WSSCC, Global Sanitation Fund (GSF)

Transcription

1 Annex I WSSCC, Global Sanitation Fund (GSF) Terms of Reference Country Programme Monitor (CPM) BURKINA FASO 1 Background The Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) was established in 1990 and mandated by name in United Nations General Assembly resolution A/RES/45/181. Its objective is to accelerate the achievement of sustainable water, sanitation and waste management services to all people in the world. WSSCC is a membership organization comprising a wide range of individuals and organizations concerned with water supply and sanitation. Its main strength of membership and expertise is in South Asia and Africa, the regions where most of the people without water and sanitation live. To help meet the goal of ensuring improved sanitation and hygiene for all, the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) has created the Global Sanitation Fund (GSF). By doing so, it contributes to progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, especially those to reduce child mortality, eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empowerment of women and ensure environmental sustainability. The purpose of the Global Sanitation Fund is to support national efforts to help large numbers of poor people to attain sustainable access to sanitation and adopt good hygiene practices. 1

2 To meet its overall objectives, the GSF appoints in each country an Executing Agency (EA) and a Country Programme Monitor (CPM) through an open and competitive process. The role of the EA is to implement a 5 years country programme and the role of the Country Programme Monitor (CPM) is to monitor the implementation of the programme and provide professional recommendations to the GSF. Country programmes funded by GSF funds at country level are developed by a National Coordinating Mechanism (NCM) as the officially mandated coordinating committee that includes representatives from relevant ministries, the National WASH Coalition, international and national NGOs, development partners, the civil society and the private sector. The EA receives GSF funding as per contract agreement conditions and work plan, it subsequently calls for Sub-Grantee (SG) proposals, and finally disburses grant funds to the selected proposals as awarded by the NCM. The EA holds fiduciary responsibilities at country level and may be called to implement some of the programme activities, at the request of the NCM, by directly procuring and contracting service providers. Alongside programme implementation, the CPM as appointed by the GSF performs routine verification of implementation of the programme and complex or special services as required by the GSF. The relationship between the above-mentioned key stakeholders is depicted in Figure 1 below. WSSCC Steering Committee Governance AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL Host Agency (UNOPS) Legal identity, audit WSSCC Secretariat Global management GSF Advisory Committee Expert advice Country Programme Monitor (CPM) Contractual monitoring Executing Agency (EA) In-country management National Coordinating Mechanism (NCM) Links to Government and National WASH Coalition Sub-Grantees (SG) Implementation WITHIN EACH COUNTRY 2

3 1.1 Purpose of contract The consultancy objectives for the CPM are to monitor the EA's programme implementation, to verify EA's compliance with its contractual TOR, to oversee EA's due diligence on use of funds and the application of systematic regulations and rules of the EA in implementing the funds, and finally, to provide professional and independent recommendations to the GSF. The initial contract duration will be 2 years, extendable up to 5 years upon satisfactory performance of services. It is to be noted that the CPM is not a GSF representative and does not make decisions on grants on behalf of the GSF. The CPM support to the GSF is aimed at providing the basis for assessing programme progress towards achieving the established outputs and ensuring that programme funds are used in accordance with the grant agreement and approved work plan and budget. The CPM will work in close consultation with the GSF to provide core services including but not limited to the following: i. To assess the capacity of the designated EA to receive, manage and disburse funds. ii. To support the GSF in grant or contract negotiation with the EA and/or country officials iii. To review the programme budgets and work plans; iv. To scrutinize the EA s processes for selection of subgrantees and procurement activities, including verification of establishment of a grant management mechanism v. To comment on the development of the monitoring and evaluation plan; vi. To verify the implementation of the programme work plan including reporting EA's progress reports, application of transparent and systematic regulations, financial reports and achievement against results indicators. vii. To undertake specific assignments at the request of the GSF. IMPORTANT: The CPM must approach its role with the understanding that some flexibility might be required as the level of details of certain activities depends on the type of programme components and the profile of the Sub-Grantees. The CPM together with the GSF Programme Officer will determine the depth and expertise required for particular assignment in particular context. The details of the services to be performed by the CPM for GSF programme in Burkina Faso are set out in the following sections of these TOR. 2 Services performed before EA contract or grant signature 2.1 Capacity assessment Before entering into contract with an EA or grant agreement with a governmental entity, the GSF will request the CPM to undertake an assessment of the designated or nominated Executing Agency (EA). This assessment consists of determining whether the EA has legal existence (registered in the country), existing guidelines, procedures, 3

4 regulations and rules ; contracting/procurement capacity, legal, environmental and social safeguards and anti-corruption capacity as well as systems and human resources capacity and expertise to manage funds, implement the grant programme, monitor Sub- Grantees activities and report progress to the NCM and the GSF. The assessment also helps identify administrative, managerial and substantive capacity gaps that might need to be addressed before signature of the grant or during a particular phase of the grant programme life cycle. In this regard, the CPM makes appropriate recommendations for addressing the identified gaps. The CPM is anticipated to undertake a full capacity assessment of the nominated EA 1 on the following areas: i. Assessment of institutional and legal status and overall capacity ii. Assessment of financial and disbursement capacity iii. Assesment of procurement, contracting and grant management capacity iv. Assessment of implementation and contracting capacity v. Assessment of monitoring and reporting capacity vi. Reference check of past experience if required For a selected EA 2, the CPM will be requested to undertake a lighter capacity assessment but still cover all fields listed above. The reason is that the EA has already been subject to a competitive process and its service proposal has been scrutinized and evaluated by the procurement evaluation panel. Capacity assessment activities are expected to start, as soon as possible after UNOPS' selection of the EA, with a desk review of programme documents. It should be completed within 3 weeks. i. Institutional and legal status assessment ii. Financial and implementation capacity assessment iii. Overall Assessment Report summarizing the results and recommendations to the GSF Secretariat. iv. Ongoing communication with the EA and GSF focal points taking part in the capacity assessment D) Process ownership The process is initiated by the GSF Programme Manager. The planning and agenda of the assessment activities are the responsibility of the CPM. However, it is made in close consultation with the GSF. The timing and content of the assessment may be adjusted at the discretion of the GSF. 1 The EA is "NOMINATED" when the management of the grant programme is assigned to an implementing unit by the government. It could be for example a programme management unit within the Ministry of Finance or Ministry of Health under the framework of a SWAP approach. 2 The EA is "SELECTED" when the appointment for grant programme management is the result of an open and competitive procurement process. 4

5 E) Reporting tools and guidelines Overall Assessment Report - see attached Annex 1 - the specific assessment form to be used for each functional area listed in section 2.1. A) will be provided in due time. 2.2 Support to contract negotiation When an entity in a given country is designated or selected to perform the role of EA, the CPM is expected to assist the GSF secretariat for contract negotiation before the contract agreement signature with the EA. This support includes, but is not limited to, assistance to incorporate the capacity assessment findings and the recommendations for corrective measures before the programme start up. It also includes review of the EA's proposed annual budget and work plan, as well as the formulation of any proposed amendments to the contract agreement if required (e.g., any special condition/s to be met by the EA according to an agreed schedule). Support for contract negotiation activities is expected to be performed by the CPM immediately after the submission of the Overall Assessment Report to the GSF. Ongoing support from the date of selecting the successful EA until contract agreement signature D) Process ownership The process is initiated and lead by the GSF. The CPM is responsible for facilitating the process and consolidating the negotiation outcomes. E) Reporting tools and guidelines N/A 2.3 Support to programme initiation phase After the designation of an EA and the signature of the contract agreement, the CPM will be invited to attend an inception workshop that will be organized to brief all stakeholders on the overall programme objectives, to develop a detailed first year work plan and to inform all parties involved in each other's roles and responsibilities. The duration of the workshop for the CPM will be of 1 to 2 days. During this workshop the CPM is expected to attend and contribute on the following: i. Present the CPM team, experience and organization. ii. Brief the audience on the CPM role and how it will operate. iii. Contribute to specific discussion points at the request of the GSF At any time after the successful grant negotiation but within 1 month. 5

6 Attend and contribute as described above with some follow up support during the first quarter of programme implementation. C) Process ownership The process is initiated and is under the responsibility of the GSF. The CPM attends by invitation of the GSF. The follow up actions expected from the CPM are agreed upon with the GSF on a case-by-case basis. D) Reporting, tools and guidelines N/A 3 During programme implementation 3.1 Monitoring of implementation Monitoring programme implementation is the core activity of the CPM. This activity is performed throughout the life cycle of the programme on a regular basis. Monitoring programme implementation is performed mainly through cross checking activities' implementation progress versus work plan schedule. The CPM will be requested to also review procurement, financial and other related administrative procedures and processes including review of EA's contracts and awards procedures, random check of deliverables status, review of sub-grantee's grant agreement or contract agreement, random sites visits, etc. Throughout the life cycle of the programme i. Review of major contracts and attendance when required at envelope openings, as well as review of procurement process and reports to GSF Programme Manager (a minimum of a 1-page monthly summary). ii. Oversee programme progress and key achievements against work plan - random checks of EA's programme books for specific activities at the request of the NCM or the GSF. iii. Ongoing oversight of Call for SG's proposals and review of EA contract and proposed management arrangement to supervise SGs' activities. iv. Semi-annual reports based on reviews of the EA's Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) reports. v. Random site visits at the request of the GSF or indirectly by the NCM. vi. Other services as required by the GSF Programme Manager. C) Process ownership The service provision starts the first day of the grant signature. The initiation and ownership is under the responsibility of the CPM. It is also the CPM's responsibility to proactively anticipate the major milestones of the programme, to seek information from relevant focal points and communicate regularly with the GSF Programme Manager for information sharing, advice and coordination. 6

7 D) Reporting tools and guidelines The ongoing reporting will be made when appropriate, however, the CPM is required to submit a monthly report consolidating and reflecting the major developments in a one page report, plus annexes if necessary. The semi-annual report will be based on a review of the EA's results framework report, which will reflect programme progress and constitute together with the financial report the basis for the EA to request the next disbursement of funds. The CPM review of this report will aim at verifying the accuracy of the information, commenting on the progress made as compared to planned activities and key issues of the implementation and work plan, sharing of findings with all stakeholders through the GSF secretariat and proposing corrective measures if necessary, identification of bottlenecks as well as suggested remedies to address them. The report format will mirror the EA's M&E report and will be provided in due time. 3.2 Monitoring results framework The GSF system for monitoring programme performance in achieving planned objectives is intended to support the decision making for further funding of sub-grantee projects. It also contributes to timely identification and resolution of implementation issues and ensures that funds are spent in a manner consistent with the GSF purpose and principles. Finally, it provides a basis for learning from the experience of GSFfunded work. The results framework for each programme represents a list of agreed indicators to be monitored by the EA on individual grants and projects. Each Sub-Grantee will collect information relating to relevant results framework indicators as part of the grant agreement and agreed objectives and report them to the EA. The EA will then be able to aggregate and consolidate the data, and report every semester to the GSF on achievements against targets/indicators. The CPM is requested to perform a review of this report and comment on progress made towards achieving activity targets and programme objectives in accordance with the agreed work plan and results framework. This activity is performed every semester at reception of the results framework report from the EA. The EA is expected to share this report with the CPM within 15 calendar days after the end of the funded semester and the CPM is expected to review, report and share its recommendation and findings with the GSF within 15 calendar days of receipt of this report from the EA. i. Review EA's result framework report ii. Verify programme files as appropriate and if required iii. Report to the GSF on programme achievements, share findings and recommendations. D) Process ownership The CPM is leading and responsible for initiating the process and delivering the above items in a timely manner. It is the CPM responsibility to request the results framework 7

8 report from the EA at the end of the reporting period if not received on time. The CPM is expected to systematically and proactively plan this activity in its agenda as a priority task. E) Reporting, tools and guidelines CPM result framework report template. The template will mirror EA's result framework report. It will be provided in due time. 3.3 Financial monitoring During the grant period, the EA will submit a request for disbursement on a semi-annual basis (in addition to quarterly financial statements). The tool used to formulate this request is a semi-annual financial report showing the expenditures incurred, effective disbursements, cash balances, interest earned, actual encumbrances and credits. The report will also reflect EA's comments on programmatic aspects over the past six months as well as the anticipated funds needed over the coming semester plus a buffer to cover one quarter in accordance with the annual work plan. The CPM is expected to review the EA quarterly financial statement (1 to 2 pages) and comment on it briefly. The six monthly report requesting the subsequent disbursement is due for a detailed review within 15 calendar days of its receipt from the EA including comment on the accuracy of accounting information, cross checking the findings with those of the results framework, informing the GSF on key issues and checking activities' implementation progress versus work plan schedule. The result of this review is the confirmation of the correctness of the information and the formulation of recommendation for approval of the next disbursement as well as any condition to be met by the EA during the next semester or during the coming year. This activity is performed after the signature of the grant/contract agreement every quarter for quarterly financial statement review' and every semester 'overall financial report and disbursement request'. The EA is expected to share its financial report with the CPM within 15 calendar days after the end of the funded semester and the CPM is expected to review report and share its recommendation and findings with the GSF within 15 calendar days of receipt of this report from the EA. i. Review EA's financial report ii. Verify programme files and books as appropriate and if required including EA's internal and external yearly audit reports. iii. Report to the GSF using the CPM financial report template iv. Share findings and recommendation with the GSF D) Process ownership The CPM is leading and responsible for initiating the process and delivering the above items in a timely manner. It is the CPM's responsibility to request the financial report from the EA at the end of the reporting period if not received on time. The CPM is expected to systematically and proactively plan this activity in its agenda as a priority task. 8

9 E) Reporting, tools and guidelines CPM financial report template. The template will be provided in due time. 3.4 Programme progress review Programme progress review is an activity that puts together EA's financial report and monitoring report information under inspectional reading and analysis. The CPM is expected to review these reports from an admin/managerial and substance point of view to produce a check point and earned value analysis of programme progress throughout the period review as well as a justified stand point on programme trends and implementation forecast. This activity is expected to be performed twice a year together with the financial and result framework monitoring and review. i. CPM progress review ii. Sharing of findings and recommendation with the GSF D) Process ownership The CPM is leading and responsible for initiating this activity and delivering the above items in a timely manner. It s the CPM's responsibility to consolidate all EA's reports at the end of the respective reporting period, produce a succinct analysis in the form of the progress review report template, and provide professional recommendations to the GSF. The CPM is expected to systematically and proactively plan this activity in its agenda as a priority task. E) Reporting tools and guidelines CPM progress review report template. The template will be provided in due time. 3.5 Learning and best practices Learning from the experience of GSF-funded activities is one of the keys objectives of each programme to contributing to achieving a true scaling up of improved sanitation and hygiene. The learning activities are under the responsibility of all programme stakeholders from EA to SGs as well as GSF secretariat and the CPM for each country. GSF approach to learning and knowledge sharing is to go beyond the simple dissemination of information to synthesize and analysis experience from programme implementation to recognizing both what has worked and what has not worked to understanding why as to develop best practices. Programmes funded by the GSF explicitly include plans and resources for learning. They are included in the EA's TOR. The WSSCC Secretariat and the GSF Advisory Committee are responsible for ensuring that lessons learned in individual programmes and in the overall management of the GSF grants are systematically integrated into GSF policies and procedures. In this respect, and during the entire duration of its contractual 9

10 relationship with the GSF, the CPM is expected to identify and record lessons and best practices from programme implementation monitoring and its interaction with key stakeholders. This activity is expected to be performed on an ongoing basis for an equivalent level of effort of 3 days per year. The overall objective is to share best practices with the GSF and indirectly with the EA, SGs and the NCM. The CPM may be requested from time to time to provide feedback to the GSF for processes development. This feedback could be in the form of technical notes or sharing of experience during workshops. Throughout the entire duration of the contract agreement between the GSF and the CPM. At least one technical note per calendar year and/or sharing of experience during workshops. D) Process ownership The CPM is responsible for recording the lessons and best practices and sharing them at the end of each calendar year with the GSF. The attendance at workshops is made by invitation from the GSF. Any travel expenses incurred to attend workshops are reimbursed in accordance with UNOPS rules and procedures. 4 Special services (not to be included in financial offer) The CPM may be requested at key points of grant implementation to perform special services not listed in these TOR. The special services required may relate to data analysis, training, procurement processes analysis, evaluation, system analysis and strengthening. Special services may include post grant services to support the GSF and/or Sub-Grantees and NCM under particular circumstances. The details of the services and fees will be defined and agreed on a case by case basis. 5 During contract closure (not to be included in financial offer) 6 Contract closure The CPM will be required to assist the GSF Programme Officer in planning and effectively managing the contract closure. This support may start 7 to10 months before the initiation of the grant closure. In such case an initial consultation with the NCM, EA and GSF Programme Officer will be made in order to assess programme progress to date, produce a phase-out plan that addresses both programmatic and financial issues. The details of the services and fees will be defined and agreed upon during the budget planning for year 5 of the contract. Reporting tools and guidelines Contract closure guidelines - to be produced by the GSF secretariat. 10

11 7 Country Programme Monitor (CPM) Scope of Services Notes: - The Expected level of Effort (LoE) per year is at an average of 52 working days. This annual figure excludes any capacity assessment, contract termination, grant closure and ad hoc special services. - Travel costs will be reimbursed upon approval by the GSF Programme Officer and according to UNOPS rules and procedures. In some cases, a lump sum payment of travel costs could be envisaged provided it has been approved by the relevant UNOPS approving authority. Service Type Expected level of effort (LOE) Short description of the services Expected deliverables / support Frequency Level of complexity Tools / templates Before contract signature Capacity assessment Support to contract negotiation 6 to 8 days 2 to 3 days To assess: the capacity of the EA to receive funds; implement the programme including directly procured activities and call for SGs proposals; disburse funds and produce reports. Support the GSF secretariat for contract negotiation and any proposed amendment to initial programme work plan or 1- Assessment of institutional and legal status (I & L) 2- Assessment of Financial and Implementation capacity (F & I) 3- Report assessment results and provide recommendations to GSF Secrt. Ongoing support from the date of awarding the contract to the successful EA until Once before the signature of the contract - Could be another one at the request of the GSF for programmes that are poorly implemented Before contract signature complex complex - Ass. report / guidelines 11

12 management arrangement, including special conditions to contract agreement. contract agreement signature Service Type Expected level of effort (LOE) Short description of the services Expected deliverables / support Frequency Level of complexity Tools / templates Support to programme initiation phase 2 to 3 days Support GSF secretariat for inception workshop; briefing and ongoing communication with key stakeholders during the first quarter of the prog. Ongoing support during the first quarter of programme implementation 1 time during first quarter routine - Total 10 to 14 days During Prog. Implementation Monitoring of Implementation (MoI) Part 1 Monitoring of Implementation (MoI) Part 2 Monitoring of Implementation (MoI) Part 3 40 days EA contract / procurement review Deliverables review and random checks (EA) SGs sub-contract agreement review Review of major SG contracts and attendance when required at envelope openings as well as review of procurement process and report to GSF Secrt. Monthly 1-page report. Review prog. progress and key achievements against work plan - random checks at the request of the NCM or GSF Secrt. of EA programme books for specific activities. Monthly 1-page report. Ongoing oversight of Call for SG proposals and review of EA's contract and management arrangement to supervise SGs' activities. Ongoing throughout the year Ongoing throughout the year Ongoing throughout the year complex / routine routine - complex / routine

13 Monthly 1-page report. Service Type Expected level of effort (LOE) Short description of the services Expected deliverables / support Frequency Level of complexity Tools / templates Monitoring of Implementation (MoI) Part 4 M&E report review 4 days Site visits (SG) Review of the EA's M & E report Random site visits at the request of the GSF and/or indirectly by the NCM. Review EA's M & E report. Comment, report and share findings with the GSF Secrt. When required by the GSF Every semester routine - complex CPM report template and guidelines Financial monitoring Programme progress review Learning (programme / GSF policy and process) Total 4 days 2 days 2 days 52 days Review of the EA's Financial report Review of the EA's consolidated reports (EA) Record lessons and best practices for sharing with NCM, EA, SGs and the GSF. Provide feedback to the GSF when required for policy and process refinement. Review financial report; verify in programme files and report findings and recommendation to the GSF Review EA's progress and consolidated reports and report findings and recommendations to the GSF Secrt. Record lessons and best practices on an ongoing basis. Share experience during workshops for example and feedback to key stakeholders when required. Every semester / quarter Every semester / quarter Ongoing and when required by the GSF complex routine routine CPM report template and guidelines CPM report template and guidelines CPM report template and guidelines 13

14 Service Type Expected level of effort (LOE) Short description of the services Expected deliverables / support frequency Level of complexity Tools / templates Special services At the request services During contract closure EA Contract termination/ grant closure Post-grant closure services 5 days 8 to 12 days To be determined if required Could be training, data analysis, or special assignment for ad-hoc activities evaluation. Support the GSF and EA in handling and planning the contract closure Support the GSF when required as to ensure a continuity of services under particular circumstances To be determined on a case-by-case basis Ongoing support to planning and handling programme phase-out during the last semester of the programme To be determined on a case-by-case basis - routine / complex During programme last semester routine - routine - - Grant closure guidelines List of Appendices and Annexes Appendix 1: EA Overall Assessment Report template Appendix 2: GSF result framework 14