Background
The DFID project will be implemented in 3 districts of Marsabit County: North Horr, Chalbi and Loiyangalani districts. The project is designed to build community livelihoods resilience against the effects of droughts. It is noted that greater Marsabit region has faced three droughts over the past five years. These droughts have increased intensity and frequency such that they have weakened community coping strategies and traditional means of rebuilding assets against future shocks.
While the traditional pastoralist system in Northern Kenya is based on increasing the number of animals to cope with natural disasters, it has proven in the 2011 drought to be a positive strategy for those pastoralists who have a high number of animals (>200) as the impact of animal mortality is lower than on those pastoralists with a lower average number of animals (<50). While this strategy may be good for the individual, it has a negative impact on the community due to the over-exploitation of resources that a high number of animals generates and reduces the overall resilience of pastoral communities during stressful period of drought. The lack of market orientation of livestock production in places like Marsabit County means that pastoralists are not able to de-stock quickly enough in drought periods before the value of the animals becomes negligible, therefore pastoralists are not able to adequately protect and rebuild their livelihoods. The project seeks to address the issues of pastoralist capacity, quality of breeds for maximum benefits, creation of fodder buffer zones, Community capacity to develop resilience by having CMDRR in place, diversified incomes and finally the establishment and linking farmers to Market value chains. • Overall Objective:To improve the drought resilience of populations in Northern Kenya • Planned impact: Reduced vulnerability of pastoralists communities in northern Kenya to shocks and stresses • Expected Results: Targeted pastoralists communities in Marsabit County are better able to cope with climatic hazards and have improved the quality and durability of their livelihoods assets Output 1: Targeted pastoral households have strengthened their traditional pastoral livelihoodsand improved their livestock value chains as a result of training, livestock insurance and material inputs Activities to achieve output 1: A.1.1. Adding value to pastoral livelihoods through Pastoralist Field School (PFS) training: 22 groups of 20 pastoralists in Marsabit County will be trained during 2 years. Each group will receive regular training, 4 improved breed animals, 20 vouchers for animal health treatment, 40 milking cans, a one year livestock insurance premium subsidy and a grant to adapt to their training and experimentation needs. Networks between herders and the market will be developed promoting sustainable and inclusive business. Output 2: Targeted pastoralists communities have created/updated contingency plans and are supported in the implementation of disaster risk reduction initiatives Planned activities under output 2: A.2.1 Revision of DRR contingency plans: The Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction (CMDRR) methodology will be used to define (or where appropriate, review) the community contingency plans in 15 administrative locations. SI will support the implementation of the contingency plan with a small grant to kick-start micro-projects. A.2.2 Creation of pasture conservation areas: Support to 10CMDRR committees to create and manage pasture conservation areas acting as a buffer in times of drought and as a productive source of hay. Each group will be supported to develop a conservation area through training and the establishment of a fenced area. Output 3: Targeted pastoralist communities have diversified their income generation activities in Marsabit County Planned activities under output 3: A.3.1 Production of livestock feed (fodder and Multi-nutrient Urea Blocks (MUB)): 8 farmers Common Interest Groups (CIG), composed of at least 50% women, will be supported with production inputs and storage infrastructure, trained on production techniques and business management and marketing. A.3.2 Prosopis management and transformation: 8 groups of destitute young pastoralists to be equipped and trained on management and transformation of prosopis and marketing of their production. A.3.3 Fisheries value chain in Lake Turkana: Provision of training, improved equipment and business skills for fish capture, processing and marketing to 7 groups of 20 members. Purpose of the Mid-Term Evaluation General objective: The purpose of this Mid-Term evaluation is to provide an overall assessment of the project progress against intended results, give a critical analysis of the implementation strategies, lessons learnt and best practices that can be adopted to enhance goal realization. Specific objectives: The evaluation will assess the context of the project, to inform the process of implementation. It will analyse the progress and the relevance of the current activities implemented with regards to the locations and beneficiaries selected. It will generate information on the state of adoption of envisaged practices and sustainability of the different created groups. The evaluation will assess the monitoring system in place and give recommendations to redefine indicators whenever relevant and to improve the monitoring tools and methodology in place.. The results of the evaluation will be used to reorient the implementation process in order to meet the impact envisaged in the title of action. The evaluation should provide recommendations to improve the potential of the Project to achieve expected outcomes and objectives within the Project timeframe. It should also provide more general recommendations that can support the design of future similar interventions in similar contexts. Scope and focus of Mid-Term Evaluation The mid-term evaluation will focus on the project area of implementation whilst gathering information from approaches similar to those proposed in the project strategy in other areas that share similar climatic, vulnerability contexts. it is important to assess the mid-term achievements of the progam through “livelihood approach” lens (understanding the patterns of the different livelihood groups involved in the program activities, and analyzing linkages between households ‘assets and the external environment). Critical questions to be answered by the Mid-Term Evaluation 1. Are the selected locations most appropriate according to the needs and the proposed activities? 2. How relevant is the intervention in comparison to the various community coping mechanisms ( both negative and positive coping mechanisms) 3. Were the beneficiaries selected according the criteria already set down? 4. Compare Household income levels at the start and at the time of mid-term evaluation of the project? Is there an improvement? 5. Provide an assessment of change in the livestock assets at the beginning of the project and at the time of mid-term evaluation. Is there improvement? Are there other intervening variables affecting the livestock assets? 6. How adoptable and sustainable are the livelihood strategies being implemented? 7. Are the local communities willing to engage in alternative income generation activities and disaster risk reduction such as the one proposed by project activities (prosopis management, fishing, MuB, Fodder, Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction, Pasture Conservation Areas, and Pastoral Field Schools)? 8. Is there sustained technical and programmatic capacity for implementing the project? 9. Which are the improved pastoralist farming practices being implemented and are adopted or likely to be adopted? 10. Which are the protected communities’ managed pasture lands being implemented and are they adopted or likely to be adopted? 11. On CMDRR, are there community managed contingency plans implemented in this project? If so, what’s the state of the plans? To what extent has the community owned the process? 12. Clearly document the relationship and synergy with other actors, collaborators and stakeholders in the target area or similar location 13. How effective is the monitoring and evaluation system in place? Is there need for more or less of the tools? Are the indicators used SMART enough, should they be modified or should new indicators be set up? 14. Is the current human resources set up efficient? Study process and methods The evaluation methods should be clearly stated prior to field visits and submitted to the field coordinator/ Food security coordinator for comments and validation before embarking on the evaluation. A description of the overall flow of the evaluation process (i.e. sequence of the key stages) should be given in the mid-term evaluation report. The evaluation approach and the methods used to collect and analyze data should also be described. While designing the surveys and methodology, the consultant should clearly review DFID guidelines. Procedures and logistics The Consultant must comply with SOLIDARITES INTERNATIONAL’s rules and procedures related to security and relations with the media. A specific security briefing will be organized once the evaluator arrives in Nairobi. The consultant must respect the ethic and the deontology related to survey/assessments practice. Logistics, movement and security will be provided and organized by the SOLIDARITES INTERNATIONAL team A translator will assist the evaluator in performing surveys or focus group (Number of enumerators to be defined by the consultant). Deliverables The evaluation report should include at least: • One narrative report (max 40 pages) including an executive summary (2 pages maximum). • A separate table summarizing the main findings in relation to ongoing practices and the lessons learnt and the main recommendations (separate short term recommendations for the rest of the project duration and long term for the design of future similar interventions). • A Power point presentation of the main findings and recommendations of the evaluation must be submitted to SI in order to facilitate dissemination of the results of the evaluation to stakeholders. This power point presentation should be used to debrief the field team and the coordination team. Annexes • Terms of Reference; • A Map with the project locations • List of persons / organizations consulted; • List of literature and documents consulted; • List of sites visited; • Summary tables of data collected • Stakeholders’ analysis • Photographs taken to support field evaluation exercise Documents of reference • Proposal of the project • Relevant maps • Relevant documents produced by the project (monitoring reports, training manuals,…) • Additional reports and assessment documents including from other INGO work relevant to the project • Ongoing DFID interim reports • DFID guidelines Consultant qualifications • University degree in Project management, development and or social science studies, Food Security and livelihoods, livestock/veterinary sciences, Agriculture, range management, Disaster Risk Reduction or related field • Minimum 8 years of proven experience with NGOs, especially in community managed Disaster Risk Reduction and animal husbandry programs • Proven experience in similar consultancies context (ASAL) and in particular experiences relevant to the assignment • Basic knowledge on Food Security issues • Strong evaluation methodology and writing capacities preferred • Strong research and data analysis skills proven by publications in internationally referred journals preferred HOW TO APPLY: Please send your proposal to info@solidarites-kenya-som.org highlighting the following: • A brief introduction of bidding firm or person, attaching relevant CVs • Your understanding of the Terms of Reference for the mid-term evaluation • Proposed methodology and approach • Proposed budget and timetable • Your availability