Scenario

1. ECB Learning Event - How the ECB Project has built capacity across the humanitarian sectorAgenda for afternoon session 13:30 – 14:00 Opening scenario 14:00 – 14:45 What do we know about collaboration?14:45 – 15:00 Coffee break15:00 – 15:30 Case Study: Collaborative tool development – the Toward Resilience Initiative15:30 – 16:00 Case Study: NGOs traditionally compete for funds; what happens when they join forces to raise money together?

2. Scenario • You have been asked to set up and manage a collaboration. What are your key considerations? • Discuss in your table groups (15mins) • Present key considerations back to plenary (5mins per group)

3. Collaborative tool development – the Toward Resilience initiative ECB Learning Event July 2013 www.ecbproject.org

4. Toward Resilience

5. Background • _________________________________________________________________ • Peer review workshop in May 2009 bought all ECB stakeholders together • Consortium Engagement Plans analysed • Demand for a practitioner friendly tool / guidance on DRR, resilience (“the Good Enough Guide to DRR”) • Process to develop the guide agreed on model of AIM GEG i.e. fully participatory

6. Next steps • _________________________________________________________________ • Meeting in Italy in June 2009 with ECB DRR advisors and representatives from the 5 ECB consortia • Broad concept note for the guide developed • “DRR Practitioners Guide” • Tensions over scope of guide, format of guide, inclusion of climate change adaptation / resilience

7. Key moments • _________________________________________________________________ • Scoping study carried out with 24 organisations in July 2010 • OFDA approached in December • CRS and Save provide $180k “catalyst” funding (Jan 2011) • OFDA (January) and ECHO (March) proposals submitted • Two guide lead consultants contracted May 2011 • $100k provided by Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund (June 2011) • First consortium workshops held (June / July 2011)

8. Key moments….cont • _________________________________________________________________ • Editorial committee confirmed (August 2011) • First summit held in Bangkok (September 2011) • First draft of Guide released in December 2011 for review • Second consortium review workshops held (March 2012) • Summit 2 held in Bangkok (April 2012) • Field testing in 6 locations (July 2012) • Resource materials developed by Mercy Corps (Oct 2012) • Guide launched (December 2012)

9. What on earth just happened?..... • _________________________________________________________________ • 3 years • 6 ECB agencies, (PLUS others in the consortia) • 24 individuals consulted in the Guide’s scoping study. • 2 International summits • 10 consortium workshops with up to 100 participants • 6 field tests in 6 different countries • 1500 pieces of individual feedback • 33 field participants in the global workshops as well as the 6 DRR Advisors and the 2 authors. • 6 ECB project staff and managers (including 2 ex staff), • 6 editorial committee members, • 1 editor, • 2 translators, • 2 Agency managers

10. The process • _________________________________________________________________ • ‘exciting’, ‘challenging’, ‘enriching’, ‘rewarding’ • and ‘lengthy’!

11. Key learning • _________________________________________________________________ • Participatory approach was longer and more generic output • Publication experience missing • Work involved was far greater than anticipated • Expensive and time consuming • Confusions over roles and responsibilities within complex ECB structures • Multiple donor reporting • Participatory mechanisms do not suit all stages of a publication

12. Key learning • _________________________________________________________________ • Diverse content suitable for a broad range of contexts • Technically credible guide integrating DRR / CCA • Process increased ownership and involvement = application • Diversity of participation opportunities was broad and good

13. Key learning • _________________________________________________________________ • “…..The publication of the Guide demonstrates that multiple stakeholders, spanning several organisations, can work collaboratively and effectively to produce a resource that incorporates their combined experience and responds to a widely-felt need…..”

14. Recommendations • _________________________________________________________________ • Planning meeting prior to embarking including publishing! • Engage senior managers for improved ownership / mainstreaming • Monitor impact of participation through use of Guide • Resource guide team instead of relying on “volunteerism” • Start with a first draft rather than a carte blanche • Consider field testing rather than “read and review” – resource accordingly • Minimise participation to sustain engagement – JDs / PRs

15. Toward Resilience booth at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction 2013

16. NGOs traditionally compete for funds – what happens when they joint fundraise? ECB Learning Event July 2013 www.ecbproject.org

17. “………Once upon a time, six INGOs began a collaborative initiative with $5m in the bank and $7m to find………”

18. Background • _________________________________________________________________ • Gates Foundation approves an ECB Project Phase II • $12m budget approved for a five year initiative • $5m provided by Gates, $7m agency commitment • ECB Project Phase II starts in August 2008 • CARE USA manages contract • All agencies sign MoU outlining structure, ways of working

19. But…. • _________________________________________________________________ • Concept notes, plans and fundraisers in place BUT….. • Global financial crisis • Power of ECB agencies to raise money seriously affected • Five innovative approaches adopted to address the issue

20. 1. Fundraising by Committee - HQ • _________________________________________________________________ • Matrix of funding options developed, lead agencies assigned • Opened up competitive revenue streams for the first time • However joint fundraising requires coordination • Donors not prioritising capacity building • Agencies found it hard to raise money internally • Decentralised structures contributed to complexity. • “….the ECB Project was too expensive for what the market could bear….”

21. 2. Fundraising by Committee - Country • _________________________________________________________________ • In some consortia joint fundraising was pursued – Bolivia • Requires high level of trust but seen as opportunity to highlight capacities of participating agencies and build further. • Difficult to prioritise consortium over individual agency • Decisions often made at global level anyway. • Recent successes in Bolivia and Bangladesh

22. 3. Technical advisors, joint priorities • _________________________________________________________________ • DRR advisors joint fundraising for TR Guide • Unsuccessful first bid to OFDA so agency leverage funds used to catalyse project (CRS, SC and Mercy Corps) • Eventually OFDA contributed towards the funding gap • This direct project focused initiative seemed to work

23. 4. Single lead agency for joint actions • _________________________________________________________________ • Oxfam GB have worked closely with donors to fund activities • Some applications rejected because the ECB Project was perceived as too US-centric • Some applications successful • “…..European donors have been more forward thinking and more willing to take bets…” • Downside of this approach is less consortium ownership of activities and outcomes

24. 5. Two or three agencies leading • _________________________________________________________________ • Approach to ECHO from CARE, Oxfam GB and ECB team • Required significant relationship / trust building (12months) • Difficult to develop a proposal that reflects all priorities • Sense of top down approach • Global frustrations with lack of country level engagement • Ultimately successful but what damage to relationships?

25. Reflections • _________________________________________________________________ • Funding restructure, resulting in increased agency contributions • Tensions result over perceived inequality in contributions to the collaboration. Erosion of trust. • Over reliance on NGO unrestricted funds “harder to justify internally” • Private funds used increasingly successfully • The right kind of funding?

26. Learning • _________________________________________________________________ • Know when to fundraise together and when to say no! • Understand the differing funding policies of agencies • One or two agencies can fundraise on behalf of the group as long as plans are agreed and refreshed • Develop a global budget and continually update it • Start with a joint fundraising strategy and clarify agencies commitments • Measures of accountability • Address concerns about covering support costs early on

27. Learning…..cont • _________________________________________________________________ • Proposal consultation is vital but incredibly difficult • Proactive advocacy and communication with donors is key • Donors are attracted to the reach and sustainability of consortia • Fundraising is part of the challenge – spending is the other!