PROJECT INTERVENTIONS · Web viewThe project has constructed seven cereal storage facilities for...

TENDER FOR THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

OF

‘CLIMATE RESILIENT LIVELIHOOD PROJECT FOR THE PASTORALIST COMMUNITIES IN KENYA’

March 2016

I. PROJECT BACKGROUND

Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) is an international relief and development agency that enjoys a consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council and is a signatory to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct. IRW is dedicated to alleviating the suffering of the world’s poorest people through promoting social and economic development in over 30 countries throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe as well as responding to natural and man-made disasters.

North Eastern Kenya has been suffering from recurring drought-related crises since 2005. The drought of 2005/06 affected four million people with an estimated loss of 50-60% of the livestock resources. The post-election violence, high food and fuel prices and El Niño related flooding in 2008/09 adversely impacted on the dwindling resource base and livelihood recovery process. In 2011/2012, North Kenya experienced the worst drought in over 60 years. According to the 2011-2012 short rain assessment, most parts of Mandera and Wajir counties of North Eastern Kenya were classified in the stressed phase.

Most of the people in North Eastern Kenya are pastoralists. Their ability to respond to drought is limited not only due to the increasing frequency, but also due to an increasing population, dwindling resource base, conflict, changes in access to land and water as well as the impact of other shocks such as flooding and disease outbreaks. The situation is further exacerbated by gradual erosion of community resilience and traditional coping strategies by successive shocks, as well as lack of collective initiatives to address the root causes of chronic poverty or vulnerability. To address these issues, Islamic Relief Kenya (IRK) initiated a three year climate resilient livelihood project for the pastoralist communities of Wajir and Mandera in 2013 (map shown in Appendix 1) from holistic perspectives. The project is jointly funded by DfID and Islamic Relief UK. The project started in April 2013 and will complete March 2016.

The project aimed at improving the quality of life of pastoralists and agro-pastoralists households of North Eastern Kenya by improving their capacities to adapt to climate induced hazards and providing climate resilient livelihood options. The overall objective was to improve food security and resilience of 9,085 vulnerable agro pastoralists and pastoralist households by using sustainable interventions to counter the effects of climate change in Wajir and Mandera.

The specific objectives of the project were to:

a) promote irrigated agriculture and greenhouse farming to improve livelihoods through increased food and fodder production;

b) diversify income through entrepreneurial skill development (capacity building training) and provision of micro-credits;

c) improve household incomes through cash for work;

d) improve animal health through disease surveillance, awareness raising, deworming and mass vaccination; and,

e) increase community resilience through capacity building, DRR plan, early warning systems and mainstreaming DRR strategy at a country level.

2

II. PROJECT INTERVENTIONS

The project interventions are aimed at improving food production (food security) increasing disaster preparedness, creating additional employment, generating income and preserving essential livelihood assets. The project has two components: Livelihoods and Disaster Risk Reduction.

A. Livelihoods

i) Irrigated agriculture farming

The pastoralist communities in the project locations have been traditionally relying on livestock for their livelihood means. However, pure pastoralism was no longer sustainable due to excessive drought and flood – a consequence of the climate change phenomenon. To create disaster resilience in these communities, the project promoted irrigated agricultural farming in Mandera as an alternative means of livelihood. 2,000 farmers were mobilised into groups and provided training. Individual farmers were then provided with improved farm inputs (drought resistant seeds, cereal, vegetables, fodder, farm equipment and fuel for water pumps) to produce their own food and fodder for the livestock.

ii) Construction of cereal storage facilities

The project has constructed seven cereal storage facilities for the irrigated agriculture farming beneficiaries in Mandera. The objective was to provide a secure and suitable environment to store surplus cereals for a longer period so that they can be consumed during lean periods and sold when prices increase.

iii) Greenhouse agriculture

The purpose of this component was to promote and pilot vegetable production using controlled micro-climate in greenhouses, in areas with no rivers, but had water points like boreholes and shallow wells for drip irrigation. This was one of the climate change adaptive ways of food production. Seven greenhouses were built in two locations (three in Mandera and four in Wajir) to benefit 72 farmers.

iv) Alternative livelihoods

To strengthen adaptive capacity and diversify alternative livelihood options, 195 women and youth beneficiaries were trained and supported with sharia compliant micro-credit to rehabilitate their small businesses or start a new one (120 from Wajir and 75 from Mandera). All the beneficiaries received generic training on business management (e.g., business venture identification, loan application and repayments, customer services, profit and loss determination, record keeping and savings). After the training, each beneficiary received a loan of KES 35,000 (£350) to start a business.

v) Livestock resources development

Livestock is an important livelihood means for the pastoralist communities. The provision of veterinary services in a disaster prone area is an important strategy for assisting pastoralists to protect their livestock from an outbreak of fatal diseases (ie anthrax) caused by drought or flash floods. This project provided equipment (e.g., refrigerators and sample collection tools) and logistical support to six Districts Veterinary Offices (DVOs) to conduct 18 disease surveillances (nine in Wajir and nine in Mandera). The project organised mass vaccinations and the treatment and deworming of 360,000 livestock through the DVOs consequently benefiting 3,600 households (1,800 in Wajir and 1,800 in Mandera). The project coordinated a mass awareness

3

campaign to provide people an opportunity to understand the importance of vaccinations and de-worming, ultimately reflecting better productivity of animals for the beneficiaries it targets. The total targeted beneficiaries were 3,000 in both locations.

vi) Cash for Work

This intervention targeted poor households in both locations who did not directly benefit from other activities. The main objective was to create short-term employment opportunities for 3,000 poor households in both locations (1,800 in Wajir and 1,200 in Mandera) who rehabilitated community infrastructures (e.g de-silting water pan, clearing access road, fencing water pan and water piping to greenhouses) as a means of improving disaster resilience in the community.

B. Disaster Risk Reduction

vii) Community managed disaster risk reduction

The objective of this component was to ensure that communities had the required skills and knowledge needed to plan for and cope with future livelihood shocks caused by disasters. This component mainly focused on developing community capacity to prepare disaster risk reduction plans and early warning systems. 180 community resource persons (90 in Wajir and 90 in Mandera) were trained on community managed disaster risk reduction and the early warning System. The activities were facilitated by Disaster Risk Reduction specialists from the National Drought Management Authority.

viii) Country level DRR mainstream strategy

This intervention provided training to build the capacity of 30 regional staff on DRR and resilience to enable them to mainstream DRR in the future programmes and be able to develop programmes that are more resilient. It’s also aimed at developing a platform for the DRR and resilience mainstreaming strategy for IR Kenya. The component also established linkages and contributions to the national and regional DRR/CCA platforms such as the Inter-Agency Working Group (IAWG).

III. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

A. Background

IRW’s commitment to moving climate vulnerable people out of poverty requires rigorous impact assessment of the ‘climate resilience livelihood project’ that was implemented by IRK in North Eastern Kenya. IRW defines the term ‘impact’ as ‘long-term and sustainable changes introduced by a given intervention in the lives of the beneficiaries’. Through the impact assessment, IRW is searching for evidence of impact in terms of both the positive and the negative, intended and unintended, primary and secondary effects of the programme, directly or indirectly contributing to such systemic change.

B. Progress to-date

i) Impact assessment has been built into the project design from the outset.ii) A theory of change framework has been developed to illustrate how and why a desired

change is expected to happen in a particular context (Appendix 2).iii) A logframe has been developed to show the indicators, baseline and milestones at different

levels of objective hierarchies (Appendix 3).iv) A result framework has been developed to show the linkages from activities, outputs,

outcomes to impact (Appendix 4).

4

v) A baseline survey was conducted at the beginning of the project and the report is available with donor (IRUK).

vi) The villages and sample beneficiaries have been selected using a stratified simple random sampling technique. A list of the sample beneficiaries is available for the final study.

vii) The project team has prepared two annual progress reports for the donors highlighting the achievements against logframe. These reports are available with IRUK. The project team will also prepare a project completion report in June 2016.

viii) IRW commissioned an impact evaluation after two years. The impact evaluation was mostly focused on outcome level qualitative changes using the result framework as a reference. The report is available with IRUK and shared with DfID.

C. Objectives of the impact assessment

Working closely with the project support teams in Wajir and Mandera, an external consultant will conduct an impact assessment of the project activities implemented under UKAM.

The specific objectives of this assignment are:

1. Assess the extent to which the project as a whole has delivered the anticipated objectives indicated in the log frame with specific attention to outputs, outcomes and impact.

2. Assess the effectiveness of aid in contribution to improve food security and enhance resilience in the face of climate variability (please see appendix 5 for suggested line of enquiries).

3. Determine the magnitude and distribution of changes (intended and unintended) in outcome and impact indicators among different segments of the target population and to differentiate the changes that are attributable to the project interventions from other external factors contributing to change (please see appendix 6 for suggested line of enquiries).

4. Assess the key innovations used in the project that improved or worsened delivery of project impacts and how the learning was used in improving project performance.

5. Analyse and comment on the sustainability of the project outcomes/impacts and suggest measures to maintain long term sustainability.

6. Document lessons learned, develop clear and actionable recommendations for IRK and IRW for adoption and integration into any similar future development related projects in the region.

D. Methodology

The consultant will design methodologies following the indicators of logframe and result framework. The methodologies will include (but not be limited to):

i) A desk review of programme information including project proposals and reports.ii) Meetings with the M&E team at IRW, UKAM team in London and the regional desk co-

ordinator in Kenya.iii) Interviews with selected IRK project focal points and staff whose work contribute towards the

objectives.iv) Project site visits, Interviews (1 to 1) and FGDs with the sample beneficiaries.v) Interviews/surveys with local implementing partners and development actors.vi) Organisation of initial workshops to train evaluation teams in evaluation methodology as well

as a final post-fieldwork workshop to assess and discuss the initial findings with IRK and partner staff.

vii) Submission of the draft evaluation report to IRW prior to the finalisation of the report.

E. Expected outputs of the consultant

5

The consultant is expected to produce:

i) A detailed work plan, developed with and approved by IRW, setting out the detailed methodology and deliverables prior to commencing the field visits.

ii) A report (no more than 40 pages excluding appendices) with the following sections:

a) Project title and countryb) Organisation and partner namesc) Name of person who compiled the evaluation report including summary of

role/contribution of others in the team d) Period during which the evaluation was undertaken e) Acknowledgementsf) Abbreviationsg) Table of contentsh) Executive summary (no more than two-three sides of A4) setting out five top level

impacts (objective 3); one top level achievement for objective 1, 2, 4 and 5; key lessons and recommendations

i) Introduction/backgroundj) Methodologyk) Context analysisl) For each key intervention, a section in the form of:

Findings (including any under-achievement issues with reasons) Conclusions Assessment

m) A two to three page summary of best practices, lessons and recommendationsn) Annexes

Terms of reference for the evaluation Profile of the evaluation team Evaluation schedule Documents consulted during the evaluation Persons participating in the evaluation Field data used during the evaluation including baselines Bibliography

The final report must be submitted in English and within a 30-day window of completing the field work.

F. Required inputs

The following are the key inputs to the evaluation:i) Stakeholders to be involved include:

IRW, IRUK and IRK staff Partner staff Governmental officials and community leaders Project beneficiaries Other NGOs/INGOs working in the area

ii) Relevant IRK/IRW and partner reports and documentationiii) External secondary information and data as appropriate to the evaluation

G. Responsibilities of IRW/IRK

6

i) Develop and manage activity budgets (both itemised and summary) for the project evaluation.

ii) Provide in-country accommodation, transportation including travel between the project sites and Nairobi for the period of stay in Kenya.

iii) Provide copies of proposals, baselines, progress reports and other relevant documents.

iv) Provide the consultant, with office space, an internet connection and a mobile phone for the duration of the stay in Kenya.

v) Give final approval to the consultant at relevant stages of the surveys and assessments, particularly when developing tools, work plans and final reports.

vi) Team members drawn from IRK staff and counterparts in all project locations will support the consultant during the assessment. Team members will be specifically responsible for:

Participating in the field study, case studies, focus group discussions, one-to-one interviews and sharing results with other team members

Providing any other assistance required by the consultant

H. Timetable and reporting duration

Total duration of the consultancy = 30 man-days

Action By when WhoCall for expression of interest 04 March 2016 IRWFinal date for submission of expression of interest

18 March 2016 (5 pm) Consultant

Proposals considered, shortlisting and follow up enquiries completed

25 March 2016 IRW

Consultant interview and final selection 31 March 2016 IRWMeeting with the consultant and agree on an impact assessment methodology, plan of action and contract

05 April 2016 (1 day) IRW

Evaluation undertaken 06 April to 06 May 2016 (20 days)

Consultant

Submission of the first draft to IRK/IRW for comments

13 May 2016 (6 days) Consultant

IRW/IRP responses to draft report 27 May 2016 IRK/IRWFinal draft submitted to IRW 04 June, 2016 (3 days) Consultant

I. Proposal to tender and costingsConsultants (single or teams) interested in carrying out this work must:a) Submit an expression of interest, including the following

a. Cover letter outlining a methodology and approach briefing noteb. CV or outline of relevant skills and experience possessed by the consultant

who will be carrying out the tasks and any other personnel who will work on the project

c. Example(s) of relevant workd. The consultancy daily ratee. Expenses policy of the tendering consultant. Incurred expenses will not be

included but will be agreed in advance of any contract signedb) Be able to complete the project within the timeframe stated abovec) Be able to demonstrate significant experience of developing impact assessment

approaches for similar workJ. Proposal submission details

7

Please submit your expression of interest by 18th March 2016 (5pm at the latest) via email to: [email protected] (and queries regarding applications can also be emailed here too). Following a preliminary shortlisting, selected consultants will be approached to participate in a video/skype/ face-to-face interview (Birmingham, UK).

K. Payment schedule

Payment will be made in accordance with the deliverables and deadlines as follows

25% of the total amount – finalisation of tools and the signing of the contract 25% of the total amount – submission of the first draft of the evaluation report 50% of the total amount – submission of the final report including all attachments

mentioned above

L. Additional information and conditions of contract

IRW will cover:

The costs associated with in-country, work-related transportation for the consultant and the assessment team

International and local travel for the consultant and the local team Accommodation while in the field Training venues Consultancy fees

IRW will not cover:

Tax obligations as required by the country in which he/she will file income tax Any pre/post assignment medical costs. These should be covered by the consultant Medical and travel insurance arrangements and costs. These should be covered by

the consultant

Appendix 1: Project locations in Kenya

8

mailto:[email protected]

Appendix 2: Theory of Change framework for improved food security and disaster risk reduction

9

Improved preparedness at community level to mitigate future disasters

Changes in capacity of DRR at local institutional level

Changes in disaster preparedness at community level

Changes in capacity of DRR at community level

Changes in disaster preparedness at community level

Capacity improved at community level to reduce the risk of disasters

Capacity improved at local institution level to reduce the risk of disasters at community level

Develop disaster preparedness plan at community level Capacity building training of animal health workers on CMDRForm disaster response committees at community level

Capacity building of local government staff on CMDRR and early warning systems. Capacity building of IR staff at field level on DRR/CCA mainstreaming

Establishment/support DRR facilities/infrastructures at community levelRehabilitation of community infrastructures to reduce community risk

Changes in agric + inputs to improve resilience to CC

Changes in the income level of beneficiaries’ thro’ provision of start-up capitals

Changes in the quality of life of beneficiaries by improving their food security levels

Alternative climate adaptive livelihood options sustained

Provision made for distribution of grants

Strengthen adaptive capacity and livelihood choicesTraining communities on alternative climate adaptive livelihood optionsPromoting adoption of disaster resistance agricultural practices Support communities with improved agricultural inputs Capacity build communities on sustainable/climate –resilient agriculture Support pastoralism along sustainability channels

Support of vulnerable groups with capital for diversified IGAs/alternative livelihoodsCapacity build vulnerable groups on IGAs/livelihoods optionsLinking vulnerable groups with local financial institutions

10

Appendix 3: Project log frame

PROJECT NAME Climate resilient livelihoods for pastoralist communitiesIMPACT Impact Indicator 1 Baseline Milestone 1 (March

2014)Milestone 2 (March 2015)

Target (March 2016)

Improved food security and resilience of vulnerable agro pastoralists and pastoralists in Northern Kenya

Household economic analysis and food security/malnutrition levels (GAM)

Planned Mandera; 25.3% (122,024) malnutrition level

Wajir; 27.9% (85,779) malnutrition level

<16% malnutrition level



Achieved Source

Household Economic Approach (HEA) reports and Survey reports by Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG)

Impact Indicator 2 Baseline Milestone 1 (March 2014)

Milestone 2 (March 2015)

Target (March 2016)

Community level early warning mechanisms and advocacy initiatives

Planned 0 early warning mechanisms in place in targeted villages

Early warning action plan and system established in two villages

Early warning action plan and system established in four villages

Early warning action plan and system established in six villages

Achieved Source

County government annual plans/reports; Project progress/review reports; Monitoring and evaluation reports

OUTCOME Outcome Indicator 1 Baseline Milestone 1 (March 2014)


Target (March 2016) Assumptions

9,085 households (54,510 individuals) from marginalised communities in Mandera and Wajir have increased resilience in the face of climatic variability

Targeted households with improved and diversified diet

Planned 3% (273) HHs in targeted population have a diversified diet

31% (male 1,715 and female 1,145) of the targeted HHs have diversified diets



1- No major humanitarian emergency happens during the period 2)- Security and humanitarian access remains stable 3) Support by key stakeholders

Achieved 1,546 HHs reached Source

Final project report; Progress reports, Evaluation reports and Beneficiary feedback

Outcome Indicator 2 Baseline Milestone 1 (March Milestone 2 (March Target (March 2016)

11

2014) 2015)

in all operation sites

Community engagement in drought management and mitigation

Planned 12% of HHs in targeted area are engaged in drought management and mitigation

20% (male 1,072 and female 745) of the targeted HHs are engaged in drought management

60% (male 3,216 and female 2,235) of the targeted HHs are engaged in drought management

100% (male 5,360 and female 3,725) of the targeted HHs are engaged in drought management

Achieved 337 HHs reached Source RISK RATING

Final project report; Progress reports, Evaluation reports and Beneficiary feedback MediumINPUTS (£) DFID (£) Govt (£) IRUK (£) Total (£) DFID SHARE (%)

500,000 516,000 1,016,000 49%INPUTS (HR) DFID (FTEs) OUTPUT 1 Output Indicator 1.1 Baseline Milestone 1 (March


Target (March 2016) Assumption

Target communities supported with adaptive livelihood interventions

Agro pastoralist farmers have access to alternative sources of food production

Planned 11% (224) of agro pastoralist farmers access alternative sources of food production

32% (male 420 and female 220) of agro pastoralist farmers access alternative sources of food production

73% (male 958 and female 497) of agro pastoralist farmers access alternative sources of food production

100% (male 1,400 and female 600) of agro pastoralist farmers access alternative sources of food production

1- There is no major conflict leading to migration of target communities 2) People are able to put new knowledge into practice from the capacity building programmes 3) Water points supporting the green houses do not dry for a better part of the year

Achieved 640 farmers (420 men and 220 women) provided with technical and material support on crop production. 448 farmers harvest produce

SourceFinal project report; Progress reports, Evaluation reports and Beneficiary feedback

Output Indicator 1.2 Baseline Milestone 1 (Mar 2014)


Target (March 2016)

Households adopt green house agriculture as an alternative source of livelihoods

Planned 0 HHs in targeted area had green house agriculture as an alternative source of livelihoods

0 80 HHs (male 30 and female 50) adopt green house agriculture

140 HHs (male 42 and female 98) adopt green house agriculture

12

Achieved 80 HHs (14 male and 66 female headed) selected for training

SourceFinal project report; Progress reports; Evaluation reports and Beneficiary feedback; Greenhouses - physical verification; MoU and Hand-over documents

Output Indicator 1.3 Baseline Milestone 1 (March 2014)


Target (March 2016)

Targeted farmers store food for four months or more after harvesting

Planned 5% (150; 100 male and 50 female) of farmers store food for four months or more after harvesting

0 10% (male 200 and female 100) of targeted farmers store food

15% (male 300 and female 150) of targeted farmers store food

Achieved Three sites selected as storage facilities. Feasibility assessment taking place

SourceFinal project report; Progress reports; Evaluation reports and Beneficiary feedback; Storage facilities constructed - physical verification; MoU and hand-over documents

IMPACT WEIGHTING (%)



Target (March 2016)

30% Women's capacity built to establish and manage income generating activities

Planned 0 women in targeted area have capacity to manage income generating activities

120 women trained to manage IGA's and received credit facility

165 women trained to manage IGA's and received credit facility

165 women have capacity to manage IGA's

Achieved 120 beneficiaries (111 women and nine men) trained to manage IGAs, will receive credit at the end of April 2014

Source RISK RATINGFinal project report; Progress reports, Evaluation reports and Beneficiary feedback; Training attendance list; Participant feedback; Training report, materials and photos

Medium

INPUTS (£) Govt (£) IRUK (£) Total (£) DFID SHARE (%)119,789.50 119,789.50 239,579 50%

13

INPUTS (HR) DFID (FTEs) OUTPUT 2 Output Indicator 2.1 Baseline Milestone 1 (March



Households engaged in cash programming interventions

Community infrastructure/assets rehabilitated and maintained

Planned 0 Two community infrastructures rehabilitated

Four community infrastructures rehabilitated

Six community infrastructures rehabilitated

1- There is no major conflict leading to migration of target communities 2) The cash received is used to meet household basic needs 3) Community infrastructure rehabilitated through cash-for-work

Achieved Two community infrastructures (water pans) rehabilitated in Wajir



Target (March 2016)

Households undertake cash for work activities

0 HHs in targeted areas have been involved in cash for work activities to rehabilitate community infrastructures

240 HHs (male 153 and female 87) undertake CFW activities

2,100 HHs (male 1,050 and female 1,050) undertake CFW activities

3,000 HHs (male 1,500 and female 1,500) undertake CFW activities


Achieved 240 HHs (male 153 and female 87) involved in de-silting and fencing (CfW)

15% Source RISK RATINGFinal project report; Progress reports; Evaluation reports and Beneficiary feedback and Rehabilitated facilities - physical verification

Medium

INPUTS (£) DFID (£) Govt (£) IRUK (£) Total (£) DFID SHARE (%)INPUTS (HR) DFID (FTEs)

OUTPUT 3 Output Indicator 3.1 Baseline Milestone 1 (March



Livestock support services provided to drought affected households

District Veterinary Officers (DVO's) provided with equipment to increase their coverage in the delivery of services

Planned Six district veterinary offices supplied with appropriate veterinary equipment and other supplies

Six district veterinary offices supplied with appropriate veterinary equipment and other supplies

1- No major humanitarian emergency happens during the period 2)-

14

effectively Security and humanitarian access remains stable . 3) DVOs and community animal health workers willing and able to put the knowledge into practice in early detection of disease cases. 4) No mass migration of livestock to far areas

Achieved Two livestock disease surveillance sessions carried out by two DVO's and two mass campaigns for livestock treatment undertaken

SourceFinal project report; Progress reports; Evaluation reports and Beneficiary feedback and Disease surveillance reports




Target (March 2016)

20% Households supported with deworming, mass vaccination and treatment

Planned 9% coverage by animal health services (324 HH receiving support on livestock health services)

886 (725 male and 161 female) households supported with deworming, mass vaccination and treatment

2,386 (1,775 male and 611 female) households supported with deworming, mass vaccination and treatment

3,600 (2,520 male and 1,080 female) households supported with deworming, mass vaccination and treatment

Achieved 786 HHs (655 men and 131 women) benefit from 106,579 livestock being vaccinated

Source RISK RATINGFinal project report; Progress reports; Evaluation reports and Beneficiary feedback Medium

INPUTS (£) DFID (£) Govt (£) IRUK (£) Total (£) DFID SHARE (%)INPUTS (HR) DFID (FTEs) OUTPUT 4 Output Indicator 4.1 Baseline Milestone 1 (March



Capacity improved to manage disasters at community level

Local government staff and community leaders capacity built on CMDRR and early warning systems

Planned 0 people trained in CMDRR and early warning

97 people trained in CMDRR and early warning systems (74 male and 23 female)

157 people trained in CMDRR and early warning (119 male and 38 female)

180 people trained in CMDRR and early warning (135 male and 45 female)

1. Commitment from local government and communities for sustaining DRR policies remains favourable 2) People are

Achieved 97 community members (74 male and 23 female) from three locations trained in CMDRR and early warning

15

systems

able to put new knowledge into practice from the capacity building programmes

SourceFinal project report; Progress reports; Evaluation reports and Beneficiary feedback; Training attendance list; Participant feedback; Training report, materials and photos



Target (March 2016)

Villages with disaster response committees and action plans

Planned 0 DRCs and CMDRR action plans

Two CMDRR action plans by two DRCs

Four CMDRR action plans by four DRCs

Six CMDRR action plans by six DRCs

Achieved Three village action plans developed and three community disaster committees formed

Source RISK RATINGFinal project report; Progress reports; Evaluation reports and Beneficiary feedback; Training attendance list; Participant feedback; Training report, materials and photos

Medium


20% INPUTS (£) DFID (£) Govt (£) IRUK (£) Total (£) DFID SHARE (%)

INPUTS (HR) DFID (FTEs) OUTPUT 5 Output Indicator 5.1 Baseline Milestone 1 (March



Staff capacity built on DRR and CCA programming and mainstreaming

IRK staff from country and field offices trained on DRR

Planned Four staff trained on DRR

10 staff (seven male and three female) able to mainstream DRR in their programmes

30 staff (21 male and nine female) able to mainstream DRR in their programmes

30 staff (21 male and nine female) able to mainstream DRR into their programmes

1. Ability and commitment of trained staff to put into practice acquired knowledge-to develop (DRR/CCA) mainstreaming strategies. 2. Stability and favourable

Achieved 10 staff attended the regional DRR training

SourceFinal project report; Progress reports; Evaluation reports and feedback; Training attendance list; Participant feedback; Training report, materials and photos




Target (March 2016)

16

Climate vulnerable pastoralist communities of two counties of Northern Kenya are food secure by the end of 2016

9,085 households in Mandera and Wajir have adopted diversified livelihood practices by the end of 2016 2. Six communities in Wajir and Mandera have increased resilience in the face of climatic variability by the end of 2016

conditions within countries-to allow inter-

15% DRR and CCA mainstreaming strategy developed and adopted by IRK

Planned 0 DRR and CCA strategy in place at IRK

0 One DRR and CCA strategy adopted and applied

One DRR and CCA strategy adopted and applied

Achieved 0

Source RISK RATINGCopy(ies) of IRK's DDR mainstreaming strategy (ies); Final project report; Progress reports and Evaluation reports

Low

Total BudgetINPUTS (£) DFID (£) Govt (£) IRUK (£) Total (£) DFID SHARE (%)

500,000 516,000 1,016,000 49% INPUTS (HR) DFID (FTEs)

Appendix 4: Result framework

17

Appendix 5: Suggested line of enquiries for aid effectiveness (for reference only)

a) Appropriateness and relevance

i) Are the project objectives relevant to the specific needs and priorities of the affected community? Are the activities also appropriate to realise the objectives? Has the assistance culturally appropriate?

ii) Did the project meet the most urgent needs first? Were the project components well integrated?

iii) Has the assistance provided by IRK met the needs of different stakeholders, in particular men and women, children, adults, the elderly, the able and the disabled in the affected population?

iv) What, if any, changes do we need to make to the programme to make it more appropriate and relevant?

b) Connectedness

i) To what extent longer-term and interconnected problems were taken into account?ii) What was the programme’s contribution in influencing national/ regional/ local

government policies and programs on livelihood recovery through climate change adaptation?

iii) To what extent local capacity (capacity of government, civil society and other partners) is supported and developed?

iv) Was a specific exit strategy prepared and agreed upon by key stakeholders to ensure post project sustainability? Do the local institutions demonstrate ownership commitment and technical capacity to continue to work with the programme or replicate it?

v) What, if any, changes could we make to improve connectedness of the overall response?

c) Timeliness

i) How timely was IRK’s response in meeting the needs of the affected people, especially vulnerable people?

ii) Was there any implementation delay? If yes, why? If yes, how did you ensure timely completion of the project activities?

iii) What, if any, changes could we make to improve timeliness of the overall response?

d) Coverage

i) What criteria were used to select the project location? Did the project target the most vulnerable areas where the needs were highest?

ii) How many people did the project target in relation to the total number of people affected? What criteria were used to select the project beneficiaries? Was it participatory and transparent? Has the project reached to the targeted number of beneficiaries?

iii) Has the project considered the differing needs of men and women, children, adults, the elderly, the able and the disabled, and the poor?

iv) Which group has benefited most from the intervention, how and why? Was there any group excluded? If yes, why?

v) What, if any, changes could we make to improve the coverage of the overall response?

e) Coordination

i) To what extent has IR’s response been coordinated with the efforts of the broader humanitarian community and the government?

ii) What have been the biggest successes in coordination? What were the biggest gaps?

19

iii) Have local capacities been involved, used and strengthened and have partnerships with local CBOs, CSO organizations been built-up?

iv) What internal coordination problems (between field offices, between field and country offices and between country office and IRW) have you faced and how have they been addressed?

i) What, if any, changes could we make to improve coordination of the overall response?

f) Efficiency

i) How did you ensure that good practices/lessons were incorporated from similar on-going or completed projects (good practice review) in the project design and implementation?

ii) Have the essential project support functions of IR and partners (including finance, human resources, logistics, media and communications) been quickly and effectively set up and resourced, and performing to an appropriate standard?

iii) How efficient was procurement process? Did the procurement process ensure that the best and lowest prices were obtained balancing quality, cost and timeliness? What could have been done better?

iv) Were the funds used as stated?v) How does the project demonstrate value for money?vi) To what extent have innovative or alternative modes of delivering on the response been

explored and exploited to reduce costs and maximize results?vii) What, if any, changes could we make to improve efficiency of the overall response?

g) Effectiveness

i) How effective has livelihood recovery approaches been in reducing climate vulnerability over time and is there evidence of this?

ii) To what extent have minimum quality requirements and standards been met?iii) Was timely provision of support, goods and services achieved, according to the

perceptions of key stakeholders? How do you know?iv) What were the biggest obstacles to the achievement of the purpose of the intervention?v) What, if any, changes could we make to the programme to make it more cost effective?vi) Do you have a risk matrix? If yes, how often did you review it? If No, why not? How are

you adjusting your programme with the unforeseen risks?

h) Output

i) To what extent were the proposed output achieved as per log frame?ii) To what extent have agreed humanitarian standards, principles and behaviours including

the Code of Conduct standards been respected?iii) What was the impact on creating communal assets and contribution in enhancing their

resilience capacity?iv) What, if any, changes could we make to improve impact of the overall response?

i) Cross cutting issues

ii) How well did the response mainstream/integrate gender?iii) How did you ensure protection of children from abuse?iv) How well disaster risk reduction (DRR), the environment, and conflict/cultural

sensitivities integrated in the project?v) What examples of innovative good practice can be seen in IRK’s response?vi) What general lessons can we draw from this response for our preparation for future

response?

20

Appendix 6: Suggested line of enquiries for outcome/impact (for reference only)

1. What changes have there been in the community since the start of the project? (identify the main factors that have led to changes in people’s livelihoods during a project).

2. Which of these changes are attributable to the project? (categorize these factors as

‘project’ and ‘non-project’ factors.)

3. What difference have these changes made to people’s lives? (measure the relative importance of each factor).

Some common Indicators:

The following standard indicators could be used to measure the perceived changes (positive, no change, negative) in the lives of the beneficiaries. It is always recommended to collect and analyse the data disaggregated by gender: (men, women, boys and girls)

a) Sustainable livelihoods

i) Income: Income through various sources

ii) Value of asset: Value of assets as a means to improve resilience

iii) Food security: Number of months with insufficient food, number of times a meal is consumed per day

iv) Market: Access to market, new/improved link with the market

b) Essential services

i) Education: Enrolment rates of girls and boys, number of children that finish primary school, drop-out rates before reaching class 5

ii) Health: Number of respondents have been ill in the last three months, number of days ill in the last three months

iii) Water: Access to safe water across the year, incidence of water borne disease

c) Resilience

i) Extent of physical damage of resources due to disasters during the project period, Measures taken to mitigate the problem, feeling capable to cope with future disasters

d) Empowerment

i) Access to information: Access to public information, access to information channel and social media

ii) Participation: Active participation in social and political organisation, active participation in decision-making process

e) The rights to be heard: Awareness of rights, freedom of expressions, active in organisation and movements, collective actions against social injustice, Influence decisions

21

f) Migration

i) Number of people migrated from the family, for how long, where and when and why?

g) Gender

i) Incidences of gender based violence, female leadership, women becoming politically active and sexual and reproductive rights

h) Advocacy:

i) Advocacy and campaigning works on climate change, GBV, female leadership and rights etc.

**********

22

PROJECT INTERVENTIONS · Web viewThe project has constructed seven cereal storage facilities for...

Documents

Transcript of PROJECT INTERVENTIONS · Web viewThe project has constructed seven cereal storage facilities for...