Terms of Reference for Evaluation of three Alternatives Fair, Green and Global programme

Transcription

1 1. Background Terms of Reference for Evaluation of three Alternatives Fair, Green and Global programme The Fair, Green and Global Alliance consists of six organisations that have been implementing the FGG programme since 2011, to achieve fundamental shifts in policy and practices that are based on more socially just and environmentally sustainable approaches. The current economic crisis, the energy crisis, the pressure for land and resources, and their adverse effects on the healthy development of countries, all underline the urgent need for such fundamental shifts. The FGG Alliance strategically supports people and organisations in the Global South as well as in the Global North who challenge the structural problems that are causing these crises. At the same time, the deepening of the crises illustrates that decision makers in many cases lack better, innovative ideas for the future. This is why the FGG Alliance also puts specific focus on identifying, experimenting with and promoting alternative models. ActionAid Netherlands, Both ENDS, the Clean Clothes Campaign, Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), SOMO and Transnational Institute cooperate to work towards four strategic objectives. The first of these concerns developing and promoting exemplary policies and practices. Over the last decade, civil society, including FGG members have developed a wide set of examples of economically viable alternatives that combine ideas about sustainable regional development, empowerment of workers, shifts in garment industry supply chain management and relations, equitable water management, water services provision, forest management and reforestation and ecosystem restoration. Key characteristics of these initiatives include: - Design and implementation by non-usual suspects: local actors (often, civil society in close cooperation with municipalities/decentralized government institutions, local business); - A key starting point is local sustainable development (contrary to national or sectoral development); - The entire planning and monitoring cycle is designed for participation and inclusion of all stakeholders and leads to shifts in power relations, e.g. through decentralization, the set up of negotiation platforms and mechanisms for participation, including systems of information sharing, local observers and certifiers, and complaint mechanisms; - Initiatives aspire to a holistic approach, combining economic and social development with respect for ecosystems and a strong realization of the relevance of the social dynamics that influence who accesses resources and how; - Initiators recognize the link between local, regional, national and international and consciously set out to engage in decision making at various levels; - The development of alternatives requires a lot of time. Mostly, it is civil society that supports the initial development phase for a period of years. Late 2013 the plan arose to organise an evaluation of several selected alternative initiatives. This document represents the Terms of Reference for this evaluation. The three selected alternative initiatives are introduced here. 1

2 Community aqueducts as a sustainable alternative for water management CENSAT-Agua Viva, Colombia CENSAT (National Center of Health, Environment and Work) was originally founded in 1989 as a group focused on worker's health and labour rights. Over the years, it became clear that there were many environmental issues in Colombia that were not being addressed, and so the organization more and more started working with communities, organisations and processes facing environmental conflicts in different parts of the country, and changed its name accordingly to CENSAT Agua Viva (Asociación Centro Nacional Salud, Ambiente y Trabajo), meaning living water, as we know it today. The group works on community management of forests, food sovereignty, energy sovereignty, rejecting the neoliberal model in the extractive sector, and in relation to water issues, strengthening the public-community model and the defense of moors and mountains. In the area of water, CENSAT is linked to the referendum on water during , a major commitment by environmental and social movements in the country to enshrine in the constitution the human right to water, the supply of a vital minimum for free, control of the state and organized communities of water management and the special protection of key ecosystems that regulate the hydrological cycle. Although the water referendum did not pass the necessary criteria for a nationwide vote, popular struggles and resistances are consolidated in the defense of water in the country. Thus, CENSAT Agua Viva, as a result of the different collaborations around the referendum, supports the consolidation of a movement against dams, called Movimiento Ríos Vivos (Living Rivers Movement). In parallel, the movement started strengthening organized communities in managing community aqueducts that have provided access to water for their populations for decades. In this sense, CENSAT contributes to the creation of a national network of community aqueducts (RNAC) to address the privatization of water management, proposing a pedagogical model and the construction of a specific law for the defense of public- community management of water. The network has been organised through self-management and selfdetermination of communities, and they see in CENSAT an organization they can trust to coordinate projects because of its ethical and philosophical values of solidarity and reciprocity. 1 Agroecology and farming local seeds (landraces) conservation, recuperation, selection and reproduction as an alternative to achieve food sovereignty REDES - Uruguay Since the mid-1990s, REDES-AT coordinates a program called Sustainable Uruguay (Uruguay Sustentable), aimed at creating a citizens proposal for how to improve the country s conditions for social justice and environmental sustainability. Sustainable Uruguay is based on forums and workshops in which participants analyze different sectors and propose alternatives to current policies. A major focus is on the need for changes to the agricultural system, to reduce environmental impacts, maintain rural livelihoods and guarantee food sovereignty. REDES is also member of the National Network of Native and Local Seeds, which involves 27 local groups distributed all over the country, focusing in on farm conservation, recuperation, selection, reproduction, and exchange of local seeds, in a collective effort to defend agricultural biodiversity and the right to seeds, towards the realization of food sovereignty. Development of the agricultural platform has been based on discussions between environmentalists, academics, small producers, trade unionists and rural workers. Most participants represent grassroots organizations. REDES together with the Seeds Network has been active in the development of Agroecology, as an approach to manage agricultural systems that assigns value to biological and cultural diversity, as well as to social and environmental justice, while promoting social control of food systems and the autonomy of small farmers from multinational companies. Many NGOs and social movements in Latin America use the concept to promote more ecologically-sound production 1 This section is based on: 2

3 based on local resources, self-sufficiency and the complementary joining of local knowledge with academic science. A central concern for agroecology proponents is the reduction of dependence on external inputs. 2 The focus of this evaluation will be on the seeds and food sovereignty alternatives (not the entire Sustainable Uruguay programme. Negotiated Approach as an alternative for integrated water resource management JVE Togo Jeunes Volontaires pour l'environnement (JVE) is an NGO founded in Its mission is to develop leadership and eco-citizenship of young people for their involvement in promoting the sustainable development of communities. In November 2011, Both ENDS introduced the Negotiated Approach (NA) to JVE and several other NGOs. The NA is a unique approach to participatory Integrated water resources management (IWRM), developed by civil society organisations in India, Costa Rica, Peru, Brazil and Indonesia. The NA shifts the initiative for the development and implementation of river basin plans from the state to actors in civil society. The main objective is to create a space for dialogue and citizen s involvement in the decision-making process on the development of the basin and bring out people s priorities and initiatives into the negotiations on the sustainable management of the basin, notably in the Mono Basin Authority (MBA). One of the priorities for Togo and Benin is the development and sustainable management of their shared Mono River Basin. This basin is experiencing high population pressure and impacts from climate change; human interventions such as large-scale dam building, mining and agriculture have negative impacts on the livelihoods of the communities. A new planned hydropower dam in the region has also brought about controversy. In 2014, to achieve the goal of sustainable management of the basin, Togo and Benin created an autonomous organization: the MBA. Using the NA, JVE sets out to provide a framework and space for Mono Citizens to be involved and to guarantee a solid and legal basis for decision making, engaging all stakeholders in the sustainable management of the Mono basin Reasons for the evaluation For CENSAT-Agua Viva, REDES, JVE and the FGG alliance, reasons to organise this evaluation are: - To learn: to understand better the context of the initiatives, and to learn about what works in the approaches by the organisations to promote the alternatives concerned and what does not work; in order to be able to adapt and improve (current and future) work. To stimulate learning and exchange also between partner organisations, and between the partner organisations and the Dutch FGG member organisations. - To increase quality: it is hoped that the internal reflection and exchange of information will help assess the effectiveness of the three specific initiatives to strengthen/promote a model in a specific context (and, if possible, the added value this has had for communities involved in comparison to prior approaches) and improve these efforts qualitatively. In the original programme plan of the FGG alliance, improving three alternatives qualitatively was stated as an objective. - To showcase the alternatives approach; to create an evidence-based narrative on the three specific initiatives, and on working with alternatives in general. We experience challenges in explaining and promoting alternatives and feel a need for concrete stories to illustrate what we mean - documentation. (We would like to use the outcomes for a small booklet providing an overview of alternatives which we aim to publish in the second half of 2015). 2 This entire section is quoted from Beatriz Oliver s thesis A place for family farming: Food sovereignty in Uruguay 3 Information derived primarily from the organisation s website: 3

4 - To contribute to the knowledge base about the valuation of alternatives; experiment. 3. Guiding principles and parameters The evaluation should be utilization-focused and stimulate learning: i.e., the evaluation process itself should serve as a learning experience, for example by actively involving staff in data collection, interviews, analysis etc. The evaluation is not driven by accountability requirements. Inclusiveness and the promotion of democratic processes are important principles for the FGG Alliance. For these reasons, it is important that the approach chosen includes participatory methods that allow reflection of different views and perspectives, and triangulation. Methodologies used should serve the purposes of the evaluation and fit the focus of the evaluation. These methodologies should prioritise qualitative data gathering, be appropriate to the (network) nature of the alliance, and go beyond planned and expected results. 4. Focus of the evaluation As all initiatives concerned are longer term and on-going programmes, this evaluation could be regarded as a mid-term evaluation, focused on reflection, learning and exchange. The focus of the evaluation will be on the effectiveness and added value of the alternative initiatives, and the identification of opportunities to further upscale the initiatives. In terms of the effectiveness of the alternative initiatives, the aim is to understand the three initiatives, the context in which they emerged and to assess the extent to which the initiatives obtain their objectives and have led to concrete changes. In terms of the added value of the alternative initiatives, the aim is to assess the added values in line with economic, social, environmental sustainability and justice of the alternative initiative - vis-à-vis relevant established or conventional approaches. Such established approached concern on-going values and practices that are environmentally destructive, undemocratic, corporate driven, exclusive decision making. In terms of the identification of opportunities to upscale the initiatives, the aim is to describe what has been undertaken to ensure the initiatives were upscaled (in the sense that they were taken up in official policy frameworks at local, national or international level), to identify strengths and weaknesses of these efforts and to reflect, learn and exchange on opportunities for improving the effectiveness of these efforts and further upscaling. The exact scope of the evaluation will be defined together with the evaluators and the three partner organisations. 5. Subject of the evaluation In line with the focus of the evaluation, the main questions will be the following. For each main question, sub-questions are suggested below, categorised into descriptive and normative questions. These 4

5 questions will be finalised together with the evaluator(s). 4 For the descriptive questions, the organisations involved will prepare and provide the relevant data and information. The evaluator is not requested to provide recommendations on his/her own account - any recommendations should be a result of reflections within the evaluation process. Main questions: 1. To what extent have the initiatives obtained their objectives? 2. What has been the economic, social and environmental added value of the outcomes of the alternative initiatives? 3. What are opportunities to strengthen the three initiatives approaches to upscaling the alternatives? Ad. 1. Sub-questions for effectiveness: a. What did the alternative initiative entail? What are the distinguishing features of the initiative? What are the underlying principles of the initiative? (descriptive) b. What were the original objectives of the initiative? (descriptive) c. To what extent have these objectives been attained? (normative) d. What has been the contribution, if any, of the cooperation with the FGG alliance in the achievement of results (e.g. contribution in terms of funding, knowledge, contacts, capacity strengthening; and how was this related to results)? (cause-effect) Ad. 2. Sub-questions for added value: a. What are the main differences with other relevant established approaches to the same problem (ie water provision, water management, food security)? (descriptive) b. What has been the added values in line with economic, social, environmental sustainability and justice of the outcomes of the alternative initiative if compared to the relevant established approaches to the same problem? (descriptive) Ad. 3. Sub-questions for opportunities for more effective upscaling: a. What did the approach to upscaling in the three Alternatives comprise (descriptive)? This can go into the following aspects: i. Technical aspects of the work. How were technological capacities strengthened? This also strengthens alternatives in the face of state privatisation with the argumentation that the alternatives lack technical expertise. ii. Organisational aspects. How were organisations or networks strengthened, how was collaboration also with unorganised community entities (eg aqueducts), with municipalities? iii. The policy level & decision making: how were harmful policies stopped? How did the initiatives ensure that government takes decisions that promote the values of participation in decision-making and fair/equitable access to natural resources? How was it ensured that the alternatives are geared towards influencing existing policy formulation processes (eg on water)? How was information gathered on what is happening within government on the topic at hand? What opportunities/threats for upscaling can be identified in the polical context (at local and national level)? Who were allies? Which allies would be good to also consider? etc. 4 Including agreeing on where the focus of the evaluation will lie, as it is recognized that the suggested scope is broad and choices will have to be made. 5

6 b. Are there clear goals/objectives in terms of upscaling? c. What works well in terms of upscaling (normative)? d. What could be better in terms of upscaling (normative)? e. What could the organisations learn from this experience and from each other that could benefit future plans? f. What external views exist on opportunities to upscale these alternatives? What space can be identified (by policymakers and experts)? 6. Methodology, data gathering and sources The exact methodology(ies) for the evaluation will be defined together with the external evaluator(s). The organisers welcome proposals for methodologies that are based on and respect the guiding principles and parameters mentioned under (3). 5 Data collection could start with internal reports and staff of the three initiatives as informants, and from there move to other stakeholders such as representatives of communities involved, networks, partners, decision makers, government representatives, journalists etc. to triangulate observations. The results of this data collection should then form the basis for the evaluator to use, to provide the organisations the opportunity to reflect and exchange experiences. We suggest the core of the evaluation process consists of a meeting in which the analysis of the data gathered by the evaluator is discussed with a relevant group of staff and stakeholders, in which the evaluation questions are further deepened and, if relevant, recommendations are formulated. Primary sources will be: - Internal documents of the organisations: progress reports and minutes of meetings. - External documents of the organisations: reports of events and publications. - Interviews or participation in meetings/workshops/discussions by staff of organisations. Secondary sources could be: - Interviews or participation in meetings/workshops/discussions by external stakeholders of the organisations (community representatives, networks and social movement allies, targeted decision makers, donor, journalists, NGO colleagues, etc.) 7. Evaluators The FGG Alliance welcomes proposals from evaluators who: - Have proven experience in conducting similar evaluations (including process facilitation); - Are available and accessible in the evaluation period; - Have an inspiring and realistic proposal in terms of methodologies, planning and budget; - Are pleasant to cooperate with; good adjustment of engagement approach to the different stakeholders involved. - Speak and write fluent English, as well as Spanish (for the Latin American one) or French (for the process in Togo). The evaluator can be an individual or a team. 5 Examples of inspirational methodologies, frameworks and methods are outcome mapping, most significant change, appreciative inquiry, theory of change, Social Return on Investment, Gross National Happiness, Creating Shared Value, and the Social Progress Indicators. 6

7 Selection process: This Terms of Reference will be sent to evaluators within the network of the organisers. Interested evaluators are requested to send a short letter of interest (maximum 3 pages - preferably in English, but can also be French (for the Togo/Benin case) or Spanish (for the Latin American case)) setting out their main suggestions for methodology, as well as feedback on this ToR (if any), complemented with the following: - CV or portfolio clearly presenting experience in conducting evaluations - One previous evaluation report - References to two or three previous clients - Indication of code of ethics the evaluator ascribes to Based on the proposals received, the task force will organise a skype call with the one to three best proposals for each of the two evaluation processes, after which the evaluator(s) will be selected. Selection criteria will be a combination of the considerations mentioned above. The presentation needs to be explicit about the evaluation methodology as well as costs. 8. Roles and responsibilities The PME advisor of the FGG Alliance, Lieke Ruijmschoot, will be the main contact person within the alliance for the evaluation. Her tasks will be: - Selection of external evaluator(s) - Liaison between the external evaluator(s) and other people involved: provide information and answer questions. - Form a small task force within the Alliance for guidance of the process. - Together with external evaluator, task force and organisations involved, finalise ToR and evaluation plan. Task force, consisting of Nina Ascoly (FoEI), Satoko Kishimoto (TNI), Anouk Franck (Both ENDS). Their tasks will be: - Selection of external evaluator(s) - Liaison between the external evaluator(s) and the three organisations involved: provide information and answer questions. - Together with organisations involved, external evaluator and PME advisor, finalise ToR and evaluation plan. - Provide all the necessary data and information to the external evaluator in a timely, ordered and readable manner. - Support the evaluator in making appointments for meetings and interviews. Contact persons at organisations involved: Diego Andres Martinez Zambrano totuma07@yahoo.com (CENSAT Agua Viva), Karin Nansen urusust@redes.org.uy and urusust@gmail.com (REDES), Sena Alouka yvetogo@hotmail.com (JVE). Their tasks will be: - Selection of external evaluator(s) - Together with the task force, external evaluator and PME advisor, finalise ToR (define the precise scope and methodology for the evaluation) and evaluation plan - Provide all the necessary data and information to the external evaluator in a timely, ordered and readable manner. - Support the evaluator in making appointments for meetings and interviews. 7

8 - Take part in reflection activities The external evaluator will: - Provide inputs on methodologies and approach. - Together with PME advisor, task force, and organisations involved, finalise ToR and evaluation plan. - Conduct the evaluation activities. - Analyse the collected data and information. - Facilitate reflection meeting on the findings. - Write the draft and final report (in Spanish/French) and present it to the organisers. 9. Products, users and follow-up Major products of the evaluation will be some of the evaluation activities themselves, that are expected to spark important conversations within the organisations involved on process, relevance, effectiveness and approach. The final product of the evaluation will be three reports: one on the Latin American cases (in Spanish and translated into English), one on the Togo/Benin case (in French and translated into English), and an overall report that brings together the lessons from the two processes (in English). See Annex I for a suggested Table of Content for these reports, including an indication for number of pages per section. 10. Planning Below follows a tentative planning. The exact activities during implementation of the evaluation depend on the final plan; the activities mentioned here are indicative. No. When What Who March ToR finalised and final version disseminated in English and Spanish LR, NA, KN, TRA, AF, SA April Deadline proposals Ev April Best proposals selected using scoring format and invited for skype LR, NA, KN, TRA, AF, SA 4. 28/29 April Skype calls, evaluators selected LR, NA, KN, TRA, AF, SA May Phase 1: Evaluation plan finalised Ev 6. Mid May Phase 2: desk study & first data collection, preparations Ev mid June for reflections/exchanges 7. June Phase 3: reflection activities & exchanges Ev July Phase 4: draft report Ev 9. End of July Feedback on draft report LR, NA, SK, AF, KN, TRA, SA 10. End of August Final report Ev 11. September Translation to English 12. September Phase 5: integration of two cases, overall reflection and overall report Ev, LR, NA, SK, AF 8

9 11. Finances An indication of the budget for this evaluation is in total ; divided into for the process in Latin America and in Togo/Benin. This indication is based on around 20 or 15 working days respectively for the evaluator(s) and some material and travel costs. Evaluators will be asked to present a detailed budget if invited for a skype call, indicating number of days per activity proposed, honorarium, and direct costs. Payment arrangements to be agreed upon signing of contract. Costs for translation are not included in these budgets but will be covered by FGG. 12. Contact details Please send your proposals to: Lieke Ruijmschoot, PME advisor FGG Alliance (overall contact person) l.ruijmschoot@bothends.org; skype: lieke.ruijmschoot, Phone: +31 (0) with a CC to the following persons for the evaluation on the two Latin American cases: Nina Ascoly (Friends of the Earth International, contact person for Latin American cases) nina@foei.org Diego Andres Martinez Zambrano escuelas@censat.org (CENSAT Agua Viva) Karin Nansen (REDES) urusust@redes.org.uy and urusust@gmail.com or with a CC to the following persons for the evaluation on the Togo/Benin case: Anouk Franck (Both ENDS, contact person for case in Togo/Benin) af@bothends.org Sena Alouka (JVE) yvetogo@hotmail.com 13. Proposed Table of Content final report Evaluation of three Alternatives FGG Alliance 1. Summary & main lessons learned (2p) 2. Introduction (1/2p) 3. Background and reasons for evaluation (1/2p) 4. Methodology used (1p) 5. Limitations (1/2p) 6. Outcomes of the reflections on the evaluation questions (10p) a. Added value of alternatives b. Effectiveness of upscaling 7. Main lessons learned (2p) 8. Recommendations (1p) 9. Annexes, eg: Terms of Reference; Sources; List of interviews; (If relevant) Summaries of evaluation activities such as meetings 9