Deadline (midnight, Beijing time): 19 August 2024 (midnight, Beijing time)

OVERVIEW OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CONSULTANCY

Terms of Reference

Evaluation of the international Centre for Theoretical Physics Asia-Pacific (ICTP-AP)

The International Centre for Theoretical Physics Asia-Pacific (ICTP-AP) operates in affiliation to the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS), it is under the auspices of UNESCO in cooperation with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the National Science Foundation China (NSFC) and the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP, Trieste).

The establishment of ICTP-AP was approved by the 38th session of the UNESCO General Conference in 2015. An agreement for the establishment of ICTP-AP was signed in May 2017 and its formal operations began in November 2018 following the finalization of all internal administrative steps in China.

As China’s first UNESCO category 2 Centre in the area of basic science, the mission of ICTP-AP is to provide opportunities for advanced education, training and research in basic science on the frontiers of theoretical physics and relevant interdisciplinary areas for scientists from the Asia-Pacific region and other countries. It coordinates advanced studies with advanced developments through scientific research. Research is carried out by the Centre’s permanent staff with the participation of both short- and long-term visitors and in cooperation with national and international institutions. For more information on the Centre, please consult the ICTP-AP website: https://ictp-ap.org/.

The findings of the review and evaluationwill serve as the basis for the Director-General’s recommendation to the Executive Board of UNESCO as to whether the Agreement between UNESCO and the People’s Republic of China concerning ICTP-AP should be renewed or not. The planning, design, management and resources for evaluations will observe the evaluation norms and standards as stated in the UNESCO Evaluation Policy 2022-2029 .

• UNESCO Evaluation Policy 2022-2029:

  https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381664_spa?posInSet=4&queryId=N-6fc229aa-3d27-4b83-a9c9-f5cf801289a4

Evaluation criteria

To meet the purpose of the evaluation described above, the following possible evaluation criteria shall be considered by the independent evaluation expert/s (consultant/organization) (and all other references to a singular consultant) responsible for conducting the evaluation, in line with Section E.2.i.d of the Strategy:

* Coherence: This will be done at double levels:

- Internally, the evaluator will analyse the synergies and interlinkages between the intervention and other interventions carried out by ICTP-AP as well as their consistency with relevant international norms and standards to which ICTP-AP adheres.

- Externally, the evaluator will analyse the consistency of ICTP-AP's interventions with those of other institutions/actors (other centres under the auspices of UNESCO) in the same context. This includes complementarity, harmonisation and co-ordination with others and the extent to which the intervention is adding value while avoiding duplication of effort.

* Efficiency: The extent to which ICTP-AP delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way. This will analyse how well are resources being used within ICTP-AP in the most cost-effective way possible to achieve results.

* Effectiveness: The extent to which ICEE achieved or is expected to achieve its objectives and its results, including any differential results across groups, taking into account their relative importance. This will involve taking into account the relative importance of the objectives or results.

* Impact: This will contribute to understanding the extent to which ICTP-AP has or is expected to have positive or negative, intended or unintended, long-term effects. Under these criteria, the evaluator will address the ultimate significance and potentially transformative effects of the intervention ofICTP-AP, by identifying social, environmental and economic effects of the intervention of ICTP-AP that are longer term or broader in scope than those already captured under the effectiveness criterion. The evaluator here will examine the holistic and enduring changes of ICTP-AP in systems or norms, and potential effects on people’s well-being, human rights, gender equality, and the environment.

* Relevance: This will help to understand the extent to which the ICTP-AP objectives and design respond to beneficiaries, global, country and partner/institution needs, policies and priorities and continue to do so, if circumstances change.

* Sustainability: The extent to which the net benefits of the ICTP-AP as category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO continue or are likely to continue. The evaluator will examine the financial, economic, social, environmental, and institutional capacities of ICTP-AP, needed to sustain net benefits over time.

Therefore, the following points will also be assessed:

i. The extent to which the Centre’s objectives, as set out in the agreement signed with UNESCO, were achieved;

ii. The extent to which the activities and outputs by the centre are in conformity with those set out in the Agreement signed with UNESCO and the People’s Republic of China;

iii. The extent to which the Centre’s outputs are in line with UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives and expected results, including the two global priorities of the Organization (Global Priority Africa and Global Priority Gender Equality), and related sectoral or programme priorities and themes;

iv. What is the contribution of the Centre to sustainable development targets on sciences-technology;

v. The effectiveness of the Centre’s programmes and activities to achieving its stated objectives;

vi. To what extent is the Centre planning and coordinating the implementation of its programmes with UNESCO Headquarters, UNESCO Field Offices, National Commissions and another thematically related category 1 and 2 institutes or centres.;

vii. To what extent the partnerships developed and maintained with government agencies, public or private partners and donors contributed to the results of the Centre;

viii. The efficiency of the Centre’s governance, including organizational arrangements, management, human resources and accountability mechanisms;

ix. The financial and human resources available for ensuring sustainable institutional capacity and viability;

x. The extent to which the Centre enjoys within its territory the autonomy necessary for the execution of its activities and legal capacity to contract, institute legal proceedings, and to acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property;

xi. What has been the contribution of the Centre to sustainable development targets on sciences-technology and to UNESCO’s International Basic Sciences Programme (IBSP) as it supports projects in using modem information communication technology (ICT)?

xii. How effective were the partnerships developed and maintained with government agencies, public or private partners and public and private donors of the centre?

xiii. How effective were the partnerships developed especially on the two global priorities of UNESCO for the cultivation of engineering technicians in African countries and areas and the training of female engineers?

xiv. Did the delivery of projects, outputs and outcomes meet the basic minimum requirements and standards?