1

EVALUATION SERVICE TERMS OF REFERENCE

MULTI-COUNTRY STRATEGIC EVALUATION

Key Information at a glance about the evaluation

Title of evaluation: Multi-Country Strategic Evaluation of UNHCR’s Operations in Northern Europe

Proposed Countries: Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania

Time-frame covered: 2017-2020 Type of evaluation: Multi-Country Strategic Evaluation (Centralized) Evaluation commissioned by: UNHCR Evaluation Service

1. INTRODUCTION

UNHCR’s country operations around the world aim to work effectively to pursue protection and solutions, to support the inclusion of internally displaced, refugees and stateless people in national and local services, and to contribute to societies and economies, especially in refugee hosting countries. Such efforts require learning lessons from implementation. These lessons inform UNHCR’s strategic thinking, programme design and programme implementation both at the global and country operation level, as well as ensure UNHCR operations are supported in seeing impact in their specific contexts. To help inform this learning process, the UNHCR Evaluation Service commissions Country Strategic Evaluations (CSEs). Recently UNHCR has completed Country Strategic Evaluations (CSEs) in Afghanistan, Angola, Iraq, Morocco and Egypt (forthcoming). The Strategy Evaluation of UNHCR’s multi-country programme in Northern Europe recognizes that the organization does not have “operations” in these countries in the same way that it does in low and middle income countries – that the roles that UNHCR plays there are specific to high income country contexts where advocacy, capacity building and resource mobilization are core areas of action.

2. BACKGROUND Over the last couple of years, UNHCR has undertaken a series of strategic changes and initiatives in alignment with the five core areas of UNHCR’s 2017-2021 Strategic Directions. UNHCR’s Strategic Directions outlines its aims: to ensure protection, respond in emergencies, promote inclusion, empower the people UNHCR serves, and expand opportunities for solutions. UNHCR operations develop multi-year and annual protection and solution strategies, guided by participatory planning exercises (joint assessments of needs and priorities with partner organisations and key stakeholders including governments, donors, and people of concern). The Strategic Directions paper similarly described the actions UNHCR has prioritised to support the realisation of key international commitments and the transformation process undertaken to deliver UNHCR’s mandate more effectively. In addition and in line with UNHCR’s Strategic Directions, the adoption of the New York Declaration in September 2016 ushered UNHCR and partners into a new era of collaboration as States agreed to address and resolve refugee flows through a new model—the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF)—that places the rights, interests and potential of refugees and of their hosts at the heart of a multi-dimensional response extending beyond, humanitarian action. Building on lessons

2

learnt through the practical application of the CRRF, the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) provides a platform through which UNHCR can reinforce existing, and build new partnerships, to improve response to refugee situations. Important developments linked to UN Reform, the Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030 are also fundamentally reshaping the way in which UNHCR works. To deliver these transformative developments at the global level, UNHCR is undertaking an ambitious internal change process which is summarised below. Decentralisation and Regionalisation: In 2018, UNHCR embarked on a decentralization and regionalization process, the aim of which is to improve UNHCR’s delivery of protection and solutions for forcibly displaced and stateless people through a series of structural reforms that moves authority levels closer to the contexts in which UNHCR works. These include moving Regional Bureaux from Geneva and establishing Seven Bureaux offices throughout the world. Further reforms comprise:

• Enabling Country Representatives and their teams to take faster decisions on the ground; • Simplifying decision-making processes and making them more efficient, extending greater

operational agility to colleagues working in highly fluid contexts, and ensuring more time to focus efforts where it matters most - working directly with refugees and internally displaced people;

• Empowering Representatives and Bureaux to translate global objectives into impactful regional strategies and build enduring alliances with traditional partners, the private sector, regional bodies and national authorities to secure protection and solutions;

• Aligning UNHCR’s presence and authority at regional level with that of UN sister agencies to enhance our catalytic role in leveraging solutions for people of concern within an increasingly decentralized and integrated UN Development System.

Multi-Year Multi Partner Planning (MYMP): In 2014, UNHCR initiated the move towards a partnership oriented, multi-year planning approach to further protection and solutions results for persons of concern. In addition to six MYMP pilots selected in 2015, another 16 operations adopted the MYMP approach in 2017, one of which was the Northern Europe MCO. UNHCR MYMP plans are envisaged to cover a period of 3-5 years, adjustable to each operational context. The MYMP approach is designed to bring together the full range of national and international stakeholders to plan together with a longer-term vision. Persons of concern, governments, civil society, humanitarian and development actors, donors, academia and the private sector are set out in the MYMP design as some of the most important of these players. The evaluation thus provides an opportunity to reflect on the value and lessons learnt in launching the MYMP model in an MCO and in a setting where UNHCR’s focus is not on basic assistance. Results Based Management (RBM) Renewal: An annual planning process defines country priority actions and allocates resources against these priorities in line with global and regional priorities. The current RBM system in place is used across all operations and integrates financial, HR and output data. The monitoring and reporting is being revised to better accommodate longer term planning and introduce more flexibility that more accurately reflects the work and priorities of UNHCR’s operations. The new results-based management system and indicator framework will shape the organisations future approach to assessment, planning, implementing and reporting. In addition to the transformations described above, of key interest to this evaluation is the way in which UNHCR in Northern Europe incorporates Age, Gender and Diversity (AGD) into its work. UNHCR’s AGD approach is at the core of UNHCR's work with persons under UNHCR's mandate. Applying an AGD approach in UNHCR’s work enables the organization to identify and consult with people of different age, gender and diversity groups. The goal of an AGD approach is that all segments of a population that UNHCR works with have equal access to and enjoyment of rights. UNHCR’s AGD approach is set out in the 2018 AGD Policy and intends to bring stronger accountability towards all persons of concern, through defined responsibilities across UNHCR senior management for fulfilling the AGD policy at global and country level. To facilitate this aim, the policy articulates six areas of engagement, underpinned by ten core actions, which set the mandatory benchmarks to be achieved by every UNHCR operation. Recognising the varying operational contexts UNHCR works in, the 2018 AGD policy should be implemented in a contextually appropriate manner, building on the previous AGD experience field teams have and in line with shared approaches with other key partners including sister agencies, Member States and Non-governmental organisations and partners.

3

3. UNHCR’S ROLE IN NORTHERN EUROPE

The countries covered by the Northern Europe (NE) Multi Country Office (MCO) consist of two regions comprised of five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Ice land, Norway Sweden) and three Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). The MCO thus operates in a European sub-region with eight different official languages, political systems and legal architectures that govern asylum rights, eliciting considerable complexity for the MCO to track and manage. The MCO has to closely engage with developments within the European Union given the influence of EU positions and agreements on asylum, refugees and migration on the policies and instruments in the MCO countries; six of the countries within the MCO are members of the European Union. All the countries in the NE MCO are party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1961 Statelessness Conventions and have national asylum laws and established procedures for status determination in place. With the exception of Denmark, the other European Union countries (Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) participate in the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Traditionally, the Nordic countries have been viewed as leaders and global standard setters on refugee protection, and have supported global initiatives on protection and solutions both as donors and through their advocacy in support of the Global Compact on Refugees. The region has similarly been an important avenue for refugee resettlement, although following the European Refugee crisis in 2015, the numbers of refugees resettled has bifurcated with some countries increasing or largely maintaining resettlement numbers compared to resettlement trends prior to the crisis and others reducing the number of resettlements substantially (see figure 2). Trends in Persons of Concern The number of refugees in the NE region under UNHCR’s mandate (estimated at 367,013 persons) 1 has increased since 2015, with the largest number of refugees concentrated in the Scandinavian countries. Following the European Refugee crises in 2015 there was an increase in person seeking asylum, with Sweden receiving 163,000 new asylum seekers, Norway 31,000 applications and Finland 32,500 applications; a total overall increase of 127% compared to 2014)2. Following the border control measures, including the EU Turkey Deal, in 2016 new applications fell by 84% to 38, 557 across the region. This downward trend has since levelled off with 23,125 new cases in 2019 registered.

1 All data taken from UNHCR Operations Planning Documents and UNHCR Population Statistics Portal 2 In 2019 approximately 25% of applicants were accompanied children, 4 % unaccompanied children. 60% of applicants were male and 40% were female. Of the asylum applicants in the region in 2015, 52% in Finland, 41% in Norway, 39% in Denmark and 28% in Sweden were adult males between the ages of 18-34. Across the region in 2015, 41% of asylum applicants were children, 59% adults with 72% of applicant being male and 28% of applicants being female (source Eurostat).

Figure 1: Number of Refugees by year in NE (top five countries 2015-2020* (2020 data is provisional and subject to confirmation). Source: UNHCR PopStats

4

The Baltic countries that fall within the MCO purview, while receiving fewer asylum seekers and have a significant population of stateless persons resulting in part from the break-up of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. As figure 4 shows, However, whilethe stateless population has gradually declined, significant stateless populations of concern to UNHCR remain. Analysis undertaken by the MCO notes that, while in general protection standards remain compliant, there has been an increase in political and public polarization regarding asylum seekers and refugees - although this is manifested differently in each country.3 In 2020 the number of new asylum applications were impacted by Covid-19, although the contraction in asylum applications follows a general downward trend in application after the 2015 and 2016 peak during the European refugee crisis. Impact of Covid- 19

UNHCR’s role in Northern European States

Given the relative economic strength and government capacity in NE, UNHCR does not provide direct support to refugees but instead works to foster a quality protection environment through a combination of advocacy and advice to governments, civil society actors, protection monitoring and analysis (including legal analysis) and capacity building. The overall MCO approach depends on the specific country context, requiring considerable knowledge and ongoing analysis. The MCO manages its priorities from its Representation office in Sweden and Liaison Offices in Denmark and Lithuania, covering the other countries remotely. Over the period under analysis the MCO has seen its budget

3 See news reports as well as UNHCR Observations on recent legal changes

The more stringent internal border controls in the Mediterranean and the new border protocols put in place to counter the pandemic in 2020 has resulted in a decrease in arrivals. The continued pandemic is likely to remain a key factor in maintaining low arrival numbers across the region through 2021. Covid- 19 will also likely to impact elements of the MCO’s strategy. For example, due to travel restrictions the office does not anticipate it will be able to conduct strategic monitoring visits to borders, detention and reception centers at the same level as before the pandemic and will have to shift to some remote modalities instead.

Figure 2: Bifurcating Resettlement Trends- Number of resettlement arrivals per year 2015-2019 (top five countries). Source: UNHCR PopStats

Figure 3: NE Region New Asylum cases per year 2013-2019. Source UNHCR Operation Plans

5

gradually decline since 2018; the budget awarded to the NE subregion fell from $4.2 Million in 2018 to $3.66 Million in 2021 (see figure 5). Strategically, the MCO has a critical role in building on the partnerships with governments and private sector actors and leveraging support, including financial support, for UNHCR’s work globally. This role is supported through a national association Staffing

The MCO office currently has 24 staff in place split across its three offices, with the majority of the staff (nineteen staff members including the representative and the MCO Senior Management Team) sitting in the Stockholm office, three staff based in the Lithuania Liaison office and a further two staff based in the Denmark Liaison office. In addition, proposals were put forward in the MYMP 2018-2022 for additional staffing, with the aim of increasing the number of the Liaison Offices throughout more of the countries covered by the MCO.

UNHCR’s Multi-Year Multi- Partner Priorities 2018-2022 UNHCR set out five key objectives it aims to contribute to in Northern Europe as part of it MYMP approach, namely:

1. By 2022, all asylum seekers will be given effective access to the territory, and to fair, efficient and quality asylum systems, as well as high quality reception conditions with a

2. By 2022, all beneficiaries of international protection should benefit from policies and practices that promote and facilitate integration.

3. By 2022, standardised child-friendly asylum and migration procedures, ensuring the best interests of each child with respect to access and the identification and implementation of durable solutions, are fully functioning across the region.

4. By 2022, all stateless persons will be identified and be given access to statelessness determination procedures, and all children born stateless children will be automatically granted citizenship with a focus on prevention and eradication of Statelessness.

5. By 2022, Northern Europe is engaged beyond its borders to protect, assist and find solutions.

Figure 4: Number of persons considered Stateless per year (top 4 countries in the NE region 2015-2020* (2020 number are provisional and subject to confirmation) Source: UNHCR PopStats

Figure 5: MCO NE budget trends 2017-2021 in USD. Source UNHCR Operations Plans

6

Key Priorities in 2021 In alignment of the objective outlined in it’s 2018- 2022 MYMP strategy UNHCR has the following key priorities in 2021 in Northern Europe, focused on two populations group: Stateless persons and Refugees in Northern Europe. With respect to refugees, UNHCRs objectives are:

i) Potential for resettlement realized through continued advocacy, research, capacity building and leveraging partnerships.

ii) Potential for integration realized through a focus on policies and practices that promote and facilitate integration and a human rights-based approach. This includes a focus on the impact of Covid-19

iii) Reception conditions improved through advocacy and targeted reception center visits, especially to centres for children and with a focus on promoting participatory and Age Gender and Diversity approaches. In the Baltics, the MCO will support new community-based reception models, municipalities and other actors.

iv) Access to and quality of status determination procedures improved through advocacy, closely monitoring compliance with the European and International standards, State dialogue and capacity building.

v) Access to legal assistance and legal remedies improved including by advocacy on legal aid, development of partnerships to further strengthen and develop lawyers/litigation networks and capacity building.

vi) Law and Policy developed or strengthened by employing an integrated protection-strategic communications response, capitalizing on key partnerships and prioritizing public awareness and advocacy interventions. In addition, UNHCR will continue to engage with governments and comment on legal and policy matters.

vii) Access to the territory improved and risk of refoulement reduced through capacity development, ongoing analysis, systematic and independent border monitoring and training of border officials

viii) Public attitude towards persons of concern improved through advocacy, media and political discourse analysis and engagement with press and media.

ix) Risks related to detention reduced and freedom of movement increased with a focus on the three objectives of the Global Strategy on Detention namely improved detention conditions, ending detention of children and promoting the use of ATDs.

x) Protection of children strengthened with a focus on ensuring child friendly asylum and migration procedures.

xi) Donor relations and resource mobilization strengthened through continued and ongoing engagement with governments and key private sector actors.

With regards to Statelessness, UNHCR has the following objectives: i) Greater reduction of statelessness is achieved, through supporting government initiatives,

advocacy and external engagement- with a focus on the Baltic States. ii) International and regional instruments acceded to, ratified or strengthened through

advocacy related to persuading some of the Northern European States to withdraw reservations to the 1954 and/or 1961 Statelessness Conventions in collaboration with the EU, Council of Europe and other key partners.

iii) Law and policy on Statelessness developed or strengthened through working with national authorities to strengthen existing procedures within existing legal frameworks and ongoing provision of technical advice.

7

4. EVALUATION PURPOSE This Evaluation was commissioned by the Evaluation Service following a request by UNHCR’s Europe Bureau. It is intended to be forward-looking in its orientation. The main purpose of this evaluation is to generate timely evidence to inform UNHCR’s future operational planning and strategy in Northern Europe - leading to more effective and impactful UNHCR partnerships and programming, in pursuit of protection and solutions for UNHCR persons of concern and the communities that host them. In addition to this, the evaluation will seek to analyse and assess the effectiveness of UNHCR’s plans and activities in light of evolving needs of the population, political and policy trends at the government level and the work of UNHCR’s partners and other key civil society stakeholders. The evaluation thus:

• Offers an opportunity for the organization to reflect and learn lessons from the experience of MCO of the MYMP process;

• Provides an inflection point for the Europe Bureau to better understand how effectively it provides support to MCOs and COs through the MYMP process in anticipation of the wider organizational roll-out of multi-year planning.

• Provides an opportunity for the MCO to reflect on the implementation of its MYMP strategy, particularly its strategic engagement with partners on issues of concern to UNHCR.

In highlighting lessons learnt from the MCO operation, recommendations from the evaluation should be practical, feasible, and forward-looking in their orientation. The primary audience for these evaluations is the UNHCR Northern Europe MCO, and the Regional Bureau for Europe. Other UNHCR Bureaux and Divisions, as well as UNHCR partners – including government and protection actors – will serve as a secondary audience.

5. EVALUATION SCOPE AND INDICATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 6.1 Scope

The evaluation scope – relating to population, timeframe and locations– is as follows: Timeframe to be covered in the evaluation: Although forward-looking in its orientation, the evaluation should focus on analysing results achieved over the last 4 years (2017- 2020), whilst also broadly reflecting on key achievements and operational challenges, as relevant, since the 2015 European Refugee Crisis. The management and support provided to the MCO by the Europe Bureaux, and any notable recent changes resulting from UNHCRs regionalization process, is within the scope of the evaluation. Location and population details: While interviews with key partners, civil society and government actors are envisaged, given that UNHCR works predominantly through partnerships and does not provide basic assistance to Persons of Concern in the sub-region, primary data collection directly from refugees and stateless persons is not envisaged as part of this evaluation.4 Depending on developments and travel restrictions related to Covid-19 some travel to the countries within the MCO will be considered and will be agreed during the inception phase of the evaluation. Similarly travel to Geneva may also be considered and agreed during the inception phase for data collection and for HQ level briefings. During the course of the inception phase three to four countries from the NE sub-region will be selected for in depth analysis after discussion with the MCO and the Regional Bureau and should cover countries in the sub-region where UNHCR has an offices and those where it does not. 6.2 Indicative Evaluation Questions

4 This evaluation assumes there is readily available data and analysis on PoC that can be consulted in the course of this evaluation

8

The following indicative evaluation questions , informed by an initial desk review and scoping interviews with the MCO and RB, will be further refined during a short inception phase.

1. How relevant and coherent is the NE MCO’s MYMP and overall strategic approach to strengthening

the protection environment and supporting solutions in the countries that fall within the sub-region?

• What have been the key results achieved through the Multi-Year Strategy and what elements of the MCO strategy have been most effective?

• To what extent has UNHCR focused on the most important bottlenecks to protection for refugees and stateless persons?

• How has the MCO prioritized it’s work across the 8 countries and liaison offices? What are the challenges and opportunities that the MCO structure presents?

• How has the MCO adopted AGD in its work and how effectively has the MCO been able to target the specific needs of diverse populations through its advocacy, protection monitoring and technical support to partners?

• Looking forward, how well placed is the MCO to address emerging future challenges, including the effects of Covid-19 restrictions and the shifting protection environment?

2. How effective and fit-for-purpose is UNHCR NE MCO’s operational structure to deliver its priorities,

including the adequacy of its resourcing and prioritization? • Both in terms of financial and personnel- how appropriate is the structure and the

resourcing of the MCO? • What were the main contributing and constraining factors in the achievement of these

results, and how has consideration of these - as well as the prevailing operational context - been adequately reflected in the planning for the MYMP Strategy?

• How has UNCHR balanced its resource mobilization role including liaising with it’s national fundraising partner, Sweden for UNHCR, with its other priorities and objectives? To what extent has UNHCR been able to leverage its position and relationship with governments and other stakeholders to mobilise resources and manage risks?

• What impact has Covid-19 had on the MCO’s ability to deliver its strategy and how has the MCO adapted to meet the challenge of Covid-19?

3. To what extent and how , in the context of the GCR, has the NE MCO leveraged partnerships with

relevant national and regional stakeholders including civil society organisations to advocate for and support refugee protection and solutions?

• To what extent has the MCO been able to build impactful partnerships with civil society

and non-governmental actors? What has worked particularly well? • How effective has the MCO been at leveraging the GCR in its advocacy and

partnerships with other actors, including government actors? What lessons learnt or good practices have emerged from the MCOs engagement with the GCR that may be relevant for other European country offices?

• Where could the MCO consider further investment or adaptation to strengthen its partnership approach and coordination and leadership role?

• In what ways can UNHCR learn from, and capitalise on, existing relevant approaches with partners, to strengthen advocacy on the centrality of protection?

4. In light of decentralization, how well is the NE MCO being supported by Bureaux and Divisions in terms of guidance, standards and norms setting in order to deliver effectively?

• What has been the MCO’s experience of decentralization and has decentralization improved information flow and facilitated expedited decision making?

9

• How easily has the MCO been able to access technical support and general support from the Europe Bureau? What has worked well, and which areas could be further improved or streamlined?

• Has decentralisation contributed to more efficient and effective engagement in regional and cross- national protection advocacy and analysis?

5. What lessons can be learnt from the NE multi-country operation regarding the implementation of MYMP and the GCR in high income country contexts where UNHCR provides less/no direct support to Persons of Concern?

• Has the implementation of MYMP improved operational planning and to what extent has the MYMP approach improved the ability of country offices to more consistently plan over time?

• What good practices and lessons learnt have emerged from the MCO’s experience of MYMP that can inform guidance and support offered to other MCOs?

6. APPROACH AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The methodology deployed for this evaluation should use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. UNHCR welcomes the use of diverse and innovative evaluation methods. Data from a wide range of sources and a representative range of stakeholders will need to be triangulated and cross validated to ensure the credibility of evaluation findings and conclusions. Data collection is expected to comprise of: 1) desk reviews and content analysis of relevant background as well as programmatic data and documents; 2) focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and rapid surveys (as appropriate) with UNHCR staff, implementing and operational partners, key interagency stakeholders (UNICEF, etc.), national governments (including local government) ; partners, and; 3) reviews of data, studies and other analysis collected by government and other actors. Proposed methodologies should be balanced across the countries within the MCO with good coverage across the region. It is anticipated that the evaluation will cover all 8 countries – which will involve selecting 3-4 countries as country case studies for deep dives and/or missions with the rest of the countries being covered largely through desk reviews and interviews as appropriate. The Evaluation Team will be expected to refine the methodology and final evaluation questions following the initial desk review, country visit (potentially remote) and key informant interviews undertaken during the inception phase. The final inception report will specify the evaluation methodology, and the refined focus and scope of the evaluation, including final key evaluation questions, data collection tools and analytical framework and outline the 3-4 countries of the 8 countries where more in depth analysis and research will be conducted.

7. ORGANISATION AND CONDUCT OF THE EVALUATION Evaluation Management and Quality Assurance An Evaluation Manager appointed by the UNHCR Evaluation Service will be responsible for: (i) managing administrative day to day aspects of the evaluation process (ii) acting as the main interlocutor with the Evaluation Team (iii) facilitating communication with relevant stakeholders to ensure evaluators receive the required data (iv) facilitating communication with relevant stakeholders to ensure technical guidance on content, and (v) reviewing the interim deliverables and final reports to ensure quality – with the support of the relevant UNHCR Country Office and Regional Bureaux. The Evaluation Manager will share and provide an orientation to the EQA at the start of the evaluation. Adherence to the EQA will be overseen by the Evaluation Manager with support from the UNHCR Evaluation Service as needed. The Evaluation Manager will remain in close contact with designated focal points in the Multi-Country Office to facilitate arrangements and access to data. The Multi-Country Office will designate focal points that will assist the Evaluation Manager and Evaluation Team with logistical and administrative arrangements if required. Both the MCO and RB will be involved in all key phases of the evaluation –

10

starting with a kick-off call once the evaluation team is recruited, through to joint reviews of key draft deliverables (inception report and evaluation report). The Evaluation Team will be required to sign the UNHCR Code of Conduct, complete UNHCR’s introductory protection training module, and respect UNHCR’s confidentiality requirements. In line with established standards for evaluation in the UN system, and the UN Ethical Guidelines for evaluations, evaluation in UNHCR is founded on the fundamental principles of independence, impartiality, credibility and utility. These inter-connected principles subsume a number of specific norms that will guide the commissioning, conducting and supporting the use of the evaluation. This includes protecting sources and data, informed consent, respect for dignity and diversity and the minimisation of risk, harm and burden upon those who are the subject of or participating in the evaluation, while at the same time not compromising the integrity of the evaluation. A Reference Group will be established with the participation of the key internal, and possibly external, stakeholders for the evaluation to help guide the process. Members of the Reference Group would be asked to:

• Provide suggestions to identify potential materials and resources to be reviewed and key contacts to be considered for key informant interviews.

• Review and comment on the draft inception report. • Review and comment on the data collection and data analysis instruments that will be

developed by the Evaluation Team. • Review and comment on the draft final reports, validate emerging findings and conclusions. • Advise on the focus of the evaluation recommendations that will form the basis of the

Management Response to the review. Upon completion, the final evaluation report will be shared with the UNHCR Representative and Senior Management Team in the MCO and Regional Bureau with the request to formulate the formal management response, which will also be made available in the public domain. Expected Deliverables and Timeline The evaluation contract will be finalised by April 2021 and will be managed following the indicative timeline tabled below. Exact dates for the inception workshop and possible scoping mission will be refined in consultation with the MCO during inception. Key evaluation deliverables include:

• Draft and Final Inception Report, including Evaluation Matrix; • Data collection toolkit (including questionnaires, interview guides, focus group discussion

guides, and data monitoring methods); • Draft and Final Evaluation Report6 including recommendations (30-40 pages excluding

annexes); and, • Standalone Executive Summary (10 pages).

Activity Key Deliverable Indicative

Timeline Payment Schedule

Inception phase including: • Initial desk review • Inception visit to country operation and key informant interviews • EQA review on the draft inception report • Internal circulation for comments • ERG meeting and IR finalisation

Final inception report – including methodology, final evaluation questions and evaluation matrix.

Week 1-4 20%

Data collection phase including: • Key stakeholder interviews and FGDs (in country

Validation workshop on preliminary findings, conclusions and possible

Week 5-10 20%

11

and remotely as required); in depth document review; field visits as required. • Validation workshop on preliminary findings, conclusions and possible recommendations (in country) • Stakeholder feedback on preliminary findings and emerging conclusions

recommendations at stakeholder workshop in country.

Data Analysis and Reporting phase including: • Analysis and write up • EQA review of draft report, circulation for comments • Stakeholder feedback and validation of evaluation findings, conclusions and proposed recommendations. • ERG meeting

Draft final report including recommendations (for circulation and comments). Maximum 60 pages including executive summary and excluding annexes

Week 10-14 40%

Finalisation of evaluation report Final Evaluation Report (including recommendations and standalone executive summary)

Week 14-18 20%

8. EVALUATION TEAM QUALIFICATIONS

The evaluation will be undertaken by a team of qualified independent evaluation consultants, comprising of at least a Team Leader and one Team Member. Bidders should propose names/CVs of Team Leaders and Team members in their proposal. Evaluation Teams are expected to demonstrate evaluation expertise as well as regional expertise and experience in Northern Europe , with excellent understanding of UNHCR’s protection mandate and operational platform, and good knowledge of issues pertaining to inclusion of Refugees and of the policy and legal issues related to refugee protection in Europe and some or all of the 8 countries under review. The Evaluation Team will be willing to consider travelling to the countries under review should travel restrictions and the evolving Covid-19 pandemic allow for it. Evaluation Team Leader

• A post-graduate or master’s degree in social science, development studies, international relations or economics plus a minimum of 12 years of relevant professional experience in humanitarian response settings and/or development interventions.

• Minimum of 7 years of evaluation experience with demonstrated ability in mixed research methodologies, and an excellent understanding of humanitarian/development country operations. Experience in evaluation in humanitarian or development settings preferred

• Proven experience in successfully leading an evaluation team and managing fieldwork in complex environments.

• Proven track record in leading (preferable) or participating as a senior team member in previous large-scale evaluations, preferably country portfolio evaluations, commissioned by a large development, donor, or humanitarian agency.

• Institutional knowledge of UNHCR’s protection mandate and operational platform. • In-depth knowledge of and proven experience with various data collection and analytical

methods and techniques used in evaluation and operational research. • Experience in generating useful and action-oriented recommendations to senior management

and programming staff. Evaluation Team Member

• A post-graduate or master’s degree in social sciences, development studies, international relations, or economics plus a minimum of 5 years of relevant professional experience ideally in humanitarian and/or development settings.

12

• Minimum of 4 years’ experience supporting quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis for evaluation purposes (preferable) or operational research in humanitarian and development settings.

• Good knowledge of protection programming and advocacy strategies, relevant analytical frameworks and programming approaches and standards.

• In depth knowledge with various data collection and analytical methods and techniques used in evaluation and operational research.

• Proven expertise in facilitating participatory workshops involving different groups and participants.

• Excellent communication and presentation skills. 9. EVALUATION TEAM SELECTION CRITERIA

Individual consultants will be shortlisted based on the criteria above. Applicants who apply as a team will receive additional points in the selection process.5 Scoring in the selection process will be done on an individual basis and the Evaluation Service reserves the right to select the final team composition.

10. HOW TO APPLY

Interested applicants* must submit the following documents:

• UNHCR’s Personal History Form (PHF)/ Supplementary Sheet • Motivation letter (1 page) outlining why they are a suitable candidate (or team) for the

consultancy, and what their proposed methodological approach would be to the evaluation. • A written sample of a previous evaluation, review, report or publication of any kind in which

they were a (co) author. Applications should be sent to Evaluation Service hqevaser@unhcr.org indicating the title of the evaluation and the position they are applying for (Team Leader, Team Member, or Team application) e.g. “Application Country Strategy Evaluation Northern Europe Multi Country Office– Team Leader”. Please note that applications without the correct PHF form will not be considered. Applications will not be acknowledged. Short-listed applicants may be requested to participate in a video/ telephone interview, a written exercise. Only successful candidates/ teams will be notified of the outcome of the selection process.

DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS is Thursday, 15 April 2021, 12 p.m. (CET). *The UNHCR workforce consists of many diverse nationalities, cultures, languages and opinions. UNHCR seeks to sustain and strengthen this diversity to ensure equal opportunities as well as an inclusive working environment for its entire workforce. Applications are encouraged from all qualified candidates without distinction on grounds of race, colour, sex, national origin, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.

5 Note that applicants applying individually will be also be considered, and the Evaluation Service has the right to propose the final team composition.

13

ANNEX 1: RELEVANT DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE MULTI-COUNTRY STRATEGIC EVALUATION OF UNHCR’S OPERATIONS IN NORTHERN EUROPE

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE AT:

UNHCR’S STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS 2017–2021 https://www.unhcr.org/5894558d4.pdf

New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants https://www.unhcr.org/new-york-declaration-for-refugees-and-migrants.html

Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework https://www.unhcr.org/comprehensive-refugee-response-framework-crrf.html

The Global Compact on Refugees https://www.unhcr.org/the-global-compact-on-refugees.html

UNHCR POLICY ON AGE, GENDER AND DIVERSITY https://www.unhcr.org/5aa13c0c7.pdf

Evaluation of Effectiveness and Relevance of Advocacy Approaches with the EU and in EU/EFTA

countries (2015-2017) https://www.unhcr.org/5d09f6fd7.pdf

Evaluation of UNHCR’s Engagement with the Private Sector https://www.unhcr.org/5dfa230f4.pdf

Update on UNHCR reform https://www.unhcr.org/5d81f9620.pdf

POPULATIONS OF CONCERN TO UNHCR 2020 PLANNING FIGURES https://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/ga2020/pdf/Chapter_PoC.pdf