| Posted date | 28th November, 2024 | Last date to apply | 5th December, 2024 |
| Country | Pakistan | Locations | Lasbela |
| Category | Consultancy | ||
| Type | Consultancy | Position | 1 |
| Experience | 5 years | ||
| Status | Closed | ||
Terms of Reference (ToRs) for conducting Feasibility Study
on
Re-building lives of the People of District Lasbela through integrated project
Proposed for District Lasbela, Balochistan
To be implemented by Pak Mission Society (PMS)
|
Proposed Project’s Name |
Re-building lives of the People of District Lasbela through integrated project |
|
Project Donor |
Humedica International |
|
Thematic Area(s) |
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Water, Sanitation & Hygiene (WASH) Food Security & Livelihoods |
|
Geographic Area of Implementation |
District Lasbela, Balochistan |
Introduction To Pak Mission Society (PMS)
Pak Mission Society (PMS) is a national NGO registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860, having its central office at House No. 333, Street 29, Sector G14/4, Islamabad, Pakistan. Pak Mission Society was registered on 13 February 2008 under the Societies’ Registration Act XXI of 1860. In November 2017, Pak Mission Society signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Economic Affairs Division, Government of Pakistan and certified as NPO by Pakistan Center of Philanthropy (PCP).
PMS has established presence and implementation capacity in Islamabad, Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh, Baluchistan, Azad Jammu Kashmir (AJK) with access at the village level in more than 34 locations/districts including Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Faisalabad, Jhang, Gujranwala, Sheikhupura, Multan, Rajanpur, Rahimyar Khan; Peshawar, Charsadda, Swabi, Abbottabad, Mansehra, Kohistan, Shangla; Karachi, Khairpur, Sanghar, Mirpurkhas, Tando Allah Yar, Umerkot, Tharparker, Dadu; Quetta, Turbat Kech (District), Jaffar Abad, Lasbela; Neelam Valley, Mirpur. PMS maintains fully equipped field offices with resources incl. professional staff in 11 locations incl. Umerkot, Sukkur, Sanghar, Lasbela, Rajanpur, Peshawar, Pattan-Kohistan, Shangla, Lahore, Islamabad.
Vision
Vulnerable and unreached communities are empowered so that people enjoy the fullness of life, living with hope, dignity and respect.
Mission
Implement and promote holistic development to strengthen people's capacities, resilience and self-reliance.
Thematic Areas
Pak Mission Society is working on the following thematic areas:-
1. Disaster Management (including emergency response, early recovery, rehabilitation and disaster Risk Reduction) & Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)
2. Climate Action
3. Food Security & Livelihood
4. Church & Community Transformation
5. Entrepreneurship Development
With special focus on following area:
- Children
- Women
- Social Cohesion
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
Pak Mission Society, with financial support from Humedica Proposed project to implement “Re-building lives of the People of District Lasbela through integrated project” in Lasbela Balochistan. The project has adopted an integrated approach by combining immediate assistance with sustainable development efforts, addressing not just short-term needs but also the root causes of vulnerability. This approach will ensure that communities could recover more robustly and withstand future challenges. The integrated intervention includes activities on WASH, DRR, Climate, and Agriculture including construction of water channels, water ponds, diversion walls, promotion of solar technology, training in Efficient Climate Smart Agriculture, Kitchen gardening, provision of tools and seeds, and model agriculture farms. Furthermore, Project proposed to improve the community hygiene behavior and practices through the Participatory Approach (PHAST) and implement the sanitation activities through the CLTS / PATS approach.
As per the requirements of the primary donor, a feasibility study is required for the proposed project. The feasibility report will be utilized to strengthen the project by providing an independent, neutral analysis of the needs of communities, endorsing proposed activities and recommending changes should these be required.
A total of 35 villages will be engaged in the area addressing under Integrated DRR, WASH & Livelihood Program. The project will revolve around the following:
Community Mobilization & Grassroots Institutional Development: Formation, and Capacity building (C/LMST) of Village Development Committees (VDCs); development of 5-year Village Development Plans.
Agriculture & Climate Adaptation:
- Research & Provision of IEC material on Crop Calendar & Climate Change Adoptability.
- Organisation of Farmers
- Efficient Climate Smart Agriculture Trainings
- Model farms for Smart Agriculture for local farmers Kitchen gardening trainings, seeds, and tool kits
- Livestock Management Trainings
- Livestock vaccinations
- Construction of water ponds & channels
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR):
- Hazards, capacity, vulnerability and risk assessment.
- Formation and strengthening of Community Based DRM committees
- Training of Community Response Teams.
- Development of village level contingency and preparedness plans
- Provision of Emergency kits for each village DRM committees.
- Construction of Protection walls.
- Provision of appropriate IEC materials on DRR.
WASH:
- Water Sources (Solar tube wells, Filter Plants for Schools (RO Plants), Handpumps etc.) and Latrines.
- O&M Training, kits and Manuals.
- Health & Hygiene Promotion Activities; Through the PHAST approach.
- Implementation of sanitation related activities through CLTS / PATS
- Provision of NFI & Hygiene kits in schools
- Provision of appropriate IEC materials on WASH.
OBJECTIVES OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
The required feasibility study has the following main objectives: -
- To validate the proposed intervention, need, relevance, logic, appropriateness in the intervention area and suggest the best implementation protocol that can contribute in the success of implementation for better result and sustainability.
- To clarify preconditions, opportunities and risks of a given project outline, in order to enhance efficiency and avoid misallocations;
- To evaluate the prospects for achieving outcomes and impact of the project outline shared before the feasibility study;
- To evaluate security aspect in the proposed intervention district Lasbela with reference to implementing the proposed project.
- To identify the potential risks that can negatively impact the proposed intervention and develop the potential means of mitigation
EXPECTED APPROACH
A participatory approach will be required in which the voice of the communities, key stakeholders, experts and knowledge bearers should be consulted in a manner that respects their dignity and allows them the space to articulate their needs and concerns as required. Therefore, appropriate and structured interaction, communication and coordination with the afore-mentioned groups is essential to obtain the perspective and insight required to complete the feasibility study.
The consultant entrusted with the responsibility for implementing the feasibility study assignment must have an independent and neutral approach during the assignment. Tribal, political and sectarian considerations should not, in any manner, shape the implementation of the study’s activities or impact the recommendations or other contents of the eventual feasibility study report. Any attempt to influence the consultant’s actions or opinions by the staff members or respondents must be immediately reported to the management of Pak Mission Society, which will deal with the same in an appropriate manner according to its policies and protocols.
Overall, the” Do No Harm” approach is integral to both the feasibility study and the project it is assessing. The consultant is expected to ensure that the feasibility study does not create conflict at any level among stakeholders, does not raise un-due expectations and does not result in the development of social and/or political pressure on Pak Mission Society.
REQUIRED ACTIVITIES
The consultant will be required to conduct the following activities in order to develop the assignment’s required deliverables in coordination with the PMS MEAL Manager;
- A literature review (outline project proposal, impact matrix other relevant document, I e last project proposals and annual plans, project reports, previous evaluation reports etc.).
- Visit to the target areas in order to consult all relevant stakeholders and conduct the KII for expected sample size.
- Meetings with community of the proposed intervention villages to validate the need, this will be done through the FGD, Survey, KII etc. Analysis of Secondary data from Government and Non-Governmental Institutes
- Meeting with other NGO/ INGO and UN agency working in the area, to capture the best practices and best intervention model for better impact and sustainability.
- Key informant interviews with relevant stakeholders (government officials working on DRR, WASH, Food Security & Livelihoods, Civil Society members, Local Leaders, Sector experts etc.)
- Organize the finding dissemination workshop to validate the captured data and finding and get them endorsed from relevant departments.
The consultant must ensure that the said activities are included in the detailed methodology along with relevant timelines for each activity.
REQUIRED DELIVERABLES
The approved consultant will be required to provide the following specific and tangible deliverables with respect to the feasibility study:-
- A needs analysis report of the proposed target communities; the focus must be community needs related to disaster risk reduction (DRR), water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and livelihood. The specific needs of women, children and persons with disabilities (PWD) in the specific context and scenario should be articulated;
- A PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental) analysis which will demonstrate how the various factors will impact the proposed project and how said impact can be effectively managed.
- An assessment of the project outline against the OECD DAC criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability) http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/49756382.pdf
- The study should be able to provide baseline values using the primary / secondary data where applicable.
- Recommendations for SMART indicators for the project’s goal, objectives, outcomes, outputs and activities for utilization in the development of the project log-frame;
- Stakeholder analysis which details the identity of each stakeholder and their possible influence and impact on the project;
- A risk assessment to identify major risks and potential means of mitigation.
- An assessment of, and recommendations for, coordination and coherence (how will the project be integrated with the activities and priorities / policies of other agencies and organisations, including local and national government?)
- An assessment of organisational capacity (current and previous experience, appropriate management and communication systems, staffing levels and capacity, appropriate financial systems in place etc.)
- Recommendations for the preparation of the full project proposal, including compliance with and promotion of best practice
- A detailed feasibility report which must be presented according to the guidelines provided in Annex 1.
- All relevant data and information obtained, compiled and developed (soft and hard copies) for the purposes of the feasibility study must be provided in hard and soft versions to Pak Mission Society;
- The Consultant will be responsible for sharing his/her initial findings and recommendations with PMS team, and receiving their feedback on these, prior to producing a final report.
REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
The Procurement Committee requires that the consultants bidding for this assignment present the following required components in their submitted technical proposal in the described manner:-
- Updated consultant profile with all necessary documentation;
- Identification of focal person for this assignment including CV and relevant contact details;
- List of completed assignments related to development sector activities and client details including contact details, addresses and other necessary information;
- Declaration of tax status (filer or non-filer).
- Declaration on stamp paper stating that the consultant is not involved in litigation with any individual or organisational entity;
- Previous experience of conducting feasibility studies should be demonstrated by submitting at least one completed feasibility study in hard copy format;
- Proper understanding of UN Sustainable Development Goals and Core Humanitarian Standards should be demonstrated by submitting copies of relevant trainings attended by team member(s); this is not mandatory but would be advantageous;
- Knowledge and relevant experience of DRR, WASH, Food Security & Livelihoods sectors especially in disaster affected areas should be demonstrated by providing detailed CVs, references, qualifications, certifications; at least one sample written report is required; if available, samples of written article(s) or paper(s) should be presented;
- At least three experience / references or letters (This must be submitted by the consultant to prove past experience in conducting Feasibility study) of recommendation/endorsement from clients with one reference/letter specifically pertaining to a completed feasibility study;
- Detailed methodology that will be used by the consultant to ensure timely, efficient and effective completion of required activities and provision of required deliverables including identification of specific stakeholders that will be engaged and the specific number of activities that will be conducted;
- Detailed timeline of activities (preferably on Gantt chart format) to ensure completion of required activities and provision of required deliverables;
- Sample of tools that will be used for data collection and framework for analysis of information (qualitative and quantitative);
REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF FINANCIAL PROPOSAL
- The consultant must provide a detailed budget for preparation, coordination, conducting of all required activities and development of all required deliverables.
- It must be noted that the budget MUST include cost of printing, stationery, travel, boarding and lodging and taxes.
Please note that applicable taxes MUST be included in the quoted rates.
KEY DEADLINE AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
1. The technical and financial proposals must be submitted by/before 3:00 PM on Thursday 5th December 2024.
2. Technical and financial proposals must be submitted by courier or by email on the Pak Mission Society address given below.
The Procurement Committee.
Pak Mission Society, House No. 333, Street No. 29, Sector G- 14/4, Islamabad, Pakistan. Tel: - + 92 51 8446166
Any queries may be addressed at [email protected]
NOTE
The Procurement Committee reserves the right to verify any information provided in the technical and financial proposals. The Procurement Committee reserves the right to accept or reject any proposal without assigning specific reason. The decision of the Procurement Committee will be final and no negotiation or lobbying is permitted. The decision of the Procurement Committee cannot be challenged or questioned on any forum.
Please note that submission of technical and financial proposals will indicate acceptance of the above-mentioned conditions in their entirety.
Annexure 1:
Guidelines for Feasibility Studies
Aim of a feasibility study:
To clarify preconditions, opportunities and risks of a given project outline, in order to enhance efficiency and avoid misallocations.
The FS report is mainly for internal use; Partner / Donor Agency does not normally comment on the report but only on the proposal that refers to it.
I. In general:
- FS report should not have more than 30 pages, unless unavoidable.
II. Criteria for consultancy announcement:
- Description of deliverables, timeline and costs (frame), e.g. in a table
- Description of the consultant’s profile: expertise required; independence; in case of an assessment team: composition and role of each member
- Relevant documents: policy papers, background information, relevant literature, documents from previous projects, guiding questions
III. Criteria for FS, main features:
- Scope and depth of the FS should be in relation to the scope and volume of the project
- FS should provide an analysis of the core problem(s), the target group and the stakeholders - FS should assess the project outline against the OECD DAC criteria (relevancy, effectivity, effectiveness, impact, sustainability) (http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/49756382.pdf)
- This should provide the basis for recommendations for the preparation of the project. and for adaptations
IV. Structure and guiding questions (examples):
NOTE: the following structure should be reflected in the FS report. The guiding questions; however need to be adapted and selected depending on the case; the questions listed below do not necessarily apply to every case.
1. Aim, objective and use of the FS
- What is the scope of the FS (time, space) and which sector should be assessed?
- Approach/methodology?
- Documentation/experience from previous activities to be used?
- Recommendations of the FS?
2. Situation and problem assessment
- Situation in the sector/the region/the country? Context: socio-economic, political, cultural?
- Which (core) problems have been identified? What are the reasons for them; what impact do they have on the living situation of which population stratum/group?
- Need(s) identified on the basis of the problem analysis? How has this need been identified?
- Background and history of the project and intervention logic; who had the “project idea”?
- Are there alternatives to the project or to some of its components?
3. Local partner
- Which local implementing partners are present; what are their resources and capacities (institutionally, sector, staff, funding)?
- Which measures are necessary to strengthen the organisation and capacities of the local partner?
- Degree of ownership of the project by the local stakeholders/partners; do they have an own interest in the success of the project?
- Relation between the local partner and the target group, and the other stakeholders (legitimacy)? Conflict of interests? Convergence of interests? Can the cooperation between them be improved?
4. Analysis of target groups and stakeholders
a) Target Group (TG)
- Who is the target group, what are the criteria defining them? are there several TGs?
- How homogeneous or heterogeneous is the target group (sex/gender, ethnicity, age, etc.) and how does this have to be reflected in the project?
- Which are the (core) needs of the TG; how can they be addressed?
- What is the role of the TG in the local society? Which conflicts of interest vis-à-vis other social groups can emerge through the promotion of the TG by the project?
- What are the potentials of the TG in terms of initiative, self-help, local patterns of problem solving? Can these potentials be reinforced?
b) Other stakeholders
- Who are the main government and non-government stakeholders in the sector, in the project area/region/country?
- Relation of the intended project to the development strategies of the government?
- Which are the interests of the stakeholders? Are conflicts of interest visible? Interaction/ correlation with other activities of the stakeholders? Are these reflected in the project outline?
- Do the stakeholders share a common understanding of the problems and the objectives derived from there?
- How strong is the support to the project by the various stakeholders? How strong is their influence? Are there agreements between the stakeholders?
5. Assessment of the intended project using OECD DAC criteria
a) Relevancy:
- Does the chosen approach address a core development problem or a core development bottleneck in the country/region of intervention?
- Is the project guided by the needs of the target groups?
- What is the major change that the project is supposed to have brought about, once completed?
b) Effectiveness:
- Are the measures suggested and the approach chosen conducive to the intended project objective(s)? Should the project be complemented by activities on the higher levels (meso and macro level) in order to achieve a higher degree of sustainability?
- Are there potential synergy effects with activities of other actors; are they being used? - Which (additional) activities does the FS recommend in order to achieve the project
objective?
- What is the impact chain / impact logic that should be at the basis of the intervention? Draft an impact matrix containing meaningful indicators and base line figures).
- How will changes be measured? What indicators (fields) are most suitable?
- Who is going to monitor the impact, and when (impact monitoring)?
c) Efficiency
- resources required: financial, structural, staff
- can the planned activities be carried out in the proposed time frame; can the intended impact be achieved in a cost-efficient, economic and cost-saving manner?
d) “significance” – does the project contribute to development impact at higher level? - Concerning the problem analysis and target matrix: which objective shall be reached
concerning which group?
- To what extent the project is promoting structural change/building capacity; exemplary; and having a broad impact? Should the higher levels (meso and macro levels) be taken into account for implementation?
- To what extent does the project consider aspects of gender sensitivity, inclusion (of disadvantaged persons, namely handicapped), conflict sensitivity, and human rights?
e) Sustainability: will the project outcomes and impacts be maintained after the project’s completion (without further external aid)?
- How can sustainability of the outcomes and impacts be achieved and strengthened (structural, economic, ecological, social sustainability)?
- What will be the role of state and civil society actors in this? To what extent can local potentials, structures and processes be used? Which activities are most appropriate to strengthen the use of local initiative, participation, and local capacities?
- Socio-cultural obstacles; how can they be addressed/eliminated?
- What are the potential negative consequences and impacts of the intended project or of individual components? How can this be reflected in the project outline (do no harm approach, conflict sensitive impact monitoring etc.)
- What are the risks during implementation (for the implementing actors; for the institutions involved; for their reputation); how can they be minimised?
Annexure II:
Impact Matrix
|
Overall objective /Outcomes
|
Indicators |
|||
|
Initial value (quantitative and qualitative)
|
Target value (quantitative and qualitative)
|
|||
|
Objective: To restore and strengthen resilience of disaster-prone communities through livelihood, DRR and WASH infrastructure development |
||||
|
Outcome: Targeted communities have improved resilience through locally relevant iDRR; equitable access to sustainable climate resilient WASH infrastructure and better hygiene knowledge and practices, and sustainable livelihoods through restoration of productive assets, diversified climate resilient farming & agriculture infrastructure and gainful employment |
35 target communities do not have the skills and resources required to effectively manage their disaster risks and situations |
70% (262) of the sample population (374 Households) in 18 villages have effective understanding of community, household and individual disaster risk management approaches and strategies |
||
|
35 village communities are unable to adequately handle the hazards of highly recurrent natural disasters.
|
70% (262) of the sample population from 35 villages (374 Households) reported that their preparedness to handle potential hazards has improved with formalized community structures, infrastructures, CERTs and adequate DRR plans. |
|||
|
70% (262) of the sample population (374 Households) have the capacity to cope with potential hazards/disaster risks and can demonstrate knowledge about at least two local disaster management measures. |
||||
|
Locally relevant early warning System for Floods was established in 35 target villages with facilitation of meteorological department Balochistan coordinated through DRR committees and CERTs. Early Warning system was utilized in 50% of the disasters occurring during the project duration |
||||
|
50% (187) of the sample population (374 Households) are able to name contact persons in the state disaster management and contact them in case of need. |
||||
|
63% respondents from previous project baseline survey state the amount of water accessed is not sufficient for drinking, cooking and the most basic hygiene needs |
80% (299) households from the targeted villages reported improved access to safe drinking water |
|||
|
35 O&M Committees (1/ target village) are trained, equipped and functional and maintaining the installed facilities |
||||
|
60% (224) of the targeted population in 35 villages have improved sanitation practices, have constructed latrines through PATS approach optimally using them and reduced open defecation through participatory approach (PATS). |
||||
|
50% (187) of the sample population (374 Households) have improved knowledge and practices on hygiene and reported reduction in water related diseases. |
||||
|
Targeted communities suffer from insufficient food security and have no sufficient access to knowledge (diversified farming methods, vocational skills) and resources (agricultural equipment, services) regarding the generation of income.
|
50% (187) of the sample population (374 Households) reported improvement in their food and nutrition status. |
|||
|
50% of the participants of skills training and productive assets reported increased 20% income |
||||
|
50% (200) of the farmers improved their yield and income by 30% due to adaptation and replication of climate smart agriculture practices and improved agriculture infrastructure |
||||
|
Sub-objective (Output level) |
Indicators
|
|
|
|
|
Initial value (quantitative and qualitative) |
Target value (quantitative and qualitative) |
|||
|
Output 1.1: Selected villages developed iDRR/Contingency plans and established locally relevant early warning systems. |
Population of 35 targeted communities is vulnerable to disaster events, particularly flash floods. 62% of the respondents and their household members don’t have any knowledge regarding nearest safe temporary place/ exiting routes during emergency and 98% don’t have awareness regarding whom to contact for reliable disaster information and emergency assistance as per findings of the previous project baseline survey. |
80% (28) of the target villages (35) has a functioning Disaster Response Management (DRM) Committee, as well as an updated Disaster Response Management (DRM) Plan and functioning contacts with the relevant authorities. |
||
|
35 targeted communities have no access to early warning systems. |
60% (21) of the target villages (35) have established a functioning locally relevant early warning system |
|||
|
Lack of Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) as a first respondent in the community. |
60% (21) of the target villages (35) have active CERTs after trainings to undertake disaster responded along with the provision of toolkit |
|||
|
Output 1.2: DRR infrastructures have been constructed and strengthened in selected communities for protection from floods, flash floods, , etc. |
A significant 48% of respondents of the previous project baseline survey admitted that they struggle to effectively handle flash floods. Community faces challenges in preparing for and responding to these emergencies, possibly due to a lack of readiness, proper infrastructure, or necessary resources. Furthermore, 26% of respondents mentioned that during floods, they move to higher ground with their families, Target communities have lack of Physical Infrastructures to mitigate disasters. |
70% of beneficiaries reported that vulnerability is minimized through DRR schemes, such as gabion walls, small bridges, landslide stabilization, check dams etc. in targeted villages. |
||
|
Output 1.3: Selected village communities improve their knowledge and understand related to DRR / Climate floods and drought (and other disasters) |
75% respondents of previous project baseline survey admit they are not well-prepared to cope with natural disasters. Majority in target communities do not have knowledge of disaster risks and mitigation measures. |
60% (224) of the sample population (374 Households) reported improved knowledge, understanding and application of community-based disaster risk management related to floods. |
||
|
60% (224%) individuals from 35 target villages have participated in sessions for vulnerability assessment and development of iDRR and contingency plans at village level |
||||
|
Output 1.4: Coordination with PDMA to support the establishment of District level DRR plan |
Networking, coordination and capacity building of the district departments, line departments and other stakeholders needs to be strengthened |
Facilitation and support provided to PDMA for developing District level Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Plan. |
||
|
Output 2.1: Selected villages have improved access to safe drinking water facilities that is accessible for all while ensuring water safety planning.
|
Majority in target communities do not have access to safe drinking water. 63% respondents from previous project baseline survey state the amount of water accessed is not sufficient for drinking, cooking and the most basic hygiene needs |
70% (261) of the sample population (374 Households) expressed satisfaction with the quality and accessibility of water facilities. |
||
|
80% of the targeted beneficiaries are contributing to monthly tariff for water collection in regard to O&M cost of the facility and the same is being regularly collected |
||||
|
Output 2.2: Disaster resilient water and sanitation facilities provided which are safe and responsive to the needs of women, girls, and marginalized groups. |
91% respondents of the previous project baseline survey report, that women primarily do the water collection. |
60% (224) of the sample population (374 Households) express satisfaction in women’s access to drinking water sources and sanitation facilities close to their homes. |
||
|
46% respondents of previous project baseline survey state that they need 15 minutes to more than 30 minutes for daily water transport (transport is repeated multiple times per day) |
70% (262) of the sample population (374 Households) spend less than 15 minutes to access drinking water source
|
|||
|
The targeted communities report regular incidence of water-related diseases and illness in their households. 61% respondents of the previous project baseline survey report stated the occurrence of water related diseases in their households indicating potential gaps in health awareness and knowledge. |
60% (224) of the surveyed beneficiaries (374 Households) can describe and practice at least 3 critical timings of handwashing. |
|||
|
60% (224) of the surveyed beneficiaries (374 Households) are practicing at least 3 good practices of hygiene & sanitation |
||||
|
50% (187) of the surveyed beneficiaries (374 Households) reported reduced household expenses for water-related illnesses. |
||||
|
Output 2.3: Communities have the capacity to identify, develop and implement an inclusive CR Wash & DRR plans with assurance of participation by women, girls, and other marginalized groups |
Targeted communities do not have knowledge and capacity regarding WASH plans and its implementation |
# of community-led disaster resilient WASH plans are successfully developed and implemented by women, girls, and marginalized groups after receiving capacity-building support. |
||
|
Output 3.1: Livelihoods of 100 men and women are assisted through productive assets (such as sewing machines, tools & machineries, livestock, goods for small grocery shop etc). |
The population is almost exclusively dependent on inefficient agriculture as a source of income as 76% respondents citing agriculture as predominant occupation according to previous project baseline survey report. |
60% (60) men & women achieved 15% increase in their monthly income attributable to the use of productive assets. |
||
|
Output 3.2: 400 Farmers are supported through capacity building on climate smart agriculture training. |
A large majority (95%) are unaware of climate smart agriculture techniques, potentially pointing to a gap in information dissemination and extension services related to sustainable and climate-resilient farming practices as per previous project baseline report. |
At the end of the project at least 75% (300) of the farmers who received the training on modern techniques of agriculture are able to explain the basic contents of the training. |
||
|
50% (200) of the training participants (farmers) have adopted at least 02 modern techniques of agriculture (CSA) after the training. |
||||
|
Output 3.3: 100 Farmers out of total 400 trainees are supported through provision of cash grants for crop production after performance and need assessment.
|
The targeted communities lack technical knowledge of climate Smart Agriculture and means to cope with the changing weather conditions due to climate change and alternative livelihood opportunities. |
15% increase in overall income among 70 (70%) farmers out of 100 receiving cash grants for cultivation of high value agriculture crops compared to previous income levels |
||
|
50% of farmers (10 out of 20) report generating 15% more income after getting orchards from the project team. |
||||
|
Output 3.4: Workforce development and gainful employment of 100 individuals through vocational trainings and startup tool kits |
The majority of the population is reliant on inefficient traditional methods of agriculture for household income and food security. |
60% (60) of the participants in vocational skills training have applied the knowledge in the form of small businesses or wage work in the respective fields of work. |
||
|
Output 3.5: Agriculture productivity is increasing through improved agriculture infrastructure for 400 farmers. |
Target communities do not have proper access to water required for sustainable agriculture. |
60% (240) of farmers in target communities will express satisfaction with the access to and availability of water required for their agricultural activities. |
||
Rationale: 374 Households based on Cochrane formulae based on total population 14000.
Annexure III:
List of activities:
Output 1.1: Selected villages developed iDRR/Contingency plans and established locally relevant early warning systems.
- Planning for locally relevant early warning systems
- Setting up of villages committees
- Establish appropriate mechanisms ensuring inclusion
- Loss and damage assessment
Output 1.2: Selected village communities have constructed DRR infrastructures and strengthened those structures through bio-engineering measures for protection from floods, flash floods, landslides, etc.
Construction of DRR structures and strengthening of those structures through bio-engineering measures for protection from floods, flash floods, landslides, etc. will be achieved through the following activities:
- Start-up workshop with stakeholders and preparation of action plans
- Joint assessment with village communities for identification of the protection schemes. These could be a combination of gabion walls, small broken bridges, landslide stabilization, check dams, forest and fruit tree plantations etc.
- Prioritization of the schemes/villages, feasibility of the schemes/prepare design, specifications and costs estimates for the selected schemes.
- Initiate the construction work and regular monitoring/technical assistance till completion
- Plantation of fruits and forest trees and retention scrubs and grasses as part of bioengineering for reinforcing the DRR physical structures.
Output 1.3: Selected village communities understand the causes of floods and landslides (and other disasters)
- Awareness raising sessions on DRR with communities
- Exposure visits
- Community Sensitization
- VDC Formation and Training
- Formation of DRM Committees and CERTs
- Capacity Building and Integration
Output 1.4: Coordination with PDMA to support the establishment of anticipatory action framework
The project will support PDMA Balochistan in the Development of a Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Policy and Anticipatory Action Framework to Strengthen the Disaster Risk Management (DRM) System. Key activities include:
1.4.1. Capacity Building:
a) Provide training to DDMA and line departments to enhance knowledge and skills for active participation in the DRM planning process.
b) To enhance the capacity of the Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) Balochistan, PMS will focus on providing technical assistance in the formulation and strengthening of a comprehensive Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and anticipatory action farmwork.
c) Conducting consultations with key stakeholders, including government agencies, local communities, and international partners, to identify gaps and needs in the current DRM framework
d) Developing policy guidelines that integrate risk-informed planning, anticipatory action mechanisms, and resilience-building strategies
e) Organizing capacity-building workshops and training sessions for PDMA and relevant stakeholders to ensure the effective implementation of the proposed policy. This initiative will ensure that Balochistan is better equipped to mitigate disaster risks, protect vulnerable populations, and respond more effectively to emergencies.
- Support DDMA to develop/ strengthen and implement district DRM plan
- Technical Support
- Plan Development
Output 2.1: Selected villages have improved drinking water facilities close to home and accessible for all while ensuring water safety planning.
2.1.1. Provision of improved drinking water facilities
The facilities include the following
- RO Plants for drinking water treatment, especially for Brickish/saline water
- Hand pump installation (deep well)
- O&M toolkit for the RO plant
- O&M Toolkit for the hand pumps
2.1.2. Water testing for quality assurance
Following interventions will be made for water testing and quality assurance:
- TDS tools for field level water testing
- PH value tools for field level water testing
- Water resistivity test for RO plant and hand pumps before installation
- Water quality test for the proposed water source before and after
2.2: CR WASH facilities and services are safe and responsive to the needs of women, girls, and marginalized groups.
The following interventions will be made.
- Provision of latrine material for the households: the project will provide latrine material for the households keeping in view that open defecation is common among the communities. While adopting PATs plus approach, the project will ensure 100 % usage of latrines in the community to make sure that the community maintains open defecation free status based on established indicators
- Provision of health & hygiene kits: Health and hygiene kits will be distributed among the women and girls of reproductive age along with the basic knowledge about health and hygiene and importance of adopting health and hygiene practices. These kits will help them to maintain their health and hygiene impacting the lives of women and girls.
- Provision of toolkits for wash activities in the villages: Tool kits will be provided for wash facilities keeping in mind that the CR wash facilities and services are effectively maintained within the communities and a satisfactory level of ownership is achieved
- Sessions on PATs Plus Approach: Awareness sessions will be conducted on PATS Plus approach to sensitize the communities on the idea and its methodology in the communities. This will stress the hazards of open defecation.
Output 3: Women, girls, and other marginalized groups have the capacity to identify, plan, and implement CR WASH plans
- Inclusion of Women, girls, and other marginalized groups
- Linkage development
- Trainings on health and hygiene practices for women and girls
- Celebration of national/international days related to GESI, Climate change and WASH
Output 3.1: Livelihoods of men and women are assisted through productive assets.
- Conduct of a Rapid market and business feasibility assessment for productive assets replacement:
- Provision of grants through cash/voucher for pre-existing livelihoods assets replacement and recovery
Output 3.2: Farmers are supported through capacity building on climate smart agriculture training.
- Capacity-Building of Farmers on climate smart agriculture practices
- On-farm technical support to farmers on climate-smart agriculture techniques through farmer field schools (FFS) approach
- Diffusion and retention of Training Knowledge
- Exposure Visits to the Vegetable Production Units, Agriculture Institutions and Markets:
Output 3.3: Farmers are supported through provision of cash grants for crop production.
- Provision and establishment of 40 orchards with farming community
- Provision of Cash Grants/voucher to farmers for growing of high-value vegetable
Output 3.4: workforce development and gainful employment through vocational trainings and startup tool kits
- Technical/ vocational skills development for both men and women
- Rapid market assessment and skill gaps analysis study
- Roll-out of skills training for men, women & provision of start-up kits
- Provision of tool kits for both men and women after successful completion of technical/vocational training
- Business Management and Market Linkages Development Training Sessions: Building on PMS’s
Output 3.5: Agriculture productivity is increasing through improved agriculture infrastructure.
- Installation of solar powered tube wells for irrigation purpose/enabling the farmers to increase their production:
- Conducting feasibility study of solar powered tube well installation
- Installation of solar powered tube well installation
- Testing the solar based tubewell.
Scope of Work – Creative Designer ....
Introduction of SIF ....