ANNEX 3 - Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF) 3 HOOGSTRAAT 147 RUE HAUTE ... MTR November 2008...

Belgische Technische Coöperatie Naamloze vennootschap van publiek recht met sociaal oogmerk

Coopération Technique Belge Société Anonyme de droit public à finalité sociale

ANNEX 3

HOOGSTRAAT 147 RUE HAUTE BRUSSEL 1000 BRUXELLES T 32 2 505 37 00 F 32 2 502 98 62 [email protected] WWW.BTCCTB.ORG

TERMS OF REFERENCE

MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE PROJECT

“EASTERN SELOUS COMMUNITY WILDLIFE AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROJECT”

COUNTRY : TANZANIA

N°TAN 0401011

Coopération Technique Belge

Terms of reference TAN0401011 Selous project – MTR November 2008 2/24

Table of Content

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 34

2. Intervention background ................................................................................................................ 34 2.1. Agreements ................................................................................................................................. 34 2.2. Project context ............................................................................................................................ 34 2.3. Project objectives........................................................................................................................ 34 2.4. Results & indicators (see Logical Framework) ...........................................................................5 2.4.1 Results ..........................................................................................................................................7 2.4.2 Indicators......................................................................................................................................7 2.5. Project Strategy – Management – Organization ..........................................................................7

3. Purpose of the Mid-term review .......................................................................................................8

4. Stakeholder involvement during the Mid-term review ................................................................9

5. Project area & beneficiaries to visit ............................................................................................ 109

6. Criteria to be studied ...................................................................................................................... 10

Several criteria will be assessed including the following:- ............................................................ 10 6.1. Basic criteria ............................................................................................................................... 10

6.1.1. Relevance ............................................................................................................................. 10 6.1.2. Efficiency ............................................................................................................................. 10 6.1.3. Effectiveness........................................................................................................................ 11 6.1.4. Sustainability ....................................................................................................................... 11 6.1.5. Coherence ........................................................................................................................ 1211 6.1.6. Impact .................................................................................................................................. 12

6.2. HARMO-criteria for strengthening the aid effectiveness ........................................................ 12 6.2.1. Harmonisation ..................................................................................................................... 12 6.2.2. Alignment ........................................................................................................................ 1312 6.2.3. Managing for results ........................................................................................................... 13 6.2.4. Mutual accountability ..................................................................................................... 1413 6.2.5. Ownership ............................................................................................................................ 14

6.3. Transversal themes ................................................................................................................. 1514 6.3.1. Gender equality ............................................................................................................... 1514 6.3.2. Environment ........................................................................................................................ 15 6.3.3. Social economy ............................................................................................................... 1615 6.3.4. Children’s rights .............................................................................................................. 1615

7. Methodology of the Mid-term review ........................................................................................... 16

8. Deliverables of the Mid-term review ........................................................................................ 1716

9. Period and duration of the Mid-term review .............................................................................. 17

10. Course of the Mid-term review ............................................................................................... 1817

11. Composition of the Mid-term review team ................................................................................ 18 11.1. Reference team ......................................................................................................................... 18 11.2. Mid-term review team .......................................................................................................... 1918 11.3. Profiles & responsibilities of the Consultants .................................................................... 1918



1. Introduction The Eastern Selous Community Wildlife and Natural Resources Management Project is a bilateral intervention under the General Agreement for Development Cooperation between the Kingdom of Belgium and the United Republic of Tanzania. Geographically the project is set in an area of about 20 by 250 km along the eastern border of the Selous Game Reserve (SGR) and administered by the Rufiji and Kilwa District Councils.

2. Intervention background

2.1. Agreements

• The project Eastern Selous Community Wildlife and Natural Resources Management Support Project is a direct bilateral project between the Government of Tanzania and The Kingdom of Belgium. A Specific Agreement was signed between both parties on 25 June 2004 expire on 30/10/2011.

• The project started on 25th August 2006 (date of signature of the CMO or the date of the notification between the parties regarding the exact starting date of the project) and ends on 1st November 2010 (estimated end date of the project). The total amount of the budget is 2,507,112 Euro (Two million five hundred and seven thousands one hundred and twelve euro of which Euro 1,155,000 is the contribution from the Tanzanian party and Euro 1,352,112 including formulation costs of Euro 52,112 from the Belgian party. This amount will be implemented through the following financial mode: Co-management (87%) and own-management (13%)

2.2. Project context

The intervention supports the policy of the Government of Tanzania (GoT) to involve communities in the management of natural resources in order to reduce poverty while conserving the environment. It further supports the GoT in honouring its obligations under international conventions like i) Convention of Biological Diversity and ii) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Floral and Fauna by making people aware of the values of biodiversity through the benefits they can get from natural resource use. Belgian policies and strategies are also addressed by this project.

2.3. Project objectives

According to the TFF the project Objective is Livelihoods of communities neighbouring Eastern Sector of Selous improved through Natural Resources Conservation.



• The specific objective of the project is to ensure that Communities participate in management and derive benefits from wildlife on a sustainable basis



2.4. Results & indicators (see Logical Framework)

Table of a Simplified logical framework Logical Framework

Project title: Eastern Selous Community Wildlife & Natural Resources Management Project Prepared on: 24 -11-2004 Global Objective: Livelihoods of communities neighbouring Eastern Sector of Selous improved through Natural Resources

Conservation Specific Objective Indicators Means of verification Assumptions (A) & Risks (R)

Communities participate in management and derive benefits from wildlife on a sustainable basis

Number of wildlife and other natural resource use conflicts decrease by 50% At least 50% of all decisions on utilization of revenue from wildlife show community involvement A least 50% of revenue from WMA is re-invested in improvement of community services

WD-CBC, SGR reports, District reports Minutes of Village Assembly meetings and of CBOs / AAs

National policies continue to support community participation in wildlife management (A) National policies continue to allow communities to benefit from wildlife / other natural resources (A) Quality of trophy animals deteriorates forcing the government to announce a hunting ban (R)

No. Results Indicators Means of verification Assumptions & Risks

R1

Institutions for communities to manage and use wildlife on village land are in place and functioning

Four (4) WMAs (next to the pilot one) designated along the eastern border of Selous GR Hunting quotas granted to Authorised Associations are used for at least 50% Number of human-wildlife conflicts reduced by 50%

Government Gazette AA and District records Minutes of Village Assembly meetings SGR and Village Council records

Villages are willing to set land apart for designation as WMA (A) Criteria for establishing WMAs along the eastern SGR border can not be met (R) Complexity of regulations delay establishment of WMAs beyond project implementation phase (R)

R2

Natural-resource-based income generating activities at village and household level are established

Average household income increased by 20% Number of improved houses increased by 10% Requests for food aid decreased by 50% Amount of collected levees increased by 50 %

District - and village reports District reports on food aid

MNRT-WD grants User Rights and Trophy Dealer’s Licences to AAs (A) Private companies are not interested to enter into joint-ventures with AAs (R)

R3

Capacity of Village Councils to implement Community-based Conservation (CBC) activities and WMA regulations is built-up

Implementation of Land Use Plans / by-laws is monitored at least 2 times / year Number of people who are aware of NR policies increased by 75%

Village Assembly and Village Council records Village / District Council records KAP survey reports

Village leaders are able to regain respect and support from community (A) Wild animals continue to pose a serious threat to the population and their crops (R)

R4

Efficiency of District Councils in following-up CBC activities and WMA procedures is improved

District Development Plans incorporate Land Use Plans of all project villages under their jurisdiction Proposal / applications for WMA related activities are all handled within the prescribed deadlines Reported inconsistencies in revenue collection from NR-use are all followed-up and corrected District Natural Resources Information System is used

District Development plans Minutes of AA meetings, District Council (DC) records Land use plans; NRM by-laws District Natural Resources

Developed capacity in planning and decision making is maintained (A) District efforts to improve provision of basic infrastructure are maintained (A) Functioning of District Councils / Natural Resources Advisory Body is interfered with (R)



for decision making at least 4 times / year Information System, village council records MNRT-WD / DC records

R5 Project managed efficiently and effectively

Annual work plans are commented on and timely approved by the Project Steering Committee (PSC) Differences between planned and realized budgets is < 10% Deviations from work plans and budgets are all discussed and approved by the PSC Results of impact monitoring are all used in preparation of annual work plans

Project progress reports Monitoring reports Annual work plans Minutes of Steering Committee

Experienced and skilled project staff can be found to implement of the project (A) Capacity of the national and regional project leaders fall short of the to be accomplished task (R)

Note: Quantification of indicators refers to the situation at the end of the project and may require adjustment during implementation (decision of Project Steering Committee



2.4.1 Results

The main services to be delivered by the project to the beneficiaries include: i) Institutional framework for communities to manage and use wildlife on village land is in place and functioning (Result 1), ii) Natural resource-based income generating activities at village and household level are established (Result 2), iii) Capacity of village institutions to implement and enforce community-based conservation / Wildlife Management Area regulations is built-up (Result 3) and iv) Efficiency of District Councils in following-up community-based conservation / Wildlife Management Area procedures is improved (Result 4).

2.4.2 Indicators

These are the Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) to describe the project’s outputs in operationally measurable terms. However, the OVIs were reviewed during the first year of implementation in order to have SMART indicators (See Annex 1). The OVIs for Result 1 are: i) Four (4) WMAs designated along the eastern border of Selous Game Reserve (SGR), ii) Hunting quotas of Authorised Associations (AAs) are used for at least 75%, iii) Five (5) Village Game Scouts per project village appointed, trained and once / month on patrol and iv) Number of human-wildlife conflicts reduced by 50%. OVIs for Result 2 are: i) Average household income increased by 20% at the end of the project, ii) Number of improved houses increased by 10% and iii) Amount of collected levees increased by 50 % at the end of the project. The OVIs for Result 3 include: i) Implementation of Village Land Use Plans / by-laws is monitored at least 2 times / year, ii) Implementation of Village Land Use Plans / by-laws is monitored at least 2 times / year, iii) At least 75% of fines for not adhering to NR rules and regulations are received indeed, iv) Number of people who are aware of NR policies increased by 75% and v) Number of people who can explain the wildlife policy increased by 50%. The OVIs for Result 4 comprise: i) District Development Plans incorporate Land Use Plans of all project villages under their jurisdiction, ii) Proposal / Applications for WMA related activities are handled within the prescribed deadlines, iii) Reported inconsistencies in revenue collection from NR-use are all followed-up and corrected and iv) District Natural Resources Information System is used for decision making at least 4 times / year.

2.5. Project Strategy – Management – Organization

• The approach of reaching a tangible impact of activity implementation during the first half of the project comprises:

i) Activity implementation will be concentrated in the first three and a half years of the project to maximise the use of the relative limited means of the project1. This approach yields a saving of c. 20% (250,000 EUR) on the Belgian budget for

1 Limited as compared to the ambitions of the objective



project management (R5). This money now is available for implementation of activities.

ii) Investment in income generating activities will be implemented in parallel to the institutional development activities to show the beneficiaries in the early phase of the project that sustainable benefits from NR are obtainable and that further investment in developing the necessary institutional capacity is valid and worthwhile. In this way the project is expected to gain and keep the support of the beneficiaries in the lengthy process towards full participation in wildlife management.

iii) To enhance project efficacy, the project will contract out specialised survey and other data-collection-work to private companies. Through this approach it will be possible to have assignments cover the whole project area at one time and have ‘master’ data-sets compiled from which information for individual villages or specific WMAs can be derived quickly.

Additional follow-up activities for the last half of the project aim to maximize the return upon made investments. The project management structure is composed of the Project Manager, Local Technical Advisor, Administration and Finance Officer, Project drivers, office attendant and security guards.

3. Purpose of the Mid-term review

• In accordance with the Technical and Financial File of the “Eastern Selous Community Wildlife and Natural Resources Management Support Project, a MTR is planned for January –February 2008.

• The MTR has the following general purposes: The overall objective of the mid-term review is to assess the progress of the project, identify main bottlenecks and difficulties (organisational, technical, structural and financial difficulties) and suggest mitigation factors for improvement, both at strategic and operational level.

The MTR has the following particular purposes: The review aims to ensure that the project activities are in line with the project results and objectives (both specific and overall). Specifically, the team will address the following issues:- 3.1 The pertinence of the project through the evaluation of the initial set up of the project and its potential for success

- An appraisal of the extent to which the outlined activities in the project proposal and approved by the Joint Local Partners Committee (JLPC) contribute to the results;



- An appraisal of the extent to which the outlined results contribute to the targeted specific objective;

- Review of the work plan for the project and project matrix - An appraisal of the pertinence of the project as compared to the Tanzanian

Policies and strategies.

3.2 The achievements and impact of the ESCWNMP since the beginning of the field activities

- The extent to which the activities outlined in the project proposal have been implemented;

- The extent to which the results outlined in the adjusted proposal have been reached;

- The progress of ESCWNMP in relation with the anticipated time-plan and plan of operation;

- The contribution of the project to decisions, activities, reflections not initially planned or foreseen but relevant to the achievement of the project’s objectives;

- The probability that this project will be able to reach the objectives through verifiable and operational achievements within the original time span, and make recommendations on ways and means to overcome any constraints;

- The identification of facilitating and constraining factors to the project performance and if necessary recommendation of workable solutions for improving the quality of the implementation of the project,

- Verify how the initial risks and assumptions mentioned by the formulation team are still relevant and to which extent risks are increased or reduced at the actual state of implementation of the project. Assess whether there are new risks.

3.3 The integration of the ESCWNMP activities into the activities of the

district/general policies of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism including the relevance for the project during the remaining period.

3.4 Suggest mechanism of mobilizing financial resources for sustainability of the

project activities beyond 2011. 3.5 Suggest the mechanism of increasing the coverage of the services in other

sectors/sub-sector like infrastructure in the project area taking into consideration the existence of Matandu and Rufiji rivers in two districts respectively.

4. Stakeholder involvement during the Mid-term review

Tanzanian institutions involved in the execution of the project are: i) Ministry of Finance & Economic Affairs (MoFEA), ii) Ministry of Natural resources and Tourism (MNRT) and iii) Prime Minister’s Office - Regional Administration & Local Government (PMORALG). Belgian Institutions involved in the realization of the project are: i) Director General for Development Cooperation (DGDC) and ii) Belgian



Technical Cooperation (BTC). These will also be involved in the MTR as through consultations and are also members of the Joint Local Partners Committee (JLPC). Other stakeholders include the project implementation teams and village communities who will be visited during the MTR.

5. Project area & beneficiaries to visit

The project is meant to cover all villages bordering the eastern sectors of SGR. The direct beneficiaries are c. 4000 households living in the border zone. Among the indirect beneficiaries are: i) Private investors ii) People in neighbouring villages and ii) Local Government staff involved in the project. The MTR will take place in the project area and will involve direct beneficiaries in 22 villages. Few representative villages will be visited.

6. Criteria to be studied

Several criteria will be assessed including the following:-

6.1. Basic criteria

6. 1. 1 . R e l e v an ce

• Is the conception of the project still in line with national policies and strategies (Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP) popularly known in Swahili MKUKUTA, Tanzania Development Vision 2025, Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania ( JAST), National Sector Strategies, Policies on Gender, Environment, Social Economy, Children’s Rights and the MDG) ?

• Is the project in tune with the Policies and Strategies of the Government of Belgium ?

• The MTR-team should give an answer to the question whether the project is still relevant and which measures should be taken to re-actualise the project, while taking into account possible new conditions and situations.

6. 1. 2 . E f f i c i e nc y

• Efficiency refers to the way in which the project activities transform the resources of the cooperation intervention into the expected results. The MTR assesses the physical and financial progress of the cooperation intervention. The following questions are crucial in order to verify in how far the project respects its planning, in different fields and at different levels:

• Are the inputs (finances, human and material resources) implemented as planned?

• Are the activities implemented within the proposed timeframe?

• Are the inputs adequately managed? What could be done better, cheaper, faster?



• Is the quality of the activities satisfying?

• Are the results achieved, in consistence with the indicators?

• The MTR-team is supposed to pronounce itself on the efficiency of the cooperation intervention and the certitude that activities and results will be achieved within the proposed timeframe and according to the planned means.

• The MTR-team will explain any delay, constraint or problem faced by the project and will make recommendations on possible approaches and additional means, needed to overcome these delays, constraints and/or problems. If needed, the MTR-team should make recommendations about possible modifications and alternatives. If necessary, the original planning/schedule of activities and their expected results should be reconsidered.

6. 1. 3 . E f fec t i v ene s s

• Effectiveness refers to the extent to which the results of the project are delivered and contribute to the achievement of the specific objective. Effectiveness examines if the (intended) changes that occurred in the project area have been caused by the project itself. Effectiveness also supposes that the beneficiaries make use of the delivered results. The key questions to assess the effectiveness of a project are:

• To what extent and referring to the indicators, is the specific objective realised?

• Is the realisation of the specific objective caused by the project (results) or have external factors been influencing the achievement of the specific objective?

• To what degree does the project implementation respond to the problems, needs and priorities of the beneficiaries?

• To what extent are the beneficiaries satisfied with the delivered results?

• The MTR-team should pronounce itself on the achievement of the specific objective and the use beneficiaries (can) make of the results. The MTR-team will explain - if necessary - the reasons for not achieving the specific objective and or results.

• If appropriate, the MTR-team will make recommendations on more effective ways to realise the specific objective, by examining the factors restraining the project achievements.

6. 1. 4 . Sus ta i na b i l i t y

• This will include the following aspects:-

• To what extent did the project contribute to sustainability in the social, cultural, political, technical, economical, environmental, institutional and/or organisational dimension/field?

Comment [MSOffice1]: Use comment instead of pronounce itself.



• To what extent are the involved parties willing and able to keep facilities operational and activities going?

• Is the project providing the appropriate capacity building necessary for increasing the sustainability?

• - To what extent are the proposed solutions and approaches accepted and mastered by the beneficiaries?

6. 1. 5 . C ohe r ence

• This should include the following issues:-

• Are strategies and approaches of other donors (international level or indirect bilateral level) coherent with BTC strategies and approaches for projects with similar objectives?

• Are BTC strategies and approaches coherent for their projects in the same region?

• Are there any contradictions between projects in the same region, regardless the objectives?

• - Is there any synergy to be promoted between projects or programmes in the region?

6. 1. 6 . Impac t

• The issues to be studied are:

• What are the effects/impacts that the beneficiaries, partner institutions and non-target groups may experience at the end of the project? Are these changes sustainable ?

• What is the nature of these changes: positive, negative, direct, indirect, intended, unintended ? Is there a causal relation between occurred changes and the project ?

• Do all stakeholders experience the changes introduced by the project in the same way ?

• - Do the changes contribute to the realisation of the global objective ?

6.2. HARMO-criteria for strengthening the aid effectiveness

The questions below are the basis of the reflection about HARMO criteria and are not to be answered in details

6. 2. 1 . Ha rmo ni sa t i o n

• The following questions assess the harmonisation criterion:

• Is the project making any common arrangements with other donors, concerning one or more of the following items: planning of activities, planning of aid flows, funding of activities, disbursement of aid flows, monitoring and evaluation of activities and aid flows, reporting on activities and aid flows, joint trainings, joint approaches on capacity building, joint missions ?



• Is the project taking into consideration the comparative advantages of other donors in the region?

• Is the project encouraging the management and staff to work towards harmonisation?

• Is there any contradiction between operational approaches of BTC projects in the region and of projects from other donors in the region?

• Is there any synergy between operational approaches of BTC projects in the region and of projects from other donors in the region?

6. 2. 2 . A l i g nme nt

• The following issues should be considered:

• If existing, is the project aligned with or strengthening national systems and procedures regarding: public financial management, accounting, procurement, auditing, reporting, monitoring and evaluation ?

• Is the project strengthening management capacities regarding monitoring & evaluation, reporting, procurement, auditing, accounting, human resources, finances, organisation development ?

• Is the project encouraging collaborative behaviour for management or staff to work towards alignment ?

• - Are there any activities in the project undermining alignment?

• Are there some changes to do in the way of improvement of the alignment?

6. 2. 3 . M anag i ng fo r re s u l t s

• The following items should be evaluated with respect to the criterion of managing for results:

• Is the projects’ planning system based on partner country results, partner country performance assessment frameworks?

• Is the project monitoring & evaluation system based on : national baselines, indicators based on national policies, partner countries’ result oriented frameworks, partner countries monitoring framework ?

• Is the project reporting system based on : country results oriented reporting, joint formats for periodic reporting ?

• Is the partner institution coordinating monitoring and evaluation efforts from different donors ?

• Is the project giving incentives for collaborative behaviour for management or staff to work towards managing for results ?

• - Is the focus of both partners on results during all project phases : planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, reporting? Is the dialogue in all phases of the project oriented towards the achievement of results ?



• Are monitoring results used for lessons learned, making decisions ?

• Is the monitoring and evaluation system of the project oriented towards achieving results; taking into account the result chain ; accessible for all stakeholders; harmonised with systems of other donors (f.ex. joint formats for periodic reporting) ?

• Is the programming, monitoring and evaluation aligned with results? Are the result-based tools used to demonstrate how investments and inputs will contribute to country results? Are the result-based tools used to indicate how management processes support the achievement of results ?

• Is result measurement and reporting simple, cost-effective and user friendly with regard to project’ training framework systems regarding M&E, procurement, auditing and risk, accounting, financial management ?

6. 2. 4 . M ut u a l a c co un t ab i l i t y

• The following issues should be assessed positively:

• Is the project providing timely transparent and comprehensive information on financial disbursements; accounting, incomes, expenses; project progress on activities, results, objectives; evaluation reports; status of procurement files; audit reports?

• Is the partner institution reporting on the project achievements to the national authorities, the local authorities and the beneficiaries?

• Is the JLPC functioning in one or more of the following ways: meeting on a regular basis; respecting the voice of the partner institution; jointly assessing the progress of the project; monitoring the respect of the engagement; guiding the project regarding new tendencies?

6. 2. 5 . Ow ne r sh i p

• On the level of projects, following questions can assess ownership:

• Is the project implemented through a Parallel Implementing Unit (PIU)?

• Is the project implemented through a partner institution?

• Has there been a screening of the capacities of the partner institution (capacity audit, situation analysis, participant’s analysis, stakeholder analysis)?

• Is the partner institution exercising leadership in implementing the project?

• Is the partner institution co-ordinating the aid projects? If so, is this done in dialogue with the different donors? Are civil society and the private sector participating in this coordination effort?

• Is the project strengthening the leadership capacities of the partner institutions, concerning these coordination tasks ?



6.3. Transversal themes

The questions below are the basis of the reflection about HARMO criteria and are not to be answered in details

6. 3. 1 . Ge nd er e qua l i t y

• The following aspects should be considered:

• Do women and men benefit from the project in equal terms (training, capacity building,)? Are some women or men negatively affected by the project?

• Did the project change the gender relations within the beneficiaries’ households and/or community (with respect to the economical, social, political status)? Have any changes occurred in traditional patterns, values or standards since the project started?

• Did the project reduce existing gender gaps (income, access to basic education, health, participation in the labour market, social participation, political representation and participation) ?

• Are women playing an active role in the project or do they only participate in a passive way? Are women and men supportive to the project?

• Is the project promoting the recruitment of women?

• Is the project respecting the national gender policy?

• Is the project monitoring its results in a gender sensitive way?

6. 3. 2 . E nv i r onment

• Aspects that should be studied are:

• The use of services, technologies, products or methods affecting the environment/that are environment unfriendly. If the project is using approaches attacking the environment, are there any alternatives that are more friendly to the environment?

• The respect of safety measures during activities;

• The respect of legislation regarding environmental policies;

• The legal protection of the project in case of environmental claims;

• The sustainable use and or management of natural resources;

• The consideration of the natural habitats of beneficiaries (and non-target groups);

• The MTR-team should be able to point out critical issues affecting the environment. If possible, the MTR-team should be able to propose measures to improve the respect of the environment.



6. 3. 3 . Soc i a l e c o nomy

• The criterion of social economy analyses following aspects of the project:

• - What is the finality of the services and results delivered (directly or indirectly) by the project? Are these social or economic ? How are these benefits distributed among the beneficiaries?

• What are the characteristics of the beneficiaries, is the project aiming at the better off or at the poor(est) ?

• Is the project working together with the private sector ?

• To what extent is the project facilitating the participation of civil society ?

• Is the project respecting democratic decision-making processes ?

• Is the project working in a decentralised environment ?

• Is the project strengthening networking ?

• The MTR-team should focus on obstacles, in order to propose measures enhancing the participation of civil society and strengthen the social economy criterion.

6. 3. 4 . C h i l d ren ’ s r i g ht s

• In order to assess this transversal theme, the MTR-team should focus on following questions:

• Is the project facilitating education for children ? If so, is access provided for girls and boys in an equal way ?

• Is the project strengthening basic health care for children ? If so, is access provided for girls and boys in an equal way ?

• Is the project increasing the access to drinking water for children ? If so, is access provided for girls and boys in an equal way ?

• Is the project protecting children against violence ?

• The MTR-team should be able to verify the respect of these rights and should be able to recommend - on the basis of the findings - measures for improvement on the level of the project.

7. Methodology of the Mid-term review

• The International consultant (team-leader) will suggest – after taking into account the above methodology – the study design and the tools for appraising the above-mentioned criteria. This suggestion will be one of the selection criteria for the quality of the offer introduced by the International consultant.

• The MTR starts with a revision of the project strategy with reference to the logical framework. At this level it is also important to consider the pre-

Comment [MSOffice2]: Has Childresn’s rights now replaced HIV AIDS as a transversal theme? How can this be evaluated when it was never part of the plan?



conditions formulated during the identification and formulation and to verify on the other hand if the assumptions are still accurate. The MTR-team will also assess the project management performance and its organisation. The core of the MTR is however the analysis of the basic criteria (1), of the criteria for the strengthening of the aid effectiveness (2) and of the transversal themes (3). In function of the needs of the MTR the set of criteria to be assessed will differ from project to project. It is possible that other criteria are added.

The evaluation design which the International consultant will suggest - includes the transformation of the assessment criteria into evaluation questions, which will be in turn translated into a set of indicators, to be verified with the help of data-collection instruments. The MTR-team assures the production of valid and reliable information by applying the triangulation as method for data-collection, meaning that different data-collection instruments generate similar findings. These findings will provide answers to the evaluation questions. These answers engender conclusions for each assessment criterion. These conclusions will be translated into recommendations, which can be used for decision-making.

8. Deliverables of the Mid-term review

• Aide-mémoire

• Draft report

• Presentation during debriefing

• Final report

9. Period and duration of the Mid-term review

• Travel days

• Field mission

• (in partner country)

• Europe or preparation and redaction of the report.

•

• International • 1 day • 15 days • 6 days

2



consultant

• Local consultant • • 15 days • 2 day

•

10. Course of the Mid-term review

• The MTR-team leader will be responsible for following activities:

• Briefing at BTC HQs and at the Representation (with the partner institution, Resident Representative, MTR-team, project). Discussion of the MTR purposes, programme and methodology.

• Review of the documents.

• Field visits to Kilwa and Rufiji Districts (the area for the field visits will be decided by the Consultants).

• Data collection at the level of the beneficiaries, the project staff, the authorities and the partner institutions.

• Restitution workshop with stakeholders at the end of the field mission.

• De-briefing at the Representation and handing over of the Aide-mémoire.

• Draft the MTR-report and dispatch a draft to BTC

• De-briefing at BTC-HQs, present findings, conclusions and recommendations.

• Integrate comments of the Quality committee in the MTR-report.

• Final report and send it to BTC

• Finalise administrative and financial formalities.

11. Composition of the Mid-term review team

11.1. Reference team

A reference team/Resource person supports the MTR-team and consists of the following members:

• In the partner country: Representative from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Wildlife Division, districts Representatives, BTC Tanzania and TA MNRT.

• In Brussels :

Claude Croizer, environmental expert EST, [email protected]

Olivier Chanoine, geographical advisor Tanzania, [email protected]



11.2. Mid-term review team

• The MTR-team consists of the following members:

• Team leader: 1 International consultant

• National consultant: 1 National consultant(s)

The national consultant will be hired by BTC Tanzania following a separate tender procedure.

The international consultant will be hired by BTC HQ following a tender procedure. It is optional that the International Consultant can propose a team including also a National Consultant.

11.3. Profiles & responsibilities of the Consultants

The International and National Consultant’s skills should be complementary, providing adequate expertise in the fields of Wildlife Management, Community Based Natural Resource Management and Socio-Economics..

INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANT

Profile:

• The International consultant has preferably a high university degree in the field of Natural Resources Management, Rural Development, Wildlife Management or equivalent.

• It is an asset if the International consultant has an experience in CBNRM projects/programmes preferably in east African countries.

• A good knowledge in the field of local government support .

• The International consultant will have at least 10 years of experience in development cooperation.

• The International consultant has experience as team leader in project monitoring and evaluations

• The International consultant is familiar with the participative approach.

• The International consultant speaks and writes fluently in English. Swahili is an asset

• Experience in managing projects/programmes in developing country is also an important requirement

Tasks:

• The International consultant is responsible for her or his findings, conclusions and recommendations. S/he is in charge of the following tasks:

• Coordinate the MTR-team;



• Supervise the redaction of the draft MTR-report, guarantee technical quality;

• Assure that all relevant stakeholders are involved in the mission;

• Assure the assessment of the basic criteria (coherence, relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact) and other criteria as mentioned in chapter 6;

• Produce a summary of the main conclusions and recommendations to be presented during the debriefing meetings;

• Edit and complete the MTR-report;

• And any other tasks that may be considered necessary for the correct implementation of the MTR

NATIONAL CONSULTANT

Profile:

• The National consultant has preferably at least a Masters Degree in Natural Resources Management, wildlife management, or rural development/socio-economics.

• The National consultant will have a large experience inwildlife management, in Tanzanian context (minimum 5 years).

• The national consultant will have a good knowledge of WMA methodology.

• The National consultant will have at least 5 years of experience in development cooperation and will be familiar with the methods of evaluation.

• The National consultant is familiar with the participative approach.

• The National consultant speaks fluently English and Swahili and writes in English.

• Experience in evaluation of donor funded projects/Programmes is an added advantage

Tasks:

The National consultant will support the International consultant in following tasks:

• Translation during meetings;

• Preparation and collection of relevant national documents on the subject matter;

• Assist in making appointment and identify institutions relevant to the MTR;

• Comprehension of the socio-cultural context;

• Drafting of the MTR-report;



• And any other tasks that may be considered necessary for the correct implementation of the MTR



• Chronogram of the mission (indicative) Evaluation steps Number of days and date

Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

0 11

12 13 14 15 1

6 17

18 19 20

21

22

23 24

25-29

30

31-40

41

42

43

44

45-49

50

Briefing at BTC-HQs (International consultant) Preparation of the mission (Local consultant)

Travel (International consultant) Preparation of the mission (Local consultant)

Briefing at the Representation

Field mission, data-collection, analysis and synthesis

Preparation of the restitution workshop

Restitution workshop

Redaction Aide-mémoire

De-briefing and presentation of Site report

X

Redaction of the draft MTR report



Travel (International consultant) Redaction of the draft report Redaction of the report (national consultant)

Forward draft report to BTC X Comments from BTC (HQs, Field)* De-briefing at BTC-HQs X Redaction final report** Forward final report to BTC-HQs*** X

� Expert International: 21 days (15 in the field, 6 for preparation and redaction) � Expert National: 17 days (15 in the field, 2 for redaction) X Deliverables * The comments from BTC-HQs will be send within 10 days to the International consultant ** BTC reserves 8 days for the redaction of the final report, 3 days are under contract. *** The final report is forwarded to BTC-HQs at latest 8 days after the de-briefing at BTC-HQs Days that the International consultant is not under

contract

ANNEX 3 - Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF) 3 HOOGSTRAAT 147 RUE HAUTE ... MTR November 2008...

Documents

Transcript of ANNEX 3 - Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF) 3 HOOGSTRAAT 147 RUE HAUTE ... MTR November 2008...