Request for proposals: Mid-term Review Climate Resilient Rural Livelihoods Programme

Please download full ToR with annex here. 

Terms of Reference for the Mid-Term Review of QZA-20 0246, Climate Resilient Rural Livelihoods Programme

About the Development Fund

For more than 40 years the Development Fund (DF) has collaborated with local communities and civil society organisations in developing countries to improve the production of food and income generation of highly vulnerable and marginalised rural communities. DF’s vision is a sustainable and just world with freedom from hunger, poverty, and marginalisation. Hundreds of thousands of small-scale farming households have received DF-support to develop resilient livelihoods and eliminate hunger, malnutrition, and poverty in their communities.

DF has stood steadfast in the forefront among development organisations promoting the empowerment of marginalised rural communities, pro-poor policies and appropriate solutions, particularly through approaches such as crop diversification, model-farmer, climate adaptive villages (CAVs), affordable climate adaptive agriculture techniques, community seed banks, small-scale irrigation and mechanisation, local natural resource management, microcredits and capacity building of civil society and grassroots organisation. DF mobilises the assets of small-scale farmers to ensure local contribution, involvement, and ownership, which is key to sustainable, resilient, and equitable development.

Background and Context

Programme description

DFs’ overall aim with the programme is to enhance the resilience of rural communities and contribute to the development of sustainable food systems. Sustainable food systems deliver food security and nutrition for society in a way that enhances the economic, social and environmental bases to strengthen food security for future generations (FAO, 2018). The Climate Resilient Rural Livelihoods programme is designed to achieve this overall goal using an integrated and holistic approach to increase the climate resilience and well-being of rural communities in some of the most marginalised and resource-poor localities of Malawi, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Somalia, Nepal, and Guatemala.

DF and experienced local, national and international partners work together to directly support 104,013 households and 408 communities in their efforts to improve their living conditions, including food security, nutrition, and income. Furthermore, we are working to mobilise broader normative changes to increase the influence of women and disadvantaged groups within their households, organisations, and communities, and to improve government policy practices and services in line with rural communities’ needs, rights and priorities. The empowerment of rural women and youth is a key objective. In addition, the programme aims to promote the inclusion of specific groups within rural communities who face discrimination based on ethnicity, ability, religion, and caste, among others.

The programme builds on partnerships, methodologies and lessons learned from DF’s 40 years of experience in integrating rural development with climate adaptation and natural resource management. In this phase, we aim to strengthen strategies for nutrition-sensitive agriculture, place country-level governance issues at the centre of our policy work and leverage the CAV approach for collective action on climate change.

Objective of the programme

DF’s overall aim to enhance the resilience of rural communities and contribute to the development of sustainable food systems, the Climate Resilient Rural Livelihood programme is designed to achieve this overall goal through an integrated and holistic approach to increase the climate resilience and well-being of rural communities in Malawi, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Somalia, Nepal, and Guatemala.

To achieve this, the programme concentrates on four interlinked intermediate outcomes (IO): Improved food security and nutrition for rural households (IO1); Increased economic empowerment for rural households, especially women, youth and marginalised groups (IO2); Improved government services and legal frameworks in line with rural communities’ needs, rights and priorities (IO3); and Rural women and marginalised groups have increased influence and recognition within their households, grassroots organisations and communities IO4). The programme has identified five immediate outcomes (IM) which will contribute to these intermediate outcomes: Rural households have improved nutrition and care practices (IM1); Smallholder farmers have increased the diversity and productivity of their food production (IM2); Rural communities have enhanced access to sustainably managed land and water resources (IM3); Rural women, youth and marginalised groups have improved capacity to generate income (IM4); and Grassroots organisations have increased their capacity to advocate for good government practices and legal frameworks (IM5).

Objectives of the Mid-Term Review

The objective of the Mid-Term Review (MTR) is to assess and document progress towards the achievement of the programme outcomes and assess early signs of success or failure, with the goal of identifying the necessary changes to be made in order to set the programme on track to achieve its intended results. The MTR will determine coherence, efficiency, and effectiveness, while being forward-looking by assessing to what extent results (i) are of the necessary quality[1] and verifiable; (ii) are sustainable; and (iii) may contribute to achieving the intended impact.

In addition, the MTR will assess success factors and constraints, capture lessons learnt and document new knowledge and important topics for further enquiry, action, lobbying and/or influence. It will also review and assess the findings and recommendations of the country-specific Project Progress Reports.

The MTR will ensure accountability towards Norad as a donor as well as the programme participants. The findings of the review will be used by DF and its partners to make necessary adjustments to the programme for the remaining grant period. On this basis, the review shall also provide clear (actionable) recommendations for improvement and identify important areas for learning.

As part of the MTR, DF expects particular emphasis upon our results achievements (or lack thereof) in the areas/sectors of Climate Adaptive Villages (CAV), nutrition, gender equality/women’s empowerment and inclusion of persons living with disabilities (PWDs). This necessitates a comprehensive and holistic assessment of DF’s thematic engagement and financial commitment as well as country specific partnership structures as enabling factors effecting change in the programme.

Review Questions

The MTR shall answer the following questions and offer tangible recommendations for follow up:

Effectiveness:

1. To what extent is the programme successful in achieving desired results in line with the programme’s IOs and IMs?
2. To what extent is the programme cost effective? Please assess indirect costs versus direct project activity costs, including per diem, travel costs etc. Are all costs and procurements necessary? Please provide tangible examples of cost-effective measures and cost-ineffectiveness.
3. If need for adjustments, what concrete recommendations do you propose to DF and partners for the remainder of the programme cycle?

Coherence:

1. To what extent has DF and Norad been able to effectively coordinate and ensure global and country-level coherence of Norwegian development strategies, Norwegian funded programmes and initiatives in relevant sectors and in relation to cross cutting issues?
2. To which degree has DF and partners been able to ensure programme coherence in line with national and local development plans?
3. To what extent has the communication/collaboration between DF and Norad been adequate?
4. To what extent has the communication/collaboration between the partners and DF been adequate?

Efficiency

1. Is the programme being implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives? Are the objectives/outcomes being achieved on time?

Sustainability

1. Are the approaches being applied by the programme contributing to the sustainability of the achievements?
2. Which key interventions have already a good base for sustainability and which ones lack the base for sustainability?
3. What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership (including ownership by governments and other key stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the programme outcomes/benefits to be sustained?
4. Is the programme applying a sensible exit strategy for the transfer of responsibility and activities to other stakeholders (local government, community institutions)?

Quality

1. Please assess the quality of the results framework and sources for data collection. To what extent are the applied methodologies adequate? Do the applied methodologies allow for verification of results, verification of the quality of results, and randomised controls?
2. If need for adjustments, what concrete recommendations do you propose to DF and partners for the remainder of the programme cycle and future programmes?

Specific questions I – Contribution to programme outcomes

1. Is the programme contributing to improved nutrition and care practices in rural households? If yes, how? If no, what needs to be improved?
2. Are there differences in the extent to which women and men are benefitting from programme intervention? If yes, how? If no, what needs to be improved?
3. To what degree does the programme contribute to increased influence and recognition for women and marginalised groups within their households, grassroots organisations and communities? Please provide concrete examples.
4. Has the programme been successful in including persons living with disabilities? Please provide tangible examples of good practises and, if applicable, how best to strengthen PWD inclusion in the programme.
5. To what extent are Climate Adaptive Villages (CAV) plans contributing to increased climate resilience in rural communities? Please provide concrete examples where applicable.

Scope of the Review

• Temporal scope: The programme runs from 2021 to 2025 and the review will be conducted for the period of 2021-2023.
• Geographic scope: The MTR will cover implementation areas in Malawi, Ethiopia, Somalia, Nepal and Guatemala. Accordingly, the review will make sampling from municipalities in each country, and sampling of households from each sampled community. Therefore, to make it more representative the consultant shall take sufficient samples of households for each sampled municipality/community considering 95% Level of confidence with a 5% margin of error. See table in section 7. for further explanation.
• Activity scope: The review will be conducted for the whole programme across the intervention areas as indicated above under geographic scope.

Main users and stakeholders

The main users of the MTR are DF and partners. Other stakeholders having an interest in the review include Norad, NMFA and relevant institutions at different administrative levels in programme countries.

Methodology

The MTR must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable, and useful. The consultant will develop appropriate methodologies and data collection tools to answer the above review questions. The review team shall use a mix of quantitative and qualitative data to assess results, including desk reviews of relevant documentation. Qualitative data can be collected through focus group discussions, Key Informant Interviews, and observation among other techniques. In addition, the review shall employ participatory methods that give voice to the local communities and programme participants. It shall consult community-based institutions, programme staff (from DF and partners), relevant government office staff, local, regional and federal authorities, and other relevant stakeholders. The areas and partners to be included in the study are to be decided by DF through consultations with the partners and the consultant.

The final MTR report must describe the full MTR approach taken and the rationale for the approach making explicit the underlying assumptions, challenges, strengths and weaknesses of the methods and approach of the review.

Deliverables

Inception Report: The Inception Report will not exceed 20 pages in length and will comprise detailed methodology, including data collection tools, indicative survey questions, and interview protocol; initial findings based on a desk study (document/literature review), a work plan and a comprehensive list of stakeholders and key informants (KIs); list of relevant documents and references; and any other issue of importance.

Draft report: The Draft MTR Report shall be delivered in English and shall not exceed 60 pages, including an executive summary and excluding annexes, with the following sections (illustrative, not exhaustive):

• Executive summary presenting main findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
• Introduction and background, including review purpose, objectives, and scope
• Description of methodology
• Limitations
• Review Results
• Findings, conclusions, and recommendations
• Lessons learned
• Annexes (to include updated log frame with results, review ToR, Inception Report, maps, list of KII/stakeholders, documents/literature reviewed, raw collected data and research tools (if applicable).

The consultant must comply with global and DF Data protection policy, including GDPR.

Lists of key informants/interviewees shall only include personal data if deemed relevant (i.e. when it is contributing to the credibility of the review) based on a case based assessment by the evaluator. The inclusion of personal data in the report must always be based on a written consent.

MTR findings shall flow logically from the data, showing a clear line of evidence to support the conclusions. Conclusions should be substantiated by findings and analysis. Review questions shall be clearly stated and answered in the executive summary and in the conclusions. Recommendations and lessons learned should flow logically from conclusions. They must be clear, relevant, targeted, and actionable so that the review can be used to achieve its intended learning and accountability objectives.

The structure of the MTR will be agreed at the inception stage. The report will be presented both in hard copy and an electronic version and be presented in a way that enables publication without further editing.

The Executive Summary will include the main findings and conclusions, lessons learned, an assessment of what has worked well, and recommended improvements.

Presentation: The consultant will present initial findings to DF, implementing partners and key stakeholders for validation.

Final report: The MTR Report in English shall incorporate Client comments and shall not exceed 60 pages including the executive summary and excluding annexes. It shall be submitted in digital form.

Timeline and resourcing

The duration of the MTR is estimated to a maximum of twelve weeks. The review should commence, no later than 11 September 2023. The budget available for the MTR is estimated at 700,000 NOK. Activities, dates (to be agreed) and deadlines (to be proposed by the consultant and agreed) for the consultancy work are:

Start-up – Preparatory/Contract signing

Start-up meeting (kick-off)

Phase 1 – Inception / desk study

• Submission of Draft Inception Report
• Client review and comment
• Submission of Final Inception Report

Phase 2 – Data collection

• Fieldwork (data collection)
• Debrief

Phase 3 – Analysis and Reporting

• Submission of Draft MTR Report
• Presentation of draft reports and presentation of initial findings and recommendation
• Client review and comment
• Submission of Final MTR Report

Roles and Responsibilities

The consultant will prepare a comprehensive participatory methodology for undertaking the review. S/he will collaborate with partners to appraise existing data collection tools and design as needed and collect data. S/he is expected to travel to project implementation areas, adequately familiarise him/her with the project logical framework and any relevant information relating to policy and legal frameworks in the agriculture, environment, and related sectors. The consultant will be responsible for data analysis and report writing which will be accompanied by presenting study results to DF, and partner organisation for validation. Whereas field visits and contact sessions with communities will be facilitated by partners.

The main responsibility for ensuring that all responsibilities are carried out lies with the consultant.

The consultant will undertake the following activities:

• Conduct review of data sources such as reports, relevant policies, strategies and project documents.
• Develop appropriate study methodology, design, and tools.
• Select the most appropriate sample project areas for the visit.
• Submit an inception report and finalise review plan.
• Conduct field work.
• Synthesise findings.
• Produce draft report.
• Organise validation workshops in which local partners, DF and other relevant stakeholders participate.
• Produce final report, including incorporating comments from DF and its implementing partner.
• Present findings to DF and IPs as required by DF.

Other responsibilities of the consultant:

• Adhere to all terms/conditions stipulated in the contract.
• Pay income tax or other taxes as required.
• Obtain relevant insurance as needed.
• Adhere to DF’s code of conduct while undertaking the assignment.
• Adhere to the agreed timeframes regarding all activities outlined in the timeline.
• The consultant shall cover all costs associated with transportation during the assignment.
• Consultant’s own laptops and phones are to be used during the assignment.
• Pay for own accommodation and per diem etc.

DF will be responsible for the following:

• Provide consultant with all required documents.
• Link consultants to partner organisations and other relevant stakeholders and set up meetings as required.
• Support in the process and provide technical input on methodology both from Oslo and country offices.
• Plan (in collaboration with partner and the consultant) the field visits.
• Take part in field assessments and follow up the progress of the review as per plan ensuring quality.

Implementing partners will be responsible for the following:

• Accompany the consultant during the field visits.
• Arrange interviews, focus group discussions, meetings, and project site visits as requested.
• Logistic arrangement in the field in discussion with DF.

Desired competencies and skills of the consultant

The review team shall preferably be international consultant(s). The term Consultant in this ToR refers to the review team. The Consultant will liaise closely with DF, implementing partner staff, staff of relevant government and non-government institutions in the areas where the review will take place.

The members of the consulting team should hold the following competencies and skills:

• Advanced university degree in the field of agriculture, development studies, economics, or related fields; working particularly on climate change, food security, nutrition, and rural development.
• Extensive experience in designing and conducting independent reviews on rural development, food security, and climate change programmes/projects.
• Good understanding of gender, inclusion of minorities and community-based organisations.
• Good communication, analytical, drafting and document presentation skills.
• Demonstrated ability to meet deadlines.
• Practical experience on gender issues and gender integration analysis.
• Excellent writing and presentation skills.
• Extensive experience in both qualitative and quantitative methods.Reference documents (secondary data for desk study/literature review)

DF and the implementing partners will provide the Consultant with all available programme documentation upon signing of the contract. The Consultant is encouraged to identify any other sources for appropriate additional information that may be required to supplement what is provided by the project. Project documents available include:

• Project proposal document
• Results framework and logic model (original and revised )
• Implementation plan / annual work plans
• Baseline data
• Programme progress reports
• Partners annual reports