1. 1 Increasing effectiveness and efficiency of our partnership 21 October 2010

2. 2

3. 3 Did you know these existing novelties? What brings us the near future? Some recent info on our partnership

4. 4 Did you know these existing novelties? What brings us the near future? Some recent info on our partnership

5. 5 Small scale response, epidemics and DREF 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

6. 6 Did you know these existing novelties? What brings us the near future? Some recent info on our partnership

7. 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 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)

8. 8 Did you know these existing novelties? What brings us the near future? Some recent info on our partnership

9. 9 E-Single Form: it works! So, be prepared and 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. 10 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.

11. 11 Did you know these existing novelties? What brings us the near future? Some recent info on our partnership

12. 12 Some information on our partnership Grants per current partner 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

13. 13 Some information on our partnership 183 NGO FPA partners to date P versus A And the new partners specifically? A-control mechanism 1/4th (20 partners) for procurement issue only New partners

14. 14 Some information on our partnership

15. 15 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 200820092010 for NGOs26164 for IO/UN594818 Globally32259 Average duration of Actions: 309 calendar days 317 days for NGOs 290 days for IO/UN Average payment delays 2008 2009 2010 Pre-financing: 11 days12 1113 Final payment: 45+43+30+42+50

16. 16 Did you know these existing novelties? What brings us the near future? Some recent info on our partnership

17. 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 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

18. 18 FPA mid-term revision Main Changes: Single Form oReport on Specific objective under 4.3.2 oNew oNew: section 13 (optional) & Annex B check-list helping with final reports SF guidelines oClarifications & Clearer definitions oNew oNew Slightly revised list of sectors (new sectors: Demining, gender, child protection, cash as sub-sector) Financial guidelines oNew oNew : Introduction of liquidation thresholds (no additional info requested in final report below this thresholds) oNew oNew : Summary table of requirements Fact sheets oFS D3 – Cash – revised according guidelines oNew oNew : FS A7 – eSingle Form oNew oNew : fully revised FS on HPCs

19. 19 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

20. 20 Did you know these existing novelties? What brings us the near future? Some recent info on our partnership

21. 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 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)

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

23. 23 Did you know these existing novelties? What brings us the near future? Some recent info on our partnership

24. 24 Annual assessment

25. 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 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

26. 26 Did you know these existing novelties? What brings us the near future? Some recent info on our partnership

27. 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 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.

28. 28 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

29. 29 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

30. 30 Did you know these existing novelties? What brings us the near future? Some recent info on our partnership

31. 31 Enhanced response capacity Thematic funding/ Capacity building for IO Grant Facility for NGOs

32. 32 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 Thematic funding/ Capacity building for IO Grant Facility for NGOs Enhanced Response Capacity

33. 33 Did you know these existing novelties? What brings us the near future? Some recent info on our partnership

34. 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 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

35. 35 DIPECHO - decision Operational reserve Other decisions (TAs & offices, capacity building, information & communication, …) JanuaryMaySeptemberDecember Global plans, ad-hoc decisions and emergency decisions Current Financing Decision process

36. 36 DIPECHO - decision World-Wide decision Operational reserve Emergency decisions Other decisions (TAs & offices, capacity building, information & communication, …) JanuaryMaySeptemberDecember New Financing Decision process

37. 37 DIPECHO - decision World-Wide decision Operational reserve Emergency decisions Other decisions (TAs & offices, capacity building, information & communication, …) JanuaryMaySeptemberDecember New Financing Decision process

38. 38 DIPECHO - decision World-Wide decision Operational reserve Emergency decisions Other decisions (TAs & offices, capacity building, information & communication, …) JanuaryMaySeptemberDecember New Financing Decision process

39. 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 response One contract can cover several HIP versions An 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. 40 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 dont need as such an intention letter In any case, the Single Form or intention letter to be sent to echo-central-mailbox@ec.europa.euecho-central-mailbox@ec.europa.eu

41. 41 Implications for our partners More focused information (HIP = limited to 7 pages) Global view on ECHOs 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

42. 42 Did you know these existing novelties? What brings us the near future? Some recent info on our partnership

43. 43