Quiz 2

A small NGO has been granted a local subsidy and has received an advance payment to cover its financing needs for six months. At the end of this period, you find out that the NGO no longer exists. The NGO’s director has absconded, and the remaining employees have since been laid off.
The advance payment has not been settled. What should happen?

A NGO has been granted a local subsidy of EUR 20,000 to help to renovate a school roof and buy new school desks. When it comes to settling the first advance payment, the officer responsible for the commission finds out that the company engaged by the NGO to fix the roof belongs to the NGO director’s brother.
Is that OK, and if so under what circumstances? What should GIZ do in this case?

Which of the following criteria must be fulfilled before the officer responsible for the commission (AV) or the GIZ country office can decide on a local contribution agreement?

Why are local subsidies referred to as a “direct contribution” by GIZ?

Which of the following tasks are performed by the officer responsible for the commission (AV) when granting and managing local subsidies?

The GIZ country office is asked by an agriculture project to draw up a local contribution agreement with the confederation of farmers’ associations in Kyrgyzstan (contract value: EUR 99,000). According to the commercial eligibility checks, the recipient meets all the criteria for a grant agreement. However, the officer responsible for the commission (AV) suggests granting a local contribution, noting that the recipient has never worked with GIZ before and would be unfamiliar with GIZ’s procedures even though it has the required expertise and capacity. The officer responsible for the commission (AV) also points out that he/she has a duty of care to assess the risks involved and argues that a local contribution agreement is more appropriate on this first occasion given that the recipient has no experience of working with GIZ. How would you respond?