Terms of Reference (TOR) for Project Final Evaluation

International Consultant

Project Title:Producing for Urban Markets Project

Locations:Juba and Terekeka, Republic South Sudan

Duration of Appointment:26 days

Expected Start Date:November, 2015

  1. Background to the assignment

SNV Netherlands Development Organisation in collaboration with Compass (national NGO) and SMARF-CES have implemented a 3 years’ project titled “Producing for Urban Markets Project (PUMP-Fish)” in Terekeka and Juba Counties of Central Equatoria State, Republic of South Sudan. This project has been funded by European Union and it falls under the Food Security Thematic Programme (FSTP). The EU FSTP supports activities aimed at improving food security for the world's poorest and most vulnerable populations. It addresses structural issues leading to hunger and under-nutrition in a bid to resolve these in the medium or long term, with an emphasis on developing sustainable solutions.

The overall objective (goal) of the PUMP-Fish project is to contribute to improved food security situation for communities living in the rural areas of Terekeka and Juba counties of Central Equatoria State (CES), South Sudan. Therefore, the envisaged broader impact of the PUMP-Fish project to the population of Terekeka and Juba Counties, Central Equatoria State and South Sudan in general include:

a)Creation of new employment opportunities or strengthening existing occupations for the population living in rural areas of Terekeka and Juba counties and Juba metropolitan area, who lack employable skills and would potentially resort to crime;

b)Improved food security situation in CES, Juba metropolitan area and the wider country through vibrant fish sector enterprises and conducive policy environment and broader dissemination of successful practices to stakeholders;

c)Increased capacity of SMARF-CES in delivering extension services in the fisheries sector, as a result of the trainings and experiences arising from the project support;

d)Improvements in productivity, markets and hygienic standards in the fisheries sector to increase demands and subsequent incomes and hence contributing towards greater food security and nutritional status of the urban consumers.

The specific objective (project purpose) of the PUMP-Fish project is to increase incomes by 25% for the target rural fisherfolks and traders in Terekeka and Juba Counties of Central Equatoria State by 2015. In line with the above specific objective (project purpose), the following are the specific target result areas to be achieved by the project in the period of 3 years (2012-2015):

  • 16 Fisherfolk groups and 5 fish traders associations are functional and engaged in sustainable fish production and marketing;
  • 700 Fisherfolk increased their production through access to fishing inputs and extension services;
  • Improved quality of processed (fresh and dry) fish supplied to Juba and Terekeka end-markets by promoting improved fish processing technologies and best practices in the target communities of Terekeka and Juba;
  • Fish market access at the Juba end-market is expanded through better marketing services and improved market infrastructures.
  1. Purpose/objectives of the evaluation

The overall objective of the final evaluation is to provide the project stakeholders with sufficient information about theproject performance in the 3 years—2012-2015 (its relevancy, efficiency, effectiveness, impacts and sustainability), document lessons learned and provide practical recommendations for future improvements.

Therefore, the practical recommendations emerging from thisfinal evaluation will:

  • Inform and guide the design of future SNV Netherlands Development Organisation projects;
  • Generate information on the level of achievement of the intervention objectives (outcomes and wherever possible any evidence of emerging impact), information which will be useful to mentioned stakeholders.

The Specific final Evaluationobjectivesare built on 5 key parameters for the evaluator to study; and these are precisely: relevance, efficiency, effectives, impact and sustainability as described below:

  1. Assess the relevance of the project design (its activities and objectives) in addressing the priority issues in the target communities of Terekeka and Juba Counties;
  2. Assess to what extent the available resources have been used economically in delivering the project outputs/results, in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness (efficiency).
  3. Assess the major achievements of the project to date in relation to its stated objectives and intended results based on the updated logframe (effectiveness);
  4. Asses to what extent the project is contributing to a long-term positive effect on the entire society and nature (impact);
  5. Assess whether the positive outcomes of the project at purpose level are likely to continue after the project (sustainability).
  1. Evaluation Issues to be Studied and Key Questions
  2. Quality and Relevance of Project Design

Assess the appropriateness and relevance of the project design and activities towards expected goal, purpose and outputs; and assess what adjustments have been made if any.

The following are the key guiding evaluations questions for the evaluator in this section:

  • To what extent does the project respond to priority issues (does the project address the needs of the target groups?)
  • To what extent are the objectives of the project still valid?
  • Has the project team planned the most appropriate strategies?
  • Are there any major risks or ‘killer assumptions’ that were not being taken into account?
  • What is the value of the intervention in relation to SNV and EU Global Programme, to national prioritiesof the Government of the Republic of South Sudan?
  • Do stakeholders care about the project and believe it makes sense (stakeholders’ participation in the project)?
  • Efficiency of Planning and Implementation

Assess to what extent the available resources have been used economically in delivering the project outputs/results, in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness (efficiency).

Key evaluation questions for the evaluator:

  • Is the overall project action plan used and up to date?
  • Cost and value for money: To what extent have the project costs been justified by the benefits?
  • What % of activities in the workplan has been delivered?
  • Is financial spend/use in line with plan?
  • Is monitoring data being collected as planned, stored and used to inform future plans
  • Other important project management questions:
  • How adequate was management of risk in project implementation (whether flexibilities were demonstrated in response to changes in circumstances)?
  • What are the working relationships with partners, stakeholders and donors?
  • Are deadlines always met in reporting to donors?
  • To what extent is learning processes demonstrated e.g. coordination and exchange with related projects?
  • Were internal and external communications good?
  • How haven been the contributions from government partner institutions (e.g. offices, fisheries experts, tax exemption, as set out in the LogFrame resource schedule), target beneficiaries and other authorities?
  • Effectiveness

Assess the major achievements of the project to date in relation to its stated objectives and intended results/outputs based on the updated logframe.

The following are the key guiding evaluations questions for the evaluator in this section:

  • To what extent has the projectcontributed in making the target fisherfolk and fish trader groups/ associations functional and engaged in sustainable fish production and marketing? (Focus onkey quantitative and qualitative evidences possible);
  • To what extent has the project contributed to increased fish production; access to fishing inputs and extension services for the target fisherfolks in Terekeka?
  • To what extent has the project contributed to improved quality of processed (fresh and dry) fish supplied to Juba and Terekeka end-markets?
  • To what extent has the project contributed to expanded fish end-markets in Juba and Terekeka?
  • SWOT Analysis:
  • What are the major failures of the project to date, explaining why they have occurred?
  • Describe any unforeseen impacts (whether positive or negative);
  • Identify any exceptional experiences that should be highlighted e.g. case-studies, stories, best practices etc.
  • Impact

Assess the extent to which the benefits received by the target beneficiaries had a wider overall effect on larger numbers of people in the sector or region or in the country as a whole.

Key guiding questions for the evaluator:

  • To what extent is the project contributing to a long-term positive effect on the entire society and region?
  • How is SNV making a difference?
  • Potential for sustainability, replication and magnification

Assess whether the positive outcomes of the project at purpose level are likely to continue after the project (sustainability).

Key guiding questions for the evaluator in this section:

  • To what extent have the key stakeholders accepted and owned the project objectives and achievements?
  • Will the project contribute to lasting benefits? Which organisations/stakeholders could/ will ensure continuity of project activities in the project area?
  • Is there evidence of organisations/partners/communities that have copied, upscaled or replicated project activities beyond the immediate project area? Is such replication or magnification likely?
  • What practical recommendations can be made for the sustainability and replication of the project?
  1. Methodology

The evaluator will use the following key data collectionmethods conjunctively for the evaluation:

  1. Document Review (Secondary Data): The evaluator will review: the baseline (value chain analysis) report; project proposals (budget and updated logframe; planning, monitoring and evaluation matrix; activity plans); project reports (narrative and financial); mid-term review/evaluation report and any other documents deemed critically important for the evaluation;
  2. Onsite visual observation:In conjunction with other methods, the evaluator will (observepeople’s physical conditions and fishing related activities; ask questions; visit fishing camps and fish processing demonstration centres; make sketches, take photographs or videos etc.)
  3. Interviews:Loosely structured interviews will be conducted with key informants (groups or individual) (project staff, SMARF-CES[1] and MLIF-RSS[2] officials, EU technical assistant, county local authorities, Compass, local leaders of the affected population—fisherfolks and traders);
  4. Focus Group Discussionswith members of fisherfolks and traders groups, local leaders, or officials, ensuring no more than 4-8 people in the group. However, this method should not be over relied on as it may leave information gaps especially on issues that are not freely discussed in groups e.g. women.
  5. Questionnaires:Evaluator will design very specific and structured set of closed questions (yes/no or multiple choice questions) or they can also include open-ended questions framed within the key guiding evaluations questions.
  1. Profile of the Evaluation Team

The consultant should be specialized in agricultural economics, agribusiness, natural and fisheries resources management; agriculture and rural development; international development or any related background with excellent knowledge inmonitoring and evaluation. The consultant will have the primary responsibility for conducting the evaluation and writing the final Evaluation report. The consultant should possess strong statistical skills and he/she will be expected to coach data enumerators, lead and coordinate the data collection, entry and analysis of data and report writing to a publishable standard.

Key specific requirements:

  • Advanced university degree in agricultural economics, agribusiness management, natural and fisheries resources management; agriculture and rural development; international development or any related background;
  • Excellent knowledge and experience in gender sensitive rural sector economy value chain development (gender sensitive agribusiness development)
  • Demonstrated knowledge of project evaluations and possess strong research skills.
  • Demonstrated skills in statistics;
  • Sound knowledge and experience working in the East African region with bias in South Sudan and its agriculture and rural sector development domain;
  • Should be well informed on “market-drivendevelopment approach (making markets work for the poor/inclusive business”);
  • Experience in the formulation, monitoring and evaluation of EU-funded projects.
  • A demonstrated high level of professionalism and ability to work within tight deadlines.
  • Familiarity with SNV procedures (demonstrated quality and professionalism in SNV previous work is an important asset);
  • Strong interpersonal and communication skills;
  • Excellent spoken and written English;
  • Good computing skills.
  1. Reporting Requirements/outputs and deliverables

The final output of the evaluation is expected in report format, which should adhere to the EU standard format (to be shared after applicant selection). The report should be submitted in English language and should be of high enough quality (publishable).It should provide substantive evaluation against indicators as outlined in the project work plans and the updated logframe, and should be structured according to EU format in terms of issues and related findings, assessment of performance, description of best practices, conclusions, learnings, recommendations and/or scenarios in line with relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The evaluation should focus on the key topics as mentioned above as well as be forward looking and propose areas of intervention for the SNV Programme in South Sudan.

Draft report on key findings will be shared with the project manager and SNV agriculture sector leader and possibly the key stakeholders for reviews. The project manager will be the contact person between the consultant(s) and SNV to ensure all outputs are delivered as per the TOR.

In line with EU and SNV programming, the assessment should be gender sensitive, participatory and promote a learning approach. The consultant should ensure that the assessment covers these essentials in the report. E.g. was the stakeholder involvement appropriate? Did the project promote a gender sensitive approach?

  1. Work Plan and Time Schedule

The entire evaluation will take no more than 30 days. The schedule below is a guide for the evaluator in planning his/her activities over the period.

# / Activity / Time Estimate / Output
3 / Development of research instruments (questionnaires, interview guidelines & sampling strategy); finalisation of evaluation matrix in line with key evaluation questions. These documents should be shared with project manager for review and approval / 2 days / Appropriate Research instruments developed shared with PM for review & approval
5 / Review of documents as per section 4 (a) above / 3 days / All relevant documents reviewed for informed analysis and conclusions
6 / International & domestic travels / 2 days / Consultant available in County and field location for field technical research supervision
7 / Field research (data collection) including coaching of data enumerators / 5 days / Data enumerators coached and data collected from the selected sample size
8 / Data analysis based on relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact & sustainability / 8 days / Data analyzed in line with relevance, efficiency, effectives, impact & sustainability
10 / Preparation & sharing draft report with SNV & partners for comments / 4 days / Draft report shared with SNV
11 / Incorporation of comments and finalization of the evaluation report to publishable standard / 2 days / Final publishable report with incorporated comments produced (4 hard copies in addition to the soft copy)
Total / 26 days
  1. Financial Proposal (Cost of the Evaluation)

The financial proposal (evaluation cost) should be presented in the format below

No. / Details / Unit / Rate (US$) / # of Units (Quantity) / Cost (US$)
1 / Consultant’s fees (including at least 8 data enumerators’ costs)
2 / Travels[3] (tickets, visas etc, only if applicable)
3 / Subsistence costs (e.g. accommodation, communication, meals, etc)
4 / Include other costs that are critical, but not provided for by SNV etc
5
  1. Logistical Support

Logistical support (scheduling of interviews, local travels, arrangement of field accommodation during data collection, access to official facilities including internet, documentation—printing, photocopying of tools etc) will be provided by SNV.

Note:All applicants should be notified in advance that there will be 10% tax levy on the total contract value.

Interested candidates are invited to submit their applications together with curriculum vitae and relevant supporting documents to the following addresses:

copying: ,

The deadline for submitting applications is 26th November 2015.

Only shortlisted candidates will be notified.

[1]State Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries, Central Equatoria State

[2]Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Industry, Republic of South Sudan

[3]This excludes field travels during data collection and meetings (will be handled by SNV). Only official international travels should be included; and restricted to only economy class if flights are used