Consultancy – M-RED Economic Development Program sustainability research – Nepal, Indonesia, Timor Leste

Mercy Corps is hiring for a consultancy role in their M-RED Economic Development Program focused on sustainability research in Indonesia, Nepal, and Timor-Leste. The program aims to enhance disaster readiness and resilience in communities affected by climate shocks. The role involves coordinating a 12-month study to explore factors influencing disaster-readiness sustainability and economic opportunities within these regions.
Background:

The Margaret A. Cargill Foundation-funded Managing Risk Through Economic Development (M-RED) program is designed to support disaster-ready communities across three countries in Asia: Indonesia, Nepal and Timor-Leste by reducing their vulnerability to climate shocks and fostering their resilience. It has operated in targeted low-attention, disaster-prone regions since 2013, through four iterations (M-RED I to IV) partnering with 230,000 underserved and underrepresented people from 218 communities across the three countries that face impacts of recurring climate disasters and slow-onset shocks, such as floods, drought, soil erosion, landslides, and windstorms. Since its start, M-RED has trained 20,608 people specifically in disaster preparedness and response which helps them to increase their preparation by understanding their capacity, vulnerability, and exposure to disaster. M-RED promotes a “nexus” approach that combines disaster risk reduction (DRR) and market system development (MSD) with the aim of improving disaster preparedness while protecting and improving livelihoods. This is done by: 1) supporting communities to more effectively respond to, recover from, adapt to and mitigate climate impacts; and 2) enabling access to context-specific, climate-adaptive economic opportunities. This approach calls for interventions that can simultaneously reduce disaster risks and generate income or contribute to economic development.

Learning, inclusion, networking and capacity strengthening drive M-RED’s vision of community-led, co-created disaster-readiness. From inception, M-RED has facilitated networked learning and knowledge-sharing across households, smallholder farmer groups, communities, government institutions, private sector actors and civil society organizations. As participants engage with this multi-phased program, they become co-creators of a disaster-ready community, experiencing measurable decreases in disaster-related losses and increases in economic security. Program participants report feeling safer, more confident and better equipped to bounce back from shocks and stresses.

Drawing on the opportunity to have tested this model in different contexts over more than a decade, lessons and learnings can be drawn to inform future disaster-readiness programs and inform the wider sector of the best practices gleaned from our model. The success of such an approach – and, more importantly, its sustainability – depends as much on the approach itself as on the enabling and blocking factors within each country’s context. What does sustainability of disaster-readiness efforts look like in these contexts, what are the primary and secondary influencing factors that contribute to it or, on the contrary, prevent it? Does disaster-readiness require investments from the whole community or the engagement of a few representatives that maintain efforts? Is generating an income in relation to disaster-readiness a decisive element of sustainability? These are the kinds of questions Mercy Corps would like to answer through this learning activity.

Purpose / Project Description:

Over the course of 12 months, Mercy Corps will coordinate a study within the three countries where M-RED has been implemented: Indonesia, Nepal and Timor-Leste, generating evidence on the sustainability of disaster-readiness interventions. The overall goal of this study is to generate learning across M-RED countries, to paint a comprehensive picture of enablers and barriers to sustainability of disaster-readiness initiatives and inform future DRR funding strategies.

The main research question for this study is: “what influences the sustainability of disaster-readiness interventions over time?” In exploring this research question, the study will generate evidence of what works to support sustainability of interventions to support disaster preparedness and response to help inform future DRR programing and funding strategies.

This study will interrogate the factors enabling and hindering the sustainability of disaster-readiness over time, after a program supporting them comes to an end. This will be accomplished by assessing multiple dimensions of sustainability including the financial, social, human, environmental and institutional capacities needed to sustain improved disaster-readiness over time. This will include examining supporting institutions, knowledge and capacity of multi-hazard risk, existence and continued use of risk management plans and other vulnerability reduction measures. The analysis will also consider differences in these factors, for example ownership of the community or authorities, between contexts and their relationship with sustainability.

This study will test the following assumptions:
• Outcome Sustainability: The interventions implemented in the community lead to outcomes that remain over time, enabling the community to retain the necessary capacity for disaster-readiness.
• Community Retention Capacity: The community successfully retains all essential capacities needed to be disaster-ready (retention of community members with disaster-readiness knowledge, as well as retention of knowledge itself), ensuring better preparedness and response in the face of potential disasters.
• Ongoing Support to Disaster-Readiness: The community receives ongoing disaster preparedness and emergency response support (e.g. financial support, response support, trainings) and engagement from government agencies and other relevant stakeholders.
• Long-term Benefits of Nexus Approach: The nexus approach, exemplified by economic initiatives such as sugarcane cultivation, continues to provide tangible benefits over time that enhance the continuity of community’s disaster-readiness.
• Community Engagement: Continued community engagement and participation in disaster preparedness initiatives maintain readiness and effectively utilize the resources provided through government support and M-RED’s economic development efforts.
• Experience of Disaster: Communities that will be assessed through this learning activity will likely not be in the state of exposure to shocks and stresses, some may have experienced one recently and be in recovery mode, while others maintain preparedness for future threats. This learning activity is an opportunity to test if disaster-readiness sustainability is connected to frequency of disasters.

Please note that any assessment of the outcomes of disaster-readiness interventions and their impact on vulnerability and resilience of communities is outside of the scope of this study.

Consultant Objectives:

Conduct data collection, research interviews and data analysis of M-RED program to capture learning related to building disaster ready communities in three countries. The following four objectives cover research areas with specific learning questions (see table below).
• Objective 1: Determine what sustainability means in the context of disaster-readiness. Mercy Corps will first define the nature of sustainability in the context of disaster-readiness, what behaviors and efforts are being sustained or not, and what adaptations to promoted efforts have been made.
• Objective 2: Identify enabling conditions, the key factors (social, human, political/institutional, financial, environmental) that positively influence the sustainability of disaster-readiness results achieved through past grant initiatives in each context. This is measured notably by the extent to which outcomes achieved during former M-RED phases (such as: community groups with DRR responsibilities that are functional, community members implementing DRR measures, that receive early warning information before disaster, with retained DRR knowledge, showing positive attitude towards Gender, Equity, Diversity, and Social Inclusion (GEDSI), investing towards risk sensitive livelihood options) are sustained post-program. This considers enabling conditions and resources that have facilitated and sustained preparedness efforts in the community after grant funds ended.
• Objective 3: Identify hindering conditions. In the same vein, Mercy Corps will explore the barriers and challenges that may have hindered the sustainability of preparedness efforts in the community following the conclusion of the MACP grants.
• Objective 4: Formulate recommendations for future grants. This learning activity aims to generate evidence and recommendations for future disaster-readiness grant initiatives.

Research Area

Learning Questions

Area 1: Nature and Extent of Sustainability

1.1 To what extent have past MACP-funded preparedness efforts been sustained in communities (what efforts have been more/less retained and why)?

1.2 How have efforts evolved over time – have they been adapted, scaled up, abandoned?

1.3 What measurable elements indicate that a community remains disaster-ready post-program?

1.4 Does achieving a high DRM score increase the likelihood of sustainability? (e.g. ongoing drills, risk assessments, continued mitigation activities)

1.5 Who benefits from sustained efforts? Are diverse groups – including women, marginalized communities, and at-risk households – equally benefiting from disaster-readiness efforts?

Area 2: Enabling Factors

2.1 What enabling factors (e.g. governance, funding, community ownership, individual leadership, community profile, inclusion, political and/or social capital) contribute to sustainability?

2.2 What M-RED approaches have been most effective in fostering high community and government ownership?

2.3 How does the local footprint (e.g. efforts implemented through local partners such as NGOs, government, community technical focal points, community disaster groups, community resource persons like CDAs) influence sustainability?

2.4 Has M-RED’s GEDSI approach strengthened sustainability?

2.5 How does economic development (e.g. through sugarcane or other livelihoods nexus projects) influence the sustainability of a community’s disaster-readiness?

Area 3: Hindering Conditions

3.1 What are the primary and secondary barriers preventing disaster-readiness efforts to sustain overtime? (e.g. governance, funding, community ownership, individual leadership, community profile, inclusion, political and/or social capital, external shocks and stresses, relevance)

3.2 What challenges do communities that are sustaining efforts still face to maintain their disaster-readiness? What further support might have been needed?

Area 4: Recommended Adaptations

4.1 What lessons from sustained and unsustained efforts should inform future program design?

4.2 What shifts in strategies, funding models, or partnerships are needed to foster sustainability beyond grant timeframes?

Consultant Activities:

The Consultant is expected to conduct the research using the following recommended methodology and steps which will be further discussed and elaborated on the inception step of the research:

1) Defining sustainability and a methodology to assess it;

2) Unpacking factors that influence, enable and hinder sustainability;

3) Synthetizing insights and generating learnings;

4) Validating and disseminating findings and recommendations.

Sampled communities will include communities, across the three countries, where M-RED was implemented. This sample will be representative of the overall communities supported by the program and will be selected based on a set of criteria defined during Step 1. These communities have either been included in Phase I to III, or Phase IV of M-RED. We will then be able to compare sustainability in communities that we have left for more than four years with communities we left in the past year. As this activity measures sustainability of promoted efforts, no control group will be included as they haven’t received preparedness-related support. However, our sample will include some communities that never graduated to disaster-ready according to the DRM, to understand better what prevented them from fully embracing disaster-readiness.

Country

# of sampled M-RED Phase I to III communities

# of sampled M-RED Phase IV communities

Indonesia

~ 10 (to be confirmed in Step 1) out of 34 communities from Phase III

~ 10 (to be confirmed in Step 1) out of 44 communities (including Phase III)

Nepal

~ 10 (to be confirmed in Step 1) out of 47 communities left by Phase III

~ 10 (to be confirmed in Step 1) out of 39 communities

Timor-Leste

~ 10 (to be confirmed in Step 1) out of 47 communities left by Phase III

~ 10 (to be confirmed in Step 1) out of 39 communities

To meet our four learning activity objectives, our Methodology, the details of which will be defined more precisely in Step 1 and timeline adjusted accordingly, will consist in the following steps:

Step 1: Defining Sustainability

During the first two months of this learning activity, Mercy Corps will define its precise methodology, as well as the broad outlines of what sustainability should look like in disaster-readiness in these contexts, by undertaking the following activities:
• Retrospective Analysis (Secondary Data Review)
• Review reports (including annual DRM reports), evaluations, case studies, and photos from past program phases.
• Extract data on initial implementation and expected sustainability outcomes from M-RED’s logframes.
• Interviews with M-RED team members
• Discuss with past and present team members what were the program’s sustainability objectives, what was expected to last from promoted interventions, what results they expect from this learning activity.
• Methodology design
• Define precise research and data collection methodology to launch Step 2.

Step 2: Unpacking factors that influence, enable and hinder sustainability

During months 3 to 6 of this activity, Mercy Corps will unpack the nature and extent of sustainability, the enablers and barriers to sustainability using the following tools:
• Primary Data Collection
• Survey

Conduct a structured community survey measuring the presence and use of sustained efforts, to assess what remained or not from M-RED’s promoted interventions. Questionnaires will be passed on to households, community disaster management committees, local government, etc. Questions such as the following will be considered: Is the infrastructure still functioning? Who is responsible for the maintenance of the DRR infrastructure? Is it effective? Is there still a DRR committee, if yes, is it still active and what are their main tasks? Do communities regularly update their PDRA? Have communities come up with new nexus opportunities since the program ended? Has the income generated through the promoted nexus crops increased/decreased since the program ended?
• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) to discuss deeper and in more qualitative details some of the enablers and barriers to sustainability.
• Community members (e.g., DRR committee leaders, local champions).
• Local government officials, market actors and partner organizations.
• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
• Community-level group discussions with different community groups (community disaster groups, women groups) on the following topics: community ownership, external support, financial constraints, adaptation of efforts, etc.
• Assess community participation in preparedness activities through discussions.
• Direct Observations
• Observe physical infrastructure (e.g. DRR facilities, early warning systems, mitigation structures) and how different they are from when the program ended.
• Qualitative Case Studies
• Deep dive into communities with high vs. low sustainability results to identify patterns.
• Explore modifications or adaptations communities have made to sustain efforts.

Step 3: Synthesizing Insights & Generating Learnings

During months 7 to 9, Mercy Corps will lead efforts to code and analyze generated data to synthesize key findings, insights and generate learnings to draw initial recommendations for future programming.
• Comparative Analysis
• Compare communities within the same country to highlight local enabling and hindering factors.
• Compare communities with different levels of sustainability to extract key enablers/barriers across countries.
• Network Analysis (Stakeholder Mapping)
• Identify key actors supporting sustainability (local government, community networks, private sector) in various contexts.
• Examine power dynamics and resource flows between these actors based on secondary data and information collected during the KIIs.

Step 4: Validating findings, suggesting adaptations, dissemination

Finally, in the last phase of this 12-month activity, the M-RED team will validate findings, finalize recommendations and reporting and disseminate results.
• Validation Workshops (min. one in each country):
• Conduct a stakeholder validation session to validate findings and collectively confirm recommendations.
• Reporting
• Mercy Corps will provide MACP with a final report on the key learnings and recommendations (approximately 10 pages long), as well as a presentation.
• Result dissemination
• Mercy Corps will organize dissemination workshops/webinars and/or publication to present key findings to DRR networks in country, in the region and globally.

Consultant Deliverables:
• Inception report – 7 days (due 15th July 2025)
• Define scope of work
• Identify and define data collection and analysis methodologies
• Research and dissemination workplan
• Literature review

We expect the consultant to initiate discussions with Mercy Corps team members to agree on the:
• Scope of work
• Data collection and analysis methods
• Research and dissemination workplan and dissemination strategy/plan
• Identification of local partners (local individuals/organisations) to support data collection and contextualization of data/information (due 15th July 2025)
• First draft of evaluation report consists of the following information – 45 days (due 30th November 2025)
• Answers to the four learning objectives and key questions that cover information on what sustainability means in the context of disaster readiness; what are the enabling conditions that allow a community to sustain disaster reduction and management efforts; and what are the hindering factors that prevents the community to sustain disaster management efforts.
• Case studies in Indonesia, Nepal and Timor Leste that highlighted:
• Successful approach to sustain disaster preparedness efforts
• Unsuccessful approaches/stories
• Second draft of evaluation report consist of the following information – 10 days (due 31st January 2026)
• Recommendation for future evaluation/learnings
• Recommendation for future program design that highlights:
• Key approaches that will allow take up of program approaches by program participants and stakeholders
• Three learning summary/briefs:
• Summary/brief of all three countries (regional brief)
• Summary/brief for Nepal
• Summary/brief for Indonesia
• Final report products – addressing all feedback from Mercy Corps team members – 7 days (due 28th February 2026)
• Evaluation final report – no more than 15 pages
• Presentation format
• Summary/brief of all three countries (regional brief) – no more than 4 pages
• Summary/brief for Nepal – no more than 4 pages
• Summary/brief for Indonesia – no more than 4 pages
• Dissemination workshops – 6 days (due 15th May 2026)
• Internal dissemination – target audience: all MRED team members, Mercy Corps country, regional and global team
• External dissemination – target audience: M-RED stakeholders (community, government, local partners) in Indonesia and Nepal, MACP grantees/partners, DRR communities – will be determined further upon the inception of the research.

Timeframe / Schedule:

1st June 2025 to 15th May 2026

The Consultant will report to:

M-RED Regional program manager

The Consultant will work closely with:

The research and learning consultant will:
• Work closely with: MERL Regional Advisor, M-RED
• Consult and discuss with:
• Program Manager, M-RED Indonesia and team
• Program Manager, M-RED Nepal and team
• Researcher – Climate Change, Migration, and Water Security
• Senior Adviser Resilience
• Regional Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Sr. Advisor

Required Experience & Skills:

We expect to hire one team of evaluators/firm that composes of the team members with ability to implement evaluation in the targeted countries of this research. The team members are expected to have the following experience and skills:

Lead evaluator
• At least 7 years of expertise and experience in monitoring and evaluation (M&E), particularly in Disaster Risk Reduction/preparedness, climate and resilience, livelihood, and market system
• Experience in conducting evaluation research in multiple countries in the Asia region; experience in Indonesia, Nepal, and Timor Leste is an advantage
• Proven experience in producing high-quality evaluation reports and learning materials tailored for NGOs, donors, and stakeholders in the Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and climate resilience sectors.
• Strong expertise in a wide range of M&E methodologies, with the ability to design and implement mixed-method approaches (qualitative and quantitative) to effectively address evaluation questions. Prior experience in conducting sustainability and ex-post evaluation will be an advantage.
• Proven leadership in guiding and supporting evaluation teams throughout the evaluation process.
• Experience in assembling and managing teams of local evaluators or consultants across regions for multi-country evaluations, including providing remote support and guidance to ensure effective collaboration.
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills, with the ability to clearly and concisely synthesize insights across geographies and present evaluation findings in reports, presentations, and other dissemination formats.
• Skilled facilitator with experience conducting both online and in-person sessions and equipped with a broad toolkit of facilitation methods to support the evaluation process.
• Fluent in English, with excellent written and verbal communication skills
• Ability to speak in Bahasa Indonesia or Nepalese or Tetum is desirable but not required

Evaluation team
• Possesses strong experience and expertise in monitoring and evaluation (M&E), with a particular focus on Disaster Risk Reduction and Preparedness, Climate and Resilience, Livelihoods, and Market Systems.
• Demonstrates solid knowledge of, and hands-on experience with, a wide range of M&E methodologies, effectively integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches to accurately address evaluation questions.
• Excellent verbal and written communication skills, with the ability to clearly and concisely convey informative and formative responses to evaluation questions. Capable of effectively liaising with the Evaluation Lead and contributing high-quality inputs to reports and dissemination materials that are contextually relevant.
• Proven experience in field data collection and delivering clear, context-sensitive analysis.
• Fluent in the local language(s), with a strong ability to communicate with local stakeholders and actors. Also has a good command of English to report findings and insights to the Evaluation Lead.
• Deep understanding of local culture and cultural sensitivities within the areas of assessment, ensuring respectful and appropriate engagement with communities.

Team Efficiency and Effectiveness

Achieving our mission starts with how we build our team and collaborate. By bringing together individuals with a variety of experiences, backgrounds, and perspectives, we strengthen our ability to solve complex challenges and drive innovation. We foster a culture of trust and respect, where every team member is valued for their contributions, empowered to reach their full potential, and motivated to do their best work.

We recognize that building a strong and effective team is an ongoing process, and we remain committed to learning, improving, and growing together.

Equal Employment Opportunity

Mercy Corps is an equal opportunity employer that does not tolerate discrimination on any basis. We actively seek out different backgrounds, perspectives, and skills so that we can be collectively stronger and have sustained global impact.

We are committed to providing an environment of respect and psychological safety where equal employment opportunities are available to all. We do not engage in or tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender identity, gender expression, religion, age, sexual orientation, national or ethnic origin, disability (including HIV/AIDS status), marital status, military veteran status or any other protected group in the locations where we work.

Safeguarding & Ethics

Mercy Corps team members are expected to support all efforts toward accountability, specifically to our stakeholders and to international standards guiding international relief and development work, while actively engaging communities as equal partners in the design, monitoring and evaluation of our field projects. Team members are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner and respect local laws, customs and MC’s policies, procedures, and values at all times and in all in-country venues.

How to apply:

learn more and apply here: Mercy Corps Careers – Consultancy – M-RED Economic Development Program sustainability research – Nepal, Indonesia, Timor Leste