Consultant for Mid-Term Review Evaluation for SIWSAP

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Honiara, , SB

Background

 

 

The Solomon Islands Water Sector Project (SIWSAP) was design out of one of the priority issues of the Solomon Island’s National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) to improve the resilience of water resources to the impacts of climate change and improve health, sanitation and quality of life, so that livelihoods can be enhanced and sustained in the targeted vulnerable areas. The project’s executing entity, is the Solomon Islands Government’s (SIG), Ministry of Mines, Energy and Rural Electrification (MMERE), in partnership with Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology (MECDM), Ministry of Health and Medical Services – Environmental Health Division, Ministry of Development, Planning, and Aid Coordination (MDPAC) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). SIWSAP will work with these partners to achieve this objective through delivery of its four (4) outcomes; 1) formulating, integrating, and mainstreaming water sector-climate change adaptation response plans in the water-related sectors as well as broader policy and development frameworks, 2) increasing the reliability and improving the quality of water supply in targeted areas, 3) investing in cost-effective and adaptive water management interventions and technology transfer, and 4) improving governance and knowledge management for climate change adaptation in the water sector at the local and national levels.

According to SIWSAP Project document, the Solomon Island Government (SIG) has committed in-kind Co-financing of USD$ 37,222,462 while UNDP parallel funding amounts to USD$6,400,000, totaling to USD$ 43,622,462.  These are parallel in-kind contributions and not cash contributions. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Least Developed Country Fund (LDCF) contributed USD$ 6,850,000 million in cash towards the implementation of SIWSAP project activities. This is a four year (June 2014 –July 2018) implementation project. At the end of the four years, the Government of Solomon Island will have enhanced systems, tools, and knowledge for water resource resilience at the national and local levels, which will contribute to the implementation and achievement of national priorities outlined in various policies and strategies, including the National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) 2008, National Development Strategy (NDS) 2011 – 2020, National Water and Sanitation Sector Plan (2007).

Its pilot sites covers 3 township (Taro in Choiseul Province, Gizo in Western Province and Tiggoa in Rennel and Bellona Province) and 3 rural communities (Ferafalu in Malaita Province, Santa Catalina in Markira Province and Tuwo in Temotu Province). These pilot sites are selected using national agreed criteria developed at the Stakeholder Inception Workshop and based on their known vulnerabilities to Climate Change impacts on water resource. It was clear during the National Inception workshop discussion that the sites are known for regularly running out of water, and had written specifically to the government in the past to ask for support during period of no rain fall.

 

 
Duties and Responsibilities

The MTR team will assess the following four categories of project progress. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for extended descriptions.

i.    Project Strategy

Project design:

  • Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions.Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document.
  • Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results.Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design.
  • Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country (or of participating countries in the case of multi-country projects).
  • Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes.
  • Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.
  • If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

Results Framework/Logframe:

  • Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s logframe indicators and targets, assess how “SMART” the midterm and end-of-project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound), and suggest specific amendments/revisions to the targets and indicators as necessary.
  • Are the project’s objectives and outcomes or components clear, practical, and feasible within its time frame.
  • Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc…) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis.
  • Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively. Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators and indicators that capture development benefits.

ii.    Progress Towards Results

Progress towards Outcomes Analysis:

  • Review the logframe indicators against progress made towards the end-of-project targets using the Progress Towards Results Matrix and following the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects; colour code progress in a “traffic light system” based on the level of progress achieved; assign a rating on progress for each outcome; make recommendations from the areas marked as “Not on target to be achieved” (red).

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

Project Strategy

Indicator[1]

Baseline Level[2]

Level in 1st  PIR (self- reported)

Midterm Target[3]

End-of-project Target

Midterm Level & Assessment[4]

Achievement Rating[5]

Justification for Rating

Objective:

 

Indicator (if applicable):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 1:

Indicator 1:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicator 2:

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 2:

Indicator 3:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicator 4:

 

 

 

 

 

Etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicator Assessment Key

Green= Achieved

Yellow= On target to be achieved

Red= Not on target to be achieved

In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

  • Compare and analyse the GEF Tracking Tool at the Baseline with the one completed right before the Midterm Review.
  • Identify remaining barriers to achieving the project objective in the remainder of the project.
  • By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits.

iii.   Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management Arrangements:

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

Work Planning:

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

Finance and co-finance:

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

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

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

Stakeholder Engagement:

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

Reporting:

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

Communications:

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

iv.   Sustainability

  • Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Review/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.

In addition, assess the following risks to sustainability:

Financial risks to sustainability:

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

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

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

Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability:

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

Environmental risks to sustainability:

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

Conclusions & Recommendations

The MTR team will include a section of the report setting out the MTR’s evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings.[6]

Recommendations should be succinct suggestions for critical intervention that are specific, measurable, achievable, and relevant. A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for guidance on a recommendation table.

The MTR team should make no more than 15 recommendations total.

Ratings

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

Table. MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table for ‘Solomon Islands Water Sector Adaptation Project (SIWSAP)’

Measure

MTR Rating

Achievement Description

Project Strategy

N/A

 

Progress Towards Results

Objective Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Etc.

 

Project Implementation & Adaptive Management

(rate 6 pt. scale)

 

Sustainability

(rate 4 pt. scale)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1]

Populate with data from the Logframe and scorecards

[2] Populate with data from the Project Document

[3] If available

[4] Colour code this column only

[5] Use the 6 point Progress Towards Results Rating Scale: HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU

[6] Alternatively, MTR conclusions may be integrated into the body of the report.

Indicator Assessment Key

Green= Achieved

Yellow= On target to be achieved

Red= Not on target to be achieved

In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

  • Compare and analyse the GEF Tracking Tool at the Baseline with the one completed right before the Midterm Review.

  • Identify remaining barriers to achieving the project objective in the remainder of the project.

  • By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits.

iii.   Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management Arrangements:

  • Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document.Have changes been made and are they effective?Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear?Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner?Recommend areas for improvement.

  • Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement.

  • Review the quality of support provided by the GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) and recommend areas for improvement.

Work Planning:

  • Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved.

  • Are work-planning processes results-based?If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results?

  • Examine the use of the project’s results framework/ logframe as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start.

Finance and co-finance:

  • Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions.

  • Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.

  • Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds?

  • Informed by the co-financing monitoring table to be filled out, provide commentary on co-financing: is co-financing being used strategically to help the objectives of the project? Is the Project Team meeting with all co-financing partners regularly in order to align financing priorities and annual work plans?

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

  • Review the monitoring tools currently being used:Do they provide the necessary information? Do they involve key partners? Are they aligned or mainstreamed with national systems?Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-effective? Are additional tools required? How could they be made more participatory and inclusive?

  • Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget.Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation? Are these resources being allocated effectively?

Stakeholder Engagement:

  • Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?

  • Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project?  Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation?

  • Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?

Reporting:

  • Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Board.

  • Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil GEF reporting requirements (i.e. how have they addressed poorly-rated PIRs, if applicable?)

  • Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners.

Communications:

  • Review internal project communication with stakeholders: Is communication regular and effective? Are there key stakeholders left out of communication? Are there feedback mechanisms when communication is received? Does this communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of project outcomes and activities and investment in the sustainability of project results?

  • Review external project communication: Are proper means of communication established or being established to express the project progress and intended impact to the public (is there a web presence, for example? Or did the project implement appropriate outreach and public awareness campaigns?)

  • For reporting purposes, write one half-page paragraph that summarizes the project’s progress towards results in terms of contribution to sustainable development benefits, as well as global environmental benefits.

iv.   Sustainability

  • Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Review/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.

  • In addition, assess the following risks to sustainability:

Financial risks to sustainability:

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

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

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

    Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability:

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

    Environmental risks to sustainability:

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

    Conclusions & Recommendations

    The MTR team will include a section of the report setting out the MTR’s evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings.

    Recommendations should be succinct suggestions for critical intervention that are specific, measurable, achievable, and relevant. A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for guidance on a recommendation table.

    The MTR team should make no more than 15 recommendations total.

    Ratings

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

    Requirement for Qualifications & Experience:

A team of two independent consultants will conduct the MTR – one international Team Leader (with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in other regions globally) and one national Team Expert, within Solomon Islands.  The consultants cannot have participated in the project preparation, formulation, and/or implementation (including the writing of the Project Document) and should not have a conflict of interest with project’s related activities. 

International Consultant (Team Leader)

The International Consultant shall be responsible for completing and delegating tasks as appropriate for the Terminal Evaluation to the National Counterpart. He/she will ensure the timely submission of the first draft and the final version of the Terminal Evaluation Report with incorporated comments from UNDP and others.

National Consultant (Team member)

The National Consultant will, jointly with, and under the supervision of the International Consultant, support the evaluation. He/she will be responsible to review documents, translate necessary documents and interpret interviews, meetings and other relevant events for the International Consultant. He/she will work as a liaison for stakeholders of the project and ensures all stakeholders of the project are aware of the purposes and methods of the evaluation and ensures all meetings and interviews take place in a timely and effective manner. Provide logistical support for the evaluation mission as per travel schedule.

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

 
Competencies

Functional Competencies (10%):

  • Competence in adaptive management, as applied to GEF focal area of Climate Change;
  • Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;
  • Excellent communication skills;
  • Demonstrable analytical skills.
 
Required Skills and Experience

Minimum educational qualifications (10%):

  • The contractor must be qualified with an advanced degree (Post graduates or Master level) with academic and professional background in fields related to Natural Resource Management, Climate Change Adaptation, Environmental Science, Hydrology or other related field.

Experience & skills (50%):

  • Experience working with the GEF or GEF-evaluations in relevant technical areas above for at least 10 years;
  • Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and climate change; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis;
  • Recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies;
  • Experience working in Pacific Islands region;
  • Good knowledge of the UNDP Evaluation Policy, experience applying UNDP Results Based Evaluation Policies and Procedures, good knowledge of the UNDP NIM/DIM Guidelines and Procedures, knowledge of Result Based Management Evaluation methodologies and knowledge of participatory monitoring approaches;
  • Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset.

POSITION TYPE

ORGANIZATION TYPE

EXPERIENCE-LEVEL

DEGREE REQUIRED