Consultant – SSADP II MID TERM EVALUATION

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR

SSADP II MID-TERM EVALUATION

1.1 ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND:

Stitching is an international NGO registered in the Netherlands with over a century-long history of emergency and development aid in several countries, including South Sudan. The organization is implementing programs on sustainable livelihoods, Agriculture and food security, emergency response and recovery, health, and Peace and Justice in South Sudan. The experience and knowledge gained in the target counties have been used for the development of this project (SSADP II).

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND:

This ToR is for the midterm evaluation of the “The Food Security Through Agribusiness in South Sudan Project (SSADP II)”. It is a five-year project that runs from late 2018 to July 2023 funded by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (EKN) in South Sudan. The overall goal of the project is to improve food security, income, and employment of 10,000 farmer households in selected counties, based on the Making Markets Working for the Poor (M4P) approach and aims at enhancing food security, buying power, and employment position of vulnerable population in Yambio, Torit and Bor counties. It supports the strengthening of market functions and market players to make the local markets more inclusive and more enabling for agribusiness to thrive. Moreover, the project strives to increase farmers’ and agribusiness’ (MSMEs, Cooperative, VSLA) access to the organization, technology, markets, and finance. This project is being implemented by a consortium of Cordaid, Agriterra, and SPARK organizations, with Cordaid as the lead consortium agency. The 3 agencies work in close collaboration with the relevant line ministries of the Government of South Sudan, and key stakeholders, including local and international NGOs, UN agencies, and the private sector. Through this project, 10,000 farmers will directly benefit from increased production and productivity through Farmers Economy and Market Association (FEMA), 1000 youths & women and 750 MSMEs will benefit from Business Development Services, 230 Farmers Cooperatives, and 120 Village Economy, Market and Social Association (VEMSA) will directly benefit from Cooperative Development and VEMSA Development Support. Also, the project will create access to finance in partnership with Rural Finance Initiative (RUFI) in a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) scheme for agribusiness development in the project target counties. The selected value chain includes Maize, Sorghum, Cassava, and Groundnuts. The conceptual model of the project is shown in the diagram in the right.

2. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

The evaluation is aimed at the entire performance of the project’s inputs, outputs, outcomes, efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability. The evaluation will also focus on lessons learnt and development recommendations to inform strategic adjustments to the action.

The evaluation will further help identify innovative approaches to making markets work for the poor and how to strengthen the interventions to sustainable livelihoods in future.

The evaluation will also assess the project design, scope, implementation status, complementarity with other projects, services, and the capacity to achieve the expected outcomes. The consultant will also collate and analyze challenges faced, and best practices documented during implementation period which will inform the proceeding implementation period (January 2022 – July 2023 of the project.

KEY OUTCOME OF THE EVALUATION:

1. Measure the mid-term achievement of the project based on relevant indicators defined in the Log frame, with results stipulated in the full indicator table.
2. Based on the indicators captured, analyze the key success and constraint factors (both internal and external) for each outcome.
3. Analyze the project based on the evaluation criteria stated in section 3
4. Recommend on strategies and approaches for enhancing project impact.

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA

In summary, the consultant will use the OECD DAC evaluation criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.

i. Relevance: This is the extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries, and partner/institution needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change. This means the *objectives and design of the intervention are sensitive to the economic, environmental, equity, social, political, and capacity conditions in which it takes place. “*

ii. Coherence: How well does the intervention fit the beneficiaries’ needs and context, in terms of compatibility of the intervention, geographical scope of the intervention, and related interventions by other agencies and the government institutional framework.

iii. Effectiveness: The extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives and its results, including any differential results across groups. This refers to the aggregate measure of the extent to which the interventions have been achieved so far or are expected to be achieved by the end of the project.

iv. Efficiency: This is the extent to which the interventions have been delivered or are likely to be delivered in an economical and timely manner. This refers to the “Economic” conversion of inputs (funds, expertise, natural resources, time, etc.) into outputs, outcomes, and impacts, in the most cost-effective way possible, as compared to feasible alternatives in the context.

v. Impact: This the extent to which the interventions have generated or are expected to generate significantly positive or negative, intended, or unintended, higher-level effects. This seeks to identify the social, environmental, and economic effects of the intervention that are longer term or broader in scope than those already captured under the effectiveness criterion.

vi. Sustainability: Will the benefits last? This examines the extent to which the net benefits of the intervention will continue or are likely to continue for a long period of time after the intervention, in terms of the financial, economic, social, environmental, and institutional capacities of the established systems needed to sustain net benefits over time. This analyzes the resilience, risks, and potential tradeoffs.

vii. Learning and recommendations; Document lessons learnt & best practices to understand what has and what has not worked. Identify innovations as well as best/promising practices/ new programming opportunities to inform future design of interventions and document key findings and recommendations to inform stakeholders and as well the next implementation period including thematic integration and partnership strengthening.

4. THE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluation will incorporate the principles and standards of the OECD/DAC for a participatory, credible, and gender sensitivity. Therefore, both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection can be considered. The chosen methods should be inclusive and respect the social and cultural context of the target beneficiaries. The evaluator should consider acceptable research ethics to be applied during the data collection process. in general terms the evaluation should be guided by the “do-no-harm” principle. the sampling methodology and size should be representative by considering the spread of the beneficiaries and relevant stakeholders.

5. SCOPE OF THE MIDTERM EVALUATION

The evaluator is expected to undertake the following tasks:

• Develop Inception report and presenting it for review and approval.
• Based on project Log frame, develop detailed methodology of the evaluation, data collection tools, sampling, and data analysis instruments for all relevant indicators, and present for review and approval.
• Facilitate an expert/stakeholder review of the tools and methodology proposed for the survey in the project locations.
• Revise the tools and methodology proposed for the survey based on feedback from the expert/stakeholder review.
• Train data collectors (Enumerators)/supervisors on use of data collection tools.
• Data collection should happen in the three (3) counties of Bor, Torit and Yambio simultaneously. Therefore, either the consultant or their designated supervisors will supervise the data collection.
• Lead the data collection exercise with participation of CORDAID staff and relevant consortium members’ staff.
• Perform data collation, cleaning, analysis, and report writing.
• Generate and present a draft evaluation report for review by the SSADP II implementing agencies.
• Facilitate local stakeholder’s review of the draft report and inputs from the project location. To check the factual basis of the evaluation, and to discuss the draft findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
• Incorporate stakeholder/expert comments and submit final report.
• Present the final evaluation report to CORDAID/consortia members. The final report should be submitted to CORDAID South Sudan in both hard and soft copies.

6. TIME FRAME

This assignment will take a maximum of 21 working days effective November 8, 2021 – December 6^th, 2021. The final report will be submitted to CORDAID South Sudan before or on December 6^th, 2021.

MIDTERM EVALUATION

KEY ACTIVITY NUMBER OF DAYS ALLOCATED DATES

Desk review of data/design of methodology/tools development. 3 Days Nov 8th-10th Virtual training of enumerators/supervisors, 1 days Nov 11th, 2021 Remotely Support the data collection , 7 days Nov 12th-22nd Data analysis and sense-making 3 days Nov 23rdth-25th Report writing 5 days Nov 26th-Dec 1 Debriefing. 1 days Dec 2, 2021 Final revision and submission 1 days Dec 10, 21

7. SUPPORT EXPECTED FROM CORDAID SOUTH SUDAN TO THE EVALUATION TEAM.

Cordaid South Sudan will provide the following facilitation to enable successful completion of the assignment.

• Transport into and out of the country as well as within the country during the review process.
• Accommodation and upkeep for the consultant
• Enumerators’ fees and training materials
• Logistical support for the data collection process
• Supervision of the process including working with the team

8. KEY DELIVERABLES

Based on this TOR the consultant shall deliver the following:

a. The consultant will submit an inception report 1 week after signing of the contract. b. A draft (soft copy) midterm review report shall be submitted two (2) weeks after data collection. c. Submit to CORDAID South Sudan the final report for the evaluation, one (1) week after receiving the feedback from Cordaid and consortium members. d. All data sets used for analysis as well as any other form of transcripts used, are Cordaid South Sudan property hence shall all be submitted with the final report. e. The final report should include at least the following components. ▪ Executive summary. ▪ Background; Brief project description and context ▪ Evaluation purpose. ▪ Study methodology including sampling procedure and size ▪ Key findings per results areas of the project ▪ Strategies used to achieve the results ▪ Unintended results ▪ Lessons learnt per project component ▪ Recommendations per project component ▪ Conclusion.

9. EVALUATOR’S PROFILE AND REQUIREMENTS

a. Holds a master’s degree related to the assignment b. At least Five (10) years’ experience evaluating resilience programs related to food security and livelihood projects. c. Demonstration of relevant skills in leading evaluations in South Sudan contexts d. Excellent analytical and report writing skills

10. APPLICATION GUIDELINE

Potential candidates are advised follow the below guidelines.

a. A detailed technical proposal document including evaluation criteria, methodology, evaluation question, Sampling and Data management processes, clearly articulated). b. Detailed Financial proposal with detailed budget clearly broken down per clear headings. c. Sampled experiences of previous works, similar this assignment. d. Curriculum Vitae of the head consultant (s), and 3 references/referees preferably previous organizations for whom the consultant worked. e. Profile of the consultancy firm- with proof of compliance to South Sudan legal operation of companies

11. A GUIDE TO THE EVALUATION BUDGET DEVELOPMENT

Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total cost in USD Remarks

1. Professional fees (this budget should be broken down) e.g. Consultant, and supervisors’ cost
2. Travel cost (only for international flight if required)
3. Accommodation and meals
4. Enumerator cost
5. Taxes (applicable to international consultants, which is 15% of the cost of the assignment)

Note: The domestic flights and local road transport will be covered by Cordaid South Sudan.

12. EVALUATION AND AWARD OF THE EVALUATION CONSULTANCY

All applications shall be evaluated against the below set of indicators.

Selection criterion Marks scored

Demonstration of clear understanding of the assignment 10 Marks Comprehensive outline of how to carry the assignment 20 Marks Experience and expertise in similar assignments 20 Marks Clear technical proposal 30 Marks Clear Financial Proposal 20 Marks

Total 100 Marks