Overview : INTRODUCTION This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the UNDP-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized project titled Fifth Operational Phase of the GEF-Small Grants Programme (SGP-5) in the Philippines (PIMS# 4517) implemented through the UNDP and the Biodiversity Management Bureau of the DENR, which is to be undertaken in 2016. The project started on the Project Document signature date and is in its third year of implementation. In line with the UNDP-GEF Guidance on MTRs, this MTR process was initiated before the submission of the second Project Implementation Report (PIR). This ToR sets out the expectations for this MTR. The MTR process must follow the guidance outlined in the document Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION 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[1] 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)[2] 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. OBJECTIVES The 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. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 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 Annual Project Review/PIRs, 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 is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach[1] ensuring close engagement with government counterparts, in particular the GEF Operational Focal Point, UNDP Country Office, PAWB and PMU, UNDP-GEF Global Coordinator for the SGP Upgrading Country Programs based in New York and key stakeholders. Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful MTR.[2] Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to; 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 a field mission to Manila and selected project sites. Annex A is the list of SGP Projects in its 3 priority sites – Palawan, Sierra Madre and Samar. Interviews will be held with the government Implementing Partner (IP) – BMB of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); as well as other agencies (National Commission on Indigenous Peoples); grantee NGOs; local government units; local and indigenous peoples’ communities; relevant consultants and other partner organizations. The MTR consultant will also hold discussions with major donor organizations with on-going and planned initiatives in the sector such as but not limited to GIZ’s Protected Areas Management Enhancement (PAME) Project, USAID’s Biodiversity and Watersheds Improved for Stronger Economy and Ecosystems Resilience Project (B+WISER), USAID’s Ecosystems Improved for Sustainable Fisheries (ECOFISH), the Philippine Government’s National Greening Program and Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Rehabilitation Program (CMERP) (both of DENR) and People’s Survival Fund (of the Climate Change Commission), UNDP’s Marine Key Biodiversity Areas (MKBA) Project, BIOFIN and ICCA projects. Taking into account the landscape approach of the Philippines SGP Country Program, and building on the experience of UNDP’s COMDEKS community-based landscape planning approach, the Upgrading Country Programs in OP6 are adopting a community-based landscape approach as their core programming framework, building the capacities of community organizations to take collective action for adaptive landscape management for social and ecological resilience. GEF funding in OP6 will provide small grants to NGOs and community organizations to develop landscape management strategies and implement community projects in pursuit of strategic landscape level outcomes related to ecosystem services and biodiversity, sustainable productions systems and food security, sustainable livelihoods, and landscape governance. Funding will also be available for initiatives to build the organizational capacities of specific community groups as well as landscape level organizations to plan and manage complex initiatives and test, evaluate and disseminate community level innovations. The Mid-Term Review should provide recommendations on potential linkages with the community-based landscape management approach piloted by the COMDEKS Programme and currently being replicated by the portofolio of OP6 Upgrading Country Programmes. 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. SCOPE OF MTR I.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 (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 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). please refer to the attached TOR for the Table on "Progress Towards Results Matrix (Achievement of outcomes against End-of-project Targets)" 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.
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?
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?
V. 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.[1] 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. VI. Ratings The MTR team will include its ratings of the project’s results and brief descriptions of the associated achievements in a MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table in the Executive Summary of the MTR report. See Annex E for ratings scales. No rating on Project Strategy and no overall project rating is required. Please refer to the attached TOR for the table on "MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table for Fifth Operational Phase of the GEF-Small Grants Programme (SGP-5) in the Philippines." TIMEFRAME The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 10 weeks starting January 2017, and shall not exceed four (4) months from when the consultant(s) are hired. DELIVERABLES - MTR Inception Report - MTR team clarifies objectives and methods of Midterm Review
- Presentation - Initial Findings
- Draft Final Report - Full report (using guidelines on content outlined in Annex B) with annexes
- Final Report - Revised report with audit trail detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final MTR report
ARRANGEMENTS The principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the Commissioning Unit. The Commissioning Unit for this project’s MTR is UNDP Philippines. The commissioning unit will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the MTR team. The 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, usually 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 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: - Assist the team leader and provide inputs in the preparation of the MTE Inception Report and Mid-term Evaluation Report;
- Assist in the conduct of the evaluation mission especially in the gathering and analysis of data and information;
- Provide the national context in the analysis of SGP’s results and accomplishments;
- Provide recommendations for improvement considering the national context where SGP operates;
The Evaluation Team is expected to discuss among themselves their detailed division of work and should be clearly articulated in the MTE Inception Report. The National Consultant will report to the Team Leader (International Consultant). The UNDP CO and CPMU will provide support to the development of the evaluation work plan in consultation with key project partners. The project team (PMU) will serve as the reference group for the evaluation and ensure the monitoring of satisfactory completion of evaluation deliverables. CPMU will provide office space and access to office services such as, internet and printing. Evaluator/s should provide their own computer and communications equipment. In consultation with the Evaluation Team and as requested, the CPMU personnel will make available all relevant documentation and provide contact information to key project partners and stakeholders, and facilitate contact where needed. The team will also assist in organizing any briefing de-briefing meetings including coordination of stakeholders’ input in the evaluation draft report. QUALIFICATIONS OF SUCCESSFUL CONSULTANT Education - Advanced degree in environmental management, community development, development economics or any related courses.
Work 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.
- An effective evaluator with demonstrated experience in conducting international development evaluations; prior experience in GEF Project evaluations would be an advantage;
- Demonstrated strong knowledge of Monitoring and Evaluation methods for development projects; knowledge of UNDP’s results-based management orientation and practices;
- Familiarity with biodiversity conservation issues in the Philippines;
- Knowledge and experience in community-based and CSO-initiative biodiversity conservation and management initiatives in the Philippines;
- Demonstrated experience with implementation and/or evaluation of capacity-building efforts in developing countries, in the area of biodiversity conservation and sustainable forest management.
Language - Fluency in the English language and excellent oral and written communication skills.
Competencies - Demonstrates integrity by modeling the UN’s values and ethical standards;
- Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNDP;
- Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability;
- Treats all people fairly without favoritism;
- Expertise in data collection and analysis
- Ability to work under pressure and tight deadlines;
- Strong analytical and research skills; and
- Excellent organizational, and communication skills;
PAYMENT MODALITIES AND SPECIFICATIONS 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. - 10% - Following submission and acceptance of the MTR mission Inception Report
- 40% - Following submission and approval of the 1ST draft MTR report
- 50% - Following submission and approval (UNDP CO and SGP RTA) of the final MTR report
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION PROCESS The offer will be evaluated based on Combined Scoring Method – where the qualifications and methodology will be weighted a maximum of 70% and combined with the price offer which will be weighted maximum of 30%. RECOMMENDED PRESENTATION OF OFFER AND APPLICATION PROCESS Applicants are requested to submit the following documents to procurement.ph@undp.org. - Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability that indicates the all-inclusive lumpsum contract price, supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template provided; If an Offeror is employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to UNDP under Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA), the Offeror must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to 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;
- Brief description of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment, and a methodology, if applicable, on how they will approach and complete the assignment.
Application requirements should be emailed on or before 15 Janaury 2017, close of business, Manila Time. [1] Alternatively, MTR conclusions may be integrated into the body of the report. [1] For ideas on innovative and participatory Monitoring and Evaluation strategies and techniques, see UNDP Discussion Paper: Innovations in Monitoring & Evaluating Results, 05 Nov 2013. [2] For more stakeholder engagement in the M&E process, see the UNDP Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, Chapter 3, pg. 93. [1] 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. [2] 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. |