Project Mid-Term Review: Pro-Nature Enterprises for the People of Southern Africa Project

  • Anywhere
Organization: Conservation International
Closing date: 25 Sep 2023


About the Project

The Pro-Nature Enterprises for the People of Southern Africa is a six-year project (2020 – 2026), funded by Agence Française de Développement (AFD) and Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial (FFEM) implemented by Conservation International (CI) through local partners. The overall project objective is to conserve and restore at least one million hectares of important ecosystems in four critical Trans-Frontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs); Kruger – Limpopo TFCA, Kavango Zambezi TFCA, Lower Zambezi-Mana Pools TFCA and Drakensburg Mountains TFCA through incentive-based conservation models with livestock keeping and fishing communities.


An independent mid-term review will draw upon the findings from baseline studies, monitoring data, and additional qualitative and quantitative data. The review will address the progress of the project and provide recommendations on how the pro-nature enterprises project can improve its progress and impact.

The objective of this review will be to provide the project partners with an opportunity to reflect on project performance in terms of:

  1. What is working well,
  2. What is not working,
  3. Factors affecting the project implementation either positively & negatively,
  4. The changes needed to be made on strategies and approaches used in project implementation to accelerate delivery of results and impacts during the residual implementation time,
  5. Any other general recommendations on future project design and implementation.

Some potential questions to answer through the mid-term review will include:

  1. Are we on track to meet our targets? Are there any major ‘red flags’ at this stage that we need to tackle? Are we likely to meet the targets we set?
  2. Does our ‘intervention logic’ still hold true? i.e., Does the log-frame reflect reality? Is our theory of change “by doing these activities we will be able to achieve this” still valid? Does it need any changes?
  3. What parts of the project are working well? What strategies and approaches are working well?
  4. What are the main challenges we are facing? How can we seek to overcome them?
  5. Are there any aspects of the project that could be done more efficiently and effectively within the budget available (without compromising on the project’s quality and intended outcomes)?
  6. Have there been any changes in the context that we have been operating in since the beginning of the project? Have any of these changes affected (positively/negatively) the project? Are there any other contextual changes anticipated? (Think in terms of changes in government services, with other service providers or donors, and political, social, and economic changes).
  7. Do any systems, procedures, roles, responsibilities need to be clarified, reviewed, or re- communicated?
  8. What are the key recommendations from this review that, if implemented will improve future project implementation?

The review findings will make qualified statements on the question of what extent did the project achieve its intended objectives. Recommendations for future use of the findings/ learnings within the organization and beyond will further be determined in the review.


The Review will consider the DAC criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and to a limited extent impact as follows:

  1. Relevance: The extent to which the project is suited to the priorities of the landscapes and communities it is working with?
  2. Coherence: The compatibility of the project with other interventions in the landscape, country, and environmental conservation thematic space, as well how well is the project designed to contribute to the expected outputs.
  3. Efficiency: Should include a review of the efficiency and value for money of the delivery of the project activities (including all other project related resources)?
  4. Effectiveness: To what extent is the project achieving the intended outcomes, in the short, medium, and long term? Is the project governance in place to achieve the intended outcomes?
  5. Impact: Is the project to achieve its intended long-term environmental and social-economic changes in the target landscapes and communities?
  6. Sustainability: Are the project interventions and outputs likely to last beyond the project period?

In addition to the above questions, the mid-term review should provide clear and actionable recommendations on changes that need to be put in place to optimize project performance. The recommendations should also inform future design of similar projects.


The applicants are expected to clearly specify the methodology they propose for the mid-term review in their response to these Terms of Reference. Applicants are expected to propose a review design that is rigorous and uses internationally recognized methods. The methodology proposed should show how the chosen data collection and analysis techniques will lead to a credible set of conclusions and recommendations for the project. It is expected that the review will use a mixed methods approach including:

  • In depth case study analysis of interventions made.
  • Qualitative analysis based on field visits, interviews, focus groups, and reviews of document and sources.
  • Quantitative analysis using monitoring data and other available data.


The consultant will be required to deliver the following:

  1. Inception Report: The Inception Report should cover: the validated review questions and each question should be accompanied by explanatory comments, judgement criteria, quantitative and qualitative indicators, methodological approach to data collection and analysis. The report should also include a detailed work plan, the activities, roles, and responsibilities of each team member, and the deliverables.
  2. Progress meetings – organize regular progress update meetings with the project management team.
  3. Draft Report- to be shared with the project implementation team to provide comments and feedback. The report should be a maximum of 30 pages exclusive of annexes.
  4. Presentation of draft findings conclusions and recommendations to a meeting of the project management team.
  5. A PowerPoint presentation of the summary of findings and recommendations presented to the project steering committee and other stakeholders.
  6. A final report incorporating all feedback.
  7. A hard drive with Word and PDF versions of the report including annexes, power point presentation of findings and any data sets.

Please see the Terms of reference in the link here

How to apply


  • Deadline. Proposals must be received no later than September 25th, 2023, 12pm EST. Late submissions will not be accepted. Proposals must be submitted via email
  • Validity of bid. 120 days from the submission deadline
  • Clarifications. Questions may be submitted to by the specified date and time in the timeline in the RFP

Application details and timelines can be found in the link here


Weekly Opportunities .

Sign up to receive opportunities in your inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.