Programme & Policy

Overview

Conduct evaluations of social protection programs for indigenous peoples.

You have:

• At least 5 years of experience in evaluation of humanitarian or development projects.
• Advanced degree (master’s or higher) in Public Health, Social Sciences, or related fields.
• Experience working in or with international organizations and UN agencies.
• Strong analytical skills and experience in qualitative and quantitative data analysis.
• Fluency in both French and English, with knowledge of local languages as an asset.
• Demonstrated experience in stakeholder engagement and capacity building.

Evaluation of Improving the quality of life of indigenous people in the department of Lékoumou through improved access to social protection programmes in the Republic of Congo from January 2020 to February 2022

Decentralized Evaluation Terms of Reference

Jointly commissioned by WFP, UNICEF and WHO Republic of Congo

February 2022

Table of Contents

Table of Contents. 1

1. Background. 2

1.1. INTRODUCTION.. 2

1.2. Context. 3

2. Reasons for the evaluation. 5

2.1. Rationale. 5

2.2. Objectives. 5

2.3. Stakeholder Analysis. 6

3. Subject of the evaluation. 9

3.1. Subject of the Evaluation.. 9

4. Evaluation approach, methodology and ethical considerations. 11

4.1. Evaluation Questions and Criteria. 11

4.2. Evaluation Approach and Methodology. 14

4.3. Evaluability assessment. 16

4.4. Ethical Considerations. 17

4.5. Quality Assurance. 18

5. Organization of the evaluation. 19

5.1. Phases and Deliverables. 19

5.2. Evaluation Team Composition.. 22

5.3. Roles and Responsibilities. 24

5.4 Security Considerations. 25

5.5. Communication.. 25

5.6. Budget. 26

Annex 1: Map of Lekoumou and its Districts where SDG Funds are Implemented. 27

Annex 2: Timeline. 28

Annex 3: Role and Composition of the Evaluation Committee. 32

Annex 4: Role and Composition of the Evaluation Reference Group. 34

Annex 5: Communication and Knowledge Management Plan. 1

Annex 6: Logical Framework. 1

Annex 6: Outputs. 4

Annex 7: Theory of Change. 4

Annex 8: Bibliography. 5

Annex 9: Acronyms. 6

Annex 10: Gender Marker Score. 7

Annex 11: Evaluation Managers. 8

1. Background

1.1. INTRODUCTION

1. These Terms of Reference (TOR) are for the final evaluation of the joint programme on Social Protection for the Sustainable Development Goals (SP4SDGs) in Republic of Congo: Improving the quality of life of indigenous peoples in the Department of Lékoumou through improved access to social protection programmes in the Republic of Congo. This activity evaluation is commissioned by three UN agencies in the Republic Congo; World Food Programme (WFP), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organization (WHO). The evaluation will cover the period from January 2020 to February 2022. The scope of the evaluation is the national social protection system and secondly, the local government (district) level. Geographically, the Lekoumou districts is the only district where the SDG project has been implemented and thereforesampling will be conducted at that level.
2. The Joint Programme aimed to strengthen the national capacity to deliver quality social protection services in the Lekoumou region, a peripheral zone with lagging social indicators, home to approximately 25% of the indigenous population of Congo. This will be achieved through system strengthening and capacity building of Government institutions and Civil Society Organisations and communities such as Réseau National des Peuples Autochtones du Congo (RENAPAC).
3. The Joint Programme contributed to Government efforts to improve the living conditions and access to social protection of indigenous peoples in the Lekoumou region. The indigenous peoples of the Congo, which include the Batswa, Mbendjele, Baaka, Mikaya, Nguelé, Balouma, Bagyeli, Babi and Bangombe, represent about 1.2% of the population and is by far the country’s most marginalized group. Traditionally live in small egalitarian social groups and depend on hunting and gathering for their livelihoods. They are characterised by their mobility over a vast territory; moving, according to their needs, from one resource centre to another. Because of their mobility, they do not amass land or material assets. Their practices and complex cultural rituals are based on a respect for, and careful management of, the forest.
4. SP4SDG contributed to the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF 2019-2023) in its alignment with Outcome 7: Households have increased food and nutrition security, equitable access to WASH and healthy ecosystems and resilient livelihoods as well as to the Country Decent Work Country Programme 2020-2023 (DWCP), Priority 3: Enhancing and Extending the Coverage and Quality of Social Protection, Outcome 3.1: Enhanced quality and coverage of social security schemes and Outcome 3.3: Quality and coverage of the Republic of Congo’s social protection interventions and institutional capacity enhanced.
5. The evaluation of the joint program will highlight the program's contribution to improving the cohesion within the UN country team, reducing transaction costs and, most importantly, demonstrating the alignment of the program to the UN reform.
6. These TOR were prepared by WFP Republic of Congo, UNICEF and WHO based upon an initial document review and consultation with stakeholders and following a standard template. The purpose of the TOR is twofold. Firstly, it provides key information to the evaluation team and helps guide them throughout the evaluation process; and secondly, it provides key information to stakeholders about the proposed evaluation.

1.2. Context

7. The Republic of Congo (RoC) is a lower-middle-income country (LMIC), strategically located on the western coast of Central Africa. The country is a mineral resource rich country. Oil exports account for more than half of the government’s revenues and more than 80 percent of the export earnings[1]. Agriculture contributes to a small portion of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), reflecting the predominance of the petroleum industry. However, it is estimated that the national GDP contracted by about 9 percent in 2020, owing to the effects of the outbreak of the COVID‑19 pandemic on global oil prices (which fell sharply) and on the country’s economy[2].
8. The country has a population of 5 740 291 people, strongly urbanized with 3 613 400 people living in urban areas and 1 786 490 in rural areas of the country[3]. The country hosts about 247 000 refugees and asylum seekers from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Rwanda. The northern Likouala Province hosts 27 000 refugees from the Central African Republic and 21 000 refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Following an outbreak of violence related to the 27 December 2020 elections in the Central African Republic, an additional 5 000 refugees arrived in Likouala Province, mostly in Kpakaya Department, between mid‑December 2020 and late February 2021. The refugees’ food security is essentially guaranteed by continued humanitarian assistance[4].
9. According to the world bank's Macro Poverty Outlook report, in 2020, the Republic of Congo’s economy contracted for the sixth consecutive year, with GDP growth estimated at -7.9 percent primarily due to the country’s high dependency on oil. The exposure to swings in oil prices and weak governance, reflected in high levels of non-concessional borrowing, have resulted in debt distress, with the debt-to-GDP ratio increasing from 42.3 percent in 2014 to 81.9 percent in 2019. It continues to be impacted by the pandemic and is expected to further contract by 1.2 percent in 2021, while the poverty rate is projected to increase from 48.5 percent in 2019 to 53.3 percent in 2021. Natural resource[5]
10. The Republic of Congo is plagued by high levels of poverty and food insecurity. The country ranks poorly Human development index (HDI) country rankings at 0.57 in 2019[6]. Approximately 48 percent of its nationals live on less than USD 1.25 per day.[7]The RoC’s global hunger index places it at 105th out of the 116 countries with a score of 30.3, embodiment of a country with very high levels of hunger, a significant increase from 25.6 in 2017. More than 14 percent of the Republic of Congo’s population remains food insecure, and its food production remains below the national requirements.[8]Most of the country’s food is imported. Domestic crop production covers only a small portion of the consumption requirements and imports account for approximately 90 percent of the total cereal utilization[9] The negative impact of the restrictive measures related to the COVID‑19 pandemic on informal labour and on food supply chains, resulted, on one side, in the loss of income and, on the other, in high food prices due to a decline in food supply. These factors limited the access to food for the most vulnerable population.
11. Revenues have not translated into higher growth and human capital development, owing to the undiversified economy and weak governance in key sectors. The proportion of the population living below the international extreme poverty line of US$1.90 PPP per day increased from 39.1 percent in 2015 to 48.5 percent in 2019. Although the country is in debt distress because of outstanding arrears, recent debt restructuring agreements, higher oil prices, and improved debt management are moving the country back to debt sustainability.
12. The Republic of Congo, through the Ministry of Social Affairs and Humanitarian Action (MASAH), received funding from the Joint SDG Fund for a joint programme (JP) that started in February 2020. The Joint Program will contribute to Government efforts to improve the living conditions and access to social protection of indigenous peoples particularly in the Lekoumou region. The main objective is to support the government's efforts to improve living circumstances and access to social protection for indigenous peoples in the Lékoumou department. This region is a low-income region where 25 percent of the Congo's indigenous people reside. The programme seeks to improve social protection services for vulnerable indigenous and Bantu people by enhancing the structures and capabilities of government institutions, civil society organisations and communities. In addition, the joint programme will be implemented in synergy with other interventions in the field of social protection and will build on the integrated child protection system implemented in this department between 2013 and 2019 by MASAH with support from UNICEF, as a model for creating a social protection system for all the department's populations, including indigenous peoples.
13. In terms of health and access to citizenship, 75% of indigenous women give birth at home and more than 50% of indigenous children have no birth certificate, compared with just over 19% nationally. The under-5 mortality rate is 250 per 100 for indigenous people, compared with 117 per 100 for the general population. 40% of indigenous children are chronically malnourished, compared with 21% of the general population. 65% of indigenous children are not in school, compared to 39% nationally (SDG fund project, 2019).
14. Overall, these populations have limited access to basic social services and limited income-generating opportunities (no access to land and markets). Less than 0.7% of the country's indigenous peoples have access to clean water. Most live-in places that are difficult to access, especially during the rainy season. They live in very precarious shelters and have no agricultural tools or access to financial services.
15. The determinants or barriers that limit access to health care and citizenship are the costs associated with consultation fees, pharmaceuticals, medical examinations, discrimination, and remoteness. They do not have access to land or markets and are even subjected to slavery/exploitation by the Bantu population. This marginalised group is unaware of social protection and its attendant rights.
16. This is why the Republic of Congo, through the Ministry of Social Affairs and Humanitarian Action (MASAH), in partnership with the United Nations agencies, notably WFP, WHO and UNICEF, is the recipient of the Joint Programme on Social Protection under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Fund. This joint programme will be implemented in the Department of Lékoumou and will target Indigenous Peoples and other vulnerable groups and contribute to the Government's efforts to improve the living conditions of indigenous peoples.
17. The Joint program contributes to the Congo National Development Plan (NDP) 2018-2022 particularly the strategic axe 3 on the diversification of the national economy.
18. The joint Programme focuses on the following Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 based on those selected by Congo in its NDP (2018-2022) and included in the United Nations framework plan, which will contribute indirectly to the other SDGs.:

• 1 (No Poverty: 1.3; 1.4),
• 2 (Zero Hunger: 2.1; 2.2),
• 3 (Good Health and Well-Being: 3.1; 3.2),
• 4 (Quality Education: 4.5),
• 5 (Gender Equity: 5.2),
• 8 (Decent work and economic growth 8.7), and
• 10 (Reduced inequality 10.2.)

19. The restrictive measures (containment strategies, travel restrictions and poor service delivery) to contain the pandemic has negatively impacted the programme. The lack of human and material resources was the main constraint. Nevertheless, the joint programme contributed with the efforts to limit the spread of the Coronavirus pandemic through advocacy activities performed to sensitise the programme's target beneficiaries. In this same perspective, for the school year 2020/2021, the departmental health directorate and the departmental primary education directorate disinfected classrooms in Sibiti. In this district, 114 classrooms were disinfected, benefiting 27,745 pupils, including 13,430 girls, i.e., 35 percent of all the schools in Sibiti. In addition, other actions were carried out, including advocacy activities to promote the inclusion of indigenous people in the government's response to Covid 19.

2. Reasons for the evaluation

2.1. Rationale

20. Two years after implementation, a final evaluation of the SDG fund will measure the level of achievement of the project. The results of this evaluation will make it possible to reorient or prioritise the various interventions in the area of non-contributory social protection for indigenous populations and other vulnerable groups, and to prepare the joint support programme for indigenous populations in the departments of Sangha and Likouala. This evaluation aims to measure the effects recorded at the end of the programme on the access of indigenous populations to basic social services and progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
21. The evaluation is needed at this time for the following reasons:

• To assess the extent of achievement of the results and targets set out in the results framework;
• To understand the extent to which the programme has contributed to accelerating progress towards the sustainable development goals, focusing on social protection.

22. To meet commitments made to commission an evaluation for learning and accountability:

• The funds are to be spent by December 2021, however the funds have been extended to June 2022.
• Many staff across the 3 UN agencies are project funded, meaning after December 2021 their posts may not exist (i.e. postponing until after project implementation ends runs the risk of an evaluation without the technical leads).

23. The findings will provide the government of the Republic of Congo, WFP, UNICEF, WHO and other key stakeholders valuable lessons on what has worked and what has not worked in the acceleration of SDG targets for consideration in the design and implementation of other similar programmes in future.

2.2. Objectives

24. The objective of the evaluation is to assess the state of implementation of the SDG Fund Joint Programme by highlighting the level of effective implementation of the planned actions and the shortcomings noted in order to propose improvements for possible replication.

• Accountability – The evaluation will assess and report on the performance and results of the programme. It will, therefore, ensure that the Development Assistance Committee of the Economic Cooperation and Development (DAC/OECD) evaluation criteria of Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability are adequately covered.
• Learning – The evaluation will determine the reasons why certain results occurred or not to draw lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning. It will provide evidence-based findings to inform operational and strategic decision-making. The evaluation will deepen knowledge and understanding of underlying assumptions that guided the design and implementation of the programme. Findings will be actively disseminated, and lessons will be incorporated into relevant lesson sharing systems. This evaluation will put more emphasis on learning through consolidation of lessons in ways that will enhance design and implementation of social protection activities ultimately to better serve target beneficiaries and the lives of members of their communities while contributing to Government’s capacities and efforts to improve the living conditions of indigenous people, a marginalised group.

25. These specific objectives of this decentralized evaluation are as follows:

• Measure the overall performance of the SDG Fund Joint Programme, focusing on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and durability of the programme.
• Assess the effectiveness of interventions, i.e. the achievement of results defined by stakeholders, the success and failure factors of the strategies implemented to achieve the expected results, as well as the geographical coverage of interventions and targets.
• Assess the effectiveness of [joint] interventions, i.e. the achievement of results defined by stakeholders, the success and failure factors of the strategies implemented to achieve the expected results, as well as the geographical coverage of interventions and targets
• Analyse the involvement and accountability of actors and stakeholders, identify strengths and weaknesses of [joint/coordinated] implementation strategies, difficulties encountered, opportunities and threats to the SDG Fund implementation strategy; what is the added value of multi-agency collaboration for this intervention (as opposed to single Agency processes and results for this activity?
• Analyse the involvement and accountability of actors and stakeholders, identify strengths and weaknesses of implementation strategies, difficulties encountered, opportunities and threats to the SDG Fund implementation strategy.
• Assess the structural and financial sustainability (stakeholders/capacity of actors, modalities of implementation of activities, efforts made by government services, civil society organisations, indigenous communities, and other vulnerable groups).
• Analyse gender and social inclusion including human rights approaches, accessibility to social services for women and people with special needs, diversity, and environmental sustainability.
• Document best practices, lessons learned in relation to intervention design, implementation, management, which could be used for replication or scaling up.
• Make proposals/recommendations for the improvement of future interventions in terms of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, geographical and social coverage, coherence, sustainability, protection, impact, implementation strategies.

2.3. Stakeholder Analysis

26. Several stakeholders both inside and outside of WFP, UNICEF and WHO have interests in the results of the evaluation and some of these will be asked to play a role in the evaluation process. It is expected that the Government of the Republic of Congo will use this evidence in the next National Development Plan, the current expiring in 2022. In turn, the mid-term review of the 2020-2024 UNDAF, planned for 2022, will allow UN agencies to revise the current outputs to build in evidence generated.
27. The Government will use the evaluation to inform policy development/changes on approaches including the Congolese Law No. 5-2011 of 25 February 2011 on the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, which includes 6 implementing decrees, represents an important arsenal that will help to facilitate the appropriation and implementation of the actions of the joint program by all the actors involved. The number of issues related to indigenous peoples' rights and promotion are supposed to be addressed by the implementation texts related to this law.
28. The Republic of Congo WFP, UNICEF and WHO and their partners will use this evaluation for decision-making, notably related to designing and implementation of future programmes , enhancement of partnerships, accountability for results, and learning what has worked and what needs to be improved; Given the core functions of the Regional Bureau/ offices, they are expected to use the evaluation findings to provide strategic guidance, programme support, and oversight, not only to the Republic of Congo but also other country offices with similar interventions or operating in similar context;
29. WFP, UNICEF and WHO may use evaluations for wider organizational learning and accountability. Offices of Evaluation may use the evaluation findings, as appropriate, to feed into evaluation syntheses as well as for annual reporting to the Executive Boards on progress in the implementation of their evaluation policies.
30. The Joint SDG Fund may use the evaluation to understand the extent to which the programme met its objectives, key challenges, lessons learnt and good practices for decision-making and replications in future support. Other users of the evaluation include key stakeholders involved in social protection including UN agencies, academia, and NGOs. Table 1 below provides a preliminary stakeholder analysis, which should be deepened by the evaluation team as part of the Inception phase.

31. WFP, UNICEF and WHO are committed to ensuring Accountability to Affected Populations; Gender Equality; Women’s Empowerment (GEWE); and Protection Standards. Key to each of these cross-cutting priorities is ensuring meaningful participation of persons of all diversities (women, men, girls, boys, and persons with disabilities, the elderly as well as indigenous, ethnic and linguistic backgrounds). This includes ensuring their participation in the full programme cycle, according to their various needs, including this evaluation.

    Table 1: Preliminary stakeholder analysis

Stakeholders

Interest and involvement in the evaluation

Internal Stakeholders

WFP, UNICEF and WHO project implementation teams

• WFP will be the leading agency in the evaluation process.

  • Responsible for the overall planning and coordination of the evaluation exercise.
  • Assess the extent to which the objectives of the Programme have been achieved.
  • Learn what has worked well and what has not worked well including reasons for each scenario to inform decision-making for scaling up, planning and improvement for the future.
  • Identify positive and negative unexpected results.
  • Identify lessons learned and good practices.
  • Demonstrate accountability and transparency to the beneficiaries, partners, donors, and other stakeholders in the use of project resources and achievement of planned results.
  • Assess impact, sustainability, relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the project intervention and their results.
  • Evidence-based analysis.

  Government of the Republic of Congo, Ministry of Social Affairs and Humanitarian Action

• The government has a direct interest in knowing whether Programme interventions were aligned with its priorities, harmonized with the action of other partners and met the expected results.

  • Demonstrate extent to which the objectives of the Programme have been achieved concerning the baseline and set targets.
  • Learn what has worked well and what has not worked well including reasons for each scenario to inform decision-making for scaling up, replicating in other sectors, planning and improvement for the future.
  • Assess the extent of capacity development and sustainability of Programme results and benefits beyond Programme implementation period and donor support.

  WFP - Johannesburg Regional Bureaus (RB);

UNICEF – East and Southern Africa Regional Office;

WHO – Regional Office

• Responsible for oversight of COs, technical guidance and support

  • The Regional Bureaus/Office Management has an interest in an independent/impartial account of the operational performance of the Programme as well as in learning from the evaluation findings to apply to other country offices.
  • The Regional Evaluation Officers support Country Office/Regional Bureau Management to ensure quality, credible, and useful decentralized evaluations.

  WFP Office of Evaluation (OEV) and Executive board (EB) - (HQ-Rome); WHO Evaluation Office (EVAL) and UNICEF Office of Evaluation

• OEV has a stake in ensuring that all decentralized evaluations commissioned by WFP Country Offices deliver quality, credible and useful evaluations respecting provisions for impartiality as well as articulating roles and responsibilities of various decentralized evaluation stakeholders as identified in the evaluation policy.

  • The WFP Executive Board has an interest in being informed about the effectiveness of WFP operations and progress in the implementation of the WFP evaluation policy (2016-2021). This evaluation will not be presented to the WFP EB, but its findings may feed into annual syntheses and corporate learning processes. The successful completion of this evaluation will contribute towards achievement of the evaluation coverage norms which is a key performance indicator reported to the WFP EB annually.

  • EVAL/WHO considers the purpose of accountability, learning, planning, and building knowledge for all evaluations (such as WHO managed, joined or external). The three purposes apply for this evaluation following the DAC criteria. Its findings may feed into annual syntheses and corporate learning processes. The successful completion of this evaluation will contribute towards achievement of the evaluation responsibility of EVAL to be presented to the WHO Government Body and will be make public thorough the EVA L repository of all WHO projects (e-discovery).

  • The UNICEF Evaluation function helps UNICEF deliver results for children by fostering evidence-based decision-making. Conclusions and recommendations from these evaluations are essential for shaping policies, programmes, advocacy and partnerships at all levels of the organization. The UNICEF Evaluation Office is also a key factor in strengthening evaluation capacity at the country level.

  External stakeholders

  Individual beneficiaries (women, men, boys, girls and persons with disabilities, the elderly as well as indigenous, ethnic and linguistic backgrounds)

• As the ultimate recipients of assistance, beneficiaries have a stake in WFP, UNICEF, and WHO determining whether their assistance is appropriate and effective. As such, the level of participation in the evaluation and their interest in the findings of the evaluation will be determined and their respective perspectives will be sought. As rights holders, the beneficiaries will use the evaluation process as an opportunity to provide their views on the design, implementation, outputs and outcomes of this project.

  Joint SDG Fund

  The Programme is voluntarily funded by the Joint SDG Fund. As a donor, they have an interest in knowing whether their funds have been spent efficiently and if the Programme has been effective and contributed to their strategies and programs.

Specifically, the donor is interested in the following:

• Value for money by comparing key achievements/benefits of the Programme with resources invested.
• Whether achievements of the Programme have contributed to their goal and mission on social protection in the Republic of Congo.
• Evidence of what worked to inform decision-making for future funding priorities and programming.
• Impact, sustainability, relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the Programme.

• Evidence and learning for the development of new programmes and expansion of current Programme.

  United Nations Country Team (UNCT

  • Generate evidence for effectiveness, efficiency and additional value of joint programming and delivering as one in addressing development objectives.

  Indigenous communities, (persons with disability and other vulnerable populations)

  • Ownership and sustainability of the intervention, participation to the consultation process and identification of specific needs and activities, support the experience and best practice sharing.
• Facilitate access to land, sensitization, and community mobilization.

3. Subject of the evaluation

3.1. Subject of the Evaluation

32. This is a final evaluation of the Joint Programme on SP4SDG in the Republic of Congo: Accelerating inclusive progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. It will assess all the three outcomes specifically on the extent to which the objectives have been achieved. Implementation of SP4SDG started in January 2020 and is expected to end in June 2022. The final evaluation will be done between February 2022 and June 2022. For the implementation of the programme, the Joint SDG Fund provided a total financial contribution of USD 2,000,000.

Joint SDG Fund contribution

USD 2,000,000.00

Co-funding 1 (WFP)USD

2,249,966

Co-funding 2 (UNICEF)

USD 415,000

Co-funding 3 (WHO)

USD 50,000

Total

USD 4,714,966

• Outcome 1: Integrated multi-sectoral policies to accelerate the achievement of the SDGs are put in place
  • Outcome 2: Indigenous peoples and other vulnerable populations in Lékoumou have increased access to inclusive and quality education, health care packages and essential services, as well as social protection to strengthen human capital and improve social and professional integration within an appropriate legal framework.
  • Outcome 3: Indigenous peoples and other vulnerable populations in Lékoumou are implementing diversified and sustainable economic activities, generating employment and income in sustainable agriculture, food security and ecotourism while respecting the environment.

33. The joint programme leverages the expertise of three implementing UN agencies (WFP, UNICEF and WHO) to accomplish its targets. SP4SDG is structured around three interlinked components, implemented by the three UN agencies (see Annex 6: Logical Framework) for details of components implemented by each agency) that seek to accelerate SDGs 1, 2, and 17 while at the same time promoting the Leave No One Behind (LNOB) commitment. The three SP4SDG components are as follows (for detailed outcomes, outputs and activities, see annex 6).

• Integrated multi-sectoral policies to accelerate SDG achievement implemented with greater scope and scale.
• By June 2022, children, youth and adults and children with disabilities in targeted areas have increased access to inclusive and quality education services quality essential health-care packages and services, WASH, and social protection to enhance human capital for better social and professional integration.
• By mid-2022, the most disadvantaged populations in the targeted areas implement sustainable diversified economic activities, creating jobs and income in the areas of sustainable agriculture, food security.

34. The joint Programme focuses on Sustainable Development Goals 1:

• 1 (No Poverty: 1.3; 1.4),
• 2 (Zero Hunger: 2.1; 2.2),
• 3 (Good Health and Well-Being: 3.1; 3.2),
• 4 (Quality Education: 4.5),
• 5 (Gender Equity: 5.2),
• 8 (Decent work and economic growth 8.7), and
• 10 (Reduced inequality 10.2.)

35. To achieve the three outcomes, the joint programme has the following six outputs (detailed description under the logical framework, (Annex 6):):

• National capacity to deliver quality social protection services is strengthened.
• The Republic of Congo education system has an increased performance and offers better quality services.
• The technical and operational capacities of deconcentrated structures (departmental directorates, health districts, etc.), in the promotion of health-promoting behaviours, HIV-AIDS, nutrition, water, hygiene and sanitation are reinforced.
• Health facilities offer comprehensive packages of integrated quality health / nutrition essential care and services.
• The provision of safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene services, managed safely and equitably, is increased.
• Increased production capacity (tools and infrastructure), livelihood diversification and market access.

36. Other relevant interventions: A steering committee which include RENAPAC (Réseau National des Peuples Autochtones au Congo), a network comprising 22 Associations representing the interests of indigenous groups in Congo and social protection actors including Lisungui, French Agency for Development (AFD), the World Bank and UN agencies will participate in the steering committee. At the community level, the activities will rely on local management committees for health and education that have already been put into place as part of UNICEF’s the ‘Integrated Child Protection System’. The government-led programmes covered the following areas:

Table 2: Government-led programmes

Social Cash Transfer Program

Capacity Building Programme

Social Protection and Social Services

An unconditional and conditional cash transfer, access to basic social services. The programme seeks to improve access to Safety Net and the Ministry of Social Affairs is responsible for the programme.

22 groups out of 16 intended (137.5%) were formed and their capabilities strengthened in agriculture, 19 indigenous agricultural groups received training, help for structure, and formative supervision (monitoring and supervision of the groups) from the Departmental Directorate of Agriculture.

• 240 hoes, 240 axes, 145 files, 34 wheelbarrows, 240 machetes, 240 rakes, 32 decametres, 320 boots, 320 mackintoshes, 32 scales).

• An estimated 213 persons, including 50 disadvantaged Bantus and 114 women, have income-generating activities with the distribution of 13,100 enhanced cassava cuttings (to prevent mosaic).

• In the areas of Sibiti, Komono, and Mayéyé, three palm oil production groups comprised of 33 young indigenous people (21 men, 12 women) and 10 young Bantu (6 men, 4 women) were formed and trained in group structure. The goal is to offer palm oil and, in Sibiti, homemade soaps to local indigenous cooperatives. This will increase local revenue, eliminate poverty, and restore dignity.

• To promote indigenous land rights 199 persons, including local officials, village heads, elders, land chiefs, indigenous and Bantu groups were targeted in five sessions in Lékoumou (Sibiti, Komono, Mayeye, Zanaga and Bambama). Indigenous communities have acquired and made accessible 20.71 hectares of land for activities that will produce money once mature.

The programme involves the Capacity building of agents and actors of the Ministry of Social Affairs, support the creation of a higher training institute professional in social work, the National Institute of Labour Social of Congo (INTS). The core objective is to strengthen the fight against social precariousness in Congo through a more effective social action system.

• In the Lékoumou department, a prefectorial decree creating the project management bodies and the Technical Coordination Committee for Social Protection was signed.

• 18 social workers and 78 community relays have been trained to implement the child protection project

• Four NGOs (Espace OPOKO, AAPA-SEDD, CAPV, and ASEP) received technical assistance to improve their project management and monitoring skills.

• On 9 August 2021, advocacy activities were held in Zanaga and Komono districts with 50 local officials, human rights organisations, and indigenous community members.

• These activities aimed to promote and defend indigenous peoples' rights, children's rights, and the status, protection, and promotion of people with disabilities.

• The enumeration campaign identified 4,288 households, including 2,925 indigenous households, 1,276 vulnerable Bantu households, and 87 mixed (Bantu & indigenous) households, for a total of 4.

Through the decentralised Department of Social Affairs the social services and access to basic services (education, health and nutrition) seeks to improve access and birth certification for all children with a focus on indigenous children. In addition UNESCO has partnered with local and international NGOs to increase education enrolment of indigenous children and their food security in Lékoumou and Sanga District.

The school canteen initiative has reduced indigenous dropout rates by 14%. (From 59 percent in 2020 to 45 percent).

• For the 2020-2021 school year, the average primary student success rate is 50%.

• 6 IHCs in the Zanaga health district (MBOMO, Kengue, Yomi, Zanaga centre, Leweme, Mbambama) have received 44.98 MT of nutritional supplements to help control malnutrition.

• Therapy of malnutrition helped 188 vulnerable persons, including 89 children aged 6-5 years, 50 girls and 39 boys; 99 pregnant and lactating mothers received food for malnutrition treatment.

• 30 pregnant and nursing women got food; - 4 youngsters, including 2 girls, received food

• 6 departmental directorates profited from the supply of computer consumables (printers and PCs) and internet connectivity.

• 199 persons were made aware of the project's workings via local radio's communication for social and behavioural change (CCSC) initiatives (synopsis, communication plan and radio programme).

• 18 schools with 114 classrooms and 27,745 pupils, including 13,430 females, had disinfection.

• 202 birth certificates were given, including 84 females deemed late in Sibiti by the child protection committees (CQPE)

• For the 2020-2021 school year, there are 2152 indigenous children enrolled in primary schools, with 1016 females and 1152 boys in certain schools.

• In 2020-2021, the average primary student success rate is approximately 50%, compared to 39% in 2019-2020.

• Indigenous children drop out at 12.47 percent, with 14.14 percent being females.

• 1150 individuals were made aware of the project's workings via CCSC operations in the communities served by local radio (synopsis, communication strategy, and radio programme).

• In the districts of Sibiti, Mayéyé, and Komono, there are 1,223 indigenous children enrolled in school for the 2020-2021 school year, including 576 girls; 1,523 indigenous pupils with school kits, including 751 girls; and 3,722 indigenous children registered with the civil registry in late births in the districts of Sibiti, Mayéyé, Komono, Zanaga, and Bambama.

37. Gender equality and inclusion of disabled and aged population is at the heart of the joint programme’s objectives. Women are the majority of the recipients of the cash transfers aimed at lean season consumption smoothing. It is estimated that around 75% of the recipient households are female headed. The joint programme dedicated a significant portion of its budget to activities that promote gender equality and women’s empowerment, representing at least about 32% of the total budget. Other activities will contribute indirectly, such as the work on the legal framework that will take into account the principles of gender equality and women’s empowerment to ensure equality of treatment in the right and access to social protection. SP4SDG has a gender marker score of 2.35 (see Annex 10) which means it was designed well enough to advance gender equality.
    38. Senior Human Rights Adviser (SHRA) attached to the Resident Coordinator’s Office (RCO) will draw on the expertise of Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in human rights and gender-based mainstreaming in social protection programming, to ensure technical operationalisation of leave no one behind (LNOB) in this joint programme. As part the coordination role of the RCO, the SHRA provided technical expertise for the human rights and gender mainstreaming at all stages of the joint programme, including with respect to aligning the legal and policy framework for social protection in line with the Republic of Congo’s international human rights treaty obligations.

4. Evaluation approach, methodology and ethical considerations

4.1. Evaluation Questions and Criteria

39. This evaluation will follow the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards. Adopted in 2005 and revised in 2016, these norms and standards have served in strengthening and harmonizing evaluation practice and are used as a key reference for evaluators around the globe.
40. The evaluation will address the following key questions, which will be further developed and tailored by the evaluation team in a detailed evaluation matrix during the inception phase. Collectively, the questions aim at highlighting the key lessons and performance of the Improving the Quality of Life of Indigenous People in the Department of Lékoumou through Improved Access to Social Protection programme, with a view to informing future strategic and operational decisions.
41. The evaluation should analyse how gender, equity and wider inclusion objectives and GEWE mainstreaming principles were included in the intervention design, and whether the evaluation subject has been guided by WFP and system-wide objectives on GEWE. The gender, equity and wider inclusion dimensions should be integrated into all evaluation criteria as appropriate.

Table 4: Evaluation questions and criteria

Evaluation questions

Criteria[10]

Relevance: The extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries, global, country, and partner/institution’s needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstance change

1.1

To what extent were the programme activities and outputs consistent with the overall goal, objectives and intended impacts? How appropriate has the results framework been? How has the theory of change contributed to achieving the expected result?

Relevance

1.2

How have the national, locals organizations and other actors of the civil society participated in the project design and implementation?

Relevance

1.3

How coherent is the project with social protection policies and programmes in the country?

Relevance

EQ2

Effectiveness: The extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected achieve its objectives, and its results, including any differential results across groups.

2.1

To what extent has the targeted outputs, outcomes, and strategic results been achieved?

Effectiveness

2.2.

What are the major factors (internal and external) influencing the achievement of the SP4SDG objectives and what challenges were faced in the programme?

Effectiveness

2.3

How has the project addressed the COVID 19 consequences in the short and long term in terms of affecting the planned outcomes?

Effectiveness

EQ3

Efficiency: The extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver results in an economic and timely way

3.1

Was the program efficiently implemented (specifically timeliness of implementation, adequacy of inputs and cost effectiveness/value for money)?

Efficiency

3.2

What are the factors affecting the pace and quality of implementation and how can these be mitigated?

Efficiency

EQ4

Impact: The extent to which the intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects

4.1

What real difference has the programme made on the targeted beneficiaries (including specifically the most vulnerable groups) and their households? How did the programme change their lives and livelihoods?

Impact

4.2

What is the potential impact that can be envisioned, with initial signs of it?

Impact

4.3

What changes has the programme effected on the Republic of Congo social protection system?

Impact

EQ5

Sustainability: The extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue

5.1

How has the project built capacities in different stakeholders for the results to continue, did the project develop an exit strategy?

Sustainability

5.2

To what extent are the benefits of the programme likely to continue after donor funding has ceased?

Sustainability

EQ6

6.1

How did SP4SDG’s actions affect the context of gender inequality and targeted people living with disabilities, and older people? How did the programme (1) improve the lives of women, girls, gender diverse people and targeted people living with disabilities, and older people? (2) Maintain existing gender inequalities; and (3) worsen the circumstances for women, girls, gender diverse people and targeted people living with disabilities, and older people?

Gender Dimensions

6.2

What is the proportion of households where women, men, or both women and men make decisions on the use of social protection entitlements?

Gender Dimensions

42. The evaluation will apply the international evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. As it will be building on to existing evidence generation and learning efforts which focused on impact and to an extent effectiveness, it will place more emphasis on the relevance, efficiency and sustainability of the programme. The sustainability aspect will consider the scalability of the Improving the Quality of Life of Indigenous People in the Department of Lékoumou through Improved Access to Social Protection programme.
    43. Gender equality and empowerment should be mainstream throughout. The evaluation will make use of the recent “Improving the Quality of Life of Indigenous People in the Department of Lékoumou through Improved Access to Social Protection programme” gender analysis report to identify the gender dimensions in operations and assess their inclusion and influence in the intervention design and implementation.
    44. The evaluation should analyse how GEWE objectives and GEWE mainstreaming principles were included in the intervention design, and whether the object has been guided by WFP and system-wide objectives on GEWE. The GEWE dimensions should be integrated into all evaluation criteria as appropriate.

4.2. Evaluation Approach and Methodology

45. The methodology will be designed by the evaluation team during the inception phase. It should:

• Employ the relevant evaluation criteria above [relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability].

• Demonstrate impartiality and lack of biases by relying on a cross-section of information sources (stakeholder groups, including beneficiaries, etc.) The selection of field visit sites will also need to demonstrate impartiality.

• Using mixed methods (quantitative, qualitative, participatory etc.) to ensure triangulation of information through a variety of means. There will be key informant interviews with national and district level stakeholders. There will also be individual interviews and FGD with beneficiaries at the district level. Both the individual interviews and/or focus group discussions will be gender sensitive.
• Apply an evaluation matrix geared towards addressing the key evaluation questions considering the data availability challenges, the budget and timing constraints.
• Ensure using mixed methods that women, girls, men, and boys from different stakeholders’ groups participate and that their different voices are heard and used.

46. The methodology chosen should demonstrate attention to impartiality and reduction of bias by relying on mixed methods (quantitative, qualitative, participatory etc.) and different primary and secondary data sources that are systematically triangulated (documents from various sources; a range of stakeholder groups, including beneficiaries; direct observation in distinct locations; across evaluators; across methods etc.). It will consider any challenges to data availability, validity, or reliability, as well as any budget and timing constraints. The evaluation questions, lines of inquiry, indicators, data sources and data collection methods will be brought together in an evaluation matrix, which will form the basis of the sampling approach and data collection and analysis instruments (desk review, interview and observation guides, survey questionnaires etc.).
47. The methodology should be sensitive in terms of GEWE, equity and inclusion, indicating how the perspectives and voices of diverse groups (men and women, boys, girls, the elderly, people living with disabilities and other marginalized groups) will be sought and considered. The methodology should ensure that primary data collected is disaggregated by sex and age; an explanation should be provided if this is not possible. Triangulation of data should ensure that diverse perspectives and voices of both males and females are heard and considered. Finally, the methodology should ensure that those targeted for data collection or field-based research are comprised of the most-vulnerable within the communities.
48. If looking for explicit consideration of gender and equity/inclusion in the data after fieldwork is too late; the evaluation team must have a clear and detailed plan for collecting data from women and men in gender and equity-sensitive ways before fieldwork begins.
49. The evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations must reflect gender and equity analysis. The findings should include a discussion on intended and unintended effects of the intervention on gender equality and equity dimensions. The report should provide lessons/ challenges/recommendations for conducting gender and equity-responsive evaluations in the future.

The following mechanisms for independence and impartiality will be employed:

• Evaluation Manager (EM): Will not be part of the data-day-to-day implementation programme.
• An Evaluation Committee (EC) composed of representatives from WFP, UNICEF, WHO, and the RC will be appointed and involved through all phases of the evaluation. The EC is responsible for overseeing the evaluation process, making key decisions, and reviewing evaluation products submitted to the co-EC Chairs for approval.
• An Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) compose of the technical committee will be set up to steer the evaluation, comment on all evaluation deliverables, and exercise oversight over the methodology.
• All products including inception report and evaluation report from the Evaluation Team will be externally and independently quality assured (both by the ERG and the Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS)); and
• The Evaluation team is expected to set out how ethics can be ensured at all stages of the evaluation and that they seek appropriate ethical clearances (institution and local) for the design ahead of going to the field. Furthermore, the Evaluation Manager will work together with the committee members to ensure that the appropriate safeguards for impartiality and independence are applied throughout the process. The WFP Regional Evaluation Officer will provide additional support to the management process as required.

The following potential risks to the methodology have been identified as shown in table 5:

Table 5: Potential Risks and Mitigation Actions

S/No.

Potential Risk

Mitigation Actions

1

The Evaluation Team may have challenges regarding the availability of data for some indicators due to gaps in record keeping as well as quality issues.

Secondary data sources from monitoring may assist for the best estimates possible. In addition, the team will explore different option to fill in existing the data gaps.

2

Difficulties accessing government institutional partners and representatives and staff turnover within government may result in significant changes in personnel.

WFP, UNICEF, and WHO Country Offices to use their relationships with the government to establish a means of identifying and facilitating ongoing program engagements with key persons.

3

The evaluation team may have challenges travelling to the Republic of Congo and/or within the country due to COVID-19 travel restrictions.

Flexibility on how and when data can be collected i.e. when travel restrictions have been removed.

May also consider engaging more national consultants to do the actual data collection or reviewing the feasibility of conducting remote data collection exercises such as use of phone interviews.

A specific data needs identification, and collection strategy will be formulated at the inception phase.

4

The timing of the evaluation may also affect the ability to fully assess the effects and results of the project.

The evaluation team to take into consideration the time the evaluation in term of assessing the effect of the project which may be too soon

5

Accessing beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries for data collection if remote data collection is used due to connectivity issues and lack of access to technology for the most vulnerable people.

Communicate with cooperating partners and beneficiaries on dates when the remote data collection will be done. Also consider sampling more beneficiaries to take care of non-response rate.

4.3. Evaluability assessment

50. Evaluability is the extent to which the subject can be evaluated in a reliable and credible fashion. Evaluability is high if the subject has:

• A clear description of the situation before/at the start that can be used as reference point to measure change (baseline).
• A clear statement of intended outcomes, i.e. the desired changes that should be observable once implementation is under way or completed.
• A set of clearly defined and appropriate indicators with which to measure changes.
• A defined timeframe by which outcomes should be occurring; and (e) a monitoring system for regularly collecting, storing and analysing performance data.

51. The level of evaluability of SP4SDG to meet the objectives set out and is assessed to be high at this preliminary stage because:

• Baseline figures are available from agencies.
• Regular monitoring of the programme through the various coordination mechanisms has taken place and is documented (these include an annual report due January 2021, Joint Coordination Unit monthly meeting minutes, activity and budget tracker, quarterly and biannual updates).
• The programme has a detailed Results Framework with all programme indicators and targets (see Annex 6)

52. As such, sufficient information exists for assessing the achievements of intended outcomes and the utilisation of resources over the period under review. A detailed evaluability assessment will be carried out at the inception phase to determine the appropriateness of the methodological approach. It is expected that the evaluation will make use of already existing data as follows:

• Baseline figures
• Routine Progress Reports
• Project proposal including the Results Framework and Key Deliverables
• Monitoring data and reports
• Quarterly, semi-annual and Annual Progress reports/updates

53. Depending on the spread of COVID-19 and policy measures in place at the time of data collection, the team may either collect primary data via normal face-to-face surveys; or collect primary data via remote data collection means (i.e. call centre). Remote data collection may bring challenges in access to all sampled beneficiaries because some beneficiaries may not have access to phones while in some cases, there may be connectivity challenges. The evaluation team should therefore rely on mix of primary and secondary data to have enough data for this evaluation. If there are more data gaps established during inception, the three agencies’ programme staff will be available to support the evaluation team to address these gaps. There are other relevant interventions where secondary data can be sourced from.
54. Concerning the quality of data and information, the evaluation team should:

• Assess data availability and reliability as part of the inception phase expanding on the information provided. This assessment will inform primary and secondary data collection plan.
• Systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information and acknowledge any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data.

55. To ensure quality and credibility while maximum use of existing and collected data the evaluation team will:
56. Primary data

• Potential limitations: Data capture shortfalls for some indicators identified at baseline.
• Mitigation measures: Systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of all primary data and information collected and transparently acknowledge any limitations / caveats in drawing conclusions using the data during the end line evaluation.

57. Secondary data

• Potential limitations: Reliability of secondary data collected at baseline and transparently acknowledge limitations / caveats regarding use of this data.
• Mitigation measures: Assess reliability of secondary data collected baseline and transparently acknowledge limitations / caveats regarding use of this data. This assessment will inform the design of the primary data collection during the end line evaluation.

58. During the inception phase, the evaluation team will be expected to perform an in-depth evaluability assessment and critically assess data availability, quality and gaps expanding on the information provided in Section 4.3. This assessment will inform the data collection and the choice of evaluation methods. The evaluation team will need to systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information and acknowledge any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data during the reporting phase.

4.4. Ethical Considerations

59. The evaluation must conform to UNEG ethical guidelines for evaluation. Accordingly, the selected evaluation team is responsible for safeguarding and ensuring ethics at all stages of the evaluation process. This includes, but is not limited to, ensuring informed consent, protecting privacy, confidentiality and anonymity of respondents, ensuring cultural sensitivity, respecting the autonomy of respondents, ensuring fair recruitment of participants (including women and socially excluded groups) and ensuring that the evaluation results do no harm to respondents or their communities.
60. Informed consent and contact with vulnerable groups - Data collection training must include research ethics including how to ensure that all participants are fully informed about the nature and purpose of the evaluation and their involvement. Only participants who have given informed written or verbal consent should be involved in the evaluation. Given the nature of this programme and the activities, the evaluation team should look at specific ethical issues related to the programme that can be included within the inception report. Where the evaluation involves the participation of members of vulnerable groups, evaluators must be aware of and comply with legal codes (whether international or national) governing, for example, interviewing children and young people. On specific issues related to involvement of children (boys and girls), the evaluation will follow available guidelines such as those issued by the UNICEF.
61. For the key informant interviews, the identities of interviewees will be protected, and all feedback will be anonymized to protect both the individual as well as the agency he/she represents. No personal identification information (emails, phone numbers etc.) should be included in evaluation reports.
62. All household-level collected data will involve consent prior to beginning the survey. This will include a short introduction stating the purpose of the survey and the organization as well as an opt-in requirement. Any household who does not wish to participate in the survey will not be asked to do so, and this notion will be covered during the enumerator training. All personal identification information will be encrypted and removed from the dataset (to be replaced with dummy variables) to ensure the anonymity of participating households. All data will be password protected and only shared with the evaluation team. All results will be presented in aggregate to further protect respondents.
63. Evaluators will be responsible for managing any potential ethical risks and issues and must put in place, in consultation with the evaluation manager, processes and systems to identify, report and resolve any ethical issues that might arise during the implementation of the evaluation. Ethical approvals and reviews by relevant national and institutional review boards must be sought where required.
64. The evaluation team will provide a detailed plan on how the following ethical issues will be addressed throughout the process:

• Respect for dignity and diversity.

• Fair representation.

• Compliance with codes for vulnerable groups (e.g. women, people with disabilities, etc.)
• Redress
• Confidentiality and;
• Avoidance of harm.

65. Specific safeguards must be put in place to protect the safety (both physical and psychological) of both respondents and those collecting the data. These should include:

• A plan to protect the rights of the respondent, including privacy and confidentiality (critical because this evaluation is dealing with people’s business/sources of livelihoods which is sensitive)
• The interviewer of data collector is trained in collecting sensitive information;
• Data collection visits are organised at appropriate times and place minimize risk to respondents and/or avoidable disruption to their lives and businesses. Where applicable, retailers, retailers may be consulted to agree on a time that is most conducive for the interviews;

66. This evaluation does not include any invasive data collection activities and is considered as part of WFP programme implementation rather than research in and of itself. However, the evaluation team in consultation with the Evaluation Manager will confirm any ethical approval requirements relevant to such an exercise in the Republic of Congo and ensure adherence to those requirements
67. Individual consultants or evaluation firms may not publish or disseminate the Evaluation Report, data collection tools or any other data and documents produced from this evaluation without the express written permission and acknowledgement by WFP.
68. The team and evaluation manager will not have been involved in the design, implementation or monitoring of the WFP Improving the quality of life of Indigenous people in the Department of Lekoumou through improved access to Social Protection programme nor have any other potential or perceived conflicts of interest. All members of the evaluation team will abide by the 2020 UNEG Ethical Guidelines, including the Pledge of Ethical Conduct as well as the WFP technical note on gender. The evaluation team will also be expected to sign a data protection agreement.

4.5. Quality Assurance

69. The WFP evaluation quality assurance system sets out processes with steps for quality assurance and templates for evaluation products based on a set of Quality Assurance Checklists. The quality assurance will be systematically applied during this evaluation and relevant documents will be provided to the evaluation team. This includes checklists for feedback on quality for each of the evaluation products. The relevant checklist will be applied at each stage, to ensure the quality of the evaluation process and outputs.
70. The WFP Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) is based on the UNEG norms and standards and good practice of the international evaluation community and aims to ensure that the evaluation process and products conform to best practice. This quality assurance process does not interfere with the views or independence of the evaluation team but ensures that the report provides credible evidence and analysis in a clear and convincing way and draws its conclusions on that basis.
71. The WFP evaluation manager will be responsible for ensuring that the evaluation progresses as per the DEQAS Process Guide and for conducting a rigorous quality control of the evaluation products ahead of their finalization.
72. To enhance the quality and credibility of decentralized evaluations, an outsourced Quality Support (QS) service directly managed by the WFP Office of Evaluation reviews the draft ToR, the draft inception and the evaluation reports, and provides a systematic assessment of their quality from an evaluation perspective, along with recommendations.
73. The evaluation manager will share the assessment and recommendations from the quality support service with the team leader, who will address the recommendations when finalizing the inception and evaluation reports. To ensure transparency and credibility of the process in line with the UNEG norms and standards,[1] a rationale should be provided for comments that the team does not take into account when finalizing the report.
74. The evaluation team will be required to ensure the quality of data (reliability, consistency and accuracy) throughout the data collection, synthesis, analysis and reporting phases.
75. The evaluation team should be assured of the accessibility of all relevant documentation within the provisions of the directive on disclosure of information. This is available in the WFP Directive CP2010/001 on information disclosure.
76. WFP expects that all deliverables from the evaluation team are subject to a thorough quality assurance review by the evaluation team in line with the WFP evaluation quality assurance system prior to submission of the deliverables to WFP.
77. All final evaluation reports will be subject to a Post Hoc Quality Assessment (PHQA) by an independent entity through a process that is managed by the Office of Evaluation. The overall PHQA results will be published on the WFP website alongside the evaluation report.

5. Organization of the evaluation

5.1. Phases and Deliverables

78. The evaluation will proceed through the following phases. The deliverables and deadlines for each phase are as follows:

Figure 4: Summary Process Map

Table 6 presents the structure of the main phases of the evaluation, along with the deliverables and deadlines for each phase. Annex 2 presents a more detailed timeline.

Table 6: Summary timeline – key evaluation milestones

Table 6: Summary timeline – key evaluation milestones

Main phases

Indicative timeline

Tasks and deliverables

Responsible

1. Preparation

   27 July 2021 to 31st January 2022

   Approved TOR, Evaluation Budget, Evaluation team recruited (team contracts), Document Library, and Draft communication and learning plan [By Evaluation Co-Managers]

   WFP Evaluation Manager: in collaboration with the Evaluation Managers from UNICEF and WHO, and with support of respective Reginal offices will conduct background research and consultation to frame the evaluation; prepare the TOR, finalise evaluation governance mechanisms to ensure impartiality and independence, quality assure, consult and finalise the TOR, select the Evaluation Team and finalise the budget; prepare the document library and draft a communication and learning plan.

2. Inception

   31st January 2022 to 28th February 2022

   Inception report with methodology, evaluation matrix, data analysis plan, data collection tools, field schedule; stakeholder comments matrix detailing how the evaluation team dealt with stakeholder comments and final communication and learning plan [By Evaluation Team]

   Evaluation Manager: The purpose of this phase is to ensure that the evaluators have a good grasp of the expectations for the evaluation as outlined in the approved TOR in order to prepare a clear plan for conducting it. The phase will include orientation of the evaluation team, desk review of secondary data by the evaluators, initial interaction with the main stakeholders; deeper discussions on the methodological approach and review of the programme design and implementation approach; and detailed design of evaluation, including evaluation matrix, methodology, data collection tools and field work schedule.

3. Data collection

   28th February – 15 March 2022

   PowerPoint exit briefing/Presentation of preliminary findings and raw datasets [By ET]

   Evaluation Team: Fieldwork will include visits to project sites and primary and secondary data collection from stakeholders. A debriefing/presentation of preliminary findings will be done at the end of the field work phase or as soon as initial data analysis is available.

4. Analysis and Reporting

   14th March – 13 June 2022

   PowerPoint presentation for validation workshop [by ET], summary evaluation report to facilitate approval and final evaluation report [By co-EMs]

   Evaluation Team: After analysing the data, the evaluation team will draft the evaluation report. It will be submitted to the Evaluation Manager for quality assurance. Stakeholders will be invited to provide comments, which will be recorded in a matrix by the evaluation managers and provided to the evaluation team for their consideration before the report is finalised.

5. Dissemination and follow-up

   14th June – 20th July 2022

   Three-page evaluation report summary, Management Response, published evaluation report and Other relevant dissemination products as required [Co-EMs and Commissioning Agencies Management]

   RB and CO Management: The final approved evaluation report will be published on the public websites of the commissioning agencies and shared with relevant stakeholders. WFP, UNICEF and WHO alongside the other key stakeholders, will respond to the evaluation recommendations by providing actions that will be taken to address each recommendation and estimated timelines for taking those actions. Findings will be disseminated and lessons will be incorporated into other relevant lessons learnt sharing systems and processes.

5.2. Evaluation Team Composition

Figure 2: Evaluation Management and Governance

79. The evaluation team is expected to include at least two members, including the team leader and both national evaluators. To the extent possible, the evaluation will be conducted by a gender-balanced and geographically and culturally diverse team with appropriate skills to assess not only the technical aspect of the program but also the gender dimensions of the subject as specified in the scope, approach and methodology sections of the ToR.
80. The team will be multi-disciplinary and include members who, together, include an appropriate balance of technical expertise and practical knowledge in the following areas:

Public Health expert

The following criteria were used to select this expert

• Be of Congolese nationality.
• Have a doctorate in public or community health and have at least 5 years of experience in the evaluation of development projects or programs.
• Experience working with the United Nations would be a plus.
• Have a good knowledge of protection issues, human rights and marginalized populations.
• Demonstrated experience in conducting similar studies in the Congo or in an African context.
• Have relevant experience in processing and analyzing qualitative and quantitative data.
• Have a good knowledge of computer tools (World, Excel, and other data processing software);
• Have a perfect knowledge of the main languages spoken in the department targeted by the study is an asset.
• Familiarity with UNS programs is an asset; and
• Fair knowledge of the English language would also be an asset.

Expert in social and human sciences/evaluation of development projects and programs

The following criteria were used to select this expert

• Have of Congolese nationality.
• Have a doctorate or master's degree in sociology, anthropology, demography, statistics, etc. and have at least 5 years of experience in the evaluation of development projects or programs.
• Experience working with the United Nations would be a plus.
• Have a good knowledge of protection issues, human rights and marginalized populations.
• Demonstrated experience in conducting similar studies in Congo or Africa.
• Have relevant experience in processing and analyzing qualitative and quantitative data.
• Have a good knowledge of computer tools (World, Excel and other data processing software);
• Have a perfect knowledge of the main languages spoken in the department targeted by the study is an asset.
• Familiarity with UNS programs is an asset; and good knowledge of English is a plus.
• Evaluating capacity development and strengthening activities and social policy/social development initiatives in low-income countries

Some cross cutting expected experience from the consultants include the followings:

• Demonstrated experience in designing and leading complex evaluations.
• Highly experienced in a range of evaluation approaches including approaches that mix quantitative, qualitative and participatory methods.
• Strong knowledge and experience in the selection and implementation of statistically accepted sampling methods.
• Exceptional data analysis skills for both qualitative and quantitative data.
• Excellent report writing skills.
• Gender expertise and good knowledge of gender issues and tools for integrating human rights and their link with nutrition, health and gender equality.
• All team members should have strong analytical and communication skills, evaluation experience and familiarity with the Republic of Congo and/or the West and Central Africa region.
• Excellent ability to communicate and write in English and French. At least one team member should be able to communicate in local languages (French, Kikongo, Lingala, Swahili and Tshiluba).

81. The team leader will have expertise in one of the key competencies listed above as well as demonstrated experience in leading similar evaluations, including designing methodology and data collection tools. She/he will also have leadership, analytical and communication skills, including a track record of excellent English writing, synthesis and presentation skills. Her/his primary responsibilities will be: i) defining the evaluation approach and methodology; ii) guiding and managing the team; iii) leading the evaluation mission and representing the evaluation team; and iv) drafting and revising, as required, the inception report, the end of field work (i.e. exit) debriefing presentation and evaluation report in line with DEQAS.
82. Team members will: i) contribute to the methodology in their area of expertise based on a document review; ii) conduct field work; iii) participate in team meetings and meetings with stakeholders; and iv) contribute to the drafting and revision of the evaluation products in their technical area(s).
83. The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of its team leader and in close communication with the WFP evaluation manager. The team will be hired following agreement with WFP on its composition.

5.3. Roles and Responsibilities

84. The Republic of Congo, WFP, UNICEF and WHO Management (Director or Deputy Director) will take responsibility to:

• Assign Evaluation Co-Managers for the evaluation: M&E Officer of the RC, WFP, UNICEF and WHO. These evaluation managers have not been directly involved in implementation of the programme. However, because WFP is the leading agency, WFP in collaboration with the RC team, will be responsible for communicating on the evaluation processes and managing the schedule.
  • Compose the internal evaluation committee and the evaluation reference group (see Annex 3)
  • Approve the final ToR, inception and evaluation reports
  • Approve the evaluation team selection
  • Ensure the independence and impartiality of the evaluation at all stages, including establishment of an evaluation committee and a reference group
  • Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and the evaluation subject, its performance and results with the evaluation manager and the evaluation team
  • Organize and participate in two separate debriefings, one internal and one with external stakeholders
  • Oversee dissemination and follow-up processes, including the preparation of a management response to the evaluation recommendations.

85. The Evaluation Co-Manager manages the evaluation process through all phases including: drafting this ToR; identifying the evaluation team; preparing and managing the budget; setting up the evaluation committee and evaluation reference group; ensuring quality assurance mechanisms are operational and effectively used; consolidating and sharing comments on draft inception and evaluation reports with the evaluation team; ensuring that the team has access to all documentation and information necessary to the evaluation; facilitating the team’s contacts with local stakeholders; supporting the preparation of the field mission by setting up meetings and field visits, providing logistic support during the fieldwork and arranging for interpretation, if required; organizing security briefings for the evaluation team and providing any materials as required; and conducting the first level quality assurance of the evaluation products. The evaluation manager will be the main interlocutor between the team, represented by the team leader, and WFP counterparts to ensure a smooth implementation process.
86. An internal evaluation committee is formed to help ensure the independence and impartiality of the evaluation and will review and comment on the draft evaluation products and act as key informants in order to further safeguard against bias and influence (refer to Annex 3 on roles and membership of the evaluation committee)
87. An evaluation reference group (ERG) is formed as an advisory body with representation from (see annex 4). The evaluation reference group members will review and comment on the draft evaluation products and act as key informants in order to contribute to the relevance, impartiality and credibility of the evaluation by offering a range of viewpoints and ensuring a transparent process.
88. The regional bureau: will take responsibility to:
    • Advise the evaluation manager and provide support to the evaluation process where appropriate
    • Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and on the evaluation subject as required
    • Provide comments on the draft ToR, inception and evaluation reports
    • Support the preparation of a management response to the evaluation and track the implementation of the recommendations.
89. While the WFP regional evaluation officer will perform most of the above responsibilities, other regional bureau relevant technical staff may participate in the evaluation reference group and/or comment on evaluation products as appropriate.
90. Beneficiaries: will be consulted during the evaluation process and their inputs will be critical to assessing the level of implementation of activities and achievement of results. They will participate in individual interviews and/or focus group discussions. It is integral that the evaluation team consider all types of beneficiaries, ensuring that they are able to speak individually and/or via disaggregated focus groups with women, men, girls, and boys as well as elderly persons within the community. Special attention to the various ways in which each beneficiary group has benefitted (or not) from the programme should be noted.
91. Lékoumou’s Indigenous peoples' associations will play a key operational role in the field. The 22 associations that belong to RENAPAC will be members of the regional cross-sectoral technical committee. The indigenous peoples’ associations will be in charge of the link with grassroots committees, documenting evidence for the program, and will be responsible for advocacy and resource mobilization for additional activities.
92. The Office of Evaluation (OEV). OEV is responsible for overseeing WFP decentralized evaluation function, defining evaluation norms and standards, managing the outsourced quality support service, and publishing as well submitting the final evaluation report to the PHQA. OEV also ensures a help desk function and advises the Regional Evaluation Officer, the Evaluation Manager and Evaluation teams when required. Internal and external stakeholders and/or the evaluators are encouraged to reach out to the regional evaluation officer and the Office of Evaluation helpdesk ([email protected]) in case of potential impartiality breaches or non-adherence to UNEG ethical guidelines.
    4. Security Considerations
93. Security clearance where required is to be obtained from WFP Republic of Congo country office.
94. Consultants hired by WFP are covered by the United Nations Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for United Nations personnel, which covers WFP staff and consultants contracted directly by WFP. Independent consultants must obtain UNDSS security clearance for travelling from the designated duty station and complete the United Nations basic and advance security trainings (BSAFE & SSAFE) in advance, print out their certificates and take them with them.

• As an “independent supplier” of evaluation services to WFP, the evaluation team will be responsible for ensuring the security of the evaluation team, and adequate arrangements for evacuation for medical or situational reasons. However, to avoid any security incidents, the evaluation manager will ensure that the WFP country office registers the team members with the security officer on arrival in country and arranges a security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the ground. The evaluation team must observe applicable United Nations Department of Safety and Security rules including taking security training (BSAFE & SSAFE) and attending in-country briefings.

86. To avoid any security incidents, the evaluation manager is requested to ensure that:

• The WFP country office registers the team members with the security officer on arrival in country and arranges a security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the ground
• The team members observe applicable United Nations security rules and regulations – e.g. curfews etc. as well as any national restrictions related to COVID-19.

87. In overall, there is no specific security issues of concern in relation to this evaluation. However, when traveling to the field to conduct research, it is recommended that female staff members should consider wearing either long skirts or covering pants with a local fabric skirt to be more in-line with local cultural practices.

5.5. Communication

88. To ensure a smooth and efficient process and enhance the learning from this evaluation, the evaluation team should place emphasis on transparent and open communication with key stakeholders. These will be achieved by ensuring a clear agreement on channels and frequency of communication with and between key stakeholders.
89. The Evaluation Manager led by WFP, will be responsible for:

• Sharing all draft products including ToR, inception report, and evaluation report with internal and external stakeholders to solicit their feedback, specifying date by when feedback is expected and highlighting next steps;
• Documenting stakeholder feedback systematically, showing how it has been used in finalising the products, ensuring that where feedback has not been used sufficient rationale is provided;
• Informing stakeholders (through the ERG) of planned meetings at least one week before and where appropriate sharing the agenda for such meetings;
• Informing the team leader in advance regarding the people who have been invited for meetings that the team leader is expected to participate and sharing the agenda in advance.
• Sharing final evaluation products (ToR, inception and evaluation report) with all the internal and external stakeholders for their information and action as appropriate.
• Developing a communication and learning plan which should include GEWE responsive dissemination strategies, indicating how findings will be disseminated and how stakeholders interested or those affected by GEWE issues will be engaged, if appropriate.

90. To Evaluation Team will be responsible for:

• Communicating the rationale for the evaluation design decisions, sampling, methodology, tools through the inception report and reflecting discussions held with and feedback from stakeholders;
• Working with the evaluation manager to ensure a detailed evaluation schedule (annexed to the inception report) is communicated to stakeholders before field work starts;
• Sharing a brief PowerPoint presentation before debriefings to enable stakeholders joining the briefings remotely to follow discussions;
• Including the final report the list of people interviewed, as appropriate (bearing in mind confidentially and protection issues i.e. excluding any sensitive information and/or names where necessary); and
• Systematically considering all stakeholder feedback when finalising the evaluation report, and transparently providing rationale for feedback that was not used addressed.

91. Should translators be required for fieldwork, the evaluation team will make arrangements and include the cost in the budget proposal. The evaluation will be produced in English.
92. Based on the stakeholder analysis, the communication and knowledge management plan (in Annex 5) identifies the users of the evaluation to involve in the process and to whom the report should be disseminated. The communication and knowledge management plan indicates how findings including gender, equity and wider inclusion issues will be disseminated and how stakeholders interested in, or affected by, gender, equity and wider inclusion issues will be engaged.
93. As part of the international standards for evaluation, WFP requires that all evaluations are made publicly available. It is important that evaluation reports are accessible to a wide audience, thereby contributing to the credibility of WFP – through transparent reporting – and the use of evaluation. Following the approval of the final evaluation report, and management response and ensuring that they are uploaded to the appropriate systems ((intranet and public website).
94. To enhance the use of evaluation findings, WFP may consider holding a remote dissemination and learning workshop. Such a workshop will target key government officials, donors, UN staff and partners. The team-leader may be called to co-facilitate the workshop. The details will be provided in a communication plan that will be developed by the evaluation manager jointly with the team leader during the inception phase.

5.6. Budget

95. The cost of evaluating this programme was already budget for in the project proposal (US$60,000). The actual budget will be determined by the level of expertise and experience of the individual consultants recruited.
96. In country road travel for the evaluation team shall be arranged by the evaluation team.
97. All potential consultants must submit budget details. The budget should include all costs associated with the evaluation team (their time, etc.). In addition, the budget should include costs related to field travel (vehicle hires, per diem, accommodation, communications, interpreters, etc.). Further, costs associated with the field-based data collection should also be included in the budget. This may include but not be limited to the hiring of enumerators, fees associated with training enumerators (hall rental, lunch money, etc.), fees associated with hiring space in the districts for meetings with local officials and focus group discussions, etc.
98. Please send any queries to:

• Issa Oumarouissa, Issa.Oumarouissa@wfp.org (WFP)
• Christian Mikhael Boueya Bouesso, cboueya@unicef.org (UNICEF)
• Dr Dzabatou , dzabatoubabeauxa@who.int (WHO)

Annex 1: Map of Lekoumou and its Districts where SDG Funds are Implemented

Annex 2: Timeline

Who

Phases, deliverables and timeline

Key dates

Phase 1 – Preparation

Up to 9 weeks

WFP CO/REU

Desk review, draft ToR and quality assurance (QA) by EM and REO using ToR QC

November 2021 – 18 January 2022

EM

Submit draft 1 TOR to outsourced quality support service (QS) for review and feedback

19 Jan 2022

QS

Review draft 1 TOR against the DE QS quality matrix and provide recommendations (this include a pre-review call between the QS reviewer, co-EMs and REU in the case of joint evaluations)

20 – 25 Jan 2022

EM

Revise draft 1 TOR based on DE QS feedback to produce draft 2 (this includes a possible after review call between the QS reviewer, REU, TL and co-EMs)

26 Jan – 31 Feb 2022

EM

Circulate draft 2 TOR for review and comments to ERG and other stakeholders

1 Feb 2022

ERG

Review draft 2 TOR and provide comments using the provided comments matrix

2-11 Feb 2022

EM/REO

Revise draft 2 TOR based on stakeholder comments to produce final TOR

12 - 15 Feb 2022

EM

Submit the final TOR to the evaluation committee for approval

17 Feb 2022

EM

Share final TOR with stakeholders for information and with consultants

20 Feb 2022

REU/HR

Recruitment of evaluation team members (individually recruited consultants using HR processes

21 Mar 2022

Phase 2 - Inception

Up to 7 weeks

EM/CO Prog/REU

Briefing/orientation of the Evaluation team

23 March 2022

TL/ET

Evaluation design, including reviewing documents and existing data, interactions with stakeholders to understand the subject and stakeholder expectations

24 March - 4 April 2022

TL

Submit draft 0 Inception Report to WFP Evaluation Manager

5 April 2022

Co-EMs

Review draft 0 inception report, if NOT complete return to the team leader with specific things that needs to be done before Draft 1 can be submitted

6 - 8 April 2022

EM

Share draft 1 IR with DE QS for review and feedback

11 April 2022

QS

Review draft 1 IR against the DE QS quality matrix and provide recommendations

12 – 15 April 2022 – 1st May 2022

ET

Revise draft IR based on QS feedback and EM/REO additional comments

02 – 09 May 2022

TL

Submit of revised Draft 2 IR based on DE QS and EM QA comments

10 May 2022

EM/REO

Review draft 2 IR against the QS recommendations to ensure that they have been addressed and for any that has not been addressed, a rationale has been provided

13 – 15 June 2022

EM

Circulate draft 2 IR for review and comments to ERG and other stakeholders

16 June 2022

ERG

Review draft 2 IR and provide comments using the provided comments matrix

16 – 30 June 2022

EM

Consolidate Stakeholder comments and submit to the team leader

01 – 05 July 2022

ET

Revise draft 2 IR based on stakeholder comments received to produce draft 3

06 – 12 July 2022

TL

Submit draft 3 IR to the evaluation manager

13 July 2022

EM

Review draft 3 IR against stakeholder comments to ensure that they have all been addressed, and for those not addressed a rationale provided

20 – 25 July 2022

EM

Submit the final IR to the internal evaluation committee for approval

26 July – 08 Aug 2022

EM

Share of final inception report with key stakeholders for information

09 Aug 2022

Phase 3 – Data collection

Up to 4 weeks

ET

Prepare for data collection phase [recruit research assistants, digitize data collection tools on tablets, finalize travel, accommodation and other logistical arrangements

09 – 23 Aug 2022

EM/CO Programme/ ET

Evaluation team holds a detailed planning meeting with the Country Office

24 Aug 2022

ET

Conduct Fieldwork [enumerator training, quantitative data collection, interviews, FGDs etc.]

25 Aug – 10 Sep 2022

ET

End of Fieldwork Debriefing [Presentation should be submitted the day before]

12 Sep 2022

Phase 4 – Data Analysis and Reporting

Up to 11 weeks

ET

Clean, analyse and triangulate data to produce draft 1 of the evaluation report (ER)

11-29 Sep 2022

TL

Submit draft 1 of the evaluation report and all associated data sets

02 Oct 2022

EM

Review draft 1 ER against the ER quality check list to ensure that it is complete

03 – 07 Oct 2022

EM

Share draft 1 ER with outsourced quality support service (DE QS)

10 Oct 2022

QS

Review draft 1 ER against the DE QS quality matrix and provide recommendations

11 – 19 Oct 2022

ET

Revise draft 1 ER based on feedback received by DE QS and EM to produce draft 2

20 – 28 Oct 2022

TL

Submit draft 2 ER to the EM

28 Oct 2022

EM/REO

Review the draft 2 ER against the QS comments to ensure that they have been addressed, and for those that have not been addressed rationale has been provided

31 Oct – 03 Nov 2022

EM

Circulate draft 2 ER for review and comments to ERG/RB/other stakeholders

04 Nov 2022

ERG

Review draft 2 ER and provide comments using the provided comments matrix

07 – 10 Nov 2022

EM

Consolidate comments and submit to team leader for review

11 – 15 Nov 2022

ET

Revise draft 2 ER based on stakeholder comments to produce draft 3

16 – 21 Nov 2022

TL

Submit draft 3 ER to the evaluation manager

22 Nov 2022

EM/REO

Review draft 3 ER against stakeholder comments to ensure that they have all been addressed, and for those not been addressed a rationale has been provided

23 Nov – 29 Nov 2022

ET

Validation workshop with key stakeholders

30 Nov 2022

ET

Incorporate comments from stakeholders at validation workshop into final report

01 - 06 Dec 2022

EM

Prepare Summary Evaluation Report

07 Dec 2022

ET

Submit final ER

08 Dec 2022

EM

Submit the final ER and summary evaluation report to the internal evaluation committee for approval

09 Dec 2022

EM

Share of final evaluation report with key stakeholders for information

11 Dec 2022

Phase 5 - Dissemination and follow-up

Up to 4 weeks

CO Management/ Programme

Prepare management response and submit to RB for review

12 – 14 Dec 2022

RB

Share final evaluation report and management response with the REO and OEV for publication and participate in end-of-evaluation lessons learned call

15 – 20 Dec 2022

CO programme

Finalize MR based on feedback from RB and submit to EC chair for first level approval

21 – 23 Dec 2022

RB

Submit to RB for final approval of MR

26 2022 – 28 Dec 2022

RB

Share final ER and MR with OEV for publication

29 Dec 2022

EM/RB

Document lessons from the management of this evaluation and share

30 Dec - 7th Jan 2023

*CO – Country Office, EM – Evaluation Manager, ERG – Evaluation Reference Group, ET – Evaluation Team, HR – Human Resources, QS – Quality Assurance, RB – Regional Bureaux, REO – Regional Evaluation Officer, REU – Regional Evaluation Unit, TL – Team Lead, WFP – World Food Programme

Annex 3: Role and Composition of the Evaluation Committee

Context: The overall objective of SP4SDG, a UN Joint Programme, is to support the Government of the Republic of Congo to improve the living conditions and access to social protection of indigenous peoples in the Lékoumou region, a peripheral zone with lagging social indicators, home to approximately 25% of the indigenous population of Congo.

The final evaluation is being commissioned by three UN agencies in the Republic of Congo; World Food Programme (WFP), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organisation (WHO).

Purpose and role: The overall purpose of the evaluation committee is to ensure a credible, transparent, impartial and quality evaluation process in accordance with the WFP Evaluation Policy 2016-2021. It will achieve this by supporting the evaluation managers in making decisions through the process, reviewing draft evaluation deliverables (TOR, inception report and evaluation report) and submitting them for approval to the Deputy Country Director of WFP who will be the chair of the committee. The committee is chaired by the World Food Programme, as the coordinating agency among the UN agencies for this joint programme and therefore also coordinating this evaluation. At the technical level, there is an Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) that will provide advice to the Evaluation Committee.

Composition: The evaluation committee will be composed of the following staff:

Chair: Ali Ouattara Deputy Country Director, WFP

• M&E Officer, RC
• Issa Oumarouissa, Issa.Oumarouissa@wfp.org (WFP)
• Christian Mikhael Boueya Bouesso, cboueya@unicef.org (UNICEF)
• M&E officer (WHO)
• Mayibongwe Manyoba, Regional Evaluation Officer a.i

EC member responsibility by Evaluation Phase

Estimated time per EC member (excluding the EM)

Approximate dates

Phase 1: Planning

• Nominate an evaluation manager.
• Decides and approves the indicative evaluation budget.

Decides the contracting method, well in advance to enable the evaluation manager to plan for the next phase of the evaluation.

½ day

Phase 2: Preparation

• Select and establish Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) membership.
• Reviews the draft TOR based on:
  • The outsourced quality support service feedback;
  • ERG comments
  • The ERG responses documented in the comment’s matrix.
• Approves the final TOR.

• Approves the final evaluation team and budget.

  ½ - 1 day

  Phase 3: Inception

• Briefs the evaluation team, including providing an overview of the subject of the evaluation.

• Informs the design of the evaluation during the inception phase as key stakeholders to the evaluation.
• Supports the identification of appropriate field visit sites on the basis of selection criteria identified by the evaluation team, noting that the EC should not influence which sites are selected.
• Reviews the draft Inception Report (IR) on the basis of:
  • The outsourced quality support service and evaluation manager feedback;
  • ERG comments;
  • The evaluation team responses documented in the comment’s matrix.

Approves the final IR.

2 days

Phase 4: Data Collection

• Acts as key informants during the data collection.

• Acts as sources of contextual information and facilitating data access as per the needs of the evaluation.

• Attends the end of field work debriefing meeting(s) and supports the team to clarify/validate any emerging issues and to identify how to fill any data/information gaps that the team may have at this stage.

• Facilitate access to stakeholders and information as appropriate.

  2 days

  Phase 5: Data Analysis and Reporting

• Reviews the draft ER on the basis of:

  • The outsourced quality support service and Evaluation Manager feedback;
  • ERG comments;
  • The evaluation team responses documented in the comment’s matrix.

Approves the final ER.

2 days

Phase 6: Disseminate and Follow-up Phase

• Facilitates preparation of the management response to the evaluation recommendations.
• Ensures that all follow-up actions adequately address the evaluation recommendations, include a specific timeline within which they can be realistically implemented and are allocated to a specific team/unit.
• Approves the management response.
• Disseminates evaluation results.

• Ensures the evaluation report and the management response are publicly available.

  1 day minimum

  Procedures of Engagement

• The CD/DCD will appoint members of the evaluation committee in February 2022.

• The Evaluation Manager will notify the members of the date, time, location and agenda of meetings at least three days before the meeting and share any background materials for preparation.
• Approval can be made via email on the basis of submission to the EC chair after endorsement by all EC members
• EC meetings will be held face-to face and/or via electronic conference call/Skype and/or email depending on the need, the agenda and the context.

Annex 4: Role and Composition of the Evaluation Reference Group

Context: The overall objective of SP4SDG, a UN Joint Programme, is to support the Government of the Republic of Congo to improve the living conditions and access to social protection of indigenous peoples in the Lekoumou region, a peripheral zone with lagging social indicators, home to approximately 25% of the indigenous population of Congo.

The final evaluation is being commissioned by three UN agencies in the Republic of Congo (ROC); World Food Programme (WFP), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organisation (WHO).

Purpose: The overall purpose of the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) is to support a credible, transparent, impartial and quality evaluation process in accordance with WFP Evaluation Policy 2016-2021. ERG members review and comment on the draft evaluation TOR, the inception report and the evaluation report. The ERG members act as experts in an advisory capacity, without management responsibilities. Responsibility for approval of evaluation products rests with the Country Director/Deputy Country Director as Chair of the Evaluation Committee.

The overall purpose of the evaluation reference group is to contribute to the credibility, utility and impartiality of the evaluation. For this purpose, its composition and role are guided by the following principles:

• Transparency: Keeping relevant stakeholders engaged and informed during key steps ensures transparency throughout the evaluation process
• Ownership and Use: Stakeholders’ participation enhances ownership of the evaluation process and products, which in turn may impact on its use
• Accuracy: Feedback from stakeholders at key steps of the preparatory, data collection and reporting phases contributes to accuracy of the facts and figures reported in the evaluation and of its analysis.

Members are expected to review and comment on draft evaluation deliverables and share relevant insights at key consultation points of the evaluation process.

The composition of the Evaluation Reference Group

1. James KINGORI, Regional Nutrition Advisor; james.kingori @wfp.org
2. Tania Mazonde, Regional Evaluation Analyst; tania.mazonde@wfp.org
3. Justine Van Rooyen, Regional Gender Officer; justine.vanrooyen@wfp.org
4. Issa Oumarouissa, Issa.Oumarouissa@wfp.org (WFP)
5. Christian Mikhael Boueya Bouesso, cboueya@unicef.org (UNICEF)
6. Dr Dzabatou (dzabatoubabeauxa@who.int (WHO)
7. Mayibongwe Manyoba, Regional Evaluation Officer a.i
8. Madame le Ministre des Affaires Sociales et de l’Action Humanitaire, S.E. Madame Irène Marie-Cécile MBOUKOU KIMBATSA née GOMA
9. Madame MBOUKOU KIMBATSA née GOMA Irène Marie-Cécile, Ministre des Affaires Sociales et de l’Action Humanitaire
10. IKOUNGA Eugène, Directeur de Cabinet du Ministère des Affaires Sociales et de l’Action Humanitaire
11. ASSOMOYI Justin, Représentant du Ministre de la justice, des droits humains et de la promotion des peuples autochtones
12. BOBIRA Louis Rémy, Représentant du Ministre de l'enseignement primaire, secondaire et de l'alphabétisation
13. LEKIBY Mesmin, Représentant du Ministre de l'enseignement primaire, secondaire et de l'alphabétisation
14. KISSIEKIAOUA Dieudonné, Représentant du Ministre de l’Agriculture de l’Élevage et de la Pêche
15. KAMBA née MATANDA Sylvianne, Point focal pour le Ministère des Affaires Sociales et de l’Action Humanitaire
16. LEPASSA Aubain, Représentant de la Banque Mondiale
17. NGANGA Jean, RENAPAC (Réseau National des Peuples Autochtones au Congo).
18. NGAMILELE Pascal, RENAPAC
19. MBEMBA Jasmin Bonaventure, RENOCIPAC
20. TANG-TANG Etienne, RENOCIPAC
21. LOPEZ Andrés, Représentant Adjoint, UNICEF
22. Chris MBURU, Coordonnateur Résident du Système des Nations Unies au Congo
23. MOUILLIEZ Anne Claire, Directrice Pays, Programme Alimentaire Mondial (PAM)
24. MSHANGAMA Mirhame, Bureau du Coordonnateur Résident
25. NOUHOU Hamadou, Représentant Adjoint, OMS
26. PILLER Grégoire, Bureau du Coordonnateur Résident
27. YABA Martin, UNICEF
28. Dr Noufack Zambou Gertrude, RCO

Annex 5: Communication and Knowledge Management Plan

Table 1: Internal Communication and Knowledge Management Plan

When

Evaluation phase

What

Product

To whom

Target audience

From whom

Creator lead

How (in what way)

Communication channel

Why

Communication purpose

Planning

Tentative time and scope of evaluation

• RoC CO management

  • RoC CO programme and M&E staff

• Evaluation Manager

  • Regional Evaluation Team

  Meeting

Email

To ensure evaluation is reflected in work plans for the office, relevant teams, including the evaluation manager

Preparation/ ToR

Draft TOR

• Key stakeholders through the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG)

  • RoC CO management
  • Programme staff

• Evaluation manager on behalf of the Evaluation Committee

  • Supported by Regional Evaluation Team

  Email

  To get comments and feedback on various components of the ToR

  Final ToR

• Key stakeholders through the ERG

  • RoC CO management
  • Programme staff

• Evaluation manager supported by Regional Evaluation Team

  Email

Virtual meeting

To inform the relevant staff of the overall plan for the evaluation, including critical dates and milestones.

To inform the support staff on the selected option for contracting the evaluation team

Inception

27 July 2021- 31st January 22

Draft Inception report

• Key stakeholders through the ERG

  • Programme staff

• Evaluation manager supported by WFP CO Head of M&E, in collaboration the Evaluation managers from UNICEF and WHO

  Email

Virtual meeting (Teams)

To get stakeholder comments on draft 2 inception report

Final Inception Report

• Key stakeholders through the Evaluation Reference Group

  • Republic of Congo CO management
  • CO Programme and M&E staff
  • Field Office staff

• Evaluation manager supported by CO Head of M&E, in collaboration with evaluation managers from UNICEF and WHO

  Email

  To inform the relevant staff of the detailed plan for the evaluation, including critical dates and milestones; sites to be visited; stakeholders to be engaged etc.

Ensure that there is a common understanding of the expectations as outlined in the ToR.

To provide an initial understanding of the methodological approach, data collection tools, field work schedule, stakeholder matrix, overall design of evaluation and final communication and learning plan.

To inform the support staff (especially administration) of required logistical support.

Data collection

28 February 2022 - 15 March 2022

Data collection/field mission schedule and site selection

• Key stakeholders: Field: Offices

  • Republic of Congo CO (M&E, Programme Activity Manager, Communication, Administration, Security Focal Point)
  • Evaluation Team

• Evaluation Managers (WFP, UNICEF and WHO)

  Teams Meeting

  Confirm the mission dates the respective areas

Detailed mission schedule

Recommendations from the field offices what communities and specific activities/assets should be visited within the selected wards

Logistics on accommodation and accessibility to selected wards

Ensure the security briefing is provided to the evaluation team before departing for the fieldwork

Reconfirm date/time and format of the end of fieldwork debrief

Preliminary results presentation (1st October)

• Key internal stakeholders through the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG)

Members (CO team, RB Evaluation, Social Protection & SDG Focal Point, HQ Technical Unit and Programme staff)

• Team leader (supported by the Evaluation Managers)

  Email

Virtual meeting

Debriefing power-point

Allow reflection on the preliminary findings and raw datasets, and agree on PPT content before the debrief

To engage with the stakeholders and discuss preliminary results before the draft evaluation report is produced

Data Analysis and Reporting

14th March - 13 June 2022

Draft Evaluation report

• Key internal stakeholders through the ERG

Members (CO team, RB Evaluation, Social Protection & SDG Focal Point, HQ Technical Unit and Programme staff)

Evaluation manager

Email

To request for comments on the draft evaluation report

Ensure Quality Assurance of Evaluation

Final evaluation Report

• Republic of Congo CO management
  • CO programme and M&E staff (WFP, UNICEF & WHO)
  • Government of the Republic of Congo, Ministry of Social Affairs and Humanitarian Action
  • UNICEF- East and Sourthern Africa Regional Office
  • WHO Regional Office & Evaluation Office
  • Office of Evaluation (WFP); Executive Board
  • RB Monitoring and Evaluation Teams
  • UNICEF office of evaluation
  • Key internal stakeholders through the ERG

Members (CO team, RB Evaluation, Social (Protection & SDG Focal Point, HQ Technical Unit and Programme staff)

• Evaluation managers (WFP, UNICEF & WHO) through the Evaluation Committee

  • Joint SP4SDG Programme Activity Manager
  • Focal point of partner organization
  • CO Communications Focal Point

  Email

Postings on internal platforms (WFP, UNICEF & WHO)

To inform internal stakeholders of the final main product from the evaluation

To ensure that the evaluation report is widely disseminated internally on platforms such as WFP Communities, Teams and on the WFP intranet (WFPGo); UNICEF & WHO platforms.

Dissemination & Follow-up

PowerPoint Presentation on evaluation results

Evaluation Report, Summary Evaluation Report/Brief, Evaluation Results Discussion

• WFP, UNICEF and WHO alongside other stakeholders who will respond to recommendations

  • Republic of Congo CO management
  • Programme staff
  • M&E staff
  • ERG Members and HQ Technical Unit Representative (WFP, UNICEF & WHO)
  • Regional Bureau – Evaluation Teams

• Evaluation Managers (WFP, UNICEF & WHO)

  • Evaluation Team Leader
  • CO M&E, SP4SDG and Communications team
  • Regional Evaluation Teams (WFP, UNICEF & WHO)

  Face to face and virtual organized sessions

3 page Summary Evaluation Report

Published evaluation report and other relevant dissemination products

Tailored summary reports for specific audiences as required

Social Media (Twitter feeds) and hashtags

Evaluation results disseminated to stakeholders

Summary evaluation report and link to published full evaluation report are made available

Ensure findings are disseminated and lessons are incorporated into other relevant lessons learnt sharing systems and processes.

Draft Management Response (MR) to the evaluation recommendations

• WFP, UNICEF, WHO and stakeholders who will respond to the recommendations

  • Republic of Congo CO management
  • Programme staff
  • M&E staff
  • Regional Bureau –Evaluation Teams
  • Field Offices

• DCD or Head of Programme supported by Evaluation manager, on behalf of the Evaluation Committee

  Email

Face to face and virtual organized sessions

To communicate the suggested actions on recommendations and elicit comments

To discuss and document the RoC CO’s actions to address all the evaluation recommendations

To respond to the evaluation recommendations by providing actions that will be taken and estimated timelines for tracking those actions by the relevant stakeholders.

Final management Response

• Republic of Congo CO management

  • CO programme and M&E staff WFP, UNICEF & WHO)
  • Government of the Republic of Congo, Ministry of Social Affairs and Humanitarian Action
  • UNICEF- East and Sourthern Africa Regional Office
  • WHO Regional Office & Evaluation Office
  • Office of Evaluation (WFP); Executive Board
  • RB Monitoring and Evaluation Teams
  • UNICEF office of evaluation

• Evaluation manager

  • SP4SDG Initiative Activity Manager
  • Regional Evaluation Team (WFP, UNICEF & WHO)

  Email, plus shared folders

Posting

To ensure that all relevant staff are informed on the commitments made to implement the evaluation recommendations

To make the approved MR accessible on the WFP, UNICEF & WHO platforms

Progress report on implementation of evaluation recommendations

• CO Management

  • RB Management

• Regional Bureau Risk and Recommendations SP4SDG focal point supported by Regional Evaluation Teams

  • CO R2 focal point

  Email

Virtual

To track and report on progress made on implementation of actions points in the Management Response

Table 2: External Communication and Knowledge Management Plan

When

Evaluation phase

What

Product

To whom

Target audience

From whom

Creator lead

How (in what way)

Communication channel

Why

Communication purpose

Inception

Draft 0 Evaluation Report (5 April 2022)

• WFP, UNICEF & WHO

• Evaluation Managers (WFP, UNICEF & WHO)

  • Evaluation Team

  Email

Virtual (Teams) Meeting

To engage with the ERG members to get their reflections and comments on the first draft inception report; To review the methodology and approach of the evaluation

Data Collection

Preliminary results presentation (28 Jun - 11 July 2022)

• WFP, UNICEF & WHO

• Evaluation Manager

  • Evaluation Team

  Email

Virtual meeting

To engage with the stakeholders and discuss preliminary results before the draft evaluation report is produced

Data Analysis and Reporting

Draft and Final evaluation Report

Comment on Draft 1 ER

• WFP, UNICEF & WHO

Circulate the approved report:

• Republic of Congo CO management
• CO programme and M&E staff WFP, UNICEF & WHO)
• Government of the Republic of Congo, Ministry of Social Affairs and Humanitarian Action
• UNICEF- East and Sourthern Africa Regional Office
• WHO Regional Office & Evaluation Office
• Office of Evaluation (WFP); Executive Board
• RB Monitoring and Evaluation Teams
• UNICEF office of evaluation
• Joint SDG Fund
• United Nations Country Team (UNCT)
• Individual beneficiaries

• Indigenous Communities

  • CO-Evaluation managers (WFP, UNICEF &WHO) through the Evaluation Committee
• SP4SDG programme Activity Manager
• Focal point of partner organization

• CO Communications Focal Point

  Email

Virtual (Teams) Meeting

Postings

News feeds

To obtain stakeholder comments on the draft evaluation report

To inform stakeholders of the final main product from the evaluation

To ensure that interested stakeholders are able to access the approved evaluation report through the WFP external website (wfp.org), and through UNICEF, WHO and other stakeholder websites

Dissemination & Follow-up

PowerPoint Presentation on Evaluation results

Evaluation Report, Summary Evaluation Report/Brief

• Individual beneficiaries

  • Joint SDG Fund
  • United Nations Country Team (UNCT)
  • Indigenous Communities

• CO-Evaluation Managers (WFP,UNICEF & WHO)

  • Evaluation Team Leader
  • CO M&E, SP4SDG and Communications teams
  • Regional Evaluation Teams

  Virtual and/or face to face depending on target audience

Printed 3 page Summary Evaluation Report

Tailored summary reports for specific audiences as may be required

Social Media (Twitter/YouTube feeds) and hashtags

Evaluation results disseminated to stakeholders

Summary Evaluation Report and link to published full evaluation report and made available to stakeholders

To engage the public and the media as appropriate

Evaluation Report, Summary Evaluation Report/Brief, Evaluation Results Discussion

• Indigenous Communities

  • Individual beneficiaries (Women, men, and youths as appropriate)
  • UNCT

• Co-Evaluation Managers & ET

  • Supported by CO Communication Team (to guide the drafting of messaging where required)
  • CO & RB Gender focal points

  Face to face meetings (during Programme Implementation and Monitoring Activities)

3 page Summary Evaluation Report

Tailored evaluation products as may be required

Short videos

Community Radio

Targeted, simplified and gender sensitive messaging on evaluation findings and recommendations to inform and get feedback from stakeholders for continuous learning and improvement.

To document the effect and impact of the SP4SDG joint programme on the quality of life of the indigenous people in the Department of Lekoumou in the Republic of Congo

Annex 6: Logical Framework

Result / Indicators

Baseline

Objective 2021

Objective 2022

Means of verification

Responsible Partner

Outcome 2: Indigenous peoples and other vulnerable populations in Lekoumou have increased access to inclusive and quality education services, health care packages and essential services, and social protection to strengthen human capital and improve social and professional integration within an appropriate legal framework.

Outcome 2 Indicator 1: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and vulnerable (proportion of the population with access to basic services)

TBC

50% of the population lives in households with access to basic services

70% of the population lives in households with access to basic services

Baseline End-of-Line Study

Follow-up field visits

Government, All PUNOs

Result 2 Indicator 2: Mortality rate of U5 children (disaggregated by sex, Indigenous vs Bantu)

250/00 indigenous (117/00 nationals)

150/00 indigenous

Infant mortality rate 100/00 S5

Health Centre Report

Follow-up field visits

Final evaluation

Ministry of Health, All PUNOs

Outcome 2 Indicator 3: School completion rate (disaggregated by sex, Aboriginal vs. Bantu)

Aboriginal 59.78 with girls 40.2% (91% nationally)

Aboriginal 65% with girls 60% school success rate

Aboriginal 80% with girls 70% academic success

Report on the Education Directory

Ministry of Education, WFP, UNCIEF

Result 2.1: Indigenous and other vulnerable peoples have access to effective use and require appropriate social protection coverage

Outcome 2.1. Indicator 1: Percentage of women receiving antenatal consultation (Aboriginal vs. Bantu)

TBC

25% of Aboriginal women receiving antenatal consultation

50% of Aboriginal women receiving antenatal consultation

Health Centre Report

WHO, UNFPA, Ministry of Health

Output 2.1 Indicator 2: Neonatal mortality rate (disaggregated by sex, indigenous vs Bantu)

52/00 (national)

35/00 neonatal mortality

20/00 neonatal mortality

Health Centre Report

Follow-up field visits

Final evaluation

WHO, UNFPA, Ministry of Health

Output 2.1. Indicator 3: Immunization coverage of U5 children (disaggregated by sex, indigenous vs. Bantu)

75% in DTP3 at national level

51% for Aboriginal people

65% for Aboriginal people

70% for Aboriginal people

Health Centre Report

Follow-up field visits

Final evaluation

WHO, UNICEF, Ministry of Health

Output 2.1 Indicator 4: Drop-out rate (disaggregated by sex, indigenous vs. Bantu)

Aboriginal 40.22% with girls 59.80% (9% nationally)

20% reduction in drop-out rate

Reduce dropout rate by 40%

Directory of Education Reports

WFP, UNICEF

Output 2.1 Indicator 5: Proportion of women and girls who have experienced some form of violence (sexual, physical, psychological, etc.) in the past 12 months, disaggregated by form of violence and age (Indigenous vs. Bantu)

TBC

Reduce by 25% the proportion of women and girls who are victims of some form of violence (sexual, physical, psychological, etc.)

Reduce by 40% the proportion of women and girls who are victims of some form of violence (sexual, physical, psychological, etc.)

Census

Follow-up field visits

Final evaluation

AllPUNOs, Ministries of Health, Education and Social Affairs

Result 2.1 Indicator 6: Number of SBCC Awareness Campaigns

TBC

Achieve 50% awareness coverage on SBCC

Achieve 80% awareness coverage on SBCC

Census

Follow-up field visits

Final evaluation

All PUNOs

Outcome 2.2: In-depth knowledge of the foundations of social protection is established and the technical and operational capacities of decentralised social protection structures and managers are strengthened

Output 2.2 Indicator 1: Number and types of community leaders trained on GBV and SBCC (disaggregated by sex, Aboriginal vs. Bantu)

TO BE CONFIRMED

12 community leaders trained on GBV

and SBCC (40% of women)

12 community leaders trained on GBV

and SBCC (40% of women)

Census

Follow-up field visits/report

Final evaluation

UNICEF

Result 2.4: An inventory of targeted recipients is established and they have access to civil status documents

Output 2.4 Indicator 1: Percentage of population with access to civil status documents (children, adults disaggregated by sex, Bantu vs. Indigenous)

Less than 50% of Indigenous children have a birth certificate (81% nationally)

70% of Aboriginal children have a birth certificate

85% of Aboriginal children have a birth certificate

Baseline End-of-Line Study Reference End-of-Line Study End-of-Line Study End-of-Line Study

Follow-up field visits

WFP, UNICEF

Result 3: Indigenous peoples and other vulnerable populations in Lekoumou implement diversified and sustainable economic activities, create jobs and incomes in sustainable agriculture, and have food security and ecotourism while respecting the environment

Result 3 Indicator 1: Percentage of the population moderately or severely food insecure, disaggregated by sex

36.9% prevalence of food insecurity at the ministerial level

Reduce the prevalence of food insecurity by 20%

Reduce the prevalence of food insecurity by 10%

Baseline/end-of-study study

Final evaluation

Follow-up field visits

PAM

Result 3.1: Indigenous communities and other vulnerable people are trained and have access to increased livelihoods

Output 3.1 Indicator 1: Number ofconstituted groups (Aboriginal vs. Bantu, Disability, Young Mothers, #women vs #men)

0

8 (80% Aboriginal groups, 50% group

are women's groups)

16 (80% Aboriginal groups, 50% group

are women's groups)

Final evaluation

Follow-up field visits

All PUNOs

Output 3.1 Indicator 2: Number of groups/individuals benefiting from capacity building (Indigenous vs. Bantu, disabilities, young mothers, #women groups vs. #men groups)

0

8 (80% Aboriginal groups, 50% group

are women's groups)

16 (80% Aboriginal groups, 50% group

are women's groups)

Final evaluation

Follow-up field visits

All PUNOs

Output 3.1 Indicator 3: The number of households whose income has increased (Indigenous groups relative to Bantu, disability, young mothers, #women relative to #men groups)

0

Baseline survey to be determined

Baseline survey to be determined

baseline survey

and reports

All PUNOs

Annex 6: Outputs

5. Output 1.1: National capacity to deliver quality social protection services is strengthened.
6. Output 1.1.1.: The education system has an increased performance and offers better quality services.
7. Output 1.1.2: The technical and operational capacities of deconcentrated structures (departmental directorates, health districts, etc.), in the promotion of health promoting behaviors, HIV-AIDS, nutrition, water, hygiene and sanitation are reinforced
8. Output 1.1.3: Health facilities offer comprehensive packages of integrated quality health / nutrition essential care and services
9. Output 1.2: The provision of safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene services, managed safely and equitably, is increased.

Output 2.1: Increased production capacity (tools and infrastructure), livelihood diversification and market access.

Annex 7: Theory of Change

Annex 8: Bibliography

• Hobbs, J.B., Sutcliffe, H. & Hammond, W. 2005. The Statistics of Emergency Aid. Bristol, UK, University of Wessex Press..
• Standardised Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transitions (SMART) inter-agencies study focused on Nutritional status of children under-five and Mortality rate of the population of Congo. Study realised in February – Mars 2021 conducted by WFP, UNICEF, and the Government of Congo
• Study on the food and nutritional situation of indigenous peoples in the Congo July 2021, WFP
• UNDAF (Adapted by JP) 2021
• The National Development Plan, 2022 Congo

Annex 9: Acronyms

ACR

CD

Annual Country Report

Country Director

CO

Country office

CP

Country Programme

CSP

DCD

Country Strategic Plan

Deputy Country Director

DEQAS

Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System

EC

Evaluation Committee

EM

Evaluation Manager

ER

Evaluation Report

ERG

Evaluation Reference Group

ET

Evaluation Team

IGDP

Gross Domestic Products

GEWE

Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment

HDI

HQ

Human Development Index

Head Quarters

IR

MR

QS

Inception Report

Management Response

Quality Assurance

RB

ROC

SDG

SP4SDG

Regional Bureau

Republic of Congo

Sustainable Development Goals

Social Protection For Sustainable Development Goals

TL

Team Leader

TOC

Theory of Change

TOR

UNCT

Terms of Reference

United Nations Country Team

UNDSS

UNCT

United Nations Department of Safety and Security

United Nations Country Team

UNEG

United Nations Evaluation Group

UNICEF

UNPFA

WFP

WHO

United Nations Children’s Fund

United Nations Population Fund

World Food Programme

World Health Organization

Annex 10: Gender Marker Score

Indicator

Score

Findings and Explanation

Evidence or Means of Verification

N°

Formulation

1.1

Context

analysis

integrate

gender

analysis

2

2Women mortality, access to health centers and education are disaggregated by sex

- CCA & UNDAF 2020-2024 documents

- Initial joint analysist in Lekoumou mission report

1.2

Gender

Equality

mainstreamed

in proposed

outputs

2.1

Promotion/sensitization regarding GBV and SBCC

both at the outcome and output level

- 4out of 6 outputs refer to activities which will lead to changes for improved gender equality

- JP results frameworks

- Joint programme report

1.3

Programme

output

indicators

measure

changes on

gender equality

2.4

67% of indicators are gender sensitive (reference

to sex, age, disability)

- JP M&E framework

- National data collection report

2.1

PUNO

collaborate and

engage with

Government on

gender equality

and the

empowerment

of women

3.3

- The JP organizational scheme clearly indicates that all PUNO collaborate with the government based on national gender machinery and other international engagements

JP partnership scheme or strategy

2.2

PUNO

collaborate and

engages with

women’s/gender equality

CSOs

2.3

- Gender equality CSOs and

Women’s NGOs participate in the JP planning and needs assessments consultations - role of gender equality CSOs and women’s NGOs in supporting the achievement of JP outcomes clearly defined

- Capacity assessment and development of gender equality CSOs and women’s NGO in gender equality and women’s empowerment programming and implementation

- JP partnership strategy

- JP capacity development strategy

3.1

Program

proposes a

gender responsive

budget

2.0

JP budget supports at least

three of these criteria below:

- Allocation for the implementation of gender

empowerment or specific/stand-alone women

focused activities (positive discrimination)

- Gender equality action plan at the local or regional level implemented and disseminated and supports Gender CSOs and women NGOs activities

- Clearly targets expenditure by the project to women or men (girls or boys) to meet their particular needs

- Joint monitoring/evaluation missions to assess/track progress on gender equality

JP Budget framework based on gender responsive

budgeting strategy

Total

scoring

2.35

Annex 11: Evaluation Managers

Evaluation Managers

No

Name

Title and Organization

1

Issa Oumarou

M&E Officer WFP, Lead

2

Christian Mikhael Boueya Bouesso

M&E UNICEF

3

dzabatoubabeauxa@who.int

M&E WHO

4

Gertrude Noufack-Zambou

M&E RC co_Lead

Republic of Congo Country Office

World Food Programme

Via Cesare Giulio Viola 68/70 00148 Rome, Italy T +39 06 65131 wfp.org

---

[1] [1] Republic of the Congo Overview: Development news, research, data | World Bank

[2] [2] https://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=COG&lang=fr

[3] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=CD-CG

[4] https://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=COG&lang=fr

[5] Macro Poverty Outlook for Congo: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/macro-poverty-outlook/mpo_ssa

[6] WFP Republic of Congo Country Brief, August 2021 - Congo | ReliefWeb

[7] Ibid.

[8] WFP Republic of Congo Country Brief, August 2021 - Congo | ReliefWeb

[9] https://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=COG&lang=fr

[10] OECD Evaluation Criteria. OECD DAC Network on Development Evaluation https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm

[1] UNEG Norm #7 states “that transparency is an essential element that establishes trust and builds confidence, enhances stakeholder ownership and increases public accountability”

Apply now

Potential interview questions

Added 4 years ago - Updated 1 year ago - Source: wfp.org