West Africa Regional Office (founded in 2010)

TERMS OF REFERENCE For the External Evaluation of ACF s West Africa Regional Office (founded in 2010) Programme Funded by ACF own funds 29 th November 2012

1. CONTRACTUAL DETAILS OF THE EVALUATION 1.1. Key Evaluation Dates Expected Start Date: Mid-January 2013 End Date: Mid-February 2013 Submission of Draft Report Early February 2013 Submission of Final Report Mid-February 2013 1.2. Language of the Evaluation Language Requirements for the Evaluation: Language of the Report: French and English English 1.3. Work Plan & Timetable [indicative] Activities Working Days Briefings with ELA/WARO and document review 2 Methodological planning 1 Travel to Dakar 1 Documentation review and interviews (with internal and external stakeholders) 7 Data analysis 3 Drafting of draft report 5 Debriefing in Dakar with WARO team 1 Travel back from Dakar 1 Debriefing with HQs (via Skype) 1 Finalisation of Report based on ACF feedback and debriefing comments 3 Total 25 1.4. Budget for the Evaluation A daily fee will be negotiated with the consultant upon selection and before signing of the contract. ACF will provide all expenses related to the evaluation including international flights, in-country travel, accommodation and food. Exact allowance will be detailed in the contract. The consultant is responsible for personal insurance during the evaluation. The consultant will also provide any necessary materials (including laptops) required for the evaluation. 2. BACKGROUND WARO Location: Dakar, Senegal WARO Opening Date: January, 2010 History of WARO and ACF in the region ACF has a wealth of experience working in several West African countries and is currently present and implementing nutritional activities in 11 countries in the region: Mali, Niger, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Chad, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Senegal. In order to further coordinate and improve its interventions in the region, ACF opened the West Page 2 of 8

Africa Regional Office in Dakar in January, 2010. WARO, the first ACF International Office, was opened by ACF-Spain, ACF-UK and ACF-France together and supported by the DfID funded West Africa Humanitarian Response Fund (WAHRF), and also to identify and develop ACF s regional positioning in Dakar. Since January 2010, ACF has been part of several different regional coordination mechanisms: the regional IASC and its working group (Food Security and Nutrition Working Group), the Regional Nutrition Working Group, others UN, donors and INGO coordination mechanisms. ACF has also begun good relationships with ECOWAS institutions notably WAHO, CILLS and other regional institutions such as FEWSNET and AGHRYMET. Strong bilateral relationships have also been developed with some regional UN offices (UNICEF, FAO, WFP, OCHA notably) and with INGO regional office (notably OXFAM, HKI and Save the Children). This position has allowed us to extend and consolidate our network and to be part of the nutrition dynamic in the region. In September 2010, ACF International decided to take the ambitious move and begin defining a regional strategic program for a 3-5 year period including several technical modules which could represent future regional projects. This would make up a combined budget of 30 million and allow us to approach traditional and non-traditional donors. The 2011-2015 West Africa operational strategy was validated early 2011 and has sinceremained since a fundamental guiding document for both programming and fundraising in the region. 2011 was a year of growth. ACF had formally defined its regional positioning and strategy, and had become a proactive and reliable nutrition actor in West Africa. 2012 was a critical year in the history of the WARO. 2012 has been considered one of crisis with 17 million people considered at risk of food insecurity and a foreseen caseload of 1 million SAM cases and 3 million MAM cases alerts were provided by the humanitarian community as early as October 2011. Within that context, the WARO was key in defining a regional positioning, supporting the elaboration of regional programs, providing guidance to country missions and securing funds for the 2012 Sahel response. Regional projects scaled up and by the end of the year the WARO was in charge of 3 significantly sized regional grants (DFID, SIDA, AFD) as well as of the follow up of and support to 2 national grants being a continuation of a previous regional contract (ECHO). Internally, the WARO went through three great changes: (i) a change in leadership since the management of the WARO was permanently transferred to ACF-Madrid when it had been rotating so far, (ii) a turn-over of all positions within a few months (regional representative, programme coordinator, FSL support all changed between in a 4 months period, and new staffs came in) (iii) a process of merger with the ACF-Spain Senegal mission which was opened that year (merger of logistics services, move to common office and guest house). At the time of writing, the ACF West Africa Regional Office is now well recognized at internal and external level in the region and shows good perspectives in terms of advocacy, networking, operational and financial volume in West Africa. The inter-hq MoU has been signed after over a year of negotiations between HQs. 2013 is seen as a year of consolidation to strengthen all the gains made so far. This evaluation should give directions to ensure the continued strengthening of the WARO and further enhance its added-value for ACF in the region. 2.5. WARO Activities Current regional projects include: As part of the 2012 Sahel response: - SIDA grant (01/03/12 31/08/13): Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania. Beneficiaries : 15 736 children and 500 PLW. Overall obj XXX. Expected resultd XXXX. Activities Page 3 of 8

include support to acute malnutrition treament, blanket feeding, moderate malnutrition treatment. Each country starts and ends at different dates. - DFID grant ((01/03/12 31/08/13): Burkina Faso, Niger, Mauritania, Tchad.Beneficiaries: XXXX (to update). Overall obj XXX. Expected resultd XXXX. Activities include XXX. - ECHO grant As a reflection of the WA regional strategy - AFD grant XXXX WARO is also involved in: - Strategic development: current funding opportunities that have been identified are ECHO HIP Sahel 2013, ECHO HIP Mali 2013, DFID, USAID, CIDA and UNICEF. Potential programs include post-response programming after the 2012 crisis, resilience programming (disaster and under-nutrition), WASH (in nutrition and/or for cholera), response to the Mali crisis in Mali and neighbouring countries. - Networking, representation, brand-promotion and advocacy: ACF is an active member of the IASC, FSNWG, NWG, Technical Committee of the CILS, and participates also to meetings and networking in the fields of emergency preparedness, health, cholera and WASH. 3. AIM OF THE EVALUATION 3.1 Target User (s) of the Evaluation ACF WARO Steering Group, potential EARO Steering Group, ELA Unit Field Level ACF West Africa Country Directors Other - 3.2 Objectives of the Evaluation 1. To assess the added value of having an ACF regional structure in West Africa. 2. To review the experiences (positive and negative) of WARO since its founding. 3. To provide strategic and operational recommendations for the future of WARO. 3.3. Scope of the Evaluation The evaluation will address 5 key areas relating to WARO activities and must investigate the questions hereunder, and provide recommendations for the future of WARO (as outlined in section 6). 1. ACF West Africa Strategy How coherent is the strategy with the strategies of UN agencies, the main donors and NGOs? Is the strategy in-line with the humanitarian sector s the regional analyses? How does WARO contribute to a more effective implementation of the ACF West Africa Strategy? How does WARO contribute to better coordination across the WARO network (HQs involved in WARO Steering Committee) and West Africa country missions? Does WARO facilitate the alignment of country strategies with ACF West Africa Strategy? How has WARO contributed to the roll-out of the SUN initiative across ACF countries of Page 4 of 8

operation? 2. Funding How has WARO contributed to attracting more funding for ACF operations? Does WARO serve as an appropriate mechanism through which to receive and disburse funds to missions across the region? 3. Advocacy Has WARO contributed towards a more coherent regional advocacy strategy? Does WARO give ACF increased leverage in the region in terms of advocacy? Have WARO advocacy activities been effective in putting nutrition higher on the agenda for donor government and national governments? 4. Programme Coordination Has WARO lead to a more coherent implementation of programmes across the region? Has WARO increased efficiency in the implementation of regional programmes? Has WARO facilitated and enhanced experience sharing (technical or otherwise) across ACF country programmes? How does WARO contribute to better coordination (in general) across ACF West Africa country programmes? 5. Management Is the current management structure of WARO suitable for the desired objectives? What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the role of the WARO steering group approach? What actions have been taken by ACF HQs to enhance ownership of the WARO mandate and ensure its added-value is strengthened, and what further or other actions could be taken? Are the current validation, information and communication procedures and systems between the HQs, the WARO and the country missions efficient? How could they be improved? Has the shared housing of the WARO and the ACF-Senegal mission proven beneficial? What has it implied in terms of risk management and resource optimization? Is the sharing of roles & responsibilities between the WARO and the HQs efficient and appropriate for ensuring a satisfactory management of the project cycle for regional programmes? Here one should pay particular attention to the role of technical and finance staff and to associated operational processes for the follow-up of and support to regional project management. Is there a need to revise the positions of some WARO team member, and revisit the sharing of responsibilities between the WARO, the HQs and country missions, in order to enhance efficiency and streamline validation, information and communication processes? 6. Recommendations and the future of WARO Is the creation of a regional office on the model of what was done for the WARO an experience that would be worth replicating? Assess the vision of ACF International in the region over the next 5 to 10 years. What do HQs and country missions think the WARO should do, not do or improve on? Could WARO have added-value in providing human resource, logistics and supply chain support to the missions? What would be the key lessons learnt from the WARO experience that should be taken into account when creating another regional structure: factors of success, challenges & Page 5 of 8

stumbling blocks, mitigating measures, governance mechanisms, operational processes, etc.? The evaluation is expected to produce dated, measurable and specific recommendations on what should be done to enhance the added-value and efficiency of the WARO, at the various levels which have been explored during the evaluation: country mission, WARO and HQ, in the fields of governance, management & operational processes, strategy, program coordination and funding. 3.4. Best Practice The evaluation is expected to provide three (3) key examples of Best Practice from the WARO initiative. This example should be a specific approach that ACF has adopted and could potentially be applicable to another up-coming regional office. The practice could relate to a management, coordination, advocacy, or any of the areas of WARO activities. These examples of Best Practice should be presented as an annex to the report. 3.5. Evaluation Outputs The result of this evaluation should be presented in a written report and through several oral presentations: One in Dakar One at HQ level (through teleconference to ACF HQs). 3.6. Methodology 3.6.1. Briefing The evaluator will brief with the ELA Unit and the West Africa Regional Representative prior to the evaluation (this will most likely be done by Skype). 3.6.2. Research activities Consultants are expected to collect an appropriate range of data. This includes (but not limited to): 3.6.3. Report Direct information: Interviews with staff at ACF missions in West Africa, at HQ (Paris, London, Madrid and New York) level and the WARO. External stakeholders should also be met in Dakar or by Skype: UN agencies (UNICEF, FAO, WFP, OCHA), donors (ECHO, USAID, DFID, SIDA, AFD), other INGOs. Secondary information analysis: programme documentation, including analysis of project monitoring data or of any other relevant statistical data. The report shall follow the following format. Cover Page Table of Contents Executive Summary: must be a standalone summary, describing the programme, main findings of the evaluation, and conclusions and recommendations. This will be no more than 2 pages in length. Page 6 of 8

Main Body: The main body of the report shall elaborate the points listed in the Executive Summary. It will include references to the methodology used for the evaluation and the context of the action. In particular, for each key conclusion there should be a corresponding recommendation. 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 and in the Commission. Annexes: Listed and correctly numbered. Format for the main body of the report is: o Background Information o Methodology o Findings & Discussions o Conclusions Recommendations o Annex I (Best Practices) The report should be submitted in the language specified in the ToR. The report should not be longer than 30 pages excluding 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 programme subject to the evaluation. 3.6.4. Debriefing & Learning Workshop The evaluator should facilitate a learning workshop: To present the draft report and the findings of the evaluation to the Mission and other stakeholders. To gather feedback on the findings and build consensus on recommendations. To develop action-oriented workshop statements on lessons learned and proposed improvements for the future. 3.6.5. Debriefing with ACF HQ The evaluator should provide a debriefing with the relevant ACF HQs on her/his draft report, and on the main findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation. Relevant comments should be incorporated in the final report. 4. PROFILE OF THE EVALUATOR Knowledge in humanitarian programmes (WaSH/Nutrition/Food Secuirty) in West Africa Significant field experience in the evaluation of humanitarian / development projects Relevant degree / equivalent experience related to the evaluation to be undertaken Significant experience in coordination, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes Significant experience in organizational learning: change process management, strategic planning for restructuring, job descriptions revamping. Good communications skills and experience of workshop facilitation Ability to write clear and useful reports (may be required to produce examples of previous work) Fluent in French and English Understanding of donor requirements Ability to manage the available time and resources and to work to tight deadlines Independence from the parties involved 5. RIGHTS Page 7 of 8

The ownership of the draft and final documentation belong 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. This being said, ACF is likely to share the results of the evaluation with the following groups: Donor(s) Governmental partners Various co-ordination bodies Intellectual Property Rights All documentation related to the Assignment (whether or not in the course of your duties) shall remain the sole and exclusive property of the Charity. Page 8 of 8