Myanmar: Consultant for Myanmar Flood-Final Evaluation

Consultant - To review the impact of emergency relief and recovery interventions undertaken by the Myanmar Red Cross Society (MRCS) as part of the Flood Appeal Operation supported by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and the International Committee or Red Cross (ICRC), and to analyze key areas for improvement.

BACKGROUND

Heavy rains caused floods and landslides in several parts of Myanmar since June 2015. On 30 July, Cyclone Komen made landfall in Bangladesh, bringing strong winds and additional heavy rains to the country, which resulted in widespread flooding across 12 of the country’s 14 states and regions (Ayeyarwady, Bago, Chin, Kachin, Kayin, Magway, Mandalay, Mon, Rakhine, Sagaing, Shan and Yangon). On 31 July, the President declared Chin and Rakhine states, and Magway and Sagaing regions, as natural disaster zones.

The flooding spread over a large area largely in the northwest, west, south and southwest of the country. According to government figures, 110 people died and over 9 million people were affected in 12 of the country’s states and regions, with the loss of homes, livelihoods, crops and food stocks. Over 1.4 million acres of farmland were inundated, with more than 841,000 acres destroyed. Over 15,000 homes were damaged and some 1.7 million people were temporarily displaced. The Relief and Resettlement Department reported that the highest numbers of affected people were recorded in Ayeyarwady, Sagaing and Magway regions while Rakhine state had the highest number of destroyed homes. Many parts of mountainous Chin state were also badly affected by landslides.

People who had been displaced in almost all of the affected areas returned home. However, in parts of Hakha in Chin state, where homes were completely destroyed, there were still some people living in camps within urban areas as well as temporary shelters in their villages for a longer period.

In response to the floods, the authorities, local civil society organizations, international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), UN agencies, ICRC and the MRCS – supported by its International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement partners – responded. Since the launch of the operation, MRCS, the IFRC and the ICRC worked in a coordinated approach together with PNSs.

The overall objective of the MRCS response operation was to ensure that affected people receive appropriate assistance in a timely, effective, and efficient manner and were supported to recover with increased disaster resilience.

There are three key aspects that are factored in the strategy for this operation:

A Movement-wide approach: MRCS was responsible for the overall coordination and implementation of the disaster response operation, supported by all components of the Movement. The IFRC supported MRCS operations in Chin, Magway and Sagaing and the coordination of the international support through this emergency appeal while the ICRC responded in difficult to reach areas of Rakhine and was also the primary operational partner of MRCS in Rakhine state

Integrated programming and resilience-building: The recovery phase (to be defined in detail in the revised plan) involved integrated, multi-sectorial support to communities to build community resilience.

Implementing lessons from cyclones Nargis and Giri: MRCS drew upon various lessons from the implementation of a large scale operation in response to Cyclone Nargis (2008) and a medium-scale intervention to Cyclone Giri (2010).

The areas of intervention are as follows:

1. Food - Relief

Outcome: Target populations are provided with essential and appropriate food items.

1. Immediate household needs and emergency shelter - Relief

Outcome: The immediate household, shelter and settlement needs of the target population are met.

1. Cash Transfer Programming - Recovery

Outcome: Remaining urgent needs are met and early recovery of targeted populations is supported.

1. Livelihoods - Relief and Recovery

Outcome: Economic security of the targeted, worst-affected households is restored.

1. Health and care - Relief and Recovery

Outcome: The immediate risks to the health of flood-affected population are reduced.

1. Water, sanitation and hygiene promotion – Relief and Recovery

Outcome 1: The immediate reduction in risk of waterborne and water related diseases in targeted communities.

Outcome 2: Sustainable reduction in risk of waterborne and water related diseases in targeted communities.

1. National Society institutional preparedness and capacity development

Outcome: National Society capacity to provide emergency response and to deliver on programmes and services in future disasters is strengthened.

1. Community preparedness and risk reduction - Recovery

Outcome: Communities’ resilience to disasters is protected and restored.

Detailed information on the operational activities and outcomes is available, where a package of reference documents, including the appeal documents and operations updates, will be made available to the evaluation team.

EVALUATION PURPOSE & SCOPE

Purpose

This evaluation will determine to what degree the humanitarian objectives of the relief and recovery interventions have been achieved and how the utilized methodologies have facilitated and contributed to the results attained. Particular focus will be given to cash interventions, as well as the other areas of focus providing recommendations on how this capacity can be further strengthened at both MRCS headquarters and district levels.

The desired result of the evaluation is to provide best practices, lessons learned, and recommendations that may inform MRCS, IFRC and other Movement partners in establishing better guidelines, priorities and plans, in implementation of ongoing or future operations that would improve the service delivery and accountability to the affected communities, donors and other stakeholders.

Scope

The focus is on the interventions in Kalay, Tamu and Hakha townships in Sagaing region and Chin stat and the MRCS funded interventions in Magway and Ayeyarwady as well as the ICRC supported areas in Rakhine state.

EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA

Objectives

The evaluation aims to:

I. Assess the extent to which interventions under the operation have achieved their objectives.

II. Determine the impact on beneficiary living conditions, including access to services to meet their basic needs such as water and sanitation.

III. Assess the capacity of the MRCS (particularly the township levels) to deliver relief and recovery assistance effectively and make recommendations on how this capacity can be further strengthened.

IV. Compare the advantages and disadvantages with the two different models of intervention

V. Examine the coordination and internal communication

The evaluation should highlight good practice, lessons learnt and areas of improvement to inform future response operations, together with recommendations on how to proceed. The below criteria will also guide the comparison of the two different models of intervention.

Criteria

The following criteria will be used to guide the evaluation recommendations:

a.Relevance and appropriateness

1. How effective were the interventions in identifying the most vulnerable among the affected population and responding appropriately to their particular circumstances?

o Was the beneficiary selection process fair, appropriate and effective?

o What are the strategies used to ensure appropriate quality and timeliness were maintained in delivering the goods and services to target beneficiaries including mechanisms to capture beneficiary complaints/feedback?

1. Was the assistance provided appropriate and sufficient to meet intended needs?

2. To what extent were the beneficiaries involved in the assessment, planning, design, implementation, and monitoring of the interventions?

3. Were intervention strategies and priorities in line with local customs and practices of the affected population, the priorities of the Government authorities and other key humanitarian actors?

4. Were the interventions in line with MRCS and IFRC strategies, standard operating procedures and guidelines?

5. What problems and constraints were faced during implementation and how did the interventions manage these?

6. What important lessons have been identified that can improve future interventions in Myanmar and be shared more widely?

b.Coverage

1. Did the interventions reach all population groups in need, including those in remote areas who would otherwise have not received humanitarian assistance?
2. Were there exclusions or differential impact between groups based on their location?
3. How could the coverage and distribution methods be improved?
4. Did the interventions consider and address the protection, gender and inclusion concerns; the needs and capacities of the vulnerable groups and in particular women, girls and boys and people living with a disability?

c.Efficiency/effectiveness/accountability

1. Did the interventions meet their immediate and intended results?
2. Were there adequate resources (financial, human, physical and informational) available and were they utilized effectively and efficiently?
3. Were systems, procedures and control mechanisms adequate to ensure smooth delivery of assistance and minimize potential losses/risks faced by MRCS and IFRC?
4. Were adequate tracking system for delivery of goods and services in place to ensure transparency and accountability?
5. Were complaints/feedback mechanisms put in place for community questions and concerns to be answered? What were the concerns raised by communities during the intervention?
6. How effective were processes for planning, monitoring and quality management, (e.g. use of assessment data, internal reviews and other quality assurance mechanisms)?
7. Was there adequate time and effort invested for the integration of interventions across the different operation sectors?
8. To what degree was integration achieved and how could this be further strengthened?
9. Would greater investment in preparedness measures have resulted in more efficient, effective and less costly interventions?
10. How were programme activities managed and coordinated, particularly between MRCS, IFRC, other Movement partners, clusters, and local authorities?
11. Was the capacity of the human resource system enough to fulfil the needs of the interventions and beneficiaries? Were personnel skills utilized in an efficient and effective manner?
12. Was there adequate and relevant staffing including: a) decisions concerning the number of staff members needed, where, when, with what competences, at what levels, and at required availability and b) decision-making chain regarding staffing?
13. Did the lesson learned workshop result in MRCS addressing the identified capacity and operational gaps for the recovery phase?

d.Impact

1. What evidence (both direct and indirect) is available that the interventions contributed to the reduction of suffering and that the affected populations were assisted in maintaining or resuming basic dignity and enhancing disaster preparedness?
2. What impact did the interventions have on how the communities might cope with subsequent disasters?

e.Connectedness and Sustainability

1. Did the interventions result in enhanced institutional capacity of the MRCS in terms of: a) ability to implement recovery programmes, b) ability to prepare for and respond to disasters in a timely, efficient, and coordinated manner; and c) ability to mobilize communities at risk to cope with future disasters?
2. Did the support of the IFRC strengthen and complement the response of MRCS and coping mechanisms, or hinder them?
3. Has the impact of programme activities, particularly in shelter and WASH been sustained following completion of the interventions?

METHODOLOGY

The methodology will adhere to the IFRC Framework for Evaluations, with particular attention to the processes upholding the standards of how evaluations should be planned, managed, conducted and utilized.

Interviewees will include MRCS, IFRC, ICRC and PNS personnel (e.g. managers, field officers, direct implementers, volunteers and community mobilizers), beneficiaries (e.g. state/regional officials, township executives/volunteers, ‘most vulnerable’ beneficiaries including children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, and families with high dependency ratios), and potentially, non-beneficiaries or people who did not receive assistance. These may be in the form of key informant interviews (KII), focus group discussions (FGDs) or other methods, at the discretion of the evaluation team. Interviews will also take place at the Yangon level to include perspectives from high-level management of MRCS, IFRC, ICRC and PNSs. The evaluation is expected to be no longer than 30 days in duration, including preparation of the report and facilitation of a lessons learned workshop.

The detailed evaluation design is to be created by the external evaluation team; however, the following should be taken into account:

· Sampling method is to be decided by the evaluator, as long the final sample to be evaluated on includes all Movement partners involved in the floods operation interventions, municipalities, sectors of the intervention and the ‘most vulnerable’ beneficiaries.

· Data collection methods and pace are to be decided by the evaluator, in consultation with the MRCS and IFRC country office focal person(s), but should take into account the reality of difficult-to-reach districts. One-on-one interviews, FGDs and key informant interviews are encouraged.

· The evaluation team should visit a representative number of communities in the Sagaing region and Chin state assisted in the floods response. The total evaluation work is estimated at 20 days including travel time. The total evaluation work is estimated at 30 days including travel time.

· Appropriate training (estimated one day) should be organized for the volunteers and facilitated by the evaluation team to provide volunteers with the knowledge and practice to conduct interviews/fill questionnaires in the evaluation process as required.

· The evaluation team will be responsible to clearly outline the support needs in-country in their inception report. This will be agreed with MRCS and IFRC based on resources available.

OUTPUTS/DELIVERABLES

1. Inception report and detailed work plan for the evaluation, that clearly shows how it will compare the three operational models.
2. Draft report to be submitted one week after the conclusion of the evaluation
3. Facilitation of a lessons learned workshop to present key preliminary evaluation findings to MRCS and IFRC in Yangon, including an opportunity for key stakeholders to clarify any immediate points
4. Final evaluation report of no more than 20 pages (excluding executive summary and annexes) which highlights key conclusions and recommendations

SCHEDULE

The evaluation is expected to no more than 30 days, including submission of the final evaluation report. It is proposed to start on September 1, 2016 with the following schedule: Total consultancy days30.

EVALUATION QUALITY & ETHICAL STANDARDS

The consultants should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of people and the communities of which they are members, and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the review team should adhere to the evaluation standards and specific, applicable practices outlined in the IFRC Framework for Evaluation

The IFRC Evaluation Standards are:

a. Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.

b. Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost-effective manner.

c. Ethics and 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.

d. Impartiality and Independence: Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.

e. Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.

f. Accuracy: Evaluations should be technically accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.

g. Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.

h. Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.

It is also expected that the evaluation will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross Red Crescent: Humanity, Impartiality, Neutrality, Independence, Voluntary Service, Unity and Universality.

EXPERTISE &QUALIFICATIONS

The Consultant must have experience or significant knowledge of the humanitarian response mechanisms, specifically relief and recovery interventions, and have previous experience in conducting external evaluations for medium-to-large scale programmes. The Consultant will function as Team Leader, and will be supported by an evaluation team (3 to 4 persons) from MRCS, IFRC and PNSs who are not directly involved in the operation. The Team Leader will coordinate directly with the IFRC Asia Pacific Regional Office and IFRC Myanmar Country Office.

The following characteristics are highly desirable for the Team Leader (Consultant):

• Demonstrable experience in leading evaluations of humanitarian programmes responding to major disasters.
• Knowledge of activities generally conducted by humanitarian organizations in the sectors of relief, shelter, water and sanitation, and cash transfer system.
• Field experience in the evaluation of humanitarian or development programmes, with prior experience of evaluating Red Cross programmes desirable.
• 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 (examples of previous work may be requested).
• Previous experience in coordination, design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of humanitarian programmes.
• Ability to work within tight deadlines and manage with available resources and accountable for the evaluation report.
• Fluent in spoken and written English. All individuals of the evaluation team should have relevant degrees or equivalent experience.

How to apply:

Interested candidates should submit their curriculum vitae and a 1 page Statement explaining their suitability for the position with the description of expected consultancy service fee and availability, by email to:

Senior Admin/ HR Manager

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

Red Cross Building | No. 42, Strand Road | Botahtaung Township | Yangon | Myanmar

Postal Code: 11162

Email: ookhine.kyaw@ifrc.org