Consultancy: Mid-term Review of the GEF7 Sustainable Forest Management Project
Role Summary
Engage in a mid-term review consultancy for the GEF7 Sustainable Forest Management Project in Kenya, focused on improving biodiversity and climate resilience.
About the Organisation
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
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](http://www.iucn.org)
- *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
Key Responsibilities
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](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.
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 3.1 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.
- 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
Minimum Requirements
The team, collectively, should demonstrate the following. Points indicate the weighting applied when scoring the technical proposal (total: 100 points).
Evaluation team composition - 20%
Experience relevant to the terms of reference - 15%
Independence - 5%
Understanding of the terms of reference - 20%
Evaluation methodology - 25%
Appropriate approach to sampling of both quantitative and qualitative data
Evaluation work plan - 15%
- Proposed team structure: Lead Consultant (International), National / Local Expert (Kenya)
- CVs of all team members proposed attached to Technical Proposal.
- 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
- 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 evaluation ToR, in particular the purpose
- Clear understanding of the project design, objectives, context, and constraints.
- Consultant should propose a sound and robust mixed methodology for the evaluation
- Methodology should demonstrate appropriateness, quality, and clarity.
- Clear evaluation matrix
- A robust and sound data analysis plan
- A robust Data quality management 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.
Working Conditions
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 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.
- 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.
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility details are not clearly specified in the listing.
⚠️ Disclaimer: PathwayAI Africa does not guarantee employment, scholarships, visas, or admission. Always verify all opportunities through official sources before submitting personal information.
Check if You Qualify
Upload your CV to compare it against this specific opportunity. You can still apply even if improvements are recommended.