Project Title:

Terminal Evaluation (TE) of the Market Transformation and Removal of Barriers for Effective Implementation of the State-Level Climate Change Action Plans

GEF Project ID:

85842

at endorsement (US$)

at completion (US$)

UNDP Project ID:

4606

GEF financing:

3,744,500

3,744,500

Country:

India

IA/EA own:

500,000

Region:

Asia

Government:

12,588,745

Focal Area:

Climate Change

Other:

5,242,300 – Jharkhand

6,668,955 – Manipur

FA Objectives, (OP/SP):

CCM-3

Total co-financing:

25,000,000

Executing Agency:

Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MOEFCC)

Total Project Cost:

28,744,500

Other Partners involved:

ProDoc Signature (date project began):

20th January 2016

(Operational) Closing Date:

Proposed:

31st Dec 2019

Actual:

30th March 2021

Evaluation Ratings:

1. Monitoring and Evaluation

Rating

2. IA& EA Execution

rating

M&E design at entry

Quality of UNDP Implementation

M&E Plan Implementation

Quality of Execution - Executing Agency

Overall quality of M&E

Overall quality of Implementation / Execution

3. Assessment of Outcomes

Rating

4. Sustainability

rating

Relevance

Financial resources:

Effectiveness

Socio-political:

Efficiency

Institutional framework and governance:

Overall Project Outcome Rating

Environmental :

Overall likelihood of sustainability:

Project Finance / Co-Finance

The Evaluation will assess the key financial aspects of the project, including the extent of co-financing planned and realized. Project cost and funding data will be required, including annual expenditures.  Variances between planned and actual expenditures will need to be assessed and explained.  Results from recent financial audits, as available, should be taken into consideration. The evaluator(s) will receive assistance from the Country Office (CO) and Project Team to obtain financial data in order to complete the co-financing table below, which will be included in the terminal evaluation report. 

Evaluation Approach and Method

An overall approach and method[1] for conducting project terminal evaluations of UNDP supported GEF financed projects has developed over time. The evaluator is expected to frame the evaluation effort using the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact, as defined and explained in the UNDP Guidance for Conducting Terminal Evaluations of UNDP-supported, GEF-financed Projects. A set of questions covering each of these criteria have been drafted and are included with this TOR in Annex C. The evaluator is expected to amend, complete and submit this matrix as part of an evaluation inception report, and shall include it as an annex to the final report. 

Considering the COVID outbreak evaluation will take place through virtual interviews.

Interviews will be held with the following organizations and individuals at a minimum:

1. Joint Secretory, MoEFCC
2. Director, MoEFCC
3. Director/ Project Director of Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development Agency
4. PCCF/APCCF Forest Department, Jharkhand
5. Director of Manipur Renewable Energy Development Agency
6. Director,  Directorate of Environment and Climate Change, Manipur

The evaluator will review all relevant sources of information, such as the project document, project reports including Annual APR/PIR and other Reports, project budget revisions, midterm review, progress reports, GEF focal area tracking tools, project files, national strategic and legal documents, and any other material that the evaluator considers useful for this evidence-based assessment. A list of documents that the project team will provide to the evaluator for review is included in TOR Annex B of this Terms of Reference.

Methodological approaches may include the following:

• Evaluation should employ a combination of both qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods and instruments.
• Document review of all relevant documentation. This would include a review of inter alia
  • Project document (contribution agreement).
  • Theory of change and results framework.
  • Programme and project quality assurance reports.
  • Annual workplans.
  • Activity designs.
  • Consolidated quarterly and annual reports.
  • Results-oriented monitoring report.
  • Highlights of project board meetings. 
  • Technical/financial monitoring reports.
• Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders including key government counterparts, donor community members, representatives of key civil society organizations, UNCT members and implementing partners:
  • Development of evaluation questions around relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability and designed for different stakeholders to be interviewed.
  • Key informant and focus group discussions with men and women, beneficiaries and stakeholders.
  • All interviews should be undertaken in full confidence and anonymity. The final evaluation report should not assign specific comments to individuals.
• Surveys and questionnaires including participants in development programmes, UNCT members and/or surveys and questionnaires involving other stakeholders at strategic and programmatic levels.
• Virtual meetings for on-site validation of key tangible outputs and interventions.
• The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach that ensures close engagement with the evaluation managers, implementing partners and direct beneficiaries.
• Other methods such as outcome mapping, observational visits, group discussions, etc.
• Data review and analysis of monitoring and other data sources and methods.

Ensure maximum validity, reliability of data (quality) and promote use; the evaluation team will ensure triangulation of the various data sources.

[1] For additional information on methods, see the Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, Chapter 7, pg. 163

Evaluation Products (Deliverables)

These products could include:

• Evaluation inception report (10-15 pages). The inception report should be carried out following and based on preliminary discussions with UNDP after the desk review, and should be produced before the evaluation starts (before any formal evaluation interviews, survey distribution or field visits) and prior to the country visit in the case of international evaluators.
• Evaluation debriefings. Immediately following an evaluation, UNDP may ask for a preliminary debriefing and findings.
• Draft evaluation report (within an agreed length).[1] The programme unit and key stakeholders in the evaluation should review the draft evaluation report and provide an amalgamated set of comments to the evaluator within an agreed period of time, addressing the content required (as agreed in the TOR and inception report) and quality criteria as outlined in these guidelines.
• Evaluation report audit trail. Comments and changes by the evaluator in response to the draft report should be retained by the evaluator to show how they have addressed comments.
• Final evaluation report.
• Presentations to stakeholders and/or the evaluation reference group (if requested in the TOR).
• Evaluation brief and other knowledge products or participation in knowledge-sharing events, if relevant.

[1] A length of 40 to 60 pages including executive summary is suggested.

Deliverable

Content

Timing

Responsibilities

Payment

Inception Report

Evaluator provides clarifications on timing and method

No later than 2 weeks

before the evaluation

mission.

Evaluator submits to UNDP

CO

20%

Presentation

Initial Findings

End of evaluation mission

To project management,

UNDP CO

20%

Draft Final Report

Full report, (per annexed

template) with annexes

Within 3 weeks of the

evaluation mission

Sent to CO, reviewed by

RTA, PCU, GEF OFPs

20%

Final Report*

Revised report

Within 1 week of receiving

UNDP comments on draft

Sent to CO for uploading to

UNDP ERC.

40%

Activity

Number of working days

Completion Date

Preparation

04 days (recommended: 2-4)

10/2/2021

Evaluation Mission (Virtual)

5 days (r: 7-15)

15/2/2021

Draft Evaluation Report

5 days (r: 5-10)

25/2/2021

Final Report

2  days (r: 1-2)

10/3/2021

S. No.

Technical Criteria

Marking (70)

1

Minimum 10 years of relevant professional experience with post graduate degree in engineering/ environment/ management or related filed domain

10 Marks

2

Previous experience of carrying out mid-term review/ terminal evaluation of GEF projects:

5 marks for each experience maximum up to 20 marks

20 Marks

3

Previous experience with results-based monitoring and evaluation methodologies.

20 Marks

4

Proven technical knowledge of solar PV system, rural livelihood and climate change and mitigation activities

20 Marks