Background

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the UNDP-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized four-year project titled Reduction of POPs and PTS release by environmentally sound management throughout the life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment and associated wastes in China (PIMS5044) implemented through the FECO-MEP, which is to be undertaken in late 2016. The project started on the April, 2014 and is in its second year of implementation. In line with the UNDP-GEF Guidance on MTRs, this MTR process was initiated before the submission of the second Project Implementation Report (PIR). This ToR sets out the expectations for this MTR.  The MTR process must follow the guidance outlined in the document Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects.  (http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/guidance/GEF/miderm/Guidance_Midterm%20Review%20_EN_2014.pdf).

China is considered the world’s largest current processor of e-waste derived from Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) recycling, accounting for approximately 70% of global generation. WEEE production in China has reached 3.5 million tons in 2011 and the number is expected to soar as the result of economic growth. Currently the majority of WEEE and e-waste component has been collected and processed primarily by an informal resource recovery and recycling sector that typically utilizes crude, polluting technologies. This has resulted in the sector being associated with a range of serious environmental and health impacts including significant POPs and PTS release, and further contributes to air, land and water contamination.

The proposed project is designed to help China to fulfill the requirement of the Stockholm Convention and support the input of international experience and best practice into China’s aggressive policy efforts to address this significant issue through development and implementation of an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) based system for WEEE generally. Consistent with this objective, the project will address the POPs/PTS release sensitive e-waste stream in the recycling, dismantling, treatment and final disposal processes of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). The overall result of the project will be China having an domestic WEEE management system financed by a robust sustainable EPR mechanism and operating with BAT/BEP that effectively maximizes the resource recovery potential available while eliminating the major environmental releases, particularly POPs releases currently attributed to WEEE processing by 2015.

The project as outlined is structured with five components: Component 1 covers national WEEE management system development and implementation in terms of scope, administration, business arrangements and promotion with the UNDP-GEF support being focused on introduction of international experience and lessons learned; Component 2 covers the development of the required infrastructure and the demonstration of BAT/BEP technologies with the UNDP-GEF support focused on introduction of international technology and capability; Component 3 addresses the integration of the informal sector into the formal EPR system with UNDP-GEF support focused on demonstration of collection systems and information exchange, training and international cooperation related to illegal imports; Component 4 supports the monitoring and evaluation of the project and dissemination of experience, something that is seen as useful for other developing countries dealing with the issue globally; and Component 5 strengthens project management capacity to achieve implementation effectiveness and efficiency.

The programme period is 48 months and the total GEF fund is $11,650,000.There are three demonstration provinces/cities under the project including Jiangsu, Hubei and Tianjin. Jiangsu Xiangyu, Jinmen GEM, Wuhan Bowang and Tianjin TCL Aobo are the demonstration factories under the project.

Duties and Responsibilities

Objectives of the MTR

The modified 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.

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.

MTR Approach & Methodology

The MTR should provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The MTR team will review relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. PIF, UNDP Initiation Plan, UNDP Environmental & Social Safeguard Policy, the Project Document, project reports including Annual Project Review/PIRs, project budget revisions, lesson learned reports, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team considers useful for this evidence-based review). The MTR team will review the baseline GEF focal area Tracking Tool submitted to the GEF at CEO endorsement, and the midterm GEF focal area Tracking Tool that must be completed before the MTR field mission begins.  

The MTR team 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), UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisers, 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 executing agencies, implementing agencies, senior officials, local PMOs, demonstration factories, and task team, key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Board, project stakeholders, academia, local government and CSOs, etc. Additionally, the MTR team is expected to conduct field missions to the project sites in Hubei, Jiangsu Province and Tianjin.

The final MTR report should describe the full MTR approach taken and the rationale for the approach making explicit the underlying assumptions, challenges, strengths and weaknesses about the methods and approach of the review.

[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.

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;
• Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership;
• Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design.Make suggestions for how relevant gender issues can be better incorporated and monitored in the project. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projectsfor further guidelines.

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;
• Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc.) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis;
•  Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively.  Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators and indicators that capture development benefits.

Progress Towards Results

ProgressTowards Outcomes Analysis:

• Review the log frame indicators against progress made towards the end-of-project targetsusing 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

[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

In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

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

Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management Arrangements:

• Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document.  Have changes been made and are they effective.  Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear.  Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner.  Recommend areas for improvement;
• Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement;
• Review the quality of support provided by the Implementing Agency/GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) and recommend areas for improvement.

Work Planning:

• Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved;
• Are work-planning processes results-based. If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results.

Finance and co-finance:

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

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

• Review the monitoring tools currently being used:  Do they provide the necessary information. Do they involve key partners. Are they aligned or mainstreamed with national systems.  Do they use existing information. Are they efficient. Are they cost-effective. Are additional tools required. How could they be made more participatory and inclusive;
• Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget. Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation. Are these resources being allocated effectively.

Stakeholder Engagement:

• Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders;
• Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project;  Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation;
• Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives.

Reporting:

• Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project managementand shared with the Project Board;
• Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil GEF reporting requirements (i.e. how have they addressed poorly-rated PIRs, if applicable);
• Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners.

Communications:

• Review internal project communication with stakeholders: Is communication regular and effective. Are there key stakeholders left out of communication. Are there feedback mechanisms when communication is received. Does this communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of project outcomes and activities and investment in the sustainability of project results;
• Review external project communication: Are proper means of communication established or being established to express the project progress and intended impact to the public (is there a web presence, for example, or did the project implement appropriate outreach and public awareness campaigns)

Sustainability

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

Financial risks to sustainability:

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

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

• Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project outcomes. What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership (including ownership by governments and other key stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained. Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow. Is there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long term objectives of the project. Are lessons learned being documented by the Project Team on a continual basis and shared/ transferred to appropriate parties who could learn from the project and potentially replicate and/or scale it in the future.

Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability:

• Do the legal frameworks, policies, governance structures and processes pose risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project benefits. While assessing this parameter, also consider if the required systems/ mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and technical knowledge transfer are in place.

Environmental risks to sustainability:

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

Conclusions & Recommendations

The MTR team will include a section of the report setting out the MTR’s evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings.

Recommendations should be succinct suggestions for critical intervention that are specific, measurable, achievable, and relevant. A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary. See theGuidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projectsfor guidance on a recommendation table.

The MTR team should make no more than 15 recommendations total. Recommendations should outline corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project and should focus on actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project.

Ratings

The MTR teamwill include its ratings of the project’s results and brief descriptions of the associated achievements in a MTR Ratings& Achievement Summary Table in the Executive Summary of the MTR report. See Annex E for ratings scales. No rating on Project Strategy and no overall project rating is required.

TIMEFRAME

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately (23) days over a time period of approximately three months starting (Mid of September 2016), and shall not exceed five months from when the team is contracted. The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows:

MIDTERM REVIEW DELIVERABLES

MTR ARRANGEMENTS

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

The commissioning unit will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within China for the MTR team. The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the MTR team to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits. 

MTR team

A team of two independent consultants will conduct the MTR-one team leader (with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in other regions globally) and one team expert, usually from the country of the project. The consultants should not 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.  

This TOR is designed for recruitment of the internatioal team leader.

Competencies

• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to Chemicals (POPs) Management;
• Experience working with the GEF or GEF-evaluations;
• Familiarity with UNDP and its environmental projects;
• Experience working in China, and good understanding of the socio-economic contexts and environmental protection of China;
• Good knowledge on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) reduction and elimination;
• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and Chemicals (POPs) Management; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis.
• Excellent communication skills;
• Demonstrable analytical skills;
• Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset.

Documents for Application Submission

• Please provide Offeror’s Letter and proposal (download link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zhov5ekfaty7ncz/Offeror's%20letter%20and%20Proposal.doc?dl=0, or http://pan.baidu.com/s/1hqJIIaC, please click "XX (64 KB)" on the top right corner of the page to download the documents.) together with your CV while submitting application;
• In the Offeror’s Letter and proposal, you will be asked to confirm your interest and availability for the assignment, and provide technical and financial proposal;
• Please merge all your documents as one prior uploading as the application system can only accept one attachment.

Selection criteria: The award of the contract will be made to the Individual Consultant who has obtained the highest Combined Score and has accepted UNDP’s General Terms and Conditions.  Only those applications which are responsive and compliant will be evaluated. The offers will be evaluated using the “Combined Scoring method” where:

• Technical evaluation - 70%;
• Financial Evaluation - 30%.

Required Skills and Experience

Education:

• An advanced degree in environmental science/engineering, chemistry engineering, metallurgy, ecological industry, e-waste management and recycling or other closely related field.

Experience:

• Work experience in relevant technical areas for at least 10 years;
• Recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies;
• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios.

Language:

• Fluency in written and spoken English is required;
• Knowledge of Chinese is an asset.