Annex 9: Interview and Survey Questions Partnership Report

AuthorDirectorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) (European Commission), Landell Mills International
Pages189-191
Annexes
189
Annex 9: Interview and Survey Questions
Partnership Report
Topic
Interview questions (as relevant to the stakeholder)
Policy dialogue
In your experience, what has been the most important dialogue about policy (HQ)
and advocacy (country) between the partners?
How similar or different have the viewpoints been?
Do you have an example of where you have influenced the partner and/or the
partner has influenced you?
Localisation
How important is the localisation agenda to you?
Are there differences between your approach and the partner’s?
Has your position been influenced by the approach of the partner? In what ways?
What progress has the partnership made on localisation?
What are the challenges in moving forward?
Are there advantages of addressing localisation in partnership compared with by
each partner individually?
Humanitarian
development nexus
How important is addressing the nexus to you?
Are there differences with the approach of the partner?
Has your position been influenced by the approach of the partner? In what ways?
What progress has the partnership made on the nexus?
What are the challenges in moving forward?
Are there advantages of addressing the nexus in partnership compared with by
each partner individually?
Efficiency
management costs
and administrative
burden
Is DG ECHO a prompt and reliable provider of funds?
For each SGA, does DG ECHO reliably adhere to an agreed funding schedule?
When an SGA is modified, is DG ECHO prompt in providing additional funding?
The FPA anticipates that cooperation will lead to ‘simplified procedures. ’ Has it?
What are they? Have there been significant cost and time savings?
Only NRC: How do the transaction costs of DG ECHO funding compare with
NMFA, DFID and SIDA184? What stages of the project cycle are onerous?
Are DG ECHO compliance costs (for example, with procurement procedures)
more or less onerous than those of NMFA, DFID and SIDA?
To what extent is any of the above documented?
Only DG ECHO: Does DG ECHO have any analysis of the efficiency of its grant-
making process compared with other reference donors?
In what respects might the DG ECHO relationship be streamlined without
significant compromise in quality and accountability?
Efficiency cost-
effectiveness of DG
ECHO-supported
NRC responses
To what extent has the DG ECHO partnership led to operational efficiency and
cost-effectiveness improvements? Are there examples?
Do DG ECHO staff (for example, regional experts and country TA) make a
significant contribution to NRC project design or implementation modality?
What further input from DG ECHO might enhance NRC’s operational efficiency
and cost-effectiveness, and in what ways?
Efficiency cash-
based response
Are NRC and DG ECHO aligned in their cash policies and analysis?
Has input/pressure from DG ECHO changed NRC’s policy on the use of cash?
Has input/pressure from DG ECHO increased NRC’s use of cash over the period
of the evaluation?
Is this documented?
184 NRC’s top four institutional donors globally are NMFA, DG ECHO, DFID and SIDA

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT