Expertise for a mid-term evaluation (H/F) (Nouvelle fenêtre)

Expertise France; Philippines; On-site; Full time

Job description

The midterm review will examine the project using the OECD-DAC as the main criteria for evaluation. It will assess status of implementation, key results achieved thus far, while also assessing the continued relevance of the project in relation to its objectives and targets. It will analyze progress toward the achievement of planned results, considering any emerging gaps or challenges. In addition, the review will document emerging good practices and capture initial lessons learned to inform adaptive management and strengthen the likelihood of achieving the project’s intended outcomes.

The overall objective of this review is to provide an independent midterm evaluation to assess the first 27 months of the project management, implementation, and results particularly:

1. Review the progress of the project activities, stakeholder engagement and alignment with EU and Philippine strategic priorities
2. Assess the project’s relevance to the stakeholder’s needs, and its coherence within the EU-Philippines Green Economy consortium.
3. Assess the project’s efficiency and effectiveness based on the activities implemented and the results achieved
4. Draw lessons learned and good practice from the inception phase to the mid-implementation phase
5. Utilize the results of midterm evaluation to improve strategic implementation for the next phase.

This midterm evaluation is a milestone for the project to ensure its accountability to the donor European Union the implementing agency (Expertise France), and the project beneficiaries, i.e. youth advocates, entrepreneurs, incubators, local government, and other private sectors.

Given the challenge and complexity of the project, its the project length of 4.5 years and the multi-actor approach and the multi-sector holistic approach and in line with recommendations made in the project M&E plan, the project team wishes to carry out an external mid-term evaluation.

Implementation period

• Output 1 and 2: January 2024-June 2028
• Output 3: January 2024-December 2026

Evaluation period

• January 2024-March 2026

Overall Target until 2028

• 300 youth, entrepreneurs, consumer-advocates, and member of GEDSI groups
• 110 Green Businesses (start-up, MSME) in the Philippines
• 30 Green Jobs for Informal Waste Worker
• 5 Municipalities/cities
• 2 Financial Institutions

Intervention areas

• Output 1: Cordillera Administrative Region
• NCR, Cebu, Davao Region
• Output 2: Iligan City, Iloilo, Samal, and Zamboanga City
• Output 3: TBD

Project Budget

Indicative budget: 25,000 euro

Criteria and Evaluation Questions

Relevance

• To what extent are the project objectives, expected results and activities logically defined and consistent?
• To what extent does the project respond to the needs, gaps, and challenges of the project beneficiaries/participants based on stakeholder’s perspectives? Are there differences in perceptions across stakeholders, and how can they be explained?

Consistency / Coherence / complementarity

• To what extent do the activities undertaken contribute to the EU and Philippines’ development objectives (i.e. global gateway/Philippine Development Plan) and how coherent are they with its strategic priorities?
• Which synergies exist and to what extent they can contribute to programme results? (EF and other technical partners of EU-Green Economy Programme in the Philippines)

Efficiency

• To what extent are resources, governance and implementation arrangements enabling timely and effective implementation?
• To what extent does the project leverage partnerships to optimize cost?

Effectiveness

• Based on progress to date, to what extent is the project likely to achieve its expected results, for which stakeholder partners and beneficiary groups and under what conditions?
• What early signs of change can be observed, and to what extent can they reasonably be attributed to the project at this stage?

Impact

• What significant intended or unintended, positive or negative impacts can be observed as a result of the project interventions?

Sustainability

• To what extent are the technical and financial including investment mechanisms, in place can sustain the project?

Cross-cutting themes

Gender (GEDSI), youth, and geographical representation.

• how does the gender, youth, and geographical barriers considered and addressed in the project?
• To what extent is the MEAL system being established and used to support monitoring, learning, and adaptive management at this stage?

The consultant is expected to provide a value judgment on each of the evaluation questions raised by going through the criteria. As part of this analysis, the consultant will ensure that the judgments made for each of the six evaluation criteria make it possible to cover all the key stages of the project cycle.

Additionally, the consultant will formulate sub-questions to further assess the following themes:

Output 1: Start-up ecosystem strengthening and innovation, MSME support mechanism and competitiveness

Output 2: LGU and private sector engagement models

Output 3: Green financing initiatives

Overall: green jobs creation, investment mobilization

Lastly, the consultant should also verify whether the following cross-cutting issues: gender and youth inclusion, and addressing the geographical barriers were taken into account when documents were identified / developed and to what degree they were present in the implementation and supervision of the work.

The midterm evaluation will adopt a mixed method both qualitative and quantitative approach generate in-depth insights from key stakeholders involved in project implementation. A participatory evaluation approach will be applied, integrating gender and sustainability perspectives throughout the process.

The approved SO3 (Specific Objective 3) logframe will serve as the primary framework for assessing project results during the midterm evaluation. The evaluation will systematically review the agreed indicators, targets, and means of verification outlined in the logframe to measure progress toward the intended outcomes and outputs.

The deliverables must be submitted by email in Word format to the recipients who will be indicated to the evaluation team during the start-up phase. They must be written in English.

Deliverables

Evaluation Plan (detailed workplan, methodology, systematic description to carry out the midterm evaluation)

Evaluation Matrix: Data collection tools, key evaluation questions (KEQs) and questionnaires

Scope and limitation of this study

Roles and responsibilities

Schedule of data collection for each respondent

Initial evaluation report (word document)

Initial evaluation presentation including the outline of the data collection (slide document)

Consolidated feedback from Steering Committee members and stakeholders (respondents)

Final Evaluation Report with Letter of No Objection from the Steering Committee Members

# pages max. 20-30 for Evaluation Plan, 40 for Initial Evaluation Report, 50 for Final Evaluation Report

Delivery date: 20-30 days depending on evaluation plan of consultant for Evaluation Plan, 40 days for Initial Evaluation Report, 50 days for Final Evaluation Report.

The total assignment is estimated at 90 person days, between August to October 2026 as detailed below for information.

Activities

• Inception/Development phase – Virtual – August 01-August 30 – 30 days
• Data Collection Phase – Face-to-Face/Virtual – September 01 -September 30 – 30 days
• Data Analysis and Report Writing – Virtual – September 30- October 20 – 20 days
• Presentation of Initial Findings/Validation Workshop – Virtual – (period not specified)
• Final Report and Recommendations – Virtual – October 20-October 30 – 10 days

Raw data sets, interview transcripts, presentation materials, and analytical tools will form part of the required turnover documents.