MID-TERM REVIEW (MTR) EVALUATION of the regional RECOFTC Project

Terms of Reference
MID-TERM REVIEW (MTR) EVALUATION of the regional
RECOFTC Project
"ForInfo-
Livelihood Improvement through Generation and Ownership of Forest
Information by Local People in Products and Services Markets"
Application deadline: 10
th
February 2013

RECOFTC ­ The Center for People and Forests holds a unique and important place in the world of
forestry. It is the only international not-for-profit organization that specializes in capacity building for
community forestry and devolved forest management. RECOFTC engages in strategic networks and
effective partnerships with governments, non-government organizations, civil society, the private
sector, local people, and research and educational institutes throughout the Asia-Pacific region and
beyond. With over 20 years of international experience and a dynamic approach to capacity building
­ involving research and analysis, demonstration sites, and training products ­ RECOFTC delivers
innovative solutions for people and forests.
1. Background
Local communities need information of better form and accuracy in order for forest based goods to
compete in markets at the regional and global level. Quality information enables them to access
forest product and service markets and obtain a higher share in value creation. Payments for
environmental services including carbon mitigation are increasingly available, but local communities
are as yet unable to capture these markets and realize possible potentials. Local forest managers,
smallholder producers and communities need better information about their forest resources to be
able to access such compensation schemes and traditional markets for a wide range of forest based
goods (such as NTFPs, fuelwood or timber).

The ForInfo project on
Livelihood Improvement through Generation and Ownership of Forest Information by Local People
in Products and Services Markets
addresses these issues under the following goal:
`Livelihoods of local people are improved through increased income contributing to poverty
reduction, sustainability of forest resources, mitigation, and better adaptation to climate change',
and aims to achieve the following purpose (objective):
`Quality information generated and applied by local communities contributes to an increased market
access and benefits in forest products, carbon and environmental services markets'.
background image
2
ForInfo is a project funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland (MoFA). It is operating for
three years with a possible extension by one year. Over this period, its main outputs, which have
been designed towards attaining the purpose of the Project, are expected to be as follows:
1. Best practices. Existing best practices in community-based forest and environmental services
inventories and value chains will be documented, assessed and selected.
2. Pilot testing of best practices. Identified methodologies for information generation on forest
resources, forest products and environmental services will be tested and assessed in already
existing pilot sites of implementation partners, and relevant training packages will be
developed.
3. Information and data sharing mechanisms. Effective information and data sharing
mechanisms will be piloted and recommended, that analyze, aggregate, manage, and
package community sourced data for private sector driven forest product value chains and
environmental services markets, and ensure continued access to information for
communities and other stakeholders.
4. Role in benefit-sharing arrangements. The role of information management in increasing
local people's stake in benefit-sharing arrangements along (existing) value chains tested and
assessed in existing pilot sites against transparency, and delivery and opportunity costs.
5. Disseminated field-tested methodologies. Field-tested methodologies will be disseminated
within and between countries in the Mekong region and beyond through multi-stakeholder
networks.
The project is implemented by RECOFTC ­ The Center for People and Forests in close cooperation
with government institutions and other partners in four target countries Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and
Cambodia.
Three complementary results are required in order for local people to be empowered to fully take
advantage of the changing global situation:
· Information generation: Local people are able to collect data and generate forest information
of the type and accuracy that is valued by external actors.
· Information management: Locally-generated information is pooled, managed, recorded,
transferred via innovative technologies and audited transparently, so that information
generators can claim ownership.
· Information ownership: Local people have control over the dissemination of forest
information, can use it to enhance their livelihoods through improved resource management
and are rewarded financially for its use by other actors, with whom they share information.

ForInfo is essentially about empowerment of local people to take their place in the global knowledge
marketplace. It recognizes that: local knowledge on forests is mostly informal, poorly managed and
inadequately distributed within communities. There are regulation barriers in some places
discouraging market access. It also recognizes that perceptions of both local people and other actors
need to change in order to take mutual advantage of locally-generated information. ForInfo aims to
make locally-generated forest information marketable. Also, and just as important, generating,
managing and owning data at the local level will assure that local people understand the share and
magnitude of rewards that they receive and can determine whether they are treated fairly.
background image
3
RECOFTC are seeking expressions of interest from an experienced consultant to conduct a mid-term
review evaluation of its regional ForInfo Project.
2. Purpose of the MTR
The purpose of the MTR is to determine the relevance of the project and to assess its effectiveness,
efficiency in achieving its objective and implementation progress as well as all adjustments to the
project plan. The evaluation will also evaluate whether the actions have lead to sustainable change in
behaviours in individuals, families and communities, as well as change in relationships between
formal forestry and NRM sector and service providers and the target communities, with the overall
objective of contributing to improving household incomes through market access.
The evaluation will also assess the project contributions to RECOFTC's impact and outcomes and
generate recommendations for necessary improvement to be made to the project for the remaining
project period, as well as recommendations for future RECOFTC projects on sustainable ownership of
forest information, forest livelihoods and market access.

3. Scope of evaluation

Coverage, time period, geographic area, programmatic aspects and target groups
The ForInfo project review is expected to cover 6 pilot sites. The review will be conducted over a
period of twenty (20) days, exact time frame will be negotiated at the time of signing contract and
will involve travel, consultations and discussions with stakeholders and implementing partners, to
determine the usefulness and efficacy of ForInfo's project assistance to implementing partners and
project beneficiaries under the following criteria: (i) relevance (ii) efficiency (iii) effectiveness (iv)
sustainability (v) impact (vi) monitoring and (vii) coordination.
(i)
Relevance
Relevance examines the extent to which the interventions supported under the ForInfo project are
aligned to the respective national and community needs and strategic objectives of the forestry and
NRM sector as well as Finland's Development Policy Guidelines for the Forest Sector. In particular
under the criteria of relevance the following shall be addressed:
(i) The extent to which the projects planned results addresses the commitments made, regional
priorities, national development plans and community needs of target populations;
(ii)
To which extend the implementation followed Results-Based Management principles,
identify shortcoming and recommend improvements, if there are any necessary.
(iii) To what extent has the ForInfo project achieved its expected progress at midterm stage and
contributed to the overall project goal. Given the small size of the project and limited
resources per country, how has ForInfo project contributed to overall project success in
supporting sustainable livelihoods and improved market access.
(iv) To what extent the project contributes to RECOFTC's impact and outcomes as detailed in its
Logframe and M&E system.
background image
4
(ii)
Efficiency
Efficiency considers how economically, or optimally, inputs (such as financial, human, technical and
material resources) have been used to produce outputs. Therefore, the assessment of efficiency links
outputs to resources expended and assesses whether this occurred as economically as possible. For
example does the quantity and quality of the activities and results justify the quantity and quality of
the means used for achieving them?

To assess efficiency, the following will be determined:
(i)
What measures were taken during planning and implementation phases of the
ForInfo project to ensure that regular and other resources were used efficiently;
(ii)
Whether the ForInfo project interventions could have been done better, more
cheaply or more quickly, without compromising the quality and quantity of the
results. If so, how?
(iii)
Whether the actual or expected outputs (results) justify the costs incurred;
(iv)
To what extent the project activities overlap or duplicate other similar interventions
funded by other donors, NGOs and national resources;
(v)
To determine the timeliness of inputs such as personnel, consultants, travel in
relation to expected outputs
(iii)
Effectiveness
Effectiveness considers the extent to which planned results, including agreed outputs, outcomes and
impacts are/were achieved as consequence of the project's efforts.

Consequently, under the objective of effectiveness, the consultant(s) need to determine the
following:
(i)
The extent to which planned project outputs have or will be achieved;
(ii)
The extent to which the quality of results were/are going to be achieved at the level
of project pilot sites/interventions and whether they are contributing or likely to
contribute to the overall project outcome;
(iii)
The extent of planned and unplanned achievements in capacity development for
government counterparts, especially Provincial and District staff;
(iv)
The extent to which technical assistance contributed to more effective interventions
at the country level;
(v)
The extent to which the project targets both men and women? How acceptable are
the messages to women and to men? Are the messages culturally appropriate? And
do they take into account issues of ethnic minorities and marginalized groups?;
(vi)
The extent to which the project cooperates/collaborates with other/similar RECOFTC
projects and activities in the target areas
(vii)
Constraining and facilitating factors on the achievement of results;
background image
5
(viii)
Whether any issues have positively or negatively impacted the implementation of
the projects, and whether the issues were captured and addressed with adaptation
measures by the project and or by implementing partners or jointly;
(ix)
The extent to which planned outputs have or will contribute effectively to the
achievement of the outcomes.
(iv)
Sustainability
The assessment on sustainability considers the durability of positive results after a programme's
completion or the end of project's funding or support. Sustainability therefore assesses the extent to
which the programme/project results are likely to continue or remain after the end of the ForInfo
project's support and involvement. What has happened (or is likely to happen) to the positive effects
of project's interventions after its support or involvement has (or will) come to an end? In the
assessment of sustainability it is expected to determine the following:
(i)
The extent of implementing partners and stakeholders participation in the planning
and implementation of the interventions to ensure local engagement from the start
of the project;
(ii)
The extent to which relevant implementing partners and institutions have
a. adapted strong governance structures and professional capacity to sustain
ForInfo related activities and projects;
b. the financial capacity to maintain the benefits from the intervention when
ForInfo's support has been withdrawn;
(iii)
The extent to which the positive impact of the project justify the continuation of
investments through related RECOFTC or MoFA supported interventions;
(iv)
The extent to which stakeholders and implementing partners are willing and able to
sustain the project and continue activities on their own;
(v)
The extent to which stakeholders and implementing partners have institutionalized
policies and strategies in the project in their strategic plans and inclusion in their
budgets;
(vi)
The extent of local ownership of these interventions and what evidence there is to
support local ownership;
(vii)
The extent to which Forinfo is cooperating with existing and envisaged future Finland
funded Projects in the region, incl among its target countries/sites/partners
(viii)
The way how ForInfo is embedded in the overall activities of RECOFTC:
· ForInfo's contribution of data and information to RECOFTC's M&E system
· the extent of the projects activities contributing to RECOFTC's log frame outcome
4 (information) and outcome 5 (improved practices).
· the extent the project cooperates/collaborates with other RECOFTC
interventions
(v)
Impact
background image
6
Impact considers the longer term or ultimate results attributable to the programmes or interventions
being evaluated, taking into account the goal of the project. Thus the assessment of impact considers
positive and negative long-term effects, which may be socio-cultural that related to changing
behaviour and believe of target populations in applying lessons learned or other effects. What has
happened or (is likely to happen) as a consequence of ForInfo's efforts? In the assessment of impact
of the project, determine the following:
(i)
The extent to which the long term results have been achieved or are likely to be
attained;
(ii)
The overall effects of the intervention, intended and unintended, long term and
short term, positive and negative;
(iii)
The extent to which ForInfo's interventions have contributed to capacity
development and the strengthening of institutions in the partner country;
(iv)
The extent to which ForInfo's interventions have contributed or supported
outputs/outcomes and its sustainability; and
(v)
The extent to which the changes that have occurred during the life of the project
intervention or during 2010-2012 and have been identified and measured.
(vi)
Monitoring

The assessment on monitoring considers whether a monitoring system and framework was in place
with appropriate indicators at outcomes and outputs level. In the assessment of monitoring, consider
how effective the monitoring system and framework was being utilized to regularly track and
monitor progress in the implementation of activities, fund utilization and the achievement of results.
In particular in the assessment of programme/project monitoring determine the following:
(i)
The extent to which the established ForInfo monitoring framework/system is being
followed;
(ii)
The extent to which the monitoring tools (Annual Work plan, Work plan, Monitoring
Tools, etc) in the M&E framework are being utilized to monitor progress in the
implementation of activities, and,
(iii)
The extent to which regular monitoring of activities and fund utilization contribute
to:
a. high implementation rate
b. attainment of project results
c. effective and timely decision making in the course of project implementation
3.
Methodology
The evaluation process will involve:
· Review of project documents and reports
· Review of project materials, website, other promotion material
· Field visit to observe the work done at community level in a minimum of 3 pilot sites
o Discussion with local authorities
background image
7
o Focus group discussions with participants (women and men) in remote areas,
including vulnerable/ethnic people [collect peoples quotes]
o Discussion with extension staff,
· Meeting with District and Provincial partners
· Meeting with NGO project partners and their field staff

Key questions for the evaluation
The following questions need to be answered by accessing multiple stakeholders incorporated with
appropriate methodologies:
· Are the activities being implemented in line with project objectives and plans?
· How are the activities being implemented to meet project objectives and community needs?
Where processes followed participatory?
· How well are the activities meeting the needs of target communities and different groups
within communities?
· Are vulnerable groups (ethnic minorities) specifically targeted by the project?
· Are sufficient and effective mechanisms put in place for establishing a functional bridge
between the community and the extension services? What is the most commonly used
mechanism, what problems have been encountered in creating and maintaining this
functional bridge and how have they been overcome?
· How well is the market access improved for communities?
· Are mechanisms put in place in the community sufficient and efficient to ensure an improved
access of all target groups to information and other project services?
· To what extent has the demand for market information services increased? To what extend
is it possible to identify increase in service use disaggregated by wealth quintile, ethnic
background and age group?
· To what extent have the activities contributed to the empowerment of women in particular
and communities in general and to building the capacity of communities to improve market
access?
· Are the government implementing partners convinced of the usefulness of the approach
applied by the project, and are they sufficiently interested and committed to replicate the
successful approaches in other villages/districts?
· To what extent has the capacity of government extension services been developed to
respond to the needs of provinces and districts for quality information materials and to
promote its use by participatory methodologies?
· Are the issues of sustainability incorporated into programming?
· Are innovations and best practises actively communicated and discussed among project
partners?
· How effective and appropriate are the internal and external, monitoring and supervision
tools used for monitoring activities of the project activities, including production of relevant
and realistic indicators?
· Are crosscutting objectives of the valid Finnish Development Policy effectively addressed by
the project?


background image
8
Documents to be made available for desk review
· Project document
· Country and partner agreements and contracts
· Project /pilot sites Annual Work Plans
· Project work plan monitoring tool
· Inception and progress reports
· Financial reports
· Planning and Tracking tools
· Documented best practices
· Respective forestry and NRM Country strategies
· Finland's development policy for the forestry sector
· RECOFTC logical framework (new draft 18.12.2012)
4. Ethics
The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with RECOFTC Ethical code of conduct. Copies of this
document will be made available to the evaluation team on signing of contract. Evaluation team will
be expected to sign a declaration of interest form. ForInfo will assist in providing suitable translators
where necessary to ensure that all communities can participate and contribute to this evaluation.

Confidentially will be maintained throughout, disclosures of names, use of photographs etc. will only
be with permission of the individual(s) concerned.

5. Profile of the consultant
The consultant will be an expert in the NRM sector evaluation with background and experience in
forest based value chains. He/she will be assisted where necessary with local translators and support
field staff.

The consultant will have the following profile:
· A Master in NRM/Forestry or Social sciences with rural development background.
· At least five years experience in conducting or being involved with similar evaluations
or
participatory evaluation methodologies in the Mekong region.
· Experience working with Government departments and officials
· Experience of community based NRM rural development programmes in the Mekong region.
· Proven good analytical and report writing skill.
· Excellent English language skills.
· Working knowledge of one or more of the regionally relevant languages will be a distinct
asset of the evaluator.
· Ability to conduct stakeholder review workshops in Lao language is an advantage.

The team leader of the mission will be accountable for production and submission of the agreed
deliverables.
background image
9

6. Stakeholder Participation
It is expected that all relevant stakeholders will have opportunity to contribute to this evaluation and
will be informed of results.

RECOFTC will provide the evaluation team with stakeholder matrix prior to commencement of the
evaluation. The Evaluation team however will be expected to verify this matrix and add or amend as
they meet with stakeholders or identify new or additional stakeholders.
7. Work plan
The in country review evaluation shall last for 20 days and will take place between the 24
th
of
February and the 15
th
of March, 2013. This includes at least 10 to 14 days of field work including
travel and 4 to 5 days in Bangkok at the RECOFTC offices. In addition, the assignment shall include a
one day review workshop in Bokeo province, Lao PDR.

Work Schedule:
· Review and revise TOR with consultant (Bangkok)
· Review relevant documents (Bangkok)
· Meet Tree Bank representative for Thailand pilot sites (Bangkok)
· Phone/Skype interview and discussion with SNV/GEF/FSC project staff
· Field visit to Bokeo, Lao PDR (4 days)
· Field visit Seima and SFM sites in Cambodia (5 days)
· Write up draft evaluation (4 days)
· Discussion on draft report (Bangkok)
· Presentation of project evaluation (Bangkok)
·
Submission of report
The above schedule is only tentative and shall be revised in due course according to workshop timing,
travel dates etc. However, the total of 20 days should not be exceeded for the assignment.

Output of evaluation
It is expected that the consultant will deliver:
· An initial inception report with agreed itinerary for field visits
· Summary Notes of field visits and proposed outline /Table of contents of Final Report based
upon above described criteria.
· An initial draft of the final report
· A report presenting findings of the various discussions and responding to the evaluation
questions to including lessons learnt and recommendations for future replication.
· A PowerPoint presentation of findings and recommendation for future actions, to be given to
members of the ForInfo Project Steering Committee.

Payments for work completed will be linked to the above deliverables. An initial payment of 40% will
be made upon signing of the contract. The remaining 60% will be paid upon submission and approval
background image
10
of the satisfactory final report.

8. Expression of interest
If you are interested in being considered for this assignment, please provide us with a brief technical
proposal. This should include a timeframe indicating estimated working days for each task; and a
financial plan including all relevant costs. Your previous relevant experience (or that of your
organization and the designated consultant) in conducting Mid-Term Review / Evaluation (MTR)
should be clearly indicated in the CV and attached with the proposal. The technical proposal should
be submitted as soon as possible. Subsequent to the submission, we will invite shortlisted candidates
to discuss the next steps.

Please send the technical proposal to
hr@recoftc.org
with the words "Mid-Term Review / Evaluation
(MTR)" in the subject box. Only shortlisted organizations will be contacted.

To learn more about RECOFTC, please visit our website
www.recoftc.org