Terms of Reference Projects Outputs Evaluation Strengthening Participatory and Accountable Governance and Protection of Human Rights. Empowering Civil Society in A. BACKGROUND UNDP s corporate policy is to evaluate its development cooperation with the host government on a regular basis in order to assess whether and how UNDP-funded interventions contribute to the achievement of agreed outputs, i.e. results and outputs of the projects have been achieved and positive impact is realized. Under the results-based management (RBM) framework - UNDP s core management philosophy- there has been a shift from traditional project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to results-oriented M&E, in particular output monitoring and evaluation that cover a set of related projects, programmes and partnership strategies intended to achieve a higher level output. An output evaluation assesses how and why an output is or is not being achieved in a given country context and the role UNDP has played. It is also intended to clarify underlying factors affecting the development situation, identify unintended consequences (positive and negative), generate lessons learned and recommend actions to improve performance in future programming and partnership development. Output to be evaluated - In the UNDAF strategic Framework (2011-2014) where number of priority areas and strategic results have been identified one of them is Priority area and strategic result: Improved Governance, including the protection of human rights; The i State has more efficient, accountable and participatory governance at national and sub-national levels. And The i state has a more inclusive and participatory political process reflecting improved national dialogue. Priority 1: Improved governance, including protection of human rights. It will take stock of UNDP s efforts in achieving the development output so far and propose measures in order to increase the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of UNDP cooperation in the output areas. - In the UNDAF strategic Framework was Improved Governance, including protection of human rights, and UNDP Strategic Plan (2008-2013). Democratic governance. Strengthening accountable and responsive governing institutions;
Grounding democratic governance in international principles and fostering inclusive participation. Priority A: Building Capacity and Legitimacy of Institutions and Civil Society and Enhanced capacity of Parliament to efficiently assume its oversight and legislative role through a strengthened Secretariat, Presidency Council and trained new MPs, particularly women, also Strengthened capacity development resources for local CSOs and NGOs institutionalized within the NGO Directorate, Enhanced ability of i citizens and civil society to engage in the legislative process. A results framework for the selected output for evaluation is summarized in Table 1 below. Brief national context related to the Country Programme output UNDP has continued, under this programme, to promote and institutionalize the promotion and protection of a Human Rights Culture in. The acknowledgement and the recognition of the National Elections in April 2014 resulted in the formation of a new Government and a new Parliament which provided a good opportunity to support the reform agenda through UNDP programmes and projects. During the year 2014, a strategic partnership was established with state and non-state actors to strengthen their contribution to public policy as well as their effective engagement to advance participatory and accountable Governance. The project, namely in the Human Rights component, moved beyond training activities towards a more institutionalized approach ensuring sustainability of the results achieved and ensuring capacity development of partners to shoulder and continue with those activities in the future. This is best illustrated in the support to the establishment of the Human Rights Civil Society Advisory Board in. This Board works very closely with the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee. It reviewed the organizational structure of the Independent Board of Human Rights in KR-I through the technical advisory support to the revision of the Law 4/2010. Another major result of this project has paved the way to an additional two years support to the NOGs Directorate within ComSec where support will be expanded to NGOs Directorate and Civil Society organizations to assist the CSOs involvement in the legislative and oversight process in the Parliament. With regard to the support to the oversight bodies under this project it worth mentioning that tangible progress related to enhancing the capacity of Supreme Board of Audit at both federal and regional level has been made. Similarly, support has been leveraged to the CSOs in connection with the work of the Integrity Commission. Simultaneously, UNDP has developed an innovative grant model to support i CSOs (Civil Society organizations) with a two-fold approach combining grants and capacity development. The participatory and consultative approach to establishing this grant
mechanism is a ground- breaking innovation for that has been appreciated by i counterparts as the first of its kind. A total of 100 local CSOs has been engaged in the grant application process either as lead applicants or members of a CSO consortium. After a thorough and transparent selection process, 8 CSO consortia (with a total membership of 31 CSOs) has been selected to implement projects in three thematic areas (i) promotion of adequate service delivery, (ii) anti-corruption, (iii) human and civil rights. The combination of grants and capacity development that is benefiting 31 local CSOs has allowed them to effectively engage in citizen-led oversight mechanisms and taking actions to hold the government to account. At the same time, the CSOs have benefited from a comprehensive accompaniment mechanism that is addressing demand-based capacity issues. As a result, CSOs have gained credibility and professionalism and public authorities are increasingly accepting them as partners for positive change in. The project has developed trust-based partnerships with the CSO parliamentary Committee, the NGO Directorate, equivalent authorities at Kurdistan Regional level and the CSO community at large. The Project Objective and key expected results: The project is supporting CSOs to effectively monitor the Government of s compliance with due process and transparency and enhance CSO capacities for advocacy. UNDP will build the capacity of chosen CSOs to hold the Government accountable in the areas of promotion of adequate service delivery, anti-corruption, and human and civil rights. Through encouraging CSOs to form consortia, the project is transferring know-how whilst working on concrete issues. The Project is also contributing to opening up permanent and sustainable channels between CSOs and Government to interface and advocate for the voices of civil society to be heard and taken into account in relation to public policymaking. The partnership with UNOPS builds on existing strong relationships with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), the Kurdistan Parliament and Kurdistan civil society.
Table 1: Results Framework for UNDAF and the projects outputs: UNDP 1- Enhancing Transparent Participatory and Accountable Governance, and Protection of Human Rights. UNDAF: Priority 1 Improved Governance, including the protection of human rights. Priority Output 1.4 The i State has more efficient, accountable and participatory governance at national and sub-national levels. UNDP CPAP: Output 3 Strengthened regulatory frameworks, institutions and processes in place for accountable, transparent and participatory governance at national and local levels. Output 1: Indicators: The Human Rights Commission has enhanced capacity to execute its mandate. 1-Regulatory framework of the Commission in place; 2-2. Sub-national IHCHR Offices established at governorate level. 3-Number of Human Rights commissioners disaggregated by federal/krg levels. 4-Number of core staff trained to execute their services effectively. 5-%age of those trained fully satisfied with the relevance, quality and usefulness of the training provided. Output 2: Indicators: has a national platform for an expanded human rights dialogue. 1-IHCHR outreach strategy is drafted. 2-Number of IHCHR public information campaigns undertaken and disaggregated by federal/krg level. 3-Number of Human Rights CSOs engaged in a formal national dialogue on human rights. 4-Number of staff of the COR Human Rights Committee trained on Human Rights. 5-COR Human Rights strategic framework and action plan developed. 6-Percentage of CSOs engaged in the national dialogue process satisfied with the level and quality of engagement with regards to human rights.
Output 3: Indicators: The i state is able to promote and undertake governance process in an accountable and transparent manner. 1-Number of trainers deployed in the CoR Committees and in the Governorates. 2-Consultations to establish framework on KRG Commission of Integrity. 3-Investigate journalism curriculum developed. 2- Empowering Civil Society in UNDAF: Priority 1: Improved governance, including protection of human rights. Output 1: Government is supported to facilitate free engagement of CSOs in development and reconciliation processes. Indicators: 1- KRG Civil Society Regional Compact drafted and submitted for endorsement 2- Number of CSOs involved in the drafting of the KRG Civil Society compact 3- Percentage of CSOs involved in the drafting of KRG civil society compact satisfied with level of participation. Output 2: CSOs have an enhanced capacity to promote citizen oversight mechanisms. Indicators: 1- Number of vetted national/ local CSOs to undertake and promote oversight mechanisms in the areas of service delivery, anti-corruption and protecting and promoting human and civil rights 2- Number of CSOs that that receive project cycle management and organizational networking skills capacity support from programme.
B. Purpose & objectives of the evaluation The project and output evaluation shall assess the following: Project and outputs analysis Evaluate the progress that has been made towards the achievement of the output in since 2011 (including contributing factors and constraints); Output analysis - Determine contributing factors and impediments and extent of the UNDP contribution to the achievement of the strategic results through related project outputs. ; Output-output link - Assess the contribution UNDP has made/is making to the progress towards the achievement of the output; and Assess partnership strategy in relation to the projects and outputs. Provide recommendations on how to build on the achievements of the project and ensure that is sustained by the relevant stakeholders Document lessons learned success stories and good practices in order to maximize the experiences gained. The evaluation should take into consideration the project duration, existing resources and political environmental constraints; The results of the outputs evaluation will be used to guide future programming. In this regard the evaluation will:. 1. Identify strengths and weaknesses in the current Programme/Projects in respect of the stated output. 2. Propose better ways of coordinating donor interventions in the sector 3. Identify priority areas of focus for future programming C. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION Geographic Focus The evaluation should cover the regional and governorate dimensions of the country. Output analysis Are the UNDP outputs still relevant to the output?
Has sufficient progress been made in relation to the UNDP outputs? What are the factors (positive and negative) that affect the accomplishment of the outputs? Assess whether and how human development and human security concerns have been considered in the national development planning. Assess UNDP s ability to advocate best practices and desired goals, including its role and participation in national debate and ability to influence national policies on promoting recovery and development. Output-output link Whether UNDP s outputs or other interventions can be credibly linked to the achievement of the output (including the key outputs, projects and assistance soft and hard that contributed to the output); What are the key contributions that UNDP has made/is making to the output (e.g. piloting new technologies, developing pricing schemes, drafting energy efficiency standards)? What has been the role of UNDP soft-assistance activities in helping achieve the output? With the current planned interventions in partnership with other actors and stakeholders, will UNDP be able to achieve the output within the set timeframe and inputs or whether additional resources are required and new or changed interventions are needed? Whether UNDP s partnership strategy has been appropriate and effective. Has UNDP been able to bring together various partners across social, ethnic and sectoral lines to address human development and human security concerns in a holistic manner? Assess UNDP s ability to develop national capacity in a sustainable manner (through exposure to best practices in other crisis-affected countries, south-south cooperation, holistic and participatory approaches). Has UNDP been able to respond to changing circumstances and requirements in capacity development? What is the prospect of the sustainability of UNDP interventions related to the two outputs? Can it be ensured that the outputs will be reached and maintained even after the UNDP interventions? In addressing the above questions the evaluation team is also expected to examine the interventions in terms of the following: Project management and implementation issues: - Whether the current project management structure and staffing is effective and efficient;
- To identify failures and successes in strategy and tactics in the planning and Implementation stages; - Identification of possible obstacles to effective implementation in the future. Analysis of underlying factors: - Identification of factors beyond UNDP s control that influence the environment and the output; - Coordination between agencies; - Risk analysis (short, medium and long term). UNDP contribution to development results: - Whether or not UNDP s outputs and other interventions can be credibly linked to achievement of the output (including the outputs, programmes, projects, and soft and hard assistance that contributed to the output). Partnership strategy: - Whether UNDP s partnership strategy has been appropriate and effective; - The level of participation of stakeholders/partners in the achievement of the output, as well as the effectiveness of such participation. - Sustainability and exit strategy. Key lessons: - The key lessons to emerge in terms of country ownership and state and/or district level cooperation in connection with the output. E. Methodology An overall guidance on the evaluation methodology can be found in the UNDP Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Results and the UNDP Guidelines for Output Evaluators. In addition, UNDP s Evaluation Policy provides information about the role and use of output evaluation within the M&E architecture of the organization. The evaluators should come up with a suitable methodology for this output evaluation based on the guidance given in these three documents. During the evaluation, the evaluators are expected to apply the following approaches for data collection and analysis: Desk review of relevant documents and database sites(project documents with amendments made, progress reports review reports mid-term, final, donorspecific, audit and financial);
Discussions with Senior Management and relevant programme staff of UNDP ; Consultations with relevant central and other government representatives/implementing partners involved with the UNDP projects and all other relevant initiatives at national level; Consultations with all relevant donors, UN agencies and national and international non-governmental organizations engaged in development work in ; Field visits to selected project sites and discussions with government officials at district level; Interviews/focus group discussion with and participation of partners and beneficiaries, including women s groups and other stakeholders; Use of interviews, field visits, focus group discussion, questionnaires and meetings to validate information about the status of the output, including local sources of knowledge about factors influencing the output; Debriefing consultations and stakeholder workshop (i.e. with national and international partners). F. Evaluation Team The evaluation team will comprise two consultants: one international consultant, specialized in Inclusive, Accountable Governance, Human Rights and Civil Society (The Team Leader) and one national consultant. The international consultant should have an advanced university degree in Public Administration, Public Policy and Management, Development Studies, International Development, or any other relevant social science degree, and at least ten years of work experience with evaluation of development issues in crisis-affected countries. The Team Leader is expected to be a professional evaluator with substantive knowledge about results-based management (RBM) and results-oriented monitoring and evaluation. S/he will take the overall responsibility for the quality and timely submission of the evaluation report to the UNDP Country Office. The national consultant should be English/Arabic speaker, have a university degree and at least five years work experience; (s)he should have sound knowledge and understanding of electoral process in, Experience with CSO and national dialogue, and have experience in conducting evaluation. The national consultant will be responsible of performing the following tasks respectively: Review documents; Act as translator (Arabic to English and vice versa) for the international consultant, as necessary; Participate and contribute to the design of the evaluation methodology;
Undertake field visits in UNDP project areas in the north, central and south of the country; Undertake observation and other evaluative activities as required by the agreed evaluation methodology; Conduct an analysis of the output, outputs and partnership strategy (as per the scope of the evaluation described above); Draft related parts of the evaluation report under the guidance of Team Leader; and Assist Team Leader in finalizing the evaluation report through incorporating suggestions received on draft related to his/her assigned sections. G. Key Deliverables 1- A desk review. 2- An Inception report. 3- An evaluation plan. 4- Debriefing of UNDP and partners 5- Draft evaluation report 6- A comprehensive Final analytical report in English the key product expected from this output evaluation includes the following contents: a. Title Page b. List of acronyms and abbreviations c. Table of contents, including list of annexes d. Executive summary (1-2 pages) e. Introduction (1 page) f. Description of the project its logic theory, results framework and external factors likely to affect success (6 pages) g. Description of the evaluation methodology (6 pages) h. An analysis of the situation with regard to the output, the outputs, and the partnership strategies (15-20 pages) i. Analysis of salient opportunities to provide guidance for future programming in relation to the output (8-10 pages) j. Key findings, including lessons learned and best practice (5-6 pages) k. Conclusions and recommendations (2-3 pages) and l. Annexes: ToR, charts, field visits, people consulted, documents reviewed, etc. The tentative page numbers serve only as a guide for the Evaluation Team. However, it is expected that the report will not exceed 80 pages, including annexes.
H. Timeframe & Delivery of Report Evaluation Process Schedule (not chronological): # Activity Location working days Payments Inception report : Desk review, Home 1 Evaluation design and work plan base 10 Field visits, interviews with Baghdad 25% 2 partners, and key stakeholders (& Erbil) 10 3 1st draft report Home base 10 25% 5 Incorporating comments and finalization the report Home base 10 50% 6 Total working days 40 100% A total of 40 working days are required for each of the international consultant and the national consultant. The evaluation report should be finalized and submitted to UNDP, within 40 days from the contract signing date, for final review and approval by UNDP. Evaluators will be paid in installments for their services and the final payment will be made only after the submission and approval of the evaluation report by UNDP. I. Specific responsibilities Country Office to provide logistical support; facilitate meetings and interactions with relevant stakeholders; comment on the final draft report; approve final report and follow up on recommendations/management response. Government counterpart to participate in meetings/consultations and presentation of findings as per these terms of reference and mission schedule; provide needed information and document related to the output evaluation; and comment on the draft report. Partners/Key stakeholders to participate in meetings/consultations and presentation of findings as per these terms of reference and mission schedule; provide needed information and documents related to the output evaluation; and comment on the draft report.
J. Implementation Arrangements To facilitate the outputs and projects evaluation process, Programme Management Team, Programme Unit and Partnership and Management Support Unit (PMSU) in UNDP will assist in connecting the evaluation team with the relevant UNDP programme units, senior management, and key stakeholders. They will provide both substantive and logistical support to the evaluation team and ensure a participatory evaluation process. The team will help identify the key partners for interviews/consultations by the evaluation team. It will also provide guidance to help the evaluation team to identify the most strategic areas to visit in by the evaluation team. However, the evaluation will retain its full integrity and flexibility to determine the best approach to collection and analyzing data for the evaluation. K. Reporting The consultant will be reporting directly to the Programme Manager. L. Key documents to be reviewed by the Evaluators The evaluators will need to study the following documents in addition to project documents, project monitoring reports, project evaluation reports, programme evaluation reports, audit reports and annual work-plans etc.: UNDP Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Results UNDP Guidelines for Output Evaluators UNDP Results-Based Management: Technical Note The National Development Plan (2010-2014) The National Development Plan (2013-2017) UNDP Country Programme Document (CPD) for (2011-2015) UNDP Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) for (2011-2015) The Common Country Assessment 2009, The UNDAF 2011-14, & the UNDAF 2015-2019 General Framework of the Governmental Program 2014 2018 Other national policies, strategies and plans related to the output Project documents under this output