Proposal Submission: End of Project Review and Exit

Strategy Development on the Bestari Project - Conserving

Priority Habitats in the Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park
Project title : Conserving priority habitats in the Bukit
Barisan Selatan
National Park (BBSNP), Sumatra
(“Bestari”)
Project locations : Tanggamus, Lampung Barat and Pesisir Barat
- Lampung
Implementing organization : Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and
Yayasan Badak Indonesia (YABI)
Project duration : 10/10/2017 – 31/12/2024
Period to be evaluated : 10/10/2017 – 31/10/2023
Potential Sites to Visit : Lampung: Kota Agung (Tanggamaus), Krui
(Pesisir Barat),
Liwa (Lampung Barat), and villages in the
vicinity of BBSNP

I. BACKGROUND

The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has a distinguished history in the

field of wildlife exploration and conservation in some of the most remote and
wild places on Earth. The Wildlife Conservation Society Indonesia Program
(WCS-IP) has experienced significant growth over the past few decades and
has made substantial contributions to achieving the goals of conserving highly
endangered tropical rainforests in the Southern Bukit Barisan National Park
(TNBBS). This park is prioritized as a habitat for endangered species and as a
carbon sink through innovative land management concepts and sustainable
land use practices, carried out in collaboration with local communities and
national park authorities.
This project concerns the conservation of the ‘Intensive Protection Zone’
(IPZ), a high value area about 100,000 ha in the center of Bukit Barisan
Selatan National Park (BBSNP), located in Lampung province, Sumatra. The
Project aims to achieve outcome ‘Conservation of highly threatened Tropical
Rainforest in the BBSNP as priority habitat for critically endangered species
and carbon sink through innovative management concepts and sustainable
land use management in cooperation with local communities and the national
park authority.’

The Bukit Barisan Selatan is one of three national parks which were inscribed
on the UNESCO list of world heritage sites as the ‘Tropical Rainforest
Heritage of Sumatra’ in 2004. In 2011 the site was added to the list of ‘world
heritage sites in danger’, as a result of concerns about encroachment, road
building, illegal logging, poaching, and poor governance. The project will
complement and support several elements of the required actions for the
removal of the site from the in-danger list, for BBS, and so contribute to
reducing pressure on Government of Indonesia (GoI) for action on these
issues. The project also addresses objectives and activities under the National
Strategy and Action Plans for Sumatran Tiger, Rhino, and Asian Elephant and
human-wildlife conflict, as well as Indonesian commitments under the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

Currently, WCS - IP is seeking consultants, whether individuals, groups, or

institutions, to collaborate in undertaking The End of Project Review (EPR).
This EPR aims to evaluate the final progress of the project in relation to its
intended outcomes, a comparison of measures actually implemented in
physical and financial terms (on a “planned vs. actual” basis) while also
identifying any issues and providing technical recommendations for the
project's phasing out as well as for subsequent operation after the project´s
completion to improve its potential of sustainability. Additionally, since the
project has undergone structural and design modifications, the review will
serve as a foundation for developing the Post Project Scaling Up and Hand
Over (Exit Strategy), including plan that incorporate key strategies, time
frame, and financial back-up. reviewing the project's impact, effectiveness,
efficiency, relevance, sustainability, and adaptive capacity.

With funding support from the German Federal Ministry for the Environment,
Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (BMU), in partnership with the KfW
Entwicklungsbank, WCS - IP will facilitate the execution of the EPR for the
selected proposals/consultants.

The purpose of the review is twofold:

1. Learning
The EPR will focus on assessing reasons why certain results have not been
achieved and understanding any underlying problems. Results of the
consultation is expected to provide recommendation for improvement actions
at the final year, including prioritization of existing project activities and
developing specific activities aimed to accelerate Project achievement and
leveraging impacts, as well as adjustment on project budgets to better achieve
the objectives. The review should draw key lessons learned and best
practices to contribute for improvement in scaling up the project
implementation as well as for similar conservation projects regarding
integrative conservation approaches in the protected areas.
2. Accountability
The result of the end of project review will be reported to KfW by WCS to
enhance accountability, credibility and transparency of the project – with
particular regard to enabling KfW to comprehensively fulfil its mandate in
terms of fiduciary responsibility vis-à-vis the German Gvt.
 The external end of project review will cover the duration of the project from its
starting date in October 2017 to the estimated near-end project in December
2023 (12 Semesters). The result of the End Project Review will be reported to
KFW / IKI / BMU by February 2024. Audiences for the evaluation are Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS), Yayasan Badak Indonesia (YABI), and KFW/ IKI
/ BMU.

II. TASK AND RESPONSIBILITY

The main tasks of the EPR Mission include but are not limited to the following
aspects,

 Develop, in close cooperation with Project Partners, a detailed work schedule at

the beginning of the assignment, including field visits to project sites. The work plan
shall include meetings with concerned stakeholders.

 Analyse adequacy of project management (organizational structure from

national to village level, staffing situation), financial management and reporting.

 Analyse the adequacy of the overall project design. Recommend improvement

changes or incorporate additional measures and activities, if required, including
modifications of scope and time frame. In this context, also assess validity of risks
and covenants as stipulated in the Financing and Separate Agreement (ref also to log
frame).

 Assess the conceptual and community-implemented approach under the Project

outputs.

 Assess local acceptance of the activities, processes, regulations and outcomes.

 Assess the process of ascertaining the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
of participating communities to a) the project, b) project livelihood support measures.

 Assess social inclusion in the decision-making processes in participating

communities, with a focus on gender equality and the involvement of marginalized
community groups.
 Assess the adequacy and sustainability of provided livelihood
support/restoration measures to serve actual community needs and provide alternative
income sources that would enable communities in optimizing local economic
capacity more sustainably.

 Assess the functioning of the Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) at WCS

and community-levels against the requirements stipulated in the project safeguard
instruments.

 Assess the improvement of government’s (including national park and forest

management unit authorities) and local communities’ capacity.

 Assess the political and financial commitment of participating provinces and

districts towards achieving the main Project goal.

 Assess the overall and detail progress under project procurement and highlight
remaining challenges/shortcomings.

 Compare project measures actually implemented (including pertaining

budgetary allocations/ expenditures) with the schedule of measures and budgets as
agreed in the Separate Agreement and analyse reasons for adjustments/
modifications, if and as applicable.

 Complete inventory list of procured items in use by time and location (so far
necessary).

 Review the capacity building measures implemented by the Project and assess
their appropriateness and suitability for achieving the Project objectives; this may be
complemented by evaluating skills and qualifications of the assigned staff. Prepare an
adjusted budget for capacity building and training, if necessary.

 Assess the financial mechanisms regarding their suitability to (i) ensure

transparent fund transfer and Project monitoring on fund expenditure and (ii) their
suitability under public financing schemes such as the ongoing national village funds
program (dana desa/BPM).

 Evaluate the appropriateness of the monitoring and reporting system.

 Assess remaining Project duration. Provide recommendations for acceleration
plans, optimizing budget revisions and adequate usage of the available contingency
funds.

 The Report shall be based on assessment of project implementation progress

and reimbursement mechanism against the remaining project duration.

Wherever considered necessary and appropriate, the mission is expected to

formulate clear, practical recommendations on how to best mitigate/ overcome
identified shortfalls and constraints (if and as applicable).

III. REQUIREMENTS
Applicant Qualification:

1. An Individual or a group of individuals with at least 7 years’ experience in

conducting project monitoring and evaluation.

2. Verifiable and proven knowledge of international project management

structures, capacity building and institutional development.

3. Successfully finalized evaluations and monitoring track records.

4. Relevant experiences in biodiversity conservation and civil society contexts.

5. Having adequate experience in facilitation and interviewing skills and survey

design.

6. Fluent in spoken and written English and Bahasa Indonesia.

Proposal Qualification:

Tender responses / proposal should be submitted in two separate documents:

1) Technical Proposal, and 2) Financial proposal.

1. Technical Proposal: This should outline the proposed scope of work, including
a thorough explanation of the quantitative and qualitative methodology to be
 employed, a detailed time schedule, and a description of the profile and demonstrated
expertise.

2. Financial Proposal: This document should provide an estimate of fees

(including disbursement costs) and should be submitted separately from the technical
proposal.

The applicants are asked to elaborate in detail on the evaluation methodology,

including both quantitative and qualitative analysis, which he/ she intends to
follow and provide a detailed time schedule of the evaluation.

Evaluation Criteria and Guiding Questions

Criterion 1: Relevance and quality of design

The assessment of relevance and quality of project design focuses on

evaluating the extent to which the project aligns with the necessary, sufficient,
and appropriate approach in addressing key factors such as direct and
indirect threats, opportunities, stakeholder positions, and enabling conditions
that are crucial for supporting conservation efforts in the park. The review may
encompass various topics, including but not limited to, the following areas of
evaluation:

- Are the project design, structure, and approach relevant in addressing the
identified needs, issues and challenges?

 Does the implementation of SMART patrol relevant in effectively protecting

the national park?

 Does the implementation of capacity building activities relevant in improving

effectiveness of national park management?

 Does the implementation of developing capacity of local communities are

effectively in mitigating human – wildlife conflicts?
 Does the livelihood interventions are effective in reducing deforestation and
other illegal activities in landscape?

 Is the capacity building program sufficient in enhancing the practical skills of

the national park staff and community members in biodiversity conservation and
climate change mitigation?

 Is the project adequately supports the establishment of long term resource

mobilization toward the conservation and sustainable development in the area?

- How to best shift the resources that will not be implemented due to the
changes in the key contextual factor to improve the project output?
- Reflecting on the current project design, since the project structure has
changed, what recommendation can be provided in terms of capacity of
team/partners and structure for Scaling up the Project?

Criterion 2: Efficiency

Efficiency is a measure of the relationship between outputs (i.e. the products

or services of an intervention) and inputs (i.e. the resources that it uses), and
may include a measure of ‘value for money’. The evaluation should, however,
not dwell too much on this value for money concept, and rather consider use
of time and human resources within this criterion. The review may encompass
various topics, including but not limited to, the following areas of evaluation:

- Is the project delivering value for money in that costs are reasonable given
the outputs and outcomes generated?

 E.g. does the current and planned investment (both in terms of financial and
human resources) for livelihood support in 10 villages reasonable given the outputs
and outcomes generated?
 - Are the available technical and financial resources adequate to achieve the
project´s intended results?

 E.g. Are the resources adequate for protecting the whole 10,000 hectares of
protected area of IPZ ? How to achieve the best impact with limited resources?

- Are human resources appropriate, adequate, efficiently organized and

operating effectively (e.g. include considerations of capacity needs and gaps,
communications, division and clarity of roles and responsibilities, processes
for evaluation and improvement)?

 E.g. Is the design of project structure especially with Project Coordination Unit
and the distribution of implementing staff distributed between NGOs with its roles
and responsibilities relevant in efficiently manage the project?

- Stakeholder Engagement / ESSF progress.

 Are the stakeholder engagement processes inclusive, gender-sensitive and

accessible for all community members? o Have stakeholders been engaged at the
right level for each of them throughout the project cycle? o Is there an effective
complaint mechanism in place (usage of entry points, follow-up process,
documentation, etc.)? o What is the general progress in rolling out the ESSF-
Framework in the project area?

Criterion 3: Effectiveness

Effectiveness is a measure of the extent to which the intervention’s intended

outcomes – its specific objectives or immediate results – have been achieved.
The review may encompass various topics, including but not limited to, the
following areas of evaluation:

 Conduct comprehensive analysis of project results and achievements, assessing

both quantitative and qualitative aspects against the planned targets
 Focusing on stated objectives, desired outcomes, and intermediate results (as
opposed to delivery of activities and outputs), what has and has not been achieved
(both intended and unintended)? In particular, focus more on the results that has not
been achieved and understanding the underlying challenges and critical factors.

 Do the partner organizations work together effectively? Is the partnership

structure effective in achieving the desired outputs? How can it be improved?

 To what extent has coordination/communication been effective within and

between the implementation team, stakeholders, partners, donor and participants?
What factors have hindered good communication and coordination?

 What lessons can be taken and applied to improve effectiveness in the coming
years?
- In particular, what lessons learned and best practice in aligning protection of natural
resources (through smart patrol, Integrated Prevention Model) with community
development activities and partnership engagement that can be derived?

Criterion 4: Sustainability

Sustainability is a measure of whether the benefits of a conservation

intervention are likely to continue after external support has ended. The
review may encompass various topics, including but not limited to, the
following areas of evaluation:

 Is the approach used likely to ensure a continued benefit after the end of the
project?

1. Is the SMART patrol will likely be implemented effectively after the project
ends?

2. Will the focal villages continue to develop the Village Annual Plan based on
the Sustainable Livelihood Approach and Village Conservation Agreements?

3. Will the farmer groups (nursery and forest farmer groups) and Village Saving
and Loan Association developed and facilitated in the 10 focal villages continue to
develop and achieve its goal?
 Are alternative or additional measures (i.e. capacity building, institutional
framework, awareness raising, participation of vulnerable groups etc.) needed and, if
so, what is required to ensure continued sustainability and positive impact?

 Which measures are possibly required in addition – and by whom and when –
to enhance/ improve on the long-term sustainability of the project´s interventions? =>
Exit Strategy

Criterion 5: Adaptive capacity

Adaptive capacity is a measure of the extent to which the project or

programme regularly assesses and adapts its work, and thereby ensures
continued relevance in changing contexts, strong performance, and learning.
The review may encompass various topics, including but not limited to, the
following areas of evaluation:

 Identify any exceptional experiences that should be highlighted regarding what

worked and didn’t work (e.g. case-studies, stories, good practices)?

 Does the project have an ongoing risk management and monitoring system in
place, in order to be able to adapt to changing context? Which improvements can be
made?

Methodology Considerations
The defined criteria for the project evaluation will be assessed through a mix
of methods:

 Desk research. Prior the evaluation workshop relevant documents should be

prepared and consulted by the project team (Project Coordination Unit and M&E
team):

1. Project Progress Reports (form 1st up to the 12th Technical Project Report)

2. Project proposal (situation analysis, etc.)

3. Project financial budgets & work plans since initiation of the project (with
particular regard to adjustments/ modification over time – if and as applicable)

4. Risk Register

5. Comparison of risks identified at project appraisal with risks actually

encountered (including possible unforeseen ones)

6. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

7. Environmental and Social Management Framework/Plan (ESMF/ESMP)

8. Other project reports & reviews (program portfolio review)

 Survey, observation and site visit. Site visit will be conducted to selected
locations for reviewing project progresses, physical verification of measures
implemented on site (notably equipment and infrastructure) and assessment of
suitability with regard to the project´s intended results.

 Interviews with project partners and selected stakeholders. The interview will
focus on project managers from each partner and selection of key stakeholders in the
current project context and where information is required in order to answer
important learning questions.

The applicants are asked to elaborate in detail on the evaluation methodology,

including both quantitative and qualitative analysis, which he/ she intends to
follow and provide a detailed time schedule of the evaluation.
IV. SELECTION TIMELINE
1. The selection process will occur within 10-30 days following the technical
proposal submission deadline.

2. WCS-IP will send email confirmations upon receiving the proposal

submissions.

3. Only shortlisted proposals will be contacted.

Kindly submit your tender responses or proposals to WCS by sending them

via email to ewanti@wcs.org , using the email subject "KFW-BBS EPR
proposal" no later than the 16th of October, 2023.