Individual Consultant- Climate-resilient livelihoods and EbA institutionalization

Location : Home-based (with mission travel), INDIA
Application Deadline :01-Jul-22 (Midnight New York, USA)
Time left :5d 11h 8m
Type of Contract :Individual Contract
Post Level :National Consultant
Languages Required :
Duration of Initial Contract :30 working days spread over 11.5 weeks

UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply. All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence.

UNDP does not tolerate sexual exploitation and abuse, any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment, and discrimination. All selected candidates will, therefore, undergo rigorous reference and background checks.



This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Interim Evaluation (IE) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) supported Green Climate Fund (GCF) financed project “Enhancing Climate Resilience of India’s Coastal Communities” (PIMS 5991 /GCF FP084) implemented through the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the nodal departments of the target State governments which is to be undertaken in 2022. The project is implemented in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Odisha and Maharashtra, to enhance the resilience of vulnerable coastal communities to climate change through ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA). The project was started on 28th June 2019, though full implementation commenced in September 2019 and is currently in its third year of implementation. This ToR sets out the expectations for this Interim Evaluation (IE).



The Green Climate Fund (GCF) project- on “Enhancing Climate Resilience of  India’s  Coastal Communities” supports the Government of India and the state governments in the project states of Andhra Pradesh, Odisha and Maharashtra, to enhance the resilience of vulnerable coastal communities to climate change through ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA). The project combines GCF grant finance with significant leveraged co-finance from central and state governments to shift the paradigm towards a new approach, integrating ecosystem-centred and community-based approaches to adaptation into coastal management and planning by the public sector, the private sector and civil society.

The project supports the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the nodal departments of the target State governments, to enhance the resilience of the lives and livelihoods of the most vulnerable populations, particularly women, in the coastal areas of India to climate change and extreme events, using an ecosystem-centered and community-based approach in three target states. This project as well contributes towards the achievement of climate priorities outlined in India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (2008), the  State  Action  Plans,  as  well  as  commitments  outlined  in  India’s  Nationally Determined Contributions (2015).

The Climate Change, Resilience and Energy portfolio at UNDP is currently working in various thematic areas of climate change adaptation and mitigation; disaster management and resilience; and access to clean and efficient energy. The project works at national, state and community levels to enhance capacities for ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and enable climate policy and finance shifts to catalyse climate action in all of India’s coastal states and union territories. 

The project will enhance the resilience of coastal communities throughout India, through the implementation of interventions under the following inter-linked outputs:

• Output 1: Enhanced resilience of coastal and marine ecosystems and their services;

• Output 2: Climate adaptive livelihoods for enhanced resilience of vulnerable coastal communities; and

• Output 3: Strengthened coastal and marine governance and institutional frameworks for climate resilient management of coastal areas.

The above will be achieved through interventions outlined below in target landscapes in the three states - Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Odisha:

•  Protect and restore ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrass, coral reefs, salt marshes, costal dunes, and coastal watersheds 

•  Help communities adopt climate-adaptive livelihoods and value chains

• Mainstream EbA principles into coastal planning and governance, enabling intersectoral coordination for addressing climate risk across all of India’s coastal states.

Being half –way the project life, this IE will assess progress towards and likelihood of achievement of outcomes and impacts and recommend strategies that will enhance delivery of intended project results commensurate with the investments made.



The IE will assess implementation of the project progress towards the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes as specified in the UNDP Project Document and GCF Funded Activity Agreement (FAA), and assess early signs of project success, or failure with the goal of identifying the  necessary changes  to be made  in order to set the project on-track to achieve its intended results The IE will also review the project’s strategy  and its  risks to sustainability.


The IE will take into consideration assessment of the project in line with the following evaluation criteria from the GCF IEU TOR (GCF/B.06/06) and GCF Evaluation Policy, along with guidance provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Additional evaluation criteria can be assessed, as applicable.  The IE must assess the following:


• Implementation and adaptive management – seek to identify challenges and propose additional measures to support more efficient and effective implementation. The following aspects of project implementation and adaptive management will be assessed: management arrangements, work planning, finance and co-finance, project-level monitoring and evaluation systems, stakeholder engagement, reporting, and communications.

• Risks to sustainability – seeks to assess the likelihood of continued benefits after the project ends. The assessment of sustainability at the IE stage considers the risks that are likely to affect the continuation of project outcomes. The IE should validate the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Reports, and the ATLAS Risk Management Module and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. 

• Relevance, effectiveness and efficiency - seeks to assess the appropriateness in terms of selection, implementation and achievement of FAA and project document results framework activities and expected results (outputs, outcomes and impacts).

• Coherence in climate finance delivery with other multilateral entities - looks at how GCF financing is additional and able to amplify other investments or de-risk and crowd-in further climate investment.

• Gender equity - ensures integration of understanding on how the impacts of climate change are differentiated by gender, the ways that behavioural changes and gender can play in delivering paradigm shift, and the role that women play in responding to climate change challenges both as agents but also for accountability and decision-making.

• Country ownership of projects and programmes - examines the extent of the emphasis on sustainability post project through country ownership; on ensuring the responsiveness of the GCF investment to country needs and priorities including through the roles that countries play in projects and programmes. 

• Innovativeness in results areas - focuses on identification of innovations (proof of concept, multiplication effects, new models of finance, technologies, etc.) and the extent to which the project interventions may lead to a paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways.

• Replication and scalability – the extent to which the activities can be scaled up in other locations within the country or replicated in other countries (this criterion, which is considered in document GCF/B.05/03 in the context of measuring performance could also be incorporate d in independent evaluations).

• Unexpected results, both positive and negative - identifies the challenges and the learning, both positive and negative, that can be used by all parties (governments, stakeholders, civil society, AE, GCF, and others) to inform further implementation and future investment decision-making.




The IE team, consisting of an International Consultant (Lead Consultant) and two National Consultants (one is responsible to look at activities related to ecosystem restoration and protection as an adaptation measure to climate change (Output 1) and one for climate-resilient livelihoods and EbA institutionalization (Outputs 2 and 3), must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable, and useful. The National consultants to provide the local content while the international consultant will be the Lead Consultant to ensure the deliverables are realized.


The IE team will review all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. baseline funding proposal submitted to GCF, FAA, the Project Document, project reports including Annual Performance Reports, Quarterly Progress Reports,  UNDP Environmental & Social Safeguard Policy, project budget revisions,  records of surveys conducted, national strategic and legal documents, stakeholder maps , and any other materials that the team considers useful for this evidence-based assessment). 


The National consultant for Climate-resilient livelihoods and EbA institutionalization will support the Lead Consultant to undertake activities such as, reviewing strategies, and closely assess and evaluate the current climate-resilient livelihoods mentioned in the project, their impact, and relevance as per the changes in the economy of the coastal state of India over the last 6 years, since it was conceptualized. These include changes in the labor market dynamics, youth unemployment and mobility, and the digital technology. The consultant shall also evaluate the status of activities associated with governance and institutional strengthening in the local context. Based on this, suggest key recommendations, course correction measures, and recommend a sustainability strategy. 


The IE is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach  ensuring close engagement with the Project Team, Implementing Partner, NDA focal point, government counterparts, the UNDP Country Office, Regional Technical Advisers, and other principal stakeholders and beneficiaries. 


Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful IE. Stakeholder involvement should include (where possible) surveys/questionnaires, focus groups, interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to executing agencies, senior officials and task team/component leaders, key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Steering Committee, project stakeholders, local government, CSOs, project beneficiaries, etc. If possible (given the COVID restrictions) the IE team is expected to conduct field missions to selected landscape project states of Andhra Pradesh (as required after preliminary evaluation), Odisha and Maharashtra where the IE team should be able to meet the project responsible parties, local stakeholders, including communities, and conduct site verification, to be decided in consultation with the project team. Data collection (government data/records, field observation visits, CDM verifications, public expenditure reporting, GIS data, interviews and focus groups with project partners and stakeholders, etc.) will be used to validate evidence of results and assessments (including but not limited to: assessment of Theory of Change, activities delivery, and results/changes occurred).

The specific design and methodology for the IE should emerge from consultations between the IE team and the above-mentioned parties regarding what is appropriate and feasible for meeting the IE purpose and objectives and answering the evaluation questions, given limitations of budget, time and data. The IE team must, however, 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 IE report.

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

The final IE report should describe the full IE approach taken and the rationale for the approach making explicit the underlying assumptions, challenges, strengths and weaknesses about the methods and approach of the assessment. The final report must also describe any limitations encountered by the IE team during the evaluation process, including limitations of the methodology, data collection methods, and any potential influence of limitation on how findings may be interpreted, and conclusions drawn. Limitations include, among others: language barriers, inaccessible project sites, limitations due to COVID-19 pandemic, issues with access to data or verification of data sources, issues with availability of interviewees, methodological limitations to collecting more extensive or more representative qualitative or quantitative evaluation data, deviations from planned data collection and analysis set out in the ToR and Inception Report, etc. Efforts made to mitigate the limitations should also be included in the IE report.




The IE team will assess the following categories of project progress (adjusted for the Climate-resilient livelihoods and EbA institutionalization Consultant). The following questions are intended to guide the IE team to deliver credible and trusted evaluations that provide assessment of progress and results achieved in relationship to the GCF investment, can identify learning and areas where restructuring or changes through adaptive management in project implementation are needed, and can make evidence-based clear and focused recommendations that may be required for enhancing project implementation to deliver expected results and to what extent these can be verified and attributed to GCF investment.


5.1 Project Strategy

5.1.1 Project design: 

i) Review the problem addressed by the project Outputs 2 and 3 and the underlying assumptions.  Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes for the Outputs 2 and 3 to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document.

ii) Review the relevance of the project strategy for the Outputs 2 and 3 and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results.  Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design in regard to the Outputs 2 and 3?

iii) Review how the Outputs 2 and 3 of the project addresses country priorities in community-based adaptation and climate adaptation policy, planning documents, and legislation. Review country ownership in regard to the Outputs 2 and 3. Was the project concept for the Outputs 2 and 3 in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country (or of participating countries in the case of multi-country projects)?

iv) Review decision-making processes for the Outputs 2 and 3: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outputs and outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes? 

v) Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design in regards to the Outputs 2 and 3. See Annex 9 of Guidance for Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.

vi) If there are major areas of concern in relation to the Outputs 2 and 3, recommend areas for improvement. 


5.1.2 Results Framework/Log frame and Theory of Change:

i) Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s log frame indicators and targets related to the Outputs 2 and 3, assess how “SMART” the midterm and end-of-project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound), and suggest specific amendments/revisions to the targets and indicators as necessary.

ii) Is the project’s Outputs 2 and 3 clear, practical, and feasible within their time frames?

iii) Examine if progress on the Outputs 2 and 3 so far has led to or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. decreased vulnerability of local communitiesto climate change, improved EbA focus and guidance in the government policies and planning documents.) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis. 

iv) Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively in relations to the Outputs 2 and 3.  Develop and recommend SMART 'development' indicators for the Outputs 2 and 3, including sex-disaggregated indicators and indicators that capture development benefits.

v) Ensure that the Outputs 2 and 3 indicators (gender-disaggregated) are SMART, aligned with GCF/Results Management Framework (RMF)/Performance Measurement Frameworks (PMFs) and the guidance in the GCF programming manual.

vi) Evaluate the Theory of Change (ToC) for the Outputs 2 and 3 proposed by the project during the inception and design phases in comparison to the approach, relevance, actions, interventions, practicality, and current context. Foresee the way forward and propose necessary adjustments.



5.2 Relevance, Effectiveness and Efficiency

i) Were the context, problem, needs and priorities for the Outputs 2 and 3 well analyzed and reviewed during project initiation?

ii) Are the planned project objectives and outcomes in relation to the Outputs 2 and 3 relevant and realistic to the situation on the ground? 

iii) Does the Outputs 2 and 3 link to intended outcomes which link to broader paradigm shift objectives of the project?

iv) Are the Outputs 2 and 3 being delivered in a timely manner? Is the Outputs delivery supportive of the ToC and pathways identified? 

v) How is the project Theory of Change (ToC) used in helping the project achieve results under the Output s2 and 3 . How is the ToC applied through the project for the Outputs 2 and 3?

vi) Is the project Theory of Change (ToC) and intervention logic for the Outputs 2 and 3 coherent and realistic? Does the ToC and intervention logic hold or does it need to be adjusted?  Reconstruct the ToC for the Outputs 2 and 3, if appropriate, aligning it with the GCF ToC format.

vii) Verify the mitigation impact that the project has achieved through the Outputs 2 and 3. Analyse the GHG emissions achieved (including indirect emissions) through the Output 2. Has an appropriate MRV system for GHG emission been established and implemented? 

viii) Are the planned inputs and strategies identified realistic, appropriate and adequate to achieve the Outputs 2 and 3? Were they sequenced sufficiently to efficiently deliver the Outputs 2 and 3?

ix) Is actual delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3 supportive of the ToC and pathways identified? 

x) What and how much progress has been made towards achieving the Outputs 2 and 3 and relevant outcome of the project (including contributing factors and constraints)? 

xi) To what extent is the project able to demonstrate changes against the baseline (assessment in approved Funding Proposal) for the GCF investment criteria (including contributing factors and constraints) in relation to the Outputs 2 and 3? 

xii) How realistic are the risks and assumptions of the project for the Outputs 2 and 3? 

xiii) How did the project deal with issues and risks in implementation of activities under the Outputs2 and 3?

xiv) To what extent did the project’s M&E data and mechanism(s) contribute to achieving of the Outputs 2 and 3 and relevant outcomes?

xv) Are the project’s governance mechanisms functioning efficiently for delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3?

xvi) Were there clear baselines indicators and/or benchmark for performance measurements for delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3? How were these used in project management in relations to the Outputs 2 and 3? To what extent and how the project applies adaptive management in delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3?

xvii) What, if any, alternative strategies would have been more effective in delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3?


5.3 Progress Towards Results

5.3.1 Progress Towards Results Analysis:

i) By assessing the aspects of the Outputs 2 and 3 that have already been successful, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits.

ii) Assess the log frame indicators for the Outputs 2 and 3  against progress made towards the end-of-project targets using the Progress Towards Results Matrix and colour code progress in a “traffic light system” based on the level of progress achieved; assign a rating on progress for each indicator; make recommendations from the areas marked as “Not on target to be achieved” (red). 


Table. Progress Towards Results Matrix (Achievement of outcomes against End-of-project Targets)

Project Strategy


Baseline Level[2]

Level in 1st APR (self- reported)

Midterm Target[3]

End-of-project Target

Midterm Level & Assessment[4]

Achievement Rating[5]

Analysis: status of indicator; justification for rating (triangulated with evidence and data); how realistic it is for target to be achieved

Fund Level Impact 1:

Indicator 1:








Indicator 2:








Fund Level Impact 2:

Indicator 1:








Indicator 2:









Indicator 1:








Indicator 2:








Output 1:

Indicator 1:








Indicator 2:








 Output 2:


Indicator 1:








Indicator 2:








Output 3:

Indicator 1:








Indicator 2:
















[1] Populate with data from the Log frame and scorecards

[2] Populate with data from the Project Document

[3] If available

[4] Colour code this column only

[5] Use the 6-point Progress Towards Results Rating Scale: HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU

Indicator Assessment Key

Green= Achieved

Yellow= On target to be achieved

Red= Not on target to be achieved


In addition to the progress towards project progress analysis for the Outputs 2 and 3:

  • Assess whether the total number of beneficiaries and indirect beneficiaries of the Outputs has been properly calculated.
  • Identify remaining barriers to achieving the Outputs 2 and 3 in the remainder of the project.
  • Include a comprehensive assessment of the impact of COVID-19 on the delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3.  Assess the impact on the Output delivery along with a plan of action to address these.

Duties and Responsibilities

Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

5.4.1 Management Arrangements:

i) Review overall effectiveness of project management to deliver Outputs 2 and 3 as outlined in the FAA/Funding proposal. Have changes been made and have these been approved by GCF for the Outputs 2 and 3 ? Are responsibilities and reporting lines for the Outputs 2 and 3 clear?  Is decision-making for the Outputs 2 and 3 transparent and undertaken in a timely manner? Recommend areas for improvement.

ii) Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and  project partners in framework of the Outputs 2 and 3 and recommend areas for improvement.

iii) Review the quality of support provided by UNDP for delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3 and recommend areas for improvement.

5.4.2 Work Planning:

i) Review any delays in project start-up and implementation in delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved.

ii) Are work-planning processes for the Output 2 and 3 results-based? If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results under the Outputs?

iii) Examine the use of the project’s results framework/ log frame as a management tool for delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3 and review any changes made to it since project start. 

iv) Assess the feasibility of completing the proposed activities under the Outputs 2 and 3 within the given project timeline (if extension was sought for any project milestone; please consider the revised timelines as well). 


5.4.3 Financing and Co-financing

i) Consider the financial management of the Outputs 2 and 3, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions. 

ii) Review the changes to fund allocations for the Outputs 2 and 3 as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.

iii) Have Outputs 2 and 3 resources been utilized in the most economical, effective and equitable ways possible (considering value for money; absorption rate; commitments versus disbursements and projected commitments; co-financing; etc.)?

iv) Does the Outputs 2 and 3 delivery have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the Outputs budget and allow for timely flow of funds?

v) Informed by the co-financing monitoring table to be filled out, provide commentary on co-financing for the Outputs 2 and 3: is co-financing being used strategically to help to deliver the Outputs 2 and 3? Comment on the use of different financial streams (parallel, leveraged, mobilized finance), as applicable in the context of the Outputs 2 and 3 – see GCF policy on co-finance . 

vi) Conduct an analysis of materialized co-financing for the Outputs 2 and 3 and implications for project scope and results. If the Outputs 2 and 3 co-finance is not materialising as planned (timed and/or amount), discuss the impact of that on the Output delivery. 

vii) Assess factors that contributed to low/high expenditure rate for the Outputs 2 and 3 delivery. 


5.4.4 Coherence in climate finance delivery with other multilateral entities

i) Who are the partners for the Outputs 2 and 3 delivery and how strategic are they in terms of capacities and commitment?

ii) Is there coherence and complementarity by the Outputs 2 and 3 with other actors for coastal ecosystem protection, restoration, and adaptation?

iii) To what extent has the Outputs 2 and 3 complimented other on-going local level initiatives (by stakeholders, donors, governments) on climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts? 

iv) How has the Outputs 2 and 3 contributed to achieving stronger and more coherent integration of shift to low emission sustainable development pathways and/or increased climate resilient sustainable development (GCF RMF/PMF Paradigm Shift objectives)? Please provide concrete examples and make specific suggestions on how to enhance these roles going forward.


5.4.5 Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

i) Review the monitoring tools currently being used for delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3:  Do they provide the necessary information? Do they involve key partners? Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-effective? Are additional tools required? How could they be made more participatory and inclusive?

ii) Discuss any quality assuring mechanisms being used to assess delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3 (e.g. ISO standard, government accreditations, international certificates, etc.)

iii) Is project reporting and information generated through the Outputs 2 and 3 delivery linked to national SDGs, NDC and other national reporting systems?

iv) Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget for the Outputs 2 and 3. Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation of the Output? Are these resources being allocated effectively?


5.4.6 Stakeholder Engagement:

i) Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders for delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3?

ii) Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the Outputs 2 and 3?  Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective Outputs 2 and 3 delivery?

iii) Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards full delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3?


5.4.8 Reporting:

i) Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported in relation to the Outputs 2 and 3 by the project management and shared with the Project Board.

ii) Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil GCF reporting requirements for the Outputs 2 and 3 (i.e. how have they addressed poorly rated APRs, if applicable?)

iii) Assess how lessons derived from the Outputs 2 and 3 adaptive management process have been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners.

iv) Assess the efficiency, timeliness, and adequacy of reporting under the Outputs 2 and 3.


5.4.8 Communications:

i) Review internal project communication with stakeholders in the framework of the Outputs 2 and 3: Is communication regular and effective? Are there key stakeholders left out of communication? Are there feedback mechanisms when communication is received? Does this communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of Outputs 2 and 3 activities and investment in the Outputs sustainability?

ii) Review external project communication in the framework of the Outputs 2 and 3: Are proper means of communication established or being established to express the Outputs 2 and 3 progress and intended impact to the public? Or did the project implement appropriate outreach and public awareness campaigns in the framework of the Outputs 2 and 3?)


5.5 Sustainability

Validate whether the risks identified for the Outputs 2 and 3 in the FAA and Funding proposal, APRs and the ATLAS Risk Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.  In addition, assess the following risks to sustainability

5.5.1 Financial risks to the Outputs 2 and 3 sustainability: 

What is the likelihood of financial and economic resources to support the Outputs 2 and 3 not being available once the GCF assistance ends (consider potential resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and other funding that will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project’s outcomes)?


5.5.2 Socio-economic risks to the Outputs 2 and 3 sustainability: 

Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustainability of the Output s2 and 3? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership (including ownership by governments and other key stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the Outputs to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that the Outputs 2 and 3 is sustained and related Outputs benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the Outputs 2 and 3 sustainability? Are lessons learned in framework of the Outputs 2 and 3 being documented by the Project Team on a continual basis and shared/ transferred to appropriate parties who could learn from the Outputs activities and potentially replicate and/or scale them in the future?

5.5.3 Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability: 

Do the legal frameworks, policies, governance structures and processes pose risks that may jeopardize sustenance of the Outputs 2 and 3? While assessing this parameter, also consider if the required systems/ mechanisms for the Outputs 2 and 3 sustainability and ownership are in place. 

5.5.4 Environmental risks to sustainability of the Output 2 and 3: 

Are there any environmental risks that may jeopardize sustenance of the Outputs 2 and 3? 

5.6 Country Ownership

i) To what extent is the Outputs 2 and 3 aligned with national development plans, national plans of action on climate change, or sub-national policy as well as projects and priorities of the national partners?

ii) How well is country ownership of the Outpust 2 and 3 reflected in the project governance, coordination and consultation mechanisms or other consultations? 

iii) To what extent are country level systems for the Outputs 2 and 3 management and  M&E utilized in the project? 

iv) Is the Outputs 2 and 3, as delivered, responsive to local challenges and relevant/appropriate/strategic in relation to SDG indicators, National indicators, GCF RMF/PMF indicators, AE indicators, or other goals?

v) Was the mode of the Outputs 2 and 3 delivery appropriate to build essential/necessary capacities, promote national ownership and ensure sustainability of restored and protected coastal ecosystems? 


5.7     Gender equity

i) Are financial resources/project activities for the Outputs 2 and 3 explicitly allocated to enable women to benefit from the Outputs activities? 

ii) Do the Outputs 2 and 3 account in activities and planning for local gender dynamics and how the Outputs activities affect women as beneficiaries?

iii) How do the benefits of the Outputs 2 and 3 for women compare to those for men? 

iv) Is the decision-making process for delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3 transparent and inclusive of both women and men?

v) To what extent are the Outputs 2 and 3 female stakeholders or beneficiaries satisfied with the gender equality results? 


5.8 Innovativeness in results areas

What are the lessons learned to enrich learning and knowledge generation in terms of  how the Outputs 2 and 3 played in the provision of "thought leadership,” “innovation,” or “unlocked additional climate finance” for climate change adaptation/mitigation in the project and country context? Please provide concrete examples and make specific suggestions on how to enhance these roles going forward.



5.9 Unexpected results, both positive and negative

i) What has been the project’s ability to adapt and evolve based on continuous lessons learned and the changing development landscape in regards to the Outputs 2 and 3? Please account for factors both within the AE/EE and external.

ii) Can any unintended or unexpected positive or negative effects be observed as a consequence of the Outputs 2 and 3 activities? 

iii) What factors have contributed to the unintended results in the Outputs 2 and 3 delivery?

iv) Do any of the unintended results in the Outputs 2 and 3 delivery constitute a major change? 


5.10 Replication and Scalability

i) What are the Outputs 2 and 3 lessons learned, failures/lost opportunities to date? What might have been done better or differently?

ii) Assess the effectiveness of exit strategies and approaches to phase out assistance provided by the project in framework of the Outputs 2 and 3 including contributing factors and constraints? Is there a need for recalibration?

iii) What factors of the Outputs 2 and 3 delivery are contingent on specific local context or enabling environment factors? 

iv) Are the actions and results from the Outputs 2 and 3 interventions likely to be sustained, ideally through ownership by the local partners and stakeholders? 

v) What are the key factors that will require attention in order to improve prospects of the Outputs 2 and 3 sustainability, scalability or replication?


5.11 Conclusions, Recommendations and Lessons Learned

The Consultant will develop a section of the report setting out the evaluation’s evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings for the Outputs 2 and 3.  Explain whether the project will be able to achieve planned development results under the Outputs 2 and 3 by the end of implementation.

Recommendations for delivery of the Outputs 2 and 3 should be succinct suggestions for critical intervention that are specific, measurable, achievable, and relevant. A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary.


The Consultant report will also include a separate section with a concise and logically articulated set of Outputs 2 and 3 lessons learned (new knowledge gained from the project, context, outcomes, even evaluation methods; failures/lost opportunities to date, what might have been done better or differently, etc.). Lessons should be based on specific evidence presented in the report and can be used to inform design, adapt and change plans and actions, as appropriate, and plan for scaling up.



The total duration of the Ecosystem Adaptation Consultant’s contract will be approximately 30 working days over a period of 11.5 weeks. A National Consultant will complement the Lead/International Consultant for a period of 30 working days over the same period. The tentative IE timeframe is as follows: 




  1. Desk Review and Inception Report


Supporting the International consultant in document review and preparation of IE Inception Report

2 days

19th June-20th June 2022

Provide support in consolidating comments, discussion (if needed)

20th-22nd June 2022

  1. Field (Virtual is possible, depending on COVID situation in the country) Mission and Data Collection


IE field mission: stakeholder meetings, interviews, project site visits in regards to the Outputs 2 and 3

14 days

23rd June- 7th July 2022

Supporting the International consultant in presentation of initial findings

3 day

8h -10 July 2022

  1. Report Writing


Draft the Consultant’s report on the Output 2 and 3 and submit it to the Lead Consultant

8 days

11th-18th July 2022

Review of draft IE report #1  developed by the Lead Consultant and provide comments 

5 days

25-30 July 2022

Circulation of draft IE report #1 for comments by Commissioning Unit

1st August 2022

Supporting the International consultant in incorporation of comments on draft IE report #1 + Submission of draft IE report #2

3 days

5th-8th August 2022

Circulation of draft IE report #2 for comments

9th AAugust 2022

Supporting the IC in consolidation of comments by Commissioning Unit

18th-22nd August 2022

Supporting the International consultant in;

Incorporation of comments on draft IE report #2 by IC + Submission of final IE report + completed Audit Trail by IC


(Report length should not exceed 50 pages, excluding annexes)


3 days

23rd-25th August 2022

Supporting the IC in conducting a Concluding Stakeholder Workshop (optional)

TBD WE have some time reserve (September) until October 1 here








IE Inception Report


Supporting the IC in preparing evaluation methodology, work plan and structure of the IE report, and options for site visits

by 20 June 2022

Supporting the International consultant in research,

Collation of information, and compiling of the report




Supporting the IC in consolidating the Initial Findings

by 10 July 2022

Supporting the IC in presenting the initial findings to Project Management and Commissioning Unit


Draft IE Report #1

Supporting in the preparation of the full report (using guidelines on content outlined in Annex B) with annexes

1 August 2022

Supporting the IC in preparation and sharing of the 1st draft to Commissioning Unit, reviewed by RTA, Project Coordinating Unit, NDA focal point


Draft IE Report #2

Supporting in the preparation full report (using guidelines on content outlined in Annex B) with annexes

9 August 2022

Supporting the IC in preparation and sharing of the 2nd draft to Commissioning Unit, reviewed by RTA, Project Coordinating Unit, NDA focal point


Final IE Report*

Supporting the IC in preparation of a revised report with audit trail detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final report

25 August 2022

Supporting the IC in preparation and sharing of the final report to Commissioning Unit


Concluding Stakeholder Workshop (optional)

Supporting the IC or the project team in conducting the concluding stakeholder workshop to present and discuss key findings and recommendations of the evaluation report, and key actions in response to the report.

Within 1-2 weeks of completion of final IE report

Support the IC or Project Team and Commissioning Unit


*The final IE report must be in English. If applicable, the Commissioning Unit may choose to arrange for a translation of the report into a language more widely shared by national stakeholders.



The principal responsibility for managing this IE resides with the Monitoring & Evaluation Focal Point of the Commissioning Unit. The Commissioning Unit for this project’s IE is the UNDP Country Office (CO) in India, during this assignment, the IE team will report to the Monitoring and Evaluation Focal Point in Commissioning Unit who will provide guidance and ensure satisfactory completion of deliverables.

The Commissioning Unit will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the IE team. The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the IE team to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits. 



A team of three independent consultants will conduct the IE - one lead consultant (International with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in other regions globally) and two National team experts (one is responsible to look at activities associated with ecosystem and community-based adaptation to climate change and one for climate resilient livelihoods and institutionalisation related components), from the country of the project with expertise in the relevant area. 


The National Consultants will be expected to conduct field missions in the project landscapes. The IE lead consultant (International Consultant) will be designated team leader and shall be responsible for the overall design and writing of the IE report and as well as the overall quality of the final report submitted to UNDP with field mission if possible. However, the National Consultants shall support the Lead in drafting the report including all the data gathered from the field mission and interviews (provides the report on the Output 2 and 3). The two national evaluators and a lead IE consultant will be recruited separately; however, all three consultants shall form a team carrying out this IE, under the overall guidance of the lead consultant and overall management of the Commissioning Unit. The consultants cannot have participated in the project preparation, formulation, and/or implementation (including the writing of the Project Document) and should not have a conflict of interest with project’s related activities.


The selection of the National consultant- Adaptation will be aimed at maximizing the overall “team” qualities in the following areas: The weight to all preferred qualifications apart from the minimum academic qualifications and experience are shown in the Technical Evaluation Criteria below. 


Qualifications for the National Consultant- Climate-resilient livelihoods and EbA institutionalization 

• A Master’s degree in natural sciences, environmental policy, small business, economy or other closely related field 

• At least 3 years experience in sustainbale community livelihood projects or community-based adaptation

• At least 2 years experience in consulting or development of national or state policies, strategies, and plans in India; 

• Fluency in written and spoken English. 

• Highly knowledgeable of participatory monitoring and evaluation processes.

• Familiarity with India’s development, environment, climate change and other relevant policy frameworks.

• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to Natural Resource Management and Climate Change adaptation-based Livelihoods and strengthening of community institutions

• Excellent communication skills.

• Demonstrable analytical skills

• Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset.



The evaluation team will be held to the highest ethical standards and is required to sign a code of conduct (see ToR Annex D) upon acceptance of the assignment. This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation. The evaluation team 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 evaluation team 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.

Required Skills and Experience


Instalment of Payment/ Period

Deliverables or Documents to be Delivered

Approval should be obtained

Percentage of Payment

1st Instalment

Satisfactory delivery of the final IE Inception Report



2nd Instalment

Satisfactory delivery of the draft IE report #1



3rd Instalment

Satisfactory delivery of the Final IE report + completed Audit Trail

UNDP CO and UNDP Nature, Climate and Energy Regional Technical Advisor (RTA), and Principal Technical Advisor (PTA)



Criteria for issuing the final payment of 30% :

i) The final IE report includes all requirements outlined in the IE TOR and is in accordance with the IE guidance.

ii) The final IE report is clearly written, logically organized, and is specific for this project (i.e. text has not been cut & pasted from other IE reports).

iii) The Audit Trail includes responses to and justification for each comment listed.

iv) RTA approvals are via signatures on the TE Report Clearance Form)



Applicants are requested to apply online at by 1 July 2022. Individual consultants are invited to submit technical and financial proposals as applications together with their CV for these positions. UNDP applies a fair and transparent selection process that will take into account the competencies/skills of the applicants as well as their financial proposals. Qualified women and members of social minorities are encouraged to apply.


12.1 Documents to be included when submitting the Proposals.

Interested individual consultants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications in one single PDF document:

1) Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template  provided by UNDP 

2) CV and a Personal History Form (P11 form ); indicating all past experience from similar projects, as well as the contact details (email and telephone number) of the Candidate and at least three (3) professional references.

3) Technical proposal:

a. Brief description of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment

b. A methodology, on how they will approach and complete the assignment. 


All application materials should be submitted to the address (UNDP India, 55, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi – 110003, India) in a sealed envelope indicating the following reference Consultant for “Enhancing  Climate  Resilience  of  India’s  Coastal Communities” support Project, Interim Evaluation” or by email at the following address(s) ONLY: and copy by 1 July 2022, 5.00pm. Incomplete applications will be excluded from further consideration.



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. 


13.1 Selection Criteria

Qualified Individual Consultant is expected to submit both the Technical and Financial Proposals. Individual Consultants will be evaluated based on Cumulative Analysis as per the following scenario:

i) Responsive/compliant/acceptable, and

ii) Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation. In this regard, the respective weight of the proposals is:

- Technical Criteria weight is 70%

Financial Criteria weight is 30%

 Evaluation Criteria


Max. Point

Technical Competence (based on CV, Proposal and interview (if required)



Understanding the Scope of Work; comprehensiveness of the methodology/approach; and organization & completeness of the proposal



Minimum educational background



Minimum years of experience



Additional competences (agriculture and Environment /M&E)



Financial (Lower Offer/Offer X100)



Total Score

Technical Score * 70% + Financial Score *30%

* It is a mandatory criterion and shall have a minimum of 70%

Financial Proposal:

Technically qualified consultants will be requested to submit their lump sum rate i.e. consultants who score more than 70% i.e. 49 marks with respect to the above-mentioned evaluation criteria. Consultant should not specify their consultancy fee on their CV or with the submission. The CV will not be evaluated further in case the consultant submits the same.

13.2 Recommended presentation of technical and financial proposals

For purposes of generating proposals whose contents are uniformly presented and to facilitate their comparative review, you are hereby given a template of the Table of Content. Accordingly, your Technical Proposal document must have at least the preferred content as outlined in the IC Standard Bid Document (SBD). The financial proposals should be ALL inclusive.


14.1 Academic Qualifications:

Advanced University Degree (Masters or equivalent) in natural sciences; with a specialization in environment, biodiversity, climate change or any other closely related field


14.2 Experience:

i) Minimum 5 years of relevant professional experience in natural resource management and climate change.

ii) Recent experience application of results-based approaches to evaluation of projects focusing on Conservation Science, Natural Resource Management and Climate Change.

iii) Highly knowledgeable of participatory monitoring and evaluation processes.

iv) Familiarity with India’s development, environment, climate change and other relevant policy frameworks.

v) Experience of conducting Project evaluations within the United Nations system will be considered an asset.


14.3 Competencies:

i) Recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies:  

ii) Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios; 

iii) Competence in adaptive management, as applied to GCF Climate Change focal areas, 

iv) Experience working with project evaluations; 

v) Experience working in India;

vi) Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and Climate change, environment conservation, biodiversity, Livelihood, institutionalization, ecosystem management in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis ecosystem management in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis.

vii) Excellent communication skills

viii) Demonstrable analytical skills

14.4 Language and other skills:

Proficiency in both spoken and written English


14.5 Compliance of the UN Core Values:

i) Demonstrates integrity by modelling the UN’s values and ethical standards,

ii) Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNDP,

iii) Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability, 

iv) Treats all people fairly without favoritism,

v) Fulfils all obligations to gender sensitivity and zero tolerance for sexual harassment. 



The Individual Consultant shall not either during the term or after termination of the assignment, disclose any proprietary or confidential information related to the consultancy service without prior written consent. Proprietary interests on all materials and documents prepared by the consultants under the assignment shall become and remain properties of UNDP. 


Link to access the Annexure

  1. Annex A
  2. Annex B (NC)
  3. Annex C
  4. Annex D
  5. Annex E
  6. Annex F
  7. Annex G

If you are experiencing difficulties with online job applications, please contact the eRecruit Helpdesk.

© 2016 United Nations Development Programme