Overview : INTRODUCTION
This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the UNDP-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full -sized project titled “Enhancing national food security in the context of global climate change” (PIMS 4570) implemented through the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agriculture Development (MELAD), which is to be undertaken in 2016-2021. The project started on the January 20, 2016 and is in its third year of implementation. In line with the UNDP-GEF Guidance on MTRs, this MTR process was initiated after 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. 2. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION The project was designed with the objective to build the adaptive capacity of vulnerable Kiribati communities to ensure food security under conditions of climate change. To address these challenges and reach the project’s objective, the project supports the realization of two components and related activities. Both components will be closely aligned so that national and site-based activities are designed to build synergies, increase awareness, and generate much more informed and strategic use of natural resources so that ecosystem integrity is able to continue to function as the foundation of food security needs. Under Component One, the project will assist Kiribati to address urgent institutional capacity building needs primarily on the national level. This will include helping to set in place an improved regulatory environment, strengthened institutional planning and policy frameworks, and generation of data required to support informed decision-making. Under Component Two, the project will assist Kiribati to address climate change vulnerabilities by implementing and demonstrating community-based adaptation measures. The project will work on a select number of atolls to set in place models for land and lagoon resources management that is predicated upon informed planning and management processes. The general awareness of rural communities regarding fisheries management and climate change impacts will be increased. Community-based monitoring systems will be established. This will be used to inform decision-making, serve as an early warning system for climate change impacts, and be linked to island-wide vulnerability assessments. The monitoring system will linked to national level programming so that national level decision-making benefits from more broad-based information sources. The project will support the generation, adoption, and implementation of model council by-laws designed to be ecosystem inclusive and enhance ecosystem integrity. This will include model regulations for the management of fisheries, including permit and reporting mechanisms for both subsistence, commercial and tourism use of lagoon resources. The project will work with extension officers responsible for both agriculture and fisheries resources. This will include building the capacities of officers, responsible government agencies, island councils, and rural stakeholders through formal training programs utilizing fisheries field schools. Model programs for more sustainable and climate resilient practices will be tested, assessed, and ready for national replication. All project activity will target the reduction of food security issues by setting in place capacities required for local communities to maintain and enhance ecosystem integrity. By project close, Kiribati should have operational models showing that food security, ecosystem integrity and climate change resilience can be enhanced through improved management approaches. The project will be implemented on the islands of Abemama, Nonouti, South Tarawa, and Maiana. Each island selected represents a unique opportunity to address food security and climate change resilience improvements. The project has a life span of 5 years and started when the ProDoc was signed on 20 January 2016. It has a total budget of USD 11,586,210 comprising of a grant from LDCF of $4,446,210, UNDP resources of $140,000 and co-finance from the Government of Kiribati of $7,000,000. The implementing partner for the project is the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agriculture Development and the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources being a primary national-level stakeholder for technical issues. Further Government partners and stakeholders include the Kiribati National Tourism Office, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Culture, Kiribati Meteorological Service and the Ministry of Commerce. 3. 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, its risks to sustainability. 4. MTR APPROACH & 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 will review the baseline GEF focal area Tracking Tool submitted to the GEF at CEO endorsement, and the midterm GEF focal area Tracking Tool that must be completed before the MTR field mission begins. The MTR team is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach[1] ensuring close engagement with the Project Team, government counterparts (the GEF Operational Focal Point), the UNDP Country Office(s), UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisers, and other 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 UNDP Fiji Pacific Office, UNDP Bangkok Regional Hub, Government 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 field missions to the Republic of Kiribati , including the following project sites Abemama, Nonouti, South Tarawa, and Maiana. 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. 5. DETAILED SCOPE OF THE MTR The 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).
[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. 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: 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 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. [1] 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 Pacific Office in Fiji. The commissioning unit will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements in Kiribati 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 international team leader (with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in other regions globally) and one local expert from Kiribati. 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 selection of the local consultant will be aimed at maximizing the overall “team” qualities in the following areas: Recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies (10%) Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios (10%); Competence in adaptive management, as applied to Climate Change Adaptation (10%); Experience working with the GEF or GEF-evaluations (5%); Experience working in the iPacifc Island countries (10%); Work experience in relevant technical areas for at least 3 years (10%); Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and climate change adaptation; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis (5%). A Bachelor’s degree in environment, development studies, geography, or other closely related field (10%).
Qualification Criteria Local Consultant: Recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies; Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios; Competence in adaptive management, as applied to Climate Change Adaptation; Work experience in relevant technical areas for at least 5 years; Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and Climate Change Adaptation; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis. Excellent communication skills; Demonstrable analytical skills; A Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Science, Climate Change Mitigation, Sustainable Development, Energy Management, Development Studies or relevant discipline, or other closely related field.
PAYMENT MODALITIES AND SPECIFICATIONS 10% of payment upon approval of the final MTR Inception Report 30% upon submission of the draft MTR report 60% upon finalization of the MTR report APPLICATION PROCESS[1] Recommended Presentation of Proposal:
Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template[2] provided by UNDP; CV with contact details of 3 professional referees Brief description of approach to work/technical proposal of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price and all other travel related costs (such as flight ticket, per diem, etc), supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template attached to the Letter of Confirmation of Interest template. If an applicant 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 applicant must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP. Consultancy Proposal should be sent via email to etenderbox.pacific@undp.org no later than, 19th April 2019 (Fiji Time) clearly stating the title of consultancy applied for. Any proposals received after this date/time will not be accepted. Any request for clarification must be sent in writing, or by standard electronic communication to procurement.fj@undp.org. UNDP will respond in writing or by standard electronic mail and will send written copies of the response, including an explanation of the query without identifying the source of inquiry, to all consultants. Incomplete, late and joint proposals will not be considered and only offers for which there is further interest will be contacted. Failure to submit your application as stated as per the application submission guide (Procurement Notice) on the above link will be considered incomplete and therefore application will not be considered. NOTE: Proposals must be sent to the designated email (etenderbox.pacific@undp.org) Please do NOT copy or directly email applications to UNDP staff. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted If the selected/successful Candidate is over 65 years of age and required to travel outside his home country; He/She will be required provide a full medical report at their expense prior to issuance to contract. Contract will only be issued when Proposed candidate is deemed medically fit to undertake the assignment. For a detailed Terms of Reference please visit UNDP pacific website www.pacific.undp.org
|
