Consultant - Independent evaluation of the project “Applied research in ecology

Theevaluation will cover the full programme period(Nov 2021–Nov 2026)andall four expected results. It will include both programme-level performance anda purposive sample of research consortia as case studies to examine pathwaysfrom research outputs to uptake and outcome-level change.Geographicscope will be the COMIFAC/CEEAC region and other countries covered byRESSAC-funded research activities. The evaluation team will propose a feasiblesampling plan during inception, balancing country coverage with depth.Cross-cuttingdimensions that the evaluation must address include:Integration of biophysical(ecology) and social science: interdisciplinarity in research design, fieldimplementation, analysis, and translation into usable recommendations. Research and knowledge uptake:pathways, mechanisms and evidence of use in policy processes, operationaldecision-making and practice by key actor groups. Capacity strengthening: individualand institutional capacities (scientific writing, project formulation, researchsupervision), including post-doctoral and Master-level support, and enablingadministrative/financial capacities. The evaluation will also analyze thecontribution of post-doctoral fellows to knowledge production, scientificanimation, visibility, and the initiative’s success. Equity and inclusion: engagementof IPLC and other stakeholders in research and dissemination; genderresponsiveness where relevant to the research portfolio. Indicative key evaluation questions(organized by evaluation criteria)Theevaluation will be guided by criteria commonly used for research programmeevaluations, including relevance, scientific quality, efficiency,effectiveness, impact (with an emphasis on outcome-level influence), andsustainability. This is a reduced list of indicative questions (to be finalizedduring inception) that maintains a balanced coverage of themes and keyevaluation priorities.Relevanceand coherenceRelevance:To what extent did RESSAC address priority problems and evidence needs forsustainable management of Central Africa’s forest ecosystems, as identified bykey decision-makers and practitioners? Logic coherence:To what extent is the programme logic (research – capacity – ICF – uptake)coherent and plausible, and which assumptions/conditions proved decisive (orfragile)? Scientificquality, interdisciplinarity and knowledge productionScientific quality:What is the quality, rigor and credibility of the research produced(biophysical and social sciences), and how is quality ensured at consortium andprogramme levels? Interdisciplinarity:To what extent did RESSAC effectively promote and operationalizeinterdisciplinary approaches (integrated questions, methods, syntheses,articulation across scales)? Effectiveness,results and uptake / useAchievement of expected results:To what extent were the expected results achieved, and what explains variationsacross consortia and countries? Outputs and usefulness:To what extent did funded research produce useful deliverables (publications,data, methods, tools, policy briefs), and are these products accessible and fitfor use? Uptake and outcome-level change:What evidence exists of appropriation and use of RESSAC outputs by targetgroups, and what observable outcome-level changes result (decisions, practices,strategies, institutional processes)? ICF / “last mile”:To what extent was the ICF strategy effective in moving beyond publicationstoward dissemination, training and uptake (portal, briefs, events, etc.)? Capacities,post-docs and unexpected outcomesCapacities and post-docs:To what extent did the programme strengthen capacities of Central Africaninstitutions and researchers (including post-docs and Master-level), and whatwas the contribution of postdoctoral fellows to the visibility and success ofthe initiative (scientific production, mentoring/scientific animation,partnerships)? Unexpected outcomes:What unexpected outcomes (positive or negative) emerged (partnerships, policywindows, spillovers, reputation), and why? Governance, efficiency and implementationlearning (including MTE)1. Governance & management: To what extent did governance and management arrangements (programme and consortia) enable timely, high-quality implementation, as well as effective partner involvement in knowledge co-production and use of results? 2. Bottlenecks & MTE: What were the main bottlenecks (mobility/visa, administrative capacities, transfers, reporting), how were they managed, and to what extent were lessons/recommendations from the mid-term evaluation taken up? Impact, sustainability and forward-lookingperspectives (RESSAC 2) 1. Credible influence: What credible contribution can be established between RESSAC-supported research and observed policy/practice influence (including early signals and pathways still unfolding)? 2. Sustainability & future options: How likely are results/capacities to be sustained beyond the project, and what design options/strategic choices should guide a potential “RESSAC 2” (with