The Evaluation of Strengthening Livestock Sector in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) Counties Programme.

Title: The Evaluation of Strengthening Livestock Sector in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) Counties Programme.

Organization: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Embassy of Switzerland in Kenya.

Duration: Between January and April 2021.

Number of days: 23 days maximum.

Contract Type: Consultancy

Closing date: 10 January 2021.

1. Purpose

This Terms of Reference (ToRs) provides the framework for the external evaluation of the Strengthening Livestock Sector in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) Counties Programme (LSS).** LSS aims to contribute to enhanced pastoralist community resilience that will result in improved livestock based livelihoods and sustainable socio-economic development.

The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) has supported pastoralist communities in Northern Kenya since 2012 through different interventions in the water, rangelands management and livestock sector to enhance their resilience to droughts and improve their livelihoods. The current three-year main phase support through LSS programme started in September 2018 and is ending in August 2021 with Switzerland contributing a total amount of of CHF 1’950’000, out of the project total of CHF 4’020’000 Mio – FCDC Counties and other donors contribute the remaining amount.

The purpose of the evaluation is to assess specific aspects of the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and lessons learnt of LSS programme in achieving its objectives. The evaluation will include transversal themes such as gender, good governance and conflict sensitivity programme management (CSPM) in the programme delivery and is expected to generate learning and recommendations for SDC and the relevant stakeholders. The evaluation should also inform the possibility of a next phase of the programme, and areas for enhanced synergies with other programmes in food security domain of the Swiss Regional Cooperation Programme for the Horn of Africa.

2. Context

Kenya’s Northern and lowland frontier counties of Garissa, Wajir, Mandera, Isiolo, Marsabit, Tana River, Lamu, Samburu, Turkana and West Pokot account for more than half of Kenya’s landmass, with a population of at least 4.7 million[1] people who are mainly dependent on livestock production as a source of livelihood. The livestock sector accounts for close to 80% of the economic performance in these counties where up to 60% of the population live in poverty and have suffered from historical marginalization, climate change, violent conflict , displacement, food insecurity, and limited public services and infrastructure. Compared to Kenya as a whole, these counties have a smaller share of agricultural land with vast land for livestock production. The region is generally rangeland with pockets suitable for dryland crops cultivation and suffers from recurrent droughts. The pastoralist set-up in the ASAL counties is generally patriarchal with minimal involvement of women in decision-making and leadership. However, attempts to increase women participation, change attitudes and cultural practises that limit women economic empowerment have been addressed in the Country’s new constitution. More than 25% of Pastoralist Parliamentary Group (PPG) members are women and they have formed a gender sub group that to enhance empowerment of women in pastoral areas including putting them into leadership positions.

In 2013, Kenya adopted a devolved system of governance^[2] whereby the counties receive 15% of the total national budget annually and are responsible for health, agriculture, basic education and water. Positive results were realized since the introduction of devolution with the initiation of new development projects for improved infrastructure and service delivery. Development needs are prioritized through 5-year strategy called County Integrated Development Plan (CIDPs). In 2014, the counties of Garissa, Wajir, Mandera, Isiolo, Marsabit, Tana River, Lamu, Samburu, Turkana and West-Pokot formed the Frontier Counties Development Council (FCDC) to seize the opportunities arising from the devolution process and to reverse their historical under-development and marginalization. FCDC promotes cooperation, coordination, and information sharing between Counties in view of enhancing socio-economic development and promoting peaceful co-existence among its members.

3. Strengthening Livestock Sector in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) Counties Programme

The Livestock Sector Strengthening project (LSS project) overall goal is to improve livestock production, livestock based livelihoods and sustainable socio-economic development. It supports FCDC counties to improve livestock production by creating a favorable environment to enhance policy frameworks and knowledge, for the delivery of livestock services by focusing on improving key factors such as fodder production, animal health, and market development. The project aims to achieve this by strengthening institutions involved in the livestock sector to deliver relevant services more effectively, and by encouraging inter-county coordination, peace, and cohesion.

The project implemented through institutions at national, regional and county levels in Kenya’s Northern and lowland frontier counties. It directly engages with the Pastoralist Parliamentary Group (PPG) at a national level, the Frontier Counties Development Council (FCDC) and the Sector Forum for Agriculture & Livestock[3] (SFAL) at a regional level, and with County Departments for Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (DALF) at a County level. This coordinated engagement presents an excellent opportunity to link county specific agenda with regional development interests, political lobbying and policy formulation on a national level to improve livestock productivity and reduce conflicts.

The following three outcomes contribute to the overall objective of the project:

1. Improved pastoralist communities’ access to knowledge and livestock production: The outcome is expected to result into the development of knowledge and information on new technologies and the introduction of yield improving technologies.

2. Enhanced policy frameworks for livestock production through enhanced advocacy and policy implementation: County departments, FCDC Sector Forum for Agriculture and Livestock (SFAL) and Pastoralist Parliamentary Group (PPG) jointly do advocacy work and implement policies. Expected results are amongst others; harmonized county livestock policies and strategies between Counties created; and PPG advocates for the inclusion of the pastoralist agenda at the national level;

3. Enhanced capacities of local authorities & institutions: County departments, FCDC-SFAL and PPG have the capacity to contribute to a strong and vibrant livestock sector. It is expected that the delivery capacities of Sector Forum for Agriculture and Livestock (SFAL), Departments for Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (DALF) and PPG is strengthened and that county departments’ sector strategies are in place.

4. Objectives and scope of the evaluation

As indicated above, the evaluation will assess relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and identify and document lessons learned, best practices, gaps and recommendations. In view of consolidating the Swiss food security portfolio, a focus will also be put on synergies between the Strengthening Livestock Sector in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) Counties Programme with other projects funded by Switzerland and other donors in the sector.

5. Guiding questions

The following non-exhaustive key tasks/questions should be addressed:

Relevance

1. How relevant are the programme’s objectives to improve livestock production, livestock based livelihoods and sustainable socio-economic development for women and men in Northern Kenya Counties?

2. To what extent is the programme aligned with the County Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs), the Ending Drought Emergencies (EDE) framework and other national strategies that focus on arid and semi-arid lands socio-economic development, donors and relevant stakeholders’ priorities?

3. How relevant is FCDC as regional coordinating body/block to the member counties? To what extent is the coordination through FCDC contributing to joint ownership by the counties? What is the level of commitment to the financial contribution to the secretariat?

4. What is the (potential) relevance of the project beyond the Kenyan FCDC ASAL-counties to the Ethiopian and Somalia arid ad semi-arid lands especially the Borena Zone of Ethiopia?

Effectiveness: Evaluate the extent to which the programme is delivering on the outcomes expected to achieve the objectives;

1. To what extent have the County Departments of Agriculture and Livestock and the target communities improved their livestock production, livelihoods and access to knowledge? Are the lessons from pilot interventions and direct engagements with Wajir County Department of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries result in actions that were replicated in other County departments and communities? In how far did the project contribute to an enhanced level of local innovation through knowledge and piloting?

2. To what extent is the policy environment at national, regional and county level supportive of a vibrant, inclusive and competitive livestock sector? What is the contribution of LSS and PPG to improving the policy support function?

3. How are the common regional frameworks, such as disease control framework and rangelands management, implemented across the Counties to harness the commonalities among the targeted Counties? To what degree did partnerships and coordination between counties increase and contribute to an improved access and livestock production of pastoralist men and women?

4. To what extent did the program contribute to improving the capacities of the departments of agriculture, FCDC and PPG to deliver their mandates to contribute to a strong and vibrant livestock sector? In how far did improved delivery respond to pastoralist men’s and women’s demands and needs?

5. In how far has phase 1 of the project be used to create exchange with local structures in neighbouring countries (Ethiopia, Somalia) to increase the outreach of the project and benefit from experience exchange?

Efficiency:

1. How efficient were the resources utilized based on the project results/outputs? Taking into consideration the project delivery principal based on a facilitation and convening of relevant key actors to attract additional resources from the government and other development partners.

2. Are the coordination mechanisms and leadership in programme implementation fit for purpose to achieve timely programme results? How efficient is the facilitation role of FCDC and the implementation role of county departments to achieve the desired programme results?

3. Based on the risks identified during the planning and implementation period, how did the programme mitigate these risks to achieve the programme objectives?

4. In how far did the LSS programme use synergies and complementarities with other interventions from the Government or those supported by Switzerland[4] and other donors? In how far did engagement in coordination with other initiatives avoid duplication of efforts?

5. How efficient was the project in terms of promotion of local innovation through enhancing access to knowledge and piloting?

Sustainability

1. To what extent has County level institutional ownership established – more specifically at the Department of Agriculture and livestock? Are the departments’ capacities improvement resulting in enhanced ownership and attitude change to improved delivery of services and adoption of best practices, independently from the project support?

2. To what extent are coordination and facilitation institutions (FCDC, SFAL and PPG) capacities strengthened and function independently for long-term existence beyond the project financial support? Is technical backstopping still required beyond the current phase for effective delivery of objectives?

3. In how far did the approach to strengthen and work through the country system at three different levels increase or decrease efficiency?

4. To what extent is the knowledge, information and experiences documented and shared during the programme implementation at the County, regional and national levels to influence future livestock development plans?

Gender, good governance, diversity and conflict sensitivity

1. To what extent was the programme implemented in a conflict-sensitive manner and has it contributed to a reduction of conflicts, mainly natural resource based communal conflicts? How is the link between SFAL and Sector Forum for Peace and Cohesion contributing to conflict-sensitive programme management? In how far did the project achieve its aim to address structural causes of conflict and to mitigate immediate conflicts?

2. How has the program contributed to women participation and empowerment (leadership, decision-making, livelihood support and access to resources and investments) and transformation of gender relations? To what extend did the approach to promote women’s roles e.g. in user committees and rangeland groups, to target women-specific livestock production related activities, and to include the PPG sub-group on gender contribute to more equal gender relations? In how far did they consolidate gender disparities?

3. How has the program contributed enhanced social accountability, participation, transparency, non-discrimination, governance effectiveness and efficiency, and rule of law?

4. Has the programme promoted the do-no-harm principles and inclusion of minority groups?**

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

What lessons can be learned from the programme thus far in regard to its relevance, coherence, effectiveness, impact, efficiency and sustainability, gender equity, transversal good governance and conflict sensitivity and ways of bringing about positive change at the normative, institutional and operational levels in a systemic way?

1. What are the recommendations for future engagements/subsequent phases looking at the programme focus, design, partnerships, implementing partners, etc.?

2. In what way can the approaches applied by the project be expanded to the arid and semi-arid lands of Ethiopia and to Somalia?

3. What aspects of the programme could be replicated and/or integrated, either as best practise or for consolidation with other ongoing programmes of the Swiss food security portfolio?

6. Suggested Methodology

The evaluation will be conducted in close collaboration with relevant stakeholders (Swiss Cooperation Office in Nairobi, FCDC, PPG, County Departments of Agriculture and Livestock etc.). SDC will directly manage and oversee the evaluation process.

The evaluation methodology will be guided by the objectives and the scope of the evaluation while exhaustively addressing the key evaluation questions. The evaluation is expected to provide quantitative and qualitative data through:

• Desk study/review of all relevant project documentation including e.g. programme documents, work-plans, programme reports (including progress, annual, baseline reports, gender assessment), minutes of programme steering and grant committees, among others.

• In depth interviews[5] to gather primary data from key stakeholders using a structured methodology.

• Focus Group discussions with programme stakeholders including pastoralist women and men.

• Observations (field visits using checklist to be developed by the consultants in collaboration with SDC).

A detailed method of evaluation should be outlined in the evaluation inception report before any field missions are carried out. The method of evaluation should be accompanied by a comprehensive Covid-19 mitigation strategy.

7. Deliverables

The following products are expected from the evaluation:

1. An adjusted evaluation approach paper and a work plan (inception report) to be developed by the evaluation team, approved by SDC and a briefing session held before the start of the evaluation mission. The inception report should describe key stages of the review process, provide timeline and establish clear roles and responsibilities in the review process.

2. An evaluation report (max. 25 pages, excl. the executive summary and annexes) with an analytical review and recommendation part. The report should take the guiding questions and respond to the evaluation guidelines.

3. Presentation of the outcome of the evaluation before the final reports are produced.

4. Presentation to programme key partners (to be agreed upon).

8. Review Team

For the evaluation, a gender-mixed team comprised of an expert with international experience and local expert(s) is preferred. The rational and the strength of the composition of the evaluation team should be clarified in the application proposal.

The lead expert is expected to have robust skills in evaluation methodologies and professional experience in conducting project and process evaluations, including in complex settings with a multitude of stakeholders and in fragile contexts. Additionally, the lead expert needs theoretical and practical knowledge of food security, livestock sector development, livelihoods and resilience, good governance, gender and conflict sensitivity thematic topics. He/ she should have expertise in systemic development approaches. Proven experience in fragile, conflict-affected drylands contexts in the Horn of Africa region is an advantage. Strong analytical capacity combined with ability to synthesize/communicate findings and recommendations and report-writing skills are required.

9. Synergies and common learnings with NRM Borena Programme Evaluation in Ethiopa:

The Evaluation of Strengthening Livestock Sector in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) Counties Programme will carried out at the same time as SDC supported Natural Resource Management (NRM) Programme in Borena Zone of Ethiopia;

· The two evaluation processes are expected to generate common learning and recommendations on the synergies between these two programmes.

· The evaluation team is expected to reach out to the implementation partners of the NRM Borena project in Ethiopia.

· A SDC peer review team will accompany both evaluations and ensure the linking of the two processes.

· A joint briefing of the outcomes will be expected of the two evaluation teams to inform the final reports.

· The same consultancy company or group of consultants could apply for both the assignments with adapted conditions.

10. Time Frame, Budget and Logistics

The maximum time frame for this evaluation by the consultant(s) is 23 working days. The allocation of working days to inception, desk review, field visits, etc. will be agreed on the basis of the inception report.

The study is scheduled to take place between January and April 2021 along the following deliverables:

Timeframe (2020)

Deliverables

December 15 – January 10

· Announcement (with the deadline submission January 10, 2021)

Until January 31

· Recruitment of consultants and Contractual processes.

Until February 28

· Conduct desk review.

· Submit inception report (in English) with detailed work-plan with timeframe outlining the activities/steps to be undertaken during the consultancy.

· Develop the evaluation methodology and tools for field work, including key informant interviews, focus group discussion etc. and identify people to be interviewed.

· Exchange and briefing session with SDC

Until March 22

· Carry out programme evaluation both at County and National level (exchange with partners and relevant stakeholders)

Until April 6

· Elaboration and delivery of draft evaluation report in English to SDC for review and feedback.

Until April 16

· Joint presentation/workshop to share the results of the evaluation together with the outcomes of the evaluation of NRM Borena and discuss on how the assessment can be translated to concrete actions/next steps.

· SDC to provide feedback on the draft report

Until April 30

· Consultant to deliver the final evaluation report to SDC Integrating all comments and feedbacks.

11. Award criteria

Of the valid offers submitted, the contract will be awarded to the most highly rated bid. Offers will be assessed according to the following award criteria and weighting:

Award criteria

Weighting

Academic qualification – a minimum of Master’s Degree in the relevant field with 10 years of experience. Proven knowledge and experience in food security, livestock sector development, livelihoods and resilience thematic topics (40%), Proven knowledge and experience in good governance, conflict sensitivity and gender approaches (40%), Proven knowledge and experience in systemic development (20%) = 30%

Experience in developing and implementing quantitative and qualitative research protocols, including research methods, sampling, data analysis, and experience with reviews and assessments, particularly in Horn of Africa context= 30%

Financial offer/Cost of consultancy service offered= 30%

Proven knowledge of the social and political context of the Horn of Africa, sensitivity for political economy.10%

Notes:

[1] According to the 2019 Kenya Population and Housing census.

[2] 2010 Constitution of Kenya creates a decentralized system of government wherein two of the three arms of government (Legislature and the Executive) are devolved to the 47 Counties (headed by elected governors) as provided for under Article 6.

[3] SFAL is an instrument under the FCDC with membership of County Executive Committee Members (CECs) of the ten FCDC Counties.

[4] Switzerland supported in Kenya: Kenya-RAPID ( in five of the 10 FCDC Counties) and IGAD-FAO; in Ethiopia: SDR-SNR, NRM-Borena, and projects implemented by the SDC Global Programme Foods security; in Somalia: Somalia Resilience Programme (SomRep), and Somalia Information and Resilience Building Action (SIRA)

[5] The field visits and face-to-face interviews will be dependent on how the Covid-19 pandemic situation evolves.