Background

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Mid-term Review (MTR) of the UNDP supported Adaptation Fund financed project titled “Developing climate resilience of farming communities in the drought prone parts of Uzbekistan” (PIMS#5002) implemented through the UNDP Uzbekistan, which is to be undertaken in 2017. The project started on the 26 May 2014 and is in its third year of implementation. 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 (http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/guidance/GEF/mid-term/Guidance_Midterm_Review_EN_2014.pdf)

The frequent occurrence of drought, an overall trend of aridification and projected drying of Uzbekistan’s poorest region, Karakalpakstan, place serious strains on water availability, is causing a decline in land productivity and in turn of the ability of rural population to withstand the current and future impacts of climate change. Adaptation measures are increasing and becoming more integrated within wider policy frameworks. Integration, while it remains a challenge, streamlines the adaptation planning and decision-making process and embeds climate sensitive thinking in existing and new institutions and organizations. This can help avoid mismatches with the objectives of development planning, facilitates the blending of multiple funding streams and reduces the possibility of maladaptive actions.

The overall project objective is to develop climate resilience of farming and pastoral communities in the drought prone parts of Uzbekistan, specifically Karakalpakstan to address adaptation needs arising when the anticipated risks or experienced impacts of climate change require action to ensure the safety of populations and the security of assets.

With a view to achieving this objective the following interconnected outcomes will be achieved:

• The institutional and technical capacity for drought management and early warning developed
• Climate resilient farming practices established on subsistence dekhkan farms
• Landscape level adaptation measures for soil conservation and moisture retention improves climate resilience of over 1,000,000 ha of land
• Knowledge of climate resilient agricultural and pastoral production systems in arid lands generated and widely available

The project offices are located in Tashkent, Uzbekistan within the national partner implementing agency, i.e. the Center of Hydrometeorological Services under the cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Uzhydromet); and in Nukus, Karakalpakstan, as the pilot region, within the regional subdivision of Uzhydromet. Project implements its adaptation activities in the five pilot districts - Kegeili, Kanlikul, Chimbay, Takhtakupir and Muynak – as the most vulnerable to climate change impacts in Karakalpakstan.

The project helps the central, regional and local governments and vulnerable farmers and pastoralists to withstand the current and future impacts of climate change: aridification and projected drying of this region that places serious strains on water availability resulting in a decline in land productivity.

The project duration is 6 years (May 2014 – May 2020) with the total budget of USD5,190,878 (USD4,990,878 of Adaptation Fund and USD200,000 of UNDP).

Duties and Responsibilities

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.

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: Project Document, ESSP, Project Inception Report, PPRs, Finalized AF focal area Tracking Tools, Project Board meeting minutes, Financial and Administration guidelines (SOP), project budget revisions, 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, the UNDP Country Office, UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisers, and other key stakeholders.

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 key partners at the central level (Tashkent, Uzbekistan) and at sub-national level (Nukus and 5 pilot districts in Karakalpakstan); 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 Karakalpakstan, including the project sites in Nukus and 5 project pilot districts (Kegeili, Kanlikul, Chimbay, Takhtakupir and Muynak) in the Republic of Karakalpakstan.

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.

Detailed Scope of the MTR

The MTR team will assess the following four categories of project progress.

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.
• If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

Results Framework/Logframe:

• 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.

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; 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”

In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

• Compare and analyse the AF Results Tracker within the PPR 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 AF 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 AF reporting requirements (i.e. how have they addressed poorly-rated PPRs, 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, PPRs, 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 AF 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.

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.

Timeframe

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 5 weeks starting from 4 September 2017, and shall not exceed five months from when the consultant(s) are hired. The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows:

4 September 2017 Prep the MTR Team (handover of Project Documents)

8 September 2017, 3 days Document review and preparing MTR Inception Report

15 September 2017, 5 days Finalization and Validation of MTR Inception Report - latest start of MTR mission

18-24 September 2017, 7 days, MTR mission: stakeholder meetings, interviews, field visits

22 September 2017 Mission wrap-up meeting & presentation of initial findings- earliest end of MTR mission

16 October 2017, 8 days Preparing draft report

26 October 2017, 2 days Incorporating audit trail from feedback on draft report/Finalization of MTR report

30 October 2017 Preparation & Issue of Management Response

Concluding Stakeholder Workshop (not mandatory for MTR team)

Expected date of full MTR completion

Deliverables:

MTR Inception Report

MTR team clarifies objectives and methods of Midterm Review

No later than 2 weeks before the MTR mission

MTR team submits to the Commissioning Unit (Sustainable Development Cluster) and project management Initial Findings

End of MTR mission

MTR Team presents to project management and the Commissioning Unit (Sustainable Development Cluster)

Draft Final Report

Full report (using guidelines on content outlined in Annex B) with annexes

Within 3 weeks of the MTR mission

Sent to the Commissioning Unit (Sustainable Development Cluster), reviewed by RTA, Project Coordinating Unit, AF DNA

Final Report*

Revised report with audit trail detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final MTR report

Within 1 week of receiving UNDP comments on draft

Sent to the Commissioning Unit (Sustainable Development Cluster)

*The final MTR report must be in English. If applicable, the Commissioning Unit (Sustainable Development Cluster) may choose to arrange for a translation of the report into a language more widely shared by national stakeholders. When submitting the final evaluation report, the evaluator is required also to provide an 'audit trail', detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final evaluation report.

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

Competencies

• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to CCA;
• Demonstrable analytical skills;
• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and CCA; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis;
• Excellent communication skills

Required Skills and Experience

Academic Qualifications:

A Master’s degree in climate change, environment protection, natural resources management, or other closely related field

Years of experience:

• Work experience in relevant technical areas for at least 10 years;
• Recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies;
• Experience applying SMART targets and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;
• Experience working with the AF evaluations;
• Experience working in Central Asia and/or CIS regions;

Documents to be included when submitting the proposals:

• Proposal- provide brief methodology on how you will approach and conduct the work (2 pages or less);
• Explaining why you are the most suitable for the work (2 pages or less)
• P-11 form and Offeror’s Letter to UNDP Confirming Interest and Availability;

Applicants are required to fill and sign a P11 Form and Offeror’s Letter and apply through UNDP job online system. You will be asked to upload your P11 Form and Offeror’s letter on the second page of the online application form. Please note that the system will not accept the uploading of more than one document so please merge or scan all your documents into one prior to uploading (proposal, Brief note, P11 form and Offeror's letter).

• Above mentioned documents can be obtained at http://www.uz.undp.org/content/uzbekistan/en/home/operations/jobs/

Application process:

To submit your application online, please follow the steps below:

• Download and complete the UN Personal History Form (P11) and Offeror’s Letter;
• Merge your P11, Offeror’s Letter, Proposal, and Brief note into a single file;
• Click on the Job Title;
• Click “Apply Now” button, fill in necessary information on the first page, and click “Submit Application”;
• Upload your forms

You will receive an automatic response to your email confirming receipt of your application by the system.

Note:

• Only shortlisted candidates will be asked to provide a financial proposal.

Financial Proposal

Lump sum contracts:

• This is a lump sum contract. The financial proposal shall specify a total lump sum amount. Payments are based upon output, i.e. upon delivery of the services specified in the TOR. In order to assist the requesting unit in the comparison of financial proposals, the financial proposal will include a breakdown of this lump sum amount (including travel, per diems, and number of anticipated working days);
• The payment will be made in two installments to be issued upon completion and submission of Performance Evaluation Form (PEF) on the works performed as indicated in the terms of reference.

Travel

All envisaged travel costs must be included in the financial proposal. This includes all travel to join duty station/repatriation travel. In general, UNDP does not accept travel costs exceeding those of an economy class ticket. Should the IC wish to travel on a higher class he/she should do so using their own resources.

In the case of unforeseeable travel, payment of travel costs including tickets, lodging and terminal expenses should be agreed upon, between the respective business unit and Individual Consultant, prior to travel and will be reimbursed.

Evaluation

The individual consultants will be evaluated based on the Cumulative analysis methodology.

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

• Responsive/compliant/acceptable;
• Having received the highest score out of the 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 49 points for the Technical Criteria will be considered for the Financial Evaluation.