Back Consultant

TERMS OF REFERENCE

for extended mid-term review of

Building Livelihood Resilience and Nutrition Security in the Kamala River Basin, Siraha District, Nepal

1. BACKGROUND

The project Building Livelihood Resilience and Nutrition Security in the Kamala River Basin, Siraha District, Nepal (NPL 1059), to run from September 2018 – October 2020, is implemented in three municipalities of Siraha District in Province No. 2. Over 90 percent of Siraha District is located in the Terai (plain) region of Nepal, at altitudes ranging from 76 to 885 metres, and a small percentage is located in the Churia (foothills) region. Global acute malnutrition (GAM) in children (6–59 months of age) in Province No. 2 is 14.4 percent higher than the national average of 9.7 percent and is classified as serious according to the standards of the World Health Organization (WHO). The Human Poverty Index (HPI) ranks Siraha District eleventh out of 75 districts, with a Human Development Index (HDI) value of 0.408 and an average annual income of USD 689. The poverty rate is 34.6 percent and the literacy rate 47 percent, 39.20 percent of which are women (CBS 2011).

In total, 5,000 households (approx. 27,600 persons) in the three municipalities of Kalyanpur, Karjanha and Siraha (45 local administrations/ Wards) are expected to directly benefit from the project in the first two years (phase I). However, all households in three Municipalities (that is, approx. 30,000) will also be benefitted through child acute undernutrition screening and DRR awareness activities.

The project is to have second phase after the first phase is completed. For Phase II, households are selected from within the high-risk areas identified through hazard and vulnerability mapping, with a focus on the most disadvantaged groups, including women, Dalits, and Muslims. The nutritional component of the project is aimed at more than 3,500 children under the age of five and their mothers. About 450 representatives of the newly elected local governments and government representatives of the three municipalities will be involved in the project.

1.1. Project Summary

Country:

Nepal

Project title:

Building Livelihood Resilience and Nutrition Security in the Kamala River Basin, Siraha District, Nepal

WHH Project No.:

NPL 1059-18

Project holder:

i) Forum for Rural Welfare and Agricultural Reform for Development (FORWARD Nepal)

ii) Asaman Nepal

Approved budget:

€1,333,336

Institutional donor:

BMZ

Project period:

September 2018 – October 2020

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE:

The objective of the project is to improve resilience and food security of vulnerable communities in the catchment area of the Kamala River in Siraha District.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENDED MID-TERM REVIEW

The objective of the extended mid-term review is:

· to assess the accomplishment of project objective and assess project contribution towards achieving project goal from the start of the project until the present date;

· To analyse the project’s best practices and recommend the activity areas to be considered for phase II interventions and their feasibility;

· To design exit strategies, including consulting stakeholders on the continuation of some services and activities that the project started.

The review will focus on the following areas:

3.1. Relevance:

· How far the project objectives stay consistent with national priorities?

· How relevant are the project interventions in the socio-economic context of the project areas?

· How relevant are the project strategies and activities as perceived by the target groups and other community stakeholders?

· Are the inputs and strategies realistic, appropriate and adequate to achieve the results?

· What, if any, are the project’s unique contributions to livelihood enhancement, improved nutritional status or market linkages of value chain products that others are not providing?

· How the project complements and enhances, rather than duplicates and hinders, related activities carried out by other organizations, governments and donors?

3.2. Effectiveness:

· What are the major outputs and outcomes of this project? How is the progress in comparison to the relevant baseline data?

· To what extent were the objectives achieved/ are likely to be achieved?

· To what extent is the target groups reached?

· Have the planned benefits been delivered and received, as perceived by the key beneficiaries, donor, the responsible national government authorities, and other interested parties?

· To what extent the knowledge and skills of right to food, good governance, agriculture, nutrition, value chain are broadened among the target groups?

· To what extent the project contributed in empowering and transforming marginalised communities especially who are Dalits and economically poor and women?

· How effective are the strategies and tools (Sustainable Integrated Farming System, Participatory Organizational Capacity Assessment Program, Linking Agriculture with Natural Resource and Nutrition, Nutrition Education and Rehabilitation Program, Value Chain Development Fund, Community Score Card etc) used in the implementation of the project?

· What unexpected positive or negative results did the project lead to?

3.3. Efficiency:

· How efficient is the project in terms of effective utilization of the project resources, cost-efficiency, and reaching target groups?

· Arethe project resources utilized as planned?

· Did project activities overlap and duplicate other similar interventions (funded nationally and /or by other donors? Are there more efficient ways and means of delivering more and better results (outputs and outcomes) with the available inputs?

· What were the major factors (including implementation approach) influencing the efficiency and non-efficiency of the project interventions?

3.4. Direct and indirect, short, medium and long-term outcomes and impacts:

· What changes will be brought by the project in the lives of target groups - directly or indirectly, intended or unintended and positive or negative changes?

· What may be the technical, economic, social, ecological effects/impacts in the long term?

3.5. Feasibility:

· Is the project idea of the second phase relevant for the target group?

· Is the project idea compatible with the criteria of BMZ budget-line “private agencies” or of the specific special initiative?

· What learning experiences from the first phase should influence the planning of the second phase?

· How can local target group and local partners best participate in the planning of the second phase?

· Identify lessons learned from the success/failure of the project so far, innovative approaches used as well as major challenges that can be useful for extrapolation of project accomplishments and in designing the second phase.

· What further innovations can the target group accept and continue in view of their educational level and the available space and material/equipment?

· What capacities does the local partner, government and non-government actors and institutions that are working in the project sector already have? What capacity-building measures are necessary?

· Does the current management structure of the project guarantee participatory, efficient and transparent procedures and decision-making? How can management risks be reduced? How can an impact-orientated M&E be guaranteed?

· Which activities are realistic to achieve the output of the project idea? Are project and activity ideas achievable in view of the identified potentials, weaknesses and risks as well as the technical design?

· How can cost effectiveness be improved during the second phase?

3.6. Sustainability and exit strategy of the programme:

· What are the strategies to ensure sustainability of project outcomes and benefits after completion of the programme?

· To what extent are the target groups/intermediary organizations capable and prepared to receive the positive effects of the programme interventions without donor’s support in the long-term?

· What targeted interventions are needed to prepare them to take the activities and service delivery on the long term?

· How effective are the exit strategies, and approaches to phase out assistance already provided by the project? What are the weaknesses of the exit strategies and how could they be improved? Describe key factors that will require attention in order to improve prospects of sustainability of project outcomes and the potential for replication of the approach.

3.7. Good Practices:

Identify the actions that have demonstrated all of the above criteria (relevancy, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability) together with its capacity to be replicated in the future. This may also include good practices in project management and project processes.

4. Methodology for Evaluation

WHH Nepal shall guide and oversee the overall direction of the consultancy. The evaluation will provide quantitative and qualitative data through the following methods:

· Desk study and review of all relevant project documentation including project documents, annual work-plans, annual project reports, mid-term evaluation reports etc.

· Develop evaluation methodology and tools

o Identify sampling strategy including sample size

o Develop main research questions and relevant tools, checklists, data collection formats

· Collection of data from different sources including field work in the project areas

o Collect relevant quantitative as well as qualitative data from secondary information

o Collect primary data from field using different tools and techniques as agreed during the planning process

o Discussion with stakeholders and project staff of all project components

o In depth interviews to gather primary data from key stakeholders using a structured methodology

o Focus Group discussion with project target groups and other stakeholders.

o Interviews with relevant key informants.

o Observations during field visits using checklist.

· Data analysis and draft report preparation.

o Carry out data analysis in line with the evaluation objectives

o Conduct a workshop for validating the findings with participation of project staff and management

o Prepare draft report as per the agreed reporting structure

o Share the draft report for comments

· Address the comments/suggestions from the project team and produce final report.

5. Deliverables:

The following deliverables are expected;

· An inception report (outlining the methodology, operationalisation of questions and planned procedure and approach to the evaluation)

· Documentation of the preliminary findings and recommendations along with the final discussion on-site (debriefing, in project language), additionally at headquarters (in case evaluation is commissioned there)

· Main evaluation report

· Filled in management response form (template will be provided by Welthungerhilfe- attached)

· A summary version of the report that will be published together with the cover sheet of the main report on Welthungerhilfe’s public Internet[1] page (language as in the main report)

· Brief report of the evaluation for the Secretary General (English or German, template)

In particular:

· The most important findings and recommendations of the evaluator/s are to be presented to the project partner/ project team on site (in writing) and discussed with them. Minutes highlighting points of consent and disagreement are to be prepared and signed by the evaluator/s and the director of the partner organisation or the project manager. A representative of the country office should participate in this discussion if possible.

· The main report should comprise maximum 35 pages (not including table of content and annexes). It should also be readily understandable to external readers.

· Chapter I. (summary) of the main report will be published together with the cover sheet of the main report of Welthungerhilfe in the Internet.

· The final version of the main report is to be submitted electronically, both in PDF and in a format which can be edited. The main report may contain a maximum of 5 pictures with direct explanatory notes. Any further pictures must be put into a separate annex. In order to keep soft copy file size to a minimum, it is preferable for all pictures (with captions) and maps to be put into a separate annex.

· Only the name “Welthungerhilfe” shall be used to refer to the organisation in the report, no translations, abbreviations or acronyms please.

6. Evaluation Schedule

The duration of the review is approximately 30 days. It shall commence in mid-February 2020 and will be completed by mid-March 2020. The exact duration of the assignment, dates and schedules will be finalized with the candidate.

7. Required expertise and qualification

The Evaluator team will be composed of experts with the following expertise and qualifications:

· The composition of the team of experts should be balanced to enable complete coverage of the different aspects of Consultancy as set out in these terms of reference

· The evaluation team (international and national) must have experts with extensive knowledge and experience in the field of agriculture, value chains, enterprise development (individual, group and community based) nutrition, and governance.

· Knowledge of evaluation methods and techniques, including a thorough understanding of data collection, evaluation methodologies and design, and strong qualitative and quantitative research skills. degree;

· Prior experience of working in Nepal or in the South Asia with similar assignment will be of priority.

[1] For data-protection reasons it should be taken into account that it is not allowed to state any personal data in this chapter. “Personal data is individual information on personal or material conditions of natural persons who are either known or can be imputed (persons affected).”