This free service is provided by Rick Davies, editor of the MandE NEWS website.
Please use this Forum to publicise M&E related short term consultancies and full time employed positions.
To publicise training events, use the M&E Training page
To publicise M&E conferences, use the M&E Conferences page
To seek or provide other M&E related information please use the M&E NEWS email list
CAVEAT: The listing of opportunities on this page does not imply any form of endorsement by MandE NEWS of the accuracy of the information provided, or the integrity of the providers.
REQUEST: Please do not waste my time by posting irrelevant material, ether about non-M&E jobs or about other unrelated matters.
Terms of Reference
Mid-Term and Final Evaluation: Tackling Wildlife Cybercrime in Europe and Russia
Organization: International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)
Donor: Adessium Foundation
Evaluation Budget: Up to 10,000 EUR
Location: Remote Position
Duration of Contract: October 2018 – June 2019 (9 months not continuous)
Deadline for Proposals: 31st August 2018
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)
Founded in 1969, IFAW has provided almost 50 years of global leadership, innovation and hands-on assistance to animals and communities in need. Our holistic conservation approach includes reducing the demand and exploitation of wildlife at the source; working together with communities and enforcers to shut down poaching networks; pioneering first-ever successes in the rescue, rehabilitation and release of orphan animals back into the wild; providing hands on emergency response in the wake of global disasters; and advocating for solutions, with the support of expert research, that tackle the greatest threats to our planet’s wildlife populations and habitats. With offices in 15 countries and projects in more than 40 countries, we rescue individual animals, safeguard populations, preserve habitat, and advocate for a better future.
The illegal trade of live animals and wildlife products is a global crisis, and the means by which transactions take place has increasingly moved to online marketplaces and social media platforms. IFAW pioneered the approach to tackling wildlife cybercrime, starting in 2004, and has conducted investigations in Europe and globally showing that tens of thousands of wild animals and their products are traded online annually. IFAW works with both law enforcement agencies and online technology companies to build their capacity to tackle this form of criminality. IFAW has been a pioneer in working with online marketplaces to ensure they introduce wildlife friendly policies. IFAW’s work has directly led to 15 online technology companies adopting wildlife policies, and in March 2018, IFAW, WWF and TRAFFIC launched the Global Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online with 21 founding companies, which aims to secure an industry-wide approach to reduce wildlife trafficking online by 80% by 2020.
In 2014, IFAW conducted a global cybercrime investigation resulting in the report: Wanted - Dead or Alive: Exposing Online Wildlife Trade. The investigation uncovered over 30,000 animals or their parts and products for sale across 280 online marketplaces, in 16 countries – all this over only a six week period.
In 2018, IFAW’s report Disrupt: Wildlife Cybercrime – Uncovering the scale of online wildlife trade researched online wildlife trade in France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom over a six week period. The report identified 11,772 protected wildlife specimens offered for sale via 5,381 advertisements and posts on 106 online marketplaces and four social media platforms, worth approximately US $3,942,329. These findings indicate the vast, diverse nature of the threat posed by wildlife cybercrime and highlights the need for a coordinated cross sector response. IFAW is taking the lead in bringing together public and private sectors, ensuring we build a network to defeat a network. As a result of our research, IFAW has referred 190 information logs concerning 327 advertisements and posts to national law enforcement agencies for further investigation.
One of IFAW’s wildlife cybercrime projects focuses on France, Germany, the UK and Russia, where there is clearly a high level of online trade. The project seeks to tackling wildlife cybercrime at the operational level by providing front-line law enforcement with practical tools, current data and best practices to support them to interdict wildlife cybercrime, ensuring that wildlife cybercrime shifts from being a high profit, low risk form of criminality to one that is fraught with the very real threat of prosecution and associated costs. In addition information on trends and, where possible, traders are shared with online technology companies to ensure they have wildlife friendly policies in place and that these are being effectively implemented.
The operational component of the project is supported by a strong advocacy campaign. This focuses on ensuring that Wildlife Cybercrime is effectively addressed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); delivering against the relating to online trade in the EU Wildlife Trafficking Action Plan; ensuring that data relating to online trade in ivory informs the adoption of an ivory ban by the EU Commission and the UK government; by strengthening national legislation, building enforcement capacity, and working collaboratively with on online technology companies to ensure they take a zero tolerance approach to wildlife cybercrime. The project actively engages with enforcement agencies and online technology companies to ensure that their experience and influence motivates and guides policy makers.
Law Enforcement Objectives
Law enforcement agencies in target countries are better equipped to combat wildlife cybercrime, as a result of being provided with:
• Up to date information on trends, and other confidential information, for each target country identifying where there efforts should focus in order to be both efficient and effective.
• INTERPOL cyber-enabled wildlife crime guidelines, as the CITES-designated responsible authority, which provides enforcers with best practice guidance on online wildlife crime.
A Resolution on wildlife cybercrime is tabled at CITES CoP 18 (thus strengthening the CITES Decision on Combatting Wildlife Cybercrime from CoP17).
Domestic ivory bans are in place in the UK, France, and the EU.
Online marketplaces and social media platforms introduce policies banning illegal wildlife trade, where these do not exist, and effectively implement these policies where they do exist.
EU Member States boost enforcement capacity and engage with online technology companies to address the threat of wildlife cybercrime as per action and 6 and 21 of the EU Wildlife Trafficking Action Plan.
The current scale and nature of online wildlife trade in Europe, specifically in France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom, is measured used to inform policy and operational approaches adopted by companies, enforcers, policy makers and politicians.
Cross Sector Objectives
Create a cross sector public/private network to defeat a criminal network, improving coordination, collaboration and communication by delivering a workshop with the following objectives:
1. Identifying the roles played by the different sectors
2. Describing the enforcement sector needs for the pending INTERPOL guidelines for law enforcement on how to combat wildlife trafficking on the internet
3. Identifying best practices within the online technology sector
4. Analyzing legislative changes
5. Identifying opportunities for future collaboration
6. Building trust, fostering collaboration, and enabling effective communication between sectors
Evaluation Purpose, Objectives, and Scope
The primary purpose of the evaluation is to assess the performance and achievements in meeting the expected project results and identify any key learnings for future projects and evidence of possible impact level change. The evaluator will focus on criteria around effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, sustainability, and impact. The key evaluation objectives include:
Assess the extent to which the project performed well and met its stated objectives, which includes considering;
• How well did the project meet its objectives?
• How well did the project design (approach, methodology, etc.) support the intended outcomes?
• Were the project components delivered efficiently and effectively?
• Did the target beneficiaries benefit from the project?
Capture learning from the project (i.e. analyze what worked well and what worked less well and why) to guide in determining the effectiveness of the project and help guide future project development.
Provide recommendations for improvement in project design, implementation and monitoring.
The scope of the evaluation includes a review and assessment of activities carried out under the Adessium Foundation grant agreement. The majority of project activities are already complete with just a couple outstanding deliverables that will be finalized toward the end of the project period. Therefore, the mid-term evaluation will likely be more time-intensive and begin immediately at the start of the contract, while the final evaluation will be smaller addition and overall wrap up of the project. IFAW would like to contract one evaluator to complete both evaluations to ensure consistency and knowledge transfer.
The evaluation should assess the achievements of the project in reaching its targets and objectives as outlined in the agreement. The evaluation should provide recommendations on how to build on and sustain the achievements of the project, as well as document lessons learned, best practices, and challenges in implementation in order to maximize learnings for future projects. IFAW is also interested in assessing and documenting any unanticipated outcomes from the project. The evaluation findings should take into consideration the project duration, existing resources, and political and environmental constraints.
The following questions could be addressed during the grant evaluation, but are subject to discussion and agreement with the IFAW Project Manager during the period of evaluation designing and approach. The evaluator is free to further prioritize these questions in the proposal and suggest others he/she deems necessary.
To what extent have the objectives been achieved or are likely to be achieved? Can these achievements be linked to IFAW’s interventions?
What are the factors that led to successful activity implementation? What are the obstacles to achievement of activity implementation and overall objectives of the project?
What, if any, alternative strategies/approaches would have been more effective?
How effective was the project management and communication between the project team, offices, partners and the donor? What, if any, management or communication strategies could have been more effective?
To what extent have resources, such as funds, staff time and expertise been used efficiently to achieve the project’s objectives? In general, did the results justify the cost? Why or why not?
Was the actual timeline of development and implementation realistic? Were the objectives achieved on time?
To what extent has the relationship between IFAW and the project partners helped or hindered the delivery and impact of the project?
To what extent were effective management and administration systems in place to support the execution of the project? How suitable is the current organizational structure for and conducive of positive progress?
Are the activities and outputs of the project consistent with the project goals and objectives?
How well did the project target beneficiaries and meet their needs?
What are the most significant changes in the project context that affected implementation and outcomes? Did the project successfully adapt to changes in the operating context?
What, if any, changes are needed to make the project more appropriate and relevant?
Did the project have adequate and relevant strategies to ensure sustainability?
What were the major challenges and opportunities in achieving sustainability?
To what extent are the benefits of the program likely to continue once donor funding has ceased?
To what extent are the project strategies scalable or replicable, and in what contexts?
What have been the key outcomes/ impact (positive as well as negative) achieved so far either directly or indirectly, and how does this compare with what was expected?
What, if any, longer-term impact is the project likely to have?
How did the grant add value to the outcomes/ impact achieved?
Who were the direct and indirect beneficiaries of the program? What real difference have the activities made so far to the beneficiaries?
Which other factors contributed to the changes that were generated, and to what extent can the changes be attributed to the project activities (plausibility)?
Evaluation methods should be rigorous yet proportionate and appropriate to the context of the project. The evaluator is responsible for the overall methodological approach and design of the evaluation and is expected to propose methodologies that s/he considers most appropriate to achieve the objectives of the evaluation. The evaluator will refine the scope and methodology of the evaluation during the inception phase in cooperation with the project manager and provide a detailed evaluation plan. The plan should outline data collection methods and timing; types of data to be collected; and management structures whereby evidence collected will be quality assured and protect beneficiaries or interviewees. Any limitations to obtainment and verification of project data as well as to the methods and analysis should be stated clearly and notified ahead of time.
A participatory, mixed-methods approach is recommended that engages relevant IFAW staff, implementing partners and beneficiaries through structured methods. Both quantitative and qualitative data should be utilized to assess the grant, and the evaluator should make use of data already available from IFAW and complement this with data collection methods that will allow for triangulation and validation. Data collection methods may include among others, interviews with internal and external stakeholders, survey questionnaires, and desk review of relevant documents. There is no travel budgeted for this evaluation.
Deliverables and Timeframe
The evaluator is expected to deliver:
Deliverable Description Due Date
Inception Report Workplan and methodology for both mid-term and final evaluations including data collection and analysis methods and timeframe for all actions 2 weeks after start of contract
Draft Mid-Term Evaluation Report Draft evaluation report for review and comments by IFAW including annexes covering conducted interviews, questionnaires and list of reviewed documents 8 weeks after start of contract
Mid-Term Evaluation Report Completed mid-term evaluation report including clear lessons-learned and recommendations for activities completed as well as recommendations for the remaining project activities 16 weeks after start of contract
Draft Final Evaluation Report Draft evaluation report for review and comments by IFAW including annexes covering conducted interviews, questionnaires and list of reviewed documents 4 weeks after completion of project activities
Final Evaluation Report Completed final evaluation report including clear lessons-learned and recommendations for the entire project 6 weeks after completion of project activities
All evaluation deliverables are to be submitted in English, in electronic format (in Word and Excel), and in accordance with the deadlines agreed. The evaluator is responsible for editing and quality control of language. IFAW retains the sole rights with respect to all distribution, dissemination and publication of the deliverables.
Table of Contents
a. Synopsis of key information from report
a. Purpose and context for the evaluation
b. Intended audience and use
c. Logic and assumptions of the evaluation
a. Detailed evaluation plan
b. Strengths and weaknesses of selected design and research methods
c. Summary of problems and issues encountered
a. Overall results in response to each of the Evaluation Questions
b. Assessment of accuracy of reported results
Conclusions and Lessons Learned
a. Suggestions for specific actions that are based on the evaluation results
a. Data collection tools
b. List of reviewed documents
c. List of people consulted
d. Supplementary data or findings
Roles and Responsibilities
The Evaluator is responsible for conducting the evaluation according to the terms of reference
(ToR). S/he will:
Review the ToR and provide input, as necessary
Review project background documents
Review and refine the evaluation questions with the participation of IFAW project manager
Prepare an Inception Report for IFAW for review and feedback prior to finalization
Lead an Evaluation Planning Meeting (remotely) with IFAW project manager and relevant staff
Design appropriate data collection tools in line with the agreed methodology
Upload, store and share all data collected during the evaluation with IFAW electronically
Prepare the Mid-Term and Final Reports for IFAW within the agreed timeframe
Review the TOR and providing input, as necessary
Provide project background materials to evaluator
Review the evaluation questions and working with the evaluator to refine the questions
Provide feedback on the evaluator’s Inception Report
Participate in the Evaluation Planning Meeting (remotely)
Provide feedback on tools and methodology
Prepare a list of recommended interviewees based on the agreed upon sampling criteria
Provide feedback on draft reports and approving the Mid-Term and Final Reports in line with quality standards
The maximum total budget available for the evaluation is 10,000 EUR. This should include all evaluator time, any costs associated with data collection, communications, taxes and fees, feedback to IFAW, and any other costs associated with delivering the evaluation reports. A summary budget including main cost categories must be presented as part of the application, and applications will be assessed on whether the proposed costs are adequately justified.
IFAW will pay all fees directly to the consultant. The payments will be made as follows:
1. 20% upon signature of the consultancy agreement
2. 50% upon satisfactory completion of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report and submission of invoice
3. 30% upon satisfactory completion of the Final Evaluation Report and submission of invoice
IFAW reserves the right to withhold payment if the reports do not meet the requirements of the terms of reference, and until an invoice is submitted. Any invoice submitted later than 30 days after completion of the assignment will be disregarded.
The Independent Evaluator should be a qualified and experienced consultant or consulting firm.
A minimum of five years’ experience in program/project evaluation in an international context
Ability to design, plan and execute the evaluation approaches and research methodologies, including quantitative and qualitative research methods
Ability to remotely manage a complex evaluation and research process, across multiple countries, and with stakeholder participation
Excellent communication and interpersonal skills, and ability to engage with a range of external stakeholders including project beneficiaries, government officials, corporations and NGOs
Ability to understand sampling, data cleaning, and statistical analysis conducted using SPSS or STATA, and demonstrate experience using these tools in past work
Excellent analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions and prepare well-written reports in English
Ability to work to strict/tight deadlines
Relevant subject matter knowledge and experience in wildlife crime issues, particularly wildlife cybercrime
Experience in evaluation of European foundation grant funded projects
Qualified candidates should submit the following documents:
A cover letter outlining motivation and evidence that the evaluator is qualified to undertake the evaluation
Curriculum Vitae with full description of the applicant’s profile and experience
A technical proposal including the proposed plan with data collection methods based on the information provided in the Terms of Reference including timeline (maximum 2 pages)
Detailed budget with breakdown of daily rate plus number of days and other costs. The budget should not exceed 10,000 EUR (inclusive of VAT).
Contact details for at least two independent references with in-depth knowledge of the applicant’s expertise and relevant work experience.
Applications should be submitted by Friday, August 31st to: CybercrimeEval@ifaw.org
Please note that only shortlisted applicants will be contacted. IFAW retains the right to reject any or all of the applications and/or to enter into additional negotiations with one or more of the tendering parties.
Organisation International Fund for Animal Welfare