Job Description

Reference number: 2613
Job status: In-progress
Job category: Consultancy
Duty station: Home-based (possible travel to research sites)
Download PDF:

CIFOR-ICRAF
The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry (ICRAF) envision a more equitable world where trees in all landscapes, from drylands to the humid tropics, enhance the environment and well-being for all. CIFOR and ICRAF are non-profit science institutions that build and apply evidence to today’s most pressing challenges, including energy insecurity and the climate and biodiversity crises. Over a combined total of 65 years, we have built vast knowledge on forests and trees outside of forests in agricultural landscapes (agroforestry). Using a multidisciplinary approach, we seek to improve lives and to protect and restore ecosystems. Our work focuses on innovative research, partnering for impact, and engaging with stakeholders on policies and practices to benefit people and the planet. Founded in 1993 and 1978, CIFOR and ICRAF are members of CGIAR, a global research partnership for a food secure future dedicated to reducing poverty, enhancing food and nutrition security, and improving natural resources.

CIFOR-ICRAF is looking for a

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)

Overview

Central Africa’s forests are critical for livelihoods, cultural identity (including indigenous peoples), biodiversity and climate regulation, yet face accelerating deforestation and degradation driven by commodity markets, agro-industrial and extractive investments, infrastructure expansion, and local livelihood pressures. A recurring evidence gap has limited policy and practice responses: research has often been weakly connected to the practical problems faced by forest administrations, protectedarea managers, concessionaires, agro-industry actors, civil society organizations, and local/indigenous communities, and applied social science evidence has been comparatively under-developed alongside ecological research.

RESSAC’s core innovation is an applied research model that deliberately anchors research in real-world decision needs through (i) a structured consultation mechanism to identify priority, practice-relevant research questions; (ii) funding and supporting multi-partner research consortia to implement applied ecological and social science research; and (iii) an Information–Communication–Training (ICF) strategy to translate results into products and learning processes that can be used by decision-makers and practitioners.

The action started on 30 November 2021 for four years and received a 12-month no-cost extension in 2025, bringing the total duration to five years, with EU financing of EUR 9 million. The programme’s four expected results are:

An operational consultation mechanism to identify practice-relevant research themes;
Applied research in ecology and social sciences conducted;
Capacity for supervision and scientific production strengthened within Central African universities and research institutes; and
An Information–Communication–Training (ICF) strategy implemented to disseminate, support appropriation, and foster use of results.

By end-2023, the programme had established a portfolio of 25 research consortia/projects financed through LoAs. In 2024–2025, implementation reached ‘cruising speed’, with consortia running field research and early results being shared. The 2025 annual report also highlights an increasing strategic emphasis for 2026 on ‘last-mile’ dissemination and uptake, including policy briefs and restitution workshops, and on generating evidence and project ideas to inform a potential next phase (‘RESSAC 2’).

A mid-term evaluation (conducted after three years of implementation) highlighted major achievements, including (i) a gradual increase in research work and the international visibility of Congo Basin forest ecosystems and of Central African researchers; (ii) strengthened scientific writing and project formulation capacities; (iii) progress toward recognition of postdoctoral status; (iv) the structuring and functioning of North–South consortia involving field actors; and (v) a gradual reconciliation of ecological and social sciences. It also pointed to challenges to be clarified by the end of the project, including delays linked to mobility/visas, administrative and financial constraints (contract signature, fund management and transfers), and the gap between scientific production and dissemination/uptake (“last mile”).

Evaluation purpose and expected use

This evaluation is intended to provide an independent, credible assessment of RESSAC’s performance, results and contributions, and to generate practical learning for improving the final year of delivery and informing design of a potential next phase of the programme.

The evaluation will pursue the following objectives:

Assess the relevance, coherence and strategic fit of RESSAC’s design and research-to-practice model in the Central African context.
Assess programme effectiveness in delivering its expected results, with emphasis on outcome-level achievements (research use, knowledge/policy uptake, and changes in practice) and on how ecological and social science were integrated in applied research.
Assess the quality of science and the usefulness of research outputs and knowledge products for intended users, including evidence of uptake and influence.
Assess efficiency and management performance, including the functioning of the consultation mechanism, LoA arrangements, and enabling systems (administrative/financial management, reporting, facilitation).
Assess sustainability and scalability: prospects for sustaining networks, capacities, and research-to-policy pathways beyond the project, and implications for a potential RESSAC Phase 2.
Identify unexpected outcomes (positive or negative) and explain why they occurred.
Review implementation and continued relevance of recommendations/learning from the mid-term evaluation, and confirm/clarify at the end of the project the main findings related to consortia governance, interdisciplinarity, and pathways of appropriation and use of results.

The evaluation’s primary intended users include:

the CIFOR-ICRAF programme management team;
the European Union (donor);
partner universities and research institutes;
field actor partners (e.g., protected-area managers, forest concessions, CSOs, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) organizations);
regional bodies and networks; and prospective funders of a follow-on phase.

Duties and responsibilities

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 outcomelevel 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

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 decisionmakers and practitioners?
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

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?
Interdisciplinarity: To what extent did RESSAC effectively promote and operationalize interdisciplinary approaches (integrated questions, methods, syntheses, articulation across scales)?

Effectiveness, results and uptake / use

Achievement of expected results: To what extent were the expected results achieved, and what explains variations across 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 fit for use?
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)?
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

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)?
Unexpected outcomes: What unexpected outcomes (positive or negative) emerged (partnerships, policy windows, spillovers, reputation), and why?

Governance, efficiency and implementation learning (including MTE)

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?
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)

Credible influence: What credible contribution can be established between RESSACsupported research and observed policy/practice influence (including early signals and pathways still unfolding)?
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 what supporting evidence)?

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 scienceheavy, 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.

Education, knowledge and experience

The evaluation must be conducted by an independent team with no conflict of interest. As noted above, the available budget allows for mobilizing a maximum of two (2) consultants. Bidders are invited to propose a team and workplan consistent with this constraint. Collectively, the team should cover the following competencies:
• Evaluation expertise in research-for-development programmes, including theory-based approaches and contribution analysis/outcome harvesting.
• Strong understanding of forest ecology, sustainable forest management, and/or landscape approaches in Central Africa.
• Strong applied social science expertise (governance, political economy, rights/IPLC, incentives) and experience tracing policy influence.
• Experience assessing interdisciplinarity and integration of biophysical and social science.
• Experience in capacity development evaluation (individual and institutional).
• Excellent facilitation and analytical writing skills; ability to work primarily in French, with English as an asset.

Evaluation management and quality assurance process

The evaluation will be managed by an appointed evaluation manager (CIFOR-ICRAF) and overseen by an Evaluation Reference Group including representatives of CIFOR-ICRAF, the EU, and selected partner institutions/users (to be confirmed).

Roles and responsibilities (indicative):
1. Commissioner / Evaluation manager
Manage the procurement process; provide documentation and contacts; ensure access; coordinate reviews; oversee quality assurance; facilitate dissemination and the management response
2. Evaluation Reference Group
Provide strategic guidance, facilitate access, review the inception report and draft report, and contribute to validation and learning events (without influencing findings)
3. Evaluation Team Leader
Lead methodological design; ensure quality and ethics; manage the team; produce the inception report and final deliverables; present findings
4. Evaluation team members
Lead thematic components (ecology/biophysical sciences, social sciences/policy, capacity development, communication/uptake) and contribute to analysis and reporting

The evaluation must comply with high ethical standards, including informed consent, confidentiality, and ‘do no harm’. Special attention should be paid to respectful engagement with IPLC and to safeguarding considerations during fieldwork.
Quality assurance measures should include: (i) an inception report review by the Evaluation Reference Group; (ii) peer review of the draft report (including scientific/technical review); and (iii) transparent documentation of methods and limitations.

Bidders must declare any real or perceived conflicts of interest and describe mitigation measures.

Reporting requirements

Deliverables
• Inception report including refined evaluation questions; reconstructed theory of change; evaluation matrix; sampling strategy; data collection tools; detailed workplan and itinerary.
• PowerPoint presentation of preliminary findings to CIFOR-ICRAF and other members of the Evaluation Reference Group at the end of the inquiry phase.
• Draft evaluation report (in French; maximum 50 pages excluding annexes) submitted for review.
• Final evaluation report (in French; with an executive summary; maximum 50 pages excluding annexes) incorporating comments, including clear findings, evidence-based conclusions and prioritized, practical recommendations for (i) the final year of implementation and (ii) a potential RESSAC 2.
• Clean annexes: evaluation matrix, list of documents reviewed, list of people consulted, and limitations statement.

Report structure, language and dissemination
The final report (maximum 50 pages) must be written in French and suitable for external audiences, in a concise, practical style with clear messages. An English executive summary (or a full English translation) may be requested depending on stakeholder needs (to be confirmed during contracting).
The report should include: background; methodology; findings organized by evaluation criteria; conclusions; lessons learned; prioritized recommendations; and annexes.

Minimum requirements for technical and financial proposals and proposal evaluation process

Technical proposal – minimum contents
• Understanding of the assignment and evaluation purpose, including a brief analysis of likely challenges and mitigation measures.
• Proposed approach and methodology, including theory-based elements, the sampling strategy, and a clear plan to assess outcome-level achievements and uptake pathways.
• Workplan and timeline aligned with Section 6 (Duration and phasing), including level of effort by team member and proposed travel/fieldwork (if applicable).
• Team composition, roles and responsibilities, CVs, and a statement of independence and absence of conflict of interest.
• Quality assurance and ethics plan, including data protection and safeguarding considerations.
• Writing sample(s) of comparable assignments (preferably research-for-development / policy influence evaluations) and at least three references.
Financial proposal – minimum contents
• Itemized budget in the requested currency/currencies, distinguishing professional fees, travel, subsistence, and other direct costs.
• Daily rates and number of days per team member, with a separate subtotal per deliverable/phase (inception, inquiry, reporting).
• Assumptions and main cost drivers (e.g., number of field missions, countries visited, workshops/webinars).
• Any proposed in-kind contributions or cost-sharing.

Proposal evaluation process (indicative)
CIFOR-ICRAF will assess proposals against compliance requirements and quality criteria. A shortlist may be invited for interviews. The commissioner reserves the right to negotiate technical and financial aspects with the top-ranked bidder.

Indicative evaluation criteria for proposals:
• Methodological quality and feasibility, including a credible approach to

Terms and conditions

• This is a consultancy position
• The evaluation assignment must be completed within a maximum period of three (3) months (maximum 12 weeks), starting on 1 June 2026, and the available budget allows for mobilizing a maximum of two (2) consultants. Bidders are invited to propose a team and work plan consistent with this constraint
• Work location: Home-based (possible travel to research sites)
Application process
• Application deadline: 30 April 2025.
• Please submit a letter of interest and a technical and financial proposal (maximum 15 pages, excluding annexes). Annexes may include, for example, an organizational profile, CVs of the proposed expert(s), a work plan, etc. Applications (including your contact information) should be sent to: cifor-icraf-pmu@cifor-icraf.org
• Any clarifying questions can be directed to: j.rouge@cifor-icraf.org
• We will acknowledge all applications but will only contact short-listed candidates CIFOR-ICRAF reserves the right to modify the number of positions, location, or cancel the hiring as necessary
To learn more about CIFOR-ICRAF, please visit our websites at: https://www.cifor-icraf.org
CIFOR-ICRAF promotes Gender Diversity – Applications from women professionals are encouraged.
CIFOR-ICRAF is an equal opportunity employer. It fosters a multicultural work environment that values gender equality, teamwork, and respect for diversity.