Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program

Transcription

1 Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program Grant Agreement [TF099878] Grant Manual

2 Table of contents List of abbreviations 1. Introduction and Purpose of the Manual 2. Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program (PBS II) 2.1 Background 2.2 Objectives of ESAP2 2.3 ESAP2 Grant Scheme and Budget 2.4 Social Accountability Social Accountability Tools Sectors Example Projects 3. Phase I: Application 3.1 Eligibility of the Applicants: Who Can Apply? 3.2 Eligibility of Applications: What Do You Need to Address? 3.3 Eligibility of Costs: What Can Be Covered? 3.4 Period of Grant Implementation 3.5 Application Submission 3.6 Tentative Timing of the Application Process 3.7 Request for Clarifications 4. Phase II: Evaluation and Selection of Applications 4.1 Evaluation of Eligibility and Administrative Criteria 4.2 Evaluation of the Quality of the Grant Application and Applicant Organizational Capacity Quality of Application Logical Framework Budget Higher Relevance

3 Provisional Selection of the Applications Phase III: Contracting 5.1 Financial Capacity Assessment 5.2 Assessor s Requirements and Contract Negotiation 5.3 Contract and Method of Payment Phase IV: Implementation 6.1 SAIP Capacity Development & Training Program 6.2 Monitoring Implementation and Progress Quarterly Narrative Reporting Quarterly Financial Reporting and Audit Statement / Report of Factual Findings Monitoring and Evaluation 6.3 Collecting Good Practices 6.4 Amendment of the Grant 6.5 Suspension and Termination of the Grant Phase V: Closing 7.1 Final Narrative Reporting 7.2 Final Financial Reporting and Audit statement / Report of Factual Findings 7.3 Close Out 7.4 Dissemination of Results and Lessons Learnt 8. Annexes

4 List of abbreviations BT CBO CFP CRC CSC CSO CSP DfID ESAP Budget Tracking Community-Based Organization Call for Proposals Citizens Report Cards Community Score Card Civil Society Organization Charities and Societies Proclamation Department for International Development Ethiopia Social Accountability Program ESAP2 Ethiopia Social Accountability Program 2 EU GoE MA MDTF M & E MoU OFAG PB PBS PET SA SAC SAIP SNNPRS WB European Union Government of Ethiopia Management Agency Multi-Donor Trust Fund Monitoring and Evaluation Memorandum of Understanding Office of the Federal Auditor General Participatory Budgeting Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services Public Expenditure Tracking Social Accountability Social Accountability Council Social Accountability Implementing Partner Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional State World Bank

5 1. Introduction and Purpose of the Manual In an effort to reduce poverty and enhance decentralized public service delivery to the poor, the Government of Ethiopia (GoE), with the support of International Development Partners, embarked on the Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services (PBS) project. PBS supports Ethiopia s progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and helps improve broad based economic growth, governance and basic public service delivery. The Ethiopia Social Accountability Program 2 (ESAP2) is part of PBS and seeks to improve basic public service delivery by local governments. It aims to strengthen the use of social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms by citizens and citizen groups, civil society organizations, local government officials and service providers as a means to make basic service delivery more equitable, effective, efficient, responsive and accountable. ESAP2 includes a grant scheme as a funding mechanism for social accountability initiatives in Ethiopia. With funding from the scheme, grant projects can be implemented, which seek to give voice to the needs, priorities and concerns of all citizens on their access to and quality of basic public services in the areas of education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and rural roads the sectors supported through PBS. This Grant Manual is developed for CSOs, CBOs and faith-based organizations that are interested to receive a grant from the ESAP2 grant scheme. The Grant Manual contains a detailed description of all the rules and regulations that are applicable to the grant scheme and its Call for Proposals. It discusses the application, evaluation, contracting, implementation, reporting and close-out procedures and contains all standard formats which will need to be used in the different phases of the ESAP2 grant scheme. The Manual is thus a guide for understanding what is expected from applicants and what applicants can expect from the ESAP2 Management Agency and ensures there will be equal and fair participation. The ESAP2 Management Agency hopes this Manual gives good guidance for the ESAP2 application process.

6 2. Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program (PBS II) 2.1 Background At the beginning of the Millennium, Ethiopia s human development indicators were amongst the very lowest in the world. In an effort to reduce poverty and enhance decentralized public service delivery to the poor, the Government of Ethiopia (GoE), with the support of International Development Partners, embarked on the Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services (PBS) project in PBS supports Ethiopia s progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and helps to improve broad based economic growth, governance and basic public service delivery. The objective of PBS is to contribute to expanding access and improving the quality of basic services in education, health, agriculture, water supply and sanitation, and rural roads delivered by sub-national governments, while continuing to deepen transparency and local accountability in service delivery. The PBS program is owned by the Government of Ethiopia, is financed in large part by government resources, and is implemented by using the country systems, while strengthening capacity for improved public financial management and accountability. PBS strives to strengthen and deepen financial transparency and accountability and social accountability initiatives. The objectives are to work further towards enhancement of transparency around public budgeting and monitoring procedures (planning, budget preparation, expenditures and audits, performance monitoring), and to enhance and scale up activities to engage civil society, citizens and citizen representative groups on basic services planning, budgeting, implementation, and monitoring to ensure that public basic service delivery reflects citizens needs and preferences. The Government of Ethiopia is fully committed to the effective implementation of PBS, including the social accountability initiatives. With respect to the Charities and Societies Proclamation (CSP), the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development has assured that CSP will not impede the smooth implementation of the social accountability activities of PBS. The approach to the delivery of the social accountability activities of the Grant Scheme will continue the citizens engagement partnership framework already established under the pilot phase. This framework specifies the roles, relationships, and functions, and clarifies that social accountability for service delivery is about the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery and as such it is not an activity that will be impeded by the CSP. Moreover, PBS funding of social accountability activities is considered as resources provided to the Government to finance a government approved program. The Government is committed to the principles specified in the framework for implementation of the Ethiopia Social Accountability Program that citizens and their organizations are the ones who engage with the service providers while local NGOs and others participate as facilitators and in capacity building.

7 2. Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program (PBS II) 2.2 Objectives of ESAP2 The Ethiopia Social Accountability Program 2 (ESAP2) is part of PBS and seeks to improve basic public service delivery by local governments by helping to make services better attuned to the needs and priorities of citizens. The overall objective of ESAP2 is to strengthen the use of social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms by citizens and citizen groups, civil society organizations, local government officials and service providers as a means to make basic service delivery more equitable, effective, efficient, responsive and accountable. It targets both men and women, including those living with HIV/Aids and/or disabilities. ESAP2 is the logical follow-up of the pilot project Ethiopia Social Accountability Project (ESAP1) that was implemented from January 2008 until June The purpose of the second phase is to scale-up the social accountability activities. Considering the lessons learnt during the first phase, ESAP2 will enhance its coverage, put more emphasis on building capacity, on mainstreaming socially excluded groups, and institutionalization and strengthening of monitoring and evaluation system. ESAP2 as such seeks to give voice to the needs and concerns of all citizens regarding their access to and the quality of basic public services basic education, health, water and sanitation, agricultural and rural roads. Through Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs), the program seeks to bring citizens into dialogue with local governments and service providers to contribute to and increase the demand for improved quality public basic services. ESAP2 will make use of a range of tools, mechanisms and best practices to build and enhance local capacity on social accountability in support of the Government of Ethiopia s wider efforts to improve transparency, accountability and citizens participation in public basic services delivery. Service users and service providers will evaluate the access and quality of basic services using social accountability tools (SA tools) and agree on joint actions for service delivery improvements. Through grant projects, SAIPs will provide intensive training for selected community representatives, citizen groups, local government officials etc. on social accountability principles, service standards and on selected social accountability tools to evaluate service delivery performance, and facilitate and support the use of the tools in selected woredas and kebeles. At the end of ESAP2, the program will have resulted in: Increased awareness of citizens and citizen groups of their rights, entitlements and responsibilities to contribute to and demand better quality public basic service delivery; Increased empowerment and involvement of citizens and citizen groups and communities in planning, budgeting, and implementation and monitoring of the quality of, access to and quantity of basic public service delivery; Increased capacity of SAIPs to empower citizens and citizen groups on use of SA tools, approaches and mechanisms;

8 2. Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program (PBS II) Increased capacity of public basic service providers to respond to community and citizens needs and preferences and be accountable; Improved quality of basic services in education, health, agriculture, water and sanitation, and rural roads attributed to the SA program. The above-mentioned objectives are to be achieved by implementing activities of the three components of which ESAP2 exists: Capacity Development and Training (see also section 6.1), Monitoring and Evaluation (see also section 6.2.3) and, of course, the Grant Scheme. ESAP2 is financed by a Multi Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) involving development partners through the World Bank. Currently, the development partners are Irish Aid, Department for International Development (UK-DFID), Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (Germany-KFW) and the European Commission. 2.3 ESAP2 Grant Scheme and Budget The grant scheme of ESAP 2 is a vehicle for achieving the objectives of the program through financial, technical and capacity development support to grantees (SAIPs). The grant scheme of ESAP2 provides a funding opportunity to CSOs to develop and implement social accountability initiatives in Ethiopia. Funds will be allocated to projects, that contribute to the objectives of ESAP2 and thus seeks to enhance citizens dialogue with local governments and service providers to contribute to and increase the demand for improved quality services in the areas of education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and rural roads. The total grant scheme budget for the first round of this Call for Proposals is currently $3,5 million but is expected to grow by August 2012 up to $10 million. Applicants can submit a grant proposal with a maximum budget of $ 237,000 (when targeting 3 woredas), $269,000 (when targeting 4 woredas) or $300,000 (when targeting 5 woredas). The MDTF will make additional amounts available for this grant scheme. The total grant budget is foreseen at $13 million with, in that case, approximately projects. As the additional funding is expected to be released in due time, the next best applications under the current Call for Proposals will be considered for funding, until the total budget expires. For details on the exact award procedure of the current funds and the expected additional funds, see section 4.3. In any circumstance, the MA reserves the right not to award all available funds.

9 2. Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program (PBS II) Grant Scheme Budget at a glance Total Grant Scheme Budget as per 6 May 2012 Total Grant Scheme Budget as per August 2012 Foreseen Total Grant Scheme Budget $3,5 million $10 million $13 million Maximum Budget Grant Application targeting 3 woredas $237,000 Maximum Budget Grant Application targeting 4 woredas $269,000 Maximum Budget Grant Application targeting 5 woredas $300,000 Number of SAIPS expected to be engaged under current Grant Scheme Budget Tentative number of SAIPs to be engaged based on total foreseen grant budget Social Accountability ESAP2 and thus its grant scheme focuses on social accountability. Social accountability is an approach in which citizens collectively demand for better public basic services from service providers, and hold service providers accountable for their performance. Social accountability is used as a mechanism to inform and educate citizens of their constitutional rights, and responsibilities. It is also used as a means to inform citizens about their public basic service entitlements and service standards and engage communities with public officials and service providers to demand more and better quality public basic services. Social accountability is thus a principle of good governance that relies on civic engagement. ESAP2 seeks to build this civic engagement by using a range of instruments and tools, such as participatory budgeting, monitoring of public service delivery, and citizens report cards Social Accountability Tools The basic social accountability tools that promote and foster effective, efficient, equitable and quality basic service delivery are for example: Participatory Budgeting (PB), Public Expenditure Tracking (PET), Citizens Report Cards (CRC) and Community Score Card (CSC). Grant applicants should have an understanding of what these tools are about and how to effectively make use of them in achieving the objectives of their grant project and thus, eventually of ESAP2. Ultimately, the effectiveness and sustainability of social accountability tools are improved when they are institutionalized that is, when the government has incorporated the use of these tools into its practices and when the state s own mechanisms of accountability are rendered more transparent and open to civic engagement. It is also improved when citizen groups and community based organization and membership-based organizations actively and routinely use social accountability mechanisms and tools to assess service providers performance, advocate and negotiate for change, and participate in basic services planning and delivery.

10 2. Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program (PBS II) By using the tools in the grant projects, capacity is build and best practices are used by both the Ethiopian civil society and the government sector. A brief description of the four frequently used social accountability tools is given below. All tools have been used in grant projects implemented under ESAP1. More information on the tools and how they were applied in the ESAP1 grant projects can be found on the following sites: Participatory Budgeting (PB) The process of Participatory Budgeting involves stakeholders and/or independent individuals, such as citizens and citizen groups, in the formulation of the basic services budget. Through their involvement, they can influence the amount and priorities of budgets allocated to basic services delivery. In the process, stakeholders examine and assess public budgets in relation to policy, preparation processes, implementation and outputs. This implies information sharing, focus groups consultations, and collaborative discussions among different groups and in the end, citizen contributions to governments decision-making. If deemed necessary, civil society actors prepare alternative budgets aiming at influencing budget formulation by expressing their preferences for budget allocations. Participatory budgeting usually occurs at the local level but can be applied at higher levels of government. Public Expenditure Tracking (PET) Public Expenditure Tracking surveys the flow of resources (human, financial, in-kind) through various levels of government to observe how much of the originally allocated public resources reach each level. Citizen groups can thus track how the local government actually spends funds, with the aim of identifying leakages and/or bottlenecks in the flow of financial resources or inputs. PET can track funds for basic services, such as funds for textbooks in primary education and funds for medication in health clinics. It can stimulate reforms through access to relevant information and reviewing priorities through interface meetings of government representatives and community members. Information is disseminated through media, publications and public meetings. Citizens Report Cards (CRC) The Citizens Report Card process involves gathering and disseminating citizen feedback on the access and quality of services to facilitate improvements in service delivery. The CRC is designed for a single locality and can be used in both rural and urban areas. CRC s are surveys that compile service users opinions on their satisfaction with service delivery, availability, usage, quality and equity. A key component is interface meetings where citizens can engage with government officials to address their concerns regarding service delivery, quality or equity and jointly agree on a reform agenda and a action plan to be monitored by both sides. Community Score Card (CSC) A Community Score Card is a tool where community members evaluate their access to basic services and the quality of services they receive. It is a participatory tool for assessing, planning, monitoring and evaluating basic services. In focus group discussions, community members develop indicators to evaluate the services they receive.

11 2. Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program (PBS II) At the same time, the service providers also assess in their focus group their performance in delivering services according to indicators. Access, quality and equity of basic service delivery are indicators used for evaluating performance. In interface meetings, service providers and service receivers present the results of their assessments, and discuss and analyze discrepancies found. Jointly, a reform agenda will be prepared with a plan of action to improve the services by all stakeholders. All stakeholders jointly steer and monitor the implementation of the action plan Sectors The ESAP2 Grant Scheme addresses five service sectors, namely education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and rural roads. The latter sector is new to the program, as it has not been targeted in ESAP1. Applicants should demonstrate capacity and resources to operate their accountability activities in at least two or more of these five sectors. Prospective grantees (SAIPs) are strongly encouraged to cover the performance of the sector as a whole in the kebele / woreda, not only engage with individual service facilities (such as individual schools or health centers). Below, we shortly sketch the sectors and provide examples on the challenges that exist in each sector s service delivery Education According to the previous ESAP1 experiences, the quality, relevance and equity of education have become a concern to citizens and citizen groups in Ethiopia. Examples of problems identified by the community in the education sector consist of insufficient number of teachers, unavailability of basic educational inputs and materials, unavailability of school facilities, and poor school and community relationships. Through engaging citizens and citizen groups in the locality with proper use and application of social accountability tools, implementing partners can create a conducive environment for dialogue between the local government (service providers) and the community (service users). This will help identify the basic education service delivery problems and enhances better service delivery through lobbying with the community. In ESAP2, the woreda administration can be involved in making the standards for education in their locality available, providing support in mobilizing the school community, designing and agreeing on action plan preparation based on the findings of the assessment by the community Health The health service sector at woreda level is expected to provide basic health services to mothers and children. In addition, a woreda health center makes provision of basic health services that help to prevent communicable diseases, provide basic medications and provide basic health package services. A woreda administration has a role to monitor the basic health services delivered to citizens in the locality. The most common problems in health services that were identified in ESAP1 are unavailability of health professionals, shortage of basic drugs and health services, unavailability of sufficient and quality health equipment and facilities. Implementing partners through involving the community and with appropriate application of social accountability tools can increase citizens knowledge of the government s policies regarding the government basic health service planning, budgeting and delivery. With proper application and use of the social accountability tools, the community will also be empowered to lobby for better health services through understanding of their rights. The social accountability tools will help identify health service gaps in a more systematic manner.

12 2. Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program (PBS II) Water and Sanitation Typical problems of the water and sanitation service in any woreda of the country as assessed in ESAP1 are inadequate budget allocation for the sector, poor accessibility, availability and quality of water supply and inadequate maintenance of the water supply, etc. In some cases, despite there is somehow sufficient infrastructure for the water supply, there is a poor management system of the water supply due to limited communication between the service providers and service users. SAIPs can enhance awareness of all relevant stakeholders on the water service delivery problems. The SAIPs can also help the community to contribute to improving water service delivery by engaging them to play an active role, indicate their needs and wishes to jointly improve the service Agriculture Woredas are involved in agricultural services as they deal with the community (farmers) to enhance better productions. Through liaising with the zonal and regional governments, the agricultural office of the respective woreda administration follows up the supply of agricultural inputs (like fertilizers, seeds) and for example the assignment of agricultural extension workers. In the agricultural sector, the effective use of social accountability tools can bring results in the field of supply of agricultural inputs (for example fertilizers and seeds), prevention of illegal deforestation, increased conservation and the use of modern agricultural inputs. All this can be achieved by a positive contribution of both communities as well as service providers to a cooperative relationship Rural Roads The service sector of rural roads is new to ESAP2. In most woredas of the country, inaccessibility, poor quality and poor maintenance of rural roads are common problems, in which social accountability initiatives can play a role for improvement. The CSOs through working together with the respective woreda officials, can mobilize the community, while woreda administrations provide baseline data to the regional government on accessibility, service level and demand of the rural roads service sector in the locality Example Projects In the period , 12 social accountability projects have been implemented with support of a grant from ESAP1. Below, we shortly present per sector an example of an implemented project to provide inspiration on potential objectives, results and activities for your own grant application. More information on the ESAP1 grant projects can be found on the websites indicated in section In the education sector, a grant project was implemented in the northern and southeastern part of Ethiopia by a partnership of six implementing organizations. The project envisaged improving the delivery of primary education services to the public through enhanced social accountability. By way of a Citizen Report Card (see also section 2.4.1), the impression of the target groups on the effectiveness of the primary education services was measured in six woredas. With the CRC, the project collected user feedback on the performance of public services, which served as an input for joint forums, which were organized by the implementing organizations for both service providers as service receivers. The joint forums resulted in the identification of solutions for the problems, which were expressed in the CRC and provided to the respective education offices with an indication of the needs and wishes of the citizens with respect to the service delivery on education.

13 2. Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program (PBS II) Besides CRC, the project organized other activities, such as focus group discussions, community dialogues, establishment of Social Accountability Councils (SACs), lobbying and exposure visits to service providers and SACs and raising awareness. Through proper sensitization activities, the project has secured recognizable goodwill from both the service providers and the service users, as both sides learnt from each other s responsibilities, needs and wishes on the service provided to them or by them. By experiencing the different tools on social accountability, key stakeholders not only understood the concepts and practices of social accountability, but they also acquired valuable skills on how to translate them into practice. The establishment of the SACs at various levels with support from the local government bodies resulted in an active participation in school activities of the communities that benefited from the primary education services. The involved service providers and the local authorities have begun to jointly draw up strategic plans and review of the schools performances. Citizen groups have now been organized and empowered to play the role of monitoring the performances of the concerned service providing agencies and of the local governments. A grant project covering the education, health and water sectors that was implemented in eleven woredas of Oromia, Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPRS) and Amhara regions in partnership with three other organizations has also brought positive impact towards improved services delivery and enhanced dialogue among key stakeholders. The project aimed to ensure that basic service delivery at woreda and grass root levels addressed the priority needs of vulnerable and marginalized communities and poor people through improving proactive engagement between local government and citizens. A combination of SA tools, namely the Community Score Card, Budget Tracking (BT) and the Citizens Report Card were used. The CSC was used in all the eleven woredas while the other two tools were used in three woredas. The purpose of the use of the CSC was to exact social accountability and responsiveness from service providers to protect basic services. The main goal of the use of the BT tool was to enable woreda authorities to address PBS priorities and help them review budget allocations in a constructive manner. The CRC had a purpose to solicit user feedback on the performance of the education sector in woredas to see the quality, accessibility and availability of the service. In addition to these tools, capacity assessment, beneficiary led monitoring, focus group discussion and interface meetings have been the approaches used in the process. The project has achieved valuable outcomes. The awareness of key stakeholders on SA, on rights, policies and government s development and governance programs has been improved. The service users have now openly expressed their assessments and demands and service delivery. Participants learnt also to see that service providers were convinced by arguments from service users regarding service delivery. In addition, service providers and government officials recognized benefits from participation of service users for their work. A grant project that was implemented in partnership with two organizations in ten woredas of the North Western and South Western part of Ethiopia can also be used as a good example for the sectors agriculture, water and health. This project made use of the CSC as a tool to engage communities in expressing demand for public services and exacting social accountability from local service providers to improve delivery of the services mentioned above. Through undertaking various SA activities, the project could increase the awareness and attitude of the community towards the rights and entitlements in connection with basic service delivery.

14 2. Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program (PBS II) The project has also established a meaningful dialogue between service providers and users for joint planning and monitoring. Looking into the agricultural sector only in the three woredas, the project has had an impact in the supply of improved seeds and fertilizers. It is also interesting to see that the project has caused the woreda authority to officially ban cutting of indigenous trees. In addition, veterinary experts have been assigned after the implementation of the project.

15 3. Phase I: Application 3.1 Eligibility of the Applicants: Who Can Apply? The ESAP2 Grant Scheme is only open to Ethiopian Charities or Societies and Ethiopian Residents Charities established for not for profit motives, such as regional development organizations, civil society organizations and faith-based organizations. The organization that requests funding needs to be registered with a legal license with the Government of Ethiopia and documentary proof of the registration needs to be provided with the application. Applicants can submit a proposal for this Call for Proposal either individually or in a partnership with other organizations. Partnerships cannot exist of more than four organizations (one lead organization and three partners). Besides, each and every partner must be legally registered with the Government of Ethiopia. A partner cannot take part in more than one application, irrespective of the exact position of the organization in the application (lead partner or sub partner). In case a partner still submits more applications, all applications in which this partner participates will be rejected. Applications submitted by a partnership of organizations must attach a signed Partnership Statement to the proposal in line with annex 1E. 3.2 Eligibility of Applications: What Do You Need to Address? The ESAP2 Grant Scheme will have to comply with the general notions of the program. Eligible projects must contribute to the realization of the overall objective of ESAP2 (see also section 2.2). Hence, each grant application is expected to present a project proposal that would contribute to the better use of social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms by (a) citizens and citizen groups, (b) civil society organizations, (c) local government officials and (d) service providers as a means to make basic service delivery more equitable, effective, efficient, responsive and accountable. As indicated in section 2.4.2, grant applications submitted under this Call for Proposals need to address social accountability in at least two of the five service sectors: education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and rural roads. Grant applications that focus their social accountability activities on other sectors than those 5 are not eligible. Grant applications should apply social accountability instruments in the sectors. The proposed projects should aim to cover the selected sectors in their entirety in the targeted woredas and/or kebeles, and avoid to engage only with individual service facilities (such as schools or health posts). The grant application s target group needs to be at woreda level (in Dire Dawa City Administration, this can be kebele or cluster level). Each application needs to target a minimum of 3 woredas and a maximum of 5 woredas. Per woreda, a minimum of 3 kebeles needs to be targeted. 3.3 Eligibility of Costs: What Can Be Covered? The ESAP2 Grant Scheme uses basic principles and cost categories for eligibility of costs to help applicants to prepare a solid budget and to set grounds for good financial management of the grant projects. Grants requested under this Call for Proposals have a maximum of $237,000 (when targeting 3 woredas), $269,000 (when targeting 4 woredas) or $300,000 (when targeting 5 woredas).

16 3. Phase I: Application The budget needs to be built on the eligibility principles of fairness, reasonableness and related to the proposed project s activities only. This implies that the budget submitted with the application should consist of budget lines with proposed expenditures to be reimbursed from the grant s funding, according to these principles. Expenditures will only be considered as eligible when: The costs are incurred during the project s lifetime; with the exception of the auditor s costs for the final financial report; The costs are indicated in the total estimated budget for the project, which is part of the contract; The costs are necessary for the implementation of the project which is the objective of the grant; The costs are identifiable and verifiable, meaning that when they are incurred by the grant beneficiary, they can be recorded in the organization s accounting system and can be supported by original documents. The expenditures comply with the requirements of applicable tax and social legislation. The costs are reasonable (fair market price), justifiable and comply with the requirements of sound financial management. It is up to the discretion of the applicants to ensure its proposed costs are in line with the applicable government directives including the Ethiopian Charities and Societies Law. Applicants should also be aware of the World Bank s rules and regulations, related to the procurement of goods and services 1. Further information about the actual application will be provided at the stage of contracting. Applicants are encouraged to direct as much funding as is reasonable and realistic to program activity costs. Below are indicated several costs categories that are, in principle, eligible and can thus be included in the grant budget. The final decision regarding the eligibility of costs incurred by the grant beneficiaries will only be determined upon review of the submitted financial reports, relevant records and supporting documents (see section 6.2.2). Without derogating to the above principles, eligible costs may include the following: Direct eligible cost categories: Salary: full and part time staff cost who contribute their time for the project implementation; Consultancy fee: costs for the work done by a consultant or expert specifically hired for the project on short term basis to carry out tasks on demand basis only; Travel costs and subsistence: for staff, consultant and workshop/training participants who take part in the project implementation; Workshops/Trainings costs: this includes costs for venue, refreshment, stationeries, etc; Material production cost: costs incurred for the production and reproduction of materials for the purpose of the project; Capital Asset: costs for the purchase of fixed assets such as office furniture, equipment, motor-cycles, etc., specifically for the purposes of the grant project; 1 Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works, and Non-Consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants ( and Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans & IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers (

17 3. Phase I: Application Audit costs: costs for the annual external auditing of the grant application s finances. Each grant applicant is obliged to include this item in the budget. Direct operational costs, such as transport costs, vehicle running costs, office rental and running costs, provided these are reasonable, relative to the project s proportion and can be clearly linked to the project in question. Indirect eligible cost categories: Contingency reserve, not exceeding 5% of the estimated direct eligible costs. Actual spending is subject to prior written authorization of the MA. Overhead: a flat-rate funding applies of 7% of the estimated total eligible direct costs to cover for overhead expenses. The flat rate is intended to cover running costs which are not included anywhere else in the budget. The applicant may be asked to justify the requested percentage before contracting. However, once the flat-rate has been fixed in the special conditions of the standard grant contract, no supporting documents need to be provided. The following costs are ineligible and will as such not be accepted in grant application budgets nor will they be reimbursed if incurred by the project: Salary top up: any salary top up for the staff, who are currently working with the organization; Honorarium: any honorarium for the staff of the organization; Internal consulting: any fee paid to consulting service rendered by the grant organization s own staff; Loan charge: the loan given for any party and related costs such as interest; Penalty: any kind of penalty or fine incurred by the organization; Legal cost: any legal fee in relation to any litigation by the organization; Redundancy payment: any redundancy payment other than what is indicated in the staffing cost; Bad debt: any charge as bad debt expense whether it relates to the project or not; Gift: gift or present given for anybody under any circumstance; Provision of future liability: any reserve to cover future liabilities; Costs related to the preparation and submission of the grant application under this Call for Proposals, including costs such as information gathering, staff time and travel; Purchase of land or buildings; Purchase of second hand equipment; Purchase of cars (new or second-hand); Any cost not related to the project. Upon evaluation and review of the application, the MA reserves the right to ask for justification on entries in the Budget, request amendments or corrections, so as to reach a final accepted version of the budget to be included as an annex to the contract (see also section 5.2). Each grant budget will be assessed according to the above-mentioned criteria and guidelines. The budget should be prepared following the format provided in annex 1D. 3.4 Period of Grant Implementation Grants which will be awarded to SAIPs can only be used for the implementation of their grant application. All applications need to be designed for an implementation period of a maximum of 24 months, with an expected earliest starting date of 1 September 2012 and a latest possible end date of 30 August The project design, objectives, project results and activities need to be designed to fit this predefined period of implementation.

18 3. Phase I: Application As indicated in section 2.3, the current Call for Proposals is used as a selection mechanism for the current available budget, as well as the expected additional budget envelope. Upon receipt of the additional budget envelope, the MA will consider the appropriate period of grant implementation that can apply. 3.5 Application Submission The closing date for project applications under this Call for Proposal is Friday 22 June 2012, 6.00p.m. local time. Applications need to be typed in English, preferably singlespaced with an 11 point Arial font, A4 size. Hand-written applications are not accepted. A complete application consists of: 1) 3 fully completed ESAP2 Grant Application Forms and all required annexes (1 original and two copies), and 2) A USB or CD-rom containing all documents presented under 1) in electronic form. Annex 2A provides you with a checklist with which you can verify whether your application is complete. Please use this list to avoid your application being rejected for reasons of incompleteness. An authorized representative must sign the original copy with an original signature. Only the full application forms, required annexes and documentary proof will be transmitted to the evaluators and assessors. Other documents, which are presented in the package (for example, brochures, leaflets, materials previously developed, etc) will be separated from the application package and will not be taken into account during evaluation. It is therefore of utmost importance to apply through the required documents and include all relevant information concerning your application in the application package. Application Submission at a Glance Preferred Font Language Number of hard copies to submit Number of electronic versions to submit Deadline for submission of applications Submission address (by recorded post-delivery, hand delivery or private courier service, directly to MA): Arial, 11 point, single-spaced English 3 (1 original, 2 copies) 1 (USB or CD-rom) 22 June 2012, 6:00 p.m. local time ESAP2 Management Agency Cape Verde Street P. O. Box 28024/1000 WMA Sets Building, 2 nd Floor Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

19 3. Phase I: Application All applications submitted will be registered according to date and time of receipt. A confirmation of receipt of your application will be provided in hard copy (when hand delivered) or mail (when delivered by registered mail). 3.6 Tentative Timing of the Application Process Tentative ESAP2 Grant Scheme Planning Call for Proposal Evaluation Process Financial Capacity Assessment Contract Negotiations Capacity Development Trainings May June July August Sept. Grant Application Implementation The planning of the complete grant scheme can be found in annex 6A. 3.7 Request for Clarifications The Grant Manual should be clear enough to avoid potential applicants from having to request additional information during the Call for Proposals. During the course of receiving applications, the MA may conclude that additional information must be provided to clarify or modify aspects of the Call for Proposals. This need for adjustment or clarification can result from official requests for clarifications received by potential applicants, but also from omissions observed in the Manual by the MA itself. All potential applicants have an equal opportunity to raise their concerns and questions on the grant scheme and its concurrent procedures and guidelines with the MA. Requests for clarification or explanation can be sent in English writing ( or hardcopy letter) to the MA at the address indicated below. All requests for clarifications need to be submitted on 8 June 2012 latest. To ensure that all potential applicants have equal access to the additional information provided through the request for clarification procedure, all questions and answers will be published anonymously on the ESAP2 website ( no later than 15 June All potential applicants are highly recommended to regularly consult the abovementioned website in order to have read any additional information provided on the Call and the questions and answers published. In the interest of equal treatment of applicants, the MA will only reply to requests which deal with the procedures and guidelines of the Call for Proposals.

20 3. Phase I: Application The MA will not provide any information or response on the eligibility of an applicant, the suitability of a project application or budget or any other information that puts the applicant in an advantaged position in comparison to other potential applicants. After 15 June 2012, the MA has no obligation to provide further clarifications. Requests for Clarifications at a glance Deadline for submission of requests for clarification or explanation Language of request Method and address for submission 8 June 2012 English Hard copy letter, or fax to the ESAP2 Grants Manager at: ESAP2 Management Agency P.O. Box / 1000 Cape Verde Street WMA Sets Building, 2 nd Floor Addis Abeba, Ethiopia Fax: +251 (0) to grants@esap2.org.et Date of publication of MAs explanation of the requests for clarification on the website 15 June 2012

21 4. Phase II: Evaluation and Selection of Applications The evaluation and selection of applications will start after the Call for Proposals (CFP) has closed. The evaluation process is divided into two phases: 1) Evaluation of eligibility and administrative criteria (see section 4.1) 2) Evaluation of the quality of the grant application and applicant (see section 4.2) 4.1 Evaluation of Eligibility and Administrative Criteria The first phase of evaluating the compliance with the eligibility and the administrative criteria entails certain rules of procedures and standards. The eligibility and administrative criteria determine the conditions for participating in this CFP. The MA will perform the evaluation, as it is not score-based. The process entails a verification of pre-defined objective criteria, which are presented in annex 2A. Only applications that meet the eligibility and administrative requirements will be presented to the assessors for the second evaluation phase, the assessment of the quality of the application. Failure to meet the administrative and eligibility criteria thus immediately results in a rejection of the application, without assessment of its quality. All applicants are therefore encouraged to check carefully, before submitting their application, whether all criteria set in annex 2A are met. The following eligibility criteria apply: The applicant is a legal entity established for not for profit motives and is registered with the Government of Ethiopia as an Ethiopian Charity or Society or Ethiopian Residents Charity (and documentary proof of this is provided); (If applicable) All partners in the application are legal entities established for not for profit motives and are registered with the Government of Ethiopia as Ethiopian Charities or Societies or Ethiopian Residents Charities (and documentary proof of this is provided); The grant application targets at least two sectors; The grant application targets 3-5 woredas; Per woreda, the grant application targets at least 3 kebeles; The grant application budget does not exceed the indicated maximum amount of $237,000 for applications targeting 3 woredas, of $269,000 for applications targeting 4 woredas or $300,000 for applications targeting 5 woredas. The following administrative criteria apply: The application is in English; The application is typed; The application is received by the MA before the closing date and time of this Call for Proposal (see also section 3.5); The application submitted is complete and in the formats annex to this Grant Manual; The application submitted consists of one original and two copies of the complete application, as well as one electronic copy on a CD or USB stick.

22 4. Phase II: Evaluation and Selection of Applications 4.2 Evaluation of the Quality of the Grant Application and Applicant Applications that have met the eligibility and administrative criteria will move on to the second phase of evaluation. To avoid any conflict of interest, a team of independent assessors will perform the second phase of evaluation of the quality of the proposal. Two assessors will assess every application. Scores will be awarded on the predefined evaluation criteria presented in the Grant Application Evaluation Grid in annex 2B. The Grant Application Evaluation Grid provides for a standardized rating system per predefined variables with a total maximum score of 100. The grid includes as many as objective criteria possible to ensure a fair and transparent selection of applications. Applications are required to attain at least 50% of the scores on organizational capacity and on relevance (see also annex 2B). The mean score awarded by the two assessors will be the final score of the application. In case the scores of the two assessors vary considerably (approximately 15% variation), a third assessor will be assigned to assess the application at hand. The third assessor s score will be used to establish the deviant scoring. In case a third assessor has been assigned, the score most deviant from the other two scores (be it lower or higher), will be disregarded and not used to establish the mean of two scores. In case the deviation between the three scores is the same, the middle score is used as the final score of the application. A sufficient number of assessors will be assigned to ensure a smooth and efficient process. The quality of the applications is assessed, based on four main categories: 1. Organizational Capacity 1.1 Operational Capacity 1.2 Financial Capacity 1.3 Expertise and Experience 2. Quality of the Application 2.1 Quality of the Project Design 2.2 Relevance 2.3 Feasibility 2.4 Impact 2.5 Sustainability 3. Logical Framework 4. Budget Below, we shortly discuss the categories and we explain the relevance of each criterion. Applicants are advised to give particular attention to the evaluation criteria and the Evaluation Grid of annex 2B. Specifically addressing in your application how the questions posed in these sections and annex will be dealt with, increases the chance of a positive evaluation and thus of being selected Organizational Capacity In assessing the applications, focus will not be restricted to the content of the grant application. In addition, the capacity of the applicants will also be assessed.