1

Programme Period: 5 years Atlas Award ID: 00060297 Project ID: 00075856 PIMS # 3245 Start date: Nov 2010 End date: Dec 2015 Revised end date: Dec 2016

Management Arrangements NEX

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE TEAM LEADER

NATIONAL INDIVIDUAL CONSULTANT

MID TERM REVIEW OF THE MAINSTREAMING SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT IN AGROPASTORAL

PRODUCTION SYSTEMS OF KENYA PROJECT

1. INTRODUCTION

Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management in Agro-pastoral Production Systems of Kenya project

implemented by State Department of Livestock, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries is

due for Mid Term Review in 2014, in accordance with UNDP/GEF Monitoring and Evaluation policies

and procedures. Although the project document was signed in January 2011, the implementation of

project activities in the pilot districts started in January 2012 due to delay in setting up of the Project

Management Unit. The project details are as follows:

A) Project summary:

Project Title: Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management in Agro-pastoral Production Systems of Kenya. UNDP Strategic Plan Environment and Sustainable Development Primary Outcome: Local Capacity for mainstreaming Environment and energy provision into national development policies, plans and programmes UNDP Strategic Plan Secondary Outcome: Capacities and Markets to support sustainable use of natural capital in national development UNDAF Outcome(s): Enhanced Environment Management for Economic Growth with Equitable Access to Energy Services and Response to Climate Change Expected CP Outcome(s): Pro-poor policies for sustainable management of the environment and natural resources enhanced Expected CPAP Output (s): 3.2.1.2.1.: National and Community Level capacity for sustainable management of natural resources

enhanced. 3.2.1.2.4.: Productivity and value addition of crops livestock, commercial insects and fisheries

improved. 3.2.2.2.: Production and access to affordable clean energy services enhanced and up-scaled.

B) Milestones and Finance

Total allocated resources US$ 11,690,734 GEF US$ 3,030,734 Government US$ 3,660,000 UNDP US$ 1,000,000 Others: US$ 4,000,000

PGRFA (gene bank fund) US$ 400,000

2

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) cover 80% of Kenya’s land mass and are inhabited by the

pastoralist and agro-pastoral communities. The ASALs experience low and erratic rainfall patterns

that makes the land most suitable for livestock production. However, over the years there have

been changes in land use system that has resulted to degradations. Land degradation is largely

driven by inappropriate land use, and interrelated factors including inappropriate development

models, unsuitable farming practices, loss of soil productivity, overstocking of livestock, especially

where mobility has been impeded, and breakdown of traditional customs of seasonal migration.

High population growth and encroachment of agriculture into marginal land and increasing demand

for fuel wood, charcoal, timber etc. has also exacerbated the process.

The vast degradations in the ASALs have reduced land’s productive capacities and compromised

ecological integrity. The unsustainable land use practices have resulted to chronic food shortages

and poverty in the ASALs.

Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management in Agro-pastoral Production Systems of Kenya Project

is a GEF financed and UNDP supported project implemented by the government of Kenya through

the State Department of livestock. The 5 year project (2010-2015) is a pilot project initiated by

GEF/UNDP to address some of the challenges experienced by the ASALs.

The overall goal of the project is ‘Sustainable Land Management’ provides the basis for economic

development, food security and sustainable livelihoods while restoring the ecological integrity of the

ASALs. The objective is to provide land users and managers with the financial incentives, enabling

policy, institutional and capacity for effective adoption of SLM in the four districts of Mbeere North,

Kyuso, Narok North and Dadaab.

The project objective is achieved through the following project outcomes:

Outcome 1: Knowledge based land use planning forms the basis for improving drylands

sustainable economic development;

Outcome 2: Viability of the agro-pastoralism production system increased through

diversification and access to finances for SLM;

Outcomes 3: Policy and institutional framework supportive of SLM mainstreaming in agro

pastoral production system and ASALs;

Outcome 4: Project managed effectively, lessons used to upscale SLM in the ASAL districts and

the country.

3. OBJECTIVE OF MID TERM REVIEW (MTR)

The objective of the MTR is to provide an independent analysis of the progress of the project so far. The

MTR will identify potential project design problems, assess progress towards the achievement of the

project objective, identify and document lessons learned (including lessons that might improve design

and implementation of other UNDP-GEF supported projects), and make recommendations regarding

specific actions that should be taken to improve the project.

3

The MTR will assess early signs of project success or failure and identify the necessary changes to be

made. The project performance will be measured based on the indicators of the project’s logical

framework (see Annex 1) and various Tracking Tools.

3.1. METHODOLOGY

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

is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with

government counterparts, in particular the GEF operational focal point, UNDP Country Office, project

team, UNDP GEF Technical Adviser and key stakeholders. The review team is expected to conduct field

missions to Mbeere North, Kyuso, Narok North and Dadaab. Interviews will also be held with the

following organizations and individuals:

1. UNDP staff who have project responsibilities;

2. Executing agencies (Director of Livestock, DLPOs from the 4 pilot districts);

3. The Chair of Project Board (Principal Secretary, State Department of Livestock);

4. The GEF operational focal point;

5. Project stakeholders including Farmer Field Schools, County Governments and partner

institutions (KARI and KEFRI)

The team will review all relevant sources of information, such as the project document, project reports –

including Annual APR/PIRs, project budget revisions, progress reports, GEF focal area Tracking Tools,

project files, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team considers

useful for this evidence-based review. A list of documents that the project team and UNDP Country

Office will provide to the team for review is included in Annex 2 of this Terms of Reference.

4. SCOPE OF THE MTR

The review team will assess the following three categories of project progress. For each category, the

review team is required to rate overall progress using a six-point rating scale outlined in Annex 3.

4. 1 Progress towards Results

Project design:

Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions. Review the effect of

any incorrect assumptions made by the project. Identify new assumptions. Theory of change.

Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route

towards expected/intended results.

Review how the project addresses country priorities.

Review the baseline data included in the project results framework and GEF Tracking Tool and

suggest revisions as necessary.

Progress:

Assess the outputs and progress toward outcomes achieved so far and the contribution to attaining

the overall objective of the project.

4

Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future catalyze, beneficial development effects

(i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc...)

that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis.

Suggest measures to improve the project’s development impact, including gender equality and

women’s empowerment.

Examine whether progress so far has led to, or could in the future lead to, potentially adverse

environmental and/or social impacts/risks that could threaten the sustainability of the project

outcomes. Are these risks being managed, mitigated, minimized or offset? Suggest mitigation

measures as needed.

Review the extent to which the implementation of the project has been inclusive of relevant

stakeholders and to which it has been able to create collaboration between different partners, and

how the different needs of male and female stakeholders has been considered. Identify

opportunities for stronger substantive partnerships.

4. 2 Adaptive management

Work Planning

a) Is work planning processes result-based? If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to

focus on results.

b) Examine the use of the project document logical/results framework as a management tool and

review any changes made to it since project start. Ensure any revisions meet UNDP-GEF

requirements and assess the impact of the revised approach on project management.

Finance and co-finance:

a) Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness

of interventions.

b) Complete the co-financing monitoring table (see Annex 4).

c) Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the

appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.

Monitoring Systems

a) Review the monitoring tools currently being used: Do they provide the necessary information? Do

they involve key partners? Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-

effective? Are additional tools required?

b) Ensure that the monitoring system, including performance indicators, meet GEF minimum

requirements. Develop SMART indicators as necessary.

c) Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively.

Develop and recommend SMART indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators as necessary.

d) Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget. Are sufficient

resources being allocated to M&E? Are these resources being allocated effectively?

Risk Management

a) Validate whether the risks identified in the project document, APR/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk

Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate

and up to date. If not, explain why. Give particular attention to critical risks.

5

b) Describe any additional risks identified and suggest risk ratings and possible risk management

strategies to be adopted.

Reporting

a) Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management, and

shared with the Project Board.

b) Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared

with key partners and internalized by partners.

4. 3 Management arrangements

a) Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the project document. Have

changes been made and are they effective? Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear? Is

decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner? Recommend areas for

improvement.

b) Review the quality of execution of the project Implementing Partners and recommend areas for

improvement.

c) Review the quality of support provided by UNDP and recommend areas for improvement.

5. MID TERM REVIEW DELIVERABLES

Deliverable Content Timing Responsibilities

Inception Report

Review team clarifies timing and method of review

No later than 2 weeks before the review mission

Review team submits to UNDP Country Office

Presentation Initial Findings End of review mission To project management and UNDP Country Office

Draft Report Full report (as template in annex 5) with annexes

Within 3 weeks of the review mission

Sent to UNDP CO, reviewed by RTA, PMU, GEF OFP

Final Report

Revised report with audit trail detailing how all received comment have (and have not) been addressed in the final review report).

Within 1 week of receiving UNDP comments on draft

Sent to UNDP CO

6. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

The principal responsibility for managing this review resides with the UNDP Country Office (UNDP CO). UNDP CO will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the review team. The SLM project team will be responsible for liaising with the review team to set up stakeholder interviews and arrange field visits to the pilot districts.

6

In preparation for the review mission, the project manager, with assistance from UNDP country office,

will arrange for the completion of the PIR indicator, which will be share with the consultants.

7. TIMEFRAME

The total duration of the review will be 4 weeks starting April 2014 according to the following plan:

Activity Timeframe

Preparation 5 days

Review mission and debriefing 15 days

Draft review report 5 days

Finalisation of final report 5 days

8. TEAM COMPOSITION

Mid Term Review will be undertaken by a team of two national consultants; This TOR is for recruitment of the team leader (natural sciences/Land Degradation specialist). The other team member (specialist in socio-economic) will be recruited separately. The team member will work under the team leader and will be responsible for ensuring that the review takes into consideration (and assesses) the socio-economic aspects of the project. Both consultants will be responsible for delivery of content and accuracy of the review – but the team leader is ultimately responsible.

9. COMPETENCIES

The team leader will not have participated in the project preparation and/or implementation and should not have a conflict of interest with project related activities. He/she should have a prior experience in reviewing or evaluating similar projects. Experience with GEF financed projects is an advantage.

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

Post-graduate degree (PhD or Masters) in Ecology, Agriculture/livestock Production, Environment or Natural Resource management, and any other relevant field.

At least 10 years of professional work experience in the relevant field

Recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies;

Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;

Competence in Adaptive Management, as applied to conservation or natural resource management;

Demonstrable analytical and report writing skills;

Excellent communication skills;

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

7

10. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 70 points will be considered

Criteria Weight Max. Point

Technical 100% 100

Post –graduate degrees (PhD or Masters) in Natural Sciences (Agriculture, Ecology, Environment, and Natural Resource management)

20 20

At least 10 years’ experience working in natural / social science research work

20% 20

Proven experience in conducting program evaluation (5 to 7 years )

15% 15

Experience in applying SMART indicators in validating baseline scenarios

10% 10

Competence in Adaptive Management as applied in natural resource management

15% 15

Excellent Analytical and report writing skills

10% 10

Project evaluation/review experience with United Nations

10% 10

11. REMUNERATION

The successful consultants will be paid on terms and conditions for UN consultants.

Payment will be done against a disbursement schedule as outlined in the contract and based on receipt of clearly defined deliverables within a specific timeline.

Transport and accommodation for field work will be provided by the project.

DSA will be provided to the consultant while in the field.

12. APPLICATION PROCESS Application Process Interested and qualified candidates should submit their applications which should include the following:

1. UNDP Personal History Form (P11) 2. Detailed Curriculum Vitae 3. Proposal for implementing the assignment

Please quote “Team Leader – Mid-Term review of GEF Project- SLM” on the subject line.

8

Annex 1: SLM Project log-frame

Objective

/outcome

Indicators Baseline

Objective: To

provide land users

and managers with

the enabling policy,

institutional and

capacity

environment for

effective adoption

of SLM in the

agropastoralists

production system.

At least 25% of the rangeland registering

improvement in rangeland condition in pilot

districts (using range condition measurements) by

mid-term and 50% cumulative by end of the

project

Various statistics report that about 80% of

rangelands badly degraded

At least 25% of woodlands showing recovery as

measured by regeneration and improvements in

species index and canopy cover;

Various statistics report that about 70% of

the woodlands are degraded

At least 70,000 ha total (28 sites*2500 ha ) under

SLM priniciples supported by experiential learning

Limited land under SLM, no clear

documentation on what little is under

SLM – Baselines to be confirmed in project

year 1

Level of dependency on food aid in target

landscapes reduced by at least 30%;

Number of food secure days increased by at least

40% for more than 50% of the population in the

target landscapes

Various statistics indicate that over 65% of

people in the project areas depend in part

on food aid and face substantive food

insecurity

At least half a million tons of carbon dioxide

mitigated from sustainable charcoal in the districts

by mid-term and a million cumulative at the end of

the project

Currently no sustainable charcoaling – no

carbon mitigated from it

Outcome 1:

Knowledge based

land use planning

forms the basis for

improving drylands

sustainable

economic

development

At least 25% of cultivators in the pilot landscapes

adopting 3-5 forms of improved practices by mid-

term and 75% cumulatively by project end

Less than 20% engaging in 1-2 improved

practices consistently - Baselines to be

confirmed in project year 1

At least 30% increase in soil fertility from baselines

for land users consistently engaging in 3-5

improved practices by mid-term and by 30%

cumulatively by end of the project

Very low and declining, exact levels for

pilot districts to be obtained during

inception period in project year 1

At least 25% of the agriculturalists and pastoralists

in the pilot landscapes taking decisions on the

basis of the weather and drought early warning

information by mid-term and 50% cumulatively by

project end (co-finance)

Less than 5% use of weather information

provided by the early warning systems of

Kenya Met and Dept of resource mapping

and planning

At least 40% of land users and 30% of technical Less than 15% of land users and

9

officers requiring to up-date skills have done so by

mid-term: by the end of project, at least 60% of

land users and 75% of technical officers

cumulatively have updated skills.

pastoralists have skills for improved

management; less than 50% of technical

officers have updated SLM skills

Lessons on improving land and resource tenure,

range rehabilitation, sustainable charcoaling,

improving livestock mobility, and other important

project initiatives available for dissemination

through the upscaling project;

Limited knowledge management

happening now, no clear mechanism for

generating and sharing lessons

Viability of the

agropastoralism

production system

increased through

diversification

increased access to

finance for SLM

At least 20% increase in agricultural produce for

key crops for those adopting 3-5 improved

practices consistently by mid-term and 50%

cumulative by project end

Current low and declining, exact levels of

selected crops to be obtained during

inception period during year 1 of project

implementation

At least a 20% increase in livestock prices being

obtained in markets within the pilot landscapes

due to better marketing/trading conditions

Currently livestock trading riddled with

problems of insecurity, lack of up to date

information on prices and therefore very

low prices being obtained

At least 25% increase in numbers accessing micro-

finance and credits

Less than 10% of households have access

By mid project - at least 25% increase in household

incomes for more than 40% of participating

households, cumulatively rising to at least 40% for

more than 50% of households

Over 85% of people live below the UN

poverty line, living on less than a dollar a

day; exact household incomes in the pilot

landscape will be established during

inception

At least 50% of current mobile pastoralists still

retain livestock mobility by the end of the project

The current trend is tilted to fast rates of

sedenterization; specific baseline will be

obtained during inception

At least 10% reduction in incidents of conflicts over

land and resources in the pilot districts and a

cumulative 50% reduction by project end

Very high number of incidents of conflicts,

specific baseline will be obtained during

inception

The policy,

regulatory and

institutional

environment

support sustainable

land management

in the agropastoral

production system

(and ASALs)

At least 2 policies revised to mainstream SLM

principles and so provide a better policy

environment for SLM;

All policy statements mention importance

of SLM but don’t have details of how SLM

will be ensured

Discussions for legislation and institutional

arrangement for policy implementation for at least

2 key policies held by mid-term and

recommendations provided adopted by end of the

project

Few SLM policies have updated and

effective frameworks well linked into the

local institutions - Baselines to be

confirmed in project year 1

At least 5 charcoal associations have rules and

regulations for sustainable charcoal and are

No charcoal associations

10

actively enforcing them;

At least 5 groups with sustainable charcoal

production operations and earning money from

carbon finance;

No groups engaging in sustainable

charcoal

Collection of revenue by Districts and Kenya

Revenue Authority from charcoal processes

increase by 25% by mid-term and 50%

cumulatively be end of the project;

Minimal collection through licensing but

none through taxation - Baselines to be

confirmed in project year 1

Number of charcoal producers using improved kiln

in carbonization in pilot landscapes increase by at

least 30% by mid-term and a cumulative 50% by

project end

Less than 5% use improved kilns in

carbonization - Baselines to be confirmed

in project year 1

By mid project, traditional resource institutions in

pilot landscapes have assessed the effectiveness of

their rules and regulations in modern day resource

governance and have identified ways to improve;

by end of project several agreements entered into

with formal institutions for resource governance

Currently traditional institutions sidelined

in natural resource management but

formal institutions not effective at local

level - Baselines to be confirmed in project

year 1

Annex 2: List of Documents

1. Project Document

2. Project implementation reports (APR/PIR’s)

3. Quarterly and Annual progress reports

4. Annual Work Plans

5. Audit reports

6. The Mission Reports and Lessons learnt study

7. M & E Operational Guidelines

8. Financial and Administration guidelines.

11

The following documents will also be available:

9. Project operational guidelines, manuals and systems

10. Minutes of PSC/Project Board Meetings

11. Maps

12. The GEF Completion Report guidelines; and

13. UNDP Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks.

12

Annex 3: Mid-term Review Rating Scale

Progress towards results: use the following rating scale

Highly Satisfactory

(HS)

Project is expected to achieve or exceed all its major global environmental objectives, and

yield substantial global environmental benefits, without major shortcomings. The project

can be presented as “good practice”.

Satisfactory (S) Project is expected to achieve most of its major global environmental objectives, and yield

satisfactory global environmental benefits, with only minor shortcomings.

Moderately

Satisfactory (MS)

Project is expected to achieve most of its major relevant objectives but with either

significant shortcomings or modest overall relevance. Project is expected not to achieve

some of its major global environmental objectives or yield some of the expected global

environment benefits.

Moderately

Unsatisfactory

(MU)

Project is expected to achieve its major global environmental objectives with major

shortcomings or is expected to achieve only some of its major global environmental

objectives.

Unsatisfactory (U) Project is expected not to achieve most of its major global environment objectives or to

yield any satisfactory global environmental benefits.

Highly

Unsatisfactory (U)

The project has failed to achieve, and is not expected to achieve, any of its major global

environment objectives with no worthwhile benefits.

Adaptive management AND Management Arrangements: use the following rating scale

Highly Satisfactory (HS) The project has no shortcomings and can be presented as “good practice”.

Satisfactory (S) The project has minor shortcomings.

Moderately Satisfactory (MS) The project has moderate shortcomings.

Moderately Unsatisfactory

(MU)

The project has significant shortcomings.

Unsatisfactory (U) The project has major shortcomings.

Highly Unsatisfactory (HU) The project has severe shortcomings.

13

Annex 4: Co-financing table

Sources of

Co-financing1

Name of Co-

financer

Type of Co-

financing2

Amount

Confirmed at CEO

endorsement /

approval

Actual Amount

Materialized at

Midterm

Actual Amount

Materialized at

Closing

TOTAL

Explain “Other Sources of Co-financing”:

1 Sources of Co-financing may include: Bilateral Aid Agency(ies), Foundation, GEF Agency, Local Government, National

Government, Civil Society Organization, Other Multi-lateral Agency(ies), Private Sector, Other

2 Type of Co-financing may include: Grant, Soft Loan, Hard Loan, Guarantee, In-Kind, Other

14

Annex 5: Table of Contents for the Mid-term Review Report

i. Opening page:

Title of UNDP supported GEF financed project

UNDP and GEF project ID#s.

Review time frame and date of review report

Region and countries included in the project

GEF Operational Program/Strategic Program

Implementing Partner and other project partners

Review team members

Acknowledgements ii. Executive Summary

Project Summary Table

Project Description (brief)

Review Rating Table

Summary of conclusions, recommendations and lessons iii. Acronyms and Abbreviations

1. Introduction

Purpose of the review

Scope & Methodology

Structure of the review report 2. Project description and development context

Project start and duration

Problems that the project sought to address

Immediate and development objectives of the project

Baseline Indicators established

Main stakeholders

Expected Results 3. Findings

3.1 Progress toward Results:

Project Design

Progress 3.2 Adaptive Management:

Work planning

Finance and co-finance

Monitoring systems

Risk management

Reporting 3.3 Management Arrangements:

15

Overall project management

Quality of executive of Implementing Partners

Quality of support provided by UNDP 4. Conclusions, Recommendations & Lessons

Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project

Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project

Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives

Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success

5. Annexes

ToR

Itinerary

List of persons interviewed

Summary of field visits

List of documents reviewed

Questionnaire used and summary of results

Relevant mid-term tracking tools (METT, FSC, Capacity scorecard)

Co-financing table