South Sudan: CONSULTANCY FOR FORMATIVE EVALUATION (FE): CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION THROUGH LIVELIHOOD RECOVEY PROJECT IN GR.LAKES , MVOLO COUNTY & WEST. EQUATORIA ST.

TERMS OF REFERENCE CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR FORMATIVE EVALUATION (FE): CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION THROUGH LIVELIHOOD RECOVEY PROJECT IN RUMBEK EAST, YIROL WEST IN GREATER LAKES STATE, & MVOLO COUNTY IN WESTERN EQUATORIA STATE

Title: FORMATIVE EVALUATION FOR CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION THROUGH LIVELIHOOD RECOVEY PROJECT IN RUMBEK EAST, YIROL WEST IN GREATER LAKES STATE, & MVOLO COUNTY IN WESTERN EQUATORIA STATE

Location Lakes & Western Equatoria States, South Sudan Length of Assignment 24 days Type of Consultant National or international Term of Contract: Individual or Firm Starting date 14th June, 2017 End date 7th July , 2017

Key Working Contacts Food Security and Livelihoods (FSL) Program Manager, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Advisor, Grants Manager, Project Coordinator Reporting to FSL Manager- Norwegian People’s Aid

I. Organisation Overview:

Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) is an International Non-Governmental Organization with over three decades operational history in South Sudan implementing humanitarian relief, early recovery and long-term development programs. NPA’s South Sudan programs include Food Security and Livelihood (FSL) program and Civil Society Development Program (CSDP). NPA has operational presence in 6 out of the (former) 10 States which gives the agency a very impressive geographic footprint in South Sudan.

II. Context & Project description

The Conflict Transformation and Livelihoods Recovery (CTLR) project was implemented in Yirol West, Rumbek East and Mvolo counties in South Sudan. The project seeks to build social cohesion and trust between adversarial communities residing in the project area. CTLR is a two-year project which is designed to build social cohesion and trust between adversarial communities. The project targets the agro-pastoralist and farmer communities through activities designed to strengthen livelihoods and encourage cooperative interaction between groups with a history of violence. The co-operation is grounded on common economic interest as the impetus for building peace. Despite the prevailing conflicts in the Country, there have been examples of co-operation, especially those anchored upon trade across conflict lines. The “Conflict Transformation through Livelihoods Recovery Project identified and built upon existing platforms of shared interest and pragmatic co-operation between these communities to rebuild confidence and promote peace building efforts. Activities included support to joint livelihoods interventions that were aimed at promoting interdependence. The project also trained local leaders in conflict management, facilitated community dialogues and supported joint monitoring of violent incidents. The project also implemented interventions aimed at empowering youth through enhancing structures and mechanisms at the local level that promoted their participation and engagement in decisions that affected their wellbeing. The project improved rural markets that would bring people together. These markets provided a focal point for many rural activities such as exchange, barter and trade that are essential activities for rural food security and livelihoods; and provided an important place where people could meet. Recognising that infrastructure improvements alone will not guarantee maintenance and management, the project incorporated complementary “soft elements” which included community and user participation in all phases of the infrastructure upgrading, facilitating the establishment of an inclusive market management committee and training for the market management committees. The strong community/market users’ participation was aimed at creating a social environment where the stakeholders involved have interest and a sense of ownership to better manage and sustain the improved infrastructure.

III. Conflict Transformation & Livelihood Project goal and outcome Goal: The goal of the project is to contribute to sustainable livelihoods recovery and lasting peace in Lakes and Western Equatoria States.

Overall outcome: The overall outcome of this project is strengthened livelihoods and peaceful co-existence between different pastoralist communities in Lakes State and between pastoralists and farmers in Lakes and Western Equatoria States. The 3 result areas were:

1. Strengthened economic relationships between conflicting groups;
2. Increased livelihoods opportunities for populations at risk of conflict; and
3. Strengthened local mechanisms for conflict mitigation and resolution.

V. Purpose of the Evaluation & Objectives

As part of the NMFA-funded project, NPA has committed to an external evaluation of “Conflict Transformation and Livelihoods Recovery Project”. This is a formative evaluation whose results will be used to consider the continuing validity of the theory of change, and to ensure the next phase of the intervention adapts to the evolving context, lessons are learned, progress towards peacebuilding outcomes understood and corrections are made to the theory of change. The EoP evaluation will use a Theory-based approach to assess integration by examining the causal linkages in the results chain and the validity of assumptions linking development and peacebuilding outcomes. Further the formative evaluation will be expected to determine whether or not observed changes are due to the intervention or external factors (attribution) and to what extent the intervention caused the observed changes (contribution). Further, the formative evaluation will measure the project’s effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The evaluation will be based on evidence already collected, and new evidence to be collected by evaluators, in order to analyze the extent to which the project has achieved objectives agreed with the donor, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as how it contributed to achieving NPA’s program objectives in rural development and peacebuilding.

The principle objective of this formative evaluation is to examine the causal linkages in the results chain and the validity of assumptions linking development and peacebuilding outcomes as articulated in the project’s Theory of Change.

Intermediate objectives of the formative evaluation are:

1. To assess the effectiveness of the project and the extent to which it has achieved planned outcomes and objectives.
2. To generate evidence that will inform the next phase and be used to make amendments to the theory of change
3. To identify best practice and advise how the program could be strengthened and inform future programming in integrated peacebuilding and development projects.

VI. Evaluation Questions

The objectives are to be studied against the following evaluation criteria guided by the key questions below:

Evaluation Criteria Mandatory Evaluation Questions

Validity of the Theory of Change Assess the strength of the evidence supporting the assumptions in the theory of change around the linkages between livelihoods, competition for resources and conflict and consider whether these still hold true.

1. Did the project interventions change perceptions and competition over resources?
2. Is there supporting evidence about whether the project interventions have influenced changes in the conflict context?
3. Were assumptions made in the project’s theory of change about how the project was thought to produce the intended results valid?
4. Were observed changes due to the intervention or external factors?
5. To what extent did the intervention cause the observed changes?

Relevance Analyse the appropriateness of the project design, strategies and approaches in light of the state Government priorities and plans and Country’s context, as whole in the timeliness of the response and its adaptation to the livelihoods situation.

1. Is the project/intervention consistent with the needs and priorities of the beneficiaries?
2. Has the situation changed after completion of the project? Is the project strategy still relevant in the given context? Effectiveness Analyse the extent to which the project results and objectives as stated in the programme proposal have been achieved. This should include an analysis of programme implementation strategies employed to reach desired results.
3. To what extent were the intended project goal, outcomes and outputs achieved and how?
4. To what extent did the project reach the targeted beneficiaries at the project goal and outcome levels? How many beneficiaries have been reached?
5. Evaluate how the overall project plan was implemented. What worked, what did not work?
6. What internal and external factors contributed to the achievement and/or failure of the intended project goal, outcomes and outputs? How? Efficiency Analyse how economically the programme resources were used to achieve expected results, both in reaching overall programme objectives and day-to-day tasks.
7. How efficiently and timely has this project been implemented and managed in accordance with the Project Document? Specifically have resources been used well and strategies’ to implementation been appropriate.
8. Quality and efficiency of management (financial, logistical, project management, risk, human resources, monitoring and external relationships).

9. Quality and efficiency of partnership with other stakeholders/MRDA in the CTLR implementation. Sustainability Assess the extent to which the project interventions took into consideration longer term needs of the target population and identify the components of the project whose results will be sustainable after programme has ended.

10. How are the achieved results, especially the positive changes generated by the project, going to be sustained after this project ends?

11. Determine whether the intervention demonstrates, institutional sustainability particularly in terms local partner’s capacity. Lessons learnt and knowledge generation 1. What are the key lessons learned that can be shared with other practitioners in integrated peacebuilding and development projects;

12. Are there any promising practices? If yes, what are they and how can these promising practices be replicated in other projects and/or in other areas that have similar contexts?

VII. Evaluation Methodology: The consultant is expected to propose and design with precision, the details of the methodology for conducting the evaluation. The methodology should include how data analysis will address assumptions made in the project’s Theory of Change about how the project was thought to produce the intended results (refer to the project’s Theory of Change). Further it expected that the methodology design will use appropriate causal questions to address attribution (whether or not observed changes are due to the intervention or external factors) and contribution (to what extent the intervention caused the observed changes). The use of appropriate participatory approaches will be essential to properly triangulate information. Both primary and secondary sources must be used to generate data and information that are relevant to validate each key finding and the project’s Results Frame. A balanced mix of qualitative and quantitative methods such as survey, focus group discussions, in-depth interviews with key informants, case studies and success stories of beneficiaries and direct observation will be used to collect primary data. The evaluation team will be expected to create an open atmosphere that can also accommodate unexpected information and critical remarks. Triangulation of evidence and information gathered will underpin the validation of evidence collected and its analysis and will support conclusions and recommendations. The methodology summarized above has to be considered as flexible guidelines rather than final requirements; and the evaluator(s) will have an opportunity to make their inputs and propose changes in the evaluation design. It is expected that the consultant(s) will further refine the approach and methodology and submit their detailed description in the proposal and inception report.

The consultant is expected to conduct the evaluation in 3 phases:

(i) An inception desk based phase- This will include the collection and review of all relevant documentation concerning the project intervention. NPA shall provide a copy of the project proposal, Project Theory of Change, budget, contract, monitoring reports and progress reports plus any other technical documentation deemed essential for effective evaluation of the project. As a logical result of the completion of the desk review it is expected that the consultant will submit an inception report, which will contain evaluation objectives and scope, description of evaluation methodology/methodological approach, data collection tools, data analysis methods, key informants/agencies, evaluation questions, performance criteria, issues to be studied, work plan and reporting requirements.

(ii) A field visit phase- visit to project sites i.e. both counties of former Lakes state (Rumbek East & Yirol West Counties) and Mvolo County in Western Equatoria;

(iii) A synthesis and reporting phase which will be followed by a discussion meeting for a de-briefing and validation of the evaluation process, quality and findings before the final revised report is submitted.

VIII. SPECIFIC TASKS, OUTPUTS, TIMELINE AND MILESTONES

Tasks Outputs Estimated timeline days Milestones Inception desk phase: collection and review of all relevant documentation concerning the project and provision of inception report with detailed methodology and work plan. The full set of data collection tools should also be provided to NPA for review and approval. Gain project background and the plan of actions developed and shared 3  Inception report  Work plan Field Phase: Conduct all field work as per the agreed schedule. Also conduct independent briefing meeting with the appropriate staffs at NPA-Juba level and Rumbek All field data/information gathered 13 All field work conducted as per agreed methodology and sample size Synthesis phase: This phase is mainly devoted to the analysis of collected data and preparation of the draft final report and key findings. Draft report produced 4 Analysis of all data. Draft report submitted to NPA. Final report writing and is to include an executive summary Final report produced 4 Final report document

Total 24 days

X. Key Deliverables The consultant will be responsible for the following key deliverables:

1. Inception Report: The Inception Report of maximum 10 pages will detail description of evaluation methodology/methodological approach, data collection tools, data analysis methods, key informants/agencies, evaluation questions, performance criteria, issues to be studied and confirmation of final time schedule. The inception report will be shared and approved by NPA before commencement of the data collection and analysis. A technical discussion with NPA Programs team will follow to establish the concrete parameters for the final report, outlining any areas that need to be included.

2. Data collection tools: These will be submitted to the designated NPA project and evaluation management staff prior to data collection phase. This should be a comprehensive set of qualitative and quantitative tools to collect all key information necessary to meet the evaluation objectives and criteria.

3. Draft Report: Within 10 days of completing field site visits, the consultant will share with NPA the draft report which will be no more than 30 pages, excluding cover pages and annexes. In addition to meeting the evaluation objective and addressing the evaluation questions, the draft final report shall also synthesise the findings and conclusions into an overall assessment of the project and recommendations for future interventions. Upon receipt of the draft final report NPA will arrange a one day validation meeting where the draft findings will be presented, discussed and comments collected. Based on the validation meeting and other comments received from different relevant staff, NPA will produce one set of consolidated comments to be addressed in the final version of the report. The report should be finalised within 5 days from the receipt of the consolidated comments. Format of the final evaluation report shall include the following chapters: Executive Summary (maximum five pages), Project description, Evaluation purpose, Evaluation methodology, Findings, Lessons learnt, Recommendations and Annexes (including interview list, data collection instruments, key documents consulted, Terms of Reference).

4. Final EoP Evaluation report with the same specifications as mentioned under 3above, incorporating any comments received from the concerned parties on the draft report, to be presented within 5 days of the receipt of these comments. The MEL advisor and Grants Manager must confirm that all of the comments submitted at the time of the draft report have been addressed prior to any final acceptance of the report. The consultant is expected to submit all three reports two copies in paper and one copy in electronic version for each.

XI. Schedule: The end of project evaluation will commence by second week of June 2017 and is anticipated to take 24 days from commencement of evaluation activities, providing for 13 days of primary data collection (refer to timeline & milestone).

XII Essential Qualifications:

The consultant(s) should demonstrate clear competencies in one or more professional backgrounds in the areas of agriculture, nutrition, and programming in protracted emergencies or related fields with good experience of conducting programme/project appraisals and evaluation. More specifically, the consultant is expected to have: • Minimum Master’s Degree in Agriculture economics, social sciences or rural development or related areas • Sufficient knowledge and understanding of food security & livelihoods in conflict prone environments • Demonstrated experience in conducting Theory Based Evaluations and/or causal analyses is mandatory. • Experience in participatory approaches is a must as well as facilitation skills and ability to manage diversity of views in different cultural contexts. • 10 years of working experience in evaluation, and at least 5 in evaluation of food security and livelihoods projects in conflict prone environments • Ability to produce well written reports demonstrating analytical ability and excellent English writing and communication skills (sample work should be provided). • Experienced in statistical analysis packages such as SPSS or other similar software • Proven experience in evaluating integrated peacebuilding and development projects in the region. • Familiarity with the political, economic and social situation in the Republic of South Sudan • Committed to work and meet the deadline as agreed by project management • Demonstrated experience of and willingness to work in an environment with unpredictable security situation.

NOTE: PDF format of ToR can be requested at email: PeterLubariA@npaid.org, EmmanuelBayiO@npaid.org or javorkoh@npaid.org

All applications should be submitted to this email address: rss-tenders@npaid.org and copied to PeterLubariA@npaid.org, JohnM2@npaid.org indicating the following reference “Independent Consultant; FORMATIVE EVALUATION FOR CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION THROUGH LIVELIHOOD RECOVEY PROJECT IN RUMBEK EAST, YIROL WEST IN GREATER LAKES STATE, & MVOLO COUNTY IN WESTERN EQUATORIA STATE” by the end of11th June 2017, and should include the following documents:

• A detailed expression of interest that includes a brief summary of previous evaluation experience, a description of the approach to the evaluation, and a proposed methodological outline (maximum 4 pages);

• A work/activity plan (1 page maximum);

• A Curriculum Vitae;

• A detailed budget/Financial proposal

• Examples of at least two similar previous assignments (including the award letters for the assignments) ;

• Two referees for programme evaluation work completed in the last year Incomplete applications will be excluded from further consideration.

Applications that arrive after 11th June, 2017 will not be considered.

NB: Due to the urgency of this recruitment, we will review applications as they are submitted and may approach candidates before the end of the recruitment

We thank all applicants for their interest, but only short-listed candidates will be contacted.