TERMS OF REFERENCE: National Consultant

Transcription

1 WWF Germany and Indonesia Evaluation of the Project Strengthening sustainable land use for livelihood improvement of rural communities in Labian-Leboyan-corridor in the Heart of Borneo, Indonesia November 2014 June 2017 Project/Program Name(s) Project/Program Location(s) Project/Program Reference Number(s) Names of Project/Program Executants (WWF Office, name of project/program manager) TERMS OF REFERENCE: National Consultant Strengthening sustainable land use for livelihood improvement of rural communities in Labian-Leboyan-corridor in the Heart of Borneo, Indonesia Indonesia, West Kalimantan, Kapuas Hulu District WWF DE Project Number: ; WWF ID project number: ID0KF030-BOR-201; BMZ project number: WWF Indonesia, Anas Nasrullah Project/Program Duration (from start year) 01 November December 2017 Period to Be Evaluated 01 November June 2017 Project/Program Budget Sources and Amounts (for period to be evaluated) Names of Implementing Partners (if relevant) 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW 520,000 EUR (estimate expenditures until June 2017; will be adjusted for evaluation) WWF Indonesia One of the global priority sites of WWF is the Heart of Borneo (HoB). Until 2020, WWF committed to transform policy frameworks, transform business behaviour, empower civil society and preserve natural capital to preserve one of the most outstanding biodiversity places in the world and to promote people s welfare therein. One strategy in achieving this is to ensure that enabling conditions for civil society within the HoB are in place to have improved control over their natural resources, including rights recognised and fair share of benefits deriving from their sustainable management. In 2014, WWF Germany submitted a project proposal to the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) under the funding line One World Without Hunger. Project Rationale The project is aimed at securing the livelihoods of the local population in the Labian-Leboyan Corridor in Kapuas Hulu District (Indonesia) by integrating sustainable natural resources management (SNRM) into village development plans as well as by promoting sustainable, competitive business models for local production. The project will thus contribute to improving the living conditions and securing eco-system services for the population in the Corridor in the long term. The project objective is to be achieved by establishing participatory village development planning processes that expressly take account of the local population s needs as well as SNRM approaches. A key aspect for the project success is enhancing the local population s technical and institutional capacities to implement SNRM. Furthermore, competitive and sustainable business models will be promoted as part of the project. Lessons learned and good practices are planned to be disseminated so that they can take effect beyond the project s boundaries. Starting situation/ Problem analysis The Kapuas Hulu district, in which the LLC is situated, is one of the most disadvantaged districts in Indonesia. There are no development visions or strategies available at village level that could be taken as a basis for medium-term planning and effective investments to improve the living and income situation in the long term without jeopardising the ecosystems and ecosystem services (water quality, fishery, soil protection, non-timber forest products). In the absence of sufficient capacities, however, the formally required participatory planning is not implemented to a sufficient extent. The village governments in the Corridor are not only lacking planning capacities but also knowledge of the relationship between Page 1

2 ecosystem services, land use and adaptation to climate change. This regularly results in short-sighted decisions, which adversely affect the livelihood of the population in the long term. The trend towards overexploitation of natural resources is aggravated by non-sustainable agricultural and non-agricultural production of the households. Another major challenge for the villages along the Corridor is the market access for the local products. Impact Matrix Impact: Securing ecosystem services and improving the living conditions in the Labian-Leboyan Corridor Outcome: Securing the livelihoods of the local population in the Labian-Leboyan Corridor by integrating sustainable natural resource management into the village development plans as well as by promoting sustainable, competitive business models for local production Output 1: Creating participatory village development plans in 5 communities Output 2: Enhancing the technical and institutional capacities of community members and representatives of local institutions and organisations to implement sustainable natural resource management (SNRM) Output 3: Implementing at least five marketable/competitive, sustainable business models of six producer groups (approx. 150 households) Output 4: Disseminating lessons learned and project results regarding participatory village development planning and marketable/competitive, sustainable business models Relationship between measures and impact The implementation of participatory village development planning will lead to better access to government programmes and sustainable investment decisions on part of the (local and national) government and government-approved investments, which will ultimately entail improved living conditions of the communities and the conservation of ecosystem services in the Corridor. The Labian Leboyan Corridor has been recognized as an important landscape by Kapuas Hulu district government, The district government has ratified the corridor in a district legal document as a Distrikt Strategic Area (KSK). The status of this document is already discussed in the plenary session of Kapuas Hulu Parliament as a local regulation (Perda). This document focusses on the management plan of Labian Leboyan Corridor (LLC) as KSK. It contains the management and control of ecosystems based on spatial regulations which shall be implemented through policies at the village level, and integrated into each village development plan according to the prevailing ecosystem (e.g. in Melemba village towards the development on fisheries and ecotourism, in Labian and Labian Iraang villages based on plantation and sustainable agriculture and Sungai Ajung village on agroforestry and development of NTFPs. The bengo project fully supports the implementation of the LLC management plan. This document insists on the management plan of LLC (KSK). therein arranged management and control of ecosystem-based on spatial regulation. then implemented in policies at the village level, and integrated into each of villagedevelopment plan such as in Melemba village towards development on fisheries and ecotourism based. besides Labian and Labian Iraang village based on plantation and sustainable agriculture, and Sungai Ajung village on agroforestry based and development of NTFPs. Bengo project 100% helpful in LLC mangementplan implementation. The foundation for the implementation of local Green Economies will be laid as part of the mediumterm village development planning. At the same time, effective examples will be developed to demonstrate how these economic models work and can benefit the target group (improved income opportunities). The project is aimed at improving the quality of existing products, introducing new products and establishing direct access to the market. This will improve the know-how within the groups, their negotiation position and consequently the possibility of obtaining higher prices. Incomes can be increased without having to make use of non-sustainable practices. As a result of promoting various products, various business models (local green economies) will become available, leading to a diversification of income options and thereby reducing vulnerability (in case an economic factor is no longer available). Page 2

3 Furthermore, the target group s social capital will be enhanced through improved organisational structures and internal control systems. Adjustment of project concept during course of implementation During the course of implementation two major adjustments took place. 1) Change of staff structure to ensure efficient and effective implementation (in April 2016) 2) Reduction of project budget by EUR 46,236 and re-allocation of budget to match actual budget needs and concept adjustments, i.e. prolongation of support to revision of mid-term development plans and increase in trainings for marketable/competitive, sustainable business models (in October 2016). 2. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND USE, OBJECTIVES, AND SCOPE WWF Indonesia is an important civil society actor in the project region and a strong supporter of the HoB. WWF Indonesia intends to take up the lessons learnt, developed approaches and products by the BMZ funded project to cross-scale and up-scale them in the project region and beyond. In order to assess whether the project achieved its intended outputs, improve WWF s implementation capacity and assess which approaches and products are most promising for up- and cross-scaling an evaluation shall be conducted. Through the evaluation, WWF would like to get recommendations for improvement of WWF s organizational capacity and organizational learning. In particular, the evaluation shall: 1. Assess the BMZ funded project s effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, impact and sustainability 2. Identify social and conservation outcomes qualitatively and quantitatively against the indicators set at the beginning of the project. 3. Identify eventual gaps and risks (e.g. social, environmental, sustainable, scheduling, financing, reputation) to achieve project s objectives and if applicable make recommendations how to overcome them (incl. risk mitigation) 4. Give recommendations on measures needed to ensure implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the mid-term village development plans taking into consideration Central Government regulation No 6/ Give recommendations in cross- and upscaling of the approaches and products developed by the BMZ funded project. 6. Give recommendations on measures needed for effective and sustainable project closure. 7. Draw key lessons learned and good practices to contribute to organizational learning and enhancing WWF s capacity in project implementation Evaluation objective User Who will use the findings of the evaluation? Use of evaluation For what will the findings of the evaluation be used? Use What will be the benefit of using the findings of the evaluation? 1. Assess project s effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, impact and sustainability; 2. Identify social WWF WWF Identify need for improvement based on findings Use findings for final report Better chances in achieving the project s objectives to the benefit of local communities Accountability to BMZ Page 3

4 and conservation outcomes qualitatively and quantitatively against the indicators set at the beginning of the project. BMZ Input to assessment of use of SEWOH funding line; 3 rd party feedback on project implementation Accountability to German taxpayers and OECD-DAC 3. Identify eventual gaps and risks (e.g. social, environmental, sustainable, scheduling, financing, reputation) to achieve project s objectives and if applicable make recommendations how to overcome them (incl. risk mitigation) WWF Use recommendations to design follow-up action to ensure achievement of objectives Better chances in achieving the project s objectives to the benefit of local communities 4. Give recommendations on measures needed to ensure implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the mid-term village development plans taking into consideration Central Government regulation No 6/2014 WWF, village governments, village planning teams Use recommendations to design follow-up action to ensure implementation of mid-term village development plans Improved livelihoods for communities due to investments made based on the mid-term village development plans 5. Identify good practices and give recommendations in cross- and upscaling of the WWF; Mediators (subdistricts, district, Labian Leboyan Use recommendations for future participatory village planning and development of village-based sustainable business Improved livelihoods for other communities due to dissemination of participatory planning as well as competitive and Page 4

5 approaches and products developed by the BMZ funded project. Community Forum) models and extension to other areas sustainable business models 6. Give recommendations on measures needed for effective and sustainable project closure. WWF, village governments and village facilitators Use recommendations for effective and sustainable project closure Better chances in achieving the project s objectives to the benefit of local communities 7. Draw key lessons learned and good practices to contribute to organizational learning and enhancing WWF s capacity in project implementation WWF Use findings for future project planning and implementation More effective and efficient project implementation and ultimately higher chances in improving living conditions through sustainable natural resources management The evaluation shall assess the progress in project implementation and achievements of the project as of June 30, 2017 against the project concept (=project proposal). The evaluation shall be based on desk review, stakeholder interviews and a field trip to the project region and develop the assessment and recommendations based on the criteria and guiding questions below (see 3). Further details to process and timing can be found under EVALUATION CRITERIA AND GUIDING QUESTIONS CRITERION 1: RELEVANCE AND QUALITY OF DESIGN Relevance and quality of design is a measure of the extent to which the project represents a necessary, sufficient, and appropriate approach to achieving changes in key factors (e.g. direct and indirect threats, opportunities, stakeholder positions, enabling conditions) necessary to bring about positive changes for communities and their natural environment. Key Questions to Assess Relevance and Quality of Design For the project as originally conceived, as well as its future (closing phase; upscaling/ cross-scaling), assess quality of design as well as past and ongoing relevance of decisions and plans with regard to the following factors: RQ1. Is there a clear and relevant definition of ultimate success in terms of improved livelihoods and natural resources conservation? RQ2. Has the project targeted issues of highest priority? RQ3. Is the theory of change clear? Has the project taken the best, most efficient strategic approach? RQ4. Has the project been designed adequately? Page 5

6 Has the timeline been adequate? Have the planned measures been adequate? Which differing results have been achieved? Has the planned budget been adequate? RQ5. To which degree can the project approach and results be duplicated and have a multiplier effect? RQ6. To which degree are the project approach and the results innovative? CRITERION 2: EFFICIENCY Efficiency is a measure of the relationship between outputs (i.e. the products or services of an intervention) and inputs (i.e. the resources that it uses). Key Questions for the Evaluation Efic1. Use of Time: Are there thorough, well founded work plans being implemented according to plan, monitored, and adapted as necessary? Efic2. Human Resources: Are human resources (project and partnerships) appropriate, adequate, and efficiently organized and operating effectively (e.g., include considerations of capacity needs and gaps, communications, division and clarity of roles and responsibilities, processes for evaluation and improvement)? Efic3. Coordination: Is the project complementary to and uses synergies with interventions of other projects/ stakeholders? Do the chosen forms of cooperation in project implementation assure an adequate coordination with other stakeholders? How can coordination been improved if needed? Efic4. Monitoring of efficiency, effectiveness, impact: o Is there ongoing, systematic, rigorous monitoring of output delivery, outcome attainment, and impact measurement, with plausible attribution to the project s actions? Efic5. Risk Assessment: o Were the original risks and assumptions adequately revisited during the intervention cycle? o Were the identified mitigation strategies appropriate and led to positive impact? Efic6. Have the adaptive management and adaptive measures been adequate? CRITERION 3: EFFECTIVENESS Effectiveness is a measure of the extent to which the intervention s intended outcome and outputs its specific objectives or intermediate results have been achieved. Key Questions for the Evaluation Efct1. Planned result versus Achievement: Focusing on stated outputs and their indicators, desired outcome, and intermediate results, what has and has not been achieved (both intended and unintended)? - To which degree is the defined project outcome achieved? - Is the project outcome realistic from today s point of view? - To which degree is it probable that the project outcome will be achieved? - If applicable, what is missing to achieve the outcome and outputs? Efct2. Factors affecting effectiveness: Which strategies have been effective or are likely to be, and which Page 6

7 are not? What anticipated and unanticipated factors have promoted or impeded the project s progress? What supporting or impeding factors might affect the implementation of the village midterm development plans and successful cross-/ up-scaling? Efct3. Learning: Identify any exceptional experiences that should be highlighted regarding what worked and didn t work (e.g. case-studies, stories, good practices). CRITERION 4: IMPACT Impact is a measure of all significant effects of the intervention, positive or negative, expected or unforeseen, on human well-being and associated ecosystem services. Given the relatively short project duration and that most activities will only bear impact after project closure (e.g. implementation of mid-term development plans and sustainable business models) this evaluation will not be able to conduct a rigorous impact assessment. Therefore, we ask the evaluation team to provide rough indications on whether or not the program is fit to have a lasting positive impact. Key Questions for the Evaluation Imp1. Evidence of Change: To what extent has the project attained its stated vision and impact, in terms of outcome and outputs effecting positive change in living conditions and securing of ecosystem? Discuss observed impacts and present evidence. Imp2. Gender: To which degree does the project contribute to gender equity? Imp3. Climate Impact: In as much does the project contribute to adaptation to climate change? Imp4. Co-benefits/ negative side impacts: To which degree were relevant other un-intended impacts achieved ("Co-benefits"/negative side impacts)? Imp5. Increasing impact: How might the project increase its impact and what would be the associated human and financial capacity needs? CRITERION 5: SUSTAINABILITY Sustainability is a measure of whether the benefits of an intervention are likely to continue after external support has ended. Key Questions for the Evaluation Sust1. Evidence for Sustainability: Is there evidence that the following key ingredients are being established or exist to the extent necessary to sustain/ensure the desired long-term positive impacts of the project? - Does necessary policy support exist ensuring long term impact? - To which degree have capacities (institutional, organisational, know-how and skills) among communities (women and men alike) and local governments been adequately built to continue participatory planning processes on their own? Are roles clearly defined and responsibilities clearly distributed? If applicable: which further measures are needed to achieve the required capacities? - To which degree have capacities (institutional, organisational, know-how and skills) among communities (women and men alike) and local governments been adequately built to implement the mid-term development plans? Are roles clearly defined and responsibilities clearly distributed? If applicable: which further measures are needed to achieve the required capacities? - To which degree have capacities (institutional, organisational, know-how and skills) among communities (women and men alike) been built to monitor the implementation of the village development plans? Are roles clearly defined and responsibilities clearly distributed? If Page 7

8 applicable: which further measures are needed to achieve the required capacities? - To which degree have capacities (institutional, organisational, know-how and skills) among communities (women and men alike) and local governments been adequately built to improve livelihoods and simultaneously secure ecosystem services? If applicable: which further measures are needed to achieve the required capacities? - To which degree will the recognition of traditional knowledge increase the self-help capacity of communities (men and women) to improve their living conditions? - To which degree is inter-village coordination, pooling of interests and representing to the outside world been established? Are roles clearly defined and responsibilities clearly distributed? - To which degree are the producer groups capacitated to independently implement internal quality and control standards? Are roles clearly defined and responsibilities clearly distributed? - To which degree are the producer groups capacitated to market their products profitably on their own? Are roles clearly defined and responsibilities clearly distributed? Sust2. Risk and Mitigation: What external factors could have a high or medium likelihood of undoing or undermining the future sustainability of project positive impacts (climate change, political stability, overall level of development, natural disasters)? Is the project adequately anticipating and taking measures to ensure resilience to these? Which additional measures could ensure resilience to these factors? Sust3. Exit Phase Out Plan: Based upon existing plans and observations made during the evaluation, what are the key strategic options for the future of the project (e.g. exit, replication, scale-up)? What measures need to be taken to implement the most recommendable option(s)? METHODOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS The evaluation will be conducted by a team of consultants (one international lead consultant and one national consultant). The evaluators should apply a mixture of: - Desk analysis of existing documentation: project proposal, technical and progress reports, monitoring data, baseline reports, manuals etc. (list and copies will be provided) - Field visit to the project sites - Participatory evaluation methods to generate views, assessments and recommendations from the target group - Interviews and focused group discussions with key stakeholders (list of names and contact details will be provided) The methods shall be mixed in such a way to ensure that significant qualitative and quantitative data are gathered as evidence for further analysis and development of recommendations. The evaluators have to adhere to the principles for ensuring quality evaluations presented in Box 1 of these guidelines. The evaluation mission must ensure that the following principles for quality evaluations are adhered to: Useful: Evaluations must be tailored to respond to the questions and key information needs of those most likely to utilize the evaluation results. Independent: For an evaluation to be impartial and therefore more likely to be objective, respected, and accepted, it must be free from bias in findings, analysis, and conclusions. Inclusive: Evaluators and evaluation managers (those overseeing the evaluation process) must design and conduct the process with an eye to promoting project/program team self analysis, learning, and constructive participation. Page 8

9 Timely: Evaluation should be timed to inform key decision-making processes, such as planning a second program phase. Respectful. Evaluations and evaluators must respect the project/programme team and their key stakeholders and supporters. Credible: To be viewed as credible, evaluations must be rigorous, impartial, and conducted by a well qualified evaluator. Transparent: Findings must be readily available to all stakeholders, relevant stakeholders should have the opportunity to comment on the draft evaluation products. Ethical: Evaluations must adhere to relevant professional and ethical guidelines, be undertaken with integrity and honesty, and be respectful of human rights, differences in culture, customs, and practices of all stakeholders. 4. TASKS OF THE NATIONAL EVALUATOR In collaboration with the international consultant, the national evaluator shall specifically perform the following tasks: - Desk analysis of national and local policies in Bahasa Indonesia on local level planning and investment programming as well as on natural resources management and draw up of synopsis in English - Provide input to the evaluation plan - Conduct of the field trip in coordination and collaboration with the international consultant: key informant interviews, focus group discussions, preparation and presentation of preliminary findings; co facilitation of discussions and provision of interpretation support - Check consistency of evaluation report with Indonesian frame conditions; Translation of executive summary into Bahasa Indonesia 5. PROFILE OF NATIONAL EVALUATOR AND WWF SUPPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES The evaluation shall be conducted by a team of external evaluators (one international and one national consultant) non-affiliated with WWF and have the following competencies, skills and experiences: 1) Overarching competencies: - More than 5 years proven evaluation skills and experiences - More than 5 years experiences in project design and development - Proven skills and experiences in capacity building/ institutional development - Written and oral fluency in English 2) More than 5 years technical skills and experiences in - Rural development and natural resources management - Community-based management of natural resources and community development - Local governance and participatory planning processes - Sustainable land management and forest governance in Indonesia. WWF will provide logistical support and organize the field visit. 5. EVALUATION PROCESS, DELIVERABLES, AND TIMELINE General Evaluation Process Page 9

10 Major Evaluation Task/Output Dates or Deadline (subject to adjustments) Who is Responsible Evaluators review literature and project information Evaluators submit evaluation plan including focal questions to guide the field trip and interaction with key stakeholders July 15, 2017 July 15, 2017 International and national evaluators International and national evaluators Feedback on evaluation plan July 30, 2017 Anas, Susanne (coordination), Endre National evaluator prepares synopsis in English of key national and local policies on local level planning and investment programming as well as on natural resources management Project/programme team arranges for evaluator s visit, including WWF and stakeholder interviews, site visits, and logistics Evaluators visit project region (up to10 days incl. travel) Presentation of preliminary evaluation findings and recommendations to bengo team Evaluation report drafted and circulated to national consultant if needed. Review and comment period: check consistency of evaluation report with Indonesian frame conditions; Translation of executive summary into Bahasa Indonesia Evaluation report revised if needed and circulated to relevant staff July 31, 2017 August 2017 August 2017 (exact dates depend on availability of evaluator) August 2017 August 24, 2017 August 31, 2017 September 3, 2017 National evaluator Local offices/partner and evaluation team negotiate dates taking into consideration local conditions. International and national evaluators International and national evaluators Internationale evaluator National consultant International evaluator Review and comment period September 15, Anas, Susanne (coordination of comments), Albert, Endre Evaluation report finalized and approved September 22, 2017 International evaluator finalizes the report based upon comments received. Anas, Susanne and Albert review and give final approval of report. Translation of executive summary into German Management response developed by landscape team (see Annex C template). Submitting evaluation report and management response to BMZ bengo Check-in on progress on management response s Deliverables: October 15, 2017 October 15, 2017 October 31, 2017 March 31, 2018 Deliverable 1: Input to Evaluation Plan in English (July 15, 2017) Susanne Anas, Albert Susanne Albert, Anas, Susanne, Endre As discussed with the Project Team and International Consultant/Team leader, specified inputs to the evaluation plan, with the latter containing an evaluation matrix with the proposed data collection methods (including participatory evaluation methods) and data sources to be used for answering each evaluation question, the results chain of the project (drawn from collected documentation), focal questions to guide the field trip and interaction with key stakeholders and a list of reviewed documents. The plan should also contain a timeline of key dates. Deliverable 2: Synopsis in English of key national and local policies on local level planning and investment programming as well as on natural resources management (July 31, 2017) Page 10

11 In cases where key literature in local language needs to be reviewed (local policies/regulations), the national evaluator expert shall provide backup translation services- (e.g. synopsis) focusing on pre identified topics of selected documents considered of utmost importance. Deliverable 3: Co-Facilitation of stakeholder discussion and English interpretation support during the field trip (August 2017) During the field trip the national evaluator shall co-facilitate the interviews and focus group discussions to ensure successful communication of stakeholder perspectives. Deliverable 4: Input to PPT presentation of initial findings in English (August 2017) The PPT with initial findings of the evaluation and recommendations shall be presented at the end of the field trip to the bengo project team. Points of discussions and need for clarification shall be considered when drafting the evaluation report. Deliverable 5: Review draft Evaluation Report in English and translate executive summary into Bahasa Indonesia (August 31, 2017) The national evaluator shall review and comment the draft evaluation report focussing on consistency with Indonesian frame conditions and translate the executive summary into Bahasa Indonesia. Quantity structure Task Target date Service Days Review of literature and project information and input to evaluation plan Synopsis in English of key national and local policies on local level planning and investment programming as well as on natural resources management Field trip: - Interaction with bengo project team - Interaction with key governmental and nongovernmental partners in district and subdistrict capitals - Interaction with 5 project villages (heads July 15; 2017 July 31, 2017 August 2017 (precise date depends on evaluators) 1,5 days 2 days Up to 10 days (excluding travel to Kapuas Hulu district) Page 11

12 of village, planning teams, monitoring teams, producer groups, women representatives, youth groups etc.). This includes co-facilitation of discussions and provision of English and Bahasa interpretation of discussion - Prepare preliminary findings and recommendations for presentation to project team (1 day) - Validation of evaluation findings with the target group - Presentation of preliminary findings and recommendations to project team Review draft Evaluation Report in English and translate executive summary into Bahasa Indonesia September 3, ,5 TOTAL Up to 15 Schedule of payment 1 st payment - after contractual signature 30% of total fee 2 nd payment submission of draft evaluation report Other relate cost (e.g.: travel expenditures) 70% of total fee Based on submitted invoices/ reimbursement at cost 6. FURTHER ARRANGEMENTS All relevant documents will be provided by the project team upon signature of the contract. Page 12

13 The consultant ensures confidentiality and will not distribute any of the documents and evaluation findings in word or in writing to third parties without prior approval by WWF. Page 13

14 ANNEX A. Mandatory Annexes to the Terms of Reference Part A: REPORT TEMPLATE Title Page Report title, project or programme title, and contract number (if appropriate), Date of report, Authors and their affiliation, Locator map (if appropriate) Executive Summary (between 2 to 4 pages) Principal findings and recommendations, organized by the six core evaluation criteria Summary of lessons learned Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Body of the report (no more than 25 pages) A. Introduction (max 3 pages) - Concise description of the project - Purpose, objectives, and intended utilization of the evaluation (reference and attach the ToR as an annex) - Evaluation methodology and rationale for approach (reference and attach as annexes the mission itinerary and evaluation plan; names of key informants; a list of consulted documents; and any synthetic tables containing project information utilized in the exercise) B. Project Overview (max 5 pages) - Concise summary of the project s history, evolution, purpose, objectives, and strategies (attach results chain or logical framework and project monitoring system as annexes) - Essential characteristics: context, underlying rationale, stakeholders and beneficiaries - Frame conditions and any changes during project implementation C. Evaluation Findings and Recommendations - Findings and recommendations organized by a) each of the six core evaluation criteria and according to the indicators set at the beginning of the project, b) measures needed to overcome eventual gaps and risks (e.g. social, environmental, sustainable, scheduling, financing, reputation) to achieve project s objectives and if applicable make recommendations how to overcome them (incl. risk mitigation) c) measures needed to ensure implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the mid-term village development plans, d) measures needed to cross- and upscale the developed approaches and products, e) measures needed for effective and sustainable project closure. The findings should include sufficient but concise rationale recommendations should be specific, actionable and numbered. - Project performance rating tables to provide a quick summary of performance and to facilitate comparison with other projects/programmes (see Annex A, Table B) - Tables, graphics, and other figures to help convey key findings D. Overall Lessons Learned and good practices - Lessons learned regarding what worked, what didn t work, and why - Lessons learned with wider relevance, that can be generalized beyond the project E. Conclusions - General summation of key findings and recommendations Annexes Terms of Reference Evaluation plan Itinerary with key informants Documents consulted Project logical framework/ conceptual model/ list of primary goals and objectives Specific project and monitoring data, as appropriate Summary tables of progress towards outputs, objectives, and goals Maps Recommendations summary table WWF Project/Program Evaluation Guidelines DRAFT 26 March 2012 Page A-1

15 Part B. EVALUATION REPORT REQUIRED FINDINGS SUMMARY TABLES - SCORING OF THE PROJECT AGAINST THE SIX CORE EVALUATION CRITERIA Evaluators are to assign the project/program a Rating and Score for each criterion as follows: o Very Good/4: The project/program embodies the description of strong performance provided below to a very good extent. o Good/3: The project/program embodies the description of strong performance provided below to a good extent. o Fair/2: The project/program embodies the description of strong performance provided below to a fair extent. o Poor/1: The project/program embodies the description of strong performance provided below to a poor extent. o N/A: The criterion was not assessed (in the Justification, explain why). o D/I: The criterion was considered but data were insufficient to assign a rating or score (in the Justification, elaborate). Evaluators also are to provide a brief justification for the rating and score assigned. Identify most notable strengths to build upon as well as highest priority issues or obstacles to overcome. Note that this table should not be a comprehensive summary of findings and recommendations, but an overview only. A more comprehensive presentation should be captured in the evaluation report and the management response document. Rating/Score Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness Impact Sustainability Adaptive Management Description of Strong Performance The project/program addresses the necessary factors in the specific program context to bring about positive changes in conservation targets (i.e., species, ecosystems, ecological processes, including associated ecosystem services supporting human wellbeing). 1. Most/all program activities have been delivered with efficient use of human & financial resources. 2. Governance and management systems are appropriate, sufficient, and operate efficiently. 1. Most/all intended outcomes stated objectives/intermediate results regarding key threats and other factors affecting project/program targets were attained.. 2. There is strong evidence indicating that perceived changes can be attributed wholly or largely to the WWF project or program 1. Most/all goals stated desired changes in the status of species, ecosystems, ecological processes were realized. 2. Evidence indicates that perceived changes can be attributed wholly or largely to the WWF project or program. 1. Most or all factors for ensuring sustainability of results/impacts are being or have been established. 2. Scaling up mechanism put in place with risks and assumptions re-assessed and addressed. 1. Project/program results (outputs, outcomes, impacts) are qualitatively and quantitatively demonstrated through regular collection and analysis of monitoring data. 2. The project/program team uses these findings, as well as those from related projects/ efforts, to strengthen its work and performance 3. Learning is documented and shared for project/program and organizational learning Evaluator Rating/ Score Evaluator Brief Justification WWF Project/Program Evaluation Guidelines DRAFT 26 March 2012 Page G-2