Log In
Sign Up
Request for Proposals (RFP):
“Consultancy Services to Conduct a Mid-Term Review for the GEF-funded project “Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management (SLM) for Large-scale Impact in the Grazing Lands of Limpopo and Northern Cape Provinces, South Africa”
RfP Reference: IUCN-27-07-PO4090
Organization: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
Regional Office: East and Southern Africa (ESARO), Country: South Africa
Name of the Project: “Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management (SLM) for Large-scale Impact in the Grazing Lands of Limpopo and Northern Cape Provinces, South Africa”
GEF ID: 10179
Budget Line: Appoint a local Consultant for Mid-Term Evaluation
AOP Code: PAO4090.5A
Implementing Agency: International Union for Conservation of Nature
Executing Agency: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
Review Type: Independent Mid-Term Review
Timing: Mid-point implementation
Welcome to this Procurement by IUCN. You are hereby invited to submit a Proposal. Please read the information and instructions carefully because non-compliance with the instructions may result in the disqualification of your Proposal from this Procurement.
1. REQUIREMENTS
1.1. A detailed description of the services to be provided can be found in Attachment 1 (Terms of Reference).
2. CONTACT DETAILS
2.1. During the course of this RfP, from its publication to the award of a contract, you may not contact or discuss this procurement with any IUCN employee or representative other than the following contact. You must address all correspondence and questions to the contact, including your proposal.
3. PROCUREMENT TIMETABLE
3.1. This timetable is indicative and may be changed by IUCN at any time. If IUCN decides that changes to any of the deadlines are necessary, the bidders will be informed.
DATE – ACTIVITY
30 July 2026 – Publication of the Request for Proposals
01 August 2026 – Deadline for expressions of interest
04 August 2026 – Deadline for submission of questions
05 August 2026 – Planned publication of responses to questions
14 August 2026 – Deadline for submission of Proposals to IUCN (“Submission Deadline”)
20 August 2026 – Clarification of Proposals
20 August 2026 – The planned date for the contract award
28 August 2026 – Expected contract start date
3.2. Please email the IUCN contact to express your interest in submitting a Proposal by the deadline stated above. This will help IUCN to keep you updated regarding the procurement.
4. COMPLETING AND SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL
4.1. Your Proposal must consist of the following four separate documents:
• Signed Declaration of Undertaking (see Attachment 2)
• Pre-Qualification Information (see Section 4.3 below)
• Technical Proposal (see Section 4.4 below)
• Financial Proposal (see Section 4.5 below)
• Proposals must be prepared in English.
4.2. Your Proposal must be submitted by email to the IUCN Contact (see Section 2). The subject heading of the email shall be [RfP Reference – bidder name]. The bidder’s name is the name of the company/organisation on whose behalf you are submitting the Proposal, or your own surname if you are bidding as a self-employed consultant. Your Proposal must be submitted in PDF format. You may submit multiple emails suitably annotated, e.g. Email 1 of 3, if attached files are too large to suit a single email transmission. You may not submit your Proposal by uploading it to a file-sharing tool.
IMPORTANT: Submitted documents must be password-protected so that they cannot be opened and read before the submission deadline. Please use the same password for all submitted documents. After the deadline has passed and within 12 hours, please send the password to the IUCN Contact. This will ensure a secure bid submission and opening process. Please DO NOT email the password before the deadline for Proposal submission.
4.3. Pre-Qualification Criteria
IUCN will use the following Pre-Qualification Criteria to determine whether you have the capacity to provide the required goods and/or services to IUCN. Please provide the necessary information in a single, separate document.
Pre-Qualification Criteria
1. 3 relevant references of clients similar to IUCN / similar work
2. Confirm that you have all the necessary legal registrations to perform the work.
3. State your annual turnover for each of the past 3 years.
4. How many employees does your organisation have who are qualified for this work? (if applicable)
4.4. Technical Proposal
• The Technical Proposal must address each of the criteria stated below explicitly and separately, quoting the relevant criteria reference number (left-hand column).
• Proposals in any other format will significantly increase the time it takes to evaluate, and such Proposals may therefore be rejected at IUCN’s discretion.
• Where CVs are requested, these must be of the individuals who will actually carry out the work specified. The individuals you put forward may only be substituted with IUCN’s approval.
• IUCN will evaluate Technical Proposals about each of the following criteria and their relative importance, please refer to the Attachment 1 – Terms of Reference for further guidance.
Required qualifications and evaluation criteria (refer to Attachment 1 for further guidance): Evaluation Criterion-Specific requirements-Weighting
Evaluation team composition
▪ Team structure: Lead Consultant (International), National / Local Expert (South Africa)
▪ CVs of all team members attached. 20%
Experience relevant to the terms of reference
▪ 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, or a related field
▪ 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 15%
Independence
▪ 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). 5%
Understanding of the terms of reference
▪ Understanding of the evaluation ToR, in particular the purpose
▪ Clear understanding of the project design, objectives, context, and constraints. 20%
Evaluation methodology
▪ 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 25%
Evaluation work plan
▪ 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. 15%
4.5. Financial Proposal
4.5.1. The Financial Proposal must be a fixed and firm price for the provision of the goods/services stated in the RfP in their entirety.
4.5.2. Prices include all costs
Submitted rates and prices are deemed to include all costs, insurances, taxes (except VAT, see below), fees, expenses, liabilities, obligations, risk and other things necessary for the performance of the Terms of Reference or Specification of Requirements. IUCN will not accept charges beyond those clearly stated in the Financial Proposal. This includes applicable withholding taxes and similar. It is your responsibility to determine whether such taxes apply to your organisation and to include them in your Financial Proposal.
Bidders should separate professional and logistical costs, but the total cost of the consultancy should be inclusive of all costs.
4.5.3. Applicable Goods and Services Taxes
Proposal rates and prices shall not exceed the ceiling mentioned on the IUCN procurement website, exclusive of Value Added Tax.
4.5.4. Currency of proposed rates and prices
All rates and prices submitted by Proposers shall be in USD (United States Dollar).
4.5.5. Breakdown of rates and prices
Please refer to the Bill of Quantities attached for the breakdown of rates and pricing.
4.6. Additional information not requested by IUCN should not be included in your Proposal and will not be considered in the evaluation.
4.7. Your Proposal must remain valid and capable of acceptance by IUCN for a period of 90 calendar days following the submission deadline.
4.8. Withdrawals and Changes
You may freely withdraw or change your Proposal at any time prior to the submission deadline by written notice to the IUCN Contact. However, to reduce the risk of fraud, no changes or withdrawals will be accepted after the submission deadline.
5. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
5.1. Completeness
IUCN will first check your Proposal for completeness. Incomplete Proposals will not be considered further.
5.2. Technical Evaluation
5.2.1.
Scoring Method
Your proposal will be assigned a score from 0 to 10 for each of the technical evaluation
criteria, such that ‘0’ is low and ‘10’ is high.
IUCN: Request for Proposals Page 6 of 8
5.2.2.
Minimum Quality Thresholds
Proposals that receive a score of “0” for any of the criteria will not be considered further.
5.2.3.
Financial Evaluation and Financial Scores
The financial evaluation will be based on the full total price you submit. Your financial proposal will receive a score calculated by dividing the lowest financial proposal that has passed the minimum quality thresholds (see Section 5.2.2) by the total price of your financial proposal. Thus, for example, if your financial proposal is for a total of CHF 100 and the lowest financial. Proposal is CHF 80, you will receive a financial score of 80/100 = 80%
5.3. Total Score
Your Proposal’s total score will be calculated as the weighted sum of your technical score and your financial score. The relative weights will be:
Technical: 70%
Financial: 30%
Thus, for example, if your technical score is 83% and your financial score is 77%, you will receive a total score of 83 * 70% + 77 * 30% = 58.1% + 23.1% = 81.2%.
Subject to the requirements in Sections 4 and 7, IUCN will award the contract to the bidder whose Proposal achieves the highest total score.
6. EXPLANATION OF PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE
6.1. IUCN is using the Open Procedure for this procurement. This means that the contracting opportunity is published on IUCN’s website and open to all interested parties to take part, subject to the conditions in Section 7 below.
6.2. You are welcome to ask questions or seek clarification regarding this procurement. Please email the IUCN Contact (see Section 2), taking note of the deadline for submission of questions in Section 3.1.
6.3. All Proposals must be received by the submission deadline in Section 3.1 above. Late Proposals will not be considered. All Proposals received by the submission deadline will be evaluated by a team of three or more evaluators in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in this RfP. No other criteria will be used to evaluate Proposals. The contract will be awarded to the bidder whose Proposal received the highest Total Score. IUCN does, however, reserve the right to cancel the procurement and not award a contract at all.
6.4. IUCN will contact the bidder with the highest-scoring Proposal to finalise the contract. We will contact unsuccessful bidders after the contract has been awarded and provide detailed feedback. The timetable in Section 3.1 gives an estimate of when we expect to have completed the contract award, but this date may change depending on how long the evaluation of Proposals takes.
7. CONDITIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROCUREMENT
7.1. To participate in this procurement, you are required to submit a Proposal, which fully complies with the instructions in this RfP and the Attachments.
7.1.1. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have submitted a complete and fully compliant Proposal.
IUCN: Request for Proposals Page 7 of 8
7.1.2. Any incomplete or incorrectly completed Proposal submission may be deemed non-compliant, and as a result, you may be unable to proceed further in the procurement process.
7.1.3. IUCN will query any obvious clerical errors in your Proposal and may, at IUCN’s sole discretion, allow you to correct these, but only if doing so could not be perceived as giving you an unfair advantage.
7.2. In order to participate in this procurement, you must meet the following conditions:
• Free of conflicts of interest
• Registered on the relevant professional or trade register of the country in which you are established (or resident, if self-employed)
• In full compliance with your obligations relating to payment of social security contributions and of all applicable taxes
• Not been convicted of failing to comply with environmental regulatory requirements or other legal requirements relating to sustainability and environmental protection
• Not bankrupt or being wound up
• Never been guilty of an offence concerning your professional conduct
• Not involved in fraud, corruption, a criminal organisation, money laundering, terrorism, or any other illegal activity.
7.3. You must complete and sign the Declaration of Undertaking (see Attachment 2).
7.4. If you are participating in this procurement as a member of a joint venture, or are using sub-contractors, submit a separate Declaration of Undertaking for each member of the joint venture and sub-contractor, and be clear in your Proposal which parts of the goods/services are provided by each partner or sub-contractor.
7.5. Each bidder shall submit only one Proposal, either individually or as a partner in a joint venture. In case of a joint venture, one company shall not be allowed to participate in two different joint ventures in the same procurement, nor shall a company be allowed to submit a Proposal both on its behalf and as part of a joint venture for the same procurement. A bidder who submits or participates in more than one Proposal (other than as a subcontractor or in cases of alternatives that have been permitted or requested) shall cause all the Proposals with the bidder’s participation to be disqualified.
7.6. By taking part in this procurement, you accept the conditions set out in this RfP, including the following:
• It is unacceptable to give or offer any gift or consideration to an employee or other representative of IUCN as a reward or inducement in relation to the awarding of a contract. Such action will give IUCN the right to exclude you from this and any future procurements, and to terminate any contract that may have been signed with you.
• Any attempt to obtain information from an employee or other representative of IUCN concerning another bidder will result in disqualification.
• Any price fixing or collusion with other bidders in relation to this procurement shall give IUCN the right to exclude you and any other involved bidder(s) from this and any future procurements and may constitute a criminal offence.
8. CONFIDENTIALITY AND DATA PROTECTION
8.1. IUCN follows the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The information you submit to IUCN as part of this procurement will be treated as confidential and shared only as required to evaluate your Proposal in line with the procedure explained in this RfP, and for the maintenance of a clear audit trail. For audit purposes, IUCN is required to
IUCN: Request for Proposals Page 8 of 8
retain your Proposal in its entirety for 10 years after the end of the resulting contract and make this available to internal and external auditors and donors as and when requested.
8.2. In the Declaration of Undertaking (Attachment 2), you need to give IUCN express permission to use the information you submit in this way, including personal data that forms part of your Proposal. Where you include personal data of your employees (e.g. CVs) in your Proposal, you need to have written permission from those individuals to share this information with IUCN, and for IUCN to use this information as indicated in 8.1. Without these permissions, IUCN will not be able to consider your Proposal.
9. COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
If you have a complaint or concern regarding the propriety of how a competitive process is or has been executed, then please contact [email protected]. Such complaints or concerns will be treated as confidential and are not considered in breach of the above restrictions on communication (Section 2.1).
10. CONTRACT
The contract will be based on IUCN’s template in Attachment 3, the terms of which are not negotiable. They may, however, be amended by IUCN to reflect particular requirements from the donor funding this particular procurement.
11. ABOUT IUCN
IUCN 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.
Headquartered in Switzerland, the IUCN Secretariat comprises around 1,000 staff with offices in more than 50 countries.
Created in 1948, IUCN is now the world’s largest and most diverse environmental network, harnessing the knowledge, resources and reach of more than 1,300 Member organisations and some 10,000 experts. It is a leading provider of conservation data, assessments and analysis. Its broad membership enables IUCN to fill the role of incubator and trusted repository of best practices, tools and international standards.
IUCN provides a neutral space in which diverse stakeholders, including 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, these projects work to reverse habitat loss, restore ecosystems and improve people’s well-being.
www.iucn.org
https://twitter.com/IUCN/
12. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Specification of Requirements / Terms of Reference
Attachment 2 Declaration of Undertaking (select 2a for companies or 2b for self-employed as applicable to you)
Terms of Reference for IUCN Consultancy
Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management for Large-Scale Impact in the Grazing Lands of Limpopo and Northern Cape Provinces, South Africa
GEF Project ID: 10179
GEF-7 | Land Degradation Focal Area | Implemented through DFFE and DoA | GEF Partner Agency: IUCN
Project start: 12 December 2023
MTR window: 2026
Focal area: Land Degradation (GEF-7)
Executing partners: DFFE; DoA
Responsible parties: Univ. of Limpopo; Sol Plaatje Univ.
Landscapes: Limpopo; Northern Cape
1. INTRODUCTION
This document sets out the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the IUCN-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized project titled “Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management for Large-Scale Impact in the Grazing Lands of Limpopo and Northern Cape Provinces, South Africa” (Project ID: 10179), implemented through the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) and the Department of Agriculture (DoA), and to be undertaken in 2026.
The project commenced on 12 December 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
South Africa’s grazing lands support livestock production, rural livelihoods, biodiversity, water regulation and climate resilience. These landscapes are, however, exposed to interacting pressures that include overgrazing, invasive alien species, soil erosion, drought, climate variability, weak coordination, uneven technical support, constrained investment and fragmented land-use governance. Sustainable land management is therefore central to restoring ecological function while strengthening local livelihoods and institutional capacity.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is financing the full-size project “Mainstreaming Sustainable Land Management (SLM) for Large-Scale Impact in the Grazing Lands of Limpopo and Northern Cape Provinces, South Africa” (GEF Project ID 10179). IUCN is the GEF Agency. The project is executed through national government partners, led by DFFE in collaboration with the department responsible for agriculture and relevant provincial, municipal, traditional-authority, academic, civil-society and community partners.
The project strengthens the capacity, knowledge, and policies, and improves access to the finance required to implement SLM in South Africa. Through the GEF investment, it catalyses a coordinated approach to financing SLM in two landscapes that are currently under-represented in South Africa’s SLM portfolio: the Limpopo and Northern Cape Provinces. Its purpose is to tackle land degradation through improved grazing-land management while addressing poverty alleviation and livelihoods. The project has four outcomes intended to decrease land degradation and improve grazing-land management and ecosystem services in the Ga-Matji and Rietfontein landscapes.
The project seeks to move beyond isolated demonstrations by strengthening the enabling environment, governance arrangements, technical capacity, field implementation, knowledge systems, sustainable financing and value-chain conditions required to mainstream and scale SLM in communal and commonage grazing systems. Its intervention areas include participatory rangeland governance, PRMPs and SLMPs, ecological assessment and monitoring, restoration measures, extension and capacity development, climate-resilient livelihoods, and mechanisms for replication and scale.
An independent MTR is required at the project midpoint to assess progress and performance, test whether the Theory of Change remains valid, identify implementation constraints and emerging opportunities, and recommend practical course corrections for the remaining implementation period. The MTR will serve both accountability and learning functions, with a strong emphasis on adaptive management and delivery of measurable environmental and socio-economic results.
2.3 Barriers addressed by the project
The project responds to six interlinked barriers to the uptake and scale-up of SLM in the target landscapes:
Information and monitoring gaps: limited data-collection processes constrain the targeting of interventions and the monitoring of policy and investment impact, and established mechanisms neither cater for community-level participation nor measure indicators valuable for evaluating SLM goals.
Weak capacity and skills: communities, extension agents, and government are often ill-equipped with participatory and negotiating skills; training tends to be prescriptive rather than building on land-users’ own perceptions of problems and opportunities.
Fragmented cross-sectoral coordination: few functioning cross-sectoral mechanisms exist to facilitate integrated ecosystem management, and most municipalities lack the technical capacity to integrate planning across the sectors connected to land management.
Inadequate governance of rangelands: misalignment, miscommunication, and unclear mandates across governance structures undermine holistic landscape planning, with no central mechanism for aligning the objectives of multiple landscape players.
Complex and weak land tenure: overlapping commonage, land-reform, and private-tenure arrangements, together with a limited regulatory environment, drive a lack of accountability and unsustainable land use, with few rangeland-specific communal action plans.
Limited access to markets and finance: socio-economic, institutional, and geographic constraints restrict access to financial and market resources, limiting value-chain participation and the scale-up of SLM, particularly given distance from markets in the Northern Cape.
2.4 Project components
Component 1: Informed Decision Making and Action for SLM — generates the information required to shape decisions on priority community-based rangeland restoration, and provides the tools, guidelines, and skills to enhance landscape planning and SLM action by land-users and advisors.
Component 2: Governance and Institutions — establishes mechanisms for landscape- and community-level planning and prioritisation, identifies institutional capacity for SLM and LDN targets and investment priorities, addresses weak capabilities and inadequate governance, and strengthens women’s skills as users and managers of land.
Component 3: Markets and Finance for Scale-up — delivers inclusive and sustainable financial investment to address low investment and limited market access in drylands, maps value chains of key products, and channels investment into priority value chains through inclusive, innovative, climate-resilient financing mechanisms.
Component 4: Learning and Policy Dialogue — focuses on learning and policy discourse for scale-up and long-term sustainability, informs national SLM policy from project results and best practices, and convenes stakeholder and investor dialogue on good practice and investment in SLM and supply chains.
2.5 Implementation focus
Project implementation focuses on: strengthening rangeland governance structures; developing and implementing Participatory Rangeland Management Plans (PRMPs) and Site-Level Management Plans (SLMPs); improving ecological condition using tools such as the Participatory Rangeland and Grassland Assessment (PRAGA) methodology; enhancing climate resilience and livelihoods; strengthening municipal and traditional-authority collaboration; and supporting sustainable livestock value chains. The Responsible Parties are the University of Limpopo, Sol Plaatje University, the DFFE, and the DoA.
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, including PRMP and SLMP implementation across Limpopo and the Northern Cape;
Assess the effectiveness of implementation approaches, technical strategies, and the continued validity of the Theory of Change;
Evaluate the efficiency of project delivery, financial management, procurement, and resource use;
Assess governance, coordination, and partnership arrangements among DFFE, DoA, responsible parties, municipalities, traditional authorities, and other stakeholders;
Validate field-level progress through site verification, including PRAGA-based assessments;
Assess the sustainability 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 clear, prioritised, and actionable recommendations for the remaining implementation period.
4. MTR APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The MTR must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable, and useful. The MTR team will review all relevant sources of information, including documents prepared during the preparation phase (e.g., the Project Document and the CEO Endorsement package, the Environmental and Social Screening/safeguards documentation, project reports including Annual Project Review/PIRs, project budget revisions, lessons-learned reports, and national strategic and legal documents), together with any other materials the team considers useful. The MTR team will review all Project Implementation Reports (PIR), as well as any annual workplans, budget exercises and other documentation prepared/managed by the Project Management Unit (PMU).
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 South Africa Country Office, the IUCN Multilateral Finance Regional Portfolio Manager 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 farmers, community representatives, and women’s and youth groups.
Field missions and validation: site visits to both landscapes — Ga-Matji and Mphanama in Limpopo, and Rietfontein, Groot Mier, Klein Mier, Andriesvale, Philandersbron, and Askham in the Northern Cape — including PRAGA-based validation and ground-truthing of reported interventions.
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
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 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 1–4) and identify the remaining barriers to achieving the objective in the time left, together with where already-successful elements can be expanded.
Outcome 1: Decisions on sustainable land management are informed by assessment data
Assess progress towards the establishment of the Knowledge Management Platform. Specifically assess functionality, accessibility and use for decision-making.
Assess whether project is on track to developing the appropriate training modules and whether capacity-development approaches are context-appropriate and effective.
Assess whether land users, mentor farmers, para-veterinarians and public officials are applying the knowledge and skills acquired through the trainings provided; and whether there is progress towards strengthening local and institutional capacity of SLM. Provide a case study of where knowledge has been applied. Asses also gender representation in the capacity development activities
Outcome 2: Strengthened government and institutional capacity to coordinate NRM and improve response to drought emergencies
Assess whether SLMPs, PRMPs have been developed through participatory processes that involved the land users and whether their rights to access resources have been strengthened in the plans.
Assess early evidence of whether the established governance mechanisms are improving coordination, land-use planning and management of communal grazing lands and make any recommendations on how coordination can be strengthened.
Assess whether women, youth and vulnerable groups have meaningful representation in the established land governance structures such as grazing associations and conservation committees.
Outcome 3: Finance, markets and value chains
Assess whether innovative finance mechanisms have been developed and are operational or if not yet developed what is the progress towards the same.
Assess if project-supported investments and value chains provide incentives for improved SLM practices as envisioned in the project strategy.
Assess whether women and vulnerable groups have equitable access to finance, markets, partnerships and economic benefits.
Assess the likelihood that the financing mechanisms will generate the projected returns.
Outcome 4: Sustainable land management mainstreamed at the local, national and regional levels
Assess progress towards allocation of public finance to support implementation of SLM policies and practices and if project recommended policies have been included in the integrated SLM policy brief
Assess whether annual and multi-stakeholder forums are generating useful learning and influencing decisions and whether project lessons are being systematically documented, evaluated and shared, give evidence of how documentation and dissemination happens including the knowledge products developed
Assess whether the project is contributing to the mainstreaming of SLM within relevant government systems.
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.
iii. Project Implementation and Adaptive Management
Management arrangements
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 – 14 August 2026
Selection & appointment – Evaluation and appointment of the MTR team – 20 August 2026
Handover – Handover of project documents to the consultant – 28 August 2026
Inception – Document review and preparation of the MTR Inception Report (2–4 days) – 31 Aug – 03 Sep 2026
Inception validation – Finalisation and validation of the Inception Report – by 7 Sep 2026
MTR mission – Stakeholder meetings, interviews, and field visits (15 days) – 10–21 Sep 2026
Wrap-up & initial findings – Mission wrap-up meeting and presentation of initial findings – 24–27 Sep 2026
Draft report – Preparation of the draft MTR report (approx. 7 days) – 29 Sep–7 Oct 2026
IUCN team / OFP review – Circulation and review of the draft report – 8–15 Oct 2026
Management response – Preparation and issue of the Management Response – 16–25 Oct 2026
Finalisation – Incorporation of audit trail and issue of the final MTR report – 28 Oct – 7 Nov 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% – n/a
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 South Africa 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 South Africa 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 South Africa. 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 Africa)
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
Proposed team structure: Lead Consultant (International), National / Local Expert (South Africa)
CVs of all team members proposed attached to Technical Proposal.
20%
Experience relevant to the terms of reference
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, or a related field
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
15%
Independence
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).
5%
Understanding of the terms of reference
Understanding of the evaluation ToR, in particular the purpose
Clear understanding of the project design, objectives, context, and constraints.
20%
Evaluation methodology
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
25%
Evaluation work plan
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.
15%
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 (DFFE, DoA) and Responsible Parties (University of Limpopo, Sol Plaatje University); GEF Partner Agency (IUCN)
Project financing summary: GEF grant, committed co-financing, and PPG
Key dates: CEO Endorsement, project start (12 December 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 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 (Limpopo; Northern Cape)
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 (PRMPs, SLMPs, PRAGA assessments, hectares under improved management, beneficiaries disaggregated by sex)
Achievement of outputs under Components 1–4
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 SLM 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
Declaration of Undertaking
I, the undersigned, hereby confirm that I am an authorised representative of the following organisation:
Registered Name of Organisation (the “Organisation”): _______________________
Registered Address (incl. country): _______________________________________
Year of Registration:__________________________________________________
I hereby authorise IUCN to store and use the information included in the attached Proposal for the purpose of evaluating Proposals and selecting the Proposal IUCN deems the most favourable. I acknowledge that IUCN is required to retain the Proposal in its entirety for 10 years after then end of the resulting contract and make this available to internal and external auditors and donors as and when reasonably requested.
Where the Proposal includes Personal Data as defined by the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), I confirm that the Organisation has been authorised by each Data Subject to share this Data with IUCN for the purposes stated above.
I further confirm that the following statements are correct:
The Organisation is duly registered in accordance with all applicable laws.
The Organisation is fully compliant with all its tax and social security obligations.
The Organisation and its staff and representatives are free of any real or perceived conflicts of interest with regards to IUCN and its Mission.
The Organisation agrees to declare to IUCN any real or perceived emerging conflicts of interests it or any of its staff and representatives may have concerning IUCN. The Organisation acknowledges that IUCN may terminate any contracts with the Organisation that would, in IUCN sole discretion, be negatively affected by such conflicts of interests.
None of the Organisation’s staff has ever been convicted of grave professional misconduct or any other offence concerning their professional conduct.
Neither the Organisation nor any of its staff and representatives have ever been convicted of fraud, corruption, money laundering, supporting terrorism or involvement in a criminal organisation.
The Organisation acknowledges that engagement by itself or any of its staff in fraud, corruption, money laundering, supporting terrorism or involvement in a criminal organisation will entitle IUCN to terminate any and all contracts with the Organisation with immediate effect.
The Organisation is a going concern and is not bankrupt or being wound up, is not having its affairs administered by the courts, has not suspended business activities, is not the subject of proceedings concerning those matters, or in any analogous situation arising from a similar procedure provided for in national legislation or regulations.
The Organisation complies with all applicable environmental regulatory requirements or other legal requirements relating to sustainability and environmental protection.
The Organisation is not included in the UN Security Council Sanctions List, EU Sanctions Map, US Office of Foreign Assets Control Sanctions List, or the World Bank listing of ineligible firms and individuals. The Organisation agrees that it will not provide direct or indirect support to firms and individuals included in these lists.
The Organisation has not been, is not, and will not be involved or implicated in any violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, or injustice or abuse of human rights related to other groups or individuals, including forced evictions, violation of fundamental rights of workers as defined by the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, child labour, sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment.
______________________________________________________
< Name and position of authorised representative of the Proposer >
Declaration of Undertaking
I, the undersigned, hereby confirm that I am self-employed and able to provide the service independent of any organisation or other legal entity.
Full name (as in passport):
Home or Office (please delete as appropriate) Address (incl. country):
I hereby authorise IUCN to store and use the information included in the attached Proposal for the purpose of evaluating Proposals and selecting the Proposal IUCN deems the most favourable, including Personal Data as defined by the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). I acknowledge that IUCN is required to retain my Proposal in its entirety for 10 years after then end of the resulting contract and make this available to internal and external auditors and donors as and when reasonably requested.
I further confirm that the following statements are correct:
I am legally registered as self-employed in accordance with all applicable laws.
I am fully compliant with all my tax and social security obligations.
I am free of any real or perceived conflicts of interest with regards to IUCN and its Mission.
I agree to declare to IUCN any real or perceived emerging conflicts of interests I may have concerning IUCN. I acknowledge that IUCN may terminate any contracts with me that would, in IUCN sole discretion, be negatively affected by such conflicts of interests.
I have never been convicted of grave professional misconduct or any other offence concerning my professional conduct.
I have never been convicted of fraud, corruption, money laundering, supporting terrorism or involvement in a criminal organisation.
I acknowledge that engagement in fraud, corruption, money laundering, supporting terrorism or involvement in a criminal organisation will entitle IUCN to terminate any and all contracts with me with immediate effect.
I am not included in the UN Security Council Sanctions List, EU Sanctions Map, US Office of Foreign Assets Control Sanctions List, or the World Bank listing of ineligible firms and individuals. I agree that I will not provide direct or indirect support to firms and individuals included in these lists.
I have not been, am not, and will not be involved or implicated in any violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, or injustice or abuse of human rights related to other groups or individuals, including forced evictions, violation of fundamental rights of workers as defined by the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, child labour, sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment.
______________________________________________________
How to apply
IUCN Procurement Portal