Background

Capacity Development:

• Relevant national coastal and land use and other policies introduced and/or revised on the basis of climate change scenario planning and impacts economic assessments;
• National awareness building and training programmes to enable decision makers and stakeholders to understand and manage climate change related coastal risks;
• Cost-effective standards to manage climate change risks integrated into ICZM and coastal development policies/programs. Master Plan for urban coastal cities (Monrovia and Buchanan), zoning regulations and land;
• Use plans reviewed and amended to incorporate climate risk management need;
• use plans reviewed and amended to incorporate climate risk management needs.;
• Proposal for revising national sectoral budgets to address climate change threats in coastal zones (based on thorough economic valuation of impacts) developed.

• An environmentally-friendly and cost-effective breakwater system for three demo sites in Monrovia, Buchanan and Robertsport coastal areas (with co-financing);
• Soft systems to reduce beach erosion induced by SLR implemented in selected coastal areas (Monrovia or Buchanan);
• Mangroves systems and coastal natural ‘’buffer zones’’ restored and maintained to withstand climate-induced pressures);
• Early warning system for informing national planners and coastal communities on climate change-related coastal risks established (with co-financing);
• A strategic framework developed for climate-resilient alternative livelihood options in selected priority areas (to be refined during PPG).

• Toolkits, knowledge products and guidance materials on climate-resilient coastal development and dissemination to key agencies, municipalities and local communities;
• National information dissemination workshops aimed at sectoral planners and policy makers;
• Project website developed as a knowledge platform;
• Project lessons prepared for dissemination through the Adaptation Learning Mechanism.
  

Duties and Responsibilities

• Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions.  Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions made by the project.  Identify new assumptions;
  
• Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards results;
  
• Review how the project addresses country priorities;
• Review the baseline data included in the project results framework and GEF Tracking tool and suggest revisions as necessary.

• Assess the outputs and progress toward outcomes achieve so far and the contribution to attaining the overall objective of the project;
• Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future lead to, beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc...) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis;
• Examine whether progress so far has led to, or could in the future lead to, potentially adverse environmental and/or social impacts/risks that could threaten the sustainability of the project outcomes.
• Are these risks being managed, mitigated, minimized or offset?  Suggest mitigation measures as needed;
• Review the extent to which the implementation of the project has been inclusive of relevant stakeholders and to which it has been able to create collaboration between different partners. Identify opportunities for stronger substantive partnerships;
  
• Assess the outputs and progress toward outcomes achieve so far and the contribution to attaining the overall objective of the project.

• Is the work planning processes result-based?  If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results;
• Examine the use of the project document logical/results framework as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start.  Ensure any revisions meet UNDP-GEF requirements and assess the impact of the revised approach on project management?

Finance and co-finance:

• Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions. 
• Complete the co-financing monitoring table (see Annex 4);
  
• Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.

• Review the monitoring tools currently being used:  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
• Ensure that the monitoring system, including performance indicators, meet GEF minimum requirements.  Apply SMART indicators as necessary;
• Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively.  Develop SMART indicators, including disaggregated gender indicators as necessary;
• Review the mid-term LDCF Tracking Tool (AMAT) as appropriate and comment on progress made, quality of the submission, and overall value of the LDCF Tracking Tool (AMAT);
• Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget.  Are sufficient resources being allocated to M&E? Are these resources being allocated effectively?

• Validate whether the risks identified in the project document, APR/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate. If not, explain why?
• Describe any additional risks identified and suggest risk ratings and possible risk management strategies to be adopted.

• Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management, and shared with the Project Board;
•  Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners.

• Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the project document.  Have changes been made and are they effective?  Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear?  Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner?  Recommend areas for improvement;
• Review the quality of execution of the project Implementing Partners and recommend areas for improvement;
• Review the quality of support provided by UNDP and recommend areas for improvement.
  

Competencies

• Ability to work on or around water especially along the coast;
• Ability to communicate effectively orally and in writing in order to communicate complex, technical information to technical and general audiences;
• skill in facilitating meetings effectively and efficiently.

Required Skills and Experience

Education:

• Hold a M.SC. or an advanced degree in a relevant field (e.g. coastal management, economics, Regional planning, Monitoring and evaluation, etc.).

Experience:

• Experience with coastal management initiatives (assessments, monitoring, etc.) is a major plus
• Have at least 5 years of proven experience in evaluating development projects
• Demonstrated track record of monitoring and evaluating development projects
• Professional specialization in M&E  and climate change adaptation issues from a developmental point of view will be a distinct advantage
• Knowledge of coastal defense mitigation methods
• Knowledge of use of hard structures for erosion mitigation

• Fluency in written and spoken English is compulsory
  

Criteria for Shortlisting:

• Relevance of Education/ Degree - 15 points
• Years of Relevant Experience - 40 points
• Regional Experience - 10 points
• Adequacy of Competencies for the Assignment - 25 points
• Others / Special Skills, Language, etc. - 10 points

NB: Only shortlisted candidates will be forwarded the UNDP Procurement Notice