Scope of work/Expected Output
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, project team, UNDP GEF Technical Adviser based in the region and key stakeholders. The evaluator is expected to conduct a field mission to the Republic of Kiribati, to the following stakeholders:
- the Environment and Conservation Division of MELAD (the main implementing partner), in Bikenibiu, South Tarawa;
- Ministry of Internal Affairs, Bairiki, Tarawa;
- Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Development, Bairiki, Tarawa;
- Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Bairiki, Tarawa;
- Ministry of Information, Communications, Transport and Tourism Development, Bairiki, Tarawa:
- Kiribati Institute College, Betio, Tarawa;
- Kiribati Oil Limited, Betio, Tarawa
Interviews will be held with the following organizations listed above with their focal points/liaison individuals at a minimum. The evaluator will review all relevant sources of information, such as the project document, project reports – including Annual APR, project budget revisions, 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 covering 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.
1. Monitoring and Evaluation
2. IA& EA Execution
M&E design at entry
Quality of UNDP Implementation
M&E Plan Implementation
Quality of Execution - Executing Agency
Overall quality of M&E
Overall quality of Implementation / Execution
3. Assessment of Outcomes
Institutional framework and governance:
Overall Project Outcome Rating
Overall likelihood of sustainability:
Project finance / co-finance
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 own financing (mill. US$)
TBD @ TE
TBD @ TE
TBD @ TE
TBD @ TE
TBD @ TE
TBD @ TE
Kindly note that:
- NA simply means ‘Not Applicable’
- TBD @ TE simply means ‘To be determined during the terminal evaluation’
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.
The principal responsibility for managing this evaluation resides with the UNDP CO in Fiji. The UNDP Fiji CO will contract the evaluator and ensure the timely payments as per the satisfactory deliverables submitted by her/him. The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the evaluator to set up stakeholder interviews, arrange field visits, coordinate with the Government etc.
The total duration of the evaluation will be 22 days according to the following plan:
19 February 2020
From 20 February to 5 March 2020
Draft Evaluation Report
19 March 2020
25 March 2020
The evaluation team is expected to deliver the following:
Evaluator provides clarifications on timing and method
No later than 2 weeks before the evaluation mission.
Evaluator submits to UNDP CO
End of evaluation mission
To project management, UNDP CO
Draft Final Report
Full report, (per annexed template) with annexes
Two (2) weeks after the evaluation mission
Sent to CO, reviewed by RTA, PCU, GEF OFPs
Within 1 week of receiving UNDP comments on draft
Sent to CO for uploading to UNDP ERC.
*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 consultant shall have prior experience in evaluating similar projects. Experience with GEF financed projects is an advantage. The evaluator 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'