International Consultant for the Interim Evaluation of the GCA Project

Consultant

Contract

This is a International Consultant contract. More about International Consultant contracts.

Background

PROJECT BACKGROUND

This Project seeks to offer targeted support to women and adolescent girls in two coastal districts such as Khulna and Satkhira in Bangladesh, by-

1. providing skills training and assets for a selected number of fisheries and agriculture-based climate- resilient livelihoods and promote market linkages for these livelihoods options.
2. providing potable water solutions to a selection of the most salinity-affected wards within the districts, not currently covered by other interventions, through Rainwater Harvesting System (RWHS) at the institutional, community and household levels and pond-based system with filtration treatment technologies at the community level; and finally
3. strengthening institutional capacity, knowledge and learning on the climate-risk informed management of livelihoods and drinking water security.

By improving the water security and livelihood options of women in the targeted districts, the Project aims for gender-transformative results regarding women’s access to resources and decision-making power and support women in taking the lead in building community adaptive capacity. The Ministry of Woman and Children’s Affairs (MoWCA) is leading this Project, with technical support on the water provision interventions from the Department of Public Health and Engineering (DPHE), as well as full participation of non-government organizations and community members, including marginalized groups in the intervention areas.

Therefore, the key objective of the project is to support the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) in strengthening the adaptive capacities of coastal communities, especially women, to cope with impacts of climate change-induced salinity on their livelihoods and water security. GCF (Green Climate Fund) resources will be combined with GoB co-financing to address information, technical, financial, and institutional barriers to implementing and managing resilient livelihoods and drinking water solutions for the vulnerable communities in the Southwestern coastal districts of Khulna and Satkhira. An estimated 719,229 people (about 245,516 direct and 473,713 indirect) will benefit from the proposed project interventions.

The project will empower target communities, especially women, as ‘change-agents’ to plan, implement, and manage resilient livelihoods and drinking water solutions. The project will enable those communities to address climate change risks on livelihood and drinking water security to promote synergistic co-benefits. It will enhance the adaptive capacities of these communities in the face of worsening impacts of climate-change induced salinity on their freshwater resources which in turn adversely affect livelihood and drinking water requirements. GCF resources will be invested in promoting a diversification from currently non-adaptive, freshwater-reliant livelihoods of small-scale farmers, fishers, and agro-labourers towards climate-resilient agricultural livelihoods. GoB co-financing is leveraged to support adoption and scale of these alternative, climate-resilient agricultural livelihoods through strengthened value-chains and market linkages for their long-term viability in the face of increasing salinity and extreme weather. The project also utilizes GCF and GoB resources to support investments in and management of climate-resilient drinking water solutions to secure year-round, safe drinking water supplies for the targeted communities. Access to reliable, safe drinking water enables the communities, especially women and girls in targeted households, to invest the resulting time and cost savings and health co-benefits in enhanced livelihoods and income generating and/or educational opportunities. In turn, the enhanced incomes and livelihoods will enable the communities to sustain the investments in the drinking water supply solutions in the long-term. Finally, through investments in institutional capacities, knowledge dissemination and evidence-based learning, the project will enable pathways for replication and scale of project impact to secure livelihoods and drinking water across the vulnerable districts of the southwest coast of Bangladesh. The project yields significant environmental, social (including gender), and economic co-benefits including enhanced integrity of coastal ecosystems and freshwater resources; improved gender norms and women empowerment; and increased income and health benefits, estimated at USD 15 million and USD 4 million respectively over the project lifetime.

The project contributes towards GoB’s achievement of priorities outlined in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) and its climate change strategies. The project objective speaks to the top five key near-term areas of intervention identified by the INDC to address adverse impacts of climate change including: 1) Food security, livelihood, and health protection (incl. water security); 2) Comprehensive disaster management, 3) Coastal Zone Management, including Salinity Intrusion control, 4) Flood Control and Erosion protection, 5) Building Climate Resilient Infrastructure. Directly aligned to six of the fourteen broad adaptation actions prioritized by INDC, the project is implementing improved EWS (early warning system), supporting climate resilient infrastructure, tropical cyclones and storm surge protection, stress-tolerant variety improvement and cultivation, and Capacity Building at Individual and institutional level to plan and implement adaptation programmes and projects.

The project is prioritized for inclusion in the country’s GCF Country Work Programme, currently under development and is part of UNDP’s Work Programme as an Accredited Entity of the GCF. The project is designed through extensive stakeholder consultations, including with civil society, bi-lateral donors, and communities, which informed the project design. The current design of the project was reviewed as per GoB’s internal process led by the NDA, involving relevant government ministries, civil society, and representatives of key donors. The NDA has issued a no-objection letter.

The project will contribute to following GCF Fund-Level Impacts for adaptation: (i) “increased resilience and enhanced livelihoods of the most vulnerable people, communities and regions” through the promotion of climate-resilient, sustainable and diversified livelihoods for 25,425 women in targeted coastal districts (Fund-Level Impact A1.0) and (ii) “Increased resilience of health and well- being, and food and water security” for vulnerable coastal communities through provision of year-round, safe and reliable drinking water supply benefiting 136,110 people. Overall, the project will benefit 719,229 direct and indirect beneficiaries in vulnerable coastal districts of Khulna and Satkhira (about 16.25 per cent of the total population of the two districts) with 245,516 people directly benefiting from the project interventions in building resilience across water and livelihoods through household, community, government, and partner capacities. The interventions will provide indirect benefits to 473,713 people to the nearby communities in the targeted Wards and other unions in the 5 Upazilas through integration of climate change concerns into planning and implementation of the mandated agencies as well as the pathways established for replication to other communities through knowledge and learning mechanisms. Specifically

• 25,425 women will directly benefit from the interventions to switch to (or phase in) climate-resilient livelihoods with associated 500 people benefiting from capacity building and support to value-chain and market actors.
• 245,516 people benefit from timely, gender-responsive early warning information and climate risk reduction strategies, facilitated through the women and girl volunteer groups established by the project at each of the targeted wards.
• The project benefits 68,327 females and 67,783 males through year-round access to safe and reliable drinking water improving their health and safety, and significantly decreasing the unpaid time burden of women in regards of water collection and thereby creating opportunities for education and/or enhanced income generation.
• 525 number of Government staff benefit from improved capacities for climate-risk informed planning and implementation of resilient solutions for water and livelihood security.

The project support to women groups for climate resilient livelihoods options in aquaculture and agriculture yields increased income benefits and enables participation in the formal economy, for a total expected increase in income of USD15 million (over the full life of the project). By providing an alternate higher quality source of water, salt intake by the population in the target communities will substantially decrease deaths and averting quality adjusted life years (the rainwater harvesting technologies have sufficient capacity to provide for basic drinking water needs even in times of low precipitation), for net benefits measuring USD4 million.

The project outcome will strengthen the adaptive capacity and reduce exposure of vulnerable coastal households, especially women, to climate change induced salinity risks and impacts on their freshwater-dependent lives and livelihoods through a switch to climate-resilient livelihoods for enhanced capacities of communities, focusing on women and those adolescent girls who are solely responsible for household income generation; gender-responsive access to year-round, safe and reliable climate-resilient drinking water solutions; and strengthened institutional capacities, knowledge, and learning for climate-resilient drinking water and livelihoods security. The project directly benefits 245,516 women and men through use of gender-responsive livelihoods and water security strategies and activities to respond to climate change and variability. The grant from the Green Climate Fund is USD 24.9 million, with a government co-financing contribution of USD 8 million.

OBJECTIVES OF THE INTERIM EVALUATION

The Interim Evaluation will assess progress towards the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes as specified in the UNDP project document, GCF Funded Activity Agreement (FAA), Funding Proposal (FP), and assess early signs of project success or failure with the goal of identifying the necessary changes to be made in order to set the project on-track to achieve its intended results. The Interim Evaluation will also review the project’s strategy and its risks to sustainability.

The IE will take into consideration assessment of the project in line with the following evaluation criteria from the GCF IEU TOR (GCF/B.06/06) and draft GCF Evaluation Policy, along with guidance provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Additional evaluation criteria can be assessed, as applicable. The Interim Evaluation will also assess the following:

• Implementation and adaptive management - – seeks to identify challenges and propose additional measures to support more efficient and effective implementation. The following aspects of project implementation and adaptive management will be assessed: management arrangements, work planning, finance and co-finance, project-level monitoring and evaluation systems, stakeholder engagement, reporting, and communications.
• Risks to sustainability– seeks to assess the likelihood of continued benefits after the project ends. The assessment of sustainability at the Interim Evaluation stage considers the risks that are likely to affect the continuation of project outcomes. The IE should validate the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Reports, and the ATLAS Risk Management Module and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date.
• Relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of projects and programmes - seeks to assess the appropriateness in terms of selection, implementation and achievement of FAA and project document results framework activities and expected results (outputs, outcomes and impacts).
• Coherence in climate finance delivery with other multilateral entities - looks at how GCF financing is additional and able to amplify other investments or de-risk and crowd-in further climate investment
• Gender equity- ensures integration of understanding on how the impacts of climate change are differentiated by gender, the ways that behavioural changes and gender can play in delivering paradigm shift, and the role that women play in responding to climate change challenges both as agents but also for accountability and decision-making;
• Country ownership of projects and programmes- examines the extent of the emphasis on sustainability post project through country ownership; on ensuring the responsiveness of the GCF investment to country needs and priorities including through the roles that countries play in projects and programmes;
• Innovativeness in results areas (extent to which interventions may lead to paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate resilient development pathways) - focuses on identification of innovations (proof of concept, multiplication effects, new models of finance, technologies, etc.) and the extent to which the project interventions may lead to a paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways;
• Replication and scalability – the extent to which the activities can be scaled up in other locations within the country or replicated in other countries (this criterion, which is considered in document GCF/B.05/03 in the context of measuring performance could also be incorporated in independent evaluations); and

• Unexpected/unintended results, both positive and negative - identifies the challenges and the learning, both positive and negative, that can be used by all parties (governments, stakeholders, civil society, AE, GCF, and others) to inform further implementation and future investment decision-making.

  INTERIM EVALUATION APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

The IE team must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful.

The team will review all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. baseline Funding proposal submitted to the GCF, the Project Document, project reports including Annual Performance Reports, Quarterly Progress Reports, UNDP Environmental & Social Safeguard Policy, project budget revisions, records of surveys conducted, national strategic and legal documents, stakeholder maps, and any other materials that the team considers useful for this evidence-based review).

The two consultants in the team are expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach ensuring close engagement with the Project Team, Implementing Partner, National Designated Authority (NDA) focal point, relevant government counterparts (responsible parties), the UNDP Country Office, Regional Technical Advisers, and other principal stakeholders, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) engaged in, and other relevant stakeholders including beneficiaries etc., and ensure their perspectives are essentially captured in the final Independent Evaluation (IE).

Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful Interim Evaluation. Stakeholder involvement should include (where possible) surveys/questionnaires, focus groups, interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to executing agencies, senior officials and task team/component leaders, key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Board, project stakeholders, local government, CSOs, project beneficiaries, etc. Additionally, the Interim Evaluation team is expected to conduct field missions to project sites (if safe to do so), which is to be decided in consultation with the project team. Data collection will be used to validate evidence of results and assessments (including but not limited to: assessment of Theory of Change, activities delivery, and results/changes occurred).

The final Interim Evaluation report should describe the full evaluation approach taken and the rationale for the approach making explicit the underlying assumptions, challenges, strengths and weaknesses about the methods and approach of the review. The final report must also describe any limitations encountered by the Interim Evaluation team during the evaluation process, including limitations of the methodology, data collection methods, and any potential influence of limitation on how findings may be interpreted, and conclusions drawn. Limitations include, among others: language barriers, inaccessible project sites, issues with access to data or verification of data sources, issues with availability of interviewees, methodological limitations to collecting more extensive or more representative qualitative or quantitative evaluation data, deviations from planned data collection and analysis set out in the ToR and Inception Report, etc. Efforts made to mitigate the limitations should also be included in the Interim Evaluation report.

As of 11 March 2020, The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic as the new coronavirus rapidly spread to all regions of the world. Travel to the country has been restricted since late March 2020, with regional restrictions to travel in-country due to localized outbreaks. Therefore, the international consultant with the support of the national consultant may require the use of remote interview methods, extended desk reviews, data analysis, surveys and evaluation questionnaires. These approaches and methodologies should be detailed in the Inception Report and agreed with the Commissioning Unit.

Duties and Responsibilities

DETAILED SCOPE OF THE INTERIM EVALUATION:

The Interim Evaluation team will assess the following ten categories of project progress.

i. Project Strategy

Project design:

• Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions. Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document.
• Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results. Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design?
• Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country (or of participating countries in the case of multi-country projects)?
• Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes?
• Review conditions and covenants of the FAA with special reference to clause 9.02 into the project design process
• Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design. See Annex H of Guidance for Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.
• If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

Results Framework/ Log frame:

• Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s log frame indicators and targets, assess how “SMART” the midterm and end-of-project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound), and suggest specific amendments/revisions to the targets and indicators as necessary.
• Are the project’s objectives and outcomes or components clear, practical, and feasible within its time frame?
• Examine if progress so far has led to or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance, etc.) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis.
• Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively. Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators and indicators that capture development benefits.
• Evaluate the Theory of Change (ToC) proposed by the project during the inception and design phases in comparison to the approach, relevance, actions, interventions, practicality, and current context. Foresee the way forward and propose necessary adjustments.

ii. Relevance, Effectiveness and Efficiency

• Were the context, problem, needs and priorities well analyzed and reviewed during project initiation?
• Are the planned project objectives and outcomes relevant and realistic to the situation on the ground?
• Is the project Theory of Change (ToC) and intervention logic coherent and realistic? Does the ToC and intervention logic hold or does it need to be adjusted?
• Do outputs link to intended outcomes which link to broader paradigm shift objectives of the project?
• Are the planned inputs and strategies identified realistic, appropriate and adequate to achieve the results? Were they sequenced sufficiently to efficiently deliver the expected results?
• Are the outputs being achieved in a timely manner? Is this achievement supportive of the ToC and pathways identified?
• What and how much progress has been made towards achieving the overall outputs and outcomes of the project (including contributing factors and constraints)?
• To what extent is the project able to demonstrate changes against the baseline (assessment in approved Funding Proposal) for the GCF investment criteria (including contributing factors and constraints)?
• How realistic are the risks and assumptions of the project?
• How did the project deal with issues and risks in implementation?
• To what extent did the project’s M&E data and mechanism(s) contribute to achieving project results?
• Have project resources been utilized in the most economical, effective and equitable ways possible (considering value for money; absorption rate; commitments versus disbursements and projected commitments; co-financing; etc.)?
• Are the project’s governance mechanisms functioning efficiently?
• To what extent did the design of the project help or hinder achieving its own goals?
• Were there clear objectives, ToC and strategy? How were these used in performance management and progress reporting?
• Were there clear baselines indicators and/or benchmark for performance measurements? How were these used in project management? To what extent and how the project applies adaptive management?
• What, if any, alternative strategies would have been more effective in achieving the project objectives?

iii. Progress Towards Results

Progress Towards Outcomes and Outputs Analysis:

• Review the log frame indicators against progress made towards the end-of-project targets using the Progress Towards Results Matrix and colour code progress in a “traffic light system” based on the level of progress achieved; assign a rating on progress for each outcome; make recommendations from the areas marked as “Not on target to be achieved” (red).

Table. Progress Towards Results Matrix (Achievement of outcomes against End-of-project Targets)

Project Strategy

Indicator

Baseline Level

Level in 1st PIR (self- reported)

Midterm Target

End-of-project Target

Midterm Level & Assessment

Achievement Rating

Justification for Rating

Fund Level Impact:

Indicator:

Outcome 1:

Indicator:

Indicator:

Output

Indicator:

Output

Indicator:

Outcome 2:

Indicator:

Indicator:

Output

Indicator:

Output

Indicator:

Etc.

Indicator Assessment Key

Green= Achieved

Yellow= On target to be achieved

Red= Not on target to be achieved

In addition to the progress towards outcomes and outputs analysis:

• Identify remaining barriers to achieving the project objective in the remainder of the project.
• By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits.
• Include a comprehensive assessment of the impact of COVID-19 on different aspects of project implementation. Assess the impact on results delivery, overall funded activity performance along with a plan of action to address these.

Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management Arrangements:

• Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document. Have changes been made and are they effective? Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear? Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner? Recommend areas for improvement.
• Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement.
• Review the quality of support provided by UNDP and recommend areas for improvement.

Work Planning:

• Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved.
• Are work-planning processes results-based? If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results?
• Examine the use of the project’s results framework/ log frame as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start.

Finance and co-finance:

• Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions.
• Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.
• Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds?
• Informed by the co-financing monitoring table to be filled out, provide commentary on co-financing: is co-financing being used strategically to help the objectives of the project? Is the Project Team meeting with all co-financing partners regularly in order to align financing priorities and annual work plans? Conduct an analysis of materialized co-financing and implications for project scope and results
• Assess factors that contributed to low/high expenditure rate

Coherence in climate finance delivery with other multilateral entities

• Who are the partners of the project and how strategic are they in terms of capacities and commitment?
• Is there coherence and complementarity by the project with other actors for local other climate change interventions?
• To what extent has the project complimented other on-going local level initiatives (by stakeholders, donors, governments) on climate change adaptation or mitigation efforts?
• How has the project contributed to achieving stronger and more coherent integration of shift to increased climate resilient sustainable development (GCF RMF/PMF Paradigm Shift objectives)? Please provide concrete examples and make specific suggestions on how to enhance these roles going forward.

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

• Review the monitoring tools currently being used: Do they provide the necessary information? Do they involve key partners? Are they aligned or mainstreamed with national systems? Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-effective? Are additional tools required? How could they be made more participatory and inclusive?
• Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget. Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation? Are these resources being allocated effectively?

Stakeholder Engagement:

• Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?
• Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project? Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation?
• Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?

Social and Environmental Standards (Safeguards)

• Validate the risks identified in the project’s most current SESP/ESIA, and those risks’ ratings; are any revisions needed?
• Summarize and assess the revisions made since Board Approval (if any) to:
  • The project’s overall safeguards risk categorization.
  • The identified types of risks (in the SESP).
  • The individual risk ratings (in the SESP).
• Describe and assess progress made in the implementation of the project’s social and environmental management measures as outlined in the SESP submitted at the Funding Proposal stage (and prepared during implementation, if any), including any revisions to those measures. Such management measures might include Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs) or other management plans, though can also include aspects of a project’s design; refer to Question 6 in the SESP template for a summary of the identified management measures.

Reporting:

• Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Board.
• Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil GCF reporting requirements (i.e. how have they addressed poorly-rated APRs, if applicable?)
• Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners.
• Assess the efficiency, timeliness, and adequacy of reporting requirements

Communications:

• Review internal project communication with stakeholders: Is communication regular and effective? Are there key stakeholders left out of communication? Are there feedback mechanisms when communication is received? Does this communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of project outcomes and activities and investment in the sustainability of project results?
• Review external project communication: Are proper means of communication established or being established to express the project progress and intended impact to the public (is there a web presence, for example? Or did the project implement appropriate outreach and public awareness campaigns?)
• For reporting purposes, write one half-page paragraph that summarizes the project’s progress towards results in terms of contribution to sustainable development benefits, as well as global environmental benefits.

v. Sustainability

• Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, APRs and the ATLAS Risk Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.
• In addition, assess the following risks to sustainability:

Financial risks to sustainability:

• What is the likelihood of financial and economic resources not being available once the GCF assistance ends (consider potential resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and other funding that will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project’s outcomes)?

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

• Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project outcomes? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership (including ownership by governments and other key stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long-term objectives of the project? Are lessons learned being documented by the Project Team on a continual basis and shared/ transferred to appropriate parties who could learn from the project and potentially replicate and/or scale it in the future?

Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability:

• Do the legal frameworks, policies, governance structures and processes pose risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project benefits? While assessing this parameter, also consider if the required systems/ mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and technical knowledge transfer are in place.

Environmental risks to sustainability:

• Are there any environmental risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes?

vi. Country Ownership

• To what extent is the project aligned with national development plans, national plans of action on climate change, or sub-national policy as well as projects and priorities of the national partners?
• How well is country ownership reflected in the project governance, coordination and consultation mechanisms or other consultations?
• To what extent are country level systems for project management or M&E utilized in the project?
• What level and types of involvement for all Is the project as implemented responsive to local challenges and relevant/appropriate/strategic in relation to SDG indicators, National indicators, GCF RMF/PMF indicators, AE indicators, or other goals?
• Were the modes of deliveries of the outputs appropriate to build essential/necessary capacities, promote national ownership and ensure sustainability of the result achieved?

vii. Gender equity

• Does the project only rely on sex-disaggregated data per population statistics?
• Are financial resources/project activities explicitly allocated to enable women to benefit from project interventions?
• Does the project account in activities and planning for local gender dynamics and how project interventions affect women as beneficiaries?
• Do women as beneficiaries know their rights and/or benefits from project activities/interventions?
• How do the results for women compare to those for men?
• Is the decision-making process transparent and inclusive of both women and men?
• To what extent are female stakeholders or beneficiaries satisfied with the project gender equality results?
• Did the project sufficiently address cross cutting issues including gender?
• How does the project incorporate gender in its governance or staffing?

viii.Innovativeness in results areas

• What role has the project played in the provision of "thought leadership,” “innovation,” or “unlocked additional climate finance” for climate change adaptation/mitigation in the project and country context? Please provide concrete examples and make specific suggestions on how to enhance these roles going forward.

ix.****Unexpected results, both positive and negative

• What has been the project’s ability to adapt and evolve based on continuous lessons learned and the changing development landscape? Please account for factors both within the AE/EE and external.
• Can any unintended or unexpected positive or negative effects be observed as a consequence of the project's interventions?
• What factors have contributed to the unintended outcomes, outputs, activities, results?

x. Replication and Scalability

• What are project lessons learned, failures/lost opportunities to date? What might have been done better or differently?
• How effective were the exit strategies and approaches to phase out assistance provided by the project including contributing factors and constraints?
• What factors of the project achievements are contingent on specific local context or enabling environment factors?
• Are the actions and results from project interventions likely to be sustained, ideally through ownership by the local partners and stakeholders?
• What are the key factors that will require attention in order to improve prospects of sustainability, scalability or replication of project outcomes/outputs/results?

Conclusions, Recommendations & Lessons Learned

The Interim Evaluation team will include a section of the report setting out the evaluation’s evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings. Explain whether the project will be able to achieve planned development objective and outcomes by the end of implementation.

Recommendations should be succinct suggestions for critical intervention that are specific, measurable, achievable, and relevant. A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary.

The Interim Evaluation team should make no more than 15 recommendations total.

The Interim Evaluation will also include a separate section with a concise and logically articulated set of lessons learned (new knowledge gained from the project, context, outcomes, even evaluation methods). Lessons should be based on specific evidence presented in the report and can be used to inform design, adapt and change plans and actions, as appropriate, and plan for scaling up.

The Interim Evaluation report’s findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned need to consider gender equality and women’s empowerment and other cross-cutting issues.

Ratings

The Interim Evaluation team will include its ratings of the project’s results and brief descriptions of the associated achievements in an Interim Evaluation Ratings & Achievement Summary Table in the Executive Summary of the Interim Evaluation report. See Annex E for ratings scales. No rating on Project Strategy and no overall project rating is required.

Table. Interim Evaluation Ratings & Achievement Summary Table for the Project “Enhancing adaptive capacities of coastal communalities, especially women, to cope with climate change induced salinity” Project. The project is now widely known as Gender-responsive Coastal Adaptation (GCA) project

Measure

Interim Evaluation Rating

Achievement Description

Project Strategy

N/A

Progress Towards Results

Objective Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)

Outcome 1 Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)

Outcome 2 Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)

Outcome 3 Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)

Etc.

Project Implementation & Adaptive Management

(rate 6 pt. scale)

Sustainability

(rate 4 pt. scale)

TIMEFRAME

The total duration of the Interim Evaluation will be maximum 30 working days over a time period of approximately 17 weeks. The tentative Interim Evaluation timeframe is as follows:

ACTIVITY

NUMBER OF WORKING DAYS

COMPLETION DATE

1. Desk review and Inception Report

Document review and preparation of Interim Evaluation Inception Report. Submission of Inception Report no later than 2 weeks before the evaluation mission

4 days

30 Jan 2022

1. Mission and Data Collection

Interim Evaluation mission: stakeholder meetings, interviews, field visits (contingent upon COVID situation). If mission by International consultant is not possible, a hybrid model should be adopted, where the international consultant provides remote oversight and national consultant will travel to the field.

10 days

14 Feb2022

Presentation of initial findings - last day of the Interim Evaluation mission

1 day

15 Feb 2022

1. Report Writing

Preparation and submission to Commissioning Unit of Draft IE Report #1

8 days

25 Feb 2022

[Internal Review of IE by UNDP CO, RTA and Results and Knowledge Specialist]

…

10 Mar 2022

Incorporation of comments on Draft Report #1. Preparation and submission to Commissioning Unit of Draft report #2

2 days

15 Mar 2022

[Submission of Draft IE Report #2 by NCE team to GCF Secretariat for review and comments]

…

16 Mar 2022

[4-week review period of Draft IE Report #2 by GCF Secretariat and all stakeholders]

…

13 Apr 2022

Incorporation of comments on Draft IE Report #2 and Finalization of IE report + completed audit trail from feedback on draft report

5 days

20 Apr 2022

Options for site visits should be provided in the Inception Report.

MIDTERM REVIEW DELIVERABLES

sl

Deliverable

Description

Timing

Responsibilities

1. Interim Evaluation Inception Report

Interim Evaluation team clarifies objectives and methods of the evaluation

30 Jan 2022

Interim Evaluation team submits to the Commissioning Unit and project management

2

• Initial Findings

End of evaluation mission; by 15 Feb 2022

Interim Evaluation Team presents to project management and the Commissioning Unit

3

Draft Interim Evaluation Report #1

Full report (using guidelines on content outlined in Annex B) with annexes

Within 3 weeks of the evaluation mission; by 25 Feb 2022

Interim Evaluation team sends draft to the Commissioning Unit, reviewed by CO, RTA, Project Coordinating Unit, NDA focal point

4

Draft Interim Evaluation Report #2

Full report (using guidelines on content outlined in Annex B) with annexes

By 15 Mar 2022

Interim Evaluation team sends draft to the Commissioning Unit, reviewed by CO, RTA, Project Coordinating Unit, NDA focal point

5

Final Interim Evaluation Report* + Audit Trail

Revised report with audit trail detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final report

by 20 April 2022

Interim Evaluation Team sends final report Commissioning Unit

6

Concluding Stakeholder Workshop (optional but strongly recommended)

Meeting to present and discuss key findings and recommendations of the evaluation report, and key actions in response to the report.

Within 1-2 weeks of completion of final Interim Evaluation report

Led by Interim Evaluation team or Project Team and Commissioning Unit

*The final Interim Evaluation report must be in English. If applicable, the Commissioning Unit may choose to arrange for a translation of the report into a language more widely shared by national stakeholders.:

INTERIM EVALUATION ARRANGEMENTS

The principal responsibility for managing this Interim Evaluation resides with the Commissioning Unit. The Commissioning Unit for this project’s Interim Evaluation is UNDP Bangladesh.

The commissioning unit will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of travel arrangements within the country for the Interim Evaluation team. The project team will be responsible for liaising with the Interim Evaluation team to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits.

Institutional Arrangements:

The consultant will work under the guidance and direct supervision of the Bangladesh Climate Specialist, the BRH Regional Technical Specialist and HQ-based Results and Knowledge Specialist.

Competencies

Corporate Competencies

Demonstrates integrity by modelling the UN’s values and ethical standards (human rights, tolerance, integrity, respect, and impartiality);

• Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNDP;
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability.

Functional Competencies

• Consistently approaches work with energy and a positive, constructive attitude;
• Strong interpersonal and written and oral communication skills;
• Strong analytical skills and strong ability to communicate and summarise this analysis in writing
• Has ability to work both independently and in a team, and ability to deliver high-quality work on tight timelines.

Skills

• Strong leadership and planning skills
• Excellent written and presentation skills (English)
• Strong analytical and report writing skills
• Strong communication skills
• Ability to work in the multi-cultural team environment and to deliver under pressure/meet deadlines
• Ability to work with a wide range of institutions/organisations, including high-level government, UN agencies, and civil society
• Ability to network with partners on various levels

Required Skills and Experience

Education

A Master’s degree in, natural resource management Environmental Sciences, Development Studies, Project Management or other closely related field.

Working Experience

• At least ten (10) years of experience in evaluation of integrated water management, livelihood and climate change adaptation, gender and climate change adaptation; gender sensitive evaluation and analysis
• Recent experience (in past 05 years) with result-based management evaluation methodologies;
• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;
• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to integrated water management, livelihood and climate change adaptation;
• Experience working in developing countries; preferably in south-west coastal districts of Bangladesh would be an asset
• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and climate change adaptation; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis.
• Demonstrable analytical skills specially qualitative data analysis and presentation skills using different softwares;
• Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system projects will be considered an asset;
• Experience with implementing evaluations remotely will be considered an asset.

Language Requirements:

Excellent English language skills, particularly in the preparation of written documents;

PAYMENT MODALITIES AND SPECIFICATIONS

Payments will be based on milestones certified by the UNDP Climate Change Specialist. Payment schedule will be as follows and milestones are required to be delivered in close coordination with the National Consultant hired for the same purpose;

• 20% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the final Interim Evaluation Inception Report and approval by the Commissioning Unit
• 50% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the draft Interim Evaluation report

• 30% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the final Interim Evaluation report and approval by the Commissioning Unit, Regional Technical Advisor (RTA) and Principal Technical Advisor (PTA) – via signatures on the Interim Evaluation Report Clearance form) and completed Audit Trail

  TEAM COMPOSITION

A team of two independent consultants will conduct the Interim Evaluation – one International Consultant/ Team Leader (with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in other regions globally) and one National Expert based in Bangladesh. The International Consultant will operate remotely but will lead the evaluation overall in collaboration with the national consultant.

The International Consultant will be responsible for deciding on the evaluation methodology, based on discussions with the project team and any restrictions as a result of the COVID-19 situation in-country. The International Consultant will present this methodology (as part of the inception report) with a subsequent discussion with the country office to agree on way forward. The development of the data collection methodologies and tools (including questionnaires) will be led by the International Consultant, with support from the National Expert. Following the literature review, stakeholder consultations and field data collection, the International Consultant will lead the process of presenting the preliminary findings to the project stakeholders, which will be followed by the development of the draft interim evaluation report. The International Consultant will be responsible for finalizing the report based on comments received.

The International Consultant will receive in-country support from the National Expert, who will be responsible for organizing and conducting field missions, interviews and field data collection. The National Consultant will be responsible for arranging key informant interviews and focus group discussions with a wide range of stakeholders, which should be arranged virtually if possible, to facilitate the participation of the International Consultant. The National Expert will provide technical (translation of tools, conducting FGD, and KIIs, note taking, FGD and KII coding & transcription) and administrative (organize FGDs and KIIs, and relevant logistical arrangements) support to the International Consultant at the various stages of the Interim Evaluation, including data collection, desk reviews, presentations and drafting of the report.

The consultants cannot have participated in the project preparation, formulation, and/or implementation (including the writing of the Project Document) and should not have a conflict of interest with project’s related activities.

Offers from interested applicants will be evaluated according to the Combined Scoring method – where the educational background and experience on similar assignments will be weighted at 70% and the price proposal will weigh as 30% of the total scoring. The applicant receiving the Highest Combined Score, that has also accepted UNDP’s General Terms and Conditions, will be awarded the contract. Only candidates obtaining a minimum 70% mark in technical evaluation will be considered eligible for financial evaluation.

The selection of consultants will be aimed at maximizing the overall “team” qualities in the following areas:

Evaluation and Assessment Criteria:

Weight

Technical Competencies

70

Educational Qualificatiion and working experience in relevant technical area (15%)

10.5

Recent experience (in past 03 years) with result-based management evaluation methodologies (15%)

10.5

Project evaluation/review experiences with the United Nations system will be considered an asset (15%)

10.5

Competence in adaptive management, as applied to integrated water management, livelihood and climate change adaptation (20%)

14

Work experience in a developing country context preferably in south-west coastal districts of Bangladesh would be an asset (10%)

7

Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and climate change adaptation; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis (20%);

14

Excellent knowledge of English. Knowledge of local languages by the National Consultant would be an asset (5%)

3.5

Financial (Lower Offer/Offer*100)

30

Total Score Technical score + Financial Score

70%+30%

Financial Evaluation (Total 30 marks):

All technical qualified proposals will be scored out 30 based on the formula provided below. The maximum points (30) will be assigned to the lowest financial proposal. All other proposals received points according to the following formula:

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

**. EVALUATOR ETHICS**

The evaluation team will be held to the highest ethical standards and is required to sign a code of conduct (see ToR Annex D) upon acceptance of the assignment. This Interim Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’. The Interim Evaluation team must safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers, interviewees and stakeholders through measures to ensure compliance with legal and other relevant codes governing collection of data and reporting on data. The Interim Evaluation team must also ensure security of collected information before and after the Interim Evaluation and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information, knowledge and data gathered in the Interim Evaluation process must also be solely used for the Interim Evaluation and not for other uses without the express authorization of UNDP and partners.

Interested individual consultants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications. Proposers who shall not submit below mentioned documents will not be considered for further evaluation.

• Personal CV or P11, indicating all experience from similar projects, as well as the contact details (email and telephone number) of the candidate and at least three (3) professional references; P11 can be downloaded from the link below: https://www.bd.undp.org/content/bangladesh/en/home/jobs.html

Please include reports of the similar previous assignments.

• Technical Proposal - a brief description of the assignment, detail break-down of the Work Plan and Methodology to carry out and complete the assignment.

• Financial Proposal: Financial Proposal has to be submitted through a standard interest and availability template which can be downloaded from the link below: http://www.bd.undp.org/content/dam/bangladesh/docs/Jobs/Interest%20and%20Submission%20of%20Financial%20Proposal-Template%20for%20Confirmation.docx

Apply now

Added 2 years ago - Updated 2 years ago - Source: jobs.undp.org