You are invited to submit an application for the final evaluation of Self Help Africa’s ICSP programme. The following information is included in the pages that follow:

• Document 1 – Terms of Reference
• Document 2 – Guidance and instructions for responding to the Terms of Reference
• Document 3 – Theory of Change

About Self Help Africa

Self Help Africa works with smallholder farmers and their families to make sustainable improvements in their livelihoods from both a sustainable landscapes and sustainable food systems approach in agriculture combined with integration into enterprises. Our core values underpin our approaches: working in partnership, community-led development and integrated solutions. Self Help Africa believes that this is key to building local capacity to sustain change and scale up good practices.

Document 1: Terms of Reference

Background

2026 is the penultimate year of Self Help Africa’s 5-year programme, funded by Irish Aid under “Ireland’s Civil Society Partnership (ICSP) for A Better World”. The programme commenced January 2023 and will end December 2027.

The ICSP programme is implemented across 10 projects in seven countries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, The Gambia, Uganda, Zambia)*. 8 of the 10 projects are funded by Stream 1- the Development Stream of Irish Aid’s current grant. Two projects are funded by Stream 2- the Chronic Crisis stream.

Moreover, the funding provided by Irish Aid covers

SHA’s Global Citizenship Education and Public Engagement programmes in Ireland.

*The projects in Uganda (2) and the Gambia (1) were phased out in 2025

Self Help Africa is looking to commission an independent evaluation. The TOR consists of two parts:

• Component A focused on Stream 1 Long-Term Development and Stream 2 -Chronic Humanitarian Crises

• Component B focused on Stream 4- Global Citizenship Education and Public Engagement in Ireland)

Both explore the relevance and effectiveness of our ICSP programme, to be completed in 2026. Consultants can choose to apply for component A or B only, or both.

As the ISCP funding period coincides with the duration of SHA’s strategic plan, the

evaluation will also inform the development of the next strategic plan.

As a result, the evaluation will also contribute to enhance our policies and M&E processes.

The table below provides a summary of the ICSP programme.

	SHA – Irish Aid ICSP programme 2023-2027
Objectives, Outcomes and Results	The objective of the programme is to enhance smallholder productivity and profitability by fostering partnerships that promote effective policies and practices, particularly in the context of climate change. The programme aims to support community-driven initiatives that improve food and nutrition security, access to safe water, and income stability. These efforts are expected to strengthen overall well-being and build resilience to environmental, climate-related, and health risks.   Key outcomes are delivered in four interlinked areas:   Increased production, dietary diversity and returns from smallholder enterprises in fragile locations. Growth of inclusive, profitable and sustainable agri-enterprises.Improved enabling environment for smallholder farmers. People in Ireland demonstrate strengthened public engagement in development work and are empowered to critically analyse development matters relating to poverty and injustice and encouraged to become active citizens in the creation of a more sustainable future for all. The evaluation should also measure SHA’s contribution to Ireland’s policy framework with a particular focus on One World, One Future and a Better World Ireland’s current Policy for International Development.
Target Group	Self Help Africa works with smallholder farmers and their families to achieve sustainable improvements in their livelihoods through both the intensification and diversification of agricultural production, as well as greater integration into markets. The term “smallholder” refers to small-scale, subsistence-level farming households operating in resource-constrained environments, typically with limited access to purchased inputs and modern technology. In addition, Self Help Africa collaborates with smallholder farmer organisations—including farmer groups, cooperatives, producer organisations, and unions—to promote sustainable agricultural development and support micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). We believe that strengthening the capacity of smallholder enterprises and enhancing business and management skills will foster inclusive and profitable agri-enterprises, leading to increased returns for smallholder farmers.
Equality and Inclusion	We acknowledge that smallholder farmers are a diverse group of women and men, whose ability to participate in development processes is determined by their access to and tenure of land and resources, age, disability, health and HIV status. We are committed to identifying and removing the barriers that prevent inclusion of more vulnerable groups and ensuring that women and men have equal opportunities to participate and benefit from our projects.
Countries	7 Country Programmes (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, The Gambia*, Kenya, Malawi, Uganda* & Zambia) and Global Citizenship Education and Public Engagement in Ireland. *For the Gambia and Uganda country programmes which were phased out in 2025, the evaluation will be desk based.

Evaluation – Component A

1. PURPOSE

1. To provide an independent assessment of the delivery and contribution to change of the ICSP programme (Stream 1- Long-Term Development and and Stream 2- Chronic Humanitarian Crises), with a particular focus on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC) criteria all six OECD-DAC criteria with special attention/focus for the criteria of relevance and effectiveness.
2. To evaluate the overall impact and progress towards the Programme Outcomes:

1. Equitable and inclusive stewardship of natural resources to support livelihoods and healthy ecosystems.
2. Equitable and inclusive food systems to support availability, access and consumption of safe nutritious food.
3. Equitable and inclusive enterprise contributes to a transition to adaptive green economies.
4. Transformation of gender relations to ensure that women and girls have agency (Voice, Choice, and Control) over decisions in their lives and their communities (focusing on nutrition, health, climate adaptation, income, security and well-being.
5. Strengthened governance for effective institutions to deliver inclusive and equitable sustainable landscape management and sustainable food systems which support transitions to an adaptive green economy.
6. Partners are supported to shape and lead local development.
7. Strengthened community capacity to prepare for and respond to chronic and acute crisis.
   
   To identify learning and emerging good practice to inform future programming, institutional approaches and other sectoral actors.

2  – EVALUATION

2.2  Evaluation Scope

All ten projects will be represented in the evaluation through review of existing monitoring and reporting data, as well as remote engagement with the current programme teams (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi and Zambia) and potentially partner organisations.

There is a results framework for each country programme. The evaluation will be against the Theory of Change (please refer to document 3) with a focus on describing and

understanding what changes occurred in the programme’s contexts.

2.3  Key Evaluation Questions – Component A

Relevance:

• To what extent has the ICSP funding programme addressed the needs of programme participants in complex and evolving contexts?
  • At the current stage of the programme, and taking into consideration the nexus approach, is there evidence that programme integration of the ICSP thematic outcomes is achieving anticipated results?
  • To what extent and how has the ICSP funded programme changed or improved upon addressing the needs of the furthest behind first?
  • Did the Theory of Change/Logic of Intervention hold true?

• Did the organisation adapt appropriately in response to changes in the context and lessons learned from implementation of the intervention?

Coherence:

• To what extent are/were the programme initiatives to support smallholder farmers coherent with other interventions being conducted by other organisations/sectors?
  • To what extent are/were the programme initiatives externally harmonized and complementary with in-country interventions while avoiding duplication of effort?
  • To what extent are/were the programme initiatives likely to build effective internal and external partnerships?

Efficiency:

• To what extent was expenditure guided by Value for Money principles?
  • Consider if the programme was implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternative means.
  • Are there any good practices or lessons we can learn from the programme initiatives?

Effectiveness:

• To what extent did the organisation build institutional capacity of local partners? Is there evidence that the programme has been effective in achieving

anticipated results at multiple levels (micro/meso/macro)? To what extent can the emerging results be attributed to ICSP funding?

• To what extent and how is the programme delivering impactful and coordinated development, humanitarian and climate initiatives?
  • To what extent and how has the ICSP funded programme changed or enhanced the approach partners engage and integrate concepts of locally-led development into their programming?
  • To what extent have initiatives achieved or likely to achieve the planned results as defined in their impact journey (Theory of Change)?

Impact:

• What is the overall impact of the programme in relation to its outcome/purpose and how does this compare with what was expected on an annual basis.
  • To what extent have the programme interventions contributed to the improvement of the lives of the programme beneficiaries.
  • Assess the key results against the outputs and how this compares against the targets set out in the results framework.

Sustainability

• To what extent are the impacts resulting from the programme work likely to be sustainable?
  • Did the programme initiatives enhance local ownership and capacity?

• Evaluation Methodology, Phases and Key Deliverables

The evaluation will be conducted in line with the OECD DAC Evaluation Quality Standards, and compliance with these standards must be clearly demonstrated in the evaluation.

The evaluation will incorporate both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, this could include key informant interviews, focus group discussions, workshops, survey assessments, and a desk review.

The selected consultant will be required to share ideas on the best approach. Informal discussions with individuals working in the development–agriculture sector will also form part of this review. Secondary data will be collected from proposal documents, reports, reviews, and evaluations related to the specific projects under investigation, as well as from materials relevant to the key focus areas of this review, including gender analysis tools and the rationale for operations.

The main elements of the evaluation are envisaged to include:

• Inception phase
  • Documentation review
  • Interviews and workshops with key stakeholders
  • Country visits to two country programmes, with coordination with country-level consultants where travel is not possible or where alternative mechanisms are required
  • Validation of findings with the Self Help Africa team
  • Submission of draft and final reports

Key Deliverables:

Three reports will be required: an inception report, final draft evaluation report and a final report. All reports and annexes should be written in English.

The final draft evaluation report and final report must be structured according to the OECD/DAC criteria and the evaluation questions.

The main body of the evaluation (draft and final version) should not exceed 30 pages in total (if the consultant covers both Component A and B), excluding annexes. One of the annexes should consist of a table that summarises the findings and recommendations.

If the consultant covers only Component A, the evaluation should not exceed 20 pages.

Evaluation – Component B

2.   PURPOSE

1. To provide an independent assessment of the delivery and contribution to change of the ICSP programme (Stream 4), with special attention for the criteria of relevance and effectiveness.
   1. To evaluate the overall impact and progress towards the Programme Outcomes:

Outcome 1: Students and educators have increased understanding of global inequality, injustice, climate change, rural enterprise and agriculture and are actively engaged as global citizens.

Outcome 2: Learners marginalised from mainstream education have increased understanding of global inequality, injustice, climate change, rural enterprise and agriculture and are actively engaged as global citizens.

Outcome 3: Irish citizens have increased understanding of global inequality, injustice, climate change, rural enterprise and agriculture and increased sense of ownership of Ireland’s aid programme.

• To identify learning and emerging good practice to inform future programming, institutional approaches and other sectoral actors.

2.3 Key Evaluation Questions – Component B

Relevance:

• Has the ICSP funding programme addressed the needs of programme participants?
• Is there evidence that the programme has been effective in achieving anticipated results at multiple levels (micro/meso/macro)?

Effectiveness:

• To what extent and how is the programme delivering impactful and coordinated Global Citizenship Education and Public Engagement?
• To what extent and how has the ICSP funded programme changed or enhanced the approaches for Global Citizenship Education and Public Engagement?

• Is there evidence that the programme will have a sustained impact in terms of facilitating deeper engagement and incorporating learning?

2.4 Evaluation Methodology, Phases and Key Deliverables

The evaluations will be conducted in line with the OECD DAC Evaluation Quality Standards, and compliance with these standards must be clearly demonstrated in the evaluation.

The evaluation will incorporate both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, this could include key informant interviews, focus group discussions, workshops, survey assessments, and a desk review. Secondary data will be collected from materials relevant to the key focus areas of this review, including gender analysis tools and the rationale for operations.

The main elements of the evaluation are envisaged to include:

• Inception phase
• Documentation review
• Interviews and workshops with key stakeholders
• Participation in global citizenship education team training and public engagement workshop across different sectors and public engagement events
• Validation of findings with the Self Help Africa team
• Submission of draft and final reports

Key Deliverables

The evaluation will be against the Global Citizenship Education and Public Engagement’s results framework and Theory of Change (please refer to document 3) with a focus on describing and understanding what changes occurred in the programme.

Three reports will be required: an inception report, final draft evaluation report and a final report. All reports and annexes should be written in English.

The final draft evaluation report and final report must be structured according to the OECD/DAC criteria of relevance and effectiveness and the evaluation questions.

The main body of the full evaluation (draft and final version) should not exceed 30 pages in total (if the consultant covers both Component A and B), excluding annexes. One of the annexes should consist of a table that summarises the findings and recommendations.

If the consultant covers only Component A, the evaluation should not exceed 20 pages and if the consultant covers only Component B, the evaluation should not exceed 10 pages.

3-   Timeline and Evaluation Team

The provisional timetable is outlined below:

Deadline for submissions of expressions of interest	30 June 2026
Independent evaluator(s) appointed	30 July 2026
Inception phase: document review and preparation	August 2026
Inception Report	24 August 2026
Fieldwork and report writing – remote and/or in country	September/October 2026
Draft evaluations report submitted	25 October 2026
Presentation of findings	10 November 2026
Final evaluation reports deadline	20 November 2026

The evaluation will require an independent consultant/s who can work effectively with Self Help Africa staff, partners and beneficiaries and ensures that the evaluation is transparent and free of bias. Experience has shown this process to be far more critical than a purely external review and provides a greater opportunity to embed learning in the organisation.

• Expertise required:
  • Specialists with a minimum of seven years’ experience in programme/project delivery in an international development context in Africa
  • Proven capacity and experience in development strategic planning, the use of programmatic approaches and the management of complex evaluations, particularly in an NGO environment
    
• Strong understanding of NGO and donor relationships in “Programme/Strategic Funding” type schemes
  • Extensive experience of results-based monitoring and evaluation
  • Experience in mainstreaming cross-cutting issues (gender, environment & green economy, local led-development, leave no one behind)
  • All team members with professional proficiency in English
  • Availability within the time frame outlined
  • For Component 2: Expertise in Development Education and Global Citizenship Education and Public Engagement.

3.3 Criteria for reviewing the final report

These criteria are used for the assessment of the quality of the evaluation report.

• Were the terms of reference fulfilled and is this reflected in the report?
• Does the report contain a comprehensive and clear summary?
• Is the report structured according to the OECD/DAC criteria and the evaluation questions?
• Are cross-cutting issues (e.g. poverty, gender, nutrition, climate, locally led-development, furthest behind first, leave no one behind) indicated in the report separately?
• Does the report describe and assess the intervention logic (e.g. log-frame)?

• Are the conclusions and recommendations based on findings clearly stated in the report, and are they derivable from the latter?
• Does the report clearly differentiate between conclusions, recommendations and lessons learnt?
• Is it comprehensible how the evaluator have achieved their findings?
• Are the recommendations and lessons learnt realistic and is it clearly expressed to whom the recommendations are addressed to?
• Are the methods and processes of the evaluation sufficiently documented in the evaluation report?
• Were the most significant stakeholders involved consulted?
• Were the most important documents taken into consideration, and is the content of the latter reflected in the report?
• Does the report present the information contained in a presentable and clearly arranged form?
• Is the report free from spelling mistakes and unclear linguistic formulations?
• Can the report be distributed in the delivered form?

Document 2: Guidance and Instructions for responding to the Terms of Reference

4-   Presentation of proposals

The consultant is required to respond to the Terms of Reference with:

1. A technical proposal consisting of no more than 10 pages setting out how the consultant will carry out the evaluation, plus
2. A full curriculum vitae of experience to date.
3. Two referees / former clients.
4. A financial proposal including the professional fees for all participating in the evaluation. A clear breakdown of prices must be shown as part of the financial offer. A commercial proposal is also acceptable. Prices offered will be evaluated on full cost basis (including all fees and taxes that are applicable) VAT should be shown separately. The consultant will be responsible for their own tax affairs.
5. The consultant should list examples of relevant similar assignments and contracts from previous work with International Non-Governmental Organisations.
6. Conflict of interest declaration. Confirmation that there are no current conflicts of interest in having Self Help Africa (SHA) as a client, and proposals for dealing with any actual or potential conflicts of interest.

Shortlisted consultants will be invited to present their proposal to the SHA technical team via a remote link, in the week of 20 July 2026. In the week of 27 July 2026 the consultant will be appointed

4.1  Selection Criteria:

• Understanding of the Terms of Reference, proposed methodology and planning of the assignment (30%)
• Experience with respect to the evaluation of complex development programmes, (20%)
• Experience with and understanding of the wider development NGO community (10%)
• Overall balance and complementarily of the skills and experience with respect to the required expertise presented in CVs and the proposed team roles (20%)
• Overall cost (20%)

4.2  Other:

Self Help Africa is an international development charity and is committed to the safeguarding of all those who we come into contact with or through our work. We are committed to preventing any type of unwanted behaviour relating to our work including sexual harassment, exploitation and abuse, lack of integrity and financial misconduct; and we are committed to promoting the welfare of children and the people we aim to assist with whom Self Help Africa engages. Self Help Africa expects all staff, consultants and volunteers to share this commitment and uphold the values and behaviours outlined in the Code of Conduct and Child and Adult Safeguarding Policy. We place a high priority on ensuring that only those who share and demonstrate our values are recruited to work for us. Consultancy for Self Help Africa will include, and be subject to, a criminal records self-

declaration, references, and other checks, which may include police and qualifications checking. Self Help Africa is committed to the principles of the Misconduct Disclosure Scheme and may request information from previous employers about any findings of sexual exploitation, sexual abuse or sexual harassment. By submitting an application, the applicant confirms her/his understanding of these procedures. Subsequently, working for or volunteering with Self Help Africa is subject to a range of vetting checks, including criminal background checking.

4.3  Submission Method:

Interested parties should submit final proposals by email only to [email protected] – copying [email protected] on or before 30/06/2026.

Any questions relating to the brief set out above must be submitted by email only to [email protected] on or before 28/06/2025.

The full tender document can be found here.

Policies related to this tender opportunity are available here:

• Code of Conduct
• Child and Adult Safeguarding Policy
• Anti Fraud and Anti Corruption Policy
• Data Protection Policy
• Information and Digital Technology Security Policy
• Conflict of Interest Policy

The link to the folder is: https://gsha.box.com/s/bob7847163zi51ens1fg4b25qzoo7n7t