Transcript Slide 1

Proposal Writing Training
SECTOR Grants in Moldova
Key challenges in development of new
proposal
Zorica Korac, REC CO Serbia
Planning and monitoring the progress
 While planning keep in mind the change you
want to achieve, and this will guide you through
the process that will create a change.
 Think about the values that your organization
stands for.
 Try to get tangible results. In planning, focus on
concrete outputs/outcomes/impacts, or if
there are no, look for indirect evidence of the
change.
Planning and monitoring the progress
 Make partnerships that add value to the
project and avoid artificial partnerships made
‘pro forma’.
 Use volunteering.
 Avoid taking over the duties of the
institutions/public utility companies etc.
whose obligations is to perform certain work.
 Do not act as consultancies only.
 Stay open and flexible for modifications.
Credibility issue
 Build capacities of your organization, but
also work on building its credibility so that
CSOs become recognized as relevant factor
by citizens, other CSOs and Governmental
sector.
 Citizens should one day recognize you as
someone they can turn to.
 Make the best use of media. Promote your
results preferably in an original way (you can
use open competitions for visual identity
Relation with the authorities
 Acting as partners of the authorities and
balancing critique with the partner role.
 ‘Safe role’ of someone who draws attention to
issues, proposes solutions to the problems, but
does not go further from presenting them to
the relevant institutions lead to lack of
intensity of stress on the institutions and in
some cases no concrete changes.
The broad RBM- concept
1. Strategic Planning (according to eg LFA) What goal/results do
we want to achieve? How do we achieve the results?
(situation and problem analysis, formulating SMART
objectives and identifying indicators and setting baseline
and targets)
2. Performance Measurement and reporting How do we know
that we reached our goal? “(Think about data on
performance and analyze it) How can we assess/measure
success/failure?”
3. General management/leadership (promote a culture in the
organization/institution that think of achieving
results/effects not outputs only)
What is an results indicator and why are we
using them?
 All indicators has a parent objective (but are not the goal)
change
 Indicators should HELP you to better understand if you
reached your goal or moved towards it? (has change
occurred? )
 Indicators makes objective more concrete and are by
nature quantitative ( can easily be measured by no).
 To ensure that objectives becomes specific, realistic and
tangible.
 To verify success/failure of the project
 Have something to write about in the report to the
financier?
If the objective is SMART , formulating indicators is usually
not so problematic
Results chain
Development Results
Implementation
What is DONE and HOW it is DONE
WHAT should be
produced/delivered
Actions taken,
work
performed
Results from the
development
intervention like
products, capital
goods and
services
Financial,
human and
material
resources
Direct control
Development Effects
WHAT Results we
expect
Likely or
achieved
short and
medium term
effects
WHY it’s done
Long-term
effects
External factors and actors
Success stories related to granting
in Serbia
 Relevant authorities in Nisavski District
incorporated plans for using biomass into strategic
documents, and City of Nis started planning
construction of a biogas plant.
 National Council of Education (NCE) adopted
CSOs’ proposals for defining standards for
environmental education, thus recognizing
environmental education and sustainable
development as an important cross-cutting issue
that goes beyond individual subjects.
Success stories related to granting in
Serbia
 Paracin municipality made a decision to separately
collect hazardous household waste, being the
first municipality that adopted this kind of policy in
Serbia.
 Three local governments adopted Local Waste
Management Plans (Gornji Milanovac, Indjija and
Kucevo) with local CSOs representatives as team
members who monitor the implementation.
 Energy efficiency and water protection were
identified as priorities in two strategies (Youth
Policy Action Plan of Vojvodina for 2011-2014 and
the Local Youth Policy Action of Novi Sad).
Less successful stories related to
granting in Serbia
Project dealing with impact of the traffic on the quality of
environment in Belgrade. CSOs only draw attention to the
issues, proposed solutions to the problems, but did not go
further from presenting them to the relevant institutions.
This lack/low intensity of stress on the institutions lead to mild
reaction of authorities.
Project dealing with climate change on city level in Belgrade.
Project produced Guidelines for city strategy for climate
change, suggesting necessary actions at the city level, as a
response to the problem of climate change. Results were
acknowledged but without proof that they will find the
application that was planned.
Good approach
Incorporating SD principles into official strategic
documents, with high involvement of CSO
representatives in the processes of planning and
decision making sets a good path for more
participatory, inclusive and transparent
governance in the long run (in particular in
projects where CSO representatives remain
present in the bodies/work groups/teams that
are in position to monitor further
implementation of newly adopted policies).
 In some cases, CSO initiatives made some
progress, but did not fully produce expected
outcomes. Sustainability of these results is
weakened by the fact that relevant authorities /
institutions showed lower level of commitment
to the project objectives and did not fully accept
them as their own during the project period.
 In their attempts to lobby for policy changes, CSOs
mostly chose to act as partners of the authorities,
suggesting positive changes, without too much emphasis
on the flaws in the work of authorities. Although this
provides better reception, it leaves a question how to
balance critique with the partner role.
 Some CSOs decided stick to the ‘safe role’ of someone
who draws attention to issues, proposes solutions to the
problems, but does not go further from presenting them
to the relevant institutions. This lack/low intensity of
stress on the institutions in some cases lead to mild
reaction of authorities and no concrete changes.
 Results of some CSO projects showed that
pioneering work carries hidden threats that
are not always easy to predict.
 Partnerships created between CSOs enabled
them to tackle issues not only on local, but also
on regional and national level (e.g. projects
dealing with education and waste).
Aspects of good CSO initiatives
 initiatives cleverly designed and rooted in the current
context with which CSOs are very well acquainted,
 initiatives of experienced CSOs that are active on
national, or at least regional level,
 partnerships among CSOs determine to a large extent
the outcomes of the projects:
 consortiums consisting of large nationally recognized CSOs increases
probability of strong impact,
 synergies between CSOs that are specialized for different areas can results
with interesting outputs and outcomes if responsibilities are clearly
divided among partners (involvement of CSOs specialized for reporting
increases visibility),
Project “Removing non-technical barriers for
using of biomass in energy purpose-Bio
generator”
 Consortium has established a network of relevant
actors (potential suppliers of biomass, relevant
institutions, local/regional authorities, public utility
companies, etc) - a platform for information exchange,
 Presented "best practice" examples summarizing the
bio-energy projects implemented in EU countries
 Organized a study visit
 Simplified administrative procedures: Sector for
planning, urbanism and construction in the City of Nis
simplified procedures for obtaining the information on
documents required,
 The analysis of non-technical barriers to the use of
biomass for energy purposes in the context of
economics, finance, legislation;
 Report on zero-balance and alternative short-time
scenario showing the negative tendencies that may arise
from the current practice of using non-renewable
energy sources);
 City of Nis incorporated plans for the use of biomass in
energy purposes (pilot biomass to energy plant) into
their planning document prepared in 2010 (City of Nis
Development Program for 2011). They decided to take
over the results of the Biogenerator project and have its
continuation, which is identified in this Programme to
be conducted by the Council for Energy Efficiency of
the City of Nis and the Department for Utility Services,
Energy and Transport
 In 2011 authorities stated preparation of important strategic
documents whose drafts incorporate plans for biomass usage.
 Regional Spatial Plan for the area of Nis, Pirot and Toplica
Administrative District and Energy Development Plan of the
City of Nis (started in 2011) incorporated in the plan that biomass
has the energy potential that needs to be utilized.
 The initiative for development of the energy balance model at
the city level, for determining the annual need for energy or fuel
for the continuous supply of consumers, was launched in 2011
recognizing biomass as a renewable energy source
 City of Nis accepted the “Charter of the Mayor” dedicated
to local energy sustainability, and officially became the first
city in Serbia which joined the initiative of the "Energy
Cities" Association
 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of
the City of Nis formed an Agricultural Service dealing with
agricultural and forest biomass
 The City of Nis initiated the negotiations with the investors
who expressed interest for building a biogas plant with
capacity of 4.8MW that would employ about 1000 workers.
Project: “Sustainable Environmental
Policy at Local Level ”
 Consortium worked on improving the participation of citizens in
the development of Local Waste Management Plans in four
municipalities, with inclusion of civil society organizations in this
process of plan-development.
 Three out of four local governments adopted their Local
Waste Management Plans (Gornji Milanovac, Indijija and
Kucevo) during the project period, with local CSOs
participating in the process of document-drafting.
 At four roundtables and four discussion forums in these local
governments, stakeholders at the local level, including local
governments, civil society and business sector, became familiar
with the strategy for waste management, the Law on Waste
Management and obligations of local authorities under this law.
 Discussion forums enabled participants to present specific
problems related to the adoption of local waste management plan
and get answers from representatives of the relevant ministry. In
this way, the capacity of local authorities for enforcement of the
Law on Waste Management was strengthened.
 Consortium published a model for raising public
awareness about waste management "The new policy
for developing public awareness about waste
management at the local level - from
understanding - to the need", a foundation for
involvement of citizens in decision-making, continuous
education and information of citizens.
Working groups for the local waste
management plan established, include
representatives of civil society
CSO representatives
are able to monitor the
implementation of policy
for managing the
individual waste
streams.
Project: “Healthier Approach –
Challenge and opportunity”
 Founded the ‘protected workshop’ – Company for
Professional Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities
“Green City” (companies can finance income of
persons with disabilities trough Company for
professional rehabilitation of persons with disabilities,
or through buying off the products of these
companies).
 CSOs managed to put together business sector, city
authorities, and civil sector and set basis to replacement
of plastic bags (with paper bags produced by people
with disabilities) in Leskovac.
Projekti OCD- rezultati
Project: “Healthier Approach –
Challenge and opportunity
Project: Hazardous
waste
Project: “Creating Sustainable Mechanism
for Life Quality Improvement in SE Serbia”
 Project only partially succeeded in their
attempts: although CSOs promised adoption of
decisions to follow green public procurement
principles in five municipalities (Pantelej, Bela
Palanka, Pirot, Babušnica and Dimitrovgrad),
these decisions were not adopted by
parliaments during the timeframe of the project
 Intensive lobbing did have positive impact that
can be verified by pilot procurements that
Municipalities conducted during the project,
where they implemented GPP principles.
Project: “Creating Sustainable
Mechanism for Life Quality
Improvement in SE Serbia”
 Although green public procurement did not
appear to be a sensitive issue, it turned out that
any interfering with public procurement is
sensitive (high emphasis on anticorruption, and
compliance with prescribed procedures).
 Civil servants became resilient to any idea that
involves modification/introduction of new
criteria in the public procurement processes.
Project: “Right to the city!”
 Survey conducted among citizens Needs
assessment analysis - provided significant
information about citizens’ views about major
problems related to traffic in the capital - a guide
to decision-makers in their work (achieved with
voluntary engagement of activists of Young
Researchers of Serbia and financial support of
Secretariat for Environmental Protection of the
City of Belgrade).
Project: “Right to the city!”
 Comparative analysis of the transport policy of
Belgrade and other European cities, represents a
document with important information on transport
problems in Belgrade, as well as some good examples of
other cities that can later be used by government and
professional services (tools for advocating for
sustainable transport in Belgrade).
 Public campaign on the impact of urban transport on
environment and climate change, promoting advantages
of public transport, walking and cycling, promoting the
idea of City center without cars
 Multi-sector Group that deals with traffic issues
(formed by Consortium in this project); group
gathered all relevant institutions and interested
parties: Belgrade City Secretariat for traffic, the
Traffic Institute CIP, Faculty for Traffic, media,
CSOs. However, no solid outcome.
Project: “Methods of
sustainable management of
ponds and non-commercial
fisheries” http://ponds.protegoorg.org/geocontent
Project: “Right to
the white city”
Thank you