BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Building Opportunities for Resilience in the Horn of Africa (BORESHA) is a 3-year program funded by the European Union (EU) Trust Fund for Africa. The program is being implemented by a consortium of partners namely, Danish Refugee Council (DRC) which is the lead partner, CARE Deutschland-Luxemburg e.V. (CARE), World Vision UK (WVUK) and WYG International Limited (WYG). The consortium is united by the overall vision of building resilient communities in the Horn of Africa through cross-border programming. This program seeks to achieve the following objectives:
Creating greater economic and employment opportunities; and
Strengthening resilience of communities.
The program seeks to achieve these objectives through the following broad intervention areas:
Strengthening cross-border communities’ capacities to identify their own priorities, plan and advocate for measures to help them withstand shocks;
Promoting the development of inclusive cross-border environment for livestock and non-livestock trade and business, and fostering private sector opportunities for women and young people;
Supporting the equitable and conflict sensitive management of natural resources in the cross-border area.
The program is also aligned with the Valletta Action Plan priority domain (1) the development benefits of migration and addressing root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement. Furthermore, it is contributing to the IGAD agenda under its Drought Disaster Resilience Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI), in particularly Priority Intervention Areas 2 (Market Access, Trade and Financial Services), 3 (Livelihood Support and Basic Social Services), and 4 (Disaster Risk Management, Preparedness and Effective Response), and also seeks to ensure its outcomes contribute to the wider aims of the Kenya Government’s Ending Drought Emergencies agenda, as well as complementing the resilience-building work of the HSNP and Ethiopia’s PSNP.Geographically, the program covers locations around the Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopian boarder namely: Mandera County in Kenya; Dolo Ado and Dolobay Woreda in Somali Regional State in Ethiopia, and Belet Xawa and Dolo districts in Gedo region of Somalia.
PURPOSE
The overall objective of the study survey is to baseline / benchmark the project indicators and have a better understanding of the operational environment and existing priorities in the targeted areas of intervention. Data and information emanating therefrom is expected to inform the planning and implementation process including potential redesign of activities as well as the design of the monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) systems. The specific objectives of the baseline study are as follows:
Provide a broad analysis of border dynamics around the Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia boarder to understand the dynamics and driving factors around movement of people, livestock, goods, services and trade across the borders. Specifically, the analysis will look at movements through the formal and informal channels / routes, the determinant factors in selecting movement routes, challenges associated with these different routes and general / brief on issues around how cross border traders are dealing with different currencies from the three countries.
specifically looking at socio cultural beliefs and practices that have a high influence in gendered livelihoods activities and resilience opportunities.
To have a general top-line understanding of the existing and potential livelihood and income opportunities available and / or utilized by the different population groups (i.e. male, female or poor, middle, and better-off) or any other group/s that may exist and relevant for disaggregation.
To have a brief / general understanding of the enabling and hindrance factors for livestock insurance in relation to key players, community perceptions, and levels of access to insurance.
To provide a top -line / broad understanding on how existing regulation and cross-border agreements (formal and informal) around movement of people, goods, and services have / or are impacting trade and sharing of strategic natural resources (pasture and water) across the three countries, especially for communities living around the boarders.
To provide a reference point / baseline the specific indicators for the program and where appropriate, recommend adjustments for project targets where necessary based on the baseline findings (more details on the indicators given on table 1, in section 3.1) and top-line strategic recommendations on targeting, possible revision of indicators, project / program MEL and Accountability.
Identify potential learning areas (and top-line learning approaches) where consortium partners can systematically collect and review data on a regular basis for continuous learning and improvement both for the project and in future programming of a similar nature.
To provide quantitative statistics which will be used as starting points for subsequent qualitative and participatory studies scheduled within the project: The priority studies to be carried out during the first year include: Mapping of shared Natural Resources, Livestock Value Chain Analysis, Vulnerability Analysis, and Labor Market Assessment.
KEY RESPONSIBILITIESScope of studyThe baseline study will take place at three levels: i.e. at a regional level (cross boarder points in Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia and the regional / district administrative levels in the three countries), at community level and at household level.
Macro level analysis (general outlook along the Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopian boarder):The analysis at the macro level will mainly focus on qualitative methodologies mainly document review, and key informant interviews with project staffs from BORESHA and RASMI consortiums, KII / FGD with cross-border traders, KII with local leaders and IGAD (if possible). This analysis will be and will be looking at boarder dynamics and movement of people, goods and services, specifically around the border region, the baseline survey will mainly be looking at existing regulatory frameworks that are likely to impact on the intended outcomes and outputs for cross-border programming and specifically looking at movement of people, goods and services across the borders. Historical and recent statistics around movement of people and goods at the boarder will be obtained from Key Informant Interviews and document reviews (if available) to facilitate trend analysis. The key questions / areas where the macro level analysis will focus on include:
What are the main drivers of livelihood or economic activity related movements among population groups across the boarders?
What are the existing formal and informal requirements / regulations that govern these movements?
Who are the key players in regulation enforcement and what is their role?
What goods, services and skills are usually moved across the formal borders / routes and why?
What goods, services and skills are usually moved across the informal borders / routes and why?
What existing natural resources are shared by the communities in the three countries and how are these resources shared? Who controls / regulates access to these resources?
How is cross-border trade affected by the fact that Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia use different currencies, i.e. Kenya Shilling, US Dollar and Ethiopian Birr? How do these traders deal with any challenges associated with trading in different currencies?
What are the potential learning areas (related to cross-border programming, especially in insecure environments) that require regular and consistent monitoring, analysis and reporting / dissemination?
Regional outlook as per the administrative boundaries in the three different countries.
The analysis will mainly be done through qualitative methods focusing on document review (livelihood / economic strategies from the different administrative units, other publications / literature from livelihood / resilience actors, IGAD, e.t.c) and Key Informant Interviews (KII) with departmental heads from relevant government ministries / departments, representatives of institutions (private, communal, non-governmental, e.t.c) that provide different livelihood support to the communities in the respective administrative regions, community leaders from selected villages / locations and project staffs from BORESHA consortium.This analysis will briefly look at the broad outlook of Mandera county (Kenya), Somali region of Ethiopia (Ethiopia) and Gedo region (Somalia) with more attention on the district / sub county / sub regional administrative units covered by the program.Besides having a general understanding of the livelihood and income opportunities, this outlook will broadly look at availability, accessibility and capacities of existing institutions (government, non-governmental, communal or private) to provide the communities with services ranging from: extension, supply of inputs, veterinary, loans, livestock insurance, skill development, access to markets, conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.
At this level, the baseline will specifically:
Map out areas considered pure pastoralist, agro-pastoralist, pure agriculture and other livelihood strategies, giving general / broad characteristics of households practicing these different livelihoods / income opportunities.
Broadly seek to understand the different sources of livelihoods / income opportunities (economic activities) preferred and those available for households in the different administrative regions / sub regions.
What are the available resources for these livelihoods to thrive and what gaps needs to be addressed?
What institutions / associations (government, non-governmental, communal, private, e.t.c.) exist and what kind of services / support do they provide to boost livelihoods / economic opportunities?
How sustainable are these services accessible to the local population to boost livelihoods / income opportunities in the areas / locations of interest?
Consolidate a seasonal calendar around livelihood and economic activities as well as a general understanding on household expenditure patters (i.e. how do household expenditure priorities differ from month to month)?
What are the different livelihood related shocks experienced in the last 3 – 5 years?
What was the impact of these shocks for the communities and how did the community cope?
What are the current adoptive capacities for communities and households in relation to these shocks?
What are the traditional and scientific early warning signs that give an indication to possible occurrence of these shocks / disasters?
What are the general coping mechanisms currently employed by households in dealing with these livelihood related shocks (distinction to be made in relation to the different livelihood strategies)?
What is the overall impact (at community and at household) for each of these coping mechanisms?
Are there community-based mechanisms / structures to help or support the most vulnerable members in the societies?
What are the existing local capacities (local actors, CBOs, local networks, e,t,c,) for resilience programming?
Household and community (village level) outlook.
The analysis at the community and household level will be focusing mainly on quantitative (household surveys / interviews) using probability-based sampling methodologies. The household survey will seek to quantify information required to baseline the indicators given in table 1 below. There will also be qualitative methodologies mainly FGDs with selected groups in the communities: men, women, youth, and members of specific groups of interest / associations that exist within the communities (such as VSLA, NRM committees, DRR committees, traders associations). In addition, Key Informant Interviews will also be conducted with community resource persons (e.g. community leaders) to get a general overview of resilience and livelihood opportunities at the village level.
The analysis at this level will specifically be looking at:
General household demographics, through the household survey.
Livelihood / economic activities and spending patterns and quantification done through the household survey.
Household and community productive assets, different levels of access and control of these assets according to gender, age, and other disaggregation factors identified during the upper levels of analysis.
Further qualitative investigations will be made at community level (through FGDs and discussion with village level key informants) to understand the specific factors (enablers and challenges) that have could affect program delivery and realization / achievement of intended results.
Further analysis will also be made according to geographical locations and livelihood groups.
Summarized information required for baselining indicators:Baselining the indicators will utilize information collected and analyzed at the different levels highlighted above. The indicators and general definition / information requirements is given in table 1 below, which is expected to guide the process of designing the baseline methodology, sample selection and the accompanying tools. A snapshot of the expected methodology for planning and executing the baseline survey will be given in section 3.3 below
Table 1: Specific M&E information to answer questions around indicators.Indicator Information to be collected Level and methodology
Overall objective:To promote economic development and greater resilience, particularly among vulnerable groups, including youth, women, displaced persons and persons living with disabilitiesIndicator
Mean monthly income of HHs in targeted communities
Information to be collected
Average and median income (monthly and annually considering production seasons not calendar year), disaggregated by the different livelihoods and economic activities.
Level and methodology
At household level (H/H survey),
The seasons and livelihood / economic activities will be defined using information from the macro analysis.
Indicator% decrease in number of HH applying negative coping strategies to deal with stressors in the target communitiesInformation to be collected
Average and median CSI (contextual CSI, for food and livelihoods related shocks) as a baseline and then subsequent measurements to measure changes in % H/Hs that have a CSI falling below the median CSI recorded during baseline.
Level and methodology
At household level (H/H survey),
The coping strategies and their weights to be defined by observations made during macro analysis.
Outcome 1:Communities along the Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopian boarder are more resilient and better prepared for shocks, and response is more effective.Indicator
# of community associations (especially farming and pastoral) know the early warning signs and know what to do in case of an emergency or disaster
Information to be collected
Mapping out existing community associations (farming and pastoral) and assessing the capacities of members to understand their level of awareness on early warning indicators / signs and how to respond.
Level and methodology
At community level (FGDs / interviews) with members of mapped / identified community associations.
Traditional early warning signs can be identified through KII with project staffs and relevant technical experts in the regions.Indicator
# of DRRM plans funded or integrated in local development plans (LED; CIDP) by targeting, costing/budgeting, and implementation
Information to be collected
The total number of Community based DRR plans (and EWS monitoring activities) whose activities have been funded or have been integrated into the regional / district level plans by the relevant authorities in the 3 countries.
Level and methodology
Key informant interviews with the relevant line ministries / departments at regional / district levels and information confirmed / triangulated via FGDs at community level.
Indicator
Proportion of shocks “well managed” by the target communities during the project
Information to be collected
Number of experienced recurrent shocks where households employed coping mechanisms with less severe consequences with respect to the total number of recently experienced shocks (period of 3 years).
Level and methodology
Recently experienced shocks will be identified and defined during the KIIs at regional / district level and triangulated with KIIs and FGDs at community / village level. Information will be quantified using the household survey at household level.
IndicatorNumber of livestock-dependent households protected by insuranceInformation to be collected
Total number of (agro) pastoral households whose livestock are insured with respect to the total number of (agro) pastoral households.
Level and methodology
The core livestock breeds normally insured (e.g. camel, cattle, shoats, e.t.c) will be determined during the macro analysis (document review
KII with the relevant livestock departments, and project staffs) and triangulated at household level with the H/H survey and community FGDs.
Outcome 2:Individuals and communities are more self-reliant through increased skills and opportunities for cross-border employment, diversified enterprise and livelihoods.
Indicator
Increase in number of livelihood resources being used by households
Information to be collected
Positive change in the utilization of different sources of livelihoods, the scale in which they are applied and sustainability / consistence in these livelihoods.
Level and methodology
At household level (H/H survey).
The different sources of livelihoods and strategies (traditional / modern) of sustaining these livelihoods will be defined during the macro level analysis.Indicator% increase in revenues of the target HHs
Information to be collected
Different sources of household income / revenue and the overall household average and median revenues / income (monthly and annually).
Level and methodology
At household level (H/H survey),
The household sources of income / revenues will be defined using information from the macro analysis.
Analysis will include comparing the different beneficiary groups, livelihood strategies, gender of household heads / principle providers and other vulnerability indicators.
Indicator
% of individuals describing better health and lower rates of attrition amongst their herds compared to baseline
Information to be collected
(Agro) pastoral households confirm absence of physically visible negative health parameters in their core livestock breeds or can find the necessary / required treatment.
Level and methodology
Household level (H/H survey).
The common livestock species and easy to look for specific livestock body conditions (on livestock health / disease) will be given defined during the macro level analysis (document reviews and KIIs with livestock experts who also understand the region) and the information will be further triangulated with village level KIIs and FGDs).
Indicator
% of HHs in targeted communities getting better results from their SMEs
Information to be collected
Households with SMEs reporting overall improvement in the business performance indicators with respect to the overall number of households with SMEs.
Comparison will be made according to households benefiting from SME support versus those that did not receive this support but have SMEs.
Level and methodology
At household level (H/H survey) targeting specifically SME beneficiaries.
Business performance indicators will be defined during macro level analysis through KIIs with relevant government departments and project staffs focusing on SME / business development outputs. These indicators may include: financial / capital indicators (assets, revenues / business income, access to business financing, cash flows, margins), market availability, labor / skills availability, e.t.c.
Indicator
% of VSLAs self-reporting an increase in household income
Information to be collected
Households with members in Village Savings and Loans Associations / groups (VSLAs) who perceive increase in income and attribute it to their membership in the VSLAs.
Level and methodology
Household level (H/H survey). Specific issues affecting VSLAs can be investigated through village level FGDs with VSLA members.
Indicator
Number of women and youth who are able to access jobs and/or business opportunities within 12 months of graduating
Information to be collected
Women and youth beneficiaries of skills development have been able to utilize their skills to access / exploit employment / business opportunities within 12 months after graduating.
Level and methodology
At a macro level; Review of post training follow up reports. Project staffs dealing with this output will also be key informants.
Investigation on key issues affecting access (lack of) to employment / business opportunities will be done through FGDs with the specific beneficiaries at community level.
Indicator
Number of interviewees reporting changes from the community infrastructure established / rehabilitated, supporting cross border employment / diversified enterprise and livelihoods
Information to be collected
Households benefiting from the different components of the program reporting (perceiving) positive impact on their livelihoods / opportunities from the different project components.
Level and methodology
At household level (H/H survey).
Specific factors affecting the changes / or lack of will be investigated through village level FGDs and KIIs.
Indicator
Increase in cross-border employment opportunities (as reported by individuals against baseline)
Information to be collected
Beneficiary households reporting employment opportunities (perception).
Level and methodology
At household level (H/H survey). Specific factors affecting the changes / or lack of will be investigated through village level FGDs and KIIs.
Outcome 3:Cross-border rangeland and other shared natural resources are more equitably and sustainably managed.
Indicator
% change in land area rehabilitated and managed for communal use
Information to be collected
Increase in the overall land rehabilitated and utilized for livestock and economic production;
Potential areas of disaggregation are looking at communal versus non-communal land.
Level and methodology
Key informant interviews with project staffs, livestock departments and natural resources management.
Indicator
# of natural resource management committees reporting increased productivity due to land management practices
Information to be collected
The number of NRM Committees who perceive that the overall productivity and profitability due to improved land management practices.
Level and methodology
FGDs / interviews with natural resource management committee members.
KII with relevant government departments in the area of environmental conservation & natural resources management.
Indicator# of households generating income through alternative uses of invasive species
Information to be collectedHouseholds generating income from alternative use of prosopis julliflora tree.
Level and methodology
At household level (H/H survey).
More qualitative triangulations will be done through FGD at community level
Indicator
New efforts in cross-border collaboration in managing natural resources (e.g. agreements, MoUs, shared use of maps, cross-border committees, etc.)
Information to be collectedFormal and informal agreements across the boarder areas facilitating efficient use of natural resources.
Level and methodology
FGD with Tri-border trade and economic development committee;Review of existing documents (e.g. MoUs, agreements, e.t.c) that govern the Tri-border trade & economic committee.
Indicator
Proportion of households reporting improved access to water for livestock / agriculture / health & sanitation
Information to be collected
Total number of households reporting (perception) overall improvement in access to water for livestock, agriculture, health and sanitation.
Level and methodology
Household level (household survey); Triangulation to be done through KII with relevant government departments (water and natural resources) and project staffs.
Indicator
Number of schools making use of water collected from water harvesting schemes
Information to be collected
Total number of schools with functional rain water harvesting schemes (e.g. roof catchment)Level and methodology
At school level and; KII with school heads or their representatives; KII with education local level departmental heads of education.
Output level indicators will be annexed at the end of the ToR.
MethodologyThe baseline survey will include qualitative and quantitative approaches and will be done in 3 levels: looking at the situation with the lenses of the overall boarder region for the three countries, looking at situation with the lenses of the different administrative boundaries (regional / district) in the three countries reached by the program, and looking at the situation with a local lens (community and household). Primary quantitative analysis will mainly be emphasized at the local lenses through household survey and triangulation will be done through village level FGDs and village level key informants. The methodologies and top-line expectation on the respondents at the different levels is given in the table below:
Table 2: Brief highlight of data collection methodology
Analysis level
Macro level (region bordering Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia).
Data collection methodologies
Document review.
Key Informant Interviews.
Possible respondents / documents
KII with project staffs, RASMI consortium representatives, other relevant stakeholders with information regarding cross-border issues.
Project documents and previous reports / write ups on resilience & cross-border programming.
Macro level analysis:
Ethiopia (Dolo Ado & Dolobay districts).
Somalia (Belet Xawa, & Dolo).
Kenya (Mandera North, Mandera East, and Banisa districts).
Data collection methodologies
Key Informant Interviews.
Desk review.
Transect walk / observations.
Possible respondents / documents
KII with relevant heads of departments from the local administration / authorities.
Review of different regional strategies around livelihoods improvement, natural resources management and other relevant agreements for cross-border and resilience programming.
Micro-level analysis (household and community).
Data collection methodologies
Focus Group Discussions.
Key Informant Interviews
Household survey.
Possible respondents / documents
Individual project beneficiaries of the different project components (HH survey).
Project beneficiary groups (FGDs).
Community leaders / group leaders for the different project components.
Existing groups relevant to project activities.
The consultancy is expected to provide a detailed description of the methodology that is consistent with the above proposals.
Key deliverables/outputsBaseline inception report (describing)
A detailed methodology on how the specific information will be collected and analyzed making considerations for mid-term review and project evaluation.
A detailed sampling framework for location, respondents and relevant documents for review during the baseline.
A detail plan of action on quality control and overall quality assurance.
First draft of the data collection tools.
Top level work plan and the accompanying costs (financial, logistics, personnel, e.t.c.) at the different stages.
Presentation on the methodology, sampling, tools and plan of action to key stakeholders.
Report writing format.
Final baseline report:
Summary presentation of findings (power point slide).
Full version of the report (in line with the format agreed by consortium partners).
Raw data used during the baseline survey.
All relevant photos taken during the survey.
DRC AND CONSORTIUM PARTNERS’ RESPONSIBILITIESThe consortium members will provide logistical support to the consultant during data collection in their operational areas and provide overall supervision of the data collection process while the consultant will be in the field.
KEY TASKS WITH LIST OF ‘KEY ACTIVITIES’, UNDER EACH RESPONSIBILITY.The baseline survey will be a collaborative effort between consortium members, the consultant and local administration and technical representatives from government departments in the different administration units in the 3 countries (at district / regional levels).The consultant will be responsible for developing a baseline survey inception report, elaborating on the data collection methodology, analysis framework, sampling framework, quality assurance, detailed work plan (plus the accompanying costs) and a report writing format.
REPORTING ARRANGEMENTSThe consultant will report to and work closely with the BORESHA MEL Coordinator for the overall piece of work. The MEL Coordinator will be the focal point for the work and liaison between the consultant, DRC and other consortium partners. However, while in the field, the consultant will also be accountable to the base / area manager or his / her representative.
DURATION OF ASSIGNMENTThe assignment will be conducted in Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia, with the sampling done based on the locations covered by the program. The consultancy is thus expected to present a realistic and justifiable work-plan for the assignment during when expressing their interest for this assignment.
EXPECTED PROFILE OF CONSULTANT/S
Minimum academic qualification for the team leader should be a Masters Degree in a relevant livelihoods related discipline including agriculture, livestock, environment / natural resources management, agricultural economics, etc. A PHD degree is highly desirable
Minimum of 10 years demonstrable experience conducting similar or closely related consultancies for complex multi-sector and multi-year grants within the Horn of Africa region
Good understanding of cross-border issues around the Kenya, Ethiopia and Somali boarders.
Working experience on resilience and livelihoods programming, especially on pastoral / nomadic livelihoods.
Working experience in areas close to the border region of Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia is an added advantage.
Solid experience in planning and executing large scale qualitative and quantitative studies, both experimental and non-experimental (this will be a key evaluation criterion). Knowledge in the use of mobile data collecting platforms will be a definite advantage.
Excellent writing skills
Good data presentation and visualization skills
Cultural sensitivity and good gender balance within the consultancy team.
Ability and willingness to adhere to the DRC code of conduct and humanitarian principles during the assignment.
TERMS & CONDITIONS
The overall conduct of the consultant will be guided by the DRC’s code of conduct and will be accountable to the area / field base manager while in the field locations and while in the regional office in Nairobi, the consultant will adhere to the rules and regulations in place. A debrief will be given to the consultant, prior to signing the contract and picking the assignment.
