Mid-Term EvaluationStrengthening National and Local Capacities for Disaster Response and Risk Reduction -

Guyana has an area of 216,000 square kilometres and is located on the north coast of South America. The coastal plain lies near or below sea level, supports 90% of the country’s multi-ethnic population and is the administrative, agricultural, commercial and industrial center of the country. The country is subject to Atlantic swells and high intensity seasonal rainfall. As a result of the dynamic interplay between high tides, high rainfall levels and the coastal drainage and irrigation systems designed to support agricultural production and protect the coastal lowlands from high tides and flooding; the populated coastal zone remains at high risk to flooding. Between 1988 to 2006, flood events resulted in more than US$ 663 million in economic damage . In January 2005 alone, catastrophic floods in the coastal zone affected 25% of the population , resulting in a near breach of East Demerara Water Conservancy dam and total economic losses equivalent to 60% of GDP for that year. Flood and drought risk is also high in several Regions of the interior. In 2009, the Government of Guyana, UNDP and IDB, started a co-funded initiative aimed at strengthening of capacities at national and local levels to reduce disaster risk and enhance response preparedness to decrease destructive impact of the natural disasters on livelihoods and the economy of Guyana. The project has promoted the development of a framework of action for disaster risk reduction and management in the country by means of the development of instruments such as policies, plans, procedures; and, the establishment of institutional arrangements for coordination among national agencies. The project also includes initiatives to strengthen communities’ capacities in disaster risk management and response and raise awareness of the population about prevailing natural hazards and enhance national and local disaster risk reduction abilities. The total budget for the project is US$ 2,190,000 corresponding to a 400,000 UNDP funds, 1,000,000 IDB funds and other resources. Purpose of the Evaluation: This evaluation is in keeping with the requirement of the Disaster Response and Risk Reduction project document which stipulates an evaluation at the mid-point of Project. It is also in keeping with the UNDP monitoring and evaluation policy objectives To provide a basis for decision making on necessary amendments and improvements. Purpose of the Mid-Term Evaluation: Assess implementation thus far, the project’s relevance/appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and potential sustainability. Identification of potential project design problems Assessment of progress towards the achievement of objectives Identification and documentation of lessons learned Provision of recommendations regarding specific actions that might be taken to improve the project. It will also inform future UNDP Projects. This mid-term evaluation provides the opportunity to assess early signs of project success or failure, prompt necessary adjustments and supports UNDP’s objective of promoting accountability for resource use. The results this evaluation will be used primarily by the Implementing Partner (IP) Civil Defence Commission (CDC) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). This evaluation is included in the UNDP Country Office Evaluation Plan. Scope and Objectives of the Evaluation: The Evaluation will consider the project objectives, inputs, outputs and activities during the first 18 months of the project work plan proposed in the project document.The primary issues would be the relevance/appropriateness , efficiency , effectiveness , coherence and sustainability of the outputs. The evaluation should provide insights on the successes and weaknesses of the project thus far, and provide recommendations as to how to proceed and tackle issues in the next stages of the project. More specifically, this evaluation should consider the effectiveness of the project and the outputs it has produced, as well as the timeliness of implementation. Furthermore, a review of the project implementation arrangements should also be carried out to identify opportunities to further strengthen project implementation design and management measures. To establish the effectiveness and timeliness of the project, the activities and indicators in the project document will have to be reviewed. Where necessary, recommendations for adjustments to the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework should be proposed for review by the Project Steering Committee (PSC). The evaluation should be carried out using a sound methodology which provides reliable results for the decision making during the next project phase. Evaluation Questions: Were the stated outputs achieved or are they on track towards being achieved? What progress has been made toward the outcomes stated in the project document? What factors have contributed to achieving or not achieving intended outputs? What factors contributed to effectiveness or ineffectiveness? To what extent have project outputs and assistance contributed to achieving UNDP Country Programme Outcomes (CP 2006 – 2011). What adjustments are needed to the project’s Results and Resources Framework (RRF), implementation approach and arrangements to achieve planned outputs? Are the project partnership strategies appropriate, relevant and contributing to project’s effectiveness Methodology: Final decisions about the specific design and methods for the evaluation will emerge from consultations among the UNDP, CDC, the evaluators, and key stakeholders about what is appropriate and feasible to meet the evaluation purpose and objectives and answer the evaluation questions, given limitations of budget, time and extant data. UNDP expects a detailed and refined evaluation methodology to be presented by the evaluators at the time of the evaluation’s inception report. The proposed methodology should include an appropriate mix of the following: Review of Reports and documents Interviews of individual, groups and key informants using predetermined questions to obtain in-depth information on impressions and experiences; explore opinions about the initiative and their understanding. Collection of information on tangible and non-tangible changes wherever possible. This must be supported by an evaluation matrix which should address the following considerations: Relevant evaluation criteria Key questions the evaluation will answer for each criteria (and sub-questions, if necessary) Data Sources for each question/criteria Data collection method for each question/criteria Indicators/success standards for each question/criteria Methods for Data Analysis

Duties and Responsibilities

Evaluation Inception Report An inception report should be prepared by the evaluator(s) before going into the full fledged evaluation exercise. It should detail the evaluator’s understanding of what is being evaluated and why, showing how each evaluation question will be answered by way of: proposed methods; proposed sources of data; and data collection procedures. The inception report should include a proposed schedule of tasks, activities and deliverables, identifying who is responsible for each task or product. The inception report will provide the CDC, the programme unit and the evaluators with an opportunity to verify that they share the same understanding about the evaluation and clarify any misunderstanding at the outset. Draft Evaluation report UNDP will provide guidance on the quality criteria that will be used to assess quality of report. Final Evaluation report Evaluation brief: including power point presentation of key findings, lessons learned, and recommendations Role of UNDP personnel: Recruit, select and approve evaluators in consultation with Civil Defence Commission.\ Approve Final Evaluation report and ensure the overall quality of evaluation. Role of Civil Defence Commission (Implementing Partner -IP): Provide logistical and documentary support to evaluators in the implementation of Evaluation. Finally, review evaluators’ inception report and provide feedback on areas for strengthening, review and provide substantive feedback on the findings of the evaluation in the form of a management response to be submitted to UNDP Guyana. Organize and facilitate debriefing with relevant stakeholders on findings of the Evaluators Report. Procedures to amend TOR : For amendments to this TOR, specific requests can be made to the UNDP Guyana. Consultations will take place between UNDP and the IP to arrive at a decision on proposed changes. Final responsibility for effecting a change to TOR resides with UNDP Guyana. Reporting relationships: Consultants will submit evaluation deliverables to UNDP Guyana. Time Frame for the Evaluation Process Briefing of Evaluators: one day Preparation of Inception Report – finalizing the evaluation design: two days In-country evaluation mission (visits to field, interviews, questionnaires): five days Preparing the draft Report: three days Debriefing with UNDP: one half day Stakeholder meeting and review of draft report (quality assurance): one half day Incorporating comments and finalizing the evaluation report: three days

Competencies

Functional Competencies: Technical Expertise: Understanding and in-depth experience in the required evaluation methodologies. Sectoral Expertise: Expertise in the sectoral area of the project being evaluated– Disaster Risk Management or closely related area. Inter-Personal Skills Impartial and does not have any conflict of interest with any of the parties involved in the project evaluation. Excellent communicator Able to communicate the evaluation results in a manner that is easily understood by all parties. Able to interact with all parties in a sensitive and effective way. Other Competencies: Knowledge of UNDP, its programmes, operations and evaluation procedures. Readiness and availability for full participation and intensive work within required timeframes. Fresh contributions and perspectives, insights, experience and recent state-of-the-art knowledge. Awareness of constraints on feasibility of recommendations. Familiarity with local political, cultural, and economic environment would be an asset. Independence from any organizations that have been involved in designing, executing or advising any aspect of the project.

Required Skills and Experience

Education: MSc. in Disaster Risk Reduction or related field Experience: At least 7 years of specific experience in Disaster Risks Reduction projects. Language: Fluency in written and spoken English.

UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply. All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence.