Background

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the UNDP-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized project titled Adapting National and Transboundary Water Resources Management in Swaziland to Manage the Expected Impacts of Climate Change (PIMS 3603) implemented through the UNDP. The project started on the 8th June 2012 and is in its second year of implementation. In line with the UNDP/GEF Guidance on MTRs, this MTR process was initiated following the completion of the second Project Implementation Report (PIR). This ToR sets out the expectations for this MTR which process must follow the guidance outlined in the document Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects.

The project aims to ensure that the management of Swaziland’s water resources is adapted to take into account the anticipated impacts of climate change. The project aims to achieve the overall objectives through the following outcomes, (i) Facilitate the institutional capacity for climate change adaptation strengthened through the integration of climate change risks into national water resources management policies and the establishment of inter-sectoral coordination mechanism based on inclusive and informed national dialogue, (ii) Ensure climate change risk management measures integrated into national water and agricultural programmes and implemented in pilot projects to promote adaptation on the ground, and (iii) Inform and influence negotiations on trans-boundary water management for the Incomati, Maputo and Umbeluzi river basins as informed by climate change risk.

The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy (MNRE) is the implementing agency for the project.   Key national partners that the DWA collaborates with are the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs (MTEA) and the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), together with the parastatal, the Swaziland Water and Agricultural Enterprise (SWADE) and the Komati Basin Water Authority (KOBWA).

Financial resources amounting to US$1, 67 Mil were received from the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF). The UNDP Swaziland Country Office provided US$200,000 cash contribution and US$ 1.06 Mil parallel funding. The Government of Swaziland through the DWA and the Komati Basin Water Authority (KOBWA) committed to the co-financing of US$4,530,900 and US$34,000, respectively, as in-kind and parallel funding contributions. The project is expected to also influence key national investment interventions such as the Komati Downstream Development Project (KDDP), Lower Usuthu Sugar Irrigation Project (LUSIP), and Swaziland Water and Agriculture Development Enterprise (SWADE).  These initiatives also complement the outreach of the project in the country.

The MTR will assess progress made towards the achievement of the objectives and outcomes as specified in the Project Document: http://www.sz.undp.org/content/swaziland/en/home/operations/projects/environment_and_energy/Project_00077723.html  and assess early signs of project success or challenges with the goal of identifying the necessary changes to be made to set the project on-track to achieve expected results. The MTR will also review the project’s strategy, its risks to sustainability and the project’s preparation of an exit strategy - If there is no strategy, assist the project prepare one at the mid-term.

The MTR must provide evidence-based analysis 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 APR/PIRs, project budget revisions, lesson learned reports, other project files, 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  ensuring close engagement with the Project Team, government counterparts (including the GEF Operational Focal Point and National Climate Change Focal Point), the UNDP Country Office(s), UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisers, and other key stakeholders – see Annex 1. Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful MTR.  Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project roles and responsibilities. Additionally, the MTR team is expected to conduct field missions to community-based demonstration project sites.

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 and Objectives:

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 requirements on ratings. No overall rating is required.

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)?  If not, provide recommendations;
• 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?
• If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

Results Framework/Logframe:

• Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s log-frame 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.

Project Results

Progress Towards Results:

• Review the log-frame indicators against progress made towards the end-of-project targets using 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 “High risk of not being achieved” (red);
• 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

Work Planning:

• Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been solved;
• 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 document logical/results framework as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start.  Ensure any revisions meet UNDP-GEF requirements and assess the impact of the revised approach on project management.

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 allowed 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? Are project teams meeting with all co-financing partners regularly in order to align financing priorities and annual work plans?

Monitoring 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?

Reporting:

• Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Board;
• 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 long-term investment in the sustainability of project results?
• Review external project communication: Are proper means of communication established or being established to express to the public the project progress and intended impact (is there a project website or a weekly e-bulletin, 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.

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 project Implementing Partners and recommend areas for improvement;
• Review the quality of support provided by UNDP and recommend areas for improvement.

Long-term Sustainability

• Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, APR/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. Give particular attention to critical risks;
• Assess overall risk management to sustainability factors of the project in terms of risks to motivations, capacity, and resources. Does the project have sustainability benchmarks built into the project cycle?
• Financial 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-political 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 the lessons learned are 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 and Governance 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 Sustainability: Are there any environmental risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes? The MTR should assess whether certain activities will pose a threat to the sustainability of the project outcomes.

The MTR team 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 team will make at least 5 key recommendations and no more than 15 recommendations in total.

Duties and Responsibilities

The principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the UNDP Swaziland Country Office (CO). The CO will contract the team of two (2) consultants, one international and one national. The CO will also ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the MTR team. The PMU will be responsible for liaising with the MTR team to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits. The following outputs/products are expected by the end of the consultancy, which is expected to take 30 working days:

Deliverables:

• MTR Inception Report  - MTR team clarifies objectives and methods of Midterm Review received no later than 2 weeks before the MTR mission;
• Workshop Presentation  - presentation of the preliminary findings by end of the MTR mission presented to the Project Management Unit and the UNDP Country Office as well as national stakeholders;
• Draft Final Report  - draft full report with annexes received within 2 weeks of the MTR mission;
• Final Report Final report received within 1 week of receiving UNDP comments on the draft.
  

Competencies

• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and Climate Change Adaptation will be considered as an asset;
• Excellent communication skills, excellent report writing and presentation skills in English;
• Demonstrable analytical skills;
• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to Climate Change Adaptation;
• Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset.

Corporate competencies:

• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability;
• Highest standards of integrity, discretion and loyalty. 
  

Required Skills and Experience

• A Master’s degree in Water Resources Management, Climate Change, Environmental Sciences, Natural Resources Management or other closely related field.

Experience:

• Ten (10) years working experience in the relevant technical areas;
• Recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies;
• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;
• Experience working with the GEF-financed projects or evaluation of GEF-financed projects;
• Experience working in SADC and working experience in Swaziland;
• Experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis will be considered as an asset;

Language:

• Proficiency in English.