Historique
Background
In accordance with UNDP and GEF M&E policies and procedures, all full and medium-sized UNDP support GEF financed projects are required to undergo a terminal evaluation upon completion of implementation. These terms of reference (TOR) sets out the expectations for a Terminal Evaluation (TE) of the Project ‘Strengthening the resilience of post conflict recovery and development to climate change risks in Sri Lanka’ project (PIMS 4863).
Scope and Objectives
The Government of Sri Lanka has emphasized improving and uplifting rural economy and living standards, particularly in post conflict areas. The Government implemented two large-scale rural development programmes through the Ministry of Economic Development since year 2013. Climate change threatens the sustainability of these rural development programmes. Already the impact of climate-related weather anomalies is manifest in reduced agriculture productivity, in crop losses, in flood and landslide related damage to infrastructure and in increased uncertainty for farm based livelihoods. Therefore, the climate-induced problem which the project seeks to address is that recurrent climate-related impacts are posing a serious threat to the government’s stated aim of developing strong rural economies that bridge the urban-rural income disparity, particularly in post conflict zones.???
In order to address this risk, the Government of Sri Lanka in collaboration with UNDP developed the project ‘Strengthening the Resilience of Post Conflict Recovery and Development to Climate Change Risks in Sri Lanka’. The project aimed to build adaptability to climate change into the design and implementation of two rural development programmes. Building resilience in rural development programmes to current and projected climatic change will include developing institutional capacities to assess risk, designing appropriate interventions and implementing adaptation actions with community participation.
Further to the general election in Jan 2015, the government was changed and the new government dissolved the Ministry of Economic Development, and downgraded the previous government’s rural development programmes. Accordingly, after a hiatus of 6 months deliberation, the project was assigned to the Ministry of Disaster Management.? Considering the above major change, Mid Term Evaluation proposed a modified log frame which changed the outcome level indicators of the project log frame. The Mid Term Evaluation did not changes the Objectives, Objective Indicators and Outcomes of the project. Based of Regional Technical Advisor and Project Board Approval, the project followed modified log frame during the post mid-term implementation.
Project Objective:
Increase the resilience of communities to climate change induced hazards through integration of climate smart policies and actions in to development planning and budgeting.
Outcome 1
National rural development programmes Divi Neguma and Gama Neguma integrate climate risk information and adaptation measures in 12 vulnerable districts.
Outcome 2
National, district, divisional and local technical staff have sufficient technical capacity to identify and integrate climate risk considerations in designing, approving and implementing development projects under the Gama Neguma and Divi Neguma programmes.
Outcome 3
Concrete adaptation actions defined and implemented in selected vulnerable villages/ village clusters in the 03 target districts to increase resilience of rural development programmes to climatic risks. The TE 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.
Devoirs et responsabilités
Responsibilities
The evaluator is expected to frame the evaluation effort using the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact, as defined and explained below;
Evaluation Criteria
1. Relevance
- The extent to which the activity is suited to local and national development priorities and organizational policies, including changes over time;
- The extent to which the project is in line with the GEF Operational Programs or the strategic priorities under which the project was funded.
Note: Retrospectively, the question of relevance often becomes a question as to whether the objectives of an intervention or its design are still appropriate given changed circumstances.
2. Effectiveness
- The extent to which an objective has been achieved or how likely it is to be achieved.
3. Efficiency
- The extent to which results have been delivered with the least costly resources possible; also called cost effectiveness or efficacy.
4. Results
- The positive and negative, foreseen and unforeseen changes to and effects produced by a development intervention;
- In GEF terms, results include direct project outputs, short to medium-term outcomes, and longer term impact including global environmental benefits, replication effects and other local effects.
5. Sustainability
- The likely ability of an intervention to continue to deliver benefits for an extended period of time after completion;
- Projects need to be environmentally, as well as financially and socially sustainable.
A set of questions covering each of these criteria? ?have been drafted and are included in the full TOR (Annex C).? The evaluator is expected to amend, complete and submit this matrix as part of an evaluation inception report, and shall include it as an annex to the final report.?
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 the GEF operational focal point, UNDP Country Office, project team, UNDP GEF Technical Adviser based in the region and key stakeholders.
Ground level project activities are implemented in Alapatha, Kirialla, Kolonna, Palmadulla, Bamunakotuwa, Galgamuwa, Ganewatta, Giribawa, Ibbagamuwa, Kotavehera, Maho, Maspotha, Nikaweratiya, Pannala, Rideegama, Wariyapola, Chilaw, Karuwalagaswewa, Mundalama, Nattandiya and Nawagattegama Divisional Secretariat Divisions in Rathnapura, Kurunegala and Puttalam districts. The evaluator is expected to conduct a field mission to Kurunegala, Pullam and Rathnapura districts of Sri Lanka. The evaluator is expected to determine exact locations for field mission and meeting of stakeholders based on the given information and consultation with the project team.
Geographical coverage of interventions
Districts
1. Rathnapura.
Divisional Secretariat? Divisions
Alapatha, Kirialla, Kolonna, Palmadulla.
Type of activities implemented
Village development planning, Resilient livelihood developmeent, resilient infra-structure (supply channels, culverts, drainage channels etc).
2. Kurunegala
Divisional Secretariat? Divisions
Galgamuwa, Ganewatta, Giribawa, Ibbagamuwa, Kotavehera, Maho, Maspotha, Nikaweratiya, Pannala, Rideegama, Wariyapola.
Type of activities implemented
Village Development planning, Resilient livelihoods, Resilient infra-structure (minor irrigation tanks).
3. Puttlam
Divisional Secretariat? Divisions
Chilaw, Karuwalagaswewa, Mundalama, Nattandiya,? Nawagattegama.
Type of activities implemented
Village Development planning, Resilient livelihoods.
Key Stake Holders
National Level
External Resources Department;
Former Department of Divinaguma Development;
Ministry of Disaster Management;
Department of Agriculture;
Department of Agrarian Developmen.,
Provincial Level
?Provincial Department of Agriculture-North Western Province;
Provincial Department of Agriculture-Sabaragamuwa Province.
District Level
Ministry of Disaster Managemen;t
Department of Agrarian Development;
Provincial Department of Agriculture-North Western Province;
Provincial Department of Agriculture-Sabaragamuwa Province;
District Secretariats of Kurunegala, Puttalam and Rathnapura districts,
Divisional Level
Ministry of Disaster Management;
Department of Agrarian Development;
Provincial Department of Agriculture-North Western Province;
Provincial Department of Agriculture-Sabaragamuwa Province;
Divisional Secretariats given in the above list.
Village Level
Department of Agrarian Development;
Provincial Department of Agriculture-North Western Province;
Provincial Department of Agriculture-Sabaragamuwa Province;
Divisional Secretariats given above.
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 report including the modified log frame, 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.? A list of available documents is given in annexure of the full TOR.
Evaluation Criteria and Ratings
An assessment of project performance will be carried out, based against expectations set out in the Project Logical Framework/Results Framework that was modified during the mid term evaluation (see ?Annex A for the modified log frame), which provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. The evaluation will at a minimum cover the criteria of: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. Ratings must be provided on the following performance criteria. The completed table must be included in the evaluation executive summary.?? The obligatory rating scales are included in ?Annex D of the full ToR.
Evaluation ratings
1. Monitoring and Evaluation
- M&E design at entry;
- M&E Plan Implementation;
- Overall quality of M & E.
2. IA& EA Execution
- Quality of UNDP Implementation;
- Quality of Execution - Executing Agency;
- Overall quality of Implementation / Execution.
3. Assessment of Outcomes
- Relevance;
- Effectiveness;
- Efficiency;
- Overall Project outcome rating.
4. Sustainability
- Financial resources:
- Social political;
- Inistitutional Framework and governance;
- Environmental;
- Overall likielhood of sustainability.
Project Finance and cofinance
The Evaluation will assess the key financial aspects of the project, including the extent of co-financing planned and realized. Project cost and funding data will be required, including annual expenditures.? Variances between planned and actual expenditures will need to be assessed and explained.? Results from recent financial audits, as available, should be taken into consideration. The evaluator will receive assistance from the Country Office (CO) and Project Team to obtain financial data in order to complete the co-financing as given in the full ToR, which will be included in the terminal evaluation report.?
Mainstreaming
UNDP supported GEF financed projects are key components in UNDP country programming, as well as regional and global programmes. The evaluation will assess the extent to which the project was successfully mainstreamed with other UNDP priorities, including poverty alleviation, access to justice, improved governance, the prevention and recovery from natural disasters, climate change adaptation, and gender.
Impact
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 evaluations include whether the project has demonstrated: a) verifiable improvements in ecological status, b)verifiable reductions in stress on ecological systems, and/or c) demonstrated progress towards these impact achievements.
Conclusions, recommendations & lessons
The evaluation report must include a chapter providing a set of conclusions, recommendations and lessons.?
Expected Outputs
Expected Deliverables:
- Submission of the Inception report - Evaluator provides clarifications on timing and method (09th November 2017);
- Presentation - Initial Findings (27th November 2017);
- Draft Final Report - Full report, (as per the report outline given in the Annex F, 13th December 2017);
- Final report Submission - final report and management response to Management Support Unit of the Country office? for uploading to UNDP ERC by the programme team ( 31 December 2017).
Timeframe
Duration of Initial Contract: 31st October 2017 – 31st December 2017 (10 days in Sri Lanka);
Expected Duration of Assignment: 23 working days from 31st October 2017 to 31st December 2017.
TERMINAL EVALUAION ARRANGEMENTS
The principal responsibility for managing this TE resides with the Commissioning Unit. The Commissioning Unit for this project’s TE is UNDP Country Office in Sri Lanka.
The commissioning unit will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the TE consultant/team. The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the TE consultant/ team to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits.
Team Composition
It is expected to hire an international evaluator for this evaluation. The consultants shall have prior experience in evaluating similar projects.? Experience with GEF financed projects is an advantage. The evaluators selected should not have participated in the project preparation and/or implementation and should not have conflict of interest with project related activities.
Duty Station
Home based, including a 10-day mission of filed visits to consult partners, stakeholders and field travel to Colombo, Kurunegala, Puttalam, Kandy, Rathnapura districts. International consultant shall stay total of 10 days (without international travel time) in Sri Lanka (including 8-day mission) until initial findings are presented.
Evaluator Ethics
Evaluation consultants will be held to the highest ethical standards and are required to sign a Code of Conduct (Annex E) upon acceptance of the assignment. UNDP evaluations are conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG 'Ethical Guidelines for Evaluations'
Compétences
The Consultant Profile
Competencies
Technical work
- Expertise in Climate Change Adaptation, Water and Agriculture;
- Evaluation experience related to the national level multi-disciplinary projects.
Other competencies
- Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability;
- Maturity and confidence in dealing with senior members of national institutions;
- Excellent written communication skills, with analytical capacity and ability to synthesize relevant collected data and findings for the preparation of quality analysis for the project evaluation.
Consultant Independence: The consultants cannot have engaged 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.
Qualifications et expériences requises
?Qualifications
Education:
A Master’s degree in water, agriculture, social science, economics, environmental science or other closely related field.
Professional Experiences
- More than 10 years of international experience in project evaluation in the fields of climate change, rural development, environment, ecosystems or any other closely related fields;
- Professional experience related to climate change adaptation will be considered as an added advantage;
- Excellent understanding of the local context, and in particular the climate change adaptation in south Asian context;
- Evaluation experiences on climate change adaptation projects in South Asia region;
- Proven experience with quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis; evaluation methodologies, tools and sampling;
- Experiences in using results-based management principles, theory of change /logical framework analysis for programming;
- Proven ability to produce analytical reports and high quality academic publications in English;
- Ability to bring gender dimensions into the evaluation, including data collection, analysis and writing;
- Strong interpersonal skills and ability to work with people from different backgrounds to deliver quality products within a short timeframe;
- Be flexible and responsive to changes and demands;
- Be client-oriented and open to feedback;
- Substantive Knowledge of UNDP and GEF.
Language
Fluency in reading, writing and speaking in English and excellent communication skills.
How to Apply
- Applicants are requested to apply online (http://jobs.undp.org) by (21st October 2017);
- Recommended Presentation of Proposal;
- Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template? provided by UNDP;
- Updated CV and a Personal History Form (P11 form);
- Brief description of approach to work/technical proposal of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment, and a proposed methodology on how they will approach and complete the assignment; (max1 page);
- To apply please access UNDP Jobs site http://jobs.undp.org.
[1] http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/Careers/P11_Personal_history_form.doc
Financial Proposal
All Inclusive Lump Sum Fee: LKR
Or
All Inclusive Daily Fee: LKR
Amount in words:
(Rs.)
Note: Payments will be based on invoices on achievement of agreed milestones i.e. upon delivery of the services specified in the TOR and certification of acceptance by the UNDP. The applicant must factor in all possible costs in his/her “All Inclusive Lump Sum Fee/Daily Fee” financial proposal including his/her consultancy and professional fee, honorarium, communication cost such as telephone/internet usage, printing cost, return travel from home to office, ad-hoc costs, stationery costs, and any other foreseeable costs in this exercise. No costs other than what has been indicated in the financial proposal will be paid or reimbursed to the consultant. The UNDP will only pay for any unplanned travel outside of this TOR and Duty Station on actual basis and on submission of original bills/invoices and on prior agreement with UNDP officials. Daily perdiums and costs for accommodation/meals/incidental expenses for such travel shall not exceed established local UNDP DSA rates.
For an Individual Contractor who is of 62 years of age or older, and on an assignment requiring travel, be it for the purpose of arriving at the duty station or as an integral duty required under the TOR, a full medical examination and statement of fitness to work must be provided. ?Such medical examination costs must be factored in to the financial proposal above. Medical examination is not a requirement for individuals on RLA contracts.?
Criteria for Evaluation of Proposal:? 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.
Note:
- Please group all your documents into one (1) single PDF document as the system only allows uploading maximum one document;
- Qualified women and members of minorities are encouraged to apply;
- Incomplete applications will not be considered. Please make sure you have provided all requested materials.
NOTE: Please refer the link to access full TOR for details and annexures at; https://www.dropbox.com/home/SCCF%20Terminal%20Evaluation
Payment of Services
- 10% at Contract Signing;
- 40% Following submission and approval of the 1ST draft terminal evaluation report;
- 50 %? Following submission and approval (UNDP-CO and UNDP RTA) of the final terminal evaluation report.