Background

This project is placed within the existing national framework of Azerbaijan and provides a particular focus on a programmatic NAMA approach that reflects specific greenhouse gas mitigation measures to be implemented by SOCAR, the national oil company of Azerbaijan. The specific objective of the project is to support SOCAR in the implementation of its Climate Change Mitigation Strategy by promoting and upscaling GHG mitigation measures through a programmatic NAMA approach in the low-carbon end-use sectors, where pilot investments will be directed into low energy and low carbon technologies. The project is set within the country’s ambitions to reduce GHG emissions and energy intensity of major energy end-use sectors in Azerbaijan and simultaneously introduce innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies in main energy end-use sectors such as buildings and transportation systems. The project is consistent with GEF Climate Change Mitigation Objective 1 – Implementing innovative low-carbon technologies, Objective 2 - Promoting market transformation for energy efficiency in the building sector, Objective 4 – Promoting low-carbon transportation technologies, and Objective 6 – Support Enabling Activities under the Convention.

Duties and Responsibilities

The IC shall assess the following four categories of project progress. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for extended descriptions.

1. 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.  Discuss if and how lessons from other relevant projects were incorporated in project design.
• Review how the project addresses country priorities and extent of country ownership. Comment on whether the project concept conforms to Azerbaijan’s development priorities and plans.
• Review decision-making processes: including the extent to which 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 were considered during project’s design.
• Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design. See Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.
• If there are any other major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement in them.

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 midterm and end-of-project targets are, and suggest specific amendments/revisions to the targets and indicators as necessary.
• Explain whether the project’s objectives and outcomes and its sub-components are clear, practical, and feasible within its time frame.
• Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc.) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis.
• Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively.  Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators and indicators that capture development benefits. 

Management Arrangements:

• Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document and discuss any changes that have been made and if they were effective. Discuss if the roles, responsibilities and reporting lines are clear and whether the decision-making is 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 of improvement.

• Work Planning:

• Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved.
• Discuss whether work-planning processes are results-based and, if not, suggest ways to re-orientate them 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:

• 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.
• Assess the appropriateness of financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds.
• Using the co-financing monitoring table, provide commentary on whether co-financing is being used strategically to help the objectives of the project and how often the management meets with financing partners to align financing priorities and annual work plans.

• Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

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

• Stakeholder Engagement:

• Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?
• Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project?  Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation?
• Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?
• Reporting:
• Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Board.
• Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil 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?)
• 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.

iv.   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 the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for guidance on a recommendation table.

The MTR team should make no more than 15 recommendations total. 

Competencies

• Recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies;
• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;
• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to climate change and energy efficiency;
• Experience working with the GEF or GEF-evaluations;
• Experience working in Eastern Europe or CIS;
• Work experience in relevant technical areas for at least 10 years;
• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and climate change;
• Excellent communication skills;
• Demonstrable analytical skills;
• Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system;
• A Master’s degree in climate change, energy efficiency, environmental management, energy economics, engineering, or other closely related field.

Required Skills and Experience

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on the following methodologies:

• Cumulative evaluation that takes into account both financial offer and the technical expertise of the potential candidates

A two-stage procedure will be utilized in evaluating the proposals, with evaluation of the technical component being completed prior to any price component being reviewed and compared.  The Price Component will be reviewed only for those individuals whose Technical Component meets the requirements for the assignment.  The total number of points which individual may obtain for both components is 100.

Out of this 100 points 70 points maximum could be obtained for the technical proposal, and 30 points maximum for the financial proposal.

The technical component, which has a total possible value of 70 points, will be evaluated using the following criteria:

• A Master’s degree in environmental management, energy economics or other closely related field (20 points)
• Experience working with  renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate change related project evaluations; GEF or GEF-evaluations will be an asset  (25 points)
• Work experience in relevant technical areas for at least 10 years, especially in applying SMART indicators (25 points)
• Fluency in English; knowledge of Russian an asset  (15 points)
• Experience working in Europe and CIS regions is preferred (15 points)

Then, this total amount of sub-points (total amounts of sub-points could be 100) will be multiplied by 0.7 to calculate total weighted amount for technical proposal.

If technical proposal achieves the minimum threshold of 49 points (70 points multiplied by 0.7), then, the respective proposal passes the threshold for technical fit, and the competitiveness of the offered fees/consultancy rates will be taken into account in the following manner:               

The total amount of points for the fees component is 30. The maximum number of points shall be allotted to the lowest fees proposed that is compared among those invited individuals which obtain the threshold points in the evaluation of the technical proposal. All other proposals shall receive points in inverse proportion to the lowest fees; e.g;

                [30 Points] x [US$ lowest]/[US$other] = points for other proposer’s fees

 Then, the proposal, which collects the maximum amount of points, will be selected as the best proposal.

Both technical and financial proposals shoul be submitted in one attchament, as the system accepts only one attachement.  

Travel:

In the course of the assignment the selected consultant shall undertake a 1-week mission to Azerbaijan. In her/his financial proposal the potential candidates should include international travel expenses, hotel, food, consultancy fee. In-country transportation will be provided by the Project, therefore, should not be included into the financial proposal. In their financial proposal the interested candidates should show breakdown of financial expenses including the consultancy fee.