Background

Please Submit your application directly on the UNDP online supplier portal as decribed below:

Link: http://supplier.quantum.partneragencies.org, Click-View Active Negotiations, Search with Negotiation Number: UNDP-CHN-00098, then Create response.

!!!!!!Please note that only the application submitted in UNDP online supplier portal is accepted!!!!!!

Incomplete applications will be excluded from further consideration.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is currently implementing a project that requires the services of an individual to perform the work described in this document.

In consideration of your qualifications, we are hereby inviting you to submit an offer for this particular assignment.

Should you be interested and decide to submit an offer for this assignment, kindly submit directly in the online supplier portal no later than the deadline indicated in the system.

Offers must be submitted directly in the system following this link: http://supplier.quantum.partneragencies.org using the profile you may have in the portal. In case you have never registered before, you can register a profile using the registration link https://estm.fa.em2.oraclecloud.com/fscmUI/faces/PrcPosRegisterSupplier?prcBuId=300000280598021 and following the instructions in guides available in UNDP website: https://www.undp.org/procurement/business/resources-for-bidders. Do not create a new profile if you already have one. Use the forgotten password feature in case you do not remember the password or the username from previous registration. If you are new registered for IC, the company name should be the name of individual.

If any discrepancy between deadline in the system and in deadline indicated elsewhere, deadline in the system prevails.

We look forward to your favourable response and thank you in advance for your interest in working with UNDP.

Sincerely

1. INTRODUCTION

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for -the Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized UNDP-supported GEF-financed project titled Enabling China to Prepare Its Fourth National Communication, and Biennial Update Reports on Climate Change (PIMS6399) implemented through the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE), which is to be undertaken in 2024. The project started on the 29/7/2022 and is in its second year of implementation. This ToR sets out the expectations for this MTR. The MTR process must follow the guidance outlined in the document Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects

(https://erc.undp.org/pdf/Guidance_Midterm%20Review%20_EN_2014.pdf ).

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The objective of this project is to enable China to fulfill its commitments under the UNFCCC to prepare its fourth National Communication (4NC) Report, third Biennial Update Report (3BUR), and fourth Biennial Update Report (4BUR).

Based on the experience and lessons learned from the previous NCs and BURs, the project will broaden and consolidate the network of stakeholders, including those in the government, research and education institutions, associations, social groups, enterprises, individuals, enhance technical capacity of national experts, and strengthen the institutional frameworks.

Furthermore, the project will place greater emphasis on relevant policies on mitigation of and adaptation to climate change and the results of their implementation, promote the establishment and improvement of the domestic systems for measurement, report and verification, so as to enable China to effectively address climate change in the process of pursuing national sustainable development.

The outcomes of the project are as follows:

• Outcome 1 Clearer understanding of the magnitude and sources of the GHG emissions and removals from the different sectors.
• Outcome 2 Better understanding of China’s vulnerability to the threats of climate change and improved accuracy of prediction of impacts in the vulnerable sectors of the country.

• Outcome 3: 3.1) Enhanced understanding of the appropriate policies to enable the proper planning and implementation of prioritized applicable and feasible climate change mitigation (CCM) actions for China. 3.2) Improved accounting of the results and impacts of implemented CCM actions through an improved national MRV system.
• Outcome 4: 4.1) Enhanced capacity to determine, analyze, refer to, and articulate key national circumstances information in the national communication (NC) reports and biennial update reports (BUR); 4.2) Enhanced understanding and capacity to determine applicable, feasible and cost-effective CCM and climate change adaptation (CCA) technologies, techniques and measures, and the most suitable financial resources and financing options that can be applied to implement action that address CCM and CCA issues; 4.3) Further enhanced public awareness of climate change issues.
• Outcome 5 Better understanding of GHG emissions and sinks in the Hong Kong and Macao SARs, and improved capacities for NC, and BUR.
• Outcome 6 China’s compliance to the reporting obligations to the UNFCCC.

The total project budget is USD 6,032,210, of which from GEF Trust Fund is USD 4,566,210. Its Co-financing is USD 1,466,000, including funds from UNDP and central government.

Project started in July 2022 and was scheduled to end in July 2026.

3. MTR PURPOSE

The MTR of this Project is scheduled to be in 2024. 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 stakeholders will be involved and consulted during the MTR process. The final MTR report will be cleared by the UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Adviser, and will be approved by the PSC.

4. MTR APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

The MTR report must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful.

The MTR team will review all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. PIF, UNDP Initiation Plan, UNDP Social and Environmental Screening Procedure/SESP), the Project Document, project reports including annual PIRs, project budget revisions, 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 Core Indicators/Tracking Tools submitted to the GEF at CEO endorsement, and the midterm GEF focal area Core Indicators/Tracking Tools that must be completed before the MTR field mission begins.

The MTR team 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), the Nature, Climate and Energy (NCE) Regional Technical Advisor, direct beneficiaries, and other key stakeholders.

Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful MTR. Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to Project Management Office, the Implementing Partner, UNDP China; executing agencies, senior officials and task team/ component leaders, key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Board, project stakeholders, academia, local government and CSOs, etc. Additionally, field mission might be expected once the implementing partner confirm the process.

The specific design and methodology for the MTR should emerge from consultations between the MTR team and the above-mentioned parties regarding what is appropriate and feasible for meeting the MTR purpose and objectives and answering the evaluation questions, given limitations of budget, time and data. The MTR team must use gender-responsive methodologies and tools and ensure that gender equality and women’s empowerment, as well as other cross-cutting issues and SDGs are incorporated into the MTR report.

The final methodological approach including interview schedule, field visits and data to be used in the MTR must be clearly outlined in the Inception Report and be fully discussed and agreed between UNDP, stakeholders and the MTR team.

The final MTR report must 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.

5. DETAILED SCOPE OF THE MTR

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, 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.
  • 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/Logframe:

• Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s logframe 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 logframe 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)

Project Strategy	Indicator[2]	Baseline Level[3]	Level in 1st PIR (self- reported)	Midterm Target[4]	End-of-project Target	Midterm Level & Assessment[5]	Achievement Rating[6]	Justification for Rating
Objective:	Indicator (if applicable):
Outcome 1:	Indicator 1:
	Indicator 2:
Outcome 2:	Indicator 3:
	Indicator 4:
	Etc.
Etc.

Indicator Assessment Key

Green= Achieved

Yellow= On target to be achieved

Red= Not on target to be achieved

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/ logframe 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 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?

Sources of Co-financing	Name of Co-financer	Type of Co-financing	Co-financing amount confirmed at CEO Endorsement (US$)	Actual Amount Contributed at stage of Midterm Review (US$)	Actual % of Expected Amount
		TOTAL

• 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 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[7] (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 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?

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 rec

Duties and Responsibilities

1. TIMEFRAME

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 25 working days over a time period of 12 of weeks, and shall not exceed five months from when the consultant(s) are hired. The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows:

ACTIVITY	NUMBER OF WORKING DAYS	COMPLETION DATE
Application Deadline		10 April, 2024
Selection of MTR Team		30 April, 2024
Preparation of the MTR Team (Documents Handover)		3 May, 2024
Document review and preparing MTR Inception Report (MTR Inception Report due no later than 2 weeks before the MTR mission)	3 days	10 May, 2024
MTR mission: stakeholder meetings, interviews, field visits	11 days	15 June, 2024
Presentation of initial findings- last day of the MTR mission	1 day	20 June, 2024
Preparing draft report (due within 3 weeks of the MTR mission)	7 days	10 July, 2024
Circulation of draft MTR report for comments		15 July, 2024
Finalization of MTR report/ Incorporating audit trail from feedback on draft report (due within 1 week of receiving UNDP comments on the draft)	3 days	22 July, 2024
Preparation & Issue of Management Response (by the Commissioning Unit)		25 July, 2024
Expected date of full MTR completion		29 July, 2024

Options for site visits should be provided in the Inception Report.

1. MIDTERM REVIEW DELIVERABLES

	MTR Inception Report	MTR team clarifies objectives and methods of Midterm Review	10 May, 2024	MTR team submits to the Commissioning Unit and project management
		Initial Findings	20 June, 2024	MTR Team presents to project management and the Commissioning Unit
	Draft MTR Report	Full draft report (using guidelines on content outlined in Annex B) with annexes	10 July, 2024	Sent to the Commissioning Unit, reviewed by RTA, Project Coordinating Unit, GEF OFP
	Final Report*	Revised report with audit trail detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final MTR report	29 July, 2024	Sent to the Commissioning Unit

*The final MTR report must be in English. If applicable, the Commissioning Unit may choose to arrange for a translation of the report into a language more widely shared by national stakeholders.

<