Food Production for Improved Nutrition Outcomes for Internally Displaced and Host Community Households in Luuq District, Somalia at Trócaire

1.1 Background

Trócaire is an Irish organisation that works in partnership with communities in over 20 countries to

· Defend human rights,

· Achieve climate and environmental justice,

· women’s girls’ protection, voice and influence,

· Save lives and protect human dignity and

· Mobilize the public to achieve global justice

Since 1992, Trócaire Somalia has been providing comprehensive, safe and inclusive humanitarian and development programme in the Gedo region of the Southern Somalia by integrating health, nutrition, WASH, protection, resilience and basic education to address needs among the most marginalised and vulnerable people during emergencies and building resilience of communities to prepare for and mitigate future emergencies.

Trócaire’s work is best understood as taking a long-term developmental approach in a complex emergency context, creating the conditions for recovery, by linking relief and development. In Somalia and particularly in the Gedo region, Trócaire continues to implement quality, sustainable and harmonised health, nutrition, WASH, education and food security programmes to address acute livelihood and humanitarian needs.

1.2 Overview of the Project

Trocaire in partnership with Centre for Research and Integrated Development (CeRID) targeted support for 100 women from IDP and host communities by engaging them in a range of activities to improve food production at the household level and increase access to nutritious foods in the effort to curb malnutrition.

Activities in this project included land preparation for cultivation, provision of agricultural inputs including diverse crop seeds, trainings in climate sensitive and resilient agricultural and nutrition practices, and engagement in micro-gardening activities.

The project also accommodated a Cash for Work (CfW) scheme targeting 100 male participants and included rehabilitation of productive assets, which were also to cushion beneficiaries from extreme food insecurity in the lean months of the year.

Project beneficiaries were also provided with livelihood assets and informal financial services through savings and loaning groups, to encourage good financial planning and financial preparedness in the face of shocks and stresses.

Additionally, 90 young students from the Luuq Agricultural Training Centre (ATC) benefited from hands on experience acquired from an attachment programme with the farming groups.

Trocaire also sought to improve the technical capacity of CERID as a local partner working to provide quality services to the communities in Gedo. This included close, joint monitoring of the project, monthly sessions to evaluate quality of work, and on-the-job mentorship and trainings on key elements of effective delivery of services including safeguarding, financial management and gender mainstreaming.

The project was designed to mentor beneficiaries through trainings, mentorship sessions on food production, preparation, storage and sale, with a component of voluntary savings and loans for improved financial management.

As the project comes to an end, at least 80 percent of beneficiaries are expected to have sufficient produce for consumption at the household level. The project will be considered as even more successful if 60 percent of the beneficiaries are producing surplus for sale, and use income received to cater for other basic needs. The project will be considered sustainable if beneficiaries are using income received to invest in livelihood assets.

Trocaire and CeRID have been encouraging beneficiaries to share the lessons they have learned from the project with their neighbours and other members of the community thus increasing the number of indirect beneficiaries of the project and influencing positive behaviour by communities on a wider scale.

For sustainability of the project, Trocaire and CeRID began by working with the local authorities to create acceptance and avenues of nurturing the farming groups even after the project ends. For instance, acceptance by the local authorities to validate the farming groups and provide an easy farm-leasing environment for IDPs who were the majority of the target households.

In addition to project participants, local authorities and other stakeholders were invited to participate in surveys and reviews. This interaction was to provide a platform for stakeholders to interact with the project and cultivate linkages creating room for sustainability.

1.3 The Rationale for the Evaluation

As the project comes to a close, a final evaluation is being commissioned to assess the project progress toward achieving its objectives.

The evaluation will be required to track and ascertain progress against the outcomes of the project towards achievement of the overall goal of the project, identify lessons learnt, good practices and provide concrete recommendations for future similar interventions, in order to enhance adaptive programming.

1.4 Main Stakeholders of the Evaluation

The evaluation will involve participation of various stakeholders at different levels to draw lessons, gather data on impact of the interventions, identify challenges and successes and triangulate all information gathered. Stakeholders that will be involved include Trocaire and CeRID staff, target beneficiaries and their households, community members, local authorities from specific district departments, Luuq Agricultural Training Centre (ATC) teachers and students.

2. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES

Evaluation Objectives:

The objective of the evaluation will be to:

i) Assess the extent to which the project has achieved its purpose based on intended outputs and results

ii) Draw lessons learnt and good practices

iii) Make recommendations to inform similar future programming

The evaluation will be guided by the project’s specific objectives and commitments in the proposal document and log-frame. The project’s specific and intended results are:

The overall goal of the project is: to strengthen the resilience of communities in Gedo so that they are able to cope with recurring humanitarian shocks and stresses.

The Specific Objective (Purpose): to improve food production and nutrition outcomes for children under- 5 and pregnant and lactating women in vulnerable IDP and host communities in Luuq District, Somalia.

Expected Results:

1. Improved nutrition outcomes for targeted children under 5 and pregnant and lactating women from IDP and host communities.
2. Improved food security for target households.
3. Improved knowledge on food production by project participants, both targeted women, and students of the Luuq ATC.

Project Outputs included the below:

§ 80 IDP and 20 host communities secure land for farming

§ Female farmers receive training on environmental – friendly food production techniques

§ Beneficiaries receive climate – favourable seeds and farming tools

§ Beneficiaries are engaged in CfW activities

§ Project beneficiaries are provided with grants to purchase livelihood assets

§ IDP women farmers, and vulnerable host women are supported to set up savings and loaning groups

3. KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Area

Specific Questions

Relevance

· Were the interventions of the project responsive to the needs of the beneficiaries?

· Did engagements with and feedback from beneficiaries shape the project design and implementation?

Effectiveness

· To what extent were the planned outputs and results achieved?

· Do the project outputs significantly contribute to the achievement of the outcomes?

· To what extent were activities done within the set timelines?

· To what extent were services and items delivered in a timely and quality manner?

Efficiency

· How well were the inputs (funds, people, materials, time) used to undertake activities?

· Has the scale of benefits been consistent with the cost?

Sustainability

· To what extent has the programme built on existing resources and capacities of communities?

· To what extent have the beneficiaries been involved in the project cycle?

· To what extent did the project work with or support linkages with local and regional authority?

· Was learning captured and acted upon during the life of the project?

Impact

· What changes has the project brought about in the lives of the beneficiaries?

· What changes has the project brought to the wider community?

· To what extent did the project outputs and outcomes contribute to the overall goal of the project?

Accountability/ Community Engagement

· Were appropriate systems of downwards accountability put in place and used by the project beneficiaries?

· Were the available and functional complaint and feedback mechanisms in place?

· Were beneficiaries aware of and utilizing the available complaint and feedback mechanisms?

Organizational Capacity

· Was there an appropriate system of management and communication in place to support the project staff – both Trocaire and CeRID?

· Were there robust MEAL and financial systems in place?

Protection

· What measures did the project put in place to ensure protection of women and girls during implementation of intervention?

· Were cases of GBV as a result of the project interventions reported and supported?

· Were women leaders trained and sensitized on referral of GBV cases?

· Were local leaders particularly in IDP camps adequately involved in beneficiary selection?

Gender mainstreaming

· Were women involved in beneficiary selection?

· How has the strategic approach of engaging women and girls as primary beneficiaries worked for the project?

Group Cohesion

· What are some of the interventions the project embarked on to promote group cohesion?

· What are the challenges and successes cited by the beneficiaries from working as a group

Environmental Stewardship

· What measures did the project put in place to reduce negative effects on the environment?

· Were adaptable, affordable methods of soil conservation used during the life of the project and can these be sustained by the community?

Do no harm

· Did the project effectively assess risks and put mitigations on place to avoid negative effects to the beneficiaries and communities?

· Were local leaders effectively engaged in the project planning?

· What other measures did the project put in place to ensure do no harm principles were upheld?

Organizational Capacity

· Was there an appropriate system of management and communication in place to support the project staff – both Trocaire and CeRID?

· Were there robust MEAL and financial systems in place?

4. METHODOLOGY

The evaluation will be conducted in Gedo region, Somalia in Luuq District, with households supported by the project.

The evaluation will employ both qualitative and quantitative methodologies including in-depth interviews with households in the targeted communities and document review, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and observations for triangulation, gathering information from beneficiaries and relevant stakeholders.

A sample of households will be drawn from project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, and a random sampling will be used to select household respondents for the evaluation to eliminate bias in selection. Household sample size will be determined by sampling proportionate to size, with a 95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error.

The survey participants will include, but not limited to food production beneficiaries, community members, CeRID staff, local and regional authorities from specific departments, ATC teachers and students.

The data will be analyzed and reported in line with the logical framework and commitments in the project proposal.

5. SCOPE OF WORK

The consultant will be responsible for:

ü Development of a brief inception report including a comprehensive evaluation protocol.

ü Desk Review of existing program documents (including but not limited to proposal, monthly activity progress reports, baseline and midline evaluation reports, secondary sources e.g. FSNAU).

ü Development of evaluation tools and upload to Kobo.

ü Data collection, analysis and management.

ü Development of draft and final report.

ü General oversight of the assessment process.

ü Presentation on the evaluation including feedback of findings, to Trocaire management and programme team.

Expected tasks and outputs will include:

1) Inception meeting with project staff, review of key relevant documents

2) Develop and submit inception report/ protocol which will include an interpretation of the tasks and study design & methodologies, sampling procedures and detailed work plan

3) Develop appropriate tools and instruments for gathering information and present to Trocaire team for approval

4) Conduct survey interviews in the field

5) Undertake KIIs and FGDs with key stakeholders in the field

6) General oversight and coordination of the evaluation process including logistical arrangements for data collection in collaboration with the Project Coordinator and MEAL Coordinator.

7) Process and analyze the data, and develop a draft report. Revise the report and based on internal Trocaire technical feedback, submit a final report to the Project Coordinator and MEAL Coordinator.

8) The final report will follow report framework below:

· Executive Summary

· Background and Context

· Introduction

· Description of Methodology

· Main findings

· Conclusions

· Recommendations

9) Develop actionable recommendations context based which include specific recommendations based on evidence from the evaluation findings.

10) PowerPoint presentation on the evaluation to Trocaire management and programme team.

6. REQUIRED COMPETENCIES

1. Minimum 5 years’ experience in livelihoods, humanitarian work, evaluation and/or related fields (Experience in Somalia context is desirable).
2. Demonstrated experience in conducting assessments of humanitarian programmes preferably agriculture/livelihoods (experience of a similar assignment in Somalia will be an advantage).
3. Proven strong skills and experience in qualitative and participatory approaches is mandatory.
4. Solid analytical skills with ability to correlate different data sets to actionable conclusions.
5. Result based planning, report writing, communication and diplomacy skills.
6. English language skills (report should be written in English). Ability to make clear presentations and disseminate findings to both technical and non-technical audience.

7. CONSULTANT’S PROPOSAL

Proposals being submitted should include:

· Consultants’ understanding of the scope of work and requirements.

· Proposed design and methodology of evaluation.

· A financial proposal.

· Attachment of previous similar work done and referees.

NB: The consultant is required to undertake all costs pertaining to the evaluation including travel and hiring of enumerators (the consultant shall hire form a pool of Trocaire-trained enumerators). Trocaire shall only cover cost of accommodation and meals while in the field.

. TENTATIVE WORK SCHEDULE

Activity

Timeline

Desk review

2 days

Travel to and from the field

2 days

Training and organizing research assistants/ enumerators

1 day

Data collection

5 days

Data analysis

3 days

First Draft Report

5 days

Final Report

3 days

Total **

21 days

9. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

The evaluators should:

· Take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved.

· Ensure that the evaluation is accurate and reliable, is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner and contributes to organizational learning and accountability.

· Commit to adhering to Trócaire’s Safeguarding Programme Participant Policy and Code of Conduct.

All products arising from this evaluation will be owned by Trocaire. The evaluators will not be allowed without prior authorization in writing to present any of the analytical results as his or her own or to make use of the evaluation results for private publication purposes.

10. HOW TO APPLY

Applications for interested candidates should present an application as follows:

1. A Technical proposal detailing: The consultant/s profile, understanding of the tasks as stipulated in the TOR, proposed evaluation design and methodology and proposed plan of evaluation execution, sample of similar work.
2. A financial proposal with a detailed budget considering the details in this ToR and timelines provided.