Procurement Notices

 BACKGROUND

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Mid-Term Review (MTR) for the full-sized UNDP/GEF supported project titled “Community-based Forest and Coastal Conservation and Resource Management in Papua New Guinea (PIMS#:3936)” implemented through the Conservation and Environment Protected Authority (formerly Department of Environment and Conservation). The project started in August 2012, and is in its fourth year of implementation. This ToR sets out the expectations for this Mid-term Review (MTR). The MTR process must follow the guidance outlined in the document, Guidance for Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects.

2.� PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PNG is one of the world’s 17 most diverse countries, accounting for less than 0.5% of the earth’s surface area and hots 6-8% of the world’s biodiversity containing some of the world’s most biologically diverse ecosystems (Sekhran and Miller, 1995). Todate, obtaining definitive information on the biological richness of the country remains difficult as many areas are poorly studied. With this rich biodiversity, PNG also has vast wealth in natural resources: gold, copper, oil, gas, timber and fisheries. PNG has a maritime Economic Exclusive Zone of 3.1 million square kilometers, which is host to abundant tuna resources and diverse marine fisheries. PNG’s tropical rainforest is third largest in the world (60% of the country’s land) while thirty per cent of the country’s land mass is suitable for agriculture and the soils are generally fertile, with the climate and rainfall sufficient to support a wide range of crops for domestic consumption and export markets.

However, the primary threats to terrestrial biodiversity in PNG are deforestation and degradation (from logging and subsistence agriculture), mining (including pollution and waste runoff) and agricultural conversion (e.g. for oil palm, biofuels, etc.). Not only does forest loss result directly from these activities, but the secondary effects from improved road access makes frontier areas susceptible to ongoing clearing for agriculture and salvage logging. Recent spatial analysis suggested that the average annual rate of deforestation and degradation across all regions of PNG over the 1972-2002 period was 1.4%, almost twice the rate previously recorded. It is estimated that by 2021, 83% of the commercially accessible forest areas will have been cleared or degraded if current trends continue. Much of the logging-related forest loss is concentrated in lowland forest areas; by 2002, lowland forests accessible to mechanized logging were being degraded or cleared at the rate of 2.6% annually. In particular, the islands region (New Britain and New Ireland) has been subject to intense logging activity; the majority (63%) of the 2.8 million ha of accessible lowland forests in these areas had been deforested or degraded by 2002. Logging was initially focused in the islands region because of ease of access, fertile soils and good quality forest, more recently this region has been the centre of intensive oil palm plantation development.Currently, PAs cover about 4.1% of the land area and far less than 1% of marine areas – well below the CBD targets. The focus of PA establishment has been on inclusive community-driven models, particularly WMAs. Some local communities have also been declaring ad-hoc community conservation areas (both terrestrial and marine) through the establishment of conservation deeds or conservation contracts under contract law, with the help of grassroots NGOs. However, these community conservation areas are not formally recognized as part of the national PA network. Most existing protected areas in PNG have been designated as WMAs under the Fauna (Protection & Control) Act 1966, since this is the legal structure that most readily accommodates existing community resource management systems. However, this act focuses on faunal resources, and is therefore not an effective legal structure for comprehensive biodiversity conservation at the landscape or ecosystem level.The overall PA effectiveness in PNG is very low in terms of planning, establishment and support. These weaknesses were recognized several decades ago1, and the fact that there has been no improvement since was summarized in the recent Rapid Appraisal and Prioritization of Protected Areas Management (RAPPAM)2, which found that most state-run and community-managed PAs still lack effective management plans, technical capacity and funding support. An analysis of the PA system conducted as part of PNG’s response to the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA)3came to similar conclusions. The ineffectiveness of current conservation approaches were illustrated by a recent spatial analysis indicating that most PAs in PNG have suffered forest clearance or degradation at rates almost identical with non-PA forest areas (indeed, field surveys in New Britain showed that significant portions several small WMAs have been converted to oil palm by local communities).For the aforementioned reasons, a viable long-term solution to the increasing threats to PNG’s high conservation value forests is to bring a representative sample of the country’s biodiversity resources under some form of protection. This required recognition of customary tenure as the Government have had limited ability to demarcate conservation areas and the current WMAs are ineffectively managed and supported; certainly few if, can conform even to the minimum management requirements for multi-use PAs under the IUCN Categories V or VI. Moreover, the PAs that do exist largely fail to achieve any strategic coverage of key biodiversity habitats. The challenge is to develop an effective model of protection which recognizes and accommodates the unique resource ownership structure in PNG but offers real economic and/or development incentives for long-term conservation of important habitats. Thus, this project’s long-term vision is to establish a national system built upon existing community-based resource management structures, which conserves a comprehensive, adequate, representative and resilient network of priority biodiversity assets that support sustainable economic growth.Thus, the Government of Papua New Guinea (GoPNG) through the Conservation and Environment Protection Authority (formerly Department of Environment and Conservation) with the support of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and financial resources from the Global Environment Facility is currently implementing the “Community-based Forest and Coastal Conservation and Resource Management in Papua New Guinea”.

 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES

This project aims to develop a government-supported and driven approach to enabling environment for the establishment and support of community conservation areas in PNG and to develop effective natural resource management and financing systems. The overall objective of the project is to develop and demonstrate resource management and conservation models for landholding communities that effectively incorporate community-managed conservation areas as part of agreed national priorities with industry and government. This involves demonstration of how the acquisition and dissemination of better national conservation policies and biodiversity planning information will improve natural resource management systems to better support and fund community conservation areas.Thus, with the support of UNDP, this project should enable the Government to scale up the approach initiated at Kokoda by the Conservation and Environment Protection Authority (formerly Department of Environment and Conservation) to establish priority conservation targets and work with local communities, industry and other government agencies to manage economic activities in ways that meet landscape-level biodiversity conservation and sustainable-use objectives.

MID-TERM REVIEW OBJECTIVES

The Mid-Term Review (MTR) will assess progress towards the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes as specified in the Project Document, and assess early signs of project success or failure with the goal of identifying the necessary changes to be made in order to set the project on-track to achieve its intended results. The MTR will also review the project’s strategy, its risks to sustainability.The purpose of MTR is to examine the performance of the project since the beginning of its implementation. The review will include both the review of the progress in project implementation, measured against planned outputs set forth in the Project Document in accordance with rational budget allocation and the assessment of features related to the process involved in achieving those outputs, as well as the initial and potential impacts of the project. The review will also address underlying causes and issues contribution to targets not adequately achieved.The MTR is intended to identify weaknesses and strengths of the project design and to come with recommendations for any necessary changes in the overall design and orientation of the project by evaluating the adequacy, efficiency, and effectiveness of its implementation, as well as assessing the project outputs and outcomes to date. Consequently, the review mission is also expected to make detailed recommendations on the work plan for the remaining project period. It will also provide an opportunity to assess early signs of the project success or failure and prompt necessary adjustments.The review mission will also identify lessons learnt and best practices from the project which could be applied to future and other on-going projects.

SCOPE OF MID-TERM REVIEW

The scope of the MTR will cover all activities undertaken in the framework of the project. The reviewer will compare planned outputs of the project to actual outputs and assess the actual results to determine their contribution to the attainment of the project objectives. The evaluation will diagnose problems and suggest any necessary corrections and adjustments. It will evaluate the efficiency of project management, including the delivery of outputs and activities in terms of quality, quantity, timeliness and cost efficiency. The evaluation will also determine the likely outcomes and impact of the project in relation to the specified goals and objectives of the project.

he evaluation will comprise the following elements:

a. Assess whether the project design is clear, logical and commensurate with time and resources available;

b. A review summary of the project and all its major components undertaken to date and a determination of progress towards achievement of its overall objectives;

c. A review of project performance in relation to the indicators, assumptions and risks specified in the logical framework matrix and the project document

d.An assessment of the scope, quality and significance of the projects outputs produced to date in relation to expected results;

e.An analysis of the extent of cooperation on engendered and synergy created by the project in each of its component activities;

f. An assessment of the functionality of the institutional structure established and the role of the Project Advisory Board, Project Management Unit, Implementing Partner, the Technical and Advisory Support Teams and working groups;

g. Identification and, to the extent possible, quantification of any additional outputs and outcomes beyond those specified in the project document;

h. Identification of any programmatic and financial variance and/or adjustments made during the first three years of the project and an assessment of their conformity with decisions of the Project Advisory Board and their appropriateness in terms of overall objectives of the project;

i. A review of project coordination, management and administration provided by the PMU. This review should include specific reference to:

•  Organizational/institutional arrangements for collaboration among the various agencies and institutions involved in project arrangements and execution;
• The effectiveness of the monitoring mechanisms currently employed by the project managers in monitoring on a day to day basis the progress in project execution;
•  Administrative, operational and/or technical problems and constraints that influenced the effective implementation of the project and present recommendations for any necessary operational changes; and
• Financial management of the project, including the balance between expenditures on administrative and overhead charges in relation to those on the achievement of substantive outputs.
• An assessment of the extent to which project outputs to date have scientific credibility and reflect available scientific and technical data and knowledge;
• An assessment of the extent to which insufficient or poor quality scientific and technical information and knowledge have influenced the execution of the project activities;
• A prognosis of the degree to which the overall objectives and expected outcomes of the project are likely to be met;
• Lessons learned during project implementation;
• Recommendations regarding any necessary corrections and adjustments to the overall project work plan and timetable for the purposes of enhancing the achievement of project objectives and outcomes.

 REVIEW METHODOLOGY

The international consultant serving as the team leader will lead the MTR which will be conducted in a participatory manner working on the basis that its essential objective is to assess the project implementation and impacts in order to provide basis for improvement in the implementation and other decisions.

The MTR must provide evidence based information that is credible, reliable and useful thus the team leader will provide the overall guidance and lead the review of all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. PIF, UNDP Initiation Plan, UNDP Environmental & Social Safeguard Policy, the Project Document, project reports including Project Performance Reports/PPRs, project budget revisions, lesson learned reports, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team considers useful for this evidence-based review).

The MTR team leader is expected to lead the engagement with the Project Team, government counterparts, the UNDP Country Office(s), UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisers, and other key stakeholders.

The mission will start with a desk review of project documentation and also take the following process:

1. Desk review of project document, outputs, monitoring reports such as Project Inception Report, Minutes of Project Advisory Board and Technical Support and Advisory Team meetings, Project Implementation Report, Quarterly Progress Reports, mission reports and other internal documents including financial reports and relevant correspondence);
2. Review of specific products including datasets, management and action plans, publications, audio visual materials, other materials and reports;
3. Interviews with the Project Manager, other project staff including provinces; and
4. Consultations and/or interviews with relevant stakeholders involved, including governments representatives, local communities, NGO’s, private sector, donors, other UN agencies and organizations.

   Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful MTR. Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to key partners and pilot provinces); executing agencies, senior officials and task team/ component leaders, key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Board, project stakeholders, academia, local government and CSOs, etc. Additionally, the MTR team is expected to conduct field missions to Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, including the project sites in East and West New Britain Provinces.

   The final MTR report should describe the full MTR approach taken and the rationale for the approach making explicit the underlying assumptions, challenges, strengths and weaknesses about the methods and approach of the review.

DETAILED SCOPE OF MID-TERM REVIEW

The MTR team will assess the following four categories of project progress.

Project Strategy

Project design:

• Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions. Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document.
• Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results.Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design?
• Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country?
• Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes?
• Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design.
• If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

• Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions.Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document.
• Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results. Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design?
• Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country?
• Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes?
• Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design.
• If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

Results Framework/Logframe:

• Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s lograme indicators and targets, assess how “SMART” the midterm and end-of-project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound), and suggest specific amendments/revisions to the targets and indicators as necessary.
• Are the project’s objectives and outcomes or components clear, practical, and feasible within its time frame?
• Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc...) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis.
• Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively.

Management Arrangements:

• Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document. Have changes been made and are they effective? Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear? Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner?Recommend areas for improvement.
• Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement.
• Review the quality of support provided by the GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) and recommend areas for improvement.

Work Planning:

• Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved.
• Are work-planning processes results-based? If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results?
• Examine the use of the project’s results framework/ logframe as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start.

Finance and co-finance:

• Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions.
• Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.
• Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds?
• Informed by the co-financing monitoring table to be filled out, provide commentary on co-financing: is co-financing being used strategically to help the objectives of the project? Is the Project Team meeting with all co-financing partners regularly in order to align financing priorities and annual work plans?
• Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions.
• Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.
• Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds?
• Informed by the co-financing monitoring table to be filled out, provide commentary on co-financing: is co-financing being used strategically to help the objectives of the project? Is the Project Team meeting with all co-financing partners regularly in order to align financing priorities and annual work plans?

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

• Review the monitoring tools currently being used:Do they provide the necessary information? Do they involve key partners? Are they aligned or mainstreamed with national systems? Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-effective? Are additional tools required? How could they be made more participatory and inclusive?
• Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget. Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation? Are these resources being allocated effectively?

Stakeholder Engagement

• Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?
• Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project? Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation?
• Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?

Reporting:

• Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Advisory Board.
• Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil UNDP/GEF reporting requirements (i.e. how have they addressed poorly-rated PIRs, if applicable?)
• Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners.

Communications:

• Review internal project communication with stakeholders: Is communication regular and effective? Are there key stakeholders left out of communication? Are there feedback mechanisms when communication is received? Does this communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of project outcomes and activities and investment in the sustainability of project results?
• Review external project communication: Are proper means of communication established or being established to express the project progress and intended impact to the public (is there a web presence, for example? Or did the project implement appropriate outreach and public awareness campaigns?)
• For reporting purposes, write one half-page paragraph that summarizes the project’s progress towards results in terms of contribution to sustainable development benefits, as well as global environmental benefits.​

• Conclusions & Recommendations

  The MTR team will include a section of the report setting out the MTR’s evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings.

  Recommendations should be succinct suggestions for critical intervention that are specific, measurable, achievable, and relevant. A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary.

 PROPOSED SCHEDULE

The consultancy will be for approximately 28 working days starting in July and will not exceed five months from when the consultant(s) are hired. The review will (include a country mission to PNG (15 days) as well as a desk review (3 days) and preparation of an inception report (2 days) prior to the country mission, and preparation of the draft (9 days) and final (4 days) version of the MTR report. The team leader will be paid in four payments as outlined in part 13 including international and domestic travel and DSA. The team leader is responsible for submission of the draft Final Report to UNDP for circulation to relevant agencies within three weeks after the completion of the Evaluation mission to PNG. The team leader will finalize the report within two weeks upon receiving comments and feedback from stakeholders compiled by UNDP.

Options for site visits should be provided in the inception report.

 DELIVERABLES

The report together with the annexes shall be written in English and shall be presented in electronic form in MS Word format.

 MTR ARRANGEMENTS

he principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the Commissioning Unit. The Commissioning Unit for this project’s MTR is UNDP Papua New Guinea Country Office.

The UNDP PNG Country Office will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of support for the MTR team including provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country. The UNDP PNG Country Office with the assistance of Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the MTR team to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits.

TEAM COMPOSITION

A team of two independent consultants will conduct the MTR – - one team leader (with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in other regions globally) and one team expert, from the country of the project. The consultants cannot have participated in the project preparation, formulation, and/or implementation (including the writing of the Project Document) and should not have a conflict of interest with project’s related activities.

The team leader will be supported by national consultant to conduct the MTR.

APPLICATION PROCESS

Qualified candidates are requested to apply by 5 August 2016 by sending their application packages to registry.undp.org with the subject line "International Consultant- Team Leader-Mid Term Project Review".

The Application should contain:

• Cover Letter explaining why the applicant is the most suitable candidate for the advertised position and a brief methodology on how the applicant will approah and conduct the work ( if applicable). Please paste the letter into the"Resume and Motivation" section of the electronic application;
• Filled P11 form including past experience in similar projects and contact details of referees, please upload the P11 instead of your CV;
• Financial Proposal*- specifing a total lump sum amount for the tass specified in this announcement. The financial proposal shall include a breakdown of this lump sum amount ( number of anticipated working days- in home office and mission, travel--total estimated number of days in the field are 10--and any other possible costs).

Please not that the financial proposal is all- inclussive and shall take into account various expenses incurred by the consultant/contractor during the contract period (e.g fee, health insurance, vaccination, office costs and any other relevant expenses related to the performance of services.). All envisaged travel costs must be included in the financial proposal. This includes all travel to join duty station/repatriation travel.

Payments will be made only upon confirmation of UNDO on delivering on the contact obligations in a satisfactory manner. Individual Consultants are responsible for ensuring they have vaccinations/inoculations when travelling to certain countries, as designated by the UN Medical Director.Consultants are also required to comply with UN security directives set forth under dss.un.org

Qualified women and members of the minorities are encouraged to apply. 

Due to the large number of applications we receive, we are able to inform only the successful candidates about the outcome or status of the selection process. Incomplete applications will not be considered. Please make sure you have provided all requested materials. When submitting your proposal, please be guided by the attached Techinical & Financial Proposal template and Terms of Reference (TOR).