Solidarités International Final Project Evaluation in Marsabit County, Kenya - Kenyan Jobs Blogspot :: The best career opportunities in Kenya

Daily listing of the latest vacancies and jobs in Kenya. Kickstart your career dreams. Move to greener pastures today!

Post Top Ad

Your Ad Spot

Jul 28, 2016

Solidarités International Final Project Evaluation in Marsabit County, Kenya

Solidarités International

Terms of Reference
Final Project Evaluation

Terms of Reference
  • Country: Kenya
  • Project title: “Improving preparedness and prevention to drought in pastoralists and agro pastoralist communities of northern Marsabit in Kenya”.
  • Location: North Horr and Laisamis Sub-counties, Marsabit County
  • Starting date: 29th August 2016
  • Duration of the field mission: 12 days
  • Time dedicated to the desk review: 7 days
  • Time dedicated to  report writing: 7 days
  • Under responsibility of: Country Director
1. Presentation of Solidarités International 
Solidarités International (SI) is an international non-governmental organization that provides humanitarian assistance to population affected by natural disaster or man-made crisis.

For over 35 years, SI has concentrated its action on meeting 3 vital needs: Water, Food and Shelter - by carrying out emergency programs followed by longer-term reconstruction projects. 

Whilst fully respecting the targeted population customs and culture, SI programs are implemented through the joint expertise of around 180 expatriates and 1,500 local managerial staff and employees. 

SI is currently  present in Africa (Central African Republic, South Sudan, Kenya - Marsabit County- , Somalia, Mali, Niger, Mauritania, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ivory Coast), in Asia (Afghanistan, Thailand, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Pakistan), in the Middle East (Lebanon) and in Haiti. (For more information, refer to

SI has worked in Marsabit County since 2007. SI programmes have progressed from provision of basic WASH services to evidence-based resilience projects. 

Our activities include: adding value to pastoral livelihoods through Pastoralist Field School (PFS) training; creation/revision of Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction (CMDRR) and contingency plans; creation of Pasture Conservation Areas (PCA); production of livestock feed; Prosopis management and transformation; and Fisheries value chain through the provision of training, improved equipment and business skills for fish capture, processing and marketing, and establishment of Beach Management Units (BMUs). 

All income generation groups have undergone training in business skills and market linkages. 

Targeted beneficiaries of this programme include drought affected pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and fisher folks along the eastern Lake Turkana in northern Marsabit County.

Solidarités International’s intervention in Kenya started in 2008 with a project that responded to a drought emergency in the area known as Arid and Semi-Arid Land (ASAL), in northern Marsabit County. 

The base was established in North Horr and has since then it has been operational with project activities that have mainly focused on disaster response in two key sectors: Water and Sanitation (WASH) and Food Security (FS).

However, over the years, there have been changes in the governance systems and ways of carrying out humanitarian assistance. 

As a result of recurrent risks of hazards leading to disasters, the global paradigm has shifted from an emergency response approach (managing disasters) towards risk reduction. 

The County and the humanitarian community have also inclined to work on community resilience building, to cope with the cyclic droughts and other hazards.
On the other hand, the governance system has changed, following the amalgamation of the new 2010 Constitution. 

Consequently, devolved governments have been instituted to bring development closer to the people and boosting public participation in determining development priorities. 

This devolved government has also positively contributed to infrastructure development and the opening up of new opportunities in the ASAL.

In Marsabit County, new levels of investment are focusing on creating new opportunities related to livestock, the main income source of Marsabit economy and livelihood, and exploiting other livelihood opportunities which have been underutilized in the past, like fisheries and tourism. 

Infrastructure and market development to open these opportunities for consumption have also been at the top of the County’s priorities.

2. Background and Context
“Improving preparedness and prevention to drought in pastoralist and agro pastoralist communities of northern Marsabit County” is a project funded by EuropeAid, implemented in 2 Sub counties of Marsabit County: North Horr and Laisamis. Marsabit region has faced three droughts over the past five years. 

These droughts have increased in intensity and frequency in such a way that they have weakened community coping strategies and traditional means of rebuilding assets against future shocks.

The traditional pastoralist system in Northern Kenya is based on increasing the number of animals to cope with natural disasters. 

During 2011 drought, this was proved to be a positive strategy for those pastoralists who had a high number of animals (>200), as the impact of animal mortality was lower than on those pastoralists with a lower average number of animals (<50 nbsp="" span="">

However, while this strategy may be good for certain individuals, it has a negative impact on the community as a whole, due to the over-exploitation of resources that a high number of animals generate, reducing the overall resilience of pastoral communities during stressful periods of drought. 

Moreover, the lack of market orientation of livestock production in places like Marsabit County means that during drought periods pastoralists are not able to de-stock quickly enough, before the value of the animals goes down. 

Therefore pastoralists are not able to adequately protect and rebuild their livelihoods.

Overall Project Objective: Reducing the vulnerability to drought of population living in ASAL areas of Kenya

Specific Project Objective: Strengthen drought preparedness mechanisms through adoption of sustainable livelihoods in Northern Marsabit County.

Beneficiaries: 22,800 (direct) and 35,310 (indirect)

Project Starting Date: October 2014

Duration: 2 years

Total Budget: 1,320,000 Euros

Expected Results and Activities
Result 1: Pastoralists vulnerability to drought is reduced through and improvement in natural resources management.
  • A1.1: Development or updating of community and District level DRR contingency plans through CMDRR approach
  • A1.2: Rehabilitate and Construct strategically located Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) systems to support pastoral livelihoods
  • A.1.3: Enhance productivity of rain-fed crops through promotion of water retention techniques and training on best practices to increase soil fertility
  • A.1.4. Introduce and promote multiplication of drought resistant varieties of rain fed crops.
  • A.1.5: Promotion of better management practices of Prosopis
Result 2: Pastoralist and agro-pastoralist revenues are increased by orienting livestock, fisheries and fodder production to the market
  • A.2.1. Support and capacity building of Livestock Common Interest Groups (L-CIG)
  • A.2.2 Awareness raising on good practices oriented to improve livestock management.
  • A.2.3. Facilitate networks between herders and the market promoting inclusive business.
  • A.2.5. Promote Fisheries value chain in Turkana Lake by providing proper equipment and training on processing and marketing.
3. Purpose of the Evaluation: The purpose of this final evaluation is to assess the results of the project, its impact on the targeted populations and to draw lessons from the experiences and challenges as well as to make recommendations for future programming. 

This evaluation will cover all the dynamics of the project including evaluating each and every activity against the proposal, measure the indicators’ against the initial targets and gather data on number of households who have been impacted by the action.   

The evaluation should be triangulated with findings from baseline and monitoring surveys conducted within the project period on specific activities.
The overarching objectives of this final evaluation are therefore:
I. From an evaluation perspective, to provide SI with an assessment of the project results, and overall management, sustainability, and impact of the project.
II. From an implementation perspective, to highlight key lessons from the successes and challenges faced by the SI team.
III. From a strategic perspective, to provide both practical recommendations as well as propose a strategic orientation for resilience programming in the context of Marsabit County.

4. Scope and Focus
The evaluation will focus on the operation’s approach, the implementation process and the performance of the programme. 

The project should be evaluated through the following OECD/DAC criteria: relevance, coverage, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, impact, and coherence. Recommendations for improving each of the criteria are made. 

The following research questions are proposed, following the 3 objectives of this evaluation:

I. Evaluation:
  • To what extent were the design and technical choices appropriate to the context?
  • Did the project appropriately target the right beneficiaries and the deriving villages with the right criteria? 
  • Did the activities contribute to reaching expected results?
  • Were the implemented activities relevant to the needs of the target population?
  • How have the financial, human, logistical resources been utilized in the course of project implementation?
  • How has this project contributed to the resilience to drought of target beneficiaries? To which extent are the results of the activities sustainable? In particular:
  1. Formation of Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction Groups and design of Risk Reduction Actions plans
  2. Formation of Pastoralist Field Schools (PFS), trainings on livestock management and care
  3. Formation of Farmer field schools, trainings and support to the development of sustainable farming practices
  4. Support to fisheries groups
  5. Support to Income Generation Activities (Prosopis for firewood and livestock feeding with Multi-Urea Blocks)
  • Did the targeted beneficiaries change their practices to better mainstream the protection of natural resources?
  • What was the cost effectiveness of the interventions?
II. Implementation:
  • How do the different monitoring tools / methods in place compare and do they allow for triangulation of information and identification of problems?
  • Did the monitoring tools in place allow a proper measurement of the proposed indicators at the end of the project?
  • To what extent has targeting been appropriate, taking into consideration both exclusion and inclusion errors as well as gender composition?
  • Were the beneficiary feedback mechanisms functional and adequate? Why?
  • What were the major challenges of the project and how were they overcome?
  • Has the project been adapted appropriately to changing needs or context?
  • Was the organizational chart of the program adapted to the geographical and thematic distribution of the activities?
III. Strategy and recommendations:
  • Did the project complement other actions on the ground (either by SI or other stakeholders)?
  • Has the project been in line with the national and county’s priorities and actions?
  • To what extent and how were the key stakeholders involved in the project? What impact did key stakeholder involvement have on the project? Key stakeholders include (but are not limited to):
  1. County ministries
  2. NDMA
  3. Other NGOs
  4. Community leaders
  5. DC, Sub-county, Ward admin and chiefs
  • Which components of this project can be scaled up in the future programming to sustainably contribute to the resilience of target beneficiaries? Why?
  • Which components are less likely to replicate? What were the hurdles and what could have been done to make them applicable/relevant?
  • To what extent is there potential for upscaling of the several pilots?
The evaluation should also assess the perception and appreciation of the program by the beneficiaries.

5. Methodology
The evaluation approach, tools and methodologies should be clearly outlined in the Expression of Interest (EOI). 

It is recommended to use a mixture of quantitative and qualitative tools and methodologies. 

This can include (but not limit to):
  • An extensive documentation review/desk study.
  • Interviews with different key stakeholders, household questionnaires, Focus Group Discussions.
Moreover, the Evaluator/s is encouraged to propose additional methodology that he/she deems most appropriate to the programme under evaluation. A description of the overall flow of the evaluation process (i.e. sequence of the key stages) should also be given in the EOI. 

The evaluation report should outline the sources of biases that might affect the evaluation and how these have been addressed. 

The evaluation report should also present the key constraints to carrying out the evaluation and the effect of these constraints. 

Whenever secondary sources will be referred to, the evaluator should indicate the level of reliability of the given information. 

After the field work, the evaluator will present and discuss with the project team the preliminary findings and the proposed recommendations. 

The evaluator must comply with SI and procedures related to security and relations with the media. A specific security briefing will be organized once the evaluator arrives in Nairobi. 

The evaluator must respect the ethic and the deontology related to evaluation practice, signing a confidentiality clause.

6. Deliverables
Inception report: to be submitted 5 days after the first meeting/starting day of contract.

A first draft report will be provided 7 days after the end of the field visit and final version 7 days after SI’s feedback.
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 and the lessons learnt.
  • A separate table showing the different recommendations for future funding opportunities. 
  • 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.
  • Annexes: containing the technical details of the evaluation as well as the terms of reference, the questionnaire models, interview templates, check list and canvas interviews, potential tables or graphs, references and other sources, list of people and institutions contacted and a Power Point presentation of the results.
7. Duration and dates: The duration of consultancy will be of 26 days, starting on the 29th August 2016.

8. Budget: The consultant will propose the total budget for this evaluation, specifying a breakdown of budget lines.

9. Profile of the Consultant
Qualification of the Consultant:
  • University degree in (preferably Master’s degree) related to agriculture, livelihoods, project management, disaster risk management,  or other related field
  • Minimum 5 years of proven experience in working and or evaluating livelihood/CBDRR/early recovery and resilience programs
  • Previous experience with NGOs compulsory
  • Demonstrate clear understanding and practical experience of M&E tools and techniques
  • Have demonstrated expertise in qualitative evaluation methodologies, and participatory research techniques
  • Proven experience in similar evaluation context (ASAL) would be an added advantage
  • Strong methodology and writing capacity in English
  • Excellent communications skills
10. Application
Interested candidates should submit:
  • A technical offer (or Expression of Interest) including:
  1. An understanding of the issues at stake of the study and the Terms of Reference (ToR): development of problems and formulation of questions which the offer will aim to answer
  2. Methodology and proposed tools
  3. The timetable showing the details for the completion of each of the evaluation phases (duration, human and logistic means required, etc.). The proposed schedule should include time for briefing and debriefing on the mission and as much as possible at SI headquarter.
  • A financial offer including of a detailed budget in columns (fees, other costs)
  • An up to date CV
  • An example of similar studies
  • References
Solidarités International will consider individual candidates or teams equally. 

The applicants must send requested documents electronically to the following email addresses latest on 12th August, 2016. 
11. Documents of Reference (upon request)
  • Project proposal
  • Quarterly project reports
  • Current organizational chart
12. Contacts
Beatriz Valbuena
Field Coordinator – North horr
[email protected]
+254 727 594753

No comments:

Post Top Ad