COMMUNITIES IN. Background: (NCDM). Project areas Battambang, DM law; Conducting urban. other. Scale

Transcription

1 BUILDING DISASTER RESILIENT COMMUNITIES IN CAMBODIA III (BDRC III) PROJECT FINAL EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE Background: Natural disasters devastate lives and livelihoods. Cambodia is regularly exposed to a variety of natural hazards, most commonly: tropical storms, floods, droughts and pest infestation. All of these hazards are likely to be aggravated by the foreseen impacts of Climate Change and man-made activities. ActionAid Cambodia (AAC) leads a consortium with DanChurchAid (DCA) and People in Need (PIN). The Consortium received funding from ECHO (European Civil Protection and Humanitariann Aid Operations) under DIPECHO X to implement the Building Disaster Resilient Communities in Cambodia III project. An important stakeholder in the implementation of project activities and coordination with sub-national DM institutions is the Cambodia National Committee for Disaster Management (NCDM). Project areas in Cambodia are: Kampot (ActionAid), Kampong Speu (DCA), Phnom Penh (AAC & PIN), Battambang, Siam Reap and Kampong Chhnang (PIN). The project targets more than 153,000 individuals and is implemented from 1 April 2016 until 30 September Major project activities (not exhaustive): Support to National Committee of Disaster Management (NCDM) for implementation of the 2015 DM law; Support implementation of NAP DRR / conduct NAP DRRR mid-term review and adapt Sendai priorities; Organize regional urban resilience conference; Joint Action Group (JAG) support including evolution and implementation of advocacy strategy; developed under DIPECHO IX aimed at government institutions; Targeted Capacity Building of PCDM / DCDM including urban municipalities on CBDRR and HVCA etc.; Promotion of gender sensitivity and women s leadership in DRR and working with gender champions; Drought Monitoring and development of drought information hub in Kg Speu ncluding drought management trainings; Development of Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans ( EPRP s); Conducting urban disaster simulation desk top exercises with relevant stakeholders in Kampot; Conduct Hazard Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments, development of DRR plans and Integration of DRRR plans into Commune Development and Investment Plans (CDPs / CIPs); Assessment of past successes, replication and scale up of Drought Resistant Agricultural Techniques (DRAT); Creation community level demand for DRR through community forums, radio/tv PSAs and other awareness campaigns materials; Scale up of mobile phone based early warning system (EWS 1294) across four target provinces in cooperation with N/PCDM; Conducting urban DRR days in 13 schools and development school EPRPs;

2 Purpose and objectives of the final evaluation: The final evaluation shall address the following key ECHO evaluation criteria: EVALUATION CRITERIA KEY QUESTIONS Relevance and appropriateness Effectiveness Impact To what extent does the project address the underlying problems with regard to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Disaster Management (DM) in Cambodia in general and in the target areas in particular? Were activities tailored to the local needs of target beneficiaries and local authorities? Do target beneficiaries take ownership of the project outcomes, e.g. pursuing DRR plans, EPRPs, maintenance of structural mitigation measures, running of drought information hub and drought data collection, follow action plans of women / gender DRR champions etc.? Did the project achieve all of its intended objectives? What are the positive outcomes of the project and do they live up to the description in the project document? What components of BDRC III have been most/least effective and what can be done to improve future programs? Do the results achieved justify the costs, and were the costs reasonable? To what extent has the project s advocacy and demand creation component been effective in achieving an impact? How effective were the project s approaches in the achievement of its objectives and results? Which components require modification? How well has the consortium learned from each other and complemented each other during the project? To what extent was the project able to apply recommendations of the Sendai WCDRR? Are target communities more resilient to both natural and climate-related disasters as a result of the project? How successful has the project been in improving DRRR / DM capacities for the targeted beneficiaries? Have overall resilience capacities improved, in particular: o Economicc bounce back capacities e.g. through improved drought / flood early warning, drought resistant agricultural techniques etc.? o To what extent do communities and local and provincial authorities feel better prepared to cope with potential shocks? Did the project have any unforeseen harmful impact? What are the chances that recurrent costs and future expenditures will be covered by beneficiaries / authorities e.g.: o Costs of mitigation measures o Cost for continued HVCA assessments o Costs of continued updating of EPRPs and DRR plans o Operation and upkeepp of the Early Warning System EWS 1294 and Drought Information Hub

3 EVALUATION CRITERIA KEY QUESTIONS Coveragee Connectedness Coherence Efficiency Has the project reached the population groups that are most at risk in the project area? How successful has been the piloted urban DRR component Has the project realistically reached its set beneficiary numbers? Were activities carried out in a context that takes longer-term and interconnected problems into account? Were synergies with related activities or actors sufficiently taken into account? Are the applied DRR/DM strategies and interventions harmonized with other sectors? How are they aligned to existing national policies? To what extent do project activities contribute to the achievement of ECHO s and other donors development policy objectives without contradiction? How well has the consortium contributed to coordination and learning of the Joint Action Group (JAG) and Humanitarian Responsee Forum (HRF)? Did the proposal include an adequate analysis of shocks, stresses and vulnerabilities? Were things done in the best way possible, including financial and human resources management? Did the consortium coordinate sufficiently and avoid duplication? How effective was the consortium s internal coordination mechanism? Were resources used efficiently or could the same results have been achieved with less? Cross cutting issues: Gender: To what extent have gender activities achieved their described impact? Are women and girls more empowered as a result of the project and what are the chances thatt they can maintain increased involvement in DRR activities? Were all potentially vulnerable groups sufficiently consulted and included in project implementation? Sustainabilit ty and environmental issues: What are the chances of sustaining project results e.g. HVCAs, DRR plans, EPRPs, Community Based DRR modules, etc.? Make reference to sustainability at the different levels, local population, authorities and local implementing partners. Were critical environmental issues related to DRR/DM sufficiently addressed? Methodology y: The applied methodology for meetings and field interviews shall be described by the consultant in his/her proposal. All methodologies shall be participatory and involve all relevant stakeholders. Scope of work: Desk review of relevant project documentationn including funding proposal and log-frame and admin) Consult with individual consortium partners Conduct individual and group discussions with project staff (operational Discuss with local implementing partners and local DM institutions

4 Conduct field visits min. to the 3 main project target provinces (Kampong Speu, Kampot and Phnom Penh; Battambang, Kampong Chhnang or Siam Reap optional) and hold discussions with stakeholders and beneficiaries (e.g. through Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) Ensure that women s voices are sufficiently heard e.g. by splitting KIIs and FGDs into gender groups Analyse project monitoring tools, training tools, etc. Draft and final evaluation report Evaluation phases and deliverables: The evaluation process will be carried out in five phases: an inception phase, a desk phase, a field phase, a synthesis phase and finally a dissemination phase. The following deliverables are to be submitted: a. Final work plan including personss consulted. b. Description of methodologies used. c. Survey questionnairee and/or FGD and KII guiding questions. d. Draft evaluation report 1 week before the de-briefing work-shop. The draft evaluation report shall be open to comments by the consortium members within 4 days. e. Debriefing: The consultant shall debrief the DIPECHO consortium members and implementing partners on findings, conclusions and recommendations e.g. through a meeting of workshop. Detailed final report shall be submitted latest one week after the debriefing. The final report shall contain: i. Table of contents ii. Executive summary (3 pages max.) iii. Introduction iv. Objectives of the evaluation v. Methodology vi. Description of how the final evaluation was conducted vii. Findings referring to key evaluation questions viii. Budget utilization ix. Sustainability x. Conclusions xi. Recommendations xii. Annexes The final report must be concise and to the point and contain no more than 50 pages excluding annexes. The report shall be submitted in 3 printed colour hardcopies and soft copy versions (CD, USB flash drive) of the full report including annexes. Qualification ns of the consultant: The consultant(s) team leader must have a relevant qualification and a minimum of three years proven experience with similar assignments, preferably in the region. Well founded knowledgee in Disaster Risk Reduction, Disaster Management and Disaster Response concepts is a pre-condition. Proficiency in English for the team leader is a pre-condition, one native Khmer speaker. Key selection criteria: knowledge of Khmer language an asset. The consultant team must have at least Inquiring and openness to new and innovative ideas; Inter-personal and analytical skills; Ability to interact with diverse groups as local authorities, implementing partner agency staff and the affected population with an extraordinary level of diplomacy and tact; Demonstrable interviewing skills, the willingness and ability to listen, the ability to foster discussion among participating beneficiary groups, social organisation; Keen observation skills and sensee of curiosity; Thoroughness; Detachment; Ability to think systematically and rigorously; Strong writing, numeric and accounting skills;

5 Demonstrated familiarity with the day-to-day operations of DRR programmes; Familiarity with the political context; Consultant proposal: The consultant s proposal shall contain the following: a. Understanding of the assignment; b. Description of methodologies applied; c. Proposed work plan / schedule; d. Curriculum Vitae (CV) of the lead consultant(s) and each team member; e. References and contacts of minimum three professional referees; f. Financial proposal; The financial proposal shall contain: I. Daily rate including all per diems, taxes 1, insurances and other related cost; II. International travel costs; III. Translation costs; IV. Printing and communication costs. Note: Local travel and accommodation cost in Cambodia will be covered by the consortium; Execution of the evaluation and deadline for submission of the consultant s proposal: The evaluation shall be conducted between October and November The consultant s proposal shall be submitted by to ActionAid Cambodia no later than 06 August 2017, 17:00 hrs. Cambodia time. cambodia.job@actionaid.org Reference/su ubject line: Final Evaluation DIPECHO Contact: For further clarifications, please refer to ActionAid DRR Consortium Coordinator Mr Harry Guelker. harald.guelker@actionaid.org 1 Depending on the tax status of the consultantt firm, AAC will deduct the applicable tax rate and transfer it to the Cambodian tax authorities