Final External Evaluation

1. Introduction The present ToR specify the details for the Final External Evaluation of the above mentioned project funded by the the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation AECID and implemented by the organisation Movement for Peace (hereinafter MPDL) and its partners Lebanese Union for People with Disabilities (hereinafter LUPD), and the Lebanese Organization of Studies and Training (hereinafter LOST) in the Beqaa Valley (municipalities of Barelias and Baalbek). The final external evaluation will analyse the level of achievement of the initially planned development results and will evaluate a series of criteria related to the execution of the activities. As a result of this evaluation, the evaluation team is expected to obtain recommendations in order to improving the capacities of the MPDL and its partners in Lebanon for better coordination and joint work, as well as the identification, implementation and justification of similar interventions. For the MPDL, there are three main objectives in conducting this end-of-project evaluation: - - - Evaluate the impact and achievement of project results. Identification of good practices and lessons learned in the different areas of the intervention, as well as recommendations in order to assess the strategy of MPDL and partners in the improvement of the protection and resilience systems of the displaced Syrians and Palestinians in Lebanon and host communities, and enhance the quality of future projects Accountability to the donor, to all the agents that participate in the development process, both in Lebanon and in Spain, including rights’ holders and to the society as a whole. Page 1 of 18 2. Background Information Brief description of MPDL, LUPD and LOST: Since the beginning of its activity in Lebanon in 1999, MPDL has actively worked with grassroots organizations to provide support to the Syrian refugee population, particularly women who suffered some forms of violence and minors at risk of social exclusion. In 2006, MPDL started its work with Syrian and Palestinian population with disabilities, extending its intervention until today, in partnership with the Lebanese Union for People with Physical Disabilities (LUPD) and the Lebanese Organization of Studies and Training (LOST), a local NGO specializing in the fields of disability and the promotion of women’s rights. LUPD was founded in 1981 and is a non-profit non-governmental and non-sectarian organization working for and with people with both psychological and physical disabilities. The organization, which promotes the involvement of people from different religious groups and with various forms of physical disabilities, has 8 branches spread throughout Lebanon. Since its first activities on Beirut’s sidewalks up until now, the organization has been active in promoting the participation of people with disabilities (PwDs) in the governments’ decision making process. This resulted in significant changes in the government´s approach to disability. Their experience has led to a dialogue that switched from charity to rights and from exclusion to inclusion. Established in 1998, The Lebanese Organization for Studies and Training (LOST), has a clear and commendable mission. It focuses on creating a developed and equitable society through reducing poverty, eliminating exclusion and fostering a culture of peace. LOST targets the ultra-conservative and underdeveloped communities of the Republic of Lebanon with multi layered projects that adopts social and economic aspects. Being considered as vulnerable or marginalized groups in many societies, LOST focuses on youth and women through educating them on civic and intellectual matters. It provides them with the tools and knowledge they need to participate in and contribute to the development of themselves and their communities. LOST works on strengthening communal capacities and empowering them to take an active role in their development and self-governance. These communities will be able to identify their needs, set priorities, and collaborate on solutions. It Is promoting a more inclusive, self-sustaining, and a democratic society in Lebanon while emphasizing on rule of Law, Justice, liberty and economic wellbeing. Brief description of the project: The project seeks to mitigate the effects of Lebanon’s ongoing humanitarian crisis on the most vulnerable groups, especially persons with disabilities (PWDs) from refugee and host communities in the Bekaa Valley. Its objectives include boosting resilience, expanding access to vital services, and safeguarding women and girls with disabilities who are victims or survivors of gender-based violence (GBV). Adopting a comprehensive strategy, the initiative offers cash assistance, vocational and life skills training, psychosocial support, and community-driven peacebuilding activities. Additionally, it aims to enhance the capacity of local service providers Page 2 of 18 Page 3 of 18 to handle GBV cases effectively and promotes social cohesion through inclusive participation and advocacy efforts. Summary of the action: Total duration of the actions 24 months, from February 01st, 2024, to January 30st, 2026. Objetives of the actions General Objective: Reduced impact of the crisis on the most vulnerable refugee and Lebanese population Specific Objective: Improved resilience and protection of refugee and Lebanese PwDs, especially survivors of GBV. Partner(s) MPDL (applicant) , LOST & LUPD (co-applicant). Target group(s) The project primarily targets 2,000 persons with disabilities (PWDs)at least 60% of whom are women from both Syrian refugee and Lebanese host communities in the Beqaa Valley. Special emphasis is placed on women and girls with disabilities who are at risk of, or survivors of, gender-based violence (GBV). Key target group segments include: 450 highly vulnerable PWDs (at least 60% women) receiving unconditional cash assistance over 12 months to support basic needs. 340 individuals (PWDs or family members, 50% women) participating in competency based and life skills training to improve employability and resilience. 180 PWDs (50% women), trained through the above activities, engaging in cash-for-work programs. 100 women and girls with disabilities benefiting from individualized psychosocial support to enhance emotional well-being and resilience. 240 participants (at least 60% women) receiving training on advocacy, peacebuilding, and proposal development. 255 individuals (50% women) trained to promote a culture of peace within their communities. At least 3 grassroots organizations trained and supported to implement GBV prevention, detection, and response measures. In addition to the direct beneficiaries, the project also engages family members, caregivers, service providers, and local civil society actors to support inclusive protection and community-based peacebuilding approaches. Final beneficiaries People with disabilities with a specific focus on women and girls with disabilities. Page 4 of 18 Estimated results R1 – Improved capacity of PwD, prioritizing women at risk, to satisfy basic needs. R2 – Women and girls with disabilities better protected from GBV. R3 – Culture of peace promoted from the perspective and needs of refugee and Lebanese DPs. R3 – Emergency responses Main activities R1: This outcome aims to improve the capacities of DPs to meet their basic needs. Through the project, vulnerable DPs, with special emphasis on DPs at risk (VdG), will receive training on employment and interpersonal skills to increase their resilience and be able to cope with the difficulties of the current socio-economic crisis. In addition, it will seek to respond to the highest priority basic needs through cash assistance. R2: The aim is to identify cases of GBV among WGwD and provide them with comprehensive support through direct psychosocial care or referral, and subsequent accompaniment, to other entities that provide specialised services, as well as support for their emotional recovery. Also, to strengthen the capacities of entities providing services for the detection and care of cases of GBV in WGwD. Finally, to raise public awareness in order to generate the necessary change in attitudes towards GBV in this regard. R3: It aims to create conflict mitigation mechanisms and their impact on DPs through a holistic approach. The project works with Leb. Syr, PRS & PRL, to reduce social tension through the sense of belonging of the most vulnerable refugees and host communities, from a disability perspective. By enabling and empowering DPs, they will be the main agents of change and peacebuilding. R3 – Emergency responses Due to the war that broke out in September 2024, part of the project funds (unconditional cash assistance activity) were diverted to a rapid intervention to save lives during the war by distributing food, hygiene materials, women's hygiene supplies, diapers, hot meals, blankets and covers to displaced families. Total Budget 887954 EUR in total (799068.54 EUR are AECID funds) 3. Objectives, scope and limitations of the evaluation 3.1. Objectives To make a systematic and objective assessment of the above mentioned project, its design, implementation and results, with the aim to determine the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, developmental efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability. The evaluation should provide information that is credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned and recommendations into the decision-making process of MPDL, its partner organizations, LUPD, LOST and the donor, AECID. Principles underpinning the approach to the evaluation are:  Impartiality and independence of the evaluation process from the programming and implementation functions;  Credibility of the evaluation, through use of appropriately skilled and independent experts and the transparency of the evaluation process, including results dissemination;  Participation of rights’ holders and other stakeholders in the evaluation process, to ensure different perspectives and views are taken into account. 3.2. Scope The evaluation will focus on the period of implementation of the project (February 01st, 2024, to January 30st, 2026) and it is geographical location: the towns of Barelias and Baalbek, in the Bekaa Valley, Lebanon. The evaluation report should discuss and provide conclusions and recommendations on the following questions: - - - - - - Effectiveness: To what extent do the activities achieve the results and objectives established in the project (and specified in the logical framework matrix)? Relevance: Do the project and its actions respond to the needs of the target groups? Is it designed to achieve its goals in a relevant and meaningful way? Efficiency: Has the project been managed efficiently? Sustainability: To what extent can the results achieved be sustained over time after 24 months of implementation? Internal consistency: Are the indicators and sources of verification adequate to measure and verify the impacts? Incorporation of the gender perspective: To what extent has the project managed to incorporate the gender dimension? - Impact: Were there any unwanted effects (both positive and negative)? - Synergies: To what extent have synergies been generated between the actions of the project and the actions of other projects or local or international agents? Page 5 of 18 - - What needs not covered by the project could be identified by the evaluation team and which of those needs are relevant elements that should be taken into account in future interventions? Identification of lessons learned and recommendations. The evaluation must integrate the Strategic Gender Approach Based on Human Rights included in the ‘AECID Gender approach’ both in the analysis and in the process of evaluating the action. Mainstreaming the Strategic Gender Approach Based on Human Rights in the evaluation of the action involves analysing whether the project promotes/protects Human Rights and gender equality. To that end, the evaluation team will:  Focus on the design, processes, results and impacts of the project in order to provide evidence of its effects on gender relations/inequalities and in the exercise of Human Rights.  Understand the evaluation as a process that fosters the participation of the rights, obligations and responsibilities holders contributing to the accountability and capacity building to promote empowerment and transformation in the interest of gender equality and the exercise of Human Rights. The evaluation must mainstream the Strategic Gender Approach Based on Human Rights so that:  It assesses the results and impact of the project on gender relations and Human Rights. The evaluation should mainstream the Strategic Gender Approach Based on Human Rights through the criteria, evaluation questions and indicators in each of the questions envisaged, in order to ensure the collection of evidence of the action´s effects on gender relations and Human Rights, especially on women's rights.  The active participation of the rights holders (in particular women) must be taken into account as a key element to strengthen their abilities and promoting their empowerment. A clear, transparent and participatory evaluation methodology must be developed to promote accountability towards the action´s main beneficiaries and to ensure their active participation in the evaluation process. 3.3. Limitations The proposed framework of the evaluation can be subject to change based on the agreement between the Evaluation Management Unit (lead by MPDL) and the evaluation team. All changes must be validated by the Evaluation Management Unit. Both parties will assess any possible limitations affecting the development of the evaluation and will proceed accordingly in order to minimize its impact. Security concerns regarding the evaluation team, the Evaluation Management Unit and other actors participating in the evaluation process (i.e. beneficiaries) will be carefully assessed in order to ensure the safety of all parties involved. The field work agenda can be modified in order to comply with safety and security regulations and MPDL´s Security Plan according to the situation. Page 6 of 18 Page 7 of 18 4. Evaluation criteria, key questions and indicators 4.1 Criteria, key questions and indicators of the evaluation The evaluation should focus on the three dimension of the project:  Design,  Implementation  Results And will be based on the following criteria: Relevance The appropriateness of project objectives to the problems that it was supposed to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which it operated. It should include an assessment of the quality of the project design – i.e. its internal logic and coherence. Efficiency The relationship between the resources used by the intervention and the changes generated by the intervention (which may be positive or negative). Differences in the way an intervention is approached and conducted can have a significant influence on the effects, making it interesting to consider whether other choices achieved the same benefits at less cost (or greater benefits at the same cost). It is important to note that efficiency analysis should always look closely at both the costs and benefits of the intervention as they accrue to different stakeholders. Effectiveness How successful the action has been in achieving or progressing towards its objectives. The evaluation should form an opinion on the progress made to date and the role of the action in delivering the observed changes. If the objectives have not been achieved, or things are not on track, an assessment should be made of the extent to which progress has fallen short of the target and what factors have influenced why something hasn't been successful or why it has not yet been achieved. To this end, effectiveness analysis should seek to identify the factors driving or hindering progress and how they are linked (or not) to the Project. Impact The positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Sustainability Measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn. Sustainability analysis should look at factors of ownership by beneficiaries, policy support, economic and financial factors, socio-cultural aspects, gender equality, appropriate technology, environmental aspects, and institutional and management capacity. Participation the capacity of the project to involve significantly, actively and responsibly the target groups of the project (holders of rights, responsibilities and obligations) in the different stages of the project, from the planning to the evaluation, and in the different decision making spaces of the action The following table provides possible evaluation questions to serve as a guide to analyse the criteria. Page 8 of 18 1) Relevance - Was the project designed according to the needs, demands and priorities of rights to promote equity, gender equality and Human Rights according the international standards and treaties and local Human Rights and gender equality legal frameworks? 2) Participation - To what extent have the planned activities been accessible and promoted the active participation of women and the most disadvantaged groups? - Has the participation women and girls participation been equal? If not, what are the reasons? 3) Effectiveness - To what extent have the Human Rights/Gender equality objectives and results of the project been achieved? Do indicators and verification sources allow this assessment? - To what extent the resources, services and benefits provided by the project have been equally distributed between men and women? What are the reasons for an unequal distribution? 4) Efficiency - Are the expected costs clearly reasonable? -Could the same results have been achieved at a lower cost? Could the project have been expanded with the same resources? - Has the intervention been granted enough resources (financial, human and time resources) in order to mainstream the Strategic Gender Approach Based on Human Rights into the different phases of the project? -To what extent have the financial, human and time resources allocated to reducing gender inequalities been enough? 5) Impact - Does the project design allow us to assess the impact of the action? - What were the expected and unexpected, positive and/or negative impacts of the project in the beneficiaries? - To what extent has the project contributed to reduce unequal relationships/ eliminated barriers and conditions in relation to the violation of Human Rights and/or gender equality? 6) Sustainability - To what extent has the project contributed to increase the capacities and empower the rights holders? -To what extent have the obligations holders assumed their role in relation to the rights holders? - Have the results, effects and processes that have the potential to continue contributing to gender equality and/or the exercise of Human Rights been identified? For each assessment criteria, both in terms of processes and results, the evaluation team will be requested to define indicators. 4.2. Methodology and tools for the evaluation a) Evaluation Phases Evaluation phases will include: 1. Planning: This phase will involve developing the evaluation plan according to the ToR and initial discussions with the Evaluation Management Unit to establish the evaluation´s overall approach and refine the methodology. 2. Desk study: This phase will consist of a desk study involving a comprehensive analysis of the project's relevant documents (design, base line studies, monitoring reports, publications, training programs, sources of verification, etc.). OUTPUT: An Inception Report setting out the conceptual framework to be used in the evaluation. The Inception Report will include the following sections: - - - - - - - - Introduction Evaluation approach Evaluation methodology, including information on data collection techniques and data sources, sampling and key indicators Evaluation criteria and key evaluation questions Limitations and challenges Work Plan including composition of the evaluation team, schedules including planned itineraries and visits, planned list of interviews, FGD and meetings to be conducted, etc. Evaluation deliverables Proposed timeline 3. Field work: This phase includes the field work and compilation of data in Lebanon (field visits to project sites; interviews with project staff, beneficiaries and relevant stakeholders), and the analysis of the data collected. 4. Draft of Final Evaluation Report: The evaluation team will produce a Draft Evaluation Report with the preliminary results and conclusions of the evaluation, including results, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations, as well as an executive summary. This draft version of the report will be submitted to the Evaluation Management Unit for their review and comments. Subsequently, the evaluation team will reflect on the feedback provided and will draft the Final Evaluation Report, which will again be reviewed by the Evaluation Management Unit for validation. OUTPUT: Draft Evaluation Report 5. Debriefing and dissemination: This phase will include (1) a debriefing meeting with MPDL, LOST and LUPD to discuss the main finding of the evaluation and (2) a dissemination workshop with the beneficiaries. OUTPUT: Final Evaluation Report, 1 debriefing meeting and 1 dissemination workshop. Page 9 of 18 b) Methodology and tools for the evaluation The consultancy should be carried on the basis of a desk study and a field visit. The desk study should cover the following documents: - - - - Project contractual documents and further amendments; Documents produced throughout the project; Evidence of impact collected by the project, including mid-term reports; Other relevant documentation. Furthermore, the evaluation should be built on interviews with: - - - Beneficiaries as well as partner’s staff (LUPD, LOST) and participants; MPDL Head of Mission in Lebanon, MPDL projects Coordinator for Lebanon; and other MPDL personnel. Other relevant stakeholders (to be defined). The methodology and tools used by the evaluation team for data gathering may include the following:  Primary sources: Participant observations, focus group discussions, structured and semi structured interviews, in-depth interviews with key actors, participatory evaluation workshops, surveys, etc.  Secondary sources: Review of key reports, visits to the project premises, review of project drafts, review of monthly and final reports, etc. The methodology must ensure the privacy and confidentiality of informants in all the data collection process. Likewise, the socio-cultural and institutional contexts must be respected while being able to demonstrate the accuracy of the information. Taking into account the specificities of the context in which the evaluation will take place, it is important that the evaluation team makes a forecast of the risks involved in the implementation of the evaluation in order to guarantee the safety of all actors involved in the process. c) Participatory approach The evaluation should adopt an evaluation methodology coherent with the participatory approach of the project. The evaluation team is expected to conduct a participatory evaluation providing for meaningful involvement by the project partner, its beneficiaries and other interested parties. Stakeholder participation is to be an integral component of the evaluation design and planning, data gathering, drafting of findings, evaluation reporting and results dissemination. The evaluation should therefore focus not only on quantifiable results but also analyse processes and dynamics generated by the project, their scope (in terms of people and other actors involved) and their sustainability. This implies moving away from a mere technical approach in order to understand the Page 10 of 18 context in which initiatives with refugees and PwDs happen in Lebanon, and to assess the support brought to them by this project. Therefore, the evaluation team is expected to engage with stakeholders not only to collect information and insights, but also to make a (collective) sense of them in order to understand the following: - Their engagement in the process, how it has been promoted and how it fits with their own work/aims. - The difficulties they have endured to engage in the project (internal and external). - Their perspectives on the main issues. The capacity, awareness, relationships and resources developed during their engagement with the project and what they have been able to do with that. 4.4. Organisation of the evaluation a) Main stakeholders involved - - - Evaluation Management Unit: composed of MPDL Head of Mission in Lebanon, MPDL Country Coordinator for Lebanon, LOST and LUPD Project Coordinator and others. The Evaluation Management Unit will be responsible for selecting the evaluation team (based on the review and evaluation of the proposals received). In addition, the Evaluation Management Unit will verify that the evaluation is being carried out according to the ToR and the Methodological Proposal presented by the evaluation team and validated. The Evaluation Management Team will be the main interlocutor with the evaluation team for the monitoring of the evaluation process and will propose changes if deemed necessary. The Evaluation Management Unit will also be responsible for facilitating contacts, access to the project beneficiaries and other stakeholders involved, and supporting the evaluation team in the organization of the field visits. Subjects of the evaluation:  Rights holders: People with disabilities, Family with People with Disabilities, Women and Girls.  Responsibilities holders: Members of the local communities.  Duty holders: Local and national public institutions that have participated in some activities and/or have had a relationship with the project.  LOST, LUPD and MPDL staff implementing the project, as well as external technical services. Evaluation Team: The Evaluator/s are expected to lead the evaluation process according the contents of this ToR and the validated Inception Report, and to submit a Final Evaluation report that fulfils the requirements established in this ToR and the service contract signed with MPDL. Page 11 of 18 b) Evaluation use and potential users The current evaluation will be used:  As an aid in decision-making (feedback): to design the next intervention cycle and to redefine strategic orientations.  As an aid in making judgements about the merits and shortcomings of the project in order to ensure accountability.  To promote knowledge and understanding: to learn from the intervention, to better understand what works and what does not, and to accumulate knowledge that will inform future project proposals providing useful insights and recommendations for better design, planning and management of other actions. The Final Evaluation report is intended not only for the implementing entities, MPDL, LOST and LUPD, but also for the rights holders and the responsibilities and obligations holders who have been involved in the project, since they are also an integral part of the potential public of the Final Evaluation Report. Potential users of the evaluation are: - - - - - MPDL, LOST and LUPD as implementing entities. Project direct beneficiaries The funding institution (AECID). National, regional and local policy-makers may use the evaluation to prepare the launching of new interventions, the reform of existing interventions, the choice of strategic orientations, and decisions on allocation of budgetary, human and other resources, etc. Other civil society actors, especially those representing the interests of the beneficiary groups. c) Evaluation Team required profile The Evaluation Team is expected to: - Be composed of a team leader (who will take on coordination functions and will be the focal point of the evaluation vis-a-vis the Evaluation Management Unit and the donor) with documented extensive experience on similar evaluations of civil society projects in the fields of disabilities, refugee populations, human rights (including women´s rights) and SGBV. Page 12 of 18 - Have extensive experience in conducting external evaluations in the context of cooperation for development and a proven record delivering professional results (at least 3 years). - Have a sound knowledge of social research methodologies and data collection tools - Have proven experience in gender focused evaluations. - Be able to communicate effectively in spoken Arabic (minimum: B2 level). - Have excellent writing skills in English. - Have previous proven working experience in Lebanon and updated knowledge of the context. - Have process management skills, such as facilitation skills. - Guarantee that they have not been involved on the design or implementation of the project to be evaluated. - Have a VAT or a financial number in Lebanon. 5. Deliverables All deliverables are to be submitted to the projects coordinator and Admin. Deliverables include: DELIVERABLES DESCRIPTION Inception report It will include the following contents: - - - Introduction: Short description of the background, purpose and scope of the evaluation according to the ToR. Evaluation approach: Description of the evaluation approach, highlighting the evaluation focus and key considerations. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION Mid of week 3. Evaluation methodology: Description of evaluation methodology; evaluation matrix with key indicators; description of data collection methods and key data sources. - - - Evaluation criteria and key evaluation questions. Limitations and challenges: Discussion of difficulties and challenges of the evaluation. Work Plan: Composition of the evaluation team, schedules including planned itineraries and visits, planned list of interviews, FGD and meetings to be conducted, etc. Page 13 of 18 Page 14 of 18 - Evaluation deliverables. - Proposed timeline. It will be sent to the Evaluation Management Unit for validation after the desk review. Draft Evaluation Report It will include the preliminary results and conclusions and will be submitted to and reviewed by the Evaluation Management Unit. The Evaluation Management Unit will provide feedback to the evaluation team accordingly. The Draft Evaluation report should include the following contents: 1. Introduction. 1.1 Background and objective of the evaluation. 1.2 Methodology and techniques used in the evaluation. (including gender analysis tools). 1.3 Challenges and limitations. 1.4 Evaluation team presentation. 2. Project description. 3. Analysis of findings according to the evaluation criteria. 4. Conclusions. 5. Lessons learned. 6. Recommendations. 7. Communication and dissemination plan of the evaluation results. End of week 6. Final Evaluation Report The Final Evaluation Report should include the following sections and contents: 0. Executive Summary 1. Introduction. 1.1 Background and objective of the evaluation. 1.2 Methodology and techniques used in the evaluation (including gender analysis tools). 1.3 Challenges and limitations. 1.4 Evaluation team presentation. 2. Project description. 3. Analysis of findings according to the evaluation criteria. 4. Conclusions. 5. Lessons learned. End of week 8. Page 15 of 18 6. Recommendations. 7. Communication and dissemination plan of the evaluation results. 8. Annexes: - ToR Evaluation - Evaluation proposal - Inception report - Logical framework of the project - Map of the project area - List of key informants - Photographs - Bibliography - Other technical annexes A first version of the report will be submitted to the Evaluation Management Unit for their review and comments. Subsequently, the evaluation team will reflect on the feedback provided and will elaborate the final version of the report, which will again be reviewed by the Evaluation Management Unit. The Evaluation Management Unit will finally validate the final report. The Evaluation team will be required to include in the cover of each deliverable the following sentence: "The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the AECID”. 6. Dissemination of results One debriefing meeting will take place with the participation of MPDL, LOST and LUPD and the Evaluation team to discuss the main findings and recommendations of the report. The dissemination meeting with rights’ holders (as well as responsibilities and duty bearers) will focus on lessons learned and recommendations in order to improve future projects and inform relevant policies. 7. Evaluation indicative timeline The evaluation will last a maximum of 8 weeks and it is expected to be carried out in the end of January 2026 (once we have the corresponding approval from AECID). The starting date of the evaluation will be discussed and agreed with the evaluation team selected. The evaluation team will clearly specify a tentative timeline for the evaluation according to the timeframe set out in section 5 of the current ToR for the submission of the expected deliverables. This timeline may vary during the implementation of the evaluation upon agreement between the Evaluation Management Unit and the evaluation team. 8. Budget The budget for conducting this evaluation should be included all costs and taxes. MPDL, LOST and LUDP will facilitate logistical technical support to the evaluation team during the implementation of the fieldwork phase and for the dissemination meetings, but these expenses should be included in the proposed budget. 9. Principles, authorship and publication of the evaluation The evaluation work must be governed by the following ethical clauses, which must be respected by all members of the evaluation team or by the person conducting the evaluation. Anonymity and confidentiality: The evaluation must respect the right of individuals to provide information, while guaranteeing their anonymity and confidentiality. Responsibility: The evaluation team must act responsibly and assume the consequences of the evaluation results. Any disagreements or differences of opinion that may arise among the members of the evaluation team, or between them and the program, regarding the conclusions and/or recommendations should be noted in the report. Integrity: The evaluation team must be thorough throughout the evaluation process and disclose all information that emerges from the evaluation study. The evaluation team will also be responsible for highlighting issues not specifically mentioned in these terms of reference, if necessary to obtain a more complete analysis of the intervention. Respect: The evaluation team must understand and respect the local context and the socio-cultural and institutional reality of the study area. Independence: The evaluation team must guarantee its independence from the project being evaluated and ensure that it has not been linked in any way to its management. Information Accuracy: The evaluation team must be objective and rigorous, avoiding bias and checking the certainty of predetermined assumptions. It is the responsibility of the evaluation team to ensure the veracity of the information gathered for the preparation of the reports and, ultimately, it will be responsible for the information presented in the evaluation report. Page 16 of 18 In the event that problems arise during the execution of the field work or in any other phase, these must be reported immediately to the MPDL and, if it deems it necessary, it will inform the AECID. Otherwise, the existence of such problems cannot be used in any way to justify failure to achieve the results set out by the organization in these ToR. Copyright and dissemination: All rights to the evaluation belong to MPDL. The disclosure of the information collected and the final report is the prerogative of the MPDL. However, the AECID reserves the right to reproduce, distribute or publicly communicate the evaluation report without the prior consent of the MPDL to ensure compliance with the administrative procedures established by Spanish law. The AECID will request the agreement of the MPDL for the reproduction, distribution or communication of the evaluation when other reasons so require. The final evaluation report is addressed not only to the executing bodies, but to all the agents that participate in the design and execution of the program. In particular, the target group (holders of rights, obligations and responsibilities) is a key group when it comes to disseminating the main conclusions, lessons and recommendations of the evaluation team. Thus, it is expected that once the final evaluation report is completed, the main conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation process will be presented and explained to the MPDL representatives, as well as to holders of rights, obligations and responsibilities that have participated throughout the process. length of the intervention. For its part, the MPDL will disseminate the final evaluation document to other actors (institutions from different spheres of competence, civil society actors, etc.) and to the population in general. Sanctions regime: In the event of late submission of the reports or in the event that the quality of the evaluation products is manifestly inferior to what would have been awarded, the sanctions established in the private contract between the MPDL and the evaluation team will be applied.