Kigali, 01 July 2024 Background

GVTC is an intergovernmental organisation established by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda, and Uganda, governed by a treaty signed on October 30, 2015. Its purpose is to foster transboundary collaboration for wildlife conservation and tourism development in the Greater Virunga Landscape (GVL), which spans protected areas in all three countries, including Virunga National Park, Volcanoes National Park, Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Rwenzori Mountains National Park, Semuliki, and Queen Elizabeth National Park.

 

The GVL is ecologically diverse and home to species such as chimpanzees, mountain gorillas, okapis, and elephants. However, it faces threats from illegal resource exploitation driven by population growth, poverty, dependence on natural resources, and regional political instability.

 

The Great Lakes Region is experiencing escalating conflict, with state-supported non-state armed groups and increased violence affecting civilians (DR Congo). The DRC accuses Rwanda of supporting the M23 rebel group, while Rwanda accuses the DRC of supporting the FDLR. These allegations have been supported by reports from the Group of Experts for the 1533 DRC Sanctions Committee.

Relations between the DRC and Rwanda are extremely strained, though Uganda and Rwanda have improved their relationship. Uganda and the DRC have complex relations due to the presence of the ADF on Congolese territory.

 

Political challenges hinder conservation efforts, though technical discussions continue at lower governmental levels. Poor intergovernmental relations complicate GVTC's operations and threaten its long-term viability, as sustained financing from the partner countries is essential.

 

The Netherlands and GVTC

In 2004, the protected-area authorities of the DRC, Rwanda, and Uganda agreed to develop a transboundary strategic plan (TSP) to achieve collaborative management, which was signed in 2006. In 2008, funding was obtained from the Netherlands Directorate-General of International Cooperation (DGIS) to establish the Transboundary Core Secretariat and implement several elements of the TSP. The funding was continued and entered its fourth and last period (2021- December 2024).

The transboundary collaboration process in the GVL started in the early 90s as an informal collaboration mechanism initiated by the rangers charged with monitoring the mountain gorillas and their habitat. Later, in 2003, the institutions of conservation within the three countries, i.e., the Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature – ICCN, the Office Rwandais du Tourism et des Parcs Nationaux – ORTPN and the Uganda Wildlife Authority – UWA signed a collaborative agreement, recognising this informal collaboration initiated by the rangers, and expanding it in scope and space (beyond the gorilla habitat). In the subsequent years, the transboundary

collaboration was further formalised and strengthened through the signing of more agreements involving the three countries. However, this formalisation process of the transboundary collaboration itself culminated with the negotiation and signing of the GVTC Treaty by DRC,

Rwanda, and Uganda on 30 October 2015, highlighting the importance of the collaboration for the sustainable management of the protected areas and promotion of tourism, within the larger and unique Greater Virunga Landscape.

Thanks to the signing of the Treaty, today, GVTC is recognised as an Interstate Institution (with diplomatic status) with a clear mandate and governance structure geared toward the implementation of this Treaty.

 

GVTC’s current 10-year TSP (2024 – 2033) focuses on four pillars:

• Transboundary collaboration and coordination: Strengthening regional cooperation for effective natural resource management and shared responsibility in addressing
• Community advocacy and empowerment: Prioritizing local communities' voices, skills development, and sustainable
• Enterprise, investment, and finance: Fostering responsible business and green investment, mobilising diverse financing for sustainable
• Sustainable natural resources management: Protecting the GVL's ecological integrity, addressing poaching, and habitat

 

GVTC Strategic objectives:

1. SO-1: Strengthen transboundary collaboration and coordination for effective natural resource management in GVL.
2. SO-2: Strengthen advocacy and community empowerment to improve participation in the effective management of the GVL.
3. SO-3: Support the development and implementation of innovative finance and investments for the effective conservation of GVL.
4. SO-4: Improve governance and effective management of transboundary natural resources in the GVL.

Strategic Outcomes:

• 1: Strengthened transboundary coordination for effective natural resource management in GVL.
• 2: Strengthened transboundary collaboration for effective natural resource management in GVL.
• 1: Advocacy and community empowerment programs strengthened to improve participation and effective management of the GVL.
• 1: Innovative investments and finance for effective conservation of GVL developed and functional.
• 2: Conservation-friendly enterprises in the GVL developed and supported.
• 1: Management effectiveness of transboundary natural resources in the GVL improved.
• 2: Governance of transboundary natural resources in the GVL improved.

Objectives of the final evaluation

The overall objectives of the evaluation are to assess the project's achievements and (potential) impact and draw lessons. The evaluation should provide credible and useful information, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision-making processes of donors, organisations, and target groups.

Key evaluation criteria:

• Coherence/Effectiveness/Efficiency: Review the coherence, efficiency, and effectiveness of the project in achieving its intended
• Relevance: Assess the relevance of the project
• Sustainability and Preparedness: Evaluate GVTC's preparedness for future sustainability, considering the Netherlands’ end of financial support in late
• Sustainability: Assess GVTC's success in securing ongoing financial commitments and political influence from partner governments to ensure long-term viability and impact on conservation efforts in the GVL.
• Lessons Learned: Suggest lessons learned for the project and the

 

Particular attention is needed for the following:

• Conflict-sensitivity approach (vis-à-vis communities, partners, and governments).
• Logic and quality of implementation (theory of change, intervention strategies, planning, complementarities, collaboration within the consortium).
• Inclusion of and ownership by relevant state and non-state
• Impact of advocacy work vis-à-vis relevant
• Collaboration of GVTC with other relevant projects/initiatives in the same

 

Deliverables:

• Inception report: Including work plan, detailed methodology, and risk assessment, to and will be delivered within two weeks of signing the
• Preparatory working sessions: These are held before the start of fieldwork with both the Embassy and GVTC (as part of the inception phase).
• Presentation of initial results: Upon the completion of fieldwork, these will be presented to GVTC, key government stakeholders, and the
• Draft report: To be submitted within 20 days after completion of the fieldwork to the embassy and GVTC.
• Final report: To be submitted within 20 days after receipt of feedback from the embassy. The final report will be made public and should not exceed 50 pages (excluding annexes). The report shall be in English and will have the following structure:
  • Executive summary (English, max 3 pages)
  • Executive summary (French, max 3 pages)
  • Introduction
  • Methodology
  • Summary of project achievements (based on document study)
  • Salient findings (narrative of observations in the field)
  • Assessment of the project on relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, and others
  • Lessons learnt
  • Conclusions
  • Recommendations for GVTC and the embassy/Great Lakes Regional Program, and governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in the project

 

Methodology/approach

The evaluation will follow a mixed-method approach with specific attention to the participatory character of proposed methodologies and process, as well as conflict sensitivity of the evaluation process.

Potential aspects of the methodology:

• Qualitative research in the targeted areas, including interviews and focus group discussions with key local, national, and regional stakeholders, direct beneficiaries, community members, and project staff.
• Review of relevant project planning and evaluation documents, including internal and external reports, results framework, baseline, midline, and end-line
• Fieldwork in all intervention zones in DRC Congo, Uganda, and
• Key informant interviews with stakeholders in DR Congo, Uganda, and

 

Required expertise:

• At least 10 years’ experience of the team leader with implementing natural resource management, (transboundary) park protection, transboundary cooperation and collaboration, livelihoods, governance, and political engagement related interventions in developing countries/regions.
• At least 10 years of experience with qualitative research in complex
• Experience in the Great Lakes
• Excellent English writing skills and command of English and French, and (either directly or through qualified translators) the relevant local language(s).
• Ability to tap into a solid network of Great Lakes experts/researchers on the subject
• Willingness to travel to insecure areas and relevant intervention areas in DR

Note that the evaluation must include on-site fieldwork. Visa processes can take a long time and should be started timely.

 

Planning

The evaluation should start no later than August 1, 2024, and fieldwork should start no later than September 1, 2024. The total evaluation is foreseen to take about 50 to 60 days. The maximum budget for the evaluation is 100,000 Euro.

Logistics

Consultants will arrange visas, travel to the region, and insurance. They will also arrange lodging. GVTC can facilitate access to lodging and transport in the project areas.

 

Submission Process

 Interested organisations are invited to submit an expression of interest within 10 working days of the publication of this ToR (Specifically by 17^th July 2023). Based on an assessment of these expressions of interest, selected organisations will be invited to submit a concept note. Based on an assessment of the concept notes, one or more organisations will be invited to submit a full proposal.

Expressions of interest must be either in English or in French and submitted electronically to GVTC Executive Secretary by email at es@greatervirunga.org and copying the following Email addresses: rkabeya@greatervirung.org; and pruhumuliza@greatervirunga.org.

Assessment Criteria:

 

1. Methodology (45%):
   • Understanding of the assignment: a clear indication of the needs and expected outputs of the evaluation.
   • A description of the approach, including an elaboration of the research questions and the mixed-method approach.

2.          Resume (25%):

• Experience with implementing qualitative research in complex
• Experience with implementing/reviewing stabilisation, governance, and security- related interventions in developing countries.
• Experience with implementing/reviewing park protection, landscape, political engagement, and governance
• Experience in the Great Lakes region (DRC, Rwanda, and Uganda).
• Broad experience with landscape, park protection, biodiversity, livelihoods, and political engagement.

3.          Division of Tasks (10%):

• The degree to which tasks, activities, and responsibilities are logically divided over the team members based on experience and

4.          Price (20%) 

Annex 1: Detailed analysis questions are to be answered.

 The consultants will evaluate the project through a series of detailed questions of analysis, covering:

1.          Coherence and Consistency:

• Is the project logically designed with clear cause-effect relationships?
• How do the project objectives align with local needs and other regional conservation, protection of natural resources, transboundary collaboration, and cooperation initiatives?

2.          Effectiveness and Impact:

• To what extent have the project's objectives been achieved?
• What are the key factors that contributed to or hindered the achievement of objectives?

3.          Efficiency:

• Were resources used efficiently in relation to the outputs and outcomes achieved?

4.          Relevance:

• Are the project’s objectives still relevant to the current context and stakeholder needs?

5.          Sustainability:

• What is the likelihood that project outcomes will be sustainable after the end of funding?
• What strategies are in place to ensure continued financial and political support?

This document is prepared to guide potential evaluators in understanding the expectations, context, and framework for the GVTC's end-of-project evaluation. The evaluation aims to draw comprehensive lessons and provide actionable recommendations to ensure the sustained impact and future success of GVTC's initiatives in the Greater Virunga Landscape.

 

Annex 1: Detailed analysis questions are to be answered.

The proposed questions in this annex are indicative. During the inception phase, it is recommended that the consulting firm holds working sessions with the GVTC core management team to refine evaluation questions and related data collection tools, considering the effective targeting of key informants. This aims to ensure that the data collected is of maximum quality and depth, accurately reflecting the program's realities and results.

RELEVANCE: IS THE INTERVENTION DOING THE RIGHT THINGS?

Description of the criterion:

This criterion examines the extent to which the intervention's objectives and design respond to the needs, policies, and priorities of beneficiaries, global stakeholders, country, and partner institutions. It considers how these objectives and designs adapt to changing circumstances. Relevance involves analysing differences and trade-offs between various priorities and needs and assessing the intervention's sensitivity to economic, environmental, social, political, and capacity conditions.

Specific questions to be answered:

• How do stakeholders, including local national and regional governments, UN, NGOs, and community members, assess the project's relevance to their needs and priorities?
• To what extent has the project considered the different needs and priorities of various stakeholders (see above)?
• To what extent has the project addressed the underlying issues that led to its development?
• How has the context in which the project was implemented changed over time, and how has this influenced the project's relevance?
• To what extent has GVTC adapted to the changing environment and incorporated lessons learned?
• How relevant are the specific interventions to direct beneficiaries, relevant local, national, and regional governments, local and international NGO’s working on natural resources and parc protection?
• How relevant are the intervention strategies to achieving results?
• Could the project's relevance have been enhanced? If so, how? What lessons can be learned to increase relevance in the next phase?

 

COHERENCE: HOW WELL DOES THE INTERVENTION FIT?

Description of the criterion:

This criterion assesses the compatibility of the intervention with other interventions in the country, sector, or institution. It looks at how other interventions support or undermine the project, and vice versa, including both internal and external coherence. Internal coherence addresses synergies and interlinkages within the same institution or government, while external coherence considers the consistency with other actors' interventions in the same context.

 

Specific questions to be answered:

• To what extent was coherence sought and achieved with (relevant) projects in the Great Lakes Regional Program?
• To what extent are the project's achievements in line with the policies and plans of provincial, local, and regional authorities and communities in the targeted areas?
• To what extent was coherence sought and achieved with other (inter)national projects in the targeted area?
• How coherent is the project design and implementation for achieving results?
• Could the coherence of the project have been enhanced? If so, how?
• What lessons can be learned to increase coherence in any future phase?

 

EFFECTIVENESS: IS THE INTERVENTION ACHIEVING ITS OBJECTIVES?

Description of the criterion:

This criterion examines the extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives and results, including differential results across groups. It involves analysing the relative importance of the objectives or results.

 

Specific questions to be answered:

• To what extent did the project achieve its outputs in terms of quantity and quality? (Explain reasons for over-/underachievement)
• To what extent did the project achieve its outcomes in terms of quantity and quality? (Explain reasons for over-/underachievement)
• Was the program logic (particularly the assumptions linking outputs to outcomes and the risk assessment) adequate?
• Were risk management, conflict sensitivity, and gender responsiveness adequate, and how has the project been adjusted based on regular assessments of conflicts, assumptions, and risks?
• Is there acceptance, ownership, and leadership for the activities and outputs among beneficiaries, communities, and regional/national/provincial government?
• What lessons can be learned to achieve greater effectiveness?

 

EFFICIENCY: HOW WELL ARE RESOURCES BEING USED?

Description of the criterion:

This criterion assesses the extent to which the intervention delivers results in an economic and timely way. It looks at how inputs are converted into outputs, outcomes, and impacts cost- effectively, and whether the delivery is timely considering the evolving context.

Specific questions to be answered:

• How do the costs of implementing this project compare to other similar projects in the area?
• How does the project’s implementation compare to alternative approaches?
• What is the cost-benefit analysis of the interventions? What is the cost per beneficiary in all components of the project?
• How timely was the project implementation, considering factors outside the project's control?
• Could the project have been more efficient? If so, how?
• What lessons can be learned to improve efficiency in future projects?
• How scalable is the intervention in relation to its efficiency?

IMPACT: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THE INTERVENTION MAKE?

Description of the criterion:

This criterion examines the extent to which the intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended, or unintended, higher-level effects. It seeks to identify the long-term, broader effects on social, environmental, and economic aspects that go beyond immediate results.

 

Specific questions to be answered:

• What changes have occurred in the project areas since its inception, and to what extent can these changes be attributed to the project?
• What impact has the project had on conflict, security, and stabilisation in the targeted area?
• Can the outcome indicators reported by GVTC be confirmed by the evaluators confirm the outcome indicators reported by GVTC?
• How have strategies aimed at involving local, national, and regional authorities led to concrete improvements and engagement?
• What unintended effects, positive or negative, has the project had, and on whom?
• Could the project have achieved more impact? If so, what impact, and how?
• What lessons can be learned for future programming GVTC?

 

SUSTAINABILITY: WILL THE BENEFITS LAST?

 Description of the criterion:

This criterion examines the extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue. It involves analysing the financial, economic, social, environmental, and institutional capacities needed to sustain benefits over time, considering resilience, risks, and potential trade- offs.

Specific questions to be answered:

• To what extent do relevant stakeholders have a sense of ownership of the different activities? How and why?
• Are relevant stakeholders active in ensuring the sustainability of the different activities? How and why?
• To what extent is the support sustainable? Why not? How can this be strengthened?
• Was knowledge generated during the project transferred to relevant stakeholders, including the three member states and local/national and regional authorities? Was knowledge transfer part of the project’s implementation approach?
• What key blockages and enablers are foreseen in sustaining the effects of GVTC?

These detailed questions aim to provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating the project's relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability, ensuring thorough and actionable insights for future interventions.