DFID’s Humanitarian Response to Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines – Terms of Reference

1. Introduction

1.1 The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is the independent body responsible for scrutinising UK aid. We focus on maximising the effectiveness of the UK aid budget for intended beneficiaries and on delivering value for money for UK taxpayers. We carry out independent reviews of aid programmes and of issues affecting the delivery of UK aid. We publish transparent, impartial and objective reports to provide evidence and clear recommendations to support UK Government decision-making and to strengthen the accountability of the aid programme. Our reports are written to be accessible to a general readership and we use a simple ‘traffic light’ system to report our judgment.

1.2 ICAI’s regular mode of operation is to conduct an assessment of an aspect of Official Development Assistance (ODA) expenditure over the course of several months and to produce a 20-25 page report regarding impact and effectiveness. In this review, we are taking the opportunity to conduct a more rapid, smaller-scale assessment of the Department for International Development’s (DFID’s) response to Typhoon Haiyan, as this merits an especially timely and immediate perspective.

1.3 The typhoon, which devastated parts of the Philippines in November 2013, resulted in a global humanitarian response. DFID contributed to this response and is currently engaged in targeted humanitarian activities on the ground. There is, therefore, a short window of opportunity to review in near real time the immediate focus and effectiveness of DFID’s activity, both in its own right and in the context of the wider global work.

1.4 In 2011, the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review (HERR) by Lord Ashdown reviewed the overall effectiveness of DFID’s humanitarian work and made a number of recommendations.1 Typhoon Haiyan is the first major rapid onset emergency since the HERR and the first time DFID has used a number of new mechanisms together, as well as its increased capacity, in this context. There is now an opportunity to assess the extent to which DFID has implemented the HERR recommendations and their efficacy.

1.5 The typhoon and its devastation elicited a high degree of public awareness – which has culminated in a significant appeal in the UK by the Disasters Emergency Committee raising £86 million by 17 December 2013.2 There is, therefore, public interest in seeing how the contribution of the UK government is aligned with these other aspects of the response.

2. Background

2.1 Super Typhoon Haiyan struck the Philippines on 8 November 2013 and resulted in massive devastation on certain of the islands, especially Leyte and Samar; and major destruction of villages, towns and cities, such as Tacloban, across the archipelago. In Cebu and Bohol, which had been struck by a magnitude 7.2 earthquake the previous month, cities were also severely damaged. The storm surge flattened whole areas of the region and left some 14 million people affected and over 4 million people displaced.3

2.2 According to DFID’s website,4 the UK is providing over £77 million in humanitarian support to help aid get through to hard to reach areas.

UK support includes:

  • the redeployment of HMS Daring and HMS Illustrious to the Philippines to join the aid effort;
  • flights delivering 4×4’s, forklift trucks, water purification kits, cutting equipment and other vital supplies to affected areas;
  • the deployment of 18 NHS staff trained to operate under emergency conditions;
  • temporary shelters, bedding, blankets and solar lanterns to people through the Rapid Response Facility;
  • £30 million to support the UN and Red Cross emergency appeals for the Philippines, including a £3 million allocation to ensure that women and girls are not disproportionately affected by the crisis, a £2 million allocation to allow UNICEF to increase nutrition provision and £1 million allocation to help 3,000 people to receive the tools and materials they need to rebuild their houses;
  • a £5 million investment in resilience for up to 4 cities in the Philippines; and
  • additional £15 million to cover unmet needs and provide support for early recovery.

2.3 DFID’s objectives are to provide:

  • emergency shelter for 496,495 people;
  • WASH for 656,200 people;
  • education for 73,000 people;
  • food for over 230,000 people and nutritional support for 83,200 people;
  • livelihoods support such as seeds and tools for rice growing for over 500,000 people;
  • essential health services for 292,567 people;
  • protection to 539,276 people; and
  • integrated packages of support to 156,600 people.5

2.4 Aside from working with the UN and Red Cross, DFID has been developing partnerships with a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as part of the Rapid Response Facility, including World Vision, Oxfam, CAFOD, Age International, Handicap International, Christian Aid, Habitat for Humanity, MapAction, CARE International, International Health Partnership, Action Against Hunger, Plan UK, Merlin and Save the Children.

2.5 Other donor countries have also pledged support – including amounts reported in the media of: $52 million from Japan,6 $40 million from Canada,7 $37 million from the US,8 $33 million from Norway,9 $28 million from Australia,10 $10 million from Saudi Arabia and $10 million from Kuwait.11 China pledged under $2 million, while Ikea pledged $2.7 million.12 Many other countries and corporate and private donors have pledged financial and/or logistical support.

3. Purpose of this Review

3.1 To undertake a timely assessment of the impact and effectiveness of the UK government contribution to the aid effort in the Philippines, which was mobilised over November and December 2013.

3.2 The proximity of this review to the crisis will allow us to assess the programmes of activity in close to real time and draw out early insights and recommendations. We will take a beneficiary-centric view of the support and look in particular to assess the extent to which the UK-supported activities are meeting the needs and priorities of those affected.

3.3 The review will allow us to understand how DFID coordinates its input alongside a wide range of donors and NGOs and the extent to which the pre-disaster planning and on-the-ground coordination are proving fit for purpose.

3.4 This is the first major rapid onset emergency since the HERR and the first time DFID has used a number of new mechanisms together, as well as its increased capacity, in this context, including a new Rapid Response Facility. This review will enable us to consider the impact of DFID’s new approach on its processes and, importantly, on the intended beneficiaries.

3.5 There will clearly be a need for ongoing aid to the region beyond the immediate response. This review will help to identify some of the potential areas for future focus, as well as giving us the opportunity to review planning for the transition from relief to recovery.

4. Relationship to Other Evaluations and Studies

4.1 Our work programme to date has given relatively lower coverage of humanitarian aid programmes – which is another reason to undertake this review. Our review of the Horn of Africa famine13 drew out some lessons on pre-preparation and donor coordination which it will be useful to test here, while recognising that the chronic nature of the famine situation is different to the sudden-onset Philippines disaster. We also assessed humanitarian aid responding to flooding in Pakistan and disaster risk reduction and climate change resilience programmes in Bangladesh.14

4.2 There will also be insights that can be shared from the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) work in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as sanitation and access to clean water are among the priority response sectors in the Philippines following Typhoon Haiyan.15

4.3 In addition to the HERR, we will also draw on studies of the humanitarian responses to the 2004 Asian tsunami and 2010 Haitian earthquake.

5. Analytical Approach

5.1 We will undertake a short field visit to the areas where the bulk of the support has been delivered, in so far as this is practicable. The small review team, led by the Lead Commissioner, will look to follow the main lines of delivery of the different aspects of the DFID-funded response, looking at the multilateral, NGO and private sector partnerships that have been leveraged. The team will undertake conversations with the impacted populations and as many key stakeholder groups as possible, given short notice and a tight review timeline. Given the beneficiary-centric focus of the review, the team aims to focus particularly on the experiences of beneficiaries, community leaders and others in the most affected areas.

5.2 The team will review DFID’s planning functions in London and on the ground to understand the lines of command and the programme management approaches being used, as well as the donor coordination mechanisms which have been put in place.

5.3 We will seek to understand how the priorities were set, both in terms of the types of interventions and the geographic areas to be addressed.

5.4 We will review the HERR report from 2011 and look to assess the extent to which its findings and recommendations have influenced DFID’s response. Other documents will also be considered in the preparation of our report, including evaluations and lessons learnt from the 2004 Asian tsunami and the 2010 Haitian earthquake.

6. Indicative Questions

6.1 We will be guided by our standard assessment framework. The key questions we will look to answer are:

  • To what extent does DFID’s response to Typhoon Haiyan meet the humanitarian needs of the people affected?
  • How well was the DFID response aligned with the global efforts of the multilateral community and the NGOs and how well did DFID make the choice of delivery partners and mechanisms?
  • To what extent has DFID’s support had the desired impact on the targeted populations? What are their expectations for future recovery?
  • Have there been any structural impacts from the flow of funds and aid delivery mechanisms? Are local people being suitably engaged?
  • To what extent did DFID apply prior learning, especially the recommendations of the HERR, to its planning and implementation of support to this disaster?
  • How is DFID drawing lessons from the first phases of response to the crisis to shape future programming?
  • DFID has pledged longer-term support to assist the Philippines.16 Is this support focussed on achieving sustainable outcomes for those affected and what shape will it take, given that DFID currently has no bilateral programme in the Philippines?
  • How has the UK response accounted for the capability and contributions of national authorities (including the military), local communities and the private sector?

7. Methodology

7.1 The methodology outlined in the analytical approach above is based around:

  • interactions with the DFID humanitarian coordinating team in London to understand the planning approaches and key priorities;
  • review of relevant DFID documentation, including planning documents;
  • a one-week visit to the Philippines, with DFID personnel, to review key programme activities;
  • meetings with intended beneficiaries and also with those yet to receive aid, insofar as possible;
  • meetings with key stakeholders from the multilateral and NGO communities that can be organised at short notice; and
  • interactions with members of the Philippine government at central and local levels, in so far as this is practicable at short notice and given the pressures on their time.

7.2 We plan to write up a short report of around 10-15 pages outlining our findings and recommendations. We will conduct a concise and targeted literature review, synthesizing relevant reviews from prior ICAI reports and drawing from the HERR and studies of the response to the 2004 Asian tsunami and 2010 Haiti earthquake. We will also review update reports submitted by partners to DFID.

8. Timing & Deliverables

8.1 Work will commence on the review at the start of January 2014, with the fieldwork conducted in the week commencing 20 January 2014. It is anticipated that the report will be produced in Spring 2014.

Footnotes

  1. ^ Lord Ashdown et al, Humanitarian Emergency Response Review, 2011, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67579/HERR.pdf.
  2. ^ Philippines Typhoon Appeal Total, Disasters Emergency Committee, 2013, http://www.dec.org.uk/blog/philippines-typhoon-appeal-total.
  3. ^ Philippines: Typhoon Haiyan – Humanitarian Snapshot (as of 06 Jan 2014), UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2014, http://reliefweb.int/report/philippines/philippines-typhoon-haiyan-humanitarian-snapshot-06-jan-2014.
  4. ^ Typhoon Haiyan: Latest updates on UK aid, DFID, 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/typhoon-haiyan-latest-updates-on-uk-aid.
  5. ^ Business case and intervention summary for an emergency humanitarian response: Response to Typhoon Haiyan, Philippines (draft), DFID, 2014.
  6. ^ Japan triples Philippines aid package to over $30 million, GMA News Online, 15 November 2013, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/335590/news/nation/japan-triples-philippines-aid-package-to-over-30-million.
  7. ^ This includes $20 million plus match funding for private Canadian donations reportedly ‘closing in on $20 million’: Canadian typhoon relief nearing $40-million, The Global and Mail, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-aid-to-typhoon-hit-philippines-nears-40-million/article15487070/.
  8. ^ Comprised of $20 million from USAID and $17 million from the US Department of Defense ‘primarily for airlifts and military support’: By the Numbers: U.S. Response to Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2013, http://cogitasia.com/by-the-numbers-u-s-response-to-typhoon-haiyanyolanda/.
  9. ^ Regjeringen gir ytterligere 140 millioner til Filippinene, VG Nett, 17 November 2013, http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10136768.
  10. ^ Australia boosts Philippines aid to US$28 mil, the Sun Daily, 14 November 2013, http://www.thesundaily.my/news/881108.
  11. ^ Saudi Arabia offers $10 million aid for typhoon-hit Philippines, Al Arabiya News, 16 November 2013, http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/11/16/Saudi-Arabia-offers-10-million-aid-for-typhoon-hit-Philippines.html; Kuwait to send $10 mn in urgent aid, Gulf Times, 13 November 2013, http://www.gulf-times.com/asean-philippines/188/details/371469/kuwait-to-send–$10-mn-in-urgent-aid.
  12. ^ Typhoon Haiyan: China gives less aid to Philippines than Ikea, The Guardian, 14 November 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/14/typhoon-haiyan-china-aid-philippines-ikea.
  13. ^ ICAI Report on the UK Emergency Response in the Horn of Africa, ICAI, 2012, http://icai.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ICAI-report-FINAL-DFIDs-humanitarian-emergency-response-in-the-Horn-of-Africa11.pdf.
  14. ^ ICAI Report on the Department for International Development’s Bilateral Aid to Pakistan, ICAI, 2012, http://icai.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ICAI-Pakistan-Report_P1.pdf; DFID’s Climate Change Programme in Bangladesh, ICAI, 2011, http://icai.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ICAI-Report-DFID-Climate-Change-Programme-in-Bangladesh-FINAL1.pdf.
  15. ^ DFID’s Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programming in Sudan, ICAI, 2013, http://icai.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ICAI-Report-DFIDs-Water-Sanitation-and-Hygiene-Programming-in-Sudan.pdf and DFID’s work through the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), ICAI, 2013, http://icai.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ICAI-report-DFIDs-work-with-UNICEF.pdf.
  16. ^ See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-pledges-longer-term-support-after-typhoon-haiyan.