Report on Quality at Entry and Next Steps to Complete Design for

Asia Pacific Malaria Elimination Network

AidWorks details 	completed

AidWorks 10:

Start  Date:

Total Amount:

End Date: 	December 2013

!: £ :-·-;_! t::	-p_le e_ _by_ S	- -an_ ? 	e_  	L_-·_-	-l
I  prepared by: 	J

·········--------------------------··········--················--------------········--·-----········--  ·······-----------------
Meeting date: 	2 September 2009

··········-···--------------·--·----·--··-··--  ..

r---------------- ------+---·------·-······-····-······-------------- ----·--------------····-------······----·-····· -----------···-·------·······---------------·····.J
Chair:	 	.,
f--------------------------------+--------'------,---------- ---·····-·------·------- ------------······---------·-······--·---- ---------············----------------------------------..j

Peer reviewers providing formal
comment & ratings:

i-	Peter Lindenmayer, HHTG 	, (Advice on earlier draft also provided  by Jim Catchlove, Procurement & Advisory Services) 	I
i

0----------=---·-·····i-------------·--·····----------------······--------------------------·-------------·····-------------------------
Independent	Dr Tony Stewart (External Appraiser)
Appraiser:	-	Peter Lindenmayer Rob Condon ( Part Time Adviser, Communicable Diseases)
------------------------------------------ -------------------------------·------------------·--·-····-------------,---·········------------------------------'-----------------------i
Oth  r.peer review	. _	Jim Tulloch,  Principal Health Adviser
part1c1pants: 	-	Sue Elliott, Director, HHTG
1
I- Anh-Thu Nguyen, Manager, Pacific Malaria Program
I- 	Lucy Phillips, HHTG

C: QU :tlity Rating Assessment against  indicators	<     .
completed by Activity Manager

·.·.·

Quality	Rating
i---------------------+_..:(:._1-6) *

Comments to support rating

·-------··-----------·--------------------------· ,

Required Action needed)

(if

 	: 	.:__	!

_,_	_

1.  Clear objectives

i- --

4 		Objectives consistent with AusAID's sectoral objectives, outcome focussed  and plausible. It was noted that they had been revised by the design team in response to feedback on earlier drafts and had not yet been formally endorsed by the APMEN Assembly. As the objectives were still subject to final endorsement by the full Network Assembly, the maximum  QAE score appropriate at this stage was 4 (with an expectation  of this increasing in the QAI if
endorsement was obtained at the Assembly).

Endorsement of Network
model and objectives by
Assembly in February
2010.

,-------------------t-------+·---------··-------------------------------------------···--=-'-------·-·-+-----···--···-····--··-----------------------

2.   Monitoring and
Evaluation

4 		It was agreed that overall the M&E framework was reasonable,  though there were some views that the link to the long term goals of elimination could be stronger. Some further work on detail at activity level should be undertaken.  A score of 4 was agreed

Further development of the M&E framework by the Secretariat and/or
. Working Groups, which
should then be presented . to the February 2010
Assembly for endorsement.

C: Quality Rating Assessment against indicators
completed byActivityManaget	
3.  Sustainability	4

•

.
•	At this stage it was difficult to comprehensively assess the likely sustainability of APMEN, but based on the fact that the overall model for network functioning appeared sound, there was already evidence of active membership involvement, and the multi-country approach was likely to attract interest from other funding bodies, there were grounds for optimism about
·   longer term effectiveness. On this basis, a QAE
score of 4 was agreed.		
	. ·Implementation &
Risk Management	4	•
:
'

•
.

'

'	The general approach to implementation was sound, and although ownership appeared to be developing, this needed to be finally demonstrated. In view of some deficiencies in the timeliness of UQ's financial reporting for PACMISC, these aspects should be considered
I  in the contract negotiations and structure.
I
Risk Management was not as strong or pro-
active as it could be, but was considered adequate for this stage of the initiative. Risks
I  related to the co-Secretariat model would need
:  to be monitored by the Network Assembly, and
should be subject to further assessment by the
proposed independent Progress Review recommended for November 2010. Overall, a QAE rating of 4 for this criterion.	Some amendments to be madeto incorrect statements in sections of the ADD	
	.  Analysis and lessons	4 	,	These aspects of the design were considered satisfactory.		

4

5

On the basis of these findings, it was agreed that HHTG should proceed to seek FMA 9/10 approval for APMEN, advise UQ of changes required in the design document, and commence funding agreement negotiations. The following conditions should be included in the agreement witUQ:
a)	Annual tranche payments to UQ for APMEN to be conditional upon
o	APMEN Assembly approval of budget for the forthcoming year (ie February 2010 Assembly to approve budget for 2011 calendar year, and so on)
o	AusAID satisfaction with program and financial reports for the previous calendar year
b)   The APMEN Monitoring and Evaluation Framework be further developed by the Secretariat in consultation with members and presented for ratification by the APMEN Assembly in February 2010. (Timing and content of reporting to AusAID should be aligned with reporting to the Network as a whole.)	·
c)   An independent (external) Progress Review be undertaken in November 2010 (funded from the AusAID M&E costs allocation), and the results presented to AusAID and the 2011 Assembly meeting.
d)   Confirmation that APMEN Work Program budget beyond Year 2 (ie from 2011) in the ADD is  ( indicative only, and that this will be subject to modification based on comments by APMEN members prior to its submission to annual APMEN assemblies for approval.
e)   Consideration be given to increasing the amount available for the Emerging Issues Fund from 2011 onwards (with any increase to be taken from other parts ofthe Work Program).

C:  Quality Rating Assessment against indicators
completed by Activity Manager

F: Approval	completed by ADG or Minister-Counsellor who chaired the peer review meeting

Ont,basis of the final agreed Quality Rating assessment (C) and Next Steps (D) above:

c:( QAE REPORT IS APPROVED, and authorization given to proceed to:
./ ' 	.
0' FINALISE the design incorporating  actions above, and proceed to implementation
or:    0 REDESIGN  and resubmit for appraisal peer review

0 NOT APPROVED for the following reason(s):

Andrew Laing, Senior
Associate 	signed:

/