Feasibility Study for a long-term project addressing IDPs, Returnees, Refugees, and host communities in Yei County and Juba County At Christian Blind Mission

Background of the Feasibility Study

CBM and ACROSS would like to propose a project to the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), which shall contribute to Stabilisation of the living situation of refugees, IDPs, returnees and members of host communities Yei County and Juba County, South Sudan.

The project is currently in its design phase and CBM is seeking to recruit a consultant to conduct a Feasibility Study to assess the feasibility of the proposed project and systematically assess and check the extent to which the project approach can plausibly achieve the planned changes under the existing framework conditions.

The proposing organisations

ACROSS is a locally registered non-profit organisation. Currently, ACROSS is implementing range of humanitarian projects focusing on health, nutrition, WASH, food security and livelihood, community service and camp coordination and management as well developmental projects in education (primary and secondary Education, TVET) and food security and livelihood.

CBM is a leading international development organisation, committed to improving the quality of life of people with disabilities in the poorest communities of the world irrespective of race, gender or religious belief. CBM’s approach of Disability-inclusive Development is the framework of all its initiatives and the key theme which drives activities and the impact of its work. It believes that this is the most effective way to bring positive change to the lives of people with disabilities living in poverty and their communities. Through our disability-inclusive development approach, we address the barriers that hinder access and participation and actively seek to ensure the full participation of people with disabilities as empowered self-advocates in all development and emergency response processes.

Project Relevance/ Core Problem

The situation of the South Sudanese population since 2013 is not only characterized by armed conflicts in a long-lasting civil war, but as well by seasonal severe floods, particularly along the White Nile River. In 2020, the fragile situation is additionally affected by the Covid-19-pandemic and the desert locust infestation. These aspects increasingly force the population to leave their homes to get themselves to relatively safer areas and to secure a new livelihood to cover basic needs such as access to food, or health services. Therefore, the number of Internally Displaced People (IDPs) is rapidly increasing: South Sudan with its population of 11.2 million people counts (as of July 2022) a total of 500,000 returnees, 330,000 refugees and 2,0mio. IDPs.

The state of Central Equatoria is in the most Southern part of the country with its counties Juba County and Yei County. It hosts over 20,000 refugees and asylum seekers (09/2020). Thereof, 85 % are women and children. The number of IDPs in the state is even higher with a total of 221,000 people (June 2020). 29,658 IDPs are living in the in the Juba Protection of Civilians (PoC) 1 & 3 sites, thereof 58% children under 18 and 1.9% people over the age of 60 years (10/2020). Beyond that, there are at least 16 more camp-like sites in Juba County and Yei County. This causes a massively overburdened infra-structure, which affects the host communities as well. Armed clashes and conflicts in and sur-rounding Central Equatoria, mostly Yei County, are still very active.

About 82% (and rising) of the population live under the national poverty line and thus, are already vulnerable. Nine in ten IDPs and 7 in 10 refugees live in poverty. Circa 91% of IDPs fall under the international poverty line of US$1.90 PPP per capita per day compared with 86% of rural residents and 75% of urban residents. Among refugees, poverty incidence of households headed by women is slightly higher than of those headed by men. The economic situation for young people are espe-cially dire. There is a lack of educational or economic opportunities for youth combined with fragile markets and weak governance due to political uncertainty and conflict.

Around 16.7% of South Sudanese households have at least one person with disability, while the national statistics of people with disabilities are lacking. For Central Equatoria, the percentage is even higher at 20% and 19% of households at least having one chronically ill member. Armed con-flict, poverty and lack of health services contribute to these numbers. UNICEF states that chronic underdevelopment and lack of medical services are contributing to physical and sensory disabilities, which are linked to untreated such as polio, tuberculosis, cataracts, or other tropical diseases. South Sudan has not yet ratified th UN Convention on the Rights for Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and has no specific legislation regarding the rights of persons with disabilities.

Project Intervention Area

The project is planned to be located in Yei County (Yei, Morobo, Lainya and Kajo-Keji) and Juba County. The feasibility study shall cover both counties.

Project Target Group

The intended beneficiaries (target group) of the proposed project are

· refugees,

· IDPs and returned IDPs (returnees),

· members of host communities.

The latter host IDPs and refugees and usually act as “first responders” to their needs. Addressing the needs of all subgroups of the target group leads to a stabilisation of the situation in the host communities and thus directly to a better integration of refugees, IDPs and returnees in the region.

The project will put a strong focus on the inclusion of persons with disabilities.

Purpose of the Feasibility Study

The study will determine the feasibility of the proposed project by assessing whether the problems identified are well founded and the strategy proposed to address the problems is adequate to attain desired outcomes. It will provide decision makers with sufficient information on the project opportunities and risks as well as concrete recommendations for improving the project concept. The study will be submitted to BMZ together with the project proposal.

The study will deliver the following:

· an assessment of the relevance of the proposed project and its activities to address the problems identified in the target groups and target sectors;

· an assessment of the target group and specifically of the (above mentioned) three sub-groups and to which extent the planned measures and activities are aligned with their needs and adapted to their capacities

· an assessment of the proposed logical framework including outcomes and outputs and respective indicators and assumptions, risks and risk mitigation strategies;

· a detailed analysis of the potential sustainability of the project especially with regards to institutional sustainability.

· an assessment of the synergies and complementarities of the project, including networking between programmatic areas (sectors) and project stakeholders;

· An assessment of the inclusiveness of the project, i.e., the active participation of person with disabilities and their representative organisations in all aspects of the project.

Scope and Focus

Situation and Target Group

1. Assessment of the current overall situation of Refugees, Returnees, IDPs and members of host community in particular persons with disabilities

2. Assessment of the current socio-economic and income situation of vulnerable refugees, IDPs, returnees, and members of host communities with specific attention to households with persons with disabilities.

3. Assessment of and recommendation for a reasonable share between different main target groups (IDPs, Refugees, Returnees, Host communities), especially from do-no-harm perspective.

4. Assessment on the selection criteria and selection mechanisms (tool) for the target group selection of the project

Project Setup and Stakeholder Involvement

1. Map key stakeholders that are relevant for the successful implementation of the project. What is their role in the project? How would they support the project?

2. Provide recommendations for the institutional set-up between ACROSS and CBM

3. Analysis of capacity gaps at CBM and ACROSS to implement the project

Project Risks and Do-No-Harm

1. Provide a detailed risk analysis, including political, socio-economic, logistical, security and environmental risks

2. analysis of mitigating actions that lie within the scope of the project and recommendations for improvement

3. Analyze if the project isdesigned in a conflict-sensitive way (Do-No-Harm principle)?

Relevance of the project

1. Does the planned project approach address a humanitarian and/ or developmental problem or a crucial humanitarian and/ or developmental bottleneck of the partner country or region? Are there any alternatives to the planned project or to components of it? If so, are they opportune?

1. Are the focus, prioritisation and objectives (approach) of the planned project aligned with the needs of the target groups?

3. What specific problems of the target group(s) and in the sector have been identified? What are the causes for these and what impact do they have on the living conditions of the population (Refugees, IDPs, Returnees and members of host communities) and on which group of the population in particular (with a focus on boys, men, women and girls with disabilities)?

Coherence – How well does the intervention fit?

1. How coherent are the planned activities with human rights principles (inclusion, participation), conventions and relevant standards/guidelines?
2. What are the similarities or intersections between the target groups and the projects of other actors in the same context? To what extent does the project add value and avoid duplication? Which synergies and networking opportunities are possible?

3. Assess the alignment of the project with the government strategies, national and local development plan?

Effectiveness – Which project approach can best achieve the objectives?

1. Are the causal relationships (including assumptions) plausible? What negative effects could occur?
2. Is the chosen approach appropriate to the context and sufficient to achieve the project objective?
3. At which level (multi-level approach) are additional measures envisaged to increase effectiveness?
4. How is change measured? Which indicators are more suitable for this?

Efficiency – Does the use of funds planned by the project appear economical in terms of achieving the objectives?

1. To what extent can the planned measures be implemented with the budgeted funds and personnel in the planned duration?
2. To what extent are the planned expenditures used economically and are the investments, operating expenses and personnel in proportion to the intended objectives?

Impact (significance) – To what extent does the planned project contribute to the achievement of overarching developmental impacts?

1. What specific contribution does the project objective (outcome) make to the overall objective (impact)?
2. To what extent does the planned project have a structure-building, exemplary and broad impact?
3. At what levels will norms or structures be changed?

Sustainability – To what extent will the positive effects (without further external funding) continue after the end of the project?

1. To which extent can the target group actively contribute to the implementation of the project? What is the specific contribution that beneficiaries can bring in to increase their ownership?
2. How can the sustainability of the results and impacts be ensured and strengthened? (structural, economic, social, ecological)?
3. What long-term capacities are built up in the target group to be able to continue the implemented measures on their own?
4. What social structures can/ should be supported to support continuity of project interventions after end of project?
5. What positive changes (role behaviour, mechanisms, networks and others) benefit civil society including OPDs in the long term?

Inclusion – To what extent does the planned project contribute to inclusive development/ humanitarian assistance?

1. To what degree were the needs and rights of persons with disabilities taken into account in planning of project activities and services?

2. To what degree are persons with disabilities, their caregivers/ families and OPDs empowered and will benefit from the project?

3. How are persons with disabilities, their caregivers/ families and their communities involved in the design, implementation and monitoring of activities?

Recommendations

• Which components, if any, are missing in the project concept to make the cause-effect relationships more coherent and to sustainably achieve the planned objectives?

• Which planned components are not suitable or could have negative effects, and for what reasons?

• Any further specific recommendations for the planned project activities and methodology/ approach in the light of the analysis?

• Which findings and project-relevant data of the study are suitable to be integrated into the project logic? (Impact matrix of the project proposal)?

• What are the recommendations for indicators for impact monitoring and data collection?

Methodology

Independent of the methods to be used, there are mandatory mechanisms that must be adhered to during the entire process:

• Participatory, inclusive, and accessible

• Safeguarding of children and adults at risk

• Data Disaggregation (gender/age/disability)

• Data Security and privacy (informed consent)

The consultant is expected to use a variety of methods to collect and analyse data. Participatory methods should be used to collect qualitative and quantitative data. The consultant shall indicate the methodology he/she intends to use in his/her offer.

Output and outcome data shall be disaggregated according to gender, age (adults/children) and disability status. Furthermore, data must be broken down for each of the above-mentioned sub target groups.

For the collection of data on disability, the use of the Washington Group Short Set of Questions is mandatory.

Limitations

· This study is taking place in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the consultant will be expected to respect all measures put in place by the government.

· The feasibility study is to contribute to a proposal design which is time bound. There is therefore limited flexibility for extension of the study period.

· The volatile security situation might affect the implementation of the study. Any changes in the design of the study due to security reasons will be discussed and agreed between the consultant and CBM South Sudan Country Office

Deliverables

· inception report including proposed data collection tools and feasibility study question matrix (matching feasibility study questions with data collection tools) and outlining findings from desk review;

· first draft report according to CBM’s report template and in accessible format; softcopy MS Word for review and comments;

· final report (max. 28 pages without annexes) according to CBM’s report template and in accessible format in English; softcopy only (MS Word and PDF)

· materials, data collected/analysed and other documents related to the feasibility study in English as a separate annex; softcopy only

Coordination

CBM South Sudan Country Office will coordinate the consultancy for this Feasibility Study with the ongoing project design and update the consultant regularly on the current status of project design status. The Country Office will be supported through CBM Regional Humanitarian Coordinator, CBM Regional CBID Advisor and CBM Humanitarian Programme Officer.