| Overview : This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the UNDP-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized project entitled, “Strengthening Marine Protected Areas to Conserve Marine Key Biodiversity Areas in the Philippines” (PIMS# 4389), implemented through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Biodiversity Management Bureau (DENR-BMB) which started on August 2014 and currently on its third year of implementation. In line with the UNDP-GEF Guidance on MTRs, this MTR process is initiated before the submission of the second Project Implementation Report (PIR). This ToR sets out the expectations for this MTR. This MTR process follows the guidance outlined in the document Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects. BACKGROUND The Philippines is located within the Coral Triangle, which is considered a global centre of marine diversity, with diverse coral reefs, sea grass beds, mangrove and beach forests, fisheries, invertebrates, seaweeds, and marine mammals. The Philippine waters have been identified as the “center of centers” of marine shorefish biodiversity because of a higher concentration of species per unit area in the country than anywhere in Indonesia and Wallacea (Carpenter et al. 2005). The country has nine marine biodiversity corridors, which were identified based on their position as transition areas between the marine biogeographic regions and their strategic importance as gateways for the exchange of propagules and energy. The primary government response to protect this important biodiversity has been the establishment of marine protected areas or fish sanctuaries as mandated by the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) and Fisheries Code. At present, there are only 33 MPAs under National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS) and are managed by the national government, and 1,620 under Fisheries Code which are Local Government Unit (LGU)-managed. However, overfishing and illegal fishing, pollution from coastal and commercial development, domestic and industrial wastes, land conversion, extractive industries and many other adverse factors continue to pose environmental threats to the country’s fragile coastal ecosystem. The impending effects of climate change can further exacerbate the current situation. Despite the number of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) from both state and LGU-managed, the assessment is that the current spatial coverage of the MPAs is ineffective in improving species habitat to enhance fishery productivity and biodiversity. Similarly, effective MPA management is still hindered by inadequate bio-geographic representation and spatial coverage, insufficient and unpredictable funding levels for the long-term sustainability of MPAs and an MPA network system; and weak institutional framework for the identification, establishment and management of a national marine PA system and incoherent policy frameworks, mandates and strategies amongst central and local actors that inhibit the sustainable management of marine resources on a seascape basis. In this regard, the project directly addresses these barriers through an integrated approach aimed at strengthening the conservation, protection and management of key marine biodiversity areas in the Philippines. This will be achieved through partnerships with key national government agencies, national and local conservation NGOs and LGUs. Three major outcomes are derived from this approach: Outcome 1: Conservation effectiveness of existing and new MPAs/MPANs is enhanced through improvements in spatial coverage and representativeness (particularly coverage of under-represented KBAs), strengthening of the national system for MPA identification, designation and management under the NIPAS legislative framework, and quantifiable improvements in management of at least 10% of identified Marine KBAs nationwide, with concomitant increases in local stakeholder participation and support. Outcome 2: Financial resources available for the management of MPAs and MPANs are sufficient to meet all critical management needs and are growing in line with the expansion of the MPA system. Sources of revenue for MPA management are being progressively diversified, with the percentage of revenue being derived from Government fiscal sources declining to less than 50% by end- project. Outcome 3: A comprehensive policy framework in place and effectively implemented for the conservation, protection and management of the country’s marine ecosystems and fishery resources, that harmonizes mandates, plans and activities amongst all key MPA stakeholders including BMB, BFAR and relevant Local Government Units. 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. Below is the project summary. OBJECTIVE OF THE MTR The MTR is expected to 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. DETAILED SCOPE OF THE MTR The MTR team will assess the following four categories of project progress. These categories are: project strategy, progress towards results, project implementation and adaptive management, and sustainability. For extended descriptions of the abovementioned categories, it can be seen in the “Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects”. 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. Recommend areas for improvement if there are major areas of concern.
Results Framework/Logframe: Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s theory of change as indicated in the results framework 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.
2.) Progress Towards Results Progress Towards Outcomes Analysis: Review the results framework’s 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.
3.) Project Implementation Management Arrangements: Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document.Have changes been made and are they effective and efficient? Is the structure of the PMU responding to the demands of the Project??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: 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: 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.
4.) 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: 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: MTR 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. Corporate competences - Commitment to UNDP’s mission, vision and values;
- Sensitivity to cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age differences.
Functional competences - Experience in working in the private sector, or in an outreach position relating with the government and private sector;
- Past experience and effective communication skills for dialoguing with senior level private sector executives;
- Strong initiative and desire to succeed, accountable and willingness to be pro-active in identifying suitable companies for BCtA membership and engaging in appropriate business opportunities;
- Experience and knowledge of the international development sector, e.g. through working at the UN in the private sector engagement and/or development field;
- Existing work experience in the Philippines and with the Philippines-based private sector organizations/companies, donor partners and UN agencies;
- Possess strong intellectual interest in economic development and the role of the private sector in driving poverty reduction; knowledge of private sector – development impact assessment;
- Past international work experience preferred;
- Demonstrated ability to function in a team environment & to deal with complex multi-stakeholder environment.
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. - First Tranche 10% - Upon submission and acceptance of the MTR mission Inception Report;
- Second Tranche 30% - Upon submission and acceptance of the 1ST draft MTR report;
- Third Tranche 20% - Upon submission and acceptance of the 2nd draft MTR report addressing comments from IP, UNDP-CO and UNDP-GEF RTA;
- Fourth Tranche 40% - Upon submission and acceptance of the final MTR report.
QUALIFICATIONS Education: advanced degree in Economics, Finance, Business Management or Entrepreneurial Management, Community Development, Ecology or any related field.
Experience: She/he should have a minimum of least 10 years experience in the implementation of protected area management, MPA financing sustainability, MPA system wide planning and monitoring, and capacity building for MPA management. At least 10 years of experience in natural resource economics or accounting preferably in marine protected areas or fisheries.
Language: - Excellent oral and written communication skills in English
Criteria for selection process: The offer will evaluated based on the Combined Scoring method – where the qualifications and methodology 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 15 October 2017. In view of the volume of applications UNDP receives, only shortlisted offerors will be notified.TERMS OF REFERENCE is attached. |
