to identify questions for inclusion in terms of reference for a feasibility
study. It also provides a useful means of editing the proposal into a logframe
format if the LFA has not been used by the proposing institution.
Once the assessment is complete, the questions and issues identified must be
sorted and prioritised before incorporation into the terms of reference for the feasibility
study. The purpose of the feasibility study will be to provide the decision makers
in the Government and the European Commission with sufficient information to justify
acceptance, modification or rejection of the proposed project for further financing
and implementation.
Among the key outputs of the feasibility study will be an assessment of the
relevance, feasibility and sustainability of the proposed project, and a detailed
operational plan based on the logframe structure. The consultant will also be
responsible for preparing a draft Financing Proposal (for a format, see Chapter 2.6).
4.3. The Quality Improvement Tool
Once the feasibility study has been completed, as task manager you will receive a
Feasibility Study Report and a draft Financing Proposal. In accordance with your
role as process manager rather than field-level planner, you require tools that will
help you ensure the quality of these documents, and in particular of the Financing
Proposal as this will provide the basis for the financing decision.Improving
feasibility
studies or
Financing
Proposals
By this stage in project design, the proposal will be in logframe format, and it will not
be necessary to repeat the process of deconstructing and reconstructing the project
design. Instead, the Quality Improvement Tool offers a checklist approach that
breaks down the key concepts of relevance, feasibility and sustainability into simple
questions, and provides a framework for rapidly identifying information gaps in the
Financing Proposal or Feasibility Study.
62
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 35: The Quality Assessment Tool
PCM Training Improving the Quality of a Financing Proposal / Feasibility Study
Improving the Quality of a Financing Proposal / Feasibility Study
Training and Helpdesk Services in Project Cycle Management
Table of Contents
QUALITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ..................................................................................................... 1
1. Relevance......................................................................................................................................2
1.1 Are the major stakeholders clearly identified and described? ..................................................... 2
1.2 Are the beneficiaries (target groups and final beneficiaries) clearly identified? ......................... 2
1.3 Are the problems of the target groups and final beneficiaries sufficiently described? ................ 3
1.4 Is the problem analysis sufficiently comprehensive? .................................................................. 3
1.5 Do the Overall Objectives explain why the project is important for sectoral development and
society? ....................................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Does the Project Purpose express a direct benefit for the target groups? .................................... 4
1.7 Does the EcoFin (Financial and Economic) Analysis provide sufficient information on the
questions raised above?............................................................................................................... 5
2. Feasibility .....................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Will the Project Purpose contribute to the Overall Objectives (if the Assumptions hold true)?.. 5
2.2 Are the Results products of the implementation of Activities? ................................................... 6
2.3 Will the Project Purpose be achieved if all Results are attained?................................................ 6
2.4 Are the means sufficiently justified by quantified objectives? .................................................... 6
2.5 Have important external factors been identified?........................................................................ 7
2.6 Is the probability of realisation of the Assumptions acceptable?................................................. 7
2.7 Will the project partners and implementing agencies be able to implement the project?............ 7
2.8 Does the EcoFin (Financial and Economic) Analysis provide sufficient information on the
questions raised above?............................................................................................................... 8
3. Sustainability ................................................................................................................................9
3.1 Will there be adequate ownership of the project by the target groups / beneficiaries?................ 9
3.2 Will the relevant authorities have a supportive policy during implementation and after project
completion?................................................................................................................................. 9
3.3 Is the technology appropriate for the local conditions?............................................................... 9
3.4 Will the ecological environment be preserved during and after the project?............................. 10
3.5 Will all beneficiaries have adequate access to benefits and products during and after the
project?...................................................................................................................................... 10
3.6 Will the project contribute to gender equality? ......................................................................... 11
3.7 Will the implementing agencies be able to provide follow-up after the project? ...................... 11
3.8 Does the EcoFin (Financial and Economic) Analysis provide sufficient information on the
questions raised above?............................................................................................................. 12
USING THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TOOL TO IDENTIFY INFORMATION NEEDS ............................. 13
QUALITY RATING SHEET FOR FINANCING PROPOSALS / FEASIBILITY STUDIES .............................. 16
Revision March 2002
The Quality Assessment Tool provides an explanation of what is meant by each
checklist question, and then provides a rating scale that helps in clarifying precisely
what information (if any) is lacking. If any further information is required, this can be
written on an information sheet, and fed back to the relevant parties for inclusion in a
modified version of the proposal.
Applying quality
criteria
63
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 36: How the Quality Assessment Tool Works
PCM Training Imprving the Quality of a Financing Proposal / Feasibility Study
1.3 Are the problems of the target groups and final beneficiaries sufficiently described?
Problems are descriptions of existing negative situations in a given context. Very often, project
proposals only describe macro-economic problems, or limit themselves to the problems of
implementing institutions. Description of their problems is necessary, but in order to verify the
project's relevance, these problems must be linked to the problems faced by the target groups /
final beneficiaries. Their problems should be analysed in detail in relation to the project's area of
intervention, and the relative importance of these problems explained.
Scoring indicators: Problems of beneficiaries are described sufficiently...
when...
fully: Problems are described in detail, including information on the specific
problems faced by the target groups and the final beneficiaries.
fairly: Problems are described in reasonable detail, but information on specific
problems of different sub-groups is incomplete or missing.
hardly: Few problems faced by target groups / final beneficiaries have been
described.
not at all No problems from the viewpoint of target groups / final beneficiaries are
stated.
64
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
5. ANNEXES
5.1. Sector Programmes
Efforts have been made to ensure that projects are part of a national policy and that
donor co-ordination is improved. However, such an approach is insufficient particularly
in countries, which have sufficient national capacity to elaborate and implement
national policies and co-ordinate donor activities. Sector (-wide) approaches
(SWAPs) were born in the mid-eighties under the aegis of the World Bank and
Scandinavian donors, concerned about the lack of impact of individual project on the
overall sectoral situation in developing countries, about the need for deeper political
dialogue to ensure sustainability and ownership, and about the need to focus rare
funds on real priorities. At EU level, the Commission started work on SWAPs around
1990 and this term was officially introduced in the Lome IV review in 1995. The
Council issued a Resolution in November 1996 on Human Social Development
which included a reference to such programmes.
Origin of
SWAPs
A sector approach aims at broadening the notion of impact beyond the scope of one
specific donor. It aims at providing a public expenditure framework for both local and
external resources in support of the development and implementation of an equitable,
well balanced, and satisfactory policy. As a result, donors evolve from supporting
specific activities to co-financing a policy with the partner country and other donors.
These co-ordinated efforts are made on the basis of objectives set by the government
and in the framework of a coherent public sector expenditure programme.
In this context it is clear that external assistance will be more and more directly integrated
into government plans and the national budget. It should also be stressed
that sector programmes are of a process character.
Researching
a better im-
pact
The Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
on the European Community's Development Policy (26/04/00)24
specifies that
"this approach facilitates ownership by the partner countries, donor co-ordination,
harmonisation of procedures, greater effectiveness of financial support and provides
an overall view of the problems of the sector. This process needs to be carefully led
with a view to ensuring effective additionality of resources for the supported sectors,
good management of public finance, and respect for national sovereignty. It facilitates
the use of direct budgetary aid where the partnership and the capacity in a
given sector are sufficiently mature, and represents a more result-oriented support.
It requires a comprehensive policy dialogue on specific sectors, capacity building,
coherence and linkage with macroeconomic support."
5.1.1. How Do Sector Programmes Work?
Sector programmes have three main features:
1. Through a sectoral policy document and strategic framework government takes
responsibility for setting policies, priorities and standards which apply to all public
activity in the sector including that financed by donors.
Three main
features
2. All significant funding for the sector supports a single sector policy and expenditure
programme under government leadership (sector expenditure framework
and annual budget).
3. Partners adopt common approaches across the sector and for sub-sectors, and
tend to develop, if conditions allow, towards co-financing and budget support.
In the framework of sector programmes, funds are to be provided through the public
sector budgets where they should be managed in an effective, transparent and accountable
manner. The objective of Sector Programmes is to enhance this process,
65
24
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/asia/doc/com00_212.pdf
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
sharpen the formulation of national policies, improve the effectiveness of implementation
strategies, as well as the management of national and external resources.
The rules of the game are thus as follows:
* All partners finance the same Government defined sector expenditure programme
and establish agreed consultation procedures, including procedures to
solve disagreements. Changes in policy will not be implemented without prior
consultation and donors will only support activities within the sector programme.
Rules of
the game?
* All partners use agreed appraisal, procurement, disbursement, accounting, and
audit procedures based as far as possible on those of the government. Common
reporting and monitoring arrangements serve all needs and donors minimise
earmarking of funds where priorities are shared. There is a consensus among
donors to move towards increasingly harmonised and integrated procedures.
* Government is in control. Donors negotiate aid with the central budget authorities
(but also with the concerned line ministry) consistent with the policies, resources
and standards set by government. All technical assistance should focus
on facilitation and capacity building and should be under control of government.
A Sector Programme may be financed in different ways:
* budgetary support (targeted, i.e. funds are to be used only for specific budget
headings, components or for activities in a specific region, or non-targeted)
* common donor fund ("basket funding" - this implies the existence of clear procedures
which are harmonised and common to all donors; funds are then, deposited
in a "common pot")
How to fi-
nance?
* specific donor procedures (similar to the one used for projects but in a common
framework)
Given that sector programmes aim at improving overall public sector financial management
they will seek to harmonise donor implementation procedures. The prevailing
trend is to move towards giving donor support through the government budget,
provided a minimum of clear procedures and financial control systems are in place.
The programme will then include specific measures to strengthen such procedures
and establishing a transparent and accountable financial and budgetary system.
5.1.2. Devising a Sector Programme: Issues to Consider
There are a number of issues that need thorough consideration when devising a
sector programme:
1. Sector programmes require a mid-term public expenditure plan. When external
resources are provided, the planning of the support needs to look carefully into
the sustainability of government funding in the long term. It is important that the
share of government contribution increases during programme implementation
to a level where programme impacts can be sustained and the financing of recurrent
cost can be ensured.
2. In general, public sector service users must be consulted on the objectives of
the sectoral policy before it is adopted by the government, and must also be associated
in its implementation ("stakeholder and target group orientation"). When
services are to be decentralised, mechanisms must be devised to allow users'
control of the results. Therefore, sectoral programmes will often foresee the institutional
strengthening of local administrations and the empowering of local
communities to enhance their capacity to participate in the planning and management
of resources and services and/or to control their quality and their man-
agement.
66
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
3. The targeting of funds is a way of securing funds for the execution of a particular
activity. Sector policy and strategy design and expenditure planning allow to
mainstream important cross-cutting issues as gender and environment.
Targeting
funds
4. Since a sector programme means co-financing of all resources deployed to implement
a given policy, perfect control of only a fraction of the budget makes little
sense while the rest of the sector's resources may be poorly managed.
Therefore, the question of good governance must be openly addressed at the
initial stages of programme design. It is crucial that the quality of public finance
management be assessed during the design of budget support programme so
that the potential needs for institutional support can be quickly identified. Assessment
of financial management procedures and internal/external audit systems
must be foreseen from the outset, and the measures to be taken in the
case of mismanagement of funds must be clearly spelt out.
5. The level of external support is determined by the analysis of the results
achieved in improving services to the beneficiaries (populations and/or economic
players) as measured on the basis of performance and outcome indicators. This
dependence should be explicitly formulated from the start of the programme.
One of the main interests of the sector approach is to allow for great flexibility in
implementation. Over-planning should therefore be avoided and flexible programming,
based on rolling plans (e.g. of three years) situated within a mediumterm
framework should be preferred. Such plans should be based on agreed
principles and strategic priorities and be accompanied by joint reviews of annual
expenditure programmes. Due to these reasons, the sectoral approach must be
accompanied by efficient and effective monitoring and evaluation systems (established
by the government / ministry), oriented towards the assessment of impact
and outcomes.
6. As for the issue of conditionality, only a limited number of strong Pre-conditions
should be identified under the sectoral approach, while medium-term implementation
should be subject to conditions based on performance and outcomes. This
will result in the amount of support being modulated on the basis of the level of
achievement of objectives and the amount of services provided to the beneficiaries.
In addition, the government should commit itself to a set of "basic principles"
agreed with donors which should be respected throughout implementation. Such
principles might include issues such as the equitable distribution of resources
between central and local administrations, the necessary transparency of the
budgetary process and accounting system, the implementation of administrative
and institutional reforms, etc.
Conditionalities,
per-
formance
and out-
comes
7. During the implementation of a programme, conflicts, major governance problems,
budgetary incoherence, inconsistency with the agreed principles, withdrawal
of main donors, etc. may lead to reconsidering support: Implementation
will have to be designed taking into account the overall coherence of support
and it may involve the outright suspension of the programme or a substantial
modification of the implementation arrangements. In the case of budgetary aid it
would be appropriate to explicitly foresee from the start the eventuality of reverting
to project-type procedures should a serious problem arise with the management
of public funds. This would avoid sudden suspension of support, and the
related likely adverse impacts.
5.1.3. The Sector Programme Cycle
The Sector Programme Cycle is comparable to the project cycle, the starting point
being the Country Support Strategy / Country Strategy Paper:
1. During the Programming phase, the Country Support Strategy identifies the sectors
to be supported by the EC. In a process of dialogue between government,
67
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
donors and other stakeholders at the national and sector level, macroeconomic
and budgetary situation, quality of public finance management, issues of good
governance, sector policies and the soundness of the objectives are assessed,
the appropriateness of the expenditure framework and the coherence of the Annual
Work Plans and budgets are analysed. The outcome is an agreement on
which sectors to support.
2. During the Identification phase, pre-appraisal of the sector programme takes
place. Government and the donor reach broad agreement on the sector policy
and strategy (normally agreed with other donors also). The outcome is a decision
on whether or not to go ahead with a sector programme to be jointly de-
signed.
3. During the Appraisal phase emphasis is on detailed design and on reaching
agreement on the principles that will govern the implementation of the programme.
Such principles might include issues such as the equitable allocation of
resources between central and local administrations, the necessary transparency
of the budgetary process and accounting system, the implementation of
administrative and institutional reforms, etc. Details of programme priorities, sector
reforms and investments are agreed, normally with both government and
other donors. The outcome is a decision whether or not to propose the programme
for financing. Conditionalities should be specified during this phase.
4. During the Financing phase, a decision is taken on whether or not to fund the
programme.
5. During the Implementation phase, the sector programme is implemented within
the framework of the public sector expenditure programme. Under joint funding
arrangements, the follow-up of expenditure is not limited to the EC contribution
only but extends to the entire sector financing, including government and other
donors' funds also. Indicators of sector programmes are often linked to internationally
set targets (OECD / DAC International Development Goals).
6. During the Evaluation phase, the focus is on conclusions and recommendations
with regard to the outcomes of the programme, and possible improvements to
the sector policy and programme.
Figure 37: The Sector Programme Cycle: What is Done and Major Outcomes
Decision to
allocate funds
Basic principles,
details of what
should be done
Appraisal ofAppraisal of
governmentgovernment
programmeprogramme
Decision to go
ahead with
appraisal
Outline of what
should be done,
sector policy and
strategy
ProgrammeProgramme
prepre--appraisalappraisal
Decision to
continue as
planned or to
re-orient project
(annual review)
ImplementationImplementation
according toaccording to
public sectorpublic sector
spending cycle,spending cycle,
MonitoringMonitoring
Corrective measures,
revision of policy/
strategy
Annual, midAnnual, mid--
term reviewterm review
Priority areas,
sectors, timetable,
indicative programme
The Sector Programme Cycle: What is Done and
Major Outcomes Analysis ofAnalysis of gvtgvt..
policy, conceivingpolicy, conceiving
strategy andstrategy and
response (CSP)response (CSP)
Programming
Identification of
sector support
Appraisal of
sector support
Financing of
sector support
Implementation of
sector programme
Sector
Evaluation
What isWhat is
donedone Outcomes
Decision how to
consider results
in future
programming
ExaminationExamination
of Financingof Financing
ProposalProposal
Financing agreement
on sector
programme
68
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
5.2. Developing a Country Strategy Paper (CSP)
There are three key phases in the development of a CSP:
1. Drafting the first version of the CSP/NIP
2. Quality control
3. Formal approval
The following table provides an overview, while details about the phases can be
found in the "Guidelines for the Implementation of the Common Framework for
Country Strategy Papers".
Figure 38: Developing a CSP
15
10
10
45****
15
* Depends on previous EC co-operation and exogenous factors such as state of
preparation of the PRSP, existing consultation mechanisms etc.
Finalisation in the field between Commission, Government
and MS***
**** Including time for translation
Indicative No
of working
days needed
No standard
time period*
10
Total:
105 days or
21 weeks
If unfavourable
opinion
Phase III:
Formal
approval
Formal approval by RELEX Directors General and the group
of RELEX Commissioners **
*** The approach adopted at this stage may vary from region to region.
** By written procedure with a 'droit d'évocation'
Analysis and assessment of the national development
strategy (where appropriate linked to a PRSP)
The Delegation and the geographical desk prepare a draft
text after extensive consultations with government, civil
society, Member States and other donors
Draft CSP/NIP discussed with geographic and sectoral /
thematic and Relex directorates
Assessment in the iQSG
Phase I:
Drafting the
first version
of the
CSP/NIP
Phase II:
Quality
control
Discussion in Member States Committee, and favourable
opinion on the draft
Approval by RELEX Directors General **
if substantive
modifications
are required
Before starting the programming exercise, a realistic timetable for CSP/NIP preparation
shall be established. This timetable should spell out the expected time needed
for each step in the programming exercise.
69
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
5.3. Details About Implementation
5.3.1. Implementation: Three Main Periods
5.3.1.1. The Inception Period
Project implementation begins with the inception period often covering a period of
several months during which project organisation including administrative, financial
and technical responsibilities are set up, and the initial planning of the appraisal
phase is updated and refined. The mechanisms and tools developed for this purpose
are then used throughout the following periods of implementation. The inception
period usually consists of the following elements:
* Set-up of the project office and staff recruitment;
* If required, implementation of a study to update baseline information;
* Discussions with major stakeholders, if possible including target groups, to complete
and update the Logical Framework, to prepare the Overall Work Plan and
the Activity and Resource Schedules. Ideally, this should be done in a participatory
workshop session (which will last 3 ­ 5 days, depending on the complexity
of the project);
* Preparation and submission of the Overall Work Plan (incorporating the project's
internal Monitoring and Evaluation Plan) and of the first Annual Work Plan.
Very often, between the preparatory phase and implementation, a number of
changes will have occurred in the project's context. This means that adjustments will
need to be made in the Logical Framework to reflect these new circumstances. Often,
a study will have to be undertaken, updating the baseline information and thus
describing the situation at the start of the project. Its results will serve as an initial
point of reference for the Indicators. The detailed Indicators should be developed
and incorporated within the Logical Framework and the Activity Schedule before
project Activities begin. However, in no case should this revision substitute the drawing-up
of basic indicators during the appraisal.
Refining and
adjusting
planning
Using these indicators as a point of reference, project staff will be able to regularly
monitor the project's progress throughout its implementation. They will allow assessments
to be made as to whether the project is achieving its objectives, to demonstrate
its technical quality and if necessary, to undertake any corrective actions
required to ensuring its success.
5.3.1.2. Main Implementation Period
The main implementation period begins with the implementation of the First Annual
Work Plan. In relation to the contract/financing agreement, the implementing
agency/TA will have particular responsibility for:
* The preparation of work plans covering each year of the project, taking into account
the time taken up by the approval process;
* Planning and monitoring of implementation;
* The preparation and submission of progress reports, usually quarterly;
* The preparation and submission of an Annual Report every twelve months from
the start of the project;
* The collaboration with external consultants responsible for evaluations and audits,
if required.
5.3.1.3. Final Period
The final period involves carrying out all the necessary steps to finalize the project. It
will usually consist of arranging the deployment of human resources and handing
70
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
over goods procured under the project budget to those stipulated in the relevant
agreement. In addition, a final report should be prepared taking care to provide concrete
recommendations for any subsequent possible action in the same field. The
lessons learned and conclusions drawn from the project should allow a decision to
be made as to whether or not a follow-up of the project should take place. The report
should as well provide sufficient information to be used as a basis for reflection
in discussing the preparatory phase of a next project and, to the extent possible, for
further programming.
5.3.2. Implementation: Three Major Principles
5.3.2.1. Planning and Re-planning: What, When and How?
Planning and re-planning are part of project management that have to be done at
regular intervals. Apart from a weekly, monthly or quarterly team planning, project
management has to prepare an annual planning, and, at the beginning of implementation,
the planning of the whole project implementation period. These work plans
are important management tools. As mentioned above, regularly updating the Implementation
Schedule is also part of the tasks of project management.
5.3.2.2. Overall Work Plan
The Overall Work Plan covers the whole of project implementation. The key functions
of a work plan are:
* to guide and enable the project team to create a joint perception on what should
be done, when and by whom in order to ensure that the project is on the right
track;
* to lay down the basis for monitoring of the work done and to ensure that the project
is leading towards the desired objectives;
* to ensure efficient and effective project implementation;
* to lay down a solid basis for reporting.
The Overall Work Plan indicates:
* what achievements are expected by the end of the project (Results and Purpose
and related Indicators);
* what the project team intends to do in order to achieve the Results: Activities (including
management activities) and the time schedule for Activities;
* what resources are needed to carry out the work (time, human and material resources,
equipment, etc.) and who is in charge of the tasks (responsibilities).
As a document it must be submitted with the Inception report, at the end of the inception
period, usually after 3 months. The graphical form of the Overall Work Plan
corresponds to the Overall Activity Schedule (see Figure 39). It follows logically from
the logical framework matrix, breaking down Activities per quarter over the entire
project duration, and assigning overall responsibilities. Its main purpose is to constitute
a form of complete and coherent `instrument panel' designed to assist with the
process of project implementation. Already at this stage, it will be very useful to
break down the Activities into sub-activities (see Figure 41).
Table 21 shows the standard formats for the drawing-up Overall and Annual Work
Plans and outlines the major issues that should be described under the different
chapters.
71
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
5.3.2.3. Annual Work Plans
The Annual Work Plan is an important management tool both for the Commission as
well as for the implementing agency/TA. Great care should be taken in drawing it up.
It is worked out on the basis of the Overall Work Plan, itself based on the Logical
Framework. Whereas the Overall Work Plan provides a general overview, summarising
all aspects of project implementation, the Annual Work Plan provides precise
details about what Activities are to be carried out, when they are to be carried out
and how much they will cost, and the financing plan. It also provides a complete
overview of all the Activities to be executed during the 12-month period covered
helping to improve the planning of Activities and to avoid any duplications. This aspect
is especially important in the case of complex projects where financing is provided
by the EC, the Government and other donors.
The text formfsat of the Annual Work Plan is similar though not identical to that of
the Overall Work Plan. The graphic format of an Annual Work Plan is the Activity
Schedule, while the Annual Resource Schedule visualises Means and Cost graphically
(For detailed examples, including instructions how to prepare them, see Chapter
5.5).
The process of work planning helps amending and adjusting the project according to
the changes and new developments in the operating environment. It also helps to integrate
lessons learned during implementation into the future process, developing
and further specifying / operationalising the project.
72
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 39: An Example for an Overall Work Plan/Activity Schedule
lOvera l Workplan - Activity Schedule
Feeder Roads Rehabilitation in Southern Region
Result Person Responsible
1* 3**
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Result 1:
1.1 Identify priority feeder roads to
rehabilitate
Road managment unit,
Project manager
1.2 Monitor road rehabilitation, including
shelter, etc.
Road managment unit
1.3 Improve collection of road tolls and
taxes
Finance & investment
department
Municipalities
1.4 Devise and apply system for
reinvestment
Investment department
1.5 .....
Result 2: 2.1 .....
2.2 .....
2.3 .....
2.4 Involve private sector in maintenance
...
Responsibility for Tasks 1 = Inception period
Project duration: 42 months 3 = Final phase
(3 months inception phase, 36 months main implementation period, 3 months final phase)
Activity Completion Date by Quarter
2 (Main implementatin period)
Year 1 Year 2 Yr.4
Ultimate responsibility for carrying out the above-mentioned
tasks lies with the Project Manager
Quality of
feeder road
network is
improved
Feeder roads
are
rehabilitated
Year 3
73
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 40: An Example for an Overall Work Plan/Activity Schedule
74
Annual Work Plan - Activity Schedule
Feeder Roads Rehabilitation in Southern Region
Result
PM RMU FID MU VMT M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12
Result 1: 1.1 Identify priority feeder roads to rehabilitate x x
1.1.1 Create identification team x x
1.1.2 Determine priority criteria x x x x x
1.1.3 Classify and select roads (priority list) x x x x x
1.1.4 Establish rehabilitation schedule x x x x
1.1.5 Get schedule approved x x
1.2 Monitor road rehabilitation, including shelter, etc. x x
1.2.1 Recruit and train monitoring team x x
1.2.2 ...
1.3 Improve collection of road tolls and taxes x
1.3.1 ....
1.3.2 ....
1.4 Devise and apply system for reinvestment x
1.5 .....
Result 2: 2.1 .....
2.2 .....
2.3 .....
2.4 Involve private sector in maintenance
...
Result ...
Responsibility for Tasks PM = Project Manager = overall duration of activ
RMU = Road Maintenance Unit = duration of sub-activity
FID = Finance & Investment Department
MU = Municipalities
VMT = Village Maintenance Teams
x bold = ultimate repsonsibility
Completion Date by Month
Quality of
feeder road
network is
improved
Unit/Person ResponsibleActivity
Feeder roads
are
rehabilitated
Year: 1 2002 - 12 2002
Milestones Month Time required (days)
PM RMU FID MU VMT
Members identified by Apr 01 3 10
Members convened to meeting
latest
Apr 15 1
First meeting held by Apr 30 1 10 2 3 5
List of criteria established
(during 2nd meeting)
May 31
2 10 2 3 5
Classification done by Jun 15 1 20 5 10 20
Priorities agreed upon during
3rd meeting
Jun 30
1 5 2 3 10
Schedule agreed upon by Jul 31 1 10 3 5 20
Schedule submitted to MOT by Aug 15 1
Schedule approved by MOT by Sep 30 5 10
........... ...... 1 60
........ ...... ...
Total 200 620 150 260 1500
vity
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 21: Draft Standard Formats for Overall and Annual Work Plans and Major Issues to be Described
A ROVERALL WORK PLAN NNUAL WORK PLAN EQUIRED CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary of the Overall Work Plan
should describe in narrative form what the project intends
to achieve and how it is going to achieve it; in
addition to this, the summary of the Annual Work Plan
should also provide information on how the project
has been implemented to date. For further details, see
below.
A IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT AND ARRANGE-
MENTS
1. Implementation framework
8.1 Context (economic, social, environ-
mental)
8.2 Objectives (summary)
8.3 Institutional set-up and overall project
organisation
8.4 Staff and qualification
8.5 Monitoring and co-ordination ar-
rangements
A IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT AND ARRANGEMENTS
(FOR NEXT YEAR)
1. Implementation framework
1.1 Context (economic, social, environ-
mental)
1.2 Objectives (summary)
1.3 Institutional set-up and overall project
organisation
1.4 Staff and qualification
1.5 Monitoring and co-ordination arrange-
ments
This chapter should describe the context and operating
environment in which the project is being imple-
mented.
It is important to clearly set out the framework conditions
for implementing the project: organisation (information
flow, relations between units, etc., institutional
set-up, staff and qualification (current, training
foreseen, gaps to be filled, etc.), monitoring and coordination
arrangements (field visits, meetings, workshops,
data collection and storage, etc.). This will influence
efficiency of implementation as well as the
speed and effectiveness of learning processes to improve
the quality of implementation.
B PROJECT DESCRIPTION (ENTIRE DURATION)
2. Project description
2.1 Objectives to be achieved: Results,
Purpose, Overall Objectives, including
Indicators
2.2 Activities and Means planned
2.3 Assumptions and Risks at different lev-
els
2.4 Special Activities to ensure sustainabil-
ity
2.5 Respect of and contribution to overarching
policy issues
2.6 Linkage with other operations, complementarity
and sectoral co-ordination between
donors
B PROJECT DESCRIPTION (ENTIRE DURATION)
2. Project description
2.1 Objectives to be achieved: Results, Purpose,
Overall Objectives, including Indi-
cators
2.2 Activities and Means planned
2.3 Assumptions and Risks at different levels
2.4 Special Activities to ensure sustainability
2.5 Respect of and contribution to overarching
policy issues
2.6 Linkage with other operations, complementarity
and sectoral co-ordination between
donors
This section describes the project and its Intervention
Logic (from Overall Objectives to Activities), and
Indicators and Sources of Verification for each level of
objectives. Indicators are vital for assessing the success
of the project, they should be summarised in this
section; details can be confined to the logframe (Annex).
Special Activities aiming at ensuring sustainability
should be described as well as how the project
complements and will linked and co-ordinate with
other operations
The section should also set out the Assumptions on
which the project is based and the risks it might face,
as well as at least a breakdown of the resources required
to implement the project (at least on yearly ba-
sis).
75
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
OVERALL WORK PLAN ANNUAL WORK PLAN REQUIRED CONTENTS
C PROJECT PERFORMANCE (EFFICIENCY,
EFFECTIVENESS) AND IMPACT TO DATE*
3. Efficiency, including reasons for deviation
3.1 Activities planned and implemented (per
Result, & assessment of Assumptions related
to Activities)
3.2 Means planned and used
3.3 Progress towards Results (and assessment
of Assumptions)
4 Effectiveness and Impact, including reasons
for deviation
4.1 Progress towards Purpose (and assessment
of Assumptions)
4.2 Progress towards a contribution to Overall
Objectives
4.3 Respect of and contribution to overarching
policy issues
4.4 Linkage with other operations, complementarity
and sectoral co-ordination between
donors
Here comparison between plans and achievements
including reasons for deviations (and mitigating
measures) should be provided covering the entire implementation
period so far. This concerns both the
efficiency and the effectiveness levels.
As for the first level, the analysis should provide information
about the current status with regard to
achievement of Results, as well as about cost per unit
produced. Evidence of validity of the Results should
as well be provided.
For the second level progress towards these objectives
and prospects to achieve them should be pre-
sented.
The influence of external factors and reaction of management
to reduce risks should as well be highlighted.
C SUSTAINABILITY PROSPECTS
3 Background and present situation with regard
to sustainability / quality
3.1 Participation and ownership by
beneficiaries
3.2 Policy support
3.3 Appropriate technology
3.4 Socio-cultural aspects
3.5 Gender equality
3.6 Environmental protection
3.7 Institutional and management capacity
3.8 Economic and financial viability
D SUSTAINABILITY PROSPECTS*
5 Background and progress to date towards
sustainability / quality
5.1 Participation and ownership by benefici-
aries
5.2 Policy support
5.3 Appropriate technology
5.4 Socio-cultural aspects
5.5 Gender equality
5.6 Environmental protection
5.7 Institutional and management capacity
5.8 Economic and financial viability
Ensuring sustainability of benefits to be generated by
the project requires careful consideration of a number
of factors. This section should present the main issues
that impact on sustainability. It should then reflect how
the project dealt with each of the issues (if relevant),
and which further action is required to achieving
sustainable benefits.
76
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
OVERALL WORK PLAN ANNUAL WORK PLAN REQUIRED CONTENTS
D CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4. Conclusions and recommendations
4.1 Overall conclusions on implementation
(including critical issues/risks) ­ entire
duration
4.2 Overall recommendations for the next
implementation period
E CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6. Conclusions and recommendations
6.1 Overall conclusions on implementation
(including critical issues/risks) ­ entire
duration to date
6.2 Overall recommendations for the next
implementation period
This section should provide general conclusions on
achievements to date (to what extent Results are
reached and the project is approaching the Purpose)
and formulate overall recommendations for the next
implementation period, and how to tackle them.
7. Proposed Work Plan for the next implementation
period (year)
7.1 Results to be produced (and to which
extent by the end of the period)
7.2 Activity Schedule, including milestones,
responsibilities
7.3 Special Activities to ensure sustainability
7.4 Risks and Assumptions
7.5 Resource Schedule
This section should provide an overview on what the
project intends to do and achieve during the next implementation
period and what the Assumptions and
risks may be and how the project intends to deal with
these if they occur.
The Activity and Resource Schedules should be detailed
and the Activity Schedule should set out both
relevant milestones and implementation responsibili-
ties.
E ANNEXES
5.1 Updated Logical Framework
5.2 Updated implementation Schedule
5.3 Overall Work Plan
5.4 Resource Schedule for entire period
5.5 Others
F ANNEXES
8.1 Updated Logical Framework
8.2 Updated Implementation Schedule
8.3 Updated Overall Work Plan
8.4 Resource Schedule for entire period
8.5 Annual Work Plan/Activity Schedule for
next implementation year
8.6 Annual Resource Schedule for next implementation
year (annual reports)
8.7 Others
The Annex should provide all planning documents in
tabular and / or graphic format. Additional annexes
may be provided to specify other important aspects.
* Describing progress during the entire implementation period to date.
77
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
The core text of the work plans reports should not exceed 15 pages for the Overall
Work Plan and 20 pages for the Annual Work Plans. The Executive Summary
should give a brief overview on the following major issues:
What
should an
Executive
Summary
comprise?
1. Implementation environment, including context of the project, institutional set-up
(and any major changes);
2. Major objectives to be achieved and major Activities to be carried out and resources
to be used during the forthcoming year;
3. For Annual Work Plan: Major Activities carried out and resources used during
the past year, including comparison with planning; an analysis of constraints and
failures, and how they have been solved, or why they were not solved; overall
progress towards objectives set, including delays if any;
4. Major issues to be considered with regard to sustainability and measures foreseen
(and taken ­ in Annual Work Plans);
5. Conclusions and outlook for the entire planning period ­ for Overall Work Plan and
for the next year ­ for both types of work plans ­ i.e. focus, most important
aspects, resources required, etc.;
6. Key observations, action required and by whom.
The summary should not exceed 2 pages. It could be used as an annual summary
about the project's status quo and planning from the Delegation level to EC
headquarters (see Figure 8).
5.3.2.4. Planning of Management Activities
Usually, management activities are not included in the logframe. However, they
need to be planned as thoroughly as project Activities, and their planning can be
added to the work plans (they will as well require human and financial resources).
Major management activities will comprise the following:
1. quality control
2. information, communication and reporting
3. financial planning (budget control, stock taking)
4. staff management (training, team building, etc.)
When planning and implementing management activities, project managers should
at least consider the following major issues:
Table 22: Major Management Activities for Project Managers
Issues Steps
1. Quality control
(processes and
outputs)





Define what type of information needs to be collected, how it should
be systematised and stored
Define when monitoring Activities should take place, how to organise
them and whom to involve
Define how to use and present monitoring results, conclusions and
recommendations
Define whom to inform about decisions and their implications on
budgets, resource mobilisation, activity re-scheduling, etc.
Plan timely for evaluations involving a wider range of stakeholders
2. Information,
communication
and reporting
 Define what is necessary in terms of formal communication, when,
to whom and in which form the information should be made available
For reporting: see below
3. Financial plan-
ning


Forecast financial resources over time, to the level of detail required
(see resource scheduling)
Determine when to review expenditures and to adjust forecasts to
ensure availability of funds when required
4. Staff / personnel
manage-
ment



Define tasks and responsibilities (see Activity scheduling)
Identify training needs to perform tasks; organise required training
Ensure team building and motivation of staff
78
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
As for all other activities, management activities should periodically be reviewed and
adjusted.
5.3.3. Monitoring: Some Basic Steps
Monitoring creates the information base required for steering and decision-taking
during implementation. Since monitoring is not only done within a project but also by
the different levels within EC, the partner government, etc. decision must be taken,
what information is required to control the project implementation process and how it
is to be obtained, collected, analysed, dispatched. Therefore, monitoring will usually
involve the following steps:
Table 23: Basic Steps of Monitoring
Step Content
1. Collecting data
(facts, observation
and measurement)
and documenting
them
* Indicators for objectives at all levels of the Logical Framework
* Quality and appropriateness of Activities and use of resources
(performance)
* Project environment (Indicators for Assumptions)
* Project impact
* Co-operation with target groups and partners
2. Analysing and
drawing conclusions
(interpreta-
tion)
* Comparison of planned and actual achievements (planned and
unforeseen), and identification of deviations (review) and
conclusions
* Changes in project environment and consequences for project;
drawing conclusions
* Comparison of planned and actual mechanisms and procedures
of project organisation and co-operation with target
groups; identification of deviations and conclusions
3. Making recom-
mendations
(judgement) and
taking corrective
action
* Adjustment of timing of Activities and resources
* Adjustment of objectives
* Adjustment of procedures and co-operation mechanisms
Internal monitoring documents and progress reports record and present the results
of this process (for reporting formats see below). The main responsibility will usually
be with the project management (partly delegated to an M&E unit).
5.3.3.1. Major Monitoring Issues: Overview and Support Material
5.3.3.2. Monitoring of Activities and Means / Resources
Monitoring of Activities compares time planned for and finally required to carry out
an individual activity. Thus, it can be judged whether the Overall Work Plan can be
adhered to. The major tool is the Annual Work Plan that should be sufficiently detailed
to allow for such a judgement. In this framwork deadlines are defined as the
point time until which a specific Activity has to be completed; while "milestones" are
key events in the implementation of Activities that provide a measure of progress
and a target for the project team to aim at. The simplest possible milestones are
deadlines.
The role of
milestones
Both milestones and deadlines provide the basis on which project implementation is
monitored and managed. Whenever individual Activities deviate from the schedule,
the consequences on other Activities and resources must be considered. Causes of
these deviations need to be analysed and timing may have to be adjusted.
If deadlines for Activities that are on the "critical path" (see chapter 5.4) or influence
the timing of other Activities cannot be respected, project management is also required
to react by adjusting plans, shifting resources, etc.
79
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Resources need to be available at the time required in sufficient quantities and quality.
The time required for making them available is often underestimated. This concerns
both human resources and physical resources. To ensure the project's liquidity,
availability of funds for the future must always be monitored, including situation
of the public budget, exchange rates, etc. If target groups contribute to financing
project activities, it must be assured that they can meet the requirements. Purchase
of equipment, contracting for works and supplies will have to follow the applicable
EC rules. Project management has to ensure that planning of Activities reflects the
time required to mobilise the resources.
The utilisation of the required resources is monitored on the basis of the Activity and
Resource Schedules. Monitoring the use of resources mainly concerns analysing
the resources used as to the Results they achieved. This will allow estimates of project
efficiency. Properly managing the use of resources means identifying deviations
from the scheduling, and taking corrective action if required. The control of funds requires
regular budget reviews and possibly subsequent updates of the budget. Major
modifications in the budget will require amendments to contracts or financing ag-
reements.
The following table ("Monitoring sheet") provides a summary template in a tabular
format (with an example) of monitoring of Activities and resources. It would summarise
(cumulate) resource use at the end of a certain period. It will be based on the
Activity Schedule and a detailed resource monitoring form (e.g. per quarter), itself
based on the Resource Schedule. The table may as well be used for reporting purposes
and could form part of the progress reports to be produced by the project (see
Chapter 5.3.4).
80
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 24: Monitoring of Activities: Cumulative Monitoring Sheet
mmCu ulativ e m onitoring of Activ tie s and Re source s
Situation at the end of quarte r 3
Indica tor/ m ile stone Tim e Achie ve d
w he n (da te
or Y/N)
Re vise d
tim ing
Re spons-
ible
Com m e nts Action re quire d PM RM U FID Unit
ra te
()
Cost
()
M U Unit
ra te
()
Cost
()
VM T Unit
ra te
()
Cost
()
1.1 Identify priority feeder roads to
rehabilitate
PM
1.1.1 Create identification team
Members identified by Apr 01 Y RMU 3 10 0 500 0 0 150 0 0 100 0
Members convened to
meeting latest
Apr 15 Y RMU 0 1 0 500 500 0 150 0 0 100 0
First meeting held by Apr 30 Y RMU 1 10 2 500 6500 3 150 450 5 100 500
1.1.2 Determine priority criteria List of criteria
established (during 2nd
meeting)
May 31 Jul 15 RMU Establishment
delayed due to
annual leave
period
2 10 2 500 7000 3 150 450 5 100 500
1.1.3 Classify and select roads
(priority list)
Classification done by Jun 15 Sep 15 RMU, VMT,
MU
1 20 5 500 13000 10 150 1500 20 100 2000
Priorities agreed upon
during 3rd meeting
Jun 30 Sep 30 RMU, VMT,
MU
1 5 2 500 4000 3 150 450 10 100 1000
1.1.4 Establish rehabilitation
schedule
Schedule agreed upon
by
Jul 31 N Oct 7 RMU, VMT,
MU
1 10 3 500 7000 5 150 750 20 100 2000
Schedule submitted to
MOT by
Aug 15 N Oct 15 RMU Delayed
establishment of
schedule, so no
submission yet
possible
Speed up process of
submission and
approval
0 1 0 500 500 0 150 0 0 100 0
1.1.5 Get schedule approved Schedule approved by
MOT by
Sep 30 N Oct 31 PM Meeting with Minister
to arrange;
Delegation to be
asked to support
approval
5 10 0 500 7500 0 150 0 0 100 0
TOTAL pla nne d for Activity
1.1
14 77 14 46000 24 3600 60 6000
TOTAL use d for Activity 1.1
during qua rte r
8 56 11 31000 19 2850 40 4000
BALANCE to be use d 6 21 3 15000 5 750 20 2000
PM = Project manager =
RM U = Road Maintenance Unit
FID = Finance & Investment Department
M U = Municipalities
VM T = Village Maintenance Teams
No. Activity/sub-a ctivity Hum a n re source s use d
M U VM T
To be continued during next quarter
Proje ct
Indica tors, tim ing a nd re sponsibility Com m e nts on a ctivitie s a nd a ction
re quire d
Type of
re source
Units Unit
ra te
()
Cost
()
Units Unit
ra te
()
Cost
()
Units Unit
ra te
()
Cost
()
Com m e nts Action re quire d
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Travel cost 0 0 0 100 0,7 70 100 0,7 70
Per diem 0 30 0 3 30 90 5 30 150
Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 100 0,7 70
Per diem 0 0 0 3 30 90 5 30 150
Travel cost 0 0 0 100 0,7 70 100 0,7 70
Per diem 0 30 0 2 30 60 5 30 150
Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 100 0,7 70
Per diem 3 30 90 3 30 90 5 30 150
Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 100 0,7 70
Per diem 3 30 90 0 0 0 3 30 90
Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 0 0 0
Per diem 1 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
Travel cost 1000 0,7 700 0 0 0 0 0 0
1190 470 1040
230 470 880
960 0 160
Proje ct M U
Com m e nts on re source s a nd
a ction re quire d
VM T
Physica l re source s use d
Cu ulativ e m onitoring of Activ tie s and Re source s
Situation at the end of quarte r 3
Indica tor/ m ile stone Tim e Achie ve d
w he n (da te
or Y/N)
Re vise d
tim ing
Re spons-
ible
Com m e nts Action re quire d PM RM U FID Unit
ra te
()
Cost
()
M U Unit
ra te
()
Cost
()
VM T Unit
ra te
()
Cost
()
1.1 Identify priority feeder roads to
rehabilitate
PM
1.1.1 Create identification team
Members identified by Apr 01 Y RMU 3 10 0 500 0 0 150 0 0 100 0
Members convened to
meeting latest
Apr 15 Y RMU 0 1 0 500 500 0 150 0 0 100 0
First meeting held by Apr 30 Y RMU 1 10 2 500 6500 3 150 450 5 100 500
1.1.2 Determine priority criteria List of criteria
established (during 2nd
meeting)
May 31 Jul 15 RMU Establishment
delayed due to
annual leave
period
2 10 2 500 7000 3 150 450 5 100 500
1.1.3 Classify and select roads
(priority list)
Classification done by Jun 15 Sep 15 RMU, VMT,
MU
1 20 5 500 13000 10 150 1500 20 100 2000
Priorities agreed upon
during 3rd meeting
Jun 30 Sep 30 RMU, VMT,
MU
1 5 2 500 4000 3 150 450 10 100 1000
1.1.4 Establish rehabilitation
schedule
Schedule agreed upon
by
Jul 31 N Oct 7 RMU, VMT,
MU
1 10 3 500 7000 5 150 750 20 100 2000
Schedule submitted to
MOT by
Aug 15 N Oct 15 RMU Delayed
establishment of
schedule, so no
submission yet
possible
Speed up process of
submission and
approval
0 1 0 500 500 0 150 0 0 100 0
1.1.5 Get schedule approved Schedule approved by
MOT by
Sep 30 N Oct 31 PM Meeting with Minister
to arrange;
Delegation to be
asked to support
approval
5 10 0 500 7500 0 150 0 0 100 0
TOTAL pla nne d for Activity
1.1
14 77 14 46000 24 3600 60 6000
TOTAL use d for Activity 1.1
during qua rte r
8 56 11 31000 19 2850 40 4000
BALANCE to be use d 6 21 3 15000 5 750 20 2000
PM = Project manager =
RM U = Road Maintenance Unit
FID = Finance & Investment Department
M U = Municipalities
VM T = Village Maintenance Teams
No. Activity/sub-a ctivity Hum a n re source s use d
M U VM T
To be continued during next quarter
Proje ct
Indica tors, tim ing a nd re sponsibility Com m e nts on a ctivitie s a nd a ction
re quire d
Type of
re source
Units Unit
ra te
()
Cost
()
Units Unit
ra te
()
Cost
()
Units Unit
ra te
()
Cost
()
Com m e nts Action re quire d
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Travel cost 0 0 0 100 0,7 70 100 0,7 70
Per diem 0 30 0 3 30 90 5 30 150
Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 100 0,7 70
Per diem 0 0 0 3 30 90 5 30 150
Travel cost 0 0 0 100 0,7 70 100 0,7 70
Per diem 0 30 0 2 30 60 5 30 150
Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 100 0,7 70
Per diem 3 30 90 3 30 90 5 30 150
Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 100 0,7 70
Per diem 3 30 90 0 0 0 3 30 90
Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 0 0 0
Per diem 1 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
Travel cost 1000 0,7 700 0 0 0 0 0 0
1190 470 1040
230 470 880
960 0 160
Proje ct M U
Com m e nts on re source s a nd
a ction re quire d
VM T
Physica l re source s use d
81
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
5.3.3.3. Monitoring of Results
Monitoring of Results is based on the Indicators for the Results. The Indicators represent
the desired situation at a specific time or at the end of the planning period.
However, this may not be sufficient for managing the project, since very often decisions
have to be taken at shorter intervals to control implementation. Therefore, Results
may have to be broken down in interim Results and described by additional Indicators
that cover the relevant planning period (e.g. Indicators should be set for
Annual Work Plans).
Progress is assessed by comparing an initial situation with the current situation.
When establishing the initial situation (which should have been done during project
preparation, and updated during the inception period), it should be kept in mind that
a wide range of data collection methods exist. It is very often not the so-called exhaustive
baseline survey that provides the most appropriate data required for project
management decisions, but rather less time- and cost-consuming methods that may
be found in the Rapid Appraisal toolbox and that will provide sufficient details about
the initial situation.
The following table shows a template of how monitoring of Results could be summarised
in a table format (with an example), including breakdown of Indicators for a
given period ­ quarterly and cumulative monitoring. The table will immediately provide
a visual overview of the progress towards the Results, and relevant remarks
and suggested corrective action. It could form part of the progress reports to be
produced by the project (see Chapter 5.3.4).
82
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 25: Monitoring of Results: Quarterly and Cumulative Monitoring Sheet
Quarterly and cum ulative m onitoring of Results
No. Re sult
Indica tor Sche dule d
progre ss tow a rds
indica tor for
e ntire dura tion a t
e nd of re porting
qua rte r
Real
progress
towards
indicator for
entire
duration
Unit Re a l
progre ss
tow a rds
indica tor for
e ntire
dura tion
Qua ntity
for e ntire
dura tion
Unit Achie ve d
be fore
re porting
qua rte r
Unit % Qua ntity
for
re porting
qua rte r
Achie ve d
during
re porting
qua rte r
Unit % %
1 Feeder roads are
rehabilitated
km of priority feeder
roads rehabilitated to the
MOT approved standards,
by 2004
250 km 100 km 40 km of priority feeder
roads rehabilitated to the
MOT approved standards,
by 2004
50 50 km 100 150 150 km 60
2 Quality of feeder road
network is improved
% of the feeder roads are
regularly maintained, to
the MOT approved
standards
50 15 % 30 Additional % of the feeder
roads are maintained
10 8 % 80 50 46
etc.
Pla nning a nd progre ss tow a rds Re sults
Pla nning for e ntire dura tion Ove ra ll pla nning a nd progre ss to da te
Indica tor
Achie ve d be fore
re porting qua rte r
A chieved during
reporting quarter
Pla nning a nd progre ss for re porting qua rte r
Quantity for
entire duration
Achieved
before reporting
quarter
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
km o f p rio rity fe e d e r ro a d s re h a b ilita te d to th e MO T a p p ro ve d s ta n d a rd s , b y 2 0 0 4
Feeder roads are rehabilitated
Quantity for
reporting
quarter
Achieved
during
reporting
quarter
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
km of priority feeder roads rehabilitated to the MOT approved standards,
by 2004
Feeder roads are rehabilitated
0 20 40 60
Real progress towards indicator f
Scheduled progress towards indi
Ove ra ll pla
Indica tor
va lid (Y/N)
Source s
va lid (Y/N)
Y Y
Y Y Reduced maintenance
due to the fact that all
activities traditionally
slow down during
August.
Review the time
schedule and check
if it is necessary to
reallocate funds
Va lidity of indica tors
a nd source s of
ve rifica tion
Re m a rks Action to be ta ke n
80 100 120 1
for entire duration
cator for entire duration at end of repo
nning a nd progre ss to da te
Quarterly and cum ulative m onitoring of Results
No. Re sult
Indica tor Sche dule d
progre ss tow a rds
indica tor for
e ntire dura tion a t
e nd of re porting
qua rte r
Real
progress
towards
indicator for
entire
duration
Unit Re a l
progre ss
tow a rds
indica tor for
e ntire
dura tion
Qua ntity
for e ntire
dura tion
Unit Achie ve d
be fore
re porting
qua rte r
Unit % Qua ntity
for
re porting
qua rte r
Achie ve d
during
re porting
qua rte r
Unit % %
1 Feeder roads are
rehabilitated
km of priority feeder
roads rehabilitated to the
MOT approved standards,
by 2004
250 km 100 km 40 km of priority feeder
roads rehabilitated to the
MOT approved standards,
by 2004
50 50 km 100 150 150 km 60
2 Quality of feeder road
network is improved
% of the feeder roads are
regularly maintained, to
the MOT approved
standards
50 15 % 30 Additional % of the feeder
roads are maintained
10 8 % 80 50 46
etc.
Pla nning a nd progre ss tow a rds Re sults
Pla nning for e ntire dura tion Ove ra ll pla nning a nd progre ss to da te
Indica tor
Achie ve d be fore
re porting qua rte r
A chieved during
reporting quarter
Pla nning a nd progre ss for re porting qua rte r
Quantity for
entire duration
Achieved
before reporting
quarter
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
km o f p rio rity fe e d e r ro a d s re h a b ilita te d to th e MO T a p p ro ve d s ta n d a rd s , b y 2 0 0 4
Feeder roads are rehabilitated
Quantity for
reporting
quarter
Achieved
during
reporting
quarter
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
km of priority feeder roads rehabilitated to the MOT approved standards,
by 2004
Feeder roads are rehabilitated
0 20 40 60
Real progress towards indicator f
Scheduled progress towards indi
Ove ra ll pla
Indica tor
va lid (Y/N)
Source s
va lid (Y/N)
Y Y
Y Y Reduced maintenance
due to the fact that all
activities traditionally
slow down during
August.
Review the time
schedule and check
if it is necessary to
reallocate funds
Va lidity of indica tors
a nd source s of
ve rifica tion
Re m a rks Action to be ta ke n
80 100 120 1
for entire duration
cator for entire duration at end of repo
nning a nd progre ss to da te
83
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
5.3.3.4. Monitoring of Assumptions
While Activities and Results are very often regularly monitored, adequate monitoring
of Assumptions and Risks is rather rarely done. As for Results, Assumptions can
also tagged with Indicators and Sources of Verification. The following table provides
an overview sheet for monitoring of Assumptions. It will form the basis for a quarterly
monitoring of Assumptions (see Table 27), which will work in a comparable way as
the sheet for Results monitoring, i.e. providing an overview of the achievement (or
progress towards) the Assumptions, and relevant remarks and suggested corrective
action. Project management is asked to react as immediately as possible if Assumptions
do not hold true and jeopardise project success, e.g. through adjusting planning,
convening meetings with concerned parties and partners.
The tables could form part of the progress reports to be produced by the project.
Further Assumptions need to be added if required, i.e. if factors have been overlooked
or new possible risks arise in the project environment.
Table 26: Monitoring of Assumptions: Overview Sheet
Monitoring of Assumptions: Overview Sheet
Level in LF Assum ption Indica tors Source s of
ve rification
For e ntire dura tion For e ntire dura tion
Project Purpose ...... ...... ...... ......
Result 1 ...... ...... ...... ......
Result 2 Load limits are
respected by lorries
and busses
By 2005, 80 % of controlled
lorries and busses respect
the load limit
Quarterly traffic
control report of the
municipality
Damage to roads will
reduce impact of
maintenance efforts and
quality of network
Additional cost will occur
for gvt. and drivers
(maintenance)
By 2003, at least 60 % of
controlled lorries and
busses respect the load
limit
Review of collaboration
mechanisms with traffic
police necessary
Meet and discuss
enforcement and driver
training policy with MOT
and traffic police
Result...
Activity 1.1. ...... ...... ...... ......
etc.
Com m e nts /
consequence s if
Assum ptions do not hold
true
84
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 27: Monitoring of Assumptions: Quarterly and Cumulative Monitoring Sheet
Monitoring of Assumptions: Quarterly Monitoring Sheet
Le ve l in
LF
Assum ption Indica tors Re m a rks Action to be ta ke n
For e ntire
dura tion
For re porting
qua rte r
Achie ve d during
re porting qua rte r
Achie ve d
during
re porting
qua rte r (%)
Indica tor
va lid
(Y/N)
For e ntire
dura tion
Source s
va lid
(Y/N)
Project
Purpose
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Result 1 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Result 2 Load limits are
respected by
lorries and
busses
By 2005, 80 % of
controlled lorries
and busses respect
the load limit
At least 50 % of
controlled lorries
and busses
respected the load
limit
55 % of controlled
lorries and busses
respected the load
limit
100 Y Quarterly
traffic control
report of the
municipality
N Reports of municipality
regularly delayed.
Therefore change was
made of SoV to gvt.
reports which are more
reliable
Update LF and report
change to
contracting authority
Result... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Activity 1.1.
etc.
Source s of ve rifica tion
85
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
5.3.3.5. Monitoring of Impacts
Impact monitoring looks at:
* project effectiveness ("doing the right things") and beyond, i.e. the positive and intended
impacts;
* the side effects not included in the logframe;
* the negative impacts.
These effects and impacts may become evident during the course of a project or
only later. Impact monitoring should be set up during the course of a project. Apart
from the project level, the analysis becomes most important for evaluation, strategic
steering and policy formulation for future undertakings.
The monitoring of effects and impacts is different from other kinds of monitoring because
of
* the long-term period of observation, i.e. there may be a considerable time gap
between the achievement of the Results and the emergence of benefits and impacts.
In such cases it may be helpful to work with process-oriented indicators,
i.e. indicators that are likely to show first and subsequent signs of the intended
impact. They should at least give a good indication of whether the project is on
the right track. Usually the assessment will involve direct feedback from and assessment
by the target groups;
* a close connection between changes due directly to a project or programme, and
its environment and context, i.e. that it is often difficult to distinguish between
changes occurring directly due to the project and changes that would already
have taken place without the project ("incremental benefits").
The procedure and instruments for impact monitoring are the same as for monitoring
of Results: collecting information in the form of tables and time sequences, etc.
5.3.4. Reporting on Progress: What, When and How?
In general, reports can be categorised as follows depending on the time they are to
be submitted by the project management to the respective authorities.
1. An Inception Report shortly (1-3- months) after the launch of the project
2. Progress Reports during the project implementation, usally quarterly or halfyearly
reports plus
3. Annual Reports
4. A Final Report when the project has been completed.
To whom exactly to submit ­ Government, contracting authority, steering group, EC,
etc. ­ and within which delays, is usually defined in the financing agreement or contract
under which the project is implemented. As a general rule, reports should be
submitted not later than one month after the period about which they are reporting.
Only this may allow corrective measures to be taken at EC and partner country level
within reasonable delays
Reports create the basis for the Integrated Approach. The key principle of reporting
is that attention is paid to the same important and critical elements from the early
preparation until the very end, project completion.
In general, reporting should focus on the following key elements:
Focus of
reporting
* Project environment
* Project performance vis--vis the objectives and plans
* Risks and Assumptions
* Sustainability
* Recommendations and detailed work plan and budget for the following
implementation period.
86
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 28 provides an overview on the various report types. The same principles as
for work plans apply with regard to the contents of the chapters. The structure and
contents requirements of the different types of reports are briefly described in the
following table. These are outlines that may need adjustments to a specific project
environment. Its contents are derived from the basic document format and the suggested
format for financing proposals, thus forming a coherent set of documents to
be produced during the project cycle. By requesting the same structure to be followed,
an approach is taken that enables lessons learned to be incorporated in decision
making systems and future work.
The monitoring sheets presented above should be used in the relevant chapters,
thus helping to summarise the situation at the end of the reporting period.
Finally, monitoring and reporting should not be misunderstood and regarded as a
bureaucratic act. Reporting is often neglected and legitimised by concentrating on
the "real work", the fieldwork. However, a good monitoring and reporting system
creates a solid basis for assessment, decision making and planning. In the end,
analytical and transparent reporting also justifies the use of public funds.
87
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 28: Draft Standard Formats for Project Reports
PINCEPTION REPORT FROGRESS REPORTS & ANNUAL REPORTS INAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT AND ARRANGE-
MENTS
1. Implementation framework
1.1 Context (economic, social, environ-
mental)
1.2 Objectives (summary)
1.3 Institutional set-up and overall project or-
ganisation
1.4 Staff and qualification
1.5 Monitoring and co-ordination arrange-
ments
A IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT AND ARRANGEMENTS
(UPDATE)
1. Implementation framework
1.1 Context (economic, social, environmental)
1.2 Objectives (summary)
1.3 Institutional set-up and overall project
organisation
1.4 Staff and qualification
1.5 Monitoring and co-ordination arrangements
A IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT AND ARRANGE-
MENTS
1. Implementation framework
1.1 Context (economic, social, environ-
mental)
1.2 Objectives (summary)
1.3 Institutional set-up and overall project or-
ganisation
1.4 Staff and qualification
1.5 Monitoring and co-ordination arrange-
ments
B OVERALL WORK PLAN (ENTIRE DURATION)
2. Project description
2.1 Objectives to be achieved: Results, Purpose,
Overall Objectives, including Indi-
cators
2.2 Activities and Means planned
2.3 Assumptions and Risks at different levels
2.4 Respect of and contribution to overarching
policy issues
2.5 Linkage with other operations, complementarity
and sectoral co-ordination between
donors
B PROJECT PERFORMANCE (EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS)
AND IMPACT*
2. Efficiency, including reasons for deviation
2.1 Activities planned and implemented (per
Result, & assessment of Assumptions related
to Activities)
2.2 Means planned and used
2.3 Progress towards Results (and assessment
of Assumptions)
3 Effectiveness and Impact, including reasons for
deviation
3.1 Progress towards Purpose (and assessment
of Assumptions)
3.2 Progress towards a contribution to Overall
Objectives
3.3 Respect of and contribution to overarching
policy issues
3.4 Linkage with other operations, complementarity
and sectoral co-ordination between
donors
B PROJECT PERFORMANCE (EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS)
AND IMPACT (ENTIRE DURATION)*
2. Efficiency, including reasons for deviation
2.1 Activities planned and implemented (per
Result, & assessment of Assumptions related
to Activities)
2.2 Means planned and used
2.3 Achievement of Results (and assessment
of Assumptions)
3 Effectiveness and Impact, including reasons
for deviation
3.1 Achievement of Purpose (and assessment
of Assumptions)
3.2 Level of contribution to Overall Objectives
3.3 Respect of and contribution to overarching
policy issues
3.4 Linkage with other operations, complementarity
and sectoral co-ordination between
donors
88
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
INCEPTION REPORT FPROGRESS REPORTS & ANNUAL REPORTS INAL REPORT
C SUSTAINABILITY PROSPECTS
3 Background and present situation with regard
to sustainability / quality
3.1 Participation and ownership by benefici-
aries
3.2 Policy support
3.3 Appropriate technology
3.4 Socio-cultural aspects
3.5 Gender equality
3.6 Environmental protection
3.7 Institutional and management capacity
3.8 Economic and financial viability
C SUSTAINABILITY*
4 Progress towards sustainability / quality
4.1 Participation and ownership by beneficiar-
ies
4.2 Policy support
4.3 Appropriate technology
4.4 Socio-cultural aspects
4.5 Gender equality
4.6 Environmental protection
4.7 Institutional and management capacity
4.8 Economic and financial viability
C SUSTAINABILITY*
4 Measures undertaken and prospects for sustainability
/ quality
4.1 Participation and ownership by
beneficiaries
4.2 Policy support
4.3 Appropriate technology
4.4 Socio-cultural aspects
4.5 Gender equality
4.6 Environmental protection
4.7 Institutional and management capacity
4.8 Economic and financial viability
D CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4. Conclusions and recommendations
4.1 Overall conclusions on implementation
(including critical issues/risks) ­ entire
duration
4.2 Overall recommendations for the next
implementation period
D CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5. Conclusions and recommendations
5.1 Overall conclusions on implementation (including
critical issues/risks)
5.2 Recommendations for the next implementation
period
D CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5. Conclusions and recommendations
5.1 Overall conclusions on implementation
(including critical issues/risks) ­ entire
duration
5.2 Recommendations for future programmes
and projects (lessons learnt)
5. Detailed Work Plan for the next implementation
period (Annual Work Plan)
5.1 Results to be produced (and to which extent
by the end of the period)
5.2 Activity Schedule, including milestones,
responsibilities
5.3 Special Activities to ensure sustainability
5.4 Assumptions and Risks
5.5 Resource Schedule
6. Proposed Work Plan for the next implementation
period
6.1 Results to be produced (and to which extent
by the end of the period)
6.2 Activity Schedule, including milestones, re-
sponsibilities
6.3 Special Activities to ensure sustainability
6.4 Assumptions and Risks
6.5 Resource Schedule
E ANNEXES
6.1 Updated Logical Framework
6.2 Updated Implementation Schedule
6.3 Overall Work Plan
6.4 Resource Schedule for entire period
6.5 Annual Work Plan/Activity Schedule
6.7 Others
E ANNEXES
7.1 Updated Logical Framework
7.2 Updated Implementation Schedule
7.3 Updated Overall Work Plan
7.4 Updated Overall Resource Schedule
7.5 Annual Work Plan/Activity Schedule for
next implementation year (annual reports)
7.6 Annual Resource Schedule for next implementation
year (annual reports)
7.7 Others
E ANNEXES
6.1 Updated Logical Framework
6.2 Updated Implementation Schedule
6.3 Updated and final Overall Work Plan
6.4 Updated Annual Work Plan/Activity
Schedule of last year of implementation
6.5 Updated Overall Resource Schedule and
cost summary/financial status
6.6 Others
6.6 Annual Resource Schedule
* Each time, where possible, describing both progress during last reporting period and during the entire implementation period to date.
89
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
The core text of the reports should not exceed 15 pages. The Executive Summary
should describe in narrative form how the project has been implemented during the
period covered by the report. It should give a brief overview on the following major
issues:
What
should an
Executive
Summary
comprise?
1. Implementation environment, including the context of the project, the institutional
set-up and any major changes
2. Major Activities carried out and resources used during the reporting period, including
comparison with planning
3. Constraints and failures, and how they have been solved, or why they were not
solved
4. Overall progress towards objectives set, including delays if any
5. Overall progress towards sustainability and measures taken
6. Conclusions and outlook for the next planning period (focus, most important aspects,
resources required, etc.), and lessons to be learnt
7. Key observations, action required and by whom
The summary should not exceed 2 pages. It could be used as a basis for reporting
from the Delegation level to EC headquarters (see Figure 8).
5.3.4.1. Reporting Types and Formats
The Inception Report is highly recommended for all projects, not depending on their
size or duration. This is primarily because it might provide the project management
with the first real possibility to review the project with the concerned stakeholder
groups and to ensure that the project logic does actually make sense for them, thus
strengthening their commitment. Secondly, the inception period provides the project
with the possibility to screen its environment and to match the resources available to
that context. This is usually necessary even if the project preparation included detailed
background studies. In addition this is a good opportunity to rectify and adjust,
if required, the initial logframe.
Annual Reports are compulsory for every project. The time period covered may differ
from the calendar year. Any deviations from the work plan must be mentioned.
The main purpose is to summarise the main achievements and the changes in the
work plan during the year. The report primarily compares the actual performance
with the planned objectives. In addition, any changes in conditions, unexpected
events or decisions to change the work plan should be reported. The report should
yet be comprehensive.
The annual report should also include relevant updated background information on
the economic environment as well as on any changes in the policies in the concerned
sector. It should give an overview on the prospects for sustainability as well.
A short Executive Summary specifically addressing the decisions and actions
needed from relevant stakeholders should be presented at the beginning of each
Annual Report. Annual Reports must be distributed as stipulated in the contract,
usually during the second month of the following year.
Quarterly Reports are similar to Annual Reports, but should be shorter. They should
be distributed during the following month.
Final Reports should reflect the whole implementation period taking a review perspective
and critically analysing project success. In addition, lessons learnt should
be formulated in a way that they may guide future projects and programming.
90
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
5.4. A Checklist for Preparing an Activity Schedule
Once the logframe itself is complete, it is then possible to copy the Activities from
the left-hand column into an activity-scheduling format. The format can be adapted
to fit with the expected duration of the project in question. The first year's Activities
may be specified in more detail (showing the start and finish of Activities to within a
week of their expected timing) while subsequent years scheduling should usually be
more indicative (to within a month). These are just preliminary estimates that will
subsequently be revised by project management in the light of actual implementation
performance. They nevertheless provide an important initial benchmark, and aid
the preparation of Resource Schedules. A step-by-step approach can be followed:
5.4.1. Step 1 ­ List Main Activities
The main Activities in the logframe are a summary of what the project must do in order
to achieve project objectives. These can now be used as the basis for preparation
of the Activity Schedule that will specify Activities in operational detail.
5.4.2. Step 2 ­ Break Activities Down into Manageable Tasks
The purpose of breaking Activities down into sub-activities or tasks, is to make them
sufficiently simple to be organised and managed easily. The technique is to break
an Activity down into its component sub-activities, and then to take each sub-activity
and break it down into its component tasks. Each task can then be assigned to an
individual, and becomes their short-term goal.
The main skill is in getting the level of detail right. The most common mistake is to
break the Activities down into too much detail. The breakdown should stop as soon
as the planner has sufficient detail to estimate the time and resources required, and
the person responsible for actually doing the work has sufficient instructions on what
has to be done. This is where individual planning of tasks of project team members
starts.
5.4.3. Step 3 ­ Clarify Sequence and Dependencies
Once the Activities have been broken down into sufficient detail, they must be related
to each other to determine their:
* sequence - in what order should related Activities be undertaken?
* dependencies - is the Activity dependent on the start-up or completion of any
other Activity?
This can best be described with an example. Building a house consists of a number
of separate, but inter-related Activities: digging and laying the foundations; building
the walls; installing the doors and windows; plastering the walls; constructing the
roof; installing the plumbing. The sequence dictates that digging the foundations
comes before building the walls; while dependencies include the fact that you cannot
start installing doors and windows until the walls have reached a certain height;
or you cannot finish plastering until the plumbing has been fully installed. Dependencies
may also occur between otherwise unrelated Activities that will be undertaken
by the same person.
5.4.4. Step 4 ­ Estimate Start-up, Duration and Completion of Activities
Specifying the timing means making a realistic estimate of the duration of each task,
and then building it into the Activity Schedule to establish likely start-up and completion
dates. Often though it is not possible to estimate timing with complete confidence.
To ensure that the estimates are at least realistic, those who have the necessary
technical knowledge or experience should be consulted.
Inaccuracy is a common mistake, usually resulting in an underestimate of the time
required, and can arise for a number of reasons:
91
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
* omission of essential Activities and tasks
* failure to allow sufficiently for interdependence of Activities
* failure to allow for resource competition (i.e. scheduling the same person or piece
of equipment to do two or more things at once)
* a desire to impress with the promise of rapid results
5.4.5. Step 5 ­ Summarise Scheduling of Main Activities
Having specified the timing of the individual tasks that make up the main Activities, it
is useful to provide an overall summary of the start-up, duration and completion of
the main Activity itself.
5.4.6. Step 6 ­ Define Milestones
Milestones provide the basis by which project implementation is monitored and
managed. They are key events that provide a measure of progress and a target for
the project team to aim at. The simplest milestones are the dates estimated for
completion of each Activity ­ e.g. training needs assessment completed by January
200x.
5.4.7. Step 7 ­ Define Expertise
When the tasks are known, it is possible to specify the type of expertise required.
Often the available expertise is known in advance. Nonetheless, this provides a
good opportunity to check whether the action plan is feasible given the human resources
available.
5.4.8. Step 8 ­ Allocate Tasks Among Team
This involves more than just saying who does what. With task allocation comes responsibility
for achievement of milestones. In other words, it is a means to define
each team member's accountability - to the project manager and to other team
members.
Ensuring ac-
countability
Task allocation must therefore take into account the capability, skills and experience
of each member of the team. When delegating tasks to team members, it is important
to ensure that they understand what is required of them. If not, the level of detail
with which the relevant tasks are specified may have to be increased.
5.4.9. Step 9 ­ Estimate Time Required for Team Members
Based upon experience, this step requires a realistic estimate of the time that will be
required for each of the allocated tasks, and a check whether there are at least
manageable overlaps between individual tasks of the team members. Having done
this exercise for all project Activities, a review should be made to check again timing
and sequencing of tasks and thus workload for each individual team member.
The method shown for activity scheduling includes elements of the Critical Path
Analysis, which is a common tool for operational planning. The "Critical Path" is the
longest sequence of dependent Activities that lead to the completion of the plan.
Any delay of a stage in the critical path will delay the completion of the whole plan
unless future sequential Activities are speeded up. The method can equally be applied
in aid projects to calculate the minimum length of time in which the project can
be completed, and which Activities should be prioritised to complete by that date.
The Critical Path Analysis is thus an effective method of planning and analysing
complex projects helping to focus on the essential Activities to which attention and
resources should be devoted. It gives an effective basis for the scheduling and
monitoring of progress.
Using the
Critical Path
Method
92
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Table 29: Overview on Critical Path Analysis
Critical Path Analysis - First Draft
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. High Level Analysis
2. Selection of Hardw are Platform
3. Installation and Commissioning of Hardw are
4. Analysis of Core Modules
5. Analysis of Supporting Modules
6. Programming of Core Modules
7. Programming of Supporting Modules
8. Quality Assurance, Core Modules
9. QA Supporting Modules
10. Core Module Training
11. Develop Accounting Reporting
12. Develop Management Reporting
13. Develop MIS
14. Detailed Training
15. Documentation
Week
Principle: Distinguishing sequential and parallel activities
The essential concept behind the Critical Path Analysis is that some activities are
dependent on other activities being completed first. These dependent activities need
to be completed in a sequence, with each activity being more-or-less completed before
the next activity can begin. Dependent activities are also called `sequential' ac-
tivities.
Other activities are not dependent on completion of any other tasks, or may be done
at any time before or after a particular stage is reached. These are non-dependent
or `parallel' tasks.
Steps to follow
1. List all activities: Show the earliest start date, estimate duration and whether the
tasks are parallel or sequential. If the tasks are sequential, show what they depend
on.
2. Head up graph paper with the days or weeks through to task completion
3. Plot the tasks on the graph paper: Start on the earliest start dates, and mark on
the duration. Show the tasks as arrows, and the ends of tasks with dots. Above
the tasks arrows, mark the time taken to complete the task. Once you have plotted
the tasks, plot in lines to show dependencies. This will produce a draft
analysis like the one below:
4. Schedule Activities: Take the draft analysis, and use it to schedule the actions in
the plan, in such a way that sequential actions are carried out in the required sequence.
Parallel actions should be scheduled so that they do not interfere with
sequential actions on the critical path, if possible. While scheduling, bear in mind
the resources you have available, and allow some time in the schedule for holdups,
over-runs, failures in delivery, etc.
5. Presenting the Analysis: The final stage in this process is to prepare a clean final
copy of the analysis. This should combine the draft analysis with the scheduling
and analysis of resources to show when you anticipate that task should start and
finish. Gantt Charts are a presentation format. A redrawn and scheduled version
of the analysis is shown below, in the format of a Gantt chart:
93
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Critica l Pa th Ana lysis - Sche dule Activitie s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. High level analysis
4. Analysis of Core Modules
6. Programming of Core Modules
8. Quality A ssurance, Core Modules
10. Core Module Training (1 day)
5. A nalysis of Supporting Modules
7. Programming of Supporting Modules
9. QA Supporting Modules
14. Detailed Training
11. Develop A ccounting Reports
12. Develop Management Reporting
13. Develop MIS
2. Selection of Hardw are Platform
3. Installation and Commissioning of Hardw are
15. Documentation
C ritical Path A ction No n-C ritical Path A ction
W eek
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(1 day)
(2) (2)
Here time is marked out in columns across the chart, with individual tasks represented
as arrows terminating at dots. The length and positions of the arrows show
the start date and duration of the tasks. You may prefer to show tasks in pure Gantt
format, as solid bars rather than arrows terminating in dots. Similarly you may prefer
not to show the linkages between related tasks - this is a matter of personal taste
and personal convention.
Source: Mindtools
94
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 41: Preparing an Activity Schedule
ESTABLISHM ENT OF PLANNING UNIT, M INISTRY OF TRANSPORT
ACTIVITIES YEAR 1
Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12
1.1 Establish Planning Unit
1.1.1 Set up offices and equipment
1.1.2 Identify and recruit counterpart staff
1.2 Liaise with relevant departments 1 2 3
1.2.1 Convene steering committee
1.2.2 Hold regular steering committee meetings
1.2.3 Hold regular briefings for Ministers
and senior civil servants
1.3 Undertake planning studies 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.3.1 Agree with government priority areas
for planning studies
1.3.2 Convene working groups to undertake
planning studies
1.3.3 Undertake planning studies jointly with
government
1.4 Provide government with strategy plans 10
1.4.1 Make recommendations to government
1.4.2 Assist government in the development of a
framework for policy formulation
Milestones
1 Membership of PSC includes senior representatives from all relevant Departments
2 Terms of reference and schedule for PSC agreed
3 First 3 briefing meetings run and attended as planned
4 W ritten agreement of priority areas
5 W orking groups convened and schedules of work agreed
6 1st drafts of studies circulated
7 Comments received from relevant Ministries & departments
8 Studies completed
9 W orking groups agree on recommendations
10 Strategy recommendations submitted to government
2. BREAK DOWN MAIN
ACTIVITIES INTO
MANAGEABLE TASKS
4. ESTIMATE START-UP, DURATION &
COMPLETION OF ACTIVITIES
5. SUMMARISE SCHEDULING OF MAIN ACTIVITIES
3. CLARIFY SEQUENCE &
DEPENDENCIES
6. DEFINE MILESTONES
1. LIST MAIN
ACTIVITIES
FROM
LOGFRAME
EXPERTS TIME REQUIRED (days)
PM OM E1 E2 E3 PM OM E1 E2 E3
L 10
L 10
L S 1 3
L S 8 16
L S 20 20
L 2
L L L 10 10 10
L L L 40 40 40
L S S S 10 5 5 5
L S S S 5 10 10 10
KEY Total 56 49 65 65 65
PM = Project Manager
OM = Office Manager
E1 = Economist 1
E2 = Policy Specialist
E3 = Economist 2
L = Lead role
S = Support role
7. DEFINE EXPERTISE
REQUIRED
8. ALLOCATE
TASKS AMONG
TEAM
9. ESTIMATE
TIME REQUIRED
ESTABLISHM ENT OF PLANNING UNIT, M INISTRY OF TRANSPORT
ACTIVITIES YEAR 1
Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12
1.1 Establish Planning Unit
1.1.1 Set up offices and equipment
1.1.2 Identify and recruit counterpart staff
1.2 Liaise with relevant departments 1 2 3
1.2.1 Convene steering committee
1.2.2 Hold regular steering committee meetings
1.2.3 Hold regular briefings for Ministers
and senior civil servants
1.3 Undertake planning studies 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.3.1 Agree with government priority areas
for planning studies
1.3.2 Convene working groups to undertake
planning studies
1.3.3 Undertake planning studies jointly with
government
1.4 Provide government with strategy plans 10
1.4.1 Make recommendations to government
1.4.2 Assist government in the development of a
framework for policy formulation
Milestones
1 Membership of PSC includes senior representatives from all relevant Departments
2 Terms of reference and schedule for PSC agreed
3 First 3 briefing meetings run and attended as planned
4 W ritten agreement of priority areas
5 W orking groups convened and schedules of work agreed
6 1st drafts of studies circulated
7 Comments received from relevant Ministries & departments
8 Studies completed
9 W orking groups agree on recommendations
10 Strategy recommendations submitted to government
2. BREAK DOWN MAIN
ACTIVITIES INTO
MANAGEABLE TASKS
4. ESTIMATE START-UP, DURATION &
COMPLETION OF ACTIVITIES
5. SUMMARISE SCHEDULING OF MAIN ACTIVITIES
3. CLARIFY SEQUENCE &
DEPENDENCIES
6. DEFINE MILESTONES
1. LIST MAIN
ACTIVITIES
FROM
LOGFRAME
EXPERTS TIME REQUIRED (days)
PM OM E1 E2 E3 PM OM E1 E2 E3
L 10
L 10
L S 1 3
L S 8 16
L S 20 20
L 2
L L L 10 10 10
L L L 40 40 40
L S S S 10 5 5 5
L S S S 5 10 10 10
KEY Total 56 49 65 65 65
PM = Project Manager
OM = Office Manager
E1 = Economist 1
E2 = Policy Specialist
E3 = Economist 2
L = Lead role
S = Support role
7. DEFINE EXPERTISE
REQUIRED
8. ALLOCATE
TASKS AMONG
TEAM
9. ESTIMATE
TIME REQUIRED
95
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
5.5. Preparing Resource Schedules
Cost estimates must be based on careful and thorough budgeting. They will have
significant influence over the investment decision at project appraisal and subsequently
on the smooth implementation of the project if the go-ahead is given. Again,
the list of Activities should be copied into an Resource Schedule pro-forma. Each
Activity should then be used as a checklist to ensure that all necessary Means under
that Activity are provided for. Budgeting of management activities should not be forgotten
at this stage.
5.5.1. A Checklist for Specifying Means and Scheduling Cost
Once the Activities have been entered into the schedule, the Means necessary to
undertake the Activities must be specified. As there will be a need to aggregate or
summarise the cost information, the Means should be allocated to established cost
categories.
For example, in Figure 42 the activity of establishing a Planning Unit requires
Equipment and Salaries and Allowances. The Units, Quantity Per Period, and estimated
Unit Cost should then be specified. If entered on a spreadsheet, Cost per Period
and Total Project Cost can be calculated using simple formulae.
Project costings should allow the allocation of cost between the different funding
sources so that each party is clear about their respective contributions. The code for
Funding Source can then be used to sort all cost and to determine respective totals.
Those providing funding for the project are likely to have cost codes for each established
cost category. By specifying the Cost Code, cost can again be sorted to determine
total cost by cost category.
It is now possible to schedule cost per planning period using simple formulae to multiply
the annual quantity by the unit cost. Once Total Cost have been calculated, it is important
to remember that the implementing agency will be required to meet any recurrent
cost of maintaining service provision beyond the life of the project. Recurrent Cost
may be covered (fully or partly) through increased revenue that has been generated
through project Activities. Whether or not this is the case, it is important that the net recurrent
cost implications of the project are clearly specified so that the future impact on
the implementing agency's budget can be determined.
96
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook
Figure 42: Preparing a Resource Schedule
ESTABLISHM ENT OF A PLANNING UNIT, M INISTRY OF TRANSPORT
Ref ACTIVITIES/INPUTS Unit Quantity per planning period Cost Funding Cost Codes
per unit source EC Govt Target
1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr group
ACTIVITIES
1.1 Esta blish Pla nning Unit
EQUIPMENT
Computers no. 2 2 1.000 EC 3,4
Fax modem no. 1 500 EC 3,4
Office furniture lump 1 3.000 EC 3,4
SALARIES & ALLOW ANCES (LOCAL)
Counterparts pm 4 4 4 4 200 Gvt. B/2.1
Office staff pm 3 3 3 3 100 Gvt. B/2.1
ETC.
.........
TOTAL PER QUARTER
4. SPECIFY UNITS
5. SPECIFY QUANTITY
6. ESTIMATE UNIT COST
7. IDENTIFY FUNDING SOUR
8. ALLOCATE CO
1. COPY ACTIVITIES FROM
ACTIVITY SCHEDULE
2. SPECIFY INPUTS
3. PUT INPUTS INTO COST CATEGORIES
Total per year and
funding source
Proje ct
Tota l
Annual
recurrent
1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr Tota l costs
EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG
2.000 2.000 - - 4.000 - - 4.000
500 - - - 500 - - 500
3.000 - - - 3.000 - - 3.000
800 800 800 800 - 3.200 - 3.200 3.200
300 300 300 300 - 1.200 - 1.200 1.200
5.500 1.100 - 2.000 1.100 - - 1.100 - - 1.100 - 7.500 4.400 - 11.900 4.400
Costs per planning period
RCE
OST CODES 10. CALCULATE TOTAL9. SCHEDULE COSTS PER PLANNING PERIOD
11. ESTIMATE RECURRENT COSTS
ESTABLISHM ENT OF A PLANNING UNIT, M INISTRY OF TRANSPORT
Ref ACTIVITIES/INPUTS Unit Quantity per planning period Cost Funding Cost Codes
per unit source EC Govt Target
1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr group
ACTIVITIES
1.1 Esta blish Pla nning Unit
EQUIPMENT
Computers no. 2 2 1.000 EC 3,4
Fax modem no. 1 500 EC 3,4
Office furniture lump 1 3.000 EC 3,4
SALARIES & ALLOW ANCES (LOCAL)
Counterparts pm 4 4 4 4 200 Gvt. B/2.1
Office staff pm 3 3 3 3 100 Gvt. B/2.1
ETC.
.........
TOTAL PER QUARTER
4. SPECIFY UNITS
5. SPECIFY QUANTITY
6. ESTIMATE UNIT COST
7. IDENTIFY FUNDING SOUR
8. ALLOCATE CO
1. COPY ACTIVITIES FROM
ACTIVITY SCHEDULE
2. SPECIFY INPUTS
3. PUT INPUTS INTO COST CATEGORIES
Total per year and
funding source
Proje ct
Tota l
Annual
recurrent
1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr Tota l costs
EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG
2.000 2.000 - - 4.000 - - 4.000
500 - - - 500 - - 500
3.000 - - - 3.000 - - 3.000
800 800 800 800 - 3.200 - 3.200 3.200
300 300 300 300 - 1.200 - 1.200 1.200
5.500 1.100 - 2.000 1.100 - - 1.100 - - 1.100 - 7.500 4.400 - 11.900 4.400
Costs per planning period
RCE
OST CODES 10. CALCULATE TOTAL9. SCHEDULE COSTS PER PLANNING PERIOD
11. ESTIMATE RECURRENT COSTS
97
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Handbook Project Cycle Management
5.6. Glossary
Activities The actions (and Means) that have to be taken / provided to produce the Results.
They summarise what will be undertaken by the project.
Activity Schedule A Gantt chart, a graphic representation similar to a bar chart, setting out the
timing, sequence and duration of project Activities. It can also be used to identify
milestones for monitoring progress, and to assign responsibility for
achievement of milestones.
Analysis of Objectives Identification and verification of future desired benefits to which the beneficiaries
attach priority. The output of an analysis of objectives is the objective tree /
hierarchy of objectives.
Analysis of Strategies Critical assessment of the alternative ways of achieving objectives, and selection
of one or more for inclusion in the proposed project.
Appraisal Analysis of a proposed project to determine its merit and acceptability in accordance
with established criteria. This is the final step before a project is agreed
for financing. It checks that the project is feasible against the situation on the
ground that the objectives set remain appropriate and that cost are reasonable.
Term often synonymously used: Feasibility study / Ex-ante evaluation.
Appraisal Phase The third phase in the project cycle. It involves the establishment of the details
of the project on the basis of a feasibility study, followed by an examination by
EC staff to assess the project's merits and consistency with sectoral policies.
Assumptions External factors which could affect the progress or success of the project, but
over which the project manager has no direct control. They form the 4th
column
of the logframe, and are formulated in a positive way, e.g.: "Reform of penal
procedures successfully implemented".
Bar Chart See "Gantt Chart".
Beneficiaries Are those who benefit in whatever way from the implementation of the project.
Distinction may be made between:
(a) Target group(s): the group / entity who will be immediately positively affected
by the project at the Project Purpose level;
(b) Final beneficiaries: those who benefit from the project in the long term at
the level of the society or sector at large, e.g. "children" due to increased
spending on health and education, or "consumers" due to improved agricultural
production and marketing.
Commission The European Commission.
Commitment A commitment is a formal decision taken by the Commission to set aside a certain
amount of money for a particular purpose. No expenditure can be incurred
in excess of the authorised commitment.
Contractor The public or private organisation, consortium or individual with whom the contracting
authority enters into a contract. The firm, individual or consortium to
which a contract is awarded.
Cost Cost are the translation into financial terms of all the identified resources
("Means").
Country Strategy Pa-
pers
Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) are an instrument for guiding, managing and
reviewing EC assistance programmes. The purpose of CSPs is to provide a
framework for EU assistance programmes based on EU / EC objectives, the
Partner Country government policy agenda, an analysis of the partner country's
situation, and the activities of other major partners. CSPs are drawn up for all
ACP, MEDA (except Cyprus, Malta and Turkey) and ALA countries.
Country Support Strat-
egy
Term used as a synonym for Country Strategy Papers (CSP).
98
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Handbook Project Cycle Management
DAC Development Assistance Committee of the OECD (Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development).
Delegation The diplomatic office representing the European Commission accredited to
countries or international institutions at the level of an Embassy. The Head of
Delegation is often called Delegate or Ambassador.
Effectiveness The contribution made by Results to achievement of the Project Purpose, and
how Assumptions have affected project achievements.
Efficiency The fact that the Results were obtained at reasonable cost, i.e. how well Means
and Activities were converted into Results, and the quality of the Results
achieved.
European Commis-
sion
The executive arm of the European Union. It initiates European Union policy
and implements programmes and policies established by the EU legislative and
budgetary authorities.
Evaluation A periodic assessment of the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability
and relevance of a project in the context of stated objectives. It is usually undertaken
as an independent examination of the background, objectives, Results,
Activities and Means deployed, with a view to drawing lessons that may
guide future decision-making.
Evaluation Phase The sixth and final phase of the project cycle during which the project is examined
against its objectives, and lessons are used to influence future actions.
Feasibility Addresses the issue whether the project objectives can be really achieved.
Feasibility Study A feasibility study, conducted during the Appraisal phase, verifies whether the
proposed project is well-founded, and is likely to meet the needs of its intended
target groups / beneficiaries. The study should design the project in full operational
detail, taking account of all policy, technical, economic, financial, institutional,
management, environmental, socio-cultural, gender-related aspects. The
study will provide the European Commission and partner government with sufficient
information to justify acceptance, modification or rejection of the proposed
project for further financing.
Financing Agreement /
Memorandum
The document signed between the European Commission and the partner
country or countries subsequent to a financing decision. It includes a description
of the particular project or programme to be funded. It represents the formal
commitment of the European Union and the partner country to finance the
measures described.
Financing Memoran-
dum
See "Financing Agreement".
Financing Phase The fourth phase of the project cycle during which projects are approved for
financing.
Financing Proposal Financing proposals are draft documents, submitted by the Commission's services
to the relevant Financing Committee for opinion and to the Commission
for decision. They describe the general background, nature, scope and objectives
and modalities of measures proposed and indicate the funding foreseen.
After having received the favourable opinion of the Financing Committee, they
are the subject of the Commission's subsequent financing decision and of the
Financing Agreement which is signed with the respective partner country.
Gantt Chart A method of presenting information graphically, often used for activity scheduling.
Similar to a bar chart.
99
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Handbook Project Cycle Management
Gender The social differences that are ascribed to and learned by women and men,
and that vary over time and from one society or group to another. Gender differs
from sex, which refers to the biologically determined differences between
women and men.
Gender Analysis EU policy on gender mainstreaming in development co-operation requires the
integration of gender analysis at macro, meso and micro levels, throughout the
project cycle. A gender analysis allows the identification and integration of the
dynamics of change in a given situation, as well as the monitoring of their evolution,
particularly in relation to the disparities between women and men. A
gender analysis includes attention to: the different roles (productive, reproductive,
decision-making) of women and men; their differential access to and use
of resources and their specific needs, interests and problems; and the barriers
to the full and equitable participation of women and men in project Activities
and to equity between women and men in the benefits obtained.
Gender Equality The promotion of equality between women and men in relation to their access
to social and economic infrastructures and services and to the benefits of development
is vital. The objective is reduced disparities between women and
men, including in health and education, in employment and economic activity,
and in decision-making at all levels. All programmes and projects should actively
contribute to reducing gender disparities in their area of intervention.
Hierarchy of Objec-
tives
A diagrammatic representation of the proposed project interventions planned
logically, following a problem analysis, and showing a means to ends relationship.
Synonym: Objectives tree.
Identification Phase The second phase of the project cycle. It involves the initial elaboration of the
project idea in terms of objectives, Results and Activities, with a view to determining
whether or not to go ahead with a feasibility study.
Impact The effect of the project on its wider environment, and its contribution to the
wider sectoral objectives summarised in the project's Overall Objectives, and
on the achievement of the overarching policy objectives of the EC.
Impact Indicators See "Development Indicators"
Implementation Phase The fifth phase of the project cycle during which the project is implemented,
and progress towards achieving objectives is monitored.
Inception Period The period from project start-up until the writing of the inception report, usually
two to three months.
Inception Report The first report produced at the end of the inception period, which updates the
project design and or the terms of reference and sets the work plan for the rest
of the project.
Indicative Pro-
grammes
These are prepared by the European Commission in co-ordination with partner
country governments. They provide general guidelines and principles for cooperation
with the European Union. They specify focal sectors and themes
within a country or region and may set out a number of project ideas.
Indicators See "Objectively Verifiable Indicators" and "Development Indicators".
Inputs See "Means".
Integrated Approach The continuous examination of a project throughout all the phases of the project
cycle, to ensure that issues of relevance, feasibility and sustainability remain
in focus.
Intervention Logic The strategy underlying the project. It is the narrative description of the project
at each of the four levels of the `hierarchy of objectives' used in the logframe.
Logframe The matrix in which a project's Intervention Logic, Assumptions, Objectively
Verifiable Indicators and Sources of Verification are presented.
100
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Handbook Project Cycle Management
Logical Framework
Approach (LFA)
A methodology for planning, managing and evaluating programmes and projects,
involving stakeholder analysis, problem analysis, analysis of objectives,
analysis of strategies, preparation of the logframe matrix and Activity and Resource
Schedules.
Means The boxes "Means" and "Cost" replace OVIs and SOV at the level of Activities.
Means are physical and non-physical resources (often referred to as "Inputs")
that are necessary to carry out the planned Activities and manage the project.
A distinction can be drawn between human resources and material resources.
Milestones A type of OVI providing indications for short and medium-term objectives (usually
Activities), which facilitate measurement of achievements throughout a project
rather than just at the end. They also indicate times when decisions should
be made or action should be finished.
Monitoring The systematic and continuous collecting, analysis and using of information for
the purpose of management and decision-making.
Objective Description of the aim of a project or programme. In its generic sense it refers
to Activities, Results, Project Purpose and Overall Objectives.
Objective Tree A diagrammatic representation of the situation in the future once problems
have been remedied, following a problem analysis, and showing a means to
ends relationship.
Objectively Verifiable
Indicators (OVI)
Measurable indicators that will show whether or not objectives have been
achieved at the three highest levels of the logframe. OVIs provide the basis for
designing an appropriate monitoring system.
Outcome Indicators See Development Indicators
Output Indicators See Development Indicators
Overall Objectives They explain why the project is important to society, in terms of the longer-term
benefits to final beneficiaries and the wider benefits to other groups. They also
help to show how the programme fits into the regional / sectoral policies of the
government / organisations concerned and of the EC, as well as into the overarching
policy objectives of EC co-operation. The Overall Objectives will not be
achieved by the project alone (it will only provide a contribution to the achievement
of the Overall Objectives), but will require the contributions of other programmes
and projects as well.
Development Indica-
tors
The OECD, the United Nations and the World Bank have agreed to focus on a
series of key goals in partnership with developing countries. These goals have
been endorsed by major international conferences. A system for tracking progress
has also been agreed. A core set of indicators will be used - at a global
level - to monitor performance and adjust development strategies as required.
In terms of development policy, the following terminology is applied for indica-
tors:
* Input indicators measure the financial, administrative and regulatory resources
provided by the Government and donors. It is necessary to establish
a link between the resources used and the results achieved in order to
assess the efficiency of the actions carried out. E.g.: Share of the budget
devoted to education expenditure, abolition of compulsory school uniforms
* Output indicators measure the immediate and concrete consequences of
the measures taken and resources used: E.g.: Number of schools built,
number of teachers trained
* Outcome indicators measure the short-term results at the level of beneficiaries.
The term `results indicators' is used as well. E.g.: school enrolment,
percentage of girls among the children entering in first year of primary
school
* Impact indicators measure the long-term consequences of the outcomes.
They measure the general objectives in terms of national development and
poverty reduction. E.g.: Literacy rates
101
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Handbook Project Cycle Management
Pre-conditions Conditions that have to be met before the project can commence, i.e. start with
Activities. Pre-conditions (if any) are attached to the provision of aid.
Pre-feasibility Study The pre-feasibility study, conducted during the identification phase, ensures
that all problems are identified and alternative solutions are appraised, and selects
a preferred alternative on the basis of Quality Factors. The study will provide
the European Commission and partner government with sufficient information
to justify acceptance, modification or rejection of the proposed project for
further appraisal.
Problem Analysis A structured investigation of the negative aspects of a situation in order to establish
causes and their effects.
Problem Tree A diagrammatic representation of a negative situation, showing a cause-effect
relationship.
Programme A series of projects with a common Overall Objective.
Programming Phase The first phase of the project cycle during which the Indicative Programme is
prepared. See also "Indicative Programme".
Progress Report An interim report on progress of work on a project submitted by the project
management / contractor to the partner organisation and the Commission
within a specific time frame. It includes sections on technical and financial performance.
It is usually submitted quarterly.
Project A series of Activities with set objectives, designed to produce a specific outcome
within a limited time frame.
Project Cycle The project cycle follows the life of a project from the initial idea through to its
completion. It provides a structure to ensure that stakeholders are consulted,
and defines the key decisions, information requirements and responsibilities at
each phase so that informed decisions can be made at each phase in the life of
a project. It draws on evaluation to build the lessons of experience into the design
of future programmes and projects.
Project Cycle Man-
agement
A methodology for the preparation, implementation and evaluation of projects
and programmes based on the integrated approach and the Logical Framework
Approach.
Project Partners Those who implement the projects in the county (ministries, implementation
agencies, etc.).
Project Purpose The central objective of the project. The Purpose should address the core problem,
and be defined in terms of sustainable benefits for the target group(s). The
Purpose should also express the equitable benefits for women and men among
the target group(s). There should only be one Project Purpose per project.
Quality Factors Criteria that are known to have had a significant impact on the sustainability of
benefits generated by projects in the past, and which have to be taken into account
in the design and implementation of each project (previously: "Sustainability
Criteria"): ownership by beneficiaries, policy support, economic and financial
factors, socio-cultural aspects, gender, appropriate technology, environmental
aspects, and institutional and management capacity.
Recurrent Cost Cost for operation and maintenance that will continue to be incurred after the
implementation period of the project.
Relevance The appropriateness of project objectives to the real problems, needs and priorities
of the intended target groups and beneficiaries that the project is supposed
to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which it
operates.
Resource Schedule A breakdown of the project budget where Means and Cost are linked to Activities,
and detailed per time period selected.
102
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Handbook Project Cycle Management
Results The "products" of the Activities undertaken, the combination of which achieve
the Purpose of the project, namely a start of enjoyment of sustainable benefits
for the target groups.
Risks See also "Assumptions". External factors and events that could affect the progress
or success of the project, and that are not very likely to hold true. They
are formulated in a negative way, e.g.: "Reform of penal procedures fails".
Sources of Verifica-
tion
They form the third column of the logframe and indicate where and in what form
information on the achievement of the Overall Objectives, the Project Purpose
and the Results can be found (described by the Objectively Verifiable Indica-
tors).
Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholder analysis involves the identification of all stakeholder groups likely
to be affected (either positively or negatively) by the proposed intervention, the
identification and analysis of their interests, problems, potentials, etc. The conclusions
of this analysis are then integrated into the project design.
Stakeholders Any individuals, groups of people, institutions or firms that may have a relationship
with the project / programme are defined as stakeholders. They may ­ directly
or indirectly, positively or negatively ­ affect or be affected by the process
and the outcomes of projects or programmes. Usually, different sub-groups
have to be considered.
Start-up Period The period of project implementation immediately after the arrival of the contractor
/ technical assistance.
Sustainability The likelihood of a continuation in the stream of benefits produced by the project
after the period of external support has ended.
Sustainability Criteria See "Quality Factors".
SWOT Analysis Analysis of an organisation's Strengths and Weaknesses, and the Opportunities
and Threats that it faces. A tool that can be used during all phases of the
project cycle.
Target Group(s) The group / entity who will be positively affected by the project at the Project
Purpose level.
Technical Assistance Specialists, consultants, trainers, advisers, etc. contracted for the transfer of
know-how and skills and the creation and strengthening of institutions.
Terms of Reference Terms of Reference define the tasks required of a contractor and indicate project
background and objectives, planned Activities, expected inputs and outputs,
budget, timetables and job descriptions.
Work plan The schedule that sets out the Activities and resources necessary to achieve a
project's Results and Purpose.
103
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Handbook Project Cycle Management
5.7. Useful References and Sites
Topic Institution Address
Project Cycle Manage-
ment:
General:
PCM Manual and Handbook EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/m
ethods/pcm.htm
PCM Guidelines (in English,
French, German, Spanish)
GTZ http://www.gtz.de/pcm/deutsch/pcmleit.htm
PCM Guidelines, M&E, etc. UNDP/GEF http://www.gefweb.org/Operational_Policies/Oper
ational_Strategy/operational_strategy.html
PCM, Monitoring, Evaluation Swiss Agency for
Development and
Cooperation
http://194.230.65.134/dezaweb2/home.asp
PCM for specific sectors:
Guidelines for Forest Sector
Development Co-operation
(Vol. I in English, French,
Portuguese, Spanish, German;
Vol. II in English and
French)
EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/for
estry_en.htm#guideline
Towards Sustainable Water
Resource Management
(Manual in English, French
and Portuguese)
EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/publicat/d
escript/en/pub440.htm
Towards Sustainable Transport
Infrastructure (Manual in
English and French)
EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/transport/
en/entc.htm
Monitoring & Evaluation:
Monitoring Guidelines (in
English, French, German,
Spanish, Portuguese)
GTZ http://www.gtz.de/pcm/deutsch/monitoring.htm
Monitoring & Evaluation IADB http://www.iadb.org/cont/evo/evo_eng.htm
M&E links GEF http://www.undp.org/gef/m&e/links.htm
Guidelines for progress control
(in English, French,
German, Portuguese)
GTZ http://www.gtz.de/pcm/deutsch/pfk.htm
Evaluation Guidelines EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/m
ethods/index.htm
Indicators:
International development
goals: Indicators of progress
OECD www.oecd.org/dac/indicators
IMF www.paris21.org/betterworld
and related OECD Observer:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/sectionfront.ph
p/locale/70
World Development Indica-
tors
World Bank www.worldbank.org/data
104
European Commission ­ EuropeAid Handbook Project Cycle Management
Topic Institution Address
Goals and indicators UN (United Nations
Development
Assistance
Framework (UN-
DAF))
www.cca-undaf.org
Indicators for sustainable
development
Consultative
Group on Sustainable
Development
Indica-
tors
http://iisd1.iisd.ca/cgsdi/dashboard.htm
Gender-related indicators UNDP Gender in
Development
Programme
(GIDP)
http://www.sdnp.undp.org/gender/datastats/
Cross-cutting issues:
Environmental Assessment
(manual)
EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/env
ironment/ea/index.htm
Social, Human and Cultural
Development and gender
issues
EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/soc
ial/index_en.htm
Gender Equality EU/DG Employment
(with numerous
links)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/equ
_opp/links_en.html
UNIFEM (United
Nations Development
Fund for
Women)
http://www.undp.org/unifem/
UNIFEM Progress
of the world
women's report
http://www.unifem.undp.org/progressww/
UNIFEM Regional
Programme
http://www.unifem.undp.org/regional.htm
UNDP Gender in
Development
Programme
(GIDP)
http://www.undp.org/gender/ (resource book; concepts
and tools are to be found under `gender
analysis' within the `gender mainstreaming'
information pack)
ELDIS (specialised
portal)
http://www.ids.ac.uk/eldis/gender/Gender.htm
BRIDGE Publica-
tions
http://www.ids.ac.uk/bridge//bripub.html
WIDE (networking
organisation
with a focus on
developments
related to
Europe)
http://www.eurosur.org/wide/porteng.htm
105