5. Assessment and Funding Decision

Sections

5.1. The Project Appraisal Process in Norad

5.2. Partner Assessment

5.3. Rejected Applications: Appeals

5.1. The Project Appraisal Process in Norad

Norad will always begin the appraisal process by assessing whether the following formal criteria have been met:

• submission within the deadline;
• the application contains the required information;
• the applicant is among the group of potential applicants listed in the call, i.e. eligible for funding;
• the applicant has the legal capacity to enter into an agreement with Norad.

Following this, Norad will assess to which extent:

• the project meets the objectives of the call for proposal and grant scheme
• the projects meets the eligibility criteria to be defined as official development assistance (ODA) aid, as defined by the OECD’s Development Assistance  Committee, see here for further information.
• the project has clearly defined, realistic and measurable objectives
• the project is cost effective
• the applicant has identified, analysed and mitigated the material risk factors including those that may have a negative impact on the four cross-cutting issues
• the applicant has the necessary technical as well as administrative competence and capacity
• the applicant has a good understanding of the context and good insight into the issues at hand and a knowledge-based approach to project design
• the applicant has a sufficient monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and learning (MEAL) system
• the applicant has good routines for risk management, internal control and reporting to prevent, uncover and deal with financial fraud
• the applicant has a code of conduct or other ethical guidelines, hereunder a sufficient SEAH policy
• the application otherwise fulfils the criteria of the call for proposals

In addition, Norad will consider aspects such as:

• relevance to the strategies and policies of the Norwegian Government, and relevance for the recipient country.
• whether the project is line with a human rights-based approach
• the applicant’s use of gender analysis and inclusion of gender equality and/or women right’s targets in the project
• the extent to which the project contributes to climate adaptation, low emission development and/or biodiversity.
• local ownership, sustainability and exit strategies (where relevant)
• the overall portfolio composition

Based upon the appraisal process, Norad will decide whether to provide a grant to the project. Note that specific follow-up measures to address any identified shortcomings may be included in the grant agreement.

5.2. Partner Assessment

• An assessment of the competence and capacity of applicants is an essential part of Norad’s appraisal process for application for funding. Norad will assess a partner’s thematic and geographic competence, its monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning (MEAL) systems as well as governance structure and systems for financial management and overall internal control. Using a risk-based approach, Norad will decide on the nature of the partner assessment on a case-by-case basis. The partner assessment may vary from a light-touch exercise conducted by the Grant Manager responsible for appraising the application for funding to a more time-consuming review undertaken by external consultants.
• To the extent possible, Norad will build or rely on certifications, organisational reviews or due diligence processes undertaken by other donors or actors.
• Should the partner assessment conclude that there are several and/or considerable weaknesses in the applicant organisation, Norad may decide to reject the application based on organisational reasons. Norad may also decide to approve the application, but to introduce risk mitigating conditions in the grant agreement. Conditions may relate to, for example, special purpose audits, strengthened monitoring mechanisms, more frequent reporting, disbursements in arrears, and so on.

Code of conduct or other ethical standards

Note: These guidelines replace the Ethical guidelines - Guide for Norad’s grant recipients from January 2014.

Norad requires that grant recipients adhere to high ethical standards and deploy adequate and effective means to address any breaches against the standard. Grant recipients are expected to have written ethical standards in the form of  a Code of Conduct, staff policy, or similar. The ethical standards must be reflected in staff members’ contracts, and must also be applicable to Board members.  Grant recipients must reflect the standards in agreements with implementing partners. Guidance and training materials must be available. Furthermore, a whistleblowing reporting line(s) must be available so that staff and others can report suspicions of breaches against the ethical standards in a confidential and protected way.

The code of conduct or other ethical standards should as a minimum cover the following areas:

• Corruption and other financial irregularities;
• Sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (SEAH);
• Conflict of interest;
• Equal treatment and non-discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, religion, sexuality, culture or disability;
• Respect for minimum ILO standards such as the respect of working conditions and avoidance of child labour;
• Respect for basic social rights and environmental aspects.
• Fraud and corruption: Norad expects grant recipients to to have a zero tolerance approach to fraud and corruption. Grant recipients must organise their operations and internal control systems to prevent, detect and respond to fraud and corruption. Norad expects grant recipients to have:
  • A clear policy, guidelines or similar on fraud and corruption, which is also made public;
  • The policy/guidelines shall define the role of management and staff in implementing and complying with the same;
  • Staff training and awareness raising on the policy/guidelines, including how they can prevent, detect and respond to fraud and corruption;
  • Regular follow-up of the policy, including reporting to the Board or other top management on fraud and corruption;
  • Mechanisms for reporting any suspicion of fraud and corruption whereby staff can report in a confidential and protected way;
  • Capacity to investigate, either in-house or through external experts, issues related to fraud and corruption, as well as to follow up conclusions and recommendations in investigation reports;

• Sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (SEAH): To meet Norad’s requirements for internal control systems grant recipients must meet the following criteria:
  • Have a policy, ethical guidelines or similar on SEAH, in line with best practices such as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s Six Core Principles Relating to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse or the Core Humanitarian Standards. The policy, ethical guidelines or similar must apply to both staff, consultants and other non-staff personnel, cooperating partners and sub-grantees, and any third parties involved in activities funded by the grant. It must define the role of management and staff in implementing and complying with the same.
  • Ensure that they have adequate procedures, including a victim/survivor-centred approach, in place upon receiving reports of SEAH.

A victim centred approach to SEAH

Having a victim centred approach to SEAH means that survivors’ and victims’ experiences, rights, needs, and wants shall be at the centre of reporting, investigative, and response systems. Respect, confidentiality, safety, non-discrimination, and prohibition of retaliation are essential.

An example of a victim/survivor-centred approach is to ensure that complaints mechanisms are known to all and clear and safe for the victim. Furthermore, it means that grant recipients should respond to SEAH in a timely manner, and support and protect survivors and victims throughout the process.

Grant recipients are not expected to be able to provide direct services to address the victim’s immediate needs (e.g. medical, psychosocial, legal), but all grant recipients should have routines for how to safely refer survivors to appropriate services and continue to assist them as far as possible while observing confidentiality, safety, respect and non-discrimination.

This approach should take special consideration of vulnerable groups, including women and children, as well as people at risk of discrimination based on, for example, disability, gender identity and sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, age or religion.

5.3. Rejected Applications: Appeals

• A rejection will be communicated to the applicant in writing. The rejection letter will state the reason for the rejection. All rejections may be appealed. The procedures for this will be explained in the rejection letter.
• Applicants can appeal both a full and partial rejection of an application.
• Upon reception of an appeal, the unit in Norad that has appraised the proposal will consider the appeal to see if there is reason for Norad to alter its decision. Should Norad decide to uphold its decision, i.e reject the appeal, the appeal will be forwarded to either the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Ministry of the Environment and Climate, dependent on the funding stream, for consideration.