close

Description of process

Local advisory board meeting procedures
At the meeting the COGM distributes around the list of proposals, ranked on the basis of the independent expert scores (see Annex IX).
The country office director/representative (COD)/(COGM) chairs the board meeting, while the minutes are taken by the grants/ financial assistant or any other member of the country office team (see Annex XI).

The COCD will state the amount of money that is available to award in grants at that meeting.
The COGM announces the application by the NGO name and grant number. At this point if any board members have a potential conflict of interest in evaluating the grant, they excuse themselves from this part of the meeting. The floor is open for discussion. It is expected that each board member will give his or her opinion about the application. Considering the time limitation the usual procedure is that each member can have the opportunity to take the floor a maximum of twice for each application.
The meeting should be limited to one day in duration. The discussion at the meeting should follow the order of the ranked proposals from the top down. If the number of the proposals is really large (more than 15), board members should figure out at the beginning of the meeting criteria to limit the number of proposals to be discussed.
One suggestion is to spend the first half of the meeting discussing proposals with above-average scores and to stop when you reach the proposal whose score equals the overall average.
For the second part of the meeting, if there is money left over from the first part of the discussion, other proposals can be selected. Discussions on each proposal should start with an argument for selecting it by the experts who favour it. The other experts must be persuaded and the whole local advisory board should vote on each proposal.
 
Each of the proposals should be discussed extensively during the evaluation meeting and the experts are required to provide with their comments. Comments can appraise the project or recommend changes and modifications.
The COCD/GM also contributes to the recommendations for the grant amount, the disbursement schedule, the reporting requirements, and any special conditions.
At the evaluation meeting, the board members may be asked to explain their scores for various projects, especially ones within their areas of expertise. To prepare for this, each board member is asked to write a brief statement concerning his or her opinion about each project during the individual evaluation process prior to the meeting.
At the request of two or more board members, additional information can be requested from the NGO before a decision is made. The country office director/representative will contact the NGO and request the information. When the information is received, the application is rescheduled for the next board meeting.
The COCD has the power to veto a decision of the board, but can exercise it only in extraordinary circumstances. In these cases, the grant proposal is referred to a special committee at the REC head office, which includes the NGO Support Team. The COCD must submit a written justification of the veto to both the advisory board and the special committee.
Consensus is the preferred process for reaching a decision in the local advisory board meeting, but if the board fails to reach consensus then the COD/ COGM applies the voting process.
The type of possible decisions include:

• approved;
• approved with preconditions; or
• rejected.

A fourth type of decision can be “pending,” which is a temporary status until additional information/ clarifications are submitted by the NGO to the REC.
For approved proposals, the experts together with the COD and/or COGM will make a decision on the following:

• the grant amount;
• the disbursement schedule;
• the reporting requirements and due dates; and
• any special conditions.

Approved
Information on the grant amount, disbursement schedule, reporting requirements, and any special conditions will be recorded in the grant review log (see Annex XVII) as well as in the minutes of the meeting.
The disbursement schedule should be compatible with the type of project, the project duration, and the timing of expenses. In addition, it is established in connection with the reporting requirements.

Approved with preconditions
If the proposal meets the evaluation criteria but needs further information or clarification, it is approved on condition that the NGO supply that information specified in the award letter. 
If the proposal meets the evaluation criteria but the board have some recommendations or some extra conditions for the NGOs to follow during the implementation of the project, the proposal is approved and the recommendations and conditions are specified in the award letter and modifications are requested to be reflected in the proposal.
If certain information needs to be confirmed or received prior to approval, the board may approve an application conditionally. In this case, when the COGM confirms or receives the required information, the application is approved automatically. If the conditions set by the board are not met within a certain period of time, the application may be rejected.
The board may set special conditions on an approved application. Special conditions may require that the NGO modify its proposal in some respect, such as involve other organisations or broaden its target audience. Such conditions should be clearly recorded in the minutes of the meeting and communicated to the NGOs through the award letter.
When all the necessary information is received, the COCD and the COGM/ COFA carefully read the application and review the budget for feasibility and cost effectiveness. After consultation with the financial administrator, the country office director/representative recommends a grant amount sufficient to implement the project in the most cost-effective manner. This recommendation can be the same as the amount requested in the application, or it can be lower. Justification should be provided to the NGOs in case the grant is reduced and specifics should be given on which part of the proposal the budget is cut. This financial review may require some research, such as determining the costs for certain equipment, services, supplies, etc. The financial person is responsible for this research.
The COD recommendations to the local advisory board on budget revisions are meant to facilitate the grant decision-making process by providing the advisory board members with feasible and cost-effective arguments based on the REC experience with granting.

Rejected
Proposals which do not meet the evaluation criteria will be rejected. If the proposal is rejected by all the local advisory board members, the COGM should keep notes on the reasons and record them in the minutes of the meeting.

Full proposal evaluation criteria
The full proposals are evaluated against a well-elaborated criteria developed in the announcement to assess the following:
Background

• The proposal describes an environmental problem on a national level where cooperation with other stakeholders in society is the best way to solve the environmental problem.
• The proposal has feasible goals that are consistent with those of the grants programme.
• The NGOs should define goals that can be achieved within the project timeframe.

Project planning

• The action plan has feasible and clearly defined activities in line with the objectives.
• The project is to be carried out with financial transparency in a publicly visible manner (e.g. open processes, promotion of activities and the creation of an Internet homepage).
• There are indicators that allow results to be measured and compared with expectations.

Cooperation

• The proposal describes how NGOs will cooperate and how different interest groups – including the local community, government officials, business people and other donors – will participate. Each partner is given clearly defined tasks.

Project impact

• The NGOs should be able to measure their progress and the (environmental) impact of their project. The indicators, which should be consistent with programme objectives, of measuring the project success should be described.
• An innovative and integrative approach is used, taking into account economic and social considerations.
• The project generates tangible results in line with expected outcomes.

Budget

• The budget is cost-effective and clearly indicates how much money is required for which activities. Unless well justified, the amount allocated for salaries should not exceed 30 percent of the total budget. The budget may fund a certain amount of overhead.

The NGO

• The NGOs making the proposal should be able to carry out the tasks described and to cooperate with their partners.

Sustainability: Results and follow-up

Related policies

• Local advisory board policies
• Grants policies

Supporting docs

• Annex IX – List of ranked proposals template
• Annex XI – Full proposals minutes template
• Annex XVII– Grant review LOG template

Financial