Background

Montenegro is an upper-middle-income country with which the EU opened accession negotiations in June 2012. It is also a Delivering as One country that voluntarily adopted this approach of work in 2009, led by the Government of Montenegro and UN family working in the country.

United Nations System in Montenegro is dominantly engaged in the fields of human rights and development. It is a good example of the UN operating in upper middle-income country, since there is a strong complementarity of EU Accession Priorities and UN Integrated Programme Goals.

The five-year Integrated UN Programme for Montenegro 2012-2016 has been prepared by the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) in Montenegro in consultation with the Government of Montenegro and other partners, with the aim of improving the lives of the people of Montenegro, and particularly in the areas of social inclusion, democratic governance and sustainable economic development & environmental protection.

The UNCT in Montenegro consists of 5 specialized UN agencies and programmes (UNHCR, UNICEF, UNDP, WHO, and IOM). Seven regionally based UN Organisations agencies also operate and participate in the implementation of the Integrated UN Programme Montenegro (UNIDO, UNEP, UN FAO, UNESCO, UN Women, UNECE, IAEA) under Delivering as one and provide technical assistance for the implementation of individual projects.

The Integrated UN Programme for Montenegro 2012-2016 was endorsed by the Joint Country Steering Committee (JCSC) in April 2010. Three main goals have been identified that will set the direction and scope of action of UN system in the 2010-2014 period:

• By the end of 2016, Montenegro’s society is progressively free of social exclusion and enjoys a quality of life that allows all individuals and communities to develop to their full potential;
• By the end of 2016, Montenegro fosters a democratic society that fully respects, protects and fulfils human rights through rule of law, government transparency and accountability;
• By the end of 2016, Montenegro has a balanced and equitable regional economic growth based on sustainable planning and use of natural resources that will provide high quality of life and long term economic opportunities for its inhabitants.

This is the first UNDAF in Montenegro and it provided a framework for coherent and coordinated United Nations (UN) development assistance for the period 2012-2016 that recognizes the European Union accession as the overarching national priority, and social inclusion, democratic governance and sustainable economic development as specific areas of Government – UN cooperation. Through the Integrated UN Programme, the UNCT in Montenegro aims to increase efficiency and effectiveness in addressing the country’s human rights and development priorities, while taking into account the global development frameworks embedded in the Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), as well as international conventions and treaties signed by the Government of Montenegro.

In the UNDAF implementation, the UN is taking an overall strategic approach of capacity development at all levels of Government and the civil society. In this respect, the UNCT works towards developing the capacities of the government institutions to develop and implement evidence-based policies and promote inclusive quality public services. Local level interventions prioritise a rights-based and gender sensitive approach, also focusing on marginalised and excluded groups. Furthermore, support is provided to civil society to participate in the decision-making process and be empowered to claim their rights. Partnerships with the private sector are also being established.

Three areas of cooperation are agreed as particularly critical for the United Nations support to the Government of Montenegro and the civil society during the five-year period of the Integrated UN Programme:

• Social inclusion;
• Democratic governance;
• Sustainable economic development & environmental protection.

The UNCT and the Resident Coordinator are responsible for the effectiveness of the United Nations activities, especially in cases where resources are combined.  The Joint Country Steering Committee was set up to ensure government commitment and leadership from the onset of the DAO process. The JCSC provides overall oversight to the process of design, implementation and monitoring of the Integrated UN Programme, Results and Budgetary Framework for Montenegro. Co-chaired by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the UN Resident Coordinator, the JCSC is composed of; (a) up to eight representatives of line ministries, with each line ministry able to designate both a senior political figure (at the Deputy Minister level) and a technical adviser; (b) all members of the UNCT; and (c) donor representatives, by invitation, based on the decision of JCSC. The programming arrangements of individual UN Organisations further support progress toward the use of national systems for implementation, management and monitoring based on internationally recognised standards and good practices.
Under the overall JCSC umbrella and oversight, three Pillar Working Groups in the three areas of cooperation contribute to overall implementation of the Integrated UN Programme. In addition, different UN Working Groups and task teams contribute towards realization of three defined Goals and nine Outcomes in key thematic and crosscutting areas such as Human Right and Gender Equality, HIV/AIDS, Communications, Monitoring and Evaluation, Operations, etc. These groups and teams further improve coordination through enhanced information exchange, as well as joint planning and decision making.

Note:

Information on the requirements for the Outcome Evaluation of the UNDP CPD is described in the Annex I of this ToR.

Duties and Responsibilities

The evaluation scope, purpose and objectives

The Evaluation of the Integrated UN Programme Montenegro (2012-2016) will be commissioned and overseen by the UNCT. Day-to-day evaluation management will be ensured through the UN Coordination Office and Monitoring & Evaluation task team.

Findings of the evaluation will be used for improving accountability and for learning what has worked, what has not and why. The evaluation of the Integrated UN Programme is foreseen to provide important information for strengthening programming and results at the country level, specifically informing the planning and decision-making for the next programme cycle of the Integrated UN Programme (2017-2021) and for further improving United Nations (UN) coordination and coherence at the country level. The new Common Country Assessment (CCA) should be completed by mid-2015 and the new Integrated UN Programme development is planned to begin in the second half of 2015. The evaluation report will be an important document to inform and guide both CCA and the new cycle of the Integrated UN Programme (UNDAF).

An UNDAF evaluation is a programmatic evaluation that will assesses performance against a UNDAF 2012-2016 framework, its strategic intent and objectives. National human rights and development outcomes are contained in the results framework against which the UNCT contribution needs to be assessed. As such, this country-level evaluation is to be carried out in cooperation with the UNCT and the overall approach is participatory and orientated towards learning how to jointly enhance human rights and development results at the national level.

Given that (a) outcomes are, by definition, the work of a number of partners, and (b) UNDAF outcomes are set at a very high level, attribution of development change to the UNCT (in the sense of establishing a causal linkage between human rights and development interventions and observed results) may be extremely difficult and in many cases infeasible. The evaluation will therefore consider contribution of the UNCT to the change in the stated UNDAF outcome and the evaluator will need to explain how the UNCT contributed to the observed results. To make the assessment, first, the evaluator will examine the stated UNDAF outcome; identify the change over the period being evaluated on the basis of available baseline information; and observe the national strategy/strategies and actions in support of that change. Second, the evaluator will examine the implementation of UNDAF strategy and actions in support of national efforts.

Evaluation criteria

The contribution of the UNCT to the human rights and development outcomes will be assessed according to a standard set of evaluation criteria to be used across all UNDAF evaluations:

Relevance:

• The extent to which the objectives of UNDAF are consistent with country needs, national priorities, the country’s international and regional commitments, including on human rights (Core human rights treaties, including ICCPR, ICESCR, ICERD, CEDAW, CPRD, CRC, etc.) and the recommendations of Human Rights mechanisms (including the treaty bodies, special procedures and UPR), sustainable development, environment, and the needs of women and men, girls and boys in the country.

Effectiveness:

• The extent to which the UNCT contributed to, or is likely to contribute to, the outcomes defined in the UNDAF. The evaluation should also note how the unintended results, if any, have affected national development positively or negatively and to what extent have they been foreseen and managed.

Efficiency:

• The extent to which outcomes are achieved with the appropriate amount of resources and maintenance of minimum transaction cost (funds, expertise, time, administrative costs, etc.).

Sustainability:

• The extent to which the benefits from a development intervention have continued, or are likely to continue, after it has been completed.

Additional evaluation topics of interest are:

Enabling / explanatory factors:

• While assessing performance using the above criteria the evaluator needs to identify the various factors that can explain the performance. This will allow lessons to be learned about why the UNCT performed as it did.

UN Coordination and Coherence:

• Did UN coordination reduce transaction costs and increase the efficiency of UNDAF implementation? To what extent did the UNDAF create actual synergies among agencies and involve concerted efforts to optimise results and avoid duplication?

Five UNDAF Programming Principles:

• To what extent have the UNDAF programming principles (human rights-based approach, gender equality, environmental sustainability, results-based management, capacity development) been considered and mainstreamed in the UNDAF chain of results? Were any shortcomings due to a failure to take account of UNDAF programming principles during implementation?
• To what extent did the UNDAF make use of and promote human rights and gender equality standards and principles (e.g. participation, non-discrimination, accountability, etc.) to achieve its goal?
• To what extent did UNDAF strengthen the capacities for data collection and analysis to ensure disaggregated data on the basis of race, colour, sex, geographic location, etc. and did those subject to discrimination and disadvantage benefited from priority attention?
• Did the UNDAF effectively use the principles of environmental sustainability to strengthen its contribution to national development results?
• Did the UNDAF adequately use RBM to ensure a logical chain of results and establish a monitoring and evaluation framework?
• Did the UNDAF adequately invest in, and focus on, national capacity development? To what extent and in what ways did UNDAF contribute to capacity development of government, NGOs and civil society institutions?

Other factors

A number of country-specific factors that have affected the performance of the UNCT in the framework of the UNDAF need be examined:

• How well did the UNCT use its partnerships (with civil society/private sector/local governments/parliament/national human rights institutions/international development partners) to improve its performance;
• Regarding ownership of objectives and achievements, to what extent was the “active, free, and meaningful” participation of all stakeholders (including regionally based organisations) ensured in the UNDAF process? Did they agree with the outcomes and continue to remain in agreement? Was transparency in policies and project implementation ensured? What mechanisms were created throughout the implementation process to ensure participation?
• Did the UNCT undertake appropriate risk analysis and take appropriate actions to ensure that results to which it contributed are not lost? To what extent are the benefits being, or are likely to be, maintained over time;
• How adequately did the UNCT respond to change (e.g. natural disaster, elections) in planning and during the implementation of the UNDAF?
• To what extent harmonisation measures at the operational level contributed to improved efficiency and results?

Data collection methods and process should consider gender sensitivity and data should be systematically disaggregated by sex and age and, to the extent possible, disaggregated by geographical region, ethnicity, disability, migratory status and other contextually-relevant markers of equity.

Validation

The UNDAF evaluation will use a variety of validation methods to ensure that the data and information used and conclusions made carry the necessary depth.  Triangulation of information sources and findings improved validity, quality and use of evaluation.

Additional output of the evaluator is delivery of a half-a day UNDAF M&E training to the UNDAF and M&E task teams. Details can be found in the Deliverables section of this ToR.

Evaluation methodology

The approach of the evaluation shall be participatory, that is, be flexible in design and implementation, ensuring stakeholder participation and ownership, and facilitating learning and feedback. The UNDAF evaluation will use methodologies and techniques as determined by the specific needs for information, the questions set out in this ToR, the availability of resources and the priorities of stakeholders. In all cases, consultant is expected to use all available information sources that will provide evidence on which to base evaluation conclusions and recommendations. Anticipated approaches to be used for data collection and analysis by the evaluator are desk review, interviews with key stakeholders, field visits, questionnaires by email, participatory techniques and triangulation.

Support of the UN Coordination Office and UNCT to the evaluation process

The UN Coordination Office and the UNCT will support the Evaluation Consultant with the following:

• Securing an independent national evaluation assistant that will support the consultant for the duration of the evaluation process;
• Securing relevant background documentation required for a comprehensive desk review;
• Provision of list of contacts in advance and additional upon request;
• Provision of vehicle and driver for field visits;
• Organisation of group consultative meetings, briefing and debriefing sessions;
• Provision of office/working space during the assignment. The consultant will however have to use his/her own computer/laptop.

Deliverables and timeline

Evaluation Process: The Evaluation consultant will be responsible for conducting the evaluation. This entails, among other responsibilities, designing the evaluation according to this terms of reference; gathering data from different sources of information; analysing, organizing and triangulating the information; identifying patterns and causal linkages that explain UNDAF performance and impact; drafting evaluation reports at different stages (inception, draft, final); responding to comments and factual corrections from stakeholders and incorporating them, as appropriate, in subsequent versions; and making briefs and presentations ensuring the evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations are communicated in a coherent, clear and understandable manner once the report is completed.

The evaluation process is expected to contain the following 3 phases: inception, data collection, questionnaires and field visit; and analysis and reporting.

• Inception Phase (3 days) - the Evaluation Consultant will review documentation, agree on the meetings schedule with the UN Coordination Office, agree on the training structure of the UNDAF M&E training session and produce Evaluation Inception Report (which includes a clear evaluation work plan and tools).
• Data Collection and Field Visit (9 days) – the Evaluation Consultant will gather data through group and individual interviews, questionnaires and visits outside of Podgorica, if needed; at the end of the mission, presentation with preliminary findings and recommendations will be presented to the UNDAF task team. Half a day M&E session will be scheduled during the field visit as well.
• Analysis and Reporting (6 days for draft report and additional 2 days for final report/incorporation of comments) – the Evaluation Consultant will prepare the draft evaluation report based on the analysis of findings, including triangulation, and will include recommendations for the new UNDAF Cycle. He/she will submit the report to the UNDAF task team for factual review and comments. Opportunity to comment on the draft report will be open to the group for a maximum of 10 working days. After this process ends, the Evaluation Consultant will proceed with production of the final evaluation report.                     

Evaluation Deliverables

The Evaluation Consultant will be accountable for producing the following products/deliverables:

• Inception report;
• Half a day UNDAF M&E training to the UNDAF and M&E task teams;
• Presentation of initial findings and provisional recommendations to the UNDAF task team;
• Draft Evaluation Report;
• Final Report.

The inception report should detail the evaluator’s understanding of what is being evaluated and why, showing how each evaluation question will be answered by way of: proposed methods; proposed sources of data; and data collection procedures. The inception report should include a proposed schedule of tasks, activities and deliverables.

Half a day UNDAF M&E training needs to be delivered to the UNDAF and M&E task team (maximum 20 people). The purpose of the training is to 1) highlight current best practices in elaborating UNDAF M&E Framework at the Outcome level, 2) review common issues that need to be addressed during UNDAF M&E Framework creation and 3) deliver a brief session on results definitions and indicators development at the Outcome level. Examples of good UNDAF M&E practice of other countries are anticipated to be presented as well. Details of the training structure are to be discussed and agreed with the UN Coordination Office and Pillar Co-conveners prior to the evaluation consultant’s field visit.

Presentation of initial findings and provisional recommendations- at the end of the field work, the Evaluation Consultant will present his/her draft findings and provisional recommendations through a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the main findings, recommendations for the next cycle and lessons learned and conclusions.

Timeframe:

• Inception Phase/Desk Review/Inception Report, due date: 1st half of December 2014 (total: 3 working days);
• Data Collection, field visit /UNDAF M&E half day training / Presentation with key findings, dua date:  2nd half of January 2015-beginning of February 2015 (total: 9 working days);
• Analysis and Reporting / Draft Evaluation Report, due date:  2nd half of February 2015 (total: 6 working days);
• Analysis and Reporting / Final Evaluation Report, due date: March 2015 ( total: 2 working days);
• UNDP CPD evaluation, December 1st, 2014 - March 30th, 2015 (total: 10 working days).

Duration and travel

The engagement period will be 30 consultancy days in the period 1 December 2014 until 31 March, 2015, including up to 10 days visit to Podgorica, Montenegro.

The consultant will conduct required tasks and shall work on production of outputs from home, but in close cooperation with the UN Coordination Office / Monitoring and Evaluation task team /UNDP Management.

Evaluation Ethics

The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’. Critical issues that evaluator must safeguard include the rights and confidentiality of information provided in the design and implementation of the evaluation.

At every stage of the evaluation process, the following principles should be observed:

• Independence - the evaluation team should be independent from the operational management and decision-making functions of the UNCT;
• Impartiality – the evaluation information should be free of political or other bias and deliberate distortions;
• Timeliness - evaluations must be designed and completed in a timely fashion;
• Purpose - the scope, design and plan of the evaluation should generate relevant products that meet the needs of intended users;
• Transparency - meaningful consultation with stakeholders should be undertaken to ensure the credibility and utility of the evaluation;
• Competencies - evaluations should be conducted by well-qualified expert/team. The team should, wherever feasible, be gender balanced, geographically diverse and include professionals from the countries or regions concerned;
• Ethics - evaluators must have professional integrity and respect the rights of institutions and individuals to provide information in confidence and to verify statements attributed to them. Evaluations must be sensitive to the beliefs and customs of local social and cultural environments and must be conducted legally and with due regard to the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its findings;
• Quality - All evaluations should meet the standards outlined in the Standards for Evaluation in the United Nations System. The key questions and areas for review should be clear, coherent and realistic. The evaluation plan should be practical and cost effective. To ensure that the information generated is accurate and reliable, evaluation design, data collection and analysis should reflect professional standards, with due regard for any special circumstances or limitations reflecting the context of the evaluation. Evaluation findings and recommendations should be presented in a manner that will be readily understood by target audiences and have regard for cost-effectiveness in implementing the recommendations proposed.

Competencies

Functional Competencies:

• Shares knowledge and experience and provides helpful feedback and advice;
• Conceptualizes and analyses problems to identify key issues, underlying problems, and how they relate;
• Ability to identify beneficiaries’ needs, and to match them with appropriate solutions;
• Excellent communication and interview skills;
• Excellent report writing skills;
• Responds positively to critical feedback and differing points of view;
• Ability to handle a large volume of work possibly under time constraints;
• Focuses on result for the client and responds positively to feedback;
• Remains calm, in control and good humoured even under pressure.

Required Skills and Experience

Education:

• Advanced University degree in international development, economics, evaluation, social sciences or related field.

Experience:

• A minimum of 7 years of professional experience specifically in the area of evaluation of international development initiatives and development organizations;
• Extensive knowledge of, and experience in applying, qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods and in a wide range of evaluation approaches;
• Technical competence in undertaking complex evaluations which involve use of mixed methods;
• Knowledge of UN role, UN reform process and UN programming at the country level, particularly Integrated UN Programme/UNDAF;
• Strong experience and knowledge in the five UNDAF Programming Principles: human rights (the human rights based approach to programming, human rights analysis and related mandates within the UN system) gender equality (especially gender analysis), environmental sustainability, results-based management, and capacity development;
• Understanding of the development context and working experience in Montenegro and the region is an asset;

Language:

• Fluency in spoken and written English;
• Knowledge of Montenegrin and/or Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian language is considered to be an asset.

Application procedure:

Interested offerors are requested to submit their applications by October 26th, 2014  by using the Apply now button. The application should contain a duly completed Personal History Form (P11) that can be downloaded from
http://www.me.undp.org/content/montenegro/en/home/operations/jobs.html.
 
The short-listed offerors only will be contacted and requested to submit a letter of interest including a price quotation indicating the lump sum (in EUR) requested for the work and travel envisaged in the section "Duties and Responsibilities".

Annex I to Terms of Reference

Final outcome evaluation of UNDP CPD 2012-2016, Montenegro

External Evaluation Consultant (12 days in the period 1 December 2014 – 30 March 2015)

This ToR is closely linked to the evaluation ToR for the Integrated UN Programme 2012-2016. The Evaluation Consultant selected for Integrated UN Programme evaluation is foreseen to also conduct the outcome evaluation of UNDP CPD, given that approx. 80% of Integrated UN Programme is UNDP related and over 80% of Integrated UN Programme’s stakeholders are also UNDP stakeholders. Benefits of engaging the same consultant for the two tasks are multifold from cost sharing and avoidance of duplication of meetings with the same stakeholders to vertical linkages and analysis of two key partnership documents of UN/UNDP and the Government of Montenegro.

Background: UNDP CPD for 2012-2016 was developed in close consultation with the Integrated UN Programme 2012-2016. UNDP has committed to 3 distinct goals in the area of Social Inclusion, Democratic Governance and Energy and Environment, as follows:

• Montenegro society is progressively free of social exclusion and enjoys a quality of life that allows all individuals and communities to develop their full potential.
• Outcome Indicators: 1.Gini Coefficient (2008: 0.253); Human Development Index rating (2010: 0.769, ranked 49th); Unemployment rate (2010: 19.2% /MONSTAT (Montenegro Statistical Office)); Gender empowerment measure (2010: 0.478) Related Strategic Plan focus area: Achieving the Millennium Development Goals and reducing human poverty; Gender equality and women’s empowerment;
• Fostering a democratic society that fully respects, protects and fulfils human rights through rule of law, government transparency and accountability;
• Outcome indicators: Transparency International Index (2010:3.7); Rate and pace of success in meeting European Union progressive benchmarks (2010: candidacy status; 7 specific benchmarks set); Public Perception on Transparency and Effectiveness of Public Administration (2010 survey baseline). Related Strategic Plan focus area: fostering democratic governance;
• Balanced and equitable regional economic growth based on sustainable planning and use of natural resources that will provide a high quality of life and long-term economic opportunities for its inhabitants;
• Outcome indicators: 1. Quality of life: HDI disaggregated by region (2010: North: 6.21,7.6; Centre: 6.5)/ NHDR; 2. Unemployment rates disaggregated by region (North: 29.6%, South 10.3%, Centre: 18%)/MONSTAT; greenhouse gas emissions (2003: 5320.17 CO2 eq tonnes) National Communications to UNFCCC. Related Strategic Plan focus area: Energy and environment for sustainable development; Crisis prevention and recovery.

Evaluation Scope and questions

UNDP CPD outcome evaluation should assist in identifying bottlenecks and/or critical entry points for improved implementation towards achieving Country Programme Action Plan outcomes.
The contribution of the UNDP to the development goals as specified in the Country Programme Action Plan will be assessed according to a standard set of evaluation criteria:

• Relevance.  The extent to which the objectives of UNDP are consistent with country needs, national priorities, the country’s international and regional commitments;
• Effectiveness. The extent to which the UNDP contributed to, or is likely to contribute to, the outcomes defined in the CPD. The evaluation should also note how the unintended results, if any, have affected national development positively or negatively and to what extent have they been foreseen and managed;
• Efficiency. The extent to which outcomes are achieved with the appropriate amount of resources and maintenance of minimum transaction cost (funds, expertise, time, administrative costs, etc.);
• Sustainability. The extent to which the benefits from a development intervention have continued, or are likely to continue, after it has been completed.

In addition, taking into account that CPD outcome evaluation will be one of the important documents in the preparation of the new CPD which should be aligned with the (new) Strategic Plan of UNDP the issues of thematic, design and operational alignment should be taken into account. More specifically, during evaluation and in the evaluation report, following questions should be tackled:

• Whether current outcomes correspond well with the three areas of development work of UNDP and currently identified Strategic Plan outcomes to which office has linked its programs and projects;
• What new or emerging issues of Strategic Plan are most relevant for the country context meaning correspond well with the national priorities and UNDP (CO) comparative advantages;
• Whether CPD outcomes/key development challenges that CPD has been addressing  are defined in a way that allows the progress to be monitored, traced, recorded, measured, evaluated and how that relates to the existing capacities at the national level (statistics) and at the CO level (M&E);
• Whether programmes/projects in the office have been evidence-based (on partner research and analysis and/or multi-year policy research, analysis and data collection complementing M&E; and whether they were set to clearly target specific groups and  geographic areas and whether systematic data collection was ensured and maintained to allow for tracking progress;
• Are current outcomes/development challenges identified in a way that accommodates practice structure of UNDP or facilitates issue based approach to development issues and is it clear how desired changes will be achieved/what is the critical path (the theory of change methodology);
• At which stage of the different projects were scale and scaling-up and sustainability been taken into account (design stage or later)?
• Whether and how was South-South and Triangular cooperation facilitated?
• Whether and how were target groups included in the programme/project design (voice and participation)?
• How risk management was approached and tackled?

For all of the above much more that the assessment itself inputs are expected with respect to concrete recommendations on the thematic and structural adjustments needed to ensure focused and high quality programmes and structures in UNDP that deliver better results more cost-effectively to benefit programme countries.  
Adequate support from UNDP office will be provided on needs-basis for UNDP CPD Outcome Evaluation specificities.

Evaluation Deliverables:

• Draft sections for UNDP CPD Outcome Evaluation Report, by 5 March 2015;
• Final Outcome Evaluation Report of UNDP CPD of up to 20 pages including annexes, by 30 March 2015.

Note: For UNDP CPD the evaluator is foreseen to have a total of 10 days that should be split to cover for additional needs based on UNDP-specific requirements in the inception phase and for final report and field visits, if needed.