AusAID / NGO
Committee for Development Cooperation
A Joint Committee of the Australian Agency for International Development and
Australian Non-Government Organisations
Minutes of the 125th CDC Meeting held on 8 April 2010
AusAID CDC Members
Mr Chris Tinning (out-going Chair)
Ms Therese Mills (incoming Chair)
Mr Nic Notarpietro
Mr Timothy Church
NGO Members
Ms Bridgette Thorold
Rev John Deane
Ms Diane Kilsby
AusAID observers
Mr Steve Burns
Mr John Morley
Ms Leanne Newick
Apologies
Mr Andrew Newmarch
Ms Megan Anderson
Welcome remarks
As outgoing chair, Chris Tinning noted the important role that the CDC has played and
will continue to play in the future of the aid program, particularly in the context of
championing the community voice and community perspectives.
John Deane expressed appreciation of Chris’s chairing and commitment to the
committee on behalf of NGO representatives.
Tim Church supported the sentiments on behalf of AusAID CDC representatives.
Therese Mills was introduced as incoming chair of the CDC.
1. Previous Minutes
The Minutes from CDC 124 were adopted.
2. CDC Action Items
CDC Handbook
Leanne Newick confirmed that the CDC handbook was currently being developed as
a tool for accreditation reviewers and CDC members.
Grievance Procedure
Leanne Newick confirmed that feedback on the draft grievance procedure had been
received from CDC members and the final text would need to be signed off by the
CDC at a later session.
Di Kilsby asked whether agencies were being made aware of the grievance process
and was advised that following CDC sign off it would be socialised to NGOs.
RDE consultancy
John Morley advised that feedback was received from CDC members on the draft
RDE consultancy Term of Reference and the consultancy was underway. A draft
revised RDE guidance document would likely be tabled for CDC consideration at next
meeting.
ACTION: Update on RDE guidance review
Performance evaluations
Leanne Newick advised that feedback was received from CDC members on the new
performance evaluation forms and the final forms had been provided to the agencies
being considered for reaccreditation at this meeting.
Administration costs
Alex Oates indicated that at the last CDC session members discussed AusAID’s
standard approach to NGOs claiming 10% administration costs for projects under
ANCP and other NGO funding mechanisms. It was raised that this approach was now
being questioned at Post.
John Morley indicated that AusAID were undertaking ongoing consideration of how to
address this matter and clarified that the ‘10% rule’ was agreed as an ANCP policy
guideline however was never clearly documented for wider NGO programs or
included in writing in any AusAID funding guidelines. This therefore made it difficult to
ensure it was complied with at Post.
John Deane clarified that it was agreed within the CDC that NGO administration costs
of 10% of project funds was an accepted level for both ANCP and other programs;
and had been standard practice for about 8 years.
Marc Purcell noted the need to be mindful that NGOs were working in a not-for-profit
setting as opposed to for-profit managing contractors.
Nic Notarpietro noted the need for there to be a reasonable allowance for overheads
that are not included in project costs and 10% is useful to keep overheads low.
Tim Church mentioned that the range of administration costs claimed by multilaterals
was anywhere between 5% and 17%.
John Morley acknowledged that the 10% rule was standard practice but that it was not
documented in AusAID guidelines so this made it difficult to ensure that the policy was
implemented at post. It was not institutionalised and remained at the discretion of
program managers.
Nic Notarpietro made the point that within AusAID there was no standard or agreed
level of overhead costs for contractors. He also noted the need to be careful if
proposing to change current practice and suggested the continuation of current
practice until there was an evidence base to suggest change.
Therese Mills agreed on the overarching need to reiterate current standard practice.
ACTION: AusAID to reiterate current practice internally.
Welfare and development
Marc Purcell outlined ACFID’s intention to progress a discussion with NGOs on the
parameters of welfare and sustainable development, including consideration of how
monitoring and evaluation systems could be improved to better reflect sustainable
development outcomes.
Nic Notarpietro mentioned that AusAID clearly undertakes activities that would be
considered welfare under the definition and that AusAID was inconsistently applying
the definition.
ACTION: It was agreed that a group including Paul Nichols, Di Kilsby, Therese Mills,
John Morley and Alex Oates would have further discussion on this issue.
Opt-out policy and application period
Leanne Newick tabled a paper on the proposed change to the ‘opt-out’ policy. Under
the change, regardless of whether an agency opts out of accreditation or fails
accreditation, they will be unable to reapply for a period of 12 months. This was
ratified.
John Morley mentioned that Technical Assistance had made an anecdotal
improvement in agency preparedness and it was envisaged that this would reduce
instances of opting out.
Leanne Newick also tabled a paper on establishing an accreditation application period
between July and December for submission of the Agency Profile in order to make
annual ANCP funding applications more efficient. This was ratified.
3. Member update
Marc Purcell tabled a key issues paper outlining concerns raised by ACFID members
regarding recent AusAID NGO funding and consultation processes. It included
concerns about the legitimacy of the accreditation system in light of NGO funding
opportunities being open to non-accredited agencies; issues around timing of calls for
funding applications; unclear advice on funding opportunities; short timeframes to
submit funding proposals; and small pools of funds. He also indicated the role that
the CDC may play in developing and monitoring a consistent approach to NGO
funding across the aid program.
Therese Mills noted that the CDC had a role in shaping the aid program and in
influencing AusAID practices and policy.
Tim Church agreed with the concerns and noted that AusAID were trying to address
these issues, including how to audit non-accredited NGOs that receive AusAID
funding.
Nic Notarpietro mentioned that the new Commonwealth grants guidelines needed to
apply to non-accredited agencies however there wasn’t a strong process to look at
wider risk around funding non-accredited agencies.
John Deane noted the need to clarify how AusAID assessed risk for non-accredited
NGOs.
Therese Mills indicated plans to undertake a consultancy to carry out a risk
assessment of non-accredited and OAGDS agencies.
Nic Notarpietro commented on the concerns raised about the short time frames for
NGO programs, noting that the Federal Budget cycle impinged long-term projects
across different budget cycles.
Marc Purcell said that the significance of the ACFID member concerns meant that it
would be a key issue for discussion within ACFID forums and was he keen to work
with the NCE section to try to address them.
Therese Mills acknowledged the need to address these concerns and take them up
with senior AusAID management. She noted the need to determine workable
solutions.
John Deane asked about internal education for AusAID staff deployed to post about
ANCP and accreditation and John Morley advised that although education about
accredited NGOs and ANCP was not part of any official pre-deployment program, the
NCE section did engage with some staff to educate them these issues.
4. Accreditations
Australian Foundation for the Peoples of Asia and the Pacific (AFAP)
The CDC agreed to a positive recommendation for AFAP to be accredited at the Full
level.
Christian Blind Mission
The CDC endorsed the report recommendation to reaccredit CBM at the Full level.
AngliCORD
The original CDC view is for AngliCORD to fail reaccreditation based on the need for
a compliant child protection policy. However, AngliCORD was able to provide a
compliant Child Protection (CP) Policy ratified by their Board within the two months
specified in the subject-to condition. The CDC acknowledges approval of the CP
Policy and the satisfactory resolution of the re-accreditation conditionality.
The CDC has requested the AusAID Delegate consider the re-accreditation of
AngliCORD at the Full level due to the satisfactory resolution of the conditions.
Assisi Aid Projects Inc
The CDC endorsed the recommendation to reaccredit Assisi at the Base level.
Sexual Heath and Family Planning Australia (SHFPA)
The CDC endorsed the recommendation to reaccredit the agency at the Full level.
5. ACFD Code of Conduct review update
Alex Oates provided some background about the review of the ACFID Code of
Conduct, outlined the process to develop and adopt any revised code, and the
potential for CDC to input into the process.
John Morley noted the importance of considering the implications of the review for
accreditation and the need to consider where accreditation and the code overlapped.
He was interested in working with ACFID to compare the criteria and think about
better streamlining overlapping criteria.
6. Partnership Head Agreement
John Morley indicated that he was working on a new draft of the Head Agreement to
reflect the partnership language used in the ACFID/AusAID partnership agreement.
Legal consideration would also be sought. It was hoped that a draft could be tabled
for discussion at the June CDC meeting.
John Deane suggested that a draft be provide to ACFID’s Executive Committee for
their comment/consideration.
ACTION: Finalise new version of the Head Agreement and provide a copy to ACFID
Executive Committee.
7. Other business
It was agreed that the next meeting be scheduled for Thursday 3 June.