| Overview : BACKGROUND The Governance for Resilient Development in the Pacific (Gov4Res) project aims to increase
climate change and disaster resilience in Pacific Island Countries (PICs) through strengthening
Pacific led risk- informed development. The project works with Pacific national and local
governments and Pacific communities, as well as regional organisations, to strengthen
decision-making processes and governance systems towards resilient development. There is a
strong emphasis on the integration of gender equality and social inclusion principles and
practice into risk-informed development. The project has three end of program outcomes:
Outcome 1: Government planning and financing systems enable gender-sensitive and inclusive
risk- informed development.
Outcome 2: Country oversight and accountability systems require gender- sensitive and
inclusive risk-informed development.
Outcome 3: Regional organisations, policies and practices are actively supporting gender
sensitive and inclusive risk-informed development.
The project builds on a pilot project (the Pacific Risk Resilience Project, (PRRP) 2012 – 2019),
which was funded by the Australian government through Australian Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade (DFAT). The pilot project demonstrated the value of a risk- informed
development approach in the Pacific context and the value of work through and with Pacific
governments and communities to tailor risk- informed development in ways that are specific
to country and local context. It also demonstrated the value of working flexibly, taking
opportunities in different locations to influence development processes through a wide variety
of strategies. Significantly, it demonstrated the value of supporting Pacific-led development.
Gov4Res has continued to advance a focus on risk-informed development based on the learning
and achievements from PRRP. It has expanded to include work with regional organisations,
recognising the unique interconnection between regional and national systems in the Pacific.
It has given increased attention to Pacific government systems in particular national systems of
planning, budgeting, and project implementation, recognising that sustainable change requires
that these national systems are themselves risk-informed (rather than establishing parallel |
systems).
Gov4Res has a particular focus on social inclusion, utilising the perspectives of all groups to
inform the definition of risk, and to support processes of risk assessment and management. At
present, the project supports work in Fiji, Kiribati, Republic of Marshall Islands, Solomon
Islands, Tonga, Samoa, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, as well as engaging with regional organisations and
regional processes.
The project is implemented by UNDP and supported by the governments of Australia, Korea,
New Zealand, Sweden, and more recently the United Kingdom. The various donor partners
contribute different levels of support over varying timeframes. The overall value of the project
is US$19 million commenced in 2020, following an inception phase in 2019, and was due for
completion in 2024. With the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the project was approved for
extension to 2025. In recent months, with revised project scope and directions, the project has
been further extended to 2029.
In terms of delivery, the project has a team based at UNDP in Fiji that includes project
management and technical specialists. This team is complemented with staff embedded in
government and other offices in various Pacific Island countries. It is also supported by a range
of short-term technical specialists or advisors on contract. It collaborates with other relevant
UNDP programs including an Asia-Pacific Climate Finance Network, bilateral agriculture and
disaster management projects, an internal Accelerator Lab, and an Effective Governance
programme, and also with other regional and national partner organisations such as Pacific
Islands Forum Secretariat, the Commonwealth Local Government Forum and the Pacific
Community. Under the support received from DFAT it is part of a wider program, the Australia
Pacific Climate Partnership, which provides particular opportunities for collaboration with
other Australian funded programs. The project is overseen and receives strategic guidance by
a Board consisting of project donors, and representatives from Pacific Island governments (i.e.,
countries where the project is being implemented) and the UNDP Pacific Office. |
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES SCOPE OF WORK
The objective for this MTE is to examine the progress of Gov4Res against its original
intentions, identify areas for improvement and given the changing governance context,
identify new opportunities, recommend changes to update the project plan and approach.
The MTE will assess the following:
1. Relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of project
2. Risks to sustainability
3. Extent to which gender equality and social inclusion and human rights aspects have
been considered
4. Project structure
5. Monitoring and evaluation approaches of the project |
Evaluation Approach and Methodology
Gov4Res utilises a wide range of strategies and pathways to achieve change. It considers both
technical and ‘political’ motivations and influences. It seeks to engage respectfully and
effectively in different cultures and contexts, responding to the needs of the countries it works
with. It deliberately works across various entry points in countries in order to maximise the
likelihood of positive change and invests in systems (i.e., structures and processes) to ensure
long-term adoption and sustainability. In several areas of work it seeks to influence others such
as regional organisations and interactions between different national actors, working from
behind and empowering others, rather than leading on all activities. It has a focus on working
in agile and flexible ways, learning from experience and changing strategies as required.
While its original theory of change presents a concise summary of its core assumptions, in
practice Gov4Res understands the change it is seeking to achieve is complex and that the
connection between all these activities and outcomes is multifaceted, complex and dynamic.
Consequently, it is anticipated that the MTE approach should be based in a critical
epistemology, able to engage effectively with a non-linear systems-based project approach.
Gov4Res recognises that its various stakeholders have overlapping and different views about
what changes are important. The donor partners have clear but different strategies and
outcomes they wish to achieve. Pacific government partners, Pacific people and communities
and regional organisations all have their views on the prioritisation and significance of the
changes that might be achieved through the project. The MTE needs to be gender-sensitive
and socially inclusive, able to accommodate and give attention to assessment from these
various different worldviews.
The MTE approach will accommodate and identify differences in assessment, values, and
understanding of impact for stakeholders, and provide methodological approaches that create
dialogue and exchange between stakeholders and their different perspectives. The approach
should be sensitive to Pacific Island approaches, and respectful of the knowledge of Pacific
Islanders.
Methodology
Specific data collection, analysis and engagement techniques will be agreed as part of the
evaluation plan prior to commencement of the MTE. However, it is anticipated that the
evaluation team will demonstrate considerable skill in analysis and sense making that is
inclusive of project stakeholders and provides opportunities for women, marginalised groups
and Pacific country stakeholders to engage with and assist in data analysis and
recommendation development. The methodologies proposed by the evaluation team should
also support and facilitate active dialogue between stakeholders and their different
perspectives.
Gov4Res has an established Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Framework (MELF) based on
its original project theory of change. It has a comprehensive data management system which
includes evidence against outcomes and outputs and the project reports regularly against its
outputs and outcomes to its various donors and oversight Board. As noted, the original theory
of change has clearly defined pathways and strategies for change and evidence has been |
collected against these pathways. In preparation for this evaluation the project has undertaken
an extensive audit of existing information and evidence in each of its country locations and its
regional work. These country and regional briefs, annotated against the existing evidence, will
be provided to the MTE team in order to assist the team to efficiently understand the scope
and variety of work by the project to date. While some verification of these briefs will be
required, this extensive preparation will enable the MTE team to focus its data collection and
analysis on areas which are outside of the present project MELF, identifying new information
and insight for the project stakeholders.
It is expected that the MTE will make use of this existing evidence base and develop additional
methodologies for data collection, analysis and examination that complement rather than
duplicate the existing information. The team will be expected to have extensive expertise in
qualitative and quantitative methodologies including, as indicated, the capacity to use data
collection, analysis and engagement techniques that are appropriate to different
stakeholders.
The team should be familiar with Pacific approaches to evaluation. Ideally the evaluation team
will bring expertise in feminist and/or indigenous methodologies and/or other methodologies
drawn from critical evaluation approaches, alongside experience in traditional methodologies
(ie. interviews, surveys, observation, focus groups etc). | DETAILED SCOPE OF MTE
The MTE team will assess the following categories of project progress:
1. Relevance
The MTE will assess the ongoing relevance of Gov4Res, given the changing context since
project commencement. This will require examination of the initial project analysis and
strategy development, how adequately this has been updated in response to changing
context, wider examination of key contextual influences (both enabling and disabling), and
how adequately the project has responded to or is positioning to respond to these
conditions.
The relevance of Gov4Res should be considered from the perspective of different
stakeholders including partner governments and Pacific Island communities, civil society
organisations, and private sector. The projects coherence with other interventions, especially
those of the donor partners, regional organisations and UNDP should also be reviewed.
The MTE will recommend options to support ongoing project relevance and coherence, giving
due attention to these different perspectives. To assess relevance and coherence, the
following should be considered (but should not limit the evaluation):
• How well does the project and its outcomes align with the priorities of local
government and local communities in the focal PICs?
• How well does the project and its outcomes align with PIC’s National Government
development priorities and with regional development priorities?
• How well does the project align with national and regional gender equality and other
social protection commitments? |
• Does the project objective fit UNDP Pacific strategic priorities?
• How well does the project align with similar interventions in the region, especially
those supported by its donor partners?
• In what ways has the project responded and adapted to maintain relevance and
coherence for all stakeholders?
2. Effectiveness
The MTE will verify project effectiveness utilising available information (see discussion around
methodology below), together with additional evidence collected as required. The MTE will
consider in particular, how effectively the Gov4Res project has progressed against its original
outcomes and outputs as outlined in the original project theory of change. As required, the
MTE will examine core assumptions under the original theory of change and test how well
these have held throughout project implementation to date. The MTE will recommend
options for further development and maturing of the project theory of change that will
support increased project effectiveness.
To assess effectiveness, the following should be considered (but should not limit the
evaluation):
• What have been the key results and changes achieved by the project to date?
• To what extent will the project meet its original outcomes within the current program
phase? Do these remain practical and feasible?
• Do the project assumptions and project theory of change continue to address the key
factors which are likely to enable or challenge the progress of this project?
• Has the project been able to respond effectively to new emerging opportunities?
• In what ways should the project theory of change be further developed, given
progress to date and changes in project context?
• What implications do recommended changes to the project theory of change have for
project strategies, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting?
3. Efficiency
Gov4Res operates through a range of strategies and pathways to achieve change. The MTE is
an opportunity to review the efficiency of the major project strategies. That is, given the
resources available, which of these strategies most efficiently contributes to project
implementation? In particular the MTE will examine the value being achieved from the
following strategies:
• “From within” approach of embedding focal points within government
• Agile/adaptive programming
• Demonstration of risk-informed development through community infrastructure and
development program
• Regional policy support and research to achieve scale
• Portfolio approach of interventions, that integrate across difference governance
levels
• The MTE will recommend options to further develop the current project strategies
and/or expand or change strategies, in order to support efficient progress towards
project outcomes. |
• To assess efficiency, the following should also be considered (but should not limit the
evaluation):
• Has the project been efficient in leveraging resources and partnerships that are
currently contributing to, or have contributed to achieving outcomes?
• In what way have changes in the context affected project cost effectiveness?
• What changes ought to be made in project strategies in order to ensure the most
efficient approaches to project implementation?
4. Sustainability
Gov4Res works with and through PIC governance systems and practices to promote
sustainability of the reform agenda. The MTE will assess the extent of take up of project
activities by in-country systems. It will recommend options and areas of work where the
project should expand or undertake further activity to support sustained PIC led outcomes.
Considering the progress of work in this current phase and the likely options for future phases
of the program, the MTE will examine how the project can most effectively support sustained
Pacific Islands-led action for risk-informed development.
The MTE will also identify areas for further research and enquiry is required in order to
develop additional activities and strategies that will support sustained outcomes beyond the
life of this project. In considering sustainability of outcomes the MTE will give particular
attention to the principle of localisation.
To assess sustainability, the following should be considered (but should not limit the
evaluation):
• How effectively has the project worked through PIC governments’ systems and
practices to introduce reform measures?
• In what ways has the project partnered with key actors on the ground (including
communities and local government) to ensure program benefits are sustained?
• What further development of work areas is required to increase the sustainability of
project outcomes?
• In what ways does this project support the core principles of localisation in the
Pacific? In what ways could this be further improved?
5. Human Rights
line with UNDP principles the MTE should assess to what extent human rights considerations
are included in the project design and implementation
• To what extent does the project adhere to and further supports human rights
principles?
• To what extent does the project integrate or consider human rights-based
approaches in the design and implementation of the project?
6. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
Gov4Res proposes that it is impossible to risk-inform development without understanding
and addressing the underlying vulnerabilities that arise due to structural inequalities that |
prevent women and marginalised groups from contributing to and benefitting from that
development. To ensure that the process is equitable, and benefits reach marginalised
groups, the development process must be informed by diverse voices.
The project has recently developed a Gender Action Plan. The MTE is timely as the project will
use the outcomes of the review to further refine its strategies for implementing its Gender
Action Plan and refine its GESI indicators for the project
The MTE will assess the quality and value of the Gov4Res gender equality and social inclusion
(GESI) strategies, as outlined in its GESI Action Plan, including how comprehensively and
effectively the project has partnered with women, marginalised groups, including people
living with a disability, and those marginalised by other intersecting social identities (e.g., age,
gender, ethnicity, living in rural or remote areas, etc.), in project activity planning,
implementation and assessment.
The MTE will provide detailed recommendations for further improvement in the Gov4Res
strategies for GESI, including opportunities to engage with other organisations and
practitioners working on these issues (e.g., Ministry of Women, UN Women)
To assess the integration of GESI into Gov4Res, the following should be considered (but
should not limit the evaluation):
• How has the project contributed to gender equality, particularly in terms of women's
empowerment?
• How has the project contributed to equality and empowerment for other
marginalised groups (e.g., people living with a disability, or people marginalised by
other intersecting social identities (e.g. age, gender, ethnicity, geography etc.)
through project activity planning, implementation and assessment.
• How is this participation of men, women and vulnerable groups contributing towards
achievement of the project outcomes?
• How effectively have the measures or processes as outlined in the GESI Action Plan
integrated GESI into project?
• How could the project further improve and assess its strategies for gender equality
and social inclusion?
• What additional strategic partnerships should be cultivated to advance GESI in risk
informed development?
7. Project Structure
Gov4Res is currently designed as a project under the UNDP Resilience and Sustainable
Development Unit. It receives funding from several donors and allocates those funds to
different areas of project activity and in some cases, different locations. Going forward, the
project seeks to make the most efficient use of donor partner funds, as well as provide the
maximum accountability for those funds.
The MTE will explore options for the project structure going forward, considering likely future
phases of the project, and identify options for how the project can be most efficiently |
structured to meet UNDP processes and respond to donor partner accountability and
reporting requirements.
To assess the appropriateness of the project structure, the following should be considered
(but should not limit the evaluation):
• How should the project be structured to meet UNDP processes, respond to donor
partner accountability and reporting requirements and meet its intended outcomes?
• Does the team have the required skills and experience, or technical partnerships in
place to deliver the outcomes of the project?
• Are there additional activities, relevant to project stakeholders and in line with
project outcomes, which could be included in future development of this project?\
8. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
To assess the appropriateness of the project monitoring and evaluation, the following should
be considered (but should not limit the evaluation):
• How comprehensively has the project collected, analysed and reported verifiable
information about its progress?
• Are there missing indicators that are cost-effective and more impactful to measure?
• In what way could the project Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Framework be
further developed and improved to ensure accountability to all stakeholders and
support further project improvement?
• How is the projects’ learning being captured and shared, and are there ways to
improve information capture and its communication to various audiences? | EXPECTED OUTCOMES AND DELIVERABLES
The following deliverables in line with UNDP’s evaluation guidelines:| # | Deliverable | Description | Days1 | Due Date | | 1 | Inception
report | The inception report should be prepared by the
MTE team before going into the full-fledged MTE
exercise. It should include full review of the
country and regional project briefs (to be provided
on contract signing), initial observations of the
proposed evaluation objectives, proposed
evaluation approach and methodology with detail
around evaluation questions, data collection,
analysis and dissemination processes, sampling
strategy, and detailed examination of any
limitations to the evaluation. The plan should be in
line with the scope as outlined in the terms of
reference and in line with UNDP evaluation norms,
standards, guidelines and templates. | 10 | July 2022 |
|
1 Indicative | 2 | Draft initial
findings | A presentation of the initial findings from the
evaluation will be made to key stakeholders, in
particular the evaluation reference group, to
provide opportunity to identify where further data
collection and analysis may be required and/or to
provide stakeholders with an indication of the
likely scope and areas covered by the MTE. This
presentation is expected to be made either in
person or virtually by the evaluation team to the
identified stakeholder group prior to report
drafting.
This will be one of the opportunities for dialogue
between stakeholders to explore their different
perspectives and assessments about change and
project outcomes. | 50 | September2022 | | 3 | Draft
Evaluation
Report | The draft evaluation report should be prepared in
line with UNDP evaluation norms, standards,
guidelines and templates, including an analysis of
the performance of the project to adequately
address gender equality as well as human rights
issues, with evidence-based findings, conclusions
and recommendations. The report will be
distributed to stakeholders and the evaluation
reference group and feedback from stakeholders
will be collated for further consideration by the
MTE team. | 14 | November
2022 | | 4 | Final
Evaluation
Report | The final report will be produced by the team
based on feedback received on the draft report.
The final report will be shared with all
stakeholders and other interested parties. The
final evaluation report and an Evaluation Brief (2-
pager) should be prepared in line with UNDP
evaluation norms, standards, guidelines and
templates. | 5 | January 2023 | | 5 | Audit Trail
Form | The comments and changes by the consultant in
response to the draft report should be retained by
the evaluator in form of an audit trail to show they
have addressed comments. This document can be
submitted as an Annex to the final evaluation
report. | 1 | January 2023 |
|
Institutional Arrangement
The evaluation team will work under the supervision of the UNDP Integrated Results
Management Unit (IRMU), with oversight form the RSD team leader. The Gov4Res Monitoring
Officer will support the logistical arrangements of MTE travel (if required and possible under
Covid restrictions) and stakeholder consultations. Although Gov4Res is administratively
responsible for the MTE, it shall not interfere with analysis and reporting, except when
requested and at opportunities for comments/feedback.
The MTE will be supported by an Evaluation Reference Group comprising a selection of donor
and government partners. The purpose of the Evaluation Reference Group will be to
ensure transparency in the evaluation process and support stakeholder engagement with
evaluation findings and recommendations. | Duration of the Work
This assignment is anticipated to take place between 1 June 2022 – 31 January 2023. The
assignment is home-based, and payments are output based. Travel is required to Fiji and may
be undertaken to other one or two Pacific locations if COVID restrictions allow. The expected
level of effort for the MTR consultant(s) is approximately 80 days in total.| Duties | Location | Deliverables | Responsibility | Country and
Regional briefs | Fiji based | Project briefs outlining current
activities, theory of change and
achievements, annotated with
available evidence, prepared for
each project country and for the
project regional activities. | Gov4Res M&E team | Preparation of
evaluation plan
Inception
Report | Home based | Draft Inception report in line
with UNDP evaluation norms
and standards, following initial
discussions with project team
and other relevant stakeholders. | Evaluation Team | Review of draft
evaluation plan
Inception
Report | Home based | Comments on the draft Inception
Report, provided by the
Evaluation Reference Group and
UNDP, consolidated by the
evaluation manager. | IRMU | Incorporation
of comments | Home based | Revised Inception Report drafted | Evaluation Team | | Deliverable 1 | Home based | Final Inception report submitted | Evaluation Team |
|
Evaluation
implementation | Fiji and the
other
countries if
COVID
restrictions
permit | Data collection, on-site analysis. | Evaluation Team | | Deliverable 2 | Homebased or
Fiji | Initial findings presentation to
evaluation reference group and
other stakeholders as required.
Presentation submitted. | Evaluation Team | | Deliverable 3 | Home based | Draft evaluation report
submitted | Evaluation Team | Review for
quality
assurance and
scope. Identify
factual errors
and clarity and
comprehension | Home based | Comments on the draft
evaluation report, provided by
the Evaluation Reference Group
and UNDP, consolidated by the
evaluation manager. | IRMU | Consideration
of comments | Home based | Revised draft evaluation report | Evaluation Team | Final review by
UNDP IRMU | Home based | Revised draft evaluation report
submitted to UNDP IRMU; draft
Evaluation Brief submitted | IRMU | Incorporation
of comments
and finalisation
of report and
Evaluation Brief | Home based | Revised draft evaluation report,
with comments from UNDP
IRMU consolidated | Evaluation Team | | Deliverable 4 | Home based | Final evaluation report;
Evaluation Brief and
presentation of evaluation
results. | Evaluation Team | | Deliverable 5 | Home Based | Audit Trail Form | Evaluation Team | Project
Management:
Finalise | Home based | Final Evaluation Follow-up Plan
to be cleared by IRMU | Project Management |
|
Evaluation
Follow-up Plan | Project
Management:
Disseminate
final evaluation
report | Home based | Final evaluation report
disseminated to internal and
external stakeholders | Project Management |
Duty Station
The MTE will include travel to Fiji where Gov4Res has its main base. If COVID restrictions
allow, travel will be expected to other locations (a minimum of 2 other Pacific countries). If
further travel is not possible then the evaluation team will be required to undertake remote
data collection and analysis. The team will be expected to manage this remote process in
ways which ensure the methodological standards outlined above are maintained.
Limitations and Risks
With restrictions due to COVID-19, and in order to stay within reasonable time and budget
limits, it will not be possible for the evaluation team to travel to all proje |
|
