Evaluation of 2016-2017 PEGAS Direct Financial Support to the Palestinian Authority (PEGASE DFS)
Systematic and timely evaluation of its programmes and activities is an established priority6 of the European Commission7. The focus of evaluations is on the assessment of achievements, the quality and the results8 of Actions in the context of an evolving cooperation policy with an increasing emphasis on result-oriented approaches9. From this perspective, evaluations should look for evidence of why, whether or how these results are linked to the EU intervention and seek to identify the factors driving or hindering progress.
Evaluations should provide an understanding of the cause and effects links between inputs and activities, and outputs, outcomes and impacts. Evaluations should serve accountability, decision making, learning and management purposes. The Financing Agreement foresees that the main objectives of this evaluation are to provide the relevant services of the European Union, the interested stakeholders and the wider public with:
This evaluation will be carried out for accountability and learning purposes, in particular with respect to the alignment with the priorities defined in the future NPA; the assurance that the Palestinian Authority leads the process of monitoring and evaluation; and the increased impact of policy dialogue (through the Result Oriented Framework).
The main users of this evaluation will be the partner country and other key stakeholders, notably contributing donors and institutional counterparts on the side of the PA. The implementing partner and the Commission shall analyse the conclusions and recommendations of the evaluations and, where appropriate, in agreement with the partner country, jointly decide on the follow-up actions to be taken and any adjustments necessary, including, if indicated, the reorientation of the project.
The evaluation will assess the Action using the five standard DAC evaluation criteria, namely: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. In addition, the evaluation will assess two EU specific evaluation criteria:
The specific Issues to be Studied as formulated below are indicative. Based on them and following initial consultations and documental analysis, the evaluation team will propose in their Inception Report a complete and finalised set of Evaluation Questions with indication of specific Judgement Criteria and Indicators, as well as the relevant data collection sources and tools.
Once agreed with the approval of the Inception Report and Intermediary Note, the Evaluation Questions will become contractually binding.
Expert 1: Team Leader/Monitoring and Evaluation expert - Category I
At least Master’s degree in Development and International Cooperation, Economics, Law or Social Sciences or, in its absence, an extra 5 years of professional experience in addition to minimum requirement.
General Professional Experience
Specific professional experience:
If you meet the requirements and would be interested in applying for this role please email your CV in EC format to email@example.com
WE ARE ONLY ABLE TO RESPOND TO CANDIDATES WHO MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS
Lot: BENEF 1 | Location: Paraguay (Asuncion and San Lorenzo)
Lot: BENEF 7 | Location: Thailand (Bangkok based with visits to various locations)
Lot: BENEF 7 | Location: Armenia
Lot: BENEF 7 | Location: Armenia
|BENEF||EC Com 2015||EIB||AusAid||New Zealand Aid|
|Lot 1||Lot 1 Evaluation||Lot 5||DFAT||MFAT|