Duties and Responsibilities

Funded under the 13th tranche of the Development Account (DA13), the main objective of Project 2124A, titled “Towards Integrated National Financing Framework (INFF),” is to strengthen capacities of selected countries to mobilize and align financing with national sustainable development priorities, moving towards an integrated national financing framework approach. With a budget of $2,321,000, the project commenced in quarter one of 2021 and is due to be completed in December 2024. The implementing entities included DESA, UNCTAD and the five regional commissions. The targeted countries were Belarus, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and Zambia. In 2022, Samoa was added, while Colombia was replaced with Dominican Republic . The project strategy included: (i) Preparation of Guidance Material: This includes developing global guidance based on ongoing work on INFFs, focusing on mobilizing financing for key SDG areas and aligning public financing policies with the SDGs, with an emphasis on addressing challenges posed by COVID-19; (ii) Country-Level Diagnostic Exercises and Technical Assistance: These are conducted to identify capacity gaps and provide targeted technical assistance, training workshops, and capacity-building activities. (iii) Regional Exchange and Peer Learning: Regional workshops are organized to share implementation experiences, facilitate peer learning, and identify additional support needs. (iv) Global Knowledge Exchange and Publication: Insights and lessons learned from country and regional experiences are shared globally through workshops and publications, feeding into global policy processes on Financing for Development. The project had two main outcomes, with related outputs: – Outcome 1 (OC 1): Strengthened national capacity of target countries in developing financing strategies that align with their national development plans and mitigate the impact of COVID-19. – Output 1.1 (OP 1.1): Development of global guidance – Output 1.2 (OP 1.2): Inception/training workshops – Output 1.3 (OP 1.3): Delivery of dedicated technical assistance – Outcome 2 (OC 2): Increased knowledge exchange and peer learning on applying INFF concepts among target countries and inform wider implementation efforts of INFFs in other countries and UN support to this effect. – Output 2.1 (OP 2.1): Regional workshops – Output 2.2 (OP 2.2): Follow-up technical assistance from regional workshops – Output 2.3 (OP 2.3): Global workshop – Output 2.4 (OP 2.4): Publication of compendium of experiences The implementing entities planned to contribute to these outcomes based on their comparative advantages: – DESA, with substantive expertise in the subject matter and the global lead in developing INFF methodology, focused on preparation of guidance material (OP 1.1/2.4), support towards inception/training workshops (OP 1.2) and regional meetings (OP 2.1);

and the organization of the global workshop (OP 2.3). DESA also served as the main focal point and coordinator of the programmatic aspects of the project, including consolidation and submission of the annual progress reports, overall budget monitoring and tracking, as well as initiation of the evaluation process. – ECA, with its comparative advantage in its substantive and technical expertise on African development issues as well as close long-standing relationships with governments, focused on supporting Zambia and Burkina Faso on enhancing domestic resource mobilization in the context of INFFs through inception/training workshops (OP 1.2/2.1) and technical assistance (OP 1.3/2.2). – ECE, with its comparative advantage in strengthening policies on innovation, competitiveness, and public-private partnerships (PPPs), focused on supporting Belarus and Kyrgyzstan in exploring public-private partnerships in the context of INFFs through inception/training workshops (OP 1.2/2.1) and technical assistance (OP 1.3/2.2). – ECLAC, with its comparative advantage in applied policy research, ability to convoke regional and national meetings of stakeholders and its close relationships with government ministries, particularly ministries of finance, focused on supporting Costa Rica and Dominican Republic to strengthen domestic resource mobilization and to finance sustainable and productive investments in the context of INFFs, through inception/training workshops (OP 1.2/2.1) and technical assistance (OP 1.3/2.2). – ESCAP, in line with its mandate to provide further analysis and capacity-building support on assessing financing strategies, focused on supporting Samoa and Pakistan on strengthening their financing strategies with the concepts, guidance and approaches provided by the INFFs through inception/training workshops (OP 1.2/2.1) and technical assistance (OP 1.3/2.2). – ESCWA, serves as an essential component of the United Nations development system policy backbone.

The commission provides the connective tissue between the global and local levels and offers regional perspectives on global issues with its primary role as policy think tank, providing data and analytical services and policy advice to address regional issues, and supporting the development of a wide range of national and regional financing solutions, norms and standards. The commission also serves as platform for engagement with regional intergovernmental institutions, extending and expanding new forms of development cooperation and regional partnerships. ESCWA advances national reforms and financing solutions to propel INFFs in the Arab region, through inception/training workshops (OP 1.2/2.1) and technical assistance (OP 1.3/2.2) supporting Egypt and Jordan. – UNCTAD, with long-standing and recognized experience in capacity building on investment strategies, PPPs, entrepreneurship promotion and domestic resource mobilization/illicit financial flows focused on supporting the following countries in the context of INFFs through inception/training workshops (OP 1.2/2.1) and technical assistance (OP 1.3/2.2): – Indonesia and Pakistan: entrepreneurship promotion (with ESCAP) – Burkina Faso and Zambia: illicit financial flows (with ECA) – Belarus and Kyrgyzstan: Sustainability Reporting and Accounting Infrastructure finance (with ECE) – Zambia : Infrastructure finance and PPPs (with ECA) The evaluation will cover the entirety of the implementation of Project 2124A, titled “Towards Integrated National Financing Framework (INFF).” Management of the evaluation (roles and responsibilities): The evaluation is overseen by Senior Economic Affairs Officer in the Policy Analysis and Development Branch of the Financing for Sustainable Development Office of DESA (DESA/FSDO) as the Evaluation Manager and supported by the Evaluation Reference Group. The Evaluation Manager has not been directly involved in the project delivery and agreed to by the implementing entities (DESA, ECA, ECE, ECLAC, ESCAP, ESCWA and UNCTAD). The Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) will be comprised of at least one representative of the implementing entities, who may be a staff in the evaluation or programme management unit, or a staff in a substantive division engaged in relevant areas of work, who has not been directly involved in the project delivery, as well as include representatives of DA-PMT. The Project Coordinator (DESA/FSDO), in collaboration with the respective project focal points from the implementing entities, will provide the administrative support (provide data and documentation including project reports, stakeholder lists and contact information, participate in interviews or surveys and review and provide comments on the draft inception report and evaluation report) for the smooth execution of the evaluation process.

The Evaluation Manager will be expected to: • Finalize the draft TOR for the evaluation consultant, incorporating comments from the project focal points and ERG; • Oversee the recruitment and management of the evaluation consultant; • Oversee / provide quality assurance to the work of the evaluation consultant; • Facilitate the work of the Evaluation Reference Group; • Provide the evaluation consultant with consolidated comments from the project focal points and ERG on the draft inception report and the draft evaluation report; • Organize a post-data collection de-brief; • Clear the final evaluation report and Evaluation Brief, ensuring that the comments from the project focal points and ERG are sufficiently incorporated by the evaluation consultant and the consultant’s responses to the comments are prepared and shared with those who made the comments (if comments are not incorporated, reasons should be provided). The Programme Development Team of CDPMO/DESA will be expected to: • Oversee and facilitate compliance with evaluation requirements (approve TOR, approve selection of evaluation consultant) • Represent DESA in the ERG • Support organizational learning from the evaluation for future programming (disseminate good practices, advise Capacity Development Steering Committee on key lessons learned, and manage recommendations tracker) • Promote accountability for results of DESA capacity development work (use evaluation findings to demonstrate and report on DESA’s capacity development work to Member States, etc.) The Evaluation Reference Group will be expected to: • Review and comment on the draft inception report; • Review and comment on the draft evaluation report. Comments will be invited on a ‘non-objection’ basis (no response=agree) so that the process is not delayed for an unnecessarily long time. The Project Coordinator (DESA/FSDO) will be expected to: • Collect all necessary information and documents from all the implementing entities and provide them in a consolidated format, as requested by the Evaluation Manager and the evaluation consultant. • Facilitate the scheduling of meetings with key informants and other stakeholders internally and externally, including provision of letters of introductions to the evaluation consultant for ease of access to evaluation informants. • Participate in the inception meeting, post-data collection de-brief, presentation of the draft evaluation report and provide inputs as necessary. • Review and make substantive input to the draft inception report and evaluation report, providing clarifications and information requested on project design and implementation, and any queries related to the project. • Prepare DESA’s management response to the evaluation report, including an implementation plan. • Submit the finalized evaluation report and the management responses from all implementing entities to DA-PMT, through the Programme Development team/CDPMO. Project focal points in the implementing entities will be expected to: • Review and comment on the draft TOR for evaluation consultant • Provide inputs on the required qualifications of the evaluation consultant • Facilitate the identification of a representative to the Evaluation Reference Group • Provide access to the evaluation consultant, through the project coordinator, to relevant project documentation and stakeholders from their respective entities; • Submit through the project coordinator to the evaluation consultant project documentation, including data and information residing with the other participating entities, immediately following the completion of the project; • Collect and consolidate other requested data and information from their respective entities, as requested by the evaluation consultant through the project coordinator; • Support the evaluation process, including through facilitating the evaluation consultant’s access to the project’s beneficiaries and other key stakeholders; • Provide an updated list of stakeholders, and facilitate the administration of questionnaires, including translation of questionnaire in the respective language required (French, Spanish, Russian or Arabic);

• Provide contacts, references, information about activities and logistical support to the evaluation consultant as requested at the start of the evaluation and during the evaluation; • Facilitate the cooperation and contribution of the relevant colleagues in their respective entities to the evaluation process, as requested. • Develop the respective entity’s management response to the recommendations addressed to them in accordance with their respective processes and procedures within three months after the finalization of the evaluation report. Dissemination and follow-up strategy: Upon finalization of the evaluation report, each implementing entity to develop a management response to the recommendations addressed to them in accordance with the entity’s policy/procedure. The results from the evaluation including key lessons learned, best practices and recommendations will be shared widely with participating entities, partners and stakeholders, and Member States. In particular, an Evaluation Brief will be produced presenting a summary of the key evaluation findings, highlighting the results of the project, and lessons learned. The final evaluation report, along with all implementing entities’ management responses, will be published on the Development Account website and the websites of the implementing entities, as appropriate. The DESA template for management response is included in Annex 4 of DESA capacity development evaluation guidelines and all management responses pertaining to DESA will be published on DESA’s central evaluation management tracker and updated accordingly. Work assignment: Financing for Development (FfD) expert will be recruited to undertake this assignment. DESA/FSDO will administrate the consultancy contracts. The FfD expert will undertake a specific, discrete study to be presented to the DESA/FSDO and other jointly implementing entities as a stand-alone report, as well as to be incorporated into the evaluation report by the evaluation consultant, as deemed appropriate by the evaluation consultant. The FfD expert will undertake the study on the broader applications of project tools, as described in sub-section C.2. This will involve a consultation with the evaluation consultant to discuss the approach to and the timeline for the study, and agree on how it will be incorporated into the evaluation. If requested by DESA/FSDO, the expert will also present the findings and recommendations of the study to the Project Coordinators and the project focal points in the other implementing entities. Scope of work: The evaluation will be guided by the objective, outcomes, indicators of achievement and means of verification set out in the results framework of the project document. The evaluation will cover the duration of the project from January 2021 to 31 December 2024, encompassing all elements of the project. This final evaluation of the project has the following specific objectives: (i) Determine as systematically and objectively as possible the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and coherence of the project results in light of its goals and objectives; (ii) Document the results and achievements in each of the elements of the project, including synergies built across activities of implementing entities; and (iii) Identify good practices and lessons learned from the project and formulate action-oriented, forward-looking recommendations addressed to the implementing entities for improving future interventions.

Evaluation criteria, questions and tentative methodology: The evaluation will follow the Glossary of key terms in evaluation and Results-Based Management as well as utilise the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC) evaluation criteria as outlined below: (i) Relevance – the extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries’, global, country, and partners/institutional needs, policies, and priorities and continue to do so if circumstances change. (ii) Effectiveness – the extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, and its results, including any differential results across groups. (iii) Efficiency – the extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way. (iv) Impact orientation – the extent to which the intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended, or unintended, higher-level effects. (v) Sustainability – the extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue. Indicatively, a mixed-method approach would be used for the evaluation, which would be further refined by the evaluation consultant in the Inception Report based on the initial documentation review and consultation with the key stakeholders, using qualitative and quantitative methods, including the following (the tentative evaluation questions and how each method below is designed to provide lines of evidence for various specific questions are presented in sub-section C.3): (i) Desk review of project documents and relevant materials, including, but not limited to: o Concept note, project document, progress reports and final report, including financial reports o Documentation related to meetings/workshops/training, including: agenda, minutes, outcome documents/reports, participant lists, and participant survey results o Documentation related to technical assistance, including: beneficiaries/focal points, description of assistance provided, outputs/deliverables, and beneficiary feedback o Documentation related to guidance documents, tools and other knowledge products, including: a list of guidance documents/tools/knowledge products, distribution lists, web analytics (e.g., number of visits, downloads)

o Documentation related to the relevant global and regional processes on financing for development o Information related to supplementary funding made available to implement the project (to be presented in the final report) (ii) Systematic analysis of workshop/training/meeting survey results and participant profiles, based on documentation (including survey results and participant lists) from all workshops/training/meetings undertaken under the project. (iii) Interviews (in-person or remote) with key stakeholders including: o Project Coordinator and project focal points in the other implementing entities o Senior management of DESA and other implementing entities who were involved in the project, including Director of FSDO o Government officials (beneficiaries of technical advisory, training, guidance material and other relevant project activities) of the six target countries not included in the case studies (10-12 to be confirmed) o Representatives of relevant partners, including relevant UNDP and DCO regional teams. (iv) Five case studies (or in-depth reviews) of target countries (five countries – one in each of the five regions), including through field missions to two countries. The methodology will involve: o Desk review of documentation related to technical advisory, training, meetings and other country-level activities, including tools/guidance materials/knowledge products developed o Interviews (in-person or remote) with country-level stakeholders, including:  National government officials (beneficiaries of technical advisory, training and other relevant project activities)  Country-level and regional partners involved in project activities, including RCOs and UNDP country offices (v) Study on the broader applications of project tools (to be undertaken by the FfD expert), which will look at the actual, and potential applications of the various tools developed under the project in other countries and by project partners and other organizations (in relation to evaluation question 5.c). The study will involve: o Initial consultations with the Project Coordinator and select project focal points in the other implementing entities o Desk review of project documentation and relevant materials under (i) o Desk review of additional documentation related to:  Relevant work of project partners outside the DA project  Relevant work of other organizations working in the area of INFF, including other members of the Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development (IATF), and INFF Facility partners (UNDP, OECD, UNICEF)

 Annual reports and other relevant reports of IATF  Other relevant documentation o Interviews (remote) with project partners and other organizations engaged in the area of INFF, including other members of IATF and INFF facility, as identified through the initial consultations and the desk review o Preparation of a report presenting:  Findings of the desk review and interviews related to evaluation question 5.c  Recommendations for DESA/FSDO and other implementing entities on how to further promote the applications of specific project tools The evaluation will be conducted in line with the UN DESA capacity development Evaluation Guidelines, the DA Project Evaluation Guidelines, the DA guidance note on planning and conducting terminal evaluations of 13th tranche projects, and the DA guidance note on evaluation of joint projects, and will strive to employ development best practices regarding promoting gender equality and a human rights-based approach, including the rights of persons with disabilities. The evaluation consultant will explicitly explain how human rights, gender, and disability inclusion will be considered during the evaluation. Human rights, disability and gender perspectives: The consultant should explore human rights, disability and gender in the design, data collection and analysis and present relevant data wherever available and meaningful. The evaluation will also review these issues through a specific evaluation question on “To what extent were gender equality, human rights and disability inclusion integrated into the design and implementation of the project ?”

This approach may be further developed and refined by the evaluation consultant in the Inception Report. Expected outputs and delivery dates: The FfD expert will be responsible for producing the following outputs: Month 2 List of documentation to be reviewed and the list of stakeholders to be interviewed Month 4 Draft study report Month 5-6. Final study report, incorporating comments from the Project Coordinator and the project focal points, and a presentation of the key findings and recommendations of the study, as and if requested. Evaluation ethics: The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’ (http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/102). The evaluation consultant and the FfD expert should demonstrate independence, impartiality, credibility, honesty, integrity, and accountability to avoid any bias in the evaluation process. The evaluation consultant and the FfD expert must address in the design and implementation of the evaluation, such as procedures to safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers. The evaluation consultant and the FfD expert will follow the UNEG Code of Conduct which should be carefully read and signed.

Qualifications/special skills

Advanced university degree in economics, development studies, international relations, political science or other relevant academic discipline; First university degree in the relevant academic discipline plus 2 additional years of experience maybe qualified in lieu of an advanced degree; A minimum of eight years of experience in financing policy and analysis, particularly in a development context; Experience in advising countries and/or developing guidance on integrated approaches to development financing; Experience in preparing knowledge products, publications or reports related to financing for sustainable development, INFFs, or similar topics; Strong analytical and conceptual skills; Excellent drafting and communication abilities.

Languages

English and French are the working languages of the United Nations Secretariat. For this post, fluency in English is required. Knowledge of another UN official language is desirable. Knowledge of another UN official language is an advantage.