| Overview : The GEF Small Grants Programme (GEF SGP) is a GEF Corporate Programme implemented by UNDP to provide financial and technical support to communities and civil society organizations (CSOs) to meet the overall objective of “Global environmental benefits secured through community-based initiatives and actions”. Launched in 1992 with 33 participating countries and now at 130, GEF SGP is rooted in the conviction that community-driven sustainable development initiatives that support innovative livelihoods and local empowerment can generate and maintain global environmental benefits. The Philippines was one of the pilot countries of the Small Grants Programme (SGP) and was introduced to Philippine NGOs and CBOs in 1992. The SGP is a grant facility for NGOs and CBOs in support of their community-based resource management initiatives. The programme provides grants of up to USD 50,000 directly to local communities, including indigenous people, community-based organizations and other non-governmental groups for projects in GEF focal areas. Since its inception, it has funded 293 projects amounting to USD 9,451,453. Through more than two decades and four operational phases of grant giving its list of grantees now comprises over 200 civil society organizations (CSOs) from all over the country whose concerns cover GEF’s main focal themes. For the first four operational phases of the SGP in the Philippines, 70% of SGP funds was accessed by CSOs to pursue projects in the Biodiversity Conservation focal area of GEF-UNDP, while one 30% was geared towards other focal areas (16% multi-focal area; 13% climate change; 1% POPs projects). The biodiversity conservation focal area is the main focus for the Fifth Operation Phase (SGP-5) of the GEF Small Grants Programme in the Philippines.. In 2008, the GEF approved an “upgrading” policy that stipulated that SGP Country Programs with more than 15 years of operations and over USD 6.0 million in grant disbursements would receive their funding through country-led STAR allocation ns i.e. as a Full-Size Project. These countries represent some of the most mature, experienced, and successful SGP Country Programmes, with the most developed civil society networks and multistakeholder partnerships. The SGP Philippines Country Programme upgraded during the GEF Fifth Operational Phase (together with Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, India, Mexico, Kenya, Pakistan). The GEF approved the Fifth Operational Phase the Small Grants Programme in the Philippines (SGP-5 project) amounting to USD 4.5 million in June 2012. The Project Document was signed by NEDA, UNDP and DENR in June 2013. SGP-5 supports community-based biodiversity conservation initiatives in three priority sites: Palawan, Samar Island (Samar, Northern Samar and Eastern Samar), and Sierra Madre Mountain Range (Laguna, Rizal, Quezon, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Aurora, Quirino, Isabela and Cagayan). SGP-5 aims to (1) improve the sustainability of protected areas through community actions by building effective models for community-based governance; (2) mainstream biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in the management of production landscapes and seascapes by local communities; and, (3) increase the capacity of SGP partner NGOs, POs and CBOs to diagnose and understand the complex and dynamic nature of global environmental problems and to develop local solutions. Individual small grant projects under SGP-5 will contribute concrete outputs to the achievement of the following outcomes: Component 1: Community-based actions improve the sustainability of protected areas Outcome 1: Effective models for community-based governance of protected areas are demonstrated Component 2: Mainstream biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into production landscapes, seascapes and sectors (PLS) Outcome 2: Community-managed landscapes and seascapes explicitly integrate biodiversity conservation objectives Outcome 3: Alternative biodiversity friendly agriculture, fisheries and forestry products produced and marketed by 30 communities Component 3: Cross-cutting Capacity Development and Knowledge Management Outcome 4: Increased capacity of GEF-SGP stakeholders to diagnose and understand the complex and dynamic nature of global environmental problems and to develop local solutions Outcome 5: Enhanced capacities of GEF-SGP grantees to monitor and evaluate their projects and environmental trends The Project is being managed by the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB, formerly PAWB) which has established a Project Management Unit (PMU) to implement certain outputs and coordinate the work of partners in pilot sites. This component will help to support the development and implementation of community-based protected area models as a complementary form of PA management to NIPAS. This component will support community initiatives in understanding and consequently integrating the principles, practices, and strategies of biodiversity conservation in the community’s economic production activities. Scope fo Work: The National Consultant will primarily support the International Consultant who plays the Team Leader in the conduct of the evaluation mission. He/she is expected to do the tasks but not limited to the following: 1. Assist the team leader and provide inputs in the preparation of the MTE Inception Report and Mid-term Evaluation Report; 2. Assist in the conduct of the evaluation mission especially in the gathering and analysis of data and information; 3. Provide the national context in the analysis of SGP’s results and accomplishments; 4. Provide recommendations for improvement considering the national context where SGP operates; The Mid-Term Review (MTR) team will assess the following four categories of project progress. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for extended descriptions. i. Project Strategy Project design: Review the problem addressed by the project and Review the relevance of the project strategy and 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 (or of participating countries in the case of multi-country projects)? 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. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines. If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement. Results Framework/Logframe: Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s logframe 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.Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators and indicators that capture development benefits. ii. Progress Towards Results Progress Towards Outcomes Analysis: Review the logframe indicators against progress made towards the end-of-project targets using the Progress Towards Results Matrix and following the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects; colour code progress in a “traffic light system” based on the level of progress achieved; assign a rating on progress for each outcome; make recommendations from the areas marked as “Not on target to be achieved” (red).
In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis: Compare and analyse the GEF Tracking Tool at the Baseline with the one completed right before the Midterm Review. 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, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits. iii. Project Implementation and Adaptive Management 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. 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 Board. Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil 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.
iv. Sustainability Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Review/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, assess 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: Do the legal frameworks, policies, governance structures and processes pose risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project benefits? While assessing this parameter, also consider if the required systems/ mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and technical knowledge transfer are in place. Environmental risks to sustainability: Are there any environmental risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes? 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. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for guidance on a recommendation table. The MTR team should make no more than 15 recommendations total.
Schedule of Payments: Consultants will be contracted by UNDP and remunerated according to the reviewed and accepted financial proposal. The contract will be output-based and payment issued only upon delivery of satisfactory outputs/milestones. - First Tranche - 10% - Following submission and acceptance of the MTR mission Inception Report;
- Second Tranche - 40% - Following submission and approval of the 1ST draft MTR report;
- Third Tranche - 50% - Following submission and approval (UNDP CO and SGP RTA) of the final MTR report
Duration of Work: The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 10 weeks starting 15 November 2016, and shall not exceed four (4) months from when the consultant(s) are hired. Corporate competences - Commitment to UNDP’s mission, vision and values.
- Sensitivity to cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age differences.
Functional competences Qualifications: Education: - advanced degree in environmental management, community development, development economics or any related courses.
Experience: - minimum of least 10 years’ experience in the implementation of protected area management, PA system wide planning and monitoring, capacity building for PA management, and PA financing sustainability
Language: - Very good command of oral and written English.
Criteria for selection process: The offer will evaluated based on the Combined Scoring method – where the qualifications will be weighted a max. of 70% and combined with the financial offer which will be weighted a max of 30%. Application requirements: - Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template provided by UNDP;
- Personal CV or P11, indicating all past experience from similar projects, as well as the contact details (email and telephone number) of the Candidate and at least three (3) professional references.
Application requirements should be emailed to procurement.ph@undp.org and registry.ph@undp.org on or before 25 October 2016. |
