Historique

The objective of the proposed project is to promote sustainable forest management in Pakistan's Western Himalayan Temperate Coniferous, Sub-tropical broadleaved evergreen thorn (Scrub) and Riverine forests for biodiversity conservation, mitigation of climate change and securing of forest ecosystem services. In particular, it aims at implementation of three inter-related and mutually complementary components that are focused at addressing the barriers of inadequate planning, regulatory and institutional frameworks to integrated forest resource management, and the limited experience among key government and civil society stakeholders in developing and implementing SFM practices on the ground.

Component 1 will support the incorporation of sustainable forest management objectives and safeguards in forest management planning, forestland allocation and compliance of monitoring systems at the local level.

Component 2 will identify, demarcate and implement on-the-ground approaches to improving management of high conservation value forests within seven landscapes covering an area of 67,861 ha with the aim of meeting the life requisites of the target species, and habitats such as breeding areas, feeding areas, water sources, dispersal and connectivity corridors, etc.

Component 3 will develop practical approaches to enhancing carbon sequestration through restoring degraded and former forested areas (LULUCF activities) by a combination of restoration and reforestation of 10,005 ha of degraded conifer forests; 3,400 ha of degraded scrub forests, and reforestation of 13,099 ha of Riverine forests with native species.

Devoirs et responsabilités

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, and this guide should be used in the course of the MTR exercise.

i.    Project Strategy

Project design:

• Review the problem addressed by the project and

• Review the relevance of the project strategy and 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[1] 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/Log frame:

• Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s log frame 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 log frame 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).

Indicator Assessment Key

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/ log frame as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start.

   

  Finance and co-finance:

• Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions.

• Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.

• 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.[2]

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.

[1] Annex 9. Checklist for Gender Sensitive Midterm Review Analysis, Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects

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

Compétences

• Excellent communication skills in English;

• Demonstrable analytical skills;

• Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be an asset;

Qualifications et expériences requises

Academic Qualification:

• A Master’s degree in Agriculture, Forestry, Natural Resources, or other closely related field

Years of Experience:

• Work experience in relevant technical areas for at least 10 years including recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies;

• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;

• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to Biodiversity, Climate change and sustainable forest management focal areas.

• Experience working with the GEF or GEF-evaluations;

• Experience working in Pakistan;

• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender, Sustainable Forest Management and Biodiversity; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis.

Submission Instructions:

Please submit your Technical and Financial proposals to the following address: not later than March 06, 2019 at 1230 hours Pakistan standard time.

Ref: UNDP-IC-2019-099

UNDP Registry, Quotation/Bids/Proposals

United Nations Development Programme

Serena Business Complex, 2nd Floor, Khayaban-e-Suharwardy,

Islamabad, Pakistan

Tel: 051-8355600 Fax: 051-2600254-5

OR by email to bids.pk@undp.org no later than March 06, 2019 at 1230 hours Pakistan standard time.

Kindly write the following on top left side of the envelop or email subject line UNDP-IC-2019-099

Important note for email submissions: Please put UNDP-IC-2019-099 in the subject line. Further, our system will not accept emails those are more than 30 MB size. If required, segregate your emails to accommodate email data restrictions. For segregated emails please use sequence of emails like Email 1, Email 2 …. in the subject line. For attachment purposes please only use MS Word, Excel, Power Point or PDF formats.

If you request additional information, please write to pakistan.procurement.info@undp.org. The team will provide necessary information within due date. However, any delay in providing such information will not be considered a reason for extending the submission date of your proposal. All/any query regarding the submission of the proposal may be sent prior to the deadline at the e-mail/address mentioned above.