ALERT: Increased maximum budget

Please note that we have increased the budget available for Livelihoods in Jordan and Child Labour in Lebanon. The maximum budget limit as indicated in the revised Call for Concept Notes for New Partnerships uploaded under RDPP Reports today is as follows:

·  Livelihoods support in Jordan only: 3.1 mill. Euro

·  Gender equality in Jordan only: 1.7 mill. Euro

· Prevention and response to child labour in Lebanon only: 3.3 mill. Euro

Deadline for applications to be submitted to rdppme@um.dk is the 23^rd of February 2024 at 12.00 noon Beirut-time.

Question 6

Q6: Livelihoods and gender equality are the two main thematic areas for the call in Jordan with an allocated budget of 1.2m to 1.7m EUR for a project each, respectively. Would a concept that merges the two projects be accepted and allocated a joint budget, that is, if a concept note has indicators pouring into both the livelihoods through an IMSD-focused project and gender equality by tackling some of the project indicators, would a budget above 1.7m be allocated for the project taking into account the indicators achieved for both?

A6: Yes, it would be possible to submit one concept note covering both specific objectives outlined for Jordan. Please note that we have increased the available budget for Livelihoods partnerships in Jordan, therefore the total maximum budget for the two components would then be 4.8 million Euro. Please observe detailed requirements and RDPP results framework indicators for each of the specific objectives.

Question 7:

Q7: For output indicator 1.1.2.1 referring to the "# of systemic or normative initiatives facilitating... work opportunities." what do initiatives refer to here? The word initiative is a broad term that can encompass many things from small-scale initiatives such as small campaigns and events to larger projects that extend for a prolonged period. Please advise on the scope of the "initiative" in this context.

A7: In relation to 1.1.2.1 the definition of systemic or normative initiatives would relate to organized and purposeful actions or programs undertaken at various scales, encompassing systemic and normative efforts aimed at promoting and establishing favorable conditions for employment opportunities. These initiatives may range from targeted campaigns and events to more extensive and sustained initiatives designed to foster a positive and sustainable impact on the job market. They should target a specific topic/sector/stakeholder, with an implementation plan and a predefined outcome. As an example: Engagement with a specific stakeholder who has a regulatory or implementation-focused responsibility on an issue that has a potential to improve creation of decent jobs will count here, while small-scale campaigns targeting general populations will most likely not.

Question 8:

Q8: For output indicator 1.1.2.2 referring to "# of national and /or subnational entities engaged with to improve private sector operational environment." What do national entities refer to exactly, is it exclusively governmental entities, or does the private sector (e.g. corporations and SMEs) fall into this category too? And in terms of improving the operational environment, does that include the employees' wellbeing and benefits in each entity? How would you define the operational environment in this context?

A8: In relation to 1.1.2.2, national and/or subnational entities can be interpreted broadly i.e. policy influencers, law makers, entities impacting the business environment such as Chambers of Commerce and Trade, coalitions of private sector entities aiming to improve the business environment, trade unions etc. The indicator shall be interpreted in relation to the overall output 1.1.2. “Engagement with market- and private sector actors and national and/or sub-national entities to promote change within the private sector operational modalities and environment”.

In regards to the second part of the question, indicator 1.1.2.2 is mainly aiming at improving the environment for private sector and businesses to operate and create new job opportunities in the market. It can also address decent job environment, in which case an initiative should aim at addressing the systemic level, rather than an individual beneficiary level.

“Operational environment" refers to the set of conditions, factors, and circumstances that directly impact the day-to-day functioning and activities of businesses and/or the context within which job creation takes place, i.e. a set of formal or practiced norms, laws, rules, procedures and processes against the various governmental, non-governmental, profit and non-profit actors engaged in private sector job creation. This includes the regulatory framework, legal infrastructure, bureaucratic processes, and other elements that influence the ease or difficulty with which businesses can operate.

Improving the private sector operational environment involves initiatives aimed at streamlining processes, enhancing legal and regulatory clarity, and creating an atmosphere that fosters innovation, investment, and sustainable business growth.

Question 9:

Q9: Subsequently, for output indicator 1.1.2.3 "# of IMSD/M4P initiatives implemented" what do initiatives refer to in this context?

A9: Similar to the above question, the definition of initiatives would relate to activities which is at least targeted, with an implementation plan and aiming for a predefined outcome.

Question 10:

Q10: How does IMSD differ from M4P?

A10: Inclusive Market System Development (IMSD) generally refers to approaches to ensure that people living in poverty can access, participate in and benefit from improved market systems. The term M4P or 'Making Markets Work for the Poor' seeks to change the way that markets work, so that poor people are included in the benefits of growth and economic development. The two methodologies address the same root causes but differ in emphases where some will argue that the former is about making the whole market system function better, targeting critical constraints and institutional capabilities, while the latter is about intervening in existing market systems in such a way that the poor can profit more directly from engaging in these markets.

Question 11:

Q11: Can you expand on the meaning of integrated market system development?

A11: Market systems development is about transforming the institutional landscape in a way that the market system becomes both more effective and at the same time more inclusive, whereas M4P interventions most often focus on the micro level to optimise transactions and to ensure that clearly identified beneficiaries can generate income.

Question 12:

Q12: Referring to the livelihoods result framework in the program document, is there any specific route of dependencies between the different indicators, or should there be distinctive beneficiaries for each indicator?

A12:

The linkages in the result framework should primarily follow a vertical alignment to showcase the sequential achievement of outputs, outcomes, and impacts, demonstrating the logical progress of activities leading to intended results. The output indicators represent the immediate and direct results of program activities, which then contribute to achieving broader outcomes and, then the desired impact. Horizontal links can be established where relevant, reflecting shared beneficiaries or collaborative efforts in specific change modules and project designs.

For some of the indicators there is a relationship, for example if IMSD engagement result in employability the beneficiaries counted under 1.2.1.2 (internship, apprenticeship, job placement) can be the same as those counted under 1.2.1.3 (employed as a result of 1.2.1.2) or a percentage of these. For others, the relationship is not mandatory, e.g. if IMSD engagement results in income generation some will benefit from enhanced skills building (1.3.1.2) and financial/material assistance (1.3.1.1) while others might not need skills enhancement. All dependencies are driven by outcomes, i.e. for some outcomes, the same beneficiaries need to be included under multiple output indicators, while for other outcomes only one output will suffice to reach the same outcome. In RDPP, skills building only without further support does not qualify as sufficient.

Question 13:

Q13: Can you elaborate further on the concept of protection here and how it links to the livelihood indicator? 

A13: Protection includes any activities aimed at restoring the person’s access to legal rights. The outcome indicators 2.1.3 and 2.2.4 aim to capture synergies between the RDPP focus on livelihoods and protection i.e. for example when a family with working children is supported by targeted livelihood support. These indicators are expressed as % to avoid double-counting of beneficiaries

Question 14:

Q14: Furthermore, can you elaborate on the type of capacity development provided to the private sector that can enhance localization? And may you please expand on the type of engagement between the RDPP and partners for localization?

A14: In terms of the capacity development provided to the private sector, it should be defined based on the proposed project approach, sector and engagement with private sector entities. This could include, but not be limited to, technical assistance; support to developing business plans for growth; financial grants to expand the business conditional to job creation, etc. The support will need to consider that it is not contributing to market distortion or unfair competition within the market.

In regards to the support by RDPP to developing capacities of direct local partners, please also refer to section 4.1 Civil Society Partnership Capacities on page 39 in the Program Document. The support will be based on the vision and needs of the organization partnering with RDPP, where an individual plan for the support will be developed. It can include support for developing strategies, policies or similar; skills enhancement of staff; developing systems in support of the operations of the organization, etc., not necessarily related to the specific project.

Question 15:

Q15: To what capacity can SMEs, businesses, and corporations apply to be implementing partners of projects for the RDPP III given that the project objectives and outcomes are in alignment with the program's objectives and principles?

A15: The proposed projects have to be aligned with the criteria for Official Development Assistance (ODA), as the funding provided by RDPP is development aid. With this is implied that the overall purpose of the project has to be non-profit. SMEs, businesses and corporations can apply as long as the proposed project is aligned with the non-profit principle for the entity as well as for the overall project.

Question 16:

Q16: Are INGOs eligible to submit concept notes for consideration for programs?

A16: Yes, INGOs are eligible to apply

Question 17:

Q17: What is the likelihood percentage for both local NGOs and INGOs to receive funding in this phase for projects based in Jordan?

A17: All proposals are assessed equally and scored according to the criteria outlined in the Partner Selection Matrix in Annex 2. Annex 2 is available as part of the Program Document uploaded on the RDPP website available here

As outlined in Annex 2 of the Program Document, the specific localization scores are assigned according to two criteria:

·         3.1 How well does the project support the overall localization outcomes of RDPP III? This criterion scores 15 points

·         3.2 Does the proposal outline how national and sub-national structures and institutions, which are strategically relevant to the intervention, will be strengthened or capacitated through the project? This criterion scores 10 points

There is no predefined percentage for selection of local NGOs and INGOs in Jordan or Lebanon. Submitted concept notes will be scored and selected based on how well they address the specific objective areas outlined in the call for concept notes for new partnerships and according to the criteria outlined in the scoring matrix in Annex 2 of the RDPP Program Document.

Question 18:

Q18: What is the budget ceiling for proposals submitted by local NGOs and INGOs for Jordan programs?

A18: The budget ceiling for each of the three specific objectives of the call is indicated in the call document under each objective. Please note that we have increased the budget frame available under this call for Livelihoods partnerships in Jordan and for Child Labour partnerships in Lebanon. There is no upper limit beyond the maximum budget indicated. Projects should have a minimum budget of 2 million DKK (ca. 270 thousand EUR).

Question 19:

Q19: Can we the consortium can be composed of three different NGOs?

A19: Yes, a consortium can be composed of any number of NGOs

Question 20:

Q20: We would like to ask if RDPP encourage local NGOs such as […] to directly apply as a lead?

A20: RDPP aims for a diversified portfolio of partnerships. So far in phase III, we have direct partnerships with local NGOs or INGOs, partnerships lead by local or international NGOs with sub-partnered local or international NGOs, and consortia consisting of several local NGOs and/or INGOs. We encourage all applying partners to consider who is the most relevant lead applicant for any proposed project in terms of the proposed project objective and the capacities to lead.

Question 21:

Q21: Is Saida and BML regions prioritized?

A21: No specific geographical areas are prioritized. Each proposed partnership needs to demonstrate how it fits the priorities defined in the RDPP Program Document that cater to the needs of Syrian refugees and local communities.

Question 22:

Q22: Is it acceptable to submit a project addressing child labor in Lebanon with a budget ranging from 1.8 million to 2.2 million euros.

A22: Yes. Please note that we have increased the available budget for Child Labour partnerships under this call. With the new budget frame, the maximum budget available for partnerships addressing child labour in Lebanon is 3.3 mill. Euro. RDPP is looking to identify 1 or maximum 2 partnership/s in this area.

Question 23:

Q23:  We are interested in submitting a concept note on the livelihoods sector in Jordan and we noticed that the in the call for Concept notes the suggested results framework is different than the Annex 3 of the program document.

Thus, we would like to know if we should refer solely to the Results framework on the call for concept notes or if we can also add some elements included in the program document?

A23: The results framework indicated in the Call for concept notes for new partnerships is an extraction of the overall RDPP results framework. The indicators included in the call relate to the three focus areas, in which the call aims to identify new partnerships. The submitted concept notes are expected to address some, if not all of those, while also including other relevant indicators from the RDPP results that create a holistic, logical picture of the proposed partnership.

Question 24:

Q24: We understand that applying with a partner is mandatory

A24: No, it is not mandatory to apply with a partner

Question 25:

Q25: We want to check whether an unregistered partner would be eligible

A25: The lead applicant and any co-applicant(s) have been be able to legally conduct the activities they intend to implement in the country of operation i.e. the applying organizations have to be registered with relevant authorities in Lebanon and/or Jordan.

Question 26:

Q26: Kindly provide information on minimum and maximum duration of projects

A26: There is no minimum length of project. The maximum duration is till end of December 2026. Longer partnerships are preferred.

Question 27:

Q27: Project minimum and maximum budget range for each of the different components of the call

A27: Please see the alert at the start of the Q&A