Background of IANRA, the MML Project, and the Final Evaluation Assignment

Terms of Reference_Final Evaluation Model Mining Legislation project of the International Alliance on Natural Resources in Africa- IANRA

This ToR is used as the basis for the procurement of external evaluation services to conduct a final external evaluation of the IANRA Model Mining Legislation (MML) project.

ActionAid Netherlands (AA NL) welcomes proposals from evaluators by 17 April, addressed to .

1.Background

Background of IANRA, the MML project, and the final evaluation assignment

Since inception in 2009 and formal registration in 2012 the International Alliance on Natural Resources in Africa (IANRA) has been evolving into an African continental network of 41 member organisations and 14 national groupings in Africa with community partnerships and international linkages. Each national grouping has up to 30 member organisations totalling around 150 participating civil society organisations (CBOs,FBOs,NGOs,andSocialMovements), all of which work on natural resources justice in Africa. The aim of the Alliance is to promote community-centred, sustainable and equitable management of natural resources in Africa, thereby significantly improving livelihoods, contributing to socio-economic development, promoting human rights and particularly community rights in natural resources governance. IANRA, as an international network working on these issues, is uniquely placed to negotiate for change with and on behalf of the poorest communities at government and regional level and IANRA has been working hard to enhance this capacity and to fulfil this role. See Annex 1 for IANRA’s strategic framework.

Model Mining Legislation Project& final evaluation assignment

IANRA together with ActionAid in the Netherlands as international fund holder, is in the process of finalising a 3 year, EC-funded project which focuses on developing Model Mining Legislation (MML) in a multi-stakeholder setting- see summary in Annex 2. The Project Implementation Committee (PIC), consisting of project partners,case study community representatives, the IANRA Secretariat, and the international fund holder AA NL is overseeing the implementation of the project. The PIC together with the IANRA Steering Committee will be overseeing the final evaluation process.

Overall objective of the MML project: Good governance in the minerals sector in Africa which ensures accountability, contributes to inclusive and sustainable growth and development, and protects human rights. Specific objective: A strong IANRA networkrepresenting its member CSOs and their constituencies of vulnerable groups and communities taking action on mineral resources legislation and policy at regional and continental level.

The MML project includes case studies on human rights impacts of industrial mining as per the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter) – focused on 5 countries in Africa: Angola, DRC, Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe. In addition, an analysis of international protocols and legislations that relate to extractive industries and human rights have been conducted that has led to the publication of a policy guide and an advocacy guide. National networks as well as the International network gave input on the analysis and guide, and identified gaps for potential future policy recommendations. Finally, a model legislation on mineral resources in Africa has been developed that should ensure the protection and promotion of human rights in the Extractives sector in relation to the African Charter. This has been developed and advocated for in partnership with the Pan-African Parliament’s Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The project also included cross-learning and cooperation with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Working Group on Extractive Industries, as it aimed to enhance a multi-stakeholder dialogue and as a network develop a process and methodologies to genuinely foster these dialogues between communities, industry, decision makers and regulatory bodies.

Problems to be addressed by the project: Rural communities affected by poorly regulated mineral investments and accompanying rights violations have low levels of income, low awareness and literacy levels and often do not have the time, opportunity or organisational structures, linkages or supporting networks to participate meaningfully and with sufficient gender-balance in policy processes at local or national level. Local civil society is often weak or focused on service delivery. In addition, national, regional and continental policy frameworks related to natural resources, e.g., mineral resources development acts, do not comprehensively ensure the protection and promotion of human rights and inclusive development, and the implementation of many existing protections are not monitored or enforced adequately.[1]Civil society, including IANRA & its member organisations, need further support to ensure a coordinated & effective approach so that the voice of the most vulnerable is included in formulating, implementing & monitoring legislation on the just & sustainable use of natural resources.

See Annex 2 for the project summary and Annex 3 for the logical framework.

Reasons for the evaluation

1)Assess the real changes (expected and unexpected), bothin the field as at organisational/ network level and analyse the changes attributable to the MML project and HOW they came about;

2)Assess achieved results and to learn about what works well, and what could done be better.

3)Assess the sustainability of the intervention's benefits;

4)Report to the institutions that have allocated the resources;

5)Use lessons learned for future strategic planning and programme design.

The main users of the evaluation will be the IANRA secretariat and Steering Committee, AA NL, project partner staff and the EC. It is expected that the learning and findings from the evaluation will be shared more widely with key stakeholders and the wider field of organisations working on natural resources governance and civil society strengthening.

3.Values and guiding principles

The final evaluation should be participatory, learning oriented, inclusive, and supportive of strengthening the IANRA network at international network level as well as at national and local network level.
The evaluation should be utilization-focused: the evaluation process as well as the end result should be useful for IANRA members, implementing partners and case study communities involved throughout the project.
The processes and tools proposed in the final evaluation should take into account the varying contexts in which the project partners and the case study communities operate, the different baseline or starting positions of each partner and the time and funding limitations for this evaluation.

4.Focus and subject of the evaluation

The type of evaluation will be an external, final project evaluation with the overall subjects being: Context, Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, Sustainability, and EU value added and Coherence. The broad areas of investigation relate to the criteria as defined in the ToR will be furtherelaborated with the evaluator. More detailed indicative questions and data sources are set out in Table 1.

Levels of analysis and data collection will done at the following levels and target groups: The IANRA network: 41 CSO members in 14 countries in Africa, AA NL and the network Secretariat; 5 case study communities in Angola, DRC, Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe; and local, national and continental advocacy targets that include government and corporate policymakers.

a)Context: A light assessment of the broader contextual changes over the past 3 years and the extent to which the project was adapted or not to the changing context.

b)Relevance: The aim is to establish the extent to which the MML project contributed to the achievement of the priorities and policies of the IANRA membership and other MML target groups, like local mining communities and IANRA network members and partners in each of the five countries, with 2 in-depth case studies in 2 project countries Kenya and Zimbabwe. As well as assessing the extent to which the project relates to or complements other similar governance, rights initiatives in-country and internationally.

c)Effectiveness: The effectiveness criterion, concerns how far the MML project’s results were achieved, and the project’s specific objective(s) achieved, or are expected to be achieved, as defined in the original logical framework.

d)Efficiency: An assessment of how well funds, personnel, and other resources were managed and used to achieve project results.

e)Impact: Details of the changes, both intended and unintended, that the project is contributing to achieving and the relationship of these changes to IANRA’s strategic framework and theory of change.

f)Sustainability: An assessment of the benefits or changes achieved by the project that are likely to continue when the project ends e.g. networks, community capacity to protect their rights over land and livelihoods against extractive industry threats and to negotiate for changes with policy makers and local/national/continental authorities.

g)EU value added and coherence: An assessment of the extent to which project results allow theEU and partner countries to achieve its development policy objectives without contradiction with other EU partner country policies.

Table 1: Key questions for the final evaluation in relation to each criteria

Key on data sources: FS= field study, NFSC=Non-field study country, MS=member survey, LR=literature review

Criteria (area of investigation) / Key questions / Data source
Context /

What, if any, were the significant shifts (positive/negative) in the field of Extractive Industry governance with a special focus on Mining legislation, across the project countries, region and continentally over the past 3 years. Is there evidence of shifts and changes in thinking and power dynamics, inclusive policy making and practice- both in terms of community participation in policy making as well as including locally defines development paradigms? What key actors or other factors have been significant in influencing or driving these shifts?
How, if at all, has the programme adapted and/or responded to these contextual shifts/changes? What are the implications for future programming in this area?

/ FS, NFSC, LR, MS
Relevance /

To what extent were the objectives of the MML project as formulated at the time of the proposal valid in the eyes of the target groups (normative)?
To what extent are the objectives of the MML project still valid in the eyes of the target groups (normative)?
How could IANRA (continue to) be relevant in case of future programmes?

Sub-questions:
How well did the project’s actions

Help local communities in at least the 5 case study countries todeepen their understanding of mineral resource (& related) policy content, governmental (local, national, regional, continental) officials, and processes, as well as regulatory instruments and mechanisms and enhanced policy analysis skills. And to what extent are these capacities relevant for their needs?
Help IANRA to build strong relationships between its members and help them to work to achieve a common purpose and the IANRA vision?
Help partners to strengthen their capacity to engage with communities, amplify their needs, facilitate inclusive policy making and engage with key policy makers to change national mining governance frameworks, and to work with the national grouping to protect community rights to land and livelihoods?
Help IANRA and its members to relate to key policy makers, other relevant coalitions and policy processes, within each country and continentally, that aim to protect the mining community rights?

/ FS, NFSC, LR, MS
Effectiveness / What was achieved in relation to the project objectives and each of the project’s intended outcomes and results? Specifically in terms of:

Ensuring that a majority of IANRA members and participating communities, will have deepened their understanding of mineral resources (& related) policy, national, regional and continental government processes, and enhanced their policy analysis skills.
Ensuring that local community members are knowledgeable and supportive of strategies to protect their land and livelihood rights.
Ensuring that a majority of IANRA members as a whole as well as the 5 national groupings in the 5 implementing countries have strengthened their capacities in terms of enhanced community engagement & organising, inclusive decision making based on community defined development modalities, and greater understanding of extractive industries, promoting human rights, sharing a common strategy for supporting local communities to protect their rights, and engaging with key policy makers around mineral governance and human rights.
Ensuring that key policymakers from at least 5 African countries, regional and continental bodies have greater understanding of problems faced by communities and countries related to mineral resource policies and their impacts on inclusive development and human rights. And ensuring that the MML project is having a positive development influence through affecting company and government behaviour in the development of policies, laws and safeguards, which are implemented?
Ensuring strengthened relationships with key policy makers and allied organisations and alliances.

What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives (descriptive)?
How can IANRA improve its effectiveness in case of future programmes? / FS, NFSC, LR, MS
Efficiency / How well were project funds, personnel, and other resources managed and used to achieve project results? Specifically how:

Did the IANRA Secretariat and AA NL help or hinder project management and achievements?
Did the project implementation group help or hinder project management and achievements?
Did having dedicated staff funded by the project for each partner relate to results?
Do areas of significant expenditure link to key programme results/outputs?
How well did financial systems work to ensure partners had funds on time and could meet their agreed funding match?

/ LR, FR, FS, NFSC
Impact / What type of lasting gendered changes (impacts), both intended and unintended, has the project achieved and how do they relate to the project’s overall and specific objective of IANRA becoming a strong network representing its member CSOs and their constituencies of vulnerable communities taking action on mineral resources legislation and policy at regional and continental level?
What difference has the project made to local communities?
What difference has the project made to the implementing partner organisations and their national groupings in at least each of the 5 partner countries?
What difference has the project made to the relationships IANRA members, IANRA Secretariat, project partners and local communities have with key policy makers?
Are the outcomes and results likely to result in achievement of the overall and specific objective?
How do the changes relate to IANRA’svision and theory of change (see Annex 1)? What are the lessons, especially in terms of:

strengthening community organization, understanding, consciousness and capacity?
bringing greater clarity to the meaning to locally defined and principled development paradigms (sustainable development and alternatives) in the use of natural resources
Developing the local organized voice of communities to inform policy and legislation that is reflective of locally defined and principled development paradigms
ensuring accountable and community directed support by civil society organizations

/ FS, NFSC, LR, MS
Sustainability /

What project benefits/changes are likely to continue once the project ends including:
What is likely to happen to the IANRA network members, local communities (and its organizational structures),and the IANRA Secretariat once the project ends?
What is likely to happen to the Model Mining Legislation, any related policy changes, its adoption, domestication and promotion?

/ FS, NFSC, LR, MS
EU value added and coherence / An assessment of the extent to which project results allow theEU and partner countries to achieve its development policy objectives without contradiction with other EU policies. / LR

5.Methodology

The methodology for collecting data builds from the objectives, criteria and key questions set out in the terms of reference (ToR), information from an initial document review and inception discussions with IANRA and AA NL staff.

Primary sources will be:Internal documents of IANRA and the MML project, progress reports and minutes of meetings, External documents of IANRA: reports of events and publications, Interviews or participation in meetings/workshops/discussions by staff of IANRA member organisations.

Secondary sources will be:Interviews or participation in meetings/workshops/discussions by external stakeholders of IANRA (members organisations, targeted policy policymakers, CSO colleagues, etc.)

The exact methodology(ies) for the evaluation will be defined together with the external evaluator, but at least the approach chosen should include participatory methods that allow reflection of different views and perspectives, and triangulation. Additionally the following data collection approaches can be considered:

Inception discussions with IANRA and AA NL staff.
Desk-top literature review of existing documents (project description, progress reports, meetings reports, project baseline documents).
Key informant interviews (KII) targeting policy makers from government and mining companies. We have draft surveys available that were designed for baseline purposes. Key informants include actors at local, national and continental level.
Focus Group Discussions (FGD) which ensures space for collecting gendered data.
Conducting 2 in-country field studies in Eldoret, Kenya and Mhondongori community in Zvishavane, Zimbabwe. The output of the evaluation should be relevant (mainly for future organising or advocacy efforts) for the communities and methodologies used should be as participatory as possible. With budget and time constraints, the evaluation team is only able to do in-depth fieldwork in two countries. The field studies will be led by the consultant and address the questions marked with FS (field studies) in Table 1. The studies will be tailored to the situation in each country but are likely to involve a mix of literature review, key informant interviews (KII), and focus groups discussions (FGD). Interview guides, and a framework for the literature review will be developed by the evaluator in April 2016. The field studies will be done in May 2016. See table 2 below for an outline of the various roles & responsibilities for the field studies. See Table 5 below for a tentative planning schedule.
Conducting IANRA member surveys. These include:
Capturing the views of the 3-non-imlpementing countries.Project staff from the project countries where a field study is not undertaken (Angola, DRC, South Africa) will be interviewed and will be asked to provide a list of key informants for the consultants to interview either by Skype or phone. The types of informants and criteria for their selection are provided in table 4.
Capturing the views of a wider number of IANRA members. They will be invited to complete a simple member survey. The results will help provide views on network benefits, as well as the status/health of the network.
This process of collecting data will be carried out from April- to June 2016 and dates can be arranged to suit the situation in each country as long as they fit within this timescale. Once the list of stakeholders has been agreed for a country, dates will be finalised with the partner project officer so the project officer can organise a time slot for interviewing each informant. Interview guides for each type of stakeholder will be developed once this inception report is agreed with AA NL, IANRA and each of the partners.
If time and planning allows the evaluator can join the MML multi-stakeholder conference and MML launch in the week of 25 April, to start the data collection process, e.g. interview IANRA members, project partners, case study community reps, as well as continental policy makers.
Webinars can be organized during the evaluation process for collecting feedback, validating findings, and discussing conclusions and recommendations before the consultant begins drafting the final evaluation report that is due July 15th.

Table 2: Roles and responsibilities for field studies