1 / 27

Scenario

ECB Learning Event - How the ECB Project has built capacity across the humanitarian sector Agenda for afternoon session

jennid
Download Presentation

Scenario

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ECB Learning Event - How the ECB Project has built capacity across the humanitarian sectorAgenda for afternoon session 13:30 – 14:00 Opening scenario 14:00 – 14:45 What do we know about collaboration?14:45 – 15:00 Coffee break15:00 – 15:30 Case Study: Collaborative tool development – the Toward Resilience Initiative15:30 – 16:00 Case Study: NGOs traditionally compete for funds; what happens when they join forces to raise money together?

  2. Scenario • You have been asked to set up and manage a collaboration. What are your key considerations? • Discuss in your table groups (15mins) • Present key considerations back to plenary (5mins per group)

  3. Collaborative tool development – the Toward Resilience initiative ECB Learning Event July 2013 www.ecbproject.org

  4. Toward Resilience

  5. Background • _________________________________________________________________ • Peer review workshop in May 2009 bought all ECB stakeholders together • Consortium Engagement Plans analysed • Demand for a practitioner friendly tool / guidance on DRR, resilience (“the Good Enough Guide to DRR”) • Process to develop the guide agreed on model of AIM GEG i.e. fully participatory

  6. Next steps • _________________________________________________________________ • Meeting in Italy in June 2009 with ECB DRR advisors and representatives from the 5 ECB consortia • Broad concept note for the guide developed • “DRR Practitioners Guide” • Tensions over scope of guide, format of guide, inclusion of climate change adaptation / resilience

  7. Key moments • _________________________________________________________________ • Scoping study carried out with 24 organisations in July 2010 • OFDA approached in December • CRS and Save provide $180k “catalyst” funding (Jan 2011) • OFDA (January) and ECHO (March) proposals submitted • Two guide lead consultants contracted May 2011 • $100k provided by Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund (June 2011) • First consortium workshops held (June / July 2011)

  8. Key moments….cont • _________________________________________________________________ • Editorial committee confirmed (August 2011) • First summit held in Bangkok (September 2011) • First draft of Guide released in December 2011 for review • Second consortium review workshops held (March 2012) • Summit 2 held in Bangkok (April 2012) • Field testing in 6 locations (July 2012) • Resource materials developed by Mercy Corps (Oct 2012) • Guide launched (December 2012)

  9. What on earth just happened?..... • _________________________________________________________________ • 3 years • 6 ECB agencies, (PLUS others in the consortia) • 24 individuals consulted in the Guide’s scoping study. • 2 International summits • 10 consortium workshops with up to 100 participants • 6 field tests in 6 different countries • 1500 pieces of individual feedback • 33 field participants in the global workshops as well as the 6 DRR Advisors and the 2 authors. • 6 ECB project staff and managers (including 2 ex staff), • 6 editorial committee members, • 1 editor, • 2 translators, • 2 Agency managers

  10. The process • _________________________________________________________________ • ‘exciting’, ‘challenging’, ‘enriching’, ‘rewarding’ • and ‘lengthy’!

  11. Key learning • _________________________________________________________________ • Participatory approach was longer and more generic output • Publication experience missing • Work involved was far greater than anticipated • Expensive and time consuming • Confusions over roles and responsibilities within complex ECB structures • Multiple donor reporting • Participatory mechanisms do not suit all stages of a publication

  12. Key learning • _________________________________________________________________ • Diverse content suitable for a broad range of contexts • Technically credible guide integrating DRR / CCA • Process increased ownership and involvement = application • Diversity of participation opportunities was broad and good

  13. Key learning • _________________________________________________________________ • “…..The publication of the Guide demonstrates that multiple stakeholders, spanning several organisations, can work collaboratively and effectively to produce a resource that incorporates their combined experience and responds to a widely-felt need…..”

  14. Recommendations • _________________________________________________________________ • Planning meeting prior to embarking including publishing! • Engage senior managers for improved ownership / mainstreaming • Monitor impact of participation through use of Guide • Resource guide team instead of relying on “volunteerism” • Start with a first draft rather than a carte blanche • Consider field testing rather than “read and review” – resource accordingly • Minimise participation to sustain engagement – JDs / PRs

  15. Toward Resilience booth at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction 2013

  16. NGOs traditionally compete for funds – what happens when they joint fundraise? ECB Learning Event July 2013 www.ecbproject.org

  17. “………Once upon a time, six INGOs began a collaborative initiative with $5m in the bank and $7m to find………”

  18. Background • _________________________________________________________________ • Gates Foundation approves an ECB Project Phase II • $12m budget approved for a five year initiative • $5m provided by Gates, $7m agency commitment • ECB Project Phase II starts in August 2008 • CARE USA manages contract • All agencies sign MoU outlining structure, ways of working

  19. But…. • _________________________________________________________________ • Concept notes, plans and fundraisers in place BUT….. • Global financial crisis • Power of ECB agencies to raise money seriously affected • Five innovative approaches adopted to address the issue

  20. 1. Fundraising by Committee - HQ • _________________________________________________________________ • Matrix of funding options developed, lead agencies assigned • Opened up competitive revenue streams for the first time • However joint fundraising requires coordination • Donors not prioritising capacity building • Agencies found it hard to raise money internally • Decentralised structures contributed to complexity. • “….the ECB Project was too expensive for what the market could bear….”

  21. 2. Fundraising by Committee - Country • _________________________________________________________________ • In some consortia joint fundraising was pursued – Bolivia • Requires high level of trust but seen as opportunity to highlight capacities of participating agencies and build further. • Difficult to prioritise consortium over individual agency • Decisions often made at global level anyway. • Recent successes in Bolivia and Bangladesh

  22. 3. Technical advisors, joint priorities • _________________________________________________________________ • DRR advisors joint fundraising for TR Guide • Unsuccessful first bid to OFDA so agency leverage funds used to catalyse project (CRS, SC and Mercy Corps) • Eventually OFDA contributed towards the funding gap • This direct project focused initiative seemed to work

  23. 4. Single lead agency for joint actions • _________________________________________________________________ • Oxfam GB have worked closely with donors to fund activities • Some applications rejected because the ECB Project was perceived as too US-centric • Some applications successful • “…..European donors have been more forward thinking and more willing to take bets…” • Downside of this approach is less consortium ownership of activities and outcomes

  24. 5. Two or three agencies leading • _________________________________________________________________ • Approach to ECHO from CARE, Oxfam GB and ECB team • Required significant relationship / trust building (12months) • Difficult to develop a proposal that reflects all priorities • Sense of top down approach • Global frustrations with lack of country level engagement • Ultimately successful but what damage to relationships?

  25. Reflections • _________________________________________________________________ • Funding restructure, resulting in increased agency contributions • Tensions result over perceived inequality in contributions to the collaboration. Erosion of trust. • Over reliance on NGO unrestricted funds “harder to justify internally” • Private funds used increasingly successfully • The right kind of funding?

  26. Learning • _________________________________________________________________ • Know when to fundraise together and when to say no! • Understand the differing funding policies of agencies • One or two agencies can fundraise on behalf of the group as long as plans are agreed and refreshed • Develop a global budget and continually update it • Start with a joint fundraising strategy and clarify agencies commitments • Measures of accountability • Address concerns about covering support costs early on

  27. Learning…..cont • _________________________________________________________________ • Proposal consultation is vital but incredibly difficult • Proactive advocacy and communication with donors is key • Donors are attracted to the reach and sustainability of consortia • Fundraising is part of the challenge – spending is the other!

More Related