Nepal: Nepal Earthquake Recovery Operation Mid-Term Review

Background

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) comprises 190-member Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies and a secretariat in Geneva to support humanitarian activities around the world. The IFRC is committed towards increasing the impact of the Movement in terms of quality assurance, standards and a culture of lesson learning in disaster recovery operations. Those operations that require an international response and meet certain criteria of scale, scope, complexity or risk, as does the Nepal earthquake response, are committed to carrying out this MTR during the recovery phase. The IFRC Framework for Evaluations requires that a review be undertaken for any programme over 24 months in timeframe.

MTR purpose and scope
This Nepal earthquake response MTR will be a learning oriented and forward looking review. This will recommend how improvements should be made in earthquake recovery structure, system, procedures and implementation strategies in order to better address the recovery needs on the ground. To do so, the review will be taking into consideration relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the entire operations with reference to One Plan. The review will also assess the application of the Principles and Rules for Red Cross Red Crescent humanitarian assistance, cooperation and coordination within the Movement components. The findings of MTR will suggest possible operational directions to the Movement partners to further support NRCS recovery programmes based on context, need and capacities of the Movement partners.

· The unit of analysis to be assessed – This will cover the partner members of the One Plan including ERO both at headquarters (HQ) and district chapters, IFRC Nepal Country Office and in country PNSs. It will look at measures put in place including structure, system, procedures, implementation/ working models - consortium/bilateral, as well as coordination mechanisms in line with the One Plan.
· The time period - the review will cover the period from June 2015 partnership meeting when the present structure of the Nepal Earthquake Operations was endorsed until 25 April 2017 (second year anniversary of the earthquake).
· The geographical coverage - This will later be decided in close consultation between the MTR task force2 and review team. However, focus will be to consider a representative sample size i.e. 4-6, out of 14 operational districts in Nepal.

MTR objectives, criteria and key questions
Below are the specific objectives, criteria and possible key questions to be addressed in this MTR. These are initial guidance and can be further elaborated in consultation with the consultant and MTR team.

4.1. Objectives:
1) To assess the capacity of NRCS, IFRC and in country PNS’s structure, system and procedures to deliver the recovery assistance effectively;
2) To review the application and timeliness of programme management, decision making, coordination and integration mechanisms in place, and recommend how these can be strengthened;
3) Identify weaknesses and strengths in the 4+1 approach of the One Plan including cross cutting themes, and provide solutions/recommendations to the NRCS and the Movement partners to address shortfalls.

4.2. Criteria:
The MTR will be guided by following criteria:
i) the relevance, appropriateness and coverage of the recovery operations.
ii) the efficiency and effectiveness, especially to meet the intended results.
iii) coordination within the Movement partners (NRCS, IFRC, PNS and ICRC) and external actors.
iv) the sustainability and connectedness of the recovery operations.

4.3. Questions:
The questions below are initial guidance and should be considered in line with the One Plan approach. These questions are expected to be further elaborated in consultation with the review team while working on the inception report. Additional guiding questions can be found as appendices under section 11 on the later part of this TOR.

1) To what extend has the recovery operations achieved the expected objectives and been relevant and appropriate to the needs and context?
2)To what extent has the recovery operations ensured optimization of resources and supported implementation of programmes in an effective and efficient manner?
3)To what extent coordination and integration applied in line with the One Plan?
To what extent, is the intervention taking into consideration long term needs of NRCS, such as linkages between recovery and longer-term development programmes?
4)To what extent has the programme been effective in reaching the most vulnerable people and groups effected by the earthquake?

MTR methodology & process
The methodology will adhere to the IFRC Framework for Evaluations3, with particular attention to the processes upholding the standards of how MTR should be planned, managed, conducted, and utilized.
A MTR task force will manage and oversee the MTR process as well review team. The review will be carried out by a team of experts not directly involved with the implementation of recovery programmes. This review team will consist of up to four people: an international consultant, who will be team leader, one national consultant (Nepali speaking), one staff member of NRCS, and a member of the sister National Society from the Asia Pacific region. The team should be gender balanced.
The review team leader will provide an independent, objective perspective on review, and will be the primary author of the MTR report and recommendations. In line with the IFRC Framework for Evaluations to meet the criteria for an “external review”, s/he will not have been involved or have a vested interest in the recovery operation being reviewed, and will be hired through a transparent recruitment process, based on professional experience, competence, ethics and integrity for this review. The team leader will report on progress or challenges to the MTR task force.
It is expected that the applicant to propose an approach and methodology for the review. The proposed review methodology will be further detailed out in close consultation between the MTR task force and review team. Some of the primary methods can draw upon as follows:

1. Desktop review of operation background documents, and background and history of relevant organizations, including guidelines and policy documents of the National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) of Nepal government.
2. Conduct consultation process/meetings with the partner members of One Plan and other stakeholders as appropriate.
3. Field visits/observations to selected sites.
4. Key informant interviews (institutional and beneficiaries as appropriate).
5. Focus group discussions, (institutional and beneficiaries) as time and capacity allow.

The review team will meet with and interview key Red Cross Red Crescent stakeholders at NRCS HQ and district chapters, PNSs, and the relevant IFRC Secretariat offices. The team will also consult with other partners and organizations such as NRA of GoN, the UN, INGOs / NGOs as appropriate.

MTR deliverables (or Outputs)
· Inception report with review questions, detailed methodology, initial discussion with the MTR task force and work plan within a week.
· Debriefings / present initial findings to MTR task force, NRCS, IFRC and in country Movement partners: The review team leader will present its preliminary/initial findings with recommendations for discussion and feedback.
· Draft report: A draft report identifying key findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons for the current and future operation, will be submitted to the MTR task force after three weeks of the consultancy.
· Final report: The final report will contain a short executive summary (no more than 1,000 words) and a main body of the report (no more than 10,000 words) covering the background of the intervention reviewed, a description of the review methods and limitations, findings, conclusions, lessons learned, and clear recommendations. Recommendations should be specific and feasible. The report should also contain appropriate appendices, including a copy of the ToR, cited resources, a list of those interviewed and any other relevant materials. The final report will be submitted within two weeks after receiving the consolidated feedback on draft report.

The findings and all products arising from this review will be jointly owned by the Nepal Red Cross Society and IFRC on behalf of the Movement partners. The reviewers will not be allowed, without prior authorization in writing, to present any of the analytical results as his / her own work or to make use of the review results for private publication purposes.
The preliminary and final reports will be submitted through the MTR task force, who will ensure the quality of the report providing input if necessary. The task force will submit the final report to the Commissioner, Steering Committee of the earthquake operations and IFRC head of country office in Nepal for review, clarifications and management response.

MTR quality and ethical standards
The reviewer should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the MTR is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved and to ensure that the review findings are technically accurate and reliable, is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the review team should adhere to the standards and applicable practices outlined in the IFRC Framework for Evaluation.
The IFRC evaluation standards are:

1. Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.
2. Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner.
3. Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.
4. Impartiality & Independence; Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
5. Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
6. Accuracy: Evaluations should be technical accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
7. Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.
8. Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.
   It is also expected that the review will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity, and 7) universality. Further information can be obtained about these Principles at: www.ifrc.org/what/values/principles/index.asp

Qualifications

Selection of the international and national consultant will be based on the qualifications outlined below:

1. Demonstrable experience in leading and managing evaluations and review of recovery operations in complex situations where multiple partners and sectors involved related to major disasters;

2. Knowledge and experience working with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and knowledge of the IFRC’s disaster management systems;

3. Experience of working in Nepal and familiarity with culture and political situations would be an advantage.

4. Knowledge of strategic and operational management of humanitarian operations and proven ability to provide strategic recommendations to key stakeholders;

5. Strong team leadership and management skills including negotiation, facilitation and time management.

6. Strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions, make recommendations and to prepare well-written reports in a timely manner;

7. Proven track record of conducting qualitative research including the development of interview schedules and qualitative data as well quantitative data analysis, especially in emergency and recovery context;

8. Demonstrated capacity to work both independently and as part of a team;

9. Excellent writing and presentation skills in English (for international consultant) and Nepali languages (for national consultant) required.

10. Immediate availability for the period indicated.

11. Strong preference for the international consultant to have his/her own translator and in country team.

Appendices
Guiding questions related to section 4 of this TOR:
The questions below provide an initial guidance and are expected to be further elaborated/redesigned by the review team.

1. To what extent has the recovery achieved the expected results and been relevant and appropriate to the needs and context?
   1.1. Does the approach take into account the vulnerabilities and capacities of all groups in the target communities?
   1.2. To what extent has the design of the operation taken into account the capacities of the NRCS, both at HQ and branch level in terms of human resources and technical expertise?
   1.3. What successes and gaps identified in the recovery methodologies and are there ways these gaps could have been addressed or could be addressed in future?
   1.4. Do various Movement partners satisfy with the relevance of the integrated recovery plan “One Plan”?
   1.5. Did the government policy and procedures as well as decisions affected the operation and delivery of results?
2. To what extent has the recovery achieved its intended results in an effective and efficient manner?
   2.1. Have interim results been achieved according to the intervention design and if not, what have been the obstacles / steps taken to address this and to evolve the response to the changing situation?
   2.2. What are the opportunities missed in the transition from the relief operation to the recovery phase to develop a more realistic and relevant plan?
   2.3. Has the programme used resources, human, financial and material in the most efficient and effective way - drawing on all available options from within the Movement partners?
   2.4. Has procurement manuals, procedures and human resource policies followed to secure effective utilization of budget?
   2.5. How timeliness related to planning, decision-making and action/implementation been ensured?
   2.6. To what extent key recovery programming principles for the IFRC Recovery Programming Guidance 2012 adhered to and were these Principles and Rules effective as a tool to improve the delivery of recovery support?
3. To what extent coordination and integration applied in line with One Plan?
   3.1. Has coordination and cooperation amongst PNSs, NRCS and IFRC been handled effectively and what is the level of satisfaction?
   3.2. Has coordination and cooperation with the relevant Nepali central and local authorities been handled openly and inclusively?
   3.3. What are the challenges and successes of the relationships within the Movement partners and external actors?
   3.4. How integration been practiced (within the different sectors of intervention and within the Movement and other partners?
   3.5. How could integration across sectors can be further strengthened?
4. To what extent, is the intervention taking, into consideration long term needs of NRCS such as linkages between recovery and the longer-term development programmes?
   4.1 How is the recovery building, in an inclusive way, on the institutional capacity of NRCS, structure, systems and procedures?
   4.2 How is the intervention building on and preserving the structures and systems in place prior to the earthquake?
   4.3 How the operation has impacted positively or negatively on NRCS other ongoing programmes/obligations? 4.4 How transition of skills, knowledge and capacities should be ensured to the departments of NRCS? 4.5 How has the recovery phase been promoting long term risk reduction by “building back better”, including adherence to and awareness of earthquake-safe building standards?
5. To what extent has the programme been effective in reaching the most vulnerable people and groups effected by the earthquake?
   5.1 Have communities been fully involved and listened to them or pre-defined recovery plans foisted upon them?
   5.2 Did the recovery adapted to changes in need, capacities (financial), context and satisfaction; especially of affected communities?

Interested applicants should submit their expression of interest to the following email: pmer.apzo@ifrc.org by 31 March 2017. In the subject line, please state the consultancy you are applying for, your company name or last name and first name.

(SUBJECT: Nepal Earthquake Recovery Operations Mid-Term Review - Last Name, First Name).

Application materials should include:

1. Curriculum Vitae (CVs) of international and national consultants.
2. Cover letter clearly summarizing your experience as it pertains to this MTR, daily consultancy fees (in Swiss Francs) and three professional references.
3. Applicants will be required to provide a 2-pager approach paper with review methodology and a sample of previous written report most similar to that described in this TOR.
4. Financial proposal: It is expected from the international consultant to submit the financial bid for themselves and the Nepali speaking consultant only.

Application material are non-returnable, and we thank you in advance for understanding that only short-listed candidates will be contacted for the next step in the application process. Please take note that incomplete application will be rejected.