Consultancy for conducting Mid Term Evaluation “Building capacity for long term food security in Eastern Equatoria State” project

Terms of Reference
Consultancy for conducting Mid Term Evaluation “Building capacity for long term food security in Eastern Equatoria State” project
Contract No: DCI-FOOD/2010/234-284
1. Background
CARITAS Switzerland/Luxembourg has solicited funds from the EC to improve the food security and livelihood condition of the communities through the implementation of the project “Building Capacity for Long term Food Security in Eastern Equatoria”, which is implemented in consortium with Catholic Diocese of Torit and SNV. The focus of the action lies on long term development through local capacity building, reducing dependence on external assistance, and sustainability of established structures and achieved results. The project is implemented in five Payams (Lomuhidang North and South, Ikwotos, Losite, Katire) in Ikwotos County and in one Payam (Kimatong) in Budi County.
The overall objective of the project is to improve food and nutrition security in favour of the ‘poorest and most vulnerable’ by 'protecting, maintaining and recovering productive and social assets, improving food security and nutrition and strengthening and consolidating local and central institutions'.
The target beneficiaries are 10,000 households, while the final number of beneficiaries to benefit from the action is estimated to be 90,000. The project commenced on April 15, 2010 and initially had an inception phase of 3 months during which a base line survey was conducted the report of which was submitted to EC and circulated among the consortium members. The findings of the baseline survey were used to revise the project proposal and budget that was submitted in the final inception rider to EC.
Main activities being implemented included:
• Provision of planting materials and tools and training of farmers on improved cultivation techniques, and establishment of demonstration plots;
• Promotion of community based seed multiplication by building the capacity of Progressive seed Multipliers;
• Promotion of vegetable production using small-scale irrigation schemes and formation of horticultural production groups;
• Introduction of agro-forestry through establishing central tree nurseries and formation of tree planting groups, and woodlots;
• Training and support for apicultural production groups;
• Establishment of central fish ponds;
• Establishment of systems for rain water collection;
• Establishment of the AKIL training centre for Agriculture, Knowledge and Improved Livelihoods;
• Capacity building for community based cooperatives, extension workers, and strengthening the capacity of the extension services of the SMoAFA and SMoCRD;
• Promotion of community based nutrition education and growth monitoring activities;

Anticipated results are:
• Farmers are successful in diversifying agricultural production and benefit from new income sources;
• Local capacity for improved agricultural production is enhanced through knowledge development, skills training, and technology transfer;
• The nutritional and health status of the most vulnerable population groups is improved through the adoption of better nutrition, hygiene and sanitation practices;

The ToR is designed to support the consultant to conduct an independent mid-term evaluation for the action including project performance vis project document outcomes, institutional arrangements, financing (disbursements and co-financing), impacts and opportunities for learning and mid-term course corrections to improve upon expected project delivery of its products and services.

2. Objective of the consultancy
The objective of the midterm evaluation is to objectively assess the project’s progress in delivery of project outcomes and based on this assessment, to take decisions on the future orientation and emphasis of the project during its remaining time.

3. Duration of the consultancy
The consultancy work including the survey work and preparation of report is expected to happen in 17th of October 2011 – 7th November 2011, a total of 20 days allocated for all the survey work out of which 12 days are field days.

4. Statement of work
A work plan will be prepared by the Consultant to direct the survey work for the midterm evaluation. The work plan will describe how the evaluation is to be carried out and will contain information on expectations of the consultancy, work schedule, assessment methodology, roles and responsibilities and information collection.

5. Expected outputs of the consultancy
The main expected output is a comprehensive mid-term project evaluation report produced in English, including relevant annexes with detailed data.
 A consultancy work plan is to be submitted within three (3) days of signing the contract. Two copies are to be submitted – one in hard copy format and one in softcopy format.
 The draft report is expected five (5) days after the field work and findings presented to the stakeholders.
 The final report is expected three (3) days after the presentation to the stakeholders, which will be presented in soft copy (CD format) and two (bound) hard copies.

The Final Report should be written in accordance to European Commission guidelines for presenting evaluation reports.

6. The terms of reference for the consultancy
The mid- term evaluation will, using the methodology described below, and bearing in mind the following points, review the status of each project outcome:

6.1. Relevance & quality of design
- Did the project proposal conform to the goals of the EC programme?
- Upon what documentation was this project based?
- Was the design appropriate for the geographic area?
- Was the intervention logic coherent and accurate?
- Were any lessons learned from previous pilot projects in the area?
- Were the indicators of progress and of impact in the design of good quality?
- How was the quality of the outputs going to be determined?
- Were the outputs achievable or overly ambitious?
- Were risks properly assessed?

6.2. Efficiency of implementation
- Did the project start on time?
- Were all key staff in post within 6 months of start up? And maintained through project life?
- Were all inputs delivered on time?
- Were inputs of acceptable quality?
- Was the methodology of implementation the right one under the circumstances?
- Did the NGO/agency get good cooperation from relevant local government authorities?
- What was local government’s assessment of this intervention?
- What was the local leaders’ assessment of this intervention?
- Did the NGO/agency get good cooperation from relevant local leaders?
- Was access to project areas acceptable?
- Were most of the outputs achieved to an acceptable standard?
- Was co-financing a success? Did other donors deliver on time?
- Did the community contribute in cash and in kind according to the proposal?
- Was the budget spent according to the proposed budget lines?
- Was the rate of spending acceptable?
- What was the alpha value of this project? (% of budget that actually reached the beneficiaries)
- To what extent did the NGO/agency take on board the recommendations from EC’S field visits and feedback on progress reports provided by the EC?
- What was the reason to enter into a partnership with two other organisations, the Catholic Diocese of Torit and SNV, for the implementation of the project as a consortium?

6.3. Effectiveness
- Did the activities listed in the proposal result in total achievement of the specific objectives and attainment of outputs?
- Were there any non-planned effects and were these good or bad?
- Was coordination with other development actors effective?
- Were the effects of the project felt equally across the project area or were some areas neglected?
- Were technical designs effective and appropriate for that environment? (e.g. choice of seed fair; how successful were the seed fairs? Were there obstacles in organizing them? Positive / negative aspects, lessons learned; what was the perception of the people? (buyers/sellers), did it give cause for conflict or something like that? Etc)
- How effective was the implementation as a consortium in terms of sharing of responsibilities at project management level and coordination for the implementation of project activities?
- Are the HR deployed by the different consortium members in adequacy with the project documents?

6.4. Impact to date
- To what extent have beneficiaries, including CBOs, benefited from the project activities and outputs under the project interventions? Has the project changed their lives in any meaningful way?
- To what extent have local government institutions benefited from the activities and outputs?
- To what extent have local leaders benefited from the activities and outputs?
- To what extent is the impact sustainable over the longer term?
- Has the project increased or decreased dependency on outside intervention?

6.5. Effect on alleviating poverty
- To what extent did the project alleviate poverty in the host population? (here one should note that probably returnees and host communities are supposed to be regarded as host population)
- Was there any attempt made to measure the extent of poverty at the start of the project and at the end?
- To what extent were gender issues addressed by the project? (it is important to consider having a lady of South Sudanese nationality in the survey team to look into gender issues)

6.6. Potential sustainability
- To what extent can the outputs be expected to be sustainable over the longer (5-10 years) term?
- What characteristics make the outputs sustainable or unsustainable?
- Do the local government authorities fully support the initiatives taken by the project?
- Do the local community leaders fully support the initiatives taken by the project?
- To what extent has the project strengthened the capacities of local government and local leadership structures?
- To what extent are the people themselves contributing to the sustainability of the initiatives?
- To what extent has the private sector become involved in the development of the area as a result of the project?
- Has a special effort been made to educate and train women to assume decision making roles? (preferably also mention in general if a certain gender approach has been used, if not or only limited, if any concrete recommendations can be given how to address this)
- Did the NGO/agency formulate a practical exit strategy and is it working?

6.7. Reporting
- Was monitoring and progress reporting adequate according to the EC requirements?

6.8. Observations on donor’s role and influence on project implementation
- Were communications with the Contracting Authority satisfactory in terms of promptness and content?
- Was technical / administrative support provided timely and adequately when requested?
- Were Grant Contract administrative procedures and actions timely taken care of and did these influence project implementation in any way?

6.9. Key observations, overall conclusions, actions recommended for future interventions by whom and in order of priority

Ms. Margaret Lagat
Administration Officer
Caritas Switzerland / Luxembourg, South Sudan - Torit
Email: MLagat@caritas.ch

Best regards,

Haddish Asghedom Desta
Project Manager - Food Security and Livelihoods
Caritas Switzerland / Luxembourg, South Sudan - Torit
Office cell: +249913114617
Private cell: +249955466562
Thuraya: +8821643341821
E-mail: hdesta@caritas.ch