• Australia's Aid Program
  • About the Aid Program
  • Emergencies, Humanitarian Aid & Landmines
  • Development Effectiveness
  • Aid Close Up: Stories & People
• Countries
  • All Countries
  • Papua New Guinea
  • South Asia
  • East Asia
  • Pacific
  • Africa & Middle East
• Aid Themes
  • Economic Growth
  • Disability
  • Education
  • Environment
  • Food Security
  • Gender
  • Governance
  • Health, HIV/AIDS, Pandemics
  • Human Rights
  • Infrastructure
  • Millennium Development Goals
  • Regional Stabilty
  • Rural Development
  • Water & Sanitation
• Partners
  • Australian Government
  • Regional Governments
  • Multilateral Organisations
  • Non Government Organisations
  • Academic
  • Volunteers
  • Business
• Research
  • Research overview
  • Reports
  • Journals & Networks
• Business and Tenders
  • Latest News
  • Tenders
  • Funding Schemes
  • Useful Advice
  • Contracting Policy
  • Business Publications
• Careers
  • Vacancies
  • Eligibility & conditions
  • Long Term Employment
  • Short Term Employment
  • Graduate Program
  • FAQs
  • Other Ways to Get Involved

AusGuide

Part 3C - Appraisal and approval

October 2005

Contents

1 Appraisal in the AusAID context

• 1.1 What is appraisal?
• 1.2 Desk accountability and consultation responsibilities
• 1.3 Independent and professional appraisal
• 1.4 A second appraisal for progressive activity designs
• 1.5 Timing
• 1.6 Appraisal peer review meeting
• 1.7 Desk and field appraisals

2 Responsibilities

3 Appraisal criteria and issues

• 3.1 Appraisal criteria
• 3.2 Testing the activity's design logic
• 3.3 Organising the tendering and contracting process
• 3.4 Briefing and debriefing

4 Reporting

• 4.1 The appraisal note
• 4.2 Appraisal findings
• 4.3 The response to appraisal
• 4.4 The activity design documentation

5 Approval tasks

• 5.1 Partner government approval
• 5.2 FMA Reg 9 approval
• 5.3 Updating AidWorks

A How to conduct desk and field appraisals

B Appraisal note

Associated Guidance on activity design

1. Appraisal in the AusAID context

1.1 What is appraisal?

Appraisal is the assessment process that is required to be undertaken for AusAID activities prior to approving their implementation. Appraisal is used both as a quality assurance and accountability mechanism. The nature and extent of the appraisal process can be relatively basic or more comprehensive, depending on the nature, size and preparation path of the specific activity as set out below.

All activities funded by AusAID must be subject to a basic appraisal by the responsible area of AusAID. Appraisal is required prior to any FMA 9 approval to commence implementation where there is

• a new development activity,
• a new phase of an existing development activity, or
• a significant extension of an existing activity (i.e. substantively extending the work program and period of implementation of an existing activity).

For a basic appraisal, the responsible AusAID work unit has an obligation to

• appraise the merits of implementation in terms of the feasibility and likely benefits of the planned activity, in the light of the available information and drawing on the available expertise,
• decide whether or not to prepare a recommendation to the Minister (or Ministerial delegate) to approve the expenditure of the necessary amount of Australian Government aid funds, given the merits of the activity proposal and the merits of competing uses of those funds, and
• decide what the key reasons are for approving that FMA 9 recommendation, and thus the main elements of the case that should be made to the Minister (or Ministerial delegate) for approval.

This is essential before the final submission is prepared and signed for presentation to the delegate.

1.2 Desk accountability and consultation responsibilities

The officers who prepare the FMA 9 submission (and/or sign it as the officer making the submission to the delegate) are responsible and accountable for the professionalism of the assessments involved, and the soundness of the case made to the Minister or delegate.

The Minister or delegate have their own responsibilities in approving (or not approving) an FMA 9 submission, but they act on the basis of written advice from the preparing area - which is responsible for the accuracy, completeness and cogency of the case made for approval.

If an internal AusAID design team has made input to the activity design during activity preparation, then the responsible desk officers should, as a minimum, consult with the members of that team prior to coming to final judgements on

• the merits of the proposed activity, and
• the case which should be put to the Minister or delegate.

Even if no team has been in place, it is often good aid management for the desk area to seek expert comment from an AusAID sector adviser on the activity design.

It may also be appropriate to consult with other development partners who have contributed to design, particularly other Australian Government agencies, and partner government authorities.

As discussed below, for many activities a basic appraisal is not sufficient, and independent and professional appraisal will be required.

1.3 Independent and professional appraisal

All activities of significant size and scope funded by AusAID must have an independent and professional appraisal prior to the decision to commence to implement that activity. This applies to activities which are planned to have significant further design work (activity preparation work) during implementation, as well as activities which are approved on the basis of what is considered the final design for the activity.

An appraisal is considered independent if the individual or team undertaking the appraisal has not played a significant direct role in developing the proposed activity which is being appraised.

An appraisal is considered professional if

• a careful choice is made between a field appraisal (which includes a field visit to the relevant development situation) and a desk appraisal (conducted without field work), with adequate time allowed for the study chosen
• there are clear Terms of Reference (TOR) for the field or desk appraisal - which involve a systematic assessment of
  • the main elements of the activity rationale (including the main types of analysis)
  • the proposed institutional and management arrangements of the activity and
  • the proposed work of the development activity during implementation
• the selected appraisal team, or individual, has the combination of design expertise and specialist sectoral or technical knowledge needed to meet the requirements of the TOR (and adequately assess the type of design under consideration)
• the appraisal TOR have clearly set out the distinct roles and contributions of appraisal team members

AusGuideline 6.1 Preparing Terms of Reference provides general advice on the structure and content of TORs, including appraisal TORs.

1.4 A second appraisal for progressive activity designs

Additional design work for an activity is sometimes undertaken during the first phase of implementation ("progressive designs"). Where this design work results in significant development of (or alteration to) the existing design for a major activity, AusAID will need to agree to these changes prior to their being implemented, whether or not specific additional FMA 9 cover is required.

If an activity is approved on the basis that additional design work will be undertaken during implementation, the additional design work required should be made explicit when approval for implementation is given. In particular,

• the key design steps and processes should be specified in outline, with a clear exposition of respective roles and responsibilities (both within AusAID and between AusAID and other stakeholders)
• the peer review process and any other quality assurance processes for post-commencement design should be indicatively planned (and documented). This could include planning for an independent appraisal (and AusAID appraisal peer review meeting (APRM)) towards the end of the major design work. Such an appraisal (and/or APRM) would be additional to those undertaken prior to the activity's initial approval for implementation.

Similarly, where an unanticipated need for major re-design arises, the changed design will need assessment and agreement. This will require peer review from an internal AusAID team, at a minimum a sector adviser and CSG officer. Depending on the circumstances, it may also require the use of an independent and professional appraisal, and/or APRM.

1.5 Timing

It is important that the appraisal process is carried out in a timely manner. Long delays in finalising appraisal comments, making a decision on next steps, and restructuring the activity design documentation can cause frustration among stakeholders and loss of momentum and/or political support for the activity.

To help prevent unnecessary delays, the activity manager should plan the appraisal well ahead of time. This includes seeking input from the partner government and the Post regarding the best appraisal process, and then preparing and distributing an appraisal schedule to all relevant parties.

1.6 Appraisal peer review meeting

An APRM is mandatory for those activities for which the expected Australian Government funding over the entire life of the activity is greater than $3 million, or which have particular policy or political sensitivity, unless the responsible Director agrees to an exemption, which should be recorded on the relevant file.

The APRM is an important process for improving aid quality by making greater use of staff expertise and experience, including at senior manager level. It promotes transparent decision making and corporate ownership of decisions and outcomes. It also supports a broad transfer of lessons and knowledge within the AusAID, and strengthens team work.

The APRM is held after the appraisal report is produced. It focuses on such issues as the design integrity, in particular implementation risks, as well as the costs involved and the expected long term benefits. It also helps bring forward action in the light of the appraisal findings. An APRM is not a substitute for an appraisal.

The type of peer reviews that should be conducted (including the APRM and the Concept Peer Review Meeting (CPRM)), the circumstances for undertaking them and the situations where exemptions are warranted are set out in an AusAID Circular available under the Peer Review button on AusAID's Intranet, along with AusAID's Good Practice Guide on peer reviews.

1.7 Desk and field appraisals

Appraisals can be either desk or field appraisals. The choice is based on issues such as:

• the scope and complexity of the activity
• the history of its development
• the quality of analysis undertaken to date
• partner government concerns and
• AusAID's past experience with the particular type of activity.

Desk appraisals are the norm where activity identification, assessment and preparation have led to thorough recent draft design documentation and the activity is relatively small and straightforward. Field appraisals are used when the Activity Manager decides, in consultation with colleagues and with the agreement of more senior management (such as the Director), that adequate appraisal requires on-site inspection and face-to-face discussion with local decision makers, intended beneficiaries and other relevant stakeholders. It is conducted by a team of specialists in the partner country and often led by an AusAID sector adviser.

Details on how to conduct desk and field appraisals are set out in Annex A How to conduct desk and field appraisals.

2. Responsibilities

The AusAID appraisal process is managed by the Activity Manager. The appraisal itself should be undertaken by an independent individual or team with appropriate knowledge and skills. Whoever undertakes the appraisal should not have been substantially involved in preparing the activity design documentation. This is to help ensure an appropriate level of objectivity.

3. Appraisal criteria and issues

3.1 Appraisal criteria

The appraisal criteria are at the heart of a professional appraisal and feed directly into the TOR for the appraisal.

Appraisal involves checking and/or analysing the activity design using many of the same criteria and analytical tools that were applied during the activity preparation stages. It is also important to ensure that the activity design documentation provides a sound basis for

• preparing any necessary memorandum of understanding with a partner government, and any necessary delivery agreement (including any planned contract), and
• effectively and efficiently implementing the activity.

It is important that the partner government has the opportunity to carefully review the draft activity design documentation using its own procedures and criteria. Time must be factored into the appraisal process to ensure that the partner government's considered comments are received and taken into account. This is an important part of ensuring local ownership of, and commitment to, the activity.

A detailed indicative check list of key appraisal topics, covering thirteen of the fifteen criteria of good quality set out in AusGuideline 6.5 Activity quality standards, is included in Annex B: Appraisal note. These topics cover the following aspects of the activity's design:

• Objectives
• Partner country participation in design process
• Adequacy of design process
• Standard of final design
• Timeliness of preparation and design
• Standards of contract and contractor's activity implementation
• Strength of partner government support and value of dialogue in country
• Adequacy of AusAID management arrangements and provision of resources
• Progress in achieving objectives
• Sustainability strategy
• Sustainability of grass roots benefits
• Sustainability of improved institutional capacity
• Maintaining future recurrent budget.

The appraisal process also examines the degree to which the study being appraised (such as a feasibility and design study) has satisfied its TOR and hence provides assurance that the team/individual which undertook the feasibility and design study has done what it was asked to do. This can be particularly important if the environment (such as political and economic) at the time of the appraisal is significantly different to that prevailing when the feasibility and design study was undertaken.

3.2 Testing the activity's design logic

A key aspect of appraisal is to assess the logic underpinning the activity design. AusAID's logical framework approach guides thinking on what is to be accomplished and how; the links to the underlying development problems being addressed; the basics of the monitoring and evaluation framework and the basics of the risk management framework As the quality of the logical framework analysis undertaken has a significant impact on the quality of the activity design, it needs to be appraised carefully.

The appraisal process should therefore assess how well the following have been addressed in the design analysis and suggest areas for improvement where these are identified:

• problem analysis (setting out underlying causes and consequent effects of the development issue being addressed)
• proposed activity objectives (particularly in relation to the purpose, component objectives and outputs, where relevant) and the way in which poverty reduction has been incorporated into the objectives
• the logic of moving from activities to outputs to outcomes (purpose and goal)
• the feasibility and benefits of the activity from the relevant technical, financial and economic, institutional, social, relationship building, gender and environmental perspectives
• the risks and assumptions
• proposed performance indicators (and the proposed sources of that information) which verify that the outputs have been produced and outcomes realised (where possible in terms of the quantity, quality, and timeliness of outputs and related intermediate and final outcomes). The appraisal should also assess whether there is an appropriate balance between quantitative and qualitative performance information and assessment
• the links between the activities and outputs, the implementation schedule and the budget (including that of Australia, the partner government and other contributors)
• the consistency between the text set out in the chapters of the design documentation and the content of the logframe matrix where both have been prepared.

3.3 Organising the tendering and contracting process

The nature and scope of any tendering and contracting process needed to mobilise resources for appraisal is formulated in consultation with Contracting Services Group (CSG), based on their procedures and guidance, bearing in mind changes made to AusAID's procurement policy since July 2005 which can affect the nature of the procurement and contracting process to be undertaken and its associated time frame.

3.4 Briefing and debriefing

Briefing and debriefing arrangements for desk and field appraisals are separately set out in Annex A How to Conduct Desk and Field Appraisals.

4. Reporting

An important outcome from the appraisal is that decisions taken in respect of the appraisal findings are reflected in the final activity design documentation. The nature and extent of such changes are specific to the activity. The process typically involves

• receiving the draft appraisal note/report from the appraisal team
• finalising the appraisal note/report after input from key stakeholders, including the partner government
• taking the appraisal note/report into account when undertaking an APRM.

Where an APRM has been mandated, the final appraisal outcome includes the assessments made in the APRM process. Documents considered by APRM participants include any concept paper, draft design documentation, appraisal report, other relevant studies, reports from sector advisers, and reports from other Australian agencies and partner governments.

Whilst expecting that a range of views will be expressed at the APRM, every effort should be made to reach conclusions on the main issues, especially the critical ones. The main points and conclusions of the APRM should be documented and circulated to participants after the meeting.

The decisions taken in the APRM would normally be reflected in the final activity design documentation and in the course of action recommended for the future progress of the activity.

Given that the appraisal process by its nature typically involves areas of disagreement, should the responsible work unit decide not to adopt all the APRM recommendations, the Activity Manager needs to ensure that the APRM findings and the rationale for the lack of adoption of any of these findings are documented.

4.1 The appraisal note

An appraisal note is a report that summarises the key findings of the appraisal and specifies any required changes to the design documentation. A suggested format and content for the appraisal note is set out in Annex BAppraisal note.

The format is structured around AusAID's quality frame which identifies four key attributes of aid quality and fifteen associated indicators (See AusGuideline 6.5 Activity Quality Standards). Good quality aid:

• has appropriate objectives and design
• is managed in a professional manner
• achieves its objectives and
• has sustainable outcomes.

An appraisal note is produced for both field and desk appraisals. In a desk appraisal, the appraisal coordinator, such as a sector adviser, prepares the appraisal note for the Activity Manager. The Activity Manager seeks Post and partner government comment on the appraisal note.

In a field appraisal, the appraisal team prepares the draft appraisal note with contributions from partner government members. The appraisal team leader determines from individual team members whether additional working papers are required. The need for working papers depends on the details of the activity, the quality of the feasibility study analysis and the degree of change recommended to the draft activity design documentation.

On return to Australia, and after de-briefing, the appraisal study team leader prepares the draft appraisal note, attaches any working papers, and submits these to the Activity Manager. The appraisal note will then be finalised in line with AusAID requirements based on the principles and processes set out in this AusGuideline.

4.2 Appraisal findings

The appraisal findings may result in recommendation(s) that

• the activity be implemented as designed
• the activity be implemented subject to specified changes
  • some possible types of appraisal finding for improving the activity design are noted in Annex A How to conduct desk and field appraisals
• the preferred options(s) recommended by the design team should not proceed and that an alternative option (or options) be pursued, necessitating a redesign of the activity or
• the activity should not proceed at all.

These different types of finding will have very different implications for the activity design in terms of the work required to complete the design and the time and resources involved.

4.3 The response to appraisal

The Activity Manager prepares a response to the appraisal note once the APRM (where required) has been undertaken and the post and the partner government have considered the appraisal note.

The work unit responsible for the appraisal decides on the action to be taken on each of the recommendations of the appraisal note/report, after consultation as necessary with more senior managers. The response should include

• the appraisal's main recommendations
• the action proposed on each recommendation (e.g. design adjustments)
• explanatory comments when appraisal recommendations have not been accepted or cannot be incorporated into the design.

4.4 The activity design documentation

Once the APRM is completed and appraisal note finalised, the Activity Manager organises the preparation of the final activity design documentation and any draft scope of services, basis of payment and memorandum of understanding clauses that have been prepared, incorporating agreed changes.

The Activity Manager may decide to finalise the activity design documentation by including this finalisation work in the scope of services of:

• the feasibility and design study contract or
• the appraisal study contract (for the appraisal team leader, or another appropriate team member).

The approach adopted depends on such issues as the extent of agreed changes arising from the appraisal work which need to be incorporated and the time delay between the appraisal and when the feasibility and design study was undertaken. Significant delays may make it impractical for the feasibility team member(s) to produce the final design documentation.

5. Approval tasks

5.1 Partner government approval

The partner government must agree to the proposed activity as described in the final activity design documentation (after appraisal) before AusAID proceeds to approval and implementation. The time needed for partner government consideration and response must be factored into the activity's preparation plan.

5.2 FMA Reg 9 approval

To obtain approval to implement the activity, the Activity Manager prepares a submission to the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary or other FMA Reg 9 delegate as appropriate, seeking approval to implement the activity as designed.

Prior to drafting the FMA 9 submission, the Activity Manager should update the Activity Preparation Brief (APB) to reflect any changes arising from the appraisal.

The requirements for submission to the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary vary from time to time, and desk officers will need to refer to the latest corporate advice from the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services Unit (MPSU).

A submission to a delegate should include the following

• a brief outline of the activity, including the development problem being addressed, the objectives and significant outcomes
• the Australian contribution by year, the expected level of partner government contributions and the level of any significant expected contributions from any other development partner
• a discussion of the critical issues and risks, including brief information about any significant quality issues, such as risk management and the strategy to achieve sustainability
• the appraisal process undertaken
• the updated APB, as an attachment.

At the end of 2004, the AusAID Executive directed that for all new or extended development activities (including new phases), the FMA 9 submission for implementation should outline the appraisal process which has been used to assess the proposed activity (or extension), including

• whether there has been an independent appraisal of the proposal and
• whether there has been external scrutiny of that proposal (that is, by parties external to AusAID, such as other Australian Government agencies, or partner Government agencies).

This requirement is highlighted in the FMA 9 template within AidWorks which must be used for all FMA 9 submissions for development activities under AusAID programs.

5.3 Updating AidWorks

Following approval, the Activity Manager updates the "activity record" on AusAID's activity management data base (AidWorks) to reflect the outcome of the appraisal and approval processes.

A. How to conduct desk and field appraisals

Introduction

The following sets out more detailed guidance on how to conduct desk and field appraisals.

For both desk and field appraisals, changes to the activity design arising from the appraisal process may lead to:

• more coherent or sharply focussed objectives and outputs
• additional activities or resources to achieve the objectives and outputs more effectively
• strengthening the feasibility and viability of the activity from technical, institutional, financial, economic, social, cultural and gender and environmental perspectives
• proposed activity elements being deleted
• management and coordination arrangements being revised
• stakeholder responsibilities being specified more clearly
• additional risk management strategies being suggested
• the sustainability strategy being strengthened.

In some circumstances the appraisal team may recommend rejection of the activity.

A.1 Desk appraisal

Desk appraisals may be undertaken when activity identification, assessment and preparation have led to thorough recent draft activity design documentation and the activity is relatively small and straight-forward.

For some desk appraisals, AusAID may contract one or more consultants to form a small team to undertake the study. Where a team is selected, an AusAID sector adviser may be appointed as team leader. The advisor would then assist the Activity Manager in selecting an appropriately qualified team to undertake the appraisal. The officer responsible for selecting the appraisal team will normally select the appropriate consultant(s) from either the relevant AusAID period contract or by a specific selection process involving consultation with the Consultant Services Group (CSG).

The desk appraisal can commence once the appraisal TOR are cleared by the Post and partner government.

When preparing for a desk appraisal, the Activity Manager will need to:

• debrief with the feasibility/design study team
• assess the draft activity design document, in consultation with the design study team leader
• prepare initial comments on the quality of the draft design documentation, and any issues arising from the de-briefing
• distribute copies of the draft design documentation to the relevant Sections (or appraisal peer group members) within AusAID, together with the Activity Manager's initial comments, to promote discussion on the appropriateness of the proposed design
• determine the scope of appraisal required, in consultation with colleagues, including the nature of the appraisal peer review process and independent appraisal as required
• coordinate preparation of the appraisal TOR and an appraisal schedule indicating the main issues to be further appraised, the responsibilities of those involved and the timing. Whilst the Activity Manager coordinates the process of appraisal, the appraisal note will be prepared by the appraisal team and
• indicate in the appraisal TOR, the specific TOR for all consultants who will be involved in the appraisal.

The process of preparing the appraisal note will require the consolidation and rationalisation of appraisal comments from the different sections within AusAID, from the appraisal team and from others consulted on appraisal findings.

As a result of its assessment, the appraisal team will consider a range of options, including recommending alternative means of achieving the activity's objectives and comparing such alternatives with those in the draft activity design. This may result in minor or substantial changes to the activity design.

A.2 Field appraisal

A.2.1 When to use a field appraisal

A field appraisal is required when the relevant work area (in consultation with colleagues) decides that adequate appraisal requires on-site inspection and face-to-face discussion with local decision makers and intended beneficiaries.

Examples of when a field appraisal may be required include when:

• the activity is large and complex and/or politically sensitive
• circumstances (e.g. institutional, economic, political or social) in the country have changed in some significant way since the design document was produced
• there remain significant unresolved issues which require clarification with the partner government and implementing agencies
• there has been a long delay between the initial proposal and the feasibility study or between the study and the appraisal.

Field appraisal may also be undertaken partly in parallel with the feasibility/design. This option has the appraisal team arriving in country during (usually towards the end of) the feasibility/design team mission so it can discuss with the design team issues before the conclusion of the design team's field work. The strategy needs to be considered carefully to ensure that the feasibility and appraisal teams can effectively fulfil their responsibilities, the logistics are manageable and the demands made on partner agencies are not excessive.

Specific guidance for field appraisal teams and missions is set out below. More general guidance on planning and managing in-country missions is set out in AusGuideline 6.2 Planning and managing in country missions.

A.2.2 Selecting a field appraisal team

For field appraisals, AusAID may contract one or more consultants to form a small team to undertake the study. Where a team is selected, an AusAID sectoral advisor may be appointed as a team leader. The advisor would then assist the Activity Manager in selecting an appropriately qualified team to undertake the appraisal. The officer responsible for selecting the appraisal team will normally select the appropriate consultant(s) from either the relevant AusAID period contract or from the consultant register.

To ensure that the appraisal is professionally conducted, the size and composition of the required appraisal team should reflect the scale and/or complexity of the activity and the importance of the various design issues which need to be assessed.

A.2.3 Team briefing in Australia

AusAID's appraisal team leader is responsible for arranging a briefing of the selected Australian team members prior to their departure. The briefing involves the Activity Manager and other officers who can assist with information on the suitability of the draft activity design documentation and scope of services for the implementation contract.

The following is a combined agenda to be covered either in Australia or in country. While suggestions have been made as to who might have comparative advantage in leading the different agenda items, it is important for the Desk and Post to liaise to minimise unnecessary duplication and to agree on the logical primary responsibilities. To assist in this process it is generally useful if the Desk and Post share draft annotated briefing agendas during preparation for the mission.

A.2.4 Team briefing in country

Once Australian members arrive in country, the Post organises a briefing of the full appraisal team, involving appropriate AusAID and Embassy staff. Discussions may also be held with the Head of Mission where appropriate. Initial meetings are also arranged with the partner government. The Post may agree with the Activity Manager on an alternative means of briefing the partner government if it considers other arrangements more appropriate.

In preparation for the briefing, the Post should supply government team members with the draft activity design documentation, and request that they prepare comments. The Post may also make available (or indicate the location of) background documentation from relevant partner government agencies, NGO and/or other donor agencies.

As discussed in the section "Team briefing in Australia" the actual briefing agenda and the allocation of primary responsibility for each item between the Desk and Post needs to be discussed during preparation for the mission.

A.2.5 The appraisal field work program

The outcome of the field appraisal study is that AusAID is provided with a thorough assessment of how validly the stated objectives of the activity address the development problem, how likely the proposed inputs and activities are to achieve the stated objectives within the time frame allocated and the feasibility and viability of the design. The appraisal also assesses the participatory processes built into the design and provided for in activity implementation.

In order to make such an assessment, the appraisal team usually develops a field work program to include:

• preliminary discussions with key coordination, implementation and other stakeholder agencies at a headquarters-level
• visits to the proposed activity location(s) to check on specific field-based issues concerning activity design
• on-site discussions with beneficiaries, partner government implementing agencies and other participating groups on activity scope and implementation issues
• additional data collection and analysis, draft report preparation and final discussions
• final debriefing consultations with partner government and other stakeholder agencies.

A key input to the appraisal study is the data provided by a well planned and executed feasibility/design study. If the appraisal team concludes that data is adequate, they should use it to appraise the activity design.

As a result of their assessment, the appraisal team may consider alternative means of moving towards the objectives and compare these alternatives with those in the draft activity design documentation. Improved activity design may result in but is not necessarily limited to:

• more coherent or sharply focused objectives and outputs
• additional activities or resources to achieve the objectives and outputs more effectively
• more viable options proposed
• proposed activity elements being deleted
• management and coordination arrangements being revised
• stakeholder responsibilities being specified more clearly
• additional risk management strategies being suggested or modification of proposed activities to enhance risk management
• a strengthened sustainability strategy.

In some circumstances the appraisal team may recommend rejection of the activity.

A.2.6 Debriefing the appraisal team

Debriefing of the full field appraisal team occurs in country, followed by a debriefing of Australian team members in Australia.

Debriefing in country

Debriefing of the full appraisal team in country should take place at the end of the field study. There should be a separate discussion with the Post, followed by a debriefing of representatives of the relevant partner government agencies.

The team leader prepares an aide memoire covering the objectives of the appraisal, the method used, the team composition and the principal findings. They clear the aide memoire with the Post and present it to the partner government for discussion. The Post also attends this meeting. The team leader should ensure that the views of partner government team members are reflected in the aide memoire.

The partner government may want to sign the aide memoire or may be satisfied with merely receiving a copy. The aide memoire should contain a disclaimer saying that the findings are those of the team and do not necessarily reflect those of either the Australian or partner Government.

A suggested in country debriefing agenda is shown below:

Debriefing in Australia

The Activity Manager arranges a debriefing of the Australian team members in AusAID following circulation of the appraisal note and working papers. At the debriefing the appraisal note and issues arising from the study are discussed and instructions developed for the appraisal peer review process, as required, and preparing final activity design documentation.

A suggested agenda for the in-Australia debriefing is provided below:

B. Appraisal note

Main source document for this Annex: AusGuideline 6.5: Activity quality standards

Associated guidance on activity design

• Part 3A Identification and assessment of initiatives
• Part 3B Preparing activity designs
• AusGuideline 3.1 Principles of activity design [PDF 298KB]
• AusGuideline 3.2 Selecting forms of aid [PDF 243KB]
• AusGuideline 3.3 The Logical Framework Approach [PDF 267KB]
• AusGuideline 3.4 Undertaking a prefeasibility study [PDF 132KB]
• AusGuideline 3.5 Undertaking a feasibility and design study [PDF 276KB]
• AusGuideline 3.6 Preparing draft scope of services and basis of payment [PDF 167KB]
  
• AusGuideline 3.7 Preparing activity schedules [PDF 503KB]
• AusGuideline 3.8 Designing and using Flexible Funding Accounts [PDF 271KB]
  

Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia