1.0 Background and Context:
With substantial funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the Rockefeller Foundation (RF), the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is making significant investments in the generation and dissemination of new agricultural technologies for smallholder farmers. This is being done with the engagement of key stakeholders within the agricultural policy space (governments, donors, regional economic communities and ministries of agriculture, finance, trade, and land) to promote an enabling economic environment for a sustained African Green Revolution. Past attempts at a Green Revolution in Africa have failed due to lack of sustained support to interventions that ensure sustainable productivity increases. And this will require addressing soil fertility related problems that is a fundamental cause of the low and declining smallholder agricultural productivity, and the ancillary interventions related to improving access to inputs (and financing associated with it), extension, and remunerative markets. An enabling policy environment is therefore crucial to implementation of these interventions, and doing so at scale.
The Soil Health Program (SHP) is one of the four Programs of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which is an International Organization, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), Rockefeller Foundation, the British Department for international Development (DFiD), Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) among others.
1.1 Structure of the Soil Health Program:
Soil Health Program (SHP) aims at improving smallholder farmer productivity, through increasing access to locally appropriate soil nutrients and promoting integrated soil fertility management (ISFM). Essentially, the program has the following three key objectives:
(i) To create an efficient and economically sustainable supply of fertilizer to farmers in Africa.
(ii) To promote uptake of appropriate Integrated Soil Fertility Management technology (ISFM) packages for up to 4.1million African smallholder farmers. Out of whom, at least 2 million farmers are expected to have adopted.
(iii) To create an enabling policy environment upon which other organizations can build and engage In a bid to translate the above objectives into implementable actions, three sub-programs were established, and they constitute major strategic levers of the SHP. They include:
1.1.1 Research and Extension - This sub-program aims at:
(a) Extending ISFM technology packages to 4.1 million farm households by 2014. It seek to facilitate the adoption of improved ISFM technology packages that promote the use of both inorganic and organic fertilizer and conservation agriculture agronomic practices; and b) Providing support to African soil scientists to test various ISFM technology options to identify and promote those that enhance smallholder farmer productivity.
1.1.2 Fertilizer Supply-This sub-program aims at:
(a) Catalyzing local production of fertilizer through support to local companies that are providing appropriate blends using local phosphate rocks. Investments have been made to support identified countries to develop and implement fertilizer quality control systems;
(b) Extending support to the establishment and training of agro-dealers in AGRA-focused countries, and (c) Creating a network of 6,500 trained agro-dealers to distribute 187,000 tons of appropriate inorganic fertilizer by 2014. The initiative is expected to bring about a 15% reduction in gap between farm gate and market prices.
1.1.3 Training and Education- This sub-program aims at:
(a) Supporting the training of African Scientists at PhD and MSc level in 10 African Universities,
(b) Maintaining a supply of soil scientists to provide research and extension support to farmers,
(c) Training soil lab-technicians and staff to improve the quality of lab management and outputs, and,
(d) Training is also provided to extension staff that work directly with farmers. The sub program plans to train 50 PhDs, 120 MSc and 200 lab technicians by 2014.
The Soil Health Program has made substantial investment over the last 3 years through the above mentioned sub-programs across the 13 countries where AGRA currently has investments. The bulk of the investment (about 44%) has gone to research and extension sub program. In 2011, the program undertook a ‘Strategy Refresh’ in view of the changing terrain and program strategy focus. The exercise led to the development of the Medium Term Plan (MTP) for 2011-2014 and a corresponding budget. The exercise also crystalized the key deliverable of the program into key milestones which are regularly reported upon.
In view of the above, AGRA would like to hire the services of a consulting firm to undertake a Mid-Term Review. This will help to determine progress so far, key challenges, and areas for correcting so as to improve program delivery and impacts.
2.0 Objective of the review The overall objective of the Mid-Term Review (MTR) is to make an independent assessment of the progress attained to-date in relation to expected early outcomes, highlighting what works well, and what can be improved to enhance the likelihood of achieving the program objectives. The review shall also identify any changes in the program implementation environment that may have occurred and establish whether the assumptions at the program inception still hold true.
2.1 Specific Objectives 2.1.1 To assess SHP progress to-date in terms of achieving key milestones, outputs and early outcomes 2.1.2 Identify lessons learned, areas to strengthen, modify and refocus to enhance the program’s functionality 2.1.3 Assess the relevance and quality of grants awarded towards achieving overall program objectives 2.1.4 Assess the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement by the SHP
3.0 Scope:
The mid-term review shall evaluate the program performance from its commencement in mid-2008 to date in all countries that the program operates. Based on a Business Plan developed in 2009 (which form a reference point) and the Medium Term Plan (2011-2014), the program currently has about 80 funded grants. A representative sample of these grants within the four SHP thematic sub-programs will be selected for the review. The review will also engage the program’s stakeholders (including, but not limited to donors, research organizations, AGRA Board, AGRA Management, Government officials) through key informant interviews. The review will be guided by a set of key questions that help determine whether or not the program is on course towards achieving its stated objectives. Specifically, the MTR will seek to obtain answers to the following set of evaluation questions:
3.1 Relevance:
3.1.1 Overall, are the program goals and objectives clear, well formulated and understood by staff and program stakeholders?
3.1.2 Are the program goals and objectives clearly aligned and fit well with the overall goals of AGRA?
3.1.3 Are the available resources (financial and human) sufficient to enable the program in achieving its set targets?
3.1.4 Are there any changes required to ensure alignment with current program priorities as well as the AGRA priorities?
3.1.5 Is the country and geographic coverage of the program appropriate? Would it be more appropriate to focus on fewer countries? Where are the greatest opportunities to demonstrate early sustainable results?
3.2 Program design and delivery 3.2.1 Is the delivery of program activities and targets on schedule?
3.2.2 How efficient is the program grant-making process and the quality of grants awarded?
3.2.3 What are the closely connected AGRA programs and how is duplication avoided and complementarity achieved?
3.2.4 Are there established procedures for communicating program achievements to stakeholders (management, donors, beneficiaries etc.)?
3.2.5 Any challenges the program may be encountering that may affect the timely delivery of its targets?
3.2.6 What areas would benefit from internal program capacity development initiatives?
3.3 Success and effectiveness 3.3.1 Are the program activities and key milestones clearly specified, and plausibly linked to outcomes?
3.3.2 How effective has the program promoted scaling up models such as “Going Beyond Demos” which aims at linking farmers to input financing mechanisms and output markets, agro-dealership, country level consortia, gender mainstreaming, etc) been to enabling the program achieve its targets to-date? To what extent is this initiative integrated in other AGRA programs?
4.0 Methodology
The review shall entail a mixture of methods, both qualitative and quantitative for data collection and analysis. The consultants will review key program documents, and reports from grantees, program officers and other partners. Such documents shall include but not limited to the background program documents, grant proposals, progress reports, consultancy reports, and other documents related to the program. Besides review of relevant literature related to the assignment, the consultants shall also undertake field data collection using structured interviews with key informants, as well as administer questionnaires to a representative sample size of farmers, agro-dealers, and other relevant stakeholders to enrich the program review with quantitative information. The actual survey design and methodology to be undertaken shall be discussed with AGRA and approved before the inception of the review.
4.1 Frame and Population of Interest The consulting firm will be expected to construct a sampling frame by listing all the program’s grantees across the main 13 countries where AGRA operates. The consulting firm shall be expected to submit the sampling frame to AGRA’s M&E Unit and also the program’s Director for clearance. List of program’s grantees can be obtained from the program Coordinator or the AGRA Grants Unit.
4.2 Sampling Method A multi-stage probability sampling design with stratification by size of grant (number of target beneficiaries and total amount), country and type of sub-program, and cropping system is recommended. The overall sample size calculation and sample selection should follow acceptable statistical procedures to achieve the objectives of the survey and should take into consideration the classification of grantees by the SHP program components.
The sample must be representative, reflecting the true composition of all grantees benefiting from the program’s funds and should be adequate to ensure inferences that the population of interest can be statistically deduced.
5.0 Expected Deliverables The consultant (s) shall be expected to prepare and submit to the client a set of key reports in the course of undertaking this assignment. These reports shall be reviewed and accepted by the client before payment is approved. The following have been identified as key reports to be submitted:
5.1 An Inception Report This shall be prepared and submitted within two weeks after the signing of the contract. The consultant will prepare this after reviewing key technical documents and after discussion with the client. The inception report shall focus on: the understanding of the Terms of Reference and scope, the relevant methodology to be adopted, the evaluation design and key questions, and, the work-plan for the assignment. The inception report shall be reviewed by both the M&E and the program’s team within 5 days after submission, and shall have to be approved before proceeding to the next phase.
5.2 Progress brief While there is no formal progress report required during the assignment implementation, between inception and Draft report submission, the consultant (s) shall be expected to regularly (bi-weekly) share with the client, key emerging issues and trends to avoid surprises or misconceptions by either party.
5.3 Draft Report This shall be prepared and submitted to the client towards the end of the assignment. The draft report shall require feedback in form of comments, questions and inputs from the client. In addition, the consultant (s) may also be required to present the Draft Report to a wider AGRA audience for validation.
5.4 Final Report This shall be no more than 30 pages, and submitted to the client on, or before the expiry of the assignment contract. Any valid extension may be mutually agreed between the Consultant (s) and the Client, provided it carries no extra cost to the latter. The following will also be expected from the Consultant:
• A master copy of the final report suitable for reproduction, and four copies, in full-color and bound, as well as soft copies.
• Submission of the final report, after incorporating the comments/inputs on the presented draft report. The final report shall actionable recommendations • All data-sets (in SPSS/Stata) and questionnaires used during the review shall be a property of the AGRA, and shall be the responsibility of the consultant to carefully deliver them to AGRA.
6.0 Reporting arrangements During the course of the review, the consultant shall be required to report regularly on the assignment progress. The Consultant shall report directly to the Director, M&E Unit, who may designate a contact M&E Program Officer to coordinate the activity on day-to-day basis. The Consultant (s) shall also work closely with the SHP staff.
7.0 Time-frame:
The review is expected to be completed within a 90-day (three months) period.
8.0 In-house Resources The Consultants (s) shall be provided access to documents, databases, financial records, contacts for grantees, program staff, introduction letters and other program related files upon signing the contract, and thereafter, as need arises.
9.0 Budget and Proposed Payment Schedule:
The consultant (s) shall be required to submit a budget breakdown, in form of a financial proposal. The budget presented should include professional fees, travel and subsistence, reproduction charges, courier costs (if applicable) and unit costs should be calculated as a per day tariff (e.g. fees).
9.1 Payments will be made as per the following schedule:
• 40% of total payment upon submitting an acceptable Inception Report • 20% of total payment upon submission of an acceptable Draft Report • 40% of total payment upon submission of an acceptable Final report (as specified in this TOR)
10.0 Criteria for selection of Consultants AGRA seeks to hire the services of individual consultants, who shall be selected on the basis of their proven professional experience, qualifications and ability to deliver a quality product in a timely and efficient manner. A team of experts in the four thematic sub-program components of the Soil health Program shall be pooled to undertake the assignment. Particular qualifications and professional experience of the required team of consultants shall include:
• ISFM Research and Extension - A PhD or its equivalent in any of the following fields: agronomy, soil science, extension and scale-up approaches;
• Training - A PhD or its equivalent in any of the following fields: post-graduate training, preferably at Masters or PhD level in any of these fields: agronomy, soil science, extension and scale-up approaches;
• Fertilizer Business – A Post-graduate training in Economics, agri-business, agricultural economics, and substantial experience in fertilizer business, agro-dealer business, farmers’ financing mechanisms, value-chain approaches etc.
Additional requirements include:
• Experience of at least 10 years in conducting Program/Project evaluations, particularly in the area of agricultural programming, project cycle management, value-chain and development, agro-dealer development, farmer cooperatives and produce marketing.
• At least a 10-year experience in planning and conducting both qualitative and quantitative research (conducting survey fieldwork, data collection, validation, entry and analysis)
• Recent experience (last 5 years) with result-based management evaluation methodologies;
• Experience in leading teams in field (training, field logistics, human relations, teamwork)
• Demonstrated ability and experience in working with communities and the capacity to undertake the study in a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa;
• Excellent writing skills, with publication record in one discipline related to assignment • Demonstrated analytical skills;
• Past related experience in sub-Saharan Africa; and • Excellent English communication skills.
11.0 Proposal The proposal should include:
• A detailed elaboration of issues to be addressed/covered;
• A description of the review plan including how the consultant will practically apply the proposed methodology, sampling, study design; major stages and milestones for the review and a timetable of activities.
• Detailed budget (including consultant’s fees, reimbursable expenses, field visits and questionnaire administration etc.)
• Description of the pay schedule for the review • Past performance summaries (at least three brief descriptions of past or current similar assignments – preferable within the past 10 years, contracts of similar in size, scope and complexity to this tender) and list of references that demonstrate performance in conducting similar evaluations • At least one previous report (in subject matter relevant to this assignment) and list of previous reports • CVs conforming to the qualifications listed above.
• Supporting documents including mandatory institutional documents such as incorporation papers and most recent financial statements (where applicable)
• At least 3 references from recent clients in the past 3 years.
12.0 To apply:
The proposals should be submitted by email to mande@agra.org by 29th June 2012
No comments: