Crisis Protection Gap – Bottom Up Costing Analysis

This scope of work relates to the technical track of the Crisis Protection Gap project. The objective of the work is to provide an assessment of the current evidence base on the emergency response costs associated when responding to four crisis types: i) droughts ii) conflict-induced displacement, iii) disease and iv) cyclones. The work should also provide an assessment of the robustness of this evidence base.

The contractor is expected to undertake the following four tasks.

1. Identification of the response activities that typically need to be provided

For each of the four crisis types, the contractor should identify the (i) types of emergency responses that are typically required, (ii) the phasing of these responses in relation to when the crisis event commences, and (iii) in the first instance, a qualitative assessment of the relative importance of these different response activities.

For example:

• In relation to drought, the main responses are expected to relate to the provision of food, nutrition, cash and health assistance, as well as fodder and medicines to keep livestock healthy.
• In relation to cyclones, the key activities are expected to include the provision of shelter and non food items (and/or cash)
• In relation to conflict-induced displacement, a multi-sectoral response will typically be required
• In relation to health, the nature of the responses will likely vary with the nature of the diseases being treated. The scope of diseases to be considered will be determined in consultation with the Centre.

The list of response activities should be those associated with a new crisis event that drives a significant increase in needs compared to the baseline. It should include anticipatory actions where appropriate. The duration from the crisis event for which responses need to be provided will be determined in consultation with the Centre, but, indicatively, it is expected to cover a period of approximately 100 days from the start of the crisis.

2. Identification of cost structure and key controls for each response activity

For each of the response activities identified in step 1, the work should provide an understanding of the cost structure of these activities and the key factors (controls) that determine these costs.

This is expected to take the following form:

• Identification of the cost structure of each of the response activities. In most cases, it is expected that response activities can be explained as consisting of a fixed element that need to be incurred following any crisis of that type, and a variable element which depends on the number of people that require support. However, more complicated cost structures may be identified , or cost drivers other than the number of affected people may be relevant.
• Identification of the key factors or controls that influence the costs incurred following a particular crisis event. These may include:
  • Factors/controls related to the location of the event or the characteristics of the exposed population. For example, costs may be higher in rural locations, where underlying coping capacity is lower or in countries that experience more macroeconomic instability.
  • Factors/controls related to the characteristics of the crisis (hazard). For example, even if the same number of people are affected, the rapid onset of a disease may require more costs to be incurred than if the disease outbreak had been slower.

3. Quantification of the cost structure

The third step involves providing quantitative evidence on the cost drivers associated with each response activity, and the influence that the various identified controls have on these costs.

For example, this might identify that the costs associated with a multi-sectoral response to a forced displacement event is $xm +$ym per person displaced, but that in certain (specified) contexts it can be as low as $am +$bm per person displaced, while in other (specified) contexts it may be as high as $qm +$rm per person displaced.

In cases when the costs might vary within the emergency response period identified , this should be identified and this variation explained quantitatively.

4. Assessment of robustness

The final stage of the work should provide a qualitative assessment of the robustness of the cost estimates provided, identifying where the evidence base is relatively weak and relatively strong and any recommendations for further research that should be undertaken by the Centre.