Principal Evaluator for the Final Evaluation of the United Nations Partnership Framework (UNPAF) 2019-2023 for Namibia

Result of Service Purpose and Objectives

a. Purpose. I. To promote greater learning and operational improvement. The evaluation will provide important information for strengthening programming and results at the country level, specifically informing the planning and decision-making for the next CF programme cycle and for improving UN Namibia coordination. The UNCT, Namibia government and other CF stakeholders will learn from the process of documenting good practices and lessons learned II. To support greater accountability of the UNCT to UNPAF stakeholders. By objectively providing evidence of results achieved within the framework of the UNPAF and assessing the effectiveness of the strategies and interventions used, the evaluation will enable the various stakeholders in the UNPAF process, including national counterparts and donors, to hold the UNCT and other parties accountable for fulfilling their roles and commitments.

b. Objectives The UNPAF evaluation have three key objectives namely, to: i. Ensure accountability of UN actions to UNPAF stakeholders, by assessing the contribution of the UNPAF to national development results through evidence-based judgements using evaluation criteria. ii. Provide a transparent and participatory platform for learning and dialogue with stakeholders regarding national progress, challenges and opportunities, and best approaches in the context of the system-wide national response. iii. Deliver clear recommendations to support the next CF cycle and ensure accelerated progress towards the SDGs.

Work Location Namibia

Expected duration 3 months

Duties and Responsibilities 1. Introduction

The United Nations Partnership Framework (UNPAF) 2019-2023, between the United Nations System and the Government of the Republic of Namibia (GRN) signed in 2018, outlined the United Nations support to the realization of the country’s Vision 2030 through the implementation of the Fifth National Development Plan (NDP 5) 2017/18 – 2021/22, the Harambee Prosperity Plan (HPP) and the Blueprint for Wealth Redistribution and Poverty Eradication. Aligned with NDP 5, the UN partnership framework contributes to four main results areas:

1. Economic Progression 2. Social Transformation 3. Environmental Sustainability 4. Good Governance

The selected Outcomes of the UNPAF reflect the strong emphasis on the principle of ‘Leave No One Behind’, which is at the core of the United Nations support to the realisation of the 2030 Agenda. Building on the analysis of the outstanding development challenges captured in the Common Country Assessment (CCA) and the identified United Nations comparative advantages, key interventions under each Outcome have been defined. These focus on enhancing capacities for effective policy implementation, data gathering and analysis, and coordinated cross-sectoral approaches. The UNPAF serves as the collective response of the United Nations System to support the national development initiatives of the Government under the National Vision 2030 and the NDP 5, as well as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other international treaties and conventions.

The UNPAF for 2019-2023 has been prepared by the GRN and the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) in Namibia, including Non-Resident Agencies, through an extensive consultation process with various stakeholders, including civil society organisations (CSOs), bilateral and multilateral organisations, private sector, academia and research institutions/think tanks.

In 2021, the GRN launched the Harambee Prosperity Plan 2 (HPP2) 2021-2025 and has started preparations for the Sixth National Development Plan (NDP 6, 2022/2023-2026/2027), paving the way for a new national development cycle. Namibia, which falls under the UMIC category with high inequality, is enduring the COVID-19 pandemic after several years of adverse economic performance and drought. Some additional challenges exacerbated by COVID-19 in 2020 include:

a) UNECA estimates an increase between 0.75 (best-case) and 1.4 (worst-case) percentage points in unemployment, bringing it up from 33.4% to 34.2% and 34.5%, respectively as a direct result of COVID-19. b) According to UNICEF, a 1% decrease in per capita GDP in Namibia will increase poverty by approximately 1.7% and infant mortality rate by 0.4%. It will take five years or more with an average growth of 4% to reach the growth and per capita level experienced by the country in 2015. c) Multi-dimensional poverty is estimated at 43.3% for overall population whilst 51.3% of children are living in poverty. d) Bank of Namibia expected Namibia’s domestic economy to contract by 7.8% in 2020 owing to declines in tourism, retail, trade and investments, health, and education.

As part of the performance assessment of its implementation, the UNPAF 2019-2023 is to be evaluated in 2022 by an independent evaluation team, to draw lessons for the development of the new UN Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF), to strengthen the way the UN works going forward, as well as the development of individual UN entity Country Programme documents.

The result of the evaluation will be disseminated and utilized widely by Government, Development Partners, Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), civil society, academia, Private Sector and other secondary users including the public through several platforms. It is envisaged that the results will provide strategic and programmatic lessons to promote accountability and visibility around the achievements and work of the UN in Namibia. The key elements of the evaluation will assess, analyse and document how relevant the UNPAF was to Namibia’s development and progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as, how effective and efficient its implementation was, the extent to which the UN Country Team (UNCT) work was coherent internally and externally and finally, to what extent UNPAF implementation added value in a way that the achievements and results are sustainable over time. In line with the 2021 Cooperation Framework Guidance, the evaluation will be undertaken independently, and in consistence with the UN Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards and the UNEG Code of Conduct.

Background - Country Context and UNPAF highlights

The UNPAF 2019-2023 has been prepared in response to the key national plans guiding the development of Namibia. The long-term vision is Namibia’s Vision 2030 – Policy Framework for Long-Term Development (Vision 2030), which is intended to reduce inequalities, and has an overriding objective of creating, “A prosperous and industrialised Namibia, developed by her human resources, enjoying peace, harmony and political stability” with a supporting vision of, “Poverty is reduced to minimum, the existing pattern of income distribution is equitable and disparity is at the minimum”.

The UNPAF was signed by 18 UN entities, among which 10 where resident and 8 were nonresident. The UNPAF is composed of four main results areas/pillars and seven specific outcomes outlining the United Nations’ focus in contribution to each pillar. The UNPAF had an estimated budget of USD 158,237,489, of which it was projected that USD 64,012,056, or 40%, will be available at the start of implementation leaving USD 94,225,434, or 60% of the overall budget, to be mobilized throughout the implementation of UNPAF 2019-2023.

The Results Based Management Group and the Programme Management Team promotes results culture within the United Nations System and assist the Pillars in their efforts to apply Results-Based Management (RBM) tools and principles in their annual planning, monitoring and reporting. The PMT is ultimately, responsible for providing internal oversight of implementation of UNPAF 2019-2023, by monitoring the planning, implementation and reporting of the four UNPAF Results Groups.

The UNPAF 2019-2023 was also significantly influenced by the classification of Namibia as an Upper Middle-Income Country (UMIC). This income status impacts the funding of the United Nations System, the kind of support the UN System delivered, and how it delivered the support. The support of the UN System in MICs has been broadly analysed and discussed. It is the subject of several recent General Assembly Resolutions which reiterate the challenges faced by MICs, especially in terms of inequalities and vulnerability of their development gains to internal and external shocks, while noting that the UN System will have to reprofile its modus operandi to more effectively respond to the features of these countries’ MIC status. Furthermore, the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, as noted above, dictates for the UN to take bold steps to align its operations, capacities and expertise to deliver on the new development agenda.

In line with the above, this UNPAF is driven by the understanding that working in silos is no longer an option and that capacities to provide integrated policy advice are the key to supporting Namibia’s progress towards the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. In Namibia, as in other MICs, the United Nations will consistently provide support to look beyond national averages (strengthening, inter alia, statistical capacities), facilitate exchanges of experiences and transfer of knowledge with other countries through south-south and triangular cooperation, and facilitate the development of multi-stakeholder partnerships, leveraging its convening power.

In the spirit of SDG 17 on Partnerships, the United Nations will continue to play an enabling role between partner institutes and governments, and upscale efforts in the UNPAF 2019-2023 to offer opportunities for learning and sharing experiences. This includes enabling other countries in the region to learn from Namibia’s development successes and challenges. By doing so, the United Nations System supported GRN in strengthening international integration, and to learn from other countries that are making (or having made) similar transitions. The United Nations also supported GRN in its ambition to increase the share of financing from the private sector (foreign as well as domestic) through public private partnerships (PPPs). In addition to identifying and exploring opportunities, the United Nations played an important role in promoting robust accountability standards and monitoring for PPPs and building the capacity of small-and medium size enterprises (SMEs) to participate in PPPs.

One of the major principles on which Vision 2030 is based is “partnerships", which is recognised as a major prerequisite for the achievement of dynamic, efficient and sustainable development. This involves partnerships between the GRN, communities and civil society; partnerships between different branches of GRN, with the private sector, non-governmental organisations, community-based organisations and the international community; partnerships between urban and rural societies; and, ultimately, partnerships between and among all members of the Namibian society.

Namibia presented her second Voluntary National Review Report to the World, which predominantly highlights the progress that the country has made over the past three years. Contrary to the previous report, which only looked at a few SDGs, Namibia VNR reported on all her 17 goals and indicators in the spirit of leaving no one behind, a notion adopted by the country. It is worth stating that during the 2nd VNR review period, Namibia has made major improvements in the fight against poverty and food hunger through the promotion of sustainable agricultural activities such as improving food security programmes and continuing to implement green scheme actions.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been deeply felt across various social and economic sectors in Namibia, including GDP growth, production sectors, government revenue and business operations for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs). According to the National Statistics Agency (NSA), the Namibian economy contracted by 11.1% in the second quarter, the deepest contraction since 2013. The Bank of Namibia (BoN) estimates that the country’s 2020 overall production will be N$ 11.2 billion lower than in 2019 (BoN, 2020). Domestic consumption is expected to take a hit, with private demand predicted to decline between N$6 billion and N$12 billion. In a drive to minimize the impacts of the pandemic on the economy and the citizens within its borders – especially the most vulnerable members of the population – the Government of the Republic of Namibia (GRN) rolled out a stimulus and relief package of N$8.1 billion in April 2020.

During this complicated time of economic distress and when decades-long progress in living standards are threatened of being reversed, it is crucial to plan for the future. However, resources are even more limited as before, as newly acquired funds tend to be redirected to service the needs of the present, rather than prepare for the future. Moist of the UN agencies have reprogrammed development resources to respond to the COVID 19 Pandemic.

Table 1: UNPAF Strategic Priorities, Outcomes, risks and assumptions

Strategic Priorities/Pillars

PILLAR 1 ECONOMIC PROGRESSION

With the overall aim of reducing poverty and inequalities in the country, the United Nations will support the GRN’s programmes to sustain economic growth and promote the gradual change of the economic structure towards labor-intensive sectors as well as value addition and local content development, it will be less prone to external shocks and will be able to absorb the growing young and urban population. The comparative advantage of the United Nations System in this area is identified in its capacity-building competencies to specifically address the implementation gap that characterizes most sectors in the country.

Outcomes 1.1 by 2023, institutions implement policies for inclusive development and poverty reduction for vulnerable groups Output 1.1: Vulnerable groups empowered with knowledge and skills and participate in economic activities Output 1.2: Government capacity strengthened in areas of programme design and implementation of programmes in agricultures, research, innovation, and industrialization Output 1.3: Reliable data and evidence produced informing targeting and programming

UN agencies: FAO, ILO, IOM, UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEF,UNIDO, WFP

PILLAR 2 SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION

The second Pillar of the current national development plan encompasses a wide-range of issues under the overarching goal to “Build Capable and Healthy Human Resources”. This covers areas and sectors where a number of United Nations Agencies have specific expertise and mandates, and hence can provide the most significant contribution.

Outcomes HEALTH 2.1 by 2023, vulnerable women, children, adolescents and young people in Namibia have access to and utilise quality integrated health care and nutrition services - universal health coverage (UHC) Output 2.1.1: Improved implementation of nutrition programmes for the targeted vulnerable groups/population; Output 2.1.2: Capacity of the health system strengthened to provide good quality health services and improved emergency response (prevention, detection and response)

UN Agencies: ILO, UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNODC, WHO, WFP

EDUCATION 2.2 by 2023, vulnerable children and young people in Namibia have equitable access to inclusive quality education and life-long learning Output 2.2.1 Capacity of the education system strengthened and access to education at all levels (ECD to tertiary). Output 2.2.2 Monitoring and data generation including evidence improved to aid policy and program design and implementation. Output 2.2.3 Impediments to broader participation of children and young people's participation in and out of school removed.

UN Agencies: ILO, UNAIDS, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, WFP, WHO

PROTECTION AGAINST VIOLENCE 2.3 by 2023, vulnerable women and children are empowered and protected against violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation Output 2.3.1 Evidence generated, and data collected to inform policies, programme design and implementation of interventions that are aimed at addressing GBV; Output 2.3.2 The capacity of service providers to GBV victims and perpetrators improved to respond to the needs of both parties

UN Agencies: ILO, IOM, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNODC, WHO

SOCIAL PROTECTION 2.4 by 2023, vulnerable children, people living with disabilities, marginalized communities, and poor utilize quality, integrated social protection services Output 2.4.1 : Capacity building support in all forms provided to strengthen the national social protection system to ensure improved access and service delivery; Output 2.4.2: Broader social protection policy developed and approved to provide basis for the implementation of social protection programmes nationally.

UN Agencies: ILO, UNAIDS, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF

PILLAR 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

The focus, again, is on reaching the groups of people that are more at risk of being left behind as they are vulnerable to shocks and the effects of climate change and are not benefitting from effective management of the country’s rich natural resources. Reducing inequalities in the country does not necessarily involve addressing the issue of equitable and sustainable use of its natural resources, especially mining and land. The United Nations has identified several strategic interventions to reach this Outcome and contribute to both the Environmental Sustainability Pillar of NDP 5 and the GRN’s efforts towards disaster risk management which cut across the Economic Progression and Social Transformation Pillars in the national plan.

Outcomes 3.1 by 2023, vulnerable populations in disaster prone areas and biodiversity sensitive areas are resilient to shocks and climate change effects and benefit from natural resources management Output 3.1.1: Relevant policies, regulatory frameworks and institutions enabled to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, access and benefit sharing of natural resources, biodiversity and ecosystems, in line with international conventions and national legislationcontent Output 3.1.2: Improved capacity to prepare, prevent, respond and recover from climate change induced variabilities.

UN Agencies: FAO, ILO, IOM, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNODC

PILLAR 4 GOOD GOVERNANCE

The need to expand people’s participation in quality decision-making processes, and in general civil society engagement, clearly emerged in the CCA, where lack of participation was also identified as one of the cross-cutting underlying causes hindering further advancement in human development. This was also indicated as an area where the United Nations has a strong comparative advantage given its role as a neutral partner and broker, as well as its competencies in strengthening relevant institutions. The United Nations in Namibia has hence resolved to focus on working with national and regional institutions to create an enabling environment for people’s participation and promoting their transparency and accountability not only to citizens, but more broadly to respond to commitments made under international conventions and treaties.

Outcomes 4.1 by 2023, government institutions at national and regional level are accountable and transparent, engaging citizens in participatory decision-making processes Output 4.1.1: National statistical system improved with data collection, storage and retrieval improved. Output 4.1.2 Governance capacity strengthened ensuring accountability, reporting and service delivery improvements.

UN Agencies: ILO, IOM, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, UNIDO, WFP

RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS

i. Vulnerability to external economic shocks: The high dependency of Namibia’s economy on South Africa’s economy for imports and in general to external markets for exporting natural resources (the bulk of its economy), means that fluctuation in prices of Namibia’s key export goods and/or contraction of the economy in the connected countries would have very negative effects on the country’s balance of payments.

ii. Risk of natural disasters: Namibia is prone to natural disasters, as well as health and humanitarian emergencies resulting from the HIV and AIDS epidemic and deepening food insecurity. Natural disasters such as floods, drought and desertification are already negatively affecting human development, with resources for human development priorities being consistently diverted to disaster response, delaying developmental programmes.

iii. Persistent inequalities: Despite the high level of overall stability Namibia has enjoyed since independence, persistent staggering inequalities along ethnic, regional and residential area lines, as well as the growing unemployed youth population and lingering land reform, pose a threat to this status quo. The high levels of domestic violence and GBV is also of concern in this respect31. These risks have clearly been taken into consideration in the GRN’s development path and reflected in the UNPAF. The first risk is being addressed by Namibia’s plan to restructure and diversify its economy. This is a long-term goal that will take time to realise. Economic shocks will continue to represent a threat to the development gains in the timeframe of this UNPAF. Should they occur, they might have an impact on the GRN’s financial capacity to sustain social services expenditure, which would in turn affect achievement of the Outcomes under this partnership framework. Vulnerability to disasters and addressing staggering inequalities underpin the focus of this UNPAF and are expected to bear results in the five-year programme cycle. However, it is crucial that the situation continues to be monitored to detect early signs of any possible deterioration.

Assumptions

The assumption is that by enhancing capacities across the board to reach out to the most vulnerable groups of people, inequalities and intracommunity violence will decrease over time, while resilience of the system and communities to natural hazards is built. This also assumes that government institutions will be equipped to deliver needed services and that proper inter-sectoral coordination structures are in place.

2. Scope The UNPAF evaluation will cover all UN development system (UNDS) programmes (resident, nonresident and regional) implemented in Namibia in the framework of the 2019-2023 UNPAF, during the first three years of implementation, from January 2019 to December 2022. Due consideration should be given to the activities of agencies without a formal country programme, activities implemented as part of global or regional programmes and projects, and the activities of non-resident agencies with explicit recognition of regional and cross-border elements within the UNPAF. In principle, the UNPAF evaluation should not seek to conduct a full evaluation of individual programmes, project or activities of UNCT members, but rather synthesize and build on the programme and project evaluations conducted by each agency.

The evaluation is expected to address UNPAF programming principles (human rights-based approach, gender equality, environmental sustainability, results-based management, capacity development). The evaluation will also cover humanitarian interventions in disaster prone districts. The results of the evaluation will inform the next programme cycle by generating evidence, lessons learnt and recommendations based on the assessment of the current performance of the UNPAF outcomes and processes. The timing of this evaluation is crucial in feeding into the preparation and planning phase for the next UNSDCF cycle which is scheduled to commence from January-April 2023. The evaluation will determine how UN entities contributed to the Government development efforts under the UNPAF - the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and sustainability of UN support , including aligning with Government priorities and strategies and shaping the development agenda. The CF evaluation is expected to explicitly address cross-cutting issues such as gender equality and women’s empowerment, human rights and non-discrimination, disability inclusion and environmental sustainability through an adequate evaluation design. The evaluation is also expected to apply the evaluation questions and methodology to yield key findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

In terms of geographic coverage, the evaluation will have a nationwide scope, covering all 14 regions of Namibia. However, given Namibia’s UMIC status, most of the UN activities are implemented at National level (Strengthening National Institutions and Policies). The evaluation should follow an inclusive approach, engaging a broad range of stakeholders and partners representing the Government, civil society organizations, the private sector, other multilateral organizations, and bilateral donors, which are the primary and secondary users of the evaluation results.

The UNPAF evaluation is not expected to be a set of summative evaluations of individual UN agency’s programmes or projects, rather it will build on the country programme and project evaluations conducted by each agency to present a synthesis and broader evaluative judgements about the UNPAF.

3. Evaluation Criteria and Questions

a. Evaluation criteria Following the UN Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards and the UNEG Code of Conduct the UNPAF Evaluation will focus on programme relevance and adaptability, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, coordination, sustainability and orientation towards impact. Gender equality and empowerment of women, human rights, disability inclusion and environmental sustainability concerns will be integrated within each of the criteria. The final evaluation questions and evaluation matrix will be agreed with the ESC, chaired by the National Planning Commission and finalized by the Evaluation Team in the inception report.

b. Preliminary evaluation questions The evaluation will look into the following criteria or areas:

Programme relevance and adaptability: The extent to which the UNPAF objectives and design respond to beneficiaries, global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change. General questions to ask under this criterion includes but not limited to; 1. To what extent have the partnerships with the national government specifically (e.g., ministries, agencies and other representatives) remained strong or was challenged at times of national emergencies and how well did the RC and UNCT were able to promote national ownership of supported new interventions, programmes and policies proposed by the UN to address emergencies? 2. To what extent did the implementation of the CF (joint workplan and agencies programmes) adjust to emerging issues faced by the country during the implementation?

Coherence: The compatibility of the intervention with other interventions in a country, sector or institution. 3. To what extent has the UNPAF promoted complementarity, harmonization and co-ordination with other key development partners to maximize the achievement of results? 4. To what extent has the UN system promoted or supported policies that are consistent among each other and across sectors, given the multi-sectoral nature of social and economic development?

Effectiveness: The extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, and its results, including any differential results across groups. 5. To what extent did the UNPAF adopt and promote resilience-building approaches in support of governments' sustainable development objectives? 6. To what extent has the UNPAF contributed to key institutional, behavioural and legislative changes that are critical for catalysing progress towards the UNPAF desired impact?

Efficiency: The extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way. Has the UNPAF reduced transaction costs for partners through greater UN coherence and discipline? 7. To what extent has the UNPAF collectively prioritized activities based on the needs (demand side) rather than on the availability of resources (supply side), and reallocated resources according to the collective priorities and changing needs if/where necessary? 8. How adequate has the UNPAF been in facilitating the effective reallocation of resources to emerging needs and priorities?

Coordination: The extent to which the different agencies delivered as One UN 9. To what extent does the UNPAF fully reflect the interests, priorities and mandate of UN agencies in the country? 10. How well was the RCO able to successfully coordinate responses to national and global emerging issues during the implementation of the UNPAF?

Sustainability: The extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue. 11. What mechanisms, if any, has the CF established to ensure socio-political, institutional, financial and environmental sustainability? 12. What is the likelihood that progress towards the SDGs is sustained by national partners and stakeholders over time?

Orientation towards impact. The extent to which the intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects. 13. To what extent have UN activities stemming from the CF strengthened economic and individual resilience and contributed to reducing vulnerability against shocks and crises? 14. To what extent have UN activities stemming from the CF strengthened economic and individual resilience and contributed to reducing vulnerability against shocks and crises?

4. Evaluation Approach and Methodology

Approach It is recommended that the evaluation should follow UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluations, as well as UNEG Ethical Guidelines, which will be provided to the consultant at inception phase. As a precondition, the methodology to be adopted by the evaluation team should enhance the utility and national ownership of evaluation results. The methodology to be used should ensure involvement of key stakeholders throughout the evaluation process (e.g. stakeholder workshop, debriefing of evaluation users, etc.). Examples of approaches include participatory, utilization-focused, and theory-based. Also, it is expected that the inception report should include the Evaluation design matrix, sampling plans and work plan.

Reference to the data collection methods should be identified following: analysis of availability of existing evaluative evidence and administrative data, logistical constraints (travel, costs, time, etc.) and ethical considerations (especially when evaluating sensitive topics such as gender-based violence or in sensitive settings such as post-conflict settings). The evaluation methodology should comprise the use of multiple methods, including an analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data, to capture the intervention’s contribution to the achievement of expected and unexpected outcomes. Multiple methods and tools should be used for validation and triangulation of findings.

Data collection, analysis and presentation of findings should be responsive to and include issues relating to gender equality and empowerment of women, diversity inclusion and non-discrimination, human rights and environmental sustainability. The methodological approach should accounts for existing evaluations and the synthesis of evaluative evidence e.g. project evaluations, agency-specific evaluations, CF mid-term review, etc. The evaluation methodology takes into account the overall purpose of the evaluation, as well as the needs of the users and other stakeholders.

Methodology The evaluation will use a combination of document reviews, analysis of other quantitative secondary data, individual interviews with key informants and focus groups or other types of group discussion to collect data. The evaluation team will develop the evaluation methodology in accordance with the evaluation approach and design tools to collect appropriate data and information as strong, evidence-based answers to answer the overall evaluation questions. The methodological design will include: an analytical framework; a strategy for data collection and analysis; specially designed tools; an evaluation matrix; and a detailed work plan.

Sampling approach: A purposive sampling approach will be used to select programmes (joint workplans; joint programmes; UN agencies strategic plans etc.) that will be covered in the scope of the CF evaluation. The selected programmes components should have sufficient level of transformational intent (depth, breadth, and size) and maturity. The purposive sampling approach will also be used to target groups and stakeholders to be consulted. It is expected that the list of target groups will ensure adequate representation of beneficiaries, including civil society organizations with an emphasis on vulnerable groups, e.g people living with disabilities, and other marginalized groups. The selection will be informed by the portfolio analysis and stakeholder mapping undertaken during the inception phase of the evaluation. This analysis will yield information on the relevant initiatives and partners to be part of the evaluation (including those that may not have partnered with the UNCT but play a key role in the outcomes to which CF contributes). The evaluation team should clearly outline the sample selection criteria and process and identify any potential bias and limitations, including the steps towards addressing the limitations.

The sampling technique should ensure that the selected samples adequately reflect the diversity of stakeholders of the intervention and pay special attention to the inclusion, participation, and non-discrimination of the most vulnerable stakeholders. This process will enhance the credibility and technical adequacy of the information gathered.

Data collection: The evaluation will use quantitative and qualitative approaches, including literature review, statistics at national and local levels, survey data, semi-structured interviews, direct observation, focus groups and workshops.

Quality assurance: The data collected should be subjected to a rigorous quality assurance for validation purposes, using a variety of tools including triangulation of information sources and permanent exchange with the CF implementation entities at Country Office level.

Evaluation Matrix[2]: The evaluation team will use the template of the evaluation matrix provided by the evaluation manager to systematically structure and consolidate the data collected for each of the evaluation questions. This matrix will allow them, among other things, to identify the missing data and thus fill these gaps before the end of the collection. This matrix will also help to ensure the validity of the data collected.

Participation and inclusion: This evaluation should be conducted using a participatory and inclusive approach[3], involving a wide range of partners and stakeholders. The evaluation team will carry out a stakeholder mapping in order to identify the direct and indirect partners of the CF, specifically targeting United Nations organizations and representatives of the national government. Stakeholders mapping may include civil society organizations[4], the private sector, other multilateral and bilateral cooperation organizations and, above all, the beneficiaries of the program.

Contribution analysis (based on the "theory of change"): The evaluation will be conducted on the basis of a theoretical approach, which means that the evaluation methodology will be based on a careful analysis of the expected results, outputs and contextual factors (which may affect the implementation of the CF interventions) and their potential to achieve the desired effects. The analysis of the CF’s theory of change and the reconstruction of its intervention logic, if necessary, will therefore play a central role in the design of the evaluation, in the analysis of the data collected throughout the evaluation, in communicating results and in developing relevant and practical conclusions and recommendations.

The theory of change analysis should be limited to the soundness of the “agencies’ and joint workplans” outputs contributions to the outcome level and SDG indicators. Evaluators will base their evaluation on the analysis and interpretation of the logical consistency of the results chain: linking program outputs to changes at a higher level of outcomes, based on observations and data collected during the process along the result chain. This analysis should serve as a basis for the judgment of the evaluators on the contribution of the current CF to the achievement of the outcome level results as targeted by the CF.

Finalization of the evaluation questions and assumptions: The evaluation team will finalize the evaluation questions after consultations with the evaluation steering committee and thematic groups. The final evaluation questions should be a reasonable number, generally not exceeding 15. They should clearly reflect the evaluation criteria as well as the indicative evaluation questions listed in this Terms of Reference. They should also take advantage of the results of the reconstruction of the intervention logic of the cooperation framework.

The evaluation questions will be included in the evaluation matrix (see appendix) and should be supplemented by sets of hypotheses that capture the key aspects of the intervention logic associated with the scope of the question. Data collection for each of the assumptions will be guided by clearly formulated quantitative and qualitative indicators, also indicated in the matrix.

5. Management Arrangements

Evaluation manager The Evaluation process will be managed by the UN Evaluation Manager, the Programme management Team Chairperson, who will be responsible for day-to-day management and oversee the entire process of the evaluation, from its preparation to dissemination, use of the final Evaluation Report and UNCT Management Response. Technical support and back-stopping will be provided by the UN Resident Coordinator Office with the involvement of the PMT. Quality assurance and technical advice may be provided by UN DCO evaluation experts.

Evaluation steering committee Under the leadership of the National Planning commission, the Evaluation Steering Committee is engaged from the outset together with the Evaluation Manager to guide the whole evaluation process. The Committee ensures the technical and factual quality of the data, analysis and findings. Once the evaluation report is finalized and signed off by DCO, the RC/RCO and Evaluation Steering Committee will be responsible for coordinating to prepare the formal management response to the evaluation. It should contain a response to each recommendation (normally prepared in tabular format) and a follow-up mechanism.

Composition of the evaluation team This job opening is for one Principal Evaluator for the UNPAF final evaluation who will lead the evaluation exercise. The Principal Evaluator must be able to work in a multidisciplinary team and multicultural environment, and should be knowledgeable of issues pertaining to human rights, gender equality and how to ensure the full inclusion of all team members (e.g. ensuring communications are accessible for colleagues with disabilities). The Principal Evaluator should abide by the UNEG Code of Conduct for carrying out the evaluations.

The Principal Evaluator may sub-contract national consultants to carry out the deliverables expected in this consultancy without additional cost for the United Nations. The Evaluation Team will conduct the evaluation in line with UNEG guidance which will be overseen by the UN Evaluation Manager. The areas of expertise of the Evaluation Team members will match the UNPAF results areas.

The Principal Evaluator will have overall responsibility for producing a quality assured and timely UNPAF Evaluation Report to the Evaluation Steering Committee, UN RC Office and the UNCT.

Duties & Responsibilities: - Implementation of the evaluation process in a timely manner - Work closely with the other members of the Evaluation Team - Review documents, clarify research methods, lead production of the design report - Conduct field visits to the project sites identified and collect data - Assume main research responsibility with support of the Evaluation Team members - Conducting stakeholder consultations - Presentation of the interim evaluation report and integrate feedback into the report - Presentation to the validation workshop and finalisation of the evaluation report; and - Ensure a gender-sensitive and human-rights based approach. Required Qualifications.

Qualifications/special skills Academic Qualifications: Advanced or post-graduate degree (Masters and equivalent) in International Relations, Political Science, International Development, Governance and Public Policy, Social Sciences, Development Evaluation or a related subject is required. Experience: - A minimum of ten years of functionally related professional evaluation experience including documented previous experience in managing and leading complex UNDAF/UN evaluations is required. - Experience in analyzing social and economic development, environmental and governance issues is required. - Demonstrated ability to work in multicultural environment is desirable. - Excellent presentation and drafting, report writing skills, and familiarity with information technology, including proficiency in word processing, spreadsheets, and presentation software is desirable. - Specialized experience and/or technical knowledge in data collection and analytical skills, particularly in understanding of human rights-based approaches; gender considerations and environmental sustainability is required. - Knowledge and experience in Results Based Management, logic modelling/logical framework analysis; participatory and utilization focused approaches is required. - Previous experience working in Namibia and/or knowledge and understanding of the development, political, social and cultural context of Namibia or similar settings in the region is an advantage. Language: English and French are the working languages of the UN Secretariat. For this position, fluency in oral and written English is required.

No Fee THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE AT ANY STAGE OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS (APPLICATION, INTERVIEW MEETING, PROCESSING, OR TRAINING). THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH INFORMATION ON APPLICANTS’ BANK ACCOUNTS.

Apply now

Added 2 years ago - Updated 2 years ago - Source: careers.un.org