Background

UNDP’s Wider Europe project (phase II) was initiated by the UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub for Europe and the CIS (former Bratislava Regional Center) in partnership with several UNDP country offices within the Regional Programme for Europe and the CIS 2011-2013. The overall objective of the regional project was to foster inclusive economic growth in the region through the promotion of trade and the enhancement of country’s competitiveness. The project focuses on three sub-regions: Western CIS (Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine), South Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan). Phase II constitutes a continuation and geographical expansion of the phase I of the Wider Europe project.

The project consisted of the following outputs:

Component I- Support to the economic development along trade corridors linking countries of Central Asia, South Caucasus and Western CIS with key markets for their products.

The project component built on experience gained during the implementation of phase I in selected regions located along the CAREC trade corridors. The main objective of the component was to support the development of trade related capacities and help small and micro entrepreneurs in remote urban and rural areas, as well as farmers and farmers’ associations to gain from the opportunities that expanded trade possibilities may bring to the regions and local communities. The component implemented activities in the following countries: Armenia (Tavush), Georgia (Adjara), Kazakhstan (Semey), Kyrgyzstan (Batken), Tajikistan (Khujand) and Uzbekistan (Namangan).

Component II: Trade development: Technical assistance for a better use of trade opportunities

The main objective of this component was to facilitate international trade on the national and local level by supporting the development of strategic documents to develop trade, optimizing the institutional framework, and providing technical assistance to exporters. In Ukraine, the project supported the government through strategic trade related advisory services, focusing on international trade agreements, foreign trade logistics, information on foreign markets, gathering and granting access to trade information, the role of foreign trade missions, export guarantees and export financing. In Belarus, the project supported the establishment of an electronic trading facility (ETF) for the promotion of Belarusian light industry products on regional and international markets. In Moldova, the project supported the production and export capacities of the agricultural sector. 

Component III:  Understanding informalities and overcoming informal trade barriers faced by small enterprises and micro businesses, especially women entrepreneurs 

The objective of Component III was to articulate national and sub-regional AfT issues with special reference to the challenges faced by small entrepreneurs and micro businesses operating in local areas, informal cross border trade, and facilitate transfer of best practices in developing productive capacities of small enterprises and micro businesses, knowledge sharing, and in trade capacity development through trainings on national and regional trade policies and diffusion of best practices. 

Component IV: Creating opportunities for small enterprises and micro-businesses to benefit from trade 

Component IV focused on creating opportunities for micro-businesses to gain from international trade and improve knowledge regarding the application of new technologies in small enterprises, and tools for better market access. In addition, the component will support selected farmers to achieve fair trade certification for their production.

The project was implemented by the UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre and the respective UNDP country offices.

Evaluation purpose

The project evaluation is being conducted at the request of the donor and UNDP to provide information about project implementation to ensure accountability for the expenditures to date and the implementation of the activities and so that managers can make any necessary corrections under phase III of the initiative. In addition, the project would like to derive lessons learned, so to maximise the impact of interventions under phase III. The results of this evaluation will be shared with the Project Board and relevant UNDP country offices, and will inform project implementation under phase III. Information specifically targeting the successes and failures of the Wider Europe project is especially sought after.

Evluation scope and objectives

This evaluation is expected to evaluate the Aid for Trade for Central Asia, South Caucasus and Western CIS project (phase II). The evaluation will cover the full implementation period (Feb 2011 – March 2014) of the project, all the countries covered, and the beneficiaries involved in the project. 

Objectives of the evaluation are the following:
Assess the extent, to which the project achieved their overall objectives and outputs as identified in the project document and annual working plans:

• Review effectiveness of the overall project interventions, their main achievements, compliance with expanding country’s needs;
• Review and evaluate the extent to which project activities have reached the intended beneficiaries;
• Assess the likelihood of continuation and sustainability of project outputs and benefits after completion of the project - analyze how far the system of exit policy in the project ensures the sustainability of the project benefits;
• Identify gaps/weaknesses in the project design and provide recommendations as to their improvement; 
• Identify lessons learnt from projects interventions.

Central to the evaluation are the following concepts

Relevance-this is directly related to the consistency of activities and targets with national and local development programmes and priorities and the needs of intended beneficiaries. This also relates to the relevance to UNDP’s corporate and human development priorities.

Effectiveness

Measures the manner in which the intended output targets were achieved. Measuring effectiveness involves an assessment of cause and effect in that how far can observable changes be attributed to project activities.

This includes the following steps:

• Measuring change in the observed output and outcome;
• Attributing observed changes or progress towards the project;
• Assessing the value of the change (positive and/or negative).

Efficiency measures how economically resources (funds, expertise and time) are converted into results.

Sustainability is a key issue for the activities implemented under component II. It is important to measure to what extend the benefits of the activities will continue after the project has ended. Assessing sustainability involves evaluating to what extend the capacity can be maintained.

Impact, especially from UNDP’s perspective, measures the changes on human development that are caused by the projects activities. Impact evaluation not only provides useful information for the continuation of phase II, it will also allow evaluating the success of the projects. Impact evaluation faces a number of challenges, first of all it is very often difficult to attribute impacts to certain activities. Furthermore, it is difficult to evaluate impact in a certain time span. Indeed, an impact evaluation ideally should be conducted sometime after the completions of the project. 

Evaluations in UNDP are guided by the principles of human rights and gender equality. As a result, when collecting data, evaluators need to ensure that women and disadvantaged groups are adequately represented. 

Evaluation questions

As the project was implemented in nine different countries, the questions below need to be addressed for each country, as well as across the project as a whole:

• Measure the project contribution made towards achieving the outputs (as per country AWPs and RRF) 
• Were the stated targets achieved?
• To what level were the different interventions effective?
• What factors (external, project design, project management, project approach, levels of intervention) have contributed to effectiveness of ineffectiveness? 
• How do the beneficiaries and other partners perceive the project interventions?
• What factors have contributed to relevance or irrelevance?
• To what measure have the different interventions been sustainable in economic, social and environmental sense? What about the project’s financial sustainability? What factors have contributed to sustainability or unsustainability?
• To what extend do the country office staff and national project staff perceive the workflow between them and BRC as satisfactory – management structure? What was unsatisfactory? What can be done to improve this?
• What were the reasons for implementation delays and was UNDP’s response satisfactory to mitigate these?
• What is the evidence on impact and success stories? What has/have been the critical factors to the success?
• Any other questions defined during the pre-evaluation process;
• To what extent has the project supported implementation of Finland’s Aid for Trade Action Plan 2008-2011?
• Other donors´ activities and complementarities with them;
• What effects have the activities had on women’s status and empowerment as well as the rights of easily marginalized people?

Methodology

In order to gather evidence to address the evaluation questions, the evaluation needs to:

• Assess existing documentation (mainly quarterly reports, AWPs, RRFs, visibility materials, project briefs and information on Teamworks)-desk review;
• Use standardized questionnaires to obtain information from stakeholders;
• Conduct one to one interviews with selected stakeholders and project staff;
• Conduct on-site observation (field/project sites visits) to record accurate information on-site;
• Conduct group or individual interviews;
• Make a presentation of, and discuss, interim findings and recommendations with UNDP team members in the country and in IRH (online);
• Formulate practical and helpful recommendations for the third phase of the project;

Data will be collected by the consultant selected to conduct the evaluation.

Sampling criteria

Activities that have more than 100 direct beneficiaries need to have a sample of at least 10% of the beneficiaries. This sample needs to consist of at least 50% women. In addition, indirect beneficiaries need to be consulted. 

Activities that have less than 100 direct beneficiaries need to have a sample of at least 20% of the beneficiaries. This sample needs to consist of at least 50% women. In addition, indirect beneficiaries need to be consulted. 

In addition, samples should not only include community/association/government high-level representatives, but also ordinary beneficiaries. 

In addition to targeting direct partners, the evaluation will also include project staff, country office staff, relevant government partners, private sector, and relevant development partners.

Evaluation ethics

Evaluations in UNDP are conducted in accordance with the principles outlines in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’ (1). The evaluation needs to be compliant to the standards set forth in these guidelines.

Implementation arrangments

Overall monitoring and implementation will be ensured by UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub for Europe and the CIS, in close collaboration with the relevant UNDP COs and project staff in the country offices. 

Note:
http://www.uneval.org/search/index.jsp?q=ethical+guidelines

Duties and Responsibilities

The Evaluation Consultant will have overall responsibility for the quality and timely submission of the final evaluation report to UNDP. Specifically, the Evaluator will perform the following tasks:

• Lead and manage the evaluation mission;
• Design the detailed evaluation scope and methodology and approach;
• Conduct the evaluation in accordance with the proposed objective and scope of the evaluation;
• Draft and communicate the evaluation report;
• Finalize the evaluation report in English and submit it to UNDP.

Timeline and schedule (tentative)

The mission will commence in fourth quarter of 2015. The duration of the assignment is up to 23 working days, (4 working days per country) including writing of the final report.It is expected that at least three countries are to be visited in person, and all other countries are assessed through a desk review. Preferred countries to be visited are the Central Asian countries, as phase III continued there. Activities were implemented in rural areas.

Activities:

Desk review of relevant reports, Evaluation design, methodology and detailed work plan
Timeframe: app. 2 days
Place: On-line
Responsible Party: International consultant

Initial briefing  
Timeframe: app. 1 day
Place: On-line   
Responsible Party: UNDP IRH, International consultant

Consultations, meetings as well as in-person interviews related to the evaluation including relevant partners    
Timeframe: app. 4 days per country    
Place: TBD  
Responsible Party: UNDP, International consultant

Preparation of draft evaluation report and recommendations  
Timeframe: app. 4 days     
Place: Home based  
Responsible Party: International consultant,  UNDP

Finalization of evaluation report and recommendations incorporating additions and comments provided by project staff and UNDP COs and submission of the final evaluation report  
Timeframe: app. 4days  
Place: Home based 
Responsible Party: International consultant,  UNDP

Documents to be studied

UNDP corporate policy documents:

• Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for development results http://web.undp.org/evaluation/guidance.shtml#handbook;
• UN DG Result-Based Management Handbook;
• Programme and Operations Policies and Procedures – section on project management https://info.undp.org/global/popp/ppm/Pages/Implementing-a-Project.aspx.

Project related documents:

• Project document;
• Quarterly reports;
• Results matrix;
• AWPs, RRFs;
• Mini-needs assessments for country activities where applicable;
• Evaluation reports (Government of Finland, and Regional Programme evaluation);
• Other documents and materials related to the Project are evaluated (from the government, donors, etc.) .

Outputs provided by the consultant:

• Evaluation inception report (prior to start of evaluation mission);
• Draft evaluation report (2 weeks after the evaluation mission);
• Final evaluation report with dedicated sections per country and per activity (across countries) (1 week after reception of comments from stakeholders) as per the corporate UNDP template http://web.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/Annex7.shtml;
• Evaluation action points and other relevant knowledge products.

Competencies

• Strong analytical, communication and report writing skills;
• Capacity to work in a team;
• Good interpersonal/ communication skills to work with the target group representatives.

Required Skills and Experience

Education:

• Criteria A - Higher education (post graduate) in a subject related to socio-economic development;

Experience:

• Criteria B - Minimum 7 years of professional expertise in international development co-operation, including programme/project evaluation, impact assessment and/or strategic recommendations for continued support/development of programming/strategies; 
  Extensive experience in conducting evaluations, strong working knowledge of UNDP poverty reduction, rural development or trade development activities; 
  Extensive experience of results-based management evaluation, UNDP policies, procedures, as well as participatory monitoring and evaluation methodologies and approaches;
• Criteria C: Excellent professional knowledge of the CIS region, especially Central Asia, regarding local development or private sector development

Language:

• Criteria D - Fluency in written and spoken English and Russian.

Evaluation of Applicants

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on a cumulative analysis taking into consideration the combination of the applicants’ qualifications and financial proposal.
The award of the contract should be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

• Responsive/compliant/acceptable; and
• Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation. 

Only the highest ranked candidates who would be found qualified for the job will be considered for the Financial Evaluation.

Technical Criteria - 70% of total evaluation – max. 35 points:
Criteria A  - max points: 5
Criteria B – max points: 15
Criteria C – max points: 10
Criteria D – max points: 5

Financial Criteria - 30% of total evaluation – max. 15 points

Application procedures

Qualified candidates are requested to apply online via this website.

The application should contain:

• Cover letter explaining why you are the most suitable candidate for the advertised position and. Please paste the letter into the "Resume and Motivation" section of the electronic application;
• Filled P11 form including past experience in similar projects and contact details of referees; 
• (blank form can be downloaded from http://europeandcis.undp.org/files/hrforms/P11_modified_for_SCs_and_ICs.doc ); please upload the P11 instead of your CV; 
• Financial Proposal* - specifying a total lump sum amount for the tasks specified in this announcement. The financial proposal shall include a breakdown of this lump sum amount (number of anticipated working days, travel, per diems and any other possible costs);
• Incomplete applications will not be considered. Please make sure you have provided all requested materials.

Please note that the financial proposal is all-inclusive and shall take into account various expenses incurred by the consultant/contractor during the contract period (e.g. fee, health insurance, vaccination and any other relevant expenses related to the performance of services...). All envisaged travel costs must be included in the financial proposal. This includes all travel to join duty station/repatriation travel.  

Payments will be made only upon confirmation of UNDP on delivering on the contract obligations in a satisfactory manner. 

Individual Consultants are responsible for ensuring they have vaccinations/inoculations when travelling to certain countries, as designated by the UN Medical Director. Consultants are also required to comply with the UN security directives set forth under dss.un.org
General Terms and conditions as well as other related documents can be found under:  http://on.undp.org/t7fJs.