Consultancy To Conduct Evaluation And Baseline Survey Of Integrated Livelihoods, Camp Management And Protection Projects In Nduta, Mtendeli And Nyarugusi Refugee Camps

DRC has been registered in Tanzania since June 2015 in response to the political unrest in Burundi and resultant outflow of refugees to Tanzania. DRC has been operational in Nduta and Mtendeli camps in camp management, shelter/construction and community services/protection since opening of Nduta in October 2015 and Mtendeli in January 2016. From September 2016, DRC has extended its operation with a Livelihoods program and through the capacity building of TWESA, camp management agency for Nyarugusu camp. DRC interventions are being supported by a number of partners including UNHCR, DFID and ECHO.  

 

The proposed Evaluation is focusing on two closely related projects: a) The DFID funded “Enhancing a Protective Environment through Community Driven Mechanisms in Camps for Refugees in Tanzania” and b) The ECHO (phase one) funded “Enhancing protective environment for Burundian refugees in Northwestern Tanzania”.  The proposed Baseline survey focuses on the ECHO (Phase two) project and is primarily intended to establish baseline targets for the key performance indicators. The ECHO Phase one evaluation is closely linked to the Baseline for ECHO phase two in the sense that some of the indicators being measured in the former will constitute the baseline targets for the latter. Indeed, the interventions in both projects are more or less similar.  

Both the DFID and ECHO projects are integrated/multi-sectoral and have adopted a strong community based participatory approach aimed at empowering refugees to take ownership in management and service delivery.  The DFID project covers Community Services, Protection, Livelihoods, and Capacity Building in Camp Management and Camp Coordination sectors while the ECHO project covered Shelter, Protection, Community services and WASH sectors. DFID interventions were implemented in Nduta, Mtendeli and Nyarugusu refugee camps while ECHO interventions were implanted in Nduta and Mtendeli.  

The DFID project sought to achieve the following three specific objectives:  

a)    Provide emergency assistance through physical camp management in Nyarugusu 

b)    Establishment of a strong, safe community through information, protection and community governance 

c)    Transition to Self-Reliance through increased access, to resources (knowledge, skills and in-kind or financial). 

 

The objective of ECHO Phase one was to improve the Protection environment and living conditions through community based protection and shelter provision. Echo Phase two share the same objective minus the shelter component.  

 

The key results areas for the ECHO projects are as follows:  

a)    Results One - Transitional Shelter Provided (Nduta) 

b)    Results Two (Same as Results One- ECHO Phase Two)- Improved Protective environment in Nduta and Mtendeli 

It is anticipated that the evaluation & endline/baseline study will employ both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. Data will be collected from both primary and secondary sources. The methodology must clearly delineate how participatory approaches will be used in collecting and triangulating data and information. The methodology description should also explicitly describe the process for collating and triangulating lessons learned. The evaluation consultant is expected to provide a detailed description of the evaluation methodology in responding to the detailed terms of reference (to be shared with pre-selected consultants/firms). The methodology description will constitute a critical part of the assessment of the suitability of the consultants.  

 

Note on Methodology: It is expected that a common tool will be utilized for the household level data collection covering both evaluations and the baseline study since most of the interventions covered same target groups and locations. Therefore, further discussions on methodology will be undertaken between DRC Tanzania and the Consultant with a view to determining a more cost-efficient way of approaching the evaluation with a view to ensuring that the process yields reliable and valid data for the evaluations (including endline for ECHO phase One) as well as baseline indicators for ECHO Phase Two. 

 

The consultant should be willing to work in remote rural setting where the Nduta, Mtendeli and Nyarugusu Refugee camps are located. The consultant may have his/her own team to work with and then they will entirely be under the jurisdiction of the consultant and at no time will DRC be held responsible for them.  

 

DRC/DDG has a Humanitarian Accountability Framework, outlining its global accountability commitments. All staff are required to contribute to the achievement of this framework (http://www.DRC/DDG.dk/HAF.4265.0.html 

 

Interested applicants who meet the required profile and methodology are invited to submit an expression of interest including: 

Interested parties should forward the expression of interest, in English on this link: http://www.drc.dk under vacancies no later than 28th June 2017 

If you have questions or are facing problems with the online application process, please contact job@drc.dk 

 

 

 

 

1)    Evaluation Facts  

1.1    Project Title :  Enhancing a Protective Environment through Community-Driven Mechanisms in Camps for Refugees in Tanzania 

1.2    Timing of Evaluation: July 2017 

1.3    Type of Evaluation: End of Project Evaluation 

 

Overall Objective:  

The overall objectives of the EoP are two-fold; to assess the overall performance of the project in terms of achievement of stated objectives and; to document relevant learnings and recommendations that will inform ongoing and future integrated and multi-sector programs.  

Specific Objectives:   

DRC has been registered in Tanzania since June 2015 in response to the political unrest in Burundi and resultant outflow of refugees to Tanzania. DRC’s response was initiated upon activation of a Refugee Emergency Response Agreement (PERA) which was entered into between UNHCR and DRC in April 2015 which saw the immediate deployment of DRC emergency responders, and approval of flexible funding in order to meet critical capacity gaps in response to the growing humanitarian needs on the ground. DRC has been operational in Nduta and Mtendeli camps in camp management, shelter/construction and community services/protection since opening of Nduta in October 2015 and Mtendeli in January 2016. From September 2016, DRC has extended its operation with a Livelihoods program and through the capacity building of TWESA, a camp management agency for Nyarugusu camp. 

 

3.1 Key Problems 

The current project sought to address the following key problems/issues that define the humanitarian situation in Nduta,Mtendeli and Nyarugusu:  

a)    Refugee Influx – Due to continued conflict and instability in Burundi and DR Congo, the camps continue to experiencing an influx although at a slower rate. This contributes to a sustained increase in the caseload.  

b)    Unlikely Returns to Burundi  

c)    Encampment policy and limited suitable land – A direct consequence of this is the over-crowding in camps, insufficient resources to meet basic needs and limited livelihood opportunities. Many aspects of camp services do not reach humanitarian standards particularly in protection with a lack of monitoring, safe spaces for individual protection cases and accountable security architecture. One of the key gaps in education is the lack of infrastructure to accommodate all children of school going age. Camp coordination mechanisms are inadequate due to the limited capacity of the local partner organisations entrusted with the responsibility. Community participation and awareness of services by refugees is also low.  

d)    Limited livelihood opportunities – Due to restricted movement, limited availability of capital and lack of knowledge of market systems refugee households have limited opportunities to diversify their livelihoods.  

e)    Security architecture and protection services in Both Mtendeli and Nduta camps are not sufficiently strong to establish a safe and protective environment. Within the camps, there is a fear of infiltration of Burundian government or opposition militias, there is a high incidence of SGBV and some generalized criminality. Despite the growing threat to the humanitarian character of the camps, mechanisms for structurally identifying and consequently addressing the threats have not been put in place leading to a growing mistrust of the security structure by refugees who do not feel safe.  

 

3.2 Project Outcome and Outputs:  

In response to the highlighted problems, the project sought to achieve the following outcome and outputs:  

 

Project Outcome   

Burundian and Congolese refugees in Tanzania feel safer and more able to participate in camp level decision making leading to greater self-reliance 

 

Key Outcome Indicators 

Output 1: 

Increased access to appropriate services through improved comprehensive camp management activities, including assurance of participatory mechanisms, in Nyaragusu camp – through increased ability of TWESA to fulfil its role as camp manager allowing for all refugees (including minority and vulnerable groups) to have increased access to and awareness of all services in a safe and dignified manner 

 

Output 1 Indicators:  

Key activities Development of a Partnership framework with TWESA- Local Implementing Partner;  Capacity building of TWESA on CCCM; Support TWESAs coordination with UNHCR; Strengthening community participation through an inclusive refugee leadership; Setting up camp service help desks 

  

Output 2  

Improve protective environment in the 3 refugee camps - Establishing a strong, safe community, through information, protection and community governance 

 

Output 2 Indicators:  

Key activities Support for community based protection network in Nduta and Mtendeli; Establishment of community infrastructure to support community governance and self-organisation; Training of community groups and at risk persons; Organisation and facilitation of community mobilisation and awareness raising 

 

Output 3:  

Reduce reliance on outside support through access to opportunities for increased resources at group level (small scale business grants, cooperatives), household level (small scale agriculture support) or individual level (life skills training such as literacy and languages) - in refugee and host community - and support in creating an enabling environment to access livelihoods including improved market management 

 

Output 3 Indicators: 

Key activities (Develop a livelihoods strategy for refugees in collaboration with UNHCR; Establishment and support to market committees to ensure efficient market management; Provision of life skills training to individuals; Training and in-kind support to small scale/subsistence agriculture; Material and informal support to committees of community groups; Support to host communities surrounding Nduta and Mtendeli camps and Construction of classrooms and provision of desks). 

The evaluation will focus on the following:  

a)    Timeframe: It will cover the entire duration of the program implementation.  

b)    Thematic areas: The evaluation will focus on all the thematic areas covered by the project. These includes – Livelihoods ; Protection/Community Services ; CCCM/Capacity Building 

c)    Geographic areas – The evaluation will focus on all the Nduta, Mtendeli and Nyarugusu Refugee Camps where project activities were implemented.   

 

In line with the DRC Evaluation policy, the evaluation will adopt the OECD DAC evaluation criteria, focusing specifically on six criteria namely: Appropriateness, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, Coordination and Sustainability.  Based on this framework, the evaluation will be guided by the following key questions:   

 

Key Question: To what extent did the project design meet the immediate and most pertinent needs of the beneficiaries granted the prevailing socio –economic, political and security context within the camp setting?  

 

Sub-Questions 

a)    Did the mix and scale of interventions in the design make sense in terms of conditions, needs or problems, local ownership, accountability, as well as DRC Tanzania’s capacity to effectively deliver? 

b)    What can be done to ensure future designs better match refugee’s needs as well as DRCs capacity to deliver?  

 

Key Question: What results has the project achieved in terms of strengthening existing mechanisms/structures for camp management, facilitating refugee’s access to basic needs, strengthening community-based structures and contributing to an increased feeling of safety among refugees, as well as promoting household and community level resilience?   

 

Sub-questions 

a)    What outputs have been achieved/not achieved and why?  

b)    Extent to which the project strategies across the thematic areas were effective in delivering the project outputs- Key delivery strategies to focus on includes:  

•    CCCM/CS Strategy – How effectively was it executed in terms of building the capacities of the local implementing partners and refugees to effectively deliver on their mandates; collaboration with other partners; enhancing refugee participation in camp governance and promoting access to information and other related services for refugees?  

•    Livelihoods Strategy - How effective was the strategy designed and executed in terms of ensuring collaboration with all partners, addressing the most pertinent needs of the refugee and host communities, leveraging on existing capacities and opportunities and empowering households and communities to be self-reliant?  

•    Dual Approach to targeting (Refugee and Host communities)-To what extent was it successful in addressing social cohesion issues and strengthening the commitment of the host government to the refugee population? 

•    Community Based Protection Networks – Adequacy and appropriateness of the support provided in strengthening the capacity of the networks and other related community level organs to deliver on their mandates. 

c)    How effective were the program accountability mechanisms (ref- Complaints and Feedback mechanisms and other related ones) in ensuring enhanced beneficiary participation, inclusivity in implementation & improvements in quality of program implementation? Is there evidence to show that information emanating from the beneficiary complaints and feedback as well as other accountability mechanisms was adequately documented, shared and utilized within DRC and across collaborating partners to improve the quality of program implementation?    

d)    How effective was the program MEL System in contributing towards effective management and quality implementation of the program activities? Is there evidence to show that information emanating from the monitoring system was adequately documented, reviewed, shared and utilized to improve management decision making and quality of program implementation at all levels of the program 

 

Key Question: Did the project put in place adequate mechanisms to facilitate cost-efficient, quality and timely implementation of activities as to ensure value for money?  

Sub-questions  

a)    To what extent did the program support systems (management, financial, supply chain, human resources) facilitate cost-efficient and timely implementation of program activities? Were the systems adequately adapted to the local implementation contexts? 

b)    Can the program make a reasonable case that value for money considerations informed decisions on financial expenditures on project inputs and activities with a view to maximizing program outputs?  How successful were the measures taken in ensuring value for money?  

c)    Are there any key learnings and recommendations regarding the adequacy of program support systems in ensuring cost-efficient implementation and value for money? 

 

Key Question: What changes (+ve or –ve) have occurred with regard to improved access to services, perception of safety and household self-reliance of the refugees that can be directly or indirectly attributable to the project?  

Sub-questions/Issues  

a)    What evidence exists to show/demonstrate improvements or positive progress in the following areas:  

 

b)    To what extent are the observed changes sustainable and what can be done to enhance sustainability?   

 

Key Question: Did the project effectively operationalize internal coordination mechanisms (between the different thematic areas) and external mechanisms with different agencies and stakeholders?  

Sub-question  

a)    How successful was the project in terms of enhancing internal (within the various thematic areas) and external synergies (between different collaborating agencies and stakeholders)? 

b)    What key learnings have emerged from the collaboration with other partners and stakeholders in terms of enhancing achievement of the project objectives? 

 

To what extent have local capacities been developed to sustain the project outcomes?  

 

The anticipated deliverables under this consultancy are as follows:  

a)    Inception Report outlining detailed methodology , data collection tools and workplan  

b)    Pre-deployment meeting between DRC and the selected consultants to discuss and agree on the final data collection work plans 

c)    Brief report after data collection activities undertaken and challenges encountered if any 

d)    Presentation of the Draft Report to DRC Tanzania 

e)    Final Report aligned to DRC Evaluation report format with the following annexes: 

f)    Separate Lessons Learned report describing in details the key learnings from the findings  

g)    Separate end line survey report 

7)    Methodology  

The evaluation will employ qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. Data will be collected from both primary and secondary sources. The methodology must clearly delineate how participatory approaches will be used in collecting and triangulating data and information. The methodology description should also explicitly describe the process for collating and triangulating lessons learned.  The evaluation consultant is expected to provide a detailed description of the evaluation methodology in responding to the terms of reference. The methodology description will constitute a critical part of the assessment of the suitability of the consultants.  

 

Note on Methodology: Further discussions on methodology will be undertaken between DRC Tanzania and the Consultant with a view to determining a more cost-efficient way of approaching the evaluation.  

The terms and conditions of service will follow DRC terms of consultancies. Payment will be done according to the finance procedures of DRC 

b)    Consultant Roles/Responsibilities  

The evaluation will be conducted in July 2017. The specific timelines will be discussed and agreed with the consultant. 

 

For day-to-day operations the consultant will report to DRC’s Monitoring and Evaluation Focal Point. Area Managers in the respective locations will extend the required logistics and administrative support to the consultant in carrying out the task when s/he is in the area/field.  

 

 

 

1.4    Project Title :  Enhancing a Protective Environment for Burundian Refugees in Northwestern Tanzania 

1.5    Timing of Evaluation: July 2017 

1.6    Type of Evaluation: End of Project Evaluation 

   

Overall Objective:  

The overall objectives of the EoP are two-fold; i)  to assess the overall performance of the ECHO phase one project in terms of achievement of stated objectives and document relevant learnings and recommendations that will inform ongoing and future integrated and multi-sector programs and ii) to conduct a baseline survey of phase two of the project.  

 

Specific Objectives:   

Findings and recommendations from this evaluation will be used at various levels as follows:  

 

Field Level:  

 

The evaluation findings will be disseminated with the following key audiences:  

DRC has been registered in Tanzania since June 2015, in response to the political unrest in Burundi and resultant outflow of refugees to Tanzania. DRC’s response was initiated upon activation of a Refugee Emergency Response Agreement (PERA) which was entered into between UNHCR and DRC in April 2015 which saw the immediate deployment of DRC emergency responders, and approval of flexible funding in order to meet critical capacity gaps in response to the growing humanitarian needs on the ground. DRC has been operational in Nduta and Mtendeli camps in camp management, shelter/construction and community services/protection since opening of Nduta in October 2015 and Mtendeli in January 2016. From September 2016, DRC extended its operation with a Livelihoods program and through the capacity building of TWESA, a camp management agency for Nyarugusu camp. 

 

Key Problems 

The ECHO funded project sought to address the following key problems/issues that define the humanitarian situation in Nduta,and Mtendeli refugee camps 

 

a)    Refugee Influx – Due to continued conflict and instability in Burundi and DR Congo, the camps continue to experience an influx which contributes to a sustained increase in the caseload. Since April 2015, over 250,000 Burundians and 70,000 Congolese have sought asylum in Tanzania.  

b)    Unlikely Returns to Burundi. 

c)    Encampment policy and limited suitable land – A direct consequence of this is the over-crowding in camps, insufficient resources to meet basic needs and limited livelihood opportunities. Many aspects of camp services do not reach humanitarian standards particularly in protection with a lack of monitoring, safe spaces for individual protection cases and accountable security architecture. Furthermore, lack of systematic collection and analysis of information on needs and issues in the camps particularly around protection concerns impacts on the overall ability of agencies to proactively address protection needs. Closely related are gaps in availability of case management and available solutions for general protection cases (outside GBV or CP).  

d)     Living conditions are undignified with refugees living in tents and emergency shelters that overcrowded and do not ensure the safety, dignity nor a durable living arrangement for refugees. Camp coordination mechanisms are inadequate and community participation and awareness of services by refugees are low.  

e)    Limited livelihood opportunities – Due to restricted movement, limited availability of capital and lack of knowledge of market systems refugee households have limited opportunities to diversify their livelihoods.  

f)    Security architecture and protection services in both Mtendeli and Nduta camps are not sufficiently strong to establish a safe and protective environment. Within the camps, there is a fear of infiltration of Burundian government or opposition militias, there is a high incidence of SGBV and some generalized criminality. Despite the growing threat to the humanitarian character of the camps, mechanisms for structurally identifying and consequently addressing the threats have not been put in place leading to a growing mistrust of the security structure by refugees who do not feel safe.  

 

Project Objectives, Results and Indicators:  

In response to the highlighted problems, Phase one of the ECHO project design focused on both Protection and Shelter/WASH needs of the targeted populations while Phase Two primarily focuses on Protection.  

 

Specific Objective:  

In line with its focus on protection and shelter, ECHO Phase One sought to improve the Protection environment and living conditions through community based protection and shelter provision. Echo Phase two shared the same objective minus the shelter component.  

 

 Phase One Objective Indicators for measurement:  

Phase Two Objective Indicators for baseline 

Result One (Phase One) – Transitional Shelter Provided 

 

Indicators for measurement 

Key activities for Results One: 

Community mobilization; Production of mudbricks for shelters and latrines; Village level site planning and demarcation of shelters and latrines; Construction of household and transitional shelters and household latrines; Village level drainage and Maintenance of emergency family shelters  

 

Results Two (Covering ECHO Phase One and Two): Improved Protective environment in Nduta and Mtendeli 

 

Phase One Indicators for measurement:  

Phase Two Indicators (for baseline) 

Activities:  

-    Phase 1: 

Protection monitoring; community based protection network supported; setting up and training of community led conflict mediation system and direct provision of mediation services for more complex cases; provision of radio and hotline (including SMS) services for information sharing and acting as a focal point for, and strengthening inter-agency complaints and accountability mechanisms.  

 

-    Phase 2: 

Protection monitoring, support to the Community Based Protection Network, case management and mediation, Individual Protection Assistance, support to the feedback and complaints mechanisms, conflict assessment and conflict management activities. 

 

d)    Timeframe: It will cover the entire duration of the program implementation.  

e)    Thematic areas: The evaluation will focus on all Shelter/WASH and Protection Thematic area, while the baseline/endline will focus only on Protection activities.  

f)    Geographic areas – The evaluation will focus on Nduta and Mtendeli camps where project activities were implemented.   

 

In line with the DRC Evaluation policy, the evaluation will adopt the OECD DAC evaluation criteria, focusing specifically on six criteria namely: Appropriateness, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, Coordination and Sustainability.  Based on this framework, the evaluation will be guided by the following key questions:   

 

Key Question: To what extent did the project design address the immediate and most pertinent needs of the beneficiaries granted the prevailing socio –economic, political and security context within the camp setting?  

 

Sub-Questions 

c)    Did the mix and scale of interventions in the design make sense in terms of conditions, needs or problems, beneficiaries’ ownership, accountability, as well as DRC Tanzania’s capacity to effectively deliver? 

d)    What can be done to ensure future designs better match identified needs as well as DRCs capacity to deliver?  

 

Key Question: What results has the project achieved in terms of improving the living conditions and protection environment of the refugees?    

Sub-questions 

e)    To what extent have the key results indicators been achieved? 

f)    How effective were the strategies adopted in facilitating achievement of the key results? Key delivery strategies to focus on includes:  

g)    How effective was the program MEL System in contributing towards effective management and quality implementation of the program activities? Is there evidence to show that information emanating from the monitoring system was adequately documented, reviewed, shared and utilized to improve management decision making and quality of program implementation at all levels of the program? 

 

Key Question: Did the project put in place adequate mechanisms to facilitate cost-efficient, quality and timely implementation of activities as to ensure value for money?  

Sub-questions  

d)    To what extent did the program support systems (management, financial, supply chain, human resources) facilitate cost-efficient and timely implementation of program activities? Were the systems adequately adapted to the local implementation contexts? 

e)    Can the program make a reasonable case that value for money considerations informed decisions on financial expenditures on project inputs and activities with a view to maximizing program outputs?  How successful were the measures taken in ensuring value for money?  

f)    Are there any key learnings and recommendations regarding the adequacy of program support systems in ensuring cost-efficient implementation and value for money? 

 

Key Question: What changes (+ve or –ve) have occurred with regard to improving the living conditions and the protective environment for the refugees? 

 

Sub-questions/Issues  

c)    What evidence exists to show/demonstrate improvements or positive progress in the following areas:  

d)    To what extent are the observed changes sustainable and what can be done to enhance sustainability?   

 

xi)    Coordination 

Key Question: Did the project effectively operationalize internal coordination mechanisms (between the different thematic areas) and external mechanisms with different agencies and stakeholders?  

 

Sub-question  

c)    How successful was the project in terms of enhancing internal (within the various thematic areas) and external synergies (between different collaborating agencies and stakeholders)? 

d)    What key learnings have emerged from the collaboration with other partners and stakeholders in terms of enhancing achievement of the project objectives? 

 

xii)    Sustainability/Connectedness 

To what extent have the refugees’ capacities been developed to sustain the project outcomes?  

 

The anticipated deliverables under this consultancy are as follows:  

h)    Inception Report outlining detailed methodology, data collection tools and workplan  

i)    Pre-deployment meeting between DRC and the selected consultants to discuss and agree on the final data collection work plans 

j)    Brief report after data collection activities undertaken and challenges encountered if any 

k)    Presentation of the Draft Report to DRC Tanzania 

l)    Final Report aligned to DRC Evaluation report format with the following annexes: 

m)    Separate Lessons Learned report describing in details the key learnings from the findings  

n)     Separate endline report and baseline report for Protection activities 

 

The evaluation will employ both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. Data will be collected from both primary and secondary sources. The methodology must clearly delineate how participatory approaches will be used in collecting and triangulating data and information. The methodology description should also explicitly describe the process for collating and triangulating lessons learned. The evaluation consultant is expected to provide a detailed description of the evaluation methodology in responding to the terms of reference. The methodology description will constitute a critical part of the assessment of the suitability of the consultants.  

 

Note on Methodology: Further discussions on methodology will be undertaken between DRC Tanzania and the Consultant with a view to determining a more cost-efficient way of approaching the evaluation with a view to ensuring that the process yields required baseline data for ECHO Phase Two indicators (with a 5% statistically accurate sample) / Endline date for ECHO Phase One indicators.  

Furthermore, due to the sensitivity of the Protection activities in the Tanzanian context, further discussions will also be undertaken with regards to the questionnaire to be used, as well as to whom the findings shall be shared with. After approval of DRC Tanzania Protection & Community Services Manager, the final questionnaire will also be shared and agreed upon by the local authorities prior to any data collection. 

 

The following documents is the minimum set of documents to be reviewed:  

The terms and conditions of service will follow DRC terms of consultancies. Payment will be done according to the finance procedures of DRC 

 

•    Review relevant programme documents (i.e. programme proposal, LFA, quarterly reports, baselines, DRC Tanzania process data, third party monitoring reports etc.). 

•    Understand and respect DRC’s confidential requirements with regards to Protection activities. 

•    Prepare and submit a detailed inception report that provides detailed methodology to be adopted as well as the work plan  

•    Hire & Train the data collection teams  

•    Prepare draft evaluation reports, participate in on-line reviews, formal review meetings and review the drafts accordingly to reflect the inputs of the DRC technical teams 

•    Prepare and submit all evaluation deliverables as required in (7) 

 

The evaluation will be conducted in July 2017. The specific timelines will be discussed and agreed with the consultant.