International consultant complete the Midterm Review (MTR) process of the full-sized UNDP-supported GEF-financed project titled Sustainable management of water resources, rangelands and agro-pastoral perimeters in the Cheikhetti Wadi watershed of Djibouti

Background

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for an International consultant complete the Midterm Review (MTR) process of the full-sized UNDP-supported GEF-financed project titled Sustainable management of water resources, rangelands and agro-pastoral perimeters in the Cheikhetti Wadi watershed of Djibouti (PIMS #5921) implemented through the Directorate of Communication, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation and Archives/Ministry of Environment and Sustainable development (MESD), which is to be undertaken in 2023. The project started on 21 March 2021 and is in its third year of implementation. This ToR sets out the expectations for completing and updating the existing draft MTR report.  The completion of this project’s MTR process must continue to follow the guidance outlined in the document Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects http://web.undp.org/evaluation/guideline/documents/GEF/TE_GuidanceforUNDP-supportedGEF-financedProjects.pdf.

The Republic of Djibouti is a small coastal country in the Horn of Africa, with a total area of 23,700 km2 and a coastline of 372 km. The line of the rift formed by the Gulf of Tadjourah and Assal Lake divides the country into two parts: the North dominated by three mountain ranges, and the South and West regions, where medium-elevation mountain ranges alternate with depressions covered with a layer of clay (the plains of Petit and Grand Bara, Gobaad and Hanle´).While the Government of Djibouti has made investments to protect some of its unique and biodiversity rich marine habitats, these achievements risk to become precarious given the magnitude and speed of new developments of port infrastructure in Djibouti, most notably in the Gulfs of Tadjourah and Ghoubet. There are major risks associated with the new shipping routes and increased traffic of oil tankers and other ships transporting noxious substances through this vulnerable environment. 

This GEF project therefore has the objective to promote an integrated model for the restoration of agropastoral ecosystem services in the Cheikhetti watershed to reduce land degradation, improve self-sufficiency in basic living needs of vulnerable rural communities and create conditions to enable its replication with a strong community involvement.  The project Objective will be achieved through implementation of four components that address the key barriers identified for effective watershed management.

• Component 1 :  Multi-level governance framework and capacities enhancement for integrated watershed management and land use. At the watershed level, the project will establish a multi-stakeholder board, and water and rangelands committees. It will also strengthen capacities and improve multi-institutional collaboration.
• Component 2 : Land rehabilitation and aquifer replenishment mmanagement in Chekhetti Wadi watershed. The project will design an integrated management plan of the Cheikhetti watershed, including a water monitoring system. It will rehabilitate community-based water structures.
• Component 3:  Adoption of climate-resilient agropastoralism and and livelihood activities reducing the pressure on limited water and land resources. The project will set up a microfinance platform to facilitate investment in land restoration, it will also support establishment of agropastoral farms and will restore at least 650 ha of lands.  and
• Component 4: Gender mainstreaming, M&E, and knowledge management to scale-up integrated SLM at the national level. The project will have a strong knowledge management and communication component. Lessons learned through project implementation and a replication strategy will be made available nationally and internationally.

The project (Sustainable management of water resources, rangelands and agro-pastoral perimeters in the Cheikhetti Wadi watershed of Djibouti) is being implemented over a period of five years following UNDP’s national implementation modality, according to the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between UNDP and the Government of Djibouti, and the Country Programme. The Implementing Partner for this project the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable development (MESD) of Djibouti.

The Implementing Partner is responsible and accountable for managing this project, including the monitoring and evaluation of project interventions, achieving project outcomes, and for the effective use of UNDP resources. The Implementing Partner is responsible for: approving and signing the multi-year workplan; approving and signing the combined delivery report at the end of the year; and signing the financial report or the funding authorization and certificate of expenditures.

The area of intervention proposed for this project extends over approximately 75,000 ha to cover the sub-watershed of Cheikhetti from the Ethiopian border in the south to the entrance of the plain of Hanlé towards the north. The sub-watershed of Cheikhetti represents about 40% of Hanlé watershed. The area includes quality rangelands on plateaus in its western portion that are part of the watershed. The dry river that floods during heavy rainfall events has its source just across the border in northern Ethiopia and merges with the Hanlé watershed as it enters the plain of Hanlé.  The proposed intervention area overlaps one of the five units (Unit 3) of the Great Green Wall layout in Djibouti, which was identified based on the availability of water and soil resources, and the presence of populations that can be mobilized. The area is composed of sedimentary plains, plateaus and mountains and mainly covered with steppe vegetation dominated by Acacia mellifera and Acacia tortilis, along with Balanites sp. Species such as Salvadora persica, Balanites aegypta and Terminalia sp. that provided fodder, firewood, shade and helped to fix the soil and promote infiltration, previously colonized the banks of the wadi. They are now scarce and more remote. Rural communities raise goats, sheep and camels. This area has a high agricultural potential by the presence of valleys where large perimeters and agropastoral gardens were previously thriving, as witnessed by local people.

Various plans and initiatives suchas Vision Djibouti 2035, the Strategy for Accelerated Growth and Employment Promotion (SCAPE), the 2009-2018 Master Plan for the Primary Sector, the National Investment Program for Agriculture and Food Security (PNIASA) and the National Action Plan to Combat Desertification (NAP) highlight the Djibouti government's priorities and objectives in terms of rural development, food security, combating desertification and economic development.

The proposed project is directly aligned with these strategies and initiatives, contributing to several objectives, including eradicating poverty, improving food security, combating desertification, building resilience to recurrent droughts and promoting sustainable development. The project aims to develop agro-pastoral development poles, restore the productive capacity of soils, introduce efficient irrigation techniques and promote income-generating activities for rural populations.

In addition, the project also supports the objectives of the Great Green Wall, a pan-African initiative aimed at combating desertification and improving the living conditions of local communities. By helping to conserve biodiversity, enhance carbon sequestration, improve soils and empower local communities, the project is in line with the vision and objectives of the Great Green Wall.

The project will contribute to the following SDGs:

• Goal 1 – Ending poverty: improving livelihoods of the Cheikhetti watershed communities;
• Goal 2 – Food security: developing new climate-resilient agricultural areas, improving soil productivity;
• Goal 5 – Gender equality: including gender in the project's intervention strategy, through awareness-raising activities with the different stakeholders and by developing women targeted activities;
• Goal 8 – Decent work and economic growth: providing new IGAs;

The gender analysis carried out in Djibouti highlighted gender inequalities in terms of disparities, discrimination and power relations. The main challenges identified are as follows:

• Strengthening women's social and cultural position within the home and society.
• Acquiring knowledge, technical and professional skills.
• Access to basic, quality social services.
• Improve women's reproductive health.
• Access economic resources and opportunities.
• Exercise and enjoy their fundamental rights, including citizenship.
• Equitable access to and participation in management and decision-making institutions.
• Integrate the gender dimension into development interventions.

These challenges underline the need to continue promoting gender equality in Djibouti and to implement measures to overcome inequalities and discrimination against women, in order to enable their full development and equitable participation in all aspects of social, economic and political life.

The total cost of the project is USD $15,212,374.  This is financed through a GEF grant of USD 3,215,068 USD and USD 12,447,000 in parallel co-financing from Government of Djibouti (GoD), GoD 11th EDF, PROGRES, PRODERMO-2 projects, ADDS. UNDP, as the GEF Implementing Agency, is responsible for the execution of the GEF resources and the cash co-financing transferred to UNDP bank account only. 

1. APPLICATION PROCESS[1]

Recommended Presentation of Proposal: 

1. Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template[2] provided by UNDP;
2. CV and a Personal History Form (P11 form[3]);
3. Brief description of approach to work/technical proposal of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment, and a proposed methodology on how they will approach and complete the assignment; (max 1 page)
4. Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price and all other travel related costs (such as flight ticket, per diem, etc), supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template attached to the Letter of Confirmation of Interest template.  If an applicant is employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to UNDP under Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA), the applicant must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP. 

[1] Engagement of the consultants should be done in line with guidelines for hiring consultants in the POPP: https://info.undp.org/global/popp/Pages/default.aspx

[2] https://intranet.undp.org/unit/bom/pso/Support%20documents%20on%20IC%20Guidelines/Template%20for%20Confirmation%20of%20Interest%20and%20Submission%20of%20Financial%20Proposal.docx

[3] http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/Careers/P11_Personal_history_form.doc

Duties and Responsibilities

The final MTR report will assess progress towards the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes as specified in the Project Document and assess early signs of project success or failure with the goal of identifying the necessary changes to be made to set the project on-track to achieve its intended results. The MTR will also review the project’s strategy and its risks to sustainability.

The MTR evaluation will provide a benchmark for assessing progress to date in project implementation. It will identify successes, challenges and gaps that may require corrective action.

The results of the evaluation will allow donors, UNDP, and the government to draw lessons learned from the project.

The completion of the MTR process is planned for October 2023.

The MTR report must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable, and useful.

The MTR team will review all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. PIF, UNDP Initiation Plan, UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Procedure/SESP), the Project Document, project reports including annual PIRs, project budget revisions, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team considers useful for this evidence-based review. The MTR team will review the baseline GEF focal area Core Indicators/Tracking Tools submitted to the GEF at CEO endorsement, and the midterm GEF focal area Core Indicators/Tracking Tools that must be completed before the MTR field mission begins.

The Evaluation should employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods and instruments. The MTR Team should follow a collaborative and participatory approach by engaging closely with the project team, government counterparts (the GEF operational focal point), the UNDP country office, the regional technical advisor for nature, climate, and energy (NCE), direct beneficiaries and other stakeholders.

Stakeholder engagement is critical to the success of the MTR. Stakeholder engagement should include interviews with stakeholders (men and women) who have responsibilities in the project, including, but not limited to, the organizations listed below (List 1); implementing agencies, senior government officials and task team/component leaders, key experts and consultants in the relevant field, the Project Board, project stakeholders, universities, local governments and CSOs, etc.

List 1: Stakeholders to be consulted/interviewed:

• Directorate of Communication, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation and Archives/Ministry of Environment and Sustainable development (MESD)
• Agriculture and Forests Directorate / Ministry of Agriculture, Water, Fisheries, Livestock and Marine Resources (MAWFLMR)
• Water Directorate / MAWFLMR
• Agriculture and Livestock Directorate / MAWFLMR
• Public Works Directorate/ Ministry of Agriculture, Water, Fisheries, Livestock and Marine Resources (MAWFLMR)
• Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training / General Directorate of Technical Education and Vocational Training
• Prefecture Council of Dikhil
• The Regional Council of the Dikhil region
• National Scientific Research Institution: Centre for Studies and Scientific Research of Djibouti (CERD) / Ministry of Higher Education and Research
• Caravane du Développement de Gobaad
• Agricultural and agro- pastoral cooperatives and networks

The specific design and methodology for the MTR should emerge from consultations between the MTR team and the above-mentioned parties regarding what is appropriate and feasible for meeting the MTR purpose and objectives and answering the evaluation questions, given limitations of budget, time and data. The MTR team must use gender-responsive methodologies and tools and ensure that gender equality and women’s empowerment, as well as other cross-cutting issues and SDGs are incorporated into the MTR report.

Suggested methodological tools and approaches may include:

• Document review. (see annex B Project Information Package to be reviewed by TE team)
• Interviews and meetings with key stakeholders (men and women) such as key government counterparts, donor community members, representatives of key civil society organizations, United Nations country team (UNCT) members and implementing partners:
  • Semi-structured interviews, based on questions designed for different stakeholders based on evaluation questions around relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability.
  • Key informant and focus group discussions with men and women, beneficiaries and stakeholders.
  • All interviews with men and women should be undertaken in full confidence and anonymity. The final evaluation report should not assign specific comments to individuals.
• Surveys and questionnaires including male and female participants in development programmes, UNCT members and/or surveys and questionnaires to other stakeholders at strategic and programmatic levels.
• Field visits and on-site validation of key tangible outputs and interventions as mentioned above.
• Other methods such as outcome mapping, observational visits, group discussions, etc.
• Data review and analysis of monitoring; financial and funding data, and other data sources and methods. To ensure maximum validity, reliability of data (quality) and promote use, the evaluator will ensure triangulation of the various data sources.

The final methodological approach including interview schedule, field visits and data to be used in the MTR must be clearly outlined in the Inception Report and be fully discussed and agreed between UNDP, stakeholders, and the MTR team.

The final MTR report must describe the full MTR approach taken and the rationale for the approach making explicit the underlying assumptions, challenges, strengths and weaknesses about the methods and approach of the review.

The evaluation project will be carried out over a period from July to October 2023 (4months from the date of contract signature). The scope of the evaluation should include assessment of the project's key components, namely:

• Component 1 :  Multi-level governance framework and capacities enhancement for integrated watershed management and land use. At the watershed level, the project will establish a multi-stakeholder board, and water and rangelands committees. It will also strengthen capacities and improve multi-institutional collaboration.
• Component 2 : Land rehabilitation and aquifer replenishment mmanagement in Chekhetti Wadi watershed. The project will design an integrated management plan of the Cheikhetti watershed, including a water monitoring system. It will rehabilitate community-based water structures.
• Component 3:  Adoption of climate-resilient agropastoralism and and livelihood activities reducing the pressure on limited water and land resources. The project will set up a microfinance platform to facilitate investment in land restoration, it will also support establishment of agropastoral farms and will restore at least 650 ha of lands.  and
• Component 4: Gender mainstreaming, M&E, and knowledge management to scale-up integrated SLM at the national level. The project will have a strong knowledge management and communication component. Lessons learned through project implementation and a replication strategy will be made available nationally and internationally.

The geographical coverage of the project will include the target areas of the Dikhil region, in particular the sites located in the Cheikhetti watershed as indicated in the project document. The target population will include local communities, government authorities and the stakeholders listed above.

The evaluation will provide an understanding of the project's effectiveness in achieving its objectives, identify successes and challenges encountered, and provide recommendations for improving integrated water management at watershed level.

The MTR Team will prepare the final report of the mid-term evaluation of the Sustainable water resources management project by considering the following four categories of project progress. For more detailed descriptions, see the Guidance for Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported GEF-financed Projects.

Project Strategy

Project design:

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

Results Framework/Logframe:

• Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s logframe indicators and targets, assess how “SMART” the midterm and end-of-project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound), and suggest specific amendments/revisions to the targets and indicators as necessary.
• Are the project’s objectives and outcomes or components clear, practical, and feasible within its time frame?
• Are the project indicators and targets realistic and achievable, with and without COVID-19 triggered implications?
• Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc...) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis.
• Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively.  Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators and indicators that capture development benefits.
• Undertake a critical analysis of the project beneficiaries to assess whether the indicators capture the changes brought by the pandemic implications and to recommend any adjustments to the timeline, budget, or nature of interventions in the results framework.

ii.    Progress Towards Results

Progress Towards Outcomes Analysis:

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

Table. Progress Towards Results Matrix (Achievement of outcomes against End-of-project Targets)

Indicator Assessment Key

In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

• Compare and analyse the GEF Tracking Tool/Core Indicators at the Baseline with the one completed right before the Midterm Review.
• Identify remaining barriers to achieving the project objective in the remainder of the project.
• By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits.

iii.   Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management Arrangements:

• Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document.  Have changes been made and are they effective?  Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear?  Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner?  Recommend areas for improvement.
• Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement.
• Review the quality of support provided by the GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) and recommend areas for improvement.
• Do the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner and/or UNDP and other partners have the capacity to deliver benefits to or involve women? If yes, how?
• What is the gender balance of project staff? What steps have been taken to ensure gender balance in project staff?
• What is the gender balance of the Project Board? What steps have been taken to ensure gender balance in the Project Board?
• What steps are taken to ensure that the Project Board is well represented by all the relevant stakeholders? Were there any logistical arrangements put in place to ensure the Project Board meetings are held in compliance with COVID-19 safety protocols?

Work Planning:

• Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved.
• Are work-planning processes results-based?  If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results?
• Examine the use of the project’s results framework/ logframe as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start. 
• In view of COVID impact, assess any potential delays in meeting the annual targets and overall project targets as indicated in the agreed multi-year workplan of the project document? If yes, recommend the adjusted timeline and revised results based work plan following the GEF guidelines.

Finance and co-finance:

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

• Include the separate GEF Co-Financing template (filled out by the Commissioning Unit and project team) which categorizes each co-financing amount as ‘investment mobilized’ or ‘recurrent expenditures’.  (This template will be annexed as a separate file.)

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

• Review the monitoring tools currently being used:  Do they provide the necessary information? Do they involve key partners? Are they aligned or mainstreamed with national systems?  Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-effective? Are additional tools required? How could they be made more participatory and inclusive?
• Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget.  Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation? Are these resources being allocated effectively?
• Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were incorporated in monitoring systems. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.

Stakeholder Engagement:

• Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?
• Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project?  Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation?
• Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?
• How does the project engage women and girls?  Is the project likely to have the same positive and/or negative effects on women and men, girls and boys?  Identify, if possible, legal, cultural, or religious constraints on women’s participation in the project.  What can the project do to enhance its gender benefits?

Social and Environmental Standards (Safeguards)

• Validate the risks identified in the project’s most current SESP, and those risks’ ratings; are any revisions needed?
• Summarize and assess the revisions made since CEO Endorsement/Approval (if any) to:
  • The project’s overall safeguards risk categorization.
  • The identified types of risks[6] (in the SESP).
  • The individual risk ratings (in the SESP) .
• Describe and assess progress made in the implementation of the project’s social and environmental management measures as outlined in the SESP submitted at CEO Endorsement/Approval (and prepared during implementation, if any), including any revisions to those measures. Such management measures might include Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs) or other management plans, though can also include aspects of a project’s design; refer to Question 6 in the SESP template for a summary of the identified management measures.

A given project should be assessed against the version of UNDP’s safeguards policy that was in effect at the time of the project’s approval.

Reporting:

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

Communications & Knowledge Management:

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

iv.   Sustainability

• Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Review/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk Register are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.
• In addition, assess the following risks to sustainability:

Financial risks to sustainability:

• What is the likelihood of financial and economic resources not being available once the GEF assistance ends (consider potential resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and other funding that will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project’s outcomes)?

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

• Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project outcomes? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership (including ownership by governments and other key stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long-term objectives of the project? Are lessons learned being documented by the Project Team on a continual basis and shared/ transferred to appropriate parties who could learn from the project and potentially replicate and/or scale it in the future?

Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability:

• Do the legal frameworks, policies, governance structures and processes pose risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project benefits? While assessing this parameter, also consider if the required systems/ mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and technical knowledge transfer are in place.

Environmental risks to sustainability:

• Are there any environmental risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes?

Conclusions & Recommendations

The international consultant will support the international consultant in finalizing the sections in the mid-term report and issuing evidence-based conclusions based on the findings.

Ratings

Table. MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table for titled “Sustainable management of water resources, rangelands and agro-pastoral perimeters in the Cheikhetti Wadi watershed of Djibouti (PIMS #5921)”

1. TIMEFRAME

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 35 working days over a time period of 4 months and shall not exceed one month from when the consultant is hired. The international consultant's work will be carried out remotely, but a field visit to Djibouti will be organized in September (approximately 9 days). The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows:

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

1. MIDTERM REVIEW DELIVERABLES

*The final MTR report must be in English. If applicable, the Commissioning Unit may choose to arrange for a translation of the report into a language more widely shared by national stakeholders.

The final report must address all the quality checklist questions in section 6 (page 8-12) of UNDP Evaluation Guidelines.

1. MTR ARRANGEMENTS

The principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the Commissioning Unit (UNDP CO office). The Commissioning Unit for this project’s MTR is UNDP Djibouti.

The Commissioning Unit will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the MTR consultant and will provide an updated stakeholder list with contact details (phone and email). The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the MTR consultant to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits.

The consultant will report directly to the designated evaluation manager and focal point and work closely with the project team. Project staff will not participate in the meetings between consultants and evaluands. Limited administrative and logistical support will be provided. The consultant will use his own laptop and cell phone.

 The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach that ensures close engagement with the evaluation managers, implementing partners and the project stakeholders. The evaluation manager will convene an evaluation reference group comprising of technical experts from UNDP, donors, GEF RTA and implementing partners. This reference group will review the inception report and the draft evaluation report and provide detailed comments related to the quality of methodology, evidence collected, analysis and reporting. The reference group will also advise on the conformity of processes to the GEF, UNDP and UNEG standards. Comments and changes by the evaluator in response to the draft report should be retained by the evaluator to show how they have addressed comments (audit trail). The ERG will also provide input to the development of the management responses and key actions recommended by the evaluation. The final report will be approved by the evaluation commissioner.

1.  TEAM COMPOSITION

The evaluation will be undertaken by two consultants, an internal and a national. The international consultant will be the team leader. He/she will be responsible for conducting stakeholder interviews, conducting field visits, and preparing and finalizing all initial and final evaluation reports in English. The international consultant is responsible for the timely delivery of all reports and will ensure the quality of the report in accordance with GEF and UNDP evaluation guidelines.

The national consultant will be responsible for consolidating existing documentation, conducting stakeholder interviews, participating in the field mission, and writing and finalizing the field mission analysis report. He/she will support the international consultant in the evaluation process.

The CO office will help identify the stakeholders and organize bilateral and group consultations with the stakeholders.

[1] Populate with data from the Logframe and scorecards

[2] Populate with data from the Project Document

[3] If available

[4] Colour code this column only

[5] Use the 6 point Progress Towards Results Rating Scale: HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU

[6] Risks are to be labeled with both the UNDP SES Principles and Standards, and the GEF’s “types of risks and potential impacts”: Climate Change and Disaster; Disadvantaged or Vulnerable Individuals or Groups; Disability Inclusion; Adverse Gender-Related impact, including Gender-based Violence and Sexual Exploitation; Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources; Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement; Indigenous Peoples; Cultural Heritage; Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention; Labor and Working Conditions; Community Health, Safety and Security.

1. APPLICATION PROCESS[1]

Recommended Presentation of Proposal: 

1. Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template[2] provided by UNDP;
2. CV and a Personal History Form (P11 form[3]);
3. Brief description of approach to work/technical proposal of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment, and a proposed methodology on how they will approach and complete the assignment; (max 1 page)
4. Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price and all other travel related costs (such as flight ticket, per diem, etc), supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template attached to the Letter of Confirmation of Interest template.  If an applicant is employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to UNDP under Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA), the applicant must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP. 

[1] Engagement of the consultants should be done in line with guidelines for hiring consultants in the POPP: https://info.undp.org/global/popp/Pages/default.aspx

[2] https://intranet.undp.org/unit/bom/pso/Support%20documents%20on%20IC%20Guidelines/Template%20for%20Confirmation%20of%20Interest%20and%20Submission%20of%20Financial%20Proposal.docx

[3] http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/Careers/P11_Personal_history_form.doc

Competencies

Experience

• Relevant experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies (10);
• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios (10);
• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to Biodiversity (10);
• Experience in evaluating projects (15);
• Experience working in Djibouti and East Africa, in general (5);
• Experience in relevant technical areas for at least 5 years (10);
• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and Biodiversity; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis (10).
• Excellent communication skills;
• Demonstrable analytical skills (5);
• Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset (5).

Language

• Fluency in written and spoken French.
• Official language of Djibouti is French and Arabic, with Somali and Afar as the most commonly spoken local languages. Fluency in French is required. Knowledge of either Arabic, Somali and/or Afar will be an asset.
• French with good report-writing skills is essential. Samples of previously written work should be submitted with the application.

Required Competencies

• Demonstrates commitment to the UN values and ethical standards.
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality, and age sensitivity and adaptability.
• Treats all people fairly and with impartiality.
• Good communication, presentation and report writing skills,
• Ability to work under pressure and meet deadlines.
• Experience managing research and evaluation teams.
• Client-oriented and open to feedback

Required Skills and Experience

The international consultant cannot have participated in the project preparation, formulation, and/or implementation (including the writing of the Project Document) and should not have a conflict of interest with project’s related activities. 

The selection of consultant will be aimed at maximizing the overall “team” qualities in the following areas:

Education

• A master’s degree or Phd in Water science, agronomy, Environmental Sciences, or related fields of expertise (20 points)