By continuing to browse this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read our privacy policy

National Consultant for Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the full-sized UNDP-supported GEF-financed project titled Eliminating POPs through Safe Management of Chemicals

Male

  • Organization: UNDP - United Nations Development Programme
  • Location: Male
  • Grade: National Consultant - Locally recruited Contractors Agreement
  • Occupational Groups:
    • Development Cooperation and Sustainable Development Goals
    • Environment
    • Biology and Chemistry
    • Monitoring and Evaluation
    • Climate Change
    • Project and Programme Management
    • Natural Resource Management
  • Closing Date: 2022-05-26

Click "SAVE JOB" to save this job description for later.

Sign up for free to be able to save this job for later.

Background

1. INTRODUCTION

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for -the Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized UNDP-supported GEF-financed project titled Eliminating POPs through Safe Management of Chemicals (PIMS5918) implemented through the United Nations Development Programme, which is to be undertaken in 2022. The project started on the 6 February 2020 and is in its third year of implementation. This ToR sets out the expectations for this MTR.  The MTR process must follow the guidance outlined in the document Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects (https://tinyurl.com/undpmtr.)

2.  PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The project was designed to reduce the risks of POPs on human health and the environment through strengthening of the institutional capacity, and the policy and regulatory framework for the environmentally sound management (ESM) of hazardous chemicals with focus on POPs. Technically, the project will develop sustainable systems for the sound collection, labelling, storage, and disposal of hazardous POPs chemicals and waste.

Global Environmental Benefits (GEBs) will be achieved by reducing the release of Unintentional Persistent Organic Pollutants (U-POPs) and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) through the introduction of Best Environmental Practices (BEP) and Best Available Techniques (BAT) at the regional, municipality level, and at tourist resorts. Gender mainstreaming will target the community level to strengthen women's decision-making tool and awareness about hazardous POPs.

The project is structured in three components are strengthening the regulatory and policy framework and institutional and technical capacity for the sound management and disposal of POPs, chemicals and wastes. The project will also establish systems for the sound collection, labelling, storage and disposal of hazardous chemicals and wastes in addition to monitoring and learning, adaptive feedback, outreach and evaluation.

The project, with GEF funding of US$3.75 million, will be implemented in five years starting from 2020 by the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Technology.

The first positive cases of COVID-19 emerged in the Maldives on 7 March 2020 and originated in tourist resorts. It spread quickly throughout the country and by August 2020, there were 4,446 confirmed cases and 19 deaths. In response to the threat of the pandemic, the Government started placing severe movement and other restrictions beginning in February 2020. They include closing government offices and education facilities, closing eateries, imposing travel bans to and from resorts, quarantining all incoming travellers to the Maldives, and barring tourists who were transferred to resorts from travelling to any inhabited islands. Since the community outbreak, the Greater Malé Region and several islands were under a 24-hour lockdown with restricted movement, and a nationwide ban on travel and public gatherings was imposed.

Due to the COVID-19 restrictions, the project made little progress in the first year of implementation (2020) as key recruitments were delayed until the end of the year. The delays continued until the easing of restrictions beginning in late 2021.

3.  MTR PURPOSE

The MTR will assess progress towards the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes as specified in the Project Document and assess early signs of project success or failure with the goal of identifying the necessary changes to be made in order to set the project on-track to achieve its intended results. Special emphasis will be drawn on COVID-19 impacts on project implementation and the significant delays to activities scheduled in the first year (i.e., 2020). The MTR will also review the project’s strategy and its risks to sustainability.

Duties and Responsibilities

4. MTR APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

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

The MTR team will review all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e., PIF, UNDP Initiation Plan, UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP), the Project Document, project reports including Annual Project Review/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 Tracking Tool/Core Indicators submitted to the GEF at CEO endorsement, and the midterm GEF focal area Tracking Tool/Core Indicators that must be completed before the MTR field mission begins. 

The MTR team is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach[1] ensuring close engagement with the Project Team, government counterparts (the GEF Operational Focal Point), the UNDP Country Office(s), the Nature, Climate and Energy (NCE) Regional Technical Advisers, direct beneficiaries, and other key stakeholders.

Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful MTR.[2] Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Technology, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Fisheries, Marine Resources and Agriculture, Maldives Customs Service, Environment Protection Agency, Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of National Planning and Infrastructure, Ministry of Defence, Maldives National Defence Force and Local Government Authority; executing agencies, senior officials and task team/ component leaders, key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Board, project stakeholders, academia, local government and CSOs, etc. Additionally, the MTR team is expected to conduct field missions to (location), including the following project sites (list). 

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.

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

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

As of 11 March 2020, The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic as the new coronavirus rapidly spread to all regions of the world. Travel to the country has been restricted and travel in the country is also restricted. If it is not possible to travel to or within the country for the MTR, then the MTR team should develop a methodology and approach that takes this into account. This may require the use of remote interview methods, extended desk reviews, data analysis, surveys and evaluation questionnaires. These approaches and methodologies should be detailed in the Inception Report and agreed with the Commissioning Unit.  

If a data collection/field mission is not possible then remote interviews may be undertaken through telephone or online (skype, zoom etc.). If all or part of the MTR is to be carried out virtually then consideration should be taken for stakeholder availability, ability and willingness to be interviewed remotely and the constraints this may place on MTR. These limitations must be reflected in the final MTR report. 

International Consultant can be engaged to work remotely with National evaluator support in the field if it is safe for them to operate and travel. No stakeholders, consultants or UNDP staff should be put in harm’s way and safety is the key priority.

A short validation mission may be considered if it is confirmed to be safe for staff, consultants, stakeholders and communities, and if such a mission is possible within the MTR schedule. Equally, qualified and independent National Consultant can be hired to undertake the MTR and interviews in country as long as it is safe to do so.

5.  DETAILED SCOPE OF THE MTR

The MTR team will assess the following four categories of project progress. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for extended descriptions.

i.    Project Strategy

Project design:

  • Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions.  Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document.
  • Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results.  Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design?
  • Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country (or of participating countries in the case of multi-country projects)?
  • Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes?
  • Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.
    • 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?
  • Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e., income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc...) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis.
  • Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively.  Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators and indicators that capture development benefits.

ii.    Progress Towards Results

Progress Towards Outcomes Analysis:

  • Review the 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)

Project Strategy

Indicator[3]

Baseline Level[4]

Level in 1st PIR (self- reported)

Midterm Target[5]

End-of-project Target

Midterm Level & Assessment[6]

Achievement Rating[7]

Justification for Rating

Objective:

 

Indicator (if applicable):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 1:

Indicator 1:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicator 2:

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 2:

Indicator 3:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicator 4:

 

 

 

 

 

Etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicator Assessment Key

Green= Achieved

Yellow= On target to be achieved

Red= Not on target to be achieved

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?
  • To what extent has the GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) been able to adapt existing programmes to respond to the COVID-19 pressures and protect development gains already achieved?

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. 
  • Were the disproportional gender impacts of COVID-19 and impact on vulnerable groups integrated within GEF Partner Agency (UNDP)’s work planning and response?

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?

Sources of Co-financing

Name of Co-financer

Type of Co-financing

Co-financing amount confirmed at CEO Endorsement (US$)

Actual Amount Contributed at stage of Midterm Review (US$)

Actual % of Expected Amount

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

 

 

  • 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[8] (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 Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.
  • In addition, assess the following risks to sustainability:

Financial risks to sustainability:

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

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

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

Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability:

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

Environmental risks to sustainability:

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

Conclusions & Recommendations

The MTR team will include a section of the report setting out the MTR’s evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings.

Recommendations should be succinct suggestions for critical intervention that are specific, measurable, achievable, and relevant. A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for guidance on a recommendation table.

The MTR team should make no more than 15 recommendations total.

Ratings

The MTR team will include its ratings of the project’s results and brief descriptions of the associated achievements in a MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table in the Executive Summary of the MTR report. See Annex E for ratings scales. No rating on Project Strategy and no overall project rating is required.

Table. MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table for Eliminating POPs through Safe Management of Chemicals Project

Measure

MTR Rating

Achievement Description

Project Strategy

N/A

 

Progress Towards Results

Objective Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)

 

Outcome 1 Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)

 

Outcome 2 Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)

 

Outcome 3 Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)

 

Etc.

 

Project Implementation & Adaptive Management

(rate 6 pt. scale)

 

Sustainability

(rate 4 pt. scale)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. TIMEFRAME

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 26 working days over a time period of 12 weeks and shall not exceed five months from when the consultant(s) are hired. The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows:

ACTIVITY

 

 

APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF WORKING DAYS

COMPLETION DATE

Preparation period for MTR team (handover of documentation)

2 days

20 May 2022

Document review and preparing MTR Inception Report

(MTR Inception Report due no later than 2 weeks before the MTR mission)

3 days

27 May 2022

Finalization and Validation of MTR Inception Report

 

1 days

7 June 2022

MTR mission: Stakeholder meetings/ interviews, presentation of initial findings

8 days

17 June 2022

Preparing draft report

 

8 days

29 June 2022

Finalization of MTR report/ Incorporating audit trail from feedback on draft report (due within 1 week of receiving UNDP comments on the draft)

4 days

15 July 2022

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

7. MIDTERM REVIEW DELIVERABLES

The National Consultant shall assist the leading International Consultant with the deliverables below:

  • #
  • Deliverable
  • Description
  • Timing
  • Responsibilities
  1.  

MTR Inception Report

MTR team clarifies objectives and methods of Midterm Review

Deliverable is to be completed tentatively by 7 June 2022

 

MTR team submits to the Commissioning Unit and project management

        2.

  •  

Initial Findings

Deliverable is to be completed tentatively by 17 June 2022

MTR Team presents to project management and the Commissioning Unit

         3.

Draft Final Report

Full report (using guidelines on content outlined in Annex B) with annexes

Deliverable is to be completed tentatively by 29 June 2022

Sent to the Commissioning Unit, reviewed by RTA, Project Coordinating Unit, GEF OFP

         4.

Final Report*

Revised report with audit trail detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final MTR report

Within 1 week after receiving UNDP comments on draft.

Deliverable is to be completed tentatively by 15 July 2022

Sent to the Commissioning Unit

*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.

8. MTR ARRANGEMENTS

The principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the Commissioning Unit. The Commissioning Unit for this project’s MTR is UNDP’s Country Office in Maldives. The Country Office will set up virtual/remote meetings for the MTR team where necessary.

The Commissioning Unit will contract the consultants and will provide an updated stakeholder list with contact details (phone and email). The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the MTR team to provide all relevant documents and set up stakeholder interviews.

[1] For ideas on innovative and participatory Monitoring and Evaluation strategies and techniques, see UNDP Discussion Paper: Innovations in Monitoring & Evaluating Results, 05 Nov 2013.

[2] For more stakeholder engagement in the M&E process, see the UNDP Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, Chapter 3, pg. 93.

[3] Populate with data from the Logframe and scorecards

[4] Populate with data from the Project Document

[5] If available

[6] Colour code this column only

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

[8] 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.

Competencies

Excellent communication skills

Demonstrable analytical skills confirmed by at least 2 examples of reports

Fluency in English

Fluency in written English confirmed by at least 2 examples of reports

Working level in Dhivehi will be an advantage

Required Skills and Experience

9. TEAM COMPOSITION

A team of two independent consultants will conduct the MTR - one team leader (with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in other regions globally) and one team expert, usually from the country of the project. The team leader will be responsible for the overall design and writing of the TE report. The team expert will assess the extent to which the project is achieving impacts or progressing towards the achievement of impacts. Key findings that should be brought out in the evaluations include whether the project has demonstrated: a) verifiable improvements in ecological status, b) verifiable reductions in stress on ecological systems, and/or c) demonstrated progress towards these impact achievements (A useful tool for gauging progress to impact is the Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROtI) method developed by the GEF Evaluation Office: (https://www.gefieo.org/sites/default/files/ieo/ieo-documents/ops4-m02-roti.pdf)

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

Education

  • A bachelor’s degree or higher in environmental sciences/management, chemical sciences/management or agricultural sciences/management, or other closely related field

Experience

  • Relevant experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies;
  • Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;
  • Competence in adaptive management, as applied to Chemicals and Waste Focal Area;
  • Experience in evaluating of at least 2 projects;
  • Experience in related assignments in the Maldives;
  • Work experience in the area of Chemicals and Waste management for at least 2 years;
  • Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and Chemicals and Waste Focal Area;
  • Experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis;
  • Excellent communication skills;
  • Demonstrable analytical skills;
  • Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset;
  • Experience with implementing evaluations remotely will be considered an asset.

Language

  • Fluency in written and spoken English; Working level in Dhivehi will be an advantage.

Evaluation Criteria

Weight, %

Education

12

Bachelor’s degree in environmental sciences/management, chemical sciences/management or agricultural sciences/management, or other closely related field

10

Higher than bachelor’s degree in the above fields is asset.

2

Experience

44

Relevant experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies

6

Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios

5

Competence in adaptive management, as applied to Chemicals and Waste focal area

6

Experience in evaluating of at least 2 projects

5

 

Minimum 2 years of proven professional experience in the area of Chemicals and Waste management

5

Additional 10 points for every year of proven professional experience in the area of Chemicals and Waste management

4

Previous working experience of evaluation projects in Maldives

3

Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered as an asset

2

Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and Chemical and waste GEF Focal Area

3

Experience in gender sensitive evaluation and/or analysis

3

Experience with implementing evaluations remotely will be considered an asset

2

Competencies

14

Excellent communication skills

3

Demonstrable analytical skills confirmed by at least 2 examples of reports

3

Fluency in English

3

Fluency in written English confirmed by at least 2 examples of reports

3

Working level in Dhivehi will be an advantage

2

Financial Proposal

30

Total

100

10. ETHICS

This MTR will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’. The MTR team must safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers, interviewees and stakeholders through measures to ensure compliance with legal and other relevant codes governing collection of data and reporting on data. The MTR team must also ensure security of collected information before and after the MTR and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information, knowledge and data gathered in the MTR process must also be solely used for the MTR and not for other uses without the express authorization of UNDP and partners.

1. PAYMENT MODALITIES AND SPECIFICATIONS

  • 20% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the final MTR Inception Report and approval by the Commissioning Unit
  • 40% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the draft MTR report to the Commissioning Unit
  • 40% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the final MTR report and approval by the Commissioning Unit and RTA (via signatures on the TE Report Clearance Form) and completed TE Audit Trail

Criteria for issuing the final payment of 40%[1]:

  • The final MTR report includes all requirements outlined in the MTR TOR and is in accordance with the MTR guidance.
  • The final MTR report is clearly written, logically organized, and is specific for this project (i.e., text has not been cut & pasted from other MTR reports).
  • The Audit Trail includes responses to and justification for each comment listed.

Provision for the impact of COVID-19 pandemic:

In line with the UNDP’s financial regulations, should it be determined by the UNDP and/or the consultant that a deliverable or service cannot be satisfactorily completed due to the impact of COVID-19 and limitations to the evaluation, that deliverable or service will not be paid or will be partially paid.

Due to the current COVID-19 situation and its implications, a partial payment may be considered if the consultant invested time towards the deliverable but was unable to complete to circumstances beyond his/her control.

 

12. APPLICATION PROCESS[2]

Recommended Presentation of Proposal: 

  1. Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template[3] provided by UNDP;
  2. CV and a Personal History Form (P11 form[4]);
  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. 
  5. 2 examples of reports (main author or co-author).

All application materials should be submitted to the address (UNDP in Maldives, H. Aage, Boduthakurufaanu Magu, Malé, Maldives) in a sealed envelope indicating the following reference “Consultant for Eliminating POPs through Sound Management of Chemicals  Midterm Review” or by email at the following address ONLY: ([email protected]) This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it by 26 May 2022. Incomplete applications will be excluded from further consideration.

Criteria for Evaluation of Proposal:  Only those applications which are responsive and compliant will be evaluated.  Offers will be evaluated according to the Combined Scoring method – where the educational background and experience on similar assignments will be weighted at 70% and the price proposal will weigh as 30% of the total scoring.  The applicant receiving the Highest Combined Score that has also accepted UNDP’s General Terms and Conditions will be awarded the contract.

 

ToR ANNEX A: List of Documents to be reviewed by the MTR Team

  1. PIF
  2. UNDP Initiation Plan
  3. UNDP Project Document
  4. UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP)
  5. Project Inception Report
  6. All Project Implementation Reports (PIR’s)
  7. Quarterly progress reports and work plans of the various implementation task teams
  8. Audit reports
  9. Finalized GEF focal area Tracking Tools/Core Indicators at CEO endorsement and midterm
  10. Oversight mission reports 
  11. All monitoring reports prepared by the project
  12. Financial and Administration guidelines used by Project Team

 

The following documents will also be available:

  1. Project operational guidelines, manuals and systems
  2. UNDP country/countries programme document(s)
  3. Minutes of the Eliminating POPs through Sound Management of Chemicals Board Meetings and other meetings (i.e., Project Appraisal Committee meetings)
  4. Project site location maps
  5. Any additional documents, as relevant.

 

ToR ANNEX B: Guidelines on Contents for the Midterm Review Report[5]

 

6. Annexes

  • MTR ToR (excluding ToR annexes)
  • MTR evaluative matrix (evaluation criteria with key questions, indicators, sources of data, and methodology)
  • Example Questionnaire or Interview Guide used for data collection
  • Ratings Scales
  • MTR mission itinerary
  • List of persons interviewed
  • List of documents reviewed
  • Co-financing table (if not previously included in the body of the report)
  • Signed UNEG Code of Conduct form
  • Signed MTR final report clearance form
  • Annexed in a separate file: Audit trail from received comments on draft MTR report
  • Annexed in a separate file: Relevant midterm tracking tools (METT, FSC, Capacity scorecard, etc.) or Core Indicators
  • Annexed in a separate file: GEF Co-financing template (categorizing each co-financing amount as ‘investment mobilized’ or ‘recurrent expenditure’)

 

         

 

ToR ANNEX C: Midterm Review Evaluative Matrix Template

This Midterm Review Evaluative Matrix must be fully completed/amended by the consultant and included in the MTR inception report and as an Annex to the MTR report.

Evaluative Questions

Indicators

Sources

Methodology

Project Strategy: To what extent is the project strategy relevant to country priorities, country ownership, and the best route towards expected results?

(include evaluative question(s))

(i.e., relationships established, level of coherence between project design and implementation approach, specific activities conducted, quality of risk mitigation strategies, etc.)

(i.e., project documents, national policies or strategies, websites, project staff, project partners, data collected throughout the MTR mission, etc.)

(i.e., document analysis, data analysis, interviews with project staff, interviews with stakeholders, etc.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Progress Towards Results: To what extent have the expected outcomes and objectives of the project been achieved thus far?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Implementation and Adaptive Management: Has the project been implemented efficiently, cost-effectively, and been able to adapt to any changing conditions thus far? To what extent are project-level monitoring and evaluation systems, reporting, and project communications supporting the project’s implementation? To what extent has progress been made in the implementation of social and environmental management measures?  Have there been changes to the overall project risk rating and/or the identified types of risks as outlined at the CEO Endorsement stage? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sustainability: To what extent are there financial, institutional, socio-economic, and/or environmental risks to sustaining long-term project results?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ToR ANNEX D: UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluators/Midterm Review Consultants[6]

Evaluators/Consultants:

  1. Must present information that is complete and fair in its assessment of strengths and weaknesses so that decisions or actions taken are well founded.
  2. Must disclose the full set of evaluation findings along with information on their limitations and have this accessible to all affected by the evaluation with expressed legal rights to receive results.
  3. Should protect the anonymity and confidentiality of individual informants. They should provide maximum notice, minimize demands on time, and respect people’s right not to engage. Evaluators must respect people’s right to provide information in confidence, and must ensure that sensitive information cannot be traced to its source. Evaluators are not expected to evaluate individuals, and must balance an evaluation of management functions with this general principle.
  4. Sometimes uncover evidence of wrongdoing while conducting evaluations. Such cases must be reported discreetly to the appropriate investigative body. Evaluators should consult with other relevant oversight entities when there is any doubt about if and how issues should be reported.
  5. Should be sensitive to beliefs, manners and customs and act with integrity and honesty in their relations with all stakeholders. In line with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, evaluators must be sensitive to and address issues of discrimination and gender equality. They should avoid offending the dignity and self-respect of those persons with whom they come in contact in the course of the evaluation. Knowing that evaluation might negatively affect the interests of some stakeholders, evaluators should conduct the evaluation and communicate its purpose and results in a way that clearly respects the stakeholders’ dignity and self-worth.
  6. Are responsible for their performance and their product(s). They are responsible for the clear, accurate and fair written and/or oral presentation of study limitations, findings and recommendations.
  7. Should reflect sound accounting procedures and be prudent in using the resources of the evaluation.
  8. Must ensure that independence of judgement is maintained and that evaluation findings and recommendations are independently presented.
  9. Must confirm that they have not been involved in designing, executing or advising on the project being evaluated.

MTR Consultant Agreement Form

Agreement to abide by the Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN System:

Name of Consultant: __________________________________________________________________

Name of Consultancy Organization (where relevant): __________________________________________

I confirm that I have received and understood and will abide by the United Nations Code of Conduct for Evaluation.

Signed at _____________________________________  (Place)     on ____________________________    (Date)

Signature: ___________________________________

 

ToR ANNEX E: MTR Ratings

Ratings for Progress Towards Results: (one rating for each outcome and for the objective)

6

Highly Satisfactory (HS)

The objective/outcome is expected to achieve or exceed all its end-of-project targets, without major shortcomings. The progress towards the objective/outcome can be presented as “good practice”.

5

Satisfactory (S)

The objective/outcome is expected to achieve most of its end-of-project targets, with only minor shortcomings.

4

Moderately Satisfactory (MS)

The objective/outcome is expected to achieve most of its end-of-project targets but with significant shortcomings.

3

Moderately Unsatisfactory (HU)

The objective/outcome is expected to achieve its end-of-project targets with major shortcomings.

2

Unsatisfactory (U)

The objective/outcome is expected not to achieve most of its end-of-project targets.

1

Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)

The objective/outcome has failed to achieve its midterm targets, and is not expected to achieve any of its end-of-project targets.

 

Ratings for Project Implementation & Adaptive Management: (one overall rating)

6

Highly Satisfactory (HS)

Implementation of all seven components – management arrangements, work planning, finance and co-finance, project-level monitoring and evaluation systems, stakeholder engagement, reporting, and communications – is leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive management. The project can be presented as “good practice”.

5

Satisfactory (S)

Implementation of most of the seven components is leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive management except for only few that are subject to remedial action.

4

Moderately Satisfactory (MS)

Implementation of some of the seven components is leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive management, with some components requiring remedial action.

3

Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU)

Implementation of some of the seven components is not leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive, with most components requiring remedial action.

2

Unsatisfactory (U)

Implementation of most of the seven components is not leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive management.

1

Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)

Implementation of none of the seven components is leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive management.

 

Ratings for Sustainability: (one overall rating)

4

Likely (L)

Negligible risks to sustainability, with key outcomes on track to be achieved by the project’s closure and expected to continue into the foreseeable future

3

Moderately Likely (ML)

Moderate risks, but expectations that at least some outcomes will be sustained due to the progress towards results on outcomes at the Midterm Review

2

Moderately Unlikely (MU)

Significant risk that key outcomes will not carry on after project closure, although some outputs and activities should carry on

1

Unlikely (U)

Severe risks that project outcomes as well as key outputs will not be sustained

 

ToR ANNEX F: MTR Report Clearance Form

Midterm Review Report Reviewed and Cleared By:

Commissioning Unit (M&E Focal Point)

Name: _____________________________________________

Signature: _________________________________________     Date: _______________________________

Commissioning Unit (DRR)

Name: _____________________________________________

Signature: __________________________________________     Date: _______________________________

Regional Technical Advisor (Nature, Climate and Energy)

Name: _____________________________________________

Signature: __________________________________________     Date: _______________________________

 

ToR ANNEX G: Audit Trail Template

Note:  The following is a template for the MTR Team to show how the received comments on the draft MTR report have (or have not) been incorporated into the final MTR report. This audit trail should be included as an annex in the final MTR report.

To the comments received on (date) from the Midterm Review of (project name) (UNDP Project ID-PIMS #)

The following comments were provided in track changes to the draft Midterm Review report; they are referenced by institution (“Author” column) and not by the person’s name, and track change comment number (“#” column):

Author

#

Para No./ comment location

Comment/Feedback on the draft MTR report

MTR team

response and actions taken

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] The Commissioning Unit is obligated to issue payments to the MTR team as soon as the terms under the ToR are fulfilled.  If there is an ongoing discussion regarding the quality and completeness of the final deliverables that cannot be resolved between the Commissioning Unit and the MTR team, the Regional M&E Advisor and Vertical Fund Directorate will be consulted.  If needed, the Commissioning Unit’s senior management, Procurement Services Unit and Legal Support Office will be notified as well so that a decision can be made about whether or not to withhold payment of any amounts that may be due to the evaluator(s), suspend or terminate the contract and/or remove the individual contractor from any applicable rosters. See the UNDP Individual Contract Policy for further details:

https://popp.undp.org/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/UNDP_POPP_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY/Public/PSU_Individual%20Contract_Individual%20Contract%20Policy.docx&action=default       

[2] 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

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

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

[5] The Report length should not exceed 40 pages in total (not including annexes).

[6] http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/100

We do our best to provide you the most accurate info, but closing dates may be wrong on our site. Please check on the recruiting organization's page for the exact info. Candidates are responsible for complying with deadlines and are encouraged to submit applications well ahead.
Before applying, please make sure that you have read the requirements for the position and that you qualify.
Applications from non-qualifying applicants will most likely be discarded by the recruiting manager.
Apply

What does it mean?

Click "SAVE JOB" to save this job description for later.

Sign up for free to be able to save this job for later.