Download Report

Terms of Reference
Review of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute’s Regional Asia Programme 2010 2015
1. Background
The Raoul Wallenberg Institute is an Independent Academic Institute with a head office in Lund,
Sweden and field offices in Amman, Beijing, Istanbul, Jakarta, Nairobi and Phnom Penh. The institute
also houses one of Europe’s largest human rights libraries. A large part of the institutes work is
carried out by the Department of International Programmes which works with human rights
education and capacity building for institutions within our three focus areas: Academic Institutions,
Institutions within the Administration of Justice and National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs).
RWI has been working regionally in South East Asia since the early 90s and is currently implementing
the “Regional Asia Human Rights Capacity Development Programme 2010-2015”, funded by the
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). The programme focusses primarily
on raising capacity in human rights for Academic Institutions and NHRIs through tailored training,
research opportunities, technical advice and the provision of networking opportunities and meeting
points for institutions from throughout the region. As we are now in the final year of implementation
we are commissioning a review to assist the regional Asia team in assessing lessons learned and best
practices on which to build future initiatives in the region.
The programme has two main objectives:

To strengthen National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) institutional capacity in Asia to
promote and protect human rights, and

To strengthen capacities of Academic Institutions in Southeast Asia to deliver high-quality
human rights education/research and take active part in the public human rights debate.
Through the Programme, it is expected that the following results at outcome level will be achieved:

Improved capacities of NHRIs to implement their legislative mandates in relation to
functions/topics covered

Increased capacities of Academic Institutions in Southeast Asia to develop and implement
human rights training courses, educational programmes, dissertations, research products etc
as well as take part in the public human rights debate

Increased capacities of NHRIs and Academic Institutions in Southeast Asia on the practical
application of instruments and mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human
rights of women and gender equality

Improved cooperation among and between NHRIs and Academic Institutions in Asia

Increased access to up-to-date human rights research corresponding to Southeast Asian
NHRIs needs and in line with Academic Institutions’ priorities
2. Purpose and Objectives
The overall purpose of the assignment is to assess results achievement and the underlying theory of
change of RWI’s regional Asia programme. The review should also provide recommendations on
possible improvements in order to strengthen outcome achievement in future RWI regional
programmes in Asia.
The specific review objectives include:
(i)
Determine the relevance of the programme methodology in relation to the intended
program objectives and results;
(ii)
Identify and assess the theory(ies) of change and assumptions underlying the
programme design;
(iii)
Assess to what extent the programme achieved its intended objectives and outcomes, as
well as assessing the sustainability of the results achieved;
(iv)
Identify challenges and document lessons learned and best practices that will inform
future strategic planning of a new RWI regional Asia programme.
3. Organisation, Management and Stakeholders
Principal stakeholder of the review is RWI. Secondary stakeholders include Sida and the targeted
Academic Institutions and NHRIs.
RWI is responsible for the review. In the performance of the review, the consultant shall at all times
remain in close contact and consult with RWI for purposes of relaying the work done and receiving
feedback and input on the ongoing work.
The targeted institutions that have participated in the programme will cooperate in the review when
and if possible by providing the consultant with necessary information (through interviews,
questionnaires, surveys, etc). RWI is the primary user of the overall conclusions of the review.
4. Review Questions
The review shall generate information on:
-
The extent to which results have been achieved in the RWI regional Asia programme
-
The extent to which the methods used within the RWI Regional Asia Programme have been
relevant for attaining its expected results.
-
The likelihood that the results will be sustained after the programme has ended
-
The causal links underlying the theory of change of the programme, even if the theory of
change is not explicitly stated.
-
Suggestions on potential improvements for future programmes to be implemented by RWI in
the region
The review shall accordingly address questions related to the results, methods, sustainability and
theory of change of the RWI Programme. In addition, it shall formulate recommendations for
possible future programmes implemented by RWI in the region.
The following is an outline of tentative review questions; the final questions will be defined in
consultation with RWI once the consultant has been appointed.
With regard to results, the review shall address the following questions:
A1: To what extent has the Programme achieved its expected results at output and outcome level?
A2: Which are the main factors that have affected positive results achievement and which have
affected non-achievement of results?
A3: What is RWI’s added value and most important contribution in its regional work with NHRIs and
Academic Institutions in Southeast Asia?
A4: Are the results the Programme has achieved relevant to the needs and situation of the intended
beneficiaries and Programme partners (i.e. NHRIs and Academic Institutions)?
With regard to methods, the review shall address the following questions:
B1: How is RWI’s methodological approach related to achievement or non-achievement of results?
Which methods have proven particularly successful for results achievement and why? Which have
not?
B2: What is the value and quality of RWI approaches/methods used in the programme in order to
build capacity of NHRIs and Academic Institutions?
B3: If possible, also address: How do the approaches and methods developed by RWI to work with
NHRIs and Academic Institutions on a regional level in Southeast Asia compare to other programmes
in the region?
With regard to sustainability, the review should address the following questions:
C1: To what extent is it likely that the results and benefits of the Programme will remain/continue/be
maintained at an appropriate level for a reasonably long period of time after the withdrawal of
external support/the end of the Programme?
C2: What are the major factors which influence the achievement or non-achievement of
sustainability of the Programme?
C3: In what ways have the Programme methods contributed to sustainability?
With regard to the theory of change, the review should address the following questions:
D1: What is/are the theory/ies of change that the programme design is based on?
D2: What are the particular sets of beliefs about how and why the programme will produce changes?
On what sources are they founded?
D3: Can the theory of change be proved to be true by data collected on outputs and outcomes?
With regard to recommendations, the review should address the following questions:
E1: To what extent are the objectives of the Programme still valid for future programming, taking
into account particular developments during the review period in relation to both specific
programme partners and the broader Southeast Asian context?
E2: In what way can a gender perspective be mainstreamed into the RWI programme?
E3: How can stakeholder participation become a more integral part of planning and implementation?
E4: How can future programme initiatives be related to other ongoing and planned regional human
rights strategies relevant for NHRIs and academic institutions in Asia, in order to enhance synergy
and complementarity?
E5: What improvements can be made in relation to methods and theory of change in order to reach
higher results achievement?
Impact as such of the Programme will not be subject to review, in the sense of assessing
achievement of the Programme’s expected impact which constitutes the long-term vision for the
Programme and guides Programme implementation overall, and it is not considered as a measurable
result during the Programme period, but rather the highest-level change that can be reasonably
attributed to the Programme in a causal manner representing societal level change
6. Conclusions, Recommendation and Lessons Learned
Well-informed and reliable conclusions shall be provided as a result of the review in relation to the
review questions and the review shall also include a list of realistic and well-considered
recommendations. The conclusions and recommendations shall inform the RWI planning phase for a
new programme 2016-2020. Recommendations made should be done in close consultation with RWI
in order to ensure that they are feasible and in line with RWI strategic objectives.
7. Approach and Methodology
The following approaches are considered to be of key significance:
i)
The review shall depart from an overview of the context in which the Programme
operates, including an outline of the key contextual concerns for the programme. The
overview of the context shall form a background for subsequently addressing the
objectives of the review and the review questions.
ii)
To the extent possible, the review shall be carried out according to an inclusive and
participatory approach.
a. The review shall draw on and mobilise the knowledge and experiences of the RWI
Programme implementing staff in order to make an informed assessment in relation
to the review questions. Such an assessment can only take place if the review
recognises and takes into account the unique methodologies, experiences and
related capacity development strategies that the Programme is based on.
b. The review conclusions shall be based on a shared understanding between RWI and
the consultant as to what generally affects and constitutes effective results
achievement within the scope of the Programme and the context within which it
operates.
iii)
For information and data collection concerning the Programme and its implementation,
and so as to address the review questions, the consultant is primarily expected to review
existing Programme documentation (including: the Programme document, the Mid Term
Review; RWI annual work plans and budgets; activity reports and other relevant activity
documentation; key steering and other documents of partners; and Programme progress
reports). If deemed necessary for further information collection purposes, the consultant
will travel to Southeast Asia in order to visit universities and NHRIs that have participated
in the Programme. In addition, concerned RWI staff shall be consulted.
iv)
In addressing the review questions, focus should be kept on the time period of review.
v)
In addressing the questions regarding results of Programme activity, focus should be on
general effects as well as the details of individual activities, and also take into account
intended consequences and other potential effects of the Programme. The established
results shall be clearly and thoroughly argued, and contain a critical discussion of results
achievement both in relation to the programme implementation process and the
underlying theory of change.
vi)
In describing the results, examples may be used both for illustration and for proof.
However, if he/she chooses to use such material, the consultant shall also present a view
on how representative such examples are of the Programme in general.
vii)
The consultant is expected to elaborate on the proposed methodology in the offer
and/or inception report.
8. Time Schedule and Review Process
The review process comprises the following steps (indicative time in parenthesis):
Step 1: Initial meeting with Programme Department staff in order to define and discuss in detail the
limits and scope of the review.
Step 2: Review of available Programme documentation (10 days, including writing of inception
report).
Step 2: Inception report to RWI.
Step 3: Data collection process, including possible field visit (5 days).
Step 4: Data processing and analysis (5 days, including writing of draft report).
Step 5: Submission and discussion of draft report to RWI.
Step 6: Subsequent to comments from RWI, submission of final report (5 days).
The estimated total time of the assignment is 25 working days. Ideally, the review should commence
1 June 2015 and be finalised before 31 August 2015.
9. Reporting and Communication
The consultant is expected to deliver a draft inception report. The inception period shall include an
initial review of available Programme documentation as well as a dialogue between RWI and the
consultant regarding the approach and methodology to be used, in accordance with these Terms of
Reference. In the inception report, the consultant shall list the risks that may be faced during the
review process and the assumptions which may have an impact on the review process, and propose
alternatives for facing those risks.
The inception report shall be submitted to RWI for RWI’s approval.
Following data collection, processing and analysis, a draft review report shall be prepared and
submitted to RWI. The aim is to make it possible for RWI to comment on any factual errors and
misunderstandings, and for them to assess if the draft has reached an acceptable standard in relation
to the Terms of Reference and accurately addresses the review questions. Comments shall be
submitted to the consultant within ten days, whereupon the final report shall be submitted to RWI
within one week.
During the course of the performance of the review, the consultant shall at all times remain in close
contact and consult with RWI for purposes of relaying the work done and receiving feedback and
input on the ongoing work. The consultant shall at all times quickly respond and relate to comments
made regarding the process and findings of the review. For reporting purposes, close consultation
with RWI as to the rationale and feasibility of any such suggestions made is required.
The consultant shall, in relevant parts and unless otherwise agreed, adhere to the terminology of the
OECD/DAC Glossary on Evaluation and Results-Based Management, unless otherwise agreed with
RWI.
The consultant shall at all times fully respect and adhere to the mandate of RWI regarding monitoring
and reporting on aspects of human rights compliance. Therefore, the consultant shall ensure that any
data collected in relation to human rights compliance remains strictly confidential both during and
after the review process, with inclusion of such data in the final report subject to approval by RWI.
The methodology used must be described and explained in the final report. The scope and limitations
of the review indicated in section 3 shall be made explicit and shall be clearly reflected in the report.
English should be the language of all written communication including, e-mails, drafts and final
versions of the review report.
Expected deliverables in English language accordingly include:

Inception Report

Draft Review Report

Final Review Report (maximum 30 pages, excluding annexes)
Annexes, at minimum, should include:

Terms of Reference;

Data gathering instruments (observation guides, interview questionnaires, etc.);

Names and contact information of stakeholders met/interviewed (to the extent it does not
violate considerations of confidentiality).
10. Qualifications
The consultant shall possess the following competences:

Relevant university degree;

Strong knowledge about human rights;

Specific knowledge and experience relevant to human rights education at higher education
institutions;

Specific knowledge of NHRIs in the Asia Pacific region

Experience from higher education institutions at management level and knowledge of the fields
of education, research and outreach.

Thorough knowledge about the political and social context of Southeast Asia in general, including
knowledge of the human rights situation in particular;

Thorough knowledge about and capacity to analyse an institutional and political context such as
that in which the RWI programme operates;

Knowledge about evaluation methods and techniques;

Knowledge about gender mainstreaming methods and techniques;

Experience of reviews/evaluations in the area human rights;

Cultural sensitivity and strong communication and interpersonal skills;

Excellent command of written and spoken English.
11. General Eligibility Criteria
All natural and legal persons may submit an offer and are eligible, on equal terms, to be selected to
carry out the assignment. However, consultants are excluded from being selected if:
(1) they are bankrupt or being wound up, are having their affairs administered by the courts, have
entered into an arrangement with creditors, have suspended business activities, are the subject
of proceedings concerning those matters, or are in any analogous situation arising from a similar
procedure provided for in national legislation or regulations;
(2) they have been convicted of an offence concerning their professional conduct by a judgment
which has the force of res judicata;
(3) they have been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which RWI can
justify;
(4) they have not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions or the
payment of taxes in accordance with the legal provisions of the country in which they are
established or with those of Sweden or those of the country where the assignment is to be
performed;
(5) they or persons having powers of representation, decision making or control over them have
been the subject of a judgment which has the force of res judicata for fraud, corruption,
involvement in a criminal organisation, money laundering or any other illegal activity detrimental
to Sida’s/Sweden’s financial interests.
Consultants must certify that they are not in one of the situations listed above.
Furthermore, the contract for the assignment will not be awarded to consultants who are:
(a) subject to a conflict of interest. The consultant/s must be independent of the evaluated activities
and have no stake in the outcome of the review;
(b) guilty of misrepresentation in supplying the information required by RWI as a condition of
participation in the contract procedure or fail to supply this information.
.