File PDF .it

Condividi facilmente i tuoi documenti PDF con i tuoi contatti, il Web e i Social network.

Inviare un file File manager Cassetta degli attrezzi Ricerca PDF Assistenza Contattaci

ToR for Evaluation PbP 2014 .pdf

Nome del file originale: ToR for Evaluation - PbP 2014.pdf
Titolo: ToR for Evaluation - PbP 2014
Autore: brogilu

Questo documento in formato PDF 1.4 è stato generato da PDFCreator Version 1.6.2 / GPL Ghostscript 9.05, ed è stato inviato su il 22/10/2014 alle 14:43, dall'indirizzo IP 194.79.x.x. La pagina di download del file è stata vista 1214 volte.
Dimensione del file: 129 KB (16 pagine).
Privacy: file pubblico

Scarica il file PDF

Anteprima del documento


Instrument for Stability: Crisis preparedness component

Evaluation of Peacebuilding Partnership support for non-state actors in Pakistan
FWC BENEFICIARIES 2013 - LOT 7: Governance and Home Affairs

The overall security situation remains fragile in Pakistan, notably along the borders with Afghanistan,
where the North-Western regions of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Balochistan and the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) have emerged as a key conflict zone. In the last two decades a
spillover effect of the Afghan crisis in Balochistan, FATA and KP has been compounded by poor
governance, deficiencies in the rule of law, neglect of public education and increasingly narrow or
sectarian interpretations of religion. Such mix of damaging factors has contributed to set favourable
grounds for increased cross-border infiltration of militants and insurgents, spreading extremist
ideologies in Balochistan, FATA and KP. As a consequence of the war on terror launched by
international forces in Afghanistan, militant groups with links to international terrorist networks could
establish their strongholds in the area, which exacerbated existing conflicts and disseminated
conditions conducive to widespread intolerance and violence.
If it is true that persistence of conflict in the bordering areas of Afghanistan remains conducive to
progressive deterioration of internal security in FATA, Balochistan and KP, on the other hand the
internal fragility of those provinces constitute a relevant security threat both for Pakistan and
neighbouring countries, with a potential to undermine the general stability of the region. Different
series of military operations have been launched in both regions in recent years, clearing relevant areas
of the presence and activity of militant and terrorist groups. However, the State has not always shown
prompt capacity to fill the vacuum of power structures in the cleared areas by restoring a responsive
and accountable civilian administration, while asymmetric attacks and guerrilla warfare tactics by the
insurgents have a potential to undermine stability and development even in the areas currently
controlled by national security forces.
In the war on terror (which is still underway) efforts have been emphasising on military actions both in
Pakistan and in neighbouring countries, while little has been done to increase the participation of local
communities and win hearts and minds of the local people. Furthermore, conflicts between local
communities and different religious groups have been intensified both at a latent and manifest level as
a consequence of the reiterated military operations and lack of confidence by the local population in
State institutions. Lack of trust and frustration remain widespread in several areas of Balochistan, KP
and FATA, fuelled by weaknesses in governance and rule of law coupled with frequent violation of
human rights – as shown by different surveys and researches on the matter, including the Post-Crisis
Needs Assessment of 2010. In recent years, tension between different cultural traditions and religious
practices has been constantly on the rise, resulting in a variety of local conflicts with a potential to
escalate into violence.
Against the backdrop of such complex security and political situation, the Peace-building Partnership
Support was launched in 2011 with the objective to enhance capacity-building of relevant non-state
actors in peacebuilding activities and encourage such actors to establish partnership networks, while

forging or consolidating links between the international and the local level. In particular, the
Programme had a double focus: (i) strengthening institutional and operational capacity of civil society
actors in mediation and dialogue, for a more effective participation of non-State actors in conflictprevention and peacebuilding; (ii) improving coherence and consistency of the EU approach to peacebuilding, with an increased participation of civil society and private sector actors and synergy with
other EU supported activities.
Within this framework, four projects were eventually selected and implemented. Such projects can be
synthetically described as follows:
(1) Plural Business Partnership for Peace in Pakistan implemented by International Alert
Total Budget: € 588,879; EU contribution: € 471,103
Start date: 1 February 2012; End date: 31 March 2015.
The project aims to:
- build capacity of the private sector to support community cohesion, promote business across conflict
divides, and advocate for conflict-sensitive business practices;
- support community cohesion and resilience to radicalisation through promoting conflict sensitive
business practices;
- build peace across conflict divides by strengthening and broadening business-to-business
peacebuilding partnerships;
- support strategic implementation of sustainable, plural business partnerships for peace in Pakistan;
- engage the private sector on policy recommendations for responsible business practices and advocate
for these recommendations at a national platform.

(2) Communities waging peace; piece by piece implemented by Paiman Alumni Trust
Total Budget: € 788,518; EU contribution: € 630,814
Start date: 22 December 2011; End date: 21 September 2014.
The project aims to:
- build the capacity of local communities, including women, youth, community based organisations
(CBOs) and non-government organisations (NGOs), in conflict transformation, peace building and
- sensitise Governmental actors at regional, provincial and local level as well as communities on the
role of civil society, especially women and youth, in post conflict/disaster reconstruction,
rehabilitation and peace building processes;
- address the menace of extremism through dialogue enhancing opportunities for de-radicalisation,
especially for ex militants and vulnerable youth.

(3) Promoting Participatory Approaches in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) implemented by
Community Appraisal and Motivation Programme Society (CAMP)
Total Budget: € 900,949; EU contribution: € 810,853
Start date: 16 January 2012; End date: 15 October 2015
The project aims to:

- Enhance the institutional and operational capacity of civil society actors active in the field of
peacebuilding in KP and FATA;
- promote a more consistent and coherent approach to peace building in KP and FATA through
supporting participatory approaches;
- build institutional and operational capacity of local CSOs to effectively engage in peace building
initiatives in order to contribute to short-term conflict mediation and management and longer term
- develop EU partnerships at the operational level with and between non state actors active in the field
of peacebuilding in KP and FATA.

(4) Promoting Peace in KPK and FATA – Connecting Youth NSAs and Policy Makers through
Mediation and Dialogue implemented by Search for Common Ground
Total Budget: € 719,050; EU contribution: € 575,240
Start date: 23 January 2012; End date: 22 December 2013.
The project aims to:
- promote the use of mediation and dialogue by youth groups or non-state actors (NSAs) – including
students, doctors, lawyers, journalists, teachers, traders, human rights activists, members of minority
groups and NGOs – and policymakers to address inter-community tensions and foster reconciliation
and peace in KP and FATA;
- build the capacity of youth NSAs and policy makers in mediation, dialogue and reconciliation to
resolve conflicts in their communities;
- promote engagement and networking of youth NSAs with policy makers to bring them in the
mainstream of decision making process and find effective solutions to conflicts at the community

2.1. Global objective
The overall objective of this assignment is to provide the EU Delegation with a comprehensive and
detailed assessment of the projects funded by the Instrument for Stability: Crisis preparedness
component – Peace-building partnership support for non-state actors (IFS-RRM/2011/131-389). The
evaluation is aimed at achieving a fair, objective and accurate assessment of the projects' performances
as well as identifying key lessons and ensuing recommendations for future EU interventions in the
field of peacebuilding in conflict and post‐conflict areas.
2.2. Specific objective(s)
1) To undertake an assessment of the following projects:
1. Plural Business Partnership for Peace in Pakistan - IFS-RRM/2011/269-327;
2. Promoting Peace in KPK & FATA - Connecting Youth NSAs and Policy-Makers through
Mediation and Dialogue - IFS-RRM/2011/269-389;
3. Communities Waging Peace; Piece by Piece - IFS-RRM/2011/269-392;
4. Promoting participatory approaches in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) - IFS-RRM/2011/269398.

Each project should be assessed against the criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness,
sustainability and impact.
1. Relevance: The extent to which the aid activity is suited to the priorities and policies of the
target group, recipient and donor. In evaluating this, it is useful to consider the following
• To what extent are the objectives of the programme still valid?
• Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the overall goal and the
attainment of its objectives? Do the activities address the problems identified?
• Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the intended impacts and
2. Effectiveness: A measure of the extent to which an aid activity attains its objectives. In
evaluating this, it is useful to consider the following questions:
• To what extent were the objectives achieved/are likely to be achieved? What was the
progress made towards the achievement of the expected outcomes and expected results?
• What are the reasons for the achievement or non‐achievement? What were the major
factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
• To what extent have beneficiaries been satisfied with the results?
• To what extent capacities of CSOs and CBOs have been strengthened?
• To what extent do the intended benefits meet the needs of the communities?
3. Efficiency: Efficiency measures the outputs - qualitative and quantitative - in relation to the
inputs. It is an economic term which signifies that the aid uses the least costly resources
possible in order to achieve the desired results. This generally requires comparing alternative
approaches to achieving the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been
adopted. When evaluating this, it is useful to consider the following questions:
• Were activities cost-efficient?
• Were objectives achieved on time? Have the outputs been delivered in a timely manner?
• Was the programme or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to
alternatives (could the activities and outputs been delivered with fewer resources without
reducing their quality and quantity)?
4. Impact: The positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly
or indirectly, intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting
from the activity on the local social, economic, environmental and other development
indicators. The examination should be concerned with both intended and unintended results
and must also include the positive and negative impact of external factors. The evaluation
should consider both the specific impact of each individual project and the global impact of
the four projects altogether as part of the overall EU peacebuilding programme in Pakistan.
When evaluating this, it is useful to consider the following questions:
• What has happened as a result of the implementation of the programme or the individual
projects? What are the intended and unintended, positive and negative, long term effects
of both the overall programme and each single project?
• What real difference has the activity made to the beneficiaries both globally as a
programme and specifically in terms of project activities?
• How many people have been affected?
5. Sustainability: Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity
are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn. Projects need to be

environmentally as well as financially sustainable. When evaluating this, it is useful to
consider the following questions:
• To what extent did the benefits of the programme or project continue after donor funding
• What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of
sustainability of the overall programme and each single project project?
6. Coherence/complementarity: when evaluating this, it is useful to consider the following
• Coherence/complementarity with Pakistan's policies and with other donors' interventions:
can it be said that there is no overlap between the intervention considered and other
interventions in the partner country and/or other donors' interventions, particularly
Member States?
• Coherence/complementarity with the other Community policies: is there convergence
between the objectives of the intervention and those of the other Community policies
(trade, agriculture, rural development, etc.)?
At the time when the evaluation is to be conducted, two of the projects will be completed while two of
the projects will still be under implementation (Promoting Participatory Approaches in KP and FATA
of Pakistan implemented by CAMP and Plural Business Partnership for Peace in Pakistan
implemented by International Alert). For the projects whose implementation is still underway, the
consultants should assess progress against the logical framework including on the feasibility in the
pending period of implementation and make recommendations for corrective measures if necessary, in
order to achieve the projects results. With reference to the completed projects, consultants should
assess their design against the envisaged objectives, indicators and results as indicated in the
respective logical frameworks.
2) On the basis of the above, the consultants should produce a set of lessons learned from ongoing
and completed projects and formulate recommendations for more optimal utilisation of EU
assistance in the field of peacebuilding in order to enable the EU to better support the peacebuilding
process in Pakistan.
3) The review should also define a possible structure, content and priorities for an improved
programming activity and policy dialogue on strengthening the peacebuilding process involving
EU and EU Member States (and possibly other members of the international donors' community) and
engaging the respective institution(s) of Pakistan.
The consultants are requested to verify, analyse and assess the integration and impact of cross cutting
issues in the project, such as human rights, environment and gender. The consultants are required to
use their professional judgement and experience to review all relevant factors and to bring these to the
attention of the relevant stakeholders and EU Delegation.

2.3. Requested services
The evaluation approach should be developed and implemented in three phases: a Desk Phase, a Field
Phase and a Reporting Phase, as described below:
1. Desk Phase (home-based): during this phase, the relevant programming documents should be
reviewed, including Commission Decision for the projects; the respective project contracts,
their addenda and annexes; all projects' reports; work plans and budgets; analysis of the
logical framework; as well as documents shaping the wider strategy/policy framework. During

the desk phase, the consultants are expected to autonomously conduct background research
activities to get acquainted with the current social, cultural and political landscape of Pakistan,
with a special focus on the areas of implementation of the projects. At the end of the desk
phase, the consultants should submit an inception report summarizing key findings of the desk
review work.
2. Field Phase (in Pakistan): during this phase, the consultants should ensure adequate contact
and consultation with, and involvement of, the different stakeholders; working closely with
relevant stakeholders and implementing partners. Their assignment will include a briefing in
Islamabad for the EU Delegation (separate briefing can be organized at a later stage for the
EU Member states and donor agencies) as well as briefings for implementing partners for the
projects; field work/data collection/interviews/meetings with the respective project
implementing partners, the main projects beneficiaries, including local partners, target groups
and community representatives, as well as other project implementers, donors, civil society
and political parties – EU Delegation representatives may accompany the consultants for some
meetings; debriefings with the EU Delegation to discuss key findings, observations and
recommendations; report writing and additional meetings. In particular, consultants should
refer to the most reliable and appropriate sources of information and harmonise data from
different sources to allow ready interpretation. They should summarise their preliminary
findings and present such findings to the EU Delegation.
3. Reporting phase: while drafting the final report, the consultants will make sure that their
assessment is objective and balanced, affirmations accurate and verifiable, and
recommendations realistic. The consultants should consider the comments expressed by the
main stakeholders when finalising their report.
The evaluation exercise will be wide‐ranging, consultative and participatory, entailing a
combination of comprehensive desk reviews, analyses and interviews. While interviews are a
key instrument, all analysis must be based on observed facts to ensure that the evaluation is
sound and objective. The evaluation shall promote the participation all relevant stakeholders
throughout the evaluation process, including local partners, target groups and representatives
of communities at the grassroots level which are affected by the implementation of the
projects under evaluation.
The project/programme is to be judged from the angle of the beneficiaries' perceptions of benefits
received as well as from the perspective of outputs delivered or results achieved. Consequently,
interviews and surveys should focus on outsiders (beneficiaries and other affected groups beyond
beneficiaries) as much as insiders (managers, partners, field level operators). The proposal in response
to these terms of reference, as well as further documents delivered by the evaluation team, should
clearly state the proportion of insiders and outsiders among interviews and surveys.
A key methodological issue is whether observed or reported change can be partially or entirely
attributed to the project/programme, or how far the project/programme has contributed to such change.
The evaluation team should identify attribution/contribution problems where relevant and carry out its
analyses accordingly.

In relation to specific objective 1:
Review the progress of the four projects against their respective logical frameworks and provide
recommendations for corrective measures if required.

For the projects still under implementation the review should focus on the following:

Assess the progress of the project against the envisaged outputs as per project logical

Provide justified recommendations, if necessary, on possible changes in the respective logical
frameworks to better achieving the purpose of the project.

Critically appraise the assumptions and the risks, and review the mitigation measures. If
necessary, provide recommendations for modification of existing assumptions and/or addition
of new assumptions as well as on risks and mitigation strategies.

Provide an analysis of the lessons learned from the project implementation in order to
enhance effectiveness.

Gain feedback from the main target groups and beneficiaries and assess the level of local
ownership of the projects' inputs and outputs.

Assess the added value and relevance of the projects in relation to the needs, priorities and
absorption capacity of the beneficiaries and assess how the respective projects are
contributing to strengthen peacebuilding and peace in the areas of implementation.

Review the strengths/weaknesses of the projects and the working methods of the respective
implementing partners vis-à-vis the main beneficiaries and assess the level of participation of
beneficiaries and local communities in the project implementation and in achieving the
projects' results.

For the already completed projects the review should focus on the following:

Provide a qualitative and quantitative assessment of progress made towards the intended
outcomes (to what extent planned outcomes have been delivered and received by the

Provide qualitative and quantitative assessment of relevant outputs.

Provide qualitative and quantitative assessment of the project results (to what extent the
envisaged project results have been achieved).

Assess the relevance and added value of the projects in relation with the needs, priorities and
absorption capacity of the beneficiaries.

Assess local ownership and the degree of participation of beneficiaries in every phase of the
project implementation.

Assess of the consistency and proper integration of cross cutting-issues such as human rights,
gender in the projects and in the project implementation.

Assess whether the projects have achieved any unintended or unexpected results. Reasons for
success and for failure of the projects should be clearly articulated.

Assess the level of sustainability of the projects, in terms of the likelihood for positive
outcomes to continue beyond project implementation.

Appraise the level of complementarity of the projects and identify, if any, areas of
duplication. Provide recommendations for better articulation of activities for future
programming. Provide an analysis of key challenges and constraints faced by the partners in
the project implementation.

In relation to specific objective 2:
• Prepare a set of lessons learned from the ongoing and completed projects, including best
practices in producing outputs and achieving the outcome, and formulate recommendations as

Provide recommendations for optimal utilisation of EU assistance and for possible follow-up
interventions in support of the peacebuilding process.

If the remaining period of the implementation is adequate, identify potential improvements
and ways forward for increased quality of implementation of those project for which
implementation is still underway.

In relation to specific objective 3:
Analyse possible scenarios in relation with peacebuilding activities, conflict transformation and
conflict prevention in KP and FATA. Identify strategies and provide recommendations for continued
(and improved) EU assistance in peacebuilding, including future programming and policy dialogue
with national and international stakeholders.

Required outputs
The consultants are expected to deliver work-plan and reports as follows:
1. Inception report (max 5 pages) and Final work-plan of the fieldwork (see Section 5:
2. Interim report – max 30 pages (see Section 5: Reporting);
3. Final report – max 40 pages (see Section 5: Reporting)


The consultants will provide all these outputs in accordance with the instructions provided in the
Section 5: Reporting.
When drafting these outputs the consultants will make sure that:

The assessment is objective and balanced, affirmations are accurate and verifiable and
recommendations are realistic. Attention is drawn to the fact that the EU reserves the right to
have reports redrafted by the Consultant as necessary.


In case of changes to the content of these outputs, consultants will inform the EU Delegation in a
timely and explicatory manner and clearly indicate what changes have been finalised in the


The used language is simple, clear and accessible to both non-native English speakers and nonexperts.

Language of the Specific Contract
The contract and all related communications shall be in English.


Subcontracting (to be foreseen or not)
Subcontracting is not foreseen.


3.1 Number of requested experts per category and number of man-days per expert

The evaluation will be carried out by two senior experts (Category I). Each expert will work over a
period of 40 working days, with a total of 80 working days for both experts.
One of the experts should be designated Team Leader for this assignment, who will have:

Proven experience as a team leader; and
Familiarity with EU rules and procedures.

3.2 Profile per expert or expertise required

Expertise is required in the field of development work in conflict affected areas in relation with
peacebuilding, conflict prevention and transformation, confidence-building and mediation, capacity
building, civil society, and experience of work on human rights and gender issues. Both experts
should have full working knowledge of English and excellent report writing, conflict sensitivity, good
communication and networking skills, adaptability and social awareness, ability to work under
pressure and to meet strict deadlines and ability to work at senior level.
All experts working under the present contract must be independent and free from conflicts of interest
in the responsibilities attributed to them.
Expert I: Team Leader/Peacebuilding Expert, Category I
- Education

University degree, at least a Master Degree (or equivalent) in one or more of the following
fields: social or political sciences, law, public administration or any other relevant discipline.

- Professional experience

At least twelve years of professional experience in different countries in the field of
development work related to one or more of the following areas: peacebuilding, political
analysis, conflict prevention and transformation, confidence-building and mediation,
facilitation and dialogue, capacity building, civil society, local governance, and experience of
work on human rights and gender issues.

Experience in undertaking at least five evaluations of projects, preferably of a similar nature
(kind of activities, amount, timespan, post-emergency or conflict areas), and preferably of
projects funded by the EU.

Strong analytical and research skills with sufficient understanding of survey design,
quantitative/qualitative methods and data analysis.

Expertise in working on peace and stability with civil society and communities, with a focus
on participatory approaches and capacity building for civil society and community-based
organizations in development projects is highly recommendable.

Outstanding interpersonal skills, teamwork, conflict sensitivity and competency to operate in
a multicultural and diverse environment.

- Language skills

Fluency in English (reading, speaking and writing). Knowledge of Urdu, Pashto or other
relevant local languages spoken in the areas of project implementation is not a requirement
but would be an asset.

Expert II: Country Expert, Peacebuilding Specialist, Category I
- Education

University degree, at least a Master Degree (or equivalent) in one or more of the following
fields: social or political sciences, law, public administration or any other relevant discipline.
If the expert does not hold a Master Degree, then at least 9 years of work experience in the
areas mentioned below is required.

- Professional experience

At least seven years of professional experience in the field of development work related to
one or more of the following areas: peacebuilding, political analysis, conflict prevention and
transformation, confidence-building and mediation, facilitation and dialogue, capacity
building, civil society, local governance and community mobilisation, human rights and
gender issues.

Deep knowledge of the Pakistani political landscape and society, including inter-community
relations and main threats to peace and stability, with a special focus on the areas of project

Experience in undertaking at least two evaluations of projects in Pakistan, preferably of a
similar nature (kind of activities, amount, timespan, post-emergency or conflict areas).

Experience in working on peace and stability with civil society and communities in Pakistan,
preferably with a focus on capacity building and participatory approaches.

Experience and/or understanding of other development programmes in the fields of
peacebuilding and conflict transformation in Pakistan along with familiarity with
contemporary approaches to stability and peace, including key challenges and possible

- Language skills

Fluency in English (reading, speaking and writing). Knowledge of Urdu and Pashto is
required. Knowledge of other relevant local languages spoken in the areas of project
implementation would be a strong asset.

4.1 Starting period

The assignment is expected to start on 1 December 2014.
4.2 Duration

The overall duration of the assignment cannot exceed a 6 month period.

4.3 Planning including the period for notification for placement of the staff as per art 16.4 a)

There will be ten day notification period for the placement of staff after the notification of award of
the contract. The mission in Pakistan is expected tο be completed in one period and thus should not
be split into more than one part.
4.4 Location(s) of assignment
The assignment is indicatively envisaged to start with desk review in the country of residence of the
experts and to finish with the preparation of the Final Report again in the country of residence of the
The main location of the assignment will be Pakistan, including Islamabad, where the experts will
begin and end their in-country work. Some of the meetings with stakeholders will take place in
Islamabad and briefing and debriefing sessions will be held at the EU Delegation, also in Islamabad.
A debriefing may also be organised for EU Member States as well as other international donor
agencies, with no additional cost. A final de-briefing will be given by experts to the EU Delegation, in
Relevant part of the work of the experts will be accomplished through field trips and visits to the areas
of implementation of the projects, where the experts will interact with local partners, beneficiaries and
target groups who shall act as reference groups during the evaluation and who should also be involved
in activities related to the actual implementation of the evaluation such as data collection, interviewing
and feedback.
Alternative means of evaluation will need to be considered if travel to certain areas is restricted due to
security issues. Intra-city travels as well as other local travel around the country (possibly by plane or
other means of transport) are considered to be included in the financial offer submitted by contractors.
For each expert the estimated number of working days is indicatively designated as follows:
Working days


4 days

Desk work in country of residence

2 days

Briefing with EU delegation and work in Islamabad and meetings with stakeholders

25 days

Field trips to KP and FATA including /data collection/interviews/meetings

4 days

Work in Islamabad including presentation of the interim report; additional meetings;
debriefings; and draft final report

5 days

Final report in country of residence

5.1 Content
The team of experts will submit the following:

1) Inception report
The team will be required to submit the Inception report at the end of the desk review work. The
inception report shall present the main findings and key points resulting from the desk review, in a
synthetic and concise layout.
2) Work Plan
The team will be required to present its work plan for the mission at the initial briefing in Islamabad.
This plan should be flexible to accommodate any last-minute changes. If any significant deviation
from the agreed work plan or schedule is perceived to create a risk to the quality of the output of the
assignment, this should be immediately discussed with the project manager. The work plan will be
agreed at the initial briefing of the mission in Pakistan.
The work plan will show if necessary the division of work/areas proposed between the consultants.
The work plan will also include:
• An indicative list of people to be interviewed and proposed schedule of meetings, dates of
visits and an itinerary;
• A line on the methodology and topics to be covered during these meetings;
• A template for the assessment of each project – subject to this assignment. The template will
be filled out during the assignment and will be presented as Project specific Annex to the
mission Report.

3) Interim report
Following the field trips to the areas of implementation of the projects, the consultants will prepare
their interim report (maximum 30 pages excluding the Annex described below).
The Interim report will follow the skeleton structure of the Evaluation Report and will contain some
of its main features under the report sections: Main text and Conclusions and recommendations. In
essence the Interim report will represent a synthesis of the key findings and recommendations
covering all three specific objectives contained in Section 2.2 "Specific objective(s)" and Section 2.3
"Requested services".
The Interim report will be presented in a debriefing organised by the EU Delegation and must be sent
in an electronic version to the EU Delegation at least 24 hours in advance of the debriefing meeting.
The format and timing of the debriefing will be agreed with the EU Delegation at least one week
beforehand. The experts will provide adequate information to the participants to the debriefing.
4) Final Report
The full Evaluation Report will include:
• An Executive Summary: the executive summary is a tightly drafted and self-standing
document which presents the objectives of the review, including the utility and performance
of the EU peacebuilding programme, the main information sources and methodological
options and key conclusions, lessons learnt and recommendations (notably as concerns
specific objectives 2 and 3 under this assignment). It should focus mainly on the key purpose
or the main issues of the evaluation, outline the foremost analytical points, and clearly
indicate the main conclusions, lessons learned and specific recommendations. Crossreferences should be made to the corresponding page or paragraph numbers in the main text

that follows.
• An introduction: the introduction provides a description of the project/programme and the
evaluation, providing the reader with sufficient methodological explanations to gauge the
credibility of the conclusions and to acknowledge limitations or weaknesses, where relevant.
• Main Text: this includes introduction describing, first, the overall EU approach to
peacebuilding and the overall assessment of the performance of this package with reference
to different projects reviewed (the projects may be clustered on the basis of the main
beneficiary/target of the projects) and, second, the description and assessment made with
relation to Specific objective 2 and 3 of the assignment.
The body or core of the report should follow the five criteria i.e., relevance, efficiency,
effectiveness, impact to-date, sustainability, describing the facts and interpreting or analysing
them in accordance with the key questions pertinent to each criterion. It will be important to
try to apply the five criteria with respect to the whole EU peacebuilding support
programme (projects and their inter-relation; how they have 'affected' each other;
capacity building of Civil Society and participation of local communities along with EU
dialogue/interaction with Pakistan stakeholders) in order to see its strategic
performance as a whole and its utility and contribution to strengthening peace and
stability in Pakistan. The text should also contain the main features of the project specific
assessments. Note that the full detailed assessment of each project on the basis of the five
criteria above and the Section 2.2 "Specific objective(s)" and Section 2.3 "Requested
services" should be contained in the Annexes of the Report (An Annex per project is expected
to be provided - see the Section 'Annexes').
The main text should also contain the background, analysis and outputs required under in
Specific objectives 2 and 3 of the assignment (lessons learned and practical recommendations
for better articulating EU programming and activities in the field of peacebuilding and
recommendations for possible future peacebuilding programmes as well as definition of a
policy dialogue on strengthening support to the peacebuilding process and possible synergies
between EU/EU Member States (and possibly other international agencies, and the respective
Pakistan institutions.)

The conclusion and recommendations: Conclusions and lessons are to be listed, clustered and
prioritised, and the same for recommendations. Wherever possible, for each key conclusion
there should be a corresponding recommendation. The ultimate value of a review/evaluation
depends on the quality and credibility of the recommendations offered. Recommendations
should therefore be as realistic, operational and pragmatic as possible. Recommendations
should be carefully targeted to the appropriate audiences at all levels.
Annexes: This includes but is not limited to:
o Terms of Reference of the Appraisal
o Names of the experts and their companies
o Methodology applied for the study (phases, methods of data collection,
sampling etc)
o Structured Annex per project assessed
o List of persons/organisations consulted
o Literature and documentation consulted
o Other technical annexes (e.g. data collection, statistical analyses, tables of
contents and figures…)
The consultants will ensure that:

Their assessments are objective and balanced, affirmations accurate and verifiable,
and recommendations realistic.
When drafting the report, they will acknowledge clearly where changes in the desired
direction are known to be already taking place, in order to avoid misleading readers
and causing unnecessary irritation or offence.
5.2 Language
The language for reporting shall be English.

5.3 Submission/comments timing
The outputs will be submitted as described below:

Inception report. The inception report will be submitted in electronic format upon
completion of the desk review work.

Work plan. The work plan will be submitted on the first day of the arrival of the team in
Islamabad. Both work plan and Inception report will be presented at the initial Briefing to the
EU Delegation. The EU Delegation will assess the work plan and in particular the meetings
schedule/interlocutors and provide feedback within one working day upon receipt.
The work plan including its Annexes shall be submitted in electronic format.

Interim report. The team will submit the Interim report within two days upon its return to
Islamabad from the field trips to the provinces. This will be ready in time for the debriefing
by the team to the EU Delegation which will be held one day after the submission of the
Interim report. Separate debriefings may be organised for EU Member States, other
international donor agencies and implementing partners as decided. The Interim report will
allow discussion of findings and formulation of recommendations.
The interim report shall be submitted in electronic format.
Comments on the Interim report will be given to the team within 2 working days from the
debriefing on the Interim report with the EU Delegation. The team will introduce the
necessary changes to interim report within 2 working days following the receipt of comments
and send the revised report in electronic version. If necessary, other revisions will be made
subsequently (the time for this will be used as part of the preparation of the Draft report).
The team will be able to use a maximum of four working days to produce this draft report
including draft Annexes. The four working days will also be utilised for additional meetings
and debriefings as required. The draft report will be submitted in electronic format.

Final Report. The experts will be able to use a maximum of five working days to produce
this final report that incorporates the comments on the Draft report. The Final report will be
produced in the country of residence of the experts.

5.4 Number of report(s) copies
The approved final report with annexes shall be submitted to the EU Delegation both electronically
and in hard copy (5 copies) of the final report shall be submitted to the EU.

All reports shall be submitted on the due dates to the following contacts in English, in MS Word and
(if applicable) Excel format (unless otherwise agreed) by e-mail as well as on paper, at the following
In a Attention to the Head of Cooperation
Delegation of the European Union to Pakistan
House No 9, Street 88, Sector G-6/3
Islamabad, PAKISTAN, Postal Code 44000
Tel:+ 92 51 227 18 28


6.1. Other authorised items to foresee under "Reimbursable"
1) Travel costs for mobilisation and demobilisation of the experts and travel costs for inter-city

journeys (in Pakistan, inside the country) of experts away of their usual place of residence are
exclusively realised and authorised in the framework of the assignment inclusive of visa costs. Air
travel must be economy class, only one international flight per expert is reimbursable.
2) Daily allowances (per diems): are paid for each overnight stay in the mission; it covers all

subsistence costs of the experts including meals, housing and intra-city transportation costs (taxi, car
rental and/or public transport); may not exceed the current published rates at the date of the request1.
3) Security costs: the cost of taking high risk insurance is part of the reimbursable expenditure.
4) Services of a translator/interpreter (if required).

No contingency can be included in the offer. No equipment can be supplied via the framework

6.2. Taxes
The local taxes upon eligible incidental expenditure incurred under the specific Contract shall be
reimbursed in full.
6.3 Others
The Terms of Reference may be further elaborated upon by the EU Delegation at the briefing and
during the mission. Attention is drawn to the fact that the EU reserves the right to have the reports
redrafted by the consultants as necessary, and that financial penalties will be applied if delays
indicated for the submission of the report (draft and final) are not strictly adhered to.
The Framework must foresee a local budget available to the expert team, covering, i.e. secretarial
support (if necessary) and inland travel/transport costs. No secretarial costs are allowed under
reimbursable. The inland travel/ transport mentioned here are not different from the ones listed under
6.1 reimbursable. The consultant team will ensure its independence regarding office space, printing,
copying facilities, transportation and secretarial work. The experts will bring the necessary equipment
to carry out their assignment, such as portable PCs, etc. The EU will not be responsible for providing

such support to the consultants. The Framework Contractor will be responsible for all security
arrangements while the experts are in the country. The security costs are to be covered by expert fees.
Please note that these security costs are different from the high risk insurance mentioned under 6.2
During all contacts related to the assignment in Pakistan, the consultants will clearly identify
themselves as independent consultants and not as official representatives of the EU. No commitment
whatsoever on behalf of the EU may be made by the Mission and all printed material produced by the
Mission will carry the standard disclaimer: "This report has been prepared with the financial
assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein are those of the consultants and
therefore does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union".
The EU Delegation will give advice in contacting the relevant institutions, organisation of meetings
and travelling, however logistics for the assignment will be the responsibility of the Framework
Contractor. EU Delegation can support the team in the organisation of meetings.

Not applicable.
This is a global price contract. The framework contractor is requested to submit a detailed budget
breakdown, showing the buid-up of the global price (no specific template is provided for this). The
requirement of a budget breakdown does not derogate in any way to the fact that the total contract
price remains fixed irrespective of of the quantity of inputs and services actually allocated. The
number of working days and the incidental expenditures mentioned in Section 4 and Section 6 are only
an indicative and tentative estimation for costs to be considered in the budget.

The following key EU Documents/References will be provided to the selected team:
• Commission Decision 2010/022-458 - Instrument for Stability - Crisis Preparedness Component
(Peace-Building Partnership) - Annual Action Programme constituting an Annual Work Programme IFS/2010/06.
• Methodology, Logical Framework and Project Budget of the contracts funded under Instrument for
Stability: Crisis preparedness component – Peace-building partnership support for non-state actors.
• Progress reports by implementing partners.
• Curricula, Manuals, Standard Operating Procedures, guidelines, code of conduct and any other relevant
material produced by the projects mentioned above for the beneficiaries.


Available on the EuropeAid Internet website at: en.htm

Documenti correlati

Documento PDF got ifc completed questionnaire
Documento PDF catalogo material entomologia
Documento PDF ndice dharanis transmitidos en sakya drogon ling
Documento PDF c mo citar trabajos academicos
Documento PDF c mo citar trabajos academicos
Documento PDF anuario15 2

Parole chiave correlate