Procurement Notices

1. 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)3 came 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”.

SCOPE OF WORK, RESPONSIBILITIES AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ANALYTICAL WORK 

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.

1. 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 assess the performance of the project since the beginning of its implementation. The review will include both the monitoring 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.

1. SCOPE of the 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 review 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 review will also determine the likely outcomes and impact of the project in relation to the specified goals and objectives of the project.

The MTR will comprise the following elements:

1. Assess whether the project design is clear, logical and commensurate with time and resources available;
2. A summary review of the project and all its major components undertaken to date and a determination of progress towards achievement of its overall objectives;
3. A review of project performance in relation to the indicators, assumptions and risks specified in the logical framework matrix and the project document
4. An assessment of the scope, quality and significance of the projects outputs produced to date in relation to expected results;
5. An analysis of the extent of cooperation on engendered and synergy created by the project in each of its component activities;
6. 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;
7. Identification and, to the extent possible, quantification of any additional outputs and outcomes beyond those specified in the project document;
8. 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;
9. 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.
   • DETAILED SCOPE of the MTR

   • The national consultant will assist the international consultant to assess the following four categories of project progress. 

   • Project Strategy

   • Project design:

   • Assist review and analyse whether the project reflects the national development priorities on Biodiversity Conservation, Natural Resource Management;
   • Assist review and analyse the relevance of the project implementation strategy based on current national and sub-national operating environment and the extent to which lessons from previous similar projects were incorporated into the project design;
   • Contribute to the review of whether incorrect project assumptions or changing local context have any effect on achieving the project results as outlined in the approved Project Document.
   • Support the review of decision-making processes whereby 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 were taken into account during project design processes?
   • Contribute to analyse local social and cultural context to review the extent to which these were considered from gender perspective in project design.
   • Identify major areas of concern and 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.
   • Contribute to the review of project objectives and outcomes to ascertain whether these are clear, practical, and feasible within its time frame?
   • Assist 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.
   • Contribute suggestions for ensuring broader development impact from community forest and coastal conservation and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively. 

     In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

   • Provide support for the comparative analysis of the Project Results Tracker within the PIR at the Baseline with the one completed right before the Midterm Review.
   • Assist identify remaining barriers to achieving the project objective in the remainder of the project.
   • By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, contribute ideas in which the project can further expand these benefits.
   • Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

     Management Arrangements:

     Provide support to review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document. This will include if changes have been made and whether they have been effective?  
   • Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear?  Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner?  Recommend areas for improvement.
   • Assist review and analysis the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement.
   • Assist review and analysis the quality of support provided by the GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) and recommend areas for improvement.

     Work Planning:

   • Support the review of any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved. This review would include:
     • Are work-planning processes results-based?  If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results?
   • Whether 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:

     Assist review the following:

   • The financial management arrangements of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions/implementation of activities. 
   • 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:

   • Support review of 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:

     Provide support to assess the following:

   • How adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Advisory Board for review and guidance for implementation.
   • 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?)
   • How lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners

     Communications:

     Support the review and analysis on:

   • 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?
   • 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?)
   • 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.

     Sustainability

   • Assist validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, PIRs, and the ATLAS Risk Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.

   • In addition, support the assessment of the following risks to sustainability:

     Financial risks to sustainability:

   • What is the likelihood of financial and economic resources not being available once the GEF assistance ends (consider potential resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and other funding that will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project’s outcomes)?

   • Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

   • Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project outcomes? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership (including ownership by governments and other key stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public/stakeholder awareness in support of the long term objectives of the project? Are lessons learned being documented by the Project Team on a continual basis and shared/ transferred to appropriate parties who could learn from the project and potentially replicate and/or scale it in the future?

   • Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability: 

• Environmental risks to sustainability:

• Are there any environmental risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes? 

  Conclusions & Recommendations

  The national consultant will assist the international consultant to 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.

• REVIEW METHODOLOGY

• The MTR 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. The MTR team will review 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 national consultant is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach under the supervision and guidance of the international consultant ensuring close 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:

• 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);
• Review of specific products including datasets, management and action plans, publications, audio visual materials, other materials and reports;
• Interviews with the Project Manager, other project staff including provinces; and
• 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, field visits are expected for 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.
• CONSULTANCY

  The national consultant with the relevant qualifications outlined under section 15 to be engaged to undertake the recview, working concurrently according to the planned schedule discussed and agreed with the international consultant who will have the primary role as the team leader and expected to have in depth understanding of UNDP supported projects including review and or evaluation experience. The national consultant has the responsibility to assist the team leader organize and complete the reviews, and submit the final report.The collection of documents is to be done by PMU prior to commencing the work. The Consultant has the overall responsibility for completing the desk review prior to the country mission, and for submitting the final report following the country mission. The consultant will sign an agreement with UNDP PNG and will be bound by its terms and conditions set in the agreement.

• PROPOSED SCHEDULES
• The Review will begin in July 2016 for 18 working days (includes 15 days to project sites) over a time period of (3 of weeks) and shall not exceed five months from when the consultant is hired.  The national consultant will contribute to the draft Final Report to be submitted to UNDP for circulation to relevant agencies within two weeks after the completion of the international consultant’s review mission to PNG including in-country field missions to project sites. The national consultant will assist in addressing comments to finalize the report within two weeks upon receiving comments and feedback from stakeholders compiled by UNDP. 

• APPLICATION PROCEDURES

Qualified candicates are requested to apply by 5 August 2016 by sending their application packages to registry.pg@undp.org with the subject line "National Consultant- Community-based Forest and Coastal Conversation and Resource Management Project".The appliation shuld contain:

• Cover letter explaining why the applicant is the most suitable candiate for the advertised position and a brief methodology o how  the applicant will approcah and conduct the work ( if applicable). Please paste the letter in to 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*- Specifying a total lump sum amount for the tasks 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 on mission, travel--toal estimated number of days in the field are 10-- and any other possible costs).

Please note that the financial proposal is all-inclusive 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 UNDP on delivering on the contract obligations in a satisfactory manner. Individual Consultants are responsible for ensuring they have vaccinations/inoculations when travelling to certain countries, as designed by the UN Medical Director. Consultants are also required to comply with the UN security directives set forth under dss.un.org.Qualified women and members of minorities are encouraged to apply.Due to large number of applicants 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 requestd materials. When submiyour proposal, please be guided by the attached Technical & Financial Proposal template and the Terms of Reference (TOR).