Team Leader for UNDP/GEF Project Evaluation
Fiji
Consultancy - Terms of Reference for the Mid Term Evaluation of Nauru Sustainable Land Management Project
Title: Team Leader for UNDP/GEF Project Evaluation
Project: Building Capacity and Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management in Nauru
Duration: 13 working days to be completed by March 20th, 2011
Supervisor(s): UNDP Multi Country Office; UNDP Asia Pacific Regional Centre in coordination with national executing agency
Duty Station: Nauru
Project Background
The Medium Sized Project (MSP) on Building Capacity and Mainstreaming Sustainable land management in Nauru is a Global Environment Facility (GEF) funded project through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The project is implemented by the Department of Commerce, Industry and Environment (DCIE). The project duration commenced on March 26th 2008 and completes on March 26th 2011.
Despite the growing official recognition of the problem of land degradation in the Nauru, SLM objectives have not been adequately mainstreamed into policies, regulations, strategies, plans and educational systems. There is no general recognition on the part of decision makers that land degradation is significant barrier to sustainable development. Although integrated framing systems are a way of life for local communities, the planning of local resource utilization is mostly guided by more specific sectoral objectives and policies. This suggests a strong need to create awareness and build capacity for integrative dialogue and land use planning among all stakeholders.
The capacity gaps in land degradation include: i) individual level –lack of technical capacity (district level and community level for implementation); ii) institutional level – financial and human resources, monitoring capacity for enforcement of its rules and regulations); iii) lack of baseline data state and national level); iv) systematic level – there is a lack of common understanding and mechanisms to coordinate and address common land management issues.
Project Objectives and Expected Outputs
Objectives : Objectives of the MSP are to enhance and develop the individual, institutional, and systemic capacity for Sustainable Land Management (SLM), to mainstream SLM considerations into national development strategies and policies, to improve the quality of project design and implementation in the development arena, to develop a National Action Plan for SLM, as well as a medium term investment plan, while ensuring that all relevant stakeholder views are reflected and integrated into the process.
Objectives of the Evaluation
The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) policy at the project level in UNDP/GEF has four objectives: i) to monitor and evaluate results and impacts; ii) to provide a basis for decision making on necessary amendments and improvements; iii) to promote accountability for resource use; and iii) to document,
provide feedback on, and disseminate lessons learned. A mix of tools is used to ensure effective project M&E. These might be applied continuously throughout the lifetime of the project – e.g. periodic monitoring of indicators, or as specific time-bound exercises such as mid-term reviews, audit reports and independent evaluations.
In accordance with UNDP/GEF M&E policies and procedures, all projects with long implementation periods (e.g. over 5 or 6 years) are strongly encouraged to conduct mid-term evaluations. In addition to providing an independent in-depth review of implementation progress, this type of evaluation is responsive to GEF Council decisions on transparency and better access of information during implementation.
Mid-term evaluations are intended to identify potential project design problems, assess progress towards the achievement of objectives, identify and document lessons learned (including lessons that might improve design and implementation of other UNDP/GEF projects), and to make recommendations regarding specific actions that might be taken to improve the project. It is expected to serve as a means of validating or filling the gaps in the initial assessment of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency obtained from monitoring. The mid-term evaluation provides the opportunity to assess early signs of project success or failure and prompt necessary adjustments.
Scope of the Evaluation
Overall evaluation of the project
The evaluation will address the following specific issues:
Project design
The mid-term evaluation will assess the extent to which the overall project design remains valid. The evaluation team will review the project’s concept, strategy and approach within the context of effective capacity development and sustainability. Specifically, the team will:
assess the extent to which the underlying assumptions remain valid;
assess the approach used in design and whether the selected intervention strategy addressed the root causes and principal threats in the project area;
assess the plans and potential for replicating or scaling up the site-based experiences;
The evaluation team will also attempt to ascertain the current level of comprehension of the project concept, focusing on three specific sets of actors: (i) project management team; (ii) field officers; and (iii) local communities.
Project implementation
The Evaluation will assess the extent to which project management and implementation has been effective, efficient and responsive. Specifically, it will:
assess overall institutional arrangements for the execution, implementation, management, monitoring and review of the project. This covers a number of issues, including: the appropriateness of joint implementation and coordination; whether there has been adequate periodic oversight of activities; the effectiveness of government counterparts; and the effectiveness of relationships between key stakeholders;
assess the use of logical framework as a management tool during implementation;
assess indicators of adaptive management;
assess the quality and relevance of project reporting;
assess the mechanisms for information dissemination (advocacy and awareness raising) in project implementation and the extent of stakeholder participation in management;
analyze the project financing, specifically how the project has materialized/leveraged co-financing for various components (this is preferably presented in a matrix form).
review the effectiveness and the methodology of the overall Programme structure, how effectively the Programme addressed responsibilities especially towards capacity
building and challenges, its main achievements and overall impact as well as the remaining gaps.
assess the extent to which programme design, implementation and monitoring have taken the following cross cutting issues into consideration: Human rights, Equity, Institutional strengthening and Innovation or added value to national development
Results
The Evaluation will examine the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of operational activities and results achieved by the project to-date, by showing how the component(s) processes and outcomes have contributed (or have the potential to contribute) to the achievement of project and GEF environmental goals. The Evaluation will:
assess, quantitatively and qualitatively, the achievements and impact in terms of outputs and its contribution to outcomes as defined in the project document;
assess to what extent the project has made impacts on promoting local participatory decision-making and local governance;
assess to what extent the project has or will contribute to the strengthened enabling environment for conservation;
assess the sustainability of project results.
The evaluation team will use a project logical framework to determine the overall contribution of project outcomes to development and global environmental goals. The evaluation team is also invited to highlight contributions which are strictly beyond the project scope.
Governance and capacity-building
The Project promotes participatory processes and behavior that affect the way conservation is done at the local and national levels. This is principally achieved through the wide participation of local communities, capacity-building, and the promotion of accountability and transparency at different levels of government. In this regard, the Evaluation will look at how the project contributed to improved governance at local and national levels, and examine how governance issues have impacted on the achievement of project goals and outputs.
One of the specific areas the evaluation team is asked to assess in this area is how and to what extent the project has built management, planning and operational capacity among the project’s stakeholders, particularly at the community levels. This should include an overview of capacity-building techniques employed by the project as well as of the monitoring mechanisms involved.
Lessons learned
The Evaluation will also highlight lessons learned and best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success.
Future directions and recommendations
On the basis of the outcome of the evaluation, prepare a future project strategy detailing recommendations on how the project can most effectively support national priorities, strengthen traditional mechanisms to conserve biodiversity and achieve project objectives.
The recommended future project strategy is expected to feed into the integrated overall work plan for the project.
Assess possible links to other existing national and regional agencies and provide recommendations for potential areas of partnership.
Opportunities to strengthen project implementation (through staff training, capacity building or networking or improved management systems) should be identified
Methodology
The evaluation methodology will be determined by the evaluation team, guided by the requirements of GEF and UNDP as articulated in various guidelines, policies and manuals on the conduct of evaluations
for GEF projects as well as key project documents such as the approved GEF project brief, the final UNDP project document, the inception workshop report, the project log-frame and annual budgets and work plans, the annual Project Implementation Review, Project Board, and PMT meeting minutes as available, and other technical reports and documents as relevant. The evaluation methodology should be clearly documented in the final evaluation report including comprehensive details of the following:
- documents reviewed
- interviews conducted
- consultations held with all stakeholders
- project sites visited
- techniques and approaches used for data gathering, verification and analysis
Conduct of the Evaluation
Under the leadership of the Team Leader, the Evaluation Team will work independently but will liaise closely with UNDP CO, and Executing Agency. The evaluation mission will also liaise periodically with the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor (RTA) at the UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok to ensure that UNDP-GEF and GEF requirements are being met.
The team will visit the project site to ensure adequate consultation with all key stakeholders. Towards the end of the field evaluation, presentation will be made to all key stakeholders in country. After the presentation the team will take note of verbal and/or written responses to its presentation and consider these in preparing an interim draft evaluation report that will be provided to Executing Agency/UNDP before the team leaves for distribution to stakeholders. The Executing Agency /UNDP will circulate the draft report to all stakeholders requesting written feedback and finalized by the evaluators within the dates reflected in the TE schedule.
While the evaluation team is free to determine the actual layout of the evaluation report, this must include the minimum content requirements mentioned earlier. The Team Leader will forward the final report by e-mail to UNDP MCO and the UNDP-GEF RTA in Bangkok for onward distribution to all stakeholders. In addition the Team Leader will forward a hard copy and electronic copy saved on disk to UNDP MCO. The evaluators will be responsible for the contents, quality and veracity of the report.
Deliverables
The evaluation mission will produce the following deliverables to UNDP/GEF:
(i) Draft copy of report ;
(ii) Final copy of report;
The final report together with the annexes shall be written in English and shall be presented in electronic form in MS Word format as well as a hard copy
Products expected from evaluation
The main products expected from the evaluation are:
presentation(s) to key stakeholders;
an interim draft report;
a final comprehensive terminal evaluation report
Qualifications of Team Leader
International/regional consultant with academic and/or professional background in background in natural resource management or related fields with experience in land management, with in-
depth understanding of land issues as well as community-based natural resource management. A minimum of 10 years of working experience is required
Familiar with SLM approaches in Pacific and /or developing countries either through management and/or implementation or through consultancies in evaluation of land related projects. Understanding of local actions contributing to global benefits is crucial;
Highly knowledgeable of participatory monitoring and evaluation processes,
Writing and communication will be in English, and must have excellent communication skills in English;
Substantive experience in reviewing and evaluating similar technical assistance projects, preferably those involving UNDP/GEF or other United Nations development agencies and major donors;
Excellent English writing and communication skills; demonstrated ability to assess complex situations in order to succinctly and clearly distill critical issues and draw forward-looking conclusions;
Experience in leading multi-disciplinary and multi-national teams to deliver quality products in high stress an short deadline situations;
Excellent in human relations, coordination, planning and teamwork.
Proposed Methodology and Timelines
Two consultants shall be engaged jointly to undertake the evaluation working concurrently according to a planned schedule to be completed by March 20th. The Team Leader will have the overall responsibility of organizing and completing the review, submitting the final report as well as supervising the local consultant.
The team leader is expected to propose a work layout, plan, budget and timelines to achieve the expected outputs with the appropriate methodology.
Fee Proposal/Price Schedule
The consultant is requested to provide a proposal or quotation of the fees/cost for the services which will be rendered using the following format.
Daily consultancy rates
A maximum range of US$300 – US$400/day for the daily consultancy rate can be proposed.
Air Ticket
To and from home country
Air Ticket
(including at least one travel to Fiji for preliminary briefings)
Living allowances
Based on the number of days spent at the respective duty station
- Other miscellaneous expenses
(please state)
Payment Schedule
a) Thirty per cent (30%) of the maximum payable Consultancy Fee [Professional Service] will be paid immediately following the signing of this Agreement and acceptance of a work plan by UNDP and executing agency.
b) Twenty per cent (20%) will be paid within seven (7) working days of receipt and acceptance by the United Nation Development Program of a draft report.
c) The remaining fifty (50%) will be paid within seven (7) working days of the acceptance by the United Nations Development Program of the final Terminal Evaluation Report
Evaluation Method
The proposals will be evaluated using the UNDP cumulative analysis method whereby the total score is obtained upon the combination of weighted technical and financial attributes.
The highest combined weighted score which provides the best value for money will be awarded the contract.
Applications: Proposals should include:
a Results-Oriented Curriculum Vitae with full contact details of three referees
a cover letter summarizing your experience and qualifications for this consultation (should not exceed 2 pages)
fee proposal and work plan with timelines to undertake this assignment
a completed P11 form available from UNDP website
Applications to be submitted by February 17th , 2011 either electronically to registry.fj@undp.org or addressed under confidential cover to:
Mid Term Evaluation of Nauru Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Project
C/-- The Resident Representative
United Nations Development Programme Multi Country Office
Private Mail Bag or Level 8, Kadavu House (414 Victoria Parade)
Suva
Fiji.
Incomplete applications will not be considered and only candidates for whom there is further interest will be contacted.
Additional information including the Post Profile, Results-Oriented Curriculum vitae format is available from the UNDP website: www.undp.org.fj or the UNDP Office.
Women candidates are encouraged to apply.
*The Fiji Office covers Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu
Further Information
For further information concerning this Terms of Reference, Mr. Floyd Robinson, Environment Program Associate, UNDP-MCO, Suva, on email floyd.robinson.robinson@undp.org / telephone (679) 3312500.
Consultancy - Terms of Reference for the Mid Term Evaluation of Nauru Sustainable Land Management Project
Title: Team Leader for UNDP/GEF Project Evaluation
Project: Building Capacity and Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management in Nauru
Duration: 13 working days to be completed by March 20th, 2011
Supervisor(s): UNDP Multi Country Office; UNDP Asia Pacific Regional Centre in coordination with national executing agency
Duty Station: Nauru
Project Background
The Medium Sized Project (MSP) on Building Capacity and Mainstreaming Sustainable land management in Nauru is a Global Environment Facility (GEF) funded project through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The project is implemented by the Department of Commerce, Industry and Environment (DCIE). The project duration commenced on March 26th 2008 and completes on March 26th 2011.
Despite the growing official recognition of the problem of land degradation in the Nauru, SLM objectives have not been adequately mainstreamed into policies, regulations, strategies, plans and educational systems. There is no general recognition on the part of decision makers that land degradation is significant barrier to sustainable development. Although integrated framing systems are a way of life for local communities, the planning of local resource utilization is mostly guided by more specific sectoral objectives and policies. This suggests a strong need to create awareness and build capacity for integrative dialogue and land use planning among all stakeholders.
The capacity gaps in land degradation include: i) individual level –lack of technical capacity (district level and community level for implementation); ii) institutional level – financial and human resources, monitoring capacity for enforcement of its rules and regulations); iii) lack of baseline data state and national level); iv) systematic level – there is a lack of common understanding and mechanisms to coordinate and address common land management issues.
Project Objectives and Expected Outputs
Objectives : Objectives of the MSP are to enhance and develop the individual, institutional, and systemic capacity for Sustainable Land Management (SLM), to mainstream SLM considerations into national development strategies and policies, to improve the quality of project design and implementation in the development arena, to develop a National Action Plan for SLM, as well as a medium term investment plan, while ensuring that all relevant stakeholder views are reflected and integrated into the process.
Objectives of the Evaluation
The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) policy at the project level in UNDP/GEF has four objectives: i) to monitor and evaluate results and impacts; ii) to provide a basis for decision making on necessary amendments and improvements; iii) to promote accountability for resource use; and iii) to document,
provide feedback on, and disseminate lessons learned. A mix of tools is used to ensure effective project M&E. These might be applied continuously throughout the lifetime of the project – e.g. periodic monitoring of indicators, or as specific time-bound exercises such as mid-term reviews, audit reports and independent evaluations.
In accordance with UNDP/GEF M&E policies and procedures, all projects with long implementation periods (e.g. over 5 or 6 years) are strongly encouraged to conduct mid-term evaluations. In addition to providing an independent in-depth review of implementation progress, this type of evaluation is responsive to GEF Council decisions on transparency and better access of information during implementation.
Mid-term evaluations are intended to identify potential project design problems, assess progress towards the achievement of objectives, identify and document lessons learned (including lessons that might improve design and implementation of other UNDP/GEF projects), and to make recommendations regarding specific actions that might be taken to improve the project. It is expected to serve as a means of validating or filling the gaps in the initial assessment of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency obtained from monitoring. The mid-term evaluation provides the opportunity to assess early signs of project success or failure and prompt necessary adjustments.
Scope of the Evaluation
Overall evaluation of the project
The evaluation will address the following specific issues:
Project design
The mid-term evaluation will assess the extent to which the overall project design remains valid. The evaluation team will review the project’s concept, strategy and approach within the context of effective capacity development and sustainability. Specifically, the team will:
assess the extent to which the underlying assumptions remain valid;
assess the approach used in design and whether the selected intervention strategy addressed the root causes and principal threats in the project area;
assess the plans and potential for replicating or scaling up the site-based experiences;
The evaluation team will also attempt to ascertain the current level of comprehension of the project concept, focusing on three specific sets of actors: (i) project management team; (ii) field officers; and (iii) local communities.
Project implementation
The Evaluation will assess the extent to which project management and implementation has been effective, efficient and responsive. Specifically, it will:
assess overall institutional arrangements for the execution, implementation, management, monitoring and review of the project. This covers a number of issues, including: the appropriateness of joint implementation and coordination; whether there has been adequate periodic oversight of activities; the effectiveness of government counterparts; and the effectiveness of relationships between key stakeholders;
assess the use of logical framework as a management tool during implementation;
assess indicators of adaptive management;
assess the quality and relevance of project reporting;
assess the mechanisms for information dissemination (advocacy and awareness raising) in project implementation and the extent of stakeholder participation in management;
analyze the project financing, specifically how the project has materialized/leveraged co-financing for various components (this is preferably presented in a matrix form).
review the effectiveness and the methodology of the overall Programme structure, how effectively the Programme addressed responsibilities especially towards capacity
building and challenges, its main achievements and overall impact as well as the remaining gaps.
assess the extent to which programme design, implementation and monitoring have taken the following cross cutting issues into consideration: Human rights, Equity, Institutional strengthening and Innovation or added value to national development
Results
The Evaluation will examine the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of operational activities and results achieved by the project to-date, by showing how the component(s) processes and outcomes have contributed (or have the potential to contribute) to the achievement of project and GEF environmental goals. The Evaluation will:
assess, quantitatively and qualitatively, the achievements and impact in terms of outputs and its contribution to outcomes as defined in the project document;
assess to what extent the project has made impacts on promoting local participatory decision-making and local governance;
assess to what extent the project has or will contribute to the strengthened enabling environment for conservation;
assess the sustainability of project results.
The evaluation team will use a project logical framework to determine the overall contribution of project outcomes to development and global environmental goals. The evaluation team is also invited to highlight contributions which are strictly beyond the project scope.
Governance and capacity-building
The Project promotes participatory processes and behavior that affect the way conservation is done at the local and national levels. This is principally achieved through the wide participation of local communities, capacity-building, and the promotion of accountability and transparency at different levels of government. In this regard, the Evaluation will look at how the project contributed to improved governance at local and national levels, and examine how governance issues have impacted on the achievement of project goals and outputs.
One of the specific areas the evaluation team is asked to assess in this area is how and to what extent the project has built management, planning and operational capacity among the project’s stakeholders, particularly at the community levels. This should include an overview of capacity-building techniques employed by the project as well as of the monitoring mechanisms involved.
Lessons learned
The Evaluation will also highlight lessons learned and best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success.
Future directions and recommendations
On the basis of the outcome of the evaluation, prepare a future project strategy detailing recommendations on how the project can most effectively support national priorities, strengthen traditional mechanisms to conserve biodiversity and achieve project objectives.
The recommended future project strategy is expected to feed into the integrated overall work plan for the project.
Assess possible links to other existing national and regional agencies and provide recommendations for potential areas of partnership.
Opportunities to strengthen project implementation (through staff training, capacity building or networking or improved management systems) should be identified
Methodology
The evaluation methodology will be determined by the evaluation team, guided by the requirements of GEF and UNDP as articulated in various guidelines, policies and manuals on the conduct of evaluations
for GEF projects as well as key project documents such as the approved GEF project brief, the final UNDP project document, the inception workshop report, the project log-frame and annual budgets and work plans, the annual Project Implementation Review, Project Board, and PMT meeting minutes as available, and other technical reports and documents as relevant. The evaluation methodology should be clearly documented in the final evaluation report including comprehensive details of the following:
- documents reviewed
- interviews conducted
- consultations held with all stakeholders
- project sites visited
- techniques and approaches used for data gathering, verification and analysis
Conduct of the Evaluation
Under the leadership of the Team Leader, the Evaluation Team will work independently but will liaise closely with UNDP CO, and Executing Agency. The evaluation mission will also liaise periodically with the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor (RTA) at the UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok to ensure that UNDP-GEF and GEF requirements are being met.
The team will visit the project site to ensure adequate consultation with all key stakeholders. Towards the end of the field evaluation, presentation will be made to all key stakeholders in country. After the presentation the team will take note of verbal and/or written responses to its presentation and consider these in preparing an interim draft evaluation report that will be provided to Executing Agency/UNDP before the team leaves for distribution to stakeholders. The Executing Agency /UNDP will circulate the draft report to all stakeholders requesting written feedback and finalized by the evaluators within the dates reflected in the TE schedule.
While the evaluation team is free to determine the actual layout of the evaluation report, this must include the minimum content requirements mentioned earlier. The Team Leader will forward the final report by e-mail to UNDP MCO and the UNDP-GEF RTA in Bangkok for onward distribution to all stakeholders. In addition the Team Leader will forward a hard copy and electronic copy saved on disk to UNDP MCO. The evaluators will be responsible for the contents, quality and veracity of the report.
Deliverables
The evaluation mission will produce the following deliverables to UNDP/GEF:
(i) Draft copy of report ;
(ii) Final copy of report;
The final report together with the annexes shall be written in English and shall be presented in electronic form in MS Word format as well as a hard copy
Products expected from evaluation
The main products expected from the evaluation are:
presentation(s) to key stakeholders;
an interim draft report;
a final comprehensive terminal evaluation report
Qualifications of Team Leader
International/regional consultant with academic and/or professional background in background in natural resource management or related fields with experience in land management, with in-
depth understanding of land issues as well as community-based natural resource management. A minimum of 10 years of working experience is required
Familiar with SLM approaches in Pacific and /or developing countries either through management and/or implementation or through consultancies in evaluation of land related projects. Understanding of local actions contributing to global benefits is crucial;
Highly knowledgeable of participatory monitoring and evaluation processes,
Writing and communication will be in English, and must have excellent communication skills in English;
Substantive experience in reviewing and evaluating similar technical assistance projects, preferably those involving UNDP/GEF or other United Nations development agencies and major donors;
Excellent English writing and communication skills; demonstrated ability to assess complex situations in order to succinctly and clearly distill critical issues and draw forward-looking conclusions;
Experience in leading multi-disciplinary and multi-national teams to deliver quality products in high stress an short deadline situations;
Excellent in human relations, coordination, planning and teamwork.
Proposed Methodology and Timelines
Two consultants shall be engaged jointly to undertake the evaluation working concurrently according to a planned schedule to be completed by March 20th. The Team Leader will have the overall responsibility of organizing and completing the review, submitting the final report as well as supervising the local consultant.
The team leader is expected to propose a work layout, plan, budget and timelines to achieve the expected outputs with the appropriate methodology.
Fee Proposal/Price Schedule
The consultant is requested to provide a proposal or quotation of the fees/cost for the services which will be rendered using the following format.
Daily consultancy rates
A maximum range of US$300 – US$400/day for the daily consultancy rate can be proposed.
Air Ticket
To and from home country
Air Ticket
(including at least one travel to Fiji for preliminary briefings)
Living allowances
Based on the number of days spent at the respective duty station
- Other miscellaneous expenses
(please state)
Payment Schedule
a) Thirty per cent (30%) of the maximum payable Consultancy Fee [Professional Service] will be paid immediately following the signing of this Agreement and acceptance of a work plan by UNDP and executing agency.
b) Twenty per cent (20%) will be paid within seven (7) working days of receipt and acceptance by the United Nation Development Program of a draft report.
c) The remaining fifty (50%) will be paid within seven (7) working days of the acceptance by the United Nations Development Program of the final Terminal Evaluation Report
Evaluation Method
The proposals will be evaluated using the UNDP cumulative analysis method whereby the total score is obtained upon the combination of weighted technical and financial attributes.
The highest combined weighted score which provides the best value for money will be awarded the contract.
Applications: Proposals should include:
a Results-Oriented Curriculum Vitae with full contact details of three referees
a cover letter summarizing your experience and qualifications for this consultation (should not exceed 2 pages)
fee proposal and work plan with timelines to undertake this assignment
a completed P11 form available from UNDP website
Applications to be submitted by February 17th , 2011 either electronically to registry.fj@undp.org or addressed under confidential cover to:
Mid Term Evaluation of Nauru Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Project
C/-- The Resident Representative
United Nations Development Programme Multi Country Office
Private Mail Bag or Level 8, Kadavu House (414 Victoria Parade)
Suva
Fiji.
Incomplete applications will not be considered and only candidates for whom there is further interest will be contacted.
Additional information including the Post Profile, Results-Oriented Curriculum vitae format is available from the UNDP website: www.undp.org.fj or the UNDP Office.
Women candidates are encouraged to apply.
*The Fiji Office covers Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu
Further Information
For further information concerning this Terms of Reference, Mr. Floyd Robinson, Environment Program Associate, UNDP-MCO, Suva, on email floyd.robinson.robinson@undp.org / telephone (679) 3312500.
Post a Comment