job in UNDP | United Nations Development Programme | Individual Consultant for Review of One UN Joint Programme DRM
Job Title: Individual Consultant for Review of One UN Joint Programme DRM
Total Position: 1
Department: One UN Joint Programme DRM
Job Type: Contract for Individual Consultant (CIC)
Job Location: Islamabad, Pakistan
Minimum Education: Bachelors
Degree Title: Master Degree in Social Sciences, Development Management, Disaster Management,
Career Level: Consultant
Required Experience: 8 Years - 15 Years(8-15 years of experience in DRM, social mobilization and development in a rural development context in Pakistan.)
Work Permit: Pakistan
Apply By: May 23, 2011
Posted On: May 16, 2011
Total Position: 1
Department: One UN Joint Programme DRM
Job Type: Contract for Individual Consultant (CIC)
Job Location: Islamabad, Pakistan
Minimum Education: Bachelors
Degree Title: Master Degree in Social Sciences, Development Management, Disaster Management,
Career Level: Consultant
Required Experience: 8 Years - 15 Years(8-15 years of experience in DRM, social mobilization and development in a rural development context in Pakistan.)
Work Permit: Pakistan
Apply By: May 23, 2011
Posted On: May 16, 2011
Job Description
Description of the assignment: Short-Term Consultant
Project name:One UNDRM Programme
Period of assignment/services (if applicable): three weeks (May and June 2011)
Under the above Programme, UNDP would like to hire the services of an Individual Consultant for a period of three weeks to achieve the deliverables as per the following TOR. Based on your CV you will be short-listed as one of the potential candidates for the subject assignment. You are kindly requested to please send us your Technical and Financial Proposals mentioning the lump sum cost for subject consultancy on the following address: Your proposal should reach to the undersigned latest by 23 May 2011.
Ijaz Hussain, Deputy Manager Procurement
4th Floor Serena Business Complex, G-5, Islamabad, Pakistan
Email: ijaz.hussain@undp.org
Any request for clarification must be sent in writing to Shiraz Ali Shah, Programme Officer, UNDP at shiraz.ali@undp.org
Background and Context Delivering as One (DaO) is response of the UN to the global reform process on aid effectiveness. It builds on the reform agenda set by UN members’ states, which aims to increase the coherence, effectiveness and relevance of UN operations in the field. Piloting the UN reform process in Asia, Pakistan and Vietnam are two countries and therefore in Pakistan, the increased level of collaboration among 19 UN organizations resulted in five joint programmes (ARP, H&P, Education, DRM and Environment), to which implementation is in progress since 2009.
The main objective of the Delivering as One initiative is to enhance the UN system’s impact, by building on the achievements to date, increasing Government ownership, delivering more coordinated, effective and efficient assistance to the country.
Key Benefits of Delivering as One § Enhance national leadership and ownership through the introduction of One Programme and One Budgetary framework. This will reinforce the Government’s monitoring and oversight capacities, provide a transparent overview of UN activities and financial arrangements, and ensure accountability.
§ Position the UN more strategically in areas where it has a distinct comparative advantage, allowing it to be a more effective development partner.
§ Increase the collective impact of UN interventions through more coherent, coordinated and focused strategies and programmes.
§ Improve donor coordination, increase access to additional resources and reduce interagency competition.
§ An empowered UN leadership enables the UN to speak with one voice, and provides the Government access to the UN through a single entry point.
§ Increase efficiency in the provision of common services and support to programming, and reduce transaction costs.
Review Objective The overall objective of the exercise is to undertake an extensive evidence-based, independent third party review of the Joint Programme (JP) and Cross Cutting Issues (CCIs) with respect to progress made towards the DaO objectives specific to the One Programme, including alignment to the National goals, adherence to the aid effectiveness agenda, increased coherence, simplification and reduction in transaction cost. A critical objective of the review is to look into the effectiveness of the governance structure of the One Programme and its components for achieving efficient and inclusive decision-making, simplification and cost reduction. A major deliverable of this exercise will be a comprehensive document with One Programme progress, challenges, lessons learned and recommendations for all partners to make adjustments to the current One Programme as well as plan the next One Programme II.
Review Purpose The purpose of this review is to assess the achievements and impact of results (outputs and outcomes) of the Joint Programme Disaster Risk Management in Pakistan since its commencement in 2009. More specifically, the review objectives are to:
§ Assess the appropriateness, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the Joint Programme results in the context of the One UN in Pakistan. The review will look at the Joint Programme DRM in different phases of the programme cycle i.e. programme formulation, annual work plan development, funding allocations, implementation, short and long term impacts and monitoring and evaluation.
§ Identify lessons learned and draw conclusions which may inform other interventions and which can contribute to decision making processes of the UN Participating Agencies, GoP implementing partners i.e. National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), Provincial Disaster Management Authorities, District Disaster Management Authorities and other stakeholders.
§ An assessment of funding support given by donors/UN partners viz a viz overall financial outlay of the Programme
On both aspects the review will record achievements, identify areas for improvement and remaining challenges and distil lessons to inform decision-making authorities at the UN, national and provincial level.
The underlined objectives of the JP review in the overall context of Pakistan DaO are:
§ To assess how Joint Programme is being used to contribute more efficiently and effectively in achieving national development results as envisaged and national capacity building in the context of disaster management in Pakistan.
§ To assess whether and how Joint Programme reduced transaction costs for UN agencies, government, and the donors against the background of the One UN reforms DaO framework with four focal themes i.e. One Programme, One Leader, One Office, One Fund.
§ To learn from the experience and process of the need assessment, planning, formulation, implementation and M & E system of the Joint Programme and its Components to improve the current one and the development of future joint programme.
The proposed Review is expected to be used by the Government of Pakistan in ascertaining the effectiveness of the DaO initiative in bringing to the country’s benefit the whole potential of the UN development system. This review will assess how, and the extent to which, the intended and unintended results were achieved at country level.
Review Audience The primary audience for the JP Disaster Risk Management review is the UN and Government of Pakistan. Secondary audiences include implementing partners and development partners in Pakistan, UN’s agencies HQs and UNHQ.
The Joint Programme mid term review (2009 & 2010) will be an independent review to be completed prior to the completion of the program in December 2012 in order to provide inputs to the development of the next cycle of United National Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) as well as succeeded JP Disaster Risk Management expected under One Programme Cycle 2 (2013-2017).
Scope of Study
1. Conduct a systematic and objective assessment of the entire Joint Programme Disaster Risk Management since its inception and implementation under defined geographical boundaries at the national and provincial level regardless of funding sources with special attention provided in light of the recent floods in July-August 2010.
2. Analyze the achievement of results, financial analysis of development, non-development and humanitarian funding whether align with joint programme components or not, highlighting issues, challenges and ‘lessons learned and define a forward looking strategy in line with new challenges and opportunities (including those presented by the IDP conflicts and 2010 devastated floods) and the future course of the ongoing programme including proposed Joint Programme Component’s annual work-plans, implementation modalities and setting up resource mobilization strategies
Review Questions Based on the primary objectives of the review, the following criteria and questions are expected to guide in the development of the review framework, information collection and actual assessment of baseline status and results:
Relevance/Appropriateness
- How relevant were the Joint Programme outcomes and outputs in assisting the achievement of Pakistan’s national goals specific to the focused areas of disaster?
- To what extent was the planning of interventions participatory with national, provincial further down to district level?
Efficiency
- How the Joint Programme contributed to reduced duplication and overlapping of work among UN agencies and partners and to what extent was the Joint Programme cost effective, in terms of reducing transaction costs internally as well as externally?
- What has been the added value of using the joint programme modality and how was UN support most effective through a JP?
- To what extent did UN agencies plan together? Did the plans demonstrate coherence and delivering as one?
- To what extent were the management and administrative set up necessary and adequate to deliver the Joint Programme?
- Were the institutional and management arrangements supportive to attain the intended objectives?
- How efficiently has the Joint Programme delivered its outcomes and outputs?
- How efficiently the available resources has utilized at the joint programme components level segregating development and non-development allocation.
- How did the specific JP organizational setup (TWG/IAWGs, JPSC, Task Forces and Provincial Implementation Committees) contribute or hinder effective coordination and implementation?
Effectiveness
- What has been the effectiveness of the JP DRM with respect to planned outcomes and impacts from gender equality perspective, civil society involvement, targeted communities (refugees & vulnerable) and human rights based approach?
a)Whether joint programme so far proved more effective than agency-specific programming in achieving results, and if so, in what ways?
b) To what extent did the UN agencies implement and monitor interventions together?
Programme Outcome/Impact:
c) Has the programme made a difference to the disaster resilience capacity of the country?
Sustainability:
- How sustainable is the progress made and achievements of the Joint Programme Disaster Risk Management?
d) What are the major factors which have influenced the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the JP DRM?
e) What approaches are the JP participating agencies taking to meet national goals and building of national capacities in Disaster Risk Management sector? How effective are these approaches?
Partnerships and Coordination
- What are the key lessons learned from the Joint Programme and how can they inform future UN, GoP and JPSC decision making processes?
- What links exist between national and provincial to local level coordination?
- Are there any critical technical gaps in the coordination structures?
-What impact has the task forces approach had on implementation arrangements as well as attainment of JP results?
f) Is due to poor and ineffective coordination approach and inter-agency differences in mobilizing donor’s funds, the donor response towards Joint Programme or Joint Programme Components remained passive during the last two years?
Networks / Linkages
Ascertain whether the agencies’s partnership strategy has been appropriate and effective. What were the partnerships formed for? How did partnerships arise? What was the role of the agencies? Did it identify a niche for itself? How did the partnership contribute to the achievement of the outcome? How did they function and sustain?
Examine the partnership among UN Agencies that both influenced the programme design and contributed to achievement of results through provision of services of volunteers
Analyze how well has been the networking and linkages under the interventions and how well these have been integrated in the agencies project outputs and specific recommendations for consolidating these networking/linkages for future work.
How engaged was the agencies with the Inter Agency standing committee in the relief and recovery phase. What role did the agencies play in the early recovery and relief phase and how effective was the agencies in playing this role?
Lessons Learnt / Recommendations
Formulate a set of specific recommendations for any re-orientation of the program for support for similar programmes in the future, identify the necessary actions required to be undertaken, who should undertake those and what the deadline should be, in order to remove or minimize the problems identified and to ensure efficient and effective implementation and to maximize impact. In the recommendations part of the proposed document, concrete suggestions/ ways & means to fill the present gaps must be given for carrying out mid course and future corrections to achieve the set objectives of the programme.
Reporting / Monitoring
What has been the quality of monitoring (timeliness, is there a regular system for monitoring) and how it has contributed to the project achievements? Have the cross-cutting issues gender and environment been given sufficient attention and have they been integrated in the programme in an adequate manner?
Cross-cutting issues (Gender Equality, Civil Society participation, Refugee and Human Rights)
- Were cross – cutting considerations really mainstreamed in the implementation of activities?
- To what extent did the programme involve the target communities and other stakeholders in programme design and implementation?
Methodology:
The consultants will conduct the review in a participatory and transparent manner, whereby all stakeholders will have the opportunity to share their views. The methodology should triangulate the investigate and review by consultative process to get recommendations of strategic importance.
Before the start of the review, the consultant along with an International Team Leader will prepare a detailed work plan which will: present the methodology to be utilized in the conduct of the review; identify the review issues to be addressed and a schedule/timeline of planned activities.
Desk Review
The following documents will be reviewed by the consultant in preparation for the field research and as a key source of information for review questions. In addition, country-specific documents will be collected for the review.
· UNDAF Document (2008-2012)
· One UN Joint Programme Document (2009-2012)
· Project documents – JPs
· Progress reports - JPs
· JP Workplans
· JP M & E frameworks
· Any assessments conducted and other available documents and secondary data relevant to the programme.
Key Informant Interviews
Key informants will be interviewed face-to-face to gain further insights and elaborate on specific themes as necessary. A semi-structured indepth interview format based on the review objectives and questions, while concurrently providing ample room for background information and personal perspective.
The selection criteria for interviewees will be based on their title and function and country-level involvement in the joint programme. Those persons who are nominated may be requested to identify additional persons to be interviewed during the interview.
Focus Group Discussions
The focus group discussions will be designed for consultations with a broader range of stakeholders particularly at the field, for each of the JP Component. Separate sessions for men and women will be held.The focus group will also allow the interviewer to identify what key areas are of concern to the group as a whole, rather than the preferences of specific individuals. In addition, a limited number of members of the focus group that are particularly interested in the review questions may be further requested to give a key informant interview.
Compilation of Key findings and presentation
Sharing of draft review report and presentation to Co Chairs One UN DRM on both the components.
Submission of Final Review report
After incorporation of feedback from Co Chairs / Thematic Working Group, final report to be submitted to Co Chairs One UN DRM.
Study Deliverables
The consultant will draft a report as per the format approved by Co Chairs / Convening Agents. The report will be finalized in the light of comments/suggestions Co Chairs and Thematic Working Group. The key deliverables of the study are:
a) Preliminary findings report compiled after desk review of relevant materials and consultations process outlining the understanding of the issues and achievements under review including an impacts assessment of Joint Programme results (JP’s outcomes/outputs) and financial analysis of development and non-development projects/activities; (Draft Report Template: Submission of a draft report format containing Table of Contents of the final report for approval by Project / UNDP. The draft report format will also include contents of executive summary, study methodology, data collection tools including a brief introduction of the parameters / indicators on which data will be collected, types and sources of primary and secondary data, the tools / models for data analysis, data presentation formats (tables, charts etc).
b) A presentation to UN TWG Co-Chairs, Convening Agencies and UNRC on preliminary findings
c) A final Review report: The final Joint Programme Review document will contain way forward with prioritized activities in Disaster Risk Management and detailed action plan on implementation for the next two years (2011 & 2012).
Consultancy Duration
The review timeframe is three weeks in the months of May and June 2011.
