Procurement Notices

INTRODUCTION

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for -the Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized UNDP-supported GEF-financed project titled Sustainable Finance of Papua New Guinea's Protected Area Network (PIMS 5507) implemented through the Conservation & Environmental Protection Authority (CEPA), which is to be undertaken in 2022. The project started on the 30 July 2019 and is in its second year of implementation. This ToR sets out the expectations for this MTR.  The MTR process must follow the guidance outlined in the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects and the UNDP’s Evaluation Guidelines www.undp.org/evaluation (Jan 2019).

PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Papua New Guinea is endowed with exceptional natural wealth. It contains more than 293 species of mammals (of which 80% are endemic), 813 bird species (more than 50% endemism) and 346 species of reptiles and 371 species of amphibians. The country comprises of the third largest tropical forest in the world, covering 280,000km2, over 2.4million km2 of ocean including over 7,000km2 of coral reefs and 4,200km2 of diverse mangrove forest.  The coral reefs are of global significance. They lie at the epicenter of the Coral Triangle. These reefs are home to over 1500 species of coral reef fish and at least 514 species of coral. Nevertheless, the IUCN Red List for PNG includes 33 critically endangered species, 56 endangered, 373 vulnerable and 289 near threatened.

The project, Sustainable Financing of Papua New Guinea’s Protected Area Network, will extend the Government of PNG’s ability to fulfil its protected area mandate and implement the Protected Area Policy to: (i) secure stable and long-term financial resources for the management of protected areas across the country; (ii) ensure that these financial resources are allocated to contribute to improving effectiveness of the management of the protected areas across the country; and (iii) ensure that they are managed cost-effectively and efficiently with respect to their conservation and other complementary development objectives. In recognition of this need, the project will assist with the development of a diversified mix of conventional and innovative funding sources and consolidate revenues to finance the ongoing costs of establishing and managing protected areas, and assist the Government to establish a Biodiversity Fund – that will be built on a secure, accountable and transparent financial mechanism, for receiving, administering and disbursing funds. The project will, therefore, result in a system that will provide catalytic and long-term financial support that will lead to stable ecosystems (both within and outside of protected areas), coupled with the social transformations to make that happen (including transforming institutions to become supporters/facilitators of that process, and the establishment of long-term partnerships).

The project has made strong progress to establish the foundations for national system-level financing solutions to support the reduction of the financing gap facing the country’s Protected Area network, namely:

• An Institutional and Regulatory Review of protected area management and financing, which identifies the key actions to strengthen the institutional responsibilities, regulatory environment and capacity needs to lead to increased financial support to protected areas. (Institutional and Regulatory Review)
• A national Protected Area Finance and Investment Plan that identified the funding gaps to the existing and future protected areas as well as well as the capacity needs (Protected Area Finance and Investment Plan)
• The establishment of an independent Biodiversity and Climate Fund to facilitate the receipt, disbursement and accounting of identified finance solutions. The process to establish the fund is ongoing and is expected to be completed by the end of 2021. (PNG Biodiversity Fund)

The project is implemented by the Papua New Guinea Conservation and Environment Protection Authority (CEPA) with full Country Office support for National Implementation Modality (assisted NIM). After the project was endorsed by the GEF in April 2019, it was launched at the Inception Meeting in December 2019, following the signature of the PRODOC in July 2019. The stipulated operational closure date is July 2026.

The impact of COVID on the country and the project has been significant. Project implementation commenced on the ground in January 2020. By March 2020, the country implemented a national lockdown preventing consultation, domestic travel for consultation as well as access for international consultants. In Melanesian cultures face-to-face discussion is critical for establishing trust and thus had a dramatic impact on implementation. National lockdown, travel restrictions and UNDP-implemented work from home periods have persisted periodically ever since, disrupting planning and activities. Whilst the official COVID cases and deaths are low relative to other countries (37,390 cases and 597 deaths)[1], this is largely due to weak monitoring, testing and reporting. COVID vaccination rates are currently at less than 4% of the population.

MTR PURPOSE

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.

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.

This MTR fits within the UNDP Papua New Guinea evaluation plan.

MTR APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

The MTR report must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The MTR shall be conducted by one International Consultant supported by one National Consultant. The National Consultant will support the Lead (International Consultant) in reviewing all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. PIF, UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Procedure/SESP), the Project Document, project reports including annual PIRs, project budget revisions, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team considers useful for this evidence-based review. The National Consultant will review the baseline GEF focal area Core Indicators/Tracking Tools submitted to the GEF at CEO endorsement, and the midterm GEF focal area Core Indicators/Tracking Tools that must be completed before the MTR mission begins. 

The MTR team is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach[2] ensuring close engagement with the Project Team, government counterparts (the GEF Operational Focal Point), the UNDP Country Office(s), the Nature, Climate and Energy (NCE) Regional Technical Advisor, direct beneficiaries, and other key stakeholders.

Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful MTR.[3] Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to:

• The Conservation and Environment Protection Authority
• United Nations Development Programme, Papua New Guinea Country Office and Regional Hub
• Project Board members, implementing partners and provincial governments

Additionally, the MTR team is expected to conduct field missions to Port Moresby including the following project sites East Sepik, Kimbe Bay and Mt. Wilhelm. Should this not be possible, the evaluation will be home based with no travel to Papua New Guinea. The national consultant will conduct field missions, under the guidance of the international consultant, instead if domestic travel restrictions permit.

The specific design and methodology for the MTR should emerge from consultations between the MTR team and the above-mentioned parties regarding what is appropriate and feasible for meeting the MTR purpose and objectives and answering the evaluation questions, given limitations of budget, time and data. The MTR team must, however, use gender-responsive methodologies and tools and ensure that gender equality and women’s empowerment, as well as other cross-cutting issues and SDGs are incorporated into the MTR report.

The final methodological approach including interview schedule, field visits and data to be used in the MTR must be clearly outlined in the Inception Report and be fully discussed and agreed between UNDP, stakeholders and the MTR team. 

The final MTR report must 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.

Considering the pandemic situation, the MTR Lead (International Consultant) may not be able to travel to or within the country for the MTR mission. The National Consultant should travel to the project states. However, in case of travel restrictions (if any), the National Consultant in consultation with the team lead will develop a methodology that takes this into account the conduct of the MTR virtually and remotely, including the use of remote interview methods and extended desk reviews, data analysis, surveys and evaluation questionnaires. This should be detailed in the MTR Inception Report and agreed with the Commissioning Unit. 

If all or part of the MTR is to be carried out virtually then consideration should be taken for stakeholder availability, ability or willingness to be interviewed remotely. In addition, their accessibility to the internet/computer may be an issue as many government and national counterparts may be working from home. These limitations must be reflected in the final MTR report. 

If a data collection/field mission is not possible then remote interviews may be undertaken through telephone or online (skype, zoom etc.). International consultant can work remotely with national evaluator support in the field if it is safe for them to operate and travel. No stakeholders, consultants or UNDP staff should be put in harm’s way and safety is the key priority.

A short validation mission may be considered if it is confirmed to be safe for staff, consultants, stakeholders and if such a mission is possible within the MTR schedule. Equally, qualified and independent national consultants can be hired to undertake the MTR and interviews in country as long as it is safe to do so.

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.

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.
  • Were relevant gender issues (e.g. the impact of the project on gender equality in the programme country, involvement of women’s groups, engaging women in project activities) raised in the Project Document?
• 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.

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/Core Indicators 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.

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.
• Do the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner and/or UNDP and other partners have the capacity to deliver benefits to or involve women? If yes, how?
• What is the gender balance of project staff? What steps have been taken to ensure gender balance in project staff?
• What is the gender balance of the Project Board? What steps have been taken to ensure gender balance in the Project Board?

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 by the Commissioning Unit and project team, 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?
• Include the separate GEF Co-Financing template (filled out by the Commissioning Unit and project team) which categorizes each co-financing amount as ‘investment mobilized’ or ‘recurrent expenditures’.  (This template will be annexed as a separate file.)

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?
• Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were incorporated in monitoring systems. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.

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?
• How does the project engage women and girls?  Is the project likely to have the same positive and/or negative effects on women and men, girls and boys?  Identify, if possible, legal, cultural, or religious constraints on women’s participation in the project.  What can the project do to enhance its gender benefits?

Social and Environmental Standards (Safeguards)

• Validate the risks identified in the project’s most current SESP, and those risks’ ratings; are any revisions needed?
• Summarize and assess the revisions made since CEO Endorsement/Approval (if any) to:
  • The project’s overall safeguards risk categorization.
  • The identified types of risks[9] (in the SESP).
  • The individual risk ratings (in the SESP) .
• Describe and assess progress made in the implementation of the project’s social and environmental management measures as outlined in the SESP submitted at CEO Endorsement/Approval (and prepared during implementation, if any), including any revisions to those measures. Such management measures might include Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs) or other management plans, though can also include aspects of a project’s design; refer to Question 6 in the SESP template for a summary of the identified management measures.

A given project should be assessed against the version of UNDP’s safeguards policy that was in effect at the time of the project’s approval.

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 & Knowledge Management:

• 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.
• List knowledge activities/products developed (based on knowledge management approach approved at CEO Endorsement/Approval).

Sustainability

• Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Review/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk Register 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)?