International Evaluation Consultants for the terminal evaluation of the GoM/UNDP-GEF Project “Conserving Marine Biodiversity through enhanced marine park management and inclusive sustainable Island development”

• Outcome 1: Adaptive Marine Park management by a mechanism of cross-sectoral information sharing and knowledge transfer into decision-making bodies.
• Outcome 2: Mechanisms for effective multi-sectoral policy making, development planning and an improved financial sustainability.
• Outcome 3: Involvement of local communities in Marine Park management and enabling them to benefits of biodiversity conservation by generating alternative livelihoods.
• Outcome 4: Tourism operators integrated into Protected Area Management and reduction of the direct and indirect impacts of tourism activities on biodiversity.
• Outcome 5: MPUs follow international standards of protected area management and achieve efficient enforcement and prevention of violations.
• Outcome 6: Raised awareness of the importance of biodiversity conservation and marine park system in Malaysia among selected target groups.
• Outcome 7: Framework for strong advocacy from stakeholders for the conservation in the marine parks of Malaysia.

• To promote accountability for the achievement of GEF objectives through the assessment of results, effectiveness, processes, and performance of the partners involved in GEF activities. GEF results are monitored and evaluated for their contribution to global environmental benefits;
• To promote learning, feedback, and knowledge sharing on results and lessons learned among the GEF and its partners, as a basis for decision-making on policies, strategies, programme management, and projects, and to improve knowledge and performance.

• To promote accountability and transparency, and to assess and disclose levels of project accomplishments;
• To synthesize lessons that may help improve the selection, design and implementation of future GEF activities;
• To provide feedback on issues that are recurrent across the portfolio and need attention, and on improvements regarding previously identified issues; and,
• To contribute to the GEF Evaluation Office databases for aggregation, analysis and reporting on effectiveness of GEF operations in achieving global environmental benefits and on quality of monitoring and evaluation across the GEF system.

• Assess overall performance and review progress towards attaining the project’s objectives and results including relevancy, efficiency and effectiveness of the actions taken given the available funding and capacities for implementation;
• Review and evaluate the extent to which the project outputs and outcomes have been achieved and provide rating employing the six-point rating scale (HS to HU) (see Annex 2 );
• Assess the project results and determine the extent to which the project objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, and assess if the project has led to any positive or negative consequences and provide a rating of project objective achievement on the six-point rating scale;
• Assess the extent to which the project impacts have reached or have the potential to reach the intended beneficiaries;
• Critically analyse the implementation arrangements and identify strengths and weaknesses in the project design and implementation and provide a rating of the project implementation, employing the six-point rating scale;
• Describe the project’s adaptive management strategy – how have project activities changed in response to new conditions and have the changes been appropriate;
• Review the clarity of roles and responsibilities of the various agencies and institutions and the level of coordination between relevant players;
• Assess the level of stakeholder involvement in the project from community to higher Government levels and recommend on whether this involvement has been appropriate to the goals of the project;
• Describe and assess efforts of UNDP in support of implementation;
• Review donor partnership processes, and the contribution of co-finance;
• Describe key factors that will require attention in order to improve prospects for sustainability of project results achieved; and,
• Identify and document the main successes, challenges and lessons that have emerged.

• Preparatory work and implementation strategies
• Consultative processes
• Technical support
• Capacity building initiatives
• Project outputs
• Assumptions and risks
• Project related complementary activities

• Efficiency of all project activities under the five major components
• Progress in the achievement of the immediate objectives (include level of indicator achievement when available)

• Assessment of national level involvement and perception
• Assessment of local partnerships, and involvement of stakeholders
• Assessment of collaboration between government, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations

• Were problems/constraints, which impacted on successful delivery of the project identified at the project design stage and subsequently as part of the Mid Term Evaluation (MTE)?
• Were there new threats/risks to project success that emerged during project implementation?
• Were both kinds of risk appropriately dealt with?
• Were recommendations arising from the MTE addressed?

• Assess the extent, appropriateness and effectiveness of adaptive management at all levels of the project implementation
• Has there been a monitoring and evaluation framework for the project and how was this developed?
• Is the reporting framework effective/appropriate?
• Is this framework suitable for replication/continuation for any future project support?

Assess the extent, appropriateness and effectiveness of adaptive management at all levels of the project implementation 

• Project related administration procedures
• Milestones (Log-frame matrix)
• Key decisions and outputs,
• Major project implementation documents prepared with an indication of how the documents and reports have been useful

• Provide an overview of actual spending against budget expectations
• Critically analyse disbursements to determine if funds have been applied effectively and efficiently.

• Did the Project Document provide adequate guidance on how to allocate the budget?
• Review of audits and any issues raised in audits and subsequent adjustments to accommodate audit recommendations;
• Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and provide an opinion on the appropriateness and relevancy of such revisions

• Evaluate appropriateness and efficiency of coordinating mechanisms between executing agencies and UNDP
• Does the approach represent an effective means of achieving the objectives?
• How can the approach be improved?

• Project Document and Project Appraisal Document;
• Project implementation reports (APR/PIR’s);
• Quarterly progress reports and work plans of the various implementation task teams;
• Audit reports;
• Mid Term Evaluation report;
• Biodiversity Tracking Tools;
• M & E Operational Guidelines, all monitoring reports prepared by the project; and
• Financial and Administration guidelines.
• NIM/NGO Audit reports
• Other Malaysia’s UNDP/GEF evaluation reports for biodiversity projects

• Project operational guidelines, manuals and systems;
• Minutes of the National Steering Committee, Technical Working Committee and other project management meetings;
• Maps;
• List of project publications;
• The GEF and UNDP Implementation Completion Report guidelines; and
• The UNDP Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks.

• UNDP staff who have project responsibilities;
• Executing agencies (including but not limited to senior officials and task team/ component leaders: NRE, DMPM;
• The Chair of the National Steering Committee;
• Project stakeholders, to be determined at the inception meeting; and
• Relevant staff of the Department of Marine Park Malaysia

• A detailed record of consultations with stakeholders will need to be kept and provided (as part of the information gathered by the evaluators), as an annex to the main report.
• If there are any significant discrepancies between the impressions and findings of the evaluation team and stakeholders, these should be explained in an annex attached to the final report.

• Draft detailed workplan reflecting the work of the international and national consultants To be submitted within 5 days of the signing of the contracts
• Draft Evaluation Report To be submitted within 14 days after the completion of the mission in Malaysia
• Final Evaluation Report To be submitted within 14 days after reception of the draft final report with comments

• Results orientated and accountability
• Capacity in planning and organizing
• Communication and trust
• Client orientation
• Organizational development and innovation

• Demonstrates integrity by modeling the UN’s values and ethical standards;
• Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNDP;
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability
• Treats all people fairly without favoritism;
• Fulfills all obligations to gender sensitivity and zero tolerance for sexual harassment.

• Have tertiary education in environmental economics, marine protected areas, natural resource management, biodiversity management or ecology. Post-graduate or with relevant professional qualification is preferred;

• More than 10 years of working experience in the environment and marine protected area management and with a good knowledge of the state-of-the-art approaches and international best practices;
• Prior knowledge of GEF and UNDP reporting frameworks, GEF principles and expected impacts in terms of global benefits, and the policy, legal and institutional environment of Malaysia would be an advantage;
• Demonstrated experience in donor-funded project evaluation, specifically undertaking complex programmatic reviews;
• Familiar with project management and financial framework including output/outcome and impact analysis;
• Demonstrated ability to assess complex situations in order to succinctly and clearly distil critical issues and draw forward looking conclusions;
• Ability to assess complex situations in order to succinctly and clearly distil critical issues and draw forward looking conclusions; and,
• The International Consultant is expected to lead to evaluation mission.
• The Local consultant is expected to be well versed with both English and Bahasa Malaysia and able to facilitate discussions among the local stakeholders.
• Excellent facilitation skills.

Language Requirements:

• Excellent English writing and communication skills.