Posted on 17 August 2021

1. Background
The Strengthening Community Law Enforcement and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA) is a three year action that started on 01/03/2018 and ends pm  31/08/2021.  It focuses on three key nature conservation sites in the KAZA TFCA with high poaching pressure: the Silowana complex bufferzone of the Sioma Ngwezi National Park in Zambia, the Chizarira - Sengwa complex (within the Sebungwe complex) in Zimbabwe and the Lake Liambezi Trust in Zambezi region of Namibia). These areas experience high poaching pressures but are also characterized by low human development (high poverty indices) with people relying almost entirely on natural resources for their survival. Yet, these areas are still high in biodiversity and pristine habitat constituting important wildlife corridors – which are of great importance for achieving the KAZA TFCA Vision “To establish a world-class transfrontier conservation and tourism destination area in the Okavango and Zambezi River Basin regions of Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe within the context of sustainable development.”. Situated in the low rainfall areas characterised by inherently nutrient deficient Kalahari sands, the project area is also strongly affected by climate change impacting negatively on the livelihoods of small farmer households and their subsistence agricultural production. Zimbabwe suffered extensively from droughts and subsequent extreme flooding events in 2016, making it one of the three countries in the world most affected by climate change (UNFCCC COP 23). Equally, Zambian farmers in the project area nearly lost the entire maize harvest due to prolonged droughts in 2015/16 requiring government food aid interventions. There is an urgent need to diversify crops and introduce drought resistant varieties and cultures, as planned by the action. During the first year of action implementation, Zimbabwe and Zambia was once again affected by droughts. The Southern and Western parts of Zambia have also received less than 50% of the normal annual precipitation and crop was being estimated to be around 70%.
The objectives of the action[1] is to promote long-term sustainable ecosystem management and sustainable livelihood approaches among local communities in KAZA TFCA, such that their improved benefits from natural resources contribute to biodiversity conservation and the reduction of illegal killing and trafficking of wildlife, especially elephants. To achieve this, the action enables 4,100 small farmer households in Zambia and Zimbabwe to implement climate smart conservation agriculture, improving their food security, increasing resilience and adaptation capacity to climate change and improve their household income. This reduces shifting cultivation, encroachment on national parks and biodiversity loss by conserving wildlife habitats and directly contributing to long-term sustainable ecosystem management. The action also improves the effective participation of communities in anti-poaching and law enforcement in and around key conservation areas in Namibia, Zimbabwe and Zambia. This is achieved by increasing the number of equipped and trained community guards in the areas as well as supporting the implementation of joint patrols with national park rangers. The coordination between community scouts across borders will also be improved. Additionally, the project operationalises one performance based reward system for community anti-poaching in Zambia, providing blue prints for replication across the KAZA landscape.
In terms of activities, the action (1) builds capacity of rural farming households, community institutions and selected local government officials in the Zambian and Zimbabwean project areas in implementing climate adapted conservation agriculture. Prior to activities, a participatory baseline study was carried out to assess the community’s socio-economic situation, household income and climate adaptation capacity including the identification of climate resilient crops and suitable conservation agriculture methodologies. A village based extension system is being established and/or strengthened to provide support and ensure adoption of these methods. (2) Community seed multiplications schemes are being established / strengthened in Zambia and Zimbabwe to reduce HH costs for seeds and increase income from seed commercialisation. (3) A new community anti-poaching system will be established in Namibia and Zimbabwe with the recruitment and training of additional community guards. In Zambia the existing scheme with 22 community guards is being strengthened and improved. Community and joined patrols with state rangers in and around the national parks in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Namibia are being supported. The existing yet insufficiently functioning performance-based reward scheme in Zambia will be operationalised and assessed for its replicability into other areas in KAZA TFCA. (4) To enable better cross border collaboration between community scouts, workshops will be held in the second and third year of the project to support the harmonization of methods, exchange experience and nurture networking across the TFCA.
The Logical Framework Matrix (Logframe) and additionally, documents containing further information on Intervention will be provided to the evaluator and will be subject to his/her scrutiny and reconstruction during Inception
2. Purpose
Evaluations should provide an understanding of the cause and effect links between: inputs and activities, and outputs, outcomes and impacts. Evaluations should serve accountability, decision making, learning and management purposes.
The main objectives of this evaluation are to provide to WWF Germany, the relevant services of the European Union and the interested stakeholders with:
  • an overall independent assessment of the past performance of the Strengthening Community Law Enforcement and Sustainable Livelihoods in Kavango Zambezi TFCA (KAZA) Action, paying particular attention to its results measured against its expected objectives; and the reasons underpinning such results; also, the most important impacts of the project should be highlighted.
  • key lessons learned, conclusions and related recommendations, in order to improve future Actions.
The main users of this evaluation will be WWF Germany, WWF Zambia, WWF Zimbabwe, the Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation Trust (IRDNC) and the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Zambia and COMESA.
3. Scope of assignment


The analysis to be conducted should specifically evaluate the materialisation of the expected results and their facilitating and contrasting factors. Unintended results and impacts of the projects should be evaluated too.
The evaluation will assess the Action using the five standard evaluation criteria, namely: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and perspectives of impact.

Indicative Evaluation Questions

The specific Evaluation Questions as formulated below are indicative. Based on the latter and following initial consultations and document analysis, the evaluator team will propose in his/her Evaluation plan a complete and finalised set of Evaluation Questions with indication of specific Judgement Criteria and Indicators, as well as the relevant data collection sources and tools.
Once agreed through the approval of the Evaluation plan, the Evaluation Questions will become contractually binding.
  1. Relevance to context, priorities of stakeholders, and objectives: Has the design of the Action focused on and does it remain relevant to issues of highest priority?
  2. Theory of Change: Is the theory of change clear? Has the project taken the best, most efficient strategic approach or strategy mix at time of the planning and form the today´s point of view?
  1. Use of time: Are there thorough, well founded work plans being implemented according to plan, monitored, and adapted as necessary?
  2. Resource use: Is the Action delivering value for money in that costs are reasonable given the outputs and outcomes generated?
  1. Planned results versus achievement: Focusing on stated objectives, desired outcomes, and intermediate results (as opposed to delivery of activities and outputs), what has and has not been achieved (both intended and unintended)? To what extent have targeted key factors – drivers, opportunities, threats – been affected to the degree they need to be to achieve the stated goals? Which strategies are proving to be effective, and which not? Why?
  2. Stakeholder Engagement: Are the stakeholder engagement processes inclusive, gender-sensitive and accessible for all community members? Have stakeholders been engaged at the right level for each of them throughout the project cycle? Is there an effective complaint mechanism in place (usage of entry points, follow-up process, documentation, etc.)? How did stakeholder engagement processes supported result achievement?
  3. Coordination & communication: To what extent has coordination/communication been effective within and between the implementation team, partners and participants, as well as donor offices in the Network and external donors? What factors have hindered good communication and coordination? What could be done differently to improve this?
  1. Evidence of sustainability: Is there evidence that the following key ingredients are being established or exist to the extent necessary to ensure the desired long-term positive impacts of the project or programme?
•       Adequate socio-cultural integration, including no negative impact on affect groups (e.g. by gender, economic class) and/or on benefits realized by them, as well as ensuring necessary motivation, support, and leadership by relevant individuals and groups.
•       Adequate capacity and clear distribution of responsibilities among organisations or individuals necessary to ensure continuity of Action activities or impacts. For example, extension officers, Community Resource Boards, etc .
•       Technical and economic viability and financial sustainability.
•       Incentives for relevant individuals for continuation of activities.
  1. Risk and Mitigation: What external factors could have a high or medium likelihood of undoing or undermining the future sustainability of project positive impacts? (e.g. political stability, economic crises and shocks, human rights situation, overall level of development, natural disasters, climate change). Is the project/programme adequately anticipating and taking measures to ensure resilience to these?
  2. Exit-Phase Out Plan: Based upon existing plans and observations made during the evaluation, what are the key strategic options for the future of the project (e.g. exit, scale down, replicate, scale-up, continue business-as-usual, major changes to approach)?
  1. Evidence of change: To what extent are the Action’s goals likely to be achieved, in terms of outcomes effecting positive change in biodiversity quality, ecosystem services and, in turn if relevant, human wellbeing? Discuss observed impacts at all appropriate scales—local, landscape, national, regional, global, and present evidence?
  2. Contribution: How confident can we be that that the action’s activities contributed to the perceived change? What is the likelihood that these changes would have occurred in the absence of the project?
  3. Unforeseen consequences: Were there any unforeseen impacts (whether positive or negative)? Could anything have been done differently to repeat or avoid these unforeseen consequences and to have acknowledged them earlier as emerging consequences?
4.  Phases of the Evaluation
Phases of the evaluation Key activities Outputs and meetings
Inception& Desk Phase
  • Initial document/data collection
  • Background analysis
  • Stakeholder analysis
  • Reconstruction of the Intervention Logic, and / or description of the Theory of Change (based upon available documentation and interviews)
  • Methodological design of the evaluation (Evaluation Questions with judgement criteria, indicators and methods of data collection and analysis) and evaluation matrix
  • In-depth document analysis (focused on the Evaluation Questions)
  • Identification of information gaps and of hypotheses to be tested in the field phase
·     Kick-off meeting with the Contracting Authority and the Reference Group (see point 2.5.1.) - face-to-face in WWF office in Berlin or via remote conference, depending on location of the evaluator
·     Inception Note
·     Evaluation plan
Field or remote meeting
  • Gathering of primary evidence with the use of the most appropriate techniques (interviews, focus groups, storytelling sessions, surveys etc.)
  • Data collection and analysis
  • Initial meetings at country level with WWF and IRDNC staff, CBOs, Community members, EU-Delegation
·     Presentation of key findings of the field phase – Slide presentation
·     Debriefing with the Reference Group and EU-Delegation face-to-face or via remote conference
Synthesis phase ·     Final analysis of findings (with focus on the Evaluation Questions)
·     Formulation of the overall assessment, conclusions and recommendations
·     Reporting
·     Draft Final Report
·     Executive Summary
·     Final Report
·     Meeting with Reference Group (face-to-face in WWF office in Berlin or via remote conference)
Having shared an electronic copy of the Draft Final Report with the EU-Delegation in Zambia the Evaluation Manager consolidates the comments expressed by the Reference Group members and EU and sends them to the evaluator for the report revision, together with a first version of the Quality Assessment Grid (QAG) assessing the quality of the Draft Final Report. The content of the QAG will be discussed with evaluator to verify if further improvements are required, and the evaluator will be invited to comment on the conclusions formulated in the QAG.
The evaluator will then finalise the Final Report by addressing the relevant comments. While potential quality issues, factual errors or methodological problems should be corrected, comments linked to diverging judgements may be either accepted or rejected. In the latter instance, the evaluator must explain the reasons in writing.
5. Qualifications of the Consultant(s)
The final evaluation will be conducted by a consultant or consultancy firm with representation or partners in all three countries and with access to the regional level (SADC, KAZA Sec).  The consultants will be responsible for the overall implementation of the respective country missions and the report writing.
  • A relevant Master’s degree
  • At least five (5) years of experience in evaluating integrated Conservation and livelihoods Actions in Sub Saharan Africa
  • Experience in development interventions in the sector of Wildlife Conservation and/or Climate Smart Agriculture including the relevant policy/strategic frameworks of the three countries through at least two (2) project                 
  • Good oral and written communications skills
  • Fluency in English
6.  Duration and location of the assignment
It is envisaged that consultant(s) will be engaged with the project for a period of 60 days commencing as soon as possible and This overall duration includes working days, week-ends, periods foreseen for comments, for review of draft versions, debriefing sessions, and distribution of outputs.  
The assignment will probably take place remotely with virtual meeting with the different teams. An assignment in Lusaka or Harare or any other suitable town/city in the region is favourable. If the covid-19 situation allows, field visits to Lake Liambezi and Katima Mulilio in Namibia, Silowana Complex (Sioma and Sesheke) in Zambia and Chizarira Complex (Binga in district) in Zimbabwe. Field visit briefing and debriefing meetings with WWF and EU will take place in Lusaka.
7. To Apply
Interested potential Consultants should send in their CVs/Company Profile, technical and financial proposals clearly indicating how their qualifications and experience match the Terms of Reference to WWF Germany,
Consultant(s) will be selected as individual consultant or firm and contracted on terms to be negotiated with qualifying candidates.


Deadline for applications:  31 August 2021
[1] The term ‘Action’ is used throughout the TOR as a synonym of ‘project’