Terms of Reference – CARE International

Emergency Response Advisory Committee

“ERAC” Review

March 2016

1

Background

The Emergency Response Advisory Committee (ERAC) is an internal CARE accountability/oversight mechanism that was established post-Tsunami and has been utilized in almost all major emergencies of significant size and impact since that time. The impetus for establishing such a mechanism was the result of the accountability challenges and reputational risk that could potentially have been incurred by CARE following the 2006 Tsunami with specific regard to the housing reconstruction programme in Aceh. Following a fact-finding mission to Aceh, the CARE International Board established a high level ‘oversight committee’ (ATPOC). The final evaluation of the Aceh response in 2009 noted:

“the Aceh experience shows that the establishment of ATPOC was critical to the successful completion

of the program as the committee helped mobilize all of CARE’s resources and provided support to decision-makers. CARE should replicate this oversight committee empowered by the CI Board

and comprising senior management for other large, high-risk emergencies. Indeed, such a Committee is critical if CARE is to ensure that its members are held accountable to those they

seek to serve and those from whom they accept resources”.

Since this time, for subsequent large scale emergencies, ‘emergency response advisory committees’

(ERACS) have been created and were included as a mandatory requirement for all Type 4 corporate

emergencies when the typology was updated in June 2012.

Below is a summary of ERACs that have been created. Please also note that ERACS for Yemen and Ethiopia are currently in varying stages of being established.

Crisis Update

South Sudan conflict (Dec 2013 SINGLE COUNTRY – CARE USA lead.)

- SSCERAC created June 2014 following the declaration of a Type 4 emergency – later replaced by a Steering Committee following critical challenges.

- Chair Jackie Wright – CARE Canada (programme Director)

Philippines, Typhoon Haiyan (2013 SINGLE COUNTRY – CARE USA Lead)

- PHERAC created in Jan 2014 following the declaration of a Type 4 emergency. Final meeting one year after the emergency.

- Chair – Karl Otto Zentel – CARE Germany (ND)

Syria emergency (2012, ongoing – REGIONAL multi lead member)

- SERAC created in May 2013 and continues to date. - Chair Colin Rogers – CARE UK (Head of Emergency)

Horn of Africa (2011 REGIONAL – multi lead member)

- HoARAC created in July 2011. Final meeting May 2012. - Chair Andrea Wagner Hager - CARE Austria (ND)

Pakistan flooding (2010 Single Country – CARE USA lead)

- PERAC created in Dec 2010. Final meeting Dec 2011 - Chair John Plastow shared with Colin Rogers – CARE UK

Haiti Earthquake (2010 Single Country – CARE USA lead)

- HERAC created March 2010. Final meeting June 2012. - Chair Philippe Leveque – CARE France (ND)

Asian Tsunami (2004) (ATPOC only for Aceh – CARE Canada lead)

- ATPOC put in place in 2007 for the Aceh programme. The final evaluation recommended similar committees for future large scale responses.

- Chair – Jon Mitchel – Emergency Director – CARE Emergency Group

Terms of Reference – CARE International

Emergency Response Advisory Committee

“ERAC” Review

March 2016

2

It is incumbent upon CARE International to review the effectiveness and efficiency of the “ERAC” mechanism given the experience to date, the number and frequency of large scale emergencies and the need to streamline our various accountability and reporting mechanisms so as to ensure that country offices/regions as well as headquarters’ are not overwhelmed with bureaucratic requirements in a time of crisis. The purpose of this review is to assess experience to date, identify key learning, and recommend options and approaches for ensuring greater effectiveness and efficiency for accountability and support to our countries in operation as well as to the CARE International members and Board. An independent consultant to be contracted to carry out the review.

1. Key issues to consider The review will look in particular at the following issues: a) Effectiveness:

Have ERACs provided the appropriate level of strategic advice to the emergency responses as

detailed above.

Have the ERACS ensured greater engagement of CI members with the emergency response in the

areas where it has been most needed and/or have there been gaps or concerns as to the

engagement of the wider CARE International entities for the overall humanitarian response?

Have the ERACS played an appropriate and supportive role in risk management (financial,

reputational, accountability, programme quality etc)? Have there been instances where key issues

have been highlighted by an ERAC to prevent future reputational risk? Have certain issues been

missed / overlooked?

Effectiveness of the ERACs to date, including strengths and challenges?

b) Efficiency:

Considering the evolving CARE International ways of working and the existing emergency protocols,

board decisions and lead membership responsibilities is the creation of an ERAC for all large scale

emergencies still the most effective approach to achieve the objectives set out?

How have lead members and Country Offices viewed and dealt with the feedback and advice

provided?

Terms of Reference – CARE International

Emergency Response Advisory Committee

“ERAC” Review

March 2016

3

What are the key areas of advice and or engagement that have been most valued by response

teams? How can we ensure that future mechanisms are efficient, helpful and strategic as possible

while ensuring accountability and risk management?

c) Appropriateness:

ERACs are set up as advisory committees rather than oversight or management committees – has

this been an effective approach?

Has the composition of the ERACs been appropriate?

ERACs were initially envisaged for single country office emergencies - what have been the challenges

and successes when dealing with regional ERACs? What would be the recommendation for dealing

with future regional emergencies?

d) Peer Review How are other agencies working with regard to having a global system to provide guidance and strategic engagement; are there any key lessons and recommendations for CARE from other agencies that should be taken into consideration?

2. Expected outputs

A maximum of 10 page report with targeted recommendations for CARE International ‘oversight’ of large scale emergencies moving forward – both single country and multi-country emergencies. If the recommendation is to retain ERACs then the report would be expected to make recommendations on strengthening the approach, with key areas of focus, suggested changes to the TORs, key staff to include, duration, reporting mechanism, changes etc.

Recommendations will be targeted at different CI stakeholders and refer to experience from other agencies.