Terms of Reference_Final Evaluation Model Mining Legislation project of the International Alliance on Natural Resources in Africa- IANRA

This ToR is used as the basis for the procurement of external evaluation services to conduct a final external evaluation of the IANRA Model Mining Legislation (MML) project.ActionAid Netherlands (AA NL) welcomes proposals from evaluators by 17 April, addressed to rosemarie.wuite@actionaid.org.

1. Background

Background of IANRA, the MML project, and the final evaluation assignmentSince inception in 2009 and formal registration in 2012 the International Alliance on Natural Resources in Africa (IANRA) has been evolving into an African continental network of 41 member organisations and 14 national groupings in Africa with community partnerships and international linkages. Each national grouping has up to 30 member organisations totalling around 150 participating civil society organisations (CBOs, FBOs, NGOs, and Social Movements), all of which work on natural resources justice in Africa. The aim of the Alliance is to promote community-centred, sustainable and equitable management of natural resources in Africa, thereby significantly improving livelihoods, contributing to socio-economic development, promoting human rights and particularly community rights in natural resources governance. IANRA, as an international network working on these issues, is uniquely placed to negotiate for change with and on behalf of the poorest communities at government and regional level and IANRA has been working hard to enhance this capacity and to fulfil this role. See Annex 1 for IANRA’s strategic framework.

Model Mining Legislation Project& final evaluation assignmentIANRA together with ActionAid in the Netherlands as international fund holder, is in the process of finalising a 3 year, EC-funded project which focuses on developing Model Mining Legislation (MML) in a multi-stakeholder setting- see summary in Annex 2. The Project Implementation Committee (PIC), consisting of project partners, case study community representatives, the IANRA Secretariat, and the international fund holder AA NL is overseeing the implementation of the project. The PIC together with the IANRA Steering Committee will be overseeing the final evaluation process.

Overall objective of the MML project: Good governance in the minerals sector in Africa which ensures accountability, contributes to inclusive and sustainable growth and development, and protects human rights. Specific objective: A strong IANRA network representing its member CSOs and their constituencies of vulnerable groups and communities taking action on mineral resources legislation and policy at regional and continental level.The MML project includes case studies on human rights impacts of industrial mining as per the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter) – focused on 5 countries in Africa: Angola, DRC, Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe. In addition, an analysis of international protocols and legislations that relate to extractive industries and human rights have been conducted that has led to the publication of a policy guide and an advocacy guide. National networks as well as the International network gave input on the analysis and guide, and identified gaps for potential future policy recommendations. Finally, a model legislation on mineral resources in Africa has been developed that should ensure the protection and promotion of human rights in the Extractives sector in relation to the African Charter. This has been developed and advocated for in partnership with the Pan-African Parliament’s Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The project also included cross-learning and cooperation with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Working Group on Extractive

Page 1 of 15

Industries, as it aimed to enhance a multi-stakeholder dialogue and as a network develop a process and methodologies to genuinely foster these dialogues between communities, industry, decision makers and regulatory bodies.

Problems to be addressed by the project: Rural communities affected by poorly regulated mineral investments and accompanying rights violations have low levels of income, low awareness and literacy levels and often do not have the time, opportunity or organisational structures, linkages or supporting networks to participate meaningfully and with sufficient gender-balance in policy processes at local or national level. Local civil society is often weak or focused on service delivery. In addition, national, regional and continental policy frameworks related to natural resources, e.g., mineral resources development acts, do not comprehensively ensure the protection and promotion of human rights and inclusive development, and the implementation of many existing protections are not monitored or enforced adequately.1 Civil society, including IANRA & its member organisations, need further support to ensure a coordinated & effective approach so that the voice of the most vulnerable is included in formulating, implementing & monitoring legislation on the just & sustainable use of natural resources.

See Annex 2 for the project summary and Annex 3 for the logical framework.

2. Reasons for the evaluation

1) Assess the real changes (expected and unexpected), both in the field as at organisational/ network level and analyse the changes attributable to the MML project and HOW they came about;

2) Assess achieved results and to learn about what works well, and what could done be better.3) Assess the sustainability of the intervention's benefits; 4) Report to the institutions that have allocated the resources; 5) Use lessons learned for future strategic planning and programme design.

The main users of the evaluation will be the IANRA secretariat and Steering Committee, AA NL, project partner staff and the EC. It is expected that the learning and findings from the evaluation will be shared more widely with key stakeholders and the wider field of organisations working on natural resources governance and civil society strengthening.

3. Values and guiding principles The final evaluation should be participatory, learning oriented, inclusive, and supportive of

strengthening the IANRA network at international network level as well as at national and local network level.

The evaluation should be utilization-focused: the evaluation process as well as the end result should be useful for IANRA members, implementing partners and case study communities involved throughout the project.

The processes and tools proposed in the final evaluation should take into account the varying contexts in which the project partners and the case study communities operate, the different baseline or starting positions of each partner and the time and funding limitations for this evaluation.

4. Focus and subject of the evaluationThe type of evaluation will be an external, final project evaluation with the overall subjects being: Context, Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, Sustainability, and EU value added and Coherence. The broad areas of investigation relate to the criteria as defined in the ToR will be further

1 UNECA (2011). Minerals and Africa’s Development: The International Study Group Report on Africa’s Mining Regimes.

Page 2 of 15

elaborated with the evaluator. More detailed indicative questions and data sources are set out in Table 1.

Levels of analysis and data collection will done at the following levels and target groups: The IANRA network: 41 CSO members in 14 countries in Africa, AA NL and the network Secretariat; 5 case study communities in Angola, DRC, Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe; and local, national and continental advocacy targets that include government and corporate policymakers.

a) Context: A light assessment of the broader contextual changes over the past 3 years and the extent to which the project was adapted or not to the changing context.

b) Relevance: The aim is to establish the extent to which the MML project contributed to the achievement of the priorities and policies of the IANRA membership and other MML target groups, like local mining communities and IANRA network members and partners in each of the five countries, with 2 in-depth case studies in 2 project countries Kenya and Zimbabwe. As well as assessing the extent to which the project relates to or complements other similar governance, rights initiatives in-country and internationally.

c) Effectiveness: The effectiveness criterion, concerns how far the MML project’s results were achieved, and the project’s specific objective(s) achieved, or are expected to be achieved, as defined in the original logical framework.

d) Efficiency: An assessment of how well funds, personnel, and other resources were managed and used to achieve project results.

e) Impact: Details of the changes, both intended and unintended, that the project is contributing to achieving and the relationship of these changes to IANRA’s strategic framework and theory of change.

f) Sustainability: An assessment of the benefits or changes achieved by the project that are likely to continue when the project ends e.g. networks, community capacity to protect their rights over land and livelihoods against extractive industry threats and to negotiate for changes with policy makers and local/national/continental authorities.

g) EU value added and coherence: An assessment of the extent to which project results allow the EU and partner countries to achieve its development policy objectives without contradiction with other EU partner country policies.

Table 1: Key questions for the final evaluation in relation to each criteria

Key on data sources: FS= field study, NFSC=Non-field study country, MS=member survey, LR=literature review

Criteria (area of investigation)

Key questions Data source

Context What, if any, were the significant shifts (positive/negative) in the field of Extractive Industry governance with a special focus on Mining legislation, across the project countries, region and continentally over the past 3 years. Is there evidence of shifts and changes in thinking and power dynamics, inclusive policy making and practice- both in terms of community participation in policy making as well as including locally defines development paradigms? What key actors or other factors have been significant in influencing or driving these shifts?

How, if at all, has the programme adapted and/or responded to these contextual shifts/changes? What are the implications for future programming in this area?

FS, NFSC, LR, MS

Relevance To what extent were the objectives of the MML project as formulated at the time of the proposal valid in the eyes of the target groups

FS, NFSC,

Page 3 of 15

(normative)? To what extent are the objectives of the MML project still valid in the

eyes of the target groups (normative)? How could IANRA (continue to) be relevant in case of future

programmes?

Sub-questions:How well did the project’s actions Help local communities in at least the 5 case study countries to

deepen their understanding of mineral resource (& related) policy content, governmental (local, national, regional, continental) officials, and processes, as well as regulatory instruments and mechanisms and enhanced policy analysis skills. And to what extent are these capacities relevant for their needs?

Help IANRA to build strong relationships between its members and help them to work to achieve a common purpose and the IANRA vision?

Help partners to strengthen their capacity to engage with communities, amplify their needs, facilitate inclusive policy making and engage with key policy makers to change national mining governance frameworks, and to work with the national grouping to protect community rights to land and livelihoods?

Help IANRA and its members to relate to key policy makers, other relevant coalitions and policy processes, within each country and continentally, that aim to protect the mining community rights?

LR, MS

Effectiveness What was achieved in relation to the project objectives and each of the project’s intended outcomes and results? Specifically in terms of: Ensuring that a majority of IANRA members and participating

communities, will have deepened their understanding of mineral resources (& related) policy, national, regional and continental government processes, and enhanced their policy analysis skills.

Ensuring that local community members are knowledgeable and supportive of strategies to protect their land and livelihood rights.

Ensuring that a majority of IANRA members as a whole as well as the 5 national groupings in the 5 implementing countries have strengthened their capacities in terms of enhanced community engagement & organising, inclusive decision making based on community defined development modalities, and greater understanding of extractive industries, promoting human rights, sharing a common strategy for supporting local communities to protect their rights, and engaging with key policy makers around mineral governance and human rights.

Ensuring that key policymakers from at least 5 African countries, regional and continental bodies have greater understanding of problems faced by communities and countries related to mineral resource policies and their impacts on inclusive development and human rights. And ensuring that the MML project is having a positive development influence through affecting company and government behaviour in the development of policies, laws and safeguards, which are implemented?

Ensuring strengthened relationships with key policy makers and allied

FS, NFSC, LR, MS

Page 4 of 15

organisations and alliances.

What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives (descriptive)?

How can IANRA improve its effectiveness in case of future programmes?

Efficiency How well were project funds, personnel, and other resources managed and used to achieve project results? Specifically how: Did the IANRA Secretariat and AA NL help or hinder project

management and achievements? Did the project implementation group help or hinder project

management and achievements? Did having dedicated staff funded by the project for each partner

relate to results? Do areas of significant expenditure link to key programme

results/outputs? How well did financial systems work to ensure partners had funds on

time and could meet their agreed funding match?

LR, FR, FS, NFSC

Impact What type of lasting gendered changes (impacts), both intended and unintended, has the project achieved and how do they relate to the project’s overall and specific objective of IANRA becoming a strong network representing its member CSOs and their constituencies of vulnerable communities taking action on mineral resources legislation and policy at regional and continental level?

What difference has the project made to local communities?

What difference has the project made to the implementing partner organisations and their national groupings in at least each of the 5 partner countries?

What difference has the project made to the relationships IANRA members, IANRA Secretariat, project partners and local communities have with key policy makers?

Are the outcomes and results likely to result in achievement of the overall and specific objective?

How do the changes relate to IANRA’s vision and theory of change (see Annex 1)? What are the lessons, especially in terms of:

strengthening community organization, understanding, consciousness and capacity?

bringing greater clarity to the meaning to locally defined and principled development paradigms (sustainable development and alternatives) in the use of natural resources

Developing the local organized voice of communities to inform policy and legislation that is reflective of locally defined and principled development paradigms

ensuring accountable and community directed support by civil society organizations

FS, NFSC, LR, MS

Page 5 of 15

Sustainability What project benefits/changes are likely to continue once the project ends including:

What is likely to happen to the IANRA network members, local communities (and its organizational structures),and the IANRA Secretariat once the project ends?

What is likely to happen to the Model Mining Legislation, any related policy changes, its adoption, domestication and promotion?

FS, NFSC, LR, MS

EU value added and coherence

An assessment of the extent to which project results allow the EU and partner countries to achieve its development policy objectives without contradiction with other EU policies.

LR

5. MethodologyThe methodology for collecting data builds from the objectives, criteria and key questions set out in the terms of reference (ToR), information from an initial document review and inception discussions with IANRA and AA NL staff.

Primary sources will be: Internal documents of IANRA and the MML project, progress reports and minutes of meetings, External documents of IANRA: reports of events and publications, Interviews or participation in meetings/workshops/discussions by staff of IANRA member organisations.

Secondary sources will be: Interviews or participation in meetings/workshops/discussions by external stakeholders of IANRA (members organisations, targeted policy policymakers, CSO colleagues, etc.)

The exact methodology(ies) for the evaluation will be defined together with the external evaluator, but at least the approach chosen should include participatory methods that allow reflection of different views and perspectives, and triangulation. Additionally the following data collection approaches can be considered:

1. Inception discussions with IANRA and AA NL staff.2. Desk-top literature review of existing documents (project description, progress reports,

meetings reports, project baseline documents).3. Key informant interviews (KII) targeting policy makers from government and mining

companies. We have draft surveys available that were designed for baseline purposes. Key informants include actors at local, national and continental level.

4. Focus Group Discussions (FGD) which ensures space for collecting gendered data.5. Conducting 2 in-country field studies in Eldoret, Kenya and Mhondongori community in

Zvishavane, Zimbabwe. The output of the evaluation should be relevant (mainly for future organising or advocacy efforts) for the communities and methodologies used should be as participatory as possible. With budget and time constraints, the evaluation team is only able to do in-depth fieldwork in two countries. The field studies will be led by the consultant and address the questions marked with FS (field studies) in Table 1. The studies will be tailored to the situation in each country but are likely to involve a mix of literature review, key informant interviews (KII), and focus groups discussions (FGD). Interview guides, and a framework for the literature review will be developed by the evaluator in April 2016. The field studies will be done in May 2016. See table 2 below for an outline of the various roles & responsibilities for the field studies. See Table 5 below for a tentative planning schedule.

6. Conducting IANRA member surveys. These include:1. Capturing the views of the 3-non-imlpementing countries. Project staff from the

project countries where a field study is not undertaken (Angola, DRC, South Africa) will be interviewed and will be asked to provide a list of key informants for the consultants

Page 6 of 15

to interview either by Skype or phone. The types of informants and criteria for their selection are provided in table 4.

2. Capturing the views of a wider number of IANRA members. They will be invited to complete a simple member survey. The results will help provide views on network benefits, as well as the status/health of the network.

7. This process of collecting data will be carried out from April- to June 2016 and dates can be arranged to suit the situation in each country as long as they fit within this timescale. Once the list of stakeholders has been agreed for a country, dates will be finalised with the partner project officer so the project officer can organise a time slot for interviewing each informant. Interview guides for each type of stakeholder will be developed once this inception report is agreed with AA NL, IANRA and each of the partners.

8. If time and planning allows the evaluator can join the MML multi-stakeholder conference and MML launch in the week of 25 April, to start the data collection process, e.g. interview IANRA members, project partners, case study community reps, as well as continental policy makers.

9. Webinars can be organized during the evaluation process for collecting feedback, validating findings, and discussing conclusions and recommendations before the consultant begins drafting the final evaluation report that is due July 15th.

Table 2: Roles and responsibilities for field studiesPerson/organisation

Responsibilities

Consultant Key tasks Lead country field study Read key country partner project documentation and relevant external

literature on the country Liaise with AA NL and IANRA project coordinators and the partner project

officers to develop a list of key informants and agree the processes to use to involve various stakeholders including local community members, network members, local or national policy makers; and ensure that informants are contacted and invited to participate in a specific evaluation process.

Agree the key focus of each process with the partner project officer e.g. to learn

- What was achieved? What helped?- What big difference (s) has it made and to whom?- What are the challenges/constraints? What hindered?- What would you do differently in the future? Interview key informants and complete other data collection processes. In the

week of 25 April, the evaluator can possibly use the MML MSC and launch in Nairobi as an opportunity to collect face-to-face data.

Possibly facilitate a validation workshop with community and project members to share evaluation findings and draw conclusions and make recommendations.

Debrief with partner project officer and IANRA and AA NL project coordinators by Skype to discuss emerging findings and adapt questions and areas of investigation as necessary for possible follow up and clarification

Analyse and summarise data from country field study Share learning and findings during a possible partner webinar in June Ensure field study findings are reflected in final evaluation report

Key outputs Summary findings sheets as presented and validated at in-country workshops

Page 7 of 15

Input into the final evaluation report Partner project officer

Review and agree methodology and expected outputs for each field study, including ensuring the end result of the evaluation is useful to the community

Discuss and agree on processes to use and informants to interview and involve in KIIs, FGDs and the validation workshop

Ensure participants or informants are invited per an agreed schedule Arrange logistics e.g. transport, hotels, meeting rooms (budget is provided for

by AA NL) Provide project documentation

AA NL & IANRA project coordinators

Review and agree methodology and expected outputs for each field study Prepare basic data and information prior to field visits using templates

provided by the consultants Discuss issues and lessons emerging post field work Share any relevant information or knowledge related to each field study Provide feedback on summary field study findings

Table 3: Key informants for country field studies Category Informants to includePartner staff from ZELA and CRF/KeNRA

2 staff: one staff person per organisation that has been most involved in the project coordination over the three years; additionally one staff person who has done most of the work at field level in case this is another person than the overall project coordinator.

Local community members

Case study representative, Men, women and youth representatives in the case study community

National Grouping members

Members of the National Grouping

Government & company officials

Officials that the partner organization and or local community has engaged with most actively

Other stakeholders that engaged with the IANRA network

Will depend on the country. Might include: Coordinators of other coalitions or CSOs that work on similar issues Traditional authorities that are not involved in the network but connected to the

local communities involved with the network. Representative(s) of other donor funded civil society, governance initiatives in

country

Table 4: Key informants for 3 non-field study countries, but implementing countriesCategory Number of informants and criteria for selection Partner staff from ASADHO, BMF, DW

3 staff: one staff person per organisation that has been most involved in the project over the three years; additionally one staff person who has done the most work at field level in case this is another person than the overall project coordinator.

Network members (other than 5 implementing partners

All IANRA members

Page 8 of 15

listed above)IANRA Secretariat

IANRA project Coordinator (Tafadzwa Kuvheya) and IANRA network coordinator (Anne Mayher)

Continental policy makers

Key continental policy makers IANRA Secretariat and project members have engaged with most actively. NB so in the 3 implementing countries where field studies will not be conducted, we will NOT interview govt & company stakeholders. We only interview company and governmental representatives in the 2 field study countries (at local and/or national level) and at continental level.

6. Products & evaluators Type of output: written report of max 35 pages. See Annex 4 for a suggested Table of Content for

this report, including an indication for number of pages per section. Language: English. If budget allows, the final report will be translated by AA NL in French.

AA NL welcomes proposals by 17 April from evaluators who: Have proven experience in conducting similar research and final evaluations of multi-country,

multi-lingual policy advocacy work within a network setting (including process facilitation). Are available and accessible in the evaluation period. Have an inspiring and realistic proposal in terms of methodologies, planning and budget; Are pleasant to cooperate with. Experience with evaluations of EC projects is desirable. Knowledge on the Extractives sector, related policy context, and company-government-

community engagement is desirable. French language skills are desirable as one of the implementing project partners is French-

speaking (DRC).

Selection process:This Terms of Reference will be sent to evaluators IANRA has worked with before, but will also be disseminated publicly through various channels. Interested evaluators are requested to send a short letter of interest (maximum 3 pages) setting out their main suggestions for methodology, as well as major feedback on this ToR –especially on evaluation questions and how to collect data from all stakeholders within the designated timeframe, complemented with a planning schedule, budget and the following:- CV or portfolio clearly presenting experience in conducting final evaluations, and- One or two previous evaluation reports- References to two or three previous clients- Indication of code of ethics the evaluator ascribes to

Based on the proposals received, AA NL will offer a service contract. Selection criteria will be a combination of the considerations mentioned above. The presentation needs to be explicit about the evaluation approach, planning as well as costs.

7. PlanningBelow follows a tentative planning. The exact activities during implementation of the evaluation depend on the final plan; the activities mentioned here are indicative. Deadlines ( in bold print) however, are final. The Final draft evaluation report needs to be finished by late June so that it can be discussed and validated in the first week of July 2016. After this, the final version can be written and should be ready by July 15th.Table 5. tentative planning schedule

No. When What Who

Page 9 of 15

1. 17 April Deadline letters of interest Evaluators2. 18 April Candidates shortlist selected AA NL

procurement Committee

3. 20 April Evaluator selected, contract signed and evaluation plan finalised

RW, Evaluator, PIC

4. 23-30 April MML Multi-stakeholder & launch meeting in Nairobi, Kenya. If time allows, the consultant can join this meeting and start collecting data.

RW, evaluator

5. 20-30 April desk study Evaluator6. May Data collection, including 2 field visits to Kenya &

ZimbabweEvaluator

7. 26 May 1st draft written and shared with AA NL, PIC and IANRA SC

Evaluator

8. 12 June AA NL, PIC, 2 case study communities (CSC) -possibly through in-country validation workshops or through webinars- , and SC give feedback on first draft

AA NL, PIC, 2 CSCs, SC

9. June Building on first data and feedback (includes triangulation)

Evaluator

10. 26 June 2nd draft written and shared with AA NL, PIC and IANRA SC, with live presentation of findings at the AA NL office in Amsterdam/or IANRA Secretariat in Johannesburg

Evaluator

11. 7 July AA NL, PIC, SC give feedback on 2nd draft AA NL, PIC, SC12. 15 July Final report Evaluator13. End July Debriefing Evaluator & AA NL

8. Finances

The indicative budget for the final evaluation includes: 20-25 consultancy days, material and travel costs. Shortlisted evaluators will be asked to present a budget as part of their proposal, indicating number of days per activity proposed, honorarium, and direct costs. Payment arrangements to be agreed upon signing of contract.

9. Contact details

Rosemarie Wuite, Sr. Programme Officer AA NLRosemarie.wuite@actionaid.org; +31 2052106210, or mobile: +31 615965886

10. List of Annexes

Annex 1: IANRA’s strategic frameworkAnnex 2: Summary of the Model Mining Legislation (MML) projectAnnex 3- logframe MML projectAnnex 4 : Suggested Table of Content Final Evaluation report

Annex 1: IANRA’s strategic framework

Page 10 of 15

Annex 2: Summary of the Model Mining Legislation (MML) project

Title of the project: Natural Resources ARE for Development: An inclusive dialogue on good governance in the minerals sector in Sub-Saharan Africa

Location of the action: Sub-Saharan Africa: Key implementing countries: Angola, DRC, Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, but additionally through IANRA network activities the following member countries participated in the project: Ghana, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia.

Partners of the project: ActionAid Nederland (AA NL); lead grants manager/international fund holder, International Alliance on Natural Resources in Africa (IANRA); lead coordinator and implementing partner, plus 5 country-implementing partners: Coast Rights Forum (CRF)in the name of IANRA-Kenya, Association Africaine de Defense des Droits de l'Homme (ASADHO). In English: African Association for the Defence of Human Rights), (in the name of IANRA-DRC), Benchmarks Foundation (in the name of IANRA-South Africa), Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (in the name of IANRA-Zimbabwe), Development Workshop (in the name of IANRA-Angola).

Overall objectives:

Specific objective:

Good governance in the minerals sector in Africa which ensures accountability, contributes to inclusive and sustainable growth and development, and protects human rights.A strong IANRA network representing its member CSOs and their constituencies of vulnerable communities taking action on mineral resources legislation and policy at regional and continental level.

Result areas R1: Development of a system and methodology for IANRA and members to use in multi-stakeholder policy formulation, monitoring and advocacy on mineral resources legislation and policy. R2: IANRA and at least 5 of its national networks have established relationships and structured dialogue with national, regional and continental policy and decisionmakers. R3: Key policymakers from at least 5 African countries, regional and continental bodies have greater understanding of problems faced by communities and countries related to mineral

Page 11 of 15

resource policies and their impacts on inclusive development and human rights. R4: Development of an African model law on mineral resources and related policies that ensures the protection and promotion of human rights and inclusive development of the most vulnerable in Africa. R5: A majority of IANRA CSOs and participating communities, will have deepened their understanding of mineral resources (& related) policy, national, regional and continental government processes, and enhanced their policy analysis skills.

Key activities Development of case studies & synthesis report on impact of current legislative framework & corporate practices on communities & resulting advocacy plans; Meetings (awareness raising, consultation, advocacy) with national/continental policymakers & corporate sector; Meetings/workshops of network & other target groups for capacity building, planning & review); Media campaign; Multi-stakeholder conference; Establish multi-stakeholder committee to develop model law; Model law; Policy reviews; Development of guide on legal framework & policies.

Target groups The IANRA network: 25 CSO members in 9 countries in Africa, AA NL and network Secretariat; 9 national IANRA networks representing approx 150 CSOs. Advocacy targets include policy and government, inter-governmental and corporate decisionmakers.

Final beneficiaries People (rights holders) in Africa -whose fundamental rights are impacted by large mineral resources investments- who will benefit from changes to the mineral law, accountable developmental States, and more just corporate practices.

Budget, funders, project timeframe

1.3 mln EUR, European Commission, Ford Foundation, Dutch ministry of Foreign Affairs, ActionAid UK.Implementation period: 26 July 2013-25 July 2016

Annex 3- logframe MML project

Below you will find the MML project’s project’s objectives and expected result areas. Orange: these results refer to the overall context/impactGreen: refers to results at IANRA network and Secretariat level

Page 12 of 15

Purple: refers to results at company levelLight blue: refers to results at community levelRed: refers to results at implementing partner organisation level

Objectively verifiable indicators

Overall objective

Good governance in the minerals sector in Africa which ensures accountability and contributes to inclusive and sustainable growth and development, and protects human rights.

Evidence of new legislation or policies on mineral resource exploitation that safeguards interests of poorest communities produced by African governments.

Companies involved in mineral resource exploitation incorporate strategies to protect human rights and development of communities

Specific objective

A strong IANRA network representing its member CSOs and their constituencies of vulnerable groups and communities taking action on mineral resources legislation and policy at regional and continental level.

National networks and their member CSOs (up to 150) use the IANRA secretariat on regular basis # of interactions between members and IANRA secretariat for policy and advocacy support# of IANRA advocacy and policy actions at regional and continental level

Expected results Objectively verifiable indicators ActivitiesRESULT 1: IANRA will have developed and implemented a system and methodology for multi-stakeholder policy formulation, monitoring and advocacy on mineral resources legislation and policy, ensuring the full participation of affected communities (especially women).

# of communities reached by partners/IANRA networks who participate fully in case studies on mineral resource exploitation

# of women from participating communities taking part in case studies

Policy formulation methodology used by majority of IANRA network members by end of Yr 3

Each IANRA national network produces an advocacy plan based on case study.

1a) Annual participants' meeting (including inception meeting in year 1)1b) Development and implementation of 5 case studies1c) Analysis and synthesis of case studies, including at meetings of various stakeholders1d) Case study synthesis report

RESULT 2: IANRA, including at least 5 of the 10 national networks, in close cooperation with the 5 case study communities and other communities, will have established relationships and

At least two meetings with regional officials (SADC, COMESA) on mineral resource exploitation per year organised by IANRA

Each participating network establishes constructive

2a) Annual informational/input/advocacy meetings with regional policymakers2b) Meetings with private sector actors2c) Attendance at AU

Page 13 of 15

structured dialogue with national, regional and continental policy makers, with a specific focus on regional and continental levels (e.g. ACHPR, PAP), SADC and COMESA).

dialogue with mineral resource companies in their country.

IANRA establishes MOU for structured dialogue with AU bodies and bi-annual meetings held.

meetings/sessions2d) Structured Dialogue with AU Bodies

RESULT 3: Key policy makers from at least 5 countries and regional/continental bodies, including the AU’s ACHPR and the Pan African Parliament (PAP), will have greater understanding of problems faced by communities and countries related to mineral resource policies and their impacts on inclusive development and human rights .

1advocacy action in Yrs 2 and 3 by IANRA partners/networks in 5 countries with government officials on mineral resource exploitation

Government officials demonstrate greater understanding of problems of communities through use of case study evidence and requests for further interaction with IANRA

Multi-stakeholder conference attended by all national and regional stakeholders

1 Media campaign in each of 5 countries

3a) Awareness-raising meetings with AU & national policymakers3b) Media campaign to raise general public awareness3c) International Multi-stakeholder Conference regarding the case study/policy analysis findings & the resulting model law/policies.

RESULT 4: IANRA and various stakeholders will have developed an African model law on mineral resources and related policies that ensures the protection and promotion of human rights and inclusive development of the most vulnerable in Africa.

Model law developed and distributed by end of Yr 2.

IANRA networks & govt/regional/continental stakeholders play active part in its development.

4a) Establish Multi-stakeholder Working Committee to give input to model law/policies4b) Policy, legislation review (& review of similar initiatives)4c) CSOs & policymakers co-develop & evaluate the methodology/plan for development of the model law & policies4d) Policy review meetings with multiple stakeholders

RESULT 5: A majority of IANRA members and its 10 national networks, including at least the 5 case study communities, will have deepened understanding of mineral resource (& related) policy content, governmental (local, national, regional, continental) officials, and processes, as well as regulatory instruments and mechanisms and enhanced policy analysis skills.

# of IANRA networks and member organisations who request and use Policy Guide on national, regional and continental legislation and policy related to mineral resources

# of policy interactions/advocacy actions at CSO member level with government/mineral resource companies/communities

5a) Capacity building with IANRA members (research, advocacy, monitoring, etc)5b) Develop a guide on national, regional & continental legal frameworks & policies 5c) Distribute policy guide (5b) & hold workshops at local & national levels5d) Annual national network meetings to share knowledge, review policy content etc

Page 14 of 15

5e) Final review meeting of IANRA network

Annex 4: Proposed Table of Content Final Evaluation Report MML project1. Summary & main conclusions (2p)2. Introduction (1/2p)3. Background and reasons for evaluation (1/2p)4. Methodology used (1p)5. Limitations (1/2p)6. Answering the evaluation questions (15p)

a. Contextb. Relevancec. Effectivessd. Etc.

7. Conclusions (2p)8. Recommendations (2p)9. Annexes

a. Terms of Referenceb. Sourcesc. List of interviewsd. (If relevant) Summaries of evaluation activities such as meetings

Page 15 of 15