Back Evaluation Consultant for Land Degradation Neutrality Fund Technical Assistance Facility

World Wildlife Fund, Inc. (WWF) and 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, \"Land Degradation Neutrality Fund Technical Assistance Facility\" 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 provide project preparation and technical assistance (TA) services to project developers to build a balanced portfolio of effective projects for the LDN Fund, , and increase knowledge and awareness of models for LDN investment across the investor and project developer community. Technical assistance for pre-investment projects focuses on enhancing technical, operational and financial design and structures of projects to avoid or reduce new degradation via sustainable land management practices, restoration and rehabilitation in line with the LDN Scientific Framework. Post-investment support focuses on E&S impact maximalization, capacity building (reducing the risk of the investment) and baseline and impact measurement systems, especially on measuring LDN impacts. At the time of the evaluation the TA portfolio is expected to include 21 pre-investment projects and 13 post-investment projects in Africa, Asia and Central and South America. The Project was organized into the following components and outcomes:

Component 1: Improving technical, operational and financial processes and the SLM and land restoration impact of (potential) LDN Fund projects

• 1: Project proposals of a higher technical quality are submitted to the LDN Fund
• 2: Project developers have greater capacity to implement projects to a higher technical standard
• 3: Project developers have greater ability to monitor their performance against LDN indicators, social and environmental impacts and report this to the LDN Fund which is used by both to practice adaptive management

  Component 2: Effective knowledge management and project monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

  • 1: M&E across TAF is carried out effectively and is used for adaptive management

    2.2: Awareness and knowledge of successful models for SLM and land restoration investment and LDN impact are made available across the wider project developer and investor community

    See the WWF GEF project website https://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/land-degradation-neutrality-fund-technical-assistance-facility for additional details and project documents.

    SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

    The TAF donors are seeking an independent consultant to undertake a Terminal Evaluation of the GEF and Agence Française de Développement (AFD) financed Project. Only the materialization of the TA support co-financed by AFD and GEF will be assessed. Please note, that this is not an evaluation of the LDN Fund or the investment portfolio.

    The objectives of this evaluation are to examine the extent, magnitude and sustainability of any TAF project impacts ; identify concerns as well as best practices; assess whether project outcomes and outputs were achieved; and draw lessons learned that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project and aid in the enhancement of future related projects, particularly in regard to how it enables investment readiness for the LDN Fund. 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. Definitions of these criteria will be provided as well as summary table templates, rating scales, and a sample report outline (See annexes A - D).

    POSITION DETAILS

  • Location of Consultant: Flexible
  • Reporting To: Amelia Kissick, WWF-US & Claude Torre, AFD Project Manager
  • Preferred Timeframe of Consultancy: January – March 2025
  • Period To Be Evaluated: 1/11/2019 – Time of evaluation
  • Site Visits: Two+ suggested sites in Kenya:
  • Cinch Markets, Office in Nairobi and project in Turkana County and 2. Komaza. Office in Nairobi and project in Kilifi, Kwale, and Nyandarua counties, close to Nairobi.
  • Alternative sites in Ghana: 1) Talmond. Office located in Adebet, close to Accra. Project is implemented in different regions: the Volta, Greater Accra, Central, Eastern, Ashanti, Western, Western North, and Ahafo Regions. 2. Miro Forestry. Office and Project in the Ashanti region (five districts).
  • Maximum Budget Available: $39,000

    PROJECT INFORMATION

  • Project/Program Title: Land Degradation Neutrality Fund Technical Assistance Facility
  • GEF Project ID: 9900
  • Implementing Agency: WWF-GEF
  • Executing Agency: IDH
  • Executing Partners: Mirova, UNCCD, AFD
  • Countries: Global
  • Focal Area: Land Degradation
  • GEF Operational Program GEF 6
  • Total GEF Approved Budget $2,000,000.00
  • Total Co-financing Committed $ 4,900,000.00 (EUR 3,000,000.00 from AFD)

    RELEVANT DATES

    📚 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗚𝗲𝘁 𝗮 𝗝𝗼𝗯 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗡 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯! 🌍🤝 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗡𝗘𝗪 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗿𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗡 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗨𝗡𝗛𝗖𝗥, 𝗪𝗙𝗣, 𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗘𝗙, 𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗦𝗦, 𝗨𝗡𝗙𝗣𝗔, 𝗜𝗢𝗠 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀! 🌐

    ⚠️ 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐋𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐰: 𝐏𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐓𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐚 𝐣𝐨𝐛 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐍𝐎𝐖!

  • CEO Endorsement/Approval: 1/11/2019
  • Agency Approval Date 3/3/2021*
  • Implementation Start 1/15/2019
  • Project Completion Date: 4/30/25

    *Agency official approval date was given following CEO Approval, however, due to an oversight, the official date in the GEF System came later.

    Responsibilities

    Evaluation approach and method

    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 the LDN Fund, as the counterpart of the LDN TAF, the UNCCD and selected UNCCD in-country focal points, project beneficiaries, the Executing Agency project management unit (PMU), WWF and AFD, partners and other key stakeholders. Contact information will be provided.

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

  • Kickoff meeting with WWF, AFD and PMU, including discussion on the Project’s Theory of Change.

  • Inception meeting to gather input from select project stakeholders on evaluation approach, priorities, to agree on methodology, and to inform the inception report;
  • Desk review including, but not limited to:
  • Project Document and CEO Endorsement Letter;
  • Project governance documents;
  • Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP&B) documents;
  • Project Progress Reports (PPR) including annual Results Framework and AWP reports ;
  • (draft) Project Closure Report (PCR) if available;
  • Representative selection of LDN TAF funded project documents, including project selection notes (contracts include project proposals and budgets)
  • GEF Agency reports, including Project Implementation Reports (PIRs), Back to the Office Reports (BTORs) and Support Mission Reports;
  • Relevant financial documents, including financial progress reports of TA projects; co-financing monitoring tables and letters, PMU financial progress reports on the TAF; and audits;
  • Relevant safeguards documents, including WWF GEF Agency Categorization and Compliance memo and communications;
  • Meeting minutes from and Donor Committee meetings;
  • Other relevant documents provided by the Executing Agency and partners.
  • 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.;
  • Virtual interviews, focus groups and/or consultations at local levels, national and international levels, including executing partners (LDN TAF project developers and/or consultants), Project Selection Committee (PSC) members and beneficiaries. Together with the desk review, the virtual interviews are expected to form the core of the evaluation process;

  • In-person visit of a LDN TAF funded project with field-level activities (Ghana, Kenya);

  • Debrief and presentation* of initial findings to executing partners and WWF-GEF extended team for feedback and final data collection. Feedback log requested to record responses to comments received;
  • Draft report* (60-page suggested limit excluding annexes) shared with WWF-GEF, PMU, and others indicated for review and approval. Draft report shall include both a tracked changes and clean version of the report in English. A sample outline will be provided; and
  • Final TE report* (60-page suggested limit excluding annexes) that has addressed any inaccuracies, responded to requests for additional means of verification, addressed any requirement regarding confidentiality of project partners and the LDN Fund and taken into consideration any feedback. Report should be in English. Final deliverable package shall include a tracked changes and clean version of the report, should annex a feedback log showing actions taken/responses to all reviewer comments, and include all data collected from the evaluation.

    EXPECTED CONTENT OF THE EVALUATION 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);
  • Assessment of the alignment between the E&S impacts sought (projects’ investment thesis) and the TA support identified;
  • Assessment and ratings for Implementation and Execution, including assessment of governance structure coordination and relations between the TAF and the Fund;
  • Assessment and rating of Risks to the Sustainability of project outcomes;
  • 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 TAF and TA projects’ stakeholder engagement;
  • Assessment of gender-responsive measures and whether, where relevant, gender analysis/action plans are incorporated in TA project design;
  • For TA projects where environmental and social impact was an objective, assessment of how safeguards were considered, 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 the sustainability of the TA support provided to investees;
  • Assessment of any other key outcomes and impacts achieved through delivery of TA by the Project according to the Project’s Theory of Change, such as investment-readiness, improved operational and financial management, etc.;
  • 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 strengths, best practices or issues;
  • Conclusions and recommendations that would be useful for project close and sustainability, and for other similar projects in order to improve on efficiency, identified issues, replicate best practices or achieve stronger results.

    [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 and subsequent revisions should be sent directly to the Technical Director of the agreement who will determine whether the deliverable is satisfactory and ready for circulation.

    Qualifications