terms of reference mid-term review of the …...of experiences, particularly between actors with...

Bureau de l’évaluation - ONU Environnement Dernière révision:XXXXX

/19

TERMS of REFERENCE

Mid-term review of the project "Closing the Gaps in Great Green Wall: Linking sectors and

stakeholders for increased synergy and scaling-up" UN Environment-Global Environment Facility

Section 1: CONTEXT AND PROJECT OVERVIEW

1. General information about the project

Table 1: Project identification

Sub-program

Environmental

governance

Expected

result(s):

Improved participation and knowledge of the

developmental and environmental benefits of

SLM including improved goals and indicators for

enhanced monitoring and more coordinated

implementation (at local, national, regional and

global levels)

More active networking within and between

countries, including a greater engagement of

marginalized groups, in GGW dialogue and

implementation, with cross-linkages to other

development issues and sectors

Greater capacity and dialogue between

stakeholders to identify and attract appropriate

investments for implementation of SLM policies

and scale up of good practices

Date of UN

Environment

approval

June 3, 2016 Result(s) of the

work program

GEF project ID: 5811 Project type Medium-size project

GEF Operational

Program # SLM

Domain(s) of

interest

LD-4: Adaptive management and Learning

(Outcome 4.2; Outputs 4.1 & 4.2)

Date of GEF approval June13, 2016

GEF Strategic

Priority

LD-4: Adaptive Management and Learning:

Increase capacity to apply adaptive management

tools in SLM/SFM/INRM by GEF and UNCCD

Parties

Expected start date 1st August 2016 Actual start date 1st August 2016

Expected completion

date 31st May 2020

Actual completion

date N/A

Project budget

planned for approval 1,726,400

Total expenditure

declared 934,392

Amount of the GEF

grant 1,726,400

Expenditure

declared under the

GEF grant

934,392

Project Preparation

Grant - GEF Funding

100,000 Project

Preparation Grant

- Co-financing

0

Expected co-

financing for a

12,035,943 Co-financing

assured for a

2,381,484


/19

medium / large

project

medium / large

project

First disbursement 250,000 Financial closing

date May 2020

No. of revisions 0 Date of last

revision N/A

No. of steering

committee meetings 3

Date of the last /

next meeting of

the Steering

Committee

Previous : June 2019 Next : January

2020

Mid-term review /

evaluation (expected

date)

December 2019

Mid-term review /

evaluation

(effective date)

June 2019

Final evaluation

(expected date) 2021

Final evaluation

(effective date)

Intervention area -

Country GGW countries

Coverage area -

region (s): Africa

Dates of previous

phases of the project N/A

State of the

subsequent phases

of the project

N/A

1. Project justification

The Great Green Wall is a pan-African initiative to restore and sustainably manage land in the SahelSaharan

region in order to address both poverty and land degradation. First envisioned by the former President of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, in 2005 and strongly championed by President

Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal, the Initiative gained significant momentum in 2007 with adoption of African

Union Declaration 137 VIII, approving the “Decision on the Implementation of the Green Wall for the Sahara

Initiative”. In June 2010, Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria,

Senegal and Sudan signed a convention in Ndjamena, Chad, to create the Great Green Wall (GGW) Agency.

In more recent years the vision has evolved into an integrated ecosystem management approach.

The combination of high level political support and steadily improving technical awareness of how best to

combat desertification has encouraged a number of major donors to back the Great Green Wall Initiative. The

Global Environmental Facility granted $100.8 million to the GGW participating countries to expand

sustainable land and water management and adaptation in targeted landscapes and in climate vulnerable areas

in West African and Sahelian countries. Other major donors include the World Bank and the European Union.

The Great Green Wall initiative has revived interest in Sustainable Land Management in the Sahel and north

of the Sahara and has galvanised action to implement the UNCCD. The GGW has helped to shed a spotlight

on recent innovations in SLM in the region and at the same time has leveraged a high degree of political will

and leadership from member States. In response public finance for SLM actions has increased and several

donors have also mobilised substantial investments, offering opportunities for rapid progress. However,

degradation in the region is often the outcome of past policy and investment failures and there are concerns in

some quarters that current strategies may not depart significantly enough from past mistakes.

This project will address current gaps in the Great Green Wall by building links between different sectors and

stakeholders in sustainable land management. The project will deliver greater synergy in implementation of

the MEAs and improved scale-up of existing good practices through strengthening of mechanisms for

coordination across sectors and stakeholder groups. The project will operate regionally with a combination of

local, national, regional and global activities. The project will enable greater accountability of investments and

policies for GGW implementation and greater participation in decision making at all levels and between

multiple public sectors.

The project will strengthen adaptive management and learning by strengthening dialogue for enhanced goals

and indicators and by developing knowledge and awareness of the developmental and environmental benefits


/19

of SLM and the synergy with other national strategic goals and targets. Enhanced goals and indicators will be

developed at local, national, regional and global levels through engagement of a greater range of stakeholders

with different, although complementary, priorities. This will include a greater diversity of public institutions,

integrating targets in agricultural and economic development with targets in environment and natural resources

and other sectors. Greater diversity will also be achieved in Civil Society engagement. In both cases this will

be achieved through public awareness and outreach, for example through national consultative workshops,

dissemination of published materials, and through participation in other public events. The project will also

support development of a framework of indicators and participatory approaches by partners to take stock of,

and to improve, understanding and monitoring oflandscape system dynamics and the linkages between

livelihood and conservation objectives. This will be carried out through a combination of consultations through

networks, and expert workshops.

Adaptive management and learning will also be strengthened through publication and dissemination of key

works to improve understanding and monitoring of landscape system dynamics and the linkages between

livelihood and conservation objectives. This will focus on lessons learned within the project region, enriched

with experiences and lessons globally. Tools for improved SLM analysis and integration, particularly Total

Economic Valuation of ecosystem goods and services, will be shared with partners through training workshops

and other public platforms to strengthen capacity to use and to interpret key data. Additionally, the project

will support publication of guidelines for integrating environment and development issues as priorities for

policy and investment.

Participation, diversity and equity in implementation of the Great Green Wall and other SLM priorities will

be strengthened through support for more active and better targeted networking within countries and between

countries. This will be achieved through IUCN’s unqiue capacity for convening dialogue between government

and nongovernmental organisations and between sectors. It will also be achieved through improved exchange

of experiences, particularly between actors with shared goals but divergent approaches. Networks will be

established in some cases, but in most cases emphasis will be on strengthening both the reach and the capacity

of existing networks. Financial support will be used to enable some civil society actors to participate in public

consultations and particular emphasis will be placed on enabling marginalised groups to participate – both

through availability of resoucres, creation of opportunities and strengthening of capacity through targeted

training at learning fora.

The project will strengthen networks and networking in participating countries and at regional level through

organization of public fora, awareness raising, and through capacity building activities with partners already

active in GGW and UNCCD implementation. This work will include existing networks such as RESAD along

with other emerging groups. The initiative will bring new actors into these networks including those in the

conservation sector and those in both the development and the relief sector; actors whose work has significant

implications for sustainable land management. Furthermore, IUCN will work through state members to

strengthen links between government sectors and to enable focal points to UNCCD and the GGW to better

understand the state of activity and progress in their countries; this element responds directly to concerns

raised by GGW focal points at the BRICKS inception meeting (March 2014). IUCN will strengthen links with

marginalized groups in networks and dialogue on SLM through existing structures including the World

Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism and the World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Through IUCN

members in non-francophone countries this initiative will improve links between GGW members,

strengthening exchange of experiences as well as the effectiveness of regional policies. Specific activities will

target women as natural resource managers who increasingly play a leading role as men take on more off-farm

(off-land) roles.

Specific capacity building exercises will be oriented towards enabling government and nongovernmental

actors to address policy and policy implementation barriers and opportunities for UNCCD and GGW

implementation. This will include awareness raising on recent advances in sustainable land use systems such

as mobile pastoralism and innovations in landscape and ecosystem management approaches such as forest

landscape restoration and integrated land and water management. Through capacity building exercises GGW

partners will be supported to present evidence of progress at UNCCD and other global fora to strengthen

recognition of the value of SLM as a platform for multiple environmental, economic and social benefits.


/19

Through stronger networks and national dialogue this project will enable improved evidence sharing and

evidence collection across multiple sectors and based on the actions of multiple actors. This will include

improvements in understanding local land management objectives and practices and local indicators of

progress as well as generation of evidence on the multiple benefits and costs of different approaches. This

evidence will strengthen national reporting and will enable SLM coordinating institutions to improve targeting

of finance and technical support. The evidence will be used to improve the analysis of enabling investments

for sustainable land management and to foster dialogue with appropriate elements of the private sector. In

particular the analysis will provide improved tools for analysing the most appropriate investments for locally-

controlled land and natural resources and for adding value to the significant investments already made—for

example in labour and social capital—by local land managers.

The project will contribute to strengthening investment for policy implementation through awareness of policy

and investment options and improved analysis of suitable investor groups. The project will help reach

consensus over investment priorities through improved dialogue between stakeholders and by strengthening

the accountability of local government planning processes. Local planning processes will be strengthened

using established participatory planning tools—including community mapping and visioning exercises—and

by building awareness of opportunities to engage in local government planning through devolved or

decentralised public institutions. This will be reinforced with training of government and nongovernment

actors to identify and address policy implementation barriers related to the GGW. The project will build

capacity for engagement with the private sector and will help identify sub-sectors of the private sector that can

actively invest in appropriate SLM practices. Training will be used to raise awareness of the role of

government in providing “enabling” investments and the options for the private sector to provide “asset”

investments. Experiences will be further shared through publication of regional guidelines for improved

private sector engagement, including recognition of the role of local land managers as private investors and

identification of suitable enabling and asset investments. As part of this publication process the project will

engage members of the private sector to fine-tune recommendations and to further raise their awareness of

investment opportunities in SLM.

2. Objectives and components of the project

Project development objective: Greater implementation of policies for sustainable land management in the

Sahel (Great Green Wall (GGW) countries) through enhanced investment, intersectoral coordination, and

engagement of marginalised groups.

Component 1: Adaptive management & Learning

Outcome 1. Improved participation and knowledge of the developmental and environmental benefits of SLM

including improved goals and indicators for enhanced monitoring and more coordinated implementation (at

local, national, regional and global levels

Output 1.1. An 100% increase of governmental (ministries, departments) and nongovernmental

actors actively engaged in SLM/GGW dialogue at different levels is obtained

Output 1.2. A Framework of indicators and participatory approaches is established by partners for

greater understanding and monitoring of landscape system dynamics and the linkages between

livelihood and conservation objectives

Output 1.3. Learning and awareness-raising publications are developed and endorsed by at least 5

countries through participatory process and disseminated to improve understanding and monitoring

of landscape system dynamics and the linkages between livelihood and conservation objectives

Output 1.4 500 Government and NGO representatives trained in the use and interpretation of

appropriate tools, including Total Economic Valuation of ecosystem goods and services

Component 2: Participation, diversity and equity


/19

Outcome 2. More active networking within and between countries, including a greater engagement of

marginalized groups, in GGW dialogue and implementation, with cross-linkages to other development issues

and sectors

Output 2.1. 10 networks strengthened at national and regional level and more engagement of civil

society (especially marginalized group organizations) in government consultations and dialogue on

the Great Green Wall and other SLM issues in all countries

Output 2.2. Learning fora conducted for 11 countries to address specific challenges related to

engagement of marginalized groups in SLM

Component 3: Investment for Policy Implementation

Outcome 3. Greater capacity and dialogue between stakeholders to identify and attract appropriate

investments for implementation of SLM policies and scale up of good practices

Output 3.1. Training workshops for 11 countries to strengthen capacity of different actors

(government, nongovernment and private sector) to identify and address policy implementation and

investment barriers and opportunities

Output 3.2. A set of guidelines for improved private sector engagement, including recognition of the

role of local land managers as private investors and identification of suitable enabling and asset

investments

Output 3.3. Local planning processes are improved in 30 locations through better participation of

different stakeholder groups and sectors and greater capacity of those groups to articulate SLM

priorities and benefits

Stakeholders

As this is a multi-stakeholder project the intention is to target the full range of stakeholders at different levels,

although the degree of representativeness of individual from different stakeholder groups is a challenge that

the project must tackle. Stakeholders in the project include Civil Society Organizations, Indigenous Peoples,

gender groups (and specifically a focus on women and women’s organisations), and different language groups

in the GGW. Stakeholders will also include a cross-section of the public sector. Specific activities will be

organised to identify critical private sector actors and to engage them also in dialogue.

This project builds on an electronic forum for non-governmental and government participants convened by

IUCN in July 2013 and drawing both from IUCN’s membership and from further afield. The forum discussed

progress towards the objective of the Great Green Wall (GGW) and the challenges for different stakeholders

and sectors to engage in the GGW process. Also in 2013 IUCN signed an agreement with the World Bank

GEF to execute elements of the BRICKS project, in support of the GGW. The proposed intervention builds

on both these experiences; on the recommendations of participants at the e-conference and on gaps identified

by GGW countries during the recent BRICKS inception meeting.

Priorities of Mobile Indigenous Peoples have been developed through an elaborate process of consultation and

mobilisation led by the World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP) and the World Alliance of Mobile

Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP). The most recent consultations were the Kiserian Gathering organised in

Kenya, 2013, drawing pastoralist representatives from 50 countries to discuss pastoralism in relation to the

Global Green Economy. Recommendations from that consultation will inform implementation of this

initiative. WISP is a global initiative that supports the empowerment of pastoralists to sustainably manage

drylands resources will be one of the main partner of the project through IUCN. WISP is a catalyst for fostering

partnership between pastoralists, governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international

organizations and the private sector. The World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP) is a

membership-based organisation that is largely focused on Mobile Pastoralism and has representation from all

populated regions of the world.


/19

3. Cost and financing of the project

The following table summarizes the main lines of the budget by year / result and by group of budget lines.

The percentages of expenses are also indicated.

Budget line Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total %

Charges administratives 11,133 16,033 4,833 32,000 1.9

Personnel international 108,860 108,860 108,860 326,579 18.9

Consultants 60,500 84,500 3,000 148,000 8.6

Voyages nationaux & internationaux 51,334 51,333 51,933 154,600 9.0

Subcontracts 50,000 78,500 30,000 158,500 9.2

Training component 52,624 400,623 52,624 505,871 29.3

Meetings, conferences and workshops 33,000 48,100 - 81,100 4.7

Equipment and premises component 2,553 2,553 2,553 7,660 0.4

Expendable equipment 1,883 1,883 1,883 5,650 0.3

Reporting, steering committee, publications 25,500 45,500 28,500 99,500 5.8

Sundry (communication and operations) 32,650 32,649 32,650 97,950 5.7

Hospitality and entertainment 2,820 14,700 1,470 18,990 1.1

Evaluation 30,000 20,000 40,000 90,000 5.2

Total 462,858 905,235 358,307 1,726,400 100%

% 26.82% 52.43% 20.75% 100%

Difficulties of implementation

One of the major challenge is that the project is targeting many stakeholders (governments, civil

society, private sectors) and quite a big numbers of countries (11 countries). Though the project

activities are regional and participants are from GGW countries, some countries are concerned that

the project is not considering them and they cannot see activities directly being implemented in their

country. However, many efforts have been made for all countries to participate in regional activities.

The country meetings to strengthen inter-sectoral coordination of the GGW in countries remain a big

challenge. The proactivity of GGW coordination in countries are slow and countries are not at the

same level in the process of establishing their national alliance. The PAGGW has developed some

steps for establishing national alliances and the cost to implement all the steps are beyond the budget

the project planned to allocate to each country. Since the beginning of the project enormous efforts

have been made, consuming all lot of staff time and personnel resources around this activity.

Engaging the private sector in the GGW implementation. Four (4) trainings (grouping countries 3 by

3) on appropriate investment and private sector engagement in GGW/SLM and discuss policy barriers

relate to such engagement. The main problem is the identification of the private sector to engage with

and being able to be much representative and able to galvanize others to engage in GGW/SLM. The

IUCN project team engaged to collaborate with its Business and Biodiversity Programme (BBP) that

deals with private sector. They were developing a related programme in Central and West Africa. The

BBP programme were able start establishment of private sector network for business and biodiversity

in March 2019. The project team is still in connecting with BBP to efficiently engage private sector

in the GGW. However, during the remaining lifetime of the project other alternatives need to be

identified.

Development of a Framework of indicators for enhanced monitoring in the GGW. The activity delayed

due the fact that in March 2017 that African Union published the Result Framework of the GGW

assorted with indicators for monitoring. From that moment, IUCN raised the fact that there is no need

of duplicating and doing another framework of indicators. However, in 2018 many discussion and

reflexion around the Result Framework of the African Union show that the document is difficult to

use. Thus, a recommendation was made during the Steering committee meeting of 2018 (11 May

2018) to select key indicators and develop of a framework that will be used for testing in 3 pilot

countries. The Terms of Reference for the consultancy was then drafted requesting to take into account


/19

Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) indicators and harmonized strategy of the GGW indicators to

brainstorm the indicators of be used in the framework. The recruitment of the consultant delayed

because of attempts to connecting and creating synergy with other initiatives and that finally was not

possible.

Budget allocated to personnel is exhausted and is at this stage of the project implementation the

biggest constraint.

Section 2: OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE REVIEW

Key principles of the review

The purpose of this mid-term evaluation is to determine the level of progress made in achieving the project /

program objectives. The review will review project performance and the implementation of planned outputs

and activities against actual results. Risks related to the achievement of project results and objectives will also

be assessed. The purpose of the evaluation is to identify strategic corrective actions and make relevant

recommendations for possible changes in the design and overall direction of the project that may be required.

The evaluation will include:

• Review the effectiveness, efficiency and timely implementation of the project;

• Analyze the effectiveness of the implementation of partnership agreements;

• Identify issues requiring decisions and remedial action;

• Identify lessons learned from project development, implementation and management;

• Highlight technical achievements and lessons learned;

• Determine if the project is achieving the expected results; and

• Propose mid-way corrections and / or adjustments to the work plan and management measures as

necessary.

The project review will be based on internationally applied evaluation criteria of relevance, efficiency and

effectiveness, although it is recognized that impact and sustainability will be more difficult to capture at this

early stage of implementation. The review is meant to also provide the participating countries and Technical

and Financial Partners the opportunity to appreciate the course of the implementation of the project to inform

any adaptive management actions, if deemed necessary.

Evaluation of the relevance of the project

a. Relative to national development priorities in the participating countries of the GGW;

b. In relation to GEF focal points, operational programs and strategic priorities as outlined in the project

document;

c. In relation to the UNEP work program;

Evaluation of the quality, clarity and suitability of the project design

a. Clarity and logical coherence between inputs, activities, outputs and expected outcomes for the

achievement of environmental and project development objectives;

b. Relevance and adequacy of indicators and means of verification;

c. Validity of assumptions and risks;

d. Adequacy of the implementation schedule, including delays in project preparation; and

e. Adequacy of resources of all parties and appropriateness of budget allocations to achieve desired

outcomes.

The following questions have been identified to guide the evaluation of points d and e above:


/19

The project identification and preparation process was spread over a long period of time. Could the mission

identify issues that have delayed the process? Do you have any suggestions as to how to further streamline the

process?

Was the expected level of co-financing and the ratio of GEF budget to co-financing budget of 1: 4 realistic?

Has the GEF budget been properly allocated among the different components and activities of the project to

achieve the expected results? Was it realistic to allocate no GEF budget to certain lines, on the pretext that the

activity in question would be entirely financed by countries or other sources? Was it a good decision to start

the implementation of the project with a funding shortfall in US $? Are the co-financing commitment letters

from the participating countries (signed by whom and when?) Sufficient to proceed with project approval?

What precautionary and corrective measures (including sanctions) does the GEF consider in the event of non-

compliance with co-financing commitments?

To what extent were the overall contributions expected from governments to the project, not only in terms of

financial resources but also in terms of providing qualified and motivated staff, realistic? How is it that the

national focal points, the government officials responsible for the implementation of the project in their

countries, receive neither compensation nor compensation from the project had an impact on the achievement

of the expected results in the project? country level?

a. Quality and realism in the identification of actors and beneficiaries, including the decision to integrate

the old project sites in GGW countries ; and

b. The quality and realism of the external institutional relations, as well as in the institutional structure

and the management modalities for the implementation of the project.

The complex institutional structure of the project is a major aspect to be examined in depth by the evaluation

mission. The mission will establish to what extent the management arrangements described in the project

document were realistic, and if these were carefully monitored, and / or whether the project management was

able to adapt to the changes that had occurred during the course of the project. The mission will evaluate the

effectiveness, efficiency and adaptability of the project management and supervision of project activities and

implementation modalities at all levels: (1) Policy decisions of the Project Steering Committee; (2) GEF

guidance through UNEP ; (3) the general day to day management of the project.

In this regard, the evaluation mission should ensure alignment of the project / program institutional framework

with the country’s strategic institutional frameworks. The mission will compare the roles and responsibilities

of the different institutions involved and the ambitions expressed in the project document and the reality on

the ground.

Role and Responsibilities of the Project Steering Committee:

Was its composition adequate to provide effective and efficient guidance for project implementation? How

often did he meet during implementation? What were the results and recommendations of these meetings and

how were they monitored? Did virtual ad hoc consultations take place outside face-to-face meetings? Have

other steering bodies (such as the planned Scientific and Technical Committee) been created and how have

they contributed to the effective and efficient implementation of the project?

Role and Responsibilities of UNEP as Implementing Agency

Have UNEP staff provided adequate control and supervision, including project supervision missions, in the

field? Have UNEP staff provided quality project support, approved modifications (eg budget revisions) on

time and readjusted the project when necessary? Have UNEP staff been actively involved in mobilizing co-

financing resources?

Management of financial resources, including a. Co-financing: What efforts have been made by whom to really mobilize the co-financing announced?

What measures have been taken to remedy the situation? Has an emergency plan been developed?


/19

b. Adequacy of budgetary allocations to obtain the products: Have significant transfers of funds been made

between the budget lines being implemented? Have the budget revisions been consistent and rational to

meet the needs and objectives of project implementation? and

c. Implementation rate and budget balance at the time of the evaluation.

Effectiveness of project management and implementation, including

a. The quality and realism of the work plans at country level;

b. The efficiency and effectiveness of operations management;

What was the response time to requests received from the field, as well as follow-up?

How is the transfer of funds going to field offices?

Effectiveness in the realisation of outcomes, including the assessment of deviations and delays between

planned and achieved products, the causes and consequences of delays and the merits of any corrective actions

taken.

The assessment mission will review the results achieved so far, including a comprehensive and systematic

evaluation of the project's performance in terms of the achievement of outputs planned to date, in relation to

the work plan, in terms of quantity and quality, but also utility and opportunity. The mission will examine in

particular the status and quality of work on:

The regional framework convention;

The regional observatory;

Baseline studies and management plans for pilot sites; and

Implementation of field activities in the pilot sites.

Effectiveness of internal monitoring and evaluation processes

The evaluation will determine whether the project has met the minimum requirements for M & E project

design and M & E plan design, including review of baseline data, indicators, and means of verification. . The

following questions provide guidance in this regard: Does the project have a robust M & E plan to track results

and progress toward the project objectives? Have regular reports been produced and used to feed into the

Project Implementation Report? Is the information provided by the M & E system used by the project

management to improve project performance and adapt to changing needs? Is the budget allocation for M &

E requirements sufficient? Has training on M & E activities taken place?

a. Efficiency and effectiveness of coordination and steering bodies including the Project Steering

Committee

b. Quality and quantity of administrative and technical support provided by project partners

The assessment mission will determine the composition of the project working group and the frequency and

relevance of the working group meetings. It will also assess the readiness of WG members to respond to

requests for specific assistance as well as the quality of the technical services provided, including support

missions, review and approval of documents, ToRs, etc.

a. Compliance with deadlines, quality and quantity of the contributions and support from the

government

The appraisal mission will estimate the actual contributions of States to the project in terms of staff time, in-

kind and cash contributions, and compare against expected contributions. If there is a gap between the level

of co-financing expected and the actual co-financing, what are the reasons? Does the importance of the

implementation of co-financing affect the results and / or sustainability of the project and, if so, how and what

are the causal links?


/19

Evaluation of gender-specific issues, including

Analysis of the consideration of gender issues in the objectives and design of the project when identifying

beneficiaries and implementing the project;

Analysis of possible project influences on gender relations; and

The extent to which gender issues are taken into account by project leaders

Evaluation of the durability of effects and products

Sustainability refers to the likelihood of project-driven effects and impacts that are sustained over the long

term after GEF project funding ends. The assessment will identify and evaluate the key conditions or factors

that may facilitate or hinder the progress of the project towards achieving its objectives. At the mid-point, it

is particularly important to identify any obstacles to the sustainability of the expected effects and outputs of

the project. Some of these factors could be project effects, such as institutional capacity building or more

informed decision-making. Other factors will be contextual conditions or developments that are not project

effects but are relevant to the sustainability of its effects and products.

Four aspects of sustainability need to be examined:

Financial sustainability: to what extent do the project's effects and outputs depend on continued financial

support? What is the likelihood that States will release the necessary financial resources to sustain the effects

and outputs of the project once GEF assistance ends?

Institutional Framework and Governance: To what extent are project impacts and outputs dependent on

their uptake and institutional integration beyond the direct beneficiaries of the project? What is the likelihood

that government institutions, legal frameworks, policies, and structures will allow for the sustainability of

project effects and outputs?

Technical and economic sustainability: To what extent do the project effects and outputs depend on the

technical capabilities and economic situation of the beneficiaries in adopting the proposed technologies? What

is the likelihood that technologies will be replicated on a larger scale in the region?

Socio-political sustainability: to what extent do the effects and outputs of the project depend on socio-

political factors? What is the likelihood that the level of ownership of stakeholders will allow the maintenance

of project effects and outputs? Have the public and stakeholders sufficiently informed in support of the long-

term objectives of the project?

The evaluation will take stock of the project against the internationally agreed criteria for relevance, efficiency

and effectiveness, although it is recognized that impact and sustainability will be more difficult to measure at

this early stage of implementation.

Key strategic issues

In addition to the evaluation criteria outlined in section 10 below, the review will provide answers to the

strategic questions listed below. These are issues of interest to UN Environment and to which the project could

make a significant contribution:

To what extent does the project follow a strong theory of change with products, outcomes,

intermediate states, and well-formulated long-term outcomes? What revisions are needed to ensure

that the intervention can be effectively evaluated at the end of its cycle? This will include determining

whether outcome indicators are verifiable and appropriate for recording progress towards the

achievement of development goals.

To what extent is the piloting component integrated into a process of documenting a "model" that can

be replicated and scaled?

Attention should be paid to the lessons that can be drawn from the following questions in the evaluation of

Effectiveness:


/19

To what extent has the project remained on course towards the achievement of its component outputs

and outcomes?

To what extent has the project enabled the achievement of the relevant focal area objectives?

What progress has been made in achieving the medium-term objectives of the project results

framework and the relevant GEF focal area monitoring tools?

Evaluation criteria

All evaluation criteria will be scored on a six-point scale. Sections A to I below specify the scope of the criteria

and a link to a table for recording ratings is provided in Annex 1). A weighting table will be proposed in Excel

format (link available in Annex 1) to facilitate the determination of the overall project score. The evaluation

criteria are grouped into nine categories: (A) strategic relevance; (B) quality of project design; (C) nature of

the external context; (D) effectiveness, which includes assessments of product realization, achievement of

effects and probability of impact; (E) financial management; (F) efficiency; (G) monitoring and reporting; (H)

durability; and (I) factors affecting project performance. Evaluators may propose alternative evaluation criteria

if deemed appropriate.

1. A. Strategic Relevance

The review will include an assessment of the relevance of the project to the UN Environment mandate and

its alignment with UN Environment policies and strategies at the time of project approval. In the context of

strategic relevance, an evaluation of the complementarity of the project with other interventions meeting the

needs of the same target groups will be carried out. This criterion has four elements:

i. Alignment with the Medium-Term Strategy1 (MTS) and the UN-Environment Work Program (WP)

The review should determine the alignment of the project to the MTS the WP under which the project was

approved and consider a reflection on the extent and scope of contributions to the expected results reported in

the MTS and the concerned WP.

ii. Alignment with UN Environment / GEF / Donor Strategic Priorities

The strategic priorities of the donor, including the GEF, will vary from intervention to intervention. The UN-

Environment strategic priorities include the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and Capacity

Building2 (PSB) and South-South Cooperation (C-SS). PSB refers to the ability of governments to: comply

with international agreements and obligations at the national level; promote, facilitate and finance

environmentally friendly technologies and strengthen frameworks for developing coherent international

environmental policies. C-SS is seen as the exchange of resources, technology and knowledge among

developing countries. GEF priorities are specified in the programming priorities and published focus area

strategies.

iii. Relevance to regional, subregional and national environmental priorities

The review will assess the extent to which the intervention is appropriate to, or responsive to, the expressed

environmental concerns and needs of the countries, subregions or regions in which it is implemented.

Examples include national or subnational development plans, poverty reduction strategies, nationally adapted

mitigation action plans (NAMAs) or regional agreements, and so on.

iv. Complementarity with existing interventions

An assessment will be made of whether the project is taking into account ongoing and planned initiatives

(under the same subprogramme, other UN-Environment subprogrammes or implemented by other stage of

1The Medium-Term Strategy (MTS) of UN-Environment is a document that guides the planning of UN-Environment programs over a four-year

period. It identifies the UN-Environment thematic priorities called subprogrammes (SPs), and defines the desired outcomes called Expected Accomplishments (ERs) of the subprogrammes. 2http://www.unep.org/GC/GC23/documents/GC23-6-add-1.pdf

http://www.unep.org/GC/GC23/documents/GC23-6-add-1.pdf


/19

conception or during mobilization and which meet similar needs of the same target groups. The review will

determine whether the project team, in collaboration with the Regional Offices and the sub-program

coordinators, has ensured the complementarity of their own intervention with other interventions, has

optimized synergies and avoided duplication. These may be, for example, UNDAF or "One UN" programs.

Links with other interventions need to be clarified and cases where the comparative advantage of UN-

Environment has been particularly well applied highlighted.

Factors affecting this criterion include: stakeholder participation and cooperation; taking into account human

rights and gender equity, as well as country ownership and motivation.

Quality of the project design

1.2. The quality of the project design is assessed using an agreed model during the start-up phase of the review.

Scores are assigned to the defined criteria and an overall score of the quality of the project design is established.

This overall rating of the quality of the project design is captured in the scoreboard of the final review in

Section B. The strengths and weaknesses of the project at the design stage are summarized in the main report

of the review.

Factors affecting this criterion include (at the design stage): participation and cooperation of stakeholders and

their sensitivity to human rights and gender equality, including the appropriate level of budgeting of relevant

actions.

Nature of the external context

1.3. At the start-up stage of the review, a rating is established for the project's external work context (taking

into account the prevalence of conflict, natural disasters and political upheaval). This note is entered in the

scoreboard of the final review in section C. Where a rating in a project is recognized as having a negative or

very adverse and unexpected external working context, the overall rating of effectiveness may be revised

upwards at the discretion of the Review Consultant in consultation with the Task Manager and this increase is

accompanied by a rationale.

Efficiency

1.2. The review will determine effectiveness through three dimensions: product realization, achievement of

direct effects and probability of impact.

i. Realisation of project outcomes and outputs

The review will determine the project's ability to generate the programmed products (products and services

delivered by the project itself) and to reach the key milestones defined in the project design document

(DocPro). Any changes / formal revisions made during project implementation will be considered as part of

the project design. Where project outputs are inappropriately or incorrectly presented in the DocPro, a table

showing the original and the modified version should be provided for transparency. The realization of the

products will be evaluated in quantitative and qualitative terms, and the evaluation will examine their

usefulness and delivery times. The review will provide a brief explanation of the reasons for the success or

weaknesses of the project in achieving the scheduled products and meeting the expected quality standards.

Factors affecting this criterion are among others preparation and availability the quality of project

management and supervision3.

ii. Realization of direct effects

The realization of the direct effects is evaluated in terms of performance with respect to the direct effects as

defined in the reconstructed theory of change4. It is the first-level effects that should be achieved as immediate

3In some cases, "program management and oversight will refer to the oversight and guidance provided by UN-Environment to implementing partners

and national governments, and in other cases, particularly to projects funded by the UN-Environment Program. GEF, this term will refer to the

performance of the project executing agency and the technical support provided by UN-Environment. 4 UN-Environment staff are currently required to submit a theory of change with all submitted project designs. The level of "replenishment" required

during an assessment will depend on the quality of this ToC, the time that has elapsed between the design and the implementation of the project


/19

outcomes of the project outputs. As in point 1 above, a table can be used if it is necessary to make substantive

changes to the wording of direct effects. The review should provide evidence attributing the direct effects to

the UN-Environment response. In the case of normative activities or where several actors collaborate to

achieve common results, evidence of the nature and extent of the contribution of the United Nations

Environment should be provided.

Factors affecting this criterion include the quality of project management and supervision; stakeholder

participation and cooperation; sensitivity to human rights and gender equality, communication and public

awareness.

iii. Probability of impact

Based on the formulation of long-term effects in reconstructed theory of change (ToC) (that is, from direct

effects via intermediate states to impact), the review will assess the probability that the desired positive impacts

become a reality. The project objectives must be integrated into the ToC, possibly as intermediate states or

long-term impacts. The Evaluation Office's approach to the use of the ToC in project evaluations is described

in a guidance note available on the EOU website (https://www.unenvironment.org/about -un-environment /

evaluation) and accompanied by an Excel flowchart called Impact Probability Assessment (see Annex 1). The

approach essentially follows a "probability tree", from direct effects to impacts, taking into account that the

assumptions and factors identified in the reconstructed ToC are well established. Any unanticipated positive

effect must also be identified and its causal link with the intended impact specified.

1.2. The review will also examine the likelihood that the intervention may result in or contribute to unintended

negative effects. Some of these potential negative effects may have been identified in the project design as

risks or as part of the analysis of environmental, social and economic protections.

1.3. The review will determine to what extent the project has played a catalytic role or promoted scaling up

and / or replication5 as part of its theory of change and as a factor that may contribute to an impact in the

future. long term. The ultimate goal of UN-Environment and all its partners is to generate benefits for the

environment and human well-being. Few projects are likely to have impact statements reflecting such long-

term or large-scale changes. However, the review will determine the likelihood that the project will make a

significant contribution to high-level changes in line with the expected accomplishments of UN-Environment,

the Sustainable Development Goals6 and / or high-level outcomes prioritized by the financial partner.

Factors affecting this criterion include the quality of project management and supervision, including adaptive

project management, stakeholder participation and cooperation; sensitivity to human rights and gender

equality; country ownership and motivation, communication and public awareness.

E. Financial management

The financial management will be evaluated based on three main aspects: the completeness of the financial

information, the communication between the financial management team and project managers, and the

applicable norms and procedures of United Nations regarding financial management. The review will establish

actual expenditures throughout the project on funds raised from all donors. These expenses will be recorded,

if possible, at the results level and will be compared against the approved budget. The review will determine

the level of communication between the Task Manager and the Financial Manager with respect to the effective

execution of the planned project and the needs of a responsive and flexible management approach. The review

will verify the application of appropriate financial management standards and compliance with UN

Environment financial management policies. Any financial management problems that have affected the

completion of the project in a timely manner or the quality of its performance will be highlighted.

(which may be related to obtaining and use of funds) and the level of changes made to the project design. In the case of projects prior to 2013, the

intervention logic is often represented in a logical framework and a ToC will have to be constructed at the initial stage of the evaluation. 5"Scaling" refers to approaches taken on a much larger scale, but in a very similar context. Scaling is often the long-term goal of pilot initiatives.

Replication refers to repeated approaches or lessons explicitly applied in new / different contexts, eg. other geographical areas, different target groups, etc. Effective replication usually requires some form of revision or adaptation to the new context. It is possible to replicate on the same scale

or another. 6A list of relevant SDGs is available on the OE website at www.unep.org/evaluation


/19

Factors affecting this criterion include the preparation and quality of project management and

supervision.

F. Efficiency

In line with the OECD DAC definition of efficiency, the review will assess the cost-effectiveness and

timeliness of project implementation. Focusing primarily on the translation of inputs into products, cost-

effectiveness is the extent to which an intervention has achieved, or is expected to achieve, its results at the

lowest possible cost. Turnaround times refer to the completion or not of scheduled activities in the time frame

provided, as well as to the efficient or unsuccessful sequencing of events. The review will also determine to

what extent an extension of the project could have been avoided through enhanced project management and

identified any negative impacts caused by delays or extensions of the project. The evaluation will identify any

cost or time reduction measures in place to maximize results within the guaranteed budget and the agreed time

frame for the project. The review will also determine whether the project has been implemented in the most

efficient manner possible with respect to other interventions or approaches.

The review will pay particular attention to the efforts of project teams to leverage existing institutions,

agreements and partnerships, data sources, synergies and complementarities with other initiatives, programs

and projects, etc., to increase the capacity of the project and efficiency of the project. A review will also

determine the extent to which project management has minimized UN Environment's environmental footprint.

Factors affecting this criterion include preparation and availability (eg, timeliness); the quality of project

management and supervision and the participation and cooperation of stakeholders.

Monitoring and reporting

12. The review will analyze monitoring and reporting in three sub-categories: monitoring design and

budgeting, project monitoring and project reporting.

i. Monitoring design and budgeting

Each project should be supported by a robust monitoring plan designed to track progress against SMART7

indicators for project outcomes and direct outcomes, including gender-specific or low-level groups. The

review will analyze the quality of the design of the monitoring plan as well as the funds allocated for its

implementation. The adequacy of resources for the evaluation / mid-term and final review should be

considered, as appropriate.

ii. Follow-up of the implementation

The review will determine whether the monitoring system was operational and facilitated timely monitoring

of results and progress against project objectives throughout the project implementation period. It will also

determine how information generated by the monitoring system during project implementation has been used

to adapt and improve project implementation, achieve impact and ensure sustainability. The review must

confirm that funds allocated for monitoring have been used to fund this activity.

iii. Project reports

The UN Environment has a Centralized Project Information Management System (PIMS) in which project

managers upload semi-annual status reports based on agreed project milestones. The Task Manager will

provide this information to the consultant (s). GEF-funded projects have additional requirements for the

verification of documentation and reports (ie, project implementation reviews, the monitoring tool and the

CEO endorsement8 documents), which will be made available by the Task Manager. The review will

determine the extent to which UN Environment and donor reporting commitments have been met.

Factors affecting this criterion include: the quality of project management and oversight and sensitivity to

human rights and gender equity (eg data and indicators disaggregated by sex).

7SMART refers to indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound. 8 The consultant (s) must verify that the annual project implementation assessments have been submitted, that the monitoring tool is up to date and

that, in the Director General's approval template, Tables A and E have been filled.


/19

Sustainability

Sustainability refers to the likelihood that the direct effects will be maintained and improved after the closure

of the intervention. The review will identify and determine the conditions or key factors that may compromise

or contribute to the continuity of the direct effects achieved. Some sustainability factors may be incorporated

into project design and implementation approaches, while others may be contextual circumstances or

conditions that evolve over the life of the intervention. Where appropriate, an assessment of the biophysical

factors that may affect the sustainability of the direct effects could also be included. The review will ensure

that the project has put in place an appropriate exit strategy and measures to mitigate risks to sustainability.

i. Sociopolitical sustainability

The review will determine the extent to which social or political factors favor the continuation and subsequent

improvement of the direct effects of the project. It will consider the level of ownership, interest and

commitment of the government and other stakeholders in advancing the project's achievements. In particular,

the review will determine whether individual capacity development efforts are likely to be sustained.

ii. Financial sustainability

Some direct effects, once achieved, do not require additional financial contributions; the adoption of a revised

policy, for example. However, in order to take advantage of this effect, additional management measures may

still be required, for example, to undertake actions to implement the policy. Other direct outcomes may depend

on a continuous stream of actions that needs to be resourced to be sustained, such as the pursuit of a new

resource management approach. The evaluation will determine the extent to which project results depend on

future funding to ensure that the benefits they generate are sustainable. Guaranteed future financing only

concerns financial sustainability when the direct effects of a project have been extended to a later phase of the

project. It remains to be seen whether the future effects of the project will be financially sustainable.

iii. Institutional sustainability

The review will determine to what extent the sustainability of project effects depends on issues related to

institutional frameworks and governance. It will also determine whether institutional achievements such as

governance structures and processes, policies, sub-regional agreements, legal and accountability frameworks,

etc. are sufficiently robust to continue to provide the benefits associated with the effects of the project after its

closure.

Factors affecting this criterion include: stakeholder participation and cooperation; sensitivity to human rights

and gender equity (eg where interventions are not inclusive, their sustainability may be compromised);

communication and public awareness; ownership and motivation of the country.

Factors and processes affecting project performance

These factors are noted in the rating chart, but are considered as cross-cutting themes depending on the

circumstances, relative to the other evaluation criteria above.

i. Preparation and availability

This criterion concerns the stage of starting or mobilizing the project. The review will determine whether

appropriate steps have been taken to address weaknesses in project design or to respond to changes between

project approval, funding receipt and project mobilization. In particular, it will consider the nature and quality

of the project team's engagement with stakeholder groups, the confirmation of partner capacities and the

development of partnership agreements, as well as the initial staffing and funding (project preparation is

reflected in the project design quality assessment model).

ii. Quality of project implementation and execution

For GEF-funded projects, this factor refers to the performance of the implementing agency, technical support

and oversight provided by UN Environment as an implementing agency.

The review will assess the effectiveness of project management with respect to: leadership in achieving the

intended outcomes; management of team structures; maintaining productive partnership relations (including

steering groups, etc.); communication and collaboration with UN Environment colleagues; risk management;

the use of problem solving; the adaptation of the project and the overall execution of the project. Evidence of

adaptive management of the project should be highlighted.


/19

iii. Stakeholder participation and cooperation

Here, the term "stakeholder" should be considered in a broad sense, encompassing all project partners, duty

bearers involved in the delivery of project outputs, target users of project outputs and any other agents

collaborating outside the UN Environment. The review will take into account the quality and effectiveness of

all forms of stakeholder communication and consultation throughout the project, as well as the support

provided to maximize collaboration and coherence among different stakeholders, including through sharing

plans, pooling resources, and sharing learning and skills. The inclusion and participation of all differentiated

groups, including groups of different sexes, should be considered.

iv. Sensitivity to human rights and gender equity

The review will determine the extent to which the project has implemented the UN Joint Convention on the

Human Rights-Based Approach (HREA) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples. In the context of human rights, the review will determine the extent to which the response is in line

with the UN Environment Policy and Strategy on gender equality and the environment.

The report should indicate the extent to which the intervention, after appropriate gender analysis at the design

stage, has implemented the identified actions and / or applied adaptive management to ensure that gender

equity and human rights are duly taken into account. The review will examine in particular how the project

design (section B), the implementation underlying effectiveness (section D) and the monitoring (section G)

took into account: (i) possible inequalities between gender in access and control over natural resources; (ii)

the specific vulnerabilities of women and children to environmental degradation or disasters; (iii) the role of

women in mitigating or adapting to environmental changes and their participation in the protection and

rehabilitation of the environment.

v. Appropriation and motivation of the country

The review will determine the quality and degree of government / public sector involvement in the project.

The review will take into account the participation not only of those directly involved in project

implementation and members of technical or leadership groups, but also of officials whose cooperation is

needed to mainstream change in their institutions and offices, respectively. This factor relates to the level of

ownership generated by the project in relation to outputs and outcomes and which is necessary for achieving

long-term impact. This appropriation must adequately represent the needs and interests of all groups of

different genders and the marginalized.

vi. Communication and public awareness

The review will determine the effectiveness of: (a) sharing of knowledge and experience among project

partners and interested groups resulting from the project throughout its existence; and (b) public awareness

activities undertaken during the implementation of the project to influence attitudes or shape behavior within

larger communities and civil society in general. The review should determine whether existing channels and

communication networks have been used effectively, including to address the differentiated needs of different

gender groups or marginalized groups, and whether feedback channels have been put in place. In the case

where knowledge sharing spaces have been created within the framework of a project, the review will issue

an opinion on the sustainability of the communication channel, whether in terms of socio-political, institutional

or financial sustainability, as the case may be.

Section 3. APPROACH, METHODS AND DELIVERABLES OF THE REVIEW

The mid-term review will use a participatory approach whereby key stakeholders are informed and consulted

throughout the review process. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods will be used, as appropriate,

to determine the project's achievements in relation to expected outputs, outcomes and impacts. It is strongly

recommended that the consultant (s) maintain close communication with the project team and promote the

exchange of information throughout the implementation phase of the review, in order to enable the consultant

to own more (and the same goes for other stakeholders) the results of the review. Where appropriate, the

consultant (s) should provide a geo-referenced map delineating the area covered by the project and, if possible,

provide geo-referenced photographs of the main intervention sites.

The conclusions of the review will be based on the following elements:


/19

(a) Documentary review of relevant project documents and communications

(b) Interviews (individual or in groups) with:

The UN Environment Task Manager (TM);

The project management team;

UN Environment Fund Management Officer (MEF);

Project partners, etc.

The resource persons concerned.

Etc.

(c) Field visits: field visits will be done based on data needs in the course of this evaluation exercise

(d) Other data collection tools: to be determined by the consultant on the basis of the information

needed to complete the review. This aspect will be discussed before the signing of the contract.

9. Deliverables and procedures of the review

The review team will prepare:

Inception report: After the consultant's methodology scoping meeting (see Annex 1 for links to all

templates, tables and guidance notes) containing an assessment of the quality of the project design, a

draft Revised Theory of Change, a stakeholder analysis of the project, a review framework and a

provisional review schedule, the consultant will produce an initial report summarizing the interviews,

field visits and major components of the project. exchanges with the parties and a summary summary

of the project / program diagnosis (institutional, technical and financial). Usually in the form of a

PowerPoint presentation, the sharing of preliminary findings is intended to encourage the participation

of the project team. This is a way of ensuring that all sources of information have been accessed. It

also helps to verify emerging findings.

The preliminary report and the final report : (see links in Annex 1) containing an executive

summary that can serve as a stand-alone document; a detailed analysis of evaluation findings

organized according to evaluation criteria and supported by evidence; lessons learned,

recommendations and an annotated scorecard.

Review of the preliminary review report: The review team will submit a preliminary report to the Task

Manager and the Interim Program Coordinator who will review it in response to their comments and

suggestions. Once a good draft has been reviewed and accepted by peers, the Task Manager will share the

approved draft report with key project stakeholders for review and comment. Stakeholders will be able to

comment on errors of fact and highlight the importance of such errors in the conclusions as well as

recommendations and lessons learned. All comments or responses to the preliminary reports will be forwarded

to the Task Manager for consolidation. The latter will send all comments to the review team for consideration

in the preparation of the final report, as well as indications of contradictions or issues requiring institutional

response.

The interim program coordinator will prepare a quality assessment of the first and last version of the main

review report, which will serve as a tool to provide structured feedback to the review consultants. The quality

of the report will be evaluated and scored according to the criteria specified in the template in Annex 1.

At the end of the review process, Interim Program Coordinator will develop a Table Implementation

Implementation Plan, to be completed and updated on a regular basis.

a. The Consultant for this review

For this review, the work will be carried out by one consultant under the direct supervision of the relevant

project team and under the overall responsibility of the Task Manager (Adamou Bouhari). The consultants

will liaise with the Task Manager for all procedural and methodological issues related to the review. It is

however incumbent on the project team and National Focal Points to make arrangements for consultant travels,

obtaining visas, collecting documentary evidence, organizing meetings with stakeholders, line and settlement

of any other logistical issues related to their mission. The Task Manager and the project team will provide, as


/19

much as possible, logistical support (presentations, meetings, etc.) enabling consultants to conduct the review

as efficiently and independently as possible.

The consultants will be engaged for a period of two months, during the period from 11th November, 2019 and

must have: a post-graduate degree in environmental sciences, international development or any other relevant

field of political or social science; a minimum of 10 years of technical / evaluation experience, including

evaluation of large-scale, regional or global programs using a theory of change approach; a broad

understanding of ecosystem conservation, ecosystem management, and an understanding of GEF focal area

programming will be an added advantage ; a mastery of time management and excellent writing skills in

English; experience in team management and, as far as possible, knowledge of the United Nations system, in

particular the work of the UN Environment. Experience in partnership management, knowledge management

and communication is also desirable for the evaluation consultant.

The consultants will be responsible, in close consultation with Task Manager of UNEP, for the overall

management of the review and timely delivery of its products as described above. The consultant will ensure

that all criteria and questions in the evaluation are properly taken into account. Detailed information on the

role of the consultant is available on the website of the UN-Environment Evaluation Office:

www.unep.org/evaluation.

b. Review schedule

The table below presents the provisional timetable of the review.

Table 3. Provisional timetable of the review

Steps Provisional timetable

Familiarization meeting (with the UNEP Task Manager) 11st November 2019

Data collection and analysis, interviews and desk review 11th November – 25

November 2019

Field missions in 4 selected countries 25 November – 9 December

2019

Drafted report shared with the UN-Environment Task Manager and project

team

10th December 2019

Draft version of the report shared with a wider group of stakeholders 20th December 2019

Final report 11th January 2020

c. Contractual arrangements

The review consultants will be selected by the Task Manager in consultation with the project team, and will

be recruited in accordance with procurement internal procedures. Fees will be paid on an installment basis

after the main deliverables are accepted. The payment schedule will be as follows:

Payment schedule [Consultants/Team leader]:

Deliverable Amount payable

Initial report approved 30%

Approved draft version of the main review report 30%

Approved final version of the main review report 40%

In the event that consultants are unable to provide the deliverables in accordance with these guidelines and the

quality standards expected by the UNEP Task Manager, payment may be withheld at the discretion of UNEP.

In the event that the consultant fail to submit a final product satisfactory to the UNEP Project Manager and

the project team, UNEP Task Manager reserve the right to use additional human resources to finalize the report

and to cut consultant fees by an amount equal to the additional costs incurred.

http://www.unep.org/evaluation


/19

Annex 1: Tools, Templates and Guidance Notes for Use in the Review

The tools, templates and guidance notes listed in the table below and available on the Office of Evaluation's

website (https://www.unenvironment.org/about-un-environment/evaluation) are intended to Assist Task

Managers and Review Consultants in generating compatible evaluation products with each other and

contributing to the communication of UN-Environment outcomes. This series of documents also aims to make

the review process as transparent as possible so that everyone involved in the process can participate with full

knowledge of the facts. It is recognized that the needs for project and portfolio review vary and that

adjustments may be needed to achieve the goal of the evaluation process (basically, accountability and lessons

learned). These adjustments must be decided by the Task Manager and the Review Consultant for the

production of review reports that are useful for both the implementers of the project and the production of

credible findings.

In the event these links do not open, please contact Janet Wildish ([email protected]) at the UN-

Environment Evaluation Office and ask for these resource materials.

Documen

t

Name Link URL

1 Assessment Process Guidelines for Consultants Lien

2 Roles of the Evaluation Consultants Teams (Team Leader and

Assistant Consultant)

Lien

3 Evaluation Criteria (summary of descriptions as in these terms of

reference)

Lien

4 Table of evaluation notes Lien

5 Matrix describing the scores by criterion Lien

6 Weighting of the notes (Excel) Lien

7 Table identification tables (GEF and non-GEF) Lien

7 Structure and summary of the start-up report Lien

8 Model for evaluating the quality of project design Lien

9 Guidance on Stakeholder Analysis Lien

10 Using the Theory of Change in Project Evaluations Lien

11 Evaluation of the decision tree of the probability of impact (Excel) Lien

12 Possible questions of evaluations Lien

13 Structure and content of the main evaluation report Lien

14 Cover page, preliminary pages and style sheet of the main evaluation

report

Lien

15 Financial tables Lien

16 Quality Assessment Model of the Evaluation Report Lien

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/id/71681/21.%20Evaluation%20Process%20Guidelines%20for%20Consultants%2026.10.17.pdf

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/id/71682/22.%20Evaluation%20Consultants%20Team%20Roles%2026.10.17.pdf

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/id/71663/1.%20Evaluation%20Criteria.doc

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/id/71664/2.%20Evaluation%20Ratings%20Table.docx

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/22308/01.%20Criterion%20Rating%20Descriptions.docx?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/7105/2.%20Evaluation%20Ratings%20Table.docx?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/id/71669/8.%20Project%20Identification%20Table%2026.10.17.docx

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/id/71670/9.%20Structure%20and%20Contents%20of%20the%20Inception%20Report%2026.10.17.doc

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/id/71672/11.%20Template%20for%20the%20Assessment%20of%20the%20Quality%20of%20Project%20Design%2026.10.17.xlsx

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/id/71674/13.%20Guidance%20on%20Stakeholder%20Analysis%2026.10.17.doc

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/id/71675/14.%20Use%20of%20Theory%20of%20Change%20in%20Project%20Evaluation%2026.10.17.pdf

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/7117/15.%20Assessment%20of%20Likelihood%20of%20Impact%20Decision%20Tree.xlsm?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/id/71686/23.%20Possible%20Evaluation%20Questions.docx

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/22306/18.%20Cover%20Pages%20Prelims%20and%20Style%20Sheet%20for%20the%20Main%20Evaluation%20Report%2026.10.17.docx?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/id/71676/16.%20Financial%20Tables%2026.10.17.doc

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/id/71677/17.%20Template%20for%20the%20Assessment%20of%20the%20Quality%20of%20the%20Evaluation%20Report%2026.10.17.docx

terms of reference mid-term review of the …...of experiences, particularly between actors with...

Documents