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

National Consultant to conduct Midterm Review on Fostering Sustainability and Resilience for Food Security in Karamoja Sub-Region Project

home-based (with mission travel if possible)

  • Organization: UNDP - United Nations Development Programme
  • Location: home-based (with mission travel if possible)
  • Grade: Consultancy - National Consultant - Locally recruited Contractors Agreement
  • Occupational Groups:
    • Development Cooperation and Sustainable Development Goals
    • Environment
    • Security and Safety
    • Nutrition
    • Monitoring and Evaluation
    • Disaster Management (Preparedness, Resilience, Response and Recovery)
    • Children's rights (health and protection)
    • Resilience and Climate Change
    • Project and Programme Management
    • Climate & Disaster Resilience
    • Food Security, Livestock and Livelihoods
  • Closing Date: Closed

Background

The vast majority of people in Karamoja are facing food shortages, either year-long or seasonal, and the region has been exposed to increasing droughts. Many parts of Karamoja are chronically food insecure, with 36.9 % of children stunted due to insufficient food (WFP & UNICEF, 2014). At the national level, 6.3 % of all Ugandans face some form of food insecurity at one point or another during the year, in Karamoja, this category accounted for 56 % in 2014 and only 13 % of households were able to meet their needs for cereals, tubers and vegetables from their own cultivation (Ibid).

This project seeks to respond to this chronic food insecurity in the Karamoja region, which is a result of combined pressures, including environmental degradation and climate change. The project set out to achieve its objective through three outcomes.  Outcome 1 focuses on strengthening the enabling policy and institutional frameworks through the creation of multi-stakeholder platforms that will enable better planning, including local landscape-based planning. Outcome 2 focuses on channelling investments into the food production systems and value chains using a Farmer Field School approach adapted to the realities of the agro-pastoral societies of Karamoja. The project intends to increase production through climate resilient production techniques, and support efforts to diversify production to increase income and reduce vulnerability to food insecurity. A strong emphasis will be placed on rehabilitating ecosystem services through restoration, agro-forestry, natural regeneration and sound pasture management.  The project also targets specific activities towards women and youth, who are among the most vulnerable, to ensure equality of participation and remove underlying vulnerabilities. Finally, Outcome 3 supports the development and implementation of a monitoring and assessment framework for global environmental benefits, and socio-economic benefits.

Since May 2018, the Government of Uganda through MAAIF with support from FAO/UNDP/GEF has implemented the SURE FS project supporting institutional and capacity development at the district level on both policy and policy adaptation/implementation, delving into transfer of technologies for efficient food production and enhanced product marketing systems.

Being half –way the project life, this MTR will help to document the progress made so far, recommend strategies that will enhance delivery of intended project results commensurate with the investments made. According to the GEF guidance notes, MTEs are a monitoring tool to assess project status and challenges, identify corrective actions to ensure that projects are on track to achieve planned outcomes. As such, MTEs are required for full-sized UNDP supported projects with GEF financing such as this one.

The overall goal or development objective of this project is to improve food security by addressing the environmental drivers of food insecurity and their root causes in Karamoja sub-region. The Project objective is to contribute to enhancing long-term environmental sustainability and resilience of food production systems in the Karamoja Sub-Region.

The project was designed to deliver on the objective through 3 outcomes including:

Outcome 1: Supportive policies and incentives in place at district level to support improved crop and livestock production, food value-chains and INRM

Outcome 2: Increased land area under integrated natural resources management (INRM) and SLM practices for a more productive Karamoja landscape

Outcome 3: Framework in place for multi-scale assessment, monitoring and integration of resilience in production landscapes and monitoring of global environmental benefits (GEBs).

?Objectives of the mid term review:

The MTR will review the project design and strategy, assess progress towards the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes as specified in the Project Document, assess early signs of project success, or failure including risks to sustainability. The goal will be to identify and recommend the changes necessary to set the project on-track to achieve its intended results.

Approach and methodology: 

The MTR must provide evidence based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The National Consultant will work with a counterpart international Consultant; the former to provide the local content while the latter will be the Lead Consultant to ensure the deliverables are realized. The MTR team will review all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. PIF, UNDP Initiation Plan, UNDP Environmental & Social Safeguard Policy, the Project Document, project reports including Annual Project Review/PIRs, project budget revisions, lesson learned reports, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team considers useful for this evidence-based review). The MTR team will review the baseline GEF focal Area Tracking Tool (AMAT) submitted to the GEF at CEO endorsement, and the midterm GEF focal area Tracking Tool that must be completed before the MTR field mission begins.

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

Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful MTR.[2] Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to: Ministry of Agriculture, animal Industry and Fisheries, Ministry of Water and Environment, UNDP, FAO, Busitema University, project coordinators from the 6 District Local Governments and CSOs operating in the Karamoja Region.. If possible (given the COVID restrictions) the MTR team is expected to conduct field missions to selected 6 districts (Kotido, Moroto, Karenga, Nakapiripirit, Nabilatuk,and Kaboong) where the MTR team should be able to meet the project responsible parties and conduct site verification.

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

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

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

Duties and Responsibilities

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 description.  (http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/guidance/GEF/mid-term/Guidance_Midterm%20Review%20_EN_2014.pdf

Project Strategy:

Project design:

  • Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions. Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document;
  • Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results. Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design?;
  • Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country (or of participating countries in the case of multi-country projects)?;
  • Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes?;
  • Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines;
  • 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.

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.

In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

  • Compare and analyse the GEF Tracking Tool at the Baseline with the one completed right before MTR.
  • 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

Project Implementation and Adaptive Management:

  • 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.

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 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, 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?

Project-level Monitoring and Review 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 review budget.  Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and review? Are these resources being allocated effectively?

Stakeholder Engagement:

  • Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?
  • Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project?  Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation?
  • Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?

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:

  • 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.

Sustainability:

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

Financial risks to sustainability:

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

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

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

Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability:

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

Environmental risks to sustainability:

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

Competencies

Competencies:

  • 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 project implementation; 
  • Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and Land Degradation,or biodiversity and ecosystem management or food security; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis;
  • Excellent communication skills; 
  • Demonstrable analytical skills.

 

 

Required Skills and Experience

Academic Qualifications:

  • Advanced University Degree (Masters or equivalent) in natural sciences; with a specialization in environment, biodiversity, climate change or any other closely related field

Experience:

  • Minimum 7 years of relevant professional experience in relevant technical areas;
  • Minimum of 4 years proven track record of application of results-based approaches to evaluation of projects focusing on Sustainable Land Management, sustainable Forest Management and Climate Change mitigation;
  • Highly knowledgeable of participatory monitoring and evaluation processes;
  • Familiarity with Uganda’s development, environment, land, forest and other relevant policy frameworks;

Language and other skills:          

Proficiency in both spoken and written English.

Compliance of the UN Core Values:

  • Demonstrates integrity by modelling the UN’s values and ethical standards,
  • Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNDP,
  • Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability,
  • Treats all people fairly without favouritism,
  • Fulfils all obligations to gender sensitivity and zero tolerance for sexual harassment.

Selection criteria: 

Qualified Individual Consultant is expected to submit both the Technical and Financial Proposals. Individual Consultants will be evaluated based on Cumulative Analysis as per the following scenario:

  • Responsive/compliant/acceptable, and
  • Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation. In this regard, the respective weight of the proposals are:
    • Technical Criteria weight is 70%;
    • Financial Criteria weight is 30%.

Recommended presentation of technical and finacial proposals:

For purposes of generating proposals whose contents are uniformly presented and to facilitate their comparative review, you are hereby given a template of the Table of Content. Accordingly, your Technical Proposal document must have at least the preferred content as outlined in the IC Standard Bid Document (SBD). The financial proposals should be ALL inclusive.

Confidentiality:

The Individual Consultant shall not either during the term or after termination of the assignment, disclose any proprietary or confidential information related to the consultancy service without prior written consent. Proprietary interests on all materials and documents prepared by the consultants under the assignment shall become and remain properties of UNDP.

Submission of Application:

The candidate is required to submit an electronic application directly uploaded on the UNDP jobs website with all the requirements as listed here below. Annexes and further information may be downloaded on http://procurement-notices.undp.org no.93274.

Interested individual consultants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications in one single PDF document to this website - http://jobs.undp.org no. 68789.

  • Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template provided by UNDP (Annex II);
  • Personal CV, indicating all past experience from similar projects, as well as the contact details (email and telephone number) of the Candidate and at least three (3) professional references.

Technical proposal:

  • Brief description of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment;
  • A methodology, on how they will approach and complete the assignment;
  • Financial proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price, supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template provided (Annex II);
  • Annexes 1 and II - may be downloaded from the UNDP Procurement Notices Website -http://procurement-notices.undp.org/. For further clarifications, please contact; janet.anyango@undp.org; moses.lutwama@undp.org

 

UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply. All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence. UNDP does not tolerate sexual exploitation and abuse, any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment, and discrimination. All selected candidates will, therefore, undergo rigorous reference and background checks.
This vacancy is now closed.
However, we have found similar vacancies for you: