Consultancy for Micro-Catchment Analysis and Community-Based Water & Land Management Planning in Bama LGA, Borno State

About the job:

ZOA Nigeria, in partnership with the World Food Programme (WFP), is implementing the Resilience and Social Cohesion Project, which supports communities in Bama LGA to strengthen resilience, restore degraded land, and improve access to sustainable water and land management systems. Communities in Bama face recurring challenges such as seasonal flooding, gully erosion, land degradation, limited water infiltration, and blockages to streams and rivers These environmental pressures affect farming, settlement patterns, and the availability of productive land.

To guide community‑level restoration efforts under this project, ZOA seeks a detailed micro‑catchment assessment that analyses local hydrological and landscape conditions, including rainfall patterns, soil type and infiltration capacity, topography, Surface water networks, runoff dynamics, erosion hotspots, and land‑use practices (farming, settlements, vegetation). Where relevant, the assessment should also identify flooding hotspots, acknowledging that the inclusion of these will depend on field findings and available historical or community‑reported data.

Findings from this assessment should inform ZOA and WFP together with the communities on the design of practical, small‑scale nature‑based solutions that communities can implement through Cash‑for‑Assets (CfA) activities. Given the scope of WFP’s support and targeted participants, the consultant should primarily focus on low-cost/basic interventions that promote a participatory community approach.
However, the consultant my include multiple intervention scenarios that also cover any more advanced/scalable interventions, but that would significantly benefit the same target communities, especially if they are deemed conditional for increased or complementing impact of the low-cost/basic interventions. Any larger‑scale structures that exceed community implementation capacity will be documented separately for consideration by relevant government authorities and development partners for future resource mobilisation.

Responsibilities:

To conduct a micro‑catchment–based assessment in selected communities of Bama LGA to generate technically robust, context‑appropriate, and actionable recommendations for community‑led water and land management interventions.

Specific Objectives

1. Delineate and analyze micro‑catchments
   Identify and delineate relevant micro‑catchments using natural hydrological boundaries (topography, drainage patterns, and runoff flows) that intersect communities within Shehuri, Kasugula, and Nguro Soye wards, recognizing that hydrological systems extend beyond administrative boundaries.
2. Assess hydrological, environmental, and land‑use dynamics
   Analyze key micro‑catchment characteristics, including surface water features (streams, drainage lines, ephemeral channels), overland runoff pathways, erosion and gully systems, flood‑prone areas (where applicable), soil types, infiltration capacity, slope gradients, and dominant land‑use practices.
3. Identify priority risks and intervention opportunities
   Map and prioritize erosion hotspots, runoff concentration zones, flood paths, degraded land, infiltration/recharge areas, and environmentally suitable sites for nature‑based solutions, including tree‑based measures and shallow solar‑powered boreholes (where hydrogeological feasible).
4. Develop integrated intervention packages
   Formulate integrated community‑level intervention packages combining:
• Hard interventions (e.g. low‑tech, nature‑based physical measures such as bunds, swales, check dams, and water harvesting structures); and
• Soft interventions (e.g. agronomic practices, land‑use planning, maintenance arrangements, institutional strengthening, and capacity development),
  ensuring sustainability beyond infrastructure delivery alone.
5. Prioritize CfA‑suitable interventions
   Identify and prioritize technically feasible, low‑cost, and labour-intensive interventions suitable for implementation through Cash‑for‑Assets (CfA) modalities, aligned with labour norms, skill levels, seasonality, and community capacity.
6. Document larger‑scale and complementary interventions
   Identify and document larger‑scale or technically complex interventions that fall outside CfA or community implementation capacity and present them separately as strategic options for potential uptake by government authorities and development partners.
7. Support programme planning and future investment
   Deliver spatially explicit, evidence‑based outputs that inform immediate programme decision‑making by ZOA/WFP, support engagement with government and community stakeholders, and contribute to future landscape‑scale resilience programming and resource mobilization.

3. Scope of Work

The consultant will undertake the following tasks, structured to ensure technical rigor, feasibility within programme timelines, and alignment with Cash‑for‑Assets (CfA) implementation modalities.

3.1 Desk Review and Secondary Data Collection

• Review project‑relevant documents provided by ZOA/WFP, including CBPP plans, previous assessments, and relevant programme documentation.
• Review available secondary data on rainfall patterns, seasonality, and relevant climate trends, including historical flooding and erosion information where available.
• Review soil, land‑use, hydrological, and topographic datasets necessary for micro‑catchment analysis.
• Review Local Area Development Plans (LADPs) and relevant LGA/state policies, guidelines, and regulations related to land, water, and environmental management to:
• Identify land‑use zoning and land‑use patterns.
• Flag areas earmarked for future development.
• Identify areas designated as environmental reserves or restricted for intervention.
• Clearly document:
• Data provided by ZOA/WFP.
• Data sourced independently by the consultant.
• Data gaps, assumptions, and limitations, including implications for analysis quality.

3.2 Field Assessment and Community Engagement

• Conduct field assessments in selected communities using a combination of:
• Transect walks.
• Participatory mapping.
• Key informant interviews and focus group discussions.
• Engage community stakeholders including farmers, women, youth, PWDs, IDPs/returnees, and LPC/PMC representatives, ensuring inclusive and conflict‑sensitive participation.
• Generate clearly defined outputs from participatory processes, including:
• Community‑validated hazard maps.
• Identified priority degradation and risk areas.
• Community land‑ and water‑use patterns.
• Community‑identified intervention preferences and constraints.
• Triangulate community‑based findings with technical and geospatial data.

3.3 Micro‑Catchment, Hydrological, and Land‑Use Analysis

• Identify and delineate micro‑catchments based on natural hydrological boundaries rather than administrative borders.
• Analyse and map, at an appropriate and consistent level of detail:
• Surface water features (streams, drainage lines, ephemeral channels);
• Overland runoff pathways (including runoff from fields and settlements);
• Flood paths and flood‑prone areas where relevant.
• Erosion and gully systems.
• Soil types and indicative infiltration capacity.
• Slope gradients.
• Dominant land‑use and land‑cover types.
• Ensure consistency across all topics by clearly documenting:
• Parameters analysed.
• Methods used.
• Type of deliverable expected (e.g. spatial maps, tabular summaries, narrative analysis).

3.4 Governance, Institutional, and Land‑Use Context

• Identify formal and informal governance arrangements affecting land and water management within the micro‑catchments, including:
• Relevant institutions and government departments.
• Policies, regulations, and guidelines.
• Customary rules, informal agreements, and community norms.
• Engage relevant local government departments (e.g. Environment, Agriculture, Water Resources, Planning) to validate land‑use status, regulatory considerations, and proposed intervention areas.

3.5 Development of Intervention Options and Feasibility Screening

• Develop a range of intervention options (not limited to physical structures), including:
• Hard interventions (nature‑based, low‑tech physical measures);
• Soft interventions (agronomic practices, land‑use management measures, institutional and capacity‑building actions).
• Screen all proposed interventions against:
• CfA labour norms and skill requirements (disaggregated by gender where relevant).
• Seasonal feasibility and accessibility.
• Indicative cost and material requirements.
• Programme timeline and donor budget constraints.
• Clearly distinguish:
• Interventions suitable for CfA and community implementation; and
• Larger‑scale or technically complex interventions exceeding CfA capacity, documented separately for potential uptake by government or development partners.

3.6 Prioritization and Implementation Planning

• Develop a prioritization matrix linking:
• Environmental urgency and risk reduction.
• Technical feasibility.
• Community preferences.
• CfA suitability (labour days, skills, seasonality).
• Provide actionable, time‑bound recommendations aligned with the project’s implementation timeframe and geographic coverage.

3.7 Validation, Reporting, and Knowledge Products

• Facilitate and document validation sessions with:
• Community representatives.
• LPC/PMC members.
• ZOA/WFP technical teams.
• Relevant local government departments.
• Incorporate validation feedback into final deliverables.
• Produce clear, practical outputs, including:
• GIS maps and spatial datasets.
• GPS points and photo documentation.
• Technical guidance and BOQs appropriate for CfA implementation.
• Clear documentation of limitations and residual risks.

4. Deliverables

All deliverables shall be submitted in draft and final versions, in formats agreed with ZOA. Deliverables must be clear, practical, and directly usable by programme and implementation teams.

4.1 Inception Report

An inception report outlining:

• Refined methodology and analytical framework.
• Micro‑catchment delineation approach and justification.
• Sampling strategy and fieldwork plan.
• Data sources to be used (clearly distinguishing data provided by ZOA/WFP and data sourced independently).
• Limitations, assumptions, and risk mitigation measures.
• Detailed workplan and timeline.

4.2 Micro‑Catchment Assessment Report

A comprehensive narrative and analytical report covering, at a consistent and clearly defined level of detail:

• Micro‑catchment delineation and hydrological context.
• Rainfall patterns and seasonality (based on available historical data and projections, with limitations clearly stated).
• Land‑use and land‑cover analysis.
• Soil types and indicative infiltration capacity (mapped where feasible).
• Surface water features, overland runoff pathways, flood paths (where relevant), erosion and gully systems.
• Governance and institutional context affecting land and water management.
• Community‑level findings, triangulated with geospatial and technical analysis.
• Clear articulation of data gaps, uncertainty, and analytical limitations.

The report shall clearly indicate what is presented as spatial maps, what is summarized in tables, and what is discussed narratively.

4.3 Spatial and GIS Outputs

• GIS‑based maps (print‑ready and digital) showing:
• Micro‑catchment boundaries.
• Land‑use/land‑cover.
• Drainage lines, runoff pathways (streams and overland flow);
• Flood‑prone areas (where applicable).
• Erosion and gully hotspots.
• Infiltration/recharge zones (indicative).
• Prioritized intervention locations.
• GIS shapefiles and metadata for all spatial layers.
• Raw GPS points collected during fieldwork.
• Geotagged photos with metadata.

All GIS outputs shall be compatible with ZOA/WFP GIS systems and use standardized symbology.

4.4 Intervention Options and Prioritization Matrix

• A comprehensive list of recommended interventions (hard and soft), including:
• A clear description of each intervention type.
• Intended function and expected outcomes.
• Suitability by context (location, slope, soil, land use).
• A prioritization matrix linking:
• Environmental urgency and risk reduction.
• Community preferences.
• Technical feasibility.
• Seasonal constraints.
• CfA suitability.

Interventions shall be clearly classified as:

• CfA‑suitable/community‑implementable, or
• Exceeding CfA capacity, documented separately for referral to government or development partners.

4.5 Bills of Quantities (BOQs) for CfA‑Suitable Interventions

For each CfA‑suitable physical intervention:

• Indicative quantities, dimensions, and scale thresholds.
• Estimated labour requirements (labour‑days), with skill levels clearly indicated and disaggregated by gender where relevant.
• Breakdown of labour versus material inputs.
• Indicative cost ranges based on recent market checks, including seasonal variability.
• Complexity thresholds distinguishing community‑executable works from those requiring higher‑level technical expertise.

BOQs should be sufficiently detailed to support budgeting and implementation planning, while remaining aligned with CfA norms.

4.6 Validation and Presentation Materials

• Documentation of validation sessions, including:
• Attendance lists (disaggregated by stakeholder group);
• Meeting minutes.
• Photo evidence.
• PowerPoint presentation summarizing key findings, maps, and prioritized interventions, suitable for:
• Community feedback.
• Programme management.
• Engagement with government and partners.

4.7 Final Submission Package

A complete submission package including:

• Final Micro‑Catchment Assessment Report.
• GIS datasets and raw spatial data.
• BOQs and prioritization matrix.
• Validation documentation.
• A concise section on limitations, assumptions, risks, and residual uncertainties.

5. Duration and Schedule

5.1 Assignment Duration

The total duration of the assignment shall be a maximum of four (4) weeks, starting from the date of contract signature.

This duration assumes:

• Timely provision of available baseline data and documentation by ZOA/WFP at contract commencement.
• Reasonable access to agreed field locations; and
• Close coordination between the consultant, ZOA/WFP teams, and relevant local authorities.

The consultant is expected to prioritize efficiency, practicality, and focused analysis, commensurate with the one‑month timeframe, while maintaining acceptable technical quality.

5.2 Proposed Activity Schedule (Indicative – 4 Weeks)

<table> <thead> <tr> <td>

Week

</td> <td>

Key Activities

</td> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>

Week 1 – Desk Review & Inception

</td> <td>

Review ZOA/WFP‑provided data (CBPP plans, previous assessments, available GIS and spatial data); rapid review of external datasets (rainfall, soil, land‑use); targeted engagement with relevant government departments; finalization of methodology, micro‑catchment delineation approach, field plan, and tools; submission of Inception Report.

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>

Week 2 – Field Assessment & Community Engagement

</td> <td>

Community entry and consultations; transect walks; participatory mapping sessions with communities and LPC/PMC; identification and validation of hazards, land‑ and water‑use patterns; GPS and photo data collection.

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>

Week 3 – Analysis & Technical Development

</td> <td>

Micro‑catchment delineation; spatial and hydrological analysis (runoff pathways, erosion, flood risk where relevant, infiltration, land‑use); development and screening of intervention options (hard and soft); CfA feasibility assessment; preparation of draft BOQs and prioritization matrix.

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>

Week 4 – Validation & Finalization

</td> <td>

Preparation of draft report, maps, and technical products; validation sessions with communities, ZOA/WFP teams, and relevant local government departments; incorporation of feedback; submission of final reports, GIS datasets, BOQs, and presentation materials.

</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

5.3 Assumptions and Flexibility

• The scope and level of detail of analysis will be commensurate with the four‑week duration, focusing on decision‑critical findings and actionable recommendations.
• Any significant access, security, or data‑availability constraints affecting timelines must be communicated immediately to ZOA.
• Minor adjustments to the schedule may be agreed with ZOA where required, without extending the overall four‑week duration, unless formally approved in writing.

Requirements:

The assignment shall be undertaken by a qualified individual consultant or consulting firm meeting the following requirements. Applicants must provide verifiable documentation to demonstrate compliance.

6.1 Technical Qualifications and Experience

• An advanced academic degree (master’s or higher) in hydrology, natural resource management, environmental engineering, water resources engineering, agricultural engineering, or a closely related field.
• A minimum of five (5) years of demonstrated professional experience in watershed or micro‑catchment assessments, preferably in dryland or semi‑arid contexts.
• Proven experience in the design or assessment of nature‑based solutions (NBS) and community‑led land and water management interventions.
• Demonstrated experience working with Cash‑for‑Assets (CfA), cash‑for‑work, or comparable labour-intensive community implementation modalities.
• Strong technical proficiency in GIS and spatial analysis, including GPS data collection, map production, and hydrological or terrain analysis.
• Prior experience working in humanitarian, fragile, conflict‑affected, or post‑conflict settings, preferably in North‑East Nigeria or comparable contexts, is an advantage.

Salary and other terms of employment:

Attracive