Expert, Evaluation of Project for City Resilience, Deadline: 5 January 2019

Vacancies

Expert, Evaluation of Project for City Resilience, Deadline: 5 January 2019

Issue Date	26 Dec 2018	Closing Date	05 Jan 2019
Grade		Post Duration
Duty Station		Organizational Unit

Job Opening

In Afghanistan, it is evident that not only the prolonged conflict but also the recurrent disasters have put the fragile county in a vicious circle of underdevelopment. The risk of natural disasters has been accelerated by the climate change, and rapid urbanization with the influx of Returnees and IDPs expose those vulnerable urban populations more to hazards because of insufficient basic services, housing, and infrastructures. People who live in informal settlements have repeatedly suffered from small-scale recurrent natural disaster. They have lost their assets due to flood and earthquake and have suffered from health problems after the flood because of worsened sanitary conditions.

Download PDF Version

CONSULTANT VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT

End-of-Project Evaluation
Project for City Resilience (PCR) in Afghanistan
Issue Date: 11 December 2018

ORGANIZATION:	UN-Habitat
DUTY STATION:	Home-based, Mission to Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan
FUNCTIONAL TITLE:	Expert, Evaluation of Project for City Resilience
GRADE:	UNOPS / IICA
POST DURATION & START DATE:	Total 6 weeks over two months
OUTPUT AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE:	1. Inception Report (15%) 2. Draft Evaluation Report (50 %) 3. Final Evaluation Report (35%)
MISSION TO AFGHANISTAN:	From January to February 2019 (for 4 work weeks)
CLOSING DATE:	5 January 2019

1. Project
1. 1 Background
In Afghanistan, it is evident that not only the prolonged conflict but also the recurrent disasters have put the fragile county in a vicious circle of underdevelopment. The risk of natural disasters has been accelerated by the climate change, and rapid urbanization with the influx of Returnees and IDPs expose those vulnerable urban populations more to hazards because of insufficient basic services, housing, and infrastructures. People who live in informal settlements have repeatedly suffered from small-scale recurrent natural disaster. They have lost their assets due to flood and earthquake and have suffered from health problems after the flood because of worsened sanitary conditions.

The Project for City Resilience (PCR) was developed to addresses disaster risk reduction (DRR) and resilience of Afghan cities at three interlinked levels - community, city and national. It aims to demonstrate how the post-2015 frameworks and agendas can be localized in a coherent and integrated manner, leading to safe, resilient and sustainable urban development in the country.
1. 2 Project Goal and Objectives, Outcomes, and Outputs
Goal:
Overall Objective of the Project is to assist the National Unity Government to make Afghan cities safe, resilient and sustainable by reducing disaster risk, human and economic losses and impacts, especially on the life of women and girls and vulnerable people.

Specific Objective of the Project is to strengthen capacity of selected Afghan cities for disaster risk reduction through a people centred preventive approach and to demonstrate innovations in localizing the Sendai Framework and other post-2015 frameworks and agendas.

Outcomes and Outputs
Outcome 1: Enhanced urban communities’ resilience to disaster and climate risk
Output 1.1: CDCs and GAs for resilience building established
Output 1.2: 6 Community Resilience Action Plans (Community RAPs) at Gozar Assembly level prepared and endorsed by Mayor
Output 1.3: 30 non-structural (including awareness raising) activities for community disaster risk and preparedness to multiple hazards completed
Output 1.4: New/renovated essential community infrastructure for resilient to disaster and climate risk completed
Output 1.5: Reinforcement of 100 disaster resilient houses in two cities completed

Outcome 2: Strengthened municipal capacity for people-centred preventive DRR
Output 2.1: City Risk and Resilience Assessment
Output 2.2: People-centred and Risk-informed City Resilience Action Plan (City RAP) prepared and endorsed
Output 2.3: Structural improvements for city resilience in 2 cities and City-RAP Guide Book for Citizen and awareness raising events completed
Output 2.4: Tools for institutionalize and replicate successful Afghan community and city resilience building approaches completed
Output 2.5: Workshops and Training for Municipal and Government staff and private sector

* The output 2.1 has been changed to City Risk and Resilience Assessment from City Risk and Resilience Profiles (CRRP). Initially the Project was supposed to follow the method of CRRP was prepared by UN-Habitat’s Risk and The City Resilience Profiling Programme (CRPP); however, the Project introduced a tailored model of assessments since CRPP could not capture risk and resilience status of Afghanistan.
Outcome 3: Strengthened national capacity for risk-sensitive urban development to contribute to Sendai Framework implementation and monitoring
Output 3.1: Draft risk-sensitive urban policy and decision support tools completed
Output 3.2: Training modules and material for national monitoring of Sendai Framework (SF)/Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)/New Urban Agenda (NUA)
Output 3.3: Training of Government Officers on monitoring of SF/SDGs/NUA completed
Output 3.4: Draft tools for promoting people-centred preventive approach to disaster in Afghanistan completed
Output 3.5: Workshops and Trainings for Municipal and Government staff
2. Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation
UN-Habitat is undertaking this evaluation of “Project for City Resilience” in order to assess project performance and extent to which the Project’s objectives and expected accomplishments were achieved.
The evaluation is conducted at the request of UN-Habitat and is part of UN-Habitat’s effort to perform systematic and timely evaluations of its projects and to ensure that UN-Habitat evaluations provide full representation of its mandate and activities. It is in-line with the UN-Habitat Evaluation Policy and the Revised UN-Habitat Evaluation Framework which require that project of US$1 million and above should have an end of project evaluation.
The evaluation will synthesize achievements, results and lessons learned from the Project. Evaluation results will contribute to UN-Habitat’s planning, reporting and accountability. The sharing of findings from this evaluation will inform UN-Habitat and key stakeholders, including governing bodies, donors, partners, and Member States, on what was achieved and learned from the Project.
Key objectives of the evaluation are:

To assess the design, implementation and achievement of results at the outcome level of the Project. This will entail analysis of actual versus expected results achieved by UN-Habitat;
To assess the project’s value-for-money, visibility and performance of the Project in terms of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, and impact outlook;
Taking into account intended users of the evaluation, identify lessons learned and provide recommendations for improving future resilience building projects.

3. Scope and Focus
The period of the evaluation will cover the start of the Project in April 2017 up to January 2019 and at a time when most of the outputs and activities of the Project have been delivered.
The evaluation will be evidenced-based and is to assess as objectively as possible the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact outlook of the Project. These will be rated based on the performance characteristics used by UN-Habitat (Annex 2).
4. Evaluation Questions Based on Evaluation Criteria

Relevance:

To what extent is the Project consistent with beneficiaries’ requirement, country needs, national development goals, and partners’ and donors’ policies?
Was the implementation strategy in line with and responsive to SDG 11, NUA and SF?

Efficiency:

How well were economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) efficiently utilized and converted to results?
Did UN-Habitat and national partners the adequate capacity to design and implement the Project?
Were institutional arrangements adequate for implementing the Project and for delivery of expected outputs and outcomes?

Effectiveness:

To what extent has the project been effective in achieving its objective of enhancing the resilience of targeted cities?
What types of products and services did the project provide to beneficiaries through activities implemented?
To what extent have monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the project been timely, meaningful and adequate?

To assess the extent to which cross cutting issues of gender, human rights, climate change/ environment, and youth, including age and disabilities were relevant to the project and have been integrated in the design, implementation and delivery of the Project;

What are the levels of awareness amongst beneficiaries regarding the contribution of the funding partner, visibility materials in the field and other communication material?
Did the identification, design and implementation process involve local and national stakeholders, as appropriate?

Sustainability:

To what extent did the project build capacity and ownership of stakeholders that contribute to sustainability?
To what extent will the project be replicated or scaled up or institutionalized? Is the Project replicable or able to scale up at national or local levels?
Did the Project leverage or contribute to increased funding and national investments to city resilience?
Do the positive effects produced by the Project intended or unintended seem sustainable?

Impact Outlook:

What is the overall impact of the project (directly or indirectly, intended and unintended)?
What are the positive changes to beneficiaries resulted from the Project? Review the process and the methodology of the Project, including the level of participation of the communities and other stakeholders.

5. Stakeholder Involvement
It is expected that this evaluation will be participatory, involving key stakeholders. Stakeholders will be kept informed of the evaluation process including design, information collection, and evaluation reporting and results dissemination to create a positive attitude for the evaluation and enhance its utilization. Relevant UN-Habitat entities, Government of Japan represented by the Embassy of Japan, Government of Afghanistan, beneficiary communities may participate through a questionnaire, interviews or focus group discussions.
6. Evaluation Approach and Methodology
The evaluation shall be independent and be carried out following the evaluation norms and standards of the United Nations System and best practices in the evaluation field. A variety of methods will be applied to collect information during the evaluation. These methods include the following elements:

Review of documents relevant to the Project. Documents to be provided by UN-Habitat and partners (such documentation shall be identified and obtained by the evaluator).

Documentation to be reviewed will include:

Original project document;
Project Quarterly Reports;
Strategic plans, as deemed relevant, such as Habitat Country Programme Document and other relevant UN-Habitat policy documents, in particular on city resilience and DRR.
Key informant interviews and consultations, including focus group discussions will be conducted with key stakeholders, including partners. The principles for selection of stakeholders to be interviewed as well as evaluation of their performance shall be clarified in the inception report at the beginning of the evaluation.
Surveys. In order to obtain quantitative information on stakeholders’ views, questionnaires to different target audiences will be deployed, as deemed feasible, to give views.
Field visits. The evaluator will visit areas of DRR infrastructures (including retrofitted houses/schools) to observe and assess project delivery.

The evaluator will describe expected data analysis and instruments to be used in the inception report. Questionnaires to be used during the evaluation should be discussed with the project team and included in the inception report. Presentation of the evaluation findings should follow the standard format of UN-Habitat Evaluation Report (Annex 3).
7. Accountability and Responsibilities
The UN-Habitat Afghanistan will commission an evaluation of the Project and it will manage the evaluation, providing technical support and ensuring that the evaluation is contracted to a suitable candidate and contractual requirements are met as well as approve all deliverables in consultation with the Evaluation Unit at UN-Habitat Headquarters. The evaluation is conducted as a decentralized evaluation in line with the Revised Evaluation Framework of UN-Habitat (September 2015). Evaluation Unit will provide technical support throughout the evaluation process, as required.
A reference group with members from the project team in Afghanistan, ROAP, and the Evaluation Unit, will be responsible for comments on the inception report and drafts of the evaluation report. The programme manager of the Project for City Resilience will be responsible for timely informing the donor (Government of Japan) of the evaluation as well as inviting the donor to review draft evaluation reports and share the final evaluation report with the donor.
The evaluation shall be carried out by an international consultant supported by a national consultant during data collection and data analysis. The international consultant is responsible for the work plan of national consultant, quality of work and preparation of the evaluation report.
The Evaluator is responsible for meeting professional and ethical standards in planning and conducting the evaluation and producing the expected deliverables in accordance with UN-Habitat evaluation policy and norms and standards for evaluation. The Evaluator will conduct the End of Project Evaluation of the Programmatic and Operational aspects of the project implemented by UN-Habitat related to delivery of outcomes, process and methodology, cross-cutting issues, and visibility. The programmatic and operational aspects are to be assessed as per the project log frame (Annex 1).
8. Qualifications and Experience of Evaluation Team
The evaluation shall be carried out by an evaluation team. The international consultant is expected to have:

Extensive evaluation experience. The lead consultant should have the ability to present credible findings derived from evidence and prepare conclusions and recommendations supported by the findings.
Specific knowledge and understanding of UN-Habitat and its mandate.
7 years of project management experience in results-based management working with development projects/ programmes
Experience in working with projects in the United Nations system.
Advanced academic degree in development, disaster risk reduction or similar fields.
Recent and relevant experience in working in development aid.
Experience and familiarity with community infrastructure and rehabilitation is desirable.
Fluent in English (understanding, reading and writing) is a requirement.

9. Work Schedule with tentative timeframe for evaluation and reporting
The evaluation shall be conducted over a period of two [or three] months with [6 weeks] paid for the lead consultant, including the desk review, field work, data analysis, draft report, review and revision of the draft and final report. The evaluator is expected to prepare an inception report with work plan that will operationalize the evaluation. In the inception report, understanding of the evaluation questions, methods to be used, limitations and constraints to the evaluation as well as schedules and delivery dates to the execution of the evaluation, should be detailed.
10. Deliverables
The three primary deliverables for this evaluation are:
a)   Inception Report with evaluation work plan. Once approved, it will become the key management document for the evaluation, guiding evaluation delivery in accordance with UN-Habitat’s expectations throughout the performance of contract. (Refer to Annex 2 for Key Elements of Inception Report.)
b)   Draft Evaluation Reports. The evaluator will prepare evaluation report draft(s) to be reviewed by UN-Habitat. The draft should follow UN-Habitat’s standard format for evaluation reports and include rating of the evaluation criteria with justification. (Refer to Annex 3 for Format of UN-Habitat Evaluation Report and Annex 4 for Rating of Performance by Evaluation Criteria.)
c)   Final Evaluation Report will be prepared in English and follow the UN-Habitat’s standard format of an evaluation report. The report should not exceed 35 pages (excluding Executive Summary and Appendices). In general, the report should be technically easy to comprehend for non-specialists.
11. Payment schedule
The Evaluator will enter into a contract with UN-Habitat and will be paid for the services as outlined below:

1st Instalment: 15% upon clearance of Inception Report;
2nd Instalment: 50% upon clearance of Draft Report; and
3rd Final instalment: 35% on clearance of Final Report

12. International Travel (Home – Kabul):
The cost of a return air-ticket from the place of recruitment on least-cost economy and visa fee will be reimbursed upon submission of travel claim together with the supporting documents including copy of e-ticket, receipts and used boarding passes. Three quotations from the reputable travel agents shall be submitted for UN-Habitat’s clearance prior to purchase of tickets. DSA will be paid separately for the mission.
13. Local Transportation:
Such as vehicle arrangements to provinces will be covered by UN-Habitat.

14. Travel Advice/Requirements:
The Consultant must abide by all UN security instructions. Upon arrival he/she must attend a security briefing provided by UNDSS. He/she should undertake Basic and Advanced Security Training as prescribed by UNDSS. Regular missions will be undertaken for which UNDSS authorisation must be sought.

How to Apply:

The application should comprise:

Completed UN Personal History Form (P11). Please download the form (MS- Word) from UN-Habitat/ROAP-vacancy website: www.fukuoka.unhabitat.org

A Statement of Interest (cover letter) for the position and CV.

Full resume, indicating the following information:
Educational Background (incl. dates)
Professional Experience (assignments, tasks, achievements, duration by years/ months)

All applications should be submitted to:
UN-Habitat Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific
ACROS Fukuoka, 8th Floor
1-1-1 Tenjin Chuo-ku, Fukuoka, 810-0001 Japan
habitat.fukuoka@unhabitat.org

Please indicate the Post Title: “VA #50 EVALUATION PCR” in your e-mail subject.
Please note that applications received after the closing date stated below, will not be given consideration. Only short-listed candidates whose applications respond to the above criteria will be contacted for an interview. The fee will be determined according to the qualifications, skills and relevant experience of the selected candidate. In line with UN-Habitat policy on gender equity, applications from female candidates will be particularly welcome.

Deadline for applications: 5 January 2019

Due to a large number of applications expected, only short-listed candidates will be contacted. The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs. (Charter of the United Nations - Chapter 3, article 8).

Annex 1
Project Log Frame (Latest version)
Overall Objective: Afghan cities become safe, resilient and sustainable by reducing disaster risk, human and economic losses and impacts, especially on the life of women and girls and vulnerable people
Specific Objective: Strengthened capacity of selected Afghan cities for disaster risk reduction through a people centred preventive approach and to demonstrate innovations in localizing the Sendai Framework and other post-2015 frameworks and agendas

Outcome 1	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection
Enhanced urban communities’ resilience to disaster and climate risk	1.1 Number of community members who understand the risks in their neighbourhood 1.2 Number of community members who have act to mitigate the risk and are ready to act collectively to respond to disaster 1.3 Community perception on communities' resilience toward disaster and climate risk	The result of Community Risk and Resilience Assessment	Improvement in the result of Community Risk and Resilience Assessment	- Project Report - Interview with Stakeholders/Focus group discussion	Baseline and end line survey
Output 1.1	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
CDCs and GAs for resilience building established	Number of established CDCs and GAs for Resilience building	0	6 GAs and 30 CDCs by Jan 2018	- Records at Municipalities - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Quarterly	- Identify target communities - Support communities to formulate gender, age and disability inclusive Community Development Councils (CDCs) and Gozar Assemblies (GAs) - Support communities to register CDCs/GAs to Municipalities	- Municipalities (Primary Responsible) - ANDMA - UN-Habitat
Output 1.2	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
6 Community Resilience Action Plans (Community RAPs) at GA level prepared and endorsed by Mayor (and MAB)	Number of agreed and endorsed Community RAPs	0	6 by Mar 2018	- Records at Municipalities - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Quarterly	- Support Community to conduct Gozar-wide participatory risk and resilience assessments (including vulnerability and community capacity assessment (including awareness of risk, preparedness, degree of implementation of retrofitting for resilience, application of building code, safety of infrastructure etc.)) - Prepare community hazard maps, - Identify priorities and infrastructure needs, ensuring inclusion of at-risk population in decision-making - Support Community to develop Community RAP (including preparedness plan)	- Municipalities (Primary Responsible) - ANDMA - UN-Habitat
Output 1.3	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
30 non-structural (including awareness raising) activities for community disaster risk and preparedness to multiple hazards completed	Number of non-structural activities completed	0	by the end of the project	- Records at Municipalities and ANDMA regional office - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Quarterly	- Support communities to implement Community RAP soft component; conduct non-structural activities such as awareness raising, DRR education, disaster preparedness planning and disaster drill at CDCs and GA level - Conduct exchange visits between GAs to learn good practices	- Municipalities (Primary Responsible) - ANDMA - UN-Habitat
Output 1.4	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
New/renovated essential community infrastructure for resilient to disaster and climate risk completed	Number of new/renovated essential community infrastructure for resilient to disaster and climate risk in place	0	6 by Jan 2019	- Records at Municipalities and ANDMA regional office - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders - Field visit	Quarterly	- Support communities to implement Community RAP hard component; reinforce infrastructures at GA level, such as community building and drainage by communities with technical support and oversight from UN-Habitat and Municipal/District authorities; - Coordinate with Municipalities government, relevant Ministries and academics to identify appropriate technology and financial mechanisms to improve infrastructure - Support designing sub-project, approval and contracting with UN-Habitat - Conduct monitoring of sub-projects in line with municipal monitoring systems	- Municipalities (Primary Responsible) - MUDH - ANDMA - UN-Habitat
Output 1.5	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
Reinforcement of 100 disaster resilient houses in two cities completed	Number of retrofitted houses	0	by Dec 2018	- Records at Municipalities and ANDMA regional office - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders - Field visit	Quarterly	- Set up selection criteria of vulnerable housing with cooperation from Academics - Select targeted areas - Identify housing units most at risk of seismic failure - Reinforce structure of vulnerable housings - Provide trainings for community members and housing construction workers	- MUDH (Primary Responsible) - Municipalities (Primary Responsible) - ANDMA - UN-Habitat
Outcome 2	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection
Strengthened municipal capacity for people-centred preventive DRR	a. Adoption and use of City RAP guideline and Community RAP guideline by two municipalities b. Number of activities in City-RAP that two Municipalities implemented	a. 0 b. 0	- a. 2 by the end of Project - b. 6 by the end of Project	- Records at Government - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Yearly (By Jan 2018 and Middle and End of Project)
Output 2.1	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
City Risk and Resilience Assessment (CRRA)	Number of CRRA prepared	0	2 by end Project	- Records at Municipalities and ANDMA regional office - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Quarterly	- Identify multiple hazards and at-risk areas based on past/on-going research by ANDMA and other agencies with participation of citizens and academics - Develop risk/hazard mapping integrating with geospatial information (including estimated population, social and economic information) - Conduct baseline assessment of Municipalities’ capacity on DRR and needs assessment (structural and non-structural) of staff, institution and infrastructure, using proven tools	- Municipalities (Primary Responsible) - ANDMA - MUDH - Academics - UN-Habitat - UNISDR
Output 2.2	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
People-centred and Risk-informed City Resilience Action Plan (City RAP) prepared and endorsed	Number of officially endorsed City RAP	0	2 by end Project	- Records at Municipalities and ANDMA regional office - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Quarterly	- Develop City RAP through participatory process based on CRRA ensuring linkage with Community RAP (output 1.2) - develop partnerships between Municipality, Government, academia, engineer associations, private sector, CSOs and development partners to develop and implemented City RAP.	- Municipalities (Primary Responsible) - ANDMA - MUDH - UN-Habitat - UNISDR
Output 2.3	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
Structural improvements for city resilience in 2 cities and City-RAP Guide Book for Citizen and awareness raising events completed	a. Number of Structural improvements b. Number of non-structural measures by Municipalities - City RAP Guide Book for Citizen - Awareness raising events	a. 0 b. 0	a. 6 by Jan 2019 b. 2 by end Project	- Records at Municipalities and ANDMA regional office - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Quarterly	- Implement priority Structural/Non-Structural measures identified in the City RAP (Output 2.2), such as: • Improve/develop critical infrastructure such as river bank/canal improvement, improved irrigation system, planting vegetation on slopes, reinforcement of public buildings • Advocacy/awareness rising activities at City level through distributing DRR information (like Bosai Book in Tokyo), events, public service announcements (PSA) through radio • Strengthen institutional capacity for risk-informed planning and decision making by Municipal government departments • Identify gaps and reinforce the implementation of Building Code (such as training for construction workers/private sector while strengthening capacity of municipal government on Public-Private Partnership (e.g. seismic resilient design housing))	- Municipalities (Primary Responsible) - ANDMA - MUDH - UN-Habitat
Output 2.4	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
Tools for institutionalize and replicate successful Afghan community and city resilience building approaches completed	Number of Guidelines prepared; - City RAP Guideline - Community RAP Guideline	0	2 by end Project	- Records at ANDMA, IDLG/DMM and Municipalities - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Quarterly	- Develop City RAP/Community RAP Guidelines	- ANDMA (Primary Responsible) - IDLG/DMM (Primary Responsible) - Municipalities - MUDH - UN-Habitat
Output 2.5	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
Workshops and Training for Municipal and Government staff and private sector	a. Number of workshops/trainings conducted b. Number of participants to workshops/training	a. 0 b. 0	a. 6 by December 2018 b. 60 by December 2018	- Records at ANDMA, IDLG/DMM and Municipalities - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Quarterly	- Train Municipal/ANDMA officials on the approaches and equip them with tools to facilitate other communities - Hold Training on Vulnerable Housing Reinforcement for Municipal/government staff and private sector (masons) (related to output 1.5) - Conduct training on seismic engineering and urban resilience policy - International Training on City Resilience - Hold a workshop to disseminate good practices/lessons learned on building urban community resilience	- ANDMA (Primary Responsible) - IDLG/DMM (Primary Responsible) - Municipalities - MUDH - UN-Habitat
Outcome 3	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification
Strengthened national capacity for risk-sensitive urban development that contribute to Sendai Framework implementation and monitoring	3.1 Usage of tools and existence of a report on Sendai Framework 3.2 Acceptance of policy recommendations (signed document) and implementation of those policies	no	by the end of Project	- Records at Government - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Yearly (Middle and End of Project)
Output 3.1	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
Draft risk-sensitive urban policy and decision support tools completed	Number of tools prepared; - Draft proposal for risk informed National Urban Policy (Upgrading Policy, Municipal Law) - Draft a Roadmap for revised National Building Code - National DRR Strategy	0	4 by end Project	- Records at MUDH, DMM - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Quarterly	- Develop policy recommendations for new and/or improved policies and regulations for risk-sensitive and resilient urban infrastructure and planning (National Urban Policy for Resilience) - Draft a roadmap for revising National Building Code and discuses and propose policy measures to reinforce Building Code (such as possible financial/tax incentives and skill/knowledge development of engineers) - Draft National DRR Strategy	- MUDH (Primary Responsible) - ANDMA - Afghanistan National Standardization Authority (ANSA) - Academics - UN-Habitat
Output 3.2	\	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
Training modules and material for national implementation and monitoring of SF/SDGs/NUA	- Training modules and materials for national monitoring of SF/SDGs/NUA	0	1 by July 2018	- Records at ANDMA - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Quarterly	- Support the roll out of Sendai Framework implementation and monitor at national level in Afghanistan with participation of all relevant stakeholders - Support ANDMA to establish linkage between the City Risk and Resilience Profiles (Output 2.1) as local monitoring of Sendai Framework	- ANDMA (Primary Responsible) - Municipalities - UN-Habitat - UNISDR
Output 3.3	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
Training of Government Officers on Implementation and monitoring of SF/SDGs/NUA completed	a. Number of Training conducted b. Number of officers trained on SF/SDGs/NUA monitoring	a. 0 b. 0	a. 1 by July 2018 b. 10 by July 2018	- Records at ANDMA - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Monthly	- Training on Implementation and Monitoring of SF/SDGs/NUA	- ANDMA (Primary Responsible) - Municipalities - UN-Habitat - UNISDR
Output 3.4	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
Draft tools for promoting people-centred preventive approach to disaster in Afghanistan completed	Number of tools (documents/policy recommendation) prepared - City RAP Guideline (output 2.4) - Community RAP Guideline (output 2.4) - Training materials for resilient house building/retrofitting (for engineers) - Draft revised DRR and climate risk manual for Citizen Charter National Priority Programme	0	4 by end Project	- Records at ANDMA, IDLG/DMM, MUDH - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Quarterly	- Develop City/Community RAP Guidelines - Develop Training materials for resilient house building/retrofitting, Seismic Engineering - Draft a revised DRR and climate risk manual for Citizen Charter National Priority Programme	- ANDMA (Primary Responsible) - IDG/DMM (Primary Responsible) - MUDH (Primary Responsible) - UN-Habitat
Output 3.5	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Means of Verification	Frequency of Data Collection	Activities	Responsible Parties
Workshops and Trainings for Municipal and Government staff	number of workshops/trainings conducted	0	4 by Dec 2018	- Records at ANDMA, IDLG/DMM, MUDH - Project Final Report - Interview with stakeholders	Quarterly	- Conduct trainings and workshops on house retrofitting, seismic engineering, urban resilience policy - conduct international training on City Resilience in Japan - share Afghan experience at regional and global platforms for DRR - Hold a National workshops to share good practices and lessons learned on building resilience at community and municipal levels, present City/Community RAP, revised DRR and climate risk manual for CCNP, scaling up successful approaches for municipalities and central government and promote city-to-city learning to share successful approaches, both among Afghan cities	- ANDMA (Primary Responsible) - MUDH - Municipalities - UN-Habitat

Annex 2
Key Elements of Inception Report
Inception phase: This is a key initial phase of evaluation process to forge a common understanding between the commission of the evaluation and the evaluation team, on the design of evaluation and how it will be implemented. The phase is an opportunity to further clarify on the TOR and any areas of uncertainty in relation to scope, processes, resource requirements, timeframes and deliverables of the evaluation. The inception phase culminates in an inception report produced by the evaluator(s). It is a key document that serves as a road map for managing the overall evaluation process.
Outline of the inception report

Introduction

Background and context of the project to be evaluated
Purpose, Objectives and scope of the evaluation
Theory of change (“pathway of change” based on results chain of the log frame of the project document).

Approach and Methodology

Approach: Use of evaluation criteria and elaboration of key evaluation questions
Methodology: Evaluation design (describe methods of data collection and analysis, potential target groups for discussion and interviews, focus group discussion, surveys)
Limitations to the evaluation (e.g., quality of log frame, time frame, resources, availability of stakeholders, language, etc.)

Summary of key aspects of evaluation, specifying what will be evaluated and how (well to capture in initial submission)
Work plan (task schedule with timing)
Responsibilities, logistics and support
Annexes

TOR
List of documents reviewed
Any interview tools e.g., interview protocol and questionnaire, as available

Annex 3
Format of UN-Habitat Evaluation Report

Title Page and Opening Pages	The following information should be easily accessible in the first few pages of the report: 1) the name of the evaluated intervention and its location; 2) duration of the intervention covered by the evaluation, 3) month and year of the report; 4) names and organization(s) of evaluators; and 5) official disclaimer.
Table of Contents	The table of contents should list sections with sub headings and annexes. Separate list of tables and figures should also be included.
Acronyms & Abbreviations	List of key terminology used by acronym in alphabetical order.
Executive Summary	This is a brief and concise summary of purpose, objectives and scope of evaluation, intended audience of the report, short description of methodology used including rationale for choice of methodology, data sources, analysis methods and evaluation limitations, main findings, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations. The summary should be a stand-alone synopsis of no more than 10 pages of the whole evaluation report, as it is part of the report that most people with limited time will read.
1. Introduction	The introduction should contain concise information about intervention background and context, mandate for the evaluation, overall objectives, purpose and scope of the evaluation. It should specify in brief how and by whom the evaluation is intended to be used, and describe the outline of the report.
2. Overview of the Evaluated Intervention, Project or Programme	Overview of the evaluated intervention should be as short as possible while ensuring that all important information is provided. The section should clearly describe the main characteristics of the evaluated intervention including its history and development, its theory of change (results chain) or logic model from input to output, outcome and impact, objectives and priorities, its implementation strategy and key assumptions. The budget of the intervention and timelines should be included in the section or attached in the annex for reference. The roles and contributions of various stakeholders should be briefly described, including financial contributions from donors. Progress of the intervention should be described and key outputs delivered should be included. This section should also cover the context of why the evaluation is being done in order to provide an understanding of the setting in which the evaluation took place. Reference to relevant UN-Habitat programmatic documents and mandates should be included.
3. Evaluation Approach and Methodology	This section should describe how and when the evaluation was carried out including the design of evaluation and justification of the methodology used and evaluation limitations. It should describe data collection and analysis methods, as well as evaluation criteria and evaluation questions used based on the Terms of Reference. Use of methods specified in the terms of reference and inception report should be mentioned, and if not, clearly explain why. The section should include a brief description of how gender equality aspects and (as relevant) cross-cutting issues of human rights, climate change and youth were incorporated in the evaluation. The information about process and methods used in the evaluation enable key stakeholders and users of the evaluation report to judge its reliability.
4. Main Findings	The section should contain an objective reporting of findings, not the opinion of the evaluator, and findings should be supported by evidence. The section should do the following: Assess the level of achievement of each of the expected accomplishments of the project as ‘achieved’, ‘partly achieved’ or ‘not achieved’ Assess each of the evaluation criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact) and rate on a scale from ‘highly satisfactory’ to highly unsatisfactory’ Assess the gender equality dimensions of the intervention, and assess other cross-cutting issues as relevant Provide evidence to support conclusions and recommendations Be coherent and free from internal contradictions
5. Evaluative Conclusions	Conclusions should be to the point and substantiated by findings consistent with data collected and methodology. Conclusions should add value to the findings. They should focus on issues of significance to the subject evaluated. Include a table with overview of rating of each evaluation criteria with a short justification for the rating given. The findings should consider both achievements, opportunities and challenges, and assess the overall achievement of the intervention taking into account positive and negative aspects.
6. Lessons Learned	Lessons learned are generalizations based on the evaluation experience and should be well supported by the findings of the evaluation. Often the lessons highlight strengths or weaknesses in intervention planning, design and implementation that affect performance, outcome and impact. Lessons should only be drawn if they represent contributions of value to general knowledge. The lesson learned should capture the situation or process that occurred during the project, action taken or alternatives considered to fix the issue, and what worked well and what can be improved upon. Other information that may help other project leaders or advice to future project teams can be included.
7. Recommendations	Recommendations should be firmly based on evidence and analysis. They should be specific, related to verifiable actions, identify the person or entity responsible for implementing the recommendation, practicable by bearing resources and other constraints in mind, recommendations should not contradict or seem to contradict each other and it should be clear from the recommendations what are primary concern and which are secondary. In addition, recommendations should state responsibilities and timeframe for implementation, to the extent possible. It is advisable to keep the number of recommendations manageable, and not more than 10 to 15 recommendations.
Annexes	Annexes should be complete and relevant. They increase the usability and the credibility of the evaluation report. Additional supplementary information to the evaluation that should be included in annexes are: Annex 1: Terms of reference, references Annex 2: List of persons interviewed ( if confidentiality allows) Annex 3: Bibliography Annex 4: Project budget Annex 5: Other relevant information, such as data collection instruments and questionnaires

Source: UN-Habitat Evaluation Unit 2015

Annex 4
Rating of Performance by Evaluation Criteria

Table: Rating of performance

Rating of performance	Characteristics
Highly satisfactory (5)	The programme/project had several significant positive factors with no defaults or weaknesses in terms of relevance/ appropriateness of project design/ efficiency/ effectiveness/ sustainability/ impact outlook.
Satisfactory (4)	The programme/project had positive factors with minor defaults or weaknesses in terms of relevance/ appropriateness of project design/ efficiency/ effectiveness/ sustainability/ impact outlook.
Partially satisfactory (3)	The programme/project had moderate to notable defaults or weaknesses in terms of relevance/ appropriateness of project design/ efficiency/ effectiveness/ sustainability/ impact outlook.
Unsatisfactory (2)	The programme/project had negative factors with major defaults or weaknesses in terms of relevance/ appropriateness of project design/ efficiency/ effectiveness/ sustainability/ impact outlook.
Highly unsatisfactory (1)	The programme/project had negative factors with severe defaults or weaknesses in terms of relevance/ appropriateness of project design/ efficiency/ effectiveness/ sustainability/ impact outlook.

Source: UN-Habitat Evaluation Unit 2015

Download PDF Version