Jobs

Serbia became a Party to the Paris Agreement in August 2017. Previously, Serbia submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the UNFCCC on June 15th, 2015, prior to the UNFCCC COP21 with a pledge to reduce its GHG emission by 9,8% from the 1990 level by 2030. Also, Serbia's INDC contains adaptation related part due to decades long negative impacts of the climate change and vulnerability of the country. This pledge/NDC will be achieved by reducing emissions in key sectors, such as energy production/consumption, agriculture, waste management, transport, and forestry. By ratifying the Paris Climate Agreement in July 2017, Serbia's INDC became its NDC.

Serbia has made much progress in establishing an effective institutional and legal framework to combat climate change, though significant gaps and needs remain. These include further capacity building and information/ knowledge sharing among responsible and competent institutions, at the national and local levels. Through the EU IPA assistance framework, there is on-going work on the development of a National Climate Change Strategy (it is expected that this document will be adopted by the end of 2019). The combination of the results of the NAP process and the expected National Climate Change Strategy will provide an enabling policy environment to support further integration of climate change adaptation (CCA) issues into existing strategies.

Serbia has also begun establishing the basic institutional structure for overall coordination of the climate change policy, with a focus on climate change mitigation. Coordination occurs mainly through the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC), comprised of key governmental institutions, state agencies, research community and CSO representatives that is responsible for oversight and the M&E of climate change related actions, and the process of preparing and implementing the NDCs.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management is the GCF focal institution and also the ministry in charge of the most climate-vulnerable sectors in Serbia. The Unit for Climate Change in agriculture within this ministry has the responsibility for inclusion of climate change issues into sectoral policies and legislation, among others. The Ministry of Environmental Protection, Climate Change Unit is the UNFCCC focal point, and provides ad-hoc secretariat services to the NCCC. The Ministry of Environmental Protection is also the main Government institution responsible for coordination of the process of preparation of National Communications and Biennial Update Reports, and for overall compliance and coordination with UNFCCC and EU climate policy requirements. Serbia is party to the UNFCCC since 2001 and a Non-Annex 1 Party to the Kyoto Protocol).

Though CCA policies and measures have been, to a certain extent, recognized in the National Communications, the majority of sectorial strategic and regulatory documents contain only indirect and fragmentary references that relate to CCA. This indicates a need for further coordination, integration and progress monitoring across all sectors. The sectors whose documents some references to CCA include the agriculture, forestry, water management and health sectors. The new Law on Climate Change and the new Strategy for Climate Change with the Action Plan for the Republic of Serbia are key measures in improving the enabling environment.

The NAP process is expected to help create these much-needed linkages and supporting mechanisms by helping bridge sectorial ‘silos.’ These linkages will also need to be reflected in a planned, comprehensive climate change MRV system that will allow for incremental and more ambitious increases in sectorial targets and goals, per the Paris Agreement, leading to future revisions and improvements in the NDC.

The underlying challenge is that currently there is no comprehensive framework for adaptation in Serbia, though the National Communications provide a preliminary assessment of climate-induced vulnerabilities. To leverage these preliminary activities towards climate resilience, this readiness effort aims to support priorities identified in the NDC by addressing existing weaknesses and barriers.

About the Project

The Project “Advancing medium and long-term adaptation planning in the Republic of Serbia (NAP)” is supported by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and implemented by UNDP in Serbia.

[1] https://www.undp.org/iraq/publications/undp-strategic-plan-2018-2021

[2] https://www.undp.org/publications/undp-strategic-plan-2022-2025

Project activities and information is also available at the project’s website on the link https://adaptacije.klimatskepromene.rs/en/home/ .The overall Project’s objective is to improve Serbia’s legal framework for addressing climate change vulnerabilities and strengthen institutional capacities for integrating climate change adaptation (CCA) measures into decision making and investment planning. The Project advances adaptation planning in Serbia with a focus on most vulnerable sectors such as agriculture, water management forestry, infrastructure, health and biodiversity, upgrading the knowledge base for adaptation, prioritizing adaptation interventions for the medium term, building institutional capacities for integrating climate change adaptation and demonstrating innovative ways of financing adaptation at the sub-national/local government level.

The project has suffered additional delay due to COVID-19. Serbia recorded its first COVID-19 patient on 6 March 2020 and by the end of the month the Government declared state of emergency, including a partial lockdown and restriction on public gathering, travel and curfew across the country. The Project has readjusted its activities to the new mode of work and importantly, supported the partners in addressing recovery from and resilience to pandemic.  So far, the country has recorded over 2 million confirmed cases, with over 16,000 deaths. In August 2020, the GCF approved a 3-month extension of the project at no additional cost, due to COVID 19 delays in implementation of project activities.

In addition, The Government of Serbia adopted the Law on Climate Change in March 2021, and as per this Law, the Government of Serbia must adopt the National Adaptation Planning (NAP), a public policy document complementary to the Law on Climate Change. The deadline for adoption is March 2023. Furthermore, as per the Law on Planning System adopted in 2018, for every public policy document, ex-ante analysis (impact assessment) must be performed, which is a time-consuming process that requires engagement of numerous stakeholders. The Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), as the responsible institution is in the process of preparing and submitting the NAP Programme document to the Government.  The Presidential and Parliamentary Elections took place on 3 April 2022 and the new Government was established in late October 2022, which led to a certain delay in MEP’s responses and the dynamic of the NAP development process. Considering these delays, the project requested and obtained an additional 6-month project extension at no cost.

In order to accomplish the overall objectives to advance medium and long-term adaptation planning, the activities have been designed under three components or outcomes, and two phases.  This project is the first phase and covers the first two of the three outcomes:

• Outcome 1: National mandate and steering mechanism in place for long-term CCA
• Outcome 2: NAP implementation strategy developed
• Outcome 3: System to monitor progress on adaptation strengthened and financing strategy for medium- and long-term CCA established

Purpose

UNDP commissions programme evaluations to capture and demonstrate evaluative evidence of its contributions to development results at the country level as articulated in UNDP’s Country Programme Document (CPD). These are evaluations carried out within the overall provisions contained in the UNDP Evaluation Policy. In line with the Evaluation Plan of UNDP Serbia and GCF Rules and Procedures, project evaluation is planned to be commissioned within the last six months of the project implementation.

The UNDP Office in Serbia is commissioning this independent evaluation on the NAP project to 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 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 Serbia with an impartial assessment of the results of NAP’s intervention.

Scope

The Evaluation will assess the extent to which the planned Project outcomes and outputs have been achieved since the beginning of the Project on 10 December 2019 and likelihood for their full achievement by the end of the Project on 23 July 2023 (based on the Project Document and its results framework). The Evaluation will investigate the overall Project performance and results of the Project, capturing the changes triggered by the Project in the area of Climate Change Adaptation in the country.

To the extent possible, the Evaluation will also consider the results of the Project’s contribution to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Evaluation will look into the Project’s processes, strategic partnerships and linkages in the specific country’s context that proved critical in producing the intended outputs and the factors that facilitated and/or hindered the progress in achieving the outputs, both in terms of the external environment and risks, crisis caused by the pandemic, as well as internal, including weaknesses in programme design, management and implementation, human resource skills, and resources.

Evaluation criteria and key questions

The Evaluation of the Project Advancing medium and long-term adaptation planning in the Republic of Serbia will address the following questions, so as to determine the Project’s relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability, including lessons learned and forward-looking recommendations:  

Relevance and coherence

• Were the Project objectives relevant to the needs and priorities of the country, having in mind political, social, legal and institutional context of the country?
• To what extent has NAP’s selected method of delivery been appropriate to the development context?
• To what extent was the theory of change presented in the outcome model a relevant and appropriate vision on which to base the initiatives?
• Where the Project’s objectives and implementation strategies consistent with global, regional and country’s environmental policies and strategies, considering Green Climate Fund and UN/UNDP Strategic Frameworks, EU accession agenda and Agenda 2030?
• Based on an analysis of Project stakeholders, the evaluation should assess the relevance of the Project intervention to key stakeholder groups.
• Were adequate steps taken by the Project to adjust its implementation strategy to the new circumstances and needs imposed by COVID-19 pandemic relevant?

Effectiveness

• What evidence is there that the programme has contributed towards an improvement in national government capacity, including institutional strengthening?
• To what extent have the intended results been achieved? What are the main Project accomplishments?
• Briefly explain the reasons behind the success (or failure) of the Project in producing its different outputs and meeting expected quality standards? Were key stakeholders appropriately involved in producing the programmed outputs?
• To what extent and how effectively have the Project specific approach and actions contributed to its outputs and outcomes? If so, why? If not, why not?
• 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?
• Has the NAP programme been effective in helping improve climate change adaptation planning in Serbia?

Efficiency

• Have resources (financial, human, technical) been allocated strategically and economically to achieve the Project results? Were the Project activities implemented as scheduled and with the planned financial resources? Is the relationship between Project inputs and results achieved appropriate and justifiable?
• To what extent have the target groups and other stakeholders taken an active role in implementing the Project? What modes of participation have taken place? How efficient have partner institutions been in supporting the Project’s implementation?
• Has the communication and outreach of the Project been satisfactory?
• Has there been an economical use of financial and human resources and strategic allocation of resources (funds, human resources, time, expertise, etc.)?
• Did the Project have a sound M&E plan to monitor results and track progress towards achieving Project objectives?

Impact

• What is the Project impact in qualitative as well as quantitative terms from a broader development and system building perspective? What would the development have been like without the Project interventions in the area of concern?
• What are the positive or negative, intended or unintended, changes brought about by the Project’s interventions?
• What real differences have the Project interventions made to the beneficiaries? How many people have been affected? Have women and men equally benefited from the Project?
• Assess any real change in gender equality, e.g. access to and control of resources, decision- making power, division of labor, etc.
• To what extent are key stakeholders/final beneficiaries satisfied with the implementation and results of the Project, specifically in terms of the partnership support and what are specific remaining issues in the area of concern?
• To what extent has the Project elevated cooperation between relevant institutions?
• Were there contributions to changes in socio-economic status (income, health, well-being, etc.)?
• How have cross-cutting issues, such as gender equality and reaching the most vulnerable, been effectively taken up?
• What is the mid-term and long-term Project influence on climate change adaptation in the country resulting from the NAP policy frameworks?
• Identify barriers and risks that may prevent further progress towards long-term impact.

Sustainability

• To what extent are the achieved outcomes and outputs sustainable? How could Project’s results be further sustainably projected and expanded, having in mind the remaining needs? And by which institutions?
• What mechanisms have been set in place by NAP to support the Government of Serbia to sustain improvements made through these interventions?
• To what extent has a sustainability strategy, including capacity development of key national stakeholders, been developed or implemented? How has the project developed appropriate institutional capacity (systems, structures, staff, expertise, etc.) that will be self-sufficient after the project closure date?
• Are there any social or political factors that may influence positively or negatively the sustenance of Project results and progress towards impacts? Is the level of ownership by the main stakeholders sufficient to allow for the Project results to be sustained?
• Are there sufficient government and other key stakeholder awareness, interests, commitment and incentives to utilize the tools, approaches and roadmaps in the development of NAPs?
• What are the innovations/ best practices that need to be further build upon?
• What opportunities exist for financial sustainability?

Catalytic role of the Project

The catalytic role of the Green Climate Fund interventions is embodied in their approach of supporting the creation of an enabling environment and of investing in pilot activities which are innovative and showing how new approaches can work. UNDP also aim to support activities that upscale new approaches to a national, regional or global level, with a view to achieve sustainable global environmental benefits. The evaluation will assess the catalytic role played by this Project, namely to what extent the Project has:

• Catalyzed behavioral changes in terms of use and application, by the relevant stakeholders, of capacities developed;
• Contributed to institutional changes, for instance institutional uptake of Project demonstrated technologies, practices or management approaches;
• Contributed to policy changes (on paper and in implementation of policy);
• Contributed to sustained follow-on financing (catalytic financing) from Governments, private sector, donors etc.;
• Created opportunities for particular individuals or institutions to catalyze change (without which the Project would not have achieved all of its results).

Cross cutting issues

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

• Human rights
  • To what extent have poor, indigenous and tribal peoples, women and other disadvantaged and marginalized groups benefitted from NAP’s interventions?
• Gender Equality
  • To what extent has gender been addressed in the design, implementation and monitoring of the NAP programme?
  • To what extent has NAP programme promoted positive changes in gender equality? Were there any unintended effects?
  • How did the programme promote gender equality, human rights and human development in the delivery of outputs?
•  Future-looking concept and recommendations
  • What are after-Project possible priority interventions and general recommendations, which could further ensure sustainability of Project’s achievements and contribute to accelerated development in Serbia, particularly in the context of Agenda 2030?
  • What could be possible after-Project priority interventions and general recommendations for the Green Climate Fund and UNDP related to policy influencing, which could further ensure sustainability and scaling up of Project’s achievements?

The evaluation team will include a summary of the main findings of 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 recommendations directed to the intended users of the evaluation about what actions to take and decisions to make. 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 that can be taken from the evaluation, 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.

Methodology

Based on the UNDP Evaluation Guidelines and Evaluation Policy for the Green Climate Fund, in consultations with UNDP Country Office, the Evaluation will be participatory, involving relevant stakeholders.

The Evaluation will be conducted by an International Terminal Evaluation Consultant (International TE Consultant) in collaboration with the National Terminal Evaluation Consultant (national TE Consultant). The International TE Consultant shall propose an adjusted evaluative methodology to implement the evaluation effectively, applying safety guidance and remote data collecting methods such as extended desk reviews, virtual stakeholder meetings and interviews[1]. A detailed plan for the Evaluation process will be proposed by the International TE Consultant and agreed as a part of the Evaluation Inception Report.

The proposed methodology should employ relevant quantitative, qualitative or combined methods to conduct the Evaluation, with focus on gender sensitive data collection and analytical methods and tools applicable in the concrete case. The International TE Consultant is expected to combine the standard and other evaluation tools and techniques to ensure maximum reliability of data and validity of the evaluation findings.

Evidence obtained and used to assess the results of NAP’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 groups, surveys and site visits. In the event where field mission is not possible due to COVID, then remote interviews may be conducted.  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. Limitations to the chosen approach/methodology and methods shall be made explicit by the International TE Consultant and the consequences of these limitations discussed in the proposed methodology. The International TE Consultant shall, to the extent possible, present mitigation measures to address these limitations. The following steps in data collection are anticipated:

• Desk review - A desk review should be carried out of the key strategies and documents underpinning the project’s scope of work. This includes reviewing the project document, different reports, country programme document, as well as any monitoring and other documents, to be provided by the project and Commissioning Unit;
• Filed data collection - Following the desk review, National TE Consultant will build on the documented evidence through an agreed set of field and interview methodologies, including, but not limited to:
  • Interviews with key partners and stakeholders;
  • Field visits to partner institutions;
  • Survey questionnaires where appropriate;
  • Participatory observation, focus groups, and rapid appraisal techniques.

Each evaluation criteria should be assessed using the rating scale from Annex E.

Limitations to the chosen approach/methodology and methods shall be made explicit by the International TE Consultant and the consequences of these limitations discussed in the proposed methodology. International TE Consultant shall, to the extent possible, present mitigation measures to address these limitations.

International TE Consultant is expected to carry out the evaluation process with careful consideration of these Terms of References. In cases where sensitive or confidential issues are to be addressed in the evaluation, International TE Consultant should ensure an evaluation design that do not put informants and stakeholders at risk during the data collection phase or the dissemination phase

[1] UNDP Evaluation Guidelines: Evaluation During COVID-19.

Education

• Master’s degree in natural resource management/ environmental management/ business/ public administration other related disciplines;

Experience

• 7 years of relevant professional experience in environment and/or climate change sectors;
• Knowledge of UNDP and GCF/GCF monitoring and evaluation policies and guidelines;
• Experience in project implementation of GEF/GCF-funded projects;
• Experience in project evaluation of GEF/GCF-funded projects shall be considered as a strong asset;
• 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;
• Experience of working in Serbia and/or the region shall be considered as a strong asset;
• Understanding of issues related to climate change adaptation and gender responsive evaluation and analysis;
• Experience working in or closely with UN agencies shall be considered as an asset.

Language

• Fluency in English. Knowledge of Serbian shall be considered as an asset.

Evaluation ethics

This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’. The International TE Consultant r shall 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 Consultant must also ensure security of collected information before and after the evaluation and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information knowledge and data gathered in the evaluation process must also be solely used for the evaluation and not for other uses with the express authorization of UNDP and partners. The Consultant must be free from any conflict of interest related to this evaluation.[1]  

Implementation arrangements and reporting relations

The UNDP CO will select the evaluation team through standard UNDP procurement processes and will be responsible for the management of both National and International TE Consultants. Focal point for evaluation process shall be Monitoring and Evaluation, Reporting and Assurance Programme Analyst (M&R Specialist), unless declared otherwise by UNDP CO Resident Representative or Deputy Resident Representative. M&R Specialist will oversee and support the overall evaluation process. In addition, an evaluation reference group will be formed to provide critical and objective inputs throughout the evaluation process to strengthen the quality of the evaluation. The Country Office Senior Management will take responsibility for the approval of the evaluation report. UNDP will support the implementation of remote/ virtual meetings. An updated stakeholder list with contact details (phone and email) will be provided by the Country Office to the evaluation team.

The evaluation will use a system of ratings standardising assessments proposed by both Consultants 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, sustainability, gender equality and impact.

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 both consultants 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.

[1] UNDP Evaluation Guidelines, Box 7. Sources of conflict of interest in evaluation

Application process

The Consultant is required to submit the following documents in his/her application:

1. CV  in English language containing the date of birth, contact information (home address, phone number, e-mail) and timeline of work experience (including a description of duties);
2. 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)
3. Offeror’s Letter confirming Interest and availability for the Individual Contractor (IC) Assignment. Can be downloaded from the following link https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2022-07/confirmation.docx . The Offeror’s Letter shall include financial proposal specifying a total lump sum amount for the tasks specified in this announcement with a breakdown of costs (Offeror’s Letter, including Annex 2, Table A: Breakdown of costs & Table B: Breakdown of costs by deliverables).

Qualified and interested candidates are asked to submit their applications via UNDP Web site: UNDP in Serbia under section “Jobs” no later than March 19, 2023.

In order to apply please merge above listed documents into a single PDF file. The system does not allow for more than one attachment to be uploaded.

Any request for clarification must be sent by standard electronic communication to the e-mail: vacancy.rs@undp.org .

The UNDP will respond by standard electronic mail and will send a response, including an explanation of the query without identifying the source of inquiry, to all consultants.

The shortlisted candidates may be asked to provide copies of diplomas and any other certificates providing evidence of their education and experience in relevant fields.

Selection criteria

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.

Additional Information:

In the case of engagement of Civil servants under IC contract modality a no-objection letter should be provided by the Government entity. The ‘no-objection’ letter must also state that the employer formally certifies that their employees are allowed to receive short-term consultancy assignment from another entity without being on “leave-without-pay” status (if applicable), and include any conditions and restrictions on granting such permission, if any. If the previous is not applicable ‘leave-without-pay’ confirmation should be submitted.

Engagement of Government Officials and Employees

• Government Officials or Employees are civil servants of UN Member States.  As such, if they will be engaged by UNDP under an IC which they will be signing in their individual capacity (i.e., engagement is not done through RLA signed by their government employer), the following conditions must be met prior to the award of contract:

(i)       A “No-objection” letter in respect of the individual is received from the Government employing him/her, and;

(ii)     The individual must provide an official documentation from his/her employer formally certifying his or her status as being on “official leave without pay” for the duration of the IC.

• The above requirements are also applicable to Government-owned and controlled enterprises and well as other semi/partially or fully owned Government entities, whether or not the Government ownership is of majority or minority status.   
• UNDP recognizes the possibility that there are situations when the Government entity employing the individual that UNDP wishes to engage is one that allows its employees to receive external short-term consultancy assignments (including but not limited to research institutions, state-owned colleges/universities, etc.), whereby a status of “on-leave-without-pay” is not required.  Under such circumstance, the individual entering into an IC with UNDP must still provide a “No-objection” letter from the Government employing him/her.  The “no objection” letter required under (i) above must also state that the employer formally certifies that their employees are allowed to receive short-term consultancy assignment from another entity without being on “leave-without-pay” status and include any conditions and restrictions on granting such permission, if any.  The said document may be obtained by, and put on record of, UNDP, in lieu of the document (ii) listed above.

In line with the UNDP’s financial regulations, when determined by the Commissioning Unit and/or the consultant that a deliverable or service cannot be satisfactorily completed due to the impact of COVID-19 and limitations to the TE, that deliverable or service will not be paid.

Due to the current COVID-19 situation and its implications, a partial payment may be considered if the consultant invested time towards the deliverable but was unable to complete to circumstances beyond his/her control.

ANNEXES TO THE TOR

• Annex A: Project Information Package to be reviewed by TE team
• Annex B: Content of the TE report
• Annex C: Evaluation Criteria Matrix template
• Annex D: UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluators
• Annex E: TE Rating Scales
• Annex F: TE Report Clearance Form
• Annex G: TE Audit Trail
• Annex H: Results framework

Annex A: Project informstion package to be reviewed by the team

Annex B: Content of the TE Report

Title page

• Tile of UNDP-supported GCF-financed project
• UNDP PIMS ID and GCF ID
• TE timeframe and date of final TE report
• Region and countries included in the project
• GCF Focal Area/Strategic Program
• Executing Agency, Implementing partner and other project partners
• TE Team members

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations

1. Executive Summary (3-4 pages)
   • Project Information Table
   • Project Description (brief)
   • Evaluation Ratings Table
   • Concise summary of findings, conclusions and lessons learned
   • Recommendations summary table
2. Introduction (2-3 pages)
   • Purpose and objective of the TE
   • Scope
   • Methodology
   • Data Collection & Analysis
   • Ethics
   • Limitations to the evaluation
   • Structure of the TE report
3. Project Description (3-5 pages)
   • Project start and duration, including milestones
   • Development context: environmental, socio-economic, institutional, and policy factors relevant to the project objective and scope
   • Problems that the project sought to address: threats and barriers targeted
   • Immediate and development objectives of the project
   • Expected results
   • Main stakeholders: summary list
   • Theory of Change
4. Findings

4.1  Project Design/Formulation

• Analysis of Results Framework: project logic and strategy, indicators (Annex H)
• Assumptions and Risks
• Lessons from other relevant projects (e.g. same focal area) incorporated into project design
• Planned stakeholder participation
• Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector

4.2 Project Implementation

• Adaptive management (changes to the project design and project outputs during implementation)
• Actual stakeholder participation and partnership arrangements
• Project Finance and Co-finance
• Monitoring & Evaluation: design at entry (*), implementation (*), and overall assessment of M&E (*)
• UNDP implementation/oversight (*) and Implementing Partner execution (*), overall project implementation/execution (*), coordination, and operational issues

4.3 Project Results

• Progress towards objective and expected outcomes (*)
• Relevance (*)
• Effectiveness (*)
• Efficiency (*)
• Overall Outcome (*)
• Country ownership
• Gender
• Other Cross-cutting Issues
• Social and Environmental Standards
• Sustainability: financial (*), socio-economic (*), institutional framework and governance(*), environmental (*), and overall likelihood (*)
• Country Ownership
• Gender equality and women’s empowerment
• Cross-cutting Issues
• GCF Additionality
• Catalytic Role / Replication Effect
• Progress to Impact

1. Main Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations & Lessons
   • Main Findings
   • Conclusions
   • Recommendations
   • Lessons Learned
2. Annexes
   • TE ToR (excluding ToR annexes)
   • TE Mission itinerary
   • List of persons interviewed
   • List of documents reviewed
   • Summary of field visits
   • Evaluation Question Matrix (evaluation criteria with key questions, indicators, sources of data, and methodology)
   • Questionnaire used and summary of results
   • Co-financing tables (if not include in body of report)
   • TE Rating scales
   • Signed Evaluation Consultant Agreement form
   • Signed UNEG Code of Conduct form
   • Signed TE Report Clearance form
   • Annexed in a separate file: TE Audit Trail
   • Annexed in a separate file: relevant terminal GCF/LDCF/SCCF Core Indicators or Tracking Tools, as applicable.

Annex C: Evaluation criteria matrix template

Annex D: UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluators

Independence entails the ability to evaluate without undue influence or pressure by any party (including the hiring unit) and providing evaluators with free access to information on the evaluation subject. Independence provides legitimacy to and ensures an objective perspective on evaluations. An independent evaluation reduces the potential for conflicts of interest which might arise with self-reported ratings by those involved in the management of the project being evaluated. Independence is one of ten general principles for evaluations (together with internationally agreed principles, goals and targets: utility, credibility, impartiality, ethics, transparency, human rights and gender equality, national evaluation capacities, and professionalism)

Annex E: TE Rating scales

Ratings Scale for:

• Monitoring & Evaluation
• Implementation/Oversight and Execution Outcome
• Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency

Ratings Scale for:

Annex F: Evaluation Report Clearance Form

(to be completed by CO and UNDP GCF Technical Adviser based in the region and included in the final document)

Annex G: TE Audit Trail

The following is a template for the TE Team to show how the received comments on the draft TE report have (or have not) been incorporated into the final TE report. This Audit Trail should be listed as an annex in the final TE report but not attached to the report file.

To the comments received on (date) from the Terminal Evaluation of ”Capacity Development for Improved Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) (UNDP Project PIMS #5227)

The following comments were provided to the draft TE report; they are referenced by institution/organization (do not include the commentator’s name) and track change comment number (“#” column):

Annex H: RESULTS FRAMEWORK