Terms of Reference for Mid-Term Evaluation
of Emergency Appeal Operation
Bangladesh: Floods 2014
MDRBD014
1. Summary
1.1. Purpose: This Mid-Term Evaluation will assess the on-going IFRC & Bangladesh Red Crescent Society
(BDRCS) Floods 2014 Emergency Appeal operation and will recommend relevant follow up actions
appropriate to Bangladesh context. The review will focus on two phases:

To review the relief phase of the operation in the area of planning, beneficiary targeting,
coordination, and monitoring according to global standards1;

To review the operational strategy of the early recovery phase and the review of progress against
the revised EA ;
1.2. Commissioner: This Mid-Term Evaluation has been commissioned by the IFRC Asia Pacific Disaster
Management Unit (APDMU)
1.3. Audiences: This main audience of the evaluation will be BDRCS, IFRC Bangladesh delegation, APDMU,
SARD and partner national societies.
1.4. Duration of evaluation: approximately 21 days (with approx. 7 days in the field). After initial desktop
review and discussions at NHQ, visits to areas where both the emergency and the early recovery
activities have been carried out. The field work is to be followed by 7days to allow the evaluator team to
discuss findings and conclusions between field missions and to prepare a draft report before leaving the
country.
1.5. Timeframe: Tentatively starting from 1st week of March, 2015.
1.6. Location of evaluation: Bangladesh (Dhaka and operation areas: Bogra and Sirajganj districts. Relief
phase was implemented in all these four districts but recovery will be commissioned in only two of them.
1.7. Report to: The consultant will directly report to the Program Coordinator.
2. Background
Since mid-August, Bangladesh has seen several rounds of flooding. Heavy rains in the main river basins and upstream
catchments of India, along with continuous rainfall in northwest and north-eastern parts of Bangladesh have caused a
continuously worsening flooding situation in low-lying districts, particularly those clustered around the north-west
(Lalmonirhat, Kurigram, Nilphamari, Rangpur, Gaibandha, Bogra, Serajganj, Jamalpur, Sherpur). This was followed by
heavy rain induced flooding in Sunamganj, Sylhet and Netrokona in the North-east of the country and, later on, in
districts in the centre of the country (Munshiganj, Tangail, Faridpur, Manikganj, Rajbari). Since 19th of September, a
new spell of flooding has hit several districts in the country affecting 400,000 more people and increasing the sufferings
of the people already affected by floods in August. Flash floods triggered by heavy rain and water from upstream hill
areas across the border inundated vast areas in Bogra, Kurigram, Jamalpur, Netrokona, Gaibandha, Lalmonirhat,
Naogaon, Brahmanbaria and Mymensing leaving hundreds of thousands marooned, damaging houses, roads and
embankments. Farmers who had replanted Aman paddy after the water started receding have lost their crops for the
second time as more than 10,000 acres of crops were inundated.
As per government reports, more than half a million families (2.8 million people) are affected, with 57,000
families (275,000 people) displaced. The affected include more than 33,000 families (160,000 people) whose
1
Standards included: SPHERE, HAP, ALNAP, People in Aid
homes have been totally inundated or destroyed. An additional 235,000 houses are reported damaged. The
situation has been described as the worst since the so called ‘mega floods’ of 2007. 2
Districts in the north-west of the country have been most heavily impacted which triggered a Joint Needs
Assessment (JNA)3 covering 9 districts by members of the Humanitarian Coordination Task Team (HCTT) in
which IFRC and BDRCS actively participated. The JNA reported food, sanitation and livelihoods as the most
imminent needs in the early stage across the districts. However, after the receding of flood waters, the the recovery
needs are high. Food stocks of the households were damaged by flood waters and long term food security is a
major issue due to the impact on agriculture crop and loss of livelihoods opportunities. A large number of hand
tube-wells have been contaminated by flood waters creating a risk for water-borne diseases. Many latrines have
been washed away and inadequate sanitation facilities coupled with the lack of proper knowledge of hygiene
practice increases the vulnerability of the affected communities. Repairing of damaged houses is also a major
concern for most of the assessed unions.
In view of the needs, BDRCS has gone for a comprehensive response plan combining relief activities and early
recovery components. An emergency appeal was launched on a preliminary basis for CHF 2,206,628 to support
19,470 flood-affected families (97,350 people) over 12 months, focusing on food and relief item distributions;
health; water and sanitation, and hygiene promotion (WASH); emergency and recovery shelter assistance;
National Society capacity building; and disaster preparedness and risk reduction. The BDRCS, utilising its staff
and volunteers across the affected areas, has been actively engaged in response immediately after onset of disaster
and has continued with the emergency response for 3 months.
On completion of the relief phase, revisions are being made to the original Emergency Appeal Plan of Action
based on the recovery needs of the time and the available funding. The activities under the recovery phase is due
to commence in early January. The mid-term evaluation is intended to have a look at the status of the ongoing
operation and how it fits with the relief phase, review its progress and challenges and identify best practices for
future operations of similar context
3. Evaluation Purpose & Scope
Purpose: This Mid-Term Evaluation will assess the on-going IFRC & BDRCS Floods 2014 Emergency Appeal
operation and to recommend relevant follow up actions appropriate to Bangladesh context. The review will focus
on two phases:
-
Relief phase: To review the area of assessment & planning, beneficiary targeting, coordination, and
monitoring according to global standards to fit it for future operations
-
Early recovery phase: To review the operational strategy of the early recovery phase, to identify
progress and achievements as per indicators, To identify and understand the obstacles, constraints and
challenges and practical recommendations
Scope: The evaluation will look at the appropriateness, relevance, timeliness, efficiency, effectiveness and
accountability of the actions carried out in relief phase and review the operational strategies in terms of targeting,
planning and monitoring mechanism.
2
http://www.lcgbangladesh.org/HCTT/JNA%20materials%20update/2014%20Flood%20Assessment/0809_NW_Flooding_JN
A_FinalFINAL.pdf
3
http://www.lcgbangladesh.org/HCTT/JNA%20materials%20update/2014%20Flood%20Assessment/0809_NW_Flooding_JN
A_FinalFINAL.pdf
Page 2
4. Evaluation Objectives and Key Questions
Specific objectives and key questions to be answered in this Mid-Term Evaluation are listed below.
(Please note that these are guiding questions and the consultant is not limited to those below.)
Relief Phase
1. Appropriateness & relevance:
a.
How was the actions relevant to the findings of JNA 1?
b.
How did the assessment(s) link to planning?
2. Timeliness, efficiency & effectiveness :
a. To what extent have internal systems, structures and mechanisms affected the management and timely and
cost-effectiveness of the service delivery?
b. Was the action done in a timely manner? Was there any delay in delivering assistance? If yes, why? How
could the delivery of programs or assistance have been improved and what lessons are to be learnt for
future operations?
c. Was the IFRC/BDRCS operational structure, internal systems and processes well geared to deliver timely,
efficient and effective disaster response in an equitable manner, proportionate to need? How effectively
were the IFRC global response tools used? How effective were the systems to mobilize resources –
financial, human resources, communications/media, logistics etc.? How adequate is the mobilization of
human resources?
d. What levels of beneficiary consultation were involved during different stages of planning, implementation
and monitoring stages?
e. What was the internal & external coordination in place in each level and did BDRCS & IFRC actively took
part in it? Did BDRCS & IFRC share information and gather feedback with other stakeholders in a timely,
transparent and organized manner?
3. Accountability
a. Were reports submitted and recommendations followed up in a timely manner to management and relevant
stakeholders, including donors?
b. Were the planning and implementation of the relief activities designed and completed according to global
standards?
c. Were beneficiary feedback mechanism in place? If it was in place, how effective it was?
Early Recovery Phase
1. Operational Strategy
a. Does the operational strategy meet the need of the beneficiaries?
Page 3
b. Is the operational strategy relevant and realistic to the situation on the ground and the capacity (including
resources) of BDRCS/ IFRC? What revisions need to be made to the Plan of Action as outlined in the
Emergency Appeal?
c. Was the Operational Strategy done in a collaborative manner, with adequate consultation between BDRCS
& IFRC?
d. How has the funding flow of the emergency appeal influenced the early recovery planning? Was the
funding mechanism timely and appropriate to design an early recovery plan?
2. Cash transfer programming(CTP)
a. Is the CTP designed in line with IFRC global CTP guidelines? How does the flexibility apply to
Bangladesh context and how effective they are?
b. Has the CTP SOP (draft) that is in place been adhered to by BDRCS? Does BDRCS at all levels have
same level of understanding on the SOP & guidelines and does they apply their knowledge to ensure CTP
is done in an accountable and effective manner?
3. Beneficiary Communications (BenComs)
a. What measures have been planned to engage the beneficiaries in the recovery phase? How realistic are
they considering the funding situation and the timeframe?
b. How have the lessons learned in Cyclone Mahasen regarding BenComs and Complaint Response
Mechanism (CRM) been incorporated in the Floods operation?
c. Should there be any differences in BenComs strategy for flood and cyclone prone regions of Bangladesh?
Applicable to both phases
1. Coordination
a. How timely and effective is the coordination system within the IFRC (IFRC Secretariat and NS actors)?
How well is the structure functioning for both relief and recovery? Were the roles, responsibilities and
expectations at each level clear (Geneva, Zone, and country)?
b. How effectively has the IFRC coordinated with external actors, particularly the UN (the cluster system),
the Government, the military and the international and national humanitarian community?
c. How effective was the national coordination structure during the initial phase of the flood?
2. Risk mitigation
a. What are the risks anticipated and are there common understanding between BDRCS, IFRC and other key
stakeholders? Taking a snapshot of the situation in Bangladesh, what are the most serious risks or
challenges facing the operation Are risk mitigation mechanism in place and how do they apply in both
phases?
b. What gaps or bottlenecks still remain? Are there plans in place to address these already or is this an area
that still needs to be addressed? How can they be avoided in the future?
Page 4
5. Evaluation Methodology & Process
An IFRC evaluation management team will oversee the evaluation and to ensure that it upholds the IFRC
Framework for Evaluations. The evaluation management team will consist of an External Consultant, PMER
Delegate and Manager, Humanitarian Response and Preparedness for Response(HR&PFR) of the IFRC
Bangladesh delegation, and Director, Response the BDRCS.
The evaluation will be managed according to the IFRC Framework for Evaluations .
The evaluation team will be composed of four people: One each from CRC and BDRCS and two from IFRC.
CRC: team leader, lead the evaluation team, ensure compliance of ToR., also responsible for drafting the Mid
Term Evaluation (MTE) report and writing the final report.
IFRC APDMU: ………..
IFRC SARD: …………..
IFRC Bangladesh Delegation: two team members (PMER Delegate and Manager HR&PFR) provide technical
input, develop and guide evaluation schedule.
BDRCS: team member, provide local knowledge and also responsible to facilitate field activities.
The specific evaluation methodology will be detailed in close consultation between the MTE Consultant and
the PMER Delegate as well as among the evaluation team, but will draw upon the following primary methods:
1. Desktop review of operation background documents, relevant organizational background and history,
including emergency appeal documents, and any relevant sources of secondary data, such exist surveys
from IFRC participants in the operation. And evaluation / lesson learnt reports from previous operation
2. Field visits/observations
3. Key informant interviews & Focus group discussions
4. Half day feedback session, after field session, to inform findings and gather final feedback from BDRCS,
IFRC & PNS
6. Evaluation Deliverables
The External Consultant will be responsible for the development of evaluation reports with recommendations. The
final output will be an evaluation report.
Draft report – A draft report, identifying key findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons for the future
operation, will be submitted within a week of the team return from the field.
Final report – 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 10,000 words) covering the background of the intervention evaluated, a
description of the evaluation methods and limitations, findings, conclusions, lessons learned, 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, and any other
relevant materials. The final Mid-Term Evaluation report will be submitted one week after receipt of the
consolidated feedback from IFRC & BDRCS.
A Management response will be generated within two weeks by IFRC and BDRCS upon receive of the Final
report.
Page 5
Timeline:
The MTE is expected to be conducted in the first three weeks of March 2015 , which includes desktop studies,
draft report and in-country travel for interviews with stakeholders and field visits. Exact timeframe will be decided
in due course.
Distribution: The final report will be shared with NS, CD/office, in-country PNSs, SARD, APDMU, AP PMER
and other relevant stakeholders if appropriate. All of the outputs of the consultancy belong to the IFRC and
IFRC has a right to publish those outputs and make them publicly available. This does
not preclude publishing the working paper in other forums, provided that the IFRC is properly acknowledged.
Page 6
ANNEX 1
IFRC evaluation 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 the people and communities involved and to ensure that the evaluation is
technically accurate and reliable, is 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 applicable practices outlined in the IFRC Management Policy for Evaluation.
The IFRC evaluation standards are:
1. Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.
2. Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner.
3. 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.
4. Impartiality & Independence; Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased
assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
5. Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
6. 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.
7. Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process
when feasible and appropriate.
8. 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.
Further
information
can
be
obtained
about
these
Principles
at:
www.ifrc.org/what/values/principles/index.asp
Qualifications of team member
Selection of the evaluation members will be based on the following qualifications:
1. Demonstrable experience in leading evaluations of humanitarian programs responding to major disasters;
2. Knowledge of strategic and operational management of humanitarian operations and proven ability to
provide strategic recommendations to key stakeholders;
3. Strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions,
make recommendations and to prepare well-written reports in a timely manner;
Experience in qualitative data collection and data analysis techniques, especially in emergency operations;
Knowledge and experience working with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement preferred;
Demonstrated capacity to work both independently and as part of a team;
Excellent English writing and presentation skills in English, with relevant writing samples of similar
evaluation reports.
8. Regional knowledge of South Asia (Bangladesh) preferred but not required.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Page 7