Terms of Reference for the Feasibility Study

Global Programme to Stop FGM/C: Our Body, Our Rights: Guinea and KenyaGlobal Programme to Stop FGM/C: Our Body, Our Rights: Guinea and Kenya

1. Introduction of Plan International

Plan International strives to advance children’s rights and equality for girls all over the world. As an independent development and humanitarian organisation, we work alongside children, young people, our supporters and partners to tackle the root causes of the challenges faced by girls and all vulnerable children. Our strategy is to work with vulnerable children and especially girls so that they can learn, lead, decide and thrive. Plan International drives changes in practice and policy at local, national and global levels using our reach, experience and knowledge. For over 80 years, we have been building powerful partnerships for children, and we are active in over 75 countries.

1. Plan Germany’s work on FGM/C

Plan International Germany (called German National Organisation – GNO – in the following) has been working for 14 years on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) in Guinea. This started with a privately funded project in the forest region in Guéckedou and Kissigoudou, working with local partners to empower communities to abandon the practice. The project targeted 12 districts and based on its success and in a need to reach more sustainable results, this project was followed by two further projects targeting 50 to 80 districts in the same regions as well as in Coyah and in Conakry, including advocacy and networking activities at the national level.

GNO and Plan Kenya are currently implementing a Sexual and Gender Based Violence project to improve adolescent girls’ agency to exercise their rights to education and protection from SGBV during COVID‑19.

Over the years, GNO has supported FGM/C projects in other countries, including Egypt, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Sudan. Currently, there are 6 ongoing FGM/C projects in West Africa, all mainly focusing on the community level with a higher-level advocacy component. All projects against FGM/C are carried out in cooperation with local partners who know the regional specifics and adapt their methods accordingly.

In addition, GNO implemented projects in Germany with refugees and migrant communities on FGM/C since 2012. Previous project series namely “Change”, “Change Plus” and “Let’s Change”, focused on introducing behavioral change activities that encourage affected communities to abandon FGM/C. Some of the activities included training of change agents who worked locally with practicing diaspora communities, as well as train-the-trainer seminars. The aim was to holistically strengthen and promote the affected girls and women rights as well as raising awareness of the health and psychosocial, sometimes even fatal, consequences of FGM/C. GNO is also a leading member of the anti-FGM network INTEGRA that has advocated for better laws and policies to end the practice in Germany.

1. Description of the planned project

3.1 Thematic and local context

FGM/C is a harmful practice that is primarily practiced in 31 Asian, Middle Eastern, and African countries, as well as in other countries among diaspora populations. It affects at least 200 million girls and women around the world, with 4.1 million girls at risk of being circumcised every year. The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated social and economic consequences have increased the risk of FGM/C worldwide, with an estimated additional 2 million girls projected to be at risk by 2030. FGM/C is recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women, in particular their sexual and reproductive rights. It is an extreme form of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and a manifestation of gender inequality. FGM/C is almost always performed on girls under the age of 18 and is thus also a violation of children’s rights. There exist serious immediate and long-term consequences of FGM/C for women and girls, including their physical and mental health, as well as their economic and social wellbeing. The elimination of FGM/C is a target of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 5.3), as well as of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). In addition, fear of FGM/C in one’s country of origin constitutes grounds for international protection (asylum) under the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees.

In Kenya, according to UNICEF an estimated 4 million girls and women have experienced some form of FGM/C. Overall, the prevalence of FGM/C among girls and women aged 15 to 49 years is 21% with rates varying, from 98% in the Northeastern region to 1% in the Western region.

In Guinea, the practice of FGM/C is nearly universal among girls and women at the age of 15-49. With an average prevalence rate of 94,5%, the rate is high within all administrative regions of Guinea. It is practiced across all ethnic and religious groups. The highest prevalence is in Kindia at 98.4% and Labé at 98.2% (28 Too Many).

Although many efforts have been made over the last two decades to end the practice, progress has varied greatly between countries and regions. Of the 29 countries in Africa where FGM/C is traditionally practiced, 25 have laws prohibiting the practice (UNFPA). However, it has become clear that the existence of laws alone cannot reduce rates of FGM/C. Kenya and Guinea illustrate this clearly: both have well-established legislation, but progress towards curbing FGM/C remains a challenge. Kenya and Guinea were selected to bring together these two culturally and structurally different countries from West and East Africa that share a common problem of FGM/C but would typically not come together in dialogue.

Some of the underlying causes identified are:

• Inadequate implementation of the Maputo Protocol especially within the broader regional context;
• Limited resourcing (financial and human) of programmes and institutions working to curb FGM/C, which hamper the implementation;
• Limited political will to prioritize and translate high-level commitments into practical solutions;
• Weak coordination between different stakeholders at various levels of interventions (including political, justice and health actors as well as civil society representatives), which hinders effective preventive initiatives.

Plan International proposes an innovative approach that tackles these different causes and works with youth, their families, decision makers, CBOs, etc. in Kenya and Guinea.

3.2 Envisaged Goals

Plan International addresses the issue of FGM/C on the regional, national, district, community and household level, focusing on capacity development, advocacy and joint learning, we are aiming to make a contribution towards systemic change especially at a higher, regional level.

The intention is to facilitate sharing and exchange to tackle the common as well as the diverse problems Guinea and Kenya face in the elimination of FGM/C. Additionally, the programme aims to establish an approach to be scaled and replicated in other countries where there is a prevalence on FGM/C.

3.2.1 At a regional/ national level: As a global programme, this programme lays its emphasis on macro-level interventions, as these are expected to facilitate systemic change in the eradication of FGM/C in the two countries. Plan International Liaison Office to the African Union (Plan AULO) and civil society will work with political figures, national governments and the African Union to advocate for implementation of laws, increased accountability, and realistic resourcing. In line with existing initiatives such as the African Union’s Continental Initiative to End FGM (Saleema), and the joint programme on FGM from UNICEF and UNFPA, the programme will also work with the AU to trigger a systemic change in the implementation of FGM/C laws and policies, which will influence all levels of practice.

This project also proposes to facilitate bringing together high-level peers, stakeholders, civil society and government agencies to exchange on how to effectively enable the implementation of high-level laws and policies.

At this level, some of the proposed activities include:

• Advocacy at the AU level through Plan International’s AULO, the Inter-African Committee against harmful traditional practices (IAC) and civil society networks for all signatories to effectively implement the Maputo Protocol;
• Advocacy at AU level following up on the implementation of Kenya’s and Guinea’s commitments according to UNCRC reports as well as recommendations of State Party reports to the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child;
• Engaging high level FGM/C Champions including the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Girls to highlight on FGM/C, using international observance days for advocacy such as International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM/C, International Women’s Day, International Day of the African Child, 16-days of Activism etc.;
• Bringing together anti-FGM/C boards from both countries to exchange and learn lessons from other successful strategies like the Saleema Initiative and the UNICEF_UNFPA Joint Programme;
• High level inter-country peer to peer exchanges between Members of Parliament, national Anti-FGM/C boards as well as relevant ministries e.g. (ministries of health, justice, law enforcement) in Kenya with their equivalent counter parts from Guinea to share best practices on what works to create an enabling environment for effective implementation of national legislation and policies, as well as identify bottlenecks that require AU level advocacy. Exchange points will include: FGM/C research and data management, implementation gaps and law enforcement, use of digital/mobile strategies (Pasha App in Kenya and www.kouyé.com in Guinea);
• National multistakeholder exchanges (within each country) involving Members of Parliament, relevant ministries i.e., justice, health, Anti FGM/C boards and civil society in order to exchange on how to translate high level commitments into practical solutions as well as identify bottlenecks that require national advocacy. For example, ensuring that anti FGM/C work/strategies are budgeted for by government, effective law enforcement and capacity building for criminal justice system stakeholders;
• Create a digital platform for long term exchange and learning;
• The implementing partners will deduce major bottlenecks identified during these exchanges, that require national or AU level advocacy.

3.2.2 At a district level: This programme will work with civil society organizations, local governments and other key stakeholders, to utilize existing resources and strengthen their capacity for the implementation and enforcement of anti-FGM/C laws and policies. Emphasis will be made on supporting coordination between the national and regional level actors to ensure that resources available match the needs for successful implementation. This programme will facilitate participatory intra-country as well as inter-country peer to peer and multi-stakeholder dialogue. These multi-stakeholder forums aim to support better coordination of interventions between the stakeholders to ensure that prevention initiatives work more effectively, share best practices and exchange on how to effectively implement national legislation in the local (rural) contexts. It also intends to create support for enforcement measures thus closing the present implementation gaps, as well as build the capacity of these multi-stakeholder forums in the project areas, to contribute to a momentum for replication in other areas in both countries thus bringing about a systemic change. To ensure sustainability, the interventions will capitalize on existing initiatives such as the recent adoption of an anti-FGM policy adopted in Tharaka Nithi County, Kenya.

At meso level, some of the proposed activities include:

• Establishing multi-stakeholder forums in each of the selected counties, where they do not currently exist;
• Intra-county multi-stakeholder dialogue between stakeholders such as county governments, traditional authorities, judiciary, police, religious leaders, medical professionals in each of the counties within the project areas in Kenya and Guinea. To ensure sustainability, the intervention will capitalize on strengthening existing initiatives. For instance, the domesticated anti-FGM/C policy in Tharaka Nithi County, Kenya which recommends a number of measures including the formation of the ward Anti-FGM/C Policy committees to spearhead the fight at the village level could be a potential exchange point at county level;
• Capacity strengthening of local authorities, local governments, criminal justice, CBOs and other key stakeholders engaged in the multi-stakeholder forums on FGM/C to improve coordination and quality of services and strengthen understanding and enforcement of existing laws.

3.2.3 At community/household level: Based on a power analysis at the micro level, key actors, such as survivors of FGM/C, religious leaders, youth and parents within the targeted communities, will be engaged as agents of change to support social norm change around FGM/C. An emphasis will be placed on empowering girls and young women. Youth, their families and decision makers will have the knowledge and the tools to change their attitude towards the practice of FGM/C and CBOs in Kenya and Guinea, and work to end FGM/C. They will also have strengthened influencing and networking capacities and share best practices to improve evidence-based advocacy and global learning.

At micro level, some of the proposed activities include:

• Participatory inter-generational dialogues on FGM/C and harmful practices to promote reflection on human rights and the sexual and reproductive rights of girls and women in particular;
• Awareness raising campaigns by training agents of change using Social and Behaviour Change Communication (SBCC) strategies;
• Mentorship of anti-FGM/C advocates to support their initiatives.

The planned interventions at the meso and micro levels will take place in both Kenya and Guinea, with contextual adaptations, unless otherwise specified.

1. Objectives and tasks
2. 1. Objective of the feasibility study

The feasibility study’s objective is to assess whether the original problem analysis and the solution approaches based on it are appropriate, valid and whether the formulated intervention logic can thus lead to the envisaged changes. The feasibility study should investigate political, technical and social barriers on the different levels with a special focus and emphasis on barriers on the national level in both Guinea and Kenya. Additionally, the feasibility study should assess capacities and identify capacity gaps among higher- level stakeholders and institutions and indicate whether the planned interventions are suitable to address the gaps and if necessary, make recommendations for alternative measures.

At the same time, the study is expected to analyze whether the interaction and expected results between the work in Guinea and Kenya will bring the expected added value to the impact and outcomes of the project.

With concrete recommendations, the study will provide Plan Kenya, Plan Guinea, Plan Germany and Plan’s African Union Liaison Office with a well-founded basis for the further adaptation of the project concept, in which the prerequisites, opportunities and risks have all been clarified.

The study should also provide a realistic view on whether the envisaged changes can be implemented within the project period and with the budget available.

By going through this process, the effectiveness of the project will be increased, and unsuitable investments will be avoided at an early stage, including budget allocations at the wrong levels of the intervention.

1. 1. Tasks of the consultant

The consultant should formulate concrete recommendations for the adaptation of the project concept including the impact matrix and the measures envisaged.

The consultant will be responsible for planning and implementing the feasibility study, including forming and leading of the feasibility study team. Close consultation with Plan Germany and the respective country teams in Kenya and Guinea at every step is required. The consultant will receive a draft impact matrix, project concept note as well as suggested activities at the beginning of the assignment.

In detail, the consultant will be responsible for the following expected outputs:

1. Developing a detailed study design including a precise timeline covering phases and processes of implementation, data collection methods, sampling methodologies, sample sizes, a data analysis plan and specific data collection tools. The study design needs to be approved by Plan.
2. Assessment of the initial situation (or situational analysis) in Guinea and Kenya.

Guiding questions:

• What is the current situation in the regions, the countries? What is the socio-economic, political and cultural context in general?
• What factors fuel the continuation of the practice? What other dimensions or a mix of them, such as social norms, religious, socio-economic and political reasons, are causing the continuation of the practice?
• What social, technical and political barriers exist on the regional, national, district and community levels that link to the identified direct level causes? (lack of political will, poor implementation of laws and protocols etc.)
• What types of resistance can be observed among regional/national level stakeholders and what are the causes/reasons for them?
• What are existing capacity gaps? Where does Plan have a comparative advantage to potentially fill these gaps through this intervention (windows of opportunity)?
• What actions are required to close these gaps between passing of laws/protocols and implementation, low levels and high levels of political will?

1. Review of the project’s impact matrix, including a review of the overall objective (impact), the project objective (specific objective), the outcomes and the Theory of Change.

2. Elaboration of a detailed sector analysis in both countries, including but not limited to:

   1. Overview of the current legal and policy context in both countries, including the obligations of health providers, social workers, law enforcement and other service providers. Key gaps in the implementation of laws and policies (e.g. specific knowledge gaps preventing implementation, etc.)
   2. Macro (regional, national) level capacity assessment (resources)
   3. Activities of other donors / implementing organizations operating/advocating on the macro level in the area of FGM/C with view to possible synergies
   4. National priorities for the sector

3. Elaboration of a detailed stakeholder analysis for both countries (Kenya and Guinea) including but not limited to:

   1. Stakeholder Map
   2. SWOT for each stakeholder with a specific emphasis on regional/national level stakeholders
   3. Capacity Assessment (motivation, authority, resources) of regional/national level stakeholders
   4. Interrelations between the stakeholders, with an emphasis on existing power dynamics between various regional/national level stakeholders
   5. Recommendations for the institutional set-up

4. Do No Harm analysis, with a particular emphasis on working with survivors of FGM/C as agents of change.

5. Elaboration of a detailed risk analysis, including political, socio-economic, logistical and environmental risks as well as mitigating actions that lie within the scope of the project.

6. Verification of the feasibility of the planned project according to OECD/DAC and BMZ criteria and their respective guiding questions:

Guiding questions, including but not limited to:

1. Relevance

• To what extent are the objectives and anticipated outcomes of the project valid in the light of national development priorities and Plan International priorities?
• To what extent does the proposed project intervention meet the demands and needs of the target population and other concerned stakeholders? Are the orientation, prioritization and objectives (approach) of the planned project aligned with the target groups and clearly defined?
• Are the underlying assumptions of change likely to hold true in light of the root causes and conditions on all three levels of the proposed intervention?
• Are the measures suggested adequate to address the problems and causes identified?
• Is the approach of working on the proposed three levels of the intervention likely to materialize in the anticipated “leveraging effect”?
• To what extent is institutional support for the project likely and / or necessary, especially when it comes to national law enforcement agencies and key high-level stakeholders?
• To what extent do the intervention goals and design adequately take into account the specific needs of the target groups and stakeholders and structural obstacles in the project region at each level?
• To what extent does the planned intervention address and fill key macro level capacity needs/gaps identified as hampering progress towards eradicating FGM/C?

1. Coherence & Coordination

• To which extent is the project compatible with other interventions in the areas/ countries/ sectors?
• To what extent does the intervention support or undermine other interventions in the areas/ countries/ sectors? To what extent are there synergies and connections between the planned project and other interventions by the same actor (organization) and other actors, specifically regarding advocacy activities on the macro level?
• How coherent are the planned activities with human rights principles (inclusion, participation), conventions and relevant standards/guidelines?

1. Effectiveness

• To what extent are the objectives likely to be achieved given the different country context conditions within the suggested timeline?
• What are the major preconditions influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives (among others level of engagement of different target groups)?
• Are the cause-effect relationships (including assumptions) plausible? Which negative effects could occur?
• Is the chosen methodological approach appropriate to the different contexts, specifically regarding the approach proposed for the regional/national level, and sufficient to achieve the project objective? Are alternatives necessary?
• At which level (multi-level approach) are additional measures needed to increase effectiveness?

1. Efficiency

• Can the project goals be achieved with the available resources?
• Are the investments justified compared to the targeted effects, especially regarding the proposed activities on the regional/national level?
• Which possible alternative and more economic ways are there for achieving the same objectives?

1. Impact

• Which are likely significant positive and negative, intended or unintended, societal-level (such as social, political, socio-economic) effects?
• Which changes in attitudes and/or behaviours can be expected within the proposed project duration?
• Which are potential personal and/or institutional changes resulting from the capacity development measures?
• How many people are likely to be directly and indirectly affected?
• To what extent is the planned project structure-building, model-like and scalable? On which levels will norms or structures be changed?
• To what extent is the project likely to contribute towards systemic level change? What factors need to be taken into consideration to increase this likelihood?

1. Sustainability

• How can technical, financial, and social sustainability be assured after the funding period?
  • Linked to technical sustainability: How can the activities be designed to enable the target groups to continuously capitalize the project and to continue it after its end? How can established learning and exchange platforms be designed to continue after the end of the project?
  • Linked to financial sustainability: How can the project be designed to be economically self-sustaining after the end of the intervention?
  • Linked to social sustainability: Are the desired social changes in attitude and behaviour likely to uphold after the end of the project? Which additional measures would increase the chance for a lasting change on the societal level?

1. Recommendations

Provide concrete recommendations on the following guiding questions:

• Which components, if any, are missing in the project concept in order to make the cause-effect relationships more coherent and to sustainably achieve the planned objectives? Which planned components are not suitable or may have negative effects, and for what reasons?
• Which assumptions of the cause-effect relationships are sustainable?
• Which findings and project-relevant data of the study are suitable to be included in the impact matrix of the project? What are the recommendations for possible indicators for impact monitoring and data collection?
• What are additional measures that would increase the likelihood of contributing towards lasting systemic change?

1. 1. Methodology

The methodological design including sampling methodologies of the feasibility study will be proposed by the consultant and must include a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods.

The choice of methods must take into account the needs and capacities of the different target groups and stakeholders: Stakeholders and institutions at African Union, national government and local government, CBOs, religious leaders, traditional leaders, service providers in health sector, women, men, young people, children. The chosen methods must further adhere to Plan International’s MERL and Ethical Standards.

1. Intended users of the feasibility study

The feasibility study will be used by Plan International Kenya, Plan International Guinea, Plan International Liaison Office to the African Union, Plan International Germany and other relevant Plan International staff as well as designated implementing partners.

1. Geographical scope

The feasibility study is to be undertaken for a programme that will be implemented in Guinea and Kenya.

1. Deliverables
2. Draft inception report with a detailed study design description, including the envisaged methodological approach. Proposed draft data collection tools, sampling methodologies, sample sizes and data analysis plan should also be part of the inception report.
3. Final inception report incorporating comments and feedback from Plan International Germany, Kenya and Guinea.
4. Draft report to be submitted to Plan International at least five working days before the workshop to discuss the draft, stating specific recommendations on how to adapt the project concept and overall set-up as well as activities, alongside concrete recommendations for the improvement of the impact matrix as well as recommendations for specific indicators adhering to the SMART quality criteria for indicators.
5. Final report (approx. 30 pages) incorporating feedback from Plan International Germany, Kenya, and Guinea.
6. Timeline

The consultancy mission period lays between September and October 2022, starting from the agreement contract sign-off date and ending when the final feasibility study report has been formally approved by Plan.

Indicative Planning:

Week 1:

Workshop: kick off with Plan

Week 2:

Submission of inception report (to be approved by Plan)

Desk Review

Preparation of field work

Week 3:

Desk Review

Preparation of field work

Week 3 – 5:

Field work

Week 6:

Submission of first feasibility study draft report to Plan International

Workshop: discussion of first draft with Plan

Week 7:

Submission of final report after incorporation of feedback

1. Qualification and experience required
2. Demonstrable experience (at least 10 years) in research/evaluation of complex programs (ideally operating at regional/national level)
3. Demonstrable expertise (at least 10 years) in social development, especially in areas of gender equality and FGM/C
4. Excellent track record in designing and conducting quantitative and qualitative research and analysis in sensitive subject areas, including with children, women and vulnerable groups
5. Ability to conduct high quality research and analysis and the ability to formulate pointed recommendations from them
6. Experience in undertaking research with remote and marginalized communities
7. Knowledge of West- and Eastern African political, social, and cultural contexts
8. Excellent and demonstrated understanding of child protection, gender and cultural diversity issues in research and project design
9. Experience in project work involving high-level stakeholders, with a particular focus on advocacy and lobbying
10. Excellent written and verbal communication and reporting skills in English and French

Note: The above-mentioned experience and qualifications will be taken into consideration for the final selection of the consultant/consultant team as well as the submitted methodology and workplan.

1. Budget

The expenses incurred by the recruited consultants/ consultant team for the conduct of the feasibility study may include daily fees for the consultants, per diems, flights and local transportation, etc. Costs that will not be covered are own laptops, other hardware, software licenses, health, travel and repatriation insurances. The budget ceiling for this consultancy is 80.000 EUR including VAT/tax.

1. Permissions

The consultant/consultant team is responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions (ethics approval) to implement the data collection at the respective level.

1. Ethics and child protection

The consultant/consultant team is obliged to respect the following ethical and child protection requirements:

1. Fair and inclusive: The consultant/consultant team should seek the views of various stakeholders: Children with and without disabilities, street children, youth, their families, CSOs, community, partners and government actors and be able to identify and address potential conflict of interest and unequal power relationships. Special efforts should be made to make the research process child-centred and sensitive to gender