|Overview : |
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 Fifth Operational Phase of the GEF – Small Grants Programme in the Philippines (otherwise known as the GEF-SGP OP5) (PIMS #4517).
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
The project was designed to: support local people’s organizations, NGOs and CBOs in designing and implementing projects to contribute to global biodiversity conservation using the landscape approach and modeling and implementation of best practices. Individual small grant projects will contribute concrete outputs to the achievement of three inter-related components and their respective outcomes: (1) Community-based actions improve the sustainability of protected areas (PAs); (2) Mainstream biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into production landscapes, seascapes and sectors (PLS); and; (3) Cross Cutting Capacity Development and Knowledge Management. The majority of individual grants funded under this project will contribute to the achievement of the main project objective and targets included in the project results framework.
The goal of SGP-5 is to secure global environmental benefits through community-based initiatives and actions in selected priority sites in the Philippines.
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.
EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHOD
An overall approach and method for conducting project terminal evaluations of UNDP supported GEF financed projects has developed over time. The evaluation should include a mixed methodology of document review, interviews, and observations from project site visits, at minimum, and the evaluators should make an effort to triangulate information. The evaluator is expected to frame the evaluation effort using the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact, as defined and explained in the UNDP Guidance for Conducting Terminal Evaluations of UNDP-supported, GEF-financed Projects. A set of questions covering each of these criteria have been drafted and are included with this 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, SGP project team, UNDP GEF Technical Adviser (Upgraded Country Programmes Global Coordinator (UCP GC) and key stakeholders and grantees. The evaluator is expected to conduct a field mission to select project sites in the aforementioned three priority sites of the Programme. The complete list of these projects, their corresponding project sites, grantees and their contact details is included in Annex B. Interviews will be held with the following organizations and individuals at a minimum:
Members of the National Steering Committee
Members of the Project Technical Review Committee
Officials of the Biodiversity Management Bureau
GEF Operational Focal Point
Staff/Consultants of SGP-5
Officials and Staff of the Responsible Party (The Foundation for the Philippine Environment)
Staff of UNDP Country Office
Officers and staff of NCIP
Officers and Staff of Site Hubs
Officers and Staff of Grantee Organizations
Officers and Staff of Local Government Units
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. A list of documents that the project team will provide to the evaluator for review is included in Annex B of this Terms of Reference.
EVALUATION CRITERIA & RATINGS
An assessment of project performance will be carried out, based against expectations set out in the Project Logical Framework/Results Framework (see Annex A), 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.
PROJECT FINANCE / 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(s) will receive assistance from the Country Office (CO) and Project Team to obtain financial data in order to complete the co-financing table below, which will be included in the terminal evaluation report.
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, improved governance, the prevention and recovery from natural disasters, and gender.
The evaluators 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. Conclusions should build on findings and be based in evidence. Recommendations should be prioritized, specific, relevant, and targeted, with suggested implementers of the recommendations. Lessons should have wider applicability to other initiatives across the region, the area of intervention, and for the future.
The principal responsibility for managing this evaluation resides with the UNDP CO in the Philippines. The UNDP CO will contract the evaluators and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the evaluation team. The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the Evaluators team to set up stakeholder interviews, arrange field visits, coordinate with the Government etc.
The total duration of the evaluation will be 27 days according to the following plan:
27 March 2018
16 April 2018
Draft Evaluation Report
07 May 2018
28 May 2018
When submitting the final evaluation report, the evaluator is required also to provide an 'audit trail', detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final evaluation report.
The evaluation team will be composed of 1 international (Team Leader, who shall finalize the Report) and 1 national evaluators. 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.
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'
PAYMENT MODALITIES AND SPECIFICATIONS
The financial proposals from possible candidates should be expressed in lump sum amount inclusive of all financial costs related to this engagement (i.e. professional fees, transportation/travel to and from residence-Manila, reproduction, communications including internet). Domestic airfare, food and accommodation of the team outside Manila will be shouldered by UNDP separately and only 20% of the DSA following the NIM rates will be provided.
- First Tranche 10% - Upon submission and acceptance of the Inception Report;
- Second Tranche 40% - Upon submission and acceptance of the 1ST draft terminal evaluation report;
- Third Tranche 50% - Upon submission and acceptance of the (UNDP-CO and UNDP RTA) of the final terminal evaluation report
- Commitment to UNDP’s mission, vision, values and ethical standards
- Sensitivity to cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age differences
- Treat all stakeholders fairly and without prejudice
- Maintains objectivity and impartiality in handling evaluation processes
- Experience in project development, implementation and evaluation--particularly in directly managing results-based monitoring and evaluation methodologies
- Demonstrated experience in conducting evaluation of multi-year and multi-component programmes and projects
- Familiarity with the norms and issues in early recovery and rehabilitation work in disaster-affected areas
Ability to process large amounts and diverse set of data and documents related to infrastructure development, livelihood, resettlement, disaster risk reduction and management, and governance
Demonstrated strong coordination and facilitation skills
Strong interpersonal skills and the ability to initiate discussions with national/local governmental officials, peoples organizations and communities
Demonstrated ability to function in a team environment and to deal with complex multi-stakeholder environment
Demonstrated ability to prepare and present comprehensive reports
Minimum five (5) years of relevant professional experience especially on results‐based monitoring and evaluation methodologies
Knowledge of UNDP and GEF, and experience of working on GEF evaluations
Technical knowledge in the targeted focal area and familiarity with biodiversity conservation issues in the Philippines
Knowledge and experience in diversification of protected area governance regimes, including recognition of ICCAs, community-based management schemes, and strengthening the role of sub-national governments in biodiversity conservation
- Demonstrated experience in implementation and/or evaluation of capacity-building efforts in developing countries, in the area of biodiversity conservation
Criteria for selection process:
The offer will evaluated based on the Combined Scoring method – where the qualifications will be weighted a max. of 70%, and combined with the financial offer which will be weighted a max of 30%.
- Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template provided by UNDP;
- Personal CV or 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.
Application requirements should be emailed to email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org on or before 07 March 2018.
Attachments in this link:
- Terms of Reference, Financial Proposal Template, P11 Personal Histiory Template and Terms and Conditions for Consultants.
In view of the volume of applications UNDP receives, only shortlisted offerors will be notified.