1. Background
Since 2015, the Americas region has experienced a surge in migration, particularly from Venezuela. As of February 2021, there are 5.5 million Venezuelan migrants in the world, with 4.6 million (85%) in Latin America and the Caribbean alone. In addition to the unprecedented number of migrants from Venezuela settling throughout the region, countries in the Americas receive significant numbers of extra-regional migrants from the Caribbean, Asia and Africa. Some of these migrants have settled permanently in the region, but many others choose to travel north, crossing from Colombia into Panama through the Darien Gap on their way to North America.
Already in 2019 the Brookings Institute was predicting that the fact that the continuous trajectory of the migration would make the Venezuelan population movement the largest and most underfunded refugee crisis in modern history. This prognosis has been aggravated by COVID-19. Although migrants first responded to COVID-19 by returning to Venezuela, the recent trajectories clearly show their return back to Colombia and other final destinations. However, this new wave has been made even more hazardous by the augmented health risks associated to the pandemic, but also by the increasing mobility restrictions that this situation has propelled.
Colombia continues to be the number one receptor of Venezuelan migrants, with 1.7 million (35%), which represents 3,7% of the Colombia’s total population and is slightly more than its indigenous population. Since July 2020, the estimated number of irregular Venezuelans in Colombia surpassed the number of regular, reaching up to 950,000.
According to IFRC’s report “Least protected, most affected,” the pandemic has compounded risks already directly affecting migrant populations, including: 1) Formal barriers or exposure to smuggling, especially for migrants with irregular status; 2) The loss of social support due to quarantine and/or border closures inhibits movement and prevents connection with family members; 3) Specific protection concerns such as human trafficking with aims of labour and/or sexual exploitation are being exacerbated. In addition, gender-based violence is increasing and is evident through manifestations such as domestic violence, intimate partner violence, sexual violence and psychological violence.
Another important contextual scenario is needed to be understood. In 2015, when the population movement from Venezuela began, the CRCS did not have an established program to reach migrants with humanitarian aid. This program was formalized in 2019. The Emergency Appeal operation has been a fast-paced knowledge lab for the CRCS and all Movement partners who are providing technical guidance and support.
Given the recognition of access and quality of food as a critical part of the future migration response, the CRCS and IFRC seek to analyse the intervention in this operation and identify lessons learned and recommendations that will enable the National Society to implement more effective and efficient food security initiatives in the future. The Emergency Appeal operation contained diverse food security interventions. The interventions sought to address nutritional deficiencies and financial and logistical barriers to access food. Given this approach, this case study is focused on the relevance and appropriateness of the actions undertaken.
The different activities regarding food security ranged from nutritional supplements for children and mothers who went to the primary health care services, to food kits for migrants on foot and vouchers for migrants settled in big cities.
Analysis is required to determine if the nutritional supplementation scheme delivered had any impact and in what direction (positive or negative). This question has become more important in the past six months where epidemiological reports have shown the increasing incidence of parasitosis in some population groups. Parasitosis generates serious negative impact in nutritional status, as worms compete with organs for the nutrients inside the body.
The mobility of migrants in border cities is a second area for exploration. Evidence-based analysis will permit the CRCS and IFRC to respond to the humanitarian demand to deliver relevant and sufficient food supplements for migrants who travel by foot, are highly mobile and often have distant destinations that is aligned with the do no harm principle.
2. Evaluation Purpose & Scope
This evaluation aims to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the activities, products and outcomes of the food security component of the of the IFRC Emergency Appeal (MDRCO014) operation responding to the Population Movement from Venezuela. It should also identify lessons learned and provide concrete recommendations to ensure that future food security components are more effective and efficient in future operations. This study should also identify food security actions that can be used among highly mobile populations.
Scope: The study should address all the food and nutrition related actions that were delivered by the Emergency Appeal between March 2018 and June 2021 to people reached by the operation in border and large urban areas. The study should offer practical recommendations to maximize the impact of food security interventions in the Colombian context, suggesting or identifying relevant experiences that could serve as input for the design of a future plan of action.
3. Evaluation Objectives - Criteria - Questions
Objectives
Objective 1: To assess the activities, products and outcomes of the food security component of the National Society response to the migration emergency, particularly in its relevance to address highly mobile populations with different nutritional needs and epidemiological profiles.
Objective 2: Assess the effectiveness of the food security actions deployed in this operation, identifying challenges and proposing clear recommendations for future actions based on a comparative analysis of food security activities designed in similar humanitarian contexts.
Study Criteria
The following are the evaluation criteria by which this study will be conducted. These criteria should be used as applicable for every question and objective, based on their relevance for the given objective and the questions related to the objective.
1) Relevance and appropriateness of the operation in delivering assistance based on needs and context;
2) Coverage in reaching target populations across different groups, considering ethnicity, age, gender, disability, migratory status, etc.
3) Efficiency of the interventions in delivering quality services in food security with minimum resources, effectiveness of the management and systemic mechanisms and strategies; and accountability to the affected population in relation to service delivery, sustainability, engagement, inclusion and resilience building.
4) Impact of the interventions on the National Society’s capacities and the level of resilience of the communities and institutions in areas covered by the operation.
5) Connectedness and sustainability of the interventions in developing the organizational capacity of the National Societies and enhancing the resilience of assisted people against future hazards.
Evaluation criteria are the central internationally recognized measures endorsed by IFRC for evaluation of its work. They specify the key areas (criteria) with which the assessment will be conducted.
4. Evaluation Methodology
The evaluator is expected to develop a detailed methodology for this evaluation in the inception report, which needs to be approved by the Evaluation Management Team.
The methodology is expected to include review and analysis of key documents, key informant interviews (including those with the operational branches), volunteer interviews and interviews with people reached by the food security interventions. The evaluator can suggest other methodologies. Sampling as well as data collection methods and pace are to be decided by the evaluator, in consultation with the National Society and the Evaluation Management Team, and should be reflected on in the cover letter, and if selected, described in detail in the inception report.
• Desk review: Conducting a desk review of documentation, including the Appeal, Plan of Action, proposals, operation updates, revisions, pledge-based reports, M&E data, final reports to donors, and other reviews and lessons learned papers as well as secondary analysis of the appropriateness of surveys and reports conducted during the operation. Most of this work can be done from outside the countries.
• Key informant interviews: the evaluator need to interview a sufficient number of persons having been involved in the operation to have a solid overview of the different phases. This includes persons from IFRC and local authorities. A list of possible interviewees will be shared upon selection.
• Field visits and primary data collection (interviews with people reached and/or community leaders): Depending on feasibility due to COVID-19 related restrictions during the evaluation timeframe, the evaluator should aim to assess the impact and/or to validate monitoring survey results, by interviewing a sufficient number of people in communities who received support through the response operation. If field visits are not possible, coordinate with country teams for remote interviewing options.
The Evaluation Management Team will provide support in developing an arrangement in which primary data collection with people reached and/or community leaders can be feasible, involving the National Society’s capacities if possible.
Evaluation Management Team
The Evaluation Management Team is composed of the IFRC PMER staff in the country office, the CRCS MEAL staff and the IFRC Livelihoods and Basic Needs Coordinator or another specialist to be confirmed.
5. Deliverables (or Outputs)
Inception report - The inception report should include the proposed methodologies, a data collection and reporting plan with identified deliverables, draft data collection tools such as interview guides, questionnaire, sampling method, a timeframe with firm dates for deliverables and travel (if applicable) and logistical arrangements for the evaluation.
Debriefing - A debriefing will be conducted with the IFRC country, cluster and regional teams after data collection. The debriefing is to update the progress and initial findings with recommendations of the case study.
Draft report - The consultant will produce a draft report (identifying key findings based on facts, conclusions, recommendations and lessons for the current and future operations) which will be reviewed by the IFRC operations team and the regional office teams. The consultant will be given the feedback after 10 working days to incorporate into the final report. The draft report will be also shared with the National Societies for validation.
Final report - A Final report highlighting key findings, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations will be submitted within 10 days of receiving the feedback from the draft report. Final evaluation report of no more than 40 pages (excluding executive summary and annexes such as copy of the ToR, cited resources, a list of those interviewed and any other relevant materials).
The findings and all products arising from this evaluation will be jointly owned by the National Society involved and IFRC. The evaluator 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. All case studies, anecdotes, any rough tool used and copies of participatory tools to be submitted to the IFRC teams to ensure scientific accountability and data protection of the evaluation.
6. Evaluation Quality & Ethical Standards
The evaluators 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 evaluation team should adhere to the evaluation standards and specific, applicable process outlined in the IFRC Framework for Evaluation.
The IFRC Evaluation Standards are:
Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.
Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner.
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.
Impartiality & Independence; Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
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.
Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.
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 and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity, and 7) universality.
7. Evaluator & Qualifications
The evaluator must have experience or significant knowledge of the humanitarian response mechanisms, specifically food security implementation programs.
The evaluator should meet the following requirements:
Required:
• 7-10 years of demonstrable experience in leading evaluations in humanitarian programmes responding to emergency and recovery programs
• Previous experience in coordination, design, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of humanitarian programmes
• Knowledge of activities generally conducted by humanitarian organizations in the sectors of food security among other sectors.
• Experience in participatory approaches to evaluations
• Excellent English and Spanish writing and presentation skills, with relevant writing samples of similar evaluation reports.
Desirable:
• Good understanding of the RC/RC Movement and types of humanitarian response.
• Field experience in the evaluation of humanitarian or development programs with prior experience of evaluating Red Cross programmes.
• It is preferred for the evaluator to have a good understanding of cash-based interventions.
How to apply:
Applications are to be submitted by the 23 of March 2021 to peru.limaregdelegation@ifrc.org stating in the subject line: Colombia Food Security Case Study.
The application should include:
Curriculum Vitae (CV)
Provide at least two samples of similar work (reports of previous studies, evaluations and reviews completed)
Technical proposal including
a. A 1,500-word (maximum) proposal indicating the consultant’s understanding of the ToRs and the products of this case study.
b. A detailed budget to undertake the work
Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.
For any queries regarding these terms of reference, please contact:
Andres Felipe Gómez, oficial de PMER- Colombia, andresfelipe.gomez@ifrc.org