Terms of Reference (ToR) Mid-term review of the East Africa Regional Sustainable Investments/Finance programme in Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique

Transcription

1 Terms of Reference (ToR) Mid-term review of the East Africa Regional Sustainable Investments/Finance programme in Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique 1. background The East Africa Regional Sustainable Investments (RSI) programme is a basket funded programme led by WWF Kenya and also implemented by WWF-Tanzania and WWF-Mozambique. Funding is currently provided by WWF Norway and WWF UK, previous support has been provided by WWF- Sweden. The programme started in 2016 and is implemented in Tanzania, Kenya and Mozambique. The programme addresses financial flows and investments alongside poor natural resource governance which together are key cross-cutting drivers of natural capital degradation and destruction and which undermine economic development and the well-being of present and future generations. The programme focuses on addressing both systemic policy engagement work and landscape level interventions targeting priority investments and actors to influence and redirect finance and investments to a more sustainable path. The programme is initially focused on the three countries outlined but with ambition for expansion for broader impact. The programme aims to ensure that good governance principles for finance and markets are in place to create a framework for investment decisions. An integrated development approach need to be implemented (e.g. improved spatial planning and influencing adoption of relevant sector environmental and social safeguard standards) that respects environmental rights and vibrant participation of civil society, as well as shifting financial flows towards more sustainable pathways. This programme seeks to contribute to the implementation of Agenda 2030 and achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals in the East Africa Region. The programme will specifically contribute to Goal 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss, Target 15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts. The programme will also contribute to the implementation of the overall agenda in line with Goal 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. 2. Purpose and Objective The main purpose of the Mid Term Review of the WWF s East Africa Regional Sustainable Investments programme is to provide WWF and programme stakeholders with an assessment of the programme - exploring its progress against agreed targets, achievements, challenges, lessons learnt, ways of working and how these are contributing to the overall programme goal. Recommendations are sought on how best to tackle the challenges identified by the review team as well as how best to promote and replicate successes under any expanded programme. The mid-term review is contractual requirement and part of WWF best practice and will contribute to organizational learning. It also forms part of WWF s work to ensure accountability. The midterm review document will be circulated to programme partners, not only to share the lessons learnt and recommendations but also to share progress and the results achieved to date towards realising the overall goal.

2 3. Scope and focus The mid-term review will cover the period of the programme which started in July 2016 to June It will cover the work of the programme in Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique including a visit in Kenya and Tanzania to meet with key partners and stakeholders in each country. It will follow international evaluation criteria of relevance of design, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. Key criteria and guiding questions will be used to direct the focus of the evaluation and include the following points: 1. Progress The development and implementation of the programme towards the set outcomes and goals in the results framework. In reviewing the progress, it is necessary to use the latest version of the results framework with the 2017 updates, and assess each indicators at output, outcome and goal level giving an appraisal of the achievement of each indicator (i.e. not started, in progress and done) as well as a comment on relevant indicator explaining lack of progress, relevance or recommendation. 2. Relevance of design To what extent did the programme design represent a necessary, sufficient, appropriate, and well-founded approach to bring about positive changes for the programme as originally conceived, as well as its future. Assess the quality of design and the relevance of decisions and plans with regard to the following factors: What is the implicit Theory of Change (ToC)? Is it fit for the current context? Was there an appropriate monitoring and evaluation system? Are the existing assumptions relevant as per the current context? Have the assumptions about buy in and support of stakeholders been correct? And has the programme met stakeholder expectations? How is the programme relevant to the WWF global practice Areas of Collective Action (ACAI s) and High Impact Initiates (HII s)? 3. Efficiency Is the amount of investment in the processes (both human and financial) commensurate with the outputs delivered? Could there have been alternative ways of delivering same or better results at less human and financial resource investment? compliance with the work and financial plan with budget allocation at Country and regional level; timeliness of disbursements and procurement; 4. Financial & Administrative Resources Were allocated financial resources consistent with expected results. Are there any recommendations on improvements to be made in financial planning and resourcing in future? Is actual spend in line with the budget? Have funds been transferred efficiently from donor to the Program and then utilized efficiently? Are human resources (i.e. WWF Program, partnerships) appropriate, adequate, efficiently organized and operating effectively (e.g. include considerations of capacity needs and gaps, communications, division and clarity of roles and responsibilities, processes for evaluation and improvement)? Has the Program delivered value for money in that the costs are reasonable given the outputs and outcomes generated?

3 5. Management factors How has the working relationship within the team, Country offices with partners, stakeholders and donors been? How effectively have Program assumptions, issues and risks been managed/mitigated? Have adaptive measures been taken to remedy potential setbacks or changes in Program context or assumptions? Has WWF UK or WWF Norway support been timely and effective? How could it improve? Has WWF Kenya and the regional team coordination among programme team members and respective Country Teams 6. Effectiveness Have the outputs been delivered and to what extent are these translating/ expected to translate into outcomes in the intermediate and longer term? Any issue or factor that has impeded or accelerated the implementation of the programme or any of its components, including actions taken and resolutions made. Programme performance vs work plans and expected outputs? Are these evidenced? factors affecting successful implementation and achievement of results What factors have enabled and or hindered good communication and coordination if any? What could be done differently in future to improve this? 7. Impacts A measure of all significant effects of the conservation intervention, positive or negative, expected or unforeseen, on targeted biodiversity and/or footprint issues. What has happened as a result of the programme to date? What real difference has the specific activities made to the stakeholders or programme beneficiaries to date? How many investments in WWF priority areas have been affected by the programme? 8. Sustainability Are the benefits of this conservation intervention likely to continue after external support has ended/intervention s lifetime. What are the major factors expected to influence the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the programme or project? Is there evidence that sustainability was built within the design process? How do we ensure our assumptions on sustainability will continue in the future? Including in this the viability of the Centre of excellence. What external factors could have a high or medium likelihood of undoing, or undermining the future sustainability of Program positive impacts? (E.g. political stability, economic crises and shocks, overall level of development, natural disasters, and climate change). Is the Program adequately anticipating and taking measures to ensure resilience to these? Based upon existing plans and observations made during the evaluation, what are the key strategic options for the continuation of the Program (e.g., scale down, replicate, scale-up, and continue business-as-usual, major changes to approach)? Does the Program have a clear exit strategy, including how to ensure continuity of Program activities and conservation gains? To what extent is the social, legal and political environment conducive to sustainability and replicability of Program achievements? Is there evidence of organizations/partners/communities that have copied, up-scaled or replicated Program activities beyond the immediate Program area, and is such replication or magnification likely? Can some of the Program interventions if not all be replicated without additional donor funding and technical assistance?

4 9. Lessons learned The evaluation should assess and document lessons for future activities, programmes and also lessons that can be relevant for influencing policies. It is important to analyze which factors have contributed to results, impacts, successes and failures such that the lessons can more easily be understood and applied by others. What are the most important lessons learned and the good practices derived from this programme? 10. conclusions and overall assessment Linked to the findings under the above sections, overall conclusions should be drawn and listed in terms of importance. Based on the conclusions an overall assessment of the Program in terms of general performance and achievements and contributions to national, regional and global (WWF) conservation goals and socio-economic contributions should be made, providing explanations and justifications for any deviations and shortcomings or failures. 11. recommendations The evaluation is expected to make clear and detailed recommendations in terms of the way forward for Program partners and how to increase effectiveness of implementation and how to exit most strategically. a) What are the key strategic options regarding the implementation of the remainder of the current Program (i.e. to end of FY19) and to ensure its sustainability beyond FY19 b) What needs to be changed/improved at Program level, country/ donor level to improve Program performance if such Program was to be undertaken again in the future? 4. Methodology and process The Mid Term review will be led by an external and independent consultant with support from an internal WWF team from WWF Norway, and the programme implementation team. The review will include but not limited to the comparison of actual progress against targets that will be based on the findings and factual statements identified from: a) Desk Review. A review of all relevant programme documents i.e. programme proposal, Logical Framework Analysis (LFA), Annual Work plan (AWP), Key Performance Indicators (KPI), semi-annual and annual Technical Progress Reports (TPR), quarterly and annual Financial Reports (FR), and other documents and reports reviewed and produced by the programme directly or indirectly through its partners. b) Facilitated, participatory self-evaluation and reflection: A facilitated participatory process of reflection, critical thinking and thorough analysis to collect primary data from the Program teams and the key partners and/or subcontracted partners at the Country level. c) Site visits: The review will also be based on selected site visits in Kenya and Tanzania for interviews and discussions with key stakeholders and reference to programme materials. d) Stakeholder engagement: Participation of stakeholders in the review should be maintained at all the times, reflecting opinions, expectations and vision about the contribution of the programme towards the achievement of its objectives. 5. Outputs and deliverables The consultant shall provide WWF Kenya with the following documents: a. An Inception report outlining the methodology, a deeper review of the evaluation questions and the work plan before the site visit; b. Presentation of initial findings to WWF-Kenya and WWF- Tanzania at the end of each country visit

5 c. A digital copy in MS word format using Arial font 11 (Not in Acrobat) of a Final mid-term review (main text excluding summary and annexe not to exceed 20 pages) as per the report template provided by WWF Kenya. 6. Requirements of the reviewer The consultant shall be required to meet the following qualifications and experience as follows: - A Master s Degree in natural resource Management or related field - Proven expertise in Finance, trade, investment and governance issue - A minimum of five years experience in programme review and evaluation - Working experience in the East Africa region - Experience is evaluating cross-cutting issues e.g. Global / regional policies, gender, etc. - Excellent oral and written English skills (Kiswahili would be an advantage) - Computer literate (i.e. Microsoft: Word, Excel PowerPoint,) 7. Timeframe/duration The mid-term reviewer will require 20 working days between the 10 th of august and 20 th of September Here is the breakdown of the working days: 3 days for the Literature review and planning the field visit (Homebased) 5 days in Kenya for consultation and meetings with WWF-Kenya and partners in Nairobi including LAPPSET coordinating body, Ministry of finance, NEMA, KBA, Ministry of environment, NEKSA as well as other local stakeholders 5 days in Tanzania for consultation and meetings with WWF-Tanzania and key partners including MANET. A site visit is planned for the SAGCOT corridor and the Dodoma area 2 days to compiling data and debriefing on the mission in Nairobi 3 days for finalizing draft report (Homebased) 2 days for finalizing final report after receiving comments from WWF and partners (homebased). 8. Mode of application Interested candidates should send their applications including; a. Technical proposal articulating the consultant(s) understanding of the TORs and proposed methodology, proposed workplan to undertaking Mid Term Review. The proposal should be presented in word document, MS word format using Arial font 11 (Not in Acrobat) in not more than 7 pages. b. Capacity to deliver the task including citation of similar works, and where applicable, links to the reports c. Consultant(s) CVs. d. Copies Registration, Tax Compliance and Personal Identification Number e. A detailed financial proposal clearly indicating all the costs associated with the assignment but NOT including field transport and stakeholder consultation meeting costs. f. Clear work plan indicating milestones within the stipulated timeline The applications should be sent to kenya.procurement@wwfkenya.org and copied to JKiplagat@wwfkenya.org on or before 8 th June 2018 at 1700 Hours EAT.