Final evaluation of the project Strengthening the organizational and leadership capacities of Peruvian indigenous communities At Caritas France – Catholic Relief

I. PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT

This project was designed based on the experience of phase 1, implemented between 2017 and 2019, as well as the identification of local needs, in close collaboration between the two local partners, FEDEPAZ (Fundación Ecuménica para el Desarrollo y La Paz) and SAIPE(Servicio Agropecuario para la Investigación y Promoción Económica), present in the field since 1993 and having developed a close link with communities and public and private institutions, and the European organizations acting with them: TDH France and the SCCF. This second phase aims to continue efforts and capitalize on lessons learned from phase 1 while taking into account the results of the external evaluation as well as factors linked to COVID19. In addition, Red EU-LAT was involved in the design of the part relating to international advocacy. Secours Catholique-Caritas France (SCCF), member of the phase 1 consortium, has agreed to become leader of phase 2, following the announcement of the cessation of the activities of Terre des Hommes France.

This project aims to continue to support the exercise of the rights of indigenous communities affected by extractivism but also other sources of conflict in Peru. Its implementation is part of an intercultural and intersectional gender perspective; it aims for greater participation of women in actions representing their communities and organizations but also work on masculinities with men in the community. In order to ensure the transversalization of such an approach to all activities and the project and the central role of the participation of communities and all participants while respecting their cultures and ways of doing things and To be, in accordance with one of the recommendations of the external evaluation, this phase of project 2 was accompanied by an expert consultant. Finally, the importance of considering a productive component was part of the reflections presented by the evaluators of phase 1. In response to this particular theme and taking into account the economic crisis generated by the Covid -19 crisis, the project includes support for the implementation of beekeeping activities intended for young indigenous people, beekeeping being an economic-productive practice linked to the identity and ancestral knowledge of indigenous peoples.

II. ASSESSMENT

A. Rationale for the evaluation

The project ends on June 30, 2024. A third phase is not planned. The evaluation report must therefore provide conclusions on the analysis of the results and impacts of the action, particularly on the productive aspect of the project (result 3) and the integration of the gender approach from an intercultural and intersectional perspective. . The project has an international advocacy dimension focused on the actions of Red EU-Lat, but a choice was made to focus the evaluation on actions on the ground.

The general objective of this evaluation is to assess the results of the project as well as the effects of the actions carried out in relation to the objective. To this end, its specific objectives are as follows:

• Analyze according to the DAC criteria [1] – relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and viability – the project’s achievements in relation to the objectives, results and indicators defined in the logical framework.
• Examine how the project results/objectives were achieved and how the impacts/results were produced through the project with particular attention to capacity building of the targeted communities.
• Evaluate the quality and impacts of the implementation of the gender approach in project activities.
• Evaluate the quality and impacts of the implementation of productive activities – Project Result 3.
• Evaluate the articulation and complementarity between field actors in Peru and an assessment of their insertion into the local ecosystem.
• Provide recommendations for the sustainability of the processes developed, particularly in relation to the needs of women, young people and leaders of the Awajún and Wampis indigenous peoples.

Furthermore, the evaluation must take into consideration the final evaluation report of the previous phase (2017-2019), in order to assess whether the analysis and recommendations, in particular those relating to the integration of the approach gender, were effectively taken into account by the project.

B. Evaluation Criteria Reference Questions

Relevance:

• Did the interventions meet the needs of different target beneficiaries, particularly women and youth?
• To what extent did the results respond to the specific needs and conditions of the geographic areas targeted by the project?
• Was the logical framework coherent enough to achieve the results?
• Are the project activities and results consistent with the expected impacts and effects?
• Was the project able to adapt its activities to local contexts and the national context?

Consistency :

• To what extent was the project coordinated with other similar allies and interventions for synergy?
• To what extent have government policies supported or undermined project action?
• To what extent were the results of this project aligned with the donor’s priorities?
• To what extent did the project promote articulation and coherence between SAIPE and FEDEPAZ?

Efficiency :

• Did the resources mobilized allow the correct implementation of the activities?
• Have the resources mobilized been used and managed effectively?
• To what extent were the expected results achieved in relation to the objectives and indicators? And how ?

Efficiency:

• Were the project results and objectives achieved within the planned time frame?
• Are there internal factors and limitations that affected the implementation of the project, in terms of intervention methodologies, organization, management?
• Are there external factors and limitations that affected the implementation of the project, in terms of political, socio-economic and health context, or other unforeseen circumstances?

Impact :

• What were the main impacts (positive/negative, expected/unexpected) as perceived by the different stakeholders and beneficiaries of the project?
• To what extent did the project contribute to strengthening the leadership and citizen participation of the intervention communities?
• To what extent has the project strengthened the knowledge, capacities and practices of beneficiaries, particularly in their ability to dialogue and position their proposals?
• Are there any outstanding experiences that should be highlighted, e.g. stories, good practices, changes in leadership practice, etc.? ?
• To what extent has the implementation of the gender approach in activities contributed to building community capacities and developing differentiated agendas in indigenous organizations?

Viability:

• Is there a sense of ownership of the project by project members and local communities?
• To what extent did the project take into account existing structures or resources to improve sustainability after the interventions ended?
• To what extent has the gender approach been taken into account institutionally by the project partners?
• What could the project have done differently to improve its viability?

C. Methodology and steps

Here are some elements on the methods and the main stages expected from the evaluation:

Phase 1. Preparation and documentation

• Framing meeting
• Analysis of available documentation: The consultant team will carry out a rigorous examination of documents such as the project NIONG, the logical framework, progress reports, documents developed as part of the consultancy for integration gender from an intercultural and intersectional perspective, among others.
• Preparation by the team of consultants of a framework note for the evaluation presenting the adapted methodology, the objectives, the questions, the proposed work plan, as well as the tools to be used for the evaluation (questionnaires, interview, if applicable, list of people or groups to be interviewed).
• Validation of the framework note and meeting with the SCCF Peru partnership manager and the partners involved in order to prepare the field mission.

Estimated duration: 10 days

Phase 2. Field mission

• Interviews with the key players in the project: directive and operational teams from each of the two organizations responsible for implementation in the field.
• Interviews with the target beneficiaries: representatives of the Awajún and Wampis people’s organizations, participants in the training of the school of leaders and in the activities and activities implemented as part of the support for the integration of the gender approach, particularly for young people and women, etc.

The actions of this evaluation will be carried out partly in Peru and partly remotely (videoconference). It is up to the evaluators to propose the content of the mission to Peru. The scope of intervention will be: the regions of Amazonas (provinces of Condorcanqui and Bagua) and Cajamarca (province of San Ignacio), the city of Lima and France.

Estimated duration: 15 days

Phase 3. Writing and presentation of reports

• Drafting of the interim evaluation report by the team of consultants;
• Comments from the SCCF Partnerships Manager in Peru and the SAIPE and FEDEPAZ teams on the project.
• Writing and submission of the final report
• Presentation of the final report to project members.

Estimated duration: 12 days

Indicative timetable : the call for tenders will be open until February 29, 2024. The selection and contracting of the team will be done at the end of March, for the mission to start on April 1, 2024. The provisional report is expected on the 19th. May and the final report by May 31 at the latest. The consultant will provide a detailed schedule in his technical and financial proposal, specifying the distribution of tasks and the duration of execution of each task.

D. Expected Deliverables

The consultant team will provide the following deliverables in Spanish.

– An evaluation scoping note of maximum 10 pages, describing the approach/methodology and project execution/timeline.

– A preliminary report with field analysis, observations and recommendations;

– A final report incorporating comments/observations resulting from exchanges and discussions with project partners (40 to 60 pages maximum excluding annexes) + a summary of 6 pages maximum.

– All documents produced for the evaluation, including hard copies of reports and raw data in Excel and Word in electronic form.

– The final report must contain the following sections, but not limited to:

• Cover page, table of contents and list of acronyms
• Summary incorporating changes with updated data against each defined indicator (objectives and results indicators as set out in the logical framework).
• Introduction
• Goals
• Methodology
• Analysis and interpretation (including tables/graphs and text) – this will include both process analysis and results/impact analysis (DAC criteria)
• Findings/Observations
• Best practices and lessons learned
• Conclusion and recommendations
• Appendices including data collection tools and datasets
• Case studies, testimonials and related images to support the analysis

Upon validation and receipt of the complete final report, it will be translated into French for transmission to AFD.

Taking into account the above elements, consultants are asked to include in their service offering detailed proposals on the methodology they propose to implement (evaluation stages, stakeholders consulted, collective meetings and presentations, data collection methodology, documents produced). The consultants will also propose, in their offer of services, the distribution of the number of working days in the different phases of the evaluation (and for each consultant).