Terms of Reference for Mid-Term Review of Building Drought Resilience Project, Kenya and Uganda
1. Background
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) helps the world find pragmatic solutions to the most pressing environmental and development challenges. The institution’s work focuses on valuing and conserving nature, ensuring effective and equitable governance of its use, and deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges on climate, food and human development. IUCN supports scientific research, develops and disseminates conservation ‘knowledge products’, manages field projects demonstrating practical interventions all over the world, and brings governments, NGOs, CSOs, the UN and the private sector together to develop policy, laws and best practice. IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organisation, with more than 1,200 government and NGO members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 staff in 45 offices and hundreds of partners in the public, NGO and private sectors around the world.
IUCN’s Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office (ESARO) covers twenty four countries in the Horn of Africa, Eastern Africa, Southern Africa and the Western Indian Ocean and has thematic programmes (including Water and Wetlands, and Drylands) with projects in a number of these. One such intervention is a 3-year (2012-2014) Austrian Aid funded project entitled Building Drought Resilience through Land and Water Management in Kenya (Lower Tana sub-catchment) and Uganda (the Upper Aswa-Agago sub-catchment) . These sub-catchments are in arid (Kenya) and semi-arid (Uganda) areas. Communities living in arid and semi-arid areas of East Africa face multiple challenges including recurrent droughts that hinder development and livelihood strategies. Interventions that enhance resilience and adaptive capacity of both ecosystems and the communities reliant upon them are, thus, of paramount importance. The overall objective of the project is to improve resilience of dryland communities within a river catchment to the impacts of increasingly severe and frequent drought, through strengthened ecosystem management and adaptive capacity. The project was designed on the basis of the IUCN Resilience Framework and also to build on the existing (now previous) initiatives that have been implemented by IUCN and partners within the area(s). Resilience is defined as the ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organisation, and the capacity to adapt to stress and change. The essential quality of resilience is the capacity to withstand shocks and rebuild when necessary.
The project aims to achieve the following five key results:
• Result 1: Integrity and functioning of catchments improved through ecosystem-based actions that are gender sensitive and diversify livelihood assets;
• Result 2: Improved capacity of traditional and formal resource management institutions to sustainably manage natural resources within a catchment area;
• Result 3: Knowledge and skills of local communities to implement adaptation, innovation and change within institutions are mobilized and improved;
• Result 4: Greater coordination between multi-sectoral institutions improves harmonization of plans and interventions;
• Result 5: Awareness among policy makers on catchment management approaches are increased through learning based on project experiences.
In the Lower Tana River Basin in Kenya, the project is being implemented in partnership with Fafi Integrated Development Association (FaIDA) and the Water Resource Management Authority (WRMA). Other partners include the Government institutions and departments such as National Drought Management Authority, Water, Forest and Wildlife, Livestock, Agriculture, Irrigation, National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and County Governments of Garissa and Tana River. The project is focussing initially on 4 sub-catchments, namely: Khorweyne, Saka, Tula and Al-Amin Moju.
In the Upper Aswa- Agago sub- catchment in Uganda, the project is being implemented in partnership with the Directorate of Water Resources Management in the Ministry of Water and Environment, as well as the three District Local Governments (DLGs) that cover the sub-catchment, namely: Lira, Otuke and Alebtong. The geographical focus here is primarily on the upstream part of the sub-catchment, as catchment degradation here is likely to adversely impact on populations downstream.
2. Aim and Objectives of the Mid-term Review
The aim of the mid-term review is to assess the progress, performance, achievements and lessons learnt to date and to use these to ensure that the project is adjusted as and where necessary in order for it to have had maximum impact by the end of its lifespan.
The overall purpose of this review is threefold:
I. Learning and improvement as a building block for future work: It is intended that the outcomes of this mid-term review will provide useful and relevant information to the on-going work; explore why implemented actions and interventions have been successful, or not and to provide guidance on how to better implement new work, possibly as a new project, after the current phase of the project has been completed;
II. Accountability: The mid-term review is also an accountability instrument for the project. Consequently, it will be used to assess whether or not project plans have been, or will be, fulfilled and also determine the extent to which the project’s resources have been used in a responsible and effective manner.
III. Sustainability: The outcomes of the mid-term review should assist IUCN and her partners in assessing the sustainability (or otherwise) of the activities, approaches, and structures initiated or supported by the project, and crucially, should also provide recommendations for the future.
The specific objectives of the mid-term review are as follows:
1. Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of project implementation, including assessing the institutional arrangement, partnerships, risk management, M&E and project implementation;
2. Determine the extent to which the project and its associated actions are relevant to the existing and likely future needs of its stakeholders and the environment/s in which it is being implemented;
3. Evaluate the outputs, and any outcomes of the project already delivered, and determine and assess their contribution to delivery of the overall project’s overall aims and objectives;
4. Provide guidance on aspects or specific issues that will be useful in undertaking the planned project impact assessment through the use of scenario thinking to be done at the end of the project, i.e. how would the situation look like on the ground without this project;
5. Assess the long term sustainability of project interventions;
6. Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the project set-up in terms of i) institutional anchorage within IUCN and ii) geographical focus.
7. Identify key ‘lessons learnt’ to date, particularly with regard to strategic processes and the mechanisms chosen to achieve the project’s objectives to date, and;
8. Make clear, specific and implementable recommendations to improve the project in its last year and provide guidance on the scope of future work.
3. Scope of the mid-term review
Within this framework, specific issues (and questions) to be assessed will include, but not be limited to, the following:
Effectiveness
i. Are the activities implemented in accordance with the project plans? If not, why?
ii. What outputs have been achieved? To what extent do they contribute to the objectives?
iii. How effective are the approaches and structures in delivering the desired outputs? How can they be improved?
iv. Do the partner organisations work together effectively? Is the partnership structure and the geographical focus effective in achieving the desired outputs? How can the partnership be improved?
Efficiency
i. Are the available technical and financial resources adequate to fulfil the project plans?
ii. Are the funds being spent in accordance with project plans and using the right procedures?
iii. Have there been any unforeseen problems in terms of resources (technical and financial) allocation and utilization? How well were they dealt with?
iv. Are the capacities of the partners adequate?
v. What have been the roles of the partners and staff and are they appropriate?
vi. Is there an effective process, built into the management structure for self-monitoring and assessment, reporting and reflection? How could it be made better?
Relevance
i. Establish whether or not the design and approach of the project are relevant in addressing the identified needs, issues and challenges as far as building drought resilience is concerned in ASALs
ii. To what extent is the project contributing to the strategic policies and programmes of IUCN and that of the partners? How could relevance be improved in future?
Sustainability
i. Is the approach used likely to ensure a continued benefit after the end of the project?
ii. Are all key stakeholders sufficiently and effectively involved? Are their expectations met and are they satisfied with their level of participation?
iii. Are alternative or additional measures needed and, if so, what is required to ensure continued sustainability and positive impact?
Impact
i. Is the project bringing about desired changes in the behaviour of people and institutions?
ii. Have there been any unintended positive or negative impacts arising from particular outcomes/results?
iii. What could have been the likely situation (of the environment and its management) without the project?
4. Methodology
The consultant should propose a brief methodology to be used to carry out the review in their application, the methodology adopted should update the preliminary issues and questions outlined within the ToRs, specifying the specific review issues, questions, methods of data collection and analysis that will be undertaken. It should encompass a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods. It should also allow for wide consultation with all interested partners and stakeholders. It is suggested that the methodology should include, but not be limited to the following, but consultants must propose their own methodology and justify and explain that proposal:
a. A desktop review of all relevant documentation, including (but not limited to):
i. The project document, contracts and related agreements
ii. Work-plans and budgets
iii. Progress Technical and Financial Reports
b. Face-to-face interviews and discussions with all key stakeholders involved in the project to ensure that the review is carried out in a participatory manner. A list of key partners and stakeholders would be identified at an early stage and a consultation process developed. All stakeholders consulted should be in a position to present their views in confidence to the team and to identify issues, opportunities, constraints and options for the future
c. Electronic interviews through teleconference or written comments, e.g. email; where partners cannot be reached for face to face interviews
IUCN will assist with the organisation of meetings and discussions, and inform the relevant stakeholders of the review process and their role in it, well in advance.
5. Review Team Composition
The team will consist of two people, an international evaluation expert and an expert from the region (Kenya/Uganda) with natural resources management background as well as experience in climate change adaptation or resilience more so in the ASAL context. The two experts will have complementary skills covering programme design and implementation, programme/project review, natural resources management especially community participation, policy and institutional processes more so in natural resources management in ASAL. The international expert will be the team leader, with considerable prior experience in evaluation methodologies and principles.
The team leader will have the overall responsibility for the design and implementation of the evaluation, writing of the report, and timely submission of the draft and final version of the report. Detailed responsibilities of each team member shall be determined at the beginning of the mission and outlined in the methodology.
6. Reporting outputs
The Consultants will prepare and submit the following reports to IUCN:
a. An inception report outlining the proposed methodology and detailed responsibilities of each team member to be submitted prior to the onset of the assessment process.
b. A findings report, which should include the following:
i. An assessment of the performance of the project, based on the project document, contracts and agreements
ii. Identification of the main lessons learnt, and
iii. Identification of critical benchmark baselines for impacts assessment to be done at the end of the project through the use of scenario thinking
c. Recommendations and guidance on the future scope of work
7. Timing and Schedule
The consultant should develop and submit a detailed schedule for the review work, taking into account the following general guidance. The review is scheduled to take place in the month of January 2014 and should take a total of approximately 20 working days. The exact number of days must be proposed by the consultant, as must the distribution of days between the different tasks. It is suggested that the tasks may be broken down as follows, but consultants must consider this and propose their own timeline and schedule:
a. Review of background documentation and preparation of the methodology – 2 days
b. Discussion and agreement on proposed methodology with IUCN and project partners – 1 day
c. Assessment of project progress and performance – including field visits and interviews with project partners and key stakeholders – 9 days
d. Analysis of findings and production of draft report – 5 days
e. Debriefing - presentation and discussion of findings to IUCN and project partners - 1 day
f. Finalisation/revisions of the report and submission – 2 day
8. How to apply
Interested individuals/organisations are requested to submit their application clearly demonstrating their suitable skills and experience for the review process, including a brief methodology as well as the review timing and schedule. They should also submit their financial proposal indicating how much the review work will cost. Applications should be sent electronically (email) to hr@iucnesaro.org by latest November 22nd 2013. For any clarification on the assignment, please contact Eliot Taylor at eliot.taylor@iucn.org or John Owino at John.Owino@iucn.org.
1. Background
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) helps the world find pragmatic solutions to the most pressing environmental and development challenges. The institution’s work focuses on valuing and conserving nature, ensuring effective and equitable governance of its use, and deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges on climate, food and human development. IUCN supports scientific research, develops and disseminates conservation ‘knowledge products’, manages field projects demonstrating practical interventions all over the world, and brings governments, NGOs, CSOs, the UN and the private sector together to develop policy, laws and best practice. IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organisation, with more than 1,200 government and NGO members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 staff in 45 offices and hundreds of partners in the public, NGO and private sectors around the world.
IUCN’s Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office (ESARO) covers twenty four countries in the Horn of Africa, Eastern Africa, Southern Africa and the Western Indian Ocean and has thematic programmes (including Water and Wetlands, and Drylands) with projects in a number of these. One such intervention is a 3-year (2012-2014) Austrian Aid funded project entitled Building Drought Resilience through Land and Water Management in Kenya (Lower Tana sub-catchment) and Uganda (the Upper Aswa-Agago sub-catchment) . These sub-catchments are in arid (Kenya) and semi-arid (Uganda) areas. Communities living in arid and semi-arid areas of East Africa face multiple challenges including recurrent droughts that hinder development and livelihood strategies. Interventions that enhance resilience and adaptive capacity of both ecosystems and the communities reliant upon them are, thus, of paramount importance. The overall objective of the project is to improve resilience of dryland communities within a river catchment to the impacts of increasingly severe and frequent drought, through strengthened ecosystem management and adaptive capacity. The project was designed on the basis of the IUCN Resilience Framework and also to build on the existing (now previous) initiatives that have been implemented by IUCN and partners within the area(s). Resilience is defined as the ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organisation, and the capacity to adapt to stress and change. The essential quality of resilience is the capacity to withstand shocks and rebuild when necessary.
The project aims to achieve the following five key results:
• Result 1: Integrity and functioning of catchments improved through ecosystem-based actions that are gender sensitive and diversify livelihood assets;
• Result 2: Improved capacity of traditional and formal resource management institutions to sustainably manage natural resources within a catchment area;
• Result 3: Knowledge and skills of local communities to implement adaptation, innovation and change within institutions are mobilized and improved;
• Result 4: Greater coordination between multi-sectoral institutions improves harmonization of plans and interventions;
• Result 5: Awareness among policy makers on catchment management approaches are increased through learning based on project experiences.
In the Lower Tana River Basin in Kenya, the project is being implemented in partnership with Fafi Integrated Development Association (FaIDA) and the Water Resource Management Authority (WRMA). Other partners include the Government institutions and departments such as National Drought Management Authority, Water, Forest and Wildlife, Livestock, Agriculture, Irrigation, National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and County Governments of Garissa and Tana River. The project is focussing initially on 4 sub-catchments, namely: Khorweyne, Saka, Tula and Al-Amin Moju.
In the Upper Aswa- Agago sub- catchment in Uganda, the project is being implemented in partnership with the Directorate of Water Resources Management in the Ministry of Water and Environment, as well as the three District Local Governments (DLGs) that cover the sub-catchment, namely: Lira, Otuke and Alebtong. The geographical focus here is primarily on the upstream part of the sub-catchment, as catchment degradation here is likely to adversely impact on populations downstream.
2. Aim and Objectives of the Mid-term Review
The aim of the mid-term review is to assess the progress, performance, achievements and lessons learnt to date and to use these to ensure that the project is adjusted as and where necessary in order for it to have had maximum impact by the end of its lifespan.
The overall purpose of this review is threefold:
I. Learning and improvement as a building block for future work: It is intended that the outcomes of this mid-term review will provide useful and relevant information to the on-going work; explore why implemented actions and interventions have been successful, or not and to provide guidance on how to better implement new work, possibly as a new project, after the current phase of the project has been completed;
II. Accountability: The mid-term review is also an accountability instrument for the project. Consequently, it will be used to assess whether or not project plans have been, or will be, fulfilled and also determine the extent to which the project’s resources have been used in a responsible and effective manner.
III. Sustainability: The outcomes of the mid-term review should assist IUCN and her partners in assessing the sustainability (or otherwise) of the activities, approaches, and structures initiated or supported by the project, and crucially, should also provide recommendations for the future.
The specific objectives of the mid-term review are as follows:
1. Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of project implementation, including assessing the institutional arrangement, partnerships, risk management, M&E and project implementation;
2. Determine the extent to which the project and its associated actions are relevant to the existing and likely future needs of its stakeholders and the environment/s in which it is being implemented;
3. Evaluate the outputs, and any outcomes of the project already delivered, and determine and assess their contribution to delivery of the overall project’s overall aims and objectives;
4. Provide guidance on aspects or specific issues that will be useful in undertaking the planned project impact assessment through the use of scenario thinking to be done at the end of the project, i.e. how would the situation look like on the ground without this project;
5. Assess the long term sustainability of project interventions;
6. Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the project set-up in terms of i) institutional anchorage within IUCN and ii) geographical focus.
7. Identify key ‘lessons learnt’ to date, particularly with regard to strategic processes and the mechanisms chosen to achieve the project’s objectives to date, and;
8. Make clear, specific and implementable recommendations to improve the project in its last year and provide guidance on the scope of future work.
3. Scope of the mid-term review
Within this framework, specific issues (and questions) to be assessed will include, but not be limited to, the following:
Effectiveness
i. Are the activities implemented in accordance with the project plans? If not, why?
ii. What outputs have been achieved? To what extent do they contribute to the objectives?
iii. How effective are the approaches and structures in delivering the desired outputs? How can they be improved?
iv. Do the partner organisations work together effectively? Is the partnership structure and the geographical focus effective in achieving the desired outputs? How can the partnership be improved?
Efficiency
i. Are the available technical and financial resources adequate to fulfil the project plans?
ii. Are the funds being spent in accordance with project plans and using the right procedures?
iii. Have there been any unforeseen problems in terms of resources (technical and financial) allocation and utilization? How well were they dealt with?
iv. Are the capacities of the partners adequate?
v. What have been the roles of the partners and staff and are they appropriate?
vi. Is there an effective process, built into the management structure for self-monitoring and assessment, reporting and reflection? How could it be made better?
Relevance
i. Establish whether or not the design and approach of the project are relevant in addressing the identified needs, issues and challenges as far as building drought resilience is concerned in ASALs
ii. To what extent is the project contributing to the strategic policies and programmes of IUCN and that of the partners? How could relevance be improved in future?
Sustainability
i. Is the approach used likely to ensure a continued benefit after the end of the project?
ii. Are all key stakeholders sufficiently and effectively involved? Are their expectations met and are they satisfied with their level of participation?
iii. Are alternative or additional measures needed and, if so, what is required to ensure continued sustainability and positive impact?
Impact
i. Is the project bringing about desired changes in the behaviour of people and institutions?
ii. Have there been any unintended positive or negative impacts arising from particular outcomes/results?
iii. What could have been the likely situation (of the environment and its management) without the project?
4. Methodology
The consultant should propose a brief methodology to be used to carry out the review in their application, the methodology adopted should update the preliminary issues and questions outlined within the ToRs, specifying the specific review issues, questions, methods of data collection and analysis that will be undertaken. It should encompass a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods. It should also allow for wide consultation with all interested partners and stakeholders. It is suggested that the methodology should include, but not be limited to the following, but consultants must propose their own methodology and justify and explain that proposal:
a. A desktop review of all relevant documentation, including (but not limited to):
i. The project document, contracts and related agreements
ii. Work-plans and budgets
iii. Progress Technical and Financial Reports
b. Face-to-face interviews and discussions with all key stakeholders involved in the project to ensure that the review is carried out in a participatory manner. A list of key partners and stakeholders would be identified at an early stage and a consultation process developed. All stakeholders consulted should be in a position to present their views in confidence to the team and to identify issues, opportunities, constraints and options for the future
c. Electronic interviews through teleconference or written comments, e.g. email; where partners cannot be reached for face to face interviews
IUCN will assist with the organisation of meetings and discussions, and inform the relevant stakeholders of the review process and their role in it, well in advance.
5. Review Team Composition
The team will consist of two people, an international evaluation expert and an expert from the region (Kenya/Uganda) with natural resources management background as well as experience in climate change adaptation or resilience more so in the ASAL context. The two experts will have complementary skills covering programme design and implementation, programme/project review, natural resources management especially community participation, policy and institutional processes more so in natural resources management in ASAL. The international expert will be the team leader, with considerable prior experience in evaluation methodologies and principles.
The team leader will have the overall responsibility for the design and implementation of the evaluation, writing of the report, and timely submission of the draft and final version of the report. Detailed responsibilities of each team member shall be determined at the beginning of the mission and outlined in the methodology.
6. Reporting outputs
The Consultants will prepare and submit the following reports to IUCN:
a. An inception report outlining the proposed methodology and detailed responsibilities of each team member to be submitted prior to the onset of the assessment process.
b. A findings report, which should include the following:
i. An assessment of the performance of the project, based on the project document, contracts and agreements
ii. Identification of the main lessons learnt, and
iii. Identification of critical benchmark baselines for impacts assessment to be done at the end of the project through the use of scenario thinking
c. Recommendations and guidance on the future scope of work
7. Timing and Schedule
The consultant should develop and submit a detailed schedule for the review work, taking into account the following general guidance. The review is scheduled to take place in the month of January 2014 and should take a total of approximately 20 working days. The exact number of days must be proposed by the consultant, as must the distribution of days between the different tasks. It is suggested that the tasks may be broken down as follows, but consultants must consider this and propose their own timeline and schedule:
a. Review of background documentation and preparation of the methodology – 2 days
b. Discussion and agreement on proposed methodology with IUCN and project partners – 1 day
c. Assessment of project progress and performance – including field visits and interviews with project partners and key stakeholders – 9 days
d. Analysis of findings and production of draft report – 5 days
e. Debriefing - presentation and discussion of findings to IUCN and project partners - 1 day
f. Finalisation/revisions of the report and submission – 2 day
8. How to apply
Interested individuals/organisations are requested to submit their application clearly demonstrating their suitable skills and experience for the review process, including a brief methodology as well as the review timing and schedule. They should also submit their financial proposal indicating how much the review work will cost. Applications should be sent electronically (email) to hr@iucnesaro.org by latest November 22nd 2013. For any clarification on the assignment, please contact Eliot Taylor at eliot.taylor@iucn.org or John Owino at John.Owino@iucn.org.
Mid-Term Review of Building Drought Resilience Project, Kenya and Uganda
![Mid-Term Review of Building Drought Resilience Project, Kenya and Uganda]()
Reviewed by Unknown
on
1:51:00 AM
Rating:
