Background

A.    Accelerating Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Applications in Niue (AREAN) 

B.    Project Description 

This is the Terms of Reference for the UNDP-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized project titled ‘Accelerating Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Applications in Niue (AREAN)’ (PIMS 6037) implemented through the Department of Utilities, Ministry of Infrastructure (DoU-MoI), which is to be undertaken in year. The project started on the 29 August 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 document Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects.

The objective of the AREAN project is to enable the achievement of low carbon energy access, sustainable energy and green growth targets of Niue as stated in the Niue Sustainable Energy Road Map (NiSERM), which is the basis of the country’s latest Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement. The government has been, and continues to be, very focused on the achievement of its renewable energy and energy efficiency targets, especially the generation of 80% of its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2025; however, the available financial and technical resources will not be enough to guarantee a timely and full achievement of said targets without additional support from international donors. The design of AREAN follows a holistic approach to the removal of all the barriers, identified in the AREAN Project Information Form (PIF) and confirmed during the project development stage, by synergistically interconnecting all the activities of five (5) different components, namely: 1) Improvements in Energy Integrated Development Policy and Planning; 2) Institutional Capacity Building on Low Carbon Development; 3) Improvements in the Financing of Low Carbon Development Initiatives; 4) Climate Resilient and Low Carbon Technologies Applications; and 5) Enhancement of Awareness on Low Carbon Development. The project will be implemented over a period of 48 months, spanning from 2019 to 2023, and the total amount of GHG emission reductions is estimated to be approximately 112.2 kilotons CO2. The GHG emission reductions will be partly realized during the implementation period of the AREAN project and partly achieved after the completion of the project, throughout the lifespan of the equipment provided for the demonstration projects as well as other investment type activities.

 Project Outcome 1:

Improved policy and regulatory frameworks in the application of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies in the energy end-use sectors.

 Project Outcome 2:

Effective enforcement of plans, policies and regulations, and implementation of programs/projects on the application of climate resilient and low carbon technologies in the end-use sectors.

 Project Outcome 3:

Increased availability of, and access to, financing for sustainable energy, energy access and low carbon development initiatives in the energy supply and demand sectors.

 Project Outcome 4.1:

Climate resilient and low carbon techniques and practices adopted and implemented in the energy supply and energy end-use sectors.

 Project Outcome 4.2:

Enhanced confidence in the viability of climate resilient and low carbon technology applications in the energy supply and demand sectors.

 Project Outcome 5:

Enhanced levels of awareness and attitude towards climate resilient and low carbon development in the energy supply and energy end use sectors.

The project will be implemented over the course of 4 years, beginning in 2019. UNDP is the GEF Implementing Agency and the Ministry of Infrastructure (MOI), is the project’s lead Implementing Partner and responsible party.

The project is being nationally executed as per UNDP National Implementation Modality (NIM) procedures. According to UNDP guidelines on National Implementation Modality (2011), the Government is responsible for the management and delivery of programme activities to achieve project outcomes/outputs. Government regulations, rules and procedures therefore apply to project implementation to the extent that they do not contravene the principles of the Financial Regulations and Rules of UNDP.

Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Multi-Country Office (UNDP-MCO) in Apia with support from the UNDP Regional Bureau for Asia-Pacific (RBAP) region in Bangkok.

C.    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.

Duties and Responsibilities

D.    MTR Approach & Methodology

The MTR report must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable, and useful. All relevant evidentiary documents must be presented/provided to the MTR evaluators to confirm the reported results of the project’s baseline/co-financed and incremental activities, delivery of agreed component outputs and levels of achievement of the end-of-project targets of the objectively verifiable indicators that are set out in the project results framework (log frame). It is important to also provide explanations/justifications of the attribution of any indirect results (e.g., energy savings, GHG emission reductions, etc.) of parallel/associated activities of the project. In this regard, the MTR Team must state in the MTR report if the team has checked, evaluated, verified and confirmed all the evidentiary documents during the terminal evaluation and provide comments regarding, and where necessary, pertinent recommendations to improve, the credibility, reliability and usefulness of such documents.

The Project Management Office/Unit and the commissioning UNDP country office (UNDP Samoa MCO) must provide all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. PIF, UNDP Initiation Plan, UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP)), the Project Document, project reports including Annual Project Review/PIRs, 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 shall review all of these including 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 field mission begins.  

The MTR team, comprising of a home-based lead Evaluator (international consultant) and support consultant (national consultant) 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), the Nature, Climate and Energy (NCE) Regional Technical Advisor, direct beneficiaries, 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; Department of Utilities – Ministry of Infrastructure (DoU-MoI), Project Management and Coordination Unit (PMCU), Niue Power Corporation (NPC), Department of Transportation – Ministry of Infrastructure (DoT – MoI), Treasury Department, Crown Law, Niue Bulk Fuel (NBF), Niue Chamber of Commerce, Niue Development Bank (NDB) and Kiwibank, GoN Ministries and Departments (Ministry of Natural Resources, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Ministry of Social Services, Department of Statistics, Department of Water Resources, Niue Met Services, Village/Community Leaders.; 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 National Consultant is expected to conduct field missions to the Niue Power Corporation, and MoI, including the project sites where Energy Efficiency technology will be demonstrated and showcased.

Covid 19

Niue is one of the few countries in the world that remains completely free of COVID-19. As of 2 April 2021, travel to Niue has been extremely restricted with the twice weekly Air New Zealand flight being cut back to one weekly flight every fortnight departing Auckland Tuesdays, arriving in Niue on Mondays, to repatriate residents to Niue and essential services people only (with a letter from the government saying they have the right to enter Niue). All arrivals ferried immediately to a strict 14 day quarantine.

Due to the travel restrictions, the lead evaluator will be home-based and will work closely with the national consultant in engaging stakeholders via virtual consultations via telephone or online (Zoom, Skype, etc.). The national evaluator (this position) will work closely with the international consultant in engaging stakeholders via virtual consultations and findings shared with the lead evaluator. Furthermore, all stakeholder engagement will be strongly supported by the PMU and the UNDP MCO in Samoa.  Consideration should be taken for stakeholder availability, ability, and willingness to be interviewed remotely and the constraints this may place on the MTR. These limitations must be reflected in the final MTR report.  No stakeholders, consultants or UNDP staff should be put in harm’s way and safety is the key priority

The MTR team is expected to develop a methodology and approach that takes into account the COVID-related restrictions. This will require the use of remote interview methods, extended desk reviews, data analysis, surveys, and evaluation questionnaires. These approaches and methodologies must be detailed in the Inception Report and agreed with the Commissioning Unit. 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 should 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.

E.    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/Log frame:

• Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s log frame indicators and targets, assess how “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound) the indicators are, and whether the midterm and end-of-project targets are realistically achievable, and suggest specific amendments/revisions to the targets and indicators as necessary.
• Are the project’s objective and outcomes clear, practical, and feasible to be realized within its time frame?
• Are each of the project components comprised of the relevant and necessary activities that will deliver the required outputs that will collectively bring about the expected outcome in each component?
• Examine if progress so far has led to or could in the future catalyze 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.
• Evaluate whether the project design (e.g., approach, activities and outputs) was adequate/sufficient and appropriate to achieve the project objective and outcomes that were set out in the project results framework.
• Evaluate whether the project implementation so far is as per the project design and adequate/sufficient and appropriate enough to achieve the project objective and outcomes that were set out in the project results framework. If not, please enumerate and explain why.

Progress Towards Results

• Review the log frame indicators against progress made towards the end-of-project targets; populate the Progress Towards Results Matrix, as described in 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 the project objective and each outcome; make recommendations from the areas marked as “not on target to be achieved” (red).
• 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

Project Implementation

• TE team need to evaluate whether the actual project implementation did or did not facilitate the provision of the necessary resource inputs for the implementation of project activities and the delivery all the required project outputs by mid-term.
• One important issue that must be considered in the reported results that are contributing to the achievement of the project targets by mid-term is their attribution to the AREAN Project. Make sure that all declared results are attributable to the Project. Where necessary, explain the attribution or non-attribution.
• Evaluate the following: (a) whether all the expected project outputs by mid-term were delivered. These include outputs in the original project design and other approved outputs that were included based on adaptive management; (b) how these outputs contributed to the achievement of the mid-term targets of the project; and (c) actual resource inputs that were utilized to deliver each output.    
• Evaluate the results of the project activities (i.e., GEF-funded and baseline/co-financed activities that were carried out by project partners) that are contributing towards the mid-term target of the objective indicator and each outcome indicator. This may also include monitored results from indirect activities that were facilitated, enabled or influenced by the AREAN Project’s activities. The relevant evidentiary documents on these activities must be evaluated to verify and confirm potential attribution of the results to the AREAN Project. 

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?
• Adaptive management (approved changes to the project design and project outputs during implementation) - Were such changes adequately and properly implemented? What were the impacts/results of the implemented changes?

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/ log frame as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start. 

Finance and co-finance

• Evaluate the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions. 
• Review the changes to fund allocations because 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 to align financing priorities and annual work plans? Are the committed co-financing by the project partners/co-financers being realized? Please make sure that evidentiary documents of the actual co-financing that was realized are available, including report on the results of co-financed activities that were carried out by the co-financers or project partners.

• Include the separate GEF Co-Financing template (filled out by the Commissioning Unit and project team) which categorizes co-financing amounts by source as ‘investment mobilized’ or ‘recurrent expenditures’.  (This template will be annexed as a separate file).
• Make sure to evaluate actual project financing, actual realization of committed co-financing, and any leveraged financing – provide evidentiary documents to support the evaluation.

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? Make sure that evidentiary documents about the reported results of the co-financed and subsumed baseline activities as well as of the incremental activities are available for the review.

• 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?
• What are the actual stakeholder participation and partnership arrangements? Cite issues/challenges encountered, impacts of such issues/challenges on project implementation and results; and the resolution of these.

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[3] (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.
• So far, to what extent the barriers that the project is designed to remove have been removed?
• In terms of sustainability, will the barrier removal be sustained or there is a risk that this will recur? Suggest ways of ensuring that the removed barriers will be sustained and will not recur.
• 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?

  Country Ownership

• To what extent is the project aligned with national development plans, national plans of action on climate change, or sub-national policy as well as projects and priorities of the national partners?
• How well is country ownership reflected in the project governance, coordination and consultation mechanisms or other consultations?
• To what extent are country level systems for project management or M&E utilized in the project?
• What level and types of involvement for all Is the project as implemented responsive to local challenges and relevant/appropriate/strategic in relation to SDG indicators, National indicators, AREAN indicators, or other goals?
• Were the modes of deliveries of the outputs appropriate to build essential/necessary capacities, promote national ownership and ensure sustainability of the result achieved?  

 Gender equity

• Does the project only rely on sex-disaggregated data per population statistics?
• Are financial resources/project activities explicitly allocated to enable women to benefit from project interventions?
• Does the project account in activities and planning for local gender dynamics and how project interventions affect women as beneficiaries?
• Do women as beneficiaries know their rights and/or benefits from project activities/interventions?
• How do the results for women compare to those for men?
• Is the decision-making process transparent and inclusive of both women and men?
• To what extent are female stakeholders or beneficiaries satisfied with the project gender equality results?
• Did the project sufficiently address cross cutting issues including gender?

 Innovativeness in results areas

• What role has the project played in the provision of "thought leadership,” “innovation,” or “unlocked additional climate finance” for climate change adaptation/mitigation in the project and country context? Please provide concrete examples and make specific suggestions on how to enhance these roles going forward.

 Unexpected results, both positive and negative

• What has been the project’s ability to adapt and evolve based on continuous lessons learned and the changing development landscape? Please account for factors both within the AE/EE and external.
• Can any unintended or unexpected positive or negative effects be observed because of the project's interventions?
• What factors have contributed to the unintended outcomes, outputs, activities, results?

  Replication and Scalability

• What are project lessons learned, failures/lost opportunities to date? What might have been done better or differently?
• How effective were the exit strategies and approaches to phase out assistance provided by the project including contributing factors and constraints?
• What factors of the project achievements are contingent on specific local context or enabling environment factors?
• Are the actions and results from project interventions likely to be sustained, ideally through ownership by the local partners and stakeholders?
• What are the key factors that will require attention to improve prospects of sustainability, scalability, or replication of project outcomes/outputs/results?

 Impact of COVID-19

• Review of the impact of COVID-19 on overall project management, implementation, and results (including on indicators and targets).
• Assess the project’s response to COVID-19 impacts including and not limited to responses related to stakeholder engagement, management arrangements, work planning and adaptive management actions.

Conclusions & Recommendations

The MTR team will include a section in the MTR report for evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings.

One important issue that must be considered in the reported results that are contributing to the achievement of the project targets by mid-term is their attribution to the AREAN Project. Make sure that all declared results are attributable to the Project. Where necessary, explain the attribution or non-attribution.

The conclusions must be based on the findings. Conclusions should be comprehensive and balanced statements that are well substantiated by evidence and logically connected to the MTR findings. These should highlight the strengths, weaknesses and results of the project, respond to key evaluation questions and provide insights into the identification of and/or solutions to important problems or issues pertinent to project beneficiaries, UNDP and the GEF, including issues in relation to gender equality and women’s empowerment.

Since the AREAN Project strategy is barrier removal, one of the main conclusions of the MTR must be on the extent of barrier removal that the Project has achieved by mid-term. Explain in detail (based on the project results) for each project component of the barrier(s) is/are removed, and to what extent the barrier removal was achieved.

Additionally, the MTR consultants/team is expected to make recommendations to the Project Team. Recommendations should be succinct suggestions for critical intervention that are specific, measurable, achievable, and relevant.  National Consultant should provide advice regarding the MTR recommendations as to whether it is realistic and achievable, particularly advice on the “how to” aspects, i.e., steps to be taken (as well requirements) to implement the recommendation.

A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary. The MTR consultant/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 the TOR Annexes for the Rating Table and ratings scales.

F.    Expected Outputs and Deliverables

The MTR team shall prepare and submit:

• MTR Inception Report: MTR team clarifies objectives and methods of the Midterm Review no later than 2 weeks before the MTR mission. To be sent to the Commissioning Unit and project management. Completion date:  19 June 2022
• Presentation: MTR team presents initial findings to project management and the Commissioning Unit at the end of the MTR mission. Completion date: 19 June 2022
• Draft MTR Report: MTR team submits the draft full report with annexes within 3 weeks of the MTR mission. Completion date: 22 July 2022
• Final Report*: MTR team submits the revised report with annexed and completed Audit Trail detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final MTR report. To be sent to the Commissioning Unit within 1 week of receiving UNDP comments on draft. Completion date: 25 August 2022

*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.

G.    Institutional Arrangements

The principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the Commissioning Unit. The Commissioning Unit for this project’s MTR is the UNDP Samoa Multi-country office for Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa, and Tokelau based in Samoa.

The UNDP Samoa Multi-country office for Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa and Tokelau based in Samoa and the AREAN Project Management Unit (PMU) will be responsible for liaising with the MTR Evaluation team to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits for the National Consultant, etc.

Due to the travel restrictions, the national evaluator will be home-based and will work closely with the international consultant in engaging stakeholders via virtual consultations via telephone or online (Zoom, Skype, etc.). Field missions will be conducted by the national consultant and findings shared with the lead evaluator

H.     Duration of the Work

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately (26days) over a period of (12 weeks) starting 6 June 2022) and shall not exceed five months from when the consultant(s) are hired. The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows:

• 6 June 22: Selection of MTR Team
• 7 June 22: Prep the MTR Team (handover of project documents)
• 8 June 22:  5 days: Document review and preparing MTR Inception Report
• 18 June 22: Finalization and Validation of MTR Inception Report- latest start of MTR mission
• 6 July 22 (7 days): MTR mission: stakeholder meetings, interviews, field visits
• 11 July 22: Mission wrap-up meeting & presentation of initial findings- earliest end of MTR mission
• 22 July (7 days) (r: 5-10): Preparing draft report
• 5 August 22 (5 days) (r: 1-2): Incorporating audit trail on draft report/Finalization of MTR report (note: accommodate time delay in dates for circulation and review of the draft report)
• 15 August 22: Preparation & Issue of Management Response
• 25 August 22 : Expected date of full MTR completion

The date start of contract is  6 June 2022.

.

I.    Duty Station

National Consultant will be based in Niue. It is expected that the consultant will spend 26 (working) days in Niue coordinating/supporting stakeholder interviews via virtual means (Zoom, skype etc.) and site visits in lieu of the International consultant’s mission in Niue due to COVID19 travel restrictions

[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.

[3] Risks are to be labeled with both the UNDP SES Principles and Standards, and the GEF’s “types of risks and potential impacts”: Climate Change and Disaster; Disadvantaged or Vulnerable Individuals or Groups; Disability Inclusion; Adverse Gender-Related impact, including Gender-based Violence and Sexual Exploitation; Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources; Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement; Indigenous Peoples; Cultural Heritage; Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention; Labor and Working Conditions; Community Health, Safety and Security.

Competencies

Functional Competencies:

• Strong policy knowledge and skills.
• Strong analytical skills and critical thinking skills.
• Excellent research and evaluative skills.
• Excellent report writing skills.
• Excellent inter-personal and teamwork skills, networking skills, and proven ability to work well in multicultural environments.
• Excellent facilitation and presentation skills.
• Demonstrated ability to communicate effectively with various partners including government, civil society, the private sector, UN agencies, development partners, and communities.
• Strong interpersonal and cross-cultural skills and ability to foster relationships with key stakeholders.
• Ability to work under pressure, effectively coordinate others and meet tight deadlines without compromising the quality of work.

Corporate Competencies:

• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability.
• Demonstrates integrity by modelling the UN’s values and ethical standards.
• Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNDP.
• Treats all people fairly without favoritism.
• Fulfills all obligations to gender sensitivity and zero tolerance for sexual harassment.

Required Skills and Experience

J.    Qualifications of the Successful Applicants

A team of two independent consultants will conduct the MTR – International consultant/team leader (with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in other regions globally)(refer to separate TOR) and National consultant/team expert from the country of the project. The consultants cannot have participated in the project preparation, formulation, and/or implementation (including writing of the project document) and should not have a conflict of interest with project activities

The team leader will be responsible for;

• Completion of the inception report in coordination with the National Team Expert
• Conduct MTR interviews with coordination with the National Team expert and PMU
• The overall design, writing and completion of the MTR report inclusive of audit trail and including all comments from project partners and stakeholders
• Overall MTR report quality assurance and adherence to the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects

The national team expert (this position) will;

• Work closely with the Team Leader and the PMU.
• Contribute to the inception report including a detailed plan for interview and project site visits 
• Develop and confirm MTR interview schedule in coordination with the PMU and the Team Leader
• Translate questionnaires if needed and share list of questions with interviewees in preparation for the MTR interviews
• Facilitate virtual (and translate if needed) interviews for the MTR and conduct interviews where virtual means are unavailable
• Conduct data collection for the MTR
• Conduct field visits to verify impact of project interventions at project sites in coordination with the Team Leader and PMU
• Work with PMU to confirm co-financing for the project
• Contribute to the MTR report
• Conduct and confirm any follow up data/information requirements to complete the MTR report including audit trail.

The evaluator (s) 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 National Consultant will be aimed at maximizing the overall “team” qualities in the following areas:

Education

 ·     A Bachelor’s degree in any field: mandatory/essential (15 points)

Experience

• Experience in date gathering and data research. mandatory/essential (15 points)
• Experience in data/information processing – to make data/info suited for the project performance evaluation e.g interviews, and undertaking survies: mandatory/essential (20 points)
• Experience applying data/information processing – to make data/info suited for the project performance evaluation; mandatory/essential (20 points)
• Data/information analysis and its application to project evaluation within the UN system and elsewhere in the Pacific Region or SIDs; desired/preferable (15 points)
• Competence in adaptive management and gender sensitive evaluation and analysis; desired/preferable (5 points)
• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis; desired/preferable (5 points)

Language

 Fluency in English (written) is a requirement, with excellent presentation skills; mandatory/essential  (5 points)

K.    Evaluator Ethics

The MTR team will be held to the highest ethical standards and is required to sign a code of conduct upon acceptance of the assignment. This MTR will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’. The MTR team must safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers, interviewees, and stakeholders through measures to ensure compliance with legal and other relevant codes governing collection of data and reporting on data. The MTR team must also ensure security of collected information before and after the MTR and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information, knowledge and data gathered in the MTR process must also be solely used for the MTR and not for other uses without the express authorization of UNDP and partners.

L.    Schedule of Payments

• 20% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the final MTR Inception Report and approval by the Commissioning Unit
• 40% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the draft MTR report to the Commissioning Unit
• 40% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the final MTR report and approval by the Commissioning Unit and RTA (via signatures on the MTR Report Clearance Form) and delivery of completed MTR Audit Trail

Criteria for issuing the final payment of 40%

• The final MTR report includes all requirements outlined in the MTR TOR and is in accordance with the MTR guidance.
• The final MTR report is clearly written, logically organized, and is specific for this project (i.e. text has not been cut & pasted from other MTR reports).
• The Audit Trail includes responses to and justification for each comment listed.

APPLICATION PROCESS

M.    Recommended Presentation of Offer

• Applicants must submit a duly completed and signed UNDP Personal History form (P11) and/or CV including Education/Qualification, Professional Certification, Employment Records /Experience;
• Applicants must submit a duly completed and signed Annex II Offeror´s letter to UNDP confirming interest and availability for the Individual Contractor (IC)
• Applicants must submit brief description of approach to work/technical proposal of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment, and a proposed methodology on how they will approach and complete the assignment; (max 1 page)
• Applicants must submit a Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price in NZD. 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, as per template provided.  If an Offeror 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 Offeror must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP.  

• Kindly note you can upload only ONE document to this application (scan all documents in one single PDF file to attach).

UNDP Personal History form (P11) required of all applicants:

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/Careers/P11_Personal_history_form.doc.

General Conditions of Contract for the ICs:

https://www.np.undp.org/content/dam/nepal/docs/Reports_2020/Procurement/General-conditions-of-contract-to-Individual-consultants.pdf

N.    Criteria for Selection of the Best Offer

Only those applications which are responsive and compliant will be evaluated.  Offers will be evaluated according to the Combined Scoring method – where the educational background and experience on similar assignments will be weighted at 70% (out of 100 points as allocated above) and the price proposal will weigh as 30% of the total scoring.  The applicant receiving the Highest Combined Score that has also accepted UNDP’s General Terms and Conditions will be awarded the contract.

Download the full Terms of Reference and Templates for submission from the Procurement site link:
https://procurement-notices.undp.org/view_notice.cfm?notice_id=91406