’Call for Proposals’: Addressing irregular migration through Whole of Route Approaches
The programme will be implemented in the period from Nov 2024 until Dec 2029. Deadline for submitting concept notes is on 20th of September 2024.
The overall objective of the programme is to address and prevent irregular migration, and to contribute to more safe and orderly migration by ensuring: i) more effective outreach to potential migrants, ii) access to reliable migration information including on potential risks across the Mediterranean migratory routes, and iii) by supporting people on the move along the routes with support (shelter, legal aid, counselling etc.) and protection. The programme is underpinned by international human rights standards, with a human rights based approach (HRBA) and ensuring a focus on heightened risk vulnerable groups including children and unaccompanied minors, women/girls at risks and victims of trafficking.
Please find further information on the programme and instructions for this Call for Proposals here.
Deadline for submitting clarification request is 6th of September and the deadline for MFA to issue responses is 12th of September. Furthermore, an online info-meeting to follow up on Q&A has been added, and will take place on 13th of September 2024 at 13.00 (CET). The MFA will inform of the award of the grant on 20th of November 2024.
Here you can find the link for the online info-meeting on ’Call for Proposals’: Addressing irregular migration through Whole of Route Approaches, taking place on 13th of September 2024 at 13.00 (CET)
Applications can be sent to [email protected]
Please find all additional relevant information in the documents listed below:
Annex 3 - Background information CfP
**** Please note that the website on 13th of September 2024, the website was temporarily down and some changes were made. However, the same information is available as before.
*** Please note that on 12th of September 2024, the Q&A and the link for the online info-meeting were published on the website.
** Please note that the text on this website has been updated on 2 September by removing a sentence stipulating that the applicant must have an existing agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for ongoing Danida funding. This is not a requirement to apply to this call.
*Please note that as of 30th August 2024, an adjusted Information Note (link) has been uploaded. The adjustments concern the timetable for the application and selection process.
Questions and answers
Question 1:
Please can you clarify the relationship between the Outcomes 2 and 3 and the Specific Objective of the Call? While we see a clear link between the Outcome 1 (“People on the move… have improved accessto reliable information”) and the Specific Objective (“…people on the move are capacitated to take informed decisions…”), we see a less clear link between delivery of the foreseen “…protection systems and services as well as livelihoods opportunities…” (Outcome 2) and the foreseen strengthened “Social cohesion and inclusion along the migratory routes…” (Outcome 3) and the Specific Objective. While we believe the elements in Outcome 2 and 3 are essential for addressing the needs of people on the move, we are unclear to what extent the Call considers Outcomes 2 and 3 as equally relevant for achieving the Specific Objective`?
Answer:
Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 are considered equally important bearing in mind the specific and the overall objective, and it is the responsibility of the applicants to ensure the links between outcomes and objectives.
Question 2:
The indicative list of countries includes primarily countries of disembarkation for the journey across the Mediterranean Sea with few transit countries and countries of origin. In light of the “Whole of Route” approach and budget availability, can you clarify how you will rank and prioritize the proposed country selection, e.g. will it be driven by documented needs? Will presence in multiple countries be prioritized over deeper engagement in fewer countries?
Answer:
The MFA has not ranked or prioritized countries of implementation and it is expected that the applicants propose countries based on migrants’ vulnerabilities, gaps and needs along the routes, and the applicants’ expertise to respond to these gaps/needs along the routes.
While bearing in mind the Whole of Route approach, more countries will not be prioritized over fewer.
Question 3:
The Call suggests a minimum 5-year programme for an initial envelope of 355 million DKK with the following requirements and expectations:
- A well-functioning consortium consisting of a lead consortium partners, research partners, and local partners (community-based partners and migrant networks, as well as implementing partners with specialised knowledge and experience in the topics and locations).
- A strong MEAL architecture.
- Significant programmatic adaptability considering the nature of the call and changeability of routes
and target groups.
- 40-60% of the budget indicated as relevant level of transfer to local partners, which is an
implementation modality that requires strong partner support and administrative and technical
management and oversight set-up.
- Engagements in multiple countries (to adhere to the Whole of Route concept).
Altogether these points give rise to concerns about misalignment between budget and expectations.
Can the MFA clarify the priority given to each of these points?
Answer:
The MFA has not ranked or prioritized the criteria, but it is expected that applicants meet as many as possible in concept notes and final proposals.
Question 4:
Please clarify the type of Danida partner capacity assessment that is referred to in the eligibility criteria?
Answer:
It refers to the financial management capacity assessment conducted by the MFA (or external consultants), normally in connection with a financial monitoring visit and/or a review.
Question 5:
Kindly clarify if the scoring criterion related to transfer to local partners encompasses local partners/actors as per the Grand Bargain definition, i.e. ‘Local actors/partners’ refers to the full diversity of local and national government, NGOs, CSOs, CBOs, women-led organisations, youth groups and others, both registered and non-registered? Would local research firms or individuals be considered as local partners?
Please clarify if the estimate transfer to local partners is assessed per consortium partner or for the consortium as a whole?
Answer:
The MFA considers the listed examples “local and national government, NGOs, CSOs, CBOs, women-led organisations, youth groups and others, both registered and non-registered” to be in the category of local actors/partners under the call, whereas providers of goods or services are not.
The CfP says “a reasonable amount of the budget should be allocated and transferred to local partnerships via the lead partner” and the proportion of budget to be transferred to local partners will thus be assessed for the consortium as a whole.
Question 6:
In the draft programme document, a specific Outcome was dedicated to enhancing the capacity of duty bearers. In the CfP, this outcome is removed. Please could you clarify Danida’s vision for engagement with duty bearers around this programming and the expected linkages to the two other migration related programmes being released?
Answer:
A draft programme document was made available on the MFA website for consultations in preparation for the Programme Committee Meeting. However, concept notes will be assessed solely against the information provided in the Information Note.
Question 7:
Considering that the aim of the programme is to inform people about the possibilities to move safely and deter irregular migration without addressing the reasons people move, will the programme consider activities promoting access to safer pathways eligible under the Objective?
Answer:
All activities contributing to the Outcomes and the Specific Objective are considered eligible.
Question 8:
The programme design is intended to take a flexible and adaptive approach, given “the changing dynamics within countries of origin” (p. 4). Could this include a potential change in countries of implementation (including transit) during the 65-months programme period? E.g. driven by documented needs?
Answer:
Yes
Question 9:
The information note describes an indicative list of route-based locations to be considered in the programme, with the actual programme activity locations to be defined by the implementing partner(s)(P. 7). There are few transit countries in this list. In addition, the information note states that an internal appraisal of the programme is currently ongoing and would lead to potential amendments to be communicated to interested applicants in the course of the selection process.(p.4). Based on this information would there be opportunity for dialogue on choice of countries during development of CN e.g. based on assessed need? Will presence in multiple countries be prioritized over stronger engagement in fewer countries? Is the list of geographies in the Information Note an exhaustive list, until a potential amendment is suggested by the MFA, or is it an option to include other countries already at the CN stage if the necessary justification for the geography being a ‘hotspot’, is provided?
Answer:
The Information note states that “Any amendments [to the final parameters of the programme] will be communicated to interested applicants in the course of the selection process” but further dialogue on the choice of countries will not be possible during development of concept notes.
While bearing in mind the Whole of Route approach, more countries will not be prioritized over fewer.
The Information Note says: “Tentatively, the locations listed below could be considered in the programme. The actual programme activity locations will be defined by the implementing partner(s)”. Thus, the list is not necessarily exhaustive, and applicants are expected to propose and justify countries of implementation.
Question 10:
Is it a expected that all outcomes will be implemented in all countries in a proposal? Given the emphasis on the whole-of-route approach, to what extent does the call consider Outcome 2 and 3 to only being a focus for countries of origin and not only transit (only outcome 1 seems to be a priority for countries of origin)?
Answer:
It is not a requirement to implement all outcomes in all countries as long as all outcomes are met.
The MFA has not identified focus countries for individual outcomes, and it is the responsibility of the applicants to propose and justify countries of implementation to achieve the outcomes of the programme.
Question 11:
How is the focus on livelihood opportunities in Outcome 2 envisaged in transit points?
Answer:
The MFA has not identified specific livelihoods opportunities, and it is expected that applicants propose relevant livelihoods ideas in the concept notes bearing in mind that the Whole of Route Programme is not a livelihoods programme.
Question 12:
Can you please clarify if “migrant networks” (Page 12) who are listed as partners that should be included in a consortium, can include informal networks of e.g. people with lived experience of migration?
Answer:
The types consortium partners listed on page 12 in the Information Note should be considered suggestions, and it is the responsibility the applicant to propose and justify the type of partners in the consortium.
13.09.2024