Country: Lao People's Democratic Republic (the)
Closing date: 27 Oct 2015
1.PROJECT SUMMARY
Title of the Project: Scaling up CBDRR in Lao PDR
Duration: 01 May 2014 to 31st December 2015 (19 months)
Funded by European Commission - Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection - ECHO
Implemented by Consortium Implementing partners:
Lao Red Cross/ French Red Cross
CARE
OXFAM
Save the Children International
Focus Areas: 4 Provinces and 11 Districts
Vientiane Province (Kasy, Mad, Feuang)
Bolikhamxai Province (Bolikanh, Vienghtong, Khamkerd)
Khamouane Province (Mahaxay, Xebongfai)
Xekong Province (Kaleum, Lamarm, Dakcheung)
Specific Objective: Strengthening coordination mechanisms and disaster risk reduction capacities at national and local level to increase the resilience of vulnerable communities.
ResultsResult 1: A multi-stakeholders platform is set up to enhance coordination, joint advocacy and harmonized implementation of DRR activities.
Result 2: Capacities of schools, villages, and districts to reduce risks and respond to disasters are strengthened
Result 3: Awareness on disaster risk reduction is increased to build a culture of safety and resilience at local and national level
Result 4: DRR is mainstreamed in local sustainable development planning
2.BACKGROUND
Since 1st May 2014 with financial support of European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department (ECHO) a consortium of agencies; Care, Oxfam, Save the Children, Lao Red Cross and French Red Cross; has been implementing the project titled ‘*Scaling up CBDRR in Lao PDR’.* The project period was 18 months originally and expected to conclude by 30th November 2015. A no-cost extension of 1 month has been approved by ECHO, extending the implementation period till 31st December 2015. The project covers 4 Provinces and 11 Districts. The Department of Disaster Management and Climate Change (DDMCC) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) are key strategic partners at national and local levels. Additional partnerships have been established withorganizations such as UNISDR, Handicap International, the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC), and the Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) and civil society organizations in order to enhance the coordination and consistency of DRR interventions in the country and through the support to the development of a National Platform for DRR.
3.OBJECTIVE OF THE EVALUATION
The specific objectiveof the evaluation is to review progress towards the project’s objectives and results, assess the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of implementation, identify strengths and weaknesses in project design and implementation, and provide recommendations on design modifications and specific actions that would increase the effectiveness, impact and sustainability of future similar initiatives. Each criterion is translated into specific questions that will reflect on the quality of the project as well as the added value of its consortium, thus optimizing the focus and utility of the evaluation.
- Measure the effectiveness– did the Program achieve the objectives and meet beneficiaries’ expectations and needs;
- Measure the relevanceof the action at districts and national level – did the program address the identified needs correctly and is it in line with recommendations of the HFA and national initiatives in disaster risk reduction;
- Measure the replicabilityof the action - can the action be replicated by other actors and by Government stakeholders in other parts of the country without significant changes in the method, investment and materials employedor is there evidence that communities themselves are replicating certain methodologies ;
- Impact: Positive and negative impact, intended or unintended long-term result produced by the project. Although too early to assess, the evaluation will propose preliminary conclusions on this criteria;
- Evaluate the sustainability and efficiencyof the program – The continuation of benefits from communities, schools and community after the programed has been completed. Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether an activity or an impact is likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn ; Efficiency is concerned with the achievement of the objectives, the timeframe and the cost efficient of the activities implemented in the project.
- Identify the gaps, the good practices and lessons learntwhich can be used to improve and strengthen risk reduction initiatives through DIPECHO programs in Laos and other initiatives; suggest reasons for particular successes and failures if any.
- Issue recommendationsfor strengthening the scope of disaster risk reduction initiatives through the DIPECHO program in Laos and other initiatives, and issue recommendation on key elements to replicate, highlight or emphasis to different DRR stakeholders, including the government, the implementing agencies and the donor, in a case of future DIPECHO phase.
One special point of attention should be brought on coordination and management structure of the consortium.
In particular, the (team of) consultant will assess all these dimensions detailed in Annex 1 (please note the list is not exhaustive).
The cross cutting thematic need to be considered in the evaluation such as:
Gender/Disability Equity: The extent to which gender/disability equity issues are integrated throughout the project cycle management in line with gender markers of ECHO and Handicap International guidelines.
Advocacy: The extent to which the good practice of the project are used by DDMCC to influence change at local and national level, especially with regards to DRR
Capacity Building: The extent to which capacity building of the DDMCC, Moes at all level and targeted communities is done and their positive and negative effects.
4.EXPECTED RESULTS
§ An assessment of project results and approaches is carried out taking into account the contexts and logic of intervention of project.
§ Strengths and weaknesses of the project methodology, implementation and monitoring procedures are identified and analyzed, with a view to increase impact and sustainability in future projects.
§ The replication strategy and implementation status at local and national levels are assessed and analyzed against technical, financial, operational capacities of DRR stakeholders especially government.
§ More specifically, practical recommendations are formulated to optimize the methodology, tools and approaches used by the project to 1) accompany the replication of inclusive CBDRR common model by DRR stakeholders from local to national level; 2) effectively support the development of a functioning national platform for DRR; 3) ensuring that DRR models are gender/age sensitive and more efficiently linked to protection and development of livelihoods; 4) integrate school and community based DRR in their capacity to better mitigate, prepare for and respond to disasters they are prone to; 5) to address some key elements to replicate, highlight or emphasis in a case of future DIPECHO phase.
5.METHODOLOGY
The evaluation will be carried out over four periods:
- Briefing
- Review of data
- Field visits
- Reporting submission
The process will be undertaken in line with the local context and will encourage active participation of people in selected respective communities where the Scaling up CBDRR in Lao PDR project is implemented. It will also consider a gender sensitive ways in its approaches.
The Evaluator will work in close coordination with the DIPECHO Consortium project teams.
The evaluator shall propose a participatory evaluation methodology, including tools and work-plan, addressing main project stakeholders as well as beneficiaries and their families. Activities are expected to include:
§ Developing a detailed evaluation work plan and evaluation methodology (inception report) which will be shared and agreed upon with FRC before beginning of the actual work.
§ A briefing will be held at the French Red Cross Headquarter and/or at the Delegation in Lao PDR during which the information and documents necessary for the mission will be provided.
§ Review existing project documentation (project proposal, donor report, monitoring tools, agreements, country strategies website information, work-packages, cases study, policy brief, etc.)
§ Participating in the initial briefings with FRC/LRC and Consortium Members to ensure that the evaluation team is clear on the expectations of this evaluation.
§ Developing evaluation tools and of the action plan for the field visits which will be shared with FRC for discussion and agreed upon by the two parties before the field work.
§ Conducting field visits and individual and group discussions with community members including vulnerable group’s representatives, government and non-government DRR stakeholders from local to national level including a cross section of all hierarchical layers and consortium partners.
§ Present to FRC and consortium members the key findings and allow the team opportunities to give feedback and agree on action points, lessons and recommendations.
§ Submit draft report to FRC and Consortium for review, comments and inputs which will be taken into consideration before submission of the final report.
Project documentation and data will be made available by FRC to the evaluator(s) in order to meet the evaluation objectives. The consortium will support the consultant in organizing the field visits as per the action plan developed by the consultant.
The evaluator(s) will liaise with FRC throughout the process, provide regular updates and seek input and advice where necessary.
6. DELIVERABLES
§ Inception Report including key interview questions, proposed methodology, stakeholder analysis and detailed work plan (including any additional interview tools, adjustments to existing tools, etc.);
§ PowerPoint presentation of preliminary findings to key staff by the evaluators. A database / transcript including all information gathered/analyzed during the evaluation;
§ Final report – The final report will contain a short executive summary (no more than 5 pages) and a main body of the report (no more than 20 pages excluding annexes) covering the background of the intervention evaluated, a description of the evaluation methods and limitations, findings (to be presented by evaluation criteria), conclusions, lessons learned, clear recommendations. Recommendations should outline recommendations that the program staff and the reviewer(s) have in common or different views based on the workshop to discuss the findings. The report should also contain appropriate appendices, including a copy of the ToR, cited resources or bibliography, a list of those interviewed and any other relevant materials (e.g., tools). The final report will be submitted 2 weeks after receipt of the consolidated feedback from the Evaluation Management Team;
§ A PowerPoint Presentation of the main findings and recommendations to support the sharing workshop to the consortium and main stakeholders;
§ An inventory of all background materials reviewed during the evaluation.
7. Role of the evaluator/ functional link manager
The French Red Cross attaches a great importance to the appraisal/evaluation of its humanitarian activities, firstly because of the important financial amounts involved and secondly because of its constant concern to improve the effectiveness and impact of its international operations and the way the funds granted to those operations is used.
The evaluator must be able of demonstrating common sense and independence in its judgment during the mission, whenever he is on the field or during the redaction of the report.
The evaluator must be able to produce a direct and accurate answer to each point of the terms of reference avoiding a theoretical or academic language.
The evaluator will work in close cooperation with the following people from the FRC who is leading the process:
- The FRC DRR Consortium Coordinator;
- The Head of the French Red Cross Delegation in Lao PDR;
During the field visits, the evaluator will be welcomed and accompanied by the project team of consortium partners in their respective area.
8. PROFILE OF THE (TEAM OF) CONSULTANT
Required
§ Relevant educational background in Natural Disaster Risks, Geography, Environment and on monitoring evaluation.
§ Demonstrated experience (almost 5 years ) in project evaluation and related methodologies in the Asian context, experience in Laos would be a plus
- Proven knowledge and experience in DRR programs
- Experience of conducting evaluations for similar donors, with ECHO as a strong advantage experience in project setup in consortium would be a plus
- Familiar with DIPECHO strategy and Action Plan
- Fully acquainted with results-based management orientation and practices
· Demonstrated experience in quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis
§ Strong analytical skills, and report writing skills
§ Excellent English oral/writing skills
§ Availability to travel in all intervention areas as required
§ Ability to work within a multi-disciplinary team and a multicultural context.
§ Good knowledge of gender issues
§ Experience in inclusion of vulnerable groups, such as women, children, persons with disabilities, related work in developing countries (including technical guidance or project/program management)
Desired
§ Understanding on the country context on community based disaster risk management
§ Knowledge of Lao language would be an asset
9. TIMEFRAME
The total duration of the evaluation should not be more than thirty (30) days, including report writing. Final presentation shared during a workshop in December 2015 and performed within December 2015/January 2016 – with the evaluation report finalized by the 4th January 2016.
The evaluation in the 4 provinces will be necessary (Vientiane Province, Bolikhamxai Province, Khamouane Province and Sekong Province), and taking into account the following timeline:
- The presentation of field visit and data collection will start from the 3rd week of November until the 2nd week of December with the following activities:
1.Meeting with coordinator consortium + other consortium members + reading documents (3 days – W3 of November)
2.Preparation of field visits (3days – W3 of November)
3.Field visit in 4 provinces + transport (12 days – W4 of November to W2 of December)
- Feedback + Report writing from the 3rd week of November 2015 to the 1st week of January 2016.
4.Meeting with coordinator consortium + presentation of the draftreport (1day – W2 of December)
5.Meeting with other DRR stakeholders involved in the project (1 day – W2 of December)
6.Meeting with all consortium members – PWP presentation (1 day – W3 of December)
7.Report writing – share draft report
8.Reception final report (the 1st week of January)
10.DISCLAIMER AND OWNERSHIP OF DATA
The final report will bear following mention “The report has been produced at the request of CARE, Oxfam, Save the Children, and Lao Red Cross/ French Red Cross and financed by the European Commission (ECHO). The comments contained herein reflect the opinions of the evaluator only”.
Ownership of the data remains with Consortium Partners and ECHO. The Evaluator cannot use the report, as well as information or data collected during the evaluation, without prior written approval of all concerned parties.
ANNEX 1: Detailed of specific objectives of the evaluation
A- Effectiveness – Achievement of purpose
For each of the 4 results the evaluators will determine if the consortium reached stated targets and identify what were the main gaps.
§ The extent, to which the project’s outcomes (immediate and intermediate outcomes) were achieved taking into account their relative importance
§ Has the project employed creative/innovative approaches to meet its expected results?
Result 1: A multi-stakeholders platform is set up to enhance coordination, joint advocacy and harmonized implementation of DRR activities.
§ Has the project contributed toward the framework of national DRR strategy through the implementation of National platform for DRR and CCA?
§ How was the implication of DDMCC and other ministries on this process? How much did this support contribute to impacting policy or practice of DRM stakeholders at national level (provincial/district/community)?
§ How effective is the coordination and communication between the DRR stakeholders in order to avoid the overlap in the DRR activities?
§ Whether prior consultations were undertaken with relevant people on the spot, i.e. national and local authorities, intended beneficiaries (including vulnerable women, men, persons with disabilities, children and elderly) or other donors and aid organizations in the development of work-packages (the latter being particularly important to ensure complementarities and to avoid overlap);
§ How was the harmonization of tools and the endorsement mechanism National level? What were the opportunities and the constraints identified?
Result 2: Capacities of schools, villages, and districts to reduce risks and respond to disasters are strengthened
§ Are community volunteers (VDPUs), districts focal points, disaster management focal points, teachers and students, better able to respond in case of disaster? Have they changed their practice?
§ How was the disaster management training approach in order to develop relevant knowledge and skills within stakeholders? Have the Disaster Action Plan for DRR been well integrated and appropriated by DRR stakeholders at local level?
§ Have the simulation exercise methodology been well integrated and appropriated by DRR stakeholders at local and provincial level?
§ How well, gender approach and vulnerable women, men, persons with disabilities, children and elderly have been included and had decision making power, and their needs and voices taken into consideration?
§ How effective is the coordination between community and school based committees?
Result 3: Awareness on disaster risk reduction is increased to build a culture of safety and resilience at local and national level
§ Has the project increase knowledge and preparedness of people (including vulnerable women, men, persons with disabilities, children and elderly) at local level?
§ Has the project increase knowledge and preparedness to build a culture of safety and resilience at national level?
§ Has the common awareness campaign followed by all consortium partners? Is additional harmonization and standardization necessary to ensure better culture of safety and resilience to all communities?
§ What were the influencing factors of success and failure to improve resilience at community level?
Result 4: DRR is mainstreamed in local sustainable development planning
§ How was the synergies developed in collaboration with FAO DIPECHO’ project?
§ How was the involvement of communities (including vulnerable women, men, persons with disabilities, children and elderly) in the development of disaster action plan?
§ How did PAFO/DAFO engaged in the intervention of livelihood?
§ How effective have the interventions of the livelihoods support fund been?
B– Relevance – Appropriateness of the project objectives to the problems expected to be addressed
§ To what extent is the project approach and DRR intervention relevant to policies/plans?
o At National level: DRR National Platform; all work packages; etc.
o At Provincial level: capacity building, trainings,
o At district and village level: capacity building, DRR action plans, mitigation measures, etc.
§ Are the methodology and implementation strategy relevant to local context especially: community based, inclusive of vulnerable groups – gender sensitive, inclusiveness- , integrated school and community, livelihood approaches?
§ Is the inclusive CBDRR common model on line with the international and national DRR framework? How this approach fits or not with the national DRR framework?
C- Efficiency – Projects results have been achieved at reasonable costs
§ To what extent the expected objectives were achieved / results in a timely and cost effective manner?
§ To what extent, the resources were used efficiently and the human resources appropriate to expected goals?
§ Where adjustments made in response to changing context needs?
- Does the programme or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
- Does the objectives of the project were achieved on time?
§ How costs efficient were the approaches used (such as national platform for DRR, community based, inclusive of vulnerable groups, integrated school and community, trainings)?
§ Does the DRR project have the appropriate capacity to implement the activities?
§ What was added value and constraints of a consortium in supporting activities? And comparative advantage vis-à-vis other agencies? To what extent does the consortium approach offers a lever in scaling up CBDRR in the specific context of Laos
§ If the project has been implemented efficiently to achieve the stated objects of the program?
D- Sustainability and replication – Likely continuation of achieved results
§ Ownership of achievements, e.g. how far all districts and community stakeholders (women, men, persons with disabilities, children and elderly) were consulted on the objectives from the outset, and whether they agreed with them and remained in agreement throughout the duration of the project;
§ What was the level of support and degree of commitment from governmental institutions, the public and civil society organization?
§ To what extend the DRR platform at National level is sustainable?
§ What are the key factors for the sustainability of any replicated activities and what are the measures to developing in order to ensure the utilization of all work packages developed during the project?
§ Financial sustainability, e.g. whether the products or services provided were affordable for the intended beneficiaries (including vulnerable women, men, persons with disabilities, children and elderly) and remained so after the funding ended; whether funds were available to cover all costs (including recurrent, operating and maintenance costs) and continue to be so after the funding ended;
§ Wherever relevant cross-cutting issues such as gender, disability, environmental impact, livelihood, etc. mainstreamed?
§ What organizational learning mechanisms are in place to support learning lessons from DRR Project?
§ What good practices and lessons have been identified and can be shared among stakeholders and beneficiaries?
§ To what extent are the changes resulting from the DRR project, sustainable at village level?
o Trainings at village level and VDPU creation, including VDPU kit distributions: will the community continue in these functions due to an increase or change in their capacity?
o Mitigation measures: are they enhancing DRR capacity in the communities, in particular women and vulnerable people?
§ Whether the action is adapted to the socio-cultural context and can be applied in other locations using local resources and local expertise?
E- Impact – looks at the wider effects of the action
- What consequence has the implementation of National Platform for DRR in Lao PDR? Has the government take more responsibility in his role?
- Whether the project directly contributed to saving lives/reducing risks?
- What consequence has the development of work package on specific thematic on the policy or practice of DRM stakeholders at national and local level?
- Has community led accountability improved through the project?
- Are vulnerable women, men, persons with disabilities, children and elderly more included into DRM? To what extend vulnerable groups are effectively better taken into account in DRM local plan? Has their level of participation into community/household activities in general improved?
- Identify and highlight any negative impact
- What are the capacity gaps/ strengths identified at national level?
- What are the capacity gaps/ strengths identified at provincial and local level?
F- The good practicesidentified by the evaluation team are actions that have demonstrated all of the above mentioned criteria (efficiency, relevancy, replicability, impact and sustainability). This may also include good practices in project management and project processes.
G- Coordination – Collaboration between the members and management of the Consortium
- How well did the lead of the consortium acted as a focal point to set-up and coordinate work?
- How well the technical coordination ensured orientation and effective implementation of the Project?
- How effective were the ways of work mechanism within the Consortium?
- How efficient was the collaboration and coordination with other stakeholders from local to national DRR government stakeholders, DRR stakeholders (CDE, HI, ADPC, UNISDR, etc.) civil society, etc.?
- What is the added-value and advantages of this consortium?
- What are the constraints/limits of this consortium?
- Was it fit for purpose?
- What were the barriers/ positives of the structure itself did it function as intended
Evaluation tools should be clearly presented and addressed gender and marginalized group issues. Such as separated FGDs for males and females should be in place in order to get women’s voice heard.
How to apply:
If you are interested in carrying out this evaluation, please send a Curriculum Vitae and a tender including the following elements:
- Evaluation proposal (3 pages maximum) including the methodology proposed to comply with the requirements of the evaluation.
- Detailed calendar of the evaluation (based on the work plan included in the ToR).
- Full budget presenting the costs for the evaluation: consultant allowance transport (international) and communication costs, etc., it is being understood that the FRC shall not organize the matters as accommodation and internal transports shall not take in charge theses expenses. The budget presented should not exceed 13000 euros.
- Date of availability of the consultant.
The Curriculum Vitae and the Tender have to be sent by email on the 27th October 2015at the latestto the following address:
- Jennifer PAUC,*DRR Consortium Coordinator:*coordodrr-lao.frc@croix-rouge.fr
- David BOISSON, *FRC Head of Delegation to Lao PDR:*hod-lao.frc@croix-rouge.fr