Findings on efficiency

• Author: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) (European Commission), Landell Mills International
• Pages: 109-118

Final Evaluation Report: Part B- NRC Partnership Evaluation

109

8. Findings on efficiency

Finding 7: The DG ECHO partnership framework aspires to simplified procedures but does not provide any

guidance as to how this may be achieved. The result is that work-arounds and informal dialogues become the

primary means of improving the efficiency of partnership transactions.

Finding 8: Proposal and modification processes are lengthy, requiring a level of detail and scrutiny that is time

consuming. This is compounded by uncertainty in both partners about how efficiency requirements should be

interpreted.

Finding 9: Rigorous audits applying the Financial Regulation exhibit the same combination of detailed

analysis, conducted in an open and collaborative spirit, but at considerable management cost to both DG

ECHO and NRC. The positive consequence is that they have led to NRC strengthening its systems.

Finding 10: The de facto technical authority of DG ECHO field TA, recognised as a vital input to flexible

management, is mismatched with their de jure lack of financial authority; this has been a source of inefficiency

in cases where their guidance has been subsequently over-turned.

Finding 11: NRC is viewed by many in DG ECHO as a very expensive partner, which is not necessarily

justified by the high costs and high risks of meeting finance, anti-corruption and anti-terrorism compliance

requirements.

Finding 12: Annual funding without any future year commitment is a cost-effectiveness issue as it affects

operating costs and long-term, in-country trust and knowledge building.

Finding 13: DG ECHO policy guidance on cash, and its highly valued technical expertise at field level have

systematically improved NRC responses.

8.1. Management costs and administrative burden

Terms of engagement of the partnership

The FPA sets the terms of engagement between DG ECHO and NGO recipients of DG ECHO grant

funding. These are constrained by EU policies and regulations including the humanitarian aid regulation,

the financial regulation, sectoral policies, and relevant legislation such as that on counter terrorism. The

FPA requires that partners provide assistance in accordance with the humanitarian principles of

humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence – which together define what is meant by a ‘principled’

approach. Further, DG ECHO agrees to provide aid in accordance with the principles of Good

Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) which include reference to principled humanitarian action, respect for

and promotion of international law, the importance of needs-based assistance, accountability to affected

populations, predictable humanitarian funding, coherence of donor action, primacy of civilian response

and support to multilateral co-ordinated humanitarian action.

Country or regional HIPs communicate to potential partners the needs as assessed by DG ECHO and

the parameters partners are expected to observe in preparing proposals. The HIP comes with thematic

and technical annexes that elaborate on policies, principles and guidelines referred to in the FPA, to

which have been added DG ECHO’s Grand Bargain commitments. This requires partners to explore and

propose concrete ways of implementing commitments such as multi-annual planning and reduced

duplication and management costs.

Grants are provided for specific projects (actions) on an annual basis. The total available for a country or

region is constrained within a budget envelope determined by an EU Commission implementing decision.

DG ECHO assesses proposals against a set of compliance markers, together with a narrative analysis