Background

In accordance with UNDP and GEF monitoring and evaluation policies and procedures, all full and medium-sized UNDP-supported GEF-financed projects are required to undergo a terminal evaluation upon completion of implementation. These terms of reference set out the expectations for a terminal evaluation of the “Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into Russia’s energy policies and operations” project (PIMS 4241).

The long-term goal towards which the project is contributing is for the energy sector operations in Russia to have improved capacity to minimize their adverse impacts on biodiversity so that the conservation prospects of the affected ecosystems are greatly improved. The immediate objective of the project is to mainstream biodiversity conservation priorities into Russian energy sector development policies and into the operations of energy production sectors through pilot activities in 6 demonstration areas in the country, including 3 pilot demonstrations in the oil sector (Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Sakhalin Oblast, Astrakhan Oblast and Kalmykia Republic), 2 pilot demonstrations in the coal sector (Republic of Khakassia, Kemerovo Oblast), and 1 pilot demonstration in the hydropower sector (Amur Oblast).

The terminal evaluation will be conducted according to the guidance, rules and procedures established by UNDP and GEF as reflected in the UNDP evaluation guidance for GEF financed projects. The objectives of the evaluation are to assess the achievement of project results, and to draw lessons that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project, and aid in the overall enhancement of UNDP programming. The main purposes of evaluation are:

  • to improve future aid policy, programmes and projects through feedback of lessons learned;
  • to provide a basis for accountability, including the provision of information to the public. 

Duties and Responsibilities

Evaluation approach and methodology

An overall approach and methodology for conducting project terminal evaluation of UNDP-supported GEF-financed projects has developed over time. The evaluator is expected to frame the evaluation effort using the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact.

The evaluation must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with government counterparts (in particular with the federal Ministry of natural resources and environment), the GEF operational focal point, UNDP project support office, project team, UNDP/GEF technical adviser based in the region and key stakeholders. 

The evaluator will review all relevant sources of information, such as the project document, project reports – including annual APR/PIR, project budget revisions, midterm review, progress reports, GEF focal area tracking tools, project files, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the evaluator considers useful for this evidence-based assessment.

 

Evaluation criteria and ratings

An assessment of project performance will be carried out, based on expectations set out in the project logical framework/results framework, which provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification.

The evaluation will assess the key financial aspects of the project, including the extent of co-financing planned and realized.

The evaluator will assess the extent to which the project is achieving impacts or progressing towards the achievement of impacts. Key findings that should be brought out in the evaluation include whether the project has demonstrated:

  • verifiable improvements in ecological status;
  • verifiable reductions in stress on ecological systems; and/or
  • progress towards these impact achievements.

 The evaluation report must include a chapter providing a set of conclusions and recommendations and a separate chapter on lessons learned.

 

Evaluation timeframe

The total duration of the evaluation will be up to 35 working days, distributed as follows:

  • Preparation work: 5 working days (June 2017);
  • First field mission to the Russian Federation:  3 working days in Moscow (end of June 2017);
  • Second field mission to the Russian Federation: 5 working days in Moscow, 4 working days in Blagoveschensk, Amur Oblast, and 3 working days in Kemerovo, Kemerovo region, excluding travel  (end of September 2017);
  • Development of draft evaluation report: 10 working days (mid-October 2017);
  • Finalization of terminal evaluation report: 5 working days (beginning of November 2017).   

 

Evaluation deliverables

The evaluator is expected to submit 3 key deliverables:

  • Presentation of initial findings after the 1st evaluation mission (July 2017);
  • Draft evaluation report, including a separate annex with analysis of best practices and lessons learned within 4 weeks from the 2nd evaluation mission;
  • Final evaluation report within 1 week from receiving UNDP comments on the draft evaluation report.

When submitting the final evaluation report, the evaluator is also required to provide an 'audit trail', detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final evaluation report. 

 

Competencies

Corporate Competencies:

  • Demonstrates integrity by modeling the UN’s values and ethical standards;
  • Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNDP;
  • Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability.

Functional competencies:

  • Strong interpersonal skills, communication skills and ability to work in a team;
  • Ability to plan and organize work, efficiency in meeting commitments, observing deadlines and achieving results;
  • Openness to change and ability to receive/integrate feedback;
  • Ability to work under pressure and stressful situations;
  • Strong analytical, research, reporting and writing abilities.

Required Skills and Experience

Education

Master degree in environmental science, or other closely related field; PhD will be considered as an advantage.

Relevant experience:

  • Minimum 10 years of professional experience in biodiversity conservation;
  • Experience in results-based monitoring and evaluation methodologies application to GEF financed projects;
  • Experience with the professional focus on CSR, mitigation hierarchy and/or other aspects related to BD mainstreaming into energy sectors will be considered as a strong advantage;
  • Experience in private sector engagement and outreach (energy companies).

Language skills

Excellent English (both oral and written).

 

Conflict of interest:

To ensure impartiality and objectivity of the evaluation, as well as to avoid the conflict of interest, UNDP will not consider the applications from the candidates that have had prior involvement in the design, formulation, implementation or evaluation of the above-indicated project.  

 

Evaluation procedure

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on a cumulative analysis taking into consideration the combination of the applicants’ qualifications and financial proposals. The award of the contract shall be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

  • Responsive, compliant, acceptable;
  • Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation.

Technical criteria - 70% of total evaluation – max. 70 points:

  • Master degree in environmental science, or other closely related field; PhD will be considered as an advantage (maximum 10 points);
  • Minimum 10 years of professional experience in biodiversity conservation (maximum 10 points);
  • Experience in results-based monitoring and evaluation methodologies application to GEF financed projects (maximum 15 points);
  • Experience with the professional focus on CSR, mitigation hierarchy and/or other aspects related to BD mainstreaming into energy sectors will be considered as an advantage (maximum 5 points);
  • Experience in private sector engagement and outreach is an advantage (maximum 5 points);
  • Excellent English (maximum 5 points);
  • Interview (maximum 20 points).

Only candidates passing the 70% threshold for the technical evaluation will have their financial proposals evaluated. The candidate with the highest score from technical criteria + financial criteria will be selected with the maximum score possible being 100 points. Financial criteria - 30% of total evaluation – max 30 points.

 

Application procedure

Recommended presentation of offer:

  • Completed letter of confirmation of interest and availability using the template provided by UNDP. Please paste the letter into the "Resume and Motivation" section of the electronic application;
  • CV or a UNDP Personal History form (P11) available at http://europeandcis.undp.org/files/hrforms/P11_modified_for_SCs_and_ICs.doc, indicating work experience, as well as the contact details (email and telephone number) of the candidate and three professional referees;
  • Financial proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price, supported by a breakdown of costs.  The breakdown should contain: professional fee for home-based work (number of working days), professional fee for work on mission (number of working days), travel costs (international and local travel and per diems). Per diems cannot exceed maximum UN daily allowance rates and consultants are encouraged to bid lower amount to make their offers more competitive.

Please note that the professional fee is all-inclusive and shall take into account various expenses incurred by the consultant/contractor during the contract period (e.g. fee, health insurance, vaccination and any other relevant expenses related to the performance of service, etc.). All envisaged international travel costs must be included in the financial proposal.

If an applicant is employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to UNDP under reimbursable loan agreement (RLA), the applicant must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP.

Incomplete applications will not be considered. Please make sure you have provided all requested materials.

Payments will be made only upon confirmation of UNDP on delivering on the contract obligations in a satisfactory manner.

Individual consultants are responsible for ensuring they have vaccinations/inoculations when travelling to certain countries, as designated by the UN Medical Director. Consultants are also required to comply with the UN security directives set forth under dss.un.org. The Basic Security in the Field II and Advanced Security in the Field courses must be successfully completed prior to commencement of travel.

General terms and conditions as well as other related documents can be found under: http://on.undp.org/t7fJs

Qualified women and members of minorities are encouraged to apply.

Due to large number of applications we receive, we are able to inform only the successful candidates about the outcome or status of the selection process.

 

Evaluation Ethics

Evaluation consultant will be held to the highest ethical standards and are required to sign a Code of Conduct upon acceptance of the assignment. UNDP evaluations are conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG 'Ethical Guidelines for Evaluations.