Consultancy for Terminal Evaluation of WWF GEF Melanesia Fishers Project At World Wide Fund For Nature

Position Details

• Location of Consultant: Flexible
• Reporting To: Amelia Kissick
• Preferred Timeframe of Consultancy: March – June 2025
• Period To Be Evaluated: May 28, 2021 – time of evaluation
• Potential Sites to Visit: Tavua District and Macuata Qoliqoli Cokovata in Fiji, and Madang province in PNG
• Maximum Budget Available: $25,000

Project Data

• Project/Program Title: Financial tools for small scale fishers in Melanesia
• GEF Project ID: 10437
• WWF (Agency) Project ID: G0028
• Implementing Agency: WWF GEF Project Agency
• Executing Agency: Willis Towers Watson
• Executing Partner: WWF Pacific
• Countries: Fiji, PNG
• Focal Area: CCA
• GEF Operational Program: GEF-7
• Total GEF Approved Budget: $ 1,005,046
• Total Co-financing Committed: $7,330,578

Relevant Dates

• CEO Endorsement/Approval: May 28, 2021
• Agency Approval Date: February 22, 2022
• Implementation Start: March 1, 2022
• Project Completion Date: March 31, 2025

INTRODUCTION

World Wildlife Fund, Inc. (WWF) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) require a terminal evaluation (TE) for all full and medium-sized projects. The following terms of reference (TOR) set out the expectations for the TE for the project “Financial tools for small scale fishers in Melanesia,” hereafter referred to as the “Project”. The technical consultant(s) selected to conduct this evaluation will be referred to as “evaluator” throughout this TOR.

The Project seeks to improve the resilience of vulnerable coastal communities to the adverse impacts of climate change, including major shock events, in Fiji and PNG. The project works in three communities: Tavua District and Macuata Qoliqoli Cokovata in Fiji, and Madang province in PNG.

The Project was organized into the following components and outcomes:

• Component 1: Enabling environment for ex ante risk financing to improve resilience for coastal communities in Tavua District and Qoliqoli Cokovata in Fiji and Madang Province in PNG.
  • 1.1. Climate risks, coverage priorities, and risk pooling options identified
  • 1.2. Improved financial literacy to engage with risk financing and financial products for climate resilience amongst coastal community members
  • 1.3 Markets developed in the target geographies to provide insurance products for community level climate resilience and adaptation
• Component 2: Financial products and incentives for coastal communities
  • 2.1 Insurance program(s) designed to underpin improved financial resilience to climate shock events for three target communities, including developing options for incentivizing sustainable ecosystem management practices and other climate adaptation measures in risk-responsive pricing
  • 2.2. Premium financing identified and mobilization pursued
• Component 3: Knowledge Management and Monitoring & Evaluation
  • 3.1 Effective project communications, knowledge management and adaptive management

See the WWF GEF project website https://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/financial-tools-for-small-scale-fishers-in-melanesia for additional details and project documents.

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF EVALUATION

WWF is seeking an independent consultant to undertake a Terminal Evaluation of the GEF-financed Project– not the co-financing activities or associated results.

The objectives of this evaluation are to examine the extent, magnitude and sustainability of any project impacts to date; identify concerns as well as best practices; assess progress towards project outcomes and outputs; and draw lessons learned that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project and aid in the enhancement of future related projects. The evaluator is expected to frame the evaluation effort using the seven (7) core criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, results/impact, sustainability and adaptive capacity. Particular emphasis will be placed on effectiveness, efficiency, results/impact and sustainability. See Annexes A – D for definitions of these criteria, additional assessment areas and ratings, and a sample report outline.

EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The evaluation will adhere to the guidance, rules and procedures established by WWF[1] and the GEF Terminal Evaluation[2] and Ethical Guidelines.[3] The evaluation must provide evidence‐based information that is independent, participatory, transparent, and ethical. The evaluator must be unbiased and free of any conflicts of interest with the project. The evaluator is expected to reflect all stakeholder views and follow a participatory and consultative approach. There should be close engagement with WWF GEF Implementing Agency (IA), the Executing Agency/ project management unit (PMU), / government counterparts, the GEF operational focal point, partners and key stakeholders. Contact information will be provided.

The Evaluation process will include the following, with deliverables marked by “*”[4]:

1. Kickoff and Inception meetings to gather input from select project stakeholders on evaluation approach, priorities, to agree on methodology, and to inform the inception report;
2. Desk review including, but not limited to:
   • Project Document and CEO Endorsement Request;
   • Project governance documents;
   • Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP&B) documents;
   • Project Progress Reports (PPR) including Results Framework and AWP Tracking tool;
   • Project Closure Report (PCR) (if available);
   • GEF Agency reports, including Project Implementation Reports (PIRs), Back to the Office Reports (BTORs) and Support Mission Reports;
   • GEF Tracking Tools (if applicable);
   • Relevant financial documents, including financial progress reports; co-financing monitoring tables and letters, and audits;
   • Relevant safeguards documents, including WWF GEF Agency Categorization and Compliance memo, Stakeholder Engagement Plan, and Grievance Redress Mechanism;
   • Gender Action Plan and/or other gender-related documents;
   • Meeting minutes from Project Steering Committee (PSC), WWF- GEF AMU and support team; and others;
   • Documents and reports produced through the project (communication products, technical reports, etc);
   • Other relevant documents provided by the Executing Agency and partners.
3. Inception report (Draft and Final) * that outlines evaluation methodology, including how ratings/findings will be assessed (indicators to be used, key questions), sample questionnaires, stakeholders, workplan, etc.;
4. Site visits with PMU and project partners to field sites, as necessary and feasible;
5. Interviews, discussions and consultations with executing partners, the GEF Operational Focal Point (OFP), Project Steering Committee (PSC) members, beneficiaries, WWF-GEF Agency and extended team; Project Management Unit, and others;
6. Debrief and presentation* of initial findings to Executing partners and WWF-GEF Agency and extended team for feedback and final data collection. Feedback log requested to record responses to comments received;
7. Draft Terminal Evaluation report* (70-page suggested limit excluding annexes) shared with WWF-GEF, PMU, PSC and others indicated for review and approval. Draft report shall be submitted in English. A sample outline will be provided; and
8. Final TE report* (70-page suggested limit excluding annexes) that has addressed any inaccuracies, responded to requests for additional means of verification and taken into consideration any feedback. Report should be in English. The final deliverable package shall include a tracked changes and clean version of the report, a feedback log showing actions taken/responses to all reviewer comments, and include all data collected from the evaluation.

EXPECTED CONTENT OF REPORT

The Terminal Evaluation report should include:

• Information on the evaluation process, including when the evaluation took place, sites visited, participants, key questions, summary of methodology and rating rubric, and feedback log showing how comments on draft were incorporated;
• Assessment of Relevance (project design/ theory of change) and Coherence;
• Assessment of Effectiveness, including review of project Results Framework and rating of project objective and outcomes (individual and overall);
• Validation of Core indicator/CCA Indicator measurements at project end;
• Assessment and ratings for Implementation and Execution, including assessment of governance structure and coordination;
• Assessment and rating of Risks to the Sustainability of project results;
• Assessment and ratings for Monitoring and Evaluation Design and Implementation;
• Assessment of knowledge management approach, activities and products, including list of key products;
• Assessment of replication, additionality and catalytic effects of the project;
• Assessment of stakeholder engagement;
• Assessment of gender-responsive measures;
• Assessment of any environmental and social impacts generated by the project’s activities as well as its safeguards stipulations, which includes (a) a review of the assigned environmental and social risk category classification; and (b) a review of the progress made in the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the project’s relevant documents or otherwise utilized to manage risks.
• Assessment of Efficiency, financial management and summary of co-financing materialized;
• Summary table of key findings by core criteria and GEF ratings, including justification and/or indicators for their determination;
• Key lessons tied to identified findings or best practices;
• Recommendations useful for project close and sustainability, and for other similar projects in order to improve on identified issues, replicate best practices or achieve stronger results.

QUALIFICATIONS

Required Qualifications and Experience

• Minimum 10 years of relevant professional experience (e.g. M&E)
• Demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations; experience with quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods;
• Excellent written and oral communication in English

Preferred Qualifications and Experience

• Experience with GEF financed projects and knowledge of GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policies;
• Experience with participatory evaluation, social assessments, and gender mainstreaming;
• Experience in Fiji and Papua New Guinea, or familiarity with local context;
• Technical knowledge related to the project, including basic insurance concepts (such as parametric insurance) and financial inclusion for coastal communities, and climate adaptation/resilience.
• Familiarity with Conservation Standards or WWF Project and Programme Management Standards, including emphasis on theory of change;
• Knowledge and experience implementing or reviewing application of social and environmental safeguards policies in GEF (or similar) projects; and

PAYMENT MODALITIES

Payment, expense reimbursement, and other contractual terms and conditions will be outlined in the consultant agreement made between WWF and the evaluator. Contracts may be made with an individual or organization. Payments will be made following submitted and approved deliverables and once invoices are sent. Twenty-five percent of the fee will be paid after submission and approval of the Inception Report. Fifty percent of the fee will be paid following submission and approval of the debrief presentation, Draft Report and related documents. The final twenty-five percent will be paid following the submission and approval of the Final Report and related documents. Reimbursement for expenses, if separated from fee, will be paid separately following submission of receipts. Be advised that translation services, transportation, and taxes should all be included in the proposed budget.

[1] For additional information on evaluation methods adopted by WWF, see the WWF Evaluation Guidelines , published on our WWF Program Standards public website.

[2] For additional information on the GEF Terminal Evaluation Guidelines, see the GEF Terminal Evaluation Guidelines, published on the GEF Evaluation Office website.

[3] Please see the GEF Ethical Guidelines as published on GEF website.

[4] All deliverables should be sent directly to the Technical Director of the agreement who will determine whether the deliverable is satisfactory and ready for circulation.