Terms of Reference (TOR) for Independent End of Project Evaluation

Transcription

1 Terms of Reference (TOR) for Independent End of Project Evaluation Project Name Increasing the provision of clean energy in Uganda hereafter referred to as Clean Energy Project Project Number(s) ESARPO0218; Norad: QZA-11/ ; WWF- No: 5303; WWF Int: UG0035 Implementation Period January 2012 December 2016 Commissioned by: WWF-Uganda Country Office in Collaboration with WWF-Norway and WWF-Denmark 1

2 1. Introduction World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the global conservation organization has a mission to stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by: Conserving the world's biological diversity; Ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable; and Reducing pollution and wasteful consumption. Pursuant to its global mission, WWF-Uganda Country Office (WWF-UCO) works with central government agencies, local governments, private sector, and civil society organizations (CSOs) to implement its various conservation Programmes in Uganda, which are, Forestry and Biodiversity, Energy and Climate and Freshwater. Under the Energy and Climate Programme, since January 2012 WWF-UCO has been implementing the Clean Energy Project (CEP) with funding from Norad. The current phase of the CEP set to achieve three main outcomes which contribute to the goal: National energy targets, including on reducing energy poverty, are met while greenhouse gas emissions from energy production in developing countries are reduced by 30% by 2020 compared with business as usual scenarios from 2011, and environmental impacts from renewable energy production are minimized. The three outcomes are: Government of Uganda demonstrates commitment towards low carbon energy development National targets and measures for improved renewable energy access are in place in Uganda, supported by practical functional model projects Improved social and environmental performance of at least three hydropower projects Project implementation was also supported by WWF offices in Norway, Denmark and Sweden. The support from WWF-Denmark and WWF-Sweden was towards outcome 2, specifically energy access work under the Champion District Initiative (CDI) while WWF-Norway s support went beyond that. The implementation of the CDI was based on a joint log-frame developed by WWF-UCO, WWF-Norway, WWF-Denmark and WWF-Sweden. 2. The Assignment 2.1 Purpose WWF-UCO seeks to hire an international consultant to undertake an independent end of project evaluation for the CEP. The objective of this evaluation is to assess whether the CEP achieved its set objectives and to document lessons and best practices that can inform future initiatives. The specific objectives of the evaluation are to: Assess the relevance of the project in terms of design and focus Assess the effectiveness of the project in terms of progress made towards desired results at impact, outcome and output levels Assess the efficiency of the project in terms of use and allocation of resources Identify and document lessons and best practices that can inform future initiatives Assess the sustainability of the project and possibilities for scaling-up and replication 2.2 Scope and Focus of the Evaluation The following areas shall be assessed during the end of project evaluation: a) Relevance: Assess the design and focus of the project Review the project concept and design in terms of how it addressed relevant problems and needs as well as the soundness of the approaches adopted by the project to solve 2

3 these problems Assess the extent to which the project was aligned to government strategies and priorities, WWF areas of interest, needs of beneficiaries and other donor programmes Did the project involve the relevant stakeholders through information sharing, consultation and by seeking their participation in the project s design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation? Did the project have buy-in and support from stakeholders, i.e. to which extent did the project meet stakeholder expectations? Was the enabling environment for the project fully in place at project initiation? Were the project s objectives and results clear, practicable and feasible within the set timeframe? Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provided the most effective route towards attainment of results. What aspects of the design could have been designed differently to make the programme more relevant? What changes happened since the project was initiated? Were these changes in line with the goal of the project? Assess the risks and assumptions made in the project design to see if these were relevant? What major assumptions were overlooked? b) Effectiveness: Describe the project management processes and their appropriateness in supporting delivery Asses how far the project reached towards achieving its objectives at impact, outcome and output levels in relation to targets set in the Logical Framework Analysis (LFA). What results were achieved at impact, outcome and output level? Were they of appropriate technical quality? How effective and appropriate was the project implementation approach? Were project activities implemented according to work plans? What were the main implementation issues? What were the project s main successes? What did the project fail to do? Which factors (internal and external) have facilitated or impeded the achievement of project objectives? What transformation resulted from the project since it was initiated? Are there any observed changes or trends resulting from the project anticipated to have long lasting impact? c) Efficiency: Assess the use and allocation of project resources Financial and administrative resources: Were financial resources available to the project appropriate and well utilized? To what extent did funding, time, personnel, and other resources contribute or hinder the achievement of project objectives? Were project funds used as stated? What percentage of total project budget was utilised (analyse key budget line and total expenditure)? Explain any major over or under expenditures on key budget lines. Was the project cost effective? Did the project have appropriate financial procedures and practices including financial controls reporting and audits that allowed management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allowed for timely flow of funds? How has follow-up of issues raised in connection with financial reports and annual audits, if any, been addressed? Have funds been transferred efficiently from the donor to the project? Has value for money been achieved in the implementation of project activities? Could the same results have been achieved for less money? 3

4 Time: Was enough time allowed for the achievement of the intended objectives? Were work plans developed and implemented according to plan? Were the work plans monitored and adapted where necessary to achieve intended objectives of the project? Human Resources: Were there enough human resources (including staff, WWF Network and partners) with adequate competence for the achievement of intended objectives Management arrangements: To what extent was the organizational setup of the project efficient? Were responsibilities and reporting lines clear? How was the division and clarity of roles and responsibilities? Asses the timeliness of decision making. How well did the partnership and management arrangements work and how did they develop over time? Were communication lines effective and efficient? Implementation and Monitoring: Were there delays in project implementation and completion? If so, what were they and how did they affect project delivery? Assess how project implementation was adaptive, pro-active and responded to changes and lessons learned. Assess how risks were identified, monitored and mitigated during project implementation. Was there a suitable M& E framework to track progress towards project objectives? Were the indicators and targets SMART? How well did the project implement its M&E framework? Review the monitoring tools used by the project. Were they efficient and cost-effective? Did they provide the necessary information? Were key partners involved in the use of the monitoring tools? How did the project use the information generated during project monitoring to adapt to changing needs and improve project performance? Review if broader development aspects (livelihood, capacity building, rights, gender, etc.) were monitored effectively and how. d) Lessons Learnt and Best Practices What are the key lessons learnt and best practices from implementing the CDI and catchment management pilots? Have the pilots provided any exceptional experiences on distribution and payment approaches for energy access, partnerships, capacity building, policy interventions and options for catchment management, etc. that can be highlighted? Describe them briefly. Were the lessons learnt and best practice from the pilots timely identified, documented and shared with relevant stakeholders? If so, how did they influence any changes to the project design and implementation approach or initiatives implemented by other stakeholders such as government, private sector and civil society actors? How best can the lessons learnt and best practices from the pilots be disseminated after the end of the project to achieve bigger impact? e) Sustainability, scaling-up and replication What measures were put in place to ensure continuity of benefits from the pilots for longterm impact? What is the likelihood of continuation of these initiatives after the end of the project? What are the key factors (i.e. local ownership, financial, institutional capacity, etc.) that will facilitate or hinder sustainability of the benefits from the pilots? 4

5 Analyze risks (social, political, economic and environmental) that may jeopardize the sustainability, scaling-up and replication of the results from the pilots. Assess the steps taken by the project to encourage or ensure scaling-up and replication of results from the pilots and provide recommendations for a possible scaling-up and replication mechanism. Is there evidence of institutions, partners, communities, districts, etc. that have scaled-up or replicated successful components from the pilots beyond the immediate project area and why, and is such replication or scaling-up likely to continue? What opportunities exist for scaling-up and replication of results from the pilots to achieve bigger impact? 2.3 Methodology The end of project evaluation will be an independent exercise conducted by a consultant hired by WWF-UCO. The consultant shall be required to collect relevant data for the evaluation using the following methods, among others: Document Review: The consultant shall undertake in depth review of relevant documents such as the project proposal, LFA, annual work plans, activity and technical progress reports, financial reports, WWF-UCO Strategy ( ), evaluation reports, internal mid-term review report and other documents produced by the project. The consultant shall also review relevant government documents on energy in the country. Interviews and consultations: The consultant shall interview the project team and other relevant staff at WWF-UCO, representatives of WWF-Norway and WWF-Denmark as well as key stakeholders including government, civil society actors, private sector and beneficiaries. Structured /non-structured interview questions shall be administered through face to face meetings, skype and . Field visits: The consultant shall undertake visits to project sites in Kasese District to verify project results from implementation of energy access and catchment management interventions on ground. During the field visit, the consultant shall assess the impact of the project on people and nature. The consultant shall elaborate on the methodology to be undertaken based on the objective, scope and focus of the evaluation presented above. 2.4 Deliverables The consultant is expected to deliver the following to the WWF team: Inception report 7 days after signing the contract detailing how the consultant will undertake the assignment A digital copy in MS Word format of the draft evaluation report (main text excluding summary and annexes not exceeding 30 pages), as per the report format in Annex 2, by 20 th January The WWF team shall provide feedback and comments within two weeks of receiving the draft report. A digital copy in MS Word format of the final evaluation report (main text excluding summary and annexes not exceeding 30 pages), as per the report format in Annex 2, by 10 th February Desired skills and Competence of Consultant MSC. Degree in renewable energy, natural resources management or related fields At least 10 years of professional experience in renewable energy, natural resources management or related fields. Provide a list of projects/assignments that you have been 5

6 involved in At least 5 years of experience in evaluation of donor funded projects and policy interventions on renewable energy, natural resources management or related fields. Provide a list of projects evaluated Excellent analytical skills and ability to collect and process a lot of information in a short period of time Ability to review relevant documentation, engage stakeholders efficiently and effectively and to produce excellent written reports Excellent oral and writing skills in English as well as computer literacy (Microsoft: Word, Excel, and Power Point) 2.6 Responsibilities and Logistics The WWF team will review and provide feedback on the reports produced by the consultant The project team at WWF-UCO will schedule and make appointments for field visits and meetings with relevant partners and stakeholders. WWF-UCO will provide transport for the consultant to travel to the field and stakeholder meetings during the evaluation. The WWF team will provide documents in their possession required for the evaluation. WWF-UCO will be responsible for organizing the stakeholders workshop where the consultant will present preliminary findings and initial conclusions resulting from the evaluation The consultant will take full responsibility for quality control and timely submission of the deliverables to the WWF team The consultant will cater for costs of their accommodation, per diem and other expenses related to the evaluation. These costs should be included in the total budget for the assignment 2.7 Duration of the Evaluation The evaluation should be carried out over a period of 25 man-days, broken down as shown in the table below: Item Time (Mandays) 1. Document review, development of evaluation tools (Questionnaires, 9 interview guidelines, etc.) and stakeholder meetings in Kampala 2. Field visits and stakeholder meetings in Kasese 4 3. Preparation of draft report 8 4. Preparation of the final report 4 Total 25 NB: In-country work will take place in the period from 10 th to 21 st December Cost of the Evaluation The estimated total cost of this assignment should cover professional fees for the consultant as well as any other costs to be incurred in undertaking this assignment excluding transport to the field and stakeholder meetings during the evaluation which will be catered for by the client. 6

7 3. Submission Procedure Firms/ individual consultants that wish to express their interest in undertaking the prescribed assignment are requested to the following: i. A technical proposal not exceeding 15 pages containing: a. An understanding and interpretation of the TOR. b. Methodology to be used in undertaking the assignment. c. Time and activity schedule. d. Evidence of relevant experience and samples of products related to the assignment. e. Curriculum vitae of the lead consultant to undertake the assignment plus short CVs of the rest of the team. Information on any representative of your team, or any member of your team, that may give rise to a direct or indirect conflict of interest, including identifying other current contractual works being conducted for WWF, Funder (NORAD) and affiliations with national and local focal points. i) A financial proposal not exceeding 2 pages including: Consultant s daily rates in United States Dollars (USD). Any other related costs for undertaking the assignment in USD. Send the specified documents above by 11 th November 2016 to: Chairperson, Procurement Committee, WWF Uganda Country Office, Plot 2, Sturrock Road P.O. Box 8758, Kampala. kampala@wwfuganda.org Conditions: 1. WWF reserves the right to accept any proposal or reject all proposals. 2. Technical evaluation will precede financial considerations. 3. Any forms of canvassing will lead to automatic cancellation of the bid in question. 4. Only shortlisted consultants will be contacted for further consideration. 7

8 ANNEX 1. PROJECT GOAL, OUTCOMES AND OUTPUTS Development Goal: National energy targets, including on reducing energy poverty, are met while greenhouse gas emissions from energy production in developing countries are reduced by 30% by 2020 compared with business as usual scenarios from 2011, and environmental impacts from renewable energy production are minimized. Outcome 1: Government of Uganda demonstrates commitment towards low carbon energy development Output 1.1: Policy recommendations on low-carbon development are communicated to national and champion district local governments together with produced material that fill known knowledge gaps for decisions makers. Output 1.2: Capacity of civil society and other stakeholders built to effectively engage in advocacy towards government on low-carbon energy development. Output 1.3: Options for sustainable wood fuel and clean lighting alternatives are developed through multi-stakeholder engagements and are communicated nation-wide. Output 1.4: Opportunities for international climate funding to finance low-carbon energy development are demonstrated to national government and other relevant stakeholders. Outcome 2: National targets and measures for improved renewable energy access are in place in Uganda, supported by practical functional model projects Output 2.1: A national energy access action plan/strategy developed through multi-stakeholder engagements. Output 2.2: District level energy access initiatives developed and tested as models for scale up and replication. Outcome 3: Improved social and environmental performance of at least three hydropower projects by EOP Output 3.1: An assessment of social and environmental vulnerability of the Government s priority hydropower sites undertaken. Output 3.2: International standards for environmental and social performance are promoted for new hydropower development projects. Output 3.3: Options for improved catchment management, including forest carbon funding and payment for ecosystem services that benefit hydropower generation, are documented and communicated with pilot activities initiated in at least one catchment 8

9 ANNEX 2. REPORT OUTLINE Acronyms Executive Summary Introduction Introduction Background of the Project Objectives of the Evaluation Scope and Focus of the Evaluation Methodology of the Evaluation Discussion of Results Relevance of the Project Effectiveness of Implementation Efficiency of Implementation Potential for Sustainability, Scaling-up and Replication Lessons Learnt and Best Practices Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Recommendations Annexes 8