Background

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the UNDP-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized project titled Supporting Climate Resilient Livelihoods in Agricultural Communities in Drought-Prone Areas of Turkmenistan (PIMS#5459) implemented through the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment Protection of Turkmenistan, which is to be undertaken over a three months period in 2019. The project started on 15 June 2016 and is in its third 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 .

The project,  ‘Supporting climate resilient livelihoods in agricultural communities in drought-prone areas of Turkmenistan’ started in June 2016 and is scheduled to finish in June 2021. The project is financed by the Special Climate change Fund (SCCF), managed by the Global Environment Facility, and implemented through the United Nations Development Programme.

Through knowledge management, investment, and policy reform, this project seeks to promote an integrated approach to efficient water management and climate resilient practices, reduces root causes of land degradation, and enhances local livelihoods. Grant financing from the SCCF amounts of US$ 3.046 million.  Co-financing of US$20.0 million has been committed from various sources. Through various interventions, the project aims to directly strengthen the adaptive capacity and reduce the vulnerability of around 40,000 to 50,000 persons (of which around 51.2% would be women) in the Lebap and Dashoguz velayats (provinces). Improved water efficiency and crop production systems will bring approximately 20,000 ha of agricultural and 500,000 ha of pastoral lands under climate resilient technologies resulting in a real net household income increase of at least 15­­­% for participating households.

The project’s activities are organized into three components.

• Component 1 will improve climate related socio-economic outcomes in targeted agricultural communities in Lebap and Dashoguz velayats through the implementation of community-based adaptation solutions;
• Component 2 will mainstream climate adaptation measures in agricultural and water sector development strategy and policy;
• Component 3 will strengthen national capacity for iterative climate change adaptation planning, implementation and monitoring in the country.

The first component of the project is aimed at preparing the communities and the responsible government organizations to be able to identify and respond to climate change threats. The intent is to complement existing baseline activities, by facilitating the mainstreaming of climate risks considerations into the design and management of water, land and pasture development efforts, in particular at the ground level, so as to enhance community resilience and adaptive capacity.

While the first component defines the technical opportunity and priorities for replication, the second component support more directly the integration of climate resilient policies and measures into the water and agriculture sectors as well as local level planning systems.

The third component initially designed for operationalization of NEPAAM, including the identified priority adaptation programs, was replaced with more targetable one, i.e. support to the Government of Turkmenistan to update the current National Climate Change Strategy adopted in 2012 taking into account the recent national reforms, acceptance of Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Agreement as well as recent climate change observations.

Objectives of the MTR:

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 and propose adaptive management to better increase the chances of the project being successful.

MTR approach & methodology:

The MTR must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The MTR consultant 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 consultant considers useful for this evidence-based review). The MTR consultant 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 consultant 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 Adviser on Climate Change Adaptation, and other key stakeholders.

Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful MTR.[2] For this reason, it is absolutely essential that shortly after the start of the assignment the international consultant travels to Turkmenistan for a period of 2 weeks (10 working days, not including weekends) to meet with all relevant stakeholders.

Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to (Ministry of Agriculture  and Environment Protection, State Committee on Water Economy, Parliament of Turkmenistan, Turkmen State Agriculture Institute, Hyakimliks of Danew and Gorogly districts of Lebap and Dashoguz provinces); executing agencies, senior officials and task team/ component leaders, key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Board, project stakeholders, academia, local government and CSOs, etc.

Additionally, the MTR consultant is expected to conduct field missions to Lebap and Dashoguz project sites.

[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.

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.

Detailed scope of the MTR:

The MTR consultant 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.

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. 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;

2. 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);

  Table. Progress Towards Results Matrix (Achievement of outcomes against End-of-project Targets) available at following link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12mtZCvIeEQKSJm-d_VBVVZpE-o-GMb6q/view?usp=sharing .

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;

3. 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;
• Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of extending the project;

4. 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;
• Discuss what needs to be done to ensure the sustainability of the project;
• 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 and recommendations:

The MTR consultant will include a section of the report setting out the MTR’s evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings.[1]

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 consultant should make no more than 15 recommendations total.

[1] Alternatively, MTR conclusions may be integrated into the body of the report.

Ratings:

The MTR consultant will include his/her 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.

Table: “MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table for Supporting Climate resilient livelihoods in agricultural communities in drought-prone areas of Turkmenistan project” can be found at link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Dh2rDw9cLod0h0MoC47cVHP2g4UZs-KT/view?usp=sharing.

Duties and Responsibilities

Timeframe:

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 27 days (25 working days + 2 travel days) over a period of three months with an estimated start date of 1st June 2019. Of this total of 27 days, a minimum of 10 working days, not including weekends, should be spent by the international consultant in Turkmenistan on one mission. It is possible, by the mutual agreement of the international consultant and the UNDP CO to break the mission down into two missions (e.g 5 days/5 days) if this is more convenient to both Parties but this is for discussion between both Parties and if it does take place it should be done in such a way that the overall number of days does not change.

Exact deadlines for each activity of MTR will be determined at the time of contract issuance. The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows (estimated total number of days-27):

• Timeframe: April 20th 2019; Activity: Application closes;
• Timeframe: May 25th 2019; Activity: Select and contract MTR Consultant;
• Timeframe: May 25th 2019; Activity: Distribution of all documents and reports to the MTR Consultant;
• Timeframe: Beginning of June 2019 (2.5 working days); Activity: MTR Inception report and workplan prepared;
• Timeframe: 10 working days in June 2019; Activity: MTR mission to Turkmenistan shall be a minimum of 10 working days, not including weekends;
• Timeframe: Before the end of June 2019; Activity: Mission wrap-up meeting. Presentation of initial findings at the end of the MTR mission;
• Timeframe:  Before end of July 2019 (8.5 working days); Activity: Preparation and submission of the draft report by the international consultant;
• Timeframe: Beginning of August 2019; Activity: Incorporating audit trail from feedback on draft report;
• Timeframe: Before the end of August 2019; Activity: Preparation & Issue of Management Response; CO is responsible for the management response.
• Timeframe: Before the end of August 2019; Activity: Concluding Stakeholder Workshop (not mandatory for MTR Consultant);
• Timeframe: Before the end of August 2019 (4 working days); Activity: Finalization of MTR report. Expected date of full MTR completion;

Activities:

• Activity: Preparation to the MTR: documents review and preparing MTR Inception Report; Tentative Timeframe: During the first week after signing a contract;
• Activity: 10 working days - MTR mission to Ashgabat, Turkmenistan: stakeholder meetings, interviews, field visits to Gorogly etrap and Danew etrap; Tentative Timeframe: Within three weeks of the commencement of the work (June 2019);
• Activity: Mission wrap-up meeting & preparation of initial findings; Tentative Timeframe: End of MTR mission (before the end of June 2019);
• Activity: Submission of the draft report; Tentative Timeframe: Within four weeks after end of MTR mission, expected to be by the end of July 2019;
• Activity: Final Report; Tentative Timeframe: Within two weeks after receiving feedback from the counterparts on the draft report, expected to be by the end of August 2019.

Options for site visits should be provided in the Inception Report.

Midterm Review Deliverables:

• Deliverable 1: MTR Inception Report. Description: MTR consultant clarifies objectives and methods of Midterm Review; Timing: No later than 2 weeks before the MTR mission; Responsibilities: MTR consultant submits to the Commissioning Unit and project management;
• Deliverable 2: Presentation; Description: Initial Findings; Timing: End of MTR mission: (June 2019); Responsibilities: MTR consultant presents to project management and the Commissioning Unit;
• Deliverable 3: Draft Final Report. Description: Full report (using guidelines on content outlined in Annex B) with annexes; Timing: July 2019; Responsibilities: Sent to the Commissioning Unit, reviewed by RTA, Project Coordinating Unit, GEF OFP;
• Deliverable 4: Final Report*; Description: Revised report with audit trail detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final MTR report; Timing: August 2019; Responsibilities: Sent to the Commissioning Unit.

*The final MTR report must be in English. If applicable, the Commissioning Unit may choose to arrange for a translation of the report into a language more widely shared by national stakeholders.

MTR ARRANGEMENTS:

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

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

TEAM COMPOSITION:

An independent international consultant with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in other regions globally will lead the MTR. The international consultant will be supported by project team.

The international consultant 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.

Payments:

The international consultant will be paid in 3 instalments as follows:

• 10% of payment upon approval of the final MTR Inception Report, at least 5 working days prior to the 10 working days mission to Turkmenistan;
• 30% upon submission of the draft MTR report, after the 10 working days mission to Turkmenistan;
• 60% upon submission, finalization of the MTR report, after the 30 working days mission to Turkmenistan;

Competencies

Corporate Competencies:

• Demonstrates integrity by modeling the UN’s values and ethical standards;
• Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNDP;
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability;
• Treats all people fairly without favoritism;
• Fulfills all obligations to gender sensitivity and zero tolerance for sexual harassment.

Functional Competencies:

• Competence in adaptive management;
• Knowledge of and work experience in the energy efficiency related water and agriculture projects, including those funded by the GEF;
• Excellent training, facilitation and communication skills;
• Results driven, ability to work under pressure and to meet required deadlines;
• Good understanding and experience in the field of GHG emissions calculation and monitoring.

Required Skills and Experience

Education:

• Advanced University degree, Masters or preferably a PhD, in Energy, Environment, Business Administration, Economics, Engineering or related field;

Experience:

• Extensive (at least 10-year) work experience and proven track record with policy advice and/or project development/implementation in climate change and or water efficiency (including at least some experience with climate change and/or water projects) in transition economies;
• Experience working with the GEF or GEF project evaluations within the past seven years including experience with SMART based indicators (Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset);
• Experience working with international technical assistance projects in the Eastern Europe countries or CIS region in the past seven years (experience in Turkmenistan will be an asset);

Language requirements:

• English required, knowledge of Russian will be an asset.

Submission of applications:

Interested individual consultants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications:

All experts applying for this position are required to provide:

• Cover letter explaining why they are the most suitable candidate for the assignment;
• A brief description of approach to work/technical proposal on how they will approach and complete the assignment (maximum 1 page);
• Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability that represents a Financial Proposal with the references to (1) the daily rate for the assignment and within the timing scale indicated in the present TOR, and (2) any other expenses (including transportation costs, accommodation costs, the possibility of vaccination and etc.). Template of the form can be found at: http://www.tm.undp.org/content/turkmenistan/en/home/procurement.html. The UNDP will enter into an Individual Contract based on a lump sum amounts. The financial proposal shall represent a detailed, justified and “all inclusive” amount. In order to assist UNDP in the comparison of financial proposals, the financial proposal shall include a breakdown of this lump sum amount, including: a daily fee for the tasks and an estimated duration as specified in this announcement, travel (to and from the missions), per diems, any other possible costs (including vaccinations, dwelling, communication etc.). If an applicant is employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to UNDP under Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA), the applicant must indicate at this point, that they wish to be contracted in accordance with the Reimbursable Loan Agreement modality;
• Personal CV Form including past experience in similar projects and contact details of referees.

Note (Conflict of Interest): Any individual who participated in the project preparation, formulation, and/or implementation (including the writing of the Project Document) is ineligible to participate in this bidding.

Evaluation of proposals:

Individual Consultants will be evaluated based on the combined scoring methodology. When using this method, the award of the contract should be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

• Responsive/compliant and
• Having received the highest score – out of 100 points.

Out of the maximum score, the score for technical criteria equals 70% - maximum 70 points, and for financial criteria 30%.

The technical evaluation will take into account the following as per the scoring provided:

• Educational background (Advanced University degree, Masters or preferably a PhD, in Energy, Environment, Business Administration, Economics, Engineering or related field) – 10 points max; (PhD related to Energy/Environment/Natural Resources/Water/Climate Change = 10 points, PhD related to other relevant topic = 8 points, Masters related to Energy/Environment = 6 points, Masters related to other relevant topic = 4 points, combined (2 or more) Masters related to relevant topics = 8);
• Extensive (at least 10-year) work experience and proven track record with policy advice and/or project development/implementation in climate change and or water efficiency (including at least some experience with climate change and/or water projects) in transition economies – 20 points max (more points if experience specifically includes experience related to both climate change and/or water efficiency projects; more than 20 years = 17 points, 15-20 years = 12 points, 14-10 years = 7 points, 6-9 years = 2 points.) The consultant shall score +3 points if they have specific work experience related to other projects dealing with the issues of both climate change and also specifically related to water efficiency. If the consultant has only specific experience related to one of these two areas then they shall score +1 point;
• Experience working with the GEF or GEF project evaluations within the past seven years including experience with SMART based indicators (Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset) – 20 points max (excellent evidences of the required experience = 20 points (3 assignments or more); very good evidence (2 or more assignments) = 14 points satisfactory evidences (1 other relevant GEF evaluation experience) = 8 points; no evidence of ever having evaluated a GEF project = 0 points);
• Experience working with international technical assistance projects in the Eastern Europe countries or CIS region in the past seven years (experience in Turkmenistan will be an asset and persons who have worked before in Turkmenistan before on technical assistance projects will score 10 points) – 20 points max (strong experience (4 assignments or more or at least 1 prior assignment in Turkmenistan) = 20 points; very good experience (3 other assignments or more) = 14 points, good experience (2 assignments or more) = 8 points, satisfactory experience (1 assignment or more) – 6 points, no experience = 0);
• Methodology on how IC will approach and complete the assignment – 10 points max;
• Interview – 10 points max;
• Language skills (English required, knowledge of Russian will be an asset) – 10 points max (10 points for superior writing and oral skills in English + at least some knowledge of Russian; 7 points for superior writing and oral skills in English but no Russian, 4 points for average English and satisfactory writing skills, 1 point for poor English fluency and poor writing skills). Writing skills will be judged by the quality of the 1 page cover letter with the brief description of the approach to the work to be carried out to be sent with this application.

Maximum available technical (education, experience and competencies) score – 100 points.

Additional requirements for recommended contractor:

Recommended contractors aged 65 and older, and if the travel is required, shall undergo a full medical examination including x-ray, and obtain medical clearance from the UN-approved doctor prior to taking up their assignment. The medical examination is to be cleared by the UN physicians, and shall be paid by the consultant.

ANNEX A: List of Documents to be reviewed by the MTR Consultant

• PIF;
• UNDP Initiation Plan;
• UNDP Project Document;
• UNDP Environmental and Social Screening results;
• Project Inception Report;
• All Project Implementation Reports (PIR’s);
• Quarterly progress reports and work plans of the various implementation task teams;
• Audit reports;
• Finalized GEF focal area Tracking Tools at CEO endorsement and midterm;
• Oversight mission reports;
• All monitoring reports prepared by the project;
• Financial and Administration guidelines used by Project Team;

The following documents will also be available:

• Project operational guidelines, manuals and systems;
• UNDP country/countries programme document(s);
• Minutes of the Project’s Board Meetings and other meetings (i.e. Project Appraisal Committee meetings);
• Project site location maps;

ANNEX B: Guidelines  on Contents for the Midterm Review report

i.              Basic Report Information (for opening page or title page)

• Title of UNDP supported GEF financed project
• UNDP PIMS# and GEF project ID#
• MTR time frame and date of MTR report
• Region and countries included in the project
• GEF Operational Focal Area/Strategic Program
• Executing Agency/Implementing Partner and other project partners
• MTR consultant
• Acknowledgements

ii.            Table of Contents

iii.            Acronyms and Abbreviations

1.            Executive Summary (3-5 pages)

• Project Information Table
• Project Description (brief)
• Project Progress Summary (between 200-500 words)
• MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table
• Concise summary of conclusions
• Recommendation Summary Table

2.            Introduction (2-3 pages)

• Purpose of the MTR and objectives
• Scope & Methodology: principles of design and execution of the MTR, MTR approach and data collection methods, limitations to the MTR
• Structure of the MTR report

3.            Project Description and Background Context (3-5 pages)

• Development context: environmental, socio-economic, institutional, and policy factors relevant to the project objective and scope
• Problems that the project sought to address: threats and barriers targeted
• Project Description and Strategy: objective, outcomes and expected results, description of field sites (if any)
• Project Implementation Arrangements: short description of the Project Board, key implementing partner arrangements, etc.
• Project timing and milestones
• Main stakeholders: summary list

4.            Findings (12-14 pages)

4.1          Project Strategy

• Project Design
• Results Framework/Logframe

4.2          Progress Towards Results

• Progress towards outcomes analysis
• Remaining barriers to achieving the project objective

4.3          Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

• Management Arrangements
• Work planning
• Finance and co-finance
• Project-level monitoring and evaluation systems
• Stakeholder engagement
• Reporting
• Communications

4.4          Sustainability

• Financial risks to sustainability
• Socio-economic to sustainability
• Institutional framework and governance risks to sustainability
• Environmental risks to sustainability

5.            Conclusions and Recommendations (4-6 pages)

                 5.1 Conclusions

• Comprehensive and balanced statements (that are evidence-based and connected to the MTR’s findings) which highlight the strengths, weaknesses and results of the project

                 5.2         Recommendations

• Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project
• Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project
• Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives

6.            Annexes

• MTR ToR (excluding ToR annexes)
• MTR evaluative matrix (evaluation criteria with key questions, indicators, sources of data, and methodology)
• Example Questionnaire or Interview Guide used for data collection
• Ratings Scales
• MTR mission itinerary
• List of persons interviewed
• List of documents reviewed
• Co-financing table (if not previously included in the body of the report)
• Signed UNEG Code of Conduct form
• Signed MTR final report clearance form
• Annexed in a separate file: Audit trail from received comments on draft MTR report
• Annexed in a separate file: Relevant midterm tracking tools (METT, FSC, Capacity scorecard, etc.)

ANNEX C: Midterm Review Evaluative Matrix Template:

Project Strategy: To what extent is the project strategy relevant to country priorities, country ownership, and the best route towards expected results?

• Evaluative Questions: (include evaluative question (s);
• Sources: (i.e. project documents, national policies or strategies, websites, project staff, project partners, data collected throughout the MTR mission, etc.);
• Indicators: (i.e. relationships established, level of coherence between project design and implementation approach, specific activities conducted, quality of risk mitigation strategies, etc.);
• Methodology: (i.e. document analysis, data analysis, interviews with project staff, interviews with stakeholders, etc.).

Progress Towards Results: To what extent have the expected outcomes and objectives of the project been achieved thus far?

• Evaluative Questions: (include evaluative question(s);
• Sources: (i.e. project documents, national policies or strategies, websites, project staff, project partners, data collected throughout the MTR mission, etc.);
• Indicators: (i.e. relationships established, level of coherence between project design and implementation approach, specific activities conducted, quality of risk mitigation strategies, etc.);
• Methodology: (i.e. document analysis, data analysis, interviews with project staff, interviews with stakeholders, etc.).

Project Implementation and Adaptive Management: Has the project been implemented efficiently, cost-effectively, and been able to adapt to any changing conditions thus far? To what extent are project-level monitoring and evaluation systems, reporting, and project communications supporting the project’s implementation?

• Evaluative Questions: (include evaluative question(s);
• Sources: (i.e. project documents, national policies or strategies, websites, project staff, project partners, data collected throughout the MTR mission, etc.);
• Indicators: (i.e. relationships established, level of coherence between project design and implementation approach, specific activities conducted, quality of risk mitigation strategies, etc.);
• Methodology: (i.e. document analysis, data analysis, interviews with project staff, interviews with stakeholders, etc.).

Sustainability: To what extent are there financial, institutional, socio-economic, and/or environmental risks to sustaining long-term project results?

• Evaluative Questions: (include evaluative question(s);
• Sources: (i.e. project documents, national policies or strategies, websites, project staff, project partners, data collected throughout the MTR mission, etc.);
• Indicators: (i.e. relationships established, level of coherence between project design and implementation approach, specific activities conducted, quality of risk mitigation strategies, etc.);

Methodology: (i.e. document analysis, data analysis, interviews with project staff, interviews with stakeholders, etc.).

ANNEX D: UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluators/Midterm Review Consultants (www.undp.org/unegcodeofconduct)

Evaluators/Consultants:

• Must present information that is complete and fair in its assessment of strengths and weaknesses so that decisions or actions taken are well founded;
• Must disclose the full set of evaluation findings along with information on their limitations and have this accessible to all affected by the evaluation with expressed legal rights to receive results;
• Should protect the anonymity and confidentiality of individual informants. They should provide maximum notice, minimize demands on time, and respect people’s right not to engage. Evaluators must respect people’s right to provide information in confidence, and must ensure that sensitive information cannot be traced to its source. Evaluators are not expected to evaluate individuals, and must balance an evaluation of management functions with this general principle;
• Sometimes uncover evidence of wrongdoing while conducting evaluations. Such cases must be reported discreetly to the appropriate investigative body. Evaluators should consult with other relevant oversight entities when there is any doubt about if and how issues should be reported;
• Should be sensitive to beliefs, manners and customs and act with integrity and honesty in their relations with all stakeholders. In line with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, evaluators must be sensitive to and address issues of discrimination and gender equality. They should avoid offending the dignity and self-respect of those persons with whom they come in contact in the course of the evaluation. Knowing that evaluation might negatively affect the interests of some stakeholders, evaluators should conduct the evaluation and communicate its purpose and results in a way that clearly respects the stakeholders’ dignity and self-worth;
• Are responsible for their performance and their product(s). They are responsible for the clear, accurate and fair written and/or oral presentation of study limitations, findings and recommendations;
• Should reflect sound accounting procedures and be prudent in using the resources of the evaluation;

MTR Consultant Agreement Form:

Agreement to abide by the Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN System:

Name of Consultant:

Name of Consultancy Organization (where relevant):

I confirm that I have received and understood and will abide by the United Nations Code of Conduct for Evaluation.

Signed at:

ANNEX E: MTR Ratings:

Ratings for Progress Towards Results: (one rating for each outcome and for the objective):

• 6  Highly Satisfactory (HS): The objective/outcome is expected to achieve or exceed all its end-of-project targets, without major shortcomings. The progress towards the objective/outcome can be presented as “good practice”;
• 5 Satisfactory (S): The objective/outcome is expected to achieve most of its end-of-project targets, with only minor shortcomings;
• 4 Moderately Satisfactory (MS): The objective/outcome is expected to achieve most of its end-of-project targets but with significant shortcomings;
• 3 Moderately Unsatisfactory (HU): The objective/outcome is expected to achieve its end-of-project targets with major shortcomings;
• 2 Unsatisfactory (U): The objective/outcome is expected not to achieve most of its end-of-project targets;
• 1 Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The objective/outcome has failed to achieve its midterm targets, and is not expected to achieve any of its end-of-project targets;

Ratings for Project Implementation & Adaptive Management: (one overall rating):

• 6 Highly Satisfactory (HS): Implementation of all seven components – management arrangements, work planning, finance and co-finance, project-level monitoring and evaluation systems, stakeholder engagement, reporting, and communications – is leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive management. The project can be presented as “good practice”;
• 5 Satisfactory (S): Implementation of most of the seven components is leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive management except for only few that are subject to remedial action;
• 4 Moderately Satisfactory (MS): Implementation of some of the seven components is leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive management, with some components requiring remedial action;
• 3 Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): Implementation of some of the seven components is not leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive, with most components requiring remedial action;
• 2 Unsatisfactory (U): Implementation of most of the seven components is not leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive management;
• 1 Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): Implementation of none of the seven components is leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive management.

Ratings for Sustainability: (one overall rating):

• 4 Likely (L): Negligible risks to sustainability, with key outcomes on track to be achieved by the project’s closure and expected to continue into the foreseeable future;
• 3 Moderately Likely (ML): Moderate risks, but expectations that at least some outcomes will be sustained due to the progress towards results on outcomes at the Midterm Review;
• 2 Moderately Unlikely (MU): Significant risk that key outcomes will not carry on after project closure, although some outputs and activities should carry on;
• 1 Unlikely (U): Severe risks that project outcomes as well as key outputs will not be sustained.

ANNEX F: MTR Report Clearance Form to be completed by the Commissioning Unit and UNDP-GEF RTA and included in the final document:

Midterm Review Report Reviewed and Cleared By:

Commissioning Unit

Name:

Signature:

Date:

UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor

Name:

Signature: 

Date:

ANNEX G: Audit Trail Template:

Note:  The following is a template for the MTR Team to show how the received comments on the draft MTR report have (or have not) been incorporated into the final MTR report. This audit trail should be included as an annex in the final MTR report.

To the comments received on (date) from the Midterm Review of (project name) (UNDP Project ID-PIMS #)

The following comments were provided in track changes to the draft Midterm Review report; they are referenced by institution (“Author” column) and track change comment number (“#” column):

Author:

Para No/comment location:

Comments/feedback on the draft MTR report:

MTR team response and actions taken: