'More than just a bank': The revision of ECHO's Framework Partnership Agreement with humanitarian agencies.

In May this year, ECHO embarked upon a process of consultation with Humanitarian Aid Organisations (HAOs), setting out proposals for the revision of The Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) (see RRN issue no. 5). Organising themselves within VOICE and more widely as a Dialogue Group, the HAOs prepared a response to ECHO’s initial proposals and released a position document on 7th July 1997.

The response of the HAOs can be divided into two parts: the first is political, dealing with the values and principles of partnership and serving as a reference document (an essential prerequisite for the revision of the General Conditions, the Operating Contract, the annexes and the standard forms). The second is technical, focusing on the administrative, financial and operational aspects associated with implementation of the contracts.

The consultation process between the HAOs and ECHO was provisionally concluded at the beginning of October. However, before a final record of the meetings can be presented, ECHO will need to consult more widely both within the European Union and with the Member States. The comments below provide some preliminary conclusions from an NGO perspective on the process and results to date.

I. Political Amendments

Partnership, as the key to effective political discussion, should be addressed in two ways: regular consultation between partners; and a clarification of the role of ECHO in the partnership.

i. Dialogue

ECHO has not adopted the full concept of dialogue as envisioned by the HAOs, but has committed itself to ‘consulting’ at regular intervals. This distinction seems to reflect ECHO’s fear that partner organisations might interfere in its decision-making process. By asking for regular dialogue, however, HAOs are seeking to avoid the limitations of the role of sub-contractor and to introduce a genuine dialogue which will facilitate decision-making at appropriate levels.

It is encouraging that, while working together on the revision of the FPA, NGOs and ECHO have succeeded in reaching agreement on almost all issues of importance. NGOs were able to persuade ECHO of the added value and quality of their contribution, to which ECHO has responded with a willingness to explore informal partnerships and to strengthen NGO representation to the Commission.

It is recognised that the new FPA provides for an increased level of consultation than its predecessor and that a ‘dialogue’ cannot be imposed upon ECHO. However, in the absence of greater transparency in ECHO’s partnership intentions over the way in which the humanitarian organisations are to be consulted, there is concern that more may yet need to be done to meet the expectations of both sides.

ii. The role of ECHO

ECHO has consistently reiterated its wish not to be considered simply as a bank. It would be advantageous to all for ECHO to develop as a more rounded instrument of administrative and financial management. It is therefore with this as a backdrop and with the aim of strenthening ECHO’s role as a competent humanitarian agency that HAOs are seeking to integrate the following proposals into the new FPA.

• working meetings between ECHO and the humanitarian organisations should focus on operational strategies, with direct access to information on ECHO’s workplans;
• an information, education and general awareness raising strategy should be implemented. This should include a dedicated effort to increase understanding of humanitarian problems in Europe and in countries experiencing situations of instability and crisis;
• the consensus on humanitarian principles and values should be brought to the forefront. These core values, together with the understanding and application of International Humanitarian Law, enable humanitarian organisations to speak on behalf of those affected by crisis, while also providing ECHO with a political and moral ‘springboard’ in the defence of populations affected by conflict.

Despite ECHO’s insistence that it be seen as ‘more than just a bank’, the limited information available regarding the role that it does want to play to some extent explains the continued lack of commitment by HAOs to partnership issues.

II. Technical Amendments

Technically speaking, the revision of the FPA has achieved the following:

1. A clarification of mutual obligations on the part of all partners, including ECHO, in the implementation of a contract. The details relate mostly to clarity about deadlines for responses to correspondence and applications and payments.
2. An agreement that ECHO will recognise local partners, thus enabling a humanitarian organisation to entrust the implementation of an operation financed by ECHO, either in part, or entirely to a local partner. Full responsibility will continue to be shouldered by the lead implementing partner.
3. A number of significant changes relate to the integration of evaluation and preliminary study and assessment costs into project budgets.
4. Improvements in the financial sphere include a significantly lower risk of exchange losses with a cross-subsidisation of up to 15% between budget lines now possible; the possible granting of an advance of up to 80% of the budget in substantiated cases or on presentation of an expenditure schedule; the possible inclusion of a contingency reserve of more than 5%, with no maximum ceiling; the use of flat rates for the remuneration/reimbursement of expatriate and local staff; the reimbursement of administrative costs up to 7%, based on a table to be established by joint agreement; the option of obtaining co-financing for large-scale operations with the only obligation being that of informing ECHO of the identity of the other backers and the size of their respective contributions; the extension and greater flexibility in the list of eligible expenses.
5. Discussions are ongoing on the question of management of HAOs purchasing offices with no agreement between ECHO and the partners yet reached.
6. ECHO has withdrawn its intention of accompanying every programme with a visibility plan and, in the framework of a humanitarian project, will make finance available for consciousness-raising and education activities in Europe and developing countries. ECHO is keen to increase awareness of the humanitarian problem and to ensure that populations affected by crisis are seen as worthy of respect, rather than as objects of pity.

III. Conclusions

The current version of the FPA is the culmination of a long and intense process of consultation between ECHO and the humanitarian organisations. It reflects a patient, measured search for agreement which has resulted in significant progress towards giving the FPA the flexibility needed for the effective implementation of humanitarian assistance projects. Care has been taken to ensure that this flexibility is accompanied by rigorous management and a high degree of accountability.

A more transparent commitment to methods of consultation, coupled with constructive dialogue and complementary action between partners, will enable ECHO to more fully exploit the unique opportunity which the revision process has afforded and progress towards its stated goal of becoming ‘more than just a bank’.