Evaluate Climate Migration Consultant candidates across 4 weighted areas: outcomes that landed, stakeholder facilitation, regulatory and policy command, and evidence and reporting. Outcomes that landed leads at 30%, so ask what changed after their work: a relocation site plan adopted, a national adaptation plan chapter on displacement, or resettlement funding secured. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
public sector communityadaptation policyclimate displacementiom unhcrplanned relocation
TL;DR
For outcomes that landed, look for evidence the candidate names specific programmes, host communities served, budgets moved, and can say which recommendations governments actually adopted versus shelved. For stakeholder facilitation, look for evidence the candidate describes convening hostile parties over land tenure or host community tension, with named facilitation formats and documented consensus.
Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Outcomes that landed
30% weight
Ask what changed after their work: a relocation site plan adopted, a national adaptation plan chapter on displacement, or resettlement funding secured with beneficiary counts.
Evidence to listen for
Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
States their own role rather than the department's
Gives measured reach or impact
Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; describes intent and process only.
2
Needs Improvement
Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.
3
Satisfactory
Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.
4
Very Good
Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.
5
Excellent
Names specific programmes, host communities served, budgets moved, and can say which recommendations governments actually adopted versus shelved.
02
Evaluation factor
Stakeholder facilitation
25% weight
Probe how they ran consultations with displaced households, traditional authorities, host municipalities, and donors such as IOM, UNHCR, or the Green Climate Fund.
Evidence to listen for
Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
Names the competing interests and the resolution method
Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
Treats every group as legitimate
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.
2
Needs Improvement
Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.
3
Satisfactory
Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.
4
Very Good
Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.
5
Excellent
Describes convening hostile parties over land tenure or host community tension, with named facilitation formats and documented consensus.
03
Evaluation factor
Regulatory and policy command
25% weight
Test command of the Kampala Convention, Sendai Framework, UNFCCC Task Force on Displacement guidance, Warsaw Loss and Damage mechanism, and national resettlement or land tenure law.
Evidence to listen for
Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
Knows where the discretion sits
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.
2
Needs Improvement
Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.
3
Satisfactory
Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.
4
Very Good
Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.
5
Excellent
Cites the exact instrument governing a case, plus where domestic land and housing law conflicts with international relocation guidance.
04
Evaluation factor
Evidence and reporting
20% weight
Look for how they built the evidence: climate hazard downscaling, household vulnerability surveys, migration flow data, and monitoring frameworks written for ministry or donor reporting.
Evidence to listen for
Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
Tracks whether the intervention worked
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.
2
Needs Improvement
Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.
3
Satisfactory
Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.
4
Very Good
Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.
5
Excellent
Shows methods and their limits, pairs downscaled projections with field survey data, and produces reports ministries and donors reuse.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Climate Migration Consultant
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
Can you discuss a project where you addressed climate migration challenges?
02
Can you discuss a case where your work improved livelihoods for affected people?
03
Have you worked on climate migration issues across borders?
04
What data and tools do you use for climate risk assessment?
