Background

The humanitarian funding architecture is quite developed and established. Funding takes place mostly in the way of grants and is disbursed relatively quickly and flexibly. This funding works well in sudden onset crises (e.g. post-earthquake) or in crises that are in high intensity (e.g. Yemen). On the other hand, development funding architecture is also very developed, but relatively rigid. Decisions are taken by a wider group of actors, with the Government playing a larger role. Different financing instruments are used— from loans to bonds to risk insurance. Innovation is continuously happening in development financing with recent growth areas in green bonds, Islamic financing, as well as instruments such as crowdsourcing. These sorts of financing work well where there is a stable government with whom to plan and through whom to channel funding.

What has emerged over the past few years is a clear recognition that neither of these existing financing mechanisms are fit the bill for crises that are neither sudden onset crises nor pure “stable” development. The likes of DRC, Somalia and Sudan are protracted crises with fledgling, if not problematic governments, that cannot attract significant development funding, and nor can they meaningfully change the narrative of going beyond meeting the basic needs with humanitarian funding alone. This leaves them in a perennial cycle of essentially dependent on humanitarian funding for life-saving work over multiple years.

Changing this continuous cycle requires a change in the way international aid actors – humanitarian, development and peacebuilding – work and incentivize change on the ground. The New Way of Working (NWOW), developed through the World Humanitarian Summit process, and adopted by the UN Development System in the 2017-20 QCPR, provides the substantive roadmap for getting humanitarian, development and peace (HDP) actors to work towards collective outcomes, with joint analysis, joined up planning, stronger leadership and coordination and, ultimately, better financing in crisis settings

While there has been good progress in convincing humanitarian, development and peacebuilding action to work better in terms of analysis, planning and coordination, the financing piece has somewhat lagged. Some positive trends in this regard include the OECD-DAC donors’ recommendation on the funding across the nexus approved in February 2019, as well as the work of the World Bank in strongly expanding their reach and ambition in fragile and crisis states as part of IDA 18. There have also been important innovations by other IFIs, UN Agencies, NGOs and Governments in trying to find different sources of financing to encourage aid programming that goes towards building resilience and reducing risk and vulnerability – rather than just meeting needs. Denmark stands out as an example of a major donor that has shown most flexibility in funding humanitarian and development programming, by “merging” their pots.

However, these good initiatives need to be brought to scale, and UNDP (including in its role as integrator) needs to play a leading, facilitating or informational role as the case may be. In order to do so, UNDP needs to develop a tailor-made mapping of examples of such mechanisms (an initial draft of which has been compiled), which the Crisis Bureau and the Bureau for External Relations and Advocacy want to develop further. Taking this to scale will also require increasing the “financing literacy” of UNDP.

Duties and Responsibilities

Under the Administration of the Crisis Bureau, and under the direct supervision and guidance of the Programme Specialist, Crisis Interface, CB, and Partnerships Adviser, FIT/BERA, and overall support/inputs from UNDP’s inter-Bureau IFI Working Group, the Consultant will perform the following tasks during the assignment period:

Analysis of existing and impending financial instruments/mechanisms for protracted crises that UNDP, both for its own mandate and in its role as integrator, needs to a) be aware of; b) increase influence over; c) develop capacity over; and d) decide to invest in, with particular emphasis on instruments managed and disbursed by IFI/MDBs.

The analysis will build on the existing mapping developed by the Crisis Bureau, and include, inter alia, the following elements:

• Concise mapping of the main crisis financing instruments currently being used across the major protracted crises (building upon existing mapping already undertaken)
• Prioritization of those main financing instruments which are of particular relevance to UNDP, both for its own mandate and in its role as integrator, due to a) mandate; b) priority; or c) strategic interest. (Up to 10)
• Production of concise (up to 5 page) factsheets for the 10 most relevant instruments, to include pertinent information such as:

1. Who “owns” and/or funds this mechanism
2. What type of financing mechanism is it (e.g. low-interest loans, grants, guarantees, debt relief, risk insurance, bonds, etc.)
3. What is the scope of this mechanism (e.g. immediate response, recovery, rebuilding, refugees; famine; violent conflict/extremism; natural disasters; financial crisis, prevention)
4. Governing mechanism (and note whether UNDP has an opportunity to participate in the governing mechanism)
5. Eligibility: Who can apply to it (especially UNDP)
6. Highlight recent examples of crisis where mechanism was used/activated
7. Highlight existing UNDP engagement or use of such mechanism where relevant. And if no prior examples; suggest potential UNDP entry points for the specific mechanism.
8. Link to key UNDP initiatives, priorities and/or instruments (e.g. NWOW, RBPAs and PDNAs, etc).
9. Potential implications for UNDP with a view to better understand how UNDP may be able to engage with each partner to prevent, respond and catalyze financing for, crisis

2. Develop a UNDP-friendly glossary of the main financing terms that can be understood by mid-level UNDP professionals from across the organization working on substantive issues.

• This glossary should aim to put in simple “layman” language, the definitions of key financing terminology that is being used (or underlies) in the various financing instruments explained in the first deliverable. This glossary should be tailor-made for UNDP, with the assumption that UNDP staff’s knowledge is centered primarily around the grant funding instruments. The glossary should be collated from the variety of existing similar documents produced by IFIs (e.g. WB or IMF) or thinktanks (e.g. ODI) or even other UN entities (e.g. UNCDF or MPTFO)

Expected Outputs and Deliverables (60 days to be completed by 15 September 2019) 

Competencies

Innovation:   

Ability to identify and make new ideas work.

Leadership:   

Ability to persuade others to follow.

People Management:   

Ability to improve performance and satisfaction.

Communication: 

Ability to listen, adapt, persuade and transform.

Delivery:  

Ability to get things done.

Required Skills and Experience

Education:

• Advanced University Degree (Master’s Degree) in international relations, economics, finance, political or social sciences, or any development related field or a CFA qualification is required.

Experience:

• A minimum of 7 years of relevant experience in development cooperation, including innovative financing or equivalent work experience within UNDP is required.

• At least 5 years expertise or experience in humanitarian/crisis and/or development finance is required, especially in the context of the UN, or multilateral organizations and IFIs/MDBs

• Demonstrated experience in strategy development and donor and partnerships/public relations at the international level, IFIs, and/or South-South cooperation is an asset.

• Relationships in the crisis or development finance sector and relevant public, multilateral, and private institutions is an asset.

Language:

• Fluency in English both oral and written is required. 

• Ability to read / access related texts in other UN languages an asset.

Application Procedure

An application package containing the following (to be uploaded as one file):

• A cover letter with a brief description of why the Offer considers her/himself the most suitable for the assignment;
• Personal CV or P11, indicating all past experience from similar projects and specifying the relevant assignment period (from/to), as well as the email and telephone contacts of at least three (3) professional references
•  
• Note: The above documents needed to be scanned into one file and uploaded to the online application as a single document.

Shortlisted candidates (ONLY) will be requested to submit a Financial Proposal.

• The financial proposal should specify an all-inclusive daily fee (based on a 7 hour working day - lunch time is not included - and estimated 21.75 days per month).
• The financial proposal must be all-inclusive and take into account various expenses that will be incurred during the contract, including: the daily professional fee; cost of travel from the home base to the duty station and vice versa, where required; living allowances at the duty station; communications, utilities and consumables; life, health and any other insurance; risks and inconveniences related to work under hardship and hazardous conditions (e.g., personal security needs, etc.), when applicable; and any other relevant expenses related to the performance of services under the contract.
• In the case of unforeseeable travel requested by UNDP, payment of travel costs including tickets, lodging, and terminal expenses should be agreed upon between UNDP and Individual Consultant prior to travel and will be reimbursed. In general, UNDP should not accept travel costs exceeding those of an economy class ticket. Should the IC wish to travel on a higher class he/she should do so using their own resources.
• If the 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 a Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA), the Offeror must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated into the financial proposal submitted to UNDP.
• The Financial Proposal is to be emailed as per the instructions in the separate email that will be sent to shortlisted candidates.

Evaluation process

Applicants are reviewed based on the Required Skills and Experience stated above and based on the technical evaluation criteria outlined below. Applicants will be evaluated based on cumulative scoring. When using this weighted scoring method, the award of the contract will be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

• Being responsive/compliant/acceptable; and

• Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation where technical criteria weighs 70% and Financial criteria/ Proposal weighs 30%.

Technical Evaluation - Total 70% (70 points)

• Criteria 1: Proven experience in development cooperation, including innovative financing or equivalent work experience within UNDP is required – 15 points

• Criteria 2: Proven expertise or experience in humanitarian/crisis and/or development finance is required, especially in the context of the UN, or multilateral organizations and IFIs/MDBs. – 15 points

• Criteria 3: Demonstrated experience in strategy development and donor and partnerships/public relations at the international level, IFIs, and/or South-South cooperation an asset – 15 points

• Criteria 4: Relationships in the crisis or development finance sector and relevant public, multilateral, and private institutions would be highly desirable – 10 points

Having reviewed applications received, UNDP will invite the top three/four shortlisted candidates, who has scored at least 38.5 points in the above desk review, for interview.

•        Criteria 5: Interview  – 15 points

Candidates obtaining a minimum of 70% (49 points) of the maximum obtainable points for the technical criteria (70 points) shall be considered for the financial evaluation.

Financial Evaluation - Total 30% (30 points)

The following formula will be used to evaluate financial proposals:

• p = y (µ/z), where
• p = points for the financial proposal being evaluated
• y = maximum number of points for the financial proposal
• µ = price of the lowest priced proposal
• z = price of the proposal being evaluated

Contract Award

The candidate obtaining the highest combined scores in the combined score of Technical and Financial evaluation will be considered technically qualified and will be offered to enter into contract with UNDP.

Institutional Arrangement

The consultant will report to the SURGE Deployment Coordinator/Deployment Specialist in the Crisis Interface Team, UNDP CB, New York. A work station will be provided to the consultant in the UNDP CB. The consultant is expected to bring a laptop. Frequent interactions and consultations with a variety of UN stakeholders will form an integral part of the consultant’s duties.

Payment modality

• Payment to the Individual Contractor will be made based on the actual number of days worked, deliverables accepted, and upon certification of satisfactory completion by the manager.
• The work week will be based on 35 hours, i.e. on a 7-hour working day, with core hours being between 9h00 and 18h00 daily.

Annexes (click on the hyperlink to access the documents):

Annex 1 - IC Contract Template

Annex 2 – IC General Terms and Conditions

Annex 3 – RLA Template

Any request for clarification must be sent by email to cpu.bids@undp.org 

The UNDP Central Procurement Unit will respond by email and will send written copies of the response, including an explanation of the query without identifying the source of inquiry, to all applicants.