TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE TEAM LEADER NATIONAL INDIVIDUAL CONSULTANT

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 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 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 1

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. 2

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. 3

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 costeffective? 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. 4

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. 5

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 Review mission and debriefing Draft review report Finalisation of final report 5 days 15 days 5 days 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 socioeconomic 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; 6

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) At least 10 years experience working in natural / social science research work Proven experience in conducting program evaluation (5 to 7 years ) Experience in applying SMART indicators in validating baseline scenarios Competence in Adaptive Management as applied in natural resource management Excellent Analytical and report writing skills Project evaluation/review experience with United Nations 20 20 20% 20 15% 15 10% 10 15% 15 10% 10 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. 7

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. Outcome 1: Knowledge based land use planning forms the basis for improving drylands sustainable economic development 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 At least 25% of woodlands showing recovery as measured by regeneration and improvements in species index and canopy cover; At least 70,000 ha total (28 sites*2500 ha ) under SLM priniciples supported by experiential learning 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 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 At least 25% of cultivators in the pilot landscapes adopting 3-5 forms of improved practices by midterm and 75% cumulatively by project end 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 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) At least 40% of land users and 30% of technical 8 Various statistics report that about 80% of rangelands badly degraded Various statistics report that about 70% of the woodlands are degraded Limited land under SLM, no clear documentation on what little is under SLM Baselines to be confirmed in project year 1 Various statistics indicate that over 65% of people in the project areas depend in part on food aid and face substantive food insecurity Currently no sustainable charcoaling no carbon mitigated from it Less than 20% engaging in 1-2 improved practices consistently - Baselines to be confirmed in project year 1 Very low and declining, exact levels for pilot districts to be obtained during inception period in project year 1 Less than 5% use of weather information provided by the early warning systems of Kenya Met and Dept of resource mapping and planning Less than 15% of land users and

Viability of the agropastoralism production system increased through diversification increased access to finance for SLM The policy, regulatory and institutional environment support sustainable land management in the agropastoral production system (and ASALs) 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. 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; 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 At least a 20% increase in livestock prices being obtained in markets within the pilot landscapes due to better marketing/trading conditions At least 25% increase in numbers accessing microfinance and credits 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 At least 50% of current mobile pastoralists still retain livestock mobility by the end of the project At least 10% reduction in incidents of conflicts over land and resources in the pilot districts and a cumulative 50% reduction by project end At least 2 policies revised to mainstream SLM principles and so provide a better policy environment for SLM; 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 At least 5 charcoal associations have rules and regulations for sustainable charcoal and are pastoralists have skills for improved management; less than 50% of technical officers have updated SLM skills Limited knowledge management happening now, no clear mechanism for generating and sharing lessons Current low and declining, exact levels of selected crops to be obtained during inception period during year 1 of project implementation Currently livestock trading riddled with problems of insecurity, lack of up to date information on prices and therefore very low prices being obtained Less than 10% of households have access 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 The current trend is tilted to fast rates of sedenterization; specific baseline will be obtained during inception Very high number of incidents of conflicts, specific baseline will be obtained during inception All policy statements mention importance of SLM but don t have details of how SLM will be ensured Few SLM policies have updated and effective frameworks well linked into the local institutions - Baselines to be confirmed in project year 1 No charcoal associations 9

actively enforcing them; At least 5 groups with sustainable charcoal production operations and earning money from carbon finance; 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; 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 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 No groups engaging in sustainable charcoal Minimal collection through licensing but none through taxation - Baselines to be confirmed in project year 1 Less than 5% use improved kilns in carbonization - Baselines to be confirmed in project year 1 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. 10

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. 11

Annex 3: Mid-term Review Rating Scale Progress towards results: use the following rating scale Highly Satisfactory (HS) Satisfactory (S) Moderately Satisfactory (MS) Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU) Unsatisfactory (U) Highly Unsatisfactory (U) 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. Project is expected to achieve most of its major global environmental objectives, and yield satisfactory global environmental benefits, with only minor shortcomings. 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. 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. Project is expected not to achieve most of its major global environment objectives or to yield any satisfactory global environmental benefits. 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) Unsatisfactory (U) The project has significant shortcomings. The project has major shortcomings. Highly Unsatisfactory (HU) The project has severe shortcomings. 12

Annex 4: Co-financing table Sources of Co-financing 1 Name of Cofinancer Type of Cofinancing 2 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 13

Annex 5: Table of Contents for the Mid-term Review Report i. Opening page: ii. iii. 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 Executive Summary Project Summary Table Project Description (brief) Review Rating Table Summary of conclusions, recommendations and lessons 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: 14

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 15