Terms of Reference Mid-term Review for DeSIRA Project
1. Background
The International Union for Conservation of and Natural Resources (IUCN) is implementing the European Delegation in Rwanda (EUD) funded “Improving resilience of farmers’ livelihoods to climate change through innovative, research-proven climate-smart agroforestry and efficient use of tree resources in the Eastern Province and peri-urban areas of Kigali city” project – aka “DeSIRA project” or “the Action”.
IUCN is a membership union comprising both State and non-State Members. Created in 1948, it is the world’s largest and most diverse environmental network, harnessing the knowledge, resources, and reach of six commissions, and its more than 1,400 member organizations and some 18,000 experts. IUCN formally opened an office in Rwanda in 2016. IUCN Rwanda’s mission is “to assist the Government and the people of Rwanda to conserve the integrity and diversity of Rwanda’s nature, and to support and sustain healthy and resilient ecosystems that provide essential services to Rwanda’s people”.
The DeSIRA project implemented by IUCN in Rwanda is part of the EU funding programme “Climate-relevant Development Smart Innovation through Research in Agriculture (and food systems)” – DeSIRA. Other main key projects implementing partners include Ghent University, University of Rwanda, and CIFOR-ICRAF. IUCN is focusing on Result 1 and 2 of the DeSIRA project, with Enabel focusing on Result 3 and 4. Result 5 is shared between IUCN and Enabel. Since both IUCN and Enabel have different activities and different budgets, EUD has been consulted and has been advised to conduct separate Mid-term Reviews.
This 60 months project has a total budget of 2 million Euro for IUCN and started in January 2020 with an end date of December 2024.
The general objective of the Action is to “increase the pace and scale of agroforestry-based restoration of degraded agricultural land and sustainable use of biomass energy, with associated improvements of land health, livelihoods and poverty reduction”.
Its specific objective is to “effectively understand and demonstrate the ecological, social and economic pathways to, and resultant benefits from, the scale-up of agroforestry-based restoration and sustainable biomass use in peri-urban Kigali”

Similar Jobs in Rwanda
Learn more about International Union for Conservation of and Natural Resources (IUCN)
International Union for Conservation of and Natural Resources (IUCN)jobs in Rwanda

The DeSIRA project has five inter-related results:
• Result 1 (IUCN). Evidence based knowledge in scalable agroforestry systems and components suited to the Eastern Province and peri-urban areas of Kigali City from an ecological services perspective (including biodiversity, carbon sequestration, water retention, microclimate and productivity).
• Result 2 (IUCN). Evidence based knowledge in the further development and diversification of climate resilient, high nutrition value chains from agroforestry landscapes suited to the Eastern Province and peri-urban areas of Kigali city.
• Result 3 (Enabel). Locally tested expertise and knowledge on high efficient, durable, affordable and user-friendly improved cooking stoves (ICS) and their supply chains in the Eastern Province and peri-urban areas of Kigali city.
• Result 4 (Enabel). The most important socio-economic barriers to adoption of agroforestry-based landscape restoration practices are identified and incentives mechanisms to boost agroforestry economic and environmental benefits are elaborated.
• Result 5 (IUCN and Enabel). Institutional capacity to create enabling conditions for agroforestry-based landscape restoration and sustainable use of biomass energy enhanced.
Rational of the Mid-Term Review
In order to assess the extent to which the Action is on track to achieving its target results, identify any challenges and opportunities, and make recommendations on the way forward, a Mid-Term Review (MTR) will be undertaken. It is against that background that IUCN calls for Expression of Interest from qualified individual consultants or consulting firms to carry out the MTR.

2. Midterm Review objectives.
The MTR will include the analysis of progress against the IUCN project objectives and outcomes, including an analysis of the underlying reasons for the improvement and implications.
The evaluation will help to identify significant changes in context or operational circumstances that may impact the Action. This MTR will provide strategic recommendations for each of the areas to be delivered effectively, specifically but not limited to the envisioned outcomes as per Action LogFrame Results:
• General Objective: Increase the pace and scale of agroforestry-based restoration of degraded agricultural land and sustainable use of biomass energy, with associated improvements in land health, livelihoods, and poverty reduction.
• Specific Objective: Effectively understand and demonstrate the ecological, social and economic pathways to the scale up of agroforestry-based restoration and sustainable biomass use in peri-urban Kigali and drylands in the Eastern Province.
• Output 1: Evidence-based knowledge in scalable agroforestry systems and components suited to the Eastern Province and peri-urban areas of Kigali City from an ecological services perspective (including biodiversity, carbon sequestration, water retention, microclimate and productivity).
• Output 2. Evidence-based knowledge in the further development and diversification of climate resilient, high nutrition value chains from agroforestry landscapes.
• Output 5: Increased institutional (innovative) capacity to create enabling conditions for agroforestry-based landscape restoration and improved and sustainable use of biomass energy.
3. Audience of the MTR

The MTR is issued by IUCN.
The direct audience of the MTR findings includes IUCN, EUD, and the DeSIRA Project Steering Committee.
IUCN and EUD will share the findings with the other project partners, i.e. Ghent University, University of Rwanda, and ICRAF; and with other relevant project stakeholders, e.g. Enabel and KULeuven.

4. methodology
The MTR will follow a mixed-method approach, including e.g. study of relevant project documentation (e.g. proposal, technical and financial reports, LogFrame, M&E Plan, Communication Plan, ROM report etc.), key informant interviews with relevant stakeholders (e.g. project teams, PhD students, promotors, national and local government, beneficiaries), focus groups discussions, and questionnaires through meetings and field visits in Kigali, peri-urban areas of Kigali, Nyagatare, Gatsibo, Rwamagana, Bugesera and Kirehe Districts in the Eastern Province of Rwanda.
5. MTR questions
The MTR will adopt the DAC OECD evaluation criteria summarized below.

Relevance: Is The Intervention Doing The Right Things?
Description of the criterion:
The extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries’, global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change. Note: “Respond to” means that the objectives and design of the intervention are sensitive to the economic, environmental, equity, social, political economy, and capacity conditions in which it takes place. “Partner/institution” includes government (national, regional, local), civil society organisations, private entities and international bodies involved in funding, implementing and/or overseeing the intervention. Relevance assessment involves looking at differences and trade-offs between different priorities or needs. It requires analysing any changes in the context to assess the extent to which the intervention can be (or has been) adapted to remain relevant.
Specific questions to be answered:
• To what extent is the Action’s logic (Theory of Change) adequate?
• How do different stakeholders assess the relevance of the Action to their needs and priorities?
• To what extent has the Action taken the different needs and priorities of different groups into consideration?
• How has the context in which the Action is being implemented changed over time, and how has this influenced the assessment of the relevance of the project and its components?
• To what extent is the design of specific components relevant to the direct beneficiaries?
• Can the relevance of the Action be made higher? If so, how?

Coherence: How Well Does The Intervention Fit?
Description of the criterion:
The compatibility of the intervention with other interventions in a country, sector, or institution. Note: The extent to which other interventions (particularly policies) support or undermine the intervention, and vice versa. Includes internal coherence and external coherence: Internal coherence addresses the synergies and interlinkages between the intervention and other interventions carried out by the same institutions/government, as well as the consistency of the intervention with the relevant international norms and standards to which that institution/government adheres. External coherence considers the consistency of the intervention with other actors’ interventions in the same context. This includes complementarity, harmonization and coordination with others, and the extent to which the intervention is adding value while avoiding duplication of effort.

Specific questions to be answered:
• To what extent is the design and implementation of the Action programme coherent with the policy priorities of the Government of Rwanda?
• To what extent is the design and implementation of the Action coherent with the policy priorities of the European Delegation?
• To what extent is coherence sought and achieved with other projects and programmes in the targeted areas from Government, national and local stakeholders?
• Could the coherence of the programme be made higher? If so, how?
Particularly, the coherence should consider the relevance actions aligning to the promotion of agroforestry, nutrition fruits and their value chain development in rural communities.

Effectiveness: Is The Intervention Achieving Its Objectives?
Description of the criterion:
The extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, and its results, including any differential results across groups. Note: Analysis of effectiveness involves taking into account the relative importance of the objectives or results.
Specific questions to be answered:
• To what extent is the Action on track towards achieving its outputs and outcomes, both in terms of quantity and quality? (Explain reasons for over-/underachievement)
• To what extent is risk management adequate and to what extent has the implementation of the project been adjusted based on regular assessments of assumptions and risks?
• To what extent is there adequate coordination and collaboration between the Action’s key stakeholders?
• To what extent is the project compliant with applicable social and environmental safeguards?

Efficiency: How Well Resources Are Being Used?
Description of the criterion:
The extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way. Note: “Economic” is the conversion of inputs (funds, expertise, natural resources, time, etc.) into outputs, outcomes, and impacts, in the most cost-effective way possible, as compared to feasible alternatives in the context. “Timely” delivery is within the intended timeframe, or a timeframe reasonably adjusted to the demands of the evolving context. This may include assessing operational efficiency (how well the intervention was managed).
Specific questions to be answered:
• How do the costs of implementing this Action compare to similar projects, if any, in Rwanda?
• How timely is the implementation of the Action (taking into account factors outside the Action’s control)?
• To what extent does the budget burn rate to date of the Action match timeline of the Action?
• To what extent, and if so how, could the project achieve better efficiency?

Impact: What Difference Does The Intervention Make?
Description of the criterion:
The extent to which the intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects. Note: Impact addresses the ultimate significance and potentially transformative effects of the intervention. It seeks to identify social, environmental and economic effects of the intervention that are longer-term or broader in scope than those already captured under the effectiveness criterion. Beyond the immediate results, this criterion seeks to capture the indirect, secondary, and potential consequences of the intervention. It does so by examining the holistic and enduring changes in systems or norms, and potential effects on people’s well-being, human rights, gender equality, and the environment.
Specific questions to be answered:
• What change that can be ascribed to the Action has occurred to date towards increasing the pace and scale of agroforestry-based restoration of degraded agricultural land and sustainable use of biomass energy, with associated improvements of land health, biodiversity, livelihoods, and poverty reduction?
• What is the Action’s impact on the different groups of stakeholders?
• What unintended (positive and negative) effects has the Action had to date, and on which stakeholders?
• Is it possible for the Action to achieve more impact than projected? If so, what impact and how could this have been done?

Sustainability: Will The Benefits Last Post Project Implementation Duration?
Description of the criterion:
The extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue, or are likely to continue. Note: Includes an examination of the financial, economic, social, environmental, and institutional capacities of the systems needed to sustain net benefits over time. Involves analyses of resilience, risks, and potential trade-offs. Depending on the timing of the evaluation, this may involve analyzing the actual flow of net benefits or estimating the likelihood of net benefits continuing over the medium and long term.
Specific questions to be answered:
• To what extent do relevant stakeholders have a sense of ownership for the different Action components?
• To what extent are relevant stakeholders active in ensuring the sustainability of the Action?
• To what extent is knowledge generated during the Action being transferred, or envisioned to be transferred, to relevant stakeholders?
• Are there any key blockages foreseen in sustaining the effects of the Action?
• To what extent do or will the Action’s outputs inform policy and practice, and generate a transformative change on the ground?
• How can the Action be scaled up and out beyond the current Action timeline and scope?
• Is the enabling environment within which the project operates supportive of its continuity?
• To what extent will the activities and outputs be maintained after development support is withdrawn?
• To what extent is the project effective in implementing relevant environmental and social safeguards?
GENDER: Is the project gender responsive
• How and to what extent is gender equality and equity adequately mainstreamed in the Action?
• Is gender effectively and systematically captured in project data?
• How will women and youth benefit from the project outcomes?

6. Relevant stakeholders
Relevant stakeholders include but are not necessarily limited to relevant staff from:
• European Delegation in Rwanda;
• IUCN;
• Enabel;
• Universities of Ghent, Leuven, and Rwanda;
• ICRAF;
• Minister of Environment (MoE);
• Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI);
• Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB);
• District, Sector, and Cell authorities and technical staff;
Communities (Individuals and cooperatives).

7. Required expertise
The team of consultants for this evaluation must include the following expertise:
• Master’s degree in Agriculture, Forestry, Agroforestry, Biodiversity, Natural Resources Management, or other related degrees;
• Post-graduate training in Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E);
• Proven experience in Action Research;
• Demonstrated evidence of completed mid-term or end-of-project evaluations in the last five years.
• Proficiency in qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection
• Proficiency in statistics and proven experience with data analysis.
• Excellent report writing and data interpretation
• Ability to conduct research independently.
• Knowledge of English and/or French and Kinyarwanda
• History of published articles, studies, or research work.
Proposed evaluators should have no previous or present involvement in the design or implementation of the programme or policy under evaluation, nor in the design, implementation, or evaluation of a preceding. programme or policy phase. This includes research and advisory services.
8. Planning
The MTR is foreseen to take place between February and April 2023. It includes on-site fieldwork in Kigali, peri-urban areas of Kigali, Rwamagana, Gatsibo, Bugesera, Kirehe and Nyagatare Districts in the Eastern Province of Rwanda.
9. Logistics
Consultants will be responsible for arranging visas, travel, and insurance, as needed. Accommodation, transport, and other logistics are to be arranged by the consultants as well. However, IUCN will assist and facilitate where feasible.

10. Key deliverables
The conformity of the report to the MTR standards and requirements will be assessed and confirmed by IUCN Rwanda Country Office. The text of the report should be illustrated, as appropriate, with maps, graphs, and tables. The MTR will be conducted within thirty (30) days from the date of contract signing and the selected individual consultants/consultancy firm will submit the following documents in English:
No. Item/Activity Period/time: i.e. after signing the contract
5 Prepare and submit Inception Report which will include detailed questions that will be asked and answered Within 5 days
6 Conduct of Mid-term Review Within 20 days
7 Preparation, Presentation of Draft Report Within 25 days
8 Preparation, presentation, and submission of the Final Report Within 30 days
11. Technical Evaluation Criteria
The technical evaluation will be made using the following criteria and maximum points:
No. Criteria Points
1. Clarity and completeness of the Proposal 10
2. Approach and Methodology
2.1 Critical analysis of the project objectives and the TOR 10
2.2 The conceptual and methodological approach
Description of the conceptual and methodological approach including experimental designs, sample size, and power calculations 30
2.3 Operationalization of the approach and Methodology
Working program / working schedule for delivery of outputs (20 pt.),
Staffing schedule and task assignment descriptions (5 pt.),
Work organization, backup services, quality control, logistics (5 pt.) 30
3. Consultants Competencies
3.1 Education: Master’s in relevant field (3 pt.);
Work experience: at least five (5) years in Mid-term review studies, Impact assessments, socio-economic, and Technical M&E skills, including demonstrated knowledge and experience in undertaking research-related assignments (8 pt.);
Program/Project M&E experience (5 pt.);
Donor (EU experience (4 pt.). 20
Total (maximum) 100

12. Evaluation of Technical and Financial Proposals
The total score will be calculated as the weighted sum of both the technical score and the financial score. Please note the that proposal with less than 70 percent for the technical evaluation will not continue with the evaluation.
The relative weights will be:
Technical: 70%
Financial: 30%

13. Applications
Interested consultants should email Technical and Financial proposals (in Rwandan Francs) detailing the proposed approach, methodology, and work plan for the assignment. The proposal should be accompanied by (i) detailed CVs outlining the consultant’s academic qualifications, previous relevant experience, contact information, etc.; (ii) documented evidence e.g. copy of Mid-term study reports previously developed and (iii) and conflict of interest statement.
Both proposals (Technical and Financial) should be password protected and failure to do so leads to immediate rejection.
One day after the application deadlines, applicants are requested to send the passwords to the same email used while applying. Applications entitled: “DeSIRA MTR Full names of Consultants/Consultancy Firm” should be sent electronically by email to rwanda@iucn.org with a copy to Valentine.Ikirezi@iucn.org no later than 07th March 2023 at 5:00 PM, local time in Rwanda.
During the course of this procurement, i.e. from the publication of this RfP to the award of a contract, if you have any question, please address all correspondence and questions by email to the following IUCN contacts: Jules RUTEBUKA, email: jules.rutebuka@iucn.org, and Lamek NAHAYO, email: lamek.nahayo@iucn.org.