By continuing to browse this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read our privacy policy

Central Highlands Program – Final Impact Assessment

Afghanistan

  • Organization: GERES - Groupe Energies Renouvelables, Environnement et Solidarités
  • Location: Afghanistan
  • Grade: Level not specified - Level not specified
  • Occupational Groups:
    • Monitoring and Evaluation
    • Climate Change and Environment
    • Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
  • Closing Date: Closed

AFGHANISTAN - CHP Consortium – Final Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference – November 2017 - GERES 3/11

3 BACKGROUND OF THE PROGRAM TO BE EVALUATED

The French Agency for Development (AFD) has granted funding to a Consortium of three
French Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) to implement a rural development
programme in the Central Highlands of Afghanistan - the Central Highlands Program (CHP)

  • for a total budget of EUR 10,000,000.
    The consortium is led by GERES (Group for the Environment, Renewable Energy and
    Solidarity), in partnership with MADERA (Mission d’Aide au Développement Rural en
    Afghanistan) and SI (Solidarités International).
    The CHP started on October, 1 st , 2013 and was initially planned for a 42 months duration
    until February 2017. Several No Cost Extensions (NCE) allowed the implementation period
    to extend until February 2018, that is to say 4,5 years all together.
    The intervention area covers 5 Districts split in 2 Provinces: Bamyan Province (Yakawlang,
    Saighan and Kahmard Districts) and Wardak Province (Behsud I and Behsud II Districts).

The overall objective of the CHP is to “increase living standards and the quality of life of
rural mountainous populations by promoting balanced rural development and the
preservation of natural resources”.

The specific objectives of the CHP can be outlined as follow:

  1. Support sustainable intensification of agriculture and livestock farming production
    (Component I: MADERA and SI);
  2. Improve energy resilience of households and their living conditions in winter while
    limiting the depletion of natural capital (Component II: GERES);
  3. Improve access to and management of rare natural resources (pastures and water)
    for the sustainability of the production systems (Component III: MADERA and SI);
  4. Produce knowledge and consolidate lessons learnt within the programme to launch
    political dialogue with local authorities and development stakeholders (Component
    IV: GERES, MADERA, and SI).

4 THE CONTEXT IN BRIEF

4.1 GENERAL FEATURES
The Central Highlands is an agro-ecological zone located in the centre of Afghanistan.
It can be depicted as a rural mountainous area with an average altitude of 2.800 meters
above sea level. It hosts a semi-arid harsh climate with cold winters and dry summers,
cumulating only 125 millimetres of precipitation annually (excluding snowfall). Cold
temperatures and frost – even during the summer – are common, shortening the growing
season and reducing crop performance. Moreover, the area is often prone to natural
hazards hampering its smooth development: severe flooding and landslides in spring,
droughts in summer are common.
Infrastructures and therefore access to market and services within the Districts are
generally poor although road links across Provinces and in connection with Kabul, the
Afghan capital, have improved in the recent years.
Security wise, the CHP area remains one of the safest in the country despite sporadic
incidents at the outskirts of the Program area.

4.2 LIVELIHOODS
With respectively 92% and 93% of the households engaged in agriculture and livestock
activities, these two sectors are considered as the pillars of the Central Highlands’
economy, adjusting to the main livelihoods factors: altitude and water availability.
Both agriculture (wheat, potatoes, pulses crops, plus fruits in the lower zones) and
livestock (dairy products, meat to a lower extent) not only contribute to the daily diets of
rural families, but also constitute the main sources of incomes (potatoes, fruits) and the
most common coping strategy (animal sales).
However, crops’ yields remain unpredictable as well as unstable over the years and the
productivity performances have reached a limit while the livestock profitability remains
low. In other words, the production system is not reliable enough to systematically cover
household needs and it affects the resilience of a majority of households, being small scale
farmers and breeders. This is particularly valid when off-farm sources of incomes are
limited and principally made of remittances, daily labour, and secondary sector.

4.3 NATURAL RESOURCES
In such a rural and fragile environment, natural resources play a crucial role. Their main
ingredients (soil, water, pastures) are subject to heavy and intense exploitation and pay a
heavy toll to mismanagement and overuse. Both population and animal herds increase in
the last 15 years have implied a drastic raise of pressure on already endangered resources
whether for crop intensification (soils and water sources), animal feeding (pastures) or
building, cooking and heating purposes (wood, bush and shrubs),

5 RATIONALE OF THE IMPACT ASSESSEMENT

Both internal and external inputs have i) helped the CHP team adjusting its implementation
strategy and ii) stated a first set of lessons learnt of the CHP. The secondary data made
available to the consultant team includes:

  1. An internal and cross cutting Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system has allowed
    the consolidation of the data collected by the 3 partners at field level into a single
    frame of indicators likely to address the Logical Framework and provide additional
    information/directions as the activities were implemented. Moreover, each of the 3 partners has its own comprehensive M&E system compiling more detailed activities

and results indicators;

  1. Initial and mid-term assessments have been conducted by the same contractor in
    order to establish a battery of indicators and data enabling a proper measure of the
    direct effects of the Action on its beneficiaries and tracking the main outputs of the
    Program. This longitudinal study was built in order to determine what changes were
    to be attributed as direct effects of the Program OR induced by an evolving context
    as well as external factors. Although the consulting company faced difficulties in
    following the same households from the initial to the mid-term assessment, this
    exercise brought numerous valuable inputs to be taken into account in the impact
    assessment.
  2. A CHP diagnostic study was also commissioned at the end of 2016, therefore by the
    end of the initial period of implementation. This “crash test” assessment intended
    to provide AFD and the Consortium with time bound information highlighting the
    main achievements and lessons learned of the CHP alongside with an in-depth
    review of the direct results delivered by the Program so far.

These various inputs can be promoted as real time evaluations tools which have enabled
the donor, the Consortium as a whole and the implementing teams to redirect their
strategies and tend to a better blend of each of the components within the CHP. However,
this multi sectorial and multi partners Program still lacks reliable information regarding its
current and longer term impact on the local populations. Therefore, this intended
assessment is expected to bring in an overview of the CHP impact beyond its period of
implementation and therefore enable a more objective outlook over its sustainability.

6 OBJECTIVES OF THE IMPACT ASSESSEMENT

As previously stated, various studies were implemented at an earlier stage during Program
implementation. These inputs provided very useful data related to some of the indicators
that are usually considered to assess a project, namely its coherence, relevance and
effectiveness. These aspects will not be taken into consideration into the present impact
assessment. Therefore, this final exercise is not designed to cover all types of indicators
as a standard evaluation but rather to focus on the efficiency of the funds invested by AFD
and on a tight set of factors (impact, sustainability) relevant to the accountability of the
Action.

Therefore, the general objective of the impact assessment is to:
“Assess the impact and the durability of the Action on the living standards of the
rural mountainous population of Bamyan and Wardak Provinces”.

Four connected specific objectives will contribute to feed the general objective:

  1. To establish the causal links between the CHP’s intervention and its impact,
    and measure the social, economic and environmental changes induced for
    the beneficiaries along this chain;

  2. To focus on a specific watershed where all 3 partners took action – in
    Yakawlang District - in order to highlight the social, economic and
    environmental effects of the CHP activities at territory level;

  3. To assess the level of sustainability of the activities implemented during
    the CHP and the existing and forthcoming dynamics induced by the
    Program;

  4. To document positive/negative social, economic and environmental
    impacts of the CHP with dedicated attractive communication tools showing
    how people’s lives have changed along the years thanks to their
    involvement in the action.

The basic and initial listing of questions below intends to circumscribe the scope of work
but is not exhaustive. The whole intention is to mix a certain amount of quantitative data
(sub-objectives 1 and 2) and qualitative information (sub-objectives 2, 3 and 4). All data
extracted from the field investigations will need to be thoroughly fed by solid and valid
arguments in order to provide tangible justifications to AFD and the Consortium partners.
In short, the impact assessment will concentrate on 3 criteria and the main questions to
address are as follows:

o Impact: Demonstration of the short and longer term economic viability of the CHP
intervention for the beneficiaries.

  • What are the specific socio-economic qualitative changes observed:
     In the livelihoods of (direct and indirect) CHP beneficiaries?
     Agriculture and livestock sustainable practices;
     Housing and sanitation in terms of global living standards and
    health status;
     At watershed level?
     Employment, investment capacity and entrepreneurship;
     Social networks and status within the CHP area;
     Collective management and benefits of infrastructures;
     Community access to and preservation of the natural
    resources.
  • How has the revenue of private entrepreneurs supported during the Action
    (farmers’ entrepreneurs, para-veterinaries, craftsmen…) evolved?
  • How many jobs have been created and made durable thanks to the CHP?
    Providing what type of net incomes and margins?

o Efficiency: Identification, quantification, and comparison of the economic costs and
benefits of the CHP.

  • For each activity, what is the financial cost-benefit (for the beneficiaries)
    ratio?
  • Retroactively, and for future replication - how could the whole approach be
    better integrated and better implemented?

o Sustainability: Assessment of the technical, social, financial, and environmental
sustainability of the CHP throughout all activities implemented.

  • How are practices or innovations introduced still exploited and improved?
    What are their existing and expected economic and social benefits for the
    beneficiaries?
  • What are the evidences that the outcomes of the CHP will be sustained after
    the project ends?
  • What activities have set off a durable profitability dynamic for i) private
    households beneficiaries and ii) a territory as a whole (specific watershed)
  • What level of sustainability can be expected for human capital?

 Externally: How are the knowledge, skills, and talents achieved
thanks to all forms of capacity buildings activities during the CHP:
 Optimized for the benefit of the beneficiaries and a larger
portion of the population in the CHP targeted area?
 Converted into assets for the socio-economic development of
the Central Highlands?
 Appropriated and likely to be replicated by the local
authorities?
 Internally:
 In what terms has the CHP contributed to empower
emancipate the national staff of the 3 partners’ NGOs?
 What kind of experiences, competencies and knowledge can
be replicated and maximized by the human resources of the
CHP in the future?

Remark 1: Institutional context
The CHP is divided in 4 components. The 4th component, related to the capacity building
of the local authority, has been largely debated in previous studies. However, the outcomes
of the institutional capacity building conducted during the CHP will remain a cross-cutting
aspect to take in consideration. The long term viability of the CHP will depend on a
favourable institutional context. Hence, the capability of the Provincial and District
Administration to build on knowledge and aptitudes achieved during the CHP, and
consecutively to deliver ad-hoc services to the population will also be assessed.

Remark 2: Environmental context
The general objective of the CHP mentions that the increased living standards of the
targeted population is expected through a balanced use of the natural resources: it means
the economic viability of the CHP should not be reached to the detriment of the initial
assets of the area. At the opposite, the proper management of these natural resources
prevailing in the CHP area should enable and increase the sustainability of the Action
(specific objectives 3 of the consultancy).
Then again, as a transversal thematic, this statement will have to be demonstrated
alongside with the proper social and economic evidences of impact of the CHP.

7 PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

The final evaluation of the CHP is actually transformed here into a socio-economic impact
assessment of the Action and will be based on a solid survey methodology that will be
developed by the consultant. However, some basic markers are provided here and will
have to be debated at the onset of the assignment:

  1. Bibliography, secondary data collection:
    a. Links between the Logical Framework (initial and completed), the budget
    and the internal M&E systems;
    b. Projects report;
    c. Previous evaluations and consultancies reports.

  2. Initial briefings with AFD representatives, CHP Consortium focal points.

  3. Set up of the methodology to address and demonstrate the efficiency, impact and
    sustainability of the CHP activities:
    a. Definition of “with – without CHP” scenarios;
    b. Design of a quantitative survey framework which includes:
    i. Identification and distinction between i) prime beneficiaries, ii)
    indirect beneficiaries and iii) non-beneficiaries of the Action;
    ii. Collection of households baseline values and effects of the Program
    on these raw data;
    iii. Formulation of the survey methodology and samples;
    iv. Drafting of the questionnaires and interviews formats;
    c. Inclusion in the methodology of:
    i. External agents influencing the quantitative figures obtained, both
    institutional and environmental;
    ii. Risks and assumptions of such an ex-post Program data collection
    process;
    d. Criteria ranking and selection of a watershed where the sub-objective 2 of
    the consultancy will be pursued in Yakawlang District;
    e. Identification of the main lessons learnt and stories to promote.

  4. Production of an inception report including methodological tools and data
    collection formats plus iterative exchanges with AFD and the CHP Consortium.

  5. Field work / Primary data collection:
    a. Consultation and training of the surveyors team;
    b. Survey and interviews by the consultant together with the surveyors team
    of a randomized sample of individual households and communities,
    beneficiaries or not, direct or indirect, of the CHP:
    i. Estimation of the social benefit of the Program;
    ii. Calculation of the financial cost-benefit ratios;
    iii. Calculation of net profitability of the Program for the beneficiaries
    (attributed to the CHP activities only);
    iv. Estimation of the foreseen durability and sustainability of the CHP
    activities for the beneficiaries;
    v. Attribution of the externalities affecting these raw results;
    c. Consultation with stakeholders of the Program to confront the quantitative
    results extracted from the surveys and the local actors statements;
    d. Focus on information gathering in a specific watershed with collection of
    evidences of the impact and sustainability of the complementary activities
    implemented by the 3 partners;
    e. Showcase and highlighting of several success stories induced by the CHP
    Action.

  6. Full information, data, testimonies analysis and formatting.

  7. Debriefing workshops in and out of country (AFD headquarters) with the CHP
    Consortium members and AFD representatives.

  8. Preliminary report + success stories communication product drafting and
    handover.

  9. Final report + success stories communication product completion and
    handover.

It is reminded here that the impact assessment will take place at least 2 months beyond
the CHP completion. It means the implementing team will not be present anymore and the
identification of the main stakeholders of the Program will be more time consuming. In this
context, the beneficiaries of the Program will represent the main data providers.
However, three English speaking staff all together (1 agent from each partner NGO) plus
one multi-roles assistant to the consultant team will be enrolled during the field phase in
order to act as information providers regarding the past Action, lead the mission towards
the relevant spokespersons and actively participate to the consultancy implementation as
guides, translators, data enterers…

8 DELIVERABLES

Two specific and separated deliverables are expected:

  1. An impact assessment report addressing the first three sub-objectives of the
    assignment and aggregating both quantitative data and fine-tuned analysis of these
    raw materials as well as all qualitative information gathered at field level;

  2. A “success stories” communication product highlighting positive and down to
    earth outcomes of the Action. The consultant team is left free to suggest accurate
    form and shape for this communication tool.

9 INTENDED SCHEDULE

The 3 partners of the Consortium have successively ended the implementation of their
activities at various periods during 2017 (up to February 2018 for GERES). Also, in this
mountainous region of Afghanistan, activities are in standby during winter (January –
March). Therefore, the final impact assessment will take place in April 2018, 2 to 10 months
after the end of the field activities. There is a practical reason to it as the field is not
accessible during winter months, but there is also a strong will to assess impacts and
sustainability of the Program after its completion.
The proposed planning of the consultancy can be set as follow:

ACTIVITY DEADLINE
Publication of the Terms of References 08, January, 2018
Receipt of tenders 31, January, 2018
Selection of the consultant 28, February, 2018
Organization of the mission / exchanges prior to the field
mission / Bibliography
March 2018
Implementation of the mission in Afghanistan April 2018
Handover of draft deliverables 15, May, 2018
Handover of final deliverables 30, May, 2018

10 PROFILE EXPECTED

This consultancy requires the input of two different and specific competencies which will
constitute the consultant team:
o The team leader will be in charge of the sub-objectives 1 to 3 and stand as the focal
point of the consultancy, in direct contact with GERES as being the Consortium
leader;
o The second consultant or communication specialist will address the sub-objective 4
(elaboration of a communication tool based on success stories) and will work hand
in hand with the team leader.

These two different profiles shall pair up prior to the application, set up a complementary
approach and methodology as well as a common technical and financial offer.

  1. Background and experience of the team leader:
  2. Advanced university degree in economy, international affairs, social affairs,
    political science, rural development or any other relevant related field;
  3. At least 10 years of experience in programme evaluation ;
  4. Proficiency with multi-sectors and multi-partners programs in rural contexts;
  5. Demonstrated and specific experience in impact assessment plus
    quantitative and economic data collection;
  6. Previous experience in the identification, quantification and analysis of
    projects’ outcomes;
  7. Ability to work with, brainstorm, train and manage a team of surveyors
    during the assignment;
  8. Previous experience with projects funded by AFD is an asset.

  9. Background of the second consultant, communication specialist:

  10. Degree in communication, mass media;

  11. Proven experience as communications specialist;

  12. Solid understanding of and interest for development projects approaches
    and objectives;

  13. Proven writing and editing skills, including the ability to write for a variety
    of audiences;

  14. Creative and resourceful.

  15. Common and specific personal skills:

  16. Comfortable and able to work in a high-risk country;

  17. Able to work and travel in rough conditions;

  18. Autonomous and rigorous;

  19. Open minded and likely to share views with the commissioners of the impact
    assessment;

  20. Adaptable to new and unexpected situations;

  21. Trustable in terms of commitments and deadlines;

  22. At ease with both rural populations and institutional partners;

  23. Able to integrate different experiences, approaches, methodologies and
    ideas from a diversity of stakeholders, beneficiaries and organizations across
    sectors;

  24. Excellent English speaking/writing required, knowledge of Dari is an
    advantage;

  25. Previous experience in Afghanistan is an asset.

11 CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

All documents issued from the consultancy belong to AFD and the CHP Consortium
exclusively. The consultant will not be entitled to publish nor share any information to third
parties as AFD and the CHP Consortium are the main addressees of this study and its
outcomes may impact on both future operational and technical strategies.
This being said, AFD and the Consortium reserve the right to share the outputs of the
mission with partners and stakeholders within or outside Afghanistan.

12 SELECTION CRITERIA OF THE CANDIDATES

CRITERIA DETAILS MARK
CV Adaptation of the CVs to the assignment 50
Technical
offer
Methodology 30
Coherent schedule 10
Narrative quality 10
Financial
offer
Balance between the quality of the offer and the budget requested 50
TOTAL 150

13 HOW TO APPLY

Interested candidates, individuals or firms, are invited to send their application and
proposals including:
o Updated CV(s);
o 2 references for each consultant;
o A technical offer including elements of understanding of the Terms of References,
the detailed methodology and tools suggested, the intended and precise schedule;
o A financial offer, including all budget items and their distribution between the CHP
Consortium and the consultants;
o 2 examples of previous work productions for each consultant.

The above mentioned documentation is to submit to l.tommasino@geres.eu and
marilleau.sylvain@gmail.com with the subject title “CHP Final impact assessment” before
January, 31 st , 2018.

The above mentioned documentation is to submit to l.tommasino@geres.eu and
marilleau.sylvain@gmail.com with the subject title “CHP Final impact assessment” before
January, 31 st , 2018.

This vacancy is now closed.
However, we have found similar vacancies for you: