Antecedentes

The India ACE project aims at demonstrating and developing the market for Renewable Energy Technology Packages for Rural Livelihoods (RETPRLs) in three states (Assam, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha). The project will work with carefully chosen RETPRLs for an initial group of rural districts that have unserved and underserved energy supply situation for ongoing or new livelihood activities. The target livelihood sectors include poultry, fisheries, dairy, horticulture, khadi, silk weaving, bamboo and commercial cooking. The RETPRLs will be demonstrated and replicated by the project before they are scaled up.

The objectives of the project are:  

1. Develop and demonstrate RETPRLs
2. Develop the supply chain for RE technology supply and service providers
3. Develop supportive policy and regulatory framework
4. Financial support for RE based livelihood applications.

The project activities are broadly grouped into the following Outcomes:-

Component 1: Development and deployment of key RE-rural livelihood application packages

• Outcome 1: Deployment of RE rural livelihood application packages

?Component 2: Supply chain for RE technology supply and service providers for enhancing rural livelihoods

• Outcome 2: Increased supply of RE technology and service providers for rural livelihood applications

Component 3: Policy and regulatory support for RE - rural livelihood applications

• Outcome 3.1: Inclusion of RE applications in national and state level rural livelihoods policies for key livelihood sectors in rural areas
• Outcome 3.2: Future MNRE programs also cater to actions towards enhanced RE utilisation in rural livelihoods
• Outcome 3.3: Improved tariff and grid interconnection regulations for decentralised RE

Component 4: Financial support for decentralised RE - rural livelihood applications

• Outcome 4.1: Improved decentralised RE subsidies and support for rural livelihoods
• Outcome 4.2: Enhanced provision of financial support for decentralised RE in rural livelihood applications
• Outcome 4.3: Improved investment risk mitigation for decentralised RE in rural livelihood applications

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 and its risks to sustainability.

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 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.

Deberes y responsabilidades

DETAILED SCOPE OF THE MTR

i.    Project Strategy

Project design:

• Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions.  Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document.
• Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results.  Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design?
• Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country (or of participating countries in the case of multi-country projects)?
• Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes?
• Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.
• If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

ii.    Progress Towards Results

Progress Towards Outcomes Analysis:

Review the logframe indicators against progress made towards the end-of-project targets using the Progress Towards Results Matrix and following the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects; colour code progress in a “traffic light system” based on the level of progress achieved; assign a rating on progress for each outcome; make recommendations from the areas marked as “Not on target to be achieved” (red).

iii.   Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management Arrangements:

• Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document.  Have changes been made and are they effective?  Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear?  Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner?  Recommend areas for improvement.
• Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement.
• Review the quality of support provided by the GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) and recommend areas for improvement.

Work Planning:

• Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved.
• Are work-planning processes results-based?  If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results?
• Examine the use of the project’s results framework/ logframe as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start. 

Finance and co-finance:

• Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions. 
• Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.
• Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds?
• Informed by the co-financing monitoring table to be filled out, provide commentary on co-financing: is co-financing being used strategically to help the objectives of the project? Is the Project Team meeting with all co-financing partners regularly in order to align financing priorities and annual work plans?

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

• Review the monitoring tools currently being used:  Do they provide the necessary information? Do they involve key partners? Are they aligned or mainstreamed with national systems?  Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-effective? Are additional tools required? How could they be made more participatory and inclusive?
• Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget.  Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation? Are these resources being allocated effectively?

Stakeholder Engagement:

• Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?
• Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project?  Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation?
• Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?

Reporting:

• Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Board.
• Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil GEF reporting requirements (i.e. how have they addressed poorly-rated PIRs, if applicable?)
• Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners.

Communications:

• Review internal project communication with stakeholders: Is communication regular and effective? Are there key stakeholders left out of communication? Are there feedback mechanisms when communication is received? Does this communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of project outcomes and activities and investment in the sustainability of project results?
• Review external project communication: Are proper means of communication established or being established to express the project progress and intended impact to the public (is there a web presence, for example? Or did the project implement appropriate outreach and public awareness campaigns?)
• For reporting purposes, write one half-page paragraph that summarizes the project’s progress towards results in terms of contribution to sustainable development benefits, as well as global environmental benefits. 

iv.   Sustainability

• Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Review/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.

Competencias

• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to Energy access, Clean Energy and Climate Change;
• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and Energy Access, Clean Energy; experience in gender
• sensitive evaluation and analysis.
• Excellent communication skills;
• Demonstrable analytical skills;

Habilidades y experiencia requeridas

• A Master’s degree in Energy/ Environment/ Business Management, or other closely related field.
• Recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies;
• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;
• Experience working with the GEF or GEF-evaluations;
• Experience working in India;
• Work experience in relevant technical areas for at least 08 years;
• Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset;

TIMEFRAME

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 18 working days over a time period of 7 weeks, and shall not exceed five months from when the consultant(s) are hired. The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows:

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

MIDTERM REVIEW DELIVERABLES

*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.

Payment terms:

• 10% of payment upon approval of the final MTR Inception Report
• 30% upon submission of the draft MTR report
• 60% upon finalization of the MTR report

Evaluation Criteria:
As given in detailed ToR.

Application process:
As given in detailed ToR.

For any clarification please write to ameya.udgaonkar@undp.org

Detailed ToR can be accessed at the following link:

www.in.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/procurement/UNDP-GEF-MTR-TOR-IndiaACE-Project_NationalConsultant.docx