terms of reference for the team leader national … · 6. implementation arrangements the principal...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Programme Period: 5 years Atlas Award ID: 00060297 Project ID: 00075856 PIMS # 3245 Start date: Nov 2010 End date: Dec 2015 Revised end date: Dec 2016
Management Arrangements NEX
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE TEAM LEADER
NATIONAL INDIVIDUAL CONSULTANT
MID TERM REVIEW OF THE MAINSTREAMING SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT IN AGROPASTORAL
PRODUCTION SYSTEMS OF KENYA PROJECT
1. INTRODUCTION
Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management in Agro-pastoral Production Systems of Kenya project
implemented by State Department of Livestock, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries is
due for Mid Term Review in 2014, in accordance with UNDP/GEF Monitoring and Evaluation policies
and procedures. Although the project document was signed in January 2011, the implementation of
project activities in the pilot districts started in January 2012 due to delay in setting up of the Project
Management Unit. The project details are as follows:
A) Project summary:
Project Title: Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management in Agro-pastoral Production Systems of Kenya. UNDP Strategic Plan Environment and Sustainable Development Primary Outcome: Local Capacity for mainstreaming Environment and energy provision into national development policies, plans and programmes UNDP Strategic Plan Secondary Outcome: Capacities and Markets to support sustainable use of natural capital in national development UNDAF Outcome(s): Enhanced Environment Management for Economic Growth with Equitable Access to Energy Services and Response to Climate Change Expected CP Outcome(s): Pro-poor policies for sustainable management of the environment and natural resources enhanced Expected CPAP Output (s): 3.2.1.2.1.: National and Community Level capacity for sustainable management of natural resources
enhanced. 3.2.1.2.4.: Productivity and value addition of crops livestock, commercial insects and fisheries
improved. 3.2.2.2.: Production and access to affordable clean energy services enhanced and up-scaled.
B) Milestones and Finance
Total allocated resources US$ 11,690,734 GEF US$ 3,030,734 Government US$ 3,660,000 UNDP US$ 1,000,000 Others: US$ 4,000,000
PGRFA (gene bank fund) US$ 400,000
2
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) cover 80% of Kenya’s land mass and are inhabited by the
pastoralist and agro-pastoral communities. The ASALs experience low and erratic rainfall patterns
that makes the land most suitable for livestock production. However, over the years there have
been changes in land use system that has resulted to degradations. Land degradation is largely
driven by inappropriate land use, and interrelated factors including inappropriate development
models, unsuitable farming practices, loss of soil productivity, overstocking of livestock, especially
where mobility has been impeded, and breakdown of traditional customs of seasonal migration.
High population growth and encroachment of agriculture into marginal land and increasing demand
for fuel wood, charcoal, timber etc. has also exacerbated the process.
The vast degradations in the ASALs have reduced land’s productive capacities and compromised
ecological integrity. The unsustainable land use practices have resulted to chronic food shortages
and poverty in the ASALs.
Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management in Agro-pastoral Production Systems of Kenya Project
is a GEF financed and UNDP supported project implemented by the government of Kenya through
the State Department of livestock. The 5 year project (2010-2015) is a pilot project initiated by
GEF/UNDP to address some of the challenges experienced by the ASALs.
The overall goal of the project is ‘Sustainable Land Management’ provides the basis for economic
development, food security and sustainable livelihoods while restoring the ecological integrity of the
ASALs. The objective is to provide land users and managers with the financial incentives, enabling
policy, institutional and capacity for effective adoption of SLM in the four districts of Mbeere North,
Kyuso, Narok North and Dadaab.
The project objective is achieved through the following project outcomes:
Outcome 1: Knowledge based land use planning forms the basis for improving drylands
sustainable economic development;
Outcome 2: Viability of the agro-pastoralism production system increased through
diversification and access to finances for SLM;
Outcomes 3: Policy and institutional framework supportive of SLM mainstreaming in agro
pastoral production system and ASALs;
Outcome 4: Project managed effectively, lessons used to upscale SLM in the ASAL districts and
the country.
3. OBJECTIVE OF MID TERM REVIEW (MTR)
The objective of the MTR is to provide an independent analysis of the progress of the project so far. The
MTR will identify potential project design problems, assess progress towards the achievement of the
project objective, identify and document lessons learned (including lessons that might improve design
and implementation of other UNDP-GEF supported projects), and make recommendations regarding
specific actions that should be taken to improve the project.
3
The MTR will assess early signs of project success or failure and identify the necessary changes to be
made. The project performance will be measured based on the indicators of the project’s logical
framework (see Annex 1) and various Tracking Tools.
3.1. METHODOLOGY
The MTR must provide evidence based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The review team
is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with
government counterparts, in particular the GEF operational focal point, UNDP Country Office, project
team, UNDP GEF Technical Adviser and key stakeholders. The review team is expected to conduct field
missions to Mbeere North, Kyuso, Narok North and Dadaab. Interviews will also be held with the
following organizations and individuals:
1. UNDP staff who have project responsibilities;
2. Executing agencies (Director of Livestock, DLPOs from the 4 pilot districts);
3. The Chair of Project Board (Principal Secretary, State Department of Livestock);
4. The GEF operational focal point;
5. Project stakeholders including Farmer Field Schools, County Governments and partner
institutions (KARI and KEFRI)
The team will review all relevant sources of information, such as the project document, project reports –
including Annual APR/PIRs, project budget revisions, progress reports, GEF focal area Tracking Tools,
project files, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team considers
useful for this evidence-based review. A list of documents that the project team and UNDP Country
Office will provide to the team for review is included in Annex 2 of this Terms of Reference.
4. SCOPE OF THE MTR
The review team will assess the following three categories of project progress. For each category, the
review team is required to rate overall progress using a six-point rating scale outlined in Annex 3.
4. 1 Progress towards Results
Project design:
Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions. Review the effect of
any incorrect assumptions made by the project. Identify new assumptions. Theory of change.
Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route
towards expected/intended results.
Review how the project addresses country priorities.
Review the baseline data included in the project results framework and GEF Tracking Tool and
suggest revisions as necessary.
Progress:
Assess the outputs and progress toward outcomes achieved so far and the contribution to attaining
the overall objective of the project.
4
Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future catalyze, 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.
Suggest measures to improve the project’s development impact, including gender equality and
women’s empowerment.
Examine whether progress so far has led to, or could in the future lead to, potentially adverse
environmental and/or social impacts/risks that could threaten the sustainability of the project
outcomes. Are these risks being managed, mitigated, minimized or offset? Suggest mitigation
measures as needed.
Review the extent to which the implementation of the project has been inclusive of relevant
stakeholders and to which it has been able to create collaboration between different partners, and
how the different needs of male and female stakeholders has been considered. Identify
opportunities for stronger substantive partnerships.
4. 2 Adaptive management
Work Planning
a) Is work planning processes result-based? If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to
focus on results.
b) Examine the use of the project document logical/results framework as a management tool and
review any changes made to it since project start. Ensure any revisions meet UNDP-GEF
requirements and assess the impact of the revised approach on project management.
Finance and co-finance:
a) Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness
of interventions.
b) Complete the co-financing monitoring table (see Annex 4).
c) Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the
appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.
Monitoring Systems
a) Review the monitoring tools currently being used: Do they provide the necessary information? Do
they involve key partners? Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-
effective? Are additional tools required?
b) Ensure that the monitoring system, including performance indicators, meet GEF minimum
requirements. Develop SMART indicators as necessary.
c) Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively.
Develop and recommend SMART indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators as necessary.
d) Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget. Are sufficient
resources being allocated to M&E? Are these resources being allocated effectively?
Risk Management
a) Validate whether the risks identified in the project document, APR/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. Give particular attention to critical risks.
5
b) Describe any additional risks identified and suggest risk ratings and possible risk management
strategies to be adopted.
Reporting
a) Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management, and
shared with the Project Board.
b) Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared
with key partners and internalized by partners.
4. 3 Management arrangements
a) 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.
b) Review the quality of execution of the project Implementing Partners and recommend areas for
improvement.
c) Review the quality of support provided by UNDP and recommend areas for improvement.
5. MID TERM REVIEW DELIVERABLES
Deliverable Content Timing Responsibilities
Inception Report
Review team clarifies timing and method of review
No later than 2 weeks before the review mission
Review team submits to UNDP Country Office
Presentation Initial Findings End of review mission To project management and UNDP Country Office
Draft Report Full report (as template in annex 5) with annexes
Within 3 weeks of the review mission
Sent to UNDP CO, reviewed by RTA, PMU, GEF OFP
Final Report
Revised report with audit trail detailing how all received comment have (and have not) been addressed in the final review report).
Within 1 week of receiving UNDP comments on draft
Sent to UNDP CO
6. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
The principal responsibility for managing this review resides with the UNDP Country Office (UNDP CO). UNDP CO will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the review team. The SLM project team will be responsible for liaising with the review team to set up stakeholder interviews and arrange field visits to the pilot districts.
6
In preparation for the review mission, the project manager, with assistance from UNDP country office,
will arrange for the completion of the PIR indicator, which will be share with the consultants.
7. TIMEFRAME
The total duration of the review will be 4 weeks starting April 2014 according to the following plan:
Activity Timeframe
Preparation 5 days
Review mission and debriefing 15 days
Draft review report 5 days
Finalisation of final report 5 days
8. TEAM COMPOSITION
Mid Term Review will be undertaken by a team of two national consultants; This TOR is for recruitment of the team leader (natural sciences/Land Degradation specialist). The other team member (specialist in socio-economic) will be recruited separately. The team member will work under the team leader and will be responsible for ensuring that the review takes into consideration (and assesses) the socio-economic aspects of the project. Both consultants will be responsible for delivery of content and accuracy of the review – but the team leader is ultimately responsible.
9. COMPETENCIES
The team leader will not have participated in the project preparation and/or implementation and should not have a conflict of interest with project related activities. He/she should have a prior experience in reviewing or evaluating similar projects. Experience with GEF financed projects is an advantage.
The selection of the team leader will be aimed at maximizing the overall “team” qualities in the following areas:
Post-graduate degree (PhD or Masters) in Ecology, Agriculture/livestock Production, Environment or Natural Resource management, and any other relevant field.
At least 10 years of professional work experience in the relevant field
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 conservation or natural resource management;
Demonstrable analytical and report writing skills;
Excellent communication skills;
Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset;
7
10. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 70 points will be considered
Criteria Weight Max. Point
Technical 100% 100
Post –graduate degrees (PhD or Masters) in Natural Sciences (Agriculture, Ecology, Environment, and Natural Resource management)
20 20
At least 10 years’ experience working in natural / social science research work
20% 20
Proven experience in conducting program evaluation (5 to 7 years )
15% 15
Experience in applying SMART indicators in validating baseline scenarios
10% 10
Competence in Adaptive Management as applied in natural resource management
15% 15
Excellent Analytical and report writing skills
10% 10
Project evaluation/review experience with United Nations
10% 10
11. REMUNERATION
The successful consultants will be paid on terms and conditions for UN consultants.
Payment will be done against a disbursement schedule as outlined in the contract and based on receipt of clearly defined deliverables within a specific timeline.
Transport and accommodation for field work will be provided by the project.
DSA will be provided to the consultant while in the field.
12. APPLICATION PROCESS Application Process Interested and qualified candidates should submit their applications which should include the following:
1. UNDP Personal History Form (P11) 2. Detailed Curriculum Vitae 3. Proposal for implementing the assignment
Please quote “Team Leader – Mid-Term review of GEF Project- SLM” on the subject line.
8
Annex 1: SLM Project log-frame
Objective
/outcome
Indicators Baseline
Objective: To
provide land users
and managers with
the enabling policy,
institutional and
capacity
environment for
effective adoption
of SLM in the
agropastoralists
production system.
At least 25% of the rangeland registering
improvement in rangeland condition in pilot
districts (using range condition measurements) by
mid-term and 50% cumulative by end of the
project
Various statistics report that about 80% of
rangelands badly degraded
At least 25% of woodlands showing recovery as
measured by regeneration and improvements in
species index and canopy cover;
Various statistics report that about 70% of
the woodlands are degraded
At least 70,000 ha total (28 sites*2500 ha ) under
SLM priniciples supported by experiential learning
Limited land under SLM, no clear
documentation on what little is under
SLM – Baselines to be confirmed in project
year 1
Level of dependency on food aid in target
landscapes reduced by at least 30%;
Number of food secure days increased by at least
40% for more than 50% of the population in the
target landscapes
Various statistics indicate that over 65% of
people in the project areas depend in part
on food aid and face substantive food
insecurity
At least half a million tons of carbon dioxide
mitigated from sustainable charcoal in the districts
by mid-term and a million cumulative at the end of
the project
Currently no sustainable charcoaling – no
carbon mitigated from it
Outcome 1:
Knowledge based
land use planning
forms the basis for
improving drylands
sustainable
economic
development
At least 25% of cultivators in the pilot landscapes
adopting 3-5 forms of improved practices by mid-
term and 75% cumulatively by project end
Less than 20% engaging in 1-2 improved
practices consistently - Baselines to be
confirmed in project year 1
At least 30% increase in soil fertility from baselines
for land users consistently engaging in 3-5
improved practices by mid-term and by 30%
cumulatively by end of the project
Very low and declining, exact levels for
pilot districts to be obtained during
inception period in project year 1
At least 25% of the agriculturalists and pastoralists
in the pilot landscapes taking decisions on the
basis of the weather and drought early warning
information by mid-term and 50% cumulatively by
project end (co-finance)
Less than 5% use of weather information
provided by the early warning systems of
Kenya Met and Dept of resource mapping
and planning
At least 40% of land users and 30% of technical Less than 15% of land users and
9
officers requiring to up-date skills have done so by
mid-term: by the end of project, at least 60% of
land users and 75% of technical officers
cumulatively have updated skills.
pastoralists have skills for improved
management; less than 50% of technical
officers have updated SLM skills
Lessons on improving land and resource tenure,
range rehabilitation, sustainable charcoaling,
improving livestock mobility, and other important
project initiatives available for dissemination
through the upscaling project;
Limited knowledge management
happening now, no clear mechanism for
generating and sharing lessons
Viability of the
agropastoralism
production system
increased through
diversification
increased access to
finance for SLM
At least 20% increase in agricultural produce for
key crops for those adopting 3-5 improved
practices consistently by mid-term and 50%
cumulative by project end
Current low and declining, exact levels of
selected crops to be obtained during
inception period during year 1 of project
implementation
At least a 20% increase in livestock prices being
obtained in markets within the pilot landscapes
due to better marketing/trading conditions
Currently livestock trading riddled with
problems of insecurity, lack of up to date
information on prices and therefore very
low prices being obtained
At least 25% increase in numbers accessing micro-
finance and credits
Less than 10% of households have access
By mid project - at least 25% increase in household
incomes for more than 40% of participating
households, cumulatively rising to at least 40% for
more than 50% of households
Over 85% of people live below the UN
poverty line, living on less than a dollar a
day; exact household incomes in the pilot
landscape will be established during
inception
At least 50% of current mobile pastoralists still
retain livestock mobility by the end of the project
The current trend is tilted to fast rates of
sedenterization; specific baseline will be
obtained during inception
At least 10% reduction in incidents of conflicts over
land and resources in the pilot districts and a
cumulative 50% reduction by project end
Very high number of incidents of conflicts,
specific baseline will be obtained during
inception
The policy,
regulatory and
institutional
environment
support sustainable
land management
in the agropastoral
production system
(and ASALs)
At least 2 policies revised to mainstream SLM
principles and so provide a better policy
environment for SLM;
All policy statements mention importance
of SLM but don’t have details of how SLM
will be ensured
Discussions for legislation and institutional
arrangement for policy implementation for at least
2 key policies held by mid-term and
recommendations provided adopted by end of the
project
Few SLM policies have updated and
effective frameworks well linked into the
local institutions - Baselines to be
confirmed in project year 1
At least 5 charcoal associations have rules and
regulations for sustainable charcoal and are
No charcoal associations
10
actively enforcing them;
At least 5 groups with sustainable charcoal
production operations and earning money from
carbon finance;
No groups engaging in sustainable
charcoal
Collection of revenue by Districts and Kenya
Revenue Authority from charcoal processes
increase by 25% by mid-term and 50%
cumulatively be end of the project;
Minimal collection through licensing but
none through taxation - Baselines to be
confirmed in project year 1
Number of charcoal producers using improved kiln
in carbonization in pilot landscapes increase by at
least 30% by mid-term and a cumulative 50% by
project end
Less than 5% use improved kilns in
carbonization - Baselines to be confirmed
in project year 1
By mid project, traditional resource institutions in
pilot landscapes have assessed the effectiveness of
their rules and regulations in modern day resource
governance and have identified ways to improve;
by end of project several agreements entered into
with formal institutions for resource governance
Currently traditional institutions sidelined
in natural resource management but
formal institutions not effective at local
level - Baselines to be confirmed in project
year 1
Annex 2: List of Documents
1. Project Document
2. Project implementation reports (APR/PIR’s)
3. Quarterly and Annual progress reports
4. Annual Work Plans
5. Audit reports
6. The Mission Reports and Lessons learnt study
7. M & E Operational Guidelines
8. Financial and Administration guidelines.
11
The following documents will also be available:
9. Project operational guidelines, manuals and systems
10. Minutes of PSC/Project Board Meetings
11. Maps
12. The GEF Completion Report guidelines; and
13. UNDP Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks.
12
Annex 3: Mid-term Review Rating Scale
Progress towards results: use the following rating scale
Highly Satisfactory
(HS)
Project is expected to achieve or exceed all its major global environmental objectives, and
yield substantial global environmental benefits, without major shortcomings. The project
can be presented as “good practice”.
Satisfactory (S) Project is expected to achieve most of its major global environmental objectives, and yield
satisfactory global environmental benefits, with only minor shortcomings.
Moderately
Satisfactory (MS)
Project is expected to achieve most of its major relevant objectives but with either
significant shortcomings or modest overall relevance. Project is expected not to achieve
some of its major global environmental objectives or yield some of the expected global
environment benefits.
Moderately
Unsatisfactory
(MU)
Project is expected to achieve its major global environmental objectives with major
shortcomings or is expected to achieve only some of its major global environmental
objectives.
Unsatisfactory (U) Project is expected not to achieve most of its major global environment objectives or to
yield any satisfactory global environmental benefits.
Highly
Unsatisfactory (U)
The project has failed to achieve, and is not expected to achieve, any of its major global
environment objectives with no worthwhile benefits.
Adaptive management AND Management Arrangements: use the following rating scale
Highly Satisfactory (HS) The project has no shortcomings and can be presented as “good practice”.
Satisfactory (S) The project has minor shortcomings.
Moderately Satisfactory (MS) The project has moderate shortcomings.
Moderately Unsatisfactory
(MU)
The project has significant shortcomings.
Unsatisfactory (U) The project has major shortcomings.
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU) The project has severe shortcomings.
13
Annex 4: Co-financing table
Sources of
Co-financing1
Name of Co-
financer
Type of Co-
financing2
Amount
Confirmed at CEO
endorsement /
approval
Actual Amount
Materialized at
Midterm
Actual Amount
Materialized at
Closing
TOTAL
Explain “Other Sources of Co-financing”:
1 Sources of Co-financing may include: Bilateral Aid Agency(ies), Foundation, GEF Agency, Local Government, National
Government, Civil Society Organization, Other Multi-lateral Agency(ies), Private Sector, Other
2 Type of Co-financing may include: Grant, Soft Loan, Hard Loan, Guarantee, In-Kind, Other
14
Annex 5: Table of Contents for the Mid-term Review Report
i. Opening page:
Title of UNDP supported GEF financed project
UNDP and GEF project ID#s.
Review time frame and date of review report
Region and countries included in the project
GEF Operational Program/Strategic Program
Implementing Partner and other project partners
Review team members
Acknowledgements ii. Executive Summary
Project Summary Table
Project Description (brief)
Review Rating Table
Summary of conclusions, recommendations and lessons iii. Acronyms and Abbreviations
1. Introduction
Purpose of the review
Scope & Methodology
Structure of the review report 2. Project description and development context
Project start and duration
Problems that the project sought to address
Immediate and development objectives of the project
Baseline Indicators established
Main stakeholders
Expected Results 3. Findings
3.1 Progress toward Results:
Project Design
Progress 3.2 Adaptive Management:
Work planning
Finance and co-finance
Monitoring systems
Risk management
Reporting 3.3 Management Arrangements:
15
Overall project management
Quality of executive of Implementing Partners
Quality of support provided by UNDP 4. Conclusions, Recommendations & Lessons
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
Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success
5. Annexes
ToR
Itinerary
List of persons interviewed
Summary of field visits
List of documents reviewed
Questionnaire used and summary of results
Relevant mid-term tracking tools (METT, FSC, Capacity scorecard)
Co-financing table