Background

1. INTRODUCTION

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for an International Consultant to complete the Midterm Review (MTR) process of the full -sized UNDP-supported GEF-financed project titled Mitigating key sector pressures on marine and coastal biodiversity and further strengthening the national system of marine protected areas in Djibouti (PIMS # 5560) implemented through the National Directorate for Environment and Sustainable Development/Ministry of Environment and Sustainable development, which is to be undertaken in 2021. The project started on 24 July 2018 and is in its third year of implementation. This ToR sets out the expectations for completing and updating the existing draft MTR report.  The completion of this project’s MTR process must continue to follow the guidance outlined in the document Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects (hyperlink).

2.  PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Republic of Djibouti is a small coastal country in the Horn of Africa, with a total area of 23,200 km2, a coastline of 372 km and, within a maritime territory area of 7,200 km². Djibouti's economy is largely dependent on its service sector (76.3% of GDP) connected with the country's strategic location as a deep-water port at the intersection of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Over the last years, led by the vision to turn the country into a platform for commercial and logistics services for the Horn of Africa, the Government has started to undertake vast projects for the development of port, rail and road infrastructure, aimed at facilitating and increasing access to markets in the region.

While the Government of Djibouti has made investments to protect some of its unique and biodiversity rich marine habitats, these achievements risk to become precarious given the magnitude and speed of new developments of port infrastructure in Djibouti, most notably in the Gulfs of Tadjourah and Ghoubet. There are major risks associated with the new shipping routes and increased traffic of oil tankers and other ships transporting noxious substances through this vulnerable environment. 

This GEF project therefore has the objective to “Enhance the resilience of Djibouti’s marine biodiversity through increasing institutional capacity, enhancing financial sustainability and management effectiveness of the Marine Protected Area (MPA) system, and mainstreaming marine biodiversity into key maritime sectors”.  The project Objective will be achieved through implementation of four components that address the key barriers identified for effective MPA and marine ecosystem services management. Component 1 Strengthening the effectiveness of Djibouti’s MPA system through enhanced capacity of all stakeholders, including dialogue to mainstream biodiversity into maritime sectors; Component 2 Expanding the national MPA network and strengthening MPA management at site level; Component 3 Sustainable financing mechanism for marine biodiversity and the national protected areas system; and Component 4 Gender Mainstreaming, Knowledge Management and M&E.

The project (MPA Project) is being implemented over a period of five years following UNDP’s national implementation modality, according to the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between UNDP and the Government of Djibouti, and the Country Programme. The Implementing Partner for this project the Ministry of Urbanism, Environment and Tourism (MUET) of Djibouti. The Implementing Partner is responsible and accountable for managing this project, including the monitoring and evaluation of project interventions, achieving project outcomes, and for the effective use of UNDP resources. The Implementing Partner is responsible for: approving and signing the multi-year workplan; approving and signing the combined delivery report at the end of the year; and signing the financial report or the funding authorization and certificate of expenditures.

The total cost of the project is USD $15,212,374.  This is financed through a GEF grant of USD 2,822,374 and USD 12,390,000 in parallel co-financing from Government of Djibouti (GoD), GoD PRAREV project, GoD (PRMSRVCP/Islamic Development Bank), World Food Programme and IGAD-IUCN-Nature Djibouti. UNDP, as the GEF Implementing Agency, is responsible for the execution of the GEF resources and the cash co-financing transferred to UNDP bank account only.

The implementation of the project was affected to some extent due to the COVID-19 pandemic as the country was under confinement for eight weeks. With the announcement of the nationwide lockdown, the businesses-both formal and informal were badly affected. People were forced to stay-put inside their houses until the lockdown was lifted on May 17. During the confinement period, the Ministry of Health with technical and financial support from the development partners was undertaking the COVID-19 tests very diligently and tracking the spread of the cases neighbourhood by neighbourhood. At 55,983 COVID-19 tests (as of July 26, 2020), Djibouti was successful in testing 5.3% of the total population within the span of about 4 months. Out of these, 5, 050 were tested positive and the total death toll reached 58. In terms of proportion of positive cases per million population, the figure is 5111.33[1], which comes out to be 0.5% of the total population. With this statistics, Djibouti is a country with second highest proportion of COVID-19 cases per million population in Africa, after South Africa and among the handful of countries in the most critical band at the global level.

3.  MTR PURPOSE

The final MTR report will assess progress towards the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes as specified in the Project Document, and assess early signs of project success or failure with the goal of identifying the necessary changes to be made in order to set the project on-track to achieve its intended results. The MTR will also review the project’s strategy and its risks to sustainability.

The MPA Project is a successor to the MPA Project -Phase 1, which was implemented until 2015 by the same implementation partner. The implementation of the project was greatly affected by the global pandemic and the likelihood of receiving a request for extension is high considering that many aspects of the project are delayed. The latest Project Implementation Report (PIR) has shown that there are significant delays and adaptive management might be needed to adjust to the impacts of COVID-19 crisis. The project has had more interactive sessions with the project beneficiaries so as to plan more targeted alternative livelihood options as part of the project interventions. In this regard, the results and recommendations of the MTR will be crucial to make evidence-based and risk-informed decision at the implementation partner and at UNDP level to ensure that the envisaged results are achieved.

The completion of the MTR process is planned for August 2021.

4. MTR APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

The MTR report must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful.

The MTR consultant  will review the existing MTR report plus all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the project preparation phase (i.e. PIF, UNDP Initiation Plan, UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Procedure/SESP), the Project Document, project reports including annual PIRs, project budget revisions, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team considers useful for this evidence-based review. The MTR consultant will review the baseline GEF focal area Core Indicators/Tracking Tools submitted to the GEF at CEO endorsement, and the midterm GEF focal area Core Indicators/Tracking Tools..  

The MTR 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, the Nature, Climate and Energy (NCE) Regional Technical Advisor, direct beneficiaries, 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 the organizations listed below (List 1); 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.

List 1: Stakeholders to be consulted/interviewed:

1. Directorate of Environment and Sustainable Development (DEDD) / MUET
2. Directorate of Fisheries / Ministry of Agriculture, Water, Fisheries, Livestock and Marine Resources (MAWFLMR)
3. Directorate of Maritime Affairs / Ministry of Equipment and Transport (MET)
4. Ports Authority / MET
5. National Scientific Research Institution: CERD / Ministry of Higher Education and Research
6. National Coast Guard
7. Prefecture councils of Arta, Tadjourah and
8. National Union of Women of Djibouti
9. Transport Management
10. Djibouti Telecom
11. Arta and Tadjourah Fishermen's Association
12. Djibouti-Nature Association

The specific design and methodology for the MTR should emerge from consultations between the MTR consultant and the above-mentioned parties regarding what is appropriate and feasible for meeting the MTR purpose and objectives and answering the evaluation questions, given limitations of budget, time and data, and the existing draft MTR report The MTR consultant must 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 for updating and completing the existing draft MTR report must be fully discussed and agreed between UNDP, stakeholders and the MTR consultant. 

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.

[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.

Duties and Responsibilities

DETAILED SCOPE OF THE MTR

The MTR international consultant will ensure that the final MTR report assesses the following four categories of project progress. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for extended descriptions.

i.    Project Strategy

Project design:

• Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions.  Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document.
• Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results.  Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design?
• Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country (or of participating countries in the case of multi-country projects)?
• Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes?
• Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.
  • Were relevant gender issues (e.g. the impact of the project on gender equality in the programme country, involvement of women’s groups, engaging women in project activities) raised in the Project Document?
• If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

Results Framework/Logframe:

• Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s logframe indicators and targets, assess how “SMART” the midterm and end-of-project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound), and suggest specific amendments/revisions to the targets and indicators as necessary.
• Are the project’s objectives and outcomes or components clear, practical, and feasible within its time frame?
• Are the project indicators and targets realistic and achievable, with and without COVID-19 triggered implications?
• 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.
• Undertake a critical analysis of the project beneficiaries to assess whether the indicators capture the changes brought by the pandemic implications and to recommend any adjustments to the timeline, budget, or nature of interventions in the results framework.

ii.    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).

Table. Progress Towards Results Matrix (Achievement of outcomes against End-of-project Targets)

Indicator Assessment Key

In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

• Compare and analyse the GEF Tracking Tool/Core Indicators at the Baseline with the one completed right before the Midterm Review.
• Identify remaining barriers to achieving the project objective in the remainder of the project.
• By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits.

iii.   Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management Arrangements:

• Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document.  Have changes been made and are they effective?  Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear?  Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner?  Recommend areas for improvement.
• Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement.
• Review the quality of support provided by the GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) and recommend areas for improvement.
• Do the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner and/or UNDP and other partners have the capacity to deliver benefits to or involve women? If yes, how?
• What is the gender balance of project staff? What steps have been taken to ensure gender balance in project staff?
• What is the gender balance of the Project Board? What steps have been taken to ensure gender balance in the Project Board?
• What steps are taken to ensure that the Project Board is well represented by all the relevant stakeholders? Were there any logistical arrangements put in place to ensure the Project Board meetings are held in compliance with COVID-19 safety protocols?

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. 
• In view of COVID impact, assess any potential delays in meeting the annual targets and overall project targets as indicated in the agreed multi-year workplan of the project document? If yes, recommend the adjusted timeline and revised results based work plan following the GEF guidelines.

Finance and co-finance:

• Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions. 
• Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.
• Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds?
• Informed by the co-financing monitoring table to be filled out by the Commissioning Unit and project team, provide commentary on co-financing: is co-financing being used strategically to help the objectives of the project? Is the Project Team meeting with all co-financing partners regularly in order to align financing priorities and annual work plans?

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

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

• Review the monitoring tools currently being used:  Do they provide the necessary information? Do they involve key partners? Are they aligned or mainstreamed with national systems?  Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-effective? Are additional tools required? How could they be made more participatory and inclusive?
• Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget.  Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation? Are these resources being allocated effectively?
• Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were incorporated in monitoring systems. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.

Stakeholder Engagement:

• Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?
• Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project?  Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation?
• Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?
• How does the project engage women and girls?  Is the project likely to have the same positive and/or negative effects on women and men, girls and boys?  Identify, if possible, legal, cultural, or religious constraints on women’s participation in the project.  What can the project do to enhance its gender benefits?

Social and Environmental Standards (Safeguards)

• Validate the risks identified in the project’s most current SESP, and those risks’ ratings; are any revisions needed?
• Summarize and assess the revisions made since CEO Endorsement/Approval (if any) to:
  • The project’s overall safeguards risk categorization.
  • The identified types of risks[6] (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).

iv.   Sustainability

• Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Review/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk Register are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.
• In addition, assess the following risks to sustainability:

Financial risks to sustainability:

• What is the likelihood of financial and economic resources not being available once the GEF assistance ends (consider potential resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and other funding that will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project’s outcomes)?

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

Additionally, the MTR international consultant is expected to make recommendations to the Project Team. 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 international consultant should make no more than 15 recommendations total.

Ratings

The MTR international consultant 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.

Table. MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table for Mitigating key sector pressures on marine and coastal biodiversity and further strengthening the national system of marine protected areas in Djibouti project (PIMS # 5560))

[1] Populate with data from the Logframe and scorecards

[2] Populate with data from the Project Document

[3] If available

[4] Colour code this column only

[5] Use the 6 point Progress Towards Results Rating Scale: HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU

[6] 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.

1. TIMEFRAME

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 15 working days over a time period of 3 (three) weeks and shall not exceed one month from when the consultant is hired. The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows:

Options for site visits should be provided in the Inception Report already provided.

1. MIDTERM REVIEW DELIVERABLES

*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.

1. MTR ARRANGEMENTS

The principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the Commissioning Unit (UNDP CO office). The Commissioning Unit for this project’s MTR is UNDP Djibouti.

The Commissioning Unit will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the MTR consultant and will provide an updated stakeholder list with contact details (phone and email). The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the MTR consultant to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits.

1. INSTITUTIONNAL ARRANGEMENT:

Individual Consultant will be evaluated based on the following methodologies:

Cumulative analysis

When using this weighted scoring method, the award of the contract should be made to the individual Consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

1. responsive/compliant/acceptable, and
2. 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 49% point in technical criteria would be considered for the Financial Evaluation.

Financial Evaluation: (Total obtainable score – 30)

All technically qualified proposals will be scored out 30 based on the formula provided below. The maximum points (30) will be assigned to the lowest financial proposal. All other proposals receive points according to the following formula:

p = y (µ/z)         

Where:

p = points for the financial proposal being evaluated
y = maximum number of points for the financial proposal
µ = price of the lowest priced proposal
z = price of the proposal being evaluated

1.  TEAM COMPOSITION

One international independent consultant will review the existing draft  MTR report and will complete the process .  The international consultant will be responsible for reviewing existing documentation, conducting stakeholder interviews as needed, and writing and finalizing  the MTR report. 

The CO office will help identify the stakeholders and organize bilateral and group consultations with the stakeholders..

The international consultant 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 consultant will be aimed at maximizing the overall “team” qualities in the following areas:

Education

• A Master’s degree or Phd in Natural Resources Management, Conservation or Marine Protected Areas Management, Fisheries, Coastal Zone Management, Environmental Sciences, or related fields of expertise (20 points)

Competencies

sdfdsf

1. TIMEFRAME

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 15 working days over a time period of 3 (three) weeks and shall not exceed one month from when the consultant is hired. The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows:

Options for site visits should be provided in the Inception Report already provided.

1. MIDTERM REVIEW DELIVERABLES

*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.

1. MTR ARRANGEMENTS

The principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the Commissioning Unit (UNDP CO office). The Commissioning Unit for this project’s MTR is UNDP Djibouti.

The Commissioning Unit will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the MTR consultant and will provide an updated stakeholder list with contact details (phone and email). The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the MTR consultant to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits.

1. INSTITUTIONNAL ARRANGEMENT:

Individual Consultant will be evaluated based on the following methodologies:

Cumulative analysis

When using this weighted scoring method, the award of the contract should be made to the individual Consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

1. responsive/compliant/acceptable, and
2. 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 49% point in technical criteria would be considered for the Financial Evaluation.

Financial Evaluation: (Total obtainable score – 30)

All technically qualified proposals will be scored out 30 based on the formula provided below. The maximum points (30) will be assigned to the lowest financial proposal. All other proposals receive points according to the following formula:

p = y (µ/z)         

Where:

p = points for the financial proposal being evaluated
y = maximum number of points for the financial proposal
µ = price of the lowest priced proposal
z = price of the proposal being evaluated

1.  TEAM COMPOSITION

One international independent consultant will review the existing draft  MTR report and will complete the process .  The international consultant will be responsible for reviewing existing documentation, conducting stakeholder interviews as needed, and writing and finalizing  the MTR report. 

The CO office will help identify the stakeholders and organize bilateral and group consultations with the stakeholders..

The international consultant 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 consultant will be aimed at maximizing the overall “team” qualities in the following areas:

Education

• A Master’s degree or Phd in Natural Resources Management, Conservation or Marine Protected Areas Management, Fisheries, Coastal Zone Management, Environmental Sciences, or related fields of expertise (20 points)

Required Skills and Experience

1. PAYMENT SCHEDULE

• 50% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the draft MTR report to the UNDP CO
• 50% 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 50%[1]:

• 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.

In line with the UNDP’s financial regulations, when determined by the Commissioning Unit and/or the consultant that a deliverable or service cannot be satisfactorily completed due to the impact of COVID-19 and limitations to the MTR, that deliverable or service will not be paid.

Due to the current COVID-19 situation and its implications, a partial payment may be considered if the consultant invested time towards the deliverable but was unable to complete to circumstances beyond his/her control.

1. APPLICATION PROCESS[2]

Recommended Presentation of Proposal: 

1. Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template[3] provided by UNDP;
2. CV and a Personal History Form (P11 form[4]);
3. 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)
4. Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price and all other travel related costs (such as flight ticket, per diem, etc), supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template attached to the Letter of Confirmation of Interest template.  If an applicant 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 applicant must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP. 

All application materials should be submitted Procurement Unit; UNDP, 6th Floor, Mezz Tower, Rue de Venise, Djibouti Ville, Djibouti in a sealed envelope indicating the following reference “Consultant for Midterm Review of the project “Mitigating key sector pressures on marine and coastal biodiversity and further strengthening the national system of marine areas in Djibouti” or by email at proc.dji@undp.org by 8/01/2022,  New York time. Incomplete applications will be excluded from further consideration.

Criteria for Evaluation of Proposal:  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% 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.

ToR ANNEX A: List of Documents to be reviewed by the MTR consultant

(The Commissioning Unit is responsible for compiling these documents prior to the recruitment of the MTR team so that they are available to the team immediately after contract signature.)

1. Existing draft MTR report
2. PIF
3. UNDP Initiation Plan
4. UNDP Project Document
5. UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP)
6. Project Inception Report
7. All Project Implementation Reports (PIR’s)
8. Quarterly progress reports and work plans of the various implementation task teams
9. Audit reports
10. Finalized GEF focal area Tracking Tools/Core Indicators at CEO endorsement and midterm (Biodiversity focal area)
11. Oversight mission reports 
12. All monitoring reports prepared by the project
13. Financial and Administration guidelines used by Project Team

The following documents will also be available:

1. Project operational guidelines, manuals and systems
2. UNDP country/countries programme document(s)
3. Minutes of the project entitled – “Mitigating key sector pressures on marine and coastal biodiversity and further strengthening the national system of marine protected areas in Djibouti” Board Meetings and other meetings (i.e. Project Appraisal Committee meetings)
4. Project site location maps
5. Any additional documents, as relevant.

ToR ANNEX B: Guidelines on Contents for the Midterm Review Report[5]

ToR ANNEX C: Midterm Review Evaluative Matrix Template

NOTE: Include COVID-19 specific questions, as needed.

This Midterm Review Evaluative Matrix must be fully completed/amended by the consultant and included in the MTR inception report and as an Annex to the MTR report.

ToR ANNEX D: UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluators/Midterm Review Consultants[6]

ToR ANNEX E: MTR Ratings

ToR ANNEX F: MTR Report Clearance Form

(to be completed by the Commissioning Unit and RTA and included

[1] The Commissioning Unit is obligated to issue payments to the MTR team as soon as the terms under the ToR are fulfilled.  If there is an ongoing discussion regarding the quality and completeness of the final deliverables that cannot be resolved between the Commissioning Unit and the MTR team, the Regional M&E Advisor and Vertical Fund Directorate will be consulted.  If needed, the Commissioning Unit’s senior management, Procurement Services Unit and Legal Support Office will be notified as well so that a decision can be made about whether or not to withhold payment of any amounts that may be due to the evaluator(s), suspend or terminate the contract and/or remove the individual contractor from any applicable rosters.

[2] Engagement of the consultants should be done in line with guidelines for hiring consultants in the POPP: https://info.undp.org/global/popp/Pages/default.aspx

[3] https://intranet.undp.org/unit/bom/pso/Support%20documents%20on%20IC%20Guidelines/Template%20for%20Confirmation%20of%20Interest%20and%20Submission%20of%20Financial%20Proposal.docx

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

[5] The Report length should not exceed 40 pages in total (not including annexes).

[6] http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/100