Final Evaluation of the Leveraging and Expanding Agri-Aqua Production in Bangsamoro (LEAP) Project

Country: Philippines Organization: People in Need Closing date: 17 Nov 2026 For detailed information, click this link. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/3/folders/1YLOcoIjszvoDH6sdzAIGIoIowTa7x_WM Terms of Reference (ToR) Final Evaluation of the Leveraging and Expanding Agri-Aqua Production in Bangsamoro (LEAP) Project Funded by the European Union 1. Background About People in Need People in Need (PIN) is an international non-governmental organisation founded in the Czech Republic in 1992. It has implemented hundreds of humanitarian and development projects across Europe, Asia, Africa and Central America. PIN began its operations in the Philippines in 2013 in response to Super Typhoon Yolanda, and its programmes have since grown to cover market systems development, sustainable livelihoods, disaster resilience, renewable energy, peace and social cohesion, including in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). PIN seeks the services of a qualified external evaluator or evaluation team, referred to in this ToR as the Evaluator, to conduct the final evaluation of the LEAP project. The assignment will be carried out in close cooperation with the PIN project and MEAL teams and the consortium partners. About the LEAP Project The Leveraging and Expanding Agri-Aqua Production in Bangsamoro (LEAP) project develops the coffee and seaweed value chains in the island provinces of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi (BaSulTa) in BARMM. It is implemented by People in Need as lead applicant, together with the co-applicants MARADECA and UNyPHIL-Women, under the European Union’s Bangsamoro Agri-Enterprise Programme (BAEP). The project runs from 1 July 2023 to 31 December 2026. Overall objective: To contribute to a peaceful, cohesive, secure and inclusive development of agri- and aqua-culture value chains in Bangsamoro. Specific objective: Coffee and seaweed production improved in quality, diversity, consolidation and its response to the needs of the market. Outputs • Output 1: Coffee and seaweed value chains in the island provinces are mapped, analysed and better coordinated. • Output 2: Individual farmers and farmer or fisher folk groups are equipped for diversified, quality production through access to crop and sea inputs and extension services. • Output 3: Farmer and fisher folk small social enterprises within the coffee and seaweed value chains are established and strengthened. • Output 4: Enhanced post-harvest and processing facilities are in place. Target Groups The main target group is coffee and seaweed farmers, small farmer groups and cooperatives in Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, a minimum of 2,000 farmers, with particular focus on women, youth and indigenous people. Other target groups are traders and input suppliers in the three provinces; local, regional and provincial authorities, including MAFAR, MTIT and OPAG and the provincial agricultural offices; and academia, in particular MSU Tawi-Tawi. The final beneficiaries are farmers, cooperatives and traders across BARMM and the general population of the island provinces. 2. Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation The final evaluation will assess the extent to which LEAP achieved its objectives and results, and how the intended and unintended changes came about. In line with the project design, the evaluation is conducted by an external evaluator with strong expertise and experience in markets development in the Philippines. It will provide lessons and recommendations that assist PIN, the consortium partners and other stakeholders to enhance the impact of future interventions in BARMM. The specific objectives of the evaluation are to: • Assess the project's performance against its overall objective, specific objective and the four outputs, measured against the logframe baseline and targets. • Identify what worked, what did not, and why, across the coffee and seaweed value chains and the three island provinces. • Generate practical lessons learned and actionable recommendations for future value-chain programming in BARMM. • From a market systems perspective, the evaluation should assess not only what LEAP delivered, but the extent to which the project contributed to changes in how the coffee and seaweed market systems function. This should include changes in relationships, incentives, behaviours, capacities and roles among farmers, cooperatives, private-sector actors, service providers and public institutions, and the likelihood that these changes will continue, adapt or expand beyond direct project support. 3. Scope of the Evaluation Type of evaluation. This is a performance evaluation against the standard OECD-DAC evaluation criteria. Impact is assessed as the project's plausible contribution to change measured against baseline values, and not through a counterfactual design. A separate impact evaluation of the programme will be conducted by the European Union, so this evaluation focuses on performance and does not attempt to measure the macro-level impact indicators. Period under review. The whole project duration, from 1 July 2023 to the time of the evaluation. Geographic scope. The three island provinces of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, with in-person data collection in each province. Coverage. The evaluation covers the whole project, both the coffee and the seaweed value chains, the specific objective and all four outputs, assessed against the logframe baselines and targets. 4. Evaluation Criteria and Questions The evaluation applies the standard OECD-DAC criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability, together with EU added value, inclusivity and gender equality and social inclusion, and cross-cutting themes. The questions below are the key areas to be answered. The Evaluator is expected to refine them and develop the corresponding judgement criteria, indicators and data sources in an evaluation matrix as part of the inception report. Relevance • To what extent did the project respond to the real needs and priorities of coffee and seaweed farmers in the island provinces, including women, youth and indigenous people? • To what extent were interventions informed by identified market demand, commercial opportunities and underlying constraints within the coffee and seaweed market systems, as opposed to primarily responding to the immediate needs of producers? • Was the project design and its modalities of support appropriate and conflict-sensitive given the security context of the island provinces? Coherence • How well did the project align with BARMM priorities and relevant sector roadmaps, and complement the work of MAFAR, MTIT, OPAG, the provincial agricultural offices and other actors in the coffee and seaweed sectors? • How coherent were the interventions internally, across the four outputs and the two value chains? Effectiveness • To what extent were the specific objective and the four output targets achieved, measured against the baseline? • How did results differ between the coffee and seaweed value chains, and what explains the differences? • How well did the distinctive components perform, in particular the coordination platforms, the private nurseries, the post-harvest and processing facilities, savings groups, and the solar technologies and climate services? • What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of results? Market Systems Effectiveness • What market-system constraints did LEAP successfully address, and which constraints remain binding for the growth and inclusivity of the coffee and seaweed sectors? • What changes occurred in the behaviour, practices, relationships and incentives of key market actors as a result of LEAP? • To what extent have market actors taken ownership of functions initially supported or facilitated by the project? • Is there evidence that practices, services, business models or relationships introduced or strengthened through LEAP have been adopted by actors beyond those directly supported by the project? • Where systemic change has not occurred, what prevented it (weak commercial incentives, capacity constraints, institutional barriers, limited demand, conflict dynamics, project design or another factor?) Efficiency • Were the financial and human resources used economically to deliver the outputs across two value chains and three provinces? • Did the consortium model of PIN, MARADECA and UNyPHIL-Women deliver in an efficient and well-coordinated manner? • Was implementation timely, including the use of the 6-months extended implementation period to December 2026? Impact (Contribution) • What significant changes occurred in production, quality, diversification, market access, sales and household income, and to what extent did LEAP plausibly contribute to these changes? What other actors or contextual factors contributed to the observed results? • Were there different effects for women, youth and indigenous people, and any unintended effects, positive or negative? EU Added Value • What did EU funding of this project add beyond what regional or national actors could have delivered on their own? Sustainability • Are the coordination platforms and the emerging industry bodies, such as the Sulu Coffee Industry Development Board and the Basilan Coffee Industry Cluster Council, likely to continue functioning after the project ends? • How durable is the institutional anchoring of the seaweed value chain, which is weaker than that of coffee? • Are the post-harvest and processing facilities likely to be maintained and continue to operate independently? • Are the social enterprises and savings groups viable beyond the life of the project? • For key functions supported by LEAP, which actors now have both the capacity and commercial or institutional incentive to continue performing these functions without project support? • If LEAP support ended completely, which changes would continue, which would weaken, and which would stop, and why? • Is there evidence of replication, imitation, crowding-in or spontaneous adoption by farmers, businesses, service providers, government institutions or other actors that were not directly supported by LEAP? What factors enabled or constrained such scale? Inclusivity and Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) • To what extent did the project reach and benefit women, youth and indigenous people as intended, and was their participation meaningful rather than only numerical? Cross-Cutting Themes • How well did the project apply conflict sensitivity and a do-no-harm approach in practice? • Were the Community Feedback and Response Mechanism (CFRM) and safeguarding measures functioning and accessible to target groups? • How were environmental sustainability considerations addressed? Lessons and Learning • What are the main lessons from LEAP that PIN and partners should carry into future value-chain programming in BARMM? 5. Methodology The Evaluator is responsible for developing the evaluation design and detailed methodology to meet the objectives above. A mixed-methods approach is expected, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. Findings must be measured against the logframe baseline values wherever the indicators allow. The proposed approach, the sampling strategy and the data collection tools are to be presented in the inception report and agreed with PIN. Desk Review The Evaluator will review the project's logframe and description of the action including amendments, the baseline study, narrative and progress reports, monitoring data, the coffee and seaweed value chain studies and other studies conducted under the project, and summaries of feedback received through the CFRM. Field Data Collection • Key informant interviews with project and MEAL teams, consortium partners, government and private stakeholders. • Focus group discussions with farmers and other value chain actors, held in person in all three provinces. • Direct observation of nurseries, post-harvest and processing facilities and donated equipment, to verify that they are in place and functional. Given the cultural context of the island provinces, the evaluation team should be gender-balanced so that women farmers can be interviewed by women enumerators where appropriate. The team must also cover the local languages in use in the target areas, including Tausug, Sama and Yakan, either within the team or through qualified interpreters. The qualitative methodology should include purposive interviews with market actors positioned both within and beyond LEAP's direct intervention portfolio, including buyers, traders, processors, input suppliers, financial/service providers and relevant public institutions. This will enable the evaluation to test whether observed changes extend beyond direct beneficiaries and project-supported structures. Evaluator should use contribution analysis and/or outcome harvesting to reconstruct the change pathway, assess LEAP's contribution alongside other influencing factors, and identify evidence of behavioural change, ownership, replication and sustainability. Note on the Inception Report Once approved by PIN, the inception report becomes the reference document for the assignment, and the final evaluation report will follow it. Approval of the inception report is internal to PIN. 6. Key Deliverables Deliverable Description Inception report Methodology, evaluation matrix, sampling strategy, data collection tools and workplan, developed in consultation with the PIN project and MEAL teams. Once approved, it becomes the reference document for the assignment. Draft evaluation report Main findings presented for review by PIN and the consortium partners. Final evaluation report Feedback incorporated. The executive summary should not exceed 3 pages. The report should be concise and evidence-led. Validation presentation Key findings and recommendations presented to the project team and relevant stakeholders. Findings-sharing event A one-day findings-sharing event in Zamboanga City/Cotabato for about 30 external stakeholders, organised and fully funded by the Evaluator, including venue, participant transport, meals and logistics. PIN will support coordination with the stakeholders and agrees the participant list. Datasets, tools and transcripts Cleaned and anonymized datasets, the data collection tools, transcripts, and the analysis files or calculations used in the evaluation. Thematic learning briefs One or two short briefs on specific components or approaches, for example the market systems development approach, designed for reuse in future programming. E.g. Market Systems Learning Brief: What did LEAP teach us about facilitating inclusive market-system change in fragile and conflict-affected island economies? Inputs to the PIN evaluation brief A short summary of the key findings and recommendations for the PIN evaluation brief. Structure of the Final Report The final report should include an executive summary, an introduction describing the project and the purpose and questions of the evaluation, the methodology and its limitations, the findings organised by evaluation question, conclusions against each criterion, lessons learned, actionable recommendations, and annexes including this ToR, the evaluation tools and the logframe. The final report should include a dedicated synthesis of market-system change, distinguishing between: • Direct beneficiary-level results. • Changes in market actor behaviour and relationships. • Changes in supporting functions, rules or institutions. • Evidence of sustainability, replication, crowding-in or scale. 7. Indicative Timeline The timeline below is indicative and will be confirmed at contracting. The Evaluator should propose a detailed workplan in the inception report. Stage Indicative period Call for evaluators published 7th October 2026 Application deadline 17th November 2026 Evaluation of applications, selection and contracting 8th December 2026 Inception phase, desk review and inception report 22nd December 2026 In-person field data collection in Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi 1 January 2027 to 15 February 2027 Draft report and PIN and partner feedback 28th February 2027 Validation and final report 10th March 2027 Event to present the results TBC 8. Qualification Requirements Mandatory • Proven experience in conducting final evaluations of EU-funded projects, or final evaluations for international non-governmental organisations. • Demonstrated experience evaluating market systems development (MSD) and/or systemic value-chain development programmes, including assessment of market actor behaviour change, sustainability, facilitation, crowding-in and systemic change. • Experience applying contribution analysis, outcome harvesting or other theory-based approaches to assessing systemic change. • Strong quantitative and qualitative research skills, including survey design, key informant interviews, focus group discussions and data analysis. • Experience working in conflict-affected or conflict-sensitive areas, and with marginalized communities. Desirable • Knowledge of the BARMM and BaSulTa context. • Experience with the coffee or seaweed value chains and with agriculture, fisheries or aquaculture programmes. • Experience in inclusive and gender-sensitive approaches. The proposed team should be gender-balanced. • Coverage of the local languages in use in the target areas, including Tausug, Sama and Yakan, within the team or through qualified interpreters. • Excellent analytical, report-writing and presentation skills in English. 9. Selection Criteria Applications will be assessed against the following criteria, for a maximum total score of 100 points. Only proposals meeting all mandatory qualifications will be scored. The budget is published and fixed, so the financial offer carries a low weight in order to focus selection on quality. Criterion Maximum points Relevant experience and expertise of the Evaluator or team, including work samples and previous experience in BARMM 40 Evaluation approach and methodology 25 Quality assurance, safeguarding and gender and social inclusion 15 Financial offer 20 Total 100 Scoring Guide Each technical criterion is scored within the point ranges below. The financial offer is scored on a standard formula, with the maximum points awarded to the lowest compliant price and the other offers scored in proportion. Criterion (maximum points) Excellent Satisfactory Not demonstrated Experience and expertise (40) 32 to 40 20 to 31 0 to 19 Approach and methodology (25) 20 to 25 13 to 19 0 to 12 Quality assurance, safeguarding and GESI (15) 12 to 15 8 to 11 0 to 7 10. Budget and Payment Modalities The maximum budget available for this evaluation is EUR 30,000. This is inclusive of all professional fees, travel, accommodation, translation and interpretation, transcription, the cost of the findings-sharing event and all other costs related to the assignment. Offers exceeding this amount will not be considered. Payment will be made in instalments against approved deliverables, as follows: Instalment Milestone 30% On signing of the evaluation services contract 20% After the inception report is submitted and approved by PIN 20% After the draft evaluation report is submitted and approved by PIN 30% After the final evaluation report is submitted and approved by PIN PIN reserves the right to deduct up to 0.5% of the total contract price for each day of delay in meeting the agreed deliverables, applied to the final payment. How to apply Application Process Interested applicants should submit the following in one email in PDF format: • A technical proposal setting out the proposed approach, methodology and an indicative workplan with milestones. • A quality assurance and safeguarding or risk management plan for this evaluation. • A financial offer within the published budget, itemising fees, travel, translation and other costs. • Curriculum vitae of the evaluator or team members, stating roles and responsibilities for this assignment. • At least one and up to two samples of relevant previous evaluation work. • Two verifiable references. • For organisations, registration documents. For individuals, a government-issued identification. Submission: Applications should be sent to procurement.philippines@peopleinneed.net by 17 November 2026, 5:00 pm Philippine time. Ethics, Safeguarding and Data Protection Data collection is the responsibility of the Evaluator. PIN will oversee the process, and the consortium partners will help facilitate communication with stakeholders and target groups. The Evaluator and any enumerators must comply with PIN's Code of Conduct and safeguarding and protection standards, which will be shared and referenced in the contract. When handling personal data, PIN follows its Guidelines on Processing Personal Data and the Principles of Work with Personal Data. Participants are under no obligation to take part, and there will be no negative consequences for those who choose not to. The Evaluator will obtain informed consent, secure prior permission for taking and using images, and apply robust data security measures to protect the confidentiality and anonymity of participants. Management of the Assignment The evaluation is overseen by the PIN Programme Lead, supported by the MEAL Manager. The Evaluator will report to this focal point for all updates, submission of deliverables, requests for clarification and invoicing. A selection committee including the Programme Lead and the MEAL Manager will assess applications using the selection criteria above. Annexes • Annex A: LEAP logframe (Annex C of the grant contract). • Annex B: Description of the Action. • Annex C: PIN Code of Conduct and safeguarding standards.