General background - the project and its context
The CBSLUM Dragash Project supports the establishment of a sustainable development framework for Dragash Municipality. The Dragash municipality being one of the poorest of Kosovo, and facing important challenges in terms of land use transformation, in particular the possible privatization and land use change of the SOE (socially owned enterprise) land of the upper highlands of the Sharr Mountains of the municipal territory faces challenges for which the local and central authorities are not fully prepared to act upon in the present. The opportunities that the project addresses are: the improvement of local livelihood, the conversion of the territory to a protected area based on the natural values of the region, and the development of tools to enable conservation of biodiversity.
The project is a three year initiative and started its implementation in October 2010 and has an initial finalizing date of September 2013, extended to December of this same year. It has a budget of EURO 3 Million funded by the Finnish Government.
Beneficiaries and stakeholders

The individuals, groups and organizations  that benefit directly  from the project are: i) at the local level: the local population (33,997 inhabitants) of Dragash, the municipal administration, the SME’s of Dragash, the local farmers and producers, the local community organizations in the largest villages, the local water and waste companies; ii) at the regional level: the regional water and waste companies , the regional development agency (RDA) South , the NPS Directorate , iii) at the central level: the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (MESP)- Spatial Planning Department, Nature Protection Department, Kosovo Environment Protection Agency (KEPA); Ministry of Agriculture , Forestry and Rural Development (MAFRD), Ministry of Industry – Tourism Department, Ministry of Economic Development (MED)- Energy Department, Institute of Public Health, Kosovo Cadastral Agency, University of Pristina- Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, and NGOs such as Regional Environmental Center (REC).
The first geographic scope of the project is the Dragash municipality. The second geographical interest area is the National Park Sharri which in addition to Dragash includes parts of the following municipalities: Kacanik, Prizren, Shterpce and Suhareka.
Outcomes, Outputs and indicators

The long term outcome of the project is “Sustainable development plans/policies effectively respond to the need of stakeholders (central & local government), as well as promote employment and environmental protection”.
The outputs of the project are four: i) Plans and policies are in place for adequate conservation of biodiversity ad sustainable land use management; ii) Plans and capacities are developed for improvement of local livelihoods; Iii) A sustainable energy strategy and implementation capacity is in place; and  iv) Relevant mechanisms and capacities are developed within the municipality for the promotion of sustainable development.

Duties and Responsibilities

Purpose of the evaluation
This final project evaluation is being conducted to provide conclusions and recommendations about the relevance, impact, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the project. The evaluation should enable UNDP Kosovo, the donor and other stakeholders to draw lessons from the integrated implementation approach for future similar undertakings and to assess what the next steps are that may need to be taken to ensure the sustainability of the actions undertaken and by whom.
The purpose of the evaluation is also to assess the extent to which the specific project outputs have been achieved and what progress (attributable to the project) was made towards achieving the outcome “Sustainable development plans/policies effectively respond to the need of stakeholders (central & local government), as well as promote employment and environmental protection”.
Specific tasks are:
  • To evaluate the relevance of the project for the main beneficiaries;
  • To evaluate the efficiency of the project and to assess the appropriateness of the integrated approach of the project;
  • To evaluate the effectiveness of the project;
  • To identify factors directly influencing the level of achievement of the desired results;
  • To evaluate the impact of the project;
  • To identify the level of the ownership by local actors of the project results;
  • To identify factors contributing to effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the actions implemented;
  • To identify institutional and individual capacity development efforts’ impact on sustainability of results;
  • To evaluate the sustainability of the project results;
  • To identify areas in which the implementation mechanisms, including project management, could be improved during the remaining project period or in future similar undertaking;
  • To identify good practices and lessons learned which should be disseminated for the benefit of other relevant actors in Kosovo or other countries in the Western Balkans region, and to identify suitable potential mechanisms for such dissemination.
In case of identified barriers for achieving the desired results or identified needs for improvement in any regard, the evaluation should provide UNDP Kosovo with a prioritized list of recommendations with action points, with respective responsible parties  for each recommended action point or approach.
Focus of the evaluation and key questions
The following evaluation criteria and related evaluation questions are proposed for the evaluation process; however these can be expanded and modified by the evaluators:
Relevant evaluation criteria /Key questions suggested


  • Is the project relevant for the main beneficiary?
  • Has the initiative tackled important development problems and critical issues?
  • How relevant were the project outputs for stakeholders? 
  • How relevant was the choice of capacity development interventions for the stakeholders?
  • To what extent has the project achieved the outputs and reached the   results stated in the original project document and its revisions?
  • To what extend the project outputs and results have contributed to progress toward stated outcome?
  • Will the project results last in time?
  • Are there jeopardizing aspects or risks that have not been considered or  abated by the project actions?
  • Has ownership of the actions and results been transferred to the corresponding stakeholder?
  • Were the capacity and resources of beneficiaries developed to the critical level to take over the results of the project and maintain and further develop the results?
  •  Which measures proved to be most effective in  ensuring sustainability?
  • What capacity development products and/or measures are available/easily replicated by the municipality or other relevant actors or potential beneficiaries?
  • Is there evidence of long lasting desired changes? 
  • Has the initiative influenced policy making at different levels?
  • Has the project impacted the desired target actors and how?
  • To what degree has the project contributed to the development taken place with regard to the project outcome
Is there evidence of development/improvement of institutional capacities and systems(mechanisms) which:
  • Support the development and implementation of policies for conservation of biodiversity and sustainable land use and natural resources management;
  • Support improved livelihoods and sustainable development;
  • Support sustainable energy use/generation/conservation?
  • What evidence exists that individuals and organisations which took part in Capacity Development initiatives have persistently increased their capacities and in what areas?
  • Have resources been used efficiently?
  • Have efforts for integrated approach been made appropriately?
  • Has the project management system (including planning, decision-making, coordination, procurement, financial management and quality assurance mechanisms) been efficient?
Stakeholders and Partnership Strategy               
  • Who are the major actors and partners involved in the project and which were their roles and interests?
  • Was the partnership strategy effective?
  • Can the project be evaluated credibly? 
  • Were intended results (outputs, outcomes, targets) and their indicators adequately defined, appropriate and stated in measurable terms, and are the results verifiable
  • Were adequate monitoring, reporting and evaluation systems in place?
Theory of Change or Results/Outcome Map       
  •  What are the underlying rationales and assumptions or the theory of change that defines the relationships or chain of results that lead the initiative strategy to intended outcomes?
  • What are the assumptions, factors or risks inherent in the design that may influence whether the initiative succeeds or fails?
 Gender and equality                                                     
  • What effects were realized in terms of gender equality, if any?
  • Were women and men distinguished in terms of participation and benefits within project?
  • Have sufficient efforts been made to ensure equal access to and fair sharing of benefits of the project between various social groups.
 The response to the above questions should be followed by specific short and long term recommendations that could be undertaken by UNDP or other stakeholders to improve their performance respectively.This analysis has to be done for each output and for the overall project outcome.
Source of information and methods for data collection proposed

Desk study

UNDP will provide electronically the following documents for the desk study by the evaluators as the first phase of the assignment.
  • Final Project Report (also 3rd Quarterly 2010 Report) of the Preparatory Assistance to Sustainable Development in Dragash/Dragaš;
  • Pre-appraisal Report of the project (June 2010);
  • Project Document;
  • Annual work plans (3);
  • Quarterly and midterm progress reports (15);
  • Annexes pertaining the different progress reports(15+);
  • Annual progress reports(3);
  • Mid-term evaluation reports (2);
  • Comments of the donor on various plans and reports of the project;
  • Media coverage files (20);
  • Kosovo Programme Action Plan 2011-2015;
  • List of other documents that can provide background information is provided under Annexes (30).
Field visits
Site visits will take place during a sequence of 10 working days. These visits consider meetings in Pristina with main project partners and in Dragash with main local project partners. The field visits may consider visits to specific project locations with interviews (individual and group) with the project staff and local stakeholders. UNDP office will arrange translation and transportation services as needed; Interviews with Stakeholders and partners;

A list of stakeholders and contact details is provided in Annexes, this also includes a stakeholder analysis.

Based on desk review, survey results and field visit, the evaluators will produce inception report, draft report and final report.
The reports should be complete and logically organized. They should be written clearly and understandable to the intended audience.  The final report must include, but not necessarily be limited to, the elements outlined  below:
  • Title and opening pages;
  • Table of contents;
  • List of acronyms and abbreviations;
  • Executive summary;
  • Introduction;
  • Description of the intervention;
  • Evaluation scope and objectives;
  • Evaluation approach and methods;
  • Data analysis;
  • Findings and conclusions; 
  • Recommendations;  
  • Lessons learned;
  • Report annexes.
The evaluation is to be divided in five stages, a desk review stage, field work, an inception report a draft report and a final report of the evaluation.
Analysis and interpretation of the results

External evaluators are responsible for refining the evaluation methodology, evaluation questions, carrying out the evaluation and delivering UNDP Kosovo with an inception report and a final report.
Standards to be reached

The key stakeholders, those involved in the implementation, those served or affected by the project and the users of the evaluation should be involved in the evaluation process.
The overall responsibility for managing the evaluation will be with the Inclusive Growth Programme of UNDP Kosovo. The CBSLUM project will provide support to the evaluators by organising meetings with key partners, translations, transportation and will work closely with the evaluators to provide required information.
The evaluators are expected to be transparent and provide feedback to all those who will contribute to the evaluation.
Evaluation team and expertise required

The evaluation will be carried out by a group of 3 experts (1 international and 2 local) whose combined expertise can cover the following areas:
  • Sustainable municipal development and administration;
  • Environmental/natural resources management;
  • Conservation of biodiversity / protected areas management;
  • Local economic development;
  • Renewable energy / energy efficiency;
  • Capacity development;
  • Results based management.
The experts to be contracted for this evaluation will be independent and will not have been involved in any way with the UNDP CBSLUM project. The international consultant will cover the substantive areas of sustainable development and biodiversity conservation, and will have the role of team leader. He/she will be responsible for the design of the methodology for the evaluation (including the inception report), for the distribution of work and roles within the team, for coordinating the work of the team and for consolidation of the draft and final reports. One local expert will cover the areas of local economic development and capacity development and another local expert will cover the area of energy efficiency.
Indicative time allocation 
International evaluator Sustainable development/biodiversity  
Desk Review Phase: 3 days         
This phase refers to the home based task of reading of materials, online briefing of the evaluators in preparation for the survey and filed work and final design of the evaluation process. At this stage and based on the time frame present in the ToR, the evaluators should present a preliminary detailed schedule.
Inception report: 2 days
This phase is a home based stage which summarizes the methods and techniques used to evaluate the project, and provides an indication on any missing element to allow completion of the evaluation report                                           
Survey and field work: 10 days 
This phase includes on site finalization of the evaluation design and method, which can be done with the contributions of the UNDP Inclusive Growth programme team.

It also considers the in country field visits to Dragash and to Pristina to meet with partners and beneficiaries. At the end
of the field work phase, a presentation isto be organized to UNDP and stakeholders,in order to share findings and initial conclusions.  

Draft report: 3 days

This stage provides the first analysis and results of the evaluation, drafts the first findings and conclusions and allows for feedback and completion of any missing data by the UNDP project and Programme.             

Final report: 2 days 

The final report is produced after a reviewof the first draft and it should provide the complete content of the report as per
the main outline proposed unde rsection 5 item d. Reporting           
Total days: 20.       


Corporate competencies
  • Demonstrates integrity and fairness by modelling UN values and ethical standards;
  • Demonstrates professional competence and mastery of subject matter;
  • Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability;
  • Maturity and confidence in dealing with senior and high-ranking members of international, regional and national institutions;
Functional competencies
  • Excellent written communication skills, with analytic capacity and ability to synthesize project outputs and relevant findings for the preparation of quality project reports;
  • Extensive knowledge of computer applications;
  • Focuses on result for the client and responds positively to feedback;
  • Consistently approaches work with energy and a positive, constructive attitude;
  • Ability to work independently as well as part of a fairly big team;
  • Ability to operate under strict time limits.

Required Skills and Experience

  • Masters degree in environment protection or management  or a closely related field.


  • Minimum 7 years of relevant experience in biodiversity conservation and sustainable development;
  • Proven specialised expertise in biodiversity conservation;
  • Demonstrated experience with project evaluations;
  • Knowledge on mainstreaming gender equality in environment;
  • Experience in dealing with national government partners;
  • Experience of work in countries of the region would be an asset.
Language Requirements: 
  • Proficiency  in written and spoken English.
  • Remuneration will be done subject to performance in a satisfactory and timely manner, according to deliverables: 30% by delivery of the inception report; 40% by the draft report; 30% by the delivery of the final report.
 Criteria for Selection of the Best Offer:
  • Combined Scoring method – where the qualifications and methodology will be weighted a max. of 70%, and combined with the price offer which will be weighted a max of 30%.
Recommended Presentation of Offer:

International Evaluation for Sustainable Development Biodiversity
  • Confirmation of Interest and Availability;
  • P11, 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;
  • Brief description of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment, and a methodology, if applicable, on how they will approach and complete the assignment;
  • Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price, supported by a breakdown of costs., If an Offeror 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 Offeror must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP.