Talking points from SOCCER regarding IPG future 20-22 June 2012

1. Talking points from SOCCER regarding IPG future20-22 June 2012

2. (Re) Affirm IPG: The Way Forward, Code of Engagement and FedNet Common responsibility through partnership to achieve CWB, assure primacy of community and donor accountability. Reference The Way Forward Page 2 (from Going Forward) A place at the table for SO’s. Example removal of SO involvement in the Partnership Initiative Approval Process Request SO leadership to work in an united manner with GC to re-establish a genuine partnership approach.

3. Recognise SO IPGs are structured differently with a variety of roles which correspond to their own contexts and funding mix. • There are two main components to the GC debate around the role played vis-a-vis the NO/programmes: • Ensuring programme quality/DM&E and technical support – supplement field capacity as & where required (governed by PSC & PST) • Ensuring accountability to donors – there is a minimum level of oversight required by law/by industry

4. Summary of the role of the SO IPG • Each SO has minimum requirements/responsibilities, determined by their own legislative context (government, industry, 'good practice' directed) which are permanent parts of the role. • Legal requirements: “direction and control”; “ability to influence the management of funding” • Used “for charitable purposes” • Approval of activities • WVG - “auxiliary” actors • Sectoral “musts” e.g. gender • Moral and ethical duty • We are working towards a time when NOs have sufficient capacity for SO IPGs to decrease in size to the minimum number of staff required to undertake these requirements/responsibilities at (1) We are not there yet in terms of demonstrating impact/evidence. Quality assurance: competent performance against standards & programme effectiveness (relevance & impact)

5. Summary of the role of the SO IPG cont. 3. In the meantime/ transitional roles: • PCR gives us the risk and capability rating of NOs and SOs assisting us to determine where support is needed and which SOs can provide directly or need to 'buy it in‘ • PSC/PST – engage to ensure (1) “no programme left behind” and (2) other support requested by NO around OCP. • PST coordinates capacity building and is guided by PCR Rating. For bigger NOs there may be value in a higher strategic conversation to complement. • PSC outlines where extra oversight and assistance is needed • GTRN provides a database for resources. Registration (ensuring accreditation over time), trips & DME/LEAP cycle related travel • Multiyear budgeting – best intention to project commitments • SOs will always have a right to: • Approve PDD & budget; • Review reports & financial statements; • To do monitoring visits; • To raise concerns; • Trigger line management action; • To intervene; • To withhold/ stop funds.

6. Critical Misconceptions • SO Ministry related costs are all field related – growth also reflects increasing importance of advocacy • Travel costs are all DME related – trip rationale is often mixed and oversight/monitoring related • Resources are “reallocateable” • Evidence to date suggests no major work load reduction for CPM’s due to PSC rating. 79% of NO’s are consolidating and 5% are at base indicating continuing support is essential. Furthermore work is not only rating- related but also tailored specifically by context. • CPM roles are increasingly “inward facing” to support fundraising & other SO based work. • SO are not working towards shared services and are duplicating efforts

7. Other issues for GC to Address: • GFO and IM – clarity of roles and decision processes • Clarity of communication on key processes for examples: budgeting guidelines, MYPB, GTRN financing • When issues arise with SO’s we request more precise communication with those offices rather than blanket emails • Accountability report – clarify the partnership level of commitment to leading the industry on social accountability • Clarify leadership of the PCR, the future role of the GC and co-ordination