[{"bbox": [116, 132, 477, 163], "category": "Section-header", "text": "## 3.6 Logical Framework Matrix"}, {"bbox": [127, 179, 1141, 204], "category": "Text", "text": "This indicative logframe constitutes the basis for the monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the intervention."}, {"bbox": [127, 205, 1590, 258], "category": "Text", "text": "On the basis of this logframe matrix, a more detailed logframe (or several) may be developed at contracting stage. In case baselines and targets are not available for the Action, they should be informed for each indicator at signature of the contract(s) linked to this AD, or in the first progress report at the latest."}, {"bbox": [127, 258, 1342, 283], "category": "Text", "text": "New columns may be added to set intermediary targets (milestones) for the Output and Outcome indicators whenever it is relevant."}, {"bbox": [165, 284, 1213, 310], "category": "List-item", "text": "- At inception, the first progress report should include the complete logframe (e.g. including baselines/targets)."}, {"bbox": [165, 311, 1050, 337], "category": "List-item", "text": "- Progress reports should provide an updated logframe with current values for each indicator."}, {"bbox": [165, 337, 1071, 362], "category": "List-item", "text": "- The final report should enclose the logframe with baseline and final values for each indicator."}, {"bbox": [127, 363, 1563, 389], "category": "Text", "text": "The indicative logical framework matrix may evolve during the lifetime of the Action depending on the different implementation modalities of this Action."}, {"bbox": [127, 389, 1597, 442], "category": "Text", "text": "The activities, the expected Outputs and related indicators, targets and baselines included in the logframe matrix may be updated during the implementation of the Action, no amendment being required to the Financing Decision."}, {"bbox": [127, 467, 465, 493], "category": "Section-header", "text": "### 2. Indicators, baseline and targets"}, {"bbox": [165, 493, 1603, 572], "category": "List-item", "text": "- A redistribution of some of the existing indicators is proposed, mainly from the output to the outcome level, considering that the achievement of the outputs should be under the full control of the intervention and the outcomes should reflect the mid-term policy/institutional changes the Action is promoting through its direct influence."}, {"bbox": [165, 572, 1603, 625], "category": "List-item", "text": "- At the impact level the original indicator should be removed and alternative ones should be introduced. They have to reflect the changes in the final beneficiaries (under the indirect influence of the project and beyond its scope) and provide an overview on the situation of the sector."}, {"bbox": [165, 625, 1603, 677], "category": "List-item", "text": "- A mapping of MIP, GERF, GAP III and OPSYS pre-defined indicators has been conducted. Different alternatives are proposed, mainly at the outcome level, to ensure a better alignment with EU international results framework and NDICI regulation."}, {"bbox": [165, 677, 1603, 730], "category": "List-item", "text": "- Incorporate baseline and target values for all the indicators, even if they have to be detailed and/or adjusted in later stages of the intervention. Try to define a clear and unique figure per indicator, avoiding narrative descriptions or multidimensional targets."}, {"bbox": [127, 730, 307, 753], "category": "Section-header", "text": "### 3. Sources of data"}, {"bbox": [165, 754, 1603, 831], "category": "List-item", "text": "- Include one source of verification per indicator. They should be clear and specific for each of them, avoiding repetition and generic formulations such as “Publications on the respective ministry's portal or project reports”, which is used repeatedly throughout the LFM. A couple of examples are provided, as a reference."}, {"bbox": [127, 833, 283, 860], "category": "Section-header", "text": "### 4. Assumptions"}, {"bbox": [165, 872, 1603, 951], "category": "List-item", "text": "- Most of them are mission. A couple of examples are provided, as a reference, but it would be relevant to define at least two or three key assumptions per measurement level, ensuring greater coherence and connection between the different levels of the LFM. Revise the wording as indicated in the first two examples."}, {"bbox": [1483, 1121, 1615, 1148], "category": "Page-footer", "text": "Page 16 of 25"}]