National Consultant – Palau Biodiversity Project

Reference No.

PN/FJI/030/21

Consultancy Title

National Consultant – Palau Biodiversity Project

Location

Palau

Application deadline

27th April 2021

Type of Contract

Individual Contractor

Post Level

National Consultant

Languages required:

Palauan, English

Duration of Initial Contract:

30 days over 3 months (May – July 2021).

The project was designed to: protect Palau’s biodiversity by mainstreaming national environmental legislation and policies into practices on the ground and into State government development plans and private business plans. Through the GEF6 Project, the Ministry will protect biodiversity and natural resources by improving National-State communication and coordination and expanding partnerships between the National, State, Nonprofit, and Business sectors. Activities include: 1) Landscape, Seascape, and Master Planning; 2) Biosecurity and management of Invasive Alien Species; 3) Use of Best Practices in agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries, forestry, housing, and sustainable tourism; 4) Improved surveillance and enforcement, and 5) Gender and social mainstreaming and inclusivity. 

Brief project description: Palau’s economy is projected to become increasingly dependent on tourism that is rising by 30% annually, necessitating new tourism infrastructure and service industries. Agriculture and fisheries, even though contributing barely 4% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) continue to provide the main livelihood for about 20% of Palau’s population. Local food security is a national priority, given the heavy reliance on food imports, and these three sectors (agriculture, fisheries, and tourism) are now growing in line with Palau’s national development policies and plans. However, increasing pressures from tourism and agriculture and fisheries development activities are also resulting in rapidly increasing pressures on the country’s natural resources and biodiversity; and the rich terrestrial and marine natural resources, on which tourism (and agriculture and fisheries) depend, are especially vulnerable to such pressures.

This project aims to address the negative impacts of unsustainable sector-led development practices on biodiversity-rich landscapes of Palau, including its productive coastal and marine ecosystems, while taking into account climate change adaptation needs and inclusive and equitable social and economic development for dependent communities, as well as safeguarding against threats to biodiversity and the introduction and spread of Invasive Alien Species through the tourism and related sectors.

The objective of the project is to mainstream biodiversity conservation into integrated land and seascape governance, planning, and management in Palau.

The project recognizes the fact that these land and seascapes underpin the lives and livelihoods of a large number of local communities and that implementation of a coherent strategy to promote sustainable, biodiversity-friendly livelihood options is an integral part of the solution. The project objective is to be achieved through the implementation of four interrelated and mutually complementary Components (Project Outcomes) that are focused on addressing existing barriers. The four Outcomes of the project are:

• Outcome 1: An enhanced national institutional framework for integrated planning and management of land and seascapes.
• Outcome 2: Integrated multi-sector land and seascape planning and management operational in Babeldaob states to reduce threats to biodiversity and improve ecosystem services to benefit communities and state economies.
• Outcome 3: Integrated multi-sector planning and management operational in 264,686 ha of seascapes and coastal areas in the Southern Lagoon to reduce threats to biodiversity and improve ecosystem services to benefit communities and state economies; and
• Outcome 4: Knowledge management, monitoring and evaluation support, equitable gender benefits, and biodiversity conservation in Palau.

Since the global Covid 19 pandemic in the first quarter of 2020, many countries including Palau responded immediately by implemented strict travel restrictions, and so far, Palau is covid-free. Palau’s border is effectively closed to all except essential workers and approved returning Palauan citizens and residents. In March 2020 the Palau government instituted a nationwide lockdown period, including school closures, which had a negative impact on the project, resulting in delays to implementation for at least 2 months. Most affected were women, who were generally responsible for childcare during the lockdown. The shift to online Zoom meetings was not successful in-country. Although the lockdown was lifted, several partners remain heavily impacted by safety and economic considerations. Some partners are responsible for two-week quarantines for incoming passengers (24 hours/day for 14 days every month) and for disinfection of the quarantine vehicles and sites, some partners have taken on the risk of inspecting incoming vessels (air freight and ships, 3-4 per week), and other partners are dealing with drastic reductions in revenues due to a complete lack of tourists. Despite the impacts of the border closure and covid risks, the project did continue with activities and implemented adaptive management (such as switching from international consultants to local hires) and was back to near 100% implementation by August 2020. To date, there are no known cases of Covid-related deaths in Palau.  Government officials continue to monitor the situation and provide regular updates. Palau has started to vaccinate its population with the goal of reaching 100% of eligible residents.

Scope of Work

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. The MTR will also review the project’s strategy and its risks to sustainability. The MTR will also reflect on lessons learnt on this project to inform and be shared with other Projects in Palau and related projects in the Pacific. The MTR is also part of the UNDP Pacific Office in Fiji’s evaluation plan (2018-2022) and will be facilitated by the Commissioning Unit, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer with support from the terminal evaluation team.

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, considered during project design processes?
• Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design. See Annex 9 of Guidance for Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.
  • Were relevant gender issues (e.g. the impact of the project on gender equality in the programme country, involvement of women’s groups, engaging women in project activities) raised in the Project Document?
• If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

Results Framework/Log frame:

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

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

Indicator Assessment Key

In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

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

iii.   Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management Arrangements:

• Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document.  Have changes been made and are they effective?  Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear?  Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner?  Recommend areas for improvement.
• Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement.
• Review the quality of support provided by the GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) and recommend areas for improvement.
• Do the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner and/or UNDP and other partners have the capacity to deliver benefits to or involve women? If yes, how?
• What is the gender balance of project staff? What steps have been taken to ensure gender balance in project staff?
• What is the gender balance of the Project Board? What steps have been taken to ensure gender balance in the Project Board?

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/ log frame as a management tool and review any changes made to it since the project start. 

Finance and co-finance:

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

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

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

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

Stakeholder Engagement:

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

Social and Environmental Standards (Safeguards)

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

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

Reporting:

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

Communications & Knowledge Management:

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

iv.   Sustainability

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

Financial risks to sustainability:

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

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

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

Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability:

• Do the legal frameworks, policies, governance structures, and processes pose risks that may jeopardize the 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 the sustenance of project outcomes?

Conclusions & Recommendations

The MTR team will include a section in the MTR report for evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings.

Additionally, the MTR consultant/team is expected to make recommendations to the Project Team. 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 an MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table in the Executive Summary of the MTR report. See Annex E for rating scales. No rating on Project Strategy and no overall project rating is required.

Table. MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table for (Project Title)

Institutional Arrangement

The principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the Commissioning Unit. The Commissioning Unit for this project’s MTR is the Integrated Results Management Unit, Monitoring, and Evaluation of the UNDP Pacific Office in Fiji.

The Commissioning Unit will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the National Consultant and will provide an updated stakeholder list with contact details (phone and email). The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the MTR team to provide all relevant documents, conduct digital meetings, liaise with the National Coordinator with stakeholder interviewees, and assist the National Consultant with field visits

Duration of the Work