National Consultancy: Final Evaluation: Advancing PNG’s NAP-REFERENCE: IC/PNG/006-2022 (National)

This opening expired 2 years ago. Do not try to apply for this job.

UNDP - United Nations Development Programme

Open positions at UNDP
Logo of UNDP

Application deadline 2 years ago: Monday 28 Feb 2022 at 23:59 UTC

Open application form

Contract

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

Background

The project document for the UNDP-supported GCF-financed project “Advancing Papua New Guinea’s National Adaptation Plan (NAP) for investment planning in four critical climate-sensitive sectors” was signed on 27 February 2020 by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Government of Papua New Guinea through the Climate Change Development Authority (CCDA). The project Inception Meeting kicked off in July 2020 and is currently in its last year of implementation.

The project has suffered delays when the state of emergency was enacted by the Government of Papua New Guinea on 23 March 2020 in response to the global COVID – 19 pandemic and detection of the first case in country.

The project is being implemented by UNDP in partnership with the Climate Change Development Authority representing the Government of Papua New Guinea. The project aims to advance effective adaptation planning in PNG with an overall objective to strengthen institutional and technical capacities for iterative development of NAP and effective integration of CCA into national and sub-national planning and budgeting processes.

The activities in this project focus on three components:

1. Financing Framework for climate change adaptation action for medium – to long – term is established

The project’s primary beneficiaries are the Climate Change Development Authority, the sectoral representatives and non – government stakeholders in the Adaptation Technical Working Group. The project will benefit the key sectors namely Agriculture, Health, Transport, and Infrastructure.

The project aims to strengthen institutional and technical capacities for the iterative development of NAP and integration of climate change adaptation into national and subnational planning and budgeting processes in Papua New Guinea. This will involve strengthening of existing frameworks and systems, enhance capacities of key stakeholders effectively contribute to the adaptation planning process, and establish a mechanism to sustain the process beyond the life of the project.

2. Evaluation Purpose

The UNDP Country Office in Papua New Guinea is commissioning this independent evaluation on the NAP project to assess the implementation of the project towards the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes specified in the Project Document and the success towards achieving the intended results. This will capture evaluative evidence of its relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and incorporation of gender and other cross-cutting issues in an effort to assess the achievement of projects results against what was expected to be achieved.

The evaluation of the project will also cover assess the project’s alignment with the UNDP PNG Country Programme Document and the Climate Change Management Act of 2015 and subsequent revised versions. The evaluation is in line with the country Office Evaluation Plan and UNDP’s evaluation policy.

The evaluation will ascertain how beneficiaries have benefited from the project interventions and what lessons could be learned that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project, and aid in the overall enhancement of UNDP programming. The evaluation serves an important accountability function, providing national stakeholders and partners in Papua New Guinea with an impartial assessment of the results of NAP’s intervention.

Duties and Responsibilities

Evaluation Scope

The evaluation will assess project performance against targets set out in the project results framework in the approved project document. The TE will assess results according to the criteria outlined in the UNDP Evaluation Guidelines[1].

The evaluation will consider the outcomes and outputs as stated in the project document focused towards achieving the 3 outcomes set out in the project document.

NAP project has 3 components and outcomes as follow:

Components

Outcomes

1: The coordination mechanism for multi-sectoral adaptation planning at different levels is strengthened

1.1: Barriers to integration of climate change into development planning and policies are reviewed, recommendations are made and key stakeholders are sensitized to climate change adaptation and development linkages

1.2: Capacities of CCDA and ATWG members to steer climate change coordination and integration processes are developed

1.3: Mechanisms for regularly updating and reviewing adaptation are strengthened and feed into iterative adaptation planning process

2: Climate change risks are integrated and reflected in the Environment Act, the National Disaster Mitigation Policy and MTDP3 and NAP is formulated

2.1: System for economic analysis and appraisal of adaptation options is established and CCA priority interventions are integrated into Environment Act, National Disaster Mitigation Policy and MTDP3

2.2: PNG’s National Adaptation Plan is formulated with specific focus on agriculture, health, transport, and infrastructure

3: Financing framework for climate change adaptation action for medium- to long-term is established

3.1: A NAP financing and investment strategy is developed through consultative process

4. Evaluation Questions

The evaluation seeks to answer the following questions, focused around the evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability:

**Relevance****:

  • How well has the project aligned with government and agency priorities?
  • To what extent has NAP’s selected method of delivery been appropriate to the development context?
  • Has NAP project been influential in influencing national policies on climate change adaptation?
  • To what extent was the theory of change presented in the outcome model a relevant and appropriate vision on which to base the initiatives?
  • To what extent was the project in line with the UNDP Strategic Plan, CPD, UNDAF, United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework
  • (UNSDCF), SDGs, and GCF strategic programming

Effectiveness:

  • What evidence is there that the project has contributed towards an improvement in national government capacity, including institutional strengthening?
  • Has the NAP project been effective in helping improve climate change adaptation planning across four priority sectors?
  • To what extent have outcomes been achieved or has progress been made towards their achievement.
  • What has been the contribution of partners and other organizations to the outcome, and how effective have the programme partnerships been in contributing to achieving the outcome?
  • What were the positive or negative, intended or unintended, changes brought about during project implementation?
  • What were the contributing factors and impediments that enhance or impede the project performance?
  • To what extent did the project contribute to gender equality, the empowerment of women, and/or a human-rights based approach?

Efficiency:

  • To what extent are the approaches, resources, models, conceptual framework relevant to achieve the planned outcomes?
  • To what extent were quality outputs delivered on time?
  • Has there been an economical use of financial and human resources and strategic allocation of resources (funds, human resources, time, expertise, etc.)?
  • Did the monitoring and evaluation systems that the project has in place help to ensure that activities and outputs were managed efficiently and effectively?
  • Were alternative approaches considered in designing the programme?

Sustainability:

  • What is the likelihood that the project interventions are sustainable?
  • What mechanisms have been set in place by the project to support the Government of Papua New Guinea through Climate Change Development Authority to sustain the results made through these interventions?
  • To what extent has a sustainability strategy, including capacity development of key beneficiaries or national stakeholders, been developed or implemented?
  • To what extent have partners committed to providing continuing support?
  • What indications are there that the outcomes will be sustained, e.g., through requisite capacities (systems, structures, staff, etc.)?
  • What opportunities for financial sustainability exist?
  • How has the project developed appropriate institutional capacity (systems, structures, staff, expertise, etc.) that will be self-sufficient after the project closure date?

Impact:

  • What has happened because of the project?
  • What real difference has the activity made to the beneficiaries?
  • How many people have benefited?
  • Were there contributions to changes in policy/legal/regulatory frameworks, including observed changes in capacities (awareness, knowledge, skills, infrastructure, monitoring systems, etc.) and governance architecture, including access to and use of information (laws, administrative bodies, trust building and conflict resolution processes, information-sharing systems, etc.)?
  • Discuss any unintended impacts of the project (both positive and negative) and assess their overall scope and implications.
  • Identify barriers and risks that may prevent further progress towards long term impact;
  • Assess any real change in gender equality, e.g. access to and control of resources, decision- making power, division of labor, etc.

The evaluation must also include an assessment of the extent to which the project design, implementation and monitoring have taken the following cross cutting issues into consideration:

Human rights:

  • To what extent have women and other disadvantaged and marginalized groups benefitted from project’s interventions?

Gender Equality:

  • To what extent has gender been addressed in the design, implementation and monitoring of the project?
  • To what extent has the project promoted positive changes in gender equality? Were there any unintended effects?
  • How did the project promote gender equality and human rights in the delivery of outputs?

The evaluation team will include a summary of the main findings of the evaluation in the evaluation report. Findings should be presented as statements of fact that are based on analysis of the data.

A section on conclusions will be written in light of the findings. Conclusions should be comprehensive and balanced statements that are well substantiated by evidence and logically connected to the evaluation findings. They should highlight the strengths, weaknesses and results of the project, respond to key evaluation questions and provide insights into the identification of and/or solutions to important problems or issues pertinent to project beneficiaries, UNDP and the GCF, including issues in relation to gender equality and women’s empowerment.

Recommendations should provide concrete, practical, feasible and targeted statements directed to the intended users of the evaluation about the actions and decisions to be taken. The recommendations should be specifically supported by the evidence and linked to the findings and conclusions around key questions addressed by the evaluation.

The evaluation report should also include lessons learnt during the project implementation including best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success that can provide knowledge gained from the particular circumstance (programmatic and evaluation methods used, partnerships, financial leveraging, etc.) that are applicable to other GCF and UNDP interventions. When possible, the evaluation team should include examples of good practices in project design and implementation.

It is important for the conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned of the TE report to include results related to gender equality and empowerment of women.

5. Methodology

The evaluation report must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful.

The evaluation will be carried out by an external team of independent evaluators comprised of an International and a National and will follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with a wide array of stakeholders and beneficiaries, including national and provincial government officials and staff, donors and others deemed necessary.

Evidence obtained and used to assess the results of project’s interventions must be triangulated from a variety of sources, including verifiable data on indicator achievement, existing reports, evaluations and technical papers, stakeholder interviews, focus group discussion, surveys, and site visits. In the event where field mission is not possible due to COVID, then remote interviews may be conducted through telephone or online (skype, zoom etc). Under such situation, site visits will be carried out by the National Consultant.

These formalities will be agreed upon during contract discussions and finalized in the inception meeting. The specific design and methodology for the evaluation should emerge from consultations between the evaluation team and the above-mentioned parties regarding what is appropriate and feasible for meeting the evaluation purpose and objectives and answering the evaluation questions, given limitations of budget, time and data. The evaluation team must use gender-responsive methodologies and tools and ensure that gender equality and women’s empowerment, as well as other cross-cutting issues and SDGs are incorporated into the evaluation report.

The final methodological approach including interview schedule, site visits and data to be used in the evaluation must be clearly outlined in the evaluation Inception Report and be fully discussed and agreed between UNDP, stakeholders and the evaluation team.

The final report must 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 evaluation.

The following steps in data collection are anticipated:

5.1 Desk Review

A desk review should be carried out of the key documents underpinning the project’s scope of work. This includes reviewing the project document, different reports, country programme document as well as any other reports, to be provided by the project and UNDP PNG Country Office.

5.2 Field Data Collection

Following the desk review, the national evaluator will build on the documented evidence through an agreed set of field and interview methodologies, including:

  • Interviews with key partners and stakeholders
  • Field visits to selected provinces and partner institutions
  • Survey questionnaires where appropriate
  • Participatory observation and focus group discussions

6. Deliverables

The following reports and deliverables are required for the evaluation:

  • Inception report
  • Draft Evaluation Report
  • Presentation at the validation workshop with key stakeholders, (partners and beneficiaries)
  • Final Evaluation report

One week after contract signing, the evaluation team will produce an inception report clarifying the objectives, methodology and schedule of the evaluation. The inception report must include an evaluation matrix presenting the evaluation questions, data sources, data collection, analysis tools and methods to be used. Annex 3 provides a simple matrix template. The inception report should detail the specific timing for evaluation activities and deliverables and propose specific site visits and stakeholders to be interviewed. Protocols for different stakeholders should be developed. The inception report will be discussed and agreed with the UNDP Country Office before the evaluation team/national evaluator proceed with provincial visits.

The draft evaluation report will be shared by the evaluation team to the UNDP Country Office, who will circulate the draft to stakeholders. The evaluation team will present the draft report in a validation workshop that the UNDP country office will organize. Feedback received from these sessions should be considered when preparing the final report. The evaluators will produce an ‘audit trail’ (Annex 7) indicating whether and how each comment received was addressed in revisions to the final report.

The suggested table of contents of the evaluation report is found in Annex 2

[1] UNDP Evaluation Guidelines: http://web.undp.org/evaluation/guidance.shtml#handbook

Competencies

Evaluation Team Composition and Required Competencies

The evaluation will be undertaken by a team of 2 external evaluators, a Team Lead (international consultant) and an Associate Evaluator (national consultant). The Team Lead will oversee the entire evaluation process, ensure its successful execution and be responsible for the final product. As the Team Lead, s/he will manage the national consultant. In addition to his/her direct reporting line to the international consultant, the National Consultant will rely on the project staff and stakeholders to prepare the ground for effective and efficient implementation of the evaluation.

The evaluators 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 the project’s related activities.

Required Skills and Experience

Required qualification of the Associate Evaluator

  • Papua New Guinean with extensive experience working in the country during the last 5 years;
  • Minimum master’s degree in the Climate Change, Natural Resource Management, Environment, International Development, or relevant discipline.
  • Experience working in development space with strong Monitoring and Evaluation background;
  • Experience working with UN, especially UNDP in evaluating GEF/GCF funded projects or any other assignment;
  • A deep understanding of the development context in Papua New Guinea and preferably an understanding of climate change/natural resource management issues within the country context;
  • Strong communication skills;
  • Excellent reading and writing skills in English, and preferably also Shona.

The Associate Evaluator will, inter alia, perform the following tasks:

  • Review documents;
  • Participate in the design of the evaluation methodology;
  • Assist in carrying out the evaluation in accordance with the proposed objectives and scope of the evaluation;
  • Draft related parts of the evaluation report as agreed with the Evaluation Manager;
  • Assist the Evaluation Ream Leader to finalize the draft and final evaluation report.
  • Perform any task assigned to him/her by the Evaluation Team Leader

Evaluation Ethics

The evaluation must be carried out in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’ and sign the Ethical Code of Conduct for UNDP Evaluations. In particular, evaluators must be free and clear of perceived conflicts of interest. Interested consultants will not be considered if they were directly and substantively involved, as an employee or consultant, in the formulation of UNDP strategies and programming relating to the project under review. The code of conduct and an agreement form to be signed by each consultant are included in Annex 4.

9. Implementation Arrangements

The UNDP CO will select the evaluation team through standard UNDP procurement processes and will be responsible for the management of the evaluators. The Evaluation Manager will be appointed from the UNDP Programme Support Unit (PSU) to manage the entire evaluation process (e.g., providing relevant documentation, arranging visits/interviews with key informants, etc.) in collaboration with the Project Team. The CO Management will take responsibility for the approval of the final evaluation report. The PSU or designate will arrange introductory meetings within the CO and the DRR or his designate and will establish initial contacts with partners and project staff. The consultants with the support of the Evaluation Manager and the Project Team will take responsibility for setting up meetings and conducting the evaluation, subject to advanced approval of the methodology submitted in the inception report. The CO management will develop a management response to the evaluation within two weeks of report finalization.

For the quality of the evaluation, an Advisory Panel comprising of PSU, Project Manager and a Representative from the Implementing Partner will be established. This Panel will review the inception report and the draft evaluation report to provide detail comments related to the quality of methodology, evidence collected, analysis and reporting. The Panel will also advise on the conformity of evaluation processes to the UNEG standards. The evaluation team is required to address all comments of the Panel completely and comprehensively. The Evaluation Team Leader will provide a detail rationale to the advisory panel for any comment that remain unaddressed.

The evaluation team will use a system of ratings standardizing assessments proposed by the evaluators in the inception report. The evaluation acknowledges that rating cannot be a standalone assessment, and it will not be feasible to entirely quantify judgements. Performance rating will be carried out for the four evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability.

While the Country Office will provide some logistical support during the evaluation, for instance assisting in setting interviews with senior government officials, it will be the responsibility of the evaluators to logistically and financially arrange their travel to and from relevant project sites and to arrange most interviews. Planned travels and associated costs will be included in the Inception Report and agreed with the Country Office.

Timeframe for the Evaluation Process

The evaluation is expected to take 30 working days for each of the two consultants, over a period of six weeks starting 1 June 2022. The final draft evaluation report is due the 13th of July 2022. The following table provides an indicative breakout for activities and delivery:

Activity

Deliverable

Work day allocation

Time period (days) for task completion

Team Lead

Associate Evaluator

Review materials and develop work plan

Inception report and evaluation

schedule

6

4

10

Participate in an Inception Meeting with UNDP PNG country office

Draft inception report

Review Documents and stakeholder consultations

Draft evaluation report Stakeholder workshop presentation

16

20

36

Interview stakeholders

Conduct field visits

Analyse data

Develop draft evaluation and lessons report to Country Office

Present draft Evaluation

Report and lessons at

Validation Workshop

Final evaluation report

8

6

14

Finalize and submit evaluation and lessons learned report incorporating additions and comments provided by stakeholders

totals

30

30

6 weeks

Fees and payments

Interested consultants should provide their requested fee rates when they submit their expressions of interest, in USD. The UNDP Country Office will then negotiate and finalize contracts. Travel costs will be paid against invoice, and subject to the UN payment schedules for PNG. Fee payments will be made upon acceptance and approval by the UNDP Country Office of planned deliverables, based on the following payment schedule:

Deliverable

% of Payment

Inception report

20%

Draft Evaluation Report

40%

Final Evaluation Report + completed Audit Trail

40%

Application Process[1]

Interested individual consultants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications. Please group them into one (1) single PDF document as the application only allows to upload maximum one document:

Recommended Presentation of Proposal:

  1. Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template[2] provided by UNDP;
  2. CV and a Personal History Form (P11 form[3]);
  3. Brief description of approach to work/technical proposal of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment, and a proposed methodology on how they will approach and complete the assignment; (max 1 page)
  4. Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price and all other travel related costs (such as flight ticket, per diem, etc), supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template attached to the Letter of Confirmation of Interest template. If an applicant is employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to UNDP under Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA), the applicant must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP.

[1] Engagement of evaluators should be done in line with guidelines for hiring consultants in the POPP https://popp.undp.org/SitePages/POPPRoot.aspx

[2]https://intranet.undp.org/unit/bom/pso/Support%20documents%20on%20IC%20Guidelines/Template%20for%20Confirmation%20of%20Interest%20and%20Submission%20of%20Financial%20Proposal.docx

[3] http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/Careers/P11_Personal_history_form.doc

Criteria for Evaluation of Proposal: Only those applications which are responsive and compliant will be evaluated. Offers 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.

Technical Criteria for Evaluation for internationals (Maximum 70 points):

  • Criteria-01: Minimum Master’s degree in climate change adaptation, natural resource management/ environmental management/ business/ public administration other related disciplines - Max Point 5;

  • Criteria-02: Minimum 7-10 years of relevant professional experience with knowledge of UNDP and GEF/GCF monitoring and evaluation policies and guidelines - Max Point 25;

  • Criteria-03: Sound knowledge of results-based management systems, and monitoring and evaluation methodologies; including experience in applying SMART (S Specific; M Measurable; A Achievable; R Relevant; T Time-bound) indicators-Max Point 25****;

  • Criteria-04: Experience of working in Papua New Guinea and Asia Pacific Region having technical knowledge in the targeted focal area(s) is an advantage - Max Point 10;
  • Criteria-05: Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and climate change; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis - Max Point 5.

Technical Criteria for Evaluation for national candidates (Maximum 70 points):

  • Criteria-01: Minimum master’s degree in the Climate Change, Natural Resource Management, Environment, International Development, or relevant discipline - Max Point 5;
  • Criteria-02: Extensive experience working in the country during the last 5 years with experience of project evaluation, particularly GEF financed project evaluations, with proven knowledge of evaluation methodologies - Max Point 25;
  • Criteria-03: Experience working in development space with strong Monitoring and Evaluation background with a deep understanding of the development context in Papua New Guinea and preferably an understanding of climate change/natural resource management issues within the country context - Max Point 25;
  • Criteria-04: Proven experiences in field level data collection with adequate knowledge of data collection tools, including KIIs and FGDs - Max Point 10;
  • Criteria-05: Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and climate change; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis - Max Point 5.

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/

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.

Please combine all your documents into one (1) single PDF document as the system only allows to upload maximum one document.

UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply. All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence.

UNDP does not tolerate sexual exploitation and abuse, any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment, and discrimination. All selected candidates will, therefore, undergo rigorous reference and background checks.

ANNEXES FOR READY REFERENCES (Please click to download)

ANNEX-1-ToR NAP TE_PNG FINAL-IC-PNG-006-2022 ANNEX 2 - INDIVIDUAL CONSULTANT GTC ANNEX-3-IC Offerors Letter to UNDP Confirming Interest and Availability ANNEX-4-Statement of Health- Individual Contractor

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