assessment of sustainability elements-key risk factors_practical guide

8/8/2019 Assessment of Sustainability Elements-Key Risk Factors_Practical Guide

1/44

Assessment o SustainabilityElements / Key Risk Factors

Practical Guide


2/44

Content

Purpose and Use o the Practical Guide 2

Assessment o Gender Equality and Womens Empowerment 4

Assessment o Environmental Sustainability 9

Assessment o HIV and AIDS 15

Assessment o Institutional Capacity 20

Assessment o Conlict Sensitivity 25

Assessment o Financial Management and Corruption 30

Assessment o Human Rights and Equality 35


3/44

1


4/44

Purpose and Use o the Practical Guide

The Development Cooperation Manual (DCM) is a quality assurance tool or

the management o Norwegian support to Partner Countries eorts to achieve

development results.

This Practical Guide is a supportive document or carrying out screening and

assessment o the relevant sustainability elements/key risk actors, as described

in DCM. The Guide is designed to be o practical use when identiying and

documenting the eects, impacts and risks o a programme.

This Guide contains seven chapters each describing one important sustainability

element. The elements are in accordance with internationally accepted standards

or analysis o risk actors. The ollowing seven sustainability elements are based

on OECD/DACs six areas o particular importance rom 1992 but adjusted to

existing Norwegian development policy:

Gender Equality and Womens Empowerment

Environmental Sustainability

HIV and AIDS

Institutional Capacity

Confict Sensitivity

Financial Management and Corruption

Human Rights and Equality

2


5/44

The structure o the Practical Guide ollows DCMs description o the programme

cycle. All seven chapters suggest important and critical questions that may be

asked and answered during the Preparatory Phase, the Follow-up Phase and the

Completion Phase. In order to acilitate the screening and assessment the Guide

suggests identical procedures or addressing all the sustainability elements.

Not all the sustainability elements are relevant in all programmes. The goal

and design o a programme will decide whether one or more o the sustainability

elements may be a potential risk actor. It is, thereore, important to assesswhich elements that are relevant and how they will be addressed. This is espe-

cially important in the initial phase when a programme document is still a drat.

The relevance o the suggested questions will dier rom programme to pro-

gramme and rom country to country. For programmes assessed locally

by the Embassy, the questions in the Guide may hopeully be o direct use.

For programmes that involves technical support rom Norad the questions may

be used when drating the request or the assignment. In Sector Programmes

or Joint Financed Programmes the Embassy should, in line with the Paris

Declaration, as ar as possible harmonize the assessments with other donors.

3


6/44

4


7/44

5

Assessment o Gender Equality and Womens Empowerment

Assessing gender equality and empowerment means addressing

the relations between gender, causes o inequality and poverty,

and the role o equal participation. Drawing upon womens knowledge

and resources is cost-eective and rational. It enhances the realisation

o equal rights and opportunities or women and men, girls and boys in gaining

rom development programmes.

The Convention on the Elimination o All orms o Discrimination against

Women (CEDAW), the Beijing Plan o Action and the Millennium DevelopmentGoals provides a common ramework that Norway and the international society

are committed to. Some programmes target women (or men), others will inte-

grate gender equality and empowerment as part o a programmes objectives.

The speciic sector or programme ocus will determine the level and extent

o the gender and empowerment analysis.

Preparatory Phase

Platform for Dialogue

When considering the sustainability o a development programme one important

issue to be clariied is the gender aspect. To ind out i more inormation and

documentation are needed, an initial screening on gender aspects and potential

impacts on women and men and gender equality should be carried out in the

preparatory phase.

The ollowing questions might be considered when undertaking an initial gender

and empowerment screening.

Will both women and men be involved in planning, implementation

and evaluation o the project?

Will the programme aect women and men dierently?

Who will beneit and who will potentially be in disadvantage

rom the proposed interventions and activities?

Has the programme incorporated speciic activities and mechanisms

to ensure the equal participation o women and men? What are the potential

barriers to womens and mens (girls and boys) participation?


8/44

6

I the initial screening shows that the inormation on gender is insuicient

there is a need to discuss with the development Partner how this may

be included in the Programme Document and whether a ull or limited study

should be undertaken.

AppraisalThe Appraisal assesses the relevance, easibility and potential risks and sustaina-

bility o a development programme. I the gender aspect is identiied as a critical

sustainability element and a possible risk actor the Appraisal shall ascertain that

relevant questions are assessed, and i necessary, provide additional inormation

or recommend that more inormation is secured. Together with a summary o the

indings the document shall give speciic recommendations o possible amend-

ments to the programme. The amendments should be relected in a revised

Programme Document, i possible.

Based on the principles o equality, participation, empowerment, non-discrimination and the realisation o womens rights the ollowing could

be assessed:

Is the programme in line with national policies and priorities

related to gender equality?

Does the programme document contain sex-disaggregated base-line data

and indicators in order to ensure and enable implementation, monitoring

and reporting mechanisms to be appropriate to concerns o importance

to womens and mens empowerment?

Is both womens and mens knowledge and experience included and utilised

in the programme, so as to ensure equal access to decision-making?

Does the programme include explicit budget allocations and resources

towards activities targeting women/men or gender equality issues?

I relevant:

Does the programme promote equal access or women and men

to resources, as technology, health, education etc?

Does the programme take into account how women and men, girls and

boys are dierently aected by conlict/war, and their dierent requirements

in protection, justice and reconstruction?

Does the programme describe the vulnerability/risks and impact

o HIV/AIDS or respectively women and men?


9/44

7

Appropriation Document/Agreement

The Appropriation Document shall make an assessment o the recommendations

o the Appraisal and the subsequent dialogue with the Partner. The document

should relect gender risks that have been identiied and measures taken

to mitigate or manage the risks, including ollow-up mechanisms. All identiied

risk actors and suitable measures or rectiication should be relected in the goalhierarchy or as a major risk actor regulated in the Agreed Programme Summary,

Annex 1 to the Agreement.

Follow-up phase

Reviews

In the ollow-up phase ormal meetings and reviews are important mechanisms

or monitoring the progress o the programme. Among issues to be discussed

are risk actors identiied in the Appraisal and relected in the Agreement including

assessment o the gender aspects.

A review-team should have competence in gender equality issues, and review

reports might include the ollowing assessments:

Have any new gender-equality issues or negative impacts on women

and/or men arisen during the implementation o the programme?

Is there any changes in the situation o women or men that can be observed

as result o the programme implementation?

Has both womens and mens potential been utilised in the programme

implementation phase?

Have means and resources been distributed equitably between women and men?

Completion phase

Both the Final Report and the End Review should include assessment o relevant

sustainability elements. The Embassy shall assess the Partners compliance with

agreed reporting requirements. Based on the End Review and/or Final Report

an assessment with a ocus on results and lessons learned shall be made.

Links to relevant source material

Handbook on gender and empowerment assessment (Norad 1999)

http://www.norad.no/deault.asp?V _ ITEM _ ID=967

UNDP Gender mainstreaming in practise a handbook

(including Sectoral approach to gender mainstreaming)

http://www.undp.org/women/docs/RBEC _ GM _ manual.pd


10/44

8

UNDP tools

www.undp.org/gender/tools.htm

CIDAs ramework or assessing gender equality results

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.ns/En/EMA-2181431-QCF

The Norwegian Governments Action Plan or the Implementation

o UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security

http://odin.dep.no/larkiv/279831/ActionPlan _ Resolution1325.pd

UN/OSAGI Gender Checklist or Peace Support Operations

http://www.peacewomen.org/resources/1325/GenderChecklist2003.pd#search

=%22gender%20checklist%20or%20peace%20support%20operations%22


11/44

9

Intr


12/44

10

Assessment o Environmental Sustainability

Assessment o the environmental sustainability o a development pro-

gramme needs to be based on an understanding o the links between

development, poverty alleviation and the environment. The environ-

mental and natural resource implications o development programmes

are driven to a large extent by the nature o the operation. Programmes within

inrastructure (hydropower, transport, water) and industrial use o natural

resources, including extractive industries (mining, petroleum) normally cause

the most severe environmental impacts, while social sector programmes cause

less impacts. The key rationale or undertaking assessment o environmentalsustainability is that this will help us to identiy, prevent or mitigate potential

negative impacts, design better development programmes and to reduce the

risks. Furthermore, the assessment will assist countries in implementing inter-

national environmental conventions and obligations.

Preparatory phase



issue to be clariied is the environmental considerations. To ind out i more

inormation and documentation on environmental aspects are needed, an initial

screening o potential environmental impacts should be carried out in the pre-

paratory phase.

The ollowing key questions might be considered when undertaking environ-

mental screening. Will the programme:

use natural resources in ways that will pre-empt the use or potentialuture use o those resources or any other purpose?

be located in, and potentially, aect any environmentally sensitive areas

such as National Parks and other protected areas, important archaeological

and cultural sites, vulnerable ecosystems which provide important ecosystem

services or with species threatened by extinction?

cause soil, water or air pollution, including climate change, and are

the potential direct and indirect impacts likely to be o minor or, o major

signiicance, and not easily mitigated?


13/44

11

result in policy initiatives which may aect the environment such as changes

in agricultural, water, energy and transport policies?

lead to occupational health and saety risks?

I the programme is unlikely to cause signiicant adverse eects on the environ-ment no urther action is required. I environmental impacts are likely, then one

has to proceed with preparation o either: 1) a ull (in the case o signiicant

impacts) environmental impact assessment (EIA) or; 2) a partial EIA (impacts

uncertain or smaller and more easily identiied and mitigated). The EIA should

be prepared in accordance with national laws and regulations. The Partner is

responsible or preparation o the EIA. An EIA evaluates a programmes potential

environmental risks and impacts in its area o inluence, examines alternatives,

identiies ways o improving planning, design and implementation by preventing,

minimizing, mitigating or compensating or adverse environmental impacts and

enhancing positive impacts. Preventive measures should be avoured over miti-

gating or compensatory measures, whenever easible.

For sector-wide programmes (e.g. SWAPs) with likely environmental impacts

an assessment o environmental policy, regulatory, and institutional capacity

is essential to gain an understanding o the countrys institutional capacity-

strengths and challenges to address potential environmental problems. This

analysis would in most cases be based on country-level analytical or diagnostic

work prepared by other development Partners or through Strategic Environ-

mental Assessment (SEA).

The ollowing general set o questions can be posed as a background to urther

analytical work o such interventions as part o the Platorm or dialogue:

What are the most important environmental challenges in a country or a region?

Is there a danger o these problems getting exacerbated by ongoing reorms

in the country or by the operation in question?

Do the environmental and natural resource management institutions have the

capacity to identiy environmental priorities, monitor the key environmentalproblems, and respond accordingly? Do these institutions have the policy

ramework and legislative authority to act when problems arise? Are there

conlicting or unclear responsibilities across governmental organisations?

Appraisal

The Appraisal assesses the relevance, easibility and potential risks and

sustainability o a development programme. I environmental impacts are

identiied as a critical sustainability element and a possible risk actor the

Appraisal shall ascertain that relevant questions are assessed, and i neces-

sary, provide additional inormation or recommend that more inormation

is secured. Together with a summary o the indings the document shall

give speciic recommendations o possible amendments to the programme.


14/44

12

The amendments should be relected in a revised Programme Document

rom the Partner, i possible.

In the appraisal the relevance, completeness and quality o the environmental

aspects and suggested mitigation procedures should be assessed. The assess-

ment in the Programme Document or the conclusions drawn in the review o theEIA should be summarized in the appraisal ocusing on (these questions can also

orm the basis or including environmental issues in the ToR or appraisal):

Have the key environmental issues been addressed?

Are there signiicant and/or irreversible environmental impacts o the project?

Have project alternatives (i relevant) been considered to help avoid

or minimize adverse impacts?

Are the measures proposed to be taken by the Partner suicient

to address the key environmental issues?

Have an assessment o the capacity o the Partner country to plan and

implement the measures described been undertaken and have the responsibility

or implementing mitigation measures been deined?

Have consultations with stakeholders, with an emphasis on potentially

aected people, been adequate?

Have indicators been developed to monitor the real environmental impacts

and have monitoring systems been established?

The appraisal should provide an overall recommendation and possible amend-

ments to these recommendations as a result o the appraisal. I the Embassy

based on the appraisal makes the assessment that the environmental impacts

would be unacceptable, Norwegian support should be rejected. I an EIA is

carried out and considered inadequate a more extensive EIA can be requested

rom the programme proponent. The recommendations should be discussedwith the Partner.

Appropriation document/Agreement



should relect environmental risks that have been identiied and measures taken

to mitigate or manage the risks including ollow-up mechanisms. All identiied

risk actors and suitable measures or rectiication should be relected in the goal

hierarchy or as a major risk actor regulated in the Agreed Programme Summary,



15/44

13

Follow-up Phase

Reviews

In the ollow-up phase ormal meetings and review reports are important

mechanisms or monitoring the progress o the programme. Among issues

to be assessed are risk actors identiied in the Appraisal and relectedin the Agreement including assessment o environmental impacts.

Guiding questions or undertaking reviews or preparing ToR or reviews

or programmes with signiicant environmental impacts are:

Have the key environmental issues identiied in the EIA been addressed

in the appraisal?

Have any new environmental issues associated with the project arisen?

Have the Partner country allocated suicient resources to the implementation

o the EMP and have environmental covenants been complied with?

Have adequate mechanisms or monitoring and reporting o environmental

impacts been established? Is it possible to ollow up and evaluate results

against these indicators?

Have the key cultural issues been addressed in the EIA or in the appraisal?

Has the programme had unoreseen negative impact or the aected people

that can be attributed to lack o cultural sensitivity.

Completion Phase

Both the Final Report and End Review should include assessment o relevant





Norwegian Environmental Action Plan: tbi

World Banks Saeguard policies

www.worldbank.org/saeguards

Equator principles (private sector guidelines)

www.equator-principles.com

European Union EIA Helpdesk

www.environment-integration.org/EN/index.php


16/44

14

Sida: Guidelines or the Review o Environmental Impact Assessment

www.sida.se/sida/jsp/sida.jsp?d=859 http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/

dep/ud/dok/rapporter _ planer/rapporter/2006/Norwegian-Action-Plan-

or-Environment-in.html?id=420455

Netherlands Commission or Environmental Impact Assessmentwww.eia.nl

DFID: Environmental Guide

www.dd.gov.uk/pubs/les/environmentguide.pd


17/44

15


18/44

16

Assessment o HIV and AIDS

In ighting the HIV and AIDS pandemic, it is suggested to go beyond

the direct interventions related to prevention, care and treatment and

also examine the relationship to broader development issues as well

as the underlying deeply-rooted social orces that uels the epidemic.

The increasing eminisation o the epidemic is an urgent challenge in this con-

text, as are the complex challenges o stigma and discrimination.

I the response to HIV and AIDS is relevant there is a need to combine imme-

diate and extraordinary measures to achieve universal access to prevention,treatment, care and support and long term approaches, where social and

economic structures and systems that generate vulnerability are addressed.

In addition, the impact o HIV and AIDS on social and economic development

must be taken into consideration in the development work.

Responding to HIV and AIDS should be done within the ramework o the national

policies and plans, and responding to the oversight o the National AIDS Authority,

including transparency in resource lows and alignment o monitoring and reporting.

Preparatory phase



issue to be clariied is how the prevalence o HIV and AIDS might aect the

programme. To ind out i more inormation and documentation on the issue

are needed, an initial screening should be carried out in the preparatory phase.

There are three key questions that can be asked in order to assess the levelo addressing HIV and AIDS:

Do HIV and AIDS aect the programme and the way the programme

should be designed?

Has the programme incorporated speciic activities and mechanisms to reduce

possible negative consequences, as well as to build in preventive measures?

Have people living with HIV/AIDS been consulted in the planning process?


19/44

17

I the initial screening shows that the inormation on HIV/AIDS is insuicient

there is a need to discuss with the development Partner how this may be

included in the Programme Document and whether a ull or a limited study

should be undertaken.

AppraisalThe Appraisal assesses the relevance, easibility and potential risks and sustai-

nability o a development programme. I the prevalence o HIV/AIDS is identiied

as a critical sustainability element and a possible risk actor, the Appraisal shall

ascertain that relevant questions are assessed, and i necessary, provide addi-

tional inormation or recommend that more inormation is secured. Together with

a summary o the indings the document shall give speciic recommendations

o possible amendments to the programme. The amendments should be relec-

ted in a revised Programme Document rom the Partner, i possible.

Relevant questions to be asked with regard to HIV and AIDS, to the extentit is relevant or the intervention, are:

Does the project make a reerence to national HIV and AIDS policies

and strategies and is it in line with such policies?

Has an assessment o the HIV and AIDS situation been carried out,

describing the situation in the area, including the most prevalent inection routes,

and analysing how the project may aect or be aected by the epidemic?

Does the programme identiy culturally related or other barriers that

may impair the development intervention?

Does the programme identiy institutions/drivers o change that may

acilitate the development process?

Are teenage pregnancies, early marriage or girls and sexually transmitted

inections prevalent in the area?

Has any intervention related to prevention or reducing stigma been included inthe project? How well are the risks o HIV understood in the local communities?

Have risks and vulnerabilities related to HIV and AIDS been analysed and taken

into consideration in the project design? Will it, or instance, increase migration,

mobility, and the gap between rich and poor in the community?

Does the programme secure equal access o women to goods and services,

so that the programme may lead to a better power equality between the sexes?

Does the programme implementer have an HIV and AIDS policy

and a track record in integrating HIV and AIDS?


20/44

18

I there is a HIV policy, does the policy protect the rights o persons living

with HIV (no discrimination in employment, no mandatory HIV testing)?

Is there a budget line or HIV and AIDS in the project proposal?

Does the project budget include contingencies to cover additional sta-related

costs due to HIV and AIDS i.e. medical care, burials and support to dependants?

Have HIV and AIDS ocal points been appointed or the project?

Is there a monitoring and evaluation system in the project,

also covering HIV and AIDS issues?



o the Appraisal, and the subsequent dialogue with the Partner. The document

should relect HIV/AIDS risks that have been identiied and measures taken

to mitigate or manage the risks, including ollow- up mechanisms. Where risk

actors are identiied, suitable measures or rectiication should be relected

in the goal hierarchy or as major risk actors regulated in the Agreed Programme

Summary, Annex 1 to the Agreement.

Follow-up phaseReviews

In the ollow-up phase ormal meetings and review reports are important mecha-

nisms or monitoring the progress o the programme. Among issues to be asses-

sed are risk actors identiied in the Appraisal and relected in the Agreement

including assessment o the HIV/AIDS situation.

Guiding questions to be raised might be:

How are policies and strategies with regard to HIV being implemented?

How have gender issues been addressed?

How have risks and vulnerability been addressed?

To what extent have people living with HIV been involved?


21/44

19

Completion phase

Both the Final Reports and End Review should include assessment o relevant





There are several sector specic guidelines and checklists on integrating

HIV and AIDS in development work, dealing with sectors such as inrastructure,

agriculture, education, human rights, governance, private sector, micronance

etc. A good starting point could be the AIDS Bries and AIDS Toolkits rom

HEARD in South Arica, with a list o Bries and Toolkits or dierent sectors,

with an Impact Checklist and Action Checklist.

http://www.ukzn.ac.za/heard/publications/publicationsAIDsBries.htm

http://www.ukzn.ac.za/heard/publications/publicationsAIDsToolkits.htm

UNAIDS Secretariat Strategy Note and Action Framework 2004-2005

on Support to mainstreaming AIDS in Development

http://data.unaids.org/UNA-docs/Mainstreaming _ StrategyNote

_ en.pd?preview=true)

Mainstreaming AIDS in Development Instruments

and Processes at the National Level

http://data.unaids.org/Publications/IRC-pub06/Mainstreaming _ AIDS%20in

_ Dev _ Instr _ Rep _ 28Nov05 _ en.pd?preview=true)

In the AIDS Bries reerred to above, there are also checklists or action,

and they should be reviewed or the relevant sector.

Since all sectors have personnel, the The ILO Code o Practice on HIV/AIDS in

the world o work is a key document or workplace practices on HIV and AIDS.

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/trav/aids/publ/code.htm


22/44

20


23/44

21

Assessment o Institutional Capacity

The term institutional capacityhas no single, authoritative deinition.

In development, capacity development is a requently used paradigm,

covering overall aspects o capacity on individual level, organisational

level and system level. Institutional development is used interchangeably

with capacity development by dierent agencies.

Institutional capacity is in this context understood as the ability o individuals,

organisations and broader systems to perorm their unctions eectively,

eiciently and in a sustainable way. There are thereore three analytical levelson which capacity-development objectives may be pursued: 1) individual,

2) organisational, and 3) the enabling environment.1 The term systemic

is used to reer to the interactions between the levels.

Some prominent elements involved in assessment o institutional

capacity are:

Individual level: human resources; volume, quality and competence

Organisational level: organisational strengths and weaknesses

Enabling environment: social systems, regulatory and legal environments

Context may dier widely, and additional components may have to be added.

In situations o conlict and extreme political instability, separate assessments

may be required to identiy speciic risks.

Preparatory Phase

Platform for DialogueWhen considering the sustainability o a development programme one important

issue to be clariied is institutional capacity. To ind out i more inormation and

documentation on the issue are needed, an initial screening o the institutional

capacity should be carried out in the preparatory phase.

1 DAC Network on Governance: The Challenge o Capacity Development: Working towards

good practice. OECD 2005. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/36/36326495.pd


24/44

22

In the screening the ollowing questions may be considered:

Are there any type o resources and mechanisms that have to be in place

or the execution o activities, in terms o institutional capacity (e.g. needs

or development assistance)?

Are there immediate assumptions o critical capacity shortcomings

within the organisations, systems and their environments that may topple

the proposal, or that call or alternative or additional strategies which

will have to be included in urther planning?

May partnership arrangements possibly cover immediate shortcomings

within the existing core structure (e.g. twinning arrangements,

technical assistance, sta exchanges)?

Is it likely that one will have to make provisions within the proposedactivity or a particular capacity development component?

I the initial screening shows that the inormation on institutional capacity

is insuicient there is a need to discuss with the development Partner how this

may be included in the Programme Document and whether a ull or a limited

study should be undertaken.

Appraisal

The Appraisal assesses the relevance, easibility and potential risks and sustai-

nability o a development programme. I weak institutional capacity is identiied

as a critical sustainability element and a possible risk actor the Appraisal shall

ascertain that all relevant questions are assessed, and i necessary, provide

additional inormation or recommend that more inormation is secured. Together

with a summary o the indings the document shall give speciic recommen-

dations o possible amendments to the Programme. The amendments should

be relected in a revised Project Document rom the Partner, i possible.

ToR can be speciic in addressing the ollowing questions:

Identiy the organisational structures to be involved to execute

the activities; have they been consulted and how do they assess

the project (capability, ability and willingness)?

Assess structures and mechanisms in the environment o the project,

including capacity, policy- and regulatory arrangements, and legitimacy

with key stakeholders.

Political will, understanding o ownership and division o roles.

Possible socio-cultural dimensions to consider.


25/44

23

Identiy possible gaps in administrative and individual capacities; human resour-

ces compared to required needs (volume/quantity and quality/competencies).

Assess i measures to mitigate possible shortcomings are provided or, e.g.

i they are gap-illing arrangements or have sustainable impacts (e.g. development

assistance, technical resource provisions, institutional twinning, etc).

May donor harmonisation or donor behaviour inluence the executional

capacity o the project, or example by imposing transition costs related

to the project design and governance structure?




should relect institutional risks that have been identiied and measures taken

to mitigate or manage the risks, including ollow-up mechanisms. Where risk

actors are identiied, suitable measures or rectiication should be relected

in the goal hierarchy or as major risk actors regulated in the Agreed Programme

Summary, Annex 1 to the Agreement.

Follow-up Phase

Reviews

In the ollow-up phase ormal meetings and review reports are important mecha-

nisms or monitoring the progress o the programme. Among issues to be asses-

sed are risk actors identiied in the Appraisal and relected in the Agreement

including assessment o the institutional capacity.

Guiding questions to reports and reviews to address the issue o institutional

capacity are:

Have the measures taken been suicient?

Have any o the projects deliverables been hampered by capacity constraints,or is there a oreseeable risk that they will be?

Have new or unoreseen constraints arisen?

What are the characteristics o these constraints?

What measures are needed, and are they realistic to introduce successully?

Are there any changes in stakeholder structures, political will or motivation

that are likely to inluence institutional capacity o the project?


26/44

24

Completion Phase






EuropeAid, 2005: Institutional Assessment and Capacity Development

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/europeaid/reports/concept _ paper

_ nal _ 051006 _ en.pd

A Brie Review o 20 Tools to Assess Capacity. UNDP, 2005.

http://www.capacity.org/en/publications/a _ brie _ review

_ o _ 20 _ tools _ to _ assess _ institutional _ capacity

A Results-Oriented Approach to Capacity Change.

Ministry o Foreign Aairs, Danida. 2005.

http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/780914AD-A4C4-42C2-8039-

8115F4CA0DDB/0/KortCDbrientro.pd

DAC Network on Governance: The Challenge o Capacity Development:

Working towards good practice. OECD 2005.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/36/36326495.pd


27/44

25


28/44

26

Assessment o Confict Sensitivity

All development assistance in countries with violent conlict or in a post-

war setting is acing particular challenges.2 The context is most oten

highly charged politically, and the security situation becomes an

important actor. Not only assistance ocused directly on peace-building,

but development assistance in general will be aected and may have an impact

on the conlict itsel, negatively or positively.

Being conlict sensitive means that development programmes/projects are assess-

ed and adjusted in relation to the context o violent conlict in which they are beingimplemented, with a view to avoid unintended negative impacts and maximise

positive ones. As a minimum, any intervention must be conscious about risks.

An assessment o conlict sensitivity is thereore necessary in principle or all pro-

jects and programmes to be implemented in countries and areas where there is

an ongoing violent conlict, where such a violent conlict has recently ended, and

in cases where there is a high probability that a violent conlict may break out.

Preparatory Phase

Platform for dialogue


issue to be clariied is i there is an ongoing conlict in the area and i all aspects

regarding the conlict is known. To ind out i more inormation and documen-

tation are needed, an initial screening on conlict sensitivity should be carried

out in the preparatory phase.

The purpose o the screening is to examine whether the particular developmentprogramme is likely to cause adverse impacts on the conlict situation, or has

the potential or contributing more positively. A prerequisite or addressing this,

is a basic understanding o the conlict situation surrounding the proposed pro-

gramme, consisting o the elements o a conlict analysis: 1) what are the root

causes or the conlict, 2) what are the conlict dynamics, and 3) who are the

main actors (dividers and connectors). The Platorm or dialogue must clariy

whether there is satisactory knowledge about these important actors and about

how the proposed programme may interere with these.

2 The same applies to humanitarian assistance, especially when supporting protracted

emergencies, resettlement, reconstruction and reconciliation programmes.


29/44

27

I the initial screening shows that the inormation on the conlict sensitivity

is insuicient, there is a need to discuss with the development Partner how

this may be included in the Programme Document and whether a ull or limited

study should be undertaken.

AppraisalThe Appraisal assesses the relevance, easibility and potential risks and sustaina-

bility o a development programme. I a conlict situation is identiied as a critical

sustainability element and a possible risk actor, the Appraisal shall ascertain

that all relevant questions are assessed, and i necessary, provide additional

inormation or recommend that more inormation is secured. Together with

a summary o the indings the document shall give speciic recommendations

o possible amendments to the Programme. The amendments should be relec-

ted in a revised Programme Document rom the Partner, i possible.

In the Appraisal, the emphasis should be on the more speciics o the proposedproject/ programme to what extent it responds to the core questions and any

additional concerns as described elsewhere in this Manual. Particular attention

should be paid to the proposed modes o operation and any security related issue.

It is suggested that the Appraisal should address the eight core questions below.

Eight core questions:

Will the aid intervention strengthen or weaken the main actors causing

or inluencing the violent conlict?

Which actors (including non-combatants) gain and which ones lose by the aid

intervention, and are these actors connectors or dividers in the conlict?

How will thesecurity situation aect the project/programme, and in what ways

may implementation o the intervention have an impact on the security situation?

How will the political actors and the main parties to the conlict

perceive the intervention?

What resources are brought into the context by the intervention,

and what eects may these have on the conlict? May these resources

invite corruption, thet and/or mismanagement o resources?

Is the time actorwell adjusted to the context and conlict dynamics, in terms

o speed o implementation, process o consultations, sequencing and lexibility?

Will the intervention aect thegender dimensions o the conlict,

and/or position o speciic vulnerable groups?

How will theperormance o the intervention, particularly attitudes

and transers o values, aect the actors?


30/44

28



o the Appraisal and subsequent dialogue with the Partner. The document should

relect conlict risks that have been identiied and measures taken to mitigate

or manage the risks, including ollow-up mechanisms. Where risk actors are

identiied, suitable measures or rectiication should be relected in the goalhierarchy or as major risk actors regulated in the Agreed Programme Summary,


Follow-up Phase

Reviews

In the ollow-up phase ormal meetings and reviews are important mechanisms

or monitoring the progress o the programme. Among issues to be assessed are

problems identiied in the Appraisal and relected in the Agreement including

assessment o conlict sensitivity.

Guiding questions on conlict sensitivity when undertaking reviews are:

Are there any signiicant changes in the conlict situation?

Has the programme had unoreseen negative impact

on the conlict dynamics in the area?

Has the programme contributed towards peace-building?

Have any o the programmes deliverables been prevented or aected

because o lack o security or other conlict-related causes?

Is inormation management and communication with

the relevant Partners and actors adequate?


31/44

29

Completion Phase

Both the Final Reports and the End Review should include assessment o relevant





Ministry o Foreign Aairs: Peace-building a Development

Perspective. Strategic Framework (2004)

http://odin.dep.no/ud/english/topics/dev/032181-120005/

dok-bn.html Also available in Norwegian.

Anderson, Mary B. (1999): Do No Harm. How Aid Can Support Peace

Or War, Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc., (see also Collaborative

or Development Actions own website: www.cdainc.com)

OECD/DAC (2006): Preventing Confict and Building Peace:

A Manual o Issues and Entry Points

www.oecd.org/dac/confict/issuesbries

The Norwegian Governments Action Plan or the Implementation

o UNSCR 1325 on Women Peace and Security (2006)

Also available in Norwegian.


32/44

30


33/44

31

Assessment o Financial Management and Corruption

This chapter provides guidance on how to carry out an assessment

o the inancial sustainability elements o a development programme.

That means assessing the inancial management and iduciary risk.

Fiduciary risk is the risk that unds are not used or the intended purpose,

do not achieve value or money or are not properly accounted or. It is o parti-

cular importance that preventive measures to combat corruption are given

priority in the overall risk assessment.

The inancial sustainability assessment must ensure that the request or unding

is based on a realistic documentation and assessment o all cost elements and

sources o inancing or the whole programme period.

Preparatory phase



issue to be clariied is the inancial management and iduciary risk. To ind out

i more inormation and documentation are needed, an initial screening o inan-

cial management and the risk or corruption should be carried out in the

preparatory phase.

In the screening the ollowing questions can be considered:

Are the level and orms o corruption within the country/sector/institution

a risk actor?

Are the inancial management capacity and competence

o the country/sector/institution a risk actor?

Are the Partner's inancial management systems and capabilities satisactory?

Are the sources o inance and conditionalities or unding properly

relected in the Programme Document/documentation?

I the initial screening shows that the inormation on the inancial management

systems, including risk or corruption is insuicient, there is a need to discuss

with the development Partner how this may be included in the Programme

Document and whether a ull or limited study should be undertaken.


34/44

32

Appraisal

The Appraisal assesses the relevance, easibility and potential risks and sustaina-

bility o a development programme. I weak inancial management systems are

identiied as a critical sustainability element and a possible risk actor, the

Appraisal shall ascertain that all relevant questions are assessed, and i necessary,

provide additional inormation or recommend that more inormation is secured.Together with a summary o the indings the document shall give speciic recom-

mendations o possible amendments to the programme. The amendments should

be relected in a revised Programme Document rom the Partner, i possible.

Guiding questions or The Appraisal are:

Does the management o the programme lead to high transaction costs?

Are budgets and programme goals transparent and available

or public monitoring?

Does the budget include all oreseeable cost elements,

and is the planned unding suicient?

Assess the other planned sources o inancing.

Government and other donors: commitment and political will to pay?

User ees: willingness/ability to pay/collect?

Programmes own income generation: realistic projections?

Are the required inputs justiiable in terms o the expected outputs

(cost eiciency)?

Does the risk assessment and risk management include all iduciary risks,

and are anti-corruption measures assessed satisactory?

Are sound routines or inancial reporting, accounting and auditing in place?



o the appraisal and the subsequent dialogue with the Partner. The document

should relect iduciary risks that have been identiied and measures taken to

mitigate or manage the risks, including ollow-up mechanisms. All identiied risk

actors and suitable measures or rectiication should be relected in the goal

hierarchy or as major risk actors regulated in the Agreed Programme Summary,



35/44

33

Follow-up phase

Reviews


mechanisms or monitoring the progress o the programme. Among issues

to be assessed are risk actors identiied in the Appraisal and relected in theAgreement including inormation on inancial management and iduciary risk.

Late or unsatisactory reporting might be a warning sign that management is

weak and irregularities might occur. Where irregularities are suspected or being

reported on, these must be acted on according to the procedures set in the

Agreement. In accordance with Norads Advisory notes on corruption, suspicion

should be reported to the MFA and handled in a co-ordinated manner with

the MFA. Follow-up o economic and inancial reports should be undertaken

in accordance with the Development Cooperation Manual.

Relevant questions to be raised may be:

Do the Partners inancial management systems and capabilities

prove themselves suicient in practice?

Are the transaction costs or programme management satisactory

or all parties involved?

Is the unding and/or income generation according to plan and suicient?

Is the expenditure so ar justiiable when compared to the plans,

progress and output o the programme?

Are the measures implemented to avoid and detect corruption

unctioning satisactory?

Has there been any change that gives reason to alter the iduciary

risk assessment and mitigating measures?

Completion phase






For public nancial management assessments, please be reerred

to the PEFA system.


36/44

34

For country level assessments, particularly relevant or e.g. sector programmes

and budget support, the latest PEFA report should be reerred to.

For budget support, please see the Guidelines orNorways provision

o budget support or developing countries.

For a more complete overview on economic and nancial analysis please

see Norad Handbook in Economic and Financial Assessment.

See Norwegian Centre or Public Financial Management (Senter

or statlig konomistyring) home page on cost-benet analysis

http://www.sso.no/templates/Page _ 139.aspx


37/44

35


38/44

36

Assessment o Human Rights and Equality

Assessing a development programme implies making eorts to secure

the promotion o social, economic and cultural rights as well as civil

and political rights. Important causes and characteristics o poverty

lie in discriminatory practices and exclusion o poor and marginalised

people. Poverty includes the lack o power to control and inluence one's own

lie. There are thereore close links between poverty reduction and ulilment

o key human rights obligations. Such principles speciy criteria or an acceptable

process that will ensure ocus on poor people's participation in development

processes. Actual or eective participation rom aected groups presupposesan analysis o the norm-holding institutions in the programme area (i.e. power

structures, socio-cultural dierences). The international human rights treaties

give a common global ramework and clariy the rights and responsibilities

o individuals as well as the obligations o states to respect, promote and ulil

the realisation o human rights or all citizens.

Development co-operation should, where appropriate, assist States in ulilling

their international human rights obligations. Recommendations rom UN treaty

bodies and special procedures on speciic countries and themes can provide

valuable guidance in this work.

Human rights principles should especially be applied in policies and pro-

grammes with impact at local level, or instance related to service delivery

(water, ood, health and education), in local inrastructure programmes

and programmes implicating use o local natural resources or land and/or

aiming at providing economic opportunities. Programmes involving excluded

or marginalised people, or instance indigenous people, and programmes

aecting people in conlict and crisis, shall always be assessed rom

a human rights perspective.

Preparatory Phase



issue to be clariied is the human rights principles. To ind out i more inor-

mation and documentation are needed, an initial screening on human rights

should be carried out in the preparatory phase.


39/44

37

In the screening, the ollowing questions might be considered:

Are there any rights at risk or the people aected by the programme?

The nature o the rights can be individual or collective. When rights are at risk,

it will oten concern vulnerable and excluded groups such as children, women,

ethnic minorities and indigenous people. It is thereore always importantto deine who are the people, individuals or groups that are aected by

a policy or programme, that is the rights holders, and assess i there could

be any assumed impact on their rights by the programme.

Does the programme secure key human rights principles

or the people aected?

Does the programme include easible plans or participation, and measures

that will ensure empowerment, non-discrimination, and accountability?

I the initial screening shows that the inormation on human rights is insuicient

there is a need to discuss with the development Partner how this may be included in

the Programme Document and whether a ull or limited study should be undertaken.

Appraisal

The Appraisal assesses the relevance, easibility and potential risks and sustai-

nability o a development programme. I human rights principles are identiied

as a critical sustainability element and a possible risk actor the Appraisal shall

ascertain that all relevant questions are assessed, and i necessary, provide

additional inormation or recommend that more inormation is secured. Together

with a summary o the indings the document shall give speciic recommen-

dations o possible amendments to the programme. The amendments should

be relected in a revised Programme Document rom the Partner, i possible.

It is suggested that Terms o Reerence or appraisal should include assessment

o the ollowing issues:

The deinition in the programme proposal o who are the people aected

by the programme, the rights holders, and the impact the programme mighthave on their rights.

How human rights principles are secured in:

the preparation o the programme?

the implementation o the programme?

Participation: Does the programme include activities and mechanisms

to promote rights holder's participation, and does the programme identiy

cultural or other barriers to their participation?


40/44

38

Empowerment: Have the right holders been inormed and consulted

about the programme and have measures been taken/activities been

included in the programme to enable rights holders to claim and

realise their rights and to participate as equals?

Non-discrimination: Does the programme secure equalityand non-discrimination or the involved parties?

Accountability: Does the programme include plans/activities aimed

at strengthening the capacity o states and other responsible institutions

to promote and ulil their human rights obligations? Are monitoring

mechanisms included so that they can be held accountable?

The Appraisal should provide overall recommendations on the human rights

aspects o the programme, and what amendments o the programme could be

done in order to comply with the above key human rights principles. I possible,mechanisms should be included in the programme to be able to monitor and

report on how these principles are ollowed up in the implementation.




should relect human rights risks that have been identiied and measures taken

to mitigate or manage the risks, including ollow-up mechanisms. The Document

should assess how human rights can be secured and possible negative eects

avoided. Where risk actors are identiied, suitable measures or rectiication

should be relected in the goal hierarchy or as major risk actors regulated

in the Agreed Programme Summary, Annex 1 to the Agreement.

Follow-up phase

Reviews


mechanisms or monitoring the progress o the programme. Among issuesto be assessed are risk actors identiied in the Appraisal and relected

in the Agreement including inormation on human rights.

Guiding questions or reports and reviews are included in the ollowing assessments:

Has there been any change in the deinition o people aected

by the programme, the rights holders?

How have the key human rights principles been ollowed up?:

Participation: How have the participation o rights holders been

ollowed up and secured?


41/44

39

Empowerment: Have the rights holders been inormed and consulted

about their rights and about the programme?

I relevant, how did initial analysis ail?

Non-discrimination: How have equality and non-discriminationo involved parties been secured?

Accountability: Have planned actions or increased accountability been

implemented? Do the monitoring mechanisms include reports with relevant

inormation at disaggregated levels, to be able to analyse results and possible

impacts or various aected groups? Has relevant inormation o the programme

and its results been communicated to the community?

Completion phase

Both the Final Reports and the End Review should include assessment o relevant





Handbook in Human Rights Assessment (Norad 2001)

Integrating Human Rights into Development. Donor approaches,

experiences and challenges (OECD 2006, The development Dimension)

http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?s1=identiers&lang

=EN&st1=432006091p1

The Oce o the United Nations High Commissioner or Human Rights

(OHCHR) has published a useul document with "Frequently Asked Questions

on a Human Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation"

http://www.ohchr.org/english/about/publications/docs/FAQen.pd

The OHCHR has also published very useul Principles and Guidelines

or a Human Rights Approach to Poverty Reduction Strategy

http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/poverty/guidelines.htm

The OHCHR has urthermore developed web pages or each country,

containing inormation about the states human rights obligations

and relevant UN recommendations and reports

http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/


42/44

40


43/44

41

For inquiries about

Assessment o Sustainability

Elements / Key Risk Factors

Practical Guide

please contact Norad,

Department or Quality Assurance

Telephone + 47 22 24 20 30

[email protected]

Published by Norad on behal o

The Norwegian Ministry o Foreign Aairs

Cover photo: Fredrik Naumann

Design: Agendum See Design

Print: RK Graisk

May 2007

ISBN 978-82-7548-204-2


44/44

Norad

Norwegian Agency or Development Cooperation

Postal address

P.O. Box 8034 Dep, NO-0030 OSLO

Ofce address

Ruselkkveien 26, Oslo, Norway

Tel: +47 22 24 20 30

Fax: +47 22 24 20 31

[email protected]

www.norad.no

assessment of sustainability elements-key risk factors_practical guide

Documents