Art. 4 Call for research proposals on assumptions underlying Dialogue & Dissent

The NWO Code of Conduct on Conflicts of Interestapplies to all persons and NWO staff involved in the assessment and/or decision-making process. The first step in the assessment procedure is to determine the admissibility of the application. All project proposals received via ISAAC are screened by the NWO-WOTRO secretariat for compliance with formal eligibility. Eligibility concerns compliance with the conditions set in this call. Formal criteria include (but may not be limited to): Timely received application via NWO’s electronic application system ISAAC; Application has been submitted by the main applicant who holds a senior position within a collaborating Dutch university; Specific conditions (as outlined in Section 3.5) have been applied; Completed and signed application form; Composition of consortium complies with the requirements; Format, length of text, language (English) is as required; Budget conditions are met; Completed annexes. Completed annexes: Proof of legal registration for each non-Dutch consortium member organization; Letters of commitment outlining the availability and commitment of consortium members, signed by heads of the participating department; Budget (in Excel format, using the template provided) Letter of support or financial guarantee concerning co-financing (if applicable). Letter of support concerning use of data (if applicable). No additional annexes are allowed. Applicants will receive written confirmation of receipt within two weeks after the deadline of this call, stating whether or not the application has been accepted into the selection procedure. If eligible, proposals will be reviewed on the basis of the selection criteria mentioned in Section 4.2. At least two independent, international expert advisors from the International Advisory Committee will pre-assess the proposals for all criteria. Because of the tight time schedule, applicants will not be offered an opportunity to respond to the comments of the experts. During an assessment meeting, the International Advisory Committee (IAC) will discuss all proposals and pre-assessment reports and will rank the proposals on the basis of the selection criteria (see section 4.2). Based on the ranking, the IAC will present an advice on funding to the Programme Committee (PC). The IAC may also provide an advice to the PC with regard to the feasibility of the planning and the value for money of the project proposal. The data management section (see also 3.5) in the application is not evaluated and hence not included in the decision about whether or not to award funding. However, the IAC can issue an advice with respect to the data management section. The PC will verify that the procedure has been conducted properly before taking a decision on granting. In principle, only proposals that are evaluated as ‘good’ will be taken into account for funding by the PC. The PC nevertheless has the right to reconsider the advice of the IAC. The PC will decide on funding of proposals, based on the advice of the IAC and depending the available call budget. a maximum of two research proposals per theme (Section 2.1) will be awarded. This process should result in a geographically balanced portfolio in which 50 per cent of the awarded projects focus on an African country or include a substantial African component. For the remaining 50 per cent, proposals may also focus on countries in Asia and/or Latin America. Furthermore, proposals may include (comparative) research across multiple countries within or between Africa, Asia and/or Latin America. As explained above, empirical research in each country included in the research must be demonstrably linked to projects/programmes implemented by CSOs supported by the framework Dialogue and Dissent of the MFA. Therefore, the PC will decide on funding of only two proposals per theme that are proposed for funding by the IAC but will take into account the relevance, comprehensiveness and geographical distribution of the portfolio as a whole. The PC may decide to fund a project on the condition that the budget will be adjusted in order to increase the feasibility of the planning, the relevance and/or the ‘value for money’ of the project. All main applicants will be informed in writing about the outcome of the selection procedure. NWO gives all full proposals a qualification9For further information about the qualifications, see https://www.nwo.nl/en/funding/funding+process+explained/nwo+qualification+system.. The applicant is informed of this qualification when the decision about whether or not to award funding is announced. For further information about the qualifications see www.nwo.nl/en/funding/funding+process+explained/nwo+qualification+system. A research project that is awarded a grant must start within two months after the granting date. Proposals will be assessed, ranked and selected for funding according to the following time scheme: August 8th, 2017 Deadline submission of proposals Eligibility check August-September Evaluation and formulation of advice on funding by the International Advisory Committee October Decision on funding by the Programme Committee Mid October Notification of applicants December, 2017 Ultimate start of projects If an applicant objects to a decision taken by the PC, (s)he can lodge a complaint with the General Board of NWO through the NWO Appeals Committee. Any written appeal against a decision taken by the PC must be lodged within six weeks after the day on which the notice of this decision was sent. All eligible applications will be evaluated according to two main criteria: scientific quality and relevance for development policy and programming in the context of the policy framework Dialogue and Dissent. Applications will be ranked based upon an equal weighing of the two criteria. In order to be eligible for funding, the project proposal should score at least as ‘good’ (see NWO qualification system) for each of the two criteria. Scientific quality: Validity of the conceptual framework (coherence of the objectives, research questions and scientific methodology); Originality; Demonstrable quality of (relevant) expertise of the main- and co-applicants, research staff; Complementarity of expertise in the consortium. Policy relevance: The extent to which the project proposal addresses the assumptions of the ToC of the Dialogue and Dissent framework, and relate to the analyses and questions in annex 2; Proven ability to translate research findings into policy messages/advices that can be useful for the MFA for improving the D&D policy framework; both for generating input for the MFA and its learning trajectory with CSOs involved in the D&D policy framework, and for generating input for the design of its subsequent Civil Society policy framework Feasibility of the work plan. Within 4 months after the starting date, projects must submit a report on the results of the literature review, including a popular summary (max. two pages). The IAC will assess the report and the report and comments will be discussed during the workshop organised by the Knowledge Platform INCLUDE. The final report must be based on a self-assessment which includes a workshop for consortium members and their main stakeholders, organised by the consortium. The final report must also include a financial report and a policy advice on how the policy framework could benefit from the project results. The final reports will be assessed by the IAC and be discussed at the final workshop/seminar organised by the Knowledge Platform INCLUDE. The project ends with the issuing of the grant settlement decision. This decision is taken after approval of the final document(s) by NWO-WOTRO10Please note that the conditions in Article 24 under paragraph 4.4 of the NWO 'General Provisions on Granting' apply to this grant settlement decision.. The Programme Committee (PC) is the decision making body of the call and is responsible for: Approving of the call; Appointing members of the International Advisory Committee (IAC); Allocating funding to projects, based on the advice of the IAC; Approval of the project review and final evaluation reports, based on the advice of the IAC. Formulating strategic plans and activities for the future of the collaboration. The individual members of the Programme Committee are responsible for timely informing and aligning with the bodies they are representing. The PC, operating under a mandate from the NWO-WOTRO governing body, consists of a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (1), a representative of an international academic organisation known for its expertise in civil society and development policy (1), a representative of an international CSO (1), a representative of the Knowledge Platform INCLUDE (1) and a technical chair forwarded by NWO-WOTRO. The chair of the IAC will operate as an observer in the PC. The International Advisory Committee (IAC) is responsible for Assessment and ranking of project proposals; Advising the Programme Committee on funding of project proposals; Assessing the quality of the project review and final evaluation reports; Advising the PC on the approval of the project final evaluation reports. The PC may ask the IAC to advise the PC on other matters as well. The IAC is composed of (international) researchers and -academic- CSO experts on the research foci of the call. An academic expert representative of the MFA of the Netherlands will be an observing member to the IAC. The IAC is installed by the Programme Committee. The composition of the PC and IAC will be published on the NWO-WOTRO website: www.nwo.nl/assumptions NWO-WOTRO is responsible for the day-to-day management of the call, including organising the assessment procedures, for all (financial and other) administration with regard to awarded projects. NWO-WOTRO provides the secretariat of the PC and IAC.

Procedure

Rechtspraak bij dit artikel