Mid-term External Evaluation of ACF project Multisector emergency response and crisis resilience to the conflict-affected populations in Cabo Delgado

1.2. Rationale of the project
The proposed intervention aims at responding to the conflict-affected population’s humanitarian
needs in Cabo Delgado (CD) province through emergency response and early recovery interventions
aiming at building the resilience of IDPs, returnees and Host Communities (HC) toward nutrition
security. Static approaches will be implemented in Mueda, Macomia and Quissanga districts of CD
province, while Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) will cover all districts of CD.
Within static programming, the objective is to enhance targeted population access to food, health,
nutrition, water, hygiene and sanitation (WASH) services and to support the development of
livelihood, while strengthening communities’ resilience. Within mobile RRM programming, the
objective is to answer to most urgent basic needs through the provision of immediate support.
The Activity aims at (i) improving access to safe, free and qualitative health care & nutrition services
through the implementation of an outreach strategy (ii) improving access to water, sanitation and
hygiene infrastructures/assets at community and health facility-levels (iii) supporting economic and
agricultural recovery through provision of agriculture inputs, crop farming trainings, market system
strengthening, and livelihoods restoration (iv) ensuring access to food and essential items to the
population who went through a shock through the distribution of cash or in-kind survival kit under
RRM. Knowledge building and/or behaviour change on key practices and attitudes will be a key
component of each sectorial technical design of the Activity.
The overall objective of the project is to respond to the conflict-affected populations needs in the
Cabo Delgado province through live-saving and sustaining interventions to build communities
resilience of IDP, returnees and HC. The purpose is to contribute to reduce the morbidity and mortality
of conflict-affected populations in Cabo Delgado through targeted multi-sectorial support across
Health & Nutrition, WASH, Food Security and Livelihoods (FSL) and integrated emergency response.
2. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
2.1. Rational for the Evaluation
This evaluation is conducted as an exercise of accountability towards the donor and the beneficiaries.
It is also expected to contribute to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the
intervention, drawing lessons learnt and making operational and strategic recommendations that can
be used to improve the implementation of a potential next phase or similar interventions in the future.
2.2. Objectives of the Evaluation
The overall purpose of the evaluation is to assess the overall performance of the project and to
determine if the intervention has reached its intended outputs and objectives. In particular, it will
assess to what extent (and the reasons why) the project’s outputs have ensured the achievement of
the outcomes and objective.
2.3. Users of the Evaluation
Direct users: ACF France HQ (ACF France Pool Desk Staff), ACF Mozambique Country Office, and
USAID-BHA.
Indirect users: ACF International Network, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADER),
National Institute of Disaster Risk Management and Reduction (INGD), Provincial Directorate of
Agriculture and Fishery (DPAP), Provincial and District Service of Economic Activities (SPAE, SDAE),
Ministry of Health and Nutrition (SPS, SDSMAS), Ministry of WaSH, and others (national and subnational
Clusters, UN agencies, NGOs as well as humanitarian learning platforms).
2.4. Use of the Evaluation
Learn from experience to develop new strategies, collect lessons learnt and good practices for ongoing
and future projects in country.
3. EVALUATION SCOPE
3.1. Evaluation Focus
The evaluation will focus on the entire project funded by USAID-BHA. It will cover all programmatic
geographical areas, looking at different levels of intervention (community level, district level, and
provincial level) and at the links between them. It will also cover all selected target groups of
beneficiaries and will examine the implementation of all activities (Nutrition and Health, WASH, Food
Security and Livelihood and RRM) and the degree of achievement of all outputs and objectives.
Finally, the evaluation should provide key recommendations towards sustainability. Moreover, it will
identify and recommend potential improvements, changes and exit strategies considering short,
middle and long term. The recommendations should be solid and concrete to inform the project team
on the best practices to adapt and to enhance the continuation of the intervention.

3.2. Cross-cutting issues
Throughout the evaluation process, gender and protection concerns and considerations should be
addressed in line with the Action Against Hunger Gender Policy. All data should be disaggregated
based on BHA request from the indicator guideline and different needs of women, men, boys and girls
as well as marginalized groups targeted by the project (such as PWD) should be considered throughout
the whole evaluation process. Moreover, the community participation would be emphasized and how
Action Against Hunger ensures that communities are involved throughout the entire programme
cycle.
The evaluation is expected to also assess the strategies implemented to address gender inequalities.
A Gender and Protection Analysis has been recently conducted by ACF and provides an insight on
these topics to this assignment.
3.3. Elements not covered by the evaluation
There are no specific elements not covered by the evaluation.
4. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS
As per ACF Evaluation Policy and Guidelines, ACF adheres to the Development Assistance Committee
(DAC) criteria for evaluating its programmes and projects. Specifically, ACF uses the following criteria:
Relevance/Appropriateness, Coherence, Coverage, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sustainability and
Likelihood of Impact. To the latter list ACF adds an additional criterion, Design. ACF also promotes a
systematic analysis of the monitoring system in place within the aforementioned criteria.
Evaluation questions have been developed to help the evaluator assess the project against these
criteria (Refer to Annex II). The evaluator may adapt criteria and questions, but any fundamental
changes should be first formally agreed between ACF and the evaluator and reflected in the inception
report.
All independent external evaluations are expected to use DAC criteria in data analysis and reporting.
In particular, the evaluator must complete the DAC criteria rating table (Table 1) and include it as part
of the final evaluation report.

5. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
This section outlines the suggested methodological approach for the evaluator to collect quantitative
and qualitative data. The evaluator will to the extent possible develop data gathering instruments and
methods which allow collecting data disaggregated by sex, and by target group (IDP, Host
Communities’ members, Returnees). The instruments need to make provision for the triangulation of
data where possible.
5.1. Evaluation Briefing
Prior to the evaluation taking place, the evaluator is expected to attend an evaluation technical
briefing with ACF.
5.2. Desk review
The evaluator will undertake a desk review of project materials, including the project documents and
proposals, progress reports, outputs of the project (such as assessments, internal reports, monitoring
reports, etc.), results of any internal planning process and relevant materials from secondary sources.
5.3. ACF HQ Interviews
As part of the evaluation, the evaluator will interview ACF Country Office Staff to get preliminary
information about the project being evaluated.
Sampling
The evaluator would be expected to clearly state the sampling approach in terms of sites and
beneficiaries in their technical proposal.
5.4. Inception Report
At the end of the desk review period and before the field mission, the evaluator will prepare a brief
inception report. The report will be written in English and will include the following sections:
Key elements of the TORs to demonstrate that the evaluator will adhere to the TORs;
The methodological approach to the evaluation. This shall include a detailed sampling
methodology and sample size determination for the quantitative survey and the different
approaches and tools that will be used for the qualitative research.
Provide, an evaluation matrix which should be added to the inception report as an annex that
will specify the sub-questions related to answer the main evaluation question, the indicator
of progress for each sub-question, the source of information, data collection and analysis
methods and the limitations to the methodology if any;
Provide data collection tools as an annex
Provide the list of Key Informant as an annex
Provide a detailed evaluation workplan, including the sites per field visit and timeline with set objectives;
State adherence to ACF Evaluation Policy and outline the evaluation report format.
The inception report will be discussed and approved by Technical Head of Department in ACF.
Field Mission
Primary data collection techniques
As part of the evaluation, the evaluator will interview key project stakeholders (expatriate/national
project staff, local/national representatives, local authorities, humanitarian agencies, or donor
representatives) as per the list in Annex III. The evaluator will use the most suitable format for these
interviews as detailed in the inception report. The evaluator is also expected to collect information
directly from beneficiaries. Towards enriching triangulation, the evaluator can also conduct Focus
Group Discussions (beneficiaries, key informants – health workers, wash activists, and leaders) and
household surveys.

Field visits
The evaluator will visit the project sites and the facilities provided to the beneficiaries.
Secondary data collection techniques: Desk review
The evaluator will further review complementary documents and collect project monitoring data or
of any other relevant statistical data.
Debriefing and stakeholders’ workshop
The evaluator shall facilitate a learning workshop in country to present preliminary findings of the
evaluation to the project and key stakeholders; to gather feedback on the findings and build consensus
on recommendations; to develop action-oriented workshop statements on lessons learnt and
proposed improvements for the future.
5.5. Evaluation Report
The evaluation report shall follow the following format and be written in English:
Cover Page
Summary Table: to follow template provided
Table of Contents
Executive Summary: must be a standalone summary, describing the project, main findings of
the evaluation, and conclusions and recommendations. This will be no more than 2 pages in
length.
Background Information
Methodology: describe the methodology used, provide evidence of triangulation of data and
presents limitations to the methodology
Findings: includes overall assessment of the project against the evaluation criteria, responds
to the evaluation questions, all findings are backed up by evidence, cross-cutting issues are
mainstreamed and; unintended and unexpected outcomes are also discussed
Conclusions: formulated by synthesizing the main findings into statements of merit and
worth, judgements are fair, impartial, and consistent with the findings
Lessons Learnt and Good Practices: presents lessons that can be applied elsewhere to
improve project performance, outcome, or impact and; identify good practices: successful
practices from those lessons which are worthy of replication; further develop on one specific
good practice to be showcased in the template provided in Annex IV
Recommendations: should be as realistic, operational and pragmatic as possible; that is, they
should take careful account of the circumstances currently prevailing in the context of the
action, and of the resources available to implement it both locally. They should follow logically
from conclusions, lessons learnt and good practices. The report must specify who needs to
take what action and when. Recommendations need to be presented by order of priority
Annexes: should be listed and numbered and must include the following: good practice
template, Evaluation Criteria Rating Table, list of documents for the desk review, list of
persons interviewed, data collection instruments and evaluation TORs.
The whole report shall not be longer than 40 pages, 60 pages including annexes. The draft report
should be submitted no later than 10 calendar days after departure from the field. The final report
will be submitted no later than the end date of the consultancy contract. Annexes to the report will
be accepted in the working language of the country and project subject to the evaluation.
5.6. Debriefing with ACF Mozambique
The evaluator will provide a debriefing with the relevant stakeholders in Action Against Hunger
Mozambique on her/his draft evaluation report, and on the main findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the evaluation. Relevant comments shall be incorporated in the final report.

The following are the evaluation deliverables the evaluator will submit to ACF:
Outputs Deadlines
Inception Report, 04/08/2024
Stakeholders workshop 29/08/2024
Draft Evaluation Report 04/09/2024
Final Evaluation Report 15/09/2024
All deliverables must be submitted in English.
The quality of the inception report and the evaluation report will be assessed by ACF. The evaluator is
expected to follow the format, structure and length as defined under section 5.4 and 5.6 above.
7. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND WORKPLAN
The evaluator will directly report to the MEAL Head of Department (HOD) at ACF Mozambique, in
his/her absence, the evaluator will directly report to the Deputy Country Director of Programmes
(DCD-P) at ACF Mozambique. The evaluator will submit all the evaluation deliverables directly and
only to the MEAL HOD, DCD-P and Food Security and Livelihoods HOD at ACF Mozambique. The emails
are [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected].
ACF will do a quality check (ensure required elements are there) and decide whether the report is
ready for sharing. ACF will forward a copy to key stakeholders for comments on factual issues and for
clarifications. ACF will consolidate the comments and send these to the evaluator by date agreed
between ACF and the evaluator or as soon as the comments are received from stakeholders. The
evaluator will consider all comments to finalize report and will submit it to ACF which will then
officially forward to relevant stakeholders.
Once the evaluation is completed ACF will prepare the management response follow-up form to track
implementation of the recommendations outlined in the evaluation report. A review of the follow-up
process will be undertaken six months after the publication of the evaluation report.
In addition to the briefings, if needed and requested, ACF will facilitate the evaluator contact with the
target communities. If needed, the evaluator will also be provided with a workspace (e.g. desk, chair)
in ACF offices during working hours.
The evaluator will be responsible of the travel, transportation, accommodation of him/herself and
his/her team.
For safety and security purposes, s/he will be responsible for his/her safety of the team during travels
and in the choice of accommodation. While house at ACF premises or utilizing ACF vehicles s/he and
his/her team will be required to follow ACF security procedures. ACF will also provide safety briefings
and a constant companion document.

7.1. Tentative Workplan
The workplan required under this section is designed to serve as a general guideline, the evaluator is
expected to develop his/her own detailed workplan and submit it within the application proposal.
NOTE: Consultants are expected to work 6 days a week (either Sundays/Fridays or whatever day the
field office has off will not be paid) during their consultancy contract. Travel days are not paid as they
are not working days as such.

7.2. Profile of the evaluator
The evaluation will be carried out by an international evaluation consultant with the following profile:
Knowledge in Health, Nutrition, Food Security and Livelihoods, WaSH and emergency response;
Significant field experience in the evaluation of humanitarian projects;
Relevant degree / equivalent experience related to the evaluation to be undertaken;
Significant experience in coordination, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of
programmes;
Good communications skills and experience of workshop facilitation;
Ability to write clear and useful reports (required to produce examples of previous similar work);
Fluent in English; fluent in Portuguese is an advantage
Understanding of donor (BHA) requirements;
Ability to manage the available time and resources and to work to tight deadlines;
Prior experience in Mozambique is preferred;
Independence from the parties involved.

8. LEGAL AND ETHICAL MATTERS
The ownership of the draft and final documentation belongs to the agency and the funding donor
exclusively. The document, or publication related to it, will not be shared with anybody except ACF
before the delivery by ACF of the final document to the donor.
ACF is to be the main addressee of the evaluation and its results might impact on both operational
and technical strategies. ACF is likely to share the results of the evaluation with the following groups:
Donor(s)
Governmental partners
Various co-ordination bodies
For independent evaluations, it is important that the consultant does not have any links to project
management, or any other conflict of interest that would interfere with the independence of the evaluation.
9. Intellectual Property Rights
All documentation related to the Assignment (whether in the course of your duties) shall remain the
sole and exclusive property of the Charity.