Terminal evaluation

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

10. 
    This terminal evaluation - a requirement of UNDP & GEF procedures - has been initiated by UNDP Moldova as the UN Implementing Agency. This evaluation provides an in-depth assessment of project achievements and recommendations for further interventions in the sector, as well as other similar UNDP-GEF supported projects in the region and worldwide.
    

1. Objectives

11. 
    The objectives of the evaluation were to assess the achievement of project results, and to draw lessons that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project, and aid in the overall enhancement of UNDP programming. More specifically, the evaluation did:
    

• 
  Assess the overall performance against the project objective and outcomes as set out in the project document including the project’s Result and Resources Framework and other related documents;
  
• 
  Assess the national leadership and ownership;
  
• 
  Assess the efficiency of the project, including the equality and horizontality such as maximizing the use of local capacities;
  
• 
  Analyze critically the implementation and management arrangements of the project;
  
• 
  Assess the progress to date towards achievement of the outcomes;
  
• 
  Review planned strategies and plans for achieving the overall objective of the project within the timeframe;
  
• 
  Assess the sustainability of project’s interventions, including the potential for replication and scaling up of project achievements;
  
• 
  Assess project relevance to national priorities (including achieving gender equality goals);
  
• 
  List and document lessons concerning project design, implementation and management;
  
• 
  Provide guidance for closing project activities.
  

2. Scope

12. 
    Below is a summary of the elements that were covered by this evaluation. Each element was assessed and those marked with an “*” were rated as per the Terms of Reference (TOR) (see Annex 1). These elements are:
    

• 
  Project Formulation
  
  • 
    Analysis of the Result and Resources Framework including the intended outputs and their corresponding targets and planned activities)
    
  • 
    Assumptions and Risks
    
  • 
    Planned stakeholder participation
    
  • 
    Replication approach
    
  • 
    UNDP comparative advantage
    
  • 
    Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector
    
  • 
    Management arrangements
    
• 
  Project implementation
  
  • 
    Adaptive management (changes to the project design and project outputs during implementation)
    
  • 
    Partnership arrangements (with relevant stakeholders involved in the country/region)
    
  • 
    Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management
    
  • 
    Project Finance and co-financing
    
  • 
    Monitoring and evaluation: design at entry and implementation (*)
    
  • 
    Contribution of quality of project execution/implementation by UN Agency (*)
    
• 
  Project results (outputs, outcomes and objectives)
  
  • 
    Overall results (attainment of objectives) (*)
    
  • 
    Relevance (*)
    
  • 
    Effectiveness & Efficiency (*)
    
  • 
    Country ownership
    
  • 
    Mainstreaming
    
  • 
    Sustainability: financial resources, socio-political, institutional framework and governance, and environmental risks (*)
    
  • 
    Impact
    

3. Methodology

13. 
    The methodology used to conduct this terminal evaluation complied with international criteria and professional norms and standards; including the norms and standards adopted by the UN Evaluation Group and the GEF guidance.
    

1. Overall Approach

14. 
    The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the guidance, rules and procedures established by UNDP and GEF as reflected in the “UNDP Guidance for Conducting Terminal Evaluations of UNDP-supported, GEF financed Projects”². It was undertaken in-line with GEF principles, which are: independence, impartiality, transparency, disclosure, ethical, partnership, competencies/capacities, credibility and utility. It considered the two GEF evaluation objectives at the project level: (i) promote accountability for the achievement of GEF objectives; including the global environmental benefits; and (ii) promote learning, feedback and knowledge sharing on results and lessons learned among the GEF and its partners.
    

15. 
    The Evaluation Team developed evaluation tools in accordance with the UNDP and GEF policies and guidelines to ensure an effective project evaluation. The evaluation was conducted and the findings were structured around the GEF five key evaluation criteria; which are also the five internationally accepted evaluation criteria set out by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. There are:
    

• 
  Relevance relates to an overall assessment of whether the project was in keeping with donors and partner policies, with national and local needs and priorities as well as with its design.
  
• 
  Effectiveness is a measure of the extent to which formally agreed expected project results (outcomes) have been achieved, or can be expected to be achieved.
  
• 
  Efficiency is a measure of the productivity of the project intervention process, i.e. to what degree the outcomes achieved derive from efficient use of financial, human and material resources. In principle, it means comparing outcomes and outputs against inputs.
  
• 
  Impacts are the long-term results of the project and include both positive and negative consequences, whether these are foreseen and expected, or not.
  
• 
  Sustainability is an indication of whether the outcomes (end of project results) and the positive impacts (long term results) are likely to continue after the project ends.
  

16. 
    In addition to the UNDP and GEF guidance for project evaluation, the Evaluation Team applied to this mandate their knowledge of evaluation methodologies and approaches and their expertise in global environmental issues. It also applied several methodological principles such as (i) Validity of information: multiple measures and sources were sought out to ensure that the results are accurate and valid; (ii) Integrity: Any issue with respect to conflict of interest, lack of professional conduct or misrepresentation was immediately referred to the client if and when needed; and (iii) Respect and anonymity: All participants had the right to provide information in confidence.
    

17. 
    The evaluation was conducted following a set of steps presented in the table below:
    

18. 
    Finally, the Evaluation Team signed and applied the “Evaluation Consultant Code of Conduct and Agreement Form” (see Annex 2). The Evaluation Team conducted evaluation activities, which were independent, impartial and rigorous. This terminal evaluation contributed to learning and accountability and the Evaluation Team has personal and professional integrity and was guided by propriety in the conduct of his business.
    

2. Evaluation Instruments

19. 
    The evaluation provided evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The findings were triangulated through the concept of “multiple lines of evidence” using several evaluation tools and gathering information from different types of stakeholders and different levels of management. To conduct this evaluation the following evaluation instruments were used:
    

4. 
   
   Directory: sites -> default -> files -> project documents
   project documents -> Atlantic Region Climate Change Conference Sept. 14 -16, 2010
   project documents -> Agency’s Project id:   gefsec project id:   Country
   project documents -> Dense Traffic these documents, drawings and specifications are the property of roadeye flr general partnership, and shall not be reproduced or used without written permission from roadeye flr general partnership. RoadEye
   
   
   
   Download 0.98 Mb.
   
   Share with your friends: