Terms of Reference (TOR): Gender-Responsive Conservation: Integrating GBV Considerations into the Proposed Marine Protected Area of The Greater Cape Three Points Area, Ghana

Evaluation Terms of Reference (TOR)
End of Project Evaluation
Gender-Responsive Conservation: Integrating GBV Considerations into the Proposed Marine Protected Area of The Greater Cape Three Points Area, Ghana

• RISE-IM1: Percentage of people that report increased feelings of safety from GBV due to RISE grantee interventions in the context of environmental programming.
• RISE-IM3: Percentage of female participants in programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources (assets, credit, income, or employment)

• HM-OP1: Number of communities and government agencies capacity strengthened to identify prevent and respond to GBV risk
• RISE-OP2: Number of new or improved institutional/organizational policies or processes that address GBV and environmental linkages due to RISE support, disaggregated by type (e.g., GRM, SEAH) and country
• HM-OP4: Knowledge products include guidance notes, toolkits, briefs, or learning products formally produced and disseminated under RISE.
• HM-OP7 Name of Indicator: HM-OP7 Number of GBV cases reported through established referral pathways and GBV services provided (disaggregated by sex and type of service)
• RISE-OP12: Number of training and capacity-building activities conducted that are designed to promote gender-responsive and gbv-sensitive approaches within the rise programme.

• Objective 1: Evaluate the extent to which the Gender-Responsive Conservation Project has delivered effective, efficient, relevant and timely activities to beneficiaries as set in the project log frame. 
• Objective 2: Assess whether the collaboration between Hen Mpoano, CEWEFIA and The Ark foundation Ghana has added value to the interventions with a positive effect on beneficiaries and other stakeholders. What has contributed to this added value and what has not?
• Objective 3: Assess the extent to which Sexual Exploitation Abuse and Harassment (SEAH) practices have been integrated in the project interventions for project beneficiaries and communities.
• Objective 4: Identify and assess key lessons learned, challenges and draw recommendation for future programming

• To what extent have the planned objectives in the log frame of the project, been reached, per indicator, disaggregated by gender, age, district and region? 
• To what extent have the project activities contributed to the overall goal? Was the project effective in Integrating GBV Considerations into the Proposed Marine Protected Area of The Greater Cape Three Points Area, Ghana. 
• What were the major factors influencing the achievement of the objectives of the project? 
• What opportunities for collaboration have been, utilized and how have these contributed to increased effectiveness? or otherwise? 

• Were the financial resources and other inputs used efficiently to achieve outputs? Are there opportunities to improve efficiency?
• How efficient was the delivery of project by GRC Project, not only in terms of expenditure, but also in terms of implementation of activities?
• What would have been opportunities within project to reach more beneficiaries with the available budget or to reduce costs while reaching at least the same number of beneficiaries without compromising quality?
• Were, alterations made to the program design in terms of collaboration during the implementation phase based on the reality on the ground?

• To what extent did the project address the Gender based violence issues identified during the during the project design?
• How do beneficiaries perceive the relevance of the project and how has the activities implemented improved their lives? Are there any stories of change? 
• Did the project intervention address the challenges of beneficiaries and were the interventions tailored to their needs? 

• To what extent can the overall changes (observed results) be caused by and can be traced back to the interventions of GRC Project.   

• To what extent are the project’s positive actions likely to continue after the end of the project? In particular, attitudinal and institutional changes? 
• What actions need to be taken to increase the likelihood of the project results being sustainable? 
• Has the capacity of local implementing partners been built to enable them continue provide technical back stopping to project beneficiaries? What are the presents gaps, opportunities and threats?

• Assess whether the collaboration between CEWEFIA and The Ark foundation Ghana   with Hen Mpoano has added value to the interventions with a positive effect on beneficiaries and other stakeholders. What has contributed to this added value and what has not?
• Which of the interventions, approaches, and modalities/strategies have been most effective? 
• How was project learning generated and applied to improve the delivery or effectiveness or efficiency of activities? 
• Who benefited from shared learning experiences (e.g., quarterly, joint field visits, workshops provision on best approaches and methodology), mainly the local NGOs, Assemblies, Agencies and departments, community members and beneficiaries? 
• How did the different actors learn from these experiences? 

• Was community led SEAH strategies considered adequately in the project design?
• What scoping exercise (s) were conducted before the start of the project? 

• The end line evaluation should at least include one lesson learned and recommendation per evaluation category, i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, relevance etc. 

• Employ a combination of techniques to evaluate what worked, what did not work, why and how and to generate knowledge to improve learning and future project design.
• Use a mixed-methods evaluation approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods. Quantitative methods, including a representative survey, will generate measurable evidence of project outcomes, while qualitative methods, such as key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and case studies, will provide contextual insights and explanations. The integration of both approaches will enable triangulation of findings, enhance the validity and reliability of the results, and ensure a comprehensive assessment of the project's performance and impact.
• Use a team of mixed experts to ensure critical eye and ensure findings take into account various perspectives.
• Qualitative methods employed must sufficiently demonstrate association of project results to project interventions 
• The evaluation should assess the project’s contribution to observed results, using available baseline/endline data, monitoring evidence, and triangulated qualitative and quantitative findings.
• Evidence of collaboration between partners and stakeholders during the implementation of the project 
• Information on successes, challenges, lessons learnt to further improve on future project design, collaboration and partnership 
• Information on best practices to improve on organizational learning, accountability and transparency. 

• Detail methodology and sampling techniques and size
• Detail implementation plan stating each activity under each of the research phases
• Hold inception meeting with GRC program team. 
• Submit an inception report summarizing the deliverables produced and the outcome of the training of enumerators to MER Team. 
• Ensure that report includes all recommendations for adjustments of phrasing and terminology of the questionnaire that were identified during the training. The deliverable also includes the finalized specific questionnaire. 
• Conduct a desk review of key relevant documents and understanding the project design and contextual framework
• Design tools/questionnaire and methodology for data collection of both qualitative and quantitative data.
• Delivery of a survey implementation protocol, training curriculum and materials for the field teams.
• Recruit and train Research Assistance (RA) in the use of data collection tools/questionnaires
• Pre-test the evaluation assessment tools
• Implement and supervise field data collection and data entry
• Analyze and synthesize data; and prepare report 
• Submit data analysis and draft report for feedback
• Compile and Incorporate comments /feedback/recommendations from GRC Project and partners
• Produce High quality validation of the information collected through a Validation workshop of the findings
• Submit final report together with the compiled recommendations/feedback/comments on the draft report

• Intended users: The findings of the evaluation assignment will be validated at a stakeholder workshop to provide an authentic information base against which the GRC project implementers and all stakeholders can assess the progress and outcomes of the project. GRC Project staff on the project, implementing partners and the Donor (Norway -RISE -IUCN) will be the major users of the End – Line evaluation report. In addition, key stakeholders in project locations such as Municipal/District Assemblies and Departments, partner NGOs, traditional authorities Service providers and communities are interested parties of the findings. 
• Involvement: Relevant government institutions, Partner NGOs, Child Right committees, Unit committees, and local assemblies will participate evaluation. 

• Document and systems review: Review of existing documentations, including; project reports, project log frame and monitoring data.
• Surveys: The evaluation will employ a mixed-methods approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques. Quantitative data will be collected through structured survey questionnaires administered to a representative and randomly selected sample of respondents drawn from the eleven (11) target communities across the Ahanta West and Nzema East Districts of the Western Region. The sample size will be scientifically determined using an appropriate statistical sampling methodology to ensure the findings are representative and reliable for assessing project outcomes.
• Qualitative data will be collected through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), and the Most Significant Change technique with key stakeholders, project staff, community leaders, beneficiaries, and relevant government agencies. These methods will provide deeper insights into project achievements, behavioral and institutional changes, lessons learned, challenges encountered, and the project's contribution to strengthening gender-responsive conservation and integrating GBV considerations into the proposed Marine Protected Area (MPA).
• Given that the survey includes indicators related to Gender-Based Violence (GBV) cases and knowledge or use of referral pathways, all GBV-related data collection will adhere to internationally recognized ethical and survivor-centred principles.

• Recruitment and engagement of enumerators (where applicable).
• Training of enumerators, including orientation on research ethics, safeguarding, GBV/SEAH-PSEA protocols, and data collection tools.
• Collection of primary data and review of relevant project documents, reports, and secondary data.
• Data processing, cleaning, analysis, and interpretation.
• Submission of a draft evaluation report for review by the client.
• Facilitation of a validation workshop to present preliminary findings and obtain feedback from key stakeholders.
• Submission of the final evaluation report, incorporating comments and recommendations received during the validation workshop, together with all agreed deliverables.