close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

FPA mid-term revision

код для вставкиСкачать
Increasing effectiveness and efficiency
of our partnership
21 October 2010
1
2
Did you know these
existing novelties?
Some recent info on
our partnership
What brings us the
near future?
3
Did you know these
existing novelties?
Some recent info on
our partnership
What brings us the
near future?
4
Small scale response, epidemics and DREF
Type of activities
Epidemics Decisions
Small-scale response Decision
п‚· Funding responses to epidemic disease
outbreaks or "predictable" disasters.
п‚· Funding responses to emergencies in a
limited
geographic
area
with
insufficient local response.
п‚· Preparedness
undertaken.
actions
might
be п‚· some small preparedness actions
undertaken and the nature and type of
the intervention actions described.
DREF
п‚· 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.
2010
Epidemics: 10 Mio from 1/07/10 to 31/12/11
Small scale: 8 Mio from 1/07/10 to 31/12/11
2011
To be decided
5
Did you know these
existing novelties?
Some recent info on
our partnership
What brings us the
near future?
6
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 aid
respect the fundamental humanitarian principles
It should enjoy legal personality
It should provide adequate financial guarantees
Who?
GTZ, THW, Swedish Rescue Services Agency (MSB)
7
Did you know these
existing novelties?
Some recent info on
our partnership
What brings us the
near future?
8
E-Single Form: it works!
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
So, be prepared
and visit the stand on the first floor
9
E-Single Form: it works!
New release on-line system since 4 October:
Quality enhancements:
Faster creation of e-Requests and faster saving
Improved 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 Report
Acknowledgement 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 systems
Partial 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.
10
Did you know these
existing novelties?
Some recent info on
our partnership
What brings us the
near future?
11
Some information on our partnership
Grants per current partner
100%
90%
80%
More than 3 agreem ents;
33%
More than 3 agreem ents;
34%
70%
60%
50%
40%
3 grant agreem ents;
6%
2 grant agreem ents;
11%
3 grant agreem ents;
8%
2 grant agreem ents;
9%
1 grant agreem ent;
20%
1 grant agreem ent;
22%
30%
20%
10%
No grant agreem ent;
30%
No grant agreem ent;
27%
0%
2008
Year of start of operation
2009
Control mechanism independent
no grant agreement : 55% P, 45 % A
1 agreement : 60% P, 40% A
Initiative to address the issue with the partners
concerned
12
Some information on our partnership
183 NGO FPA partners to date
P versus A
100%
90%
80%
A-control mechanism
P; 56%
70%
% of total partners
P; 68%
60%
P; 78%
пЃ‡1/4th (20 partners) for
procurement issue only
50%
40%
пЃ‡New partners
30%
A; 44%
20%
A; 32%
10%
A; 22%
0%
2008
2009
A control mechanism
2010
P control mechanim
And the new partners specifically?
Number of new partners
A control mechanism
P control mechanism
2008
9
2009
10
8
1
2010
5
8
2
5
0
13
Some information on our partnership
Funding by category of partners
50%
45%
47%
44%
42%
47%
46%
39%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
14%
15%
11%
10%
10%
5%
0%
2007
2008
NGO
UN
2009
IO
14
Some information on the implementation
Co-financing versus full funding for NGOs:
58,24% of agreements are co-financed
Average % of co-financing = 78,23 %
Delay in reporting in
for NGOs
for IO/UN
Globally
2008
2009
2010
26
59
32
16
48
25
4
18
9
Average duration of Actions: 309 calendar days
317 days for NGOs
290 days for IO/UN
Average payment delays 2008
Pre-financing: 11 days
Final payment: 45+43
12
+30
2009
2010
11
+42
13
+50
15
Did you know these
existing novelties?
Some recent info on
our partnership
What brings us the
near future?
16
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 process
Started in first semester 2009
First draft second semester 2009
Feedback 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
17
FPA mid-term revision
Main Changes:
Single Form
o Report on Specific objective under 4.3.2
o New: section 13 (optional) & Annex B check-list helping with final reports
SF guidelines
o Clarifications & Clearer definitions
o New Slightly revised list of sectors
(new sectors: Demining, gender, child protection, cash as sub-sector)
Financial guidelines
o New : Introduction of liquidation thresholds
(no additional info requested in final report below this thresholds)
o New : Summary table of requirements
Fact sheets
o FS D3 – Cash – revised according guidelines
o New : FS A7 – eSingle Form
o New : fully revised FS on HPCs
18
FPA mid-term revision
The draft
Humanitarian 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
19
Did you know these
existing novelties?
Some recent info on
our partnership
What brings us the
near future?
20
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 Brussels
14 implementing partners followed also training in
the field
454 participants of partners, 26 of implementing
partners
Traditional training: 118 participants from
partners. Three sessions planned for end 2010
(additional 50 participants to foresee)
21
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 world
through any type of internet connection
six 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)
22
Did you know these
existing novelties?
Some recent info on
our partnership
What brings us the
near future?
23
Annual assessment
Assessment conducted in 2009/2010
Impact on FPA
Number of files under review Suspension
Changes of control
mechanism
Termination
Phase 1
183 partners
58 A control mechanism
2
2
112 P control mechanism
13 "P conditions"
2
2
Total
Phase 2
61 partners
7 A control mechanism
54 P control mechanism
1
0
1
Total
2
3
Grand total
Changes mean transfer from one CM to the other or application of conditions.
0
2
4
6
1
25
26
32
24
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 Form
The 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
tool
In case of availability on-line tool, files will be shared
with ex-post auditors, what would reduce burden for
partners
25
Did you know these
existing novelties?
Some recent info on
our partnership
What brings us the
near future?
26
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 proposals
Coordinated 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.
27
Consortium: to be or not to be
What are the possible options?
Individual proposals
Consortium =
1 partner who has signed MoU with other
implementing 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
activities
An agreement (and Single Form) per partner
28
Consortium: to be or not to be
Some pro and cons
Pro-active coordination is always positive, when
feasible
Several 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
activities
Consortia/ coordinated responses gives a possibility to
take new and smaller NGOs on board for
specific issues
29
Did you know these
existing novelties?
Some recent info on
our partnership
What brings us the
near future?
30
Enhanced response capacity
Thematic funding/
Capacity building
for IO
Grant Facility
for NGOs
31
Enhanced response capacity
Thematic funding/
Capacity building
for IO
Grant Facility
for NGOs
Enhanced Response Capacity
One global approach for NGO, IO and UN
More focus on addressing gaps in the overall
humanitarian system by an integrated response
Will be published beginning of 2011
=> no Grant Facility end of 2010
Will be addressed in more detail in
next workshop
32
Did you know these
existing novelties?
Some recent info on
our partnership
What brings us the
near future?
33
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 WWD
Some 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 crisis
clear transparent procedures treating all partners on equal basis
When 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
34
Current Financing Decision process
DIPECHO - decision
Global plans, ad-hoc decisions and
emergency decisions
Operational reserve
Other decisions (TAs & offices, capacity building, information & communication, …)
January
May
September
December
35
New Financing Decision process
DIPECHO - decision
World-Wide decision
Operational reserve
Emergency decisions
Other decisions (TAs & offices, capacity building, information & communication, …)
January
May
September
December
36
New Financing Decision process
DIPECHO - decision
World-Wide decision
Operational reserve
Emergency decisions
Other decisions (TAs & offices, capacity building, information & communication, …)
January
May
September
December
37
New Financing Decision process
DIPECHO - decision
World-Wide decision
Operational reserve
Emergency decisions
Other decisions (TAs & offices, capacity building, information & communication, …)
January
May
September
December
38
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 response
One contract can cover several HIP versions
An internal ECHO-procedure replacing heavy lengthy
procedure (inter-service consultation, HAC, EPscrutiny, …)
When a HIP or a new version is published, all
partners receive an e-mail.
39
Humanitarian Implementation Plan (HIP)
Two possible methods for allocation of funds:
Directly through Single Forms
First, through intention letters followed by Single Forms for
pre-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]
40
Implications for our partners
More focused information (HIP = limited to 7 pages)
Global view on ECHO’s response in a given crisis
Less 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
41
Did you know these
existing novelties?
Some recent info on
our partnership
What brings us the
near future?
42
Good
B
2
gether
43
Документ
Категория
Презентации
Просмотров
18
Размер файла
1 672 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа