Final evaluation of a DRR project in Iraq At Croix-Rouge Française

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

Project/Service

ECHO DRR IRAQ

Strengthening of local response capacity and community-based disaster risk management including support to the Covid19 response in post-conflict Iraq

Consultancy’s objective

Conduct the final evaluation of the project

Location

Iraq

Focal point

Head of program

Starting date

1st of July

Completion date

15th of August

Consultancy duration

Estimated 21 days

1. CONTEXT – Presence of French Red Cross in Iraq

The French Red Cross (FRC) is operational in Northern Iraq since 2013, especially in Dohuk, Ninewah and Erbil governorates and expanded its activities in Babil, Missan, Wassit and Souleymania governorates. Focused first on the influx of Syrian refugees, then on the IDP crisis and the challenging displacements and returns of population, FRC provides assistance in a range of sectors including WASH, livelihoods, education, shelter and relief. Current programming includes WASH (including COVID-19 response), Livelihoods (cash), and Disasters Risk Reduction. Mainstreaming of the Iraqi Red Crescent (IRCS) capacity strengthening is also a main priority particularly in DRR.

Prone to political instability, violence, corruption, and natural hazards including earthquakes, floods and disease outbreaks, Iraq is an anomaly of an upper middle-income country at “very high risk” of a humanitarian crisis requiring international assistance. The INFORM Index for Risk Management places Iraq on the fourteenth most at-risk country globally, categorized at the highest level of risk class (very high) when considering levels of exposure to hazards, vulnerability and coping capacity. Moreover, human-induced hazards receive an almost maximum score of 9, including projected conflict risk and current highly violent conflict intensity. Due to its geographical location and topography, Iraq is prone to multiple hazards. The review of past disasters in Iraq in EM-DAT and CatNat shows an estimated number of 37 disasters over the last 65 years ranging from river floods to heatwave, drought and earthquake. Since the COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020, Iraq faces needs in COVID-19 preparedness and response. To address these issues, in consortium with the Iraqi Red Crescent and the Swedish Red Cross, the French Red Cross (as consortium lead) secured a grant from ECHO for a DRR project. The project will be implemented until June 2022.

The project aims to strengthen the resilience of the vulnerable Iraqi population, by enhancing understanding of disaster risk and reinforcing disaster preparedness at community and governorate level.

This project focuses primarily on community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) and disaster preparedness (DP). It also contains capacity development of the Iraqi Red Crescent Society (IRCS) in Disaster Risk Management (DRM) as national authorities and local first-line response have limited capacity to respond to disasters. In light with the current COVID-19 outbreak, the project also includes a dedicated response in the four governorates.

The project is implemented in 4 governorates including Sulaymaniyah, Babil, Wassit and Missan.

1. Objectives of the ECHO DRR Project

The Project aims at strengthening capacities to face disaster and health crisis by : (i) improving the understanding of the risk and importance of DRR/DP and (ii) enhancing DP at community and IRCS branch levels in the target governorates; (iii) strengthening the preparedness and response to COVID pandemic.

(i) Improving the understanding of the risk and importance of DRR/DP

Community level: Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments (VCA) were conducted to enable community members to understand their own risks and to come up with their own actions. They are involved in various awareness raising campaigns including messages on disaster risk and what can be done mitigate and prepare for disasters. Community leaders were on CBDRM to have a better understanding and take the lead in local DP/DRR initiatives.

Governorate level: Key governmental stakeholders in DRR were identified through a mapping and analysis. The main government actors for this project are: Joint Coordination and Monitoring Centre (countrywide) and Joint Coordination Centre (KRI). Both are responsible for national strategies of response, coordination among government and NGOs/INGOs, and the national EWS

(ii) Enhancing DP at community and IRCS branch levels in the target governorates

Community level: DP is enhanced via risk mapping and contingency planning with the aim to support each community to develop its own contingency plans which are tested in real simulations.

Community Disaster Response Teams (CDRT) were established, trained and equipped to be able to support DP initiatives and provide immediate response in case of disasters.

Governorate level: Support to IRCS branches to enhance DP via contingency planning, simulation and the strengthening of Branch Disaster Response Teams (BDRT). Coordination between IRCS with other relevant stakeholders for disaster preparedness and response is reinforced via coordination workshops.

(iii) strengthening the preparedness and response to COVID pandemic.

The response is tailored to incorporate mitigation and reponse to the COVID pandemic. The activities led by the partners take into account the risks the virus present for Iraqi communities and focus on:

• Reinforcing the messaging on the epidemic, the barriers to block the contamination and referral systems.
• Providing means for identified population to set up barriers distributing covid-19 dedicated hygiene kits
• Limiting the spread of rumours and the stigmatization of victims.

These activities are done at the branch level training the volunteers and IRCS management, at household level with kit distribution and in person or phone awareness sessions and through mass media communication.

1. Pur
2. pose, objectives and scope
3. Purpose

The main purpose of this final evaluation is to assess and document the performance of the project as well as identify lessons learned in terms of project’s approach and activities. This will allow IRCS and partners to consider final evaluation’s findings and apply its recommendations in the development of DRR programmes in future.

The final evaluation is planned to be conducted in July – one month after the completion of the activities (end of June).

1. Objectives

The project’s final evaluation has a joint focus on accountability and learning. More specifically, final evaluation will:

• Assess the project’s achievements vis-à-vis its intended objectives and outputs as set out in the project logical framework;
• Assess the appropriateness of the project’s CBDRM approach and methodology, and the IRCS DRM capacity building process;
• Identify lessons learned and key recommendations from the project that could feed into program formulation in future.

1. Scope

The evaluation will cover the project in its entirety both in terms of timeline (2020-2022) and geographic coverage (four governorates). The evaluation will focus on the complete range of engaged stakeholders, local communities and IRCS and RC partners.

The final evaluation shall comprise but not necessarily be limited to the following areas/ questions:

• IRCS Capacity building

The evaluation of capacity building to IRCS should focus on the strengthening of institution capacity and training of staff/volunteers. It should be assessed according to the following criteria:

• Human resources: The perception of staff and volunteers whether they have improved their capacities and knowledge; The satisfaction of IRCS staff and volunteers toward the consortium coordination;
• Financial resources: Share of FRC ‘s projects in the IRCS budget related to disaster management and covid-19 response
• Project performance

The project performance will assess, among others:

• Relevance/ adaptability:
• To what extent the outputs and activities of the project are consistent with beneficiaries’ needs, country’s requirements, local resources and institutional priorities;
• To what extent the selection of governorates, communities and beneficiaries has followed a process and strategy to make sure there is a consistent targeting;
• To what extent do beneficiaries/target communities participate in the planning, design and implementation of the project;
• To what extent the risks that occurred during the implementation – disasters, emergency response, outbreaks, security and logistical constraints, lack of mobilization and resources of partners, etc. – have been anticipated during the proposal writing;
• and to what extent the project team managed to adapt the project strategy and HR set up to unexpected constraints that occurred during the project.
• Coherence:
• To what extent the targeting and the definition of activities were aligned to the needs of the community and of the local partner?
• Effectiveness:
• To what extent the projects’ objectives and indicators set out in the project proposal have been achieved in terms of quality, quantity and coverage, or are expected to be achieved, considering the local context, customs and practices;

The project indicators are detailed in the following tables:

1. Specific objectives indicators

Indicators in the logical framework

Sources and definition

• the % of reduction of expected affected people at the end of the project

It corresponds to % of the total population in target communities whom benefitted from full assistance including awareness-raising activities, disaster mitigation/ preparedness measures, contingency planning, etc.

• Number of IRCS branches that have increased its pool of trained and active volunteers/ staff prepared to respond to needs of vulnerable groups following disasters

Training reports, contingency plans

• % of target population with adequate means and knowledge to limit the spread of the Covid-19

Target population corresponds to people that received hygiene COVID-19 kits and awareness raising sessions. Adequate means is having access to enough soap and water to wash their hands or hydro-alcoholic gel Adequate knowledge is being able to quote to recall 3 barriers to COVID-19 spread: 1m distance, wash hands at critical times, protect sneezing and coughing.

1. Outcomes indicators

R1 Target communities have increased knowledge and awareness and are better for multiple hazards

• Number of people who participated in actions that strengthened their capacity to face shocks and stress

Interventions at household and local level aimed at concretely strengthen the capacity. Information or advocacy activities as well as trainings are not eligible unless they will result or are directly linked to concrete action (e.g. evacuation plan developed). Examples: number of people who can use a protective shelter, etc; number of people covered/included in a new contingency plan.

• Number of people who received information, education and communication on disaster management

Information, Education and Communication: community-led awareness campaigns, development and distribution of awareness materials, media campaigns; peer-to-peer awareness, workshops, exhibitions, training of teachers and pupils. In case of mass media campaigns provide explanation on how actual reach was estimated.

• % of targeted populations (disaggregated by sex and age) that can state at least three things that can be done to improve the environment they are living in.

Awareness, workshops and training. Aiming to strengthening the awareness of targeted communities about the risks linked to environmental issues, including impact of climate change, environmental degradation and waste management, as well as suggesting changes that people can do in their everyday life to lessen the environmental impact and as suggest more eco-friendly solutions

R2 IRCS and its targeted branches has the capacity to further support communities in preparedness and response to disasters

• Number of people covered by early actions/plans

Contingency plans

• Number of IRCS staff/ volunteer trained in DRM

Training reports

R3 Target communities have increased knowledge and awareness on COVID-19 and are better prepared to face current outbreak

• Number of people having regular access to soap to meet hygienic needs (KRI)

Beneficiary lists

• Number of IRCS volunteers trained in COVID-19 prevention and case management, and actively involved in the response

Training reports

• % of people participating in COVID hygiene promotion campaigns being able to recall 3 barriers to covid19 spread: 1m distance, wash hands at critical times, protect sneezing and coughing

Post distribution monitoring survey

• To what extent the partnerships that the IRCS established with authorities at local and governorate level were efficient?
• To what extent the beneficiaries have acquired the knowledge enabling a better preparedness to face disaster?
• Efficiency:
• How the economically resources/ inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) have been converted into results;
• To what extent the timeframe of the project was appropriate to the objectives and activities;
• To what extent the costs per beneficiary are optimum and the available human resources allocated are sufficient.
• Impact
• What are the direct and indirect impacts of the project? (technical, economic, social, financial, environmental and organizational, knowledge and behaviors) on the beneficiaries and stakeholders?
• Are there any negative impacts? If yes, were they anticipated and addressed during the project?
• Sustainability:
• How likely will actual and anticipated results be resilient to risks beyond the project’s life? A special attention is dedicated to CBDRM process in order to assess to what extent the community-based Committees have been established and trained to continue essential activities?
• To what extent are spaces and linkages established for communities and authorities to engage in discussion and cooperation with regard to DRM issues likely to sustain beyond the end of the project?
• To what extent the IRCS have ownership of the project activities? What activities are likely to be continued by IRCS after the end of the project ?
• Protection, gender and inclusion:
• Is there a good representativeness in the committees?
• To what extent do activities include and reach to the most vulnerable and marginalized people including persons with disabilities?
• Are IEC material and community plans inclusive and understandable?
• To what extent considerations related to post-conflict and fragile context have been taken into account?
• To what extent gender consideration was taken into account?

1. Formulating conclusions and recommendations

The recommendations should focus on the sustainability and replicability of FRC approaches and methodology:

• Provide a clear and concise conclusion on each outcome of the project;
• Provide clear and concise conclusions on the DRM approach;
• Draw lessons learnt and provide operational and strategic realistic recommendations: how to sustain or adapt this approach? What are the conditions (financial, technical, human resources, etc.) needed to further this approach?

1. Methodology

The evaluation will be implemented within a duration of maximum 4 weeks. The evaluation is expected to start on the 10th of July 2022.

The collection of qualitative and quantitative data will be conducted thanks to several activities:

• Review of secondary information (relevant documents and reports from project consortium partners – IRCS, FRC, SRC).
• Questionnaire to an appropriate sample based on the KAP survey so as to assess the changing behaviors’ indicators achievement, including among others:

– % of targeted populations (disaggregated by sex and age) that can state at least three things that can be done to improve the environment they are living in.

– % of people participating in COVID hygiene promotion campaigns being able to recall 3 barriers to covid19 spread: 1m distance, wash hands at critical times, protect sneezing and coughing

• Focus Group Discussions with members of committees and CDRT in communities.
• Key Informant Interviews with municipality representatives, IRCS HQ and 4 Branches (Babil, Missan, Sulaymaniyah, Wassit), SRC and FRC teams.
• Observations
• Field visits to Erbil, Sulaymaniyah and Darbandikhan community are recommended.
• Field visits to Baghdad and Missan are recommended (if approved by the FRC delegation).
• Debriefing meeting with discussion of initial findings with FRC and SRC. A presentation containing key findings and draft report will be distributed to IRCS, SRC and FRC for comments and further discussion. After receiving the comments, the Consultant will finalize the report and submit it to FRC.

1. Deliverables

The expected deliverables are the following:

• Inception report (max. 10 pages), including the finalized methodology and timeframe not exceeding 20 working days. This includes questionnaires, criteria setting for informant selection and participants, field data collection, debriefing, analysis and reports

10th of July

• A debriefing note and/or PowerPoint presentation summarizing the findings and recommendations of the evaluation. This will be presented to FRC, SRC and IRCS in a debriefing meeting that should ideally be held immediately after the field visit

After field visit

• Draft evaluation report to FRC HoP and HQ desk

31st of July

• Final evaluation report. The report shall follow the FRC evaluation report format

10th of August

1. The evaluator(s)

The evaluator(s) must provide a direct and clear answer to all the points contained in the terms of reference. In order to address language barriers, it is recommended to conduct the evaluation as a team, composed of international and local consultants.

The evaluator(s) will closely work with the FRC staff in HQ and IRCS team. In addition to the support from the team, the evaluator(s) will have the opportunity to interact with the partners involved in the project decision making and implementation.

Evaluator(s)’s Profile

The evaluator(s) will be responsible for designing and implementing the evaluation mission.

Expected skills and qualifications are:

• University Degree in Social Sciences, Development studies or other relevant technical field.
• At least five (05) years of relevant work experience in designing and conducting humanitarian and development project evaluations
• Proven track record of application of results-based management evaluation methodologies to development programs in areas of disaster risk reduction
• Work experience in and/or knowledge of Iraqi context or Middle East region.
• Fluent English, Arabic and Kurdish an asset.
• Project evaluation/ review experiences within the Red Cross Movement will be considered as an asset.

Organisation of the mission

• The consultant’s main contacts will be the Project DRR consultant, the Programm coordinator in Iraqi FRC Delegation and the DRR Technical Advisor at HQ.
• The consultant and the Project DRR consultant shall have a weekly briefing with the Programm Coordinator in Iraqi FRC Delegation, the DRR Technical Advisor at HQ, the Deputy Desk responsible for Middle East region to update on the mission progress. Daily meetings may be required upon need identified by the Programm coordinator, the DRR consultant or advisor.
• The field missions will be organized by the FRC Delegation and the consultant will have to respect the security and health directives of the FRC during his/her mission. FRC will organize plane tickets; visa and accommodation. When on the field the consultant will have to sign FRC/ICRC security rules upon arrival and will be responsible for their security and safety during their mission in Iraq

Administrative clauses

• The service provider/ consultant must provide proof of the regularity of his economic activity, at the time of the tender (tax documents, registration number, registration as self-employed person – depending on the country of reference where the service provider is located).
• The service provider/ consultant must provide, by itself, the means necessary for the accomplishment of its service, whether material or human: computer, professional liability insurance, perdiem for filed mission.
• He/She can delegate some part of the mission, within its teams, to the colleague of his/her choice, but he/she remains the only hierarchical and disciplinary authority concerning its employees. The service provider/ consultant must ensure the safety and security, and as such insure the consultants sent on assignment.
• All documents related to the assignment/consultancy shall remain the sole and exclusive property of FRC