Namibia - Evaluation of the Capacity Development Component of the Rural Poverty Reduction Programme- RPRP

Lot:7 - Governance and Home Affairs - EuropeAid FWC Beneficiaries 127054

3.1. Number of requested experts per category and person-days per expert

The assignment requires a total of 66 days divided among 2 senior experts:
• One (1) Team Leader – public administration Capacity Development and evaluation expert, senior level, for 40 working days. He / she will be responsible for drafting the final report.
• One (1) Organisational development and decentralisation expert, senior level, for 26 working days. He / she will contribute substantially to the final report.

The evaluation team shall consist of the above mentioned two experts whose profiles are given below. Although not specified as being part of the profile of one or other specific expert, it is essential that the team includes expertise of mainstreaming HIV/AIDS, gender and environmental issues in Capacity Development/development programmes. In addition, the team should include significant knowledge and experience in 9th EDF procedures for implementing external actions. All experts should be computer literate and have the ability to produce highly professional diagnostic documents. It is highly recommended that the team includes local expertise.

3.2. Profile of the Experts

Team Leader / Public Administration - Capacity Development Expert / Evaluation Expert with the following qualifications:
• At least a Master degree in public administration development or a related field
• At least 10 years of relevant working experience in public administration institutional development and Capacity Development in less developed countries at management level, some of which must preferably have been in southern Africa
• Extensive knowledge and experience of the evaluation of public administration support and Capacity Development projects
• Knowledge of the EU backbone strategy
• Extensive knowledge of public policy, poverty reduction and rural development programmes and projects
• Strong communications and presentation skills, and ability to present at workshops at managerial and technical levels
• Excellent report writing capability
• Fluent in spoken and written English

Organisational development and decentralisation Expert with the following qualifications:
• A university degree in public administration development or a related field
• At least 10 years of practical experience in development projects at management level, where experience in southern Africa would be a distinct asset
• Extensive knowledge and experience in assessing institutional development and capacity development processes, in the context of centralised planning institutions and decentralisation governance structures
• Strong communications and presentation skills, and ability to present at workshops at managerial and technical levels
• Excellent report writing capability
• Fluent in spoken and written English


4. LOCATION AND DURATION

4.1. Starting Period

The contract shall commence within two weeks of the award of the contract to the Consultant, commencement of duty is foreseen before or around the 16th of August 2010.

4.2. Duration

The Consultant should undertake the assignment in a period of around three months and should present the Final Evaluation Report to the EU Delegation to Namibia by 16th of November 2010 at the latest.

These terms of reference (ToR) describe an evaluation of the Capacity Development Component of RPRP. The evaluation should be structured along the five DAC criteria described below. It is important to understand that the four other components (Support of land reform, rural roads and water as well as the DDDAs) are subject of specific evaluations. Therefore this evaluation should focus particularly on how institutional support and Capacity Development provided by the Capacity Development component of RPRP benefited these components and facilitated their implementation and management. The questions presented below are elaborated in the annexure and form an integral part of these ToR.

Relevance
• The evaluation should consider the appropriateness of the Capacity Building Component in relation to the needs and priorities of the beneficiaries, and to the physical and policy environment within which they operated.
• In assessing the quality of project design, the evaluation should investigate the coherence of the intervention logic, quality of the planning documents and appropriateness of the institutional arrangements of the Capacity Building component.

Efficiency
• The evaluation should establish whether the component’s results were obtained at reasonable cost and in the most appropriate way, i.e. how well means and activities were converted into results, and the quality of the results achieved.
• The analysis should look at major deviations to the original plan for the component, as described in the RPRP Financing Agreement, and their consequences. Examine the pros and cons of the two different technical assistance concepts i.e. allocation to specific ministry such as MLR or all in NPCS.

Effectiveness
• The evaluation needs to elaborate on the contribution made by the Instruments to the achievement of the RPRP purpose/specific objective and to identify the major factors influencing achievement or non-achievement.

Impact
• The evaluation should analyse the positive and negative medium and long-term effects of the instruments on the wider environment, and their contribution to the RPRP Overall Objective.

Sustainability
• The evaluation should assess the expected continuation of benefits produced by the component after the period of support provided by the Instruments has ended.

Cross-cutting issues
• The evaluation should assess the way in which HIV/AIDS, gender and environmental issues were mainstreamed in the Capacity Building component.

2.1. Overall Objective

The overall objective of the evaluation is to assess the impact of the Capacity Building provided to the National Planning Commission, Ministry of Land and Resettlement, Ministry of Agriculture Water and Forestry, Ministry of Works and Transport, Regional Councils and other organisations responsible for implementing aspects of the RPRP and otherwise directly contributing to the objectives of the RPRP on the living standards of the rural poor in Namibia.

2.2. Specific Objective(s)

The specific objective of the evaluation is to find out what worked well and what did not work well. The evaluation should provide detailed information on the achievements of the instruments and provide an independent opinion of their outcomes. It should conduct this assessment according to the five DAC evaluation criteria as described in section 2.3.

2.3. Requested Services and Specific Tasks of the Consultant

Technical offer
The Consultant will submit, with her/his technical offer, an initial description of the proposed methodology (maximum 3 pages) in conducting this evaluation. The methodology should enable the evaluation of a range of experiences so that the various questions elaborated in these ToR and the annexed guidelines can be answered.

Review of relevant documents, consultative meetings and refining of methodology
The Consultant will receive by e-mail copies of the RPRP Financing Agreement, the Programme Estimates (PE) and their respective addenda, and the PE and GTZ service Contract reports to provide insight of the RPRP component to be evaluated. The Consultant will also be directed to relevant web pages (www//npc.gov.na) to access information for preparation of the mission, which preparation can partly take place in the home country.

Upon arrival in Namibia, the evaluators will be provided with additional RPRP documentation and will be briefed by officials at the EU Delegation to Namibia, the office of the National Authorizing Officer (NAO), and National Planning Commission Secretariat (NPCS). The evaluators will refine their methodology and work plan after it has been discussed and agreed with the stakeholders. The experts will then proceed with meetings, investigations, analytical work and field visits on the basis of the work plan agreed.

Conducting the Evaluation
In conducting and completing the evaluation, the evaluators will work closely with the above mentioned entities. Further the evaluators will work with the:
• Representatives of Regional Councils which have benefited from RPRP’s Capacity Development Component
• Representatives for other Offices, Agencies and Ministries of the Government of the Republic of Namibia, and of civic organisation which have benefited from RPRP’s Capacity Development component
• GTZ Technical Assistance team which supported the NPCS in implementing the RPRP and specifically its Capacity Development Component.
• Where applicable, other stakeholders, donors, public or private institutions involved in the RPRP and other rural poverty reduction efforts in Namibia.


Drafting the report
After producing a first draft report (Please avoid any statements, in the report, that are not based on evidence), the evaluators shall convene (having budgeted for) a one-day Stakeholder Workshop to be attended by all stakeholders, where the preliminary findings of the evaluation can be discussed, while collecting responses and feedback to be used for the formulation of the draft final report. The planned workshop should focus on collecting complementary information and to verify factual issues. Following the workshop, evaluators will hold a de-briefing meeting to present their findings and recommendations to officials from the EU Delegation, the office of the National Authorizing Officer (NAO), and National Planning Commission Secretariat (NPCS). Thereafter, a draft Final Evaluation Report will be prepared which will incorporate the comments received, within 14 days of the Stakeholder Workshop. This may be prepared in Namibia or elsewhere. The draft Final Evaluation Report must be submitted digitally to the EU Delegation. Within 30 days after receipt of the report, the EU Delegation will consult with the stakeholders and provide comments and suggestions for amendments to the evaluators. The Final Evaluation Report must be submitted to the EU Delegation within 10 days after receiving these comments and suggestions. The NAO will be responsible for approving this report and the EU Delegation will be responsible for endorsing the approval.

2.4. Expected Outputs

The final report should address all issues mentioned above and should present the evaluators’ findings on the following:
• Where appropriate reference should be made to the EU backbone strategy for technical assistance and whether the guiding principles of these strategy where applicable for the Capacity Development component of the RPRP. It is well understood that the backbone strategy was developed after the start of the RPRP. However, experiences made could contribute to a constructive discussion of this strategy.
• Analysis on whether the concept of capacity development in general and its specific scope and focus in RPRP was understood in the same manner by all key actors;
• Analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the Institutional Support and Capacity Development based on relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability;
• Analysis of the cooperation and coordination between the different stakeholders and the integration of the identified Capacity Development activities into Governmental services;
• Assessment of the appropriateness of the structure of implementation arrangements provided under the Rural Poverty Reduction Programme and of their integration within NPCS;
• Identification of lessons learned and formulation of recommendations on the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of Institutional Support and Capacity Development;
• Assessment of the successes of the Instruments in contributing to the purpose of the RPRP, including evidence of beneficiary institutions or staff adopting the desired practices or behaviours;
• Analysis of whether the Capacity Development component has effectively developed the capacity of the intended institutions? If not, how could the design or implementation be altered to improve capacity strengthening?
• Qualitative overview on the performance of the instruments, and on each beneficiary organisation;
• Recommendations on the future needs for external support to the Government of the Republic of Namibia’s efforts in Capacity Development for the institutions that have benefited;
• A summary synthesis with the principal conclusions and recommendations.

PLEASE NOTE: ONLY SELECTED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONTACTED