Consultant, Governance Review for the Risk-informed Early Action Partnership (REAP)

The Risk-informed Early Action Partnership (REAP, also ‘the Partnership’) brings together stakeholders across the climate, humanitarian, and development communities with the aim of making 1 billion people safer from disasters by 2025, by embedding early action at scale. REAP was launched at the UN Climate Action Summit in 2019, with four targets designed to drive a systemic shift towards acting earlier, to reduce the impacts of disasters. REAP has also identified three drivers of change which inform its approach towards the 4 Targets, as set out in the REAP Strategic Vision and REAP Framework for Action. The REAP Secretariat is hosted by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

REAP is now looking toward its next strategic phase, 2026-2030. A 2030 strategy has been co-developed by Partners in order to continue REAP’s work while adapting to the new landscape and refreshing the value proposition of the Partnership. In REAP’s 2030 vision, people are resilient to the climate crisis because risk-informed early action is taken wherever and whenever needed, which REAP will achieve by “uniting governments and organisations working across all aspects of early warnings and early action, actively connecting diverse actors and initiatives to make sense of the complex ecosystems that enable early action, build coherence and complementarity of efforts, and enable partners to collectively scale resilient systems for risk-informed early action.” REAP will continue to push for systemic changes in finance for early action and for policy integration at all levels, while delivering the critical partnership functions—convening, community building, knowledge exchange and advocacy—that Partners have come to value. REAP’s next strategic phase will also include a more explicit focus in two important areas: (1) Being led by the needs of climate-vulnerable governments, using regional intergovernmental organisations as a way to achieve impact at scale and thus make best use of limited resources, and (2) Putting Partners in the driving seat so they take greater ownership over REAP’s work and build long-term sustainability of its efforts.

This review will consider whether the current governance arrangements of the Partnership are appropriate to deliver on the new strategy. This will include reviewing the Governing Board’s composition and terms of reference, the role of the Technical Advisory Group, and formal engagement at the working level via the Working Groups.

The current governance structure of the Partnership includes:

1. A Governing Board which is representative of the broader Partnership and is the ultimate decision-making body.
2. A small Technical Advisory Group, which provides advice on matters relating to the fulfilment of the Partnership’s objectives.
3. Working Groups that focus on technical areas linked to the 4 Targets.
4. A Secretariat, hosted by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

The Governing Board was first convened in 2020 and comprised a cross-section of the founding partners, intended to represent the different perspectives of various constituencies (climate, development, humanitarian, donor government, climate-vulnerable government, UN agencies, Civil Society, Private Sector, etc.). In light of the new strategy, now is the right time to review whether the Governing Board’s composition, terms of reference and co-chairing arrangement are fit for the future of the partnership.

The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was suggested by Governing Board representatives as a way to filter topics to be discussed at the Governing Board and to provide more day-to-day direction to the Secretariat, freeing up the Governing Board to focus on the strategic direction of the Partnership. In 2024-25, this was temporarily replaced by a group assembled to work on the new strategy. Again, it is the right time to see if the TAG is still an appropriate part of REAP’s governance model.

Working Groups were established at the outset of the Partnership in order to convene Partners at the working level and have evolved over the years to focus more explicitly on achievement of the 4 Targets. With the new trajectory becoming clearer, we will need to consider how to best convene Partners at the working level (in particular given current resources constraints across all stakeholders) and ensure that these activities deliver value for the Partnership as a whole.

A. Expected activities

• Review current governance documentation
• Design, disseminate, and analyse a Partner survey
• Design and conduct key informant interviews
• Draft a report and test recommendations with key stakeholders
• Update governance documentation as required

Note: This review will not involve a formal literature review. However, the successful candidate is expected to be able to demonstrate and apply their experience of other relevant governance models.

B. Expected outputs

1. Short report including SWOT analysis of current governance arrangements and recommendations on how to refine/revise them to support delivery of the new strategy.
2. Draft updated terms of reference and composition of the Governing Board, plus other groups (Technical Advisory Group and Working Groups) as required.
3. Draft transition plan for implementing new governance arrangements.

C. Key questions to be resolved

1. What has worked regarding the Partnership’s governance model to date and what have the challenges been?
2. Are the terms of reference for the Governing Board still relevant and appropriate?
3. Does the composition of the Governing Board need to alter in light of the new strategy?
4. Is the Technical Advisory Group still required or is there an alternative governance model that REAP could apply?
5. How can greater ownership by Partners over the work of the Partnership be encouraged? Is this via the Working Groups, or are there other ways of convening Partners at the working level that REAP can implement?
6. Could membership fees help or hinder the mission and functioning of the partnership?

D. Expected duration

Two months (30 working days). The final report and updated documents must be submitted by 31st August 2025.

E. Schedule of deliverables

• D.1. Inception report: 1 working day, within 1 week of the contract signature.
• D.2. Draft report with key recommendations: 20 working days, within 6 weeks of signature.
• D.3. Final report with recommendations and updated documents / ToRs, transition plan, etc.: 9 working days, within 2 months of signature.

Required

• Minimum 10 years’ experience in governance issues and good practice.
• Proven experience in designing and implement governance reviews.

Required

• Fluency in English, including an ability to write clearly and concisely.
• Excellent research and evaluation skills, including an ability to synthesise complex information and use it to support decision-making.
• Strong interpersonal skills and the ability to guide discussions despite complex and sometimes divergent perspectives/priorities, as well as the ability to develop trusted relationships with a wide range of stakeholders.
• Awareness of power imbalances across different stakeholders groups and strategies for addressing these to ensure fully participatory processes.
• Understanding of the motivations, priorities, opportunities and barriers to action at different levels of governance, i.e. the international, regional, (sub)national and local.

Preferred

• Proficiency in French and/or Spanish is desirable.

Application Instructions

• Please submit your application in English only.
• Please include these documents in the application:
  • CV
  • Proposal (max. 3 pages). Proposals must include the following not exceeding 3 pages:
    • Understanding of the consultancy purpose and objectives;
    • Experience in leading similar types of processes;
    • Outline of the proposed approach, including key considerations for ensuring a participatory outcome;
    • Initial list of key activities and deliverables, detailing potential support required;
    • Daily rate, including professional fees and any expenses.

The proposal may also include links to previous work or reports. Please do not include these documents in your application.