Work with us
Terms of Reference: Mid-Term Review of the programme: Multi-Level Conflict Transformation in South Central Somalia 2020-2023
Introduction: Life & Peace Institute
Founded in 1985, Life & Peace Institute (LPI) is an international center based in Uppsala, Sweden, that supports and promotes nonviolent approaches to conflict transformation through a combination of research and action. In the Horn of Africa and Great Lakes regions, much of LPI’s work is carried out through engagement with, and support to, civil society and academic institutions, building strategic partnerships with national, regional and international organizations and networks.
LPI brings a range of participatory approaches and methodologies that have proven to be effective tools for creating space for dialogue and action across Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Sudan in the Horn of Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi in the Great Lakes Region, as well as in Sweden.
Component 1: Programme Mid-Term Review
Summary of the programme
LPI and Somali national organizations ( SPL, SWSO and ZZF) partnered to implement this 4 years ( 2020-2023 ) programme titled ” Multi-Level Conflict Transformation in South Central Somalia” with overall objective of contribute to a stable and peaceful Somalia by supporting inclusive reconciliation processes that address local grievances and root causes of conflict. The programme focuses on five Federal Member States (FMS) - FMS that the programme focuses- Hirshabelle, Jubbaland , Galmudug, South-West and Puntland, linking all to the capital in Mogadishu (Benadir).The programme focus on addressing persisting or recurring local level (sub) clan conflicts and connecting these processes with the national and regional policymaking levels in Mogadishu and Addis Ababa as well as in international decision-making fora which are the central components of LPI’s programming. The annual budget for the programme is 12million SEK.
South Central Somalia continues to face substantial obstacles in the nation’s quest for peace and stability. LPI’s programming will keep the focus on addressing persistent or recurring local-level clan conflicts within these subsystems. The clan conflicts, in turn, impact (and are impacted by) the state-building dynamics ( see attached annex conflict analysis)
The targeted conflict systems are not only hotspots of historic and recurrent violent clan-based conflict but have also been negatively impacted by top-down state-building processes and contribute to instability in South Central Somalia. Within this challenging context, LPI’s partnership with the above-mentioned partners are seeking to create space for dialogue, negotiation and, ultimately, agreements as well as new collective behaviour to address clan-based, local level conflicts that receive little or no attention in the global and regional policy narratives, yet nevertheless are intricately connected to these other layers.
By supporting the transformation of targeted protracted local conflicts through inclusive engagement driven by the affected communities, and by engaging local, state and federal policy actors and policies to create an enabling environment for those processes, the programme has potentially contributed to long-term peace and stability at the community level in selected conflict systems.
Moving forward, the programme has further developed relationships, agreements, capacities, and contribute to behaviour change among clan actors. It works with Somali civil society partners to support communities to address underlying conflict drivers (e.g., around land) through research, inclusive dialogue, strengthening local capacities, and improving resource management and governance.
Community Peacebuilding platforms remain pivotal. Clan reconciliation processes have led to a decrease in the number, magnitude, and intensity of clan conflicts, contributing to a positive overall impact on the larger context within which the state-building and peacebuilding processes are interacting.
The programme has worked on relationship-building with local authorities so they can better support clan reconciliation processes. In addition to addressing local community-level conflicts and creating an enabling local environment for the continued state-building, the programme’s bottom-up approach sought to influence peacebuilding policies at the national and international levels.
Knowledge generation and Learning are integral to programme implementation. The purposes are three-fold: to Inform LPI and partner programming on specific challenges experienced; to share programme lessons with the broader community of practice of peacebuilders in Somalia; and to gather evidence, particularly from people experiencing conflict, as a key strategy to inform policy-influencing work. In this way, Knowledge and Learning activities create spaces to integrate civil society strengthening, community peacebuilding, and policy engagement.
Outcomes and specific theories of change
Outcome 1: Conflict stakeholders on community level use structured, nonviolent, and collaborative ways of addressing conflict issues, thereby creating preconditions for peaceful coexistence.
This outcome area builds on the following theory of change: If key actors are engaged in dialogue and negotiation on substantive conflict issues over time; if Peacebuilding platforms (or similar collective actors) work together in preventive action and crisis response, innovating new ways of dealing with and transforming conflict issues; if gains in key actor dialogue and negotiation are shared, discussed, and rooted in broader clan communities, including those actors usually marginalised. Then clan groups – key people and more people – will increase mutual understanding; long-standing narratives that highlight divisions can be reframed to positive, future-oriented understandings; nonviolent strategies for addressing conflict can be identified and employed – now and in the future; decision-making on peace and conflict issues will be more inclusive and responsive to a broader set of actors in clan communities. Because… Dialogue allows for the identification of different perspectives as well as shared grievances and concerns. The process includes, and is driven by, key people with the mandate to enter into agreements. In addition, deepened community engagement anchors dialogue and negotiation as the new norm for handling conflict. Through sustained processes a routine norm of dialogue will take shape. Through dialogue, combined with research and analysis, more accurate information – rather than rumours and disinformation – is available to clan groups, allowing more comprehensive agreements to be developed.
Outcome 2: Increased inclusion and participation of women, youth, and other marginalised groups in peacebuilding processes.
Outcome area 2 builds on the following theory of change: If women, young people, and traditionally marginalised groups are provided the opportunity and space to engage with each other across clan and other dividing lines; if women, young people, and traditionally marginalised groups experience personal transformation in their attitudes towards other groups and their skills and confidence are reinforced; if women, young people, and traditionally marginalised groups collaborate to address issues driving or resulting from conflict in their communities; if all stakeholders have an increased understanding of the diversity of roles played in peace and conflict; Then Participating women, young people, and traditionally marginalised groups will strengthen understanding and relationships, as well as their motivation for engagement; public perception of actual and potential roles taken by those groups will start to change, creating openness for more meaningful participation; otherwise unheard perspectives on what drives conflict or builds peace can become visible. Because engagement in safe peacebuilding spaces allows an increase in understanding (of oneself, others and issues at hand) without fear of repercussions or normative pressure, Women, young people, and traditionally marginalised groups have unique knowledge to bring to the processes, and their input to – and support of – peace agreements and action plans are needed to ensure that the progress towards peace through dialogue and action is sustainable, Experience shows there is openness for more diverse people’s engagement.
Outcome 3: Local authorities proactively support peacebuilding processes.
The outcome area builds on the following theory of change: If Local authorities, both district- and FMS-level, are engaged through tailored capacity development, relationship-building, and evidence-sharing by LPI, partners, and peacebuilding platforms; if Peacebuilding platforms – or key people mobilised by them – carefully assist resolving structural tensions when feasible, for example in relation to parallel administrations; Then Local authorities deepen their experience of nonviolent conflict management, and may with time develop proactive strategies to address conflict (as opposed to reactive), focus on the long-term (rather than short-term political gains), consider all clans in the area (rather than promoting one-clan’s agenda), and become open to inclusivity (rather than resisting it); The effects of political competition on clan reconciliation efforts are reduced; Because Capacity enhancement will respond to self-identified expressed needs and allow for changing mindsets in a safe learning environment. With capacity, proactivity will develop. As more stakeholders experience new nonviolent techniques that give better results, more political will is generated. Local authorities have enhanced understanding of community perspectives, understanding long-term benefits of inclusive community engagement with their objectives. Clan leaders, working together in platforms, can exert harmonised influence on administrations from different sides.
Outcome 4. Targeted policy actors on national, regional and international levels take actions to create a more conducive political/governance environment for peace.
The outcome area builds of the following theory of change: If LPI and partners have pooled their expertise and capacity in peacebuilding advocacy, have jointly mapped principles, issues, access, and current processes for policy engagement (Policy Engagement Strategy/ies); if Concrete, longer-term influencing effort(s) make use of policy windows, build and share a meaningful body of evidence, and create collaborative relations with civil society, academic allies, and champions in policy actors; Then Existing or new policy responses can be more responsive to peacebuilding needs and processes in the community setting, while also utilising enhanced legitimacy created through a broader consultative process; Because Evidence-generation can function as a strategy to enhance understanding, create alternative policy options, and build collaborative relations, Collaborative relations create trust and let shared interest emerge, which contribute to political will for responsive actions.
Civil Society Partnerships
LPI is currently implementing its programme with three Civil Society Organizations (CSOs): Somali Peace Line (SPL), Zamzam Foundation (ZZF), and the Somali Women Solidarity Organization (SWSO) It may also identify new partners, particularly when extending to new geographic areas or specific thematic issues – e.g., policy engagement (see below).
LPI’s partners in 2019
Somali Peace Line (SPL): Founded in 1995 and based in Mogadishu. SPL and LPI have worked in partnership since 2008 on the research project ‘Civil Society and Peacebuilding—the case of South-Central Somalia,’ the ‘Track II Middle-Out civil society initiatives in order to enhance cohesion, political pluralism and democratic participation’ project, and the ‘Community-Led Bottom-Up Peacebuilding’ in Lower and Middle Shabelle.
Zamzam Foundation (ZZF): ZZF was founded in 1992. Its head office is in Mogadishu with a number of offices and staff in the regions. Primarily a development and relief organization, ZZF has been engaged in conflict transformation since partnering with LPI at the end of 2011. ZZF has been implementing the ‘Conflict transformation and inter-clan joint resource management in central Somalia (CRM)’ project with LPI, who is also supporting the establishment and strengthening of ZZF’s new peacebuilding department. Phase II of the CRM project was launched in January 2016 in Hiran, Galgadud, and Middle Shabelle, and it ended in 2018. Currently LPI and ZZF continue to provide more limited support to maintain momentum built to date.
Somali Women’s Solidarity Organization (SWSO): SWSO was formed in 2006 as a community-based organization (CBO) engaged in promoting solidarity and increasing women’s participation in decision-making processes. It is active across Lower Jubba—with headquarters in Kismayo and field offices in Dhobley and Afmadhow. SWSO has actively engaged in peacebuilding work and has worked in larger women’s consortiums. LPI and SWSO signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in January 2016 and have since collaborated to promote women-to-women dialogue processes in Kismayo and Gedo Region, the generation of evidence through the Learning from Kismayo research, and support to the formation of women’s peace platforms (Kismayo and Gedo).
Target groups and regions
Target Groups: The groups targeted by the programme will be all resident and neighbouring clans in Southwest, Hirshabelle, Galmudug, and Jubbaland states – and potentially Puntland and Mogadishu – as well as local authorities and regional state administrations. Regional (e.g., AU and IGAD) and international (e.g., donors and international organisations) policy makers and implementers will also be targeted.
Geographical reach: The programme is currently working in regions of South-Central Somalia linked to the capital Mogadishu (Benadir region). The programme may potentially expand beyond current geographic operational locations if funding allows (see below).
FMS Regions Areas covered Expansion outlook
Southwest Lower Shabelle Bay Baidoa and Marka Barawe
Hirshabelle Middle Shabelle Hiran Jowhar, Bal’ad Mataban, TBD Bergadid, Qabno, Omad, Mahas, Banyale . Qodqod
Galgmudug Galgadud Mudug Guriel, Balambale, Herale, Adado,
Puntland Mudug N/A Galkayo
Jubbaland Lower Jubba Gedo Kismayo, Dhobley Afmadow
Beled Xawo, Luuq, Garbaharey,
Federal level Benadir Mogadishu
Purpose, users and intended use of the Mid-Term Review
Purpose: Learning and informing decisions for enhancing performance The purpose of the mid-term review is to collect and analyse evidence on programme implementation and results, in order to identify significant lessons from past experience and improve the Somalia programme’s performance for the remaining implementation period.
Evaluation Objectives (EO)
EO 1: To understand internal and external factors promoting and/or hindering the programme’s progress towards all its intended outcomes.
EO 2: To document results, challenges, and lessons with regards to the programme’s efforts to implement peace agreements, promote community cohesion, and increase inclusiveness of local level clan-based reconciliation efforts.
EO 3: To assess the intervention’s systems for programme quality and learning and evidence-based programming, including through Monitoring and Research.
Users: LPI’s Somalia Programme Team, LPI’s Somalia programme partners (SPL, ZZF and SWSO), LPI’s Strategic Leadership team. Audience: Sida, other donors including UNPBF, Somali Stability Fund, European Commission, and relevant government authorities.
LPI and partner organisations will use evaluation findings to improve ongoing programming engagement (decisions about quality of programme implementation) and potentially add additional programme strategies if this would enhance the programme’s effectiveness (decisions about changing programme strategies).
Type of evaluation (timing): Formative evaluation (after two years of implementation)
Specific evaluation questions
While the OECD DAC evaluation criteria (particularly: effectiveness, relevance, sustainability, coherence) inform the following evaluation questions (EQ) (For reference: evaluation criteria are listed in brackets after each evaluation question)
Please note that the evaluation questions will be reviewed and refined as part of the evaluation process.
Evaluation Questions (EQs)
EO 1: To understand internal and external factors promoting and/or hindering the programme’s progress towards all its intended outcomes
EQ 1. Overarchingly, to what extent is the programme successfully progressing towards its expected outcomes, indicators and current targets as stated in its results framework? What are critical factors shaping substance and pace or lack of progress? Is the programme on track to achieving its overall goal? If not, what changes should be made? To what extend has the COVID-19 Pandemic influenced programme results and effectiveness and how the project has addressed this influence to adapt to changes? (Effectiveness)
EQ 2. Is the programme addressing the right issues in Somalia? What is the validity of the programme’s overarching theory of change in the current context? Did the programme design include an integrated and appropriate strategies for sustainability? How are approaches chosen relevant and appropriate? How well the programme compliments and fits with other peacebuilding programmes in the country? (Relevance)
EQ 3. What is the relevance of the programme as perceived by key stakeholders to the programme, including partners, platforms, communities, and relevant authorities? To what extent have LPI and partners engaged and responded to community actors’ needs and priorities? (Relevance)
EQ 4. What have been policy inputs made by the programme to policy actors on national and international level? What was their significance? What has been the uptake and consequences of inputs made? What are factors promoting or hindering progress in national level policy engagement by LPI and partners? What improvements could be made to enhance policy engagement at national level? (Effectiveness, Relevance, Coherence)
EO 2: To understand internal and external factors promoting and/or hindering the programme’s progress towards all its intended outcomes
EQ 5.To what extent and in what ways do platforms build on and enhance existing conflict handling to more inclusive (in terms of participation), long-term (instead of short-term conflict management) and transformative (in terms of issues addressed) mechanisms and promote reconciliation? To what extent has the programme been able to support the community in strengthening and improving the implementation of peace agreements.
EQ 6. To what extent has there been progress to strengthened and increased interaction between platforms and local governance actors? What are the factors enabling or hindering effectiveness increasing interactions in this regard? What has been the role of LPI and partners in enhancing interactions between platforms and local administrations? What is needed to enhance progress regarding this outcome area, considering the highly dynamic nature of local governance? (Effectiveness, Coherence, Sustainability)
EQ 7. To what extent has the programme been able to create space for the participation and influence of women, young people, minority clans and other marginalised groups (including disabled people) in peacebuilding efforts? What has worked well and what could be improved? What factors have contributed to or hindered participation and influence? (Effectiveness)
EQ 8. What behaviour changes in key actors – both negative and positive – have occurred with respect to women, youth and minority inclusion in clan-based peacebuilding/reconciliation work and other community decision making processes? In what way has the programme influenced those changes and how are they relevant to constructive norm change? Has there been any evidence of backlash? (Effectiveness, Relevance)
EQ 9. What have been the result of Sustained dialogues(SD) among youth? To what extent has the result influence conflict dynamics and youth issues in the target areas?
EQ 10. What have been the contributions of the women platforms to peacebuilding in Jubbaland? What are existing or missing ingredients for the platform to promote cross-clan collaboration? What has contributed or hindered recognition and acceptance of the work of the women’s platform? (Effectiveness)
EO 3: To assess the intervention’s systems for programme quality and learning and evidence-based programming, including through Monitoring and Research. EQ 9 Are the programme’s Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) processes feasible and useful for fostering program management, accountability, and learning? How are partners and collaborators involved in monitoring and learning? Are there any critical gaps in monitoring systems which need to be addressed?
EQ10 How have research and analytical processes been useful in informing conflict sensitive programming and strategic programme decisions and planning? EQ11 Partners institutional building and growth: To what extent has the partners Institutional capacity grown during the implementation period? What focus areas of capacity strengthening do the partners need to enhance organizational capacity and improve upcoming programme?
Approach of the Mid-Term Review
The mid-term review processes will use a utilisation-focused evaluation approach, which entails the following, at the minimum:
Desk review of relevant project documents and potentially supplemented by a broader review of relevant sector literature
Collection of primary external data from the field from consultations/interviews with a broad range of stakeholders
Collection of data from programme and partner staff
Site visits to selected locations, in order not only to better understand the context in which the programme operates but also to hear direct feedback from programme participants and communities.
The evaluation should take gender and intersectionality perspectives into account throughout all stages of the evaluation, including in design (evaluation questions), data collection (including ensuring diversity of gender, age, clan, socio-professional, geographical origin) and data analysis (including analysing data for sub-groups of evaluation participants to identify any patterns and significant differences between groups).
The evaluation approach should further include proactive measures to ensure conflict sensitivity throughout all stages of the mid-term review.
Further, the evaluation shall be participatory in approach, which entails:
LPI and Partner teams shall be involved in evaluation design, particularly in validating any decisions on evaluation scope, translating evaluation questions in data collection tools, participant engagement, and feedback to findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Preferable would be an interactive evaluation data analysis workshop facilitated by the evaluation team leader.
Findings and recommendations shall be shared in an interactive utilisation workshop.
The Mid-Term Review will cover all partnerships and projects implemented under the framework and is guided by the programme’s theory of change and results framework, for the timeframe of January 2020 to December 2021. The Mid-Term Review will make use of existing monitoring data (including Outcome Harvesting data).
The Mid-Term Review shall be conducted by one experienced evaluator or Evaluation Team. The Evaluation Team should demonstrate the following skills, qualifications, and characteristics:
At least Bachelor’s degree in social sciences, peacebuilding management, evaluation and social research with minimum of seven years and extensive experience.
Demonstrated, in-depth experience in the design and implementation of reviews and other evaluations in the field of peacebuilding.
Possibility and willingness to access programme locations and engage a diversity of programme stakeholders (at least one team member).
Experience in engagement with civil society and traditional peacebuilding processes in Somalia, with a strong conflict sensitivity approach.
Strong gender competence and experience in working with gender-transformative approaches.
Strong analytical skills and understanding of the conflict context in Somalia.
English language proficiency and excellent track record in producing high quality and utilization-focused reports.
At least one team member must have Somali language proficiency.
The deliverables for the Mid-Term Review include:
Inception report and negotiated evaluation plan that details lines of inquiry, definitions, data sources, methods for data collection, methods for data analysis, conflict considerations and time and budget planning.
Data collection instruments and protocols.
Draft evaluation report for comments and review.
Final evaluation report following review
Timeline: The Mid-Term Review will conduct preparatory steps in January 2021, data collection should be conducted in December and January and report finalised for sharing by the end of February.
Locations and travel: Data collection will require travel to key programme locations, in close collaboration with the LPI team and partner organisations. Depending on the methodology, interactive workshops may be foreseen for Nairobi and Mogadishu.
Activity planning: The detailed activity plan and budget for the Mid-Term Review Evaluation will be agreed upon based on the proposed methodology by the Evaluation Team.
Budget and fees
LPI will pay a daily fee for an agreed number of payable days. The number of days will be agreed upon informed by the technical proposal submitted to LPI. The fee will be subject to negotiation. In addition, all reimbursable costs for required travel as well as data collection and other activities will be covered.
Evaluation tender process
Please send CV along with your technical proposal: describing your understanding of the ToR, detailing the methodology for implementing the ToR, conflict sensitivity considerations, an activity plan and a detailed budget outline to firstname.lastname@example.org by 30 December 2021
The CVs and Technical Proposals will be assessed based on qualifications and experience of the evaluation team, quality of the methodology proposed and cost effectiveness (value for money).
December 30, 2021