Background

The full version of Terms of reference for the Project Mid-term Evaluation is available at: http://www.undp.uz/en/projects/project.php?id=146

The objective of the project is to demonstrate new management approaches for expansion of protected area system of Uzbekistan. The globally significant biodiversity of Uzbekistan is protected through a system of protected areas covering 5.57% of the territory. The strict nature reserves represent the most numerous and important instrument of in situ biodiversity conservation in the country. Under current conditions, the National Protected Area System (NPAS) of Uzbekistan does not effectively safeguard its biodiversity against threats, as it is not ecologically representative. Large number of species, ecosystems and ecological processes are not adequately protected and the management regimes of the existing protected areas do not provide full security for particular species or ecosystems. The project aims to demonstrate new management approaches for the expansion of protected area system in Uzbekistan. One of the planned interventions of the future project is to provide a test ground for the ”buffer zone” provisions of the new Protected Area Law, by adjusting reserves’ boundaries, rezoning and working with local communities for the establishment of the first community – owned and managed protected areas in Uzbekistan. The proposed project will build the management capacity of all strict nature reserves across the country, to effectively utilize opportunities that have been opened up by the adoption of the new law. The project has the following three outcomes:

• master plan for PAS of Uzbekistan is guiding the expansion;
• Strengthened institutional and individual capacity to enable expansion and improved management effectiveness; and
• Demonstration of new conservation management approaches (new governance approaches) in  buffer areas of strictly nature reserves  in Uzbekistan.

The actual operations of the UNDP-GEF Project “PIMS 2111 BD MSP. Strengthening Sustainability of the National Protected Area System by Focusing on Strictly Protected Areas” started in June 2008 – when the project was signed by the Government. The total project budget is US$ 2,215,000, out of which the GEF contribution comprises US$ 975,000. The national executing agency responsible for the project from the side of the Government is Main Forestry Department of Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources.

Objective of the Mid-Term Evaluation

The evaluation is intended to provide a comprehensive overall assessment of the project and provides an opportunity to critically assess administrative and technical strategies issues and constrains associated with large international and multi-partner initiatives. The evaluation should also provide recommendations for strategies, approaches and/or activities to improve the potential of the Project to achieve expected outcomes and meet the objective within the Project timeframe. Findings of this evaluation will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation of the current project phase in the future years.

The purpose of the Mid-Term Evaluation is:

• To assess overall performance against the Project objective and outcomes as set out in Project Document and other related documents
• To assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the Project
• To analyze critically the implementation and management arrangements of the Project
• To assess the progress to date towards achievement of the outcomes;
• To review planned strategies and plans for achieving the overall objective of the Project within the timeframe;
• To assess the sustainability of the project’s interventions.
• To list and document initial lessons concerning Project design, implementation and management
• To assess Project relevance to national priorities
• To provide guidance for the future Project activities and, if necessary, for the implementation and management arrangements.

In particular, this evaluation will assess progress in establishing the information baseline, reducing threats, and identifying any difficulties in project implementation and their causes, and recommend corrective course of action.  Effective action to rectify any identify issues hindering implementation will be a requirement prior to determining whether implementation should proceed.

Project performance will be measured based on Project’s Logical Framework Matrix, which provides clear performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. Many of these indicators relate to the reduction/prevention of the key threats to biodiversity. Success and failure will be determined in part by monitoring changes in baseline conditions. The Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation will be stand-alone document that substantiates its recommendations and conclusions.

The Government Executing Agency, the project personnel, and other stakeholders are also interested to have an independent and experienced evaluation of the project at the “halfway stage” so that major management and technical issues can be highlighted and addressed and the best possible basis created for the projects long term success.
Considering the challenging socio-economic and political environment, UNDP Uzbekistan is highly interested in the independent evaluation of the project’s progress and possible ways to adjust the project strategy, if necessary, in order to achieve the stated objective. Based on the evaluation results of other UNDP-GEF projects in Uzbekistan: i) “Establishing Nuratau-Kyzylkum biosphere reserve as a model for biodiversity conservation in Uzbekistan”; ii) “Conservation of Tugai Forest and Strengthening Protected Areas System in the Amu Darya Delta of Karakalpakstan” (Uzbekistan)” and recent developments in UNDP corporate result-based management principles, UNDP-Uzbekistan already sees potential problems in legal establishment of a PA where the actual decision depends on the Governmental counterparts and not on UNDP and project team;
Therefore evaluation should be focused on an estimation of an opportunity of decision-making of the Government of Uzbekistan.
Particular emphasis should be put on the current project results and the possibility of achieving all the objectives in the given timeframe, taking into consideration the speed, at which the project is proceeding.

This evaluation is to be undertaken taking into consideration the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation policy: http://thegef.org/MonitoringandEvaluation/MEPoliciesProcedures/mepoliciesprocedures.html and the UNDP/GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy: http://www.undp.org/gef/05/monitoring/policies.html 

Duties and Responsibilities

 A team of independent consultants (2) will conduct the evaluation. This team will be composed of one International Consultant or Team Leader and one National Consultant.
Specifically, the International Evaluator/ Team Leader  will perform the following tasks:

• Lead and manage the mid-term evaluation mission;
• Design the detailed mid-term evaluation scope and methodology (including the methods for data collection and analysis);
• Assist in drafting terms of reference of the national consultant;
• Decide the division of labour within the mid-term evaluation team;
• Conduct an analysis of the outcome, outputs and partnership strategy;
• Draft related parts of the mid-term evaluation report; and
• Finalize the whole mid-term evaluation report.

The National Consultant, to be recruited separately, will provide input in reviewing all project documentation and will provide the International Consultant with a compilation of information prior to the mid-term evaluation mission.
Issues to be addressed by the Mid-Term Evaluation

More specifically, the evaluation should assess:

• Project concept and design: The evaluators will assess the project concept and design. He/she should review the problem addressed by the project and the project strategy, encompassing an assessment of the appropriateness of the objectives, planned outputs, activities and inputs. The evaluator will provide recommendations on the improvement if needed. The executing modality and managerial arrangements should also be judged. The evaluator will assess the achievement of indicators and review the work plan, planned duration and budget of the project.
• Implementation: The evaluation will assess the implementation of the project in terms of quality and timeliness of inputs and efficiency and effectiveness of activities carried out. Also, the effectiveness of management as well as the quality and timeliness of monitoring and backstopping by all parties to the project should be evaluated. In particular the evaluation is to assess the Project team’s use of adaptive management in project implementation.
• Project outputs, outcomes and impact: The evaluation will assess the outputs, outcomes and impact achieved by the project as well as the likely sustainability of project results. This should encompass an assessment of the achievement of the immediate objectives and the contribution to attaining the overall objective of the project. The evaluation should also assess the extent to which the implementation of the project has been inclusive of relevant stakeholders and to which it has been able to create collaboration between different partners. The evaluation will also examine if the project has had significant unexpected effects, whether of beneficial or detrimental character.

The Mid-term Evaluation will also cover the following aspects:

2.1. Progress Towards Results
Changes in development conditions. Address the following questions, with a focus on the perception of change among stakeholders:

• Have critically endangered species been properly and adequately protected within the project sites?
• Have there been changes in local stakeholder behavior (i.e. threats ….) that have contributed to improved conservation?  If not, why not?
• Have the project activities been properly tuned with changing situation?  If not, propose how to improve or modify them.

Measurement of change: Progress towards results should be based on a comparison of indicators before and after (so far) the project intervention.  Progress can also be assessed by comparing conditions in the project sites to conditions in similar unmanaged sites.

Project strategy: how and why outcomes (listed as outputs in the project document) and strategies contribute to the achievement of the expected results: Examine their relevance and whether they provide the most effective route towards results.

Sustainability: Extent to which the benefits of the project will continue, within or outside the project sites, after it has come to an end. Relevant factors include for example: development of a sustainability strategy, establishment of financial and economic instruments and mechanisms, mainstreaming project objectives into the economy;

2.2. Project’s Adaptive Management Framework
Monitoring Systems

• Assess the monitoring tools currently being used:
• Do they provide the necessary information?
• Do they involve key partners?
• Are they efficient?
• Are additional tools required?
• Reconstruct baseline data if necessary.  Reconstruction should follow participatory processes and could be achieved in conjunction with a learning exercise
• Ensure the monitoring system, including performance indicators, at least meets GEF minimum requirements.  Apply SMART indicators as necessary.
• Apply the GEF Tracking Tool and provide a description of comparison with initial application of the tool. 
  Risk Management
• Validate whether the risks identified in the project document and PIRs are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate.  If not, explain why.  Describe any additional risks identified and suggest risk ratings and possible risk management strategies to be adopted
  --- Assess the project’s risk identification and management systems:(i) Is the UNDP-GEF Risk Management System  appropriately applied (ii) How can the UNDP-GEF Risk Management System be used to strengthen project management?
• Work Planning
  -- Assess the use of the logical framework as a management tool during implementation and any changes made to it. Ensure the logical framework meets UNDP-GEF requirements in terms of format and content.(i) Assess the use of routinely updated work plans.(ii) Assess the use of electronic information technologies to support implementation, participation and monitoring, as well as other project activities (iii) Are work planning processes result-based?  If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning.(iv) Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions.  Any irregularities must be noted.
  Reporting(v) Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management( vi) Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners.

2.3. Underlying Factors

• Assess the underlying factors beyond the project’s immediate control that influence outcomes and results. Consider the appropriateness and effectiveness of the project’s management strategies for these factors. Particular attention should be addressed to the governments level of demonstrable commitment to the establishment of new PA’s and maintenance of the existing PA system, based financial / political indicators (PA financing, political support for new PA establishment, etc).\
• Re-test the assumptions made by the project management and identify new assumptions that should be made
• Assess the effect of any incorrect assumptions made by the project

2.4. UNDP Contribution

• Assess the role of UNDP against the requirements set out in the UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results.  Consider:
• Field visits
• Steering Committee/TOR follow-up and analysis
• PIR preparation and follow-up
  
• GEF guidance
   -- Assess the overall effectiveness of the UNDP CO Operational support to the project (particularly in terms of its timeliness and cost efficiency). Identify key operational bottlenecks or limitations that are, or may, impact project implementation and make relevant recommendations for removing them.
  --  Assess the contribution to the project from UNDP “soft” assistance (i.e. policy advice & dialogue, advocacy, and coordination).  Suggest measures to strengthen UNDP’s soft assistance to the project management.

2.5. Partnership Strategy

• Assess how partners are involved in the project’s adaptive management framework:
• Involving partners and stakeholders in the selection of indicators and other measures of performance
• Using already existing data and statistics
• Analyzing progress towards results and determining project strategies.
• Identify opportunities for stronger substantive partnerships;
• Assess how local stakeholders participate in project management and decision-making.  Include an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach adopted by the project and suggestions for improvement if necessary.
• Consider the dissemination of project information to partners and stakeholders and if necessary suggest more appropriate mechanisms.

2.6. Project Finance:

• Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and provide an opinion on the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions, taking into account the project activity timeframe; 

Activity and Deliveries Timeframe   

Mission preparation:  To review documents, obtain necessary non-project background or supporting documents, finalize evaluation methodology, prepare learning sessions, surveys etc, develop hypotheses about the project strategies and management.

Work plan, mission agenda and report outline submitted 4 days   
Mission – 1st phase: Visits to the field, interviews, questionnaires, de-briefings 10 days   
Mission- 2nd phase: Consolidation of findings, drawing of conclusions, preparing the first draft of the evaluation report, discussion of draft with key stakeholders.
Draft Evaluation Report submitted and comments received from supervisor. 5 days   
Post mission Wrap-up: Finalization of the mid-term evaluation report (incorporating comments received on first draft.
Final Report submitted and accepted by supervisor. 6 days   

Key Output

The key product expected from this mid-term evaluation is a comprehensive analytical report in English. The length of the mid-term evaluation report shall not exceed 50 pages in total (excluding annexes).
The report shall be submitted to Head of Environment and Energy Unit, UNDP Uzbekistan. Prior to approval of the final report, a draft version shall be circulated for comments to UNDP-GEF team (inc. UNDP BRC, Slovakia, UNDP CO Uzbekistan), Project Manager and government counterparts, including: National Project Coordinator.

Working Days:
The assignment is to commence no later than July 15, 2010 and be completed by August 31 2010.
Payment Conditions:
Payment will be released upon satisfactory provision of respective deliverables:  

• Work Plan and report outline 20% of total lump sum   
• Draft Evaluation Report 40% of total lump sum   
• Final Report 40% of total lump sum 
  

Competencies

• Knowledge of the UNDP/GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy;
• Competence in Adaptive Management, as applied to natural resource management projects;
• Hans-on familiarity with land use situation and structures  in Uzbekistan is an asset;

Required Skills and Experience

Education: 

• Advanced university degree on community-based natural resources use management or similar   

Experience: 

• 10 years of work experience in UNDP/GEF projects’ evaluation in relevant areas of development;
• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;   

Language Requirements: 

• Proficiency in English,
• knowledge of Russian is an advantage.