1. Background and context
Forecast-based Financing (FbF) is an innovative approach that enables the automatic release of funds ahead of a hazard’s impact based on risk analysis and forecast. In May 2018, the IFRC launched the first global funding mechanism designed to fund forecast-based action as part of the IFRC’s Disaster Relief Emergency Fund (DREF), representing a critical turning point in making early action possible. The Forecast-based Action (FbA) by the DREF finances Early Action Protocols (EAP) developed by National Societies which have been approved by the validation committee. Financial allocations are made automatically by FbA by the DREF when a pre-agreed forecast trigger is met that indicates the potential for severe impacts on the most vulnerable population.
The Bangladesh Red Crescent Society (BDRCS) adopted the FbF mechanism and developed Early Action Protocols (EAP) for floods and cyclones to help vulnerable communities/households to reduce the anticipated hazard impacts, based on credible forecast information and in-depth risk analysis. The EAP for cyclone was activated on 18 May 2020 for cyclone Amphan and early actions were implemented by BDRCS, with Cyclone Preparedness Programme (CPP), reaching around 36,500 beneficiaries in 192 shelters under 10 districts with early actions. The EAPs early actions included distribution of dry food, safe drinking water, ORS, as well as masks, hand sanitizer and soap. The EAP for floods was activated on 25 June 2020. BDRCS reached 3,789 households in 10 Unions under 3 districts with cash support for early actions. BDRCS also supported 70 households to evacuate with their moveable assets.
2. Objectives, scope and main questions of the evaluation
The purpose of this TOR is to engage a consultant experienced in qualitative data analysis to carry out the assessment of four main aspects of the EAP activation: the trigger environment, the coordination between different actors, the role of ex-ante funding, and the efficiency and effectiveness of EAP implementation, as described below. The consultant will also have access to a separate quantitative FbF community impact assessment that is being carried out under an overarching evaluation process and is expected to integrate its findings into this evaluation where appropriate.
2.1. Trigger environment
Because of the trigger’s multivariate nature (and also because of the trigger’s inclusion of both geophysical and socio-economic variables) they present unique challenges in evaluation. Criteria and questions to be covered by the evaluation:
2.1.1. Appropriateness
- Is there a difference between the severity of conditions that the Government of Bangladesh would consider a ‘disaster’ and the level of impact that the FbF system tries to anticipate? (The answer to this should partly inform the extent to which the trigger is aligned with national mandates)
2.1.2. Effectiveness
- According to the BDRCS District branches, local community groups and local government units that are involved in implementing the EAPs, what are the main challenges in using the current trigger model to initiate earlier action?
2.1.3. Sustainability
- Did the trigger development contribute to an institutionalised relationship between BDRCS and NHMS, specifically Bangladesh Meteorological Department (BMD) & Flood Forecasting and Warning Centre (FFWC)? If not, what are the barriers?
2.2. Coordination, implementation, financing, change of the humanitarian system
2.2.1. Coherence
- What was the role of the government during cyclone Amphan and the 2020 floods? How did this interplay with BDRCS’ early actions?
- How did early actions implemented by other organizations (e.g. WFP, CERF, local government units etc) differ from BDRCS? Were these actions coordinated, taking into account different lead times as well as response activities?
- During cyclone Amphan and the 2020 floods, did BDRCS target the most vulnerable? How did BDRCS’ targeting align with government registries? What could be improved to ensure gender and social inclusion are considered?
2.2.2. Appropriateness
- To what extent was the communication and collaboration between IFRC, BDRCS HQ and District Offices, and the local communities effective and appropriate to facilitate the rapid implementation of the EAP?
- To what extent are suitable M&E and learning mechanisms in place and used to assess and learn about the appropriateness and effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms, the choice of anticipatory actions and how they are implemented?
- What other anticipatory actions could be considered? How can BDRCS support this and the uptake with the government?
2.2.3. Effectiveness
- What were the enabling or hindering factors that facilitated or inhibited the efficient and effective performance of BDRCS during the activation? Relevant categories to assess include: planning, implementation management, human resources, logistics, communication, coordination, financing (addressed below).
- To what extent were financial resources released, received and processed in a timely and efficient manner? What role did financing play in facilitating or inhibiting efficient and effective anticipatory actions?
- How did COVID-19 affect the implementation of the EAP and what can be learned from this?
2.2.4. Sustainability
- To what extent does the FbF mechanism allow BDRCS to promote an institutional shift from reaction to anticipation that goes beyond the FbF project?
- To what extent does the FbF mechanism position BDRCS to influence government policy towards a more anticipatory legislation? (i.e. is there a space to integrate this work into social protection models and programming);
- Where does anticipatory action sit in the Government of Bangladesh and what are the opportunities to influence respective government policies (e.g. co-writing a government endorsed policy brief?)
3. Deliverables and indicative work schedule
The following schedule of work and deliverables gives an indication of the suggested approach and level of effort though the consultants may propose an alternative approach with justification:
3.1 Inception phase (4 days)
- Review country project documentation (EAP, M&E protocols, supporting documentation) - 2 days
- Preliminary, informational interviews with key project stakeholders (BDRCS FbF country team, IFRC team, PNS, etc) - 1 day
- Draft evaluation approach, work plan and data collection instruments; incorporation of feedback on instruments - 1 days
- Deliverable: Inception report
3.2 Main data collection phase (10 days)
- Remote interviews (phone, Skype, etc.) with BDRCS FbF country team, IFRC team (CD, APRD, HQ), PNS (GRC, SRC, AmCross), and key stakeholders/partners (UN), including government ministries
- Review and collation of secondary data
- Deliverables: Interview transcripts, other datasets if applicable
3.3 Analysis and report writing (8 days)
- Analysis of primary and secondary data according to agreed evaluation approach
- From the beneficiary survey, include findings that are appropriate to the outcomes of this study
- Presentation of initial findings to BDRCS, IFRC APRD and FbF country partners (IFRC CD, American RC, German RC, Swiss RC) and incorporation of feedback
- Drafting of main report (25 pages max.) based on initial feedback during presentation
- Deliverable: Draft evaluation report
3.4 Finalization and dissemination (3 days)
- Revision of final report to incorporate feedback
- Summary presentation
- Facilitation of half-day online workshop to present findings, discuss learnings, draw lessons
- Deliverables: Final evaluation report; summary presentation; data sets
Total days: 25
IFRC APRD, BDRCS and the FbF country partners (IFRC CD, American RC, German RC, Swiss RC) will provide comments on the inception report and the draft final report within 10 working days. The consultant will revise the inception and final report within 10 working days.
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 6,000 words) covering a description of the evaluation 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 or bibliography, a list of those interviewed, an overview/analysis of responses of members on the questions asked in the interviews and any other relevant materials. Details of the final report are outlined in the table below.
3.5 Suggested final report outline
Executive Summary
Summarises the overall findings of the review with key conclusions and not more than 10 key recommendations. Executive Summary must be specific to the evaluation and clearly outline the specific mechanism and funding evaluated.
Background
Outlines the overall mechanism objectives, aims, strategy and frameworks, targets, main stakeholders, institutional arrangements, and a brief context analysis that highlights the key achievements, challenges and issues.
Methodology
Outlines the overall approach used and the rationale on the approach used, the tools applied and the key assumptions. It will focus on consideration for appropriateness, effectiveness, coherence and sustainability in function of the internal and external issues.
Findings
Outlines the findings of the review in accordance with the skeleton of the review objectives
Conclusions
Outlines the main conclusions that have emerged from the findings.
Recommendations
Provides general overall recommendations.
4. Reporting, application and contractual arrangements
4.1. Reporting
The main client of this evaluation is IFRC & BDRCS. The consultant will report to the IFRC Regional Forecast-based Financing Coordinator for the day-to-day management of the evaluation. S/he will also facilitate contact with the country and assist in scheduling meetings and interviews with BDRCS, IFRC, PNS, and relevant stakeholders.
4.2. Contractual Arrangements
The Consultant 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 practices outlined in the IFRC Evaluation Framework accompanying this TOR.
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 technically 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 review/consultation 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: ww.ifrc.org/what/values/principles/index.asp
All products arising from this review/consultation will be owned by IFRC. The consultant 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/consultation results for private publication purposes.
5. Relevant literature, references
- Forecast-based Financing Manual: https://manual.forecast-based-financing.org/
- FbF M&E Guide (Climate Centre, 2018): https://goo.gl/eG7kw1
- Bangladesh Early Action Protocols.
- Household-level effects of providing forecast-based cash in anticipation of extreme weather events: Quasi-experimental evidence from humanitarian interventions in the 2017 floods in Bangladesh: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420918313608?via%3Dihub
Required qualifications of the consultant
- Graduate or advanced (MA or PhD) degree in a relevant social science discipline such as sociology, economics, social work, anthropology, or related disciplines.
- Minimum 5-8 years’ experience in evaluation, impact assessment, qualitative or quantitative research in the context of development assistance or humanitarian relief.
- Previous experience with Forecast-based Financing (FbF), Forecast-based Action (FbA), Early Warning Early Action (EWEA), Anticipatory Action or related DRR initiatives is an asset.
- Fluent in English communication and report writing skills. Bengali/Bangla skills are an asset.
- Demonstrated qualitative research articles are an asset.
- Understanding of RCRC Movement is an asset
How to apply:
Interested individuals may apply by submitting the following documents by email to raymond.zingg@ifrc.org by 20 April 23:59 Kuala Lumpur time:
A short technical proposal, no more than 2 pages in length, which outlines the consultant’s understanding of the TOR, suggested approach, work plan, and any modifications or foreseeable limitations/challenges and how these may be mitigated.
A list of the consultant’s previous relevant experience with similar assignments.
Two writing samples demonstrating the consultant’s original authoring skills in English.
A financial proposal which includes all professional fees and reimbursable expenses to carry out this evaluation. No payments will be made by the principal outside the agreed financial proposal. The principal will cover the costs of in-country travel during primary data collection and the final workshop logistics (venue, meals, refreshments, etc.).
Only complete applications will be considered. Application materials 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 as the selection panel does not have the capacity to respond to any requests for application feedback.