Background

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PNG is one of the world’s 17 most diverse countries, accounting for less than 0.5% of the earth’s surface area and hots 6-8% of the world’s biodiversity containing some of the world’s most biologically diverse ecosystems (Sekhran and Miller, 1995). Todate, obtaining definitive information on the biological richness of the country remains difficult as many areas are poorly studied. With this rich biodiversity, PNG also has vast wealth in natural resources: gold, copper, oil, gas, timber and fisheries. PNG has a maritime Economic Exclusive Zone of 3.1 million square kilometers, which is host to abundant tuna resources and diverse marine fisheries. PNG’s tropical rainforest is third largest in the world (60% of the country’s land) while thirty per cent of the country’s land mass is suitable for agriculture and the soils are generally fertile, with the climate and rainfall sufficient to support a wide range of crops for domestic consumption and export markets.

However, the primary threats to terrestrial biodiversity in PNG are deforestation and degradation (from logging and subsistence agriculture), mining (including pollution and waste runoff) and agricultural conversion (e.g. for oil palm, biofuels, etc.). Not only does forest loss result directly from these activities, but the secondary effects from improved road access makes frontier areas susceptible to ongoing clearing for agriculture and salvage logging. Recent spatial analysis suggested that the average annual rate of deforestation and degradation across all regions of PNG over the 1972-2002 period was 1.4%, almost twice the rate previously recorded. It is estimated that by 2021, 83% of the commercially accessible forest areas will have been cleared or degraded if current trends continue. Much of the logging-related forest loss is concentrated in lowland forest areas; by 2002, lowland forests accessible to mechanized logging were being degraded or cleared at the rate of 2.6% annually.

Currently, Protected Areas (PAs) cover about 4.1% of the land area and far less than 1% of marine areas – well below the targets under the United National Convention on Biological Diversity UNCBD). The focus of PA establishment has been on inclusive community-driven models, particularly the Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs). Some local communities have also been declaring ad-hoc community conservation areas (both terrestrial and marine) through the establishment of conservation deeds or conservation contracts under contract law, with the help of NGOs. However, these community conservation areas are not formally recognized as part of the national PA network. Most existing protected areas in PNG have been designated as WMAs under the Fauna (Protection & Control) Act 1966, since this is the legal structure that most readily accommodates existing community resource management systems. However, this Act focuses on fauna and is therefore not an effective legal structure for comprehensive biodiversity conservation at the landscape or ecosystem level.

The overall progress on effective PA management in PNG is very low in terms of planning, establishment and support. These weaknesses were recognized several decades ago[1], and the fact that there has been no improvement as found in the recent Rapid Appraisal and Prioritization of Protected Areas Management (RAPPAM)[2], which found that most state-run and community-managed PAs still lack effective management plans, technical capacity and funding support. An analysis of the PA system conducted as part of PNG’s response to the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA)[3]?came to similar conclusions. The ineffectiveness of current conservation approaches was illustrated by a recent spatial analysis indicating that most PAs in PNG have suffered forest clearance or degradation at rates almost identical with non-PA forest areas.

Clearly, a viable long-term solution to address the increasing threats to PNG’s high conservation value forests is to bring a representative sample of the country’s biodiversity resources under some form of protection. This required recognition of customary tenure as the Government have had limited ability to demarcate conservation areas and the current WMAs are ineffectively managed and supported; certainly, few if, can conform even to the minimum management requirements for multi-use PAs under the IUCN Categories V or VI. Moreover, the PAs that do exist largely fail to achieve any strategic coverage of key biodiversity habitats. The challenge is to develop an effective model of protection which recognizes and accommodates the unique resource ownership structure in PNG but offers real economic and/or development incentives for long-term conservation of important habitats.

The Government has made a renewed commitment to support a viable and sustainable protected area system in the country, working in partnership with community landowners, non-government conservation organizations, private sector and local administrations. The premise is that if local people are capacitated to manage their ecosystems and landscapes sustainably, they will in turn enhance the ecosystem service value and secure more rights to benefit from ecosystem products and other natural resources to improve livelihoods. PNG’s new Protected Areas Policy (PAP) approved by National Executive Council in December 2014 and the CEPA Act of May 2014 provides the overall policy and legal framework for the newly established Conservation and Environmental Protection Authority (CEPA). These instruments are intended to give new impetus to conservation priorities and pose an excellent opportunity to improve biodiversity conservation in the broadest sense in PNG.

The project aims to support Government’s commitment to operationalise the PNG’s PAP as well as support the transitions from the former Department of Environment and Conservation to CEPA. Furthermore, the project will strengthen the links between central government’s policy and institutional systems with newly established decentralised PA governance and management structures and ‘bottom up’ conservation initiatives that are being established by community landowners and conservation partners in key biodiversity areas throughout the country. Specifically, the project will improve conservation efforts at three important natural sites:

1. Varirata National Park in Central Province: CEPA will promote public-private partnerships involving communities in protecting the area, whilst encouraging initiatives like recreational and research activities and exploring the area’s tourism potential;
2. The YUS Conservation Area is between Madang and Morobe and is led by Woodland Park Zoo’s Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program in partnership provincial governments and local communities. This is the first site in PNG dedicated to conserving the endangered Matschie’s tree kangaroo (Dendrolagus matschiei) and its habitats.
3. The proposed Torricelli Mountain Range Conservation Area is between East and West Sepik Provinces and led by the Tenkile Conservation Alliance is also involved in the conservation of two critically endangered tree kangaroo (Tenkile and Weimang) and a vulnerable species of grizzled tree kangaroo.

[1]?Williams et al. (1993): Conservation Areas Strengthening Project 1994-2000

[2]?WWF (2009): An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Papua New Guinea’s Protected Areas Using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology. November 2009

[3]?13 Tortell and Duguman (2008):?Supporting Country Action on the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas, Report on Preparation of Request from Papua New Guinea, UNDP, Port Moresby.?

Duties and Responsibilities

4. MTR APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

The MTR must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The MTR team will review all 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.? Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to key partners and pilot provinces); implementing partners, 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 Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, including the project sites in YUS, Lumi and Varirata.

The international consultant serving as the team leader will lead the MTR which will be conducted in a participatory manner working on the basis that the objective is to assess project implementation and impacts in order to recommend improvements in the implementation and other decisions.

The MTR team leader is expected to lead the engagement with the Project Team, government counterparts, the UNDP Country Office(s), UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisers, and other key stakeholders.

The review will start with a desk review of project documentation and the following process:

1. Desk review of project document, outputs, monitoring reports such as Project Inception Report, Minutes of Project Advisory Board and Technical Support and Advisory Team meetings, Project Implementation Report, Quarterly Progress Reports, mission reports and other internal documents including financial reports and relevant correspondence);
2. Review of specific products including datasets, management and action plans, publications, audio visual materials, other materials and reports;
3. Interviews with the Project Manager, other project staff including provinces; and
4. Consultations and/or interviews with relevant stakeholders involved, including governments representatives, local communities, NGO’s, private sector, donors, other UN agencies and organizations.

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.

5. DETAILED SCOPE OF MID-TERM REVIEW

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?
• 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.
• 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.

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; 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 1: 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 Project Results Tracker within the PIR 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 Advisory Board.
• Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil UNDP/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, 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?

[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] Populate with data from the Logframe and scorecards

[3] Populate with data from the Project Document

[4] If available

[5] Colour code this column only

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

Competencies

Experience:

• Recent experience with result-based management and/or evaluation methodologies;
• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;
• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to biodiversity conservation;
• Experience working in Papua New Guinea, Pacific Islands, or Developing Countries;
• Familiarity with the challenges developing countries face in sustainable natural resource management and biodiversity conservation that includes communities; (5%)
• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and biodiversity conservation and/or community-based conservation/natural resource management; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis. (5%)
• Experience working with GEF or GEF evaluations, UNDP evaluations or other UN agencies and/or international organizations and/or major donor agencies is an advantage;
• Excellent communication skills;
• Demonstrable analytical skills;

Language:

Excellent written and oral English skills a necessary requirement?

Required Skills and Experience

Academic Qualifications:

Master’s degree or higher in the fields related to Environment, Natural resources, or other closely related field from an accredited college or university.