1. Context and Background 1.1 Project description The project Enhancing Climate Change Resilience and Adaption Among Smallholder Farmers (ECCRAS) in Western Kenya financed by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, Climate and Environmental Protection, Regions and Water Management (BMLUK) is implemented by a consortium consisting of Austrian organization Sei So Frei Salzburg (SSF Salzburg) and Development Education Services for Community Empowerment (DESECE) between 01.07.2021 and 31.12.2025. The project was initially planned for a duration of 4 years, but has been extended to last until 31st December 2025. The overall objective of the project is to enhance the adaptive capacity and climate resilience of smallholder farmers. In the extension period, a specific objective has been added, aiming at the distribution of fuel efficient cookstoves and empowering single mothers and increasing school retention of girls. The project takes an integrated approach, combining agroecology-based climate-resilient agriculture with human rights and conflict resolution. 1.2 Implementing organisations DESECE (Development Education Services for Community Empowerment) is a registered Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) based in Mukuyuni, Bungoma North Sub County in Bungoma County, Kenya. It started in 1993 as a Community-Based Organisation (CBO). DECESE focusses on Leadership and Capacity Building integrating Sustainable Organic Agriculture (Agro-Ecology), Gender equality and Human Rights through Civic Education and Policy Dialogue in their holistic grassroots approach. The organisation’s work has improved the social, economic and political situation of the beneficiaries in more than six sub-counties of Bungoma and Trans-Nzoia counties. Sei So Frei Salzburg is an Austrian organization and a constituting member of horizont3000, an Austrian non-governmental organization specialised in supporting the implementation of programmes and projects and the deployment of technical assistance personnel to support organisations and people in partner countries in their aspiration to improve the quality of their lives in a sustainable and human way. horizont3000 has been commissioned by SSF Salzburg, to support the implementation of this project through its regional office in Kampala. horizont3000 is an Austrian NGO for development cooperation, formed by eleven (11) grassroots organizations of the Catholic Church. Its core activities include cofinancing, advisory services, and knowledge management. horizont3000 is responsible for overseeing the project implementation in accordance with the existing project plan. This includes ensuring professional standards and close cooperation with the implementing partner, DESECE. Key tasks involve regular monitoring visits, fulfilling reporting obligations, ongoing project steering to maximise goal achievement, prompt and prudent crisis management if needed, proper project closure, and joint decision-making with DESECE on strategic adjustments in case of major deviations from the plan, evaluations, or the development of follow-up phases. 1.3 Project Context Climate change is increasingly impacting Kenya through rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, and more frequent droughts. As the country’s economy depends heavily on rain-fed agriculture—mainly practised by smallholder farmers who make up 70–80% of all farmers—these changes have serious consequences. In Western Kenya, agricultural production systems are particularly vulnerable. Adaptive capacity remains low due to widespread poverty, gender inequality, and pressure on already degraded and overused natural resources, especially land. These pressures contribute to local conflicts and are compounded by a general lack of climate change awareness. As a result, ecosystem services, biodiversity, livelihoods, and food security are under threat. Population growth in the region has led to further land fragmentation, with small farms averaging just 0.3 hectares, and larger ones around 3 hectares. Unsustainable practices, soil erosion, pollution, shifting rainfall patterns, and high temperatures have caused severe land degradation. These challenges are worsened by high input costs, poor market systems and infrastructure, deforestation in wetland areas, poor waste disposal, and mismanaged cooperatives, all contributing to low agricultural productivity. Structural conflict and violence persist, often rooted in the unequal distribution of scarce resources like land, which are withheld based on ethnicity or kinship. While there has been some progress in women’s leadership in Bungoma and Trans Nzoia, women, youth, and children still face exclusion from key decision-making and control over productive resources. Patriarchal traditions, reinforced by discriminatory laws and customs, continue to limit women’s and youth’s access to land and economic opportunities, weakening their ability to adapt to climate change. For women in particular, gaining land access, learning agroecology, and becoming independent farmers and leaders remains extremely difficult. However, agroecology offers opportunities for solidarity, livelihoods, and empowerment, enabling women to challenge unjust practices and participate more actively in political and community life. 1.4 Purpose of the project Despite government and stakeholder efforts, smallholders in Western Kenya still face major barriers to climate adaptation, including limited access to training, technical advice, and secure resources, as well as gender inequality and resource-based conflict. Building on previous DESECE projects, the initiative aims to strengthen the adaptive capacity and livelihoods of smallholder farmers through agroecological and ecosystem conservation practices, combined with a strong focus on gender equality and conflict transformation. The impacts of climate change will continue to heighten existing vulnerabilities and tensions, which is why the project promotes integrated, cross-sectoral approaches such as agroecology, organic farming, and positive peace. These methods not only enhance resilience but also help address the root causes of local conflict. According to the FAO, food insecurity—aggravated by climate change—can fuel grievances and conflict. Agroecology supports adaptation through diverse local farming systems like kitchen gardens and food forests, which improve soil health, income diversity, local microclimates, and carbon sequestration, while enhancing biodiversity. Positive peace, which goes beyond the mere absence of conflict, involves rebuilding relationships, inclusive social systems, and constructive conflict resolution. When combined with conflict-sensitive agroecology, it can help reframe social and ecological relationships, laying the groundwork for community-led peacebuilding. In fragile environments where mistrust and violence have become the norm, such approaches can promote social cohesion and long-term resilience. Ultimately, this project seeks to improve climate resilience among smallholders while promoting healthy ecosystems, gender justice, and sustainable local livelihoods. Intervention Logic Impact (Overall Goal) Enhanced resilience among smallholder farmers towards the effects of climate change and thereby ensuring sustainable livelihoods in the Counties of Bungoma, Trans Nzoia Outcome (Specific Objective): Promoting climate resilient farming, ecosystem and biodiversity conservation and the resolution of resource-based based conflicts to reduce overall climate risk of smallholder farmers. Specific Objective of the extension phase: To reduce wood fuel consumption and minimize health risks due to exposure to carbon monoxide and to promote social economic transformation of single mothers and increase retention rate of girls in schools by providing them with basic needs Project Outputs: OP 1: Smallholder farmers applying climate resilient agriculture, water and ecosystem conservation practices to ensure their food sovereignty as well as their income. OP 2: Schools and vocational training centres show-casing climate resilient agriculture, water and ecosystem conservation practices, providing intergenerational practical learning experiences for students and parents and complementing school lunches. OP 3: Farmer groups using human rights-based approaches and gender focus for improved resolution of resource-based based conflicts. OP 4: Households embracing the use of Cook stoves and briquettes as a more efficient source of energy to minimize health risks caused by exposure to carbon monoxide emitted from wood fuel. OP 5: Vulnerable Single mothers running small businesses using the entrepreneurial skills provided, better decision making at the household level and girls staying in school up to the completion level while their rights are respected and protected in the community. Target group(s) (planned figures in project proposal): Smallholder farmers organised in 30 groups: Female 450 / Male: 300 TOTAL 750 Pupils/students in 8 schools: Female 320 / Male: 320 TOTAL 640 Peace Committee members: Female 30 / Male: 42 TOTAL 72 Activities: Output 1: Climate-Resilient Farming and Community Adaptation • Community awareness campaigns (12 meetings, 8 radio shows, IEC materials) • Establishment of 6 new demonstration farms and 3 tree nurseries • Practical training for 30 farmer groups (750 farmers) on climate-resilient practices • Joint development of food forests, kitchen gardens, and water harvesting systems • Crop planning and joint marketing support for farmer groups • Participation in agroecology networks and knowledge exchange events • Follow-up activities with farmer groups Output 2: Agroecology in Schools and Vocational Centres • Formation and sensitisation of 8 agroecology clubs • Training for 640 students, 22 school staff, and 24 (grand)parents • Establishment of kitchen gardens, compost piles, food forests, and water systems in 8 schools/centres • Follow-up activities with school clubs Output 3: Peacebuilding and Human Rights • Community mobilisation on peaceful coexistence • Formation and training of 6 peace committees in Mt. Elgon • TFT-based training for women and girls on conflict resolution • Leadership training for community members • Gender and land/water rights training for women and men • Follow-up activities with peace committees Output 4: Clean Cooking and Alternative Energy • Formation of 30 groups (540 beneficiaries); household kitchen surveys • Sensitisation on risks of wood fuel and benefits of clean cooking • Awareness and training on cook stove and briquette use • Production and maintenance training for cook stoves and briquettes • Sourcing of materials and promotion of sustainability • Collaboration and networking activities • Follow-up with beneficiary groups Output 5: Women and Girls Empowerment • Community mobilisation on women’s and girls’ rights • Three-phase residential TFT workshops • ERI-based entrepreneurship workshops • Provision of reusable sanitary towels to 60 girls • Counselling sessions for vulnerable girls and single mothers • Seed fund roll-out for trained single mothers • Follow-up support and mentoring Beneficiaries 1st phase: • 30 community groups (13 existing, 17 new) in 6 sub-counties. Each group has approx. 25 members (15 women, 10 men), totalling around 750 individuals. • 6 schools (primary and secondary) in Bungoma and Trans-Nzoia counties. Each school: 100 pupils/students, 1 security guard, 4 parents, 2 teachers. • 2 vocational training centres (1 in Bungoma, 1 in Trans Nzoia). Each centre: 20 students, 1 security guard, 1 teacher. • 6 peace committees in Mt. Elgon with 12 members each (total: 72 members). 2nd project phase: • Continue working with the same 30 community groups from 6 sub-counties. In Total 540 individuals (216 men, 324 women) – 90 per sub-county. 20 single mothers, 24 vulnerable women, 10 vulnerable girls, 36 vulnerable men. 10 vulnerable girls per sub-county identified from 640 ongoing school participants. Indirect beneficiaries: • 1,620 individuals (648 men, 972 women), through knowledge sharing by trained participants (each reaches 3 others) 2. Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation 2.1. Mandate and Purpose In accordance with the guidelines and rules of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Climate and Environmental Protection, Regions and Water Management (BMLUK), and based on the agreement with Sei So Frei Salzburg, horizont3000, is responsible for commissioning this evaluation. The evaluation will serve multiple purposes: Accountability and reporting The evaluation will support transparent reporting to the funding partners (SSFS and BMLUK), and other stakeholders. It will verify whether project resources were used as intended and its objectives were achieved. Learning The evaluation will provide evidence on what has worked well and what could have been improved, to support actionable learning among the implementing partner organisation, horizont3000 as well as the funders SSFS and BMLUK. Project development and strategic planning The findings, lessons learned and recommendations shall inform strategic decisions of the implementing organisations and will be used for planning of future community empowerment and climate resilience projects 2.2. Specific Objectives The evaluation will examine the success and quality of the project implementation on the basis of the OECD DAC criteria, more specifically: The evaluation is expected to generate insights on the relevance of the intervention, especially as to what extent the project addresses the needs and interests of the target population; Proofs for the effectiveness of the project, evidence for the success of the project that can be reported to the stakeholders, and conclusions on how to improve the design and implementation of similar projects in the future; An assessment of the sustainability of the project, taking into account, among other factors, the cross-cutting area of gender equality. A specific focus should be put on the sustainability of the GALS trainings that were held, observing the gender balance in the households and gender sensitivity of the participants. Concerning environment and climate protection, the use of climate resilient commodities within the agribusinesses should be observed. 2.3. Primary users & expected evaluation use Partner organisation that implements the activities and interacts with the project's target groups and are to a certain degree target groups themselves. horizont3000 and SSFS, with regard to learning, project development, but also accountability and communication. Donors / funding partners, in particular the BMLUK and SSFS, especially with regard to project quality and quality of implementation. Other actors working on the same issues and interested in the lessons learned from this evaluation. (NGOs in East Africa and Austria, technical services, local authorities etc.) Recommendations should be framed to be actionable not only for DESECE, SSF, and horizont3000, but also for local government agencies, community-based organisations, and other NGOs in the region. They should identify sustainability pathways for community structures (farmer groups, school clubs, peace committees) and for DESECE’s ability to plan similar initiatives beyond project closure. 3. Scope The evaluation will encompass the entire duration of the ECCRAS Project, from its inception to the current status at the time of evaluation (July 2021 – end of data collection of this evaluation). This comprehensive time frame will allow for a thorough examination of all phases of the different project components, including planning, implementation, and phase-out. It is expected that outputs 1, 2 and 3 will be completed, and outputs 4 and 5 in the final stages of implementation once the data collection starts. The total time span for the evaluation is 3 months starting September 2025 and ending in December 2025. The inception report is due on 23 September, data collection is planned in the months of October and November 2025, deadline for submission of the final report is 1 December 2025. The detailed workplan for the evaluation is specified under “6. Workplan”. Geographically, the evaluation will cover three representative sub-counties instead of the whole project region: Bumula (most vulnerable in terms of poverty and climate change exposure, representing Bungoma South and Bumula), Mount Elgon (focus on peace committees, representing Kimilili and Mt. Elgon), and Trans Nzoia West (representative for Trans Nzoia County and Bungoma North). This maintains diversity in geographic and socio-economic conditions while reducing travel and logistical demands. Data collection in the field will be conducted in two sub-counties of Bungoma County: Bumula and Mt. Elgon, and one sub-county in Trans Nzoia County: Trans Nzoia West. Thematically, evaluation will assess the project outcomes and outputs in line with the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, with a particular focus on effectiveness, relevance and sustainability . Output 4 (Cookstoves) will be assessed only in terms of achievement of the output (Evaluation Question 1), not long-term sustainability or relevance, given the short usage period before evaluation. Outputs 1, 2, 3, and 5 will be assessed for effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability, guided by the questions below. 4. Evaluation Questions The evaluation questions are aligned with the OECD-DAC criteria, with a particular focus on effectiveness, relevance and sustainability . The criteria of impact, efficiency, and coherence are not prioritised due to their limited feasibility in this context. Impact is difficult to attribute and measure meaningfully within the scope and timeframe of this endline evaluation. Efficiency is not prioritised in this evaluation, as previous monitoring and reporting processes already provided sufficient insight into resource use. The added value of reassessing efficiency at this stage is therefore limited in comparison to other learning and accountability objectives of this evaluation. Coherence is less relevant as the project was implemented as a stand-alone project with limited external coordination requirements. Effectiveness To what extent did the project achieve its planned outputs and intended outcomes across its five thematic areas, particularly in enhancing participants’ ability to cope with climate variability and build climate resilience? What were the major enabling or constraining factors influencing their achievement? Has the intervention achieved inclusive results? Were there differences in the outcomes for women, men, and other social groups? Relevance 3. How well did different project activities align with the needs and priorities of the project participants, especially in relation to climate resilience, women´s empowerment, and peacebuilding? 4. To what extent did the project contribute to community-level change, beyond the direct beneficiaries (e.g. through peer learning, replication, or awareness raising)? Was the approach of working with selected schools and farmers appropriate for addressing broader community needs? Sustainability 5. To what extent are the project’s outcomes and benefits likely to be sustained after the project ends? What mechanisms or capacities have been established to support the continued functioning of community structures (e.g. farmer groups, school clubs, peace committees)? 6. To what extent are the outcomes of the women’s and girls’ empowerment and entrepreneurship initiatives likely to be sustained? What is the potential for continuity and scaling of microenterprises? 7. What additional support or future interventions would be needed to deepen or expand the impact of the project should the focus be on scaling up, or enhancing quality in selected areas? Questions can be refined and restructured in agreement with horizont3000 during the inception phase. Any suggested changes need to be explained in the offer and the inception report, adequately reflect the overall purpose and scope of the evaluation and be agreed upon in writing by horizont3000 . 5. Design and Approach The evaluation team should propose an evaluation design that is participatory, inclusive, gender-sensitive and respectful of human rights. The evaluation is expected to employ a non-experimental and mixed methods-approach to data collection and analysis, including both qualitative and quantitative methods. The evaluation team should explain in its offer their choice of evaluation design, data collection and analysis methods and tools they deem appropriate and feasible to answer the evaluation questions. The data collection must rely on various methods and sources and might include: Desk analysis of project documents and monitoring data Data collection on project indicators, particularly of those not captured by monitoring data, through a household survey or other method Individual interviews with project participants to verify / triangulate monitoring data Field visits / local inspection to verify physical achievements / results Individual and group interviews / focus groups with representatives of stakeholders and participants (men, women) and DESECE (men, women), either online or in physical meetings and field visits. Data collection requirements Monitoring data will be made available for most output indicators, and evaluators are expected to assess its completeness and reliability, particularly where triangulation with primary data is necessary. However, two outcome indicators and two result indicators have only been partially covered by the existing monitoring system and will therefore need to be assessed as part of this evaluation Outcome Indicator 2: 60% of farmers perceive themselves as better prepared to deal with the impacts of climate change on their farms Outcome Indicator 3: 20% decrease in resource-based conflicts in the targeted communities per year Output Indicator 1.3: 50% of farmers have generated additional income from their production Output Indicator 3.3: 70% of households in the target communities report more gender equality in decision-making and division of tasks in household and garden DESECE will provide full logistical and mobilization support, including coordination of field activities and group interviews / focus groups, provision of transport for all field activities and of appropriate venues. Thus, costs related to travel logistics and mobilisation of interviewees will be covered by DESECE and not the evaluation team. The only travel costs incurred by the evaluation team are their own transport to the project area and accommodation on site. Analysis methods and quality requirements The data collection and analysis methods suggested must be sufficiently rigorous to allow for a solid, fair and unbiased assessment. Findings must be relevant to the evaluation questions, numbered, clearly formulated, substantiated and based on triangulated evidence which is documented in relation to each finding to ensure credibility. The logical connection between evidence => findings => conclusions => recommendations must be documented, traceable and understandable for the evaluation users. The evaluation must follow OECD/DAC norms and standards as well as ethical guidelines for evaluations (see relevant references in the annex). The assessment of the inception report and the final report will be guided by the criteria listed in the ADA quality checklists (Annex 5 and 6 of the ADA Guidelines for Programme and Projects Evaluations), as well as the criteria for evaluations by OECD-DAC. 6. Draft workplan / Key phases of the evaluation The evaluation should start in September 2025 and finish in December 2025. A minimum of 33 days is required for the assignment. The evaluation team should present their own proposed workplan in the offer, justifying deviations from the draft below. Tasks and Timeline Inception Phase (9 working days) Kick-Off Workshop: 9 September — 1 day — Deliverable: Presentation PPT Document Review and Desk Research — 2 days Development of Data Collection Tools — 2 days Draft Inception Report: 23 September — 3 days — Deliverable: Draft IR Final Inception Report: 3 October — 1 day — Deliverable: Final IR Data Collection & Processing (14 working days) Data Collection: 6–24 October — 12 days Data Processing — 2 days Analysis & Reporting (10 working days) Data Analysis & Triangulation: 27 Oct – 7 Nov — 3 days Feedback Workshop with horizont3000 and DESECE staff: 11 Nov — 1 day — Deliverable: Presentation PPT Draft Evaluation Report (including feedback loops): 18 November — 4 days — Deliverable: Draft Evaluation Report Submission of Final Report: 1 December — 2 days — Deliverable: Final Evaluation Report Total Working Days: 33 7. Deliverables 1. Inception Report The Inception Report should include; Cover sheet with; Logos of SSF, BMLUK, DESECE, and evaluation consultancy Title of the Evaluation Date of submission Names of the author(s) Table of Contents List of Acronyms Chapters with; Background, purpose and objectives Evaluation design and approach 2.1 Methodology 2.2 Evaluation matrix 2.3 Data collection tools 2.4 Data analysis 2.5 Limitations, risks and mitigation measures Quality assurance and ethical considerations Work plan Annexes Formal Requirements Consistent formatting (chapters, headings, page numbers) Annex completeness guided by ADA Quality Checklists (Annex 5 and 6) Maximum length: 30 pages 2. PowerPoint Presentations One presentation for the Kick-Off Workshop One presentation for the Feedback Workshop covering findings and initial recommendations 3. Draft Evaluation Report Follows the same structure as the Final Report Reviewed by horizont3000 and partners for completeness Consultants must justify incorporation or exclusion of feedback in the final report 4. Final Evaluation Report Written in English, max 35 pages (excluding annexes), including an executive summary (max 5 pages) Structure: Cover sheet (logos, title, date, authors) Table of Contents List of Acronyms Executive summary Introduction Background and context analysis Evaluation design and approach 4.1 Methodological approach 4.2 Data collection and analysis tools 4.3 Limitations, risks and mitigation measures Findings Conclusions Recommendations 7.1 Recommendations for climate resilience building projects 7.2 Specific recommendations for DESECE and other stakeholders 7.3 Remaining community needs to be addressed Annexes Available Information Sources Project documents Documents from implementing partners Baseline studies for Outputs 1-3 (2022) and Outputs 4-5 (2024) Bi-annual and Annual project reports Monitoring data 8. Evaluation Management Arrangements For the follow-up of this project evaluation, a reference group will be set up with the following participants: • Clemens Griesauer, horizont3000, Climate Focal Person, horizont3000 • Joel Chemusto, Project Manager, horizont3000 • Kenneth W. Massa, Programme Manager East Africa, horizont3000 • Alice Bayer, MEAL Coordinator, horizont3000 • Zacharia Simiyu, Project coordinator, DESECE The Evaluation Reference Group is responsible for the management of this evaluation and ensures that technical and ethical standards and guiding principles of the evaluation, including impartiality and independence, are met. The contact person for the evaluation team is Joel Chemusto:
[email protected] 9. Requirements for the Evaluator(s) A consultancy company with local expertise and good knowledge of the project area is preferred. The team must be able to offer the following expertise: The team leader must have minimum 6 years' working experience in qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis as well as managing of evaluation teams, proofed by a track record of at least two evaluations conducted of a similar size and budget; Programming and evaluation of projects with relevant and proven experience in the programmatic approach; Expertise in gender-sensitive, human rights-based and participatory approaches; Expertise in climate change adaptation and agroecology; Fluency in English for all team members Fluency in Kiswahili and further local languages is an added value Experience planning and conducting evaluations in Kenya, especially in Western Kenya; The evaluation team working on the report must be the same team conducting the data collection (exceptions to this must be justified in the offer); The evaluator is expected to draw on the OECD-DAC criteria and ADA guidelines (see relevant references below) as a reference framework. Members of the evaluation team must not have been involved in the design and/or implementation of the project. We propose a minimum of two experts and a maximum of three experts for this evaluation. The evaluation team should be gender balanced and diverse in experience/qualification background. The composition of the team must be detailed and explained in the technical offer, as well as the division of tasks between all team members and the added value of each of them. Annex: Relevant references OECD-DAC Evaluation Criteria , available at: https://web-archive.oecd.org/temp/2024-05-13/81829-daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm Project Description , available on the horizont3000 Website: https://www.horizont3000.org/de/projects/s-21-401 Quality Checklist for Inception Report -> Annex 5 of the ADA Guidelines for Programme and Projects Evaluations, available at: https://www.entwicklung.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/Evaluierung/Evaluierungs_Leitfaeden/Guidelines_for_Programme_and_Project_Evaluations_ADA_2020.pdf Quality Checklist for Evaluation Report -> Annex 6 of the ADA Guidelines for Programme and Projects Evaluations, available at: https://www.entwicklung.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/Evaluierung/Evaluierungs_Leitfaeden/Guidelines_for_Programme_and_Project_Evaluations_ADA_2020.pdf UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation , available at: https://www.unevaluation.org/uneg_publications/uneg-ethical-guidelines-evaluation