The Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor (MEA) will assess progress towards the
achievement of the project objectives and outcomes as specified in the Project
Document, and assess signs of project success or failure with the goal of identifying
the necessary changes to be made in order to set the project on-track to
achieve its intended results. The MEA will also review the project’s strategy
and its risks to sustainability.
The successful candidate will be assigned to
conduct MEA country visits in one or more of the following SGP Country
Programmes (TBD): Colombia, Morocco,
Vietnam or Senegal.
The MEA must provide evidence based information
that is credible, reliable and useful. The MEA consultant will review all
relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the
preparation phase (i.e. Project Document, project reports including Annual
Project Review, UNOPS project budget revisions, lesson learned reports,
national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team
considers useful for this evidence-based review).
The MEA consultant is expected to follow a
collaborative and participatory approach ensuring close engagement with the project
management unit (PMU) which is part of the SGP Central Programme Management
Team (CPMT); ICCA GSI global core partners (i.e. UNEP WCMC, IUCN GPAP, ICCA
Consortium); SGP National Coordinators; SGP National Steering Committee (NSC)
members; UNDP Country Office(s); government counterparts; grantee partners
including indigenous peoples’ representatives, civil society organizations and
other key stakeholders.
Engagement of stakeholders will be vital to a
successful MEA. Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with
stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to
executing agencies, responsible parties, and task team/component leaders, key
experts and consultants in the subject area, the GSI Technical Advisory Group
(TAG) and the GSI Project Board. Additionally, the MEA consultant is expected
to conduct field missions to SGP project sites in one or more target countries.
Monitoring and
Progress Controls
The
MEA consultant will assess the following four categories of project progress.
See the Guidance for Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported projects for
extended descriptions. Further guidance on specific questions to be addressed
will be provided at the beginning of the assignment.
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.
- 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” (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound) the
midterm and end-of-project targets are, 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 has so far led to, or could in the future, catalyze beneficial
development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s
empowerment, improved governance) 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 the results matrix following the UNDP guidance;
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).
In
addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:
- Compare
and analyze the ICCA Security Index
included in the Project Document with the BMU as a tracking tool for projects at
the Baseline.
- 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 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 UNDP and BMU donor
reporting requirements;
- 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 and Annual Project Review
are applied, 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 BMU 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 SGP project teams (at the global and country levels) 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
MEA consultant will include a section of the report setting out the MEA’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. The MEA consultant should make no more than 15
recommendations total.