Lao People's Democratic Republic (the): Final Evaluation of the project - “From Emergency To Reconstruction: A Mine Action Program for Libya, Mozambique, South Sudan and the Lao PDR

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Handicap International background

The Handicap International (HI) Federation is an independent international aid organisation working in situations of poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. Working alongside persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, our action and testimony are focused on responding to their essential needs, improving their living conditions and promoting respect for their dignity and fundamental rights. HI promotes an inclusive approach by focusing on access to services “for all” whenever possible rather than developing specific actions for people with disabilities.

Confronted with the widespread nature of the devastation caused by landmines and unexploded ordnance, Handicap International chose, in 1992, to extend its field of interventions to include the prevention of accidents caused by landmines and other explosive remnants of war (ERW) through clearance and demining of affected areas. HI’s work on the landmine issue, like its work on the issue of sub-munitions and other ERW, is based on the organisation’s overriding concern to address disability by both preventative and curative means.

1.2 Project background

In 2012 Handicap International designed a four year mine action programme to reduce the threat and the impact of ERW with both preventative and curative actions in four countries: Libya, Lao PDR, Mozambique and South Sudan.

In all four countries, project activities aimed at contributing to the country’s overall socio-economic growth through land released to the community, through reducing the likelihood of injury and death, and through the provision of specific support to mine/ERW victims. Projects in Libya, Mozambique and the Lao PDR aimed at linking clearance to development by renewing access to land and services, by reclaiming critical infrastructure and by removing the threat of traumatic injury to beneficiaries. In Mozambique, South Sudan and the Lao PDR, a victim assistance component directly helps local mine/ERW victims and other people with disabilities and specifically in South Sudan, to build the new nation’s national capacity to address such needs country-wide. As a transversal issue, the project also intended to collect, analyze and share lessons learned about livelihood opportunities for landmine/ERW survivors and other people with disabilities in order to be able to develop practical, evidence-based recommendations on different livelihood approaches developed within a mine action Victim Assistance context.

1.3 Detailed context description

Libya Project implementation period: 1 July 2012 – 31 December 2014. HI established operations in Libya in April 2011 in response to the armed conflict between Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his opponents. Initially designed as a two year project, under the Netherlands funding HI implemented an integrated Conventional Weapons Management and Destruction programme comprising Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), Battle Area Clearance (BAC) and mine/ERW/Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) Risk Awareness comprising risk education, public information and advocacy. Since 2011 HI intervened in eastern and western Libya in Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirte and Misrata and surrounding areas. Under the Netherlands grant, activities were implemented in Misrata and Sirte, management from the country headquarters in Tripoli. The programme ensured strong coordination with the Libyan Mine Action Centre (LibMAC) throughout the delivery of the project. A capacity building component of the project meant collaboration with a local mine action NGO, the Assalama Association, based between Tripoli and Gharyan. Whilst the programme was designed to be implemented following Libya’s 2011 conflict throughout the post-conflict to reconstruction phase, in mid-2014 renewed violence broke out leading to yet another internal armed conflict affecting much of the country. Since 2014 and until today, concerning HI’s main areas of intervention, the most heavily affected areas have included Tripoli and Sirte with occasional suicide attacks and aerial bombings in Misrata. As a consequence of ongoing instability in Libya, the final evaluation shall be conducted remotely by available means and interviews with stakeholders.

Mozambique Project implementation period: 1 July 2012 – 31 March 2016. HI’s humanitarian mine action project in Mozambique intended to contribute to the reduction of structural poverty and promote civil peace and security in three ways – 1) Completed clearance of two of the most mine-affected provinces in the country, both of which have been and will continue to play a key role in economic development for the country through increased agricultural productivity and tourism; 2) Completed turnover of responsibility to local actors and government for on-going risk education and any residual clearance needs that may emerge; and 3) Increased allocation of resources and services to landmine survivors and other people with disabilities with an emphasis on improving livelihood opportunities.

Through the mine clearance component, the project aimed to clear and return 100% of known suspected or confirmed hazardous areas in four districts, one in Inhambane Province and three in Sofala Province, back to communities. Inhambane and Sofala were two of the remaining three most mine-affected provinces in the country.

Through risk education, the needs for addressing current risk and potential residual risk from landmines and ERW in the future should have been assessed. Local institutions best equipped to take on all future risk education responsibilities should be identified and prepared for a role in assuring a permanent capacity for mine risk education in the country.

Through victim assistance, the project aimed to improve the knowledge and capacities of national Victim Assistance stakeholders regarding the needs and priorities of mine survivors. A National Victim Assistance Action Plan was planned to be written and validated by national authorities. Local civil society organizations were to be trained to lobby for the Plan’s implementation and to track progress made against its goals.

Lao PDR Project implementation period: 1 July 2012 – 30 June 2016. The Lao PDR National Socio-Economic Development Plan identified ERW contamination as a threat to physical safety, livelihoods and food security and linked high levels of contamination with high levels of poverty, primarily in the remote highlands. In 2008, the UN’s World Food Program found that 50% of children living in rural Lao were chronically malnourished, a condition that has not changed over the past decade despite steady economic growth. The problem is most prevalent among ethnic minorities in remote mountain villages. The Lao PDR Committee for Planning concluded that ERW clearance is the initial critical first step to increase social and economic opportunities in the poorest 17 districts of the Lao PDR.

Handicap International’s Safe Steps Forward project aimed to reduce the threat posed by unexploded ordnance (UXO) in Nong, Sepon and Vilabuly, the three most contaminated districts in Savannakhet, which is the most UXO-impacted province in the country. Once the project is completed, poor communities should be able to earn a better living in a safe environment in what is one of the poorest regions in the country. The project also aimed to strengthen local capacity to assist UXO survivors and other people with disabilities to better pursue social and economic opportunities.

South Sudan Project implementation period: 1 July 2012 –30 June 2016. Handicap International’s Live Well in Community: Victim Assistance for South Sudan project, implemented in Central Equatoria (Yei County) and in Western Bar El Ghazal (Wau County), worked directly with South Sudanese landmine/ERW survivors and their families to help them determine how to earn a living, for many the most difficult and brutal of the tasks facing them after injury. Simultaneously, HI intended to work at the district level in both states to improve the services available in local hospitals and health clinics and at the national level to strengthen the new government’s capacity to coordinate and implement victim assistance activities.

People with disabilities, including landmine survivors are often the most vulnerable and the poorest in their communities, as they are often discriminated against and not regarded as fully contributing members of society. HI’s victim assistance activities included raising society’s awareness about landmine survivors and other people with disabilities, their rights, their needs and their potential to contribute socio-economically. Referral systems were put in place to allow mine/ERW victims and people with disabilities to access health, rehabilitation, psychosocial, and socio-economic services. Training was provided to service providers to ensure their services are accessible. Physical rehabilitation services through mobile outreach teams helped victims and other people with disabilities to reach and sustain their optimum level of independence and functioning, allowing them to participate socially and economically. The project aimed at strengthening national capacity for multi-stakeholder coordination of the country’s victim assistance strategy.

1. PROJECT AT A GLANCE

Title: From Emergency to reconstruction: a mine action program for Libya, Mozambique, Republic of South Sudan and the Lao PDR.

Overall objective: Reduce the number of mine and cluster munition victims, promote socio-economic development and meet Ottawa and/or Oslo treaty goals in four countries.

Specific objective: • Specific objective 1: Improve security and stability in three post-conflict mine and/or cluster affected countries through a comprehensive humanitarian mine action program of survey, clearance, and risk education. • Specific objective 2: Enable socio-economic development in four mine and/or cluster affected countries as a result of clearance activities. • Specific objective 3: Improve access to services for victims of landmines and/or cluster munitions in Mozambique, South Sudan and Lao PDR. • Specific objective 4: Collect, analyze and share lessons learned about livelihood opportunities for landmine/ERW survivors and other people with disabilities in resource scarce countries from the work accomplished in three of four projects.

Project Area: Libya: Tripoli, Misrata, Sirte Lao PDR: Nong, Sepon and Vilabuly districts, Savannakhet province Mozambique: Inhambane and Sofala provinces South Sudan: Central Equatoria (Yei County) and in Western Bar El Ghazal (Wau County)

Financial Support: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands Duration: 4 years (1 July 2012 – 30 June 2016)

Time and projected dates of the evaluation

June/July 2016, approximately 42 working days in total.

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT

3.2 Overall Objective of the mission

With the aim to provide Handicap International with an independent and result-oriented Post Evaluation of this multi-year multi-country project, the objective of the assignment is:

• To assess progress of the activities carried out following the evaluation criteria (see 3.3);
• To assess the impact of the intervention globally and within the specific countries;
• To further inform the government of the Netherlands and HI on the impact of multi-year, multi-country programming.

Assessing the actions implemented and the achievement over the 4 years period will enable to identify the scope/needs for future projects and better inform on approaches and actions in favor of mine clearance, risk prevention and assistance to victims, within the targeted countries.

3.3 Specific Objectives of the mission

• A final evaluation of the project is completed, including: i. an analysis of the level of achievement of the indicators at objectives, results and activities level as defined in the logical framework, as well as according to the set criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. ii. the measure of effectiveness by assessing on how far the intended outputs and results were achieved, in particular in terms of benefit for the local populations and the different Mine Action Authorities. The evaluator should identify all recorded impacts, including any unintended ones and compare them to intended impacts. A specific focus should be put on the socio-economic impact of the programme. iii. To evaluate the ownership/appropriation of the target beneficiaries:

1. Local communities
2. Mines Action Authorities

iv. To evaluate the added value of the project vis-à-vis other operations funded by various donors on Mine Action within the programmes. v. To identify good practices and lessons learned of the project.

• A list of recommendations is formulated to identify areas of the project that do not need to continue, areas to be strengthened and areas to be added to facilitate risk reduction for mine/ERW affected communities, improve life conditions for survivors, promote socio-economic development and help meet Ottawa and/or Oslo treaty goals in the four targeted countries.

3.4 Requested services

On the basis of an agreed methodology and work plan, the evaluator will closely work with the programmes and local mine action authorities:

• Examining programme reports, work plans and any other relevant information;
• Meetings with the programme teams;
• Meetings with the partners and beneficiaries of the activities: Mine Action Authorities, civil society organisations, communities, mine/ERW victims and survivors, others. Field visits are foreseen.

3.5 Required outputs

The following will be required from the evaluator:

• A methodology and a work planning for each country to be approved by the project’s Steering Committee at headquarters (by day 5 of the contract).
• A final evaluation report that must fulfill the objectives under 3.2. (to be submitted at the latest 4 days prior to the end of the contract).
• A debriefing with the project’s Steering Committee, including a presentation of the evaluation’s key findings. 3.6 Evaluation criteria

3.6.1 Relevance: Problems and Needs

• The extent to which stated objectives correctly addressed the identified problems and social/development needs. 
• The extent to which objectives have been updated/changed in order to adapt to changes in the context. 
• Is the choice of areas of intervention relevant? Why?
• Did the different national contexts presented favorable conditions to the implementation of the projects and the achievement of objectives? 
• Is the structure of different activities in a country, as well as in between the different countries relevant? 
• Are partnerships established relevant? What could have improved the quality and efficiency of partnerships? 
• Which element hindered or favored the achievement of objectives? 
• Is the intervention strategy based on 3 pillars of intervention relevant? Which links and mechanisms exist between these three axes? Has this approach enabled to develop synergies between the pillars?

3.6.2 Effectiveness: Achievement of Purpose

• The extent to which the project’s results are attained and the specific objectives achieved, or are expected to be achieved. 
• The appropriateness of the Monitoring & Evaluation process and the mobilisation of the resources required for its implementation to assess the project’s results. 
• To what extend the actual results match the performance targets set out initially (if not, highlight the possible explaining factors and recommendations to address gaps in the future would a subsequent phase be possible). 
• The extent to which the target groups have access to the results/services (identify remaining barriers if any), as apparent by key stakeholders. 
• Effectiveness of capacity building activities for implementing partners. 
• Effectiveness of the Comprehensive Approach to Mine Action (CAMA) with synergies exploited between clearance, risk education and victim assistance (Lao PDR). 
• Whether any shortcomings were due to failure to take into account cross-cutting or overarching issues such as gender, capacity of implementing organizations, etc. 
• In the 4 targeted countries, were the conditions for technical and financial sustainability of actions and services engaged?

3.6.3 Efficiency: Sound management and value for money

• How well the various activities transformed the available resources into the intended results in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness. Comparison should be made against what was planned. 
• Does the project have appropriate and efficient financial monitoring tools? 
• To what extent the programme has utilized its resources (e.g. time, money, human resources, implementing partners and government partners) efficiently? 
• Efficiency of the Comprehensive Approach to Mine Action (CAMA) with synergies exploited between clearance, risk education and victim assistance (Lao PDR). 
• The extent to which the costs of the project have been justified by the benefits, whether or not expressed in monetary terms.  The extent to which cooperation mechanisms were understood and actively supported by all stakeholders (inter-institutional structures such as steering and coordination committees; the involvement of the relevant actors in the decision-making concerning the project orientation and implementation, the communication between the project management, the partners and the key stakeholders, etc.). 
• The extent to which the partnership modalities facilitated/ constrained the implementation of the activities.  Have resources been maximized? 
• The extent to which the administrative framework of the multi country grant has enabled or hindered the optimum use of resources.

3.6.4 Impact: Achievement of Wider Effects

• The extent to which the objectives of the project have been achieved as intended, in particular, the planned overall objective. 
• The appropriateness of the Monitoring & Evaluation process and the mobilization of the resources required for its implementation to assess the project’s impact. 
• Are there constraints limiting potential impacts of the project, and suggestions on how it could have been addressed/ could be addressed in a future project.

3.6.5 Sustainability: Likely Continuation of Achieved Results

An assessment of whether the positive outcomes of the project and the flow of benefits are likely to continue after external funding ends on the basis of the following:

• Main achievements and limits of the project in terms of technical, financial and socio- economic sustainability. 
• The level of ownership of objectives and achievements by the project stakeholders and likelihood for them to maintain the implementation of project activities. 
• Institutional capacity – the extent to which the project is embedded in local institutional structures, where relevant. 
• Accessibility - the extent to which persons with disabilities, vulnerable people and their family members have sustainable increased capacity to access services in Mozambique, Laos and South Sudan. 
• Does capitalization allow the transfer of methodologies and good practices in other countries? 
• Which elements have been hindering/ facilitating to the strengthening of capacity building of institutional actors?
• What would be priority action in the sector? 
• Recommendations for the strengthening of the CAMA approach. 
• Recommendations for strengthening global coordination of multi-country grants.

3.7 Deliverables

At the end of his/her mission, the evaluator will provide (without being limited to):

A. Final evaluation report: a detailed evaluation report including

• An executive summary with main findings;
• Introduction to the contexts;
• Summary of factors contributing to relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the activities carried out, generally and per country;
• Summary of factors limiting relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the activities carried out, generally and per country;
• Identification and recommendations on the conceptual approach, the partnership approach, the logic of intervention, and on possible strategies for enhancing effectiveness, relevance and sustainability of the project, generally and per country;
• List of persons met during the evaluation process and salient points of the meetings;
• Final agenda for the evaluation.

B. Lessons learnt

• A learning paper for internal dissemination (ie. for example, a 2-page document written in bullet points) on lessons learnt and good practices taken from the project.

C. Recommendations for future action

• Specific recommendations with regard to a potential next phase of the project with evidence and reasoning.

3.8 Suggested methods / activities

In order to develop ownership and ensure the involvement and interest of the stakeholders for sustainable changes and future developments, the evaluation will be conducted in a participatory way, involving HI staff, partners’ staff, and any stakeholder directly or indirectly involved in development/implementation of the project.

It is suggested to the evaluator to use a crossed-analysis methodology based on:  Review of literature and project documents (proposal, reports, research report, tools, etc.).  Interviews with HQ and on the field with a selection of staff involved in the implementation and monitoring of the projects.  Interviews in the field with various stakeholders involved in the projects.  Focus groups or individual interviews with final beneficiaries.

1. LIST OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE

 Project proposal with logical framework  Annual reports and planning documents  Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)/partnership agreements (where relevant)  HI Programme Strategies  Training modules and tools and reports

1. ADMINISTRATIVE AND LOGISTIQUE INFORMATION

5.1 Management and Logistics

In headquarters, the programme coordinator will be responsible for arranging meetings and workshops with different stakeholders, after agreeing on the methodology with the evaluator.

During field visits, HI programmes will be responsible for all logistical arrangements, including local travel, accommodation, as well as for arranging meetings and workshops. HI staff members involved in the project will accompany the evaluator in partners’ meeting and during field visits. A vehicle will be made available in country as required. The evaluator will arrange for his/her own laptop and other required equipment. The evaluator will bear the final responsibility for achievement of the evaluation objectives, report submission and necessary presentations.

5.2 Confidentiality

All project documents, outputs, reports, information, etc. provided and produced during the assignment will be treated as the property of HI, and will remain confidential. The above mentioned outputs or any part of it cannot be sold, used or reproduced in any manner by the assigned organization / individual without prior permission from HI.

1. PROFILE OF EVALUATOR/S

2. An external evaluator/s with background and experience in Mine Action would be preferable, however, evaluators demonstrating their added value to the required evaluation with generalist backgrounds will also be considered. 

3. Experience with previous project evaluations for bilateral or multi-lateral donor(s). 

4. Demonstrated experience in the production of constructive and concise project evaluation reports of high quality for non-technical audiences (examples maybe required). 

5. Strong skills in Project Cycle Management (PCM) and the Logical Framework Approach (LFA).  - Strong understanding of and interest in Mine Action issues. 

6. Language: English required. Portuguese could be useful for the Mozambican project. As necessary, translators will be provided by the programmes.

7. LEVEL OF EFFORT

Activities/ # of working days Preparation 5 Initial meetings with HI HQ management team (in person in Lyon, France or via skype) 1 Travel to Mozambique 1 Meeting with local stakeholders, local project team and partners, beneficiaries 5 Meeting with national level stakeholders 2 Travel to South Sudan 1 Meeting with local stakeholders, local project team and partners, beneficiaries 5 Meeting with national level stakeholders 2 Travel to Lao PDR 1 Meeting with local stakeholders, local project team and partners, beneficiaries 5 Meeting with national level stakeholders 2 Travel to Lyon, France or place of residence 2 Libya: Remote meetings with local stakeholders, local project team and partners, beneficiaries (via Skype) 2 Report writing 7 Debrief and recommendation workshop to HQ steering committee 1 Total number of working days: 42 days

Candidates should submit the following information with their application:

1. Brief cover letter;

2. Curriculum vitae of consultant (or team of consultants) and list of previous assignments, highlighting those that focus on similar project evaluations. Please include two references and mention earliest availability to start the mission;

3. One example of published work;

4. A proposal of the detailed methodology in accordance with the terms of reference;

5. A tentative work plan and time schedule;

6. A budget breakdown for the consultancy including fees, international travel, insurance etc.

Completed applications should be sent by email to:mineactionroster@handicap-international.org

Please indicate “Application for Netherlands Mine Action Program - Evaluation” in the email’s subject.

The selection will be done by HI Federation. The selected applicant will be informed by 13th June 2016.