Historique

According to current climatic variability and predicted climate change scenarios for Liberia, agriculture and farming are expected to be significantly undermined by:

• Rainfall patterns changes, shorter and more intensive rainy seasons and temperatures increases resulting in difficulties to identify the optimal time for crop planting, more pests, weeds, animal diseases;
• Reduction of soil moisture;
• Increase of flooding and salinity in coastal regions. As a result, the forecasted climate change may undermine national efforts to revitalize the agriculture sector and to increase food production.

This is a direct threat to agricultural production and food security, and in turn a threat to development, peace and stability. In order to respond to these threats the Liberian NAPA has identified, as urgent priority interventions, to enhance resilience to increasing rainfall variability through the diversification of crop cultivation and small ruminants rearing; modifying the timing of crop cultivation in response to changing rainfall patterns; intercropping, irrigation and optimization of lowland/swamp farming practices; pest control, including fencing of farms against rodents, bird scare scrolls, regular weeding, and the use of echoing bells; and, maintaining fast growing nitrogen fixing tree species to improve soil fertility and using multiple-purpose tree species on farmlands to maintain forest coverHowever, the widespread introduction and adoption of the strategies to adapt to climate change, faces a series of barriers, including: insufficient knowledge and awareness amongst decision-makers and planners; the current agriculture policies have not taken climate change into account; low capacity of technical staff and extension agents; the lack of information needed by farmers, on climate change and impacts.
The LDCF Project will address the above barriers, thereby supporting the ongoing process to revitalize the agriculture sector, and ensure that adaptation to climate change is integrated into the revitalization process. Specific contributions toward the reduction of vulnerabilities to climate change will be achieved through the pursuit of specific outcomes including:

• Integrating concerns into relevant policies and planning processes at the state and national levels;
• Comprehensive capacity development for individuals in national agencies focusing on agriculture and in pilot counties, and farmers;
• Demonstration of risk reduction strategies and measures at pilot sites;
• Strengthening technical capacity to integrate climate change risk management into farmer level agricultural capacity; and
• Capturing and disseminating lessons learned to key stakeholders.

Devoirs et responsabilités

The TE team will assess the following four categories of project progress. The international consultant is the lead consultant and will be responsible for the final product. 

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 project’s 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.

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 below 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.

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.

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?

Deliverables   

• Inception Report  - 3 days;
• Presentation of initial finding - 5 days;
• Draft Final Report  - 9 days;
• Final Report  - 6days.

Compétences

Functional Competencies:

• Ability to work with rural communities
• Ability to communicate effectively orally and in writing in order to communicate complex, technical information to technical and general audiences.
• Skill in facilitating meetings effectively and efficiently
• Promotes a knowledge-sharing and learning culture
• In-depth knowledge of development issues
• Ability to provide and advocate for policy advice
• Excellent analytical and organisational skills
• Actively works towards continuing personal learning and successfully applies newly acquired skills

Corporate Competencies

• Demonstrates integrity by modelling the UN values and ethical standards 
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability
• Treats all people fairly without favouritism

Qualifications et expériences requises

Education

• Master in natural sciences; social sciences with a specialization in environment, biodiversity, climate change or any other closely related field; PhD would be a plus.

Experience:

• At least 10 years’ experience with GEF related project evaluation;
• Experience in UN/international organizations project monitoring and evaluation, preferably UNDP-GEF experience, is an advantage;
• Proven ability to work with governments and local communities in an agricultural settings;
• Demonstrated experience in Mid-term and terminal evaluations;
• Extensive knowledge of agriculture projects evaluation and climate change adaptation issues;
• Knowledge of climate change agriculture adaptation issues;
• Knowledge of use of participatory methods of assessment/evaluation;
• Experience with climate smart agriculture development initiatives (assessments, monitoring, etc.) is a major plus;
• Knowledge Management and Learning.

Language: 

• Fluency in written and spoken English is required.

Application procedure:

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

Technical proposal:

• Explaining why they are the most suitable for the work;
• Providing brief methodology on how they will approach and conduct the work;
• Personal CV including past experience in similar projects and at least 3 references (please use the UNDP P11 form provided in Annex 2 @ the following links) http://www.lr.undp.org/content/liberia/en/home/operations/procurement/ ;http://procurement-notices.undp.org/).

Financial proposal
The financial proposal shall specify a daily rate. Payments will be made to the Individual Consultant based on specific and measurable deliverables as specified in the TOR upon completion of the deliverables.
In order to assist the requesting unit in the comparison of financial proposals, the financial proposal will include a breakdown of the total amount (communications, transportation etc). Please use the Financial Proposal Form provided in Annex 3 for the submission of your financial proposal @ the following links) http://www.lr.undp.org/content/liberia/en/home/operations/procurement/ ;http://procurement-notices.undp.org/).

Travel
All envisaged travel costs must be included in the financial proposal.

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on the following methodology:

Cumulative analysis

The award of the contract will be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

• Responsive/compliant/acceptable; and
• Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation.

* Technical Criteria weight: 70%;
* Financial Criteria weight: 30%;

Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 70% of the maximum points would be considered for the Financial Evaluation

Criteria Weight  Max. Point

Technical

• Relevance of Academic Qualifications 10.5% 15;
• Professional Experience in similar projects 24.5% 35;
• Appropriateness of proposed methodology for the requirements 21% 30;
• Adequacy of competencies and skills 14% 20;
• Financial 30 points x price of the lowest price proposed / price of proposal 30%.

Proposals should be submitted to bids.lr@undp.org.