Consultancy: Mid-term Review of the GEF7 Sustainable Forest Management Project Consultancy

Strengthening Forest Management for Improved Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Resilience in the Southern Rangelands of Kenya

GEF Project ID: 10292

GEF-7 | Land Degradation, Biodiversity and Climate change Focal Areas | Implemented through NEMA and MoEF | GEF Partner Agency: IUCN

Project start – 24th April 2023

MTR window – 2026

Focal area – Land Degradation (GEF-7)

Executing partners – NEMA

Responsible parties – KARLO, NETFUND, SORALO, ACC

Landscapes – Kajiado; Narok

1. INTRODUCTION

This document sets out the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the IUCN-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized project titled “Strengthening Forest Management for Improved Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Resilience in the Southern Rangelands of Kenya” (Project ID: 10292), implemented through the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), and to be undertaken in 2026.

The project commenced on 24th April 2023 and is in its third year of implementation. In line with the IUCN-GEF Guidance on MTRs, this MTR process is initiated ahead of the submission of the second Project Implementation Report (PIR). The MTR process must follow the guidance outlined in GEF’s evaluation process: https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/documents/2026-05/GEF_EN_Evaluation_Policy_May_1.pdf.

This ToR defines the objective, scope, methodology, deliverables, timeframe, team composition, and management arrangements for the review. It is complemented by the annexes, which set out the documents to be reviewed and the required structure of the MTR report.

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 About IUCN

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) is a membership Union uniquely composed of both government and civil society organisations. It provides public, private, and non-governmental organisations with the knowledge and tools that enable human progress, economic development, and nature conservation to take place together.

Created in 1948, IUCN is now the world’s largest and most diverse environmental network, harnessing the knowledge, resources, and reach of more than 1,400 Member organisations and around 15,000 experts. It is a leading provider of conservation data, assessments, and analysis, and fills the role of incubator and trusted repository of best practices, tools, and international standards.

IUCN provides a neutral space in which diverse stakeholders — governments, NGOs, scientists, businesses, local communities, Indigenous peoples’ organisations, and others — can work together to forge and implement solutions to environmental challenges and achieve sustainable development. Working with many partners and supporters, IUCN implements a large and diverse portfolio of conservation projects worldwide, combining the latest science with the traditional knowledge of local communities to reverse habitat loss, restore ecosystems, and improve people’s well-being.

www.iucn.org

2.2. Project Development Context

The Southern Rangelands of Kenya, covering large areas of Kajiado and Narok Counties, contain globally significant biodiversity, critical forest ecosystems, wildlife dispersal areas, and pastoral production systems that provide essential ecosystem services, including biodiversity conservation, water regulation, carbon storage, livestock production, and tourism. These landscapes are increasingly threatened by land degradation, forest loss, unsustainable land-use practices, invasive species, climate variability, changing land tenure, habitat fragmentation, and increasing pressure from agricultural expansion, infrastructure development, and competing land uses.

Although Kenya has a relatively strong policy framework for forest management, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable land management, implementation remains constrained by fragmented institutional coordination, inadequate landscape planning, limited financing for restoration, weak community capacity, insufficient knowledge management, and inadequate incentives for sustainable natural resource management.

The GEF-7 project **”**Strengthening Forest Management for Improved Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Resilience in the Southern Rangelands of Kenya” (GEF ID 10292) seeks to address these constraints through an integrated landscape approach combining enabling policies, investments in sustainable dryland management, ecosystem restoration, biodiversity conservation, sustainable livelihoods, knowledge generation, and multi-stakeholder coordination. The project contributes simultaneously to the GEF Land Degradation, Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program objectives while supporting Kenya’s national development and environmental commitments.

The Mid-Term Review will assess progress towards these objectives, validate the project’s Theory of Change, examine implementation performance (measurable environmental and socio-economic results), identify emerging opportunities and implementation bottlenecks, and recommend adaptive management actions for the remainder of the implementation period.

2.3 Barriers addressed by the project

The project responds to six interlinked barriers to the uptake and scale-up of in the target landscapes:

Weak integrated landscape governance and cross-sector coordination: Forest, wildlife, rangeland and agricultural planning are undertaken by different institutions with insufficient coordination across sectors and administrative levels.

Limited enabling environment for sustainable forest and dryland management: Existing policies, planning tools and institutional capacities are not sufficiently operationalized to support integrated landscape management.

Insufficient investment in restoration and sustainable natural resource management: Financial resources, incentives and private-sector engagement remain inadequate for large-scale restoration and sustainable land management.

Limited adoption of sustainable land and forest management practices: Communities require greater technical support, demonstration, extension services and access to technologies that improve productivity while conserving biodiversity.

Weak knowledge management, monitoring and evidence-based decision making: Ecological monitoring, landscape information systems and knowledge-sharing mechanisms are insufficient to guide adaptive management and scaling.

Market and livelihood constraints: Pastoralists and other land users have limited opportunities to derive sustainable economic benefits from biodiversity conservation, restoration and sustainable value chains.

2.4 Project components

• Component 1: Strengthening the enabling environment for sustainable management of natural resources in the drylands. This component strengthens policy implementation, institutional capacity, integrated planning, governance mechanisms, stakeholder coordination, and the knowledge base required for sustainable landscape management.
• Component 2: Investment in scaling up sustainable dryland management. Supports implementation of sustainable forest management, ecosystem restoration, biodiversity conservation, climate-resilient livelihoods, community investments, value chains, and landscape-scale restoration actions.
• Component 3: Programmatic coordination, monitoring, and knowledge management. Strengthens project management, monitoring and evaluation, learning, communication, replication, knowledge management, and adaptive management while supporting policy dialogue and scaling-up.

2.5 Implementation focus

Project implementation focuses on strengthening integrated landscape governance in Kajiado and Narok Counties; improving sustainable forest and dryland management; restoring degraded ecosystems; enhancing biodiversity conservation and climate resilience; promoting sustainable livelihood and value-chain opportunities; strengthening institutional coordination among national and county agencies; supporting community participation in natural resource governance; and establishing robust monitoring, knowledge management, and learning systems. Implementation is led by NEMA, in collaboration with the Ministry responsible for Environment and Forestry and Responsible Parties, including KARLO, NETFUND, SORALO, ACC, and ILRI, and works closely with county governments, community institutions, and other stakeholders.

3. OBJECTIVE OF THE MTR

The purpose of the MTR is to provide an independent, evidence-based assessment of whether the project is on course to achieve its objective and intended outcomes, and to identify the management, technical, institutional and strategic adjustments required to maximise results during the remaining project period. The MTR will assess progress towards achieving the project objective and outcomes as specified in the Project Document, and identify early signs of project success or failure, with the goal of identifying the changes needed to set the project on track to achieve its intended results. The MTR will also review the project’s strategy and its sustainability risks.

The specific objectives are to:

• Assess overall project performance and progress towards outcomes, outputs, and targets against the approved Results Framework;
• Assess the effectiveness of implementation approaches, technical strategies, and the continued validity of the Theory of Change and identify assumptions, risks and external factors affecting project performance;
• Evaluate the efficiency of project delivery, financial management, procurement, and resource use;
• evaluate progress towards integrated landscape management, including sustainable forest management, biodiversity conservation, restoration of degraded ecosystems, climate resilience and sustainable livelihoods;
• assess the effectiveness of institutional coordination among national, county and community stakeholders in promoting integrated natural resource management;
• examine progress in mobilising investments, strengthening enabling conditions and promoting sustainable financing for restoration and landscape management;
• Assess the likelihood of sustainability, replication and scaling up of project outcomes across financial, socio-economic, institutional/governance, and environmental dimensions;
• Assess gender-responsiveness, youth, and social inclusion in planning, capacity building, governance, and benefit-sharing;
• Identify key lessons learned and good practices; and
• provide strategic and operational recommendations to improve project delivery, maximise impact and enhance the likelihood of achieving the project’s intended environmental and development outcomes

  4. MTR APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The MTR must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable, and useful. The MTR shall adopt a utilization-focused, participatory and mixed-methods evaluation approach, consistent with the GEF Evaluation Policy and IUCN-GEF Mid-Term Review Guidance. The MTR team will review all relevant sources of information, including documents prepared during the preparation phase (e.g., the Project Document and the CEO Endorsement package, the Environmental and Social Screening/safeguards documentation, project reports including Annual Project Review/PIRs, annual workplans project budget revisions, lessons-learned reports, and national strategic and legal documents), together with any other materials the team considers useful.

The review shall combine qualitative and quantitative evidence to assess project performance, validate findings through triangulation and generate practical recommendations for adaptive management. Attention shall be given to assessing both implementation performance and the project’s contribution to intended environmental and socio-economic outcomes. The review will be conducted through a collaborative and participatory approach, drawing on appreciative enquiry to facilitate reflection and learning, and ensuring close engagement with the Project Management Unit, government counterparts (including the GEF Operational Focal Point), the IUCN Kenya Country Office, the IUCN Multilateral Finance Regional Portfolio and Delivery Managers and Regional M&E lead, and other key stakeholders. The review will be structured around the following complementary methods:

• Desk review: analysis of project documents, including an updated table of progress against planned activities, capacity-building records, and relevant output reports (prepared before the mission).
• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): with the Project Management Unit, Responsible Parties, sub-contractors, national/provincial/local government, executing agencies, component leaders, the Project Steering Committee, academia, and CSOs.
• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): with pastoralists, rangeland community representatives, and women’s and youth groups.
• Field missions and validation: Field visits should be undertaken within representative intervention sites in Kajiado and Narok Counties to verify reported progress and assess restoration interventions, forest management activities, biodiversity conservation measures, sustainable livelihoods initiatives, governance structures, community participation, infrastructure established, and sustainability of interventions.
• Results verification: The review shall assess the progress against indicators; quality of monitoring data; assumptions underpinning reported achievements; attribution versus contribution; likelihood of outcome achievement. Where possible, evaluators should assess not only the quantity of outputs delivered but also their quality, functionality, and contribution towards intended outcomes.

The final MTR report must describe the full approach and the rationale for it, making explicit the underlying assumptions, challenges, strengths, and weaknesses of the methods used. The MTR will apply the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and where relevant – impact). These criteria are addressed through the four assessment categories set out in the scope of the MTR in Section 5, and are operationalised in detail in the MTR evaluative matrix (Annex B). Consultants are expected to set out their proposed interpretation of this ToR, including their evaluation approach, methodology, and workplan, in their technical proposal at the bid stage. Following award, the appointed consultant will develop this into a consolidated and refined approach, including the finalised methodology, evaluation matrix, sampling, and workplan, in the Inception Report (Deliverable 1). This consolidated approach must be reviewed and signed off by the IUCN M&E Lead before data collection begins, and will serve as the agreed basis against which the MTR is conducted and its deliverables assessed.

5. DETAILED SCOPE OF THE MTR

The MTR team will assess the following four categories of project progress: (i) Project Strategy; (ii) Progress Towards Results; (iii) Project Implementation and Adaptive Management; and (iv) Sustainability. Environmental and social safeguards (ESMS) performance is assessed within category (iii), as set out below. The categories map onto the OECD-DAC criteria as shown in Section 4, and each is operationalised through the evaluative matrix in Annex B.

(i) Project Strategy and relevance

Undertake a critical analysis of the logframe indicators and targets; assess how SMART the mid-term and end-of-project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound) and suggest amendments as necessary.

• Assess whether the project remains relevant to ‘s environmental and development priorities; continues to address the principal drivers of land degradation, forest degradation and biodiversity loss identified during project design, and the Theory of Change remains valid and whether its assumptions continue to hold.
• Assess whether the objectives, outcomes, and components are clear, practical, and feasible within the timeframe.
• Assess whether each indicator has a clear, documented definition and unit of measurement, an established baseline, and an unambiguous data source and method of calculation; flag any indicator whose target cannot be verified as designed.
• Examine whether progress could catalyse beneficial development effects (income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance) that should be captured in the results framework and monitored annually.
• Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators that capture development benefits.
• Assess whether the project continues to respond to the drivers of land degradation in the target areas and if any changes are needed in the strategy.
• Assess the relevance of the project to the priorities and needs of target communities, communal land users, livestock keepers, women, youth, traditional authorities, local municipalities, provincial institutions and national government departments.
• Examine if there are any changes in the environmental, institutional, socio economic, political or policy context since the start of the project and if this necessitates any changes in the project strategy

(ii) Progress towards results, outcome harvesting analysis

For each outcome and output indicator, establish the reported current value at mid-term and compare it against three reference points: the baseline, the mid-term milestone (where one exists), and the end-of-project target. Express progress as a percentage of the end target and colour-code it in the Progress Towards Results Matrix (green = on track, amber = at risk, red = off track), assigning a rating on the GEF scale for each outcome.

• Reported figures at face value need to be crosschecked via a data quality assessment of the headline quantitative indicators — in particular hectares under improved management, area restored, and number of beneficiaries (disaggregated by sex) [and other GEF Core Indicators] — testing them against the following:
  • Verifiability: is there a primary source (GIS shapefiles/polygons, PRAGA field records, signed attendance registers, monitoring datasets) behind each number, or does the figure trace back only to a narrative report or a partner’s self-declaration?
  • Accuracy and reporting integrity: do the values reported in the PIR, the Tracking Tool / Core Indicators, and partner progress reports agree with one another? Reconcile any discrepancies and identify their cause.
  • Double-counting and boundary errors: are the same hectares or the same beneficiaries counted more than once — across components, across sites, across reporting periods, or between overlapping PRMP/SLMP areas? Are hectares “under improved management” being conflated with hectares merely planned, mapped, or committed?
  • Attribution: are the claimed results genuinely attributable to project interventions, or would they have occurred anyway / are they being claimed from pre-existing or co-financed activity?
  • Definitional consistency: is a “beneficiary” (or a restored hectare) defined the same way at mid-term as at design, and the same way across the two provinces and all Responsible Parties?
• Ground-truth a sample of reported results in the field during the mission — physically verify a subset of the hectares claimed as restored or under improved management, and cross-check reported beneficiary and training numbers against community-level records and interviews — and state clearly in the report which figures were independently validated and which could not be.
• On the basis of the above, give an explicit, evidenced judgement on whether the project is on track to meet its end-of-project targets: where it is ahead, on track, at risk, or off track, and by roughly how much. Distinguish clearly between real, verified achievement and reported-but-unsubstantiated achievement.
• Where figures are found to be unreliable, incorrectly reported, or unverifiable, say so directly, quantify the gap between reported and verifiable values where possible, and recommend specific corrections to the reported results and to the data-collection and reporting system.
• Review delivery of outputs under each component (Components 1–3) and identify the remaining barriers to achieving the objective in the time left, together with where already-successful elements can be expanded.

Component 1 – Strengthening the enabling environment for sustainable management of natural resources in the drylands

The MTR will assess the extent to which Component 1 has strengthened the enabling environment for integrated landscape management and sustainable natural resource management in the Southern Rangelands.

In particular, the review will assess whether:

• the project has strengthened the policy, institutional and governance framework required to support integrated forest, rangeland and biodiversity management;
• landscape-level planning processes have improved coordination among national institutions, county governments, community organisations and other stakeholders;
• decision-support tools, information systems and technical guidance developed by the project are being used to inform planning and natural resource management;
• institutional and technical capacities have been strengthened to support sustainable forest management and integrated landscape governance;
• project-supported governance mechanisms are functioning effectively and are likely to remain operational beyond the project lifetime;
• Component 1 interventions are creating the enabling conditions required for successful implementation of field investments under Component 2.

Component 2 – Investment in Scaling-up Sustainable Dryland Management

The MTR will assess the extent to which Component 2 is delivering effective field-level investments that contribute to sustainable forest management, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem restoration and improved livelihoods.

The review will assess whether:

• restoration interventions are being implemented at an appropriate scale and quality to generate measurable environmental benefits;
• project-supported sustainable forest management and dryland management practices are being adopted by target communities and institutions;
• biodiversity conservation objectives are being integrated into landscape restoration and natural resource management interventions;
• livelihood and value-chain interventions are strengthening community resilience while reducing pressure on natural ecosystems;
• investments supported by the project are technically sound, cost-effective and responsive to local priorities;
• interventions are demonstrating early evidence of improved ecosystem condition, climate resilience and sustainable land management;
• mechanisms established by the project are likely to facilitate scaling-up and long-term sustainability of successful field interventions.

Component 3 – Programmatic Coordination, Monitoring and Knowledge Management

The MTR will assess the extent to which Component 3 has established effective systems for project coordination, monitoring, learning and adaptive management.

The review will assess whether:

• project coordination and management arrangements are effective, efficient and fit for purpose;
• monitoring and evaluation systems generate reliable information to support evidence-based decision-making and adaptive management;
• project implementation is informed by timely monitoring, reflection and learning;
• knowledge products, communication activities and lessons learned are effectively documented, disseminated and used by stakeholders;
• knowledge generated through the project is informing policy dialogue, replication and scaling-up of good practices;
• coordination among implementing partners supports integrated delivery across project components and landscapes;
• the project is generating knowledge and experience that can contribute to Kenya’s broader sustainable forest management agenda and the GEF Drylands Impact Program.

Progress towards impact-Testing the project theory of change-

• Assess whether the project’s theory of change remains relevant considering the outcomes observed.
• Use outcome harvesting and other appropriate methods to identify significant intended and unintended changes associated with project implementation and substantiate the projects contribution towards the changes being observed, also state the role of other partners/actors contributing to changes being observed.

Progress towards integrated landscape outcomes

• Assess whether the project interventions are functioning as an integrated landscape program rather than a collection of independent activities. This should include the assessment of:
  • Forest ramgeland interactions, biodiversity connectivity, and ecosystem services
  • Restoration effectiveness, resilience of landscapes, and climate adaptation

iii. Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management arrangements

• Assess the effectiveness of governance arrangements, including the project steering committee, NEMA coordination, county engagement, stakeholder ownership, and decision-making processes.
• Review the overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document; assess whether changes have been made and are effective, whether responsibilities and reporting lines are clear, and whether decision-making is transparent and timely.
• Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and the quality of support provided by the GEF Partner Agency (IUCN); recommend areas for improvement.

Work planning

• Review any delays in start-up and implementation, identify causes, and assess whether they have been resolved. Review the delivery timeline and whether the project has reached the mid-point of the targets set at project initiation/inception when implementation started.
• Assess whether work-planning processes are results-based and whether the results framework/logframe is used as a live management tool; review any changes made since project start.

Finance and co-finance

• Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions.
• Review changes to fund allocations arising from budget revisions and assess their appropriateness and relevance.
• Assess whether appropriate financial controls (reporting and planning) are in place to allow informed decisions and a timely flow of funds.
• Informed by the co-financing monitoring table, comment on whether co-financing is being used strategically and whether the Project Team meets regularly with co-financing partners to align priorities and work plans.

Project-level monitoring and evaluation systems

• Review the monitoring system, specifically the project Log frame, MEL Plan and indicators tracker. Provide an update of whether the indicator tracker is regularly updated. Assess the components of the project MEL plan and whether it clearly defines all the indicators including related tools for data collection for each of the indicators. Assess if the understanding of all project indicators definition is the same for all project partners.
• Review the monitoring tools currently used: do they provide the necessary information, involve key partners, align with national systems, use existing information, and prove efficient and cost-effective? Are additional or more participatory tools required?
• Examine the financial management of the M&E budget: are sufficient resources allocated to M&E and allocated effectively?
• Assess whether the project makes use of existing monitoring data and whether findings from monitoring missions are regularly reviewed and used in project management and adaptive management. Make recommendations on how this can be improved
• Assess whether monitoring responsibilities are clear and whether staff and partners have adequate capacity for monitoring.
• Suggest actions for improving on the use of monitoring data for real time project decision making

Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESMS) performance

• Confirm whether the project’s risk categorisation and the screening conducted at entry remain valid at mid-point, or whether the risk profile has changed with implementation experience (e.g., access-restriction and tenure risks around commonage and communal rangeland).
• Assess whether the safeguard instruments required by IUCN’s ESMS were prepared, disclosed, and are being implemented as designed — the ESMP/ESMF and, where triggered, a Process Framework for restrictions on access to natural resources, vulnerable-group planning, and livelihood-restoration measures.
• Assess the quality, inclusiveness, and documentation of ongoing consultation with land-users, traditional authorities, women, and youth, and whether FPIC-consistent processes were applied where relevant.
• Verify that the Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) is established, accessible, understood by affected communities, and functioning; review the number, nature, and resolution status of any grievances.
• Review implementation of the Gender Action Plan / gender mainstreaming, including sex-disaggregated monitoring and women’s participation in governance and benefit-sharing.
• Assess whether the PMU and Responsible Parties have adequate safeguards capacity, budget, and clear responsibility for ESMS implementation and monitoring, and whether safeguards performance is monitored and reported (including in the PIR), with corrective actions from any oversight findings closed out.

Stakeholder engagement

• Assess whether the project has developed and leveraged appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders.
• Assess whether local and national government stakeholders support the objectives and retain an active role in decision-making, and the extent to which stakeholder involvement and public awareness have contributed to progress.

Reporting

• Assess how adaptive-management changes have been reported and shared with the Project Board.
• Assess how well the Project Team and partners fulfil GEF reporting requirements (including how any poorly rated PIRs have been addressed), and how lessons from adaptive management have been documented and internalised by partners.

Communications

• Review internal communication with stakeholders: is it regular and effective, are any key stakeholders excluded, and are feedback mechanisms in place?
• Review external communication and public awareness (e.g., web presence, outreach campaigns), and write one half-page paragraph summarising the project’s progress towards results in terms of sustainable-development benefits and global environmental benefits.

iv. Sustainability

• Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document and Annual Project Review/PIRs are the most important, and whether the applied risk ratings are appropriate and up to date; if not, explain why.

Financial risks to sustainability

• Assess the likelihood of financial and economic resources not being available once GEF assistance ends, considering public, private, income-generating, and other funding sources adequate to sustain project outcomes.

Socio-economic risks to sustainability

• Assess social or political risks to sustainability, the level of stakeholder ownership, whether stakeholders see continued benefit flow as being in their interest, and whether lessons learned are documented and transferred for potential replication and scale-up.

Institutional framework and governance risks to sustainability

• Assess whether legal frameworks, policies, governance structures, and processes pose risks to the sustenance of benefits, including whether systems for accountability, transparency, and technical knowledge transfer are in place.

Environmental risks to sustainability

• Assess any environmental risks that may jeopardise the sustenance of project outcomes.

Human rights and gender equity

• Assess the project’s contribution to the promotion of human rights and gender equity as it affects land utility, food production, livelihoods, and the provision of ecosystem goods and services.

6. RATINGS

The MTR team will rate the project’s progress in the Executive Summary using the standard IUCN-GEF scales. Outcomes and project implementation are rated on a six-point scale; sustainability is rated on a four-point likelihood scale reflecting the combined risks. The completed MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table must appear in the Executive Summary and be substantiated in the Findings.

Rating Progress Towards Results / Implementation & M&E Meaning

HS – Highly Satisfactory -No shortcomings; targets exceeded or on track to be exceeded.

S – Satisfactory – Minor shortcomings; objectives expected to be achieved.

MS – Moderately Satisfactory – Moderate shortcomings; most objectives expected to be achieved.

MU – Moderately Unsatisfactory – Significant shortcomings; some objectives at risk.

U – Unsatisfactory – Major shortcomings; most objectives unlikely to be achieved.

HU – Highly Unsatisfactory – Severe shortcomings; objectives will not be achieved.

Rating Sustainability Meaning

L – Likely – Negligible risks to sustainability.

ML – Moderately Likely – Moderate risks to sustainability.

MU – Moderately Unlikely – Significant risks to sustainability.

U – Unlikely – Severe risks to sustainability.

7. Ethical use of AI

Consultants may use Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to support aspects of the evaluation process for instance transcription of interviews, coding of qualitative data and summarizing documents during desk review etc. however consultants will remain fully accountable for the quality, accuracy, confidentiality, integrity, and ethical conduct of the evaluation. AI should not be used to fabricate or misrepresent evidence, analyses, findings, or conclusions. All evaluation findings must be based on verified data collected through the evaluation methodology that the consultant shall agree with IUCN evaluation team. Consultants must ensure that confidential or personally identifiable information is not uploaded to public AI platforms and may be required to disclose how AI was used during the process.

8. MTR TIMEFRAME AND DELIVERABLES

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 92 calendar days, commencing with the close of applications on 07 August 2026 and concluding with issue of the final MTR report by 07 November 2026. The indicative schedule is set out below; IUCN will confirm exact dates on contracting and will accommodate reasonable delays for the circulation and review of the draft report.

Milestone Activity Indicative timing

Application closes – Deadline for submission of proposals – 21 September 2026

Selection & appointment – Evaluation and appointment of the MTR team – 28 September 2026

Kick off meeting – First engagement with IUCN and handover of project documents to the consultant – 5 October 2026

Submission of inception report – Document review and preparation of the MTR Inception Report (2–4 days) – 9 October 2026

Inception validation – Finalisation and validation of the Inception Report – 16 October 2026

MTR mission – Stakeholder meetings, interviews, and field visits (15 days) – 17-28 October 2026

Wrap-up & initial findings – Mission wrap-up meeting and presentation of initial findings – 2 November 2026

Draft report – Preparation of the draft MTR report (approx. 7 days) – 9 November 2026

IUCN team/ PMU / OFP review – Circulation and review of the draft report – 20 November 2026

Final report – Incorporation of audit trail and issue of the final MTR report – 27 November 2026

# Deliverable Description Timing & responsibility

1.MTR Inception Report – MTR team clarifies objectives, methodology, evaluation matrix, and work plan.

No later than 2 weeks before the MTR mission; submitted by the consultant to the IUCN Country Representative, IUCN Regional M&E lead (approver), IUCN Regional Programme Delivery Manager, IUCN Regional Multilateral Finance lead (henceforth, the IUCN team).

2.Presentation of Initial Findings – Presentation of preliminary findings following the field mission.

End of the MTR mission; presented to the IUCN team, government, and implementing partners.

3.Draft Final Report – Full report using the content guidelines in Annex B, with annexes.

Within 3 weeks of the mission; reviewed by IUCN team, and the GEF OFP.

4.Final Report – Revised report with an audit trail detailing how all comments have (and have not) been addressed.

Within 1 week of receiving IUCN comments; submitted to the IUCN team for approval.

5.Datasets – Provide transcripts of all qualitative data used and clean quantitative datasets used during the evaluation data collection

Submit this together with the final report

6.Evaluation Brief – A 3–5-page summary of the evaluation findings and recommendations.

Submit this together with the final report

9. PAYMENT SCHEDULE

The table below summarises the milestones at which IUCN will pay the consultant. Payments are made against the approval of each deliverable and sum to 100% of the contract value.

Milestone % of fee Cumulative

Approval of the Inception Report – 20% – 20%

Completion of the field mission and presentation of initial findings – 30% – 50%

Submission of the Draft Final Report – 30% – 80%

Submission and approval of the Final Report (with audit trail) – 20% – 100%

Total – 100%

10. MTR ARRANGEMENTS

Principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the IUCN M&E Lead, working together with the IUCN Regional Portfolio Manager, who jointly form the commissioning function for this review. The M&E Lead holds overall responsibility for the quality and independence of the process and for formal sign-off of the MTR deliverables, while the Regional Portfolio Manager ensures alignment with GEF requirements and project oversight. The IUCN Kenya Country Office will support the consultants in engaging government partners and will provide logistical support for the consultations, including the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within Kenya for the MTR team, comprising the appointed consultants and, where required, regional IUCN staff. The Project Management Unit (PMU) will act as the primary operational point of contact for the MTR team: providing all relevant project documents, setting up stakeholder interviews, arranging field visits, and facilitating access to data and records. To preserve the independence of the review, the PMU’s role is limited to facilitation and information provision; it holds no authority over the findings, ratings, or recommendations of the MTR.

11. TEAM COMPOSITION

The MTR will be conducted by a two-person team working under a single contract arising from these Terms of Reference: an international Lead Consultant and a national/local expert based in Kenya. The team members should not have participated in the project’s preparation, formulation, or implementation (including the writing of the Project Document) and must not have any conflict of interest with the project’s activities. Each team member will be required to sign the IUCN Code of Conduct and a conflict-of-interest declaration prior to commencement.

11.1 Lead Consultant (International)

The Lead Consultant holds overall responsibility for the design and delivery of the MTR, the quality of the methodology, and the final report. Indicative responsibilities include: review and analysis of project reports; reflection on the appropriateness of the original design and approaches; consideration of project methodologies in relation to policy; engagement of partners and key stakeholders; reflection on the expected impact pathway; and identification of approaches with future implications.

11.2 National / Local Expert (South Kenya)

The National Expert provides in-country and technical grounding for the review, including analysis of project context and progress over the lifespan of execution; facilitation of and support to stakeholder engagement and field logistics; identification of key lessons learned; and contribution to the overall findings and recommendations. The National Expert supports the Lead Consultant in finalising the report and addressing review comments.

11.3 Required qualifications and evaluation criteria

The team, collectively, should demonstrate the following. Points indicate the weighting applied when scoring the technical proposal (total: 100 points).

Evaluation Criterion Specific requirements Weighting

Evaluation team composition – 20%

• Proposed team structure: Lead Consultant (International), National / Local Expert (Kenya)
• CVs of all team members proposed attached to Technical Proposal.

Experience relevant to the terms of reference – 15%

• Competence in adaptive management, aligned with the GEF Strategic Objective and Programme (Land Degradation)
• Recent experience with results-based management evaluation methodologies
• Experience working with the GEF or GEF evaluations
• Excellent communication skills
• Demonstrable analytical skills
• Project evaluation/review experience within the UN system (asset)
• Master’s degree in environmental management, biodiversity and conservation, development studies, Environmental Science, Environmental governance, Environmental Engineering, or a related field from a recognized Institution
• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing/validating baseline scenarios
• At least 10 years’ work experience in relevant technical areas
• Understanding of gender and the up-scaling of SLM, including gender-sensitive evaluation and analysis

Independence – 5%

• Statement of independence from work being evaluated or mitigation measures [1] (e.g., exclusion of team members from components of evaluation design, data analysis, or exclusion of components of the project from the sample for the evaluation).

Understanding of the terms of reference – 20%

• Understanding of the evaluation ToR, in particular the purpose
• Clear understanding of the project design, objectives, context, and constraints.

Evaluation methodology – 25%

• Consultant should propose a sound and robust mixed methodology for the evaluation
• Methodology should demonstrate appropriateness, quality, and clarity.
  Appropriate approach to sampling of both quantitative and qualitative data
• Clear evaluation matrix
• A robust and sound data analysis plan
• A robust Data quality management plan

Evaluation work plan – 15%

• Proposed evaluation work plan that demonstrates feasibility, quality, and clarity.
• Provide evaluation deliverables and/or milestones; allocation of consultant days to each deliverable or evaluation phase.

12. APPLICATION PROCESS

Interested candidates should submit the following:

• A technical proposal detailing the proposed methodology, evaluation approach, work plan, and timeline;
• A financial proposal with a cost breakdown by deliverable, including professional fees, travel, and any other costs;
• CVs of the proposed team members (Lead Consultant and National Expert) demonstrating the qualifications set out in Section 11; and
• Two examples of comparable assignments — previous project evaluations or midterm/terminal reviews, ideally of GEF-financed or land-degradation/SLM projects.

Proposals will be assessed using a Quality- and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS) method. The technical proposal accounts for 70% and the financial proposal for 30% of the total score; only proposals scoring at least 70% on the technical evaluation will proceed to financial assessment. Please refer to the Request for Proposals document for further information.

Annex A. DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE MTR TEAM

The following documents will be provided to the MTR team:

• CEO Endorsement Request document, Agency Project Document (“Prodoc”), Project Identification Form and original GEF package approved
• Initiation Plan
• Project Inception Report
• IUCN Environmental and Social Screening results (and related reports)
• Project Implementation Reports (PIRs) (all)
• Project Management Unit’s Annual Workplans and Budgets
• Quarterly progress reports and work plans by implementing partners
• Audit reports (if available)
• Finalised GEF focal-area Tracking Tools / Core Indicators at CEO Endorsement and midterm
• Oversight mission reports or site-visit reports
• All monitoring reports prepared by the Project Management Unit
• Financial and administrative guidelines used by the Project Management Unit

The following documents will also be available:

• Project operational guidelines, manuals, and systems of IUCN
• IUCN country programme document(s)
• Project Steering Committee meeting reports
• Minutes of all meetings of the project management and implementing partners
• Project site-location maps for both provinces

Annex B. CONTENT OUTLINE FOR THE MIDTERM REVIEW REPORT

The MTR report shall follow the structure below. Indicative page lengths are guidance, not limits. Every finding must be evidence-based and, where a rating applies, substantiated in the body.

Basic Report Information (title page)

• Full project title, GEF Project ID and IUCN PIMS #
• GEF Trust Fund, focal area, and GEF-7 strategic programme/objective (Land Degradation)
• Country; Executing Agency (NEMA) and Responsible Parties (KEFRI, KARLO, SORALO, ACC); GEF Partner Agency (IUCN)
• Project financing summary: GEF grant, committed co-financing
• Key dates: CEO Endorsement, project start (24th April 2023), expected MTR date, and planned closure
• MTR team members and roles; date and version of the report.

Table of Contents · Acronyms and Abbreviations

Executive Summary (3–5 pages)

• Project Information Table
• Brief project description
• MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table — one line per outcome plus implementation, M&E, and sustainability, each with its rating and a one-sentence justification
• Project progress summary narrative (200–500 words): standing against the objective at mid-point
• Concise summary of conclusions
• Recommendation Summary Table — each recommendation numbered, with responsible party and suggested timing.

1. Introduction (2–3 pages)

• Purpose and objectives of the MTR
• Scope, and the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria applied
• Methodology: design, data-collection and triangulation methods, the evaluative matrix, and sampling of sites and stakeholders
• Ethics: adherence to UNEG/IUCN ethical standards, informed consent, and confidentiality
• Limitations of the review and how they were mitigated
• Structure of the report

2. Project Description and Development Context (3–5 pages)

• Development context: environmental, socio-economic, institutional, and policy factors (LDN/UNCCD commitments, national SLM//Biodiversity priorities)
• Problems the project addresses: the threats and the six barriers targeted
• Objective, components, outcomes, and expected results, including the Theory of Change / results chain
• Project sites and target landscapes (Kajiado, Narok)
• Implementation arrangements: Project Board / Steering Committee, execution modality, and partner arrangements
• Project timing, milestones, and the total financing and co-financing structure
• Main stakeholders and rights-holders.

3. Findings (12–14 pages)

3.1 Project Strategy

• Project design: quality of the results framework at entry, soundness of assumptions, incorporation of lessons from other projects, alignment with country priorities, treatment of gender and human rights, and adequacy of the risk analysis
• Theory of Change: whether the causal logic remains valid at mid-point or context has invalidated any pathways
• Results Framework / logframe: assess how SMART the mid-term and end-of-project indicators and targets are, and recommend specific revisions.

3.2 Progress Towards Results

• Outcome-by-outcome analysis against the Progress Towards Results Matrix, colour-coded (green/amber/red), with a rating for each outcome
• GEF Core Indicators / Tracking Tool: baseline → mid-term → end-target comparison, with field validation ( hectares under improved management, beneficiaries disaggregated by sex)
• Achievement of outputs under Components 1–3
• Remaining barriers to achieving the objective, and where the project can expand what is already working.

3.3 Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESMS) Performance

• Screening and categorisation: whether the risk categorisation and entry screening remain valid at mid-point, or whether the risk profile has changed with implementation experience (e.g., access-restriction and tenure risks around commonage and communal rangeland)
• Safeguard instruments: whether the instruments required by IUCN’s ESMS were prepared, disclosed, and are being implemented as designed — the ESMP/ESMF and, where triggered, a Process Framework for restrictions on access to natural resources, Indigenous Peoples / vulnerable-group planning, and livelihood-restoration measures
• Standard-by-standard performance against the ESMS standards triggered, in particular involuntary restrictions on access to rangeland and natural resources, biodiversity and sustainable natural-resource management, and cultural heritage / traditional-authority considerations
• Consultation and FPIC: the quality, inclusiveness, and documentation of ongoing consultation with land-users, traditional authorities, women, and youth, and whether FPIC-consistent processes were applied where relevant
• Grievance Redress Mechanism: whether the GRM is established, accessible, understood by affected communities, and functioning; the number, nature, and resolution status of any grievances
• Stakeholder Engagement Plan: whether engagement has been implemented as planned and kept current
• Gender: implementation of the Gender Action Plan / gender mainstreaming, including sex-disaggregated monitoring and women’s participation in governance and benefit-sharing
• Capacity and resourcing: whether the PMU and Responsible Parties have adequate safeguards capacity, budget, and clear responsibility for ESMS implementation and monitoring
• Monitoring and reporting: whether safeguards performance is monitored and reported (including in the PIR), and whether corrective actions from oversight missions or findings have been closed out
• Overall assessment of ESMS performance, flagging any unmanaged or emerging risks requiring corrective action in the remaining period.

3.4 Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

• Management arrangements: execution quality of the Executing Agency / Implementing Partner(s) and oversight quality of the GEF Partner Agency (IUCN) — rated
• Work planning: use of the logframe as a live management tool, and any start-up or implementation delays and their resolution
• Finance and co-finance: disbursement rate against plan, budget revisions, cost-effectiveness, and the co-financing materialisation table (committed vs. realised) with commentary
• Project-level M&E: design at entry (rated) and implementation (rated), and adequacy of the M&E budget
• Stakeholder engagement, country ownership, and participation
• Reporting: quality and timeliness of GEF reporting, and how adaptive-management changes and lessons have been documented and shared
• Communications: internal and external communication, public awareness, and knowledge management.

3.5 Sustainability

• Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document and PIRs remain the most important and whether their ratings are current
• Financial risks to sustainability
• Socio-economic risks to sustainability
• Institutional framework and governance risks to sustainability
• Environmental risks to sustainability
• Human rights and gender equity as they affect the durability of benefits
• Overall sustainability rating.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations (4–6 pages)

• Conclusions: balanced, evidence-based statements tied directly to the findings — strengths, weaknesses, and the project’s overall standing at mid-point
• Recommendations: a short, prioritised set, each linked to a specific finding and carrying a responsible party, timeline, and (where relevant) resource implication — framed as corrective actions the project can realistically execute in the time remaining
• Lessons learned of wider relevance to IUCN/GEF programming

Annexes to the Report

• MTR ToR (excluding the ToR annexes)
• MTR evaluative matrix (criteria, key questions, indicators, data sources, and methods)
• Progress Towards Results Matrix (if not included in the body)
• Co-financing materialisation table (if not included in the body)
• Ratings scales used
• Example questionnaire or interview guide
• MTR mission itinerary
• List of persons interviewed
• List of documents reviewed
• Photos from the field
• Signed UNEG/IUCN Code of Conduct form(s)
• Signed MTR final-report clearance form
• Audit trail of how comments received on the draft report were addressed

Tagged as: International Union for Conservation of Nature, Kenya