1- Background
From 2021 to 2025, Anera implemented integrated livelihoods programs in Lebanon, focusing on sustainable agriculture and renewable energy to empower communities, enhance food security, and strengthen household and community resilience. The agriculture portfolio includes two main interventions: Greenhouses and Rooftop Gardens (RTG). These interventions have contributed to measurable improvements in productivity, income, community engagement, and resilience.
About Anera’s Greenhouse Model
Anera’s greenhouse intervention supports rural farmers by improving production quality and quantity while optimizing water use. The structure is designed to enhance ventilation, light penetration, and temperature control. Farmers are equipped with efficient drip irrigation systems that reduce water consumption while ensuring optimal distribution. This is complemented by training in pest management, pruning, fertilization, and climate-smart practices to further improve yields and extend the growing season.
Key Features
●Installation and rehabilitation of 180+ greenhouses for over 150 farmers.
●Climate-controlled production that improves yields and reduces losses.
●Efficient drip irrigation system minimizing water use while ensuring optimal distribution.
●Supports income generation through increased quantity and quality of produce.
●Proven, scalable model used across Anera’s agriculture programs
●Technical upgrades: Transition from traditional to single-span greenhouses, black mulch, improved ventilation, drip irrigation, disease-resistant hybrid seedlings.
●Participatory cost-sharing model (2024–2025): Farmers contributed 10–20% of installation costs, strengthening ownership and accountability.
●Significant productivity and income gains: Average annual income per farmer increased from ~$706 to ~$3,350.
●Continuous training on sustainable agricultural practices, crop diversification, pest management, and climate adaptation.
About Anera’s Rooftop Garden (RTG) Model
The RTG model is built on a highly efficient wicking bed system using modified food-grade barrels filled with soil, compost, and peat moss. A simple divider and bottom reservoir allow water to wick upward through capillary action, reducing water consumption dramatically—households irrigate only once every 3–5 days depending on the season. The system minimizes evaporation, prevents
over-irrigation, and maintains consistent moisture levels. A lightweight thermoplastic-covered mini-greenhouse structure enables safe, year-round rooftop production.
Key Features
●Implementation of 350+ RTGs across North, South, Bekaa, and Palestinian camps.
●In-kind support package: mini-greenhouse structures, seedlings, irrigation kits, fertilizers, and tools.
●Water-efficient wicking barrels requiring irrigation only every few days.
●Semi-hydroponic system reducing water use by 60–70%.
●Lightweight greenhouse design suitable for rooftops of various sizes.
●Low-maintenance model ideal for women and households in dense urban settings.
●Technical enhancements: piped irrigation for strawberries, mini-greenhouses, and high-value crops such as cherry tomatoes.
●Income and savings gains: Average annual household benefit ~$240 (combining savings and income from sales).
●Community impact: Each household shares produce with ~8–9 neighbors, extending impact to thousands of individuals.
●Capacity building: Ongoing technical coaching, training in gardening and market engagement.
Anera seeks an independent evaluation to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, return on investment, and future strategic direction of each of these interventions before potential scaling or institutionalization. The evaluation will also assess technology adoption, market linkages, climate resilience, and data system quality.
2. Purpose of the Evaluation
The evaluation aims to provide an independent assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of Anera’s Greenhouse and Rooftop Garden interventions. It will review each intervention separately, identify strengths and gaps, and analyze the reasons behind any challenges or underperformance.
For each intervention, the evaluation will generate clear, actionable recommendations to improve program design, implementation, and long-term sustainability, with a focus on enabling small farmers/households to sustain income, maintain crop quality, and manage agricultural inputs independently after project exit.
3. Evaluation Objectives
3.1 Greenhouse Intervention – Evaluation Objectives
●Assess improvements in farmers’ productivity, crop quality, and income.
●Evaluate the adoption and performance of technical upgrades (single-span greenhouses, drip irrigation, hybrid seedlings, etc.).
●Examine the relevance, clarity, and fairness of beneficiary selection processes.
●Analyze cost-effectiveness and value-for-money across greenhouse types and regions, including installation and operational costs, productivity and income gains, and farmer cost-sharing contributions.
○Compare outcomes for farmers with greenhouses versus those without to assess the added financial and operational benefits of the intervention.
●Assess the quality of MEAL data, data collection systems, and reporting accuracy.
●Identify the social, economic, and climate resilience impacts generated at household and community levels.
●Sustainability, Technical Efficiency & Model Optimization
●Evaluate the long-term sustainability of the greenhouse intervention, including the extent to which farmers:
■Continue adopting improved agricultural practices after project exit.
■Can afford agricultural inputs of similar quality without project support.
■Maintain productivity, crop quality, and income over time.
●Assess whether training equips farmers with knowledge and skills for independent long-term system management.
●Analyze the influence of geographic or environmental factors (water availability, climate exposure) on sustainability and whether area selection criteria need revision.
●Assess whether greenhouse models maximize productivity while minimizing water use and identify opportunities to improve water efficiency through design or operational adjustments.
●Identify opportunities to maximize production capacity, including technical components, crop selection, irrigation systems, and household practices.
●Examine whether the agricultural practices promoted by Anera align with recognized Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and identify necessary adjustments to strengthen compliance.
●Identify the operational and technical changes required to secure sustainable impact, especially in relation to market access, input affordability, and climate resilience.
3.2 Rooftop Gardens Intervention – Evaluation Objectives
●Assess improvements in household food security, dietary diversity, and income/savings.
●Evaluate productivity and correct use of rooftop gardening systems, including mini-greenhouses and irrigation.
●Examine the transparency and appropriateness of beneficiary selection processes.
●Analyze cost-effectiveness and the financial and non-financial value generated by RTGs, including household savings, small-scale income, dietary diversity, community sharing, and overall return on investment. Assess which RTG configurations deliver the best balance of economic and social impact.
●Assess household ownership, maintenance capacity, and long-term sustainability, including their ability to maintain inputs, systems, and crop cycles over time.
●Assess the quality of MEAL data, data collection systems, and reporting accuracy.
●Identify psychosocial benefits, community spillover, and women/youth empowerment outcomes.
●Sustainability, Technical Efficiency & Model Optimization
●Analyze the sustainability of future continuation or expansion of the rooftop gardens model, considering technical feasibility, financial viability, environmental conditions, and farmer capacity.
●Evaluate whether the rooftop gardens model functions as a viable business/production model, assessing whether it maximizes yield, optimizes water use, and aligns with good agricultural practices (GAP).
●Assess whether rooftop garden models maximize production while minimizing water use and identify opportunities for design or operational improvements.
●Identify system-level improvements that would increase impact, sustainability, and scalability, including adjustments to greenhouse design, technical components, crop selection, and training approaches.
○Evaluate the efficiency and suitability of rooftop systems (wicked beds, barrels, irrigation components), assessing yield, cost-efficiency, and feasibility for long-term household maintenance.
○Assess whether training equips households with the knowledge and skills to manage systems independently over time.
○Identify opportunities to maximize production capacity, including technical components, crop selection, irrigation systems, and household practices.
●Provide recommendations for alternative components or models to increase cost-efficiency, productivity, and scalability.
4. Evaluation Methodology
The methodology will be combined under one assignment but separated in analysis for each intervention.
The consultant is expected to propose a rigorous mixed-methods approach, ensuring that findings are presented separately for GH and RTG, with a final section on cross-cutting insights.
4.1 Greenhouse Intervention – Methodological Components
●Desk Review: project documents, budgets, MEAL data, crop yield and ROI data, selection records.
●Quantitative Analysis: productivity, income, cost-benefit, value-for-money analysis.
●Qualitative Data Collection:
○KIIs with farmers, program staff, agricultural engineers.
○FGDs disaggregated by gender and greenhouse type.
○Direct observation of different greenhouse models.
●Sampling: stratified by region (North/South), greenhouse type (traditional/single-span), gender.
●Comparative Analysis: farmers with vs. without greenhouse support.
4.2 Rooftop Gardens Intervention – Methodological Components
●Desk Review: MEAL data, budgets, rooftop installation records, capacity-building materials.
●Quantitative Analysis: income/savings, production volumes, dietary diversity indicators.
●Qualitative Data Collection:
○KIIs with households, program teams.
○FGDs with women, youth, and mixed groups.
○Observation of rooftop systems.
●Sampling: stratified by region, household type, and rooftop system model.
●Comparative Analysis: households with vs. without RTG support.
4.3 Combined/Cross-Cutting Methodology
●Harmonized analytical framework for GH and RTG.
●Comparative insights on cost-effectiveness, resilience, inclusion, and technical feasibility.
●Identify key lessons learned and strategic recommendations to take both models to the next level in terms of impact, cost-efficiency, water use optimization, technical performance, and alignment with good agricultural practices.
5. Deliverables
1.Inception Report: Evaluation plan, methodology, tools, sampling, and timeline, with separate sections for Greenhouse and Rooftop Garden interventions.
2.Data Collection Tools: Surveys, interview guides, and FGD guides, tailored to each intervention and disaggregated where relevant (e.g., gender, region, greenhouse type, RTG household type).
3.Draft Evaluation Report: Preliminary findings, analysis, and recommendations, presented separately for GH and RTG, with cross-cutting insights where applicable.
4.Final Evaluation Report: Structured around OECD DAC criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability), including:
●Separate analysis for Greenhouses and Rooftop Gardens.
●Comparative insights with farmers/households without GH or RTG support.
●Cross-cutting lessons on efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and scalability.
●Sustainability & Post-Project Strategy: Recommendations to ensure the greenhouse and rooftop garden interventions continue to deliver impact after project completion, including plans for capacity, resource management, risk mitigation, and partnerships.
●Recommendations Section: Clear, actionable recommendations based on evaluation findings for each intervention, covering program design, technical improvements, scaling potential, and long-term sustainability measures.
5.Presentation/Debrief: Summary of findings for Anera and donors, highlighting key insights for each intervention.
6.Results Framework Matrix: Indicators, definitions, and data sources, organized per intervention.
7.Value-for-Money Annex: Financial and operational efficiency analysis, including comparative analysis across GH types, RTG models, and beneficiaries vs. non-beneficiaries.
8.Climate Risk & Resilience Annex: Assessment of vulnerability and adaptation measures for both GH and RTG.
9.Market Linkages & Commercialization Analysis: Analysis of farmer and household market access, sales performance, and commercialization potential, disaggregated by intervention type.
6. Timeline
Estimated total duration: 8 weeks
●2 weeks – Inception & planning
●3 weeks – Fieldwork & data collection
●3 weeks – Analysis and reporting
7. Ethical Considerations
●Obtain informed consent from all participants.
●Maintain confidentiality and protect collected data.
●Respect local norms, cultural sensitivities, and gender considerations.
8. Required Expertise
The evaluator (or team) should have:
- Graduate-level education in agriculture, rural development, livelihoods, or related fields.
- Minimum of 7 years in agricultural economics and value chain analysis.
- Minimum of 5 years’ experience in project evaluation, preferably in agriculture or community development.
- Proven experience with mixed-methods evaluations (quantitative and qualitative).
- Strong analytical, writing, and reporting skills.
- Familiarity with Lebanon’s rural and urban agriculture context is an advantage.
- Language proficiency in English; Arabic (and/or French) is a plus. Arabic-speakingenumerators are mandatory.
How to apply
Use this link to fill the application form and upload relevant documents. Submissions are only accepted through the online form. Application Link
Documents to be submitted:1.Company Registration documents, Ministry of Finance Registration, VAT registration2.3−4 CVs of the proposed team members, highlighting relevant experience.3.A sample of a minimum of two previous similar evaluation reports (anonymized), or a summary of the full reports..4.A detailed financial proposal/budget.5.A technical proposal detailing your understanding of the SOW and proposed methodology.6.Contact information for at least two professional references from previous similar works completed.