End of Project Evaluation – Sustainable Peace and Resilience in Darfur

1. Background

To contribute to sustained peace and resilience in the Darfur region, ZOA Sudan was awarded by the European Union Instrument Contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), a one and half year contract “Sustainable Peace and Resilience in Darfur”. The project intended to contribute to Stability and Peace by implementing conflict resolution, natural resource management and livelihood activities in North Darfur (rural Al Fasher and Dar el Salaam localities) and East Darfur (El Ferdous and Ed Daien localities).

This Project complemented a broader programmatic approach proposed by ZOA Sudan in North and East Darfur in the areas of conflict resolution, natural resource management and livelihood support. A concerted focus on these outcome areas aimed to address conflict resolution and prevention by strengthening existing local structures to manage conflict, while addressing root causes of conflict in the targeted localities. While the action was initially planned for 18 months, the impact of COVID-19 at the onset of the grant prompted a no cost extension of 6 months.

The overall objective of this project was: Resilient communities equipped with capacities to resolve and prevent conflicts in targeted communities.

By focusing on this specific objective of enabling communities to both prevent and mitigate conflict, the project did so in three ways, by focusing the approach into three outcomes:

• Increased capacity at local level to resolve conflicts through strengthening or establishing local conflict resolution mechanisms;

• Increased capacity on local levels to sustainably manage and protect natural resources (including land and water) and prevent environmental degradation, and

• Improved livelihoods through increased sustainable agricultural productivity and improved animal health.

Through addressing causes of and contributing factors to conflict in North and East Darfur, this project intended to contribute to decreasing the likelihood of potential conflicts. The project also strengthened local capacities to resolve and mitigate conflicts, ensuring conflicts that arise are dealt with accordingly through strong conflict resolution, negotiation and mediation skills.

By focusing on conflict mitigation as the ultimate goal, the project adopted an approach that addresses causes of conflict in the targeted locations, namely weak local conflict resolution mechanisms, clashes over access to resources (water and land) and poor livelihood opportunities that predispose populations to migration and recruitment into armed forces.

Logical framework

OVERALL OBJECTIVE: Resilient communities equipped with capacities to resolve and prevent conflicts in targeted communities.

Indicator:

% of beneficiaries who report being safe in the area they live

% change in household income

Outcome 1: Increased capacity at local level through community-based structures to resolve conflicts for improved conditions for peaceful and inclusive societies.

Indicator:

% of beneficiaries who feel that community structures effectively resolve conflicts

# of CBOs/CSOs that feel that they can resolve issues related to resource management in their area

Op1.1: Peace and Reconciliation Committees/Natural Resource Management committees and local governance bodies are established or strengthened.

Indicator:

Numbers, training needs and operation gaps of existing PCRs/NRMs documented

# of awareness sessions on establishment and purpose of PCRs/NRMs conducted

# of new PCRs/NRMCs established

# of PRCs/NRMCs strengthened

Op1.2: PRCs/NRMCs and local governance bodies are equipped to prevent and mitigate conflict and promote peaceful co-existence.

Indicator

# of PRCs/NRMCs trained on conflict prevention, mitigation and resolution.

Op1.4: PRCs/NRMCs are linked to other relevant local/state-level governance bodies concerned with peace and protection of natural resources such as native local governance bodies and peace committees at locality/state levels.

Indicator

# of forums/events/meeting held to link PRCs/NRMCs with civil society actor and/or local/state-level governance bodies

# of PRCs/NRMCs participating in relevant local/state-level governance body organized activities concerned with peace and protection of natural resource

Outcome 2: Increased capacity on local levels to sustainably manage and protect natural resources (including land and water) and prevent environmental degradation.

Indicator

% change in reported incidences of serious violence or conflicts associated with natural resources use

% of HHs using promoted environmentally friendly energy technologies

Op2.1: Access to water for household, community and livestock use (along migratory corridors) is improved.

Indicator

# of new water points constructed for hh use

# of new water points constructed for livestock use

# of new water points rehabilitated for hh use

# of new water points rehabilitated for livestock use

Op2.2: Livestock routes are demarcated, protected, and pastures are re-seeded.

Indicator

# of kms of livestock routes demarcated

# of Kms of livestock routes protected

# of feddans of pasture re-seeded

# of relevant committees functional to protect livestock corridors and animal resting areas

Op 2.3: Increased understanding of environmental degradation and improved practices.

Indicator

# of environment friendly awareness sessions held;

# of environmental friendly technologies promoted

# of HHs reached with environmental friendly technologies

Outcome 3: Improved livelihoods through increased sustainable agricultural productivity and improved animal health.

Indicator

% change in HH farm production

% change in HH livestock production

% of farmers using improved farming techniques, disaggregated by gender

% of members of smallholder associations who report that their lobby and advocacy skills have improved

Op3.1: Farmers use improved agricultural practices, inputs and techniques for farming; with a special focus on female farmers.

Indicator

# of new farmer groups established, disaggregated by women only and mixed groups

# of animal producer groups established

# of group members sensitized on improved farming techniques/ good animal husbandry practices

# of demonstration plots established

# of new VSLAs formed

# of VSLAs strengthened

Op3.2: Smallholders are organized in formal associations, registered, trained, and have lobby and advocacy skills to tap resources and livelihood opportunities from public and/or private sectors.

Indicator

# of smallholder associations formed by type of association

# of smallholder associations registered

# of smallholder associations whose members are trained by training type

# of smallholder associations who received grants from microfinance and banking institutions.

Op 3.3: Livestock are vaccinated against common various diseases.

# of CAHWs supported by the project to undergo training

# of CAHWs supported with KIT

# of HHs reporting regular vaccination of their livestock by CAHWs against common diseases

2. Evaluation Purpose and Objectives

The external evaluation will serve external accountability as well as internal learning. The evaluation aims to assess the achievements of the project objectives and outcome indicators. Documentation of best practices and lessons learnt shall be considered throughout the course of evaluation. The evaluation shall seek to address a set of objectives in light of the OECD evaluation criteria as follow:

Relevance

a. To what degree do communities feel the project activities suited their needs?

• To what extent was the project approach consistent with the local context needs

Effectiveness

a. Identify and assess major project key achievements and in what quality the activities were implemented.

b. Assess project performance, progress and achievement against set of indicators and specific implementing partner targets.

c. Assess the effectiveness of beneficiary accountability system and mechanisms that were used during the project implementation period.

d. Review the project strategies and results for achieving gender oriented outcomes and document any unintended/intended changes in gender relations.

e. Investigate challenges and difficulties faced during implementation and associated lessons learned.

Coherence

a. Did the action complement ZOA’s existing program in North and East Darfur, as stated in the proposal?

b. To what extent the project was harmonized and coherent with other actions and efforts within the same area and sector.

Efficiency

a. Utilization of community and project resources to achieve the intended results.

b. Coordination with other stakeholders (line ministries and donors)

Impact

a. Key lessons learned in order to improve the quality of service to vulnerable communities for similar future projects.

b. What is the main short/long term impact (positive and negative) of the project approach/strategy within the project area.

c. Document strengths, weaknesses, best practices and opportunities for improvement of the programme design, implementation and approach, (potentially through case studies approach).

d. Amid the changing political situation in Darfur following the coup, what are areas of concern or new opportunities for engagement from communities when it comes to peace and reconciliation.

Sustainability and connectedness

a. To what extent the project results and activities will sustain beyond the project.

b. The capacity of project beneficiaries to maintain the results.

3. Evaluation Scope

The targeted audience for the evaluation will include:

• Peace and Reconciliation Committees (PRCs)

• Natural Resources Management Committees (NRMCs), Water Management Committees (WMCs)

• Crop Protection Committees (CPCs)

• Women’s Committees (WCs)

• Youth Committees (YCs)

• ZOA project staff and national implementing partners.

• Village Saving and Loan Associations (VSLAs), Smallholder associations and farmer groups

• Other targeted stakeholders will include government partners, relevant UN agencies, staff from implementing partner organizations and national implementing organizations.

The evaluation will be undertaken in the following locations:

East Darfur: El Ferdous and Ed Daien localities

North Darfur: rural Al Fasher and Dar el Salaam localities

4. Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation should follow a collaborative and participatory mixed methods approach that draws on both existing and new quantitative and qualitative data to answer the evaluation questions. The methodology design should be developed by the consultant in consideration of the information outlined in these ToR to ensure accuracy and rigor. Detailed data collection methods proposed will include but are not limited to Desk review, key informant interviews (KIIs); focus group discussions (FGDs). It is expected that the consultant will also assess the quality of the programme logic and if necessary, develop realistic impact logic based upon on the conducted interventions.

Sources:

The evaluation to make reference to the following reports and documents:

· Project proposal/ project design document.

· Baseline survey.

· Project progress reports.

· Project logical framework and monitoring data.

· Any other appropriate additional information that may be required to supplement what is provided by the project, including assessments and evaluation reports by other humanitarian actors and UN agencies.

5. Evaluation Ethics

The consultant must use measures to ensure compliance with the evaluator code of conduct including measures to safeguard the rights, safety and confidentiality of the individual and communities interviewed, particularly permissions needed to interview or gather information about children and young people and provisions to store and maintain security of collected information and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality. The consultant shall respect differences in culture, local customs, religious beliefs and practices, while applying evaluation methods and tools. ZOA code of conduct (which includes the child protection policies) will be shared with the consultant during the contracting stage and the consultant is obligated to adhere to the code of conduct.

6. Implementation Arrangements

The consultant will be supervised and report to ZOA MEAL Specialist. Feedback mechanisms and contact with stakeholders will be discussed further during the inception phase.

ZOA Sudan will be responsible for the following:

· Briefing of the evaluator.

· Review and approve the study tools, methodology, draft and final reports.

· Brief stakeholders about the purpose of the evaluation.

· Support in logistical arrangements to the consultant such as approval from the Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC).

· Assist in organizing meetings with stakeholders.

7. Authority and Responsibility

Consultant’s Roles and Responsibilities

Secondary information analysis:

· Desk review of relevant program and project documents and reports such as proposals, assessments, project budgets, monitoring and assessment reports.

· Establish working contacts with all the relevant stakeholders in the targeted communities.

· Prepare and submit the evaluation proposal and the inception report including methodology to be used, work plans and schedules for both quantitative and qualitative aspect of the assignment for review and feedback and approval by ZOA.

Primary information analysis:

· Field visits to selected sites; among other surveys, interviews and/or focus group discussions with project stakeholders.

· The evaluator will submit an inception report (with detailed methodology, research tools and timeline/logistics) for review.

· Hire and train the data collection team.

· Evaluator will lead a kick-off workshop, train his/her team in tools developed.

· Lead and supervise the data collection.

· Conducting entry and exit meetings with ZOA staff and key stakeholders at Khartoum and field level.

· Submission of draft evaluation report and finalize it based on the feedback from ZOA.

· Submission of lessons learnt and recommendations.

· Submission of updated project logical framework.

8. Evaluation Deliverables

Deliverable 1: Inception Report

Deadline 15 April 2022

Description The consultant will prepare and submit an inception report detailing how the evaluation will be carried out from his/her point of view. The report will outline the evaluation design, sampling methods to be used and questions to be answered and detailed work plan for the entire exercise. Draft questionnaires, interview guides and other data collection tools will be submitted for review and approval before data collection starts.

Deliverable 2: Preliminary/Draft Evaluation Report 1

Deadline 5 May 2022.

Description The consultant will submit draft evaluation report. The draft report will be reviewed, and comments provided on the report within a week of submission.

Deliverable 3: 2 pagers summary fact sheet

Deadline 25 May 2022.

Description In English and Arabic which will include the lessons learnt and recommendations.

Deliverable 4: Final evaluation Report

Deadline 25 May 2022.

Description The consultant will submit detailed final report in English outlining the evaluation methodology, findings, lessons learned, 2-3 case studies and recommendations. The report shall incorporate specific simple and achievable recommendations, including the most appropriate strategies that can be undertaken and/or incorporated by ZOA to attempt to address the issues identified. The final report should address the issues and questions raised in this ToR and correspond to the evaluation objectives set out above.

Deliverable 5: PowerPoint presentation

Deadline 25 May 2022.

Description A power point presentation (part of the exit interview)

9. Evaluation Duty Station and Duration

It is anticipated that the evaluation will last for 30 – 35 working days. The duty station will be home based with data collection missions to the project areas specified in section 4.

10. Budget/logistics

The consultant will develop a detailed budget (in addition to the consultancy fee) and work plan based on the details in the ToR with all needed logistics to secure preparation needed throughout the whole process of the evaluation such: transport arrangements, stationary procurements, training facilities for recruited team and communications.

11. Consultants’ Qualifications

The consultant must have undertaken similar works in Sudan and should have the following:

Academic Qualifications:

Master’s degree or equivalent in social sciences, peace building, conflict resolution or natural resources management.

Experience Qualifications:

· Professional experience in socio-economic, livelihoods supports, natural resources management, peace building, conflict resolution, and gender.

· Professional experience at a national and/or international level in program planning, monitoring, reporting and communication.

· A good understanding of Sudan context socially, politically and economically in addition to the community structure and setting, in particular, Darfur region.

· Experience in multi-methodological and interdisciplinary approaches and data collection and analysis techniques in evaluation of livelihoods programs.

· Demonstrate experience (at least 7 years) in assessing /natural resources management projects, food security programs and livelihoods interventions, peace building and social Cohesion

· Strong background about Darfur region context in Sudan.

· Ability to conduct high quality projects research/evaluation, meet deadlines and respond to requests and feedback provided timely and appropriately.

· Excellent track record in designing and conducting quantitative and qualitative research, analysis and evaluation.

· Familiarity with quality and accountability standards applied in development cooperation.

· Strong analytical and conceptual skills to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions, make recommendations and to prepare well-written reports in a timely manner

· Excellent facilitation skills, coordination, negotiation skills and oral and written communication skills in English (particularly report writing) and spoken communication skills in Arabic is desired.

· Experience in assessing communities capacity building and gaps and ability to recommend the corrective measures.

· Demonstrated capacity to work both independently and as a team.

12. Tender and Selection Criteria

• Tenders/offers will be accepted from consultants as well as from commercial companies, NGOs or academics.

• The evaluation team is responsible for its own travel itinerary.

• The selection of the best offer from the candidates will be based on a Combined Scoring method – where the technical proposal will be weighted a maximum of 70 points and combined with the price offer which will be weighted a max of 30 points out of 100 points. The technical proposal evaluation will take into account:

o The consultant background and qualification 30%

o Relevant experience in sector and country 25%

o Proposed methodology 25%

o Timeliness of the workplan 20%