Mozambique: Evaluation Disaster Risk Management ECHO Project in Mozambique

1. BACKGROUND

As part of the 2016 ECHO Southern Africa and Indian Ocean Humanitarian Implementation Plan (HIP) with the objective to enhance resilience of the hazards-exposed communities, Mozambique Red Cross (MRC) in partnership with the Spanish Red Cross (SRC) is developing the project "*Consolidating and scaling-up disaster risk reduction best practices in Mozambique (central region)”.*

The intervention is addressing the major needs assessed through three main components:

• The improvement of disaster risk reduction measures for local communities supported by local DRM committees who will be capable to prepare the communities and response to disaster events at the same time that are able to propose reinforcement measures to local houses, reducing the number of people affected and in any case, allowing a faster recovery after disasters.

• The improvement of local capacities at government level in order to coordinate their efforts with all DRM stakeholders and define long term solutions to face disaster, enhancing the medium - long term planning in local district governments.

• The improvement of Mozambican Red Cross (MRC) capacities in order to assure its prompt reaction in case of emergencies and preparedness capacities for local communities within its network of volunteers and institutional assets.

  2. OBJECTIVES

  General objective:

  The objective of this evaluation is a) to analyze the current project with outcomes and indicators and b) to contribute to advancing the conversation and practice on the host families and host communities for programming purposes.**

  It’s expected that these recommendations of the evaluation are aligned and could be adopted by the Mozambican Shelter Cluster through for example Host Families Guidelines as well as Red Cross shelter oriented Interventions in the country.

Specific Objective:

1. Analyze objectively the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and the impact that project has had, as well as the sustainability of their actions.
2. Provide conclusions and recommendations based on those components of the project that will contribute to future initiatives form disaster risk. These recommendations will have an especial focus on Shelter and Hosting Families themes i) developing strategies – approach and practical steps and tools - to integrate host families and hosting communities into preparedness and response plans tailored to Mozambican context.

Two relevant studies Analysis of potential host families’ response after natural disaster in Mozambique (developed under DIPECHO III); Hosting Families Anthropologic Study (developed under DIPECHO IV) and other documentation such as Assisting host families and communities after crises and natural disasters – A step-by step guide (Danish Red Cross/ International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) should be considered. Linkage with the cash transfer preparedness has to be looked at. ii) proposing an advocacy plan to better approach the government to recognize host families and host communities’ needs and capacity to respond, as a shelter assistance option.al disaster in Mozambique

Analysis of potential host families’ response after natural disaster in Mozambique

Total cost of the project: 410.579,35 euros

• ECHO contribution: 350.000 euros
• SRC contribution: 60.579,35 euros

Area of intervention: Mozambique (Central Region):

• Zambezia: Namacurra and Maganja da Costa Districts.
• Tete: Mutarara District.
• Sofala: Manica District.

Project start date: 01/04/2016

Project duration: 18 months

Sectors: Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR); Disaster Preparedness (DP); Shelter and settlements.

Subsectors: Community and local level action; Information, communication and public awareness; Hazard, risk analysis and early warning; Contingency planning and preparedness for response; Institutional linkages and advocacy; Capacity building (DRC/DP); Camps and collective centers; Settlements.

Implementing partners: Spanish Red Cross (SRC) and Mozambique Red Cross (MRC).

3. QUESTIONS OF ASSESMENT

Taking into account the first objective of the evaluation, “**to analyze the current project** with outcomes and indicators”, it will answer the following questions:

1. Regarding the relevance:

2. Is the intervention relevant to the priorities and needs of the target population?

3. Another strategy should have been preferred to the implemented to better reflect these needs and priorities? Why is that?

4. Were the risks properly identified by the project? How appropriate were the strategies for addressing the risks identified?

5. Regarding the efficacy:

6. Did the project reached its specific objective and expected results?

7. Have there been other unintended effects?

8. Regarding the efficiency:

9. Has the project delivered the resources in a timely and appropriate manner?

10. How much the project used the local capacities to achieve the expected results?

11. Were the expected crisis modifier results/outputs appropriate and achieved within an appropriate time?

12. Was the risk addressed by the delivered resources used under the crisis modifier component?

13. Was the capacity of the CVM accordingly used to respond to the emergency? How could this capacity be strengthened?

14. Regarding the impacts:

15. To what extent the activities of the project had an impact on the specific problem of the project and its key beneficiaries? In the groups according to their gender and generational?

16. The needs of the beneficiaries of the problem were met? If not, why not?

17. Have we achieved a positive impact on the direct beneficiary population considered?

18. Regarding the sustainability:

19. Does the project have the support and commitment of local authorities and other stakeholders to, once improved their skills and leadership, ensuring the sustainability of the project?

20. To what extend the successful tools have been promoted to its institutionalization?

21. Has there been coherence of DRR frameworks at both national/district level (and global) during the implementation of the intervention?

22. The various capacities that Red Cross was meant to strengthen at INGC, were achieved?

23. As to the replication:

24. To what extend the project has achieved transference of tools and learning to women networks, older adult, youth, people with disabilities, local institutions, ECHO partners, among others.

25. Does the project have the necessary characteristics to be considered as replicable? How? Why is that? Give examples.

26. What are the necessary conditions in other places for the project to be replicated with success?

Regarding the second objective of the evaluation “**to contribute to advancing the conversation and practice on the host families and host communities for programming purposes”** the evaluation will answer the following questions:

• How can the inclusion of Hosting Families in Contingency Plans contribute to a better, faster and more appropriate Emergency Response?
• Will considering Hosting Families as a result for Emergency Response decrease the impact of Disasters in the country? Will their inclusion improve the quality and equality of the emergency response?
• Which would be the more efficient way for the Shelter Cluster, to advocate for a Hosting Families Government Strategy so they can be included in Contingency Plans?
• What actions should be taken by Red Cross in order to promote the use of cash transfer as a tool to contribute to the support delivered to Hosting Families/Communities in a Response Emergency situation?

* The differentiation of the context, Rural or Urban should be considered, since vulnerabilities and capacities differ from one to the other.

4. METHODOLICAL BASIS

To develop this assessment process should be used a participatory methodology that promotes reflection form each of the actors on the results achieved and lessons learned and recommendations that will have to improve future initiatives. In doing so, it must be defined beforehand with the project team the main instruments of information-gathering and analyses.

MRD-SRC propose to organize and finance a Hosting Families workshop where all partners involved can share their vision regarding hosting Families Strategies as well as contributions to the action plan to be delivered.

The assessment will focus its growth in the information provided by the districts themselves beneficiaries of the project, by the institutions involved in the implementation and the project team. The will also get support in documents and any documentary information and existing statistics, which will be input for evaluation.

These terms of references set out the minimum requirement; the bidder will have to detail in its offer the suggested methodology.

Once completed the field work, the consultant/evaluator or team will meet with the leaders of the project, in order to discuss the first impression of the evaluation. After this meeting, the group will deliver a first draft of repost in electronic version in a maximum of 12 calendar days from the field work.

SRC/MRC will submit their written comments on the first draft and its necessary will have a meeting to discuss the main points of the draft. After the comments, the consultant will submit a second version no later than 4 days after delivery of the documents.

The evaluation methodology must include:

The evaluation design, specifying the approach chosen to meet the objectives and questions of the evaluation expressed in terms of reference.

• To develop this assessment process should be used a participatory methodology that promotes reflection from each of the actors on the results achieved and lessons learned and recommendations that will have to improve future initiatives. The workshop is a very crucial tool to catch data and information to produce an action plan to help the Shelter Sector and specially the CVM to develop an action plan for advocate towards the objective to consider Hosting Families as a resourced to be introduced in National Contingency Plan.

• The instruments and tools to collect data and relevant information, including the variety of informants to be interviewed / respondents. The assessment team will use a variety of sources to receive information, will use a balance of information qualitative/quantitative and consult the different beneficiaries and local partners as well as compare Hosting Families approaches in other Countries Contingency Plans.

  In the process of evaluation will apply various methods and techniques for obtaining sufficient information, objective and quality on the part of local actors. The field visits, interviews, focus groups and analysis of information, will be development by the evaluation team.

  The assessment will focus its growth in the information provided by the districts themselves beneficiaries of the project, by the institutions involved in the implementation and the project team. They will also get support in the existing documentary information.

  The evaluation team will develop the work plan, indicating the time and resources allocate to each task.

  Final evaluation report will have the following structure:

• Front cover.

• Executive Summary (maximum of five pages).

• Summary description of the project and context (Introduction, basic data of the project, objectives of the assessment, methodology).

• Findings from the assessment.

• Lessons learned.

• Recommendations.

• Specific and very focused Shelter Recommendations with Action Plan and Strategy on Shelter Cluster / Hosting Families / Hosting Communities for Advocacy.

• Annexes (including a list of interviews, data collection instruments, key documents consulted, terms or reference, and others).

  Final evaluation report must be written in both Portuguese and English languages.

• EXPECTED RESULTS

• Objectives and results of the project evaluated, by tracking the following parameters: Efficiency (activities), Effectiveness (results), Impact (specific objective) and Sustainability (general objective).

• Lessons learned and recommended action plan - strategy identified for future initiatives of preparations.

• EXPECTED PRODUCT

• Methodology for conducting the defined assessment.

• Instruments designed and techniques designed for obtaining information.

• Preliminary report with interpretation and analysis of the results, according to the objectives described in the consultancy.

• Recommendations, Action Plan and Strategy on Shelter Cluster / Hosting Families-Communities Advocacy.

• Final report submitted in two (2) originals in paper and electronic version, including annexes.

• A digital copy in Word program, so support the handled documents, file, as well as the pictures of the process in JPG format.

• MAIN ACTIVITIES

• ADEQUANCY OF THE RESOURCES OF THE CONSULTING

  For the development of this consulting the contractor will ensure the following resources:

• Deliver on time project documentation that might be useful for the evaluation: ECHO 2016 Humanitarian Implementation Plan Southern Africa and Indian Ocean (HIP); Project document;

  Interim Report; ECHO Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA); Specific Agreement ECHO-SRC; Contingency Plans, Hosting Families Anthropologic Study (DIPECHO IV), Shelter Cluster ToR.

• Provide the necessary logistical support for the convening of the population.

• Logistics for the preparation meetings.

• Logistics for the meeting for the presentation of results at the end of the consultancy.

• REQUIRED PROFILE AND VALUATION CRITERIA

• University Degree.

• Demonstrable knowledge and experience on DRR.

• Proven experience in conducting similar studies and particularly in participatory research.

• Proven experience in proven evaluations.

• Good knowledge of the context and

• Good Speaking and writing Portuguese/English Language skills.

• Excellent capacity for analysis and writing.

• The bidders have to be entitled to submit legal invoice.

• The consultant must be completely unrelated to the project.

  Evaluation of proposals will be made on the basis of the following criteria:

• TERMS OF THE OFFER AND TERM OF DELIVERY

  The person or consultant team interested must send a written document of the technical proposal of the consultancy, attaching the CV. It must also include a financial offer considering all the fees and expenses incurred in carrying out this consultancy.

  Bids should be sent via e-mail with the signature to:

  Marla Dava: marladava06@gmail.com

  Chambal Boavida: boavida_chambal@yahoo.com.br

  Debora Rull: del.drj@cruzroja.es

  Elena Suero: del.esc@cruzroja.es

  Bids will be received until 12.00 p.m. on the 11^th of August 2017. Indicate in the subject “Proposal for Final External Evaluation of the project “Consolidating and scaling-up disaster risk reduction best practices in Mozambique”, attaching the documents mentioned above.

• PAYMENTS AND CONTRACT

  60% within the three days after signing the contract.

  40% against submission and approval of the final products.

  • The contract will be signed between the Evaluation team and CVM.

  • The bid / budget will be presented in Meticais.

  • The payment will be made to a Local – Mozambican account in Meticais.

  • Taxes and any other payment related to revenues shall be paid by the consulting.

  • Any other costs related to the study (additional human resources, travels expenses, stationery, printing, among others) shall be paid by the consulting.

  • Total Allocation to the consultancy, taxes included, around 815.000 Meticais (Eight Hundred Fifteen Thousand meticais)

• CONSULTING CALENDAR

  The expected duration of the consultancy is a maximum of 2 months from the signing of the contract with the consultant to the validation and final reproduction of the material.

Bids should be sent via e-mail with the signature to:

Marla Dava: marladava06@gmail.com

Chambal Boavida: boavida_chambal@yahoo.com.br

Debora Rull: del.drj@cruzroja.es

Elena Suero: del.esc@cruzroja.es

Bids will be received until 12.00 p.m. on the 11^th of August 2017. Indicate in the subject “Proposal for Final External Evaluation of the project “Consolidating and scaling-up disaster risk reduction best practices in Mozambique”, attaching the documents mentioned above.