In v e s ti n g i n the fu t u re
Waste to Wealth Project
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE FINAL EVALUATION CONSULTANCY OF WASTE
TO WEALTH IN PORT HARCOURT, NIGERIA.
1. Background:
Living Earth and ANPEZ Centre for Environment and Development are inviting bids from
external evaluators to carry out a final evaluation of the European Union, UK Government
DFID and Comic Relief funded project “Waste to Wealth” in Nigeria.
The Nigeria component forms part of a broader programme of “Waste to Wealth” work
which has been implemented in Cameroon, Uganda, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Kenya
between March 2010 and March 2015. A separate study will explore linkages between
the different in-country programmes.
The work in Nigeria is funded under the European Union’s Non State Actors Programme,
Comic Relief’s Urban Slums programme and DFID’s Civil Society Challenge Fund. The
specific requirements for each donor are highlighted below.
2. Project Overview:
Overall objective: Contribute to the reduction of poverty amongst urban dwellers in Nigeria
and to the achievement of MDG 1; MDG 3 improving wage employment among women;
and target 4 of MDG 7 achieving improvements in the lives of slum dwellers.
Specific objective: To improve environmental sanitation services in 3 poor urban
communities (approx. 150,000 people) in Port Harcourt through partnerships involving
local government authorities and pro-poor social enterprises, primarily women’s
enterprises.
Expected results: (as per DFID logframe, the EU and Comic Relief versions will also be
provided to the evaluator; however, whilst the wording may be vary, the focus is the same
for all three donors).
 Output 1 - Sustained environmental sanitation improvement, with subsequent benefits
in health and well-being for inhabitants, in 3 target Local Government Authorities (LGA)
through improved service provision as a result of partnerships.
 Output 2 - The emergence of a skilled and effective business sector wherein social
enterprises founded predominantly by women and in poor urban communities derive
wealth from the provision of environmental services and derivative recycling and re-use
activities.
 Output 3 - Improved awareness among poor urban dwellers of their rights and
entitlement to a clean environment and enhanced capacity to advocate for delivery of
these rights.
 Output 4 - Enhanced capacity among LGAs to engage in partnership development,
particularly with the less formal private sector, and to address statutory limitations.
 Output 5 - Improved South-South links and networking between partners and
associates to increase learning, information dissemination and advocacy skills for
influencing policy.
3. Purpose and scope of evaluation:
The specific purposes of the end of project evaluation are to:
 Provide an independent assessment of the progress and performance of the project
against targets including agreed activities; expected results and project objectives;
 Identify key areas of learning and scope for replication;
 Provide recommendations for the project partners and donors to inform future
programme development.
The evaluation should adhere to the DFID, EU and Comic Relief guidelines for evaluations
which will be provided by the project partners. In particular, the following guidance should
be adhered to:
Learning for DFID:
A full template of the reporting format for DFID (including specific questions to be
considered will be provided). The following areas should be considered:
 Results and impact of the project
 Target groups
 Unintended consequences
 Risk
 Value for money (VfM)
 Sustainability
 Lesson Learning on approaches
 Project Accountability (Beneficiary Feedback Mechanisms)
 Outcome and Output scoring
 Contribution to the CSCF Objectives
 Capacity building
 Gender Mainstreaming
 Challenges and enablers
 Recommendations
Learning for European Union
Using the project logframe and M&E framework as a guide, the evaluation should provide
an assessment of progress against activities, results, objectives and specified indicators.
Learning for Comic Relief
Please consider the following areas of learning:
What difference has the project made to people’s lives (what, who, where, when)?

To what degree have project outcomes been achieved? Have there been
any unexpected outcomes?

Who has benefitted (women, men, youth, vulnerable groups) and in what
ways?

Are those changes (outcomes) relevant to people’s needs?

Are they likely to be sustainable in the long term?

Have there been any changes to policies, practices and attitudes of decision
and policy makers to benefit the project’s target groups?

To what extent has the project contributed to the achievement of broader
national policies in Nigeria?

To what extent has the achievement of the changes/outcomes been
influenced by external context and other factors?
How has this project made this difference?

Approaches used by the project and implementing organisations:

What was the overall theory of change for this project? Has it been effective
in bringing about last change? Were there any gaps?

What have been the most effective methodologies and approaches the
organisation used to bring about changes to people’s lives? What has
worked and what has not?

What lessons have been learned? Who have they been shared with?

How have the funded organizations (Living Earth, ANPEZ), helped or
hindered the delivery of lasting change?

How have relationships between partners throughout the relationship chain
(looking at the UK organisation-local partner(s)-target groups) helped or
hindered the delivery of change/outcomes?

How effective have the project’s management, monitoring, learning and
financial systems been? How have they helped or hindered the delivery of
lasting change?

Has the project been cost effective?
Approaches used by Comic Relief:

How have Comic Relief’s grant making policies and processes (eg. How we
define our programme strategies and outcomes, how we assess
applications) helped or hindered the delivery of lasting change?


How has Comic Relief’s approach to grant management (eg. Individual work
with grantholders, and learning activities with other funded organisations)
helped or hindered the delivery of lasting change?
Are there any other ways in which Comic Relief has helped or hindered the
delivery of change?
4. Methodology:
Interested parties will be asked to tender a short outline methodology of how they would
tackle this evaluation, both on a theoretical and practical basis. We require a participatory
methodology, whereby the work engages all key stakeholders, including donor grants staff
who should be provided with an opportunity to provide input and comment to the
evaluation team.
We anticipate the methodology to include:
• Quantitative analysis of existing monitoring data sets/records.
• Qualitative methods with target groups and beneficiaries, partners (e.g.
advocacy partners, government officials) and project staff.
• Details of how the proposed evaluative approach will capture both intended and
unintended (positive and negative) outcomes from project activities.
• Review of project documents (e.g. proposal, logframe, annual reports and
feedback, monitoring and evaluation data, Mid Term Review and project impact
surveys carried out).
• Analysis of findings to inform conclusions and recommendations.
5. Deliverables:
 Evaluation plan
 Draft Report and review
 Final Evaluation Report
The report should be clear and simply written, free of jargon. A template for the report
format will be provided by the project partners and must be adhered to.
The main body of the report should not exceed 30 pages and should include an executive
summary and recommendations. CHECK DFID
The report’s authors should support their analysis of a project’s achievements with
relevant data and state how this has been sourced. Recommendations should also
include details as to how they might be implemented.
We expect the report to include guidance on the process by which findings will be shared
and discussed with all stakeholders including those who are benefitting from the project
and how any resulting changes in the report will be included.
6. Evaluation Process and Timeline:
The Final Evaluation is expected to take place in April/May 2015.
7. Skills and Competencies:
Living Earth and ANPEZ are looking for consultants with a strong record in conducting
evaluations, particularly in the urban context in Nigeria. The consultant will need respect
and credibility within the field, excellent knowledge of monitoring and evaluation in theory
and practice, and a good understanding of policy work. The consultant should have the
following skills and competencies:
 Demonstrable experience of producing high-quality, credible evaluations (examples
required).
 Demonstrable experience of working with/evaluating NGO work.
 Demonstrable knowledge of urban slums issues; specific understanding of the Port
Harcourt context is desirable.
 Demonstrable experience with participatory methodologies.
 Ability to write concise, readable and analytical reports and understanding of public
communications.

Excellent writing and verbal communication skills in English.
8. Tenders/bids:
We invite bids from organisations, or individuals, with the experience and skills described
above. Joint bids are welcome. Tenders should include:
1. A cover letter introducing the evaluators/organisation and how the skills and
competencies described above are met, with concrete examples.
2. A 2-page outline of the proposed evaluation process and methodology
3. An indication of the amount the consultant expects to be paid as fees.
4. A 2-page CV for each evaluator
5. One recent example of a previous evaluation (one each for joint bids)
Tenders should be emailed to [email protected] and [email protected] by close
of business on (date to be confirmed).
6. Deadline for submission of tenders/bids is 31st March, 2015.
9. Further information:
Niyi Lawal, Project Manager, ANPEZ - [email protected]
Lios McGilchrist, Programme Manager, Living Earth – [email protected]