Background

UNDP, with financial support from the EU, launched the Confidence Building Early Response Mechanism (COBERM), which aimed to build confidence amongst communities on both sides of the divide and encourage peace-building in view of conflict resolution in 2010. The second phase of the project was implemented during 2012-2015. The third phase of COBERM III was launched in January 2016, for the duration of 3 years. COBERM is a neutral, apolitical and flexible grant making mechanism that supports grass roots initiatives in pursuit of peacebuilding in the region.  Through its engagement in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, areas adjacent to the Administrative Boundary Lines (ABLs) and other communities in Georgia, UNDP is considered a trusted and impartial partner by the parties to the conflict and civil society on either side of conflict divides.

Addressing issues of limited interaction and trust among the conflict affected communities, the project main goals are to:

• Support opportunities for confidence building through direct people-to-people contacts,
• Build an enabling environment within and across divided communities to strengthen respect for peace and stability while addressing local needs,
• Strengthen mutual complementarity between humanitarian responses and dialogue processes.

As the project is coming to an end later this year, this assignment envisages conducting an external independent evaluation of the COBERM-phase III.

Duties and Responsibilities

Under the overall supervision of the UNDP Deputy Resident Representative and direct supervision of the UNDP ARR,  the International Consultant/Team Leader together with a National Consultant will undertake an independent evaluation of the COBERM III programme to assess the results, lessons learned and contributions to enhancing the process of long-term reconciliation and confidence building among the diverged societies within the post-conflict environment in Georgia, through its support to various dialogue processes and grass-roots actions.

Specific objectives:

• Evaluate to what extent COBERM has contributed to the ultimate objective of confidence building for the given context.
• Evaluate the added value of COBERM vis-à-vis other EU funded programmes aiming at a broader engagement in supporting conflict transformation for the given context.

Key issues to be addressed:

• The effectiveness of COBERM’s interventions in meeting recurring and evolving  needs and priorities in order to achieve its stated objectives;
• The efficiency and effectiveness of COBERM’s implementation arrangements with a particular focus on the internal decision-making process and implementation structure;
• Lessons Learnt i.e. what has worked and what has not worked [and why] from COBERM initiatives, as well as programming approaches and strategies yielding the most effective results;
• The thematic areas, approaches and target groups that have yielded the biggest contributions to confidence building;
• The extent to which the project has contributed to the capacity development of civil society, especially in conflict affected areas;
• The extent to which gender considerations have been incorporated as a cross-cutting issue, including the ways COBERM has supported the implementation of the UNSC Resolution 1325;
• The effectiveness and efficiency of the COBERM Plus component including the relevance of its incorporation as a mechanism under COBERM;
• The effectiveness of COBERM’s coordination with other relevant EU funded programmes in particular the Dialogue Coordination Mechanism and the Civil Society Support Programme and vis-à-vis the initiatives of other stakeholders and donors’ supporting conflict transformation in the region;
• The of EU visibility in relation to the programme, including in relation to the COBERM Plus component;

Drawing on the preceding analysis, the evaluation team is expected to:

• elaborate recommendations on possible future support measures in terms of approaches, content and modalities and on how to improve COBERM complementarity and synergy with EU and other donors' interventions in Abkhazia and, if feasible, how to enhance engagement in South Ossetia.
•  include findings and recommendations for a COBERM follow-up strategy, highlighting closer thematic alignment with other EU, UN and other donor programmes and relevant SDGs.

Methodology

General Principles and Approach

The DAC Principles for the Evaluation of Development Assistance, OECD (1991) are the general basis for the evaluation: relevance/ efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.

The evaluation of conflict prevention programming however remains a complicated field, given the challenges of causality and attribution. The principles developed in 2012 by the OECD “Evaluating Peacebuilding Activities in Settings of Conflict and Fragility: Improving Learning for Results,” (OECD (2012), Evaluating Peacebuilding Activities in Settings of Conflict and Fragility: Improving Learning for Results, DAC Guidelines and Reference Series, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264106802-en)  as well as the Foreign Policy Instruments’ (FPI) Manual and the Manual of Indicators of the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) (FPI Manual, European Commission (2017) and Manual of Indicators, Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fpi/documents/manual_of_indicators.pdf) should however provide a useful starting point for the development of a relevant methodological framework, as well as assessing existing indicators for measuring impact. 

The evaluation will be guided by the following criteria:

• Relevance: the degree to which COBERM was a relevant response and whether it  evolved to take account of changing circumstances i.e. remained pertinent and whether it was  based on a sound theory of change and intervention logic.
• Effectiveness: the degree to which COBERM has succeeded in achieving its stated objectives/results.
• Efficiency: the degree to which COBERM had been cost-efficient in the process of transforming inputs into outputs and outcomes.
• Impact: the impact of the programme in terms of conflict transformation dynamics in Georgia, as well as its contribution to enhancing the process of long-term reconciliation and confidence building among the diverged societies.
• Sustainability: The likelihood that the project results will endure after COBERM has ended. To what extent the changes (and benefits) brought about by COBERM funded initiatives can be expected to last after project completion. It is envisaged that the evaluation team will provide recommendations for potential follow-up interventions, i.e. how feasible the follow-up actions would be, what alternatives can be identified and/or what components can be strengthened or added to it, what knowledge products could be developed. Prospects for further improvement of the strategic dimension of the mechanism for the given context should also be included.

In addition to the DAC criteria, the evaluation team will consider the additional criteria of: Coherence, coordination and complementarity: assess the coherence in programming in the area of conflict prevention and peacebuilding and to what extent COBERM was complementary and synergetic with other efforts such as the Dialogue Coordination Mechanism and CSSP. The added value of COBERM should also be assessed.

Given that this is the final evaluation of the third phase of this programme, a particular focus should be placed on lessons learnt as well as recommendations for possible future follow up action in this area. Thus, the evaluation should make recommendations on how to focus (which areas) and deliver (which mechanisms) possible support to this confidence building process in the future.

Evaluation tasks

The evaluation will draw on a number of sources:

• A comprehensive desk review of relevant background documents on COBERM, including COBERM grants’ documents and other relevant documents and reports;
• Selected monitoring reports prepared by the COBERM team of activities implemented within COBERM-supported projects and results achieved;
• Selected activity and final reports prepared and submitted by COBERM grantees;
• Interviews with key UNDP staff, COBERM staff, EU staff (Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI), European Union Delegation to Georgia (EUD GEO), EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the Crisis in Georgia (EUSR), EU Monitoring Mission (EUMM)), INGOs, CSOs, and other partners and stakeholders on the ground.

The evaluation itself will follow 3 steps:

• Desk review (home based) - comprehensive desk review of relevant documentation, development of the evaluation design and workplan and drafting of the inception report;
• Conduct the evaluation (field mission) – conduct meetings and interviews in the field including EU, UNDP, partner NGOs, beneficiaries, broader NGO community, other UN agencies, donors and relevant stakeholders;
• Reporting – debriefing UNDP and EU Delegation on preliminary findings and production of the Final Evaluation Report.

Major tasks to be accomplished

In close cooperation with International Consultant, the National Consultant will perform the following tasks:

• Review relevant documents;
• Participate in the design of the evaluation methodology development of evaluation design (including proposed Evaluation Questions (EQ), methodology and tools) and assist as needed in the process of preparation of the inception report;
• Assist with developing a mission schedule and set up appointments;
• Desk review of interim/final reports/translation of supporting documentation related to COBERM grants, as requested by the International Consultant/Team Leader
• Participate in selected interviews and assist with translation for the International Consultant/Team Leader during the meetings, as needed
• Contribute to the preparation of the debriefing under the guidance of the Consultant/Team Leader
• Assist the International Consultant/Team Leader in finalizing the evaluation report through incorporating suggestions received on draft related to his/her assigned sections.

Evaluation Deliverables

The key product expected from this evaluation is a comprehensive analytical report in English covering the issues as outlined in section 2 that will be further detailed in the inception report that should, as a minimum, include the following:

• Executive summary;
• Introduction;
• Description of the evaluation methodology;
• Key findings (including good practices, lessons learned and identified new strategic directions)
• Analysis of the results achieved (outcome and outputs) as well as the quality of the EU-UNDP engagement strategy;
• Analysis of opportunities to guide future programming
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Annexes: ToRs, field visits, people interviewed, documents reviewed, etc 

For quality assurance, all deliverables will be approved by the UNDP Deputy Resident Representative. Pending this approval, payments will be made accordingly.

Competencies

Core Competencies: 

• Demonstrated commitment to UNDP's mission, vision and values;
• Sensitivity and adaptability to cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age;
• Highest standards of integrity, discretion and loyalty.

Functional Competencies:

Interpersonal and communication skills:

• Strong communication skills and proven ability to collaborate with different actors (UNCT, Government, civil society, etc.);
• Flexibility, discretion, and tact;
• Excellent diplomatic skills and ability to work in very sensitive political environments;
• Experience in managing a multi-cultural team, proven conflict sensitivity.

Professional skills:

• Good analysis and judgment;
• Teamwork, proven time management and results-orientation;
• Proactive in problem-solving and recommendation for conflict prevention and resolution;
• Strong ability in understanding and managing confidential and politically sensitive issues, in a responsible way.

Technical aptitudes:

• Strong written and oral presentation skills of proposals, briefings, reports, strategies, etc.
• Ability to prepare clear and comprehensive written analytical reports under tight deadlines;
• Strong computer skills.

Required Skills and Experience

Education:

• Bachelor's degree in social sciences, international relations, political science, development studies, or other related domain; concentration in conflict prevention or peace studies an asset (minimum requirement: Bachelor's degree: 5 points; higher degree: additional 5 points; concentration on conflict prevention, conflict transformation and peace studies: 5 additional points).

Experience:

• At least five years of experience in the field of conflict prevention, peace-building and conflict-sensitive development (minimum requirement: 15 pointsl more than 5 years - additional 5 points);
• Knowledge of the history of the conflict in Georgia would be an asset (5 points);
• Experience in evaluating of conflict prevention/peacebuilding programmes and projects would be an asset (5 points).

Language Requirements:

• Fluency in English and Russian is required (knoweldge of Russian - 5 points).

Evaluation:

Individual consultants will be evaluated against a combination of technical and financial criteria. The technical evaluation stage encompasses desk review and interview of applicants. Experts not meeting any of the minimum technical qualification requirements will be automatically excluded from the list of candidates for further technical evaluation. Maximum obtainable score is 100, out of which the total score for technical criteria is 70 points (desk review 50 points and interview 20 points and for financial criteria 30). Candidates who get 70% of the maximum obtainable scores of the desk review will be invited for the interview. Those candidates who pass 70% of maximum obtainable scores of the technical criteria (i.e. 70 x 70% = 49 points) will be considered as short-listed candidates.

Financial Proposal:

The financial proposal shall specify a total lump sum amount and its breakdown, and payment terms around specific and measurable (qualitative and quantitative) deliverables should be accompanied by the proposed number of installments. All envisaged travel costs must be included in the financial proposal as well. A financial proposal will be requested only from the best qualified candidates, after the interview stage.

Activity Timeframe and responsible party: It is expected that the evaluation will be conducted no later than June-July 2018 over a period of 34 working days by the Evaluation team. The Evaluation Team consists of an International Consultant/Team Leader and a National Consultant.

Payment shall take place in three instalments in following sequence:

• First instalment – completion of desk review, development of evaluation design, questions, methodology and tools, and upon submission of the inception report;
• Second instalment -  consultancy fee upon completion of interviews and meetings, including field visits;
• Third instalment – upon approval of the final evaluation report by UNDP. 

Timeframe:

• Desk review of relevant documents, development of evaluation design (including proposed Evaluation Questions (EQ), methodology and tools) and workplan and submission of the inception report. (home based): 5 days (Evaluation Team)
• Development of evaluation design and workplan: 1 day (Evaluation Team)
• Conduct meetings with key stakeholders: 5 days (Evaluation Team)
• Desk review of interim/final reports/translation of supporting documentation related to COBERM grants: 10 days (National Consultant, assisting the Team Leader)
• Interviews with COBERM grantees: 5 days of field visits in Georgia (Evaluation Team)
• Drafting and debriefing with UNDP: 2 days (Evaluation Team)
• Drafting of the evaluation report (home based): 6 days (Evaluation Team)