1 increasing effectiveness and efficiency of our partnership 21 october 2010

1

Increasing effectiveness and efficiency of our partnership

21 October 2010

3

Did you know these existing novelties?

What brings us the near future?

Some recent info on our partnership

4




5

Small scale response, epidemics and DREF

2010Epidemics: 10 Mio from 1/07/10 to 31/12/11Small scale: 8 Mio from 1/07/10 to 31/12/11

2011To be decided

Epidemics Decisions Small-scale response Decision DREF

Type of activities

Funding responses to epidemic disease outbreaks or "predictable" disasters.

Preparedness actions might be undertaken.

Funding responses to emergencies in a limited geographic area with insufficient local response.

some small preparedness actions undertaken and the nature and type of the intervention actions described.

Funding responses to emergencies without international appeal of IFRC,.

Duration Decision Maximum 18 months Maximum 18 months 18 months

Number of agreements

Several per funding Decision One per small-scale disaster One overall agreement for the whole

Decision

Max. amount per action

No specific limit EUR 200.000 per action. EUR 200.000 per action.

6




7

Recognition procedure for Specialised Agencies of Member

States

Elements to be considered are:an entity set up in a Member State of the EU;a public sector body or a private law entity with a public service mission, but it cannot be a State department or a ministry. three years of expertise on the field of humanitarian aidrespect the fundamental humanitarian principles It should enjoy legal personalityIt should provide adequate financial guarantees

Who? GTZ, THW, Swedish Rescue Services Agency (MSB)

8




9

E-Single Form: it works!

So, be preparedand visit the stand on the first floor

We believe that the eSingle Form is now sufficiently reliable and solid to become completely operational.

We expect that all agreements signed from 1 January 2011 onwards will be based upon proposals submitted through the eSingle Form.

We will continue to upgrade the system further in order to cover adequately your and our requirements.

Thank you all very much for your cooperation

10

E-Single Form: it works!New release on-line system since 4 October:

Quality enhancements:Faster creation of e-Requests and faster savingImproved rich text editor (copy/paste function and tables)Correction of several issues reported during the pilot phase

Functional changes:New fields "final state"" in the financial overview of the Final ReportAcknowledgement letter available in PDF after submission of e-documents Compliance of the system with FAFA and FPA-IO

Flexibility:Improved integration between the online and offline systemsPartial upload of a proposal from the offline system into APPEL (chapter by chapter)Export of projects from APPEL into the offline system

New release off-line system presented today, with some new features demanded by you:

help in the preparation of the different e-Documents, sharing files and working collaboratively, give comments inside partner organisation,print and transfer projects from APPEL into the offline system.

11




12

Some information on our partnership

Grants per current partner

Control mechanism independentno grant agreement : 55% P, 45 % A1 agreement : 60% P, 40% A

Initiative to address the issue with the partners concerned

No grant agreement; 30%

No grant agreement; 27%

1 grant agreement; 22%

1 grant agreement; 20%

2 grant agreements; 11%2 grant agreements;

9%

3 grant agreements; 8%

3 grant agreements; 6%

More than 3 agreements; 33%

More than 3 agreements; 34%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2008 2009Year of start of operation

13


183 NGO FPA partners to dateP versus A

And the new partners specifically?

A-control mechanism

1/4th (20 partners) for procurement issue only

New partners

2008 2009 2010Number of new partners 9 10 5

A control mechanism 8 8 5P control mechanism 1 2 0

A; 22%A; 32%

A; 44%

P; 78%P; 68%

P; 56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2008 2009 2010

% o

f to

tal p

artn

ers

A control mechanism P control mechanim

14


Funding by category of partners

47%44%

47%

42%46%

39%

11% 10%14%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2007 2008 2009

NGO UN IO

15

Some information on the implementation

Co-financing versus full funding for NGOs:58,24% of agreements are co-financedAverage % of co-financing = 78,23 %

Delay in reporting in 2008 2009 2010for NGOs 26 16 4for IO/UN 59 48 18Globally 32 25 9

Average duration of Actions: 309 calendar days317 days for NGOs290 days for IO/UN

Average payment delays 2008 2009 2010

Pre-financing: 11 days 12 11 13Final payment: 45+43 +30 +42 +50

16




17

FPA Mid-term revision Purpose of the exercise: To clarify issues according to feedbacks received To make compulsory revisions (i.e. EC -> EU) To revise wording and structures of text To address e-Single Form-issues and to include missing information

Consultation processStarted in first semester 2009First draft second semester 2009Feedback first semester 2010… and you have it in the handouts of this Conference!Interlocutors: FPA Watch Group, IO, UN, desks& experts, other DGs - mainly Central Financial Service

18

FPA mid-term revisionMain Changes:

Single Form o Report on Specific objective under 4.3.2o NewNew: section 13 (optional) & Annex B check-list helping with

final reports

SF guidelines o Clarifications & Clearer definitionso NewNew Slightly revised list of sectors

(new sectors: Demining, gender, child protection, cash as sub-sector)

Financial guidelines o NewNew : Introduction of liquidation thresholds

(no additional info requested in final report below this thresholds)

o NewNew : Summary table of requirements Fact sheets o FS D3 – Cash – revised according guidelineso NewNew : FS A7 – eSingle Formo NewNew : fully revised FS on HPCs

19

FPA mid-term revision

The draftHumanitarian Aid Guidelines for Procurement

exists!!!!!!!

A first version is in the handouts of this Conference

Yes, yes,… it is a bit heavy as it intends to be complete

a 10 pages summary is being prepared

20




21

Training

In 2010 training was merely focused on e-Single Form, some figures on participation:

124 partners in the field, from which 58 followed also training in Brussels14 implementing partners followed also training in the field454 participants of partners, 26 of implementing partners

Traditional training: 118 participants from partners. Three sessions planned for end 2010 (additional 50 participants to foresee)

22

Training

Training sessions organised in Europe outside Brussels (already announced Berlin, London, Madrid, Copenhagen)2 new modules will be ready from 2011 onwards: “Audit” and “Procurement”Distance learning courses on e-Single Form:

from anywhere in the worldthrough any type of internet connectionsix courses planned in November more will follow in the following months. More info and training calendar on the Helpdesk Portal (http://www.dgecho-partners-helpdesk.eu/doku.php/dl/start)

http://www.dgecho-partners-helpdesk.eu/doku.php/dl/start





23




24

Annual assessment

Suspension Termination

Phase 1 183 partners58 A control mechanism 2 2 0

112 P control mechanism 213 "P conditions" 4

Total 2 2 6Phase 2 61 partners

7 A control mechanism 154 P control mechanism 1 25

Total 0 1 26Grand total 2 3 32

Changes mean transfer from one CM to the other or application of conditions.

Assessment conducted in 2009/2010 Impact on FPAChanges of control

mechanism Number of files under review

25

Annual assessment

… and in 2010 (on 2009 accounts)?Process delayed to end 2010:

Hopefully an on-line tool integrated in APPEL: less administrative burden, access as for e Single FormThe questionnaire: no big change, better explanation on requested data (will be available by end of October on website)

Phase 2 will be launched beginning 2011 with more focused questionnaire and hopefully the same on-line toolIn case of availability on-line tool, files will be shared with ex-post auditors, what would reduce burden for partners

26




27

Consortium: to be or not to be

Is ECHO imposing the use of consortia? NO! There is no general policy in DG ECHO giving a preference to consortia or to impose consortia.

What is ECHO looking for? First of all, to cover the beneficiaries needs and to reach the expected results on the basis of qualitative proposalsCoordinated proposals between partners normally also result in better coordinated implementation in the field.Even in big emergencies or global plans, the number of agreements has to be kept at a reasonable level to stay manageable for workload purposes.

28


What are the possible options?

Individual proposals

Consortium = 1 partner who has signed MoU with otherimplementing partners (can include non-FPA partners)One agreement for all activities

Coordinated response = an agreement between partners on 1 common overall response (logframe), specifying who implements which activitiesAn agreement (and Single Form) per partner

29


Some pro and consPro-active coordination is always positive, when feasibleSeveral easy to manage agreements can become a headache if they are grouped in 1 proposal without clear structure and framework being present A consortium puts all responsibility with 1 partner (also for later audits)The coordinated approach shall not result in significantly higher support costs for coordination activitiesConsortia/ coordinated responses gives a possibility to take new and smaller NGOs on board for specific issues

30




31

Enhanced response capacity

Thematic funding/ Capacity building

for IO

Grant Facility for NGOs

32

Enhanced response capacity

One global approach for NGO, IO and UNMore focus on addressing gaps in the overall humanitarian system by an integrated responseWill be published beginning of 2011 => no Grant Facility end of 2010Will be addressed in more detail in next workshop

Thematic funding/ Capacity building

for IO

Grant Facility for NGOs

Enhanced Response Capacity

33




34

Rationalisation of the humanitarian aid decision-making

Group all global plans and ad-hoc decisions in: 1 World-Wide decision covering all crisis-related actions 1 DIPECHO decision, to be integrated in 2012 in WWDSome technical ad-hoc decisions (ERC, offices,…)

Keep specific procedures for emergencies and EDF-budget

Better information of other stakeholders (other DGs, Member States, EP, partners…):

not only prior information on ECHO-intentions, but also on what has been done during the year and what changes occurred a global vision per country/ protracted crisisclear transparent procedures treating all partners on equal basisWhen adopting geographic decision, clear definition of envelopes per region and indicative repartition per country/crisis (currently not communicated externally)

DIPECHO: same procedures as other financing decisions, no call for expression of interest anymore

35

DIPECHO - decision

Operational reserve

Other decisions (TAs & offices, capacity building, information & communication, …)

January May September December

Glob

al plans, ad-hoc decisions a

nd em

ergency decisionsCurrent Financing Decision process

36

DIPECHO - decision

World-Wide decision

Operational reserve

Emergency decisions



New Financing Decision process

37

DIPECHO - decision

World-Wide decision

Operational reserve

Emergency decisions




38

DIPECHO - decision

World-Wide decision

Operational reserve

Emergency decisions




39

Humanitarian Implementation Plan (HIP)

What is a HIP?a snapshot of the situation in a given crisis/country at a specific moment in time, an overview of the humanitarian needs and ECHO's response to address the challenges identified, informs the reader of the planned allocation of funds as well as the state of allocated funds

Consecutive versions document the evolution of humanitarian aid situation and humanitarian responseOne contract can cover several HIP versionsAn internal ECHO-procedure replacing heavy lengthy procedure (inter-service consultation, HAC, EP-scrutiny, …)When a HIP or a new version is published, all partners receive an e-mail.

40

Humanitarian Implementation Plan (HIP)

Two possible methods for allocation of funds:Directly through Single FormsFirst, through intention letters followed by Single Forms forpre-selected intention letters.

What is an intention letter?max 5 pages, Free format or based on the Single form format Describes area intervention, sector, duration, beneficiaries, context/needs assessment, proposed response (results, activities), estimated costs, requested contribution, contact details. humanitarian programmes and appeals (CAPs or CHAPs) are taken on board and don’t need as such an intention letter

In any case, the Single Form or intention letter to be sent to [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

41

Implications for our partners

More focused information (HIP = limited to 7 pages)Global view on ECHO’s response in a given crisisLess splitting of contracts for administrative reasons (the only remaining reason is different budget lines)Eligibility date is not linked anymore to date of first transmission of Single Form (now specified in HIP, SF and agreement)Much shorter delay between finalisation of HIP and signature of agreements

42




43

GoodB gether2

1 increasing effectiveness and efficiency of our partnership 21 october 2010

Documents

partnership slide

cooperation slide

recent info

existing novelties

near future

partnership grants

new partners

new release online system