UNDP Jobs - 75955- International Consultant for Removing Barriers to

International Consultant for Removing Barriers to Wind Power Development in Belarus Midterm Review - Team Leader

Location :

Minsk, BELARUS

Type of Contract :

Individual Contract

Starting Date :

15-Dec-2017

Application Deadline :

06-Dec-17 (Midnight New York, USA)

Post Level :

International Consultant

Duration of Initial Contract :

15 December 2017 – 31 March 2018

Languages Required :

English Russian

Expected Duration of Assignment :

30 working days including 1 mission to Belarus

UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply. All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence. UNDP does not tolerate sexual exploitation and abuse, any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment, and discrimination. All selected candidates will, therefore, undergo rigorous reference and background checks.

Background

Country: Belarus

Description of the assignment: International Consultant for Removing Barriers to Wind Power Development in Belarus Midterm Review
Project name: UNDP/GEF project: “Removing Barriers to Wind Power Development in Belarus” No. 87557

Period of services (if applicable): 15 December 2017 – 31 March 2018.

The total duration will be approximately 30 working days (20 home-based, one 8-working days mission to Belarus, 2 travel days) over a time period of 12 weeks (3 months) starting December 2017, and shall not exceed five months from when the consultant(s) are hired.

Proposals for tender ref. num. 887/2017 should be submitted to e-mail tenders.by@undp.org no later than 23:59 6 December 2017 (Minsk time) or by fax +375 17 326 03 40 or to the following address: UNDP, Kirava Street 17, 6th floor, 220050 Minsk, Belarus (ref. num. 887/2017 of the tender should be indicated on the envelope).

All details about the position and documents to be filled in can be found here: http://www.by.undp.org/content/belarus/en/home/operations/jobs/ic8872017.html

Attention! Please carefully review the link above and submit all package of the required documents: CV (P11 form), Letter of Intent, Financial Proposal.

Any request for clarification must be sent in writing, or by standard electronic communication to the e-mail ina.klimenkova@undp.org will respond in writing or by standard electronic mail and will send written copies of the response, including an explanation of the query without identifying the source of inquiry, to all consultants.

UNDP will consider only complete applications.

Duties and Responsibilities

Detailed Terms of Reference attached.

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

TEAM COMPOSITION

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 national expert. The International Consultant is designated as the team leader and will be responsible for the entire midterm review and respective MTR deliverables mentioned above in line with this ToR, with inputs from the project. The National Expert will provide assistance to the International Consultant in line with a separate ToR focusing on preparation of the baseline data, organizing and participation in the midterm review mission to Belarus, incorporation of detailed comments received into the MTR report. The consultants 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 consultants will be aimed at maximizing the overall “team” qualities.

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.

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.
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?
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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Ratings

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

Competencies

Familiarity with relevant Belarusian regulations and standards is an asset and Belarusian policy on renewable energy.
Excellent written and spoken English is a must.
Working knowledge of written and spoken Belarusian or Russian is an advantage.

Required Skills and Experience

I. Academic Qualifications:

Advanced university degree (at least the Master level) in any of the following fields: engineering, energy, environment, international relations, economics, law, or business.

II. Experience:

At least 5 years work experience in the field of energy and/or renewable energy, with preference for experience related to wind energy
Practical experience (within last five years) in mid-term or final performance evaluation of at least one international and/or regional projects funded by multilateral agencies.
Experience in performance evaluation of such projects in CEE or/and FSU countries is preferred.
Experience or knowledge of UNDP and GEF monitoring and evaluation policy (especially for NIM projects) demonstrated by performance evaluation of at least one other UNDP project.