ethiopia protection of basic services social accountability...

Ethiopia

Protection of Basic Services

Social Accountability Program

Grant Agreement [TF099878]

Grant Manual

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 Accountability2.4.1 Social Accountability Tools

2.4.2 Sectors

2.4.3 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 Applicant4.2.1 Organizational Capacity

4.2.2 Quality of Application

4.2.3 Logical Framework

4.2.4 Budget

4.2.5 Higher Relevance

4.3 Provisional Selection of the Applications

5. Phase III: Contracting

5.1 Financial Capacity Assessment

5.2 Assessor’s Requirements and Contract Negotiation

5.3 Contract and Method of Payment

6. Phase IV: Implementation

6.1 SAIP Capacity Development & Training Program

6.2 Monitoring Implementation and Progress6.2.1 Quarterly Narrative Reporting6.2.2 Quarterly Financial Reporting and Audit Statement / Report of Factual Findings

6.2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation

6.3 Collecting Good Practices

6.4 Amendment of the Grant

6.5 Suspension and Termination of the Grant

7. 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

List of abbreviations

BT Budget Tracking

CBO Community-Based Organization

CFP Call for Proposals

CRC Citizens’ Report Cards

CSC Community Score Card

CSO Civil Society Organization

CSP Charities and Societies Proclamation

DfID Department for International Development

ESAP Ethiopia Social Accountability Program

ESAP2 Ethiopia Social Accountability Program 2

EU European Union

GoE Government of Ethiopia

MA Management Agency

MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund

M & E Monitoring and Evaluation

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

OFAG Office of the Federal Auditor General

PB Participatory Budgeting

PBS Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services

PET Public Expenditure Tracking

SA Social Accountability

SAC Social Accountability Council

SAIP Social Accountability Implementing Partner

SNNPRS Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional State

WB World Bank

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.


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 2006. 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.

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 2009. 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;


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 45-55 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.


2.4 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.

2.4.1 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.

Grant Scheme Budget at a glance

Total Grant Scheme Budget as per 6 May 2012 $3,5 million

Total Grant Scheme Budget as per August 2012 $10 million

Foreseen Total Grant Scheme Budget $13 million

Maximum Budget Grant Application targeting 3 woredas $237,000



Number of SAIPS expected to be engaged under current Grant Scheme Budget

11-14

Tentative number of SAIPs to be engaged based on total foreseen grant budget

45-57


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:

• http://www.ansa-africa.net/uploads/documents/publications/Piloting_Social_Accountability_AR_I.pdf

• http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu/document/piloting-social-accountability-ethiopia

• www.esap2.org.et

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.


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.

2.4.2 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.

2.4.2.1 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.

2.4.2.2 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.


2.4.2.3 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.

2.4.2.4 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.

2.4.2.5 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.

2.4.3 Example Projects

In the period 2008-2009, 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 2.4.1.

In the education sector, a grant project was implemented in the northern and south-eastern 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.


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.


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.



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).

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 services1. 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 (http://go.worldbank.org/1KKD1KNT40) and Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans & IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers (http://go.worldbank.org/U9IPSLUDC0).


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 2014. The project design, objectives, project results and activities need to be designed to fit this predefined period of implementation.


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 single-spaced 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 Arial, 11 point, single-spaced

Language English

Number of hard copies to submit 3 (1 original, 2 copies)

Number of electronic versions to submit 1 (USB or CD-rom)

Deadline for submission of applications 22 June 2012, 6:00 p.m. local time

Submission address

(by recorded post-delivery, hand delivery or private courier service, directly to MA):

ESAP2 Management Agency

Cape Verde Street

P. O. Box 28024/1000

WMA Sets Building, 2nd Floor

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia


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

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 (e-mail 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 (www.esap2.org.et) no later than 15 June 2012. 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.

Tentative ESAP2 Grant Scheme Planning

May June July August Sept.

Call for Proposal

Evaluation Process

Financial Capacity Assessment

Contract Negotiations

Capacity Development Trainings

Grant Application Implementation


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

8 June 2012

Language of request English

Method and address for submission Hard copy letter, e-mail or fax to the ESAP2 Grants Manager at:

ESAP2 Management Agency

P.O. Box 28024 / 1000

Cape Verde Street

WMA Sets Building, 2nd Floor

Addis Abeba, Ethiopia

Fax: +251 (0)11 663 2567

E-mail to [email protected]

Date of publication of MAs explanation of the requests for clarification on the website www.esap2.org.et

15 June 2012



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.

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 pre-defined 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.

4.2.1 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.


As the SAIPs will be implementing the activities, their management and technical capacity to do so, needs to be evaluated. The MA is interested in evidence that the applicant has the adequate capacity to implement the proposed activity and a grant provided will be efficiently used. In addition, the MA wants to know whether the lead applicant, being the future signatory of the grant contract with the MA, has the capacity to manage and administrate the grant financially as well. The lead applicant will namely be fully responsible for (financial) management of the grant towards the MA.

The SAIPs’ capacity is evaluated in three sub-categories, being the Operational Capacity of the lead applicant, the Financial Capacity of the lead applicant, and the joint Experience and Expertise in implementing comparable projects and activities.

Please note that in order for the application to be included on the final ranking list, and thus be considered for contracting, the application needs to be awarded with at least 50% of the maximum scores on Organizational Capacity and of the maximum score on Relevance (see 4.2.2.2). In case a grant application is excellently written, but not relevant to ESAP2, the applicant will not be awarded with a contract, nor will an applicant which is assessed as organizational incapable.

4.2.1.1 Operational Capacity

Operational Capacity is the ability of the organization to perform its key organizational and programmatic functions. Simply stated, it is about having the right people, skills, resources, and approach in place to implement the grant application. In this perspective, the quality of the applying SAIPs is assessed on issues such as technical expertise, service delivery skills, monitoring and evaluation strategies, and for example outreach approach. In the application, applicants are requested to highlight their available resources, skills, systems and approaches needed and available to implement and deliver on the proposed grant project. As the MA will conclude the contract with the lead applicant, the evaluation of this variable will mainly be built on the lead applicant’s capacity and will cover issues such as (but not limited to):

What is the organizational structure and what roles and responsibilities does this structure have? Are community members and leaders included?

What is the objective of the organization and what are its core areas of expertise?

What are the relevant skills of the staff to operate in the field of social accountability in the ESAP2 sectors?

What networks does the organization belong to?

The extent to which the organization is embedded in the Ethiopian society? What partners, donors, community organizations, citizens associations and local governments does the organization work with?

To what extent are crosscutting issues, such as gender and social inclusion reflected in the organizations’ management structure and strategies?

(if applicable) To what extent is the partnership strategy expected to support the successful implementation of the grant application? Is capacity building within the partnership foreseen?


4.2.1.2 Financial Capacity

Financial capacity represents available organizational resources and relationships – both

internal and external – that enable the applicant(s) to pursue its/their missions and fulfill

their roles. It is defined, on the one hand, by the ability to generate and administer funds,

and on the other hand, by the instruments and mechanisms that structure the

relationship between the organization and funder. The mix of types and sources of

funding is as important as the level of funding to an organization’s capacity to pursue its

work effectively, efficiently and sustainably. The lead applicant is evaluated on its

financial capacity, considering issues such as (and not limited to):

The extent to which the lead applicant has demonstrated acceptable record keeping. (Please note that this will be further checked during the Financial Capacity Assessment, in case the grant application is pre-selected for contracting, see also section 5.1).

The extent to which the lead applicant has project and financial management capacity and experience in managing related projects with other donors;

The extent to which the lead applicant fulfils minimum staff requirements, which

ensure the existence and execution of accounting procedures and proper financial

management.

(Please note that this will be further checked during the Financial Capacity Assessment, in case the grant application is pre-selected for contracting, see also section 5.1).

4.2.1.3 Expertise and Experience

Proven experience in implementing comparable projects and activities is important as it heightens the chances of a successful implementation of the current grant application. The evaluators will assess the extent to which the applicant(s) have previous experiences that are relevant for the implementation of this grant project. The evaluation will take issues into account, such as:

The extent to which the applicant(s) has/have a track record with other donor organizations on management of similar size projects / activities and/or relevant sectors and have achieved tangible results;

The extent to which the applicant(s) has/have a track record or previously worked in the proposed woredas.

4.2.2 Quality of Application

The proposal should present a technically sound approach to addressing issues or needs relevant to the social accountability program in a realistic manner. The grant application’s approach should also be evaluated in terms of appropriateness in the cultural context and geographic area. The evaluation of the Quality of the Application is divided in five sub-categories: Quality of the Project Design, Relevance, Feasibility, Impact and Sustainability.

4.2.2.1 Quality of the Project Design

Designing a good project is easier said than done. A successful project is the result not only of the accuracy of a technical solution, but also of the acceptance by all the parties involved of the need for, and the approach to implementing the project.


A good project design entails therefore a tailored project approach towards realistic and measurable goals, tasks, outputs and outcomes. It is driven by a sound project cycle management and requires continuous monitoring and evaluation as to achieve desired results.

In this respect, the applicant will be evaluated on the proposed project design and is asked to describe the project strategy, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and the resourcing, with specific reference to goals, tasks, outputs and outcomes set. The design should ensure that interventions are ethically sound, technically up-to-date, relevant to the program setting, and acceptable to or endorsed by the beneficiary populations, paying sufficient attention to social inclusion of vulnerable groups.

The assessment of the grant application will take issues into account, such as:

To what extent is a clear project strategy (or strategies) part of the project intervention?

To what extent is a specific strategy on addressing and including socially excluded groups like women, children, people living with HIV and Aids, people with disabilities, and the elderly included in the grant application?

To what extent have stakeholders participated in both the design and implementation of the grant application?

To what extent is the project goal clearly formulated? Does it address the core problem and express the impact the project will have on the beneficiaries?

To what extent are the roles of the beneficiaries clearly demonstrated in the application?

To what extent are the results realistic? To what extent are the indicators measurable? To what extent have external factors and risks been identified that can affect the

implementation of the application? Are appropriate measures proposed? To what extent is the monitoring and evaluation of the grant project’s progress been

adequately resourced?

4.2.2.2 Relevance

The relevance of the grant application is linked to the question whether the grant application and the proposed interventions are consistent with the beneficiaries' requirements, needs, priorities and partners' and ESAP2 requirements and policies. The question of relevance often becomes a question as to whether the objectives of the proposed intervention or its design are appropriate against given circumstances. For ESAP2, relevance of the grant application deals with issues such as:

To what extent is the proposed objective relevant for the local situation?

To what extent does the choice of the target sector correspond with the needs of the target beneficiary and target area? (See also the section 4.2.5 on higher relevance)

What is the relation between the proposed action and the ESAP2 objectives?

To what extent do the formulated objectives comply with the objectives of ESAP2? (Objectives are the statements on what is to be achieved by the intervention)

To what extent is the choice of the target woredas relevant for ESAP2? (see also the section 4.2.5 on higher relevance)

To what extent is the target group relevant for ESAP2? Are marginalized groups sufficiently involved as a target group?


4.2.2.3 Feasibility

The application will be evaluated on its feasibility, meaning the capability of accomplishing the approach or targets set. Two general levels of feasibility are considered:

1) Operational feasibility: operational feasibility resolves around the capability to technically reach the results envisaged. It is about issues such as:

To what extent are the formulated objectives and results reachable? To what extent is the proposed implementation and timeframe of the activities of the

grant application realistic? Has the approach been used elsewhere and been successful?

2) Contextual feasibility is about the enabling environment, are consensus and cooperative attitudes expected from actors involved, such as target groups, local government etc. It is about issues such as:

The extent to which woreda representatives, management and beneficiaries support the grant application? Are any Letters of Commitment from target woredas issued, supporting the implementation of the grant project in their community?

To what extent have the beneficiaries been involved in the planning and development of the project? (Early involvement reduces the probability of resistance towards the project)

4.2.2.4 Impact

The grant application should clearly describe what the envisaged impact of the proposed project is on the ground. Impact relates to tangible and intangible effects (consequences) of the proposed grant project for the beneficiaries and the targeted woredas. These effects can be positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Assessing the impact of the grant application could for example focus on issues such as:

What will happen as a result of the project? How will the project make a difference in the targeted woredas? How will this project change beneficiaries’ lives and opportunities, especially for

socially excluded groups? Would the proposed activity have influence beyond its aims, directly or indirectly,

intended or unintended? From the point of view of the beneficiaries, are environmental effects acceptable

compared to the positive desired effects of the intervention?

4.2.2.5 Sustainability

Finally, the grant application should include how it will achieve sustainability on the ground after the grant project is ended. Sustainability relates to the continuation of benefits from a development intervention after major development assistance has been completed. It refers to the probability of continued long-term benefits.

Applications should therefore include a sustainability strategy that describes the possibilities for replication and extension of the project’s outcomes and includes a mechanism for long-term sustainability of the project’s outcome. Assessing sustainability revolves around issues, such as:

The extent to which concrete proposed measures or activities sustain the project’s achievements and activities;


The extent to which the grant application is related to previous or other projects and activities (e.g. main policies) with and / or the beneficiary partner;

The extent to which the results of the project are disseminated outside the partner organisation and target woredas;

The extent to which positive side effects / spin offs are to be expected; The extent to which lasting benefits after the intervention are realistically expected; Are there key partnerships with other civil society organizations, service providers,

woreda officials that will help sustain the project? Are these partnerships, especially with woredas formalized in Letters of Commitment (if so, include them!);

The extent to which project activities can continue after funding ended?

4.2.3 Logical Framework

The application should include a consistent logical framework (LogFrame), clearly identifying the impact or objectives your grant project will achieve. A LogFrame is in essence a cause and effect matrix where inputs lead to outputs. Outputs lead to specific objectives, which in turn lead to overall objectives. The format for this matrix is presented in annex 1B. The LogFrame of your grant application should present the key elements of your development intervention and their interrelationships (intervention logic). Besides, your LogFrame should identify the inputs and outputs the project or program will deliver to enable achievement of the proposed objectives. In all, objectively verifiable (measurable and/or tangible) indicators need to be stated as to measure achievement of your targets.

When assessing the LogFrame, the evaluators will assess the quality of the LogFrame, the extent to which objectives, results, activities and inputs are logically interconnected.

4.2.4 Budget

The budget of the grant application will be assessed on compliance with our guiding principles of fairness, reasonableness and related to the proposed project’s activities. In addition, the budget will be checked on inclusion of ineligible costs, whether the estimated amounts correspond with the anticipated activities and outcomes, and whether the budgeted amounts are realistic for the implementation of the proposed activities (see also section 3.3 on more detail on (in)eligibility of costs).

After evaluation and review of their application and during the contract negotiation, the MA reserves the right to ask for justification on entries in the budget and to request amendments or corrections, so as to reach a final accepted version of the budget which, in case the application is selected for contracting, will be included as an annex to the contract agreement (see also section 5.2). Each grant budget will be assessed according to the above-mentioned criteria and guidelines and the rules as set in section 3.3. The final decision regarding the eligibility of costs incurred by the grant recipients will only be determined upon review of the submitted financial reports, relevant records and supporting documents.

4.2.5 Higher Relevance

The ESAP2 Grant Scheme is open for project applications addressing at least two of the five pre-selected sectors in a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 woredas in any of the regions of the country. However, ESAP2 seeks to stimulate a fair distribution of targeted woredas and sectors across the country, seeks to reach out to the emerging regions (Afar, Benishangul Gumuz, Gambella, Somali) and seeks to include a considerable number of CSOs to ensure nation-wide coverage and capacity building.


Therefore, grant applications submitted by partnerships and grant applications that target certain sectors or woredas are considered to be of higher relevance for ESAP2 than applications without those characteristics. To ensure a fair and transparent selection process of grant applications, the MA attaches higher relevance to grant applications that fulfill certain specific requirements. Only applications that fulfill any of the requirements below, will be able to receive the maximum number of points on the specific question and thus this application has an increased chance of being pre-selected for contracting. Below, we explain to which specific variables we attach extra value. This is also reflected in the Grant Application Evaluation Grid (see annex 2B).

4.2.5.1 Partnerships

As partnerships provide the opportunity for less experienced CSOs/SAIPs to learn from experienced CSOs/SAIPs and ESAP2 seeks to maximize the capacity building of CSOs/SAIPs across Ethiopia, the MA welcomes applications submitted by partnerships. An application will score higher on the variable of relevance when it is submitted by a partnership, where the cooperation between the organizations clearly brings added value to the implementation of the grant application, where a clear partnership strategy is included, that defines each all parties’ roles and responsibilities and a strategy on how the partners seek to build the capacities of all their consortium. Only applications that fulfill the above-mentioned criteria will be awarded with the maximum number of points on this variable (see 2.2 in annex 2B).

4.2.5.2 Sector Coverage

To be eligible, grant applications submitted under this Call for Proposals need to address at least two or more of the five sectors (education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and rural roads, see also section 2.4.2). The latter sector was not targeted in ESAP1 and is therefore new to the program and the sector of agriculture was only targeted very limited under ESAP1. Therefore, to the MA, grant applications targeting the sector of rural roads and/or agriculture are of higher relevance to the Grant Scheme than applications targeting the other sectors. The maximum amount of points on relevance of the target sector (see 2.2 in annex 2B) will only be awarded to applications that target those sectors.

4.2.5.3 Geographical Coverage

The ESAP2 Grant Scheme is open for project applications that target a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 woredas in any of the regions of the country (in Dire Dawa City Administration, kebeles and clusters can be considered). Grant projects can thus be implemented in every region of the country. However, while ESAP2 seeks to stimulate a fair distribution of targeted woredas across the country, it also seeks to reach out to the emerging regions (Afar, Benishangul Gumuz, Gambella, Somali). At the same time, it wishes to consolidate the gains and deepen processes of those woredas that were targeted under ESAP1. Therefore, grant projects that are targeting certain regions or woredas are considered to be of higher relevance for ESAP2. This is also reflected in the Grant Application Evaluation Grid (see annex 2B, specifically item 2.2). Only grant projects that target woredas that fulfill the requirements below will be awarded the maximum score on the evaluation criterion of ‘relevance of the target area’:

1) Woredas that were target woredas in pilot projects implemented under ESAP1;

2) Woredas with significant service deficiency/deprivation levels, based on state data;

3) Woredas where PBS Local Investment Grants (LIGs) have been implemented;


4) Woredas located in the emerging regions (Afar, Benishangul Gumuz, Gambella, Somali)

5) ‘Hot Spot’ woredas or those at strategic locations with high potential for snowballing the demonstration effect to neighboring woredas and ability to serve as the center in a cluster-based approach.

In the application, applicants need to justify their choice for their target woredas, irrespective of whether the target woreda falls under bullet 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. A list of woredas that qualify under bullets 1-3 is provided in annex 1F; for all target woredas falling under bullet 1-4, there is a clear criterion to establish the relevance of a target woreda. To assess the relevance of a woreda that falls under bullet 5 (‘Hot Spot woreda’), it is up to the applicant to include in the application a clear and convincing justification for the choice of the target woreda. The evaluators assess the extent to which the justification is convincing and whether the target woreda is indeed relevant.

4.3 Provisional Selection of the Applications

The total score of each eligible application will be the result of adding the scores for each section of the ESAP2 Grant Application Evaluation Grid. After all applications have been scored, applications will be ranked based on their total score from high to low. Only those applications that met the eligibility and administrative requirements and that were awarded at least 50% of the score on organizational capacity and relevance will be included in the final ranking list. A provisional list of applications that will be awarded with a grant will be compiled, starting with the number 1 on the ranking list and going down the ranking until the grant scheme budget envelope is depleted.

As indicated in section 2.3, the WB will most likely make additional funds available. As this is expected in due time, the current CFP is used as a selection mechanism for the enlarged grant scheme budget of $13,518,701,00. As soon as the additional budget is made available, the ranking list of this Call will once again be used to identify the additional applications that can be awarded with a grant. As the timing of the availability of additional funds is unknown, the award of the additional budget to the grant applicants of this call might take place a few months after the award of the grants under the current available budget.

The ESAP2 MA is responsible for the selection of the Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs), based on the evaluation scores and the funding available and submits the list of proposed SAIPs to the Steering Committee of ESAP2 for final endorsement, but only after the proposed SAIPs have passed the Financial Capacity Assessment (see also section 5.1) In any circumstance, the MA reserves the right not to award all available funds.

Applicants who have been provisionally selected through the independent assessors will be informed in writing by the MA and will enter into the contracting phase (see chapter 5).


5.1 Financial Capacity Assessment

The MA will inform applicants that they have been provisionally selected on the merit of their proposal and implementing capacity. They will be requested to supply the following documents in order to allow the MA to verify once again the eligibility of the applicants and their partners:

Bank Detail Verification Form (see format annex 3B), together with a recent bank statement of the organization to verify the current bank account.

Legal Verification Form (see format annex 3C), which will be cross-checked with the supporting documents provided by the applicant. Any missing supporting document or any incoherence between the Declaration by the applicant and the supporting documents may lead to the rejection of the application on that sole basis.

A copy of the latest audited annual report (in case the applicant has indicated in the application format to be in the possession of this report).

Every SAIP that has been selected based on the technical merit of their proposal, their implementing capacity and the reasonableness of the budget, will be assessed more elaborately by the MA on their financial capacity. The assessment visit to the SAIP’s offices will be conducted immediately after the evaluation process and before contract signature. Neither contract nor funding will be awarded to the SAIP before the assessment is done.

The MA performs the Financial Capacity Assessment in a visit to the provisionally selected lead applicant, as they are the envisaged contract signatory. The purpose of the Financial Capacity Assessment is to make sure that the applicant has the capacity to implement the proposed activities as described in the grant proposal, as well as identify areas that require special capacity building interventions or major concerns that may prevent the MA to issue an award to the organization. The assessment will verify whether all principles of proper financial management for SAIPs are being addressed and followed, and will allow the MA to address any identified gaps in the financial management at the level of SAIPs. The assessment includes an assessment of the SAIPs procurement practices.

The Financial Capacity Assessment consists of a list of questions covering all necessary aspects of financial management, divided in six sections: Planning and Budgeting, Basic Accounting Systems, Financial Reporting, Internal Controls, Grant Management and Staffing.

The MA strongly advises the SAIPs to open a separate bank account for the financial transfers for the ESAP2 grant to ensure that all processes on income and expenses for this project are separated from transfers in the framework of possible other (donor funded) projects. Based on the scores given to each question within those six sections, a total score will be given, defining the overall capacity of the SAIP. Based on this capacity, the MA can decide the following:

Not to award a contract to the SAIP, if the identified capacity is too low, resulting in a too high financial risk;

Award a contract to the SAIP with the condition that certain controls and tools proposed by the MA are adopted;

Award a contract to the SAIP with a training plan to address the identified weaknesses. This will be undertaken in close consultation with the Capacity Development and Training Team at the MA (see also section 6.1).

In case a provisionally selected SAIP does not pass the Financial Capacity Assessment, the application will be rejected and replaced by the next best placed application in the reserve list that falls within the available financial envelope.

5.2 Assessor’s Requirements and Contract Negotiation

After passing the Financial Capacity Assessment, the MA will present the list of proposed ESAP2 SAIPs to the ESAP2 Steering Committee for endorsement. Only after their approval, the MA will start the negotiation phase with the selected SAIPs.

During the contract negotiations, the MA and the SAIP will discuss jointly where small adjustments of the grant application, the budget, or the organizational management system are required. The technical team and the Grants Manager will work with each pre-selected SAIP to determine the appropriate adjustments to be made. Adjustments requested by the MA are based on the findings of the Financial Capacity Assessment (see section 5.1) and on the comments and recommendations brought forward by the assessors during the grant application evaluation. Adjustments to the budget can be requested by the MA at all times, irrespective of the number of points the narrative grant application was awarded with. In case no agreement can be reached during the contract negotiation, the MA is not obliged to award the contract and can at all times decide not to issue the grant contract.

Requests for adjustments by the MA and the response from the SAIP will be documented, leading to the final version of the budget acceptable to both the MA and the SAIP. The final agreed version will be annexed to the grant contract. No award can be signed, and no payment can be made to a SAIP until the contract negotiation is done and an agreement has been reached.

5.3 Contract and Method of Payment

Once all negotiations are finalized and documented and the grant application and grant budget are adjusted to reflect the outcomes of the contract negotiations, the grant contract can be prepared for signing. The grant application and grant budget are an integral part of the contract. The grant contract will be prepared in two copies; both original copies of the grant contract shall be signed and stamped by the authorized persons on behalf of the MA and the SAIP. Both the MA and the SAIP will receive an original signed copy. No advance payments or any financial transfer will be released to the partner until the duly signed original contracts are received by the MA (the format of the contract will be published on the website in the beginning of June).

ESAP2 makes use of an advance payment mechanism. Based on a request for advance payment (see annex 4A), to be submitted by the SAIP to the MA, a first advance payment can be transferred to the SAIP. SAIPs need to report on the use of the advance payment in their quarterly financial and narrative reports (see also section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2). Only after approval of both quarterly reports, a new advance payment request can be submitted by the SAIP to the MA. The SAIP can thus itself ensure that sufficient funds to implement the activities are at its disposal by submitting the required quarterly reports timely and in accordance with the required standards. Final clearance of the advances received will take place upon receipt and approval of the audited annual financial report / report of factual findings (see section 7.2).



6.1 SAIP Capacity Development & Training Program

The capacity development program for SAIPs will be designed based on the contracted grant applications and the financial capacity assessment conducted amongst all SAIPs (see section 5.1). All SAIPs will need to participate in two capacity development sessions hosted by the Management Agency.

The first session is the Social Accountability Project Preparation workshop. This session will focus on all aspects that are necessary for the implementation of their social accountability project. The topics will include grant management, including the financial management and reporting requirements, social accountability approaches and tools, and monitoring and evaluation responsibilities. The program is provided to all SAIPs to support them in understanding the overall implementation approach of ESAP2 and to support them in fulfilling their grant contract obligations.

The second capacity development session is on social inclusion and vulnerability. The focus here is to ensure that vulnerable groups are mainstreamed throughout the project including in the planning and implementation phases. The SAIPs will be trained on how to do this within their current plans. The training will focus on gender, children, people with disabilities, people living with HIV and AIDS and the elderly. Experts in these various fields will jointly conduct the training. The two program-wide support sessions will be offered in the first three months after contracting and will thus take place in parallel with the grant project implementation.

Next to these grant program-wide support sessions, the Management Agency will negotiate and develop with each SAIP a capacity development and training strategy, based on the financial capacity assessment and their exact training needs. Additional capacity development and training will be developed based on the respective SAIPs’ plans (including social accountability tools) and through the learning benchmark training sessions (see section 6.3 on learning benchmark). Besides participation in the training program that is offered to the SAIPs, all SAIPs are obliged to provide and share their experiences and lessons learnt with other SAIPs, when requested to do so by the MA. This way, it is ensured that the experiences and expertise available within the SAIPs is shared amongst them as well.

6.2 Monitoring Implementation and Progress

6.2.1 Quarterly Narrative Reporting

During the implementation of their project, SAIPs are required to submit quarterly and annual narrative reports on the implementation of their grant project (see annex 4B for the required format). The quarterly narrative reports provide the MA with concrete and detailed insight in the progress of the grant project, as they are based on the output and outcome indicators, as defined in the LogFrame. Exact deadlines for submission of quarterly reports and the exact period it will cover are dependent on the duration of the grant project, its starting and end date. In section 7.2, a tentative reporting schedule is presented, to provide applicants with insight on the reporting requirements for an ESAP2 grant. Exact deadlines for reporting and the period it will cover will be stipulated in the grant contract.

6.2.2 Quarterly Financial Reporting and Audit Statement / Report of Factual Findings

Besides reporting on the progress in implementing the grant project, the MA also requires insight in the use of the grant budget. All SAIPs are therefore required to submit with their quarterly narrative reports, a quarterly financial report on the use of the grant budget. The financial reports will be checked on compliance with the contractual agreement, on correct use of the format (see annex 4C), the inclusion of only real costs, the balance of the advances received, the use of exchange rates etc. In addition, the MA will compare the use of the grant budget with the interim results achieved (as indicated in the quarterly narrative report) to ensure that the costs claimed follow the principles of fairness, reasonableness and related to the proposed project activities. The MA has the right to request additional information or reports from the SAIPs and has the right to visit the offices of the SAIPs (be it the lead organization or their sub-partners) for an internal audit of the organization’s documenting system, financial records and their compliance with the ESAP2 financial guidelines. SAIPs are therefore required to keep all grant project related documents and records available for review by the MA.

Payment of new advances to the SAIPs is depended on the approval of the quarterly financial report; no new money transfer will take place without approval of the financial report of the previous period with the required supporting documents. All SAIPs will receive training on how to financially manage their project and how to report on their grant project’s finances to the MA. In addition, regular internal audits by the MA to the SAIPs will take place to provide the MA insight in the capacity and performance of the SAIP for the financial implementation and to provide the contracted organization feedback and advice on how to administer their finances and supporting documents appropriately. Financial reports need to be filled out in the appropriate reporting formats in Birr. The calculate the amount of funds of the report in dollar, the exchange rate of the transfer of the advance in dollar to Birr will be used.

The quarterly financial reports in combination with the quarterly narrative reports provide the MA with insight in the implementation of the grant project and the use of the funds. However, no original receipts, bills or invoices need to be sent to the MA with the quarterly reports, unless the MA specifically requests the SAIP to do so. As a result, the MA can only provisionally approve the quarterly reports, as this approval is based on the information provided by the SAIP to the MA. As a result, the final decision regarding the correctness and eligibility of costs incurred by the grant beneficiaries can only be taken by

the MA upon receipt of an audited financial report or a report of factual findings2. Therefore, all SAIPs are required to submit to the MA an audited financial report / report of factual findings per calendar year (based on the Gregorian calendar). An audited report / report of factual findings is required for 2012, 2013 and 2014 (the latter also being the final report, see section 7.2). All audits / reports of factual findings need to be performed by an OFAG-registered audit firm in accordance with international audit standards. The auditors should also have a valid audit license from the registering body of the Government of Ethiopia. The audit protocol / report of factual findings agreed upon procedures with instructions for the auditor is presented in annex 4D. The total number of months that each report covers depends on the total duration of the grant project, its starting date and end date. The first report will cover the period from the start of the grant project until 31 December 2012. Only after receiving the audited financial report / report of factual findings, can the MA review the report and determine the exact use of the grant budget for the period in question.

2 In the contracting phase, the MA will inform the SAIP whether either an audited financial report or a report of factual findings is required. This will be stipulated in the grant contract and its corresponding annexes (Audit Protocol or the Agreed Upon Procedures.


Costs for the audited financial reports / report of factual findings are to be covered from the grant budget and can thus be claimed with the MA.

A tentative reporting schedule on both financial as narrative reporting is provided in section 7.2

6.2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is an important task to enable the MA to ensure proper grant project implementation and to gain insight in achieved (interim) results and in lessons learnt of what works and what does not. Those lessons can at a later stage contribute to an informed decision-making process on the effects of support to social accountability initiatives. The M&E task of the MA implies on-going data collection, information gathering, analysis and feedback. SAIPs have an important role to play in M&E as well, as they are required to collect data and provide them to the MA. Contribution to the collection of relevant M&E data is a mandatory task of all SAIPs participating in ESAP2 and this is a fixed and non-negotiable assignment.

After the grant contract with the MA has been signed, the MA will discuss with the SAIPs the elaboration of their grant project’s M&E system and plan. With the grant application, all SAIPs have submitted a LogFrame and a brief outline of the planned monitoring system. These documents will be the basis from which the M&E system and plan will be built. Especially the LogFrame plays a crucial role in the development of the system, as it contains the intervention logic from implementing partners to beneficiaries and includes indicators to measure targets, output, outcomes and goals.

The MA will support the SAIPs in the development of their M&E plan, which will need to identify how each output and outcome indicator will be measured with what means of verification, what tools for data collection are used, when it has to take place and who is responsible for the collection of data. The MA will support the SAIPs with training on the usage of the available tools and mechanisms for data collection and will provide formats for reporting.

Besides the quarterly and annual data and information that is provided by the SAIPs to the MA with the submission of the quarterly narrative and financial reports, the MA itself will also collect data on the progress of the grant implementation, be it with different means and tools, such as conducting baseline and end-line surveys, review of the quarterly reports, field visits, and the communication and sharing of collected data by the SAIPs to the MA.

6.3 Collecting Good Practices

During implementation of the different contracted grant projects, lessons will be learnt in each project; lessons which are of use to all other grant implementers and at overall ESAP2 level.

In the program, a learning benchmark will be held to facilitate learning between woredas, kebeles and SAIPs. The learning benchmark is offered to all SAIPs to support them to build their capacity and to build platforms for further engagement amongst the different stakeholders of the grant projects (see also section 6.1).

The prime goal of the ESAP2 learning benchmark is to learn. In the learning benchmark the achievements of participating SAIPs, woredas and kebeles will be compared so that each of them gets insights into their comparative strengths and weaknesses and can learn from the practices of the ones that perform better.


In benchmark meetings, experiences will be exchanged between woredas, kebeles and SAIPs and good practices will be identified. Relations and platforms will be built that provide ground for future learning. The good practices will be described by SAIPs after the meeting and will be disseminated to all the participants.

6.4 Amendment of the Grant

During the course of implementation, it may become necessary to modify or amend the initial grant agreement for a rational justification. Modifications are generally made to reflect revisions to project descriptions or budgets, or other substantial changes to the award, such as extension of the contract period due to unforeseen situations arisen after contract signature.

If a modification is needed, the SAIP should contact the grant manager at the MA to discuss the situation. If all parties agree that the grant should be amended, the SAIP should prepare an official request in writing requesting the amendment, and send it to the grant manager. The request should include details of the requested change, justification for the change, and in the case of budgetary or activity changes, a revised budget showing the old budget, proposed change and new budget by line item.

Modifications or amendments must be requested prior to the grant close out date and prior to incurring expenses related to the change. If this is not done, the MA cannot approve the request and any additional expenses will be the responsibility of the SAIP. The MA makes no commitment to cover expenses incurred outside of the scope of the original grant if there has not been written approval to do so. In any case, amendments cannot call into question the award of the grant. For exact details on contract and contract amendment, check annex 3A.

6.5 Suspension and Termination of the Grant

Suspension would be based on an extraordinary situation that has arisen during project implementation and has the potential to make the whole grant project or a significant part of it improbable to be carried out. Suspension may lead to termination of a grant contract if the issue under discussion cannot be resolved within the acceptable timeframe set by the MA through taking all the necessary corrective actions. It is the MA’s objective that grants are successfully implemented. However, unforeseen circumstances may develop during the course of implementation that could put the achievement of this objective in question. For example, the SAIP may become insolvent during implementation of the grant or other conditions may develop that can hinder the SAIP’s successful implementation of the program. In such situations, we have provided for terms and conditions that will allow the MA to suspend or terminate the grant contract.

All grant contracts can unilaterally be terminated in the event that donor support for the program is terminated or reduced or a partner materially fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant contract. Since material failure is a relative term on which the MA and the SAIP may disagree, the MA will work with the SAIP to remedy instances of non-compliance before as drastic an action as termination becomes necessary. All instances of non-compliance must be supported with adequate documentation. Moreover, the grant contract can be ended, if the SAIP in question has lost its registration with the Government of Ethiopia.


When a SAIP fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant contract signed, a written notice will be sent by the MA, explaining the findings of non-compliance and providing a reasonable amount of time for the SAIP to correct any deficiencies. Under certain circumstances, both the MA and the SAIP may agree that a change in the external environment or unforeseen incidents have made the program infeasible, irrelevant, or otherwise undesirable to complete. In such instances, the MA will, based on consultation with the SAIP, inform in writing the date for termination of program activities.


7. Phase V: Closing

The grant contract between the MA and the SAIP specifies the exact implementation period of the grant project. After this period, the SAIP is obliged to report on the use of the grant and the achievements within the grant project. Final reporting resolves around three steps, of which two have to be taken by the SAIP:

1. Final Narrative Reporting on project content (see section 7.1)

2. Financial Report and Audit Statement / Report of Factual Findings on the use of the grant budget (see section 7.2)

No closure of the grant contract takes place without approval of the Final Narrative Report and all Financial Report with audit statements / reports of factual findings that, altogether, cover the expenditure during the complete project implementation period. The third step, dissemination of results and lessons learnt, is the responsibility of the MA (see section 7.3).

7.1 Final Narrative Reporting

The purpose of the Final Narrative Report is to describe and reflect on the entire project period. Throughout the project period, all SAIPs will have submitted regular quarterly and annual reports to the MA, which will have allowed the MA to gain an understanding of the activities undertaken during that specific period of project implementation. However, the Final Narrative Report concentrates primarily on the results and impact of those activities. It should present a qualitative summary of the project as a whole with relevant information for the financers and auditors of the project, as well as other organizations that can have an interest in or could benefit from the experiences and results of the project.

All SAIPs are required to submit their Final Narrative Report to the MA in accordance with the format provided in annex 5A. The Final Narrative Reports contains two sections:

1. Report on the activities implemented since the previous reporting period until the end date of the grant contract, and

2. Report on the complete project period.

The format clearly shows the different sections the SAIP is required to fill out. The deadline of submitting the Final Narrative Report to the MA is indicated in the grant contract.

7.2 Final Financial Reporting and Audit statement / Report of

Factual Findings

Besides Final Narrative Reporting, reporting on the exact use of the grant also needs to take place. As indicated in section 6.2, all SAIPs are required to submit quarterly reports, both financial and narrative.

After the end of the grant contract, the SAIP will, next to the Final Narrative Report, also need to submit another audited financial report / report of factual findings, covering the period since the last audited statement / report of factual findings until the end of the contract. The deadline of submitting the Final Financial Report to the MA is indicated in the grant contract.

Costs for all audits / reports of factual findings are to be financed from the grant budget. Audit costs for the last Financial Report can be claimed separately with the MA, by submitting a copy of the auditor’s invoice to the MA. The MA will perform its own check of the audit report / report of factual findings submitted and will check the report against the Final Narrative Report for consistency.

7.3 Close Out

Besides Final Reporting an ESAP2 grant project is not regarded as officially completed until:

The Final Narrative Report and all the materials/deliverables of the grant project are received by the MA and approved;

All audited Financial Reports / Reports of Factual Findings are received by the MA and approved;

All advance payments to the SAIP are cleared;

3 The audited Annual Financial Report / Report of Factual Findings coincides with the fourth Quarterly Report. The audited Annual Financial Report / Report of Factual Findings of year X thus covers all quarterly financial reports of year X that have been provisionally approved by the MA ánd the expenditures in the last reporting period of year X.

Tentative ESAP2 Reporting Schedule

Reporting Period

(please note that this schedule provides a tentative overview of the reporting obligations for an ESAP2 grantee (SAIP). Dependent on the exact starting date of the grant projects, this schedule may be adjusted. Exact reporting requirements and deadlines will be stipulated in the grant contract)

Quarterly Narrative Report

Final Narrative Report

Quarterly Financial Report

Audited Annual Financial Report / Report of Factual Findings3

Starting date of grant contract – 31 December 2012

X X

1 January 2013 – 31 March 2013 X X

1 April 2013 – 30 June 2013 X X

1 July 2013 – 30 September 2013 X X

1 October 2013 – 31 December 2013 X X

1 January 2014 – 31 March 2014 X X

1 April 2014 – 30 June 2014 X X

1 July 2014 – 30 August 2014 X X

7. Phase V: Closing

All final payments from the MA to the SAIP or from the SAIP to the MA have been performed and received;

A close out letter of the MA to the SAIP in which final closure of the grant contracted is received by the SAIP.

7.4 Dissemination of Results and Lessons Learnt

During the implementation of the ESAP2 grant projects and in the final stage of the program, the lessons learnt collected in the framework of the Capacity Development & Training, the Monitoring & Evaluation efforts and the learning benchmark will be disseminated. Both the general lessons learnt as the good practices identified in the social accountability initiatives will be disseminated. The purpose of dissemination is to facilitate learning between stakeholders and to strengthen sustainability by making good practices accessible for SAIPs, woredas, kebeles and other stakeholders, including the GoE. Dissemination will be undertaken through different channels including:

Document best practices: To support institutionalization of the knowledge gained, good practices will be documented in the form of booklets, articles and case study publications on the ESAP2 website.

High-level federal conference: At the end of ESAP2, representatives from woredas, the central government, development partners as well as the SAIPs involved, will be invited to share their best practices and the results, set against the baselines. Presentations will be given to a wider audiences to ensure dissemination of best practices beyond the directly involved people and parties.

7. Phase V: Closing

8. Annexes

Annexes

Annex 1A: ESAP2 Grant Application Format

Annex 1B: ESAP2 Logical Framework Format

Annex 1C: ESAP2 Action Plan Format

Annex 1D: ESAP2 Budget Application Format

Annex 1E: ESAP2 Grant Application Partnership Statement

Annex 1F: ESAP2 List of Woredas of Particular Relevance

Annex 2A: ESAP2 Eligibility and Administrative Requirements Grid

Annex 2B: ESAP2 Grant Application Evaluation Grid

Annex 3A: ESAP2 Contract

Annex 3B: ESAP2 Grant Applicant’s Bank Detail Verification Format

Annex 3C: ESAP2 Grant Applicant’s Legal Verification Format

Annex 4A: ESAP2 Request for Advance Payment

Annex 4B: ESAP2 Quarterly Narrative Report Format

Annex 4C: ESAP2 Interim and Final Financial Reporting Format

Annex 5A: ESAP2 Final Narrative Report Format

Annex 6A: ESAP2 Overall Tentative Grant Scheme Planning

ethiopia protection of basic services social accountability...

Documents