Result of Service
Evaluations at ESCWA strive to demonstrate the difference made by its work and its impact on member States and their citizens. This evaluation will aim to determine how the work undertaken in road safety project contributed to achieving its intended results, the pathway to these results, and the elements that contributed most significantly to their achievement. It will also consider any unintended results — positive or negative — that emerged during implementation. The evaluation will serve three main purposes: • Evidence-based decision-making: Provide a foundation for strategic planning and risk management. • Accountability: Demonstrate performance and results to ESCWA’s Executive and member States, in line with the Commission’s mandate. • Organizational learning: Identify lessons learned and actionable recommendations to strengthen future ESCWA projects in road safety.
Work Location
Remote / Hybrid
Expected duration
2 months
Duties and Responsibilities
1. Background and Objective Road safety outcomes are greatly influenced by the design of the road infrastructure. Safe and inclusive road infrastructure design provides a forgiving road environment and supports at the same time the development of sustainable cities, low carbon transport, and good health and well-being by ensuring adequate infrastructure for non-motorized transport. Despite being the least motorized region, the African continent has the highest road traffic fatality rates in the world - 26.6 per 100,000 people - according to the latest WHO Global Status report. This translates in hundreds of daily deaths, nearly half of which involve vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. The African States have clearly identified as a priority in the “Africa Road Safety Charter” the need to “… technically classify roads according to the functions they serve. Road Designs must reflect the design norms and standards of their respective classification and intended functions". And “…shall ensure that infrastructure for Non- Motorised Traffic is incorporated as priority requirements within the design of all classes of roads, especially in the urban and rural roads context". Yet, as documented by the EU Safer Africa project, in most of the African countries, road geometric design standards and manuals are obsolete and focusing only on motorised transport (cars, trucks, vans). Despite stated commitment to the safe system approach, the region still lacks the understanding that providing adequate levels of safety and accessibility to all road users means also fighting poverty, boosting economy, reducing inequality, and fighting climate change by promoting the use of non-motorised transport. This project aims to fill that gap and to provide a concrete answer to those needs by : 1. supporting revision of road design standards/manuals in 3 target countries (Morocco, Mauritania and Senegal) and through them promote a coordinated and regional approach to revision of standards/manuals which would be highly beneficial especially with reference to corridors in the framework of the Trans-African Highways network ; 2. Building the understanding around the importance of providing safe road infrastructure for all road users and the inherent capacity to design and deliver safe roads. The project focus countries recognise that road design standards and practices in the region are often outdated in terms of road safety engineering principles, are inconsistent, and do not reflect international good practice. They also acknowledge the lack of the required competencies to design safe and inclusive roads. According to the latest Global Status Report on Road Safety the road traffic death rate number per 100,000 in Morocco, Mauritania and Senegal is respectively: 19.6, 23.4 and 27.7. For the three target countries, latest available figures show that roughly 60% of those deaths happen on inter-urban roads. Thus the urgent need to revise road design standards, manuals and guidelines so as to eliminate or minimize risks for all road users. 2. Duties and Responsibilities Purpose of the Evaluation Evaluations at ESCWA strive to demonstrate the difference made by its work and its impact on member States and their citizens. This evaluation will aim to determine how the work undertaken in road safety project contributed to achieving its intended results, the pathway to these results, and the elements that contributed most significantly to their achievement. It will also consider any unintended results — positive or negative — that emerged during implementation. The evaluation will serve three main purposes: • Evidence-based decision-making: Provide a foundation for strategic planning and risk management. • Accountability: Demonstrate performance and results to ESCWA’s Executive and member States, in line with the Commission’s mandate. • Organizational learning: Identify lessons learned and actionable recommendations to strengthen future ESCWA projects in road safety. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with ESCWA’s Evaluation Policy (2025) and the UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation. It will integrate best practices for promoting gender equality, human rights, disability inclusion, and environmental sustainability. Scope of the Evaluation The evaluation will be forward-looking and will objectively and systematically assess the performance of the project in terms of its relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. Furthermore, the evaluation will assess the extent to which gender, human rights, disability inclusion, environmental concerns, and other cross-cutting issues were incorporated or mainstreamed into the project. The evaluation will cover the period from March 2023 to December 2026. Evaluation Criteria The following key evaluation questions per criteria will guide the evaluation. The evaluator is expected to refine evaluation questions where necessary and to include the refinement in the Inception Report. Relevance • How did the project team determine the strategic needs and priorities of member States in its project design? • How were the intended results of the project aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of member States, the sustainable development goals, and national and regional development agendas? • How were the identified results aligned with other stakeholders’ strategic needs and priorities? • How was the log frame translated to ensure that the activities carried out were relevant and contributed to achievement of the intended result(s)? • How were planned and implemented activities designed and sequenced to ensure a conscious consideration of the intended result? Effectiveness • What evidence is available to support the achievement of the results identified? • Which of the activities undertaken by the project team directly contributed to the identified results? How did these activities contribute to the results? • To what degree can the achievement of results be attributed to the intervention? • How did the work of stakeholders contribute to the achievement of the identified results? • Which other factors have contributed to the achievement of the identified results? • Would the results have been achieved regardless of the project being implemented? • How were key partnerships integrated in the delivery of the project to maximise the achievement of results? Efficiency • Were the planned activities considered and delivered with the end results in mind? How did this shape the process? • What, if any, adjustments were made during the project to optimize the achievement of results? • What, if any, considerations were made in terms of the most efficient way of delivering activities (choice of modality, expertise available, etc.) • To what extent were partnerships leveraged and/or enhanced to utilize additional strategic expertise? Impact • What, if any, high-level effects did the project cause (such as changes in norms or systems)? • How did the project ensure that all the intended target groups, including the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, benefitted equally from the intervention? • How transformative was the project – did it create enduring changes in norms – including gender norms – and systems, whether intended or not? • To what extent did the intervention lead to other changes, including “scalable” or “replicable” results? Sustainability • Given a similar context, could the identified results of the project be replicated? • Which of the activities identified as contributing to the identified results of the project provided ongoing benefits for stakeholders? • What evidence is available to indicate that the results of the project can be maintained by stakeholders? Gender, Human Rights, Disability Inclusion, and Environmental Issues • To what extent were issues of gender, human rights, disability inclusion, and the environment incorporated into the design, planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation practices of the project, as well as the results achieved? To what extent did the project respond to and affected the rights, needs and interests of different stakeholders, including women, men, youth, people with disabilities and other marginalized groups? Evaluation Methodology The evaluator is expected to identify the main results achieved through the project, as established by both the project team and key stakeholders, and develop a Theory of Change (ToC) for these results. The causal links postulated in the ToC should then be used to theorise a plausible causal mechanism, which should be tested using all available evidence, to evaluate the influence of ESCWA’s work on results achieved through the project. The evaluator is expected to ensure a mixed method (qualitative and quantitative), inclusive and participatory approach, with adequate triangulation across methods, to arrive at credible, reliable, and unbiased findings. The evaluator will also ensure that all aspects of the evaluation are gender and human rights sensitive (including a special focus on the rights with person with disabilities). In addition, the evaluator must ensure that they always comply with the UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation during the conduct of the evaluation. The above methodology is indicative. The evaluator is expected to build upon it and present a robust evaluation methodology within the inception report, including addressing and refining the evaluation questions. Management and Governance Arrangements SPARK will oversee management of the evaluation through an evaluation officer/s, who will act as the evaluation manager/s. This role will include recruiting the evaluator/s; serving as the main port-of-call for the evaluator/s and for internal and external stakeholders; recording the feedback of the project team and effectively integrating it into the evaluation exercise; monitoring the budget and the correct implementation of the work-plan; ensuring quality assurance; etc. The support of the organization and project’s senior management is key for the success of the evaluation, particularly during the recruitment of the evaluator/s, collection of documents for desk review, identification of stakeholders and arrangement of interviews, focus groups or surveys. Quality Assurance Mechanism The evaluator will employ a quality assurance mechanism of her/his preference (either an internal or an external system can be used), which will provide quality checks throughout the evaluation process. This quality assurance mechanism will be indicated in the Inception Report and in the Final Evaluation Report. In addition, ESCWA will review the evaluation report prior to finalization to ensure that it aligns with the UNEG Quality Checklist for Evaluation Reports , particularly with reference to the quality of recommendations. Evaluation Ethics The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation; and all rights and confidentiality of information providers will be prioritized and safeguarded as per UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation.
Qualifications/special skills
A Master's degree in management, evaluation, or related area is required. All candidates must submit a copy of the required educational degree. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed. A minimum of five years’ experience undertaking impact evaluations, including of projects and/or evaluations working with Arab governmental bodies, is required. Proven competency in quantitative and qualitative research methods, particularly self-administered surveys, document analysis, and informal and semi-structured interviews is required. Work experience in Road Safety issues is desirable.
Languages
English and French are the working languages of the United Nations Secretariat; and Arabic is a working language of ESCWA. For this position, fluency in English is required. Fluency in Arabic is desirable. Note: “Fluency” equals a rating of ‘fluent’ in all four areas (speak, read, write, and understand) and “Knowledge of” equals a rating of ‘confident’ in two of the four areas.
Additional Information
Not available.
No Fee
THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE AT ANY STAGE OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS (APPLICATION, INTERVIEW MEETING, PROCESSING, OR TRAINING). THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH INFORMATION ON APPLICANTS’ BANK ACCOUNTS.