Mid-term Review of The Unep Project “strengthening Institutional Capacity for Environmentally Sound Management of Chemicals in Brazil” Project Id: 515.2”

Result of Service
- In line with the UNEP Evaluation Policy and the UNEP Programme and Project Management Manual, the Mid-Term Review (MTR) is undertaken approximately half-way through project implementation to analyse whether the project is on-track, what problems or challenges the project is encountering, and what corrective actions are required. Key Review Principles: Mid-Term review findings and judgements will be based on sound evidence and analysis, clearly documented in the Review Report. Information will be triangulated (i.e. verified from different sources) as far as possible, and when verification is not possible, the single source will be mentioned (whilst anonymity is still protected). Analysis leading to evaluative judgements should always be clearly spelled out. Possible questions to be considered include, (MTR Review Framework Questions available from UNEP Project Manager): - Does the TOC properly reflect the project’s intended change process? - Is the stakeholder analysis still appropriate and adequate to support the project’s ambitions? - Are results statements in keeping with UNEP definitions (e.g. outcomes are expressed as the uptake or use of outputs) - Are roles and responsibilities commonly understood and playing out effectively? - Is there an effective monitoring mechanism for the project’s implementation (this is separate from, and supports, reporting)? - Is the rate of expenditure appropriate for the midpoint? - Have plans for inclusivity, equality and/or equity been implemented as planned, or does more need to be done? - Are safeguard identification and mitigation plans being monitored and steps taken to minimize negative effects? - Is there an exit strategy in place and are the elements needed for the project’s benefits to be sustained after the project end being incorporated in the project implementation? - (Where relevant) Have recommendations from previous learning exercises/performance assessments been appropriately addressed A Mid-Term Review is a formative assessment, which requires that the consultant(s) go beyond the assessment of “what” the project performance is and make a serious effort to provide a deeper understanding of “why” the performance is as it is. Attribution, Contribution and Credible Association: In order to attribute any outcomes and impacts to a project intervention, one needs to consider the difference between what has happened with, and what would have happened without, the project (i.e. take account of changes over time and between contexts in order to isolate the effects of an intervention). This requires appropriate baseline data and the identification of a relevant counterfactual, both of which are frequently not available for reviews. Establishing the contribution made by a project in a complex change process relies heavily on prior intentionality (e.g. approved project design documentation, logical framework) and the articulation of causality (e.g. narrative and/or illustration of the Theory of Change). Robust evidence that a project was delivered as designed and that the expected causal pathways developed supports claims of contribution and this is strengthened where an alternative theory of change can be excluded. A credible association between the implementation of a project and observed positive effects can be made where a strong causal narrative, although not explicitly articulated, can be inferred by the chronological sequence of events, active involvement of key actors and engagement in critical processes. Partners and Key Project Stakeholders. A key aim of the Mid-Term Review is to encourage reflection and learning by UNEP staff, the implementing partners and key project stakeholders The Review Consultant should consider how reflection and learning can be promoted, both through the review process and in the communication of review findings and key lessons. The Review Consultant will work under the overall supervision of UNEP Brazil Office Representative. The consultant will liaise with the Project Analyst on any procedural and methodological matters related to the Review. It is, however, the consultant’s individual responsibility (where applicable) to arrange for their travel, visa, obtain documentary evidence, plan meetings with stakeholders (with assistance from the Partners), organize online surveys, and any other logístical matters related to the assignment. The Project Analyst and project team will, where possible, provide logístical guidance (introductions, meetings etc.) allowing the Review Consultants to conduct the review as efficiently and independently as possible. REVIEW APPROACH, METHODS AND DELIVERABLES The Mid-Term Review will use a participatory approach whereby key stakeholders are kept informed and consulted throughout the review process. Both quantitative and qualitative review methods will be used as appropriate to determine project achievements against the expected outputs, outcomes and impacts. It is highly recommended