Historique

1. Introduction

In accordance with UNDP and GEF M&E policies and procedures, all full- and medium-sized UNDP-supported GEF-financed projects are required to undergo a Terminal Evaluation (TE) at the end of the project. This Terms of Reference (ToR) sets out the expectations for the TE of the full-sized project titled Comprehensive Environmentally Sound Management of PCBs in Montenegro (PIMS #5562) implemented through the UNDP Montenegro. The project started on the 16th January 2017 and is in its 5th year of implementation. The TE process must follow the guidance outlined in the document ‘Guidance for Conducting Terminal Evaluations of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects’ (http://web.undp.org/evaluation/guideline/documents/GEF/TE_GuidanceforUNDP-supportedGEF-financedProjects.pdf ).

2. Project Background and Context

The project Comprehensive Environmentally Sound Management of PCBs in Montenegro intends to support the country with the necessary technical and financial assistance to ensure that all the remaining PCBs in the country (estimated in not less than 900 t of PCB contaminated equipment, waste and soil) are identified and disposed of. The project will be implemented side by side with the relevant institutional and industrial stakeholders, i.e. the Ministry of Ecology, Spatial Planning and Urbanism, private and state owned companies, holders of PCB containing equipment. Although the project expects to solve all remaining PCBs issues in the country, it will also ensure that enough capacity for the sound management of PCBs would have been built for the management of any further such hazardous waste identified in time after project’s closure.
The disposal or decontamination of PCBs in Montenegro presents a number of issues and risks. First of all, the reliability of initial PCB inventory is very low and mostly limited to phased out equipment that needs to be disposed of. In Montenegro where most of information on PCBs from NIP inventory comes from disconnected equipment. This is due to the fact that electrical equipment (transformers, capacitors) when in good operating condition are usually not inspected for PCB content. The reasons are that:

• the cost of replacing transformer and capacitor is capital intense (very high), and 
• the sampling and analysis of in-use equipment is a complex task requiring a significant coordination effort (for instance, coordination with maintenance schedule of electric equipment). 

A second feature is that, being not immediately perceived as a hazard by the common public, the issue of PCBs is very often given a low priority from the authorities. Therefore, the existing legislation on PCB is not effectively enforced. As explained in the chapter above, although the Montenegrin legislation is well advanced and generally compliant with the Stockholm convention and the EU directive on PCBs management, and the government updated the inventory of PCB waste, the requirements related to the PCB management plans, and PCB “logbooks” are almost completely disregarded. In the absence of a sound level of enforcement of current legislation, even the industry’s commitment to address the issue of PCBs – given the high costs related to the decontamination or disposal (with subsequent replacement) of contaminated equipment – is low. For this reason, the national PCB management situation can be effectively addressed only if the government’s commitment and capacity are high.

A third feature is the lacking of PCB treatment technologies at local level. This is a common feature in many countries supported by UN/GEF projects in PCBs management.  This usually results in industries undertaking substantial investment for shipping PCB contaminated equipment for abroad, typically EU, for disposal. In the case of Montenegro, there are no technologies for treatment of low PCB-contaminated equipment or disposal facilities available for high PCB contaminated equipment or waste, therefore until now only the highly PCB contaminated equipment has been to date treated by shipping and disposal abroad. 

The project strategy is therefore designed to address simultaneously all these important aspects as outlined below. 

1) Increasing national PCB management capacities and the enforcement of the legislation. This will require working side by side with the control authorities (mainly the Ministry of Ecology, Spatial Planning and Urbanism) and the key stakeholders (the electric power industry and other potential owners of PCB containing equipment) to:

• develop and implement a practical guidance on PCB environmentally sound management (ESM);
• provide assistance in fulfillment of legal obligations towards recording and reporting PCB related information;
• conduct inspections at sites where electrical equipment (transformers, capacitors) operates, 
• train operators and officers on both sides – the governmental authorities and PCB equipment/waste owners.

2) Increasing the industry and general awareness. PCBs are very often a not very well known environmental issue. Except for extremely high pollution levels, resulting in acute and immediate health impacts, the toxic effect of PCBs (increase of cancer probability) is delayed in time and not associated to any “visible” pollution like black smoke from open burning or factories’ stacks or turbidity in water. Therefore, the PCB hazard is usually not perceived as an immediate threat by many. However, an unsafe disposal of PCBs results in the contamination of food chain and other environmental media (like, for instance, sediments and soil) which may last for years. PCBs have been recently (March 2013) re-assessed by the IARC and are now classified as “known human carcinogens (class 1)” compared to the previous “probable human carcinogens (class 2)” category. There is therefore the need to inform the main stakeholders and the public at large on the benefit brought by the project so that the government and the industry are encouraged in undertaking necessary actions. 
3) Engagement of stakeholders. As in other environmental programmes, only in case of key stakeholder’s buy-in, the project’s goals can be satisfactorily achieved. No major change in current practices can be achieved if there is little or no awareness of the risks posed by PCBs, and if stakeholders do not feel the need to address the PCB management issue once and for all. As previously described in more detail, the project had identified at PIF stage a number of important stakeholders which will be involved in all project activities during its implementation. Besides MoSDT, which will be the national implementing institution, key PCB holders, like EPCG (both for electricity generation and distribution) and KAP were informed on the project’s related benefits and on the expected and required level of commitment towards it. As a result, they participated proactively in all the project development activities, including providing lists of their power equipment and facilitating oil sampling and analysis for PCB content.  More stakeholder engagement, by involving other line Ministries, academic institutions and NGO sector is planned during the project implementation which will too include civil society associations, trade unions, and other beneficiaries.
4) Strengthening the reliability of information through updating of the PCB inventory. At PIF stage, the only available information was related to the list of phased-out PCB equipment and waste, a few pure PCB transformers, online or stored at KAP, oil tanks and contaminated material (sawdust, soil, waste) potentially contaminated by PCBs. Due to the low enforcement of the legislation, there was very little information available on the concentration of PCB online equipment. The information concerning the number, age and level of contamination of PCB equipment is indeed essential for both management purposes and identification of the proper treatment / disposal technologies. This situation was already evident at the PIF formulation stage, and therefore the main focus in the preliminary inventory carried out during preparation of the FSP project document concerned existing offline and online equipment at EPCG company. At same time, only limited PCB content in transformers stored or online at KAP was re-confirmed, including that data on PCB contaminated soil. The project will continue consolidating the PCB inventory by undertaking dielectric oil sampling and analytical determination of PCBs in 3,000 pieces of equipment during the first two years of its implementation. 
5) Provide know-how and financial support on the technologies for the disposal of PCB equipment. Clearly, one of the central issues on the side of PCB ESM concerns the availability of technical and financial resources for PCB disposal. In the absence of a sound know-how related to disposal operations of PCB contaminated equipment, the cost / benefit ratio is always very high, for the following reasons: 

• the options allowing the chemical destruction of the PCBs in the dielectric oil without destroying the oil itself are usually not considered, so that the dielectric oil, which is usually a very expensive asset, is lost; 
• the planning of PCB equipment phasing out is not aligned with their residual value, so that very often a strategy aimed at minimizing the cost of disposal of PCB contaminated equipment is not pursued; and 
• the legal aspects related to the storage of PCB containing equipment under maintenance versus PCB phased out equipment (to be considered waste) are usually neglected, exposing therefore owners of PCB equipment to a severe liability risk. 

The project budget from the GEF Trust Fund is 3,5 mil USD, UNDP TRAC resources are 50,000 USD and total co-financing is 19,803,691 USD.

During 2020 and 2021 Covid-19 pandemic influenced implementation of the project. Namely, lockdowns throughout 2020 and beginning of 2021 interfered the work planned for contaminated site investigation, and delayed the work on site clean-up. Already arranged trainings on ESM of PCB had to be postponed. Montenegro had a large number of Covid cases during the two years of the pandemic, around 230,000 cases, which is 35% of the population. Also, around 2,700 Covid-19 related deaths were reported. The delays in project implementation caused by Covid-19 resulted with the no-cost extension being granted for one additional year.

Devoirs et responsabilités

3. TE Purpose 

The TE report will assess the achievement of project results against what was expected to be achieved and draw lessons that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project, and aid in the overall enhancement of UNDP programming. The TE report promotes accountability and transparency and assesses the extent of project accomplishments.

The evaluation will cover all the activities undertaken by the project. In scoping and during the implementation of the evaluation, key stakeholders of the project will be involved, such as the members of the project steering committee including representatives from the government institutions (Ministry of Ecology, Spatial Planning and Urbanism, Center for Eco-toxicological Research- CETI, Institute for Public Health) and private sector (owners of PCB equipment). It also examines the efficiency and effectiveness of the project in terms of achieving expected results and evaluates the relevance and sustainability of achievements. An evaluation carried out through an analysis of results, should provide the basis for the follow-up to the project if there is a need for that. 

Therefore, the main responsibility of the evaluation team is to examine the following elements: the project design, the objectives established and results achieved; different aspects of the project such as sustainability, monitoring and evaluation, and efficiency; the project strategy and development; the relationship among the different actors and their specific roles; the attainment of the results, objective and impacts of the project; the effectiveness of the strategy undertaken by the project; the financial, administrative and managerial aspects of the project; the project´s compliance with the rules and procedures of the project’s administrative, financial and reporting system, verify that all is in accordance with the rules and regulations of UNDP and GEF.

4. TE Approach and Methodology 

The TE report must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful.

The TE team will review all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. PIF, UNDP Initiation Plan, UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Procedure/SESP) the Project Document, project reports including annual PIRs, project budget revisions, lesson learned reports, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team considers useful for this evidence-based evaluation. The TE team will review the baseline and midterm GEF focal area Core Indicators/Tracking Tools submitted to the GEF at the CEO endorsement and midterm stages and the terminal Core Indicators/Tracking Tools that must be completed before the TE field mission begins.  

The TE team is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with the Project Team, government counterparts (the GEF Operational Focal Point), Implementing Partners, the UNDP Country Office(s), the Regional Technical Advisor, direct beneficiaries and other stakeholders.

Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful TE. Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to Ministry of Ecology, Spatial Planning and Urbanism, Environmental Protection Agency, The Administration for Inspection Affairs, Companies that have PCB contaminated equipment, Center for Eco-toxicological Research; executing agencies, senior officials and task team/component leaders, key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Board, project beneficiaries, academia, local government and CSOs, etc. Additionally, the TE team is expected to conduct field missions to Podgorica and Bar, including the following project sites UNIPROM-KAP and CEDIS in Podgorica and HEMOSAN in Bar. 

The specific design and methodology for the TE should emerge from consultations between the TE team and the above-mentioned parties regarding what is appropriate and feasible for meeting the TE purpose and objectives and answering the evaluation questions, given limitations of budget, time and data. The TE team must use gender-responsive methodologies and tools and ensure that gender equality and women’s empowerment, as well as other cross-cutting issues and SDGs are incorporated into the TE report. 

The final methodological approach including interview schedule, field visits and data to be used in the evaluation must be clearly outlined in the TE Inception Report and be fully discussed and agreed between UNDP, stakeholders and the TE team.

The final report must describe the full TE approach taken and the rationale for the approach making explicit the underlying assumptions, challenges, strengths and weaknesses about the methods and approach of the evaluation. 

5. DETAILED SCOPE OF THE TE

The TE will assess project performance against expectations set out in the project’s Logical Framework/Results Framework (see ToR Annex A). The TE will assess results according to the criteria outlined in the Guidance for TEs of UNDP-supported GEF-financed Projects (‘Guidance for Conducting Terminal Evaluations of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects’). 

The Findings section of the TE report will cover the topics listed below.

 A full outline of the TE report’s content is provided in ToR Annex C.

The asterisk “(*)” indicates criteria for which a rating is required.

Findings

i. Project Design/Formulation

• National priorities and country driven-ness
• Theory of Change
• Gender equality and women’s empowerment
• Social and Environmental Standards (Safeguards)
• Analysis of Results Framework: project logic and strategy, indicators
• Assumptions and Risks
• Lessons from other relevant projects (e.g. same focal area) incorporated into project design
• Planned stakeholder participation
• Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector
• Management arrangements

ii. Project Implementation

• Adaptive management (changes to the project design and project outputs during implementation)
• Actual stakeholder participation and partnership arrangements
• Project Finance and Co-finance
• Monitoring & Evaluation: design at entry (*), implementation (*), and overall assessment of M&E (*)
• Implementing Agency (UNDP) (*) and Executing Agency (*), overall project oversight/implementation and execution (*)
• Risk Management, including Social and Environmental Standards (Safeguards)

iii. Project Results

• Assess the achievement of outcomes against indicators by reporting on the level of progress for each objective and outcome indicator at the time of the TE and noting final achievements
• Relevance (*), Effectiveness (*), Efficiency (*) and overall project outcome (*)
• Sustainability: financial (*) , socio-political (*), institutional framework and governance (*), environmental (*), overall likelihood of sustainability (*)
• Country ownership
• Gender equality and women’s empowerment
• Cross-cutting issues (poverty alleviation, improved governance, climate change mitigation and adaptation, disaster prevention and recovery, human rights, capacity development, South-South cooperation, knowledge management, volunteerism, etc., as relevant)
• GEF Additionality
• Catalytic Role / Replication Effect 
• Progress to impact

Main Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations and Lessons Learned

• The TE team will include a summary of the main findings of the TE report. Findings should be presented as statements of fact that are based on analysis of the data.
• The section on conclusions will be written in light of the findings. Conclusions should be comprehensive and balanced statements that are well substantiated by evidence and logically connected to the TE findings. They should highlight the strengths, weaknesses and results of the project, respond to key evaluation questions and provide insights into the identification of and/or solutions to important problems or issues pertinent to project beneficiaries, UNDP and the GEF, including issues in relation to gender equality and women’s empowerment. 
• Recommendations should provide concrete, practical, feasible and targeted recommendations directed to the intended users of the evaluation about what actions to take and decisions to make. The recommendations should be specifically supported by the evidence and linked to the findings and conclusions around key questions addressed by the evaluation. 
• The TE report should also include lessons that can be taken from the evaluation, including best practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success that can provide knowledge gained from the particular circumstance (programmatic and evaluation methods used, partnerships, financial leveraging, etc.) that are applicable to other GEF and UNDP interventions. When possible, the TE team should include examples of good practices in project design and implementation.
• It is important for the conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned of the TE report to incorporate gender equality and empowerment of women.

The TE report will include an Evaluation Ratings Table, as shown below:

ToR Table 2: Evaluation Ratings Table for the project Comprehensive Environmentally Sound Management of PCBs in Montenegro

6. Timeframe

The total duration of the TE will be approximately 25 working days over a time period of 18 weeks starting on 17th May 2021. The tentative TE timeframe is as follows:

Options for site visits should be provided in the TE Inception Report.

7. TE Deliveables

*All final TE reports will be quality assessed by the UNDP Independent Evaluation Office (IEO).  Details of the IEO’s quality assessment of decentralized evaluations can be found in Section 6 of the UNDP Evaluation Guidelines. 

8. TE Arrangements 

The principal responsibility for managing the TE resides with the Commissioning Unit. The Commissioning Unit for this project’s TE is the Country Office Montenegro. 
The Commissioning Unit will contract the evaluators and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the TE team. The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the TE team to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits.

Compétences

9. TE Team Composition and Required Qualification

A team of two independent evaluators will conduct the TE – one team leader (with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in other regions) and one team expert, National Consultant.  The team leader will lead the process of evaluation and be responsible for the overall design and writing of the TE report.  The team expert will assist the team leader in data collection and analysis, assess emerging trends with respect to regulatory frameworks, budget allocations, capacity building, work with the Project Team in developing the TE itinerary.
The evaluator(s) cannot have participated in the project preparation, formulation and/or implementation (including the writing of the project document), must not have conducted this project’s Mid-Term Review and should not have a conflict of interest with the project’s related activities.

Qualifications et expériences requises

The selection of evaluators will be aimed at maximizing the overall “team” qualities in the following areas: 

Education:

• A Master’s degree in electrical/agriculture/environment/chemicals/engineering or economy, or other closely related field - 10%

Experience

• Relevant experience with results-based management evaluation methodologies; - 10%
• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios; - 10%
• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to Chemicals/Waste GEF Focal Area; - 10%
• Experience in evaluating projects; - 20%
• Experience working in Montenegro, Western Balkans, CIS countries; - 10%
• Experience in relevant technical areas for at least 10 years; - 10%
• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and Chemicals/Waste; experience in gender responsive evaluation and analysis; - 5%
• Excellent communication skills; - 3%
• Demonstrable analytical skills; - 2%
• Project evaluation/review experience within United Nations system will be considered an asset. – 5%

Language

• Team leader - fluency in written and spoken English. – 5%

10. Evaluator Ethics 

The TE team will be held to the highest ethical standards and is required to sign a code of conduct upon acceptance of the assignment. This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’. The evaluator must safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers, interviewees and stakeholders through measures to ensure compliance with legal and other relevant codes governing collection of data and reporting on data. The evaluator must also ensure security of collected information before and after the evaluation and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information knowledge and data gathered in the evaluation process must also be solely used for the evaluation and not for other uses without the express authorization of UNDP and partners. 

11. Payment Schedule:

• 20% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the final TE Inception Report and approval by the Commissioning Unit
• 40% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the draft TE report to the Commissioning Unit
• 40% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the final TE report and approval by the Commissioning Unit and RTA (via signatures on the TE Report Clearance Form) and delivery of completed TE Audit Trail

Criteria for issuing the final payment of 40% :

• The final TE report includes all requirements outlined in the TE TOR and is in accordance with the TE guidance.
• The final TE report is clearly written, logically organized, and is specific for this project (i.e. text has not been cut & pasted from other TE reports).
• The Audit Trail includes responses to and justification for each comment listed.

In line with the UNDP’s financial regulations, when determined by the Commissioning Unit and/or the consultant that a deliverable or service cannot be satisfactorily completed due to the impact of COVID-19 and limitations to the TE, that deliverable or service will not be paid.
Due to the current COVID-19 situation and its implications, a partial payment may be considered if the consultant invested time towards the deliverable but was unable to complete to circumstances beyond his/her control.

12. Applicaation Process  

Recommended Presentation of Proposal:
a) Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template  provided by UNDP;
b) CV and a Personal History Form (P11 form );
c) Brief description of approach to work/technical proposal of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment, and a proposed methodology on how they will approach and complete the assignment; (max 1 page)
d) Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price and all other travel related costs (such as flight ticket, per diem, etc), supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template attached to the Letter of Confirmation of Interest template. If an applicant is employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to UNDP under Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA), the applicant must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP.

All application materials should be submitted to the address   UN Eco House, Stanka Dragojevica street bb,  81 000 Podgorica, Montenegro in a sealed envelope indicating the following reference “Consultant for Terminal Evaluation of the Project Comprehensive Environmentally Sound Management of PCBs in Montenegro” or by email at the following address ONLY: vacancy.me@undp.org by 30 April 2022. Incomplete applications will be excluded from further consideration.
Criteria for Evaluation of Proposal: Only those applications which are responsive and compliant will be evaluated. Offers will be evaluated according to the Combined Scoring method – where the educational background and experience on similar assignments will be weighted at 70% and the price proposal will weigh as 30% of the total scoring. The applicant receiving the Highest Combined Score that has also accepted UNDP’s General Terms and Conditions will be awarded the contract.

13. TOR Annexes 

ToR Annex A: Project Logical/Results Framework
ToR Annex B: Project Information Package to be reviewed by TE team
ToR Annex C: Content of the TE report
ToR Annex D: Evaluation Criteria Matrix template
ToR Annex E: UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluators
ToR Annex F: TE Rating Scales
ToR Annex G: TE Report Clearance Form
ToR Annex H: TE Audit Trail

ToR Annex A: Project Logical/Results Framework

Project Results Framework

ToR Annex B: Project Information Package to be reviewed by TE team

# Item (electronic versions preferred if available)

1 Project Identification Form (PIF)

2 UNDP Initiation Plan

3 Final UNDP-GEF Project Document with all annexes

4 CEO Endorsement Request

5 UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP) and associated management plans (if any)

6 Inception Workshop Report

7 Mid-Term Review report and management response to MTR recommendations

8 All Project Implementation Reports (PIRs)

9 Progress reports (quarterly, semi-annual or annual, with associated workplans and financial reports)

10 Oversight mission reports

11 Minutes of Project Board Meetings and of other meetings (i.e. Project Appraisal Committee meetings)

12 GEF Tracking Tools (from CEO Endorsement, midterm and terminal stages)

13 GEF/LDCF/SCCF Core Indicators (from PIF, CEO Endorsement, midterm and terminal stages); for GEF-6 and GEF-7 projects only

14 Financial data, including actual expenditures by project outcome, including management costs, and including documentation of any significant budget revisions

15 Co-financing data with expected and actual contributions broken down by type of co-financing, source, and whether the contribution is considered as investment mobilized or recurring expenditures

16 Audit reports

17 Electronic copies of project outputs (booklets, manuals, technical reports, articles, etc.)

18 Sample of project communications materials

19 Summary list of formal meetings, workshops, etc. held, with date, location, topic, and number of participants

20 Any relevant socio-economic monitoring data, such as average incomes / employment levels of stakeholders in the target area, change in revenue related to project activities

21 List of contracts and procurement items over ~US$5,000 (i.e. organizations or companies contracted for project outputs, etc., except in cases of confidential information)

22 List of related projects/initiatives contributing to project objectives approved/started after GEF project approval (i.e. any leveraged or “catalytic” results)

23 Data on relevant project website activity – e.g. number of unique visitors per month, number of page views, etc. over relevant time period, if available

24 UNDP Country Programme Document (CPD)

25 List/map of project sites, highlighting suggested visits

26 List and contact details for project staff, key project stakeholders, including Project Board members, RTA, Project Team members, and other partners to be consulted

27 Project deliverables that provide documentary evidence of achievement towards project outcomes

ToR Annex C: Content of the TE report

i. Title page

• Title of UNDP-supported GEF-financed project
• UNDP PIMS ID and GEF ID
• TE timeframe and date of final TE report
• Region and countries included in the project
• GEF Focal Area/Strategic Program
• Executing Agency, Implementing partner and other project partners
• TE Team members

ii. Acknowledgements

iii. Table of Contents

iv. Acronyms and Abbreviations

 1. Executive Summary (3-4 pages)

• Project Information Table
• Project Description (brief)
• Evaluation Ratings Table
• Concise summary of findings, conclusions and lessons learned
• Recommendations summary table

 2. Introduction (2-3 pages)

• Purpose and objective of the TE
• Scope
• Methodology
• Data Collection & Analysis
• Ethics
• Limitations to the evaluation
• Structure of the TE report

3. Project Description (3-5 pages)

• Project start and duration, including milestones
• Development context: environmental, socio-economic, institutional, and policy factors relevant to the project objective and scope
• Problems that the project sought to address, threats and barriers targeted
• Immediate and development objectives of the project
• Expected results
• Main stakeholders: summary list
• Theory of Change

4. Findings

(in addition to a descriptive assessment, all criteria marked with (*) must be given a rating )

4.1 Project Design/Formulation

• Analysis of Results Framework: project logic and strategy, indicators
• Assumptions and Risks
• Lessons from other relevant projects (e.g. same focal area) incorporated into project design
• Planned stakeholder participation
• Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector

4.1 Project Implementation

• Adaptive management (changes to the project design and project outputs during implementation)
• Actual stakeholder participation and partnership arrangements
• Project Finance and Co-finance
• Monitoring & Evaluation: design at entry (*), implementation (*), and overall assessment of M&E (*)
• UNDP implementation/oversight (*) and Implementing Partner execution (*), overall project implementation/execution (*), coordination, and operational issues
• Risk Management, including Social and Environmental Standards (Safeguards)

4.2 Project Results and Impacts

• Progress towards objective and expected outcomes (*)
• Relevance (*)
• Effectiveness (*)
• Efficiency (*)
• Overall Outcome (*)
• Sustainability: financial (*), socio-economic (*), institutional framework and governance (*), environmental (*), and overall likelihood (*)
• Country ownership
• Gender equality and women’s empowerment
• Cross-cutting Issues
• GEF Additionality
• Catalytic/Replication Effect 
• Progress to Impact

5. Main Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations & Lessons

• Main Findings
• Conclusions
• Recommendations 
• Lessons Learned

6. Annexes

• TE ToR (excluding ToR annexes)
• TE Mission itinerary, including summary of field visits
• List of persons interviewed
• List of documents reviewed
• Evaluation Question Matrix (evaluation criteria with key questions, indicators, sources of data, and methodology)
• Questionnaire used and summary of results
• Co-financing tables (if not include in body of report)
• TE Rating scales
• Signed Evaluation Consultant Agreement form
• Signed UNEG Code of Conduct form
• Signed TE Report Clearance form
• Annexed in a separate file: TE Audit Trail
• Annexed in a separate file: relevant terminal GEF/LDCF/SCCF Core Indicators or Tracking Tools, as applicable

ToR Annex D: Evaluation Criteria Matrix template

ToR Annex E: UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluators

Independence entails the ability to evaluate without undue influence or pressure by any party (including the hiring unit) and providing evaluators with free access to information on the evaluation subject.  Independence provides legitimacy to and ensures an objective perspective on evaluations. An independent evaluation reduces the potential for conflicts of interest which might arise with self-reported ratings by those involved in the management of the project being evaluated.  Independence is one of ten general principles for evaluations (together with internationally agreed principles, goals and targets: utility, credibility, impartiality, ethics, transparency, human rights and gender equality, national evaluation capacities, and professionalism).

ToR Annex F: TE Rating Scales

ToR Annex F: TE Rating Scales

ToR Annex G: TE Report Clearance Form

ToR Annex H: TE Audit Trail

The following is a template for the TE Team to show how the received comments on the draft TE report have (or have not) been incorporated into the final TE report. This Audit Trail should be listed as an annex in the final TE report but not attached to the report file. 

To the comments received on (date) from the Terminal Evaluation of (project name) (UNDP Project PIMS #)

The following comments were provided to the draft TE report; they are referenced by institution/organization (do not include the commentator’s name) and track change comment number (“#” column):