Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities. Enhancing Strategic Engagement with Civil Society and Local Authorities in Belarus Call for Proposals EuropeAid/136-195/DD/ACT/BY The objective of the presentation • explains how your proposals (Concept Note and Full proposal) are assessed contentwise • provides a possibility to make further questions (if any) • is NOT a chance to impact/discuss further the priorities of the Call. Priorities cannot be changed after the Call has been published. Priorities of the CSO-LA 2014 Call for Proposals Global objective of the Call for Proposals: To strengthen civil society organisations and local authorities in EU partner countries. Priorities of the CSO-LA 2014 Call for Proposals Specific objective for Organisations' (CSO's) development processes Lot 1: Enhancing Civil Society contributions to governance and Local thematic priorities: - creating wider participation spaces for civil society to increase civic participation in public decision making - building CSOs capacity and promoting efforts to overcome civil society fragmentation. Priorities of the CSO-LA 2014 Call for Proposals Specific objective for Lot 2: Enhancing Local Authorities' (LAs') contributions to governance and development processes Local thematic priority: • Increasing the capacity of LAs in ensuring access to stable and affordable basic infrastructure and social facilities towards the reduction of inequalities, particularly for marginalized groups and neglected rural areas. Provision of services should foster inclusive societies with a view of generating decent job and opportunities for youth, mitigating the impact of urbanisation, adapting to climate change and preventing risks related to above-mentioned phenomena. Assessment of the Concept Note / Full Proposal • Structured procedure applying standard Evaluation grid, part of the "Guidelines for grant applicants" (Concept note evaluation grid p. 20, full proposal evaluation grid pp. 21-22) • At least two independent assessments per Concept note/Full proposal • Call for proposal = Competition ! Assessment of the Concept Note Assessment of the Concept Note: Relevance of the Action 1.1 How relevant is the proposal to the objectives and priorities of the Call for Proposals? (maximum scores 10) • Proposal must meet both with global and with specific objectives (including local thematic priorities) of the Call • Is it better to address to one or several local thematic priorities? (Lot 1) • Preferred thematic priorities / earmarked funds? Assessment of the Concept Note: Relevance of the Action (max scores 10) 1.2 How relevant to the particular needs and constraints of the target country(ies) or region(s) is the proposal (including synergy with other EU initiatives and avoidance of duplication)? (maximum scores 10) • Am I adding too many facts and overwhelming assessors? • Am I adding too little facts and assuming assessors knowing basics already? • In the name of equal treatment all elements for assessments are taken from the text. Assessment of the Concept Note: Relevance of the Action (max scores 10) 1.3 How clearly defined and strategically chosen are those involved (final beneficiaries, target groups)? Have their needs been clearly defined and does the proposal address them appropriately? (maximum scores 5) • Quantity, geographical location, names… whatever possible at this stage (NB. no changes possible afterwards!). Assessment of the Concept Note: Relevance of the Action (1/2) 1.4 Does the proposal contain specific added-value elements, such as environmental issues, promotion of gender equality and equal opportunities, needs of disabled people, rights of minorities and rights of indigenous peoples, or innovation and best practices and other added value elements indicated under 1.2. of these Guidelines? (maximum scores 5) Assessment of the Concept Note: Relevance of the Action (2/2) Chapter 1.2. adds the following added-value elements: - promote access to rights amongst vulnerable and marginalised groups; - implement piloting and innovative initiatives and best practises with the potential of replication on a greater scale; - implement sub-granting scheme that targets small organisations without financial and/or operational capacity to seek funding from the EU, preferably outside the capital area; - encourage different types of partnership between more and less experienced entities to facilitate capacity spin-offs; - Strengthen CSOs' intervention in the dialogue process with local and national authorities. Quite a mouthful but please keep in mind…. • • Text and chapter that summarizes alignment with added-value elements must be coherent! “Right to the point” approach scores highest (2-3 well targeted added-value elements would provide full scores) Assessment of the Concept Note: Design of the Action 2.1 How coherent is the overall design of the action? (maximum scores 10) • Drafting Logframe already at this stage (although officially not yet required) will help you to elaborate this point 2.2 Is the action feasible and consistent in relation to the objectives and expected results? (maximum scores 10) • If objectives and expected results are modest, all the other elements may be so too (budget must be adjusted to this strategic choice too), and other way around. Conclusions of the Concept note assessment • ASSESSMENT - only the Concept Notes with a minimum total score of 30 (out of 50) points will be considered further; • RANKING - the list of Concept Notes will be reduced, taking account of the ranking, to the number of Concept Notes whose total aggregate amount of requested contributions is equal to at least 200% (Lot 1) or 300% (Lot 2) of the available budget for this Call for Proposals; • INFORMATION - The pre-selected Applicants will subsequently be invited to submit Full Application Form. The eliminated applicants will also be informed. Assessment of the Full proposal • Concept note assessment and Full proposal assessment are two separate exercises –> please repeat the main elements of the proposal! • In the name of fair competition, the main operational elements (objectives, activities, target groups, location etc) outlined in the Concept Note must NOT be modified in the full proposal. • The amount (€) requested from EU may not vary by more than 20 % Assessment of the Full proposal Assessment of the Full proposal: Financial and Operational Capacity (maximum total scores of the section = 20 ) • Chapters 2.1.7 – 2.1.8 and 2.3 of the Application form crucial to the evaluation – assessor does not have "memory traces" about previous projects • 1.1. – 1.3 concern applicant, co-applicants and affiliates • 1.4. concerns applicant only • If total score is less than 12 points or if at least for one subsection score is 1, application will be rejected. Assessment of the Full proposal: Relevance of the action (maximum total scores of the section = 30 ) • Scores transferred from the Concept Note evaluation grid (total of the chapter “relevance” ie points 1.1 – 1.4), max 30 points. • As no new assessment on relevance - > main elements (objectives, activities, target groups, location etc) must remain the same. Assessment of the Full proposal: Effectiveness and feasibility (1/2) (maximum total scores of the section = 20 ) 3.1. Are the activities proposed appropriate, practical, and consistent with the objectives and expected results? • The same as 2.2. of Concept Note 3.2. Is the action plan clear and feasible? • Must be detailed enough, as per activity and per implementing organisations Assessment of the Full proposal: Effectiveness and feasibility (2/2) 3.3. Does the proposal contain objectively verifiable indicators for the outcome of the action? Is any evaluation planned? • • OVIs from Logframe External evaluation scores higher than internal evaluation 3.4 Is the co-applicant(s)'s and affiliated entity(ies)'s level of involvement and participation in the action satisfactory? • Not only related to implementation but also to preparation of application, contributing to the conceptualizing the project etc. Assessment of the Full proposal: Sustainability (maximum total scores of the section = 15 ) 4.2 Is the proposal likely to have multiplier effects? (Including scope for replication, extension and information sharing.) • • • • financially institutionally at policy level (where applicable) environmentally (if applicable) “Right to the point” approach scores highest (2-3 well targeted sustainability aspects provides full scores) Assessment of your Full proposal: Budget and cost-effectiveness (maximum total scores of the section = 15 ) 5.1 Are the activities appropriately reflected in the budget? • • All costs must be explained in narrative part All activities explained in narrative part must be in the budget 5.2 Is the ratio between the estimated costs and the expected results satisfactory? • See comment to CN 2.2. and FA 3.1 -> If objectives and expected results are modest, all the other elements may be so too (budget must be adjusted to this strategic choice too). Conclusions of the Full proposal assessment • AWARD CRITERIA - RANKING, table listing the Applications ranked by average score given by assessors and within the available budget will be established, as well as a reserve list. • No minimum score requirement to be considered for ranking • INFORMATION – The rejected and the provisionally selected Applicants will subsequently be informed of the results. Additional support resource available • Free training to prepare application available from the EU funded project “Clearing House” – volunteer participation! Thank you for your attention! Any questions?