Project Title: Strengthening Communication, Coordination, and Improving Local Capacities and Partnerships in Libya
Libya has faced years of political instability, fragmented governance, and restricted civic space, creating significant challenges for humanitarian and development actors. Civil society organizations (CSOs), while critical for promoting rights and democratic participation, continue to operate under severe constraints, including unclear legal frameworks, limited resources, and shrinking operational space. International NGOs (INGOs) also face bureaucratic and security barriers that hinder effective coordination and advocacy.
To address these challenges, the Libya INGO Forum (LIF) an independent network of INGOs hosted by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) implemented the project “Strengthening Communication, Coordination, and Improving Local Capacities and Partnerships in Libya” from September 2023 to August 2025. The project was funded by the European Union and designed to safeguard the rights of vulnerable populations by improving coordination among INGOs and CSOs and promoting evidence-based advocacy.
The project’s overall objective is to strengthen the space for civil society engagement and coordination in Libya. Its specific objectives include:
Promote civil rights, notably for the most vulnerable, through evidence-based advocacy. Strengthen inter-NGO operational, policy and advocacy coordination. Strengthening local capacity through promotion of organizational.
Key activities under the project included:
•
Develop analysis and messaging on issues affecting the response and critical challenges to the delivery of principled assistance in Libya
•
Promoting coordinated and local advocacy approaches
•
Development of creative communications materials for dissemination of evidence-based advocacy products
•
Convene regular internal and external coordination meetings to enhance information-sharing, collaboration, and strategic support to local and international organizations.
•
Strengthening information-sharing with LIF members and with external actors on a regular basis, including between humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding actors.
•
Conduct regular surveys of LIF members on key topics to improve coordination and inform joint advocacy.
•
Provide a comprehensive mapping of the legal and regulatory framework for civil society in Libya
•
Promote the inclusion of CSOs in existing international coordination fora.
•
Chair/ Advise the CSO Coordination Group and strengthen its technical operationalization.
•
Expand the localization pilot through mentorship, training, consultations, and development of a Libya localization roadmap to build sustainable CSO capacity and support democratic participation.
Through these efforts, the project aimed to create a more coherent, inclusive, and sustainable coordination environment, enabling INGOs and CSOs to advocate effectively for the rights of vulnerable populations and contribute to Libya’s transition toward stability.
2. Scope of the Evaluation
The end-line evaluation will be implemented in March–April 2026. The scope of the evaluation is the entire project and should cover achievements across all workstreams:
•
Coordination and information sharing among INGOs and CSOs.
•
Advocacy and policy positioning at national and international levels.
•
Legal and regulatory mapping for civil society in Libya.
•
CSO inclusion in coordination fora and strengthening of the CSO Coordination Group.
•
Localization and capacity-building efforts, including mentorship, Training of Trainers (ToT), and development of the localization roadmap.
Given the complex operating environment and potential access constraints, LIF/IRC will inform the consultant about security and feasibility before data collection begins and agree on appropriate methods, including remote options where necessary.
3. Objectives of the Evaluation
The overall objective of the evaluation is to provide an independent assessment of project performance and results, generate lessons learned, and offer actionable recommendations for future programming.
Specific Objectives of the Evaluation
•
Assess project performance against its logical framework, focusing on outputs, outcomes, and overall objectives.
•
Evaluate relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, impact, and sustainability of project strategies and activities.
•
Review integration of cross-cutting themes, including accountability, inclusiveness, gender and age sensitivity, disability inclusion, conflict sensitivity, and Do No Harm principles.
•
Document lessons learned and good practices and provide recommendations to strengthen coordination, advocacy, and localization efforts in future initiatives.
The evaluation will be guided by the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria and cross-cutting principles, adapted to the specific nature of the Libya INGO Forum (LIF) intervention, which focuses on coordination, advocacy, legal and regulatory analysis, CSO inclusion, and localization.
The evaluator will assess performance at impact, outcome, and output levels, in line with the project Logical Framework.
1. Performance Against Project Objectives (Results)
Objectives: Assess the extent to which the project achieved its intended impact, outcomes, and outputs as defined in the Logical Framework.
•
To what extent did INGOs, CSOs, and key international stakeholders report improve coordination, information sharing, and advocacy because of LIF’s intervention (impact indicator)?
•
To what extent were the three specific objectives achieved:
•
Improved evidence-based advocacy?
•
Strengthened inter-INGO operational, policy, and advocacy coordination?
•
Improved CSO organizational capacity and sustainability through localization efforts?
•
Were planned output delivered in line with targets and quality expectations (e.g. coordination meetings, advocacy products, legal mapping, CSO participation, mentorship and ToT)?
Objectives: Assess the alignment of the intervention with stakeholder needs, priorities, and the evolving Libyan context.
•
To what extent was the project design and implementation aligned with the needs and priorities of INGOs, CSOs, and affected populations?
•
Did the intervention remain relevant as the political, legal, and access context evolved during implementation?
•
To what extent did the project promote localization by building on existing local capacities?
•
Were coordination and advocacy processes inclusive, gender-sensitive, age-sensitive, and accessible to persons with disabilities?
Objectives: Assess how well project activities contributed to achieving intended outcomes.
•
To what extent were stakeholders satisfied with LIF’s advocacy, analysis, and information provision?
•
To what extent were LIF members satisfied with operational and policy coordination mechanisms?
•
To what extent did participating in CSOs report improve organizational capacity, coordination skills, and sustainability?
•
Which activities contributed most to observed changes, and which contributed least?
Objectives: Assess whether resources were used optimally to achieve results in a highly constrained operating environment.
•
Were financial, human, and material resources used efficiently to deliver planned outputs?
•
Was implementation timely and adaptive to access, security, and political constraints?
•
To what extent did remote and hybrid modalities improve efficiency without undermining participation, inclusiveness, or quality?
Objective: Assess the likelihood that positive changes will continue beyond the project period.
• To what extent are coordination mechanisms, advocacy practices, and CSO capacity gains likely to be sustained in the short and medium term?
•
To what extent have coordination practices, CSO participation, and advocacy approaches been institutionalized within LIF and participating CSOs?
•
Is there evidence that capacity gains from mentorship, ToT, and the localization roadmap will continue post-project?
•
How do external factors (political shifts, legal changes, security conditions) affect sustainability?
Objective: Assess internal and external coherence of the intervention.
•
To what extent were project components (coordination, advocacy, legal mapping, localization) internally coherent and mutually reinforcing?
•
To what extent was the intervention coherent with humanitarian principles, localization commitments, EU priorities, and relevant UN and coordination frameworks?
7. Conflict Sensitivity, Accountability, and Do No Harm
Objective: Assess integration of conflict-sensitive and accountable approaches.
•
To what extent were conflict sensitive and Do No Harm principles integrated into project design and implementation?
•
Were risks to national staff, CSOs, and partners adequately identified and mitigated, particularly in advocacy activities?
•
To what extent were stakeholders meaningfully informed, consulted, and able to provide feedback?
•
What feedback and accountability mechanisms were in place, and how effectively were they used?
8. Lessons Learned and Recommendations
Objective: Generate learning and actionable guidance for future programming.
•
What key lessons can be drawn from the project regarding coordination, advocacy, legal analysis, and localization in restrictive environments?
•
What worked well, what worked less well, and why?
•
What concrete, prioritized, and actionable recommendations should inform future LIF, EU-funded, or similar coordination and civil society support initiatives?