Improving livelihoods and food security through sustainable Natural Resource Management ACA/2016/373/-551

Terms of Reference for External Consultant/Consultancy Firm on End Line External Evaluation in the Scope of Project

“Improving livelihoods and food security through sustainable Natural Resource Management” in Zarafshan Valley (Ayni and Kuhistoni Mastchoh districts), Tajikistan

BACKGROUND

The Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) has been active in Tajikistan since 1993. AKF Tajikistan programmes cover a broad geographical area encompassing 36 districts in all four regions – Gorno Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast (GBAO), Khatlon, Sughd and Districts of Republican Subordination– reaching approximately 1.9 million people. This work is situated within agriculture and food security, economic inclusion, civil society, health and nutrition, early childhood development and education themes. AKF aims to bring together human, financial and technical resources to some of the poorest and most marginalised communities, with an emphasis on women and girls, investing in human potential, expanding opportunity and improving quality of life.

In 2016, AKF has signed a five-year grant agreement with the European Commission for “Improving livelihoods and food security through sustainable Natural Resource Management” in Zarafshan Valley, implemented by the consortium partners including ACTED, the Mountain Societies Development Support Programme (MSDSP), Sarob, CAMP Kuhiston and led by AKF. Total budget of the project is 6,250,000 EUR including 5,000,000 EUR funding from the European Union (EU) and 1,250,000 EUR from AKF and consortium members.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project as designed addresses several of the prevailing challenges in a complex way. It aims to contribute to sustainable management of natural resources in 10 selected sub watersheds of Ayni and Kuhistoni Mastchoh districts by helping to raise awareness and capacity building of the local authorities and communities to plan and manage resources in watershed context, thus contribute to the sustainable development of the watershed. The promotion of the environment through proper management of ecosystem and preservation and restoration of natural resources is a key area of activities.

The four anticipated Results are:

*R1 – Sustainable biomass cycling, and soil erosion control is enhanced through participatory water and natural resource management (NRM).
R2 – Access to clean drinking water and sanitation is increased via improved, collective governance.*

R3 – Access to energy is improved through adoption of energy efficient and renewable energy technologies.

R4 – Conservation-focused, climate smart agro techniques and practices are promoted and integrated into agricultural practices.

Project theory of change:

If: (R1) Sustainable biomass recycling and erosion control is enhanced through participatory water and natural resource management; (R2) Access to clean drinking water and sanitation is increased via improved, collective governance; (R3) Access to energy is improved through adoption of energy efficient and renewable energy technologies and finally (R4) Conservation-focused climate smart agro techniques and practices are promoted and integrated into agricultural practices:

THEN (Specific Objective) The accessibility, provision and usage of water and natural resources to promote greater sustainability in the upper catchments of Zerafshan Valley, will be improved:

WHICH WILL (Overall Objective 1) Contribute to poverty reduction by improving rural livelihoods; AND (Overall Objective 2) Contribute to food security through improved food availability, accessibility and diet.

1. Objectives of the external evaluation

According to the project document, the end line external evaluation will determine successes and failures of the project and make specific recommendations for Phase II.

2. Scope of work and description of external evaluation.

The evaluation will be undertaken through desk research (review of project documents, progress reports, updated logical framework, baseline evaluation report, external mid-term evaluation, internal and external monitoring reports, internal end line survey report), meetings and interviews with key project stakeholders including the EU delegation office in Tajikistan, project partners main office as well as field office team, Ministry of Energy and Water Resources, district and jamoat authorities, field visits to project target communities, sites, meeting with project beneficiaries, presentation of findings, development of final report with findings, lessons learnt, clear recommendations.

The evaluation will apply the progress-oriented approach focusing on critical indicators developed for respective outcomes and outputs. The following indicators will be measured through the evaluation:

Overall Objective (OO):

O1. Contribute to reduction of poverty by improving rural livelihoods

O2. Contribute to food security through improved food availability, accessibility and diet

*Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) at OO level are**:*

OV1. Proportion of rural population in Zerafshan valley living below the national poverty line (baseline: 35% of poor families below national poverty line)

OV2. Food availability in the project area (10 selected watersheds) through production level of key agricultural crops (baseline: 2,782 tons of apricot; 10,176 tons of potato)

Specific Objective (SO):

SO – Improved accessibility, provision and usage of water and natural resources to promote greater sustainability in the upper catchments of Zerafshan Valley

Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) at SO level are:

OVI 1. % of population in the project area with access to clean drinking water and sanitation; target value: 20% more than baseline (Baseline: 61% access to clean drinking water, 49% access to adequate sanitation in 10 watersheds). To date 80% of project area population have access to drinking water.**

OVI 2. % of pasture and forest land in the project area (10 watersheds) that is effectively managed by formal and informal natural resource protection measures; target value: 20 % out of total pasture and forest area.

OVI 3. Average fuel consumption per household (wood, coal, dung) in the project area; target value: 15% less than baseline. (baseline: 4.71 m3 wood, 2,236.97 kg coal, 668.79 kg dung)

Expected Result R 1 (ER 1):

Sustainable biomass cycling and soil erosion control is enhanced through participatory water and NRM management

Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs)

OVI 1: # of field promoters trained, and awareness campaigns conducted, target value: 98 field promoters trained, 490 awareness campaigns

OVI 2: area of land improved, protected and # of people benefitting from it; target value: 500 ha of land under erosion control, 7,000 beneficiaries

OVI 3: # of pasture management plans developed and size of pasture area with improved access; target: 6 developed, 500 ha improved

OVI 4: # of watershed dialogue working groups (DWGs) established, operational and managing implementation of watershed management plans by end of project; target value: 8 watershed dialogue working groups covering 10 target watersheds

OVI 5: # of disaster mitigation sub-projects implemented to make at-risk villages safer from natural disasters; target 10 mitigation sub-projects).

Expected Result R 2 (ER 2):

Access to clean drinking water and sanitation is increased via improved, collective governance.

Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs)

OV2 1: # of drinking water supply systems constructed, benefiting # of inhabitants; target value: 10 systems, 7,500 inhabitants **

OV2 2: % of drinking water systems well maintained and managed by water user’s association (WUA) and water users’ committees (WUC); target value: 50% WUCs of project-constructed systems

OV2 3: % of population benefitting from improved latrines and garbage disposal systems in villages where water supply systems will be constructed; target value: 50%

Expected Result R 3 (ER 3):

Access to energy is improved through adoption of energy efficient and renewable energy technologies

Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs)

OV3 1: #/% of participants in project-organized training events with increased knowledge on energy efficiency and forest management; target value: 40% of 120 training participants, 25% of them women

OV3 2: # of hectares covered by joint forest management (JFM) contracts by the end of the project in the 10 target watersheds; target value: 400 members covered by contracts, 1,500 ha

OV3 3: # of public buildings retrofitted by newly trained local masters for improved energy efficiency, serving as demo for # of people; target value: 12 buildings, 10,000 people

OV3 4: # of private business workshops producing energy efficient products; target value: 12 private workshops

Expected Result R 4 (ER 4):

Conservation-focused, climate smart agro techniques and practices are promoted and integrated into agricultural practices

Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs)

OV4 1: # of producer groups established (disaggregated by type) and connected to lead firms; target value: 40 groups, 800 members, 50% of them connected to lead firms

OV4 2: # of agricultural service providers supported and veterinarians trained; target value: 40 – 5 veterinary service providers supported; 15 veterinarians; 10 agricultural extension service providers; 9 lead farmers; and 1 lead firm engaged

OV4 3: # of on-farm demonstrations and # of participating farmers adopting new technologies; target value: 18 demos, 1000 farmers

3. Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation shall focus specifically on results. The following evaluation criteria shall be focused on:

· Relevance (appropriateness)

· Effectiveness

· Efficiency

· Impact

· Sustainability

The following questions should be explored as part of each evaluation criteria:

3.1 Relevance

1) Does the action presently respond to the needs of the target groups / end beneficiaries?

2) Is the action adapted to the present institutional, human, financial capacities of the partner government and/or other key stakeholder(s)?

3) Were the indicators well defined and relevant to measure the achievement of the objectives?

4) Were all related data available?

5) Are all key stakeholders still demonstrating effective commitment (ownership)?

6) Were there an effective government led system of sector coordination (including Capacity Development) involving the relevant local stakeholders?

7) Were there any complementarity issues with other ongoing/planned action(s) (including Capacity Development) managed by donors that need to be addressed?

8) Have all relevant circumstances and risks been considered to update the intervention logic?

9) Have the necessary measures been considered to enhance the role of women?

3.2 Efficiency

1) Have the chosen implementation mechanisms (incl. choice of implementation modalities, entities and contractual arrangements) proved to be conducive for achieving the expected results?

2) Did partner government and other partners effectively steer the action?

3) Did the resources funded by the action and actually made available correspond to the needs of the action?

4) To what degree were other resources which are not EU funded made available?

5) To what degree were resources (inputs) available on time from other partners?

6) If there were delays, how important were they and what were the consequences?

7) What were the reasons for these delays and to what extent have appropriate corrective measures been implemented?

8) To what extent was the planning been revised accordingly?

9) Have the outputs been produced/delivered in a cost-efficient manner?

10) Was the action adequately monitored by implementing partners, partner government(s) and other key stakeholders?

3.3 Effectiveness

1) Was the progress of each output conforming to plan?

2) Was the quality of outputs satisfactory?

3) Were the outputs being still likely to lead to the expected outcomes?

4) To what extent have beneficiaries been satisfied with the results?

3.4 Sustainability

1) Were key stakeholders acquiring the necessary institutional and human capacities to ensure the continued flow of benefits?

2) Was access to the benefits affordable for target groups on the long term?

3) Have the relevant authorities taken the financial measure to ensure the continuation of services after the end of the action?

4) Was the private sector been involved to ensure the sustainability of the action?

5) Have the necessary measures been taken to address the environmental sustainability?

4. Expected Deliverables and Schedule

The evaluation deliverables are: i) finalised evaluation methodology, sampling strategy, tools, and plan, ii) report outline, iii) draft report, iv) presentation of draft report findings and iv) final report. A report outline will be suggested by the Evaluator during the course of the fieldwork; the key findings and recommendations will be presented to AKF after the fieldworks completion; draft report will be submitted within a two weeks of completing the fieldwork; permitting 5 working days for comment and feedback by AKF and its partners; with the final report to be submitted within two weeks of the receipt of AKF comments and feedback.

5. Timeframe

The end line evaluation will take place during May – July 2021.

6. Payment and Logistics

AKF will pay based on deliverables as following:

· 30% from total contract amount will be paid upon submission by consultant/consultancy firm: i) finalised evaluation methodology, sampling strategy, tools, and plan, ii) report outline and their acceptance by AKF

· Remaining 70% from total contract amount will be paid upon submission by consultant/consultancy firm the final report and its acceptance by AKF.

AKF will provide the consultant/consultancy firm with relevant project documents, reports and contact information. AKF will facilitate the meetings arrangements with project stakeholders as well as translation (if assistance needed).

Consultant/consultancy firm will need to include in its financial proposal relevant logistical costs (international, domestic travels, accommodation, food, communication, data enumeration, etc) and cover these costs by its own.

7. Intellectual Property Rights

AKF will retain all intellectual property rights for all materials produced, in any format, for this assignment.

8. EXPERTISE REUIREMENTS

The Consultant/consultancy firm should have the following qualifications as criteria for selection:

· At least 10 years of experience and qualifications in conducting studies, research, project evaluations, surveys, and analysis

· Strong contextual knowledge of Tajikistan and project locations

· Proven track record, experience and technical expertise in natural resources management, watershed management thematic

· Professional expertise in analyzing data and producing high quality reports

· Strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings

· Strong command of English language. Knowledge of Tajik or Russian languages is advantage. All evaluation related documents (i.e. technical proposal, methodology, tools, implementation plan, report etc.) should be submitted in English language. Tools for data collection should also be submitted in English.