farmertilahun solomon alemuaddis aemerotomatoescropsethiopiafield
Request for proposals

- Term Review of Strategic Partnership
- Sustainable Vegetable Value Chain (SVVC) Project

Download full ToR (with annex) here

About the Development Fund

For more than 40 years the Development Fund (DF) has collaborated with local communities and civil society organizations in developing countries to improve the production of food and income generation of highly vulnerable and marginalized rural communities. DF’s vision is a sustainable and just world with freedom from hunger, poverty, and marginalization. Hundreds of thousands of small-scale farming households have received DF-support to develop resilient livelihoods and eliminate hunger, malnutrition, and poverty in their communities.

DF has stood steadfast in the forefront among development organizations promoting the empowerment of marginalized rural communities, pro-poor policies and appropriate solutions, particularly through approaches such as crop diversification, modern-farming, climate adaptive villages, climate-smart agriculture techniques, community seedbanks, small scale irrigation and mechanizations, natural resource management, microcredits and capacity building of civil society and grassroots organization. DF mobilizes the assets of small-scale farmers to ensure local contribution, involvement, and ownership, which is key to a sustainable, resilient and equitable development.

Project background and context

Project description

As part of its overall goal of DF, the Sustainable Vegetable Value Chain Project (SVVC) funded by Norad is designed to improve livelihoods and reduction of poverty for selected smallholder farmers by promoting vegetable production and business. The project has been implemented between 1st January 2019 and 30th June 2023 including a no cost extension of 6 months (from January to June 30, 2023).

DF is the lead agency and works together with two implementing partners; namely Women Empowerment Action (WE-Action) and ORDA Ethiopia and two other strategic partners (JoyTech Fresh and Netherlands Development Organization (SNV). The project is implemented in two districts of Amhara region; namely Fogera district of South Gondar zone and Guba Lafto district of North Wollo zone. WE-Action is implementing the project in Guba Lafto district while ORDA Ethiopia is implementing the project in Fogera district. JoyTech Fresh supplies high-quality seedlings to the farmers and SNV offers technical expertise to the project through training of partner staff, model farmers and Government extension workers and provision of training materials, manuals and guidelines.

Objectives of the Project

The overall objective (the intended impact) of the project is to increase income and job opportunities for selected smallholder farmers. More specifically, the overall goal is to improve the livelihoods of target communities by increasing income of 3,500 small holder farmers and creating 2,600 jobs in the agriculture sector.

This will be achieved through two outcomes and five outputs:

Outcome 1: Vegetable business of smallholder farmers expanded/enhanced

Output 1.1: Supply of quality inputs locally increased

Output 1.2: Knowledge on vegetable production increased

Output 1.3: Access to market increased

Outcome2: Export of vegetable by medium/large scale farmers increased

Output 2.1: Production of vegetable for export Improved

Output 2.2: Capacity of medium/large scale farmers for export increased

Project implementation modality

The project implementation approach is participatory in nature whereby the target communities and key stakeholders jointly participate in planning, implementation, and monitoring. The project is implemented by local partners with technical support of Joy Teck and SNV.

To ensure community engagement and stakeholder participation, the project has developed a joint MOU between the parties; Government, Joy Tech, SNV and DF (including the implementing partners We-Action and ORDA Ethiopia). The roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder (including the steering committee and working groups) are clearly listed in the MOU. The steering committee, consisting of members of the management of DF and Joy Tech are meeting quarterly, while the working groups consisting of experts of DF, SNV, Joy Tech, We-Action and ORDA Ethiopia meet as needed. The steering committee assigns tasks to the working groups and follows up the progress.

Project Outcome and Output Indicators


Income and Job opportunities Increased
Average annual income of small holder farmers from vegetable production
Average annual income per hectare from export of Vegetables (USD)
Local people employed in medium/large scale farms and in satellite hub

Outcome 1: Vegetable business of smallholder farmers expanded/enhanced
% of volume of vegetable products of smallholder farmers sold in the market
Vegetable productivity (kgs/ha)

Output 1.1: Supply of quality inputs locally increased
Annual # of quality seedlings produced and supplied by Joy Tech

Output 1.2: Knowledge on vegetable production increased
1.2.1. Annual # of experts/extension workers who receive ToT and close follow up on vegetable production
1.2.2 Annual # of model farmers who receive ToT and close follow up on vegetable production
1.2.3. # Of smallholder farmers who receive training and close follow up for producing vegetable using improved practices
1.2.4. # Of SSPs (Spray service Providers) and Kebele pesticide agents who receive training and inputs on pesticide application

Output 1.3: Access to market increased
# Of farmer cooperatives/Argo-dealers established/strengthened for collective marketing

Outcome 2: Export of vegetables by medium/large scale farmers increased

# Volume of Vegetable products of medium/large scale farmers exported (tons)

Output 2.1: Production of vegetables for export increased

Ha of land for exported Vegetable by medium/large scale farmers (ha)2

Output 2.2: Capacity of medium/large scale farmers for export increased

# Of medium/large scale farmers accredited for export of vegetables

Source: Updated logical framework (2019)

Purpose of the end-term evaluation

The overall purpose of this end term evaluation is to assess and document the performance of the project and the extent to which the outputs and outcomes have been achieved, determining relevance, coherence, efficiency, and effectiveness. The Evaluation is forward-looking and will assess whether and to what extent results (I) are sustainable, and (II) may contribute to achieving the intended impact. On this basis the Evaluation will provide clear (actionable) recommendations for improvements. The Evaluation is also intended to assess success factors and constraints, capture lessons learnt, and document new knowledge and important topics for further enquiry, action, lobbying and/or influence.

The Evaluation will ensure accountability towards Norad as a donor as well as the target beneficiaries of the project. As such, it fulfils a prescribed obligation set forth in the agreement with the Norad and may form part of the basis for an assessment regarding possible continuation of the current partnership, and/or support for new Project concepts presented by DF.

Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this Evaluation are to:

Ascertain results as stipulated in the logical framework

Assess relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability, in addition to project and risk management and relevant cross-cutting issues

Provide findings, conclusions, key lessons learned and clear recommendations for future design and implementation

Identify any challenges the project faced and formulate appropriate recommendations for future actions, and

Assess whether the collaboration between DF, its implementing and strategic/private sector partners have added value to the interventions with a positive effect on beneficiaries and other stakeholders (including what factors contributed to or detracted from added value).

Evaluation questions

In order to achieve the specific objectives of the Evaluation, the Consultant shall employ the six standard DAC evaluation criteria[1], with special emphasis on sustainability. The consultant is encouraged to further develop the evaluation questions listed below.

Relevance: Is the intervention doing the right thing?

To what extent were the objectives and activities implemented by the project relevant in addressing the needs of the beneficiaries?
To what extent was the project relevant for needs, priorities, and objectives of DF, its partners, the donor, and the governments of Ethiopia?
How has the collaboration between DF, partners, relevant line ministries and other stakeholders contributed to the specific needs and priorities of the beneficiaries?
To what extent was the project relevant to the Ten Years Development plan and related sector plans of the country?
To what extent was the project able to adapt and provide appropriate response to context changes and emerging local needs, and the priorities of beneficiaries?

Coherence: How well does the project fit?
To what extent has the project created synergies and collaboration between Project stakeholders?
What has been the particular added value of DF’s various project partners, including Joy Tech, SNV and Farm Force?
To what extent has the project been complementary and coherent to national policies as well as other donor-funded development projects in the areas where it has been implemented?
Effectiveness: Has the project achieved its objectives?
To what extent have results in the log frame been achieved, per indicator, disaggregated by gender?
What are the main results (most significant changes) achieved by the project so far?
Were there any unexpected results/impact (positive or negative) because of implementing the project?
What was the impact of overproduction of the different types of vegetables? What effects did overproduction have on nutrition levels of project farmers and their families?
Was there food loss in the value chain as a result of vegetable overproduction or is there evidence of any pre- and post-harvest management related problems?
Were activities implemented effectively?
How effective were the implementing partners in mobilizing and engaging different target groups in different interventions (including marketing system, skills on extension service and linking grass-root organizations to relevant district level government institutions)?
How well has knowledge generated by the project been used? E.g., the use of fertilizer, chemicals, effective use of irrigation water, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) etc?
How effective were actions to reduce or mitigate potential adverse effects of Covid-19 and war in northern Ethiopia?
To what extent has DF contributed to the capacity of implementing partners?

Efficiency: How well are resources being used?
To what extent was the project implemented in a cost-efficient manner?
How efficiently were inputs converted to outputs, outcomes, and impact (i.e. were inputs converted into results in a timely and cost-effective manner)?
How efficient were the management and accountability structures of the project?
Were alterations made to project design in terms of collaboration during the implementation phase based on the reality on the ground?

Impact: What difference does the project make?
To what extent is the overall objective (intended impact) likely to be achieved?
To what extent has project design and the implementation approach contributed the income, livelihoods and job creation?
What stories of success can be highlighted?
What were the main challenges towards achieving intended results and how might these be addressed in the future? (This question will also be examined regarding effectiveness.)

Sustainability: Will the benefits last?
To what extent are the benefits of the project likely to continue after its completion?
Are there adequate and effective mechanisms (input supply, irrigation systems, etc.) in place to ensure the continued flow of benefits?
How effective were the exit strategy and approaches to phase out assistance provided by the Project, including contributing factors and constraints?
How has DF worked with local partners to increase their capacity in a sustainable way?
What motivations/mechanisms exist for partners to continue playing these roles?
Has a “Do No Harm” approach been sufficiently implemented? If not, what measures should be taken to improve its implementation in the future?
Should the project be continued? If so, provide recommendations for improving the execution of the project in a possible second phase.

Project and risk management
Is there scope to improve coordination amongst and between the many stakeholders and partner institutions? (Related to coherence)
Have implementation delays occurred? If so, have the partners identified effective countermeasures?
Was the risk management strategy adequate to cope with the identified risks (internal and external) and/or cope with unexpected impacts or opportunities?
How well have identified and/or realised risk factors been managed/mitigated?
Apart from Covid-19 and war, have other unanticipated risk factors arisen? If so, how well were they addressed by project partners?
Have project partners managed to control expenditure in line with the budget? (Related to efficiency)

Cross-cutting issues
To what extent have efforts to promote gender equality changed discriminatory attitudes/behaviour?
To what extent and how are we delivering appropriate and effective programming for persons with disability?
To what extent have good environmental practices been followed in implementing the project?

Lessons learned
The articulation of lessons learned must be clear, relevant, targeted, and actionable so that the evaluation can be used to achieve its intended learning and accountability objectives.
What are the key lessons emerging from the project – both positive and negative lessons – that can inform future design and implementation of similar interventions?

Tender submission and contact details

Tenders/offers to conduct the Evaluation will be accepted from consultants as well as firms, and must be submitted in two separate documents, one containing technical proposal and the other financial proposal clearly marked “Consultancy Service for SVVCP Review” and sent by email to Lidia Bekele, Administration Assistant at DF Ethiopia

Please note that the bid must contain CVs of the proposed evaluation team. Financial proposal shall disclose all pricing information related to consultancy service as described in this Terms of Reference with USD for international consultants. Fee (non-recurring and recurring costs), Travel cost, and other out of pocket expenses should be given separately as a lump sum. Conditional cost is not acceptable.

For further details or questions regarding this ToR for the Evaluation, kindly contact Sisay Kassahun, Country Program Coordinator:

Download full ToR (with annex) here