The End Term Evaluation of the Project
“Strengthen Communities’ Capacity and Build Support and Collaboration to Phase Out Pesticides and Promote Agroecology for a Toxic-Free Asia”
The tender closes on 30th of August, 2024 at 6pm Malaysia time.
Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific is opening this Tender application on Evaluation of an End-Term Project, “Strengthen Communities’ Capacity and Build Support and Collaboration to Phase Out Pesticides and Promote Agroecology for a Toxic-Free Asia” that is funded by Sweden/Sida.
The Term of reference for the end of project evaluation is attached with background information of the project, specification of the requirements and list of attachments. Please read the instructions on the tendering procedures carefully. Failure to comply with them may invalidate your tender which must be returned by the date and time given below.
The tender closes on 30th of August, 2024 at 6pm Malaysia time.
Please send the tender application to PANAP to Sarojeni V. Rengam at sarojeni.rengam@panap.net
Any queries regarding this tender are to be referred to Sarojeni V. Rengam at sarojeni.rengam@panap.net.
______________________
Terms of Reference for the End-term Evaluation of the project, “Strengthen Communities’ Capacity and Build Support and Collaboration to Phase Out Pesticides and Promote Agroecology for a Toxic-Free Asia”
Date: 5th August 2024
- General information
This document outlines the Terms of References for the end term evaluation of the regional project entitled “Strengthen Communities’ Capacity and Build Support and Collaboration to Phase Out Pesticides and Promote Agroecology for a Toxic-Free Asia” implemented from 2020 to 2024.
1.1 Introduction
Over the past few decades, there has been a growing concern that pesticides can cause significant adverse effects on human health and the environment. As a result, there has been a global response to the challenge through UN agencies, governments and CSOs commitments to action. Pesticides do not respect borders and contaminate land, water and air to pollute the world. Certain pesticides can persist in the environment for decades and threaten wildlife, biodiversity and human health. Runoff from treated crops frequently pollutes the surrounding ecosystem and beyond, with unpredictable ecological consequences. Even the reductions in insect populations upset the complex balance between predators and prey species, increasing pest attacks and resurgence and causing declines in crop yields, posing problems for food security.
Approximately 385 million farmers and workers are being poisoned by pesticides (unintentional acute pesticide poisoning) every year globally, including around 11,000 fatalities. That’s about 44% of farmers and farmworkers poisoned each year, with that figure rising to 51% in Southeast Asia and 65% in South Asia. This figure does not include the chronic effects of pesticides, such as cancers, immune system malfunction, birth defects, damage to the brains of small children and infertility. Around 108 million children are engaged in agricultural work globally and are exposed when they regularly work in the fields during or after spraying when pesticide levels are high. Agriculture employs some 58% of economically active women in the region but the impact on women has been doubly harsh as they are the most marginalised and face persistent gender inequalities.
These pesticide-affected communities, as rights holders, are mainly poor and disadvantaged, exposed to the worst pesticides, and suffer the worst adverse effects. The poor and unorganised communities lack influence over policy and decision-makers and access to justice when harm occurs. They have less ability to take action. As duty bearers, governments must uphold the people’s rights to health and environmental health.
As a result, PANAP developed this project to contribute to overall pesticide reduction and their replacement with non-chemical alternatives, especially agroecology. The strategy was to work with partners in four countries (i.e. India, Bangladesh, Laos and Vietnam) to contribute to the overall goals of reducing the harm caused by highly hazardous pesticides through policy changes and the practice of agroecology and thereby improving the health of the environment, the income and health of farmers, agricultural workers and indigenous peoples, with a particular focus on women and youth, with the ultimate goal of reducing poverty and inequality. Capacity building, learning exchanges, and training are needed to strengthen people’s organisations and rights holders. Strengthening the leadership and involvement of the most affected, the women farmers and agricultural workers, is also crucial. Systematic documentation on the impacts of pesticides on health and the environment and the successes of agroecology on the ground are needed to build the evidence to influence governments and the public.
Global policy changes shape regional, national and local policies and actions, so in this project, PANAP and its partners worked at the regional and international levels to pressure through coordinated advocacy and campaigns at regional and global levels for more progressive reforms on pesticides regulation and support for agroecology. Multi-stakeholder platforms such as SAICM and the UN bodies were valuable arenas in bringing these issues forward. In this way, PANAP and its partners have contributed to the changes at the regional and global levels that affect national and local policies. Using these pesticide policies, PANAP and our partners continue to advocate for improved policies with national governments.
This project is supported by Sweden/Sida (handled from the Embassy of Sweden in Bangkok) through the Strategy for Sweden’s regional development cooperation in Asia and the Pacific region, 2022-2026.
1.2 Evaluation object: Intervention to be evaluated
Overall objective of the project: Reduce the harm caused by highly hazardous pesticides through policy changes and the practice of agroecology, thereby improving the health of the environment, the income and health of farmers, agricultural workers and indigenous peoples, with a special focus on women and youth, with the ultimate goal of reducing poverty and inequality.
The project involves implementation at the local level in Bangladesh, India, Laos and Vietnam, at regional level in Asia and at the global level. The project partners are:
Bangladesh
- Bangladesh Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge (BARCIK)
- SHISUK (Shikha Shastha Unnayan Karzakram) stands for Education, Health and Development Program
India
- PAN India
- Thanal, India
Laos
- Sustainable Agriculture and Environment Development Association (SAEDA)
Vietnam
- Research Centre for Gender, Family and Environment in Development (CGFED)
- Centre for Sustainable Rural Development (SRD)
Funds budgeted: The four-year project’s budget is USD 1,636,907 or RM RM7,659,693 and expenditures as per December 2023 is USD 956,109 or RM 4,473,986.93.
Geographical area: implementation takes place in four countries in Asia; Bangladesh, India, Laos and Vietnam while campaigns and advocacy involves also regional and global levels.
Previous evaluations: Sida commissioned 2 reviews and one capacity building training and the reports of these reviews will be shared with Evaluators once they start their assignment. These are: Special Review of PANAP 2023, Final Assessment Report of Financial Management Capacity Building, 2021 and Review of Internal Management and Control of PANAP, 2019.
For further information, the project’s theory of change, objectives, indicators, outputs and outcomes of the proposal is attached as Annex C. Interested parties can request the full proposal from Sarojeni Rengam at sarojeni.rengam@panap.net
The intervention logic or theory of change of the intervention may be further elaborated by the evaluator in the inception report, if deemed necessary.
- The assignment
2.1 Evaluation purpose: Intended use and intended users
The purpose of the evaluation is both for learning and to account for development results. For PANAP and partners the evaluation is expected to help improve future interventions. The primary intended users of the evaluation are PANAP’s project management team and PANAP partners as well as Sida. The evaluation will also be useful for other donors of PANAP.
The evaluation is to be designed, conducted and reported to meet the needs of the intended users and tenderers shall elaborate in the tender how this will be ensured during the evaluation process. During the inception phase, the evaluator and the users will agree on who will be responsible for keeping the various stakeholders informed about the evaluation.
2.2 Evaluation scope
The whole project implementation period from July 2020 to September 2024 shall be evaluated. It shall cover the whole project and all partners. If needed, the scope of the evaluation may be further elaborated by the evaluator in the inception report.
2.3 Evaluation objective: Criteria and questions
The objective of this evaluation is to evaluate the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the intervention, as well as to evaluate the integration of gender equality and a human rights-based approach, and formulate recommendations on how its management team and implementing partners can improve and adjust formulation and implementation of a similar future project.
The evaluation questions are:
Relevance: Is the intervention doing the right thing?
- To what extent has the intervention objectives and design responded to beneficiaries, global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies, and priorities, and have they continued to do so when circumstances have changed?
- To what extent have lessons learned from what works well and less well been used to improve and adjust intervention implementation?
Coherence: How well does the intervention fit?
- How compatible has the intervention been with other interventions in the country, sector or organisation where it is being implemented?
Effectiveness: Is the intervention achieving its objectives?
- To what extent has the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, and its results, including any differential results across groups?
- Have the M&E system delivered robust and useful information that could be used to assess progress towards outcomes and contribute to learning?
Efficiency: How well are resources being used?
- To what extent has the intervention delivered, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way?
Impact: What difference does the intervention make?
- To what extent has the project generated, or is expected to generate, significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, high-level effects?
Sustainability: Will the benefits last?
- To what extent will the net benefits of the intervention continue, or are likely to continue?
Integration of gender equality and a human rights-based approach
- Are gender equality perspective and the human rights-based approach sufficiently integrated into programme design, strategies and implementation of activities?
- Is there sufficient knowledge about gender equality perspective and the human rights-based approach at PANAP and among implementing partners, and are these issues acknowledged and prioritised?
Questions are expected to be developed in the tender by the tenderer and further refined during the inception phase of the evaluation.
2.4 Evaluation approach and methods
It is expected that the evaluator describes and justifies an appropriate evaluation approach/methodology and methods for data collection in the tender. The evaluation design, methodology and methods for data collection and analysis are expected to be fully developed and presented in the inception report.
The evaluator is to suggest an approach/methodology that provides credible answers (evidence) to the evaluation questions. Limitations to the chosen approach/methodology and methods shall be made explicit by the evaluator and the consequences of these limitations discussed in the tender. The evaluator shall to the extent possible, present mitigation measures to address them. A clear distinction is to be made between evaluation approach/methodology and methods.
A gender-responsive approach/methodology, methods, tools and data analysis techniques should be used[1].
In cases where sensitive or confidential issues are to be addressed in the evaluation, evaluators should ensure an evaluation design that do not put informants and stakeholders at risk during the data collection phase or the dissemination phase.
2.5 Organisation of evaluation management
The intended users of the evaluation are PANAP and Sida (Embassy of Sweden in Bangkok). The intended users of the evaluation form a steering group, which has contributed to and agreed on the ToR for this evaluation. The steering group is a decision-making body. It will approve the inception report and the final report of the evaluation. The steering group will participate in the start-up meeting of the evaluation, as well as in the debriefing/validation workshop where preliminary findings and conclusions are discussed.
2.6 Evaluation quality
The evaluation shall conform to OECD/DAC’s Quality Standards for Development Evaluation[2]. The evaluators shall use the Sida OECD/DAC Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation[3] and the OECD/DAC Better Criteria for Better Evaluation[4]. The evaluators shall specify how quality assurance will be handled by them during the evaluation process.
2.7 Time schedule and deliverables
It is expected that a time and work plan is presented in the tender and further detailed in the inception report. The evaluation shall be carried out between September and December 2024. The timing and place of field visits, surveys and interviews need to be settled by the evaluator in dialogue with PANAP and Sida and other main stakeholders during the inception phase. During field visits, the evaluators shall consult with PANAP partners, concerned local and national agencies, and selected farming communities.
The table below lists key deliverables for the evaluation process. Alternative deadlines for deliverables may be suggested by the consultant and negotiated during the inception phase.
| Deliverables | Participants | Deadlines |
| 1. Start-up meeting/s (virtual with Sida and in person with PANAP) | Separate meeting with Embassy of Sweden in BKK and PANAP team in Penang | As soon as possible after tender is accepted |
| 2. Draft inception report | Tentative Second week of September | |
| 3. Comments from intended users to evaluators sent in writing | Tentative third week of September | |
| 4. Inception meeting (virtual) | Embassy of Sweden BKK and PANAP team | Tentative last week of September
|
| 5. Data collection, analysis, report writing and quality assurance | Evaluators | Tentative first week of November |
| 6. As part of the data collection process, evaluators will join the Farmer-Scientist Conference to interview participants | Evaluators | Farmer-Scientist Conference, 6-8 November |
| 7. Debriefing/validation workshop (virtual) | Embassy of Sweden in BKK and PANAP team in Penang | Tentative end of first week of November |
| 8. Draft evaluation report | Tentative last week of November | |
| 9. Comments from intended users to evaluators | Tentative end of first week of December | |
| 10. Final evaluation report | Tentative Mid December | |
| 11. Seminar (virtual) | PANAP, BARCIC, SHISUK, PAN India, Thanal, SAEDA, CGFED, SRD, Embassy of Sweden BKK | Tentative Mid December |
The inception report will form the basis for the continued evaluation process and shall be approved by PANAP and Sida before the evaluation proceeds to implementation. The inception report should be written in English and cover evaluability issues and interpretations of evaluation questions, present the evaluation approach/methodology including how a utilization-focused and gender-responsive approach will be ensured, methods for data collection and analysis as well as the full evaluation design, including an evaluation matrix and a stakeholder mapping/analysis. A clear distinction between the evaluation approach/methodology and methods for data collection shall be made. All limitations to the methodology and methods shall be made explicit and the consequences of these limitations discussed.
A specific time and work plan, including number of hours/working days for each team member, for the remainder of the evaluation should be presented. The time plan shall allow space for reflection and learning between the intended users of the evaluation.
The final report shall be written in English and be professionally proof read. The final report should have a clear structure. The executive summary should be maximum 3 pages.
The report shall clearly and in detail describe the evaluation approach/methodology and methods for data collection and analysis and make a clear distinction between the two. The report shall describe how the utilization-focused approach has been implemented i.e. how intended users have participated in and contributed to the evaluation process and how methodology and methods for data collection have created space for reflection, discussion and learning between the intended users. Furthermore, the gender-responsive approach shall be described and reflected in the findings, conclusions and recommendations along with other identified and relevant cross-cutting issues. Limitations to the methodology and methods and the consequences of these limitations for findings and conclusions shall be described.
Evaluation findings shall flow logically from the data, showing a clear line of evidence to support the conclusions. Conclusions should be substantiated by findings and analysis. Evaluation questions shall be clearly stated and answered in the executive summary and in the conclusions. Recommendations and lessons learned should flow logically from conclusions and be specific, directed to relevant intended users and categorised as a short-term, medium-term and long-term.
The report should be no more than a maximum of 35 pages excluding annexes. If the methods section is extensive, it could be placed in an annex to the report. Annexes shall always include the Terms of Reference, the Inception Report, the stakeholder mapping/analysis and the Evaluation Matrix. Lists of key informants/interviewees shall only include personal data if deemed relevant (i.e. when it is contributing to the credibility of the evaluation) based on a case-based assessment by the evaluator and the commissioning unit/embassy. The inclusion of personal data in the report must always be based on a written consent.
2.8 Evaluation team qualification
The evaluation team of at least two members shall combined include the following competencies
- Agricultural and food production
- Pesticides, its impacts and alternatives
- Agroecology and natural resource management
- Gender equality and the human rights-based approach
- Locally/regionally based expertise of relevance to the geography of the project
An independent Team Leader with:
- At least a master degree and five years of substantial experience in project evaluation
- Ability to manage and deliver within the agreed timeline
- Fluency in English and demonstrated reporting and writing skills
- Knowledge of the Asian region
The other team member(s) (complementing the team leader) with:
- Experience and skills falling within the above fields (a-e)
- Evaluation experience
A CV for each team member shall be included in the call-off response. It should contain a full description of relevant qualifications and professional work experience.
It is important that the competencies of the individual team members are complimentary. It is highly recommended that local evaluation consultants are included in the team, as they often have contextual knowledge that is of great value to the evaluation.
2.9 Financial and human resources
The maximum budget amount available for the evaluation is USD 34,000. Invoicing and payment shall be manged according to the following: The consultant may invoice a maximum of 30% of the total amount after approval of the inception report and 90% after approval of the Final Report and 10% when the assignment is completed.
The contact person at PANAP is Sarojeni Rengam sarojeni.rengam@panap.net and at the Embassy of Sweden in BKK (Sida) Sara Oberg Hoper sara.oberg.hoper@gov.se
Contact details to PANAPs national partners will be provided by Sarojeni Rengam.
Relevant additional documentation will be provided by Sarojeni Rengam and Sara Öberg Höper prior to and at the start up meeting.
The evaluator will be required to arrange the logistics such as booking interviews, preparing visits including any necessary security arrangements.
- Annexes
Annex A: List of key documentation
[List the key resources that are available either publicly on the Internet or will be distributed with the ToR (e.g. internal documents) in order to provide evaluators with insight and guidance when preparing the tender (e.g. relevant strategy documents, programme documents and reports).] All narrative annual reports sent to Sida will be shared with the Evaluators once they start their assignment.
| No | Document | Source |
| Immediate Objective 1: Strengthened awareness of small-scale farmers, women, men, girls and boys, indigenous peoples, and agricultural workers on the health and environmental impacts of pesticides; and increased capacity to take action on pesticide reduction and implement alternatives to pesticide use | ||
| 1. | Field Survey: Use and impacts of pesticides in four countries in Asia.
This is a report of the CPAM documentation. |
https://panap.net/resource/field-survey-use-and-impacts-of-pesticides-in-four-countries-in-asia/ |
| 2. | Acute Pesticide Poisoning in Asia: A Four-Country Review | https://panap.net/resource/acute-pesticide-poisoning-in-asia-a-four-country-review/#:~:text=PANAP’s%20latest%20report%20on%20unintentional,Lao%20PDR%2C%20Bangladesh%20and%20India. |
| 3. | 19 case studies of Women in Agroecology: Towards Pesticide-Free Communities | https://panap.net/women-in-agroecology/ |
| 4. | Irene Fernandez Leadership Training for Rural Women (Module) | https://files.panap.net/resources/Irene-Fernandez-Leadership-Training-for-Rural-Women.pdf |
| 5. | Irene Fernandez Leadership for Rural Women Training in India for partners in four countries | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1szvazzFeWIEnBXdrEBwbuj05ItKV8EKI/view?usp=sharing |
| 6. | Irene Fernandez Leadership for Rural Women Training for Southeast Asia for partners in seven countries | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_N4Mr-i0StBfFCCu5HRMvokKdYPhdrMP/view?usp=sharing |
| Immediate Objective 2: Enhanced biodiversity, health benefits, economic returns and climate resilience through agroecology initiatives | ||
| 10. | Farmer Learning Exchange on Agroecology: Kerala, India | https://panap.net/2023/05/farmer-learning-exchange-on-agroecology-kerala-india/ |
| 11. | Field Learning Sites in International People’s Agroecology Movements (IPAM) website | https://ipam-global.org/home/ |
| 9. | Buzzing Bees: The Ecological Lifelines | https://panap.net/resource/buzzing-bees-the-ecological-lifelines/ |
| 7. | Biodiversity in Soil
(This article is part of the biodiversity series but not funded by Sida) |
https://panap.net/resource/biodiversity-in-soil/ |
| 8. | Rice Diversity in Asian Bowls
(This article is part of the biodiversity series but not funded by Sida) |
https://panap.net/resource/rice-diversity-in-asian-bowls/ |
| Immediate Objective 3: Pesticide policies or actions at local, national, regional and global levels support the calls and demands of women and men, small holder farmers and workers for phase out the highly hazardous pesticides and the promotion of agroecology | ||
| 12. | Protect Our Children from Toxic Pesticides 2022: Concept Note | https://panap.net/2022/03/join-us-to-protect-our-children-from-toxic-pesticides/ |
| 13. | Protect Our Children from Toxic Pesticides 2022: Poster | https://panap.net/resource/uphold-childrens-rights-to-a-healthy-pesticides-free-world-poster/?wpdmdl=4626&refresh=66a7513c673e61722241340 |
| 14. | Protect Our Children from Toxic Pesticides 2023: Concept Note | https://panap.net/2023/04/healthy-future-goals-phase-out-highly-hazardous-pesticides-by-2030/ |
| 15. | Protect Our Children from Toxic Pesticides 2023: Media Kit | https://panap.net/resource/phase-out-highly-hazardous-pesticides-by-2030-healthyfuturegoals-media-kit-compressed-file/?wpdmdl=5536&refresh=66a750a8356ad1722241192 |
| 16. | Protect Our Children (POC) From Toxic Pesticides 2024: Concept Note | https://panap.net/2024/05/pollinators-matter-a-pesticide-free-future-for-children-and-the-environment/ |
| #PollinatorsNotPesticides Social Media Toolkit (POC) 2024 | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mOHuO8cYEfwMuMFMWW_ESxhXtcV2uXM7cX656HaltUs/edit
|
|
| 17. | Petition to Participate in the #PesticidesFreeSchools Initiative | https://panap.net/resource/petition-to-participate-in-the-pesticidesfreeschools-initiative-pledge-form/?wpdmdl=5547&refresh=66a7125dbb69f1722225245 |
| 20. | No Pesticide Use Week 2022: Infographics | https://www.instagram.com/p/ClsOx4ors6i/?igsh=MWp6amYyc3dxb29zcw==
https://www.instagram.com/p/CmGh7Nqs2yu/?igsh=dHJiZTFnYW9pdjMx https://www.instagram.com/p/CmOfKbrJqex/?igsh=MXd6enplZTV3MnIyeA== https://www.instagram.com/p/CmMBO18gAIv/?igsh=MW5hb29raXlrc28yNw== |
| 21. | No Pesticide Use Week 2023: Posters | https://panap.net/resource/no-pesticide-use-week-2023-forwardthefuture-for-a-clean-healthy-environment-for-children-poster/?wpdmdl=5900&refresh=66a75693c90e21722242707 |
| Policy advocacy campaign to ban Chlorpyrifos | ||
| 18. | Urgent Need to Ban the Brain-Harming Chlorpyrifos (Policy Brief) | https://panap.net/resource/urgent-need-to-ban-the-brain-harming-chlorpyrifos/ |
| Submission on Chlorpyrifos to Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee of Stockholm Convention | https://chm.pops.int/TheConvention/POPsReviewCommittee/Meetings/POPRC19/POPRC19Followup/CommentsonCPS,CPs,PFCAsandPOPsinstockpiles/tabid/9855/Default.aspx | |
| Press release: Malaysia commended for ban on chlorpyrifos and carbofuran | https://panap.net/2022/08/malaysia-commended-for-ban-on-chlorpyrifos-and-carbofuran/ | |
| 39. | New report reveals unauthorized and unsafe use of chlorpyrifos and other hazardous pesticides in India, demands stringent action | https://panap.net/2022/08/new-report-reveals-unauthorised-and-unsafe-use-of-chlorpyrifos-and-other-hazardous-pesticides-in-india-demands-stringent-action/ |
| 40. | State Of Chlorpyrifos, Fipronil, Atrazine and Paraquat Dichloride in India | https://panap.net/resource/state-of-chlorpyrifos-fipronil-atrazine-and-paraquat-dichloride-in-india/ |
| Policy advocacy on phasing out HHPs | ||
| Release of PAN Consolidated List of Banned Pesticides: Global network congratulates countries phasing-out Highly Hazardous Pesticides; urges FAO to commit to global HHPs phase-out by 2030 | https://panap.net/2022/06/global-network-congratulates-countries-phasing-out-highly-hazardous-pesticides-urges-fao-to-commit-to-global-hhps-phase-out-by-2030/ | |
| 36. | Position paper to the SAICM IP4 process: Eliminate Highly Hazardous Pesticides in agriculture by 2030. (It was done by PANAP on behalf of PAN International) | https://panap.net/2022/08/eliminate-highly-hazardous-pesticides-in-agriculture-by-2030-panap/ |
| UNEA 5: Statement on the draft resolution on the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste | https://panap.net/2022/02/unea-5-statement-on-the-draft-resolution-on-the-sound-management-of-chemicals-and-waste/ | |
| Press release: FAO Director General urged to begin new term with action to end pesticide industry partnership, phase-out Highly Hazardous Pesticides | https://panap.net/2023/07/fao-director-general-urged-to-begin-new-term-with-action-to-end-pesticide-industry-partnership-phase-out-highly-hazardous-pesticides/ | |
| Social Media Toolkit: FAO urged to Support Phase Out of HHPs | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SQgTPm39eJN7cxv-H6mSZLKuOrWvCfElJSrk7owz61g/edit?usp=sharing | |
| Urgent need for a global phase-out of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (Infographics) | https://panap.net/resource/urgent-need-for-a-global-phase-out-of-highly-hazardous-pesticides/ | |
| Petition letter to governments and other stakeholders of the Strategic Approach on International Chemicals Management (SAICM). Supported by PANAP and PAN North America (PANNA) on behalf of PAN International. | https://pan-international.org/wp-content/uploads/EN-CSO-Letter-to-ICCM5-Re-HHPs.pdf | |
| Press release: Ambitious action to phase out world’s most dangerous pesticides urged. Supported by PANAP and PAN North America (PANNA) on behalf of PAN International. | https://panap.net/2023/09/ambitious-action-to-phase-out-worlds-most-dangerous-pesticides-urged/ | |
| Social media toolkit for ICCM5: Phase Out Highly Hazardous Pesticides. Supported by PANAP and PANNA on behalf of PAN International.
|
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1odUlPsJQ-lhUmvCA7llbeTxGh5TOu2ZFNfnjEAgHfnY/edit?usp=sharing | |
| Postcards distributed at ICCM5: Phase Out Highly Hazardous Pesticides. Supported by PANAP and PANNA on behalf of PAN International. | https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/afms4vv10lqnzdlkueabu/HHPs-postcards-ICCM5.pdf?rlkey=cq5orp72ettpfj298f6brzgb8&dl=0 | |
| Time for Credibility and Coherence: PAN International Briefing Paper on ICCM5 | https://pan-international.org/wp-content/uploads/PAN-International-Briefing-Paper-ICCM5.pdf | |
| Campaign on FAO-CropLife Toxic Alliance that PANAP was one of co-coordinators with PANNA on behalf of PAN International | ||
| 22. | Letter to FAO Director-General to End Partnership with Pesticide Industry and Lead Global Action to Phase Out HHPs | https://pan-international.org/wp-content/uploads/En-CSOs-Letter-to-Qu-Dongyu-2023-07-Jul-26.pdf |
| 23. | Press release: Calls to end FAO-CropLife #ToxicAlliance, Highly Hazardous Pesticides gain ground at UNHRC | https://panap.net/2022/03/calls-to-end-fao-croplife-toxicalliance-highly-hazardous-pesticides-gain-ground-at-unhrc/ |
| PANAP’s online activities | ||
| 32. | Unboxed: Online Sales of Banned Pesticides in Malaysia | https://panap.net/resource/unboxed-online-sales-of-banned-pesticides-in-malaysia/ |
| 33 | Letter to German Agricultural Minister in support of Germany’s planned new legislation to prohibit the export of EU-banned pesticides | https://files.panap.net/resources/Open-international-NGO-Letter-to-Minister-Oezdemir-in-support-of-German-pesticide-export-ban-Nov-2022.pdf |
| 35. | Press release: Belgium’s export ban on toxic pesticides, a bold step forward | https://panap.net/2023/07/belgiums-export-ban-on-toxic-pesticides-a-bold-step-forward-panap/ |
Annex B: Evaluation report template
The Report should:
- Not be more than 35 pages, excluding annexes
- Executive summary – main findings and recommendations (3 pages)
- Introduction and Context
- Describe the evaluation approach/methodology and methods for data collection and analysis•
- Findings
- Conclusions and recommendations
- Lessons Learned
- Annexes
– Terms of Reference,
– the Inception Report,
– the stakeholder mapping/analysis and the Evaluation Matrix.
– Lists of key informants/interviewees, if necessary
Annex C: Project/Programme document
Parties interested in submitting a tender may request the full proposal from PANAP.
PANAP’s THEORY OF CHANGE
We believe that governments as duty bearers should ensure the rights of these smallholders. Influencing policymakers, government officials and opinion-makers is critical. Systematic documentation on the impacts of pesticides on health and the environment and the successes of agroecology on the ground are needed to build the evidence to influence governments and the public. PANAP’s CPAM provides the tools and processes for community documentation and actions. However, the use of pesticides is often a political decision that prioritises cash cropping and increasing production for “economic growth” (as measured by the GDP), regardless of the detrimental impacts on human health and the environment. PANAP believes the collective and collaborative actions of communities, local, regional and international CSOs and allies, including academia, are needed to counter the misconceptions that the farmers and users of pesticides are to be blamed for the health and environmental impacts of pesticides.
We believe that governments, as duty bearers, should be responsible for ensuring better safeguards on pesticides use, including the banning of highly hazardous pesticides, proper labelling, availability of PPE, information on the hazards, and training of users. The producers of pesticides should respect the rights of people to health and a safe environment and be accountable for the entire life-cycle of their harmful products. If governments and producers are not taking responsibility, then PANAP, our partners and other like-minded groups would expose their lack of accountability and campaign to make them accountable.
In addition, in today’s globalised world, global policy changes shape regional, national and local policies and actions. Moreover, since the impact of pesticides is transboundary, PANAP works at the regional and international levels to pressure through coordinated advocacy and campaigns at regional and global levels for more progressive reforms on pesticides regulation and support for agroecology. PANAP also works in multi stakeholder platforms such as SAICM and the UN bodies at the regional and global levels to bring our issues forward. PANAP has been using these arenas at regional and international levels to expose the local realities and the pesticide impacts, particularly on children, women, small farmers, agricultural workers and indigenous peoples. In addition, we also use the process and platforms available on human rights including the Special Rapporteurs on Toxics; Right to Food and PANAP is now exploring reporting mechanisms to Special Rapporteurs on Violence against Women, Right to Water, Right to Health and Right to Environment. PANAP has also contributed to the incremental changes at the regional and global levels that affect national policies. Using these gradual changes in environmental and agricultural policies globally, PANAP and our partners continue to pressure national governments to adopt these improved policies. PANAP believes that linking global and regional policies to the local level to create awareness amongst communities and farmers and vice versa – sharing local realities of pesticide use and impact and benefits of agroecology at the regional and global level – will accelerate the potential for change.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND APPROACHES
OVERALL OBJECTIVE
Reduce the harm caused by highly hazardous pesticides through policy changes and through the practice of agroecology and thereby improving the health of the environment, the income and health of farmers, agricultural workers and indigenous peoples, with a special focus on women and youth, with the ultimate goal of reducing poverty and inequality.
OVERALL INDICATORS:
- Improved mechanisms are in place to reduce the harm caused by pesticides at the regional and global levels
- Through agroecology, small-scale farmers have reduced production costs, earned more income and improved resiliency to climate change; biodiversity is improved; and communities have improved nutrition and food security
- Women’s participation and leadership are strengthened, including in the use of CPAM, and they are able to contribute to increased practice of agroecology as well as show increased engagement in campaigning and policy advocacy for pesticide reduction and agroecology at the national and regional levels
- A broad regional network of farmers’ and women’s groups and CSOs, scientists, relevant institutions is established to support the reduction of pesticides and the promotion of agroecology
- Agroecology is recognised in the region as an important agricultural approach
IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVES ARE:
IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE 1: Strengthened awareness of small-scale farmers, indigenous peoples and agricultural workers particularly, women and girls on the health and environmental impacts of pesticides; and increased capacity to take action on pesticide reduction and implement alternatives to pesticide use.
OUTCOME 1.1: Increased capacity among communities to carry out participatory research and monitoring through CPAM, providing a solid evidence base of the impacts of pesticides
Output 1.1.1. Farmers and rural leaders are trained on CPAM, undertake monitoring using CPAM tools, and CPAM reports produced
Indicator:
- In three years, 4,000 respondents’ data in total, including women and men farmers, agricultural workers and rural people, on pesticide use and effects are gathered, documented, and made available.
- CPAM reports are available and disseminated at national and regional levels
Activities for Output 1.1.1:
- Organise one (1) regional workshop on CPAM methodology and web-based application training.
- Organise two (2) national or local workshops per country to train women and men farmers and workers
- Organise local discussions with farmers regularly
- Partners conduct monitoring with CPAM
- CPAM results are reported back to the communities for validation and their suggestions for tackling the problems
- Partners conduct follow-up activities with local partners and the local community, including continued meetings, workshops and events to support the communities’ proposals to address the identified problems
- Analyse CPAM reports from four countries and produce one regional report
Output 1.1.2:
Pesticide poisoning data is available from countries with data including from CPAM and current scientific/epidemiology studies and surveys, reports from UN, universities, hospitals, poison centres, CSO studies and reports and other institutions
Indicator:
- The incidence rate of acute unintentional pesticide poisoning is estimated for countries in Asia where pesticide poisoning data is available
- Differentiating occupational poisoning and other unintentional poisonings
Activities for Output 1.1.2:
- Research and gather data from the published studies and reports, databases, and media reports on acute unintentional pesticide poisoning with gender-disaggregated data included wherever possible
- Case studies on the effects of pesticides on women and children documented
- Analyse and compile information from countries into one (1) regional report, providing an analysis of incident rates of pesticide poisoning, conditions of use, and HHPs
- Distribute reports to local and national governments as well as UN processes. The reports will also be submitted to the Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to feed to its report on the adverse impacts of pesticides to be presented at the Fifth Session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5), expected to take place in 2022, as requested during the UNEA-3 held in 2017
OUTCOME 1.2: Strengthened women’s and men’s capacity and knowledge on the impact of pesticides and awareness raised on the benefits of agroecology
Output 1.2.1 Meaningful participation of women and men in advocating for pesticide reduction and promotion of agroecology
Indicators:
- Women and men (aiming for equal numbers) participating in campaigns and advocacy in pesticide reduction and for agroecology at local, national and regional levels
- No of women leading campaigns
Activities for Output 1.2.1
- Improve and make available PANAP’s Women’s Leadership modules, and adapt as required by local partners and translate them into local languages
- One (1) regional workshop to train country facilitators on women’s leadership and agroecology
- Two (2) sessions on gender training per country/local level in each of the four (4) countries, or a total of eight (8) training sessions
- Follow-up meetings with the local and national facilitators (in the follow-up, modules will be updated catering to the local context, and a monitoring tool will also be developed with the facilitators)
- Case studies of women’s knowledge and skills on agroecology documented through various media
IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE 2: Enhanced biodiversity, health benefits, economic returns and climate resilience through agroecology initiatives
OUTCOME 2.1: Awareness created of benefits of agroecology and capacity built among men and women farmers to practice agroecology
Output 2.1.1:
Strengthen the capacity of farming communities on agroecology initiatives, and “Field Learning Sites” on agroecology initiatives are set up
Indicators:
- Around 2,500 farmers (aiming for equal numbers of women) trained in agroecology
- 30% of farmers trained to practise some form of agroecology
- 10% increase in biodiversity in farm
- 10% increase of organic carbon content in the soil in farms
- At least 12 field learning sites (FLS) in total are set up in the four (4) countries
- 10% increase in household incomes
Activities for Output 2.1.1:
- PANAP partners organise two (2) training workshops on agroecology, including marketing and climate resilience at the local level per country
- Train farmers and CSO staff to monitor biodiversity as part of agroecology training
- Monitor biodiversity in the farms using the tool developed during the Inception phase
- Train farmers and CSO staff to test the soil carbon content and measure the soil carbon content
- Identify, build or strengthen existing Field Learning Sites (FLS)
- Compile information on the benefits of agroecology, including climate resilience of agroecology practices
- Organise farmer-to-farmer learning exchanges, ensuring the equal participation of women at the local and regional levels to share experiences, best practices, and marketing and motivate key farmers and leaders to move to agroecology
- Workshops and visits are arranged to these field learning sites to bring government officials, policymakers and the media to highlight the benefits of agroecology to rural communities, including improved livelihoods, poverty alleviation and climate resilience.
IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE 3: Pesticide policies or actions at local, national, regional and global levels support the calls and demands of small holder farmers, agricultural workers and indigenous peoples’ focusing on women for phase out the highly hazardous pesticides and the promotion of agroecology
OUTCOME 3.1: Provided relevant scientific evidence and input to decision-makers at global, local, national and regional levels to reduce and ban the use of highly hazardous pesticides as well as intentional poisoning (suicides).
Output 3.1.1:
Campaign to Protect Our Children from Toxic Pesticides (POC) sustained
Indicator:
- One hundred (100) CSOs support the POC campaign
- At least 100,000 people outreached in three years supporting the POC campaign.
- Local POC campaigns with 10 partners in 8 countries.
Activities for Output 3.1.1:
- Conduct a strategy meeting to develop a campaign, policy advocacy and communication plan to contribute to reducing the pesticide exposure of children in the school
- Organise media campaign and develop campaign materials and popular materials to be used at the local, national and regional levels to publicise the campaign
- Conduct a technical study with the local health, agriculture and/or environment agencies will be organised to study the pesticide residues in the blood/urine/hair or biomarkers (following all ethical protocols) or the contamination in food and the environment. The results will be used in the coordinated campaigns on POC
- Organise coordinated campaign with at least 10 partners in 8 countries including using mainstream and social media outreach for support for the POC.
- Garner support through sign-on/petitions from a broad sector of stakeholders, including teachers, educators, farmers, families, government officials, policymakers.
- Facilitate the active participation of trained women in the POC campaigns and actions on pesticide reduction and agroecology promotion
- Campaign to reduce exposure to pesticides of children in 20 schools
Output 3.1.2:
Contribute to efforts to progressively reducing and banning HHPs at local, national, regional, and global levels
Indicators:
- Government policies, restrictions, and bans of specific HHPs
- Governments consider mechanisms to regulate and/or ban HHPs
- Two hundred (200) policy and opinion makers and government officials are made aware of pesticide impacts and the benefits of agroecology
Activities for Output 3.1.2
- Develop briefing papers and reports on the need for global mechanisms to progressively ban HHPs, on Children and Pesticides, and on replacing these HHPs with agroecology
- Review and update the Consolidated List of Bans pesticide active ingredients available for policy advocacy and campaigning.
- Strengthen the Asian Rural Women’s Coalition (ARWC) to support the women leaders to participate in advocacy and campaigns on pesticides and promoting agroecology
- Engage with policymakers and government officials at local, national, regional and global levels, including participation in the UN FAO, UNEP, WHO and the SAICM processes and in JMPM as well as other strategic advocacy platforms such as the ASEAN process to support the ban of these HHPS and replace them with agroecology
OUTCOME 3.2: A regional level platform for CSOs, NGOs, regional networks and scientists to exchange knowledge and advocate for agroecology and pesticide reduction and linking up to current regional platforms
Output 3.2.1:
A network of key trainers, practitioners, scientists, CSOs and regional networks are organised into cohesive support for agroecology and pesticide reduction, including a farmer-scientist platform for agroecology organised
Indicators:
- After three (3) years, a network is organised
Activities for Output 3.2.1:
- Organise a Farmer-Scientist Conference on agroecology that would focus on the scientific underpinning of agroecology and the farmers’ practical knowledge and skills on agroecology and the impact of HHPs on health and the environment
- Identify farmers, trainers, academics, CSOs and supportive scientists into a Farmer-Scientist platform on agroecology (that includes the aim of pesticide reduction)
- Promote information exchange online and among themselves
- Strengthen advocacy for institutional and governmental support for agroecology.
- Set up a small group of 10 active members and organise follow-up meetings
____________________________
[1] See for example UNEG United Nations Evaluation Group (2014) Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluations http://uneval.org/document/detail/1616
[2] OECD/DAC (2010) Quality Standards for Development Evaluation.
[3] Sida OECD/DAC (2014) Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management.
[4] OECD/DAC (2019) Better Criteria for Better Evaluation: Revised Evaluation Criteria Definitions and Principles for Use.
Discussion about this post