TERMS OF REFERENCE (ToR) FOR MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE REGIONAL SOUTHERN AFRICA CBNRM PROGRAMME

1. BACKGROUND

WWF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Programme Office (ESARPO) is seeking two (2) consultants to undertake a mid-term review (MTR) of the Regional CBNRM Capacity Building Programme for Southern Africa based in Lusaka at WWF Zambia Country Office, in conjunction with two WWF staff members. The review will include consultations with the country forums, review of programme documents including programme documents, progress reports, the programme logframe and other relevant reports. The Review Team will also be required to make recommendations to inform the implementation of the remaining two and half (2½) years of the programme.

The recommendations shall include identifying the key activities that should be focused upon for the remaining period to ensure achieving key objectives and to continue to sustainability of SACF after the Programme funding has ended

The WWF Regional CBNRM Capacity Building Programme for Southern Africa is now in its third and final stage which is the consolidation phase (2010 - 2014). This WWF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Programme Office (ESARPO) programme has been implemented in southern Africa since 2003 with funding from the Norwegian Government and in recent years with additional support from USAID. The Programme was designed in three phases: an inception phase (2003 - 2005), an implementation phase (2007 - 2009) and the current consolidation phase (2010 - 2012). The programme operates in seven countries: Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

All the phases were reviewed at the appropriate time by independent reviewers whose findings informed the design of subsequent phases. The extent to which these recommendations were adopted is a salient point and will require attention.

The programme is aligned to WWF's Global Programme Framework (GPF) in its coverage of the Miombo eco-region priority landscape with both endangered and footprint impacted species including elephant, rhino and teak. The programme also responds to regional inter-governmental initiatives such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) on natural resource management. Other important alignments include multi-lateral environmental agreements such as the United Nations Conventions on Wetlands, Biodiversity, Climate Change and Desertification.

With the bulk of the funding for the programme contributed by the Norwegian Government through NORAD, the programme is also aligned to Norwegian development priorities in supporting rights-based biodiversity conservation and, equitable and sustainable development of natural resources. The programme also aims to improve livelihood security and contribute to natural resources governance through strengthening civil society.

The goal and purpose of the programme were adopted from previous phases:

Goal: "Improved rural livelihoods at the household level attained through sustainable management of natural resources by communities in southern Africa"

Purpose: "CBNRM principles, policies and practices adopted as a mainstream strategy in Southern Africa for sustainable natural resource management in a manner that promotes equitable access to, use and management of natural resources"

The consolidation phase has the following outputs:

1. Strengthening Institutional capacity of the regional forum and national forums

2. Consolidating best practices and capacity building in core CBNRM processes

A. Practical tools & applications for CBNRM capacity building to CBNRM support providers (members of the Forums), ‘training of trainers' in various thematic areas (including local level governance), synthesis, lessons learned, sharing, etc.

B. Cross cutting issues thematic areas: including Gender, HIV & AIDS and Climate Change mainstreaming (cross cutting issues)

3. Performance Monitoring, Evaluation and Dissemination

4. Policy development and implementation

5. Conclude support to select existing partner training institutions

The consolidation phase was designed to build on the investments of the previous phases. In this phase, the programme also sought to remain relevant to the needs and priorities of WWF, beneficiaries and the funders of contributing sustainable development.

The programme facilitated the formation of national CBNRM Forums or strengthened already existing ones in all the participating countries. The National Forums collectively form the Southern African CBNRM Forum (SACF) and its Steering Committee by way of representation.

The programme also facilitated and supported the operations of six Thematic Working Groups as part of the Regional Forum to implement regional level cutting edge activities in the development of CBNRM. The Thematic Working Groups are replicated at national level where applicable. The six thematic working groups are

• Policy

• Training

• Performance monitoring and evaluation (PME)

• Management Oriented Monitoring System (MOMS)

• Community Based Organisations (CBO)

• Community Based Enterprise Development (CBE)

In addition, the Regional Forum has works with individual experts and relevant institutions where necessary which take a lead in certain areas of CBNRM work due to their comparative advantage, experience and/or leadership in that particular area of CBNRM at national or regional level.

At national level the national CBNRM Forum comprises an elected board or steering Committee with the members organised in relevant thematic working groups. In some cases there is also a Focal Institution e.g. the Coordinating Unit for the Rehabilitation of the Environment (CURE) in Malawi, CAMPFIRE Association in Zimbabwe and the Kalahari Conservation Society in Botswana. In Namibia, the Namibian Association of CBNRM Supporting Organisations (NACSO) which is a membership body acts as the forum while in Mozambique and Zambia, respective WWF country offices host the national CBNRM Forums.

Day to day operations and administrative support to individual country forums is provided by a Secretariat hosted through the institutional arrangements described above. Since the beginning of the Consolidation Phase, each forum has employed a full time focal point person to support the forums.

At regional level the Regional CBNRM Forum draws its membership from the National Forums. WWF currently provides the secretariat services through the Programme Management Unit (PMU) based at WWF - Zambia Country Office in Lusaka.

One of the key outputs from this consolidation phase is ensuring sustainability of the National CBNRM Forums and the Regional CBNRM Forum at the end of the programme in 2014.

The Regional CBNRM Capacity Building Programme of WWF has been supporting SACF since its inception. During 2011, the Steering Committee of SACF decided to develop a strategic plan and transform SACF into a legal institution. The Advisory Board of the WWF Regional CBNRM Programme has recommended that a feasibility, viability and sustainability assessment of SACF be undertaken to inform this transition which will also contribute directly to the consolidation objectives of the current phase and serve as an exit strategy for WWF.

A mid-term review (MTR) of the Regional CBNRM Capacity Building Programme is required as per WWF Network Standards and in order to report results and progress to the Norwegian Government. The mid-term review is intended to provide WWF and stakeholders with an independent assessment of the programme efficiency and progress towards the set targets in the Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) in order to improve its performance. The review will be used to document lessons and make recommendations on future implementation.

The MTR will also serve to guide the design of similar programmes in the future and generally contribute to organizational learning. It also forms part of WWF's desire for transparency.

The main objective of the Mid Term Programme Review is to assess the relevance, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the programme.

Specific tasks will include the following:

• Examine the logframe in light of reduced funding for the programme

• Assess whether programme funds have been used effectively and efficiently to deliver outputs and results 

• Assess and recommend ways to promote stakeholder ownership and participation

• Propose priorities to guide expenditure and activities for the last 2.5 years of the programme including how to transition to SACF during 2013 and 2014

• Asses and recommend ways to promote continuous learning and quality control

• Enhance WWF's credibility and transparency

• Review the sustainability of SACF and how the programme can facilitate that sustainability in collaboration with a parallel study on the feasibility of SACF

• Draw key lessons learned and recommend strategies to improve performance

• Explore linkages with other models of CBNRM particularly non-wildlife models 

• Examine existing and possible future synergies with East Africa and investigate the value of promoting Southern African best practice into East African CBNRM and sharing East African experience with Southern Africa

• Investigate what value the Regional CBNRM Programme has added within Southern Africa (see 2009 review) and to East Africa and what it could add in future 

• Review the general performance of CBNRM and future directions

 

The mid-term review will include aspects such as appropriateness and relevance of design, compliance of the work and financial plans with budget allocations, timeliness of disbursements, procurement and coordination among programme team members and respective Norway and Regional office support. Any issue or factor that has impeded or accelerated the implementation of the programme or any of its components, including actions taken and resolutions made should be highlighted. It will also assess the programme performance in terms of progress towards achievement of results and factors affecting successful implementation and achievement of results

4. RELEVANCE AND QUALITY OF PROGRAMME DESIGN

Assessment of the relevance and quality of the programme design i.e. is the programme design adequately addressing problems and needs? Is it consistent with beneficiaries' requirements and national priorities and does it address the priorities of WWF, NORAD and the beneficiaries? 

a) Are the goal and purpose of the programme still relevant, i.e. to what extent has the programme responded to priority conservation, socio-economic and other identified issues of concern? If not, what has changed from when the programme was designed and why?

b) What is the value of the programme intervention in relation to WWF's Global Conservation Programme and to regional and national conservation priorities, policies and strategies etc.? (including the existing operational linkages between this Programme and other WWF programmes / programmes in the region and whether this is adding value to either.)

c) Given the programme goal and purpose, have the implementation strategies been appropriate, i.e. is the LFA logical and complete? Does it need to be updated?

d) Has the programme monitoring system, including design of indicators, been appropriate?

e) Have the assumptions and estimation of risks been complete and realistic? 

f) Does the programme have buy-in and support from all stakeholder levels?

g) Is the programme aligned with other donor or government programmes and programmes?

5. EFFECTIVENESS

This entails an assessment of the major achievements of the programme to date in relation to its stated goal, purpose and outputs. This is a key aspect of the review in so far as it will use programme performance to date in the consolidation phase to inform planning of the remaining time of the programme. The review team should make an assessment of progress to date compared to programme plans, considering among other things programme purpose and outputs. This should include the documentation of some successes and failures, and identify factors behind these, including institutional arrangements, technical and administrative support and funding aspects.

The Review team should also assess the programme design including whether the log frame is realistic, logical and coherent or whether adjustments should be considered. Lessons learned should be highlighted.

a) With reference to the LFA indicators, other criteria if appropriate, and programme monitoring data, has the programme achieved its purpose and outputs, and to what extent will the programme contribute to the overall goal? 

b) Are any conservation and socio-economic achievements are likely to occur after the end of the programme?

c) Has programme's biological and social monitoring data been appropriately recorded, stored and disseminated?

d) Has the programme failed in any respect, and if so explain why?

e) What are the views of the various stakeholders on the achievements of the programme?

f) Has the programme contributed to raising capacity in natural resource management or other areas?

g) What lessons have been learned? What re-orientation of the programme is required if any, in light of the lessons?

h) In light of the lessons learned, what changes should be made to the original logframe in relation to the available funding in the last two and half years.

6. EFFICIENCY OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION (SOUND MANAGEMENT)

• The relatively complicated structure of the programme, with many parties involved. 

• Have funds, capacity, time and other resources been efficiently utilised to achieve the programme purpose and outputs, i.e. has the programme provided value for money and effort?

Specifically:

a) What % of available funding has been utilised (analyse by budget line and total expenditures)? Explain any over or under expenditures.

b) Have funds been transferred efficiently from donor to the programme and programme to sub-grantees then utilised efficiently?

c) Are there savings that could be made without compromising delivery?

d) Is the budget adequately addressing the deliverables?

e) What % of activities in the work plan has been delivered?

f) Has monitoring data been collected as planned, stored and used to inform future plans

g) Has programme implementation been adaptive and pro-active, responding to changes and lessons learned?

h) What learning processes have been in place and who has benefitted (e.g. training, self-evaluation, exchanges with related programmes etc.)

i) Are the institutional arrangements for the programme adequate?

j) How does the programme relate to similar interventions in Southern and Eastern Africa?

k) Did the programme experience any capacity gaps?

l) Have the programme staff performed efficiently?

m) How has the working relationship within the team and with partners, stakeholders and donors been?

n) Has internal and external communication been effective and efficient?

7. IMPACT

Assessment of the impact of the programme, whether positive, negative, primary or secondary long-term or short-term, produced directly or indirectly as a result of programme interventions, and whether intended or unintended.

a) What impacts has the programme had on biodiversity conservation or is likely to have?

b) What impacts has the programme had on people in the programme area, or is likely to have (with reference to poverty, livelihoods, equality, and gender equity, etc.)?

c) What impact, if any, has the programme had on the role of role of civil society? 

d) What impact, if any, has the programme had on policy, legal and institutional frameworks relating to sustainable natural resource management?

e) The prospects for achieving intended results and impacts by the end of the implementation phase

8. SUSTAINABILITY, REPLICABILITY AND MAGNIFICATION POTENTIAL

Given that the programme in general has been running since 2003, this part of the review is crucial in informing the future of the programme. The review team should assess the key factors affecting sustainability and transference of the programme lessons and/or activities, and assess and make recommendations on the key strategic options for the future of the programme.

a) What is the programme's exit strategy, and how will it ensure continuity of programme activities and conservation gains? To what extent will the institutionalization of SACF contribute to the exit strategy?

b) Is the social, legal and political environment conducive to sustainability and replicability? 

c) Will the programme contribute to lasting benefits? Which organisations could/will ensure continuity of programme activities in the programme areas?

d) What is the likelihood of continuation of initiated conservation activities and lasting benefits after the programme is closed?

e) Which are the key constraints to sustainability of programme activities and conservation gains?

a) Is there evidence of organisations/partners/national forums/communities that have copied, up-scaled, raised additional funds or replicated programme activities beyond the immediate programme area or supported activities, and if not, is such replication or magnification likely?

b) Can the programme be replicated without additional donor funding and technical assistance?

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

The evaluation is expected to make clear and detailed recommendations in terms of the way forward, and how to increase effectiveness of implementation for the remainder of the programme. This shall include identifying the key activities that should be focused upon for the remaining period to ensure achieving key objectives and to continue to sustainability of SACF after the Programme funding has ended.

The following should also be considered:

a) Whether the programme goal, purpose and outputs are considered appropriate - recommendations will aim at improving programme efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability;

b) Whether the programme purpose, outputs, activities and indicators require revision - recommendations will aim at changes that can be accommodated in the remaining implementation period and will include a revision of the Logical Framework Analysis (LF), if necessary;

c) Whether there is a need for mitigation measures to compensate for unforeseen implementation problems;

d) How to ensure that the programme is institutionally and strategically aligned with other environment and development activities in the programme area.

10. METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS (MAX. 1 PARAGRAPH)

The methodology used will compare actual progress against targets based on the findings and factual statements identified from a review of relevant documents i.e. programme proposal, Logical Framework Analysis (LFA), Annual Workplan (AWP), Key Performance Indicators (KPI), semi-annual and annual Technical Progress Reports (TPR), quarterly and annual Financial Reports (FR) and other documents and reports reviewed and produced by the programme.

The review will also be based on visits to national forums to at least four of the six national Forums and the SACF to hold discussions with key stakeholders. Participation of stakeholders in the review should be maintained at all the times, reflecting opinions, expectations and vision about the contribution of the programme towards the achievement of its objectives.

11. OUTPUTS AND DELIVERABLES (MAX. 1/2 PAGE)

The consultant shall provide WWF Eastern and Southern African Regional Programme Office, WWF Zambia Country Office, the Programme Advisory Board, WWF-Norway and other programme partners with the following documents:

a. A digital copy in MS word format using Arial font 11 (Not in Acrobat) of a draft mid-term review (main text excluding summary and annexe not to exceed 25 pages) as per the report template provided;

b. A digital copy in MS word format using Arial font 11 (Not in Acrobat) of a Final mid-term review (main text excluding summary and annexe not to exceed 25 pages) as per the report template provided by WWF Office.

The MTR will be conducted by a Review Team of four (4) to include a lead external reviewer, a second external reviewer and two (2) WWF personnel who must be involved with the programme at implementation and/or supervisory level.

The external review consultants will be selected based on the following considerations:

1. Higher University degree in natural resource management, environmental management, anthropology, agriculture or development studies;

2. Technical expertise and understanding of CBNRM performance, programme design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation;

3. Understanding and experience of CBNRM in the context of rural development in Eastern and Southern Africa;

4. At least 5 years' experience in CBNRM and rural development;

5. Preferably be based in the Eastern and Southern African region

6. Demonstrated management skills 

7. Ability to travel internationally

8. Fluency in English; knowledge of Portuguese and other regional languages will be an advantage

9. Demonstrated writing skills

10. Computer literate (Microsoft: Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint, Publisher)

13. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS (MAX. 1 PARAGRAPH)

The consultant should work towards timely submission of the mid-term review report. The consultant will be contracted by WWF Zambia Country Office in consultation with WWF Regional Office (ESARPO), WWF Norway and the Programme Advisory Board. The Programme Management Unit (based at the WWF Zambia Country Office) shall arrange all the necessary country visits and meetings according to the TOR including logistics for the mission (hotel reservation and transportation) during the mission.

14. TIME FRAME/DURATION (MAX. 1 PARAGRAPH)

The mid-term review will be carried out over a period of 30 days spread between 20 June and 30 July 2012 broken down as follows.

- 5 working days for reading relevant documents upon receipt from WWF;

- 15 working days on the field (field trips and feedback meetings included);

- 10 working days working days at home base for drafting the report

- 10 working days for finalizing the report after receiving comments from WWF.

15. MODE OF APPLICATION (MAX. 1 PARAGRAPH)

Interested candidates should send their applications including their latest CV, an application letter and proposed methodology to Mwape Sichilongo msichilongo@wwfzam.org or Mwaka Phiri mkphiri@wwfzam.org on or before 15 June