1.2. Project Goal (ultimate outcome)
The overall objective of this project proposal is to contribute to the strengthening of local communities’ resilience and sustainable livelihoods to better respond and to cope with climate change in the North Darfur State of Sudan.
The main outcome is to contribute to the communities’ ability to successfully prevent, combat and reverse desertification through improved and sustainable management of natural resources.
The expected results are as follows: i) Enhanced capacity of targeted communities to sustainably manage climate adaptation measures, ii) Enhanced resilience of target communities through rehabilitation, conservation, and protection of natural resources (water, forest, farmland and rangeland) and iii) Adopted renewable energies improved practices that suit the current climate changes and available resources.
The expected results are reached through a multi-fold approach which will focus on: i) Setting and implementing adaptation action plans for the targeted communities, ii) Implementation of physical measures to increase water availability and productivity of a defined number of households, contributing also to reverse the desertification process, iii) Enhanced resilience of targeted communities and capacity to cope with climate changes hazards and iv) Introduce renewable energies practices that suit the climate changes and the available resources.
The geographical scope of the project focuses on rural communities and remote areas characterised by high rate of environmental degradation (including desertification, land degradation and drought) coupled with low human development, economic and social indicator. The proposed project was focused on four localities of North Darfur as: Malha, Mellit, Um Keddada, Um Baru and respective local communities.
2. Objectives of the assignment
The assignment primarily aims to generate sufficient information to make an informed judgment about the overall performance of the project (its efficiency and effectiveness) according to the project scope (such as objectives, indicators, duration, financing, management arrangements etc.) and evaluation of how well the project has been able to deliver and perform against the indicators and expectations.
Furthermore, the review aims to elicit beneficiary feedback, perception and satisfaction of the implemented activities, as well as gain insight and evaluate local capacity built to manage local resources and assets gained, and the proper usage and utilization of those ensuring long-term sustainability.
The review will aim as well to assess the extent to which the project has remained consistent with, and supportive of, the policy and programme framework within which the project is placed. And, finally it will be instrumental also for the overall accountability system of the project as it will assess whether or not the project plans were fulfilled and resources were used in a responsible way.
3. Location of the assignment
The Final Evaluation will be conducted in four localities of North Darfur as: Malha, Mellit, Um Keddada, Um Baru and respective local communities. The specific areas to be visited will be determined by COOPI together with the consultant and other relevant stakeholders.
4. Duration of the Assignment
The final evaluation process of interviews and gathering information in the field (at Malha, Mellit, Um Keddada, and Um Baru localities) is expected to last for a maximum period of 4 weeks tentatively between from 1st August 2022 to 31st August 2022. However, the final report may be submitted by the consultant not later 21 days after end of 4 weeks allocated.
5. Scope of the Assignment
The Project final Evaluation will follow the result chain of the project, Global Climate Change Alliance + (GCCA+) programme, the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa EUTF and OECD/DAC evaluation criteria as summarized below. The consultant is therefore expected to design appropriate methods and approaches to ensure these key stipulated indicators target progress/status are captured during the study.
The extent to which the project is suited to the priorities and policies of the target group, recipient and donor.
- To what extent did the objectives of the programme remain valid and to what extent does the intervention address the needs of pastoralists and farmers in the targeted areas?
- Were the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the overall goal and the attainment of its objectives?
- Were the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the intended impacts and effects?
- Determine the extent to which the adopted project intervention strategies, adjustments and approaches were appropriately conducted for the context.
- Has the intervention evolved during the implementation period to mitigate and adapt to unforeseen changes significantly impacting on implementation such as insecurity and outbreak of conflicts, political changes, economic crisis and hyperinflation, lack of pivotal resources available?
- To understanding how the project integrated gendered power dynamics and reflecting on the SDG commitment to “leave no one behind” which is crucial in understanding relevance. This should also seek to understand the gendered power dynamics and the marginalization of certain groups – including racial/ethnic groups in the context which applies to Sudan.
A measure of the extent to which the project is/has achieving(ed) or is likely to attain or has achieved its objectives.
- To what extent were the objectives achieved/are likely to be achieved at different levels of the results chain (outputs, outcomes and possibly short-term or long-term impacts)?
- Are the activities implemented in accordance with the project plans? If not, why?
- What outputs have been achieved?
- To what extent do the outputs contribute to the stated short and long-term objectives?
- What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
- How effective are the approaches and structures in delivering the desired outputs? How could they have been improved?
- Do the partner organizations work together effectively? Was the partnership structure effective in achieving the desired outputs?
- To what extend has the project addressed gender equality and engagement of vulnerable and marginalized populations in the targeted areas?
The measure of outputs, outcomes and possibly short-term impacts. (Qualitative and quantitative) in relation to the inputs:
- Were activities cost/economically and operationally-efficient?
- Were objectives achieved on time?
- Was the programme or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
- Were there better alternative approaches to achieving the same outputs?
- Did the project mitigate external challenges in a proper manner (hyperinflation, security etc.)?
The measure of whether the benefits of project activities are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn.
- Is the approach used likely to ensure a continued benefit/positive effect after the end of the project?
- Are all key stakeholders sufficiently and effectively involved, and if not, what were the reasons for the lack of involvement (communication, engagement, lack of resources, lack of access/availability)? From a stakeholder’s point of view, are their expectations met and are they satisfied with their level of participation?
- To what extent will the benefits of a programme or project continue after donor funding ceases?
- Are alternative or additional measures needed and, if so, what is required to ensure continued sustainability and positive impact?
- What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the programme or project?
The positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.
- What has happened or significantly changed as a result of the programme or project?
- What real difference has the activity made to the beneficiaries?
- How many people have been affected by the activities?
- Did the intended target groups, including the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, benefit equally from the intervention across the targeted areas?
- Is the project bringing about desired changes in the behavior of people and relevant institutions?
- Have there been any unintended positive or negative impacts arising from particular outcomes?
- What could have been the likely situation (of the environment and its management) without the project?
- Identify unexpected project outcomes (positive and negative)
5.6. Coherence and complementarity
The extent to which the intervention fits with and potentially supported other ongoing/past interventions in the area, sector, institutions etc.
- What synergies, internal coherence or linkages exist between this project and other projects implemented by COOPI in the area?
- Was the intervention consistent with the relevant international norms and standards to which that COOPI adheres?
- Was the intervention externally coherent and consistent with other actors’ interventions in the same context / geographical area (including complementarity, harmonization and co-ordination with others, and to what extent the intervention added value while avoiding duplication of effort?)
6. Proposed Evaluation methodology
6.1 Desk review of project data and records: Project reports and data will be the only source of information for some indicators, especially related to activities and outputs.
6.2 Quantitative and Qualitative Methods: COOPI recommends a survey to answer various evaluation questions related to knowledge, attitudes and practices of the target communities and institutions. Measurements of agricultural productivity, land area cultivation and animal health.
On qualitative side, focus group discussions -depth interviews with beneficiaries, key informant interviews, interviews with community leaders and groups, sheikhs and Umdas. Document stories of change from beneficiaries.
6.3 Other methods and considerations: Observation, inspection, review of secondary data, mapping, land area mapping and analysis (optional: analyse satellite data) community-based evaluation participatory mapping, etc. Semi-structured tools can be used, if appropriate to the context and methodology.
The proposed evaluation methodology must be shared and discussed with relevant COOPI staff prior to finalization. The proposed methodology must also include a significant participation of project participants as well as relevant parties external to COOPI, partner NGOs, and local government authorities.
8. Outputs of the Assignment
- Week 1 and 2: Inception report (10 – 15 pages), detailing assessment matrix, data collection plan/tools, methodology and timelines for all the deliverables.
- An inception meeting with COOPI and relevant stakeholders to present inception report and launch the process.
- Field mission to the above stated project locations for data collection
- A feedback workshop/ presentation meeting with COOPI team to highlight on the major findings and recommendations of the assessment, this will be a presentation of the draft report (maximum 60 pages with an executive summary of no more than 3-4 pages) including findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
- A final report that incorporates comments from the feedback workshop alongside a response matrix detailing how each comment was handled in the revising of the draft report.
- Review of the report by COOPI and final revision by consultant
- Two bound-colored copies of the evaluation report
- And two USB flash drives of soft copies of the report plus all annexes, photos, maps, databases in excel or other software of qualitative and qualitative data and corresponding analysis;
 Efficiency (input delivery, cost control and activity management)
 Effectiveness (delivery of outputs and progress towards achieving the purpose)