Background

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the UNDP-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the medium-sized project titled Integrated community-based forest and catchment management through an ecosystem service approach (PIMS#4033) implemented through the Pollution Control Department under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) of Thailand, which is to be undertaken in 2015. The project started on 27 February 2012 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.

This project’s objective is to create an enabling policy and institutional environment for scaling-up integrated Community Based Forestry and Catchment Management (CBFCM) practices through innovative financing mechanisms. The project will achieve this objective by strengthening systemic capacities in sustainable forest and catchment management at the local, regional and national levels (Outcome 1), and by supporting the expansion of CBFCM coverage throughout the country through pilot testing of defined Payment for Environmental Services (PES) and biocarbon financing mechanisms (Outcome 2).

The project will build capacities of MONRE to harmonise policies, plans and legal instruments to support CBFCM and PES and biocarbon schemes. It will also support the establishment of a multi-sectoral mechanism for CBFCM, with active with participation of all Regional CBFCM Networks, REOs, ONEP and RFD. This will act as an effective policy feedback, knowledge sharing and capacity development mechanism.  The project will also strengthen national capacities to promote PES (including and biocarbon) in order to strengthen community incentives for effective forest and catchment management.

The project will support scaling up of CBFCM best practices using PES and biocarbon financing mechanisms at four sites, led by four Regional Environment Offices (REOs). These sites include Mae Sa Catchment (North), Tha Chin Catchment (Central), Lam Sebai Catchment (Northeast), and Pa-Ngan Catchment (South).  The project will strengthen capacities of local authorities, landholders and the private sector to ensure that innovative financing mechanisms (PES) is used for improving livelihoods, global biodiversity conservation benefits and GHG emission reduction from land use and land use changes. In order to do this, the project will support catchment level ecosystem services valuation (incl. biocarbon) and assessment of benefits, trade-offs and various opportunity costs of land-use options taking into full account the ecosystem services.  Biodiversity friendly PES & biocarbon financing strategies will be implemented, with institutionalization of payment distribution structures that fully consider gender and other social equity aspects.

The total project budget is USD. 14,318,182.  The allocated resources including the co-financing amount are as follows:

• GEF               USD    1,758,182
• MONRE          USD  12,210,000
• UNDP             USD     350,000

The project will be executed through UNDP’s National Implementation Modality (NIM) with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) as the Implementing Partner (IP). At the central level, Pollution Control Department under MONRE’s Office of Permanent Secretary will serve as the focal point of the project and the project management unit.  At the site level, Regional Environmental Offices (REO) will be the focal points in each pilot site. REO 1 will lead the Northern cluster; REO 12 will lead the North-eastern cluster; REO 5 will lead the Central cluster; REO 14 will lead the Southern cluster.

Duties and Responsibilities

Objective of the assignment

The National Consultant - Mid Term Review (MTR) on Integrated Community-Based Forest and Catchment Management through an Ecosystem Service Approach 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.

Scope of Work

The National Consultant - Mid Term Review (MTR) on Integrated Community-Based Forest and Catchment Management through an Ecosystem Service Approach 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;
• 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 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.

 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.

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:

• 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 lessons learned 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 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:

• Are there any environmental risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes?

 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.

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.

 Ratings

 The MTR team 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.

Competencies

Functional Competencies:

• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to multi-focal areas;
• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and Biodiversity; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis;
• Excellent communication skills;
• Demonstrable analytical skills;
• Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset.

 Client Orientation:

• Contributing to positive outcomes for the client;
• Anticipates client needs;
• Works towards creating an enabling environment for a smooth relationship between the clients and service provider;
• Demonstrates understanding of client’s perspective.

Promoting Organizational Learning and Knowledge Sharing
Developing tools and mechanisms

•  Makes the case for innovative ideas documenting successes and building them into the design of new approaches;
• Identifies new approaches and strategies that promote the use of tools and mechanisms.

Core Competencies:

• Promoting ethics and integrity, creating organizational precedents;
• Building support and political acumen;
• Building staff competence, creating an environment of creativity and innovation;
• Building and promoting effective teams;
• Creating and promoting enabling environment for open communication;
• Creating an emotionally intelligent organization;
• Leveraging conflict in the interests of UNDP & setting standards;
• Sharing knowledge across the organization and building a culture of knowledge sharing and learning. Promoting learning and knowledge management/sharing is the responsibility of each staff member;
• Fair and transparent decision making; calculated risk-taking.

Required Skills and Experience

Academic Qualifications:

• Thai National only with A Master’s degree in environmental studies, development studies, social sciences and/or other related fields, or other closely related field and/or A university degree in environmental studies, development studies, social sciences and/or other related fields, or other closely related field with more than 13 years of experience directly related to the evaluation of project also be accepted.

Year of experience:

• At least 10 years work experience in 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 or GEF-evaluations;
• Experience working in Asia and Pacific will be an asset.

 Language:

• Good command of English both spoken and written.

Contract Duration:

• During July 2015 – October 2015 with maximum of 25 working days.

Duty Station:

• Home-based with travel for sites visit to Bangkok, Chiang Mai Province, Nakorn Pathom Province, Ubol Ratchathani Province, and Surat Thani Province. Local transportation to meetings and air tickets to projects sites will be arranged by UNDP.

The principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the Commissioning Unit. The Commissioning Unit for this project’s MTR is the Thailand UNDP Country Office.

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.

The consultant is expected to deliver followings:

• 1. MTR Inception Report;
• 2. Presentation;
• 3. Draft Final Report;
• 4. Final Report.

The final MTR report must be in English. If applicable, the Commissioning Unit may choose to arrange for a translation of the report into a language more widely shared by national stakeholders.

 Payment schedule would be as follows:

• 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.

Provision of monitoring and progress control

The consultant will work under the overall supervision of the Programme Specialist, Inclusive Green Growth & Sustainable Development, UNDP Thailand 

The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows:

• The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 25 working days during the period of 10 weeks starting 27 July 2015, and shall not exceed five months from when the consultant(s) are hired.

Documents to be included when submitting the proposals

Interested individual consultant must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate your  qualifications:

• Proposal:  Brief proposal explaining why you are the most suitable for this consultancy including confirmation on availability to take up assignment for the whole period.
• Financial proposal: The financial proposal must indicate Lump sum professional fee and lump sum travel related expenses except air tickets to project sites in Thai Baht (THB).  To submit Financial Proposal, please use Template of Submission of Financial Proposal provided in Annex I.
• To submit Financial Proposal, please use Template of Submission of Financial Proposal provided in Annex I.
• Personal CV and/or P.11[1] including past experience in similar projects and the name and contact details of 3 references

 Financial Proposal:

The financial proposal will specify the Lump sum professional Fee (with breakdown of Daily fee x number of working day) and lump sum travel related expenses except air tickets to project sites   (with breakdown of all travel related expenses) in Thai Baht (THB). The payments will be made to the Individual Consultant based on the completion of the deliverables indicated in the TOR. To submit Financial Proposal, please use Template of Submission of Financial Proposal provided in Annex I.

Evaluation:

The award of the contract will be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

• Responsive/compliant/acceptable; and
• Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation.

* Technical Criteria weight; 70%

* Financial Criteria weight; 30%

Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 350 technical points would be considered for the Financial Evaluation

[1] UNDP P.11 Form can be downloaded from http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/Careers/P11_Personal_history_form.doc

 Deatil can be found on website: http://procurement-notices.undp.org/view_notice.cfm?notice_id=23039