Expired 2 years ago!

The Life & Peace Institute (LPI) is an international centre with headquarters in Uppsala, Sweden. LPI has been supporting and promoting nonviolent approaches to conflict transformation through a combination of participatory research and action for the past 35 years, to contribute to the prevention and mitigation of violence as preconditions for peace, justice, and nonviolent coexistence. Combined with LPI’s experience as a neutral, third party conflict mediator across a range of settings, the Institute’s three interlinking strategic priorities – civil society support and inclusive engagement for peace, policy work and awareness-raising, and knowledge and learning to enhance practice – form a robust foundation for the Institute’s peacebuilding engagement. LPI brings a range of participatory approaches and methodologies that have proven to be effective tools for creating space for dialogue and action across Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Sudan in the Horn of Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as well as in Sweden. Through its Addis Ababa-based Horn of Africa Regional Programme (HARP), and its Global Policy Initiative (‘Inclusive Peace in Practice’), LPI is also able to link the local peacebuilding initiatives and structures at the regional level through partnerships with the African Union (AU) and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) – as well as at the global level. Research plays an essential role in LPI’s peacebuilding approach, both in order to understand the context and as a means for transformation of conflicts when done collaboratively. LPI engages a range of other actors, particularly different levels of government, to support environments conducive for nonviolent conflict transformation. With increasing capacity, focus, and access, LPI has taken considerable strides in constructive, evidence-based policy engagement across its programmes. It is clear that conflicts in the Horn of Africa are dynamic, often transboundary and are manifested at different levels in different ways (local, national, regional and global). This reflection has compelled LPI to engage in peacebuilding at a regional level in order to address the complexity and regional aspects of conflicts in the Horn.

Implementation Context

The Horn of Africa is a Regional Security Complex in which conflicts occur at multiple levels and transcend national boundaries. Conflict drivers, causes, and consequences in one country can be traced into other countries. Decision-making power to address the security complex is concentrated in the hands of the few and the process is opaque to those outside decision-making rooms. Political and military elites define security priorities and threats in the Horn at both the national and regional level. The result is that security agendas, responses, policies, and actions in the Horn of Africa favour national security approaches; and security priorities are defined by elites rather than the people most affected by them. By relegating human security to a secondary consideration, the region’s leaders feed a vicious cycle where rising human insecurity exacerbates the issues by catalysing political dissent, fuelling armed struggles, increasing susceptibility to violent extremism, and encouraging political clientelism as a means to access resources. This in turn motivates national security-minded responses, actions and policies, and so the cycle continues. In a context with a growing sense of threat from violent conflict, governments in the Horn are even less likely to consent to consultation on peace and security issues. Instead, regulatory frameworks for civil society engagement have emerged that constrict the space for civil society to contribute to policy making at all levels, in particular for security-related issues. Civil society needs to find ways to access decision makers to share evidence that shed light on how human beings are living with the consequences of systemic insecurity in the Horn, how that human insecurity translates to national insecurity in the long term, and which actions and policies could be taken to disrupt the vicious cycle.

Focus on Civil Society Capacity Cross Border Cooperation: Most of Africa’s 109 international borders, extending over 55,000 km, have yet to be delimited and demarcated. With roots to colonial times, unaddressed borders have directly contributed to inter-state tensions, secessionist movements and wars on the continent. As of 2016, there are over 110 border disputes between states in Africa,[1] with some of the longest and highest intensity disputes located in the Horn of Africa adversely impacting on people and governments from local to global levels. The human security concerns of borderlands are by definition transnational. Border disputes hinder the entire continent from moving forward in identifying workable solutions to pressing present-day realities, particularly on ways to promote cross-border cooperation (CBC) which would directly improve the lives of people in the borderlands. It is the most marginalised of Africa’s people, living in borderlands, who suffer most when policies neither facilitate nor allow the cross-border cooperation from which they could benefit. This is particularly true for small goods traders who are, to a large extent, women. The African Union has long recognised the negative impacts of this situation, but the lack of systematic channels for civil society engagement at continental and regional levels has meant processes and policies around resolving cross-border issues and cooperation, lack representation, participation and contribution from civil society organisations (CSOs) who can represent the reality of the borderlands and the need for CBC.

Programme/Project Background

Horn of Africa Regional Programme (HARP) 2017-2020

LPI’s HARP was designed to link LPI’s grassroots peacebuilding work in the Horn (understood here as the IGAD states, including Eritrea) to the regional level, through policy engagement with regional actors. The programme received funding from the Swedish Agency for International Development (SIDA). In 2017-2020, HARP planned to advocate for human-centred, participatory and evidence-based regional responses potent enough to “disrupt” the perpetual cycle of states’ (ineffective) responses to the region’s human security challenges. LPI thereby intended to contribute to improved policies and actions on strategic regional issues affecting people supporting the goal where all people in the Horn lead lives of peace and dignity, where human security needs are met. The logic for how policy change would emerge was based on LPI’s understanding of the human security challenge and an analysis of the policy environment in the Horn of Africa -- where policy processes and actions are more complex than in traditional policy cycles, as multiple levels interact, national interests, interplay, and international donor priorities often compete. Annexes with more details on the Theory of Change will be provided to shortlisted applicants.

Five outcome areas of change, represent how the programme assumed efforts in civil society capacity and collaborative relationship building between civil society, academia and government would lead to increased awareness, political will and ultimately, support change in policy and actions at the regional level.

Programme outcome objectives:

1. Enhanced capacity of relevant civil society organizations to participate in regional policy engagement geared towards human security responsive policies and actions that are evidenced based.

2. Established and fostered increasingly collaborative relationships and coalitions among diverse relevant actors.

3. Enhanced awareness of the need for policies and actions that are responsive to human security priorities in the Horn of Africa demonstrated by relevant policy actors and implementers.

4. Increased political will and support to improve existing and/or develop new policies for increased human security from relevant policy actors and implementers.

5. Improved policies and actions on the regional issues affecting human security in the Horn of Africa.

Primary targets: Policy actors at continental, regional and key Member State levels. These are key decision and policymakers as well as implementers (the bodies entrusted with the implementation of policies) at the regional and continental level, with whom, from 2013 onwards, LPI has built both formal (i.e., MoUs) and informal relationships.

Stakeholders: The key stakeholders of HARP (2017-2020) included CSOs, particularly in borderlands and/or engaged in cross-border work, with special focus on women and youth organisations from border areas, relevant departments of involved Regional Economic Communities (RECs), AU Peace and Security Department (AUPSD) and the AU Border Programme (AUBP) in particular.

Strategy: HARP 2017-2020 focused to varying degrees on three major regional issues: 1) Enhancing Post conflict Reconstruction and Development (PCRD) policies and capacities of regional actors, 2) Promoting human security in borderlands through engaging in improving cross-border cooperation policies and practices, and 3) Ensuring evidence-based policies and practices in the area of ‘Countering Violent Extremism Preventing Violent Extremism’ (CVE/PVE) in the Horn of Africa. The largest portion of the programme focused on the second theme, cross-border cooperation, which had two major streams: a Collaborative Policy Analysis and Engagement (CPAE) pilot project[2] and a cross-border cooperation project (see below). HARP employed six main strategies to catalyse shifts in understanding and policy in the three thematic areas: 1. Advocacy capacity enhancement of civil society & coalition building; 2. Research & building the evidence base for human security approaches; 3. Awareness-raising & communications; 4. Advocacy; 5. Technical & implementation support to Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) & African Union (AU); and 6. Innovation and Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning (MEL).

Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) Project

The CBC Project was a new major civil society-led cross-border cooperation initiative launched in March 2017 formally entitled Improving policies for conflict prevention: Civil society engagement to transform borderlands in Africa, funded by the European Commission’s Pan-Africa programme and co-funded by Sida. In this project, LPI and three regional co-implementing civil society partners[3] engage with 26 local CSOs in four countries and five border areas (Moyale, Ethiopia; Moyale, Kenya; Busia, Uganda; Busia, Kenya; and Kassala, Sudan) to increase the participation and contribution of civil society on regional and continental cross-border policies that affect communities at the borders. The CBC Project was situated as a project within the broader regional programme, focused specifically on its enhancing civil society capacity (outcome 1).

Project overall objective: to increase the participation and contribution of CSOs to ensure continental and regional policies on cross-border cooperation in Africa are responsive to the human security priorities of borderland communities.

Project specific objective: to strengthen the capacities, collaborative relationships and influence of CSOs in order to infuse compelling evidence into regional and continental decision-making processes on cross-border cooperation and tackling borderland human security challenges.

There were four expected results from the CBC project:

1. Strengthened awareness and skills of strategically selected CSOs to participate in regional and continental decision-making processes on cross-border cooperation.

2. CSOs have access to networks and spaces for exchange amongst themselves and with relevant policy actors.

3. Increased visibility for issues of borderland human security, cross-border cooperation, and the Niamey convention.

4. Policy actors have been presented with a compelling body of evidence on cross-border cooperation and human security priorities and have been engaged in policy dialogue on e.g., the Niamey Convention by well-coordinated CSOs

Project target group: The specific target group of the action were 26 CSOs who are deeply involved in cross-border work and have immense knowledge and legitimacy to contribute to processes with continental policy actors.

2. Purpose and Objectives

This Summative Evaluation is commissioned by LPI on behalf of its donors following the end of the HARP 2017-2020 programme and the CBC project (2017-2021). The evaluation will be a utilization-focused evaluation to both learn about performance (efficiency, effectiveness) and impact as well as to generate recommendation for follow-up from the programme.

The evaluation team will pay particular attention to the following objectives:

1. Determine the extent to which the overall HARP 2017-2020 programme contributed to its overall goal and outcomes objectives, by identifying, collecting, and analysing evidence of concrete changes in the behaviour of relevant social actors to which the programme contributed.

2. Assess the design and coherence of HARP (2017-2020) including the design of the programme theory and the underlying theory of change and its assumptions, including documenting challenges and lessons with regards to the programme’s efforts to enhance inclusive and transformative policy engagement.

3. Determine the extent to which the CBC project achieved its stated overall and specific objectives and intended results detailed by the project's logical framework.

4. Assess the sustainability and relevance of the CBC project in its engagement with CSOs, the CBC partners and to identify recommendations for enhancing the engagement with relevant platforms and coalitions moving forward.

5. Determine the extent to which crosscutting issues and principles (intersectional inclusion and participation and conflict sensitivity) were applied.

The evaluation team will also explore and provide practical recommendations for strengthening LPI’s new 2021-2024 Horn of Africa regional programme based on the HARP 2017-2020 and the CBC Project.

Evaluation Users: LPI’s HARP Team, HARP’s partners (see A), LPI’s Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Sweden, and Democratic Republic of Congo country programme teams and partners, LPI’s Strategic Leadership Team, LPI’s Collaborative Learning Team

Evaluation Use: LPI teams and partner organisations will use evaluation findings to improve ongoing programming engagement and potentially add additional programme strategies if this would enhance the programme’s effectiveness. The findings will also inform LPI’s overall understanding about how policy change can happen in the Horn of Africa, in particular through collaborative action with a range of partners including diverse civil society actors.

Evaluation Audience: Primary audiences are the European Commission (Pan-Africa Programme), Sida and the Swedish Embassy in Addis Ababa, and secondary audiences are the AUBP, relevant government authorities at national, regional, and continental level and other national and international actors operating at regional and continental level.

3. Subject and Focus

Scope and topic

The scope of the evaluation for the HARP will cover the timeframe from the programme’s external mid-term review (April 2019) until the start of this Summative Evaluation (planned for June 2021). The scope of the evaluation in its focus on HARP’s CBC project will be from the beginning of the project (March 2017) until the start of this evaluation. The evaluation will cover the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact (as feasible), and encompass the following areas of scope:

Due to the complex design of the programme, the evaluation should focus on each of the outcomes of the programme and CBC project on the one hand, but also assesses them in the context of political and contextual realities of the geographic region and its political environment, with due consideration to the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation should also closely consider the Theory of Change (ToC), design and underlying assumptions of the HARP 2017-2020 programme. These factors will be important in providing useful analysis of results significance, and sustainability as well as actionable recommendations for the LPI team and its partners.

Target Groups

HARP 2017-2020 targeted a broad range of actors, given its horizontal and spatial scope (across civil society in the Horn) and vertical depth (from local communities to regional and global policy makers). The evaluation should focus on the primary targets for overall changes in policy were regional and continental bodies, targeted IGAD Member States (MSs), and relevant “donors” (embassies and multi-lateral organizations). Specifically, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which is the main forum for peace and security in the Horn and is mandated to operationalise the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) in the sub-region, including the IGAD secretariat, IGAD’s Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI), Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism (CEWARN), IGAD Security Sector Program (ISSP), and IGAD Peace and Security Division (PSD). In addition, the African Union Commission (AUC), specifically the Peace and Security Department (AUPSD)--now the Political Affairs Peace and Security Department (PAPS) and AU Border Programme (AUBP). In addition, key Member States of the IGAD region and relevant embassies in Addis Ababa, and Multilateral agencies such as UNDP, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), other UN agencies, the European Commission, etc.

In addition to policy targets, the specific target group of the CBC Project included 26 CSOs who are deeply involved in cross-border work and have immense knowledge and legitimacy to contribute to processes with continental policy actors, with a particular focus on included CSOs with strong inclusion and leadership of women and youth. Related to this project as well are decision makers/policy actors/power holders in the border regions.

Area of Coverage

The evaluation will be undertaken primarily in Addis Ababa. Field visits may be conducted as part of this evaluation if the COVID-19 situation permits, particularly to CBC project locations (Busia, Kenya-Uganda border; Moyale Ethiopia-Kenya border; Kassala Sudan-Ethiopia border). The selection of exact regions will be discussed and decided upon during the inception phase (taking into account in particular COVID-19 travel restrictions and security considerations).

4. Specific Evaluation Questions

The proposed evaluation criteria focus mainly on impact,[4] effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability of the programme. To this end, the following evaluation questions (EQ) will guide the evaluation. Additional sub-questions have been developed by LPI and partners to indicate important areas for deeper inquiry, and will provided to shortlisted applicants. The evaluation questions may be reviewed and refined by LPI, partners and other relevant bodies before the TOR is approved. Indicative proposals should be based on the EQs below.

Impact

EQ 1: Observable changes in targeted actors: In which social actors has the project influenced change and what are the main characteristics of these changes?

Effectiveness

EQ 2: Programme Effectiveness: To what extent do the outputs and outcomes represent progress towards the programme’s expected outputs, outcomes, indicators, and targets as stated in its results framework? And what was the programme’s contribution to the outcomes through the lens of both thematic work and programme strategies? What have been critical factors contributing to or hindering HARP’s contribution to expected outcomes, particularly where there are no identified changes?

EQ 3: Spotlight on the CBC Project: To what extent do the outcomes represent progress towards the CBC Project’s overall and specific objectives and expected results as stated in the project logical framework? And what was the contribution of LPI and partners to the outcomes through the lens of both thematic work and programme strategies?

Relevance

EQ 4: Are the outcomes of the programme and its CBC Project consistent with the needs in the context according to key stakeholders and contextual analysis?

Sustainability

EQ 4: To what extent do outcomes demonstrate the potential for continued inclusive, multi-stakeholder engagement for human security aware policymaking in the Horn of Africa (formulation, implementation and/or monitoring and evaluation)?

EQ 5: To what extent has the CBC Project created conditions for the sustainability of the CSOs’ coalitions and platforms?

EQ 6: What needs/should be done by HARP and partners to ensure that initiated change processes are continued, capabilities and resources are in place, and motivation and interest sustained by key policy targets, partners and coalitions?

Efficiency

EQ7: To what extent did the Programme and CBC Project the intervention deliver results in an economic and timely way?[5]

5. Approach and Methods

The evaluator(s) should propose the methodological approach to be used to carry out the Summative Evaluation. The proposed approach should sufficiently address the issues and questions outlined within this ToR, specifying the specific evaluation issues, data collection and analysis methods that will be undertaken to achieve a comprehensive evaluation. It should encompass a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods clearly described in the technical offer.

The approach should include a thorough document review, assessment of programme monitoring data, key informant interviews with programme stakeholders and potentially field visits to CBC project implementation areas. The approach should be inspired by the understanding of change from the Outcome Harvesting method[6] and include clear approach for participatory analysis.

The evaluation should take gender and intersectionality perspectives into account throughout all stages of the evaluation, including in design (evaluation questions), data collection (including ensuring diversity of gender, age, clan/tribe, socio-professional, geographical origin) and data analysis (including analysing data for sub-groups of evaluation participants to identify any patterns and significant differences between groups).

The evaluation approach should include proactive measures to ensure conflict sensitivity throughout all stages. Further, the evaluation shall be participatory in approach, which entails:

· LPI and partner teams must be involved in evaluation design, particularly in validating decisions on evaluation scope, checking the translation of evaluation questions in data collection tools, participant engagement, and feedback to findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

· An interactive evaluation data analysis workshop facilitated by the evaluation team leader (the consultant) using the Outcome Harvesting method is preferred.

The evaluation findings and recommendations must be shared in an interactive utilisation workshop.

The evaluation consists of several phases:

Contract and Kick-off meeting: Contract is signed and a discussion of the assignment takes place. First documents, including available data, are provided to the evaluation team.

Desk Review: Desk review of relevant project documents, potentially supplemented by a broader review of relevant programme/project literature. The evaluation team studies all necessary project documents (e.g., baseline studies from the programme, a 2019 Sida Mid Term Review of the programme, and a 2020 EU -Results Oriented Monitoring of the CBC project) ; re-constructs and analyses the intervention logic/programme theory and theory of change and its assumptions. Existing data needs to be analysed and interpreted. The evaluation will make use of existing monitoring data (including Outcome Harvesting data) for the programme overall and the CBC project specifically.

Inception Phase: In the inception report the evaluators will describe the design of the evaluation and elaborate on how data will be obtained and analysed. The use of a data collection planning worksheet or a similar tool is required. Data triangulation and quality control are very important and need to be discussed in the inception report. The Inception Report should also include evidence of planning health and safety due to the COVID-19 epidemic.

Data Collection Phase: Data needs to be gathered, analysed and interpreted. It is expected that the evaluation will include qualitative data disaggregated by gender and social group where feasible (quantitative methods may be proposed if justified). Site visits to selected locations, in order not only to better understand the context in which the programme operates but also to hear direct feedback from programme/project participants and communities and CSOs and other platform representatives may be proposed. Collection of primary external data from the field from consultations/interviews with a broad range of stakeholders may take place electronically when appropriate due to COVID-19 limitations.

Data Analysis, Presentation and Draft Report: Analysis of quantitative and qualitative data in preparation for presentation of initial findings and data enrichment and validation (with an interactive evaluation data analysis workshop facilitated by the evaluation team leader) and subsequent report writing. Submission and presentation of final draft report, and subsequent incorporation of comments from partners and LPI.

Final Report: Submission of final report.

6. Workplan and Deliverables

The evaluation team/consultants will submit the following:

1. Inception report (7-15 pages without annexes).

§ An outline of the reports’ structure needs to be agreed upon during the inception phase.

§ Inception report will include a negotiated evaluation plan that details lines of inquiry, definitions, data sources, methods for data collection, methods for data analysis, conflict considerations and time and budget planning.

§ Data collection instruments and protocols must be annexed to this report.

2. Feedback workshop including presentation of preliminary findings and parameters for data validation

3. Draft evaluation report (about 25-30 pages without annexes), for comments and review.

§ Must include a draft executive summary which summarises the evaluation’s purpose, objectives, subject and methods and give an overview of key findings, lessons learned and recommendations (three to max. five pages).

§ The findings and recommendations of the draft report and final report should be structured according to the evaluation questions.

4. Final evaluation report (25-30 pages without annexes), final executive summary (max 3 pages), similar structure as above.

Workplan and Timeframe

The estimated duration of the contract is 12, July 2021 to 20, Septemebr 2021.

A total of 30 working days (combining two team members) is currently estimated for this assignment.

Action	Responsible	Date
Submission of bid (electronically)	Applicant(s)/Consultant(s)	30,June 2021
Contract signed and documents provided	LPI and Consultant(s)	14, July 2021
Kick-Off meeting and first interviews (possible online/telcon)	Consultant(s) and LPI evaluation management team.	14, July 2021
Desk Study/ Document Review	Consultant(s)	21, July 2021
Submission of draft inception report	Consultant(s)	28, July 2021
Inclusion of comments and submission of final inception report	Consultant(s)	4, Augest 2021
Field Visit, interviews, (e.g., ‘Outcome Harvesting') and feedback and participatory analysis workshop	Consultant(s)	25, August 2021
Submission/presentation of final draft report	Consultant(s)	1, sepetemebr 2021
Inclusion of feedback in final draft report	Consultant(s)	8, sepetemebr 2021
Submission of final evaluation report (hard copy and electronic copy) to contractor & Presentation to LPI (in Addis office with virtual participants from other LPI offices).	Consultant(s)	8, septemebr 2021

7. Evaluation Management Arrangements

Evaluation Locations, Financial and Logistical Arrangements

The detailed activity plan and budget for the evaluation will be agreed upon based on the proposed methodology by the Evaluation Team.

Evaluation Locations, Financial and Logistical Arrangements

Evaluation management takes place in Addis Ababa. Data collection may require travel to key programme and project locations. Depending on the methodology, interactive workshops may be foreseen for Addis/Nairobi. For any field visits, the locations will be discussed and agreed with the LPI Team and relevant partners. The evaluator(s) will be responsible to make their own arrangements for the field visits and appointments with relevant stakeholders that will be arranged in co-operation with the HARP Team, if and when deemed necessary by the evaluator(s).

The evaluation management needs to respect the ethical standards and guiding principles for evaluation, including impartiality and independence.

Budget and Payments

The total budget of the evaluation will not exceed Swedish Kronar (SEK) 260,667. The proposed budget is to be considered an upper limit that will not necessarily be reached. Financial aspects, particulary value for money criteria, will be considered highly in the evaluation of the best bid. The contracted sum includes the evaluator’s remuneration[7] and all expenses for the services described above, including for example, travel, board and lodging, communication expenses, (potential) interpretation costs and taxes and will be paid in instalments linked to the deliverables being accepted.

Payment shall be affected in a lump-sum payment as per the payment schedule comprising 3 (three) instalments, based on the key deliverables. The last instalment will be paid upon delivery of the final Evaluation Report.

1. Inception Report - 20% of the contract sum

2. Draft Evaluation Report, including a draft executive summary - 40% of the contract sum

3. Final Evaluation Report, final executive summary - 40% of the contract

Publication and Processing of personal data

During initiation and performance of contracts, LPI may process personal data[8] of natural persons that are collected by LPI or transferred or disclosed to LPI by prospective contractors or third parties under their instruction, e.g., personal data of employees, legal representatives, agents or other partners of the prospective contractors or such third parties.

Coordination/Responsibility

Seyoum Wolde, HARP MEL & Grants Coordinator, will be the main contact person for this evaluation.

Contact details:

§ HARP MEL & Grants Coordinator, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Seyoum Wolde (Seyoum.Wolde@life-peace.org)

§ Carbon copy (cc:) to interim HARP Manager and Cross-border Cooperation Project Manager, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Stephen Kirimi (Stephen.Kirimi@life-peace.org)

§ Carbon copy (cc:) to LPI Collaborative Learning Team Leader, Home Office, Uppsala, Sweden: Cate Broussard (Cate.Broussard@life-peace.org)

8. The Evaluation Team

The evaluation team should ideally consist of at least 2 members (while the offer should indicate which tasks can be covered by which evaluator). Gender diversity in the team is highly encouraged.

The team should demonstrate the following skills, qualifications, and characteristics:

§ Demonstrated, in-depth experience in the design and implementation of evaluations in the field of peacebuilding and conflict transformation, and policy influencing programmes.

o Team leader has conducted at least five evaluations in the last five years ideally in the relevant field

o Team member(s) has/have participated in at least three evaluations ideally in the relevant field

§ Relevant academic degrees (master’s level) in public policy, peace and conflict or security studies or other relevant social sciences

§ Sound and proven knowledge and working experience in the field of peace and human security in the Horn of Africa region, including experience in engagement with civil society and traditional peacebuilding processes. A minimum of five years’ experience and expertise in the Peace and Security field

§ Sound and proven analytical skills and experience creating and reviewing programmatic theories of change

§ Possibility and ability to access programme and project locations (in the borderlands) and engage a diversity of project/programme stakeholders.

§ Experience in social science methods including qualitative data collection, planning and conducting semi-structured interviews, including experience with virtual data collection and participatory analysis as the COVID-19 pandemic situation might require.

§ Experience and expertise in cross-cutting issues and principles (inclusive programming, conflict sensitivity)

§ Sound MS Office and IT skills, particularly with SPSS and other relevant data analysis tools.

§ Excellent oral and written English skills and excellent track record in producing high quality and utilisation-focused reports.

9. Specifications for Submission of Applications and Evaluation Tender Process

The applicant(s) is/are requested to submit a technical and financial offer:

A technical offer of max. 8 pages, including:

§ A cover letter with expression of interest and a brief description of relevant previous experiences in evaluations, qualitative data collection and planning and conducting semi-structured interviews;

§ A proposed methodology based on your understanding of the ToR, presenting the overall approach and methods suggested for the conduct of the evaluation and conflict sensitivity considerations;

§ A work plan, with estimated working days for each phase of the evaluation and division of tasks between the team members;

§ A brief Curriculum Vitae (CV) of the evaluator/each team member, including references;

A financial offer, including:

§ Expert fees including estimated number of working days for each team member;

§ Other expenses, including travel expenses;

§ VAT, if applicable

[1] Okumu, Wafula. “Border Management and Security in Africa” (2013).

[2] The CPAE Pilot was a joint initiative between Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism of IGAD (IGAD CEWARN), (Inter-Africa Group) IAG, the Organisation for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA) and LPI’s HARP (also known as the Quartet). The CPAE pilot sought to identify regional policy dilemmas and develop policy options in response to these dilemmas. The Quartet identified the Informal Cross Border Trade-Cross Border Security Governance (ICBT-CBSG) nexus as a critical policy dilemma in the IGAD region.

[3] Inter Africa Group (IAG), Act Change Transform (ACT!), and the Eastern African Sub-Regional Support Initiative for the Advancement of Women (EASSI)

[4] Noting that policy change can take decades, the definition of impact in this evaluation context comes from Outcome Harvesting: The core concept of Outcome Harvesting is that an outcome is an observable change in the behaviour (actions, activities, relationships, policies or practices) of one or more social actor (individuals, groups, communities, organizations, or institutions). These changes are influenced by the change agent’s (LPI’s) actions, activities or outputs. This definition of outcomes aligns with the OECD’s definition where an outcome is the likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effect of an intervention’s outputs.

[5] In line with guidance from the OECD-DAC: “Resources should be understood in the broadest sense and include full economic costs (human, environmental, financial and time). […]Results should also be understood in a comprehensive sense, covering the whole of the results chain: outputs, outcomes and impacts.” See OECD (2021), Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/543e84ed-en.

[6] Outcome Harvesting is a monitoring and evaluation method that enables users to document, track, analyse, and understand the expected and unexpected changes that have occurred in the project arena, specifically in the behaviours of external actors, to informal learning and adaptive programming. Outcome Harvesting does not measure progress towards predetermined objectives or outcomes, but rather, engages those most knowledgeable about change to describe who has change and, then, whether and how the intervention contributed to these changes. Outcome(s) can be positive or negative, intended or unintended, direct or indirect, but the connection between the intervention and the outcomes must be plausible. See https://outcomeharvesting.net/documents/

[7] LPI will pay a daily fee for an agreed number of payable days. The total number of days will be agreed, informed by the technical proposal submitted to LPI. The fee will be subject to negotiation based on the experience of evaluation team members.

[8] By submitting information to LPI, you, as a prospective contractor, acknowledge:

- to have taken note of LPI’s Privacy Notice https://life-peace.org/policies (Life & Peace Institute’s Privacy Policy (2018).);

- to ensure that each direct or indirect transfer or disclosure of personal data to LPI during the initiation or performance of a contract is lawful pursuant to applicable data protection law;

- to ensure that all persons, whose personal data are transferred or disclosed to LPI, were promptly and demonstrably provided the LPI Privacy Notice; and

- that if a contract is concluded and in accordance with its terms, LPI or its donor publishes, in particular on the LPI or donor website, information about the contract and the contracting parties.

Job Requirements:

Posted:

06.16.2021

Deadline:

06.30.2021

Job Category:

Consultancy and Training, Research and Development

Employment:

Location:

Addis Ababa

Life & Peace Institute (LPI)

Call for Consultancy: Summative Evaluation of LPI's Horn Of Africa Regional Programme(2017-2020)

Expired 2 years ago!

3. Subject and Focus

6. Workplan and Deliverables

9. Specifications for Submission of Applications and Evaluation Tender Process

Share Page