Consultant - Independent evaluation of the project “Applied research in ecology and social sciences for sustainable management of Central Africa’s forest ecosystems” (RESSAC, 2021–2026)

The evaluation will cover the full programme period (Nov 2021–Nov 2026) and all four expected results. It will include both programme-level performance and a purposive sample of research consortia as case studies to examine pathways from research outputs to uptake and outcome-level change.

Geographic scope will be the COMIFAC/CEEAC region and other countries covered by RESSAC-funded research activities. The evaluation team will propose a feasible sampling plan during inception, balancing country coverage with depth.

Cross-cutting dimensions that the evaluation must address include:

• Integration of biophysical (ecology) and social science: interdisciplinarity in research design, field implementation, analysis, and translation into usable recommendations.
  
• Research and knowledge uptake: pathways, mechanisms and evidence of use in policy processes, operational decision-making and practice by key actor groups.
  
• Capacity strengthening: individual and institutional capacities (scientific writing, project formulation, research supervision), including post-doctoral and Master-level support, and enabling administrative/financial capacities. The evaluation will also analyze the contribution of post-doctoral fellows to knowledge production, scientific animation, visibility, and the initiative’s success.
  
• Equity and inclusion: engagement of IPLC and other stakeholders in research and dissemination; gender responsiveness where relevant to the research portfolio.
  

Indicative key evaluation questions (organized by evaluation criteria)

The evaluation will be guided by criteria commonly used for research programme evaluations, including relevance, scientific quality, efficiency, effectiveness, impact (with an emphasis on outcome-level influence), and sustainability. This is a reduced list of indicative questions (to be finalized during inception) that maintains a balanced coverage of themes and key evaluation priorities.

Relevance and coherence

1. Relevance: To what extent did RESSAC address priority problems and evidence needs for sustainable management of Central Africa’s forest ecosystems, as identified by key decision-makers and practitioners?
   
2. Logic coherence: To what extent is the programme logic (research – capacity – ICF – uptake) coherent and plausible, and which assumptions/conditions proved decisive (or fragile)?
   

Scientific quality, interdisciplinarity and knowledge production

1. Scientific quality: What is the quality, rigor and credibility of the research produced (biophysical and social sciences), and how is quality ensured at consortium and programme levels?
   
2. Interdisciplinarity: To what extent did RESSAC effectively promote and operationalize interdisciplinary approaches (integrated questions, methods, syntheses, articulation across scales)?
   

Effectiveness, results and uptake / use

1. Achievement of expected results: To what extent were the expected results achieved, and what explains variations across consortia and countries?
   
2. Outputs and usefulness: To what extent did funded research produce useful deliverables (publications, data, methods, tools, policy briefs), and are these products accessible and fit for use?
   
3. Uptake and outcome-level change: What evidence exists of appropriation and use of RESSAC outputs by target groups, and what observable outcome-level changes result (decisions, practices, strategies, institutional processes)?
   
4. ICF / “last mile”: To what extent was the ICF strategy effective in moving beyond publications toward dissemination, training and uptake (portal, briefs, events, etc.)?
   

Capacities, post-docs and unexpected outcomes

1. Capacities and post-docs: To what extent did the programme strengthen capacities of Central African institutions and researchers (including post-docs and Master-level), and what was the contribution of postdoctoral fellows to the visibility and success of the initiative (scientific production, mentoring/scientific animation, partnerships)?
   
2. Unexpected outcomes: What unexpected outcomes (positive or negative) emerged (partnerships, policy windows, spillovers, reputation), and why?
   

Governance, efficiency and implementation learning (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-looking perspectives (RESSAC 2)

Methodology and evaluation approach

The evaluation will use a mixed-methods approach, theory-based, suited to research programmes where outcomes may occur through multiple contribution pathways and time lags. The team is expected to triangulate evidence across sources and stakeholder perspectives and to be explicit about attribution/contribution limits.

Overall design

• Portfolio-level assessment of programme results, governance and enabling systems.
  
• Contribution-focused assessment of outcome-level change and uptake pathways (e.g., outcome harvesting and/or contribution analysis) for selected cases.
  
• Comparative case studies of a purposive sample of consortia to examine relevance, interdisciplinarity, quality, dissemination and uptake.
  

Sampling strategy (to be finalized in inception)

The evaluation team will propose a sampling strategy that is feasible and defensible, balancing breadth and depth. At minimum, the sample should:

• Cover a mix of thematic clusters and disciplinary profiles (ecology-heavy, social science-heavy, and explicitly integrated consortia).
  
• Include consortia at different stages (completed in 2024/2025 and those finalizing in 2026) to assess both early outcomes and emerging pathways.
  
• Include cases with early signals of uptake (e.g., engagement in national policy processes) as well as cases with weaker uptake, to understand enabling and constraining factors.
  
• Ensure representation of IPLC-related themes and gender-relevant research where applicable.
  

Analysis and synthesis

• Develop a refined theory of change / results pathway model during inception, including key assumptions and uptake pathways.
  
• Qualitative analysis (coding and thematic synthesis) of interview and document data.
  
• Quantitative descriptive analysis of portfolio indicators (e.g., outputs, trainings, dissemination metrics) and survey results.
  
• Cross-case comparison and triangulation to identify patterns, explanations and actionable recommendations.
  

Limitations and mitigation

• The evaluation must transparently document limitations (e.g., time lags in policy influence, incomplete monitoring data, access constraints) and propose mitigation strategies (triangulation, careful case selection, explicit contribution claims).
  

Data availability and collection

The evaluation will draw on programme documentation and existing monitoring information, complemented by primary data collection with key stakeholders.

Data sources and methods (indicative)

• Document review: project design documents, annual reports, logframe and monitoring data, consortium final reports, publications and knowledge products.
  
• Key informant interviews (remote and in-person): CIFOR-ICRAF team, EU stakeholders, research partners, post-docs and students, and intended users (field actors, authorities, CSOs, etc.).
  
• Surveys (if relevant): short, structured surveys of consortium leads/post-docs and/or selected user groups to document uptake, capacity changes and perceptions of usefulness.
  
• Research outputs and quality review: mapping of publications and products (including basic bibliometrics where relevant), assessment of quality against defined criteria (relevance, rigor, credibility, accessibility).
  
• Policy and practice tracing: structured review of uptake evidence (citations, minutes, participation in trainings, adoption decisions) and contribution analysis/process tracing for case studies.
  

Data management and ethics

The evaluation team will apply informed consent procedures, ensure confidentiality of interviewees, and comply with applicable safeguarding and data protection requirements.

A set of key documents will be made available to the evaluation team. The team may request additional materials, including consortium final reports, consolidated monitoring data, and evidence of uptake.