New U.S. North Africa Public Private Partnership | Apply Online

FAQs: New U.S. North Africa Public Private Partnership (MEPI) Cooperative Agreement

1) What is this funding opportunity?

This opportunity was a U.S. Department of State Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) competition to launch a new, region-wide public-private partnership linking the United States with North Africa. The partnership was intended to expand economic opportunity, with a particular focus on youth and aspiring entrepreneurs, by building practical cross-border connections among private-sector actors and related institutions.

2) What is the Funding Opportunity Number (FON) for this grant?

The Funding Opportunity Number is NEAPI 10 CA 026 MENA 081810.

3) What type of award was offered?

The award was structured as a cooperative agreement. That means the U.S. government anticipated a more active role in the project than with a standard grant.

4) When was the opportunity posted and when did it close?

It was posted on August 18, 2010, and closed on September 1, 2010.

5) How many awards were expected?

One award was expected (Expected Awards: 1).

6) How much funding was available?

Total estimated funding was $300,000.

7) What were the award floor and ceiling?

The award floor was $300,000 and the award ceiling was also $300,000. This indicates a single fixed-size award rather than multiple awards at different funding levels.

8) What countries were eligible for direct grant-funded activities?

Direct grant-funded activities were limited to Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya.

9) Was Mauritania eligible?

Mauritania was explicitly not eligible for direct grant-funded activities. However, activities involving Mauritania could be supported through matching funds or other non-federal sources.

10) What was the overall goal of the partnership?

The partnership aimed to create practical cross-border links between U.S. and Maghreb private-sector actors, strengthen business networks, improve training pathways, and support targeted incubators with the expectation that these efforts could contribute to job creation and durable economic growth.

11) Was the federal funding meant to be long-term support?

No. The U.S. government intended to incubate the partnership for up to two years. Continued operation after that was expected to depend on successful fundraising and support from private and other public sources. Federal funding was positioned as catalytic startup support rather than ongoing financing.

12) Was cost sharing or matching required?

Yes. Cost sharing or matching was required, reinforcing the expectation that the implementer would secure additional resources and that the partnership would become financially viable through non-federal backing.

13) What was the implementer expected to build, beyond programs?

The selected implementer was expected to build the partnership itself as an institution. This included establishing an in-region operating footprint in each participating country and hiring adequate staff, including identifying at least one program manager per country.

14) Did the opportunity require in-country staffing?

Yes. The design emphasized local anchoring with in-region staff and an operating presence in each country, including at least one program manager per country.

15) Could local consultants be used at the beginning?

Yes. During the first six months to a year, local consultants could temporarily fill program manager roles while the partnership infrastructure was being established.

16) Were U.S. embassies responsible for staffing?

No. The opportunity specified that staffing would not be conducted through U.S. embassies.

17) What role were local partners expected to play in providing office space?

The opportunity emphasized in-kind office space contributed by local partners such as chambers of commerce or business associations as part of the partnership's local anchoring.

18) Why were consultants considered a core launch requirement?

Applicants were expected to budget for and manage consultants with deep local experience to help scope initiatives, build business models, and negotiate the agreements that would formalize roles among lead partners, secondary partners, and affiliated partners.

19) What specific startup tasks were consultants expected to support?

Consultants were expected to support tasks such as identifying candidates for governance bodies, helping recruit and hire local staff, raising local corporate sponsorships, coordinating with U.S. and European embassies for liaison purposes as needed, and initiating early communications and public relations in the region.

20) Was a website required?

Yes. The opportunity required the creation and ongoing maintenance of an independent partnership website as a transparency and communications tool.

21) What information was the website expected to include?

The website was expected to publicly present the partnership's initiatives and activities and list leadership and governance participants. This included the International Board of Advisors, Local Advisory Board members, steering committees, affiliated partners, and local program staff.

22) What governance structures were required?

The implementer had to identify and structure an International Board of Advisors and Local Advisory Boards in each participating country. Governance was framed as a major pillar, with emphasis on credibility, ethical standards, and a shared regional or transatlantic vision.

23) Who was the International Board of Advisors supposed to include?

The International Board was envisioned as a high-profile mix, including U.S. firms operating in North Africa, North African firms doing business with the U.S., companies seeking expansion opportunities, prominent business leaders and entrepreneurs, respected public figures (including celebrities), diaspora members, and academic or expert voices.

24) Who was the Local Advisory Board in each country supposed to include?

Local Boards were expected to bring together respected figures within each country, including business leaders, academics, cultural and sports community members, retired public figures, and other private-sector stakeholders able to lend legitimacy, leadership, and potentially resources.

25) What did sustainability look like after the initial launch period?

Sustainability was expected to come from active fundraising and support from corporate, private, and other public sources. The model assumed the partnership would remain relevant to the private sector and be able to attract non-federal investment to continue operations and initiatives.

26) Could other U.S. government or public programs participate?

Yes. The announcement noted that other U.S. government and public programs could participate as partners within particular initiatives, but the overall platform was intended to stand on non-federal support.

27) What kinds of initiatives was the partnership expected to coordinate?

The partnership was expected to oversee and coordinate cross-border initiatives focused on entrepreneurship ecosystems and employment outcomes, including networks, training and leadership programming, incubators, and a research/knowledge component.

28) What is the North Africa Young Business Leaders and Associations Network?

It was described as a comprehensive social networking platform to increase cross-border links among young and emerging entrepreneurs and business leaders.

29) What is the North Africa Leadership and Training Academy?

It was intended to convene partners to create a menu of regional leadership development, workforce training, and education-to-employment activities.

30) What is the North Africa Innovation and Technology Incubator?

It was an incubator concept focused on supporting new cross-border ventures in innovative and technology-driven sectors.

31) What is the North Africa Creative Industries Incubator?

It was an incubator concept aimed at entrepreneurial artists who could contribute to job creation and local development but lacked the resources or know-how to move from concept to a viable business.

32) What is the North Africa Center of Excellence for Entrepreneurship?

It was framed as a research and knowledge initiative to stimulate regional data collection and analysis led by Maghreb and diaspora experts and academics, along with creating a regional business school network linked to U.S. business school partners.

33) What kinds of organizations were eligible to apply?

Eligibility included public and state-controlled institutions of higher education, private institutions of higher education, nonprofits with and without 501(c)(3) status, small businesses, and for-profit organizations (including those that are not small businesses).

34) What activity categories did the award emphasize?

The activity categories emphasized business and commerce, community development, and employment, labor, and training, reflecting an intent to blend entrepreneurship promotion with tangible workforce and job-creation outcomes.

35) Was the partnership intended to be region-wide or country-specific?

It was designed as a region-wide partnership across North Africa (within the eligible country scope) with cross-border initiatives and linkages connecting the U.S. and the Maghreb.

36) What was the underlying approach to job creation and growth?

The approach focused on building stronger business networks, creating better training and education-to-employment pathways, and supporting incubators and entrepreneurship ecosystems, with the expectation that these ingredients could translate into job creation and durable economic growth.