l Climate Initiative istry for the
Annex 6: Self-evaluation scheme
Instructions for the self-assessment
This self-assessment sheet is meant to provide the opportunity for the implementing agency to critically review its own project.
Each guiding question should be carefully read, and each indicator should be rated from 1-6 (with 1 being the best grade and 6 being the worst grade). It is to be noted, though, that grade "1" should only be given in case of a "very good result that exceeds clearly all
expectations". Only full grades should be used, i.e. 1,2,3,4,5,6.
Justifications, explanations, or comments as to the self-assessment (grade), deviation from the planned results and lessons learnt should be provided.
Possible grades to be assigned to the evaluation criteria
Possible grades Standard definitions
Grade 1 Very good result, exceeding clearly all expectations
Grade 2 Good result, fully fulfilling expectations, no major shortcomings
Grade 3 Satisfying result, below expectations but the positive result dominate
Grade 4 Non-satisfying result, clearly below expectations, negative results clearly dominate despite visible positive results
Grade 5 Clearly inadequate result, clearly below expectations, negative results clearly dominate
Grade 6 The project is to be seen very critically, it is useless and/or changed the situation for the worse
Evaluation criteria
Planned:
Guiding question and planned results
Indicator Achieved:
Degree of target achievement (1,2,3,4,5,6)
Justifications, explanations, or comments as to the self-assessment (grade), deviation from the planned results and lessons learnt
Effectiveness GQ2.2: Was the project goal achieved (in case of finished projects), or respectively to which degree is it probable that the project goal will be achieved (in case of on-going projects)?
Planned-GQ2.2: The project goal was fully achieved.
I2.2.1: Degree of project goal achievement
(Based on the specific indicators of the project. If there are more than one indicator they will have to be ranked and added up. Only one grade shall be given here)
I3.1.1: Cost per emission reduction
€/tCO2 compared to sector specific mitigation costs or conventional technologies
I3.1.2: Cost of adaption to climate change compared to the economic risks without adaption measures I3.1.3: Cost efficiency of the implemented measures
GQ3.2: Is the invested effort necessary to achieve the project goal(s)?
Planned-GQ3.2: The invested effort is fully necessary to achieve the project goal(s).
I3.2.1: Requirement (costs) of implemented measures for achieving the project goal(s)
GQ3.3: Are the outputs of the project (e.g. capacities, knowledge, equipment) really used?
Planned-GQ3.3: The outputs of the project (e.g. capacities, knowledge, equipment) are really used.
I3.3.1: Degree of utilization of the outputs through the target group
To be indicated by the implementing agency Self-Assessment of target achievement by the implementing agency
Indicator rating: 1 = best grade possible, 6 = worst grade possible Grade "1" should only be given in case of a "very good result, exceeds clearly all
expectations"
Possible grades: 1,2,3,4,5,6
GQ3.1: Is the invested effort justified when compared to the respective reference value/frame (e.g. sector-specific mitigation costs)?
Planned-GQ3.1: The invested effort is low compared to the respective reference value/frame (e.g. sector-specific mitigation costs) Efficiency
I4.1.1: Realized/potential indirect emission reduction that go beyond the project level (in tCO2 or CO2 equivalent gases)
I4.1.2: Realized/potential decrease of ecosystem vulnerability that goes beyond the project level
I4.1.3: (Potential) indirect impact of staff and institutional capacities for preparing for and adapting to climate change (preparedness) and implementing of mitigation projects
I4.1.4: Degree of awareness of climate change and necessity for climate protection among the target group (proxy indicator - beyond the project level)
I4.2.1: Positive un-intended side impact
Grading from 1 (very high) to 2 (high) Note: In case of no un-intended positive side impacts this indicator shall not be graded
I4.2.2: Negative un-intended side impact Grading from 6 (high) to 5 (middle) to 4 (small)
Note: In case of no un-intended negative side impacts this indicator shall not be graded
GQ4.2: To which degree were relevant other un-intended impacts achieved ("Co-benefits"/negative side impacts)? This can also be impact that are not strictly "climate-relevant"
Planned-GQ4.2: The intended positive impact was achieved, and no negative un-intended impacts were caused.
Note: In case of no un-intended positive or negative side impacts this question is not to be graded
Impact GQ4.1: Which qualitative and quantitative climate-relevant impacts were achieved?
Planned-GQ4.1: The envisaged qualitative and quantitative climate-relevant impacts were fully achieved.
I4.3.1: Potential for replication of the project approach in the geographic project area
I4.3.2: Replication outside of the initial geographic project area
GQ5.1: To which degree is the project's impact verifiable even after the end of the project (in case of finished projects) or respectively to which degree is the project's impact expected to be verifiable after the end of the project?
Planned-GQ5.1: Even after the end of the project the project's impact is verifiable without a doubt (or respectively for on-going projects: the project's impact is expected to be verifiable without a doubt even after the end of the project)
I5.1.1: Verifiable impact after the end of the project
GQ5.2: To which degree do the beneficiary / project partner have the technical, economic and political capacities of sustaining and continuing the positive results of the project after the project has ended?
Planned-GQ5.2: The beneficiary / project partner have the technical, economic and political capacities to sustain and continue the positive project results after the project has ended.
I5.2.1: Capacities of the beneficiary / project partner to continue the positive project results in a sustainable manner
I5.3.1: Degree of continuation of the project's results with own resources by the beneficiary / project partner
I5.3.2: Initiation of investments of third parties
GQ4.3: To which degree were multiplier effects in view of dissemination of the results achieved?
Planned-GQ4.3: The envisaged multiplier effects in view of the dissemination of the results was achieved.
GQ5.3: To which degree are the project's outputs used or continued by the beneficiary / project partner?
Soll-LF5.3: The project' outputs are used or continued by the beneficiary / project partner.
Sustainability
I5.4.2: Probability of occurrence of social risks that can negatively influence the sustainability of the project I5.4.3: Probability of occurrence of institutional risks that can negatively influence the sustainability of the project I5.4.4: Probability of occurrence of economic risks that can negatively influence the sustainability of the project
GQ6.1: To which degree are is the project complementary / additive towards projects of other donors (including other German ministries / state agencies)?
Planned-GQ6.1: The project concept is well coordinated / harmonized with other bi- and multilateral projects (including other German ministries / state agencies).
I6.1.1: Coordination / harmonization of the project concept with other donors (including other German ministries / state agencies) with view to complementarity, additivity, duplicability
GQ6.2: Do the chosen forms of cooperation in project implementation assure an adequate coordination with other donors (including German ministries / state agencies)?
Planned-GQ6.2: The chosen forms of cooperation ensure an adequate coordination in project implementation.
I6.2.1: Ongoing coordination on the ground (in situ)
I71.1: The general ecological, social, institutional and economic framework was adequately analysed
I7.1.2: The envisaged goals are precisely formulated and realistic
I7.1.3: A meaningful operational plan is available
I7.1.4: The intervention logic (vertically and horizontally) is consistent and logical
I7.1.5: Indicators for performance review are formulated so as to lead to meaningful information
I7.1.6: Indicators for performance review are measurable with acceptable effort Planning and steering
Coherence and coordination
I5.4.1: Probability of occurrence of ecological risks that can negatively influence the sustainability of the project GQ5.4: How stable is the ecological, social, institutional and economic
situation in the project area? Could changes of the current situation negatively influence the project's sustainability?
Planned-GQ5.4: The ecological, social, institutional and economic situation in the project area is stable, changes cannot negatively influence the project's sustainability in a significant way.
GQ7.1: To what degree is the project planning by the implementing agency, the partner organization and the project management team of good quality?
Planned-GQ7.1: Project planning of the implementing agency, the partner organization and the project management team is fully adequate.
I7.2.1: A monitoring and evaluation system is established
I7.2.2: The monitoring is used
I7.2.3: The monitoring and evaluation system delivers relevant information for performance review
I7.2.4: A meaningful operational plan is continuously adjusted
I7.2.5: Adherence to planned timeframe
I7.3.1: The contracting agency (Ministry of Environment / Program Office) reacts to progress reports in a timely manner
I7.3.2: The contract agency (Ministry of Environment / Program Office) questions the content of the progress reports and/or provides feedback for project implementation
GQ7.3: To which degree is quality control undertaken by the contracting agency / the Program Office?
Planned-GQ7.3: Quality control by the contracting agency / the Program Office is fully sufficient
GQ7.2: To what degree is the steering of the implementing agency, the partner organization and the project management team of good quality?
Planned-GQ7.2: The steering of the implementing agency, the partner organization and the project management team is fully adequate.
EXAMPLE
Evaluation criteria
Planned:
Guiding question and planned results
Indicator Achieved:
Degree of target achievement (1,2,3,4,5,6)
Justification, explanation, or comments for the deviation from the planned results
GQ3.2: Is the invested effort necessary to achieve the project goal(s)?
Planned-GQ3.2: The invested effort is fully necessary to achieve the project goal(s).
I3.2.1: Necessity (cost) of the implemented measures for achieving
the project goal(s) 2
Every measure was necessary to achieve the project goal. At times the efficiency of the implemented activity could have been increased, though was impeded through local peculiarities (difficult access to government officials)
GQ3.3: Are the outputs of the project (e.g. capacities, knowledge, equipment) really used?
Planned-GQ3.3: The outputs of the project (e.g. capacities, knowledge, equipment) are really used.
I3.3.1: Degree of utilization of the outputs through the target group
3
The project is still going on, though it is likely that only a part of the target group will use the project's outputs. This is mostly due to the fact that behavioural change is needed, which comes only slowly and not to everyone.
Self-Assessment of target achievement by the implementing agency
Indicator rating: 1 = best grade possible, 6 = worst grade possible (Possible grades: 1,2,3,4,5,6)
To be indicated by the implementing agency
Efficiency