Consultant to Conduct Terminal Evaluation of National Biodiversity Project: Conservation of Iona National Park

Background

In accordance with UNDP and GEF M&E policies and procedures, all full and medium-sized UNDP support GEF financed projects are required to undergo a terminal evaluation upon completion of implementation. These terms of reference (TOR) sets out the expectations for a Terminal Evaluation (TE) of the National Biodiversity Project: Conservation of Iona National Park (PIMS #4581.)

The essentials of the project to be evaluated are as follows:  

Project Summary

GEF Project ID: 4082; Country: Angola

Focal Area: Biodiversity SO-1 Catalyzing sustainability of protected area systems.

GEF financing: US$ 2,000,000; EU co-financing: US$ 4,290,000

Project starting date: 13 February 2013; Closing date: 20 April 2018.

Objective and Scope

Angola’s protected area system was created during the colonial era (i.e. prior to 1975). It comprises 13 protected areas (9 national parks, 2 strict nature reserves, and 2 partial reserves), covering ~12.6% (162,642 km2) of the territory. During the prolonged periods of instability in the country (1975-2002), aggravated by growing population needs, many of the conservation areas had been almost completely abandoned, without adequate funding, equipment or staff. Angola’s conservation areas are served by a weak administrative system, with limited resources and capacity. The rehabilitation of the existing network of conservation areas, and the creation of new conservation areas, are considered important interventions required for the effective conservation of Angola’s globally significant biodiversity.

The Project is designed as the first phase of a more comprehensive national program to rehabilitate, strengthen and expand Angola’s system of protected areas. For this phase of the national program, the project focused outputs and activities at two levels of intervention.

At a national level, the project supported the government in the establishment and operationalisation of the Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidade e Áreas de Conservação (INBAC). It specifically supported: (i) the preparation of a strategic planning framework for the protected area system; (ii) an assessment of the current state (biodiversity, infrastructure, management, settlement, land use, etc.) of national parks and strict nature reserves; and (iii) the preparation of detailed implementation plans for the rehabilitation of these national parks and strict nature reserves.

At a local level, the project assisted the government to rehabilitate one of the largest National Park in Angola, Iona National Park (15,150 km2) - through: (i) the establishment, training, and equipping of a functional staff complement for the park; (ii) the renovation and construction of key park infrastructure (i.e. accommodation, offices, water supply, electrical supply, basic tourism facilities etc.); (iii) the development of a management plan and related studies (community survey, fauna and livestock survey) for the park; and (iv) the piloting of community based tourism involving the traditional communities residing in the park. The latter was also intended as a first step towards a cooperative governance framework for the park, involving the local communities.

The TE will be conducted according to the guidance, rules and procedures established by UNDP and GEF as reflected in the UNDP Evaluation Guidance for GEF Financed Projects.  

The objectives of the evaluation are to assess the achievement of project results, and to draw lessons that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project, and aid in the overall enhancement of UNDP programming. 

The TE comprises all components of the project, irrespective of the source of financing of a specific activity or output.  Specifically, the evaluation should be carried out in close collaboration with the EU Delegation (EUD), and the final report need to be endorsed by the EUD before approval and the input of EUD should be taken into account in the formulation of the final version.

Evaluation approach and method

An overall approach and method[1] for conducting project terminal evaluations of UNDP supported GEF financed projects has developed over time. The evaluator is expected to frame the evaluation effort using the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact, as defined and explained in the UNDP Guidance for Conducting Terminal Evaluations of UNDP-supported, GEF-financed Projects. A set of questions covering each of these criteria have been drafted and are included with this TOR (Annex C) The evaluator is expected to amend, complete and submit this matrix as part of an evaluation inception report, and shall include it as an annex to the final report. 

The evaluation must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with government counterparts, in particular the GEF operational focal point, UNDP Country Office, project team, UNDP GEF Technical Adviser, EUD and key stakeholders. The evaluator is expected to conduct a field mission to Angola, including the following project sites: Luanda, Iona National Park (Namibe Province). For approximate number of days to be spent at different locations see below. Interviews will be held with the following organizations and individuals at a minimum: Ministry of Environment in Luanda (GEF operational focal point, National Director of Biodiversity, possibly Secretary of State for Biodiversity), National Institute for Biodiversity and Protected Areas (INBAC – Director General, senior staff, National Project Coordinator for Iona project), European Union Delegation (Luanda), UNDP Country Office (Country Director, Head of Inclusive Growth Cluster, Environment Specialist, Administrative and Finance Officer), Municipal Administrator of Tombwa (Namibe Province), Communal Administrator of Iona (Namibe Province), Iona National Park staff (Park Administrator, International Advisor), local tour operators (Namibe Province).

The evaluator will review all relevant sources of information, such as the project document, project reports – including Annual APR/PIR, project budget revisions, midterm review, progress reports, GEF focal area tracking tools, project files, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the evaluator considers useful for this evidence-based assessment. A list of documents that the project team will provide to the evaluator for review is included in Annex B of this Terms of Reference.

Evaluation Criteria & Ratings

An assessment of project performance will be carried out, based against expectations set out in the Project Logical Framework/Results Framework (see  Annex A), which provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. The evaluation will at a minimum cover the criteria of: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. Ratings must be provided on the following performance criteria:

Monitoring and Evaluation: M&E design at entry; M&E Plan implementation; Overall quality of M&E;

IA and EA Execution: Quality of UNDP implementation – Implementing Agency; Quality of Execution – Executing Agency; Overall quality of Implementation / Execution;

Assessment of Outcomes: Relevance; Effectiveness; Efficiency; Overall Project Outcome Rating;

Sustainability: Financial resources; Socio-political; Institutional framework and governance; Environmental; Overall likelihood of sustainability.

The completed table must be included in the evaluation executive summary.  The obligatory rating scales are included in  Annex D.

Project finance / cofinance

The Evaluation will assess the key financial aspects of the project, including the extent of co-financing planned and realized. Project cost and funding data will be required, including annual expenditures.  Variances between planned and actual expenditures will need to be assessed and explained.  Results from recent financial audits, as available, should be taken into consideration. The evaluator(s) will receive assistance from the Country Office (CO) and Project Team to obtain financial data to complete the co-financing table, which will be included in the terminal evaluation report. 

Mainstreaming

UNDP supported GEF financed projects are key components in UNDP country programming, as well as regional and global programmes. The evaluation will assess the extent to which the project was successfully mainstreamed with other UNDP priorities, including poverty alleviation, improved governance, the prevention and recovery from natural disasters, and gender.

Impact

The evaluators will assess the extent to which the project is achieving impacts or progressing towards the achievement of impacts. Key findings that should be brought out in the evaluations include whether the project has demonstrated: a) verifiable improvements in ecological status, b) verifiable reductions in stress on ecological systems, and/or c) demonstrated progress towards these impact achievements.[2]

Conclusions, recommendations & lessons

The evaluation report must include a chapter providing a set of conclusions, recommendations and lessons.  Conclusions should build on findings and be based in evidence. Recommendations should be prioritized, specific, relevant, and targeted, with suggested implementers of the recommendations. Lessons should have wider applicability to other initiatives across the region, the area of intervention, and for the future providing for the sustainability of project activities. 

Implementation arrangements

The principal responsibility for managing this evaluation resides with the UNDP CO in Angola. The UNDP CO will contract the evaluators and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the evaluation team. The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the Evaluators team to set up stakeholder interviews, arrange field visits, coordinate with the Government etc. 

Evaluation timeframe

The total duration of the evaluation will be 30 days over a period of 12 weeks according to the following plan: Preparation: 3 days (completion date 31/12/2017); Evaluation mission: 19 days out of which ca. 8 days in Iona (completion date 15/02/2018); Draft evaluation report: 5 days (completion date 05/03/2018); Final report: 3 days (completion date 10/04/2018).

Evaluation deliverables

The evaluation team is expected to deliver the following:

Inception Report (Evaluator provides clarifications on timing and method): No later than 2 weeks before the evaluation mission (31/12/2017). Evaluator submits to UNDP CO;

Presentation (Initial findings): End of evaluation mission (15/02/2018). Evaluator submits to project management and UNDP CO

Draft final report (full report, per annexed template, with annexes): Within 3 weeks of the evaluation mission (05/03/2018). Evaluator sends to CO, reviewed by RTA, PCU, GEF OFPs, also reviewed by EU;

Final report (revised report): Within 1 week of receiving UNDP comments on draft (10/04/2018). Evaluator sends to CO for uploading to UNDP ERC.

When submitting the final evaluation report, the evaluator is required also to provide an 'audit trail', detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final evaluation report. See Annex H for an audit trail template. The final report should be also endorsed by the EU since the final evaluation also for the use of EU for future initiatives.

Team Composition

The evaluation team will be composed of 1 international evaluator who will be supported for logistical purposes and the organization of project documents by CO staff. The consultant shall have prior experience in evaluating similar projects.  Experience with GEF and/or EU financed projects is an advantage. The international evaluator will be responsible for finalizing the evaluation report. The evaluator selected should not have participated in the project preparation and/or implementation and should not have conflict of interest with project related activities.

[1] For additional information on methods, see the Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, Chapter 7, pg. 163

[2] A useful tool for gauging progress to impact is the Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROtI) method developed by the GEF Evaluation Office:  ROTI Handbook 2009

Duties and Responsibilities

• Prepare a strategic plan for the protected area system;Develop the organizational structure and staff complement for the protected area system; 
• Assess the current state of national parks and strict nature reserves; 
• Prepare detailed implementation plans for the rehabilitation of national parks and strict nature reserves; 
• Park staff are appointed, trained, adequately equipped and deployed in the park; Establish key park infrastructure, equipment and services;  
• Develop and integrated park management plan; 
• Build community and local government support for, and participation in, the conservation of the park. 

Competencies

Corporate Competencies: 

• Demonstrates commitment to UNDP´s mission, vision and values;
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability;
• Highest standards of of integrity, discretion and loyalty

Functional Competencies: 

• Ability to work with multidisciplinary and multicultural teams;
• Creativity, innovation and initiative;
• Result oriented;
• Analytical ability;
• Logical ability;
• Able to work under pressure in an adverse environment;
• critical ability;
• Capacity to dialogue with different sectors;
• Determination and focus on goals and results;
• Ability of facilitation;
• Good management skills;
• Sensitivity to African and Angolan context.

Required Skills and Experience

Education:

• A post-secondary / advanced degree (Masters level or higher) in biodiversity conservation, natural resource management or a related discipline;

Experience:

• Minimum 10 years of relevant professional experience;
• Knowledge of and/or experience with UNDP and/or GEF;
• Previous experience with results-based monitoring and evaluation methodologies;
• Experience in Africa required, with experience in the Central-Southern Africa region a distinct advantage.

Language requirements:

• Fluency in English, spoken, written and read;
• Portuguese speaking, reading and understanding; 

Technical Evaluation criteria:

Cumulative analysis

Under this weighted scoring method, the award of the contract should be made to the offeror/individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

• Responsive/compliant/acceptable; and
• Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation.

* Technical Criteria weight:  70%

* Financial Criteria weight: 30%

Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 70 points out of 100 would be considered for the Financial.