| Overview : This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the UNDP-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized project titled Scaling up the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA), which is to be undertaken in January 2018. 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 INFORMATION The UNDP/GEF/PEMSEA Project on Scaling up the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA) is a GEF project being implemented by UNDP and executed by PEMSEA. The countries bordering the EAS region - Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Philippines, RO Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Timor Leste, and Vietnam - endorsed the Project. The Project commenced in 2014 and will end in December 2019. The Project is the fourth phase of the UNDP-GEF projects under the Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA). The overall goal of the project is to reduce pollution and rebuild degraded marine resources through scaling up the implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA) in Cambodia, PR China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailand, Timor Leste and Vietnam that share six large marine ecosystems (LMEs), and related catchment areas. The project covering 2014-2019 represents the “transformation phase” of a series of GEF support, culminating in the sustainability of PEMSEA as the regional coordinating mechanism for implementation of the SDS-SEA. It also makes a stronger linkage between sustainable development of river basins, coastal and marine areas and local, national and regional investment processes in a “blue economy”. The project objective is to catalyze actions and investments at the regional, national and local levels to rehabilitate and sustain coastal and marine ecosystem services and build a sustainable coastal and ocean-based economy in the East Asian region. This objective will be achieved through the implementation of the following three interconnected Project components: Component 1: PARTNERSHIPS IN COASTAL AND OCEAN GOVERNANCE ENABLING A SELF-SUSTAINING, COUNTRY-OWNED REGIONAL MECHANISM GOVERNING THE LMEs IN THE EAST ASIAN REGION - A self-sustaining, country-owned, regional mechanism governing and managing LMEs and coastal waters, rebuilding and sustaining ecosystems services and reducing the impacts of climate change on coastal populations in the East Asian Seas region.
- National and local governments adopt and initiate ocean policy and institutional improvements
- Innovative financing mechanisms in place for sustained operation of the country-owned regional coordinating mechanism
Outputs: Signed Agreements with Country and Non-Country Partners on voluntary financing Signed Partnership Agreements between PEMSEA with YSLME Commission, WCPF Commission and other regional governance mechanisms for collaborative planning, coordination and implementation among the respective SAPS, while addressing program sustainability and integration with broader regional cooperation frameworks The EAS program monitored, evaluated and reported to stakeholders via Regional State of Coasts and Oceans Report Improved national coastal and ocean policies and institutional arrangements for sustainable management of priority coastal and marine areas, surrounding watershed and blue economy development initiated in at least 6 participating countries National sector legislative agenda developed in at least 6 participating countries on ICM, CCA/DRR, integrated land and sea use zoning/marine spatial planning and other innovative regulatory and economic instruments SDS-SEA targets incorporated into national and local medium-term development and investment plans in at least 3 participating countries and 8 participating local governments, etc. Suite of products, services, funding mechanisms and partnership arrangements adopted and implemented in collaboration with Partners, Sponsoring Organizations, donors and private sector/business community Component 2: HEALTHY AND RESILIENT MARINE AND COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS THROUGH CONSERVATION-FOCUSED ICM PROGRAMS THEREBY INCREASING AREAL EXTENT OF HEALTHY AND RESILIENT HABITATS - Increased areal extent of healthy, resilient habitats, including mangroves, coral reefs, sea grass and other coastal habitats
- Improved management of overexploited and depleted fisheries, leading to recovery
Outputs: ICM program coverage extended to 25 percent (45,000 km) of the region’s coastline, with scaled-up national and local ICM program implementation in 8 participating countries Increased proportion of coastal and watershed areas and LMEs have zoning schemes, MSPs, PAs/MPAs, EAFM, IRBCAM and other management processes in place and functioning effectively as part of ICM programs Measurable improvements in the areal extent, health and resiliency of habitats in coastal waters and watershed areas, including biodiversity hotspots and areas-at-risk to climate change Strengthened MPAs functioning effectively in priority coastal and marine biodiversity areas, demonstrating improved management effectiveness, sustainability and benefits Innovative fisheries management schemes (i.e., ICM/EAFM) developed and implemented using ecosystem-based approach to reduce overexploitation in selected threatened fishing grounds - Reduced discharge of pollutants from land-based activities and improved water use efficiency/conservation in priority river basins and coastal areas
- Increased preparedness and capability of coastal communities to respond to natural and manmade hazards
- Innovative economic and investment instruments generate funds to rehabilitate and sustain coastal and marine ecosystem services
Reduced stress on coastal fisheries and improved household incomes, with implementation of alternative/ supplemental livelihood policies, capacities and incentive programs in coastal communities Reductions of pollutants (e.g., N; P; BOD) measured in priority river basins and coastal areas Innovative technologies and good practices in nutrient management and water use conservation demonstrated in priority coastal areas and river basins Adaptive management measures implemented in ICM sites to reduce impacts of climate change, improve oil spill preparedness, and strengthen maritime safety measures Port Safety Health and Environmental Management (PSHEM) Code adopted as an international standard for voluntary use in ports of participating countries Innovative economic and investment mechanisms (e.g., revolving funds, PPP, PES, carbon credits) tested and applied to help participating countries’ national and local governments sustain and scale up ICM programs Corporations and the business community engaged as partners of local governments in ICM programs
Component 3: A KNOWLEDGE PLATFORM FOR BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE OCEAN-BASED BLUE ECONOMY Regional knowledge sharing platform for ecosystem management established and enabling decision makers to translate policies and strategies into actions Program contributed to global learning on scaling up investments in sustainable coastal and ocean management
Outputs: National and sub-national environmental monitoring programs for ICM sites, coastal seas and priority watersheds providing scientific and evidenced-based data on the effectiveness and impacts of management interventions and commitments State of the Oceans and Coasts Reports published and disseminated by participating countries Skills, knowledge and support services of national and sub-national governments enhanced through ICM Communities of Practice, including the PEMSEA Network for Local Governments (PNLG), Regional Task Force/National Task Force (RTF/NTF), etc. Evidence-based sound policy on ICM, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (DRR) in priority areas supported by research results on ecosystem modelling, including total allowable nutrient loading, etc. One percent of IW budget allocated to the regional knowledge platform to contribute to IWLearn activities, including IWLearn project websites, experience notes and IW Conferences - Knowledge and best practice in ICM facilitated by outreach to programs promoting sustainable coastal and ocean development in large marine ecosystems of South Asia, South Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, etc.
OBJECTIVES OF THE MTR 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 and its risks to sustainability. MTR APPROACH & METHODOLOGY The MTR must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The MTR Consultant 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 consultant considers useful for this evidence-based review). The MTR Consultants are expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach ensuring close engagement with government counterparts, in particular the, UNDP Country Office, the UNDP Regional Technical Advisor for International Waters, the focal agencies of the eight participating countries, and the PEMSEA Resource Facility. For ideas on innovative and participatory Monitoring and Evaluation strategies and techniques, see UNDP Discussion Paper: Innovations in Monitoring & Evaluating Results, 05 Nov 2013. 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; executing agencies, senior officials’ component leaders, key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Board, project stakeholders, academia, local government and CSOs, etc. Additionally, the MTR Consultant is expected to conduct a field mission to the countries and selected project sites. Interviews will be held with the government focal agencies per country and as well as other stakeholders. 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. DURATION OF WORK: 30 days spread over 4 months DETAILED SCOPE OF THE MTR The MTR Consultants 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 and Regional (East Asian Seas) strategies. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of participating countries? 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.
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 Implementing Partner 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 Implementing Partner and country-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: 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: Conclusions & Recommendations The MTR Consultants 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 Consultants should make no more than 10 recommendations total. Ratings The MTR Consultants 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. Alternatively, MTR conclusions may be integrated into the body of the report. 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 – after review of the selected candidate by UNDP CO - and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements for the MTR Consultants (if necessary). UNDP CO will be responsible for liaising with the MTR Consultants to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits. 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 - 20% Upon submission and acceptance of the MTR mission Inception Report;
- Second Tranche - 40% Upon submission and acceptance of the First Draft MTR report;
- Third Tranche - 40% Upon submission and acceptance of the (UNDP CO and IW RTA) of the Final MTR report
CORPORATE COMPETENCIES - Commitment to UNDP’s mission, vision, values and ethical standards
- Sensitivity to cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age differences
- Treat all stakeholders fairly and without prejudice
- Maintains objectivity and impartiality in handling evaluation processes
FUNCTIONAL COMPETENCIES - Experience in project development, implementation and evaluation--particularly in directly managing results-based monitoring and evaluation methodologies
- Demonstrated experience in conducting evaluation of multi-year and multi-component programmes and projects
- Familiarity with the norms and issues in early recovery and rehabilitation work in disaster-affected areas
Ability to process large amounts and diverse set of data and documents related to infrastructure development, livelihood, resettlement, disaster risk reduction and management, and governance Demonstrated strong coordination and facilitation skills Strong interpersonal skills and the ability to initiate discussions with national/local governmental officials, peoples organizations and communities Demonstrated ability to function in a team environment and to deal with complex multi-stakeholder environment Demonstrated ability to prepare and present comprehensive reports
Qualifications Education: - A postgraduate degree in marine affairs, environment, economics or relevant field .
Experience: - At least 15 years professional experience in the application of the ICM or similar approach for the sustainable development of coastal and marine resources, with working knowledge of relevant international instruments
- Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios
- Previous Experience working with the GEF or GEF-evaluations
- Experience working in and has knowledge of the East Asian region, with experience in the development and implementation of technical assistance programs in support of human resources development and institutional capacity-building in various aspects of sustainable coastal and ocean development, including in area of biodiversity, fisheries, land-based and marine pollution management, water use management, natural and man-made hazards, and relevant issues
- Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset
Skills: - Knowledge of project development, including environmental investments and market-based instruments
- Knowledge of trends and markets related to information products and services
- Excellent communication analytical skills
Language: - Fluency in spoken and written English
Criteria for Selection of Best Offer 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: Applicants are requested to SUBMIT in one file 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
Application requirements should be emailed to procurement.ph@undp.org and registry.ph@undp.org on or before 26 November 2017. Documents attached in this Advertisement: - Financial Proposal Template
- P11 Form (Personal History Form)
- General Terms and Conditions for IC
- Complete Terms of Reference
In view of the volume of applications UNDP receives, only shortlisted offerors will be notified. |
