Requisite Institutional Capacity
(b) Capability required:
Capacity to undertake monitoring and evaluation.
- Demonstration of existing capacities for monitoring and independent evaluation consistent with the requirements of the Adaptation Fund.
- Evidence that a process or system, such as project-at-risk system, is in place to flag when a project has developed problems that may interfere with the achievement of its objectives, and to respond accordingly to redress the problems.
Good example on how to monitor:
The application included project guidelines on preparing a design and monitoring framework that is primarily for design teams government and ministries, nongovernment stakeholders, applicant staff, and consultants. The guidelines are a hands-on tool kit that describes—step-by-step—the participatory process to develop the design and monitoring framework and explains how to apply participatory design tools. The guidelines are practical with examples. There is also technical assistance available to prepare projects. These together with other manuals such as for disbursement and the semiannual monitoring make it clear that the applicant has the required capacity to meet this Fiduciary Standard. Monitoring reports from several projects demonstrate the system is working.
Good example on evaluation:
The applicant has an independent Evaluation Group that is directly responsible to the Board and links to its Evaluation Committee. They have their own section on the applicant web site that includes its annual report and summaries of the reports issued. There was an external peer review done of its evaluation function and that came out positively and is available under the documents of the latest Executive Board.
Poor example on risk management within projects:
The application mentions that risk assessment is embedded in the project log-frames and in the project design document template envisaging sections on risk analysis and exit strategy and post-project sustainability. While that may be the case the risk identification at project design could be stronger. For example, many appraisal documents do not include a section on risk management with suggested mitigating actions, for many others the treatment of risks and mitigation could be stronger. The focus on risk is so minimal that it does not meet the minimal AF Fiduciary Standards.
Good example on a monitoring / accounting for projects:
The application includes audited financial statements for several donor funded projects of the Institute as of 2008. It involves opinions of KPMG, a local auditor and the auditor general of the country. All opinions are positive and give confidence that project expenditures and procurement actions adhere to the loan provisions and national legislation.
Example of inadequate monitoring practices:
The application states that it has the technical capacity to monitor and evaluate projects through the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee but does not demonstrate this or give further information or examples. When asked for additional examples the applicant provides quarterly monitoring reports done by the donor organizations. For accreditation purposes the monitoring capability has not been demonstrated and accreditation cannot be recommended.