Antecedentes

Final Evaluation “Multi Year Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration   Programme (Individual Reintegration Component)” under the CPAP 2009-2012

The Program Context:

This Terms of Reference is for the Final Evaluation “Multi Year Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration   Programme (Individual Reintegration Component)” under the Common Programme Action Plan (CPAP) 2009-2012.

Sudan has experienced a protracted period of fighting classified by many as the longest war in Africa.  The conflict officially ended in January 2005 and in March of the same year, peace was brokered by international community and a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed by both The Government of Sudan and Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M). As part of an overall CPA implementation process, both sides committed to a transparent and effective Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) processes which will support the transition of ex-combatants (XCs) and associated members from military to productive civilian life aimed at ensuring a secure, stable and peaceful Sudan. The National DDR Coordination Council was established by presidential decree to oversee the DDR process at the highest policy level followed by the formation of the Northern and Southern Sudan DDR Commissions to lead design and implementation of DDR process.

In accordance with the CPA and Security Council Resolution SC 1590 of March 24, 2005, the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) was mandated to provide support and assistance to the Government of National Unity (GONU) and Government of South Sudan (GOSS) in planning, developing and implementing the national Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration program. In this context, the Integrated UN DDR Unit (UNMIS, UNDP, UNICEF, and WFP) was established to assist the relevant national institutions in the DDR process. In line with the Integrated DDR Standards, while DPKO is providing guidance for the DDR process as a whole and leading the planning and implementation of the D & D components, UNDP, through voluntary contributions, acts as the planning and implementing agency for the reintegration component. While the UN system may be called upon to provide strategic, technical, operational and financial support to DDR, national and local actors should lead the process.  The promotion of national ownership is a principle that guides both policy and the operational design of the DDR program carried out with UN support. 

In this case, the primary responsibility for the outcome of the programme rests with the national and local actors who are ultimately responsible for the peace, security and development in South Sudan. In order to provide a platform for policy oversight and guidance, the National DDR Coordination Council (NDDRCC) was established by Presidential Decree whilst the Southern Sudan DDR Commissions (SSDDRC) was established to design, implement and manage the DDR process within the country and ensure consistency and compliance with national policies, with support from the United Nations.  The SSDDR State Offices in the ten states coordinate the implementation of DDR activities nationwide.

Specifically, the objective of the DDR program is to provide direct support to the eligible participants of 180,000 XCs and associated members (90,000 SAF and 90,000 SPLA), which is part of the CPA implementation and paves the way to future human security, reconstruction and development activities. Due consideration is given to promoting community security and social cohesion through capacity development at local and national levels to ensure the sustainability of the reintegration effort by close monitoring of individual projects and the promotion of close linkages with other government and internationally-supported programs.

Guided by the National DDR Strategic Plan (adopted in August 2007), and National Reintegration Policy and the UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), the DDR Program also aims at contributing to the Northern Sudan’s Strategic Five Year Plan (2008 – 2011) and South Sudan’s Three Year Strategic Plan for recovery and development, which emphasizes the effective and sustainable reintegration of XCs, while recognizing the need to support Millennium Development Goals in all recovery and development spheres.

The first stage of DDR in Sudan was the Interim DDR Programme (IDDRP, 2006 – 2009). The IDDRP aimed to gather baseline information and run pilot projects; it was replaced by the Sudan DDR Programme (SDDRP, 2009 – 2012). The Sudan DDR Programme (2009-2012) will cater to ex-combatants (XCs) and Special Needs Groups (SNGs) that are either part of or associated with the SAF and SPLA.  Other Armed Groups (OAGs) were obligated to align to SAF or SPLA by 9 June 2007 to be considered for eligibility.  Overall, support will be provided to 180,000 participants, 90,000 in the North and 90,000 in the South. Guided by the National DDR Strategic Plan (adopted in August 2007), and National Reintegration Policy and the UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), the DDR Program also aims at contributing to the Northern Sudan’s Strategic Five Year Plan (2008 – 2011) and South Sudan’s Three Year Strategic Plan for recovery and development, which emphasizes the effective and sustainable reintegration of XCs, while recognizing the need to support Millennium Development Goals in all recovery and development spheres.

In January 2009, the Government of South Sudan (GoSS) decided to begin Phase I of the SDDRP in Southern Sudan for a caseload of 34,000 persons.  As recommended in the National DDR Strategic Plan, the first phase prioritizes the elderly, disabled, female ex-combatants and women associated with the armed forces (WAAF).  This group is referred to as the Special Needs Group (SNG). DDR was officially launched in South Sudan on 10 June 2009 at Mangala, Central Equatoria. In the run to the January 2011 Referendum for self-determination in South Sudan, the Government of South Sudan (GOSS) set its priority core functions that includes the Security Sector that is to ensure that mechanisms are in place for transforming the SPLA into a professional army in South Sudan. DDR is positioned as the top priority in the Security Sector in South Sudan.  The implementation of the Individual Reintegration Component of the Multi Year Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration   Programme (otherwise known as South Sudan DDR Programme) is supported by UNDP in eight States where demobilization of ex-combatants have been undertaken: 1. Central Equatoria (CES) State, 2.  Eastern Equatoria (EES) State, 3.  Western Equatoria (WES) State, 4.  Lakes State, 5.  Western Bhar El Ghazal (WBG) State, 6.  Warrap State, 7.  Northern Bhar El Ghazal (NBG) State, and 8.  Jonglei State.

The South Sudan DDR Programme (SSDDRP) is focused on achieving two mutually reinforcing development objectives. The first objective is to provide support to 33,844 ex-combatants and women associated with armed forces (WAAF) to help them acquire civilian status, gain sustainable income and employment, and reintegrate into their communities. The second objective is to strengthen the individual and institutional capacity of the South Sudan DDR Commission (SDDRC) at the regional and state level, to ensure national ownership, leadership and sustainability of reintegration, and enable UNDP to exit in line with the exit strategy set out in the SDDRP. Both objectives are being actualized through a key Programme Result (Output): “Reintegration of ex-combatants commenced in accordance with the South Sudan DDR Strategic Plan, with support from United Nation Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS)”.

UNDP Policy Environment:

All UNDP programming is designed to build national ownership and capacity, in line with the Paris Declaration and the UNDP Strategic Plan 2008 – 2011.  At the same time, Crisis Prevention and Recovery (CPR) programming, to which the DDR program belongs, is developed and implemented in line with the Eight Point Agenda for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (8PA). In the context of increasing UN harmonization, UNDP’s program is also designed to support progress towards ‘One UN’.

The UNDP Evaluation Policy seeks to increase transparency, coherence and efficiency in generating and using evaluative knowledge; promotes organizational learning and effective management of results and supports accountability. The policy also responds to the General Assembly resolution 59/250 which requires the systematic evaluation of United Nations system operational activities.

Deberes y responsabilidades

Purpose:

The overall purpose for the evaluation is to learn from the programme implementation so that lessons can be drawn that can be the basis for instituting improvements to the upcoming new DDR programme planning, design and management. The specific purpose of the evaluation is to measure achievements, outcomes and impacts as well as processes both positive and negative.

The evaluation should include an analysis of synergies between DDR and human security, reconstruction and key human development dimensions, which help support the achievement of the MDGs. Assessment of UNDP in Programme coordination and enhancement of national ownership through capacity building initiatives will be an important component of the evaluation.

Objectives:

The overall objective of this final evaluation is, therefore, to assess, at the end of the Phase I CPA DDR Programme, the extent of attainment of effective and sustainable reintegration of the target XCs; and its link to the wider recovery strategy, including community security, social cohesion, reconstruction and respect for human rights and rule of law in South Sudan.

Specific objectives are to:

• Assess the relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness of the CPA-phase DDR Programme, as well as the sustainability of the Programme from the design and implementation vantage points.
• Assess the Programme/project management capacity and structure of the SSDDRC, Implementing Partners and relevant Government bodies who took part in the coordination and management of the Programme.
• Assess the effectiveness of DDR coordination and implementation, and how these have (or have not) contributed to overall progress towards Crisis Prevention and Recovery objectives.
• Assess the accomplishments of the various components of the Programme by reference to the stated Programme outcome and output targets;
• Advise on the suitability of indicators and other verification tools used to measure progress towards outcomes and outputs
• Structure lessons learned process to inform coordination, management and implementation of New National SSDDR Programme

Additional Evaluation Objectives:
 
In addition to the above, the evaluation of the DDR programme will also:

• Assess the accomplishments of the various components of the Programme by reference to the stated Programme objectives and targets;
• Review the work planning processes: adequacy of annual work plans to guide Programme implementation; adequacy of contractual agreements signed with Implementing Partners and whether such work plan and contracts were discussed and agreed among the key partners (SSDDRC, UNMISS, and Implementing Partners: FAO, IOM, GIZ, the 10 NGOs involved in the DDR Small Grant Mechanism);
• Review and assess the Programme implementation arrangement(s), donor coordination, and monitoring and evaluation modalities of the Programme. 
• Identify the staff recruited for the Programme, their expertise, and roles pertaining to capacity building of the SSDDRC as well as implementing partners;
• Identify major institutional, financial and operational issues that have assisted and/or constrained effective implementation of the DDR Programme.

The evaluation will also identify strengths and weaknesses of the DDR Programme in the light of relevant International Standards and best practice in the sector, as well as the particular circumstances of the country. Finally, the evaluation will make recommendations for improvement in the upcoming phases of the DDR, co-ordination, implementation and policies of DDR in South Sudan.

Scope and Evaluation Criteria: 

The Programme was designed to be implemented over a number of phases. With the Phase I CPA DDR Programme 12,525 beneficiaries across eight states of the South Sudan were disarmed, demobilized for reintegration assistance under the South Sudan DDR Programme as of 2011. The scope of the services provided under the reintegration component of the Programme to be evaluated through the final Programme evaluation includes

• ICRS – Information, Counseling and Referral Services
• Technical Training: Vocational, Small Business, and Agriculture Training support
• Life Skills Training: Civilian Training Package
• Provision of start-up kits
• Provision of follow-up services

The CPA-phase DDR Programme has been implemented in eight (8) states in South Sudan, including Central Equatoria, Western Equatoria, Eastern Eqautoria, Lakes, Jongei, Warrap, Northern Bahr El Gazal, and Western Bahr El’Gazal.

The evaluation will use the following criteria regarding the programme:

• Relevance:
• Efficiency:
• Effectiveness:
• Sustainability: 
• Impact:
• Connectedness of the programme to the overall conflict prevention and peace building process in South Sudan.

Evaluation Method:

The Final Evaluation of the DDR programme should be participatory involving key stakeholders. In order to achieve a thorough understanding of the Programme and the context, the evaluation review team is expected to employ such participatory techniques as they deem necessary not excluding:

• The evaluation methodology would involve comprehensive and in-depth analysis, and triangulation of data/information from three key information sources on South Sudan DDR Programme: DDR Project documents and Reports; information from stakeholders on DDR; and information and visual observation of performance of ex-combatants who have been provided with economic and social (rehabilitation and medical support) reintegration-support.
• Consultations will be held with key stakeholders to capture the dynamic of information sharing and debate, and to enrich the findings. The consultations will involve a range of stakeholders, including SSDDRC, other relevant government officials, UN agencies, relevant UNDP staff, donors, Implementing Partner NGOs, and XCs, as well as host communities.
• Field visits on the evaluation would target three states with highest concentration of demobilised and reintegrated ex-combatants in South Sudan: Eastern Equatoria State; Jonglei State; and Western Bhar El Ghazal State. 

Hence, the evaluation will follow three distinct phases, including

• Preparation - review of the Terms of Reference, preliminary desk review, meetings with the UNDP DDR programme and CPRU, and production of Inception Report;
• Conduct of the evaluation – mission in the field including meeting with beneficiaries, donors and relevant stakeholders
• Follow up – Production of the final Evaluation Report, dissemination of results and organizing stakeholder consultations, development of management response and relevant management actions.  

Evaluation outputs:
The key evaluation outputs include:

• Inception report of the evaluation, which includes the evaluation methodology and evaluation work plan outlining tasks and responsibilities of the evaluation team members (as detailed above).
• Power Point presentation for UNDP, the SSDDRC and other stakeholders on the preliminary findings, lessons learned, and recommendations
• Draft full report covering the issues outlined in the terms of reference and inception report including evaluation findings and conclusions, lessons and recommendations.
• Final evaluation report, which should at a minimum include the following components:
• Executive summary (maximum 4 pages)
• Introduction
• Background (Programme/project description)
• Evaluation purpose and objective
• Description of the evaluation methodology
• Analysis of the situation with regard to outcome, outputs, resources, partnerships, management and working methods and/or implementation strategy
• Key findings
• Lessons learnt (from both positive and negative experiences)
• Constraints that impacted programme delivery
• Conclusions and practical, actionable recommendations
• Annexes including
• Itinerary
• List of persons interviewed
• Summary of field visits
• List of documents reviewed
• Client satisfaction survey and/or questionnaire (if any) used and summary of results
• Any other relevant material that supports evaluation findings and recommendations

Evaluation Team Composition:

The core evaluation team will comprise of two Independent Consultants: an International Consultant (Team Leader), and one National Consultant. 

Team Leader (International Consultant):

The Team Leader will take a lead role during the evaluation and coordinate the work of all other team members.  The team leader will ensure the quality of the evaluation process, outputs, methodology and timely delivery of all products.  The team leader, in close collaboration with the other evaluation team members and the UNDP evaluation managers, will take the lead role in conceptualization and design of the evaluation and shaping the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the report. The tasks of the team leader include:

• Develops an inception report and details the design, methodology (including the methods for data collection and analysis criteria for selection of projects, required resources), and work plan of the evaluation team.
• Directs and conducts the research and analysis of all relevant documentation;
• Decides the division of labour within the evaluation team and coordinates team tasks within the framework of the TORs;
• Oversees and quality assures the preparation of the study and takes a lead in the analysis of the evaluative evidence;
• Oversees the administration, and analysis of the results of the data collection exercise;
• Drafts the evaluation report, and coordinates the inputs from team members;
• Prepares for meetings with UNDP and other stakeholder to review findings, conclusions and recommendations.
• Leads the stakeholder feedback sessions, briefs UNDP on the evaluation through informal sessions and finalizes the report based on feedback from the quality assurance process;
• Delivers the final evaluation report.

Indicative Time-frame of the Evaluation:

The final implementation plan for the evaluation will be outlined in the inception report, but the evaluation will take place over a period of 5 (five) weeks (23 working days for the international consultant and 19 working days for the national consultant).

Planning and Implementation Arrangements:

Management of the Evaluation

CPRU of the UNDP in South Sudan will institute the evaluation manager function which will act as the focal point for managing the evaluation process. The Evaluation Manager will ensure the coordination and liaison with concerned agencies, and ensure the evaluation is conducted in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN System. 

Quality Assurance

The Reference Group will comprise of SSDDRC and UNDP CPRU/DDR staff and will provide oversight of the evaluation process, exercising quality assurance. The Reference Group will play an important role in providing strategic, methodological and substantive advice into the evaluation process as well as a peer review for the key outputs including the main report. Meetings of the Reference Group will be specified in the evaluation work plan. 
However, the evaluation will be fully independent and the evaluation team will retain enough flexibility to determine the best approach to collecting and analyzing data for the final evaluation. Ultimately, the findings and recommendations of the evaluation will be those of the evaluation team alone.

Reference materials:

At a minimum, the evaluation team should study and make reference to the following documents during the conduct of the outcome evaluation:

• UNDP Evaluation Policy
• UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results
• UNEG Ethical Guidelines For Evaluation
• Evaluation report template and quality standards (UNDP)
• UNDP Results-Based Management: Technical Note
• United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for Sudan (2009-2012)
• UNDP Country Programme Document, and UNDP  Country Programme  Action Plan (2009-2012)
• DDR Project Document (2009), and SSDDR Annual Workplans (AWPs) for  2009 – 2012
• UNDP Results-Oriented Annual Report (ROAR) for Sudan ( 2009-2012)
• South Sudan DDR Quarterly and Annual Reports for 2009 – 2011, Final Review Report (2012); Reports from Implementing Partners; and 2010 DDR Mid-term Evaluation Report.
• DDR Verification mission report (2012) and various monitoring mission reports
• Client Satisfaction Survey Reports
• SSDDR Policy and Strategic Plan Documents
• South Sudan National Development Plan Document
• Other documents and materials related to the outcomes to be evaluated (from the government, donors, etc.)
  

Competencias

• Demonstrates commitment to UNDP’s mission, vision and values.
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability.
• Consistently approaches work with energy and a positive, constructive attitude.
• Remains calm, in control and good humored even under pressure.
• Focuses on result for the client and responds positively to feedback.

Functional Competencies:

• Facilitation skills and ability to manage diversity of views in different cultural contexts
• Ability to produce well written reports demonstrating analytical ability and communication skill

Habilidades y experiencia requeridas

Qualifications:

• Master’s Degree in a Development or relevant discipline in the Social Sciences.

Experience:

• At least 10 years of working experience in evaluation of post-conflict recovery programs (including Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration projects/ programmes).
• Experience with participatory approaches, organizational assessments partnership strategies and capacity development preferred.
• Specific and relevant regional expertise in Africa.
• Experience with regional organizations and the UN system in the area of crisis prevention and recovery in general and in DDR in particular.
• Proven experience as an evaluation team leader with ability to lead and work with other evaluation experts.

Language Requirements:

• Fluency in oral and written English